RESEARCH ARTICLE

www.ann-phys.org

Two-Magnon Non-Locality and Coherence Induced by an

Open Microwave Cavity: Generation and Robustness
A.-B. A. Mohamed* and H. Eleuch

The generation and robustness of two-magnon non-locality and coherence 1. Introduction

dynamics induced by an open microwave field cavity are investigated in this Hybrid quantum systems-based tech-
work. The studied system consists of a two-sublattice ferrimagnet coupled to nologies have flourished and found ap-
a microwave field within an open cavity through its magnetic field plications in quantum information.[1–6]
One of these is a magnon–photon hy-
component. The robustness of the two-magnons non-locality dynamics is
brid state (magnon-polariton), which is
analyzed using various non-locality and coherence measures (namely, based on ferromagnetic crystal collec-
uncertainty-induced non-locality [UIN], maximal Bell function, and tive spin excitations. Through microwave
log-negativity entanglement [L-NE]) in the presence of the spontaneous and optical cavities,[7,8] as well as mag-
emission and the electromagnetic-wave dissipation. It is shown that netic dipole,[9,10] it can interact coher-
ently with phonons. Not only does the
photon-magnon couplings, two-magnon couplings, and dissipation all have
magnon–photon hybrid state offer a
an impact on the dynamical aspect of two-magnon non-locality and viable platform for studying the un-
coherence. This work reveals that the two-magnon non-locality and coherence derlying physics of the macroscopic
can be generated. For an initial maximal correlated two-magnon state, the quantum state,[11] but it also has po-
initial UIN non-locality is shown to be more resilient than the maximum Bell tential applications in quantum infor-
function and log-negativity. The amplitudes of the two-magnon non-locality mation science and engineering.[12,13]
The phonon–magnon and cavity photon–
quantifiers decline as a result of the two-magnon coupling. The Bell
magnon couplings have been accom-
non-locality and L-NE are reduced via spontaneous emission and dissipation, plished via magnetostrictive and mag-
but the two-magnon UIN-coherence is preserved. These findings contribute to netic dipole interactions, respectively,
a better understanding of such dynamics and may shed light on measurement with the magnons being driven directly
estimation in open quantum systems. by a strong microwave field at the
same time.[14] Quantum information re-
sources such as quantum correlation and
coherence are attributed with promoting advantageous prop-
A.-B. A. Mohamed
Department of Mathematics
erties in cavity-magnon systems. In magnon–photon hybrid
College of Science and Humanities in Al-Aflaj systems; cavity quantum electrodynamics with ferromagnetic
Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University magnons have been studied experimentally in a small yttrium-
Alkharj 11942, Saudi Arabia iron-garnet sphere.[15] Also, exceptional pointS have been ob-
E-mail: abdelbastm@aun.edu.eg served experimentally in a hybrid quantum system consisting of
A.-B. A. Mohamed dense nitrogen centers.[16]
Department of Mathematics
Faculty of Science Entanglement in a cavity-optomagnonics system can be en-
Assiut University hanced by the Kerr nonlinearity of the magnetocrystalline
Assiut 71515, Egypt anisotropy.[17] Also, entangled two-magnon and magnon–photon
H. Eleuch states have been implemented via magnetostrictive interaction in
Department of Applied Physics and Astronomy a cavity magnomechanical system[18] and in an antiferromagnet-
University of Sharjah
Sharjah 27272, United Arab Emirates
light system,[19] respectively. It is found that magnon–photon en-
H. Eleuch
tanglement is very weak, while the magnon–magnon entangle-
College of Arts and Sciences ment is very strong (that can be enhanced when the antiferro-
Abu Dhabi University magnet is resonant with the light).
Abu Dhabi 59911, United Arab Emirates Quantum coherence and nonlocality can be quantified by sev-
H. Eleuch eral measures such as: measurement-induced disturbance,[20]
Institute for Quantum Science and Engineering quantum discord,[21] and uncertainty-induced non-locality (UIN)
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843, USA of skew information quantity.[22,23] For quantum states, UIN is a
good quantifier for estimating two-qubit nonlocality beyond en-
The ORCID identification number(s) for the author(s) of this article tanglement, it is also a good quantifier for estimating two-qubit
can be found under https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.202200184 coherence. In addition, the violation of the Bell inequalities gives
DOI: 10.1002/andp.202200184 rise to Bell nonlocality,[24,25] the nonlocal nature of a quantum

Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 2022, 2200184 2200184 (1 of 8) © 2022 Wiley-VCH GmbH

www.advancedsciencenews.com www.ann-phys.org

state. The violation of the Bell inequalities led to the conclusion Here, the constant 𝜆AB designs the coupling constant of the
that there is an entanglement phenomenon.[26] The hierarchy magnon modes excited on the two sublattices. The electromag-
principle[27–29] establishes a closer relationship between entangle- netic wave can be described by: Ĥ ph = 𝜔C Ĉ † C,
̂ where Ĉ † is the
ment and Bell nonlocality. In this respect, all the quantum states creation electromagnetic wave operator and 𝜔C is its frequency.
have Bell nonlocality are entangled states, which is necessarily While the interaction between the magnons and the photon field
and is not sufficiently. is described by
Entanglement is used in cryptography,[30] dense coding,[31]
quantum computing,[32] and teleportation.[33] The dynamics of ̂ int = 𝜆AC (Â † Ĉ † + Â C)
H ̂ + 𝜆BC (B̂ † Ĉ + B̂ Ĉ † ) (3)
the entanglement have been studied in non-local systems.[34] En-
tanglement coherence is also a valuable resource that may be ex- 𝜆iC (i = A, B) are the interaction constants between the i-magnon
ploited to design non-local cavities for extended entanglement and the photon mode C. ̂
preservation and improved quantum mechanical protocol effi- To explore the effects of the two-magnon spontaneous emis-
ciency. Non-locality and coherence have been implemented in sion and the electromagnetic-wave dissipation, we consider the
a variety of artificial qubits such as: superconducting qubits,[35] master equation of the magnon–photon density matrix M ̂ [45]
two coupled quantum wells,[36] and laser cooled ions trapped in
a linear Paul trap.[37] Non-locality have been realized in different ̂ ∑
𝜕M ̂ M]
̂ + ̂M̂O
̂†−O ̂M
̂ †O ̂
hybrid quantum systems as: generation of Einstein–Podolsky– = −i[H, 𝜅O (ñ O + 1)(2O
𝜕t O=A,B
Rosen pairs in superconducting circuits,[38] testing Bell’s inequal-
ity in constantly coupled Josephson circuits,[39] and generation ̂Ô † O)
̂ + 𝜅O ñ O (2O ̂O
̂ †M ̂ −O
̂Ô †M
̂ −M
̂ÔO
̂ †)
−M
and control of entanglement in superconducting circuits[40] as
well as in modes of massive particles.[41] 𝛾(ñ C + 1)
Interesting theoretical and experimental explorations of the in- + ̂ Ĉ † − Ĉ † Ĉ M
(2Ĉ M ̂ −M
̂ Ĉ † C)
̂
2
fluence of the surrounding environment on quantum informa-
tion resources have become required and unavoidable in recent ̂ Ĉ − Ĉ Ĉ † M
+𝛾 ñ C (2Ĉ † M ̂ −M
̂ Ĉ Ĉ † ) (4)
research. The influence of the environment on cavity-magnon
systems haS received very little attention. The entanglement of Where 𝛾2 and 𝜅O represent the normalized two-magnon
magnons and photons has been studied in dissipative three- spontaneous emission and the electromagnetic-wave dissipation
mode magnon–photon systems.[42,43] Therefore, in this work, we rates, respectively. where n̄ O and n̄ C are respectively average num-
will investigate the generation and robustness of two-magnon ber of the thermal magnons and photons of the reservoir. In our
non-locality and coherence dynamics induced by a dissipative mi- investigation, we consider that the temperature of the thermal
crowave field cavity using various information measures, includ- baths is low so that n̄ O and n̄ C are approximately zero.
ing two-magnon Bell non-locality, UIN, and log-negativity. The The system is in the strong coupling regime between the
choice of a cavity-magnon system is often prompted by the fact magnon and the electromagnetic-wave. The coupling constant
that such systems are a promising possibility for quantum com- of the magnon–photon is higher than the cavity dissipation and
munication and a variety of other quantum information tasks. the magnon emission rates. In this regime, we consider that the
The manuscript is organized as follows: Section 2 discusses damping is weak, so that the off-diagonal terms 2O ̂M̂Ô † and
the physical model. In Sections 3 and 4 we analyze several quan- 2Ĉ M
̂ Ĉ † can be ignored in Equation (2)[46] and the purity of the
tifiers for estimating entropic uncertainty, mixedness, and entan- system state is almost preserved. Therefore, we can obtain
glement. Finally, we review our results and draw a few conclu-
sions in Section 5. d ̂ ̂ M
̂ − (M
̂Ĥ non )†
i M=H (5)
dt

