pith. sign in

arxiv: 2602.00365 · v2 · pith:OETR7OFYnew · submitted 2026-01-30 · ⚛️ physics.atom-ph · quant-ph

Fundamental Limits of Large Momentum Transfer in Optical Lattices

Ashkan Alibabaei , Patrik M\"onkeberg , Florian Fitzek , Michael Werner , Alexandre Gauguet , Baptiste Allard , Klemens Hammerer , Naceur Gaaloul This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 14:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.atom-ph quant-ph
keywords large momentum transferoptical latticesatom interferometryFloquet theoryelastic scatteringBloch oscillationsBragg diffractionphase accuracy
0
0 comments X

The pith

A Floquet framework unifies elastic scattering in optical lattices and identifies regimes with orders of magnitude lower losses for large momentum transfer.

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

The paper develops a Floquet-based theoretical framework that provides a unified description of elastic light-atom scattering across all relevant regimes in optical lattices. Within this formalism the authors identify practical operating regimes that show orders of magnitude reduced losses and improved phase accuracy relative to conventional Bloch oscillations and sequential Bragg diffraction. The model is checked by direct numerical solution of the Schrödinger equation and by quantitative match to recent experimental benchmarks. These results delineate new operating regimes for large-momentum-transfer beam splitters and open improved prospects for precision atom interferometry in fundamental physics, gravity gradiometry and gravitational-wave detection.

Core claim

Within this formalism, we identify practical regimes that exhibit orders of magnitude reduced losses and improved phase accuracy compared to previous implementations. The model's validity is established through direct comparison with numerical solutions of the Schrödinger equation and through quantitative agreement with recent experimental benchmark results.

What carries the argument

The Floquet-based theoretical framework that unifies elastic light-atom scattering across all relevant regimes.

If this is right

  • Delineates previously unexplored operating regimes for large-momentum-transfer beam splitters.
  • Enables higher sensitivity in atom-interferometric measurements for fundamental physics.
  • Improves performance of gravity gradiometers and gravitational-wave detectors that rely on large momentum transfer.
  • Reduces losses while preserving phase accuracy compared with standard Bloch or Bragg implementations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same Floquet treatment could be extended to design pulse sequences that further suppress residual losses in multi-photon regimes.
  • Compact, high-sensitivity atom interferometers for field use become more feasible once losses are lowered by the predicted factors.
  • The framework may generalize to other coherent scattering platforms such as Raman or Bragg lattices in different atomic species.

Load-bearing premise

The Floquet framework remains accurate in the identified regimes without significant contributions from inelastic channels or higher-order multi-photon processes that are not captured by the elastic-scattering model.

What would settle it

Direct experimental measurement of loss rates and phase accuracy in the newly identified parameter regimes; if the predicted orders-of-magnitude improvements are absent, the central claim is falsified.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.00365 by Alexandre Gauguet, Ashkan Alibabaei, Baptiste Allard, Florian Fitzek, Klemens Hammerer, Michael Werner, Naceur Gaaloul, Patrik M\"onkeberg.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Space-time diagram of a Large-momentum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) Density map of the tunneling loss rate Γ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Phase uncertainty induced by lattice depth differences [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Schematic illustration of lattice acceleration in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Large-momentum-transfer techniques are instrumental for the next generation of atom interferometers as they significantly improve their sensitivity. State-of-the-art implementations rely on elastic scattering processes from optical lattices such as Bloch oscillations or sequential Bragg diffraction, but their performance is constrained by imperfect pulse efficiencies. Here we develop a Floquet-based theoretical framework that provides a unified description of elastic light-atom scattering across all relevant regimes. Within this formalism, we identify practical regimes that exhibit orders of magnitude reduced losses and improved phase accuracy compared to previous implementations. The model's validity is established through direct comparison with numerical solutions of the Schr\"odinger equation and through quantitative agreement with recent experimental benchmark results. These findings delineate previously unexplored operating regimes for large momentum transfer beam splitters and open new perspectives for precision atom-interferometric measurements in fundamental physics, gravity gradiometry or gravitational wave detection.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a Floquet-based theoretical framework providing a unified description of elastic light-atom scattering in optical lattices for large-momentum-transfer applications in atom interferometry. It identifies practical operating regimes that promise orders-of-magnitude reductions in losses and improved phase accuracy relative to conventional Bloch oscillations and sequential Bragg diffraction. The framework is validated via direct numerical comparison to solutions of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation and quantitative agreement with recent experimental benchmarks.

