Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 66 references

The Observation of hyperradiance accompanied by enhanced entanglement in a hybrid optomechanical system

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that two qubits in an optomechanical cavity can emit photon–phonon pairs with hyperradiance—exceeding the Dicke $N^2$ superradiance scaling—and with stronger entanglement than one qubit.

desk verdict The entanglement enhancement looks real, but the hyperradiance claim is an artifact of comparing two-atom emission at its own resonance against a one-atom baseline that is off-resonant by ~41κ. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02409 v1 pith:KAWPFE2O submitted 2025-06-03 quant-ph

Zeshan Haider , Muhammad Altaf , Tahira Nasreen , Muhammad Imran , Rameez Ul Islam , Manzoor Ikram This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords hyperradiancesuperradianceoptomechanicsphoton-phononentanglementlogarithmicnegativitycircuitQEDdressedstatesantibunching
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 asks whether two atoms coupled to the same cavity mode and mechanical resonator can emit photon–phonon pairs more efficiently than the Dicke superradiance limit while the pairs remain entangled. Its answer, computed from a master equation for the effective tripartite Hamiltonian, is yes: at strong coupling the two-atom system shows hyperradiance at the collective resonance, and the photon–phonon entanglement is roughly twice the one-atom value. The authors also show that in this regime the emitted photons and phonons are antibunched, so the entangled pairs are non-Gaussian. A sympathetic reader would care because the result identifies a concrete parameter window—strong tripartite coupling, detuning near $\pm\sqrt{2}J$—where a single device could act as a source of correlated single-photon and single-phonon pairs whose collective emission rate is tunable from subradiance through hyperradiance.

What carries the argument

The argument runs through an effective tripartite interaction obtained by a displacement transformation and rotating-wave approximations, in which each atomic de-excitation creates one cavity photon and one mechanical phonon with strength $J = g_{ma}g_{ca}/\omega_m$. The collective two-atom dressed states place the one-photon–one-phonon resonance at $\Delta = \pm\sqrt{2}J$, against $\Delta = \pm J$ for one atom; the gap $\delta = (\sqrt{2}-1)J$ is the tuning handle. The radiance witness $R = (\langle a^\dagger a\rangle_2 - 2\langle a^\dagger a\rangle_1)/(2\langle a^\dagger a\rangle_1)$ classifies subradiance ($R<0$), superradiance ($0<R<1$) and hyperradiance ($R>1$). Entanglement is quantified by the logarithmic negativity $E_N$, computed from the partial transpose of the photon–phonon reduced state, and non-classical statistics by the equal-time correlation functions $g^{(2)}_n(0)$, $g^{(2)}_m(0)$ and the cross-correlation $g^{(2)}_{nm}(0)$.

