搜索

x

留言板

尊敬的读者、作者、审稿人, 关于本刊的投稿、审稿、编辑和出版的任何问题, 您可以本页添加留言。我们将尽快给您答复。谢谢您的支持!

姓名
邮箱
手机号码
标题
留言内容
验证码

磁-腔量子电动力学系统中压缩驱动导致的两体与三体纠缠

周英 谢双媛 许静平

引用本文:
Citation:

磁-腔量子电动力学系统中压缩驱动导致的两体与三体纠缠

周英, 谢双媛, 许静平

Bipartite and tripartite entanglement caused by squeezed drive in magnetic-cavity quantum electrodynamics system

Zhou Ying, Xie Shuang-Yuan, Xu Jing-Ping
PDF
HTML
导出引用
  • 本文提出了一种通过压缩驱动放置一个YIG小球的腔量子电动力学(QED)系统产生两体和三体纠缠的理论方案. 微波腔场与铁磁共振(FMR)模和静磁(MS)模的强耦合导致腔内光子、FMR模和MS模之间互相产生纠缠. 稳态情况下, 腔内光子、FMR模和MS模之间可以产生三体纠缠, 其三体纠缠的最小剩余共生纠缠度随非线性增益的增加而增大. 进一步研究发现, 该三体纠缠与MS模式的耗散系数有关, 最小剩余共生纠缠随MS模耗散系数的减小而增大. 同时还发现, 压缩驱动导致的三体纠缠对温度不敏感, 具有很好的鲁棒性. 结果表明磁-腔QED系统是研究宏观量子现象的一个强有力平台.
    Utilizing optical nonlinearity for generating the entanglement is still a most widely used approach due to its quality and simplicity. Here in this paper, we propose a theoretical scheme to generate bipartite and tripartite entanglement in a cavity quantum electrodynamics (QED) system with one Yttrium iron garnet (YIG) sphere by using a squeezed drive. In such a system, the parametric down-conversion process is used to generate the nonlinearity and further increase the coupling between cavity and YIG. Thus, the enhanced coupling between the microwave cavity photons and the ferromagnetic resonance (FMR) mode/magnetostatic (MS) mode results in bipartite entanglements. By using the mean field theory, we show that the bipartite entanglements strongly depend on the detuning of the cavity and magnon mode. When the driving field is tuned to be resonant with the FMR mode, but the MS mode is far off-resonant, the entanglement between photons and the FMR mode reaches its maximum. However, when the driving field is tuned to be resonant with the MS mode, but the FMR mode is detuned very well, the entanglement between photons and the MS mode reaches its maximum. We show that the dissipation of the FMR/MS mode affects the entanglement greatly, and the bipartite entanglement decreases as the dissipation rate of the FMR/MS mode increases. Under the steady-state approximation, we also show that the tripartite entanglement can be generated, and the minimum residual contangle increases with the enhancement of the nonlinear gain coefficient. With the nonlinearity induced by the parametric down conversion process, the interaction between the driving field and the magnetic-cavity QED system leads to the tripartite entanglement involving the cavity photons, FMR mode and the MS mode. Likewise, we show that the tripartite entanglement also strongly depends on the dissipation rate of MS mode, and the minimum residual contangle increases as the dissipation rate of the MS mode decreases. We also show that the squeezed field induced tripartite entanglement is insensitive to the temperature and has good robustness. Our results suggest that the magnetic-cavity QED system could provide a promising platform for studying the macroscopic quantum phenomena, and the squeezing field opens a new method of generating the entanglement.
      通信作者: 谢双媛, xieshuangyuan@tongji.edu.cn ; 许静平, xx_jj_pp@tongji.edu.cn
    • 基金项目: 国家自然科学基金(批准号: 11874287, 11774262, 61975154)和上海市科学技术委员会(批准号: 18JC1410900)资助的课题
      Corresponding author: Xie Shuang-Yuan, xieshuangyuan@tongji.edu.cn ; Xu Jing-Ping, xx_jj_pp@tongji.edu.cn
    • Funds: Project supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 11874287, 11774262, 61975154) and the Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai, China (Grant No. 18JC1410900)
    [1]

