Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 63 references

Weak Gravitational Field Effects On Large-Scale Optical Interferometric Bell Tests

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A weak gravitational field can generate entangled photon pairs

desk verdict The central claim fails because the gravitational time delay the post-selection must resolve is ~10^-17 s at the proposed scale, far below photon coherence and detector jitter, though the derivations are clean and internally consistent. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08179 v2 pith:FUE367PU submitted 2019-08-22 quant-ph

M. Rivera-Tapia , A. Delgado , G. F. Rubilar This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords energy-timeentanglementFransoninterferometerHuggedgravitationaltimedelayCHSHinequalityfrequencydispersionweakfieldtwo-photoninterference
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper studies what happens to two-photon energy-time entanglement in Franson and Hugged interferometric arrays when the two arms of each interferometer sit at different heights in Earth's gravitational field. It claims that the gravitational time delay can do the work of the usual optical path difference: for a balanced array on an equipotential surface no post-selection is possible and no entangled state forms, but after rotating the array so that arms feel different potentials, the delay separates the path pairs and a maximally entangled state emerges. The paper then adds realistic frequency dispersion and derives that the CHSH Bell functional decays as a Gaussian in the interferometer's proper area, with a critical area beyond which no violation survives. If the calculation is right, kilometer-scale arrays with broadband sources can still violate the CHSH inequality, while much larger arrays would look classical.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the gravitational time delay $\Delta\tau_\gamma = L_2' g H / c^3$ acquired by a photon traversing an interferometer arm at height $H$ above its partner, together with the post-selection constraint that two-photon pairs along $(\gamma_1,\gamma_1')$ and $(\gamma_2,\gamma_2')$ arrive with the same delay. Combined with the balance condition $L_1' = L_2' + 2H$, the delay reduces the intra-interferometer time differences to the gravitational value, so the relative phase between the two post-selected amplitudes is $(\omega_1+\omega_2)\Delta\tau_\gamma$ plus local phases. The second piece of machinery is the Gaussian spectral average: since detectors do not resolve frequency, the cosine term is averaged over $\omega_1,\omega_2$, producing the visibility $V(\Delta\tau_\gamma) = \exp[-\tfrac14 \Delta\tau_\gamma^2(\sigma_1^2+\sigma_2^2)]$ and, at the optimal CHSH settings, the functional quoted in the core discovery.

What would settle it

Compute the Sagnac phase for the proposed proper area $A \approx 10^8$ m$^2$ at optical frequencies: it is hundreds of radians, far exceeding the gravitational phase $\Delta\tau_\gamma(\omega_1+\omega_2) \approx 0.09$ rad, so a terrestrial rotated array without rotation compensation would show no gravitational signature; equivalently, a coincidence window wider than $\Delta\tau_\gamma \approx 3\times10^{-17}$ s would erase the post-selection and reduce the state to a mixture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a weak gravitational field can replace the usual path-length difference in a Franson-type post-selection. Working to first order in the Newtonian potential and using the Schwarzschild metric in isotropic coordinates, the paper finds that the proper-time difference between the two arms of each balanced Mach-Zehnder interferometer is $\Delta\tau_\gamma = L_2' g H / c^3$. For a balanced, geometrically identical Franson array on an equipotential surface, all four path combinations have equal arrival times, so no post-selection can separate them; after a 90-degree rotation in the vertical, pairs $(\gamma_1,\gamma_2')$ and $(\gamma_2,\gamma_1')$ are separated by $\pm\Delta\tau_\gamma$, making the post-selection possible and producing the maximally entangled state. With Gaussian frequency distributions and frequency-insensitive detectors, the detection probability acquires an exponential visibility factor, and the CHSH functional becomes $\Sigma = 2\sqrt{2}\exp[-\tfrac14 \Delta\tau_\gamma^2(\sigma_1^2+\sigma_2^2)]\,|\cos(\Delta\tau_\gamma(\omega_1+\omega_2))|$, so violation is impossible for proper area $A = L_2' H$ beyond $A^* = \sqrt{\ln 4}\,(c^3/g)/\sqrt{\sigma_1^2+\sigma_2^2}$. The paper also shows that for a rotated Hugged array with $\omega_1=\omega_2$, or with suitably redefined local phases, the harmonic oscillation disappears and only the Gaussian decay remains.

Load-bearing premise

The claim stands on the post-selection resolving arrival-time differences of order $\Delta\tau_\gamma = L_2' g H / c^3 \approx 3\times10^{-17}$ s at the proposed 10-km scale, far below any existing single-photon timing resolution, while the static Schwarzschild metric used for the phase also neglects Earth's rotation, which would produce a much larger phase at the proposed interferometer areas.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A balanced Franson array that cannot entangle on an equipotential surface becomes a source of maximally entangled photons once rotated so its arms sit at different gravitational potentials.
  • With a broadband source, the CHSH violation is restricted to proper areas $A < A^* = \sqrt{\ln 4}\,(c^3/g)/\sqrt{\sigma_1^2+\sigma_2^2}$; beyond $A^*$ the state admits a classical description.
  • At the paper's sample scale $H = L_2' = 10\,\mathrm{km}$ with an ultra-broadband SPDC source, $\Sigma \approx 2.55$, so the predicted violation is comfortably above the classical bound of 2.
  • For a rotated Hugged array with equal photon frequencies, or with local phases redefined to absorb the gravitational delays, the CHSH functional loses its oscillation and decays purely exponentially with area.
  • The effect is at first order only in the temporal component of the metric and is independent of the post-Newtonian parameters $\gamma$ and $\beta$, so the paper stops short of calling it a genuine test of general relativity.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's static-Schwarzschild model omits Earth's rotation; at $A \approx 10^8\,\mathrm{m}^2$ the Sagnac phase for optical photons is hundreds of radians, dwarfing the gravitational phase $\Delta\tau_\gamma(\omega_1+\omega_2) \approx 0.09$ rad, so any terrestrial realization would need rotation compensation or a slowly rotating platform.
  • The post-selection that creates the entangled state requires distinguishing time differences of order $10^{-17}$ s at the proposed scale, far beyond single-photon detector jitter; the practical route would be frequency-domain (interferometric) post-selection rather than direct timing.
  • The exponential visibility loss parallels the clock-complementarity effect studied for single photons: a gravitational time dilation acting as which-path information. This suggests the formula $V = \exp[-\tfrac14\Delta\tau_\gamma^2(\sigma_1^2+\sigma_2^2)]$ can be read as a decoherence rate for energy-time entanglement, testable at smaller areas with narrowband sources.
  • The same machinery could extend to the rotating-mass metric, as the paper notes, or to satellite links where the gravitational potential difference is replaced by the orbital potential; those extensions would need to add Doppler and Sagnac terms before quantitative predictions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies Franson and Hugged interferometric arrays placed in a weak gravitational field, modeled by the static Schwarzschild metric in isotropic coordinates. It derives gravitational time delays for the optical paths, imposes balance conditions that make the two 'good' path pairs (γ1,γ'1) and (γ2,γ'2) indistinguishable, and constructs the post-selected two-photon state |Ψ⟩. The authors then compute two-photon detection probabilities and, for Gaussian frequency dispersion, obtain an exponentially damped cosine visibility. The central quantitative results are the CHSH functional Σ = 2√2 exp[-(1/4)Δτγ²(σ1²+σ2²)] |cos(Δτγ(ω1+ω2))| (Eq. 58) and the threshold proper area A* = √(ln 4)(c³/g)/√(σ1²+σ2²) beyond which CHSH violation is impossible. The paper also claims that a balanced, geometrically identical Franson array on an equipotential surface, once rotated so that arms experience different gravitational potentials, can post-select a maximally entangled state that would otherwise be separable.

Significance. If the post-selection step could be physically realized, the paper would provide a clean, internally consistent formalism connecting gravitational time dilation to energy-time entanglement, with explicit closed-form expressions for visibility and CHSH violation. The derivation is transparent and does not fit any data; the A* threshold follows directly from Eq. (58), and the gravitational delay formula is taken from independent treatments (Refs. [10,52]). The proposed effect is falsifiable in principle: the predicted visibility decay and the A* bound are specific and quantitative. However, the significance of the central claim is conditional on the realizability of the post-selection that defines |Ψ⟩; as discussed below, the required timing resolution is not stated and appears unattainable at the proposed scales.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4, Eqs. (30)–(31), (52), Fig. 6] The post-selection that produces the entangled state |Ψ⟩ in Eqs. (35)–(37) requires separating the two-photon arrival-time differences of the 'good' pairs (γ1,γ'1) and (γ2,γ'2) from those of the 'bad' pairs (γ1,γ'2) and (γ2,γ'1). According to Eqs. (30)–(31), the bad pairs differ from the good pairs by ±Δτγ = ±L2'gH/c³. At the scale advertised in Fig. 6 and Sec. 5 (H = L2' = 10 km), Δτγ ≈ 3.7×10^-17 s. This is an order of magnitude smaller than the coherence time 1/σ ≈ 5×10^-16 s of the ultra-broadband photons used in the same figure, and many orders of magnitude below any realistic single-photon detector jitter. A coincidence window that accepts the good pairs will therefore also accept the bad pairs, so the post-selection on which Eqs. (35)–(37) and the CHSH prediction (58) are based cannot be implemented. This is not a mere practical detector limitation: it is a failure of the distinguishability condition required by the paper's own post-selection logic. The manuscript nowhere states the required timing resolution, and for Earth-bound parameters the gravitational delay is far too small to be resolved.
  2. [§3.1, Eq. (7), and Sec. 5] The proposed experimental scale in Fig. 6 uses a proper area A = L2'H ≈ 10^8 m², but the static Schwarzschild metric (7) neglects Earth's rotation. For this area, the Sagnac phase is roughly 4πΩA/(λc) ≈ 4×10² rad for λ ≈ 800 nm, which is about three orders of magnitude larger than the gravitational phase Δτγω ≈ 0.2 rad quoted by the manuscript. The gravitational contribution would therefore be completely masked unless the Sagnac phase is actively compensated, and no such compensation is discussed. This omission matters because Sec. 5 explicitly argues that an experimental realization 'might be feasible with current technology'; a rotating Earth breaks the assumed static geometry.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title and Abstract] The name 'Shymony' in 'Clauser-Horne-Shymony-Holt' is a typo; the correct spelling is 'Shimony'.
  2. [Eq. (62)] The prefactor '2√2 4' appears garbled; it should presumably be 2√2/4 (or a similarly explicit fraction). Please check and correct.
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption says the plotted probability follows Eq. (50), while the text refers to Eq. (53) for the same quantity; clarify which equation is actually used in the figure.
  4. [§3.2, Eqs. (19)–(24)] The notation Δτab is used for differences of proper times without a single explicit definition (e.g., Δτab ≡ Δτa − Δτb). Since signs matter for Eqs. (28)–(31), defining the convention once would prevent sign ambiguities.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the gravitational delay, post-selected state, visibility, and CHSH bound are derived from the stated metric and post-selection rules without fitted inputs or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. The paper computes proper-time intervals from the Schwarzschild metric (Eq. (7)), obtains the gravitational delay Δτγ = L2'gH/c^3 in Eqs. (15)-(26), and cites independent derivations [10,52] for the same standard gravitational time delay. Conditions (20)-(25) are explicit design constraints on proper lengths; they define the balanced Franson/Hugged configuration rather than inserting the target entangled state by definition. The post-selected two-photon state in Eqs. (35)-(37) follows the standard Franson post-selection logic, and the detection probabilities in Eqs. (49)-(54) are obtained by explicit operator transformations in Appendix B plus a Gaussian spectral average. The CHSH functional in Eq. (58), including the exponential visibility factor and the A* = sqrt(ln 4)(c^3/g)/sqrt(σ1^2+σ2^2) bound, is derived algebraically from the Gaussian integral and the standard phase choice; no parameter is fitted to the quoted Σ≈2.55. The only author self-citations (Refs [4,5]) appear in introductory remarks about Gödel-metric Sagnac interferometry and are not load-bearing. The paper even states that the result 'cannot be interpreted as a genuine test of General Relativity,' so the derivation is not being used to smuggle in a conclusion. Concerns about resolving Δτγ ~ 10^-17 s against photon coherence and detector jitter are experimental feasibility or correctness objections, not circularity, and under the hard rules they do not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central formulas follow from standard linearized gravity and quantum-optical interferometry, with no fitted parameters. The main unstated inputs are the static-field approximation, the Gaussian spectral model, and ideal timing resolution for post-selection. The last of these is the fragile assumption for the balanced rotated configurations.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Schwarzschild metric in isotropic coordinates to first order in φ/c^2, with Newtonian potential φ(z) = gz + const.
    Used in Sec. 3.1 to compute proper times and phase shifts; standard linearized GR background.
  • standard math Geometric-optics phase rule Δφ = ω∞ Δt for stationary spacetimes.
    Invoked before Eq. (8) via Refs [49, 51] to relate coordinate time to phase.
  • domain assumption Two-photon source spectral function factorizes as f(ω1,ω2) = f1(ω1)f2(ω2) with identical Gaussian distributions of widths σ1, σ2.
    Adopted in Sec. 4 to evaluate visibility and CHSH; not derived from SPDC physics.
  • domain assumption Static, non-rotating weak gravitational field; Earth rotation, tides, and Lense-Thirring terms are neglected.
    The metric (7) contains only the Newtonian potential; the paper proposes terrestrial scales where Sagnac effects are not addressed.
  • domain assumption Ideal post-selection can distinguish events separated by the gravitational time delay Δτγ.
    Needed to project the balanced rotated configurations onto the entangled state (Eq. 2); no detector timing model is given.
  • domain assumption The source emits a pure two-photon state and the interferometers preserve purity.
    Assumed in Eq. (34) and the state transformations in Appendix B.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Weak Gravitational Field Effects On Large-Scale Optical Interferometric Bell Tests." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FUE367PU

@misc{pith2026190808179,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Weak Gravitational Field Effects On Large-Scale Optical Interferometric Bell Tests},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FUE367PU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08179}
}
read the original abstract

The technological refinement of experimental techniques has recently allowed the generation of two-photon polarization-entangled states at low Earth orbit, which has been subsequently applied to quantum communications. This achievement paves the way to study the interplay between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics in new setups. Here, we study the generation of two-photon energy-time entangled states via large scale Franson and Hugged interferometric arrays in the presence of a weak gravitational field. We show that for certain configurations of the arrays, an entangled state emerges as a consequence of the gravitational time delay. We also show that the aforementioned arrays generate entanglement and violate the Clauser-Horne-Shymony-Holt inequality under suitable conditions even in the presence of frequency dispersion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08179 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Franson interferometric array. A light source concatenates two Mach￾Zehnder interferometers. Light source paths γ1 and γ 0 1 are located at a gravitational potential φ(R). The horizontal segments of paths γ2 and γ 0 2 are placed at a gravitational potential φ(R + h). L1 and L 0 1 indicate the proper length of the horizontal paths γ1 and γ 0 1 , respectively. L2 and L 0 2 indicate the proper length of the horizontal … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Hugged interferometric array. A light source is placed on a segment belonging to two Mach-Zehnder interferometers. Light source and paths γ1 and γ 0 1 are located at a gravitational potential φ(R + h). The horizontal segments of paths γ2 and γ 0 2 are placed at a gravitational potential φ(R + 2h) and φ(R), respectively. L1 and L 0 1 indicate the proper length of the horizontal paths γ1 and γ 0 1 , respectively. L2 a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Elapsed time detection probability p+,+, according to Eq. (50) as a function of the proper area A = L 0 2H, and visibility V (∆τγ) = exp −∆τ 2 γ (σ 2 1 + σ 2 2 )/4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Value of the CHSH functional Σ according Eq. (58) for balanced Franson and Hugged interferometric arrays under condition Eq. (20), as a function of the proper area A = L 0 2H and the wave packet bandwidth δλ. We used (α, β, α0 , β0 ) = (π/4, 0, −π/4, −π/2), and λ1 = 80…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Value of Σ for a balanced Hugged interferometric array as a function of the proper area A = L 0 2H, elapsed proper time ∆τγ = L 0 2 gH/c3 , and visibility V (∆τγ) = exp −∆τ 2 γ (σ 2 1 + σ 2 2 )/4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Value of Σ for balanced Franson and Hugged interferometric arrays under condition Eq. (20) as a function of the proper length L 0 2 and proper height H, according to Eq. (58), considering A = L 0 2H. We have chosen (α, β, α0 , β0 ) = (π/4, 0, −π/4, −π/2), λ1 = 806 nm, …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Elapsed time detection probability p+,+ and Σ as a function of the proper area A = L 0 2H, with visibility V (∆τγ) = exp −∆τ 2 γ (σ 2 1 + σ 2 2 )/4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ludlow A, Boyd M M, Ye J, Peik E and Schmidt P O 2015 Rev. Mod. Phys. 87 637

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Kaplan E D 1996 Understanding GPS, Principles and Applications (Boston: Artech House)

    work page 1996

  3. [3]

    Overhauser A W and Colella R 1974 Phys. Rev. Lett. 33 1237; R. Colella, Overhauser A W and Werner S A 1975 Phys. Rev. Lett. 34 1472

    work page 1974

  4. [4]

    Delgado A, Schleich W P and S¨ ussmann G 2002New J. Phys. 4 37.1

    work page

  5. [5]

    Kajari E, Walser R, Schleich W P and Delgado A 2004 Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 36 2289

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    Vallone G, Dequal D, Tomasin M, Vedovato F, Schiavon M, Luceri V, Bianco G and Villoresi P 2016 Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 253601

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    2017 Sci

    Vedovato F et al. 2017 Sci. Adv. 3 e1701180 Weak Gravitational Field Effects On Large-Scale Optical Interferometric Bell Tests 30

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Terno D R, Vedovato F, Schiavon M, Smith A R H, Magnani P, Vallone G and Villoresi P 2019 arXiv:1811.04835v2

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Zych M, Costa F, Pikovski I and Brukner ˇC 2011 Nat. Commun. 2 505

    2011

  2. [10]

    Quantum Grav

    Zych M, Costa F, Pikovski I, Ralph T C and Brukner ˇC 2012 Class. Quantum Grav. 29 224010

    2012

  3. [11]

    2017 EPJ Quantum Technol

    Pallister S et al. 2017 EPJ Quantum Technol. 4 2

    2017

  4. [12]

    Pikovski I, Zych M, Costa F and Brukner ˇC 2015 Nat. Phys. 11 668

    2015

  5. [13]

    Pfennigbauer M et al. 2005 J. Opt. Netw. 4 549-560

    2005

  6. [14]

    2017 Science 356 6343

    Yin J et al. 2017 Science 356 6343

    2017

  7. [15]

    2018 Phys

    Liao S K et al. 2018 Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 030501

    2018

  8. [16]

    2017 Nature 549 70-73

    Ren J G et al. 2017 Nature 549 70-73

    2017

  9. [17]

    2017 Nature 549 43-47

    Liao S K et al. 2017 Nature 549 43-47

    2017

  10. [18]

    2017 EPJ Quantum Technol

    Oi D K L et al. 2017 EPJ Quantum Technol. 4 6

    2017

  11. [19]

    Kerstel E, Gardelein A, Barthelemy M, The GSUG team, Fink M, Joshi S K and Ursin R 2018 EPJ Quantum Technol. 5 6

    2018

  12. [20]

    2019 Quantum Sci

    Calderato L et al. 2019 Quantum Sci. Technol. 4 015012

    2019

  13. [21]

    2019 Science 366 6461

    Xu P et al. 2019 Science 366 6461

    2019

  14. [22]

    Ser.: Earth Environ

    Feng D 2019 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 237 032027

    2019

  15. [23]

    Franson J D 1989 Phys. Rev. Lett. 62 2205

    1989

  16. [24]

    Cabello A, Rossi A, Vallone G, De Martini F and Mataloni P 2009 Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 040401

    2009

  17. [25]

    Friberg S, Hong C K and Mandel L 1985 Phys. Rev. Lett. 54 2011

    1985

  18. [26]

    Hong C K and Mandel L 1985 Phys. Rev. A 31 2409

    1985

  19. [27]

    Hong C K and Mandel L 1986 Phys. Rev. Lett. 569 58

    1986

  20. [28]

    Ghosh R and Mandel L 1987 Phys. Rev. Lett. 59 1903

    1987

  21. [29]

    Ou Z Y 1988 Phys. Rev. Lett. 61 54

    1988

  22. [30]

    Aerts S, Kwiat P, Larsson J A and ˙Zukowski M 1999 Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 2872

    1999

  23. [31]

    Lima G, Vallone G, Chiuri A, Cabello A and Mataloni P 2010 Phys. Rev. A 81 040101(R)

