Ultrafast single-photon interference with a dipole qubit in a nanocavity

Adri\'an E. Rubio L\'opez; Athul S. Rema; Felipe Herrera

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 83 references

Ultrafast single-photon interference with a dipole qubit in a nanocavity

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a single photon emitted by a dipole in a plasmonic nanocavity can show measurable self-interference patterns in frequency and time, evolving into a Rabi doublet within roughly 100–150 femtoseconds.

desk verdict The machinery is standard and honestly benchmarked, but a factor-2π unit error in T1 collapses the headline 100–150 fs coherence window to ~20 fs, and the D0 numbers in Sec. V don't match. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03428 v1 pith:ZNN6ITOF submitted 2025-09-03 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hallphysics.atom-ph

Athul S. Rema , Adrián E. Rubio López , Felipe Herrera This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hallphysics.atom-ph

keywords single-photoninterferenceplasmonicnanocavitynon-MarkoviandynamicsmacroscopicQEDRabisplittingultrafastspectroscopyLorentziankernelapproximationstrongcouplingcriterion

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 asks what happens during the first hundred femtoseconds after a single photon is created by an excited dipole near a metallic nanoparticle, a regime where the cavity's broad, structured spectrum prevents simple single-mode descriptions. The authors develop a Lorentzian-kernel approximation to the macroscopic QED memory kernel, which allows an analytical solution of the full non-Markovian dynamics in the single-excitation manifold. They show that in strong coupling, the single-photon probability density starts localized at the qubit frequency and develops a Rabi doublet over a timescale set by the kernel spectrum, with the formation of characteristic interference fringes in frequency-time space. They also show that the stationary spectrum can be controlled by shaping the bandwidth of the initial photon or driving pulse, and they formulate a general strong-coupling criterion based on the kernel's area and width. A sympathetic reader would care because this provides a concrete, testable dynamical signature of single-photon coherence in plasmonic cavities, accessible to ultrafast near-field spectroscopy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Lorentzian pseudo-mode approximation to the non-Markovian memory kernel. The exact kernel spectrum K(ω), computed from macroscopic QED via the dyadic Green's tensor, is fit as a sum of Lorentzians (Eq. 14), each with area A_j, width B_j, and center Ω_j. This makes the time-domain memory kernel exponential, so the integro-differential equation for the excited-state amplitude becomes solvable by Laplace transforms, yielding analytic expressions for qubit and photon amplitudes valid at all timescales. This machinery lets the paper connect the kernel's shape directly to observable dynamics: the Rabi frequency, the transient interference patterns, and the strong-cou

What would settle it

Use ultrafast tip-enhanced spectroscopy to record the frequency-resolved single-photon intensity I(ω,t) from a resonantly driven dipole located 2 nm from a 20-nm silver nanosphere with ωe ≈ 2.97 eV. The paper predicts transient interference fringes with slopes (δ0±b)/t0 within the first ~127 fs and a Rabi doublet only after t ≫ T1; observing the doublet immediately at t=0, or seeing no transient fringes at all, would refute the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the full non-Markovian single-photon dynamics of a dipole qubit in a nanocavity can be captured by approximating the kernel spectrum K(ω) as a sum of Lorentzians, yielding an exponential memory kernel whose Laplace solution gives analytic expressions for the qubit and photon amplitudes. Using this approximation for a silver nanosphere, the paper shows that in strong coupling the single-photon probability density |Cg1(ω,t)|² evolves from a localized peak at the qubit frequency into a Rabi doublet over a timescale governed by the kernel spectrum (~100–150 fs), accompanied by interference patterns in frequency-time that propagate along phase trajectories d/dt[(δ±b)t]=0

Load-bearing premise

The qubit is assumed to have no relaxation channels other than the photonic near field: no dipole dephasing, electron-phonon scattering, or charge-transfer processes, so the predicted 100–150 fs coherent single-photon interference must survive in real emitters on that timescale.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The strong-coupling condition for any nanocavity becomes a simple integral test on the kernel spectrum: 2∫dωK(ω) > (ΓK/2)², so the criterion can be evaluated from the spectral density alone.
The single-photon probability density in strong coupling shows a measurable transient: it starts as a single peak and develops into a Rabi doublet over ~100–150 fs, with interference fringes in frequency-time that propagate along predictable phase trajectories.
Shaping the bandwidth of an incoming single-photon pulse can effectively remove the Rabi splitting in a system that supports strong coupling, meaning spectral pulse shaping is a control knob for the coupled system's response.
Single-mode cavity QED treatments are insufficient for sub-picosecond photonic observables in broadband plasmonic nanocavities; the full kernel spectrum must be retained.
The predicted frequency-time interference patterns and beating periods (~100 fs) should be detectable with existing ultrafast heterodyne near-field probe techniques.

