- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Position-resolved resonance quantization for lossy cavities

Lucas Weitzel1,*, Andreas Buchleitner1,2,†, and Dominik Lentrodt1,2,‡

  • *Contact author: lucas.weitzel@lkb.upmc.fr
  • †Contact author: a.buchleitner@physik.uni-freiburg.de
  • ‡Contact author: dominik@lentrodt.com
PDF

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 033108 – Published 27 July, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/zx17-zz1m

Abstract

Modern experiments in resonators are moving to ever more extreme quantum regimes, posing major challenges to established theoretical approaches, such as so-called few-mode models. While these models have driven major insights for traditional regimes, they are now hitting their limitations for highly open cavities and extended systems, as encountered in cavity experiments with molecules and solid-state systems. Here, we present a method that significantly extends the conceptual underpinning of these discrete-mode models, promoting them to a systematic treatment. We develop an ansatz which allows to quantize the resonator's resonances with position-resolved discrete modes, thus naturally incorporating losses in the formalism. Such a construction effectively unifies key ideas from pseudomodes and quantized quasinormal modes theory. We further present a criterion for construction of the ansatz parameters at every point in space and semianalytically benchmark the resulting solution for a paradigmatic one-dimensional example resonator.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (117)

  1. C. Monroe, D. M. Meekhof, B. E. King, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, Demonstration of a fundamental quantum logic gate, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4714 (1995).
  2. G. Jarc, S. Y. Mathengattil, A. Montanaro, F. Giusti, E. M. Rigoni, R. Sergo, F. Fassioli, S. Winnerl, S. Dal Zilio, D. Mihailovic, P. Prelovšek, M. Eckstein, and D. Fausti, Cavity-mediated thermal control of metal-to-insulator transition in 1T−TaS2, Nature (London) 622, 487 (2023).
  3. E. T. Jaynes and F. W. Cummings, Comparison of quantum and semiclassical radiation theories with application to the beam maser, Proc. IEEE 51, 89 (1963).
  4. J. Larson, T. Mavrogordatos, S. Parkins, and A. Vidiella-Barranco, The Jaynes-Cummings model: 60 years and still counting, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 41, JCM1 (2024).
  5. G. S. Agarwal, Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2012).
  6. R. R. Puri and G. S. Agarwal, Collapse and revival phenomena in the Jaynes-Cummings model with cavity damping, Phys. Rev. A 33, 3610 (1986).
  7. N. M. Sundaresan, Y. Liu, D. Sadri, L. J. Szőcs, D. L. Underwood, M. Malekakhlagh, H. E. Türeci, and A. A. Houck, Beyond strong coupling in a multimode cavity, Phys. Rev. X 5, 021035 (2015).
  8. A. Frisk Kockum, A. Miranowicz, S. De Liberato, S. Savasta, and F. Nori, Ultrastrong coupling between light and matter, Nat. Rev. Phys. 1, 19 (2019).
  9. P. Forn-Díaz, L. Lamata, E. Rico, J. Kono, and E. Solano, Ultrastrong coupling regimes of light-matter interaction, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 025005 (2019).
  10. T. W. Ebbesen, Hybrid light–matter states in a molecular and material science perspective, Acc. Chem. Res. 49, 2403 (2016).
  11. A. Thomas, L. Lethuillier-Karl, K. Nagarajan, R. M. A. Vergauwe, J. George, T. Chervy, A. Shalabney, E. Devaux, C. Genet, J. Moran, and T. W. Ebbesen, Tilting a ground-state reactivity landscape by vibrational strong coupling, Science 363, 615 (2019).
  12. F. J. Garcia-Vidal, C. Ciuti, and T. W. Ebbesen, Manipulating matter by strong coupling to vacuum fields, Science 373, eabd0336 (2021).
  13. F. Appugliese, J. Enkner, G. L. Paravicini-Bagliani, M. Beck, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, G. Scalari, C. Ciuti, and J. Faist, Breakdown of topological protection by cavity vacuum fields in the integer quantum Hall effect, Science 375, 1030 (2022).
  14. O. S. Ojambati, R. Chikkaraddy, W. D. Deacon, M. Horton, D. Kos, V. A. Turek, U. F. Keyser, and J. J. Baumberg, Quantum electrodynamics at room temperature coupling a single vibrating molecule with a plasmonic nanocavity, Nat. Commun. 10, 1049 (2019).
  15. F. Benz, M. K. Schmidt, A. Dreismann, R. Chikkaraddy, Y. Zhang, A. Demetriadou, C. Carnegie, H. Ohadi, B. De Nijs, R. Esteban, et al., Single-molecule optomechanics in “picocavities”, Science 354, 726 (2016).
  16. J. T. Hugall, A. Singh, and N. F. van Hulst, Plasmonic cavity coupling, ACS Photonics 5, 43 (2018).
  17. E. Vetsch, D. Reitz, G. Sagué, R. Schmidt, S. Dawkins, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Optical interface created by laser-cooled atoms trapped in the evanescent field surrounding an optical nanofiber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 203603 (2010).
  18. J. H. Shirley, Solution of the Schrödinger equation with a Hamiltonian periodic in time, Phys. Rev. 138, B979 (1965).
  19. I. I. Rabi, On the process of space quantization, Phys. Rev. 49, 324 (1936).
  20. D. Braak, Integrability of the Rabi model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 100401 (2011).
  21. A. Nazir and G. Schaller, The reaction coordinate mapping in quantum thermodynamics, in Thermodynamics in the Quantum Regime: Fundamental Aspects and New Directions, edited by F. Binder, L. A. Correa, C. Gogolin, J. Anders, and G. Adesso (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018), pp. 551–577.
  22. S. De Liberato, Virtual photons in the ground state of a dissipative system, Nat. Commun. 8, 1465 (2017).
  23. S. M. Barnett and P. M. Radmore, Quantum theory of cavity quasimodes, Opt. Commun. 68, 364 (1988).
  24. S. M. Dutra and G. Nienhuis, in Modern Challenges in Quantum Optics, edited by M. Orszag and J. C. Retama, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 575 (Springer, Berlin, 2001), p. 338.
  25. M. Khanbekyan, L. Knöll, D.-G. Welsch, A. A. Semenov, and W. Vogel, QED of lossy cavities: Operator and quantum-state input-output relations, Phys. Rev. A 72, 053813 (2005).
  26. S. Hughes, M. Richter, and A. Knorr, Quantized pseudomodes for plasmonic cavity QED, Opt. Lett. 43, 1834 (2018).
  27. H. P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2002).
  28. H. J. Carmichael, An Open Systems Approach to Quantum Optics, Lecture Notes in Physics Monographs, Vol. 18 (Springer, Berlin, 1993).
  29. C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg, Atom-Photon Interactions: Basic Processes and Applications (Wiley-VCH, New York, 2008).
  30. B. M. Garraway, Nonperturbative decay of an atomic system in a cavity, Phys. Rev. A 55, 2290 (1997).
  31. B. M. Garraway, Decay of an atom coupled strongly to a reservoir, Phys. Rev. A 55, 4636 (1997).
  32. C. Lamprecht and H. Ritsch, Quantized atom-field dynamics in unstable cavities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3787 (1999).
  33. S. M. Dutra and G. Nienhuis, Quantized mode of a leaky cavity, Phys. Rev. A 62, 063805 (2000).
  34. B. J. Dalton, S. M. Barnett, and B. M. Garraway, Theory of pseudomodes in quantum optical processes, Phys. Rev. A 64, 053813 (2001).
  35. G. Hackenbroich, C. Viviescas, and F. Haake, Field quantization for chaotic resonators with overlapping modes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 083902 (2002).
