Non-Markovian Entanglement Dynamics in the Presence of System-Bath Coherence
Open accessAbstract
A complete treatment of the entanglement of two-level systems, which evolves through the contact with a thermal bath, must include the fact that the system and the bath are not fully separable. Therefore, quantum coherent superpositions of system and bath states, which are almost never fully included in theoretical models, are invariably present when an entangled state is prepared experimentally. We show their importance for the time evolution of the entanglement of two qubits coupled to independent baths. In addition, our treatment is able to handle slow and low-temperature thermal baths.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
High-order correlations are very important, even producing totally different physics.
“High-order correlations are shown30 to be very important, even producing a totally different physics;”
From Quantum speed limits in open systems: Non-Markovian dynamics without rotating-wave approximation (2015) · cites this paper as [30]
The effective dephasing rate γ_eff is proportional to g^2/κ in the limit where the coherent coupling g is smaller than the decay κ.
“In the limit where the coherent coupling g is smaller than the decay κ we find that the effective dephasing rate γ eff , which quantifies the strength of the system-environment coupling, is proportional to the ratio g 2 /κ (see [14] for the case of cavity QED).”
From Non-Markovianity-Assisted Steady State Entanglement (2012) · cites this paper as [14]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 28 · Cited by 207
- Authors
- Dijkstra, A. G., & Tanimura, Y.
- Affiliations
- Kyoto University (JP)
- Venue
- Physical Review Letters
- Publisher
- American Physical Society (APS)
- Published
- 2010-06-21
- Volume
- 104
- Issue
- 25
- Pages
- 250401-250401
- ISSN
- 0031-9007 (ISSN-L)
- 1079-7114
- OpenAlex
- W2090819628
- Cited by
- 207
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 26
- FWCI
- 21.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- Physical Review Letters (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Quantum Information and Cryptography
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum many-body systems
- Keywords
- non-Markovian dynamics, entanglement dynamics, two-qubit entanglement, two-level system, thermal baths, open quantum systems, quantum coherence
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