Reading between the lines

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

The kernel criterion in Eq. 19 could be used as a screening tool: for any proposed nanocavity geometry, one only needs the emitter position and orientation to compute K(ω) and immediately decide whether strong coupling is possible without running full dynamics.
The bandwidth-controlled suppression of the Rabi splitting suggests a spectral 'erasure' strategy: a narrowband photon nearly decouples from the cavity, which could be exploited in quantum memory or photon-interface schemes where one wants to inject a photon without populating the strongly coupled doublet.
The frequency-time interference patterns are a single-photon analogue of quantum carpets; if measurable, their slopes would provide a direct experimental reconstruction of the kernel spectrum and its local features.
The analysis is confined to the single-excitation manifold and the rotating-wave approximation, so multi-photon effects, strong driving, or emitter-phonon coupling would likely modify the predicted interference visibility; extending the Lorentzian-kernel approach to these regimes is a natural next step.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: the paper has a real kernel of good work, but the headline number is wrong. In Sec. VI they quote T1 = 127 fs for B = 32.5 meV. With their own definition T1 = 1/Re[B], that's ℏ/B ≈ 20 fs, not 127. The 127 is 2πℏ/B. That's a factor-2π unit slip. It matters because the abstract's "~100–150 fs" coherent propagation claim rests on it. At 100 fs their own decay factor is e^{-5} ≈ 0.007, so the quantum-carpet interference would be essentially dead before one beat period (T_beat ≈ 80–100 fs, their Fig. 8). The paper is not just a little off; the central observable timescale is wrong by an order of magnitude.

What's genuinely new: the time-frequency probability analysis |Cg1(ω,t)|^2, the phase-trajectory criterion Eq. (21), and the bandwidth control of the Rabi response (narrow pulses suppress the doublet). Those are real contributions. The Lorentzian pseudo-mode machinery is not new, but the derivation in Appendices B–C is clean, and the benchmarking against Refs. [52,58] is honest—they report the 10–60 fs lifetime errors and 2.48 fs Rabi-period error rather than hiding them. The kernel is computed from first principles (macroscopic QED + Mie), so the Rabi doublet isn't fitted to the observable.

Soft spots beyond the T1 error: The "general strong coupling criterion" Eq. (19) is derived for a single Lorentzian but stated for arbitrary nanocavities; their own 3-Lorentzian numerics give a 135 meV splitting versus the analytical 99 meV, which they acknowledge but don't reconcile. More troubling, Sec. V says the norm is preserved for D0 up to ~10^-5 Hz^1/2, then Fig. 6 uses D0 = 811 Hz^1/2. That's an eight-order-of-magnitude inconsistency, and it undermines the driving simulations. The absence of dipole dephasing is stated as a limitation, but for the very emitters proposed (QDs, molecules) it's not a footnote—it's a reason to doubt the 100–150 fs observability even if the T1 error were fixed.

Bottom line: worth a serious referee, but only because the errors are fixable. The abstract's timescale needs to be corrected, the D0 claim reconciled, and the criterion re-scoped. If those are fixed, the bandwidth-control and interference-pattern results could be a nice contribution to quantum nanophotonics. As is, I wouldn't cite it yet.

Recommendation: send to peer review, but flag the T1 and D0 issues to the referee.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a Lorentzian pseudo-mode approximation for the non-Markovian memory kernel of a single two-level dipole qubit coupled to a plasmonic nanocavity, starting from macroscopic QED and the Wigner-Weisskopf ansatz in the single-excitation manifold. Laplace inversion gives analytical expressions for the excited-state amplitude and single-photon amplitude (Eqs. 12-21), which are benchmarked against prior results for a nanosphere and a nanoparticle-on-mirror cavity. The authors use this framework to predict frequency-time single-photon interference ('quantum carpets'), to show that narrow single-photon pulses can suppress the Rabi splitting, and to propose a general strong-coupling criterion based on the kernel's area and FWHM. The central claimed observable is coherent single-photon interference over roughly 100-150 fs, accessible to ultrafast near-field spectroscopy.

Significance. The paper's core methodological contribution is genuinely useful: the kernel is computed from macroscopic QED and Mie theory rather than fitted to the predicted observable, the Laplace solutions are explicit and internally consistent, and the benchmarks in Appendix D are honest, including quantified deviations. If the timescale claims survive correction, the work would provide a valuable semi-analytical alternative to single-mode cavity QED for sub-picosecond nanocavity dynamics. The main weaknesses are a factor-2π unit error in the reported population lifetime and an overgeneralized strong-coupling criterion; both directly affect the paper's central claims and must be fixed before the results can be accepted.

major comments (3)

[Section III, Eq. (12) and Fig. 7(a)] There is a factor-2π unit error in T1. Section III defines T1 = 1/Re[\tilde B], and B is used as the decay rate in the exponential kernel Eq. (13). Figure 7(a) states 'T1 = 127 fs (B = 32.5 meV)'. Since B is an energy, the correct conversion is T1 = ℏ/B ≈ 20 fs, not 2πℏ/B ≈ 127 fs. This error is load-bearing: the abstract claims coherent propagation over ~100-150 fs, and the exact amplitude in Eq. (16) contains e^{-Bt/2}; with the corrected B, the interference term has an e-folding time of ~40 fs, so at 100 fs it is suppressed by e^{-2.5} ≈ 0.08 and the first beat period in Fig. 8 (~100 fs) is heavily damped. Please correct all unit conversions, regenerate the time-domain results, and revise the timescale claims accordingly.
[Eqs. (18)-(19), Section VI] The 'general strong coupling criterion' 2∫dω K(ω) > (ΓK/2)^2 is derived from a single-Lorentzian kernel, but is then applied to the full multi-Lorentzian kernel. For a single Lorentzian, ∫K dω = A and ΓK = 2B, so the criterion reduces to 2A > B^2. For the 3-Lorentzian nanosphere kernel, the total area and a single FWHM of the full spectrum do not determine the Rabi splitting. The paper's own Fig. 7(a) shows the numerical splitting (~135 meV) is substantially larger than the single-Lorentzian prediction from Eq. (18) (~99 meV with A = 0.00299 eV^2, B = 32.5 meV). Thus Eq. (19) as stated is not established as a general criterion. The authors should either restrict it to single-Lorentzian kernels or validate it quantitatively against the full multi-Lorentzian solution over a range of parameters, with an explicit definition of ΓK for the composite spectrum.
[Sec. VII and abstract] The observability claim is not supported by the model's own coherence budget. The authors correctly state in Sec. VII that electric dipole relaxation is ignored, limiting applicability to emitters with electron-phonon or charge-transfer relaxation. However, the central experimental claim requires coherence over ~100-150 fs. With the corrected T1 of about 20 fs, the model's own photonic kernel imposes a much shorter coherence window, before any intrinsic dephasing is included. The abstract and Sec. VI should be revised to state the actual predicted coherence time and to specify emitter/cavity conditions under which the interference is not already damped away.

