Fast quantum interferometry at the nanometer and attosecond scales with energy-entangled photons

Colin P. Lualdi; Kristina A. Meier; Michael Vayninger; Paul G. Kwiat; Simeon I. Bogdanov; Spencer J. Johnson; Swetapadma Sahoo

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Fast quantum interferometry at the nanometer and attosecond scales with energy-entangled photons

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that energy-entangled two-photon interference at a 177-THz frequency difference delivers nanometer-scale, attosecond-equivalent resolution with roughly $10^4$ photon pairs, robust to loss and background, and…

desk verdict Solid experiment showing 177-THz energy-entangled interferometry delivers nanoscale resolution with ~10^4 photon pairs; the film-thickness result is a promising but calibration-sensitive proof-of-concept. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.15956 v1 pith:BGI7HZ2S submitted 2025-05-21 quant-ph physics.optics

Colin P. Lualdi , Spencer J. Johnson , Michael Vayninger , Kristina A. Meier , Swetapadma Sahoo , Simeon I. Bogdanov , Paul G. Kwiat This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phphysics.optics PACS 42.50.St42.50.Ex03.67.-a

keywords energyentanglementtwo-photoninterferenceHong-Ou-MandelquantumFisherinformationmetrologyattosecondinterferometrythin-filmthicknessmeasurementloss-robust

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

Energy-entangled photons with a large frequency gap, 810 nm and 1550 nm separated by 177 THz, can turn two-photon interference into a fast, loss-tolerant probe with nanometer-scale path-delay resolution. The paper establishes this experimentally: only about $10^4$ detected photon pairs are needed for nanometer (attosecond) resolution, obtained in seconds rather than hours, and the fringes survive imbalanced loss and heavy optical background that destroy classical interference in the same apparatus. The key validation is a non-destructive thickness measurement of a nickel film that returns 7(1) nm, in agreement with an atomic force microscopy value of 7.4(1) nm, while the classical measurement on the same film fails. If the claim holds, quantum interferometry becomes a practical metrology tool for lossy, photosensitive, or low-light samples.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the energy-entangled biphoton state and the beat-note interference it produces. Its coincidence probability $P_C(\tau) = \frac{1}{2}[1 - \cos((\Delta\omega)\tau)e^{-2\sigma^2\tau^2}]$ combines a fast cosine at the detuning $\Delta\omega = 2\pi\times 177$ THz with a wide Gaussian envelope set by the narrow photon bandwidth, giving roughly 1.7-$\mu$m fringes inside a 0.76-mm-wide envelope. The loss-tolerance mechanism is Eq. (18) of the paper: when the two wavelengths suffer equal transmission $\eta$, the loss becomes a global prefactor on the two-photon state, so the visibility is unchanged; optical background is suppressed because two-photon detections are coincidences, and a $\pm 50$ ps window rejects uncorrelated light by about 100 dB. The quantum Fisher information identity $Q = (\Delta\omega)^2 + 4\sigma^2$ is what converts the large detuning directly into resolution per detected pair.

