Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 67 references

Testing Born's rule via photoionization of helium

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that attosecond photoionization of helium can implement a Sorkin test of Born's rule with a precision around 0.001, comparable to the best existing tests.

desk verdict Genuinely new attosecond platform for Sorkin tests, but the advertised 10^-3 Born-rule sensitivity is not yet backed by a bound on higher-order backgrounds. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09438 v1 pith:NV5WQIRG submitted 2025-01-16 quant-ph

Peter Robert Förderer , Andreas Buchleitner , David Busto , Christoph Dittel This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords Born'sruleSorkintesthigher-orderinterferenceattosecondphotoionizationheliumthree-pathinterferometerPeresMonteCarlosimulation
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 proposes attosecond photoionization of helium as a new experimental platform for testing Born's rule, the quantum-mechanical rule that probabilities are squared moduli of amplitudes. It realizes a three-path interferometer in the energy domain: a broadband XUV pump excites helium into the continuum, and three spectrally separated IR probe components each provide a distinct route to the same final photoelectron energy. The Sorkin parameter, a measurable combination of seven probabilities that must vanish under Born's rule, is extracted from simulated photoelectron counts with realistic noise and detection efficiencies, yielding $\kappa = 0.0063(63)$, a precision around $10^{-3}$. If correct, this makes attosecond photoionization a viable new setting for fundamental tests of quantum mechanics, including a Peres test of complex versus quaternionic quantum theory.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Sorkin parameter $\kappa = I'_{abc}/(|I'_{ab}|+|I'_{ac}|+|I'_{bc}|)$, with $I'_{abc} = P_{abc}-P_{ab}-P_{ac}-P_{bc}+P_a+P_b+P_c-P_0$ and analogous background-corrected pair interferences; this quantity must vanish whenever probabilities are squared moduli of amplitudes. The experimentally new machinery is a three-path interferometer in the energy domain: a broadband XUV pulse and three narrow IR components drive two-photon transitions to the same final photoelectron energy, with the individual transition amplitudes computed in second-order perturbation theory under the on-shell approximation. Phase stability is intrinsic because all paths share the same laser fields, and the relative phases between paths can be tuned through the IR frequencies and time delays.

What would settle it

A quantitative estimate of the fourth-order contributions, for instance absorption of two IR photons or two XUV photons in the same pulse, to the Sorkin parameter for helium at the stated laser parameters would settle whether the measured $\kappa$ can be read as a test of Born's rule: if any such contribution reaches or exceeds $10^{-3}$, the protocol would not isolate Born's rule.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that state-of-the-art attosecond photoionization experiments can test Born's rule through a Sorkin test at a precision of about $10^{-3}$, matching the best Sorkin tests performed so far. The authors model the two-photon XUV-to-IR ionization amplitudes for helium, simulate the full measurement including laser amplitude noise, timing jitter, background counts, and finite detection efficiency, and find a spectrally averaged Sorkin parameter consistent with zero. They also explicitly note that neglected higher-order transition terms could produce a nonzero Sorkin parameter without any violation of Born's rule, so the protocol's power to isolate Born's rule depends on those terms being far below the demonstrated statistical precision.

Load-bearing premise

The protocol isolates Born's rule only if all processes beyond the dominant two-photon XUV-to-IR pathway contribute a Sorkin parameter far below $10^{-3}$; the paper does not estimate the magnitude of those higher-order terms.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A Sorkin test in helium photoionization reaches a standard error around $10^{-3}$ after about 7.4 hours of acquisition at a 3 kHz repetition rate, comparable to the best previous Sorkin tests.
  • The photoelectron's $s$ and $d$ angular-momentum channels do not need to be resolved, so angle-integrated photoelectron detection suffices to determine the Sorkin parameter.
  • The relative phases between the three paths can be varied by tuning the IR frequencies and time delays, allowing systematic scans of the Sorkin parameter as a function of phase.
  • The same dataset yields a Peres parameter of $F = 0.981(5)$, indicating that reduced experimental noise would be required before the Peres test becomes discriminative.
  • The statistical error follows power laws $s_\kappa \propto t^{-1/2}$ in measurement time and $s_\kappa \propto \eta^{-1/2}$ in data acquisition efficiency.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the simulated error scales as $t^{-1/2}$ and $\eta^{-1/2}$, a longer acquisition or higher repetition rate could push the same helium platform below $10^{-3}$ without changing the setup, provided systematic backgrounds are controlled.
  • A stronger version of the test would scan the common XUV-IR delay continuously and verify that $\kappa$ remains zero at every relative phase, rather than only at one averaged operating point; the phase control described in the paper makes such a scan straightforward.
  • The energy-domain three-path construction should transfer to other atoms or molecules with a structureless continuum spanning three IR components, so the proposal is not specific to helium.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes using attosecond XUV/IR photoionization of helium to realize a three-path interferometer in the photoelectron energy domain, with the three spectral components of the IR probe serving as the paths. A Sorkin parameter kappa is defined, and a Monte Carlo simulation including amplitude noise, delay jitter, background counts, and Poisson detection statistics yields kappa = 0.0063(63), i.e., a statistical precision of about 10^-3, which the authors claim is comparable to the best existing Sorkin tests. The authors also outline a Peres test using the same data.

