Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 52 references

A large-momentum-transfer Raman atom interferometer without $k$-reversal

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Raman atom interferometer can achieve 4ħk momentum transfer without reversing the effective wavevector, and the measured acceleration sensitivity n = 3.00 ± 0.05 matches the predicted n = 3.

desk verdict A credible 4ħk LMT Raman interferometer without k-reversal, with a clean prediction matched by data, but the headline n relies on an unproven parasitic-fringe model. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03334 v3 pith:FNFM7PV5 submitted 2025-02-05 physics.atom-ph

Guanchen Peng , Bryony Lanigan , R. Shah , J. Lim , A. Kaushik , J. P. Cotter , E. A. Hinds , B. E. Sauer This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph PACS 37.25.+k
keywords atominterferometrylargemomentumtransferRamantransitionsspin-dependentkicksk-reversal87Rbaccelerometryparasiticinterferometers
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

Large-momentum-transfer (LMT) atom interferometers normally need to reverse the direction of the effective Raman wavevector between light pulses. This paper shows how to obtain a $4\hbar k$ momentum transfer without that reversal, by inserting microwave pulses that swap the two internal spin states while leaving momentum unchanged. The proof-of-principle measurement gives an acceleration sensitivity of $n = 3.00 \pm 0.05$, matching the predicted value $n = 4(T_1/T)(2 - T_1/T) = 3$ for the timing used. This matters because the sequence removes a technical constraint on horizontal and compact atom accelerometers without sacrificing the space-time area gain of large momentum transfer.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the alternating microwave/Raman pulse sequence, where microwave pulses switch the internal spin state without changing momentum, so the same Raman wavevector can open and close the interferometer arms. The quantitative carrier is the dimensionless sensitivity factor $n = 4(T_1/T)(2 - T_1/T)$ together with the trapezoidal acceleration weighting function, which is proportional to the time-dependent separation of the two arms and replaces the triangular weighting of a standard Mach-Zehnder interferometer.

What would settle it

Measure fringes at several $T_1/T$ values, for example 0.25, 0.5, and 0.75, and extract $n$ from each; the central claim predicts $n = 4(T_1/T)(2 - T_1/T)$, so a systematic deviation from that parabola would show the model is incomplete. A second check is to vary the Raman pulse intensity and verify that the parasitic fringe amplitude and the $\phi_1 = 2\phi_2$ relation move together as the two-parasitic-interferometer model requires.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Starting from a microwave $\pi/2$ pulse that puts each atom in an equal superposition of the two hyperfine states, the sequence uses two Raman $\pi$ pulses to separate the arms by $4\hbar k$, a central microwave $\pi$ pulse to swap the spin states of the two arms, and two more Raman $\pi$ pulses to close the interferometer without reversing the wavevector. With symmetric timing, the Raman phase is $\Delta\phi_R = a\, n\, k\, T^2$ with $n = 4(T_1/T)(2 - T_1/T)$, and the mirror-acceleration weighting is trapezoidal rather than triangular. The measured fringe gives $n = 3.00 \pm 0.05$ for $T_1/T = 1/2$, confirming the factor-of-1.5 spacing improvement over a three-pulse Mach-Zehnder interferometer ($n = 2.00 \pm 0.01$). The observed non-sinusoidal fringe is accounted for by two parasitic interferometers that enclose half the area, with fitted sensitivity $n = 1.50 \pm 0.04$ and phase relation $\phi_1 = 2\phi_2$.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on the fit model that the observed non-sinusoidal fringe is the sum of the main interferometer and exactly two parasitic interferometers enclosing half its area with phase relation $\phi_1 = 2\phi_2$; if that decomposition is wrong, the quoted $n = 3.00$ does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A $4\hbar k$ Raman interferometer can be operated without $k$-reversal, with measured acceleration sensitivity $n = 3.00 \pm 0.05$ at $T_1/T = 1/2$.
  • For the same total interrogation time, the fringe spacing is 1.5 times finer than a three-pulse Mach-Zehnder interferometer.
  • Mirror-vibration noise must be averaged with a trapezoidal weight over this sequence, and the same geometric argument extends the weighting to arbitrary pulse sequences.
  • The parasitic interferometers are identifiable and benign: they enclose half the area and obey $\phi_1 = 2\phi_2$, so the main fringe can be recovered by fitting.
  • The alternating sequence scales to $4N\hbar k$ using $(4N-1)$ microwave and $4N$ Raman pulses, and with roughly 96% pulse efficiency the paper expects $16\hbar k$ at contrast similar to earlier spin-dependent-kick work.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the two-parasitic-interferometer decomposition is correct, the ratio of parasitic to main fringe amplitude should vary systematically with Raman $\pi$-pulse fidelity, so deliberately tuning the pulse intensity would provide an independent test.
  • Beyond the paper: because no intra-sequence $k$-reversal is needed, the sign of $k$ can be flipped between successive measurements, and differencing the two fringe phases should cancel any acceleration-independent phase offset.
  • Beyond the paper: the $n$ versus $T_1/T$ curve is a direct prediction of the model, so mapping fringes at several $T_1/T$ values would test the theory beyond the single operating point reported here.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a scheme for a 4ℏk Raman large-momentum-transfer atom interferometer in which the effective Raman wavevector is not reversed. The sequence uses microwave π/2 and π pulses to swap internal states between repeated Raman π pulses, and the authors derive an acceleration sensitivity n = 4(T1/T)(2 − T1/T). They measure fringes of a proof-of-principle interferometer as a function of MEMS-tracked mirror acceleration, fit Eq. (5), and report n_LMT^(1) = 3.00 ± 0.05, together with a Mach-Zehnder control giving n_MZ = 2.00 ± 0.01. The supplement derives the trapezoidal acceleration weighting function and discusses extension to 4Nℏk.

