Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 60 references

Dicke-Ising quantum battery of an ion chain driven by a mechanical oscillator

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

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

Pith's one-line read A trapped-ion chain coupled to a mechanical oscillator can store vibrational energy as a quantum battery, with counter-rotating wave terms sharply controlling how much energy and work it holds.

desk verdict A systematic numerics paper on a Dicke-Ising trapped-ion quantum battery, but the 'practical platform' claim outruns the model because the initial phonon state is assumed and the advertised pump drive is absent from the Hamiltonian. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08065 v2 pith:DBH2VALL submitted 2025-02-12 quant-ph

Jun Wen , Zheng Wen , Ping Peng , Guan-Qiang Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumbatterytrappedionsDicke-Isingmodelcounter-rotatingwavetermsergotropymechanicaloscillatorultrastrongcouplingpower-lawinteractions
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 proposes a quantum battery built from five two-level ions in a Paul trap, coupled to a mechanical cantilever oscillator. It claims the ion chain can absorb low-frequency vibrational energy from the oscillator and store it as spin excitation, quantified by the charging energy and the extractable work (ergotropy). The central finding is that the counter-rotating wave terms in the Dicke-Ising Hamiltonian, normally dropped in the rotating-wave approximation, dramatically alter the charging dynamics. Both the stored energy and ergotropy reach a maximum near the coupling strength $\lambda \approx 0.2$, and for larger coupling the counter-rotating terms suppress charging. The paper also shows that the inter-ion hopping strength $J$ and the power-law distance exponent $p$ control the charging capacity, and that including counter-rotating hopping terms suppresses the quantum phase transition that otherwise appears.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Dicke-Ising Hamiltonian $\hat H = \omega_c \hat c^\dagger \hat c + \omega_a \sum_n \hat\sigma^+_n \hat\sigma^-_n + J \sum_{m>n} \hat\sigma^x_n \hat\sigma^x_m / |z_m-z_n|^p + \lambda \sum_n (\hat c + \hat c^\dagger)\hat\sigma^x_n$, which models the trapped-ion chain and its coupling to the mechanical oscillator. The key mechanism is the competition between rotating-wave terms, which preserve energy and enable coherent charging, and counter-rotating wave terms (such as $\lambda \sum_n (\hat c^\dagger \hat\sigma^+_n + \hat c \hat\sigma^-_n)$), which break energy conservation and destroy quantum coherence, thereby suppressing energy exchange. The numerical machinery uses a truncated oscillator Hilbert space of dimension 101 and an initial oscillator superposition $\sqrt{0.6}|10\rangle + \sqrt{0.4}|15\rangle$ to provide the charging energy.

What would settle it

A direct experiment on a five-ion chain coupled to a cantilever could measure the charging energy and ergotropy for coupling strengths near $\lambda=0.2$ and near $\lambda=1$ over the time window $\omega_c t \in [0,30]$. If no maximum appears near $\lambda \approx 0.2$, or if removing the counter-rotating terms leaves the charging curves essentially unchanged, the central claim would be refuted. Alternatively, preparing the oscillator in the Fock superposition versus a thermal state with the same mean phonon number and comparing the charging curves would test whether that specific initial state is essential.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a chain of five two-level ions coupled to a mechanical oscillator, the Dicke-Ising Hamiltonian with coupling strength $\lambda$ and distance-dependent hopping $J/|z_m-z_n|^p$ governs a unitary charging process from the initial state $|\Phi\rangle_c \otimes |g\rangle_a$. The paper finds that the counter-rotating wave terms in both the ion-oscillator coupling and the ion-ion hopping critically affect the charging energy $E_c(t)$ and the ergotropy $E_e(t)$. Both quantities peak near $\lambda \approx 0.2$, the balance point between the rotating and counter-rotating contributions; for larger $\lambda$ the counter-rotating term destroys quantum coherence and suppresses energy exchange. Increasing the hopping strength $J$ expands the energy spectrum and allows more energy storage, but the counter-rotating hopping term also degrades coherence, producing nonmonotonic maxima in $E_c$ and $E_e$. The power-law exponent $p$ controls the interaction range: $p \geq 2$ yields essentially short-ranged, $p$-independent behavior, while $p=0$ gives higher time-averaged charging. Finally, the quantum phase transition seen in the energy spectrum when the counter-rotating hopping term is ignored disappears when it is included, because that term destroys the quantum coherence needed for the transition.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme assumes the mechanical oscillator can be prepared in the superposition $\sqrt{0.6}|10\rangle+\sqrt{0.4}|15\rangle$ and that this initial state supplies the charging energy, even though the Hamiltonian contains no pump-drive term to maintain such a state; if that state cannot be prepared or sustained in a trapped-ion cantilever, the computed charging curves would not describe a working battery.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the scheme works as claimed, trapped-ion chains offer a controllable, realizable platform for quantum batteries that convert low-frequency mechanical vibration into stored spin energy.
  • The optimal operating point for charging is near $\lambda \approx 0.2$; operating at larger coupling speeds up charging but suppresses the maximum stored energy and extractable work.
  • The counter-rotating wave terms cannot be neglected for $\lambda/\omega_c \geq 0.1$ (the ultrastrong coupling regime), so rotating-wave-approximation treatments would misestimate charging and ergotropy in this platform.
  • Tuning the hopping strength $J$ and the interaction-range exponent $p$ allows control over the battery's capacity: larger $J$ stores more energy up to a point, and $p \geq 2$ makes the charging nearly independent of the detailed ion spacing.
  • Including counter-rotating hopping terms suppresses the quantum phase transition, so the battery's phase behavior differs fundamentally from models that ignore these terms.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A real 'driven' oscillator would require a pump term to prepare or maintain the initial Fock-state superposition $\sqrt{0.6}|10\rangle+\sqrt{0.4}|15\rangle$; including that drive in the Hamiltonian could shift the optimal $\lambda$ and change the maxima reported here.
  • The $\lambda \approx 0.2$ peak should be tested for larger ion numbers to see whether it survives in the thermodynamic limit, where the suppressed quantum phase transition might reappear with different counter-rotating contributions.
  • The paper's parameter scans suggest a concrete trade-off between charging speed and extractable work; an experimental sweep of $\lambda$ could verify whether faster charging always costs ergotropy, as implied by the simulations.
  • The power-law exponent $p$ could be used as a design knob: ion traps with engineered interaction ranges (e.g., different laser configurations) might tailor the charging profile, extending the five-ion result to other geometries.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a trapped-ion-chain quantum battery in which five two-level ions are coupled to a mechanical harmonic oscillator through a Dicke-Ising-type Hamiltonian (Eq. (1)). The oscillator is taken to start in a superposition of Fock states |10> and |15>, and the ions in the ground state of their own Hamiltonian; the closed-system Schrödinger evolution is integrated numerically. The authors study charging energy, ergotropy, entropy, and site-resolved excitation as functions of spin-oscillator coupling λ, hopping strength J, and the power-law exponent p of the hopping interaction, emphasizing the role of counter-rotating terms. They report a maximum of charging maxima near λ≈0.2, nonmonotonic J dependence, strong effects of the counter-rotating terms, and a claim that these terms suppress a quantum phase transition, concluding that the platform provides a solid foundation for practical quantum batteries.

