Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Nonlinear dynamics in an artificial feedback spin maser

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Simulating an ideal 129Xe spin maser, this paper shows that once the artificial feedback field is as strong as or stronger than the static bias field, the Bloch dynamics split into high-order harmonic, nonperiodic, and frequency-comb…

desk verdict Plausible map of strong-feedback spin maser dynamics, but the key regimes need numerical validation before I'd trust them. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13930 v1 pith:MZTU2HZ4 submitted 2024-11-21 physics.atom-ph

Mingjun Feng , Lan Wu , Guobin Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph
keywords spinmaserartificialfeedbackdelaydifferentialequationsfrequencycombnonlineardynamicsBloch129Xehigh-orderharmonics
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 simulates an ideal 129Xe spin maser whose detected transverse magnetization is fed back as a transverse field, either with a time delay or in pulses. Its central claim is that when the feedback field is comparable to or stronger than the static bias field, the Bloch-equation dynamics become strongly nonlinear, yielding three distinct regimes: high-order harmonic generation, nonperiodic (chaotic-like) spin oscillations, and frequency-comb spectra, with the phase delay choosing between them. Below that threshold, the maser reproduces the familiar weak-feedback behaviours, free induction decay and ordinary Zeeman masing. The paper also proposes a pulse feedback protocol that produces a cavity-free magnetic frequency comb, centred at the Larmor frequency with line spacing $1/(2T)$, which could be useful for precision atomic magnetometry and searches for spin-dependent exotic interactions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the feedback-driven Bloch equation system (Eqs. 1–3). The detected transverse magnetization generates the feedback field $B_x = kM_x(t-\tau)$ in the delay protocol, or $B_x = kM_y(t)$ during pulses in the pulse protocol, closing the loop between detection and excitation. The delay is parametrized as $\tau = \psi/\omega_0$, which converts the delay into a phase $\psi$, and the dimensionless ratio $k' = kM_0/B_0$ measures the feedback field against the static field. The simulations integrate these delay differential equations with the JiTCDDE solver, which the authors find necessary because Runge–Kutta becomes inefficient once the strong-feedback nonlinearity develops.

