Pith. sign in

REVIEW 7 minor 77 references

Spatial and Pulse Efficiency Constraints in Atom Interferometric Gravitational Wave Detectors

T0 review · 0 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Per-pulse atom loss, not baseline length, sets the optimal pulse count in resonant atom-interferometer gravitational-wave detectors; proposed designs demand roughly two orders of magnitude better pulse fidelity than has been demonstrated.

desk verdict The central efficiency constraint NP≈2/λ is derived cleanly and the paper's downbeat message about large-NP proposals is probably right; worth a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09511 v2 pith:RX3FWVRT submitted 2025-06-11 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

Patrik Schach , Enno Giese This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph
keywords atominterferometrygravitationalwavedetectorslargemomentumtransferpulsefidelityresonantmodeshotnoisemulti-diamondinterferometerbaselineconstraints
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 argues that the performance of planned terrestrial gravitational-wave detectors based on light-pulse atom interferometry is governed by a trade-off that prior projections did not include: every added pulse amplifies the signal but also loses atoms, and the loss per pulse caps the useful pulse number. In resonant multi-diamond mode the authors derive a simple rule, $N_P \approx 2/\lambda$ in the low-frequency band, where $N_P$ is the optimal total number of pulses and $\lambda$ is the fractional atom loss per pulse. Applying the rule to a MAGIS-style design, which assumes $N_P \approx 1.6\times 10^5$, requires $\lambda \approx 1.25\times 10^{-5}$ per pulse, about two orders of magnitude better than the demonstrated $\lambda_R = 1.1\times 10^{-3}$. With state-of-the-art losses, the optimal pulse number falls to roughly 1800 and arm separation becomes negligible, so projected low-frequency sensitivities of large-$N_P$ proposals are optimistic unless pulse fidelity improves dramatically. The paper supplies analytical formulas and a numerical optimization that jointly handle the number of diamonds, LMT pulses, fountain height, and baseline constraints.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the strain-uncertainty formula $\Delta h = \sqrt{2/(C^2\nu N_0(1-\lambda)^{N_P})}/(2k L N Q)$, optimized jointly over the relative fountain height $\ell = H/B$ and the total pulse number $N_P = 4QN - 2Q + 1$, subject to the resonant condition $\omega T = \pi$, the fountain-time constraint $Q = \xi\sqrt{\ell}$, and an upper bound on arm separation $\Delta z = N\hbar k T/m$. This formula converts the trade-off between signal amplification (growing with $Q$ and $N$) and atom loss (falling as $(1-\lambda)^{N_P}$) into an explicit optimization problem. Its low-loss expansion, $N_P \approx 2/\lambda + (-1/6 - \xi^2)\lambda$, is the analytical result that lets one estimate the optimal pulse number directly from the per-pulse loss, and it is the basis for the claim that proposed detectors require unattained fidelities.

What would settle it

Measure per-pulse atom loss of a single-photon LMT sequence at large momentum transfer in a long-baseline fountain: if a sequence with $N_P\approx1.6\times10^5$ pulses sustains $\lambda\le1.25\times10^{-5}$ while keeping both arms inside the baseline, the claimed sensitivity shortfall would not occur. A more direct test is to measure $\lambda$ as a function of pulse number and check whether the optimal pulse count predicted by $N_P\approx2/\lambda$ reproduces the observed sensitivity optimum of a real detector.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the optimal number of light pulses in a resonant multi-diamond atom interferometer is set primarily by per-pulse atom loss, not by the available baseline, and that many flagship proposals exceed the pulse number this loss allows. Starting from the strain uncertainty $\Delta h \propto 1/[(1-\lambda)^{N_P/2} N Q]$, with $N_P = 4QN - 2Q + 1$ total pulses for $Q$ diamonds and $N$ LMT pulses per beam splitter, the authors optimize over fountain height and pulse count. For small loss they find $N_P \approx 2/\lambda$ in the low-frequency band, independent of baseline and frequency. A MAGIS-style configuration with $N_P \approx 1.6\times 10^5$ would need $\lambda \approx 1.25\times 10^{-5}$, whereas the current state of the art for Bragg interferometers is $\lambda = 1.1\times 10^{-3}$; at that demonstrated loss the optimum is only about 1800 pulses, for which arm separation is a negligible constraint. When the spatial extent of the interferometer is included, large pulse numbers force the arms to hit the top or bottom of the baseline, further reducing sensitivity at low frequencies. The authors conclude that with present technology the achievable sensitivity falls short of the targets assumed by proposed detectors, and that improving pulse fidelity is the decisive research need.

Load-bearing premise

The entire sensitivity formula rests on treating each pulse as an independent, identical loss channel with a fixed per-pulse rate $\lambda$, while neglecting finite-speed-of-light phase effects across a single interferometer whose arm separation can reach half the baseline and whose duration exceeds 10 seconds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, projected sensitivities of large-$N_P$ proposals in the low-frequency band are overoptimistic unless per-pulse loss is improved by about two orders of magnitude, from $\lambda \approx 1.1\times10^{-3}$ to $\lambda \approx 1.25\times10^{-5}$.
  • With today's demonstrated loss, the optimal total pulse number is roughly 1800, an order of magnitude more than the 100 LMT pulses assumed in the initial stage of MAGIS, so current technology should already outperform that conservative baseline.
  • At state-of-the-art losses the arm separation is negligible, meaning the limiting resource is pulse fidelity rather than the physical baseline; spatial constraints only become important in the high-fidelity, high-pulse-number regime.
  • Optimizing with realistic losses favors relatively small fountain heights (about 5% of the baseline) and small numbers of diamonds in the frequency band of interest, which also keeps the resonant bandwidth penalty modest.
  • The same optimization applies to atom-interferometric dark-matter detectors based on single-photon transitions, since the signal and noise scaling are analogous.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct corollary the authors leave implicit is that improving per-pulse loss by a factor $\kappa$ raises the optimal pulse count by roughly the same factor $\kappa$, so pulse fidelity is the single highest-leverage parameter for these detectors.
  • The analysis suggests that squeezed or entangled atom sources, which the authors mention but do not optimize, are unlikely to rescue the large-$N_P$ designs: the per-pulse loss that caps $N_P$ would also degrade the entanglement, so fidelity improvement is a prerequisite for their benefit to survive.
  • Because the neglected finite-speed-of-light contributions across a single interferometer scale with arm separation and duration, the parameter region where the paper finds spatial constraints (arm separations around $0.5B$, durations beyond 10 s) is exactly where those corrections could become sizable and shift the optimum, a check that the paper itself flags as future work.
  • The result provides a quantitative target for experimentalists: a single-photon LMT sequence that demonstrates $\lambda\lesssim 10^{-5}$ per pulse would materially change the conclusions, so the paper can be read as a request for such a demonstration.
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

0 major / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies differential vertical atom interferometers used in proposed gravitational-wave and dark-matter detectors (MAGIS, AION, ELGAR, ZAIGA, MIGA) in resonant multi-diamond operation. The authors optimize the strain sensitivity with respect to relative fountain height and total number of light pulses, subject to atom loss per pulse and to spatial constraints from the finite baseline. The main analytical result, Eq. (6), is NP ≈ 2/λ for small per-pulse loss λ, essentially independent of baseline and frequency. Using this relation, they show that MAGIS-style configurations with NP ≈ 1.6×10^5 require λ ≈ 1.25×10^-5, two orders of magnitude below the demonstrated value λ_R = 1.1×10^-3; with state-of-the-art λ_R, the optimal pulse number is NP ≈ 1800, for which arm separation is not a limiting constraint. A numerical optimization with integer Q and N and explicit baseline limits confirms and extends the analytical results, including sensitivity deficits at low frequencies.

Significance. If correct, the result is an important reality check for atom-interferometric gravitational-wave proposals and identifies pulse fidelity as the key enabling technology. The central relation Eq. (6) is derived from an explicit sensitivity expression with no fitted parameters, and the small-λ expansion of Eq. (A4) is internally consistent. The claim is conservative: the authors adopt the more favorable Bragg-diffraction loss λ_R=1.1×10^-3 rather than the single-photon value 0.011, and they neglect parasitic-path contrast degradation and single-interferometer finite-speed-of-light effects, both of which would further constrain large-NP geometries. The result is robust in the sense that any model with signal amplitude proportional to N_Q and detected atom number scaling as (1-λ)^{N_P} yields NP≈2/λ. The paper also gives practical closed-form estimates and explicitly separates the regimes where arm separation matters from those where it is negligible.

minor comments (7)
  1. [Sections IV and V] The relationship between the 'N = 4 × 10^4 per LMT sequence' used to obtain NP≈1.6×10^5 and the later 'NP=100 considered in the initial stage of MAGIS' should be clarified, since both appear to cite Ref. [11] and the reader cannot tell which stage of the proposal each number refers to.
  2. [Section V] The numerical optimization is described only qualitatively; providing the scan grid, step sizes, and termination criteria (or the code) would make Figs. 3–5 reproducible.
  3. [Sections II and VI] The neglect of finite-speed-of-light effects over a single interferometer is stated in Section II and acknowledged in Section VI; given that the optimized configurations reach T_AI>10 s and arm separations around 0.5B, this caveat deserves more prominence in the main text, although it does not weaken the central efficiency constraint.
  4. [Section V] There is a typo: 'several orders orders of magnitude' should read 'several orders of magnitude'.
  5. [Abstract and Section IV] The phrase 'observed sensitivity falls short of expectations' is better rendered as 'projected sensitivity' or 'achievable sensitivity', since the analysis is theoretical.
  6. [Section V and Figure 4] The text says the MAGIS sensitivities are visualized as dotted lines in Fig. 4, while the figure caption says solid lines; one of these is wrong and should be corrected.
  7. [Section IV] Equation (8) is stated without derivation; since it is used to delimit the parameter space where arm separation becomes relevant, a short derivation or reference to the appendix would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: pulse-number optimization and efficiency shortfall follow from an explicit, externally benchmarked sensitivity model.

full rationale

The central claim—optimal NP ≈ 2/λ and the resulting shortfall for MAGIS-style proposals—is derived by minimizing the explicit strain-uncertainty expression Eq. (5)/(A2), a trade-off between signal growth ∝ NP and shot-noise growth exp(λ NP/2) from atom loss. No parameter is fitted to the target result: the required λ≈1.25×10^-5 for NP≈1.6×10^5 is an inversion of Eq. (6), and the comparison value λ_R=1.1×10^-3 is taken from external experiment [59], while proposal parameters (NP, L, B, ∆Φ) come from [11]. Self-citations ([48], [75]) are contextual or limitation references and are not load-bearing; the neglected finite-light-speed effect is acknowledged in the conclusion and would add constraints rather than relax the efficiency requirement. Hence no step reduces to its own input.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data. The model rests on standard shot-noise scaling, a constant per-pulse loss model, the fountain-time equality, and the low-frequency GW response formula. All are stated in the paper, and several are explicitly flagged as limitations. The paper introduces no new entities.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Shot-noise phase uncertainty DeltaPhi = sqrt(2/(nu Nat C^2)) with detected atoms Nat = N0 (1-lambda)^NP.
    Section II, Eq. (5). The entire optimization rests on this scaling; contrast and parasitic-path effects are explicitly set aside.
  • domain assumption Total pulse count NP = 4QN - 2Q + 1 for a Q-diamond, N-pulse-per-beam-splitter scheme.
    Section III and Appendix A. This geometric relation links diamonds and LMT pulses.
  • domain assumption Interferometer time equals fountain time, T_AI = 2QT = Ttot = sqrt(8H/g), with interleaved operation making the repetition rate independent of T_AI.
    Section III. Used for the analytical optimum and relaxed in the numerical part.
  • domain assumption Low-frequency gravitational-wave response described by Eq. (2) with omega tau_B much less than 1, neglecting finite-speed-of-light effects over a single interferometer.
    Section II. The paper later notes this approximation becomes questionable for very large N, citing [75].
  • domain assumption Resonant-mode condition omega T = pi.
    Section II. Defines the operating mode; broadband mode is discussed only qualitatively.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spatial and Pulse Efficiency Constraints in Atom Interferometric Gravitational Wave Detectors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RX3FWVRT

@misc{pith2026250609511,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spatial and Pulse Efficiency Constraints in Atom Interferometric Gravitational Wave Detectors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RX3FWVRT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09511}
}
read the original abstract

Currently planned and constructed terrestrial detectors for gravitational waves and dark matter based on differential light-pulse atom interferometry are designed around three primary strategies to enhance their sensitivity: (i) Resonant-mode enhancement using multiple diamonds, (ii) large-momentum-transfer techniques to increase arm separation within the interferometer, and (iii) very-long baseline schemes that increase the distance between the two interferometers. Both resonant-mode enhancement and large-momentum-transfer techniques result in a greater number of light pulses, making high pulse fidelity during atom-light interactions imperative. At the same time, increasing the number of diamonds in vertical configurations leads to taller atomic fountains, which consequently reduces the available distance between interferometers. As a result, the number of diamonds, large-momentum-transfer pulses, and the fountain height are interdependent parameters that must be carefully balanced. In this work, we present optimal configurations for multi-diamond geometries, explicitly accounting for the spatial extent of a single interferometer, considering constraints imposed by the baseline dimensions and atomic losses due to imperfect pulses. We provide practical analytical relations to estimate the optimal number of pulses that should be applied. Many proposals beyond demonstrator experiments require pulse numbers that demand efficiencies not yet demonstrated with state-of-the-art momentum transfer techniques. As a result, the observed sensitivity falls short of expectations - an effect caused by both arm separation and atom loss per pulse - highlighting the urgent need for research aimed at improving pulse fidelities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09511 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Differential configuration of two atomic Mach-Zehnder interferometers, each with a fountain height [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Distribution of the optimal number of pulses [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Comparison of the optimal normalized fountain height [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the optimal achievable strain uncertainty ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Optimal normalized fountain height H/B and number of diamonds Q, as well as (b) the corresponding sensitivity for two different baselines as a function of gravitational wave frequency. The number of LMT pulses is constrained by a fixed total number of pulses, estim…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [75]

    Finite-Speed-of-Light Effects in Atom Interferometry: Diffraction Mechanisms and Resonance Conditions

    C. Niehof, D. Derr, and E. Giese, Finite-Speed-of-Light Effects in Atom Interferometry: Diffraction Mechanisms and Resonance Conditions, arXiv:2505.02728 (2025)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [48]

    Di Pumpo, A

    F. Di Pumpo, A. Friedrich, and E. Giese, Optimal baseline exploitation in vertical dark-matter detectors based on atom interferometry, A VS Quantum Sci.6, 014404 (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [1]

    Abendet al., Terrestrial very-long-baseline atom in- terferometry: Workshop summary, A VS Quantum Sci.6, 024701 (2024)

    S. Abendet al., Terrestrial very-long-baseline atom in- terferometry: Workshop summary, A VS Quantum Sci.6, 024701 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [2]

    Abdallaet al., Terrestrial Very-Long-Baseline Atom Interferometry: summary of the second workshop, EPJ Quantum Technol.12, 42 (2025)

    A. Abdallaet al., Terrestrial Very-Long-Baseline Atom Interferometry: summary of the second workshop, EPJ Quantum Technol.12, 42 (2025)

    work page 2025

  5. [3]

    Balazet al., Long-Baseline Atom Interferometry, arXiv:2503.21366 (2025)

    A. Balazet al., Long-Baseline Atom Interferometry, arXiv:2503.21366 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  6. [4]

    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. D78, 122002 (2008)

    2008

  7. [5]

    J. M. Hogan, D. M. S. Johnson, S. Dickerson, T. Ko- vachy, A. Sugarbaker, S.-w. Chiow, P. W. Graham, M. A. Kasevich, B. Saif, S. Rajendran, P. Bouyer, B. D. Seery, L. Feinberg, and R. Keski-Kuha, An atomic gravitational wave interferometric sensor in low earth orbit (AGIS- LEO), Gen. Relativ. Gravit.43, 1953 (2011)

    work page 2011

  8. [6]

    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

Show all 77 references
  1. [7]

    P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, M. A. Kasevich, and S. Ra- jendran, Resonant mode for gravitational wave detectors based on atom interferometry, Phys. Rev. D94, 104022 (2016)

    2016

  2. [8]

    Arvanitaki, P

    A. Arvanitaki, P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, S. Rajendran, and K. Van Tilburg, Search for light scalar dark matter with atomic gravitational wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D 97, 075020 (2018)

    2018

  3. [9]

    Badurina, D

    L. Badurina, D. Blas, and C. McCabe, Refined ultralight scalar dark matter searches with compact atom gradiome- ters, Phys. Rev. D105, 023006 (2022)

    2022

  4. [10]

    Derr and E

    D. Derr and E. Giese, Clock transitions versus Bragg diffraction in atom-interferometric dark-matter detection, A VS Quantum Sci.5, 044404 (2023)

    2023

  5. [11]

    Abeet al., Matter-wave Atomic Gradiometer Interfer- ometric Sensor (MAGIS-100), Quantum Sci

    M. Abeet al., Matter-wave Atomic Gradiometer Interfer- ometric Sensor (MAGIS-100), Quantum Sci. Technol.6, 044003 (2021)

    2021

  6. [12]

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

    L. Badurinaet al., AION: an atom interferometer obser- vatory and network, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2020, 011

    2020

  7. [13]

    Canuelet al., ELGAR—a European Laboratory for Gravitation and Atom-interferometric Research, Class

    B. Canuelet al., ELGAR—a European Laboratory for Gravitation and Atom-interferometric Research, Class. Quantum Grav.37, 225017 (2020). 12

    2020

  8. [14]

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

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

    2020

  9. [15]

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

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

    2018

  10. [16]

    Harms, Terrestrial Gravity Fluctuations, Living Rev

    J. Harms, Terrestrial Gravity Fluctuations, Living Rev. Relativ.18, 3 (2015)

    2015

  11. [17]

    Carlton and C

    J. Carlton and C. McCabe, Mitigating anthropogenic and synanthropic noise in atom interferometer searches for ultralight dark matter, Phys. Rev. D108, 123004 (2023)

    2023

  12. [18]

    Carlton, V

    J. Carlton, V. Gibson, T. Kovachy, C. McCabe, and J. Mitchell, Characterizing atmospheric gravity gradient noise for vertical atom interferometers, Phys. Rev. D111, 082003 (2025)

    2025

  13. [19]

    P. R. Saulson, Terrestrial gravitational noise on a gravi- tational wave antenna, Phys. Rev. D30, 732 (1984)

    1984

  14. [20]

    Canuelet al., Technologies for the elgar large scale atom interferometer array, arXiv:2007.04014 (2020)

    B. Canuelet al., Technologies for the elgar large scale atom interferometer array, arXiv:2007.04014 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Chaibi, R

    W. Chaibi, R. Geiger, B. Canuel, A. Bertoldi, A. Lan- dragin, and P. Bouyer, Low frequency gravitational wave detection with ground-based atom interferometer arrays, Phys. Rev. D93, 021101 (2016)

    2016

  16. [22]

    Badurina, V

    L. Badurina, V. Gibson, C. McCabe, and J. Mitchell, Ultralight dark matter searches at the sub-hz frontier with atom multigradiometry, Phys. Rev. D107, 055002 (2023)

    2023

  17. [23]

    Le Gou¨ et, P

    J. Le Gou¨ et, P. Cheinet, J. Kim, D. Holleville, A. Cla- iron, A. Landragin, and F. Pereira Dos Santos, Influence of lasers propagation delay on the sensitivity of atom interferometers, Eur. Phys. J. D44, 419 (2007)

    2007

  18. [24]

    B¨ ohringer, F

    S. B¨ ohringer, F. Kienle, and R. Lopp, Evolution of momentum-dependent observables under stochastic phase noise in Rabi oscillations, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 023048 (2025)

    2025

  19. [25]

    L. Hu, N. Poli, L. Salvi, and G. M. Tino, Atom Interfer- ometry with the Sr Optical Clock Transition, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 263601 (2017)

    2017

  20. [26]

    L. Hu, E. Wang, L. Salvi, J. N. Tinsley, G. M. Tino, and N. Poli, Sr atom interferometry with the optical clock transition as a gravimeter and a gravity gradiometer, Class. Quantum Grav.37, 014001 (2019)

    2019

  21. [27]

    Rudolph, T

    J. Rudolph, T. Wilkason, M. Nantel, H. Swan, C. M. Holland, Y. Jiang, B. E. Garber, S. P. Carman, and J. M. Hogan, Large Momentum Transfer Clock Atom Interferometry on the 689 nm Intercombination Line of Strontium, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 083604 (2020)

    2020

  22. [28]

    A. Bott, F. Di Pumpo, and E. Giese, Atomic diffraction from single-photon transitions in gravity and Standard- Model extensions, A VS Quantum Sci.5, 044402 (2023)

    2023

  23. [29]

    Clad´ e, S

    P. Clad´ e, S. Guellati-Kh´ elifa, F. Nez, and F. Biraben, Large Momentum Beam Splitter Using Bloch Oscillations, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 240402 (2009)

    2009

  24. [30]

    G. D. McDonald, C. C. N. Kuhn, S. Bennetts, J. E. Debs, K. S. Hardman, M. Johnsson, J. D. Close, and N. P. Robins,$80 \ensuremath{\hbar}k$momentum separa- tion with Bloch oscillations in an optically guided atom interferometer, Phys. Rev. A88, 053620 (2013)

    2013

  25. [31]

    Pagel, W

    Z. Pagel, W. Zhong, R. H. Parker, C. T. Olund, N. Y. Yao, and H. M¨ uller, Symmetric Bloch oscillations of matter waves, Phys. Rev. A102, 053312 (2020)

    2020

  26. [32]

    Rahman, A

    T. Rahman, A. Wirth-Singh, A. Ivanov, D. Gochnauer, E. Hough, and S. Gupta, Bloch oscillation phases inves- tigated by multipath St \”uckelberg atom interferometry, Phys. Rev. Res.6, L022012 (2024)

    2024

  27. [33]

    Fitzek, J.-N

    F. Fitzek, J.-N. Kirsten-Siemß, E. M. Rasel, N. Gaaloul, and K. Hammerer, Accurate and efficient Bloch- oscillation-enhanced atom interferometry, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, L032028 (2024)

    2024

  28. [34]

    L´ ev` eque, A

    T. L´ ev` eque, A. Gauguet, F. Michaud, F. Pereira Dos San- tos, and A. Landragin, Enhancing the Area of a Raman Atom Interferometer Using a Versatile Double-Diffraction Technique, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 080405 (2009)

    2009

  29. [35]

    Giese, A

    E. Giese, A. Roura, G. Tackmann, E. M. Rasel, and W. P. Schleich, Double Bragg diffraction: A tool for atom optics, Phys. Rev. A88, 053608 (2013)

    2013

  30. [36]

    K¨ uber, F

    J. K¨ uber, F. Schmaltz, and G. Birkl, Experimental real- ization of double Bragg diffraction: robust beamsplitters, mirrors, and interferometers for Bose-Einstein conden- sates, arXiv:1603.08826 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  31. [37]

    Hartmann, J

    S. Hartmann, J. Jenewein, E. Giese, S. Abend, A. Roura, E. M. Rasel, and W. P. Schleich, Regimes of atomic diffrac- tion: Raman versus Bragg diffraction in retroreflective geometries, Phys. Rev. A101, 053610 (2020)

    2020

  32. [38]

    M¨ uller, S

    H. M¨ uller, S. Chiow, Q. Long, S. Herrmann, and S. Chu, Atom Interferometry with up to 24-Photon-Momentum- Transfer Beam Splitters, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 180405 (2008)

    2008

  33. [39]

    P. Berg, S. Abend, G. Tackmann, C. Schubert, E. Giese, W. P. Schleich, F. A. Narducci, W. Ertmer, and E. M. Rasel, Composite-Light-Pulse Technique for High- Precision Atom Interferometry, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 063002 (2015)

    2015

  34. [40]

    J. M. McGuirk, M. J. Snadden, and M. A. Kasevich, Large Area Light-Pulse Atom Interferometry, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 4498 (2000)

    2000

  35. [41]

    J. F. Clauser, Ultra-high sensitivity accelerometers and gy- roscopes using neutral atom matter-wave interferometry, Physica B+C151, 262 (1988)

    1988

  36. [42]

    Marzlin and J

    K.-P. Marzlin and J. Audretsch, State independence in atom interferometry and insensitivity to acceleration and rotation, Phys. Rev. A53, 312 (1996)

    1996

  37. [43]

    Kleinert, E

    S. Kleinert, E. Kajari, A. Roura, and W. P. Schleich, Representation-free description of light-pulse atom inter- ferometry including non-inertial effects, Phys. Rep.605, 1 (2015)

    2015

  38. [44]

    Di Pumpo, A

    F. Di Pumpo, A. Friedrich, C. Ufrecht, and E. Giese, Universality-of-clock-rates test using atom interferometry with$ {T}ˆ{3}$scaling, Phys. Rev. D107, 064007 (2023)

    2023

  39. [45]

    Schubert, S

    C. Schubert, S. Abend, M. Gersemann, M. Gebbe, D. Schlippert, P. Berg, and E. M. Rasel, Multi-loop atomic Sagnac interferometry, Sci. Rep.11, 16121 (2021)

    2021

  40. [46]

    Abend, M

    S. Abend, M. Gebbe, M. Gersemann, H. Ahlers, H. M¨ untinga, E. Giese, N. Gaaloul, C. Schubert, C. L¨ ammerzahl, W. Ertmer, W. P. Schleich, and E. M. Rasel, Atom-Chip Fountain Gravimeter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 203003 (2016)

    2016

  41. [47]

    Schubert, D

    C. Schubert, D. Schlippert, M. Gersemann, S. Abend, E. Giese, A. Roura, W. P. Schleich, W. Ertmer, and E. M. Rasel, A scalable, symmetric atom interferometer for infrasound gravitational wave detection, A VS Quantum Sci.6, 044404 (2024)

    2024

  42. [49]

    Y. A. El-Neajet al., AEDGE: Atomic Experiment for Dark Matter and Gravity Exploration in Space, EPJ Quantum Technol.7, 1 (2020). 13

    2020

  43. [50]

    Savoie, M

    D. Savoie, M. Altorio, B. Fang, L. A. Sidorenkov, R. Geiger, and A. Landragin, Interleaved atom inter- ferometry for high-sensitivity inertial measurements, Sci. Adv.4, eaau7948 (2018)

    2018

  44. [51]

    Badurina, A

    L. Badurina, A. Beniwal, and C. McCabe, Super-Nyquist ultralight dark matter searches with broadband atom gradiometers, Phys. Rev. D108, 083016 (2023)

    2023

  45. [52]

    Badurina, O

    L. Badurina, O. Buchmueller, J. Ellis, M. Lewicki, C. Mc- Cabe, and V. Vaskonen, Prospective sensitivities of atom interferometers to gravitational waves and ultralight dark matter, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A380, 20210060 (2021)

    2021

  46. [53]

    Barrett, L

    B. Barrett, L. Antoni-Micollier, L. Chichet, B. Battelier, P.-A. Gominet, A. Bertoldi, P. Bouyer, and A. Landragin, Correlative methods for dual-species quantum tests of the weak equivalence principle, New J. Phys.17, 085010 (2015)

    2015

  47. [54]

    G. T. Foster, J. B. Fixler, J. M. McGuirk, and M. A. Kasevich, Method of phase extraction between coupled atom interferometers using ellipse-specific fitting, Opt. Lett.27, 951 (2002)

    2002

  48. [55]

    J. K. Stockton, X. Wu, and M. A. Kasevich, Bayesian estimation of differential interferometer phase, Phys. Rev. A76, 033613 (2007)

    2007

  49. [56]

    M. G. Beker, J. F. J. van den Brand, E. Hennes, and D. S. Rabeling, Newtonian noise and ambient ground motion for gravitational wave detectors, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.363, 012004 (2012)

    2012

  50. [57]

    Pfeiffer, M

    D. Pfeiffer, M. Dietrich, P. Schach, G. Birkl, and E. Giese, Dichroic mirror pulses for optimized higher-order atomic bragg diffraction, Phys. Rev. Res.7, L012028 (2025)

    2025

  51. [58]

    Wilkason, M

    T. Wilkason, M. Nantel, J. Rudolph, Y. Jiang, B. E. Garber, H. Swan, S. P. Carman, M. Abe, and J. M. Hogan, Atom Interferometry with Floquet Atom Optics, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 183202 (2022)

    2022

  52. [59]

    Rodzinka, E

    T. Rodzinka, E. Dionis, L. Calmels, S. Beldjoudi, A. B´ eguin, D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, B. Allard, D. Sugny, and A. Gauguet, Optimal Floquet state engineering for large scale atom interferometers, Nat. Commun.15, 10281 (2024)

    2024

  53. [60]

    Y. Wang, J. Glick, T. Deshpande, K. DeRose, S. Saraf, N. Sachdeva, K. Jiang, Z. Chen, and T. Kovachy, Ro- bust Quantum Control via Multipath Interference for Thousandfold Phase Amplification in a Resonant Atom Interferometer, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 243403 (2024)

    2024

  54. [61]

    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

  55. [62]

    B´ eguin, T

    A. B´ eguin, T. Rodzinka, J. Vigu´ e, B. Allard, and A. Gau- guet, Characterization of an atom interferometer in the quasi-Bragg regime, Phys. Rev. A105, 033302 (2022)

    2022

  56. [63]

    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, and N. P. Robins, Precision atomic gravimeter based on Bragg diffraction, New J. Phys.15, 023009 (2013)

    2013

  57. [64]

    R. H. Parker, C. Yu, B. Estey, W. Zhong, E. Huang, and H. M¨ uller, Controlling the multiport nature of Bragg diffraction in atom interferometry, Phys. Rev. A94, 053618 (2016)

    2016

  58. [65]

    Jenewein, S

    J. Jenewein, S. Hartmann, A. Roura, and E. Giese, Bragg- diffraction-induced imperfections of the signal in retrore- flective atom interferometers, Phys. Rev. A105, 063316 (2022)

    2022

  59. [66]

    Kovachy, P

    T. Kovachy, P. Asenbaum, C. Overstreet, C. A. Donnelly, S. M. Dickerson, A. Sugarbaker, J. M. Hogan, and M. A. Kasevich, Quantum superposition at the half-metre scale, Nature528, 530 (2015)

    2015

  60. [67]

    Ammann and N

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

    1997

  61. [68]

    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, C. Grzeschik, T. W. H¨ ansch, O. Hellmig, W. Herr, S. Herrmann, E. Kajari, S. Kleinert, C. L¨ ammerzahl, W. Lewoczko-Adamczyk, J. Malc...

    2013

  62. [69]

    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)

    2015

  63. [70]

    Saywell, M

    J. Saywell, M. Carey, I. Kuprov, and T. Freegarde, Bis- elective pulses for large-area atom interferometry, Phys. Rev. A101, 063625 (2020)

    2020

  64. [71]

    Hosten, N

    O. Hosten, N. J. Engelsen, R. Krishnakumar, and M. A. Kasevich, Measurement noise 100 times lower than the quantum-projection limit using entangled atoms, Nature 529, 505 (2016)

    2016

  65. [72]

    Anders, A

    F. Anders, A. Idel, P. Feldmann, D. Bondarenko, S. Lori- ani, K. Lange, J. Peise, M. Gersemann, B. Meyer-Hoppe, S. Abend, N. Gaaloul, C. Schubert, D. Schlippert, L. San- tos, E. Rasel, and C. Klempt, Momentum Entanglement for Atom Interferometry, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 140402 (2021)

    2021

  66. [73]

    Cassens, B

    C. Cassens, B. Meyer-Hoppe, E. Rasel, and C. Klempt, Entanglement-Enhanced Atomic Gravimeter, Phys. Rev. X15, 011029 (2025)

    2025

  67. [74]

    G¨ unther, J.-N

    J. G¨ unther, J.-N. Kirsten-Siemß, N. Gaaloul, and K. Ham- merer, Squeezing Enhancement in Lossy Multi-Path Atom Interferometers, arXiv:2409.04091 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Tan, C.-G

    Y.-J. Tan, C.-G. Shao, and Z.-K. Hu, Time delay and the effect of the finite speed of light in atom gravimeters, Phys. Rev. A96, 023604 (2017)

    2017

  69. [77]

    Di Pumpo, A

    F. Di Pumpo, A. Friedrich, A. Geyer, C. Ufrecht, and E. Giese, Light propagation and atom interferometry in gravity and dilaton fields, Phys. Rev. D105, 084065 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.