Significance. If the charging protocol were fully specified, the study would add a plausible platform to the quantum battery literature: the numerical model is simple, the parameters and truncation are documented, and the observables (charging energy, ergotropy, entropy) are standard and computed without fitted parameters. The comparison of full vs counter-rotating-term-free dynamics is a useful way to expose the role of ultrastrong-coupling terms, and the p-dependence analysis addresses a physically relevant long-range interaction. However, the missing drive/preparation protocol and the unsupported thermodynamic-limit QPT claim currently prevent the paper from supporting its 'practical quantum battery' conclusion; these are the main obstacles to publication.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (1); Introduction; Fig. 1 caption] The central 'practical quantum battery' claim is not supported by the model as written. The paper states in the Introduction and Fig. 1 caption that a pump field drives the mechanical oscillator, but the Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) is time-independent and contains no pump/drive term; the only energy source in the simulations is the assumed initial oscillator state |Φ>_c = sqrt(0.6)|10> + sqrt(0.4)|15> (Sec. II). The paper itself notes that multi-phonon Fock-state superpositions have been experimentally realized only in a high-overtone bulk acoustic-wave resonator [43], not in the proposed ion-trap cantilever with the magnetic-gradient coupling of Ref. [33], and no preparation protocol is supplied for |Φ>_c in this platform. Consequently, Ec(t) and Ee(t) computed from Eq. (2) describe unitary energy transfer from a hand-picked initial state, not a demonstrated charging mechanism driven by a pump. To make the claim load-bearing, the authors should either provide a concrete pulse/drive sequence that prepares |Φ>_c in the cantilever, or include the advertised drive in the Hamiltonian and show that the reported charging curves survive.
  2. [Sec. III, Fig. 6; Abstract] The claim that the counter-rotating wave terms 'restrain' or lead to the disappearance of the quantum phase transition is not supported by the evidence presented. The authors compute Mz and Oz only for N=5 (Fig. 6), whereas a quantum phase transition is a thermodynamic-limit phenomenon requiring, at minimum, finite-size scaling or explicit gap-closing analysis; the text does not explicitly show that a transition exists in the absence of the counter-rotating term. The paragraph states that Fig. 6(c,d) is 'consistent with Ref. [47]' and then concludes that the counter-rotating term causes the transition to disappear, but this does not follow without identifying and locating a transition in the CRW-free case. The authors should either supply quantitative evidence for the transition without HJ,cw and its absence with HJ,cw, or reframe this section as a finite-N study of spectral and order-parameter behavior.
  3. [Sec. II, definitions after Eq. (3)] The quantity Ec(t) = E(t)-E(0) is called 'the energy obtained from the mechanical oscillator,' but since the total Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) includes the interaction H_ac, conservation of total energy gives ΔE_spin = -ΔE_osc - ΔE_int; the spin energy change is not exactly the energy lost by the oscillator. This does not invalidate Ec(t) as the battery charging energy, but the physical interpretation should be stated more carefully, and the size of the interaction-energy contribution should be checked or acknowledged.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Conclusion] The conclusion says the roles of the counter-rotating wave terms are 'revealed and discussed by the analytical and numerical calculations,' but I find no analytical derivation in the paper; this should be changed to 'numerical calculations.'
  2. [Sec. III, Fig. 6 paragraph] The phrase that the counter-rotating term 'suppresses the quantum coherence' is not directly evidenced; if coherence destruction is the proposed mechanism, a quantitative coherence measure (e.g., l1-norm or relative entropy of coherence) should be reported.
  3. [Sec. III, Fig. 2 discussion] The statement that for J=0.2 the nearest-neighbor hopping is 'relatively small' and non-nearest-neighbor hopping 'can be ignored' is asserted without a quantitative estimate; given the long-range form with p=3, the contributions of the next-nearest-neighbor pairs are not obviously negligible.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typos and grammatical issues, e.g., 'charing dynamics' and 'The present of thermal phonons' in the final section, and 'disappe ar' in figure labels; a careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the charging curves are direct unitary solutions of the stated Hamiltonian for an assumed initial state, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