What would settle it

Run a real 129Xe maser with feedback strength $k' \approx 2$ and reversed phase delay around $\psi = 225^\circ$: if the spectrum shows only the fundamental and no peak at $3\nu$ while the maser still oscillates, or if raising the feedback to $k' \approx 10$ does not make the oscillations nonperiodic, then the predicted strong-feedback regimes are not present in that apparatus.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery, on its own terms, is that feedback-driven Bloch equations for a single-species spin maser have a complete dynamical phase diagram controlled by two parameters: the feedback strength $k' = kM_0/B_0$ and the phase delay $\psi = \omega_0\tau$. The threshold $k' = 1$ separates the weak-feedback regime, where the frequency shift is linear in the phase delay, from a strong-feedback regime where the feedback field dominates the spin-field interaction and the system behaves like a spin in a strong oscillating field. For strong feedback with reversed phase delay ($\psi \in [\pi, 2\pi]$), the spectrum shows a shifted fundamental $\nu$ along with a third harmonic at $3\nu$, and at still higher strength the oscillations become nonperiodic; for strong feedback with forward delay ($\psi \in [0, \pi]$), the maser emits pulsed oscillations with a comb-like spectrum. In the pulse feedback protocol, switching the feedback field on for intervals $T$ produces a frequency comb with carrier at $\nu_0 = 35.34$ Hz and repetition rate $\nu_g = 1/(2T) = 0.1$ Hz.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes an ideal feedback loop: no noise, no coil bandwidth limit, no detection latency, no rubidium–xenon spin-exchange coupling, and a time delay that maps linearly to phase via $\tau = \psi/\omega_0$; if real feedback circuits filter the high harmonics or if fixed delays do not track the Larmor frequency, the predicted strong-feedback regimes may not be observable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An ideal 129Xe spin maser with feedback strength $k' \ge 1$ will show, for reversed phase delay, a spectrum with a shifted fundamental and a third harmonic at $3\nu$, and at $k' = 10$ nonperiodic oscillations instead of steady sinusoidal emission.
  • For strong feedback with forward phase delay, the maser spectrum broadens into a comb-like chirp rather than a single line, so the same device can serve as either a narrow-line maser or a broadband comb source depending on $\psi$.
  • The pulse feedback protocol yields a magnetic frequency comb with carrier $\nu_0 = 35.34$ Hz and spacing $\nu_g = 1/(2T)$, both tunable by changing $B_0$ and $T$, requiring no optical cavity and no external modulation field.
  • The complete $(k', \psi)$ phase map—FID, Zeeman maser, harmonic/nonperiodic, and comb regions—goes beyond earlier weak-feedback treatments and gives a checklist of signatures to look for in artificial-feedback spin maser experiments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the model assumes an ideal feedback coil with no bandwidth limit, a real coil that attenuates the third harmonic at $3\nu \approx 105$ Hz could suppress the predicted harmonic peak even if the nonlinear spin dynamics occur; this is a directly testable experimental check.
  • The mapping $\tau = \psi/\omega_0$ makes the phase delay frequency-dependent, whereas real electronic delays are fixed; relaxing this assumption could shift the boundaries in the $(\psi, k')$ diagram when $B_0$ is tuned, so the predicted regime map may need revision for frequency-swept operation.
  • The model omits Rb–Xe spin-exchange coupling, which the authors flag as a possible origin of continuous-time-crystal behaviour in hybrid masers; including that coupling may either suppress or enrich the nonperiodic regime reported here.
  • The pulse feedback comb, demonstrated for 129Xe parameters, should transfer to other noble-gas spins (e.g. $^3$He) with different $T_2$ and $\gamma$, changing the comb linewidth and sensitivity; whether the comb's phase coherence survives feedback-phase noise is not addressed in the paper.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies an idealized 129Xe spin maser with optical detection and artificial feedback, modeled by Bloch equations with either time-delayed feedback (Bx = k Mx(t−τ), Eq. 2) or pulsed feedback (Bx = k My(t) during half-periods, Eq. 3). By numerically solving these equations with the JiTCDDE solver, the authors divide the dynamics into weak and strong feedback regimes. In the strong-feedback regime (|k′| ≥ 1), they report high-order harmonic generation, nonperiodic (possibly chaotic) spin oscillations, and frequency-comb-like spectra. They also propose a pulse-feedback protocol that produces a magnetic frequency comb with line spacing 1/(2T) at a 35.34 Hz carrier. All conclusions are based on a small number of representative simulations; no experimental data, convergence tests, or quantitative chaos diagnostics are provided.

Significance. If the reported strong-feedback phenomena are correct, the paper would extend the understanding of spin-maser dynamics beyond the well-studied weak-feedback regime and offer a simple, cavity-free route to an ultralow-frequency magnetic frequency comb, with potential applications in precision magnetometry and searches for spin-dependent exotic interactions. The pulse-feedback protocol is particularly attractive because its comb spacing follows directly from the modulation period and is easily tunable. However, the significance is conditional: the central claims of nonperiodic dynamics and comb generation rest on single unvalidated simulations, and the lack of numerical convergence studies leaves open the possibility of artifacts. The paper's strengths are its clear setup of the standard delayed-Bloch model and its identification of a parameter region (|k′| ≥ 1) that previous works did not systematically explore.

major comments (5)
  1. [Strong feedback regime, Fig. 3(c)] The claim of nonperiodic spin oscillations is supported only by a single 400-second time trace of Mx(t). No Lyapunov exponent, Poincaré section, or correlation dimension is computed, so the observed irregularity could equally be a long-period orbit, quasiperiodicity, or a transient that would eventually settle onto a simpler attractor. Since this regime is one of the paper's central findings, a quantitative dynamical characterization is required.
  2. [Strong feedback regime, Fig. 3(b)] The 'frequency comb' identification is based on a spectrum with a few broad peaks. The paper reports no comb line spacing, linewidth, coherence time, or comparison with the expected spacing from the pulse period. For a finite integration window, a periodic pulse train always yields a comb-like spectrum if the resolution is insufficient to separate closely spaced lines; the present evidence does not distinguish a true comb from such an artifact.
  3. [Model and numerical methods, 'We set the maximum time step...'] The numerical section states a fixed maximum time step of Δt = 0.00028 s for the JiTCDDE solver, but no convergence or refinement study is reported. In a strongly nonlinear delay-differential system, the chaotic and comb regimes could in principle be numerical artifacts of the integration step or tolerance. The authors should show that the reported regimes persist with smaller time steps and that the spectra and time-series statistics are converged.
  4. [Pulse feedback spin maser, Eq. (3) and Fig. 5] There is an internal sign inconsistency: the text states 'We set k′ = 0.1 and T = 5 s' while the caption of Fig. 5 specifies 'k′ = −0.1'. Because the sign of the feedback coefficient determines whether the feedback field is parallel or antiparallel to My(t), this inconsistency is not a mere typographical issue and prevents reproduction. Additionally, the comb spacing νg = 1/(2T) follows directly from the periodic pulse train with period 2T; the paper should acknowledge that this is an expected consequence of amplitude modulation rather than a new nonlinear effect.
  5. [Strong feedback regime and Fig. 4] The text claims a 'full picture' of spin maser dynamics over k′ ∈ [0.001, 100] and ψ ∈ [0, 2π], but Fig. 4 appears to be a schematic diagram rather than a numerically computed phase map. The boundaries between the four regimes are not derived from an explicit parameter scan, and the criteria for assigning a point to 'harmonic', 'nonperiodic', or 'comb' are not given. Clarify whether Fig. 4 reports simulation data and, if so, describe the grid resolution and regime-classification procedure.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout, 'k′ ≥ 1'] The text repeatedly says the strong-feedback regime corresponds to 'k′ ≥ 1', but all strong-feedback examples use negative values (k′ = −2, −10). The condition should read |k′| ≥ 1 to be consistent with the earlier definition of weak feedback as |k′| ≤ 1.
  2. [Model, paragraph on τ = ψ/ω0] The definition τ = ψ/ω0 implies that a fixed electronic time delay would produce a phase ψ that changes with B0. This mapping is appropriate for the idealized simulations presented here, but the authors should comment on how it relates to experimental implementations, where the delay is typically a fixed time constant.
  3. [Introduction, paragraph 3] There is a typo: 'albeti' should be 'albeit' in the sentence 'still lacking albeti recent simulation works'.
  4. [Eq. (4) and surrounding text] Since γ is negative for 129Xe, the inequality in Eq. (4) involves a sign convention that is not explicitly discussed. A sentence clarifying how the sign of γ is absorbed into the condition would improve readability.
  5. [Fig. 5] The figure contains garbled character sequences in the axis labels (e.g., 'uni00000013...'). This is likely a rendering issue in the submitted PDF, but the labels should be checked so that the horizontal and vertical axes are readable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the strong-feedback regimes are emergent from the stated Bloch-equation model, and the self-citation to Ref. [19] is used only as a validation benchmark.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—high-order harmonics, nonperiodic oscillations, and frequency combs under strong feedback—are obtained by numerically solving the feedback-driven Bloch equations (Eq. 1) with specified feedback forms (Eqs. 2 and 3). These are emergent properties of the model dynamics, not quantities fitted to data or imported from prior work. The weak-feedback verification against the authors' earlier Runge-Kutta results (Ref. [19]) is a consistency check, not a load-bearing premise for the new strong-feedback predictions; the same dynamics are independently described by the analytical RWA result (Ref. [18]). The pulse-feedback comb spacing νg = 1/(2T) is explicitly tied to the pulse duration T defined in Eq. 3; this is a design parameter of the proposed protocol, and the simulation spectrum in Fig. 5 confirms the expected comb structure rather than fitting it. No parameter is tuned to produce a target outcome, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from self-citations. The absence of Lyapunov exponents, convergence tests, or comb-line quality metrics is a validation rigor concern, not circularity. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central map depends on the standard Bloch relaxation model, on the purely delayed/instantaneous feedback assumption, and on chosen relaxation constants (T1=T2=10 s, M0=4 A/m). The threshold for nonlinearity is defined as k'=1 by construction, and the comb spacing is set by T, so those are not fitted. The main unverified input is the ideal feedback loop.

