pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.04430 · v3 · pith:GVH2Y3ILnew · submitted 2026-06-03 · ⚛️ physics.atom-ph · quant-ph

Atom Interferometry with Transverse Optical Modes

Ryan Husband , Ryan J. Thomas , Yosri Ben-A\"icha , Rhys H. Eagle , Jessica Eastman , John E. Debs , Patrick J. Everitt , Michael Larsen
show 5 more authors
Eric Imhof Charles A. Sackett John D. Close Simon A. Haine Samuel Legge
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 03:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.atom-ph quant-ph
keywords atom interferometryhypergeometric gaussian beamsorbital angular momentumrotation sensingthermal decoherenceramsey interferometrycold rubidium atomsphase singularity
0
0 comments X

The pith

Atom interferometers can use the helical phase profile of laser beams to sense rotations with sensitivity scaling linearly with orbital angular momentum.

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

The paper establishes that the transverse phase structure of certain laser beams can serve as the basis for atom interferometry instead of the usual momentum kicks from standing waves. Using Hypergeometric Gaussian beams with helical phase windings, the authors perform Ramsey interferometry on expanding clouds of cold rubidium atoms and demonstrate that the resulting fringes respond to physical rotations. They measure this response with a motor and show the phase shift grows linearly with both the beam's orbital angular momentum and the free-evolution time. They also derive an exact expression for how thermal velocity spread washes out the contrast near the phase singularity and confirm it with data. A sympathetic reader would care because this opens a route to rotation sensing whose scaling is set by an optical property rather than by the number of photon recoils.

Core claim

We experimentally demonstrate atom interferometry using the transverse phase profile of an optical mode. As proof-of-principle, we use the helical phase windings of Hypergeometric Gaussian beams for Ramsey interferometry with ensembles of ballistically-expanding cold Rb87 atoms, and we show that the interferometer can measure rotations induced by a motor with a sensitivity that scales linearly with orbital angular momentum and interferometer time. We characterize the thermal decoherence of the interferometer, deriving and experimentally confirming a closed-form expression for the spatially-varying interferometer visibility arising near the singularity of the helical phase winding, motivating

What carries the argument

The transverse helical phase profile of a Hypergeometric Gaussian beam, which imprints a spatially varying phase onto the atomic wave function during the Ramsey sequence and thereby encodes rotation in the interference pattern.

If this is right

  • Rotation phase shift scales linearly with orbital angular momentum, allowing higher-order beams to increase sensitivity without changing atom number or interrogation time.
  • Phase shift also scales linearly with interferometer duration, recovering the usual T^2 advantage of atom interferometers.
  • Thermal velocity spread produces a spatially varying visibility that is exactly described by a closed-form function derived from the phase singularity.
  • The derived visibility expression indicates that condensed atoms in ring-shaped traps would largely remove the thermal decoherence channel.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same transverse-phase approach could be combined with existing large-momentum-transfer techniques to multiply sensitivity by both orbital angular momentum and recoil number.
  • The visibility formula supplies a quantitative design rule for choosing beam waist and atom temperature in any phase-profile interferometer.
  • Ring-trap implementations suggested by the authors would convert the demonstrated linear scaling into a practical gyroscope with reduced decoherence.
  • The method may extend to other optical singularities, such as those carrying spin angular momentum, for simultaneous rotation and magnetic-field sensing.

Load-bearing premise

The helical phase profile imprints cleanly onto the atomic ensemble without significant distortion from beam propagation, misalignment, or optical aberrations during ballistic expansion.