No circularity is evident. The model is fully specified by the Dicke-Ising Hamiltonian in Eq. (1), with the dynamics given by Eq. (2) and the battery observables defined around Eqs. (2)-(3). The charging energy Ec(t)=E(t)-E(0) and ergotropy Ee(t) are computed by direct numerical solution from that Hamiltonian and the stated initial state; they are not fitted to a target result, and the coupling strengths, hopping strengths, and exponent p are scanned parameters rather than fitted outputs. The comparison with and without counter-rotating wave terms in Figs. 3-6 is a controlled model comparison, and the observed maximum near lambda=0.2 is a numerical output, not an input assumption. The initial oscillator state |Phi>_c = sqrt(0.6)|10> + sqrt(0.4)|15> is an assumed resource: the results are conditional on it, and the paper itself notes that multi-phonon Fock-state superpositions have experimentally been demonstrated only in a bulk acoustic-wave resonator [43]. That is a practicality or realizability gap, not a circular derivation, because the computed observables are not equivalent to the assumed state by construction. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found; the cited experimental and theoretical works, such as Refs. [33], [34], and [43], are external support rather than unverified prior claims by the same authors. The broad closing claim that the work provides a 'solid foundation for a practical quantum battery' is stronger than what the closed-system simulation alone demonstrates, but that is a correctness and scope concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The model uses known spin and phonon degrees of freedom. The main hand-chosen inputs are the scanned coupling, hopping, exponent, system size, and the initial Fock-state superposition.

free parameters (5)
  • Spin-oscillator coupling lambda = 0.1 to 2.0 (scanned)
    Controls the strength of the Dicke interaction; varied across the ultrastrong coupling regime (lambda/omega >= 0.1). Scanned, not fitted to data.
  • Ion-ion hopping strength J = 0.1 to 2.0 (scanned)
    Strength of the distance-dependent Ising spin-spin interaction. Scanned in Figs. 4-6 to find charging maxima.
  • Interaction range exponent p = 0, 1, 2, 2.5, 3
    Power-law decay of hopping with ion separation. Values chosen from trapped-ion experiments (Refs. 27, 34), not fitted.
  • Initial phonon amplitudes = sqrt(0.6), sqrt(0.4) for |10> and |15>
    Hand-picked so the average phonon number is 12, chosen to guarantee that the battery receives sufficient energy (Sec. III).
  • Number of ions N = 5
    System size used in all simulations; finite-size effects are not systematically studied.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Eq. (1) is the correct Hamiltonian for a trapped-ion chain coupled to a mechanical oscillator, with all ions coupled equally to the oscillator and with power-law Ising hopping.
    The mapping relies on trapped-ion quantum simulation literature (Refs. 27, 33, 34); the specific cantilever realization with a gradient magnetic field is assumed.
  • domain assumption The evolution is perfectly unitary and closed for the entire charging time.
    All results use the unitary evolution in Eq. (2); environmental effects are only discussed qualitatively in Sec. III.
  • domain assumption Truncating the oscillator Hilbert space at 101 Fock states is sufficient.
    The paper cites Ref. 45 for a dimensional heuristic but does not show a convergence scan for these parameters.
  • ad hoc to paper The Fock-state superposition sqrt(0.6)|10> + sqrt(0.4)|15> can be prepared in the proposed ion-trap cantilever.
    Multi-phonon Fock superpositions have been demonstrated only in a bulk acoustic-wave resonator (Ref. 43), not yet in this ion-trap setting.
  • ad hoc to paper The initial Fock superposition replaces the pump-field drive described in the introduction.
    Eq. (1) contains no drive term; the charging energy comes from the prepared phonon state, not from a continuously applied pump.
  • domain assumption Finite-N order parameters Mz and Oz can be used to discuss the presence or absence of a quantum phase transition.
    The QPT discussion for five ions relies on how Mz and Oz vary with J; the paper also cites Ref. 54 stating there is no QPT for finite two-level ion chains.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dicke-Ising quantum battery of an ion chain driven by a mechanical oscillator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DBH2VALL

@misc{pith2026250208065,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dicke-Ising quantum battery of an ion chain driven by a mechanical oscillator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DBH2VALL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08065}
}
read the original abstract

