Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Can TCOs Transform Cavity-QED?

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A 30-nanometer zinc-oxide film can sit inside a Fabry-Pérot cavity that still reaches a finesse near 20,000, making conductive mirrors for charge-sensitive cavity-QED feasible.

desk verdict A real material result with a misattributed headline number and a kappa extraction that ignores the annealing control. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02501 v1 pith:HHNISMHU submitted 2025-06-03 quant-ph physics.optics

Wance Wang , Dhruv Fomra , Amit Agrawal , Henri J. Lezec , Joseph W. Britton This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.optics
keywords transparentconductiveoxideZnOthinfilmcavity-QEDFabry-PérotfinessestraychargemitigationtrappedionsRydbergatomsring-downmeasurement
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that a carefully prepared zinc-oxide (ZnO) film can serve as a transparent conductor inside a high-finesse optical cavity, a role that has been closed to conductive oxides because their near-infrared absorption is too large. The authors sputter a 30 nm ZnO layer, anneal it in forming gas, and measure a cavity finesse of roughly 20,000 at 1650 nm, with the film's extinction coefficient driven down to about $8\times10^{-5}$ while its DC resistivity stays near $0.01\,\Omega\cdot\text{cm}$. That combination matters because a conductive mirror surface can drain the stray electric charges that otherwise disturb trapped ions and Rydberg atoms, so cavity-QED platforms could shrink without losing coupling strength. The paper also gives quantitative estimates of the charge levels that would break ion cooling, ion-cavity coupling, and Rydberg coherence, and argues the demonstrated film can meet them.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ZnO thin film itself, produced by RF magnetron sputtering with an optimized argon/oxygen ratio and a forming-gas anneal that converts it from an insulator to a conductor. The diagnostic machinery is a ring-down measurement on a length-stabilized Fabry-Pérot cavity: measuring finesse before and after coating one mirror gives the film's extinction coefficient through the relation $\kappa = -\lambda/(8\pi h)\,\ln(1 - r_0^2 + r_1^2)$, which attributes all added mirror loss to absorption in the film. The argument then links this $\kappa$ to application requirements through a lumped-circuit model in which laser-induced photocurrent on the mirror must discharge quickly through the film's sheet resistance.

What would settle it

Repeat the ring-down measurement with a mirror that is annealed without ZnO and subtract that baseline from the coated-mirror loss; if the residual loss gives a $\kappa$ well below $8\times10^{-5}$, the film is even better than claimed, while a near-zero residual would mean the reported absorption is dominated by annealing-induced mirror changes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that ZnO, when deposited under an oxygen-rich sputter recipe and annealed in forming gas, absorbs far less near-infrared light than established transparent conductors while retaining useful DC conductivity. Placed on one mirror of a Fabry-Pérot cavity, a 30 nm ZnO film leaves the cavity finesse in the $1.4\times10^4$ to $2.0\times10^4$ range as the film ages, corresponding to an extinction coefficient $\kappa$ that falls from about $3.8\times10^{-4}$ to $8.0\times10^{-5}$; the authors claim this is roughly 5000 times lower loss than indium tin oxide at 1650 nm. They argue that this level of optical transparency and electrical conduction is sufficient to keep photoelectrically generated surface charge below the thresholds that would spoil Doppler cooling of a trapped ${}^{171}\text{Yb}^+$ ion, halve ion-cavity coupling, or decohere a ${}^{87}\text{Rb}$ atom in the $70S$ Rydberg state. The paper concludes that ultra-low-loss TCOs like ZnO could enable a step change in cavity-QED with charge-sensitive atoms.

