Entangled Unruh-DeWitt detectors amplify quantum coherence

Shu-Min Wu; Wentao Liu; Yu-Xuan Wang

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Entangled Unruh-DeWitt detectors amplify quantum coherence

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two entangled Unruh-DeWitt detectors can have their quantum coherence amplified above its initial value by a nonperturbative interaction with a quantum field, while their entanglement decreases monotonically.

desk verdict The exact delta-switched UDW calculation is real and self-consistent, but the abstract oversells a parameter-window effect and the physical punchline likely depends on the instantaneous-switching idealization. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14115 v1 pith:WQFFVHFB submitted 2025-06-17 quant-ph

Shu-Min Wu , Yu-Xuan Wang , Wentao Liu This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph PACS 04.70.Dy03.65.Ud04.62.+v

keywords quantumcoherenceUnruh-DeWittdetectorsentanglementharvestingdelta-switchingnonperturbativemethodsMinkowskivacuumrelativeentropyofl1-norm

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 two Unruh-DeWitt detectors that start in a maximally entangled Bell state and interact nonperturbatively with a quantum field in Minkowski spacetime can have their quantum coherence amplified above its initial value as the coupling strength grows, even though their entanglement falls monotonically. It also argues that if the detectors start separable, they can harvest quantum coherence from the vacuum while entanglement stays exactly zero. The claim rests on an exact solution built from instantaneous delta-switching, which lets the time-evolution operator factorize and the two-detector density matrix be written in closed form in terms of the commutator and anticommutator of smeared field operators. If correct, this separates coherence from entanglement as a resource in relativistic quantum information: coherence is not bounded by monogamy and can be replenished by the field.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the delta-switching exact solution. With $\chi_j(\tau_j)=\eta_j\delta(\tau_j-\tau_{j0})$, the interaction-picture evolution operator factorizes as $\hat{U}_I=\exp(\hat{\mu}_B\otimes\hat{Y}_B)\exp(\hat{\mu}_A\otimes\hat{Y}_A)$, Eq. (3), so the reduced state of the two detectors can be written exactly from vacuum expectation values of products of the smeared field operators $\hat{Y}_A,\hat{Y}_B$. All closed-form results are expressed through the commutator $\kappa$ (the Pauli-Jordan function, nonzero for timelike or lightlike separation) and the anticommutator $\omega$ (Hadamard-type, nonzero even for spacelike separation), together with $f_j=\langle 0|e^{2\hat{Y}_j}|0\rangle$. The coherence and entanglement quantifiers reduce to simple functions of four density-matrix elements: $C_{l_1}=2|\rho_{14}|+2|\rho_{23}|$, Eq. (20), and negativity $N=\max\big[0,\sqrt{|\rho_{14}|^2+((\rho_{33}-\rho_{22})/2)^2}-(\rho_{22}+\rho_{33})/2\big]$, Eq. (27).

What would settle it

Take the same two-detector setup with a Gaussian switching function of finite width $T$ and recompute $C_{l_1}$ and negativity; if for every $T>0$ and every coupling strength the maximally entangled Bell state has $C_{l_1}\le 1$ and the separable state has zero coherence, the paper's central claim is false. A tabletop analogue would be two qubits coupled to a common bosonic mode with pulsed interactions of varying pulse width, checking whether the coherence overshoot survives as the pulse widens.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that nonperturbative detector-field interaction can amplify, not merely degrade, the coherence of an entangled pair. For a maximally entangled initial state with $\theta=\pi/4$, the $l_1$-norm and relative-entropy coherence start at $1$ and can rise above $1$ for intermediate coupling strengths, while negativity starts at $1/2$ and decreases monotonically to zero. For separable states ($\theta=0$ or $\pi/2$), the same exact expressions give negativity exactly zero at all coupling strengths but a rise-and-fall coherence curve with a nonzero peak, showing vacuum coherence harvesting without entanglement harvesting. The paper attributes the contrast to a fundamental difference in resource constraints: entanglement is restricted by monogamy when the detectors share correlations with the field, whereas coherence is not.

Load-bearing premise

The whole exact solution rests on the idealization that each detector's interaction with the field is an instantaneous kick; if replacing that kick by any finite-duration switching profile makes the coherence amplification disappear, the central claim fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The coupling strength becomes a tunable resource: for a maximally entangled initial state there is an intermediate coupling at which the detectors' coherence peaks above its initial value, so the field interaction can be used to amplify coherence rather than only to decohere the pair.
Entanglement harvesting from the vacuum remains impossible for initially separable detectors, while coherence harvesting is possible, so the two resources obey different harvesting rules in the same model.
The qualitative picture changes with the switching profile: perturbative and Gaussian-switching analyses predict simultaneous degradation, whereas the delta-switching exact solution predicts coherence enhancement with entanglement decay, so conclusions about coherence dynamics in detector models are switching-sensitive.
Ideal detectors with equal energy gaps are the most efficient at vacuum coherence harvesting; detector asymmetry introduces phase mismatch that keeps coherence below the ideal-detector benchmark.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: the delta-switching limit gives the field infinite bandwidth, so a promising next check is whether the coherence overshoot survives a smooth, finite-width switching profile; if it does not, the effect is tied to the instantaneous-kick idealization rather than to the vacuum itself.
Editorial inference: the same exact formulas could be used to ask whether accelerated detectors or detectors in curved spacetimes show the same amplification, which would turn coherence harvesting into a probe of spacetime geometry that is independent of entanglement harvesting.
Editorial inference: because coherence is not constrained by monogamy, the results suggest a resource protocol in which a Bell pair deliberately coupled to a vacuum field at intermediate coupling can emerge with more usable coherence than it started with, at the cost of entanglement.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper does something concrete: it derives the exact reduced density matrix for two delta-switched UDW detectors with general initial state, then computes l1 and relative-entropy coherence plus negativity. The algebra in the main text and Appendix A is careful, and the formulas are structurally consistent. As far as I can tell, the result that l1 coherence can rise above its initial Bell-state value while negativity falls is a genuine feature of this model. That part deserves credit.

The soft spots are mostly about packaging. The abstract says increasing coupling "enhances" coherence, but Fig. 3 shows non-monotonic behavior: coherence rises, peaks, then decays. Fig. 1 shows coherence degrading at small separation. So the headline claim is true only in a parameter window, and the text admits this but the abstract does not. That is an overstatement, not a fatal flaw.

The bigger issue is delta switching. Every closed-form result comes from the factorization U_I = exp(B)exp(A), which exists only for instantaneous kicks. The authors contrast their findings with Gaussian-switching studies but never check whether the two qualitative claims survive a finite-width profile. The stress-test note is right to flag this: the zero-negativity result for separable initial states may simply be a singular-limit artifact. Standard finite-time harvesting from |gg> does produce entanglement, so calling the prohibition "fundamental" is too strong. The paper only shows N=0 for the plotted parameters, not a proof for all cases. That needs to be softened or proven.

I don't think the central calculation is wrong, and the paper is not incoherent. But the physical narrative is ahead of the evidence. A referee should ask for a corrected summary of parameter dependence, an explicit statement that the results are specific to delta switching, and ideally a finite-switching check or a no-go proof for the separable case.

This is a worthwhile subfield contribution and deserves a serious referee. I would not desk-reject it, but I would not accept it as is.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies two Unruh-DeWitt detectors coupled to a massless scalar field in (3+1)-dimensional Minkowski spacetime, using delta-function switching and Gaussian smearing, and computes the reduced density matrix nonperturbatively. It then evaluates the l1-norm and relative-entropy coherence and the negativity for two classes of initial states: a maximally entangled Bell state and separable states. The central claims are that, for the entangled initial state, increasing the coupling strength can amplify the detectors' quantum coherence above its initial value while entanglement decays monotonically, and that separable detectors can acquire coherence from the vacuum but never harvest entanglement. The exact expressions are derived in detail, with no fitted parameters.

Significance. The paper provides a self-contained, analytic nonperturbative treatment of two UDW detectors with delta-switching, and the closed-form density matrix elements are a useful technical contribution. If the qualitative effects were shown to be robust beyond the delta-switching idealization, the claimed asymmetry between coherence and entanglement would be an interesting resource-theoretic observation. However, the physical significance is currently conditional: the central 'dual effect' is explicitly contrasted with Gaussian-switching results, yet no finite-width switching analysis is provided, and the negativity formula used for the central entanglement claims is incomplete for the X-state under consideration.

major comments (3)

[Sec. II A and Sec. III (Figs. 1-3)] The exact solution and all closed-form results, Eqs. (8)-(27), rely on the delta-switching ansatz chi_j(tau_j) = eta_j delta(tau_j - tau_j0), which makes the time-evolution operator factorize as Eq. (3). The abstract and conclusions present the 'dual effect' (coherence amplification with monotonic entanglement degradation) as a property of nonperturbative detector-field interactions and explicitly contrast it with Gaussian-switching studies, but the paper never checks whether the two qualitative claims survive a finite-width switching profile. Because delta-switching gives the interaction infinite temporal bandwidth and removes multi-time interference, the effect may be an artifact of the singular limit. Please add a finite-switching regularization and show that the coherence amplification and the zero-negativity claim for separable initial states are stable, or explicitly restrict the conclusions to the delta-switching model and discuss whether that idealization is physically representative.
[Sec. III, Eq. (27)] The negativity formula in Eq. (27) is incomplete for the X-state in Eq. (8). The partial transpose of rho_AB decomposes into two 2x2 blocks: one involving (rho_11,rho_44,rho_23) and one involving (rho_22,rho_33,rho_14). Equation (27) retains only the second block. The full negativity is the sum of the two block contributions, and the omitted block can become negative when |rho_23|^2 > rho_11 rho_44. This affects the numerical results in Figs. 1(c), 2(c), and 3(b),(d),(f),(h), and in particular the claimed strict zero negativity for initially separable states. Please provide the full expression and verify the zero-entanglement claim against the complete formula.
[Abstract and Sec. III (Fig. 3)] The abstract states that 'increasing the coupling strength enhances the detectors' initial quantum coherence while simultaneously causing a monotonic decrease in their initial entanglement.' This is not what Fig. 3 shows: C_l1 and C_REC are non-monotonic in the coupling strength, rising to a peak and then decaying, and Fig. 1 shows that at small detector separation the coherence falls below its initial value. The accurate statement is that there is an intermediate coupling and separation window in which coherence exceeds its initial value. Please qualify the abstract and the conclusions accordingly.

minor comments (5)

