Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 36 references

This paper claims to have experimentally shown that near-field coupling between two microspheres renormalizes their far-field thermal emission, captured by a separation-dependent dressed emissivity.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 22:44 UTC pith:Q2MHDJ3X

load-bearing objection A careful experiment that likely demonstrates environment-dressed thermal emission; the quantitative dressed emissivity is partly calibrated to theory, but the core non-monotonic effect is solid. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15622 v1 pith:Q2MHDJ3X submitted 2026-07-17 physics.optics cond-mat.mes-hall

Near-field Dressing of Thermal Emission

Victor Guillemot , Raphael Mol , Riccardo Messina , Valentina Krachmalnicoff , Philippe Ben-Abdallah , Wilfrid Poirier , Yannick De Wilde This is my paper
classification physics.optics cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords near-field radiative heat transferdressed emissivitythermal Purcell effectfluctuational electrodynamicsmicrosphere radiometrymany-body thermal radiationphotonic environmentnanoscale thermometry
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper sets out to prove that the heat radiation a body emits into its surroundings is not a fixed intrinsic property but is changed by the presence and position of a neighbouring object. The authors place two glass microspheres on independent temperature-controlled probes and track their radiative balances as the gap between them shrinks from 120 micrometres to a few hundred nanometres. They find asymmetric heat fluxes, a non-monotonic response of the hotter sphere, and a net reduction in the total power the pair sends to the environment at short separations. From that total they extract a 'dressed emissivity' that depends on distance, and they show full-wave numerical calculations reproduce the behaviour. The result is presented as a thermal analogue of environment-controlled emission: near-field coupling reshapes the electromagnetic modes available to thermal fluctuations, so far-field radiation is renormalized.

Core claim

The central experimental finding is a separation-dependent dressed emissivity variation Δε_dress(d), extracted from the sum of the two spheres' modulated radiative fluxes. Because the sphere-sphere exchange conserves energy, summing the two individually measured fluxes cancels that mutual channel and isolates the power exchanged with the surrounding thermal bath. The authors measure this total bath-directed power as the gap varies and normalize it by the Stefan-Boltzmann expression for the temperature differences, obtaining a quantity that goes to zero at large separations and becomes increasingly negative as the spheres approach, meaning the coupled pair radiates less to the environment tha

What carries the argument

The load-bearing quantity is the dressed emissivity variation Δε_dress(d), defined as the change in far-field radiative power of the pair toward the bath, normalized by Aσ(2T_0^4 - T_1^4 - T_2^4). It is isolated experimentally by summing the two probes' modulated fluxes, which cancels the internal sphere-sphere exchange. On the theory side, the argument is carried by a decomposition of each sphere's flux into far-field bath exchange, far-field mutual exchange, and near-field mutual exchange, written in transmission-coefficient form; a simple view-factor model captures the large-separation behaviour, while full-wave calculations are needed once the separation approaches the thermal wavelength

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative values of the dressed emissivity depend on converting measured resistance changes into radiative powers using probe thermal conductances that are fixed by matching the far-field data to simulations, rather than measured independently, so a drift in those conductances or a misrepresentation of the sphere's infrared response would contaminate the extracted magnitude and distance dependence.

