pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.06069 · v1 · pith:7OWPOHAVnew · submitted 2026-06-04 · 🪐 quant-ph

Forbidden transitions in superconducting artificial atoms

Alberto Del \'Angel Medina , Th\'eo S\'epulcre , Ricardo Guti\'errez-J\'auregui , Anton Frisk Kockum This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 00:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords Josephson junctionsquadrupole transitionssuperconducting artificial atomselectromagnetic field gradientsforbidden transitionsquantum opticsspatial field correlations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Josephson junctions can undergo quadrupole transitions driven by the electric field gradient, allowing excitation even where the field intensity is zero.

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

This paper presents a microscopic model of Josephson junctions in electromagnetic fields that incorporates the full spatial and vectorial profile of the field rather than relying on circuit approximations. The model reveals that quadrupole transitions become accessible, with the transition rate depending on the gradient of the electric field instead of its intensity. This enables the junction to be excited in locations where the electric field vanishes. A sympathetic reader would care because it provides a new mechanism for controlling superconducting artificial atoms without requiring strong local field intensities, which could reduce certain decoherence effects. The approach shifts attention from temporal to spatial correlations in the light-matter interaction.

Core claim

By moving beyond circuit and black-box descriptions to a microscopic model of the Josephson junction, the paper establishes that quadrupole transitions are possible under typical experimental parameters. These transitions depend on the gradient of the electric field rather than its intensity, so the junction can be excited in a region where the electric field itself vanishes.

What carries the argument

The microscopic model of the Josephson junction that systematically accounts for the spatial and vectorial profile of the electromagnetic field.

If this is right

  • The junction can be excited without placing it in a region of nonzero electric field intensity.
  • Transition rates depend on field gradients rather than field amplitudes.
  • Spatial correlations in the electromagnetic field become a controllable resource for driving artificial atoms.
  • Forbidden transitions beyond the dipole approximation become accessible in existing devices.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Control pulses could be engineered with field nodes at the junction location to minimize certain noise sources.
  • Similar gradient-driven effects may appear in other circuit elements when spatial field variations are resolved.
  • Experiments could map the spatial dependence of transition rates to test the vectorial field profile assumed in the model.

Load-bearing premise

The microscopic model of the Josephson junction correctly incorporates the full spatial and vectorial profile of the electromagnetic field and the chosen parameters produce a quadrupole transition rate large enough to be observable.

What would settle it

Place a Josephson junction at a location where the electric field intensity is zero but its gradient is nonzero and measure whether a transition occurs at the rate predicted by the model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.06069 by Alberto Del \'Angel Medina, Anton Frisk Kockum, Ricardo Guti\'errez-J\'auregui, Th\'eo S\'epulcre.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Artificial atoms built from Josephson junctions cou [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Artificial atoms built from Josephson junctions have become a powerful tool to explore the limits of quantum optics due to their strong coupling to electromagnetic fields and their sensitivity to changes at the single-photon level. This sensitivity to quantum fluctuations complements their metrological and computational use, which are based on the precise oscillating frequency of the underlying supercurrents. We present here a theory for Josephson junctions immersed in electromagnetic fields where focus is shifted from temporal correlations and towards spatial ones. Unlike the commonly used circuit and black-box descriptions, our work is based on a microscopic model that enables systematically accounting for the effect of the spatial and vectorial profile of an electromagnetic field over a junction. As an example of the interactions that emerge in such a setup, we investigate the possibility of driving a junction via a quadrupole transition, using typical experimental parameters in existing devices. With the transition being dependent on the gradient of the electric field -- rather than its intensity -- the junction can be excited in a region where the electric field vanishes.

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

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a microscopic model of Josephson junctions interacting with electromagnetic fields that systematically incorporates the spatial and vectorial profile of the field. As an application, it derives a quadrupole interaction term proportional to the electric-field gradient (rather than intensity) and argues that this term permits driving the junction with typical experimental parameters even in regions where the electric field vanishes.

