Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Apparatus for the measurement of birefringence maps of optical materials: the case of crystalline silicon for Einstein Telescope

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A heterodyne polarimeter can measure optical-path differences below $10^{-12}$ m in silicon, and maps of (100) wafers show position-dependent birefringence of order $10^{-7}$.

desk verdict Solid apparatus paper with believable maps, but the 'intrinsic' (110) value is not stress-secured and needs a caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09578 v1 pith:K4XYTRNH submitted 2025-06-11 physics.optics physics.app-phphysics.ins-det

Alina Mariana Soflau , Federico Della Valle , Francesco Cescato , Giovanni Di Domenico , Aurélie Mailliet , Lorenzo Malagutti , Emilio Mariotti , Andrea Mazzolari
show 2 more authors
Marco Romagnoni Guido Zavattini
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticsphysics.app-phphysics.ins-det PACS 42.25.Lc95.55.Ym
keywords birefringencecrystallinesiliconpolarimetrygravitational-waveinterferometersetaloninterferenceopticalpathdifferencesensitivity(110)intrinsicmapping
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper presents a polarimeter that maps the birefringence of transparent substrates with an optical-path-difference sensitivity below $10^{-12}$ m, and applies it to crystalline silicon, the leading candidate mirror material for next-generation gravitational-wave detectors. On 1-mm-thick (100)-oriented wafers at 1064 nm, the instrument finds average birefringence values of $1.32\times10^{-7}$, $1.24\times10^{-7}$, $1.19\times10^{-7}$, and $7.64\times10^{-8}$, with both the magnitude and the axis direction varying from point to point. On a (110) strip at 1550 nm, it measures an intrinsic birefringence of $(-1.50\pm0.15)\times10^{-6}$ with the fast axis along $[100]$, somewhat smaller than earlier determinations. The authors conclude that average values near $10^{-7}$ are likely too high for the low-frequency arm of a next-generation observatory, and that spatial uniformity of birefringence, not just its mean, must enter the substrate specification.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Jones-matrix description of the sample as a birefringent Fabry-Perot etalon (Equation 12). Interference among the multiple internal reflections converts part of the per-pass ellipticity $\psi$ into a measurable rotation $\Phi$; measuring both $\Psi$ and $\Phi$ gives the etalon phase $\delta$ through $\Phi/(i\Psi) = 2Z\sin\delta/(1-Z^2)$, and Equation 19 recovers $\psi$ from the transmitted power, so the birefringence $\Delta n$ follows from $\psi = (\pi/\lambda)\Delta D$. In the instrument, ellipticity and rotation are separated by frequency: the rotating half-wave plates move the sample signal to $4\nu_w$, the photoelastic modulator oscillates ellipticity at $\nu_m$, and the Faraday cell oscillates rotation at $\nu_F$, so lock-in demodulation gives $\Psi_0$ and $\Phi_0$ independently.

What would settle it

Map the same (100) wafer at both 1064 and 1550 nm, where $Z$ and the etalon finesse differ by more than a factor of two; if the per-pass $\Delta n$ values extracted from Equations 15-19 disagree by more than the stated uncertainties, the single-etalon inversion with $f=1$ is not correct.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's core discovery is that crystalline silicon, even when cut on a nominally isotropic (100) plane, is measurably birefringent at the $10^{-7}$ level, with a pattern that varies across the wafer in both magnitude and axis orientation; the same measurement on a (110) face gives an intrinsic birefringence of $(-1.50\pm0.15)\times10^{-6}$ at 1550 nm whose fast axis coincides with $[100]$. The paper further establishes that the polarimeter can separate the ellipticity from the rotation produced by the sample, and that the ratio of the two determines the etalon phase, allowing the per-pass birefringence to be extracted even though interference inside the 1-mm wafer modifies the raw signal by up to tens of percent. On this basis it argues that birefringence of order $10^{-7}$ is present in commercially produced silicon and cannot be ignored when specifying substrates for low-frequency gravitational-wave interferometry.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that each illuminated spot on the sample is a single uniform birefringent etalon with known interface reflectivity, no dichroism, and full spatial overlap of the interfering beams; if stress varies through the thickness, surfaces are rough, or the beam only partially overlaps the etalon, the extracted $\Delta n$ values are biased even though the raw ellipticity is accurate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If these measurements are representative, next-generation interferometer substrates will need a birefringence budget that includes spatial gradients, not just a mean value, because direction-varying birefringence cannot be suppressed by aligning the input polarization.
  • For (110)-oriented silicon, keeping birefringence below $10^{-8}$ requires aligning the crystal's $[100]$ direction to the beam within about 3 mrad, turning crystal-axis orientation into a tolerance requirement.
  • The same instrument can map other substrate and coating materials with sensitivity below $10^{-12}$ m optical path, since the method is material-independent once the etalon parameters are known.
  • The measured average near $10^{-7}$ is above what the authors consider acceptable for the low-frequency arm of a next-generation detector, so substrate selection and mounting procedures will have to aim at lower-stress material.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension of the single-etalon model would be to include birefringence that varies along the beam; this could be probed by comparing maps taken with different beam diameters, since a wider beam averages over more of the transverse stress field.
  • The gravity-induced birefringence estimate in the paper ($\sim 3.5\times10^{-8}$ for a 96.5-mm wafer) implies that support geometry affects the apparent birefringence of large thin samples; future measurements on mounted test masses should correct for this or suspend the sample at its midline.
  • The polarimeter's ability to separate ellipticity from rotation could be turned into a dichroism microscope: any residual rotation signal after the etalon correction would be direct evidence of anisotropic absorption.
  • The measured (110) intrinsic birefringence could be used to set a systematic-error floor for any future silicon-based interferometer whose beam path is not perfectly aligned to the $[100]$ axis.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper describes a high-sensitivity polarimeter, based on co-rotating half-wave plates and heterodyne detection, for two-dimensional mapping of optical birefringence, and applies it to crystalline silicon samples for the Einstein Telescope. A Jones-matrix etalon model is used to invert measured ellipticity and rotation into birefringence Δn, with calibration by the Cotton-Mouton effect in air. The authors report position-dependent birefringence of order 10^-7 for (100)-oriented 1-mm silicon wafers at 1064 nm, with average values in Figures 8-10, and an intrinsic (110) birefringence Δn(110)=(-1.50±0.15)×10^-6 at 1550 nm with the fast axis along [100]. Implications for ET substrate specifications, including a 3-mrad alignment tolerance, are discussed.

Significance. If correct, the apparatus achieves an optical-path-difference sensitivity around 10^-12 m and provides spatially resolved birefringence data for commercially available silicon, a candidate ET substrate material. Strengths include an independent Cotton-Mouton calibration in air, use of literature values for n and k rather than free parameters for the (100) samples, and a zoom repeatability check in Figure 9 that supports the reality of the observed spatial patterns. The (110) result, however, is the highest-impact quantitative claim and is also the least supported: the mechanical stress state of the strip is not characterized, and the error budget for the inversion is not given. These gaps currently prevent the paper from fully supporting its central specifications.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, Eq. (31)] The central claim that Δn(110)=(-1.50±0.15)×10^-6 is the intrinsic spatial-dispersion birefringence of silicon is not supported by the evidence given for mechanical stress. The (110) sample is a 2×4.1×55 mm strip manufactured for channeling, and unlike the (100) samples described in Section 3, no mounting, clamping, or stress state is described. With a stress-optic coefficient C_so≈2×10^-11 Pa^-1 (Ref. [34]), a modest clamping stress of ~1 MPa would produce Δn≈2×10^-5, while the strip's own weight under simply supported conditions gives stresses of order 10^4-10^5 Pa, corresponding to Δn≈10^-7-10^-6, comparable to the quoted uncertainty. Equation (32) estimates gravity effects only for the 96.5-mm wafer, not for this strip. The authors should either characterize the stress state (for example, by finite-element modeling or by measuring the birefringence under different support conditions) or re-state the result as an apparent birefringence that includes mounting-induced contributions.
  2. [§2.2 and §4.1, Eqs. (15)-(19), (30)] The paper does not provide a propagated uncertainty budget for the inversion from measured Ψ and Φ to Δn. The etalon parameter is measured with the same apparatus as Z=0.128±0.018, i.e., about 14% uncertainty, and Eqs. (15)-(18) are nonlinear in Z. The text itself notes that Ψ can differ from ψ by about ±20% at 1064 nm and ±50% at 1550 nm (Section 2.2), so the Z uncertainty should dominate the final Δn uncertainty. Yet the average values quoted for Figures 8-10 and the value Δn(110)=(-1.50±0.15)×10^-6 in Eq. (31) are presented without an error budget or a covariance analysis of Z, R, f, and the measured Fourier amplitudes. Please provide a per-point uncertainty propagation and state whether the claimed ~10^-7 level and the 10% error bar on Δn(110) survive when the Z uncertainty is included.
  3. [Figs. 8-10] The birefringence maps show no per-point error bars or confidence intervals. The claim that birefringence is position dependent in both magnitude and axis orientation requires that the observed spatial variation exceed the measurement noise at each point. The zoom repeatability check in Figure 9 supports reproducibility of the pattern, but it does not quantify the per-vector uncertainty. Because the reported values span roughly 0.5-3.0×10^-7 with a step of 2 mm, a statement of typical per-point uncertainty—from lock-in noise, spurious-ellipticity subtraction, and Z propagation—is needed to establish that the map features are not artifacts of the analysis.
  4. [§4.2] For the (110) sample, the paper states 'In this case we measured Z=0.257 corresponding to f=Z/R=0.84', but no uncertainty or measurement method for this Z is given, and the interference fraction f is not independently verified. The extraction of Δn(110) therefore relies on an assumed value of f that can bias the result if the beam is not fully interfering or if surface roughness varies across the strip. Similarly, the assumption ε=0 (no dichroism) is asserted in Section 3.1 without a direct experimental test. A sensitivity analysis of the extracted Δn to f and ε, or an independent measurement of these parameters, is required to support the quantitative result in Eq. (31).
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. (24)] The displayed equation contains an apparent typo: the text reads 'P'(t) = P_out [...] = ≈ P_0 [...]'. Please correct the equality/approximation chain, and check the dimensions of the terms.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'Elliticity' should be 'Ellipticity'.
  3. [Table 2] The table legend is partly in Italian ('Legenda'); please use English throughout, and ensure that all column headers are explicit.
  4. [§4.2] The sign convention leading to negative Δn and the fast axis along [100] is introduced without derivation; a sentence connecting the measured ellipticity/rotation phases to the sign of Δn would help the reader verify the result.
  5. [§3.2] The claimed ultimate sensitivity S_ΔD≲10^-12 m is derived indirectly as |ψ_spurious|/5; it would be useful to state the assumed noise bandwidth or integration time associated with this sensitivity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: silicon birefringence results are measured quantities obtained through independently calibrated optics, with self-citations confined to instrumental formalism.

full rationale

The central result, the silicon birefringence values, is not forced by the paper's inputs. The measured quantities are the ellipticity Ψ and rotation Φ, demodulated at known frequencies (Eq. 25). These are converted to ψ and then Δn using the independent etalon parameters R from literature n and k values (Eqs. 20 and 22), Z from a direct interference-swing measurement (Eq. 30), and the Cotton–Mouton calibration in air (Eqs. 28–29). No free parameter is adjusted to match a target Δn, and no prediction is statistically forced by a fit to a subset of the same silicon data. The self-citations to VMB@CERN and PVLAS ([7], [9], [10], [24], [25]) supply the modulation formalism, spurious-ellipticity analysis, and cavity-etalon language, but the silicon-specific extraction chain in Eqs. (15)–(19) is written out and used with measured inputs; the cited prior work does not itself determine the reported birefringence maps or the Δn(110) value. The stress-state concern about the (110) strip is a validity/systematics issue, not a circularity, because it does not involve a load-bearing step reducing to its own inputs. The derivation is self-contained against the measured data and independent calibration, so no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result depends on calibrated etalon parameters Z and f, assumed absence of dichroism, and literature silicon optical constants. No new physical entities are introduced. The apparatus calibration uses the Cotton-Mouton effect in air as an external reference.

free parameters (3)
  • Etalon parameter Z for (100) 1-mm Si at 1064 nm = 0.128 +/- 0.018
    Deduced from the measured ellipticity swing in Figure 7 and adopted in Equations 15 to 19 to convert measured ellipticities to Delta n. The 14% uncertainty propagates into the reported birefringence values.
  • Etalon parameter Z for (110) 2-mm Si at 1550 nm = 0.257 (f = 0.84)
    Reported as measured for the (110) strip and used with literature reflectivity to infer f = 0.84 and to extract Delta n(110).
  • Interference fraction f for (100) samples = 1
    Assumed equal to 1 based on sample thinness and beam geometry. This choice enters the inversion from measured ellipticity to birefringence and is not independently verified for every map point.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Jones calculus and the small-angle approximation Delta phi << 1 are valid for these measurements.
    Used throughout Section 2 to expand the output field and define ellipticity and rotation; the measured ellipticities are small enough to justify the first-order expansion.
  • domain assumption A birefringent sample can be modeled as a single etalon with uniform phase difference Delta phi and no coupling between birefringence and interference except through Z.
    Used to derive Equations 12 to 19 in Section 2.2 and to invert measured Psi and Phi to Delta n. If birefringence varies along the thickness or across the beam, the inversion is biased.
  • domain assumption Silicon samples have no linear dichroism at the measurement wavelengths (epsilon = 0).
    Stated in Section 3.1 before deriving the Fourier components. Any residual dichroism would appear as rotation and be misattributed to etalon rotation.
  • domain assumption The spurious ellipticity measured without the sample can be vectorially subtracted from the measurement with the sample in place.
    Section 3.2 assumes that the rotating half-wave plate defects are linear and unchanged when the sample is inserted and that the sample and spurious signals add linearly.
  • domain assumption Literature values of n and k for silicon at 1064 nm and 1550 nm apply to the tested samples at 295 +/- 1 K.
    Used in Equations 20 to 22 to compute R and Z. The absorption coefficient at 1064 nm carries a literature uncertainty of about 6% that propagates to Z.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Apparatus for the measurement of birefringence maps of optical materials: the case of crystalline silicon for Einstein Telescope." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K4XYTRNH

@misc{pith2026250609578,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Apparatus for the measurement of birefringence maps of optical materials: the case of crystalline silicon for Einstein Telescope},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K4XYTRNH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09578}
}
abstract

Einstein Telescope (ET) is expected to achieve sensitivity improvements exceeding an order of magnitude compared to current gravitational-wave detectors. The rigorous characterization in optical birefringence of materials and coatings has become a critical task for next-generation detectors, especially since this birefringence is generally spatially non-uniform. A highly sensitive optical polarimeter has been developed at the Department of Physics and Earth Sciences of the University of Ferrara and INFN - Ferrara Section, Italy, aimed at performing two-dimensional birefringence mapping of substrates. In this paper we describe the design and working principle of the system and present results for crystalline silicon, a candidate material for substrates in the low-frequency (LF) interferometers of ET. We find that the birefringence is of order $10^{-7}$ for commercially available samples and is position dependent in the silicon (100)-oriented samples, with variations in both magnitude and axis orientation. We also measure the intrinsic birefringence of the (110) surface. Implications for the performance of gravitational-wave interferometers are discussed.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    He, S., Zheng, T., Danyluk, S.: Analysis and determination of the stress-optic coefficients of thin single crystal silicon samples. J. Appl. Phys.96, 3103 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1774259 20 T able 2Review of birefringence measurements of non-stressed mono-crystalline silicon. The values of ∆n(110) Si found in literature have undetermined signs; i...

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1774259 2004

  2. [1]

    Rudiger, R.S., Strain, K.A., Danzmann, K.: Birefringence- induced loss in interferometers

    Winkler, W., A. Rudiger, R.S., Strain, K.A., Danzmann, K.: Birefringence- induced loss in interferometers. Opt. Commun.112, 245 (1994) https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0030-4018(94)90626-2

    work page doi:10.1016/0030-4018(94)90626-2 1994

  3. [2]

    Akutsu, T., et al., (KAGRA Collaboration): Overview of KAGRA: Detector design and construction history. Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys.2020, 05–101 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1093/ptep/ptaa125

    doi:10.1093/ptep/ptaa125 2020

  4. [3]

    Hirose, E.,et al.: Characterization of Core Optics in Gravitational-Wave Detec- tors: Case Study of KAGRA Sapphire Mirrors. Phys. Rev. Appl.14, 014021 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.14.014021

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.14.014021 2020

  5. [4]

    Zeidler, S., Eisenmann, M., Bazzan, M., Li, P., Leonardi, M.: Correlation between birefringence and absorption mapping in large-size Sapphire substrates for gravitational-wave interferometry. Sci. Rep.13, 10868 (2023) https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41598-023-45928-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-023-45928-0 2023

  6. [5]

    Lorentz, H.A.: Double refraction by regular crystals. Proc. R. Acad. Amst.24, 22 (1921)

    work page 1921

  7. [6]

    Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1984)

    Agranovich, V.M., Ginzburg, V.L.: Crystal Optics with Spatial Dispersion, and Excitons. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1984). 2nd ed. 17

    work page 1984

  8. [7]

    Zavattini, G., et al., (VMBCERN collaboration): Polarimetry for measuring the vacuum magnetic birefringence with quasi-static fields: a systematics study for the VMB@CERN experiment. Eur. Phys. J. C82, 159 (2022) https://doi.org/ 10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10100-x

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10100-x 2022

Show all 32 references
  1. [8]

    Brandi, F., et al., (PVLAS Collaboration): Measurement of the phase anisotropy of very high reflectivity interferential mirrors. Appl. Phys. B65, 351 (1997) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s003400050283

    1997 doi

  2. [9]

    Zavattini, G., et al., (PVLAS Collaboration): On measuring birefringences and dichroisms using Fabry–P´ erot cavities. Appl. Phys. B83, 571 (2006) https://doi. org/10.1007/s00340-006-2189-y

    2006 doi

  3. [10]

    Della Valle, F., et al., (PVLAS Collaboration): The PVLAS experiment: mea- suring vacuum magnetic birefringence and dichroism with a birefringent Fabry- Perot cavity. Eur. Phys. J. C76, 24 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/ s10052-015-3869-8

    2016 doi

  4. [11]

    Phys Rev.77, 287 (1950) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.77.287

    Briggs, H.B.: Optical effects in bulk silicon and germanium. Phys Rev.77, 287 (1950) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.77.287

    1950 doi

  5. [12]

    Green, M.A., Keevers, M.J.: Optical properties of intrinsic silicon at 300 K. Prog. Photovoltaics Res. Appl.3, 189 (1995) https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.4670030303

    1995 doi

  6. [13]

    Green, M.A.: Self-consistent optical parameters of intrinsic silicon at 300 K including temperature coefficients. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells92, 1305 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2008.06.009

    2008 doi

  7. [14]

    Schinke, C., Hinken, D., Schmidt, J., Bothe, K., Brendel, R.: Modeling the spec- tral luminescence emission of silicon solar cells and wafers. IEEE J. Photovoltaics 3, 1038 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1109/JPHOTOV.2013.2263985

    2013

  8. [17]

    Franta, D.,et al.: Temperature-dependent dispersion model of float zone crys- talline silicon. Appl. Surf. Sci.421, 405 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc. 2017.02.021

    2017 doi

  9. [18]

    Weakliem, H.A., Redfield, D.: Temperature dependence of the optical properties of silicon. J. Appl. Phys.50, 1491 (1979) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.326135 18

    1979 doi

  10. [19]

    Sin, E.H., Ong, C.K., Tan, H.S.: Temperature dependence of interband optical absorption of silicon at 1152, 1064, 750, and 694 nm. Phys. Status Solidi A85, 199 (1984) https://doi.org/10.1002/pssa.2210850124

    1984 doi

  11. [20]

    Nguyen, H.T., Rougieux, F.E., Mitchell, B., Macdonald, D.: Temperature depen- dence of the band-band absorption coefficient in crystalline silicon from pho- toluminescence. J. Appl. Phys.115, 043710 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1063/1. 4862912

    2014 doi

  12. [21]

    Pergamon Press, Oxford (1980)

    Born, M., Wolf, E.: Principles of Optics. Pergamon Press, Oxford (1980). 6th ed

    1980

  13. [22]

    Salzberg, C.D., Villa, J.J.: Infrared refractive indexes of silicon germanium and modified selenium glass. J. Opt. Soc. Am.47, 244 (1957) https://doi.org/10. 1364/JOSA.47.000244

    1957

  14. [23]

    Li, H.H.: Refractive index of silicon and germanium and its wavelength and tem- perature derivatives. J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data9, 561 (1993) https://doi.org/10. 1063/1.555624

    1993

  15. [24]

    Ejlli, A.,et al.: The PVLAS experiment: a 25 year effort to measure vacuum mag- netic birefringence. Phys. Rep.871, 1 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep. 2020.06.001

    2020 doi

  16. [25]

    Zavattini, G., Della Valle, F., Ejlli, A., Ruoso, G.: A polarisation modulation scheme for measuring vacuum magnetic birefringence with static fields. Eur. Phys. J. C76, 294 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4139-0 . [Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C 77, (2017), p. 873, d...

    2016 doi

  17. [26]

    Rizzo, C., Rizzo, A., Bishop, D.M.: The Cotton-Mouton effect in gases: Experi- ment and theory. Int. Rev. Phys. Chem.16, 81 (1997) https://doi.org/10.1080/ 014423597230316

    1997

  18. [27]

    Kyryllin, I.V.,et al.: Crystal assisted steering of muons and antimuons at the muon collider. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A1075, 170385 (2025) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2025.170385

    2025

  19. [28]

    Pastrnak, J., Vedam, K.: Optical anisotropy of silicon single crystals. Phys. Rev. B3, 2567 (1971) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.3.2567

    1971 doi

  20. [29]

    Chu, T., Yamada, M., Donecker, J., Rossberg, M., Alex, V., Riemann, H.: Optical anisotropy and strain-induced birefringence in dislocation-free silicon single crys- tals. Mater. Sci. Eng.B91, 174 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-5107(01) 00986-2

    2002 doi

  21. [30]

    Lederhandler, S.R.: Infrared studies of birefringence in silicon. J. Appl. Phys.30, 1631 (1959) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1735026 19

    1959 doi

  22. [31]

    Fukuzawa, M., Yamada, M.: Photoelastic characterization of si wafers by scanning infrared polariscope. J. Cryst. Growth229, 22 (2001) https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0022-0248(01)01043-0

    2001

  23. [32]

    Classical Quantum Gravity33, 015012 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/33/1/ 015012

    Kr¨ uger, C.,et al.: Birefringence measurements on crystalline silicon. Classical Quantum Gravity33, 015012 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/33/1/ 015012

    2016 doi

  24. [33]

    Hamedan, V.J., Adam, A., Ju, C.B.L., Zhao, C.: Precision mapping of a silicon test mass birefringence. Appl. Phys. Lett.122, 064101 (2023) https://doi.org/10. 1063/5.0136869

    2023

Pith tools

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