What would settle it

Measure the same step with a film whose refractive index is known to vary with thickness or wavelength (for example, a different metal, or nickel on a different substrate), convert phase to thickness using the paper's single-index calibration, and compare against a destructive reference; if the extracted value shifts beyond the reported 1-nm error, the wavelength-independent-slab assumption fails. A more direct test of the loss claim is to insert a wavelength-selective absorber in one interferometer arm and check whether the coincidence visibility drops, which Eq. (18) predicts it should not when the two transmissions remain equal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, stated on its own terms, is that highly non-degenerate energy entanglement fully unlocks the resolution promised by two-photon interference without the usual costs of ultrabroadband photons or hour-long integration. For the energy-entangled state $|\psi\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\omega_1\rangle_a |\omega_2\rangle_b + |\omega_2\rangle_a |\omega_1\rangle_b)$, the coincidence probability is $P_C = \frac{1}{2}[1 - \cos((\Delta\omega)\tau)e^{-2\sigma^2\tau^2}]$, and the quantum Fisher information is $Q = (\Delta\omega)^2 + 4\sigma^2$, so the 177-THz detuning, rather than the photon bandwidth, sets the resolution. The authors observe 88.9(2)% fringe visibility, a measured resolution of 1.26 nm (4.2 as) from 59,000(1,000) coincidences in one second, and an 88% saturation of the Cramér–Rao bound. They further show that loss up to about 10 dB in one arm leaves the quantum visibility essentially unchanged while classical visibility drops by roughly half, and that optical background approaching 100% of all detector clicks leaves quantum visibility intact. The validation is a transmission thickness measurement of a lossy nickel film on sapphire: the quantum probe yields 7(1) nm, matching atomic force microscopy at 7.4(1) nm, whereas classical interferometry on the same step returns $-9(1)$ nm.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the nickel film acts as a wavelength-independent optical slab: its transmission is the same for the 810-nm and 1550-nm photons, so loss factors out globally, and a single effective refractive index 3.3(3), calibrated on a separate 50-nm film, converts the measured phase into physical thickness for the 7-nm test film.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Nanometer-scale displacement and delay measurements become possible with about $10^4$ detected photon pairs in seconds, even in optically lossy or background-filled settings.
Thin-film thickness and step-height metrology can be contactless and non-destructive for lossy metal films, where classical interferometry misreads the step sign.
Single-photon-level illumination opens a route to measuring photosensitive or biologically relevant samples without the damage budgets of classical probes.
The wide fringe envelope and roughly 1.7-$\mu$m period offer a large dynamic range for displacement sensing, for example by fringe counting.
Because the resolution scales as $1/\sqrt{N\,Q}$, the same apparatus can trade integration time against precision, with short integrations outpacing passive interferometer drift.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper: if the single effective refractive index and equal-transmission assumption hold for other metals, this becomes a general non-destructive thin-film tool; the load-bearing test is whether the extracted thickness is stable across films of different thicknesses and deposition conditions.
Beyond the paper: the residual gap to the Cramér–Rao bound is attributed by the authors to state purity and interferometer drift, so active phase stabilization should push resolution toward the predicted 0.4-nm floor at 10-s integration.
Beyond the paper: the demonstrated sum-frequency mode, which beats at the 532-nm pump period, suggests a natural extension to samples opaque at one of the two probe wavelengths, and could be tested with a film that transmits only at 810 or 1550 nm.
Beyond the paper: using even larger detunings or multi-color entangled states should further shorten the fringe period and raise the Fisher information, provided the coincidence window and detectors can handle the added spectral separation.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Jack—this one is worth your time. The paper demonstrates energy-entangled two-photon interference with a 177-THz detuning (810 vs 1550 nm) and shows nanometer-scale (attosecond-scale) path-delay resolution with about 10^4 photon pairs in seconds, plus a non-destructive thickness measurement of a 7-nm nickel film that agrees with AFM. The core resolution claim is well supported: the theory is standard, the fringe period and visibility match expectations, and the displacement-validation measurements (100 trials each) show ~1.3-nm precision, close to the Cramér–Rao bound. The direct four-channel coincidence readout is a genuine improvement over previous probabilistic detector-tree methods.

What's actually new: the 177-THz detuning is nearly six times larger than the prior 30.1-THz demonstration, and the combination of that detuning with a bright source and direct detection makes the O(10^4)-pair resolution practical. The loss and background robustness data are convincing—quantum visibility holds essentially flat to ~10 dB loss and up to ~100% background singles, while classical visibility collapses. That part is real and will be useful to the quantum metrology community.

Soft spots, in proportion: the film-thickness measurement is the weakest link. The 7(1)-nm result is obtained by calibrating an effective refractive index (n_film = 3.3(3)) on a separate 50-nm nickel film, then assuming that index holds for the 7-nm film. Nickel's optical constants are thickness- and wavelength-dependent, and the classical 1550-nm probe returned a negative thickness (-9 nm), which the authors attribute to loss-degraded fringes. The stress-test worry that the quantum result could be biased by the same physics is reasonable; a cleaner validation would measure the test film's own phase-thickness response, use a third thickness, or independently determine n(λ) for the actual film. This doesn't sink the paper, because the resolution claim is validated by direct displacement measurements and doesn't depend on the film. But it means the 'non-destructive thickness metrology' headline should be read as a proof-of-concept, not a closed case.

Also minor: the abstract's 'unaffected by loss and background' overstates what Fig. 4 shows—visibility degrades slightly beyond ~10 dB, and the authors model that. The drift limitation (~1° per minute phase drift) is acknowledged and is not a problem for the short integration times they use.