Significance. The proposed platform is original and potentially valuable: energy-domain multipath interference in photoionization offers intrinsic phase stability and a new physical system for foundational tests. The Sorkin algebra and the two-photon amplitude model in Eq. (3) are standard, and the Monte Carlo treatment of noise is detailed, including a useful scaling analysis with s_kappa proportional to t^-1/2 and eta^-1/2. However, the central claim as stated, that the experiment can test Born's rule at 10^-3, requires that all standard-quantum-mechanical contributions to kappa lie below that level. The paper acknowledges but does not quantify the fourth-order and other higher-order contributions that can produce a nonzero kappa without any Born-rule violation. Until that systematic background is bounded, the simulation establishes only the statistical precision of a null-hypothesis measurement, not the sensitivity of the experiment to genuine Born-rule violations.

major comments (3)
  1. [Theoretical description (after Eq. (3))] The authors state that 'the neglected non-vanishing higher-order terms can give rise to a non-vanishing Sorkin parameter without a violation of Born's rule' but provide no estimate of their magnitude. This is load-bearing for the advertised 10^-3 sensitivity: a measured kappa = 0 +/- 0.001 is evidence about Born's rule only if every standard-QM contribution to the true kappa is well below 10^-3, say below a few times 10^-4. Since Eq. (2) is truncated at second order and Eq. (3) contains only two-photon amplitudes, the manuscript should either compute the leading higher-order contribution for the quoted parameters, including three-photon processes with one emission and the fourth-order terms, or give a quantitative argument that such processes are suppressed by at least three orders of magnitude relative to the two-photon signal. Without such a bound, the proposed experiment cannot claim to isolate Born's rule at the stated precision.
  2. [Simulation] The count-rate calibration does not constrain the field strength and therefore cannot bound the higher-order background. The efficiency is defined as eta = 0.02/Q_abc with Q_abc computed from the second-order probabilities of Eq. (3); the same 0.02 detected electrons per pulse can be realized with different absolute XUV and IR intensities depending on the two-photon dipole matrix elements and the detection efficiency. Since the ratio of the fourth-order to second-order amplitudes grows with the field amplitude, the simulation parameters leave the induced kappa background undetermined. The authors should specify the assumed absolute intensities, or equivalently the separate values of eta and the field amplitudes, and use them to evaluate the higher-order Sorkin background.
  3. [Simulation, Fig. 2] The statistical error analysis does not describe how correlations between final-energy bins are treated. All 40 energy bins in one run are generated from the same laser-noise realizations and from mutually exclusive multinomial counts, so the spectrally resolved kappa(epsilon_f) values are not independent; a weighted mean over energies that assumes independence can underestimate the standard error. The authors should compute the reported s_kappa from the 100 independent runs as the primary cluster-level statistic, for example the standard error of the 100 run-wise combined kappa values, which automatically accounts for energy correlations.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction] There is a typo in 'is build upon' and in 'allow to asses'; both should be corrected.
  2. [Simulation] The sentence beginning 'The data point for eta = 0.02 Q^{-1}_{abc} in (f), and for eta = 0.02 Q^{-1}_{abc} and t = 100 x 10^5 pulses in (e)' is grammatically awkward and should be rephrased.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The notation '100 x 10^5 pulses' is needlessly confusing; it should read '10^7 pulses'.
  4. [References] Reference [17] is an arXiv preprint from 2023; if it has been published by now, the published version should be cited.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the precision claim is a null-hypothesis Monte Carlo calibration, and the self-citations are non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an achievable Sorkin-parameter precision of order 10^-3, estimated by Monte Carlo simulation under a Born-rule null hypothesis. This is not circular: the pseudo-data are generated from amplitudes that satisfy Born's rule, so the simulated Sorkin parameter vanishes up to statistical noise, but the reported quantity is the standard error s_kappa, i.e., the resolution with which a nonzero Sorkin parameter could be detected. Estimating the statistical uncertainty under the null hypothesis is the standard method for calibrating such a test and does not presuppose the experimental outcome. The calibration eta = 0.02/Q_abc simply fixes the simulated count rate to a typical experimental value from Ref. [51]; no parameter is fitted to the target precision. The transition amplitude formula in Eq. (3) is based on the externally published two-photon finite-pulse model of Ref. [53], with the authors' own B.Sc. thesis [54] cited only for calculational details; this is a minor self-citation but not load-bearing. Experimental noise parameters and the 3 kHz repetition rate are likewise taken from published experimental work, including Refs. [16,17,51]. The acknowledged limitation that neglected higher-order terms can produce a nonzero Sorkin parameter without violating Born's rule (text after Eq. (3)) is a physical validity concern rather than a circularity: it affects whether a measured kappa can be attributed to a Born-rule violation, but it does not make the precision derivation equivalent to its inputs. No step in the derivation reduces to a self-citation chain or to a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

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

The precision estimate depends on chosen noise and efficiency parameters from an external experimental reference, plus the assumption that a two-photon perturbative model captures all relevant amplitudes. The model also carries standard quantum mechanical axioms, the dipole and classical-field approximations, and the on-shell approximation for a featureless continuum. The central unquantified assumption is the neglect of fourth-order amplitudes, which the paper admits can create a false Sorkin signal. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • relative field amplitude noise ΔE/E for XUV and IR = 0.1
    Chosen as typical experimental noise; directly sets the spread of the simulated Sorkin parameter.
  • common XUV-IR delay jitter Δτ = 50 as
    Taken from actively stabilized pump-probe setups (Ref. [51]); enters the phase noise of all paths.
  • per-IR-component delay jitter Δτ'_j = 200 as
    Assumed noise after frequency selection of the three IR components (Ref. [51]); the dominant phase-noise source.
  • data acquisition efficiency η = 0.02/Q_abc
    Chosen so that the abc configuration yields about 0.02 detected electrons per pulse in the energy window, matching typical count rates (Ref. [51]); controls Poisson statistics.
  • background count rate n P0 = 2e-4 per pulse
    Chosen constant background across the energy window; subtracted via P0 in the Sorkin parameter.
  • laser central frequencies and bandwidths = ω_XUV=40 eV, ω_a/b/c=820/800/780 nm, FWHM_XUV=150 meV, FWHM_IR=5 nm
    Design parameters that realize three distinct paths in a featureless continuum; not fitted to the target result.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Standard quantum mechanics and Born's rule are used to generate ideal probabilities.
    The simulation is a feasibility study, so pseudo-data are drawn from P=|A|^2; this makes the resulting Sorkin parameter consistent with zero by construction, which is appropriate for estimating precision but not for detecting a violation.
  • domain assumption Dipole approximation and classical treatment of the laser fields.
    Stated in the Theoretical description; valid for the intensities and wavelengths considered.
  • domain assumption Only the XUV-then-IR two-photon time ordering contributes; other two-photon and three-photon processes are off-resonant.
    Used to derive Eq. (3); if off-resonant suppression fails, unwanted amplitudes enter the Sorkin parameter.
  • domain assumption On-shell approximation in a featureless continuum.
    Invoked after Ref. [53] because helium has no resonances in the addressed energy range.
  • ad hoc to paper Neglect of fourth and higher order amplitudes.
    Needed for a clean Sorkin test; the paper admits these can give a false nonzero Sorkin parameter but does not bound their size.
  • domain assumption Independent normal noise distributions for fields and delays.
    The Monte Carlo model assumes uncorrelated Gaussian fluctuations; real noise may be correlated or non-Gaussian.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Testing Born's rule via photoionization of helium." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NV5WQIRG

@misc{pith2026250109438,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Testing Born's rule via photoionization of helium},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NV5WQIRG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09438}
}
read the original abstract

It is shown how state-of-the-art attosecond photoionization experiments can test Born's rule -- a postulate of quantum mechanics -- via the so-called Sorkin test. A simulation of the Sorkin test under consideration of typical experimental noise and data acquisition efficiencies infers an achievable measurement precision in the range of the best Sorkin tests to date. The implementation of further fundamental tests of quantum mechanics is discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09438 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Spectral representation of the photoionization model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Monte Carlo simulation of the Sorkin experiment with photoelectrons. (a) Examples of simulated detector click statistics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Krausz and M

    F. Krausz and M. Ivanov, Attosecond physics, Reviews of Modern Physics 81, 163 (2009)

    2009

  2. [2]

    Calegari, G

    F. Calegari, G. Sansone, S. Stagira, C. Vozzi, and M. Nisoli, Advances in attosecond science, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 49, 062001 (2016)

    2016

  3. [3]

    Kienberger, E

    R. Kienberger, E. Goulielmakis, M. Uiberacker, A. Bal- tuska, V. Yakovlev, F. Bammer, A. Scrinzi, T. Wester- walbesloh, U. Kleineberg, U. Heinzmann, M. Drescher, and F. Krausz, Atomic transient recorder, Nature 427, 817 (2004)

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Sansone, E

    G. Sansone, E. Benedetti, F. Calegari, C. Vozzi, L. Avaldi, R. Flammini, L. Poletto, P. Villoresi, C. Al- tucci, R. Velotta, S. Stagira, S. D. Silvestri, and M. Nisoli, Isolated single-cycle attosecond pulses, Science 314, 443 (2006)

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Bergues, M

    B. Bergues, M. K¨ ubel, N. G. Johnson, B. Fischer, N. Ca- mus, K. J. Betsch, O. Herrwerth, A. Senftleben, A. M. Sayler, T. Rathje, T. Pfeifer, I. Ben-Itzhak, R. R. Jones, G. G. Paulus, F. Krausz, R. Moshammer, J. Ullrich, and M. F. Kling, Attosecond tracing of correlated electron- emission in non-sequential double ionization, Nature Communications 3, 813 (2012)

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Kaldun, A

    A. Kaldun, A. Bl¨ attermann, V. Stooß, S. Donsa, H. Wei, R. Pazourek, S. Nagele, C. Ott, C. D. Lin, J. Burgd¨ orfer, and T. Pfeifer, Observing the ultrafast buildup of a Fano resonance in the time domain, Science 354, 738 (2016)

    2016

  7. [7]

    Sansone, F

    G. Sansone, F. Kelkensberg, J. F. P´ erez-Torres, F. Morales, M. F. Kling, W. Siu, O. Ghafur, P. Johns- son, M. Swoboda, E. Benedetti, F. Ferrari, F. L´ epine, J. L. Sanz-Vicario, S. Zherebtsov, I. Znakovskaya, A. L’Huillier, M. Y. Ivanov, M. Nisoli, F. Mart ´ ın, and M. J. J. Vrakking, Electron localization following attosec- ond molecular photoionizatio...

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Gong, ´E

    X. Gong, ´E. Pl´ esiat, A. Palacios, S. Heck, F. Mart ´ ın, and H. J. W¨ orner, Attosecond delays between dissociative and non-dissociative ionization of polyatomic molecules, Nature Communications 14, 4402 (2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    A. L. Cavalieri, N. M¨ uller, T. Uphues, V. S. Yakovlev, A. Baltuˇ ska, B. Horvath, B. Schmidt, L. Bl¨ umel, R. Holzwarth, S. Hendel, M. Drescher, U. Kleineberg, P. M. Echenique, R. Kienberger, F. Krausz, and U. Heinzmann, Attosecond spectroscopy in condensed matter, Nature 44...

    2007

  2. [10]

    P. M. Paul, E. S. Toma, P. Breger, G. Mullot, F. Aug´ e, P. Balcou, H. G. Muller, and P. Agostini, Observation of a train of attosecond pulses from high harmonic generation, Science 292, 1689 (2001)

    2001

  3. [11]

    Kotur, D

    M. Kotur, D. Gu´ enot, ´A. Jim´ enez-Gal´ an, D. Kroon, E. W. Larsen, M. Louisy, S. Bengtsson, M. Miranda, J. Mauritsson, C. L. Arnold, S. E. Canton, M. Gissel- brecht, T. Carette, J. M. Dahlstr¨ om, E. Lindroth, A. Ma- quet, L. Argenti, F. Mart ´ ın, and A. L’Huillier, Spec- ...

    2016

  4. [12]

    Gruson, L

    V. Gruson, L. Barreau, A. Jim´ enez-Galan, F. Risoud, J. Caillat, A. Maquet, B. Carr´ e, F. Lepetit, J.-F. Her- gott, T. Ruchon, L. Argenti, R. Ta ¨ ıeb, F. Mart ´ ın, and P. Sali´ eres, Attosecond dynamics through a Fano reso- nance: Monitoring the birth of a photoelectron, S...

    2016

  5. [13]

    Busto, L

    D. Busto, L. Barreau, M. Isinger, M. Turconi, C. Alexan- dridi, A. Harth, S. Zhong, R. J. Squibb, D. Kroon, S. Plogmaker, M. Miranda, A. Jim´ enez-Gal´ an, L. Ar- genti, C. L. Arnold, R. Feifel, F. Mart ´ ın, M. Gisselbrecht, A. L’Huillier, and P. Sali` eres, Time–frequency re...

    2018

  6. [14]

    K. E. Priebe, C. Rathje, S. V. Yalunin, T. Hohage, A. Feist, S. Sch¨ afer, and C. Ropers, Attosecond electron pulse trains and quantum state reconstruction in ultra- fast transmission electron microscopy, Nature Photonics 11, 793 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    Bourassin-Bouchet, L

    C. Bourassin-Bouchet, L. Barreau, V. Gruson, J.-F. Her- gott, F. Qu´ er´ e, P. Sali` eres, and T. Ruchon, Quantifying decoherence in attosecond metrology, Physical Review X 10, 031048 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Laurell, D

    H. Laurell, D. Finkelstein-Shapiro, C. Dittel, C. Guo, R. Demjaha, M. Ammitzb¨ oll, R. Weissenbilder, L. Ne- oriˇ ci´ c, S. Luo, M. Gisselbrecht, C. L. Arnold, A. Buch- leitner, T. Pullerits, A. L’Huillier, and D. Busto, Continuous-variable quantum state tomography of pho- toe...

    2022

  9. [17]

    Laurell, S

    H. Laurell, S. Luo, R. Weissenbilder, M. Ammitzb¨ oll, S. Ahmed, H. S¨ oderberg, C. L. M. Petersson, V. Poulain, C. Guo, C. Dittel, D. Finkelstein-Shapiro, R. J. Squibb, R. Feifel, M. Gisselbrecht, C. L. Arnold, A. Buchleit- ner, E. Lindroth, A. F. Kockum, A. L’Huillier, and 6...

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    M. C. Tichy, F. Mintert, and A. Buchleitner, Essential entanglement for atomic and molecular physics, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 44, 192001 (2011)

    2011

  11. [19]

    Lewenstein, N

    M. Lewenstein, N. Baldelli, U. Bhattacharya, J. Biegert, M. Ciappina, U. Elu, T. Grass, P. Grochowski, A. John- son, T. Lamprou, A. Maxwell, A. O. nez, E. Pisanty, J. Rivera-Dean, P. Stammer, I. Tyulnev, and P. Tza- llas, Attosecond physics and quantum information sci- ence, a...

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Akoury, K

    D. Akoury, K. Kreidi, T. Jahnke, T. Weber, A. Staudte, M. Sch¨ offler, N. Neumann, J. Titze, L. P. H. Schmidt, A. Czasch, O. Jagutzki, R. A. C. Fraga, R. E. Grisenti, R. D. Mui˜ no, N. A. Cherepkov, S. K. Semenov, P. Ran- itovic, C. L. Cocke, T. Osipov, H. Adaniya, J. C. Thomp...

    2007

  13. [21]

    Zimmermann, D

    B. Zimmermann, D. Rolles, B. Langer, R. Hentges, M. Braune, S. Cvejanovic, O. Geßner, F. Heiser, S. Ko- rica, T. Lischke, A. Reink¨ oster, J. Viefhaus, R. D¨ orner, V. McKoy, and U. Becker, Localization and loss of co- herence in molecular double-slit experiments, Nature Physi...

    2008

  14. [22]

    Langer and U

    B. Langer and U. Becker, Localization and loss of co- herence in molecular double slit experiments, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 194, 022003 (2009)

    2009

  15. [23]

    M. J. J. Vrakking, Control of attosecond entanglement and coherence, Physical Review Letters 126, 113203 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    L.-M. Koll, L. Maikowski, L. Drescher, T. Witting, and M. J. J. Vrakking, Experimental control of quantum- mechanical entanglement in an attosecond pump-probe experiment, Physical Review Letters 128, 043201 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    Stammer, J

    P. Stammer, J. Rivera-Dean, A. Maxwell, T. Lamprou, A. Ord´ o˜ nez, M. F. Ciappina, P. Tzallas, and M. Lewen- stein, Quantum electrodynamics of intense laser-matter interactions: A tool for quantum state engineering, PRX Quantum 4, 010201 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Gorlach, M

    A. Gorlach, M. E. Tzur, M. Birk, M. Kr¨ uger, N. Rivera, O. Cohen, and I. Kaminer, High-harmonic generation driven by quantum light, Nature Physics19, 1689 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Bhattacharya, T

    U. Bhattacharya, T. Lamprou, A. S. Maxwell, A. Ord´ o˜ nez, E. Pisanty, J. Rivera-Dean, P. Stam- mer, M. F. Ciappina, M. Lewenstein, and P. Tzallas, Strong–laser–field physics, non–classical light states and quantum information science, Reports on Progress in Physics 86, 094401 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Cohen-Tannoudji, B

    C. Cohen-Tannoudji, B. Diu, and F. Lalo¨ e,Quantum Me- chanics, Volume 1: Basic Concepts, Tools, and Applica- tions (Wiley, 2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Born, Zur Quantenmechanik der Stoßvorg¨ ange, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik37, 863 (1926)

    M. Born, Zur Quantenmechanik der Stoßvorg¨ ange, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik37, 863 (1926)

    1926

  22. [30]

    R. D. Sorkin, Quantum mechanics as quantum measure theory, Modern Physics Letters A 09, 3119 (1994)

    1994

  23. [31]

    Daki´ c, T

    B. Daki´ c, T. Paterek, and ˇC Brukner, Density cubes and higher-order interference theories, New Journal of Physics 16, 023028 (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    ˙Zyczkowski, Quartic quantum theory: an extension of the standard quantum mechanics, Journal of Physics A 41, 355302 (2008)

    K. ˙Zyczkowski, Quartic quantum theory: an extension of the standard quantum mechanics, Journal of Physics A 41, 355302 (2008)

    2008

  25. [33]

    Sinha, C

    U. Sinha, C. Couteau, T. Jennewein, R. Laflamme, and G. Weihs, Ruling out multi-order interference in quantum mechanics, Science 329, 418 (2010)

    2010

  26. [34]

    S¨ ollner, B

    I. S¨ ollner, B. Gsch¨ osser, P. Mai, B. Pressl, Z. V¨ or¨ os, and G. Weihs, Testing Born’s rule in quantum mechanics for three mutually exclusive events, Foundations of Physics 42, 742 (2011)

    2011

  27. [35]

    J. M. Hickmann, E. J. S. Fonseca, and A. J. Jesus-Silva, Born’s rule and the interference of photons with orbital angular momentum by a triangular slit, Europhysics Let- ters 96, 64006 (2011)

    2011

  28. [36]

    O. S. Maga˜ na-Loaiza, I. De Leon, M. Mirhosseini, R. Fickler, A. Safari, U. Mick, B. McIntyre, P. Banzer, B. Rodenburg, G. Leuchs, and R. W. Boyd, Exotic looped trajectories of photons in three-slit interference, Nature Communications 7, 13987 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    Kauten, R

    T. Kauten, R. Keil, T. Kaufmann, B. Pressl, ˇC . Brukner, and G. Weihs, Obtaining tight bounds on higher-order interferences with a 5-path interferometer, New Journal of Physics 19, 033017 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    T. Vogl, H. Knopf, M. Weissflog, P. K. Lam, and F. Eilen- berger, Sensitive single-photon test of extended quan- tum theory with two-dimensional hexagonal boron ni- tride, Physical Review Research 3, 013296 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    D. K. Park, O. Moussa, and R. Laflamme, Three path interference using nuclear magnetic resonance: a test of the consistency of Born’s rule, New Journal of Physics 14, 113025 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    F. Jin, Y. Liu, J. Geng, P. Huang, W. Ma, M. Shi, C.-K. Duan, F. Shi, X. Rong, and J. Du, Experimental test of Born’s rule by inspecting third-order quantum interfer- ence on a single spin in solids, Physical Review A 95, 012107 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    A. R. Barnea, O. Cheshnovsky, and U. Even, Matter- wave diffraction approaching limits predicted by Feyn- man path integrals for multipath interference, Physical Review A 97, 023601 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    J. P. Cotter, C. Brand, C. Knobloch, Y. Lilach, O. Chesh- novsky, and M. Arndt, In search of multipath interfer- ence using large molecules, Science Advances 3, e1602478 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    Pleinert, A

    M.-O. Pleinert, A. Rueda, E. Lutz, and J. von Zanthier, Testing higher-order quantum interference with many- particle states, Physical Review Letters 126, 190401 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    L. O. Conlon, A. Walsh, Y. Hua, OThearle, T. Vogl, F. Eilenberger, P. K. Lam, and S. M. Assad, Testing the postulates of quantum mechanics with coherent states of light and homodyne detection, New Journal of Physics 26, 053003 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Gstir, Waveguide Interferometers for Fundamental In- vestigation of Quantum Mechanics , Ph.D

    S. Gstir, Waveguide Interferometers for Fundamental In- vestigation of Quantum Mechanics , Ph.D. thesis, Univer- sity of Innsbruck (2023), urn:nbn:at:at-ubi:1-128187

    2023

  38. [46]

    Sadana, L

    S. Sadana, L. Maccone, and U. Sinha, Testing quantum foundations with quantum computers, Physical Review Research 4, L022001 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Peres, Proposed test for complex versus quaternion quantum theory, Physical Review Letters 42, 683 (1979)

    A. Peres, Proposed test for complex versus quaternion quantum theory, Physical Review Letters 42, 683 (1979)

    1979

  40. [48]

    K. S. Lee, Z. Zhuo, C. Couteau, D. Wilkowski, and T. Pa- terek, Atomic test of higher-order interference, Physical Review A 101, 052111 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    D. M. Villeneuve, P. Hockett, M. J. J. Vrakking, and H. Niikura, Coherent imaging of an attosecond electron 7 wave packet, Science 356, 1150 (2017)

    2017

  42. [50]

    Barreau, C

    L. Barreau, C. L. M. Petersson, M. Klinker, A. Camper, C. Marante, T. Gorman, D. Kiesewetter, L. Argenti, P. Agostini, J. Gonz´ alez-V´ azquez, P. Sali` eres, L. F. Di- Mauro, and F. Mart ´ ın, Disentangling spectral phases of interfering autoionizing states from attosecond in...

    2019

  43. [51]

    S. Luo, R. Weissenbilder, H. Laurell, M. Ammitzb¨ oll, V. Poulain, D. Busto, L. Neoriˇ ci´ c, C. Guo, S. Zhong, D. Kroon, R. J. Squibb, R. Feifel, M. Gisselbrecht, A. L’Huillier, and C. L. Arnold, Ultra-stable and ver- satile high-energy resolution setup for attosecond photo- ...

    2023

  44. [52]

    Agostini, F

    P. Agostini, F. Fabre, G. Mainfray, G. Petite, and N. K. Rahman, Free-free transitions following six-photon ion- ization of xenon atoms, Physical Review Letters 42, 1127 (1979)

    1979

  45. [53]

    Jim´ enez-Gal´ an, F

    A. Jim´ enez-Gal´ an, F. Mart ´ ın, and L. Argenti, Two- photon finite-pulse model for resonant transitions in at- tosecond experiments, Physical Review A 93, 023429 (2016)

    2016

  46. [54]

    F¨ orderer, Testing Born’s rule via photoion- ization of helium, B.Sc

    P. F¨ orderer, Testing Born’s rule via photoion- ization of helium, B.Sc. thesis, Albert-Ludwigs- Universit¨ at Freiburg, urn:nbn:de:bsz:25-freidok-2513227 10.6094/UNIFR/251322 (2022)

    2022 doi

  47. [55]

    Cohen-Tannoudji, J

    C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg, Atom – Photon Interactions: Basic Process and Applica- tions (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 1998)

    1998

  48. [56]

    Sawant, J

    R. Sawant, J. Samuel, A. Sinha, S. Sinha, and U. Sinha, Nonclassical paths in quantum interference experiments, Physical Review Letters 113, 120406 (2014)

    2014

  49. [57]

    Sinha, A

    A. Sinha, A. H. Vijay, and U. Sinha, On the superposition principle in interference experiments, Scientific Reports 5, 10304 (2015)

    2015

  50. [58]

    Namdar, P

    P. Namdar, P. K. Jenke, I. A. Calafell, A. Trenti, M. Radonji´ c, B. Daki´ c, P. Walther, and L. A. Rozema, Experimental higher-order interference in a nonlinear triple slit, Physical Review A 107, 032211 (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    Fano, Effects of configuration interaction on intensities and phase shifts, Physical Review 124, 1866 (1961)

    U. Fano, Effects of configuration interaction on intensities and phase shifts, Physical Review 124, 1866 (1961)

    1961

  52. [60]

    Domke, K

    M. Domke, K. Schulz, G. Remmers, G. Kaindl, and D. Wintgen, High-resolution study of 1P o double- excitation states in helium, Physical Review A 53, 1424 (1996)

    1996

  53. [61]

    Fano, Propensity rules: An analytical approach, Phys- ical Review A 32, 617 (1985)

    U. Fano, Propensity rules: An analytical approach, Phys- ical Review A 32, 617 (1985)

    1985

  54. [62]

    Busto, J

    D. Busto, J. Vinbladh, S. Zhong, M. Isinger, S. Nandi, S. Maclot, P. Johnsson, M. Gisselbrecht, A. L’Huillier, E. Lindroth, and J. M. Dahlstr¨ om, Fano’s propensity rule in angle-resolved attosecond pump-probe photoion- ization, Physical Review Letters 123, 133201 (2019)

    2019

  55. [63]

    (1), a bias towards a non-vanishing num- ber can occur when averaging over multiple values of the Sorkin parameter [37]

    Note that, due to correlations between the numerator and denominator in the definition of the Sorkin param- eter from Eq. (1), a bias towards a non-vanishing num- ber can occur when averaging over multiple values of the Sorkin parameter [37]. In order to avoid this bias, we ca...

  56. [64]

    Gstir, E

    S. Gstir, E. Chan, T. Eichelkraut, A. Szameit, R. Keil, and G. Weihs, Towards probing for hypercomplex quan- tum mechanics in a waveguide interferometer, New Jour- nal of Physics 23, 093038 (2021)

    2021

  57. [65]

    S. L. Adler, Quaternionic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Fields , International series of monographs on physics (Oxford University Press, 1995)

    1995

  58. [66]

    In particular, F = α2 + β2 + γ2 − 2αβγ , where α = (Pbc − Pb − Pc)/2√PbPc, β = (Pac − Pa − Pc)/2√PaPc, and γ = (Pab − Pa − Pb)/2√PaPb [47]

  59. [67]

    We then calculate the spectrally resolved Peres param- eter F (ϵf ) (see [66]), and finally calculate the weighted arithmetic mean F over all final energies ϵf

    For each path-configuration, we sum all counts sampled from 100×105 laser pulses with data acquisition efficiency η = 0.02/Qabc, and subtract the simulated dark counts. We then calculate the spectrally resolved Peres param- eter F (ϵf ) (see [66]), and finally calculate the we...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.