[Appendix A, Eqs. (A10)-(A12)] The symbol gamma is used for two different quantities: gamma = Omega_A tau_A0 + Omega_B tau_B0 in Eq. (9) and as the commutator [Y_A,Y_B] = i gamma in Appendix A (after Eq. (A9)). This double use is confusing; please use a different symbol, e.g., beta, for the commutator.
[Fig. 3(f) and (h)] The y-axes in panels (f) and (h) of Fig. 3 contain negative values, but the negativity defined in Eq. (26) is nonnegative. If the plotted quantity is the argument inside the max, please say so in the figure caption and in the text.
[Throughout] There are several typographical issues: the title has a word break ('coheren ce'), author names and addresses contain spacing errors ('Y u-Xuan Wang', '4 10081'), the PACS line has missing spaces, and some equations in Sec. II are garbled by OCR-like formatting. Please proofread carefully.
[Figs. 3 and 4] The meaning of the coupling lambda on the x-axes should be stated explicitly: with eta/sigma = 1, lambda is effectively dimensionless, but this is not stated. Please clarify the units and the relation between lambda and the dimensionful coupling.
[Sec. IV, second paragraph] The statement that for initially separable detectors 'quantum entanglement remains strictly zero across all values of the coupling strength' is presented without qualification, but this claim requires the full negativity expression and a numerical check over the parameter space; the current Eq. (27) does not establish it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: coherence and entanglement results are computed from explicit density-matrix elements without fitted parameters or self-referential definitions.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. Starting from the delta-switching interaction-picture evolution operator in Eq. (3), the authors compute the reduced density matrix elements in Eqs. (8) and Appendix A, and then evaluate standard resource measures: l1-norm coherence (Eq. (20)), relative entropy of coherence (Eqs. (21)-(25)), and negativity (Eq. (27)). No parameter is fitted to the claimed outputs, and the qualitative claims--coherence amplification for initially entangled detectors and zero entanglement for initially separable detectors--emerge from closed-form expressions (15)-(17) rather than being assumed as inputs. The delta-switching idealization is a modeling assumption adopted from external literature [61], not a conclusion that the paper derives from its target result; whether the effect survives finite-width switching is a physical correctness concern, not a circular reduction. Self-citations appear only in background or comparative statements and do not carry the load-bearing derivation. Therefore no step reduces by construction to its own input.

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

No empirical fitting is performed; the model inputs (coupling lambda, gap Omega, smearing width sigma, separation L, switching time difference Delta tau, and state angle theta) are physical parameters inherited from the UDW model, not free parameters tuned to reproduce a target result. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced. The only nontrivial input is the delta-switching idealization, which is itemized in the axioms.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Detectors are modeled as two-level Unruh-DeWitt systems linearly coupled to a massless scalar field.
Eq. (1); this is the standard UDW model, not derived in the paper.
domain assumption Switching is instantaneous, chi_j(tau_j) = eta_j delta(tau_j - tau_j0), making the time-evolution operator factorize as in Eq. (3).
Sec. II A; the entire exact solution depends on this idealization.
domain assumption Detectors are inertial with d tau_j/dt = 1 and are Gaussian-smeared with width sigma.
Sec. II B, Eq. (14); needed for the closed forms in Eqs. (15)-(17).
standard math Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula for exponentials of linear field operators, with [Y_A, Y_B] a c-number.
Appendix A, Eqs. (A9)-(A14).
domain assumption The quantum field starts in the Minkowski vacuum |0> and the detectors' initial state is |psi> = cos(theta)|g_A g_B> + sin(theta)|e_A e_B>.
Sec. II B, Eqs. (6)-(7).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Entangled Unruh-DeWitt detectors amplify quantum coherence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WQFFVHFB

@misc{pith2026250614115,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Entangled Unruh-DeWitt detectors amplify quantum coherence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WQFFVHFB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14115}
}

abstract

We explore the quantum coherence between a pair of entangled Unruh-DeWitt detectors, interacting with a quantum field, using a nonperturbative approach in a (3+1)-dimensional Minkowski spacetime with instantaneous switching ($\delta$-switching). It is intriguing to observe that for a maximally entangled state, increasing the coupling strength enhances the detectors' initial quantum coherence while simultaneously causing a monotonic decrease in their initial entanglement. This reveals a remarkable phenomenon: through nonperturbative interactions, entangled Unruh-DeWitt detectors can exhibit a dual effect-amplifying quantum coherence while degrading quantum entanglement. This finding stands in stark contrast to previous studies based on perturbative methods or Gaussian switching functions, which generally concluded that interactions between detectors and the field lead to a simultaneous degradation of quantum coherence and entanglement due to environmental decoherence. Notably, while initially separable detectors successfully harvest quantum coherence from the vacuum, entanglement extraction remains fundamentally prohibited. These contrasting behaviors underscore the fundamental distinction between coherence and entanglement as quantum resources, and highlight their complementary roles in field-detector interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14115 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Quantum coherence and entanglement as a function of t [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Quantum coherence and entanglement as a function of t [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: Quantum coherence as a function of coupling strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Can boundary configuration be tuned to optimize directional quantum steering harvesting?
quant-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Quantum steering harvested from the vacuum near a reflecting wall becomes directionally asymmetric when the detectors are oriented perpendicular to the wall, and the preferred direction can be tuned by the detectors' ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

