Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

A review of applications of Quantum Energy Teleportation: from experimental tests to thermodynamics and spacetime engineering

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Quantum energy teleportation can move energy without an energy carrier, and it can be engineered to produce negative energy densities that saturate fundamental quantum limits.

desk verdict Useful and mostly reliable QET review; fix the table contradiction, caveat the strong-coupling saturation claim, and disclose self-citations before acceptance. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04689 v3 pith:6SXX2PDR submitted 2025-05-07 quant-ph gr-qchep-th

Boris Ragula , Eduardo Martín-Martínez This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phgr-qchep-th PACS 03.67.-a04.62.+v
keywords quantumenergyteleportationstronglocalpassivitynegativedensityweakconditionalgorithmiccoolingUnruh-DeWittdetectorthermodynamicssuperconductinghardware
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

Quantum energy teleportation (QET) is a protocol in which one party measures a correlated quantum system and sends only the result to a distant party, who uses it to extract energy locally, without any energy-carrying pulse traveling between them. This review argues that QET is a general tool: it breaks the strong local passivity of entangled ground states, has been demonstrated in liquid-state nuclear magnetic resonance and on superconducting quantum hardware, and can cool individual qubits in strongly interacting systems better than standard algorithmic cooling. The farthest-reaching claim is that, applied to a quantum field through localized detectors, QET can create regions whose energy density lies below the vacuum value, with arbitrarily large depth as the region is made narrower. The authors state that this reaches the scaling limits set by the quantum interest conjecture, so the protocol is as efficient as quantum field theory allows at manufacturing exotic stress-energy configurations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the QET protocol itself: Alice's measurement does not commute with the interaction Hamiltonian, so it injects energy but also extracts information about the correlations; Bob's unitary, conditioned on that information, releases energy from his subsystem that local operations alone could not reach. In the field-theoretic setting the carriers are Unruh-DeWitt detectors, two-level systems with spatial smearing functions $\lambda(x)$ and $\mu(x)$ that couple to a massless scalar field at sharply switched times. The negative energy density arises from the interference term between Alice's and Bob's couplings, and the saturation argument is carried by the scaling pair $\lambda \to \Upsilon^{(n-2)/2}\lambda(\Upsilon x)$, $\mu \to \Upsilon^{n/2}\mu(\Upsilon x)$, which keeps Alice's injected energy constant and forces all stress-energy contributions to scale uniformly as $\Upsilon^n$.

What would settle it

Run the scaling relation of Sec. VI.D in a detector model that keeps higher internal levels and finite switching times: if the negative-energy depth stops growing as $\Upsilon^n$ once the coupling strength approaches the detector's level spacing, the saturation of the quantum-interest bound would be an artifact of the two-level truncation rather than a field-theory result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the QET protocol, local measurement, fast classical or quantum communication of the outcome, then a conditional local operation, can activate energy extraction from states that are passive under local operations alone. The review's strongest result is field-theoretic: when Alice and Bob are Unruh-DeWitt detectors (localized two-level systems coupled to a massless scalar field), Bob's operation leaves a region of negative average energy density behind, and the depth of that region can be made arbitrarily large by rescaling the detector couplings and the interaction region. Under the rescalings $\lambda \to \Upsilon^{(n-2)/2}\lambda(\Upsilon x)$ and $\mu \to \Upsilon^{n/2}\mu(\Upsilon x)$ in $n$ spacetime dimensions, every contribution to the field's stress-energy density grows as $\Upsilon^n$, so the negative well deepens without bound while its width shrinks as $1/\Upsilon$. The review presents this as saturating the quantum interest conjecture's bound on how much positive energy must repay a loan of negative energy.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that QET saturates the fundamental limits presumes that the Unruh-DeWitt detector model is still physically valid when the coupling strengths are rescaled without bound, meaning the detector remains a two-level system with negligible backreaction and instantaneous switching.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If QET is as efficient as claimed, there is no quantum-field-theoretic barrier to concentrating arbitrarily large negative energy in an arbitrarily small region, as long as the surrounding positive energy satisfies the repayment trade-off.
  • QET-based algorithmic cooling would outperform standard heat-bath methods for strongly interacting qubits with the same or fewer resources, turning ground-state entanglement from a liability into a coolant.
  • The two experimental implementations show that QET is not confined to ideal models: the protocol runs on molecular spin systems and on superconducting quantum processors.
  • The equivalence between the classical-communication and fully unitary versions of QET means that an experiment can choose whichever information carrier, a classical signal or an ancillary qubit, is easier to control.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the saturation law could be tested against detector models with more than two internal levels; if the $\Upsilon^n$ scaling survives, the result would be robust to the two-level truncation rather than an artifact of it.
  • Extension: the same correlation-harvesting mechanism that cools a qubit could be applied to continuous-variable or harmonic-chain systems, where the 'detector' becomes a continuum mode and the cooling rate may obey a similar saturation.
  • Extension: if negative-energy wells can be engineered in a laboratory, their gravitational backreaction, currently a formal prediction of semiclassical gravity, becomes a candidate for tabletop tests using optomechanical or atomic probes.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a review of quantum energy teleportation (QET). It first reviews strong local passivity and two QET formulations (minimal LOCC QET and fully unitary LOQC QET), then describes the first NMR implementation and a subsequent IBM superconducting-hardware implementation, then reviews QET-based algorithmic cooling, and finally reviews the use of QET to engineer negative stress-energy densities in quantum field theory. The central advertised claim is that QET can optimally generate negative energy densities and saturate fundamental scaling limits for violations of the weak energy condition, based on Ref. [17].