Load-bearing premise

The reported ZnO absorption is obtained by assigning every increase in mirror loss after processing to the film itself, even though the annealing step used to make the film conductive measurably changes an uncoated control mirror as well.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Conductive ZnO mirrors could be integrated into ion-trap and Rydberg-atom cavities operating at telecom wavelengths, since the demonstrated finesse exceeds $10^4$ with a grounded surface.
  • The short discharge time constant (below 1 ns) implies photoelectrically charged mirror surfaces return to equilibrium quickly, removing a leading source of position and frequency error in precision atomic experiments.
  • If the low-loss behavior extends toward 800 nm as the authors expect, visible-wavelength cavity-QED and mid-circuit readout for Rydberg quantum computers become accessible.
  • Because the film's resistivity is stable and its surface is uniform over large areas, the same mirrors could serve in compact, chip-integrated cavities where mode volume is small and coupling $g_0$ is large.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The quoted $\kappa$ is an upper bound on the true ZnO absorption, because the extraction credits all excess loss to the film; direct absorption spectroscopy might show the film is even less lossy than reported.
  • Annealing-induced changes to the mirror stack probably contribute part of the measured loss, so a cleaner comparison against an annealed, uncoated control would sharpen the number.
  • The paper's charge-mitigation estimates assume a simple uniform sheet; measuring the film's resistivity at RF frequencies and its behavior at cryogenic temperatures would test whether real ion traps see the predicted benefit.
  • A direct test at 800 nm, where many Rydberg experiments operate, would validate the extrapolation from 1650 nm and determine the practical impact on current quantum-computing platforms.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports the development of a ZnO-based transparent conductive oxide (TCO) intended for use inside high-finesse optical cavities for cavity-QED with charged atoms, ions, and Rydberg atoms. The authors optimize a sputter-deposition recipe, measure the optical loss of a 30 nm ZnO film using a ring-down Fabry-Pérot cavity at 1650 nm, characterize the DC resistivity, and present a simple model for stray-charge mitigation. The abstract claims a 22,000 finesse for a cavity coated with the ZnO layer, a roughly 5000-fold reduction in optical loss relative to ITO, and a resistivity of about 0.01 Ω·cm. The central quantitative claims rest on Table I, which lists finesse values for bare, ZnO-coated, and annealed-control mirrors, and on Eq. (3), which converts finesse changes into an extinction coefficient κ.

Significance. If the reported performance holds, the work is significant for cavity-QED and ion/Rydberg trapping: a conductive, low-loss coating on a high-finesse mirror would address a central technical obstacle to integrating optical cavities with charge-sensitive atomic systems. The experimental design is generally careful: the cavity is length-stabilized with PDH locking, linewidths are obtained from ring-down traces, the FSR is remeasured after reassembly, and an annealed-mirror control is included. The charging model is clearly labeled as crude and is adequate for order-of-magnitude estimates. However, the headline finesse value is not actually measured on a ZnO-coated cavity, the reported final κ is not reproduced by the tabulated data, and the annealing control is not used to correct the ZnO extraction. These issues are load-bearing because the abstract and the central claim rest on the specific numbers 22,000 and κ≈8×10^-5. The paper does not ship machine-checked proofs or reproducible code; its contribution is experimental, so the data must support the advertised claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Table I(a)] The abstract states: "At 1650 nm we observe a 22,000 finesse in a Fabry-Pérot optical cavity coated with a 30 nm ZnO layer." This is not supported by the data in Table I(a). The only 22,000-level entry is M0:MA, with finesse 22,120 ± 130 at 128 days, which is the bare annealed-mirror control. The ZnO-containing configuration M0:MZnO reached 19,800 ± 180 at 128 days. The abstract and the corresponding text in Section IV should either quote the ZnO-coated value or explain why the control value is the appropriate headline number.
  2. [Table I and Eq. (3)] The reported 128-day value κ_ZnO = (8.0 ± 0.7)×10^-5 is inconsistent with the tabulated finesse values. Using F00 = 23,340, F01 = 19,800, h = 30 nm, and λ = 1650 nm in Eqs. (1)–(3) gives r0^2 − r1^2 ≈ 4.8×10^-5 and hence κ ≈ 1.05×10^-4, not 8.0×10^-5. The 27-day and 69-day rows reproduce the stated values, so the discrepancy is specific to the final row; please re-check the calculation or the table entry.
  3. [Table I(b) and Section IV] The reported ZnO κ is not corrected for annealing-induced mirror modification. The M0:MA control shows that annealing alone changes a bare mirror by an amount equivalent to κ_MA = 3.2×10^-5 at 128 days and 6.7×10^-5 at 69 days. Since the ZnO-coated mirror is produced with the same annealed recipe, the ZnO-specific excess loss should be extracted relative to the M0:MA baseline, not relative to the unannealed M0:M0 baseline. As written, κ_ZnO conflates film absorption with annealing-induced changes to the mirror. The analysis also assumes r0 is unchanged at 128 days, but the unannealed M0:M0 configuration is never remeasured at that time; this should be addressed.
  4. [Section IV, Eq. (3) and transmission data] The extraction assigns all excess loss to absorption, but the authors' own transmission measurements show T increased from the vendor value 1.18×10^-4 to (1.37 ± 0.02)×10^-4 at 128 days, a change of 1.9×10^-5. This is about 40% of the observed r0^2 − r1^2 ≈ 4.8×10^-5 at that time. Even if the transmission change is not dominant, it is a systematic effect comparable to or larger than the reported uncertainty in κ and should be included in the loss budget or explicitly subtracted before quoting κ.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV] The sentence "After annealing and exposure to air for 4 months we observed a 15% increase in finesse" is not directly supported by Table I; the fractional changes between the 27-, 69-, and 128-day rows differ by configuration. Please specify which configurations and time points are being compared.
  2. [Abstract and Section I] The claim of a "5000 times reduction relative to ITO" should specify that it compares κ values and should state the ITO κ value and wavelength used for the comparison, since the cited ITO value (κ > 0.5 near 1550 nm) is at a different wavelength than the 1650 nm measurement.
  3. [Appendix IX A] The appendix notes that the Drude resistivity in the ellipsometer model was fixed equal to the electrically measured resistivity, even though the two can differ due to different scattering mechanisms. This limitation should be stated more prominently, and its effect on the Fig. 1(b) values in the shaded κ < 10^-3 region should be quantified or at least acknowledged as not reliable.
  4. [Abstract and Section V] The paper uses "surface resistivity" in the abstract while Table II reports bulk resistivity in Ω·cm and Section VII uses sheet resistance in Ω/□. Please align the terminology to avoid confusion between these distinct quantities.
  5. [Eq. (2)] The LaTeX rendering of Eq. (2) is difficult to parse because the exponent placement is not clear in the text; please reformat so that r1 is unambiguously defined as (1/r0) times the square of the bracket.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the cavity-measured ZnO extinction coefficient is an independent measurement, not a fit to the claim; reported-number discrepancies are correctness issues rather than circular steps.

