Comparison of Spatial Entanglement between dissociated atom and ion : molecular ion photo-dissociated by sequential two-photon absorption and correlated two-photon absorption

Krishna Rai Dastidar

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 34 references

Comparison of Spatial Entanglement between dissociated atom and ion : molecular ion photo-dissociated by sequential two-photon absorption and correlated two-photon absorption

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Correlated two-photon dissociation of H2+ yields higher-fidelity spatial entanglement than sequential two-photon absorption.

desk verdict A citable-vs-not case: the STP-vs-CTP comparison for H2+ is new, but the CTP result rests entirely on a self-cited nonlocal field model and a non-standard fidelity metric. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.29556 v2 pith:YEG7SVIS submitted 2026-07-31 quant-ph

Krishna Rai Dastidar This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords spatialentanglementtwo-photondissociationhydrogenmolecularioncorrelatedabsorptionsequentialwavepacketdynamicsfidelityofnonlocalmodeelectromagneticfield

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 tries to establish that when a hydrogen molecular ion absorbs two photons simultaneously and phase-correlated rather than one after the other, the dissociated hydrogen atom and proton emerge with higher fidelity spatial entanglement, and that this advantage persists over a wider range of centre-of-mass wavepacket widths. Working on H2+, it compares sequential two-photon (STP) dissociation via the intermediate 2pσu state with correlated two-photon (CTP) dissociation directly to the dissociating 2sσg state. For CTP, the transition amplitude is taken to be proportional to the square root of laser intensity, reflecting simultaneous absorption of two phase-correlated photons from a nonlocal mode of the electromagnetic field. The central numerical result is that CTP fidelity reaches 99.99% (vs 99.60% for STP) and stays within 0.02–0.05% of that peak over a broad range of wavepacket widths, while STP rises and falls sharply. Because the fidelity saturates with time and is tunable by photon frequency, the paper argues that CTP dissociation is a robust source of atom–ion spatial entanglement.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the fidelity F = 1/(1+κ), where κ is the ratio of the second-order correlation function for finding both fragments on the same side (G^(2)_{a1a1}) to that for finding them on opposite sides (G^(2)_{a1a2}); κ→0 means perfectly anti-correlated, spatially entangled motion. The dissociating wavepacket is generated by wavepacket propagation on the 2sσg state. For CTP the electronic dipole transition moment Dif(R,R′) = R(I1+I2) is derived analytically from the author's nonlocal-field model, giving a transition amplitude proportional to sqrt(I), and the two angular integrals enforce selection rules Δl=0 and Δl=0,±2. The centre-of-mass wavepacket is a Gaussian whose width sp

What would settle it

Measure the two-photon dissociation rate of H2+ as a function of laser intensity above 10^10 W/cm². If the rate scales as I² (standard sequential picture) rather than linearly in I, the CTP model fails. Alternatively, measure the fidelity of spatial entanglement as a function of the centre-of-mass wavepacket width: CTP predicts a flat high plateau, while STP predicts a sharp peak.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the fidelity of spatial entanglement between the dissociated hydrogen atom and proton is higher when H2+ is dissociated by correlated two-photon (CTP) absorption, where two phase-correlated photons are absorbed simultaneously from a nonlocal mode of the field, than when dissociation proceeds by sequential two-photon (STP) absorption through the intermediate 2pσu state. Over the range of initial centre-of-mass Gaussian wavepacket widths studied, CTP fidelity is always above STP fidelity and remains near its peak for a broader range of widths: the highest CTP value is 99.99%, compared with 99.60% for STP, and the CTP fidelity stays within 0.02–0.05% of the max

Load-bearing premise

The entire CTP calculation rests on the existence of the nonlocal mode of the electromagnetic field and on the extension of its correlated two-photon amplitude to molecules in Eq. (10); if that mode is not real, the CTP wavepacket and all CTP fidelity numbers have no basis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Photon frequency can serve as a control parameter: lower frequency yields higher fidelity because the slower outgoing fragments preserve spatial correlations longer.
CTP dissociation saturates to its maximum fidelity within a short time (~3000 a.u.), making the entanglement generation robust against the exact time at which it is measured.
The proposed detection scheme—waveguides, phase shifters, beam splitters, and coincidence detection for both atom and ion—offers a concrete route to verify spatial entanglement between a neutral atom and a proton.
The broad plateau in fidelity versus wavepacket width means the scheme does not require fine preparation of the molecular ion's centre-of-mass motion.
The linear-in-intensity scaling of the CTP rate provides a distinguishing experimental signature for the correlated two-photon mechanism.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial extension: If the CTP rate is truly linear in intensity, two-photon dissociation at high intensity could generate entangled atom–ion pairs without a real intermediate state, potentially avoiding decoherence channels that plague sequential processes.
Editorial extension: The same wavepacket/fidelity formalism could be applied to heteronuclear diatomic ions, where the mass asymmetry between fragments would shift the optimal frequency window and might yield different fidelity plateaus—a testable prediction.
Editorial extension: The path-entangled state in Eq. (18) has the form of a Bell state for massive particles, so the scheme could be adapted to test Bell-type inequalities for atom–ion spatial entanglement in position and momentum.
Editorial extension: A direct experiment measuring the two-photon dissociation rate of H2+ as a function of intensity above 10^10 W/cm² would discriminate between CTP (linear in I) and STP (quadratic in I), and could be combined with coincidence detection to compare the predicted fidelity curves.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

Here's my read of arXiv:2607.29556.

What you should know: the paper calculates a 'fidelity of spatial entanglement' for H and H+ from two-photon dissociation of H2+, comparing sequential (STP) and correlated (CTP) two-photon absorption. The STP-vs-CTP comparison and the quoted curves are new, but the CTP channel depends entirely on the author's own 1998 nonlocal-field model, which is not derived here. Also, the fidelity F=1/(1+κ) is a ratio of same-side to opposite-side detection probabilities, not an overlap with a maximally entangled state.

The paper does some things well. The STP calculation uses standard wavepacket propagation with known electronic potentials and dipole moments. The analytical transition moment for CTP in the appendix is an extension of the author's earlier molecular formalism. The physical reasoning that lower photon frequency yields slower fragments, less spreading, and stronger position correlations is sensible. The detection idea—using neutral-atom and ion waveguides with interferometry—is a practical adaptation of earlier atom-optics schemes.

The soft spots are not minor. Equation (10) writes the two-photon amplitude as proportional to sqrt(I) with no sum over intermediate states. That is the load-bearing input for all CTP curves. It is not independently derived; it is cited to the author's own work. If that nonlocal mode does not exist as stated, the CTP wavepackets and all fidelity curves in Figs. 2–7 have no basis. Equation (19) also leaves the ground-state coordinate R' unintegrated; the numerical calculation sets R' = 2 a.u., which is an unjustified shortcut when the vibrational wavefunction has a spread. And the fidelity as defined does not include the phase shifts and beam splitter interference that appear in the detection scheme; it is an anti-correlation measure, so calling it a fidelity overstates the entanglement.

The stress-test note captures these points accurately. I agree the central claim—that CTP always beats STP and gives 99.99% vs 99.60%—is not established by the evidence presented.

Still, the paper is coherent on its own terms and the model makes a falsifiable prediction (linear-in-intensity two-photon rate, high fidelity over a broad wavepacket width). That is enough to warrant a referee's time, though not acceptance. I would send it to peer review, with the expectation that the reviewer will ask for a derivation of Eq. (10) from a recognized Hamiltonian, a proper integration over R', and a clearer relationship between the computed quantity and a true state fidelity.

I would not cite it in my own work at this stage. For a reading group, it could serve as a case study in how self-reference and a non-standard fidelity definition can drift into an overclaimed headline.

Best,

[Your name]

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript compares two schemes for two-photon dissociation of H2+: sequential two-photon (STP) absorption via 1sσg → 2pσu → 2sσg, and correlated two-photon (CTP) absorption directly from 1sσg to 2sσg via a nonlocal mode of the electromagnetic field. Using wavepacket propagation on the dissociating state, the author defines a quantity F = 1/(1+κ) from same-direction and opposite-direction coincidence probabilities, and claims that CTP dissociation gives higher and more robust spatial-entanglement fidelity than STP over a wider range of centre-of-mass Gaussian wavepacket widths. The highest quoted fidelity is 99.99% for CTP versus 99.60% for STP, with photon frequency proposed as a control parameter and time-saturation of the fidelity used to argue robustness.

