4.8 Article

Destructive Photon Echo Formation in Six-Wave Mixing Signals of a MoSe2 Monolayer

期刊

ADVANCED SCIENCE
卷 9, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/advs.202103813

关键词

nonlinear spectroscopy; photon echo; transition metal dichalcogenides

资金

  1. German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) [57504619]
  2. Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange (NAWA) [PPN/ULM/2019/1/00064]
  3. NAWA under an APM grant [PPI/APM/2019/1/00085]
  4. CNRS via IRP 2D materials
  5. TEAM programme of the Foundation for Polish Science
  6. EU within the ERDFund
  7. ESF [CZ.02.2.69/0.0/0.0/20_079/0017436]
  8. Elemental Strategy Initiative by the MEXT, Japan [JPMXP0112101001]
  9. JSPS KAKENHI [19H05790, JP20H00354]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Monolayers of transition metal dichalcogenides exhibit strong excitonic optical response and when encapsulated with hexagonal boron nitride, they can achieve a purely homogeneously broadened exciton system. Ultrafast six-wave mixing spectroscopy on a MoSe2-based system revealed a novel destructive photon echo effect, which arises from destructive interference in successive repetitions of the heterodyning experiment.
Monolayers of transition metal dichalcogenides display a strong excitonic optical response. Additionally encapsulating the monolayer with hexagonal boron nitride allows to reach the limit of a purely homogeneously broadened exciton system. On such a MoSe2-based system, ultrafast six-wave mixing spectroscopy is performed and a novel destructive photon echo effect is found. This process manifests as a characteristic depression of the nonlinear signal dynamics when scanning the delay between the applied laser pulses. By theoretically describing the process within a local field model, an excellent agreement with the experiment is reached. An effective Bloch vector representation is developed and thereby it is demonstrated that the destructive photon echo stems from a destructive interference of successive repetitions of the heterodyning experiment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据