Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 24 references

Detection of a semitransparent object with no exchange of quanta

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a semitransparent object inside a Fabry-Pérot cavity is best detected without photon exchange by an undercoupled cavity, and that transmission beats reflection in that regime.

desk verdict A clean input-output analysis of interaction-free detection for semitransparent objects, but the headline undercoupled/transmission recommendation rests on an ad hoc figure of merit and does not survive a switch to a proper error-probability objective. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15384 v1 pith:KVVOJNWS submitted 2024-11-22 quant-ph

Vedran Vujnović , Nenad Kralj , Marin Karuza This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords interaction-freemeasurementFabry-Pérotcavitysemitransparentobjectoptomechanicsundercoupledsecuritysignal-to-noiseratioinput-outputformalism
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 tries to establish that the standard design rule for interaction-free detection—use a critically coupled cavity—fails for realistic, partially absorbing objects. The authors model a Fabry-Pérot cavity with an object inside using input-output theory, and define two competing quantities: the security (probability that none of N0 probe photons is absorbed) and the signal-to-noise ratio between object-present and object-absent photon counts. They find that when the object's absorption rate and its induced cavity detuning are both comparable to the empty-cavity decay rate, the product of these two quantities is maximized by an undercoupled cavity, and in that regime measuring the cavity transmission beats measuring reflection. If true, this gives a concrete design rule for experiments that probe light-sensitive or semitransparent objects without exchanging quanta.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Fabry-Pérot cavity described by input-output theory, with three decay ports: input mirror (rate κ1), output mirror (κ2), and object absorption (κ3). The coupling efficiency ξ = κ1/(κ1+κ2) parameterizes the mirror asymmetry. From the steady-state cavity amplitude, the paper derives the reflection, transmission, and absorption coefficients R, T, A; these yield the single-photon security η = 1−A, the total security η_tot = (1−A)^{N0}, and the signal-to-noise ratio SNR_j for each output port. The product ζ_j = η_tot × SNR_j, maximized over ξ and photon number N0, is the figure of merit that carries the argument.

