Quantum metrology of electric and magnetic dipole moments: ultimate limits and optimal regimes

Matteo G.A. Paris; Paolo Bordone; Simone Cavazzoni

Quantum metrology of electric and magnetic dipole moments: ultimate limits and optimal regimes

T0 review · 0 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-25 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Orthogonal electric and magnetic dipole moment configurations enable joint estimation while parallel ones allow only a single parameter combination.

desk verdict The paper derives QFI matrices for EDM/MDM estimation in two-level systems and shows orthogonal configurations allow joint estimation while parallel ones are sloppy. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.25510 v1 pith:VGRVEEXS submitted 2026-06-24 quant-ph

Simone Cavazzoni , Paolo Bordone , Matteo G.A. Paris This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords quantummetrologyelectricdipolemomentmagneticFisherinformationtwo-levelsystemsmultiparameterestimationCPviolationsensing

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 derives the quantum Fisher information matrix for estimating electric and magnetic dipole moments in a generic two-level system under three classes of dynamics. It shows how the relative orientation of the moments controls whether both parameters can be estimated simultaneously. Optimal evolution times and temperatures are identified for each probe class to maximize precision. A sympathetic reader would care because the results apply directly to EDM searches for CP violation and to precision magnetometry in quantum sensors.

What carries the argument

The quantum Fisher information matrix for the electric and magnetic dipole moment parameters under the three dynamics classes.

What would settle it

A measurement achieving simultaneous estimation precision better than the single-parameter bound in a parallel dipole configuration would contradict the sloppiness result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For unitary dynamics, depolarizing channels, and thermal equilibrium states, the quantum Fisher information matrix demonstrates that orthogonal dipole moment configurations enable joint estimation of EDM and MDM, whereas parallel configurations are intrinsically sloppy and permit estimation of only a single parameter combination. Optimal operating conditions such as evolution times and temperatures are derived for each class.

Load-bearing premise

The system dynamics belong to one of the three analyzed classes and the two-level approximation holds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Optimal probes and evolution times maximize precision separately for unitary, depolarizing, and thermal cases.
Coherence, noise, and thermalization each play distinct roles in the multiparameter sensing of the two moments.
The same framework covers both neutron EDM searches and molecular magnetometry.
Parallel configurations require reparameterization to a single effective dipole strength.

Reading between the lines

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

Experiments could test the predicted precision gain by switching between orthogonal and parallel orientations in the same apparatus.
The sloppiness diagnosis suggests that data analysis pipelines for parallel setups should fit only the combined parameter rather than attempting two separate values.
Extensions to open-system dynamics outside the three classes or to systems with more than two levels would require new Fisher matrix calculations.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The core result here is a set of explicit QFI calculations for simultaneous estimation of electric and magnetic dipole moments. The authors work through three probe classes—unitary evolution, depolarizing dynamics, and thermal equilibrium—and map out the optimal times, temperatures, and states for each. The standout finding is that orthogonal dipole alignments produce a nonsingular QFIM, while parallel alignments collapse to a single estimable combination.

This is a straightforward application of the quantum Fisher information formalism to a concrete metrology problem. The derivations appear to follow the usual steps without circularity, and the sloppiness analysis gives a clear practical takeaway for experiment design. The restriction to two-level systems is stated up front, so the claims hold inside that model.

The main limitation is exactly the one the stress-test flags: the two-level truncation and the choice of only three dynamics classes. In real molecular systems with rotational or hyperfine structure the commutator structure could shift the QFIM rank, and the paper does not bound the truncation error. For neutron EDM searches the approximation is standard and fine; for broader molecular magnetometry it is a narrower scope. No other gaps stand out from the abstract and claims.

A reader working on multiparameter quantum sensing or precision EDM/MDM experiments would find the formulas and the orthogonal-versus-parallel distinction useful. The work is grounded enough to merit referee time even if the model assumptions need discussion in review.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper derives the quantum Fisher information (QFI) and QFI matrix for separate and joint estimation of electric and magnetic dipole moments (EDM, MDM) in a generic two-level system coupled to electromagnetic fields. It analyzes three classes of probes/strategies (unitary dynamics, depolarizing channel, thermal equilibrium states), identifies optimal probes and operating conditions (evolution times, temperatures), and shows that orthogonal dipole configurations yield a nonsingular QFIM permitting joint estimation while parallel configurations produce sloppy models allowing only a single parameter combination.