What would settle it

Measure the total far-field power radiated by the pair into a calibrated detector as a function of gap, without relying on the probe-conductance conversion, and check whether it drops by the same amount at short separations; if it does not, the dressed-emissivity pattern is an artifact of the thermal calibration.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If correct, the thermal emission of any hot object placed near another body is not fully described by its isolated emissivity; the configuration is part of the emitter.
  • The total power a coupled pair sends to its surroundings can be reduced even as the mutual near-field heat transfer between the two objects is enhanced, a trade-off relevant for nanoscale thermal management.
  • The observed collapse of Δε_dress across different temperature settings indicates the renormalization is primarily an electromagnetic-geometric effect, so measurements of one configuration can predict others.
  • The spectral reshaping seen in the simulations implies that near-field coupling changes not only the amount but also the frequency content of far-field thermal emission, which matters for thermophotovoltaic and sensing applications.
  • The same dual-probe differential platform can serve as a direct experimental probe of the thermal analog of environment-controlled emission, since Δε_dress is tied to the ratio of environment-modified to free-space emission.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Generalizing this result, any simulation or design that treats near-field heat transfer and far-field emission as independent could underpredict or overpredict system-level radiative output; we infer these two channels must be modelled together for closely packed emitters.
  • The paper notes the sign of the effect can reverse for collective modes with high radiative efficiency, so we infer that plasmonic or polaritonic dimers should show an enhancement of far-field emission (positive Δε_dress) at some separations, a testable prediction.
  • The temperature-collapse suggests a possible universal curve parameterized by geometry and dielectric function; if confirmed for other materials, one could precompute an 'environmental emissivity correction' from static density-of-states calculations rather than full thermal measurements.
  • We infer the philosophical implication is that emissivity is a property of the emitter plus its environment, not of the material alone; this could shift how effective emissivities are tabulated and used in device models.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental study of radiative heat transfer between two borosilicate microspheres separated by gaps from 120 µm down to a few hundred nanometers, using a dual-probe calorimetric platform with millikelvin thermometry and nanowatt resolution. The authors measure the individual radiative balance of each sphere, observe asymmetric heat fluxes and a non-monotonic distance dependence of the hotter sphere's temperature, and introduce a distance-dependent 'dressed emissivity' Δε_dress (Eq. 3) defined from the total power exchanged between the two-sphere system and the external bath. They compare their extracted fluxes and Δε_dress with full-wave SCUFF-EM calculations using a silica dielectric function, and with a semi-analytical view-factor plus Derjaguin near-field model. The central claim is that near-field electromagnetic coupling renormalizes the far-field thermal emission of the pair, providing a thermal analogue of the Purcell effect.

