Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Atom Interferometer Phase Shear and Spacetime Sectional Curvature

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An atom interferometer's phase shear directly measures integrated spacetime curvature.

desk verdict Phase shear is identified with integrated sectional curvature—a new and plausible leading result, but the redshift corrections and the null-boundary Gauss-Bonnet proof both need tightening. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.21331 v1 pith:M34UG4AQ submitted 2025-08-29 physics.atom-ph gr-qc

Hunter Swan , Jason M. Hogan This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phgr-qc
keywords atominterferometryphaseshearsectionalcurvatureGauss-BonnettheoremLorentziangeometrygeneralrelativitygravitationalredshiftoptics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that the phase shear of an atom interferometer—the momentum mismatch between the two output wavepackets after the final beamsplitter—is a direct, coordinate-free measure of spacetime curvature. The central result, Eq. (2), states that when the pulse sequence would close the momentum gap in flat space, in curved spacetime the momentum difference equals $-mc\int_M K\,dA$ plus corrections smaller by $\bar v/c$, where $K$ is the sectional curvature (the intrinsic curvature of the two-dimensional surface $M$) and $M$ is the spacetime surface bounded by the interferometer arms and the final beamsplitter. If true, this gives experimenters a new observable that bypasses the ambiguous decomposition of interferometer phase into propagation, laser, and separation terms. The paper works out observable consequences for gravity gradients, Schwarzschild spacetime, long-baseline gradiometers, and gravitational waves.

What carries the argument

Eq. (3), the generalized Gauss-Bonnet theorem: for a piecewise smooth boundary $\gamma$ of a $1+1$-dimensional Lorentzian surface $M$, $\int_M K\,dA + \oint_\gamma k_g\,ds + \sum_j \alpha_j = 0$. Angles are boost rapidities between future-directed unit vectors, and a null boundary segment contributes one angle defined by parallel-transporting the adjacent tangent vectors to a common point. In the interferometer the boundary is the lower arm, the final beamsplitter null geodesic, and the upper arm traversed backwards; because every segment is geodesic, the geodesic-curvature term vanishes and the boundary angles must exactly balance the enclosed sectional curvature. That balance is what identifies the measured shear angle with $\int_M K\,dA$.