Significance. The potential impact is real: eliminating k-reversal removes a frequency-switching and phase-coherence constraint in horizontal Raman LMT accelerometers, and the proposed scaling to 4Nℏk is natural. The paper has genuine strengths: the prediction n = 3 is parameter-free from the path-integral calculation; the MZ control validates the accelerometer readout at the 0.5% level; and the fitted φ1 ≈ 2φ2 and n2 ≈ 1.5 are internal consistency checks. The main weakness is that the confirmation of n = 3 rests on a two-frequency model whose parasitic weighting functions are asserted rather than derived, so the quantitative claim is not yet on the same footing as the rest of the paper.

major comments (3)
  1. [Main text, Eq. (5) and Fig. 4; SM Eqs. (25) and (29)] The central result n_LMT^(1) = 3.00 ± 0.05 is obtained by fitting Eq. (5), which assumes that the observed non-sinusoidal fringe is the sum of the main interferometer and two parasitic interferometers whose acceleration phase is exactly half of the main phase with the same trapezoidal weighting. The SM derives the main weighting function f(t) in Eq. (25) and the general relation f(t) ∝ x_r(t) − x_l(t) in Eq. (29), but it does not compute x_r − x_l for the two parasitic paths drawn in Fig. 4. A path that encloses half the area does not necessarily have a half-scale copy of the main trapezoid; depending on which Raman pulse is missed, the plateau or slope times of the arm separation could differ, which would bias the fitted n1 even if the statistical error remains small. Please derive f_parasitic(t) for the parasitic paths, or alternatively add a shape parameter to the parasitic weighting in the fit and show that n1 is stable, and report a model-comparison statistic such as residuals or BIC against the half-trapezoid model.
  2. [Eq. (5) and surrounding text, Fig. 4] The text states that two parasitic interferometers contribute, but Eq. (5) contains only one parasitic cosine with amplitude A2. If the two paths have the same phase sensitivity, their sum can be written as a single sinusoid only after the relative phase and amplitude of the two contributions are specified; if the two weighting functions are not identical, the single-cosine parametrization is not sufficient. The manuscript should either explain this reduction explicitly or fit the two parasitic terms separately.
  3. [Main text, pulse parameters; SM Methods] The Raman π pulses are 11–12 µs long and the two arms sit at opposite two-photon recoil detunings of ±2π × 15 kHz with a Rabi coupling of 2π × 50 kHz. The main derivation assumes the short-pulse limit. Please give a quantitative estimate of the residual phase error from finite pulse duration and off-resonant driving for both the main and parasitic interferometers, and state the contribution of this effect to the quoted uncertainty of ±0.05 in n1. This is needed to support the claim that the measured n1 is an unbiased test of Eq. (3).
minor comments (4)
  1. [SM Eq. (19)] Equation (19) states Δφ_R = a T1(T1 + T2 + T3), which has dimensions of length and differs from the main-text Eq. (3) by a factor of 4k; this is presumably a typographical omission, but the supplement should be corrected for consistency with the main text.
  2. [SM Methods and Bragg section] There are minor language errors: 'we apply we apply a Raman bias field' in the Methods and 'undertood' in the Bragg-transition section should be corrected.
  3. [Fig. 1 and main text timing notation] The quantities t1, t4, t7 and the tilde times T1 and T2 are used in the supplement but are not defined in the main text or in Fig. 1; please define them explicitly in the caption or in the text.
  4. [Fig. 3 caption] The MZ data were taken with the table floating while the LMT data were taken with the table not floated; the caption states this in the text, but the figure itself should make it clear that the two data sets are not taken under identical vibration conditions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the predicted n=3 is derived from an independent path-integral calculation, and the experiment fits n freely rather than fixing it from the prediction.