full rationale

The derivation of κ is not circular. Finesse values F00 and F01 are independently measured from ring-down linewidths and FSR; Eqs. (1)-(3) invert the standard Fabry-Pérot reflectivity-finesse relation to convert the measured finesse drop into an excess-loss extinction coefficient. The target quantity κ does not appear as an input to the finesse measurement, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The abstract's "22,000 finesse" attribution to the ZnO-coated cavity is contradicted by Table I(a), where only the annealed bare-mirror control M0:MA reaches 22,120; this is a data-reporting/accuracy problem, not a circular dependency. Similarly, the M0:MA control shows annealing alone changes mirror loss (κ_MA = 3.2e-5 at 128 days), and this baseline is not subtracted from the MZnO value, so the reported κ may overestimate film absorption; that is a systematic-error/confound issue, not circularity. The Appendix's choice to fix the Drude resistivity to the electrical value affects the ellipsometric model only and does not feed the cavity-derived κ. Self-citations (e.g., Ref. [85] on PDH locking) are methodological and not load-bearing. I therefore find no step in the paper's derivation chain that reduces to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurement rests on standard cavity optics plus two domain assumptions: transmission is unchanged and all loss is absorption. The charging model is explicitly a toy model. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Fabry-Perot finesse is related to mirror reflectivity by F = π√(r_i r_j)/(1 - r_i r_j)
    Used to solve for r0 and r1 from measured finesse (Eq. 1-2, Sec IV).
  • domain assumption The ZnO film does not significantly alter the mirror power transmission T
    Stated in Sec IV; verified via reflection-dip measurements with variation at most 1.9e-5, but the verification is indirect.
  • domain assumption All excess loss (r0^2 - r1^2) is absorption in the film, not scattering or other loss
    Stated in Sec IV: 'We ascribe any excess loss to absorption in the thin film'. This makes the reported κ an upper bound.
  • domain assumption The charging mitigation model assumes perfect quantum efficiency for photoelectron generation and specific capacitance estimates
    Sec VII: 'intentionally pessimistic assumptions' including every photon generating a photoelectron and C = 0.1 pF.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Can TCOs Transform Cavity-QED?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HHNISMHU

@misc{pith2026250602501,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Can TCOs Transform Cavity-QED?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HHNISMHU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02501}
}
read the original abstract

Transparent conductive oxides (TCO) enable confinement of charge-sensitive ions and Rydberg atoms proximal to dielectric structures including waveguides and photon detectors. However, optical loss precludes the use of TCOs within high-finesse optical micro-resonators. Here we characterize a ZnO-based TCO that markedly reduces optical absorption. At 1650\text{ nm} we observe a 22,000 finesse in a Fabry-P\'erot optical cavity coated with a 30\text{ nm} ZnO layer. This is a 5000 times reduction relative to indium tin oxide (ITO) at this wavelength. The same ZnO film exhibits 0.01\text{ \ensuremath{\Omega}\ensuremath{\cdot}cm} surface resistivity at DC. We anticipate a step change in cavity-QED systems incorporating ultra-low loss TCOs like ZnO.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02501 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Three thin film samples were sputtered with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Thin films were sputtered with Argon-Oxygen with a variable Oxygen fraction. The plots show the (a) deposition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The optical and feedback setup of the ring-down experiment on a length-stabilized test cavity. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a,b) Scanning electron microscope images show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: We use a simple model to estimate charging. (a) A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Plots of the measured and the modeled Ψ and ∆ at a 65◦ angle of incidence for a 30 nm ZnO film deposited on (a) borosilicate glass and (b) 1.5 µm thermal oxide on Si. The residual is less than 5 ◦ RMS. data include PSemi-M0 (PSM0) oscillator, a Gaussian oscillator and …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A Tauc plot of (αℏω) 2 versus photon energy ℏω for the film deposited under 12% O2 partial pressure, both before and after annealing. Extrapolating the linear edge of each curve to (αℏω) 2 = 0 (inset) yields a band-edge energy of 3.3 eV in both cases. [1] H. J. Kimble,…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Mode multiplexing for scalable cavity-enhanced operations in neutral-atom arrays

    quant-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Light-shift-tuned atoms in a cavity, each coupled to its own mode of the same cavity, enable parallel readout and remote entanglement with two-order-of-magnitude speedups over free-space approaches.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    H. J. Kimble, Phys. Scr.1998, 127 (1998)

    1998

  2. [2]

    J. M. Raimond, M. Brune, and S. Haroche, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 10.1103/RevModPhys.73.565 (2001)

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.73.565 2001

  3. [3]

    Gabrielse and H

    G. Gabrielse and H. Dehmelt, Phys. Rev. Lett.55, 67 (1985)

    1985

  4. [4]

    D. J. Heinzen, J. J. Childs, J. E. Thomas, and M. S. Feld, Phys. Rev. Lett.58, 1320 (1987)

    1987

  5. [5]

    P.Goy, J.M.Raimond, M.Gross,andS.Haroche,Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1903 (1983)

    1983

  6. [6]

    K. An, J. J. Childs, R. R. Dasari, and M. S. Feld, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 3375 (1994)

    1994

  7. [7]

    McKeever, A

    J. McKeever, A. Boca, A. D. Boozer, J. R. Buck, and H. J. Kimble, Nature425, 268 (2003)

    2003

  8. [8]

    McConnell, H

    R. McConnell, H. Zhang, J. Hu, S. Ćuk, and V. Vuletić, Nature 519, 439 (2015)

    2015

Show all 111 references
  1. [9]

    Krutyanskiy, M

    V. Krutyanskiy, M. Canteri, M. Meraner, J. Bate, V. Krcmarsky, J. Schupp, N. Sangouard, and B. P. Lanyon, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 213601 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Teller, V

    M. Teller, V. Messerer, K. Schüppert, Y. Zou, D. A. Fioretto, M. Galli, P. C. Holz, J. Reichel, and T. E. Northup, AVS Quantum Science5, 012001 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Reiserer, Rev

    A. Reiserer, Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 041003 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Ðorđević, P

    T. Ðorđević, P. Samutpraphoot, P. L. Ocola, H. Bernien, B. Grinkemeyer, I. Dimitrova, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Science373, 1511 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Sauerwein, F

    N. Sauerwein, F. Orsi, P. Uhrich, S. Bandyopad- hyay, F. Mattiotti, T. Cantat-Moltrecht, G. Pupillo, P.Hauke,andJ.-P.Brantut,Nat.Phys. 19,1128(2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    L. W. Clark, N. Schine, C. Baum, N. Jia, and J. Simon, Nature 582, 41 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Mivehvar, F

    F. Mivehvar, F. Piazza, T. Donner, and H. Ritsch, Ad- vances in Physics70, 1 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    G. P. Greve, C. Luo, B. Wu, and J. K. Thompson, Na- ture 610, 472 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Z. Li, S. Colombo, C. Shu, G. Velez, S. Pilatowsky- Cameo, R. Schmied, S. Choi, M. Lukin, E. Pedrozo- Peñafiel, and V. Vuletić, Science380, 1381 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    J. M. Robinson, M. Miklos, Y. M. Tso, C. J. Kennedy, T. Bothwell, D. Kedar, J. K. Thompson, and J. Ye, Nat. Phys. 20, 208 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    R. J. Niffenegger, J. Stuart, C. Sorace-Agaskar, D. Kha- ras, S. Bramhavar, C. D. Bruzewicz, W. Loh, R. T. Maxson, R. McConnell, D. Reens, G. N. West, J. M. Sage, and J. Chiaverini, Nature586, 538 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    K. K. Mehta, C. Zhang, M. Malinowski, T.-L. Nguyen, M. Stadler, and J. P. Home, Nature586, 533 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    T.-W. Hsu, W. Zhu, T. Thiele, M. O. Brown, S. B. Papp, A. Agrawal, and C. A. Regal, PRX Quantum3, 030316 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    M. Keil, O. Amit, S. Zhou, D. Groswasser, Y. Japha, and R. Folman, Journal of Modern Optics 63, 1840 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    X. Zhou, H. Tamura, T.-H. Chang, and C.-L. Hung, Phys. Rev. X14, 031004 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    D. J. Berkeland, J. D. Miller, J. C. Bergquist, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, Journal of Applied Physics 83, 5025 (1998)

