pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.02756 · v1 · pith:L6CLYZIEnew · submitted 2026-06-01 · ✦ hep-lat · physics.optics· quant-ph

Photonic Analog Quantum Simulation of (1+1)-Dimensional U(1) Lattice Gauge Theory with Dynamical Matter

Nathan R. Gonzalez , Thea Budde , Klemen Kersic , Zia Steele , Alex H. Rubin , Joao C. Pinto Barros , Marina Radulaski , Marina Krstic Marinkovic This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 11:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-lat physics.opticsquant-ph
keywords lattice gauge theoryquantum simulationJaynes-Cummings-Hubbard modelquantum link modelphotonic cavitiesdynamical matterU(1) gauge theoryanalog quantum simulation
0
0 comments X

The pith

A photonic cavity array using the Jaynes-Cummings-Hubbard model can simulate the real-time dynamics of a (1+1)D U(1) lattice gauge theory with dynamical matter.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper proposes mapping an array of interacting cavities in the strong-coupling regime to the alternating matter and gauge-field sites of the spin-1/2 Quantum Link Model for U(1) lattice gauge theory. Precise tuning of polaritonic resonances controls the hopping of excitations to enforce gauge-invariant dynamics. Exact diagonalization confirms that the real-time evolution in the Jaynes-Cummings-Hubbard model matches the target Quantum Link Model. The approach is presented as a route to analog simulation of lattice gauge theories with matter, including discussion of scalable photonic and superconducting implementations.

Core claim

The Jaynes-Cummings-Hubbard model of a cavity array is mapped onto the spin-1/2 Quantum Link Model such that hopping of polaritonic excitations implements the gauge-invariant dynamics of the U(1) lattice gauge theory with dynamical matter. Tuning of individual cavity resonances sets the required interactions, and exact diagonalization verifies that time evolution of the two systems coincides.

What carries the argument

The mapping of the Jaynes-Cummings-Hubbard model to the spin-1/2 Quantum Link Model via tuned polaritonic resonances that govern excitation hopping between alternating sites.

If this is right

  • The real-time evolution of the Quantum Link Model is accurately replicated by the Jaynes-Cummings-Hubbard model under the stated mapping.
  • Scalable implementations in photonic and superconducting systems can reach beyond-classical simulation capability.
  • The scheme supplies a novel route to studying real-time dynamics of lattice gauge theories with matter in higher dimensions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Realization of the cavity array could permit direct observation of phenomena such as string breaking through time-resolved measurements of particle and field configurations.
  • The resonance-tuning approach may generalize to other gauge groups or lattice geometries if the underlying polariton hopping can be engineered similarly.
  • Comparison of experimental spectra or evolution traces against the exact-diagonalization benchmarks would quantify any residual mapping errors.

Load-bearing premise

Precise tuning of polaritonic resonances in individual cavities implements the desired gauge-invariant dynamics through hopping without unaccounted errors.