What would settle it

A measurement in which rotation sensitivity fails to increase linearly with orbital angular momentum when higher-order beams are substituted, or in which the observed spatial visibility profile deviates from the derived closed-form expression near the singularity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.04430 by Charles A. Sackett, Eric Imhof, Jessica Eastman, John D. Close, John E. Debs, Michael Larsen, Patrick J. Everitt, Rhys H. Eagle, Ryan Husband, Ryan J. Thomas, Samuel Legge, Simon A. Haine, Yosri Ben-A\"icha.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Measured Ramsey fringes from a LPAI with an optical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (top) The cold atom and interferometer apparatus as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a–b) Measured interferometer phases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Schematic illustration of the effect of thermal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. A single thermal atom (red circle) is pictured at radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We experimentally demonstrate atom interferometry using the transverse phase profile of an optical mode. As proof-of-principle, we use the helical phase windings of Hypergeometric Gaussian beams for Ramsey interferometry with ensembles of ballistically-expanding cold Rb87 atoms, and we show that the interferometer can measure rotations induced by a motor with a sensitivity that scales linearly with orbital angular momentum and interferometer time. We characterize the thermal decoherence of the interferometer, deriving and experimentally confirming a closed-form expression for the spatially-varying interferometer visibility arising near the singularity of the helical phase winding, motivating the use of condensed atoms in ring-shaped traps.

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims an experimental demonstration of atom interferometry via the transverse phase profile of Hypergeometric Gaussian beams in Ramsey interferometry on ballistically expanding cold Rb87 atoms. It reports rotation sensitivity that scales linearly with orbital angular momentum ℓ and interrogation time T, together with a derived closed-form expression for the spatially varying visibility near the helical phase singularity that is stated to be experimentally confirmed, motivating condensed-atom implementations in ring traps.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work introduces a new degree of freedom (transverse optical phase structure) into atom interferometry for rotation sensing, with the ℓ-linear scaling offering a route to enhanced sensitivity without increasing T. The closed-form visibility expression supplies a concrete, falsifiable prediction for thermal decoherence near phase singularities and directly supports the paper's motivation for using condensed atoms. The experimental proof-of-principle itself is a positive feature.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and the visibility derivation: the linear scaling with ℓ and the closed-form visibility both presuppose that the helical phase profile is transferred to the atomic wave function with negligible distortion during the Raman pulses and ballistic expansion; no independent verification (e.g., direct phase imaging of the atomic cloud or a control measurement with a known non-ideal beam) is described, rendering both claims load-bearing on an untested assumption.
  2. [Results (visibility section)] The experimental confirmation of the visibility formula: because the formula is derived under the ideal-imprinting assumption, the reported agreement with data cannot by itself validate the imprinting step; an auxiliary measurement (for example, visibility far from the singularity or with a Gaussian beam of matched intensity) would be required to separate the two effects.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'Hypergeometric Gaussian beams' without quoting the specific radial index p, beam waist, or propagation distance used; these parameters should be stated explicitly when the visibility formula is introduced.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. We respond to each major comment below, indicating where the manuscript will be revised for clarity while maintaining the integrity of the presented results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and the visibility derivation: the linear scaling with ℓ and the closed-form visibility both presuppose that the helical phase profile is transferred to the atomic wave function with negligible distortion during the Raman pulses and ballistic expansion; no independent verification (e.g., direct phase imaging of the atomic cloud or a control measurement with a known non-ideal beam) is described, rendering both claims load-bearing on an untested assumption.

    Authors: The manuscript presents the observed linear scaling of rotation sensitivity with ℓ as direct experimental support for effective transfer of the helical phase, because this scaling is a specific signature of the imprinted orbital angular momentum and would not appear under significant distortion. The Raman pulse parameters (short duration relative to the beam waist) and subsequent free expansion are expected to preserve the transverse phase structure to high fidelity, as the atoms sample the optical field only briefly. We agree that an explicit discussion of this assumption strengthens the presentation. We will revise the abstract and add a dedicated paragraph in the methods section quantifying the expected phase fidelity from the pulse intensity and duration, without claiming new direct imaging data. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results (visibility section)] The experimental confirmation of the visibility formula: because the formula is derived under the ideal-imprinting assumption, the reported agreement with data cannot by itself validate the imprinting step; an auxiliary measurement (for example, visibility far from the singularity or with a Gaussian beam of matched intensity) would be required to separate the two effects.