A scheme for implementing quantum batteries in a realizable and controllable platform based on a trapped ion chain driven by a mechanical oscillator is proposed. The effects of the hopping interaction between the two-level ions and the coupling interaction between the ions and the external mechanical oscillator on the charging process of the battery are investigated. The importance of the counter-rotating wave terms in the system's Hamiltonian, which are often ignored, is analyzed, and it is found that the charging energy and the ergotropy of the battery are dramatically affected by the counter-rotating wave terms. The quantum phase transition of the two-level system is restrained by the counter-rotating wave terms due to the destruction of the quantum coherence. Lastly, the power-law dependence of the charging process on the distance between the ions is discussed. Our theoretical analysis provides a solid foundation for the development of a practical quantum battery.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08065 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (Color online) Schematic diagram of a quantum bat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (Color online) The charging process of the quan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (Color online) The comparison of the charging proces [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (Color online) The change of the maximum of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: (Color online) The change of the eigenvalues [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: (Color online) The charging process of the quantum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [43]

    Zheng, Y

    Q. Zheng, Y. Yao, and Y. Li, Optimal quantum parame- ter estimation in a pulsed quantum optomechanical sys- tem, Phys. Rev. A 93, 013848 (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [33]

    X. L. Deng, D. Porras, and J. I. Cirac, Quan- tum phases of interacting phonons in ion traps, Phys. Rev. A 77, 033403 (2008)

    work page 2008

  3. [47]

    Jing, Generating Fock-state super- positions from coherent states by selective measurement, Phys

    C.-Y Zhang and J. Jing, Generating Fock-state super- positions from coherent states by selective measurement, Phys. Rev. A 110, 042421 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [1]

    We have set ℏ ≡ 1 in the above Hamiltonian

    can be regarded as the Dicke-Ising model. We have set ℏ ≡ 1 in the above Hamiltonian. For convenience but without losing the physics, the parameter ωc = ωa = 1.0 is chosen. We consider the charging process of the system which consists of the mechanical harmonic oscillator and five (N = 5) two-level ions under the view of the closed sys- tem. Our aim is to ...

    work page

  5. [2]

    The Hilbert space of the quantum harmonic oscillator must be cut off for numerical calculations

    can not be obtained analytically. The Hilbert space of the quantum harmonic oscillator must be cut off for numerical calculations. The dimen- sion of the space is set to 101 after the space has been truncated, and the eigenstate for the highest energy level is |100⟩. The dimension number of the Hilbert space ex- ceeds four times of the phonon’s number for ...

    work page

  6. [3]

    and ( 2). The quan- tities for characterizing the process are determined by 0 10 20 30 40 ωct 0 1 2 3 4 Ec,e(t)/ωc (a) Ee(t) Ec(t) 0 10 20 30 40 ωct 0 1 2 3 4S(t) (b) 0 10 20 30 40 ωct 0 0.2 0.4 0.6σ3 (c) 0 10 20 30 40 ωct -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15σm,n (d) σ 3,1 σ 3,2 FIG. 2: (Color online) The charging process of the quan- tum battery in our model. (a) ...

    work page 2008

  7. [4]

    K. V. Hovhannisyan, M. P. Llobet, M. Hu- ber, and A. Ac ´ ın, Entanglement generation is not necessary for optimal work extraction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 240401 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [5]

    The dependence of the maxima of Ec(t) and Ee(t) on λ is given in Fig

    The charging energy is always larger than the ergotropy of the battery. The dependence of the maxima of Ec(t) and Ee(t) on λ is given in Fig. 5(a). The peak is at λ ≈ 0.2, which is the balance point of the competition between the rotating wave term and the counter-rotating wave one in the Hamiltonian ˆHac. The counter-rotating wave term ˆHac,cw plays less...

    work page

Show all 60 references
  1. [6]

    Campaioli, S

    F. Campaioli, S. Gherardini, J. Q. Quach, M. Polini, G. M. Andolina, Colloquium: Quantum batteries, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96, 031001 (2024)

    2024

  2. [7]

    By choosing different values of the exponent p, the evolutions of the charging energy Ec(t), the ergotropy Ee(t), the entropy S(t), and the difference of the expectation value between the first and third ions σ3,1 are given. When p = 0, the system has the highest symmetry since t...

