REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 70 references
Gravitational effects on Hong-Ou-Mandel interference in terrestrial laboratory
T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read In HOM interference, Earth's gravity acts through the wave phase: the effective time delay from the phase shift, not the null-geodesic delay, controls the coincidence probability.
desk verdict Solid eikonal derivation showing a real first-order sign difference between the relativistic and effective time delays in HOM interference, but the experimental support for the wave perspective rests on an unmapped sign convention and needs major revision. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The load-bearing object is the eikonal phase replacement: the mode function is written as $u_{\vec k}=N\alpha'_{\vec k}\,e^{-i\omega(\bar t+\delta T+\delta^{(2)}T)}e^{ik\int_O dl}$, with the effective delays $\delta T$ and $\delta^{(2)}T$ obtained by expanding the Klein-Gordon eikonal equation in the laboratory-frame metric. These effective delays are contrasted with the null-geodesic delays $\delta t$ and $\delta^{(2)}t$ from the null interval; the paper shows the two are related through a coefficient vector $\Lambda^0_\alpha$ rather than by a simple division of phase by frequency. The minimally-coupled massless scalar field is canonically quantized in the proper reference frame, and the two-photon state is built directly from the integrated phases.
What would settle it
Rotate the HOM platform in both directions and measure the coincidence dip versus the coupler delay $T$. The wave picture gives $P^c=\frac{1}{2}[1-e^{-\zeta^2(T+4A\omega/c^2)^2}]$ and the particle picture gives $\frac{1}{2}[1+e^{-\zeta^2(T-4A\omega/c^2)^2}]$, so with the area $A$ and angular velocity $\omega$ known, the direction of the dip's shift settles which time delay enters.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The paper's central claim is that the correct way to put a terrestrial gravitational field into a two-photon HOM state is to replace the Minkowski phase $e^{i\omega t}$ by the eikonal phase $e^{-iS'}$ of a mode function satisfying the Klein-Gordon equation. The resulting effective time delays $\delta T$ and $\delta^{(2)}T$ enter the coincidence probability as $P^c(T+\delta T_1-\delta T_2+\cdots)$, whereas the particle-picture delays $\delta t$ and $\delta^{(2)}t$ enter with opposite sign at first order and with a different composition at second order. The paper shows this distinction is physical: the rotating-platform HOM experiment shifts its coincidence dip in the direction predicted by the wave picture. It further identifies a next-to-leading-order Sagnac term, arising from the coupling of rotation and acceleration, that previous work omitted and that is comparable in size to the Thomas, geodetic, and Lense-Thirring contributions. It estimates that roughly $10$ loops suffices for the leading Sagnac effect and $10^4$ loops for the gravitational-acceleration redshift effect at current $\sim 10^{-18}\,\mathrm{s}$ timing precision.
Load-bearing premise
The argument rests on the assumption that the gravitational effect on the two-photon state is fully captured by replacing the flat-space phase with the eikonal phase of a minimally coupled massless scalar field, so that amplitude transport, normalization, and polarization or conformal-coupling corrections can be neglected at the orders considered.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- If the wave picture is right, the HOM coincidence dip is controlled by phase-derived effective delays, so the "time delay" inferred from a HOM dip in a gravitational field is not the geodesic arrival-time difference between the two arms.
- The next-to-leading-order Sagnac effect is comparable to the Thomas, geodetic, and Lense-Thirring effects and should be included in terrestrial Sagnac interferometer analyses.
- About $10$ loops in a roughly $10\,\mathrm{m}$ interferometer brings the leading Sagnac delay to the $\sim 10^{-18}\,\mathrm{s}$ level, and about $10^4$ loops brings the gravitational-acceleration redshift delay to the same level.
- The proposed difference observables $P_{\mathrm{HOM}}$ and $P_{\mathrm{QB}}$ need only $\sim 10^{-12}\,\mathrm{s}$ temporal resolution, making gravitational effects observable without resolving the tiny dip shift directly.
Reading between the lines
- If phase-derived delays are the correct description, then gravitational "time delays" in quantum interferometry are not simply coordinate propagation delays; operational time definitions in quantum clock or quantum communication networks may need to track phase shifts rather than geodesic delays.
- Because real photons are conformally coupled whereas the paper uses a minimally-coupled scalar field, redoing the same two-scenario calculation for the Maxwell field would test whether the sign separation between the wave and particle pictures survives at second order.
- The same difference-probe technique could be adapted to large-area fiber Sagnac interferometers or satellite-to-ground HOM links, where the loop-count amplification is replaced by physical area or baselines.
- Planning note: the paper gives two different loop-number estimates for the gravitational redshift experiment ($10^3$ in the conclusions, $10^4$ in Sec. 5.3); an experimental design would need to resolve that discrepancy.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper studies how Earth's gravitational field enters the Hong-Ou-Mandel coincidence probability in a terrestrial laboratory. It computes, to second order in the metric perturbation, a 'relativistic time delay' from the null geodesic equation (the particle perspective) and an 'effective time delay' from the eikonal phase of a minimally coupled massless scalar field (the wave perspective). The central theoretical result is that these two delays differ: at first order they differ by a sign, δt = −δT, and at second order they differ by additional terms. The paper then applies these delays to a rectangular interferometer in two configurations, one isolating frame-dragging effects and one isolating redshift effects, estimates loop numbers needed for detection, proposes difference observables P_HOM and P_QB, and revisits the rotating-platform experiment of Ref. [26], claiming that it supports the wave perspective.
Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper makes a crisp and falsifiable statement: in a terrestrial HOM experiment the coincidence dip shifts in opposite directions depending on whether one uses the null-geodesic time delay or the phase-derived effective delay, and the wave picture is the experimentally relevant one. The analytic derivations are detailed and parameter-free: no free parameter is fitted to the target result, the metric inputs are specified, and the explicit first- and second-order expressions, including the auxiliary Appendix D relation between phase and time delay, are a useful resource. The proposed observables P_HOM and P_QB, together with the concrete loop-number estimates in Sec. 5.3, are genuine experimental predictions. However, the experimental pillar of the paper, the reinterpretation of Ref. [26] in Sec. 6.1, rests on a sign-convention mapping that is not established, and the quantum-state construction in Sec. 3.2 contains an assumption about phase-only gravitational effects that is not derived from the field expansion. These issues do not invalidate the formal derivation, but they do affect the strength of the paper's main claim.
major comments (3)
- [Sec. 6.1] The claim that Ref. [26] supports the wave perspective is not established. With the convention A·ω = −Aω in Eq. (74), the leading Sagnac term of Eq. (58) gives an effective delay δT1−δT2 = +4Aω/c², so the wave-perspective formula (76) has its dip at T = −4Aω/c². The particle-perspective formula, after correcting the typographical plus sign in Eq. (75), has its dip at T = +4Aω/c². The paper never maps the sign convention used for 'positive photon delay' in Ref. [26] onto this coordinate choice, so the statement that the measured positive delay matches Eq. (76) rather than Eq. (75) is unsupported. In addition, Eq. (75) as printed, with a '+' before the exponential, is an anti-bunching peak rather than an HOM dip. Because Ref. [26] constructed its state using the relativistic time delay, a natural reading is that the data matched the particle-perspective formula; the authors must provide a step-by-step conversion of Ref. [26]'s setup and sign conventions to Eqs. (75) and (76), or soften the claim that the experiment selects the wave picture.
- [Sec. 3.2] The central step of the wave-perspective calculation is the replacement of e^{iωt} by e^{−iS'} in the two-photon state. This assumes that the gravitational effect on the coincidence probability is fully captured by the eikonal phase, with amplitude transport, normalization prefactors, and possible polarization-dependent curvature couplings neglected. The Wronskian condition (35) fixes the normalization of each mode, but it does not guarantee that frequency- and path-dependent amplitude factors are irrelevant at the order of the first-order time delay. Because the sign difference δt = −δT is the paper's central claim, the authors should either derive Eq. (49) from the field expansion (34) while tracking the amplitude α'_k explicitly, or state clearly that this is an additional assumption and assess its effect on the sign conclusion. As written, Eq. (49) is an ansatz rather than a derived consequence of the quantized scalar field.
- [Sec. 3.2] The photon is modeled as a massless minimally coupled scalar field, while the authors note that actual transverse Maxwell modes obey a conformally coupled wave equation and differ from Eq. (33). In the exterior of Earth the Ricci scalar vanishes, so the ξRφ term alone does not distinguish the two, but the vector nature of the Maxwell field introduces additional curvature couplings that are not estimated. If such couplings contribute to the coincidence probability at order c^{−2}, the pure phase-shift description in Eq. (49) would need modification. The authors should quantify this correction or state more explicitly that the scalar model is a leading-order proxy whose quantitative accuracy for the sign claim remains to be checked.
minor comments (4)
- [Sec. 2.2] The definition of the gravitational potential U appears twice, in Eq. (19) and again in Eq. (20); one of the two should be removed.
- [Sec. 7] The conclusions refer to Figs. 5(d), 6(c), and 6(f), but the displayed figures contain only panels (a)-(c); the figure references should be updated to match the actual panels.