Significance. If the derivations hold, the work supplies a unified metrological framework linking neutron EDM searches to molecular magnetometry. The explicit QFI derivations across dynamics classes, the identification of optimal regimes, and the orthogonal/parallel distinction for multiparameter compatibility are concrete contributions that can guide experimental design in quantum sensing.

minor comments (2)

The abstract states applicability to molecular magnetometry but the two-level truncation is used throughout without a quantitative error bound; while the central claim is scoped to generic two-level systems, a brief discussion of the approximation's regime of validity would clarify the reach of the orthogonal-configuration result.
The three dynamics classes are named in the abstract but the precise Hamiltonian and channel definitions (e.g., the form of the depolarizing channel or the thermal state) are not previewed; adding one sentence would improve accessibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of our manuscript, the accurate summary of its contributions, and the recommendation for minor revision. No specific major comments were provided in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Derivation of QFIM for dipole moments is self-contained with no circular steps

full rationale

The paper computes the quantum Fisher information matrix explicitly from the standard definition for a two-level system under the three stated dynamics classes (unitary evolution, depolarizing channel, thermal states). The distinction between orthogonal (nonsingular QFIM, joint estimation possible) and parallel (sloppy, rank-deficient) configurations follows directly from the commutator structure of H = −d·E − μ·B and the resulting symmetric logarithmic derivatives; no fitted parameters are renamed as predictions, no self-citations are invoked to justify uniqueness or ansatzes, and the two-level truncation is presented as an explicit modeling assumption rather than a derived result. The central claims are therefore independent of the target outputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The results rely on standard assumptions in quantum mechanics and quantum metrology without introducing new free parameters or entities.

assumptions (2)

domain assumption Quantum systems are described by two-level Hilbert spaces coupled to electromagnetic fields.
The paper considers a generic two-level system.
standard math The quantum Fisher information matrix bounds the precision of multiparameter estimation.
Core tool used for deriving ultimate limits.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum metrology of electric and magnetic dipole moments: ultimate limits and optimal regimes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VGRVEEXS

@misc{pith2026260625510,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum metrology of electric and magnetic dipole moments: ultimate limits and optimal regimes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VGRVEEXS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.25510}
}

read the original abstract

The characterization of electric and magnetic dipole moments (EDM and MDM) in quantum systems is central to fundamental physics and quantum sensing. While EDM searches provide powerful probes of CP violation within and beyond the Standard Model, precise MDM estimation is crucial for high-precision magnetometry and the development of quantum sensors. In this work, we address the ultimate precision limits for separate and simultaneous estimation of both dipole moments in a generic two-level system coupled to electromagnetic fields. We analyze three classes of quantum probes/strategies: unitary and depolarizing dynamics, and thermal equilibrium states. For each, we derive the quantum Fisher information (matrix), identify optimal probes, and determine the ideal operating conditions, such as evolution times and temperatures, that maximize estimation precision. We further assess the compatibility and sloppiness of the statistical models, showing that orthogonal dipole moments configurations enable joint estimation of EDM and MDM, whereas parallel configurations are intrinsically sloppy, permitting only the estimation of a single parameter combination. Our results provide a unified metrological framework for estimation schemes ranging from neutron EDM searches to molecular magnetometry, and highlight the distinct roles of coherence, noise, and thermalization in multiparameter quantum sensing of dipole moments.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

[1]

we consider a system governed by the Hamiltonian presented in Eq.(4)

Parallel Dipole Moments Configuration As a first configuration we present the results valid for elementary particles, nucleons and nuclei in which there is only one privileged direction due to the symmetry of the system and the electric and magnetic moment are aligned in the same direction [67], i.e. we consider a system governed by the Hamiltonian presen...
[2]

we consider a system governed by the Hamiltonian presented in Eq.(5)

Orthogonal Dipole Moments Configuration In the second configuration we present results valid for systems in which the magnetic and electric dipole moments lie on orthogonal directions, such as in heavy polar molecules [68], i.e. we consider a system governed by the Hamiltonian presented in Eq.(5). a. Noiseless Time Evolution –In the orthogonal dipole mome...
[3]

Parallel Dipole Moments Configuration In the parallel dipole moments configuration (i.e. whenω=ω ∥ = (±µ B z +d E z) and the eigenvectors are {|ϕ−⟩,|ϕ +⟩}={|0⟩,|1⟩}) the quantum Fisher information for a thermal stateρ ∥ th coincides with the classical Fisher information of an energy measurement, I ∥,ρth =F ∥,ρth E .(58) This directly derive from Eq.(57), ...