A. J. Leggett, Macroscopic quantum systems and the quant um theory of measurement, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 69, 80 (1980)

work page 1980
[2]

Streltsov, G

A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, and M. B. Plenio, Colloquium: Qu antum coherence as a resource, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 041003 (2017)

work page 2017
[3]

Baumgratz, M

T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Quantifying co herence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 140401 (2014)

work page 2014
[4]

Bibak, F

F. Bibak, F. D. Santo, and B. Daki´ c, Quantum Coherence in Networks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 230201 (2024)

work page 2024
[5]

Sohail, A. K. Pati, V . Aradhya, I. Chakrabarty, and S. Pat ro, Teleportation of quantum coherence, Phys. Rev. A 108, 042620 (2023)

work page 2023
[6]

H. L. Shi, S. Ding, Q. K. Wan, X. H. Wang, and W. L. Y ang, Enta nglement, Coherence, and Ex- 15 tractable Work in Quantum Batteries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 130602 (2022)

work page 2022
[7]

Ahnefeld, T

F. Ahnefeld, T. Theurer, D. Egloff, J. M. Matera, and M. B. Plenio, Coherence as a Resource for Shor’s Algorithm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 120501 (2022)

work page 2022
[8]

Wang, et al ., Quantum coherence and interference of a single moir´ e exc iton in nano-fabricated twisted monolayer semiconductor heterobilayers, Nat

H. Wang, et al ., Quantum coherence and interference of a single moir´ e exc iton in nano-fabricated twisted monolayer semiconductor heterobilayers, Nat. Com mun. 15, 4905 (2024)

work page 2024

Show all 64 references

[9]

F. F. Kong, et al ., Wavelike electronic energy transfer in donor–acceptor m olecular systems through quantum coherence, Nat. Nanotechnol. 17, 729 (2022)

2022
[10]

Karli, et al ., Controlling the photon number coherence of solid-state q uantum light sources for quantum cryptography, Npj Quantum Inf

Y . Karli, et al ., Controlling the photon number coherence of solid-state q uantum light sources for quantum cryptography, Npj Quantum Inf. 10, 17 (2024)

2024
[11]

Y amauchi, S

A. Y amauchi, S. Fujiwara, N. Kimizuka, et al ., Modulation of triplet quantum coherence by guest- induced structural changes in a ﬂexible metal-organic fram ework. Nat. Commun. 15, 7622 (2024)

2024
[12]

B. Fan, A. Samanta, and A. M. Garc´ ıa-Garc´ ıa, Tuning su perinductors by quantum coherence effects for enhancing quantum computing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 047001 (2023)

2023
[13]

J. Um, K. E. Dorfman, and H. Park, Coherence-enhanced qu antum-dot heat engine, Phys. Rev. Re- search 4, L032034 (2022)

2022
[14]

Y . Wang, Y . Hu, J. P . Guo, J. Gao, B. Song, L. Jiang, A physi cal derivation of high-ﬂux ion transport in biological channel via quantum ion coherence, Nat. Commu n. 15, 7189 (2024)

2024
[15]

Y . Y ao, X. Xiao, L. Ge, and C. P . Sun, Quantum coherence in multipartite systems, Phys. Rev. A 92, 022112 (2015)

2015
[16]

H. J. Kim, S. Lee, Relation between quantum coherence an d quantum entanglement in quantum mea- surements, Phys. Rev. A 106, 022401 (2022)

2022
[17]

