Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Photonic Energy-Coherence Theorem and Experimental Validations

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

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives and experimentally tests a device-independent wave–particle duality: for a single-photon qubit, the energy capacities obey $C_p^2 = C_d^2 + C_v^2$.

desk verdict Correct but elementary math, an honest experiment, and a device-independence claim that outruns the proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08483 v1 pith:7DIFT27A submitted 2025-06-10 quant-ph

Yan-Han Yang , Xin-Zhu Liu , Jun-Li Jiang , Hu Chen , Xue Yang , Xiao-Feng Qian , Shao-Ming Fei , Ming-Xing Luo This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords wave-particledualityenergycapacityquantumbatterysingle-photoninterferometrycoherencePolarizationTheoremthermodynamicsuncertaintyrelation
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 tries to establish a thermodynamic form of wave–particle duality: for a single photon treated as a two-level polarization qubit, the energy capacity $C_p$ of the state—the largest difference in extractable average energy over unitary operations—obeys $C_p^2 = C_d^2 + C_v^2$, where $C_d$ and $C_v$ are capacities extracted from the particle and wave configurations of a delayed-choice interferometer. If true, this turns the abstract notions of visibility and distinguishability into measurable energy quantities and makes the duality independent of the chosen representation space or measurement basis. The authors prove the equality from the Bloch-sphere decomposition of the density matrix, extend it to arbitrary bare Hamiltonians through a unitary transformation argument, and validate it on four single-photon states reconstructed by tomography with fidelities above 98%. The broader point is that quantum complementarity gains a concrete meaning in quantum thermodynamics: wave and particle attributes constrain how much energy a quantum system can store and deliver.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the energy capacity $C(\rho)$, defined as the difference between the maximal and minimal extractable average energies $W_{\max}-W_{\min}$ over the relevant unitary operations; for the bare polarization Hamiltonian $H=E|h\rangle\langle h|$ it equals $E$ times the Bloch radius. For the wave configuration the unitary is the polarizing-beam-splitter–phase-shift–beam-merging sequence $U_w$, giving $C_v=E\sqrt{S_2^2+S_3^2}$; for the particle configuration the unitary is $U_d=(\sigma_1\pm\sigma_3)/\sqrt{2}$, giving $C_d=E|S_1|$. The squared-sum identity $C_p^2=C_d^2+C_v^2$ follows directly from $r^2=S_1^2+S_2^2+S_3^2$, and this identity is the object the whole argument and experiment are built around.

