Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Fast determination of the tilt of Raman lasers using the tilt-scanned fringe for atom gravimeters

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Scanning the tilt of Raman lasers instead of their phase yields an aperiodic fringe whose asymmetry reveals the laser tilt in 13 s.

desk verdict A practical, well-demonstrated tilt-scanned fringe method for atom gravimeters; the unquantified tilt-only assumption and single-axis demo are the main caveats, not the method's core idea. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14438 v1 pith:QVZP54HF submitted 2024-12-19 physics.atom-ph physics.app-ph

Xiaochun Duan , Wenxin Geng , Huaqing Luo , Yaoyao Xu , Zhongkun Hu This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phphysics.app-ph
keywords atomgravimeterRamanlaserstiltdeterminationtilt-scannedfringeinterferometryabsolutegravitymeasurementsystematicerroraperiodic
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

The paper proposes a faster way to measure the tilt of the Raman lasers that define the sensitive axis of an atom gravimeter. Instead of scanning the laser phase to build a periodic cosine fringe and then searching for the maximum projection of gravity, the authors scan the tilt of the lasers themselves, producing an aperiodic fringe whose asymmetry directly encodes the tilt. They show that one such tilt-scanned fringe, acquired in 13 seconds, determines the tilt with a typical precision of about 30 micro-radians in their transportable atom gravimeter. This shortens the measurement cycle time by over an order of magnitude relative to the conventional maxima-search method while keeping comparable short-term sensitivity. If correct, the method removes a major bottleneck in on-site gravity surveys, where tilt-related systematic errors must be quickly re-evaluated at each new measurement location.

What carries the argument

The central object is the tilt-scanned fringe itself: the transition probability plotted against the intentional tilt Δθ rather than against the laser phase. Its argument contains cos(θ₀ + Δθ) inside the overall cosine, so scanning Δθ produces an aperiodic, bell-like fringe whose center and asymmetry are set by θ₀. The paper fits this fringe with P = A + B cos[k_eff g $T^{2}$ cos(θ₀ + Δθ) + Δφ], leaving θ₀ as a free parameter, and shows that the fit also works with g as an additional free parameter, indicating that precise prior knowledge of g is not required. The experimental implementation uses a voltage-controlled tilt actuator on the retro-reflecting mirror to sweep the beam direction in discrete steps while a tilt meter records the mirror posture.

