Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 58 references

Phononic entanglement concentration via optomechanical interactions

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes the first protocol that converts weak nonlocal phonon entanglement into ideal Bell and GHZ states using optomechanical cross-Kerr interactions.

desk verdict A sound but idealized 'first' protocol for phononic entanglement concentration; the standard Schmidt projection rehosted in optomechanics, with real gaps in the anti-Stokes swap and missing mechanical decoherence. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09266 v1 pith:6J6D5SJ3 submitted 2019-08-25 quant-ph

Shan-Shan Chen , Hao Zhang , Qing Ai , Guo-Jian Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords phononicentanglementconcentrationoptomechanicalcross-KerrinteractionMach-ZehnderinterferometernonlocalphononsBellstateGHZanti-Stokesphonon-photonconversionquantuminformationprocessing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes the first protocol that concentrates the entanglement of nonlocal phonons, the quantized vibrations of remote mechanical resonators, into a maximally entangled Bell or GHZ state. Starting from two copies of a pure partially entangled phonon state with known amplitudes $\alpha$ and $\beta$, an optomechanical cross-Kerr interaction combined with a Mach-Zehnder interferometer picks out the maximally entangled component; a second optomechanical step maps the phonons onto photons, and photonic Hadamard operations plus detection complete the concentration. If the protocol works as described, users who share degraded phonon entanglement can probabilistically recover a perfect Bell or GHZ state with maximum success probability $2|\alpha\beta|^2$. This matters because phonons cannot be manipulated with the linear optical elements used for photons, so an indirect all-optical method is a needed step toward phonon-based quantum information processing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the optomechanical cross-Kerr interaction $H=\Delta\hat{c}^{\dagger}\hat{c}+\omega_m\hat{b}^{\dagger}\hat{b}-g\hat{c}^{\dagger}\hat{c}\hat{b}^{\dagger}\hat{b}$, in which the presence of a cavity photon shifts the mechanical resonator's phase by $gt$. Combined with a Mach-Zehnder interferometer, this interaction makes the cross terms $\alpha\beta$ acquire a relative phase while the $\alpha^2$ and $\beta^2$ terms do not, so detecting a photon at the dark port postselects exactly the antisymmetric component $(|1001\rangle-|0110\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$ and discards the unentangled terms. The second engine is the anti-Stokes interaction $H_{\rm as}=G(\hat{c}\hat{v}^{\dagger}+\hat{c}^{\dagger}\hat{v})$, which transfers each selected mechanical excitation into a cavity photon and turns a phononic Bell-state measurement into a photonic one. The photon-arrival probability density formula $2|\alpha\beta|^2\sin^2(gt/2)\kappa\exp(-\kappa t)/P_{\rm tot}$ is used to estimate the postselection rate and the required sideband resolution.

What would settle it

Include cavity decay, mechanical damping, and thermal phonon occupancy in a master-equation description of the protocol and compute the state conditioned on dark-port detection and photon counts: if the fidelity to the ideal Bell or GHZ state drops below 1 for any nonzero loss or temperature, the claim of ideal entanglement concentration fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a partially entangled two-phonon state $\alpha|10\rangle+\beta|01\rangle$ shared by two remote mechanical resonators can be converted into a maximally entangled Bell state by combining two copies of the state and applying an optomechanical cross-Kerr interaction inside a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. Detecting a photon at the interferometer's dark port projects the four resonators onto the maximally entangled state $(|1001\rangle-|0110\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$, with success probability $2|\alpha\beta|^2\sin^2(gt/2)$, maximized to $2|\alpha\beta|^2$ at $gt=\pi$. A subsequent anti-Stokes interaction maps two of the phonon modes to photons, and Hadamard operations plus photodetection leave Alice and Bob sharing either $(|10\rangle+|01\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$ or $(|10\rangle-|01\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$, with the latter convertible to the former by a $\pi$-phase operation. The same construction with three users concentrates a partially entangled phonon GHZ state $\alpha|000\rangle+\beta|111\rangle$ into a maximally entangled phonon GHZ state. The paper also gives a resolved-sideband feasibility estimate for the dark-port postselection.