What would settle it

Recompute $R$ for $J=100\kappa$ with the one-atom photon number evaluated at its own resonance $\Delta = \pm J$ (or measure the two systems at their respective resonances in a circuit-QED experiment); if $R$ no longer exceeds 1 in either case, the hyperradiance conclusion rests on the off-resonant baseline rather than on genuine collective enhancement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that in the strong-coupling regime ($J = 100\kappa$) a two-qubit optomechanical system exhibits hyperradiance: the two-atom photon number at the collective resonance $\Delta = \pm\sqrt{2}J$ is more than twice the one-atom photon number at the same detuning, so the radiance witness satisfies $R > 1$ and the emission exceeds the Dicke $N^2$ superradiance law. The same regime yields photon–phonon logarithmic negativity roughly twice that of the one-qubit case, with equal-time correlation functions $g^{(2)}_n(0)=g^{(2)}_m(0)<1$ showing antibunched, non-Gaussian emission; in the weak-coupling regime ($J=0.1\kappa$) the resonances overlap and only subradiance appears. The authors attribute the effect to the tunable gap $\delta = (\sqrt{2}-1)J$ between the one-atom and two-atom dressed resonances, which at $J=100\kappa$ is about $41.4\kappa$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the radiance witness should compare both systems at the two-atom resonance $\Delta = \pm\sqrt{2}J$ rather than at each system's own resonance; at $J=100\kappa$ that choice leaves the one-atom baseline dark by about $41\kappa$, and comparing at the one-atom resonance instead would likely erase the $R>1$ region.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At strong coupling ($J=100\kappa$), the two-atom system hyperradiates ($R>1$) at $\Delta/\kappa = \pm\sqrt{2}J$, whereas weak coupling ($J=0.1\kappa$) supports only subradiance because the one-atom and two-atom resonances overlap.
  • In both coupling regimes the two-atom photon–phonon logarithmic negativity is about twice the one-atom value at the corresponding resonances.
  • In the strong-coupling regime the equal-time correlations satisfy $g^{(2)}_n(0)=g^{(2)}_m(0)<1$ for two atoms, indicating that the entangled photon–phonon emission is antibunched and non-Gaussian.
  • The resonance gap $\delta = (\sqrt{2}-1)J$ grows with $J$, giving a tunable dial that moves the system between subradiance, superradiance, and hyperradiance.
  • At the hyperradiance resonances the photon–phonon cross-correlation $g^{(2)}_{nm}(0)$ drops while $E_N$ peaks, so the strongly entangled pairs are classically uncorrelated.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, replacing the off-resonant one-atom baseline in $R$ with the one-atom value at its own resonance $\Delta = \pm J$ would likely convert the reported hyperradiance into ordinary superradiance; the enhanced two-atom entanglement, however, would survive such a redefinition.
  • Beyond the paper, the same dressed-state argument for $N$ atoms gives collective resonances at $\Delta = \pm\sqrt{N}J$, so the proposed scheme suggests a family of $N$-atom optomechanical emitters whose hyperradiance window widens with $N$.
  • Beyond the paper, the tunable gap $\delta = (\sqrt{2}-1)J$ offers a spectroscopic route to measure the tripartite coupling strength: locating the one-atom and two-atom emission peaks and dividing their separation by $\sqrt{2}-1$ gives $J$ directly.
  • Beyond the paper, the predicted simultaneous hyperradiance and antibunched entanglement at $\Delta = \pm\sqrt{2}J$ could be tested as a correlated single-photon/single-phonon source in a circuit-QED device, with $g^{(2)}_{nm}(0)$ and $E_N$ as the experimental witnesses.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies a hybrid optomechanical system in which two two-level atoms are coupled to a cavity mode and a mechanical resonator through a three-body interaction. After a polaron-type transformation and several rotating-wave approximations, the authors numerically solve a Lindblad master equation with QuTiP. They report enhanced bipartite photon-phonon entanglement for two atoms compared with one atom, antibunched photon and phonon statistics in the strong-coupling regime, and hyperradiance, defined as R>1 in Eq. (9), at detunings Δ=±√2 J for J=100κ. The paper claims that this hyperradiance surpasses the Dicke N² scaling law.

