Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 54 references

Curvature-Induced Nonclassicality in a Generalized Jaynes-Cummings Model

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a curved-space version of the Jaynes-Cummings model, stronger spatial curvature suppresses nonclassicality.

desk verdict A workmanlike extension of the JCM to a deformed circle-oscillator algebra, undone by a demonstrably wrong Wigner function that props up the central nonclassicality claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05407 v1 pith:YQRQFMRR submitted 2025-07-07 quant-ph

Somayeh Kourkinejat , Ali Mahdifar , Ehsan Amooghorban This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords Jaynes-CummingsmodelspatialcurvaturedeformedoscillatoralgebranonclassicalityMandelparameterWignerfunctionatomicinversioncavityquantumelectrodynamics
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 asks how spatial curvature changes the nonclassical behavior of the simplest light-matter interaction, the Jaynes-Cummings model of a two-level atom coupled to a single field mode. Its analog-model setup places the field's oscillators on a circle of radius R, with curvature parameter λ=$R^{{-2}}$, and solves the time evolution exactly in the rotating-wave approximation. The central claim is that curvature acts as a control knob: increasing λ shortens the revival time of the atomic inversion, makes the Mandel parameter less negative, reduces the negativity of the Wigner function, and speeds up the entropy dynamics. If the claim holds, cavity-QED systems that realize this deformed algebra could serve as laboratory probes of curvature-induced changes in quantum properties.

What carries the argument

The central object is the deformed oscillator algebra of a harmonic oscillator on a circle, with creation and annihilation operators â_λ = â $\sqrt$(γ + λ(ˆn - 1/2)) and â†_λ = $\sqrt$(γ + λ(ˆn - 1/2)) â†, where λ=$R^{{-2}}$ and γ=(λ+$\sqrt$(λ²+4))/2. This algebra satisfies a deformed commutation relation and reduces to the su(1,1) algebra under a simple identification, giving the model a built-in geometric nonlinearity. It carries the entire argument: the modified operators enter the interaction Hamiltonian, produce the curvature-dependent Rabi frequency Φλ_n in Eq. (15), and thereby control the revival time, Mandel parameter, Wigner function, and entropy that the paper computes.

What would settle it

One concrete check is to independently derive the field ladder operators from a covariant quantization on a circle and compare them with Eq. (1); if the derivation yields a different λ-dependence, the predicted shortening of revival times and suppression of Wigner negativity would not follow. Alternatively, in a laboratory realization of the deformed algebra, measure the Mandel Q parameter's minimum as λ increases; finding that Q-min does not move toward zero would contradict the paper's central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the curvature-dependent ladder operators for a harmonic oscillator on a circle, the paper derives a λ-dependent Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian and its exact time-dependent state. The resulting curvature-dependent Rabi frequency Φλ_n = $\sqrt$((Ωλ_n)^2 + $4g^{2}$(n+1)(γ + λ n/2)) controls all subsequent dynamics. The paper finds that the revival time t_r of the atomic inversion decreases with λ, that the Mandel Q parameter's minimum is shallower for larger λ, that the Wigner-function negativity δλ peaks at a lower value as λ grows, and that the von Neumann entropy collapses and revives on shorter time scales. It concludes that stronger spatial curvature suppresses the nonclassicality of the atom-field system, with the flat limit λ→0 recovering the standard Jaynes-Cummings results.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that replacing flat-space ladder operators with the circle-oscillator operators of Eq. (1) is a valid description of a quantized electromagnetic field under spatial curvature; if that analogy fails, the results describe a particular f-deformed Jaynes-Cummings model rather than curvature physics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, revivals of atomic inversion in a curved-space cavity occur earlier than in flat space, with the interval shrinking as λ grows.
  • Stronger curvature should suppress sub-Poissonian statistics: the Mandel Q parameter remains closer to zero (Poissonian) for larger λ.
  • Wigner-function negativity, a standard nonclassicality witness, should have a lower maximum for larger λ, making strongly curved cavities less quantum in this sense.
  • The atom-field entanglement dynamics, tracked by von Neumann entropy, should speed up with curvature, with faster collapse-revival cycles.
  • The λ→0 limit reproduces the standard Jaynes-Cummings results, so the predictions form a continuous deformation of a well-tested model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the suppression shown for small λ continues, curvature could act as a near-switch that erases nonclassicality at large λ, though no threshold is identified in the paper.
  • Editorial inference: the same deformed algebra could be used to predict curvature effects on observables the paper does not compute, such as photon blockade, squeezing spectra, or Bell-inequality violation.
  • Editorial inference: a laboratory realization of the deformed algebra, for example in an engineered nonlinear cavity, could test the claim by measuring the Mandel parameter's time-averaged minimum as a function of λ.
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

