Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 19 references

Experimental demonstration and modeling of near-infrared nonlinear third-order triple-photon generation stimulated over one mode

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports the first experimental demonstration of triple-photon generation in which only one of the three output modes is seeded, in a KTP crystal, and shows that the measured photon rates match a Heisenberg-picture model built on…

desk verdict A credible first demonstration of mono-stimulated TPG in the optical domain, but the paper's quantitative model validation rests on a free parameter and the 'first validation' claim should be softened or the parameter independently justified. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19348 v1 pith:BYBWMJ34 submitted 2024-12-26 quant-ph physics.optics

Julien Bertrand , Veronique Boutou , Corinne Felix , David Jegouso , Benoit Boulanger This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.optics
keywords triplephotongenerationthird-ordernonlinearopticsKTPcrystalmomentumoperatorHeisenbergrepresentationweak-couplingregimephasemismatchtelecomwavelength
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 reports the first experimental demonstration of triple-photon generation (TPG) in which only one of the three output modes is seeded, in a bulk potassium titanyl phosphate (KTP) crystal: a 532 nm pump and a 1491 nm seed produce two unseeded photons at 1654 nm with orthogonal polarizations. The measured signal disappears when the pump or seed polarization is rotated away from the phase-matched configuration, and the two unseeded modes show a cone divergence of about 12 mrad. The total number of photons on the two unseeded modes reached up to $2\times10^{-4}$ per pulse, corresponding to about $10^{-4}$ triplets per pulse. The paper further argues that the observed linear increase of the photon number with seed intensity is quantitatively reproduced by a Heisenberg-picture model based on the third-order nonlinear momentum operator in the weak-coupling regime. Confirming this model matters because triple-photon states are potential sources of non-classical three-body correlations for quantum information, and a working mono-stimulated geometry is a step toward spontaneous TPG in the optical domain.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the third-order nonlinear momentum operator $G_{nl}^{(3)}$ in the Heisenberg representation, from which the paper derives the spatial evolution of spectral mode operators $a_j(\omega,Z)$ under undepleted pump and seed approximations. Its central output is the photon-flux spectral density formula $n_2(\omega,Z)=n_3(\omega_p-\omega_1-\omega,Z)$ with a coupling parameter $C^{(3)}(\omega)=4\pi^2 I_1(0) I_p(0) f^{(3)}(\omega)(\chi^{(3)})^2 - \Delta k(\omega)^2/4$, which splits the process into weak-coupling ($\sin^2$) and strong-coupling ($\sinh^2$) regimes. In the weak-coupling regime the analytic formula gives $n_2=n_3\approx 4\pi^2 [f^{(3)}(\omega)]^2 I_p(0) I_1(0) (\chi^{(3)})^2 \delta |b|^{-1} Z$, where $\delta=2\times10^{-7}$ is the effective phase-mismatch rescaling introduced to account for non-collinearity. This single parameter carries the model's agreement with the measured linear slope.

What would settle it

Measure the slope of $n_2+n_3$ versus seed intensity at a second seed wavelength or a second crystal length and check whether the same $\delta = 2\times10^{-7}$, with the same Sellmeier data and $\chi^{(3)}_{y z z y}$ value, predicts the new slope without refitting; alternatively, image the angular distribution of the 1654 nm cone and compare the effective phase mismatch derived from the cone half-angle with $\delta\,\Delta k$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that injecting a 1491 nm seed into a 1 cm KTP crystal pumped at 532 nm generates third-order parametric down-conversion in which each pump photon splits into the seeded 1491 nm mode plus two unseeded photons at 1654 nm, one y-polarized and one z-polarized. The signal on the unseeded modes has the expected wavelength and polarization signatures, and its ~12 mrad divergence is consistent with non-collinear phase matching. Under undepleted pump and seed approximations, the authors derive photon-flux spectral densities from the nonlinear momentum operator and identify weak- and strong-coupling regimes; the linear dependence of $n_2+n_3$ on seed intensity places the experiment in the weak-coupling regime. Introducing an effective phase mismatch $\Delta k_{\rm eff} = \delta\,\Delta k$ with the fitted value $\delta = 2\times10^{-7}$ makes the analytic formula reproduce the measured slope. On this basis the paper claims the first experimental validation of the third-order nonlinear momentum operator.

