Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 66 references

Continuously trapped matter-wave interferometry in magic Floquet-Bloch band structures

T0 review · 1 major / 5 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 Tuning a trapped atom interferometer to a magic Floquet-Bloch band structure makes its phase first-order insensitive to lattice-depth noise, verified near 8.85 recoil energies.

desk verdict A genuinely new Floquet-Bloch interferometer with a convincing magic-depth demonstration, but the noise-immunity claim is narrower than the title suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.11881 v3 pith:B6UO7ERZ submitted 2025-06-13 physics.atom-ph cond-mat.quant-gasquant-ph

Xiao Chai , Eber Nolasco-Martinez , Xuanwei Liang , Jeremy L. Tanlimco , E. Quinn Simmons , Eric Zhu , Roshan Sajjad , Hector Mas
show 3 more authors
S. Nicole Halawani Alec Cao David M. Weld
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phcond-mat.quant-gasquant-ph
keywords atominterferometryFloquet-BlochbandsopticallatticesLandau-ZenertransitionsmagicbandstructuresBlochoscillationsforcesensingBose-Einsteincondensate
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

Continuously trapped atom interferometers can measure forces in a compact device, but noise in the trapping lattice itself adds phase errors that free-fall interferometers do not have. This paper reports a way to design the trap so that this error cancels: a 'magic' Floquet-Bloch band structure in which the interferometer phase has zero first-order dependence on the lattice depth. The authors realize it with a non-interacting lithium condensate that Bloch-oscillates through an amplitude-modulated optical lattice, reaching the predicted magic depth near $V_0 \approx 8.85\,E_R$ for a P-D band loop, and they show that force fringes are unchanged when the depth is varied close to that point. They also demonstrate that the force response grows with the momentum-space loop area and that pulsed or multifrequency modulation gives programmable control over loop size and fringe phase. If the approach scales, it points toward compact, stable, high-sensitivity local force sensors.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Floquet-Bloch band structure of an amplitude-modulated optical lattice: the periodic drive hybridizes static Bloch bands (here the P and D bands) into quasienergy bands, and avoided crossings between them act as tunable Landau-Zener beamsplitters. The magic condition is the identity $\partial \phi_{\mathrm{Int}}/\partial V_0 = 0$, achieved by choosing a lattice depth and loop geometry where the differential dynamical phase is stationary in $V_0$; the S band cannot satisfy it because it is repelled only from above, so the lowest usable loop uses P and D bands. Because the group velocity obeys $dx/dt = d\tilde{E}/dq$, synthesizing a quasienergy dispersion is equivalent to synthesizing a real-space interferometer trajectory.

What would settle it

Add a known sinusoidal modulation to the lattice laser power at a frequency comparable to the Bloch frequency or the inverse loop time and record fringe scatter at and away from the magic depth; if the magic depth does not suppress the resulting scatter, the quasistatic assumption is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that amplitude modulation of an optical lattice can synthesize Floquet-Bloch bands whose avoided crossings act as beamsplitters and mirrors for a continuously trapped matter-wave interferometer, and that a subset of these band structures is 'magic': the total interferometer phase satisfies $\partial \phi_{\mathrm{Int}}/\partial V_0 = 0$ and is therefore first-order insensitive to lattice intensity. The experiment verifies this with lithium atoms in a non-interacting BEC: force scans at three lattice depths centered at $V_0 \approx 8.85\,E_R$ produce nearly identical fringes, while equal offsets at non-magic depths produce strongly different fringes. The paper also shows that the measured interference fringe frequency scales with loop size in line with a fit-parameter-free analytical theory, and that pulsed beamsplitters, an additional modulation tone, and a variable modulation phase can enlarge the loop, increase sensitivity, and shift the fringe phase.

Load-bearing premise

The noise-tolerance claim rests on the assumption that lattice-power fluctuations are slow compared with the interferometer's duration, so each shot effectively sees a shifted static lattice depth; fast power fluctuations are not directly tested.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Magic band structures exist for essentially any quasimomentum range and any set of excited bands, so the intensity-noise cancellation is not tied to one loop shape.
  • Force response scales with the quasimomentum loop area: measured fringes become finer as $\Delta q$ grows, matching the analytical prediction, and simulations show continued growth when the loop spans multiple Bloch oscillations.
  • Landau-Zener beamsplitters make the fringe phase nearly immune to initial momentum spread and pulse-duration errors, with contrast changing only slightly for variations of $\pm 0.1\hbar k_L$ and $\pm 15\%$.
  • Pulsed beamsplitters avoid unwanted higher-band resonances; a second modulation tone hybridizing the P and F bands increases loop area, and shifting the phase of one beamsplitter pulse shifts the fringe phase by up to $2\pi$.
  • Sensitivity in the weak-force regime scales as $1/F$, suggesting compact sensors for small forces; an accelerated-lattice frame transformation could cancel part of the applied force.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because only the first derivative is nulled, a natural extension is to search for higher-order magic loops in which $\partial^2\phi_{\mathrm{Int}}/\partial V_0^2$ also vanishes, extending protection to faster, larger amplitude noise.
  • The same stationary-phase design principle could be applied to other experimental parameters, such as magnetic field gradient or modulation depth, yielding multi-dimensional magic surfaces for simultaneous noise rejection.
  • The $1/F$ force response suggests a differential configuration: two traps operated at different effective forces would react oppositely to a common external force while sharing common-mode lattice noise, a useful geometry for weak-force searches.
  • Combining multifrequency Floquet synthesis with optimal control could allow loops designed to be simultaneously magic in several parameters, trading the demonstrated programmability for stability in deployed sensors.
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

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports a continuously trapped matter-wave interferometer built from Bloch oscillations of a non-interacting 7Li BEC in a one-dimensional amplitude-modulated optical lattice. The modulation creates Floquet-Bloch band crossings that act as Landau-Zener beamsplitters and mirrors, forming a Mach-Zehnder loop in momentum space whose output is a force-dependent population imbalance. The central new claim is the existence of 'magic' Floquet-Bloch band structures, defined by ∂ϕ_Int/∂V0 = 0, for which the interferometric phase is first-order insensitive to lattice depth. The authors verify this by measuring the imbalance versus lattice depth and force scans at depths around the predicted magic depth V0 ≈ 8.85 E_R, and they demonstrate a parameter-free scaling of the fringe frequency with loop size. They also show programmable interferometer variants with pulsed beamsplitters, a second modulation tone, and controllable beamsplitter phase.

Significance. The Floquet band-engineering approach is inventive, and the experimental implementation is careful: the use of non-interacting 7Li at the Feshbach zero crossing, the multiple interferometer geometries, and the parameter-free analytical prediction for the force response are notable strengths. If the noise-immunity claim is fully established, the magic band structure concept could be broadly useful for trapped-atom force sensing. However, as detailed in the major comment, the reported condition and data address only the static lattice-depth channel and do not cover common-mode intensity noise that also modulates δV; the current evidence is therefore narrower than the abstract's claim of intrinsic immunity to lattice intensity noise. The authors honestly acknowledge that multi-Bloch-oscillation scaling is only simulated (Appendix E), which is a favorable sign of care.

major comments (1)
  1. [IV (and Supplemental §1.3, §4.3)] Section IV defines the magic condition as ∂ϕInt/∂V0 = 0 and cites Figs. 2b–2d as verification. This condition is not sufficient for the claimed insensitivity to lattice intensity noise. For the lattice potential V(x,t) = -(V0 + δV sin ωt) cos²(k_L x), a fractional laser-intensity fluctuation ε changes both V0 and δV: V0 → V0(1+ε) and δV → δV(1+ε). The first-order phase response is dϕInt/dε = V0 ∂ϕInt/∂V0 + δV ∂ϕInt/∂δV. The paper nulls only the first term. The second term is generically nonzero: the avoided-crossing gap is proportional to δV (Supplemental Eq. S12), and the Stokes phase depends on δ, hence on δV, through Eqs. (S20)–(S23). The experimental verification keeps δV fixed at 0.35 E_R (Supplemental §4.3) and varies only V0, so it tests ∂ϕInt/∂V0 but cannot detect the δV channel. Even granting a quasistatic noise assumption, the central claim of an intrinsically noise-tolerant magic-band sensor is not established as stated. The authors should either show that the full directional derivative V0 ∂ϕInt/∂V0 + δV ∂ϕInt/∂δV vanishes (or is sufficiently small) at the operating point, using both theory and data that vary δV or inject intensity noise, or re-scope the noise-immunity claim to static lattice-depth changes with separately stabilized modulation depth.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (2)] In Eq. (2), the upper integration limit is written as q'_r = q_r + Δq inside the integral sign; this is unconventional and should be reformatted as ∫_{q_r}^{q'_r}, with the relation q'_r - q_r = Δq stated separately.
  2. [Section IV] The section refers interchangeably to 'lattice depth dependence' and 'lattice intensity noise'; as the major comment explains, for an amplitude-modulated lattice these are not equivalent, and the terminology should distinguish static depth changes from common-mode intensity fluctuations.
  3. [Section I and Appendix D] The Introduction states that the interferometer is 'intrinsically insensitive to ... laser phase', but Appendix D demonstrates tolerance to initial-quasimomentum and pulse-duration variations only; no measurement or theoretical argument for laser-phase insensitivity is presented.
  4. [Appendix E] Appendix E explicitly states that large multi-Bloch-oscillation loops have not yet been experimentally observed; the abstract and Section I should make clear that the scaling to large loop areas is a theoretical projection rather than an experimental demonstration.
  5. [Fig. 2b] The quantitative evidence for the magic condition would be strengthened by extracting and plotting the fitted interferometer phase versus lattice depth, since the raw imbalance is a cosine of the phase and its flatness is only indirect evidence for ∂ϕInt/∂V0 = 0.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the magic depth is a parameter-free prediction from Floquet–Bloch theory and is independently verified by lattice-depth and force scans.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that magic Floquet–Bloch band structures, defined by ∂ϕInt/∂V0 = 0, are realized at a predicted lattice depth V0 ≈ 8.85 ER. This prediction is obtained from numerical band-structure calculations (main-text Sec. IV, Supplemental Sec. 2) with no fitting to the target data. The experimental verification in Fig. 2b–d directly measures the phase flatness across lattice depths and force scans, which is a genuine test of the prediction rather than a tautology. The force-response scaling in Fig. 3c is compared against a theory described as 'fit-parameter-free,' and the data points are extracted from independent sinusoidal fits. The only disclosed empirical calibration is the beamsplitter modulation depth δV = 0.35 ER, determined by equal-population tuning (Supplemental §4.3); this parameter enters the calculation but does not determine the predicted dependence of phase on V0 or the fringe-frequency scaling. Self-citations to prior work [22,24,35] support the basic Bloch/Floquet transport framework, but the present derivation of the interferometer phase and magic condition is self-contained in the theory sections and is not reduced to those citations. A caveat exists: the magic condition only nulls the ∂/∂V0 channel and does not explicitly address correlated δV noise, but this is a completeness concern rather than circular reasoning. Overall, no step reduces to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on single-particle Floquet-Bloch theory, the adiabatic-impulse approximation, and the quasistatic treatment of lattice depth noise. The only fitted parameter is the beamsplitter modulation depth. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Modulation depth δV = 0.35 E_R
    Empirically calibrated to set the Landau-Zener transition probability to 50-50 (Supplemental §4.3); affects fringe contrast, not the predicted phase response.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The atoms are non-interacting; the s-wave scattering length is tuned to zero with a Feshbach resonance.
    The theory is a single-particle Floquet-Bloch model; interactions are neglected (Section III, Supplemental).
  • domain assumption Adiabatic-impulse (Landau-Zener) approximation for transitions at avoided crossings, with Stokes phase from the standard formula.
    Used in Section II and Supplemental §1.3; assumes separated crossing events and slowly varying parameters.
  • domain assumption Rotating-wave approximation and truncation to the P-D two-band subspace in the effective Hamiltonian.
    Supplemental §1.6; valid for weak coupling and near resonance.
  • standard math The acceleration theorem q(t)=q(0)+Ft for quasimomentum evolution under a uniform force.
    Section II; standard result for Bloch oscillations in a lattice.
  • domain assumption The geometric phase over the partial Brillouin zone is pure gauge and can be ignored.
    Supplemental §1.5; derived for the specific loop by solving equation (S33).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Continuously trapped matter-wave interferometry in magic Floquet-Bloch band structures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B6UO7ERZ

@misc{pith2026250611881,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Continuously trapped matter-wave interferometry in magic Floquet-Bloch band structures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B6UO7ERZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.11881}
}
read the original abstract

Trapped matter-wave interferometry offers the promise of compact high-precision local force sensing. However, noise in the trap itself can introduce new systematic errors which are absent in traditional free-fall interferometers. We describe and demonstrate an intrinsically noise-tolerant Floquet-engineered platform for continuously trapped atom interferometry. A non-interacting degenerate quantum gas undergoes position-space Bloch oscillations through an amplitude-modulated optical lattice, whose resulting Floquet-Bloch band structure includes Landau-Zener beamsplitters and Bragg mirrors, forming the components of a Mach-Zehnder interferometric force sensor. We identify, realize, and experimentally characterize magic band structures, analogous to the magic wavelengths employed in optical lattice clocks, for which the interferometric phase is insensitive to lattice intensity noise. We leverage the intrinsic programmability of the Floquet band synthesis approach to demonstrate a variety of interferometer structures, highlighting the potential of this technique for quantum force sensors which are tunable, compact, simple, and robust.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.11881 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: d, demonstrate the predicted decrease in fringe pe￾riod and increase in sensitivity. This result demonstrates that arbitrary multi-frequency modulations can be used to construct tailored band structures to control and opti￾mize loop geometry and response of trapped mat…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Young, I

    T. Young, I. The Bakerian Lecture. Experiments and cal- culations relative to physical optics , Philosophical Trans- actions of the Royal Society of London 94, 1 (1804). 10

    work page

  2. [2]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collabora- tion, Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger, Physical Review Letters 116, 061102 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    De Broglie, Recherches sur la th´ eorie des Quanta, An- nales de Physique 10, 22 (1925)

    L. De Broglie, Recherches sur la th´ eorie des Quanta, An- nales de Physique 10, 22 (1925)

    work page 1925

  4. [4]

    Marton, J

    L. Marton, J. A. Simpson, and J. A. Suddeth, Electron Beam Interferometer, Physical Review 90, 490 (1953)

    work page 1953

  5. [5]

    Rauch, W

    H. Rauch, W. Treimer, and U. Bonse, Test of a single crystal neutron interferometer, Physics Letters A 47, 369 (1974)

    work page 1974

  6. [6]

    Baudon, R

    J. Baudon, R. Mathevet, and J. Robert, Atomic inter- ferometry, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 32, R173 (1999)

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    Bord´ e, N

    Ch.J. Bord´ e, N. Courtier, F. Du Burck, A. Goncharov, and M. Gorlicki, Molecular Interferometry Experiments , Physics Letters A 188, 187 (1994)

    work page 1994

  8. [8]

    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,...

    work page 2021

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    E. R. Elliott, D. C. Aveline, N. P. Bigelow, P. Boegel, S. Botsi, E. Charron, J. P. D’Incao, P. Engels, T. Estram- pes, N. Gaaloul, J. R. Kellogg, J. M. Kohel, N. E. Lay, N. Lundblad, M. Meister, M. E. Mossman, G. M¨ uller, H. M¨ uller, K. Oudrhiri, L. E. Phillips, A. Pichery,...

    2023

  2. [10]

    Schumm, S

    T. Schumm, S. Hofferberth, L. M. Andersson, S. Wil- dermuth, S. Groth, I. Bar-Joseph, J. Schmiedmayer, and P. Kr¨ uger,Matter-wave interferometry in a double well on an atom chip , Nature Physics 1, 57 (2005)

    2005

  3. [11]

    S. Wu, E. Su, and M. Prentiss, Demonstration of an Area-Enclosing Guided-Atom Interferometer for Rota- tion Sensing, Physical Review Letters 99, 173201 (2007)

    2007

  4. [12]

    Garcia, B

    O. Garcia, B. Deissler, K. J. Hughes, J. M. Reeves, and C. A. Sackett, Bose-Einstein-condensate interferometer with macroscopic arm separation, Physical Review A 74, 031601 (2006)

    2006

  5. [13]

    G. D. McDonald, H. Keal, P. A. Altin, J. E. Debs, S. Ben- netts, C. C. N. Kuhn, K. S. Hardman, M. T. Johnsson, J. D. Close, and N. P. Robins, Optically guided linear Mach-Zehnder atom interferometer , Physical Review A 87, 013632 (2013)

    2013

  6. [14]

    C. D. Panda, M. J. Tao, M. Ceja, J. Khoury, G. M. Tino, and H. M¨ uller,Measuring gravitational attraction with a lattice atom interferometer , Nature 631, 515 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    C. A. Weidner and D. Z. Anderson,Experimental Demon- stration of Shaken-Lattice Interferometry , Physical Re- view Letters 120, 263201 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    LeDesma, K

    C. LeDesma, K. Mehling, and M. Holland, Vector atom accelerometry in an optical lattice , Science Advances 11, eadt7480 (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    Petrucciani, A

    T. Petrucciani, A. Santoni, C. Mazzinghi, D. Trypo- georgos, F. S. Cataliotti, M. Inguscio, G. Modugno, A. Smerzi, L. Pezz´ e, and M. Fattori,Mach-Zehnder atom interferometry with non-interacting trapped Bose Ein- stein condensates (2025), arXiv:2504.17391 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    C. Li, Q. Liang, P. Paranjape, R. Wu, and J. Schmied- mayer, Matter-wave interferometers with trapped strongly interacting Feshbach molecules , Physical Review Re- search 6, 023217 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    V. Xu, M. Jaffe, C. D. Panda, S. L. Kristensen, L. W. Clark, and H. M¨ uller,Probing gravity by holding atoms for 20 seconds , Science 366, 745 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    See Supplemental Material for our analytical and numer- ical methods related to calculations of the interferometer phase and magic band structure, discussion regarding the calibration and stabilization of experimental parameters, as well as sources leading to the interference ...

  13. [21]

    M. B. Dahan, E. Peik, J. Reichel, Y. Castin, and C. Sa- lomon, Bloch Oscillations of Atoms in an Optical Poten- tial, Physical Review Letters 76, 4508 (1996)

    1996

  14. [22]

    Z. A. Geiger, K. M. Fujiwara, K. Singh, R. Senaratne, S. V. Rajagopal, M. Lipatov, T. Shimasaki, R. Driben, V. V. Konotop, T. Meier, and D. M. Weld, Observation and Uses of Position-Space Bloch Oscillations in an Ul- tracold Gas, Physical Review Letters 120, 213201 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Holthaus, Floquet engineering with quasienergy bands of periodically driven optical lattices , Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 49, 013001 (2016)

    M. Holthaus, Floquet engineering with quasienergy bands of periodically driven optical lattices , Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 49, 013001 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    C. J. Fujiwara, K. Singh, Z. A. Geiger, R. Senaratne, S. V. Rajagopal, M. Lipatov, and D. M. Weld, Transport in Floquet-Bloch Bands , Physical Review Letters 122, 010402 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    Weitenberg and J

    C. Weitenberg and J. Simonet, Tailoring quantum gases by Floquet engineering , Nature Physics 17, 1342 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Sandholzer, A.-S

    K. Sandholzer, A.-S. Walter, J. Minguzzi, Z. Zhu, K. Viebahn, and T. Esslinger, Floquet engineering of in- dividual band gaps in an optical lattice using a two-tone drive, Physical Review Research 4, 013056 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    K. E. McAlpine, D. Gochnauer, and S. Gupta, Excited- band Bloch oscillations for precision atom interferometry, Physical Review A 101, 023614 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    D. N. Basov, R. D. Averitt, and D. Hsieh, Towards prop- erties on demand in quantum materials, Nature Materials 16, 1077 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    Oka and S

    T. Oka and S. Kitamura, Floquet Engineering of Quan- tum Materials , Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 10, 387 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    S. Wang, C. Qin, L. Zhao, H. Ye, S. Longhi, P. Lu, and B. Wang, Photonic Floquet Landau-Zener tunneling and temporal beam splitters , Science Advances 9, eadh0415 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    L. Zhao, S. Wang, C. Qin, Z. Liu, C. Liu, X. Hu, Y. Li, B. Wang, and P. Lu, Bloch–Zener oscillation with engi- neered Floquet energy bands in synthetic temporal lattices, Optics Letters 49, 7028 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Landau, Zur theorie der energie¨ ubertragung

    L. Landau, Zur theorie der energie¨ ubertragung. I , Physikalische Zeitschrift der Sowjetunion 1, 88 (1932)

    1932

  25. [33]

    Landau, Zur theorie der energie¨ ubertragung

    L. Landau, Zur theorie der energie¨ ubertragung. II , Physikalische Zeitschrift der Sowjetunion 2, 46 (1932)

    1932

  26. [34]

    Zener, Non-adiabatic crossing of energy levels , Pro- 11 ceedings of the Royal Society of London

    C. Zener, Non-adiabatic crossing of energy levels , Pro- 11 ceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Con- taining Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character 137, 696 (1932)

    1932

  27. [35]

    A. Cao, C. J. Fujiwara, R. Sajjad, E. Q. Simmons, E. Lin- droth, and D. Weld, Probing Nonexponential Decay in Floquet–Bloch Bands , Zeitschrift f¨ ur Naturforschung A 75, 443 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    Arlinghaus and M

    S. Arlinghaus and M. Holthaus, Generalized acceleration theorem for spatiotemporal Bloch waves, Physical Review B 84, 054301 (2011)

    2011

  29. [37]

    Kling, T

    S. Kling, T. Salger, C. Grossert, and M. Weitz, Atomic Bloch-Zener Oscillations and St¨ uckelberg Interferometry in Optical Lattices, Physical Review Letters 105, 215301 (2010)

    2010

  30. [38]

    Zenesini, D

    A. Zenesini, D. Ciampini, O. Morsch, and E. Arimondo, Observation of St¨ uckelberg oscillations in accelerated op- tical lattices, Physical Review A 82, 065601 (2010)

    2010

  31. [39]

    Shevchenko, S

    S. Shevchenko, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Lan- dau–Zener–St¨ uckelberg interferometry, Physics Reports 492, 1 (2010)

    2010

  32. [40]

    O. V. Ivakhnenko, S. N. Shevchenko, and F. Nori, Nona- diabatic Landau–Zener–St¨ uckelberg–Majorana Transi- tions, Dynamics, and Interference , Physics Reports 995, 1 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    S. E. Pollack, D. Dries, M. Junker, Y. P. Chen, T. A. Corcovilos, and R. G. Hulet, Extreme Tunability of In- teractions in a Li 7 Bose-Einstein Condensate , Physical Review Letters 102, 090402 (2009)

    2009

  34. [42]

    Greiner, I

    M. Greiner, I. Bloch, O. Mandel, T. W. H¨ ansch, and T. Esslinger, Exploring Phase Coherence in a 2D Lattice of Bose-Einstein Condensates , Physical Review Letters 87, 160405 (2001)

    2001

  35. [43]

    Hilico, C

    A. Hilico, C. Solaro, M.-K. Zhou, M. Lopez, and F. Pereira Dos Santos, Contrast decay in a trapped-atom interferometer, Physical Review A 91, 053616 (2015)

    2015

  36. [44]

    dressed en- ergy

    Since we vary the modulation amplitude and phase and include additional modulation frequencies, the Hamil- tonian loses perfect discrete time-translation symmetry, so that in principle the Floquet formalism is no longer applicable. This is why we use the phrase “dressed en- er...

  37. [45]

    Ho, S.-I

    T.-S. Ho, S.-I. Chu, and J. V. Tietz, Semiclassical Many- Mode Floquet Theory, Chemical Physics Letters 96, 464 (1983)

    1983

  38. [46]

    M. S. Safronova, D. Budker, D. DeMille, D. F. J. Kimball, A. Derevianko, and C. W. Clark, Search for new physics with atoms and molecules, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 025008 (2018)

    2018

  39. [47]

    Murata and S

    J. Murata and S. Tanaka, A review of short-range grav- ity experiments in the lhc era, Classical and Quantum Gravity 32, 033001 (2015)

    2015

  40. [48]

    D. M. Weld, J. Xia, B. Cabrera, and A. Kapitulnik, New apparatus for detecting micron-scale deviations from newtonian gravity, Phys. Rev. D 77, 062006 (2008)

    2008

  41. [49]

    J. G. Lee, E. G. Adelberger, T. S. Cook, S. M. Fleischer, and B. R. Heckel, New test of the gravitational 1 /r2 law at separations down to 52 µm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 101101 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    Zhang, R

    X. Zhang, R. P. Del Aguila, T. Mazzoni, N. Poli, and G. M. Tino, Trapped-atom interferometer with ultracold Sr atoms , Physical Review A 94, 043608 (2016)

    2016

  43. [51]

    LeDesma, K

    C. LeDesma, K. Mehling, J. D. Wilson, M. Nicotra, and M. Holland, Universal gate set for optical lattice based atom interferometry, Physical Review Research7, 013246 (2025)

    2025

  44. [52]

    T. N. Ikeda, S. Tanaka, and Y. Kayanuma, Floquet- Landau-Zener interferometry: Usefulness of the Floquet theory in pulse-laser-driven systems, Physical Review Re- search 4, 033075 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    D. W. Hone, R. Ketzmerick, and W. Kohn, Time- dependent Floquet theory and absence of an adiabatic limit, Physical Review A 56, 4045 (1997)

    1997

  46. [54]

    Zak, Berry’s phase for energy bands in solids , Physical Review Letters 62, 2747 (1989)

    J. Zak, Berry’s phase for energy bands in solids , Physical Review Letters 62, 2747 (1989)

    1989

  47. [55]

    Breuer and M

    H. Breuer and M. Holthaus, Quantum Phases and Landau-Zener Transitions in Oscillating Fields , Physics Letters A 140, 507 (1989). 12 Supplemental Material CONTENTS

    1989

  48. [56]

    Bloch Bands in a Static Lattice 13 1.2

    Floquet-Bloch Atom Interferometry Theory 13 1.1. Bloch Bands in a Static Lattice 13 1.2. Floquet-Bloch Bands in a Driven Lattice 13 1.3. Interferometer Phases 14 1.4. Wave Packets 16 1.5. Geometric Phase 16 1.6. Dressed State Picture 17

  49. [57]

    Magic Depth Calculation 18

  50. [58]

    Numerical Calculation 19

  51. [59]

    Lattice Depth 19 4.2

    Calibration 19 4.1. Lattice Depth 19 4.2. Force 20 4.3. Modulation Depth 21

  52. [60]

    Fringe Contrast Reduction 22 13

  53. [61]

    drive photons

    FLOQUET-BLOCH A TOM INTERFEROMETR Y THEOR Y In this section, we derive the phase of our Floquet-Bloch atom interferometer from first principles. 1.1. Bloch Bands in a Static Lattice Consider non-interacting atoms confined in a one-dimensional optical lattice. We assume a perio...

  54. [62]

    Thus, while exploring the parameter space of V0, qr, and ω, we approximate the magic condition as 0 = ∂ϕInt ∂V0 = ∂ϕDyn ∂V0 + 2∂ϕSto ∂V0 ≈ ∂ϕDyn ∂V0

    MAGIC DEPTH CALCULA TION Since the Stokes phase is monotonic in δ and bounded by [ −π/2, −π/4], it varies far less than the dynamical phase for the same range of force and lattice depth. Thus, while exploring the parameter space of V0, qr, and ω, we approximate the magic condi...

  55. [63]

    We decompose the Bloch function (S3) using Fourier modes: un,q(x) = ∞X j=−∞ c(j) n,q exp (2ijkLx)

    NUMERICAL CALCULA TION In this section, we describe numerical methods for obtaining (Floquet-) Bloch energy bands. We decompose the Bloch function (S3) using Fourier modes: un,q(x) = ∞X j=−∞ c(j) n,q exp (2ijkLx) . (S44) Substituting this ansatz into the Schr¨ odinger equation...

  56. [64]

    Lattice Depth To calibrate the depth of our optical lattice, we perform amplitude modulation spectroscopy on the S → D band transition at zero quasimomentum

    CALIBRA TION 4.1. Lattice Depth To calibrate the depth of our optical lattice, we perform amplitude modulation spectroscopy on the S → D band transition at zero quasimomentum. To do this, we adiabatically load the BEC from the optical dipole trap into the 20 optical lattice (F...

  57. [65]

    ST ABILIZA TION Key parameters of the experiment are actively stabilized during interferometer operation; here we present some details of those feedback loops. Lattice Laser Power:Our optical lattice beam is produced by an acousto-optic modulator (AOM), so its optical 22 Time ...

  58. [66]

    FRINGE CONTRAST REDUCTION A current limitation of interferometer performance is that the fringe contrast decreases as the enclosed space-time area grows. Numerical simulations of a ∆ q = ℏkL loop that incorporate the axial Rayleigh range of the lattice laser beam and mean-fiel...

Pith tools

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