Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Experimental quantum repeater without quantum memory

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 A 12-photon interferometer demonstrates an all-photonic quantum repeater that beats parallel entanglement swapping by 89 percent.

desk verdict First demonstration of an all-photonic repeater with a 12-photon interferometer; the measured rate gain is real but conditional on an idealization about Charlie's GHZ loss. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05351 v1 pith:PNJK5DHE submitted 2019-08-14 quant-ph

Zheng-Da Li , Rui Zhang , Xu-Fei Yin , Li-Zheng Liu , Yi Hu , Yu-Qiang Fang , Yue-Yang Fei , Xiao Jiang
show 6 more authors
Jun Zhang Li Li Nai-Le Liu Feihu Xu Yu-Ao Chen Jian-Wei Pan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.67.Hk03.67.Bg42.50.Ex
keywords all-photonicquantumrepeatermemorygraphstateGHZentanglementswappinglinearopticspassivechoicemeasurement12-photoninterferometer
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 reports a proof-of-principle all-photonic quantum repeater that does away with quantum memory inside the repeater node. Using a four-photon GHZ state at the middle node and four passive-choice measurements in a 12-photon interferometer, it implements a 2x2 parallel repeater and measures an entanglement-generation rate 1.89 +/- 0.10 times that of conventional parallel entanglement swapping at a down-conversion probability p = 0.0344. The final states shared by Alice and Bob retain a combined fidelity of 0.606 +/- 0.010, which the paper takes as evidence of genuine entanglement. The point of the demonstration is that a suitably prepared photonic graph state can play the role a quantum memory plays in the standard repeater paradigm, by connecting successful channels and disconnecting failed ones without feed-forward.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is the passive-choice measurement (PCM) used with a local GHZ state. The GHZ state is local-unitary equivalent to the complete graph state at the heart of the all-photonic proposal, so at Charlie it serves as a switch: if a Bell-state measurement between a GHZ photon and an incoming EPR photon succeeds, the entanglement is extended into the network; if the photon arrives alone, an X-basis projection removes that qubit without destroying the remaining entanglement. The PCM implements this switch passively: a circular polarising beam splitter routes two coincident photons to a Bell analyser and one photon to an X-basis projector, so no active feed-forward is required. The repeater node also delays preparation of the GHZ state until the distant photons are about to arrive, which is what lets the paper treat the local state as lossless relative to the transmitted photons.

What would settle it

Repeat the 2x2 one-node configuration while recording how often Charlie successfully produces the GHZ state instead of postselecting on it; if the eightfold-coincidence ratio over parallel swapping falls to 1 or below once those preparation failures are counted, the enhancement reported here is an artefact of postselection.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the all-photonic repeater idea can be realised with linear optics at the few-photon scale, and that even this small instance already shows the predicted rate advantage. At the repeater node Charlie, the paper replaces the large repeater graph state of the original proposal with a four-photon GHZ state, and replaces active feed-forward with a passive-choice measurement that performs a Bell-state measurement when two photons arrive together and an X-basis projection when only one arrives. Registering eight-photon coincidences, the experiment finds a rate ratio r = 2 - 4p + $2p^{2}$ as a function of down-conversion probability p, measured as r = 1.89 +/- 0.10 at p = 0.0344 and r = 1.74 +/- 0.07 at p = 0.0483; as p tends to 0 the ratio tends to 2. The reconstructed final states for photon pairs 1&11, 4&11, 1&10 and 4&10 give an overall fidelity of 0.606 +/- 0.010, which the paper cites as clear evidence that the output is genuinely entangled rather than a classical mixture.

Load-bearing premise

The premise that carries the experiment is that Charlie can prepare the local GHZ state deterministically and without loss just before the long-distance photons arrive; if that preparation is actually probabilistic or lossy, the measured rate ratio overstates the gain a real repeater would deliver.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A repeater node can in principle be built without matter memories, removing coherence-time limits and long-distance heralding at intermediate nodes.
  • The measured rate ratio r = 2 - 4p + 2p^2 implies the advantage grows as the source's multi-pair emission probability p goes down, reaching a factor 2 for a perfect single-pair source in the 2x2 case.
  • In the full scheme with more channels and nodes, the rate scaling becomes M^{N+1} eta^{N+1} instead of M eta^{N+1}, so the benefit is exponential in the number of parallel channels.
  • If Alice and Bob need a quantum output state, memories remain at the end nodes, but the required memory time scales only linearly with distance rather than polynomially or subexponentially.
  • For tasks that only need shared classical information, such as quantum key distribution, the end-node memories can also be removed by delay-choice entanglement swapping.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 89% advantage is a proof of principle: Charlie's GHZ photons are postselected and their preparation is treated as lossless, so the real-world gain will only be this large if a deterministic, delayed source of graph states is available.
  • If a deterministic single-photon source replaced the SPDC crystals, the same passive-choice design should reproduce the r = 2 - 4p + 2p^2 curve at much lower effective p, which would be a clean test of the scaling.
  • The passive-choice idea may transfer to larger repeater graph states, not only the four-photon GHZ case, allowing the same no-feed-forward switching to be tested in multi-node repeaters.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental implementation of a 2x2 parallel all-photonic quantum repeater using 12 photons generated by six SPDC sources. Charlie's repeater node uses a four-photon GHZ state and four passive-choice measurement (PCM) devices to emulate the switching function of a repeater graph state without quantum memory. The authors measure a rate ratio r = 1.89 +/- 0.10 at a down-conversion probability p = 0.0344 and r = 1.74 +/- 0.07 at p = 0.0483, and compare these with a claimed theoretical formula r = 2 - 4p + 2p^2. They also reconstruct the GHZ state, characterize the PCM devices via detector tomography, and measure final-state fidelities for four possible output pairings, finding an overall fidelity of 0.606 +/- 0.010 with individual values all above 0.5.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a noteworthy proof-of-principle demonstration that an all-photonic repeater node can be built from linear optics and a GHZ state, and that it yields a measurable rate advantage over a conventional entanglement-swapping baseline under postselection. The experiment is technically impressive: it involves 12-photon interference, full tomographic characterization of a four-photon GHZ state and of the PCM devices, and rate measurements at two values of p that support the predicted p-dependence. The central rate formula is not fitted; its only input, the down-conversion probability p, is measured independently from two-photon rates. The main caveats are that the reported rate is a conditional, postselected eight-fold coincidence rate and that the practical rate advantage relies on the assumption of lossless, delayed GHZ preparation, which is not demonstrated experimentally.

major comments (2)
  1. [Main text, section 'In our experiments, we define the ratio r' and Supplementary Information] The formula r = 2 - 4p + 2p^2 is asserted in the main text with a pointer to the Supplementary Information, but the Supplementary as provided does not contain a derivation of this formula. This formula is the quantitative basis for the central claim of an 89% rate enhancement, so the derivation should be given explicitly, including a clear definition of the success events counted in each protocol and the treatment of higher-order SPDC noise that produces the p-dependent corrections. Without this derivation, the reader cannot verify that the measured ratios r = 1.89 and r = 1.74 are correctly predicted by the model.
  2. [Abstract and main text, rate comparison and Fig. 4a] The claim of an '89% enhancement of entanglement-generation rate over the standard parallel entanglement swapping' is overstated as stated. The measured ratio is a postselected eight-fold coincidence count ratio, and the comparison baseline is a single conventional entanglement-swapping channel, not the full M = 2 parallel conventional scheme. Moreover, the rate advantage assumes that Charlie's four-photon GHZ state is prepared losslessly and is present exactly when the distant photons arrive; in the actual experiment all 12 photons are generated in the same pulse and the all-photonic count requires all four GHZ photons to be present and detected. With the stated 38% average system efficiency, an unconditional rate comparison would include an additional loss penalty for the four GHZ photons, so the practical regime of the advantage is not demonstrated. The manuscript should explicitly distinguish the conditional, postselected rate from an unconditional end-to-end rate and should state that the delayed-preparation/lossless-GHZ assumption is an assumption, not an experimentally demonstrated feature.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 4b-e] The horizontal-axis labels 'TT ZZ', 'TR YY', 'RT XX', and 'RR' are not explained in the text or caption; the notation T and R should be defined.
  2. [Main text, paragraph on final-state fidelity] The sentence 'The overall fidelity is 0.606 +/- 0.010, which clearly indicates that the final shared state is genuinely entangled' should be clarified: the value 0.606 is the average of four outcome-dependent fidelities, and the entanglement conclusion follows because each of the four individual fidelities (0.587, 0.598, 0.597, 0.628) exceeds the 0.5 threshold. As written, the sentence could be read as referring to a single mixed state whose average fidelity exceeds 0.5.
  3. [Supplementary Information, section 'Passive implementation of the selective BSM'] There is a typo 'One the other hand' that should read 'On the other hand'.
  4. [Main text, experimental setup] The phrase 'photons 2, 3, 6 and 7 (5, 8, 9 and 12) are send to the node C1 (C2)' contains a subject-verb agreement error ('are send' should be 'are sent').
  5. [Supplementary Information, Fig. 5 caption] The caption contains the typo '2ed leaf' instead of '2nd leaf'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the measured rate ratio is compared with an independently parameterized formula, and the GHZ-for-RGS replacement is a standard graph-state equivalence.

full rationale

The circularity pass finds the derivation chain self-contained. The central measured quantity is the count ratio r between the all-photonic 2x2 scheme and the conventional parallel entanglement-swapping configuration, evaluated from eight-photon coincidence events in the same apparatus. The theoretical curve r = 2 - 4p + 2p^2 is a small-p expansion of that ratio; the only experimentally determined input is the SPDC pair-generation probability p, measured independently from twofold coincidence rates (3.97e5 s^-1 at p = 0.0344). No parameter is fitted to the headline ratio or to the final fidelity (0.606 +/- 0.010), which is obtained by direct XX, YY, ZZ fraction measurements. The GHZ-for-RGS replacement is justified by the standard local-unitary equivalence between a GHZ state and a complete graph state, not by a self-citation chain; the original protocol is attributed to Azuma, Tamaki and Lo, who are not authors of this paper. The only caveat that could be mistaken for circularity is the statement that Charlie can use delayed GHZ preparation so that the GHZ state is lossless compared with the photons sent from distant nodes; that is an explicit idealization for the long-distance scaling argument, and the supplementary text openly states that post-selection is used at the end nodes. This limits the practical rate claim but does not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs. No self-definitional step, no fitted-input-called-prediction step, and no load-bearing self-citation were found.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard linear-optics transformations, a known equivalence between GHZ states and complete graph states, and two protocol assumptions: lossless local GHZ preparation and suppression of higher-order SPDC noise. The only measured input to the theoretical rate curve is the down-conversion probability p. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Down-conversion probability p = 0.0344 and 0.0483 (two runs)
    Measured from two-fold coincidence rates; it sets the operating point and enters the theoretical rate ratio r = 2 - 4p + 2p^2. It is not adjusted to match the measured ratio.
  • Overall system efficiency = 38% on average
    Measured system photon efficiency after spectral filtering; used in the Supplementary Information to estimate PCM error rates. It is not fitted to the central result.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The CPBS/PCM transformation rules in Supplementary Equations (2) and (3) describe the device behavior under ideal conditions.
    The passive switching between Bell-state measurement and X-basis projection relies on these linear-optics transformations; the derivation assumes ideal CPBS, perfect detectors, and no mode mismatch.
  • domain assumption A four-photon GHZ state is local-unitary equivalent to the complete graph state used in the repeater graph state and can implement the same switching functions for the 2x2 case.
    Stated in the main text: 'GHZ state is local-unitary equivalent to a complete graph state.' This licenses replacing the proposed RGS with GHZ4.
  • domain assumption Charlie's GHZ state can be delayed and prepared locally, so it can be treated as lossless relative to Alice's and Bob's transmitted photons.
    Explicitly assumed in the main text; the theoretical rate advantage and the experimental comparison rely on this assumption.
  • domain assumption SPDC higher-order emissions can be neglected after eight-photon postselection, so the relation r = 2 - 4p + 2p^2 captures the leading behavior.
    Used to compute the theoretical curve in Fig. 4a and to justify counting only eight-fold coincidences.
  • standard math Tomographic maximum-likelihood reconstruction faithfully estimates the GHZ and PCM operators from the measured coincidence counts.
    Used to obtain the GHZ fidelity 0.896 and PCM fidelities around 0.82; assumes standard state-reconstruction methodology.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Experimental quantum repeater without quantum memory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PNJK5DHE

@misc{pith2026190805351,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Experimental quantum repeater without quantum memory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PNJK5DHE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05351}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum repeaters -- important components of a scalable quantum internet -- enable the entanglement to be distributed over long distances. The standard paradigm for a quantum repeater relies on a necessary demanding requirement of quantum memory. Despite significant progress, the limited performance of quantum memory makes practical quantum repeaters still a great challenge. Remarkably, a proposed all-photonic quantum repeater avoids the need for quantum memory by harnessing the graph states in the repeater nodes. Here we perform an experimental demonstration of an all-photonic quantum repeater using linear optics. By manipulating a 12-photon interferometer, we implement a 2-by-2 parallel all-photonic quantum repeater, and observe an 89% enhancement of entanglement-generation rate over the standard parallel entanglement swapping. These results open a new way towards designing repeaters with efficient single-photon sources and photonic graph states, and suggest that the all-photonic scheme represents an alternative path -- parallel to that of matter-memory-based schemes -- towards realizing practical quantum repeaters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05351 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    F . Xu, X. M. Zhang, H.-K. Lo, J.-W . Pan, arXiv:1903.09051 (2019)

    arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    Then, four PCMs are performed on photons 2&6, 3&7, 5&9, 8&12

    After preparation, photons 2, 3, 6 and 7 (5, 8, 9 and 12) are send to the node C1 (C2). Then, four PCMs are performed on photons 2&6, 3&7, 5&9, 8&12. Here, we use movable prisms to adjust the time delays of independent photons. The CPBS in each PCM 3 FIG. 2. The experimental set-up. An ultrafast ultraviolet (UV) pump laser passes through six separate sand...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Experimental quantum repeater without quantum memory

    The photons 2&6, 3&7, 5&9, 8&12 are guided to four PCM devices, each consisting of a circular-PBS (CPBS, implemented by a PBS centered among four HWP at 22.5◦), followed by two PBS and four single-photon detectors. Depending on the measurement results , we obtain entangled state between photon pairs 1&11, 4&11, 1&10 and 4&10. Bandpass filters with FWHM wav...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Bouwmeester, J.-W

    D. Bouwmeester, J.-W . Pan, K. Mattle, M. Eibl, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, Nature390, 575 (1997)

    work page 1997

  5. [5]

    T . D. Ladd, F . Jelezko, R. Laflamme, Y. Nakamura, C. Monroe, and J. L. Oâ˘A´ZBrien, Nature 464, 45 (2010)

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    J. Yin, Y. Cao, Y.-H. Li, S.-K. Liao, L. Zhang, J.-G. Ren, W .-Q. Cai, W .-Y. Liu, B. Li, H. Dai, G.-B. Li, Q.-M. Lu, Y.-H. Gong, Y. Xu, S.-L. Li, F .-Z. Li, Y.-Y. Yin, Z.-Q. Jiang, M. Li, J.-J. Jia, G. Ren, D. He, Y.-L. Zhou, X.-X. Zhang, N. Wang, X. Chang, Z.-C. Zhu, N.-L. Liu, Y.-A. Chen, C.-Y. Lu, R. Shu, C.-Z. Peng, J.-Y. Wang, and J.-W . Pan, Scienc...

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Liao, W .-Q

    S.-K. Liao, W .-Q. Cai, J. Handsteiner, B. Liu, J. Yin, L. Zhang, D. Rauch, M. Fink, J.-G. Ren, W .-Y. Liu, Y. Li, Q. Shen, Y. Cao, F .-Z. Li, J.-F . Wang, Y.-M. Huang, L. Deng, T . Xi, L. Ma, T . Hu, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, F . Koidl, P . Wang, Y.-A. Chen, X.-B. Wang, M. Steindorfer, G. Kirchner, C.-Y. Lu, R. Shu, R. Ursin, T . Scheidl, C.-Z. Peng, J.-Y. Wang,...

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Sangouard, C

    N. Sangouard, C. Simon, H. de Riedmatten, and N. Gisin, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 33 (2011)

    2011

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Briegel, W

    H.-J. Briegel, W . Dür, J. I. Cirac, and P . Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 5932 (1998)

    1998

  2. [10]

    L.-M. Duan, M. Lukin, J. I. Cirac, and P . Zoller, Nature414, 413 (2001)

    2001

  3. [11]

    ˙Zukowski, A

    M. ˙Zukowski, A. Zeilinger, M. A. Horne, and A. K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 4287 (1993)

    1993

  4. [12]

    J.-W . Pan, D. Bouwmeester, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 3891 (1998)

    1998

  5. [13]

    J.-W . Pan, C. Simon,ˇC. Brukner, and A. Zeilinger, Nature 410, 1067 (2001)

    2001

  6. [14]

    J.-W . Pan, S. Gasparoni, R. Ursin, G. Weihs, and A. Zeilinger, Nature423, 417 (2003)

    2003

  7. [15]

    C.-W . Chou, J. Laurat, H. Deng, K. S. Choi, H. de Riedmatten, D. Felinto, and H. J. Kimble, Science316, 1316 (2007)

    2007

  8. [16]

    Moehring, P

    D. Moehring, P . Maunz, S. Olmschenk, K. Younge, D. Matsukevich, L.-M. Duan, and C. Monroe, Nature449, 68 (2007)

    2007

  9. [17]

    Yuan, Y.-A

    Z.-S. Yuan, Y.-A. Chen, B. Zhao, S. Chen, J. Schmiedmayer, and J.-W . Pan, Nature454, 1098 (2008)

    2008

  10. [18]

    Zwerger, W

    M. Zwerger, W . Dür, and H. J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. A85, 062326 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    Munro, A

    W . Munro, A. Stephens, S. Devitt, K. Harrison, and K. Nemoto, Nat. Photon.6, 777 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    Muralidharan, J

    S. Muralidharan, J. Kim, N. Lütkenhaus, M. D. Lukin, and L. Jiang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 250501 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    Chen, H.-L

    L.-K. Chen, H.-L. Yong, P . Xu, X.-C. Yao, T . Xiang, Z.-D. Li, C. Liu, H. Lu, N.-L. Liu, L. Li, T . Yang, C.-Z. Peng, B. Zhao, Y.-A. Chen, and J.-W . Pan, Nat. Photon.11, 695 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Xu, H.-L

    P . Xu, H.-L. Yong, L.-K. Chen, C. Liu, T . Xiang, X.-C. Yao, H. Lu, Z.-D. Li, N.-L. Liu, L. Li, T . Yang, C.-Z. Peng, B. Zhao, Y.-A. Chen, and J.-W . Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 170502 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    N. Kalb, A. A. Reiserer, P . C. Humphreys, J. J. W . Bakermans, S. J. Kamerling, N. H. Nickerson, S. C. Benjamin, D. J. Twitchen, M. Markham, and R. Hanson, Science 356, 928 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    Yang, X.-J

    S.-J. Yang, X.-J. Wang, X.-H. Bao, and J.-W . Pan, Nat. Photon.10, 381 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Azuma, K

    K. Azuma, K. Tamaki, and H.-K. Lo, Nat. Commun. 6, 6787 (2015)

    2015

  18. [26]

    Raussendorf and H

    R. Raussendorf and H. J. Briegel, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 5188 (2001)

    2001

  19. [27]

    D. E. Bruschi, T . M. Barlow, M. Razavi, and A. Beige, Phys. Rev. A90, 032306 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    M. Pant, H. Krovi, D. Englund, and S. Guha, Phys. Rev. A 95, 012304 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    Buterakos, E

    D. Buterakos, E. Barnes, and S. E. Economou, Phys. Rev. X 7, 041023 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Ewert, M

    F . Ewert, M. Bergmann, and P . van Loock, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 210501 (2016)

    2016

  23. [31]

    Ewert and P

    F . Ewert and P . van Loock, Phys. Rev. A95, 012327 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    Hasegawa, R

    Y. Hasegawa, R. Ikuta, N. Matsuda, K. Tamaki, H.-K. Lo, T . Yamamoto, K. Azuma, and N. Imoto, Nat. Commun.10, 378 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    D. F . V . James, P . G. Kwiat, W . J. Munro, and A. G. White, Phys. Rev. A64, 052312 (2001)

    2001

  26. [34]

    Luis and L

    A. Luis and L. L. Sánchez-Soto, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 3573 (1999)

    1999

  27. [35]

    H.-K. Lo, M. Curty , and K. Tamaki, Nat. Photon.8, 595 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    Vaidman, Phys

    L. Vaidman, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 010402 (2003)

    2003

Pith tools

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