    Forn-Díaz P, Lamata L, Rico E, Kono J, Solano E 2019 Rev. Mod. Phys. 91 025005Google Scholar

    [2]

    Reiserer A, Rempe G 2015 Rev. Mod. Phys. 87 1379Google Scholar

    [3]

    Hou K, Bao D Q, Zhu C J, Yang Y P 2019 Quantum. Inf. Process. 18 104Google Scholar

    [4]

    Hou K, Bao D Q, Zhu C J, Yang Y P 2019 Laser Phys. 29 015201Google Scholar

    [5]

    Han Y F, Zhu C J, Huang X S, Yang Y P 2018 Phys. Rev. A 98 033828Google Scholar

    [6]

    Lin J Z, Hou K, Zhu C J, Yang Y P 2019 Phys. Rev. A 99 053850Google Scholar

    [7]

    Zhang P F, Zhang Y C, Li G, Du J J, Zhang Y F, Guo Y Q, Wang J M, Zhang T C, Li W D 2011 Chin. Phys. Lett. 28 044203Google Scholar

    [8]

    Ashhab S 2013 Phys. Rev. A 87 013826Google Scholar

    [9]

    Han Y F, Zhu C J, Huang X S, Yang Y P 2018 Chin. Phys. B 27 124206Google Scholar

    [10]

    Ridolfo A, Leib M, Savasta S, Hartmann M J 2012 Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 193602Google Scholar

    [11]

    Zhu C J, Yang Y P, Agarwal G S 2017 Phys. Rev. A 95 063842Google Scholar

    [12]

    Hou K, Zhu C J, Yang Y P, Agarwal G S 2019 Phys. Rev. A 100 063817Google Scholar

    [13]

    Huebl H, Zollitsch C W, Lotze J, Hocke F, Greifenstein M, Marx A, Gross R, Goennenwein S T B 2013 Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 127003Google Scholar

    [14]

    Tabuchi Y, Ishino S, Ishikawa T, Yamazaki R, Usami K, Nakamura Y 2014 Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 083603Google Scholar

    [15]

    Goryachev M, Farr W G, Creedon D L, Fan Y, Kostylev M, Tobar M E 2014 Phys. Rev. Appl. 2 054002Google Scholar

    [16]

    Zhang X F, Zou C L, Jiang L, Tang H X 2014 Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 156401Google Scholar

    [17]

    Kittel C 1948 Phys. Rev. 73 155Google Scholar

    [18]

    Bai L H, Harder M, Chen Y P, Fan X, Xiao JQ, Hu C M 2015 Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 227201Google Scholar

    [19]

    Zhang D K, Wang X M, Li T F, Lou X Q, Wu W D, Nori F, You J Q 2015 Npj Quantum. Inf. 1 15014Google Scholar

    [20]

    Bourhill J, Kostylev N, Goryachev M, Creedon D L, Tobar M E 2016 Phys. Rev. B 93 144420Google Scholar

    [21]

    Kostylev N, Goryachev M, Tobar M E 2016 Appl. Phys. Lett. 108 062402Google Scholar

    [22]

    Wang Y P, Zhang G Q, Zhang D K, Liu T F, Hu C M, You J Q 2018 Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 057202Google Scholar

    [23]

    Bai L H, Harder M, Hyde P, Zhang Z H, Hu C M, Chen Y P, Xiao J Q 2017 Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 217201Google Scholar

    [24]

    Zhang X F, Zou C L, Zhu N, Marquardt F, Jiang L, Tang H X 2015 Nat. Commun. 6 8914Google Scholar

    [25]

    Wang B, Liu Z X, Kong C, Xiong H, Wu Y 2018 Opt. Express 26 20248Google Scholar

    [26]