Load-bearing premise

The measured rate curve is matched to the model by rescaling the calculated momentum-conservation error with one tunable number, $\delta = 2\times10^{-7}$; if that number is only a curve-fitting adjustment rather than a faithful description of the non-collinear emission cone, the claimed quantitative validation of the model does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the demonstration is correct, bulk KTP can serve as a telecom-wavelength source of photon triplets in which only one mode is externally seeded, with the two unseeded photons at identical wavelength and orthogonal polarizations.
  • The linear-in-seed-intensity behavior places the experiment in the weak-coupling regime; the same model predicts that raising pump and seed intensities should drive the process into a strong-coupling regime with exponential growth of the triplet rate.
  • The measured cone divergence of the unseeded modes indicates that a full non-collinear phase-matching treatment should replace the effective-$\delta$ rescaling in future work.
  • The polarization and wavelength selectivity of the signal supports the identification of the effective third-order coefficient as the $\chi^{(3)}_{y z z y}$ component of KTP.
  • The demonstrated mono-stimulated geometry offers a testbed for probing the quantum properties of triplets, including the sum-frequency coherence measurements the paper sketches as a next step.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the mono-stimulated geometry suggests a practical route to a heralded two-photon source: with a weak 1491 nm seed, detection of one 1654 nm photon could herald its orthogonally polarized twin, since the third mode is already occupied by the seed.
  • The physical status of the fitted parameter $\delta=2\times10^{-7}$ is not settled by the paper alone; an independent measurement of the emission-cone half-angle, or a measurement at a second seed wavelength or crystal length with the same $\delta$, would test whether it is a true description of non-collinearity rather than a curve-fitting dial.
  • The same momentum-operator model predicts a crossover from linear to exponential dependence as the seed intensity grows; observing that crossover would extend the validation beyond the weak-coupling regime reported here.
  • A sum-frequency coherence measurement on the two unseeded modes, of the type the paper mentions for future work, would be needed to distinguish genuine three-photon quantum correlations from any classical cascade process.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports the first experimental demonstration of mono-stimulated triple-photon generation (TPG) in a bulk KTP crystal. A 532-nm pump and a 1491-nm stimulation beam are injected into a 1-cm x-cut KTP crystal, producing two non-seeded photons at 1654 nm with orthogonal polarizations. The authors characterize the process by measuring the polarization and wavelength signatures of the two generated modes, and they observe a linear increase of the generated photon number with stimulation energy. They interpret this linearity using a third-order nonlinear momentum-operator model in the Heisenberg picture and claim quantitative agreement by introducing an effective phase mismatch Δk_eff = δ Δk with a fitted δ = 2×10^-7. They conclude that this is the first experimental validation of the third-order nonlinear momentum operator.

Significance. The demonstration of mono-stimulated TPG at telecom wavelengths is a genuine experimental advance: it is the intermediate configuration between the previously demonstrated bi-stimulated TPG and the still-elusive spontaneous TPG, and it uses a bulk crystal with a phase-matching direction that was independently calibrated. The polarization and wavelength signatures are process-specific and are not fixed by the free parameter δ, so the existence of the TPG process itself is well supported. The quantitative model validation, however, is significantly weaker, because the only adjustable parameter δ controls the overall slope of the theoretical curve. The paper would be a solid experimental report once the model claims are reframed and the numerical inconsistencies are corrected.