where the non-Hermitian operator Hnon can be expressed by

2. The Physical Model and Time Evolution
The considered system is formed by a two-sublattice ferrimag- ̂ non = 𝜔A Â † Â + 𝜔B B̂ † B̂ + 𝜔C Ĉ † Ĉ + 𝜆AB (Â † B̂ † + Â B)
H ̂
net coupled to an electromagnetic wave, a microwave field inside
a cavity through its magnetic field component.[44] The Hamilto- +𝜆AC (Â † Ĉ † + Â C)
̂ + 𝜆BC (B̂ † Ĉ + B̂ Ĉ † ) (6)
nian of this system can be written as 𝛾
−i𝜅A Â † Â − i𝜅B B̂ † B̂ − i Ĉ † Ĉ
2
̂ =H
H ̂ ph + H
̂ FiM + H ̂ int (1)
with,
where H ̂ ph , H
̂ FiM , H ̂ int represent, respectively, the Hamiltonians
for the ferrimagnetic (FiM), photon, and their interaction. The M(t) = |W(t)⟩⟨W(t)| (7)
ferrimagnetic Hamiltonian H ̂ FiM is given by
then from Equation (5) we can say that the magnon–photon wave
̂ FiM = 𝜔A Â † Â + 𝜔B B̂ † B̂ + 𝜆AB (Â † B̂ † + Â B)
H ̂ (2) function |W(t)⟩ satisfies

and  and B̂ are the magnon annihilation operators on the two d

i ̂ |W(t)⟩
|W(t)⟩ = H (8)
sublattices. 𝜔i (i = A, B) represent the frequency of the i-magnon. dt

Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 2022, 2200184 2200184 (2 of 8) © 2022 Wiley-VCH GmbH

www.advancedsciencenews.com www.ann-phys.org

Based on the fact that the system is in the strong magnon– where 𝜎i , i = 1, 2, 3 represent the Pauli matrices, the closed form
photon coupling regime, the coupling constant of the magnon– of UIN can be written as[23]
photon is higher than the dissipation of the microwave field
⎧
cavity. We focus here on the case of week driving field,
⎪1 − 𝜆min (R), b⃗ = 0,
we consider only single photon processes. Therefore, in the U(t) = ⎨ 1 ⃗
(14)
magnon–magnon state basis {𝜛1 = |1A 1B ⟩, 𝜛2 = |1A 0B ⟩, 𝜛3 = ⎪1 − |b|
⃗2
b R b⃗T , b⃗ ≠ 0
|0A 1B ⟩, 𝜛4 = |0A 0B ⟩}, the wave function |W(t)⟩ takes the form ⎩

where 𝜆min (R) is the smallest eigenvalue of the correlation matrix

∑
4
|W(t)⟩ = Λk |1, 𝜛k ⟩ + Λk+4 |0, 𝜛k ⟩ (9) R = [rij ]. b⃗ is the Bloch vector
k=1
b⃗ = 2(x13 + x24 , y31 + y42 , m11 + m22 − 0.5)T (15)
The time-dependent coefficients Λk (k = 1 − 8) are driven from
Equation (8) as, xij and yij are real and imaginary parts of the elements of the
two-magnon density matrix. In the absence of dissipation, the
Λ̇ 1 = −i𝜆AC Λ7 − [i(𝜔A + 𝜔B + 𝜔C ) uncertainty-induced non-locality is a good quantifier to estimate
two-qubit correlation beyond the entanglement. While in open
+(𝜅A + 𝜅B + 𝛾∕2)]Λ1 − i𝜆AB Λ4 , systems, it has the same property of the entropy dynamical be-
havior. Therefore, it is a good measure to estimate two-qubit
Λ̇ 2 = −i𝜆AC Λ8 − i𝜆BC Λ5 − [i(𝜔A + 𝜔C ) + (𝜅A + 𝛾∕2)]Λ2 ,
coherence.[23]
Λ̇ 3 = −[i(𝜔B + 𝜔C ) + (𝜅B + 𝛾∕2)]Λ3 ,

Λ̇ 4 = −i𝜆BC Λ7 − i𝜆AB Λ1 − (i𝜔C + 𝛾∕2)Λ4 , (10) 3.2. Maximal Bell Function

Λ̇ 5 = −i𝜆BC Λ2 − [i(𝜔A + 𝜔B ) + (𝜅A + 𝜅B )]Λ5 − i𝜆AB Λ8 ,
Λ̇ 6 = −(i𝜔A + 𝜅a )Λ6
Λ̇ 7 = −i𝜆AC Λ1 − i𝜆BC Λ4 − (i𝜔B + 𝜅B )Λ7 ,
Λ̇ 8 = −i𝜆AC Λ2 − i𝜆AB Λ5
To investigate the generating and robustness of two-magnons
non-locality dynamics induced by a microwave field cavity, we
need to determine the time-dependent reduce two-magnons den-
sity matrix, MAB (t) = [mij ](i, j = 1, 2, 3, 4):
The maximal values of the Bmax (t) is utilized as indicators of
quantum non-locality.[47–49] If this function satisfies Bmax (t) >
2, the maximal Bell function (MBF) inequality is violated (i.e.,
Bmax (t) − 1 identifies an MBF nonlocal correlation when it is
greater than 1). For the two-magnon density matrix MAB (t), the
analytical expression of the Bmax (t) is based on the correlation
matrix T = [tij ],[48] where the elements tij are defined by tij =
(1) (2)
Tr{MAB (t)𝜎i 𝜎j }, i, j = 1, 2, 3. The expression of the Bmax (t) is
given by
√
Bmax (t) = 2 E1 + E2 (16)