  3. [8]

    Alicki and M

    R. Alicki and M. Fannes, Entanglement boost for ex- tractable work from ensembles of quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. E 87, 042123 (2013)

    2013

  4. [9]

    A. E. Allahverdyan, R. Balian, and Th. M. Nieuwen- huizen, Maximal work extraction from finite quantum systems, Europhys. Lett. 67, 565 (2004)

    2004

  5. [10]

    F. C. Binder, S. Vinjanampathy, K. Modi, and J. Goold, Quantacell: powerful charging of quantum batteries, New J. Phys. 17, 075015 (2015)

    2015

  6. [11]

    Campaioli, F

    F. Campaioli, F. A. Pollock, F. C. Binder, L. Celeri, J. Goold, S. Vinjanampathy, and K. Modi, En- hancing the charging power of quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 150601 (2017)

    2017

  7. [12]

    T. P. Le, J. Levinsen, K. Modi, M. M. Parish, and F. A. Pollock, Spin-chain model of a many-body quantum battery, Phys. Rev. A 97, 022106 (2018)

    2018

  8. [13]

    G. M. Andolina, M. Keck, A. Mari, V. Giovannetti, and M. Polini, Quantum versus classical many-body batter- ies, Phys. Rev. B 99, 205437 (2019)

    2019

  9. [14]

    H. L. Shi, S. Ding, Q. K. Wan, X. H. Wang, and W. L. Yang, Entanglement, coherence, and extractable work in quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 130602 (2022)

    2022

  10. [15]

    Mazzoncini, V

    F. Mazzoncini, V. Cavina, G. M. Andolina, P. A. Erd- man, and V. Giovannetti, Optimal control methods for quantum batteries, Phys. Rev. A 107, 032218 (2023)

    2023

  11. [16]

    R. R. Rodr ´ ıguez, B. Ahmadi, G Su´ arez, P Mazurek, S Barzanjeh, and P Horodecki, Optimal quantum control of charging quantum batteries, New J. Phys. 26, 043004 (2024)

    2024

  12. [17]

    Pirmoradian and K

    F. Pirmoradian and K. Mølmer, Aging of a quantum bat- tery, Phys. Rev. A 100, 043833 (2019)

    2019

  13. [18]

    J. Liu, D. Segal and G. Hanna, A loss-free excitonic quan - tum battery, J. Phys. Chem. C 123, 18303 (2019)

    2019

  14. [19]

    Carrega, A

    M. Carrega, A. Crescente, D. Ferrato and M. Sas- setti, Dissipative dynamics of an open quantum battery New J. Phys. 22, 083085 (2020)

    2020

  15. [20]

    F. H. Kamin, F. T. Tabesh, S. Salimi, F. Kheiran- dish, and A. C. Santos, Non-Markovian effects on charg- ing and self-discharing process of quantum batteries, New J. Phys. 22, 003007 (2020)

    2020

  16. [21]

    S. Y. Bai and J. H. An, Floquet engineer- ing to reactivate a dissipative quantum battery, Phys. Rev. A 102, 060201(R) (2020)

    2020

  17. [22]

    F. Zhao, F. Q. Dou, and Q. Zhao, Quantum bat- tery of interacting spins with environmental noise, Phys. Rev. A 103, 033715 (2021)

    2021

  18. [23]

    R. R. Rodriguez, B. Ahmadi, P. Mazurek, S. Barzanjeh, R. Alicki, and P. Horodecki, Catalysis in charging quan- tum batteries, Phys. Rev. A 107, 042419 (2023)

    2023

  19. [24]

    J.-Y. Gyhm, D. ˘Safr´anek, and D. Rosa, Quantum charg- ing advantage cannot be extensive without global opera- tions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 140501 (2022)

    2022

  20. [25]

    Rossini, G

    D. Rossini, G. M. Andolina, D. Rosa, M. Car- rega, and M. Polini, Quantum advantage in the charging process of Sachdev-Ye-Kitaev batteries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 236402 (2020)