Load-bearing premise

The protocol yields a perfectly maximally entangled state only if each phonon-to-photon conversion step is lossless and the mechanical vibrations stay completely free of decoherence and thermal noise; the paper assumes all of this without deriving or quantifying it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Nonlocal phonon pairs can be purified to a standard Bell state using only photonic operations, since the phonons are handled indirectly through optomechanical interactions.
  • The same protocol, with one additional user, concentrates a partially entangled three-phonon GHZ state into a maximally entangled phonon GHZ state at the same maximum success probability $2|\alpha\beta|^2$.
  • The success probability is nonzero for every non-maximally entangled input with $0<|\alpha\beta|<1$, and reaches its maximum at interaction time $gt=\pi$.
  • In the resolved-sideband regime the total postselection probability is approximately $0.8997|\alpha\beta|^2$ for the paper's example parameters, which sets the allowed detector dark-count rate.
  • Because phonons propagate slowly and have low dissipation, the concentrated Bell and GHZ states are suited to short-distance storage and transfer in phonon-based quantum information processing.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the protocol consumes two copies with the same known amplitudes $\alpha$ and $\beta$, it is a two-copy concentration scheme; extending it to unknown or mixed states would require an additional estimation or purification layer that the paper does not address.
  • The dark-port postselection idea should extend to higher-dimensional or continuous-variable phonon states if single-photon detection is replaced by photon-number-resolving measurement; the paper treats only qubit-like Fock states.
  • The maximum success probability $2|\alpha\beta|^2$ matches the standard bound for two-copy qubit entanglement concentration, so the scheme may already be optimal in conversion rate, although the paper does not make that optimality claim.
  • Combining the appendix's Stokes-based Bell-state preparation with this concentration protocol gives the building blocks of a phonon-based quantum repeater segment: generate, distill, and store remote phonon entanglement.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a protocol for entanglement concentration of nonlocal phonons in partially entangled Bell and GHZ states. Two copies of the same pure partially entangled state are combined through an optomechanical cross-Kerr interaction inside a Mach-Zehnder interferometer; postselecting a photon at the dark port performs a Schmidt projection and yields a maximally entangled multi-phonon state. A subsequent anti-Stokes optomechanical interaction maps the phonons to photons, Hadamard gates and photon detection then herald a Bell or GHZ state of the remaining mechanical modes. The claimed success probability for the Bell case is 2|αβ|^2, and the derivation is self-contained under ideal unitary operations.

Significance. If the ideal-unitaries claim holds, this is a conceptually useful adaptation of the standard Schmidt-projection entanglement concentration to phononic systems, and it identifies optomechanical cross-Kerr interactions and anti-Stokes conversion as the needed phonon-photon interface. The core postselection algebra is essentially correct: the success probability in Eq. (8) is derived rather than imposed, and the Bell-state analysis in Eqs. (12)-(14) is internally consistent. However, the practical significance is conditional, because the protocol assumes a lossless, noiseless anti-Stokes swap and neglects mechanical decoherence and thermal noise; these assumptions are not quantified. The paper is therefore a reasonable proposal for an ideal protocol, but its 'ideal' claim needs qualification and supporting parameter conditions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II, Eqs. (4)-(6)] Equation (5) does not follow from Eq. (4) as written. In the first branch (photon in cavity A), the uncoupled pair v1v2 is written as α|10>+βe^{-iθ01}|01>, assigning a relative phase only to the |01> component; under the Hamiltonian of Eq. (3), both components of an uncoupled pair should acquire the same free-evolution phase e^{-iω_m t} unless a rotating frame is explicitly defined and used consistently. The same issue appears in the u1u2 factor in the second branch. This inconsistency propagates into Eq. (6), so the displayed derivation should be corrected by either specifying the interaction picture or recomputing the phases for all mechanical modes. The final success probability in Eq. (8) appears robust to such a correction, but the printed intermediate step is not.
  2. [Sec. II, Step 2, Eqs. (10)-(11)] The anti-Stokes mapping is asserted as a unit-efficiency phonon-to-photon swap without specifying the conditions under which this is exact. For H_as = G c v† + H.c., full transfer requires a pulse area Gτ=π/2, and the conversion is only valid in the resolved-sideband regime with negligible thermal occupancy and mechanical decoherence during the protocol. None of these requirements is stated, and the feasibility analysis in Eqs. (23)-(24) models only cavity decay and detector dark counts, not mechanical damping, thermal phonon noise, or conversion efficiency. The central claim that the final state is the ideal Bell or GHZ state therefore lacks an error budget; the authors should either derive the mapping with explicit parameter conditions or qualify the 'ideal' claim.
  3. [Sec. III, after Eq. (18)] The timing statement 'At time t = 2(n1+1)π/g, the successful probability becomes maximal' is inconsistent with Eq. (8), since sin²(gt/2)=0 at that time. The maximum occurs at t=(2n1+1)π/g, as in the Bell case of Eq. (9). This appears to be a typo, but it directly affects the experimental prescription for the GHZ protocol and should be corrected.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (5)] The first line of Eq. (5) reads '1/√2(|01>_AB + |01>_AB)', which should presumably be '1/√2(|10>_AB + |01>_AB)'.
  2. [Sec. II, Eq. (13)] Equation (13) writes the target Bell state as '1/√2(|10>_{u1u2} + |10>_{u1u2})'; the second term should be |01>_{u1u2}.
  3. [Sec. III, Eq. (16)] In Eq. (16), the input photon state is denoted '|ϕ>_i' in the first line but '|ϕ>_in' above; please use consistent notation.
  4. [Sec. III, final paragraph] The text refers to 'the less-entangled GHE state Eq. (15)'; this should be 'GHZ state'.
  5. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption lists ω_m = 30κ, 90κ, 150κ while the figure text shows ω_m = 10κ, 90κ, 170κ; the values should be reconciled, and 'ω_m1' appears to be a typo.
  6. [Appendix, Eqs. (A2)-(A3)] The expansion in Eq. (A3) drops the two-phonon term and also writes the vacuum term with a factor √p_p that does not match the expansion of Eq. (A2); please correct the normalization or state the approximation explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: standard Schmidt projection with independent Hamiltonian inputs; success probabilities are derived, not imposed.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained in the sense required by the circularity test. The only inputs are the two-copy partially entangled phonon states (Eqs. 1-2), the optomechanical cross-Kerr Hamiltonian (Eq. 3), and the linearized anti-Stokes Hamiltonian (Eq. 10). The postselected four-phonon state (Eq. 6) and the success probability (Eq. 8) are computed from these inputs; no parameter is fitted to the Bell or GHZ output, and the target maximally entangled state is not used to define any Hamiltonian or postselection rule. The citations [55-57] supply the cross-Kerr Hamiltonian and [58] the photon-arrival formula, and none of these sources is authored by the present authors or assumes the target result. The self-citations in the reference list (e.g., refs [21,22,43]) concern other entanglement-concentration contexts and are not load-bearing for the phononic protocol. The idealizing assumption that the anti-Stokes step maps Eq. (7) to Eq. (11) as a perfect lossless phonon-to-photon swap is an unquantified feasibility assumption, but it is an assumption about physical fidelity, not a circular identification of the output with the input. No step reduces, by construction or by self-citation, to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger contains no fitted free parameters because the paper is an analytic protocol: all quantities are defined from the Hamiltonian and the input state. The load-bearing assumptions are the realizability of single-photon optomechanical cross-Kerr coupling, deterministic anti-Stokes transduction, identical two-copy input states, ideal photon detection, and negligible mechanical noise. These are stated or implied but not proven.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The cross-Kerr optomechanical Hamiltonian (Eq.(3)) and its Fock-state phase evolution (Eq.(4)) are valid and experimentally realizable at single-photon level.
    Invoked in Sec. II Step 1 without derivation, citing refs [55-57]. This is the physical enabler of the whole scheme.
  • domain assumption The anti-Stokes interaction (Eq.(10)) maps each phonon mode to a photon deterministically and without loss.
    Introduced in Sec. II Step 2 (Eqs.(10)-(11)). No interaction time, sideband condition, or efficiency is stated; the paper treats the transducer as perfect.
  • domain assumption Alice and Bob share two copies of exactly the same partially entangled state with known coefficients alpha and beta.
    Used in Eq.(2) and throughout; the concentration protocol is standard for two identical copies, but the paper does not address state mismatch or unknown coefficients.
  • domain assumption Photon detectors are ideal: unit efficiency, no dark counts, and photon-number resolution sufficient to distinguish 0, 1, or 2 clicks.
    Steps 3-4 rely on click patterns to identify the Bell or GHZ output; dark counts would corrupt the result. Dark counts are discussed only as a feasibility constraint in Sec. III.
  • domain assumption Mechanical decoherence, thermal phonon occupation, and losses in the cavities are negligible during the protocol.
    All steps are treated as unitary except the final measurements; no master equation or noise channel is included.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phononic entanglement concentration via optomechanical interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6J6D5SJ3

@misc{pith2026190809266,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phononic entanglement concentration via optomechanical interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6J6D5SJ3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09266}
}
read the original abstract

