Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 38 references

A Compact, Mobile, Low-Threshold Squeezed Light Source

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports a 1550 nm squeezed light source that produces 9.3 dB of squeezing on a 30 cm by 45 cm breadboard, using a record-low 5.2 mW OPO threshold.

desk verdict A genuinely compact 9.3 dB squeezed light source, with the caveat that the headline 'whole setup fits' is a projection from a schematic, not the measured configuration. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01160 v1 pith:SFC7KKKU submitted 2019-09-03 quant-ph physics.optics

Jens Arnbak , Christian Scheffmann Jacobsen , Rayssa Bruzaca de Andrade , Xueshi Guo , Jonas Schou Neergaard-Nielsen , Ulrik Lund Andersen , Tobias Gehring This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.optics
keywords squeezedlightopticalparametricoscillatorsecond-harmonicgeneration1550nmtelecomcontinuous-variablequantuminformationhomodynedetectioncompactsourcephasenoise
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 a squeezed light source at 1550 nm that produces 9.3 dB of squeezing below shot noise while fitting on a 30 cm by 45 cm breadboard. The authors argue this breaks the usual trade-off between high squeezing and compactness: previous high-squeezing sources occupied large tables, while mobile sources gave at most a few decibels. The key is a double-resonant optical parametric oscillator with a record-low threshold of about 5.2 mW, which can be pumped by a small single-pass waveguide second-harmonic generator fed by commercial fiber components. They also report that the setup is currently limited by phase noise, not loss, and that removing that noise would push detected squeezing beyond 10 dB. If true, this is a step toward turn-key squeezed-light sources that labs can deploy as standard tools.

What carries the argument

The central object is a hemilithic doubly resonant optical parametric oscillator (OPO) built around a 9.8 mm periodically poled KTP crystal, with a finesse of about 58 at 1550 nm and about 200 at 775 nm. The load-bearing mechanism is double resonance: the cavity resonates both the signal and the pump, lowering the oscillation threshold to a few milliwatts so that a compact single-pass waveguide SHG module can supply enough pump power. A 40 MHz coherent-control pilot tone locks the relative phase between pump and local oscillator, replacing the filter cavities used in larger sources. The standard gain and squeezing model (Eqs. (1) and (2)) extracts threshold, efficiency, and phase noise from the data.

What would settle it

Take the same components and mount all fiber elements, the waveguide SHG, and a balanced homodyne detector on one 30 cm by 45 cm breadboard, then measure the squeezing; a substantial drop below 9.3 dB, or an RMS phase noise much larger than 19 mrad, would refute the compact high-performance claim. Separately, replacing the fiber path and eliminating back-reflections and checking whether phase noise falls below about 10 mrad would test the projection of more than 10 dB.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a traditional bulk-cavity squeezed light source can be miniaturized without giving up performance by replacing most free-space optics with commercial polarization-maintaining fiber components and using a single-pass waveguide second-harmonic generator to pump a doubly resonant OPO below threshold. The demonstrated result is 9.3 dB of squeezing at a 5 MHz sideband from a 30 cm by 45 cm footprint, with an OPO threshold of $5.12 \pm 0.03$ mW, which the authors state is a record for this type of source. Fitting the gain and squeezing data with the standard model yields a total efficiency of $0.92 \pm 0.01$ and an RMS phase noise of $19 \pm 1$ mrad. The authors conclude that the setup is limited by phase noise rather than loss, and that removing this phase noise would give detected squeezing beyond 10 dB.