  36. C. Viviescas and G. Hackenbroich, Field quantization for open optical cavities, Phys. Rev. A 67, 013805 (2003).
  37. S. Franke, S. Hughes, M. K. Dezfouli, P. T. Kristensen, K. Busch, A. Knorr, and M. Richter, Quantization of quasinormal modes for open cavities and plasmonic cavity quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 213901 (2019).
  38. D. Lentrodt and J. Evers, Ab initio few-mode theory for quantum potential scattering problems, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011008 (2020).
  39. I. Medina, F. J. García-Vidal, A. I. Fernández-Domínguez, and J. Feist, Few-mode field quantization of arbitrary electromagnetic spectral densities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 093601 (2021).
  40. M. Sánchez-Barquilla, F. J. García-Vidal, A. I. Fernández-Domínguez, and J. Feist, Few-mode field quantization for multiple emitters, Nanophotonics 11, 4363 (2022).
  41. D. Lentrodt, O. Diekmann, C. H. Keitel, S. Rotter, and J. Evers, Certifying multimode light-matter interaction in lossy resonators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 263602 (2023).
  42. P. Menczel, K. Funo, M. Cirio, N. Lambert, and F. Nori, Non-Hermitian pseudomodes for strongly coupled open quantum systems: Unravelings, correlations, and thermodynamics, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033237 (2024).
  43. D. O. Krimer, M. Liertzer, S. Rotter, and H. E. Türeci, Route from spontaneous decay to complex multimode dynamics in cavity QED, Phys. Rev. A 89, 033820 (2014).
  44. A. Strathearn, P. Kirton, D. Kilda, J. Keeling, and B. W. Lovett, Efficient non-Markovian quantum dynamics using time-evolving matrix product operators, Nat. Commun. 9, 3322 (2018).
  45. R. Trivedi, D. Malz, and J. I. Cirac, Convergence guarantees for discrete mode approximations to non-Markovian quantum baths, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 250404 (2021).
  46. R. S. Burkey and C. D. Cantrell, Discretization in the quasi-continuum, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 1, 169 (1984).
  47. T. N. Rescigno and V. McKoy, Rigorous method for computing photoabsorption cross sections from a basis-set expansion, Phys. Rev. A 12, 522 (1975).
  48. A. Maquet, S.-I. Chu, and W. P. Reinhardt, Stark ionization in dc and ac fields: An L2 complex-coordinate approach, Phys. Rev. A 27, 2946 (1983).
  49. A. Buchleitner, D. Delande, and J.-C. Gay, Microwave ionization of three-dimensional hydrogen atoms in a realistic numerical experiment, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 12, 505 (1995).
  50. M. Reed and B. Simon, III: Scattering Theory (Elsevier, New York, 1979), Vol. 3.
  51. N. Lambert, S. Ahmed, M. Cirio, and F. Nori, Modelling the ultra-strongly coupled spin-boson model with unphysical modes, Nat. Commun. 10, 3721 (2019).
  52. M. Lednev, F. J. García-Vidal, and J. Feist, Lindblad master equation capable of describing hybrid quantum systems in the ultrastrong coupling regime, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 106902 (2024).
  53. K. Hornberger and A. Buchleitner, Radiative decay of nondispersive wave packets, Europhys. Lett. 41, 383 (1998).
  54. C. M. Bustamante, F. P. Bonafé, M. Sukharev, M. Ruggenthaler, A. Nitzan, and A. Rubio, Molecular polariton dynamics in realistic cavities, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 21, 9823 (2025).
  55. T. F. Macedo, J. Faúndez, R. R. Dos Santos, N. C. Costa, and F. A. Pinheiro, Multifractal critical phase driven by coupling quasiperiodic systems to electromagnetic cavities, Phys. Rev. B 112, 174202 (2025).
  56. C. Viviescas and G. Hackenbroich, Quantum theory of multimode fields: Applications to optical resonators, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt. 6, 211 (2004).
  57. C. Gustin, J. Ren, S. Franke, and S. Hughes, Dissipation in the broadband and ultrastrong coupling regimes of cavity quantum electrodynamics: An ab initio quantized quasinormal mode approach, arXiv:2507.21408.
  58. L. Weitzel Dutra Souto, Generalized pseudomode theory for lossy cavities, Dissertation, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, 2025.
  59. R. J. Glauber and M. Lewenstein, Quantum optics of dielectric media, Phys. Rev. A 43, 467 (1991).
  60. S. Y. Buhmann, Dispersion Forces I (Springer, Berlin, 2012).
  61. We note that the Feshbach projection approach, employed in Refs.  [36, 38], is able to construct an analogous expression for the field expansion in Eq.  (1). The central difference in the former is that the corresponding modes are chosen explicitly as specific solutions of a wave equation. In our approach, on the other hand, they are functions yet to be determined, within the ansatz in Eq.  (1). The advantage of our approach, compared to the Feshbach projections, is that it does not restrict us to any predetermined mode basis, but aims from the very start at optimizing it to its purpose describing the dynamics of the matter system by the Markovian master equation  (4).
  62. G. Pleasance, B. M. Garraway, and F. Petruccione, Generalized theory of pseudomodes for exact descriptions of non-Markovian quantum processes, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043058 (2020).
  63. At this level of the discussion, we do not make assumptions on the matter-mode interaction strength. Therefore, we also include, for example, the “ultrastrong” coupling regime (where counterrotating terms contribute significantly) [9] in the concept of “strong.”
  64. D. Tamascelli, A. Smirne, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Nonperturbative treatment of non-Markovian dynamics of open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 030402 (2018).
  65. The retarded correlator differs from the advanced one by having the first and second time arguments swapped.
  66. The choice of gauge, and hence of the interaction Hamiltonian, becomes relevant at coupling strengths giving rise to significant contributions by counterrotating terms, when the gauge invariance of perturbative approximations is not guaranteed anymore. This issue has already been addressed in detail in the literature [67, 68]. Nevertheless, as long as the interaction Hamiltonian remains bilinear in the sense of point (2), the main idea of our approach still applies. The difference is that Cadvcont(r,r′,ω) could take a different form than in Eq.  (13) [69].
  67. O. Di Stefano, A. Settineri, V. Macrì, L. Garziano, R. Stassi, S. Savasta, and F. Nori, Resolution of gauge ambiguities in ultrastrong-coupling cavity quantum electrodynamics, Nat. Phys. 15, 803 (2019).
  68. W. Salmon, C. Gustin, A. Settineri, O. D. Stefano, D. Zueco, S. Savasta, F. Nori, and S. Hughes, Gauge-independent emission spectra and quantum correlations in the ultrastrong coupling regime of open system cavity-QED, Nanophotonics 11, 1573 (2022).
  69. C. Gustin, J. Ren, and S. Hughes, What is the spectral density of the reservoir for a lossy quantized cavity? Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 123601 (2025).
  70. N. Moiseyev, Non-Hermitian Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011).
  71. I. Rotter, A non-Hermitian Hamilton operator and the physics of open quantum systems, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 42, 153001 (2009).
  72. R. El-Ganainy, K. G. Makris, M. Khajavikhan, Z. H. Musslimani, S. Rotter, and D. N. Christodoulides, Non-Hermitian physics and PT symmetry, Nat. Phys. 14, 11 (2018).
  73. V. I. Kukulin, V. M. Krasnopol'sky, and J. Horáček, Theory of Resonances (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1989).
  74. P. Lalanne, W. Yan, K. Vynck, C. Sauvan, and J.-P. Hugonin, Light interaction with photonic and plasmonic resonances, Laser Photonics Rev. 12, 1700113 (2018).
  75. P. T. Kristensen, K. Herrmann, F. Intravaia, and K. Busch, Modeling electromagnetic resonators using quasinormal modes, Adv. Opt. Photon. 12, 612 (2020).
  76. H. E. Türeci, A. D. Stone, and B. Collier, Self-consistent multimode lasing theory for complex or random lasing media, Phys. Rev. A 74, 043822 (2006).
  77. P. Lambropoulos, G. M. Nikolopoulos, T. R. Nielsen, and S. Bay, Fundamental quantum optics in structured reservoirs, Rep. Prog. Phys. 63, 455 (2000).
  78. We note that in the pole expansion [Eq.  (19)], the quasinormal modes appear twice in the residues without a complex conjugation [79]. This important feature—as already noted in Refs. [30, 41]—implies that the residues can be complex, which evidences the necessity of the Hermitization condition (18), in order to comply with the properties of the electric field operator.
  79. M. B. Doost, W. Langbein, and E. A. Muljarov, Resonant-state expansion applied to three-dimensional open optical systems, Phys. Rev. A 90, 013834 (2014).
  80. E. S. C. Ching, P. T. Leung, A. Maassen van den Brink, W. M. Suen, S. S. Tong, and K. Young, Quasinormal-mode expansion for waves in open systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 1545 (1998).
  81. C. Sauvan, T. Wu, R. Zarouf, E. A. Muljarov, and P. Lalanne, Normalization, orthogonality, and completeness of quasinormal modes of open systems: The case of electromagnetism, Opt. Express 30, 6846 (2022).
  82. J. R. Taylor, Scattering Theory: The Quantum Theory of Nonrelativistic Collisions (Courier Corporation, Mineola, 2012).
  83. Y. K. Ho, The method of complex coordinate rotation and its applications to atomic collision processes, Phys. Rep. 99, 1 (1983).
  84. A. J. F. Siegert, On the derivation of the dispersion formula for nuclear reactions, Phys. Rev. 56, 750 (1939).
  85. More generally, the object in Eq.  (22) is nonmeromorphic, and it is known that nonmeromorphic complex functions do not admit pole expansions, by the Mittag-Leffler theorem [86].
  86. M. J. Ablowitz and A. S. Fokas, Complex Variables: Introduction and Applications (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2003).
  87. In fact, the need of a meromorphic approximation, as in Eq.  (23), is a consequence of assuming the initial state of the field to be the vacuum and does not necessarily persist in other cases. For example, one can show that ImC̃advcont(r,r′,ω) is indeed meromorphic if the initial field state fulfills thermal equilibrium statistics [58].
  88. See Supplemental Material of Ref. [52].
  89. F. Betz, F. Binkowski, and S. Burger, rpexpand: Software for Riesz projection expansion of resonance phenomena, SoftwareX 15, 100763 (2021).
  90. F. Binkowski, F. Betz, R. Colom, M. Hammerschmidt, L. Zschiedrich, and S. Burger, Quasinormal mode expansion of optical far-field quantities, Phys. Rev. B 102, 035432 (2020).
  91. B. Hoenders, Completeness of a set of modes connected with the electromagnetic field of a homogeneous sphere embedded in an infinite medium, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 11, 1815 (1978).
  92. We highlight that Eq.  (31) does not necessarily encompasses all solutions of Eq.  (28). Nevertheless, the accessible solutions already reveal a good performance in the application to a concrete case, as we will see in Sec.  3.
  93. R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson, Matrix Analysis (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2012).
  94. By minimizing, we mean to choose a such that all anti-Hermitian terms of the form of T̃μν(1) in Eq.  (31) are eliminated. Although a=1 seems like a straightforward choice, this is not always appropriate, as discussed further in Sec.  3 and in Appendix  pp5.
  95. Our approximation is grounded on the fact that, for a given matrix A, AH is the Hermitian matrix that minimizes the norm ∑μν|AμνH−Aμν|2∫, also known as Frobenius norm [93].