Low dissipation, tunable coupling to other quantum systems, and unique features of phonons in the aspects of propagation, detection and others suggest the applications of quantized mechanical resonators in phonon-based quantum information processing (QIP) in a way different from their photonic counterpart. In this paper, we propose the first protocol of entanglement concentration for nonlocal phonons from quantized mechanical vibration. We combine the optomechanical cross-Kerr interaction with the Mach-Zehnder interferometer and, by means of twice optomechanical interactions and the photon analysis with respect to the output of the interferometer, achieve ideal entanglement concentration about less-entangled nonlocal phonon Bell and Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger states. Our protocol is useful for preserving the entangled phonons for the use of high quality phonon-based QIP in future.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09266 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Schematic diagram of step 1 used in the ECP. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Schematic diagram of steps 2-4 in the ECP. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Schematic diagram of the ECP for phonon GHZ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Photon arrival probability density vs arrival time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Schematic diagram of entanglement creation for non [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661 (1991)

    1991

  2. [2]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, and N. D. Mermin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 557 (1992)

    1992

  3. [3]

    X. H. Li, F. G. Deng, and H. Y. Zhou, Phys. Rev. A 78, 022321 (2008)

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crepeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895 (1993)

    1993

  5. [5]

    G. L. Long and X. S. Liu, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032302 (2002)

    2002

  6. [6]

    F. G. Deng, G. L. Long, and X. S. Liu, Phys. Rev. A 68, 042317 (2003)

    2003

  7. [7]

    C. Wang, F. G. Deng, Y. S. Li, X. S. Liu, and G. L. Long, Phys. Rev.A 71, 044305 (2005)

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Zhang, D

    W. Zhang, D. S. Ding, Y. B. Sheng, L. Zhou, B. S. Shi, and G. C. Guo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 220501 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2881 (1992)

    1992

  2. [10]

    X. S. Liu, G. L. Long, D. M. Tong, and Feng. Li, Phys. Rev. A 65, 022304 (2002)

    2002

  3. [11]

    C. H. Bennett, H. J. Bernstein, S. Popescu, and B. Schu- macher, Phys. Rev. A 53, 2046 (1996)

    1996

  4. [12]

    Yamamoto, M

    T. Yamamoto, M. Koashi, and N. Imoto, Phys. Rev.A 64, 012304 (2001)

    2001

  5. [13]

    Z. Zhao, J. W. Pan, and M. S. Zhan, Phys. Rev. A 64, 014301 (2001)

    2001

  6. [14]

    Y. B. Sheng, F. G. Deng, and H. Y. Zhou, Phys. Rev. A 77, 062325 (2008)

    2008

  7. [15]

    X. H. Li and S. Ghose, Phys. Rev. A 91, 062302 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    Botero and J

    A. Botero and J. Mej ´ ıa, Phys. Rev. A98, 032326 (2018). 7

    2018

  9. [17]

    B. C. Ren, F. F. Du, and F. G. Deng, Phys. Rev. A 88, 012302 (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    Y. B. Sheng, L. Zhou, S. M. Zhao, and B. Y. Zheng, Phys. Rev. A 85, 012307 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    F. G. Deng, Phys. Rev. A 85, 022311 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    Wang, Phys

    C. Wang, Phys. Rev. A 86, 012323 (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    Zhang and H

    H. Zhang and H. Wang, Phys. Rev. A 95, 052314 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Zhang, A

    H. Zhang, A. Alsaedi, T. Hayat, and F. G. Deng, Ann. Phys. 391, 112C119 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    C. Y. Li and Y. Shen, Opt. Express 27, 13172 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    H. Xu, L. Y. Jiang, A. A. Clerk, and J. G. E. Harris, Nature (London) 568, 65 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    H. Xu, D. Mason, L. Jiang, and J. G. E. Harris, Nature (London) 537, 80 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Flayac and V

    H. Flayac and V. Savona, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 143603 (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    M. J. Woolley and A. A. Clerk, Phys. Rev. A 89, 063805 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    J. Li, I. M. Haghighi, N. Malossi, S. Zippilli, and D. Vitali, New J. Phys. 17, 103037 (2015)

    2015

  21. [29]

    C. F. Ockeloen-Korppi, E. Damsk¨ agg, J.-M. Pirkkalainen, M. Asjad, A. A. Clerk, F. Massel, M. J. Woolley, and M. A. Sillanp¨ a¨ a, Nature (London) 556, 478 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Riedinger, A

    R. Riedinger, A. Wallucks, I. Marinkovi´ c, C. L¨ oschnauer, M. Aspelmeyer, S. Hong, and S. Gr¨ oblacher, Nature (London) 556, 473 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Aspelmeyer, T

