Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 39 references

Serrodyne Matterwave Optics

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Serrodyne modulation of a single laser can drive Bragg atom optics and working interferometers even when the sawtooth is imperfect.

desk verdict Solid experimental demo that imperfect serrodyne still drives usable Bragg pulses and MZIs, but the zero-velocity degeneracy-breaking claim for a real moving mirror is an extrapolation the fountain setup cannot test. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24511 v1 pith:K5TRE6CP submitted 2026-07-27 physics.atom-ph

Jack Roth , Madeline Bernstein , Andrew Christensen , Yuno Iwasaki , Holger Mueller , Zaire Sprowal , Robert Compton This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph
keywords serrodynemodulationBraggdiffractionatominterferometrysingle-frequencylaserMach-Zehnderinterferometerretroreflectionmirrormatterwaveoptics
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

Bragg diffraction normally needs two laser frequencies whose difference puts the two-photon kick on resonance. This paper shows that difference can instead be produced by serrodyne modulation—a sawtooth phase ramp that acts as an effective frequency shift—so a single-frequency laser is enough. They realize the modulation with a phase-modulated AOM drive that generates kilohertz-scale shifts, and they prove that the same equations of motion describe a single-frequency beam reflected from a position-modulated mirror. Although imperfect sawtooths inject unwanted frequency components, the Bragg pulses remain usable for orders 2–4 when the relative phase between the sawtooth and the intensity envelope is chosen carefully, and fall times of several microseconds or ramp amplitudes a few percent off 2π still yield working Mach–Zehnder interferometers. The result trades laser complexity for a moving retro-mirror and thereby points toward compact, single-frequency Bragg sensors for multi-axis and space use.

What carries the argument

Serrodyne sawtooth phase θ(t) imprinted on the retro-reflected beam (via AOM RF phase modulation or mirror position), which enters the Bragg equations of motion as the effective frequency difference δ and, when its phase relative to the Gaussian intensity envelope is chosen correctly, keeps population transfer and interferometer contrast usable despite finite fall time and amplitude error.

What would settle it

Build a compact single-frequency Bragg interferometer whose only frequency difference comes from a piezo-driven retro-mirror executing the same sawtooth family; if contrast collapses or unwanted momentum states dominate for the fall times and amplitudes already shown to work in the AOM emulation, the claimed transfer fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Serrodyne modulation can replace the second Bragg laser frequency: with suitable sawtooth-to-pulse phase alignment, single Bragg pulses (n_Bragg = 2, 3, 4) and full Mach–Zehnder interferometers remain viable even for non-ideal sawtooths (fall durations of several microseconds and ramp amplitudes a few percent off 2π), as demonstrated in an atomic-fountain AOM emulation whose equations of motion match those of a moving-mirror single-frequency system.

Load-bearing premise

That the AOM phase-modulation experiment in a fountain is a faithful enough stand-in for a real high-quality mirror that is physically moved, so the same robustness will hold once inertia, wavefront quality, and residual vibration are present.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single laser frequency plus a position-modulated retro-mirror can replace two-frequency Bragg laser systems.
  • Zero-velocity directional degeneracy in retro-reflected Bragg interferometers can be broken without polarization engineering or broadband sources.
  • Compact multi-axis and space-borne atom interferometers become optically simpler because only one optical frequency is required.
  • Even sawtooths with multi-microsecond fall times and few-percent amplitude error can still produce usable beamsplitters and Mach–Zehnder fringes when phase is aligned.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Mirror inertia will set a practical upper bound on Bragg order and pulse shortness that the AOM emulation does not yet map.
  • The same phase-alignment robustness may extend to double-Bragg geometries if a symmetric triangle wave is locked to the pulse peak, as the paper briefly notes.
  • Field sensors that already carry a retro-mirror could add serrodyne capability with only electronics and a fast piezo, avoiding a second laser head.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes replacing the second laser frequency in retroreflected Bragg atom interferometry with serrodyne (sawtooth phase) modulation of the retroreflection mirror, so that a single-frequency laser suffices and the zero-velocity direction degeneracy is broken by the mirror motion. Because mirror inertia prevents ideal sawtooths, the authors emulate the moving-mirror phase modulation with a phase-modulated AOM drive in a cesium atomic fountain, and show in an Appendix that the fountain equations of motion reduce, after a rotating-wave approximation valid at high momentum index n, to the exact moving-mirror equations (Eq. 1 / A.12) up to a common AC-Stark term. They then measure single-pulse inversion and leakage (Figs. 4–8) and Mach–Zehnder fringe contrast (Figs. 11–12) for n_Bragg = 2–4 as a function of sawtooth fall duration (0.5–16 µs), ramp amplitude (0.94–1.0 × 2π), and sawtooth-to-pulse phase, finding that performance close to normal Bragg pulses survives for fall durations of several µs and few-percent amplitude errors, provided the sawtooth-to-pulse phase is chosen well and the pulse spacing is an integer multiple of the serrodyne period.