Significance. If the quantitative result is robust, this would be an important experimental demonstration that thermal emission of an object is not intrinsic but depends on the surrounding photonic environment, extending the Purcell-effect concept to thermal radiation in a three-dimensional geometry. The dual-probe platform and the direct observation of asymmetric, non-monotonic radiative balances are significant technical advances. The paper also benefits from a detailed comparison with an established boundary-element solver (SCUFF-EM) and from a transparent semi-analytical decomposition. However, the headline quantitative observable Δε_dress is not fully model-independent: it is extracted from fluxes whose calibration relies on SCUFF-EM with a silica dielectric function, and the extraction assumes a common dressed emissivity for both spheres. These are load-bearing limitations that must be addressed before the quantitative claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2–3.3, Eq. (6), Eq. (3)] The central quantitative observable Δε_dress(d) is obtained from measured resistance changes via ΔQ_rad,i = k_i ΔR_i G_i, with G_i fixed by matching the far-field flux to SCUFF-EM using a silica dielectric function, although the spheres are borosilicate. Because G_i is a scalar, this calibration compensates only a constant multiplicative offset. The near-field sphere–sphere flux is dominated by surface-phonon-polariton modes whose spectral positions and strengths differ between silica and borosilicate; a far-field broadband calibration cannot correct this spectral mismatch, and any error propagates linearly into ΔQ_rad,tot and hence into Δε_dress via Eq. (3). To substantiate the headline quantitative renormalization, the authors should either use a measured borosilicate dielectric function in both the calibration and the SCUFF-EM calculations, or provide a sensitivity analysis over plaus
  2. [§3.5, Eqs. (24)–(27)] The extraction assumes a single common dressed emissivity ε_dress(d) for both spheres, so that Q_bath→i = A σ ε_dress (T0^4 − T_i^4). While mirror symmetry supports this in the ideal case, the assumption is not tested experimentally. If the two spheres' local photonic environments differ (e.g., because of temperature-dependent dielectric properties or a small probe asymmetry), the denominator in Eq. (27) is not the correct normalization, and the collapse of the four datasets in Fig. 3(a) would be partly enforced by the definition. A direct test would be to compare the measured ratio ΔQ_rad,1/ΔQ_rad,2 with (T0^4 − T1^4)/(T0^4 − T2^4) in the far field, where mutual coupling is negligible; this ratio should be unity if the common-ε_dress assumption and the G_i calibration are both correct. Such a check should be reported.
  3. [Figs. 2–3, §3.2] The claims of 'excellent agreement' and 'quantitative reproduction' are not supported by a quantitative metric. The shaded regions in Figs. 2 and 3 represent only the experimental uncertainty in gap distance, not model uncertainty or calibration uncertainty. Since G_i is calibrated at the far-field reference, agreement in the far field is enforced by construction; the discriminating regime is d ≲ 10 µm, where the silica-vs-borosilicate approximation in Methods 3.3 is least reliable. The authors should report residuals or a chi-square statistic for the short-distance data and propagate the uncertainty in G_i into Δε_dress.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.3, Eq. (7)] The right-hand side of Eq. (7) includes a spurious factor dω; as written, Φ(ω) is a spectral power density and should not contain dω.
  2. [§3.4, Eqs. (17)–(18)] The far-field transmission coefficients use ε^2 for the sphere–sphere term but ε for the bath–sphere term. Please check the derivation for consistency, or clarify why the functional dependence differs.
  3. [Throughout] The manuscript repeatedly refers to 'Supplementary Information' for the Purcell-factor relation and for the non-universal sign of Δε_dress (e.g., §2). No supplementary material is included in the arXiv submission, so these claims cannot be checked. Please include the supplementary file or summarize the relevant results in the main text.
  4. [Fig. 3(b)] The phrase 'distance-dependent modifications of the electromagnetic modes cancels out in the model' is vague. Specify precisely what is normalized and why the semi-analytical model predicts a wavelength-independent rescaling.
  5. [§3.1] Typo: 'expresssion' should be 'expression'. Also, several references (e.g., [15], [16]) lack complete bibliographic details.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central dressed-emissivity measurement is differential and carried by the resistance data, while SCUFF-EM serves as an external benchmark rather than a fitted source of the near-field result.

full rationale

The central claim is that near-field coupling renormalizes the far-field emission of the pair, quantified by Δε_dress(d). The derivation chain starts from independently measured resistance variations ΔR_i(d), converted to flux via Eq. (6), ΔQ_rad,i = k_i ΔR_i G_i. The conductances G_i are calibrated at a far-field reference using SCUFF-EM, an external boundary-element solver; this calibration fixes a scalar conversion factor and does not impose the near-field distance dependence, which is carried by the measured ΔR_i(d). SCUFF-EM is then used to compare against the measured near-field curves, but its near-field prediction is not fitted to the near-field data. The dressed emissivity, Eq. (3)/(27), is defined explicitly as the total measured bath-directed flux normalized by a Stefan–Boltzmann form; the collapse of different temperature datasets onto one curve is an empirical result, not a tautology. The self-citations present (e.g., Refs. [25,28,33]) support the metrological bridge and prior prototype, but they are not load-bearing for the physics conclusion. The silica-for-borosilicate dielectric approximation and the scalar G_i calibration are potential systematic-error sources, but they do not make the prediction equivalent to its inputs by construction. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard fluctuational electrodynamics plus a set of calibration and material modeling choices. The most important is the per-probe conductance G_i, which is not independently measured but matched to SCUFF-EM at far field; this couples the 'measured' dressed emissivity to the same theory it is meant to validate.