minor comments (4)

[Section III, text after Eq. (12)] The condition for damped Rabi oscillations is misstated. For 4A > B^2, b is real and Eq. (12) oscillates; if b were pure imaginary, the solution would be hyperbolic, not oscillatory. The sign convention should be corrected to avoid confusion with the later criterion in Eq. (19).
[Eq. (20), Section VI] The displayed expression omits the exponential damping factors present in the exact Eq. (16). The definition h(δ,t) = [cos(bt) - p(δ)sin(bt)]e^{iδt} with no e^{-Bt/2} factors is only valid for t ≪ 1/B, which conflicts with the surrounding text claiming timescales limited by T1. Please state the regime of validity more carefully and include the damping in the symbolic expression.
[Appendix D] The benchmark discrepancies (ΔT1 ≈ 56 fs, ΔTR ≈ 2.48 fs) are reported but not discussed in the main text. Since the main text emphasizes quantitative agreement, please add a short discussion of these deviations and their implications for the nanosphere predictions.
[Throughout] There are minor typographical issues, e.g., 'based of the form' in Sec. VII and the ordering '1/b ≳ t ≪ 1/B' in Sec. VI, which should be cleaned up. Figure 5 would also benefit from a legend for the labeled curves.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central predictions are propagated from a first-principles-derived kernel, not fitted to the predicted observables.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The memory kernel K(ω) is computed from macroscopic QED and Mie theory (Eq. 4, Sec. IV), and the Lorentzian parameters in Table I are fitted to that independently computed spectral density, not to the predicted single-photon density, Rabi splitting, or interference patterns. Equations (12)-(21), the strong-coupling criterion (Eq. 19), and the beating scaling in Fig. 8 are analytical consequences of those fitted Lorentzian parameters, which is legitimate propagation from a first-principles input. External benchmarks against Ref. [58] (Fig. 3) and Ref. [52] (Appendix D) independently support the Lorentzian approximation. The only internal consistency check (Fig. 7) uses the same Lorentzian kernel for both the numerical and analytical solutions, but this does not make the central claim circular because the kernel itself is not derived from the predicted observable. The self-citations [79-81] appear only in the conclusions and are not load-bearing. The factor-2π discrepancy in the reported T1 = 127 fs (Sec. VI, Fig. 7) is a unit-conversion error, and the statement after Eq. (12) about b being imaginary in strong coupling is reversed; these are correctness risks, not circularity. The neglected dipole dephasing is acknowledged in Sec. VII. Overall, the derivation is self-contained against external spectral-density benchmarks, so the circularity score is 1.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

Everything the central claims rest on that the reader did not pay for upstream: the Lorentzian fit parameters (free), the QED ansatz with RWA and linear-in-driving truncation (domain assumptions), the Lorentzian fits of the kernel and source products (ad hoc, partially benchmarked), the neglect of dipole dephasing (accepted limitation), and pseudo-modes as a mathematical device. The kernel itself is computed from first principles, which is the main independent grounding.

free parameters (5)

