Arxiv:2009.00128V2 [Cond-Mat.Mes-Hall] 11 Sep 2020 Ments, Owing Partly to Its Extremely Low Magnetic Dis- Sipation [24]

Spin cat states in a ferromagnetic insulator

Sanchar Sharma,1 Victor A. S. V. Bittencourt,1 Alexy D. Karenowska,2 and Silvia Viola Kusminskiy1, 3 1Max Planck Institute for the Science of Light, Staudtstraße 2, 91058 Erlangen, Germany 2Clarendon Laboratory, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3PU, United Kingdom 3Department of Physics, University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Staudtstraße 7, 91058 Erlangen, Germany Generating non-classical states in macroscopic systems is a long standing challenge. A promising platform in the context of this quest are novel hybrid systems based on magnetic dielectrics, where photons can couple strongly and coherently to magnetic excitations, although a non-classical state therein is yet to be observed. We propose a scheme to generate a magnetization cat state, i.e. a quantum superposition of two distinct magnetization directions, using a conventional setup of a macroscopic ferromagnet in a microwave cavity. Our scheme uses the ground state of an ellipsoid shaped magnet, which displays anisotropic quantum fluctuations akin to a squeezed vacuum. The magnetization collapses to a cat state by either a single-photon or a parity measurement of the microwave cavity state. We find that a cat state with two components separated by ∼ 5~ is feasible and briefly discuss potential experimental setups that can achieve it.

Introduction: The concept of superposition is a cor- (a) MeasureMeasurement nerstone of quantum theory, a paradigmatic example of which is a ‘cat state’ referring to, loosely speaking, a Microwave system which exists in a quantum superposition of two H0 quasi-classical states. Besides their important histori- M B cal link to Schrödinger’s famous gedanken experiment, · y z their insensitivity to particle loss noise [1] means that z y Magnetization cat states ﬁnd useful application as carriers of information (qubits) in quantum computation [2–4] or as sensors in quantum metrological tasks [5–8]. The robustness of (b) Ground State Heralded State a cat state increases with its size, i.e. how ‘distinct’ the Isotropic Isotropic two quasi-classical components are. Experimental real- 10 10 izations of cat states include photon states at optical [9–

11] and microwave [12] frequencies with a size of up to 3 ZPF

and 100 photons respectively, and a spin-state with size M 0 z 0 z / 2~ composed of 3000 atoms [13]. At a fundamen- y ∼ ∼ M y y tal level, a macroscopic cat state is a prototypical sys- 10 x 10 x tem to study collapse in quantum-to-classical transitions [14, 15]. However, non-classical states are notoriously dif- 10 0 10 10 0 10 ficult to generate in macroscopic systems due to the lack M / M / of long enough coherence lengths. Considerable advances x MZPF x MZPF on this front have been obtained in optomechanical systems (in which light couples to acoustic excitations [16]) FIG. 1. (a) Setup: A ferromagnetic ellipsoid (green) with [17–20], however cat states have not yet been realized in magnetization M couples to microwaves in a cavity via dipole this platform [21, 22]. coupling to the cavity magnetic field B. An external applied field H0 saturates the magnetization along one of the short Over the last few years, a new kind of hybrid quantum axes (k z). (b) Probability density of the quasi-classical mag- system has emerged as a promising platform for quan- netization’s state as a function of its components in units of tum applications, where photons are coupled coherently the isotropic zero point fluctuations MZPF , see Eqs. ((1), to magnetic excitations (magnons) in magnetic materi- 9). Ground state: The squeezed magnetization vacuum [see als [23]. The dielectric ferrimagnet Yttrium Iron Gar- Eq. (10)] with anisotropic fluctuations. The inset shows the net (YIG) is the material of choice in current experi- non-squeezed (isotropic) case, valid for a spherical magnet. Heralded state: The magnetization state after detecting a arXiv:2009.00128v2 [cond-mat.mes-hall] 11 Sep 2020 ments, owing partly to its extremely low magnetic dis- sipation [24]. Coherent and strong magnon-microwave microwave photon [see Eq. (22)] showing features of a cat coupling using sub-mm spheres of YIG has been real- state. Such features are absent when there is no squeezing (inset). ized [25–27] and used to mediate the coupling between magnons and superconducting qubits [28]. Magnons in YIG can also coherently couple to optical photons [25, 29–32], phonons [33, 34], and electrons [35–37], point- has been moreover demonstrated [40, 41]. These develop- ing to the possibility of magnon-based quantum trans- ments together with the recent demonstration of single- ducers [38, 39]. Using YIG thin films, a Bose-Einstein magnon detection in YIG spheres [42, 43], has opened condensate of magnons showing macroscopic coherence prospects for studying and manipulating microwave mag- 2 netic excitations in a quantum coherent manner. Creat- sity for the magnetization is ing non-classical states of the magnetization is crucial for µ0 ˜ future applications in what has been denominated ‘quan- mag = MNM µ0MzH0, (2) H 2 − tum magnonics’ [23]. Theoretical proposals so far include all-optical heralding of magnon Fock states [44] and gen- where M is the total magnetization and N˜ is the demag- eration of entangled states [45–47]. netization tensor, arising from the finite geometry. The Here, we propose a scheme to prepare a cat state of magnitude M = Ms is a constant of motion [54] where 18 | | a macroscopic number of spins (> 10 ) which can be Ms is the saturation magnetization. For a spheroid, N˜ achieved by employing state-of-the-art microwave cavi- is diagonal with Nx = Nz = NT and Ny = 1 2NT ties with an embedded magnetic element of anisotropic [54, 55]. We assume a sufficiently large magnetic− field, shape, see Fig. 1(a). The protocol relies on the H0 > Ms/2, such that the classical ground state is anisotropy of the magnet enforcing a magnetic ground M = Msz. Since the energy cost of fluctuations in My is state analogous to the squeezed vacuum in quantum op- smaller than that in Mx, the quantum fluctuations in Mx tics, plus the concomitant entangled spin-photon ground and My are different, leading to a squeezed vacuum [50]. state when the magnet is coupled to the cavity. We show We model the quantum fluctuations using the Holstein- that in a YIG sample cats with a size 5~ are feasi- Primakoff approximation [54, 56] ble, where the size can be tuned by an external∼ magnetic M iM field. x − y s,ˆ (3) 2 → Model: A well established protocol to generate cat MZPF states in quantum optics is to add a photon to a squeezed valid for Mx,y Mz with ZPF defined in Eq. (1). optical vacuum [9, 48, 49]. In order to accomplish this Using Eq.| (3)| and retainingM only quadratic terms in sˆ, analogously in a ferromagnet, we first require a squeezed the magnetic Hamiltonian density (2) integrates to (up magnetization state [50], i.e. a minimum uncertainty to a constant) state with anisotropic zero-point fluctuations. This can ˆ be realized via the ground state of a magnet with an Hmag ωs 2 2 = ω0sˆ†sˆ + sˆ +s ˆ† , (4) anisotropic shape, such as an ellipsoid. Notably, the de- ~ 2 gree of squeezing of the magnetic ground state can be where tuned by an external magnetic field. The second step is γµ0Ms to add an excitation, i.e. to ‘flip’ on average one spin ωs = (3NT 1) , ω0 = γµ0H0 ωs. (5) which is delocalized in space, see Fig. 1(b). We show − 2 − that this can be achieved by coupling the magnetization The bosonic operator sˆ flips a spin from +z to z, satis- − to a microwave cavity [25–27] and performing a measure- fies the canonical commutation relation s,ˆ sˆ† = 1, and ment of the latter. For low enough temperatures either a annihilates the classical ground state corresponding to all single-photon measurement [51, 52] or a parity measure- spins pointing along z (the spins are anti-parallel to the − ment can be employed [53]. We discuss these steps in magnetization), sˆ 0 = 0. Mz is found by the constraint detail below. M = M . For a sphere,| i N = 1/3 implying ω = 0 and | | s T s The proposed setup is shown in Fig. 1(a) where a hence sˆ (sˆ†) is the annihilation (creation) operator of the ferromagnetic ellipsoid is kept inside a microwave cav- elementary excitations of the magnet, i.e. the magnons. ity. The magnet is assumed to be slender and prolate, Below, we consider the case of a slender prolate spheroid 2 2 i.e. L L = L where L is the length in i-th di- with NT 1/2 where the term sˆ +s ˆ† implies that y x z i ≈ ∝ rection. In the absence of external magnetic fields, the the ground state is not 0 . | i magnetization would align with the longest axis. A suf- Squeezed magnetic vacuum - The Hamiltonian (4) can ˆ ficiently large field, here H0z, aligns the magnetization be diagonalized to Hmag = ~ωmmˆ †mˆ by a Bogoliubov to z with zero-point fluctuations largely along y [50], see transformation mˆ = cosh rsˆ + sinh rsˆ†, with Fig. 1(b). For comparison, a spherical magnet would s q have isotropic zero point fluctuations ZPF (ignoring a 2 2 Ms M ωm = ω ω = γµ0 H0 H0 . (6) small crystalline anisotropy of YIG) given by 0 − s − 2

γ~Ms The parameter r characterizes the degree of squeezing 2 = , (1) MZPF 2V and is given by r 1/4 where V is the volume of the magnet and γ is the abso- ω + ω M − er = 0 s = 1 s . (7) lute value of the gyromagnetic ratio. Flipping a (delocal- ωm − 2H0 ized) spin pushes the magnetization away from the origin. In the presence of shape anisotropy, the resulting state The ground state of Hˆmag, defined by mˆ g = 0, is given | i has the characteristic features of a cat state involving by [50, 57] g = Sr (ˆs) 0 where | i | i a superposition of two sufficiently distinct semiclassical " 2 2# states, see Fig. 1(b). r sˆ sˆ† Sr (ˆs) = exp − (8) In the macrospin limit, the classical Hamiltonian den- 2 3 is the squeezing operator. In the presence of anisotropy, outside. For magnets much smaller than the microwave’s the ground state of the system g is therefore charac- wavelength cm, the magnetic field is nearly constant | i ∼ terized by a finite number of ‘flipped spins’, g sˆ†sˆ g = inside the magnet. From Eq. ((3)), we get sinh2 r. ˆ The characteristics of the ground state g can be vi- Hcoup | i = g∗ sâˆ† + g sˆ†aˆ + g+∗ sˆ†aˆ† + g+sâˆ , (12) sualized in terms of semiclassical magnetization states ~ − − α , defined as the ones with an average magnetiza- | i where we ignored a tertiary term sˆ†sâˆ with a coeffi- tion such that Mx iMy = 2 ZPF α and presenting ∝ − M cient smaller than g by a factor ZPF /Ms. The minimum fluctuations [cf. Eq. (3)]. These are given ± ∼ M beam-splitter (g ) and parametric-amplifier (g+) cou- by coherent states [58], satisfying sˆ α = α α defined − | i | i pling strengths are given by by α = Dˆ(α) 0 where the displacement operator is | i | i Dˆ(β) = exp βsˆ† β∗sˆ . For a general state ψ , the g = V ZPF B0 (rmagnet) (13) Husimi Q-function− | i ± − M ± where B0 = B0x iB0y and rmagnet is the position of 1 the magnet± inside the± cavity. For simplicity, we consider Q(α, ψ ) = α ψ 2 (9) | i π |h | i| circularly polarized photons with B0+ = 0 (hence g+ = 0) and define g g. By changing the global phase of can be interpreted as the probability density of ψ being − ≡ | i photons, if necessary, we can assume g > 0. Depending near the semi-classical state α . For the ground state on the experimental setup, g is tunable up to a large g , defined above, we find | i | i fraction of the cavity’s frequency [59, 60]. We discuss now the ground state of the total Hamilto- 1 α2 er + α2e r Q(α, g ) = exp R I − , (10) nian (see App. B for details) | i π cosh r − cosh r ˆ H ωs 2 2 where α = αR +iαI with real αR,I . This is shown in Fig. = ω0sˆ†sˆ+ sˆ +s ˆ† +ωaaˆ†aˆ+g sâˆ† +s ˆ†aˆ . (14) ~ 2 1(a) demonstrating that fluctuations in My are larger than that in Mx, indicating a squeezed vacuum. The We assume ωm, g ωs, ωa implying a large spin squeez- degree of squeezing, Eq. (7), becomes arbitrarily high ing [cf. Eqs. (6,7)]. The Hamiltonian has two eigenfre- as H0 Ms/2. In this limit, however, ωm 0 and quencies Ωa, Ωm where Ωa ωa and the system→ goes towards an instability signaling→ a sig- { } ≈ s nificant change in the classical ground state and a con- 2 2 2g ω0 sequent failure of the linearization used in Eq. (3). In Ωm ωm (15) ≈ − ωa practice however, the frequency ωm is bounded by an experimentally feasible low temperature. Considering H0, is dispersively shifted from the bare magnon’s frequency slightly higher than Ms/2, such that ωm = 2π 100 MHz ω . For large couplings, g > ω (ω ω ), the system × m a 0 − s (corresponding to a cryogenic temperature of ~ωm/kB = becomes unstable. 5mK) we obtain an upper limit er = 5, where we used The ground state of the spin-photon system is given by γµ M = 2π 5 GHz for YIG [54] corresponding to 0 s vac = SRm (w ˆm) SRa (w â) 0 with wˆm =s ˆcos θ/2 + × | ii | ii µ0H0 70kA/m. aˆ sin θ/2, and wˆ = sˆsin θ/2 +a ˆ cos θ/2. It therefore ≈ a Coupling to a microwave cavity.– The classical Hamil- consists of a non-zero− number of photons and spin-flips tonian density for a hollow cavity reads given by a joint squeezed operation over the classical ground state 0 defined by sˆ 0 =a ˆ 0 = 0. The E(r) 2 B(r) 2 | ii | ii | ii 0 general expressions for Rm,Ra, θ are given in App. B. cav = | | + | | . (11) { } H 2 2µ0 For ω , g ω , ω we get m s a Typically, a microwave cavity hosts multiple electromag- 2g θ − , (16) netic modes in the GHz range. Considering a magnon ≈ ωa frequency 100MHz, the system is in the dispersive coupling regime∼ and all of these modes have to be taken into implying that wˆm and wâ have respectively a large spin account as long as they have good overlap with the mag- and photon contribution with small mixing, characteristic of an off-resonant coupling. In this case R 0, and net. However, for the purpose of our analysis, we can a ≈ assume that the cavity consists of a single mode since the we obtain generalization does not change the qualitative features. r Rm 2ωs The quantization B(r) B (r)â + B∗(r)â where B e . (17) 0 0 † 0 ≈ Ω is the mode profile and →aˆ is the annihilation operator of m the cavity mode (and analogously for E(r)), diagonalizes As the coupling g increases, Ωm decreases by the disper- ˆ the cavity Hamiltonian Hcav = ~ωaaˆ†aˆ up to a constant. sive shift [see Eq. (15)], and thus the squeezing parameter Rm r The magnetization couples to the microwave fields via Rm increases. For g = 0, Ωm = ωm and e e [see = M B(r) inside the magnet and = 0 Eq. (7)]. ≈ Hcoup − · Hcoup 4

In the general case, we can interpret R as the eﬀective Cat Size rcat magnetization squeezing, as opposed to Rm which is the s 0.30 0.30 Probability 2 ! 7 10 7.0 squeezing of the hybridized mode wˆm. For ωm, g 5 ⇥ R Rm 0.20 2 ωs, ωa, wˆm sˆ and consequently, e e . In this 10 0.25 3 ≈ ≈ 10 regime, the main control parameters are the eﬀective 5 ⇥ 0.10 3 10 6 6.0 magnetization squeezing R, tunable via the external mag-

g 0.20 0 netic field, and spin-photon coupling g, tunable by mag- 1.00 1.03 1.06 net’s position. 0.15 5 5.0 To understand the properties of the magnetization 0.10 state C , we consider the probability density defined by the Husimi| i Q-function Eq. (9). We obtain 0.05 4 4.0 α2 + α2 α2 er + α2e r Q(α, C ) = R I exp R I − , (22) 3 cosh R Spin-photon coupling (units of ) 0 | i π cosh R − 1.000 1.015 1.030 1.045 1.060 for α = αR + iαI with real αR,I . This is plotted in Fig. Applied field H 0 (units of M / 2 ) S 1(b) showing two regions of high probability. Specifically, we can separate the upper and lower lobes, C C+ FIG. 2. Cat size rcat and probability (inset, logarithmic scale) C where | i ∝ | i − of finding the cavity in a single-photon state P as a function | −i of applied field H0 and spin-photon coupling g for ωs = ωa = r−1 r 2 2π × 5GHz (valid for YIG [54]). The white region contains X ( 1) √r! tanh R C ± − r . (23) the parameter space where either the system is unstable or | ±i ∝ Γ(r/2 + 1/2) 2 | i r the magnon’s frequency is too low Ωm < 2π × 100MHz. Explicit calculations show

In the ground state vac , assuming ωm, g ωs, ωa, 3R | ii 8e− the average number of spin-flips is C C+ , (24) h −| i ≈ 3π 2Rm e ωs sˆ†sˆ , (18) where we ignored terms higher order in e R, therefore ≈ 4 ≈ 2Ω − m the two components are nearly orthogonal for eR 5. while the average photon number is Q(α, C ) has two peaks at α = ir /2 with the∼ cat | i ± cat 2 size g sˆ†sˆ aˆ aˆ , (19) † 2 q r ≈ ωa 2R ωs rcat = 2 (e + 1) 2 , (25) where the averages are taken w.r.t vac . Eq. (19) is ≈ Ωm expected from Fermi’s Golden rule,| validii for weak cou- where the approximation holds for ω , ω Ω pling. In the limit of infinite squeezing, , the s a m Ωm 0 g2/ω [61]. The probability of finding the cavity in a number of spin flips (and, correspondingly, of→ photons) a single-photon state is given in terms of states with 1- diverges. For moderate squeezing (e.g. eRm 5 as taken n ∼ photon and n-spin flips, 1, n aˆ† sˆ† 0 , as below considering temperature constraints) and g ωa, | ii ∝ | ii the number of photons in vac is, however, very small. X | ii P = 1, n vac 2 . (26) Results: We now show how the coupling of the magnet |hh | ii| to a microwave cavity can be used to herald a cat state of n the magnetization. The joint spin-photon ground state 2 For ωs, ωa Ωm g /ωa we find [see Eq. (C4)] P vac is an entangled state, and thus a measurement of ≈ | ii aˆ†aˆ , where the average number of photons is given in the state of the cavity can affect the magnetization in a Eq. (19). This expression for the probability is expected, non-trivial way. In particular, for a measurement pro- since in this limit the average number of cavity photons jecting the ground state vac to a single-photon state, is small [see below Eq. (19)]. we find that the state of| theii magnetization collapses to The system will be in the ground state if kBT < ~Ωm, [see App. C] which, as discussed for ωm, effectively imposes an ex- 1 perimental lower limit on Ωm. We consider therefore an C = sˆ† SR (ˆs) 0 , (20) | i cosh R | i applied field such that the lower hybridized mode has the frequency Ω = 2π 100 MHz, giving an upper temper- which corresponds to flipping a spin from the magneti- m ature limit of T < 5×mK. Taking as an example ω = ω zation’s squeezed vacuum with given a s g = SR (ˆs) 0 R and g = 0.05ω , we obtain a squeezing parameter eR = 5, by | i | i a a cat size rcat = 7, and a heralding probability P = 0.03. ω0 Ωm + ωa Ωa In Fig. 2, we plot the cat size rcat and heralding prob- tanh R = − − . (21) ability as a function of external magnetic field and ωs P H0 5 spin-photon coupling g. The plots are generated using of the field-sensitive qubit and the small bias field re- the exact expressions given in App. C, instead of the quired to saturate the magnetic sample. Moreover, such approximate ones discussed here. They show a trade-off: systems have already been used to demonstrate a range the maximum achievable probability increases with in- of important results in the context of quantum measure- creasing g, as expected, while the cat size decreases. This ments on magnon systems [42, 43]. For the purposes is the case since a larger coupling g puts a lower limit on of the present measurement, however, such an arrange- the magnon’s frequency [cf. Eq. (15)] and consequently ment has the disadvantage that, since each dimension of an upper limit on the squeezing of the magnetization [cf. the cavity must be at least a substantial fraction of the Eq. (7)]. vacuum microwave wavelength at a few GHz (λ cm), Single photon detection in microwave cavities typically the volume of the microwave mode will be very large∼ in involves long protocols and significant errors [51, 52]. comparison to the volume of the YIG sample, placing However, in the limit of small photon numbers, zero and a fundamental limit on the achievable coupling (we re- one photon states can also be distinguished by their par- quire 100MHz, see Fig. 2). Conversely, with a planar ity, which can be measured with a high accuracy by cou- (quasi∼ one-dimensional) geometry, while the challenge of pling the cavity to a qubit [53]. Projecting onto the odd- confining the bias field requires a more creative solution, parity photon state, the density matrix of the spins is the system has the advantage that the microwave mode given by a partial trace over the photons is strongly confined to a volume that can be as much as 6 orders of magnitude smaller than in the 3D case " aˆ†aˆ # 2 6 3 I ( 1) (λd 1cm 1µm 1µm 10− λ where d is the res- ρˆp = Traˆ − − vac vac . (27) ∼ × × ∼ 2 | ii hh | onator width). Accordingly, we suggest that an elegant way to measure the cat state would be to use the now As shown in App. D, the probability of finding the cavity classic methodology first proposed by Schuster et al. [65]. in an odd-parity state in this limit is aprroximatley the A relatively simple microwave quantum circuit could be one-photon probability P . In order to compare ρˆp with constructed in which the YIG ellipsoid sits in the dielec- C , we use the fidelity measure [62, 63] F = C ρˆp C tric gap of a planar superconducting resonator coupled |[seei App. D] which can be interpreted as the probabilityh | | i to a judiciously positioned transmon qubit. Spectroscopy of finding the magnetization in the state C (20). When would be performed on the system and the herald photon 2 | i ωs, ωa Ωm g /ωa, one can show number measured via the occupancy-dependent Stark shift of the qubit. 2P 2 1 F . (28) − ∼ 3 As P < 0.1 [see Fig. 2], we get a very high fidelity Conclusions: We proposed a scheme to generate a F > 0.99, implying that our results can be used with a magnetization cat state in a spin-microwave hybrid sys- parity measurement as well. tem. The scheme relies on adding a quanta to a squeezed Experimental considerations: For the design of practi- vacuum of magnetization that is realized as the ground cal experiments to create the cat state, a range of differ- state of an anisotropic magnet [50]. We showed that cat ent approaches can be envisaged. As discussed in detail, states with the two components differing by rcat~ 5~ our proposal is reliant on the creation of a squeezed state can be generated in sub-mm YIG samples, comfortably∼ of the magnetization of the YIG system achieved through within the precision range of current quantum measure- a pronounced anisotropy. Thus far, we have assumed ments of magnetization [42, 43]. The size of the cat state that this anisotropy is geometric although other sources is larger when the cavity is measured to be in higher of anisotropy (for example, crystalline anisotropy) could photon numbers [see App. (C)], although the herald- be exploited to the same end. Nevertheless, we choose ing probabilities are much smaller. The lifetime of the to focus on shape anisotropy both for consistency and cat states is given by inverse of the magnon’s linewidth because it likely represents the most practical route to 4 10 /ωm 0.1ms [66]. Our analysis is valid when the performing an experiment using the current state-of-the- system∼ is in∼ its ground state giving experimentally fea- art in measurement technology. sible temperature restrictions T < 5mK. We envision The maximum dimension of the YIG sample employed our results to expand the field of quantum magnonics is set by the maximum length over which coherence and applications of ferromagnets as quantum transduc- can be maintained which, in high-purity monocrystalline ers and ultrasensitive magnetic field sensors, and to pave YIG, is expected to be over 100µm [42, 43, 64]. In order the way for protocols involving truly non-classical macro- to perform a photon measurement, the YIG sample must scopic states of magnetization. be installed in a microwave cavity coupled to at least one Josephson junction-based qubit. Though a range of different cavity and qubit styles may be envisaged for this purpose, the main decision to be made is whether Acknowledgements: We thank J. Haigh for valuable to employ a planar or 3D geometry. A 3D geometry discussion. SS, VASVB, and SVK acknowledge financial has the benefit of lending itself to a spatial separation support from the Max Planck Society. 6

Appendix A: Ground state in a general Bogoliubov [67, 68]. Thus, we can write HT˜ = T Ω˜ where Ω˜ is a di- Transformation agonal matrix with entries Ω1,..., ΩN , Ω1,..., ΩN and the diagonalization matrix{ − − } In this section, we review the multi-mode Bogoliubov DN transformation [67, 68] which we use in the main text to T = ∗ (A7) operate on the spin-microwave coupled system, and find ND∗ the ground state of a quadratic Hamiltonian assuming stability, i.e. that the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian are defines D and N. With this transformation, it can be shown that the Hamiltonian (A1) is diagonalized so that lower bounded. We treat the general case of N-modes, ˆ P as the 2-mode case is not much simpler, and the former one can write, up to a constant, H = i ~Ωivî†vî . can be generalized to the case when all cavity modes are The ground state of Hˆ , vac , is given by the state | ii included and multiple magnets are present in the cavity. that is annihilated by all vî, which in terms of uî is Consider a set of harmonic oscillators with annihilation operators uˆ1,..., uˆN . We define column vectors D†Uˆ + N †Uˆ ∗ vac = 0. (A8) T | ii T Uˆ = (û1,..., uˆN ) and Uˆ ∗ = uˆ†,..., uˆ† along with 1 N To find this state in terms of the excitations in the orig- ˆ T ˆ ˆ T their row counterparts U and U † = (U ∗) . We have inal Uˆ-basis, we write D and N in Bloch-Messiah form the canonical commutation relations [ûi, uˆj] = 0, and [69], h i uî, uˆj† = δij where δij is the Kronecker delta. N = ∗ sinh R † ,D = cosh R † , (A9) Any Hermitian quadratic Hamiltonian can be written S S F S S F as where and are unitary and R is a diagonal matrix S F ~ with positive entries. This is the most general form where Hˆ = ~Uˆ †AUˆ + Uˆ †BUˆ ∗ + h.c., (A1) all the identities Eq. (A3,A5) are satisfied. For complete- 2 ness, we give an elementary proof of this below [see near where A and B are N N matrices. We can choose and after Eq. (A13)]. T × A = A† and B = B . The ground state can be written in a simplified form in A Bogoliubov transformation is performed by defining terms of the set of harmonic oscillators defined through ˆ ˆ a new set of independent harmonic oscillators vˆ1,..., vˆN the unitary operation W = †U. Then, the ground state is given by a set of single-particleS identities Vˆ = D Uˆ + N Uˆ . (A2) † † ∗ cosh Riwî + sinh Riwî† vac = 0. (A10) As vî must satisfy canonical commutation relations, we | ii have the constraint The above expression can be simplified via the squeez-

T T ing operators SRi (w î) [see the definition (8)], which are D†D N †N = I,N D = D N. (A3) − unitary and satisfy [57] These conditions imply the inverse transformation † † (A11) SRi (w î)w î SRi (w î) = cosh Riwî + sinh Riwî . Uˆ = DVˆ N ∗Vˆ ∗. (A4) − The ground state is vac = S 0 where the ‘bare vac- | ii | i uum’ is defined by uî 0 = 0 and the squeezing operator Again, using the fact that both uî and vî satisfy canonical | ii commutation relations, we find is Y T T = R (w î) . (A12) DD† N ∗N = I,ND† = D∗N . (A5) S S i −

Below, see Eq. (A16), we find the most general form of The quadratures wî +w î†, which are a linear combination Ri D and N satisfying these constraints. of the quadratures of uî, are squeezed by e . The matrices U and V are found by diagonalizing In the remaining section, we show how to find , , and R in terms of D and N. The Hermitian matrixS F T ˜ A B DD† has all eigenvalues > 1 because DD† = I + N ∗N H = − . (A6) 2 B∗ A∗ [Eq. (A5)]. It can be diagonalized as DD† = ˜cosh R ˜† − 2 T S S which implies NN † = ˜∗ sinh R ˜ . ˜ S S It can be shown that the eigenvalues of H are real when Consider the symmetric matrix Ns = ˜∗ sinh R ˜†, ˆ S S˜ the Hamiltonian H is diagonalizable with positive fre- which satisfies NsNs† = NN †. This implies N = NsFN quencies [67, 68]. For each eigenvalue Ω > 0, let the where F˜ is unitary. Then, we also have the diagonal- N eigenvector be dT nT where d and n are vectors of size ization, N. Then, we can normalize d 2 n 2 = 1. Furthermore, | | −| | 2 for each eigenlist Ω, d, n we also have Ω, d∗, n∗ N †N = ˜† ˜sinh R ˜† ˜ . (A13) { } {− } FN S S FN 7

Similarly, consider the Hermitian matrix DH = unstable for higher g. Using the eigenvectors, the Bo- ˜cosh R ˜† which implies D = DH ˜D with unitary ˜D. goliubov transformation defined in Eq. (A2) is given by SThen, S F F 2 2 2 2 a(Ωa ωa) m(Ωm ωa) 2 D = ωs N − N − (B4) D†D = ˜† ˜cosh R ˜† ˜D. (A14) g(Ω + ω ) g(Ω ω ) FDS S F Na a a Nm m − a Using D†D N †N = I, and − 2 2 ˜† ˜cosh R ˜† ˜D = ˜† ˜cosh R ˜† Ñ (A15) Σ (Ω + ω ) Σ (Ω + ω ) FDS S F FN S S F N = −Na a a a −Na a a a , (B5) aΣag aΣag ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ N N implies that ph = † N D† commutes with the diag- D 2 S F F S 2 onal matrix cosh R. If all the diagonal entries of R are where Σm,a = (Ωm,a ω0) (Ωm,a ωa) g and the nor- ˜ − − − distinct, ph is diagonal. As it is also unitary, it consists malization constants m,a can be found by enforcing of phasesD as the diagonal entries. These phases can be DT D N T N = I [seeN Eq. (A3)]. traced back to the freedom in choosing the phases of the The− directions and degrees of squeezing can be found eigenvectors of DD†, i.e. choosing the phases of each col- using Eq. (A17). We have umn of ˜. When R has some degeneracies, we also have S freedom to choose linear combinations of the degenerate 1 Sm ST ND− = (B6) eigenvectors. . The absence of a full set of constraints ST Sa complicates the proof but the result can be recovered by assuming small perturbations and a limiting process. where Now, we redefine the phases in the eigenmatrix = q S ω0 + ωa Ω+ Ω − (B7) ˜ ˜∗ and redo the exercise above. We find D = ˜D Sm = − − S Dph F F ωs ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ 2 and N = ph∗ † N . This implies N = D = . g + (ωa Ω+)(ωa Ω ) Summarizing,F SD S F F F F ST = − − − (B8) ωsg

N = ∗ sinh R † ,D = cosh R † . (A16) (ωa + ω0)ST gSm S S F S S F Sa = g − (B9) − (ωa + Ω+)(ωa + Ω ) For analytical purposes, it is easier to look at the decom- − 1 position (known as Takagi factorization), Note that ND− is symmetric as expected from Eq. (A3). Then, the ground state is given by vac 1 = ND− = ∗ tanh R †. (A17) where | ii S S SRm (w ˆm) SRa (w ˆa) 0 wˆm =s ˆcos θ/2 +a ˆ sin θ/2 and wˆ = sˆsin θ/2| +iia ˆ cos θ/2 with mixing parameter This becomes the eigenvalue decomposition when is a − 1 S real and the eigenvalues of ND− are positive. 2S tan θ = T , (B10) S S m − a Appendix B: Coupled spin microwave system and the squeezing parameters

In this section, we apply the general theory described θ tanh R = S + S tan , (B11) in App. A to the special case of coupled spin-microwave m m T 2 system. We solve ﬁrst for the ground state exactly and θ tanh R = S S tan . (B12) later simplify it to the case of high spin squeezing. a a − T 2 The Hamiltonian is given by Eq. (A1) with Uˆ = (ˆs, aˆ)T Consider the case when ω ω , i.e. ω ω , ω . For and the matrices 0 s p m s a stability, we require a small ≈g < ω (ω ω ). Then, a 0 s ω g ω 0 Ω ω and − A = 0 ,B = s . (B1) a a g ω 0 0 ≈ a s 2 2 2g ω0 The eigenfrequencies found by diagonalizing Eq. (A6) are Ωm ωm . (B13) Ω , Ω , where ≈ − ωa { m a} 2 2 2 2 2 The squeezing directions are given by Ωm + Ωa = 2g + ωm + ωa, (B2) 2g and θ − . (B14) ≈ ωa p 4 2 2 2 ΩmΩa = g 2g ωaω0 + ωaωm, (B3) − Rm The degrees of squeezing are Ra 0 and e p 2 2 p ≈ ≈ with bare magnon frequency ωm = ω ω . Both 2ωs/Ωm. As θ 1, there is a strong squeezing in p 0 − s | | Ω , Ω > 0 iﬀ g < ω (ω ω ), while the system is a quadrature close to S sˆ +s ˆ†. m a a 0 − s x ∝ 8

Appendix C: Single Photon Detection The size of the cat state is larger for a projective measurement of n > 1 photons, which we brieﬂy discuss here. In App. B, we derived the multimode squeezed ground Given the Wigner function of the joint spin-photon vac- state. When the cavity is measured to be in a single uum (D8) [to be discussed in detail in App. D], the state photon Fock state, we expect that the magnetization col- of the magnetization after a projection into a n-photon lapses to a cat state. We derive the size of the cat state Fock state [70] here. Z 2 The ground state of the cavity-spin coupled system is WAM(αs, U,ˆ ρˆg) = 4π d αaW (αs, αa, U,ˆ ρˆg)Wn(αa), given by squeezing the position of the harmonic oscilla- (C8) tors wˆ =s ˆcos θ/2 +a ˆ sin θ/2 and wˆ = sˆsin θ/2 + m a − where the integration is performed over the photon vari- aˆ cos θ/2. Explicitly, ables and

n 2 1 ( 1) 2 2 αa vac Wn(αa) = − Ln(4 αa ) e− | | , (C9) = 2π | | | ii √cosh Rm cosh Ra ,2 ,2 is the Wigner function for the n Fock state, with L the tanh Rmwˆm† + tanh Rawâ† n exp 0 . (C1) th order Laguerre polynomial. − 2 | ii n In Fig. 3 we show the Wigner function of the heralded Here θ, R ,R are defined in App. B. We Taylor state after one photon measured [cf. Eq. (D25)]. Its { m a} expand the above in aˆ†, profile resembles, as expected, a squeezed cat state with minor fringes (two maxima and one minimum) near the ,n X p aˆ† origin. By measuring more than one photon, the heralded vac = Pn ˆn 0 . (C2) | ii O √n! | ii states have larger cat sizes with the downside of smaller n heralding probabilities. ˆ operates only on the spin subspace and satisfies OD n E 0 ˆ† ˆn 0 = 1. Pn is the probability of finding the Appendix D: Parity Detection OnO ground state vac in an n-photon Fock state. Projecting| theii ground state onto a 1-photon Fock In App. C, we showed that detecting the cavity in a state, the magnetization collapses to C = ˆ1 0 where single-photon state heralds the magnetization into a cat- (by explicit Taylor expansion) | i O | i like state. However, as the expected average number of photons is small, we expect similar results for detecting 1 tanh R sˆ ,2 ˆ † (C3) the cavity in an odd parity state given by the projection, 1 = 3/2 sˆ† exp O cosh R − 2 † Iˆ ( 1)aˆ aˆ Πˆ a = − − , (D1) with tanh R = Sm [see Eq. B7]. This corresponds to 2 flipping a spin over a squeezed vacuum with degree . R which is experimentally less demanding. To find the mag- Correspondingly, the probability is given by netization’s heralded state, we use the Wigner function 3 defined as the Fourier transform 2 cosh R P1 = ST . (C4) Z 2N cosh Rm cosh Ra d α β†α α†β W (α, C,ˆ ρˆ) = e − χ(β, C,ˆ ρˆ), (D2) π4 The magnetization state can be expressed in a basis of semi-classical states, introduced before Eq. (9) and given where α, β, Cˆ are 2 1 column vectors, ρˆ is a density ma- by trix, and the characteristic× function χ(β, C,ˆ ρˆ) is defined as n β 2/2 X∞ β h i β = e−| | n , (C5) ˆ ˆ | i √ | i χ(β, C, ρˆ) = Tr ρDˆ (β, C) (D3) n=0 n! as with the multi-mode displacement operator h i " 2 ,2 # ˆ ˆ ˆ (D4) 1 β + β∗ tanh R D(β, C) = exp C†β β†C . β C = β∗ exp | | (C6) − h | i 3/2 − 2 cosh R As discussed in Sec. B, the ground state is vac = | ii SRm (w ˆm) SRa (w â) 0 in terms of the harmonic oscilla- For a fixed β , β C is maximized at β = i β . By | ii | | |h | i| ± | | tor pair Wˆ = (w ˆ wˆ )T defined by Wˆ = T Uˆ where differentiating w.r.t. β , we find the maxima at β = m a S | | Uˆ = (ˆs aˆ)T and ircat/2 with ± q cos θ/2 sin θ/2 2R = − (D5) rcat = 2 (e + 1). (C7) S sin θ/2 cos θ/2 9

(a) 1 photon measured My =0 giving 0.050.05 0.000 0.05 2 0.05 -0.05 2 10 -0.10 ˆ T 1 T 1 0.-150.15 W (α, U, ρˆg) = exp 2 αRΣ− αR + αI Σ+− αI , 00 -11.0 -0.5 00.0 0.5 11.0 π − −

ZPF Mx/ ZPF (D8)

M 0 -0.05 M / where variance matrices are y Mx =0 -0.10 M 0.050.05 2R T 0.000 10 -0.05 Σ = e± . ± -0.150.15 -0.10 S S 0.-150.15 30-30 -20 -10 00 10 20 3030 In the following, we suppress the harmonic oscillator 2 0 2 My/ ZPF indices, e.g. the ground state characteristic function is Mx/ ZPF M M χg( αs, αa ) and Wigner function is Wg( αs, αa ), given in Eq.{ (D8).} Similar to Eq. (D3), we can{ also deﬁne} the (b) 2 photons measured My =0 0.150.15 characteristic function of the magnetization alone 0.10 00.15.15 0.05 0.000 -0.05 10 0.10 0.-100.10 χs,g(αs) = Tr [ˆρgD(αs, sˆ)] , (D9) -1.01 -0.5 0.00 0.5 1.01 ZPF Mx/ ZPF 0.05 M and then, the Wigner function is obtained by tracing out M 0 / 0 the photons, y 0 Mx =0 0.150.15 M -0.050.05 0.10 Z 10 0.05 2 Ws,g(αs) = d αaWg( αs, αa ). (D10) 0.000 -3030 -20 -10 00 10 20 3030 { } 2 0 2 My/ ZPF M / M This integrates to x MZPF 2 2 (c) 3 photons measured My =0 2 αsR αsI 0.100.10 Ws,g(αsR + iαsI ) = exp 2 2 + 2 , 0.05 π s,g − σ σ 0.10 0.000 + 0.10 -0.05 N − -0.10 (D11) 10 0.05 0.-150.15 -1.01 -0.5 0.00 0.5 1.01 where the variances are

ZPF M / 0 x MZPF 2 2R1 2 θ 2R2 2 θ M 0 -0.05 σ = e± cos + e± sin , (D12) / Mx =0 y 0.10 ± 2 2 0.05 -0.10 M 0.000 10 -0.05 and the normalization constant is -0.10 -0.150.15 0.-150.15 -3030 -20 -10 00 10 20 3030 q 2 2 2 0 2 M / s,g = σ+σ = 1 + sin θ sinh (R1 R2). (D13) y MZPF N − − Mx/ ZPF M After measurement, the composite state is given by the FIG. 3. Wigner function of the heralded state after the mea- density matrix surement of 1, 2, 3 photon(s). The Wigner function resembles that of a squeezed cat state, with the characteristic negative Πˆ aρˆgΠˆ a part and interference pattern close to the origin. Parameters: ρÂM = , (D14) Pp ωa = ωs, g = 0.05ωa and applied field adjusted such that Ωm = ωa/12.5. where Pp is the probability of getting odd parity found by enforcing Tr [ˆρAM] = 1 or equivalently the normalization, Z 2 2 d αsd αaWAM( αs, αa ) = 1, (D15) with θ defined in Eq. (B10). For the ground state ρˆg = { } vac vac , we find a Gaussian Wigner function, | ii hh | To find the magnetization’s Wigner function, consider its characteristic function [again suppressing other argu- 2 ments in Eq. (D3)], 2 T 2R T 2R W (α, W,ˆ ρˆ ) = exp 2 α e α + α e− α , g π − R R I I 1 h i χs,AM(αs) = Tr Πˆ aρˆgΠˆ aD(αs, sˆ) . (D16) (D6) Pp where αR,I are real vectors satisfying α = αR + iαI and R is the diagonal matrix with entries Rm,Ra . This Using Πˆ 2 = Πˆ and its expansion in displacement oper- { } a a can be converted to original basis using ators [71],

Z 2 d αa 2Πˆ a = Iˆ D(α, aˆ), (D17) W (α, U,ˆ ρˆ) = W ( †α, W,ˆ ρˆ), (D7) S − 2π 10 we ﬁnd It is easy to show √ρˆ1 =ρ ˆ1 giving F = Tr [ˆρ1ρˆp]. This can be written in terms of Wigner functions as [72] Z d2α 2P χ (α ) = χ (α ) a χ ( α , α ). (D18) p s,AM s s,g s − 2π g { s a} Z 2 Taking the Fourier transform, we get the heralded Tr [ˆρ1ρˆp] = π d αW1(α)Wp(α) (D24) Wigner function of the magnetization π 2PpWs,AM(αs) = Ws,g(αs) Wg( αs, 0 ), (D19) 2 where Wp Ws,AM and (by explicit calculations) − { } ≡ which can be expanded using Eq. (D11) and 8 1 2 2R 2 −2R 2 2 2R 2 2R 2(αRe +αI e ) W (α) = α e + α e− e− . 2 2 2 2 2 1 π R I 4 Wg( αs, 0 ) = exp 2 σ+αsR + σ αsI . − { } π − − (D25) (D20) Integrating, we get The normalization of Wigner function, Eq. (D15), gives

1 1 Pp = . (D21) 4 s,g (1 + s,g) 2 − 2 s,g F = N N (D26) 2R 2 3/2 2R 2 3/2 N e− + σ e + σ+ − For small θ e2Rm ,R 1, we get | | a

2 2Rm 2 θ e For g /ωa Ωm, g ωs, ωa, Pp , (D22) ≈ 16 same as that of single photon detection [see below Eq. g4ω2 2P 2 s p (D27) (26)], as expected because of small photon numbers. 1 F 4 2 . − ∼ 6ωaΩm ≈ 3 To compare the parity-heralded state, say ρˆp, with the 1-photon-heralded state ρˆ1 = C C , we consider the ﬁdelity measure | i h | Typically, the probability of heralding is < 0.1 [see Fig. 2 2], so the ﬁdelity is very high implying that the two state qp p F = Tr ρˆ1ρˆp ρˆ1 . (D23) ρˆ1 and ρˆp are almost same.

[1] N. Ofek, A. Petrenko, R. Heeres, P. Reinhold, Z. Leghtas, Review Letters 92, 153601 (2004). B. Vlastakis, Y. Liu, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, L. Jiang, [12] B. Vlastakis, G. Kirchmair, Z. Leghtas, S. E. Nigg, M. Mirrahimi, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, M. Mirrahimi, M. H. Devoret, Nature 536, 441 (2016). and R. J. Schoelkopf, Science 342, 607 (2013). [2] H. Jeong and M. S. Kim, Phys. Rev. A 65, 042305 (2002). [13] R. McConnell, H. Zhang, J. Hu, S. Ćuk, and V. Vuletić, [3] T. C. Ralph, A. Gilchrist, G. J. Milburn, W. J. Munro, Nature 519, 439 (2015). and S. Glancy, Phys. Rev. A 68, 042319 (2003). [14] M. Carlesso, A. Bassi, M. Paternostro, and H. Ulbricht, [4] M. Mirrahimi, Z. Leghtas, V. V. Albert, S. Touzard, R. J. New Journal of Physics 21, 093052 (2019). Schoelkopf, L. Jiang, and M. H. Devoret, New Journal [15] S. Nimmrichter, K. Hornberger, and K. Hammerer, of Physics 16, 045014 (2014). Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 020405 (2014). [5] W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, G. J. Milburn, and S. L. [16] M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, Braunstein, Phys. Rev. A 66, 023819 (2002). Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 1391 (2014). [6] T. C. Ralph, Phys. Rev. A 65, 042313 (2002). [17] S. Hong, R. Riedinger, I. Marinković, A. Wallucks, S. G. [7] J. Huang, X. Qin, H. Zhong, Y. Ke, and C. Lee, Scientiﬁc Hofer, R. A. Norte, M. Aspelmeyer, and S. Gröblacher, Reports 5, 17894 (2015). Science 358, 203 (2017). [8] P. A. Knott, T. J. Proctor, A. J. Hayes, J. P. Cooling, [18] R. Riedinger, A. Wallucks, I. Marinković, C. Löschnauer, and J. A. Dunningham, Phys. Rev. A 93, 033859 (2016). M. Aspelmeyer, S. Hong, and S. Gröblacher, Nature 556, [9] K. Huang, H. Le Jeannic, J. Ruaudel, V. B. Verma, M. D. 473 (2018). Shaw, F. Marsili, S. W. Nam, E. Wu, H. Zeng, Y.-C. [19] F. Tebbenjohanns, M. Frimmer, V. Jain, D. Windey, and Jeong, R. Filip, O. Morin, and J. Laurat, Phys. Rev. L. Novotny, Physical Review Letters 124, 013603 (2020). Lett. 115, 023602 (2015). [20] U. Delić, M. Reisenbauer, K. Dare, D. Grass, V. Vuletić, [10] A. P. Lund, H. Jeong, T. C. Ralph, and M. S. Kim, N. Kiesel, and M. Aspelmeyer, Science 367, 892 (2020). Physical Review A 70, 020101 (2004). [21] I. Shomroni, L. Qiu, and T. J. Kippenberg, Phys. Rev. [11] J. Wenger, R. Tualle-Brouri, and P. Grangier, Physical A 101, 033812 (2020). 11

[22] H. Zhan, G. Li, and H. Tan, Phys. Rev. A 101, 063834 [47] J. Li and S. Gröblacher, arXiv e-prints (2020), (2020). arXiv:2007.09083 [quant-ph]. [23] D. Lachance-Quirion, Y. Tabuchi, A. Gloppe, K. Usami, [48] M. Dakna, T. Anhut, T. Opatrný, L. Knöll, and D.-G. and Y. Nakamura, Applied Physics Express 12, 070101 Welsch, Physical Review A 55, 3184 (1997). (2019). [49] A. Ourjoumtsev, R. Tualle-Brouri, J. Laurat, and [24] V. Cherepanov, I. Kolokolov, and V. L’vov, Physics Re- P. Grangier, Science 312, 83 (2006). ports 229, 81 (1993). [50] A. Kamra and W. Belzig, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 146601 [25] Ö. O. Soykal and M. E. Flatté, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, (2016). 077202 (2010). [51] B. R. Johnson, M. D. Reed, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, [26] X. Zhang, C.-L. Zou, L. Jiang, and H. X. Tang, Phys. L. S. Bishop, E. Ginossar, J. M. Gambetta, L. DiCarlo, Rev. Lett. 113, 156401 (2014). L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature [27] Y. Tabuchi, S. Ishino, T. Ishikawa, R. Yamazaki, K. Us- Physics 6, 663 (2010). ami, and Y. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 083603 [52] G. Nogues, A. Rauschenbeutel, S. Osnaghi, M. Brune, (2014). J. M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Nature 400, 239 (1999). [28] Y. Tabuchi, S. Ishino, A. Noguchi, T. Ishikawa, R. Ya- [53] L. Sun, A. Petrenko, Z. Leghtas, B. Vlastakis, G. Kirch- mazaki, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Comptes Rendus mair, K. M. Sliwa, A. Narla, M. Hatridge, S. Shankar, Physique 17, 729 (2016), quantum microwaves / Micro- J. Blumoff, L. Frunzio, M. Mirrahimi, M. H. Devoret, ondes quantiques. and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature 511, 444 (2014). [29] J. A. Haigh, A. Nunnenkamp, A. J. Ramsay, and A. J. [54] D. D. Stancil and A. Prabhakar, Spin waves: theory and Ferguson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 133602 (2016). applications (Springer, New York, 2009). [30] A. Osada, R. Hisatomi, A. Noguchi, Y. Tabuchi, R. Ya- [55] J. A. Osborn, Physical Review 67, 351 (1945). mazaki, K. Usami, M. Sadgrove, R. Yalla, M. Nomura, [56] T. Holstein and H. Primakoff, Phys. Rev. 58, 1098 and Y. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 223601 (2016). (1940). [31] X. Zhang, N. Zhu, C.-L. Zou, and H. X. Tang, Phys. [57] D. Walls and G. Milburn, Quantum Optics (Springer Rev. Lett. 117, 123605 (2016). Berlin Heidelberg, 2008). [32] S. Viola Kusminskiy, H. X. Tang, and F. Marquardt, [58] R. J. Glauber, Phys. Rev. 131, 2766 (1963). Phys. Rev. A 94, 033821 (2016). [59] J. Bourhill, N. Kostylev, M. Goryachev, D. L. Creedon, [33] X. Zhang, C.-L. Zou, L. Jiang, and H. X. Tang, Science and M. E. Tobar, Phys. Rev. B 93, 144420 (2016). Advances 2 (2016). [60] C. A. Potts and J. P. Davis, Applied Physics Letters 116, [34] C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, J. Gieseler, and O. Romero- 263503 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0015660. Isart, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 093602 (2020). [61] We note that the cat size seems to be non-zero when [35] B. Heinrich, Y. Tserkovnyak, G. Woltersdorf, A. Brataas, R ≈ 0, but this is merely an artifact of the definition R. Urban, and G. E. W. Bauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, which is irrelevant for rcat ∼ 5. 187601 (2003). [62] R. Jozsa, Journal of Modern Optics 41, 2315 (1994). [36] Y. Li, W. Cao, V. P. Amin, Z. Zhang, J. Gibbons, J. Skle- [63] A. Uhlmann, Reports on Mathematical Physics 9, 273 nar, J. Pearson, P. M. Haney, M. D. Stiles, W. E. Bailey, (1976). V. Novosad, A. Hoffmann, and W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. [64] P. Andrich, C. F. de las Casas, X. Liu, H. L. Bretscher, Lett. 124, 117202 (2020). J. R. Berman, F. J. Heremans, P. F. Nealey, and D. D. [37] G. Woltersdorf, O. Mosendz, B. Heinrich, and C. H. Awschalom, npj Quantum Information 3, 28 (2017). Back, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 246603 (2007). [65] D. I. Schuster, A. A. Houck, J. A. Schreier, A. Wallraff, [38] R. Hisatomi, A. Osada, Y. Tabuchi, T. Ishikawa, J. M. Gambetta, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, J. Majer, B. John- A. Noguchi, R. Yamazaki, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, son, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. B 93, 174427 (2016). Nature 445, 515 (2007). [39] N. Zhu, X. Zhang, X. Han, C.-L. Zou, C. Zhong, C.-H. [66] S. Klingler, H. Maier-Flaig, C. Dubs, O. Surzhenko, Wang, L. Jiang, and H. X. Tang, arXiv e-prints (2020), R. Gross, H. Huebl, S. T. B. Goennenwein, and arXiv:2005.06429 [cond-mat.mes-hall]. M. Weiler, Applied Physics Letters 110, 092409 (2017), [40] S. O. Demokritov, V. E. Demidov, O. Dzyapko, G. A. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4977423. Melkov, A. A. Serga, B. Hillebrands, and A. N. Slavin, [67] J. Dereziński, Journal of Mathematical Physics 58, Nature 443, 430 (2006). 121101 (2017). [41] S. M. Rezende, Phys. Rev. B 79, 174411 (2009). [68] J. Colpa, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Appli- [42] D. Lachance-Quirion, Y. Tabuchi, S. Ishino, A. Noguchi, cations 93, 327 (1978). T. Ishikawa, R. Yamazaki, and Y. Nakamura, Science [69] S. L. Braunstein, Physical Review A 71, 055801 (2005). Advances 3, e1603150 (2017). [70] C. Navarrete-Benlloch, An Introduction to the Formal- [43] D. Lachance-Quirion, S. P. Wolski, Y. Tabuchi, S. Kono, ism of Quantum Information with Continuous Variables, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Science 367, 425 (2020). 2053-2571 (Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2015). [44] V. A. S. V. Bittencourt, V. Feulner, and S. V. Kusmin- [71] A. Royer, Physical Review A 15, 449 (1977). skiy, Phys. Rev. A 100, 013810 (2019). [72] W. P. Schleich, Quantum Optics in Phase Space [45] M. Elyasi, Y. M. Blanter, and G. E. W. Bauer, Physical (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2005) Chap. 3, pp. 67–98, Review B 101, 054402 (2020). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/3527602976.ch3. [46] J. Li, S.-Y. Zhu, and G. S. Agarwal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 203601 (2018).