arXiv:2006.15963v1 [cond-mat.mes-hall] 29 Jun 2020 ope oasnl aiymd [ mode cavity single a to coupled eoac cursa siltrsrnt hti comparab is that strength to oscillator an acquires resonance h eainbtenA n ro xiain ymaking by excitations [ optics trion quantum of model and (TC) Tavis-Cummings the AP of use between relation the h oetmo htnrsnn ihtetintransition trion the with resonant ( a of momentum the splitting strength, ecie nesml of ensemble an describes ligh resonant ongoing limited a of of diffraction subject generation by optical the is trion for isolated strength been oscillator single has The excitations debate. trion and eoac speoiatyrdaieybodnd[ broadened radiatively excit predominantly the samples clean is in that resonance ensuring turn in rates, decay rse yFrisaeetos(oe) emdatatv o dynamically attractive are termed (holes), that [ optical - repulsive [ sea elementary are Fermi (hole) relevant by limit dressed the this an in that and trion excitations shown – exciton bound recently an spectra three-body absorption/reflection been of the new optical state of a energy – the of the emergence of near the resonance nature to leads the and monol modifies the into (holes) dramatically electrons itinerant of Introduction Bohr small The excitons. bound TM tightly neutral radius by of spectra dominated excitation are optical the interactions, [ many-bod correlations investigating strong and for physics platform exciting have an (TMD) as dichalcogenides emerged metal transition of monolayers ∗ E [email protected] esatoraayi yrcligta h Cmodel TC the that recalling by analysis our start We model Tavis-Cummings (AP) exciton attractive between connection The w-iesoa 2)smcnutr [ semiconductors (2D) Two-dimensional T f f T .While ). x h olo hsLte st hdnwlgton light new shed to is Letter this of goal The . a ∼ B ω xio-oaosi w-iesoa eiodcosadt and semiconductors two-dimensional in Exciton-polarons a eg T f fTDectn ed outasotradiative ultra-short to leads excitons TMD of x ewe h rud( ground the between stetinBh aisand radius Bohr trion the is obignwisgtta ol ept xli h tiigd striking the explain to semiconductors. help two-dimensional could of t that than insight smaller new much provi bring is Ansatz to energy Chevy Fermi the a the that provided sea extent and Fermi the excitons to unperturbed valid an is in analogy exciton The bare b a can exciton-polaron of an superposition that show to optics de quantum of ongoing model of subject is exciton-polarons and be trion, termed connection the Nevertheless, exciton-Fermi-polarons. ( k f h lmnayotclecttoso w-iesoa el two-dimensional a of excitations optical elementary The ph t a uihCne o unu cec n ehooy Schellin Technology, and Science Quantum for Center Munich T ≪ ) 2 where , f x N xeiet hwta h AP the that show experiments , nttt o unu lcrnc,EHZuih H89 Z¨ CH-8093 Z¨urich, ETH Electronics, Quantum for Institute 6 a – a lnkIsiueo unu pis 54 acig Ger Garching, 85748 Optics, Quantum of Institute Planck Max w-ee tm iha energy an with two-level 8 ]. 2 f , x | 3 g 9 .Det togCoulomb strong to Due ]. i steectnoscillator exciton the is ffrequency of ] n xie ( excited and ) k ph tcImamoglu Atac = 1 uhas such ] 3 E .I has It ]. | T e ω / i c states ) ( ihr Schmidt Richard The . 4 ~ , c ayer ) Ds 5 9 on le is ]. ]. y r t ∗ n vduCotlet Ovidiu and we h on tt fa xio n nelectron, an and exciton an of state bound the tween ae ee euea nlg oteTavis-Cummings the to analogy an use we Here, bate. osssof consists o hsprmtrrneteL tt sapredominantly a is state LP of the excitation (symmetric) range bright parameter this For ml rbblt mltd ( amplitude probability small n tm r ope ytesnl-tmculn rate coupling single- the by coupled are atoms and hc e o ipiiy suet eietclfralatom all for identical following, be the to in assume simplicity, for we, which e-hfe neeg scmae othe to compared as energy in red-shifted asn prtro the of operator raising g xiain h xrsinfor expression The excitation. ae,oefinds one rates, transition tm ntergon tt.W osdrtecs hr the where case the consider We frequency state. cavity ground their