What would settle it

Perform the same tilt scan at two different interrogation times T and check whether the fitted tilt θ₀ remains the same; if tilt-dependent phases such as wavefront curvature or beam-overlap effects are present, the fitted tilt will shift with T because those phases scale differently from k_eff g $T^{2}$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the tilt of the Raman laser axis in an atom gravimeter can be determined directly from the shape of a fringe obtained by varying the tilt rather than the phase of the lasers. The interferometer transition probability is described by P = [1 - cos(k_eff g $T^{2}$ cos(θ₀ + Δθ) + Δφ)]/2, where θ₀ is the initial tilt and Δθ is the intentional tilt variation. Because cos(θ₀ + Δθ) is not a linear function of Δθ, the resulting tilt-scanned fringe is aperiodic and symmetric about zero tilt; a nonzero θ₀ shifts and asymmetrizes the fringe, making the fitting procedure highly sensitive to θ₀. The paper demonstrates this on the HUST-QG atom gravimeter, where one 13-second tilt-scanned fringe yields α_x0 = -32(16) μrad, and continuous measurements give a short-term sensitivity of 113 μrad/√Hz, comparable to the 92 μrad/√Hz of the maxima-search method. Accuracy is checked by comparing with the maxima-search method over a range of -0.91 to 0.78 mrad, obtaining a slope of 1.02(2) mrad/mrad and a maximum discrepancy of 36 μrad, corresponding to less than 1 μGal in gravity.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that changing the tilt of the Raman lasers affects the atom interferometer only through the projection of gravity onto the laser direction, with no other tilt-dependent effects on the interference signal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single 13-second tilt-scanned fringe determines the Raman laser tilt to about 30 μrad, cutting the calibration time by more than an order of magnitude compared with the conventional maxima-search method.
  • The method achieves short-term sensitivity of 113 μrad/√Hz, comparable to the 92 μrad/√Hz of the maxima-search method, so the speed gain does not come at the cost of precision.
  • Because the fitted tilt is nearly independent of the exact value of g, on-site calibration becomes more robust when the local gravity value is not known to high accuracy.
  • The agreement with the maxima-search method (maximum discrepancy 36 μrad, corresponding to less than 1 μGal) supports the accuracy needed for μGal-level absolute gravity surveys.
  • The procedure directly measures the two projections α_x0 and α_y0, from which the full tilt magnitude α₀ is obtained, allowing rapid re-evaluation of the sensitive-axis tilt error at each new survey site.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same single-fringe asymmetry idea could be extended to monitor slow drifts of the mirror or tilt actuator between gravity measurements, giving a continuous real-time tilt readout without interrupting data taking.
  • If the neglected tilt-dependent effects (beam overlap, wavefront curvature, Rabi frequency) are present, their influence could be isolated by repeating the scan at different interrogation times T, since those effects scale differently from k_eff g T^2.
  • A two-axis simultaneous scan of the tilt actuator could extract both α_x0 and α_y0 from one combined fringe, reducing the calibration cycle even further.
  • The cosine-of-cosine fringe structure may apply to other systematic parameters that enter the interferometer phase geometrically, wherever a parameter variation produces an aperiodic, symmetry-breaking fringe.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript proposes a tilt-scanned fringe method for determining the tilt of the Raman lasers in atom gravimeters. Instead of scanning the Raman phase to produce a periodic cosine fringe, the authors scan the mirror tilt and fit the resulting aperiodic fringe to P = A + B cos[k2 g T^2 cos(theta0 + Delta theta) + Delta phi], treating the initial tilt projection theta0 as the measurand. A numerical simulation, a single-axis experimental demonstration on the HUST-QG gravimeter, an Allan-deviation characterization, and a comparison with the conventional maxima-search method are reported. The authors claim that one tilt-scanned fringe with a 13 s measurement cycle determines one tilt projection with about 30 urad precision, and that the method shortens the tilt-determination cycle by over an order of magnitude while keeping precision comparable to the conventional method.

Significance. If the central assumption is valid, the method offers a practically useful simplification for on-site systematic-error evaluation in atom gravimeters: a single fringe per tilt projection replaces multi-fringe scans, and the fit is stated to be largely independent of the precise value of g. The experimental comparison over a +/-0.9 mrad range, with a maximum discrepancy of 36 urad against the maxima-search method, and the Allan-deviation measurements are valuable. The main limitations are that the validation against the maxima-search method is not independent, because both methods share the same projection-only assumption about the effect of mirror tilt, and that the experiment demonstrates only one tilt projection rather than the full two-component tilt. The model and fitting procedure are internally consistent, and the reported precision is credible if the unquantified assumptions are accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II, after Eq. (2)] The sentence "it is assumed that variations in the tilt of the Raman lasers have no influence on the interferometer except varying k_eff*g" is load-bearing and is not quantified. In the retro-reflecting geometry, tilting the mirror also changes the wavefront and, potentially, the intensity overlap of the upward beam with the atom cloud; any phase term odd in the scan angle Delta-alpha_x is degenerate with the fitted theta0 in Eq. (4). If the model phase contains a spurious term epsilon*Delta-alpha_x, the fit cannot separate -A_s*theta0*Delta-alpha_x from epsilon*Delta-alpha_x, and the estimate shifts by epsilon/A_s. With A_s = k2 g T^2 cos(alpha_y0) approximately 3*10^6 rad, an unmodeled phase slope of only 50 rad/rad would bias theta0 by about 17 urad, comparable to the reported 30 urad precision. The statement that A_s is "sufficiently large" bounds the desired signal but does not bound epsilon. The agreement with the maxima-search method in Fig. 6 does not test this assumption, because that method is biased by the same hidden term. Please provide a quantitative bound on tilt-dependent phases, for example by measuring wavefront distortion or the tilt dependence of Rabi frequency, fringe contrast, and phase offset, or an independent validation that does not rely on the projection-only model.
  2. [Sec. III, Fig. 4] The claim that the tilt-scanned method shortens the measurement cycle "by over an order of magnitude while keeping comparable precision" is stronger than the data support. The Allan-deviation densities are 113 and 92 urad/Hz^(1/2), but a single maxima-search determination takes 260 s and therefore has an uncertainty of roughly 92/sqrt(260) = 5.7 urad, whereas one 13 s tilt-scanned fringe has an uncertainty of roughly 113/sqrt(13) = 31 urad. The per-determination precision differs by about a factor of five, and the two methods are not comparable in that sense. The statement should be rephrased to indicate that the method reduces the time to obtain a coarse tilt estimate of about 30 urad, while explicitly noting the lower per-cycle precision.
  3. [Sec. III, paragraph beginning "For this demonstration"] The experiment measures only the X-axis projection alpha_x0; the full tilt alpha0 requires two orthogonal projections, as stated in Eq. (3). The abstract and conclusion say that "one tilt-scanned fringe ... determines the tilt," but the demonstrated 13 s cycle yields one component, and a complete determination would require two fringes (or two scans) unless the other component is otherwise known. This limitation is acknowledged in the text, but the wording of the abstract and conclusion overstates the demonstrated capability. Please either add a two-axis measurement or adjust the abstract and conclusion to refer to a single tilt projection.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. I, last paragraph] The phrase "isn't alleviated" should be "is not alleviated".
  2. [Sec. II, Eq. (4)] The sentence "where an approximation of Eq. (3) is substituted" is unclear; please specify explicitly that cos(alpha_y0) is treated as a constant in the one-axis measurement.
  3. [Sec. III, Fig. 3 caption] There is a missing space in "fringe.Each"; additionally, please state whether the error bars on the data points are statistical standard errors or total uncertainties.
  4. [Sec. III, Fig. 4 caption] Please specify the averaging time tau that corresponds to the quoted short-term sensitivities and state whether any of the plotted blue (maxima-search) points correspond to tau values shorter than the 260 s required for one measurement; if not, it would be useful to explain how the 92 urad/Hz^(1/2) value is obtained from fewer samples.
  5. [References] Several references contain LaTeX encoding artifacts, e.g., "A¤" in Ref. [27] and "Universit˜A¤t" in Ref. [27]; these should be corrected or regenerated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the tilt-scanned fringe derivation is self-contained and benchmarked against an independent measurement procedure.

full rationale

The central model, Eq. (2), is obtained by substituting the geometry of the effective wave vector into the standard interferometer phase relation Eq. (1); the tilt angle θ0 is a fitted parameter, not an input used to construct the predicted fringe. The simulation in Fig. 1(c) is generated from Eq. (2) and fitted with the same functional form, but this is a sensitivity and noise test rather than a prediction, and the experimental tilt-scanned fringes (Figs. 3 and 5(a)) and the comparison with the phase-scanned maxima-search method (Fig. 6) use independently acquired data. The agreement slope of 1.02(2) and intercept of -23(8) μrad provides an external benchmark. The paper explicitly states the assumption that tilt variations only affect k_eff · g (Sec. II after Eq. (2)); if this assumption fails, both the new and the conventional method would share a bias, but this is an unquantified systematic effect, not a circular reduction of the claimed result to its inputs. Self-citations such as [18] for the HUST-QG instrument are supporting background and do not carry the derivation, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The derivation is therefore self-contained with respect to the circularity concerns enumerated in the review criteria.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entities. It relies on standard Raman-pulse atom interferometry and a set of fitted nuisance parameters; the only new element is the choice of tilt as the scanned variable. The main unverified burden is the assumption that tilt changes only the projection phase.

free parameters (5)
  • fringe offset A
    Nuisance parameter in the fit P = A + B cos(...); absorbs detection offset and imperfect normalization.
  • fringe amplitude B
    Nuisance parameter in the fit; accounts for reduced interferometer contrast.
  • phase offset Δφ (Δϕ')
    Nuisance parameter for additional interferometer phases (e.g., chirp, vibration); included in every fit.
  • initial tilt projection αx0 (measurand) = -32(16) μrad for fringe in Fig. 3
    Target parameter fitted from the tilt-scanned fringe; not an ad hoc input.
  • gravitational acceleration g = 9.816(1) m/s^2 in simulation (Sec. II)
    Fitted in the simulation to show θ0 is insensitive to g; in the experiment g is presumably fixed to a known value, but the paper does not state this explicitly.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Interferometer transition probability is P = (1 - cos(k_eff·g T^2 + Δφ))/2
    Standard Mach-Zehnder atom interferometer model used in Eq. (1); assumes two-photon Raman transitions and single dominant phase.
  • domain assumption Tilt variations affect only k_eff·g
    Stated in Sec. II after Eq. (2). Neglects tilt-dependent changes in beam overlap, wavefront curvature, Rabi frequency, and other phases; not quantified.
  • standard math Small-angle separation of tilt components: cos α0 ≈ cos αx0 cos αy0
    Used to derive Eq. (4) from Eq. (3) under |α0| < 1 mrad; valid to second order.
  • domain assumption Actuator/tilt-meter readings give known Δαx values
    The fit assumes the commanded mirror tilt increments from the PI S-340 actuator, calibrated by the tilt meter, equal the actual angular changes of k2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fast determination of the tilt of Raman lasers using the tilt-scanned fringe for atom gravimeters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QVZP54HF

@misc{pith2026241214438,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fast determination of the tilt of Raman lasers using the tilt-scanned fringe for atom gravimeters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QVZP54HF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14438}
}
abstract

The sensitive axes of atom gravimeters are defined by the directions of the respective Raman lasers. Any tilt of the Raman lasers with respect to the vertical direction introduces errors in gravity measurements. In this work, we report a fast determination of the tilt of Raman lasers, where the fringe of the atom interferometer is scanned by varying the tilt, rather than the phase, of the Raman lasers. Unlike the periodic cosine fringes typically used in atom interferometers, the fringe obtained by changing the tilt, referred to as the tilt-scanned fringe, is aperiodic and symmetric with respect to zero tilt. The tilt-scanned fringe is highly sensitive to asymmetries caused by non-zero tilt, enabling fast and precise determination of the Raman laser tilt in atom gravimeters. We demonstrate that one tilt-scanned fringe, corresponding to a measurement cycle time of 13 s, can determine the tilt with a typical precision of about 30 $\mu$rad in our developed atom gravimeter. Further investigation proves that the tilt-scanned fringe approach shortens the measurement cycle time by over an order of magnitude while keeping comparable precision with conventional tilt determination techniques. The fast tilt determination presented here is significant for the application of atom gravimeters, particularly in absolute gravity surveys.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14438 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Different fringes manifested as the variation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Experimental setup: (a) Retro-reflecting configura [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Allan deviations obtained from continuous measure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: For this demonstration, only the determination of α0 is performed. To measure the tilt, its two projections along two orthogonal horizontal rotational axes, as illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of the measurement results by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Peters, K

    A. Peters, K. Y. Chung, and S. Chu, Measurement of gravitational acceleration by dropping atoms, Nature 400, 849 (1999)

    1999

  2. [2]

    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)

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Bidel, O

    Y. Bidel, O. Carraz, R. Charri` ere, M. Cadoret, N. Za- hzam, and A. Bresson, Compact cold atom gravimeter for field applications, Applied Physics Letters 102, 144107 (2013), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apl/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.4801756/14271765/144107 1 online.pdf

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4801756/14271765/144107 2013

  4. [4]

    Louchet-Chauvet, T

    A. Louchet-Chauvet, T. Farah, Q. Bodart, A. Clairon, A. Landragin, S. Merlet, and F. P. D. Santos, The influ- ence of transverse motion within an atomic gravimeter, New Journal of Physics 13, 065025 (2011)

    2011

  5. [5]

    Zhang, L.-L

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

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Freier, M

    C. Freier, M. Hauth, V. Schkolnik, B. Leykauf, M. Schilling, H. Wziontek, H.-G. Scherneck, J. M¨ uller, and A. Peters, Mobile quantum gravity sensor with un- precedented stability, Journal of Physics: Conference Se- ries 723, 012050 (2016)

    2016

  7. [7]

    Merlet, P

    S. Merlet, P. Gillot, B. Cheng, A. Landragin, and F. Pereira Dos Santos, Calibration of a superconducting gravimeter with an absolute atom gravimeter, Journal of Geodesy 95, 62 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    S.-K. Wang, Y. Zhao, W. Zhuang, T.-C. Li, S.-Q. Wu, J.-Y. Feng, and C.-J. Li, Shift evaluation of the atomic gravimeter nim-agrb-1 and its comparison with fg5x, Metrologia 55, 360 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    S. Wu, J. Feng, C. Li, et al., The results of 10th inter- national comparison of absolute gravimeters (icag-2017), Journal of Geodesy 95, 63 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    E. F. Arias, Z. Jiang, L. Robertsson, L. Vitushkin, D. Ruess, C. Ullrich, D. Inglis, J. Liard, I. Robinson, W. Ji, W. Shuqing, C. Lee, V. Palinkas, J. M¨ akinen, F. P. D. Santos, Q. Bodart, S. Merlet, S. Mizushima, I.- M. Choi, H. Baumann, and B. Karab¨ oce, Final report of ke...

    2012

  3. [11]

    Francis, H

    O. Francis, H. Baumann, C. Ullrich, S. Castelein, M. V. Camp, M. A. de Sousa, R. L. Melhorato, C. Li, J. Xu, D. Su, S. Wu, H. Hu, K. Wu, G. Li, Z. Li, W.- C. Hsieh, P. V. Plinks, J. Kosteleck´ y, J. M¨ akinen, J. N¨ ar¨ anen, S. Merlet, F. P. D. Santos, P. Gillot, J. Hinderer,...

    2015

  4. [12]

    Ullrich, H

    C. Ullrich, H. Butta, M. A. de Sousa, D. Quaresma, R. Green, H. Parks, J. Liard, Q. Wang, J. Feng, W.- C. Hsieh, J. Kosteleck´ y, V. P´ alink´ as, M. Bilker-Koivula, J. N¨ ar¨ anen, C. Rothleitner, J. Konrad, S. Telada, Y. Kayukawa, I.-M. Choi, J.-W. Chung, A. Esparza- Ramirez...

    2024

  5. [13]

    Peters, K

    A. Peters, K. Y. Chung, and S. Chu, High-precision grav- 7 ity measurements using atom interferometry, Metrologia 38, 25 (2001)

    2001

  6. [14]

    T. M. Niebauer, G. S. Sasagawa, J. E. Faller, R. Hilt, and F. Klopping, A new generation of absolute gravimeters, Metrologia 32, 159 (1995)

    1995

  7. [15]

    S. WU, J. FENG, C. LI, D. SU, Q. W ANG, R. HU, L. HU, J. XU, W. JI, C. Ullrich, V. P´ alink´ aˇ s, J. Kost- eleck´ y, M. Bilker-Koivula, J. N¨ ar¨ anen, S. Merlet, N. L. Moigne, S. Mizushima, O. Francis, I.-M. Choi, M.- S. Kim, H. M. Alotaibi, A. Aljuwayr, H. Baumann, T. Priru...

    2020

  8. [16]

    Zhang, W.-J

    J.-Y. Zhang, W.-J. Xu, S.-D. Sun, Y.-B. Shu, Q. Luo, Y. Cheng, Z.-K. Hu, and M.-K. Zhou, A car-based portable atom gravimeter and its application in field gravity survey, AIP Advances 11, 115223 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    Xu, X.-B

    Y.-Y. Xu, X.-B. Deng, H. Zhou, K. Qi, X.-K. Chen, H.-Q. Luo, M.-K. Zhou, X.-C. Duan, and Z.-K. Hu, Measuring the effective height for atom gravimeters by applying a frequency jump to Ra- man lasers, Review of Scientific Instruments 92, 063202 (2021), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/r...

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    Xu, J.-F

    Y.-Y. Xu, J.-F. Cui, K. Qi, L.-L. Chen, X.-B. Deng, Q. Luo, H. Zhang, Y.-J. Tan, C.-G. Shao, M.-K. Zhou, X.-C. Duan, and Z.-K. Hu, Evaluation of the trans- portable atom gravimeter hust-qg, Metrologia59, 055001 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Lan, P.-C

    S.-Y. Lan, P.-C. Kuan, B. Estey, P. Haslinger, and H. M¨ uller, Influence of the coriolis force in atom inter- ferometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 090402 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    Farah, P

    T. Farah, P. Gillot, B. Cheng, A. Landragin, S. Merlet, and F. Pereira Dos Santos, Effective velocity distribution in an atom gravimeter: Effect of the convolution with the response of the detection, Phys. Rev. A 90, 023606 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    X. Wu, Z. Pagel, B. S. Malek, T. H. Nguyen, F. Zi, D. S. Scheirer, and H. M¨ uller, Grav- ity surveys using a mobile atom interferom- eter, Science Advances 5, eaax0800 (2019), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.aax0800

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    Hua-Qing, X

    L. Hua-Qing, X. Yao-Yao, C. Jia-Feng, D. Xiao-Bing, Z. Min-Kang, D. Xiao-Chun, and H. Zhong-Kun, De- termining the tilt of raman laser beam using an optical method for atom gravimeters, Chinese Physics B (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    B. Wu, D. Zhu, B. Cheng, L. Wu, K. Wang, Z. Wang, Q. Shu, R. Li, H. Wang, X. Wang, and Q. Lin, Depen- dence of the sensitivity on the orientation for a free-fall atom gravimeter, Opt. Express 27, 11252 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Peters, High Precision Gravity Measurements Using Atom Interferometry, Ph.D

    A. Peters, High Precision Gravity Measurements Using Atom Interferometry, Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University (1998)

    1998

  17. [25]

    M´ enoret, P

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

    2018

  18. [26]

    Kˇ ren, V

    P. Kˇ ren, V. P´ alink´ aˇ s, and P. Maˇ sika, On the determina- tion of verticality and e¨ otv¨ os effects in absolute gravime- try, Metrologia 55, 451 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Senger, A mobile atom interferometer for high- precision measurements of local gravity , Ph.D

    A. Senger, A mobile atom interferometer for high- precision measurements of local gravity , Ph.D. the- sis, Humboldt-Universit ˜A¤t zu Berlin, Mathematisch- Naturwissenschaftliche Fakult˜A¤t I (2012)

    2012

  20. [28]

    H.-T. Xie, B. Chen, J.-B. Long, C. Xue, L.-K. Chen, and S. Chen, Tilt adjustment for a portable absolute atomic gravimeter*, Chinese Physics B 29, 073701 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Oon and R

    F. Oon and R. Dumke, Compact active vibration isola- tion and tilt stabilization for a portable high-precision atomic gravimeter, Phys. Rev. Appl. 18, 044037 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Kasevich and S

    M. Kasevich and S. Chu, Atomic interferometry using stimulated raman transitions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 181 (1991)

    1991

  23. [31]

    Bodart, S

    Q. Bodart, S. Merlet, N. Malossi, F. P. Dos Santos, P. Bouyer, and A. Landragin, A cold atom pyramidal gravimeter with a single laser beam, Applied Physics Let- ters 96, 134101 (2010)

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.