Significance. If the CTP model were established, the comparison would be a useful step toward generating spatial entanglement between an atom and an ion by photodissociation, and the proposed integrated-atom-optics detection scheme is a plausible extension of earlier work. The STP part is grounded in standard wavepacket methods and literature potential curves and dipole moments. However, the entire CTP branch rests on the nonlocal-mode amplitude taken from the author's previous work [1], with no derivation in the present manuscript; the quantity called 'fidelity' is a same/opposite coincidence ratio, not a quantum fidelity; and the treatment of the ground-state coordinate and the centre-of-mass spreading contains gaps. For these reasons the central claim that CTP dissociation always yields higher spatial-entanglement fidelity is not established by the evidence presented.

major comments (4)

[Sec. 2.2, Eq. (10)] The correlated two-photon transition amplitude T_if = i√(2πI/c) N_a ⟨φ_f|r·ε̂|φ_i⟩ is asserted from ref. [1] with no derivation in this manuscript. It is a single dipole-like matrix element proportional to √I, with no sum over virtual intermediate states, unlike the standard second-order two-photon amplitude. The nonlocal field operator ε̂(ˆr,ˆr') in Eq. (11) is an invented entity whose validity is not demonstrated here. Since all CTP wavepackets and all CTP fidelity curves (Eq. (16), Figs. 2–7) depend on this amplitude, the conclusion that CTP fidelity is 'always higher' is not supported within the manuscript.
[Eq. (19) and Sec. 3] Equation (19) writes |Z_f(R1,R2,R',T)|² = |W_if(R,R',T)|² × |Φ(X,T)|², but the probability is never integrated or summed over the ground-state internuclear coordinate R'. The ground vibrational state has a distribution over R', yet the numerical section simply sets R' = 2 a.u. Treating R' as a free parameter while computing a two-particle probability is not justified. This gap directly affects all quantitative fidelity values for the CTP channel.
[Sec. 2.3, Eqs. (25)–(26)] The quantity F = 1/(1+κ) is a ratio of same-direction to opposite-direction coincidence counts, not a fidelity of spatial entanglement. A separable mixed state with perfectly anticorrelated directions would also yield κ → 0 and F → 1. The manuscript does not compare the dissociated state to a target entangled state, so the claims of '99.99% fidelity' and 'fidelity of spatial entanglement' are overstated. This is a conceptual gap in the central metric.
[Eq. (21)] The centre-of-mass width formula ΔX_t = √(ΔX0² + (iħ/(4mΔX0))²) is dimensionally inconsistent and lacks the time variable. The second term has units of velocity, not length, and the imaginary unit makes ΔX_t potentially imaginary. The standard free Gaussian spreading is ΔX_t = √(ΔX0² + (ħt/(2mΔX0))²). As written, Eq. (21) cannot be correct, and the time-dependence of the fidelity discussed in Sec. 4.2 is therefore not reliably computed.

minor comments (4)

[General] Typos and formatting issues: 'exciation' in Sec. 2.2 heading; 'unis' in figure axis labels; 'intial' in Sec. 5; inconsistent spacing in 'H 2 +'.
[Eq. (21)] Even if the missing time variable is a typographical error, the imaginary unit inside the square is inappropriate for free spreading; please clarify the intended expression.
[Sec. 2.1–2.2] The STP and CTP wavepacket expressions treat the electric field envelope ϵ(t) differently: Eq. (16) for CTP includes only a single time integral, while the STP expression in Eqs. (1)–(2) has two nested integrals. The relationship between the two formalisms and the role of the intermediate state in the CTP case should be clarified.
[References] Reference [20] contains a typo ('Drumond' should be 'Drummond'), and several references are self-citations; please ensure that the nonlocal-mode model is also accessible to readers who do not have access to ref. [1].