    1998

  17. [25]

    Harlander, M

    M. Harlander, M. Brownnutt, W. Hänsel, and R. Blatt, New Journal of Physics12, 093035 (2010)

    2010

  18. [26]

    S. X. Wang, G. Hao Low, N. S. Lachenmyer, Y. Ge, P. F. Herskind, and I. L. Chuang, Journal of Applied Physics 110, 104901 (2011)

    2011

  19. [27]

    K. R. Brown, J. Chiaverini, J. M. Sage, and H. Häffner, Nat Rev Mater6, 892 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Brandstätter, A

    B. Brandstätter, A. McClung, K. Schüppert, B. Casabone, K. Friebe, A. Stute, P. O. Schmidt, C. Deutsch, J. Reichel, R. Blatt, and T. E. Northup, Review of Scientific Instruments84, 123104 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    C. D. Bruzewicz, J. Chiaverini, R. McConnell, and J. M. Sage, Applied Physics Reviews6, 021314 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    Takahashi, E

    H. Takahashi, E. Kassa, C. Christoforou, and M. Keller, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 013602 (2020). 9 A Ellipsometer Model IX APPENDIX

    2020

  23. [31]

    F. R. Ong, K. Schüppert, P. Jobez, M. Teller, B. Ames, D. A. Fioretto, K. Friebe, M. Lee, Y. Colombe, R. Blatt, and T. E. Northup, New J. Phys.22, 063018 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    Saffman, J

    M. Saffman, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.49, 202001 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    P. L. Ocola, I. Dimitrova, B. Grinkemeyer, E. Guardado-Sanchez, T. Ðorđević, P. Samutpraphoot, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 113601 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Somaschi, V

    N. Somaschi, V. Giesz, L. De Santis, J. C. Loredo, M. P. Almeida, G. Hornecker, S. L. Portalupi, T. Grange, C. Antón, J. Demory, C. Gómez, I. Sagnes, N. D. Lanzillotti-Kimura, A. Lemaítre, A. Auffeves, A. G. White, L. Lanco, and P. Senellart, Nature Photon10, 340 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    Senellart, G

    P. Senellart, G. Solomon, and A. White, Nature Nan- otech 12, 1026 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    Phillips, R

    F.Liu, A.J.Brash, J.O’Hara, L.M.P.P.Martins, C.L. Phillips, R. J. Coles, B. Royall, E. Clarke, C. Bentham, N.Prtljaga, I.E.Itskevich, L.R.Wilson, M.S.Skolnick, and A. M. Fox, Nature Nanotech13, 835 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    S. E. Pollack, M. D. Turner, S. Schlamminger, C. A. Hagedorn, and J. H. Gundlach, Phys. Rev. D81, 021101 (2010)

    2010

  30. [38]

    D. V. Martynov, E. D. Hall, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, C. Adams, R. X. Adhikari, R. A. An- derson, S. B. Anderson, K. Arai, M. A. Arain, S. M. Aston, L. Austin, S. W. Ballmer, M. Barbet, D. Barker, B. Barr, L. Barsotti, J. Bartlett, M. A. Barton, I. Bar- tos, J. C....

    2016

  31. [39]

    A. M. Eltony, S. X. Wang, G. M. Akselrod, P. F. Her- skind, and I. L. Chuang, Appl. Phys. Lett.102, 054106 (2013)

    2013

  32. [40]

    A. L. Carter, J. O’Reilly, G. Toh, S. Saha, M. Shalaev, I. Goetting, and C. Monroe, Review of Scientific Instru- ments 95, 033201 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    L. Wang, Y. Yang, T. J. Marks, Z. Liu, and S.-T. Ho, Applied Physics Letters87, 161107 (2005)

    2005

  34. [42]

    Wang, Y.-Q

    K.-L. Wang, Y.-Q. Xin, J.-F. Zhao, S.-M. Song, S.-C. Chen, Y.-B. Lu, and H. Sun, Ceramics International44, 6769 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    Z. Wang, C. Chen, K.Wu, H. Chong,andH. Ye,physica status solidi (a)216, 1700794 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    Herranz, D

