pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.24496 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-27 · 🪐 quant-ph · gr-qc

Recognition: unknown

Witnessing entanglement between photon and matter due to graviton exchange

Arijit Dutta , Marko Toro\v{s} , Sougato Bose , Anupam Mazumdar
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 04:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph gr-qc
keywords entanglement witnessquantum gravitygraviton exchangeStokes parametersPPT criterionphoton-matter entanglementspin qubit
0
0 comments X

The pith

A positive partial-transpose witness built from Stokes parameters can detect entanglement between a photon and a spin qubit created by graviton exchange.

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

The paper develops a witness operator to reveal entanglement that appears between a photon in a superposition of coherent states and a spin-1/2 particle when their interaction is mediated by the quantum nature of gravity. The scheme relies on measuring the photon's Stokes observables together with the particle spin and combining them into an operator whose negative expectation value signals quantum correlations. For non-maximally entangled states the witness reaches a negativity of -0.052 when the coherent-state overlap parameter lies in the interval 0.71 to 1, providing an experimental signature that would be absent if gravity remained purely classical. The approach therefore supplies a concrete laboratory test that the gravitational interaction must be quantized in order to produce the correct light-bending behavior at the quantum level.

Core claim

The authors propose a positive partial-transpose witness for the entangled state generated by graviton exchange, constructed from photon Stokes parameters and spin measurements, that attains a maximal negativity of -0.052 for non-maximally entangled states whose coherent-state overlap satisfies 0.71 ≤ |γ| < 1.

What carries the argument

The positive partial-transpose witness operator assembled from Stokes observables of the photon and local-oscillator interference with the spin qubit, whose negativity quantifies the quantum correlations induced by the graviton-mediated interaction parameterized by the overlap γ.

If this is right

  • The witness registers entanglement only when the photon coherent-state overlap exceeds 0.71.
  • A measured negativity reaching -0.052 constitutes a detectable experimental signature of quantum gravitational correlations.
  • Control of the local-oscillator phase isolates the orthogonal interference components needed to evaluate the witness.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Confirmation of the predicted negativity would indicate that gravity must act through a spin-2 quantum mediator to reproduce light deflection at the single-photon level.
  • The same Stokes-based witness construction could be transferred to other hybrid systems in which a quantized gravitational field couples light to matter degrees of freedom.
  • Practical detection will require sufficiently low decoherence so that the modest negativity of -0.052 is not overwhelmed by environmental noise.

Load-bearing premise

The graviton exchange produces an entangled state whose overlap parameter γ directly determines the strength of the quantum correlations, and the Stokes-parameter plus spin measurements can be performed without classical noise or decoherence that would erase the observed negativity.

What would settle it

If the expectation value of the witness operator remains non-negative for all overlap values |γ| in the interval 0.71 to 1, even when the photon and spin qubit interact through the proposed graviton channel, the claim that the witness detects the quantum-gravity entanglement would be ruled out.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.24496 by Anupam Mazumdar, Arijit Dutta, Marko Toro\v{s}, Sougato Bose.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic of the interaction between matter and photon. view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Overlap view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Entanglement witness view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Plot of view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The paper presents a scheme to detect entanglement arising from the quantum nature of gravity between a spin qubit and photons, using Stokes parameters. One of the crucial tests of the general theory of relativity is the bending of light due to the curvature. Recently, a quantum counterpart of this experiment to test the quantum nature of the gravitational interaction has been proposed, in which the spin-2, massless graviton yields entanglement between matter and a photon sector. Hence, it provides one of the most crucial experimental signatures for testing the quantum nature of gravity in a lab, since only spin-2-induced entanglement can yield the correct deflection of light due to matter. Here, we propose a positive partial-transpose (PPT) witness criterion for witnessing such an entanglement. We scan the entangled states in this context by studying the overlap of the final state, which is proportional to the entanglement phase. We exploit the Stokes observables to measure the photon state and the spins in the matter sector, thereby constructing a witness for the quantum nature of gravity in this setup. To quantify this entanglement, we will couple the photon to a local oscillator, whose phase need to be controlled to probe the orthogonal components of the macroscopic interference in the laser beam. We have shown that for a non-maximally entangled state mediated by the quantum nature of gravity, the witness attains a maximal negativity of $-0.052$. Our findings indicate that this witness effectively detects entanglement within the range $0.71 \leq |\gamma| < 1$, where $\gamma$ is the overlap between the two coherent states of the photon, providing a clear signature of quantum correlations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a positive partial-transpose (PPT) witness constructed from photon Stokes observables and matter spin measurements to detect entanglement between a photon and a spin qubit induced by graviton exchange. It reports that, after coupling the photon to a controlled local oscillator, the witness reaches a maximal negativity of -0.052 for non-maximally entangled states with coherent-state overlap parameter satisfying 0.71 ≤ |γ| < 1, providing a signature of quantum gravitational correlations.

Significance. If the witness construction and negativity calculation hold under realistic conditions, the work supplies a concrete, measurement-based protocol for testing the quantum nature of gravity via entanglement in a tabletop optical-spin setup. This complements existing proposals for graviton-mediated effects and leverages standard Stokes and spin observables, potentially guiding future experiments, though the small negativity magnitude limits immediate practicality.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the maximal negativity of -0.052 is stated without derivation steps, explicit construction of the witness operator from the Stokes and spin observables, or the computation that yields this value as a function of γ; the central quantitative claim therefore cannot be verified from the given text.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the reported detection range 0.71 ≤ |γ| < 1 is defined directly by the overlap parameter γ that parametrizes the entangled state produced by the graviton-exchange model; this reduces the witness negativity to a restatement of the input assumption rather than an independent prediction.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract: no error model, noise propagation, or simulation of the witness expectation value is supplied for finite local-oscillator phase jitter, polarization measurement errors, or decoherence, despite the small negativity (~0.052) being comparable to typical experimental imperfections that would shift the witness across zero.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: grammatical issue in 'whose phase need to be controlled' (should read 'needs').
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'We have shown that' lacks a pointer to the section or equation containing the explicit witness calculation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments. We address each major comment point by point below, clarifying the content of the paper and indicating where revisions will be made to improve clarity and completeness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the maximal negativity of -0.052 is stated without derivation steps, explicit construction of the witness operator from the Stokes and spin observables, or the computation that yields this value as a function of γ; the central quantitative claim therefore cannot be verified from the given text.

    Authors: The abstract is intended as a concise summary and therefore omits the full derivation. The explicit construction of the PPT witness operator from the photon Stokes observables and matter spin measurements is provided in the main text, along with the evaluation of its expectation value on the graviton-mediated state. The negativity is obtained by direct computation of the witness on the family of states parametrized by the coherent-state overlap γ, with the maximum of -0.052 found via optimization. To improve verifiability from the abstract alone, we will add a brief clause referencing the witness construction and the relevant sections containing the explicit steps and γ-dependence. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the reported detection range 0.71 ≤ |γ| < 1 is defined directly by the overlap parameter γ that parametrizes the entangled state produced by the graviton-exchange model; this reduces the witness negativity to a restatement of the input assumption rather than an independent prediction.

    Authors: We respectfully disagree. The parameter γ defines the physically relevant family of states generated by the graviton-exchange interaction, but the witness itself is constructed independently via the PPT criterion applied to the chosen Stokes and spin observables. The negativity and the interval 0.71 ≤ |γ| < 1 are derived results obtained by evaluating the witness on these states; they are not presupposed. This constitutes a concrete, testable prediction for the regime in which the witness detects the entanglement. revision: no

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: no error model, noise propagation, or simulation of the witness expectation value is supplied for finite local-oscillator phase jitter, polarization measurement errors, or decoherence, despite the small negativity (~0.052) being comparable to typical experimental imperfections that would shift the witness across zero.

    Authors: We agree that the small magnitude of the negativity makes an error analysis essential for assessing experimental viability. The original manuscript focused on the ideal case. In the revision we will add a dedicated subsection containing an error model, analytical propagation of uncertainties arising from local-oscillator phase jitter, polarization measurement errors, and decoherence, together with numerical simulations of the witness expectation value under realistic noise levels. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; witness negativity is a direct calculation on the parametrized model state

full rationale

The paper constructs a standard PPT witness from Stokes observables on the photon and spin measurements on the matter qubit for the state generated by graviton exchange. The reported maximal negativity of -0.052 and the range 0.71 ≤ |γ| < 1 are obtained by evaluating the witness expectation value on the family of states parametrized by the coherent-state overlap γ (which encodes the entanglement phase in the model). This is a straightforward computation of the witness on the input states rather than a reduction of any claimed prediction to the inputs by definition, fitting, or self-citation. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked in the abstract or described derivation chain. The analysis remains self-contained as a theoretical proposal and evaluation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on the assumption that graviton exchange generates a specific entangled state whose properties are captured by a single overlap parameter γ; no new entities are introduced, but the quantitative witness result depends on this modeling choice.

free parameters (1)
  • γ
    Photon coherent-state overlap that parametrizes the entangled state and determines the range in which the witness is effective.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Graviton is a massless spin-2 particle whose exchange produces entanglement between matter and photon sectors consistent with the classical light-bending effect.
    Invoked to justify that only this mediator yields the correct deflection and the associated entanglement signature.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5603 in / 1450 out tokens · 54153 ms · 2026-05-08T04:07:03.345401+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    To measure the interference component corresponding to ˆS1 (at a reference phase), we setθ LO = 0, giving ˆS1(0) = ˆb†ˆa+ ˆa†ˆb

  2. [2]

    These operators satisfy theSU(2)commutation relations[ ˆSi, ˆSj] = 2iϵijk ˆSk,where i, j, k∈ {1,2,3}

    To measure the component corresponding to ˆS3, we set θLO =π/2, which transforms the interference term: ˆS1(π/2) =i( ˆb†ˆa−ˆa†ˆb) = ˆS3(0).(A4) The operator ˆS2 represents the number difference between the LO and signal modes themselves (ˆb†ˆb−ˆa†ˆa) and is mea- sured by bypassing the beam splitter. These operators satisfy theSU(2)commutation relations[ ˆ...

  3. [3]

    The correlation functions for the joint matter-photon state—evaluated at the reference phaseθ LO = 0as defined in Eq. (A3)—are given as follows: ⟨σz ⊗ ˆS′ 1⟩=−|γ|Vsin ∆ϕ 2 sin ϕ(1) β − ¯ϕ ⟨σz ⊗ ˆS′ 3⟩=|γ|Vsin ∆ϕ 2 cos ϕ(3) β − ¯ϕ ⟨σx ⊗ ˆS′ 1⟩=|γ|Vcos ϕ+ ∆ϕ 2 cos ϕ(1) β − ¯ϕ ⟨σx ⊗ ˆS′ 2⟩=|γ|Vsin ϕ+ ∆ϕ 2 sin ∆ϕ 2 ⟨σx ⊗ ˆS′ 3⟩=|γ|Vcos ϕ+ ∆ϕ 2 sin ϕ(3) β − ¯ϕ...

  4. [4]

    A Spin-Based Pathway to Testing the Quantum Nature of Gravity,

    S. Boseet al., A Spin-Based Pathway to Testing the Quantum Nature of Gravity (2025) arXiv:2509.01586 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, G. W. Morley, H. Ulbricht, M. Toro ˇs, M. Paternostro, A. Geraci, P. Barker, M. S. Kim, and G. Mil- burn, Spin Entanglement Witness for Quantum Gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 240401 (2017), arXiv:1707.06050 [quant-ph]. [3]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= 0Fv-0k13s_k(2016), accessed 1/11/22

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    S. G. Elahi and A. Mazumdar, Probing massless and massive gravitons via entanglement in a warped extra dimension, Phys. Rev. D108, 035018 (2023), arXiv:2303.07371 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Gravitationally-induced entanglement between two massive particles is sufficient evidence of quantum effects in gravity

    C. Marletto and V . Vedral, Gravitationally-induced entangle- ment between two massive particles is sufficient evidence of quantum effects in gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 240402 (2017), arXiv:1707.06036 [quant-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    R. J. Marshman, A. Mazumdar, and S. Bose, Locality and entanglement in table-top testing of the quantum nature of linearized gravity, Phys. Rev. A101, 052110 (2020), arXiv:1907.01568 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, M. Schut, and M. Toroˇs, Mechanism for the quantum natured gravitons to entangle masses, Phys. Rev. D105, 106028 (2022), arXiv:2201.03583 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  10. [10]

    U. K. Beckering Vinckers, ´A. De La Cruz-Dombriz, and A. Mazumdar, Quantum entanglement of masses with nonlo- cal gravitational interaction, Physical Review D107, 124036 (2023)

    2023

  11. [11]

    F. W. Dyson, A. S. Eddington, and C. Davidson, A determina- tion of the deflection of light by the sun’s gravitational field, from observations made at the total eclipse of may 29, 1919, Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci 1220, 291 (1920)

    1919

  12. [12]

    Nordstr ¨om, Zur Theorie der Gravitation vom Standpunkt des Relativit¨atsprinzips, Annalen Phys.347, 533 (1913)

    G. Nordstr ¨om, Zur Theorie der Gravitation vom Standpunkt des Relativit¨atsprinzips, Annalen Phys.347, 533 (1913)

    1913

  13. [13]

    Biswas, E

    T. Biswas, E. Gerwick, T. Koivisto, and A. Mazumdar, Towards singularity and ghost free theories of gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 031101 (2012), arXiv:1110.5249 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2012

  14. [14]

    Biswas, T

    T. Biswas, T. Koivisto, and A. Mazumdar, Nonlocal theo- ries of gravity: the flat space propagator, inBarcelona Post- grad Encounters on Fundamental Physics(2013) pp. 13–24, arXiv:1302.0532 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2013

  15. [15]

    P. G. C. Rufo, A. Mazumdar, and C. Sab ´ın, Genuine tripartite entanglement in graviton-matter interactions, Phys. Rev. A111, 022444 (2025), arXiv:2411.03293 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Biswas, S

    D. Biswas, S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, and M. Toroˇs, Gravitational optomechanics: Photon-matter entanglement via graviton ex- change, Phys. Rev. D108, 064023 (2023), arXiv:2209.09273 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Newton, entanglement, and the graviton,

    D. Carney, Newton, entanglement, and the graviton, Phys. Rev. D105, 024029 (2022), arXiv:2108.06320 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    M. D. Scadron,Advanced quantum theory(2007)

    2007

  19. [19]

    Schnabel, W

    R. Schnabel, W. P. Bowen, N. Treps, T. C. Ralph, H.-A. Bachor, and P. K. Lam, Stokes-operator-squeezed continuous-variable polarization states, Physical Review A67, 012316 (2003)

    2003

  20. [20]

    G. S. Agarwal and S. Chaturvedi, Scheme to measure quantum stokes parameters and their fluctuations and correlations, Jour- nal of Modern Optics50, 711 (2003)

    2003

  21. [21]

    G. G. Stokes, On the composition and resolution of streams of polarized light from different sources, Transactions of the Cam- bridge Philosophical Society9, 399 (1851)

  22. [22]

    Separability Criterion for Density Matrices

    A. Peres, Separability criterion for density matrices, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 1413 (1996), arXiv:quant-ph/9604005

    work page Pith review arXiv 1996

  23. [23]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Separability of mixed states: necessary and sufficient conditions, Physics Letters A223, 1 (1996)

    1996

  24. [24]

    M. W. Doherty, N. B. Manson, P. Delaney, F. Jelezko, J. Wrachtrup, and L. C. Hollenberg, The nitrogen-vacancy colour centre in diamond, Physics Reports528, 1–45 (2013)

    2013

  25. [25]

    N. V . Korolkova and A. S. Chirkin, Polarization squeezing and photon-number correlations in a periodically nonlinear medium, Journal of Modern Optics43, 869 (1996)

    1996

  26. [26]

    Korolkova, G

    N. Korolkova, G. Leuchs, R. Loudon, T. C. Ralph, and C. Sil- berhorn, Polarization squeezing and continuous-variable polar- ization entanglement, Physical Review A65, 052306 (2002)

    2002

  27. [27]

    ˙Zukowski, W

    M. ˙Zukowski, W. Laskowski, and M. Wie ´sniak, Normalized stokes operators for polarization correlations of entangled op- tical fields, Phys. Rev. A95, 042113 (2017)

    2017

  28. [28]

    R. Zhou, R. J. Marshman, S. Bose, and A. Mazumdar, Mass- independent scheme for enhancing spatial quantum superpo- sitions, Phys. Rev. A107, 032212 (2023), arXiv:2210.05689 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    R. Zhou, R. J. Marshman, S. Bose, and A. Mazumdar, Catapult- ing towards massive and large spatial quantum superposition, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 043157 (2022), arXiv:2206.04088 [quant- ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    R. Zhou, R. J. Marshman, and S. Bose, Gravito-diamagnetic forces for mass independent large spatial superpositions, Phys- ica Scripta99, 055114 (2024), open Access

    2024

  31. [31]

    R. Zhou, Q. Xiang, and A. Mazumdar, Spin-dependent force and inverted harmonic potential for rapid creation of macro- scopic quantum superpositions, Phys. Rev. A111, 052207 (2025), arXiv:2408.11909 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    R. J. Marshman, A. Mazumdar, G. W. Morley, P. F. Barker, S. Hoekstra, and S. Bose, Mesoscopic Interference for Metric and Curvature (MIMAC)&Gravitational Wave Detection, New J. Phys.22, 083012 (2020), arXiv:1807.10830 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    Introduction to decoherence theory

    K. Hornberger, Introduction to decoherence theory, Lect. Notes Phys.768, 221 (2009), arXiv:quant-ph/0612118

    work page Pith review arXiv 2009

  34. [34]

    Arndt and K

    M. Arndt and K. Hornberger, Testing the limits of quan- tum mechanical superpositions, Nature Phys.10, 271 (2014), arXiv:1410.0270 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2014

  35. [35]

    Romero-Isart, Quantum superposition of massive objects and collapse models, Phys

    O. Romero-Isart, Quantum superposition of massive objects and collapse models, Phys. Rev. A84, 052121 (2011), arXiv:1110.4495 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2011

  36. [36]

    Romero-Isart, A

    O. Romero-Isart, A. C. Pflanzer, F. Blaser, R. Kaltenbaek, N. Kiesel, M. Aspelmeyer, and J. I. Cirac, Large Quantum Su- perpositions and Interference of Massive Nanometer-Sized Ob- jects, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 020405 (2011), arXiv:1103.4081 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2011

  37. [37]

    Schut, P

    M. Schut, P. Andriolo, M. Toro ˇs, S. Bose, and A. Mazum- dar, Expression for the decoherence rate due to air-molecule scattering in spatial qubits, Phys. Rev. A111, 042211 (2025), arXiv:2410.20910 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Toro ˇs, T

    M. Toro ˇs, T. W. Van De Kamp, R. J. Marshman, M. S. Kim, A. Mazumdar, and S. Bose, Relative acceleration noise mitiga- tion for nanocrystal matter-wave interferometry: Applications to entangling masses via quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 023178 (2021), arXiv:2007.15029 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  39. [39]

    Schut, H

    M. Schut, H. Bosma, M. Wu, M. Toro ˇs, S. Bose, and A. Mazumdar, Dephasing due to electromagnetic interac- tions in spatial qubits, Phys. Rev. A110, 022412 (2024), arXiv:2312.05452 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Fragolino, M

    P. Fragolino, M. Schut, M. Toro ˇs, S. Bose, and A. Mazum- dar, Decoherence of a matter-wave interferometer due to 13 dipole-dipole interactions, Phys. Rev. A109, 033301 (2024), arXiv:2307.07001 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    Mandel and E

    L. Mandel and E. Wolf,Optical Coherence and Quantum Op- tics(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1995)

    1995

  42. [42]

    M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy,Quantum Optics(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1997)

    1997

  43. [43]

    Schlosshauer, Quantum decoherence, Physics Reports831, 1 (2019)

    M. Schlosshauer, Quantum decoherence, Physics Reports831, 1 (2019)

    2019

  44. [44]

    C. M. Caves, Quantum-mechanical noise in an interferometer, Physical Review D23, 1693 (1981)

    1981

  45. [45]

    Margalit, O

    Y . Margalit, O. Dobkowski, Z. Zhou, O. Amit, Y . Japha, S. Moukouri, D. Rohrlich, A. Mazumdar, S. Bose, C. Henkel, et al., Realization of a complete stern-gerlach interferome- ter: Toward a test of quantum gravity, Science advances7, eabg2879 (2021)

    2021

  46. [46]

    Machluf, Y

    S. Machluf, Y . Japha, and R. Folman, Coherent stern–gerlach momentum splitting on an atom chip, Nature Communications 4, 2424 (2013)

    2013

  47. [47]

    Margalit, Z

    Y . Margalit, Z. Zhou, O. Dobkowski, Y . Japha, D. Rohrlich, S. Moukouri, and R. Folman, Realization of a complete stern-gerlach interferometer, arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.02708 (2018)

    work page arXiv 2018

  48. [48]

    O. Amit, Y . Margalit, O. Dobkowski, Z. Zhou, Y . Japha, M. Zimmermann, M. A. Efremov, F. A. Narducci, E. M. Rasel, W. P. Schleich, and R. Folman,T 3 stern-gerlach matter-wave interferometer, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 083601 (2019)

    2019

  49. [49]

    J. P. Gram, Ueber die entwickelung reeller functionen in rei- hen mittelst der methode der kleinsten quadrate, Journal f¨ur die reine und angewandte Mathematik94, 41 (1883)

  50. [50]

    Schmidt, Zur theorie der linearen und nichtlinearen inte- gralgleichungen

    E. Schmidt, Zur theorie der linearen und nichtlinearen inte- gralgleichungen. i. teil: Entwicklung willk ¨urlicher functionen nach systemen vorgeschriebener, Mathematische Annalen63, 433 (1907)

    1907

  51. [51]

    S. J. Leon, ˚A. Bj¨orck, and W. Gander, Gram-schmidt orthogo- nalization: 100 years and more, Numerical Linear Algebra with Applications20, 492 (2013)

    2013

  52. [52]

    Wolf, Coherence properties of optical fields, Nuovo Cimento 13, 1165 (1959)

    E. Wolf, Coherence properties of optical fields, Nuovo Cimento 13, 1165 (1959)

    1959

  53. [53]

    J. M. Jauch and F. Rohrlich,The Theory of Photons and Elec- trons(Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1980) sec. 2.8

    1980

  54. [54]

    Born and E

    M. Born and E. Wolf,Principles of Optics: Electromagnetic Theory of Propagation, Interference and Diffraction of Light, 7th ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999) sec. 1.4

    1999

  55. [55]

    A. F. Abouraddy, A. V . Sergienko, B. E. A. Saleh, and M. C. Teich, Quantum-entanglement-based binary optical communi- cations, Optics Communications201, 93 (2002)

    2002

  56. [56]

    Dutta, S

    A. Dutta, S. Ghosh, J. Kim, and R. Sengupta, Robust entangle- ment detection in arbitrary two-mode Gaussian state: A Stokes- like operator-based approach, arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.12987 (2021)

    work page arXiv 2021

  57. [57]

    Leonhardt,Measuring the Quantum State of Light, Cam- bridge Studies in Modern Optics, V ol

    U. Leonhardt,Measuring the Quantum State of Light, Cam- bridge Studies in Modern Optics, V ol. 22 (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge, 1997)

    1997

  58. [58]

    Welsch, W

    D.-G. Welsch, W. V ogel, and T. Opatrn ´y, Homodyne detec- tion and quantum state reconstruction, inProgress in Optics, V ol. 39, edited by E. Wolf (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1999) pp. 63– 211

    1999

  59. [59]

    D. F. Walls and G. J. Milburn,Quantum Optics, 2nd ed. (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008)

    2008

  60. [60]

    R. F. Werner, Quantum states with einstein-podolsky-rosen cor- relations admitting a hidden-variable model, Physical Review A40, 4277 (1989)

    1989