What would settle it

Measure the security and signal-to-noise ratio for a semitransparent membrane in a Fabry-Pérot cavity with κ3≈κA and ΔP≲κA over a range of coupling efficiencies ξ, comparing transmission and reflection; if the product ζ_j peaks at or near ξ=0.5 (critical coupling) rather than at ξ<0.5, or if reflection outperforms transmission, the central claim is contradicted. Alternatively, redo the optimization using an explicit error probability derived from the photon-counting statistics instead of the ad hoc SNR; if the undercoupled maximum disappears, the claimed advantage is an artifact of the chosen figure of merit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that for a semitransparent object, the optimal cavity coupling is not symmetric. Specifically, when the object's absorption-induced decay rate κ3 is comparable to the empty-cavity decay rate κA and the object-induced detuning ΔP is comparable to or smaller than κA, the product ζ_j = η_tot × SNR_j—total security times signal-to-noise ratio in output port j—reaches its global or constrained maximum for an undercoupled cavity (coupling efficiency ξ < 0.5), and the maximum in transmission (j=2) exceeds that in reflection (j=1). This is shown by scanning the (κ3, ΔP) parameter space and finding a region around κ3≈κA and ΔP≲κA where the maxima move away from ξ=0.5; the transmission advantage appears precisely in that region. For a perfect absorber, in contrast, critical coupling with detection in reflection is the known optimal scheme.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's central conclusion depends on its chosen objective function, the product of total security and signal-to-noise ratio; a different reasonable objective, such as maximizing SNR subject to a minimum security floor, could shift the optimal coupling and remove the transmission advantage.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a semitransparent object with κ3≈κA and ΔP≲κA, an undercoupled cavity improves the security–SNR trade-off compared to critical coupling.
  • In that parameter regime, transmission detection yields a higher product ζ than reflection for the same cavity and detector parameters.
  • The optimized scheme can achieve SNR_j ≥ 1 while keeping the total security close to 1 (η_tot→1) for finite detuning and mode-matching efficiency.
  • The model is wavelength-agnostic, so the design rule applies to both optical and microwave cavity experiments, including superconducting circuits.
  • The analysis assumes at most one photon in the cavity on average (quasi-steady state), which links the maximum usable photon flux to the cavity linewidth.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The ad hoc choice of the product ζ = η_tot × SNR as the objective is not justified by an explicit error-probability model; whether the undercoupled-transmission preference survives a more standard detection-theoretic objective (e.g., minimizing error probability) remains untested, so the practical recommendation is conditional on this figure of merit.
  • In the limits κ3≪κA or ΔP≫κA, the advantage disappears and critical coupling remains optimal, suggesting that the undercoupled regime is a narrow but experimentally accessible window for weakly absorbing membranes.
  • A natural extension is to use both cavity output ports simultaneously; the paper notes this would improve performance regardless of parameters, and one could test whether a joint readout removes the transmission-versus-reflection asymmetry entirely.
  • Because the quasi-steady-state assumption caps the input photon flux, using brighter coherent pulses with non-Poissonian statistics would require a full quantum treatment to determine whether the security–SNR trade-off can be improved beyond the present analysis.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a steady-state input-output model of a Fabry-Pérot cavity containing a semitransparent, partially absorbing object. It derives the reflection, transmission, and absorption coefficients (Eq. (1)), defines a total security η_tot=(1-A)^N0 (Eq. (3)) as the probability that none of the N0 probe photons is absorbed, and defines a signal-to-noise ratio SNR_j (Eq. (2)) for a detector placed in reflection or transmission. Treating the product ζ_j=η_tot×SNR_j as a figure of merit and imposing the constraints η_tot≥0.85 and SNR_j≥2, the paper reports that for κ3≈κA and ΔP≲κA the optimum is an undercoupled cavity and that detection in transmission outperforms reflection, in contrast to the case of a perfect absorber. It also proposes a concrete SiN-membrane experimental realization.

