Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Critically-enhanced spin-nematic squeezing and entanglement in dipolar spinor condensates

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-27 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a spin-1 dipolar condensate, quantum phase transitions enhance spin-nematic squeezing and quantum Fisher information up to Heisenberg-limited scaling, with exact analytical results for even and odd atom numbers.

desk verdict Heisenberg-limited QFI scaling in dipolar spinor BECs is real, but the paper's advertised odd-N exact formula has an internal error that needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2009.09728 v1 pith:GJNFBDDG submitted 2020-09-21 quant-ph

Qing-Shou Tan , Yixiao Huang , Qiong-Tao Xie , Xiaoguang Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords spin-nematicsqueezingquantumFisherinformationdipolarspinorcondensatephasetransitionHeisenberglimitspin-1Bose-EinsteinBogoliubovapproximationspinmixingdynamics
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

This paper argues that the quantum phase transitions of a spin-1 dipolar Bose-Einstein condensate can be turned into a metrological resource, because the ground states near the critical points are strongly spin-nematic squeezed and carry quantum Fisher information (QFI) that scales with the square of the atom number. At vanishing relative dipolar strength $c=0$, the even-$N$ ground state is a spin singlet with $F_{\max}=16N(N+3)/15$, while the odd-$N$ ground state has $F_{\max}=48N(N+3)/35-72/35$ and squeezing $\xi^2=5/(2N+3)$; both reach Heisenberg scaling. The paper also shows that spin-mixing dynamics near the critical point $c=1$ produce steady squeezing of about $-5\,\mathrm{dB}$, transient squeezing up to $-20\,\mathrm{dB}$, and that a Bogoliubov approximation describes the spin-nematic squeezed vacuum well. These results matter because they identify experimentally tunable phase-transition points where a spinor condensate can deliver Heisenberg-limited precision.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dimensionless single-mode Hamiltonian $\hat{H}/|c'_2|=(\pm1-c)\hat{S}^2+3c\hat{S}_z^2+3c\hat{a}_0^\dagger\hat{a}_0$, where $c$ is the ratio of dipolar to spin-exchange interaction; the argument runs by diagonalizing this Hamiltonian in the Fock basis, evaluating the spin-nematic squeezing parameter $\xi_x^2=A-\sqrt{B^2+C^2}/|\langle Q_+\rangle|$ and the maximal QFI $F_{\max}=\max\{2(A+\sqrt{B^2+C^2}),(\Delta Q_+)^2\}$, and, for the dynamics, reducing the evolution to SU(1,1) operators $K_x,K_y,K_z$ under the Bogoliubov approximation.

What would settle it

Perform a numerical solution of the full spatial many-body problem for a spin-1 dipolar condensate in an anisotropic trap (or an experiment preparing the ground state at $c=0$) and extract the maximal QFI; if $F_{\max}$ does not scale as $N^2$ with coefficient $16/15$ for even $N$ (or $48/35$ for odd $N$), the central claim is wrong. A simpler check: measure whether the QFI at $c=0$ exceeds $4N$ for large $N$; otherwise there is no Heisenberg-limited enhancement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that, within the single-mode model of a spin-1 dipolar condensate, the ground-state spin-nematic squeezing and maximal QFI in the $\{S_x,Q_{yz},Q_+\}$ subspace show three sharp changes at the quantum phase transitions $c=-0.5$, $c=0$, and $c=1$. For $c=0$ and even $N$, the ground state is the spin singlet $|S=0,m=0\rangle$, for which the squeezing parameter is $0/0$ undefined but the maximal QFI is $F_{\max}=(\Delta Q_+)^2=16N(N+3)/15$, a Heisenberg-scaled value. For odd $N$, the ground state is $|S=1,m=0\rangle$, giving $\xi^2_x=5/(2N+3)$ and $F_{\max}=48N(N+3)/35-72/35$. In the dynamical case, starting from $|0,N,0\rangle$ near $c\to 1^+$, the system evolves into a spin-nematic squeezed vacuum whose squeezing and QFI are captured by the Bogoliubov approximation, with optimal squeezing $\xi^2_{\min}=(2c+1)/(4N(c-1)+2c+1)$.

Load-bearing premise

The entire analysis assumes the single-mode approximation, that all spin components share one spatial wavefunction, despite the dipolar interaction being long-range and anisotropic; if this approximation fails in a realistic trap, the phase boundaries and the Heisenberg-scaling coefficients would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At $c=0$, both even- and odd-$N$ ground states achieve Heisenberg-scaled QFI, so the phase-transition point itself is a metrological resource rather than an obstacle.
  • The odd-$N$ ground state is spin-nematic squeezed with $\xi^2=5/(2N+3)$, a scaling comparable to two-axis twisting; this offers a route to near-Heisenberg-limited interferometry.
  • Near $c=1$, dynamical preparation from an easy-to-prepare state $|0,N,0\rangle$ yields steady squeezing around $-5$ dB and transient squeezing up to $-20$ dB, so strong entanglement can be generated without fine-tuned initial states.
  • The Bogoliubov approximation provides closed-form expressions for squeezing and QFI in the squeezed-vacuum regime, enabling analytic control of the dynamical enhancement.
  • Across the phase diagram, the QFI jumps from $F=2N$ (separable-like) to $F\approx2N^2$ (massively entangled), so the transition can be used to switch metrological power on and off.

Reading between the lines

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

  • By analogy with quadratic Zeeman shifts, the paper's closing remark suggests that the same critical enhancement should appear in spinor condensates driven through phase transitions by magnetic fields; this is an extension beyond the paper's explicit calculation.
  • If the single-mode approximation fails in realistic anisotropic traps, the exact coefficients 16/15 and 48/35 may shift, but the qualitative phenomenon of QFI growing as $N^2$ near a transition may persist for spatially varying modes; this is a testable extension.
  • The SU(1,1) structure of the dynamics implies a direct analogy with degenerate parametric amplifiers, so quantum-optics techniques for characterizing and using squeezed vacuum states could be imported to these condensates.
  • The even-odd atom-number dichotomy (undefined squeezing for even $N$, finite $\xi^2=5/(2N+3)$ for odd $N$) offers a way to certify atom-number parity through collective spin measurements.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Request a human review

A listed scientist reviews the paper for a fee and the review publishes here regardless of verdict. See the reviewers or get listed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies spin-nematic squeezing and quantum Fisher information (QFI) in a single-mode spin-1 dipolar Bose-Einstein condensate, focusing on ground states and spin-mixing dynamics. The main claims are that quantum phase transitions, tuned by the relative dipolar interaction strength c, critically enhance squeezing and QFI; at c=0 the even-N spin-singlet state gives Fmax = 16N(N+3)/15 and the odd-N |S=1,m=0> state gives Heisenberg scaling with a stated exact expression Fmax = 48N(N+3)/35 - 72/35; and that near c=1 the Bogoliubov approximation accurately describes the spin-nematic squeezed vacuum dynamics. The paper presents exact diagonalization, analytical recursion relations, and closed-form expressions for the squeezing parameter and QFI in different phases.