Significance. If the approach transfers to a physical moving-mirror system, it offers a genuinely simpler architecture for Bragg-based atom interferometry — one laser frequency, no AOM pair generating the two-photon detuning — with clear relevance to compact, multi-axis, and spaceborne inertial sensors, which is a timely and well-motivated problem. The paper ships several real strengths: an explicit equations-of-motion equivalence between the moving-mirror and two-frequency fountain systems (Eqs. 1, A.12, A.16), a controlled AOM-based emulation that isolates sawtooth imperfections from mirror bandwidth limits, and systematic, falsifiable measurements (inversion, leakage, and MZI contrast versus fall duration, ramp amplitude, waveform phase, and Bragg order, with normal-Bragg baselines). The core experimental findings — that Bragg pulses and MZIs remain viable for fall durations of several µs and few-percent amplitude errors at high momentum — appear sound and useful. The advertised application-level claim (zero-velocity degeneracy breaking at rest), however, rests on an extrapolation the present experiment cannot test (see major comment 1), so the significance as currently framed is partly promi

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, §I, §VI, Appendix] Abstract, §I, and §VI: the headline application — breaking the zero-velocity degeneracy to enable compact/space single-frequency sensors — is not tested by the experiment and is, in fact, structurally invisible to it. The equivalence between the AOM fountain emulation and the moving-mirror system is derived only after a rotating-wave approximation (Appendix, Eqs. A.14→A.16) that is justified by the atoms' large initial momentum index (launched at 6.2 m/s, first pulse at ~4 m/s, so n ≈ 570 and 8nω_r is enormous). The RWA discards precisely the counter-rotating couplings that dominate the physics at zero velocity. For an atom at rest, |+n_Bragg⟩ and |−n_Bragg⟩ are degenerate, and direction selectivity in Eq. (1)/(A.12) rests entirely on exp(iθ(t)) being a pure tone e^{iδt}. For the imperfect sawtooths the paper deliberately studies (fall durations 2–16 µs, amplitudes 0.94–0.98×2π), exp(iθ(
  2. [Appendix, Eqs. (A.15)–(A.16)] Appendix, Eqs. (A.15)–(A.16): the stated equivalence between the fountain EOM and the moving-mirror EOM (Eq. A.12) has two loose steps that should be tightened, since this equivalence is the load-bearing bridge to the proposed application. (a) The text says 'If δ = 4nω_r then we see this result is equivalent to Eq. (A.12)'. But from Eq. (A.15) the stationary-phase condition for the retained c_{n−1} coupling is δ = (8n − 4)ω_r = 4(2n−1)ω_r, not 4nω_r; at n ≈ 570 these differ by nearly a factor of two. Presumably the intended statement involves the n_Bragg resonance and the Doppler-compensating chirp of ω_2(t) described in Fig. 3, but as written the condition is unclear and appears inconsistent with the preceding line. (b) In Eq. (A.16) the diagonal contains −nδ, which is n-dependent and therefore is not a 'common phase' that can be dropped between interferometer arms; only the 4Ω_eff AC-S
  3. [§IV–§V, Figs. 5–8, 11–12] Figs. 5–8, 11–12: no theory curves are shown anywhere in the paper, even though the authors possess the equations of motion (Eq. 1) and full knowledge of the applied waveforms (Fig. 10). The robustness claims — e.g., 'fall durations comparable to the rise duration can still produce working beamsplitters' (§II) and the contrast-vs-fall-duration systematics of Fig. 12 — are currently supported only by data. Numerical integration of Eq. (1) with the measured θ(t) and Ω_eff(t) would (i) validate the EOM experimentally, which is itself one of the paper's claims ('We show that our experiment is described by the same equations of motion', §I — presently shown only by the Appendix derivation, not by comparison to data), and (ii) enable the n = 0 extrapolation requested in the previous comment. This should be added; the omission weakens what is otherwise a systematic and well-controlled study.