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript generalizes the Jaynes-Cummings model by replacing flat-space ladder operators with deformed operators of a harmonic oscillator on a circle of radius R, with curvature parameter λ=R^{-2} (Sec. II A). The authors solve the interaction-picture Schrödinger equation for an initially excited atom and a coherent field, obtaining probability amplitudes, a λ-dependent Rabi frequency (Eqs. (14)–(16)), and a revival-time estimate (Eq. (22)). They then study the Mandel parameter, the Wigner function and its negativity, and the atomic von Neumann entropy, concluding that increasing curvature reduces the degree of nonclassicality (Secs. IV and V).

Significance. If correct, the model would provide a simple analytic setting in which spatial curvature acts as a control knob for nonclassicality in cavity QED, with a suggestive gravitational-redshift interpretation of shortened revival times. The paper contains no fitted parameters, and the flat-space limit is explicitly checked for the Rabi frequency and the revival-time formula. However, the main nonclassicality evidence based on the Wigner function is invalid, and the entropy computation contains an indexing error; these issues must be corrected before the central claim can be assessed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV B/C, Eq. (26)] The claimed Wigner function is not the Wigner function of the reduced field state. Tracing the atom-field state (11) over the atom gives a diagonal Fock mixture, rho_f = sum_n (|c_{e,n}|^2 + |c_{g,n}|^2)|n><n| (with c_{g,0}=0), whose Wigner function contains only diagonal number-state terms. Equation (26) instead contains (x+ip)^{m-n} cross terms, uses e^{+(x^2+p^2)} rather than e^{-(x^2+p^2)} in the envelope, and subtracts the g-branch contribution instead of adding the two probability distributions. As a result, the phase-space integral of Eq. (26) is not 1 and can diverge, so the negativity measure delta_lambda in Eq. (27) and the nonclassicality suppression shown in Figs. 5-7 are not supported by the manuscript.
  2. [Sec. IV D, Eq. (29)] The reduced atomic density matrix has an incorrect off-diagonal term. Tracing Eq. (11) over the orthogonal field states gives <e|rho_a(t)|g> = sum_n c_{e,n}(t) c_{g,n}^*(t) (with c_{g,0}=0), not sum_n c_{e,n}(t) c_{g,n+1}^*(t). Therefore the eigenvalues used in Eq. (30) and the entropy curves in Figs. 8-9 are computed from the wrong density matrix, and the entanglement conclusions in that subsection are not established.
  3. [Sec. II A-C, Eqs. (1) and (12)-(15)] As typeset, the deformed ladder operators in Eq. (1) do not produce the transition matrix elements used in the dynamics. With the literal reading a_lambda = a sqrt(gamma + lambda n - 1/2), the |e,n> to |g,n+1> coupling in Eqs. (12)-(15) would be sqrt{(n+1)(gamma + lambda n - 1/2)}, not sqrt{(n+1)(gamma + lambda n/2)}; with the parenthesized reading sqrt{gamma + lambda(n - 1/2)}, the flat limit is standard but the curvature dependence still differs from gamma + lambda n/2. Please state the deformation function f(n) explicitly and reconcile Eq. (1) with the Rabi frequency and all subsequent results.