Significance. The paper identifies a potentially practical mechanism for achieving Heisenberg-limited metrology in dipolar spinor condensates, with clear analytical formulas for the ground-state squeezing and QFI in the critical regime. The even-N spin-singlet QFI result and the odd-N N^2 scaling (coefficient 48/35) are valuable and appear correct. The Bogoliubov treatment of the dynamical squeezed vacuum is a useful extension. However, the claimed exact closed form for the odd-N QFI contains a numerical error, and a normalization typo appears in the even-N amplitude formula. These issues are local and fixable, but they affect the advertised 'exact analytical expressions' and Table 2.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (23c) and Eq. (25)] The closed-form expression for A in the odd-N ground state is incorrect. For N=3, the state from Eqs. (21)-(22) has coefficients g0^2=3/5 and g1^2=2/5. Substituting into Eq. (11) gives A=34/5, whereas Eq. (23c) gives 228/35≈6.514. The correct numerator in Eq. (23c) should be 12N^2+36N+22, not 12N^2+36N+12. Consequently, Eq. (25) should read Fmax = (48N(N+3)-52)/35, not Fmax = (48N(N+3)-72)/35. For N=3, the correct value from Eq. (9) using the correct A and the unchanged sqrt(B^2+C^2) is 116/5=23.2, while Eq. (25) gives 792/35≈22.63. The Heisenberg N^2 scaling survives, but the exact formula and Table 2 require correction.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (17)] The normalization factor in Eq. (17) is inconsistent with the recursion relation in Eq. (16). Equation (16) states that tilde{g}_0 = 1/sqrt(N+1), but Eq. (17) with k=0 gives tilde{g}_0 = sqrt(N+1). The factor should be 1/sqrt(N+1), not sqrt(N+1). This is a typographical error, but it is important because the normalized amplitudes are used in subsequent expectation values.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title] The title contains a typo: 'entangle ment' should be 'entanglement'.
  2. [Introduction] The phrase 'Heisenberg scalar' should be 'Heisenberg scaling'.
  3. [Conclusion] There is a typo 'magnetic filed' that should be 'magnetic field'.
  4. [Section II.B] The derivation of Eqs. (11)-(14) is not shown. Adding a short derivation or an explicit reference for the Fock-basis expectation values would improve reproducibility.
  5. [Section II.A] The single-mode approximation for dipolar interactions is stated but not justified in the context of the phase diagram. A brief discussion of its validity, or a caveat about its limitations for anisotropic dipolar interactions, would strengthen the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; central claims are independent derivations from an explicit model.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The model Hamiltonian (Eq. (1)) is deliberately introduced as the physical input, quoted from Refs. [27-29]; it is not a quantity the paper purports to predict. The spin-nematic squeezing parameter and QFI are defined through standard SU(3) and quantum-Fisher-information formalisms (Eqs. (4)-(9)); these definitions do not by themselves fix the values obtained for specific states. The even-N and odd-N ground-state results at c=0 are obtained by explicitly solving the recursion relations for the spin-singlet and |S=1,m=0> states and substituting the amplitudes into the previously defined expectation values; no fitted parameter is involved. The even-N QFI result is cross-checked against independent prior work (Toth). The dynamics results are derived via a Bogoliubov approximation and are explicitly benchmarked against exact numerical evolution (Fig. 6). Self-citations appear only in the standard formulas and the model Hamiltonian, not as load-bearing justifications for the central predictions. The flagged algebra in Eq. (25) is a potential arithmetic inconsistency, not a circular reduction of a prediction to an input.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data; all results depend only on N and the physical control parameter c. The main assumptions are the single-mode reduction, the Dicke-state identification for c>1, the Bogoliubov treatment of dynamics, and the standard QFI formalism.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Single-mode approximation: all spin components share a common spatial mode φ(r).
    Invoked in Section II.A to reduce the many-body Hamiltonian to Eq. (1). All phase boundaries and metrological results depend on this model; dipolar interactions are long-range and can be spatially anisotropic, so the approximation may fail in large or anisotropic traps.
  • domain assumption Ground state for c>1 is approximately the Dicke state |S=N,m=0>.
    Used in Section III to claim Fmax≈2N2 for c>1 (Table I/II). The approximation is taken from prior literature (Ref. [27]) and is not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Bogoliubov approximation a0 ≈ a0† ≈ sqrt(N) for the m=0 condensate mode.
    Used in Section IV.B to derive effective SU(1,1) Hamiltonian and analytical formulas for squeezing and QFI near c=1. The paper notes it is only valid for c→1+ and short times; long-time dynamics deviate.
  • standard math Quantum Fisher information formula in the SU(3) subspace (Eq. 9) is adopted from Refs. [4,25,40-43].
    The upper bound F=4N2 and the classification of entangled states rest on this external result, which is not derived in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Critically-enhanced spin-nematic squeezing and entanglement in dipolar spinor condensates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GJNFBDDG

@misc{pith2026200909728,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Critically-enhanced spin-nematic squeezing and entanglement in dipolar spinor condensates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GJNFBDDG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2009.09728}
}
read the original abstract

We study the quantum critical effect enhanced spin-nematic squeezing and quantum Fisher information (QFI) in the spin-1 dipolar atomic Bose-Einstein condensate. We show that the quantum phase transitions can improve the squeezing and QFI in the nearby regime of critical point, and the Heisenberg-limited high-precision metrology can be obtained. The different properties of the ground squeezing and entanglement under even and odd number of atoms are further analyzed, by calculating the exact analytical expressions.We also demonstrate the squeezing and entanglement generated by the spin-mixing dynamics around the phase transition point. It is shown that the steady squeezing and entanglement can be obtained, and the Bogoliubov approximation can well describe the dynamics of spin-nematic squeezed vacuum state.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2009.09728 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: Time dependence of spin-nematic squeezing paramete [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Time dependence of average number of atoms in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Comparison of dynamical behaviors of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kitagawa, M

    M. Kitagawa, M. Ueda, Squeezed spin states, Phys. Rev. A 47, 5138 (1993)

    1993

  2. [2]

    D. J. Wineland, J.J. Bollinger, W.M. Itano, F.L. Moore, D .J. Heinzen, Spin squeezing and reduced quantum noise in spec- troscopy, Phys. Rev. A 46, R6797 (1992)

    work page 1992

  3. [3]

    D. J. Wineland, J.J. Bollinger, W.M. Itano, D.J. Heinzen , Squeezed atomic states and projection noise in spectroscop y, Phys. Rev. A 50, 67(1994)

    work page 1994

  4. [4]