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§IV / Figs. 7–8] §IV vs. Fig. 7/8 captions: the text states the amplitude scans were taken 'at a fall duration of 4 us', while the Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 captions state 'a falling ramp duration of 5 us'. Please reconcile.
  2. [Fig. 4] Fig. 4 caption: the stray text 'leak / 8us 4us 2us 0.5us' and duplicated axis labels appear to be leftover figure artifacts bleeding into the caption; also the fall durations shown in Fig. 4 (0.5–8 µs) do not match the full set in Fig. 5 (up to 16 µs) without comment. Please clean up and state the scanned set explicitly.
  3. [Figs. 5–8] Figs. 5–8: Ω_eff is plotted in 'arb.' units throughout. Since the π-pulse condition is used as a reference point, providing an approximate calibrated scale (kHz) would help readers compare across Bragg orders and with the moving-mirror requirements.
  4. [Appendix] Appendix, phase conventions: the assignments θ_3 = θ(t) = 2kz(t) − π (moving-mirror case) and θ_1 = θ_3 + π = −θ(t) (stationary case) are easy to misread; a short sentence explaining the π offsets (retroreflection phase) would help. Also check the sign of the sin couplings in Eq. (A.13) relative to the exp(∓iθ) couplings in Eq. (A.12) after the RWA.
  5. [§V] §V: the constraint that T be an integer multiple of the serrodyne period (so all pulses see the same sawtooth phase) restricts T to discrete values near 300 µs; for the n_Bragg = 4 case the period is ~30 µs, giving ~10% quantization of T. It would be worth one sentence on how this constraint scales to a moving-mirror system, where the period is tied to mirror velocity.
  6. [§III, Figs. 10–11] Typos/style: 'backpolished' → 'back-polished' (Fig. 10 caption); 'untransfered' → 'untransferred' (§III); Fig. 11 y-axis label 'population inversion' is used for MZI port populations — consider 'normalized port population' to avoid confusion with the w defined in §IV.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: standard EOM derivation plus empirical Bragg/MZI measurements against normal-Bragg baselines; nothing is forced by definition or fit.

full rationale

The paper’s load-bearing chain is (i) adiabatic elimination of a far-detuned two-level atom in counterpropagating fields to obtain the moving-mirror EOM (Eq. 1 / A.12), (ii) the elementary observation that a perfect 2π sawtooth replaces exp(±iθ(t)) by exp(±iδt) and recovers ordinary Bragg dynamics (Eq. 2), (iii) an Appendix equivalence, under a high-n rotating-wave approximation, between that EOM and a two-frequency retroreflected fountain, and (iv) direct experimental scans of population inversion, leakage, and Mach–Zehnder contrast versus sawtooth fall duration and ramp amplitude, always compared to a non-serrodyne Bragg control. The serrodyne period is set from the known resonance condition δ = 4 n_Bragg ω_r; inversion and contrast are measured observables, not normalized or fitted quantities re-labeled as predictions. Self-citations (prior Bragg and serrodyne literature) supply background technique, not a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that forces the present results. Imperfections of the sawtooth are deliberately varied and their effects reported, not absorbed into a definition. Any concern that the high-n RWA emulation may not fully capture zero-velocity reverse-Bragg coupling is a correctness/extrapolation issue, not circularity. The derivation and data are therefore self-contained; score 0.