    2010

  24. [32]

    2013 Nat

    Cuevas A et al. 2013 Nat. Commun. 4, 2871

    2013

  25. [33]

    Vedovato F, Agnesi C, Tomasin M, Avesani M, Larsson J A , Valone G and Villoresi P 2018 Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 190401

    2018

  26. [34]

    Strekalov D V, Pittman T B, Sergienko A V, Shih Y H and Kwiat P G 1996 Phys. Rev. A 54, R1(R)

    1996

  27. [35]

    Ribordy G, Brendel J, Gautier J D, Gisin N and Zbinden H 2000 Phys. Rev. A 63 012309

    2000

  28. [36]

    2015 New J

    Zhong et al. 2015 New J. Phys. 17 022002

    2015

  29. [37]

    2019 Phys

    Ecker S et al. 2019 Phys. Rev. X 9 041042

    2019

  30. [38]

    Bell J S 1964 Physics Physique Fizika 1 195

    1964

  31. [39]

    Clauser J F, Horne M A, Shimony A and Holt R A 1969 Phys. Rev. Lett. 23 880

    1969

  32. [40]

    Freedman S J and Clauser J F 1972 Phys. Rev. Lett. 28 938

    1972

  33. [41]

    Aspect A, Grangier P and Roger G 1981 Phys. Rev. Lett. 47 460

    1981

  34. [42]

    Tittel W, Brendel J, Zbiden H and Gisin 1998 N Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 3563

    1998

  35. [43]

    Weihs G, Jennewein T, Simon C, Weinfurter H and Zeilinger A 1998 Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 5039

    1998

  36. [44]

    Horodecki R, Horodecki P, Horodecki M and Horodecki K 2009 Rev. Mod. Phys 81 865

    2009

  37. [45]

    Hensen B et. al. 2015 Nature 526 682-686

    2015

  38. [46]

    2018 Nature 557 212-218

    Abell´ an Cet al. 2018 Nature 557 212-218

    2018

  39. [47]

    2017 Phys

    Handsteiner J et al. 2017 Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 060401

    2017

  40. [48]

    2018 Phys

    Rauch D et al. 2018 Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 080403

    2018

  41. [49]

    Brodutch A, Gilchrist A, Guff T, Smith A R H and Terno D R 2015 Phys. Rev. D 91 064041

    2015

  42. [50]

    Will C M 2010 Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

    2010

  43. [51]

    Brodutch A, Demarie T F and Terno D R 2011 Phys. Rev. D. 84 104043

    2011

  44. [52]

    Chen S Y and Ralph T C 2019 Phys. Rev. A 99 023803

    2019

  45. [53]

    Lett 44 4638-4641 Weak Gravitational Field Effects On Large-Scale Optical Interferometric Bell Tests 31

    Vanselow A, Kaufmann P, Chrzanowski H M, and Ramelow S 2019 Opt. Lett 44 4638-4641 Weak Gravitational Field Effects On Large-Scale Optical Interferometric Bell Tests 31

    2019

  46. [54]

    Dvoyrin V V, Tarasov N and Turitsyn S K 2017 Optical Fiber Communication Conference paper W1F.3

    2017

  47. [55]

    Express 27 59315944

    Nakajima Y, Hata Y and Minoshima K 2019 Opt. Express 27 59315944

    2019

  48. [56]

    Gmachl C, Sivco D L, Colombelli R, Capasso F and Cho A Y 2002 Nature 415 883-887

    2002

  49. [57]

    Will C M 2006 Living Rev. Relativ. 9 3

    2006

  50. [58]

    2005 Phys

    Peng C Z et al. 2005 Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 150501

    2005

  51. [59]

    2012 Nature 488 182-188

    Yin J et al. 2012 Nature 488 182-188

    2012

  52. [60]

    2012 Class

    Rideout D et al. 2012 Class. Quantum Grav. 29 224011

    2012

  53. [61]

    Markiewicz M, Kaszlikowski D, Kurzy´ nski P and W´ ojcik A 2019npj Quantum information 5 5

  54. [62]

    Ou Z Y and Mandel L 1990 J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 7 2127

    1990

  55. [63]

    Kohlrus J, Bruschi D E, Louko J and Fuentes I 2017 EPJ Quantum Technol. 4 7

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.