Environment-induced synchronization of two quantum oscillators

Loic Henriet

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Environment-induced synchronization of two quantum oscillators

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two harmonic oscillators with different bare frequencies synchronize spontaneously when strongly coupled to a common zero-temperature ohmic environment, with no external drive.

desk verdict A clean, narrowly-scoped extension of known exact master equation techniques; the synchronization mechanism is real but conditional on the antisymmetric bath coupling that the conclusion overgeneralizes. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09688 v1 pith:KDTS7A7F submitted 2019-08-26 quant-ph

Loic Henriet This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords quantumsynchronizationharmonicoscillatorsohmicenvironmentexactmasterequationfrequencylockingdissipationlessoscillationsnonequilibriumphasetransitionpathintegral

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 claims that two harmonic oscillators with different natural frequencies can synchronize spontaneously when both are coupled to the same zero-temperature quantum environment, with no driving force and no direct coupling between them. The author models the environment as an ohmic bosonic bath that acts only on the relative motion of the pair and derives an exact master equation from a path-integral influence functional. Numerically solving that equation shows that above a threshold system-environment coupling the two dominant frequencies lock and the damping is strongly reduced, and at still stronger coupling a second regime appears with long-lived, dissipationless (anti-)synchronized oscillations. If correct, this gives a quantum analogue of the classical clock-synchronization effect and a mechanism for synchronizing oscillator-based quantum devices through a shared dissipative environment.

What carries the argument

The central object is the exact, time-local master equation (9), obtained by integrating out the Gaussian environment in a coherent-state path integral. The equations of motion for the response functions $u,v,w,x$ [Eqs. (5)--(8)] show that only the relative-mode functions $u$ and $v$ carry the memory term from the bath, while $w$ and $x$ for the common mode do not. The synchronization threshold is extracted from the largest Fourier peak of $\langle x_j\rangle(t)$, and the strong-coupling transition is located by the condition (11) that $U(s)$ has a pole at a negative frequency $\omega'$; this undamped pole is what produces the long-lived oscillation regime.

What would settle it

Compute or measure the dynamics with a bath coupled symmetrically to both oscillators, $\lambda_{k,1} = \lambda_{k,2}$: if synchronization and the dissipationless pole persist at comparable thresholds, the asymmetric relative-motion coupling is not essential; if they vanish, the mechanism is supported. In the strong-coupling regime, check whether the persistent oscillation frequency equals the negative-frequency pole $\omega'$ obtained from Eq. (11); a mismatch would falsify the pole condition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that synchronization is induced by the environment itself, not by an external drive or a direct oscillator-oscillator interaction. For $\delta\omega/\omega_0 = 0.1$, the largest Fourier peaks of $\langle x_1\rangle$ and $\langle x_2\rangle$ become equal above $\alpha \simeq 1.15\times 10^{-2}$, with the locked frequency near the larger bare frequency; this is the phase-synchronization regime with reduced damping. At stronger coupling, the response function $U(s)$ acquires a pole at a negative frequency $\omega'$, giving undamped oscillations at a common frequency and producing the dissipationless (anti-)synchronized phase. The boundary of that phase is $\alpha_c = (\omega_0^2-\delta\omega^2)/(2\omega_c\omega_0)$, and for generalized spectral densities it becomes $\alpha_c = (\omega_0^2-\delta\omega^2)/(2\omega_c\omega_0\Gamma(s))$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the environment acts only on the relative motion of the two oscillators, $\lambda_{k,1} = -\lambda_{k,2}$; if the bath also coupled comparably to the common mode, the frequency locking and the negative-frequency pole would no longer follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For a frequency mismatch $\delta\omega/\omega_0 = 0.1$, phase-locking begins around $\alpha \simeq 1.15\times 10^{-2}$, and the critical coupling grows as the frequency mismatch increases.
In the synchronized phase the coherence lifetime of the oscillations is greatly extended compared with weak coupling, because the shared bath suppresses the relative-mode damping that would otherwise destroy the phases.
Above the second threshold, the steady state is not $\langle x_j\rangle = 0$; instead the system supports long-lived phase-matched or out-of-phase oscillations whose character depends on the initial state.
The dissipationless regime is reached at smaller coupling when the two oscillators are further detuned, so larger bare frequency differences make the strong-coupling phase easier to access.
For a general ohmic-like spectral density $J(\omega) = \pi\alpha(\omega/\omega_c)^s\omega_c e^{-\omega/\omega_c}$ with $s>0$, the same transition occurs with the critical coupling rescaled by $1/\Gamma(s)$.

