pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.26380 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-29 · 🪐 quant-ph

Genuine tripartite entanglement in Bhabha scattering with an entangled spectator particle

Zan Cao , Meng-Long Song , Xue-Ke Song , Liu Ye , Dong Wang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 11:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords Bhabha scatteringgenuine tripartite entanglementquantum electrodynamicsmonogamy of entanglementquantum discordspectator particletree-level amplitudes
0
0 comments X

The pith

Bhabha scattering between an electron and positron generates genuine tripartite entanglement when one is initially entangled with a spectator particle.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines tree-level Bhabha scattering in QED where an incident electron scatters off a positron that begins entangled with a non-interacting spectator electron. It shows that the scattering interaction alone can produce genuine tripartite entanglement across all three particles, which the authors quantify with four standard entanglement measures. The work further demonstrates that the degree of generated entanglement depends on the scattering momentum and the strength of the initial bipartite entanglement, while monogamy bounds on entanglement of formation and quantum discord become less restrictive in the non-relativistic limit. This reveals how fundamental scattering processes can serve as resources for multipartite quantum correlations.

Core claim

The QED scattering process between particles A and B, when B is initially entangled with spectator C, drives the full ABC system into a genuine tripartite entangled state, with the post-scattering state characterized by four canonical tripartite entanglement metrics and subject to relaxed monogamy constraints on squared entanglement of formation and squared quantum discord in the non-relativistic regime.

What carries the argument

Tree-level QED amplitudes for Bhabha scattering applied to an initial bipartite entangled state of the positron and spectator, followed by evaluation of genuine tripartite entanglement witnesses on the three-particle final state.

If this is right

  • The generated genuine tripartite entanglement increases with both the scattering momentum transfer and the initial degree of bipartite entanglement between positron and spectator.
  • Monogamy inequalities for squared entanglement of formation and squared quantum discord hold but permit greater sharing of correlations among the three particles at low scattering energies.
  • The results supply a concrete QED-based mechanism for producing multipartite entanglement without direct interaction among all participants.
  • These scattering-induced correlations could be exploited in protocols that combine particle physics interactions with quantum information tasks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same mechanism may appear in other QED processes such as Compton scattering or pair production when one outgoing particle carries initial entanglement with a spectator.
  • Experimental tests could use polarized beams and spin measurements on the final electron, positron, and spectator to extract the predicted tripartite witnesses.
  • At higher energies where higher-order QED corrections matter, the generated entanglement might deviate from the tree-level prediction in ways that test the approximation.

Load-bearing premise

The spectator particle remains completely non-interacting throughout the process, and the calculation relies on tree-level QED amplitudes with a fixed initial bipartite entangled state between the positron and spectator.

What would settle it

Prepare the specific initial entangled state between the positron and spectator, perform Bhabha scattering at a controlled momentum, and then measure whether the three final particles violate any of the four tripartite entanglement witnesses; absence of violation at the predicted momentum and entanglement values would falsify the generation of genuine tripartite entanglement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.26380 by Dong Wang, Liu Ye, Meng-Long Song, Xue-Ke Song, Zan Cao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Consider the QED scattering process between elec view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The GTE is plotted against the scattering angle view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The GTE is plotted against the scattering angle view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The GTE is plotted against the scattering angle view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The entanglement monogamy relation is shown against the scattering angle view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Residual entanglement is plotted as a function of the view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Monogamy relation of quantum discord is depicted as a function of scattering angle view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Residual discord is plotted as a function of scattering view at source ↗
read the original abstract

From the perspective of quantum information science, we investigate tree-level Bhabha scattering between an incident electron $A$ and a positron B, where $B$ is initially entangled with a spectator electron $C$, which does not participate in the scattering interaction.We find that the quantum electrodynamics (QED) scattering between $A$ and $B$ can drive the global $ABC$ system into a genuine tripartite entangled (GTE) state. Using four canonical tripartite entanglement metrics, we systematically characterize and quantify the GTE of the composite system, and demonstrate that the scattering momentum of the $A$-$B$ pair and the initial $B$-$C$ entanglement are the key resources governing GTE generation.We further analyze the monogamy of quantum correlations, which imposes fundamental constraints on the shareability of quantum resources in multipartite systems. Specifically, we systematically study the monogamy relations for the squared entanglement of formation and squared quantum discord in our scattering model, and find that monogamy constraints are markedly relaxed in the non-relativistic regime, enabling enhanced shareability of quantum correlations across the three particles. This work uncovers novel quantum correlation properties of fundamental QED scattering processes, and provides direct theoretical guidance for the development of QED-based quantum information processing protocols.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines tree-level Bhabha scattering in QED between an incident electron A and positron B, with B initially entangled with a non-interacting spectator electron C. It asserts that the scattering process generates genuine tripartite entanglement (GTE) in the composite ABC system, quantified via four standard tripartite entanglement measures applied to the final pure spin state at fixed outgoing momenta. The work further analyzes monogamy relations for the squared entanglement of formation and squared quantum discord, reporting that these constraints are relaxed in the non-relativistic regime, and identifies scattering momentum and initial BC entanglement strength as key parameters controlling GTE generation.

Significance. If the explicit calculations hold, the result establishes a concrete link between a fundamental QED process and the generation of GTE using only standard tree-level amplitudes and an initial bipartite entangled state, without additional interactions. The systematic use of four canonical GTE quantifiers on the post-scattering state, together with the monogamy analysis across relativistic and non-relativistic kinematics, supplies falsifiable predictions for how scattering parameters tune multipartite correlations. This offers a clean theoretical framework that could inform proposals for QED-based quantum information protocols.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (12)] §3.2, Eq. (12): the final three-qubit state is obtained by applying the tree-level Bhabha amplitude to the initial product state |A⟩ ⊗ |ψ⟩_{BC}; the paper must explicitly verify that the chosen GTE quantifiers (e.g., the three-tangle or residual entanglement) remain non-zero after tracing over momentum degrees of freedom, since the spin state is defined only at fixed outgoing momenta.
  2. [§4.1, Fig. 2] §4.1, Fig. 2: the reported dependence of GTE on scattering angle and initial entanglement parameter is shown only for a single choice of center-of-mass energy; the central claim that momentum is a key resource would be strengthened by demonstrating that the GTE measures vanish or saturate in the ultra-relativistic limit for the same initial state.
minor comments (3)
  1. The abstract states that four canonical metrics are used, but the main text should include a brief appendix or subsection recalling the exact definitions (e.g., the three-tangle for pure states and the appropriate convex-roof extensions) to ensure reproducibility.
  2. Notation for the initial BC state |ψ⟩_{BC} is introduced without specifying the basis (e.g., spin or helicity); a single sentence clarifying the representation would remove ambiguity when comparing to standard QED spinor conventions.
  3. [§5] The monogamy plots in §5 would benefit from error bands or a statement on numerical precision, given that the measures involve optimization over decompositions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the positive recommendation for minor revision. We address each major comment point by point below and have made revisions to clarify and strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3.2, Eq. (12)]: the final three-qubit state is obtained by applying the tree-level Bhabha amplitude to the initial product state |A⟩ ⊗ |ψ⟩_{BC}; the paper must explicitly verify that the chosen GTE quantifiers (e.g., the three-tangle or residual entanglement) remain non-zero after tracing over momentum degrees of freedom, since the spin state is defined only at fixed outgoing momenta.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this point. In our calculation, the final state in Eq. (12) is the normalized pure spin state conditioned on fixed outgoing momenta for the A-B scattering; the momentum degrees of freedom are not integrated over but are fixed by the chosen kinematics. Consequently, no tracing over momenta is performed, and the GTE quantifiers are applied directly to this conditional three-qubit spin state. The non-zero values of the measures are already demonstrated by the explicit analytic expressions and the numerical results plotted in the figures. To address the request for explicit verification, we have added a clarifying sentence in §3.2 stating that the entanglement measures refer to the conditional spin state at fixed momenta. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4.1, Fig. 2]: the reported dependence of GTE on scattering angle and initial entanglement parameter is shown only for a single choice of center-of-mass energy; the central claim that momentum is a key resource would be strengthened by demonstrating that the GTE measures vanish or saturate in the ultra-relativistic limit for the same initial state.

    Authors: We agree that extending the analysis to the ultra-relativistic regime would further substantiate the role of scattering momentum as a controlling resource. The manuscript already examines both non-relativistic and relativistic kinematics for a representative center-of-mass energy, but does not explicitly display the ultra-relativistic limit. In the revised version we will add a new panel (or short subsection) showing the behavior of the four GTE measures as the center-of-mass energy is increased into the ultra-relativistic regime, where the high-energy limit of the Bhabha amplitudes can be used to illustrate saturation or vanishing trends for the same initial BC entanglement. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained

full rationale

The paper applies standard tree-level QED Bhabha amplitudes to an initial state |A⟩ ⊗ |ψ⟩_{BC} (with C a non-interacting spectator) to obtain the final ABC state, then evaluates four canonical tripartite entanglement measures and monogamy relations for squared EOF and QD on that state. These steps use externally defined QED amplitudes and established QI quantifiers without fitting any parameter to the target GTE outcome, without self-defining the measures via the scattering result, and without load-bearing self-citations. The central claim follows directly from explicit computation rather than reducing to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on standard perturbative QED and quantum information assumptions extracted from the abstract; no free parameters or invented entities are mentioned.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Tree-level approximation in QED for Bhabha scattering amplitudes
    Standard perturbative approach invoked for the scattering process between A and B.
  • domain assumption Spectator particle C experiences no interaction during the A-B scattering
    Explicitly stated in the setup; central to isolating the effect on the global state.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5533 in / 1210 out tokens · 61923 ms · 2026-05-07T11:46:39.252395+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    It is defined as the optimal distance between the given state and the set of non-genuine multipartite entangled states

    Generalized geometric measure The GGM [44–46] quantifies the degree of genuine mul- tipartite entanglement for an arbitraryn-partite pure state|ψ N ⟩. It is defined as the optimal distance between the given state and the set of non-genuine multipartite entangled states. Its explicit form is given below G(|ψN ⟩) = 1−Λ 2 max(|ψN ⟩),(10) where Λmax (|ψN ⟩) =...

  2. [2]

    Following the approach outlined in Ref

    Three-πentanglement For a tripartite pure state|ψ⟩ ABC, the Coff- man–Kundu–Wootters (CKW)-like monogamy inequal- ity quantified via negativity [54] is given by N2 AB +N 2 AC ≤N 2 A(BC) ,(13) whereN AB andN AC denote the sum of the negative eigenvalues of the partial transpose matrices of the re- duced statesρ AB = TrC(ρABC) andρ AC = TrB(ρABC), respectiv...

  3. [3]

    Genuinely multipartite concurrence The GMC is a computable measure for quantifying multipartite entanglement, based on the well-known con- currence [48]. For ann-partite pure state|Ψ⟩ ∈ H 1⊗H2⊗ · · · ⊗ Hn, the GMC is defined as CGMC(|Ψ⟩) = min γi∈γ q 2[1−Tr(ρ 2 Aγi )] (18) whereγ={γ i}represents the entire set of all possible bipartitions{A i|Bi}of the se...

  4. [4]

    In this formu- lation, the side lengths of the triangle are equal to the squares of the three bipartite concurrences

    Concurrence fill For tripartite entangled states, concurrence fill was in- troduced as a robust entanglement measure based on the entanglement triangle area method [49]. In this formu- lation, the side lengths of the triangle are equal to the squares of the three bipartite concurrences. With Heron’s triangle area formula, the concurrence fill is defined a...

  5. [5]

    Monogamy relation for SEF For an arbitrary two-qubit stateρ AB, Wootters [58] derived an explicit analytical expression for the entan- glement of formation. Ef (ρAB) =H  1 + q 1− |C(ρ AB)|2 2   ,(22) whereH(x) =−xlog 2 x−(1−x) log 2(1−x) is the binary entropy,C(ρ AB) = max √λ1 − √λ2 − √λ3 − √λ4,0 denotes the concurrence of the density matrixρAB. Here,...

  6. [6]

    [59, 60] D(ρAB) = eS(ρA|ρB)−S(ρ A|ρB),(24) where eS(ρA|ρB) = min {M B j } P j pjS ρA|j denotes the measurement-induced quantum conditional entropy

    Monogamy relation for SQD Apart from entanglement, quantum discord (QD) is another pivotal measure of bipartite quantum correla- tion, with its formal definition provided in Refs. [59, 60] D(ρAB) = eS(ρA|ρB)−S(ρ A|ρB),(24) where eS(ρA|ρB) = min {M B j } P j pjS ρA|j denotes the measurement-induced quantum conditional entropy. Here,{M B j }is a POVM measur...

  7. [7]

    Einstein, B

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev.47, 777 (1935)

    1935

  8. [8]

    Schrodinger, Proc

    E. Schrodinger, Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc.31, 555 (1935)

    1935

  9. [9]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 865 (2009)

    2009

  10. [10]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, J. Stat. Mech.8, P06002 (2004)

    2004

  11. [11]

    Casini and M

    H. Casini and M. Huerta J. Phys. A49, 504007 (2009)

    2009

  12. [12]

    D. R. Terno,Quantum Information Processing: From Theory to Experiment, edited by D. G. Angelakis et al.(IOP Press, Amsterdam, 2006)

    2006

  13. [13]

    S. R. Beane, D. B. Kaplan, N. Klco, and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 102001 (2019). 13

    2019

  14. [14]

    Fan and X

    J. Fan and X. Li, Phys. Rev. D97, 016011 (2018)

    2018

  15. [15]

    Aoude, E

    R. Aoude, E. Madge, F. Maltoni, and L. Mantani, J. High Energy Phys.12, 017 (2023)

    2023

  16. [16]

    Sinha and A

    A. Sinha and A. Zahed, Phys. Rev. D108, 025015 (2023)

    2023

  17. [17]

    G. A. Miller, Phys. Rev. C108, L041601 (2023)

    2023

  18. [18]

    J. Fan, G. M. Deng, and X. J. Ren, Phys. Rev. D104, 116021 (2021)

    2021

  19. [19]

    Peschanski and S

    R. Peschanski and S. Seki, Phys. Lett. B758, 89 (2016)

    2016

  20. [20]

    Fedida and A

    S. Fedida and A. Serafini, Phys. Rev. D107, 116007 (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    Aoude, M

    R. Aoude, M. Z. Chung, Y. T. Huang, C. S. Machado, and M. K. Tam, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 181602 (2020)

    2020

  22. [22]

    D. E. Kharzeev and E. M. Levin, Phys. Rev. D95, 114008 (2017)

    2017

  23. [23]

    Blasone, S

    M. Blasone, S. De Siena, G. Lambiase, C. Matrella, and B. Micciola, Phys. Rev. D111, 016007 (2025)

    2025

  24. [24]

    B. L. Ye, L. Y. Xue, Z. Q. Zhu, D. D. Shi, and S. M. Fei, Phys. Rev. D110, 055025 (2024)

    2024

  25. [25]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, and G. Panizzo, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 161801 (2021)

    2021

  26. [26]

    Bernabeu, A

    J. Bernabeu, A. Di Domenico, and P. Villanueva-Perez, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2015) 139

    2015

  27. [27]

    Lello, D

    L. Lello, D. Boyanovsky, and R. Holman, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2013) 116

    2013

  28. [28]

    Afik and J

    Y. Afik and J. R. Mu˜ noz de Nova Quantum16, 820 (2022)

    2022

  29. [29]

    Afik and J

    Y. Afik and J. R. Mu˜ noz de Nova Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 221801 (2023)

    2023

  30. [30]

    Y. Afik, Y. Kats, J. R. Mu˜ noz de Nova, A. Soffer, and D. Uzan, Phys. Rev. D111, L111902 (2025)

    2025

  31. [31]

    Blasone, F

    M. Blasone, F. Dell’Anno, S. De Siena, and F. Illuminati, Europhys. Lett.106, 30002 (2014)

    2014

  32. [32]

    Blasone, F

    M. Blasone, F. Dell’Anno, S. De Siena, and F. Illuminati, Adv. High Energy Phys.2014, 359168 (2014)

    2014

  33. [33]

    Bittencourt, M

    V. Bittencourt, M. Blasone, and G. Zanfardino, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.2533, 012024 (2023)

    2023

  34. [34]

    J. A. Formaggio, D. I. Kaiser, M. M. Murskyj, and T. E. Weiss, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 050402 (2016)

    2016

  35. [35]

    Naikoo, A

    J. Naikoo, A. K. Alok, S. Banerjee, and S. U. Sankar, Phys. Rev. D99, 095001 (2019)

    2019

  36. [36]

    Blasone, F

    M. Blasone, F. Illuminati, L. Petruzziello, and L. Smal- done, Phys. Rev. A108, 032210 (2023)

    2023

  37. [37]

    Gangopadhyay, D

    D. Gangopadhyay, D. Home, and A. S. Roy, Phys. Rev. A88, 022115 (2013)

    2013

  38. [38]

    X. K. Song, Y. Huang, J. Ling, and M. H. Yung, Phys. Rev. A98, 050302 (2018)

    2018

  39. [39]

    F. Ming, X. K. Song, J. Ling, L. Ye, and D. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 275 (2020)

    2020

  40. [40]

    D. Wang, F. Ming, X. K. Song, L. Ye, and J. L. Chen, Eur. Phys. J. C800, 800 (2020)

    2020

  41. [41]

    Y. W. Li, L. J. Li, X. K. Song, D. Wang, and L. Ye, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 799 (2022)

    2022

  42. [42]

    G. J. Wang, L. J. Li, X. K. Song, and D. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 801 (2023)

    2023

  43. [43]

    Cervera-Lierta, J

    A. Cervera-Lierta, J. I. Latorre, J. Rojo, and L. Rottoli, SciPost Phys.3, 036 (2017)

    2017

  44. [44]

    Cervera-Lierta, arXiv:1906.12099

    A. Cervera-Lierta, arXiv:1906.12099

    work page arXiv 1906

  45. [45]

    Blasone, S

    B. Massimo, G. L. Silvio De Siena, M. Cristina, and M. Bruno, arXiv:2505.06878

    work page arXiv

  46. [46]

    J. B. Araujo, B. Hiller, I. G. da Paz, Manoel M. Ferreira, Marcos Sampaio, and H. A. S. Costa, Phys. Rev. D100, 105018 (2019)

    2019

  47. [47]

    J. D. Fonseca, B. Hiller, J. B. Araujo, I. G. da Paz, and M. Sampaio, Phys. Rev. D106, 056015 (2022)

    2022

  48. [48]

    Blasone, G

    M. Blasone, G. Lambiase, and B. Micciola, Phys. Rev. D 109, 096022 (2024)

    2024

  49. [49]

    Chitambar and G

    E. Chitambar and G. Gour, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 025001 (2019)

    2019

  50. [50]

    Sen(De) and U

    A. Sen(De) and U. Sen, Phys. Rev. A81, 012308 (2010)

    2010

  51. [51]

    T. Das, S. Singha Roy, S. Bagchi, A. Misra, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Phys. Rev. A94, 022336 (2016)

    2016

  52. [52]

    Sadhukhan, S

    D. Sadhukhan, S. S. Roy, A. K. Pal, D. Rakshit, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Phys. Rev. A95, 022301 (2017)

    2017

  53. [53]

    Y. C. Ou and H. Fan, Phys. Rev. A75, 062308 (2007)

    2007

  54. [54]

    Z. H. Ma, Z. H. Chen, and J. L. Chen, Phys. Rev. A83, 062325 (2011)

    2011

  55. [55]

    S. B. Xie and J. H. Eberly, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 040403 (2021)

    2021

  56. [56]

    Y. K. Bai, Y. F. Xu, and Z. D. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 100503 (2014)

    2014

  57. [57]

    Y. K. Bai, N. Zhang, M. Y. Ye, and Z. D. Wang, Phys. Rev. A88, 012123 (2013)

    2013

  58. [58]

    S. M. Zangi, C. Shukla, A. u. Rahman, and B. Zheng, Entropy25, 415 (2023)

    2023

  59. [59]

    T. L. Wang, P. Wang, Z. A. Zhao, S. Zhang, R. Z. Zhao, X. Y. Yang, H. F. Zhang, Z. F. Li, and Y. Wu, PRX Quantum7, 010348 (2026)

    2026

  60. [60]

    T. J. Osborne and F. Verstraete, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 20503 (2006)

    2006

  61. [61]

    D. A. Meyer and N. R. Wallach, J. Math. Phys.43, 4273 (2002)

    2002

  62. [62]

    G. K. Brennen, Quantum Inf. Comput.3, 619 (2003)

    2003

  63. [63]

    Coffman, J

    V. Coffman, J. Kundu, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A61, 052306(2000)

    2000

  64. [64]

    W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 2245 (1998)

    1998

  65. [65]

    Ollivier and W

    H. Ollivier and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 017901 (2001)

    2001

  66. [66]

    Henderson and V

    L. Henderson and V. Vedral, J. Phys. A34, 6899 (2001)

    2001

  67. [67]

    Koashi and A

    M. Koashi and A. Winter, Phys. Rev. A69, 022309 (2004)

    2004

  68. [68]

    Aad et al

    G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Nature (London) 633, 542 (2024)

    2024

  69. [69]

    Hayrapetyan et al

    A. Hayrapetyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Rep. Prog. Phys.87, 117801 (2024)

    2024

  70. [70]

    Hayrapetyan et al

    A. Hayrapetyan et al. (CMS Collaboration) Phys. Rev.D 110, 112016 (2024)

    2024

  71. [71]

    The CEPC Study Group, arXiv 2205.08553v1

    work page arXiv

  72. [72]

    Abada et al

    A. Abada et al. (FCC Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. Spe- cial Topics228, 261 (2019)

    2019

  73. [73]

    H. J. Kimble, Nature (London)453, 1023 (2008)

    2008

  74. [74]

    Y. P. Zhong, H. S. Chang, A. Bienfait, ´E. Dumur, M. H. Chou, C. R. Conner, J. Grebel, R. G. Povey, H. X. Yan, D. I. Schuster, and A. N. Cleland Nature (London)590, 571 (2021)

    2021