Who this is for: anyone serious about quantum metrology, QOCT, or non-destructive thin-film sensing. It deserves a serious referee—the experiment is carefully done, the analysis is explicit, and the caveats are mostly acknowledged. I'd send it to review with a request for the film-calibration point to be addressed or softened.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper demonstrates a two-photon interferometer using energy-entangled photons at 810 nm and 1550 nm, with a 177-THz frequency detuning. The authors derive the coincidence probability P_C = 1/2[1 - cos(Δωτ) exp(-2σ^2τ^2)], measure fringes with a period 1705.9(2) nm versus the expected 1701.87(1) nm, a visibility of 88.9(2)% versus an expected 87.4%, and an 88% saturation of the quantum Cramér–Rao bound, achieving a 1.26-nm (4.2-as) resolution with ~59,000 detected pairs in one second. They also demonstrate robustness of the two-photon visibility to imbalanced path loss and optical background, and use the interferometer to measure the thickness of a 7-nm nickel film, obtaining 7(1) nm in agreement with atomic force microscopy (7.4(1) nm) while classical 1550-nm interferometry returns -9(1) nm. The supplementary material provides detailed derivations, source characterization, and a model for the thin-film measurement.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper represents a substantial advance in quantum metrology: it uses the largest frequency detuning reported for energy-entangled two-photon interferometry, with a per-pair resolution orders of magnitude better than previous non-ultrabroadband quantum interferometers. The explicit derivation of Eq. 2 and the quantum Fisher information, the detailed loss and background models, and the extensive source and interferometer characterization are clear strengths. The direct displacement validation of the resolution and the comparison with the Cramér–Rao bound are credible. The thin-film thickness measurement is a promising application, but its validity currently rests on a single-point refractive-index calibration that needs strengthening.

major comments (2)

[Supplementary Materials, "Refractive index: Quantum probe" (Eqs. S74–S75); main text Fig. 5A] The flagship film-thickness validation rests on a single-point effective refractive index n_film = 3.3(3) obtained from a 50-nm calibration film with 1.6% quantum-probe transmission, which is then applied to the 7-nm test film with 52.8% transmission. Since nickel is strongly absorbing and dispersive, and since the two-photon phase is the difference of two wavelength-dependent terms (main-text Eq. 18), n_film may depend on thickness and on film microstructure; the classical 1550-nm probe returning -9(1) nm shows that simple index-based phase extraction can fail for this film. The agreement with the AFM value of 7.4(1) nm could be coincidental. Please either measure the optical constants of the test film directly (e.g., ellipsometry), validate the calibration on a second film of comparable thickness, or provide a quantitative sensitivity analysis demonstrating that plausible thickness-dependent index variations cannot shift the extracted thickness outside the quoted 1-nm uncertainty.
[Main text Eq. 18; Section II.B; Fig. 5A] The film model assumes a single effective refractive index for both photon wavelengths, which requires the phase response and loss to be effectively equal for 810 and 1550 nm so that loss acts as a global factor. The paper reports only the combined "quantum probe transmission" (52.8% for the 7-nm film) and does not provide the individual single-photon transmissions or phase delays at the two wavelengths. If the two transmissions differ significantly, Eq. 18 shows the loss is not a global factor and both the fringe visibility and the extracted phase are modified. The observed near-constancy of the quantum visibility (88.5(3)% to 88.2(4)%) is suggestive but not a quantitative check; please report the wavelength-resolved transmissions (or phase delays) and include any corresponding correction in the film model.

minor comments (5)

[Table S1] The reported detector absolute efficiency of 101(4)% for channel 810A exceeds 100%; please clarify whether this is a calibration artifact or a typo.
[Fig. 1D caption] The units of the classical Fisher information I are not specified; please add units (e.g., nm^-2 or fs^-2) and state whether I is the single-event or total Fisher information.
[Section II.B] The statement that individual-detector visibilities below 1% indicate that "two-photon, not single-photon, interference dominates" is somewhat imprecise, since the observed beat note arises from two entangled single-photon interferometers (as explained in Section IV.D); please rephrase to avoid confusion.
[Supplementary Materials, Eq. S73] The illustrative model uses an effective refractive index of 2 for both film and substrate, but the actual fit (Eq. S75) uses separate n_f and n_s; please state explicitly that Eq. S73 is only a schematic illustration.
[Section III] The statement that increasing N or σ has been demonstrated to yield smaller σ_τ [10-13] is supported, but the phrase "this introduces practical challenges" is vague; please specify which practical challenges (measurement time, broadband source complexity) are meant.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central resolution and film-thickness results are anchored to independent measurements and external calibrations, not to the claims they support.