- [Appendix E] Equation (E.20) contains a doubled comma before the equation tag; this should be corrected.
- [Sec. 3.2] The symbol '⁄=' in Eq. (42a) is nonstandard and could be confused with a division sign; using the standard '\neq' would improve readability.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: the time-delay and coincidence-probability derivations are self-contained, with no fitted parameters or load-bearing self-citations.
full rationale
The paper's central derivations do not reduce to their inputs by construction. The relativistic time delay (27b)-(27c) is obtained by integrating the null interval equation (23) along specified paths, while the effective time delay (45)-(46) is obtained by solving the eikonal equation (37) from the Klein-Gordon equation and collecting the phase terms. The relation dt(1) = -dS(1)/(c k0) and the first-order identity delta-t = -delta-T are derived comparisons of these two independent solutions, not definitions imposed to force the result. The coincidence probabilities (31) and (50) are obtained by substituting the respective time delays into the same Minkowski-space HOM formula (10), with no parameter fitted to the target probabilities. The rotating-platform experiment of Ref. [26] is used as an external benchmark to choose between the two formulas; no constants from that experiment are fed back into the theory, so this is not a fitted-input-called-prediction pattern. The self-citations [60-65] are used only to note that Maxwell fields differ from a minimally coupled scalar field, and the paper explicitly flags this as a limitation and defers it; this citation is not load-bearing for the sign analysis or the coincidence-probability predictions. The claims about the next-to-leading-order Sagnac effect follow from expanding the metric perturbation and the angular velocity (22b); they are computed, not inferred from the results they are compared with. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and no step reduces by definition or by a self-citation chain to its own output.
Assumptions & free parameters
assumptions (6)
- domain assumption The laboratory is described by the proper reference frame metric of an accelerated observer (Eq. 17), expanded to second order in x^μ.
- domain assumption Earth's gravitational field is described by the post-Newtonian metric (Eq. 18) with potential U = GM/|X| and gravitomagnetic vector V_i = G(J × X)_i / |X|^3.
- domain assumption Photons are modeled as a massless, minimally-coupled scalar field satisfying ∇^α∇_α φ = 0, rather than the full Maxwell field.
- standard math The eikonal approximation (geometric optics): mode function u_k = α'_k e^{iS'_k} with slowly-varying envelope, and eikonal equation g^{μν}∂_μS ∂_νS = 0.
- ad hoc to paper The two-photon state is constructed by inserting the eikonal phase directly: |φ⟩ = N ∫ dω1 dω2 Φ a†a† e^{-iS'_1} e^{-iS'_2} (Eqs. 47-49).
- domain assumption The laboratory frame angular velocity ω' is given by Eq. (22b), taken from Ref. [37] (Delva and Gersl), which differs from Ref. [44].
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Gravitational effects on Hong-Ou-Mandel interference in terrestrial laboratory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TYLSF2UX
@misc{pith2026250604736,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Gravitational effects on Hong-Ou-Mandel interference in terrestrial laboratory},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TYLSF2UX}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04736}
}
read the original abstract
In this study, we investigate how Earth's gravitational field affects Hong-Ou-Mandel (HOM) interference experiments conducted in a terrestrial laboratory. To second order, we calculate the relativistic time delay from the null geodesic equation (particle perspective), while the phase shift and the associated effective time delay are derived from the Klein-Gordon equation (wave perspective). Since gravity influences both the temporal and spatial parts of the phase shift, these two time delays differ and lead to different coincidence probabilities. The previous HOM experiment conducted on a rotating platform suggests that the wave perspective can explain the experimental results. We further explore the frame dragging and redshift effects in an arbitrarily oriented rectangular interferometer under two distinct scenarios with different photon paths, measuring one effect in each scenario. We find that both effects can be amplified by increasing the number of light loops. Additionally, we emphasize that the next-to-leading order Sagnac effect, arising from gravitational acceleration, is comparable to the Thomas precession, the geodetic effect, and the Lense-Thirring effect. To detect the leading order Sagnac effect and the redshift effect caused by gravitational acceleration, we estimate the number of loops that photons should travel in the interferometer. Furthermore, we propose that the difference between two HOM patterns can be used as a probe to detect gravitational effects on quantum systems.