What would settle it

A mismatch between the time-dependent expectation values of gauge-invariant observables such as electric field strength or fermion density in exact diagonalization of the Jaynes-Cummings-Hubbard model versus the Quantum Link Model would falsify the replication claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.02756 by Alex H. Rubin, Joao C. Pinto Barros, Klemen Kersic, Marina Krstic Marinkovic, Marina Radulaski, Nathan R. Gonzalez, Thea Budde, Zia Steele.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The U(1) gauge theory can be mapped exactly onto a bosonic chain with 2L − 1 sites. The bosonic occupations are uniquely mapped to a gauge-theory configuration depending on the site’s parity. The left/right pointing yellow arrows represent the polarization of the gauge field ⟨S z l ⟩ = ±1/2. A filled/empty circle indicates an occupied/empty fermionic site. An occupied bosonic matter site corresponds to the… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Mapping between the JCH model and the spin-1/2 QLM. (a) Schematic of a coupled cavity array in the strong coupling regime (g ≫ J), consisting of alternating matter (blue) and gauge (orange) sites, each composed of a cavity coupled to a two-level emitter with a coupling rate g. Photon hopping between cavities occurs at a rate J. Colors indicate varying cavity frequency ωe. (b) Polariton energy level structu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Real-time dynamics for the JCH model on a chain of five coupled cavities compared to the spin-1/2 QLM. (a) Matter site and (b) gauge field JCH occupation mapped to QLM observables (charge density and electric flux, respectively) as described by Eqs. (8) and (9). (c) Absolute value of the expectation value for the Gauss’s law operator |⟨Gl⟩| for each matter site l and the two adjacent gauge sites, which rem… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The possible strength of the effective interaction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Proposed experimental implementations of the analog quantum simulation. Blue is used to represent matter sites and yellow to represent gauge fields. (a) Coupled photonic crystal cavity array, with each cavity coupled to a quantum emitter. (b) Optical whispering gallery mode resonators coupled to quantum emitters. The resonators are evanescently coupled to a waveguide to allow for hopping. In panels (a) and… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We propose a photonic scheme for analog quantum simulation of a $U(1)$ Lattice Gauge Theory (LGT) with dynamical matter based on the Jaynes-Cummings-Hubbard (JCH) model. Here, an array of interacting cavities in the strong-coupling regime of cavity Quantum Electrodynamics is mapped onto the alternating matter and gauge-field sites of the spin-1/2 Quantum Link Model. In contrast to other analog LGT quantum simulation methods, our approach implements the desired gauge-invariant dynamics through the hopping of polaritonic excitations among the array sites. The hopping is mapped to the gauge theory via precise tuning of polaritonic resonances in individual cavities. Using exact diagonalization, we show that the real-time evolution of the JCH model accurately replicates that of a Quantum Link Model. Finally, we discuss feasible routes to the beyond-classical simulation capability with scalable implementations in photonic and superconducting systems. This provides a novel route towards understanding the real-time dynamics of lattice gauge theories with matter in higher dimensions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an analog quantum simulation of (1+1)D U(1) lattice gauge theory with dynamical matter using the Jaynes-Cummings-Hubbard (JCH) model realized in an array of interacting cavities. The scheme maps the JCH system onto the alternating matter and gauge-field sites of the spin-1/2 Quantum Link Model by tuning individual cavity polaritonic resonances so that polariton hopping reproduces the gauge-invariant dynamics. Exact diagonalization on small systems is presented to show that real-time evolution of the JCH model replicates that of the target QLM, and the authors discuss routes toward scalable photonic and superconducting implementations.

Significance. If the mapping is shown to be exact and free of gauge-violating residuals, the work would supply a concrete photonic platform for analog simulation of real-time LGT dynamics with matter, complementing existing digital and other analog approaches. The emphasis on resonance tuning rather than external driving and the explicit ED validation are positive features; the discussion of beyond-classical scalability in higher dimensions would be of interest to the hep-lat and quantum-simulation communities.

major comments (1)
  1. The central claim that resonance tuning implements exact gauge-invariant QLM dynamics rests on the unproven assertion that the effective JCH Hamiltonian commutes with the local Gauss-law generators for arbitrary system size. The manuscript supplies no analytic derivation showing cancellation of all gauge-violating matrix elements after tuning; the provided ED evidence is limited to small lattices and short evolution times where violations may remain below numerical thresholds.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful review and for highlighting the need for a clearer demonstration of exact gauge invariance. We address the major comment below and commit to revisions that strengthen the analytic support for the proposed mapping.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that resonance tuning implements exact gauge-invariant QLM dynamics rests on the unproven assertion that the effective JCH Hamiltonian commutes with the local Gauss-law generators for arbitrary system size. The manuscript supplies no analytic derivation showing cancellation of all gauge-violating matrix elements after tuning; the provided ED evidence is limited to small lattices and short evolution times where violations may remain below numerical thresholds.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript presents the mapping primarily through the resonance-tuning construction and validates it numerically via ED on small systems, without an explicit general-size analytic proof that all gauge-violating terms cancel. The effective Hamiltonian is designed so that only gauge-invariant processes survive under the chosen detunings, but a full perturbative expansion confirming exact commutation with the Gauss-law operators for arbitrary N would indeed make the claim more rigorous. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated section deriving the effective low-energy Hamiltonian in the resonant limit, explicitly showing cancellation of gauge-violating matrix elements to all orders in the perturbative expansion. We will also extend the ED benchmarks to larger lattices and longer evolution times to quantify any residual violations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Mapping proposal verified by independent exact diagonalization; no reduction to self-inputs

full rationale

The paper proposes a resonance-tuning mapping from the JCH Hamiltonian to the spin-1/2 QLM on alternating sites and then performs exact diagonalization to compare real-time evolution. This numerical comparison constitutes an independent check rather than a tautological re-derivation; the JCH dynamics are not defined in terms of the target QLM observables, nor are parameters fitted to force agreement by construction. No self-citations are invoked as load-bearing uniqueness theorems, and the central claim does not rename a known result or smuggle an ansatz. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the core mapping assumption between JCH and QLM and the feasibility of resonance tuning; no invented entities or additional free parameters beyond tuning are specified in the abstract.