1997
[4]

Orthogonal Dipole Moments Configuration In the orthogonal dipole moments configuration (i.e. whenω=ω ⊥ = p (µBx)2 + (dEz)2 and the eigenvectors are defined by Eq.(7)) the FI of a thermal stateρ ⊥ th is (F ⊥,ρth E )d,d = β2E2 z ζ2 sech2 (βω⊥) ω4 ⊥ (F ⊥,ρth E )d,µ = β2EzζB xχsech 2 (βω⊥) ω4 ⊥ (F ⊥,ρth E )µ,µ = β2B2 xχ2 sech2 (βω⊥) ω4 ⊥ (F ⊥,ρth E )µ,d = β2E...

1997
[5]

Any problem that involves a local electromagnetic field defined by ⃗E= (E x′, Ey′, Ez′) and ⃗B= (B x′, By′, Bz′) defined in a reference frame{x ′ , y ′ , z ′ }

Suitable Local Coordinate F rame The basis of almost all the physical experiments relies in the definition of the most suitable reference frame for the analysis of the system under investigation [75]. Any problem that involves a local electromagnetic field defined by ⃗E= (E x′, Ey′, Ez′) and ⃗B= (B x′, By′, Bz′) defined in a reference frame{x ′ , y ′ , z ...
[6]

Two-Dimensional Hilbert Space Physics In this subsection we report mathematical details useful for the calculation of the physical properties of any two level system, from the matrix exponentiation to the eigenproblem, two of the basic building blocks of the quantum mechanic nature of a system. a. Matrix Exponentiation A general matrix ¯M, in a two level ...
[7]

Baker, D

C. Baker, D. Doyle, P. Geltenbort, K. Green, M. Van der Grinten, P. Harris, P. Iaydjiev, S. Ivanov, D. May, J. Pendlebury, et al., Physical review letters97, 131801 (2006)

2006
[8]

Pospelov and A

M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, Physical Review D89, 056006 (2014)

2014

Show all 81 references

[9]

C. Abel, S. Afach, N. J. Ayres, C. A. Baker, G. Ban, G. Bison, K. Bodek, V. Bondar, M. Burghoff, E. Chanel,et al., Physical Review Letters124, 081803 (2020)

2020
[10]

Altarev, D

I. Altarev, D. Beck, S. Chesnevskaya, T. Chupp, W. Feldmeier, P. Fierlinger, A. Frei, E. Gutsmiedl, F. Kuchler, P. Link, et al., Nuovo Cimento-C35, 122 (2012)

2012
[11]

F. M. Piegsa, Physical Review C—Nuclear Physics88, 045502 (2013)

2013
[12]

Pendlebury, S

J. Pendlebury, S. Afach, N. J. Ayres, C. A. Baker, G. Ban, G. Bison, K. Bodek, M. Burghoff, P. Geltenbort, K. Green, et al., Physical Review D92, 092003 (2015)

2015
[13]

Martin, inJournal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol

J. Martin, inJournal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 1643 (IOP Publishing, 2020) p. 012002

2020
[14]

Hudson, B

J. Hudson, B. Sauer, M. Tarbutt, and E. Hinds, Physical review letters89, 023003 (2002)

2002
[15]

Denis, P

M. Denis, P. A. Haase, R. G. Timmermans, E. Eliav, N. R. Hutzler, and A. Borschevsky, Physical Review A99, 042512 (2019)

2019
[16]

B. L. Augenbraun, Z. D. Lasner, A. Frenett, H. Sawaoka, C. Miller, T. C. Steimle, and J. M. Doyle, New Journal of Physics 22, 022003 (2020)

2020
[17]

K. B. Ng, Y. Zhou, L. Cheng, N. Schlossberger, S. Y. Park, T. S. Roussy, L. Caldwell, Y. Shagam, A. J. Vigil, E. A. Cornell,et al., Physical Review A105, 022823 (2022). 19

2022
[18]

Caldwell, T

L. Caldwell, T. S. Roussy, T. Wright, W. B. Cairncross, Y. Shagam, K. B. Ng, N. Schlossberger, S. Y. Park, A. Wang, J. Ye,et al., Physical Review A108, 012804 (2023)

2023
[19]

Engel, Annu

J. Engel, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci75, 129 (2025)

2025
[20]

Hubert and T

M. Hubert and T. Fleig, Physical Review A106, 022817 (2022)

2022
[21]

Flambaum and V

V. Flambaum and V. Dzuba, Physical Review A101, 042504 (2020)

2020
[22]

Graner, Y

B. Graner, Y. Chen, E. Lindahl, and B. Heckel, Physical Review Letters119, 119901 (2017)

2017
[23]

Parker, M

R. Parker, M. Dietrich, M. Kalita, N. Lemke, K. Bailey, M. Bishof, J. Greene, R. Holt, W. Korsch, Z.-T. Lu,et al., Physical Review Letters114, 233002 (2015)

2015
[24]

Bishof, R

M. Bishof, R. H. Parker, K. G. Bailey, J. P. Greene, R. J. Holt, M. R. Kalita, W. Korsch, N. D. Lemke, Z.-T. Lu, P. Mueller, et al., Physical Review C94, 025501 (2016)

2016
[25]

Andreevet al., Nature562, 355–360 (2018)

V. Andreevet al., Nature562, 355–360 (2018)

2018
[26]

J. Lim, J. Almond, M. Trigatzis, J. Devlin, N. Fitch, B. Sauer, M. Tarbutt, and E. Hinds, Physical review letters120, 123201 (2018)

2018
[27]

A. V. Gubskaya and P. G. Kusalik, The Journal of chemical physics117, 5290 (2002)

2002
[28]

V. I. Minkin,Dipole moments in organic chemistry(Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

2012
[29]

Kotochigova, P

S. Kotochigova, P. S. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Physical Review A68, 022501 (2003)

2003
[30]

Albarelli, E

F. Albarelli, E. Bisketzi, A. Khan, and A. Datta, Physical Review A107, 062601 (2023)

2023
[31]

Suzuki, International Journal of Quantum Information13, 1450044 (2015)

J. Suzuki, International Journal of Quantum Information13, 1450044 (2015)

2015
[32]

Suzuki, Journal of Mathematical Physics57(2016)

J. Suzuki, Journal of Mathematical Physics57(2016)

2016
[33]

Troiani and M

F. Troiani and M. G. A. Paris, Physical review letters120, 260503 (2018)

2018
[34]

Gusarov, M

N. Gusarov, M. Perelshtein, P. Hakonen, and G. Paraoanu, Physical Review A107, 052609 (2023)

2023
[35]

Boixo, S

S. Boixo, S. T. Flammia, C. M. Caves, and J. M. Geremia, Physical review letters98, 090401 (2007)

2007
[36]

de Lange, D

G. de Lange, D. Rist` e, V. Dobrovitski, and R. Hanson, Physical review letters106, 080802 (2011)

2011
[37]

Pang and T

S. Pang and T. A. Brun, Physical Review A90, 022117 (2014)

2014
[38]

J. F. Rodriguez-Nieva, K. Agarwal, T. Giamarchi, B. I. Halperin, M. D. Lukin, and E. Demler, Physical Review B98, 195433 (2018)

2018
[39]

Forghieri, A

G. Forghieri, A. Secchi, A. Bertoni, P. Bordone, and F. Troiani, Physical Review Research5, 043159 (2023)

2023
[40]

Fanucchi, G

E. Fanucchi, G. Forghieri, A. Secchi, P. Bordone, and F. Troiani, Physical Review B111, 205409 (2025)

2025
[41]

Secchi, G

A. Secchi, G. Forghieri, P. Bordone, D. Loss, S. Bosco, and F. Troiani, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.02449 (2025)

2025
[42]

J. B. Brask, R. Chaves, and J. Ko lody´ nski, Physical Review X5, 031010 (2015)

2015
[43]

Wildermuth, S

S. Wildermuth, S. Hofferberth, I. Lesanovsky, E. Haller, L. M. Andersson, S. Groth, I. Bar-Joseph, P. Kr¨ uger, and J. Schmiedmayer, Nature435, 440 (2005)

2005
[44]