Lorentzian fit amplitudes A_j (nanosphere, h = 2 nm) = A1 = 2.1204 THz^2, A2 = 102.307 THz^2, A3 = 175.1694 THz^2 (Table I)
Fitted to the Mie-theory kernel spectrum K(w) in Fig. 2a; the Rabi splitting, timescale, and criterion Eq. (19) are directly determined by these values.
Lorentzian decay rates B_j (nanosphere, h = 2 nm) = B1 = 0.0243 eV, B2 = 0.03615 eV, B3 = 0.02507 eV (Table I)
Fitted to the kernel width; B = 32.5 meV for the dominant multipole Lorentzian sets the quoted damping and the ~100-150 fs timescale.
Lorentzian center frequencies Omega_j (nanosphere, h = 2 nm) = Omega1 = 2.757 eV, Omega2 = 2.9498 eV, Omega3 = 2.972 eV (Table I)
Fitted to the kernel peak positions; the qubit at 2.97 eV is made resonant with the dominant multipole feature.
NPoM fit parameters (10 Lorentzians) = Table II: A_i in 25.98-1196.21 THz^2, B_i ~ 0.027-0.065 eV, Omega_i = 1.548-2.500 eV
Used for the Appendix D benchmark; the fit underestimates the Rabi period by ~2.5 fs and overestimates lifetimes by 10-60 fs.
Driving amplitude D0 = D0 = 811 Hz^1/2 in Fig. 6; norm bound stated as D0 ~ 10^-5 Hz^1/2
Stated as a free parameter in Sec. V.B and restricted to preserve the single-excitation norm; the two quoted values are mutually inconsistent.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Macroscopic QED Hamiltonian (Eqs. 1-4) with the qubit coupled to continuum modes through the dyadic Green tensor.
Invoked in Sec. II; the whole kernel K(w) derives from Im G(r0,r0,w) computed with Mie theory. Standard in quantum nanophotonics, but validity at few-nm metal-dielectric interfaces (nonlocal effects, roughness) is assumed.
domain assumption Single-excitation Wigner-Weisskopf ansatz (Eq. 6); the |e>|1> two-excitation sector is dropped.
Appendix B explicitly ignores 'the term corresponding to the |e>|1> state which is beyond the current wave function subspace'. Norm loss is checked only numerically for small D0 and short times.
domain assumption Rotating-wave approximation and linearization of the driving term in D(w) (Eqs. 9-11).
Kept 'to lowest order' to preserve norm; the t*D(w) term grows linearly in time, restricting validity to weak driving and short times.
ad hoc to paper Lorentzian-kernel approximation: K(w) and the products sqrt(K)*Cg1 and sqrt(K)*D are fitted by sums of Lorentzians (Eqs. 13-14, Appendix C).
This is the paper's central modeling step. Appendix D reports 10-60 fs lifetime errors for the NPoM case; the single-Lorentzian analytics behind Eqs. 16-21 and Eq. 19 deviate from the 3-Lorentzian numerics (99-104 meV versus 135 meV splitting).
ad hoc to paper The p(delta) ~ b/(B - i*delta) approximation in Eq. (16) (Appendix C: 'approximate to terms linear to b').
Underlies the compact interference formula Eq. (20) and the phase-trajectory analysis Eq. (21); its accuracy for the real multi-peak kernel is not quantified.
domain assumption Neglect of dipole dephasing and non-radiative emitter relaxation.
Explicitly acknowledged in Sec. VII as limiting applicability to quantum dots with phonon scattering and organic emitters with charge transfer. Load-bearing for the ~100-150 fs coherence and observability claim.

invented entities (1)

Effective pseudo-modes of the photonic nanostructure
purpose: Represent the broadband nanocavity field as a small set of Lorentzian modes so that the integro-differential equation (Eq. 7) becomes analytically solvable by Laplace transform.
Sec. III: the Lorentzian expansion 'does not imply that the underlying photonic modes are non-interacting... they can be interpreted as effective pseudo-modes'. They are a numerical device with no falsifiable handle outside the model.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ultrafast single-photon interference with a dipole qubit in a nanocavity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZNN6ITOF

@misc{pith2026250903428,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ultrafast single-photon interference with a dipole qubit in a nanocavity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZNN6ITOF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03428}
}

abstract

The stationary spectrum of individual dipole emitters in plasmonic nanocavities has been studied for a range of cavity geometries and dipole configurations. Less is known about the coherent dynamics of single photon creation in the nanocavity near field by an excited dipole. We address this gap by developing a Lorentzian kernel approximation that solves the time-dependent Schr\"odinger equation that describes the coupled dipole-photon dynamics in the single-excitation manifold. Our approach encodes the broadband nature of the nanocavity field through a non-Markovian memory kernel, derived from macroscopic QED theory. For a two-level dipole near a metallic nanosphere, we show that the single photon probability density in frequency space evolves in strong coupling from an initially localized source at the qubit frequency into a Rabi doublet over a timescale governed by the kernel spectrum. This dynamical crossover is accompanied by the formation of single-photon interference patterns in frequency and time, propagating coherently over a timescale limited by the shape of kernel spectrum to $\sim 100-150$ fs, which is accessible to ultrafast spectroscopy. We also show that the stationary spectrum of the coupled system can be manipulated by driving the nanocavity field using coherent pulses with variable spectral bandwidth. Using single-photon pulses narrower than the kernel spectrum, the Rabi splitting in a system that supports strong coupling can be effectively removed. The applicability of our results to other dipole-nanocavity configurations is discussed and a general strong coupling criterion for nanocavities is formulated.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03428 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. (a) Excited population dynamics for qubit dipole sep [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** shows the kernel spectrum K(ω) (thick solid line) for h = 2 nm and h = 10 nm, together with the best fitted Lorentzians (thin solid lines) that reproduce the spectral features with n = 3 pseudo-modes. In principle the number of Lorentzians n can arbitrary, but we use n = 3 following previous work [52, 58] showing that in order of increasing frequency this system has a lowfrequency dipole mode (∼ 2.8 eV in [PITH_F… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Initial single photon Gaussian amplitudes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Excited population dynamics for a dipole strongly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) Single photon probability distribution in frequency and time, for an initially excited dipole with frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: shows the beating period Tbeat of two time traces taken from the single photon distribution at 2.972 eV and 2.986 eV, as a function of the area of a single Lorentzian model kernel that coincides with the true kernel K(ω) at the multipole peak frequency ωmax = 2.97 eV,…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. Spectral density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10. Excited-state population dynamics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

[1]

Couteau, S

C. Couteau, S. Barz, T. Durt, T. Gerrits, J. Huwer, R. Prevedel, J. Rarity, A. Shields, and G. Weihs, Ap- plications of single photons to quantum communication and computing, Nature Reviews Physics 5, 326 (2023)

2023
[2]

H. J. Kimble, M. Dagenais, and L. Mandel, Photon anti- bunching in resonance fluorescence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 691 (1977)

1977
[3]

