Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The Jaynes-Cummings model in Phase Space Quantum Mechanics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives an explicit Wigner function for the resonant Jaynes-Cummings model on the product phase space of the atomic Bloch sphere and the field's complex plane, and uses it to reproduce Rabi oscillations, collapse and revival…

desk verdict A real closed-form Wigner function for the JC model, but the two advertised applications—the one-mode reduction and the purity formula—are wrong as printed, and the entanglement claims do not hold. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.23386 v1 pith:AUHG733C submitted 2025-06-29 quant-ph math-phmath.MP

Mar Sanchez-Cordova , Jasel Berra-Montiel , Alberto Molgado This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phmath-phmath.MP MSC 81S3081V8081R30
keywords Jaynes-CummingsmodelWignerfunctionphasespacequantummechanicsStratonovich-Weylcorrespondencehybridsystemsentanglementdynamicsquasiprobabilitydistributioncoadjointorbitmethod
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 aims to put the Jaynes-Cummings model, the standard description of a two-level atom coupled to a single quantized field mode, into the phase-space (Wigner function) formalism. It constructs a Wigner function on the product of the atomic Bloch sphere and the field's complex phase plane and claims this quasiprobability distribution is informationally complete: it fully encodes the evolving state of the hybrid system. The authors then recover from it the model's well-known features—Rabi oscillations, the collapse and revival of atomic inversion, and the purity of the reduced field state as a measure of atom-field entanglement. A sympathetic reader should care because, if the construction is right, one closed-form function replaces the full density matrix for this canonical model, potentially simplifying how entanglement is tracked in cavity QED and similar experiments.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Stratonovich–Weyl kernel for hybrid qubit–bosonic systems, $\hat\Delta(\Omega)=\hat\Delta_q(\theta,\phi)\otimes \hat\Delta_f(\beta,\beta^*)$, where $\hat\Delta_q$ is the spin-$1/2$ kernel built from the SU(2) rotation and parity operator on the Bloch sphere, and $\hat\Delta_f$ is the displaced-parity kernel $\tfrac{2}{\pi}\hat D \hat\Pi_f \hat D^\dagger$ on the field phase plane. The Wigner function is $W_{\hat\rho}=\mathrm{tr}[\hat\rho \hat\Delta]$. The computations are carried by the Laguerre 2D polynomials $L_{n,m}(\beta,\beta^*)$ and their orthogonality relation (26), which turn the trace integrals into the normalization check and the purity formula.

What would settle it

A decisive check is to set the initial field to the Fock vacuum, $C_0=1$ and all other $C_n=0$, and evaluate the purity (40) at $t=\pi/(4g)$. The formula yields $\xi=1$, while direct computation from the time-evolved state (20) gives a reduced field $\tfrac{1}{2}(|0\rangle\langle0|+|1\rangle\langle1|)$ with purity $1/2$; the mismatch would settle the validity of the purity derivation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors construct the Wigner function for the resonant Jaynes-Cummings model, with the atom initially excited and the field in a coherent state, by tracing the time-evolved density operator $\hat\rho(t)$ against the tensor-product Stratonovich–Weyl kernel $\hat\Delta(\Omega)=\hat\Delta_q(\theta,\phi)\otimes \hat\Delta_f(\beta,\beta^*)$. The resulting quasiprobability distribution, Eq. (23), is a double sum over Fock indices with Laguerre 2D polynomials $L_{n,m}(2\beta,2\beta^*)$ and trigonometric Jaynes–Cummings factors; the paper shows it is real and normalized via the identities (25)–(27). From this distribution, the Rabi probability and atomic inversion (33)–(35) match the standard solution, including collapse and revival. Integrating out the spin variables gives the reduced field Wigner function $W_{\hat\rho_f}(\beta,\beta^*)$ (38), and the purity $\xi(t)=\pi\int|W_{\hat\rho_f}|^2 d^2\beta$ (39) evaluates to (40), whose long-time limit is $\tfrac{1}{2}+\tfrac{1}{2} e^{-2|\alpha|^2}I_0(2|\alpha|^2)$. The central claim is that this phase-space object is informationally complete: it carries the full dynamics of the light–matter interaction, including entanglement dynamics, without reconstructing the density matrix.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that inserting Fock-state amplitudes into the full Wigner function yields the single-mode expression (28) and that the stated polynomial orthogonality turns the purity integral into the closed form (40); if either step is wrong, the claimed results collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Wigner function (23) is real and normalized by construction, so expectation values of atom-field observables can be computed by phase-space integrals instead of operator traces.
  • The Rabi probabilities and atomic inversion extracted from the Wigner function, Eqs. (33)–(35), reproduce the standard Jaynes-Cummings result, including the collapse–revival times $T_{\mathrm{rev}}\approx 2\pi k/(g\sqrt{\langle \hat N\rangle})$.
  • The reduced field Wigner function (38) and purity (40) allow entanglement dynamics to be read off from the field's quasiprobability distribution, with the long-time purity approaching $\tfrac{1}{2}+\tfrac{1}{2} e^{-2|\alpha|^2}I_0(2|\alpha|^2)$.
  • In the single-mode (Fock-state) limit, the Wigner function reduces to the known number-state Wigner function multiplied by a factor describing Rabi oscillations at frequency $2g\sqrt{r+1}$, isolating the elementary excitation-exchange step.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Since the Stratonovich–Weyl kernel is fixed by the symmetry groups (SU(2) for the qubit and the Heisenberg–Weyl group for the field), the same construction should extend to other hybrid systems—for example, multi-mode fields or the Tavis–Cummings model—by replacing only the time-evolved density operator.
  • The purity expression depends on the Laguerre orthogonality relation; a direct finite-sum check with two-Fock initial states or a very small coherent amplitude would make the derivation's validity transparent and could be done with standard symbolic computation.
  • If the Wigner function is truly informationally complete, it should support a star product for the hybrid algebra, turning the Jaynes-Cummings model into a fully deformation-quantized system; the paper anticipates this direction but does not construct it.
  • The phase-space purity measure could be compared experimentally with the von Neumann entropy of the field mode in cavity QED, since the field Wigner function is directly measurable, providing a practical entanglement witness.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a Stratonovich-Weyl Wigner function for the resonant Jaynes-Cummings (JC) model with an initially excited atom and a coherent field, presenting the full hybrid qubit-bosonic quasi-probability distribution in Eq. (23). The authors claim that this Wigner function simplifies to the one-mode Fock-state expression (28), that it reproduces Rabi oscillations and atomic inversion (Eqs. (30)-(35)), and that it yields the purity of the reduced field (Eqs. (39)-(41)) as a measure of entanglement dynamics. The construction of Eq. (23) appears internally consistent and the Rabi/inversion results match the standard JC solution. However, the claimed one-mode reduction and the purity formula are not correct, and these errors directly affect the paper's advertised applications.

Significance. If correct, the explicit closed-form hybrid Wigner function would be a valuable addition to phase-space methods for light-matter interaction, and the purity-based entanglement analysis would provide a practical tool for cavity QED and related settings. The paper deserves credit for a systematic Stratonovich-Weyl construction, for verifying normalization of the full Wigner function, and for reproducing standard JC Rabi oscillations. However, the novel claims in Section 3 are not supported: Eq. (28) is not the specialization of Eq. (23) that the text claims, and Eq. (40) fails the elementary vacuum Fock-state check. These are load-bearing errors because the abstract and conclusions explicitly advertise the purity calculation as the main tool for investigating entanglement dynamics.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (40)] The claimed purity of the reduced field is incorrect. For the initial state |e,0> (C_n = δ_{n,0}), the exact JC evolution gives |ψ(t)> = cos(gt)|e,0> − i sin(gt)|g,1>, so the reduced field is cos²(gt)|0><0| + sin²(gt)|1><1| and its purity is cos⁴(gt) + sin⁴(gt), which equals 1/2 at t = π/(4g). Substituting C_n = δ_{n,0} into Eq. (40) gives ξ(t) = 1 for all t, because the double sum contains only the n = m = 0 term and the second sum vanishes. Hence Eq. (40) does not equal tr(ρ_f²) as claimed, and the entanglement analysis built on it is invalid.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (28)] The asserted reduction of the full Wigner function (23) to the one-mode Fock-state case C_n = δ_{n,r} is not correct. Inserting C_n = δ_{n,r} into (23) yields, in addition to the L_{r,r} term retained in (28), off-diagonal field terms proportional to L_{r,r+1}(2β,2β*) and L_{r+1,r}(2β,2β*) from the atom-field coherence terms, together with a term containing the (r+1)-Fock Wigner function. These extra terms do not vanish; therefore (28) is not the Wigner function of the evolved state |ψ(t)> = cos(tg√(r+1))|e,r> − i sin(tg√(r+1))|g,r+1>. Although the final Rabi probabilities (30)-(31) are correct, their derivation via (28) is not.
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (41)] The long-time limit of the purity is not a valid consequence of the JC dynamics. For the vacuum initial state, the exact purity is cos⁴(gt) + sin⁴(gt), which is periodic and does not tend to a limit; more generally, coherent-state revival dynamics prevent the purity from converging as t → ∞. The claimed asymptotic value ½ + ½ e^{−2|α|²} I₀(2|α|²) therefore cannot be correct, independent of the algebraic error in Eq. (40).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (22)] The phase factor e^{−itω(E_n−E_m)} has incorrect dimensions because E_n already contains ω; it should be e^{−it(E_n−E_m)} as in Eq. (23).
  2. [Eq. (20)] In the second line, one term contains e^{itE_{n−1}} while the other contains e^{−itE_{n−1}}; the sign appears inconsistent with the rest of the derivation and should be checked.
  3. [Eq. (36)] The revival time expression is typeset ambiguously; the standard formula is T_rev ≈ 2π√⟨N⟩/g.
  4. [After Eq. (28)] The identity for the two-dimensional Laguerre polynomial should state explicitly that L_{r,r}(2β,2β*) = (−1)^r r! L_r(4|β|²).
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues: 'hatDelta' in Eq. (11), 'dyanmics' in the Section 3 heading, 'avors' in Section 3, and 'quentum' in reference [32].

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Wigner function is a direct Stratonovich–Weyl transform of the standard JC dynamics, with no fitted parameters and no load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained against external inputs. The JC Hamiltonian (15) and the evolution operator (17) are taken from standard textbook treatments [20,23,35,36]; the Stratonovich–Weyl kernels (4) and (7) are adopted from the established phase-space literature [31,32,34], not from the authors' prior work. No free parameter is fitted: omega, Omega, and g enter through the Hamiltonian, while alpha, C_e, and C_g are stated initial conditions in (19). The Wigner function (23) is obtained by applying the defining map (11) to the exact density operator (22), so its content is the same as the density operator by construction; this is the intended informationally complete representation, not a circular prediction. The Rabi and inversion results (30)–(35) are cross-checked against the known JC solution, and the purity asymptotics (41) are compared with the density-matrix results [48,49]. The paper's self-citations (refs. [10,13,15,16]) appear only in the introductory survey of phase-space methods and are never used to justify a load-bearing step. The reviewer's Fock-state counterexample targets Eq. (40), but that is a question of correctness of an algebraic simplification, not circularity: Eq. (40) is not equivalent to its input by construction, and a failed calculation does not make the claim self-referential. Hence no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Nothing is fitted to data: omega, Omega, and g enter through the JC Hamiltonian (15); alpha, C_e, and C_g are stated initial conditions; the revival-time and asymptotic-purity formulas are derived or quoted from refs [20,23,48]. The representation leans on the Stratonovich-Weyl postulates, the SU(2) and coherent-state kernels of refs [21,24,25,31,32,34], and the Laguerre identities of [40,41], all assumed as input. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Stratonovich-Weyl postulates (i)-(v): linearity, reality, standardization, traciality, covariance of the kernel maps.
    Section 2 defines the phase space representation by these postulates; they are assumed input and are standard in the deformation-quantization literature, cited to [30-32,34].
  • domain assumption The qubit kernel Delta_q of Eq. (4) with parity Pi_q = 1 + sqrt(3) sigma_z from SU(2) coherent states and coadjoint orbits on S^2.
    Section 2, Eqs. (4)-(6). Taken from refs [21,31,32,34]; fixes the sqrt(3) normalization needed for information completeness.
  • domain assumption The bosonic kernel Delta_f = (2/pi) D Pi_f D-dagger with the coherent-state measure d^2 alpha.
    Section 2, Eqs. (7)-(9); the standard Wigner-Weyl normalization, assumed as input.
  • domain assumption The Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian (15) under the rotating-wave approximation with the resonance condition Omega = omega.
    Section 3, Eqs. (15)-(17). This is the model itself plus the resonance regime in which the evolution operator (17) is written.
  • standard math The Laguerre 2D identities (25) and orthogonality relation (26).
    Section 3, Eqs. (24)-(26), cited to refs [40,41]; central to the normalization claim and to the purity computation.
  • domain assumption The purity of the reduced field state equals pi times the integral of the squared Wigner function, Eq. (39).
    Section 3, Eq. (39), cited to [46]; standard for this kernel normalization but assumed without proof.
  • domain assumption Non-factorizability of the Wigner function, W not equal to W_q W_f, indicates entanglement.
    Section 3, Eq. (37) and the following paragraph. This inference is looser than a theorem in general Wigner-function theory; the paper presents it as evidence without proof.
  • standard math Exchange of infinite sums, the Fock expansion of coherent states, and integration order in (23), (38), and (40).
    Implicit throughout Section 3; no convergence conditions are stated for the double sums.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Jaynes-Cummings model in Phase Space Quantum Mechanics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AUHG733C

@misc{pith2026250623386,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Jaynes-Cummings model in Phase Space Quantum Mechanics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AUHG733C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.23386}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we address the phase space formulation of the Jaynes-Cummings model through the explicit construction of the full Wigner function for a hybrid bipartite quantum system composed of a two-level atom and a quantized coherent field. By employing the Stratonovich-Weyl correspondence and the coadjoint orbit method, we derive an informationally complete quasi-probability distribution that captures the full dynamics of light-matter interaction. This approach provides a detailed phase space perspective of fundamental quantum phenomena such as Rabi oscillations, atomic population inversion, and entanglement generation. We further measure the purity of the reduced quantized field state by means of an appropriate Wigner function corresponding to the bosonic field part in order to investigate the entanglement dynamics of the system.

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

  1. Magic for Hybrid Boson-Fermion Systems: A Grassmann Phase-Space Approach

    quant-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A Grassmann phase-space Lp norm defines a computable hybrid magic proxy for boson-fermion systems, with a closed-form magic power for the conditional displacement gate.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [24]

    R. P. Rundle and M. J. Tilma, An informationally complete Wigner function for the Tavis–Cummings model, J. Comput. Electron 20, 2180 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    R. P. Rundle and M. J. Everitt, Overview of the Phase Space Formulation of Quan- tum Mechanics with Application to Quantum Technologies , Adv. Quant. Tech. 4, 2100016 (2021)

    work page 2021

  3. [2]

    Weinbub and D

    J. Weinbub and D. K. Ferry, Recent advances in Wigner function approaches , Appl. Phys. Rev. 5, 041104 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [3]

    T. L. Curtright, D. B. Fairlie and C. K. Zachos, A Concise Treatise on Quantum Mechanics in Phase Space (World Scientific, 2014)

    work page 2014

  5. [4]

    Zachos, Deformation Quantization: Quantum Mechanics lives and works in phase space, Int

    C. Zachos, Deformation Quantization: Quantum Mechanics lives and works in phase space, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A17 297 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0110114

    arXiv 2002

  6. [5]

    Leonhardt, Measuring the quantum state of light (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997)

    U. Leonhardt, Measuring the quantum state of light (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997)

    work page 1997

  7. [6]

    Hradil, Quantum-state estimation , Phys

    Z. Hradil, Quantum-state estimation , Phys. Rev. A 55, R1561 (1997)

    work page 1997

  8. [7]

    D. F. V. James, P. G. Kwiat, W. J. Munro and A. G. White, Measurement of qubits, Phys. Rev. A 64, (5) 052312 (2001)

    work page 2001

Show all 49 references
  1. [8]

    M. A. Man’ko, V. I. Man’ko and N. C. Thanh, Tomographic-probability represen- tation of the quantum scalar field , J. Russ. Laser Res. 30 1-11 (2009)

    2009

  2. [9]

    V. I. Man’ko, L. Rosa and P. Vitale, Probability representation in quantum field theory, Phys. Lett. B 439, 328-336 (1998). 14

    1998

  3. [10]

    Berra-Montiel and R

    J. Berra-Montiel and R. Cartas-Fuentevilla, Deformation quantization and the tomographic representation of quantum fields, Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys.17 (11), 2050166 (2020)

    2020

  4. [11]

    N. K. Dubey and S. Kolekar, Wigner distributions in Rindler spacetime and nonvacuum Minkowski states , Phys. Rev. D 111, 065004 (2025)

    2025

  5. [12]

    M. Y. Abd-Rabbou, M. Shamirzaie, and S. Khan, Non-classical correlations of accelerated observers interacting with a classical stochastic noise beyond the single mode approximation, Opt. Quant. Electron 55, 715 (2023)

    2023

  6. [13]

    S´ anchez-C´ ordova and J

    M. S´ anchez-C´ ordova and J. Berra-Montiel,Quantum energy teleportation in phase space quantum mechanics, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 139, 1106 (2024)

    2024

  7. [14]

    Berra-Montiel and A

    J. Berra-Montiel and A. Molgado, Quasi-probability distributions in loop quantum cosmology, Class. Quantum Grav. 37, 215003 (2020)

    2020

  8. [15]

    Berra-Montiel, The Polymer representation for the scalar field: a Wigner functional approach, Class

    J. Berra-Montiel, The Polymer representation for the scalar field: a Wigner functional approach, Class. Quantum Grav. 37, 025006 (2020)

    2020

  9. [16]

    Berra–Montiel and A

    J. Berra–Montiel and A. Molgado, Tomography in loop quantum cosmology , Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137, 283 (2022)

    2022

  10. [17]

    Cohen-Tannoudji, G

    C. Cohen-Tannoudji, G. Grynberg, and J. Dupont-Roe, Atom-photon interac- tions: Basic Process and Appilcations , (WILEY-VCH Verlag, 1992)

    1992

  11. [18]

    K. J. Vahala, Optical microcavities, Nature 424, 6950 (2003)

    2003

  12. [19]

    E. T. Jaynes and F. W Cummings, Comparison of quantum and semi-classical radiation theories with application to the beam maser, Proc. IEEE 51 (1), 89 (1963)

    1963

  13. [20]

    Gerry and P

    C. Gerry and P. L. Knight, Introductory Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, 2005)

    2005

  14. [21]

    Perelomov, Generalized Coherent States and their Applications (Springer- Verlag, Berlin, 1986)

    A. Perelomov, Generalized Coherent States and their Applications (Springer- Verlag, Berlin, 1986)

    1986

  15. [22]

    R. J. Glauber, Coherent and incoherent states of the radiation field , Phys. Rev. 131 (6), 2766 (1963)

    1963

  16. [23]

    Meystre and M

    P. Meystre and M. Sargent III, Elements of Quantum Optics , 3rd. edn. (Springer- Verlag, 1990)

    1990

  17. [25]

    I. I. Arkhipov, A. Barasi´ nski, J. Svozil ´ik, Negativity volume of the generalized Wigner function as an entanglement witness for hybrid bipartite states , Sci. Rep. 8, 15 16955 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Auslander and B

    L. Auslander and B. Kostant, Quantization and representations of solvable Lie groups, Bull. Amer, Math. Soc. 73 692 (1967)

    1967

  19. [27]

    A. A. Kirillov, Unitary Representations of Nilpotent Lie Groups , Russ. Math. Sur. 17 53, (1962)

    1962

  20. [28]

    A. A. Kirillov, Lectures on the Orbit Method (American Mathematical Society, Philadelphia, 2004)

    2004

  21. [29]

    Vaisman, Lectures on the Geometry of Poisson Manifolds (Springer, Berlin, 1994)

    I. Vaisman, Lectures on the Geometry of Poisson Manifolds (Springer, Berlin, 1994)

    1994

  22. [30]

    R. L. Stratonovich, On distributions in representation space, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 31 1012 (1956)

    1956

  23. [31]

    J. C. Varilly and J. M. Gracia-Bondia, The Moyal Representation of Spin , Ann. Phys 190, 107 (1989)

    1989

  24. [32]

    Tilma, M.J

    T. Tilma, M.J. Everitt, J.H. Sampson, W.J. Munro, K. Nemoto, Wigner functions for arbitrary quentum systems , Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 180401 (2006)

    2006

  25. [33]

    J. J. Sakurai, Modern quantum mechanics (Addison-Wesley, Philadelphia, 1994)

    1994

  26. [34]

    Tilma and K

    T. Tilma and K. Nemoto, SU(N)-symmetric quasi-probability distribution func- tions, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 45, 015302 (2012), arXiv:1108.2075 [quant-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Fujii, K

    K. Fujii, K. Higashida and R. Kato, Explicit Form of the Evolu- tion Operator of Tavis-Cummings Model: Three and Four Atoms Cases , Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 1 (6), 721 (2004)

    2004

  28. [36]

    Ju´ arez-Amaro, A

    R. Ju´ arez-Amaro, A. Z´ u˜ niga-Segundo and H. M. Moya-Cessa,Several Ways to Solve the Jaynes-Cummings Model , Appl. Math. Inf. Sci. 9, 299 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    B. W. Shore and P. L. Knight, The Jaynes-Cummings Model , J. Mod. Opt. 40 (7), 1195 (1993)

    1993

  30. [38]

    Walther, B

    H. Walther, B. Varcoe, B. G. Englert and T. Becker, Cavity quantum electrody- namics, Rep. Prog. Phys. 69 (5), 1325 (2006)

    2006

  31. [39]

    Boukobza and D

    E. Boukobza and D. J. Tannor,Entropy exchange and entanglement in the Jaynes- Cummings model, Phys. Rev. A 71, 063821 (2005)

    2005

  32. [40]

    W¨ unsche, Generating Functions for Products of Special Laguerre 2D and Hermite 2D Polynomials , Appl

    A. W¨ unsche, Generating Functions for Products of Special Laguerre 2D and Hermite 2D Polynomials , Appl. Math. 6 2142 (2015). 16

    2015

  33. [41]

    W¨ unsche, Laguerre 2D-functions and their application in quantum optics , J

    A. W¨ unsche, Laguerre 2D-functions and their application in quantum optics , J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 31, 8267 (1998)

    1998

  34. [42]

    Merlin, Rabi oscillations, Floquet states, Fermi’s golden rule, and all that: Insights from an exactly solvable two-level model , Am

    R. Merlin, Rabi oscillations, Floquet states, Fermi’s golden rule, and all that: Insights from an exactly solvable two-level model , Am. J. Phys. 89, 26 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    Kiehl, D

    C. Kiehl, D. Wagner, T. W. Hsu, T.-W.,S. Knappe, C. A. Regal and T. Thiele, Coherence of Rabi oscillations with spin exchange , Phys. Rev. Research 5, L012002 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    A. D. Greentree, C. Tahan, J. H. Cole, and L. C. L. Hollenberg, Quantum phase transitions of light , Nature Physics 2, 856 (2006)

    2006

  37. [45]

    A Nielsen and I

    M. A Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000)

    2000

  38. [46]

    C. W. Gardiner and P. Zoller, Quantum Noise: A Handbook of Markovian and Non-Markovian Quantum Stochastic Methods with Applications to Quantum Optics, 3rd. edition (Springer, 2004)

    2004

  39. [47]

    Abramowitz and I

    M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables, 9th. Edition (New York, Dover, 1972)

    1972

  40. [48]

    S. J. D. Phoenix and P. L. Knight Establishment of an Entangled Atom-Field State in the Jaynes–Cummings Model , Phys. Rev. A 44, 6023 (1991)

    1991

  41. [49]

    Rundle, P.W

    R.P. Rundle, P.W. Mills, T. Tilma, J.H. Sampson, M.J. Everitt, Simple procedure for phase space measurement and entanglement validation, Phys. Rev. A96, 022117 (2017) 17

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.