Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 66 references

Microscopic QED origin of spin entanglement

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read QED scattering between three fermions induces an R^-4 spin-spin coupling that entangles two bath spins while leaving the mediator separable.

desk verdict The claimed R^-4 bath–bath coupling rests on replacing mediator–bath vectors with the bath–bath separation; the two-qubit part is standard dipole–dipole, and the new result doesn't hold up. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09670 v1 pith:TLW2LO4E submitted 2026-08-10 quant-ph

Moslem Zarei This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P4081V10 PACS 03.67.Mn03.65.Ud12.20.-m
keywords quantumentanglementeffectivespinHamiltonianelectrodynamicsvirtualparticleexchangedipolarinteractionR^-4couplingXYnetworkBoltzmannequation
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

This paper starts from quantum electrodynamics and derives effective spin–spin interactions between localized fermionic qubits by integrating out the photon and, in the three-qubit case, an intermediate mediator fermion. The two-qubit channel reproduces the familiar anisotropic dipolar coupling that decays as $R^{-3}$, with an analytical negativity $N(t)=\tfrac12|\sin(4\Gamma_{SS}(R)t)|$. For two bath spins coupled through a sequential exchange with a mediator, the paper claims the resulting bath–bath interaction is $H_{B_1B_2}=J(R)[(\sigma_{B_1}\cdot\hat R)(\sigma_{B_2}\cdot\hat R)-\sigma_{B_1}\cdot\sigma_{B_2}]$ with $J(R)=q^4/(64\pi^2 m_A m_{B_1}m_{B_2}R^4)$, so the coupling decays as $R^{-4}$ and the mediator remains unentangled at that order. The same construction extends to an $N$-spin bath, giving a fully connected XY network with couplings $J_{ij}\propto R_{ij}^{-4}$. This matters because it gives a first-principles route to the coupling constants and entanglement times that are usually set by hand in spin-network models.

What carries the argument

The central object is the modified quantum Boltzmann evolution equation (Eq. 1), a momentum-resolved master equation that the paper extends to describe correlated evolution of two systems. The calculation is carried by the smeared Coulomb kernel $F_a(r)=\frac{1}{4\pi r}\operatorname{erf}(r/2\sqrt a)$ and its gradient $\nabla F_a(r)$, which define the coordinate-space tensor $T_{\alpha\beta}=\delta_{\alpha\beta}\nabla_{r_1}F_{a_1}\cdot\nabla_{r_2}F_{a_2}-(\nabla_{r_2}F_{a_2})_\alpha(\nabla_{r_1}F_{a_1})_\beta$ after nonrelativistic Pauli–Dirac reduction of the fermion currents. In the large-separation limit the gradients are replaced by their Coulomb forms $-\hat{R}/(4\pi R^2)$ and $+\hat{R}/(4\pi R^2)$, which converts $T_{\alpha\beta}$ into $(\hat{R}_\alpha\hat{R}_\beta-\delta_{\alpha\beta})/(4\pi)^2 R^4$, yielding the $R^{-4}$ scaling. The mediator spin vanishes from the reduced dynamics because the Pauli reduction of its current gives $\chi^\dagger_{r'_A}\chi_{r_A}=\delta_{r'_A r_A}$, leaving only a factor $1/m_A$ in the coupling.

What would settle it

Compute $T_{\alpha\beta}$ exactly for a mediator placed off the line connecting the two bath spins, using the full smeared Coulomb kernels, and check whether the leading large-separation term still scales as $R^{-4}$ and is independent of the mediator position; if it depends on the mediator–bath distances or decays with a different power, the paper's central scaling claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is the $R^{-4}$ effective exchange coupling for two bath spins that interact only through a sequential QED process with an intermediate fermion $A$. After integrating out both photons and the mediator, the reduced dynamics on the bath is generated by $H_{B_1B_2}=J(R)[(\sigma_{B_1}\cdot \hat{R})(\sigma_{B_2}\cdot \hat{R})-\sigma_{B_1}\cdot\sigma_{B_2}]$, with $J(R)=q^4/(64\pi^2 m_A m_{B_1} m_{B_2} R^4)$; the anisotropic tensor $(\hat{R}_\alpha \hat{R}_\beta-\delta_{\alpha\beta})$ is the same object that appears in the spatial kernel $T_{\alpha\beta}$ once the mediator–bath vectors are replaced by the bath–bath vector $R$. At this order the mediator spin enters only through the identity operator, so the bath evolves unitarily while the mediator stays factorized: $\rho_{\rm tot}(t)=\rho_A\otimes \rho_{B_1B_2}(t)$. For two directly photon-coupled qubits, the same machinery recovers the dipolar law $\Gamma_{SS}(R)\simeq \alpha/(4\pi m_f^2 R^3)$ at large separation, and entanglement is generated with negativity $N(t)=\tfrac12|\sin(4\Gamma_{SS}t)|$ or $\tfrac12|\sin(4J(R)t)|$ in the three-spin case. The generalization to $N$ bath spins produces a fully connected XY spin network, with the mediator setting the overall scale through $1/m_A$.