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

CTP-vs-STP fidelity comparison is load-bearing on the self-cited nonlocal-mode amplitude of ref [1], though the wavepacket/fidelity computation itself is a genuine model calculation.

self citation load bearing [Section 2.2, Eq. (10); Section 4.1 item (4); Conclusion]
"Previously it has been shown [1] that in the interaction with the nonlocal mode of electromagnetic field correlated two-photon excitation of atoms ... can occur where the electronic dipole transition amplitude is proportional to square root of laser intensity. ... Hence the correlated two-photon electronic dipole transition amplitude is given as: Tif(R,R') = i sqrt(2πI/c) Na <φf|r.ε̂|φi>"

The CTP wavepacket in Eq. (16) is generated with D_if(R,R') = R(I1+I2), obtained entirely from Eq. (10), the correlated two-photon amplitude. Eq. (10) is not derived in this manuscript; it is imported from ref [1], whose authors overlap with the present author. The paper's headline result — 'fidelity from CTP dissociation is always higher and remains high in a broader range' — is therefore a numerical unfolding of the self-cited nonlocal-mode ansatz rather than an independent prediction. The explanatory claim that 'correlation between two photo-absorption processes is transmitted to the dissociated atom and ion, increasing the correlation between them' restates the model's defining premise as a conclusion. The computation is non-trivial, but the physical premise is assumed.

full rationale

The STP part of the derivation is self-contained: wavepacket propagation uses literature potential curves and dipole moments, and the fidelity integrals are explicit. The CTP part, however, hinges on Eq. (10) from prior same-group work [1]. This is a load-bearing self-citation because all CTP fidelity curves follow from that amplitude. Still, the comparison is not a pure tautology: the fidelity is obtained by propagating wavepackets, computing ratios of second-order correlation functions, and scanning wavepacket width and frequency. Also, the paper points to external experimental support [20] for the linear-in-intensity feature, which provides some independent evidence for the nonlocal-mode premise. The factorization in Eq. (19) and the fixed R'=2 a.u. are numerical approximations rather than circular steps. On balance, the central claim is partially dependent on a self-citation chain, but the calculation itself has independent computational content, so a moderate score of 4 is appropriate rather than a higher score of 6 or more.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the self-cited nonlocal field model, a Gaussian c.m. approximation, and a nonstandard fidelity definition; none of these are independently verified in this paper.

free parameters (4)

Photon frequency = 0.368267, 0.3059225, 0.279422 a.u.
Three chosen frequencies tied to vertical energy differences at R=2,3,4 a.u.; the frequency-control claim and fidelity curves depend on these choices.
Initial internuclear separation R' = 2 a.u.
Fixed to equilibrium separation for CTP dipole matrix elements, even though the initial vibrational state is spread in R; no integration over R' is shown in Eq (19).
Pulse duration and propagation times = T=6372 a.u.; t=3000, 5000, 6500 a.u.
Chosen numerical settings; saturation claims for fidelity depend on these values.
Centre-of-mass wavepacket initial width = scanned 0.0001 to 10 (units of 0.397 a.u.)
Scanned variable; the 'broad range' claim for CTP fidelity is relative to this chosen scan range.

assumptions (7)

ad hoc to paper Nonlocal mode of the electromagnetic field exists and gives CTP amplitude Eq (10), from ref [1].
Adopted from self-cited prior work with no independent verification; this is the foundation of the CTP channel.
ad hoc to paper Two photons are phase-correlated within δt << 1/ω at I > 10^10 W/cm^2, producing simultaneous absorption.
Core assumption of the CTP mechanism; asserted from ref [1], not demonstrated in this paper.
domain assumption Born-Oppenheimer product wavefunctions for initial and final states (Eqs 4-5).
Standard molecular electronic-nuclear separation, required to factor the wavefunctions.
domain assumption Centre-of-mass wavepacket remains Gaussian with free spreading (Eqs 20-21).
Approximation used for the c.m. motion; no derivation for dissociating fragments is given.
ad hoc to paper F=1/(1+κ) is the fidelity of spatial entanglement.
κ is a same/opposite detector probability ratio; equating 1/(1+κ) to entanglement fidelity is asserted, not derived from the path-entangled state.
ad hoc to paper Correlation between the two absorbed photons is transmitted to the dissociated fragments.
Stated in §§4.1 and 5; this is the mechanism that makes CTP fidelity higher, but it is an input of the model, not an independently measured fact.
domain assumption Literature potential energy curves and dipole moments for 1sσg, 2pσu, 2sσg (refs [26-29]) are correct.
The STP wavepacket calculation relies on these external data; they are standard literature but not reproduced here.