Significance. If the central result were as robust as the abstract suggests, the paper would be a useful extension of interaction-free-measurement theory to realistic semitransparent objects, with clear design guidance for cavities. The input-output derivation and the SNR and security formulas are clearly presented and correct under the stated Poisson and dark-count assumptions, and the parameter scans are systematic. The concrete experimental proposal is a strength, and the predicted regimes are falsifiable. However, the headline recommendation rests on an ad hoc figure of merit rather than on a decision-theoretic error probability, and the abstract's claim to quantitatively relate the probability of correct inference to the probability of avoiding absorption is not supported by the analysis as written.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, after Eq. (3); abstract] The objective ζ_j=η_tot×SNR_j is an ad hoc product of two separately motivated quantities, and SNR_j is never converted into a probability of correct inference. This is not a purely philosophical gap: for the exact parameters of Fig. 2, a critically coupled (ξ=0.5) cavity read in reflection with N0=8 photons has η_tot≈0.858≥0.85 and SNR_R≈1.95, with a Bayesian error probability of about 1.5% under equal priors and Poisson counts with dark ratio 10^-3. The paper's conditional maximum (transmission, ξ≈0.03, N0≈76) has SNR≈2 and a Bayesian error probability of about 8.5%. The product ζ ranks the undercoupled point higher (≈1.83 versus ≈1.67) even though the critical point is substantially better for actual detection. The abstract's statement that the paper quantitatively relates the probability of correctly inferring the object's presence to the probability of avoiding absorption is therefore not fulfilled by the presented analysis.
  2. [Section 4, Figs. 2(c) and 2(d)] The constraints η_tot≥0.85 and SNR_j≥2 are introduced without derivation and are not tied to any required false-alarm or detection probability. A threshold SNR≥2 is not equivalent to a decision-theoretic operating point across different ports and different N0, because the same SNR can correspond to different error probabilities when the background counts and priors differ. The claim that the conditional maxima appear at ξ<0.5 and that transmission is favorable is therefore conditional on these arbitrary constraints and on the ad hoc product ζ. The authors should replace this approach with an explicit Bayesian or Neyman-Pearson decision rule, or at minimum show that the qualitative ordering of transmission versus reflection is robust to reasonable choices of the objective.
  3. [Section 2 and Section 3] The detuning ΔP is treated as an independent constant throughout the parameter scans, but in the model ΔP=ΔA−2(g0|α|)^2/ωm depends on the intracavity amplitude and hence on the input flux. The paper's caveat that at most one photon is in the cavity on average does not by itself resolve this, because the optomechanical shift depends on the instantaneous mean photon number, not on the total integrated photon number N0. The authors should either state explicitly the regime in which the back-action shift is negligible for all N0 considered, or solve the self-consistency equation. This affects the interpretation of the 'interesting regime' in Fig. 3 and the mapping from model parameters to experimental parameters.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, paragraph after Eq. (3)] 'It follows from bEq. (1)' contains a typo: 'bEq.' should read 'Eq.'.
  2. [Supplementary Information A] The word 'ampltiudes' is a typo for 'amplitudes', and the orthogonality condition should be written with a complex conjugate, e.g. a∥†in a⊥in = 0.
  3. [Section 4] The word 'prospectless' is non-standard; consider 'unpromising' or 'not a prospect'.
  4. [Figures 2(c) and 2(d)] The insets showing the global and conditional maxima are very small; larger panels or explicit coordinate markers would make the claimed optima easier to verify.
  5. [Section 3] The claim that η_tot and SNR are both maximized for ϵP→0 should be clarified: in that limit the probe photons essentially do not enter the cavity, so the detection is based on the mode-matching change itself rather than on cavity-assisted interaction-free interrogation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity: the optimization is self-contained standard input-output theory, and the only self-citation (ref. [11]) is non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims follow from the cavity coefficients in Eq. (1), the SNR definition in Eq. (2), and the total security in Eq. (3), all derived from the stated Langevin/input-output framework in Supplementary Information A and B. No parameter is fitted to data and then reported as a prediction; κA, κ3, ΔP, ϵP, ξ and N0 are declared inputs. The figure of merit ζ_j = η_tot × SNR_j is an explicit modeling choice ('We choose to take the SNR and ηtot on equal footing and investigate their product ζj(ξ, N0)'), not an identity smuggled in as a derivation. The undercoupled/transmission preference is a computed optimum of that stated objective over the (ξ, N0) plane, so it does not reduce to its inputs by construction. The only notable self-citation is ref. [11] (which includes co-author M. Karuza), used for the maximum vacuum optomechanical coupling formula and the absorption-induced decay rate; these are ancillary physical inputs, not the conclusion under test, and the paper varies κ3 and ΔP freely rather than relying on the cited values. The paper's own stated limitations, such as considering only single-detector SNRs and not converting SNR into an error probability, affect the interpretation of the results but are acknowledged (Section 5) and are correctness/robustness concerns, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an optimization over a standard optomechanical cavity model. The four hand-chosen detector and mode-matching parameters, plus the object-parameter regime, carry the result; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Mode-matching efficiency in state P, ϵP = 0.2
    Finite mode mismatch at the probe wavelength is assumed; the paper notes η_tot and SNR are maximized as ϵP→0, so the finite value is a chosen constraint that shapes the optima.
  • Detector quantum efficiencies χ1, χ2 = 0.5 each
    Chosen by hand; detector efficiency affects the SNR denominator and thus the optimal coupling.
  • Dark count ratios D1, D2 = 10^-3
    Chosen to correspond to typical detectors at input flux C0 ~ 10^6 s^-1; directly enters the SNR expression.
  • Conditional-maximum constraints = η_tot ≥ 0.85, SNR_j ≥ 2
    These thresholds define the 'practical' optima reported; different thresholds shift the recommended ξ.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Standard input-output relations for a three-port cavity (Gardiner-Zoller)
    Used to derive R, T, A coefficients in Eq. (1); accepted background.
  • domain assumption Probe photons obey Poissonian statistics and measurement noise scales as √N0
    Assumed in Supplementary B for the SNR expression; valid for coherent states.
  • domain assumption Quasi-steady state: at most one photon on average inside the cavity, so steady-state amplitudes apply
    Stated in Section 3 as a validity condition with an upper bound on photon flux.
  • domain assumption Object effects are fully described by absorption rate κ3 and detuning ΔP, with no other loss channels
    Assumed in Section 2; mirror absorption and scattering are neglected.
  • ad hoc to paper The object-induced detuning ΔP is treated as an independent constant, not derived self-consistently from the photon-number-dependent optomechanical shift
    The paper parameterizes ΔP rather than solving the coupled equations; the regime claims are conditional on this treatment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Detection of a semitransparent object with no exchange of quanta." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KVVOJNWS

