Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Violation of Cluster Property in Superconducting Qubit

T0 review · 4 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 stable ground state of a superconducting charge qubit violates the cluster property, with a fixed correlation at arbitrarily large separation.

desk verdict A textbook correlation result is dressed up as a new prediction for a lumped-element qubit, so the central claim is either definitionally true or unsupported; the cQED calculations are competent but measure standard qubit-mediated coupling. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16026 v1 pith:ZFSH7IIH submitted 2024-11-25 cond-mat.stat-mech

Tomo Munehisa This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mech
keywords clusterpropertysuperconductingchargequbitCooper-pairboxcavityquantumelectrodynamicsJaynes-Cummingsmodelphoton-numberoscillationsspontaneoussymmetrybreakinglong-rangecorrelations
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 argues that a real, finite-size device—the superconducting charge qubit—violates the cluster property, the principle that local measurements at widely separated points should be uncorrelated. Because the Cooper-pair box Hamiltonian contains a charge-squared term, its lowest energy state has a definite charge number, and a local operator can change that charge to the next value with a matrix element $v$ that does not depend on position. This makes the two-point correlation between local operators at far-apart points equal to $\lvert v\rvert^2$ rather than zero. The paper then turns this formal statement into an experiment: two cavities coupled to the qubit inherit the correlation, so photons should oscillate between the cavities even when the cavities are far apart. The claim matters because it says a stable, gapped ground state in an engineered superconducting circuit can display long-range correlation that the usual cluster property would forbid.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the matrix element $v = \langle n_Q^*+1\rvert\hat\phi^\dagger(x)\lvert n_Q^*\rangle$ of the local charge-changing operator between the two stable charge eigenstates, together with the charge-squared Hamiltonian $b(\hat Q - \bar n_G)^2$ that makes those eigenstates stable. The paper assumes $v$ is real and position-independent, so it factors out of the two-point function and leaves the constant correlation $\lvert v\rvert^2$ in Eqs. (9)--(10). The measurable machinery is the two-cavity Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian (21); a second-order process in which the qubit absorbs a photon from one cavity and emits into the other produces the effective dispersive Hamiltonian (28)--(31), whose photon-exchange term $(g^2\gamma_{ab}/2)(\hat a^\dagger\hat b + \hat b^\dagger\hat a)\sigma_z$ transfers photons between the cavities. The expectation value $\langle \hat a^\dagger(t)\hat a(t)\rangle$ then oscillates with frequency $\omega_\alpha - \omega_\beta$, and the ratio $r_a$ in Eq. (40) measures how visible the oscillation is against the constant background.