free parameters (5)
  • T1 = T2 = 10 s
    Spin relaxation times set by hand in the ideal model (Section 'Model'). They set the damping and the masing threshold via Eq. 4; different values would shift boundaries, though qualitative regimes likely persist.
  • M0 = 4 A/m
    Equilibrium magnetization chosen for the ideal 129Xe system (Section 'Model'). It sets the feedback strength scale k' = kM0/B0; a different M0 changes the k values corresponding to each regime.
  • Initial tilt amplitude = 1e-4*M0
    Initial condition M(t) = (1e-4*M0, 0, M0) on [-τ,0] (Section 'Weak feedback regime'). Chosen to seed oscillation; not varied, so its influence on the steady-state regimes is not tested.
  • Maximum time step = 0.00028 s
    Numerical integration step for JiTCDDE (Section 'Weak feedback regime'). No convergence study is reported, so discretization error is not quantified.
  • Pulse duration T = 5 s
    Sets comb spacing νg = 1/(2T) in the pulse-feedback protocol (Section 'Pulse feedback'). A design parameter, not fitted, but the central comb claim depends on it.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Bloch equations with Markovian relaxation describe the spin dynamics (Eq. 1).
    The paper assumes the feedback-driven Bloch equations without deriving them; this is standard for NMR/spin maser theory.
  • domain assumption The feedback field is exactly Bx = kMx(t-τ) or Bx = kMy(t) with no noise, no coil bandwidth, no parasitic delays (Eqs. 2-3).
    The 'ideal' model ignores feedback circuit imperfections, which could suppress high-order harmonics or alter chaos in a real device.
  • domain assumption The time delay τ maps to phase ψ via τ = ψ/ω0, so that scanning ψ is equivalent to scanning a phase delay at fixed Larmor frequency.
    In experiments, the electronic delay is a fixed time; the model assumes the delay scales with the Larmor period, which may not hold when B0 is varied.
  • domain assumption T1 = T2 = 10 s and M0 = 4 A/m are representative for an ideal hyperpolarized 129Xe sample with no wall or gradient effects.
    These values are chosen by hand (Section 'Model') and not measured; if real relaxation or polarization differs, the regime boundaries shift.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonlinear dynamics in an artificial feedback spin maser." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MZTU2HZ4

@misc{pith2026241113930,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonlinear dynamics in an artificial feedback spin maser},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MZTU2HZ4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13930}
}
read the original abstract

Spin masers with optical detection and artificial feedback are widely used in fundamental and practical applications. However, a full picture of the maser dynamics is still absent. By solving the feedback driven Bloch equations, we simulated the dynamics of an ideal spin maser in a broad parameter space. Rich nonlinear dynamics including high order harmonics generation, nonperiodic spin oscillations and frequency comb were revealed when the artificial feedback interaction exceeds the normal spin-field interaction. We also propose a pulse feedback spin maser protocol, which constructs an ultralow field magnetic frequency comb and could be useful in precision atomic magnetometers in searching for spin-dependent exotic interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13930 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Setup of a spin maser with optical detection and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Transverse magnetization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. When the artificial feedback interaction is much stronger than the spin-field interaction, various nonlinear spin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Four regimes of spin maser dynamics: i) FID-free in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ψ ∈ [0, π] for forwarded delay or ψ ∈ [π, 2π] for reversed delay, the maser dynamics can be further classified as four regimes

    Considering the different phase delay of the feedback field, i.e. ψ ∈ [0, π] for forwarded delay or ψ ∈ [π, 2π] for reversed delay, the maser dynamics can be further classified as four regimes. We will discuss the details in the following. 0 200 400 Time t(s) −1 0 1 M x/M 0 202 τ3 202 τ5 (a) 35.0 35.5 36.0 frequency (Hz) 0.00 0.25Amplitude 0 45 90 135 180...

    work page

  2. [2]