    J. Ma, X. Wang, C. P . Sun, and F. Nori, Quantum spin squeez- ing, Phys. Rep. 509, 89 (2011)

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Pezz´ e, A

    L. Pezz´ e, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P .Treutlein, Quantum metrology with nonclassical states o f atomic ensembles, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 035005 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    A. D. Cronin, J. Schmiedmayer, D.E. Pritchard, Optics an d in- terferometry with atoms and molecules, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1051 (2009)

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    J. D. Sau, S. R. Leslie, M. L. Cohen, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn , Spin squeezing of high-spin, spatially extended quantum fie lds, New J. Phys. 12, 085011 (2010)

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Vitagliano, P

    G. Vitagliano, P . Hyllus, I. L. Egusquiza, and G. T´ oth, S pin squeezing inequalities for arbitrary spin, Phys. Rev. Lett . 107, 240502 (2011)

    work page 2011

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Gross, T

    C. Gross, T. Zibold, E. Nicklas, J. ´Esteve, M.K. Oberthaler, Nonlinear atom interferometer surpasses classical precis ion limit, Nature 464, 1165 (2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

    M. F. Riedel, P . Bohi, Y . Li, T. W. Hansch, A. Sinatra, and P . Treutlein, Atom-chip-based generation of entanglement for quantum metrology, Nature 464, 1170 (2010)

    2010

  3. [11]

    C. K. Law, H. Pu, and N. P . Bigelow, Quantum spins mixing in spinor Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5257 8 (1998)

    1998

  4. [12]

    Chang, Q

    M-S. Chang, Q. Qin, W. Zhang, and M. S. Chapman, Coherent spinor dynamics in a spin-1 Bose condensate, Nat. Phys. 1, 111 (2005)

    2005

  5. [13]

    Kawaguchi and M

    Y . Kawaguchi and M. Ueda, Spinor Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rep. 520, 253 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    D. M. Stamper-Kurn and M. Ueda, Spinor Bose gases: Sym- metries, magnetism, and quantum dynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1191 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    X.Y . Luo, Y . Q. Zou, L. N. Wu, Q. Liu, M. F. Han, M. K. Tey, and L. Y ou, Deterministic entanglement generation fro m driving through quantum phase transitions, Science 355, 620 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Zhang and L.-M

    Z. Zhang and L.-M. Duan, Generation of Massive entangle ment through an adiabatic quantum phase transition in a spinor co n- densate, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 180401 (2013)

    2013

  9. [17]

    ¨O. E. M¨ ustecaplioˇ glu, M. Zhang, L. Y ou, Spin squeezing and entanglement in spinor condensates, Phys. Rev. A 66, 033611 (2002)

    2002

  10. [18]

    Kajtoch and E

    D. Kajtoch and E. Witkowska, Spin squeezing in dipolar s pinor condensates. Phys. Rev. A 93, 023627 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    C. D. Hamley, C. S. Gerving, T. M. Hoang, E. M. Bookjans, a nd M. S. Chapman, Spin-nematic squeezed vacuum in a quantum gas, Nat. Phys. 8, 305 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    C. S. Gerving, T.M. Hoang, B.J. Land, M. Anquez, C.D. Ham - ley, and M.S. Chapman, Non-equilibrium dynamics of an un- stable quantum pendulum explored in a spin-1 Bose-Einstein condensate, Nat. Commun. 3, 1169 (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    T. M. Hoang, C. S. Gerving, B. J. Land, M. Anquez, C. D. Ham - ley, and M. S. Chapman, Dynamic stabilization of a quantum many-body spin system, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 090403 (2013)

    2013

  14. [22]

    Huang, H.N

    Y . Huang, H.N. Xiong, Z. Sun, and X. Wang, Generation and storage of spin-nematic squeezing in a spinor Bose-Einstei n condensate, Phys. Rev. A 92, 023622 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    S. J. Masson, M. D. Barrett, and S. Parkins, Cavity QED en gi- neering of spin dynamics and squeezing in a spinor gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 213601 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    S. J. Masson and S. Parkins, Rapid production of many-bo dy entanglement in spin-1 atoms via cavity output photon count - ing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 103601 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    Niezgoda, D

    A. Niezgoda, D. Kajtoch, and E. Witkowska, E fficient two- mode interferometers with spinor Bose-Einstein condensat es, Phys. Rev. A 98, 013610 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Yi and L

    S. Yi and L. Y ou, Trapped condensates of atoms with dipol e interactions, Phys. Rev. A 63, 053607 (2001)

    2001

  19. [27]

    S. Yi, L. Y ou, and H. Pu, Quantum phases of dipolar spinor condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 040403 (2004)

    2004

  20. [28]

