Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 66 references

Quantum discord of Ganssian states in an expanding universe

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cosmic expansion redistributes Gaussian quantum discord across the mode pairs it creates, with cross-observer boson-antiboson pairs acquiring the largest share.

desk verdict The discord-redistribution story is plausible, but the headline ordering is unsupported by an invalid application of the squeezed-thermal-state discord formula and a covariance-matrix convention mismatch. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08603 v1 pith:7XY4YTLT submitted 2026-08-09 quant-ph

Siwei Li , Xiaofen Huang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P4083C4783F05 PACS 03.67.-a04.62.+v
keywords quantumdiscordGaussianstatesexpandinguniverseRobertson-WalkerspacetimeBogoliubovtransformationcontinuous-variableinformationcosmologicalparticlecreationchannel
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 that cosmic expansion does not merely degrade quantum correlations: it redistributes continuous-variable quantum discord among the four mode sectors of a scalar field. Starting from a two-mode squeezed Gaussian state shared by two observers in the asymptotic past, the Robertson-Walker expansion is modeled as a Gaussian channel that creates particle-antiparticle pairs, so the final state has two bosonic modes and two antibosonic modes. The claimed effect is that the original discord between the two bosonic modes decays with both the expansion rate $\upsilon$ and volume $\epsilon$, while discord rises between the remaining mode pairs, with cross-observer boson-antiboson pairs acquiring the most, same-observer boson-antiboson pairs less, and antiboson-antiboson pairs least. The same calculation is used to argue that lower-momentum particles with an optimal mass are the best carriers of information about the expansion. If true, discord becomes a practical diagnostic of cosmological expansion parameters in continuous-variable settings.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the covariance-matrix description of Gaussian states evolving through the Bogoliubov transformation of the expanding spacetime. The expansion is encoded in the symplectic squeezing matrix $S_k$ of Eq. (16), built from $\theta_k^2 = \sinh^2(\pi\omega_-/\upsilon)/\sinh^2(\pi\omega_+/\upsilon)$, which maps the initial two-mode squeezed state into a four-mode Gaussian state; partial traces over the unobserved sectors then give the reduced covariance matrices $\sigma^{\rm out}_{AB}$, $\sigma^{\rm out}_{\bar A\bar B}$, $\sigma^{\rm out}_{A\bar B}$, and $\sigma^{\rm out}_{A\bar A}$ used for every pair. On top of that sits the closed-form discord expression of Eq. (24), derived for squeezed thermal states, which converts each reduced covariance matrix into the discord values plotted against $\upsilon$, $\epsilon$, mass $m$, momentum $k$, and initial squeezing $s$.

What would settle it

Evaluate the discord of the cross-observer reduced state $\sigma^{\rm out}_{A\bar B}$ by performing the constrained minimization in Eq. (21) numerically over the Gaussian measurement parameters $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)$, and compare the result with the value produced by the closed-form expression used in the figures. If the two disagree, the $\sigma^{\rm out}_{A\bar B}$ discord values, and the claimed inequality $D(\sigma^{\rm out}_{A\bar B}) > D(\sigma^{\rm out}_{A\bar A}) > D(\sigma^{\rm out}_{\bar A\bar B})$, are not supported by the paper's own general formula.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a redistribution law for Gaussian quantum discord in a 1+1-dimensional Robertson-Walker spacetime. As the universe expands, the discord initially loaded on the two bosonic modes $A$ and $B$ does not simply disappear: it is partially transferred to the mode pairs that exist only because of particle creation, namely the antibosonic pair $\bar A\bar B$, the cross-observer pairs $A\bar B$ and $\bar A B$, and the same-observer pairs $A\bar A$ and $B\bar B$. The paper reports a strict ordering of the induced discord, $D(\sigma^{\rm out}_{A\bar B}) = D(\sigma^{\rm out}_{\bar A B}) > D(\sigma^{\rm out}_{A\bar A}) = D(\sigma^{\rm out}_{B\bar B}) > D(\sigma^{\rm out}_{\bar A\bar B})$, and that all discord values react more strongly to the expansion rate $\upsilon$ than to the expansion volume $\epsilon$. It also reports that the discord response peaks at low momenta and at an intermediate mass, so low-momentum particles with an optimal mass are the most informative probes of the expansion. The claim is explicitly linked to the earlier finding that cosmic expansion does not generate entanglement for some of these pairs; the induced discord is therefore presented as a genuinely non-entangled quantum correlation created by spacetime dynamics.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the closed-form discord formula, which was derived for squeezed thermal states whose connecting block has equal and opposite entries, also gives the correct discord for the cross-observer reduced states whose connecting block is a multiple of the identity matrix; if the formula fails for those states, the reported ordering of induced discord is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A detector that measures discord across several mode pairs of a scalar field will see a signature of cosmic expansion that entanglement measures miss, because expansion does not generate entanglement for the same pairs.
  • The reported ordering $D^{\rm out}_{A\bar B} > D^{\rm out}_{A\bar A} > D^{\rm out}_{\bar A\bar B}$ provides a fingerprint that distinguishes spacetime-induced discord from local noise.
  • The stronger dependence on the expansion rate $\upsilon$ than on the expansion volume $\epsilon$ means discord-based probes are better suited to estimating how fast the universe expanded than how much it expanded.
  • To maximize the discord response, observers should select low-momentum modes and tune the field mass to an intermediate value, as stated in the paper's conclusions.
  • The decay of the initial pair's discord with expansion shows that the quantum advantage of pre-existing squeezing is drained into the newly created modes even though the total system is closed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same calculation could be repeated for a 3+1-dimensional expanding spacetime with a more realistic scale factor; whether the ordering of induced discord survives gives a measure of how much of the effect is tied to the 1+1-dimensional toy model.
  • The $\theta_k^2$ parameter is essentially the created-particle spectrum, so the discord curves could be re-expressed as functions of an effective particle-creation temperature; the paper does not make that thermodynamical connection.
  • The mass dependence suggests a resonance between field mass and expansion rate; fitting the discord-maximizing mass across different $\upsilon$ values would yield a relation the paper leaves implicit.
  • One could treat discord as a resource for parameter estimation and ask whether the reported ordering saturates the quantum Fisher information about $\upsilon$; that metrological extension is not attempted here.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies how a 1+1-dimensional Robertson-Walker expanding spacetime, modeled as a Gaussian channel via Bogoliubov transformations, redistributes continuous-variable quantum discord. Starting from a two-mode squeezed state shared by Alice and Bob, the authors trace out the antibosonic modes and compute the Gaussian discord for the Alice-Bob pair, the anti-Alice-anti-Bob pair, the Alice-anti-Bob (and anti-Alice-Bob) cross-observer pairs, and the Alice-anti-Alice (and Bob-anti-Bob) same-observer pairs. The central claims are that the initial discord decays while discord is induced in the other pairs, that the induced discord is largest for the cross-observer bosonic-antibosonic pairs followed by the same-observer pairs and smallest for the antibosonic pair, and that lower-momentum, optimally massive particles are the most sensitive probes of the expansion. The paper is self-contained once the Bogoliubov coefficients from Refs. [56-59] and the Gaussian discord formula from Ref. [20] are accepted, and it contains no fitted parameters.