Z. Wang, Z. Guo, Z. Chen, M. Li, Z. Zhou, C. Zhang, S. M. Fei , Z. Ma, Quantum coherence: A fundamental resource for establishing genuine multiparti te correlations, Phys. Rev. A 111, 032410 (2025)

2025
[18]

W. Liu, C. Wen, J. Wang, Lorentz violation alleviates gr avitationally induced entanglement degrada- tion, J. High Energy Phys. 2025, 184 (2025)

2025
[19]

L. H. Ford, Cosmological particle production: a review , Rep. Prog. Phys., 84, 116901 (2021)

2021
[20]

S. M. Wu and H. S. Zeng, Genuine tripartite nonlocality a nd entanglement in curved spacetime, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 4 (2022)

2022
[21]

Witten, APS medal for exceptional achievement in res earch: Invited article on entanglement prop- erties of quantum ﬁeld theory, Rev

E. Witten, APS medal for exceptional achievement in res earch: Invited article on entanglement prop- erties of quantum ﬁeld theory, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 045003 (2018). 16

2018
[22]

S. J. Summers and R. Werner, Bell’s inequalities and qua ntum ﬁeld theory. II. Bell’s inequalities are maximally violated in the vacuum, J. Math. Phys. 28, 2448 (1987)

1987
[23]

S. J. Summers and R. Werner, Bell’s inequalities and qua ntum ﬁeld theory. I. General setting, J. Math. Phys. 28, 2440 (1987)

1987
[24]

S. J. Summers and R. Werner, The vacuum violates Bell’s i nequalities, Phys. Lett. A 110, 257 (1985)

1985
[25]

W. G. Unruh, Notes on black-hole evaporation, Phys. Rev . D 14, 870 (1976)

1976
[26]

T. R. Perche, B. Ragula, E. Mart´ ın-Mart´ ınez, Harvesting entanglement from the gravitational vacuum, Phys. Rev. D 108, 085025 (2023)

2023
[27]

S. W. Hawking, W. Israel, General Relativity; an Einste in Centenary Survey (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1980)

1980
[28]

V alentini, Non-local correlations in quantum elect rodynamics, Phys

A. V alentini, Non-local correlations in quantum elect rodynamics, Phys. Lett. A 153, 321 (1991)

1991
[29]

Reznik, Entanglement from the vacuum, Found

B. Reznik, Entanglement from the vacuum, Found. Phys. 33, 167 (2003)

2003
[30]

Reznik, A

B. Reznik, A. Retzker, and J. Silman, Violating Bell’s i nequalities in vacuum, Phys. Rev. A 71, 042104 (2005)

2005
[31]

Izquierdo, J

W. Izquierdo, J. Beltran, E. Arias, Enhancement of harv esting vacuum entanglement in Cosmic String Spacetime, J. High Energ. Phys. 2025, 49 (2025)

2025
[32]

L. J. Henderson, R. A. Hennigar, R. B. Mann, A. R. H. Smith , and J. Zhang, Entangling detectors in anti-de Sitter space, J. High Energy Phys. 2019, 178 (2019)

2019
[33]

Chakraborty, L

A. Chakraborty, L. Hackl, and M. Zych, Entanglement har vesting in quantum superposed spacetime, Phys. Rev. D 111, 104052 (2025)

2025
[34]

Funai and N

N. Funai and N. C. Menicucci, Locality and entanglement harvesting in covariantly bandlimited scalar ﬁelds, Phys. Rev. D 110, 105001 (2024)

2024
[35]

S. H. Li, S. H. Shang, S. M. Wu, Does acceleration always d egrade quantum entanglement for tetra- partite Unruh-DeWitt detectors?, J. High Energy Phys. 2025, 214 (2025)

2025
[36]

Z. Liu, J. Zhang, H. Y u, Entanglement harvesting of acce lerated detectors versus static ones in a thermal bath, Phys. Rev. D 107, 045010 (2023)

2023
[37]

Z. Liu, J. Zhang, R. B. Mann and H. Y u, Does acceleration a ssist entanglement harvesting, Phys. Rev. D 105, 085012 (2022)

2022
[38]

Y . H. Shi, R. Q. Y ang, Z. Xiang, et al., Quantum simulation of Hawking radiation and curved space - time with a superconducting on-chip black hole. Nat Commun 14, 3263 (2023)

2023
[39]

Tomonaga and Y

M. Tomonaga and Y . Nambu, Second-order coherence as an i ndicator of quantum entanglement of 17 Hawking radiation in moving-mirror models, Phys. Rev. D 110, 105004 (2024)

2024
[40]

F. L. Lin, S. Mondal, Entanglement harvesting and quant um discord of alpha vacua in de Sitter space, J. High Energ. Phys. 2024, 159 (2024)

2024
[41]

M. P . G. Robbins, L. J. Henderson and R. B. Mann, Entangle ment ampliﬁcation from rotating black holes, Class. Quant. Grav. 39, 02LT01 (2022)

2022
[42]

M. H. Zambianco, A. Teixid´ o-Bonﬁll, E. Mart´ ın-Mart´ınez, Interference of communication and ﬁeld correlations in entanglement harvesting, Phys. Rev. D 110, 025016 (2024)

2024
[43]

Tjoa and R

E. Tjoa and R. B. Mann, Harvesting correlations in Schwa rzschild and collapsing shell spacetimes, J. High Energy Phys. 2020, 155 (2020)

2020
[44]

Gallock-Y oshimura, E

K. Gallock-Y oshimura, E. Tjoa and R. B. Mann, Harvestin g entanglement with detectors freely falling into a black hole, Phys. Rev. D 104, 025001 (2021)

2021
[45]

Li and Z

R. Li and Z. Zhao, Entanglement harvesting of circularl y accelerated detectors with a reﬂecting bound- ary, J. High Energy Phys. 2025, 185 (2025)

2025
[46]

Y . Ji, J. Zhang, H. Y u, Entanglement harvesting in cosmic string spacetime, J. High Energ. Phys. 2024, 161 (2024)

2024
[47]

Lindel, et al ., Entanglement harvesting from electromagnetic quantum ﬁ elds, Phys

F. Lindel, et al ., Entanglement harvesting from electromagnetic quantum ﬁ elds, Phys. Rev. A 110, 022414 (2024)

2024
[48]

Gooding, A

C. Gooding, A. Sachs, R. B Mann and S. Weinfurtner, V acuu m entanglement probes for ultra-cold atom systems, New J. Phys. 26, 105001 (2024)

2024
[49]

Barman and B

D. Barman and B. R. Majhi, Are multiple reﬂecting bounda ries capable of enhancing entanglement harvesting?, Phys. Rev. D 108, 085007 (2023)

2023
[50]

S. M. Wu, R. D. Wang, X. L. Huang, Z. Wang, Does gravitatio nal wave assist vacuum steering and Bell nonlocality?, J. High Energ. Phys. 2024, 155 (2024)

2024
[51]

J. G. A. Carib´ e, R. H. Jonsson, M. Casals, A. Kempf, E. Ma rt´ ın-Mart´ ınez, Lensing of vacuum entan- glement near Schwarzschild black holes, Phys. Rev. D 108, 025016 (2023)

2023
[52]

W. Cong, E. Tjoa, and R. B. Mann, Entanglement harvestin g with moving mirrors, J. High Energy Phys. 2019, 21 (2019)

2019
[53]

Simidzija and E

P . Simidzija and E. Mart´ ın-Mart´ ınez, Harvesting correlations from thermal and squeezed coherent states, Phys. Rev. D 98, 085007 (2018)

2018
[54]

X. Liu, W. Liu, Z. Liu, J. Wang, Harvesting correlations from BTZ black hole coupled to a Lorentz- violating vector ﬁeld, arXiv:2503.06404 (2025). 18

2025
[55]