free parameters (1)
  • G_i (effective thermal conductance of each probe) = not reported (matched to SCUFF-EM far-field flux)
    Appears in Eq. (6): ΔQ_rad,i = k_i ΔR_i G_i. G_i is determined by matching the measured far-field flux to the SCUFF-EM prediction (Methods 3.2). It sets the absolute scale of all experimental fluxes and of the extracted dressed emissivity.
axioms (8)
  • standard math Rytov fluctuational electrodynamics correctly describes radiative heat transfer and thermal emission in this geometry.
    Used as the basis of the Landauer expressions (Eq. 2) and SCUFF-EM calculations; the paper does not re-derive it.
  • domain assumption Each microsphere is isothermal and in local thermal equilibrium with its thermometer.
    The temperature readout of each probe is treated as the sphere temperature; required for the two-temperature model.
  • domain assumption Conduction and convection through air are negligible at 10^-6 mbar, so the only heat channel is radiation.
    High vacuum is invoked to suppress non-radiative transfer; if parasitic conductance remains, the extracted radiative fluxes are biased.
  • ad hoc to paper The dielectric function of silica accurately represents the actual borosilicate microspheres.
    Methods 3.3 states 'we approximate their dielectric response by that of silica'; remaining differences are absorbed into the G_i calibration, making this approximation load-bearing.
  • ad hoc to paper G_i is constant over the full distance range and does not depend on gap or sphere temperature.
    The calibration of G_i at the far-field reference is extrapolated to all separations; any distance dependence of the cantilever/sphere thermal conductance would distort ΔQ_rad.
  • standard math The mutual sphere–sphere radiative exchange cancels exactly in ΔQ_rad,tot (Eqs. 25–26).
    Energy conservation is used to isolate the bath–sphere channels; assumes no third loss channel beyond radiation.
  • ad hoc to paper The bath–sphere power can be represented by A σ ε_dress (T0^4 − Ti^4) with a common ε_dress for both spheres (Eq. 24).
    This Stefan–Boltzmann form defines the dressed emissivity; the collapse onto one curve is presented as support, but the form is assumed before measuring.
  • domain assumption SCUFF-EM boundary-element calculations give a numerically converged solution of fluctuational electrodynamics for this geometry.
    Used as the reference theory; convergence/mesh sensitivity is noted but not independently verified in the preprint.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13525 in / 15336 out tokens · 151901 ms · 2026-08-01T22:44:14.683854+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Radiative heat transfer at subwavelength distances is generally understood as enhanced energy exchange mediated by photon tunnelling between neighboring bodies. While near-field interactions can dramatically increase mutual heat transfer, whether they also modify the thermal radiation emitted by the bodies themselves remains an open question. Here we experimentally show that near-field electromagnetic coupling reshapes far-field thermal emission through a distance-dependent dressed emissivity. Using a dual-probe calorimetric platform, we independently monitor the radiative balance of two borosilicate microspheres over separations ranging from 120 micrometers to a few hundred nanometers, spanning the transition from the far field to the near field. Nanowatt-resolved differential radiometry reveals asymmetric heat fluxes and a non-monotonic response of the hotter sphere, demonstrating that thermal radiation is governed not only by emitter-bath interactions but also by coupling to the surrounding photonic environment. By analyzing the total power exchanged between the coupled system and the external thermal bath, we directly extract a dressed emissivity and show that near-field interactions renormalize the far-field thermal emission of the pair through a redistribution of the electromagnetic modes available to thermal fluctuations. These observations provide direct experimental evidence that thermal emitters are dressed by their electromagnetic environment, establishing a thermal analogue of the Purcell effect.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [2]

    Physical Review B68(24), 245405 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.68.245405

    Joulain, K., Carminati, R., Mulet, J.-P., Greffet, J.-J.: Definition and measure- ment of the local density of electromagnetic states close to an interface. Physical Review B68(24), 245405 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.68.245405

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.68.245405

  2. [3]

    Microscale Thermophysical Engineering6(3), 209–222 https://doi.org/10.1080/10893950290053321

    Mulet, J.-P., Joulain, K., Carminati, R., Greffet, J.-J.: Enhanced radiative heat transfer at nanometric distances. Microscale Thermophysical Engineering6(3), 209–222 https://doi.org/10.1080/10893950290053321

    work page doi:10.1080/10893950290053321

  3. [4]