Reading between the lines

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

The same relative-mode coupling geometry, applied to many oscillators sharing one bath, should produce a collective pole and lock the whole array to a single frequency, turning the mechanism into a many-body synchronization resource.
The negative-frequency pole acts like an environment-induced effective interaction; viewing it as an anti-damping channel connects this quantum phase to classical synchronization theory and suggests engineered-dissipation platforms as test beds.
An experimental sweep of the shared-bath coupling strength should show the two Fourier peaks collapsing at the predicted threshold, with the collapse point moving upward with $\delta\omega/\omega_0$ exactly as in the paper's phase diagram.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

The paper does one specific thing well: it takes an established exact master equation for two oscillators in a common bosonic bath and shows that, for couplings acting only on the relative coordinate, there is a synchronization threshold and a strong-coupling dissipationless regime. The numerics are clean, the phase diagram is informative, and the connection to the cold-atom experiment of Ref. [10] is plausible. The pole condition in Eq. (11) is analytic and gives a testable critical coupling, which is a real asset.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The largest is the coupling geometry. Section II fixes lambda_{k,1} = -lambda_{k,2}, so the bath sees only the relative mode. That choice makes the self-energy scalar and lets the pole condition reduce to Eq. (11). If the bath also couples to the center-of-mass mode, the pole condition becomes a determinant and the dissipationless regime is not demonstrated. The concluding sentence claims the results extend to arbitrary system-environment coupling, but no such calculation is shown. That overreach should be trimmed or backed up.

Second, the synchronization threshold is diagnosed only by locating the largest Fourier peak in (t). There is no analytic criterion and no uncertainty estimate, so the boundary line in Fig. 1(d) is qualitative. This does not undermine the main claim, but it is worth stating plainly.

Third, a minor notational point: the factor of 2 in eta(tau) compared to the spectral function definition could confuse a careful reader, though it does not change the physics.

Overall, the derivation is standard and the presentation is honest. The central claim, that a common zero-temperature bath can synchronize two detuned oscillators, holds up within the assumed geometry. The paper deserves a serious referee, but the authors should be asked to either remove the generality claim or add a brief calculation for a generic coupling matrix. I would not cite this in my own work in the next year, but for someone working on quantum synchronization or open quantum systems it is a reasonable entry point to the literature.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies two harmonic oscillators with different frequencies coupled to a common zero-temperature ohmic bosonic environment, under the assumption that the bath couples only to the relative coordinate (λ_{k,1} = -λ_{k,2}). Using a coherent-state path-integral approach, the author derives an exact, time-local, trace-preserving master equation for the reduced system, then solves it numerically. For weak coupling, the two oscillator coherences relax asynchronously; above a numerically determined threshold α_c(δω/ω_0), the dominant Fourier peaks of ⟨x_1⟩ and ⟨x_2⟩ lock to a common frequency and the damping is strongly reduced. At larger coupling, a negative-frequency pole of the Laplace-transformed relative-mode response function appears, producing a regime of long-lived, (anti-)synchronized oscillations; the onset of this regime is given analytically by α_c = (ω_0^2 - δω^2)/(2ω_c ω_0) for the ohmic spectral function. The paper concludes with a dynamical phase diagram in the (α, δω/ω_0) plane and a claim that the results extend to arbitrary system-environment coupling.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides an exactly solvable non-Markovian open quantum system displaying environment-induced phase synchronization without external driving, together with a dissipationless (anti-)synchronized phase that is connected to a zero-temperature quantum phase transition. The path-integral derivation of the exact master equation is a standard and powerful tool, and the pole condition for the dissipationless regime is an analytic, falsifiable prediction. The paper's principal weakness is that the synchronization threshold itself is established only by numerical peak-picking, without a quantitative locking criterion or uncertainty analysis, and the concluding generalization to arbitrary system-environment coupling is not supported by the calculation actually presented.

