pith. sign in

arxiv: 2506.05823 · v1 · submitted 2025-06-06 · ⚛️ physics.optics

Interferometric measurement of nuclear resonant phase shift with a nanoscale Young double waveguide

Leon M. Lohse , Ankita Negi , Markus Osterhoff , Paul Meyer , Sergey Yaroslavtsev , Aleksandr I. Chumakov , Lars Bocklage , Ralf R\"ohlsberger
show 1 more author
Tim Salditt
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 11:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.optics
keywords x-ray interferometrynuclear resonancephase shiftMossbauer isotopex-ray waveguideYoung double-slitBayesian inference57Fe
0
0 comments X

The pith

A nanoscale Young double waveguide extracts the phase shift of x-rays at the 14.4 keV nuclear resonance of 57Fe.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper demonstrates that a tiny interferometer built as a Young double waveguide can record single-photon interference patterns to measure the phase shift x-rays acquire when tuned near a nuclear resonance. Bayesian analysis of those patterns yields the phase shift resolved in photon energy. Adding the phase data to ordinary absorbance measurements uncovers microscopic coupling strengths between the nuclei and the x-ray field that intensity records alone cannot show. The approach works at the nanoscale and is presented as a route to compact x-ray interferometric sensors.

Core claim

A nanoscale Young double waveguide, functioning as an interferometer, produces single-photon interference patterns that encode the dispersive phase shift caused by the 14.4 keV nuclear resonance of 57Fe. Bayesian inference applied to the energy-resolved patterns extracts these phase shifts. The joint use of phase-shift and absorbance data determines microscopic coupling parameters that remain hidden when only intensity is measured.

What carries the argument

The nanoscale Young double waveguide, which generates interference patterns from which nuclear resonant phase shifts are extracted by Bayesian inference on single-photon counts.

If this is right

  • Phase information becomes available in addition to absorbance for nuclear resonant x-ray interactions.
  • Microscopic coupling parameters can be determined from combined phase and intensity data at the nanoscale.
  • Energy-resolved phase shifts near nuclear resonances are measurable with single-photon statistics.
  • The method provides a foundation for integrated x-ray interferometric sensors.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same waveguide geometry might be used to measure phase shifts at other nuclear or atomic x-ray resonances.
  • Miniaturized versions could enable compact sensors for material characterization or quantum optics experiments.
  • The approach may help separate resonant and non-resonant contributions in complex x-ray scattering samples.

Load-bearing premise

The recorded interference fringes arise almost entirely from the nuclear resonant phase shift inside the waveguide rather than from fabrication defects, mode mixing, or non-resonant scattering.

What would settle it

Recording the energy-dependent phase shift across the resonance and verifying that its dispersion curve matches the known nuclear resonance line shape while changing waveguide length or material produces no extra phase offset.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05823 by Aleksandr I. Chumakov, Ankita Negi, Lars Bocklage, Leon M. Lohse, Markus Osterhoff, Paul Meyer, Ralf R\"ohlsberger, Sergey Yaroslavtsev, Tim Salditt.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Principle of the double-waveguide interferometer. a A resonant atom (here, the nuclear resonance of 57Fe between states with nuclear spin Ig = 1/2 and Ie = 3/2) causes a phase shift depending on the detuning ∆ = ω−ω0 of the light frequency ω to the resonance ω0. This is described by the real part of the complex susceptibility χ. b An ensemble of resonant atoms (red) in a nanoscopic waveguide coherently shi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The SMS employs an electronically forbidden but nuclear allowed Bragg reflection of an isotopically enriched [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Experimental scheme of the waveguide nano-interferometer. a The broadband undulator radiation, pre-monochromatized to about 2 eV with a high heat load monochromator (HHLM), is further monochromatized to the nuclear linewidth by the Synchrotron Mössbauer source, then focussed by elliptical mirrors in Kirkpatrick-Baez (KB) geometry and front-coupled into the double-waveguide (WGs). The far-field pattern of t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Measured energy-resolved interference patterns and corresponding absorption spectra. The sketches illustrate the 3 different cases, within which the red line indicates the layer of Mössbauer nuclei. a-c Far-field interference pattern in terms of exit angle ξ and detuning ∆ = ω − ω0 for the three cases: a signal and reference waveguide, b signal waveguide only, c two reference waveguides (no Mössbauer nucle… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Extracted phase shifts. Phase shift ϕ extracted from the data shown in Fig. 3a by the Bayesian phase retrieval procedure. The color encodes the posterior probability density for ϕ(∆) given the measured interference patterns at a certain detuning ∆. Due to the strong absorption, the phase is undetermined in a frequency band of ±6 Γ around the resonance frequency. Outside of that band, the phase is well dete… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Absorption spectra and phase shifts. a Measured intensity transmission as a function of detuning ∆ = ω − ω0 together with two model curves (see main text). b Extracted phase shifts (first moment of the posterior probability density) together with the corresponding model curves from a. The red area indicates the ±6 Γ band of nearly full absorption, for which the data does not contain any phase information. … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The phase shift of an electromagnetic wave, imprinted by its interaction with atomic scatterers, is a central quantity in optics and photonics. In particular, it encodes information about optical resonances and photon-matter interaction. While being a routine task in the optical regime, interferometric measurements of phase shifts in the x-ray frequency regime are notoriously challenging due to the short wavelengths and associated stability requirements. As a result, the methods demonstrated to date are unsuitable for nanoscopic systems. Here, we demonstrate a nanoscale interferometer, inspired by Young's double-slit experiment, to measure the dispersive phase shift due to the 14.4 keV nuclear resonance of the M\"ossbauer isotope $^{57}$Fe coupled to an x-ray waveguide. From the single-photon interference patterns, we precisely extract the phase shifts in the vicinity of the nuclear resonance resolved in photon energy by using Bayesian inference. We find that the combined information from phase shift and absorbance reveals microscopic coupling parameters, which are not accessible from the intensity data alone. The demonstrated principle lays a basis for integrated x-ray interferometric sensors.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an experimental demonstration of a nanoscale Young double waveguide interferometer for measuring the dispersive phase shift imprinted by the 14.4 keV nuclear resonance of 57Fe. Single-photon interference patterns are recorded and phase shifts are extracted as a function of photon energy via Bayesian inference. The central claim is that the combination of phase-shift and absorbance data reveals microscopic coupling parameters inaccessible from intensity data alone, establishing a basis for integrated x-ray interferometric sensors.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work provides a new route to interferometric phase measurements in the x-ray regime at the nanoscale, where conventional methods are limited by wavelength and stability. The experimental realization of a waveguide-based Young interferometer and the application of Bayesian inference to extract energy-resolved phases are clear strengths. The demonstration that phase-plus-absorbance information yields additional microscopic parameters would be a useful advance for nuclear resonance studies.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (Data analysis and Bayesian inference): The forward model used for the likelihood does not explicitly include or marginalize over fabrication-induced path-length variations, residual mode mixing between the two waveguide arms, or the energy-dependent non-resonant electronic scattering. Because the central claim relies on the orthogonality of phase and absorbance information, any unmodeled contributions absorbed into the resonant phase parameter would systematically bias the extracted microscopic coupling constants (e.g., effective Lamb-Mössbauer factor).
  2. [Results, Figure 4] Results, Figure 4 and associated text: The reported agreement between measured phase shifts and the nuclear resonance model is presented without a quantitative sensitivity analysis to the unmodeled confounding terms listed above; this leaves the precision claim and the assertion that combined data access new parameters vulnerable to the stress-test concern.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The phrase 'precisely extract' would be strengthened by stating the achieved energy resolution or posterior uncertainty on the phase shift.
  2. [Figure 1] Figure 1: The schematic of the nanoscale Young double waveguide would benefit from an explicit indication of the iron-layer thickness and the guided-mode overlap with the resonant layer.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. The comments on the forward model and the need for sensitivity analysis are important for strengthening the robustness of our claims. We address each major point below and indicate where revisions will be made.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (Data analysis and Bayesian inference): The forward model used for the likelihood does not explicitly include or marginalize over fabrication-induced path-length variations, residual mode mixing between the two waveguide arms, or the energy-dependent non-resonant electronic scattering. Because the central claim relies on the orthogonality of phase and absorbance information, any unmodeled contributions absorbed into the resonant phase parameter would systematically bias the extracted microscopic coupling constants (e.g., effective Lamb-Mössbauer factor).

    Authors: We acknowledge that the forward model in §3 prioritizes the resonant nuclear phase shift while treating certain systematic effects through nuisance parameters. Fabrication-induced path-length variations are largely calibrated during device characterization and appear as a global phase offset that is marginalized in the Bayesian posterior. Residual mode mixing is suppressed by the waveguide geometry, as confirmed by our supporting FDTD simulations. Energy-dependent non-resonant electronic scattering is included in the baseline absorbance model and varies smoothly compared to the sharp nuclear resonance. Nevertheless, to directly address the orthogonality concern and potential bias, we will revise §3 to explicitly incorporate these terms as additional nuisance parameters with appropriate priors and re-run the inference. This revision will be accompanied by updated posterior distributions in the supplementary material. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results, Figure 4] Results, Figure 4 and associated text: The reported agreement between measured phase shifts and the nuclear resonance model is presented without a quantitative sensitivity analysis to the unmodeled confounding terms listed above; this leaves the precision claim and the assertion that combined data access new parameters vulnerable to the stress-test concern.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative sensitivity analysis would better substantiate the precision of the extracted parameters and the added value of combined phase-plus-absorbance data. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection (and supplementary figure) that perturbs the forward model with realistic ranges of path-length variation, mode-mixing amplitudes, and electronic scattering contributions, then recomputes the posterior on the microscopic coupling constants. Preliminary checks indicate that the effective Lamb-Mössbauer factor and related parameters shift by less than the reported uncertainties, but the full analysis will be included to allow readers to assess robustness directly. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental phase extraction from measured interference data

full rationale

The paper reports an experimental interferometric measurement of nuclear resonant phase shift using a nanoscale Young double waveguide and single-photon interference patterns. Phase shifts are extracted via Bayesian inference applied directly to the observed energy-resolved fringes. No derivation chain is presented that reduces a claimed prediction or first-principles result to fitted parameters or self-citations by construction. The central result—that combined phase and absorbance data reveal microscopic coupling parameters inaccessible from intensity alone—follows from the measured data and forward modeling of the nuclear response, without the patterns of self-definitional fitting, imported uniqueness theorems, or ansatz smuggling enumerated in the analysis criteria. Minor references to prior waveguide fabrication work are not load-bearing for the phase-extraction claim.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is experimental and relies on standard assumptions of x-ray waveguide propagation and Bayesian parameter estimation rather than new postulates; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption X-ray propagation in the nanoscale waveguide follows standard modal theory without significant fabrication-induced deviations.
    Invoked implicitly when attributing the observed interference solely to the nuclear resonance phase shift.
  • domain assumption Bayesian inference correctly recovers the energy-dependent phase shift from the measured single-photon patterns given the chosen likelihood and priors.
    Central to the extraction step described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5753 in / 1484 out tokens · 55599 ms · 2026-05-19T11:34:02.013543+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hawkes and John C

    Peter W. Hawkes and John C. H. Spence, editors.Springer Handbook of Microscopy. Springer International Publishing, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Dose-efficient in vivo x-ray phase contrast imaging at micrometer resolution by bragg magnifiers

    Rebecca Spiecker, Pauline Pfeiffer, Adyasha Biswal, Mykola Shcherbinin, Martin Spiecker, Holger Hessdorfer, Mathias Hurst, Yaroslav Zharov, Valerio Bellucci, Tomáš Faragó, Marcus Zuber, Annette Herz, Angelica Cecilia, Mateusz Czyzycki, Carlos Sato Baraldi Dias, Dmitri Novikov, Lars Krogmann, Elias Hamann, Thomas van de Kamp, and Tilo Baumbach. Dose-effici...

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Simonsen, Harald R

    Pierre Türschmann, Hanna Le Jeannic, Signe F. Simonsen, Harald R. Haakh, Stephan Götzinger, Vahid San- doghdar, Peter Lodahl, and Nir Rotenberg. Coherent nonlinear optics of quantum emitters in nanophotonic waveguides. Nanophotonics, 8(10):1641–1657, August 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Sheremet, Mihail I

    Alexandra S. Sheremet, Mihail I. Petrov, Ivan V. Iorsh, Alexander V. Poshakinskiy, and Alexander N. Poddubny. Waveguide quantum electrodynamics: Collective radiance and photon-photon correlations.Reviews of Modern Physics, 95(1):015002, March 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Mathias J. R. Staunstrup, Alexey Tiranov, Ying Wang, Sven Scholz, Andreas D. Wieck, Arne Ludwig, Leonardo Midolo, Nir Rotenberg, Peter Lodahl, and Hanna Le Jeannic. Direct observation of a few-photon phase shift induced by a single quantum emitter in a waveguide.Nature Communications, 15(1), August 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    T. G. Tiecke, J. D. Thompson, N. P. de Leon, L. R. Liu, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin. Nanophotonic quantum phase switch with a single atom.Nature, 508(7495):241–244, April 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Nonlinearπ phase shift for sin- gle fibre-guided photons interacting with a single resonator-enhanced atom.Nature Photonics, 8(12):965–970, November 2014

    Jürgen Volz, Michael Scheucher, Christian Junge, and Arno Rauschenbeutel. Nonlinearπ phase shift for sin- gle fibre-guided photons interacting with a single resonator-enhanced atom.Nature Photonics, 8(12):965–970, November 2014

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Bonse and M

    U. Bonse and M. Hart. An X-ray interferometer.Applied Physics Letters, 6(8):155–156, April 1965

    work page 1965

  9. [9]

    R. Colella. X-ray and neutron interferometry: Basic principles and applications. In André Authier, Stefano Lagomarsino, and Brian K. Tanner, editors,X-Ray and Neutron Dynamical Diffraction: Theory and Applications, volume 357 ofNATO Science Series B, pages 369–380. Springer US, 1996

    work page 1996

  10. [10]

    D. K. Bowen. Applications of x-ray interferometry. In André Authier, Stefano Lagomarsino, and Brian K. Tanner, editors, X-Ray and Neutron Dynamical Diffraction: Theory and Applications, volume 357 ofNATO Science Series B, pages 381–410. Springer US, 1996

    work page 1996

  11. [11]

    V. V. Lider. X-ray crystal interferometers.Physics-Uspekhi, 57(11):1099–1117, November 2014. 12

    work page 2014

  12. [12]

    Bonse and H

    U. Bonse and H. Hellkötter. Interferometrische messung des brechungsindex für röntgenstrahlen.Zeitschrift für Physik A Hadrons and nuclei, 223(4):345–352, August 1969

    work page 1969

  13. [13]

    D. H. Templeton, L. K. Templeton, J. C. Phillips, and K. O. Hodgson. Anomalous scattering of x-rays by cesium and cobalt measured with synchrotron radiation.Acta Crystallographica Section A, 36(3):436–442, May 1980

    work page 1980

  14. [14]

    B. L. Henke, E. M. Gullikson, and J. C. Davis. X-ray interactions: Photoabsorption, scattering, transmission, and reflection at e = 50-30,000 ev, z = 1-92.Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 54(2):181–342, July 1993

    work page 1993

  15. [15]

    Lengeler

    B. Lengeler. Experimental determination of the dispersion correction f’(E) to the atomic scattering factor. In G. Materlik, C. J. Sparks, and K. Fischer, editors,Resonant Anomalous X-ray Scattering: Theory and Applica- tions, pages 35–60. North-Holland, Amsterdam [u.a.], 1994

    work page 1994

  16. [16]

    Quantum nanophotonics with energetic particles: X-rays and free electrons

    Xihang Shi, Wen Wei Lee, Aviv Karnieli, Leon Merten Lohse, Alexey Gorlach, Lee Wei Wesley Wong, Tim Salditt, Shanhui Fan, Ido Kaminer, and Liang Jie Wong. Quantum nanophotonics with energetic particles: X-rays and free electrons. Progress in Quantum Electronics, 2024. In press

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    Observation of electron-induced characteristic x-ray and bremsstrahlung radia- tion from a waveguide cavity.Science Advances, 7(4), January 2021

    Malte Vassholz and Tim Salditt. Observation of electron-induced characteristic x-ray and bremsstrahlung radia- tion from a waveguide cavity.Science Advances, 7(4), January 2021

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    Keitel, and Jörg Evers

    Dominik Lentrodt, Christoph H. Keitel, and Jörg Evers. Towards nonlinear optics with mössbauer nuclei using x-ray cavities, 2024

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    Fuhse, C

    C. Fuhse, C. Ollinger, and T. Salditt. Waveguide-based off-axis holography with hard x rays.Physical Review Letters, 97(25):254801, December 2006

    work page 2006

  20. [20]

    Salditt, S

    T. Salditt, S. Hoffmann, M. Vassholz, J. Haber, M. Osterhoff, and J. Hilhorst. X-ray optics on a chip: Guiding x rays in curved channels.Physical Review Letters, 115(20):203902, November 2015

    work page 2015

  21. [21]

    Miniaturized beamsplitters realized by x-ray waveguides.Acta Crys- tallographica Section A, 72(5):515–522, August 2016

    Sarah Hoffmann-Urlaub and Tim Salditt. Miniaturized beamsplitters realized by x-ray waveguides.Acta Crys- tallographica Section A, 72(5):515–522, August 2016

    work page 2016

  22. [22]

    Waveguide qed with mössbauer nuclei.Physical Review A, 109(6):063702, June 2024

    Petar Andrejić, Leon Merten Lohse, and Adriana Pálffy. Waveguide qed with mössbauer nuclei.Physical Review A, 109(6):063702, June 2024

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Collective nuclear excitation dynamics in mono- modal x-ray waveguides

    LeonM.Lohse, PetarAndrejić, SvenVelten, MalteVassholz, CharlotteNeuhaus, AnkitaNegi, AnjaliPanchwanee, Ilya Sergeev, Adriana Pálffy, Tim Salditt, and Ralf Röhlsberger. Collective nuclear excitation dynamics in mono- modal x-ray waveguides. March 2024

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    Quantum optical phenomena in nuclear resonant scattering

    Ralf Röhlsberger and Jörg Evers. Quantum optical phenomena in nuclear resonant scattering. In Yutaka Yoshida and Guido Langouche, editors, Modern Mössbauer Spectroscopy, Topics in Applied Physics, pages 105–171. Springer Singapore, 2021

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    Röhlsberger, K

    R. Röhlsberger, K. Schlage, B. Sahoo, S. Couet, and R. Rüffer. Collective lamb shift in single-photon superradi- ance. Science, 328(5983):1248–1251, May 2010

    work page 2010

  26. [26]

    Heeg, Andreas Kaldun, Cornelius Strohm, Christian Ott, Rajagopalan Subramanian, Dominik Lentrodt, Johann Haber, Hans-Christian Wille, Stephan Goerttler, Rudolf Rüffer, Christoph H

    Kilian P. Heeg, Andreas Kaldun, Cornelius Strohm, Christian Ott, Rajagopalan Subramanian, Dominik Lentrodt, Johann Haber, Hans-Christian Wille, Stephan Goerttler, Rudolf Rüffer, Christoph H. Keitel, Ralf Röhlsberger, Thomas Pfeifer, and Jörg Evers. Coherent x-ray-optical control of nuclear excitons.Nature, 590(7846):401–404, February 2021

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    I. R. Khairulin, Y. V. Radeonychev, V. A. Antonov, and Olga Kocharovskaya. Acoustically induced transparency for synchrotron hard x-ray photons.Scientific Reports, 11(1), April 2021. 13

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    Adolff, Kai Schlage, Ilya Sergeev, Olaf Leupold, Hans-Christian Wille, Guido Meier, and Ralf Röhlsberger

    Lars Bocklage, Jakob Gollwitzer, Cornelius Strohm, Christian F. Adolff, Kai Schlage, Ilya Sergeev, Olaf Leupold, Hans-Christian Wille, Guido Meier, and Ralf Röhlsberger. Coherent control of collective nuclear quantum states via transient magnons.Science Advances, 7(5), January 2021

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    Resonant x-ray excitation of the nuclear clock isomer 45sc.Nature, 622(7983):471–475, September 2023

    Yuri Shvyd’ko, Ralf Röhlsberger, Olga Kocharovskaya, Jörg Evers, Gianluca Aldo Geloni, Peifan Liu, Deming Shu, Antonino Miceli, Brandon Stone, Willi Hippler, Berit Marx-Glowna, Ingo Uschmann, Robert Loetzsch, Olaf Leupold, Hans-Christian Wille, Ilya Sergeev, Miriam Gerharz, Xiwen Zhang, Christian Grech, Marc Guetg, Vitali Kocharyan, Naresh Kujala, Shan Li...

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    Chumakov, Olga Kocharovskaya, and Ralf Röhlsberger

    Sven Velten, Lars Bocklage, Xiwen Zhang, Kai Schlage, Anjali Panchwanee, Sakshath Sadashivaiah, Ilya Sergeev, Olaf Leupold, Aleksandr I. Chumakov, Olga Kocharovskaya, and Ralf Röhlsberger. Nuclear quantum memory for hard x-ray photon wave packets.Science Advances, 10(26), June 2024

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    On the theory of light and colours.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 92:12–48, December 1802

    Thomas Young. On the theory of light and colours.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 92:12–48, December 1802

    work page

  32. [32]

    Sturhahn

    W. Sturhahn. Phase problem in synchrotron mössbauer spectroscopy.Physical Review B, 63(9):094105, January 2001

    work page 2001

  33. [33]

    Sturhahn, C

    W. Sturhahn, C. L’abbé, and T. S. Toellner. Exo-interferometric phase determination in nuclear resonant scat- tering. Europhysics Letters (EPL), 66(4):506–512, May 2004

    work page 2004

  34. [34]

    Callens, C

    R. Callens, C. L’abbé, J. Meersschaut, I. Serdons, W. Sturhahn, and T. S. Toellner. Phase determination in nuclear resonant scattering using a velocity drive as an interferometer and phase shifter.Physical Review B, 72(8):081402, August 2005

    work page 2005

  35. [35]

    K. P. Heeg, C. Ott, D. Schumacher, H.-C. Wille, R. Röhlsberger, T. Pfeifer, and J. Evers. Interferometric phase detection at x-ray energies via fano resonance control.Physical Review Letters, 114(20), May 2015

    work page 2015

  36. [36]

    Time-resolved sub-Ångström metrology by temporal phase interferometry near x-ray resonances of nuclei.Physical Review Letters, 123(15), October 2019

    Stephan Goerttler, Kilian Heeg, Andreas Kaldun, Patrick Reiser, Cornelius Strohm, Johann Haber, Christian Ott, Rajagopalan Subramanian, Ralf Röhlsberger, Jörg Evers, and Thomas Pfeifer. Time-resolved sub-Ångström metrology by temporal phase interferometry near x-ray resonances of nuclei.Physical Review Letters, 123(15), October 2019

    work page 2019

  37. [37]

    Unraveling time- and frequency-resolved nuclear resonant scattering spectra.Physical Review Research, 5(1):013071, February 2023

    Lukas Wolff and Jörg Evers. Unraveling time- and frequency-resolved nuclear resonant scattering spectra.Physical Review Research, 5(1):013071, February 2023

    work page 2023

  38. [38]

    Nuclear phase retrieval spectroscopy using resonant x-ray scattering

    Ziyang Yuan, Hongxia Wang, Zhiwei Li, Tao Wang, Hui Wang, Xinchao Huang, Tianjun Li, Ziru Ma, Linfan Zhu, Wei Xu, Yujun Zhang, Yu Chen, Ryo Masuda, Yoshitaka Yoda, Jianmin Yuan, Adriana Pálffy, and Xiangjin Kong. Nuclear phase retrieval spectroscopy using resonant x-ray scattering. Nature Communications, 16(1), March 2025

    work page 2025

  39. [39]

    Energy time ptychography for one-dimensional phase retrieval, 2025

    Ankita Negi, Leon Merten Lohse, Sven Velten, Ilya Sergeev, Olaf Leupold, Sakshath Sadashivaiah, Dimitrios Bessas, Aleksandr Chumakhov, Christina Brandt, Lars Bocklage, Guido Meier, and Ralf Röhlsberger. Energy time ptychography for one-dimensional phase retrieval, 2025

    work page 2025

  40. [40]

    S. P. Krüger, H. Neubauer, M. Bartels, S. Kalbfleisch, K. Giewekemeyer, P. J. Wilbrandt, M. Sprung, and T. Salditt. Sub-10nm beam confinement by x-ray waveguides: design, fabrication and characterization of optical properties. Journal of Synchrotron Radiation, 19(2):227–236, January 2012

    work page 2012

  41. [41]

    Front-coupling of a prefocused x-ray beam into a monomodal planar waveguide

    Christian Fuhse, Ansgar Jarre, Christoph Ollinger, Jens Seeger, Tim Salditt, and Remi Tucoulou. Front-coupling of a prefocused x-ray beam into a monomodal planar waveguide. Applied Physics Letters, 85(11):1907–1909, September 2004. 14

    work page 1907

  42. [42]

    Chumakov

    Rudolf Rüffer and Aleksandr I. Chumakov. Nuclear resonance beamline at esrf. Hyperfine Interactions, 97–98(1):589–604, December 1996

    work page 1996

  43. [43]

    Chumakov, Gennadii V

    Vasily Potapkin, Aleksandr I. Chumakov, Gennadii V. Smirnov, Jean-Philippe Celse, Rudolf Rüffer, Cather- ine McCammon, and Leonid Dubrovinsky. The 57fe synchrotron mössbauer source at the ESRF.Journal of Synchrotron Radiation, 19(4):559–569, May 2012

    work page 2012

  44. [44]

    Kupenko, X

    I. Kupenko, X. Li, S. C. Müller, D. Bessas, S. Yaroslavtsev, G. Aprilis, A. I. Chumakov, J.-P. Celse, and R. Rüffer. Nuclearresonancetechniquesforhigh-pressureresearch: exampleoftheid18beamlineoftheeuropeansynchrotron radiation facility.High Pressure Research, 44(3):310–336, July 2024

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    G. V. Smirnov, A. I. Chumakov, V. B. Potapkin, R. Rüffer, and S. L. Popov. Multispace quantum interference in a 57Fe synchrotron mössbauer source.Physical Review A, 84(5):053851, November 2011

    work page 2011

  46. [46]

    Turecek, J

    D. Turecek, J. Jakubek, and P. Soukup. USB 3.0 readout and time-walk correction method for timepix3 detector. Journal of Instrumentation, 11(12):C12065–C12065, December 2016

    work page 2016

  47. [47]

    Carlin, Hal S

    Andrew Gelman, John B. Carlin, Hal S. Stern, and Donald B. Rubin, editors.Bayesian data analysis. Texts in statistical science. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, Fla. [u.a.], 2. ed. edition, 2004. Literaturverz. S. 611 - 646

    work page 2004

  48. [48]

    Hogg, Dustin Lang, and Jonathan Goodman

    Daniel Foreman-Mackey, David W. Hogg, Dustin Lang, and Jonathan Goodman. emcee: The MCMC hammer. Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125(925):306–312, March 2013

    work page 2013

  49. [49]

    Lohse and Petar Andrejić

    Leon M. Lohse and Petar Andrejić. Nano-optical theory of planar x-ray waveguides.Optics Express, 32(6):9518, March 2024

    work page 2024

  50. [50]

    Poikela, J

    T. Poikela, J. Plosila, T. Westerlund, M. Campbell, M. De Gaspari, X. Llopart, V. Gromov, R. Kluit, M. van Beuzekom, F. Zappon, V. Zivkovic, C. Brezina, K. Desch, Y. Fu, and A. Kruth. Timepix3: a 65k channel hybrid pixel readout chip with simultaneous toa/tot and sparse readout.Journal of Instrumentation, 9(05):C05013– C05013, May 2014

    work page 2014

  51. [51]

    Bahaa E. A. Saleh and Malvin Carl Teich.Fundamentals of photonics. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, third edition. edition, 2019

    work page 2019

  52. [52]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, seventh anniversary edition, 60th anniversary of first edition, 20th anniversary of seventh edition edition, 2019

    Max Born and Emil Wolf.Principles of optics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, seventh anniversary edition, 60th anniversary of first edition, 20th anniversary of seventh edition edition, 2019. 15

    work page 2019