full rationale

The central prediction, n = 4(T1/T)(2 - T1/T) = 3, is derived in the Supplemental Material from a first-principles path-integral phase calculation (Eqs. 7-19), not from the measured fringe. The experiment then fits Eq. (5) with n1, n2, A1, A2, B, φ1, and φ2 all as free parameters, obtaining n1 = 3.00 ± 0.05. The fitted value is therefore not forced by construction; it is a genuine confirmation of the independently derived Eq. (3). The parasitic-interferometer parameters n2 = 1.50 ± 0.04 and φ1 = 2φ2 are likewise free outputs of the fit, not inputs imposed from the main prediction. The MZ calibration data independently yield nMZ = 2.00 ± 0.01, providing an external check of the fitting methodology. Self-citations such as [40] and [41] are used only for apparatus and state-preparation details, not as load-bearing support for the acceleration-sensitivity derivation. The derivation chain is self-contained: the weighting function f(t) is derived analytically, the time-averaged acceleration is computed from that function, and the phase sensitivity follows from the path-integral formalism. No step reduces the predicted n to a fitted parameter, and no load-bearing conclusion rests on an unverified self-citation. Potential concerns about the parasitic-interferometer model are model-validity issues, not circularity, because the relevant parameters are not fixed to the values they are later claimed to confirm.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The experimental validation of the scheme uses a seven-parameter two-frequency fit to extract the sensitivity n. The fit parameters are measurement outcomes, not theory inputs, but they are the quantities that support the central claim. The theoretical derivation has five stated assumptions, the most fragile being the short-pulse limit and the parasitic interferometer model. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • n_LMT^(1) (main fringe sensitivity) = 3.00 ± 0.05
    Fitted to the LMT fringe data using Eq.5; the paper compares this to the predicted value 3.
  • n_LMT^(2) (parasitic fringe sensitivity) = 1.50 ± 0.04
    Fitted concurrently; predicted to be half of n1 from geometry.
  • φ1 (main phase offset) = 1.01 ± 0.06 rad
    Fitted; expected to equal 2φ2 if the reference acceleration is zero.
  • φ2 (parasitic phase offset) = 0.51 ± 0.06 rad
    Fitted; the ratio φ1/φ2 ≈ 2 is used as a consistency test.
  • A1, A2 (fringe amplitudes) = not stated (peak-to-peak ~0.03 total)
    Fitted; amplitudes absorb pulse efficiency and detection contrast.
  • B (fringe midpoint) = not stated
    Fitted; the offset of the cosine fringe.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The path-integral formalism of light-pulse atom interferometry (Storey and Cohen-Tannoudji) correctly gives the phase shifts when the Lagrangian perturbation is at most quadratic in position.
    Used in the SM to derive Δφ_prop and the weighting function; this is a standard result in the field.
  • domain assumption The Raman and microwave pulses are in the short-pulse limit, i.e., pulse durations (11-12 µs for Raman, 45-100 µs for microwave) are negligible compared to the interferometer times T1..T4 (4 ms) and T̃ (1 ms).
    Eq.3 is derived in the short-pulse limit [26,44]; finite pulse duration could introduce residual phase shifts, especially since the two arms have opposite two-photon recoil shifts of ±15 kHz against a Raman Rabi frequency of 50 kHz.
  • domain assumption The microwave field phase is spatially uniform over the atomic cloud, which has a size ~800 µm, much smaller than the microwave wavelength of 4.4 cm.
    Stated in the SM to justify dropping the k_M · x terms in Δφ_M; the standing-wave structure of the microwave field is ignored.
  • domain assumption The acceleration a of the atoms relative to the mirror is constant during the interferometer sequence for the purpose of deriving Eq.3.
    The derivation of the phase shift assumes constant a; the weighting function is later introduced to handle time-varying a, but the closed-form Eq.3 relies on this.
  • ad hoc to paper The only significant parasitic interferometers are the two closed paths with zero-momentum output states that have half the acceleration sensitivity of the main one.
    Introduced to explain the deviation from a single cosine in the LMT fringes; the prediction n2 = n1/2 and φ1 = 2φ2 are confirmed by the fit, but this model is constructed for this sequence and is not independently verified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A large-momentum-transfer Raman atom interferometer without $k$-reversal." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FNFM7PV5

@misc{pith2026250203334,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A large-momentum-transfer Raman atom interferometer without $k$-reversal},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FNFM7PV5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03334}
}
abstract

We present a Raman atom interferometer using large momentum transfer without reversing the direction of the effective wavevector ($k$-reversal). More specifically, we use a microwave $\pi$/2 pulse to manipulate the spin state of $^{87}$Rb atoms before applying a Raman light $\pi$ pulse to achieve 4$\hbar k$ momentum transfer per Raman light pulse. A microwave $\pi$ pulse in the middle of the interferometer sequence reverses the spin states, which allows closing of the interferometer arms by the same Raman light $\pi$ pulses without propagation reversal. We present a proof-of-principle demonstration of a 4$\hbar k$ large-momentum-transfer (LMT) atom interferometer and discuss its scalability. Our results extend the scope of using LMT atom optics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.03334 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: A 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Schematic of the Raman beam setup, showing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: Parasitic interferometers in the scheme of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Proposed extension from Fig. 1b) to a 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. B. Fixler, G. T. Foster, J. M. McGuirk, and M. A. Kasevich, Atom interferometer measurement of the New- tonian constant of gravity, Science 315, 74 (2007)

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    G. Rosi, F. Sorrentino, L. Cacciapuoti, M. Prevedelli, and G. M. Tino, Precision measurement of the New- tonian gravitational constant using cold atoms, Nature (London) 510, 518 (2014)

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Bouchendira, P

    R. Bouchendira, P. Clad´ e, S. Guellati-Kh´ elifa, F. m. c. Nez, and F. m. c. Biraben, New determination of the fine structure constant and test of the quantum electrody- namics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 080801 (2011)

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    R. H. Parker, C. Yu, W. Zhong, B. Estey, and H. M¨ uller, Measurement of the fine-structure constant as a test of the standard model, Science 360, 191 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Morel, Z

    L. Morel, Z. Yao, P. Clad´ e, and S. Guellati-Kh´ elifa, De- termination of the fine-structure constant with an accu- racy of 81 parts per trillion, Nature (London) 588, 61 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Schlippert, J

    D. Schlippert, J. Hartwig, H. Albers, L. L. Richardson, C. Schubert, A. Roura, W. P. Schleich, W. Ertmer, and E. M. Rasel, Quantum test of the universality of free fall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 203002 (2014)

    2014

  7. [7]

    L. Zhou, S. Long, B. Tang, X. Chen, F. Gao, W. Peng, W. Duan, J. Zhong, Z. Xiong, J. Wang, Y. Zhang, and M. Zhan, Test of equivalence principle at 10 −8 level by a 6 dual-species double-diffraction raman atom interferome- ter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 013004 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Zhang, L.-L

    T. Zhang, L.-L. Chen, Y.-B. Shu, W.-J. Xu, Y. Cheng, Q. Luo, Z.-K. Hu, and M.-K. Zhou, Ultrahigh-sensitivity Bragg atom gravimeter and its application in testing Lorentz violation, Phys. Rev. Appl. 20, 014067 (2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Overstreet, P

    C. Overstreet, P. Asenbaum, J. Curti, M. Kim, and M. A. Kasevich, Observation of a gravitational Aharonov-Bohm effect, Science 375, 226 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Burrage, E

    C. Burrage, E. J. Copeland, and E. Hinds, Probing dark energy with atom interferometry, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2015 (03), 042

    2015

  3. [11]

    C. D. Panda, M. J. Tao, M. Ceja, J. Khoury, G. M. Tino, and H. M¨ uller, Measuring gravitational attraction with a lattice atom interferometer, Nature 631, 515 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Canuel et al., Exploring gravity with the MIGA large scale atom interferometer, Sci

    B. Canuel et al., Exploring gravity with the MIGA large scale atom interferometer, Sci. Rep. 8, 14064 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Zhan et al., ZAIGA: Zhaoshan long-baseline atom interferometer gravitation antenna, Int

    M.-S. Zhan et al., ZAIGA: Zhaoshan long-baseline atom interferometer gravitation antenna, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 29, 1940005 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Badurina et al., AION: an atom interferometer obser- vatory and network, J

    L. Badurina et al., AION: an atom interferometer obser- vatory and network, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2020 (05), 011

    2020

  7. [15]

    M. Abe, P. Adamson, M. Borcean, D. Bortoletto, K. Bridges, S. P. Carman, S. Chattopadhyay, J. Cole- man, N. M. Curfman, K. DeRose, et al., Matter-wave atomic gradiometer interferometric sensor (magis-100), Quantum Science and Technology 6, 044003 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    S. M. Dickerson, J. M. Hogan, A. Sugarbaker, D. M. S. Johnson, and M. A. Kasevich, Multiaxis inertial sensing with long-time point source atom interferometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 083001 (2013)

    2013

  9. [17]

    d’Armagnac de Castanet, C

    Q. d’Armagnac de Castanet, C. Des Cognets, R. Ar- guel, S. Templier, V. Jarlaud, V. M´ enoret, B. Desruelle, P. Bouyer, and B. Battelier, Atom interferometry at arbi- trary orientations and rotation rates, Nat. Commun. 15, 6406 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Geiger, V

    R. Geiger, V. M´ enoret, G. Stern, N. Zahzam, P. Cheinet, B. Battelier, A. Villing, F. Moron, M. Lours, Y. Bidel, et al., Detecting inertial effects with airborne matter- wave interferometry, Nat. Commun. 2, 474 (2011)

    2011

  11. [19]

    Cheiney, L

    P. Cheiney, L. Fouch´ e, S. Templier, F. Napolitano, B. Battelier, P. Bouyer, and B. Barrett, Navigation- compatible hybrid quantum accelerometer using a Kalman filter, Phys. Rev. Appl. 10, 034030 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Templier, P

    S. Templier, P. Cheiney, Q. d’Armagnac de Castanet, B. Gouraud, H. Porte, F. Napolitano, P. Bouyer, B. Bat- telier, and B. Barrett, Tracking the vector acceleration with a hybrid quantum accelerometer triad, Sci. Adv. 8, eadd3854 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Stray, A

    B. Stray, A. Lamb, A. Kaushik, J. Vovrosh, A. Rodgers, J. Winch, F. Hayati, D. Boddice, A. Stabrawa, A. Nigge- baum, M. Langlois, et al., Quantum sensing for gravity cartography, Nature (London) 602, 590 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Li, J.-B

    C.-Y. Li, J.-B. Long, M.-Q. Huang, B. Chen, Y.-M. Yang, X. Jiang, C.-F. Xiang, Z.-L. Ma, D.-Q. He, L.-K. Chen, and S. Chen, Continuous gravity measurement with a portable atom gravimeter, Phys. Rev. A 108, 032811 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    M´ enoret, P

    V. M´ enoret, P. Vermeulen, N. Le Moigne, S. Bonvalot, P. Bouyer, A. Landragin, and B. Desruelle, Gravity mea- surements below 10- 9 g with a transportable absolute quantum gravimeter, Sci. Rep. 8, 12300 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    X. Wu, Z. Pagel, B. S. Malek, T. H. Nguyen, F. Zi, D. S. Scheirer, and H. M¨ uller, Gravity surveys using a mobile atom interferometer, Sci. Adv. 5, eaax0800 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    C. D. Panda, M. Tao, J. Egelhoff, M. Ceja, V. Xu, and H. M¨ uller, Coherence limits in lattice atom interferom- etry at the one-minute scale, Nature Physics 20, 1234 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Kasevich and S

    M. Kasevich and S. Chu, Measurement of the gravita- tional acceleration of an atom with a light-pulse atom interferometer, Appl. Phys. B 54, 321 (1992)

    1992

  19. [27]

    Clairon, C

    A. Clairon, C. Salomon, S. Guellati, and W. D. Phillips, Ramsey resonance in a Zacharias fountain, Europhys. Lett. 16, 165 (1991)

    1991

  20. [28]

    Kulas, C

    S. Kulas, C. Vogt, A. Resch, J. Hartwig, S. Ganske, J. Matthias, D. Schlippert, T. Wendrich, W. Ertmer, E. Maria Rasel, et al., Miniaturized lab system for future cold atom experiments in microgravity, Microgravity Sci. and Technol. 29, 37 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    M¨ untinga, H

    H. M¨ untinga, H. Ahlers, M. Krutzik, A. Wenzlawski, S. Arnold, D. Becker, et al., Interferometry with Bose- Einstein condensates in microgravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 093602 (2013)

    2013

  22. [30]

    J. R. Williams, C. A. Sackett, H. Ahlers, et al. , Pathfinder experiments with atom interferometry in the cold atom lab onboard the international space station, Nat. Commun. 15, 6414 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    M. D. Lachmann, H. Ahlers, D. Becker, A. N. Dinkelaker, J. Grosse, O. Hellmig, H. M¨ untinga, V. Schkolnik, S. T. Seidel, T. Wendrich,et al., Ultracold atom interferometry in space, Nat. Commun. 12, 1317 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Elsen, B

    M. Elsen, B. Piest, F. Adam, O. Anton, P. Arciszewski, W. Bartosch, D. Becker, K. Bleeke, J. B¨ ohm, S. Boles, et al., A dual-species atom interferometer payload for op- eration on sounding rockets, Microgravity Sci. and Tech- nol. 35, 48 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Barrett, L

    B. Barrett, L. Antoni-Micollier, L. Chichet, B. Battelier, T. L´ eveque, A. Landragin, and P. Bouyer, Dual matter- wave inertial sensors in weightlessness, Nat. Commun. 7, 13786 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    Jaffe, V

    M. Jaffe, V. Xu, P. Haslinger, H. M¨ uller, and P. Hamil- ton, Efficient adiabatic spin-dependent kicks in an atom interferometer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 040402 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    Chiow, T

    S.-w. Chiow, T. Kovachy, H.-C. Chien, and M. A. Kase- vich, 102ℏk large area atom interferometers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 130403 (2011)

    2011

  28. [36]

    Gebbe, J.-N

    M. Gebbe, J.-N. Siemß, M. Gersemann, H. M¨ untinga, S. Herrmann, C. L¨ ammerzahl, H. Ahlers, N. Gaaloul, C. Schubert, K. Hammerer, et al., Twin-lattice atom in- terferometry, Nature communications 12, 2544 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    McGuirk, M

    J. McGuirk, M. Snadden, and M. Kasevich, Large area light-pulse atom interferometry, Physical review letters 85, 4498 (2000)

    2000

  30. [38]

    J. Lee, R. Ding, J. Christensen, R. R. Rosenthal, A. Ison, D. P. Gillund, D. Bossert, K. H. Fuerschbach, W. Kindel, P. S. Finnegan, et al., A compact cold-atom interferome- ter with a high data-rate grating magneto-optical trap and a photonic-integrated-circuit-compatible lase...

    2022

  31. [39]

    Cheng, Building a Sensitive Atom Interferometer for Navigation, Ph.D

    X. Cheng, Building a Sensitive Atom Interferometer for Navigation, Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College London (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    D. O. Sabulsky, I. Dutta, E. A. Hinds, B. Elder, C. Bur- rage, and E. J. Copeland, Experiment to detect dark en- ergy forces using atom interferometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 061102 (2019). 7

    2019

  33. [41]

    Peng, A sensitive horizontal atom interferometer for testing acceleration from an in-vacuum source mass , Ph.D

    G. Peng, A sensitive horizontal atom interferometer for testing acceleration from an in-vacuum source mass , Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College London (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    D. S. Weiss, B. C. Young, and S. Chu, Precision measure- ment of ℏ/mcs based on photon recoil using laser-cooled atoms and atomic interferometry, Applied Physics B 59, 217 (1994)

    1994

  35. [43]

    [44, 46–48]

    See Supplemental Material at the end of this document for the derivation of our trapezoidal acceleration weighing function, which includes Refs. [44, 46–48]

  36. [44]

    J. M. Hogan, D. M. Johnson, and M. A. Kasevich, Light- pulse atom interferometry, in Atom Optics and Space Physics (IOS Press, 2009) pp. 411–447

    2009

  37. [45]

    It is therefore neces- sary to suppress one of them to avoid splitting the wave- function at each π-pulse

    When the Raman beams are horizontal, the σ+-σ+ and σ−-σ− Raman transitions are degenerate in frequency and have opposite recoil momenta. It is therefore neces- sary to suppress one of them to avoid splitting the wave- function at each π-pulse. It is not necessary if the beams ...

  38. [46]

    Storey and C

    P. Storey and C. Cohen-Tannoudji, The Feynman path integral approach to atomic interferometry. a tutorial, Journal de Physique II 4, 1999 (1994)

    1994

  39. [47]

    Barrett, P.-A

    B. Barrett, P.-A. Gominet, E. Cantin, L. Antoni- Micollier, A. Bertoldi, B. Battelier, P. Bouyer, J. Lau- tier, and A. Landragin, Mobile and remote inertial sens- ing with atom interferometers, in Atom interferometry (IOS Press, 2014) pp. 493–555

    2014

  40. [48]

    Beitia, A

    J. Beitia, A. Clifford, C. Fell, and P. Loisel, Quartz pen- dulous accelerometers for navigation and tactical grade systems, in 2015 DGON Inertial Sensors and Systems Symposium (ISS) (IEEE, 2015) pp. 1–20

    2015

  41. [49]

    M¨ uller, S.-w

    H. M¨ uller, S.-w. Chiow, and S. Chu, Atom-wave diffrac- tion between the Raman-Nath and the Bragg regime: Ef- fective Rabi frequency, losses, and phase shifts, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 77, 023609 (2008)

    2008

  42. [50]

    B´ eguin, T

    A. B´ eguin, T. Rodzinka, L. Calmels, B. Allard, and A. Gauguet, Atom interferometry with coherent enhance- ment of Bragg pulse sequences, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 143401 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    Dieckmann, R

    K. Dieckmann, R. J. C. Spreeuw, M. Weidemuller, and J. T. M. Walraven, The two-dimensional magneto-optical trap as a source of slow atoms, Physical Review A 58, 3891 (1998). 8 SUPPLEMENT AL MA TERIAL FOR: A LARGE-MOMENTUM-TRANSFER RAMAN A TOM INTERFEROMETER WITHOUT k-REVERSAL ...

    1998

  44. [52]

    We apply the same formalism to our LMT interferometer

    in a three-pulse MZ interferometer, where only the laser phase contributes to the total interferometer phase ∆ϕMZ. We apply the same formalism to our LMT interferometer. Although our interaction phase consists of both the Raman laser phase and the microwave phase, only the Ram...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.