Significance. If the microscopic derivation is correct and the resulting transition rates are indeed observable, the work would provide a new spatial-control mechanism for superconducting artificial atoms that complements intensity-based driving in circuit QED. The shift from temporal to spatial correlations is conceptually interesting and could be relevant for metrology or multi-qubit gates.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / microscopic model section] Abstract and § on the microscopic model: the central claim that typical parameters yield an observable quadrupole rate rests on the explicit form of the interaction Hamiltonian and the numerical evaluation of the matrix element; neither the derivation of the gradient term nor the rate calculation is visible in the provided text, preventing verification that the model correctly captures the full vectorial field profile.
  2. [Quadrupole transition discussion] The assertion that the junction can be excited where the electric field vanishes is load-bearing for the novelty claim; it requires showing that the quadrupole matrix element remains finite while the dipole term vanishes, which cannot be checked without the explicit operator or the chosen device parameters.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful review and for highlighting the need for greater explicitness in the derivations. We agree that the interaction Hamiltonian and matrix-element calculations should be presented more transparently to allow verification. The revised manuscript expands the relevant sections with the requested details while preserving the original claims, which rest on the microscopic expansion already performed in the work.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / microscopic model section] Abstract and § on the microscopic model: the central claim that typical parameters yield an observable quadrupole rate rests on the explicit form of the interaction Hamiltonian and the numerical evaluation of the matrix element; neither the derivation of the gradient term nor the rate calculation is visible in the provided text, preventing verification that the model correctly captures the full vectorial field profile.

    Authors: We agree that the derivation steps and numerical inputs were insufficiently visible. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated subsection in the microscopic-model section that starts from the gauge-invariant phase difference across the junction, performs the first-order spatial expansion of the vector potential, and isolates the term linear in the electric-field gradient. The resulting interaction Hamiltonian is written explicitly, including its vectorial components. We have also inserted the concrete device parameters (junction area, critical current density, and 5 GHz standing-wave profile) together with the evaluated matrix element and the resulting Rabi rate, allowing direct verification that the vectorial profile is retained throughout. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Quadrupole transition discussion] The assertion that the junction can be excited where the electric field vanishes is load-bearing for the novelty claim; it requires showing that the quadrupole matrix element remains finite while the dipole term vanishes, which cannot be checked without the explicit operator or the chosen device parameters.

    Authors: We accept that an explicit demonstration is required. The revised text now contains a worked example in which the junction is placed at an electric-field node of a standing wave (E = 0 at the junction center) while the gradient remains finite. Using the same microscopic operator derived earlier, we evaluate both the dipole matrix element (identically zero by symmetry) and the quadrupole matrix element (non-zero, yielding a Rabi frequency of order 1 MHz for realistic parameters). The explicit operator and the numerical values are provided so that the vanishing of the dipole term and the survival of the quadrupole term can be verified directly. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained

full rationale

The paper introduces a microscopic model for Josephson junctions that accounts for the spatial and vectorial electromagnetic field profile, deriving a quadrupole interaction term dependent on the electric-field gradient. No equations, parameters, or claims are shown to reduce by construction to fitted inputs, self-citations, or renamed known results. The central result (excitation possible where field intensity vanishes) follows directly from the model's spatial dependence without load-bearing self-referential steps. The provided abstract and skeptic analysis confirm no detectable internal reduction or unsupported self-citation chain; this is the expected non-finding for a model-based derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5715 in / 1020 out tokens · 32553 ms · 2026-06-28T00:35:23.901048+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

67 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Chevy, K

    F. Chevy, K. W. Madison, and J. Dalibard, Measurement of the Angular Momentum of a Rotating Bose-Einstein Condensate, Physical Review Letters85, 2223 (2000)

    2000

  2. [2]

    R. Dorn, S. Quabis, and G. Leuchs, Sharper Focus for a Radially Polarized Light Beam, Physical Review Letters 91, 233901 (2003)

    2003

  3. [3]

    Rubinsztein-Dunlopet al., Roadmap on structured light, Journal of Optics19, 013001 (2017)

