pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.20001 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-21 · 🪐 quant-ph

Fractional-Time Jaynes-Cummings Model: Unitary Description of its Quantum Dynamics, Inverse Problem and Photon Statistics

Thiago T. Tsutsui , Danilo Cius , Antonio S. M. de Castro , Fabiano M. Andrade This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 02:01 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords fractional-time Jaynes-Cummings modelfractional Schrödinger equationcollapse and revivalSchrödinger cat statessub-Poissonian statisticsquantum opticsinverse problemnon-classical light
0
0 comments X

The pith

The fractional derivative order in the Jaynes-Cummings model switches coherent-state dynamics from collapse-revival to stable periodic evolution at α = 0.5.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper applies a unitary framework for the fractional-time Schrödinger equation to the Jaynes-Cummings model to determine how the derivative order α shapes the evolution. For initial coherent states it identifies a clear transition at α = 0.5: the familiar collapse-and-revival pattern gives way to stable periodic oscillations. This periodic regime produces stronger non-classical field signatures, including deeper sub-Poissonian photon statistics, periodic quadrature squeezing, and the formation of Schrödinger cat states. For initial Fock states the fractional evolution generates transient behavior that the authors reinterpret, via an inverse problem, as an effective time-dependent coupling containing a strong initial pulse.

Core claim

In the fractional-time Jaynes-Cummings model the order α of the time-fractional derivative tunes the system between distinct dynamical regimes. For an initial coherent state a transition occurs at α = 0.50, replacing the standard collapse-and-revival with stable periodic evolution; this regime enhances non-classical field properties including stronger sub-Poissonian statistics, periodic quadrature squeezing, and the formation of Schrödinger cat states. For an initial Fock state the fractional evolution produces transient dynamics that the inverse problem maps onto an effective time-dependent coupling featuring a strong initial pulse.

What carries the argument

The unitary framework for the fractional-time Schrödinger equation, together with the inverse-problem mapping that converts fractional effects into an effective time-dependent coupling.

If this is right

  • At α = 0.5 the collapse-revival pattern is replaced by stable periodic evolution for coherent states.
  • The periodic regime produces stronger sub-Poissonian statistics, periodic quadrature squeezing, and Schrödinger cat states.
  • Fractional evolution starting from a Fock state corresponds to an effective time-dependent coupling that begins with a strong pulse.
  • The fractional order α therefore serves as a control parameter that selects between qualitatively different dynamical regimes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The effective time-dependent coupling identified by the inverse problem could be engineered in modulated cavity systems to mimic fractional dynamics.
  • Analogous regime transitions may appear when the same fractional-time framework is applied to other quantum-optical Hamiltonians.
  • Tuning α near 0.5 offers a route to on-demand generation of cat states without requiring additional nonlinear interactions.

Load-bearing premise

The unitary framework for the fractional-time Schrödinger equation accurately describes the dynamics without introducing artifacts from the fractional derivative.

What would settle it

Numerical simulation or cavity-QED experiment showing whether photon-number variance at α = 0.5 remains strictly periodic and sub-Poissonian without collapse-revival intervals; loss of periodicity would falsify the claimed transition.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.20001 by Antonio S. M. de Castro, Danilo Cius, Fabiano M. Andrade, Thiago T. Tsutsui.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. A diagram for the technique employed in this work. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: For the standard model (α = 1.00), the dynamics corresponds to the well-known vacuum RO, i.e., W1.00(t) = -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 0 5 10 15 20 -1 1 FIG. 2. The population inversion Wα(t), Eq. (14), for the initial state |Ψα(t)⟩ = |e, 0⟩ and µα = 1, for different values of α: (a) α = 1.00, (b) α = 0.75, (c) α = 0.50, and (d) α = 0.25. The initial values of the Dyson map used are κα(0) = λα(0) = 0 and Λα(0) = 1. When… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The periods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The concurrence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The coupling parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The average photon number for the FTJC model, consider [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The expected value of the parity operator for the FTJC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The variance of the quadrature operator for the FTJC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. The variance of the quadrature operator for the FTJC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. The Husimi function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We analyze the quantum dynamics of the fractional-time Jaynes-Cummings model using a recent unitary framework for the fractional-time Schr\"odinger equation. We examine how the fractional derivative order $\alpha$ influences non-classical features under different initial conditions. For an initial Fock state, fractional evolution introduces transient dynamics and heightened sensitivity to coupling strength. Through an inverse problem approach, we interpret these effects as arising from an effective time-dependent coupling with a strong initial pulse. For an initial coherent state, the fractional order tunes the system between dynamical regimes, with a transition at $\alpha = 0.50 $ where standard collapse-and-revival is replaced by stable, periodic evolution. This regime enhances non-classical field properties, including stronger sub-Poissonian statistics, periodic quadrature squeezing, and the formation of Schr\"odinger cat states.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the quantum dynamics of the fractional-time Jaynes-Cummings model via a unitary framework for the fractional-time Schrödinger equation. It shows that the fractional order α introduces transient dynamics and coupling sensitivity for Fock-state initial conditions, interpreted via an inverse problem as an effective time-dependent coupling with an initial pulse. For coherent-state initial conditions, α tunes the system between regimes, with a transition at α = 0.5 replacing standard collapse-and-revival by stable periodic evolution; this enhances non-classical field properties including stronger sub-Poissonian statistics, periodic quadrature squeezing, and Schrödinger cat states.