    Kong C, Wang B, Liu Z X, Xiong H, Wu Y 2019 Opt. Express 27 5544Google Scholar

    [27]

    Tabuchi Y, Ishino S, Noguchi A, Ishikawa T, Yamazaki R, Usami K, Nakamura Y 2015 Science 349 405Google Scholar

    [28]

    Li J, Zhu S Y, Agarwal G S 2018 Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 203601Google Scholar

    [29]

    Li J, Zhu S Y 2019 New J. Phys. 21 085001Google Scholar

    [30]

    Zhang Z D, Scully M O, Agarwal G S 2019 Phys. Rev. Res. 1 023021Google Scholar

    [31]

    Nair J M P, Agarwal G S 2020 Appl. Phys. Lett. 117 084001

    [32]

    Zhu C J, Ping L L, Yang Y P, Agarwal G S 2020 Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 073602Google Scholar

    [33]

    Bao D Q, Zhu C J, Yang Y P, Agarwal G S 2019 Opt. Express 27 15540Google Scholar

    [34]

    Stancil D D, Prabhakar A 2009 Spin Waves Theory and Applications (New York: Springer) pp139−168

    [35]

    Holstein T, Primakoff H 1940 Phys. Rev. 58 1098Google Scholar

    [36]

    Gardiner C W, Zoller P 2000 Quantum Noise (New York: Springer) pp164−179

    [37]

    Vitali D, Gigan S, Ferreira A, Bohm H R, Tombesi P, Guerreiro A, Vedral V, Zeilinger A, Aspelmeyer M 2007 Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 030405Google Scholar

    [38]

    Parks P C, Hahn V 1993 Stability Theory (New York: Prentice Hall) pp57−71

    [39]

    Vidal G, Werner R F 2002 Phys. Rev. A 65 032314Google Scholar

    [40]

    Plenio M B 2005 Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 090503Google Scholar

    [41]

    Adesso G, Illuminati F 2006 New J. Phys. 8 15Google Scholar

    [42]

    Adesso G, Illuminati F 2007 J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 40 7821Google Scholar

  • 图 1  (a) 磁-腔QED系统示意图. YIG小球位于腔中短边中心处, 该处微波腔的TE102模式的磁场沿y轴方向, 静磁场沿x轴方向; (b) 利用Comsol模拟微波腔TE102的网格划分示意图; (c) 微波腔TE102模式的磁场方向和磁场强度

    Fig. 1.  (a) Schematic diagram of a magnetic-cavity QED system. A YIG sphere is located at the center of one short edge in the cavity, where magnetic field of microwave cavity mode TE102 is along y-axis direction, and static magnetic field is along x-axis direction; (b) schematic diagram of grid of microwave cavity mode TE102 by Comsol simulation; (c) magnetic field direction and magnetic field intensity of the microwave cavity mode TE102.

    图 2  (a) 平均光子数、(b) FMR模的平均磁子数和 (c) MS模的平均磁子数随失谐量${\varDelta _{{m_1}}}$${\varDelta _{\rm{c}}}$的变化关系, 其中$\gamma /2{\rm{\pi = 1}}{\rm{.0\;MHz}}$. 取${\varepsilon _{\rm{p}}} = \gamma $, $\varOmega = 1.5\gamma $, 其他参数已在正文中给出

    Fig. 2.  (a) Average photon number, (b) FMR mode average magnon number, and (c) MS mode average magnon number versus detunings ${\varDelta _{{m_1}}}$and${\varDelta _{\rm{c}}}$, where, $\gamma /2\rm{\pi} = 1{\rm{.0\;MHz}}$. We take${\varepsilon _{\rm{p}}} = \gamma $, $\varOmega = 1.5\gamma $. Other parameters are given in the text.