@misc{pith2026241115384,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Detection of a semitransparent object with no exchange of quanta},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KVVOJNWS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15384}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we theoretically analyze the optimization of a Fabry-P\'{e}rot cavity for the purpose of detecting partially absorbing objects placed inside without photon exchange. Utilizing the input-output formalism, we quantitatively relate the probability of correctly inferring the presence or absence of the object to the probability of avoiding absorption. We show that, if the cavity decay rate due to absorption by the object is comparable to that of the empty cavity and to the object-induced detuning, the product of the two probabilities is maximized by an undercoupled cavity, in which case detection in transmission is favorable to that in reflection. These results are contrary to the case of a perfect absorber, thus adding to the body of work pertaining to interaction-free measurement schemes and providing insight into optimizing their efficiency when detecting realistic objects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15384 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Schematic of the proposed Fabry-Pérot setup for detecting a semitransparent object (black [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Total security (black) and SNRs in cavity reflection (blue) and transmission (red). (b) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cavity coupling efficiency that realizes the global maximum of (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Total security as a function of (a) SNR and (b) number of impinging photons for detection done [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The colorbars represent the products ζ1 (left) and ζ2 (right) for ∆P ≪ κA, i.e. κA/(2π) = 1.5 × 107 Hz, ∆P /(2π) = 1.5 × 104 Hz, with: 1) κ3 ≪ κA, κ3 = ∆P (top); 2) κ3 = κA (middle); 3) κ3 ≫ κA, κ3/(2π) = 1.5 × 1010 Hz (bottom). 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p0…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The colorbars represent the products ζ1 (left) and ζ2 (right) for ∆P = κA, i.e. κA/(2π) = ∆P /(2π) = 1.5 × 107 Hz, with: 1) κ3 ≪ κA, κ3/(2π) = 1.5 × 104 Hz (top); 2) κ3 = κA = ∆P (middle); 3) κ3 ≫ κA, κ3/(2π) = 1.5 × 1010 Hz (bottom). 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The colorbars represent the products ζ1 (left) and ζ2 (right) for ∆P ≫ κA, i.e. κA/(2π) = 1.5 × 107 Hz, ∆P /(2π) = 1.5 × 1010 Hz, with: 1) κ3 ≪ κA, κ3/(2π) = 1.5 × 104 Hz (top); 2) κ3 = κA (middle); 3) κ3 ≫ κA, κ3 = ∆P (bottom). The middle rows of Figs. 5 and 6 clearly…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The products ζ1 (blue colorbar) and ζ2 (red colorbar) for ∆P ≪ κA, specifically with κA/(2π) = 1.5 × 107 Hz and ∆P /(2π) = 1.5 × 104 Hz. The absorption loss rate is varied in the range κ3/(2π) ∈ [1.5 × 103 , 1.5 × 1010] Hz, increasing in steps of one decade, first from…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The products ζ1 (blue colorbar) and ζ2 (red colorbar) for ∆P /(2π) = κA/(2π) = 1.5 × 107 Hz. The absorption loss rate is varied in the range κ3/(2π) ∈ [1.5 × 104 , 1.5 × 1011] Hz, increasing in steps of one decade, first from left to right within each row (while kept t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Renninger