Baumgratz and A

T. Baumgratz and A. Datta, Physical review letters116, 030801 (2016)

2016
[45]

Albarelli, M

F. Albarelli, M. A. Rossi, M. G. A. Paris, and M. G. Genoni, New Journal of Physics19, 123011 (2017)

2017
[46]

Pang and A

S. Pang and A. N. Jordan, Nature communications8, 14695 (2017)

2017
[47]

J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical53, 023001 (2020)

2020
[48]

M. A. Rossi, F. Albarelli, D. Tamascelli, and M. G. Genoni, Physical Review Letters125, 200505 (2020)

2020
[49]

J. Yang, S. Pang, Z. Chen, A. N. Jordan, and A. Del Campo, Physical Review Letters128, 160505 (2022)

2022
[50]

Montenegro, G

V. Montenegro, G. S. Jones, S. Bose, and A. Bayat, Physical Review Letters129, 120503 (2022)

2022
[51]

This condition corresponds to considering the componentµ B x σx = 0 in Eq.(3)
[52]

E. D. Commins, J. D. Jackson, and D. P. DeMille, American Journal of Physics75, 532 (2007)

2007
[53]

A. C. Vutha, B. Spaun, Y. V. Gurevich, N. R. Hutzler, E. Kirilov, J. M. Doyle, G. Gabrielse, and D. DeMille, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics84, 034502 (2011)

2011
[54]

Daffer, K

S. Daffer, K. W´ odkiewicz, J. D. Cresser, and J. K. McIver, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 70, 010304 (2004)

2004
[55]

Manzano, AIP Advances10, 025106 (2020)

D. Manzano, AIP Advances10, 025106 (2020)

2020
[56]

Kammerlander and J

P. Kammerlander and J. Anders, Scientific reports6, 22174 (2016)

2016
[57]

Marvian, Physical Review Letters129, 190502 (2022)

I. Marvian, Physical Review Letters129, 190502 (2022)

2022
[58]

Razavian, C

S. Razavian, C. Benedetti, M. Bina, Y. Akbari-Kourbolagh, and M. G. A. Paris, The European Physical Journal Plus134, 284 (2019)

2019
[59]

M. G. A. Paris, International Journal of Quantum Information7, 125 (2009)

2009
[60]

Chapeau-Blondeau, Physical Review A91, 052310 (2015)

F. Chapeau-Blondeau, Physical Review A91, 052310 (2015)

2015
[61]

Zhong, Z

W. Zhong, Z. Sun, J. Ma, X. Wang, and F. Nori, Physical Review A87, 022337 (2013)

2013
[62]

Ragazzi, S

G. Ragazzi, S. Cavazzoni, P. Bordone, and M. G. A. Paris, Physical Review A110, 052425 (2024)

2024
[63]

R. N. Gutenkunst, J. J. Waterfall, F. P. Casey, K. S. Brown, C. R. Myers, and J. P. Sethna, PLoS computational biology 3, e189 (2007)

2007
[64]

B. C. Daniels, Y.-J. Chen, J. P. Sethna, R. N. Gutenkunst, and C. R. Myers, Current opinion in biotechnology19, 389 (2008)

2008
[65]

Cavazzoni, M

S. Cavazzoni, M. Adani, P. Bordone, and M. G. A. Paris, New Journal of Physics26, 053024 (2024)

2024
[66]

Adani, S

M. Adani, S. Cavazzoni, B. Teklu, P. Bordone, and M. G. A. Paris, Scientific Reports14, 19933 (2024)

2024
[67]

Sharma, S

P. Sharma, S. Olivares, D. K. Mishra, and M. G. A. Paris, New Journal of Physics27, 104511 (2025)

2025
[68]

Carollo, B

A. Carollo, B. Spagnolo, A. A. Dubkov, and D. Valenti, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2019, 094010 (2019)

2019
[69]

X.-X. Jing, J. Liu, H.-N. Xiong, and X. Wang, Physical Review A92, 012312 (2015). 20

2015
[70]

Candeloro, Z

A. Candeloro, Z. Pazhotan, and M. G. A. Paris, Quantum Science and Technology9, 045045 (2024)

2024
[71]

Cavazzoni, L

S. Cavazzoni, L. Razzoli, G. Ragazzi, P. Bordone, and M. G. A. Paris, Physical Review A109, 022432 (2024)

2024
[72]

Cavazzoni, P

S. Cavazzoni, P. Bordone, and M. G. A. Paris, AVS Quantum Science6(2024)

2024
[73]

We choosezfor simplicity
[74]

Here without loss of generality we choosexandzas directions
[75]

Razavian, M

S. Razavian, M. G. A. Paris, and M. G. Genoni, Entropy22, 1197 (2020)

2020
[76]

Daniotti, C

S. Daniotti, C. Benedetti, and M. G. A. Paris, The European Physical Journal D72, 208 (2018)

2018
[77]

Pospelov and A

M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, Annals of physics318, 119 (2005)

2005
[78]

Pospelov and A

M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, Physical Review D63, 073015 (2001)

2001
[79]

Previdi, F

L. Previdi, F. Albarelli, and M. G. A. Paris, Physical Review A113, 062612 (2026)

2026
[80]

For the parallel caseω=ω ∥ and for the orthogonal caseω=ω ⊥
[81]

E. W. Swokowski,Calculus with analytic geometry(Taylor & Francis, 1979)

1979

Pith tools

Reviewed June 25, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

we consider a system governed by the Hamiltonian presented in Eq.(4)

Parallel Dipole Moments Configuration As a first configuration we present the results valid for elementary particles, nucleons and nuclei in which there is only one privileged direction due to the symmetry of the system and the electric and magnetic moment are aligned in the same direction [67], i.e. we consider a system governed by the Hamiltonian presen...

[2] [2]

we consider a system governed by the Hamiltonian presented in Eq.(5)

Orthogonal Dipole Moments Configuration In the second configuration we present results valid for systems in which the magnetic and electric dipole moments lie on orthogonal directions, such as in heavy polar molecules [68], i.e. we consider a system governed by the Hamiltonian presented in Eq.(5). a. Noiseless Time Evolution –In the orthogonal dipole mome...

[3] [3]

Parallel Dipole Moments Configuration In the parallel dipole moments configuration (i.e. whenω=ω ∥ = (±µ B z +d E z) and the eigenvectors are {|ϕ−⟩,|ϕ +⟩}={|0⟩,|1⟩}) the quantum Fisher information for a thermal stateρ ∥ th coincides with the classical Fisher information of an energy measurement, I ∥,ρth =F ∥,ρth E .(58) This directly derive from Eq.(57), ...

1997

[4] [4]

Orthogonal Dipole Moments Configuration In the orthogonal dipole moments configuration (i.e. whenω=ω ⊥ = p (µBx)2 + (dEz)2 and the eigenvectors are defined by Eq.(7)) the FI of a thermal stateρ ⊥ th is (F ⊥,ρth E )d,d = β2E2 z ζ2 sech2 (βω⊥) ω4 ⊥ (F ⊥,ρth E )d,µ = β2EzζB xχsech 2 (βω⊥) ω4 ⊥ (F ⊥,ρth E )µ,µ = β2B2 xχ2 sech2 (βω⊥) ω4 ⊥ (F ⊥,ρth E )µ,d = β2E...

1997

[5] [5]

Any problem that involves a local electromagnetic field defined by ⃗E= (E x′, Ey′, Ez′) and ⃗B= (B x′, By′, Bz′) defined in a reference frame{x ′ , y ′ , z ′ }

Suitable Local Coordinate F rame The basis of almost all the physical experiments relies in the definition of the most suitable reference frame for the analysis of the system under investigation [75]. Any problem that involves a local electromagnetic field defined by ⃗E= (E x′, Ey′, Ez′) and ⃗B= (B x′, By′, Bz′) defined in a reference frame{x ′ , y ′ , z ...

[6] [6]

Two-Dimensional Hilbert Space Physics In this subsection we report mathematical details useful for the calculation of the physical properties of any two level system, from the matrix exponentiation to the eigenproblem, two of the basic building blocks of the quantum mechanic nature of a system. a. Matrix Exponentiation A general matrix ¯M, in a two level ...

[7] [7]

Baker, D

C. Baker, D. Doyle, P. Geltenbort, K. Green, M. Van der Grinten, P. Harris, P. Iaydjiev, S. Ivanov, D. May, J. Pendlebury, et al., Physical review letters97, 131801 (2006)

2006

[8] [8]

Pospelov and A

M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, Physical Review D89, 056006 (2014)

2014