Pith. sign in

REVIEW 7 minor 58 references

Entanglement balance of quantum $(e,2e)$ scattering processes

T0 review · 0 major / 7 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 Spin entanglement produced in an (e,2e) collision can be read off from measured cross sections, even for unpolarized electrons.

desk verdict A clean, internally consistent derivation of spin-entanglement measures from (e,2e) cross sections, with the main caveat being the effective-distinguishability assumption for the outgoing electrons. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04508 v1 pith:JHCOWC57 submitted 2019-08-13 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

Konstantin A. Kouzakov , Levan Chotorlishvili , Jonas Wätzel , Jamal Berakdar , Arthur Ernst This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph PACS 03.65.Ud34.80.Dp
keywords quantumentanglement(e2e)scatteringspintripledifferentialcrosssectionconcurrenceBellinequalitytime-dependenttheoryatomichydrogenionization
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 sets out to show that an ionizing electron–atom collision can act as a controllable source of spin-entangled electron pairs, and that the entanglement it creates is not hidden in unobservable phases but is encoded in ordinary spin-resolved scattering cross sections. Working in time-dependent scattering theory so that the incoming and outgoing electrons are spatially separated wave packets, the authors derive the final two-electron spin density matrix from the direct and exchange scattering amplitudes. They express the pair concurrence—the standard entanglement measure for pure or mixed two-qubit states—in terms of the spin-resolved triple differential cross sections. The central result is that for initially unpolarized electrons the final concurrence equals the normalized excess of the singlet over the triplet part of the cross section, $(I_s-I_t)/(I_s+I_t)$ when $I_s>I_t$ and zero otherwise. If correct, this makes the positive entanglement balance of the collision an experimentally accessible quantity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-electron spin density matrix in the final channel, built from the direct and exchange scattering amplitudes $t_d$ and $t_e$; the ratio and relative phase of these two amplitudes decide how much singlet versus triplet character the outgoing pair carries. The paper analyzes it with the pair concurrence and entanglement of formation, and rewrites every entanglement criterion in terms of spin-resolved TDCS components $I_{\uparrow\uparrow}$, $I^{(\mathrm{d})}_{\uparrow\downarrow}$, and $I^{(\mathrm{e})}_{\uparrow\downarrow}$. The identity that carries the main result is the decomposition of the spin-averaged TDCS into singlet and triplet contributions $I_s$ and $I_t$, which turns the concurrence for unpolarized electrons into the simple positive part of $(I_s-I_t)/(I_s+I_t)$. Underpinning the whole construction is the time-dependent scattering formalism with localized wave packets, which prevents spurious entanglement from delocalized plane-wave states.

What would settle it

Measure the spin-resolved TDCS components $I_{\uparrow\uparrow}$, $I^{(\mathrm{d})}_{\uparrow\downarrow}$, and $I^{(\mathrm{e})}_{\uparrow\downarrow}$ for (e,2e) ionization of atomic hydrogen at equal energy sharing with unpolarized electrons, extract $I_s$ and $I_t$, and compare the inferred concurrence with a direct spin-correlation measurement on the outgoing pair. The paper's central formula predicts exactly $(I_s-I_t)/(I_s+I_t)$ when $I_s>I_t$ and zero otherwise; any regime showing $I_s>I_t$ with zero final entanglement, or nonzero entanglement with $I_s\le I_t$, would refute it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the spin entanglement of the two outgoing electrons in a nonrelativistic (e,2e) ionization is fully determined by the spin-resolved triple differential cross sections, with no need to know the microscopic scattering amplitudes. Concretely, for a pure initial spin state the concurrence is $C_f = |t_d t_e|(1-\zeta_1\cdot\zeta_2)/(|t_d|^2+|t_e|^2-\mathrm{Re}(t_d t_e^*)(1+\zeta_1\cdot\zeta_2))$, and after ensemble averaging the unpolarized case reduces to $C_f(P_{1,2}=0)=\theta(I_s-I_t)(I_s-I_t)/(I_s+I_t)$, where $I_s$ and $I_t$ are the singlet and triplet components of the spin-averaged TDCS. Thus a nonzero final concurrence appears exactly when the singlet scattering channel dominates the triplet one, and it reaches unity when triplet scattering vanishes ($t_d=t_e$), a condition symmetry permits at equal energy sharing. The paper also formulates a Bell-inequality test purely in terms of the spin asymmetry $A=(I_{\uparrow\downarrow}-I_{\uparrow\uparrow})/(I_{\uparrow\downarrow}+I_{\uparrow\uparrow})$, with violation of $A\le 1/\sqrt{2}$ indicating entanglement. Numerical 3C-model results for atomic hydrogen show that these conditions are met in the same angular regions where the TDCS peaks, so the predicted entanglement should be observable.