Significance. If the results reviewed here are correct, the manuscript provides a useful unified account of QET theory, experiments, and applications. Its strengths include the detailed reproduction of the minimal QET calculation in Sec. II, the careful timescale analysis of the NMR experiment in Sec. III, and the candid assessment in Sec. IV.B that the IBM implementation lacks a specified natural Hamiltonian and is therefore closer to a simulation than a true QET verification. The resource comparison in Sec. V is also informative. The main significance issue is that the headline claim about saturating quantum interest bounds is inherited from Ref. [17] and is presented without a critical assessment of the detector-model idealizations on which it relies.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV.A, Table I] The text near the end of Sec. IV.A states that 'for all of the quantum computers used, and for all combinations of h and k' the inequality |<V_ab>| > |<H_b>| holds. This is contradicted by Table I. For example, for ibmq lima with (h,k)=(1,0.2), the mitigated row gives <H_b>=0.0733 +/- 0.0032 and <V_ab>=-0.0655 +/- 0.0012, so |<V_ab>| < |<H_b>| and the reported E_U_b is positive (0.0078 +/- 0.0034). Similarly, ibm cairo with (1,1) gives E_U_b=0.0010 +/- 0.0070. The blanket claim is therefore false, and the conclusion that every tested backend demonstrated energy extraction must be qualified or corrected.
  2. [Sec. VI.D, Eqs. (135)-(137)] The asymptotic scaling claim is obtained by taking the detector couplings to scale as lambda -> Upsilon^{(n-2)/2} lambda(Upsilon x) and mu -> Upsilon^{n/2} mu(Upsilon x), so both couplings diverge as Upsilon -> infinity. The UDW model used in Sec. VI.A is a delta-switched, strictly two-level model. No argument is provided that the two-level truncation, the delta-switching idealization, and the neglect of detector backreaction remain valid in this strong-coupling limit. Without such an argument, the claimed saturation of quantum interest bounds is not established beyond the detector idealization and may be an artifact of the model.
  3. [Sec. VI.D, Eq. (137) and following paragraph] The text states that the maximum positive and negative energy densities 'increase linearly with the scaling constant Upsilon', but Eq. (137) gives a factor Upsilon^n, which is quadratic for n=2 and quartic for n=4, not linear. In addition, the statement for 3+1 dimensions that Delta E is proportional to 1/Delta r^3 does not follow from the preceding w -> w/Upsilon and d -> Upsilon^4 d scalings: for fixed w, the total negative energy scales as Upsilon while 1/Delta r^3 scales as Upsilon^3. These quantitative statements need to be corrected and reconciled.
  4. [Sections V and VI (overall)] The review's main positive claims in Secs. V and VI are drawn from Refs. [8] and [17], both co-authored or supervised by one of the current authors, and Secs. II and III rely on Refs. [5] and [6], which have the same overlap. The manuscript contains no disclosure of this self-citation pattern. A conflict-of-interest statement or an explicit acknowledgment of the overlap should be added.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. VI.A and Sec. VI.B] The text says the smearing functions are chosen to have compact support, but the Gaussian in Eq. (122) and the Lorentzian in Eq. (123) are not compactly supported. This should be clarified, for example by describing them as sharply localized approximations or by introducing a truncation.
  2. [Sec. II.A, Eq. (3)] The definition q^{ab}_{0,min} = min_alpha[q^{ab}_{i,alpha}] uses the index i instead of 0, which is inconsistent with the notation in Eq. (3).
  3. [Sec. V.B, Eq. (94)] The second term on the right-hand side is written as C_+^2 |0_a><0_b|; it should be C_+^2 |0_b><0_b|.
  4. [Sec. IV.A, Table I] The text says six IBM devices were used, while Table I reports results for only three backends. A sentence stating that the other three devices gave similar results, or a supplementary table, would make the comparison easier to follow.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The review's central optimality/saturation claim for negative-energy engineering is imported from the authors' own Ref. [17] rather than derived in the text.