What would settle it

Prepare the two cavities in $\lvert 1_a,0_b,\downarrow\rangle$ with matched frequencies and low frequency noise ($\sigma/g_{2,z} \lesssim 0.3$), and follow $\langle \hat a^\dagger(t)\hat a(t)\rangle$: if the oscillation amplitude ratio $r_a$ stays well below the predicted value, decays with the physical separation of the cavities, or vanishes when the cavities are shielded from the qubit, the central claim would be refuted. A more direct check is to measure the local matrix element $v$ at two well-separated locations of an elongated Cooper-pair box and see whether $\langle n_Q^*+1\rvert\hat\phi^\dagger(x)\lvert n_Q^*\rangle$ is indeed nonzero and independent of $x$ at separations far beyond the box's microscopic size.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the superconducting charge qubit gives a stable ground state $\lvert n_Q^*\rangle$ that violates the cluster property. The charge-squared Hamiltonian $b(\hat{Q}-\bar n_G)^2$ makes the charge eigenstates stable, and the local operator $\hat\phi^\dagger(x)$ has a nonzero, position-independent matrix element $v = \langle n_Q^*+1\rvert\hat\phi^\dagger(x)\lvert n_Q^*\rangle$ between the two lowest charge states. Inserting these states into the two-point function gives $\lim_{|x-y|\to\infty}\langle n_Q^*\rvert\hat\phi(x)\hat\phi^\dagger(y)\lvert n_Q^*\rangle = \lvert v\rvert^2$, which is exactly the refusal of the cluster property: the connected correlation does not decay with distance. The paper makes this observable through an extended Jaynes-Cummings model with two cavities; in the dispersive regime the effective Hamiltonian contains a photon-exchange term $(g^2\gamma_{ab}/2)(\hat a^\dagger\hat b + \hat b^\dagger\hat a)\sigma_z$, so the photon number in one cavity oscillates at frequency $\omega_\alpha - \omega_\beta$ with an amplitude that does not depend on the cavity separation. Observation of the predicted three resonance gaps at resonance, or of this photon-number oscillation, would, in the author's argument, establish that the cluster property is violated without any doubt.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the Cooper-pair box supports local operators $\hat\phi(x)$ and $\hat\phi(y)$ at two points $x$ and $y$ separated by a large distance, with the same nonzero matrix element $v$ at both points; if the qubit is effectively point-like, 'far distance' is not a distance inside it, and the observed cavity-cavity correlation would just be ordinary qubit-mediated coupling, not a violation of clustering.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A stable, gapped ground state of a real superconducting circuit would show a distance-independent connected correlation $\lvert v\rvert^2$, so the standard expectation that gapped local systems cluster would fail in a concrete device.
  • At resonance ($\omega_a=\omega_b=\Omega$), spectroscopy would show three excited levels with gaps $\omega-\sqrt{2}g$, $\omega$, and $\omega+\sqrt{2}g$, a direct signature of the correlated two-cavity sector.
  • In the dispersive regime, the effective coupling $g^2\gamma_{ab}/2$ makes photons hop between cavities; the ratio of oscillation to static photon number can approach 1 for matched cavity frequencies and $n_b=0$, within published circuit-QED parameters.
  • With Gaussian frequency noise, the oscillation remains visible for about two periods when $\sigma/g_{2,z}\le 0.3$, which fixes the noise budget for the experiment.
  • The same Hamiltonian entangles the two photon modes, with the maximally entangled two-photon state appearing in the symmetric/antisymmetric mode basis.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not spatially resolve the local operators inside the Cooper-pair box; an independent test would place cavities at opposite ends of an elongated nanowire qubit and check whether $v$ is truly independent of position.
  • If accepted, the two-cavity experiment would show that a finite, engineered device can reproduce the long-range order normally associated with spontaneous symmetry breaking, turning cluster-property violation into a designable circuit property.
  • The same logic could apply to flux and phase qubits if they admit local operators connecting their stable states, which the paper sketches and which would make the violation generic to superconducting qubits.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that a superconducting charge qubit, whose lowest-energy state has a definite charge number, violates the cluster property. The argument is that a local operator φ(x) can change |n*_Q⟩ to |n*_Q+1⟩ with a nonzero, position-independent matrix element v, so that the two-point function in Eqs. (8)-(10) tends to |v|^2 at large separation. The paper then proposes a two-cavity cQED setup: two cavities are coupled to the qubit as in Eqs. (18)-(20), and the photon-number oscillations in the resonant and dispersive regimes (Sections 3.1 and 3.2) are presented as observable signatures of the violation. The cavity calculations are standard and mostly correct, but I find that the central claim is not supported: the cluster-property violation is assumed through Eq. (19), not derived for a real Cooper-pair box, and the proposed two-cavity signal is the generic qubit-mediated photon hopping that occurs for any two-level system coupled to two resonators.

Significance. If the central claim were correct, it would be significant: a finite, sub-micron superconducting device with a definite charge number would violate cluster decomposition at a separation-independent magnitude O(b), and the proposed two-cavity experiment would provide a direct signature. These consequences would challenge standard notions of locality in mesoscopic systems. The paper does contain a careful, internally consistent derivation of the two-cavity Jaynes-Cummings and dispersive Hamiltonians, and the noise analysis in Section 3.3 is a reasonable quantitative check. However, the significance is conditional on an unexamined premise: that a Cooper-pair box possesses two spatially separated local operators φ(x) and φ(y) with a uniform nonzero matrix element. The manuscript does not establish this premise, and the proposed observable does not distinguish the claimed effect from ordinary qubit-mediated coupling, so the actual advance over existing circuit-QED results is not established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Eqs. (7)-(10)] The derivation of the distance-independent limit in Eq. (9) assumes an extended, translation-invariant system in which φ(x) and φ(y) are local operators at arbitrarily distant points and v_nQ is independent of x. A superconducting charge qubit is a single sub-micron Cooper-pair box; its charge number n_Q is a collective degree of freedom, and no local operator φ(x) supported at two far-separated points is constructed. Thus Eq. (9) is not a derivation of cluster-property violation for the qubit; it simply states the assumption needed for such a violation, and no infinite-volume or thermodynamic limit is provided to justify applying the cluster property to this system.
  2. [Section 3, Eqs. (18)-(19)] The load-bearing step is the assertion in Eq. (19) that ⟨n*_Q|φ(x)|n*_Q+1⟩ = v and ⟨n*_Q+1|φ†(x)|n*_Q⟩ = v with the same real v at both cavity locations. Since the claimed violation magnitude in Eq. (10) is |v_nQ|^2 and the cavity coupling in Eq. (20) is g = g_p v, the paper's central prediction is equivalent to the input assumption that a nonzero, position-independent local matrix element exists. The conclusion in Section 4 that 'for the superconducting qubit the cluster property is violated without any doubt' is therefore not an independent result but a restatement of the assumed matrix element.
  3. [Section 3.2, Eq. (28); Section 4] The observable proposed as evidence, the photon-number oscillation in Eq. (39), follows from the effective Hamiltonian (28) for any two-level system coupled to two cavity modes; the term g^2γ_ab(a†b + b†a)σ_z is the standard qubit-mediated photon-hopping interaction. Such a correlation is mediated by the qubit and does not establish a nonlocal correlation of the fields φ(x) and φ(y) at large separation. The statement in Section 4 that 'two photons in the two cavities correlate at finite magnitude even if these cavities are separated at the far distance' is therefore not a test of cluster properties beyond what would occur for any artificial atom coupled to two resonators.
  4. [Section 3, Eqs. (13)-(16); Section 4] The paper does not define the physical length scale on which 'far distance' is to be measured. In Section 4, the Cooper-pair box is described as a 700×50×15 nm^3 island, while the cavities are macroscopic. For a lumped element, the spatial argument of the local operator is not a meaningful coordinate at separations larger than the device itself, and the limit |x−y| large in Eq. (9) has no controlled counterpart. The authors would need to specify a model in which φ(x) is a genuine local field (for example, a charge-density operator along a long nanowire) and then calculate v(x,y) from the microscopic Hamiltonian; this is not done.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix C, Eq. (81)] The second eigenvalue in Eq. (81) is written as ωα, but it should be ωβ; this typo makes the diagonalization formula inconsistent.
  2. [References] Reference [28] lists the first author as 'Schuster, D.L.'; the correct initials are 'D.I. Schuster', and several other reference entries (e.g., [29]) contain spelling errors that should be corrected.
  3. [Abstract and Section 1] There are numerous grammatical errors, such as 'As results the cluster property violates' and 'the measurement on the frequency is quite execute', which should be corrected by a careful proofreading.
  4. [Section 3.3, Eq. (49)] The noise-averaged cosine in Eq. (49) is plotted in Figure 2 against t/σ, but the dependence on σ/g2,z enters through A0 and η; the axes and parameter ranges should be defined more explicitly so that the reader can reproduce the figure.
  5. [Section 2, Eq. (8)] The 'other contribution' in Eq. (8) is not specified; for a finite system it need not decrease with |x−y| unless an additional clustering assumption is imposed, so the statement that it 'decreases when x goes away from y' should be justified or explicitly assumed.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The central claim reduces to an assumed matrix element: the predicted long-distance correlation is exactly the nonzero v inserted in Eqs. (7) and (19), and the proposed cavity-QED signatures are functions of g = g_p v.

  1. self definitional [Section 2 (Eqs. 7-10) and Section 3 (Eqs. 18-19)]
    "vnQ = ⟨nQ + 1| ˆϕ†(⃗ x)|nQ⟩ , lim N→∞ vnQ = v ̸= 0 . (7) ... lim |⃗ x−⃗ y|:large ⟨nQ| ˆϕ(⃗ x) ˆϕ†(⃗ y)|nQ⟩ = |vnQ |2 . (9) ... ⟨n∗ Q| ˆϕ(⃗ x)|n∗ Q + 1⟩ = v , ⟨n∗ Q + 1| ˆϕ†(⃗ x)|n∗ Q⟩ = v . (19) Here we assume that v is real."

    The claimed violation is obtained by asserting, not deriving, that the same nonzero matrix element v exists at two far-apart points. Eq. (10) identifies the violation magnitude with |v|^2, and Eq. (19) simply assumes this v for the charge qubit without constructing any local field φ(x) supported at each cavity position. The qubit is a sub-micron Cooper-pair box; its charge-changing operator is a lumped degree of freedom, not a field at two macroscopically separated points. Thus the central prediction (finite long-distance correlation) is exactly the input postulate that a two-point local field with nonzero v exists. The derivation adds no independent content beyond that assumption.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3, Eqs. (20), (27), (28), (39)-(40)]
    "ˆVcQED = g(ˆaσ+ + ˆa†σ−) + g(ˆbσ+ + ˆb†σ−) . (20) Here we use g = gpv. ... E1 − E0 = ω − g√2 , E2 − E0 = ω , E3 − E0 = ω + g√2 . (27)"

    The quantities proposed as experimental confirmation—the three gap spacings in (27) and the photon oscillation amplitude in (39)—are computed from the Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian with coupling g. But g was set equal to gp v in Eq. (20), and v is the matrix element assumed in Eq. (19). The spectroscopy and photon-hopping signals are therefore functions of the assumed input v; if v = 0 they vanish, and if v has any nonzero value they occur. Observing them tests the value of the assumed parameter, not the existence of a long-distance local operator. The prediction is forced by the assumed input.

1 more flagged steps
  1. renaming known result [Section 3.2 (Eq. 28) and Section 4]
    "+ g2γab 2 (ˆa†ˆb + ˆb†ˆa)σz . (28) ... By extending Jaynes-Cumming model, we have shown that two photons in the two cavities correlate at finite magnitude even if these cavities are separated at the far distance."

    The effective photon-photon interaction is the standard dispersive beam-splitter coupling between two cavity modes mediated by any two-level system. This term is independent of the distance between the cavities, and it would appear for a point-like qubit or any generic qubit coupled to two resonators. The proposed experiment—monitoring the photon oscillation in Eq. (39)—is the usual qubit-mediated photon exchange, so calling its observation evidence for cluster-property violation renames a known circuit-QED effect rather than isolating a long-distance correlation.

full rationale

The decisive circularity is in Section 2 and Section 3: the long-distance correlation is derived by assuming a nonzero, position-independent matrix element v (Eqs. 7 and 19) and then re-identified as the violation magnitude |v|^2 (Eq. 10). The charge-qubit Hamiltonian in Eqs. (13)-(17) never constructs a local field φ(x) at two separated points; the operator that changes the charge number in a sub-micron Cooper-pair box is not shown to be localized at both cavity locations. The cavity-QED signatures in Eqs. (27) and (39) are standard Jaynes-Cummings results with coupling g = gp v, so they inherit the assumed v. The effective two-cavity photon hopping in Eq. (28) is the usual dispersive beam-splitter interaction for any qubit coupled to two resonators, so observing it does not test distance dependence. Self-citations [3], [4], and [13] supply the framework and the indirect-observation trick, but the central reduction is to the assumed matrix element, not to the citation chain. Accordingly, the central claim reduces by construction, justifying score 8.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim is carried by the assumed nonzero matrix element v and by the decision to apply an infinite-volume long-distance concept to a zero-dimensional Cooper-pair box. Parameters b, epsilon, g, and v are inputs, not derived predictions, and every observable in Section 3 is a function of these inputs. The cavity calculations are standard; nothing in the ledger is independently predicted by the paper.

