Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 44 references

Interference Between Electromagnetic and Mechanical Waves

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that electromagnetic and mechanical waves can interfere through a trapped ion's electronic state, yielding phase-controlled enhancement or perfect cancellation of a propagating phonon wave packet.

desk verdict Chain transparency is an exact quantum cancellation, not a semiclassical artifact; the real soft spots are the semiclassical-only constructive dynamics and the unshown g >> J device regime. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.06683 v1 pith:UU35H7GP submitted 2025-08-08 quant-ph

Alexandre Cesar Ricardo , Ciro Micheletti Diniz , Celso Jorge Villas-Bôas This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantuminterferencetrappedionsphononsJaynes–CummingsinteractionCarriercoherentstateswave-packettransistorhybriddevices
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 argues that two waves of different physical natures—an electromagnetic laser pulse and a mechanical phonon (vibrational) pulse—can interfere, something classical wave theory forbids. The interference is not between the waves directly but is mediated by the electronic state of a trapped ion, which serves as the measuring apparatus. Driving the ion with a Jaynes–Cummings interaction (which exchanges phonons with the electron) and a Carrier interaction (which directly drives the electron), the authors show that the relative phase between the phonon coherent state and the Carrier pulse determines whether the two interactions add or cancel. In a chain of ions, this phase control makes the driven ion either absorb energy faster or become transparent, letting the phonon wave packet pass as if no laser were applied. If correct, the effect offers a new handle for hybrid quantum devices—transistors and filters for wave packets—where photonic pulses control phononic passage or vice versa.

What carries the argument

The carrying device is a combination of two standard trapped-ion interactions applied to the same ion: the Jaynes–Cummings interaction, $\hat H_{\mathrm{JC}} = (g/2)(\hat a\hat\sigma_+ + \hat a^\dagger\hat\sigma_-)$, which exchanges one phonon for one electronic excitation, and the Carrier interaction, $\hat H_{\mathrm{Carrier}} = \tfrac12(\Omega_2(t)\hat\sigma_+ + \Omega_2^*(t)\hat\sigma_-)$, which drives the electronic transition without changing the phonon number. The identity that carries the argument is $\Omega_2(t) + g\alpha_m(t) = g\alpha_m(t)(e^{i\Delta\varphi}+1)$, obtained by choosing $\Omega_2(t)=g\alpha_m(t)e^{i\Delta\varphi}$; it makes the two wave-mediated couplings either add

What would settle it

Set up the same ion-chain scenario—$N=100$, initial coherent amplitude $|\alpha|=1$, $g/J=1$, $\Delta\varphi=\pi$—and compute or measure the time-resolved excited-state population of the middle ion and the transmitted phonon amplitude. If the population stays exactly zero and the transmitted amplitude is identical to the no-laser case, the destructive-interference claim holds; any residual excitation, extra reflection, or phonon-number-dependent spreading at this amplitude falsifies the semiclassical prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the combined Jaynes–Cummings (JC) and Carrier interactions on a single ion realize controllable constructive or destructive interference between an electromagnetic wave and a mechanical (phononic) wave, with the ion’s electronic state acting as the detector. For a single ion with the vibrational mode in the coherent state $|\alpha\rangle$, the JC interaction acts like an effective Rabi drive of strength $\eta\alpha\Omega_1$; adding a Carrier drive of strength $\Omega_2$ and choosing $|\alpha| = \Omega_2/(\eta\Omega_1)$ makes the total drive either double (when $\alpha$ is positive) or vanish (when $\alpha$ is negative). The same logic is exported to a chain: at the

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the phonon modes can be treated as classical coherent amplitudes, yet the simulations use an average of one phonon per mode, where quantum fluctuations are as large as the mean; if phonon–qubit quantum correlations matter at that amplitude, the predicted transparency and enhanced absorption may not survive a full quantum treatment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At $\Delta\varphi=0$, the incoming phonon pulse excites the driven ion's electronic state more strongly and faster than with the JC interaction alone, speeding up the transfer of information out of the mechanical channel.
  • At $\Delta\varphi=\pi$, the electronic state of the driven ion remains unpopulated and the phonon wave packet passes through the chain with no disturbance, so the ion becomes a transparent window for the mechanical wave.
  • In the phonon-blockade regime ($g\gg J$), tuning the Carrier Rabi frequency produces a coherent-state-selective filter: pulses with certain amplitudes and phases are blocked or transmitted, which can act as a quantum transistor or switch.
  • Because the effective JC coupling depends on the coherent amplitude $\alpha$, the interference mechanism itself carries information about the amplitude and phase of the arriving pulse, enabling wave-packet processing.
  • The same hybrid interference principle could be ported to optomechanical cavities, surface-acoustic-wave circuits, and plasmonic hybrids for integrated quantum signal processing, as the paper suggests.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension (mine): the single-ion version of the cancellation can be tested directly without a chain—prepare one ion's phonon mode in a small coherent state, apply JC and Carrier drives with matched strengths, and look for the doubling-versus-vanishing of the excited-state Rabi oscillations; the chain is not needed to verify the interference identity.
  • Editorial extension (mine): the exact cancellation at $\Delta\varphi=\pi$ is a phase-to-transmission map, so the same device could work as a classical-control phase switch; the transistor function would then be limited by how accurately the coherent amplitude $\alpha_m(t)$ is known in real time.
  • Editorial extension (mine): because the simulations run at one phonon on average where quantum fluctuations are order-unity, a full quantum simulation of the same chain is a sharper test; the paper itself flags this comparison as open.
  • Editorial extension (mine): the mechanism should transfer to any platform with a coherent mediator and a controllable drive whose phase can follow the mediator amplitude—for example, a transmon coupled to a mechanical resonator—so the trapped-ion realization may be only one instance of a broader principle.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new kind of interference between electromagnetic and mechanical waves mediated by the electronic state of a trapped ion. For a single ion prepared in a vibrational coherent state |α⟩, the Jaynes-Cummings interaction acts as an effective drive gα/2 σ+ + h.c.; adding a resonant Carrier interaction with Rabi frequency Ω2 = gα e^{iΔφ} produces constructive (Δφ=0) or destructive (Δφ=π) interference, with the destructive case leading to a transparent ion. For an ion chain with nearest-neighbour hopping, the authors modulate the Carrier pulse on the central ion according to the incoming coherent amplitude and report either enhanced scattering or perfect transmission. They propose applications as wave-packet transistors or filters in the g≫J regime. The chain dynamics are simulated with a semiclassical mean-field approximation described in Appendix A.

Significance. The idea of interfering waves of different physical nature via a common measuring apparatus is original and timely, and the exact cancellation in the destructive case is an elegant, dark-state-like effect for coherent states. If the constructive-interference and device predictions survive a full quantum treatment, the work could be a useful step toward hybrid phonon-photon control in trapped-ion systems. However, the quantitative claims—especially the transistor/filter operation in the g≫J regime—rest on a semiclassical approximation whose accuracy at |α|=1 is not established, so the significance is conditional. The paper does not provide machine-checked proofs or code, but the analytical construction is transparent and self-contained.

major comments (3)
  1. [§II.B, Eq. (11), Fig. 2c] The destructive-interference claim is actually exact in the full quantum model for the initial coherent state, contrary to the worry that it is an artifact of replacing a by α. Writing the interaction as H_int = (g/2)(a σ+ + a† σ-) with Ω2 = -gα, one has H_int|α,g⟩ = (g/2)[(a-α)σ+ + (a†-α*)σ-]|α,g⟩ = 0, because (a-α)|α⟩=0 and σ-|g⟩=0. Thus the transparency in the DI case is a genuine coherent-state dark-state cancellation, not a mean-field artifact. The manuscript should state this exactness explicitly; the present semiclassical derivation in Appendix A obscures a strong result.
  2. [§II.A Fig. 1b; §II.B Fig. 2c; Appendix A] All constructive-interference and quantitative chain results are obtained under the mean-field factorization ⟨a σ+⟩≈⟨a⟩⟨σ+⟩. At |α|=1 this is uncontrolled. For a single ion the exact JC dynamics on |α⟩ gives P_e(t)=Σ_n e^{-1}/n! sin²(g√n t/2), whereas the effective Hamiltonian in Eq. (7) gives sin²(g t/2) for α=1. At g t=π these differ substantially (about 0.55 vs 1). Hence Fig. 1b overstates the constructive enhancement, and the CI curves in Fig. 2c are not reliable without a full quantum simulation or a controlled 1/α expansion. Since the transistor/filter proposal is based on the large-g behaviour, this is load-bearing.
  3. [§II.B, Eq. (11)] Eq. (11) treats α_m(t) as the instantaneous coherent amplitude entering the JC term, but the text defines it as the amplitude 'in the absence of external fields.' In the constructive case the JC/Carrier interaction modifies the actual amplitude, so using the no-field trajectory does not generally ensure Ω2(t)+g α_m^{actual}(t)=g α_m^{actual}(t)(e^{iΔφ}+1). The DI case is self-consistent because the interaction annihilates the state, but the CI case is not justified. The authors should specify whether Ω2 is based on the unperturbed or self-consistent amplitude and discuss the consequence for the claimed factor-of-two enhancement.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] Typo: 'single-trapped ion' should be 'single trapped ion'.
  2. [§II.A, Eq. (6)] ℏ is restored in Eq. (6) after setting ℏ=1 in Eq. (2). Also the phase factor e^{−i(δt−φ)} and the expression e^{−iγ̂†} should be written unambiguously with parentheses and a clear definition of γ̂†.
  3. [§II.B] The statement that the Coulomb interaction is a 'short-range force' is physically misleading. Coulomb forces are long-ranged; the nearest-neighbour phonon-hopping form of Eq. (9) is an effective description for certain local radial modes. Please justify or rephrase.
  4. [§II.B, N=100] Reference [27] (a multi-qubit gate scaling paper) does not appear to support the claim that N=100 ensures negligible boundary effects. Please cite a numerical study of finite-size phonon chains or include convergence data.
  5. [Appendix A] The remark that the equations are stiff due to 'fast oscillations from the Carrier frequency' is confusing, since the Carrier interaction is taken on resonance in the interaction picture. Clarify the actual source of stiffness.
  6. [Fig. 1b and Fig. 2c] The captions should state explicitly that the curves are produced from the semiclassical/effective model rather than the full quantum Hamiltonian, particularly because the exact destructive case is known to hold.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the interference condition is a designed control pulse (Eq. 11), not a fitted parameter or imported self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs. Starting from the standard dipole Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) and RWA (Eq. 6), the paper derives the JC and Carrier interactions (Eqs. 7-8). The single-ion 'interference' is obtained by setting the Carrier Rabi frequency so that its drive amplitude equals the coherent-state effective JC coupling; e.g., |α| = Ω2/(ηΩ1) makes the total effective drive either 2g|α| or 0 depending on the sign of α. This is an explicit construction, not a fitted parameter later renamed a prediction. For the chain, Eq. (11) defines Ω2(t) = gα_m(t)e^{iΔφ}, so the identity Ω2(t)+gα_m(t)=gα_m(t)(e^{iΔφ}+1) is imposed by the control design; the observed transparency at Δφ=π is a direct consequence of the chosen pulse, which is the intended protocol rather than a circularly derived prediction. The self-citations [11,12] appear only as interpretive framing in the introduction and conclusion (particle description of interference; bright/dark states) and are not load-bearing: no uniqueness theorem or exclusion of alternatives is imported from them, and the equations of motion in Appendix A are derived from standard Hamiltonians. The main caveat is the semiclassical mean-field approximation (Appendix A), which replaces phonon operators by coherent amplitudes and Pauli operators by expectation values; the paper itself acknowledges that 'a complete quantum treatment would be necessary for systems with substantial quantum correlations or entanglement between phonons and qubits' and lists this as an open direction. At |α|=1 this approximation is not quantitatively protected, so the full-quantum robustness of the 'perfect cancellation' is a genuine validity question, but it is a modeling/approximation concern, not a circularity: within the stated model the cancellation is exactly the control one has chosen. Thus no step in the claimed derivation is equivalent to its inputs by definition or by self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation uses standard quantum-optics axioms and one domain-specific chain coupling model. The dominant extra assumption is the semiclassical mean-field treatment, which is not validated against a full quantum calculation. No free parameters are fitted; the Ω2(t) = g α_m e^{iΔφ} condition is a control design, not a fitted parameter.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Two-level electronic structure and rotating-wave approximation for the ion-light interaction.
    Section II, Eqs. (2) and (6). Standard in trapped-ion quantum optics.
  • domain assumption Lamb-Dicke expansion of the spatial phase factor to first order in η, valid for η ≲ 0.2.
    Section II A, after Eq. (4). Justified by cited experimental Lamb-Dicke parameters [33,34].
  • domain assumption Nearest-neighbor harmonic coupling of ion chain vibrational modes.
    Section II B, Eq. (9), citing [26]. Assumes equal coupling J for all neighbors.
  • ad hoc to paper Semiclassical mean-field approximation: phonon operators replaced by coherent amplitudes, spin operators by expectation values.
    Appendix A. This is the load-bearing modeling choice for all chain simulations; its validity at |α|=1 is not quantified.
  • domain assumption Coherent-state property preserved as the pulse propagates along the chain.
    Section II B. True for the free hopping Hamiltonian, but the JC interaction with the qubit can break it; the semiclassical model assumes it holds.
  • domain assumption No dissipation or decoherence in the simulations.
    Section II B. 'there are no dissipation effects'.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interference Between Electromagnetic and Mechanical Waves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UU35H7GP

@misc{pith2026250806683,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interference Between Electromagnetic and Mechanical Waves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UU35H7GP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.06683}
}
read the original abstract

Classically, wave interference is a phenomenon that can be explained by considering only the waves themselves, that is, without the need to consider the apparatus that monitors or observes them. Thus, in classical theories, interference can only occur between waves of the same nature. In quantum theory, the observed results require a description of the system and its measuring apparatus, which allows us to rethink the explanation of various natural phenomena. In this paper, we consider the ion-trap platform to study the interference of waves with different physical natures, specifically the electromagnetic and mechanical. At first, we drive two lasers onto a single-trapped ion to produce Jaynes-Cummings and Carrier interactions, where we verify that, depending on the phase relationship between the coherent state of the vibrational (mechanical) mode and the Carrier pulse (electromagnetic wave), the interactions enhance or cancel out population transfer to the electronic state of the ion, that works out as our measuring apparatus for those waves. Extending our result to an ion chain, we verify that a precise modulation of the Carrier Rabi frequency and phase (electromagnetic pulse) according to the amplitude of the incoming mechanical coherent state in the ion chain enables creating either constructive or destructive interference with propagating pulses, in which the electronic state of the driven ion is, respectively, populated more and faster, or transparent to both pulse waves, when the information flux behaves as if no external fields are applied. Finally, this new type of controlled interference between waves of different natures allows us to propose new hybrid quantum devices, such as transistors or filters of wave packets, where photonic (phononic) pulses control the passage of phononic (photonic) waves.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.06683 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Single-trapped ion system, characterized by its vibrational (ν) and electronic transition (ω0) frequencies. It interacts with external electromagnetic (E.M.) fields with fre￾quencies ω1 = ω0 + ν and ω2 = ω0, that generate Jaynes￾Cummings (JC) and Carrier interactions, respectively. When its vibrational mode (represented by M) is initialized in the coherent state |α⟩, with |α| = Ω2 Ω1η = 1 (where Ωl , l = 1, 2, i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A chain of N trapped ions with two external lasers promoting continuously JC and modulated (through Ω2(t)) Carrier interactions on the middle ion of the chain, follow￾ing Eq. (10). Panel (a) shows the light and the mechanical wave pulses scattering when ∆φ ̸= π, and panel (b) shows the perfect canceling of the interaction with the electronic states of the ion when ∆φ = π. Hence, adjusting the Rabi fre￾quency Ω2(t), … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Freegarde, Introduction to the Physics of Waves (Cambridge University Press, 2012)

    T. Freegarde, Introduction to the Physics of Waves (Cambridge University Press, 2012)

    2012

  2. [2]

    D ¨orfler, M

    W. D ¨orfler, M. Hochbruck, D. Hundertmark, W. Re- ichel, A. Rieder, R. Schnaubelt, and B. Sch ¨orkhuber, eds., Mathematics of Wave Phenomena, Trends in Mathematics (Springer International Publishing, 2020)

    2020

  3. [3]

    D. H. Towne, Wave Phenomena (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1967)

    1967

  4. [4]

    Hecht, Optics, 5th ed

    E. Hecht, Optics, 5th ed. (Pearson Education, Boston, MA, 2017)

    2017

  5. [5]

    Born and E

    M. Born and E. Wolf, Principles of optics: Electromagnetic the- ory of propagation, interference and diffraction of light, Perga- mon Press, Oxford, 1959

    1959

  6. [6]

    N. Bohr, I. on the constitution of atoms and molecules, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophi- cal Magazine and Journal of Science 26, 1 (1913), https://doi.org/10.1080/1478644130863495

    doi:10.1080/1478644130863495 1913

  7. [7]

    W. H. Zurek, Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical – revisited (2003), arXiv:quant-ph/0306072 [quant- ph]

    arXiv 2003

  8. [8]

    DE BROGLIE, Waves and quanta, Nature 112, 540 (1923)

    L. DE BROGLIE, Waves and quanta, Nature 112, 540 (1923)

    1923

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    De Broglie, Louis, Recherches sur la th ´eorie des quanta, Ann. Phys. 10, 22 (1925)

    1925

  2. [10]

    R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, M. Sands, and R. B. Lindsay, The feynman lectures on physics, vol. 3: Quantum mechanics, Physics Today 19, 80 (1966), https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article- pdf/19/11/80/7460815/80 1 online.pdf

    1966

  3. [11]

    C. J. Villas-Boas, C. E. M ´aximo, P. J. Paulino, R. P. Bachelard, and G. Rempe, Bright and dark states of light: The quantum origin of classical interference, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 133603 (2025)

    2025

  4. [12]

    C. M. Diniz, F. R. Henrique, B. S. de Souza, L. Misoguti, P. H. D. Ferreira, and C. J. V . B ˆoas, Pulsed laser as a contin- uous particle stream (2025), arXiv:2412.19746 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    R. J. Glauber, Coherent and incoherent states of the radiation field, Phys. Rev. 131, 2766 (1963)

    1963

  6. [14]

    R. J. Glauber, The quantum theory of optical coherence, Phys. Rev. 130, 2529 (1963)

    1963

  7. [15]

    R. J. Glauber, Nobel lecture: One hundred years of light quanta, Reviews of Modern Physics 78, 1267 (2006)

    2006

  8. [16]

    R. J. Glauber, Quantum theory of optical coherence: selected papers and lectures (2007), John Wiley & Sons

    2007

  9. [17]

    B. J. Eggleton, C. G. Poulton, P. T. Rakich, M. J. Steel, and G. Bahl, Brillouin integrated photonics, Nature Photonics 13, 664 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    A. H. Safavi-Naeini and O. Painter, Proposal for an optome- chanical traveling wave phonon–photon translator, New Journal of Physics 13, 013017 (2011)

    2011

  11. [19]

    M. S. Tame, K. R. McEnery, S ¸. K.¨Ozdemir, J. Lee, S. A. Maier, and M. S. Kim, Quantum plasmonics, Nature Physics 9, 329 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    Aspelmeyer, T

    M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, Cavity op- tomechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 1391 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    Verhagen, S

    E. Verhagen, S. Del´eglise, S. Weis, A. Schliesser, and T. J. Kip- penberg, Quantum-coherent coupling of a mechanical oscillator to an optical cavity mode, Nature 482, 63 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    Leibfried, R

    D. Leibfried, R. Blatt, C. Monroe, and D. Wineland, Quan- tum dynamics of single trapped ions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 281 (2003)

    2003

  15. [23]

    Q. Xie, H. Zhong, M. T. Batchelor, and C. Lee, The quantum rabi model: solution and dynamics, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and Theoretical 50, 113001 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Quantum computations with cold trapped ions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4091 (1995)

    1995

  17. [25]

    Monroe, D

    C. Monroe, D. M. Meekhof, B. E. King, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, Demonstration of a fundamental quantum logic gate, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4714 (1995)

    1995

  18. [26]

    Debnath, N

    S. Debnath, N. M. Linke, S.-T. Wang, C. Figgatt, K. A. Lands- man, L.-M. Duan, and C. Monroe, Observation of hopping and blockade of bosons in a trapped ion spin chain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 073001 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Shapira, L

    Y . Shapira, L. Peleg, D. Schwerdt, J. Nemirovsky, N. Akerman, A. Stern, A. B. Kish, and R. Ozeri, Fast design and scaling of multi-qubit gates in large-scale trapped-ion quantum computers (2023), arXiv:2307.09566 [quant-ph]

    2023

  20. [28]

    C. A. Polanco and A. W. Ghosh, Enhancing phonon flow through one-dimensional interfaces by impedance matching, Journal of Applied Physics 116, 083503 (2014), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.4893789/15143125/083503 1 online.pdf

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    S. Abo, G. Chimczak, A. Kowalewska-Kudłaszyk, J. Pe ˇrina, R. Chhajlany, and A. Miranowicz, Hybrid photon–phonon blockade, Scientific Reports 12, 17655 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    M. A. de Ponte and A. C. Santos, Shortening time scale to re- duce thermal effects in quantum transistors, Scientific Reports 9, 10470 (2019). 7

    2019

  23. [31]

    Y .-X. Chen, T. Yuri, and K. Toyoda, Study of decoherence in radial local phonon hopping within trapped-ion string (2024), arXiv:2411.04765 [quant-ph]

    2024

  24. [32]

    C. M. L ¨oschnauer, J. M. Toba, A. C. Hughes, S. A. King, M. A. Weber, R. Srinivas, R. Matt, R. Nourshargh, D. T. C. All- cock, C. J. Ballance, C. Matthiesen, M. Malinowski, and T. P. Harty, Scalable, high-fidelity all-electronic control of trapped- ion qubits (2024), arXiv:24...

    2024

  25. [33]

    T. R. Tan, J. P. Gaebler, R. Bowler, Y . Lin, J. D. Jost, D. Leibfried, and D. J. Wineland, Demonstration of a dressed- state phase gate for trapped ions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 263002 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    Q. Wu, Y . Shi, and J. Zhang, Continuous raman sideband cool- ing beyond the lamb-dicke regime in a trapped ion chain, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 023022 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Imamo ¯glu, H

    A. Imamo ¯glu, H. Schmidt, G. Woods, and M. Deutsch, Strongly interacting photons in a nonlinear cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1467 (1997)

    1997

  28. [36]

    Z. Wang, H. Qiao, A. N. Cleland, and L. Jiang, Quantum ran- dom access memory with transmon-controlled phonon routing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 210601 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    S. J. M. Habraken, K. Stannigel, M. D. Lukin, P. Zoller, and P. Rabl, Continuous mode cooling and phonon routers for phononic quantum networks, New Journal of Physics 14, 115004 (2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    H. Sun, Y . Liu, and T. Li, Application perspective of cavity op- tomechanical system, Frontiers in Quantum Science and Tech- nology 10.3389/frqst.2022.1091691 (2023)

    2022

  31. [39]

    W. C. Jiang and Q. Lin, Chip-scale cavity optomechanics in lithium niobate, Scientific Reports 6, 36920 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Meher and S

    N. Meher and S. Sivakumar, A review on quantum information processing in cavities, The European Physical Journal Plus137, 985 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Sharma, Z

    T. Sharma, Z. Zhang, J. Wang, Z. Cheng, and K. Yu, Past, present, and future of hybrid plasmonic waveguides for pho- tonics integrated circuits, Nanotechnology and Precision Engi- neering 7, 045001 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Labont ´e, O

    L. Labont ´e, O. Alibart, V . D’Auria, F. Doutre, J. Etesse, G. Sauder, A. Martin, E. Picholle, and S. Tanzilli, Integrated photonics for quantum communications and metrology, PRX Quantum 5, 010101 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Rackauckas and Q

    C. Rackauckas and Q. Nie, Differentialequations.jl–a perfor- mant and feature-rich ecosystem for solving differential equa- tions in julia, Journal of Open Research Software 5, 15 (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    Bezanson, A

    J. Bezanson, A. Edelman, S. Karpinski, and V . B. Shah, Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing, SIAM review59, 65 (2017). Appendix A: Semiclassical simulation of the quantum system The quantum dynamics were solved using a semiclas- sical approximation to the Hamiltonia...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.