  4. [Sec. II A and Sec. III] The analog-model premise is asserted rather than derived. The identification of the operators (1) with a quantized electromagnetic field in a curved space, with lambda = R^{-2}, is taken from Ref. [24] without a derivation or a validity condition, and the paper gives no independent argument that a harmonic oscillator on a circle models a physical cavity field near a massive body. Consequently the statement in Sec. III that shorter revival times near a massive body are 'consistent with time dilation (or gravitational redshift)' is an interpretive gloss on a particular f-deformed Jaynes-Cummings model rather than a result of the model. The authors should either supply the mapping or explicitly present the work as a study of an f-deformed JCM and temper the gravitational-redshift language.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (20)] At exact resonance, Eq. (16) gives <sigma_z> = sum_n p_n cos(Phi_n t), whereas Eq. (20) has a minus sign before the cos term; please check Eq. (20) and the corresponding plot in Fig. 1.
  2. [Eqs. (24)-(26)] The Wigner-function conventions are not stated consistently: Eq. (24) is written with hbar = 1, but Eq. (26) is then used with dimensionless quadratures; please specify the quadrature normalization so that the positivity and normalization properties of the Wigner function can be checked.
  3. [Figs. 2 and 7] The figure captions and axis labels should distinguish the mean photon number <n> of the initial coherent state from the summation index n; the current notation is confusing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the nonclassicality results are computed from the assumed deformed-oscillator model, not fitted or renamed inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained once the analog model is granted. Equation (1) imports the λ-dependent operators from Ref. [24], a prior paper by two of the present authors, as the model input. From that input, the Hamiltonian (5), interaction-picture dynamics (9), probability amplitudes (14)-(16), and the observables — revival time (22), Mandel parameter (23), Wigner negativity (27), and entropy (30) — are all obtained by explicit calculation. No parameter is fitted to a subset of the outputs and then renamed a prediction; the curvature-dependence of tr, Mλ, δλ, and Sa follows from solving the Schrödinger equation with the given operators. The self-citations [24,25,39] supply the analog-model premise and a gravitational-redshift interpretation, but the mathematical claim that increasing λ suppresses nonclassicality is not equivalent to that premise by construction. The suspected error in the Wigner expression (26) is a technical correctness concern, not a circularity: it does not make the output equal to the input. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fit to data; ω, ω_eg, g, λ, and α are model inputs. The central burden is the analog model assumption (circle oscillator = curved space) taken from the authors' earlier work, plus the unproven validity of the Wigner expression used to compute negativity. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The deformed operators in Eq. (1), with γ=(λ+√(λ²+4))/2 and λ=R^{-2}, describe a harmonic oscillator on a circle, so λ is a measure of spatial curvature.
    Adopted from Ref. [24] (by two of the present authors). The paper provides no independent derivation or validity condition for this analog of general relativity.
  • domain assumption The atom-field interaction retains the Jaynes-Cummings form (5) under the rotating-wave approximation, with the deformed operators replacing flat-space ones.
    The RWA is standard in quantum optics, but its combination with the deformed algebra is assumed without deriving the coupling from first principles.
  • domain assumption The initial field is prepared in a standard coherent state (17) of the flat oscillator, and the flat Fock basis |n⟩ is used throughout.
    Standard choice in JCM studies; not derived from the curvature model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Curvature-Induced Nonclassicality in a Generalized Jaynes-Cummings Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YQRQFMRR

@misc{pith2026250705407,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Curvature-Induced Nonclassicality in a Generalized Jaynes-Cummings Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YQRQFMRR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05407}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we investigate the influence of spatial curvature on the Jaynes-Cummings model. We employ an analog model of general relativity, representing the field inside a cavity using oscillators arranged in a circle instead of a straight line, where increasing curvature corresponds to a smaller circle radius. We investigate the nonclassical features of this quantum system arising from the interaction between a two-level atom and a deformed harmonic oscillator on a circle, which serves as curved-space counterpart to the flat oscillator. We analyze the time evolution of atom-field states and, based on this dynamic, examine how spatial curvature influences the Mandel parameter, entropy, and the behavior of the Wigner distribution function. Our results demonstrate that the spatial curvature plays critical roles in controlling these nonclassical properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05407 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. illustrates how the revival time tr varies with spa￾tial curvature λ for several values of hnˆi. We see that by increasing the mean number of photons the time interval tr is increased, while increasing the spatial curvature λ, results in shorter revival intervals. This implies that the revival time of the Rabi oscillations of the atomic occu￾pation probabilities near a massive body would be less than that far away f… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The time evolution of the curvature–dependent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5: The curvature–dependent Wigner functions versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The curvature–dependent Wigner function versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: The time evolution of the curvature–dependent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: The time evolution of the curvature-dependent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    simplifies to: Wψ(x,p ) = 1 2π ∫ ∞ −∞ dξe−ipξψ∗(x − ξ 2 )ψ(x + ξ 2 ),(25) where ψλ(x) is the wave function of our curva- ture–dependent atom–field system: ⟨x|ψλ(t)⟩, and |ψλ(t)⟩ is given by Eq. ( 11). By substituting ψλ(x) in Eq. ( 25), the curvature–dependent Wigner function can be obtained as follows: Wλ ψ (x,p,t ) = 2(x2 +p2)e(x2+p2) π ∞∑ n,m=0 (−1)n2(m−...

    work page

  2. [1]

    Jaynes and F

    E. Jaynes and F. Cummings, Proc. IEEE 51, 89 (1963)

    work page 1963

  3. [2]

    F. W. Cummings, Phys. Rev. 140, A1051 (1965)

    work page 1965

  4. [3]

    B. W. Shore and P. L. Knight, J. Mod. Opt. 40, 1195 (1993)

    1993

  5. [4]

    ˇCrnugelj, M

    J. ˇCrnugelj, M. Martinis, and V. Mikuta-Martinis, Phys. Rev. A 50, 1785 (1994)

    work page 1994

  6. [5]

    Cordero and J

    S. Cordero and J. R´ ecamier, 44, 135502 (2011)

    work page 2011

  7. [6]

    J. H. Eberly, N. B. Narozhny, and J. J. Sanchez- Mondragon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 1323 (1980)

    work page 1980

  8. [7]

    De los Santos-Sanchez and J

    O. De los Santos-Sanchez and J. R´ ecamier, J. Phys. B At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 45, 015502 (2011)

    work page 2011

Show all 54 references
  1. [8]

    M. S. M. H. Naderi and R. Roknizadeh, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn 73, 2413 (2004)

    2004

  2. [9]

    Chaichian, D

    M. Chaichian, D. Ellinas, and P. Kulish, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 980 (1990)

    1990

  3. [10]

    Roy and P

    B. Roy and P. Roy, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt. 2, 65 (2000)

    2000

  4. [11]

    (13) Solving Eqs

    into the schrodinger equation ( 10) and using the Hamiltonian ( 9), the probability amplitudes cλ e,n(t) and cλ g,n+1(t) are ob- tained from the following coupled equations: ˙cλ e,n(t) = −ig √ (γ +λn 2 )(n + 1) eiΩλ nt cλ g,n+1(t), (12) and ˙cλ g,n+1(t) = −ig √ (γ +λn 2 )(n + ...

  5. [12]

    (15) It is obvious that in the flat limit ( λ → 0), Eq

    and ( 13), the general expressions for the probability amplitudes are obtained as: cλ e,n(t) = cλ e,n(0) [ cos( Φλ nt 2 ) − iΩλ n Φλ n sin( Φλ nt 2 ) ] e iΩλ nt 2 − cλ g,n+1(0) 2ig √ (γ +λn 2 )(n + 1) Φλ n sin( Φλ nt 2 ) e iΩλ nt 2 , cλ g,n+1(t) = cλ g,n+1(0) [ cos( Φλ nt 2 ) ...

  6. [13]

    Mancini, P

    S. Mancini, P. Tombesi, and V. I. Man’ko, Phys. Scripta 57, 486 (1998) , arXiv:quant-ph/9709013

    1998 arXiv

  7. [14]

    (16) Furthermore, if we assume that the initial field is pre- pared in a coherent state: |α⟩ =e− |α|2 2 ∞∑ n=0 αn √ n! |n⟩, (17) we have: cλ n(0) = e− |α|2 2 αn √ n!

    can be simplified as follows: cλ g,n+1(t) = −cλ n(0) 2ig √ (γ +λn 2 )(n + 1) Φλ n sin( Φλ nt 2 )e− iΩλ nt 2 , cλ e,n(t) = cλ n(0) [ cos( Φλ nt 2 ) − iΩλ n Φλ n sin( Φλ nt 2 ) ] e iΩλ nt 2 . (16) Furthermore, if we assume that the initial field is pre- pared in a coherent state: ...

  8. [15]

    S. B. Vincent H. Schultheiss and U. Peschel, ADV PHYS-X 5, 1759451 (2020)

    2020

  9. [16]

    ( 19), we arrive at the following expression for the atomic inversion: ⟨Ψλ(t)|ˆσz|Ψλ(t)⟩ = ∞∑ n=0 |cλ n(0)|2 (20) × [ ( Ωλ n Φλ n )2 − 4g2(n + 1)(γ +λn 2 ) (Φλ n)2 cos(Φλ nt) ]

    into Eq. ( 19), we arrive at the following expression for the atomic inversion: ⟨Ψλ(t)|ˆσz|Ψλ(t)⟩ = ∞∑ n=0 |cλ n(0)|2 (20) × [ ( Ωλ n Φλ n )2 − 4g2(n + 1)(γ +λn 2 ) (Φλ n)2 cos(Φλ nt) ] . In Fig. 1, we have plotted the atomic inversion as a func- tion of the scaled time gt, at...

  10. [17]

    Rego-Monteiro, Eur

    M. Rego-Monteiro, Eur. Phys. J. C 21, 749 (2001)

    2001

  11. [18]

    Man’ko, G

    V. Man’ko, G. Marmo, E. Sudarshan, and F. Zaccaria, Phys. Scripta 55, 528 (1997)

    1997

  12. [19]

    C. R. Almeida and M. J. Jacquet, EPJ H 48, 15 (2023)

    2023

  13. [20]

    V. H. Schultheiss, S. Batz, and U. Peschel, Nat. Photon. 10, 106 (2016)

    2016

  14. [21]

    Bekenstein, J

    R. Bekenstein, J. Nemirovsky, I. Kaminer, and M. Segev, Phys. Rev. X 4, 011038 (2014)

    2014

  15. [22]

    Dehdashti, R

    S. Dehdashti, R. Roknizadeh, and A. Mahdifar, J.Mod.Opt 60, 233 (2013)

    2013

  16. [23]

    Amooghorban and A

    E. Amooghorban and A. Mahdifar, Annals of Physics 360, 237 (2015)

    2015

  17. [25]

    Tavakoli and E

    M. Tavakoli and E. Amooghorban, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 35, 156 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    J. R. Klauder and B.-S. Skagerstam, Coherent states: ap- plications in physics and mathematical physics (World scientific, 1985)

    1985

  19. [27]

    Mahdifar, R

    A. Mahdifar, R. Roknizadeh, and M. Naderi, Phys. A Math. Gen. 39, 7003 (2006)

    2006

  20. [28]