in atoms neato aitna fti ytmi ie by given is system this of Hamiltonian interaction eetestate the Here where tt stelwrplrtn(P tt,wihcnb express be can which state, excite as (LP) energy lowest cavit lower the the bare as to of state refer superposition We a excitations. as atomic expressed and be can that states ttsb nenergy an by states olcieehneeto aiyao opigfrom coupling cavity-atom of enhancement collective g c c feecsbtenasrto n msinspectra emission and absorption between ifferences √ √ h oeteeg xiainsetu fteT model TC the of spectrum excitation energy lowest The ntelmtwe h detuning the when limit the In nesoda yrdqaiatce–acoherent a – hybrid a as understood e e oddsrpino yaia cenn of screening dynamical of description good a des etinbnigeeg.W niiaeorresults our anticipate We energy. binding trion he dabih olcieectto fmn trions. many of excitation collective bright a nd N N crno oesse aebe dnie as identified been have system hole or ectron a a a sarsl fti nacdculn,teL tt is state LP the coupling, enhanced this of result a As . ( cavity the as well as , c † srse4 09 M¨unich, Germany 80799 4, gstrasse ω stecvt rainoeao and operator creation cavity the is N eg a | Φ yadetuning a by − | 0 H LP i rc,Switzerland urich, 1 ω ∀ E int eTvsCmig model Tavis-Cummings he ecie h aumo h aiyadall and cavity the of vacuum the describes g i c aksae tenergy at states dark i LP sbu eue ihrsett h atomic the to respect with detuned blue is = c = i α ayand many =

= i X th = αa i g α c g w-ee tm h aiymode cavity The atom. two-level 2 . g c † c = ∆ = ∆ c i p + ( α σ N β o igecavity-photon single a for ) eg κ i N a ω c g X i N a α =1 n tmc( atomic and ) / c 2 c a c a ∆ ∆ N − + hw h well-known the shows tm,tgte iha with together atoms, σ . a eg ω slrecmae to compared large is i / ω h.c. ∆ eg N eg ! , a . n w polariton two and ) | 0 , − σ i eg i . 1 tmcdark atomic eoe the denotes Γ eg decay ) g c (3) (2) (1) (4) ed g to y d c s i 2 provided that the cavity decay rate κc gc√Na (strong- is the smallest length-scale in the problem, one may take the coupling limit). It is important to emphasize≪ that the LP limit Λ at the end of the calculation. → ∞ resonance is insensitive to inhomogeneous broadening of It has been shown [11, 12] that the eigenstates of atomic energy levels, provided that this broadening is smaller the interacting polariton-electron system can be accurately than ELP . described using the variational Chevy ansatz [13] Our simplified discussion of the TC model did not account for the spontaneous emission of the atoms: if the cavity- † p † † mode area is large compared to the square of the cavity-mode ΨAP,p = φpx + φ x e eq Φ (8) | i  p kq p+q−k k  | i wavelength λc, the total spontaneous emission rate of the kq X atoms is hardly modified. In the opposite limit where cavity-   Purcell enhancement dominates the atomic decay, the atomic = φ x† + ηp t† e Φ , (9) decay takes place predominantly through a two-step process p p νq νp+q q νq ! | i where coherent excitation exchange between the atoms and X the cavity is followed by cavity decay. which expands the wavefunction in excitations of the non- The TC model can be extended to a two-dimensional interacting ground state Φ of the electron system in the setting by assuming that the Fabry-Perot cavity consists of two | i TMD monolayer. The variational ground state ΨAP,p parallel mirrors and the atoms are embedded in a 2D lattice is the so-called attractive polaron (AP) of momentum| pi with a period d λc. In this case, the in-plane momentum of ≪ which describes the exciton as a quasiparticle dressed by the the polariton excitations constitutes a good quantum number. attractive interactions with the Fermi sea of electrons. One may then define the collective atomic raising operator In the second line of Eq. (8), we have introduced the corresponding to an excitation with momentum k, † creation operator tνl that generates a composite trion state of