What would settle it

Re-run the delayed-choice measurement with the photon's spectral or temporal mode deliberately mixed into the 'qubit' state; observing a deviation from $C_p^2=C_d^2+C_v^2$ that grows with the energy carried by those extra modes would show that the two-level assumption, not a universal thermodynamic law, is what makes the equality hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's claim is that every single-qubit state has three energy capacities—wave, particle, and total—and they are tied by a squared-sum identity, not merely an inequality. Concretely, with the bare Hamiltonian $H=E|h\rangle\langle h|$, the total capacity is $C_p=E\sqrt{S_1^2+S_2^2+S_3^2}$, the wave capacity from the interferometer is $C_v=E\sqrt{S_2^2+S_3^2}$, and the particle capacity from a single polarizing beam splitter is $C_d=E|S_1|$; these satisfy $C_p^2=C_d^2+C_v^2$, which also implies $\max\{C_d,C_v\}\le C_p\le C_d+C_v$. The paper presents this as a device-independent wave-particle duality, valid for any bare Hamiltonian by a unitary transformation, and as an energetic reformulation of the Polarization Coherence Theorem. The reported photon experiment checks both the inequality and the equality on four initial states, with the largest experimental deviation between the two sides of the equality below $0.0406E$.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the photon is exactly a two-level polarization qubit whose spatial, spectral, and temporal degrees of freedom contribute no energy, and that the state preparation is independent of the chosen bare Hamiltonian; if either fails, the measured energy capacities no longer equal the quantities in Eq. (6).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Visibility and distinguishability can be measured as energy capacities, so a photon's wave and particle natures become thermodynamic resources rather than purely abstract observables.
  • Because the relation is independent of representation space and measurement basis, the same squared-sum law should hold for spatial-path, spin, atomic, and other qubit degrees of freedom, not just polarization.
  • The equality is stronger than the usual duality inequality, so in bipartite settings the wave and particle energy capacities can serve as a witness for entanglement.
  • For two-level quantum batteries, the quadratic form replaces the linear coherent/incoherent energy decomposition, indicating that wave and particle capacities combine like perpendicular vector components.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The step that extends the equality to arbitrary bare Hamiltonians relies on an unproved 'source independence' assumption; testing the same protocol on a spin or atomic qubit whose Hamiltonian is not tied to the encoding basis would decide whether that extension is correct.
  • A frequency-resolved or temporally resolved photon experiment could probe the two-level truncation directly: if spectral or temporal modes carry energy, the measured capacities should drift away from $C_p^2=C_d^2+C_v^2$ by an amount set by those extra modes.
  • If the squared-sum relation is generic, then for any qubit battery the achievable wave and particle capacities lie on a quarter circle fixed by the battery's total energy capacity, which gives a simple design constraint for charging protocols.
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 defines three energy capacities for a single-qubit state under a bare Hamiltonian H=E|h><h|: the total capacity C_p, the wave capacity C_v (identified with fringe visibility), and the particle capacity C_d (identified with which-path distinguishability). It derives the identity C_p^2 = C_d^2 + C_v^2, calls this a device-independent wave-particle duality, and reports photon experiments with four prepared polarization states that are said to validate the inequality C_p^2 = C_d^2 + C_v^2 and the uncertainty-type bounds max{C_d,C_v} ≤ C_p ≤ C_d + C_v. The paper also claims an extension to arbitrary bare Hamiltonians via an argument in Appendix B labeled 'source independence'.

Significance. If the device-independence claim were fully established, the paper would offer a thermodynamically motivated reformulation of wave-particle duality, connecting quantum battery capacities to visibility and distinguishability. The algebraic core is exact and involves no fitted parameters; the four-state experiment is clean, with fidelities above 98%, and the reported discrepancies are small. The paper also correctly acknowledges a connection to the Polarization Coherence Theorem. However, the significance is substantially reduced by two facts: the squared relation is a direct consequence of the definitions of the three capacities in terms of the same Bloch vector components, and the device-independent extension beyond two specific Hamiltonians is asserted rather than proved. As it stands, the paper is best viewed as a reinterpretation of known single-qubit complementarity relations, not as a demonstration of a new device-independent uncertainty relation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B, final paragraph, Eq. (20)] The device-independence claim is not established. The step 'This combined with the source independence implies...' is asserted without defining source independence or proving that the optimized capacities C_d and C_v transform covariantly under the unitary U that maps |φ> to |0>_1. Trace invariance Tr(ρ \tilde H)=Tr(UρU†H) alone is insufficient, because C_d and C_v are defined through optimizations over unitary families U_d and U_w; for the equality to hold for \tilde H=E|φ><φ|, those families must also be conjugated by U, and the paper does not specify them for a generic \tilde H. This is a load-bearing gap: without it, Eq. (20) is only demonstrated for H=E|h><h| and H=E|0>_1<0|, not for arbitrary bare Hamiltonians.
  2. [Section II.D, Fig. 5, and Eqs. (9), (13), (14)] The experiment does not provide an independent test of Eq. (6). Because C_p, C_d, and C_v are defined directly in terms of the same measured Stokes parameters (S1, S2, S3), the identity C_p^2 = C_d^2 + C_v^2 holds by construction for every reconstructed state; the reported discrepancies of at most 0.0406E are a check of self-consistency of the tomography, not a verification of a nontrivial prediction. To support the claim of 'experimental validation,' the authors would need to measure the three capacities in genuinely independent ways, or to identify a regime in which the relation is not already guaranteed by the definitions.
  3. [Appendix B, opening sentence] The manuscript refers to a 'Work Capacity Theorem' section as the place where the proof is shown to be independent of the quantum state, but no such section appears in the submitted text. The only derivation of the capacities is the explicit calculation in Section IV.A, so the claimed generality of the theorem is not supported by any located proof. Please either supply the theorem and its proof, or remove the reference to it.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II.C heading] The heading 'Statical analysis' should read 'Statistical analysis'.
  2. [Section II.C, energy estimate] The sentence 'W=ETr(ρ|h><h|)≈Ep(a|x)' is unclear because p(a|x) is a conditional probability, not an energy; the relation between measured coincidence counts, the reconstructed density matrix, and the energy unit E should be stated explicitly.
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption says 'four initial states' but does not list them; the states are given only in the Fig. 4 caption. Please list all four states in both captions for clarity.
  4. [Abstract and Section III] The term 'device-independent' is used in a nonstandard way; the derivation assumes a trusted Hamiltonian and trusted unitary operations. The authors should either define the term precisely or replace it with 'representation- and basis-independent' until the general covariance proof is supplied.
  5. [Supplementary Material references] The text repeatedly refers to Supplementary Material for extensions and data, but the supplement is not included with the arXiv submission; please state which results are needed for the main claims and include the supplement in the submission.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The central squared-sum equality is an algebraic identity of the paper's own capacity definitions; the experimental 'validation' compares two sides computed from the same Bloch vector, and the thermodynamic packaging explicitly restates the Polarization Coherence Theorem.

  1. self definitional [Sec. II.A, Eqs. (2)-(6); Appendix A, Eqs. (9), (13), (14)]
    "Combining with Eqs. (2,3,4) implies a coherence uncertainty principle ... It further implies a strong energy duality equality as C^2_p(ρ)=C^2_d(ρ)+C^2_v(ρ). (6), where Cp(ρ)=rE, Cv(ρ)=V E, Cd(ρ)=|S1|E, r=sqrt(S1^2+S2^2+S3^2), V=sqrt(S2^2+S3^2)."

    The three capacities are defined from the same Bloch components: Cp=E sqrt(S1^2+S2^2+S3^2), Cv=E sqrt(S2^2+S3^2), and Cd=E|S1|. Substituting these definitions into Eq. (6) gives an algebraic identity: E^2(S1^2+S2^2+S3^2) = E^2|S1|^2 + E^2(S2^2+S3^2). No further physical principle, optimization, or data is needed. The 'derived' duality is a rearrangement of the definitions, so the central claim is equivalent to its inputs by construction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. II.D, Figs. 4-5]
    "The experimental values of both C_d and C_p are evaluated by implementing Pauli measurements σ_x, σ_y, and σ_z on each state. ... For the same initial states, we finally verify the capacity equality (6)."

    Both sides of Eq. (6) are computed from the same measured Bloch vector, or from the same W_phi curves, of each prepared state. Because Eq. (6) is an algebraic identity of those Bloch components, any noiseless reconstruction automatically satisfies it; the comparison in Fig. 5 is a consistency check rather than an independent test. The experiment cannot falsify Eq. (6) except through measurement error, so the 'validation' is forced by the way the capacities are obtained from the same input.

1 more flagged steps
  1. renaming known result [Sec. II.A, paragraph after Eq. (6)]
    "Moreover, it offers an alternative formulation of the Polarization Coherence Theorem [12], reinterpreted in terms of the extractable work capacities (2, 3, 4) (see details in Supplementary Material)."

    The paper's own text identifies the squared energy-coherence equality as a restatement of the Polarization Coherence Theorem (ref. [12], whose authors include a current co-author) in energy-capacity language. The thermodynamic vocabulary does not change the mathematical content; presenting the relation as a newly derived wave-particle duality is a renaming of a known result. Because the reference is explicitly acknowledged, this is mainly a novelty issue, but it is part of the same reduction-by-construction pattern.

full rationale

Equation (6) is obtained by inserting the paper's own capacity formulas: Cp=E sqrt(S1^2+S2^2+S3^2), Cv=E sqrt(S2^2+S3^2), and Cd=E|S1|. The equality then reads E^2(S1^2+S2^2+S3^2)=E^2|S1|^2+E^2(S2^2+S3^2), which is an identity for every qubit state. No independent physical input enters, so the central 'prediction' is self-definitional. The single-photon experiment cannot break this tautology because both sides of Eq. (6) are evaluated from the same reconstructed Bloch vector in Secs. II.C-D, making the agreement a consistency check rather than a test. The paper also explicitly states that the relation is an alternative formulation of the Polarization Coherence Theorem [12], so the thermodynamic packaging, while physically motivated, does not add independent content. A separate non-circular weakness is Appendix B: the passage from H=E|0>_1<0| to an arbitrary bare Hamiltonian relies on trace cyclicity and an undefined 'source independence' step, without proving that the restricted unitary families U_w and U_d transform covariantly. That is an unproved step rather than a reduction to definitions, but it undermines the advertised device-independence. Overall, the main duality relation is forced by the paper's own definitions, so the circularity score is high.

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

No fitted constants or invented entities appear: E is the known photon energy, and the Stokes parameters are measured state components. The central equality is a definitional identity, so the ledger is empty of free parameters but contains several domain assumptions about ideal qubit and interferometer behavior.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A two-level photon state is completely described by the 2x2 density matrix in Eq. (1), with all other photonic degrees of freedom irrelevant.
    Used throughout; if spatial/spectral modes contribute, the Bloch-sphere model and the equality fail.
  • domain assumption The 'energy capacity' of a quantum battery is defined as the difference between maximum and minimum average energy under unitary operations, following Ref. [30].
    The entire interpretation of Cp, Cd, Cv as energy capacities rests on this imported definition.
  • domain assumption The delayed-choice interferometer is represented by ideal lossless unitaries U_bs and U_phi with the bare Hamiltonian H=E|h><h|.
    Equations (10)-(14) assume ideal optics; experimental losses and mode mismatch are not modeled.
  • ad hoc to paper Any bare Hamiltonian can be mapped to H=E|0>_1<0| by a unitary state rotation, preserving the duality; the paper labels this 'source independence'.
    Appendix B uses this step to extend the result to arbitrary Hamiltonians, but the step is asserted rather than derived in detail.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Photonic Energy-Coherence Theorem and Experimental Validations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7DIFT27A

@misc{pith2026250608483,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Photonic Energy-Coherence Theorem and Experimental Validations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7DIFT27A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08483}
}
read the original abstract

Wave-particle duality, intertwining two inherently contradictory properties of quantum systems, remains one of the most conceptually profound aspects of quantum mechanics. By using the concept of energy capacity, the ability of a quantum system to store and extract energy, we derive a device-independent uncertainty relation for wave-particle duality. This relation is shown to be independent of both the representation space and the measurement basis of the quantum system. Furthermore, we experimentally validate this wave-particle duality relation using a photon-based platform.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08483 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Schematically extracting energy of one photon in a delay-choice experiment. The goal is to char [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Experimental setup for verifying the relations in Eqs. (5, 6). The first step is to prepare 810 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The extractable average energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Verifying the work relation in Eq. (5) with four initial quantum states (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The capacity equality (6) for the initial quantum state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Born and E

    M. Born and E. Wolf,Principles of optics: electromagnetic theory of propagation, interference and diffraction of light, Elsevier (2013)

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Colloquium: Quantum coherence as a resource,

    A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, and M. B. Plenio, “Colloquium: Quantum coherence as a resource,”Reviews of Modern Physics89(4), 041003 (2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Complementarity in the double-slit experiment: Quantum nonsep- arability and a quantitative statement of bohr’s principle,