What would settle it

Find a Lorentzian surface with a piecewise smooth boundary containing null geodesic segments (for instance one with conjugate points or lacking global hyperbolicity) on which Eq. (3) fails, or measure the phase-shear wavelength in a strong, well-characterized static field such as near a dense spherical test mass, where $K=-2G_N\rho$, and check it against $-mc\int_M K\,dA$; a discrepancy larger than the stated corrections would rule out the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Stated as the authors would state it: for a collimated atom interferometer whose flat-space output ports close in momentum space, applying the same laser pulse sequence in curved spacetime makes each output port develop a shear angle $\theta_\pm$ whose associated momentum difference is $\Delta p_\pm = -m\int_M K\,dA - m\sum_{j\ne f}\alpha'_j\int_{N_j}K\,dA + m\beta'_\pm\int_{N_\pm}K\,dA + O(\bar K^3\bar A^3+\bar v^2\bar K\bar A+\bar v\bar K^2\bar A^2)$. The leading term is the integrated sectional curvature over the surface bounded by the arms and the final beamsplitter; the correction terms arise from gravitational redshift of the atom-optics pulses and are suppressed by powers of the recoil velocity. The discovery is that a generalized Gauss-Bonnet theorem converts the holonomy of the interferometer loop into a curvature integral, so that phase shear is a geometric observable rather than a parasitic phase effect.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes the generalized Gauss-Bonnet theorem, Eq. (3), holds for Lorentzian surfaces whose boundary includes null geodesic segments, a result proved in the Appendix only by a limiting argument and prior results without fully specifying the regularity conditions (for example, absence of conjugate points or global hyperbolicity) needed for arbitrary spacetimes, so if that theorem fails in the required generality the identification of phase shear with integrated sectional curvature collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Phase shear becomes a coordinate-free, representation-free observable for spacetime geometry, independent of how the total interferometer phase is split into propagation, laser, and separation terms.
  • In weak static fields the formula reproduces the known result that phase shear measures gravity gradients; for the Schwarzschild field at Earth's surface it predicts a shear wavelength of roughly $1.5\,\mathrm{mm}/(A/c \text{ in } \mathrm{m\,s})$ for $^{87}\mathrm{Sr}$, which is observable with few-millimetre atom clouds.
  • In the detuned-mirror variant where shear is nulled, the curvature is read out as a frequency shift $\Delta\nu\simeq m\Delta\alpha_{\pi-}$, giving a direct curvature measurement for equivalence-principle tests, and splitting the detuning across $N$ pulses recovers contrast.
  • Long-baseline gradiometers such as a 1-km vertical baseline at Earth's surface would see a differential shear wavelength of about $3.2$ mm between the two interferometers.
  • Gravitational waves and realistic laser frequency noise are predicted to produce negligible phase shear, so the effect is a clean curvature probe rather than a noise source.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the integrated curvature is independent of surface deformation, the same shear measurement could be used to map local curvature by varying the enclosed spacetime area, effectively turning the interferometer into a differential curvature sensor rather than an average.
  • The same Gauss-Bonnet holonomy argument suggests that other closed loops in atom-optics spacetime, beyond the standard Mach-Zehnder arms, could yield curvature integrals, possibly unifying multi-loop and resonant interferometers under one geometric identity.
  • A direct test of Eq. (2) could be made in a well-characterized strong-field configuration near a dense test mass, where the sectional curvature is $-2G_N\rho$, by checking that the measured shear wavelength tracks the predicted curvature rather than the integrated phase.
  • The gravitational-redshift correction terms, while small, may become relevant in high-precision equivalence-principle tests and could be isolated experimentally by comparing single-photon and two-photon atom optics, since the redshift bookkeeping differs between the two.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the phase shear of a light-pulse atom interferometer—the momentum difference between the two output wavepackets—is given, to leading order, by the integrated sectional curvature of the spacetime surface bounded by the interferometer arms and the final beamsplitter. The derivation uses a generalized Gauss-Bonnet theorem for Lorentzian surfaces with null boundary segments, and identifies the small corrections with gravitational redshift of the atom-optics pulses. Applications to Newtonian gravity, Schwarzschild, test masses, and long-baseline gradiometers are given, together with estimates of the shear wavelength and a discussion of noise and observability. The paper also sketches a variant in which the central mirror pulse is detuned so that spacetime curvature is measured by the frequency offset rather than by phase shear.

Significance. If the main result holds, this is an important conceptual advance: it gives a direct, coordinate-free relation between a measurable atom-interferometer observable and spacetime curvature, with no fitted parameters and no dependence on a particular representation of the interferometer phase. The flat-space comparison is a reference definition rather than a fitted constant, and the argument is not circular. The paper makes explicit, falsifiable predictions (for example, a shear wavelength of about 1.5 mm for Earth's surface curvature with A/c of order 1 m s) and identifies a practically relevant effect for future long-baseline detectors. However, the proof of the generalized Gauss-Bonnet theorem is presented only as a sketch with unspecified technical hypotheses, and there is a sign error in the redshift-correction derivation. These issues currently prevent the claims from being accepted as stated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Eqs. (14)–(17), redshift-correction derivation] There is a sign inconsistency between Eq. (14) and Eq. (16). Equation (14) gives φ1 = φ'_1 − ∫_{N1} K dA, hence e^{−φ1} = e^{−φ'_1} e^{+∫_{N1} K dA}; Eq. (16) instead contains the factor e^{−∫_{N1} K dA}, which is the opposite sign. With the printed convention, a photon propagating out of a gravitational potential well would appear blueshifted in the atom frame, contrary to the standard gravitational redshift. Consequently the sign of Δα1 in Eq. (17), and therefore of every correction term in Eq. (19), is not trustworthy as written. Since this is the only explicitly worked step of the induction leading to Eq. (19), the correction terms should be rederived and validated on a concrete static metric such as Φ = −GM/r before publication.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (3) and its application to Eq. (2)] The generalized Gauss-Bonnet theorem is the load-bearing ingredient for the leading term of Eq. (2). The proof in Appendix A is a limiting argument for a single null segment assumed to lie in a geodesically convex neighborhood, and the extension to multiple null segments is asserted by induction. The argument does not state the global hypotheses under which Law's Gauss-Bonnet formula applies to the modified curve, such as global hyperbolicity, orientability, absence of conjugate points on the null segments, and existence of a convex neighborhood for every null segment. It also does not verify that replacing one null segment preserves the hypotheses needed for the remaining null segments. This matters because the final-beamsplitter null segment in a long-baseline interferometer need not lie in a single convex neighborhood, and the second remark in Appendix A explicitly introduces a boundary with two null segments plus a spacelike connector without proving the induction in that case. Please state precise hypotheses for Eq. (3) and either provide a complete proof or restrict the main claim to spacetimes and regions satisfying those hypotheses; otherwise Eq. (2) is not established.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Just before Eq. (3)] Please enumerate the 'appropriate technical hypotheses' for Eq. (3) in the main text at first use, rather than only referring to Appendix A; the current sentence is too vague for a theorem that is central to the paper.
  2. [Fig. 2 and surrounding text] The caption of Fig. 2 does not define β−, β+, or the hatched wavy lines used for two-photon transitions. Please define all symbols in the caption or introduce them before the figure.
  3. [Eq. (20)] Equation (20) uses a surface M′ without definition. Please specify whether M′ is the same as M in Eq. (2), the surface for the mirror pulse, or some other region.
  4. [Appendix A, first paragraph] There is a typo: 'beampslitter' should be 'beamsplitter.'
  5. [Eq. (5) and the O(·) notation] The O(x) notation, defined as 'terms of typical magnitude x or smaller,' is informal. Consider replacing it with a standard asymptotic statement in dimensionless small parameters, such as powers of v/c and |K|A, so that the error terms can be checked.
  6. [First section, phase-curvature remark] The sentence distinguishing phase shear from the wave-packet phase-curvature effect of Ref. [26] is brief; a one-sentence explanation of why phase curvature is neglected beyond 'collimated' would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central derivation applies an external Gauss-Bonnet theorem to a loop constructed from interferometer trajectories, with no fitted parameters or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, Eq. (2), follows from applying the generalized Gauss-Bonnet formula, Eq. (3), to the boundary loop formed by the interferometer arms and the final beamsplitter null geodesic. The Gauss-Bonnet theorem is imported from prior mathematical work [27-30], with the null-segment extension proven in Appendix A by a limiting argument; neither the theorem nor the extension is defined in terms of the phase-shear result it is used to derive. The flat-space comparison enters only as a reference definition (vanishing shear in flat space), not as a fitted constant, and the correction terms in Eqs. (17)-(19) are computed from the same geometric theorem rather than tuned to reproduce a target. There is no fitted input later renamed a prediction, and no central premise rests solely on the present authors' prior work: citations such as [13], [24], and [25] provide context, known gravity-gradient results, or measurement configurations, but the geometric identification of phase shear with integrated sectional curvature is not equivalent to any of those inputs. Concerns about the generality of the generalized Gauss-Bonnet theorem for null boundary segments, or about regularity conditions in Appendix A, are correctness risks about an external mathematical ingredient, not circularity. The derivation is therefore self-contained with respect to its inputs, and no specific reduction of the claimed result to its own assumptions can be exhibited.

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

No free parameters are fitted; the result is a parameter-free geometric derivation. The main axioms are the null-boundary Gauss-Bonnet extension and standard semiclassical AI assumptions.

assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Generalized Gauss-Bonnet theorem with null boundary segments (Eq. 3).
    The paper extends existing Lorentzian GB theorems to allow null geodesic boundary segments, with a proof sketched in Appendix A that depends on unstated regularity conditions.
  • domain assumption AI arms follow geodesics and atom optics pulses propagate along null geodesics.
    Used throughout to set geodesic curvature terms to zero in Eq. (3) for the main loop.
  • domain assumption A 1+1 dimensional Lorentzian surface M bounded by the arms and FBS exists with integrable sectional curvature.
    Needed to define the integral in Eq. (2); existence is assumed, not proven, for arbitrary backgrounds.
  • domain assumption The laser trajectory has identical geodesic curvature in curved and flat space, and the initial angle φ0 is identical.
    Used in Eqs. (13)-(14) to isolate the redshift corrections; real experiments fix the laser to Earth, which may not satisfy this exactly.
  • domain assumption Wavepackets are collimated with negligible phase curvature.
    Focuses on momentum-difference shear, excluding phase-curvature shear of [26].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Atom Interferometer Phase Shear and Spacetime Sectional Curvature." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M34UG4AQ

@misc{pith2026250821331,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Atom Interferometer Phase Shear and Spacetime Sectional Curvature},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M34UG4AQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.21331}
}
read the original abstract

Atom interferometry is a natural laboratory for precision tests of general relativity, but there is no simple relationship between atom interferometer phase and geometric properties of spacetime. Here we show that a different atom interferometer observable, the phase shear, can be expressed directly as the integrated sectional curvature over a spacetime surface enclosed by the interferometer arms and final beamsplitter. This is a consequence of a generalized Gauss-Bonnet theorem, which also explicitly computes small correction terms arising from gravitational redshift of atom optics pulses. This synthesis of quantum mechanics, relativity, and differential geometry affords a manifestly coordinate-free and representation-free means of measuring spacetime properties. Additionally, it provides a convenient computational tool for predicting atom interferometer properties in arbitrary background spacetimes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.21331 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Defining angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Typical Mach-Zehnder atom interferometer. Dashed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Spacetime loop for computing the redshift of an atom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Approximating a null geodesic segment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Exact Semiclassical Phase Shifts for Relativistic Atom Interferometers in Flat Spacetime

    physics.atom-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    Within the semiclassical short-pulse approximation, exact flat-spacetime phase shifts are obtained for Mach-Zehnder, resonant, and LMT clock and two-photon atom interferometers, including the closed form ω_a(1+ω_a/2m)...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Kasevich and S

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

    work page 1992

  2. [2]

    Peters, K

    A. Peters, K. Y. Chung, and S. Chu, High-precision grav- ity measurements using atom interferometry, Metrologia 38, 25 (2001)

    2001

  3. [3]

    Stockton, K

    J. Stockton, K. Takase, and M. Kasevich, Absolute geodetic rotation measurement using atom interferom- etry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 133001 (2011)

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Dimopoulos, P

    S. Dimopoulos, P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, M. A. Kasevich, and S. Rajendran, Gravitational wave detec- tion with atom interferometry, Physics Letters B 678, 37 (2009)

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, M. A. Kasevich, and S. Ra- jendran, New method for gravitational wave detection with atomic sensors, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 171102 (2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Dimopoulos, P

    S. Dimopoulos, P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, M. A. Ka- sevich, and S. Rajendran, Atomic gravitational wave in- terferometric sensor, Phys. Rev. D 78, 122002 (2008)

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    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)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Bonnin, N

    A. Bonnin, N. Zahzam, Y. Bidel, and A. Bresson, Simul- taneous dual-species matter-wave accelerometer, Phys. Rev. A 88, 043615 (2013)

    2013

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    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

  2. [10]

    M. G. Tarallo, T. Mazzoni, N. Poli, D. V. Sutyrin, X. Zhang, and G. M. Tino, Test of einstein equivalence principle for 0-spin and half-integer-spin atoms: Search for spin-gravity coupling effects, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 023005 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    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 dual-species double-diffraction raman atom interferome- ter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 013004 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    Asenbaum, C

    P. Asenbaum, C. Overstreet, M. Kim, J. Curti, and M. A. Kasevich, Atom-interferometric test of the equivalence principle at the 10−12 level, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 191101 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Dimopoulos, P

    S. Dimopoulos, P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, and M. A. Kasevich, General relativistic effects in atom interferom- etry, Phys. Rev. D 78, 042003 (2008)

    2008

  6. [14]

    Badurina, Y

    L. Badurina, Y. Du, V. S. Lee, Y. Wang, and K. M. Zurek, Signatures of linearized gravity in atom interfer- ometers: A simplified computational framework, Physi- cal Review D 111, 042002 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    Werner, P

    M. Werner, P. K. Schwartz, J.-N. Kirsten-Siemß, N. Gaaloul, D. Giulini, and K. Hammerer, Atom interfer- ometers in weakly curved spacetimes using Bragg diffrac- tion and Bloch oscillations, Phys. Rev. D 109, 022008 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Roura, Atom interferometer as a freely falling clock for time-dilation measurements, Quantum Science and Technology 10, 025004 (2025)

    A. Roura, Atom interferometer as a freely falling clock for time-dilation measurements, Quantum Science and Technology 10, 025004 (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    Roura, Gravitational redshift in quantum-clock inter- ferometry, Phys

    A. Roura, Gravitational redshift in quantum-clock inter- ferometry, Phys. Rev. X 10, 021014 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Roura, W

    A. Roura, W. Zeller, and W. P. Schleich, Overcoming loss of contrast in atom interferometry due to gravity gradients, New Journal of Physics 16, 123012 (2014)

    2014

  11. [19]

    Ufrecht and E

    C. Ufrecht and E. Giese, Perturbative operator approach to high-precision light-pulse atom interferometry, Physi- cal Review A 101, 053615 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    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

  13. [21]

    Antoine and C

    C. Antoine and C. J. Bord´ e, Exact phase shifts for atom interferometry, Physics Letters A 306, 277 (2003)

    2003

  14. [22]

    Dubetsky, S

    B. Dubetsky, S. B. Libby, and P. Berman, Atom interfer- ometry in the presence of an external test mass, Atoms 4, 14 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    Overstreet, P

    C. Overstreet, P. Asenbaum, and M. A. Kasevich, Phys- ically significant phase shifts in matter-wave interferom- etry, American Journal of Physics 89, 324 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Overstreet, P

    C. Overstreet, P. Asenbaum, T. Kovachy, R. Notermans, J. M. Hogan, and M. A. Kasevich, Effective inertial frame in an atom interferometric test of the equivalence princi- ple, Physical review letters 120, 183604 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    Roura, Circumventing Heisenberg’s uncertainty prin- ciple in atom interferometry tests of the equivalence prin- ciple, Physical review letters 118, 160401 (2017)

    A. Roura, Circumventing Heisenberg’s uncertainty prin- ciple in atom interferometry tests of the equivalence prin- ciple, Physical review letters 118, 160401 (2017). 6

    2017

  18. [26]

    Sugarbaker, S

    A. Sugarbaker, S. M. Dickerson, J. M. Hogan, D. M. Johnson, and M. A. Kasevich, Enhanced atom interfer- ometer readout through the application of phase shear, Physical review letters 111, 113002 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    Helzer, A relativistic version of the Gauss-Bonnet for- mula, Journal of Differential Geometry 9, 507 (1974)

    G. Helzer, A relativistic version of the Gauss-Bonnet for- mula, Journal of Differential Geometry 9, 507 (1974)

    1974

  20. [28]

    G. S. Birman and K. Nomizu, The Gauss-Bonnet theo- rem for 2-dimensional spacetimes, The Michigan mathe- matical journal 31, 77 (1984)

    1984

  21. [29]

    Dzan Jin Jee, Gauss-Bonnet formula for general Lorentzian surfaces, Geometriae Dedicata15, 215 (1984)

    1984

  22. [30]

    P. R. Law, Neutral geometry and the Gauss-Bonnet the- orem for two-dimensional pseudo-Riemannian manifolds, The Rocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics 22, 1365 (1992)

    1992

  23. [31]

    N. J. Hicks, Notes on differential geometry (van Nostrand Princeton, 1965)

    1965

  24. [32]

    P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, M. A. Kasevich, and S. Ra- jendran, Resonant mode for gravitational wave detectors based on atom interferometry, Physical Review D 94, 104022 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    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). APPENDIX A Our definition of Lorentzian angles between non-null vectors is equivalent to that of of Helzer [27] or the real part only...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.