    图 3  两体纠缠的负值度 (a) ${E_{a{m_1}}}$, (b) ${E_{a{m_2}}}$和(c) ${E_{{m_1}{m_2}}}$随失谐量${\varDelta _{{m_1}}}$${\varDelta _{\rm{c}}}$的变化关系. 其中${\varepsilon _{\rm{p}}} = \gamma $, $\varOmega = 1.5\gamma $. (d)负值度${E_{a{m_1}}}$ (实线)、${E_{a{m_2}}}$ (虚线)和${E_{{m_1}{m_2}}}$ (点划线)随非线性增益$\varOmega $的变化. 其中${\varepsilon _{\rm{p}}} = \gamma $, ${\varDelta _{\rm{c}}} = - 2.5\gamma $, ${\varDelta _{{m_1}}} = 23\gamma $. 其他参数与图2一致

    Fig. 3.  Density plot of logarithmic negativity related to bipartite entanglement (a) ${E_{a{m_1}}}$, (b) ${E_{a{m_2}}}$, and (c) ${E_{{m_1}{m_2}}}$ versus detunings ${\varDelta _{{m_1}}}$ and ${\varDelta _{\rm{c}}}$, where ${\varepsilon _{\rm{p}}} = \gamma $, $\varOmega = 1.5\gamma $. (d) Logarithmic negativity ${E_{a{m_1}}}$ (solid), ${E_{a{m_2}}}$ (dashed), and${E_{{m_1}{m_2}}}$ (dot-dashed) versus the nonlinear gain coefficient $\varOmega $, we take ${\varepsilon _{\rm{p}}} = \gamma $, ${\varDelta _{\rm{c}}} = - 2.5\gamma $ and${\varDelta _{{m_1}}} = 23\gamma $. The other parameters are the same as in Fig.2.

    图 4  (a) 不同非线性增益情况下, 三体纠缠的最小剩余共生纠缠$R_\tau ^{{\rm{min}}}$随失谐量${\varDelta _{{m_1}}}$的变化关系; (b) 最小剩余共生纠缠$R_\tau ^{{\rm{min}}}$随温度T的变化, 其中${\varepsilon _{\rm{p}}} = \gamma $, ${\varDelta _{\rm{c}}} = - 2.5\gamma $. 虚线、实线、点线和点划线分别对应非线性相互作用强度$\varOmega = 1.65\gamma $, $\varOmega = 1.5\gamma $, $\varOmega = 1.0\gamma $$\varOmega = 0.5\gamma $的情况. 在图4(b)中, 取${\varDelta _{{m_1}}} = 23\gamma $, 其他参数与图2一致

    Fig. 4.  (a) Tripartite entanglement in terms of the minimum residual contangle $R_\tau ^{{\rm{min}}}$ versus detuning ${\varDelta _{{m_1}}}$; (b) robust against temperature of the minimum residual contangle $R_\tau ^{{\rm{min}}}$, Where ${\varepsilon _{\rm{p}}} = \gamma $, ${\varDelta _{\rm{c}}} = - 2.5\gamma $. The dashed line, solid line, dotted line, and dash-dot line indicate nonlinear interaction strength $\varOmega = 1.65\gamma $, $\varOmega = 1.5\gamma $, $\varOmega = 1.0\gamma $, and $\varOmega = 0.5\gamma $, respectively. At the same time, we take ${\varDelta _{{m_1}}} = 23\gamma $ for Fig. 4 (b). The other parameters are the same as in Fig. 2.