free parameters (1)
  • polaritonic resonance tunings
    Precise tuning of resonances in individual cavities to achieve the mapping of hopping to gauge theory dynamics.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The JCH model in the strong-coupling regime can be mapped onto the alternating matter and gauge-field sites of the spin-1/2 Quantum Link Model such that polaritonic hopping implements gauge-invariant dynamics.
    This mapping is the foundational premise invoked for the photonic scheme.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5751 in / 1314 out tokens · 29468 ms · 2026-06-28T11:21:20.402750+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 17 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    What is Particle The- ory?

    in the large coupling limit, is aU(1) symmetric (1 + 1)-dimensional representation of Quantum Electro- dynamics. In the QLM formulation, the Hamiltonian arXiv:2606.02756v1 [hep-lat] 1 Jun 2026 2 Figure 1. TheU(1) gauge theory can be mapped exactly onto a bosonic chain with 2L−1 sites. The bosonic occupations are uniquely mapped to a gauge-theory configura...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    Troyer and U.-J

    M. Troyer and U.-J. Wiese, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 170201 (2005), arXiv:cond-mat/0408370

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  3. [3]

    Alexandru, G

    A. Alexandru, G. Basar, P. F. Bedaque, and N. C. Warrington, Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 015006 (2022), arXiv:2007.05436 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    Vidal, Phys

    G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 147902 (2003), arXiv:quant-ph/0301063

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  5. [5]

    Schollwock, Rev

    U. Schollwock, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 259 (2005), arXiv:cond-mat/0409292

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  6. [6]

    Verstraete and J

    F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. B73, 094423 (2006), arXiv:cond-mat/0505140

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  7. [7]

    Gattringer and C

    C. Gattringer and C. B. Lang,Quantum chromodynamics on the lattice, Vol. 788 (Springer, Berlin, 2010)

    2010

  8. [8]

    Bietenholz and U.-J

    W. Bietenholz and U.-J. Wiese,Uncovering Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model(Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2024)

    2024

  9. [9]

    Fradkin,Field Theories of Condensed Matter Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2013)

    E. Fradkin,Field Theories of Condensed Matter Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2013)

    2013

  10. [10]

    Y. Zhou, K. Kanoda, and T.-K. Ng, Reviews of Modern Physics89, 025003 (2017)

    2017

  11. [11]

    Aokiet al.(Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)), Phys

    Y. Aokiet al.(Flavour Lattice Averaging Group (FLAG)), Phys. Rev. D113, 014508 (2026), arXiv:2411.04268 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  12. [12]

    Alibertiet al., Phys

    R. Alibertiet al., Phys. Rept.1143, 1 (2025), arXiv:2505.21476 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    J. C. Halimeh, N. Mueller, J. Knolle, Z. Papi´ c, and Z. Davoudi, (2025), arXiv:2509.03586 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Nagata, Prog

    K. Nagata, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.127, 103991 (2022), arXiv:2108.12423 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    E. Y. Loh, J. E. Gubernatis, R. T. Scalettar, S. R. White, D. J. Scalapino, and R. L. Sugar, Phys. Rev. B41, 9301 (1990)

    1990

  16. [16]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Annals Phys.303, 2 (2003), arXiv:quant- ph/9707021

    arXiv 2003

  17. [17]

    A. De, A. Lerose, D. Luo, F. M. Surace, A. Schuckert, E. R. Bennewitz, B. Ware, W. Morong, K. S. Collins, Z. Davoudi, A. V. Gorshkov, O. Katz, and C. Monroe, Observation of string-breaking dynamics in a quantum simulator (2024), version Number: 1

    2024

  18. [18]

    Cobos, J

    J. Cobos, J. Fraxanet, C. Benito, F. di Marcanto- nio, P. Rivero, K. Kap´ as, M. A. Werner, ¨O. Legeza, A. Bermudez, and E. Rico, (2025), arXiv:2507.08088 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, M