    A. L. Bloom, Principles of operation of the rubidium va- pormagnetometer, Appl. Opt. 1, 61 (1962)

    work page 1962

  3. [3]

    H. G. Dehmelt, Modulation of a light beam by precessing absorbing atoms, Phys. Rev. 105, 1924 (1957)

    work page 1957

  4. [4]

    Richards, B

    M. Richards, B. Cowan, M. Secca, and K. Machin, The 3he nuclear zeeman maser, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 21, 665 (1988)

    work page 1988

  5. [5]

    5(a), the spin maser emits short pulses in the time domain

    In Fig. 5(a), the spin maser emits short pulses in the time domain. The spectrum represents a typical fre- quency comb with Larmor frequencyν0 = 35.34 Hz as the carrier frequency and νg = 1/(2T ) = 0 .1 Hz as the rep- etition frequency. Different from the optical frequency comb requiring a high quality optical cavity, the pulse spin maser or magnetic freq...

    work page

  6. [6]

    H. G. Robinson and T. Myint, 3He NUCLEAR ZEEMAN MASER, Applied Physics Letters 5, 116 (1964), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apl/article- pdf/5/6/116/18417328/116 1 online.pdf

    work page 1964

  7. [7]

    T. E. Chupp, R. J. Hoare, R. L. Walsworth, and B. Wu, Spin-exchange-pumped 3He and 129Xe zeeman masers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 2363 (1994)

    work page 1994

  8. [8]

    R. E. Stoner, M. A. Rosenberry, J. T. Wright, T. E. Chupp, E. R. Oteiza, and R. L. Walsworth, Demonstra- tion of a two species noble gas maser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3971 (1996)

    work page 1996

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    D. Bear, T. E. Chupp, K. Cooper, S. DeDeo, M. Rosen- berry, R. E. Stoner, and R. L. Walsworth, Improved fre- quency stability of the dual-noble-gas maser, Phys. Rev. A 57, 5006 (1998)

    1998

  2. [10]

    Yoshimi, K

    A. Yoshimi, K. Asahi, K. Sakai, M. Tsuda, K. Yogo, H. Ogawa, T. Suzuki, and M. Nagakura, Nuclear spin maser with an artificial feedback mechanism, Physics Letters A 304, 13 (2002)

    2002

  3. [11]

    Yoshimi, T

    A. Yoshimi, T. Inoue, T. Furukawa, T. Nanao, K. Suzuki, M. Chikamori, M. Tsuchiya, H. Hayashi, M. Uchida, N. Hatakeyama, S. Kagami, Y. Ichikawa, H. Miyatake, and K. Asahi, Low-frequency 129xe nuclear spin oscilla- tor with optical spin detection, Physics Letters A 376, 1924 (2012)

    2012

  4. [12]

    T. Sato, Y. Ichikawa, S. Kojima, C. Funayama, S. Tanaka, T. Inoue, A. Uchiyama, A. Gladkov, A. Takamine, Y. Sakamoto, Y. Ohtomo, C. Hirao, M. Chikamori, E. Hikota, T. Suzuki, M. Tsuchiya, T. Fu- rukawa, A. Yoshimi, C. Bidinosti, T. Ino, H. Ueno, Y. Matsuo, T. Fukuyama, N. Yosh...

    2018

  5. [13]

    Bevington, R

    P. Bevington, R. Gartman, Y. V. Stadnik, and W. Chalupczak, Dual-frequency cesium spin maser, Phys. Rev. A 102, 032804 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Jiang, H

    M. Jiang, H. Su, Z. Wu, X. Peng, and D. Budker, Floquet maser, Science Advances 7, eabe0719 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Z. Wang, X. Peng, Z. Xiong, J. Zheng, H. Luo, and H. Guo, Atomic comagnetometer with a closed-loop op- tically aligned 87Rb dual-frequency oscillator, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 024021 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    D. Bear, R. E. Stoner, R. L. Walsworth, V. A. Kost- eleck´ y, and C. D. Lane, Limit on lorentz and cpt viola- tion of the neutron using a two-species noble-gas maser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5038 (2000)

    2000

  9. [17]