Load-bearing premise

The $R^{-4}$ law rests on replacing the mediator-to-bath distance vectors $r_1$ and $r_2$ by the bath–bath separation vector $R$ in the gradient kernels; these are different geometric vectors in a general configuration, and if that substitution fails the claimed scaling is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Entanglement generation time scales as $t_{\max}\propto m_A m_{B_1} m_{B_2} R^4$, so heavier or more distant spins entangle much more slowly.
  • The $R^{-4}$ decay is a stronger spatial suppression than the standard dipolar $R^{-3}$ photon-mediated coupling, meaning the sequential mediator channel is more local.
  • The mediator remains separable at the perturbative order considered, so it acts as a purely virtual channel that does not need to be prepared or measured in an entangled state.
  • In the $N$-spin extension, the effective Hamiltonian is a fully connected XY network $H^{(N)}_{\rm eff}=\sum_{i<j}J_{ij}(\sigma^x_{B_i}\sigma^x_{B_j}+\sigma^y_{B_i}\sigma^y_{B_j})$ with $J_{ij}\propto R_{ij}^{-4}$, supporting multipartite entanglement generation.
  • By varying the spatial arrangement and relative orientations of the scattering centers, the effective couplings can be tuned between Ising-, XX-, and Heisenberg-like forms.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $R^{-4}$ scaling survives the geometry check, a light mediator ($m_A$ small) between heavy bath spins could act as a strong short-range entangling channel; the paper does not discuss this parameter regime.
  • The same effective XY coupling could serve as a calibration signal: measuring the Rabi oscillation period of the negativity directly yields $J(R)$, giving an experimental handle on the microscopic QED parameters.
  • Because the mediator is predicted to stay separable, the scheme might be combined with measurement-based protocols where the mediator is never touched; this application is not explored in the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives effective spin-spin interactions between localized fermionic qubits starting from QED scattering. For two qubits, integrating out the photon yields a dipolar tensor interaction with R^{-3} asymptotics, and the authors derive closed-form negativity evolution for the resulting XXZ Hamiltonian. For three qubits, a mediator fermion A sequentially exchanges photons with two bath spins B1 and B2; the authors claim that the bath-bath coupling is J(R) = q^4/(64π^2 m_A m_{B1} m_{B2} R^4), that the mediator remains unentangled at the considered order, and they generalize the construction to a fully connected N-spin XY network. The technical derivations are in Appendices A and B.

Significance. If the central R^{-4} result were correct, the paper would provide a parameter-free microscopic derivation of a new mediator-induced entangling channel with stronger spatial suppression than the standard dipolar R^{-3} interaction, together with analytic negativity dynamics. Strengths of the manuscript include the absence of fitted parameters in the two-qubit derivation, the explicit smeared-Coulomb regularization, and the compact closed-form negativity expressions. No machine-checked proofs or reproducible code are provided; the support is analytical. The significance of the paper, however, rests entirely on the three-body derivation in Section IV and Appendix B, and that derivation contains a concrete geometrical error.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV.A, Eqs. (51)-(54)] The central step of the paper is Eq. (53), where the gradients ∇F_{a1}(r1) and ∇F_{a2}(r2) in the tensor (48) are replaced by gradients evaluated at the bath-bath separation R. According to Appendix B, Eq. (B41), r1 = xbar_{1A} - xbar_{1B} and r2 = xbar_{2A} - xbar_{2B}, and the closure relation (B24) forces xbar_{1A} = xbar_{2A}. Hence r1 and r2 differ by the bath separation, but neither equals R unless the mediator is placed in a special configuration. For an explicit geometry with B1 at -R/2 zhat, B2 at +R/2 zhat, and the mediator at d zhat, the exact tensor (B55) for d ≫ R evaluates to T_{αβ} ≈ (δ_{αβ} - zhat_α zhat_β)/(16π^2 d^4), which contains no R^{-4} factor and depends on d. Eq. (53) therefore has no valid domain as the large-R limit of Eq. (48), and the Hamiltonians (55) and (57), the coupling (58), and the N-spin couplings (79) all inherit this unjustified substitution.
  2. [Appendix B, Eq. (B24)] The closure relation ∫_0^∞ dτ2 G_A(Δx_A, t-τ2) e^{-i m_A (t-τ2)} = (i/m_A) δ^3(Δx_A) is asserted without derivation or citation. Using the explicit nonrelativistic propagator in Eq. (B17), the left-hand side is a standard improper integral, and direct evaluation gives an exponentially decaying kernel proportional to exp(-√2 m_A |Δx_A|) with a power-law prefactor, not a delta distribution. This delta-function collapse is what localizes the mediator to a point and is what allows the two distinct vectors r1 and r2 to be treated as a single separation. Without (B24) the step from Eq. (B46) to Eq. (B55) is unsupported, and the coordinate-space reduction on which the R^{-4} law depends is not established.
  3. [§V, Eqs. (72)-(77)] The N-spin generalization inherits the same geometric error, since Eq. (76) again replaces gradients at r_i by gradients at R_ij without justification. In addition, the statement after Eq. (73) that the photon propagator is Gaussian and therefore 'supports no higher order connected contractions' is not valid: Gaussian free-field contractions do not eliminate multi-photon exchange diagrams, which contribute at higher order in q^2. The claim that only pairwise couplings survive at leading order needs a genuinely different argument, and the fully connected XY network in Eq. (78) is not supported by the derivation presented.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§III.A, Eq. (43)] The second line of the iSWAP transformation is a typo: for the XY Hamiltonian in Eq. (40), the correct action at t = π/(4J) is |↓↑> → i|↑↓>, not i|↑↑>.
  2. [§III and Appendix A] The normalization factors V = (2π)^3 δ^3(0) in Eq. (4) and the [(2π)^3δ^3(0)]^2 factors in Eq. (1) are never reconciled, which makes the volume cancellations in Eqs. (A12)-(A14) and (B22)-(B25) difficult to follow.
  3. [Fig. 2] Figure 2 contains malformed labels ('x!', 'x"') and the diagram does not clearly identify which internal line is the mediator fermion; a redrawn diagram with standard momentum routing would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the QED-derived spin Hamiltonians and negativities are self-contained; the R^{-4} claim's weakness is an unjustified geometric substitution, not a circular equivalence.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. The two-qubit photon-exchange Hamiltonian H_SS = Γ_SS(R) D_αβ σ^α_A σ^β_B is obtained by explicit QED contraction (Appendix A) with no fitted constants; the negativity N(t) = 1/2 |sin(4 Γ_SS t)| is an analytic consequence of the Schrödinger evolution, not an input. The three-qubit and N-qubit Hamiltonians likewise follow from the momentum-space amplitude (Appendix B), and the claimed mediator separability arises from the spinor identity χ†_{r'_A} χ_{r_A} = δ_{r'_A r_A} at leading nonrelativistic order, not from assuming the conclusion. Self-citations [47–56] supply the QBE framework and standard factorization identities, but those are parameter-free background assumptions that do not contain the target R^{-4} coupling, so they do not make the prediction circular. The main weakness is a correctness gap: Section IV.A replaces the mediator-bath distances r1 and r2 by the bath-bath separation R in Eq. (53), which is not justified by closure (B24); this undermines the R^{-4} claim but is a mathematical/geometric error, not a circular equivalence.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central derivation relies on standard QED and the Born-Markov approximation. The only chosen model parameters are wavepacket widths, and the unspecified orientation factor C_ij absorbs the missing computation of the geometric tensor. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • wavepacket width σ0 = not fitted, chosen as qubit spatial width
    Appears in Γ_SS(R) (Eq. A35) and controls the short-distance regularization of the dipolar interaction; it is a model input, not fitted to data.
  • wavepacket widths a1, a2 = not fitted, combinations of σA, σB1, σB2
    Defined in Eq. (B42) for the three-qubit kernel; chosen by hand to model finite-size qubits.
  • orientation factor C_ij = O(1), unspecified
    Introduced in Eq. (79) to encode orientation-dependent factors from the tensor T^(ij) without computing them; it absorbs the missing geometry dependence.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Born-Markov approximation
    Used to reduce the QBE to the forward-scattering term and to justify the factorization of expectation values (Eqs. A14-A18, B6-B11). Requires weak coupling and short memory.
  • domain assumption Nonrelativistic reduction of Dirac spinors
    The spinors are expanded to order 1/m^2 (Eq. A22, B29-B34); validity requires |k|, |K_i| << m.
  • ad hoc to paper Mediator closure relation (B24)
    The assertion ∫ dτ2 G_A e^{-i m_A(t-τ2)} = (i/m_A) δ^3(Δx_A) pins the mediator to a single spatial point and is not derived from standard propagator identities.
invented entities (1)
  • None
    purpose: No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced; the mediator is a standard fermion field and the spin network is an effective description.
    The paper introduces no novel entities beyond the standard QED fields and effective spin operators.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Microscopic QED origin of spin entanglement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TLW2LO4E

@misc{pith2026260809670,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Microscopic QED origin of spin entanglement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TLW2LO4E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09670}
}
abstract

We study effective spin interactions arising from quantum electrodynamics (QED) scattering between localized fermionic spins. By integrating out photon and mediator fields, the dynamics reduce to an effective spin Hamiltonian. For two qubits in the nonrelativistic regime, the resulting interaction takes a tensor dipolar form with an asymptotic decay proportional to \(R^{-3}\). We obtain analytical expressions for the entanglement negativity, highlighting its dependence on coupling strength and spatial configuration. We then examine a setup in which two bath spins interact via a sequential exchange with an intermediate fermionic mediator. At the perturbative order considered, the mediator remains unentangled and induces an effective bath--bath interaction with stronger spatial suppression than in the photon-mediated case. Extending the construction to an \(N\)-spin setting yields an effective interaction network mediated by virtual exchange processes, which can support the generation of multipartite entanglement across the system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09670 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The illustration of photon mediated spin-spin interaction between two localized fermionic qubits. Spin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The Feynmann diagram asociated with interavtion of qubit (fermion) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The illustration of photon mediated spin-spin interaction between three localized fermionic qubits. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ¯ψ− B1(x′ 1)γν1ψ+ B1(x′ 1)PFµ 2ν2(x2−x′

    work page

  2. [2]

    ¯ψ− B2(x′ 2)γν2ψ+ B2(x′ 2) ×δ (4) σA(x1−¯x1A(τ1))δ (4) σA(x2−¯x2A(τ2))δ(4) σ1B(x′ 1−¯x1B(τ′ 1))δ (4) σ2B(x′ 2−¯x2B(τ′ 2)), (45) whereD F (x1−x 2)denotes the Feynman propagator describing the propagation of fermionAbetween the spacetime pointsx 1 andx 2. Its Fourier representation is DF (x1−x 2) = ∫d4Q (2π)4 i(/Q+m A) Q2−m 2 A +iϵ e−iQ·(x1−x2) ,(46) and th...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Two qubit reduced dynamics and entanglement genration At leading nonrelativistic order, the mediator spin appears only through the identity operator and therefore does not affect the dynamical evolution of the bath subsystem. For an initially factorized state, ρtot(0) =ρ A⊗ρB1B2(0),(59) the unitary evolution preserves this product structure, ρtot(t) =ρ A⊗...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 865 (2009), arXiv:quant-ph/0702225

    arXiv 2009

  5. [5]

    Streltsov, G

    A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, and M. B. Plenio, Reviews of Modern Physics89(2017), 10.1103/revmodphys.89.041003

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.89.041003 2017

  6. [6]

    K. Wu, A. Streltsov, B. Regula, G. Xiang, C. Li, and G. Guo, Advanced Quantum Technologies4(2021), 10.1002/qute.202100040

    doi:10.1002/qute.202100040 2021

  7. [7]

    Erhard, M

    M. Erhard, M. Krenn, and A. Zeilinger, Nature Reviews Physics2, 365–381 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Nature Photonics5, 222–229 (2011)

    work page 2011

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    Manenti and M

    R. Manenti and M. Motta,Quantum Information Science: From Quantum Mechanics to Quantum Technologies (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    R.A.BertlmannandN.Friis, Modern Quantum Theory: From Quantum Mechanics to Entanglement and Quantum Information (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, 2000)

    2000

  4. [12]

    HAFFNER, C

    H. HAFFNER, C. ROOS, and R. BLATT, Physics Reports469, 155–203 (2008)

    2008

  5. [13]

    Anderlini, P

    M. Anderlini, P. J. Lee, B. L. Brown, J. Sebby-Strabley, W. D. Phillips, and J. V. Porto, Nature448, 452–456 (2007)

    2007

  6. [14]

    J. L. O’Brien, A. Furusawa, and J. Vučković, Nature Photonics3, 687–695 (2009)

    2009

  7. [15]

    R. C. Bialczak, M. Ansmann, M. Hofheinz, E. Lucero, M. Neeley, A. D. O’Connell, D. Sank, H. Wang, J. Wenner, M. Steffen, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Nature Physics6, 409–413 (2010)

    2010

  8. [16]

    Kjaergaard, M

    M. Kjaergaard, M. E. Schwartz, J. Braumüller, P. Krantz, J. I.-J. Wang, S. Gustavsson, and W. D. Oliver, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics11, 369–395 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    Flamini, N

    F. Flamini, N. Spagnolo, and F. Sciarrino, Reports on Progress in Physics82, 016001 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Henriet, L

    L. Henriet, L. Beguin, A. Signoles, T. Lahaye, A. Browaeys, G.-O. Reymond, and C. Jurczak, Quantum4, 327 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    C. A. Sackettet al., Nature404, 256 (2000)

    2000

  12. [20]

    Leibfriedet al., Nature422, 412 (2003)

    D. Leibfriedet al., Nature422, 412 (2003)

    2003

  13. [21]

    Blatt and D

    R. Blatt and D. Wineland, Nature453, 1008 (2008)

    2008

  14. [22]

    McDermott, R

    R. McDermott, R. W. Simmonds, M. Steffen, K. B. Cooper, K. Cicak, K. D. Osborn, S. Oh, D. P. Pappas, and J. M. Martinis, Science307, 1299 (2005)

    2005

  15. [23]

    DiCarloet al., Nature460, 240 (2009), arXiv:0903.2030 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    L. DiCarloet al., Nature460, 240 (2009), arXiv:0903.2030 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2009 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Barendset al., Nature508, 500 (2014), arXiv:1402.4848 [quant-ph]

    R. Barendset al., Nature508, 500 (2014), arXiv:1402.4848 [quant-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Urban, T

    E. Urban, T. A. Johnson, T. Henage, L. Isenhower, D. D. Yavuz, T. G. Walker, and M. Saffman, Nature Phys.5, 110 (2009), arXiv:0805.0758 [quant-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Levineet al., Phys

    H. Levineet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 170503 (2019), arXiv:1908.06101 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Veldhorstet al., Nature526, 410 (2015), arXiv:1411.5760 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    M. Veldhorstet al., Nature526, 410 (2015), arXiv:1411.5760 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2015 arXiv

  20. [28]

    D. M. Zajac, A. J. Sigillito, M. Russ, F. Borjans, J. M. Taylor, G. Burkard, and J. R. Petta, Science359, 439 (2018), arXiv:1708.03530 [quant-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    T. F. Watsonet al., Nature555, 633 (2018), arXiv:1708.04214 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Y. He, S. K. Gorman, D. Keith, L. Kranz, J. G. Keizer, and M. Y. Simmons, Nature571, 371 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    J. R. Petta, A. C. Johnson, J. M. Taylor, E. A. Laird, A. Yacoby, M. D. Lukin, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Science309, 1116955 (2005)

    2005

  24. [32]

    M. D. Shulman, O. E. Dial, S. P. Harvey, H. Bluhm, V. Umansky, and A. Yacoby, Science336, 202 (2012), arXiv:1202.1828 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2012 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Bernienet al., Nature551, 579 (2017), arXiv:1707.04344 [quant-ph]

    H. Bernienet al., Nature551, 579 (2017), arXiv:1707.04344 [quant-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Dolde, I

    F. Dolde, I. Jakobi, B. Naydenov, N. Zhao, S. Pezzagna, C. Trautmann, J. Meijer, P. Neumann, F. Jelezko, and J. Wrachtrup, Nature Phys.9, 139 (2013), arXiv:1212.2804 [quant-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Cabrillo, J

    C. Cabrillo, J. I. Cirac, P. Garcia-Fernandez, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A59, 1025 (1999), arXiv:quant-ph/9810013

    1999 arXiv

  28. [36]

    D. E. Browne, M. B. Plenio, and S. F. Huelga, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 067901 (2003), arXiv:quant-ph/0302185

    2003 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Beige, S

    A. Beige, S. Bose, D. Braun, S. F. Huelga, P. L. Knight, M. B. Plenio, and V. Vedral, J. Mod. Opt.47, 2583 (2000), arXiv:quant-ph/0007082

    2000 arXiv

  30. [38]

    M. B. Plenio and S. F. Huelga, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 197901 (2002), arXiv:quant-ph/0110009

    2002 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Hensenet al., Nature526, 682 (2015), arXiv:1508.05949 [quant-ph]

    B. Hensenet al., Nature526, 682 (2015), arXiv:1508.05949 [quant-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  32. [40]

    W. H. Zurek, Phys. Today44N10, 36 (1991), arXiv:quant-ph/0306072

    1991 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Joos and H

    E. Joos and H. D. Zeh, Z. Phys. B59, 223 (1985)

    1985

  34. [42]

    Braun, F

    D. Braun, F. Haake, and W. T. Strunz, Physical Review Letters86, 2913–2917 (2001)

    2001

  35. [43]

    H. P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The theory of open quantum systems (Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, 2002)

    2002

  36. [44]

    Gisin, Physics Letters A210, 151 (1996)

    N. Gisin, Physics Letters A210, 151 (1996)

    1996

  37. [45]

    Yu and J

    T. Yu and J. H. Eberly, Physical Review Letters93(2004), 10.1103/physrevlett.93.140404

    2004 doi

  38. [46]

    P. J. Dodd and J. J. Halliwell, Physical Review A69, 052105 (2004). 13

    2004

  39. [47]

    M. P. Almeida, F. de Melo, M. Hor-Meyll, A. Salles, S. P. Walborn, P. H. S. Ribeiro, and L. Davidovich, Science316, 1139892 (2007)

    2007

  40. [48]

    Konrad, F

    T. Konrad, F. de Melo, M. Tiersch, C. Kasztelan, A. Aragão, and A. Buchleitner, Nature Physics4, 99 (2008)

    2008

  41. [49]

    Życzkowski, P

    K. Życzkowski, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Physical Review A65(2001), 10.1103/physreva.65.012101

    2001 doi

  42. [50]

    Sigl and G

    G. Sigl and G. Raffelt, Nucl. Phys. B406, 423 (1993)

    1993

  43. [51]

    Kosowsky, Annals Phys.246, 49 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9501045

    A. Kosowsky, Annals Phys.246, 49 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9501045

    1996 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Bavarsad, M

    E. Bavarsad, M. Haghighat, Z. Rezaei, R. Mohammadi, I. Motie, and M. Zarei, Phys. Rev. D81, 084035 (2010), arXiv:0912.2993 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Bartolo, A

    N. Bartolo, A. Hoseinpour, G. Orlando, S. Matarrese, and M. Zarei, Phys. Rev. D98, 023518 (2018), arXiv:1804.06298 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Bartolo, A

    N. Bartolo, A. Hoseinpour, S. Matarrese, G. Orlando, and M. Zarei, Phys. Rev. D100, 043516 (2019), arXiv:1903.04578 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Hoseinpour, M

    A. Hoseinpour, M. Zarei, G. Orlando, N. Bartolo, and S. Matarrese, Phys. Rev. D102, 063501 (2020), arXiv:2006.14418 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Sharifian, M

    M. Sharifian, M. Zarei, M. Abdi, N. Bartolo, and S. Matarrese, Phys. Rev. D109, 043510 (2024), arXiv:2309.07236 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Manshouri and M

    H. Manshouri and M. Zarei, Eur. Phys. J. Plus140, 1086 (2025), arXiv:2510.18833 [quant-ph]

    2025

  50. [58]

    Zarei, N

    M. Zarei, N. Bartolo, D. Bertacca, S. Matarrese, and A. Ricciardone, Phys. Rev. D104, 083508 (2021), arXiv:2104.04836 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Zarei, M

    M. Zarei, M. Abdi, N. Bartolo, and S. Matarrese, (2025), arXiv:2510.20587 [quant-ph]. Appendix A: Details of the derivation of the master equation forA-Binteraction Integrating out the electromagnetic field to second order yields an effective interaction between the localized ...

    2025

  52. [60]

    +i(k 1−k′ 1 +K 1)· ¯x1B(τ′ 1)− σ2 B1 2 |k1−k′ 1 +K 1|2 −i(k 0 2−k′0 2 +K 0 2)¯x0 2B(τ′

  53. [61]

    +i(k 2−k′ 2 +K 2)· ¯x2B(τ′ 2)− σ2 B2 2 |k2−k′ 2 +K 2|2 ] × [⟨ ˆc† A,r′ A (p1)ˆcA,rA(p2)ˆc† B1,r′ B1 (k′ 1)ˆcB1,rB1 (k1)ˆc† B2,r′ B2 (k′ 2)ˆcB2,rB2 (k2) ˆDIJ (k) ⟩ − ⟨ ˆDIJ (k) ˆc† A,r′ A (p1)ˆcA,rA(p2)ˆc† B1,r′ B1 (k′ 1)ˆcB1,rB1 (k1)ˆc† B2,r′ B2 (k′ 2)ˆcB2,rB2 (k2) ⟩] .(B5) wh...

  54. [62]

    =τ′ 1 ,¯x ′0 2A(τ2) =τ 2 ,¯x ′0 2B(τ′

  55. [63]

    Also, the integrate overK0 2 gives IK0 2 = 1 2ω2 [ θ(∆t2)e−iω2∆t2 +θ(−∆t 2)e+iω2∆t2 ] ,(B21) whereω 2≡|K 2|and∆t 2≡τ 2−τ′

    =τ′ 2 .(B19) Tthe density matrix evolution afterK0 integration becomes ˙ρIJ (k,t) =iq 4V ∑ rA,r′ A rB1,r′ B1 rB2,r′ B2 ∫d3K1 (2π)3 ∫d4K2 (2π)4 ∫ dτ1dτ2dτ′ 1dτ′ 2 δ(t−τ 1) 1 2ω1 −iηµ2ν2 K2 2 +iϵ IK0 1 GA(∆xA,∆tA) ׯur′ A (k)γµ1Λ+γµ2urA(k) ¯ur′ B1 ( k+ K1 2 ) γν1urB1 ( k− K1 2 )...

  56. [64]

    The remaining proper time integrations are dominated in the Markovian limit, T≫1/ω 1,2, by the slowly varying envelope

    Finally, we find ˙ρIJ (k,t) =iq 4V ∑ rA,r′ A rB1,r′ B1 rB2,r′ B2 ∫d3K1 (2π)3 ∫d3K2 (2π)3 ∫ dτ1dτ2dτ′ 1dτ′ 2 δ(t−τ 1)ηµ1ν1 2ω1 ηµ2ν2 2ω2 IK0 1 IK0 2 GA(∆xA,∆tA) ׯur′ A (k)γµ1Λ+γµ2urA(k)¯ur′ B1 ( k+ K1 2 ) γν1urB1 ( k− K1 2 ) ¯ur′ B2 ( k+ K2 2 ) γν2urB2 ( k− K2 2 ) ×exp [ −imAt...

  57. [65]

    Nonrelativistic expansion of the three fermion amplitude We derive here the nonrelativistic expansion of the three fermion exchange amplitude, retaining all terms through O(1/m2)that contribute to scalar, spin-orbit, and spin-spin interactions. The amplitude takes the form M= ...

  58. [66]

    Spin-spin effective interaction in coordinate space The localized evolution equation for the density matrix, after integrating out the photon degrees of freedom (photon propagators and energy denominators) and applying the Markov approximation (τ→tclosure), takes the form ˙ρIJ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.