Significance. If the central result were correct, this would be a useful contribution to relativistic quantum information: it would extend the study of Gaussian quantum discord from black-hole and Unruh settings to an expanding-universe setting and would make concrete, falsifiable predictions about momentum and mass dependence. The paper's strengths are its clean setup as a Gaussian channel, explicit covariance-matrix calculations, and systematic numerical exploration. However, the main qualitative conclusion (the ordering of induced discord among bipartitions) rests on applying the squeezed-thermal-state discord expression to a family of states for which that expression is not derived. Since the ordering is the paper's principal new claim, the significance is conditional on resolving that issue, and the current manuscript does not do so.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. II.B and Sec. III, Eqs. (24) and (29)] The paper's sentence in Sec. III that Eqs. (28)-(30) are combined with Eqs. (21) and (24) does not specify which formula is used for which reduced state. For sigma_out_{A-bar B} in Eq. (29), only Eq. (21) can be used, and the infimum must be evaluated numerically or by a new closed form. The authors should either supply the correct c1=c2 minimization and show that their figures survive, or revise the central claim. This issue is load-bearing for the abstract and conclusions.
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (26)] Equation (26) writes the vacuum contribution of the two antibosonic modes as the 4x4 identity I_{bar-A bar-B}. Under the covariance-matrix convention used to obtain the subsequent reduced matrices (27)-(30), the vacuum covariance is (1/2)I for each mode, not I. For example, Eq. (30) with theta_k=0 gives the B block as (1/2)I, which is the vacuum covariance in the standard normalized-quadrature convention. Thus Eq. (26) contains a factor-of-two inconsistency with the algebra that follows; if a reader takes Eq. (26) literally, the reduced states are multiplied by different factors and the discord values change. This does not by itself invalidate the central ordering argument, but it makes the derivation internally inconsistent and must be corrected for reproducibility.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title] The title contains a typo: 'Ganssian' should be 'Gaussian'.
  2. [Sec. II.B, Eq. (24)] In Eq. (24), the last term contains lambda_3 = det C, which for the squeezed thermal states with c1=-c2 is negative. The paper does not state how the argument of h(x) is regularized in that case; the definition of h(x) in Eq. (22) requires x >= 1. Clarifying the sign convention for det C would help readers reproduce the formula.
  3. [Sec. III, Fig. 2 caption] The caption says 'with fixed parameters k^2 = m^2 = upsilon = 1', which is dimensionally inconsistent; presumably the intended statement is k^2 = m^2 = upsilon^2 = 1 or k = m = upsilon = 1. Please clarify.
  4. [Sec. III, Figs. 7 and 8 captions] The phrase 'functions of the expansion volume' should read 'as functions of the expansion volume'.
  5. [Sec. II.A, text after Eq. (15)] There is a typo: 'were U_k = exp[...]' should be 'where U_k = exp[...]'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found; the derivation is self-contained given standard external results.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is linear and non-circular: it starts from the externally established Bogoliubov coefficients and Gaussian channel description of cosmological expansion (Refs. [56-59]), applies the symplectic transformation S_k of Eq. (16) to the initial two-mode squeezed state of Eq. (25), takes partial traces to obtain the covariance matrices in Eqs. (27)-(30), and then evaluates Gaussian discord using the closed-form expression of Eq. (24) taken from the independent reference [20] (Giorda and Paris). No parameter is fitted to the computed discord curves, no result of the present authors is assumed as an input, and the qualitative claims (monotonic decay of Alice-Bob discord, growth of induced discord in other pairs, ordering among mode pairs) are consequences of the plotted evaluations rather than premises. The only potentially load-bearing external ingredient that could be challenged is whether Eq. (24) remains valid for states whose off-diagonal block is proportional to the identity, as in Eq. (29); however, that is a correctness or validity concern about applying a cited formula, not a circularity in which a prediction reduces by construction to its own input. Self-citations such as Ref. [26] are used only to contrast entanglement non-generation with discord generation, and are not load-bearing for the main derivation. Accordingly, no circular step is exhibited, and the circularity score is 0.

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

All inputs are standard model choices or prior results; no free parameters are fitted. The single ad hoc item is the unproven extension of the squeezed-thermal-state discord formula to the c1=c2 cross-observer states.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The expanding spacetime is modeled by the conformal scale factor [a(eta)]^2 = 1 + epsilon(1 + tanh(upsilon*eta)), with epsilon and upsilon the expansion volume and rate.
    Taken from prior work Refs. [56-59]; the tanh profile is a specific model, not derived here.
  • domain assumption The cosmic expansion acts as a Gaussian channel with symplectic transformation S_k given by Eq. (16), mapping the in-vacuum to a two-mode squeezed state.
    Follows from the Bogoliubov coefficients Eqs. (7)-(9) and previous results; this is the central modeling device.
  • domain assumption The initial state is a pure two-mode squeezed Gaussian state, Eq. (25), and the two antibosonic modes start in the vacuum.
    Choice of input state; experimentally relevant but not derived.
  • ad hoc to paper The closed-form Gaussian discord formula Eq. (24) is valid for all reduced two-mode states considered, including those with off-diagonal block proportional to the identity matrix (c1=c2).
    Eq. (24) is derived for squeezed thermal states with c1=-c2; the paper does not justify its use for sigma_out_{A-bar-B} of Eq. (29).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum discord of Ganssian states in an expanding universe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7XY4YTLT

@misc{pith2026260808603,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum discord of Ganssian states in an expanding universe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7XY4YTLT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08603}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the redistribution of continuous-variable quantum discord within the framework of an expanding universe. We find that quantum discord exhibits stronger sensitivity to the spacetime expansion rate than to the expansion volume. As both the expansion rate and expansion volume increase, the initial quantum discord shared by the two bosonic modes decays, while quantum discord is induced in additional mode pairs by the underlying spacetime expansion, signaling a global redistribution of quantum correlations across the system. Specifically, the induced discord is largest for cross-observer bosonic-antibosonic pairs, followed by same-observer bosonic-antibosonic pairs, and smallest for the pair of antibosonic modes. Furthermore, our quantum discord analysis demonstrates that particles with lower momentum and optimal mass serve as more favorable candidates for extracting information about the expanding universe. This work substantially enriches the theoretical framework of quantum discord in expanding spacetimes, and provides new perspectives as well as a solid theoretical foundation for further investigations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08603 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Quantum discord [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Quantum discord [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Quantum discord [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Panels (a), (b), and (c) show the quantum discord [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Panels (a), (b), and (c) show the quantum discord [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Panels (a), (b), and (c) show the quantum discord [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Panels (a), (b), and (c) show the quantum discord [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Panels (a), (b), and (c) show the quantum discord [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [20]

    Giorda and M

    P. Giorda and M. G. A. Paris, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 020503 (2010)

    2010

  2. [1]

    Luo, Phys

    S. Luo, Phys. Rev. A77, 022301 (2008)

    work page 2008

  3. [2]

    Li and S

    N. Li and S. Luo, Phys. Rev. A78, 024303 (2008)

    work page 2008

  4. [3]

    Radhakrishnan, M

    C. Radhakrishnan, M. Lauriere, and T. Byrnes, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 110401 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [4]

    Inui and Y

    Y. Inui and Y. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. A102, 062419 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [5]

    J. Zhou, X. Hu, and N. Jing, Int. J. Theor. Phys.59, 415 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [6]

    Luo and S

    S. Luo and S. Fu, Phys. Rev. A82, 034302 (2010)

    work page 2010

  8. [7]

    Luo, Phys

    S. Luo, Phys. Rev. A77, 042303 (2008)

    2008

Show all 66 references
  1. [8]

    M. D. Lang and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 150501 (2010)

    2010

  2. [9]

    Li, Z.-X

    B. Li, Z.-X. Wang, and S.-M. Fei, Phys. Rev. A83, 022321 (2011)

    2011

  3. [10]

    Huang, Phys

    Y. Huang, Phys. Rev. A88, 014302 (2013)

    2013

  4. [11]

    Jing and B

    N. Jing and B. Yu, J. Phys. A49, 385302 (2016)

    2016

  5. [12]

    M. Ali, A. R. P. Rau, and G. Alber, Phys. Rev. A81, 042105 (2010)

    2010

  6. [13]

    Jing and B

    N. Jing and B. Yu, Quantum Inf. Process.16, 99 (2017)

    2017

  7. [14]

    Huang, New J

    Y. Huang, New J. Phys.16, 033027 (2014)

    2014

  8. [15]

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

    2013

  9. [16]

    B. Li, C. Zhu, X. Liang, B. Ye, and S. Fei, Phys. Rev. A 104, 012428 (2021)

    2021

  10. [17]

    C. Zhu, B. Hu, B. Li, Z. Wang, and S. Fei, Quantum Inf. Process.21, 264 (2022)

    2022

  11. [18]

    S.-Y. Liu, B. Li, W.-L. Yang, and H. Fan, Phys. Rev. A 87, 062120 (2013)

    2013

  12. [19]

    Prabhu, A

    R. Prabhu, A. K. Pati, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Phys. Rev. A85, 040102 (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    S.Zhang, L.-J.Li, X.-K.Song, L.Ye,andD.Wang,Phys. Lett. B868, 139648 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    X. Liu, C. Zeng, and J. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 539 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Q. Liu, S. Wu, C. Wen, and J. Wang, Sci. China Phys. Mech.66, 120413 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    J. Wang, C. Wen, S. Chen, and J. Jing, Phys. Lett. B 800, 135109 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    G. Mi, X. Huang, S. Fei, and T. Zhang, Ann. Phys. (Berl.) , 2400308 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Li, R.-D

    W.-M. Li, R.-D. Wang, H.-Y. Wu, X.-L. Huang, H.-S. Zeng, and S.-M. Wu, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 222 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    W. Li, J. Lu, and S. Wu, arXiv: 2505.07476

  20. [28]

    Wu, H.-S

    S.-M. Wu, H.-S. Zeng, and H.-M. Cao, Class. Quantum Grav.38, 185007 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    T. Liao, J. Yang, T. Zhang, and X. Huang, Results Phys. 70, 108169 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    A. Z. Kaczmarek, D. Szcz¸ eśniak, Z. B¸ ak, and R. Szcz¸ eśniak, Phys. Lett. B868, 139683 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    G. Mi, X. Huang, S. Fei, and T. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 354 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    Zhang, X

    T. Zhang, X. Wang, and S. Fei, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 607 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    A. Z. Kaczmarek and D. Szcz¸ eśniak, Phys. Lett. B848, 138364 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    A. Z. Kaczmarek, J. Gil, Z. Bąk, E. A. Drzazga- Szczęśniak, and D. Szczęśniak, arXiv: 2604.24976

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    Wang and D

    T.-Y. Wang and D. Wang, Phys. Lett. B855, 138876 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    S. Wu, J. Li, Y. Wang, S. Shang, and J. Lu, Eur. Phys. 8 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 m 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 D(σout¯A ¯B) ×10−7 ϵ= 0.1 ϵ= 0.3 ϵ= 0.5 ϵ= 0.7 ϵ= 0.9 (a) 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 m 0.0000 0.0004 0.0008 0.0012 0.0016 0.0020 0.0024...

    2025

  29. [37]

    S. Wu, H. Wu, Y. Wang, and J. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 865, 139493 (2025)

    2025

  30. [38]

    T. Liu, J. Wang, J. Jing, and H. Fan, Ann. Phys.390, 334 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    G.-W. Mi, X. Huang, and T. Zhang, arXiv: 2606.29144

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Xiong, Z

    Y. Xiong, Z. Pi, T. Zhang, and X. Huang, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 317 (2026)

    2026

  33. [41]

    B. Wang, Z. Y. Xu, Z. Q. Chen, and M. Feng, Phys. Rev. A81, 014101 (2010)

    2010

  34. [42]

    L.-X. Jia, B. Li, R.-H. Yue, and H. Fan, Int. J. Quantum Inf.11, 1350048 (2013)

    2013

  35. [43]

    Dakic, Y

    B. Dakic, Y. O. Lipp, X. Ma, M. Ringbauer, S. Kropatschek, S. Barz, T. Paterek, V. Vedral, A. Zeilinger, C. Brukner, and P. Walther, Nat. Phys.8, 666 (2012)

    2012

  36. [44]

    M. Gu, H. M. Chrzanowski, S. M. Assad, T. Symul, K. Modi, T. C. Ralph, V. Vedral, and P. K. Lam, Nat. Phys.8, 671 (2012)

    2012

  37. [45]

    T. K. Chuan, J. Maillard, K. Modi, T. Paterek, M. Pa- ternostro, and M. Piani, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 070501 (2012)

    2012

  38. [46]

    M.-L. Hu, X. Hu, J. Wang, Y. Peng, Y.-R. Zhang, and H. Fan, Phys. Rep.762, 1 (2018)

    2018

  39. [47]

    J. Ma, B. Yadin, D. Girolami, V. Vedral, and M. Gu, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 160407 (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    Y. Yao, X. Xiao, L. Ge, and C. P. Sun, Phys. Rev. A92, 022112 (2015)

    2015

  41. [49]

    K. C. Tan, H. Kwon, C. Y. Park, and H. Jeong, Phys. Rev. A94, 022329 (2016)

    2016

  42. [50]

    Hu and H

    M.-L. Hu and H. Fan, Phys. Rev. A95, 052106 (2017)

    2017

  43. [51]

    T. Liu, J. Jing, and J. Wang, Adv. Quantum Technol.1, 1800072 (2018)

    2018

  44. [52]

    T. Liu, S. Cao, S. Wu, and H. Zeng, Laser Phys. Lett. 16, 095201 (2019)

    2019

  45. [53]

    Wang and J

    J. Wang and J. Jing, Phys. Rev. A83, 022314 (2011)

    2011

  46. [54]

    A. J. Torres-Arenas, E. O. Lopez-Zuniga, J. A. Saldana- Herrera, Q. Dong, G. H. Sun, W. C. Qiang, and S. H. Dong, Phys. Lett. B789, 93 (2019)

    2019

  47. [55]

    S.-M. Wu, Z. Li, and H.-S. Zeng, Laser Phys. Lett.17, 035202 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    J. L. Ball, I. Fuentes-Schuller, and F. P. Schuller, Phys. Lett. A359, 550 (2006)

    2006

  49. [57]

    Martín-Martínez and N

    E. Martín-Martínez and N. C. Menicucci, Class. Quan- tum Grav.29, 224003 (2012)

    2012

  50. [58]

    X. Liu, J. Jing, J. Wang, and Z. Tian, Quantum Inf. Process.19, 26 (2020)

    2020

  51. [59]

    Fuentes, R

    I. Fuentes, R. B. Mann, E. Martín-Martínez, and S. Moradi, Phys. Rev. D82, 045030 (2010)

    2010

  52. [60]

    Einstein, B

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

    1935

  53. [62]

    C. M. Caves and B. L. Schumaker, Phys. Rev. A31, 3068 (1985)

    1985

  54. [63]

    B. L. Schumaker and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. A31, 3093 (1985)

    1985

  55. [64]

    Adesso, I

    G. Adesso, I. Fuentes-Schuller, and M. Ericsson, Phys. Rev. A76, 062112 (2007)

    2007

  56. [65]

    Adesso, S

    G. Adesso, S. Ragy, and D. Girolami, Class. Quantum Grav.29, 224002 (2012)

    2012

  57. [66]

    S. L. Braunstein and P. van Loock, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 513 (2005)

    2005

  58. [67]

    Simon, N

    R. Simon, N. Mukunda, and B. Dutta, Phys. Rev. A49, 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 ϵ 0 1 2 3 4 5υ 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.019 0.024 0.029 0.034 0.039 0.044 0.049 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.019 0.024 0.029 0.034 0.039 0.044 0.049 0.054 D(σout ¯A ¯B) (a) 0 1 2 3 4 5 ϵ 0 1 2 3 4 5υ 0.000 0.068 0.136 0...

    1994

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.