    Authors: The visibility formula isolates the additional decoherence due to the phase singularity under the ideal-imprinting assumption. The data show visibility approaching unity at large radii, consistent with standard Ramsey interferometry. To separate the effects, we will incorporate an explicit comparison to ℓ=0 (Gaussian beam) data taken under matched conditions, demonstrating that the radial visibility variation is absent without the helical phase. This analysis uses existing datasets and will be added as a supplementary figure with accompanying text. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental results and derived visibility expression are independent of inputs

full rationale

The paper presents an experimental demonstration of Ramsey interferometry with Hypergeometric Gaussian beams on expanding Rb87 atoms, reports linear scaling of rotation sensitivity with OAM and T, and derives a closed-form visibility expression near the phase singularity that is then experimentally confirmed. No equations, fits, or self-citations are shown reducing any claimed prediction or first-principles result to its own inputs by construction. The visibility derivation is presented as arising from the helical phase winding and thermal decoherence model; its experimental match is reported as separate validation rather than a tautology. Central claims rest on measured data and do not invoke load-bearing self-citations or ansatzes smuggled via prior work. This is a standard self-contained experimental result with no detectable circular steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the closed-form visibility expression is stated as derived but its assumptions are not detailed.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5672 in / 1072 out tokens · 54429 ms · 2026-06-28T03:27:18.850337+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

75 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Peters, K

    A. Peters, K. Y. Chung, and S. Chu, Metrologia38, 25 (2001)

    2001

  2. [2]

    P. A. Altin, M. T. Johnsson, V. Negnevitsky, G. R. Den- nis, R. P. Anderson, J. E. Debs, S. S. Szigeti, K. S. Hard- man, S. Bennetts, G. D. McDonald, L. D. Turner, J. D. Close, and N. P. Robins, New Journal of Physics15, 023009 (2013)

    2013

  3. [3]

    G. Rosi, F. Sorrentino, L. Cacciapuoti, M. Prevedelli, and G. M. Tino, Nature510, 518 (2014)

    2014

  4. [4]

    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, Physical Review Letters117, 138501 (2016)

    2016

  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, Physical Review Ap- plied20, 014067 (2023)

    2023

  6. [6]

    Karcher, A

    R. Karcher, A. Imanaliev, S. Merlet, and F. P. dos Santos, New Journal of Physics20, 113041 (2018)

    2018

  7. [7]

    Geiger, A

    R. Geiger, A. Landragin, S. Merlet, and F. Pereira Dos Santos, AVS Quantum Science2, 024702 (2020)

    2020

  8. [8]

    Janvier, V

    C. Janvier, V. M´ enoret, B. Desruelle, S. Merlet, A. Lan- dragin, and F. P. dos Santos, Physical Review A105, 022801 (2022)

    2022

  9. [9]

    M. I. Evstifeev, Gyroscopy and Navigation8, 68 (2017)

    2017

  10. [10]

    Bidel, N

    Y. Bidel, N. Zahzam, C. Blanchard, A. Bonnin, M. Cadoret, A. Bresson, D. Rouxel, and M. F. Lequentrec-Lalancette, Nature Communications9, 627 (2018)

    2018

  11. [11]

    Migliaccio, M

    F. Migliaccio, M. Reguzzoni, K. Batsukh, G. M. Tino, G. Rosi, F. Sorrentino, C. Braitenberg, T. Pivetta, D. F. Barbolla, and S. Zoffoli, Surveys in Geophysics40, 1029 (2019)

    2019

  12. [12]

    Bidel, N

    Y. Bidel, N. Zahzam, A. Bresson, C. Blanchard, M. Cadoret, A. V. Olesen, and R. Forsberg, Journal of Geodesy94, 20 (2020)

    2020

  13. [13]

    B. Wu, C. Zhang, K. Wang, B. Cheng, D. Zhu, R. Li, X. Wang, Q. Lin, Z. Qiao, and Y. Zhou, IEEE Sensors Journal23, 24292 (2023)

    2023

  14. [14]

    C. J. Bord´ e, Metrologia39, 435 (2002)

    2002

  15. [15]

    L. Hu, N. Poli, L. Salvi, and G. M. Tino, Physical Review Letters119, 263601 (2017)

    2017

  16. [16]

    Roura, Quantum Science and Technology10, 025004 (2025)

    A. Roura, Quantum Science and Technology10, 025004 (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    C. R. Ekstrom, J. Schmiedmayer, M. S. Chapman, T. D. Hammond, and D. E. Pritchard, Physical Review A51, 3883 (1995)

    1995

  18. [18]

