Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Featured in Physics
  • Editors' Suggestion
  • Open Access

Entanglement-Enhanced Optical Ion Clock

Kai Dietze1,2,*, Lennart Pelzer1, Ludwig Krinner1,2, Fabian Dawel1,2, Johannes Kramer1,2, Nicolas C. H. Spethmann1, Timm Kielinski3, Klemens Hammerer3, Kilian Stahl1 et al.

Joshua Klose1, Sören Dörscher1, Christian Lisdat1, Erik Benkler1, and Piet O. Schmidt1,2,†

  • *Contact author: kai.dietze@ptb.de
  • †Contact author: piet.schmidt@quantummetrology.de

Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 073601 – Published 17 February, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/dyqm-k8p6

Abstract

Entangled states hold the promise of improving the precision and accuracy of quantum sensors. We experimentally demonstrate that spectroscopy of an optical clock transition using entangled states can outperform its classical counterpart. Two Ca40+ ions are entangled in a quantum state with vanishing first-order magnetic field sensitivity, extending the coherence time of the atoms and enabling near-lifetime-limited probe times of up to 550 ms. In our protocol, entangled ions reach the same instability as uncorrelated ions, but at half the probe time, enabling faster cycle times of the clock. We run two entangled Ca40+ ions as an optical clock and compare its frequency instability with a Sr87 lattice clock. The instability of the entangled ion clock is below a clock operated with classically correlated states for all probe times. We observe instabilities below the theoretically expected quantum projection noise limit of two uncorrelated ions for interrogation times below 100 ms. The lowest fractional frequency instability of 7×10−16/τ/1  s is reached for 250 ms probe time, limited by residual phase noise of the probe laser. This represents the lowest instability reported to date for a Ca40+ ion clock.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Viewpoint

Entangled Ions Measure Time Faster

Published 17 February, 2026

An optical clock based on a pair of calcium ions achieves a given precision more quickly when the ions are entangled.

See more in Physics

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (77)

  1. C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. D 23, 1693 (1981).
  2. L. Pezzè, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 035005 (2018).
  3. V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Science 306, 1330 (2004).
  4. J. Ye and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 190001 (2024).
  5. M. C. Marshall, D. A. R. Castillo, W. J. Arthur-Dworschack, A. Aeppli, K. Kim, D. Lee, W. Warfield, J. Hinrichs, N. V. Nardelli, T. M. Fortier, J. Ye, D. R. Leibrandt, and D. B. Hume, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 033201 (2025).
  6. N. Huntemann, C. Sanner, B. Lipphardt, C. Tamm, and E. Peik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 063001 (2016).
  7. Z. Zhiqiang, K. J. Arnold, R. Kaewuam, and M. D. Barrett, Sci. Adv. 9, eadg1971 (2023).
  8. A. Aeppli, K. Kim, W. Warfield, M. S. Safronova, and J. Ye, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 023401 (2024).
  9. M. Zeng, Y. Huang, B. Zhang, Y. Hao, Z. Ma, R. Hu, H. Zhang, Z. Chen, M. Wang, H. Guan, and K. Gao, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 064004 (2023).
  10. K. Beloy et al. (BACON Collaboration), Nature (London) 591, 564 (2021).
  11. W. F. McGrew, X. Zhang, R. J. Fasano, S. A. Schäffer, K. Beloy, D. Nicolodi, R. C. Brown, N. Hinkley, G. Milani, M. Schioppo, T. H. Yoon, and A. D. Ludlow, Nature (London) 564, 87 (2018).
  12. H. N. Hausser et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 023201 (2025).
  13. M. Takamoto, I. Ushijima, N. Ohmae, T. Yahagi, K. Kokado, H. Shinkai, and H. Katori, Nat. Photonics 14, 411 (2020).
  14. S. Dörscher, N. Huntemann, R. Schwarz, R. Lange, E. Benkler, B. Lipphardt, U. Sterr, E. Peik, and C. Lisdat, Metrologia 58, 015005 (2021).
  15. T. Lindvall, T. Fordell, K. Hanhijärvi, M. Doležal, J. Rahm, S. Weyers, and A. Wallin, Phys. Rev. Appl. 24, 044082 (2025).
  16. B. Zhang, Z. Ma, Y. Huang, H. Han, R. Hu, Y. Wang, H. Zhang, L. Tang, T. Shi, H. Guan, and K. Gao, arXiv:2506.17423.
  17. Y. A. Yang, M. Miklos, Y. M. Tso, S. Kraus, J. Hur, and J. Ye, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 193202 (2025).
  18. D. Yu, J. Zhang, T. Xia, S. Zhang, T. Shi, and J. Chen, Phys. Rev. A 110, 013102 (2024).
  19. J. M. Robinson, M. Miklos, Y. M. Tso, C. J. Kennedy, T. Bothwell, D. Kedar, J. K. Thompson, and J. Ye, Nat. Phys. 20, 208 (2024).
  20. A. Cao, W. J. Eckner, T. Lukin Yelin, A. W. Young, S. Jandura, L. Yan, K. Kim, G. Pupillo, J. Ye, N. Darkwah Oppong, and A. M. Kaufman, Nature (London) 634, 315 (2024).
  21. W. M. Itano, J. C. Bergquist, J. J. Bollinger, J. M. Gilligan, D. J. Heinzen, F. L. Moore, M. G. Raizen, and D. J. Wineland, Phys. Rev. A 47, 3554 (1993).
  22. N. Akerman and R. Ozeri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 013201 (2025).
  23. T. Tan, R. Kaewuam, K. Arnold, S. Chanu, Z. Zhang, M. Safronova, and M. Barrett, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 063201 (2019).
  24. L. Pelzer, K. Dietze, V. J. Martínez-Lahuerta, L. Krinner, J. Kramer, F. Dawel, N. C. H. Spethmann, K. Hammerer, and P. O. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 033203 (2024).
  25. M. Schulte, N. Lörch, I. D. Leroux, P. O. Schmidt, and K. Hammerer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 013002 (2016).
  26. K. Arnold, E. Hajiyev, E. Paez, C. H. Lee, M. D. Barrett, and J. Bollinger, Phys. Rev. A 92, 032108 (2015).
  27. N. Herschbach, K. Pyka, J. Keller, and T. E. Mehlstäubler, Appl. Phys. B 107, 891 (2012).
  28. D. J. Wineland, J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Heinzen, Phys. Rev. A 50, 67 (1994).
  29. M. Schulte, C. Lisdat, P. O. Schmidt, U. Sterr, and K. Hammerer, Nat. Commun. 11, 5955 (2020).
  30. J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and D. J. Heinzen, Phys. Rev. A 54, R4649 (1996).
  31. R. Shaniv, T. Manovitz, Y. Shapira, N. Akerman, and R. Ozeri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 243603 (2018).
  32. T. Monz, P. Schindler, J. T. Barreiro, M. Chwalla, D. Nigg, W. A. Coish, M. Harlander, W. Hänsel, M. Hennrich, and R. Blatt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 130506 (2011).
  33. C. D. Marciniak, T. Feldker, I. Pogorelov, R. Kaubruegger, D. V. Vasilyev, R. van Bijnen, P. Schindler, P. Zoller, R. Blatt, and T. Monz, Nature (London) 603, 604 (2022).
  34. B. C. Nichol, R. Srinivas, D. P. Nadlinger, P. Drmota, D. Main, G. Araneda, C. J. Ballance, and D. M. Lucas, Nature (London) 609, 689 (2022).
  35. C. F. Roos, M. Chwalla, K. Kim, M. Riebe, and R. Blatt, Nature (London) 443, 316 (2006).
  36. Y. Hao, R. Hu, B. Zhang, M. Zeng, H. Zhang, Z. Ma, Y. Huang, Q. Chen, K. Gao, and H. Guan, Opt. Express 32, 4081 (2024).
  37. J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4091 (1995).
  38. C. Roos, G. Lancaster, M. Riebe, H. Häffner, W. Hänsel, S. Gulde, C. Becher, J. Eschner, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and R. Blatt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 220402 (2004).
  39. M. Chwalla, K. Kim, T. Monz, P. Schindler, M. Riebe, C. F. Roos, and R. Blatt, Appl. Phys. B 89, 483 (2007).
  40. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/dyqm-k8p6 for details on the experimental methods and frequency comparison, the analysis of quantum projection noise, and occurring systematic frequency shifts.
  41. E. Peik, T. Schneider, and C. Tamm, J. Phys. B 39, 145 (2005).
  42. I. D. Leroux, N. Scharnhorst, S. Hannig, J. Kramer, L. Pelzer, M. Stepanova, and P. O. Schmidt, Metrologia 54, 307 (2017).
  43. S. F. Huelga, C. Macchiavello, T. Pellizzari, A. K. Ekert, M. B. Plenio, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 3865 (1997).
  44. S. Hannig, L. Pelzer, N. Scharnhorst, J. Kramer, M. Stepanova, Z. T. Xu, N. Spethmann, I. D. Leroux, T. E. Mehlstäubler, and P. O. Schmidt, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 90, 053204 (2019).
  45. C. F. Roos, D. Leibfried, A. Mundt, F. Schmidt-Kaler, J. Eschner, and R. Blatt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5547 (2000).
  46. N. Scharnhorst, J. Cerrillo, J. Kramer, I. D. Leroux, J. B. Wübbena, A. Retzker, and P. O. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. A 98, 023424 (2018).
  47. B. T. Torosov and N. V. Vitanov, Phys. Rev. A 83, 053420 (2011).
  48. N. Akerman, N. Navon, S. Kotler, Y. Glickman, and R. Ozeri, New J. Phys. 17, 113060 (2015).
  49. T. Nazarova, C. Lisdat, F. Riehle, and U. Sterr, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 25, 1632 (2008).
  50. N. Scharnhorst, J. B. Wübbena, S. Hannig, K. Jakobsen, J. Kramer, I. D. Leroux, and P. O. Schmidt, Opt. Express 23, 19771 (2015).
  51. D. G. Matei, T. Legero, S. Häfner, C. Grebing, R. Weyrich, W. Zhang, L. Sonderhouse, J. M. Robinson, J. Ye, F. Riehle, and U. Sterr, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 263202 (2017).
  52. J. Ye, J.-L. Peng, R. J. Jones, K. W. Holman, J. L. Hall, D. J. Jones, S. A. Diddams, J. Kitching, S. Bize, J. C. Bergquist, L. W. Hollberg, L. Robertsson, and L.-S. Ma, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 20, 1459 (2003).
  53. E. Benkler, C. Lisdat, and U. Sterr, Metrologia 52, 565 (2015).
  54. H. Häffner, S. Gulde, M. Riebe, G. Lancaster, C. Becher, J. Eschner, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and R. Blatt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 143602 (2003).
  55. N. Huntemann, B. Lipphardt, M. Okhapkin, C. Tamm, E. Peik, A. V. Taichenachev, and V. I. Yudin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 213002 (2012).
  56. V. I. Yudin, A. V. Taichenachev, C. W. Oates, Z. W. Barber, N. D. Lemke, A. D. Ludlow, U. Sterr, C. Lisdat, and F. Riehle, Phys. Rev. A 82, 011804 (2010).
  57. T. Zanon-Willette, R. Lefevre, R. Metzdorff, N. Sillitoe, S. Almonacil, Marco Minissale, E. de Clercq, A. V. Taichenachev, V. I. Yudin, and E. Arimondo, Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 094401 (2018).
  58. C. Sanner, N. Huntemann, R. Lange, C. Tamm, and E. Peik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 053602 (2018).
  59. P. Dubé, A. A. Madej, Z. Zhou, and J. E. Bernard, Phys. Rev. A 87, 023806 (2013).
  60. E. Rubiola, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 76, 054703 (2005).
  61. W. Riley and D. Howe, Handbook of frequency stability analysis (Special Publication (NIST SP), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 2008), https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=50505.
  62. T. Kielinski, P. O. Schmidt, and K. Hammerer, Sci. Adv. 10, eadr1439 (2024).
  63. H. Shi, B. Lu, H. Zhang, R. Hu, Y. Qian, Y. Huang, T. Yang, Y. Yao, H. Yu, Z. Fang, K. Gao, H. Guan, Y. Lin, Y. Jiang, and L. Ma, Photonics Res. 12, 2741 (2024).
  64. Y. Hao, R. Hu, B. Zhang, M. Zeng, H. Zhang, Z. Ma, Y. Huang, Q. Chen, K. Gao, and H. Guan, Opt. Express 32, 4081 (2024).
  65. K. Matsubara, H. Hachisu, Y. Li, S. Nagano, C. Locke, A. Nogami, M. Kajita, K. Hayasaka, T. Ido, and M. Hosokawa, Opt. Express 20, 22034 (2012).
  66. T. Rosenband, D. B. Hume, P. O. Schmidt, C. W. Chou, A. Brusch, L. Lorini, W. H. Oskay, R. E. Drullinger, T. M. Fortier, J. E. Stalnaker, S. A. Diddams, W. C. Swann, N. R. Newbury, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and J. C. Bergquist, Science 319, 1808 (2008).
  67. N. Huntemann, C. Sanner, B. Lipphardt, C. Tamm, and E. Peik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 063001 (2016).
  68. A. Arvanitaki, J. Huang, and K. Van Tilburg, Phys. Rev. D 91, 015015 (2015).
  69. M. Filzinger, S. Dörscher, R. Lange, J. Klose, M. Steinel, E. Benkler, E. Peik, C. Lisdat, and N. Huntemann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 253001 (2023).
  70. W. M. Itano, J. Res. NIST 105, 829 (2000).
  71. V. J. Martinez-Lahuerta, L. Pelzer, K. Dietze, L. Krinner, P. O. Schmidt, and K. Hammerer, Quantum Sci. Technol. 9, 015013 (2024).
  72. R. Kaewuam, T. Tan, K. Arnold, S. Chanu, Z. Zhang, and M. Barrett, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 083202 (2020).
  73. N. Aharon, N. Spethmann, I. D. Leroux, P. O. Schmidt, and A. Retzker, New J. Phys. 21, 083040 (2019).
  74. R. Shaniv, N. Akerman, T. Manovitz, Y. Shapira, and R. Ozeri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 223204 (2019).
  75. R. Lange, N. Huntemann, C. Sanner, H. Shao, B. Lipphardt, C. Tamm, and E. Peik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 143201 (2020).
  76. K. Dietze, Raw and meta-data for coherence measurements with trapped Ca-ions (1.0) [data set], Zenodo, 2025, 10.5281/zenodo.15705557.
  77. K. Dietze, Frequency ratio data of the clock comparison Ca+40 vs Sr87 in PTB 08/2024 [data set], Zenodo, 2025, 10.5281/zenodo.15705453.

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation