Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 6 cited by

Experimental Verification of Electron-Photon Entanglement

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Electron–photon pairs inside a transmission electron microscope are shown to be entangled.

desk verdict A plausible first demonstration of electron-photon entanglement in a TEM, but the central witness rests on a fitted PSF width the authors' own SI says may be an underestimate. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.13163 v1 pith:ICIH5QVR submitted 2025-04-17 quant-ph

Alexander Preimesberger , Sergei Bogdanov , Isobel C. Bicket , Phila Rembold , Philipp Haslinger This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords electron-photonentanglementcathodoluminescencetransmissionelectronmicroscopyghostimagingcontinuous-variableposition-momentumcorrelationsMancini-Giovannetti-Vitali-Tombesiinequalitycoincidencedetection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports the first experimental demonstration of entanglement between a free electron and the photon it emits inside a transmission electron microscope. The authors use cathodoluminescence to create electron–photon pairs and adapt photonic ghost-imaging techniques to record coincidence images in both position and momentum bases. The measured joint uncertainty product $\Delta x_-^2 \Delta k_+^2 = 0.502 \pm 0.047$ lies below the classical bound of 1 for separable states, violating it by roughly ten standard deviations. If correct, this makes electron microscopes a platform for studying continuous-variable quantum correlations at the nanoscale.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the Mancini–Giovannetti–Vitali–Tombesi inequality, which states that any separable state obeys $\Delta x_-^2 \Delta k_+^2 \geq 1$, so a value below 1 witnesses continuous-variable entanglement. Experimentally, the machinery is coincidence ghost imaging: a parabolic mirror collects cathodoluminescence photons, a grating mask modulates them either in image space (position) or Fourier space (momentum), and a Timepix3 detector time-stamps the energy-filtered electrons together with a single-photon module. A Gaussian point-spread-function fit to the coincidence images translates the measured blur into upper bounds on the pair's joint variances.

What would settle it

Measure the conditional mean of the photon position given the electron position, and of photon momentum given electron momentum, directly from the same coincidence data. If either conditional slope deviates from 1 by more than the statistical error, the fitted widths no longer upper-bound the true variances, and the reported product below 1 could vanish.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a 200 keV electron and its transition-radiation photon are entangled in the continuous variables of position and momentum. By placing periodic transmission masks in the photon path, either at an image plane or at a Fourier plane, and matching each detected photon to its energy-filtered electron by time stamp, the authors reconstruct ghost images in both bases. Fitting a Gaussian point spread function to these images gives upper bounds on the variances of $x_- = x_e - x_\gamma$ and $k_+ = k_e + k_\gamma$, yielding $\Delta x_-^2 \Delta k_+^2 \leq 0.502 \pm 0.047 < 1$. Since separable states must satisfy the Mancini–Giovannetti–Vitali–Tombesi bound $\Delta x_-^2 \Delta k_+^2 \geq 1$, the violation certifies entanglement without assuming the shape of the underlying wave functions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the width of the fitted ghost image equals the true variance of the pair's relative position and summed momentum, which presumes each photon is created at the electron's position with opposite transverse momentum; if that conditional relationship is not slope one, the measured width could understate the true variance and the violation would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the demonstration holds, transmission electron microscopes become a source of entangled electron–photon pairs, not just imaging tools.
  • The same measurement criterion can be reapplied to other coherent cathodoluminescence processes, such as Cherenkov radiation, to certify entanglement there.
  • Because the criterion is state-agnostic, it offers a route to quantum-enhanced imaging that does not require full quantum-state reconstruction.
  • Detecting in mutually unbiased bases would let the continuous variables be discretised, opening the door to discrete-variable quantum information protocols in the TEM.
  • Directly extracting the average inference error from full correlation images would allow more detailed quantum-state reconstruction of the emitted pairs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural stress test would be to measure the conditional mean of photon position given electron position: if its slope is not 1, the point-spread width would underestimate the true variance of $x_-$, and the reported violation could weaken.
  • The authors' conclusion applies to the detected subset of pairs; whether the full source state is entangled depends on the undetected fraction behaving the same way.
  • One could re-analyse the same data with non-Gaussian point-spread models or higher-contrast masks; if the fitted width grows enough to push the product above 1, the claim would need revision.
  • Interleaving position and momentum calibrations within a single acquisition run would directly reduce the hysteresis uncertainty that contributes to the error bar on the inequality product.
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 paper reports an experiment in a transmission electron microscope in which 200 keV electrons passing through a thin silicon membrane generate cathodoluminescence photons, and the electron and photon are detected in coincidence. By placing periodic transmission masks in either the image plane or the Fourier plane of the photon collection optics, the authors reconstruct 'ghost images' of the masks from electron-photon coincidences in both position and momentum bases. They fit the coincidence images with a binary mask convolved with a Gaussian point spread function and extract widths σx and σkx, which they identify with bounds on the variances Δx_-^2 and Δk_+^2 of the relative position x_- = x_e - x_γ and summed momentum k_+ = k_e + k_γ. The central result is Δx_-^2 Δk_+^2 = 0.502 ± 0.047 < 1, which, by the Mancini-Giovannetti-Vitali-Tombesi criterion, is claimed to demonstrate electron-photon entanglement in continuous position and momentum variables. The paper also reports mixed-basis control measurements showing no ghost images in conjugate bases, and a detailed TEM magnification calibration. The stated conclusion is that the observed violation of the classical uncertainty bound verifies entanglement between the electron and its CL photon.

Significance. If the result is correct, this is the first experimental demonstration of continuous-variable electron-photon entanglement in an electron microscope, a milestone that would bridge electron microscopy and quantum optics and open avenues for quantum-enhanced imaging and free-electron quantum optics. The experimental program is substantial: over 10^5 coincidence events per basis were recorded in an uninterrupted 30-hour session, the entanglement witness is the external, state-agnostic MGVT/Duan-Giudice-Cirac-Zoller criterion, and the authors performed mixed-basis controls and careful calibration of the TEM position and momentum scales. The paper also ships a plausible error budget for statistical and calibration uncertainties. The significance is high if the identification between the fitted PSF width and the required variances is rigorously established. The current manuscript, however, contains an internal contradiction on exactly this point that must be resolved before the claim can be considered supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [SI: Model Residuals vs Methods: Data Analysis] The manuscript directly contradicts itself on the load-bearing point of whether the fitted Gaussian width σx is an upper bound on Δx_-. The Methods section states: 'As our model is not perfect, we expect that the variances are effectively overestimated and bound the correlation uncertainties from above.' The SI section 'Model Residuals' states, based on the structured residuals in Extended Data Fig. 2c, that 'the position fit is underestimating the peaks in the raw data and overestimating the signal in the valleys, indicating that the σx value we have obtained from the fit is an underestimation of the true distribution.' These two statements cannot both be true. The central witness depends on σx: the reported product 0.502 ± 0.047 would exceed 1 if σx were actually 41% larger (about 2.04 µm). With R² = 0.47 for the position fit, the model clearly does not capture the full spatial correlation structure. The remark that a blurred patch 'will contribute to increasing the net σx' leaves the net bias direction unresolved. This is not a cosmetic issue: the claimed violation is the entire experimental result. The authors must reconcile this contradiction and provide a rigorous, data-derived upper bound on Var(x_e - x_γ) (and Var(k_e + k_γ)), or the entanglement claim is not supported.
  2. [Methods: Data Analysis / Entanglement section] The identification of the fitted PSF width with the variance of x_- and k_+ assumes a specific conditional relationship between the photon and electron observables, namely x_γ = x_e and k_γ = -k_e (slope-one correlation and unit-gain anti-correlation). If the conditional mean of the photon observable given the electron observable deviates from this form, the width of the coincidence ghost image can be smaller than the true variance of the difference/sum operator even for a perfectly Gaussian model. The mixed-basis control datasets (Extended Data Fig. 1c,d) demonstrate that the correct bases were chosen, but they do not calibrate the conditional gain. The physical model of coherent CL supports slope-one correlations, but the experiment should either measure this gain explicitly or present an analysis that does not require it. This is a load-bearing assumption for the step Δx_- ≤ Δinfer_x in the Results section.
  3. [Methods: Error Estimate / Eq. (3)] The reported uncertainty of 0.047 on the product Δx_-^2 Δk_+^2 does not include model misspecification uncertainty. The bootstrap resampling in the Error Estimate section only resamples the coincidence counts under the fixed model structure (binary mask, single Gaussian PSF, fixed dFocus and rotation angles), and the systematic budget covers only TEM magnification calibration and hysteresis. Given the structured residuals and the R² = 0.47 position fit, the model uncertainty is likely to be comparable to or larger than the statistical error. The authors should provide a sensitivity analysis over PSF shape, mask edge profile, and fixed geometric parameters, or otherwise include a model-uncertainty term in the error budget. Without this, the '10 standard deviations' claim overstates the robustness of the violation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Main Text] There are minor typographical issues, including 'A state is said too be entangled' in the opening line and a spacing issue in the abstract's equation '0 .502± 0.047'. These should be corrected.
  2. [SI: Deriving Model Parameters] Equation (S.9) lists 'σx,σy,σkx,σkx' with a duplicated subscript; it should read 'σkx,σky'. The same typo appears in Eq. (3) of the Methods where 'arg min' lists the fit parameters.
  3. [Data Availability / Code Availability] The statement that datasets and code are 'available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request' is weaker than current best practice for a quantitative claim of this significance. The authors should deposit the processed coincidence datasets, the fitting code, and the calibration data in a public repository to allow independent verification of the central bound.
  4. [References] Reference [10] (Rembold et al.) is cited as a preprint. If it has been published by the time of the revised submission, the published version should be cited. Also, the manuscript would benefit from citing the original Duan-Lukin-Cirac-Zoller inseparability criterion alongside Ref. [49] for the continuous-variable witness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the entanglement witness is an external inequality applied to independently fitted correlation widths.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The separability bound Δx_-^2 Δk_+^2 ≥ 1 is derived in the Supplementary Information from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, convexity of separable states, and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, citing the original external criteria [33, 49] and standard references. The experimental quantities Δx_- and Δk_+ are obtained by fitting Gaussian point-spread functions to measured coincidence images (Eqs. 2-3); these fitted widths are measured correlation widths, not parameters tuned to satisfy the inequality. The inference-error argument that the fitted PSF width bounds the variance of the difference/sum operator is a physical modeling step based on the electron-photon emission process, not a definitional identity. The self-citations (Refs. 10, 45) provide theoretical context and prior experimental infrastructure, but the entanglement witness itself is re-derived from independent literature and the comparison to the bound is a measurement. The main caveat, noted in the SI Model Residuals section, is that the position fit may underestimate the true σx; this is a correctness and calibration risk, not a circularity in the derivation.

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

No new entities are postulated. The central claim rests on standard entanglement criteria plus a physical model of transition radiation; the only fitted quantities entering the witness are the PSF widths, which are measured rather than tuned. The calibration parameters (beam position, grating offsets, lens distance, rotations) affect the geometric mapping but not the physics of the witness.

free parameters (5)
  • Gaussian PSF standard deviations σx, σy, σkx, σky = σx: 1.448 ± 0.061 μm, σkx: 0.489 ± 0.010 μm^-1
    Fitted to coincidence ghost images via least absolute error minimization (Eq. 2-3). These values directly determine the entanglement witness product, so they are the measured quantities of central interest.
  • Beam position relative to mirror focus xBeam = (x, y, z) = -2.39 μm, -32.6 μm, 52.4 μm
    Fitted jointly with the PSF widths; affects the geometric distortion mapping of the mask (SI: Deriving Model Parameters).
  • Grating offsets ℓx, ℓk = 34.6 μm, 3.8e-4 μm
    Fitted jointly; inextricably linked to beam position and mask alignment.
  • dFocus corrected distance = 317.0 mm
    Corrected from the manually measured value by about 3% and fixed in the model (SI: Geometric Distortion Mapping).
  • Rotation angles ϕx, ϕk = 30°, 295°
    Calibrated separately; a systematic 5° offset was observed and fixed in the model.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math MGVT/Duan criterion: for any separable state, Δx_-^2 Δk_+^2 ≥ 1
    Imported from Mancini et al. 2002 and Duan et al. 2000; the SI provides an illustrative derivation (Eq. S.1-S.7).
  • standard math Heisenberg uncertainty principle for each subsystem Δx^2 Δk^2 ≥ 1/4
    Used in the entanglement bound derivation (SI: Entanglement Bound).
  • domain assumption Coherent cathodoluminescence (transition radiation) produces pairs with x_e = x_γ and k_e + k_γ = 0 at the emission event
    Stated in the Entanglement section; load-bearing for identifying the measured PSF with the variance of x_- and k_+.
  • domain assumption The ghost-image coincidence PSF width equals, or upper-bounds, the variance of x_- and k_+
    Assumed in Methods: Data Analysis; a conditional variance would generally be a lower bound, so this requires the slope-one correlation assumption from the physical model.
  • domain assumption The correlation function is well modeled by a binary mask convolved with a Gaussian PSF
    Used in fitting Eq. 2; justified by comparison with residuals, but R² = 0.47 in position space.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Experimental Verification of Electron-Photon Entanglement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ICIH5QVR

@misc{pith2026250413163,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Experimental Verification of Electron-Photon Entanglement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ICIH5QVR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.13163}
}
abstract

Entanglement, a key resource of emerging quantum technologies, describes correlations between particles that defy classical physics. It has been studied extensively on various platforms, but has remained elusive in electron microscopy. Transmission electron microscopes are well-established tools for materials characterisation with unparalleled spatial resolution. They provide control over the preparation and detection of high energy electrons, with largely unexploited potential in the study of many-body quantum correlations. Here, we demonstrate entanglement in electron-photon pairs generated via cathodoluminescence in a transmission electron microscope. Employing coincidence imaging techniques adapted from photonic quantum optics, we reconstruct both near- and far-field ``ghost'' images of periodic transmission masks. By measuring spatial and momentum correlations, we show a violation of the classical uncertainty bound: $\Delta x_-^2 \Delta k_+^2 = 0.502 \pm 0.047<1$. Hence, we demonstrate entanglement in position and momentum -- the continuous variables at the base of most imaging methods, bridging the fields of electron microscopy and quantum optics. Our work paves the way for exploring quantum correlations in free-electron systems and their application to quantum-enhanced imaging techniques on the nanoscale.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Ghost Imaging with Free Electron-Photon Pairs

    quant-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    First demonstration of two-dimensional ghost imaging using electron-photon pairs in a TEM, achieving 2 micrometer resolution on complex patterns.

  2. Spin Squeezing in Electron Microscopy

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Spin squeezing of free electrons in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer is proposed as a way to push phase measurement accuracy in electron microscopy below the shot-noise limit.

  3. Two-electron quantum walks can probe entanglement and decoherence in an electron microscope

    quant-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A two-electron quantum walk in an ultrafast electron microscope measures electron-pair coherence and finds no significant electron-electron entanglement, only Coulomb anti-correlations.

  4. Femtosecond and attosecond phase-space correlations in few-particle photoelectron pulses

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Number-resolved measurements reveal a bimodal phase-space distribution in two-electron pulses, and coherent laser modulation is predicted to create attosecond interparticle correlations exploitable for tailored excitations.

  5. Tomographic reconstruction of free-electron quantum states

    quant-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Reanalysis of archival attosecond electron pulse-train data using maximum likelihood, Bayesian, and deep learning tomography yields pulse durations of 203 to 245 attoseconds, about three times shorter than the origina...

  6. Quantum sensing and metrology with free electrons

    quant-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Free electrons reflected from a waveguide can generate tens of photons per electron, enabling electron-readout optical phase sensing and high-rate NOON state generation in a theoretical protocol.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    & Rosen, N

    Einstein, A., Podolsky, B. & Rosen, N. Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. 47, 777–780 (1935)

    1935

  2. [2]

    Freedman, S. J. & Clauser, J. F. Experimental test of local hidden-variable theories. Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 938 (1972)

    work page 1972

  3. [3]

    Giustina, M. et al. Significant-loophole-free test of Bell’s theorem with entangled photons. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250401 (2015)

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Hensen, B. et al. Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres. Nature 526, 682–686 (2015)

    2015

  5. [5]

    & Kohl, H

    Reimer, L. & Kohl, H. Transmission Electron Microscopy: Physics of Image Formation Springer Series in Optical Sciences (Springer, New York, 2008)

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    & Ruska, E

    Knoll, M. & Ruska, E. Das Elektronenmikroskop. Z. Physik 78, 318–339 (1932)

    work page 1932

  7. [7]

    & Ikuhara, Y

    Ishikawa, R., Morishita, S., Tanigaki, T., Shibata, N. & Ikuhara, Y. Spatial and phase resolution in electron microscopy. Microscopy 72, 78–96 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    S., Bentley, S

    Bennink, R. S., Bentley, S. J., Boyd, R. W. & Howell, J. C. Quantum and classical coincidence imaging. Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 033601 (2004)

    work page 2004

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    D’Angelo, M., Kim, Y.-H., Kulik, S. P. & Shih, Y. Identifying entanglement using quantum ghost interference and imaging. Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 233601 (2004)

    2004

  2. [10]

    Rembold, P. et al. State-agnostic approach to certifying electron-photon entan- glement in electron microscopy. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.19536 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Nielsen, M. A. & Chuang, I. L. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 2000)

    2000

  4. [12]

    Bell, J. S. On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. Physics Physique Fizika 1, 195–200 (1964)

    1964

  5. [13]

    Barwick, B., Flannigan, D. J. & Zewail, A. H. Photon-induced near-field electron microscopy. Nature 462, 902–906 (2009)

    2009

  6. [14]

    & Zewail, A

    Baum, P. & Zewail, A. H. Attosecond electron pulses for 4D diffraction and microscopy. P. Natl A. Sci. 104, 18409–18414 (2007). 8

    2007

  7. [15]

    Priebe, K. E. et al. Attosecond electron pulse trains and quantum state recon- struction in ultrafast transmission electron microscopy. Nature Photon 11, 793–797 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    & Tsuda, K

    Tanaka, M. & Tsuda, K. Convergent-beam electron diffraction. J. Electron Microsc. 60, S245–S267 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    Decoding material structures with scanning electron diffraction techniques

    Yoon, S. Decoding material structures with scanning electron diffraction techniques. Crystals 14, 275 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    & Lehmann, M

    Lichte, H. & Lehmann, M. Electron holography—basics and applications. Rep. Prog. Phys. 71, 016102 (2007)

    2007

  11. [19]

    & Ropers, C

    Henke, J.-W., Jeng, H. & Ropers, C. Probing electron-photon entanglement using a quantum eraser. Phys. Rev. A 111, 012610 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    & Garc´ ıa de Abajo, F

    Koneˇ cn´ a, A., Iyikanat, F. & Garc´ ıa de Abajo, F. J. Entangling free electrons and optical excitations. Sci. Adv. 8, eabo7853 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Entanglements of electrons and cavity photons in the strong-coupling regime

    Kfir, O. Entanglements of electrons and cavity photons in the strong-coupling regime. Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 103602 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    & Kfir, O

    Kazakevich, E., Aharon, H. & Kfir, O. Spatial electron-photon entanglement. Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 043033 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    & L¨ offler, S

    Schattschneider, P. & L¨ offler, S. Entanglement and decoherence in electron microscopy. Ultramicroscopy 190, 39–44 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Adiv, Y. et al. Observation of 2D Cherenkov radiation. Phys. Rev. X 13, 011002 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Garc´ ıa de Abajo, F. J. et al. Roadmap for Quantum Nanophotonics with Free Electrons. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.14678 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Slussarenko, S. et al. Unconditional violation of the shot-noise limit in photonic quantum metrology. Nat. Photonics 11, 700–703 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Rosi, P. et al. Increasing the resolution of transmission electron microscopy by computational ghost imaging. Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 123801 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Y., Wang, L

    Zou, X. Y., Wang, L. J. & Mandel, L. Induced coherence and indistinguishability in optical interference. Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 318–321 (1991)

    1991

  21. [29]

    Lemos, G. B. et al. Quantum imaging with undetected photons. Nature 512, 409–412 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    L., Furusawa, A

    O’Brien, J. L., Furusawa, A. & Vuˇ ckovi´ c, J. Photonic quantum technologies.Nat. Photonics 3, 687–695 (2009)

    2009

  23. [31]

    B., Shih, Y

    Pittman, T. B., Shih, Y. H., Strekalov, D. V. & Sergienko, A. V. Optical imaging by means of two-photon quantum entanglement. Phys. Rev. A 52, R3429(R) (1995)

    1995

  24. [32]

    & Padgett, M

    Moreau, P.-A., Toninelli, E., Gregory, T. & Padgett, M. J. Imaging with quantum states of light. Nat. Rev. Phys. 1, 367–380 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    & Tombesi, P

    Mancini, S., Giovannetti, V., Vitali, D. & Tombesi, P. Entangling macroscopic oscillators exploiting radiation pressure. Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 120401 (2002)

    2002

  26. [34]

    Garc´ ıa de Abajo, F. J. Optical excitations in electron microscopy. Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 209–275 (2010)

    2010

  27. [35]

    & Haslinger, P

    Scheucher, M., Schachinger, T., Spielauer, T., St¨ oger-Pollach, M. & Haslinger, P. Discrimination of coherent and incoherent cathodoluminescence using temporal photon correlations. Ultramicroscopy 241, 113594 (2022). 9

    2022

  28. [36]

    Poikela, T. et al. Timepix3: A 65K channel hybrid pixel readout chip with simultaneous ToA/ToT and sparse readout. J. Instrum. 9, C05013 (2014)

    2014

  29. [37]

    & Krivanek, OL

    Ahn, CC. & Krivanek, OL. Excited state lifetime measurements by eel-cl coin- cidence. Proc. 43rd Annual Meet. of the Electron Microscopy Soc. Am. 406–407 (1985)

    1985

  30. [38]

    Varkentina, N. et al. Excitation lifetime extracted from electron–photon (EELS- CL) nanosecond-scale temporal coincidences. Applp Phys. Lett. 123, 223502 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Yanagimoto, S. et al. Time-correlated electron and photon counting microscopy. Commun. Phys. 6, 1–9 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Feist, A. et al. Cavity-mediated electron-photon pairs. Science 377, 777–780 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Ben Hayun, A. et al. Shaping quantum photonic states using free electrons. Sci. Adv. 7, eabe4270 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    Kfir, O., Di Giulio, V., de Abajo, F. J. G. & Ropers, C. Optical coherence transfer mediated by free electrons. Sci. Adv. 7, eabf6380 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    & Horodecki, K

    Horodecki, R., Horodecki, P., Horodecki, M. & Horodecki, K. Quantum entanglement. Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865–942 (2009)

    2009

  36. [44]

    & Retzl, P

    St¨ oger-Pollach, M., Kacht´ ık, L., Miesenberger, B. & Retzl, P. Transition radiation in EELS and cathodoluminescence. Ultramicroscopy 173, 31–35 (2017)

    2017

  37. [45]

    Preimesberger, A. et al. Exploring single-photon recoil on free electrons. Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 096901 (2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    Griffiths, D. J. Introduction to Quantum Mechanics 2nd edn (Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2005)

    2005

  39. [47]

    Werner, R. F. Quantum states with Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations admitting a hidden-variable model. Phys. Rev. A 40, 4277 (1989)

    1989

  40. [48]

    Bertlmann, R. A. & Friis, N. Modern Quantum Theory – From Quantum Mechan- ics to Entanglement and Quantum Information (Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K., 2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Duan, L.-M., Giedke, G., Cirac, J. I. & Zoller, P. Inseparability criterion for continuous variable systems. Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2722–2725 (2000)

    2000

  42. [50]

    Reid, M. D. et al. Colloquium: The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox: from concepts to applications. Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1727–1751 (2009)

    2009

  43. [51]

    Achatz, L. et al. Certifying position-momentum entanglement at telecommuni- cation wavelengths. Phys. Scripta 97, 015101 (2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    van der Walt, S. et al. Scikit-image: Image processing in Python. PeerJ 2, e453 (2014)

    2014

  45. [53]

    & Defienne, H

    Courme, B., Cameron, P., Faccio, D., Gigan, S. & Defienne, H. Manipulation and certification of high-dimensional entanglement through a scattering medium. Phys. Rev. X Quantum 4, 010308 (2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    Nelder, J. A. & Mead, R. A simplex method for function minimization. Comput. J. 7, 308–313 (1965)

    1965

  47. [55]

    Virtanen, P. et al. SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python. Nat. Methods 17, 261–272 (2020). 10

    2020

  48. [56]

    J., Reid, M

    Mallon, M. J., Reid, M. D. & Olsen, M. K. Bright continuous-variable entangle- ment from the quantum optical dimer. J. Phys. B: At., Mol. Opt. 41, 015501 (2008). Methods Experimental Setup Photon Optics To measure the spatial and momentum distribution of CL photons we built a ...

    2008

  49. [57]

    (S.3) They are representable as a convex sum of tensor products of pure states ρj,s with the distribution Ps

    (S.2) To understand how it relates to witnessing entanglement in entangled bipartite states, we first define their opposite: separable states: ρsep = X s Ps ρA,s⊗ρB,s. (S.3) They are representable as a convex sum of tensor products of pure states ρj,s with the distribution Ps....

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.