Figures
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
- [26]
-
[1]
G. J. Milburn, Trans. R. Soc. A. 361, 1655–1674 (2003)
work page 2003
- [2]
-
[3]
Yin, Juan, et al., Science 356, 6343, 1140 (2017)
work page 2017
-
[4]
Liao Sheng-Kai, et al., Nature 549, 7670, 43 (2017)
work page 2017
-
[5]
Ren Ji-Gang, et al., Nature, 549, 7670, 70 (2017)
work page 2017
-
[6]
Xu Ping, et al., Science, 366, 6461, 132 (2019)
work page 2019
-
[7]
Bo Li, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 17, 170501 (2022)
work page 2022
Show all 70 references
-
[8]
Bo Wang, et al., Sci. China. PMA 68, 249512 (2025)
2025
-
[9]
Pound and G
R. Pound and G. Rebka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 337 (1960)
1960
-
[10]
Pound and J
R. Pound and J. Snider, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 539 (1964)
1964
-
[11]
D. E. Bruschi, et al., Phys. Rev. D 90, 045041 (2014)
2014
-
[12]
D. E. Bruschi, et al., Phys. Rev. D 90, 124001 (2014)
2014
-
[13]
D. E. Bruschi, et al., Phys. Rev. D 104, 085015 (2021)
2021
-
[14]
Kohlrus, et al., Eur
J. Kohlrus, et al., Eur. Phys. J. Quantum Technol. 4, 7 (2017)
2017
-
[15]
Exirifard, E
Q. Exirifard, E. Culf, and E. Karimi, Commun. Phys. 4, 171 (2021)
2021
-
[16]
Colella, A
R. Colella, A. W. Overhauser, and S. A. Werner, Phys. Rev . Lett. 34, 1472 (1975)
1975
-
[17]
Hilweg, et al., New J Phys
C. Hilweg, et al., New J Phys. 19(3), 033028 (2017)
2017
-
[18]
M. Zych, F. Costa, I. Pikovski, and ˇC. Brukner, Nature Communications 2, 505 (2011)
2011
-
[19]
Zych, et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity 29, 224010 (2012)
M. Zych, et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity 29, 224010 (2012)
2012
- [20]
-
[21]
Zhe-Yu Jeff Ou, Multi-Photon Quantum Interference (Springer, 2007)
2007
-
[22]
C. Hong, Z. Ou, and L. Mandel, Phys. Rev. Lett 59, 2044 (1987)
1987
-
[23]
Roy Barzel, et al., Phys. Rev. D 105, 105016 (2022)
2022
-
[24]
Brady and Stav Haldar, Phys
Anthony J. Brady and Stav Haldar, Phys. Rev. Research 3, 023024 (2021)
2021
-
[25]
S. P. Kish and T. C. Ralph, A VS Quantum Sci. 4, 011401 (2022)
2022
-
[27]
Silvestri, et al., 27th International Conference on Optical Fiber Sensors, Technical Digest Series (Optica Publishing Group, 2022), paper Th3.3
R. Silvestri, et al., 27th International Conference on Optical Fiber Sensors, Technical Digest Series (Optica Publishing Group, 2022), paper Th3.3. 23
2022
-
[28]
Silvestri, et al., Optica Quantum 2.0 Conference and Exhibition, Technical Digest Series (Optica Publishing Group, 2023), paper QM2B.1
R. Silvestri, et al., Optica Quantum 2.0 Conference and Exhibition, Technical Digest Series (Optica Publishing Group, 2023), paper QM2B.1
2023
-
[29]
Silvestri, et al., Science Advances, 10, 24 (2024)
R. Silvestri, et al., Science Advances, 10, 24 (2024)
2024
-
[30]
Mohageg, et al., EPJ Quantum Technology, 9 25 (2022)
M. Mohageg, et al., EPJ Quantum Technology, 9 25 (2022)
2022
-
[31]
HuiNan Wu, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 020201 (2024)
2024
-
[32]
Y Q Cai and G Papini, Class. Quantum. Grav. 6 407 (1989)
1989
-
[33]
Stodolsky, General Relativity and Gravition 11 6 (1979)
L. Stodolsky, General Relativity and Gravition 11 6 (1979)
1979
-
[34]
Linet and P
B. Linet and P. Tourrenc, Can. J. Phys. 54 1129 (1976)
1976
-
[35]
Jerzy, Phys
P. Jerzy, Phys. Rev. 118, 1396 (1960)
1960
-
[36]
Roy Barzel and Claus Lammerzahl, Phys. Rev. A 107, 032205 (2023)
2023
-
[37]
Gersl, Universe 3, 24 (2017)
Pacome Delva and J. Gersl, Universe 3, 24 (2017)
2017
-
[38]
Pradana and L
A. Pradana and L. Chew, New J. Phys. 21, 053027 (2019)
2019
-
[39]
Ou. Z. Y, Phys. Rev. A 74 063808 (2006)
2006
-
[40]
W. P. Grice and I. A. Walmsley, Phys. Rev. A 56, 1627 (1997)