Significance. If the hyperradiance result were real, it would be a noteworthy addition to the optomechanics literature, and the enhanced-entanglement observation would also be of interest. The master-equation treatment is standard, and the numerical entanglement data appear plausible. However, the central novelty—hyperradiance beyond Dicke scaling—is not established. The radiance witness R is evaluated at a common detuning even though the one-atom and two-atom resonances differ by δ=(√2−1)J, so the R>1 region in Figs. 4(d) and 6(a) is dominated by the off-resonant suppression of the single-atom baseline rather than by collective intensity enhancement. Because this is the paper's headline claim, the result as stated cannot be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (9), Fig. 4(d)] The hyperradiance claim rests on comparing the two-atom photon number at Δ=±√2J with twice the one-atom photon number at the same Δ. For J=100κ, the one-atom resonance is at Δ=±J (Table I), while the two-atom resonance is at Δ=±√2J (Table II). At the two-atom resonance the one-atom baseline in the denominator of Eq. (9) is evaluated 41.4κ away from its own resonance and is strongly suppressed relative to its own peak. The resulting R>1 in Fig. 4(d) is therefore an artifact of the detuning mismatch rather than evidence of correlated emission beyond the Dicke N² bound. The paper's own statement at the end of Sec. III that the energy gap δ/κ=(√2−1)J 'results in the observation of hyperradiance' confirms that R is measuring the spectral separation of the two resonances, not a collective intensity enhancement.
  2. [Abstract and Conclusion; Eq. (9)] The claim that the system 'surpasses' the Dicke N² scaling law is unsupported by the witness used. In the Dicke comparison for two atoms, the superradiant threshold is n_2=4n_1, corresponding to R=1; R>1 would require n_2>4n_1. Evaluating both systems at their own resonances gives approximately n_2,max≈2n_1,max, i.e., R≈0, not R>1. The authors should either re-evaluate R at each system's own resonance or use a normalized common-detuning baseline that does not conflate line shifts with enhancement. Without such a test, the central phenomenon claimed in the title and abstract is not demonstrated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Fig. 3(d)] The text says the weak-coupling result is 'sub-radiant (R < 1)', but Eq. (9) defines subradiance as R<0 and superradiance as 0<R<1; the wording should be corrected to match the stated definitions.
  2. [Introduction and Fig. 2 caption] 'Dick superradiance' and 'Dick basis' should be 'Dicke superradiance' and 'Dicke basis'.
  3. [Eq. (1) and surrounding text] The condition 'max[gca, gma]<<min[ω0, ωm, ωc]' uses an undefined frequency ω0; please specify what this quantity is.
  4. [Data Availability Statement] Since all data are presented graphically, the authors should provide the QuTiP parameters and scripts sufficient to reproduce the steady-state master-equation results; this is especially important because the central witness R is a numerical ratio whose interpretation is sensitive to parameter choices.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all reported quantities are direct steady-state solutions of the stated master equation with fixed parameters; the radiance witness is a defined ratio, not a fitted or self-referential input.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: the effective Hamiltonian in Eq. (4) is obtained from a stated interaction model under explicit approximations; the dressed-state resonances in Tables I and II are direct diagonalizations; mean photon/phonon numbers, logarithmic negativity, g^(2), and radiance R are all computed from the Lindblad master equation, Eq. (5), with fixed parameters (Omega=kappa, gamma_c=gamma_m=10kappa, J=0.1kappa or 100kappa). No free parameter is fitted to any target quantity, and no claimed prediction is forced by an input that already contains the output. The radiance witness R in Eq. (9) is a defined comparison between two-atom and one-atom photon numbers at the same detuning; whether that same-detuning baseline is the physically appropriate normalization for assessing Dicke N^2 scaling is a legitimate correctness or interpretation concern, because the one-atom resonance is at +/-J while the two-atom resonance is at +/-sqrt(2)J, so at J=100kappa the denominator at the two-atom resonance is far off resonance. However, that is a concern about the validity of the witness, not a circular reduction: the paper does not fit R or define it in terms of the claimed conclusion; R>1 is a numerical consequence of the model's spectra. The only self-citation found, ref. [5] by the first author, is background for photon antibunching in microwave cavities and is not load-bearing for either the hyperradiance or the entanglement claims. Therefore no circular step is established.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a chain of approximations (small polaron, neglect of two-body couplings, resonant filtering) and on hand-chosen parameters J = 100κ, Ω = κ, γ_c = γ_m = 10κ. No new physical entities are introduced. The main free parameter is J, whose large value creates the spectral separation that drives the R > 1 result.

free parameters (3)
  • Tripartite coupling strength J = 100 κ (strong), 0.1 κ (weak)
    J is hand-chosen to put the one-atom and two-atom resonances (J vs √2 J) far apart, which is what produces R > 1 at the two-atom resonance. The claimed hyperradiance only appears for large J.
  • Driving amplitude Ω = κ
    Chosen in all simulations; weak driving is consistent with the approximation Ω << g_ca, but its specific value affects the photon number scale.
  • Cavity and mechanical decay rates γ_c, γ_m = 10 κ
    Chosen to set the linewidths; the ratio to J determines whether resonances overlap. Not fitted but affects the R > 1 region.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Rotating wave and dipole approximations for the original system Hamiltonian (Eq. 1).
    Standard in cavity QED; requires max[g_ca, g_ma] << min[ω_0, ω_m, ω_c], stated in Section II.
  • ad hoc to paper Small polaron parameter η = g_ma/ω_m << 1, allowing e^{η(b†-b)} ≈ 1 + η(b†-b).
    Section II; needed to obtain the linearized tripartite coupling J. If η is not small, higher-order terms alter the effective Hamiltonian.
  • ad hoc to paper Neglect of the direct atom-photon and sideband driving terms under ω_a - ε ≈ ω_p = ω_c + ω_m >> g_ca >> Ω.
    Section II; this filtering leaves only the tripartite terms. The condition is assumed, not derived from the parameters of a specific experiment.
  • domain assumption Both atoms couple identically to the cavity mode (anti-node placement) and to the mechanical resonator, with no inter-atomic coupling.
    Section II; in circuit QED, two qubits at different positions may have different g_ca and g_ma, and qubit-qubit direct coupling is not included.
  • ad hoc to paper Neglect of non-conserving terms in (a σ^+ - a† σ^-)(b† - b) to obtain -J(σ^+ a b + σ^- a† b†).
    Section II; assumes resonant condition makes the kept terms dominate, but the discarded terms may contribute when detunings are finite (Δ up to 100κ in Fig. 4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Observation of hyperradiance accompanied by enhanced entanglement in a hybrid optomechanical system." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KAWPFE2O