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

The result rests on standard far-detuned Bragg atom optics, the classical serrodyne idea, and an experimentally justified equivalence between mirror motion and RF/optical phase modulation. No new particles or forces. Free parameters are apparatus settings (fall time, amplitude, phase, Ω_eff), not constants fitted to manufacture the central claim.

free parameters (4)
  • sawtooth fall duration = 0.5–16 µs (scanned)
    Scanned experimentally (0.5–16 µs); viability of the method is claimed across this range rather than derived from first principles.
  • sawtooth ramp amplitude = 0.94–1.0 × 2π
    Scanned around 2π (0.94–1.0×2π); treated as an experimental imperfection parameter.
  • sawtooth-to-pulse initial phase = selected among 10 phases in [0,2π]
    Chosen per condition as the phase minimizing squared deviation from the normal-Bragg inversion curve up to the π condition; performance depends strongly on this choice.
  • effective Rabi frequency Ω_eff and Gaussian pulse σ = σ=40 µs; Ω_eff in arb. units
    Drive strength scanned; pulse envelope fixed at σ=40 µs to map inversion and leakage.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Far-detuned two-level atom with adiabatic elimination of the excited state yields effective Bragg couplings Ω_eff=Ω²/4Δ.
    Standard Bragg atom-optics assumption used from Eq. (1) through the Appendix.
  • standard math A perfect 2π sawtooth phase ramp is equivalent to a constant frequency shift δ=2π/T_serrodyne in the Bragg EOM.
    Used to recover the usual Bragg equations (Eq. 2) from the moving-mirror phase θ(t).
  • domain assumption After transforming to the atomic fountain frame and applying the RWA at high initial n, the two-frequency stationary-mirror EOM matches the moving-mirror single-frequency EOM up to a common AC Stark term that can be dropped.
    Appendix A.12–A.16; load-bearing for claiming the AOM emulation studies the moving-mirror problem.
  • ad hoc to paper Interferometer pulse spacing T is an integer multiple of the serrodyne period so each pulse sees the same initial sawtooth phase.
    Section V operational choice required for stable MZI fringes under serrodyne drive.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Serrodyne Matterwave Optics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K5TRE6CP

@misc{pith2026260724511,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Serrodyne Matterwave Optics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K5TRE6CP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24511}
}
read the original abstract

Bragg diffraction for atom interferometry conventionally requires two laser frequencies whose difference makes the two-photon transition resonant. We show that this frequency difference can instead be generated by serrodyne modulation, allowing Bragg pulses to be driven with a single-frequency laser. The serrodyne modulation is performed using an acousto-optic modulator driven with a phase-modulated RF drive, and generated kilohertz-scale frequency shifts on top of the AOM carrier frequency. While in general serrodyne modulation generates strong unwanted frequency components, we find conditions so that the Bragg diffraction pulses, and atom interferometers constructed from them, are robust to these imperfections, opening the door to the development of ultra compact, single frequency Bragg diffraction based atom interferometers with serrodyne modulation implemented by a position modulated retroreflection mirror.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24511 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The sawtooth waveform [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Optical chain used to perform phase modulation on the interferometry laser. A tita [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Measured population inversion for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Measured population inversion as a function of effective Rabi frequency for several falling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Measured population leakage to unwanted momentum states as a function of effective [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Measured population inversion as a function of effective Rabi frequency for several ramp [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Measured population leakage to unwanted momentum states as a function of effective Rabi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. A spacetime diagram of the Mach-Zehnder interferometer (MZI) geometry. An atom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. The time-dependent effective Rabi frequency Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. MZI fringes recorded with normal and serrodyne-modulated Bragg pulses for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Measured MZI fringe contrast as a function of the falling ramp duration and the ramp [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G. M. Tino, Testing gravity with cold atom interferometry: results and prospects, Quantum Science and Technology6, 024014 (2021)

