Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 96 references

Antiferromagnetic cavity optomagnonics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Antiferromagnetic insulators can serve as multimode cavity optomagnonic systems whose magnon-photon couplings are magnetic-field tunable, letting a selected magnon mode be switched into and out of a dark mode.

desk verdict A coherent AFM cavity optomagnonic model with a genuinely new field-tunable dark-mode mechanism, but the strong-coupling and memory claims rest on a cooperativity arithmetic error and borrowed parameters. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06110 v2 pith:VRTYDVYK submitted 2019-08-16 cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph

T. S. Parvini , V. A. S. V. Bittencourt , Silvia Viola Kusminskiy This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallquant-ph PACS 75.50.Ee42.50.Pq
keywords antiferromagneticoptomagnonicscavitymagnon-photoncouplingTHzmagnonsdarkmodemagneticfieldtunabilityquantummemoryprotocoloptomagnonicallyinducedtransparencyBogoliubovtransformation
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 proposes that an antiferromagnetic insulator can act simultaneously as an optical cavity and as a host of two coherent THz magnon modes, forming a multimode cavity optomagnonic system. The authors derive the Hamiltonian coupling cavity photons to the two homogeneous antiferromagnetic magnon modes and show that, when the material has hard-axis magnetic anisotropy (an extra anisotropy perpendicular to the easy axis), the strength of each magnon-photon coupling can be tuned with an external magnetic field applied along the easy axis. This allows a selected magnon mode to be brought into or out of a dark mode (a mode completely decoupled from the cavity photons), a property they turn into a quantum memory protocol. If the model holds, the platform would connect THz magnons to optical photons and should display unusual dynamics, including cavity-induced magnon-magnon interactions and magnon heating under a red-detuned drive.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the linearized optomagnonic Hamiltonian $\hat H_{\rm OM}=-\hbar G \hat c^\dagger \hat c(g_\alpha\hat\alpha^\dagger+g_\beta\hat\beta^\dagger+\mathrm{h.c.})$ and the four-dimensional Bogoliubov transformation that diagonalizes the antiferromagnetic spin Hamiltonian into the two homogeneous magnon modes $\hat\alpha$ and $\hat\beta$ with frequencies $\omega_\alpha,\omega_\beta$. The reduced couplings $g_\alpha,g_\beta$ are combinations of the Bogoliubov coefficients $u^\pm_j,v^\pm_j$ weighted by the magneto-optical asymmetry $K=K_-/K_+$; their magnetic-field dependence enters through the coefficients' dependence on $\omega_H=|\gamma|B_0$ relative to the exchange frequency $\omega_E$. The decisive mechanism is symmetry: for hard-axis anisotropy, the sublattice-swap symmetry of the zero-field Hamiltonian forces the upper mode to decouple at $K=0$, while the axial symmetry of the easy-axis case makes the couplings field-independent. This is what converts a material property (hard-axis anisotropy) and a control parameter (magnetic field) into a switchable dark mode.

What would settle it

Measure the pump-probe reflection spectrum of a micron-sized NiO optical cavity as a function of magnetic field along the easy axis. The model predicts a high-quality optical response, a dark upper-magnon sideband at zero field (since $K=0$ for NiO), and a growing upper-mode sideband as the field increases; observing no cavity mode, both sidebands at zero field, or no field dependence of the sidebands would refute the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an antiferromagnet with two sublattices supports two homogeneous magnon modes $\hat\alpha$ and $\hat\beta$ that couple to one circularly polarized cavity mode through $\hat H_{\rm OM}=-\hbar G \hat c^\dagger \hat c(g_\alpha\hat\alpha^\dagger+g_\beta\hat\beta^\dagger+\mathrm{h.c.})$, where $G$ is the overall magneto-optical coupling and the reduced couplings $g_\alpha,g_\beta$ are fixed by the Bogoliubov coefficients and the sublattice magneto-optical asymmetry $K=K_-/K_+$. The paper shows that with pure easy-axis anisotropy these couplings are independent of the magnetic field and equal at $K=0$; with hard-axis anisotropy they become field-dependent. At zero field, $K=0$ makes the upper mode $\hat\alpha$ dark, and for $K$ above a threshold the lower mode $\hat\beta$ can also be made dark at a finite field. This dark-to-bright tunability is the basis for a quantum memory protocol in which an optical state is swapped into the magnon mode and the coupling is then driven to zero. The paper further claims that cavity-mediated magnon-magnon interactions, which become important for near-degenerate magnon modes, lead to a region of magnon amplification under red-detuned driving and to a substructure in the optomagnonically induced transparency (an interference window in the cavity transmission).