Load-bearing premise

The setup measured here did not have the fiber components physically on the breadboard, so the claim that the whole source fits on the small board is a design projection; if packaging the fibers, SHG, and homodyne detection together degrades the 9.3 dB squeezing, the headline compactness claim fails even though the squeezing number itself stands.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same design should reach more than 10 dB of detected squeezing once the measured 19 mrad RMS phase noise is reduced.
  • Because the free-space part fits on 30 cm by 45 cm, the complete source including fiber components can be packaged in a standard 19-inch rack box.
  • The few-milliwatt threshold means a single-pass waveguide SHG, rather than a cavity-based pump system, is sufficient, removing a major source of bulk and cost.
  • No filter cavities are needed, so the source is simpler to align and operate than high-squeezing free-space sources.
  • Operating at 1550 nm lets the source connect directly to telecom fiber networks used in continuous-variable quantum communication and computing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct next experiment would be to mount all fiber components on the same board as the free-space optics and re-measure; the current compactness claim is based on layout space, not on a fully packaged measurement.
  • If the dominant phase noise comes from the fiber path and back-reflections, then isolating the OPO from the fibers or adding a faster phase lock could push the same board past 10 dB without changing the nonlinear crystal.
  • The double-resonance-plus-waveguide-SHG recipe could be transferred to other wavelengths or to integrated platforms, since its main effect is to relax the pump power that forces bulky cavity-based second-harmonic generation.
  • A reliable 9 dB-class source in a box would let squeezed light become a routine resource for labs working on quantum key distribution, sensing, and measurement-based quantum computing.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a 1550 nm continuous-wave squeezed light source consisting of a free-space, doubly resonant PPKTP optical parametric oscillator pumped by a single-pass waveguide second-harmonic generator, with pump, pilot, and local-oscillator functions provided by commercial fiber components. The authors claim 9.3 dB of squeezing at a 5 MHz sideband frequency, an OPO threshold of 5.12 ± 0.03 mW, a fitted total detection efficiency of 0.92 ± 0.01 (consistent with an independent component-based estimate of 0.93), and an RMS phase noise of 19 ± 1 mrad. They argue that the design fits on a 30 cm × 45 cm breadboard and that, with reduced phase noise, the source could deliver more than 10 dB of squeezing in a 19-inch turn-key package.

Significance. If the measured performance stands, the work is a useful step toward practical, telecom-band squeezed light sources: it combines a high squeezing level with low pump power and commercially available fiber components, and it provides a clear measurement protocol with electronic-noise subtraction and shot-noise normalization. The internal consistency between the fitted total efficiency and the component-based estimate is a genuine strength, as is the explicit modeling of phase noise in the power-dependent squeezing curves. The central weakness is that the headline compactness/mobility claim is not demonstrated by the presented configuration, because the fiber components were physically separate from the breadboard and the homodyne detector occupied a neighboring breadboard.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract, Section II (Fig. 1), Section IV] The claim that the whole setup, including the waveguide SHG and all fiber components, fits on a small breadboard and produces 9.3 dB of squeezing is not supported by the measurements as described: Section II states that the fiber components were not attached to the breadboard 'out of convenience' and that the balanced homodyne characterization setup was placed on a neighboring breadboard. The abstract and Section IV therefore present as a measured result a configuration that is only projected from the schematic. Because compactness and mobility are central to the paper's contribution, please either characterize the fully integrated configuration (including co-located fiber components and homodyne detection) or revise the claims to clearly separate the measured 9.3 dB squeezing of the free-space source from the projected performance of a packaged device.
  2. [Section III, Fig. 4(a)] The statement that the setup 'can reach detected squeezing levels beyond 10 dB below shot noise' is an extrapolation obtained by setting the fitted phase noise to zero, as shown by the purple dashed line in Fig. 4(a). The measured maximum is 9.3 dB, and the paper identifies phase noise as the current limitation, attributing part of it to disturbances introduced by the fibers. The >10 dB claim should be explicitly labeled as a model-based projection rather than a demonstrated result, and the authors should discuss whether the zero-phase-noise assumption is realistic for the integrated device, especially given that full integration may introduce additional mechanical and thermal noise.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II] The sentence 'we present the construction of a compact squeezed light source with a footprint of 30 cm × 45 cm producing 9.3 dB squeezing' should specify that the measured 9.3 dB was obtained with the homodyne detector on a neighboring breadboard and with fiber components not attached to the breadboard; as written, it conflates the source footprint with the full measurement footprint.
  2. [Section III, Fig. 2] The text refers to 'the green/orange traces' when comparing with the red trace, but the figure caption lists only blue, yellow, green, and red traces; please align the color labels in the text with those in the figure.
  3. [Section II] The threshold power is described in the text as '5.2 mW—a record for this type of source [27]', but the fit gives 5.12 ± 0.03 mW and the comparison basis with Ref. [27] (which reports 12 mW external pump power) is not made explicit. Please state which sources are included in 'this type' and quantify the comparison.
  4. [Section III, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) is stated to be valid only for small values of the phase noise φ; the fitted values are 19 ± 1 mrad and 12 mrad. Please quantify the validity range of the approximate model and justify that these fitted values lie within it, particularly because the extrapolation beyond 10 dB relies on setting φ to zero.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the 9.3 dB squeezing value is directly measured, the supporting models are external standard equations, and the >10 dB statement is an explicitly labeled phase-noise-free extrapolation.

full rationale

The central result, 9.3 dB of squeezing at 5 MHz, is a direct measured variance reduction, not a quantity derived from an input that already contains it. The threshold power is extracted by fitting Eq. (1), the standard parametric gain formula cited to Aoki et al. [38], to independent classical gain measurements, so the threshold is not an input to the model. The squeezing model in Eq. (2) is likewise an external standard model from [38], and the fit extracts total efficiency and phase noise from the measured power dependence; this is a normal parameter estimation procedure. The claim that more than 10 dB is possible is explicitly an extrapolation, stated as 'the theoretical model without phase noise in Fig. 4a indicates that our setup can reach detected squeezing levels beyond 10 dB below shot noise,' obtained by setting the fitted phase noise to zero. That is a labeled model projection, not a circular derivation or a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The compactness statement in the abstract is not backed by a fully integrated measurement because Section II says the fiber components 'were not attached to the breadboard out of convenience' and the homodyne setup was 'placed on a neighboring breadboard'; however, this is an evidentiary weakness about whether the whole packaged device was tested, not a circularity in the derivation chain. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own inputs, and no self-citation chain or author-imported uniqueness theorem is used to force the conclusions. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

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

The central result is a measurement, so the ledger is small: three fitted parameters and standard quantum-optics models. No new entities are postulated. The main contribution is the integration and the low-threshold demonstration.

free parameters (3)
  • Total efficiency eta_tot = 0.92 ± 0.01
    Fitted to squeezing and anti-squeezing versus pump power using Eq. 2 (Section III, Fig. 4a).
  • RMS phase noise phi = 19 ± 1 mrad
    Fitted simultaneously with eta_tot from the same data; used to model the degradation of squeezing at higher pump power.
  • OPO threshold power P_thr^p = 5.12 ± 0.03 mW
    Extracted from a classical gain measurement using the fit to Eq. 1 (Section III, Fig. 3).
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Input-output theory for a doubly resonant OPO below threshold (Eq. 2), including phase noise as a single RMS value phi, valid only for small phi.
    The paper uses this standard model from Aoki et al. [38] to fit the measured squeezing and anti-squeezing curves and to project performance without phase noise.
  • domain assumption Gain model for a below-threshold OPO: g = 1 / (1 - sqrt(P_p / P_thr))^2 (Eq. 1).
    Used to extract the threshold power from the classical gain data; assumes the standard mean-field OPO gain relation.
  • domain assumption The double-resonant OPO can be kept on resonance by temperature and piezo control, and the coherent-locking pilot scheme keeps the relative phase stable enough for measurement.
    The entire measurement relies on active locking of the OPO cavity and of the relative phase between pump and local oscillator; the paper reports this works but does not quantify lock duty cycle or residual servo noise separately from the 19 mrad phase noise.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Compact, Mobile, Low-Threshold Squeezed Light Source." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SFC7KKKU

@misc{pith2026190901160,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Compact, Mobile, Low-Threshold Squeezed Light Source},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SFC7KKKU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01160}
}
read the original abstract

Strongly squeezed light finds many important applications within the fields of quantum metrology, quantum communication and quantum computation. However, due to the bulkiness and complexity of most squeezed light sources of today, they are still not a standard tool in quantum optics labs. We have taken the first steps in realizing a compact, high-performance 1550 nm squeezing source based on commercially available fiber components combined with a free-space double-resonant parametric down-conversion source. The whole setup, including single-pass second-harmonic generation in a waveguide, fits on a small breadboard and produces 9.3 dB of squeezing at a 5 MHz sideband-frequency. The setup is currently limited by phase noise, but further optimization and development should allow for a 19" sized turn-key squeezing source capable of delivering more than 10 dB of squeezing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01160 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic representation of the experimental setup. The free-space part of the setup is placed on a breadboard [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Graph showing experimentally obtained gain values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. a) Squeezing and anti-squeezing relative to shot noise as a function of pump power at a side-band frequency of 5 MHz. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    U. L. Andersen, T. Gehring, C. Marquardt, and G. Leuchs, 30 Years of Squeezed Light Generation, Phys- ica Scripta 91, 053001 (2016), arXiv:1511.03250

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    U. L. Andersen, J. S. Neergaard-Nielsen, P. van Loock, and A. Furusawa, Hybrid discrete- and continuous- variable quantum information, Nature Physics 11, 713 (2015), arXiv:1409.3719 [quant-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2015

  3. [3]

    A. I. Lvovsky, Squeezed light, in Photonics Volume 1: Fundamentals of Photonics and Physics , edited by D. An- drews (Wiley, West Sussex, United Kingdom, 2015) pp. 121–164

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Weedbrook, S

    C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. Garc´ ıa-Patr´ on, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Gaus- sian quantum information, Reviews of Modern Physics 84, 621 (2012), arXiv:1110.3234

    arXiv 2012

  5. [5]

    Pirandola, B

    S. Pirandola, B. R. Bardhan, T. Gehring, C. Weedbrook, and S. Lloyd, Advances in photonic quantum sensing, Nature Photonics 12, 724 (2018)

    2018

  6. [6]

    Schnabel, N

    R. Schnabel, N. Mavalvala, D. E. McClelland, and P. K. Lam, Quantum metrology for gravitational wave astron- omy, Nature Communications 1, 121 (2010)

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, A gravitational wave observatory operating beyond the quantum shot-noise limit, Nature Physics 7, 962 (2011)

    2011

  8. [8]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Enhanced sensitiv- ity of the LIGO gravitational wave detector by using 6 squeezed states of light, Nature Photonics 7, 613 (2013)

    work page 2013

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    GEO600, Gravitational-wave detectors begin third observation run, url: http://www.geo600.org/ 1897380/gravitational-wave-detectors-begin- third-observation-run (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    M. A. Taylor and W. P. Bowen, Quantum metrology and its application in biology, Physics Reports 615, 1 (2016), arXiv:1409.0950

    2016 arXiv

  3. [11]

    M. A. Taylor, J. Janousek, V. Daria, J. Knittel, B. Hage, H.-A. Bachor, and W. P. Bowen, Biological measure- ment beyond the quantum limit, Nature Photonics 7, 229 (2013)

    2013

  4. [12]

    M. A. Taylor, J. Janousek, V. Daria, J. Knittel, B. Hage, H.-A. Bachor, and W. P. Bowen, Subdiffraction-Limited Quantum Imaging within a Living Cell, Physical Review X 4, 011017 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    Madsen, V

    L. Madsen, V. Usenko, M. Lassen, R. Filip, and U. An- dersen, Continuous variable quantum key distribution with modulated entangled states., Nature Communica- tions 3, 1083 (2012), article number:1083

    2012

  6. [14]

    Gehring, V

    T. Gehring, V. Handchen, J. Duhme, F. Furrer, T. Franz, C. Pacher, R. F. Werner, and R. Schnabel, Implemen- tation of continuous-variable quantum key distribution with composable and one-sided-device-independent secu- rity against coherent attacks, Nature Communications 6, 8795 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    Furrer, T

    F. Furrer, T. Gehring, C. Schaffner, C. Pacher, R. Schn- abel, and S. Wehner, Continuous-variable protocol for oblivious transfer in the noisy-storage model, Nature Communications 9, 10.1038/s41467-018-03729-4 (2018)

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    Gottesman, A

    D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Encoding a qubit in an oscillator, Phys. Rev. A 64, 012310 (2001)

    2001

  9. [17]

    N. C. Menicucci, Fault-tolerant measurement-based quantum computing with continuous-variable cluster states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 120504 (2014)

    2014

  10. [18]

    Marshall, C

    K. Marshall, C. S. Jacobsen, C. Sch¨ afermeier, T. Gehring, C. Weedbrook, and U. L. Andersen, Continuous-variable quantum computing on encrypted data, Nature Communications 7, 13795 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    Yokoyama, R

    S. Yokoyama, R. Ukai, S. C. Armstrong, C. Sornphiphat- phong, T. Kaji, S. Suzuki, J.-I. Yoshikawa, H. Yonezawa, N. C. Menicucci, and A. Furusawa, Ultra-large-scale continuous-variable cluster states multiplexed in the time domain, Nature Photonics 7, 982 (2013), arXiv:1306.336...

    2013 arXiv

  12. [20]

    M. V. Larsen, X. Guo, C. R. Breum, J. S. Neergaard- Nielsen, and U. L. Andersen, Deterministic generation of a two-dimensional cluster state for universal quan- tum computing, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1906.08709 (2019), arXiv:1906.08709 [quant-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    M. Chen, N. C. Menicucci, and O. Pfister, Experimental realization of multipartite entanglement of 60 modes of a quantum optical frequency comb, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 120505 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    Vahlbruch, M

    H. Vahlbruch, M. Mehmet, K. Danzmann, and R. Schn- abel, Detection of 15 dB Squeezed States of Light and their Application for the Absolute Calibration of Pho- toelectric Quantum Efficiency, Physical Review Letters 117, 1 (2016), arXiv:arXiv:1011.1669v3

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Takeno, M

    Y. Takeno, M. Yukawa, H. Yonezawa, and A. Furusawa, Observation of -9 dB quadrature squeezing with improve- ment of phase stability in homodyne measurement, Op- tics Express 15, 4321 (2007)

    2007

  16. [24]

    Eberle, S

    T. Eberle, S. Steinlechner, J. Bauchrowitz, V. H¨ andchen, H. Vahlbruch, M. Mehmet, H. M¨ uller-Ebhardt, and R. Schnabel, Quantum Enhancement of the Zero-Area Sagnac Interferometer Topology for Gravitational Wave Detection, Physical Review Letters 104, 251102 (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    Mehmet, S

    M. Mehmet, S. Ast, T. Eberle, S. Steinlechner, H. Vahlbruch, and R. Schnabel, Squeezed light at 1550 nm with a quantum noise reduction of 12.3 dB, Optics Express 19, 25763 (2011)

    2011

  18. [26]

    S. Shi, Y. Wang, W. Yang, Y. Zheng, and K. Peng, De- tection and perfect fitting of 13.2 dB squeezed vacuum states by considering green-light-induced infrared absorp- tion, Optics Letters 43, 5411 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Sch¨ onbeck, F

    A. Sch¨ onbeck, F. Thies, and R. Schnabel, 13 dB squeezed vacuum states at 1550 nm from 12 mW external pump power at 775 nm, Optics Letters 43, 110 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    Mondain, T

    F. Mondain, T. Lunghi, A. Zavatta, ´E. Gouzien, F. Doutre, M. De Micheli, S. Tanzilli, and V. D’Auria, Chip-based squeezing at a telecom wavelength, Photonics Research 7, 36 (2019), arXiv:1811.02097

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Takanashi, T

    N. Takanashi, T. Kashiwazaki, T. Kazama, K. Enbutsu, R. Kasahara, T. Umeki, and A. Furusawa, Detection of 3-dB continuous-wave squeezing at 1.55 um from a fiber-coupled single-pass PPLN ridge waveguide, arXiv , 1906.09749 (2019), arXiv:1906.09749

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Stefszky, R

    M. Stefszky, R. Ricken, C. Eigner, V. Quiring, H. Her- rmann, and C. Silberhorn, A waveguide cavity resonator source of squeezing, Physical Review Applied 7, 044026 (2017), arXiv:1702.02855

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A. Dutt, S. Miller, K. Luke, J. Cardenas, A. L. Gaeta, P. Nussenzveig, and M. Lipson, Tunable Squeezing Us- ing Coupled Ring Resonators on a Silicon Nitride Chip, Optics Letters 41, 223 (2015), arXiv:1506.03791

    2015 arXiv

  24. [32]

    V. D. Vaidya, B. Morrison, L. G. Helt, R. Shahrokhshahi, D. H. Mahler, M. J. Collins, K. Tan, J. Lavoie, A. Re- pingon, M. Menotti, N. Quesada, R. C. Pooser, A. E. Lita, T. Gerrits, S. W. Nam, and Z. Vernon, Broadband quadrature-squeezed vacuum and nonclassical photon number c...

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Otterpohl, F

    A. Otterpohl, F. Sedlmeir, G. Shafiee, T. Dirmeier, U. Vogl, G. Schunk, D. V. Strekalov, H. G. Schwe- fel, T. Gehring, U. L. Andersen, G. Leuchs, and C. Marquardt, Squeezed vacuum states from a whisper- ing gallery mode resonator, arXiv , 1905.07955 (2019), arXiv:arXiv:1905.07955v1

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Peuntinger, B

    C. Peuntinger, B. Heim, C. R. M¨ uller, C. Gabriel, C. Marquardt, and G. Leuchs, Distribution of squeezed states through an atmospheric channel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 060502 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    Vahlbruch, A

    H. Vahlbruch, A. Khalaidovski, N. Lastzka, C. Gr¨ af, K. Danzmann, and R. Schnabel, The GEO 600 squeezed light source, Classical and Quantum Gravity 27, 10.1088/0264-9381/27/8/084027 (2010)

    2010 doi

  28. [36]

    Wang, W.-H

    Y.-J. Wang, W.-H. Yang, Y.-H. Zheng, and K.-C. Peng, A compact einstein–podolsky–rosen entangled light source, Chinese Physics B 24, 070303 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    Vahlbruch, S

    H. Vahlbruch, S. Chelkowski, B. Hage, A. Franzen, K. Danzmann, and R. Schnabel, Coherent control of vac- uum squeezing in the gravitational-wave detection band, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 011101 (2006). 7

    2006

  30. [38]

    T. Aoki, G. Takahashi, and A. Furusawa, Squeezing at 946nm with periodically poled ktiopo4, Opt. Express 14, 6930 (2006)

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.