    2021

  2. [2]

    Morel, Z

    L. Morel, Z. Yao, P. Clad´ e, and S. Guellati-Kh´ elifa, Determination of the fine-structure con- stant with an accuracy of 81 parts per trillion, Nature588, 61 (2020)

    2020

  3. [3]

    Overstreet, P

    C. Overstreet, P. Asenbaum, J. Curti, M. Kim, and M. A. Kasevich, Observation of a gravi- tational Aharonov-Bohm effect, Science375, 226 (2022). 19

    2022

  4. [4]

    Lyu, J.-Q

    W. Lyu, J.-Q. Zhong, X.-W. Zhang, W. Liu, L. Zhu, W.-H. Xu, X. Chen, B. Tang, J. Wang, and M.-S. Zhan, Compact high-resolution absolute-gravity gradiometer based on atom inter- ferometers, Physical Review Applied18, 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.18.054091 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.18.054091 2022

  5. [5]

    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 interferometer, Science Advances5, 10.1126/sciadv.aax0800 (2019)

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.aax0800 2019

  6. [6]

    Devani, S

    D. Devani, S. Maddox, R. Renshaw, N. Cox, H. Sweeney, T. Cross, M. Holynski, R. Nolli, J. Winch, K. Bongs, K. Holland, D. Colebrook, N. Adams, K. Quillien, J. Buckle, A. Karde, M. Farries, T. Legg, R. Webb, C. Gawith, S. A. Berry, and L. Carpenter, Gravity sensing: cold atom trap onboard a 6U CubeSat, CEAS Space Journal12, 539 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    T. L. Gustavson, A. Landragin, and M. A. Kasevich, Rotation sensing with a dual atom- interferometer sagnac gyroscope, Classical and Quantum Gravity17, 2385–2398 (2000)

    2000

  8. [8]

    Dubetsky and M

    B. Dubetsky and M. A. Kasevich, Atom interferometer as a selective sensor of rotation or gravity, Physical Review A74, 10.1103/physreva.74.023615 (2006)

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.74.023615 2006

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    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, Enhancing the sensitivity of atom-interferometric in...

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    Salducci, Y

    C. Salducci, Y. Bidel, M. Cadoret, S. Darmon, N. Zahzam, A. Bonnin, S. Schwartz, C. Blan- chard, and A. Bresson, Quantum sensing of acceleration and rotation by interfering magneti- cally launched atoms, Science Advances10, 10.1126/sciadv.adq4498 (2024)

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    Kasevich and S

    M. Kasevich and S. Chu, Atomic interferometry using stimulated Raman transitions, Physical Review Letters67, 181 (1991)

    1991

  4. [12]

    E. Peik, M. Ben Dahan, I. Bouchoule, Y. Castin, and C. Salomon, Bloch oscillations of atoms, adiabatic rapid passage, and monokinetic atomic beams, Physical Review A55, 2989 (1997)

    1997

  5. [13]

    M¨ uller, S.-w

    H. M¨ uller, S.-w. Chiow, and S. Chu, Atom-wave diffraction between the Raman-Nath and the Bragg regime: Effective Rabi frequency, losses, and phase shifts, Physical Review A77, 10.1103/PhysRevA.77.023609 (2008)

    2008 doi

  6. [14]

    Clad´ e, S

    P. Clad´ e, S. Guellati-Kh´ elifa, F. Nez, and F. Biraben, Large momentum beam splitter using Bloch oscillations, Physical Review Letters102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.240402 (2009). 20