j ikRj center-of-mass momentum l in an internal state ν: σeg (k)= σeg e , (5) j † l † † X tνl = χνkxl−kek. (10) where the R denote the atomic lattice sites. The ansatz for k j X the lower polariton branch of the two-dimensional TC model j Here the states ν denote both bound trion as well as electron- is then finally obtained by replacing ac by ac(k) and j σeg exciton scattering states [10]. Importantly, while the sum over with σeg (k) in Eq. (2). P ν inEq.(8) runs over all these composite states, for excitations Exciton-polarons around the AP resonance the bound trion state is the most The Hamiltonian describing the interacting exciton- relevant one (ν = 0). For a zero-momentum AP, Eq. (8) can electron system in a TMD monolayer can be written as [7, therefore be expressed as 8, 10] † † ΨAP,p=0 φ0x + χ0 η˜qt eq Φ , (11) | i≈ 0 q | i † † q ! Hxe = ωkxkxk + ǫkekek X k k p=0 X X where φ0 φp=0, χ0η˜q η . Eq.(11) can be v † † ν=0,q ′ ≡ ≡ + xk+qxkek′−qek . (6) interpreted as describing a quasiparticle where an exciton k,k′,q A X with momentum p =0 is hybridized with a collective optical excitation of all electrons in the Fermi sea. As we will Here, ek and xk denote the annihilation operators of electrons show below, for low electron densities, where the Fermi and excitons with momentum k, respectively. The electronic 2 2 2 momentum kF satisfies kF aT 1, an AP excitation has a dispersion is ǫk = k /(2me). The exciton dispersion ωk = ≪ 2 small probability amplitude (φ0) for a bare exciton excitation. k /(2mx) is defined with respect to the exciton energy Ex. The contact coupling constant v characterizes the short- Correspondence of the TC and exciton-polaron models range interaction between excitons and electrons and it The form of the LP and AP wavefunctions given in Eq. (2) is related to the trion binding energy by the Lippmann- and Eq. (11) already hint at a one-to-one correspondence Schwinger equation between the elementary excitations occurring in rather different experimental systems. The equivalence of these two 1 1 1 v− = . (7) models can be clarified by identifying the correspondence − E + ωk + ǫk Λ T A |kX|< between the operators 2 2 Here ET = ~ /(2ma ) denotes the trion binding energy, i † T σeg η˜qtqeq and 1/m = 1/mx +1/me is the reduced mass. As evident ⇐⇒ † † from Eq. (7), the interaction is regularized by a UV cutoff Λ ac x0 which can physically be related to the inverse Bohr radius of ⇐⇒ the exciton. However, assuming that the exciton Bohr radius and key parameters 3

ωc Ex provided ET ω ET . Using this approximate expression ⇐⇒ − ≪ AP for Txe(0,ω) evaluated at ω = Ep=0, we obtain ωeg Ex ET ⇐⇒ − AP 2 ∆ ET 2 (E ) m ⇐⇒ φp=0 2 . (19) 2 | | ≃ ET ne2π~ Na Ne = ne = k /(4π) ⇐⇒ A A F AP To express φp=0 in terms of the Fermi momentum kF and ELP E AP ⇐⇒ aT , we use the fact that the AP resonance energy Ep=0 is 2 given by the lowest energy pole of the exciton propagator, i.e. where ne = kF /4π denotes the electron density in a AP the solution of Eq. (15). In the limit ET Ep=0 ET , we single valley, is the area of the TMD monolayer, EF = | − | ≪ ~2 2 A AP AP obtain kF /2me is the Fermi energy, and E = Ex ET Ep=0 is the energy difference between the AP and trion− resonances− . ~2 AP AP 2π me E = Ex ET E = ne = EF . (20) The wave functions of the LP and AP are related by − − p=0 m m β χ0 ⇐⇒ Substituting for EAP in Eq. (19), we thus arrive at the α φ0. expression, . ⇐⇒ 2 2 2 From this correspondence between the two models one φp=0 = kF aT . (21) would expect EAP to satisfy an expression similar to the one for ELP in Eq. (4). In fact, without calculation, the Eq. (21) shows that the AP resonance has a collectively AP 2 2 2 correspondence would directly imply that E = φ0ET . In enhanced oscillator strength fAP = kF aT fx . Finally, using AP 2 the following, we demonstrate that this is indeed the case by Eq. (21) and Eq. (20), we find E = φ0ET , verifying the an explicit calculation. perfect correspondence between the LP and AP resonances of To this end, we use the electron-exciton scattering T-matrix the two models. that accounts for effects of the finite electron density [6, 14, 15], Discussion of limitations We emphasize that despite the remarkable correspondence 1 1 T (p,ω)−1 = v−1 , (12) between the LP and AP resonances, the analogy between − ω ǫk ωp−k exciton-polarons and the TC model breaks down for A |k|>kF − − X the repulsive polaron branch owing to the logarithmic where p and ω denote the total momentum and energy of the energy dependence of the exciton-electron T-matrix, and exciton and the electron (we set Ex = 0 for convenience). consequently of Σxe(p,ω). In contrast, the photon self- 2 The exciton self-energy is obtained from the T-matrix as: energy in the TC model is given simply by g Na/(E ωeg). c − The approximation Σx(ω, p = 0) neTxe(0,ω) we used 1 ≃ Σx(p,ω)= T (p + q,ω + ǫq). (13) is valid either in the limit of low electron density ne or if |q|

[ω ωp Σx(p,ω)] ω=EAP =0. (15) do not have identical energy. Nevertheless, within the Chevy − − | p description, the AP resonance is insensitive to this broadening We now focus on zero momentum p = 0. To obtain an even for finite ne and is broadened exclusively by radiative analytical expression for φp=0, we consider the low electron decay arising from its bare exciton character. density limit where ET EF . As shown in App. A in this The analogy we developed uses the simplest Ansatz for ≫ limit the exciton self-energy can be approximated by describing correlated exciton-electron states. In particular, this Chevy Ansatz does not capture the screening of trions Σx(ω)=Σx(p = 0,ω) neTxe(0,ω) (16) ≃ by the Fermi sea of electrons (for a discussion in the context , where the two-body T-matrix is given by of ultracold atoms see Ref. [16]); indeed, neglecting Coulomb 2 repulsion between electrons, it has been shown theoretically 2π~ 1 Txe(0,ω)= (17) that dynamically screened trions have lower energy than AP m ln[ ET ]+ iπ ω provided kF aT 0.1 [17–20]. Since this is the regime we 2π~2 E consider in this≤ work, our results will not be quantitatively T , (18) ≃ m ET ω accurate. − 4

Arguably, the most important difference between the can be described as a hybridization of collective trion-hole exciton-electron system and the 2D TC model is the drastic pair excitations with excitons, which in turn ensures their reduction of coupling of high momentum collective atomic enhanced coupling to external light fields. We emphasize that excitations to the corresponding cavity modes in the TC a simplistic picture describing the total optical absorption 2 model. Since the effective cavity photon mass is orders of strength as having contributions from all Ne = ALkF /(4π) magnitude smaller than that describing the collective atomic electrons within the excitation spot with area AL yields a excitations, only the bright symmetric atomic excitation similar result as what we obtain using the polaron model. couples appreciably to the cavity mode. In the limit of a 0D However, such a description would erroneously predict line cavity, this description becomes exact and justifies referring broadening by EF and misses out on the energy shift of the AP to the Na 1 antisymmetric excitations with energy ωeg as AP resonance (E ) from the single trion energy. Finally, dark states.− As we highlighted earlier, these excitations are the collective nature of the polaron excitation with minimal dark towards coupling to the cavity mode but in the limit of a disturbance of each electron ensures that polaron excitation 2 cavity mode area Ac λc they will decay by the single-atom constitutes an invaluable nondestructive spectroscopic tool spontaneous emission≫ rate. for investigating strongly correlated states of electrons. Due to the comparable effective masses of the exciton, electron and the trion, each trion-hole pair state with total Acknowledgements † This work was initiated during an informal meeting with momentum p (tνp+qeq) hybridizeswith the exciton mode xp. Therefore, in the limit kF aT 1, only polaron states couple M. Glazov, M. Semina, B. Urbaszek, X. Marie, T. Amand, to light. Moreover, this coupling≪ is proportional to the quasi- A. Hgele and M. Kroner. We particularly acknowledge 2 particle weight φp , i.e. it is exclusively due to the bare- many useful discussions