invented entities (1)

Nonlocal electromagnetic field mode ε̂(r̂,r̂')
purpose: Provides simultaneous phase-correlated two-photon absorption and CTP amplitude proportional to sqrt(I).
Introduced in self-cited ref [1]; the present paper provides no new falsifiable handle beyond the model's own predictions, and the claimed high-intensity regime is not experimentally demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comparison of Spatial Entanglement between dissociated atom and ion : molecular ion photo-dissociated by sequential two-photon absorption and correlated two-photon absorption." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YEG7SVIS

@misc{pith2026260729556,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comparison of Spatial Entanglement between dissociated atom and ion : molecular ion photo-dissociated by sequential two-photon absorption and correlated two-photon absorption},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YEG7SVIS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29556}
}

read the original abstract

We have studied the fidelity of spatial entanglement between dissociated atom and ion from two photon dissociation of hydrogen molecular ion H 2 + . Two processes for two photon dissociation of molecular ion have been considered (i) sequential two photon (STP) absorption and (ii) correlated two photon (CTP) absorption by the molecular ion. We compared the results for fidelity of spatial entanglement (FSE) between dissociated atom and ion for these two types of dissociation. In a previous study in our group [1] we have shown that when an atom interact with nonlocal mode of electromagnetic field (which has been derived field theoretically), simultaneous phase-correlated two pho1 ton absorption by the atom occurs within a very short time {\delta}t << {\omega} , where {\omega} is the laser frequency, and the rate of this correlated two photon absorption is linear in intensity. This will happen when the photon flux in the interaction region is high i.e. laser intensity is higher than 10 10 W/cm 2 . In this work we have extended this formalism to study the correlated two photon dissociation of molecular ion and to explore the effect of correlation between two simultaneous photo-absorption processes on the fidelity for spatial entanglement of dissociated atom and ion. Dependence of fidelity for spatial entanglement on the photon frequency has been studied for both the STP and CTP dissociation, to show that photon frequency can be used as control parameter to achieve maximum fidelity. Saturation of fidelity with the increase in time at which fidelity was calculated shows the robustness of the processes considered here. A scheme for detection of spatial entanglement between ion and atom has been suggested.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29556 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Fig2: Fidelity for spatial entanglement between dissociated atom and ion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Fig3: Fidelity for spatial entanglement between dissociated atom and ion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Fig4: Fidelity for spatial entanglement between dissociated atom and ion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Fig5: Fidelity for spatial entanglement between dissociated atom and ion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Fig6: Fidelity for spatial entanglement between dissociated atom and ion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Fig7: Fidelity for spatial entanglement between dissociated atom and ion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references

[1]

T. K. Rai Dastidar and Krishna Rai Dastidar, Modern Physics Letters A13, 1265–1280 (1998) (https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217732398001339)

doi:10.1142/s0217732398001339 1998
[2]

Entangled World, The Fascination of Quantum Information and Computation, Jurgen Audretsch (Editor) (2002), WILEY- VCH Verlag GmbH, Weinheim, Translation by Rudolf Ehrlich, Germany

2002
[3]

Malte C Tichy, Florian Mintert and Andreas Buchleit- ner, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.44192001 (2011) (stacks.iop.org/JPhysB/44/192001)

2011
[4]

Eckert, J

K. Eckert, J. Schliemann, D. Bruß and M. Lewenstein, Annals of Physics299, 88–127 (2002) (doi:10.1006/aphy.2002.6268) 20

arXiv 2002
[5]

GianCarlo Ghirardi and Luca Marinatto, Phys Rev A 70, 012109 (2004) (doi.org/PhysRevA.70.012109)

2004
[6]

Ignacio Cirac, Marek Kus´, Maciej Lewenstein, and Daniel Loss, Phys Rev A,64, 022303 (2001) (DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.64.022303)

John Schliemann, J. Ignacio Cirac, Marek Kus´, Maciej Lewenstein, and Daniel Loss, Phys Rev A,64, 022303 (2001) (DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.64.022303)

doi:10.1103/physreva.64.022303 2001
[7]

