Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 32 references

$\mathcal{PT}$-symmetry from Lindblad dynamics in an optomechanical system

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 The paper claims that an optomechanical state-transfer protocol realizes a passive PT-symmetric dimer whose strong-to-weak coupling transition marks the PT-breaking threshold.

desk verdict Useful mapping of lossy optomechanical state transfer to a passive PT dimer, with an exact single-excitation correspondence, but the multi-excitation postselection equivalence does not hold and the PT-phase interpretation of the multi-excitation numerics needs rework. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03240 v2 pith:O5FJMLBX submitted 2019-08-08 quant-ph

B. Jaramillo Ávila , C. Ventura-Velázquez , R. de J. León-Montiel , Y. N. Joglekar , B. M. Rodríguez-Lara This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords PTsymmetryoptomechanicsnon-HermitianHamiltonianLindbladmasterequationquantumLangevinexceptionalpointbeamsplitterstatetransfer
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 argues that a standard optomechanical state-transfer protocol, once linearized around a strong classical drive, is a lossy quantum beam splitter whose fluctuation dynamics realize a passive parity-time (PT) symmetric dimer. In the fixed-excitation-sector reduction, the relevant Hamiltonian is $H_{\mathrm{PT}}=g\sigma_x - i\Gamma\sigma_z$ with $\Gamma=(\gamma_a-\gamma_b)/4$, so the coupling-to-loss ratio $g/|\Gamma|$ separates PT-symmetric ($g>|\Gamma|$), exceptional-point ($g=|\Gamma|$), and PT-broken ($g<|\Gamma|$) regimes. The paper claims that the protocol's familiar transition from mode hybridization with state transfer to damped, effectively uncoupled dynamics is exactly this PT-breaking transition. It backs the claim by comparing full Lindblad/Langevin open-system dynamics with noiseless non-Hermitian evolution, finding exact agreement in the single-excitation subspace and the same three dynamical regimes for multi-excitation and N00N states, as well as at room temperature with thermal states. The result matters because it connects realistic open quantum systems to non-Hermitian physics and makes the PT transition controllable through the pump amplitude in a single device.

What carries the argument

The central object is the passive PT-symmetric quantum dimer Hamiltonian $H_{\mathrm{PT}}=g\sigma_x - i\Gamma\sigma_z$, obtained from the lossy fluctuation Hamiltonian by dropping the common decay term and projecting to a fixed total-excitation sector. This two-level non-Hermitian Hamiltonian carries the argument through its spectral phases: real eigenvalues with oscillating, hybridized dynamics when $|\Gamma|<g$, a coalesced exceptional point when $|\Gamma|=g$, and complex-conjugate eigenvalue pairs with a slowly decaying eigenmode when $|\Gamma|>g$. The comparison between open-system and non-Hermitian dynamics is made through the Lindblad master equation and the equivalent quantum Langevin equations, with the observables being the renormalized occupation numbers and first-order coherence defined in Eqs. (13)-(15).

What would settle it

Prepare a two-mode lossy beam splitter with unequal decay rates in the zero-temperature Fock state $|2,0\rangle$ and compare the renormalized occupation and coherence dynamics with the noiseless $H_{\mathrm{PT}}$ trajectory: exact agreement in this multi-excitation sector would disprove the claim that the proven equivalence is confined to single excitations, while a clear difference in the PT-broken regime would show that renormalized Lindblad observables are sector mixtures rather than the fixed-$N$ non-Hermitian dynamics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the linearized optomechanical beam-splitter Hamiltonian, with unequal electromagnetic and mechanical decay rates, is equivalent to the passive PT-symmetric dimer $H_{\mathrm{PT}}=g\sigma_x - i\Gamma\sigma_z$ when restricted to a fixed total-excitation sector, where $\Gamma=(\gamma_a-\gamma_b)/4$. Consequently the strong-coupling regime $g>|\Gamma|$ is the PT-symmetric phase, with hybridized oscillatory dynamics and equal eigenmode decay rates; $g=|\Gamma|$ is the exceptional point, where the eigenmodes coalesce and the approach to steady state becomes power-law; and $g<|\Gamma|$ is the PT-broken phase, with a slowly decaying eigenmode and damped, mostly independent mode dynamics. The paper demonstrates that at zero temperature the Lindblad master equation and the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian evolution are exactly identical for initial states in the single-excitation subspace, because the nonlinear loss terms collapse to linear ones there. For higher-excitation Fock states and N00N states the two dynamics differ in detail, but after instantaneous renormalization the full Lindblad dynamics still displays the same three regimes; at finite temperature the full Langevin dynamics for thermal states shows that state transfer occurs only for $g>|\Gamma|$, providing an experimentally accessible signature of the PT transition.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that instantaneously renormalizing the Lindblad density matrix is equivalent to postselecting on a fixed total-excitation sector; the paper proves this only for single-excitation states, because loss jumps move population between sectors for multi-excitation initial states.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the single-excitation subspace, zero-temperature Lindblad dynamics and non-Hermitian evolution are exactly identical, so single-photon states realize the passive PT dimer without any postselection ambiguity.
  • For multi-excitation Fock and N00N states, the renormalized open-system dynamics show the same PT-symmetric, exceptional-point, and PT-broken regimes, so the PT-breaking signature is robust beyond the exactly solvable sector.
  • At room temperature with thermal initial states, the presence or absence of optomechanical state transfer marks the PT-symmetric versus PT-broken phase, with the transition at $g=|\Gamma|$.
  • Because the effective coupling $g=g_0|\alpha|$ is set by the pump, a single optomechanical device can be swept across the exceptional point by adjusting the driving strength.
  • The asymptotic coherence $g^{(1)}(t)$ is maximal at the exceptional point, suggesting that the PT transition point may be the best place to preserve intermodal coherence.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A quantum-trajectory simulation with number-resolved photodetection could test whether the PT signature survives when one conditions on no-jump trajectories rather than on instantaneous renormalization; the paper's equivalence is proven only for the single-excitation sector.
  • The sector-mixing induced by loss jumps means that the renormalized Lindblad observables of the paper are weighted mixtures over excitation sectors; extending the comparison to second-order coherence or full counting statistics would reveal whether the multi-excitation agreement is a feature of the observables chosen or of the underlying dynamics.
  • If the coherence maximum at the exceptional point persists with both channels lossy and at higher temperatures, it could be used as a coherence-preserving operating point for quantum state transfer, a potential resource not explored in the paper.
  • The same reduction should apply to other red-sideband optomechanical protocols and to coupled waveguide arrays with unequal losses, so the passive PT dimer may be a common effective description of lossy beam splitters.
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 manuscript studies a linearized optomechanical beam-splitter system with unequal mode losses and argues that its dynamics realize a passive PT-symmetric dimer. The Lindblad and Langevin descriptions of the open system are compared with the non-unitary evolution generated by an effective non-Hermitian Hamiltonian H_L. In the single-excitation subspace the two descriptions coincide exactly (Eq. (12)). For multi-excitation states, the authors define instantaneously renormalized occupation numbers and coherences (Eqs. (13)-(15)) and claim that this renormalization is equivalent to postselecting onto a fixed total-excitation sector, which would make the numerical comparisons in Figs. 2-5 direct signatures of the PT transition. They also study finite-temperature thermal initial states and identify the strong-to-weak-coupling crossover with the PT-symmetry-breaking threshold g=|Gamma|. The central claim is that mode hybridization versus damped dynamics in this optomechanical state-transfer protocol is a signature of passive PT symmetry breaking.

Significance. If the mapping is valid, the paper provides a concrete optomechanical route to observing passive PT-symmetric dimer physics, with the exact single-excitation identity in Eq. (12) being a clean and useful result. The finite-temperature Langevin calculations use experimental parameters and yield a specific, in-principle testable threshold for the loss of state transfer at g=|Gamma|. The algebraic reduction of the lossy beam-splitter Hamiltonian to H_PT = g sigma_x - i Gamma sigma_z is correct and parameter-free in its derivation. However, the multi-excitation comparison rests on an invalid equivalence between instantaneous renormalization and fixed-N no-jump postselection, so the interpretation of Figs. 2-5 as clean PT signatures is not supported. In addition, the PT threshold is built into the construction by definition, so the paper's independent predictive content is mostly the single-excitation/no-jump mapping and the finite-temperature state-transfer switch, not a new prediction of the PT transition itself.

major comments (2)
  1. [II B, Eqs. (13)-(15)] The assertion after Eqs. (13)-(15) that "the process of instantaneous renormalization is equivalent to restricting to a fixed excitation number sector" and that postselecting to this sector is equivalent to measuring n_a(t), n_b(t), and g^(1)(t) is not valid for initial states with more than one excitation. Under the Lindblad equation, a loss jump transfers population from the N-excitation sector to the (N-1)-excitation sector, and the unconditional expectation values such as <c^dagger c>(t) are sums over all sectors. Dividing by <N> weights each sector by its excitation number, not by the no-jump probability, so the renormalized quantities in Figs. 2-5 are sector mixtures rather than the fixed-N no-jump trajectory generated by H_PT. A concrete counterexample is an initial state |2,0>: after one c-loss the system is in |1,0>, so <c^dagger c>/<N> mixes the N=2 and N=1 sectors, while the non-Hermitian evolution stays in the N=2 sector. Consequently, the statement that "Lindblad dynamics does not rise to a steady-state behavior ... solely due to the post-selection scheme" does not follow from the calculations presented. The exact single-excitation identity in Eq. (12) is a special case and does not generalize. Please either replace the renormalization procedure with an explicit no-jump quantum-trajectory postselection, which would make the comparison exact, or revise the interpretation of Figs. 2-5 to state explicitly that the Lindblad results include sector-mixing corrections that are not part of the PT-dimer comparison. This change is also needed to resolve the internal inconsistency with the Conclusion, which states that multi-excitation Lindblad and non-Hermitian dynamics are "not identical."
  2. [II A, Eq. (9) and Fig. 6] The PT-symmetric and PT-broken phases are introduced by construction: Eq. (8) is rewritten in a fixed-N sector as a common loss term plus H_PT, whose eigenvalues are ±sqrt(g^2 - Gamma^2). The threshold g=|Gamma| is therefore a property of the effective dimer by definition. Identifying the strong-to-weak-coupling transition in the optomechanical state-transfer protocol with this threshold, as done in the abstract and in the discussion of Fig. 6, is mathematically correct but is a relabeling of the known spectrum rather than an independent prediction. The finite-temperature Langevin dynamics of Fig. 6 are not themselves governed by a PT-symmetric Hamiltonian; they are full open-system dynamics. Please state explicitly that the mapping to a passive PT dimer is an exact algebraic correspondence in the no-loss/no-jump sector and that the finite-temperature results are an experimentally accessible signature of the same threshold, not a direct realization of H_PT. This clarification is important for calibrating the paper's novelty.
minor comments (5)
  1. [II B, text before Fig. 3] The sentence "Figure 3 shows the real (blue) and imaginary (blue) parts" contains a typo; the imaginary part is plotted in red according to the figure caption, so it should read "imaginary (red)."
  2. [II B, Figs. 1-5] The notation n_a(t) and n_b(t) is used for raw expectation values in the single-excitation discussion and for renormalized quantities defined in Eqs. (13)-(14) in the multi-excitation sections. Please define in the figure captions whether the plotted quantities are raw, normalized by <N>, or conditional on no loss, to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [II B, Fig. 5] The claim that the coherence is "maximum at the exceptional point" should be quantified, since g^(1)(t) is complex and time-dependent; please specify in what norm or at what time the maximum is evaluated.
  4. [Introduction, first paragraph] There is a typesetting issue in the phrase "PT -symmetric orPT -symmetric broken phases"; the space after "or" is missing and should be corrected.
  5. [II A, Eqs. (5)-(6)] Please clarify that at zero temperature the D[c^dagger] and D[d^dagger] gain terms in Eq. (3) vanish because they are multiplied by ar n_a and ar n_b, respectively; the text currently leaves implicit how the zero-temperature Lindblad equation is obtained from Eq. (3).

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The PT-phase identification is definitional from Eq. (9); the paper's independent content is the Lindblad/Langevin comparison, which is not fitted.

  1. self definitional [Abstract and Section II A, after Eq. (9)]
    "By restricting to a subspace with no losses, we argue that the transition from mode-hybridization in the strong coupling regime to the damped-dynamics in the weak coupling regime, is a signature of the passive parity-time (PT) symmetry breaking transition in the underlying non-Hermitian quantum dimer."

    The PT-symmetric and PT-broken phases are defined by the spectrum of HPT = gσx − iΓσz, and HPT is obtained directly from the linearized optomechanical Hamiltonian (8) by restricting to a fixed excitation sector. Thus the phase boundary at g = |Γ| is fixed by the definition of HPT and by parameters already present in Eqs. (5)-(7); it is not an independently derived prediction. The sentence 'It follows that the decay rates of the two eigenmodes...' simply evaluates this 2x2 matrix. The paper's genuinely independent content is the numerical comparison of full Lindblad/Langevin dynamics with HPT evolution, which is not fitted to HPT.

  2. renaming known result [Section II B, Fig. 6 discussion]
    "For a strong optomechanical coupling, g > |Γ|, the electromagnetic and mechanical modes hybridize and this standard mode-splitting results in oscillatory behavior that provides state transfer, Fig. 6(a), similar to dynamics in the PT-symmetry region. The transition point from strong to weak coupling occurs at what in non-Hermitian systems is the exceptional point g = |Γ| where power-law approach to steady-state arises..."

    The text itself calls the strong-coupling behavior 'standard mode-splitting,' a known mode-hybridization phenomenon, and then identifies the same g = |Γ| condition with the PT exceptional point. Since that condition is already the dividing line in HPT by construction, presenting the finite-temperature Langevin strong-to-weak coupling crossover as a 'signature of the PT-symmetry breaking transition' is a relabeling of the known mode-splitting/damping crossover rather than an independent prediction. The Langevin numerics are still genuine, but the claimed PT signature is a renaming of the input Hamiltonian's eigenvalue condition.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is mostly self-contained: it starts from a standard optomechanical Lindblad/Langevin description, derives the effective non-Hermitian Hamiltonian (8), and defines HPT = gσx − iΓσz in the fixed-excitation subspace. No parameter is fitted to reproduce the PT transition; the transition is a direct algebraic property of the explicitly written 2x2 matrix. The numerical comparisons to the full Lindblad master equation and finite-temperature Langevin equation are external benchmarks, not circular inputs. However, the central interpretive claim — that the strong-to-weak coupling crossover is a signature of the PT transition — is definitional: both sides of the identification are controlled by the same g = |Γ| condition already present in Eq. (9). The citations to prior work of the same authors [10,12,29-31] support this eigenvalue classification, but the classification follows immediately from Eq. (9), so they are not load-bearing. A separate technical concern, not a circularity, is that the renormalized-observable equivalence asserted after Eqs. (13)-(15) is exact only for single-excitation states; for N > 1 the Lindblad renormalization mixes excitation-loss sectors, so the interpretation of Figs. 2-5 is less clean than stated. This affects correctness but does not make the derivation circular. Overall: partial circularity in the interpretation, with genuine independent numerical content.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard optomechanical linearization and Markovian open-system assumptions, plus a postselection equivalence that is exact only for single-excitation states. No free parameters are fitted to data; the numerical coupling values are illustrative. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Enhanced optomechanical coupling g in numerical regimes = 1.33e-2, 5.12e-3, and 1.33e-3 times omega_b
    Chosen by hand to represent the PT-symmetric, exceptional-point, and broken-regime dynamics. These values are not fitted to data but define the numerical demonstrations in Figures 1-5.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The linearized, red-sideband beam-splitter Hamiltonian of Eq. (2) accurately describes the quantum fluctuation dynamics of the strongly driven optomechanical system.
    Relies on the mean-field linearization a = alpha + c, b = beta + d and the rotating-wave approximation, standard in optomechanics but valid only for strong driving and near-resonant red-sideband conditions.
  • domain assumption The open-system dynamics is Markovian and described by the Lindblad master equation (Eq. 3) or equivalently by the quantum Langevin equations (Eq. 7) with white-noise correlations.
    Invoked for both zero-temperature and finite-temperature baths. This is standard for cavity optomechanics but is a modeling assumption for the experimental device.
  • ad hoc to paper Instantaneous renormalization of Lindblad expectation values by total excitation number is equivalent to postselecting on the no-loss, fixed-excitation sector.
    Asserted in Section II B after Eq. (15). It is exact for single-excitation states but not for multi-excitation states because loss jumps mix excitation sectors. This assumption underlies the Lindblad versus non-Hermitian comparison in Figures 2-5.
  • standard math In a subspace of fixed total excitation number, the common-loss term (gamma_a + gamma_b)/4 in Eq. (8) can be removed by a global phase, leaving H_PT = g sigma_x - i Gamma sigma_z.
    Used to obtain Eq. (9). This is a standard reduction: the common term is proportional to the identity in that subspace and only contributes a global phase to the state.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetry from Lindblad dynamics in an optomechanical system." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O5FJMLBX

@misc{pith2026190803240,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $\mathcalPT$-symmetry from Lindblad dynamics in an optomechanical system},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O5FJMLBX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03240}
}
abstract

The optomechanical state transfer protocol provides effective, lossy, quantum beam-splitter-like dynamics where the strength of the coupling between the electromagnetic and mechanical modes is controlled by the optical steady-state amplitude. By restricting to a subspace with no losses, we argue that the transition from mode-hybridization in the strong coupling regime to the damped-dynamics in the weak coupling regime, is a signature of the passive parity-time ($\mathcal{PT}$) symmetry breaking transition in the underlying non-Hermitian quantum dimer. We compare the dynamics generated by the quantum open system (Langevin or Lindblad) approach to that of the $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric Hamiltonian, to characterize the cases where the two are identical. Additionally, we numerically explore the evolution of separable and correlated number states at zero temperature as well as thermal initial state evolution at room temperature. Our results provide a pathway for realizing non-Hermitian Hamiltonians in optomechanical systems at a quantum level.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03240 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Time-dependent occupation numbers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Time dependent occupation numbers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Time-dependent coherence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Time dependent occupation numbers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Time-dependent coherence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Time dependent occupation numbers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Non-Hermitian physics and PT symmetry,

    R. El-Ganainy, K. G. Makris, M. Khajavikhan, Z. H. Musslimani, S. Rotter, and D. N. Christodoulides, “Non-Hermitian physics and PT symmetry,” Nat. Phys. 14, 11–19 (2018)

    2018

  2. [2]

    Physical realization of ${\cal{PT}}$-symmetric potential scattering in a planar slab waveguide

    A. Ruschhaupt, F. Delgado, and J. G. Muga, “Physical realization of PT-symmetric potential scattering in a planar slab waveguide,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 38, L171–L176 (2005), arXiv:1706.04056 [quant-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2005

  3. [3]

    Theory of coupled optical PT-symmetric structures,

    R. El-Ganainy, K. G. Makris, D. N. Christodoulides, and Z. H. Musslimani, “Theory of coupled optical PT-symmetric structures,” Opt. Lett. 32, 2632–2634 (2007)

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Revisiting the optical $PT$-symmetric dimer

    J. D. Huerta Morales, J. Guerrero, S. Lopez-Aguayo, and B. M. Rodriguez-Lara, “Revisiting the optical PT-symmetric dimer,” Symmetry 8, 83 (2016), arXiv:1607.02782 [physics.optics]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Optical waveguide arrays: quantum effects and PT symmetry breaking

    Y. N. Joglekar, C. Thompson, D. D. Scott, and G. Vemuri, “Optical waveguide arrays: quantum effects and PT symmetry breaking,” Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. 63, 30001 (2013), arXiv:1305.3565 [physics.optics]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  6. [6]

    Kato, Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators (Springer-Verlag, 1995)

    T. Kato, Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators (Springer-Verlag, 1995)

    work page 1995

  7. [7]

    The fluctuation-dissipation theorem,

    R. Kubo, “The fluctuation-dissipation theorem,” Rep. Prog. Phys. 29, 255–284 (1966)

    work page 1966

  8. [8]

    Quantum limits on noise in linear amplifiers,

    C. M. Caves, “Quantum limits on noise in linear amplifiers,” Phys. Rev. D 26, 1817–1839 (1982)

    work page 1982

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Observation of topological edge states in parity-time-symmetric quantum walks,

    L. Xiao, X. Zhan, Z. H. Bian, K. K. Wang, X. Zhang, X. P. Wang, J. Li, K. Mochizuki, D. Kim, N. Kawakami, W. Yi, H. Obuse, B. C. Sanders, and P. Xue, “Observation of topological edge states in parity-time-symmetric quantum walks,” Nat. Phys. 13, 1117–1839 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    Observation of parity- time symmetry breaking transitions in a dissipative Floquet system of ultracold atoms,

    J. Li, A. K. Harter, J. Liu, L. de Melo, Y. N. Joglekar, and L. Luo, “Observation of parity- time symmetry breaking transitions in a dissipative Floquet system of ultracold atoms,” Nat. Commun. 10, 855 (2019), arXiv:1608.05061 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Quantum state tomography across the exceptional point in a single dissipative qubit,

    M. Naghiloo, M. Abbasi, Y. N. Joglekar, and K. W. Murch, “Quantum state tomography across the exceptional point in a single dissipative qubit,” arXiv:1901.07968 [quant-ph]

    1901 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Exceptional points of any order i na single lossy waveguide beamsplitter by photon-number-resolved detrection,

    M. A. Quiroz-Ju´ arez, A. Perez-Leija, K. Tschernning, B. M. Rodr´ ıguez-Lara, O. S. Maga˜ na- Loaiza, K. Busch, Y. N. Joglekar, and R. de J. Le´ on-Montiel, “Exceptional points of any order i na single lossy waveguide beamsplitter by photon-number-resolved detrection,” Photon...

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Spontaneous generation of photons in transmission of quantum fields in PT-symmetric optical systems,

    G. S. Agarwal and K. Qu, “Spontaneous generation of photons in transmission of quantum fields in PT-symmetric optical systems,” Phys. Rev. A 85, 031802(R) (2012), arXiv:1109.3379 [quant-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Photon propagation through linearly active dimers,

    J. D. Huerta Morales and B. M. Rodr´ ıguez-Lara, “Photon propagation through linearly active dimers,” Applied Sciences 7, 587–1–13 (2017), arXiv:1703.03903 [quant-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Quantum interference and exceptional points,

    S. Longhi, “Quantum interference and exceptional points,” Opt. Lett. 43, 5371–5374 (2018), arXiv:1812.03360 [quant-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Nonexistence of PT-symmetric gain-loss photonic quantum sys- tems,

    S. Scheel and A. Szameit, “Nonexistence of PT-symmetric gain-loss photonic quantum sys- tems,” EPL 122, 34001 (2018), arXiv:1805.10876 [quant-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Quantum noise and self-sustained radiation of PT-symmetric systems,

    H. Schomerus, “Quantum noise and self-sustained radiation of PT-symmetric systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 233601 (2010), arXiv:1001.0539 [quant-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Quantum description of a PT-symmetric nonlinear directional coupler,

    V. Peˇ rinov´ a, A. Lukˇ s, and J. Kˇ repelka, “Quantum description of a PT-symmetric nonlinear directional coupler,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 36, 855–861 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Parametric normal-mode splitting in cavity optomechanics,

    J. M. Dobrindt, I. Wilson-Rae, and T. J. Kippenberg, “Parametric normal-mode splitting in cavity optomechanics,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 263602–1–4 (2008), arXiv:0805.2528 [cond- mat.mes-hall]

    2008 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Cavity optomechanics,

    M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, “Cavity optomechanics,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 1391–1452 (2014), arXiv:1303.0733 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2014 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Quantum limits in interferometric detection of gravitational radiation,

    A. F. Pace, M. J. Collett, and D. F. Walls, “Quantum limits in interferometric detection of gravitational radiation,” Phys. Rev. A 47, 3173–3189 (1993)

    1993

  14. [22]

    Interaction between a moving mirror and radiation pressure: A Hamiltonian formulation,

    C. K. Law, “Interaction between a moving mirror and radiation pressure: A Hamiltonian formulation,” Phys. Rev. A 51, 2537–2541 (1995)

    1995

  15. [23]

    Quantum noise reduction by radiation pressure,

    S. Mancini and P. Tombesi, “Quantum noise reduction by radiation pressure,” Phys. Rev. A 49, 4055–4065 (1994)

    1994

  16. [24]

    Recon- structing the dynamics of a movable mirror in a detuned optical cavity,

    M. Paternostro, S. Gigan, M. S. Kim, F. Blaser, H. R. B¨ ohm, and M. Aspelmeyer, “Recon- structing the dynamics of a movable mirror in a detuned optical cavity,” New J. Phys. 8, 107 (2006)

    2006

  17. [25]

    Ground-state cooling of a micromechanical oscillator: Comparing cold damping and cavity-assisted cooling schemes,

    C. Genes, D. Vitali, P. Tombesi, S. Gigan, and M. Aspelmeyer, “Ground-state cooling of a micromechanical oscillator: Comparing cold damping and cavity-assisted cooling schemes,” Phys. Rev. A 77, 033804 (2008), arXiv:0705.1728 [quant-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Oxford, 2007). 13

    2007

  19. [27]

    H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn, Quantum Measurement and Control (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2009)

    2009

  20. [28]

    Ro- bust optomechanical state transfer under composite phase driving,

    C. Ventura-Vel´ azquez, B. Jaramillo ´Avila, E. Kyoseva, and B. M. Rodr´ ıguez-Lara, “Ro- bust optomechanical state transfer under composite phase driving,” Sci. Rep. 9, 4382 (2019), arXiv:1806.04266 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Observation of slowly decaying eigenmodes without exceptional points in Floquet dissipative synthetic circuits,

    R. de J. Le´ on-Montiel, M. A. Quiroz-Ju´ arez, J. L. Dom´ ınguez-Ju´ arez, R. Quintero-Torres, J. L. Arag´ on, A. K. Harter, and Y. N. Joglekar, “Observation of slowly decaying eigenmodes without exceptional points in Floquet dissipative synthetic circuits,” Commun. Phys. 1, ...

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Optical finite representation of the Lorentz group,

    B. M. Rodr´ ıguez-Lara and J. Guerrero, “Optical finite representation of the Lorentz group,” Opt. Lett. 40, 5682–5685 (2015), arXiv:1508.05419 [physics.optics]

    2015 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Passive parity-time-symmetry-breaking transitions with- out exceptional points in dissipative photonic systems,

    Y. N. Joglekar and A. K. Harter, “Passive parity-time-symmetry-breaking transitions with- out exceptional points in dissipative photonic systems,” Photon. Res. 6, A51–A57 (2018), arXiv:1807.10330 [physics.optics]

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Phonon counting and intensity interferometry of a nanome- chanical resonator,

    J. D. Cohen, S. M. Meenehan, G. S. MacCabe, S. Gr¨ oblacher, A. H. Safavi-Naeini, F. Marsili, M. D. Shaw, and O. Painter, “Phonon counting and intensity interferometry of a nanome- chanical resonator,” Nature 520, 522–525 (2015), arXiv:1410.1047 [quant-ph]. 14

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

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