© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

Terms Privacy Legal Notice

arXiv:2004.08827

Reply to "Comment on `Noise, not squeezing, boosts synchronization in the deep quantum regime' "

Wai‐Keong Mok, L. C. Kwek, Hermanni Heimonen

Published Apr 19, 2020• 1 citation

Abstract

In this reply we clarify the main points of our manuscript and respond to the critique in the Comment arXiv:2002.11514. In particular, we emphasize that our conclusion "squeezing loses effectiveness in the deep quantum regime" does not contradict the previous work arXiv:1801.10383, but instead adds to it, and raises fundamental questions on classifying parameter regimes for quantum synchronization. Moreover, we address the concern brought up on the validity of the master equation in the deep quantum regime, and show that our noise-enhanced synchronization differs from previous literature. Through numerical examples, we also demonstrate that the choice of ansatz, while appearing inconsistent, does not lead to erroneous conclusions. Lastly, we expound on the physics of noise-boosted synchronization, and show that it is indeed a genuine feature unique to the deep quantum regime. However, we note that single photon dissipation is a more accurate term, and will move to using that.

DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2004.08827

Related papers

Comment on "Noise, not squeezing, boosts synchronization in the deep quantum regime" arXiv:2002.07488 (2020)

Michal Hajdušek, Sai Vinjanampathy

A recent manuscript ( arXiv:2002.07488 (2020) ) compares the effect of linear dissipators and squeezing drive on quantum synchronisation. We point at serious mistakes in the validity of the equations they use, the consistency of the ansatz employed, the unregulated fashion in which parameters are varied and the misleading scientific statements made in their manuscript.

arXiv:2002.11514•Feb 26, 2020•1 citation

Reply to `Comment on "Absence versus Presence of Dissipative Quantum Phase Transition in Josephson Junctions"'

Kanta Masuki, Sudo, Hiroyuki, Masaki Oshikawa +1 more

We reply to the comments on our previous paper Physical Review Letters, Vol. 129, 087001 (2022), raised by Théo Sépulcre, Serge Florens, and Izak Snyman in arXiv:2210.00742.

arXiv:2210.10361•Oct 19, 2022•1 citation

Reply to "Comment on 'Modified quantum-speed-limit bounds for open quantum dynamics in quantum channels'"

Xin Liu, Wei Wu, Chao Wang

The authors of the comment[Phys. Rev. A 97, 046101 (2018)] raise that the inconsistency in calculating some common quantum-speed-limit (QSL) bounds, which is presented in our paper [Phys. Rev. A 95, 052118 (2017)], does not exist in their paper [Phys. Rev. A 94, 052125 (2016)]. Therefore they insist that their criticism to some QSL bounds is still valid. We demonstrate all the QSL bounds mentioned in the comment are similar in essence. We also show the inconsistency which is presented in their original paper can not be used to support their criticism. Furthermore, we exhibit although the inconsistency presented in our paper is not a same one to which is presented by the authors of the comment, it exists and be unavoidable in their example. Accordingly, we believe the result in our paper is usable in numerical calculations.

arXiv:1805.01986•May 5, 2018•0 citations

Brief reply to "Can gravity account for the emergence of classicality?"

Igor Pikovski, Magdalena Zych, Fabio Costa +1 more

In a series of comments, Bonder et al. criticized our work on decoherence due to time dilation [Nature Physics 11, 668-672 (2015)]. First the authors erroneously claimed that our results contradict the equivalence principle, only to "resolve" the alleged conflict in a second note. The resolution - relativity of simultaneity - was already explained in our reply [arXiv:1508.03296], which Bonder et al. now essentially reiterate. The newly raised points were also already extensively clarified in our note. The physical prediction of our work remains valid: systems with internal dynamics decohere if the superposed paths have different proper times.

arXiv:1509.07767•Sep 24, 2015•1 citation

Comment on “Modified quantum-speed-limit bounds for open quantum dynamics in quantum channels”

Nicolás Mirkin, Fabricio Toscano, Diego A. Wisniacki

In a recent paper [Phys. Rev. A 95, 052118 (2017)], the authors claim that our criticism, in Phys. Rev. A 94, 052125 (2016), to some quantum speed limit bounds for open quantum dynamics that appeared recently in literature are invalid. According to the authors, the problem with our analysis would be generated by an artifact of the finite-precision numerical calculations. We analytically show here that it is not possible to have any inconsistency associated with the numerical precision of calculations. Therefore, our criticism of the quantum speed limit bounds continues to be valid.

Physical Review A•Apr 6, 2018•2 citations

Reply to Comment on "Quantum mechanics for non-inertial observers"

Toro\v{s}, Marko, Gro{\ss}ardt, Andr\'e, Angelo Bassi

Our recent paper (arXiv:1701.04298 [quant-ph]) discussed the occurrence of a coupling of centre of mass and internal degrees of freedom for complex quantum systems in non-inertial frames. There, we pointed out that an external force supporting the system against gravity plays a crucial role for the coupling between center of mass position to the internal degrees of freedom. In a comment (arXiv:1702.06670 [quant-ph]) to our paper, Pikovski et al. question our conclusion and present the argument that the lack of the coupling term would be in contradiction with the observation of gravitational time dilation using atomic clocks. Here, we elaborate on our results in reply to their criticism and clarify why our arguments remain valid.

arXiv:1704.02285•Apr 7, 2017•2 citations

In this reply we clarify the main points of our manuscript and respond to the critique in the Comment arXiv:2002.11514. In particular, we emphasize that our conclusion "squeezing loses effectiveness in the deep quantum regime" does not contradict the previous work arXiv:1801.10383, but instead adds to it, and raises fundamental questions on classifying parameter regimes for quantum synchronization. Moreover, we address the concern brought up on the validity of the master equation in the deep quantum regime, and show that our noise-enhanced synchronization differs from previous literature. Through numerical examples, we also demonstrate that the choice of ansatz, while appearing inconsistent, does not lead to erroneous conclusions. Lastly, we expound on the physics of noise-boosted synchronization, and show that it is indeed a genuine feature unique to the deep quantum regime. However, we note that single photon dissipation is a more accurate term, and will move to using that.

The authors of the comment[Phys. Rev. A 97, 046101 (2018)] raise that the inconsistency in calculating some common quantum-speed-limit (QSL) bounds, which is presented in our paper [Phys. Rev. A 95, 052118 (2017)], does not exist in their paper [Phys. Rev. A 94, 052125 (2016)]. Therefore they insist that their criticism to some QSL bounds is still valid. We demonstrate all the QSL bounds mentioned in the comment are similar in essence. We also show the inconsistency which is presented in their original paper can not be used to support their criticism. Furthermore, we exhibit although the inconsistency presented in our paper is not a same one to which is presented by the authors of the comment, it exists and be unavoidable in their example. Accordingly, we believe the result in our paper is usable in numerical calculations.

In a series of comments, Bonder et al. criticized our work on decoherence due to time dilation [Nature Physics 11, 668-672 (2015)]. First the authors erroneously claimed that our results contradict the equivalence principle, only to "resolve" the alleged conflict in a second note. The resolution - relativity of simultaneity - was already explained in our reply [arXiv:1508.03296], which Bonder et al. now essentially reiterate. The newly raised points were also already extensively clarified in our note. The physical prediction of our work remains valid: systems with internal dynamics decohere if the superposed paths have different proper times.

In a recent paper [Phys. Rev. A 95, 052118 (2017)], the authors claim that our criticism, in Phys. Rev. A 94, 052125 (2016), to some quantum speed limit bounds for open quantum dynamics that appeared recently in literature are invalid. According to the authors, the problem with our analysis would be generated by an artifact of the finite-precision numerical calculations. We analytically show here that it is not possible to have any inconsistency associated with the numerical precision of calculations. Therefore, our criticism of the quantum speed limit bounds continues to be valid.

Our recent paper (arXiv:1701.04298 [quant-ph]) discussed the occurrence of a coupling of centre of mass and internal degrees of freedom for complex quantum systems in non-inertial frames. There, we pointed out that an external force supporting the system against gravity plays a crucial role for the coupling between center of mass position to the internal degrees of freedom. In a comment (arXiv:1702.06670 [quant-ph]) to our paper, Pikovski et al. question our conclusion and present the argument that the lack of the coupling term would be in contradiction with the observation of gravitational time dilation using atomic clocks. Here, we elaborate on our results in reply to their criticism and clarify why our arguments remain valid.