1997
-
[41]
Glauber, Phys
R. Glauber, Phys. Rev. 130, 2529 (1963)
1963
-
[42]
Bachor and T
H.-A. Bachor and T. C. Ralph, A Guide to Experiments in Quantum Optics (2 ed) (Wiley VCH, 2004)
2004
-
[43]
Ou and L
Z. Ou and L. Mandel, Phys. Rev. Lett 61, 54 (1988)
1988
-
[44]
Bosi, et al., Phys
F. Bosi, et al., Phys. Rev. D 84, 122002 (2011)
2011
-
[45]
Terno, et al., Phys
Daniel R. Terno, et al., Phys. Rev. D 101, 104052 (2020)
2020
-
[46]
Terno, Phys
Pravin Kumar Dahal and Daniel R. Terno, Phys. Rev. A 104, 042610 (2020)
2020
-
[47]
C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation (Macmillan, London, 1973)
1973
-
[48]
Will, Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018)
CM. Will, Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018)
2018
-
[49]
Poisson, CM
E. Poisson, CM. Will, Gravity: Newtonian, Post-Newtonian, Relativistic (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Cambridge, 2014)
2014
-
[50]
Michael Soffel, Ralf Langhans, Space-Time Reference Systems, (Springer Heidelberg New York Dor- drecht London, 2013)
2013
-
[51]
Soffel, Wen-Biao Han, Applied General Relativity-Theory and Applications in Astr onomy, Celestial Mechanics and Metrology (Springer Nature, Switzerland,2019)
Michael H. Soffel, Wen-Biao Han, Applied General Relativity-Theory and Applications in Astr onomy, Celestial Mechanics and Metrology (Springer Nature, Switzerland,2019)
2019
-
[52]
Igbazio, Ciuilini, John Archibald Wheeler, Gravitiation and Inertia (Princeton, New Jersey, 1995)
1995
-
[53]
Wei-Tou Ni and Mark Zimmermann, Phys. Rev. D 17 1473 (1978)
1978
-
[54]
Landau and Lifhitz, The classical theory of fields, (Pergamon, Amsterdam, 1975). 24
1975
-
[55]
S. A. Fulling. Aspects of Quantum Field Theory in Curved Space-Time. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989)
1989
-
[56]
Birrel and P
N. Birrel and P. Davies, Quantum Fields in Curved Space (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982)
1982
-
[57]
R. M. Wald, Quantum field theory in curved spacetime and black hole therm odynamics (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1994)
1994
-
[58]
Parker and D
L. Parker and D. J. Toms, Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime: Quantized Fields an d Gravity ( Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009)
2009
-
[59]
B. L. Hu, Semiclassical and Stochastic Gravity: Quantum Field Effect s on Curved Spacetime ( Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 2020)
2020
-
[60]
Yang Zhang and Xuan Ye, Phys. Rev. D 106, 065004 (2022)
2022
-
[61]
Xuan Ye and Yang Zhang, IntJMPD, 33, No.13, 2450050 (2024)
2024
-
[62]
Yang Zhang and Xuan Ye, Universe, 11 (2), 72 (2025)
2025
-
[63]
Yang Zhang, Xuan Ye and Bo Wang, Sci. China. PMA 63, 250411 (2020)
2020
-
[64]
C 44, 095104 (2020)
Yang Zhang, Bo Wang and Xuan Ye, Chinese Phys. C 44, 095104 (2020)
2020
-
[65]
Xuan Ye, Yang Zhang and Bo Wang, JCAP 09, 020 (2022)
2022
-
[66]
J. J. Sakurai and J. Napolitano, Modern Quantum Mechanics (3rd ed) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2020)
2020
-
[67]
Lyons, et al., Sci
A. Lyons, et al., Sci. Adv. 4, eaap9416 (2018)
2018
-
[68]
Ramelow, et al., Phys
S. Ramelow, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett 103, 253601 (2009)
2009
-
[69]
Toshio Fukushima, Celestial Mechanics 44, 61 (1988)
1988
-
[70]
Mashhoon, H
B. Mashhoon, H. J. Paik, C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 39, 2825 (1989). A Approximate value of physical quantities In this appendix, we provide the approximate values of the ph ysical quantities, ω ≈ 7.3 × 10−5 rad/s, (A.1) R ≈ 6.4 × 106 m, (A.2) M ≈ 6 × 1024 kg, (A.3) G ≈ 6.7 × 10...
1989
Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.