MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nondestructive Measurement of Orbital Angular Momentum for an Electron Beam

2016· article· en· W2528052376 on OpenAlexafffund
Hugo Larocque, Frédéric Bouchard, Vincenzo Grillo, Alicia Sit, Stefano Frabboni, Rafal E. Dunin‐Borkowski, Miles J. Padgett, Robert W. Boyd, Ebrahim Karimi

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicOrbital Angular Momentum in Optics
Canadian institutionsMax Planck - University of Ottawa Centre for Extreme and Quantum Photonics
FundersCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of CanadaEuropean Research CouncilCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsElectronPhysicsAngular momentumDipoleMagnetic momentMagnetic dipoleOrbital angular momentum of lightMoment (physics)Electron magnetic dipole momentCathode rayOpticsAtomic physicsComputational physicsCondensed matter physicsTotal angular momentum quantum numberQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Free electrons with a helical phase front, referred to as "twisted" electrons, possess an orbital angular momentum (OAM) and, hence, a quantized magnetic dipole moment along their propagation direction. This intrinsic magnetic moment can be used to probe material properties. Twisted electrons thus have numerous potential applications in materials science. Measuring this quantity often relies on a series of projective measurements that subsequently change the OAM carried by the electrons. In this Letter, we propose a nondestructive way of measuring an electron beam's OAM through the interaction of this associated magnetic dipole with a conductive loop. Such an interaction results in the generation of induced currents within the loop, which are found to be directly proportional to the electron's OAM value. Moreover, the electron experiences no OAM variations and only minimal energy losses upon the measurement, and, hence, the nondestructive nature of the proposed technique.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicOrbital Angular Momentum in OpticsFrench-language works237,207