A. Kuhn, M. Hennrich, and G. Rempe, Deterministic single-photon source for distributed quantum network- ing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 067901 (2002)

2002
[4]

McKeever, A

J. McKeever, A. Boca, A. D. Boozer, R. Miller, J. R. Buck, A. Kuzmich, and H. J. Kimble, De- terministic generation of single photons from one atom trapped in a cavity, Science 303, 1992 (2004), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1095232

work page doi:10.1126/science.1095232 1992
[5]

Buckley, K

S. Buckley, K. Rivoire, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Engineered quantum dot single-photon sources, Reports on Progress in Physics, 75, 126503 (2012)

work page 2012
[6]

Schr¨ oder, F

T. Schr¨ oder, F. G¨ adeke, M. J. Banholzer, and O. Benson, Ultrabright and efficient single-photon generation based on nitrogen-vacancy centres in nanodiamonds on a solid immersion lens, New Journal of Physics , 13, 055017 (2011)

work page 2011
[7]

A. F. Koenderink, Single-photon nanoantennas, ACS Photonics, ACS Photonics 4, 710 (2017)

work page 2017
[8]

Lettow, Y

R. Lettow, Y. L. A. Rezus, A. Renn, G. Zumofen, E. Iko- nen, S. G¨ otzinger, and V. Sandoghdar, Quantum inter- ference of tunably indistinguishable photons from remote organic molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 123605 (2010)

work page 2010

Show all 83 references

[9]

Toninelli, I

C. Toninelli, I. Gerhardt, A. S. Clark, A. Reserbat- Plantey, S. G¨ otzinger, Z. Ristanovi´ c, M. Colautti, P. Lombardi, K. D. Major, I. Deperasi´ nska, W. H. Per- nice, F. H. L. Koppens, B. Kozankiewicz, A. Gourdon, V. Sandoghdar, and M. Orrit, Single organic molecules for ph...

2021
[10]

A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, J. M. Gambetta, J. A. Schreier, B. R. Johnson, J. M. Chow, L. Frunzio, J. Ma- jer, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Generating single microwave photons in a circuit, Nature 449, 328 (2007)

2007
[11]

Forn-D´ ıaz, C

P. Forn-D´ ıaz, C. W. Warren, C. W. S. Chang, A. M. Vadiraj, and C. M. Wilson, On-demand microwave gener- ator of shaped single photons, Phys. Rev. Appl.8, 054015 (2017)

2017
[12]

Aharonovich, D

I. Aharonovich, D. Englund, and M. Toth, Solid-state single-photon emitters, Nature Photonics 10, 631 (2016)

2016
[13]

J. E. Sipe, Photon wave functions, Phys. Rev. A 52, 1875 (1995)

1995
[14]

Azuma, S

K. Azuma, S. E. Economou, D. Elkouss, P. Hilaire, L. Jiang, H.-K. Lo, and I. Tzitrin, Quantum repeaters: From quantum networks to the quantum internet, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 045006 (2023)

2023
[15]

K. M. Gheri, C. Saavedra, P. T¨ orm¨ a, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Entanglement engineering of one-photon wave packets using a single-atom source, Phys. Rev. A 58, R2627 (1998)

1998
[16]

Scholz, L

M. Scholz, L. Koch, and O. Benson, Statistics of narrow- band single photons for quantum memories generated by ultrabright cavity-enhanced parametric down-conversion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 063603 (2009)

2009
[17]

M¨ uller, T

P. M¨ uller, T. Tentrup, M. Bienert, G. Morigi, and J. Es- chner, Spectral properties of single photons from quan- tum emitters, Phys. Rev. A 96, 023861 (2017)

2017
[18]

Kolchin, C

P. Kolchin, C. Belthangady, S. Du, G. Y. Yin, and S. E. Harris, Electro-optic modulation of single photons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 103601 (2008)

2008
[19]

C.-Y. Jin, R. Johne, M. Y. Swinkels, T. B. Hoang, L. Mi- dolo, P. J. van Veldhoven, and A. Fiore, Ultrafast non- local control of spontaneous emission, Nature Nanotech- nology 9, 886 (2014)

2014
[20]

Morin, M

O. Morin, M. K¨ orber, S. Langenfeld, and G. Rempe, Deterministic shaping and reshaping of single-photon temporal wave functions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 133602 (2019)

2019
[21]

Ganesan and K

K. Ganesan and K. T. Taylor, Rydberg states of the hy- drogen atom near a metal surface, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 29, 1293 (1996)

1996
[22]

Gonz´ alez-Tudela, A

A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, A. Reiserer, J. J. Garc´ ıa-Ripoll, and F. J. Garc´ ıa-Vidal, Light–matter interactions in quan- 10 tum nanophotonic devices, Nature Reviews Physics 6, 166 (2024)

2024
[23]

W. L. Barnes, A. Dereux, and T. W. Ebbesen, Surface plasmon subwavelength optics, Nature 424, 824 (2003)

2003
[24]

Anger, P

P. Anger, P. Bharadwaj, and L. Novotny, Enhancement and quenching of single-molecule fluorescence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 113002 (2006)

2006
[25]

Pelton, Modified spontaneous emission in nanopho- tonic structures, Nature Photonics 9, 427 (2015)

M. Pelton, Modified spontaneous emission in nanopho- tonic structures, Nature Photonics 9, 427 (2015)

2015
[26]

W. L. Barnes, S. A. R. Horsley, and W. L. Vos, Classi- cal antennas, quantum emitters, and densities of optical states, Journal of Optics 22, 073501 (2020)