Sachs, R

A. Sachs, R. B. Mann, and E. Mart´ ın-Mart´ ınez, Entanglement harvesting and divergences in quadratic Unruh-DeWitt detector pairs, Phys. Rev. D 96, 085012 (2017)

2017
[56]

Coffman, J

V . Coffman, J. Kundu, W. K. Wootters, Distributed entan glement, Phys. Rev. A 61, 052306 (2000)

2000
[57]

Gallock-Y oshimura, R

K. Gallock-Y oshimura, R. B. Mann, Entangled detectors nonperturbatively harvest mutual informa- tion, Phys. Rev. D 104, 125017 (2021)

2021
[58]

J. Wang, Z. Tian, J. Jing, H. Fan, Irreversible degradat ion of quantum coherence under relativistic motion, Phys. Rev. A 93, 062105 (2016)

2016
[59]

H. Hu, J. Zhang, H. Y u, Harvesting entanglement by non-i dentical detectors with different energy gaps, J. High Energ. Phys. 2022, 112 (2022)

2022
[60]

R. D. Wang, S. M. Wu, X. L. Huang, Nonlocal coherence harv esting from quantum vacuum, Commun. Theor. Phys. 76, 075103 (2024)

2024
[61]

Simidzija and E

P . Simidzija and E. Mart´ ın-Mart´ ınez, Nonperturbative analysis of entanglement harvesting from co- herent ﬁeld states, Phys. Rev. D 96, 065008 (2017)

2017
[62]

Mart´ ın-Mart´ ınez, P

E. Mart´ ın-Mart´ ınez, P . Rodriguez-Lopez, Relativistic quantum optics: The relativistic invariance of the light-matter interaction models, Phys. Rev. D 97, 105026 (2018)

2018
[63]

Mart´ ın-Mart´ ınez, T

E. Mart´ ın-Mart´ ınez, T. R. Perche, and B. S. L. Torres,General relativistic quantum optics: Finite-size particle detector models in curved spacetimes, Phys. Rev. D 101, 045017 (2020)

2020
[64]

M. B. Plenio, Logarithmic negativity: A full entanglem ent monotone that is not convex, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 090503 (2005). Appendix A: The elements in the density matrix Consider two detectors in a (3 + 1) -dimensional Minkowski spacetime. The time-evolution operator ˆUI prov...

2005

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

A. J. Leggett, Macroscopic quantum systems and the quant um theory of measurement, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 69, 80 (1980)

work page 1980

[2] [2]

Streltsov, G

A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, and M. B. Plenio, Colloquium: Qu antum coherence as a resource, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 041003 (2017)

work page 2017

[3] [3]

Baumgratz, M

T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Quantifying co herence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 140401 (2014)

work page 2014

[4] [4]

Bibak, F

F. Bibak, F. D. Santo, and B. Daki´ c, Quantum Coherence in Networks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 230201 (2024)

work page 2024

[5] [5]

Sohail, A. K. Pati, V . Aradhya, I. Chakrabarty, and S. Pat ro, Teleportation of quantum coherence, Phys. Rev. A 108, 042620 (2023)

work page 2023

[6] [6]

H. L. Shi, S. Ding, Q. K. Wan, X. H. Wang, and W. L. Y ang, Enta nglement, Coherence, and Ex- 15 tractable Work in Quantum Batteries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 130602 (2022)

work page 2022

[7] [7]

Ahnefeld, T

F. Ahnefeld, T. Theurer, D. Egloff, J. M. Matera, and M. B. Plenio, Coherence as a Resource for Shor’s Algorithm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 120501 (2022)

work page 2022

[8] [8]

Wang, et al ., Quantum coherence and interference of a single moir´ e exc iton in nano-fabricated twisted monolayer semiconductor heterobilayers, Nat

H. Wang, et al ., Quantum coherence and interference of a single moir´ e exc iton in nano-fabricated twisted monolayer semiconductor heterobilayers, Nat. Com mun. 15, 4905 (2024)

work page 2024