    M. A. Rosenberry and T. E. Chupp, Atomic elec- tric dipole moment measurement using spin exchange pumped masers of 129Xe and 3He, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 22 (2001)

    2001

  10. [18]

    Afach, B

    S. Afach, B. C. Buchler, D. Budker, C. Dailey, A. Dere- vianko, V. Dumont, N. L. Figueroa, I. Gerhardt, Z. D. Gruji´ c, H. Guo, C. Hao, P. S. Hamilton, M. Hedges, D. F. Jackson Kimball, D. Kim, S. Khamis, T. Kor- nack, V. Lebedev, Z.-T. Lu, H. Masia-Roig, M. Monroy, M. Padniuk...

    2021

  11. [19]

    Bevington, R

    P. Bevington, R. Gartman, and W. Chalupczak, Alkali-metal spin maser for non-destructive tests, Applied Physics Letters 115, 173502 (2019), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apl/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.5121606/13698489/173502 1 online.pdf

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    Z. Wang, X. Peng, H. Luo, and H. Guo, Comparison of operation modes for spin-exchange optically-pumped spin oscillators, Journal of Magnetic Resonance 278, 134 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    E. Li, Q. Ma, G. Liu, P. Yun, and S. Zhang, Self-driven hybrid atomic spin oscillator, Physical Review Applied 20, 014029 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Balachandran, T

    B. Balachandran, T. Kalm´ ar-Nagy, and D. E. Gilsinn, Delay differential equations (Springer, 2009)

    2009

  15. [23]

    C. I. Ratcliffe, Xenon nmr, in Annual reports on NMR spectroscopy, Vol. 36 (Elsevier, 1998) pp. 123–221

    1998

  16. [24]

    G. Ansmann, Efficiently and easily integrating differen- tial equations with jitcode, jitcdde, and jitcsde, Chaos: An interdisciplinary journal of nonlinear science 28, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5019320 (2018)

    2018 doi

  17. [25]

    J. H. Shirley, Solution of the schr¨ odinger equation with a hamiltonian periodic in time, Physical Review 138, B979 (1965)

    1965

  18. [26]

    Cohen-Tannoudji, J

    C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg, Atom-photon interactions: basic processes and applica- tions (John Wiley & Sons, 1998)

    1998

  19. [27]

    T. Hula, K. Schultheiss, F. J. T. Gon¸ calves, L. K¨ orber, M. Bejarano, M. Copus, L. Flacke, L. Liensberger, A. Buzdakov, A. K´ akay, M. Weiler, R. Camley, J. Fass- bender, and H. Schultheiss, Spin-wave frequency combs, Applied Physics Letters 121, 112404 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    R. R. Peroor, L. Scafuri, D. A. Bozhko, and E. Iacocca, Frequency comb in a macroscopic mechano-magnetic ar- tificial spin ice (2024), arXiv:2409.13658 [cond-mat.mes- hall]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    X. Liu, Z. Jin, Z. Li, Z. Zeng, M. Li, Y. Yao, Y. Cao, Y. Zhang, and P. Yan, Low-lying magnon frequency comb in skymion crystals (2024), arXiv:2408.03277 [cond- mat.mtrl-sci]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Abergel, Chaotic solutions of the feedback driven bloch equations, Physics Letters A 302, 17 (2002)

    D. Abergel, Chaotic solutions of the feedback driven bloch equations, Physics Letters A 302, 17 (2002)

    2002

  23. [31]

    Y.-Y. Lin, N. Lisitza, S. Ahn, and W. S. Warren, Resur- rection of crushed magnetization and chaotic dynamics in solution nmr spectroscopy, Science 290, 118 (2000)

    2000

  24. [32]

    Y. Tang, C. Wang, B. Liu, J. Peng, C. Liang, Y. Li, X. Zhao, C. Lu, S. Zhang, and Y.-C. Liu, Revealing spontaneous symmetry breaking in contin- uous time crystals, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07697 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.07697 (2024)

    2024 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    W. Wang, M. Feng, Q. Ma, Z. Cai, E. Li, and 6 G. Liu, Observation of continuous time crystal in a spin maser system, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.15017 https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.15017v1 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.