2020
[27]

T¨ orm¨ a and W

P. T¨ orm¨ a and W. L. Barnes, Strong coupling between surface plasmon polaritons and emitters: a review, Re- ports on Progress in Physics 78, 013901 (2014)

2014
[28]

Delga, J

A. Delga, J. Feist, J. Bravo-Abad, and F. J. Garcia-Vidal, Theory of strong coupling between quantum emitters and localized surface plasmons, Journal of Optics 16, 114018 (2014)

2014
[29]

Bitton, S

O. Bitton, S. N. Gupta, and G. Haran, Quantum dot plasmonics: from weak to strong coupling, Nanophoton- ics 8, 559 (2019)

2019
[30]

M. S. Tame, K. R. McEnery, S ¸. K. ¨Ozdemir, J. Lee, S. A. Maier, and M. S. Kim, Quantum plasmonics, Na- ture Physics 9, 329 (2013)

2013
[31]

W. Wan, X. Yang, and J. Gao, Strong coupling between mid-infrared localized plasmons and phonons, Optics Ex- press 24, 12367 (2016)

2016
[32]

D. G. Baranov, M. Wers¨ all, J. Cuadra, T. J. Antosiewicz, and T. Shegai, Novel nanostructures and materials for strong light–matter interactions, ACS Photonics 5, 24 (2018)

2018
[33]

K. D. Chapkin, L. Bursi, G. J. Stec, A. Lauchner, N. J. Hogan, Y. Cui, P. Nordlander, and N. J. Halas, Lifetime dynamics of plasmons in the few-atom limit, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 9134 (2018), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1805357115

2018 doi
[34]

H. P. Specht, J. Bochmann, M. M¨ ucke, B. Weber, E. Figueroa, D. L. Moehring, and G. Rempe, Phase shap- ing of single-photon wave packets, Nature Photonics 3, 469 (2009)

2009
[35]

A. O. C. Davis, V. Thiel, M. Karpi´ nski, and B. J. Smith, Measuring the single-photon temporal-spectral wave function, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 083602 (2018)

2018
[36]

B. C. Pursley, S. G. Carter, M. K. Yakes, A. S. Bracker, and D. Gammon, Picosecond pulse shaping of single pho- tons using quantum dots, Nature Communications9, 115 (2018)

2018
[37]

K. L. Fenwick, F. Bouchard, G. Thekkadath, P. J. Bus- tard, D. England, and B. J. Sussman, Broadband spectral manipulation of single photons using cross-phase modu- lation (2025), arXiv:2508.15886 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[38]

Hillenbrand and F

R. Hillenbrand and F. Keilmann, Complex optical con- stants on a subwavelength scale, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3029 (2000)

2000
[39]

Ocelic, A

N. Ocelic, A. Huber, and R. Hillenbrand, Pseu- doheterodyne detection for background-free near- field spectroscopy, Applied Physics Letters 89, 101124 (2006), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apl/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.2348781/13219770/101124 1 online.pdf

2006 doi
[40]

Z. Zhao, V. Kravtsov, Z. Wang, Z. Zhou, L. Dou, D. Huang, Z. Wang, X. Cheng, M. B. Raschke, and T. Jiang, Applications of ultrafast nano-spectroscopy and nano-imaging with tip-based microscopy, eLight 5, 1 (2025)

2025
[41]

Kohler, V

B. Kohler, V. V. Yakovlev, J. Che, J. L. Krause, M. Messina, K. R. Wilson, N. Schwentner, R. M. Whit- nell, and Y. Yan, Quantum control of wave packet evo- lution with tailored femtosecond pulses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 3360 (1995)

1995
[42]

E. A. Shapiro, M. Spanner, and M. Y. Ivanov, Quantum logic approach to wave packet control, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 237901 (2003)

2003
[43]

Ohmori, Wave-packet and coherent control dynamics, Annual Review of Physical Chemistry 60, 487 (2009)

K. Ohmori, Wave-packet and coherent control dynamics, Annual Review of Physical Chemistry 60, 487 (2009)

2009
[44]

S. Y. Buhmann and S. Scheel, Macroscopic quantum elec- trodynamics and duality, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 140404 (2009)

2009
[45]

Feist, A

J. Feist, A. I. Fern´ andez-Dom´ ınguez, and F. J. Garc´ ıa- Vidal, Macroscopic qed for quantum nanophotonics: emitter-centered modes as a minimal basis for multiemit- ter problems, Nanophotonics 10, 477 (2021)

2021
[46]

S. Wang, G. D. Scholes, and L.-Y. Hsu, Quantum dynam- ics of a molecular emitter strongly coupled with surface plasmon polaritons: A macroscopic quantum electrody- namics approach, The Journal of Chemical Physics 151, 014105 (2019)

2019
[47]

Medina, F

I. Medina, F. J. Garc´ ıa-Vidal, A. I. Fern´ andez- Dom´ ınguez, and J. Feist, Few-mode field quantization of arbitrary electromagnetic spectral densities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 093601 (2021)

2021
[48]

Lindel, D

F. Lindel, D. Lentrodt, S. Y. Buhmann, and C. Sch¨ afer, Quantized embedding approaches for collective strong coupling—connecting ab initio and macroscopic qed to simple models in polaritonics, The Journal of Chemical Physics 161, 154111 (2024)

2024
[49]

W. C. Chew, Waves and fields in inhomogeneous media (Wiley IEEE Press Imprint, 1999)

1999
[50]

Dorner and P

U. Dorner and P. Zoller, Laser-driven atoms in half- cavities, Physical Review A 66, 023816 (2002)

2002
[51]

M. V. Fedorov, M. A. Efremov, A. E. Kazakov, K. W. Chan, C. K. Law, and J. H. Eberly, Spontaneous emission of a photon: Wave-packet structures and atom-photon entanglement, Phys. Rev. A 72, 032110 (2005)

2005
[52]

Cuartero-Gonz´ alez and A

A. Cuartero-Gonz´ alez and A. I. Fern´ andez-Dom´ ınguez, Dipolar and quadrupolar excitons coupled to a nanoparticle-on-mirror cavity, Phys. Rev. B 101, 035403 (2020)

2020
[53]

Hakami, L

J. Hakami, L. Wang, and M. S. Zubairy, Spectral properties of a strongly coupled quantum-dot–metal- nanoparticle system, Phys. Rev. A 89, 053835 (2014)

2014
[54]

A. S. Leathers and D. A. Micha, Density matrix for non- markovian dissipative dynamics: A numerical method, Chemical Physics Letters 415, 46 (2005)

2005
[55]

Polyanin and A

P. Polyanin and A. Manzhirov, Handbook of Integral Equations: Second Edition , Handbooks of mathematical equations (CRC Press, 2008)

2008
[56]

P. R. Berman and G. W. Ford, Chapter 5 - sponta- neous decay, unitarity, and the weisskopf–wigner approx- imation, in Advances in Atomic, Molecular, and Opti- cal Physics, Advances In Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, Vol. 59, edited by E. Arimondo, P. Berman, and C. Lin...

2010
[57]

Savasta, R

S. Savasta, R. Saija, A. Ridolfo, O. Di Stefano, P. Denti, and F. Borghese, Nanopolaritons: Vacuum rabi split- ting with a single quantum dot in the center of a dimer nanoantenna, ACS Nano 4, 6369 (2010), pMID: 21028780, https://doi.org/10.1021/nn100585h. 11

2010 doi
[58]

Van Vlack, P

C. Van Vlack, P. T. Kristensen, and S. Hughes, Spon- taneous emission spectra and quantum light-matter in- teractions from a strongly coupled quantum dot metal- nanoparticle system, Phys. Rev. B 85, 075303 (2012)

2012
[59]

J. Zhao, A. O. Pinchuk, J. M. McMahon, S. Li, L. K. Ausman, A. L. Atkinson, and G. C. Schatz, Methods for describing the electromagnetic properties of silver and gold nanoparticles, Accounts of Chemical Research 41, 1710 (2008)

2008
[60]

G. Mie, Beitr¨ age zur optik tr¨ uber me- dien, speziell kolloidaler metall¨ osungen, Annalen der Physik 330, 377 (1908), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/andp.19083300302

1908 doi
[61]

Li, P.-S

L.-W. Li, P.-S. Kooi, M.-S. Leong, and T.-S. Yee, Elec- tromagnetic dyadic green’s function in spherically multi- layered media, IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques 42, 2302 (1994)

1994
[62]

Chikkaraddy, B

R. Chikkaraddy, B. de Nijs, F. Benz, S. J. Barrow, O. A. Scherman, E. Rosta, A. Demetriadou, P. Fox, O. Hess, and J. J. Baumberg, Single-molecule strong coupling at room temperature in plasmonic nanocavities, Nature 535, 127 (2016)

2016
[63]

Neuman, J

T. Neuman, J. Aizpurua, and R. Esteban, Quantum the- ory of surface-enhanced resonant raman scattering (serrs) of molecules in strongly coupled plasmon–exciton sys- tems, Nanophotonics 9, 295 (2020)

2020
[64]

Esteban, J

R. Esteban, J. J. Baumberg, and J. Aizpurua, Molecular optomechanics approach to surface- enhanced raman scattering, Accounts of Chemi- cal Research 55, 1889 (2022), pMID: 35776555, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.accounts.1c00759

2022 doi
[65]

Roelli, H

P. Roelli, H. Hu, E. Verhagen, S. Reich, and C. Galland, Nanocavities for molecular optomechanics: Their funda- mental description and applications, ACS Photonics 11, 4486 (2024)

2024
[66]

B. R. Mollow, Power spectrum of light scattered by two- level systems, Phys. Rev. 188, 1969 (1969)

1969
[67]

B. L. Ng, C. H. Chow, and C. Kurtsiefer, Observation of the mollow triplet from an optically confined single atom, Phys. Rev. A 106, 063719 (2022)

2022
[68]

D. Ge, S. Marguet, A. Issa, S. Jradi, T. H. Nguyen, M. Nahra, J. B´ eal, R. Deturche, H. Chen, S. Blaize, J. Plain, C. Fiorini, L. Douillard, O. Soppera, X. Q. Dinh, C. Dang, X. Yang, T. Xu, B. Wei, X. W. Sun, C. Couteau, and R. Bachelot, Hybrid plasmonic nano- emitters with c...

