Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Long-distance distribution of atom-photon entanglement at telecom wavelength

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 The authors report a single rubidium-87 atom entangled with a 1522 nm telecom photon after 20 km of fiber, with fidelity at least 78.5%.

desk verdict Genuine experimental milestone with a soft spot: the ≥78.5% fidelity claim rests on an unverified isotropy assumption; the core entanglement result stands. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01006 v1 pith:SANPSBX6 submitted 2019-09-03 quant-ph

Tim van Leent , Matthias Bock , Robert Garthoff , Kai Redeker , Wei Zhang , Tobias Bauer , Wenjamin Rosenfeld , Christoph Becher
show 1 more author
Harald Weinfurter
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.-a42.50.Ex42.65.Lm
keywords atom-photonentanglementquantumfrequencyconversiontelecomwavelengthrubidium-87repeatermemoryCHSHBelltestlong-distancefiber
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

The paper aims to show that entanglement between a single atom, acting as a quantum memory, and a photon can survive a shift from the atom's native 780 nm emission to the low-loss telecom band and a 20 km fiber journey, making single-atom nodes practical for fiber-based quantum networks. The central experimental achievement is a polarization-preserving frequency converter with 57% external efficiency that sends the photon to 1522 nm while adding only a few percent of fidelity loss. Across four configurations, the atom–photon fidelity ranges from about 78.5% to 89.7%, with CHSH Bell violations in every case. If the result stands, quantum repeater links between distant atomic memories become a concrete next step.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a polarization-preserving quantum frequency converter in a Sagnac configuration: a PPLN waveguide mixes 780 nm photons with a 1600 nm pump to produce 1522 nm telecom photons by difference-frequency generation, with both polarization components traversing the same interferometer so that conversion efficiencies are equalized at 57% external device efficiency. It is fed by the established single-atom entanglement source, the spontaneous decay of 87Rb producing $|\Psi\rangle = (|\downarrow\rangle_z|L\rangle + |\uparrow\rangle_z|R\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$, and it is followed by a fiber link of up to 20 km and a polarization analyzer. The fidelity estimate is carried by Eq. (2), $F \geqslant 1/6 + (5/6)\bar{V}$, which turns measured average visibilities into a lower bound under the assumption of isotropic dephasing to white noise in the 2x3 atom-photon state space.

What would settle it

Measure the visibility in the third photonic basis, for example circular left/right, and perform full state tomography; if the third-basis visibility is much lower than the diagonal/anti-diagonal value used in the estimate, or if the reconstructed noise is structured rather than white, Eq. (2)'s lower bound is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that a single trapped 87Rb atom can remain entangled with a photon after the photon has been converted from 780 nm to the telecom S-band at 1522 nm and transmitted through 20 km of standard optical fiber. In the 20 km run, correlations measured in two bases give an average visibility of 74.2±1.0%, a fidelity lower bound of 78.5±0.9%, and a CHSH value S=2.12±0.05, violating the local bound of 2. Comparing converted and unconverted runs at comparable noise, the quantum frequency conversion itself costs only about 3% fidelity, with atomic-state decoherence being the dominant loss. The authors further argue that with an improved trap geometry and realistic detection upgrades, atom-atom entanglement with fidelity above 80% is feasible over distances up to 100 km.