full rationale

The paper's central resolution claim is derived from independently measured inputs: the frequency detuning Δω is obtained from measured spectra (810.504(1) nm measured, 1547.484(5) nm inferred via energy conservation), the photon pair number N is obtained by direct counting, and the quantum Fisher information Q=(Δω)^2+4σ^2 is derived from the first-principles two-photon state without fitting the target result. The claimed 1.26-nm resolution is then validated by imposing known displacements with a piezo stage and comparing the measured spread of extracted displacements to the theoretical σ_x; the set displacement is external to the fringe fit, so the validation is not circular. The thin-film thickness measurement uses an effective refractive index n_film=3.3(3) obtained from a separate 50-nm calibration sample whose thickness was independently confirmed by AFM, and this calibration is then applied to a different 7-nm test sample whose AFM thickness (7.4(1) nm) provides an independent check. The only self-citation (Ref. [27], a standard maximum-likelihood tomography method by a coauthor) is used for routine state reconstruction and is not load-bearing for any of the paper's central claims. No step in the derivation reduces, by construction or by self-citation, to its own inputs. The loss and background models are parameter-free predictions using independently measured visibilities, counts, transmission, and noise characterizations, not fits to the data being explained. Overall, the paper is self-contained in its logic and externally validated where it makes quantitative claims.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard quantum-optics axioms (beamsplitter model, SPDC spectral correlations), two domain assumptions about the SPDC state and sample model, and one calibration-to-measurement assumption (refractive index from a 50-nm sample). No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)

Effective refractive index n_film (quantum probe) = 3.3(3)
Fitted from the phase response of a 50-nm Ni calibration sample (Fig. S14); used in Eq. S74 to convert the measured interferometric displacement of the 7-nm test film into a physical thickness.
Thin-film step-model parameters (film thickness a, linear wedge b, quadratic curvature c, beam width sigma, offset d) = a = 7(1) nm for test film; b, c, sigma, d fit to Eq. S73
The displacement versus sample position is fit to Eq. S73; the fitted beam width (2.4(2) mm) is larger than the measured 1.21(4) mm beam, which reflects model sensitivity and affects the extracted thickness only weakly.

assumptions (5)

standard math Standard bosonic creation/annihilation operator algebra and 50:50 beamsplitter transformation
Used in the supplementary theory (Eqs. S4-S33) to derive the coincidence probability.
domain assumption Continuous-wave SPDC produces a Gaussian joint spectral amplitude with perfect anti-correlation omega1+omega2=omega_p
Eq. S15 models the two-photon state; standard for type-0 SPDC but an idealization of the real phase-matching function.
domain assumption Neglect of the beta = exp(-(Delta omega)^2/(8 sigma^2)) normalization term because the detuning is much larger than the bandwidth
Reduces Eq. S32 to Eq. 2; justified numerically for 177 THz detuning, but is an approximation.
domain assumption Loss in one interferometer arm is frequency-independent (eta_omega1 = eta_omega2)
Eq. 18 derives loss-insensitivity only under equal attenuation of the two colors; a dispersive sample like the Ni film may not satisfy this exactly.
domain assumption The sample is an infinitely sharp step on a substrate with linear wedge and quadratic curvature
Eq. S73 is the fitting model used to extract the film thickness; other edge profiles would change the extracted value.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fast quantum interferometry at the nanometer and attosecond scales with energy-entangled photons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BGI7HZ2S

@misc{pith2026250515956,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fast quantum interferometry at the nanometer and attosecond scales with energy-entangled photons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BGI7HZ2S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.15956}
}

abstract

In classical optical interferometry, loss and background complicate achieving fast nanometer-resolution measurements with illumination at low light levels. Conversely, quantum two-photon interference is unaffected by loss and background, but nanometer-scale resolution is physically difficult to realize. As a solution, we enhance two-photon interference with highly non-degenerate energy entanglement featuring photon frequencies separated by 177 THz. We observe measurement resolution at the nanometer (attosecond) scale with only $O(10^4)$ photon pairs, despite the presence of background and loss. Our non-destructive thickness measurement of a metallic thin film agrees with atomic force microscopy, which often achieves better resolution via destructive means. With contactless, non-destructive measurements in seconds or faster, our instrument enables metrological studies in optically challenging contexts where background, loss, or photosensitivity are factors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.15956 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** C shows the interference fringes observed in our experiment. As the relative path delay between modes a and b is scanned, PC oscillates sinusoidally with a fitted period of 1705.9(2) nm, close to the 1701.87(1)-nm period expected from the photon center wavelengths of 810.504(1) nm (measured) and 1547.484(5) nm (inferred via energy conservation). The given errors are based on fitting errors; the slight discrepancy… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