Load-bearing premise

The whole scheme rests on the assumption that an antiferromagnetic insulator can confine light in a high-quality optical cavity while remaining transparent enough that a long-lived cavity mode exists; the paper cites only refractive indices for NiO, MnF$_2$, and FeF$_2$, not measured optical Q-factors or absorption losses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Sweeping the coupling along a $\pi$-pulse-like path lets an arbitrary cavity state be stored in the magnon mode and rendered dark, with storage time set by the magnon lifetime.
  • In the strong-coupling regime, achievable at photon densities around $10^5/\mu\mathrm{m}^3$ with $g_{\alpha,\beta}>1$, magnons and cavity photons hybridize and can exchange quantum information coherently.
  • When the two magnon modes are nearly degenerate, the optically induced magnon-magnon interaction produces a region of magnon heating for a red-detuned drive, opposite to the usual cooling behavior.
  • The optomagnonically induced transparency window develops a substructure when $\omega_\alpha$ and $\omega_\beta$ are close, and increasing the field to separate the modes restores the standard single-window line shape.
  • Because the coupling strength also depends on the magneto-optical asymmetry $K$, materials with $K\gtrsim0.1$ would give $g_\alpha>1$ and make the predicted effects experimentally accessible.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the authors do not pursue is to use the same field-driven dark-bright transition as a quantum switch or router, gating the flow of information between a THz magnon channel and an optical channel with a single magnetic-field ramp.
  • The predicted red-detuned magnon heating could be looked for in existing THz strong-coupling experiments on antiferromagnets by measuring the magnon linewidth versus drive detuning, which would test the cavity-induced magnon-magnon interaction even before a full quantum memory is built.
  • The model assumes equivalent sublattices and absorbs higher-order spin processes into effective coefficients; in real materials these assumptions may shift the exact value of $K$ at which a mode goes dark, so the quantitative dark-mode condition should be treated as approximate rather than exact.
  • If the high-Q optical cavity assumption fails for the named antiferromagnets, the same physics could still be tested in hybrid setups where an external optical cavity is coupled to an antiferromagnetic sample, separating the optical confinement from the magnon host.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes antiferromagnetic cavity optomagnonics as a platform in which optical cavity photons are coherently coupled to the two homogeneous magnon modes of an antiferromagnetic insulator. The authors derive the optomagnonic Hamiltonian from a spin-dependent permittivity model, express the coupling in terms of Bogoliubov coefficients, and show that for hard-axis anisotropy the reduced couplings g_alpha and g_beta become field-tunable, allowing a magnon mode to be brought into and out of a dark state. They further analyze the driven pump-probe response, derive the cavity and magnon self-energies, identify a red-detuned amplification region due to optically induced magnon-magnon interactions, and describe a substructure in the optomagnonically induced transparency window. The paper closes with a sketch of a quantum memory protocol based on dark-bright tunability and with estimates aiming to place the system in the strong-coupling regime.

Significance. If the central derivation is accepted, the paper describes a genuinely new multimode platform: THz-frequency AFM magnons coupled to optical photons, with field-tunable couplings and cavity-mediated magnon-magnon interactions that go beyond existing ferromagnetic optomagnonics. The strength of the paper is its microscopic derivation of Eqs. (1)-(5) from a spin-permittivity Hamiltonian, the symmetry-based arguments that isolate the field dependence of the coupling, and the detailed self-energy analysis in the Supplemental Material. The analytic limiting formulas, such as Eq. (6) and the zero-field symmetry results, are useful and appear internally consistent. However, the quantitative feasibility part is not on the same footing: the cooperativity estimate contains an order-of-magnitude arithmetic error, the damping parameters used in the dynamical plots rest on an explicitly unverified assumption, and no optical Q-factor or absorption data are provided for the proposed host materials. The model-level predictions survive these concerns, but the claimed strong-coupling feasibility and the memory protocol that depends on it are not numerically supported as written.

major comments (3)
  1. [Main text, 'A figure of merit'] The quoted single-photon cooperativity is incorrect by a factor of 10: substituting G=0.1 MHz, Gamma≈1 GHz, kappa≈100 MHz, and g_alpha,beta=1 into C0=4G^2 g^2/(Gamma kappa) gives 4×(10^5 s^-1)^2/(10^9 s^-1 × 10^8 s^-1)=4×10^-7, not 4×10^-6. With the stated maximum photon density n_c=10^5 per µm^3, the cooperativity is C≈0.04, not >1; reaching C>1 at this density would require g≈5, whereas Fig. 2 shows g_alpha,beta<1 for all fields in the materials plotted, with g>1 only for K≳0.1. The strong-coupling regime and the quantum memory protocol that assumes it are therefore not supported by the manuscript's own numbers. Please correct the arithmetic and either supply a self-consistent feasibility estimate (materials, mode volume, photon number, and loss rates) or explicitly scale back the claim.
  2. [Fig. 4 caption and Supplemental Material D] The Fig. 4 caption contains the placeholder text '{I am not sure if magnon loss in MnF2 is same as NiO, But I assumed!!}', and Supplemental Material D sets Gamma_alpha=Gamma_beta=Gamma without further justification. The red-detuned amplification window in Fig. 3 and the OMIT substructure in Fig. 4 arise from the competition between bare, cavity-mediated magnon-magnon, and counter-rotating self-energy contributions; in the near-degenerate regime these terms are of comparable importance (Supplemental Material E, Fig. 6), so the assumed equality of damping between the alpha and beta modes and between MnF2 and NiO is quantitatively load-bearing. This assumption should be replaced by cited material-specific damping data, or its sensitivity should be quantified.
  3. [Model section (main text)] The proposal assumes the AFM insulator simultaneously acts as a high-Q optical cavity by total internal reflection; the text cites only refractive indices for NiO, MnF2, and FeF2 and gives no measured optical Q-factor, absorption coefficient, or mode volume. Because the derived Hamiltonian and all dynamical predictions require a concrete optical cavity, this assumption is necessary for the applicability of the proposal; it should be supported with data or explicitly identified as an unresolved experimental challenge. This concern does not affect the internal consistency of the Hamiltonian derivation but is essential for the claim that the proposed system has a physical host.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Main text after Eq. (5)] The sentence 'G given in Eq. (21)' refers to an equation number that does not exist in the main text; the definition of G is Eq. (4) in the main text and Eq. (21) in the Supplemental Material. The cross-reference should be corrected.
  2. [Supplemental Material B and Fig. 5] The text refers to 'Eq. (8) of the main text' for the easy-axis coupling formula, but the corresponding main-text equation is Eq. (6). Please update the internal cross-reference.
  3. [Cooperativity discussion] The quantity n_c is introduced as a maximum photon density (10^5 per µm^3) and then used as a dimensionless steady-state photon number in C=n_c C0. The cavity volume and the precise definition of n_c should be stated unambiguously.
  4. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption uses kappa=3.5×10^-2 THz = 35 GHz, while the feasibility estimate in the main text uses kappa≈100 MHz. If these are different scenarios, this should be stated explicitly; otherwise the inconsistency should be reconciled.
  5. [Fig. 2 caption and labels] The axis labels 'Hard-axis dominated regime!? > !k' and 'Easy-axis dominated regime! ? < !k' contain garbled symbols and should be replaced with proper LaTeX expressions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the AFM optomagnonic model, field-tunable couplings, dark-mode conditions, and dynamical spectra are derived from stated Hamiltonians and standard linearization.

full rationale

The paper's central results are derived quantities, not fitted inputs. The optomagnonic Hamiltonian (Eq. 3) is obtained by quantizing the spin-dependent permittivity interaction (Eq. 2) with the AFM Hamiltonian diagonalized via a Bogoliubov transformation; the reduced couplings g_alpha,beta (Eq. 5) are explicit functions of those Bogoliubov coefficients. The field tunability and dark-mode conditions (g=0) are solved from this Hamiltonian, not imposed. The OMIT spectra and magnon self-energies follow from the standard linearized Langevin/input-output procedure. The only self-citation with author overlap, Ref. [44], is used for the order-of-magnitude estimate G=0.1 MHz and for consistency with the ferromagnetic limit; this parameter is borrowed, not fitted to reproduce any AFM prediction, and it does not enter the derivation of the tunable dark-mode or dynamical results. The inserted placeholder in the Fig. 4 caption and the 'lack of data' statement about K+ are honest limitations of the quantitative estimates, not evidence that a predicted quantity is built from its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on standard spin-wave theory and a first-order magneto-optical coupling Hamiltonian, plus two unverified domain assumptions: that AFM insulators support high-Q optical cavity modes, and that magnon damping is mode- and material-independent (explicitly questioned in Figure 4 caption). G and nc are borrowed estimates for feasibility.

free parameters (2)
  • G (optomagnonic coupling constant) = 0.1 MHz (value for 1 µm^3 YIG, Ref. [44])
    No absolute K+ or Faraday rotation data are available for simple AFMs, so the paper adopts the YIG-derived G to estimate cooperativity and strong-coupling feasibility. This is a hand-chosen input, not a fitted result.
  • nc (maximum intracavity photon density) = 10^5 photons/µm^3
    Used in the cooperativity estimate as a realistic maximum density from Ref. [44]. This is an assumed ceiling for feasibility, not a measured quantity.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The AFM material acts as an optical cavity by total internal reflection with low absorption.
    Model section states 'we assume it acts also as an optical cavity by total internal reflection'. Only refractive indices for NiO, MnF2, FeF2 are cited; no measured Q-factors are provided.
  • standard math Holstein-Primakoff transformation to first order in spin fluctuations describes the AFM magnons.
    Supplemental Section A uses the standard HP transformation and a 4D Bogoliubov diagonalization, following Refs. [34,55].
  • domain assumption The magneto-optical permittivity tensor is linear in the spin operators, with coefficients from Cottam.
    Supplemental Section B starts from Eq. (16), epsilon_mu_nu = sum_zeta K_mu_nu_zeta S_zeta, valid for rutile/simple cubic structures and first-order magneto-optical response.
  • domain assumption The electric field varies smoothly so P_i equals P_j for nearest neighbors.
    Main text Model section: 'we focus on the interaction between the homogeneous AFM magnon modes ... with a single optical mode', and the sum over lattice sites is simplified by assuming smooth field variation.
  • domain assumption Only the k = 0 homogeneous magnon modes couple to a single cavity mode.
    Main text: 'We restrict our analysis to the two homogeneous (k = 0) AFM magnon modes'. This is the standard long-wavelength approximation.
  • ad hoc to paper Magnon damping rates are equal for both modes and for MnF2 and NiO.
    Main text states 'we assume Gamma_alpha = Gamma_beta = Gamma', and Figure 4 caption contains the note 'I am not sure if magnon loss in MnF2 is same as NiO, But I assumed!!'.
  • standard math Linearized Langevin equations and input-output theory are valid for the driven system.
    Supplemental Sections D and E derive the cavity and magnon spectra using standard linearization and input-output boundary conditions, as in optomechanics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Antiferromagnetic cavity optomagnonics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VRTYDVYK

@misc{pith2026190806110,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Antiferromagnetic cavity optomagnonics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VRTYDVYK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06110}
}
read the original abstract

Currently, there is a growing interest in studying the coherent interaction between magnetic systems and electromagnetic radiation in a cavity, prompted partly by possible applications in hybrid quantum systems. We propose a multimode cavity optomagnonic system based on antiferromagnetic insulators, where optical photons couple coherently to the two homogeneous magnon modes of the antiferromagnet. These have frequencies typically in the THz range, a regime so far mostly unexplored in the realm of coherent interactions, and which makes antiferromagnets attractive for quantum transduction from THz to optical frequencies. We derive the theoretical model for the coupled system, and show that it presents unique characteristics. In particular, if the antiferromagnet presents hard-axis magnetic anisotropy, the optomagnonic coupling can be tuned by a magnetic field applied along the easy axis. This allows to bring a selected magnon mode into and out of a dark mode, providing an alternative for a quantum memory protocol. The dynamical features of the driven system present unusual behavior due to optically induced magnon-magnon interactions, including regions of magnon heating for a red detuned driving laser. The multimode character of the system is evident in a substructure of the optomagnonically induced transparency window.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06110 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Schematics of the antiferromagnetic opto [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Reduced optomagnonic coupling coefficients [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Effective linewidth (left) and frequency shift [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Reflection spectra for a red detuned control laser as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Contribution from each term of the magnon self [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (11) and (12)

    Zero external magnetic field case (ωH = 0 and ω⊥⁄= 0 ) For zero external magnetic field, the antiferromag- netic Hamiltonian is invariant under the transformation ˆak←→ˆb−k, see Eqs. (11) and (12). Fork = 0, this cor- responds simply to swapping the sublatticesA and B. Under this transformation ˆS : ˆa→ ˆb , the Bogoliubov modes read (remembering that for o...

  2. [2]

    We conclude that, in order forˆHAFM =ωα ˆα† ˆα +ωβ ˆβ† ˆβ to be invariant we have (forj =α,β) uj,a =vj,b = 0 or uj,b =vj,a = 0

    Easy axis AFM case (ω⊥ = 0) Intheabsenceofhardaxisanisotropy, theHamiltonian 9 is invariant under rotations around theez axis and 11 reads (fork = 0, and ℏ = 1) ˆHAFM =Aˆa†ˆa +Bˆb†ˆb +C ( ˆaˆb + ˆa†ˆb† ) , (26) A rotation byθ around theez axis is given byˆR : ˆS+→ eiθ ˆS+, thus at the level of the bosonic operatorsˆa→eiθˆa and ˆb→e−iθˆb The Bogoliubov mod...

  3. [3]

    (24) is invariant since ωα =ωβ

    Degenerate case ωH =ω⊥ = 0 ForωH =ω⊥ = 0, under ˆS : ˆa→ ˆb we have ˆS ˆα ˆS−1 = ˆβ, and the diagonalized Hamiltonian Eq. (24) is invariant since ωα =ωβ. This falls into the previous case and the couplings gα,β are given by Eqs. (31). Note that the Bogoliubov coefficients present a discon- tinuity atω⊥ = 0 and therefore also thegα,β. In partic- ular,gα(ωH =...

  4. [4]

    Ö. O. Soykal and M. E. Flatté, Physical Review Letters 104, 077202 (2010)

    2010

  5. [5]

    Zhang, N

    X. Zhang, N. Zhu, C.-L. Zou, and H. X. Tang, Physical Review Letters 117, 123605 (2016)

    2016

  6. [6]

    Osada, R

    A. Osada, R. Hisatomi, A. Noguchi, Y. Tabuchi, R. Ya- mazaki, K. Usami, M. Sadgrove, R. Yalla, M. Nomura, and Y. Nakamura, Physical Review Letters116, 223601 (2016)

    2016

  7. [7]

    J. A. Haigh, A. Nunnenkamp, A. J. Ramsay, and A. J. Ferguson, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 133602 (2016)

    2016

  8. [8]

    Goryachev, W

    M. Goryachev, W. G. Farr, D. L. Creedon, Y. Fan, M. Kostylev, and M. E. Tobar, Phys. Rev. Applied2, 054002 (2014)

    2014

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    H.Huebl, C.W.Zollitsch, J.Lotze, F.Hocke, M.Greifen- stein, A. Marx, R. Gross, and S. T. B. Goennenwein, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 127003 (2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    Zhang, C.-L

    X. Zhang, C.-L. Zou, L. Jiang, and H. X. Tang, Physical Review Letters 113, 156401 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    Tabuchi, S

    Y. Tabuchi, S. Ishino, T. Ishikawa, R. Yamazaki, K. Us- ami, and Y. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 083603 (2014)

    2014

  4. [12]

    Sangouard, C

    N. Sangouard, C. Simon, H. de Riedmatten, and N. Gisin, Reviews of Modern Physics83, 33 (2011)

    2011

  5. [13]

    N. J. Lambert, J. A. Haigh, and A. J. Fergu- son, Journal of Applied Physics 117, 053910 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4907694

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    Bourhill, N

    J. Bourhill, N. Kostylev, M. Goryachev, D. L. Creedon, and M. E. Tobar, Physical Review B93, 144420 (2016). 12

    2016

  7. [15]

    Afzelius, I

    M. Afzelius, I. Usmani, A. Amari, B. Lauritzen, A. Walther, C. Simon, N. Sangouard, J. Minář, H. de Riedmatten, N. Gisin, and S. Kröll, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 040503 (2010)

    2010

  8. [16]

    Jobez, C

    P. Jobez, C. Laplane, N. Timoney, N. Gisin, A. Fer- rier, P. Goldner, and M. Afzelius, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 230502 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    Timoney, I

    N. Timoney, I. Usmani, P. Jobez, M. Afzelius, and N. Gisin, Phys. Rev. A88, 022324 (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    Lambert, S

    C.-H. Lambert, S. Mangin, B. S. D. C. S. Varaprasad, Y. K. Takahashi, M. Hehn, M. Cinchetti, G. Malinowski, K. Hono, Y. Fainman, M. Aeschlimann, and E. E. Fuller- ton, Science 345, 1337 (2014)

    2014

  11. [19]

    Jobez, I

    P. Jobez, I. Usmani, N. Timoney, C. Laplane, N. Gisin, and M. Afzelius, New Journal of Physics 16, 083005 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    Hisatomi, A

    R. Hisatomi, A. Osada, Y. Tabuchi, T. Ishikawa, A. Noguchi, R. Yamazaki, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Physical Review B93, 174427 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Gündoˇ gan, P

    M. Gündoˇ gan, P. M. Ledingham, K. Kutluer, M. Mazzera, and H. de Riedmatten, Physical Re- view Letters 114, 230501 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    Zhang, C.-L

    X. Zhang, C.-L. Zou, N. Zhu, F. Marquardt, L. Jiang, and H. X. Tang, Nature Communications6, 8914 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    Lachance-Quirion, Y

    D. Lachance-Quirion, Y. Tabuchi, A. Gloppe, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Applied Physics Express12, 070101 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    G. L. Paravicini-Bagliani, F. Appugliese, E. Richter, F. Valmorra, J. Keller, M. Beck, N. Bartolo, C. Rössler, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin, C. Ciuti, G. Scalari, and J. Faist, Nature Physics 15, 186 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    Hesler, R

    J. Hesler, R. Prasankumar, and J. Tignon, Journal of Applied Physics 126, 110401 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Scalari, C

    G. Scalari, C. Maissen, D. Turčinková, D. Hagen- müller, S. De Liberato, C. Ciuti, C. Reichl, D. Schuh, W. Wegscheider, M. Beck, and J. Faist, Science 335, 1323 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    X. Li, M. Bamba, Q. Zhang, S. Fallahi, G. C. Gard- ner, W. Gao, M. Lou, K. Yoshioka, M. J. Manfra, and J. Kono, Nature Photonics12, 324 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    Gomonay, V

    O. Gomonay, V. Baltz, A. Brataas, and Y. Tserkovnyak, Nature Physics 14 (2018), 10.1038/s41567-018-0049-4

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    Sivarajah, A

    P. Sivarajah, A. Steinbacher, B. Dastrup, J. Lu, M. Xi- ang, W. Ren, S. Kamba, S. Cao, and K. A. Nelson, Journal of Applied Physics125, 213103 (2019)

    2019

  22. [31]

    Keffer and C

    F. Keffer and C. Kittel, Physical Review85, 329 (1952)

    1952

  23. [32]

    Mergenthaler, J

    M. Mergenthaler, J. Liu, J. J. Le Roy, N. Ares, A. L. Thompson, L. Bogani, F. Luis, S. J. Blundell, T. Lan- caster, A. Ardavan, G. A. D. Briggs, P. J. Leek, and E. A. Laird, Physical Review Letters119, 147701 (2017)

    2017

  24. [33]

    Jungwirth, J

    T. Jungwirth, J. Sinova, A. Manchon, X. Marti, J. Wun- derlich, and C. Felser, Nature Physics 14 (2018), 10.1038/s41567-018-0063-6

    2018 doi

  25. [34]

    M. B. Jungfleisch, W. Zhang, and A. Hoffmann, Physics Letters A 382, 865 (2018)

    2018

  26. [35]

    Baltz, A

    V. Baltz, A. Manchon, M. Tsoi, T. Moriyama, T. Ono, and Y. Tserkovnyak, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 015005 (2018)

    2018

  27. [36]

    Němec, M

    P. Němec, M. Fiebig, T. Kampfrath, and A. V. Kimel, Nature Physics 14, 229 (2018)

    2018

  28. [37]

    Y. Xiao, X. H. Yan, Y. Zhang, V. L. Grigoryan, C. M. Hu, H. Guo, and K. Xia, Physical Review B99, 094407 (2019)

    2019

  29. [38]

    Johansen and A

    Ø. Johansen and A. Brataas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 087204 (2018)

    2018

  30. [39]

    Higuchi and M

    T. Higuchi and M. Kuwata-Gonokami, Nature Commu- nications 7 (2016), 10.1038/ncomms10720

    2016 doi

  31. [40]

    T. Liu, X. Zhang, H. X. Tang, and M. E. Flatté, Physical Review B 94, 060405(R) (2016)

    2016

  32. [41]

    J. A. Haigh, S. Langenfeld, N. J. Lambert, J. J. Baum- berg, A. J. Ramsay, A. Nunnenkamp, and A. J. Fergu- son, Physical Review A92, 063845 (2015)

    2015

  33. [42]

    Osada, A

    A. Osada, A. Gloppe, R. Hisatomi, A. Noguchi, R. Ya- mazaki, M. Nomura, Y. Nakamura, and K. Usami, Phys- ical Review Letters120, 133602 (2018)

    2018

  34. [43]

    Osada, A

    A. Osada, A. Gloppe, Y. Nakamura, and K. Usami, New Journal of Physics20, 103018 (2018)

    2018

  35. [44]

    Viola Kusminskiy, H

    S. Viola Kusminskiy, H. X. Tang, and F. Marquardt, Physical Review A94, 033821 (2016)

    2016

  36. [45]

    Almpanis, Phys

    E. Almpanis, Phys. Rev. B97, 184406 (2018)

    2018

  37. [46]

    P. A. Pantazopoulos, N. Stefanou, E. Almpanis, and N. Papanikolaou, Phys. Rev. B96, 104425 (2017)

    2017

  38. [47]

    P. A. Pantazopoulos, K. L. Tsakmakidis, E. Almpanis, G. P. Zouros, and N. Stefanou, New Journal of Physics 21, 095001 (2019)

    2019

  39. [48]

    Aspelmeyer, T

    M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, Reviews of Modern Physics86, 1391 (2014)

    2014

  40. [49]

    J. Graf, H. Pfeifer, F. Marquardt, and S. Viola Kusmin- skiy, Physical Review B98, 241406(R) (2018)

    2018

  41. [50]

    IIEqlz8wsArsejqoB10aoWC+xkE=

    or FeF2 (n ≈ 1.5) [51]. The Hamiltonian of the cou- pled system is ˆH = ˆHph + ˆHAFM + ˆHOM, (1) with ˆHph and ˆHAFM thefreephotonicandAFMHamilto- nians, respectively. ˆHOM contains the coupling between the AFM magnons and the cavity photons, and is our main result in this sec...

  42. [51]

    Sharma, Y

    S. Sharma, Y. M. Blanter, and G. E. W. Bauer, Physical Review Letters 121, 087205 (2018)

    2018

  43. [52]

    V. A. S. V. Bittencourt, V. Feulner, and S. V. Kusmin- skiy, Physical Review A100, 013810 (2019)

    2019

  44. [53]

    R. J. Powell and W. E. Spicer, Physical Review B2, 2182 (1970)

    1970

  45. [54]

    M. J. Dodge, Applied Optics23, 1980 (1984)

    1984

  46. [55]

    I. R. Jahn, Physica Status Solidi (b)57, 681 (1973)

    1973

  47. [56]

    Kittel,Quantum Theory of Solids, 2nd ed

    C. Kittel,Quantum Theory of Solids, 2nd ed. (John Wi- ley & Sons, New York, 1963)

    1963

  48. [57]

    Holstein and H

    T. Holstein and H. Primakoff, Physical Review58, 1098 (1940)

    1940

  49. [58]

    Parvini, V

    T. Parvini, V. A. S. V. Bittencourt, and S. Viola Kus- minskiy, See Supplemental Material for: (I) the de- tails on the diagonalization of the AFM Hamiltonian in terms of the Bogoliubov modes following Refs. [34, 55]; (II) Derivation of the optomagnonic Hamiltonian for an- tif...

  50. [59]

    Kamra, U

    A. Kamra, U. Agrawal, and W. Belzig, Physical Review B 96, 020411(R) (2017)

    2017

  51. [60]

    Kamra and W

    A. Kamra and W. Belzig, Physical Review Letters119, 197201 (2017)

    2017

  52. [61]

    F. L. A. Machado, P. R. T. Ribeiro, J. Holanda, R. L. Rodríguez-Suárez, A. Azevedo, and S. M. Rezende, Phys. Rev. B95, 104418 (2017)

    2017

  53. [62]

    M. G. Cottam, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 8, 1933 (1975)

    1975

  54. [63]

    M. G. Cottam and D. J. Lockwood,Light Scattering in Magnetic Solids (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1986)

    1986

  55. [64]

    D. J. Lockwood and M. G. Cottam, Low Temperature 13 Physics 38, 549 (2012)

    2012

  56. [65]

    Ariai, P

    J. Ariai, P. A. Bates, M. G. Cottam, and S. R. P. Smith, JournalofPhysicsC:SolidStatePhysics 15,2767(1982)

    1982

  57. [66]

    L. Bi, A. R. Taussig, H.-S. Kim, L. Wang, G. F. Dionne, D. Bono, K. Persson, G. Ceder, and C. A. Ross, Phys. Rev. B 78, 104106 (2008)

    2008

  58. [67]

    Sharma, B

    S. Sharma, B. Z. Rameshti, Y. M. Blanter, and G. E. W. Bauer, Physical Review B99, 214423 (2019)

    2019

  59. [68]

    Brahms and D

    N. Brahms and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, Physical Review A 82, 041804(R) (2010)

    2010

  60. [69]

    Kohler, N

    J. Kohler, N. Spethmann, S. Schreppler, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, Physical Review Letters 118, 063604 (2017)

    2017

  61. [70]

    Landini, N

    M. Landini, N. Dogra, K. Kroeger, L. Hruby, T. Donner, and T. Esslinger, Physical Review Letters120, 223602 (2018)

    2018

  62. [71]

    R. M. Kroeze, Y. Guo, V. D. Vaidya, J. Keeling, and B. L. Lev, Physical Review Letters121, 163601 (2018)

    2018

  63. [72]

    Mivehvar, H

    F. Mivehvar, H. Ritsch, and F. Piazza, Physical Review Letters 122, 113603 (2019)

    2019

  64. [73]

    Barak, V

    J. Barak, V. Jaccarino, and S. Rezende, Journal of Mag- netism and Magnetic Materials9, 323 (1978)

    1978

  65. [74]

    R. C. Ohlmann and M. Tinkham, Physical Review123, 425 (1961)

    1961

  66. [75]

    Satoh, S.-J

    T. Satoh, S.-J. Cho, R. Iida, T. Shimura, K. Kuroda, H. Ueda, Y. Ueda, B. A. Ivanov, F. Nori, and M. Fiebig, Physical Review Letters105, 077402 (2010)

    2010

  67. [76]

    Dekorsy, M

    T.Kampfrath, A.Sell, G.Klatt, A.Pashkin, S.Mährlein, T. Dekorsy, M. Wolf, M. Fiebig, A. Leitenstorfer, and R. Huber, Nature Photonics5, 31 (2011)

    2011

  68. [77]

    S. Zhou, Y. Gao, and S. Fu, The European Physical Journal B 91, 41 (2018)

    2018

  69. [78]

    S. Weis, R. Rivière, S. Deléglise, E. Gavartin, O. Arcizet, A. Schliesser, and T. J. Kippenberg, Science330, 1520 (2010)

    2010

  70. [79]

    Xiong and Y

    H. Xiong and Y. Wu, Applied Physics Reviews5, 031305 (2018)

    2018

  71. [80]

    Genes, D

    C. Genes, D. Vitali, and P. Tombesi, New Journal of Physics 10, 095009 (2008)

    2008

  72. [81]

    C. F. Ockeloen-Korppi, M. F. Gely, E. Damskägg, M. Jenkins, G. A. Steele, and M. A. Sillanpää, Phys. Rev. A 99, 023826 (2019)

    2019

  73. [82]

    Sommer and C

    C. Sommer and C. Genes, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 203605 (2019)

    2019

  74. [83]

    S. A. McGee, D. Meiser, C. A. Regal, K. W. Lehnert, and M. J. Holland, Phys. Rev. A87, 053818 (2013)

    2013

  75. [84]

    M. D. Lukin, S. F. Yelin, and M. Fleischhauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4232 (2000)

    2000

  76. [85]

    Fleischhauer and M

    M. Fleischhauer and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 5094 (2000)

    2000

  77. [86]

    Fleischhauer and M

    M. Fleischhauer and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. A 65, 022314 (2002)

    2002

  78. [87]

    A. V. Gorshkov, A. André, M. D. Lukin, and A. S. Sørensen, Phys. Rev. A76, 033804 (2007)

    2007

  79. [88]

    L. Ma, O. Slattery, and X. Tang, Journal of Optics19, 043001 (2017)

    2017

  80. [89]

    Kondoh and T

    H. Kondoh and T. Takeda, Journal of the Physical Soci- ety of Japan19, 2041 (1964)

    1964

  81. [90]

    Baruchel, M

    J. Baruchel, M. Schlenker, K. Kurosawa, and S. Saito, Philosophical Magazine B43, 853 (1981)

    1981

  82. [91]

    Białek, A

    M. Białek, A. Magrez, and J.-P. Ansermet, Phys. Rev. B 101, 024405 (2020)

    2020

  83. [92]

    (Pergamon, Oxford, UK, 1984)

    L.D.LandauandE.M.Lifshitz, Electrodynamics of Con- tinuous Media, 2nd ed. (Pergamon, Oxford, UK, 1984)

    1984

  84. [93]

    M. Cai, O. Painter, and K. J. Vahala, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 74 (2000)

    2000

  85. [94]

    S. M. Spillane, T. J. Kippenberg, O. J. Painter, and K. J. Vahala, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 043902 (2003)

    2003

  86. [95]

    A. H. Safavi-Naeini, T. P. M. Alegre, J. Chan, M. Eichen- field, M. Winger, Q. Lin, J. T. Hill, D. E. Chang, and O. Painter, Nature472, 69 (2011)

    2011

  87. [96]

    C. W. Gardiner and P. Zoller, Quantum Noise: A Handbook of Markovian and Non-Markovian Quantum Stochastic Methods with Applications to Quantum Op- tics, 2nd ed. (Springer, Berlin, 2000)

    2000

  88. [97]

    T. P. Purdy, P.-L. Yu, R. W. Peterson, N. S. Kampel, and C. A. Regal, Phys. Rev. X3, 031012 (2013)

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.