M (t) =
AB
trC′′ {M(t) = |W(t)⟩⟨W(t)|} where Ek (k = 1, 2) are the matrix’s two biggest eigenvalues K =
∑ T † T. In our work, the MBF non-local correlation is measured by
= ⟨k|M(t)|k⟩ (11)
k=0,1
B(t) = Bmax (t) − 1 (17)

The two-magnon state has MBF non-locality when B(t) > 1.

3. Two-Magnon Non-Locality Quantifiers
3.1. Uncertainty-Induced Non-Locality
3.3. Log-Negativity Entanglement
The UIN of the two-magnon density matrix M (t) is AB [23]
Entanglement monotony and effective entanglement measure-
̂ ments are negativity and log-negativity.[50] The entanglement for
U(MAB (t)) = max I(MAB (t), K) (12)
K the bipartite system MAB (t) is investigated here using the log-
negativity function, which is given by[50]
̂ represents the amount of skew information
I(MAB (t), K)
quantity[22] that encoded in the density operator MAB (t).[22] N(t) = log2 [1 + 2n(t)] (18)
It may also be used to measure the uncertainty a local observable
K̂ of the two-magnon state MAB (t). The maximal skew informa- where n(t) denotes negativity, which is defined as the absolute
tion encoded is represented by UIN. Based on the correlation sum of the matrix’s negative eigenvalues of the matrix (MAB (t))TA
matrix R = [rij ] of the two-magnon state MAB (t) which is partial transpose of the density matrix MAB (t). The ele-
ments of (MAB (t))TA , with respect to A-magnon, are
{√ √ }
rij = Tr MAB (t)(𝜎i ⊗ I) MAB (t)(𝜎j ⊗ I) (13) ⟨i, j|(MAB (t))TA |m, n⟩ = ⟨m, j|MAB (t)|i, n⟩ (19)

Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 2022, 2200184 2200184 (3 of 8) © 2022 Wiley-VCH GmbH

www.advancedsciencenews.com www.ann-phys.org

N(t) = 0 indicates that the states are separable. The entanglement (a)
of the pure or mixed final quantum state is estimated using the 1.8 N(t)
function N(t). U(t)
1.6 B(t)

4. Dynamics of NCC Functions 1.4

By using UIN, MBF, and log-negativity entanglement (L-NE), 1.2

we explore the dynamics of the generating and robustness 1

of the two-magnon non-localities for different initial photon–
magnon states. 0.8

0.6
4.1. Generating of the Two-Magnon Non-Locality
0.4

Figure 1a shows the dynamics of the growth of the initial two- 0.2
magnon non-localities of the Bell function, the UIN as well as
the negativity. First, we consider that the photon–magnon system 0
0 0.303 0.606 0.909 1.212 1.5
starts with an initial uncorrelated state, |W(0)⟩ = |0, 𝜛1 ⟩, where t/π
|𝜛1 ⟩ represents the initial two-magnon state. The initial values of
the two-magnon non-locality functions are: N(0) = U(0) = 0 and (b)
B(0) = 1. In other words, the two-magnon state does not have a N(t)
1.8
quantum non-locality. For the case where the weak coupling con- U(t)
stant of the magnon modes excited on the two sublattices 𝜆AB = 5 1.6 B(t)
in the absence of the two-magnon spontaneous emission and the
1.4
electromagnetic-wave dissipation, the two-magnon non-locality
of the functions N(t), U(t), and B(t) grow regularly, with period 1.2
t ≈ 1.212𝜋. This prove that the two-magnon and photon–magnon
unitary interactions have a high ability to generate partial two- 1

magnon non-locality. We observe that the various non-locality 0.8

measures are currently compatible. The oscillatory behavior of
the UIN and L-NE are similar.
The impact of the increase of the coupling constant of the
magnon modes excited on the two sublattices, 𝜆AB = 10, is shown
in Figure 1b. As the two-magnon coupling constant rises, the
speed with which the two-magnon non-locality is generated in-
creases. The regularity of the two-magnon non-locality of the
functions N(t), U(t), and B(t) appears with a small period. The
amplitudes and frequencies of the UIN, the MBF, and L-NE all in-
creases.
Figure 2 illustrates the dependence of the dynamics of the
UIN, MBF, and L-NE on the two-magnon and photon–magnon
coupling constants. We can see in Figure 2a that increasing the
frequency of the UIN, MBF, and log-negativity by doubling the
strength of the photon–magnon couplings (𝜆AC = 𝜆BC = 2). Un-
like the weak photon–magnon couplings in Figure 1a (𝜆AC =
𝜆BC = 1), these non-locality measures display irregular oscilla-
tory dynamics. Because of the increased photon–magnon cou-
plings, the photon–magnon interactions have the ability to form
a two-magnon state with maximum non-locality. In Figure 2b, the
two-magnon non-locality of the functions N(t), U(t), and B(t) are
depicted for doubling the strength of the photon–magnon cou-
plings and the two-magnon coupling 𝜆AB = 10. The amplitudes
and frequency of the resulting two-magnon non-locality are am-
plified as the magnon–magnon coupling constant increases. The
time windows for violating Bell’s inequality are increasing.
Figure 3 shows the effect of the two-magnon spontaneous
emission and the electromagnetic-wave dissipation, 𝜅A = 𝜅B =
𝛾 = 0.5. Because of the rise in two-magnon spontaneous emis-
sion and electromagnetic-wave dissipation, the amplitudes of
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.303 0.606 0.909 1.212 1.5
t/π
Figure 1. The growth of the two-magnon non-localities are plotted when
the two-magnon is initially in the uncorrelated state |W(0)⟩ = |0, 𝜛1 ⟩
for 𝜆AC = 𝜆BC = 1 and 𝜔i = 𝜆AB , (i = A,B,C) in the absence of the two-
magnon spontaneous emission and the electromagnetic-wave dissipa-
tion. Different two-magnon coupling values are considered: a) 𝜆AB = 5 and
b) 𝜆AB = 10.
the MBF and log-negativity drop only as time evolves. The gen-
erated two-magnon entanglement is lost approximately after a
long period, and it exhibits zero-stationary non-locality. It is
worth noting that a two-magnon state can reveal partial non-
locality in various time periods where the violation of Bell’s in-
equality does not occur. This is consistent with the hierarchy
principle.[27–29] The MBF entails L-NE, which is necessary but in-
sufficient. In the presence of the two-magnon spontaneous emis-
sion and the electromagnetic-wave dissipation, we find that the
UIN grows to its maximal value U(t) = 1. In this case of the open
photon–magnon system, the UIN has the same entropy dynam-
ical behavior and it is a good quantifier to estimate two-magnon
coherence.[23] The generated two-magnon UIN-coherence in-
creases with time until it reaches its highest stationary value,

Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 2022, 2200184 2200184 (4 of 8) © 2022 Wiley-VCH GmbH

www.advancedsciencenews.com www.ann-phys.org

(a) (a)
1.8 N(t) 1.8 N(t)
U(t) U(t)
1.6 B(t) 1.6 B(t)

1.4 1.4

1.2 1.2

1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 0.303 0.606 0.909 1.212 1.5 0 0.303 0.606 0.909 1.212 1.5
t/π t/π
(b) (b)
1.8 N(t) N(t)
1.8
U(t) U(t)
1.6 B(t) B(t)
1.6

1.4
1.4

1.2
1.2

1
1

0.8
0.8

0.6
0.6

0.4
0.4

0.2
0.2

0
0 0.303 0.606 0.909 1.212 1.5 0
0 0.303 0.606 0.909 1.212 1.5
t/π t/π
Figure 2. The two-magnon non-localities of Figure 1 are plotted but when
Figure 3. The two-magnon non-locality dynamics under the effect of the
doubling the strength of the photon–magnon couplings (𝜆AC = 𝜆BC = 2)
two-magnon spontaneous emission and the electromagnetic-wave dissi-
and the two-magnon coupling: a) 𝜆AB = 5 and b) 𝜆AB = 10.
pation are investigated as in Figures 1a and 2a but for 𝜅A = 𝜅B = 𝛾 = 0.5.

as shown by the red curves in Figure 3. The two-magnon sys-

tem is maximally mixed under these circumstances of photon–
magnon interactions. When the intensity of the photon–magnon
couplings is doubled (𝜆AC = 𝜆BC = 2), the spontaneous emission
and dissipation effects on the generated non-locality are shown
in Figure 3b. By raising the strength of the photon–magnon
couplings, the generation of stable two-magnon UIN-coherence
is hastened. The MBF and L-NE produced two-magnon non-
localities are extremely vulnerable to spontaneous emission and
dissipation effects.
4.2. Initial Two-Magnon Non-Locality Robustness
Figure 4 illustrates the dynamics of the initial two-magnon non-
locality robustness of the MBF, the UIN as well as the negativ-
ity, against the photon–magnon interactions, the spontaneous
emission and the dissipation. In this case, we consider that the
photon–magnon system starts with the initial correlated state, in
which the two-magnon state has maximal quantum non-locality,
1
|W(0)⟩ = [(|1⟩ + |0⟩)(|𝜛2 ⟩ + |𝜛3 ⟩)] (20)
2
For this photon–magnon state, the two-magnon state is ini-
tialized in the correlated state |W(0)AB ⟩ = √1 (|𝜛2 ⟩ + |𝜛3 ⟩). The
2
initial two-magnon state is in maximal quantum non-localities
√
of the UIN, MBF, and L-NE: N(0) = U(0) = 1 and B(0) ≈ 2 2 ≈
2.83.
Figure 4a shows that the log-negativity and the maximal initial
two-magnon non-locality of the MBF present quasi-periodic dy-
namics. They both reach their maxima and minima at the same
time. This dynamics is governed by the two-magnon and photon–
magnon interactions. Solid red curve of Figure 4a shows that the
two-magnon non-locality (of the UIN) has irregular oscillatory

Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 2022, 2200184 2200184 (5 of 8) © 2022 Wiley-VCH GmbH

www.advancedsciencenews.com www.ann-phys.org

(a) (a)
1.8 N(t) 1.8 N(t)
U(t) U(t)
1.6 B(t) 1.6 B(t)

1.4 1.4

1.2 1.2

1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
t/π t/π
(b)
(b)
1.8 N(t)
1.8 N(t) U(t)
U(t) 1.6 B(t)
1.6 B(t)
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.2
1
1
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 t/π
t/π
Figure 5. The two-magnon non-localities of Figure 4 are plotted but when
Figure 4. The robustness of the initial two-magnon non-localities are plot- doubling the strength of the photon–magnon couplings (𝜆AC = 𝜆BC = 2)
ted when the two-magnon is initially in the correlated state |W(0)AB ⟩ = and the two-magnon coupling: a) 𝜆AB = 5 and b) 𝜆AB = 10.
1
√ (|𝜛2 ⟩ + |𝜛3 ⟩) and 𝜔i = 𝜆AB , (i = A, B, C) for 𝜆AC = 𝜆BC = 1 in the ab-
2
sence of the spontaneous emission and the dissipation with different two-
magnon couplings: a) 𝜆AB = 5 and b) 𝜆AB = 10. bustness against the two-magnon and photon–magnon interac-
tions enhances.
Figure 5 illustrates the dynamics of the initial maximal two-
magnon non-locality values of the UIN, MBF, and L-NE functions
behavior differs from these of the MBF and the L-NE (it has max- when doubling the strength of the two-magnon and photon–
ima at the times of the minima of the others). We note that the ini- magnon couplings for different two-magnon coupling constants.
tial UIN non-locality is more robust, against the photon–magnon By comparing Figures 4a and 5a, we note that the doubling of
interactions, than of the MBF and log-negativity. the photon–magnon couplings reduces the amplitudes and in-
The effect of the two-magnon coupling, 𝜆AB = 10, on the dy- creases the frequencies of the two-magnon non-locality quan-
namics of the maximal initial two-magnon non-locality is shown tifiers. The fluctuations of the two-magnon non-localities be-
in Figure 4b. We observe that when the two-magnon coupling tween their extreme can be accelerated by increasing the photon–
increases, the amplitudes of the two-magnon non-locality mea- magnon couplings. The decrease generated by the doubling the
sures enhance and the oscillation frequency of the UIN grows. photon–magnon coupling may be mitigated by the increasing
The period of the MBF and the L-NE increases. In addition, two-magnon coupling intensity, as shown in Figures 5a,b. The
the length of the time windows for violating Bell’s inequality initial UIN non-locality is more resistant than the MBF and
increases over a certain period of time. Due to the rise in the log-negativity against increases in the two-magnon and photon–
two-magnon coupling, the initial two-magnon non-locality ro- magnon couplings.

Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 2022, 2200184 2200184 (6 of 8) © 2022 Wiley-VCH GmbH

www.advancedsciencenews.com www.ann-phys.org

(a) delayed) by increasing two-magnon and photon–magnon inter-

actions (𝜆AB = 10 and 𝜆AC = 𝜆BC = 1), as shown in Figure 6b.
1.8 N(t)
U(t)
1.6 B(t)

5. Conclusion
1.4
We have investigated the generation and robustness of two-
1.2
magnon non-local correlation dynamics under the impacts
1 of the environment (two-magnon spontaneous emission and
electromagnetic-wave dissipation) using UIN, MBF, and L-NE.
0.8 The physical model is described by a two-sublattice ferrimagnet
coupled to a microwave field inside an open cavity through its
0.6
magnetic field component. We show that the magnon–magnon
0.4 and photon–magnon couplings, as well as the interaction with
the environment, control the dynamics of UIN, MBF, and L-NE.
0.2 We demonstrate that UIN, MBF non-localities, and L-NE can be
0
generated for this system with an open cavity. The robustness
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 of two-magnon non-local correlation dynamics is further inves-
t/π tigated in the presence of the unitary interaction, as well as two-
(b) magnon spontaneous emission and cavity dissipation. The inter-
actions between photons and magnons can cause the non-local
1.8 N(t)
U(t)
correlations to drop. The MBF and log-negativity are less robust
1.6 B(t) against photon–magnon interactions than the initial UIN non-
locality. They decline as a result of the two-magnon spontaneous
1.4 emission and cavity dissipation. In the absence of dissipation,
the two-magnon non-locality beyond entanglement is a relevant
1.2
measure. It is also a suitable quantifier to estimate two-magnon
1 coherence in open systems.

0.8

0.6 Acknowledgements
The authors extend their appreciation to the Deputyship for Research and
0.4
Innovation, Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia for funding this research
0.2 work through the project number (IF-PSAU-2021/01/17712). The authors
are very grateful to the referees for their important remarks which improve
0 the manuscript.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
t/π
Figure 6. The two-magnon non-locality dynamics under the effect of the Conflict of Interest
spontaneous emission and the electromagnetic-wave dissipation are in-
vestigated as in Figures 4a and 5a but for 𝜅A = 𝜅B = 𝛾 = 0.2. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figure 6 shows the dynamics of the initial maximal two- Data Availability Statement
magnon non-locality robustness against the effect of the two- The data that support the findings of this study are available from the cor-
magnon spontaneous emission and the electromagnetic-wave responding author upon reasonable request.
dissipation, 𝜅A = 𝜅B = 𝛾 = 0.2. For the case of Figure 6a, 𝜆AB =
5 and 𝜆AC = 𝜆BC = 1, the increase of the two-magnon sponta-
neous emission and the electromagnetic-wave dissipation leads Keywords
to: 1) The Bell non-locality vanishes completely after a short
coherence in open systems, microwave cavities, non-locality, two-magnon
time. While the log-negativity entanglement persists for a long
time and then it fades away. 2) The UIN briefly oscillates be-
Received: April 24, 2022
fore settling into a stronger and stable two-magnon coherence.
Revised: July 22, 2022
This reveals that, in the absence of dissipation, UIN is a good Published online:
measure to estimate two-magnon non-locality beyond entangle-
ment. While in open systems, it is a good quantifier to esti-
mate two-magnon coherence. The effects of two-magnon spon-
taneous emission and electromagnetic-wave dissipation on the [1] M. A. Nielsen, I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum
MBF and L-NE dynamics can be amplified (while on UIN can be Information, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2001.

Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 2022, 2200184 2200184 (7 of 8) © 2022 Wiley-VCH GmbH