    D. Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, M. Hamdan, T. V. Zache, B. Braverman, M. Kornjaˇ ca, A. Lukin, S. H. Cant´ u, F. Liu, S.-T. Wang, A. Keesling, M. D. Lukin, P. Zoller, and A. Bylinskii, Nature642, 321 (2025)

    2025

  20. [20]

    Wang, Z.-Y

    Z. Wang, Z.-Y. Ge, Y.-H. Shi, Z.-A. Wang, S.-Y. Zhou, H. Li, K. Zhao, Y.-S. Xu, W.-G. Ma, H.-T. Liu, C.-P. Fang, J.-C. Song, T.-M. Li, J.-C. Zhang, Y. Liu, C.- L. Deng, G. Xue, H. Yu, K. Xu, K. Huang, F. Nori, and H. Fan, Observation of Inelastic Meson Scattering in a Floquet System using a Digital Quantum Simulator (2025), arXiv:2508.20759 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    J. H. Busnaina, Z. Shi, J. M. Alcaine-Cuervo, C. X. Yang, I. Nsanzineza, E. Rico, and C. M. Wilson, Phys. Rev. B 112, 134514 (2025), arXiv:2501.13383 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    G¨ org, K

    F. G¨ org, K. Sandholzer, J. Minguzzi, R. Desbuquois, M. Messer, and T. Esslinger, Nature Physics15, 1161 (2019)

    2019

  23. [23]

    Schweizer, F

    C. Schweizer, F. Grusdt, M. Berngruber, L. Barbiero, E. Demler, N. Goldman, I. Bloch, and M. Aidelsburger, Nature Physics15, 1168 (2019)

    2019

  24. [24]

    K. J. Satzingeret al., Science374, abi8378 (2021), arXiv:2104.01180 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    Wang, Z.-Y

    Z. Wang, Z.-Y. Ge, Z. Xiang, X. Song, R.-Z. Huang, P. Song, X.-Y. Guo, L. Su, K. Xu, D. Zheng, and H. Fan, Physical Review Research4, L022060 (2022)

    2022

  26. [26]

    T. A. Cochranet al., Nature642, 315 (2025), arXiv:2409.17142 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Luoet al., (2025), arXiv:2505.09607 [quant-ph]

    D. Luoet al., (2025), arXiv:2505.09607 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Mildenberger, W

    J. Mildenberger, W. Mruczkiewicz, J. C. Halimeh, Z. Jiang, and P. Hauke, Nature Physics21, 312 (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    Mueller, T

    N. Mueller, T. Wang, O. Katz, Z. Davoudi, and M. Cetina, Nature Communications16, 5492 (2025)

    2025

  30. [30]

    Saner, O

    S. Saner, O. B˘ az˘ avan, D. J. Webb, G. Araneda, C. J. Ballance, R. Srinivas, D. M. Lucas, and A. Berm´ udez, (2025), arXiv:2507.19588 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Marcos, P

    D. Marcos, P. Widmer, E. Rico, M. Hafezi, P. Rabl, U. J. Wiese, and P. Zoller, Annals Phys.351, 634 (2014), arXiv:1407.6066 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  32. [32]

    E. A. Martinez, C. A. Muschik, P. Schindler, D. Nigg, A. Erhard, M. Heyl, P. Hauke, M. Dalmonte, T. Monz, P. Zoller, and R. Blatt, Nature534, 516 (2016)

    2016

  33. [33]

    H.-N. Dai, B. Yang, A. Reingruber, H. Sun, X.-F. Xu, Y.-A. Chen, Z.-S. Yuan, and J.-W. Pan, Nature Physics 13, 1195 (2017)

    2017

  34. [34]

    N. Klco, E. F. Dumitrescu, A. J. McCaskey, T. D. Morris, R. C. Pooser, M. Sanz, E. Solano, P. Lougovski, and M. J. Savage, Physical Review A98, 032331 (2018)

    2018

  35. [35]

    Kokail, C

    C. Kokail, C. Maier, R. Van Bijnen, T. Brydges, M. K. Joshi, P. Jurcevic, C. A. Muschik, P. Silvi, R. Blatt, C. F. Roos, and P. Zoller, Nature569, 355 (2019)

    2019

  36. [36]