    R.A.Maniyara, C.Graham, B.Paulillo, Y.Bi, Y.Chen, G. Herranz, D. E. Baker, P. Mazumder, G. Konstan- tatos, and V. Pruneri, APL Mater9, 10.1063/5.0040864 (2021)

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    Koida, H

    T. Koida, H. Sai, and M. Kondo, Energy Materials7, 102 (2012)

    2012

  38. [46]

    S. Xian, L. Nie, J. Qin, T. Kang, C. Li, J. Xie, L. Deng, and L. Bi, Opt. Express27, 28618 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    W. Su, K. Song, D. Huo, and B. Li, Current Applied Physics 13, 556 (2013)

    2013

  40. [48]

    Biedrzycki, S

    J. Biedrzycki, S. Livraghi, E. Giamello, S. Agnoli, and G. Granozzi, J. Phys. Chem. C118, 8462 (2014)

    2014

  41. [49]

    Ching-Prado, A

    E. Ching-Prado, A. Watson, and H. Miranda, J Mater Sci: Mater Electron 29, 15299 (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    W. Wang, C. Goham, A. Laugharn, and J. W. Brit- ton, in OSA Quantum 2.0 Conference (2020), Pa- per QW6A.12 (Optica Publishing Group, 2020) p. QW6A.12

    2020

  43. [51]

    L. Luo, D. Hayes, T. A. Manning, D. N. Matsukevich, P. Maunz, S. Olmschenk, J. D. Sterk, and C. Monroe, Fortschritte der Physik57, 1133 (2009)

    2009

  44. [52]

    W. Huie, S. G. Menon, H. Bernien, and J. P. Covey, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 043154 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    A. N. Craddock, Y. Wang, F. Giraldo, R. Sekelsky, M. Flament, and M. Namazi, Phys. Rev. Appl. 21, 034012 (2024). 10 A Ellipsometer Model IX APPENDIX

    2024

  46. [54]

    Li and J

    Y. Li and J. D. Thompson, PRX Quantum5, 020363 (2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    S. J. Evered, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, S. Ebadi, T. Manovitz, H. Zhou, S. H. Li, A. A. Geim, T. T. Wang, N. Maskara, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Nature622, 268 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    Deist, Y.-H

    E. Deist, Y.-H. Lu, J. Ho, M. K. Pasha, J. Zeiher, Z. Yan, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 203602 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    M. A. Borysiewicz, Crystals9, 505 (2019)

    2019

  50. [58]

    Özgür, Ya

    Ü. Özgür, Ya. I. Alivov, C. Liu, A. Teke, M. A. Reshchikov, S. Doğan, V. Avrutin, S.-J. Cho, and H. Morkoç, Journal of Applied Physics 98, 041301 (2005)

    2005

  51. [59]

    M. Hála, S. Fujii, A. Redinger, Y. Inoue, G. Rey, M. Thevenin, V. Deprédurand, T. P. Weiss, T. Bertram, and S. Siebentritt, Progress in Photovoltaics23, 1630 (2015)

    2015

  52. [60]

    J. A. Spencer, A. L. Mock, A. G. Jacobs, M. Schubert, Y. Zhang, and M. J. Tadjer, Applied Physics Reviews 9, 011315 (2022)

    2022

  53. [61]

    Y. Lv, Z. Zhang, J. Yan, W. Zhao, and C. Zhai, Ceram- ics International 44, 7454 (2018)

    2018

  54. [62]

    Alonso-Álvarez, L

    D. Alonso-Álvarez, L. Ferre Llin, A. Mellor, D. J. Paul, and N. J. Ekins-Daukes, Solar Energy155, 82 (2017)

    2017

  55. [63]

    R. Yang, F. Wang, J. Lu, Y. Lu, B. Lu, S. Li, and Z. Ye, ACS Appl. Electron. Mater.5, 4014 (2023)

    2023

  56. [64]

    Kinsey, C

    N. Kinsey, C. DeVault, J. Kim, M. Ferrera, V. M. Sha- laev, and A. Boltasseva, Optica2, 616 (2015)

    2015

  57. [65]

    Secondo, A

    R. Secondo, A. Ball, B. Diroll, D. Fomra, K. Ding, V. Avrutin, Ü. Özgür, D. O. Demchenko, J. B. Khur- gin, and N. Kinsey, Applied Physics Letters120, 031103 (2022)

    2022

  58. [66]

    A. Ball, D. Fomra, N. Kinsey, and J. B. Khurgin, in Advances in Nonlinear Photonics, Woodhead Publish- ing Series in Electronic and Optical Materials, edited by G. C. Righini and L. Sirleto (Woodhead Publishing,

  59. [67]