    Yi and H

    S. Yi and H. Pu, Magnetization, squeezing, and entangle ment in dipolar spin-1 condensates, Phys. Rev. A 73, 023602 (2006)

    2006

  21. [29]

    H. Xing, A. Wang, Q. S. Tan, W. Zhang, and S. Yi, Heisenber g- scaled magnetometer with dipolar spin-1 condensates, Phys . Rev. A 93, 043615 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    Giovanazzi, A

    S. Giovanazzi, A. G¨ orlitz, and T. Pfau, Tuning the dipo lar In- teraction in quantum gases, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 130401 (2002)

    2002

  23. [31]

    Griesmaier, J

    A. Griesmaier, J. Stuhler, T. Koch, M. Fattori, T. Pfau, and S. Giovanazzi, Comparing contact and dipolar interaction i n a Bose-Einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 250402 (2006)

    2006

  24. [32]

    Stuhler, A

    J. Stuhler, A. Griesmaier, T. Koch, M. Fattori, T. Pfau, S. Gio- vanazzi, P . Pedri, and L. Santos, Observation of dipole-dip ole interaction in a degenerate quantum gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 150406 (2005)

    2005

  25. [33]

    H. Pu, W. Zhang, and P . Meystre, Ferromagnetism in a lattice of Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 140405 (2001)

    2001

  26. [34]

    Zhang, S

    W. Zhang, S. Yi, M. S. Chapman, and J. Q. Y ou, Coherent zero- field magnetization resonance in a dipolar spin-1 Bose-Eins tein condensate, Phys. Rev. A 92, 023615(2015)

    2015

  27. [35]

    Huang, Y

    Y . Huang, Y . Zhang, R. L¨ u, X. Wang, and S. Yi, Macro- scopic quantum coherence in spinor condensates confined in a n anisotropic potential, Phys. Rev. A 86, 043625 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    C. Chin, R. Grimm, P . Julienne and E. Tiesinga, Feshbach res- onances in ultracold gases, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1225 (2010)

    2010

  29. [37]

    C. W. Helstrom, Quantum detection and estimation theor y (Academic Press, New Y ork, 1976)

    1976

  30. [38]

    A. S. Holevo, Probabilistic and statistical aspects of quantum theory (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982)

    1982

  31. [39]

    Strobel, W

    H. Strobel, W. Muessel, D. Linnemann, T. Zibold, D. B. Hu me, L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi and M. K. Oberthaler, Fisher informatio n and entanglement of non-Gaussian spin states, Science 345, 424 (2014)

    2014

  32. [40]

    J. Ma, Y . Huang, X. Wang, and C. P . Sun, Quantum Fisher in- formation of the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger state in dec oher- ence channels, Phys. Rev. A 84, 022302 (2011)

    2011

  33. [41]

    J. Liu, H. Y uan, X. M. Lu, X. Wang, Quantum Fisher infor- mation matrix and multiparameter estimation, J. Phys. A: Ma th Theoret. 53, 023001 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Ferrini, D

    G. Ferrini, D. Spehner, A. Minguzzi, and F. W. J. Hekking , Ef- fect of phase noise on quantum correlations in Bose-Josephs on junctions, Phys. Rev. A 84, 043628 (2011)

    2011

  35. [43]

    Huang, W

    Y . Huang, W. Zhong, Z. Sun, and X. Wang, Fisher-informat ion manifestation of dynamical stability and transition to sel f- trapping for Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. A 86, 012320 (2012)

    2012

  36. [44]

    M. J. Holland, K. Burnett, Interferometric detection o f optical phase shifts at the Heisenberg limit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1355 (1993)

    1993

  37. [45]

    Hyllus, O

    P . Hyllus, O. G¨ uhne, and A. Smerzi, Not all pure entangl ed states are useful for sub-shot-noise interferometry, Phys . Rev. A 82, 012337 (2010)

    2010

  38. [46]

    L¨ ucke, Twin matter waves for interferometry beyond the classical limit, Science 334, 773 (2011)

    B. L¨ ucke, Twin matter waves for interferometry beyond the classical limit, Science 334, 773 (2011)

    2011

  39. [47]

    Wieczorek, R

    W. Wieczorek, R. Krischek, N. Kiesel, P . Michelberger, G. T´ oth, and H. Weinfurter, Experimental entanglement of a si x- photon symmetric Dicke state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 020504 (2009)

    2009

  40. [48]

    T´ oth, Entanglement detection in optical lattices o f bosonic atoms with collective measurements, Phys

    G. T´ oth, Entanglement detection in optical lattices o f bosonic atoms with collective measurements, Phys. Rev. A 69, 052327 (2004)

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.