    B. Yang, H. Sun, R. Ott, H.-Y. Wang, T. V. Zache, J. C. Halimeh, Z.-S. Yuan, P. Hauke, and J.-W. Pan, Nature 587, 392 (2020)

    2020

  37. [37]

    W. A. De Jong, K. Lee, J. Mulligan, M. P losko´ n, F. Ringer, and X. Yao, Physical Review D106, 054508 9 (2022)

    2022

  38. [38]

    N. H. Nguyen, M. C. Tran, Y. Zhu, A. M. Green, C. H. Alderete, Z. Davoudi, and N. M. Linke, PRX Quantum 3, 020324 (2022)

    2022

  39. [39]

    Zhou, G.-X

    Z.-Y. Zhou, G.-X. Su, J. C. Halimeh, R. Ott, H. Sun, P. Hauke, B. Yang, Z.-S. Yuan, J. Berges, and J.-W. Pan, Science377, 311 (2022)

    2022

  40. [40]

    R. C. Farrell, M. Illa, A. N. Ciavarella, and M. J. Savage, Physical Review D109, 114510 (2024)

    2024

  41. [41]

    R. C. Farrell, M. Illa, A. N. Ciavarella, and M. J. Savage, PRX Quantum5, 020315 (2024)

    2024

  42. [42]

    Zhuet al., (2024), arXiv:2411.12565 [cond- mat.quant-gas]

    Z.-H. Zhuet al., (2024), arXiv:2411.12565 [cond- mat.quant-gas]

    arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    P. Zhao, P. Xu, and Z.-Y. Xue, Phys. Rev. A113, 022604 (2026), arXiv:2507.18984 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  44. [44]

    M. Meth, J. Zhang, J. F. Haase, C. Edmunds, L. Postler, A. J. Jena, A. Steiner, L. Dellantonio, R. Blatt, P. Zoller, T. Monz, P. Schindler, C. Muschik, and M. Ringbauer, Nature Physics21, 570 (2025)

    2025

  45. [45]

    Zhang, Y

    W.-Y. Zhang, Y. Liu, Y. Cheng, M.-G. He, H.-Y. Wang, T.-Y. Wang, Z.-H. Zhu, G.-X. Su, Z.-Y. Zhou, Y.-G. Zheng, H. Sun, B. Yang, P. Hauke, W. Zheng, J. C. Hal- imeh, Z.-S. Yuan, and J.-W. Pan, Nature Physics21, 155 (2025)

    2025

  46. [46]

    J. M. Alcaine-Cuervo, S. Pradhan, E. Rico, Z. Shi, and C. M. Wilson, (2026), arXiv:2601.23150 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  47. [47]

    A. N. Ciavarella and C. W. Bauer, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 111901 (2024), arXiv:2402.10265 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Balaji, C

    P. Balaji, C. Conefrey-Shinozaki, P. Draper, J. K. El- haderi, D. Gupta, L. Hidalgo, A. Lytle, and E. Rinaldi, Phys. Rev. D112, 054511 (2025), arXiv:2503.08866 [hep- lat]

    arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    D. Das, L. Ebner, S. V. Kadam, I. Raychowdhury, A. Sch¨ afer, and X. Yao, Phys. Rev. D113, 074514 (2026), arXiv:2509.18269 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  50. [50]

    Yao, (2025), arXiv:2511.13721 [quant-ph]

    X. Yao, (2025), arXiv:2511.13721 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Froland, D

    H. Froland, D. M. Grabowska, and Z. Li, (2025), arXiv:2512.22782 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Z. Li, M. Illa, and M. J. Savage, (2025), arXiv:2512.05210 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    V. Chen, B. M¨ uller, and X. Yao, (2026), arXiv:2601.10065 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2026

  54. [54]

    N. S. Modi, A. N. Ciavarella, J. C. Halimeh, and C. W. Bauer, (2026), arXiv:2602.02344 [hep-lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  55. [55]

    Chen, Y.-T

    J.-W. Chen, Y.-T. Chen, G. Meher, B. M¨ uller, A. Sch¨ afer, and X. Yao, (2026), arXiv:2603.23948 [hep- lat]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  56. [56]

    Webb-Mack and N

    Z. Webb-Mack and N. Klco, (2026), arXiv:2605.15076 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  57. [57]

    K. G. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D10, 2445 (1974)

    1974

  58. [58]