    M. Renninger. Zum wellen-korpuskel-dualismus. Zeitschrift für Physik, 136(3):251–261, Jun 1953

    work page 1953

  2. [2]

    Renninger

    M. Renninger. Messungen ohne störung des meßobjekts. Zeitschrift für Physik, 158(4):417–421, Aug 1960

    work page 1960

  3. [3]

    Elitzur and Lev Vaidman

    Avshalom C. Elitzur and Lev Vaidman. Quantum mechanical interaction-free measurements. F ounda- tions of Physics, 23(7):987–997, jul 1993

    work page 1993

  4. [4]

    Kasevich

    Paul Kwiat, Harald Weinfurter, Thomas Herzog, Anton Zeilinger, and Mark A. Kasevich. Interaction- free measurement. Phys. Rev. Lett., 74:4763–4766, Jun 1995

    work page 1995

  5. [5]

    welcher weg

    Mladen Paviˇci´c. Resonance energy-exchange-free detection and “welcher weg” experiment. Phys. Lett. A, 223(4):241–245, 1996

    work page 1996

  6. [6]

    Nonclassical interaction-free detection of objects in a monolithic total-internal-reflection resonator

    Harry Paul and Mladen Pavi ˇci´c. Nonclassical interaction-free detection of objects in a monolithic total-internal-reflection resonator. J. Opt. Soc. Am. B , 14(6):1275–1279, Jun 1997

    work page 1997

  7. [7]

    Realistic interaction-free detection of objects in a resonator.F oundations of Physics, 28:959–970, 1998

    Harry Paul and Mladen Paviˇci´c. Realistic interaction-free detection of objects in a resonator.F oundations of Physics, 28:959–970, 1998

    work page 1998

  8. [8]

    Nondestructive interaction-free atom-photon controlled-not gate

    Mladen Pavi ˇci´c. Nondestructive interaction-free atom-photon controlled-not gate. Phys. Rev. A , 75:032342, Mar 2007

    work page 2007

Show all 24 references
  1. [9]

    Tsegaye, E

    T. Tsegaye, E. Goobar, A. Karlsson, G. Björk, M. Y . Loh, and K. H. Lim. Efficient interaction-free measurements in a high-finesse interferometer. Phys. Rev. A, 57:3987–3990, May 1998

    1998

  2. [10]

    Cavity optomechanics

    Markus Aspelmeyer, Tobias J Kippenberg, and Florian Marquardt. Cavity optomechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 86(4):1391, 2014

    2014

  3. [11]

    Biancofiore, M

    C. Biancofiore, M. Karuza, M. Galassi, R. Natali, P. Tombesi, G. Di Giuseppe, and D. Vitali. Quantum dynamics of an optical cavity coupled to a thin semitransparent membrane: Effect of membrane absorption. Phys. Rev. A, 84:033814, Sep 2011

    2011

  4. [12]

    C. W. Gardiner and P. Zoller. Quantum Noise. Springer, second edition, 2000

    2000

  5. [13]

    Cyril Elouard, Mordecai Waegell, Benjamin Huard, and Andrew N. Jordan. An interaction-free quantum measurement-driven engine. F oundations of Physics, 50(11):1294–1314, Nov 2020. 8 arXiv preprint: Detection of a semitransparent object with no exchange of quanta

    2020

  6. [14]

    Quantum mechanics, local realistic theories, and lorentz-invariant realistic theories

    Lucien Hardy. Quantum mechanics, local realistic theories, and lorentz-invariant realistic theories. Phys. Rev. Lett., 68:2981–2984, May 1992

    1992

  7. [15]