    Mahdifar, R

    A. Mahdifar, R. Roknizadeh, and M. H. Naderi, IJGMMP 09, 1250009 (2012)

    2012

  21. [29]

    Mahdifar and E

    A. Mahdifar and E. Amooghorban, IJGMMP 19, 2250140 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Kourkinejat, A

    S. Kourkinejat, A. Mahdifar, and E. Amooghorban, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 669, 130600 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    Kourkinejat, A

    S. Kourkinejat, A. Mahdifar, and E. Amooghorban, (2025), arXiv:2501.03208 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Mandel, Opt

    L. Mandel, Opt. Lett. 4, 205 (1979)

    1979

  25. [33]

    Bianchini, O

    D. Bianchini, O. Castro-Alvaredo, B. Doyon, E. Levi, and F. Ravanini, J. Phys. A-Math. 48, 04FT01 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    J. P. Dahl, A. Wolf, and W. P. Schleich, Fortschr. Phys. 52, 1118 (2004)

    2004

  27. [35]

    Ohya and D

    M. Ohya and D. Petz, Quantum entropy and its use (Springer Science & Business Media, 2004)

    2004

  28. [36]

    Carmichael, Statistical Methods in Quantum Optics 1: Master Equations Theoretical and Mathematical Physics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013)

    H. Carmichael, Statistical Methods in Quantum Optics 1: Master Equations Theoretical and Mathematical Physics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    Hudson, J

    R. Hudson, J. Math. Phys. 6, 249 (1974)

    1974

  30. [38]

    Bell, Am

    J. Bell, Am. J. Phys. (1987)

    1987

  31. [39]

    Kenfack and K

    A. Kenfack and K. ˙Zyczkowski, J. Opt. B: Quantum 9 Semiclass. Opt. 6, 396 (2004)

    2004

  32. [40]

    I. I. Arkhipov, A. Barasi´ nski, and J. Svozil ´ ık, Sci. Rep. 8, 16955 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    Haroche and J.-M

    S. Haroche and J.-M. Raimond, Exploring the quantum: atoms, cavities, and photons (Oxford university press, 2006)

    2006

  34. [42]

    H. Yoo, J. Sanchez-Mondragon, and J. Eberly, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 14, 1383 (1981)

    1981

  35. [43]

    M. H. Naderi, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 44, 055304 (2011)

    2011

  36. [44]

    M. J. F. A.Mahdifar and M. B. Harouni, JOSA B 30, 2952 (2013)

    2013

  37. [45]

    Stephani, Relativity: An introduction to special and general relativity (Cambridge university press, 2004)

    H. Stephani, Relativity: An introduction to special and general relativity (Cambridge university press, 2004)

    2004

  38. [46]

    Mandel, Phys

    L. Mandel, Phys. Scr. 1986, 34 (1986)

    1986

  39. [47]

    Weinbub and D

    J. Weinbub and D. Ferry, Applied Physics Reviews 5 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    Delfosse, P

    N. Delfosse, P. Allard Guerin, J. Bian, and R. Raussendorf, Phys. Rev.X 5, 021003 (2015)

    2015

  41. [49]

    W. H. Zurek, RMP 75, 715 (2003)

    2003

  42. [50]

    R. L. de Matos Filho and W. Vogel, Phys. Rev. A 54, 4560 (1996)

    1996

  43. [51]

    Chabaud, P.-E

    U. Chabaud, P.-E. Emeriau, and F. Grosshans, Quantum 5, 471 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    Taghiabadi, S

    R. Taghiabadi, S. J. Akhtarshenas, and M. Sarbishaei, QIP 15, 1999 (2016)

    2016

  45. [53]

    W. P. Schleich, Quantum optics in phase space (John Wiley & Sons, 2015)

    2015

  46. [54]

    Buˇ zek and P

    V. Buˇ zek and P. L. Knight, in Progress in optics , Vol. 34 (Elsevier, 1995) pp. 1–158

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.