major comments (4)
  1. [V, Eqs. (8)-(11), Fig. 5] The central quantitative claim—that the measurements validate the third-order nonlinear momentum operator—rests entirely on the free parameter δ = 2×10^-7, introduced through Δk_eff = δ Δk(ω). The paper states that Δk was chosen as a fitting parameter and gives no independent derivation of δ. The measured 12.0 mrad divergence of modes 2 and 3 cannot explain the suppression: the longitudinal wavevector change from a 12 mrad tilt of a 1654-nm photon is kθ²/2 ≈ 300 m^-1, while δ reduces the fitted linear part |a| ≈ 3.3×10^5 m^-1 to ≈ 6.6×10^-2 m^-1, a mismatch of many orders of magnitude. Equation (11) therefore contains a fitted normalization, and the agreement in Fig. 5 demonstrates only the linearity of the process, not the predicted absolute rate. To support the validation claim, the authors must derive δ from the measured non-collinearity (e.g., by integrating over the transverse momentum distribution) or explicitly present the comparison as a fit with an empirical parameter.
  2. [IV.A, polarization description and Fig. 4] The manuscript contradicts itself on the polarization of the stimulation beam. The phase-matching configuration in Section IV.A lists (λ1 = 1491 nm, z-polarization) and uses χ^(3)_yzzy, which requires mode 1 to be z-polarized; however, the paragraph describing Fig. 4 states that the signal drops to zero when λ1 is polarized along the y-axis and reaches a maximum when λ1 is polarized along the y-axis. These statements cannot both be correct, and they conflict with the tensor element used in the model. Since the polarization dependence is one of the two independent signatures of TPG, this contradiction must be resolved before the demonstration can be assessed.
  3. [Abstract and Section IV.B] The quoted photon numbers and quantum efficiencies are mutually inconsistent. The abstract states n2+n3 ≈ 2×10^-4 per pulse and n_triplets ≈ 10^-4 per pulse, which at 10 Hz gives 10^-3 triplets per second, not the stated 10^-5; Section IV.B quotes n2+n3 ≈ 2×10^4 per pulse and 10^4 triplets per pulse, giving 10^5 triplets per second. With a pump energy of 26 μJ at 532 nm and a stimulation energy of 21 μJ at 1491 nm, neither set of values yields the reported η = 0.8×10^-11 and η/n1 = 3.1×10^-24 Hz^-1. Please correct the exponents and recompute the efficiencies, and provide the experimental uncertainty on each quantity.
  4. [V, Eq. (7), derivation of Eq. (11)] The displayed first branch of Eq. (7) contains |C(3)(ω)| as a multiplicative prefactor. In the standard solution of the coupled-mode equations in the weak-coupling regime, the corresponding factor appears in the denominator, i.e., n2 ∝ g²/Δk² · 4 sin²(Δk Z/2). As written, the spectral integral over ω does not produce the linear-in-Z expression of Eq. (11), and the dimensional consistency of the prefactor is not evident. Please provide the intermediate steps connecting Eqs. (7)-(10) and a dimensional check of Eq. (11).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figures 4 and 5] Figures 4 and 5 would benefit from error bars; the detection transfer function (4×10^-5) is quoted without uncertainty, so the precision of the reported quantum efficiencies is unclear.
  2. [V, approximation of Δk] In Section V, the approximation Δk(ω_p, ω_1, ω_2) ≈ Δk(ω_2) is introduced without specifying the spectral bandwidths over which it is valid; please state the assumed ranges for the pump, stimulation, and generated modes.
  3. [V, Eq. (11)] Equation (11) evaluates [f(3)(ω)]² at an unspecified frequency; please specify the reference frequency or integrate f(3)(ω) consistently.
  4. [V, numerical integration] The paper does not provide the numerical details of the integration of Eq. (10), such as the spectral grid, the value of the S area parameter from Eq. (5), and the crystal length dependence; adding this information would improve reproducibility.
  5. [Abstract] The abstract should be harmonized with the body regarding the number of generated photons and triplets, and the use of '10^-5 triplets per second' should be corrected.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The claimed model validation reduces to a fit: Eq. (11) is normalized by the fitted δ=2×10⁻⁷, so the Fig. 5 agreement is by construction; the independent polarization, wavelength, and phase-matching checks support mono-stimulated TPG but not the absolute momentum-operator rate.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section V, Eq. (11) and preceding paragraph]
    "We chose Δ𝑘(𝜔) as fitting parameter because the modelling was performed in the collinear approximation while the divergence relative to modes 2 and 3 is measured to be of about 4 times the divergence of the pump and stimulation beam, which may modify the “level” of momentum conservation. We then defined an effective phase-mismatch Δ𝑘𝑒𝑓𝑓(𝜔) = 𝛿Δ𝑘(𝜔) where 𝛿 is the fitting parameter. The interpolation is satisfying for 𝛿 = 2 × 10−7 as shown in Fig. 5."

    The only quantitative theory-experiment comparison is the slope of n2+n3 versus stimulation energy in Fig. 5. Eq. (11) gives n2(Z) = n3(Z) ≈ 4π²[f(3)]² Ip(0)I1(0)χ(3)²Z/(δ|b|), so the predicted slope is inversely proportional to δ. The paper explicitly calls δ a "fitting parameter" and chooses δ = 2×10⁻⁷ so that the curve "interpolates" Fig. 5. No independent derivation of δ from the measured 12.0 mrad non-collinearity is provided. Consequently the agreement of the theoretical curve with the measured photon numbers is achieved by construction: δ absorbs the absolute conversion efficiency, leaving only the linear-in-intensity functional form as an independent check.

full rationale

Most of the experimental demonstration is self-contained and independent: the detection at 1650 ± 6 nm, the polarization selection with Glan-Taylor prism and half-wave plate, the phase-matching wavelengths in Fig. 3 using external Sellmeier data [14], and the measured 12.0 mrad divergence of modes 2 and 3 are all non-circular evidence that mono-stimulated TPG occurs. The quantum model in Eqs. (3)-(10) is developed from the momentum-operator formalism with external references [16]-[18]; the self-citation to [5] is not the load-bearing support. The circularity is localized in the quantitative theory-data comparison: the single free parameter δ enters the denominator of Eq. (11) and is fitted to the very data the paper presents as validating the model. Thus the absolute rate predicted by the momentum operator is normalized by construction. What remains supported is the linear weak-coupling behavior, which is qualitatively meaningful, but not the first quantitative validation claimed in the final sentence. The independent experimental checks justify a strong score but not a maximal one, because the central model-validation claim is partially circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces one explicit free parameter, delta, to force the model onto the data. The quantitative model also assumes undepleted classical pump and seed fields, collinear propagation, wider bandwidth for modes 2 and 3, and the weak-coupling regime. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • delta (effective phase-mismatch scaling factor) = 2e-7
    Introduced in Section V to make Eq. (11) match the slope in Fig. 5; rescales DeltaK by delta, so the quantitative comparison is not an independent prediction.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The pump and stimulation fields are intense and non-depleted, so they are treated as classical spectral amplitudes.
    Used in Section V to derive Eqs. (6) and (7); if depleted, the triplet rates would differ.
  • domain assumption The process is collinear and modes 2 and 3 have spectral bandwidths wider than the pump and stimulation, so DeltaK reduces to a function of omega2.
    Invoked in Section V, Eqs. (7)-(9); later corrected by the effective mismatch delta.
  • domain assumption The experiment operates in the weak-coupling regime, where C^(3)(omega) < 0.
    Inferred in Section V from the linear dependence in Fig. 5; the model's exponential strong-coupling solution is not tested.
  • domain assumption The Sellmeier equations from ref [14] and Miller's rule for chi^(3) from ref [15] correctly describe KTP dispersion and nonlinearity.
    Used in Section IV to select phase matching and in Eq. (9) to compute the photon flux; errors in these inputs would shift all predictions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Experimental demonstration and modeling of near-infrared nonlinear third-order triple-photon generation stimulated over one mode." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BYBWMJ34

@misc{pith2026241219348,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Experimental demonstration and modeling of near-infrared nonlinear third-order triple-photon generation stimulated over one mode},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BYBWMJ34}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19348}
}
read the original abstract

Triple Photon Generation (TPG) is a third-order nonlinear optical interaction in which a photon, i.e. the pump, splits into three lower energy photons, i.e. modes 1, 2 and 3. The triplets possess different quantum signatures from those of photon pairs, with a strong interest in quantum information. In the present study, we performed the first experimental demonstration of TPG stimulated over one mode of the triplet, mode 1, the previous work on TPG concerning stimulation over two modes,2 and 3. The nonlinear medium is a KTiOPO4 crystal pumped in the picosecond regime (15 ps, 10 Hz) at a pump wavelength of 532 nm. The stimulation beam is emitted by a tunable optical parametric generator: the phase-matching was found at a stimulation wavelength of 1491 nm, the other two modes of the triplet being both at 1654 nm in orthogonal polarizations. Using superconducting nanowires single photon detectors, the measurement of the polarizations and wavelength signatures of the two generated modes are in full agreement with calculations. It has been possible to generate a total number of photons per pulse on modes 2 and 3 up to 2x10-4, which corresponds to the generation of 10-4 triplets per pulse, or 10-5 triplets per second since the repetition rate is equal to 10 Hz. We interpreted these results in the framework of a model we developed on the basis of the nonlinear momentum operator in the Heisenberg representation under the undepleted pump and stimulation approximation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J.-W. Pan, D. Bouwmeester, M. Daniell, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, « Experimental test of quantum nonlocality in three-photon Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger entanglement », Nature, vol. 403, no 6769, p. 515‑519, févr. 2000, doi: 10.1038/35000514

    doi:10.1038/35000514

  2. [2]

    Banaszek and P

    K. Banaszek and P. L. Knight, « Quantum interference in three-photon down-conversion », Phys. Rev. A, vol. 55, no 3, p. 2368‑2375, mars 1997, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.55.2368

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.55.2368 1997

  3. [3]

    Gravier and B

    F. Gravier and B. Boulanger, « Third order frequency generation in TiO2 rutile and KTiOPO4 », Optical Materials, vol. 30, no 1, p. 33‑36, sept. 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.optmat.2006.10.020

    work page doi:10.1016/j.optmat.2006.10.020 2007

  4. [4]

    Bencheikh, F

    K. Bencheikh, F. Gravier, J. Douady, A. Levenson, and B. Boulanger, « Triple photons: a challenge in nonlinear and quantum optics », Comptes Rendus Physique, vol. 8, no 2, p. 206‑220, mars 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.crhy.2006.07.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.crhy.2006.07.014 2007

  5. [5]

    A. Dot, A. Borne, B. Boulanger, K. Bencheikh, and J. A. Levenson, « Quantum theory analysis of triple photons generated by a χ ( 3 ) process », Phys. Rev. A, vol. 85, no 2, p. 023809, févr. 2012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.85.023809

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.85.023809 2012

  6. [6]

    Bencheikh, M

    K. Bencheikh, M. F. B. Cenni, E. Oudot, V. Boutou, C. Félix, J.C. Prades, A. Vernay, J. Bertrand, F. Bassignot, M. Chauvet, F. Bussières, H. Zbinden, A. Levenson, and B. Boulanger, « Demonstrating quantum properties of triple photons generated by χ(3) processes », Eur. Phys. J. D, vol. 76, no 10, p. 186, oct. 2022, doi: 10.1140/epjd/s10053-022-00514-3

    work page doi:10.1140/epjd/s10053-022-00514-3 2022

  7. [7]

    Jan Kołodyński, Alejandro Máttar, Paul Skrzypczyk, Erik Woodhead, Daniel Cavalcanti, Konrad Banaszek, and Antonio Acín,« Device- independent quantum key distribution with single-photon sources », Quantum, vol. 4, p. 260, avr. 2020, doi: 10.22331/q-2020-04-30-260

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2020-04-30-260 2020

  8. [8]

    Douady and B

    J. Douady and B. Boulanger, « Experimental demonstration of a pure third-order optical parametric downconversion process », Opt. Lett., OL, vol. 29, no 23, p. 2794‑2796, déc. 2004, doi: 10.1364/OL.29.002794

    work page doi:10.1364/ol.29.002794 2004

Show all 19 references
  1. [9]

    E. A. R. González, A. Borne, B. Boulanger, J. A. Levenson, and K. Bencheikh, « Continuous-Variable Triple-Photon States Quantum Entanglement », Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 120, no 4, p. 043601, janv. 2018, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.043601

    2018 doi

  2. [10]

    C. W. S. Chang, C. Sabín, P.Forn-Díaz, F.Quijandría, A. M. Vadiraj, I.Nsanzineza, G.Johansson, and C. M. Wilson, « Observation of Three-Photon Spontaneous Parametric Down-Conversion in a Superconducting Parametric Cavity », Phys. Rev. X, vol. 10, no 1, p. 011011, janv. 2020, d...

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    Corona, K

    M. Corona, K. Garay-Palmett, and A. B. U’Ren, « Experimental proposal for the generation of entangled photon triplets by third-order spontaneous parametric downconversion in optical fibers », Opt. Lett., OL, vol. 36, no 2, p. 190‑192, janv. 2011, doi: 10.1364/OL.36.000190

    2011 doi

  4. [12]

    M. V. Chekhova, A. Cavanna, M. Taheri, C. Okoth, X. Jiang, N. Joly, and P. and St. J. Russell, « Photonic crystal fibers for generating three- photon states », in Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics (2017), paper JM4E.5, Optica Publishing Group, mai 2017, p. JM4E.5. doi: 1...

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    Boulanger and J

    B. Boulanger and J. Zyss, « Nonlinear optical properties », in International Tables for Crystallography, 1re éd., vol. D, A. Authier, Éd., in International Tables for Crystallography, vol. D. , Chester, England: International Union of Crystallography, 2006, p. 178‑219. doi: 10...

    2006 doi

  6. [14]

    Kato and E

    K. Kato and E. Takaoka, « Sellmeier and thermo-optic dispersion formulas for KTP », Appl. Opt., AO, vol. 41, no 24, p. 5040‑5044, août 2002, doi: 10.1364/AO.41.005040

    2002 doi

  7. [15]

    Boulanger, J

    B. Boulanger, J. P. Feve, P. Delarue, I. Rousseau, and G. Marnier, « Cubic optical nonlinearity of KTiOPO4 », Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular & Optical Physics, 1999, 32, 475-488

    1999

  8. [16]

    Dayan, « Theory of Two-Photon Interactions with Broadband Down-Converted Light and Entangled Photons », Phys

    B. Dayan, « Theory of Two-Photon Interactions with Broadband Down-Converted Light and Entangled Photons », Phys. Rev. A, vol. 76, no 4, p. 043813, oct. 2007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.76.043813

    2007 doi

  9. [17]

    Huttner, S

    B. Huttner, S. Serulnik, and Y. Ben-Aryeh, « Quantum analysis of light propagation in a parametric amplifier », Phys. Rev. A, vol. 42, no 9, p. 5594‑5600, nov. 1990, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.42.5594

    1990 doi

  10. [18]

    K. J. Blow, « Continuum fields in quantum optics », Phys. Rev. A, vol. 42, no 7, p. 4102‑4114, oct. 1990, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.42.4102

    1990 doi

  11. [19]

    Abram, R

    I. Abram, R. K. Raj, J. L. Oudar, and G. Dolique, « Direct Observation of the Second-Order Coherence of Parametrically Generated Light », Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 57, no 20, p. 2516‑2519, nov. 1986, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.57.2516

    1986 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.