Load-bearing premise

The two outgoing electrons are treated as effectively distinguishable because they are detected in separated detectors, so the usual two-qubit concurrence is applied without exchange corrections; if residual indistinguishability remains, the derived density matrix and every entanglement formula built on it would need revision.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A coincidence (e,2e) experiment that records spin-up/spin-down final channels can certify the produced spin entanglement without needing any model of the collision dynamics.
  • Unpolarized electron beams and targets suffice to generate entangled outgoing pairs whenever the kinematics put the singlet channel above the triplet channel, so no spin-polarized source is required.
  • Measuring the spin asymmetry $A=(I_{\uparrow\downarrow}-I_{\uparrow\uparrow})/(I_{\uparrow\downarrow}+I_{\uparrow\uparrow})$ gives a Bell-inequality test: $A>1/\sqrt{2}$ rules out local hidden-variable descriptions.
  • In symmetric kinematics at equal energy sharing, target parity enforces $t_d=\pm t_e$, producing maximally entangled Bell states; atomic hydrogen is the concrete case where the paper computes this explicitly.
  • Because the entanglement formulas are expressed through cross sections rather than amplitudes, they are independent of approximations such as the 3C model, which enters only in the illustrative numerical results.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the entanglement balance is genuinely measurable, (e,2e) collisions could serve as a practical source of spin-entangled electron pairs for quantum information, since the unpolarized case avoids delicate spin-state preparation.
  • A direct experimental probe of the distinguishability assumption would be to tighten the detector solid angles or energy resolution: the two-qubit concurrence formula should hold only while the two outgoing electrons are cleanly separated, and exchange corrections should appear as the separation shrinks.
  • The same cross-section-based formulas should transfer to electron–electron collisions in solids or plasmas, where an equivalent spin-entanglement diagnosis could be made without spin-resolved detection of both particles.
  • The predicted overlap of TDCS maxima with entanglement maxima suggests a practical search strategy: locate the angular window of largest cross section and measure the spin asymmetry there, since maximal Bell violation is expected in the same window.
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

0 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper develops a time-dependent, wave-packet treatment of nonrelativistic (e,2e) ionization and analyzes the spin state of the two detected outgoing electrons. Treating the electrons as effectively distinguishable because they are registered in separate detectors, the authors derive the two-qubit final spin density matrix in terms of the direct and exchange scattering amplitudes and express the concurrence, entanglement of formation, and Bell-inequality violation in terms of spin-resolved triple differential cross sections. The central results are Eq. (32) for pure initial spin states, Eqs. (36)-(39) for polarized initial electrons, Eqs. (53)-(54) for unpolarized initial electrons, and Eqs. (55)-(56) for Bell's inequality. Numerical 3C-model calculations for electron-impact ionization of atomic hydrogen at equal energy sharing show that maximal entanglement and Bell violation occur near the symmetric kinematics where the direct and exchange amplitudes coincide.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper provides a model-independent way to infer the spin entanglement of the outgoing electron pair from measured spin-resolved cross sections, which is a substantive step beyond the usual pure-state or plane-wave treatments. The analytical derivations are internally consistent: I re-derived the pure-state concurrence (Eq. 32), the unpolarized mixed-state concurrence (Eq. 54), and the mixed-state Bell-asymmetry condition (Eq. 56), and found them algebraically correct. The limiting cases (td=te giving maximal concurrence, and ζ1=ζ2 giving zero) are reproduced correctly. The time-dependent formalism gives a principled resolution of the spurious-entanglement problem of delocalized plane waves, and the final formulas do not rely on the specific scattering model used for the numerics. The numerical 3C section is illustrative, but the main analytical results stand independently.

minor comments (7)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eq. (53)] The concurrence expression for the unpolarized initial state is stated without derivation. Since Eq. (54) is the headline result of the paper, please include the Wootters calculation from the averaged density matrix (Appendix B), or at least outline the steps connecting Eq. (53) to Eq. (54).
  2. [Appendix B] The statement that the unnormalized density matrices 'depend linearly' on ζ1 and ζ2 is imprecise: entries such as (1+ζ1xζ2x−ζ1yζ2y+ζ1zζ2z) are polynomial of degree two in the polarization components. The final replacement ζ→P is correct, but the explanation of the averaging should be revised.
  3. [Sec. IV, after Eq. (48)] The notation 'ζ1,2 = P1,2/P1,2' is a typo; it should read ζ1,2 = P1,2/|P1,2| or an equivalent definition of the unit vector along the polarization.
  4. [Sec. V.B, Eqs. (62)-(63)] The argument of the confluent hypergeometric function is garbled in the text ('−ikr−ikr' instead of e^{ik·r}1F1(iξ,1;−ikr−ik·r)); this should be corrected for readability.
  5. [Sec. II, after Eq. (20)] A brief discussion of when the two outgoing electrons are well separated in the detector basis would strengthen the effective-distinguishability assumption; the finite-detector-resolution case where the spatial modes overlap is not addressed, and a sentence acknowledging this limitation would be useful.
  6. [Throughout] There are several typos: 'infinum' should be 'infimum' (Sec. III.A), 'unpolzarized' should be 'unpolarized' (Sec. IV), and 'devises' should be 'devices' (Introduction).
  7. [Sec. VI] No numerical details are given for the evaluation of the six-dimensional integral (64) (quadrature method, grid, convergence criteria); a short description would improve reproducibility of the figures.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the entanglement measures are derived from first-principles scattering amplitudes and standard entanglement criteria, with no fitted input renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and independent of its own conclusions. The final spinor (Eq. 17) follows from the time-dependent scattering formalism, the antisymmetrized in-asymptote, and the standard S-matrix reduction to direct and exchange T-matrix elements; no quantity is defined in terms of the target result. The pure-state concurrence (Eq. 32) is obtained by inserting the reduced density matrix (Eq. 28) into the standard pure-state formula (Eq. 31), and the unpolarized pair concurrence (Eqs. 53-54) is computed from the statistically averaged density matrix (Eqs. 50-51), whose trace is the spin-unresolved TDCS (Eq. 52). The final expressions in terms of spin-resolved TDCSs (Eqs. 37, 54, 55) are exact rewritings of independently derived scattering-amplitude formulas, not fitted parameters renamed as predictions. The numerical input, the 3C T-matrix, is an established external model cited as Ref. [54], and the paper explicitly notes that the TDCS-based entanglement formulas are free of uncertainties in the scattering-amplitude approximations. The only load-bearing physical assumption, that the outgoing electrons are effectively distinguishable because they are detected in spatially separated detectors (Sec. II after Eq. 20 and Sec. IV), is a stated modeling assumption rather than a circular reduction; the cited support [43-45] is external and the consequence is a well-defined operational basis for the two-qubit concurrence. No equation in the paper is equivalent by construction to an assumed input, and no self-citation is invoked to forbid alternatives or to justify the central claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central formulas are derived from standard nonrelativistic scattering theory and standard entanglement measures. No data are fitted; the only hand-chosen quantity is the display threshold in Sec. VI. The main physical assumptions are spin independence of the interaction and effective distinguishability of the detected electrons. The numerical illustrations depend on the 3C model from the literature.

free parameters (1)
  • TDCS measurability threshold = 0.05 x max(TDCS)
    Introduced in Sec. VI to suppress values below experimental sensitivity in the figures; it affects displayed regions but not the analytic formulas or the central claim.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Standard nonrelativistic multichannel scattering theory with wave-packet in/out asymptotes and S/T matrices
    Used throughout Sec. II, following textbooks [34,35], to derive the final spinor (17) and density matrix (20).
  • domain assumption The projectile-target interactions are spin independent (no spin-orbit coupling)
    Invoked in Sec. II before Eq. (10) to factor the scattering operator out of the spin states; appropriate for nonrelativistic (e,2e) without spin-orbit terms.
  • domain assumption Outgoing electrons can be treated as effectively distinguishable due to spatial separation at the detectors
    Invoked after Eq. (20) and in Sec. IV so that standard two-qubit concurrence applies; supported by refs. [43-45].
  • domain assumption Initial wave packet is sharply peaked in momentum, justifying the on-shell replacement of T-matrices at p=k0
    Used in Eqs. (13)-(16) and Appendix A to factorize S-matrix elements and perform impact-parameter averaging.
  • domain assumption The 3C (BBK) model provides a valid approximation for the three-body Coulomb scattering state in (e,2e) on atomic hydrogen at 54.4 eV
    Used in Secs. V.B and VI for numerical T-matrices; an established approximation from Ref. [54], not derived here.
  • domain assumption Target is infinitely heavy and at rest
    Stated at the start of Sec. II, so center-of-mass and laboratory frames coincide.
  • standard math Entanglement of formation and concurrence correctly quantify bipartite entanglement for mixed states
    Adopted in Sec. III following Wootters [42].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Entanglement balance of quantum $(e,2e)$ scattering processes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JHCOWC57

@misc{pith2026190804508,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Entanglement balance of quantum $(e,2e)$ scattering processes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JHCOWC57}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04508}
}
abstract

The theory of quantum information constitutes the functional value of the quantum entanglement, i.e., quantum entanglement is essential for high fidelity of quantum protocols, while fundamental physical processes behind the formation of quantum entanglement are less relevant for practical purposes. In the present work, we explore physical mechanisms leading to the emergence of quantum entanglement in the initially disentangled system. In particular, we analyze spin entanglement of outgoing electrons in a nonrelativistic quantum $(e,2e)$ collision on a target with one active electron. Our description exploits the time-dependent scattering formalism for typical conditions of scattering experiments, and contrary to the customary stationary formalism operates with realistic scattering states. We quantify the spin entanglement in the final scattering channel through the pair concurrence and express it in terms of the experimentally measurable spin-resolved $(e,2e)$ triple differential cross sections. Besides, we consider Bell's inequality and inspect the regimes of its violation in the final channel. We address both the pure and the mixed initial spin state cases and uncover kinematical conditions of the maximal entanglement of the outgoing electron pair. The numerical results for the pair concurrence, entanglement of formation, and violation of Bell's inequality obtained for the $(e,2e)$ ionization process of atomic hydrogen show that the entangled electron pairs indeed can be formed in the $(e,2e)$ collisions even with spin-unpolarized projectile and target electrons in the initial channel. The positive entanglement balance---the difference between entanglements of the initial and final electron pairs---can be measured in the experiment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04508 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Spin-unresolved TDCS (a), pair concurrence (b), and entanglement of formation (c) as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Same as in Fig. 1, but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Same as in Fig. 1, but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Spin-unresolved TDCS (a) and the left-hand side of Bell’s inequality (55) [panels (b) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Same as in Fig. 4, but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Spin-unresolved TDCS (a) and the spin asymmetry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Thus, if the bipartite quantum state is pure, mixedness of the reduced density matrix expressed in terms of the entropy measures is a valid entanglement witness

    In contrast, in the case of the entangled pure state, the reduced density matrix ˆ ρ1 appears to be always mixed, i.e., Tr ˆρ2 1 < 1, and hence has a nonzero linear entropy SL = 1− Tr ˆρ2 1 > 0, which is a lower approximation to the customary von Neumann entropy S =−Tr(ˆρ1 log2 ˆρ1)≥ SL. Thus, if the bipartite quantum state is pure, mixedness of the reduc...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Moreover, it is also not necessary to carry out absolute measurements, for the knowledge of the I↑↑ and I↑↓ intensities on a relative scale suffices

    (43) The advantage of this representation is that the quantities I↑↑ and I↑↓ are in principle measurable with polarized initial electrons without invoking spin resolution of the outgoing electrons. Moreover, it is also not necessary to carry out absolute measurements, for the knowledge of the I↑↑ and I↑↓ intensities on a relative scale suffices. Finally, we...

    work page

  3. [3]

    unmeasurable

    (55) It is identical to Eq. (43), except for the replacement of the unit vectors ζ1,2 with the polarization vectors P1,2. When at least one of the electrons is unpolarized ( P1 = 0 and/or P2 = 0) the inequality takes the form A≤ 1√ 2, A = I↑↓−I↑↑ I↑↓ +I↑↑ , (56) whereA is the so-called spin asymmetry for ( e, 2e) scattering. Measuring A > 1/ √ 2 thus prov...

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Einstein, B

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

    1935

  5. [5]

    Bohm and Y

    D. Bohm and Y. Aharonov, Phys. Rev. 108, 1070 (1957)

    work page 1957

  6. [6]

    Stolze and D

    J. Stolze and D. Suter, Quantum Computing: A short course from Theory to Experiment (Wiley-VCH, 2007)

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

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

    2005

  8. [8]

    Horodecki, P

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

    2009

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Vidal and R

    G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032314 (2002)

    2002

  2. [10]

    Ollivier and W

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

    2001

  3. [11]

    Amico, R

    L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V. Vedral Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 517 (2008)

    2008

  4. [12]

    Molnar, J

    A. Molnar, J. Garre-Rubio, D. Perez-Garcia, N, Schuch, and J. I. Cirac, New J. Phys. 20, 113017 (2018 )

    2018

  5. [13]

    Vedral, M

    V. Vedral, M. B. Plenio, M. A. Rippin, and P. L. Knight, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2275 (1997)

    1997

  6. [14]

    Yu-Ran Zhang, Yu Zeng, Heng Fan, J. Q. You, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 250501 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    Budroni, A

    Huan-Yu Ku, Shin-Liang Chen, C. Budroni, A. Miranowicz, Yueh-Nan Chen, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. A 97, 022338 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    Marty, M

    O. Marty, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 105301 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    Das Sarma, Phys

    Dong-Ling Deng, Xiaopeng Li, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. X 7, 021021 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    K. Wang, X. Wang, X. Zhan, Z. Bian, J. Li, B. C. Sanders, and P. Xue, Phys. Rev. A 97, 042112 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Regula, M

    B. Regula, M. Piani, M. Cianciaruso, T. R. Bromley, A. Streltsov, G. Adesso New J. Phys. 20, 033012 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    del Campo, J

    A. del Campo, J. Molina-Vilaplana, and J. Sonner, Phys. Rev. D 95, 126008 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Wilde Phys

    Mark M. Wilde Phys. Rev. A 98, 042338 (2018). 29

    2018

  14. [22]

    Blattmann, H

    R. Blattmann, H. J. Krenner, S. Kohler, and P. H¨ anggi, Phys. Rev. A 89, 012327 (2014)

    2014

  15. [23]

    Galve, Leonardo A

    F. Galve, Leonardo A. Pachn, and D. Zueco, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 180501 (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    W. H. Zurek Physics Reports 755, 1 ( 2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    Yang, Chen-Hsuan Hsu, P.Stano, J

    G. Yang, Chen-Hsuan Hsu, P.Stano, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. B 93, 075301 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Kajari, A

    E. Kajari, A. Wolf, E. Lutz, and G. Morigi, Phys. Rev. A 85, 042318 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    M. Melz, J. W¨ atzel, L. Chotorlishvili, and J. Berakdar, Phys. Rev. B 98, 104407 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    Chotorlishvili, P

    L. Chotorlishvili, P. Schwab, Z. Toklikishvili, V. Skrinnikov Phys. Lett. A 374, 1642 (2010)

    2010

  21. [29]

    Chotorlishvili J

    L. Chotorlishvili J. Berakdar, Z. Toklikishvili, J. Phys. A 44, 165303 (2011)

    2011

  22. [30]

    Bose, Phys

    S. Bose, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 207901 (2003)

    2003

  23. [31]

    Y.-X. Liu, A. Miranowicz, Y. B. Gao, J. Bajer, C. P. Sun, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. A 82, 032101 (2010)

    2010

  24. [32]

    Azimi, M

    M. Azimi, M. Sekania, S. M. Mishra, L. Chotorlishvili, Z. Toklikishvili, and J. Berakdar Phys. Rev. B 94, 064423 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Zueco, G

    D. Zueco, G. M. Reuther, S. Kohler, and P. H¨ anggi, Phys. Rev. A 80, 033846 (2009)

    2009

  26. [34]

    P. Rabl, P. Cappellaro, M. V. Gurudev Dutt, L. Jiang, J. R. Maze, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. B 79, 041302(R) (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    C. T. Whelan, H. R. J. Walters, A. Lahmam-Bennani, and H. Ehrhardt (Eds.), ( e, 2e) & Related Processes (Springer Netherlands, 1993)

    1993

  28. [36]

    M. A. Coplan, J. H. Moore, and J. P. Doering, Rev. Mod. Phys. 66, 985 (1994)

    1994

  29. [37]

    J. R. Taylor, Scattering Theory: The Quantum Theory of Nonrelativistic Collisions (Dover, New York, 2006)

    2006

  30. [38]

    M. L. Goldberger and K. M. Watson, Collision Theory (Dover, New York, 2004)

    2004

  31. [39]

    Lamata and J

    L. Lamata and J. Le´ on, Phys. Rev. A 73, 052322 (2006)

    2006

  32. [40]

    Feder, F

    R. Feder, F. Giebels, and H. Gollisch, Phys. Rev. B 92, 075420 (2015)

    2015

  33. [41]

    Vasilyev, F

    D. Vasilyev, F. O. Schumann, F. Giebels, H. Gollisch, J. Kirschner, and R. Feder, Phys. Rev. B 95, 115134 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    Schliemann, J

    J. Schliemann, J. I. Cirac, M. Kus, M. Lewenstein, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. A 64, 022303 (2001)

    2001

  35. [43]

    G. C. Ghirardi and L. Marinatto, Phys. Rev. A 70, 012109 (2004)

    2004

  36. [44]

    Kessler, Polarized Electrons, 2nd Ed

    J. Kessler, Polarized Electrons, 2nd Ed. (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985). 30

    1985

  37. [45]

    W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2245 (1998)

    1998

  38. [46]

    M. C. Tichy, F. Mintert, and A. Buchleitner, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys., 44, 192001 (2011)

    2011

  39. [47]

    M. C. Tichy, F. de Melo, M. Ku´ s, F. Mintert, and A. Buchleitner, Fortschr. Phys. 61, 225 (2013)

    2013

  40. [48]

    R. L. Franco and G. Compagno, Sci. Rep. 6, 20603 (2016)

    2016

  41. [49]

    V. L. Shablov, P. S. Vinitsky, Yu. V. Popov, O. Chuluunbaatar, and K. A. Kouzakov, Phys. Part. Nucl. 41, 335 (2010)

    2010

  42. [50]

    C. J. Joachain, Quantum Collision Theory (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1975)

    1975

  43. [51]

    Mintert, A

    F. Mintert, A. R.R. Carvalho, M. Ku´ s, and A. Buchleitner, Phys. Rep. 415, 207 (2005)

    2005

  44. [52]

    Rungta, V

    P. Rungta, V. Buˆ zek, C. M. Caves, M. Hillery, and G. J. Milburn, Phys. Rev. A 64, 042315 (2001)

    2001

  45. [53]

    Bell, Physics 1, 195 (1964)

    J. Bell, Physics 1, 195 (1964)

    1964

  46. [54]

    B. S. Cirel’son, Lett. Math. Phys. 4, 93 (1980)

    1980

  47. [55]

    Mitchell, S

    P. Mitchell, S. Popescu, and D. Roberts, Phys. Rev. A 70, 060101(R) (2004)

    2004

  48. [56]

    Weigold and I

    E. Weigold and I. E. McCarrthy, Electron Momentum Spectroscopy(Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, 1999)

    1999

  49. [57]

    Brauner, J

    M. Brauner, J. S. Briggs, and H. Klar, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 22, 2265 (1989)

    1989

  50. [58]

    Ehrhardt, K

    H. Ehrhardt, K. Jung, G. Knoth, and P. Schlemmer, Z. Phys. D 1, 3 (1986). 31

    1986

Pith tools

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