@misc{pith2026250602409,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Observation of hyperradiance accompanied by enhanced entanglement in a hybrid optomechanical system},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KAWPFE2O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02409}
}
abstract

We have theoretically investigated an optomechanical system and presented the scenario of significantly enhanced bipartite photon-phonon entanglement for two qubits coupled to the single mode of the cavity. And results are compared with the one qubit case for reference. The tripartite atoms-photon-phonon interaction is considered as only three-body resonant interaction while the two-body actions are ignored under some potential approximations. Furthermore, we have studied the phenomenon of hyperradiance in which the well-known Dicke superradiant ($N^2$ scaling law) can be surpassed due to the inter-atomic correlations. Jointly, a parameter regime is explored to observe the entanglement of photon-phonon pairs and their hyperradiance simultaneously. As it is important to show that the generation of photons and phonons are antibunched, the equal time second-order correlation function $g^{(2)}(0)$ is characterized as witness. This system can be realized in Circuit Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics (CCQED) in which the direct coupling of the atom and mechanical resonator is possible.We have theoretically investigated an optomechanical system and presented the scenario of significantly enhanced bipartite photon-phonon entanglement for two qubits coupled to the single mode of the cavity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02409 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) The Schematic diagram of an optomechanical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) The dressed-state picture up to the first manifold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. In this Fig, the weak coupling case is being considered [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. For the strong tripartite interaction strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The radiance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: On comparison the one-atom and two-atom ex￾citation spectrum in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    i (2) Here,ϵ= g2 ma ωm introduces the frequency shift under the aforementioned unitary transformation

    After applying a unitary displacement transformation U= exp h η P i=1,2(σi +σi −(b† −b)) i withη=g ma/ωm, we obtain the transformed HamiltonianH ′ =U H1U † as H ′ =ω c a†a+ω m b†b + X i=1,2 h (ωa −ϵ)σ i +σi − +g ca a σi + eη(b†−b) +a † σi − e−η(b†−b) + Ω σi + e−iωpt eη(b†−b) + H.c. i (2) Here,ϵ= g2 ma ωm introduces the frequency shift under the aforementi...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Majumdar, M

    A. Majumdar, M. Bajcsy, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Physical Re- view A85, 041801 (2012)

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    I. J. Luxmoore, R. Toro, O. D. Pozo-Zamudio, N. A. Wasley, E. A. Chekhovich, A. M. Sanchez, R. Beanland, A. M. Fox, M. S. Skolnick, H. Y. Liu,et al., Scientific reports3, 1239 (2013)

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Barrett, K

    S. Barrett, K. Hammerer, S. Harrison, T. E. Northup, and T. J. Osborne, Physical review letters110, 090501 (2013)

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Haider, S

    Z. Haider, S. Qamar, and M. Irfan, Physical Review A 107, 043702 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    K. Hou, C. Zhu, Y. Yang, and G. Agarwal, Physical Re- view A100, 063817 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    S. K. Singh, Journal of Modern Optics66, 562 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Liang, Z

    X. Liang, Z. Duan, Q. Guo, S. Guan, M. Xie, and C. Liu, Physical Review A102, 053713 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    L.-L. Nian, B. Zheng, and J.-T. L¨ u, Physical Review B 107, L241405 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Singh, J.-X

    S. Singh, J.-X. Peng, M. Asjad, and M. Mazaheri, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics54, 215502 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    J. Yang, M. A. Guidry, D. M. Lukin, K. Yang, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Light: Science & Applications12, 201 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    Imamo¯ glu, H

    A. Imamo¯ glu, H. Schmidt, G. Woods, and M. Deutsch, Physical Review Letters79, 1467 (1997)

    1997

  5. [13]

    D. M. Lukin, M. A. Guidry, J. Yang, M. Ghezellou, S. D. Mishra, H. Abe, T. Ohshima, J. Ul-Hassan, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Physical Review X13, 011005 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Singh, M

    S. Singh, M. Mazaheri, J.-X. Peng, A. Sohail, M. Khalid, and M. Asjad, Frontiers in Physics11, 245 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Wang, X.-D

    X.-L. Wang, X.-D. Cai, Z.-E. Su, M.-C. Chen, D. Wu, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Nature518, 516 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    Zhang, C

    L. Zhang, C. Silberhorn, and I. A. Walmsley, Physical review letters100, 110504 (2008)

    2008

  9. [17]

    Stannigel, P

    K. Stannigel, P. Komar, S. Habraken, S. Bennett, M. D. Lukin, P. Zoller, and P. Rabl, Physical review letters109, 013603 (2012)

    2012

  10. [18]

    Aspelmeyer, T

    M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, Reviews of Modern Physics86, 1391 (2014)

    2014

  11. [19]

    Lemonde, N

    M.-A. Lemonde, N. Didier, and A. A. Clerk, Physical review letters111, 053602 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    Singh, M

    S. Singh, M. Asjad, and C. R. Ooi, Quantum Information Processing21, 47 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Cao, W.-X

    J. Cao, W.-X. Cui, X. Yi, and H.-F. Wang, Physical Re- view A103, 023504 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    W. Shao, J. Li, and L.-L. Wang, Physical Review A107, 063505 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    M. J. Hartmann and M. B. Plenio, Physical Review Let- ters101, 200503 (2008)

    2008

  16. [24]

    Børkje, A

    K. Børkje, A. Nunnenkamp, and S. Girvin, Physical re- view letters107, 123601 (2011)

    2011

  17. [25]

    Vitali, S

    D. Vitali, S. Gigan, A. Ferreira, H. B¨ ohm, P. Tombesi, A. Guerreiro, V. Vedral, A. Zeilinger, and M. As- pelmeyer, Physical review letters98, 030405 (2007)

    2007

  18. [26]

    Wang and A

    Y.-D. Wang and A. A. Clerk, Physical review letters108, 153603 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    Tian, Physical review letters108, 153604 (2012)

    L. Tian, Physical review letters108, 153604 (2012)

    2012

  20. [28]

    Barzanjeh, M

    S. Barzanjeh, M. Abdi, G. J. Milburn, P. Tombesi, and D. Vitali, Physical Review Letters109, 130503 (2012)

    2012

  21. [29]

    Akram, W

    U. Akram, W. Munro, K. Nemoto, and G. Milburn, Phys- ical Review A86, 042306 (2012)

    2012

  22. [30]

    Lakhfif, J

    A. Lakhfif, J. El Qars, and M. Nassik, The European Physical Journal D75, 189 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Palomaki, J

    T. Palomaki, J. Teufel, R. Simmonds, and K. W. Lehnert, Science342, 710 (2013)

    2013

  24. [32]

    Amazioug, B

    M. Amazioug, B. Maroufi, and M. Daoud, Quantum In- 8 formation Processing19, 1 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Araya-Sossa and M

    K. Araya-Sossa and M. Orszag, Physical Review A108, 012432 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Xu, H.-Q

    X.-W. Xu, H.-Q. Shi, J.-Q. Liao, and A.-X. Chen, Phys- ical Review A100, 053802 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    Benatti, M

    F. Benatti, M. Esposito, D. Fausti, R. Floreanini, K. Titimbo, and K. Zimmermann, New Journal of Physics19, 023032 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    Gr¨ unwald, S

    P. Gr¨ unwald, S. Singh, and W. Vogel, Physical Review A83, 063806 (2011)

    2011

  29. [37]

    Dekorsy, G

    T. Dekorsy, G. C. Cho, and H. Kurz, Light scattering in solids VIII: fullerenes, semiconductor surfaces, coherent phonons , 169 (2006)

    2006

  30. [38]

    Gross and S

    M. Gross and S. Haroche, Physics reports93, 301 (1982)

    1982

  31. [39]

    Pleinert, J

    M.-O. Pleinert, J. von Zanthier, and G. S. Agarwal, Op- tica4, 779 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    R. H. Dicke, Physical review93, 99 (1954)

    1954

  33. [41]

    It is worth mentioning that the position of atoms in the coupled cavity mode becomes quite important to observe this novel effect

    and Geo 600 [42]. It is worth mentioning that the position of atoms in the coupled cavity mode becomes quite important to observe this novel effect. Usually, the atoms are asymmetrically coupled in such a way that one is on the crest and the other is on the trough of the cav- ...