    2009 doi

  7. [15]

    Kovachy, S.-w

    T. Kovachy, S.-w. Chiow, and M. A. Kasevich, Adiabatic-rapid-passage multiphoton Bragg atom optics, Physical Review A86, 10.1103/PhysRevA.86.011606 (2012)

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    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, Physical Review A102, 10.1103/PhysRevA.102.053312 (2020)

    2020 doi

  9. [18]

    Sugarbaker, S

    A. Sugarbaker, S. M. Dickerson, J. M. Hogan, D. M. S. Johnson, and M. A. Kasevich, En- hanced atom interferometer readout through the application of phase shear, Physical Review Letters111, 10.1103/physrevlett.111.113002 (2013)

    2013 doi

  10. [19]

    Tennstedt, A

    B. Tennstedt, A. Rajagopalan, N. B. Weddig, S. Abend, S. Sch¨ on, and E. M. Rasel, Atom strapdown: Toward integrated quantum inertial navigation systems, NA VIGATION: Journal of the Institute of Navigation70, 10.33012/navi.604 (2023), https://navi.ion.org/content/70/4/navi.604...

    2023 doi

  11. [20]

    G. Rosi, F. Sorrentino, L. Cacciapuoti, M. Prevedelli, and G. M. Tino, Precision measurement of the newtonian gravitational constant using cold atoms, Nature510, 518–521 (2014)

    2014

  12. [22]

    L´ ev` eque, A

    T. L´ ev` eque, A. Gauguet, F. Michaud, F. Pereira Dos Santos, and A. Landragin, Enhancing the area of a Raman atom interferometer using a versatile double-diffraction technique, Physical Review Letters103, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.080405 (2009)

    2009 doi

  13. [23]

    Giese, A

    E. Giese, A. Roura, G. Tackmann, E. M. Rasel, and W. P. Schleich, Double Bragg diffraction: A tool for atom optics, Physical Review A88, 10.1103/PhysRevA.88.053608 (2013)

    2013 doi

  14. [25]

    Hartmann, J

    S. Hartmann, J. Jenewein, S. Abend, A. Roura, and E. Giese, Atomic Raman scatter- ing: Third-order diffraction in a double geometry, Physical Review A102, 10.1103/Phys- RevA.102.063326 (2020)

    2020 doi

  15. [26]

    Gauguet, T

    A. Gauguet, T. E. Mehlst¨ aubler, T. L´ ev` eque, J. Le Gou¨ et, W. Chaibi, B. Canuel, A. Cla- 21 iron, F. P. Dos Santos, and A. Landragin, Off-resonant Raman transition impact in an atom interferometer, Physical Review A78, 10.1103/PhysRevA.78.043615 (2008)

    2008 doi

  16. [27]

    R. H. Parker, C. Yu, W. Zhong, B. Estey, and H. M¨ uller, Measurement of the fine-structure constant as a test of the Standard Model, Science360, 191 (2018)

    2018

  17. [28]

    Sorrentino, K

    F. Sorrentino, K. Bongs, P. Bouyer, L. Cacciapuoti, M. de Angelis, H. Dittus, W. Ertmer, A. Giorgini, J. Hartwig, M. Hauth, S. Herrmann, M. Inguscio, E. Kajari, T. T. K¨ onemann, C. L¨ ammerzahl, A. Landragin, G. Modugno, F. Pereira dos Santos, A. Peters, M. Prevedelli, E. M. ...

    2010

  18. [29]

    K. Frye, S. Abend, W. Bartosch, A. Bawamia, D. Becker, H. Blume, C. Braxmaier, S.- W. Chiow, M. A. Efremov, W. Ertmer, P. Fierlinger, T. Franz, N. Gaaloul, J. Grosse, C. Grzeschik, O. Hellmig, V. A. Henderson, W. Herr, U. Israelsson, J. Kohel, M. Krutzik, C. K¨ urbis, C. L¨ am...