    M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 1391 (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    Ludwig, A

    M. Ludwig, A. H. Safavi-Naeini, O. Painter, and F. Mar- quardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 063601 (2012)

    2012

  25. [33]

    P. L. Yu, K. Cicak, N. S. Kampel, Y. Tsaturyan, T. P. Purdy, R. W. Simmonds, and C. A. Regal, Appl. Phys. Lett. 104, 023510 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    Tsaturyan, A

    Y. Tsaturyan, A. Barg, E. S. Polzik, and A. Schliesser, Nat. Nanotechnol. 12, 776 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    R. N. Patel, Z.Wang,W. Jiang, C. J. Sarabalis, J. T. Hill , and A. H. Safavi-Naeini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 040501 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    S. M. Meenehan, J. D. Cohen, G. S. MacCabe, F. Marsili, M. D. Shaw, and O. Painter, Phys. Rev. X 5, 041002 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    Stannigel, P

    K. Stannigel, P. Komar, S. J. M. Habraken, S. D. Ben- nett, M. D. Lukin, P. Zoller, and P. Rabl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 013603 (2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    Y. D. Wang and A. A. Clerk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 153603 (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    Tian, Phys

    L. Tian, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 153604 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    J. Chan, T. P. M. Alegre, A. H. Safavi-Naeini, J. T. Hill, A. Krause, S. Gr¨ oblacher, A. Markus, and O. Painter, Nature (London) 478, 89 (2011)

    2011

  33. [41]

    Y. C. Liu, Y. F. Xiao, X. Luan, C. W. Wong, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 153606 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    F. C. Lei, M. Gao, C. G. Du, Q. L. Jing, and G. L. Long, Opt. Express 23, 11508 (2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    Zhang, X.-K

    H. Zhang, X.-K. Song, Q. Ai, H. Wang, G.-J. Yang, and F.-G. Deng, Opt. Express 27, 7384 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    E. R. MacQuarrie, T. A. Gosavi, N. R. Jungwirth, S. A. Bhave, and G. D. Fuchs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 227602 (2013)

    2013

  37. [45]

    Ovartchaiyapong, K

    P. Ovartchaiyapong, K. W. Lee, B. A. Myers, and A. C. B. Jayich, Nat. Commun. 5, 4429 (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    D. A. Golter, T. Oo, M. Amezcua, K. A. Stewart, and H. L. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 143602 (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    D. A. Golter, T. Oo, M. Amezcua, I. Lekavicius, K. A. Stewart, and H. L. Wang, Phys. Rev. X 6, 041060 (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    E. R. MacQuarrie, M. Otten, S. K. Gray, and G. D. Fuchs, Nat. Commun. 8, 14358 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    M. V. Gustafsson, T. Aref, A. F. Kockum, M. K. Ek- strom, G. Johansson, and P. Delsing, Science 346, 207 (2014)

    2014

  42. [50]

    M. J. A. Schuetz, E. M. Kessler, G. Giedke, L. M. K. Vandersypen, M. D. Lukin, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. X 5, 031031 (2015)

    2015

  43. [51]

    A. H. Safavi-Naeini and O. Painter, New J. Phys. 13, 013017 (2011)

    2011

  44. [52]

    Okamoto, A

    H. Okamoto, A. Gourgout, C.-Y. Chang, K. Onomitsu, I. Mahboob, E. Y. Chang, and H. Yamaguchi, Nat. Phys. 9, 480-484 (2013)

    2013

  45. [53]

    M. C. Kuzyk and H. Wang, Phys. Rev. X 8, 041027 (2018)

    2018

  46. [54]

    M. A. Lemonde, S. Meesala, A. Sipahigil, M. J. A. Schuetz, M. D. Lukin, M. Loncar, and P. Rabl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 213603 (2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    Chen, W.-Z

    T.-Y. Chen, W.-Z. Zhang, R.-Z. Fang, C.-Z. Hang, and L. Zhou, Opt. Express 25, 10779 (2017)

    2017

  48. [56]

    T. S. Yin, X. Y. L¨ u, L. L. Wan, S. W. Bin, and Y. Wu, Opt. Lett. 43, 2050 (2018)

    2018

  49. [57]

    J. Q. Liao, J. F. Huang, L. Tian, L. M. Kuang, and C. P. Sun, arXiv: 1802.09254

    arXiv

  50. [58]

    Pepper, R

    B. Pepper, R. Ghobadi, E. Jeffrey, C. Simon, and D. Bouwmeester, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 023601 (2012)

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.