with M. Glazov. R. S. is supported exciton character| of| the polaron. This argumentof course does by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German not preclude possible observation of single trion decay in a Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy nonequilibrium experiment such as photoluminescence [21]; – EXC-2111 – 390814868. if we ignore the dynamical screening of trions, each single trion-hole pair state is a superposition of AP eigenstates. Appendix A: Exciton self-energy at low doping Even in the presence of a finite electron density, an optically generated electron-hole pair could form a trion with a single As shown in Ref. [22] the solution to the variational ansatz electron and subsequently decay by emitting a photon before is equivalent to a non-selfconsistent resummation of ladder the excitation is spread throughout the sample to form the AP diagrams. Thus we may express our results by using the state at p 0. language of many-bodyfield theory in terms of T-matrices and In summary,≃ we have developed an analogy between the selfenergies. Generalizing Ref. [14] to the mass-imbalanced interacting exciton-electron problem in 2D materials and case one finds the expression for the exciton selfenergy(in this the TC model. Our work shows that the AP resonance Appendix we work in units ~ =1)

2 d q 1 Tot R + R 2 x + Σx(p = 0,ω)= 2 Txe ω + ǫq + ωq 2ǫq ǫF + i0 (ω + ǫq ωq ǫF ) 4ǫF ωq i0 , |q|

where we define ǫTot = q2/(m + m ), ǫx = k2 /(2m ), where we define γ = 1 1 with m = m + m . q x e F F x 2me 2mT ot T ot e x R 2 − and ǫF = kF /(2m). Since the integral extends only up to Eq. (A3) can be integrated analytically and gives q < kF and the pole of the polaron will be in the vicinity | | R 2 R of ω ET at low electron density we may expand the square ET ω + ǫF γkF ω + ǫF ∼ Σx(0,ω) li − − li − root in Eq. (A1) to obtain ≈ 2mγ E − E "  T   T  # 2 d q Tot R + (A4) Σx(0,ω) 2 Txe ω + ǫq ǫq ǫF + i0 . ≈ |q|

[1] X. Xu, W. Yao, D. Xiao, and T. F. Heinz, Nature Physics 10, Rev. B 101, 195417 (2020). 343 (2014). [11] R. Combescot and S. Giraud, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 050404 [2] J. R. Schaibley, H. Yu, G. Clark, P. Rivera, J. S. Ross, K. L. (2008). Seyler, W. Yao, and X. Xu, Nature Reviews Materials 1, 16055 [12] C. Trefzger and Y. Castin, Physical Review A 85 (2012), (2016). 10.1103/physreva.85.053612. [3] G. Wang, A. Chernikov, M. M. Glazov, T. F. Heinz, X. Marie, [13] F. Chevy, Phys. Rev. A 74, 063628 (2006). T. Amand, and B. Urbaszek, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 021001 [14] R. Schmidt, T. Enss, V. Pietil¨a, and E. Demler, Phys. Rev. A (2018). 85, 021602 (2012). [4] P. Back, S. Zeytinoglu, A. Ijaz, M. Kroner, and A. Imamoglu, [15] O. Cotlet¸, F. Pientka, R. Schmidt, G. Zarand, E. Demler, and Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 037401 (2018). A. Imamoglu, Phys. Rev. X 9, 041019 (2019). [5] G. Scuri, Y.Zhou, A. A. High, D. S. Wild, C. Shu, K. De Greve, [16] M. Punk, P. T. Dumitrescu, and W. Zwerger, Phys. Rev. A 80, L. A. Jauregui, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, P. Kim, M. D. Lukin, 053605 (2009). and H. Park, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 037402 (2018). [17] M. M. Parish, Phys. Rev. A 83, 051603 (2011). [6] R. A. Suris, Optical Properties of 2D Systems with Interacting [18] M. M. Parish and J. Levinsen, Phys. Rev. A 87, 033616 (2013). Electrons (Springer, 2003) pp. 111–124. [19] P. Kroiss and L. Pollet, Phys. Rev. B 90, 104510 (2014). [7] M. Sidler, P. Back, O. Cotlet, A. Srivastava, T. Fink, M. Kroner, [20] J. Vlietinck, J. Ryckebusch, and K. Van Houcke, Phys. Rev. B E. Demler, and A. Imamoglu, Nature Physics 13, 255 (2016). 89, 085119 (2014). [8] D. K. Efimkin and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. B 95, 035417 [21] M. Glazov, arXiv:2004.13484 (2020). (2017). [22] R. Combescot, A. Recati, C. Lobo, and F. Chevy, Phys. Rev. [9] M. Tavis and F. W. Cummings, Phys. Rev. 170, 379 (1968). Lett. 98, 180402 (2007). [10] C. Fey, P. Schmelcher, A. Imamoglu, and R. Schmidt, Phys.