    图 5  三体纠缠的最小剩余共生纠缠$R_\tau ^{{\rm{min}}}$随失谐量${\varDelta _{{m_1}}}$和耗散系数${\kappa _2}$的变化关系; 设定${\varepsilon _{\rm{p}}} = \gamma $, $\varOmega = 1.5\gamma $, ${\varDelta _{\rm{c}}} = - 2.5\gamma $, 从左到右, ${\kappa _2}$所取的数值分别为$1.7\gamma $, $2.1\gamma $, $2.5\gamma $, $2.9\gamma $以及$3.3\gamma $. 其他参数与图2一致

    Fig. 5.  Tripartite entanglement in terms of the minimum residual contangle $R_\tau ^{{\rm{min}}}$ versus detuning ${\varDelta _{{m_1}}}$ and dissipation rates ${\kappa _2}$, setting ${\varepsilon _{\rm{p}}} = \gamma $, $\varOmega = 1.5\gamma $ and ${\varDelta _{\rm{c}}} = - 2.5\gamma $, the lines denote $1.7\gamma $, $2.1\gamma $, $2.5\gamma $, $2.9\gamma $, and $3.3\gamma $for ${\kappa _2}$ from left to right. The other parameters are the same as in Fig. 2.

  • [1]

    Forn-Díaz P, Lamata L, Rico E, Kono J, Solano E 2019 Rev. Mod. Phys. 91 025005Google Scholar

    [2]

    Reiserer A, Rempe G 2015 Rev. Mod. Phys. 87 1379Google Scholar

    [3]

    Hou K, Bao D Q, Zhu C J, Yang Y P 2019 Quantum. Inf. Process. 18 104Google Scholar

    [4]

    Hou K, Bao D Q, Zhu C J, Yang Y P 2019 Laser Phys. 29 015201Google Scholar

    [5]

    Han Y F, Zhu C J, Huang X S, Yang Y P 2018 Phys. Rev. A 98 033828Google Scholar

    [6]

    Lin J Z, Hou K, Zhu C J, Yang Y P 2019 Phys. Rev. A 99 053850Google Scholar

    [7]

    Zhang P F, Zhang Y C, Li G, Du J J, Zhang Y F, Guo Y Q, Wang J M, Zhang T C, Li W D 2011 Chin. Phys. Lett. 28 044203Google Scholar

    [8]

    Ashhab S 2013 Phys. Rev. A 87 013826Google Scholar

    [9]

    Han Y F, Zhu C J, Huang X S, Yang Y P 2018 Chin. Phys. B 27 124206Google Scholar

    [10]

    Ridolfo A, Leib M, Savasta S, Hartmann M J 2012 Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 193602Google Scholar

    [11]

    Zhu C J, Yang Y P, Agarwal G S 2017 Phys. Rev. A 95 063842Google Scholar

    [12]

    Hou K, Zhu C J, Yang Y P, Agarwal G S 2019 Phys. Rev. A 100 063817Google Scholar

    [13]

    Huebl H, Zollitsch C W, Lotze J, Hocke F, Greifenstein M, Marx A, Gross R, Goennenwein S T B 2013 Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 127003Google Scholar

    [14]

    Tabuchi Y, Ishino S, Ishikawa T, Yamazaki R, Usami K, Nakamura Y 2014 Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 083603Google Scholar

    [15]

    Goryachev M, Farr W G, Creedon D L, Fan Y, Kostylev M, Tobar M E 2014 Phys. Rev. Appl. 2 054002Google Scholar

    [16]

    Zhang X F, Zou C L, Jiang L, Tang H X 2014 Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 156401Google Scholar

    [17]

    Kittel C 1948 Phys. Rev. 73 155Google Scholar

    [18]

    Bai L H, Harder M, Chen Y P, Fan X, Xiao JQ, Hu C M 2015 Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 227201Google Scholar

    [19]

    Zhang D K, Wang X M, Li T F, Lou X Q, Wu W D, Nori F, You J Q 2015 Npj Quantum. Inf. 1 15014Google Scholar

    [20]

    Bourhill J, Kostylev N, Goryachev M, Creedon D L, Tobar M E 2016 Phys. Rev. B 93 144420Google Scholar

    [21]

    Kostylev N, Goryachev M, Tobar M E 2016 Appl. Phys. Lett. 108 062402Google Scholar

    [22]

    Wang Y P, Zhang G Q, Zhang D K, Liu T F, Hu C M, You J Q 2018 Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 057202Google Scholar