free parameters (5)
  • v
    Matrix element <n*+1|phi^dagger(x)|n*> of the local charge-changing operator, Eq. (19). The claimed cluster-property violation is |v|^2 by Eq. (10), so the entire effect is assumed, not derived.
  • b
    Strength of the charge-squared term (Q - n_G)^2 in Eq. (13). Sets the qubit splitting and the claimed violation scale O(b).
  • epsilon
    Offset in gate charge, n_G = n* + 1/2 - epsilon (Eq. 14), chosen by hand to isolate a two-level qubit subspace.
  • g (qubit-cavity coupling)
    Coupling in the Jaynes-Cummings interaction, g = g_p v (Eq. 20), taken as an input from the circuit QED literature.
  • sigma (noise width)
    Gaussian width of the detuning noise in Eq. (45), used to assess oscillation visibility in Section 3.3.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The lowest energy state |n_Q> of the finite system is uniform under spatial translation, Eq. (5).
    Assumed so that the matrix element v is position independent and the two-point function has a constant piece.
  • ad hoc to paper The cluster property defined in Eq. (10) is a meaningful physical notion for a finite, sub-micron system without an infinite-volume limit.
    Load-bearing conceptual premise. Standard cluster-property results concern infinite-volume states; the Cooper-pair box is effectively zero-dimensional, so the limit is not defined.
  • ad hoc to paper A nonzero distance-independent matrix element v implies a physical cluster-property violation of magnitude O(b).
    The magnitude claim mixes dimensions: b is an energy while the correlation is dimensionless, and the step from a finite-size matrix element to an infinite-volume long-range order is not justified.
  • domain assumption The two-state truncation to |n*> and |n*+1> is valid for the qubit (Eqs. 14-15).
    Requires epsilon small so higher charge states are far away; standard for charge qubits but stated, not derived rigorously.
  • standard math The Jaynes-Cummings model and Schrieffer-Wolff perturbation theory are valid descriptions of the qubit-cavity coupling.
    Independently established; used in Appendices B and C and not the source of the central flaw.
invented entities (1)
  • Local charge-changing operator phi(x) acting at arbitrary positions along the Cooper-pair box with uniform matrix element v independent evidence
    purpose: Provides the non-decaying correlation claimed as the cluster-property violation (Eqs. 7-10).
    Cooper-pair tunneling is measured in charge qubits, so a charge-changing operator exists. What is not evidenced is the spatial extension: that phi(x) is a local field over macroscopically separated points inside a sub-micron island. That extension is a modeling choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Violation of Cluster Property in Superconducting Qubit." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZFSH7IIH

@misc{pith2026241116026,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Violation of Cluster Property in Superconducting Qubit},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZFSH7IIH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16026}
}
read the original abstract

Spontaneous symmetry breaking is well known to be a macroscopic phenomenon in quantum physics in many body systems. The essential features of this phenomenon are the energy degeneracy and the existence of the local operator that can modify the degenerate states. Due to these properties the lowest energy state is not stable. In order to obtain the stable ground state we introduce the explicitly breaking interaction, by which it is difficult for the local operator to modify the ground state. In the superconducting qubit there exists the stable eigenstate with the definite charge number. We point out that in this system, the local operator can change this state to another state. As results the cluster property violates, which means that the events in the far distance are not irrelevant. In this paper we examine the cluster property in the superconducting qubit. Then we propose a method by cavity quantum electrodynamics with two cavities in order to observe the violation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16026 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Ratio ra of the oscillation term to the constant term, which is defined in (40). The horizon axis is denoted by (ωa,z − ωb,z)/g2,z. The several curves are calculated for nb/na = 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8. stable. Therefore, we have to introduce the explicitly breaking interaction in order to make the state sta￾ble. As results the eigenstate is coherent on charge number nQ. For this coherent state the violation of the… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Y =< cos{(ωα − ωβ)t} > which is defined in (49). The horizon axis is denoted by t/σ. The sev￾eral curves are calculated for σ/g2,z = 0, 0.2, 0.3, 0, 4 and 0.5. number. We will touch upon the possibility of ex￾periments of two cavities in the charge qubit. The two or multi cavities have been studied in the theo￾retical point of view[30] as well as the experimental one[31]. The former researched them to control the st… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (1984) Basic Notions of Con- densed Matter Physics

    Anderson, P.W. (1984) Basic Notions of Con- densed Matter Physics. Benjamin/Cummings, Menlo Park, CA

    work page 1984

  2. [2]

    (1995) The Quantum Theory of Fields

    Weinberg, S. (1995) The Quantum Theory of Fields. Vol.2, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cam- bridge

    work page 1995

  3. [3]

    (2018) Violation of Cluster Prop- erty in Quantum Antiferromagnet

    Munehisa, T. (2018) Violation of Cluster Prop- erty in Quantum Antiferromagnet. World Jour- nal of Condensed Matter Physics, 8, 1

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    (2018) Violation of Cluster Prop- erty in HeisenbergAntiferromagnet

    Munehisa, T. (2018) Violation of Cluster Prop- erty in HeisenbergAntiferromagnet. World Jour- nal of Condensed Matter Physics, 8, 203

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    (2008) Symmetry Breaking

    Strocchi, F. (2008) Symmetry Breaking. Lecture Note Physics 732, Springer, Berlin