Significance. If the numerical results and inverse mapping hold under scrutiny, the work would be significant for cavity QED by demonstrating fractional time as a control parameter that can suppress collapse-revival in favor of periodic non-classical evolution and cat-state formation. The unitary framework application and inverse-problem interpretation are strengths that could inspire new theoretical and experimental directions in fractional quantum optics, provided they are benchmarked against the α = 1 limit with reproducible numerics.

major comments (2)
  1. [coherent-state dynamics section] Section on coherent-state dynamics (likely §4): the claimed sharp transition at α = 0.50 from collapse-revival to stable periodic evolution is presented without reported error bars, convergence tests, or discretization details for the unitary fractional-time integrator, making it impossible to assess whether the periodic regime is robust or an artifact of the numerical scheme.
  2. [inverse problem section] Inverse-problem section: the mapping of fractional evolution to an effective time-dependent coupling is constructed to reproduce the observed dynamics, but the manuscript does not demonstrate uniqueness of this mapping or provide an independent prediction of the coupling form; this leaves open the possibility of post-hoc fitting rather than a predictive interpretation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [abstract and introduction] The abstract and introduction should explicitly define the unitary framework reference and state how the α = 1 limit is recovered numerically.
  2. [figures] Figures showing Mandel parameter, squeezing, and Wigner functions lack axis labels or scale bars in some panels, reducing clarity for the enhanced non-classical features at α = 0.5.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We provide point-by-point responses to the major comments and indicate the revisions planned for the next version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Section on coherent-state dynamics (likely §4): the claimed sharp transition at α = 0.50 from collapse-revival to stable periodic evolution is presented without reported error bars, convergence tests, or discretization details for the unitary fractional-time integrator, making it impossible to assess whether the periodic regime is robust or an artifact of the numerical scheme.

    Authors: We appreciate this observation. The numerical results in the manuscript were obtained using the unitary framework described in the methods section, with a fixed time discretization and a truncated Fock space basis. However, we acknowledge that explicit convergence tests and error bars were not reported. In the revised version, we will add these details, including plots showing convergence with respect to time step size and basis dimension, as well as estimated numerical errors for the key quantities at the transition point α = 0.5. This will allow readers to assess the robustness of the periodic regime. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Inverse-problem section: the mapping of fractional evolution to an effective time-dependent coupling is constructed to reproduce the observed dynamics, but the manuscript does not demonstrate uniqueness of this mapping or provide an independent prediction of the coupling form; this leaves open the possibility of post-hoc fitting rather than a predictive interpretation.

    Authors: The effective time-dependent coupling is derived by inverting the fractional-time evolution to match the standard Schrödinger equation with a modified Hamiltonian. This inversion provides a specific functional form for the coupling, which is not arbitrary but determined by the fractional order α and the initial state. We will revise the section to emphasize the systematic nature of this derivation and include an additional validation by applying the obtained coupling to predict the dynamics for a different initial condition, comparing it directly to the fractional evolution results. While a complete mathematical proof of uniqueness for all possible time-dependent couplings is not provided, the mapping is predictive within the context of the model. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The manuscript applies a cited external unitary framework for the fractional-time Schrödinger equation to the Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian, then numerically evolves the dynamics for Fock and coherent initial states across α values. The inverse-problem section offers an interpretive reading of the resulting effective time-dependent coupling but does not claim that this coupling is independently derived or used to predict the fractional dynamics; the forward results on regime transition at α=0.5, sub-Poissonian statistics, squeezing, and cat-state formation are obtained directly from the numerics. No equation reduces to its own input by construction, no self-citation supplies a uniqueness theorem that forbids alternatives, and the α=1 limit is recovered as a consistency check. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central analysis rests on the validity of a recent unitary framework for fractional-time evolution and the inverse-problem mapping; α is explored as the primary varying parameter with no other fitted constants explicitly stated.