  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. VI.D (final paragraph); advertised in Sec. I]
    "The authors of [17] discuss how the scaling laws obtained above saturate the scaling limits imposed by the quantum interest conjecture [47]. Consequently, the QET protocol is (at least theoretically) as efficient as it can be at creating negative energy density distributions and how much positive energy one has to create in the surrounding areas to make up for it."

    The headline claim that QET optimally generates negative stress-energy and saturates weak-energy-condition violation bounds is not established by the review's own equations. The scaling identity (135)-(137) shows only that a given UDW-model negative-energy profile can be uniformly amplified by rescaling couplings and widths; it does not by itself compare this scaling against the quantum interest bounds. The saturation and optimality conclusions are supplied solely by citing Ref. [17], which is co-authored by one of the present reviewers. Within this text, the central claim therefore reduces to a load-bearing self-citation rather than to an independent derivation or to an external theorem proved here.

full rationale

This is a review paper, and most of its technical content is self-contained or externally anchored: the minimal QET derivations in Secs. II.B-C are explicit; the NMR and IBM implementations compare analytical formulas to measured data; the algorithmic-cooling section reproduces formulas from [8] and compares to independent PPA/SRΓn-HBAC baselines; the UDW field-theoretic calculation in Secs. VI.A-B is carried out in the text (Eqs. 105-116). The only identified circularity is the final optimality/saturation step, where the text asserts that the scaling laws saturate quantum-interest bounds and that QET is as efficient as possible, citing the authors' own Ref. [17]. Because this is the review's most prominent claim and the proof is not reproduced, this is a load-bearing self-citation; however it is a single step and the rest of the paper has independent content, so the appropriate score is 4 rather than higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review contributes no new parameters; all free parameters listed are inherited from the cited papers. The central negative-energy claim rests on the UDW model and the unnamed scaling limit, which are domain assumptions rather than independently verified facts.

free parameters (4)
  • Optimized smearing parameters (x_b, sigma_a,b, delta_a,b, lambda_0, mu_0)
    Used in Sec. VI.B to maximize negative energy density for the compact, Gaussian, and Lorentzian profiles. These choices affect the depth and shape of the negative well.
  • Detector coupling scaling exponents = lambda -> Upsilon^((n-2)/2) lambda(Upsilon x), mu -> Upsilon^(n/2) mu(Upsilon x)
    Chosen in Sec. VI.D so that ||alpha|| stays constant and all energy terms scale as Upsilon^n. The choice xi=n/2 is needed for the saturation claim; other scalings would let positive terms dominate.
  • Bob's unitary angle theta (minimal QET) = cos(2theta) = (h^2+2k^2)/sqrt((h^2+2k^2)^2+h^2k^2)
    Hand-picked to maximize energy extraction in Sec. II.B; it is a derived optimum, not fit to data, but the review depends on it for the negative energy cost result.
  • POVM coefficients (m_alpha, l_alpha, gamma_alpha) for QET cooling
    In Sec. V.B the purification result depends on the choice of generalized measurement; the comparison in Fig. 14b uses a partial optimization of these coefficients.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard quantum mechanics and unitary evolution of closed systems
    Used throughout, e.g., Eqs. (19)-(32).
  • standard math SLP theorems of [5] are correct
    Sec. II.A relies on the three SLP theorems and their proofs in [5], which are not reproduced here.
  • domain assumption Unruh-DeWitt detector model captures essential atom-field interaction, including the two-level truncation, at arbitrary coupling strength
    Sec. VI uses UDW detectors with delta-switching and scales coupling without bound; validity at strong coupling is not verified.
  • domain assumption delta-switching idealization (instantaneous detector interaction)
    Used in Eqs. (105)-(106) to enable non-perturbative coherent-state calculations; physical detectors switch on and off over finite times.
  • domain assumption Equivalence between single shared-detector LOQC and two-detector LOCC scenarios
    Sec. VI.A and VI.C assume this equivalence, citing Appendix A of [17]; the proof is not reproduced in the review.
  • domain assumption Quantum interest conjecture [47] is the correct bound that QET saturates
    Sec. VI.D claims saturation of this conjecture; the conjecture itself is not proven and the saturation argument is cited to [17].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A review of applications of Quantum Energy Teleportation: from experimental tests to thermodynamics and spacetime engineering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6SXX2PDR

@misc{pith2026250504689,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A review of applications of Quantum Energy Teleportation: from experimental tests to thermodynamics and spacetime engineering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6SXX2PDR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04689}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum energy teleportation (QET) exploits the existence of correlations to enable remote energy transfer without the need for physical energy carriers between emitter and receiver. This paper presents a review of the thermodynamic foundations of QET and reviews its first experimental demonstration (performed using Nuclear Magnetic Resonance), along with its implementation on publicly available superconducting quantum hardware. Additionally, we review an application of QET in the field of quantum thermodynamics as an efficient algorithmic cooling technique to cool down individual parts of interacting systems. Finally, we will review how QET can be employed to optimally generate exotic quantum states characterized by negative average stress-energy densities, offering a new operational approach to engineering such states which are promising in the context of semiclassical gravity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04689 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Pictographic representation of the lattice for clus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The transcrotonic acid molecule and the labeled car [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Gate sequence used to prepare the pseudopure state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Decomposition of the An-mediated CNOT gate used in the preparation step of the ground state from the pseudopure state. In this figure, Rˆθ ϕ = exp(−iθ(cos(ϕ)ˆσx + sin(ϕ)ˆσy)/2), Rˆθ z = exp(−iθσˆz/2), and the multi-qubit operations are the amount of time the system evo…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: This figure displays the circuit diagram for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Quantum circuit used to measure Vˆab. Here we explicitly make note of the fact that Bob’s operation is con￾ditioned on the classical information he receives from Alice. This is a reconstructed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Quantum circuit used for the state preparation and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (Left) Graph structure of ibmq lima. (Right) Graph structure of ibmq jakarta [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Graph structure of ibm cairo. In comparing the values obtained through the quan￾tum computers with the analytical values, as well as with the values calculated by qasm simulator, we can see that each of the quantum computers are in fact com￾puting each of the expected…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Probability distribution for each of the computational basis states after applying the measurement calibration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: (Left) Initial and final purities of qubit B before [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Final purity of qubit B as a function of the inverse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Comparison between the fully unitary QET-based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: (Left) This figure shows the energy density at dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: (Left) Contour plots showing the energy den [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Optimization of entanglement harvesting with arbitrary temporal profiles: the limit of second order perturbation theory

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Hermite expansions enable closed-form computation and optimization of entanglement harvesting negativity for arbitrary temporal profiles, increasing harvested entanglement by orders of magnitude beyond second-order pe...

  2. Bose polarons as relativistic Unruh-DeWitt detectors: Entanglement harvesting from Bose-Einstein condensates

    quant-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A trapped impurity in a BEC is shown to be a controllable Unruh-DeWitt detector, with explicit 39K/87Rb parameters for observing entanglement harvesting.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [7]

    Ikeda, Demonstration of quantum energy teleporta- tion on superconducting quantum hardware, Phys

    K. Ikeda, Demonstration of quantum energy teleporta- tion on superconducting quantum hardware, Phys. Rev. Appl. 20 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [17]

    Funai and E

    N. Funai and E. Mart´ ın-Mart´ ınez, Engineering negative stress-energy densities with quantum energy teleporta- tion, Phys. Rev. D 96, 025014 (2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [8]

    N. A. Rodr´ ıguez-Briones, E. Mart´ ın-Mart´ ınez, A. Kempf, and R. Laflamme, Correlation-enhanced algorithmic cooling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [5]

    A. M. Alhambra, G. Styliaris, N. A. Rodr´ ıguez-Briones, J. Sikora, and E. Mart´ ın-Mart´ ınez, Fundamental limi- tations to local energy extraction in quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [6]

    N. A. Rodr´ ıguez-Briones, H. Katiyar, E. Mart´ ın- Mart´ ınez, and R. Laflamme, Experimental activation of strong local passive states with quantum information, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [1]

    Hotta, Quantum measurement information as a key to energy extraction from local vacuums, Phys

    M. Hotta, Quantum measurement information as a key to energy extraction from local vacuums, Phys. Rev. D 78, 045006 (2008)

    2008

  7. [2]

    Hotta, Quantum energy teleportation in spin chain systems, J

    M. Hotta, Quantum energy teleportation in spin chain systems, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 78, 034001 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [3]

    Hotta, Quantum energy teleportation: An introduc- 27 tory review (2011), arXiv:1101.3954 [quant-ph]

    M. Hotta, Quantum energy teleportation: An introduc- 27 tory review (2011), arXiv:1101.3954 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2011

Show all 47 references
  1. [4]

    M. Frey, K. Funo, and M. Hotta, Strong local passivity in finite quantum systems, Phys. Rev. E 90, 012127 (2014)

    2014

  2. [9]

    P. O. Boykin, T. Mor, V. Roychowdhury, F. Vatan, and R. Vrijen, Algorithmic cooling and scalable nmr quantum computers, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 99, 3388 (2002)

    2002

  3. [10]

    N. A. Rodr´ ıguez-Briones and R. Laflamme, Achievable polarization for heat-bath algorithmic cooling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 170501 (2016)

    2016

  4. [11]

    Raeisi and M

    S. Raeisi and M. Mosca, Asymptotic bound for heat-bath algorithmic cooling, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 100404 (2015)

    2015

  5. [12]

    Baugh, O

    J. Baugh, O. Moussa, C. A. Ryan, A. Nayak, and R. Laflamme, Experimental implementation of heat-bath algorithmic cooling using solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance, Nature 438, 470–473 (2005)

    2005

  6. [13]

    J. M. Fernandez, S. Lloyd, T. Mor, and V. Roychowd- hury, Algorithmic cooling of spins: A practicable method for increasing polarization, Int. J. Quantum Inf. 02, 461 (2004)

    2004

  7. [14]

    L. J. Schulman, T. Mor, and Y. Weinstein, Physical limits of heat-bath algorithmic cooling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 120501 (2005)

    2005

  8. [15]

    L. J. Schulman, T. Mor, and Y. Weinstein, Physical limits of heat-bath algorithmic cooling, SIAM J. Comput. 36, 1729 (2007)

    2007

  9. [16]

    Elias, J

    Y. Elias, J. M. Fernandez, T. Mor, and Y. Weinstein, Optimal algorithmic cooling of spins, Isr. J. Chem. 46, 371 (2006)

    2006

  10. [18]

    Hotta, Energy entanglement relation for quantum en- ergy teleportation, Phys

    M. Hotta, Energy entanglement relation for quantum en- ergy teleportation, Phys. Lett. A 374, 3416–3421 (2010)

    2010

  11. [19]

    Verdon-Akzam, E

    G. Verdon-Akzam, E. Mart´ ın-Mart´ ınez, and A. Kempf, Asymptotically limitless quantum energy teleportation via qudit probes, Phys. Rev. A 93, 022308 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    Verdon-Akzam, Probing Quantum Fields: Measure- ments and Quantum Energy Teleportation , Ph.D

    G. Verdon-Akzam, Probing Quantum Fields: Measure- ments and Quantum Energy Teleportation , Ph.D. thesis, University of Waterloo (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Boyd and L

    S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization (Cambridge University Press, 2004)

    2004

  14. [22]

    Watrous, The Theory of Quantum Information (Cam- bridge University Press, 2018)

    J. Watrous, The Theory of Quantum Information (Cam- bridge University Press, 2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    N. A. Rodr´ ıguez-Briones, Novel Heat-Bath Algorithmic Cooling methods , Ph.D. thesis, University of Waterloo (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    https://www.bruker.com

  17. [25]

    D. G. Cory, M. D. Price, and T. F. Havel, Nuclear mag- netic resonance spectroscopy: An experimentally acces- sible paradigm for quantum computing, Physica D: Non- linear Phenom. 120, 82 (1998), proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Physics and Consumption

    1998

  18. [26]

    M. H. Levitt, Spin Dynamics: Basics of Nuclear Mag- netic Resonance (John Wiley & Sons, 2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    Khaneja, T

    N. Khaneja, T. Reiss, C. Kehlet, T. Schulte-Herbr¨ uggen, and S. J. Glaser, Optimal control of coupled spin dynam- ics: design of nmr pulse sequences by gradient ascent algorithms, J. Magn. Reson. 172, 296 (2005)

    2005

  20. [28]

    J. P. Peterson, R. S. Sarthour, and R. Laflamme, Enhanc- ing quantum control by improving shaped-pulse genera- tion, Phys. Rev. Appl. 13, 054060 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    D. K. Park, N. A. Rodriguez-Briones, G. Feng, R. Rahimi, J. Baugh, and R. Laflamme, Heat bath al- gorithmic cooling with spins: Review and prospects, in Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) Based Quantum Com- puting, edited by T. Takui, L. Berliner, and G. Hanson (Springer New York, ...