    Nature Photonics3(9), 514–517 https://doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2009.144

    Rousseau, E., Siria, A., Jourdan, G., Volz, S., Comin, F., Chevrier, J., Greffet, J.-J.: Radiative heat transfer at the nanoscale. Nature Photonics3(9), 514–517 https://doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2009.144

    work page doi:10.1038/nphoton.2009.144 2009

  4. [5]

    Physical Review B78(11), 115303 https://doi.org/10

    Narayanaswamy, A., Shen, S., Chen, G.: Near-field radiative heat transfer between a sphere and a substrate. Physical Review B78(11), 115303 https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevB.78.115303 15

  5. [7]

    Physical Review Letters 131(19), 196302 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.196302

    Yan, S., Luan, Y., Lim, J.W., Mittapally, R., Reihani, A., Wang, Z., Tsurimaki, Y., Fan, S., Reddy, P., Meyhofer, E.: Surface phonon polariton-mediated near- field radiative heat transfer at cryogenic temperatures. Physical Review Letters 131(19), 196302 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.196302 . Accessed 2024-05-07

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.196302 2024

  6. [8]

    Physical Review Letters95(22), 224301 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.224301

    Kittel, A., M¨ uller-Hirsch, W., Parisi, J., Biehs, S.-A., Reddig, D., Holthaus, M.: Near-field heat transfer in a scanning thermal microscope. Physical Review Letters95(22), 224301 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.224301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.224301

  7. [9]

    Nano Letters23(6), 2187–2194 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett

    Mittapally, R., Lim, J.W., Zhang, L., Miller, O.D., Reddy, P., Meyhofer, E.: Probing the limits to near-field heat transfer enhancements in phonon-polaritonic materials. Nano Letters23(6), 2187–2194 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett. 2c04735

    doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett

  8. [10]

    Scientific Reports11(1), 19489 https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41598-021-98656-8

    Latella, I., Ben-Abdallah, P.: Graphene-based autonomous pyroelectric system for near-field energy conversion. Scientific Reports11(1), 19489 https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41598-021-98656-8

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-021-98656-8

  9. [11]

    ACS Photonics9(5), 1748–1756 https://doi.org/10.1021/acsphotonics.2c00149

    Song, J., Jang, J., Lim, M., Choi, M., Lee, J., Lee, B.J.: Thermophotovoltaic energy conversion in far-to-near-field transition regime. ACS Photonics9(5), 1748–1756 https://doi.org/10.1021/acsphotonics.2c00149

    work page doi:10.1021/acsphotonics.2c00149

  10. [12]

    Nature Communications12(1), 4364 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-24587-7

    Mittapally, R., Lee, B., Zhu, L., Reihani, A., Lim, J.W., Fan, D., Forrest, S.R., 16 Reddy, P., Meyhofer, E.: Near-field thermophotovoltaics for efficient heat to elec- tricity conversion at high power density. Nature Communications12(1), 4364 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-24587-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-021-24587-7

  11. [13]

    Nature Communications11(1), 2545 https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41467-020-16197-6

    Bhatt, G.R., Zhao, B., Roberts, S., Datta, I., Mohanty, A., Lin, T., Hartmann, J.- M., St-Gelais, R., Fan, S., Lipson, M.: Integrated near-field thermo-photovoltaics for heat recycling. Nature Communications11(1), 2545 https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41467-020-16197-6

  12. [14]

    Nano Letters21(11), 4524–4529 https: //doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.0c04847

    Lucchesi, C., Cakiroglu, D., Perez, J.-P., Taliercio, T., Tourni´ e, E., Chapuis, P.-O., Vaillon, R.: Near-field thermophotovoltaic conversion with high electrical power density and cell efficiency above 14%. Nano Letters21(11), 4524–4529 https: //doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.0c04847

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett.0c04847

  13. [15]