Load-bearing premise

The reported fidelity bound assumes that all imperfections add isotropic white noise to the atom–photon state, but the measured visibilities differ strongly between bases, so if the noise is not isotropic the ≥78.5% bound does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single trapped neutral atom can now serve as a telecom-wavelength network node, not only a visible-wavelength one.
  • The 57% external conversion efficiency and roughly 3% conversion-induced fidelity loss mean quantum frequency conversion is no longer the dominant obstacle in such links.
  • Atom-atom entanglement swapping over 20 km is projected at about 65% fidelity with the current trap, rising to about 81% with an improved standing-wave trap.
  • With improved traps, atom-atom entanglement above 80% fidelity is expected over distances up to 100 km, limited at long range by detector dark counts.
  • The CHSH violations in all four configurations certify that the distributed atom–photon state is genuinely entangled rather than classically correlated.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same Sagnac converter is deployed at both ends and fed by one stabilized master laser, the converted photons should be indistinguishable enough for a telecom-wavelength Bell-state measurement, enabling a fully fiber-based atom-atom link.
  • The strong basis-dependence of the measured visibilities suggests the white-noise assumption in Eq. (2) is testable and may be too optimistic; full tomographic reconstruction in all three photonic bases would tighten or correct the fidelity claim.
  • Because the converter preserves polarization and adds little noise, the same interface could in principle be applied to other single-photon memories emitting near 780 nm, not only neutral rubidium.
  • The 1522 nm S-band choice is a compromise; moving closer to the C-band around 1550 nm would further reduce fiber loss if the noise penalty from the shorter pump–signal detuning can be managed.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports the generation and observation of entanglement between a single Rb-87 atom and a telecom-wavelength (1522 nm) photon after quantum frequency conversion from 780 nm, with distribution over up to 20 km of optical fiber. The authors measure atom-photon correlations in the H/V and D/A photonic bases, extract visibilities, and use Eq. (2) to convert the average visibility into a lower bound on the entanglement fidelity. For the 20 km configuration they report F ≥ 78.5±0.9% and a CHSH parameter S = 2.12±0.05, together with an external conversion efficiency of 57%. The paper also presents a comparison across fiber lengths and with/without frequency conversion, plus an extrapolation to future atom-atom entanglement distribution.

Significance. If the reported fidelity bound is valid, the experiment is a significant milestone: it demonstrates a single-atom quantum memory entangled with a low-loss telecom photon over a distance relevant to quantum repeater links, and the 57% external device conversion efficiency is a record. The work includes a detailed supplement on the frequency-conversion system, spectral filtering, noise modeling, and atomic readout, which strengthens the experimental account. The qualitative claim of entanglement at telecom wavelengths over 20 km is independently supported by the visibility contrasts and by the CHSH violation, so the central experimental achievement is not in question. The quantitative fidelity claim, however, depends on modeling assumptions that need to be verified or stated more carefully.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results, Eq. (2) and Fig. 3(b)] The reported fidelity lower bound F ≥ 1/6 + 5/6 V̄ is derived assuming isotropic dephasing toward white noise in the 2×3 atom-photon state space, and it further assumes that the visibility in the unmeasured R/L photonic basis equals the measured D/A visibility. Neither assumption is verified by the data. The measured visibilities are strongly anisotropic — for configuration A, V = 89.6±1.1% versus A = 68.6±4.1% — and the text attributes this to position-dependent dephasing, which is a coherence-specific mechanism rather than white-noise admixture. If the noise instead has the form ρ = p|Ψ⟩⟨Ψ| + (1−p)|0,0⟩⟨0,0|⊗I/2, then V̄ = p while the true fidelity is p, so Eq. (2) overestimates F by (1−p)/6 ≈ 4.3 percentage points for p = 0.742, which is substantially larger than the quoted 0.9% uncertainty. The abstract's 'fidelity ≥78.5%' is therefore not a rigorous lower bound unless the isotropy and third-basis assumptions are tested. Please either add a direct R/L visibility measurement and a noise-model test, or rephrase the quantitative fidelity claim to reflect the model dependence.
  2. [Table I and Results (C vs D comparison)] The comparison between configurations C and D, from which the authors infer that the QFC contributes only about 3% fidelity loss, inherits the unverified assumptions of Eq. (2) because the inferred loss is based on fidelity values obtained from that equation. Moreover, the numerical statement is inconsistent: Table I lists 88.0±0.8% for C and 89.7±0.7% for D, while the text later cites D as 89.5±0.5%; the actual Table I difference is 1.7±1.1 percentage points, not the stated 3%. Please reconcile these numbers and specify which entries in the loss budget are directly measured versus derived from the model.
  3. [Results, loss budget text] The sentence 'contributions to the loss in fidelity are the imperfect atomic state readout (3%), atomic state decoherence (11%), SNR in the photon detection (4%), and experimental drifts (3%)' is presented without a derivation or error analysis. Since these percentages are used to support the claim that the result is 'mainly limited by decoherence of the atomic state', please provide the quantitative procedure by which each contribution is obtained, or label the numbers as estimates with the assumptions used.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and main text] The LaTeX artifact 'greaterorequalslant' appears in the abstract and in Section Results; please use the standard ≥ symbol.
  2. [Table I and main text] The D-configuration fidelity is given as 89.7±0.7% in Table I and as 89.5±0.5% in the main text; please harmonize the two values.
  3. [Eq. (2)] Equation (2) is central to the quantitative claim but its derivation is not shown. A short derivation in the main text or the supplement would help readers understand the exact meaning of 'isotropic dephasing towards white noise in the 2x3 state space' and how the 1/6 offset arises.
  4. [Fig. 3(b)] The caption and text state that sinusoidal fits give the visibilities, but it is not clear whether the four curves were fitted independently or with shared parameters; please specify the fitting procedure and whether the quoted uncertainties include systematic effects from the atomic analysis-angle calibration.
  5. [References] Reference [35] is listed as 'To be published'; if it is a thesis or preprint, please provide a complete citation or a publicly available version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the entanglement fidelity and CHSH results are direct measurements; the isotropy assumption behind Eq. (2) is a correctness concern, not a circular one.

full rationale

The central claim — atom-photon entanglement at telecom wavelength — rests on directly measured atom-photon correlations (Fig. 3b, Table I) and on CHSH Bell parameters, not on a fitted model. Visibilities are fit from raw correlation data, and the fidelity is then computed via the stated white-noise bound F ≥ 1/6 + 5/6 V̄ (Eq. 2). The assumptions that dephasing is isotropic and that the unmeasured R/L visibility equals the D/A visibility are untested modeling assumptions; they affect the validity of the quoted lower bound, but they do not make the derivation circular, because the fidelity is not defined in terms of those assumptions and is not fitted to reproduce them. The Supplemental Material's noise model fits α_ASR and scales β to match a measured SNR, but this enters only the noise characterization and the expected SNR, not the entanglement fidelity. Self-citations (e.g., [3], [20], [9]) are used for background scheme, readout methods, and an extrapolated atom-atom outlook; they are not the load-bearing evidence for the measured entanglement, which is self-contained against raw correlation and Bell data. The CHSH violation and the visibility contrasts independently support the qualitative entanglement claim. The noted isotropy issue is a correctness risk, which falls outside the definition of circularity used here.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central fidelity number rests on two ad hoc statistical assumptions, isotropic dephasing and third-basis visibility equality, plus a fair-sampling assumption for the photon acceptance window. The SNR model in the supplement introduces fitted parameters, but they do not enter the entanglement claim. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • beta (SNR scale factor) = adjusted to match measured SNR 32.3
    Supplemental Eq. (S3); scaling factor used to model SNR versus pump power, matched to one experimental data point.
  • alpha_ASR (anti-Stokes Raman noise coefficient) = not stated in text
    Supplemental Eq. (S2); sole free parameter in the noise-rate fit to data in Fig. S4.
  • eta_nor (normalized conversion efficiency) = 1.97 1/(W*m^2)
    Supplemental Eq. (S1); fitted from pump-power dependent internal efficiency data.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The dephasing of the atom-photon state is isotropic, reducing it toward white noise in the 2x3 spin-1 atom plus photonic-qubit space.
    Used in Eq. (2) to convert the measured average visibility V_bar into the reported fidelity lower bound F >= 1/6 + 5/6 V_bar; no independent evidence for isotropy is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The visibility in the unmeasured third photonic basis equals the measured D/A visibility.
    Stated in Results when estimating average visibility; needed to compute fidelity because only H/V and D/A bases were measured.
  • domain assumption The atomic readout by state-selective ionization is a projective measurement onto the dark state, and population in |F=1,mF=0> is always ionized.
    Supplemental Sec. II; standard atomic physics of the Rb-87 level scheme, but the state-selectivity is not independently characterized in this paper.
  • domain assumption Photon detection within the 50 ns acceptance window is a fair sample of the emitted entangled photons.
    Results and Fig. 3(a); the hardwired window accepts about 2/3 of converted photons, assuming no correlation between acceptance and photon polarization or atomic state.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Long-distance distribution of atom-photon entanglement at telecom wavelength." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SANPSBX6

@misc{pith2026190901006,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Long-distance distribution of atom-photon entanglement at telecom wavelength},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SANPSBX6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01006}
}
abstract

Entanglement between stationary quantum memories and photonic channels is the essential resource for future quantum networks. Together with entanglement distillation it will enable for efficient distribution of quantum states. Here we report on the generation and observation of entanglement between a Rb-87 atom and a photon at telecom wavelength over 20 km optical fiber. For this purpose, we use polarization-preserving quantum frequency conversion to transform the wavelength of a photon entangled with the atomic spin state from 780 nm to the telecom S-band at 1522 nm. We achieve an unprecedented external device conversion efficiency of 57% and observe an entanglement fidelity between the atom and telecom photon of $\geqslant$78.5$\pm$0.9% over 20 km optical fiber, mainly limited by decoherence of the atomic state. This result is an important milestone on the road to distribute quantum information on a large scale.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01006 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Briegel, W

    H.-J. Briegel, W. D¨ ur, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Physical Review Letters 81, 5932 (1998)

    1998

  2. [2]

    H. J. Kimble, Nature 453, 1023 (2008)

    2008

  3. [3]

    J. Volz, M. Weber, D. Schlenk, W. Rosenfeld, J. Vrana, K. Saucke, C. Kurtsiefer, and H. Weinfurter, Physical Review Letters 96, 030404 (2006)

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    Ritter, C

    S. Ritter, C. N¨ olleke, C. Hahn, A. Reiserer, A. Neuzner, M. Uphoff, M. M¨ ucke, E. Figueroa, J. Bochmann, and G. Rempe, Nature 484, 195 (2012)

    2012

  5. [5]

    Lukin, S

    M. Lukin, S. Yelin, and M. Fleischhauer, Physical Re- view Letters 84, 4232 (2000)

    work page 2000

  6. [6]

    Kuzmich, W

    A. Kuzmich, W. Bowen, A. Boozer, A. Boca, C. Chou, L.-M. Duan, and H. Kimble, Nature 423, 731 (2003)

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    Sangouard, C

    N. Sangouard, C. Simon, H. De Riedmatten, and N. Gisin, Reviews of Modern Physics 83, 33 (2011)

    2011

  8. [8]

    Blinov, D

    B. Blinov, D. Moehring, L.-M. Duan, and C. Monroe, Nature 428, 153 (2004)

    work page 2004

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Duan and C

    L.-M. Duan and C. Monroe, Reviews of Modern Physics 82, 1209 (2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

    Kurtsiefer, S

    C. Kurtsiefer, S. Mayer, P. Zarda, and H. Weinfurter, Physical Review Letters 85, 290 (2000)

    2000

  3. [11]

    N. Kalb, A. A. Reiserer, P. C. Humphreys, J. J. Baker- mans, S. J. Kamerling, N. H. Nickerson, S. C. Benjamin, D. J. Twitchen, M. Markham, and R. Hanson, Science 356, 928 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Santori, D

    C. Santori, D. Fattal, J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, G. S. Solomon, and Y. Yamamoto, Nature 419, 594 (2002)

    2002

  5. [13]

    Childress, J

    L. Childress, J. Taylor, A. S. Sørensen, and M. D. Lukin, Physical Review A 72, 052330 (2005)

    2005

  6. [14]

    Kutluer, M

    K. Kutluer, M. Mazzera, and H. de Riedmatten, Physical Review Letters 118, 210502 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    Laplane, P

    C. Laplane, P. Jobez, J. Etesse, N. Gisin, and M. Afzelius, Physical Review Letters118, 210501 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Welte, B

    S. Welte, B. Hacker, S. Daiss, S. Ritter, and G. Rempe, Physical Review X 8, 011018 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Saffman, T

    M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, and K. Mølmer, Reviews of Modern Physics 82, 2313 (2010)

    2010

  10. [18]

    T. Wilk, A. Ga¨ etan, C. Evellin, J. Wolters, Y. Miroshny- chenko, P. Grangier, and A. Browaeys, Physical Review Letters 104, 010502 (2010)

    2010

  11. [19]

    K¨ orber, O

    M. K¨ orber, O. Morin, S. Langenfeld, A. Neuzner, S. Rit- ter, and G. Rempe, Nature Photonics 12, 18 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Hofmann, M

    J. Hofmann, M. Krug, N. Ortegel, L. G´ erard, M. We- ber, W. Rosenfeld, and H. Weinfurter, Science 337, 72 (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    Rosenfeld, D

    W. Rosenfeld, D. Burchardt, R. Garthoff, K. Redeker, N. Ortegel, M. Rau, and H. Weinfurter, Physical Review Letters 119, 010402 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Endres, H

    M. Endres, H. Bernien, A. Keesling, H. Levine, E. R. Anschuetz, A. Krajenbrink, C. Senko, V. Vuletic, M. Greiner, and M. D. Lukin, Science 354, 1024 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    Barredo, S

    D. Barredo, S. De L´ es´ eleuc, V. Lienhard, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Science 354, 1021 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    D. O. de Mello, D. Sch¨ affner, J. Werkmann, T. Preuschoff, L. Kohfahl, M. Schlosser, and G. Birkl, Physical Review Letters 122, 203601 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    Zaske, A

    S. Zaske, A. Lenhard, C. A. Keßler, J. Kettler, C. Hepp, 6 C. Arend, R. Albrecht, W.-M. Schulz, M. Jetter, P. Mich- ler, et al. , Physical Review Letters 109, 147404 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    S. Ates, I. Agha, A. Gulinatti, I. Rech, M. T. Rakher, A. Badolato, and K. Srinivasan, Physical Review Letters 109, 147405 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    De Greve, L

    K. De Greve, L. Yu, P. L. McMahon, J. S. Pelc, C. M. Natarajan, N. Y. Kim, E. Abe, S. Maier, C. Schneider, M. Kamp, et al. , Nature 491, 421 (2012)

    2012

  20. [28]

    Ikuta, Y

    R. Ikuta, Y. Kusaka, T. Kitano, H. Kato, T. Yamamoto, M. Koashi, and N. Imoto, Nature Communications 2, 537 (2011)

    2011

  21. [29]

    Dudin, A

    Y. Dudin, A. Radnaev, R. Zhao, J. Blumoff, T. Kennedy, and A. Kuzmich, Physical Review Letters 105, 260502 (2010)

    2010

  22. [30]

    Ikuta, T

    R. Ikuta, T. Kobayashi, T. Kawakami, S. Miki, M. Yabuno, T. Yamashita, H. Terai, M. Koashi, T. Mukai, T. Yamamoto, et al., Nature Communications 9, 1997 (2018)

    2018

  23. [33]

    Krutyanskiy, M

    V. Krutyanskiy, M. Meraner, J. Schupp, V. Krcmarsky, H. Hainzer, and B. Lanyon, npj Quantum Information 5, 27 (2019)

    2019

  24. [34]

    Tchebotareva, S

    A. Tchebotareva, S. L. N. Hermans, P. C. Humphreys, D. Voigt, P. J. Harmsma, L. K. Cheng, A. L. Verlaan, N. Dijkhuizen, W. de Jong, A. Dr´ eau, and R. Hanson, Physical Review Letters 123, 063601 (2019)

    2019

  25. [36]

    A rigorous test of bells inequality and quantum teleportation employing single atoms,

    D. Burchardt, “A rigorous test of bells inequality and quantum teleportation employing single atoms,” PhD thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit¨ at M¨ unchen (2017)

    2017

  26. [38]

    See Supplemental Material for further details about the quantum frequency converter and atomic state readout

  27. [39]

    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Physical Review Letters 23, 880 (1969). Supplemental Material for: Long-distance distribution of atom-photon entanglement at telecom wavelength Tim van Leent, 1, 2,∗ Matthias Bock, 3,∗ Robert Garthoff, 1, 2,∗ Kai Redeker, ...

    1969 arXiv

  28. [40]

    Rosenfeld, D

    W. Rosenfeld, D. Burchardt, R. Garthoff, K. Redeker, N. Ortegel, M. Rau, and H. Weinfurter, Physical Review Letters 119, 010402 (2017). 8

    2017

  29. [41]

    Albrecht, P

    B. Albrecht, P. Farrera, X. Fernandez-Gonzalvo, M. Cristiani, and H. de Riedmatten, Nature Communications 5, 3376 (2014)

    2014

  30. [42]

    Ikuta, T

    R. Ikuta, T. Kobayashi, T. Kawakami, S. Miki, M. Yabuno, T. Yamashita, H. Terai, M. Koashi, T. Mukai, T. Yamamoto, and N. Imoto, Nature Communications 9, 1997 (2018)

    2018

  31. [43]

    Y. Yu, F. Ma, X.-Y. Luo, B. Jing, P.-F. Sun, R.-Z. Fang, C.-W. Yang, H. Liu, M.-Y. Zheng, X.-P. Xie, W.-J. Zhang, L.-X. You, Z. Wang, T.-Y. Chen, Q. Zhang, X.-H. Bao, and J.-W. Pan, http://arxiv.org/abs/1903.11284v1

    1903 arXiv

  32. [44]

    Rohde, M

    F. Rohde, M. Almendros, C. Schuck, J. Huwer, M. Hennrich, and J. Eschner, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 43, 115401 (2010)

    2010

  33. [45]

    Krutyanskiy, M

    V. Krutyanskiy, M. Meraner, J. Schupp, and B. P. Lanyon, Applied Physics B 123, 228 (2017)

    2017

  34. [46]

    Ramelow, A

    S. Ramelow, A. Fedrizzi, A. Poppe, N. K. Langford, and A. Zeilinger, Physical Review A 85, 013845 (2012)

    2012

  35. [47]

    Kaiser, P

    F. Kaiser, P. Vergyris, A. Martin, D. Aktas, M. P. D. Micheli, O. Alibart, and S. Tanzilli, http://arxiv.org/abs/1901.09826v2

    1901 arXiv

  36. [48]

    M. Bock, P. Eich, S. Kucera, M. Kreis, A. Lenhard, C. Becher, and J. Eschner, Nature Communications 9, 1998 (2018)

    2018

  37. [49]

    M. A. Albota, F. N. Wong, and J. H. Shapiro, JOSA B 23, 918 (2006)

    2006

  38. [50]

    Zaske, A

    S. Zaske, A. Lenhard, and C. Becher, Optics Express 19, 12825 (2011)

    2011

  39. [51]

    Maring, D

    N. Maring, D. Lago-Rivera, A. Lenhard, G. Heinze, and H. de Riedmatten, Optica 5, 507 (2018)

    2018

  40. [52]

    Ionization based state read out of a single 87rb atom,

    M. Krug, “Ionization based state read out of a single 87rb atom,” PhD thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit¨ at M¨ unchen (2017)

    2017

  41. [53]

    State readout of single rubidium-87 atoms for a loophole-free test of bells inequality,

    N. Ortegel, “State readout of single rubidium-87 atoms for a loophole-free test of bells inequality,” PhD thesis, Ludwig- Maximilians-Universit¨ at M¨ unchen (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

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