    2016

  22. [30]

    N. A. Rodr´ ıguez-Briones, J. Li, X. Peng, T. Mor, Y. We- instein, and R. Laflamme, Heat-bath algorithmic cooling with correlated qubit-environment interactions, New J. Phys. 19, 113047 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    A. W. Overhauser, Paramagnetic relaxation in metals, Phys. Rev. 89, 689 (1953)

    1953

  24. [32]

    Niemczyk, F

    T. Niemczyk, F. Deppe, E. P. Menzel, F. Hocke, M. J. Schwarz, J. J. Garcia-Ripoll, D. Zueco, T. H¨ ummer, E. Solano, A. Marx, and A. Gross, Circuit quantum electrodynamics in the ultrastrong-coupling regime, Nat. Phys. 6 (2010)

    2010

  25. [33]

    Peropadre, P

    B. Peropadre, P. Forn-D´ ıaz, E. Solano, and J. J. Garc´ ıa- Ripoll, Switchable ultrastrong coupling in circuit qed, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 023601 (2010)

    2010

  26. [34]

    Forn-D´ ıaz, J

    P. Forn-D´ ıaz, J. J. Garc´ ıa-Ripoll, B. Peropadre, J.-L. Orgiazzi, M. A. Yurtalan, R. Belyansky, C. M. Wilson, and A. Lupascu, Ultrastrong coupling of a single artificial atom to an electromagnetic continuum in the nonpertur- bative regime, Nat. Phys. 13 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    S. W. Hawking, Black holes in general relativity, Com- mun. Math. Phys. 25 (1972)

    1972

  28. [36]

    Alcubierre, The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general relativity, Class

    M. Alcubierre, The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general relativity, Class. Quantum Gravity 11, L73 (1994)

    1994

  29. [37]

    M. S. Morris, K. S. Thorne, and U. Yurtsever, Worm- holes, time machines, and the weak energy condition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 1446 (1988)

    1988

  30. [38]

    G. T. Moore, Quantum theory of the electromagnetic field in a variable-length one-dimensional cavity, J. Math. Phys. 11, 2679 (1970)

    1970

  31. [39]

    Kuo and L

    C.-I. Kuo and L. H. Ford, Semiclassical gravity theory and quantum fluctuations, Phys. Rev. D47, 4510 (1993)

    1993

  32. [40]

    L. H. Ford, Quantum coherence effects and the second law of thermodynamics, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Series A, Math. Phys. Sci. 364, 227 (1978)

    1978

  33. [41]

    M. J. Pfenning, Quantum inequality restrictions on nega- tive energy densities in curved space-times , Ph.D. thesis, Tufts University (1998)

    1998

  34. [42]

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

    1976

  35. [43]

    DeWitt, General Relativity; an Einstein Centenary Survey (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1980)

    B. DeWitt, General Relativity; an Einstein Centenary Survey (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1980)

    1980

  36. [44]

    Lopp and E

    R. Lopp and E. Mart´ ın-Mart´ ınez, Quantum delocaliza- tion, gauge, and quantum optics: Light-matter interac- tion in relativistic quantum information, Phys. Rev. A 103, 013703 (2021). 28

    2021

  37. [45]

    Pozas-Kerstjens and E

    A. Pozas-Kerstjens and E. Mart´ ın-Mart´ ınez, Entangle- ment harvesting from the electromagnetic vacuum with hydrogenlike atoms, Phys. Rev. D 94, 064074 (2016)

    2016

  38. [46]

    Montero, M

    M. Montero, M. del Rey, and E. Mart´ ın-Mart´ ınez, Non- monotonic entanglement of physical electromagnetic field states in noninertial frames, Phys. Rev. A 86, 012304 (2012)

    2012

  39. [47]

    L. H. Ford and T. A. Roman, The quantum interest con- jecture, Phys. Rev. D 60, 104018 (1999)

    1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.