major comments (3)

[Section II and Section VI] The concluding claim that the results 'could be extended to an arbitrary system-environment coupling' is not supported by the manuscript. The calculation is built on λ_{k,1} = -λ_{k,2}, so the bath couples only to the relative coordinate ψ1 and the self-energy is a scalar in that channel; consequently Eq. (10) and the pole condition Eq. (11) are the response of that single mode. If the bath also couples to the center-of-mass mode, the self-energy becomes a rank-one matrix and the pole condition would be det[D_0(s) + η(s) vv^T] = 0, not Eq. (11). No calculation for general system-environment coupling is presented, so this claim should be removed or explicitly qualified as a conjecture.
[Section IV, Fig. 1] The synchronization threshold in Fig. 1(c,d) is identified solely by locating the largest peak of the discrete Fourier transform of ⟨x_j⟩(t). The manuscript gives no quantitative definition of what counts as frequency locking (for example, peak separation smaller than the Fourier resolution), no error bars, no dependence on the integration time window, and no convergence check with respect to the truncation parameter N_c of the master equation. Since the critical line α_c(δω/ω_0) is one of the two central quantitative claims, the analysis should be supplemented with a convergence study and, preferably, an analytic or semi-analytic criterion for the locking transition.
[Section IV and Section V] The manuscript presents two distinct transitions: the synchronization threshold of Fig. 1, which occurs at α of order 10^{-2} for δω/ω_0 = 0.1, and the dissipationless pole transition of Eq. (11), whose ohmic threshold α_c = (ω_0^2 - δω^2)/(2ω_c ω_0) is an order of magnitude larger. The paper does not explain whether the synchronization transition has an analytic signature (for instance in the effective normal-mode frequencies or in the response function) or whether it is a crossover diagnosed by the finite-time Fourier analysis. This gap should be addressed so that the reader can assess whether the phase boundary in Fig. 1(d) reflects a sharp dynamical transition or a smooth numerical crossover.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] The abstract contains a grammatical error: 'the phase of two distinct quantum harmonic oscillators spontaneously when' is missing the verb 'synchronize'; it should read 'spontaneously synchronize when'.
[Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'Huyguens' should be 'Huygens', 'dissipativeless' should be 'dissipationless', and 'mitsmatch' should be 'mismatch'.
[Section IV, Fig. 1(c)] The text 'α & 1.15 10−2' should presumably be 'α ≈ 1.15 × 10^{-2}'; the '&' symbol appears to be a typesetting artifact.
[Section V] The statement that the dissipationless regime 'displays genuine quantum correlations, with positive values of the logarithmic negativity' is not accompanied by any data or numerical results; if this is part of the claimed phenomenology, a plot or quantitative statement is needed, otherwise it should be described as a prediction.
[Eq. (10)] The displayed Eq. (10) is difficult to read as typeset in the manuscript; the author should ensure the fraction structure is unambiguous, since the pole analysis in Eq. (11) relies on it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the exact master-equation derivation and the pole condition are self-contained; the only flagged issue is an unsupported generality claim, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. Starting from the Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) and the stated antisymmetric coupling assumption, it derives an exact time-local master equation (Eq. (9)) via a Feynman-Vernon path-integral treatment, solves the stationary-phase equations (Eqs. (5)-(8)), and numerically propagates the system. The synchronization threshold is obtained by computing the dominant Fourier peak of the exactly computed coherences (Fig. 1(c)-(d)), not by fitting a parameter to the predicted quantity. The strong-coupling dissipationless regime is identified through the analytic negative-frequency pole condition Eq. (11), obtained by Laplace transforming the same equations of motion; critical couplings such as alpha_c=(omega0^2-delta_omega^2)/(2 omega_c omega0) are derived, not imported as fitted inputs. Cited works [11,22] are used as context for calling the pole a nonequilibrium quantum phase transition, and the self-citations [29,30] only frame the harmonic-oscillator model as extending a two-spin analog; neither is load-bearing for the present calculation. The one passage that should be flagged is the concluding statement that 'the results presented here could be extended to an arbitrary system-environment coupling' (Section VI), since all equations assume lambda_{k,1}=-lambda_{k,2} (Section II). That is an overstatement or unsupported generalization, but it is not a circular step: the derivation does not assume the synchronization it predicts. No self-definitional reduction, fitted-input-called-prediction, or author-imported uniqueness theorem was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model has three tunable physical parameters (α, δω/ω0, ωc/ω0) and three stated modeling assumptions: factorized vacuum initial state, ohmic spectral density, and relative-coordinate-only coupling. No new particles, forces, or ad hoc entities are introduced. The asymmetry in the coupling is the most fragile input.