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Grote, K

    H. Grote, K. Danzmann, K. Dooley, R. Schnabel, J. Slut- sky, and H. Vahlbruch, Physical review letters110, 181101 (2013)

    2013

  35. [43]

    J. Li, C. Zhu, and Y. Yang, Optics Letters47, 3439 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    J. Aasi, J. Abadie, B. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, M. Abernathy, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. Ad- hikari,et al., Nature Photonics7, 613 (2013)

    2013

  37. [45]

    Namiki, Physical Review A85, 062307 (2012)

    R. Namiki, Physical Review A85, 062307 (2012)

    2012

  38. [46]

    J. Han, J. Kim, S.-h. Oh, G. Son, J. Ha, and K. An, Scientific Reports11, 11256 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    J. Xu, S. Chang, Y. Yang, S. Zhu, and G. Agarwal, Phys- ical Review A96, 013839 (2017)

    2017

  40. [48]

    J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, Computer Physics Communications183, 1760 (2012)

    2012

  41. [49]

    Pirkkalainen, S

    J.-M. Pirkkalainen, S. Cho, F. Massel, J. Tuorila, T. Heikkil¨ a, P. Hakonen, and M. Sillanp¨ a¨ a, Nature com- munications6, 6981 (2015)

    2015

  42. [50]

    T. T. Heikkil¨ a, F. Massel, J. Tuorila, R. Khan, and M. A. Sillanp¨ a¨ a, Physical Review Letters112, 203603 (2014)

    2014

  43. [51]

    Kipf and G

    T. Kipf and G. Agarwal, Physical Review A90, 053808 (2014)

    2014

  44. [52]

    Amazioug, M

    M. Amazioug, M. Daoud, S. Singh, and M. Asjad, Quan- tum Information Processing22, 301 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    S. K. Singh, Applied Physics B127, 90 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    Peres, Physical Review Letters77, 1413 (1996)

    A. Peres, Physical Review Letters77, 1413 (1996)

    1996

  47. [55]

    Y. Han, L. Xue, and J. Zhang, International Journal of Theoretical Physics58, 992 (2019)

    2019

  48. [56]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Separa- bility of mixed quantum states: necessary and sufficient conditions phys (1996)

    1996

  49. [57]

    M. B. Plenio, Physical review letters95, 090503 (2005)

    2005

  50. [58]

    Vidal and R

    G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, Physical Review A65, 032314 (2002)

    2002

  51. [59]

    Shapourian, K

    H. Shapourian, K. Shiozaki, and S. Ryu, Physical Review B95, 165101 (2017)

    2017

  52. [60]

    Adesso, T

    G. Adesso, T. R. Bromley, and M. Cianciaruso, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical49, 473001 (2016)

    2016

  53. [61]

    Vesperini, G

    A. Vesperini, G. Bel-Hadj-Aissa, and R. Franzosi, Scien- tific Reports13, 2852 (2023)

    2023

  54. [62]

    Z. Xi, Y. Li, and H. Fan, Scientific reports5, 10922 (2015)

    2015

  55. [63]

    among others. V. DA T A A V AILABILITY ST A TEMENT As all data has been presented in the main text graph- ically, therefore this manuscript has no associated data information. Appendix A: Definition of Basis Sates for one-atom and two-atoms system The collective basis states i...

  56. [64]

    Singh and C

    S. Singh and C. R. Ooi, JOSA B31, 2390 (2014)

    2014

  57. [65]

    J.-M. Mol, L. Esguerra, M. Meister, D. E. Bruschi, A. W. Schell, J. Wolters, and L. W¨ orner, Quantum science and technology8, 024006 (2023)

    2023

  58. [66]

    Horodecki, M

    P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 1056 (1999)

    1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.