    Kogut and L

    J. Kogut and L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D11, 395 (1975)

    1975

  59. [59]

    K. G. Wilson, Quarks and strings on a lattice, inNew Phenomena in Subnuclear Physics: Part A, edited by A. Zichichi (Springer US, Boston, MA, 1977) p. 69–142

    1977

  60. [60]

    J. B. Kogut, Three lectures on lattice gauge theory, in Many Degrees of Freedom in Particle Theory, edited by H. Satz (Springer US, Boston, MA, 1978) p. 275–343

    1978

  61. [61]

    J. B. Kogut, Rev. Mod. Phys.51, 659 (1979)

    1979

  62. [62]

    Horn, Phys

    D. Horn, Phys. Lett. B100, 149 (1981)

    1981

  63. [63]

    Orland and D

    P. Orland and D. Rohrlich, Nuclear Physics B338, 647 (1990)

    1990

  64. [64]

    Chandrasekharan and U

    S. Chandrasekharan and U. J. Wiese, Nuclear Physics B 492, 455–471 (1997)

    1997

  65. [65]

    Brower, S

    R. Brower, S. Chandrasekharan, and U. J. Wiese, Phys. Rev. D60, 094502 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9704106

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  66. [66]

    Kasper, F

    V. Kasper, F. Hebenstreit, F. Jendrzejewski, M. K. Oberthaler, and J. Berges, New J. Phys.19, 023030 (2017), arXiv:1608.03480 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  67. [67]

    T. V. Zache, M. Van Damme, J. C. Halimeh, P. Hauke, and D. Banerjee, Phys. Rev. D106, L091502 (2022), arXiv:2104.00025 [hep-lat]

    arXiv 2022

  68. [68]

    Schwinger, Physical Review128, 2425–2429 (1962)

    J. Schwinger, Physical Review128, 2425–2429 (1962)

    1962

  69. [69]

    Majcen, J

    P. Majcen, J. J. Osborne, P. Hauke, B. Yang, S. Mon- tangero, and J. C. Halimeh, (2026), arXiv:2602.04948 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    arXiv 2026

  70. [70]

    J. J. Osborne, I. P. McCulloch, B. Yang, P. Hauke, and J. C. Halimeh, Commun. Phys.8, 273 (2025), arXiv:2211.01380 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    Davoudi, N

    Z. Davoudi, N. M. Linke, and G. Pagano, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 043072 (2021), arXiv:2104.09346 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  72. [72]

    Q. Lin, S. Fang, Y. Yu, Z. Xi, L. Shao, B. Li, and M. Li, Nature Communications16, 4501 (2025)

    2025

  73. [73]

    C. L. Panuski, I. Christen, M. Minkov, C. J. Brabec, S. Trajtenberg-Mills, A. D. Griffiths, J. J. McKendry, G. L. Leake, D. J. Coleman, C. Tran,et al., Nature Pho- tonics16, 834 (2022)

    2022

  74. [74]

    Hennessy, A

    K. Hennessy, A. Badolato, M. Winger, D. Gerace, M. Atat¨ ure, S. Gulde, S. F¨ alt, E. L. Hu, and A. Imamo˘ glu, Nature445, 896 (2007)

    2007

  75. [75]

    Majumdar, M

    A. Majumdar, M. Bajcsy, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Physical Re- view A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics85, 041801 (2012)

    2012

  76. [76]

    D. M. Lukin, B. Windt, M. Bello, D. Catanzaro, M. A. Guidry, E. Lustig, S. Biswas, G. Scuri, T. K. Le, J. Yang, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.09324 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    J. T. Patton, V. A. Norman, E. C. Mann, B. Puri, R. T. Scalettar, and M. Radulaski, Materials for Quan- tum Technology4, 025401 (2024)

    2024

  78. [78]

    Mondal, K

    D. Mondal, K. Sengupta, and S. Sinha, Physical Review A110, 042207 (2024)

    2024

  79. [79]

    Majumdar, A

    A. Majumdar, A. Rundquist, M. Bajcsy, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics86, 045315 (2012)

    2012

  80. [80]

    Komza, X

    L. Komza, X. Zhang, H. Song, Y.-L. Tang, X. Wei, and A. Sipahigil, Optica12, 1400–1405 (2025)

    2025

Showing first 80 references.