A study of two-photon florescence in metallic nanoshells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A theory of the two-photon florescence for a metallic nanoshell in the presence of quantum emitters has been developed. The metallic nanoshell is made of a metallic nanosphere as a core and a dielectric material as a shell. An ensemble of quantum emitters is deposited on the surface of the dielectric shell. A probe field is applied to study the two-photon process in the metallic nanoshell. Surface plasmon polaritons are created at the interface between the core and shell due to coupling between probe photons and surface plasmons present at the surface of the metallic nanosphere. The intensity of the surface plasmon polariton field is huge when the probe photon energy is in resonance with the polariton resonance energy. Induced electric dipoles are created in each quantum emitter due to the surface plasmon polariton field and the probe field. Dipoles in quantum emitters interact with each other via the dipole-dipole interaction. The dipole-dipole interaction is calculated using the many-body theory and mean field approximation. It is found that the dipole-dipole interaction has new term which is induced by the surface plasmon polariton field. An analytical expression of the two-photon florescence is derived in the presence the dipole-dipole interaction. Our theory predicts that the intensity of the two-photon florescence is enhanced in the presence of quantum emitters relative to the florescence of the metallic nanoshell in isolation. Physics behind the enhancement is the presence of the dipole-dipole interaction between the ensemble of quantum emitters. It is also found that as the concentration of quantum emitters increases, the dipole-dipole field also increases. This in turn, increases the two-photon florescence as function of the concentration. Finally, we have compared our theory with experiments of a metallic nanoshell which is made for Au nanosphere core and the SiO 2 shell. The metallic nanoshell is surrounded by various concentrations of Cadmium-Selenium quantum dots as quantum emitters. A good agreement between theory and experiment is found.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".