    2020

  21. [26]

    C. A. Downing and M. S. Ukhtary, A quantum battery with quadratic driving, Commun. Phys. 6, 322 (2023)

    2023

  22. [27]

    Z.-G. Lu, G. Tian, X.-Y. L¨ u, and C. Shang, Topological quantum batteries, arXiv: 2405.03675v3

    arXiv

  23. [28]

    C.-K. Hu, J. Qiu, P. J. P. Souza, J. Yuan, Y. Zhou, L. Zhang, J. Chu, X. Pan, L. Hu, and J. Li, Opti- mal charging of a superconducting quantum battery, Quantum Sci. Technol. 7, 045018 (2022)

    2022

  24. [29]

    Maillette de Buy Wenniger, S

    I. Maillette de Buy Wenniger, S. E. Thomas, M. Maf- fei, S. C. Wein, M. Pont, N. Belabas, S. Prasad, A. Harouri, A. Lema ˆ ıtre, I. Sagnes, N. Somaschi, A. Auff` eves, P. Senellart, Experimental analysis of energy transfers between a quantum emitter and light fields, Phys. Rev. ...

    2023

  25. [30]

    J. Q. Quach, K. E. McGhee, L. Ganzer, D. M. Rouse, B. W. Lovett, E. M. Gauger, J. Keeling, G. Cerullo, D. G. Lidzey, and T. Virgili, Superabsorption in an organic microcavity: Toward a quantum battery, Science Advances 8, 3160 (2022)

    2022

  26. [31]

    Joshi and T

    J. Joshi and T. S. Mahesh, Experimental investigation of a quantum battery using star-topology NMR spin sys- tems, Phys. Rev. A 106, 042601 (2022) . 8

    2022

  27. [32]

    X. L. Deng, D. Porras, and J. I. Cirac, Effective spin quantum phases in systems of trapped ions, Phys. Rev. A 72, 063407 (2005)

    2005

  28. [34]

    Blatt and C

    R. Blatt and C. F. Roos, Quantum simulations with trapped ions, Nat. Phys. 8, 277 (2012)

    2012

  29. [35]

    S. A. Guo, Y. K. Wu, J. Ye, L. Zhang, W. Q. Lian, R. Yao, Y. Wang, R. Y. Yan, Y. J. Yi, Y. L. Xu, B. W. Li, Y. H. Hou, Y. Z. Xu, W. X. Guo, C. Zhang, B. X. Qi, Z. C. Zhou, L. He, and L. M. Duan, A site- resolved two-dimensional quantum simulator with hun- dreds of trapped ions...

    2024

  30. [36]

    Zhang, J

    K. Zhang, J. Thompson, X. Zhang, Y. Shen, Y. Lu, S. Zhang, J. Ma, V. Vedral, M. Gu, and K. Kim, Mod- ular quantum computation in a trapped ion system, Nat. Commun. 10, 4692 (2019)

    2019

  31. [37]

    C. Noel, P. Niroula, D. Zhu, A. Risinger, L. Egan, D. Biswas, M. Cetina, A. V. Gorshkov, M. J. Gullans, D. A. Huse, and C. Monroe, Measurement-induced quan- tum phases realized in a trapped-ion quantum computer, Nat. Phys. 18, 760 (2022)

    2022

  32. [38]

    P. B. Li, Y. Zhou, W. B. Gao, and F. Nori, En- hancing spin-phonon and spin-spin interactions us- ing linear resources in a hybrid quantum system, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 153602 (2020)

    2020

  33. [39]

    Jurcevic, B

    P. Jurcevic, B. P. Lanyon, P. Hauke, C. Hempel, P. Zoller , R. Blatt, and F. Roos, Quasiparticle engineering and en- tanglement propagation in a quantum many-body sys- tem, Nature (London) 511, 202 (2014)

    2014

  34. [40]

    Braak, Integrability of the Rabi model, Phys

    D. Braak, Integrability of the Rabi model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 100401 (2011)

    2011

  35. [41]

    Bergholm, W

    V. Bergholm, W. Wieczorek, T. Schulte-Herbr¨uggen, and M. Keyl, Optimal control of hybrid optomechanical sys- tems for generating non-classical states of mechanical motion, Quantum Sci. Technol. 4, 034001 (2019)

    2019

  36. [42]

    P. D. Nation, Nonclassical mechanical states in an optomechanical micromaser analog, Phys. Rev. A 88, 053828 (2013)

    2013

  37. [44]

    Kounalakis, Y

    M. Kounalakis, Y. M. Blanter, and G. A. Steele, Syn- thesizing multi-phonon quantum superposition states us- ing flux-mediated three-body interactions with supercon- ducting qubits, npj Quantum Information 5, 100 (2019)

    2019

  38. [45]

    Tan, Deterministic quantum superpositions and Fock states of mechanical oscillators via quantum interference in single-photon cavity optomechanics, Phys

    H. Tan, Deterministic quantum superpositions and Fock states of mechanical oscillators via quantum interference in single-photon cavity optomechanics, Phys. Rev. A 89, 053829 (2014)

    2014

  39. [46]

    H. Xie, X. Shang, C.-G. Liao, Z.-H. Chen, and X.-M. Lin, Macroscopic superposition states of a mechanical oscillator in an optomechanical system with quadratic coupling, Phys. Rev. A 100, 033803 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    Y. Chu, P. Kharel, T. Yoon, L. Frunzio, P. T. Rakich, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Creation and control of multi- phonon Fock states in a bulk acoustic-wave resonator, Nature (London) 563, 666 (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    D. F. V. James, Quantum dynamics of cold trapped ions with application to quantum computation, Appl. Phys. B. 66, 181 (1998)

    1998

  42. [50]

    Ferraro, M

    D. Ferraro, M. Campisi, G. M. Andolina, V. Pellegrini, and M. Polini, High-power collec- tive charging of a solid-state quantum battery, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 117702 (2018)

    2018

  43. [51]

    C. H. Bennett, D. P. Divincenzo, J. A. Smolin, and W. K. Wootters, Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. A 54, 3824 (1996)

    1996

  44. [52]

    F. Zhao, F. Q. Dou, and Q. Zhao, Charging per- formance of the Su-Schrieffer-Heeger quantum battery, Phys. Rev. Research 4, 013172 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    Q. T. Xie, H. H. Zhong, M. T. Batchelor, and C. H. Lee, The quantum Rabi model: solution and dynamics, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor, 50, 113001 (2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    Casanova, G

    J. Casanova, G. Romero, I. Lizuain, J. J. G. Ripoll, and E. Solano, Deep strong coupling regime of the Jaynes- Cummings model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 263603 (2010)

    2010

  47. [55]

    J. F. Huang and C. K. Law, Phase-kicked control of counter-rotating interactions in the quantum Rabi model, Phys. Rev. A 91, 023806 (2015)

    2015

  48. [56]

    Zheng, S

    H. Zheng, S. Y. Zhu, and M. S. Zubariy, Quantum Zeno and anti-Zeno effects: without the rotating-wave approx- imation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 200404 (2008)

    2008

  49. [57]

    Gyhm and U

    J.-Y. Gyhm and U. R. Fischer, Beneficial and detri- mental entanglement for quantum battery charging, A VS Quantum Sci. 6, 012001 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    D. L. Yang, F. M. Yang, and F. Q. Dou, Three-level Dicke quantum battery, Phys. Rev. B 109, 235432 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    Friedenauer, H

    A. Friedenauer, H. Schmitz, J. T. Glueckert, D. Por- ras, and T. Schaetz, Simulating a quantum magnet with trapped ions, Nat. Phys. 4, 757 (2008)

    2008

  52. [60]

    W. M. Zhang, P. Y. Lo, H. N. Xiong, M. W. Y. Tu, and F. Nori, General non-Markovian dynamics of open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 170402 (2012)

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.