free parameters (4)

system-environment coupling strength α
Scanned numerically (e.g., 0.01, 0.16, 0.24, 0.26); controls the synchronization threshold and the non-equilibrium phase transition.
frequency mismatch δω/ω0 = 0.1 and scanned
Bare frequency difference between the two oscillators; scanned to map the synchronization boundary in Fig. 1(d).
high-frequency cutoff ωc/ω0 = 3
Sets the ohmic bath cutoff; enters the critical coupling αc=(ω0^2-δω^2)/(2ωcω0); chosen by hand in the numerics.
average frequency ω0 = 1 (unit scale)
Sets the frequency unit; all results are reported in units of ω0.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Factorized initial condition ρS(0)⊗ρB(0) with the bath in vacuum.
Stated in Section III before Eq. (2); required to define the exact master equation evolution from a coherent state.
domain assumption Ohmic spectral density J(ω)=παω e^{-ω/ωc} with a high-frequency cutoff.
Stated in Section II; the influence functional and the pole condition Eq. (11) use this form. Generalization to J∝ω^s is sketched but not numerically explored.
domain assumption The bath couples only to the relative coordinate, λ_{k,1}=-λ_{k,2}.
Stated in Section II and attributed to Ref. [10]; this is the load-bearing modeling assumption behind the synchronization mechanism.
standard math The action is quadratic, so the path integral is evaluated exactly by stationary phase.
Used in Section III to derive Eqs. (5)-(8) and the master equation (9).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Environment-induced synchronization of two quantum oscillators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KDTS7A7F

@misc{pith2026190809688,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Environment-induced synchronization of two quantum oscillators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KDTS7A7F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09688}
}

read the original abstract

Spontaneous synchronization between coupled periodic systems occur in a wealth of classical physical setups. Here, we show theoretically that the phase of two distinct quantum harmonic oscillators spontaneously when they are strongly coupled to a common bosonic quantum dissipative environment at zero temperature, in the absence of any driving mechanism. To do so, we compute the dynamics of the oscillators with an exact master equation obtained from a path integral formalism. Above some value of the system-environment coupling strength, we observe numerically a strongly reduced damping and a frequency locking in the dynamics of the oscillators. Beyond the synchronization mechanism, we also describe the rich phenomenology of the dynamics in the model and notably identify the additional emergence of a regime with long-lived oscillations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09688 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Dynamics of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Nonequilibrium phase diagram for the dynamics of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

[10]

Synchronization, quantum correlations and entanglement in oscillator networks

G. Manzano, F. Galve, G. L. Giorgi, E. Hern´ andez- Garc´ ıa, and R. Zambrini, Scientiﬁc Reports 3, 1439 (2013), arXiv:1302.3810 [quant-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2013
[1]

Equation (9) above is an exact, trace-preserving and time-local master equation describing the system degrees of freedom only, which can conveniently solved numeri- cally

(9) where the time-dependent non-Hermitian Hamiltonian readsHeﬀ(t) = iw ˙v−x ˙u wv−xuψ† 1ψ1 +i ˙uv−u ˙v wv−xuψ† 2ψ1 +δωψ† 1ψ2 + ω0ψ† 2ψ2, and Γ 1/2 =−ℑ[iw ˙v−x ˙u wv−xu], Γ 2/2 =−ℑ[i ˙uv−u ˙v wv−xu]. Equation (9) above is an exact, trace-preserving and time-local master equation describing the system degrees of freedom only, which can conveniently solved ...