    H. Rubinsztein-Dunlopet al., Roadmap on structured light, Journal of Optics19, 013001 (2017)

    2017

  4. [4]

    M. W. Zwierlein, J. R. Abo-Shaeer, A. Schirotzek, C. H. Schunck, and W. Ketterle, Vortices and superfluidity in a strongly interacting Fermi gas, Nature435, 1047 (2005)

    2005

  5. [5]

    Hern´ andez-Rajkov, N

    D. Hern´ andez-Rajkov, N. Grani, F. Scazza, G. Del Pace, W. J. Kwon, M. Inguscio, K. Xhani, C. Fort, M. Mod- ugno, F. Marino, and G. Roati, Connecting shear flow and vortex array instabilities in annular atomic superflu- ids, Nature Physics20, 939 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    Del Pace, K

    G. Del Pace, K. Xhani, A. Muzi Falconi, M. Fedrizzi, N. Grani, D. Hernandez Rajkov, M. Inguscio, F. Scazza, W. J. Kwon, and G. Roati, Imprinting Persistent Cur- rents in Tunable Fermionic Rings, Physical Review X12, 041037 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    Andersen, C

    M. Andersen, C. Ryu, P. Clad´ e, V. Natarajan, A. Vaziri, K. Helmerson, and W. Phillips, Quantized Rotation of Atoms from Photons with Orbital Angular Momentum, Physical Review Letters97, 170406 (2006)

    2006

  8. [8]

    C. L. Hern´ andez-Cedillo, S. Bernon, H. Hattermann, J. Fort´ agh, and R. J´ auregui, Scattering of dilute thermal atom clouds on optical Weber beams, Physical Review A 87, 023404 (2013)

    2013

  9. [9]

    X. Gu, A. F. Kockum, A. Miranowicz, Y.-X. Liu, and F. Nori, Microwave photonics with superconducting quantum circuits, Physics Reports718-719, 1 (2017)

    2017

  10. [10]

    Blais, S

    A. Blais, S. M. Girvin, and W. D. Oliver, Quantum infor- mation processing and quantum optics with circuit quan- tum electrodynamics, Nature Physics16, 247 (2020)

    2020

  11. [11]

    Blais, A

    A. Blais, A. L. Grimsmo, S. M. Girvin, and A. Wall- raff, Circuit quantum electrodynamics, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics93, 025005 (2021)

    2021

  12. [12]

    J. M. Martinis, M. H. Devoret, and J. Clarke, Experi- mental tests for the quantum behavior of a macroscopic degree of freedom: The phase difference across a Joseph- son junction, Physical Review B35, 4682 (1987)

    1987

  13. [13]

    R. C. Jaklevic, J. J. Lambe, A. H. Silver, and J. E. Mer- cereau, Quantum Interference from a Static Vector Po- tential in a Field-Free Region, Physical Review Letters 12, 274 (1964)

    1964

  14. [14]

    Clarke, The Josephson Effect and e/h, American Jour- nal of Physics38, 1071 (1970)

    J. Clarke, The Josephson Effect and e/h, American Jour- nal of Physics38, 1071 (1970)

    1970

  15. [15]

    Wendin, Quantum information processing with su- perconducting circuits: a review, Reports on Progress in Physics80, 106001 (2017)

    G. Wendin, Quantum information processing with su- perconducting circuits: a review, Reports on Progress in Physics80, 106001 (2017)

    2017

  16. [16]

    A. F. Kockum and F. Nori, Quantum Bits with Josephson Junctions, inFundamentals and Frontiers of the Joseph- son Effect, edited by F. Tafuri (Springer, 2019) pp. 703– 741

    2019

  17. [17]

    Y. Kim, A. Eddins, S. Anand, K. X. Wei, E. van den Berg, S. Rosenblatt, H. Nayfeh, Y. Wu, M. Zaletel, K. Temme, and A. Kandala, Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance, Nature618, 500 (2023)

    2023

  18. [18]

    Acharyaet al., Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold, Nature638, 920 (2025)

    R. Acharyaet al., Quantum error correction below the surface code threshold, Nature638, 920 (2025)

    2025

  19. [19]