    [23]

    Bai L H, Harder M, Hyde P, Zhang Z H, Hu C M, Chen Y P, Xiao J Q 2017 Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 217201Google Scholar

    [24]

    Zhang X F, Zou C L, Zhu N, Marquardt F, Jiang L, Tang H X 2015 Nat. Commun. 6 8914Google Scholar

    [25]

    Wang B, Liu Z X, Kong C, Xiong H, Wu Y 2018 Opt. Express 26 20248Google Scholar

    [26]

    Kong C, Wang B, Liu Z X, Xiong H, Wu Y 2019 Opt. Express 27 5544Google Scholar

    [27]

    Tabuchi Y, Ishino S, Noguchi A, Ishikawa T, Yamazaki R, Usami K, Nakamura Y 2015 Science 349 405Google Scholar

    [28]

    Li J, Zhu S Y, Agarwal G S 2018 Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 203601Google Scholar

    [29]

    Li J, Zhu S Y 2019 New J. Phys. 21 085001Google Scholar

    [30]

    Zhang Z D, Scully M O, Agarwal G S 2019 Phys. Rev. Res. 1 023021Google Scholar

    [31]

    Nair J M P, Agarwal G S 2020 Appl. Phys. Lett. 117 084001

    [32]

    Zhu C J, Ping L L, Yang Y P, Agarwal G S 2020 Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 073602Google Scholar

    [33]

    Bao D Q, Zhu C J, Yang Y P, Agarwal G S 2019 Opt. Express 27 15540Google Scholar

    [34]

    Stancil D D, Prabhakar A 2009 Spin Waves Theory and Applications (New York: Springer) pp139−168

    [35]

    Holstein T, Primakoff H 1940 Phys. Rev. 58 1098Google Scholar

    [36]

    Gardiner C W, Zoller P 2000 Quantum Noise (New York: Springer) pp164−179

    [37]

    Vitali D, Gigan S, Ferreira A, Bohm H R, Tombesi P, Guerreiro A, Vedral V, Zeilinger A, Aspelmeyer M 2007 Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 030405Google Scholar

    [38]

    Parks P C, Hahn V 1993 Stability Theory (New York: Prentice Hall) pp57−71

    [39]

    Vidal G, Werner R F 2002 Phys. Rev. A 65 032314Google Scholar

    [40]

    Plenio M B 2005 Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 090503Google Scholar

    [41]

    Adesso G, Illuminati F 2006 New J. Phys. 8 15Google Scholar

    [42]

    Adesso G, Illuminati F 2007 J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 40 7821Google Scholar

  • [1] 魏天丽, 吴德伟, 杨春燕, 罗均文, 李响, 朱浩男. 基于光子计数的纠缠微波压缩角锁定. 物理学报, 2019, 68(9): 090301. doi: 10.7498/aps.68.20182077
    [2] 张志宇, 赵阳, 薛全喜, 王峰, 杨家敏. 激光驱动准等熵压缩透明窗口LiF的透明性. 物理学报, 2015, 64(20): 205202. doi: 10.7498/aps.64.205202
    [3] 赵继波, 孙承纬, 谷卓伟, 赵剑衡, 罗浩. 爆轰驱动固体套筒压缩磁场计算及准等熵过程分析. 物理学报, 2015, 64(8): 080701. doi: 10.7498/aps.64.080701
    [4] 王峰, 彭晓世, 薛全喜, 徐涛, 魏惠月. 基于神光III原型的整形激光直接驱动准等熵压缩实验研究. 物理学报, 2015, 64(8): 085202. doi: 10.7498/aps.64.085202
    [5] 秦猛, 李延标, 白忠. 非均匀磁场和杂质磁场对自旋1系统量子关联的影响. 物理学报, 2015, 64(3): 030301. doi: 10.7498/aps.64.030301
    [6] 姚熊亮, 叶曦, 张阿漫. 行波驱动下空泡在可压缩流场中的运动特性研究. 物理学报, 2013, 62(24): 244701. doi: 10.7498/aps.62.244701
    [7] 蔡诚俊, 方卯发, 肖兴, 黄江. 非马尔可夫环境下经典场驱动Jaynes-Cummings模型中原子的熵压缩. 物理学报, 2012, 61(21): 210303. doi: 10.7498/aps.61.210303
    [8] 董建军, 丁永坤, 曹柱荣, 张继彦, 陈伯伦, 杨正华, 邓博, 袁铮, 江少恩. 辐射驱动内爆最大压缩时刻芯部状态的研究. 物理学报, 2012, 61(22): 225204. doi: 10.7498/aps.61.225204
    [9] 单连强, 高宇林, 辛建婷, 王峰, 彭晓世, 徐涛, 周维民, 赵宗清, 曹磊峰, 吴玉迟, 朱斌, 刘红杰, 刘东晓, 税敏, 何颖玲, 詹夏宇, 谷渝秋. 激光驱动气库靶对铝的准等熵压缩实验研究. 物理学报, 2012, 61(13): 135204. doi: 10.7498/aps.61.135204
    [10] 吕菁芬, 马善钧. 光子扣除(增加)压缩真空态与压缩猫态的保真度. 物理学报, 2011, 60(8): 080301. doi: 10.7498/aps.60.080301
    [11] 陆赫林, 王顺金. 离子温度梯度模湍流的带状流最小自由度模型. 物理学报, 2009, 58(1): 354-362. doi: 10.7498/aps.58.354
    [12] 周并举, 刘小娟, 方卯发, 周清平, 刘明伟. 负值量子条件熵与双量子系统一类混合态纠缠量度. 物理学报, 2007, 56(7): 3937-3944. doi: 10.7498/aps.56.3937
    [13] 王忠纯. 外场驱动对Tavis-Cummings模型中量子态保真度的影响. 物理学报, 2006, 55(9): 4624-4630. doi: 10.7498/aps.55.4624
    [14] 黄燕霞, 赵朋义, 黄熙, 詹明生. 压缩真空场与原子非线性作用过程中的纠缠与消纠缠. 物理学报, 2004, 53(1): 75-81. doi: 10.7498/aps.53.75
    [15] 成金秀, 郑志坚, 陈红素, 缪文勇, 陈 波, 王耀梅, 胡 昕. 1.06μm 激光直接驱动烧蚀靶内爆压缩特性. 物理学报, 2004, 53(10): 3419-3423. doi: 10.7498/aps.53.3419
    [16] 石名俊, 杜江峰, 朱栋培. 量子纯态的纠缠度. 物理学报, 2000, 49(5): 825-829. doi: 10.7498/aps.49.825
    [17] 胡响明, 彭金生. 受驱动V型三能级激光的光子噪声压缩及其物理机制. 物理学报, 1998, 47(10): 1632-1640. doi: 10.7498/aps.47.1632
    [18] 刘甲壬, 赵波, 王育竹. 负反馈提高高阻恒流源驱动的LED的输出光场噪声压缩量. 物理学报, 1994, 43(10): 1598-1604. doi: 10.7498/aps.43.1598
    [19] 杨国健, 胡岗. 受驱动三能级原子荧光辐射的暂态压缩. 物理学报, 1993, 42(9): 1403-1409. doi: 10.7498/aps.42.1403
    [20] 张林, 林仁明. 良腔情况吸收与色散混合受驱动光学系统多光子过程压缩效应. 物理学报, 1990, 39(11): 1714-1720. doi: 10.7498/aps.39.1714
计量
  • 文章访问数:  5368
  • PDF下载量:  144
  • 被引次数: 0
出版历程
  • 收稿日期:  2020-06-03
  • 修回日期:  2020-06-30
  • 上网日期:  2020-11-10
  • 刊出日期:  2020-11-20

/

返回文章
返回