Zander and A

C. Zander and A. R. Plastino, Phys Rev A,81, 062128 (2010)

2010
[8]

Pu and P

H. Pu and P. Meystre, Phys Rev Letts85, 3987 (2000) (doi: PhysRevLett.85.3987) 11

2000

Show all 34 references

[9]

Sorensen, L

A. Sorensen, L. Duan, J. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Nature, 409 (6816): 63–66 (Jan 4, 2001) (DOI: 10.1038/35051038)

2001 doi
[10]

You, Phys Rev Letts90, 030402 (2010) (DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.030402)

L. You, Phys Rev Letts90, 030402 (2010) (DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.030402)

2010 doi
[11]

Y. S. Athreya, S. Kannan, X. T. Yan, R. J. Lewis-Swan, K. V. Kheruntsyan, A. G. Truscott and S. S. Hodgman, Nature Communications17, 2357 (2026) (doi: 10.1038/s41467-026- 69070-3)

2026 doi
[12]

Suzuki Masashi Kitajima and Noriyuki Kouchi, Phys Rev A82, 040101(R) (2010) (DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.82.040101)

Takehiko Tanabe, Takeshi Odagiri, Motoyoshi Nakano, Yoshiaki Kumagai, Isao H. Suzuki Masashi Kitajima and Noriyuki Kouchi, Phys Rev A82, 040101(R) (2010) (DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.82.040101)

2010 doi
[13]

Rodolfo O Esquivel, Nelson Flores-Gallegos, Moyocoyani Molina-Esp´ıritu, A R Plastino, Juan Carlos Angulo, Juan Antolın and Jesus S Dehesa, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 44, 175101 (2011) (doi:10.1088/0953-4075/44/17/175101)

2011 doi
[14]

Gonis, X

A. Gonis, X. G. Zhang, D.M. Nicholson and G.M. Stocks, Molecular Phys112, 453-461 (2014) (doi.org/10.1080/00268976.2013.836610) 14

2014
[15]

Dochain, B

A. Dochain, B. Fabre, C. Lauzin, and X. Urbain, Phys Rev A 107, 013109 (2023) (doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.107.01309) 15

2023 doi
[16]

(doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.111.023116) 16 21

Yutaro Torizuka, Kouichi Hosaka, Philipp Schmidt, Takeshi Odagiri, Arno Ehresmann, Masashi Kitajima and Noriyuki Kouchi, Phys Rev A111, 023116 (2025) and references therein. (doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.111.023116) 16 21

2025 doi
[17]

Sebastian Eckart, Daniel Trabert, Jonas Rist, Angelina Geyer, Lothar Ph. H. Schmidt, Kilian Fehre and Maksim Kunitski, Sci. Adv.9, eabq8227 (2023) (doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abq8227)

2023 doi
[18]

C. M. Savage and K. V. Kheruntsyan Phys. Rev.Letts.99, 220404 (2007) (DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.220404) 18

2007 doi
[20]

N. P. Georgiades, E. S. Polzik, K. Edamatsu, H. J. Kimble and A. S. Parkins, Phys. Rev.Letts.75, 3426 (1995); see also Z. Ficek and P. D. Drumond, Phys. Today, 34, September (1997) ((DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.3426)

1995 doi
[21]

(a) T. K. Rai Dastidar and K. Rai Dastidar, 11 Int. Conf. At. Phys., p I-23, Paris (1988); (b) K. Rai Dastidar, in Advances in Atomic and Molecular Physics, ed. M. S, Z. Chaghtai, p 49 (Todays’s and tomorrow’s Publishers 1992)

1988
[22]

Krishna Rai Dastidar and Sujata Bhattacharyya, Int. J. of Theo. Phys., Gr. Theo. and Nonlinear Optics,14, Number 3/4, 231-240 (2010); K. Rai Dastidar, Ind. J. Phys. B76, 635- 641 (2002)

2010
[23]

T. K. Rai Dastidar, Modern Physics Letters A14, 1193–1198 (1999); T. K. Rai Dastidar and K. Rai Dastidar, Modern Physics Letters A14, 2557–2560 (1999) (https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217732399001280; (https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217732399002674)

1999 doi
[24]