    Journal of Luminescence1-2, 693–701 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2313(70) 90082-7

    Drexhage, K.H.: Influence of a dielectric interface on fluorescence decay time. Journal of Luminescence1-2, 693–701 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2313(70) 90082-7

    work page doi:10.1016/0022-2313(70

  14. [16]

    Chance, R.R., Prock, A., Silbey, R.: Molecular fluorescence and energy trans- fer near interfaces, 1–65 (1978) https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470142561.ch1 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9780470142561.ch1

    doi:10.1002/9780470142561.ch1 1978

  15. [17]

    Surface Science Reports70(1), 1–41 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfrep.2014.11

    Carminati, R., Caz´ e, A., Cao, D., Peragut, F., Krachmalnicoff, V., Pierrat, R., De Wilde, Y.: Electromagnetic density of states in complex plasmonic systems. Surface Science Reports70(1), 1–41 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfrep.2014.11. 001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.surfrep.2014.11 2014

  16. [18]

    Physical Review B108(15), 155401 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.108.155401 17

    Asheichyk, K., Ben-Abdallah, P., Kr¨ uger, M., Messina, R.: Long-range super- planckian heat transfer between nanoemitters in a resonant cavity. Physical Review B108(15), 155401 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.108.155401 17

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.108.155401

  17. [19]

    Physical Review B95(8), 085413 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB

    M¨ uller, B., Incardone, R., Antezza, M., Emig, T., Kr¨ uger, M.: Many-body heat radiation and heat transfer in the presence of a nonabsorbing background medium. Physical Review B95(8), 085413 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB. 95.085413

    doi:10.1103/physrevb

  18. [20]

    Reports on Progress in Physics84(3), 036501 https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/abe52b

    Song, J., Cheng, Q., Zhang, B., Lu, L., Zhou, X., Luo, Z., Hu, R.: Many-body near- field radiative heat transfer: methods, functionalities and applications. Reports on Progress in Physics84(3), 036501 https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/abe52b

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6633/abe52b

  19. [21]

    Physical Review Letters109(24), 244302 https://doi.org/10

    Messina, R., Antezza, M., Ben-Abdallah, P.: Three-body amplification of pho- ton heat tunneling. Physical Review Letters109(24), 244302 https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.109.244302

  20. [22]

    Physi- cal Review Letters123(26), 264301 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123

    Ben-Abdallah, P.: Multitip near-field scanning thermal microscopy. Physi- cal Review Letters123(26), 264301 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123. 264301

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123

  21. [23]

    ACS Photonics9(7), 2295–2303 https://doi.org/10.1021/acsphotonics.2c00273

    Abou-Hamdan, L., Coudrat, L., Bidault, S., Krachmalnicoff, V., Ha ¨ ıdar, R., Bou- chon, P., De Wilde, Y.: Transition from phononic to geometrical mie modes measured in single subwavelength polar dielectric spheres. ACS Photonics9(7), 2295–2303 https://doi.org/10.1021/acsphotonics.2c00273

    work page doi:10.1021/acsphotonics.2c00273

  22. [24]

    Optics Letters46(5), 981 https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.413382

    Abou-Hamdan, L., Li, C., Haidar, R., Krachmalnicoff, V., Bouchon, P., De Wilde, Y.: Hybrid modes in a single thermally excited asymmetric dimer antenna. Optics Letters46(5), 981 https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.413382

    work page doi:10.1364/ol.413382

  23. [25]

    Physical Review Letters134(19), 193801 https://doi

    Guillemot, V., Messina, R., Krachmalnicoff, V., Carminati, R., Ben-Abdallah, P., Poirier, W., De Wilde, Y.: Nonmonotonic radiative heat transfer in the transition from far field to near field. Physical Review Letters134(19), 193801 https://doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.193801 18

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.193801

  24. [26]

    Nature561(7722), 216–221 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0480-9

    Thompson, D., Zhu, L., Mittapally, R., Sadat, S., Xing, Z., McArdle, P., Qazil- bash, M.M., Reddy, P., Meyhofer, E.: Hundred-fold enhancement in far-field radiative heat transfer over the blackbody limit. Nature561(7722), 216–221 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0480-9

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0480-9

  25. [27]

    Nature629(8010), 67–73 https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07279-2

    Tang, L., Corrˆ ea, L.M., Francoeur, M., Dames, C.: Corner- and edge-mode enhancement of near-field radiative heat transfer. Nature629(8010), 67–73 https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07279-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07279-2

  26. [28]

    A high-sensitivity resistance bridge for nanoscale thermal microscopy

    Poirier, W., Guillemot, V., Mghalfi, M., Krachmalnicoff, V., Wilde, Y.D.: A high-sensitivity resistance bridge for nanoscale thermal microscopy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.03495 (2026) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.03495 arXiv:2607.03495 [physics.ins-det]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.03495 2026

  27. [29]

    arXiv:1307.2966

    Reid, M.T.H., Johnson, S.G.: Efficient Computation of Power, Force, and Torque in BEM Scattering Calculations. arXiv:1307.2966. arXiv preprint (2013)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  28. [30]

    https://github.com/homerreid/scuff-EM (2013)

    Reid, M.T.H.: scuff-EM: Boundary-Element Method tools for Casimir and radiative heat transfer. https://github.com/homerreid/scuff-EM (2013)

    2013

  29. [31]

    Physical Review B83(16), 161406 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.83.161406

    Sasihithlu, K., Narayanaswamy, A.: Proximity effects in radiative heat transfer. Physical Review B83(16), 161406 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.83.161406

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.83.161406

  30. [32]

    Physical Review B77(7), 075125 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.77

    Narayanaswamy, A., Chen, G.: Thermal near-field radiative transfer between two spheres. Physical Review B77(7), 075125 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.77. 075125

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.77

  31. [33]

    Physical Review Applied15(1), 014063 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied

    Doumouro, J., Perros, E., Dodu, A., Rahbany, N., Leprat, D., Krachmalnicoff, V., Carminati, R., Poirier, W., De Wilde, Y.: Quantitative measurement of the thermal contact resistance between a glass microsphere and a plate. Physical Review Applied15(1), 014063 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied. 19 15.014063

    doi:10.1103/physrevapplied 2021

  32. [34]

    Applied Optics9(12), 2685 (1970) https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.9.002685

    Kattawar, G.W., Eisner, M.: Radiation from a homogeneous isothermal sphere. Applied Optics9(12), 2685 (1970) https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.9.002685

    work page doi:10.1364/ao.9.002685 1970

  33. [35]

    NASA Technical Notes (1968)

    Campbell, J.P., McConnell, D.G.: Radiant-interchange configuration factors for spherical and conical surfaces to spheres. NASA Technical Notes (1968)

    1968

  34. [36]

    Quarterly Reviews, Chemical Society10, 295–329 (1956)

    Derjaguin, B.V., Abrikosova, I.I., Lifshitz, E.M.: Direct measurement of molec- ular attraction between solids separated by a narrow gap. Quarterly Reviews, Chemical Society10, 295–329 (1956)

    1956

  35. [37]

    Physical Review B84(24), 245431 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.84.245431

    Otey, C., Fan, S.: Numerically exact calculation of electromagnetic heat transfer between a dielectric sphere and plate. Physical Review B84(24), 245431 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.84.245431

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.84.245431 2011

  36. [38]

    Radiation from a Homogeneous Isothermal Sphere

    Joulain, K., Mulet, J.-P., Marquier, F., Carminati, R., Greffet, J.-J.: Surface electromagnetic waves thermally excited: Radiative heat transfer, coherence prop- erties and casimir forces revisited in the near field. Surface Science Reports 57(3-4), 59–112 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfrep.2004.12.002 3 Online Methods 3.1 Experimental platform and ...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.surfrep.2004.12.002 2005