work page 2015
[2]

The ﬁrst step consists in writing the elements of the system density matrix at time t > 0 within a coher- ent state path integral formalism

We ob- tainH = H0 + √ 2∑ kλk(ψ† 1bk + b† kψ1) +∑ kωkb† kbk, with H0 = ∑2 j=1ω0ψ† jψj + δω(ψ† 1ψ2 + ψ† 2ψ1), where ω0 = (ω1 +ω2)/2 and δω = (ω1−ω2)/2. The ﬁrst step consists in writing the elements of the system density matrix at time t > 0 within a coher- ent state path integral formalism. More speciﬁcally, ⟨φf|ρS(t)|φ′ f⟩, where|φ⟩ =|φ1,φ 2⟩ is a 2-mode ...

work page
[3]

Huygens, Oeuvres compl` etes7 (1897)

C. Huygens, Oeuvres compl` etes7 (1897)

work page
[4]

T. E. Lee and H. R. Sadeghpour, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 234101 (2013)

2013
[5]

T. E. Lee, C.-K. Chan, and S. Wang, Phys. Rev. E 89, 022913 (2014)

2014
[6]

L¨ orch, S

N. L¨ orch, S. E. Nigg, A. Nunnenkamp, R. P. Tiwari, and C. Bruder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 243602 (2017)

2017
[7]

Qiao, H.-x

G.-j. Qiao, H.-x. Gao, H.-d. Liu, and X. X. Yi, Scientiﬁc Reports 8, 15614 (2018)

work page 2018

Show all 33 references

[8]

Roulet and C

A. Roulet and C. Bruder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 063601 (2018)

2018
[9]

G. L. Giorgi, F. Galve, G. Manzano, P. Colet, and R. Zambrini, Phys. Rev. A 85, 052101 (2012)

2012
[11]

Bellomo, G

B. Bellomo, G. L. Giorgi, G. M. Palma, and R. Zam- brini, Phys. Rev. A 95, 043807 (2017), arXiv:1612.07134 [quant-ph]

2017 arXiv
[12]

Delehaye, S

M. Delehaye, S. Laurent, I. Ferrier-Barbut, S. Jin, F. Chevy, and C. Salomon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 265303 (2015), arXiv:1510.06709 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

2015 arXiv
[13]

Zhang, P.-Y

W.-M. Zhang, P.-Y. Lo, H.-N. Xiong, M. W.-Y. Tu, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 170402 (2012)

2012
[14]

A. J. Leggett, S. Chakravarty, A. T. Dorsey, M. P. A. Fisher, A. Garg, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. 67, 725 (1995)

1995
[15]

Weiss, Quantum dissipative systems

U. Weiss, Quantum dissipative systems. (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 2002)

2002
[16]

O. S. Duarte and A. O. Caldeira, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 250601 (2006)

2006
[17]

O. S. Duarte and A. O. Caldeira, Phys. Rev. A80, 032110 (2009), arXiv:0906.0098 [quant-ph]

2009 arXiv
[18]

McEndoo, P

S. McEndoo, P. Haikka, G. De Chiara, G. M. Palma, and S. Maniscalco, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 101, 60005 (2013), arXiv:1206.1224 [quant-ph]

2013 arXiv
[19]

Charalambous, M

C. Charalambous, M. A. Garcia-March, A. Lampo, M. Mehboudi, and M. Lewenstein, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1805.00709 (2018), arXiv:1805.00709 [cond- mat.quant-gas]

2018 arXiv
[20]

B. L. Hu, J. P. Paz, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 45, 2843 (1992)

1992
[21]

An and W.-M

J.-H. An and W.-M. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A 76, 042127 (2007), arXiv:0707.2278 [quant-ph]

2007 arXiv
[22]

J.-H. An, Y. Yeo, W.-M. Zhang, and C. H. Oh, Journal of Physics A Mathematical General 42, 015302 (2009), arXiv:0811.1309 [quant-ph]

2009 arXiv
[23]

M. W. Y. Tu and W.-M. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 78, 235311 (2008)

2008
[24]