[1]

LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration, Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016)

work page 2016
[2]

J. D. Monnier, Optical interferometry in astronomy. Rep. Prog. Phys. 66, 789--857 (2003)

work page 2003
[3]

Huang, E

D. Huang, E. A. Swanson, C. P. Lin, J. S. Schuman, W. G. Stinson, W. Chang, M. R. Hee, T. Flotte, K. Gregory, C. A. Puliafito, J. G. Fujimoto, Optical Coherence Tomography. Science 254, 1178--1181 (1991)

work page 1991
[4]

C. K. Hong, Z. Y. Ou, L. Mandel, Measurement of subpicosecond time intervals between two photons by interference. Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2044--2046 (1987)

work page 1987
[5]

A. F. Abouraddy, M. B. Nasr, B. E. A. Saleh, A. V. Sergienko, M. C. Teich, Quantum-optical coherence tomography with dispersion cancellation. Phys. Rev. A 65, 053817 (2002)

work page 2002
[6]

M. B. Nasr, B. E. A. Saleh, A. V. Sergienko, M. C. Teich, Demonstration of Dispersion-Canceled Quantum-Optical Coherence Tomography. Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 083601 (2003)

work page 2003
[7]

Ndagano, H

B. Ndagano, H. Defienne, D. Branford, Y. D. Shah, A. Lyons, N. Westerberg, E. M. Gauger, D. Faccio, Quantum microscopy based on Hong–Ou–Mandel interference. Nat. Photon. 16, 384--389 (2022)

work page 2022
[8]

T. B. Bahder, W. M. Golding, Clock Synchronization based on Second‐Order Quantum Coherence of Entangled Photons. AIP Conf. Proc. 734, 395--398 (2004)

work page 2004

Show all 29 references

[9]

M. Xie, H. Zhang, Z. Lin, G.-L. Long, Implementation of a twin-beam state-based clock synchronization system with dispersion-free HOM feedback. Opt. Express 29, 28607--28618 (2021)

2021
[10]

Lyons, G

A. Lyons, G. C. Knee, E. Bolduc, T. Roger, J. Leach, E. M. Gauger, D. Faccio, Attosecond-resolution Hong-Ou-Mandel interferometry. Sci. Adv. 4, eaap9416 (2018)

2018
[11]

M. B. Nasr, O. Minaeva, G. N. Goltsman, A. V. Sergienko, B. E. A. Saleh, M. C. Teich, Submicron axial resolution in an ultrabroadband two-photon interferometer using superconducting single-photon detectors. Opt. Express 16, 15104--15108 (2008)

2008
[12]

Okano, H

M. Okano, H. H. Lim, R. Okamoto, N. Nishizawa, S. Kurimura, S. Takeuchi, 0.54 resolution two-photon interference with dispersion cancellation for quantum optical coherence tomography. Sci. Rep. 5, 18042 (2015)

2015
[13]

Singh, V

S. Singh, V. Kumar, V. Sharma, D. Faccio, G. K. Samanta, Near-Video Frame Rate Quantum Sensing Using Hong–Ou–Mandel Interferometry. Adv. Quantum Technol. 6, 2300177 (2023)

2023
[14]

Y. Chen, M. Fink, F. Steinlechner, J. P. Torres, R. Ursin, Hong-Ou-Mandel interferometry on a biphoton beat note. npj Quantum Inf. 5, 43 (2019)

2019
[15]

Z. Y. Ou, L. Mandel, Observation of Spatial Quantum Beating with Separated Photodetectors. Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 54--57 (1988)

1988
[16]

J. G. Rarity, P. R. Tapster, Two-color photons and nonlocality in fourth-order interference. Phys. Rev. A 41, 5139--5146 (1990)

1990
[17]

C. W. Helstrom, Quantum detection and estimation theory. J. Stat. Phys. 1, 231--252 (1969)

1969
[18]

Fujiwara, H

A. Fujiwara, H. Nagaoka, Quantum Fisher metric and estimation for pure state models. Phys. Lett. A 201, 119--124 (1995)

1995
[19]

Ramelow, L

S. Ramelow, L. Ratschbacher, A. Fedrizzi, N. K. Langford, A. Zeilinger, Discrete Tunable Color Entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 253601 (2009)

2009
[20]

P. G. Evans, R. S. Bennink, W. P. Grice, T. S. Humble, J. Schaake, Bright Source of Spectrally Uncorrelated Polarization-Entangled Photons with Nearly Single-Mode Emission. Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 253601 (2010)

2010
[21]

Torre, A

C. Torre, A. McMillan, J. Monroy-Ruz, J. C. F. Matthews, Sub- axial precision depth imaging with entangled two-color Hong-Ou-Mandel microscopy. Phys. Rev. A 108, 023726 (2023)

2023
[22]

M. B. Nasr, S. Carrasco, B. E. A. Saleh, A. V. Sergienko, M. C. Teich, J. P. Torres, L. Torner, D. S. Hum, M. M. Fejer, Ultrabroadband Biphotons Generated via Chirped Quasi-Phase-Matched Optical Parametric Down-Conversion. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 183601 (2008)

2008
[23]

H. Lee, P. Kok, J. P. Dowling, A quantum Rosetta stone for interferometry. J. Mod. Opt. 49, 2325--2338 (2002)

2002
[24]

T. B. Pittman, D. V. Strekalov, A. Migdall, M. H. Rubin, A. V. Sergienko, Y. H. Shih, Can Two-Photon Interference be Considered the Interference of Two Photons? Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1917--1920 (1996)

1996
[25]

A. M. Bra\'nczyk, Hong-Ou-Mandel Interference. arXiv:1711.00080 [quant-ph] (2017)

2017 arXiv
[26]

D. N. Klyshko, Use of two-photon light for absolute calibration of photoelectric detectors. Sov. J. Quantum Electron. 10, 1112--1116 (1980)

1980
[27]

J. B. Altepeter, E. R. Jeffrey, P. G. Kwiat, ``Photonic State Tomography'' in Advances In Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics , P. R. Berman, C. C. Lin, Eds. (Academic Press, 2005), vol. 52, pp. 105--159

2005
[28]

I. H. Malitson, Refraction and Dispersion of Synthetic Sapphire. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 52, 1377--1379 (1962)

1962
[29]

P. B. Johnson, R. W. Christy, Optical constants of transition metals: Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, and Pd. Phys. Rev. B 9, 5056--5070 (1974)

1974

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration, Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016)

work page 2016

[2] [2]

J. D. Monnier, Optical interferometry in astronomy. Rep. Prog. Phys. 66, 789--857 (2003)

work page 2003

[3] [3]

Huang, E

D. Huang, E. A. Swanson, C. P. Lin, J. S. Schuman, W. G. Stinson, W. Chang, M. R. Hee, T. Flotte, K. Gregory, C. A. Puliafito, J. G. Fujimoto, Optical Coherence Tomography. Science 254, 1178--1181 (1991)

work page 1991

[4] [4]

C. K. Hong, Z. Y. Ou, L. Mandel, Measurement of subpicosecond time intervals between two photons by interference. Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2044--2046 (1987)

work page 1987

[5] [5]

A. F. Abouraddy, M. B. Nasr, B. E. A. Saleh, A. V. Sergienko, M. C. Teich, Quantum-optical coherence tomography with dispersion cancellation. Phys. Rev. A 65, 053817 (2002)

work page 2002

[6] [6]

M. B. Nasr, B. E. A. Saleh, A. V. Sergienko, M. C. Teich, Demonstration of Dispersion-Canceled Quantum-Optical Coherence Tomography. Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 083601 (2003)

work page 2003

[7] [7]

Ndagano, H

B. Ndagano, H. Defienne, D. Branford, Y. D. Shah, A. Lyons, N. Westerberg, E. M. Gauger, D. Faccio, Quantum microscopy based on Hong–Ou–Mandel interference. Nat. Photon. 16, 384--389 (2022)

work page 2022

[8] [8]

T. B. Bahder, W. M. Golding, Clock Synchronization based on Second‐Order Quantum Coherence of Entangled Photons. AIP Conf. Proc. 734, 395--398 (2004)

work page 2004