free parameters (1)
  • fractional derivative order α
    The order parameter is varied across values, with a critical transition identified at 0.5 that drives the reported change in dynamical regime.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption A unitary framework exists and is valid for the fractional-time Schrödinger equation
    This framework is invoked as the foundation for describing the quantum dynamics of the model.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5460 in / 1457 out tokens · 70548 ms · 2026-05-10T02:01:05.977611+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 92 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Podlubny,Fractional differential equations(Academic Press, 1998)

    I. Podlubny,Fractional differential equations(Academic Press, 1998)

    work page 1998

  2. [2]

    Metzler and J

    R. Metzler and J. Klafter, Phys. Rep.339, 1 (2000)

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    Zhang, X

    Y . Zhang, X. Liu, M. R. Beli ´c, W. Zhong, Y . Zhang, and M. Xiao, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 180403 (2015)

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Longhi, Opt

    S. Longhi, Opt. Lett40, 1117 (2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Zhang, H

    Y . Zhang, H. Zhong, M. R. Beli´c, Y . Zhu, W. Zhong, Y . Zhang, D. N. Christodoulides, and M. Xiao, Laser Photonics Rev.10, 526 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Huang and L

    C. Huang and L. Dong, Sci. Rep.7, 1 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Colas, Phys

    D. Colas, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033274 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Wu, C.-H

    J.-N. Wu, C.-H. Huang, S.-C. Cheng, and W.-F. Hsieh, Phys. Rev. A81, 023827 (2010)

    work page 2010

  9. [9]

    B. A. Stickler, Phys. Rev. E88, 012120 (2013)

    work page 2013

  10. [10]

    Stephanovich, E

    V . Stephanovich, E. Kirichenko, V . Dugaev, J. H. Sauco, and B. L. Brito, Sci. Rep.12, 12540 (2022)

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    Zhong, B

    M. Zhong, B. A. Malomed, and Z. Yan, Phys. Rev. E110, 014215 (2024)

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    C. Zu, Y . Gao, and X. Yu, Chaos Solit. Fractals147, 110930 (2021)

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    El Allati, S

    A. El Allati, S. Bukbech, K. El Anouz, and Z. El Allali, Chaos Solit. Fractals179, 114446 (2024)

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    Abdessamie, O

    C. Abdessamie, O. Mansoura, M. Mansour, E. A. Khadija, M. Ouchrif, and A. El Allati, Phys. Scr.100, 075105 (2025)

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    E. C. Gabrick, T. T. Tsutsui, D. Cius, A. S. M. D. Castro, F. M. Andrade, and E. K. Lenzi, Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. 13 Simul.160, 109912 (2026)

    work page 2026

  16. [16]

    Laskin, Phys

    N. Laskin, Phys. Lett. A268, 298 (2000)

    work page 2000

  17. [17]

    Laskin, Phys

    N. Laskin, Phys. Rev. E62, 3135 (2000)

    work page 2000

  18. [18]

    Laskin, Phys

    N. Laskin, Phys. Rev. E66, 056108 (2002)

    work page 2002

  19. [19]

    B. J. West, J. Phys. Chem. B104, 3830 (2000)

    work page 2000

  20. [20]

    Feynman and A

    R. Feynman and A. Hibbs,Quantum Mechanics and Path Inte- grals(McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965)

    work page 1965

  21. [21]

    A. P. Riascos and J. L. Mateos, Phys. Rev. E92, 052814 (2015)

    work page 2015

  22. [22]

    Zhang, Y

    D. Zhang, Y . Zhang, Z. Zhang, N. Ahmed, Y . Zhang, F. Li, M. R. Beli ´c, and M. Xiao, Ann. Phys. (Berl.)529, 1700149 (2017)

    work page 2017

  23. [23]

    Naber, J

    M. Naber, J. Math. Phys.45, 3339 (2004)

    work page 2004

  24. [24]

    E. K. Lenzi, H. V . Ribeiro, M. A. F. dos Santos, R. Rossato, and R. S. Mendes, J. Math. Phys.54, 082107 (2013)

    work page 2013

  25. [25]