www.advancedsciencenews.com
[2] T. D. Ladd, F. Jelezko, R. Laflamme, Y. Nakamura, C. Monroe, J. L. Ó
Brien, Nature 2010, 464, 45.
[3] S. Wehner, D. Elkouss, R. Hanson, Science 2018, 362, 303.
[4] Z.-L. Xiang, S. Ashhab, J. Q. You, F. Nori, Rev. Mod. Phys. 2013, 85,
623.
[5] I. Buluta, S. Ashhab, F. Nori, Rep. Prog. Phys. 2011, 74, 104401.
[6] A. A. Clerk, K. W. Lehnert, P. Bertet, J. R. Petta, Y. Nakamura, Nature
Phys. 2020, 16, 257.
[7] H. Huebl, C. W. Zollitsch, J. Lotze, F. Hocke, M. Greifenstein, A. Marx,
R. Gross, S. T. B. Goennenwein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2013, 111, 127003.
[8] Y. Tabuchi, S. Ishino, A. Noguchi, T. Ishikawa, R. Yamazaki, K. Usami,
Y. Nakamura, C. R. Phys. 2016, 17, 729.
[9] R. Hisatomi, A. Osada, Y. Tabuchi, T. Ishikawa, A. Noguchi, R. Ya-
mazaki, K. Usami, Y. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. B 2016, 93, 174427.
[10] A. Osada, A. Gloppe, R. Hisatomi, A. Noguchi, R. Yamazaki, M. No-
mura, Y. Nakamura, K. Usami, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2018, 120, 133602.
[11] J. Clarke, M. R. Vanner, Quantum Sci. Technol. 2019, 4, 014003.
[12] Y.-P. Wang, G.-Q. Zhang, D. Zhang, T.-F. Li, C.-M. Hu, J. Q. You, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 2018, 120, 057202.
[13] R. Hisatomi, A. Osada, Y. Tabuchi, T. Ishikawa, A. Noguchi, R. Ya-
mazaki, K. Usami, Y. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. B 2016, 93, 174427.
[14] M.-S. Ding, L. Zheng, Chong Li, Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 15723.
[15] D. Zhang, X.-M. Wang, T.-F. Li, X.-Q. Luo, W. Wu, F. Nori, J. You, npj
Quantum Inf. 2015, 1, 15014.
[16] G.-Q. Zhang, Z. Chen, D. Xu, N. Shammah, M. Liao, T.-F. Li, L. Tong,
S.-Y. Zhu, F. Nori, J. Q. You, PRX Quantum 2021, 2, 020307.
[17] Z.-B. Yang, J.-S. Liu, H. Jin, Q.-H. Zhu, A.-D. Zhu, H.-Y. Liu, Y. Ming,
R.-C. Yang, Optics Exp. 2020, 28, 31862.
[18] J. Li, S.-Y. Zhu, New J. Phys. 2019, 21, 085001.
[19] H. Y. Yuan, S. Zheng, Z. Ficek, Q. Y. He, M.-H. Yung, Phys. Rev. B 2020,
101, 014419.
[20] S. Luo, Phys. Rev. A 2008, 77, 022301.
[21] H. Ollivier, W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2001, 88, 017901.
[22] E. P. Wigner, M. M. Yanase, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1963, 49,
910.
[23] S.-X. Wu, J. Zhang, C.-S. Yu, H.-S. Song, Phys. Lett. A 2014, 378, 344.
Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 2022, 2200184 2200184 (8 of 8)
www.ann-phys.org
[24] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 1935, 47, 777.
[25] M. Genovese, Phys. Rep. 2005, 413, 319.
[26] J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, R. A. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett.
1969, 23, 880.
[27] A. Costa, M. Beims, R. Angelo, Phys. A 2016, 461, 469.
[28] H. S. Qureshi, S. Ullah, F. Ghafoor, Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 16288.
[29] A.-H Abdel-Aty, H. Kadry, A.-B. A. Mohamed, H. Eleuch, Sci. Rep.
2020, 10, 16640.
[30] J. Kempe, Phys. Rev. A 1999, 60, 910.
[31] J. Jing, J. Zhang, Y. Yan, F. Zhao, C. Xie, , K. Peng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2003,
90, 167903.
[32] R. Jozsa, N. Linden, Phys., Eng. Sci. 2003, 459, 2011.
[33] M. Asjad, M. Qasymeh, H. Eleuch, Phys. Rev. Appl. 2021, 16, 034046.
[34] R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod.
Phys. 2009, 81, 865.
[35] A. B. Mohamed, H. A. Hessian, Phys. E 2012, 44, 1552.
[36] A.-B. A. Mohamed, H. Eleuch, Phys. Scr. 2017, 92, 065101.
[37] P. Laha, L. Slodick̆a, D. W. Moore, R. Filip, Opt. Express 2022, 30, 8814.
[38] L. F. Wei, Y.-x. Liu, Markus J. Storcz, F. Nori, Phys. Rev. A 2006, 73,
052307.
[39] L. F. Wei, Y.-x. Liu, F. Nori, Phys. Rev. B 2005, 72, 104516.
[40] L. F. Wei, Y.-x. Liu, F. Nori, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2006, 96, 246803.
[41] S. Ashhab, K. Maruyama, F. Nori, Phys. Rev. A 2007, 75, 022108.
[42] J. Li, S.-Y. Zhu, G. S. Agarwal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2018, 121, 203601.
[43] H. Y. Yuan, P. Yan, S. Zheng, Q. Y. He, K. Xia, M.-H. Yung, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 2020, 124, 053602.
[44] H. Y. Yuan, S. Zheng, Z. Ficek, Q. Y. He, M.-H. Yung, Phys. Rev. B 2020,
101, 014419.
[45] H. J. Carmichaelt, D. F. Walls, J. Phys. A: Math., Nucl. Gen. 1973, 6,
1552.
[46] H. Eleuch, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 2008, 41, 055502.
[47] K. Banaszek, K. Wódkiewicz, Phys. Rev. A 1998, 58, 4345.
[48] R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, Phys. Lett. A 1995, 200,
340.
[49] A.-S. F. Obada, A.-B. A. Mohamed, Opt. Commun. 2012, 285, 3027.
[50] G. Vidal, R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A 2002, 65, 032314.
© 2022 Wiley-VCH GmbH