    2021

  19. [30]

    Chiow, J

    S.-w. Chiow, J. Williams, N. Yu, and H. M¨ uller, Gravity-gradient suppression in spaceborne atomic tests of the equivalence principle, Physical Review A95, 10.1103/PhysRevA.95.021603 (2017)

    2017 doi

  20. [31]

    LeDesma, K

    C. LeDesma, K. Mehling, and M. Holland, Vector atom accelerometry in an optical lattice, Science Advances11, 10.1126/sciadv.adt7480 (2025)

    2025 doi

  21. [32]

    A. V. Rakholia, H. J. McGuinness, and G. W. Biedermann, Dual-axis high-data-rate atom interferometer via cold ensemble exchange, Physical Review Applied2, 10.1103/PhysRevAp- plied.2.054012 (2014)

    2014 doi

  22. [33]

    Stolzenberg, C

    K. Stolzenberg, C. Struckmann, S. Bode, R. Li, A. Herbst, V. Vollenkemper, D. Thomas, A. Rajagopalan, E. M. Rasel, N. Gaaloul, and D. Schlippert, Multi-axis inertial sensing with 2D matter-wave arrays, Physical Review Letters134, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.143601 22 (2025)

    2025 doi

  23. [34]

    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, 10.1103/PhysRevRe- search.7.013246 (2025)

    2025 doi

  24. [35]

    J. Lee, R. Ding, J. Christensen, R. R. Rosenthal, A. Ison, D. P. Gillund, D. Bossert, K. H. Fuerschbach, W. Kindel, P. S. Finnegan, J. R. Wendt, M. Gehl, A. Kodigala, H. McGuinness, C. A. Walker, S. A. Kemme, A. Lentine, G. Biedermann, and P. D. D. Schwindt, A compact cold-ato...

    2022 doi

  25. [36]

    Bernard, Y

    J. Bernard, Y. Bidel, M. Cadoret, C. Salducci, N. Zahzam, S. Schwartz, A. Bonnin, C. Blan- chard, and A. Bresson, Atom interferometry usingσ +–σ− Raman transitions between|f= 1, mf =∓1⟩and|f= 2, m f =±1⟩, Physical Review A105, 10.1103/PhysRevA.105.033318 (2022)

    2022 doi

  26. [37]

    Perrin, J

    I. Perrin, J. Bernard, Y. Bidel, A. Bonnin, N. Zahzam, C. Blanchard, A. Bresson, and M. Cadoret, Zero-velocity atom interferometry using a retroreflected frequency-chirped laser, Physical Review A100, 10.1103/PhysRevA.100.053618 (2019)

    2019 doi

  27. [38]

    Solaro, C

    C. Solaro, C. Debavelaere, P. Clad´ e, and S. Guellati-Khelifa, Atom interferometer driven by a picosecond frequency comb, Physical Review Letters129, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.173204 (2022)

    2022 doi

  28. [39]

    Cumming, The serrodyne frequency translator, Proceedings of the IRE45, 175 (1957)

    R. Cumming, The serrodyne frequency translator, Proceedings of the IRE45, 175 (1957)

    1957

  29. [40]

    Houtz, C

    R. Houtz, C. Chan, and H. M¨ uller, Wideband, efficient optical serrodyne frequency shifting with a phase modulator and a nonlinear transmission line, Optics Express17, 19235 (2009)

    2009

  30. [41]

    D. M. S. Johnson, J. M. Hogan, S.-w. Chiow, and M. A. Kasevich, Broadband optical serrodyne frequency shifting, Optics Letters35, 745 (2010)

    2010

  31. [42]

    Kovachy, J

    T. Kovachy, J. M. Hogan, D. M. S. Johnson, and M. A. Kasevich, Optical lattices as waveg- uides and beam splitters for atom interferometry: An analytical treatment and proposal of applications, Physical Review A82, 10.1103/PhysRevA.82.013638 (2010). 23

    2010 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.