    Elitzur, James L

    Yingwen Zhang, Alicia Sit, Frédéric Bouchard, Hugo Larocque, Florence Grenapin, Eliahu Cohen, Avshalom C. Elitzur, James L. Harden, Robert W. Boyd, and Ebrahim Karimi. Interaction-free ghost- imaging of structured objects. Opt. Express, 27(3):2212–2224, Feb 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    McCord, and Gheorghe Sorin Paraoanu

    Shruti Dogra, John J. McCord, and Gheorghe Sorin Paraoanu. Coherent interaction-free detection of microwave pulses with a superconducting circuit. Nature Communications, 13(1):7528, Dec 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Peise, B

    J. Peise, B. Lücke, L. Pezzé, F. Deuretzbacher, W. Ertmer, J. Arlt, A. Smerzi, L. Santos, and C. Klempt. Interaction-free measurements by quantum zeno stabilization of ultracold atoms. Nature Communica- tions, 6(1):6811, Apr 2015

    2015

  10. [18]

    J. D. Thompson, B. M. Zwickl, A. M. Jayich, Florian Marquardt, S. M. Girvin, and J. G. E. Harris. Strong dispersive coupling of a high-finesse cavity to a micromechanical membrane. Nature, 452(7183):72–75, Mar 2008

    2008

  11. [19]

    Dispersive optomechanics: a membrane inside a cavity

    A M Jayich, J C Sankey, B M Zwickl, C Yang, J D Thompson, S M Girvin, A A Clerk, F Marquardt, and J G E Harris. Dispersive optomechanics: a membrane inside a cavity. New Journal of Physics , 10(9):095008, sep 2008

    2008

  12. [20]

    Vincent Dumont, Simon Bernard, Christoph Reinhardt, Alex Kato, Maximilian Ruf, and Jack C. Sankey. Flexure-tuned membrane-at-the-edge optomechanical system. Opt. Express, 27(18):25731–25748, Sep 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    membrane-in-the- middle

    H. K. Cheung and C. K. Law. Nonadiabatic optomechanical hamiltonian of a moving dielectric membrane in a cavity. Phys. Rev. A, 84:023812, Aug 2011. 9 arXiv preprint: Detection of a semitransparent object with no exchange of quanta Supplementary Information A Cavity coefficient...

    2011

  14. [22]

    In general, the output power in any port is given by Pk = |aout,k|2

    In reflection, we then have a∥ out,1 = 1 − κ1 κ/2 + i∆ a∥ in , (13) a⊥ out,1 = a⊥ in , (14) for the ampltiudes of the mode-matched and non-mode-matched part, respectively, as the latter effectively never enters the cavity. In general, the output power in any port is given by P...

  15. [23]

    13 arXiv preprint: Detection of a semitransparent object with no exchange of quanta Figure 6: The colorbars represent the products ζ1 (left) and ζ2 (right) for ∆P = κA, i.e

    κ3 ≫ κA, κ3/(2π) = 1.5 × 1010 Hz (bottom). 13 arXiv preprint: Detection of a semitransparent object with no exchange of quanta Figure 6: The colorbars represent the products ζ1 (left) and ζ2 (right) for ∆P = κA, i.e. κA/(2π) = ∆P /(2π) = 1.5 × 107 Hz, with: 1) κ3 ≪ κA, κ3/(2π)...

  16. [24]

    14 arXiv preprint: Detection of a semitransparent object with no exchange of quanta Figure 7: The colorbars represent the products ζ1 (left) and ζ2 (right) for ∆P ≫ κA, i.e

    κ3 ≫ κA, κ3/(2π) = 1.5 × 1010 Hz (bottom). 14 arXiv preprint: Detection of a semitransparent object with no exchange of quanta Figure 7: The colorbars represent the products ζ1 (left) and ζ2 (right) for ∆P ≫ κA, i.e. κA/(2π) = 1.5 × 107 Hz, ∆P /(2π) = 1.5 × 1010 Hz, with: 1) κ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.