  96. M. S. Tomaš, Green function for multilayers: Light scattering in planar cavities, Phys. Rev. A 51, 2545 (1995).
  97. D. Lentrodt, Pyrot (version 0.0.1), Python Software Foundation, 2023, https://pypi.org/project/pyrot/.
  98. P. T. Leung, S. Y. Liu, and K. Young, Completeness and orthogonality of quasinormal modes in leaky optical cavities, Phys. Rev. A 49, 3057 (1994).
  99. Note that the convergence is not uniform, but rather pointwise, as Fig.  3 evidences in the interval between ω1 and ω2.
  100. C. J. Sánchez Martínez, J. Feist, and F. J. García-Vidal, A mixed perturbative-nonperturbative treatment for strong light-matter interactions, Nanophotonics 13, 2669 (2024).
  101. H. Ritsch, P. Domokos, F. Brennecke, and T. Esslinger, Cold atoms in cavity-generated dynamical optical potentials, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 553 (2013).
  102. B. J. Dalton, S. M. Barnett, and P. L. Knight, Quasi mode theory of macroscopic canonical quantization in quantum optics and cavity quantum electrodynamics, J. Mod. Opt. 46, 1315 (1999).
  103. W. Yan, R. Faggiani, and P. Lalanne, Rigorous modal analysis of plasmonic nanoresonators, Phys. Rev. B 97, 205422 (2018).
  104. E. A. Muljarov and W. Langbein, Resonant-state expansion of dispersive open optical systems: Creating gold from sand, Phys. Rev. B 93, 075417 (2016).
  105. H. M. Nussenzveig, Causality and Dispersion Relations (Academic Press, 1972).
  106. S. Scheel and S. Y. Buhmann, Macroscopic quantum electrodynamics—Concepts and applications, Acta Phys. Slovaca 58, 675 (2008).
  107. In the light of Eq.  (15), we further need to assume that g¯*(r)⊗g̃T(r′)=g̃*(r)⊗g¯T(r′) [58]. Physically, the latter requirement is known as reciprocity, and it is already satisfied by the correlator in the continuum framework, due to its connection to the Green's function [60].
  108. Formally, this procedure is guaranteed by the quantum regression theorem [27].
  109. It is not known, in the general case, for which domain of r and r′ the completeness relation holds. It is conjectured to be restricted to the resonator volume, which has been proven to be the case for the special cases of 1D cavities [98] and a three-dimensional spherical cavity [75].
  110. R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson, Topics in Matrix Analysis (Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK, 1994).
  111. S. Franke, M. Richter, J. Ren, A. Knorr, and S. Hughes, Quantized quasinormal-mode description of nonlinear cavity-QED effects from coupled resonators with a Fano-like resonance, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033456 (2020).
  112. S. Franke, J. Ren, S. Hughes, and M. Richter, Fluctuation-dissipation theorem and fundamental photon commutation relations in lossy nanostructures using quasinormal modes, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033332 (2020).
  113. S. Franke, J. Ren, and S. Hughes, Impact of mode regularization for quasinormal-mode perturbation theories, Phys. Rev. A 108, 043502 (2023).
  114. See Supplemental Material of Ref. [37].
  115. J. Ren, S. Franke, A. Knorr, M. Richter, and S. Hughes, Near-field to far-field transformations of optical quasinormal modes and efficient calculation of quantized quasinormal modes for open cavities and plasmonic resonators, Phys. Rev. B 101, 205402 (2020).
  116. R. Fuchs, J. Ren, S. Franke, S. Hughes, and M. Richter, Quantization of optical quasinormal modes for spatially separated cavity systems with finite retardation, Phys. Rev. A 110, 043718 (2024).
  117. The matrix square root S1/2, in this case, is defined as fulfilling S=S1/2S1/2.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Research 8, 033108– Published 27 July, 2026
  • Received 17 December 2025
  • Accepted 22 June 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation