Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 43 references

Spin Qubits in Photon-Coupled Microwave Cavities

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Coupled microwave cavities avoid the transmission bottleneck that limits spin-qubit scaling in a single shared resonator.

desk verdict Finite-N coupled-cavity spin-photon transmission is the solid part; the scalability conclusion is an extrapolation beyond the three-cavity calculations. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06859 v1 pith:XMST6GJ7 submitted 2026-08-07 cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph

Samuel Johnson , Nancy Sandler This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallquant-ph PACS 42.50.Pq03.67.Lx
keywords spinqubitsmicrowavecavitiescavityquantumelectrodynamicsdoubledotstransmissionamplitudesinput-outputtheoryTavis-Cummingsmodelmodulararchitectures
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

Spin qubits in a single microwave resonator degrade the transmitted signal as qubits are added, so scaling by stacking many qubits in one shared cavity runs into a transmission bottleneck. This paper argues that a modular alternative—placing one or a few qubits in separate cavities linked by photon-exchange couplers—avoids that bottleneck while preserving cavity-mediated qubit interactions. Working from the established single-cavity double-quantum-dot model, the authors derive closed-form transmission amplitudes for two- and three-cavity networks in two port layouts, and for hybrid cavities holding several qubits. The computed spectra show distinct transmission bands, tunable Rabi splittings, and a collective spin-photon coupling that scales as $\sqrt{N}$, so the modular network keeps a measurable output signal where the shared-cavity design would be suppressed.

What carries the argument

The working object is the coupled-cavity photon Hamiltonian, such as $H_{e,2}=t(a_L^\dagger a_R+a_R^\dagger a_L)$ for two cavities, whose normal modes determine the transmission bands. Each cavity is treated as a single-mode resonator loaded by a double-quantum-dot charge qubit, with a micromagnet-induced field gradient giving an effective spin-photon coupling. The argument is carried by input-output theory: the quantum Langevin equations for photon and qubit operators are solved in the stationary rotating-wave limit, yielding closed-form scattering amplitudes such as Eq. (16) for a two-cavity type-A layout and Eq. (25) for a three-cavity type-A layout. The key quantities are the dressed cavity detunings $\xi_i = \Delta_i - g_{c,i}(d_{01,i}\chi_{01,i}+d_{02,i}\chi_{02,i})$, in which the qubit susceptibilities $\chi$ renormalize the cavity and produce the Rabi splittings, while the hopping parameter $t$ between cavities sets the band structure. The $\sqrt{N}$ scaling of the collective coupling is the consistency check that ties the multi-cavity spectra to the established Tavis-Cummings behavior.

What would settle it

A direct test is to compute or measure the transmission of a linear chain of four or more capacitively coupled cavities under the same parameters. If the peak transmission decays exponentially with the number of cavities, or the band structure closes beyond a few sites, then the claim that modular cavity coupling pushes scalability beyond a single cavity is falsified. An experimental probe could use a chain of superconducting resonators with tunable couplers and measure the central transmission amplitude as a function of chain length.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that a modular architecture of capacitively coupled microwave cavities, each hosting a small number of double-quantum-dot spin qubits, can replace the shared-resonator approach to scaling cavity-QED spin-qubit platforms. Its central quantitative result is a set of transmission amplitudes—Eqs. (16), (20), (25), (27), and (30)—obtained from input-output theory, showing how photon hopping between cavities splits the spectrum into bands and how qubit loading renormalizes each cavity. The authors find that adding more qubits inside one cavity suppresses transmission by roughly 80% from 1 to 100 qubits, whereas in coupled-cavity networks the signal remains structured and strong; the Rabi splitting of a photon mode grows as the square root of the number of qubits coupled to it, matching the Tavis-Cummings prediction to within a few percent. Port placement matters: connecting both input and output to a single cavity (type B) gives more robust transmission when cavities are non-identical, because only modes with population in the port cavity carry the signal. The conclusion the paper presses is that such networks enable higher qubit densities and push scalability beyond what any single cavity can support.

Load-bearing premise

The scalability conclusion assumes that the favorable transmission properties found for two- and three-cavity networks persist for arbitrarily long chains of coupled cavities, even though the paper never analyzes chains longer than three cavities.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, coupled multi-cavity networks give an experimentally accessible path to denser spin-qubit registers than shared-cavity designs, because the transmission bottleneck seen for 100 qubits in one cavity is avoided by distributing qubits across cavities.
  • The type-B port layout, with input and output on one cavity, should be preferred for non-identical cavities, since it keeps transmission high for modes localized at the port cavity.
  • The $\sqrt{N}$ scaling law extends to modular geometries: adding qubits in any distribution across cavities leaves the collective Rabi splitting of a given photon mode growing as the square root of the number of coupled qubits.
  • Non-identical cavity frequencies suppress transmission only when the mismatch exceeds about $2t$; within that window, transmission stays above roughly 90% of the symmetric value, giving a concrete fabrication tolerance bound.
  • The same formulas apply to hybrid cavities with arbitrary qubit numbers per cavity by replacing $\xi_i$ with $\xi_i^{(N)}$, so the reported results cover mixed shared-cavity and modular layouts.
  • The paper's own text does not model chains longer than three cavities; a natural test of the scalability claim is to compute the transmission of a periodic chain of $M$ cavities and see whether the peak transmission and bandwidth remain stable as $M$ grows, or whether losses accumulate.
  • Because each photon mode couples qubits with mode-dependent weights, the modular architecture may allow addressing individual qubits or pairs by frequency and spatial mode structure, not only by magnetic-field tuning.
  • The type-B layout could serve as a building block for a routing bus in which one port cavity connects to many storage cavities, an extension suggested by the paper's equations but not developed there.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Formalized claims in Lean

  1. Claim #1: The paper establishes that a modular architecture of capacitively coupled microwave cavities, each hosting a small number of double-quantum-dot spin qubits, can replace the shared-resonator approach to scaling cavity-QED spin-qubit platforms. Its central quantitative result is a set of transmission amplitudes—Eqs. (16), (20), (25), (27), and (30)—obtained from input-output theory, showing how phot

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends the input-output treatment of a double-quantum-dot spin qubit coupled to a microwave cavity (Ref. [20]) to networks of two and three coupled cavities, each containing one or more qubits. It derives closed-form transmission amplitudes for two port geometries (type-A, with input and output on different cavities, and type-B, with both ports on one cavity), studies the effect of non-identical cavity frequencies, and analyzes hybrid systems with multiple qubits per cavity. The authors report that collective Rabi splittings follow the expected sqrt(N) scaling and argue that the modular architecture avoids the transmission degradation found when many qubits share a single cavity.

Significance. The paper's main asset is that the transmission amplitudes are explicit, analytically derived expressions that can serve as design tools for small multi-cavity modules. The sqrt(N) comparisons are internal consistency checks rather than fitted parameters, and the qubit susceptibilities are imported from independently published work. If the formulas are corrected, the paper provides a useful extension of Ref. [20]. The significance is limited by the absence of any analysis of chains longer than three cavities and by the lack of a loss, gate, or noise budget; the scalability claim in Sec. V therefore rests on an unverified extrapolation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II and Appendix B] Equation (6) and the Appendix B equations of motion write the cavity damping with a positive sign (+kappa/2 or +kappa_1/2), while Eq. (8) and the resulting transmission amplitudes in Eqs. (10), (16), (20), (25), and (27) require a negative damping term in the rotating frame. With the printed plus sign, an empty type-A cavity would show gain (transmission exceeding unity at resonance). As written, Appendix B therefore does not reproduce the central formulas. Please correct the signs and state once whether kappa/2 = kappa_1 = kappa_2 or kappa = kappa_1 + kappa_2.
  2. [Eqs. (11) and (19)] The resonance condition for B_z is dimensionally inconsistent as printed: inside the square root, B_x^2/omega_c has units of energy and 4t_c^2 has units of energy squared, so the argument of the square root is not dimensionless. A dimensionally consistent form in the same regime is B_z^res = sqrt(omega_c^2 - B_x^2 - 4t_c^2), i.e., both terms inside the original square root should be divided by omega_c^2. Equation (19) has the same problem. Because this condition determines the magnetic fields used in all transmission maps, the corrected formula should be used to check the figures.
  3. [Sec. V] The central conclusion that coupled multi-cavity networks 'push scalability beyond what any single-cavity can support' is not established by the two- and three-cavity results. No chain longer than three cavities is modeled, no loss budget for intermediate cavities or gate and noise analysis is provided, and the 'higher qubit densities' part of the claim is not quantified. For a type-A chain of N cavities, the end-cavity weight of an extended normal mode is approximately 1/sqrt(N), so the external-coupling linewidth narrows as kappa/N; combined with the disorder sensitivity already visible in Figs. 7 and 11, this is a concrete large-N degradation mechanism that the manuscript does not address. The paper should either supply a scaling analysis or bound for this mechanism or explicitly restrict the conclusion to few-cavity modules.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (13)] The term 'w_c' should be 'omega_c'; please scan for other instances where 'w' is used instead of 'omega'.
  2. [Fig. 12 caption] The caption lists 't_{c,L,3}' twice; the last equality should be 't_{c,R,3} = 24 micro-eV', and the value 24 micro-eV should be reconciled with the main-text value of 32 micro-eV for the shifted qubits.
  3. [Sec. IIIB] 'Rabbi splittings' should be 'Rabi splittings', and 'it's cavity' should be 'its cavity'.
  4. [Fig. 3 caption] 'In in all plots' contains a duplicated word.
  5. [Eq. (22)] The denominator 'Delta_R (Delta_L + i kappa_1 + kappa_2/2)' is ambiguous; it should be 'Delta_R (Delta_L + i(kappa_1 + kappa_2)/2)' if the sum of the two port rates is intended.
  6. [Appendix A] In Eq. (A2), the symbol r is introduced but the matrix entries below use combinations such as '2|t_c| + B_z / r'; please check this notation for consistency with the definitions of phi and r.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the multi-cavity transmission formulas are derived from input-output equations using externally published susceptibilities, and the sqrt(N) checks are consistency comparisons rather than fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the coupled-cavity extension. The single-DQD susceptibilities chi_01 and chi_02 are imported from Refs. [20,21], which are prior independent works by different authors (Benito et al. and Mielke et al.), not self-citations by Johnson and Sandler. The transmission amplitudes for two and three cavities, Eqs. (16), (20), (25), (27), (28), and (29), are obtained by solving the linearized quantum Langevin / input-output equations of motion presented in Appendix B; no parameter is fitted to force the reported spectra. The sqrt(N) scaling statements are presented as post-hoc consistency checks: Rabi splittings are extracted from independently computed transmission spectra (e.g., g_s,coupled ≈ 0.0221 µeV versus g_s,R ≈ 0.0155 µeV) and compared to the Tavis-Cummings expectation; the comparison does not define the quantity it claims to verify. The zero-qubit transmission expressions used to study cavity mismatch are special cases of the same equations with qubit susceptibilities set to zero, not a separate fitted input. The main scalability conclusion in Sec. V goes beyond the N = 2, 3 calculations, but an unsupported extrapolation is a correctness or scope concern, not a circularity: nothing in the paper defines the scalability claim in terms of the two- and three-cavity amplitudes, and the authors do not invoke their own prior work as the sole justification for any load-bearing step. No equation is equivalent to its input by construction; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; and no self-citation chain is used to forbid alternatives. Thus the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model imports the DQD spin-photon coupling and qubit susceptibilities from Refs. [20,21]; all numerical parameters are chosen by hand from experimental scales. The only structurally new input is the cavity-hopping Hamiltonian (t terms), and the scalability conclusion additionally assumes that two- and three-cavity behavior persists for larger networks.

free parameters (6)
  • Inter-cavity photon hopping t = 0.035 micro-eV (two-cavity); 0.01-0.06 micro-eV (three-cavity)
    Set by hand for each plot; controls band splitting and transmission. Treated as constant although t is proportional to the product of cavity frequencies (Ref. [30]).
  • Charge-photon coupling g_c = 50 MHz
    Fixed experimental-scale parameter from Ref. [20]; sets the scale of all Rabi splittings.
  • Qubit tunnel coupling t_c = 16 micro-eV, varied to 21-32 micro-eV
    Tuned per plot to achieve resonance or detuning; controls transition energies and dipole elements.
  • Micromagnet gradient B_x = 1.6 micro-eV
    Provides the spin-photon coupling mechanism; fixed in all simulations.
  • Cavity-port decay rates kappa_1 = kappa_2 = 0.9 MHz each
    Port couplings are set equal; determines linewidths and absolute transmission scale.
  • Qubit dephasing rate gamma_c = 90 MHz
    Charge-noise dephasing rate from Ref. [20]; broadens the transmission features.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Input-output theory with Markovian baths describes the driven cavity network; external ports provide the only dissipation channels.
    Used to derive equations of motion and transmission amplitudes in Sec. II and Appendix B.
  • domain assumption The DQD qubit is truncated to two relevant transitions (0 to 1 and 0 to 2); all other levels are ignored in the transmission calculation.
    Stated in Sec. II: 'considering transitions between two isolated states in the regime where omega_c is approximately B_z.'
  • domain assumption Rotating wave approximation is valid near resonance and the drive is weak enough that qubit susceptibilities chi_nm are linear responses.
    Invoked in Sec. II before Eq. (8); underlies all transmission formulas.
  • domain assumption Each qubit couples only to photons in its own cavity; there are no direct qubit-qubit interactions.
    Eq. (12) assumes no direct qubit-qubit interactions; Appendix B states qubit equations are unchanged because qubits interact with their own cavity photons.
  • ad hoc to paper The coupled-cavity results for two and three cavities extrapolate to larger modular networks without new loss or decoherence mechanisms.
    The Conclusion claims scalability beyond single-cavity designs, but no longer-chain analysis is presented.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin Qubits in Photon-Coupled Microwave Cavities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XMST6GJ7

@misc{pith2026260806859,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin Qubits in Photon-Coupled Microwave Cavities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XMST6GJ7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06859}
}
read the original abstract

Electron spin qubits in microwave cavities provide a promising platform for scalable quantum computing hardware, leveraging long coherence times, charge-noise robustness and cavity mediated qubit-qubit interactions. While the strong spin-photon coupling regime is accessible via on-chip micromagnets, scaling conventional architectures by placing multiple qubits within a single shared resonator degrades transmission amplitudes, hence limiting large-scale efficiency. To overcome this limitation, we analyze a modular architecture where individual cavities containing a limited number of qubits are coupled via single-photon-exchange waveguides. Using input/output theory, we compute the transmission amplitudes for networks of two and three coupled cavities in various configurations. We map out the distinct physical regimes accessible by tuning key system parameters, offering a viable pathway for scalable cavity-based quantum spin qubit networks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06859 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Rough sketch of a coplanar waveguide resonator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Transmission amplitude through a single cavity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Transmission amplitude through a single cavity for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Schematic diagram showing two possible layouts for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Transmission amplitude through a type-A two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Transmission amplitude through a type-B two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Transmission amplitude through (a) a type-A two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (a) Transmission amplitude through a type-A, three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (a) Transmission amplitude through a type-B three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Transmission amplitude through three-empty cav [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. (a) Transmission amplitude through a type-A 2- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [20]

    X. Mi, J. V. Cady, D. M. Zajac, P. W. Deelman, and J. R. Petta, Science355, 156?158 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [1]

    Non-identical cavities Since the fabrication of resonator cavities is never per- fect, we consider the possibility that the two cavities have different resonant frequencies (wc,L ̸=w c,R). Similarly to a change in the cavity coupling parametert, a change in the cavity frequencies will lead to new photon eigen- modes and accompanying transmission bands tha...

    work page

  3. [2]

    D. P. DiVincenzo, Fortschritte der Physik48, 771 (2000)

    2000

  4. [3]

    C. H. Yang, A. Rossi, R. Ruskov, N. S. Lai, F. A. Mohiyaddin, S. Lee, C. Tahan, G. Klimeck, A. Morello, and A. S. Dzurak, Nature Communications 4, 10.1038/ncomms3069 (2013)

    doi:10.1038/ncomms3069 2013

  5. [4]

    Burkard, T

    G. Burkard, T. D. Ladd, A. Pan, J. M. Nichol, and J. R. Petta, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 025003 (2023)

    2023

  6. [5]

    Yoneda, K

    J. Yoneda, K. Takeda, T. Otsuka, T. Nakajima, M. R. Delbecq, G. Allison, T. Honda, T. Kodera, S. Oda, Y. Hoshi, N. Usami, K. M. Itoh, and S. Tarucha, Na- ture Nanotechnology13, 102 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [6]

    X. Xue, M. Russ, N. Samkharadze, B. Undseth, A. Sam- mak, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Nature 601, 343 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    Scappucci, and S

    A.Noiri, K.Takeda, T.Nakajima, T.Kobayashi, A.Sam- mak, G. Scappucci, and S. Tarucha, Nature601, 338 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 43 references
  1. [8]

    J. Y. Huang, R. Y. Su, W. H. Lim, M. Feng, B. van Straaten, B. Severin, W. Gilbert, N. Dumoulin Stuyck, T. Tanttu, S. Serrano, J. D. Cifuentes, I. Hansen, A. E. Seedhouse, E. Vahapoglu, R. C. C. Leon, N. V. Abrosi- mov, H.-J. Pohl, M. L. W. Thewalt, F. E. Hudson, C. C. Escott,...

    2024

  2. [9]

    Takeda, A

    K. Takeda, A. Noiri, T. Nakajima, L. C. Camen- zind, T. Kobayashi, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, and S. Tarucha, npj Quantum Information10(2024)

    2024

  3. [10]

    C. H. Yang, K. W. Chan, R. Harper, W. Huang, T. Evans, J. C. C. Hwang, B. Hensen, A. Laucht, T. Tanttu, F. E. Hudson, S. T. Flammia, K. M. Itoh, A. Morello, S. D. Bartlett, and A. S. Dzurak, Nature Electronics2, 151 (2019)

    2019

  4. [11]

    Y.-H. Wu, L. C. Camenzind, A. Noiri, K. Takeda, T. Nakajima, T. Kobayashi, C.-Y. Chang, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, H.-S. Goan, and S. Tarucha, Npj Quantum Inf.10(2024)

    2024

  5. [12]

    De Smet, Y

    M. De Smet, Y. Matsumoto, A.-M. J. Zwerver, L. Try- puten, S. L. de Snoo, S. V. Amitonov, S. R. Katiraee-Far, A. Sammak, N. Samkharadze, Ö. Gül, R. N. M. Wasser- man, E. Greplová, M. Rimbach-Russ, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Nature Nanotechnology20, 866 (2025)

    2025

  6. [13]

    Bosco, J

    S. Bosco, J. Zou, and D. Loss, PRX Quantum5, 020353 (2024)

    2024

  7. [14]

    N.D.Foster, J.D.Henshaw, M.Rudolph, D.R.Luhman, and R. M. Jock, npj Quantum Information11, 63 (2025)

    2025

  8. [15]

    A. M. Pazhedath, A. David, M. Oberländer, M. M. Müller, T. Calarco, H. Bluhm, and F. Motzoi, Phys. Rev. Appl.24, 034029 (2025)

    2025

  9. [16]

    K. D. Petersson, L. W. McFaul, M. D. Schroer, M. Jung, J. M. Taylor, A. A. Houck, and J. R. Petta, Nature490, 13 380 (2012)

    2012

  10. [17]

    Beaudoin, D

    F. Beaudoin, D. Lachance-Quirion, W. A. Coish, and M. Pioro-Ladrière, Nanotechnology27, 464003 (2016)

    2016

  11. [18]

    J. J. Viennot, M. C. Dartiailh, A. Cottet, and T. Kontos, Science349, 408 (2015)

    2015

  12. [19]

    Borjans, X

    F. Borjans, X. G. Croot, X. Mi, M. J. Gullans, and J. R. Petta, Nature577, 195 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Benito, X

    M. Benito, X. Mi, J. M. Taylor, J. R. Petta, and G. Burkard, Physical Review B96, 10.1103/phys- revb.96.235434 (2017)

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    Mielke, J

    J. Mielke, J. R. Petta, and G. Burkard, PRX Quantum 2, 020347 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    A. R. Mills, C. R. Guinn, M. J. Gullans, A. J. Sigillito, M. M. Feldman, E. Nielsen, and J. R. Petta, Science Ad- vances8, 10.1126/sciadv.abn5130 (2022)

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    X. Mi, M. Benito, S. Putz, D. M. Zajac, J. M. Taylor, G. Burkard, and J. R. Petta, Nature555, 599 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    Samkharadze, G

    N. Samkharadze, G. Zheng, N. Kalhor, D. Brousse, A. Sammak, U. C. Mendes, A. A. Blais, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Science359, 1123 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Dijkema, X

    J. Dijkema, X. Xue, P. Harvey-Collard, M. Rimbach- Russ, S. L. de Snoo, G. Zheng, A. Sammak, G. Scap- pucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Nat. Phys.21, 168 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    S. G. J. Philips, M. T. Mądzik, S. V. Amitonov, S. L. de Snoo, M. Russ, N. Kalhor, C. Volk, W. I. L. Lawrie, D. Brousse, L. Tryputen, B. P. Wuetz, A. Sammak, M. Veldhorst, G. Scappucci, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Nature609, 919 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Thorvaldson, D

    I. Thorvaldson, D. Poulos, C. M. Moehle, S. H. Misha, H. Edlbauer, J. Reiner, H. Geng, B. Voisin, M. T. Jones, M. B. Donnelly, L. F. Peña, C. D. Hill, C. R. Myers, J. G. Keizer, Y. Chung, S. K. Gorman, L. Kranz, and M. Y. Simmons, Nature Nanotechnology20, 472 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    Schmidt and J

    S. Schmidt and J. Koch, Annalen der Physik525, 395?412 (2013)

    2013

  22. [30]

    A. J. Kollár, M. Fitzpatrick, and A. A. Houck, Nature 571, 45 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    D. L. Underwood, W. E. Shanks, J. Koch, and A. A. Houck, Phys. Rev. A86, 023837 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    Wang, A.-D

    H.-F. Wang, A.-D. Zhu, and S. Zhang, Opt. Express21, 12484 (2013)

    2013

  25. [33]

    C.D.Ogden, E.K.Irish,andM.S.Kim,PhysicalReview A78(2008)

    2008

  26. [34]

    Marcos, A

    D. Marcos, A. Tomadin, S. Diehl, and P. Rabl, New Jour- nal of Physics14, 055005 (2012)

    2012

  27. [35]

    A. D. Greentree, C. Tahan, J. H. Cole, and L. C. L. Hollenberg, Nature Physics2, 856?861 (2006)

    2006

  28. [36]

    D. G. Angelakis, M. F. Santos, and S. Bose, Physical Review A76(2007)

    2007

  29. [37]

    M. J. Hartmann, F. G. S. L. Brandão, and M. B. Plenio, Nature Physics2, 849 (2006)

    2006

  30. [38]

    C. W. Gardiner and M. J. Collett, Phys. Rev. A31, 3761 (1985)

    1985

  31. [39]

    J. D. Jackson,Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd ed. (John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1999)

    1999

  32. [40]

    Jaynes and F

    E. Jaynes and F. Cummings, Proceedings of the IEEE 51, 89 (1963)

    1963

  33. [41]

    Brune, F

    M. Brune, F. Schmidt-Kaler, A. Maali, J. Dreyer, E. Ha- gley, J. M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 1800 (1996)

    1996

  34. [42]

    Tavis and F

    M. Tavis and F. W. Cummings, Phys. Rev.170, 379 (1968)

    1968

  35. [43]

    Zhang, E

    X. Zhang, E. Kim, D. K. Mark, S. Choi, and O. Painter, Science379, 278 (2023), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.ade7651

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.