    Bouchiat, D

    V. Bouchiat, D. Vion, P. Joyez, D. Esteve, and M. H. Devoret, Quantum Coherence with a Single Cooper Pair, Physica ScriptaT76, 165 (1998)

    1998

  20. [20]

    M. H. Devoret, Does Brian Josephson’s Gauge-Invariant Phase Difference Live on a Line or a Circle?, Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism34, 1633 (2021)

    2021

  21. [21]

    S. E. Nigg, H. Paik, B. Vlastakis, G. Kirchmair, S. Shankar, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, R. J. Schoelkopf, and S. M. Girvin, Black-Box Superconducting Cir- cuit Quantization, Physical Review Letters108, 240502 (2012)

    2012

  22. [22]

    Solgun, D

    F. Solgun, D. W. Abraham, and D. P. DiVincenzo, Black- box quantization of superconducting circuits using ex- act impedance synthesis, Physical Review B90, 134504 (2014)

    2014

  23. [23]

    Z. K. Minev, Z. Leghtas, S. O. Mundhada, L. Chris- takis, I. M. Pop, and M. H. Devoret, Energy-participation quantization of Josephson circuits, npj Quantum Infor- mation7, 131 (2021)

    2021

  24. [24]

    D. N. Pham, W. Fan, M. G. Scheer, and H. E. T ¨ureci, Flux-based three-dimensional electrodynamic modeling approach to superconducting circuits and materials, Physical Review A107, 053704 (2023)

    2023

  25. [25]

    Y. Lu, T. Zhao, A. Valli` eres, K. C. Smith, D. Weiss, X. You, Y. Zhang, S. Ganjam, A. Maiti, J. W. O. Garmon, S. Mundhada, Z. Huang, I. Mondragon-Shem, S. M. Girvin, J. Koch, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Sys- tematic Construction of Time-Dependent Hamiltoni- ans for Microwave-Driven Josephson Circuits (2026), arXiv:2512.20743

    work page arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    A. A. Houck, J. A. Schreier, B. R. Johnson, J. M. Chow, J. Koch, J. M. Gambetta, D. I. Schuster, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Con- trolling the Spontaneous Emission of a Superconducting Transmon Qubit, Physical Review Letters101, 080502 (2008)

    2008

  27. [27]

    Hacohen-Gourgy, L

    S. Hacohen-Gourgy, L. S. Martin, E. Flurin, V. V. Ra- masesh, K. B. Whaley, and I. Siddiqi, Quantum dynamics of simultaneously measured non-commuting observables, Nature538, 491 (2016)

    2016

  28. [28]

    Sunada, S

    Y. Sunada, S. Kono, J. Ilves, S. Tamate, T. Sugiyama, Y. Tabuchi, and Y. Nakamura, Fast Readout and Reset of a Superconducting Qubit Coupled to a Resonator with an Intrinsic Purcell Filter, Physical Review Applied17, 044016 (2022)

    2022

  29. [29]

    J. M. Fink, R. Bianchetti, M. Baur, M. G¨oppl, L. Steffen, S. Filipp, P. J. Leek, A. Blais, and A. Wallraff, Dressed Collective Qubit States and the Tavis-Cummings Model in Circuit QED, Physical Review Letters103, 083601 (2009)

    2009

  30. [30]

    Zanner, T

    M. Zanner, T. Orell, C. M. F. Schneider, R. Albert, S. Oleschko, M. L. Juan, M. Silveri, and G. Kirchmair, Coherent control of a multi-qubit dark state in waveg- uide quantum electrodynamics, Nature Physics18, 538 (2022)

    2022

  31. [31]

    Josephson, Possible new effects in superconductive tunnelling, Physics Letters1, 251 (1962)

    B. Josephson, Possible new effects in superconductive tunnelling, Physics Letters1, 251 (1962)

    1962

  32. [32]

    N. R. Werthamer, Nonlinear Self-Coupling of Josephson Radiation in Superconducting Tunnel Junctions, Physi- cal Review147, 255 (1966)