    Fomra, A

    D. Fomra, A. Ball, S. Saha, J. Wu, Md. Sojib, A. Agrawal, H. J. Lezec, and N. Kinsey, Applied Physics Reviews 11, 011317 (2024)

    2024

  60. [68]

    M. D. McCluskey and S. J. Jokela, Journal of Applied Physics 106, 071101 (2009)

    2009

  61. [69]

    Vidya, P

    R. Vidya, P. Ravindran, H. Fjellvåg, B. G. Svensson, E. Monakhov, M. Ganchenkova, and R. M. Nieminen, Phys. Rev. B83, 045206 (2011)

    2011

  62. [70]

    A. F. Kohan, G. Ceder, D. Morgan, and C. G. Van de Walle, Phys. Rev. B61, 15019 (2000)

    2000

  63. [71]

    There is a notable disparity in the energy transfer factor between Ar-Zn = 0.94 and Ar-O = 0.81 for RF sputter deposition

  64. [72]

    Lin, J.-L

    S.-S. Lin, J.-L. Huang, and D.-F. Lii, Surface and Coat- ings Technology176, 173 (2004)

    2004

  65. [73]

    C. G. Van De Walle, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 1012 (2000)

    2000

  66. [74]

    R. C. Rai, Journal of Applied Physics 113, 153508 (2013)

    2013

  67. [75]

    Fomra, K

    D. Fomra, K. Ding, V. Avrutin, Ü. Özgür, and N. Kin- sey, Opt. Mater. Express10, 3060 (2020)

    2020

  68. [76]

    X. Wang, D. Yu, and S. Xu, Opt. Express28, 13817 (2020)

    2020

  69. [77]

    Singh, S

    C. Singh, S. Nozaki, and S. Rath, J. Appl. Phys.118, 10.1063/1.4935629 (2015)

    2015 doi

  70. [78]

    Products or companies named here are included in the interest of completeness and does not imply endorse- ment by the authors

  71. [79]

    L. R. Damiani and R. D. Mansano, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 370, 012019 (2012)

    2012

  72. [80]

    Kennedy, A

    J. Kennedy, A. Markwitz, Z. Li, W. Gao, C. Kendrick, S. M. Durbin, and R. Reeves, Current Applied Physics AMN-2 (Second International Conference on Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology),6, 495 (2006)

    2006

  73. [81]

    Dhakal, D

    T. Dhakal, D. Vanhart, R. Christian, A. Nandur, A. Sharma, and C. R. Westgate, Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A30, 021202 (2012)

    2012

  74. [82]

    B. Zhu, K. Lü, J. Wang, T. Li, J. Wu, D. Zeng, and C. Xie, Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A31, 061513 (2013)

    2013

  75. [83]

    Q. J. Jiang, J. G. Lu, Y. L. Yuan, L. W. Sun, X. Wang, Z. Wen, Z. Z. Ye, D. Xiao, H. Z. Ge, and Y. Zhao, Materials Letters 106, 125 (2013)

    2013

  76. [84]

    S. Yin, M. M. Shirolkar, J. Li, M. Li, X. Song, X. Dong, and H. Wang, AIP Advances6, 065020 (2016)

    2016

  77. [85]

    W. Wang, S. Subhankar, and J. W. Britton, A practical guide to feedback control for Pound-Drever-Hall laser linewidth narrowing (2024), arXiv:2412.04635 [quant- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Radjehi, L

    L. Radjehi, L. Aissani, A. Djelloul, A. Saoudi, S. Lamri, K. Nomenyo, G. Lerondel, and F. Sanchette, Metallur- gical and Materials Engineering29, 37 (2023)

    2023

  79. [87]

    Rempe, R

    G. Rempe, R. J. Thompson, H. J. Kimble, and R. Lalezari, Opt. Lett.17, 363 (1992)

    1992

  80. [88]

    Resistivity and Hall Measurements, https://www.nist.gov/pml/nanoscale-device- characterization-division/popular-links/hall- effect/resistivity-and-hall (2010)

    2010

  81. [89]

    It covers key physics but omits details needed to be prescriptive

    Our model is intentionally crude. It covers key physics but omits details needed to be prescriptive. A full anal- ysis would consider in detail the trap and mirror geome- tries, inhomogeneous charge distributions and currents, and modification of the trapping potential due to ...

  82. [90]

    Podoliak, H

    N. Podoliak, H. Takahashi, M. Keller, and P. Horak, Phys. Rev. Applied6, 044008 (2016)

    2016

  83. [91]

    Teller, D

    M. Teller, D. A. Fioretto, P. C. Holz, P. Schindler, V. Messerer, K. Schüppert, Y. Zou, R. Blatt, J. Chi- averini, J. Sage, and T. E. Northup, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 230505 (2021)

    2021

  84. [92]

    Kumph, C

    M. Kumph, C. Henkel, P. Rabl, M. Brownnutt, and R. Blatt, New Journal of Physics18, 023020 (2016)

    2016

  85. [93]

    Amini, J

    J. Amini, J. Britton, D. Leibfried, and D. Wineland, in Atom Chips, edited by J. Reichel and V. Vuletić (Wiley- VCH, Weinheim, Germany, 2011)

    2011

  86. [94]

    Y. Wang, S. Crain, C. Fang, B. Zhang, S. Huang, Q. Liang, P. H. Leung, K. R. Brown, and J. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 150505 (2020)

    2020

  87. [95]

    Hayes, S

    D. Hayes, S. M. Clark, S. Debnath, D. Hucul, I. V. Inlek, K. W. Lee, Q. Quraishi, and C. Monroe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 020503 (2012)

    2012

  88. [96]

    R. T. Sutherland, Q. Yu, K. M. Beck, and H. Häffner, Phys. Rev. A105, 022437 (2022)

    2022

  89. [97]

    Ebert, M

    M. Ebert, M. Kwon, T. G. Walker, and M. Saffman, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 093601 (2015)

    2015

  90. [98]

    S. Baur, D. Tiarks, G. Rempe, and S. Dürr, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 073901 (2014)

    2014

  91. [99]

    Distante, P

    E. Distante, P. Farrera, A. Padrón-Brito, D. Paredes- Barato, G. Heinze, and H. de Riedmatten, Nat Commun 8, 14072 (2017). 11 A Ellipsometer Model IX APPENDIX

    2017

  92. [100]

    Tiarks, S

    D. Tiarks, S. Schmidt-Eberle, T. Stolz, G. Rempe, and S. Dürr, Nature Phys15, 124 (2019)

    2019

  93. [101]

    Stiesdal, H

    N. Stiesdal, H. Busche, K. Kleinbeck, J. Kumlin, M. G. Hansen, H. P. Büchler, and S. Hofferberth, Nat Commun 12, 4328 (2021)

    2021

  94. [102]

    Levine, A

    H. Levine, A. Keesling, A. Omran, H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 123603 (2018)

    2018

  95. [103]

    Saffman, X

    M. Saffman, X. L. Zhang, A. T. Gill, L. Isenhower, and T. G. Walker, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.264, 012023 (2011)

    2011

  96. [104]

    X. L. Zhang, A. T. Gill, L. Isenhower, T. G. Walker, and M. Saffman, Phys. Rev. A85, 042310 (2012)

    2012

  97. [105]

    de Léséleuc, D

    S. de Léséleuc, D. Barredo, V. Lienhard, A. Browaeys, and T. Lahaye, Phys. Rev. A97, 053803 (2018)

    2018

  98. [106]

    Ivory, W

    M. Ivory, W. J. Setzer, N. Karl, H. McGuinness, C.DeRose, M.Blain, D.Stick, M.Gehl,andL.P.Paraz- zoli, Phys. Rev. X11, 041033 (2021)

    2021

  99. [107]

    Suppose a laser beam with waist w0 = 100 µm is focused on an ion atx = 0

    Note that the tolerable laser intensity is much higher if focused at the center of the cavity. Suppose a laser beam with waist w0 = 100 µm is focused on an ion atx = 0. The light intensity at the mirrors (x = ±200 µm) drops by exp −x2 Q/w2 0 2 ≈ 3 × 10−4

  100. [108]

    Note that a typical RC time- constant is less than1 ns

    The capacitance has three contributions: a) the self capacitance of a round conductive plate (relative to a ground at infinity) 8ε0r ≈ 8 × 10−3 pF; b) the capaci- tance between the films on the two Fabry–Pérot cavity mirrors ϵ0 πr2 2xQ ≈ 1 × 10−3 pF and c) the capacitance betw...

  101. [109]

    E.-J. Guo, H. Guo, H. Lu, K. Jin, M. He, and G. Yang, Applied Physics Letters98, 011905 (2011)

    2011

  102. [110]

    K. H. Gao, T. Lin, X. D. Liu, X. H. Zhang, X. N. Li, J. Wu, Y. F. Liu, X. F. Wang, Y. W. Chen, B. Ni, N. Dai, and J. H. Chu, Solid State Communications 157, 49 (2013)

    2013

  103. [111]

    Khoshman, J

    J. Khoshman, J. Hilfiker, N. Tabet, and M. Kordesch, Applied Surface Science307, 558 (2014). 12

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.