    Gustavson, A

    T. Gustavson, A. Landragin, and M. Kasevich, Classical and Quantum Gravity17, 2385 (2000)

    2000

  19. [19]

    T. L. Gustavson, A. Landragin, and M. A. Kasevich, Classical and Quantum Gravity17, 2385 (2000)

    2000

  20. [20]

    J. K. Stockton, K. Takase, and M. A. Kasevich, Physical Review Letters107, 133001 (2011)

    2011

  21. [21]

    Gautier, M

    R. Gautier, M. Guessoum, L. A. Sidorenkov, Q. Bou- ton, A. Landragin, and R. Geiger, Science Advances8, eabn8009 (2022)

    2022

  22. [22]

    d’Armagnac de Castanet, C

    Q. d’Armagnac de Castanet, C. Des Cognets, R. Ar- guel, S. Templier, V. Jarlaud, V. M´ enoret, B. Desruelle, P. Bouyer, and B. Battelier, Nature Communications15, 6406 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    R. H. Parker, C. Yu, W. Zhong, B. Estey, and H. M¨ uller, Science360, 191 (2018)

    2018

  24. [24]

    Morel, Z

    L. Morel, Z. Yao, P. Clad´ e, and S. Guellati-Kh´ elifa, Na- ture588, 61 (2020)

    2020

  25. [25]

    Becker, M

    D. Becker, M. D. Lachmann, S. T. Seidel,et al., Nature 562, 391 (2018)

    2018

  26. [26]

    M¨ uller, O

    F. M¨ uller, O. Carraz, P. Visser, and O. Witasse, Plane- tary and Space Science194, 105110 (2020)

    2020

  27. [27]

    J. R. Williams, C. A. Sackett, H. Ahlers, D. C. Aveline, P. Boegel, S. Botsi, E. Charron, E. R. Elliott, N. Gaaloul, E. Giese, W. Herr, J. R. Kellogg, J. M. Kohel, N. E. Lay, M. Meister, G. M¨ uller, H. M¨ uller, K. Oudrhiri, L. Phillips, A. Pichery, E. M. Rasel, A. Roura, M. Sbros- cia, W. P. Schleich, C. Schneider, C. Schubert, B. Sen, R. J. Thompson, a...

    2024

  28. [28]

    M. Abe, P. Adamson, M. Borcean, D. Bortoletto, K. Bridges, S. P. Carman, S. Chattopadhyay, J. Cole- man, N. M. Curfman, K. DeRose, T. Deshpande, S. Di- mopoulos, C. J. Foot, J. C. Frisch, B. E. Garber, S. Geer, V. Gibson, J. Glick, P. W. Graham, S. R. Hahn, R. Harnik, L. Hawkins, S. Hindley, J. M. Hogan, Y. Jiang, M. A. Kasevich, R. J. Kellett, M. Kiburg,...

    2021

  29. [29]

    Kasevich and S

    M. Kasevich and S. Chu, Physical Review Letters67, 181 (1991)

    1991

  30. [30]

    Gauguet, T

    A. Gauguet, T. E. Mehlst¨ aubler, T. L´ ev` eque, J. Le Gou¨ et, W. Chaibi, B. Canuel, A. Clairon, F. Pereira Dos Santos, and A. Landragin, Physical Review A78, 043615 (2008)

    2008

  31. [31]

    Schkolnik, B

    V. Schkolnik, B. Leykauf, M. Hauth, C. Freier, and A. Pe- ters, Applied Physics B120, 311 (2015)

    2015

  32. [32]

    M.-k. Zhou, Q. Luo, L.-l. Chen, X.-c. Duan, and Z.-k. Hu, Physical Review A93, 043610 (2016)

    2016

  33. [33]

    Le Gou¨ et, T

    J. Le Gou¨ et, T. E. Mehlst¨ aubler, J. Kim, S. Merlet, A. Clairon, A. Landragin, and F. Pereira Dos Santos, Applied Physics B92, 133 (2008)

    2008

  34. [34]

    A. D. Cronin, J. Schmiedmayer, and D. E. Pritchard, Reviews of Modern Physics81, 1051 (2009)

    2009

  35. [35]

    M. A. Bandres and J. C. Guti´ errez-Vega, Opt. Lett.33, 177 (2008)

    2008

  36. [36]

    Bernet, Journal of the Optical Society of America A 38, 1521 (2021)

    S. Bernet, Journal of the Optical Society of America A 38, 1521 (2021)

    2021

  37. [37]

    E. G. Abramochkin and V. G. Volostnikov, Journal of Optics A: Pure and Applied Optics6, S157 (2004)

    2004

  38. [38]

    Forbes, M

    A. Forbes, M. de Oliveira, and M. Dennis, Nature Pho- tonics15, 253 (2021)

    2021

  39. [39]

    Allen, M

    L. Allen, M. W. Beijersbergen, R. J. C. Spreeuw, and J. P. Woerdman, Physical Review A45, 8185 (1992)

    1992

  40. [40]

    S. M. Dickerson, J. M. Hogan, A. Sugarbaker, D. M. S. Johnson, and M. A. Kasevich, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 083001 (2013)

    2013

  41. [41]

    G. W. Hoth, B. Pelle, S. Riedl, J. Kitching, and E. A. Donley, Applied Physics Letters109, 071113 (2016)

    2016

  42. [42]

    Junca, J

    J. Junca, J. Kitching, and W. McGehee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 143402 (2026)

    2026

  43. [43]

    Sugarbaker, S

    A. Sugarbaker, S. M. Dickerson, J. M. Hogan, D. M. S. Johnson, and M. A. Kasevich, Physical Review Letters 111, 113002 (2013)

    2013

  44. [44]

    Ben-A¨ ıcha, Z

    Y. Ben-A¨ ıcha, Z. Mehdi, C. Freier, S. S. Szigeti, P. B. Wigley, L. O. Conlon, R. Husband, S. Legge, R. H. Eagle, J. J. Hope, N. P. Robins, J. D. Close, K. S. Hardman, S. A. Haine, and R. J. Thomas, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 263403 (2024)

    2024

  45. [45]

    X. Wang, Z. Nie, Y. Liang, J. Wang, T. Li, and B. Jia, Nanophotonics7, 1533 (2018)

    2018

  46. [46]

    P. L. Halkyard, M. P. A. Jones, and S. A. Gardiner, Phys. Rev. A81, 061602 (2010)

    2010

  47. [47]

    S. P. Nolan, J. Sabbatini, M. W. J. Bromley, M. J. Davis, and S. A. Haine, Phys. Rev. A93, 023616 (2016)

    2016

  48. [48]

    S. A. Haine, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 230404 (2016)

    2016

  49. [49]

    S. A. Haine, New Journal of Physics20, 033009 (2018)

    2018

  50. [50]

    W. W. Chow, J. Gea-Banacloche, L. M. Pedrotti, V. E. Sanders, W. Schleich, and M. O. Scully, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics57, 61 (1985)

    1985

  51. [51]

    Vali and R

    V. Vali and R. W. Shorthill, Applied Optics15, 1099 (1976)

    1976

  52. [52]

    T. L. Gustavson, P. Bouyer, and M. A. Kasevich, Physi- cal Review Letters78, 2046 (1997)

    2046

  53. [53]

    E. R. Moan, R. A. Horne, T. Arpornthip, Z. Luo, A. J. Fallon, S. J. Berl, and C. A. Sackett, Physical Review Letters124, 120403 (2020)

    2020

  54. [54]

    Bevan, M

    D. Bevan, M. Bulatowicz, P. Clark, J. Flicker, R. Griffith, M. Larsen, M. Luengo-Kovac, J. Pavell, A. Rothballer, D. Sakaida, E. Burke, J. Campero, B. Ehrsam, S. Es- trella, and G. Morrison, in2018 IEEE International Sym- posium on Inertial Sensors and Systems (INERTIAL) (2018)

    2018

  55. [55]

    A. E. Siegman,Lasers(University Science Books Mill Valley, Calif, 1986)

    1986

  56. [56]

    Mielec, M

    N. Mielec, M. Altorio, R. Sapam, D. Horville, D. Holleville, L. A. Sidorenkov, A. Landragin, and R. Geiger, Applied Physics Letters113, 161108 (2018)

    2018

  57. [57]

    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, A. Rischka, P. J. Everitt, N. P. Robins, R. P. Anderson, M. R. Hush, and M. J. Biercuk, Nature Communications14, 7626 (2023)

    2023

  58. [58]

    Vallone, Opt

    G. Vallone, Opt. Lett.40, 1717 (2015)

    2015

  59. [59]

    Husband, J

    R. Husband, J. K. Eastman, S. A. Haine, R. H. Eagle, J. D. Close, R. J. Thomas, and S. Legge, Journal of Op- tics (2026)

    2026

  60. [60]

    C. C. N. Kuhn, G. D. McDonald, K. S. Hardman, S. Ben- netts, P. J. Everitt, P. A. Altin, J. E. Debs, J. D. Close, and N. P. Robins, New Journal of Physics16, 073035 (2014)

    2014

  61. [61]

    P. J. Everitt, Non-linear interactions in single and dual component bose einstein condensates, Ph.D. thesis, The Australian National University (2020)

    2020

  62. [62]

    R. J. Thomas, J. A. McMahon, Z. Mehdi, S. S. Szigeti, S. A. Haine, S. Legge, J. D. Close, and J. J. Hope, Phys. Rev. A112, L031302 (2025)

    2025

  63. [63]

    Newport Corporation, Rgv100bl-s motorized rotation stage

  64. [64]

    Meadowlark Optics model ODPDM512, with a 512×512 pixel array and a pixel pitch of 15µm

  65. [65]

    Ullah, S

    A. Ullah, S. Legge, J. D. Close, S. A. Haine, and R. J. Thomas, Appl. Opt.63, 8221 (2024)

    2024

  66. [66]

    Donley, T

    E. Donley, T. Heavner, F. Levi, M. Tataw, and S. Jefferts, Review of Scientific Instruments76(2005)

    2005

  67. [67]

    Campbell, B

    G. Campbell, B. Hage, B. Buchler, and P. K. Lam, Appl. Opt.51, 873 (2012)

    2012

  68. [68]

    J. M. Cervantes, M. A. Maldonado, J. A. Franco- Villafa˜ ne, T. Roach, V. M. Valenzuela, and E. Gomez, OSA Continuum4, 1996 (2021)

    1996

  69. [69]

    See Supplementary Material at [Link]

  70. [70]

    Henderson, C

    K. Henderson, C. Ryu, C. MacCormick, and M. G. Boshier, New Journal of Physics11, 043030 (2009)

    2009

  71. [71]

    T. A. Bell, J. A. P. Glidden, L. Humbert, M. W. J. Brom- ley, S. A. Haine, M. J. Davis, T. W. Neely, M. A. Baker, and H. Rubinsztein-Dunlop, New Journal of Physics18, 089501 (2016)

    2016

  72. [72]

    Gauthier, I

    G. Gauthier, I. Lenton, N. M. Parry, M. Baker, M. J. Davis, H. Rubinsztein-Dunlop, and T. W. Neely, Optica 3, 1136 (2016)

    2016

  73. [73]

    C. W. Woffinden, A. J. Groszek, G. Gauthier, B. J. Mom- mers, M. W. J. Bromley, S. A. Haine, H. Rubinsztein- Dunlop, M. J. Davis, T. W. Neely, and M. Baker, SciPost Phys.15, 128 (2023)

    2023

  74. [74]

    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, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 138501 (2016)

    2016

  75. [75]

    − r2 2 2σ2r(t2) − r2 2 ˙θ2 σ2 r(t2) 2σ2r σ2v − σ2 r(t2) 2σ2r σ2v ˙r− r2σ2 vt2 σ2r(t2) 2 +iℓ∆θ # d˙r d˙θ(18) ≈2πr 2 2 dr2 α ∞ZZ −∞ exp

    S. S. Szigeti, S. P. Nolan, J. D. Close, and S. A. Haine, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 100402 (2020). 7 Supplemental Material: Atom Interferometry with Transverse Optical Modes We consider the effect of the thermal velocity of the atoms on the spatially dependent contrast of the interferometer, as seen in Fig. 5. For this calculation, we ignore the spatial variat...

    2020