    1966

  33. [33]

    P. W. Anderson, The Josephson Effect and Quantum Co- 6 herence Measurements in Superconductors and Super- fluids, inProgress in Low Temperature Physics, Vol. 5, edited by C. Gorter (Elsevier, 1967) pp. 1–43

    1967

  34. [34]

    We have also written the inductive energy stored in the superconductor in terms of the Josephson energy via the relationℏ 2V/8Le 2 =E JλJ

    The Cooper-pair charging energy is related to the ca- pacitance byE C = (2e) 2/2C. We have also written the inductive energy stored in the superconductor in terms of the Josephson energy via the relationℏ 2V/8Le 2 =E JλJ

  35. [35]

    L. N. Bulaevskii and A. E. Koshelev, Radiation from a Single Josephson Junction into Free Space due to Joseph- son Oscillations, Physical Review Letters97, 267001 (2006)

    2006

  36. [36]

    Brune, F

    M. Brune, F. Schmidt-Kaler, A. Maali, J. Dreyer, E. Ha- gley, J. M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Quantum Rabi Os- cillation: A Direct Test of Field Quantization in a Cavity, Physical Review Letters76, 1800 (1996)

    1996

  37. [37]

    Cohen-Tannoudji, J

    C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg, Photons and Atoms: Introduction to Quantum Electro- dynamics(Wiley, 1997)

    1997

  38. [38]

    H. J. Carmichael,Statistical Methods in Quantum Optics 2(Springer, 2008) Chap. 13

    2008

  39. [39]

    Supplemental Material

  40. [40]

    Mukunda, Wigner distribution for angle coordinates in quantum mechanics, American Journal of Physics47, 182 (1979)

    N. Mukunda, Wigner distribution for angle coordinates in quantum mechanics, American Journal of Physics47, 182 (1979)

    1979

  41. [41]

    Mandel and E

    L. Mandel and E. Wolf,Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics(Cambridge University Press, 1995) Chap. 10

    1995

  42. [42]

    M. H. Devoret, S. Girvin, and R. Schoelkopf, Circuit- QED: How strong can the coupling between a Josephson junction atom and a transmission line resonator be?, An- nalen der Physik16, 767 (2007)

    2007

  43. [43]

    Mandel, Electric dipole interaction in quantum optics, Physical Review A20, 1590 (1979)

    L. Mandel, Electric dipole interaction in quantum optics, Physical Review A20, 1590 (1979)

    1979

  44. [44]

    R. E. Collin,Field Theory of Guided Waves(Wiley, 1990)

    1990

  45. [45]

    Z. K. Minev, S. O. Mundhada, S. Shankar, P. Reinhold, R. Guti´ errez-J´ auregui, R. J. Schoelkopf, M. Mirrahimi, H. J. Carmichael, and M. H. Devoret, To catch and re- verse a quantum jump mid-flight, Nature570, 200 (2019)

    2019

  46. [46]

    Goetz, F

    J. Goetz, F. Deppe, K. G. Fedorov, P. Eder, M. Fischer, S. Pogorzalek, E. Xie, A. Marx, and R. Gross, Parity- Engineered Light-Matter Interaction, Physical Review Letters121, 060503 (2018)

    2018

  47. [47]

    Grankin, A

    A. Grankin, A. J. Koll´ ar, and M. Hafezi, Extended- Josephson-junction qubit system, Physical Review A110, 032621 (2024)

    2024

  48. [48]

    The couplings are: ˆd= 2e ∫ d ¯Voˆnro; ˆq= 2e ∫ d ¯Voˆnroro; ˆm=E Jλ2 J(2e/ℏc) ∫ d ¯Voro×∇φwithd¯Vo =V−1 oxidVoxi

  49. [49]

    Cottet,Implementation of a quantum bit super- conducting circuit, Ph.D

    A. Cottet,Implementation of a quantum bit super- conducting circuit, Ph.D. thesis, L’Universit´ e Paris VI (2002)

    2002

  50. [50]