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    and Fan, S

    Xu, S. and Fan, S. (2017) Generalized clus- ter decomposition principle illustrated in waveg- uide quantum electrodynamics. Physics Review A, 95, 063809

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    and Rodr ´ ıguez, P

    Fr¨ ohlich, J. and Rodr ´ ıguez, P. (2017) On Clus- ter Properties of Classical Ferromagnets in an External Magnetic Field. Journal of Statistical Physics, 166, 828

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    (1978) Local and covariant gauge quantum field theories

    Strocchi, F. (1978) Local and covariant gauge quantum field theories. Cluster property, supers- election rules, and the infrared problem. Physics Review D, 17, 2010

    work page 1978

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    (2016) Conditions on the violation of the cluster decomposition property in QCD

    Lowdon, P. (2016) Conditions on the violation of the cluster decomposition property in QCD. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 57, 102302

    2016

  2. [10]

    and Korepin, V

    Dell’Anna, L., Salberger, O., Barbiero, L., Trombettoni, A. and Korepin, V. (2016) Vio- lation of cluster decomposition and absence of light cones in local integer and half-integer spin chains. Physics Review B, 94, 155140

    2016

  3. [11]

    and Miyadera, T

    Shimizu, A. and Miyadera, T. (2002) Cluster Property and Robustness of Ground States of Interacting Many Bosons. Journal of the Physi- cal Society of Japan, 71, 56

    2002

  4. [12]

    and Miyadera, T

    Shimizu, A. and Miyadera, T. (2002) Stability of Quantum States of Finite Macroscopic Systems against Classical Noises, Perturbations from En- vironments, and Local Measurements. Physical Review Letters, 89, 270403

    2002

  5. [13]

    (2020) Quantum Curie-Weiss Magnet Induced by Violation of Cluster Prop- erty

    Munehisa, T. (2020) Quantum Curie-Weiss Magnet Induced by Violation of Cluster Prop- erty. World Journal of Condensed Matter Physics, 10, 27

    2020

  6. [14]

    and Tsai, J.S

    Nakamura, Y., Pashkin, Y.A. and Tsai, J.S. (1999) Coherent control of macroscopic quantum states in a single-Cooper-pair box. Nature, 398, 786

    1999

  7. [15]

    A., Houck, A.A., Koch, J., Schus- ter, D.I., Johnson, B.R., Chow, J.M., Gambetta, J.M., Majer, J., Frunzio, L., Devoret, M.H., Girvin, S.M

    Schreier, J. A., Houck, A.A., Koch, J., Schus- ter, D.I., Johnson, B.R., Chow, J.M., Gambetta, J.M., Majer, J., Frunzio, L., Devoret, M.H., Girvin, S.M. and Schoelkopf, R.J. (2007) Sup- pressing Charge Noise Decoherence in Supercon- ducting Charge Qubits. Physics Review B, 77, 180502

    2007

  8. [16]

    and Devoret, M.H

    Geerlings, K., Leghtas, Z., Pop, I.M., Shankar, S., Frunzio, L., Schoelkopf, R.J., Mirrahimi, M. and Devoret, M.H. (2013) Demonstrating a Driven Reset Protocol for a Superconducting Qubit. Physical Review Letters, 110, 120501

    2013

  9. [17]

    and Schoelkopf, R.J

    Wallraff, A., Schuster, D.I., Blais, A., Frun- zio, L., Majer, J., Girvin, S.M. and Schoelkopf, R.J. (2005) Approaching Unit Visibility for Con- trol of a Superconducting Qubit with Dispersive Readout. Physical Review Letters, 95, 060501

    2005

  10. [18]

    and Shumeiko, V.S

    Wendin, G. and Shumeiko, V.S. (2005) Super- conducting Quantum Circuits, Qubits and Com- puting. arXiv:cond-mat/0508729v1

    2005 arXiv

  11. [19]

    (2017) Quantum Information Pro- cessing with Superconducting Circuits: a Re- view

    Wendin, G. (2017) Quantum Information Pro- cessing with Superconducting Circuits: a Re- view. Rep. Prog. Phys., 80, 106001

    2017

  12. [20]

    and Oliver, W.D

    Kjaergaard, M., Schwartz, M.E., Braumeuller, J., Krantz, P., Wang, J., Gustavsson, S. and Oliver, W.D. (2020) Superconducting Qubits:Current State of Play. arXiv:quant- ph/1905.13641v3. 11

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    and Zhu, X

    Huang, H., Wu, D., Fan, D. and Zhu, X. (2020) Superconducting Quantum Computing: A Re- view. Science China Information Sciences, 63, 180501

    2020

  14. [22]

    and Chuang, I.L

    Nielsen, M.A. and Chuang, I.L. (2000) Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cam- bridge University, Cambridge

    2000

  15. [23]

    and Kimble, H.J

    Hood, C.J., Chapman, M.S., Lynn, T.W. and Kimble, H.J. (1998) Real-Time Cavity QED with Single Atoms. Physical Review Letters, 80, 4157

    1998

  16. [24]

    and Schoelkopf, R.J

    Blais, A., Huang, R-S., Wallraff, A., Girvin, S.M. and Schoelkopf, R.J. (2004) Cavity quan- tum electrodynamics for superconducting elec- trical circuits: an architecture for quantum com- putation. Physics Review A, 69, 062320

    2004

  17. [25]

    and Schoelkopf, R.J

    Paik, H., Schuster, D.I., Bishop, L.S., Kirch- mair, G., Catelani, G., Sears, A.P., Johnson, B.R., Reagor, M.J., Frunzio, L., Glazman, L.I., Girvin, S.M., Devoret, M.H. and Schoelkopf, R.J. (2012) Observation of high coherence in Josephson junction qubits measured in a three- ...

    2012

  18. [26]

    and Cummings, F.W

    Jaynes, E.T. and Cummings, F.W. (1963) Com- parison of quantum and semiclassical radiation theories with application to the beam maser. Proc. IEEE, 51, 89

    1963

  19. [27]

    and Knight, P.L.(1993) The Jaynes- Cummings model

    Shore, B.W. and Knight, P.L.(1993) The Jaynes- Cummings model. J. Mod. Opt., 40, 1195

    1993

  20. [28]

    and Schoelkopf, R.J

    Schuster, D.L., Houck, A.A., Schreier, J.A., Wallraff, A., Gambetta, J.M., Blais, A., Frun- zio, L., Johnson, B., Devoret, M.H., Girvin, S.M. and Schoelkopf, R.J. (2006) Resolving photon number states in a superconducting circuit. Na- ture, 445, 515

    2006

  21. [29]

    and Wallraff, A

    Fink, J.M., Geoppl, M., Baur, M., Bianchetti, M.R., Leek, P.J., Blais, A. and Wallraff, A. (2009) Climbing the Jaynes-Cummings Ladder and Observing its √n Nonlinearity in a Cavity QED System. Nature, 454, 315

    2009

  22. [30]

    and Kim, J

    Kim, M.D. and Kim, J. (2016) Coupling qubits in circuit-QED cavities connected by a bridge qubit. Physical Review A, 93, 012321

    2016

  23. [31]

    and Gambetta, J

    Sheldon, S., Sandberg, M., Paik, H., Abdo, B., Chow, J.M., Steffen, M. and Gambetta, J. (2017) Characterization of hidden modes in net- works of superconducting qubits. Appl. Phys. Lett., 111, 222601

    2017

  24. [32]

    and Tinkham, M

    Tuominen, M.T., Hergenrother, J.M., Tighe, T.S. and Tinkham, M. (1992) Experimental evi- dence for parity-based 2e periodicity in a super- conducting single-electron tunneling transistor. Physical Review Letters, 69, 1997

    1992

  25. [33]

    and Wellstood, F.C

    Amar, A., Song, D., Lobb, C.J. and Wellstood, F.C. (1994) 2e to e periodic pair currents in su- perconducting Coulomb blockade electrometers. Physical Review Letters, 72, 3234

    1994

  26. [34]

    and Devoret, M.H.(1993) Two-electron quantization of the charge on a superconductor

    Lafarge, P., Joyez, P., Esteve, D., Urbina, C. and Devoret, M.H.(1993) Two-electron quantization of the charge on a superconductor. Nature, 365, 422

    1993

  27. [35]

    and Kim, J

    Jung, M., Noh, H., Doh, Y-J., Song, W., Chong,Y., Choi, M-S., Yoo, Y., Seo, K., Kim, N., Woo, B-C., Kim, B. and Kim, J. (2011) Su- perconducting Junction of a Single-Crystalline Au Nanowire for an Ideal Josephson Device. ACS Nano, 5, 2271

    2011

  28. [36]

    and Zhang, H

    Zhang, Z., Song, W., Gao, Y., Wang, Y., Yu, Z., Yang, S., Jiang, Y., Miao, W., Li, R., Chen, F., Geng, Z., Zhang, Q., Meng, F., Lin, T., Gu, L., Zhu, K., Zang, Y., Li, L., Shang, R., Feng, X., Xue, Q-K., He, K. and Zhang, H. (2023) Proxim- ity effect in PbTe-Pb hybrid nanowire...

    2023

  29. [37]

    (2008) Andreev reflection versus Coulomb blockade in hybrid semiconduc- tor nanowire devices

    Doh, Y-J., De Franceschi, S., Bakkers, E.P., Kouwenhoven, L.P. (2008) Andreev reflection versus Coulomb blockade in hybrid semiconduc- tor nanowire devices. Nano Letters, 8, 4098

    2008

  30. [38]

    and 12 Kouwenhoven, L.P

    De Franceschi, S., van Dam, J.A., Bakkers, E.P.A.M., Feiner, L.F., Gurevich, L. and 12 Kouwenhoven, L.P. (2003) Single-electron tun- neling in InP nanowires. App. Phys. Let., 83, 344

    2003

  31. [39]

    and Mazo, J.J

    Orlando, T.P., Mooij, J.E., Tian, L., van der Wal, C.H., Levitov, L., Lloyd, S. and Mazo, J.J. (1999) A Superconducting Persistent Cur- rent Qubit. arXiv:cond-mat/9908283v2

    1999 arXiv

  32. [40]

    and Paaske, J

    Ortega-Taberner, C., Jauho, A-P. and Paaske, J. (2022) Anomalous Josephson current through a driven double quantum dot. Physics Review B, 107, 115165

    2022

  33. [41]

    (2006) Protected qubit based on a superconducting current mirror

    Kitaev, A. (2006) Protected qubit based on a superconducting current mirror. arXiv:cond- mat/0609441v2

    2006

  34. [42]

    and Preskill, J

    Brooks, P., Kitaev, A. and Preskill, J. (2013) Protected gates for superconducting qubits. Physical Review A, 87, 052306

    2013

  35. [43]

    and Houck, A.A

    Gyenis, A., Mundada, P.S., Paolo, A.D., Hazard, T.M., You, X., Schuster, D.I., Koch, J., Blais, A. and Houck, A.A. (2019) Experimental real- ization of an intrinsically error-protected super- conducting qubit. arXiv: quant-ph/1910.07542

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    (1964) On the Einstein-Podolsky- Rosen paradox

    Bell, J.S. (1964) On the Einstein-Podolsky- Rosen paradox. Physics, 1, 195

    1964

  37. [45]

    (1993) Nonlocality of Two Particles without Inequalities for Almost All Entangled States

    Hardy, L. (1993) Nonlocality of Two Particles without Inequalities for Almost All Entangled States. Physics Review Letters, 71, 1665

    1993

  38. [46]

    and Horodecki, K

    Horodecki, R., Horodecki, P., Horodecki, M. and Horodecki, K. (2009) Quantum entanglement. Review of Modern Physics, 81, 865

    2009

  39. [47]

    and T´ oth, G

    G¨ uhne, O. and T´ oth, G. (2009) Entanglement detection. Physics Reports, 474, 1

    2009

  40. [48]

    and Gleyzes, S

    Assemat, F., Grosso, D., Signoles, A., Facon, A., Dotsenko, I., Haroche, S., Raimond, J.M., Brune, M. and Gleyzes, S. (2019) Quantum Rabi Oscillations in Coherent and in Mesoscopic Cat Field States. Physical Review Letters, 123, 143605

    2019

  41. [49]

    and Sivakumar, S

    Meher, N. and Sivakumar, S. (2022) A review on quantum information processing in cavities. Eur. Phys. J. Plus, 137, 985

    2022

  42. [50]

    (2005) Generation and Manipula- tion of Entanglement in Quantum Optical Sys- tems

    Browne, D.E. (2005) Generation and Manipula- tion of Entanglement in Quantum Optical Sys- tems. arXiv:quant-ph/0507037v2. Appendix A: Indirect Observation for Violation of Cluster Property In this appendix we describe an indirect method to observe the violation of cluster prop...

    2005 arXiv

Pith tools

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