Lin, P.-Y

Y.-C. Lin, P.-Y. Yang, and W.-M. Zhang, Scientiﬁc Re- ports 6, 34804 EP (2016)

2016
[25]

R. P. Feynman and F. L. Vernon, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 24, 118 (1963)

1963
[26]

J. R. Klauder, Phys. Rev. D 19, 2349 (1979)

1979
[27]

Vourdas and R

A. Vourdas and R. F. Bishop, Phys. Rev. A 50, 3331 (1994)

1994
[28]

Anastopoulos and B

C. Anastopoulos and B. L. Hu, Phys. Rev. A 62, 033821 (2000)

2000
[29]

Vidal and R

G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032314 (2002)

2002
[30]

K. L. Hur, Annals of Physics 323, 2208 (2008), arXiv:0711.2301 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

2008 arXiv
[31]

Henriet, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1804.05192 (2018), arXiv:1804.05192 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

L. Henriet, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1804.05192 (2018), arXiv:1804.05192 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

2018 arXiv
[32]

Le Hur, L

K. Le Hur, L. Henriet, L. Herviou, K. Plekhanov, A. Petrescu, T. Goren, M. Schiro, C. Mora, and P. P. Orth, Comptes Rendus Physique 19, 451 (2018), arXiv:1702.05135 [cond-mat.str-el]

2018 arXiv
[33]

K. L. Hur, L. Henriet, A. Petrescu, K. Plekhanov, G. Roux, and M. Schir´ o, Comptes Rendus Physique17, 808 (2016)

2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [10]

Synchronization, quantum correlations and entanglement in oscillator networks

G. Manzano, F. Galve, G. L. Giorgi, E. Hern´ andez- Garc´ ıa, and R. Zambrini, Scientiﬁc Reports 3, 1439 (2013), arXiv:1302.3810 [quant-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2013

[2] [1]

Equation (9) above is an exact, trace-preserving and time-local master equation describing the system degrees of freedom only, which can conveniently solved numeri- cally

(9) where the time-dependent non-Hermitian Hamiltonian readsHeﬀ(t) = iw ˙v−x ˙u wv−xuψ† 1ψ1 +i ˙uv−u ˙v wv−xuψ† 2ψ1 +δωψ† 1ψ2 + ω0ψ† 2ψ2, and Γ 1/2 =−ℑ[iw ˙v−x ˙u wv−xu], Γ 2/2 =−ℑ[i ˙uv−u ˙v wv−xu]. Equation (9) above is an exact, trace-preserving and time-local master equation describing the system degrees of freedom only, which can conveniently solved ...

work page 2015

[3] [2]

The ﬁrst step consists in writing the elements of the system density matrix at time t > 0 within a coher- ent state path integral formalism

We ob- tainH = H0 + √ 2∑ kλk(ψ† 1bk + b† kψ1) +∑ kωkb† kbk, with H0 = ∑2 j=1ω0ψ† jψj + δω(ψ† 1ψ2 + ψ† 2ψ1), where ω0 = (ω1 +ω2)/2 and δω = (ω1−ω2)/2. The ﬁrst step consists in writing the elements of the system density matrix at time t > 0 within a coher- ent state path integral formalism. More speciﬁcally, ⟨φf|ρS(t)|φ′ f⟩, where|φ⟩ =|φ1,φ 2⟩ is a 2-mode ...

work page

[4] [3]

Huygens, Oeuvres compl` etes7 (1897)

C. Huygens, Oeuvres compl` etes7 (1897)

work page

[5] [4]

T. E. Lee and H. R. Sadeghpour, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 234101 (2013)

2013

[6] [5]

T. E. Lee, C.-K. Chan, and S. Wang, Phys. Rev. E 89, 022913 (2014)

2014

[7] [6]

L¨ orch, S

N. L¨ orch, S. E. Nigg, A. Nunnenkamp, R. P. Tiwari, and C. Bruder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 243602 (2017)

2017

[8] [7]

Qiao, H.-x

G.-j. Qiao, H.-x. Gao, H.-d. Liu, and X. X. Yi, Scientiﬁc Reports 8, 15614 (2018)

work page 2018