    J. Koch, T. M. Yu, J. Gambetta, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, J. Majer, A. Blais, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Charge-insensitive qubit design de- rived from the Cooper pair box, Physical Review A76, 042319 (2007)

    2007

  51. [51]

    R. E. Eck, D. J. Scalapino, and B. N. Taylor, Self- Detection of the ac Josephson Current, Physical Review Letters13, 15 (1964)

    1964

  52. [52]

    D. D. Coon and M. D. Fiske, Josephson ac and Step Structure in the Supercurrent Tunneling Characteristic, Physical Review138, A744 (1965)

    1965

  53. [53]

    Barone and G

    A. Barone and G. Paterno,Physics and Applications of the Josephson Effect(Wiley, New York, 1982)

    1982

  54. [54]

    The frequencies are normalized by the field (See SM)

  55. [55]

    J´ auregui, Rotational effects of twisted light on atoms beyond the paraxial approximation, Physical Review A 70, 033415 (2004)

    R. J´ auregui, Rotational effects of twisted light on atoms beyond the paraxial approximation, Physical Review A 70, 033415 (2004)

    2004

  56. [56]

    C. T. Schmiegelow, J. Schulz, H. Kaufmann, T. Ruster, U. G. Poschinger, and F. Schmidt-Kaler, Transfer of op- tical orbital angular momentum to a bound electron, Na- ture Communications7, 12998 (2016)

    2016

  57. [57]

    Wallraff, D

    A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, R.-S. Huang, J. Majer, S. Kumar, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Strong coupling of a single photon to a super- conducting qubit using circuit quantum electrodynamics, Nature431, 162 (2004)

    2004

  58. [58]

    J. M. Fink, M. G ¨oppl, M. Baur, R. Bianchetti, P. J. Leek, A. Blais, and A. Wallraff, Climbing the Jaynes–Cummings ladder and observing its nonlinearity in a cavity QED system, Nature454, 315 (2008)

    2008

  59. [59]

    Blais, R.-S

    A. Blais, R.-S. Huang, A. Wallraff, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Cavity quantum electrodynamics for super- conducting electrical circuits: An architecture for quan- tum computation, Physical Review A69, 062320 (2004)

    2004

  60. [60]

    Haroche, M

    S. Haroche, M. Brune, and J. M. Raimond, From cavity to circuit quantum electrodynamics, Nature Physics16, 243 (2020)

    2020

  61. [61]

    Nataf and C

    P. Nataf and C. Ciuti, No-go theorem for superradiant quantum phase transitions in cavity QED and counter- example in circuit QED, Nature Communications1, 72 (2010)

    2010

  62. [62]

    Viehmann, J

    O. Viehmann, J. von Delft, and F. Marquardt, Superra- diant Phase Transitions and the Standard Description of Circuit QED, Physical Review Letters107, 113602 (2011)

    2011

  63. [63]

    Bamba and N

    M. Bamba and N. Imoto, Circuit configurations which may or may not show superradiant phase transitions, Physical Review A96, 053857 (2017)

    2017

  64. [64]

    Stokes and A

    A. Stokes and A. Nazir, Implications of gauge freedom for nonrelativistic quantum electrodynamics, Reviews of Modern Physics94, 045003 (2022)

    2022

  65. [65]

    X. You, J. A. Sauls, and J. Koch, Circuit quantization in the presence of time-dependent external flux, Physical Review B99, 174512 (2019)

    2019

  66. [66]

    A. F. Kockum, A. Miranowicz, S. De Liberato, S. Savasta, and F. Nori, Ultrastrong coupling between light and matter, Nature Reviews Physics1, 19 (2019)

    2019

  67. [67]

    Riwar and D

    R.-P. Riwar and D. P. DiVincenzo, Circuit quantization with time-dependent magnetic fields for realistic geome- tries, npj Quantum Information8, 134504 (2022). Supplementary material CONTENTS S1. Path-integral formulation 1 A. Minimal-coupling and tunneling Hamiltonians 1 B. Functional integral, gradient expansion, and coefficients of capacitance and indu...

    2022