    Gabrick, E

    E. Gabrick, E. Sayari, A. de Castro, J. Trobia, A. Batista, and E. Lenzi, Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul.123, 107275 (2023)

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    Iomin, Phys

    A. Iomin, Phys. Rev. E80, 022103 (2009)

    work page 2009

  27. [27]

    Iomin, Chaos34, 093135 (2024)

    A. Iomin, Chaos34, 093135 (2024)

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    Zu and X

    C. Zu and X. Yu, J. Chem. Phys.162, 3830 (2025)

    work page 2025

  29. [29]

    Breuer and F

    H. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The Theory of Open Quantum Systems(OUP Oxford, 2007)

    work page 2007

  30. [30]

    V . E. Tarasov, Fractional Dynamics of Open Quantum Systems, inFractional Dynamics: Applications of Fractional Calculus to Dynamics of Particles, Fields and Media(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010) pp. 467–490

    work page 2010

  31. [31]

    V . E. Tarasov, Ann. Phys.327, 1719 (2012)

    work page 2012

  32. [32]

    Wang and M

    S. Wang and M. Xu, J. Math. Phys.48, 043502 (2007)

    work page 2007

  33. [33]

    Dong and M

    J. Dong and M. Xu, J. Math. Anal. Appl.344, 1005 (2008)

    work page 2008

  34. [34]

    E. K. Lenzi, E. C. Gabrick, E. Sayari, A. S. M. de Castro, J. Tro- bia, and A. M. Batista, Quantum Rep.5, 442 (2023)

    work page 2023

  35. [35]

    Laskin, Chaos Solit

    N. Laskin, Chaos Solit. Fractals102, 16 (2017)

    work page 2017

  36. [36]

    Ertik, D

    H. Ertik, D. Demirhan, H. ¸ Sirin, and F. Büyükkılıç, J. Math. Phys.51, 082102 (2010)

    work page 2010

  37. [37]

    Iomin, Chaos Solit

    A. Iomin, Chaos Solit. Fractals: X1, 100001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    M. H. Stone, Ann. Math.33, 643 (1932)

    work page 1932

  39. [39]

    D. Cius, L. Menon, M. A. F. dos Santos, A. S. M. de Castro, and F. M. Andrade, Phys. Rev. E106, 054126 (2022)

    work page 2022

  40. [40]

    Jaynes and F

    E. Jaynes and F. Cummings, Proc. IEEE51, 89 (1963)

    work page 1963

  41. [41]

    G. M. Uhdre, D. Cius, and F. M. Andrade, Phys. Rev. A105, 013703 (2022)

    work page 2022

  42. [42]

    Vidiella-Barranco, A

    A. Vidiella-Barranco, A. S. Magalhães de Castro, A. Sergi, J. A. Roversi, A. Messina, and A. Migliore, Ann. Phys.537, e00148 (2025)

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    Arrazola, P

    I. Arrazola, P. Bertet, Y . Chu, and P. Rabl, npj Quantum Inf.11, 1 (2025), 2505.02929

    work page arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Y . H. Zhou, T. Liu, Q. P. Su, X. Y . Zhang, Q. C. Wu, D. X. Chen, Z. C. Shi, H. Z. Shen, and C. P. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 183601 (2025)

    work page 2025

  45. [45]

    T. T. Tsutsui, D. Cius, A. Vidiella-Barranco, A. S. M. de Castro, and F. M. Andrade, Brazilian J. Phys.56, 21 (2026)

    work page 2026

  46. [46]

    Cius, Phys

    D. Cius, Phys. Rev. E111, 024110 (2025)

    work page 2025

  47. [47]

    R. R. Puri and R. K. Bullough, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B5, 2021 (1988)

    work page 2021

  48. [48]

    I. I. Rabi, Phys. Rev.49, 324 (1936)

    work page 1936

  49. [49]

    I. I. Rabi, Phys. Rev.51, 652 (1937)

    work page 1937

  50. [50]

    A. B. Klimov and S. M. Chumakov,A Group Theoretical Ap- proach to Quantum Optics: Models of Atom Field Interactions (John Wiley & Sons, Weinheim, 2009)

    work page 2009

  51. [51]

    R. R. S. Cantuba, Int. Electron. J. Algebra35, 32–60 (2024)

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    Larson and T

    J. Larson and T. Mavrogordatos,The Jaynes–Cummings Model and Its Descendants, 2053-2563 (IOP Publishing, 2021)

    work page 2053

  53. [53]

    Iomin, Fractional time quantum mechanics, inV olume 5 Applications in Physics, Part B, edited by V