2020
[69]

A. E. Kaplan, P. Stifter, K. A. H. van Leeuwen, W. E. Lamb, and W. P. Schleich, Intermode traces – fundamental interference phenomenon in quantum and wave physics, Physica Scripta, 1998, 93 (1998)

1998
[70]

M. V. Berry, Quantum carpets in leaky boxes, European Journal of Physics , 43, 055403 (2022)

2022
[71]

Kawashima, M

H. Kawashima, M. M. Wefers, and K. A. Nelson, Fem- tosecond pulse shaping, multiple-pulse spectroscopy, and optical control, Annual Review of Physical Chemistry46, 627 (1995)

1995
[72]

K.-D. Park, M. A. May, H. Leng, J. Wang, J. A. Kropp, T. Gougousi, M. Pelton, and M. B. Raschke, Tip-enhanced strong coupling spec- troscopy, imaging, and control of a single quan- tum emitter, Science Advances 5, eaav5931 (2019), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.aav5931

2019 doi
[73]

Vagov, V

A. Vagov, V. M. Axt, and T. Kuhn, Electron-phonon dynamics in optically excited quantum dots: Exact so- lution for multiple ultrashort laser pulses, Phys. Rev. B 66, 165312 (2002)

2002
[74]

O. V. Prezhdo, Multiple excitons and the electron– phonon bottleneck in semiconductor quantum dots: An ab initio perspective, Chemical Physics Letters 460, 1 (2008)

2008
[75]

A. D. Somoza, N. Lorenzoni, J. Lim, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Driving force and nonequilibrium vibronic dynamics in charge separation of strongly bound electron–hole pairs, Communications Physics 6, 65 (2023)

2023
[76]

Panhans, S

M. Panhans, S. Hutsch, and F. Ortmann, Insight on charge-transfer regimes in electron-phonon coupled molecular systems via numerically exact simulations, Communications Physics 6, 125 (2023)

2023
[77]

Roy-Choudhury and S

K. Roy-Choudhury and S. Hughes, Spontaneous emission from a quantum dot in a structured photonic reservoir: phonon-mediated breakdown of fermi’s golden rule, Optica 2, 434 (2015)

2015
[78]

Semenov and A

A. Semenov and A. Nitzan, Electron transfer in confined electromagnetic fields, The Journal of Chemical Physics 150, 174122 (2019)

2019
[79]

Litinskaya and F

M. Litinskaya and F. Herrera, Vacuum-enhanced optical nonlinearities with disordered molecular photoswitches, Phys. Rev. B 99, 041107 (2019)

2019
[80]

Herrera and J

F. Herrera and J. Owrutsky, Molecular polaritons for controlling chemistry with quantum optics, The Journal of Chemical Physics 152, 100902 (2020)

2020
[81]

Herrera and M

F. Herrera and M. Litinskaya, Disordered ensembles of strongly coupled single-molecule plasmonic picocavi- ties as nonlinear optical metamaterials, The Journal of Chemical Physics 156, 114702 (2022). 12 Appendix A: Orthonormalization of bosonic field operators Consider a plasm...

2022
[82]

[6] can be employed to calculate the expectation value of the electric field operator from Eq

Electric Field Amplitude and Intensity The Wigner-Weisskopf wavefunction ansatz in Eq. [6] can be employed to calculate the expectation value of the electric field operator from Eq. (A16). For a single emitter, we write, ˆE(+)(r)|ψ(t)⟩ = ∫∞ 0 dωE(r,ω )ˆa(ω) ∫∞ 0 dω′ ∫ d3r′Cg1(...
[83]

(C11) Let the qubit transition frequency be ωe

Analytical solution for a single Lorentzian kernel We begin with a single Lorentzian spectral kernel function, K(ω) = A π B (ω− Ω)2 +B2. (C11) Let the qubit transition frequency be ωe. Working in the interaction frame at frequency ωe, time-domain memory kernel that corresponds...

2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Couteau, S

C. Couteau, S. Barz, T. Durt, T. Gerrits, J. Huwer, R. Prevedel, J. Rarity, A. Shields, and G. Weihs, Ap- plications of single photons to quantum communication and computing, Nature Reviews Physics 5, 326 (2023)

2023

[2] [2]

H. J. Kimble, M. Dagenais, and L. Mandel, Photon anti- bunching in resonance fluorescence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 691 (1977)

1977

[3] [3]

A. Kuhn, M. Hennrich, and G. Rempe, Deterministic single-photon source for distributed quantum network- ing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 067901 (2002)

2002

[4] [4]

McKeever, A

J. McKeever, A. Boca, A. D. Boozer, R. Miller, J. R. Buck, A. Kuzmich, and H. J. Kimble, De- terministic generation of single photons from one atom trapped in a cavity, Science 303, 1992 (2004), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1095232

work page doi:10.1126/science.1095232 1992

[5] [5]

Buckley, K

S. Buckley, K. Rivoire, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Engineered quantum dot single-photon sources, Reports on Progress in Physics, 75, 126503 (2012)

work page 2012

[6] [6]

Schr¨ oder, F

T. Schr¨ oder, F. G¨ adeke, M. J. Banholzer, and O. Benson, Ultrabright and efficient single-photon generation based on nitrogen-vacancy centres in nanodiamonds on a solid immersion lens, New Journal of Physics , 13, 055017 (2011)

work page 2011

[7] [7]

A. F. Koenderink, Single-photon nanoantennas, ACS Photonics, ACS Photonics 4, 710 (2017)

work page 2017

[8] [8]

Lettow, Y

R. Lettow, Y. L. A. Rezus, A. Renn, G. Zumofen, E. Iko- nen, S. G¨ otzinger, and V. Sandoghdar, Quantum inter- ference of tunably indistinguishable photons from remote organic molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 123605 (2010)

work page 2010