    W. K. Wootters and W. H. Zurek, “Complementarity in the double-slit experiment: Quantum nonsep- arability and a quantitative statement of bohr’s principle,”Physical Review D19(2), 473 (1979)

    work page 1979

  4. [4]

    Simultaneous wave and particle knowledge in a neutron interferom- eter,

    D. M. Greenberger and A. Yasin, “Simultaneous wave and particle knowledge in a neutron interferom- eter,”Physics Letters A128(8), 391–394 (1988). 14

    work page 1988

  5. [5]

    Coherence and indistinguishability,

    L. Mandel, “Coherence and indistinguishability,”Optics Letters16(23), 1882–1883 (1991)

    work page 1991

  6. [6]

    Two interferometric complementarities,

    G. Jaeger, A. Shimony, and L. Vaidman, “Two interferometric complementarities,”Physical Review A 51(1), 54 (1995)

    work page 1995

  7. [7]

    Fringe visibility and which-way information: An inequality,

    B.-G. Englert, “Fringe visibility and which-way information: An inequality,”Physical Review Letters 77(11), 2154 (1996)

    work page 1996

  8. [8]

    Quantitative complementarity relations in bipartite systems: Entangle- ment as a physical reality,

    M. Jakob and J. A. Bergou, “Quantitative complementarity relations in bipartite systems: Entangle- ment as a physical reality,”Optics Communications283(5), 827–830 (2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Entanglement limits duality and vice versa,

    X.-F. Qian, A. Vamivakas, and J. Eberly, “Entanglement limits duality and vice versa,”Optica5(8), 942–947 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Quantum duality: A source point of view,

    X.-F. Qian and G. Agarwal, “Quantum duality: A source point of view,”Physical Review Research 2(1), 012031 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Quantum-classical correspondence for visibility, coherence, and relative phase for multidi- mensional systems,

    A. Luis, “Quantum-classical correspondence for visibility, coherence, and relative phase for multidi- mensional systems,”Physical Review A78(2), 025802 (2008)

    2008

  4. [12]

    Polarization coherence theorem,

    J. Eberly, X.-F. Qian, and A. Vamivakas, “Polarization coherence theorem,”Optica4(9), 1113–1114 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    Complementarity and polarization modulation in photon interference,

    A. Norrman, K. Blomstedt, T. Set¨ al¨ a,et al., “Complementarity and polarization modulation in photon interference,”Physical Review Letters119(4), 040401 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Hidden coherences and two-state systems,

    F. De Zela, “Hidden coherences and two-state systems,”Optica5(3), 243–250 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    Bridging coherence optics and classical mechanics: A generic light polarization-entanglement complementary relation,

    X.-F. Qian and M. Izadi, “Bridging coherence optics and classical mechanics: A generic light polarization-entanglement complementary relation,”Physical Review Research5(3), 033110 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    ¨Uber den anschaulichen inhalt der quantentheoretischen kinematik und mechanik,

    W. Heisenberg, “ ¨Uber den anschaulichen inhalt der quantentheoretischen kinematik und mechanik,” Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik43(3), 172–198 (1927)

    1927

  9. [17]

    Uncertainty in quantum measurements,

    D. Deutsch, “Uncertainty in quantum measurements,”Physical Review Letters50(9), 631 (1983)

    1983

  10. [18]

    Generalized entropic uncertainty relations,

    H. Maassen and J. B. Uffink, “Generalized entropic uncertainty relations,”Physical Review Letters 60(12), 1103 (1988)

    1988

  11. [19]

    Universal uncertainty relations,

    S. Friedland, V. Gheorghiu, and G. Gour, “Universal uncertainty relations,”Physical review letters 111(23), 230401 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    Improved quantum entropic uncertainty relations,

    Z. Chen, Z. Ma, Y. Xiao,et al., “Improved quantum entropic uncertainty relations,”Physical Review A98(4), 042305 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Entropic uncertainty relations and their applications,

    P. J. Coles, M. Berta, M. Tomamichel,et al., “Entropic uncertainty relations and their applications,” Reviews of Modern Physics89(1), 015002 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Tighter generalized entropic uncertainty relations in multipartite sys- tems,

    L. Wu, L. Ye, and D. Wang, “Tighter generalized entropic uncertainty relations in multipartite sys- tems,”Physical Review A106(6), 062219 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    Optimized entropic uncertainty relations for multiple measure- ments,

    B.-F. Xie, F. Ming, D. Wang,et al., “Optimized entropic uncertainty relations for multiple measure- ments,”Physical Review A104(6), 062204 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Experimental demonstration of the equivalence of entropic uncertainty with wave-particle duality,

    D. Spegel-Lexne, S. G´ omez, J. Argillander,et al., “Experimental demonstration of the equivalence of entropic uncertainty with wave-particle duality,”Science advances10(49), eadr2007 (2024). 15

    2024

  17. [25]

    In situ imaging of a single-atom wave packet in continuous space,

    J. Verstraten, K. Dai, M. Dixmerias,et al., “In situ imaging of a single-atom wave packet in continuous space,”Physical Review Letters134(8), 083403 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    Maximal work extraction from finite quan- tum systems,

    A. E. Allahverdyan, R. Balian, and T. M. Nieuwenhuizen, “Maximal work extraction from finite quan- tum systems,”Europhysics Letters67(4), 565 (2004)

    2004

  19. [27]

    Quantacell: powerful charging of quantum batteries,

    F. C. Binder, S. Vinjanampathy, K. Modi,et al., “Quantacell: powerful charging of quantum batteries,” New Journal of Physics17(7), 075015 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    Extractable work from correlations,

    M. Perarnau-Llobet, K. V. Hovhannisyan, M. Huber,et al., “Extractable work from correlations,” Physical Review X5(4), 041011 (2015)

    2015

  21. [29]

    Extractable work, the role of correlations, and asymptotic freedom in quantum batteries,

    G. M. Andolina, M. Keck, A. Mari,et al., “Extractable work, the role of correlations, and asymptotic freedom in quantum batteries,”Physical Review Letters122(4), 047702 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    Battery capacity of energy-storing quantum systems,

    X. Yang, Y.-H. Yang, M. Alimuddin,et al., “Battery capacity of energy-storing quantum systems,” Physical Review Letters131(3), 030402 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Proposal for a quantum delayed-choice experiment,

    R. Ionicioiu and D. R. Terno, “Proposal for a quantum delayed-choice experiment,”Physical Review Letters107(23), 230406 (2011)

    2011

  24. [32]

    Entanglement-enabled delayed-choice experiment,

    F. Kaiser, T. Coudreau, P. Milman,et al., “Entanglement-enabled delayed-choice experiment,”Science 338(6107), 637–640 (2012)

    2012

  25. [33]

    A quantum delayed-choice experiment,

    A. Peruzzo, P. Shadbolt, N. Brunner,et al., “A quantum delayed-choice experiment,”Science 338(6107), 634–637 (2012)

    2012

  26. [34]

    Delayed-choice gedanken experiments and their realizations,

    X.-s. Ma, J. Kofler, and A. Zeilinger, “Delayed-choice gedanken experiments and their realizations,” Reviews of Modern Physics88(1), 015005 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    Quantum coherence and ergotropy,

    G. Francica, F. C. Binder, G. Guarnieri,et al., “Quantum coherence and ergotropy,”Physical Review Letters125(18), 180603 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    High-power collective charging of a solid-state quantum battery,

    D. Ferraro, M. Campisi, G. M. Andolina,et al., “High-power collective charging of a solid-state quantum battery,”Physical Review Letters120(11), 117702 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Quantum speed-up in collisional battery charging,

    S. Seah, M. Perarnau-Llobet, G. Haack,et al., “Quantum speed-up in collisional battery charging,” Physical Review Letters127(10), 100601 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Quantum correlations and ergotropy,

    G. Francica, “Quantum correlations and ergotropy,”Physical Review E105(5), L052101 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Quantum advantage in the charging process of sachdev- ye-kitaev batteries,

    D. Rossini, G. M. Andolina, D. Rosa,et al., “Quantum advantage in the charging process of sachdev- ye-kitaev batteries,”Physical Review Letters125(23), 236402 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Quantum advantage in charging cavity and spin batteries by repeated interactions,

    R. Salvia, M. Perarnau-Llobet, G. Haack,et al., “Quantum advantage in charging cavity and spin batteries by repeated interactions,”Physical Review Research5(1), 013155 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Extraction of ergotropy: Free energy bound and application to open cycle engines,

    T. Biswas, M. Lobejko, P. Mazurek,et al., “Extraction of ergotropy: Free energy bound and application to open cycle engines,”Quantum6, 841 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    Quantum work capacitances,

    S. Tirone, R. Salvia, S. Chessa,et al., “Quantum work capacitances,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.02685 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Photonic state tomography,

    J. B. Altepeter, E. R. Jeffrey, and P. G. Kwiat, “Photonic state tomography,”Advances in Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics52, 105–159 (2005). 16

    2005

  36. [44]

    Measurement of qubits,

    D. F. James, P. G. Kwiat, W. J. Munro,et al., “Measurement of qubits,”Physical Review A64(5), 052312 (2001)

    2001

  37. [45]

    Quantum entanglement,

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki,et al., “Quantum entanglement,”Reviews of Modern Physics 81(2), 865–942 (2009)

    2009

  38. [46]

    Spin-chain model of a many-body quantum battery,

    T. P. Le, J. Levinsen, K. Modi,et al., “Spin-chain model of a many-body quantum battery,”Physical Review A97(2), 022106 (2018)

    2018

  39. [47]

    Coherence-powered work exchanges between a solid-state qubit and light fields,

    I. M. de Buy Wenniger, S. Thomas, M. Maffei,et al., “Coherence-powered work exchanges between a solid-state qubit and light fields,”Physical Review Letters131(26), 260401 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    Stable adiabatic quantum batteries,

    A. C. Santos, B. C ¸ akmak, S. Campbell,et al., “Stable adiabatic quantum batteries,”Physical Review E100(3), 032107 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    Superabsorption in an organic microcavity: Toward a quantum battery,

    J. Q. Quach, K. E. McGhee, L. Ganzer,et al., “Superabsorption in an organic microcavity: Toward a quantum battery,”Science Advances8(2), eabk3160 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    Enhancing the charging power of quantum batteries,

    F. Campaioli, F. A. Pollock, F. C. Binder,et al., “Enhancing the charging power of quantum batteries,” Physical review letters118(15), 150601 (2017)

    2017

  43. [51]

    Experimental investigation of a quantum battery using star-topology nmr spin systems,

    J. Joshi and T. Mahesh, “Experimental investigation of a quantum battery using star-topology nmr spin systems,”Physical Review A106(4), 042601 (2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    Optimal charging of a superconducting quantum battery,

    C.-K. Hu, J. Qiu, P. J. Souza,et al., “Optimal charging of a superconducting quantum battery,” Quantum Science and Technology7(4), 045018 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    Qutrit quantum battery: Comparing different charging protocols,

    G. Gemme, M. Grossi, S. Vallecorsa,et al., “Qutrit quantum battery: Comparing different charging protocols,”Physical Review Research6(2), 023091 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    Energy-conversion device using a quantum engine with the work medium of two-atom entanglement,

    J.-W. Zhang, B. Wang, W.-F. Yuan,et al., “Energy-conversion device using a quantum engine with the work medium of two-atom entanglement,”Physical Review Letters132(18), 180401 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

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