    A. Iomin, Fractional time quantum mechanics, inV olume 5 Applications in Physics, Part B, edited by V . E. Tarasov (De Gruyter, Berlin, Boston, 2019) pp. 299–316

    work page 2019

  54. [54]

    Fring and M

    A. Fring and M. H. Y . Moussa, Phys. Rev. A93, 042114 (2016)

    work page 2016

  55. [55]

    Fring and T

    A. Fring and T. Frith, Phys. Lett. A381, 2318 (2017)

    work page 2017

  56. [56]

    Gerry and P

    C. Gerry and P. Knight,Introductory Quantum Optics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004)

    work page 2004

  57. [57]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition, 10th ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010)

    work page 2010

  58. [58]

    Zhang and J

    C. Zhang and J. Jing., Phys. Rev. A110, 042421 (2024)

    work page 2024

  59. [59]

    Rempe, H

    G. Rempe, H. Walther, and N. Klein, Phys. Rev. Lett.58, 353 (1987)

    work page 1987

  60. [60]

    Brune, F

    M. Brune, F. Schmidt-Kaler, A. Maali, J. Dreyer, E. Hagley, J. M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 1800 (1996)

    work page 1996

  61. [61]

    Arroyo-Correa and J

    G. Arroyo-Correa and J. J. Sanchez-Mondragon, Quant. Optics 2, 409 (1990)

    work page 1990

  62. [62]

    D. Wei, H. Liu, Y . Li, L. Wan, S. Qin, Q. Wen, and F. Gao, Chaos Solit. Fractals182, 114816 (2024)

    work page 2024

  63. [63]

    W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 2245 (1998)

    work page 1998

  64. [64]

    J. M. Gambetta, A. A. Houck, and A. Blais, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 030502 (2011)

    work page 2011

  65. [65]

    S. J. Srinivasan, A. J. Hoffman, J. M. Gambetta, and A. A. Houck, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 083601 (2011)

    work page 2011

  66. [66]

    Y . Yin, Y . Chen, D. Sank, P. J. J. O’Malley, T. C. White, R. Barends, J. Kelly, E. Lucero, M. Mariantoni, A. Megrant, C. Neill, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, A. N. Korotkov, A. N. Cle- land, and J. M. Martinis, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 107001 (2013)

    work page 2013

  67. [67]

    S. J. Srinivasan, N. M. Sundaresan, D. Sadri, Y . Liu, J. M. Gam- betta, T. Yu, S. M. Girvin, and A. A. Houck, Phys. Rev. A89, 033857 (2014)

    work page 2014

  68. [68]

    Zeytino ˘glu, M

    S. Zeytino ˘glu, M. Pechal, S. Berger, A. A. Abdumalikov, A. Wallraff, and S. Filipp, Phys. Rev. A91, 043846 (2015)

    work page 2015

  69. [69]

    S. Yang, Y . Ya-Ping, and C. Hong, Chin. Phys. Lett.23, 1136 (2006)

    work page 2006

  70. [70]

    R. J. Glauber, Phys. Rev.131, 2766 (1963)

    work page 1963

  71. [71]

    Phoenix and P

    S. Phoenix and P. Knight, Ann. Phys.186, 381 (1988)

    work page 1988

  72. [72]

    Birrittella, K

    R. Birrittella, K. Cheng, and C. C. Gerry, Opt. Comm.354, 286 (2015)

    work page 2015

  73. [73]

    C. C. Gerry and J. Mimih, Contemp. Phys.51, 497 (2010)

    work page 2010

  74. [74]

    M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy,Quantum Optics(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997)

    work page 1997

  75. [75]

    Mandel, Phys

    L. Mandel, Phys. Rev. Let.49, 136 (1982)

    work page 1982

  76. [76]

    Meystre and M

    P. Meystre and M. Zubairy, Phys. Lett. A89, 390 (1982)

    work page 1982

  77. [77]

    P. L. Knight, Phys. Scr.T12, 51 (1986)

    work page 1986

  78. [78]

    J. R. Kukli ´nski and J. L. Madajczyk, Phys. Rev. A37, 3175 (1988)

    work page 1988

  79. [79]

    Loudon and P

    R. Loudon and P. Knight, J. Mod. Opt.34, 709 (1987)

    work page 1987

  80. [80]

    W. P. Schleich,Quantum Optics in Phase Space(Wiley, Berlin, 2001)

    work page 2001

Showing first 80 references.