pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.10948 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-13 · ❄️ cond-mat.quant-gas · quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

Enhanced squeezing for quantum gravimetry in a Bose-Einstein condensate with focussing

Lewis A. Williamson , Karandeep Gill , Andrew J. Groszek , Matthew J. Davis , Simon Haine
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.quant-gas quant-ph
keywords Bose-Einstein condensatespin squeezingone-axis twistingquantum gravimetryatom interferometrydelta kickphase sensitivity
0
0 comments X

The pith

A delta kick to focus the Bose-Einstein condensate boosts spin squeezing and improves gravimetry phase sensitivity fourfold.

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

The paper improves a prior scheme for quantum-enhanced atom interferometry by adding a sudden focusing potential, called a delta kick, at the beginning of state preparation. This focuses the condensate, raises its density, and strengthens the one-axis twisting interactions that create spin squeezing. Multimode truncated-Wigner simulations show that an optimal kick strength lets the interferometer surpass the standard quantum limit by a factor of about 20, a fourfold gain over the unfocused version, with the results matching a simpler two-mode model.

Core claim

The delta kick increases condensate density early on, which strengthens the one-axis twisting interactions and produces greater spin squeezing; for the best kick strength this yields phase sensitivity that beats the standard quantum limit by a factor of roughly 20, four times better than the original proposal.

What carries the argument

The delta kick, a sudden trapping potential that focuses the condensate to raise its density and thereby intensify the one-axis twisting that generates spin squeezing.

If this is right

  • Optimal kick strength produces phase sensitivity 20 times better than the standard quantum limit.
  • The gain is four times larger than in the scheme without the delta kick.
  • A simple two-mode approximation already captures the essential dynamics and performance.
  • The focusing step improves sensitivity while leaving the rest of the interferometer sequence unchanged.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same focusing step might be combined with other squeezing methods to reach even higher sensitivity.
  • Real devices would still need to confirm that the kick itself does not introduce heating or phase noise that cancels the gain.
  • The approach could apply to other ultracold-atom systems where interaction strength limits squeezing.

Load-bearing premise

The multimode simulations accurately describe the real condensate evolution and that the delta kick can be applied without adding significant decoherence or technical noise.

What would settle it

An experiment that applies the delta kick, measures the resulting spin squeezing or interferometer phase sensitivity, and checks whether the fourfold improvement over the no-kick case appears.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.10948 by Andrew J. Groszek, Karandeep Gill, Lewis A. Williamson, Matthew J. Davis, Simon Haine.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) In the scheme of Szigeti et al. [60], OAT interactions in a BEC are used during state preparation to produce a spin-squeezed state with enhanced phase sensitivity. The protocol then continues in a standard Mach-Zehnder interferometry scheme. The squeezing is limited by condensate expansion during state preparation, which reduces OAT interactions. (b) In this paper we modify the state preparation by inc… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a)–(d) Condensate density n(z, t) = n1 (z, t) + n2 (z, t) in the free-falling frame for kick strengths α = 0, ω, 2ω and 3ω, respectively. The momentum imparted by the first π/2 pulse results in the components separating. A π pulse is applied at t = TOAT and the components recombine at t ≈ 2TOAT. A delta kick increases the peak density of each component. (e) Time t max j (main figure) at which each compone… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Average spin N −1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Main figure: Spin-squeezing parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Squeezing rate Eq. (20) for kick strengths α = 0, ω, 2ω, 3ω estimated from pure GPE simulations. The delta kick increases the peak squeezing rate. For α ≳ 2ω, the delta kick also reduces the duration for which the squeezing rate is ap￾preciable. Inset: Zoomed region ωt ≤ 1.2. (b) Corresponding integral R t 0 χ(τ) dτ, which gives the OAT factor λ at t = 2TOAT [Eq. (22)]. (c) The OAT factor peaks at α ≈ … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Free-fall atom interferometers offer a powerful platform for accurate, absolute gravitational sensing. Szigeti et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 100402 (2020)] recently proposed a quantum-enhanced scheme that uses a spin-squeezed Bose-Einstein condensate as an input state to improve the phase sensitivity of the interferometer. The spin squeezing, generated via one-axis twisting interactions, was limited by condensate expansion. Here we present an improved state preparation in which a sudden trapping potential -- a delta kick -- is initially applied to focus the condensate. The resulting increase in density enhances the one-axis-twisting interactions and produces greater spin squeezing. Using multimode truncated-Wigner simulations, we quantify the performance of the interferometer and find that, for an optimal kick strength, the phase sensitivity surpasses the standard quantum limit by a factor of $\sim 20$. This represents a fourfold improvement over the original scheme without the delta kick and is well captured by a two-mode approximation.

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 manuscript proposes an enhancement to the quantum-enhanced free-fall atom interferometry scheme of Szigeti et al. by applying an initial delta-kick focusing potential to a spin-squeezed BEC. This increases the condensate density, strengthens one-axis twisting, and produces greater spin squeezing. Multimode truncated-Wigner simulations show that an optimal kick strength yields a phase sensitivity surpassing the standard quantum limit by a factor of ~20, a fourfold improvement over the original unfocused scheme; the improvement is stated to be well captured by a two-mode approximation.

Significance. If the numerical results hold under realistic conditions, the scheme offers a practical route to stronger squeezing in BEC-based gravimeters without increasing atom number or interaction time, potentially improving absolute gravity sensing. The provision of both multimode TWA data and a two-mode model that reproduces the trend is a strength, as is the direct quantification of the sensitivity gain relative to the SQL and the prior scheme.

major comments (3)
  1. [Numerical simulations / results] The central quantitative claim (~20× SQL sensitivity and fourfold improvement) rests on multimode truncated-Wigner simulations, yet the manuscript provides no details on mode truncation number, grid size, time-step convergence, or ensemble size. Without these, it is impossible to judge whether the reported squeezing parameter and phase sensitivity are numerically converged (see the results section describing the TWA implementation).
  2. [State-preparation protocol] The delta kick is modeled as an instantaneous potential change that instantly raises density and squeezing. The manuscript does not examine finite rise time, amplitude jitter, or mode coupling that would accompany any real implementation; even modest additional decoherence would reduce the effective squeezing and could eliminate the claimed fourfold gain over the no-kick case.
  3. [Two-mode model comparison] The two-mode approximation is asserted to capture the trend, but the manuscript does not quantify the range of validity (e.g., maximum deviation in squeezing parameter or phase sensitivity between two-mode and multimode results) or the conditions under which the approximation breaks down.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels should explicitly state the kick strength values used and the precise definition of the phase sensitivity metric (e.g., whether it is the standard deviation or the Cramér-Rao bound).
  2. [Abstract and results] The abstract states the improvement factor as ∼20; the main text should give the exact numerical value extracted from the simulations together with the corresponding kick strength.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and positive assessment of the significance of our proposed scheme. We address each major comment point by point below and will incorporate revisions to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central quantitative claim (~20× SQL sensitivity and fourfold improvement) rests on multimode truncated-Wigner simulations, yet the manuscript provides no details on mode truncation number, grid size, time-step convergence, or ensemble size. Without these, it is impossible to judge whether the reported squeezing parameter and phase sensitivity are numerically converged (see the results section describing the TWA implementation).

    Authors: We agree that explicit documentation of the numerical parameters is necessary to establish convergence. In the revised manuscript we will add a new paragraph (or subsection) in the methods/results section specifying the mode truncation, spatial grid resolution, time-step size, and ensemble size used in the multimode TWA runs, together with brief statements of the convergence tests performed. These details were checked during the original simulations and the reported sensitivity gain remains stable under refinement. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The delta kick is modeled as an instantaneous potential change that instantly raises density and squeezing. The manuscript does not examine finite rise time, amplitude jitter, or mode coupling that would accompany any real implementation; even modest additional decoherence would reduce the effective squeezing and could eliminate the claimed fourfold gain over the no-kick case.

    Authors: The instantaneous delta-kick model is a standard idealization in the atom-optics literature for theoretical studies. We acknowledge that real implementations involve finite rise times and possible jitter. In the revision we will add a short discussion paragraph noting that, for experimentally accessible optical delta kicks with rise times much shorter than the one-axis twisting timescale, the additional decoherence is expected to be small. We will also provide a rough estimate of the sensitivity degradation under 1–2 % amplitude jitter, showing that a substantial fraction of the fourfold improvement is retained. Full time-dependent multimode simulations with realistic pulse shapes lie beyond the present scope but are identified as a natural extension. revision: partial

  3. Referee: The two-mode approximation is asserted to capture the trend, but the manuscript does not quantify the range of validity (e.g., maximum deviation in squeezing parameter or phase sensitivity between two-mode and multimode results) or the conditions under which the approximation breaks down.

    Authors: We will revise the text to include a quantitative comparison. A new sentence (and, if space permits, a supplementary figure) will report the maximum relative deviation between the two-mode and multimode results for both the squeezing parameter and the phase sensitivity across the scanned kick strengths. The two-mode model reproduces the multimode trend to within ~10 % up to the optimal kick strength; beyond that point multimode effects cause larger deviations, which we will explicitly state. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; central result from independent numerical simulations

full rationale

The claimed ~20x SQL sensitivity and fourfold improvement are quantified directly from multimode truncated-Wigner simulations of the focused condensate dynamics, which constitute an independent computational evaluation rather than a redefinition or fit of input quantities. The two-mode approximation is presented as capturing the simulation outcome without reducing the result to the input model by construction. The citation to Szigeti et al. establishes only the baseline scheme for comparison; the delta-kick enhancement and its performance metric are new and externally falsifiable via the simulations. No self-definitional, fitted-prediction, or load-bearing self-citation reductions are present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the truncated-Wigner approximation for the multimode dynamics and on the assumption that the delta kick can be realized experimentally without extra decoherence.

free parameters (1)
  • kick strength
    Optimized numerically to maximize the resulting squeezing and interferometer sensitivity.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The truncated-Wigner method provides a faithful description of the condensate evolution under one-axis twisting and the delta kick.
    Invoked to generate the quantitative sensitivity improvement.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5484 in / 1220 out tokens · 47654 ms · 2026-05-10T16:33:55.163869+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

84 extracted references · 82 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Peters, K

    A. Peters, K. Y. Chung and S. Chu, Measurement of gravitational acceleration by dropping atoms, Nature 400(6747), 849 (1999), doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/23655

    work page doi:10.1038/23655 1999

  2. [2]

    Peters, K

    A. Peters, K. Y. Chung and S. Chu, High-precision gravity measurements using atom interferometry, Metrologia 38(1), 25 (2001), doi:10.1088/0026-1394/38/1/4

    work page doi:10.1088/0026-1394/38/1/4 2001

  3. [3]

    Hu, B.-L

    Z.-K. Hu, B.-L. Sun, X.-C. Duan, M.-K. Zhou, L.-L. Chen, S. Zhan, Q.-Z. Zhang and J. Luo, Demonstration of an ultrahigh-sensitivity atom-interferometry absolute gravimeter, Phys. Rev. A 88, 043610 (2013), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.88.043610

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.88.043610 2013

  4. [4]

    Hauth, C

    M. Hauth, C. Freier, V. Schkolnik, A. Senger, M. Schmidt and A. Peters, First gravity measurements using the mobile atom interferometer GAIN , Appl. Phys. B 113(1), 49 (2013), doi:10.1007/s00340-013-5413-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s00340-013-5413-6 2013

  5. [5]

    P. A. Altin, M. T. Johnsson, V. Negnevitsky, G. R. Dennis, R. P. Anderson, J. E. Debs, S. S. Szigeti, K. S. Hardman, S. Bennetts, G. D. McDonald, L. D. Turner, J. D. Close et al., Precision atomic gravimeter based on Bragg diffraction , New J. Phys. 15(2), 023009 (2013), doi:10.1088/1367-2630/15/2/023009

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/15/2/023009 2013

  6. [6]

    Farah, C

    T. Farah, C. Guerlin, A. Landragin, P. Bouyer, S. Gaffet, F. Pereira Dos Santos and S. Merlet, Underground operation at best sensitivity of the mobile LNE - SYRTE cold atom gravimeter , Gyroscopy Navig. 5(4), 266 (2014), doi:https://doi.org/10.1134/S2075108714040051

    work page doi:10.1134/s2075108714040051 2014

  7. [7]

    Freier, M

    C. Freier, M. Hauth, V. Schkolnik, B. Leykauf, M. Schilling, H. Wziontek, H.-G. Scherneck, J. M \"u ller and A. Peters, Mobile quantum gravity sensor with unprecedented stability, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 723, 012050 (2016), doi:10.1088/1742-6596/723/1/012050

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/723/1/012050 2016

  8. [8]

    M \'e noret, P

    V. M \'e noret, P. Vermeulen, N. Le Moigne, S. Bonvalot, P. Bouyer, A. Landragin and B. Desruelle, Gravity measurements below 10^ -9 g with a transportable absolute quantum gravimeter , Sci. Rep. 8(1), 12300 (2018), doi:10.1038/s41598-018-30608-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-018-30608-1 2018

  9. [9]

    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), doi:10.1103/PhysRevApplied.20.014067

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.20.014067 2023

  10. [10]

    J. C. Saywell, M. S. Carey, P. S. Light, S. S. Szigeti, A. R. Milne, K. S. Gill, M. L. Goh, V. S. Perunicic, N. M. Wilson, C. D. Macrae et al., Enhancing the sensitivity of atom-interferometric inertial sensors using robust control, Nat. Commun. 14(1), 7626 (2023), doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-43374-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-023-43374-0 2023

  11. [11]

    M. J. Snadden, J. M. McGuirk, P. Bouyer, K. G. Haritos and M. A. Kasevich, Measurement of the earth's gravity gradient with an atom interferometer-based gravity gradiometer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 971 (1998), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.971

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.81.971 1998

  12. [12]

    Sorrentino,et al., Sensitivity limits of a Raman atom interferometer as a gravity gradiometer

    F. Sorrentino, Q. Bodart, L. Cacciapuoti, Y.-H. Lien, M. Prevedelli, G. Rosi, L. Salvi and G. M. Tino, Sensitivity limits of a Raman atom interferometer as a gravity gradiometer , Phys. Rev. A 89, 023607 (2014), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.89.023607

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.89.023607 2014

  13. [13]

    G. W. Biedermann, X. Wu, L. Deslauriers, S. Roy, C. Mahadeswaraswamy and M. A. Kasevich, Testing gravity with cold-atom interferometers, Phys. Rev. A 91, 033629 (2015), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.91.033629

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.91.033629 2015

  14. [14]

    K. S. Hardman, P. J. Everitt, G. D. McDonald, P. Manju, P. B. Wigley, M. A. Sooriyabandara, C. C. N. Kuhn, J. E. Debs, J. D. Close and N. P. Robins, Simultaneous precision gravimetry and magnetic gradiometry with a Bose - Einstein condensate: A high precision, quantum sensor , Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 138501 (2016), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.138501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.138501 2016

  15. [15]

    D'Amico, F

    G. D'Amico, F. Borselli, L. Cacciapuoti, M. Prevedelli, G. Rosi, F. Sorrentino and G. M. Tino, Bragg interferometer for gravity gradient measurements, Phys. Rev. A 93, 063628 (2016), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.93.063628

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.93.063628 2016

  16. [16]

    Asenbaum, C

    P. Asenbaum, C. Overstreet, T. Kovachy, D. D. Brown, J. M. Hogan and M. A. Kasevich, Phase shift in an atom interferometer due to spacetime curvature across its wave function, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 183602 (2017), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.183602

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.118.183602 2017

  17. [17]

    Janvier, V

    C. Janvier, V. M\'enoret, B. Desruelle, S. Merlet, A. Landragin and F. Pereira dos Santos, Compact differential gravimeter at the quantum projection-noise limit, Phys. Rev. A 105, 022801 (2022), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.105.022801

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.105.022801 2022

  18. [18]

    Canuel,et al., Six-Axis Inertial Sensor Using Cold-Atom Interferometry.Phys

    B. Canuel, F. Leduc, D. Holleville, A. Gauguet, J. Fils, A. Virdis, A. Clairon, N. Dimarcq, C. J. Bord\'e, A. Landragin and P. Bouyer, Six-axis inertial sensor using cold-atom interferometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 010402 (2006), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.010402

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.97.010402 2006

  19. [19]

    Templier, P

    S. Templier, P. Cheiney, Q. d'Armagnac de Castanet, B. Gouraud, H. Porte, F. Napolitano, P. Bouyer, B. Battelier and B. Barrett, Tracking the vector acceleration with a hybrid quantum accelerometer triad, Sci. Adv. 8(45), eadd3854 (2022), doi:10.1126/sciadv.add3854

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.add3854 2022

  20. [20]

    T. L. Gustavson, P. Bouyer and M. A. Kasevich, Precision rotation measurements with an atom interferometer gyroscope, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2046 (1997), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.2046

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.78.2046 2046

  21. [21]

    T. L. Gustavson, A. Landragin and M. A. Kasevich, Rotation sensing with a dual atom-interferometer Sagnac gyroscope , Class. Quantum Grav. 17(12), 2385 (2000), doi:10.1088/0264-9381/17/12/311

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/17/12/311 2000

  22. [22]

    D. S. Durfee, Y. K. Shaham and M. A. Kasevich, Long-term stability of an area-reversible atom-interferometer Sagnac gyroscope , Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 240801 (2006), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.240801

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.97.240801 2006

  23. [23]

    Gauguet, B

    A. Gauguet, B. Canuel, T. L\'ev\`eque, W. Chaibi and A. Landragin, Characterization and limits of a cold-atom Sagnac interferometer , Phys. Rev. A 80, 063604 (2009), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.80.063604

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.80.063604 2009

  24. [24]

    Barrett, R

    B. Barrett, R. Geiger, I. Dutta, M. Meunier, B. Canuel, A. Gauguet, P. Bouyer and A. Landragin, The Sagnac effect: 20 years of development in matter-wave interferometry , Comptes Rendus Physique 15(10), 875 (2014), doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crhy.2014.10.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.crhy.2014.10.009 2014

  25. [25]

    Gautier, M

    R. Gautier, M. Guessoum, L. A. Sidorenkov, Q. Bouton, A. Landragin and R. Geiger, Accurate measurement of the Sagnac effect for matter waves , Sci. Adv. 8(23), eabn8009 (2022), doi:10.1126/sciadv.abn8009

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.abn8009 2022

  26. [26]

    C. W. Woffinden, A. J. Groszek, G. Gauthier, B. J. Mommers, M. W. J. Bromley, S. A. Haine, H. Rubinsztein-Dunlop, M. J. Davis, T. W. Neely and M. Baker, Viability of rotation sensing using phonon interferometry in Bose-Einstein condensates , SciPost Phys. 15, 128 (2023), doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.15.4.128

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphys.15.4.128 2023

  27. [27]

    Bongs,et al., Taking atom interferometric quantum sensors from the laboratory to real- world applications.Nat

    K. Bongs, M. Holynski, J. Vovrosh, P. Bouyer, G. Condon, E. Rasel, C. Schubert, W. P. Schleich and A. Roura, Taking atom interferometric quantum sensors from the laboratory to real-world applications, Nat. Rev. Phys. 1(12), 731 (2019), doi:10.1038/s42254-019-0117-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s42254-019-0117-4 2019

  28. [28]

    Jekeli, Navigation error analysis of atom interferometer inertial sensor, Navigation 52(1), 1 (2005), doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-4296.2005.tb01726.x

    C. Jekeli, Navigation error analysis of atom interferometer inertial sensor, Navigation 52(1), 1 (2005), doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-4296.2005.tb01726.x

    work page doi:10.1002/j.2161-4296.2005.tb01726.x 2005

  29. [29]

    Battelier, B

    B. Battelier, B. Barrett, L. Fouche, L. Chichet, L. Antoni-Micollier, H. Porte, F. Napolitano, J. Lautier, A. Landragin and P. Bouyer, Development of compact cold-atom sensors for inertial navigation , In J. Stuhler and A. J. Shields, eds., Quantum Optics, vol. 9900, p. 990004. International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE, doi:10.1117/12.2228351 (2016)

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2228351 2016

  30. [30]

    F. A. Narducci, A. T. Black and J. H. Burke, Advances toward fieldable atom interferometers, Adv. Phys. X 7(1), 1946426 (2022), doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/23746149.2021.1946426

    work page doi:10.1080/23746149.2021.1946426 2022

  31. [31]

    M. J. Wright, L. Anastassiou, C. Mishra, J. M. Davies, A. M. Phillips, S. Maskell and J. F. Ralph, Cold atom inertial sensors for navigation applications, Front. Phys. 10, 994459 (2022), doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2022.994459

    work page doi:10.3389/fphy.2022.994459 2022

  32. [32]

    A. M. Phillips, M. J. Wright, I. Riou, S. Maddox, S. Maskell and J. F. Ralph, Position fixing with cold atom gravity gradiometers, AVS Quantum Sci. 4(2), 024404 (2022), doi:https://doi.org/10.1116/5.0095677

    work page doi:10.1116/5.0095677 2022

  33. [33]

    X. Wang, A. Kealy, C. Gilliam, S. Haine, J. Close, B. Moran, K. Talbot, S. Williams, K. Hardman, C. Freier, P. Wigley, A. White et al., Improving measurement performance via fusion of classical and quantum accelerometers, Journal of Navigation 76, 91 (2023), doi:10.1017/S0373463322000637

    work page doi:10.1017/s0373463322000637 2023

  34. [34]

    E. H. van Leeuwen, BHP develops airborne gravity gradiometer for mineral exploration , The Leading Edge 19(12), 1296 (2000), doi:https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1438526

    work page doi:10.1190/1.1438526 2000

  35. [35]

    M. I. Evstifeev, The state of the art in the development of onboard gravity gradiometers, Gyroscopy Navig. 8(1), 68 (2017), doi:10.1134/S2075108717010047

    work page doi:10.1134/s2075108717010047 2017

  36. [36]

    Scientific Reports , keywords =

    B. Canuel, A. Bertoldi, L. Amand, E. Pozzo di Borgo, T. Chantrait, C. Danquigny, M. Dovale Alvarez, B. Fang, A. Freise, R. Geiger, J. Gillot, S. Henry et al., Exploring gravity with the MIGA large scale atom interferometer , Sci. Rep. 8(1), 14064 (2018), doi:10.1038/s41598-018-32165-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-018-32165-z 2018

  37. [37]

    Schilling, \'E

    M. Schilling, \'E . Wodey, L. Timmen, D. Tell, K. H. Zipfel, D. Schlippert, C. Schubert, E. M. Rasel and J. M \"u ller, Gravity field modelling for the Hannover 10 m atom interferometer , J. Geod. 94, 122 (2020), doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-020-01451-y

    work page doi:10.1007/s00190-020-01451-y 2020

  38. [38]

    Aguilera, H

    D. Aguilera, H. Ahlers, B. Battelier, A. Bawamia, A. Bertoldi, R. Bondarescu, K. Bongs, P. Bouyer, C. Braxmaier, L. Cacciapuoti et al., STE - QUEST --test of the universality of free fall using cold atom interferometry , Class. Quantum Grav. 31(11), 115010 (2014), doi:10.1088/0264-9381/31/11/115010

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/31/11/115010 2014

  39. [39]

    Williams, S.-w

    J. Williams, S.-w. Chiow, N. Yu and H. M \"u ller, Quantum test of the equivalence principle and space-time aboard the international space station, New J. Phys. 18(2), 025018 (2016), doi:10.1088/1367-2630/18/2/025018

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/18/2/025018 2016

  40. [40]

    Becker, M

    D. Becker, M. D. Lachmann, S. T. Seidel, H. Ahlers, A. N. Dinkelaker, J. Grosse, O. Hellmig, H. M \"u ntinga, V. Schkolnik, T. Wendrich et al., Space-borne Bose -- Einstein condensation for precision interferometry , Nature 562(7727), 391 (2018), doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0605-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0605-1 2018

  41. [41]

    G. Rosi, F. Sorrentino, L. Cacciapuoti, M. Prevedelli and G. M. Tino, Precision measurement of the Newtonian gravitational constant using cold atoms , Nature (7506), 518, doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13433

    work page doi:10.1038/nature13433

  42. [42]

    Dimopoulos, P

    S. Dimopoulos, P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan and M. A. Kasevich, Testing general relativity with atom interferometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98(11), 111102 (2007), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.111102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.98.111102 2007

  43. [43]

    G. M. Tino, Testing gravity with cold atom interferometry: results and prospects, Quantum Sci. Technol. 6(2), 024014 (2021), doi:10.1088/2058-9565/abd83e

    work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/abd83e 2021

  44. [44]

    D. J. Wineland, J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, F. L. Moore and D. J. Heinzen, Spin squeezing and reduced quantum noise in spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. A 46, R6797 (1992), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.46.R6797

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.46.r6797 1992

  45. [45]

    Pezz` e, A

    L. Pezze, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied and P. Treutlein, Quantum metrology with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 035005 (2018), doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.90.035005

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.90.035005 2018

  46. [46]

    Giovannetti, S

    V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd and L. Maccone, Quantum-enhanced measurements: Beating the standard quantum limit, Science 306(5700), 1330 (2004), doi:10.1126/science.1104149, https://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5700/1330.full.pdf

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1104149 2004

  47. [47]

    S. S. Szigeti, O. Hosten and S. A. Haine, Improving cold-atom sensors with quantum entanglement: Prospects and challenges, Appl. Phys. Lett. 118(14), 140501 (2021), doi:https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0050235

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0050235 2021

  48. [48]

    Corgier, M

    R. Corgier, M. Malitesta, A. Smerzi and L. Pezz \` e , Quantum-enhanced differential atom interferometers and clocks with spin-squeezing swapping, Quantum 7, 965 (2023), doi:10.22331/q-2023-03-30-965

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2023-03-30-965 2023

  49. [49]

    Corgier,et al., Optimized squeezing for accurate differential sensing under large phase noise.Quantum Sci

    R. Corgier, M. Malitesta, L. A. Sidorenkov, F. Pereira Dos Santos, G. Rosi, G. M. Tino, A. Smerzi, L. Salvi and L. Pezzè, Optimized squeezing for accurate differential sensing under large phase noise, Quantum Sci. Technol. 10(4), 045016 (2025), doi:10.1088/2058-9565/adf2d8

    work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/adf2d8 2025

  50. [50]

    Appel, P

    J. Appel, P. J. Windpassinger, D. Oblak, U. B. Hoff, N. Kjaergaard and E. S. Polzik, Mesoscopic atomic entanglement for precision measurements beyond the standard quantum limit, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106(27), 10960 (2009), doi:10.1073/pnas.0901550106

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.0901550106 2009

  51. [51]

    I. D. Leroux, M. H. Schleier-Smith and V. Vuletic, Implementation of cavity squeezing of a collective atomic spin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 073602 (2010), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.073602

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.104.073602 2010

  52. [52]

    ohi, Y. Li, T. W. H\

    M. F. Riedel, P. B\"ohi, Y. Li, T. W. H\"ansch, A. Sinatra and P. Treutlein, Atom-chip-based generation of entanglement for quantum metrology, Nature 464(7292), 1170 (2010)

    2010

  53. [53]

    Gross, T

    C. Gross, T. Zibold, E. Nicklas, J. Esteve and M. K. Oberthaler, Nonlinear atom interferometer surpasses classical precision limit, Nature 464(7292), 1165 (2010)

    2010

  54. [54]

    Strobel, W

    H. Strobel, W. Muessel, D. Linnemann, T. Zibold, D. B. Hume, L. Pezz \`e , A. Smerzi and M. K. Oberthaler, Fisher information and entanglement of non- Gaussian spin states , Science 345(6195), 424 (2014), doi:10.1126/science.1250147

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1250147 2014

  55. [55]

    Anders, A

    F. Anders, A. Idel, P. Feldmann, D. Bondarenko, S. Loriani, K. Lange, J. Peise, M. Gersemann, B. Meyer-Hoppe, S. Abend, N. Gaaloul, C. Schubert et al., Momentum entanglement for atom interferometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 140402 (2021), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.140402

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.140402 2021

  56. [56]

    C. F. Ockeloen, R. Schmied, M. F. Riedel and P. Treutlein, Quantum metrology with a scanning probe atom interferometer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 143001 (2013), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.143001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.111.143001 2013

  57. [57]

    Muessel, H

    W. Muessel, H. Strobel, D. Linnemann, D. B. Hume and M. K. Oberthaler, Scalable spin squeezing for quantum-enhanced magnetometry with Bose - Einstein condensates , Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 103004 (2014), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.103004

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.113.103004 2014

  58. [58]

    Kruse, K

    I. Kruse, K. Lange, J. Peise, B. L\"ucke, L. Pezz\`e, J. Arlt, W. Ertmer, C. Lisdat, L. Santos, A. Smerzi and C. Klempt, Improvement of an atomic clock using squeezed vacuum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 143004 (2016), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.143004

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.143004 2016

  59. [59]

    Cassens, B

    C. Cassens, B. Meyer-Hoppe, E. Rasel and C. Klempt, Entanglement-enhanced atomic gravimeter, Phys. Rev. X 15, 011029 (2025), doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.15.011029

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.15.011029 2025

  60. [60]

    S. S. Szigeti, S. P. Nolan, J. D. Close and S. A. Haine, High-precision quantum-enhanced gravimetry with a Bose - Einstein condensate , Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 100402 (2020), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.100402

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.100402 2020

  61. [61]

    Kitagawa and M

    M. Kitagawa and M. Ueda, Squeezed spin states, Phys. Rev. A 47, 5138 (1993), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.47.5138

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.47.5138 1993

  62. [62]

    Corgier, N

    R. Corgier, N. Gaaloul, A. Smerzi and L. Pezz\`e, Delta-kick squeezing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 183401 (2021), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.183401

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.183401 2021

  63. [63]

    Ammann and N

    H. Ammann and N. Christensen, Delta kick cooling: A new method for cooling atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2088 (1997), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.2088

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.78.2088 2088

  64. [64]

    M\"untinga, H

    H. M\"untinga, H. Ahlers, M. Krutzik, A. Wenzlawski, S. Arnold, D. Becker, K. Bongs, H. Dittus, H. Duncker, N. Gaaloul, C. Gherasim, E. Giese et al., Interferometry with Bose - Einstein condensates in microgravity , Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 093602 (2013), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.093602

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.110.093602 2013

  65. [65]

    Kovachy, J

    T. Kovachy, J. M. Hogan, A. Sugarbaker, S. M. Dickerson, C. A. Donnelly, C. Overstreet and M. A. Kasevich, Matter wave lensing to picokelvin temperatures, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 143004 (2015), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.143004

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114.143004 2015

  66. [66]

    Deppner, W

    C. Deppner, W. Herr, M. Cornelius, P. Stromberger, T. Sternke, C. Grzeschik, A. Grote, J. Rudolph, S. Herrmann, M. Krutzik, A. Wenzlawski, R. Corgier et al., Collective-mode enhanced matter-wave optics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 100401 (2021), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.100401

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.100401 2021

  67. [67]

    Kasevich and S

    M. Kasevich and S. Chu, Measurement of the gravitational acceleration of an atom with a light-pulse atom interferometer, Appl. Phys. B 54, 321 (1992), doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00325375

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00325375 1992

  68. [68]

    S rensen, L

    A. S rensen, L. M. Duan, J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Many-particle entanglement with Bose -- Einstein condensates , Nature 409(6816), 63 (2001), doi:10.1038/35051038

    work page doi:10.1038/35051038 2001

  69. [69]

    D. J. Wineland, J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano and D. J. Heinzen, Squeezed atomic states and projection noise in spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. A 50, 67 (1994), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.50.67

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.50.67 1994

  70. [70]

    M. J. Steel, M. K. Olsen, L. I. Plimak, P. D. Drummond, S. M. Tan, M. J. Collett, D. F. Walls and R. Graham, Dynamical quantum noise in trapped Bose-Einstein condensates , Phys. Rev. A 58, 4824 (1998), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.58.4824

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.58.4824 1998

  71. [71]

    Sinatra, C

    A. Sinatra, C. Lobo and Y. Castin, The truncated Wigner method for Bose -condensed gases: limits of validity and applications , J. Phys. B 35(17), 3599 (2002), doi:10.1088/0953-4075/35/17/301

    work page doi:10.1088/0953-4075/35/17/301 2002

  72. [72]

    P. B. Blakie, A. S. Bradley, M. J. Davis, R. J. Ballagh and C. W. Gardiner, Dynamics and statistical mechanics of ultra-cold Bose gases using c-field techniques , Adv. Phys. 57(5), 363 (2008), doi:10.1080/00018730802564254

    work page doi:10.1080/00018730802564254 2008

  73. [73]

    S. A. Haine and A. J. Ferris, Surpassing the standard quantum limit in an atom interferometer with four-mode entanglement produced from four-wave mixing, Phys. Rev. A 84, 043624 (2011), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.84.043624

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.84.043624 2011

  74. [74]

    S. A. Haine, Quantum noise in bright soliton matterwave interferometry, New J. Phys. 20(3), 033009 (2018), doi:10.1088/1367-2630/aab47f

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/aab47f 2018

  75. [75]

    A. J. Ferris, M. J. Davis, R. W. Geursen, P. B. Blakie and A. C. Wilson, Dynamical instabilities of Bose - Einstein condensates at the band edge in one-dimensional optical lattices , Phys. Rev. A 77, 012712 (2008), doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.77.012712

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.77.012712 2008

  76. [76]

    Castin and R

    Y. Castin and R. Dum, Bose - Einstein condensates in time dependent traps , Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 5315 (1996), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.5315

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.77.5315 1996

  77. [77]

    K. M. Mertes, J. W. Merrill, R. Carretero-Gonz\'alez, D. J. Frantzeskakis, P. G. Kevrekidis and D. S. Hall, Nonequilibrium dynamics and superfluid ring excitations in binary Bose - Einstein condensates , Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 190402 (2007), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.190402

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.99.190402 2007

  78. [78]

    J. Ye, S. Swartz, P. Jungner and J. L. Hall, Hyperfine structure and absolute frequency of the ^ 87 Rb 5 P _ 3/2 state , Opt. Lett. 21(16), 1280 (1996), doi:10.1364/OL.21.001280

    work page doi:10.1364/ol.21.001280 1996

  79. [79]

    Dupays, D

    L. Dupays, D. C. Spierings, A. M. Steinberg and A. del Campo, Delta-kick cooling, time-optimal control of scale-invariant dynamics, and shortcuts to adiabaticity assisted by kicks, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 033261 (2021), doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.3.033261

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.3.033261 2021

  80. [80]

    Stringari, Collective excitations of a trapped Bose -condensed gas , Phys

    S. Stringari, Collective excitations of a trapped Bose -condensed gas , Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2360 (1996), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.2360

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.77.2360 1996

Showing first 80 references.