Anindita Bhattecharjee and Krishna Rai Dastidar, J. Phys. B 36, 4467-4481 (2003) (stacks.iop.org/JPhysB/36/4467)

2003
[25]

Ron Folman, Peter Kruger, Jorg Schmiedmayer, Johannes Denschlag and Carsten Henkel, Adv. in At. Mol. Opt. Physics 48, 263-356 (2002). (10.1016/S1049-250X(02)80011-8)

2002 doi
[26]

T. E. Sharp, ATOMIC DATA 2, 119-169 (1971) (https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-640X(70)80007-9) 22

1971 doi
[27]

D. R. Bates, J. Chem. Phys. 19, 1122 (1951) (https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1748487)

1951 doi
[28]

D. R. Bates et al., Proc. Phys. Soc. A (London) 67, 553 (1954) (DOI 10.1088/0370-1298/67/6/307)

1954 doi
[29]

D. E. Ramaker and J. M. Peek, ATOMIC DATA 5, 167-184 (1973) (https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-640X(73)80002-6)

1973 doi
[30]

Carlo Segre, PHYS 406 - Fundamentals of Quantum Theory II (Spring syllabus (2020) at Illinois Institute of Technology) (http://phys.iit.edu, Segre, phys406, lecture-01)

2020
[31]

Holzapfel, F

D. Holzapfel, F. Schmid, N. Schwegler, O. Stadler, M. Stadler, A. Ferk, J. P. Home and D. Kienzler, Phys. Rev. X15, 031009 (2025) (DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevX.15.031009)

2025 doi
[32]

Eric R Hudson, Hudson EPJ Techniques and Instrumentation (2016) 3:8 (DOI 10.1140/epjti/s40485-016-0035-0)

2016 doi
[33]

Julian Schmidt, Thomas Louvradoux, Johannes Heinrich, Nicolas Sillitoe, Malcolm Simpson, Jean-Philippe Karr and Laurent Hilico, Phys. Rev. Applied14, 024053 (2020) (DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.14.024053)

2020 doi
[34]

Mike Reid, Victoria Green and Sven P. K. Koehler, Phys.Chem.Chem.Phys.16, 6068 (2014) (DOI: 10.1039/c3cp55348e)

2014 doi
[35]

Picon, A

A. Picon, A. Bahabad, H.C. Kapteyn, M.M. Murnane and A. Becker, Phys. Rev. A83, 013414 (2011) (DOI: 10.1103/Phys- RevA.83.013414) 23

2011 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

T. K. Rai Dastidar and Krishna Rai Dastidar, Modern Physics Letters A13, 1265–1280 (1998) (https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217732398001339)

doi:10.1142/s0217732398001339 1998

[2] [2]

Entangled World, The Fascination of Quantum Information and Computation, Jurgen Audretsch (Editor) (2002), WILEY- VCH Verlag GmbH, Weinheim, Translation by Rudolf Ehrlich, Germany

2002

[3] [3]

Malte C Tichy, Florian Mintert and Andreas Buchleit- ner, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.44192001 (2011) (stacks.iop.org/JPhysB/44/192001)

2011

[4] [4]

Eckert, J

K. Eckert, J. Schliemann, D. Bruß and M. Lewenstein, Annals of Physics299, 88–127 (2002) (doi:10.1006/aphy.2002.6268) 20

arXiv 2002

[5] [5]

GianCarlo Ghirardi and Luca Marinatto, Phys Rev A 70, 012109 (2004) (doi.org/PhysRevA.70.012109)

2004

[6] [6]

Ignacio Cirac, Marek Kus´, Maciej Lewenstein, and Daniel Loss, Phys Rev A,64, 022303 (2001) (DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.64.022303)

John Schliemann, J. Ignacio Cirac, Marek Kus´, Maciej Lewenstein, and Daniel Loss, Phys Rev A,64, 022303 (2001) (DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.64.022303)

doi:10.1103/physreva.64.022303 2001

[7] [7]

Zander and A

C. Zander and A. R. Plastino, Phys Rev A,81, 062128 (2010)

2010

[8] [8]

Pu and P

H. Pu and P. Meystre, Phys Rev Letts85, 3987 (2000) (doi: PhysRevLett.85.3987) 11

2000