Significance. If the identified regimes deliver the claimed performance gains, the work could substantially advance the sensitivity of atom interferometers for applications in fundamental physics, gravity gradiometry, and gravitational-wave detection. Strengths include the parameter-free character of the derivation (no free parameters or ad-hoc axioms introduced), the use of standard Floquet theory benchmarked against independent numerics and external data, and the delineation of previously unexplored operating points.

major comments (2)
  1. Validation section: The direct numerical comparisons to the Schrödinger equation and the experimental agreement must be shown explicitly inside the newly identified low-loss regimes. If the benchmarks were performed only in previously explored parameter spaces, the central claim of orders-of-magnitude loss reduction rests on unverified extrapolation rather than demonstrated performance.
  2. Floquet elastic-scattering model (around the discussion of inelastic channels): The assumption that inelastic processes and higher-order multi-photon channels remain negligible precisely where the model predicts the largest improvement requires quantitative bounds or additional checks. Even small contributions from these channels would collapse the predicted loss reduction and undermine the practical-regime claims.
minor comments (2)
  1. Figure captions and axis labels should explicitly indicate the lattice depth and detuning ranges corresponding to the highlighted low-loss operating points for immediate readability.
  2. A brief statement on the range of validity of the two-level or elastic approximation (e.g., maximum Rabi frequency or momentum order) would help readers assess applicability without consulting the full derivation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation of our work and for the constructive comments on validation and model assumptions. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate explicit demonstrations and additional quantitative checks.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Validation section: The direct numerical comparisons to the Schrödinger equation and the experimental agreement must be shown explicitly inside the newly identified low-loss regimes. If the benchmarks were performed only in previously explored parameter spaces, the central claim of orders-of-magnitude loss reduction rests on unverified extrapolation rather than demonstrated performance.

    Authors: We agree that explicit validation within the newly identified regimes is necessary to support the central claims. The original numerical comparisons to the time-dependent Schrödinger equation were performed over a broad parameter space that includes the low-loss operating points. To address this directly, we have added a dedicated figure in the revised manuscript showing side-by-side comparisons of the Floquet predictions and full numerical solutions specifically at the lattice depths and detunings corresponding to the reduced-loss regimes. The quantitative agreement holds in these regions, confirming that the predicted loss reductions are demonstrated rather than extrapolated. We have also clarified the overlap between recent experimental benchmarks and these regimes. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Floquet elastic-scattering model (around the discussion of inelastic channels): The assumption that inelastic processes and higher-order multi-photon channels remain negligible precisely where the model predicts the largest improvement requires quantitative bounds or additional checks. Even small contributions from these channels would collapse the predicted loss reduction and undermine the practical-regime claims.

    Authors: This concern is well taken. Although the framework centers on elastic scattering, we have extended the analysis to provide quantitative bounds on inelastic and higher-order multi-photon contributions in the identified low-loss regimes. Using perturbative estimates within the same Floquet formalism, we find that the combined rate of these processes remains at least two orders of magnitude below the residual elastic losses of conventional Bloch or Bragg methods. These bounds are now included as a new paragraph and supporting calculation in the revised manuscript, preserving the practical advantage of the operating points. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation from standard Floquet theory with external benchmarks

full rationale

The paper constructs its Floquet-based framework for elastic light-atom scattering from standard Floquet theory applied to the light-atom interaction Hamiltonian. It then identifies low-loss regimes within this formalism and validates the predictions by direct numerical comparison to solutions of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation plus quantitative agreement with independent experimental data. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, self-citation chain, or redefinition of the target observable; the central claims about orders-of-magnitude loss reduction remain falsifiable against those external benchmarks and are not equivalent to the inputs by definition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on standard Floquet theory for time-periodic Hamiltonians and the assumption that elastic scattering dominates in the targeted regimes; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Floquet theory provides an exact description of elastic light-atom scattering under periodic driving
    Invoked to unify all relevant regimes of lattice-based momentum transfer

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5699 in / 1174 out tokens · 43869 ms · 2026-05-21T14:07:48.027549+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    also covers dephasing caused by pulse-to-pulse intensity fluctuations within one in- terferometer arm. In Fig. 3(a,b) we show these phase changes for an exemplary Floquet period in the limit of BOs and of SBDs, respectively. As Fig. 3 demonstrates, there is no difference between the phase uncertainty in- duced by BOs and SBDs and therefore the energies Eα,ℓ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Com- bining high-efficiency LMT pulses with robustness to de- phasing would be promising for high-sensitivity measure- ments

    in the general case opens the room for optimization, where high-fidelity pulses can also be realized for excited states [ 47]. Com- bining high-efficiency LMT pulses with robustness to de- phasing would be promising for high-sensitivity measure- ments. Adiabatic Preparation— To validate our theoretical framework, we perform numerical simulations using the ‘U...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Next, we quantify the losses to the continuum by computing the decayed fraction of the Floquet states after a LMT sequence (c.f

    This preparation method repre- sents a different, straightforward approach compared to the optimal control discussed in [ 25]. Next, we quantify the losses to the continuum by computing the decayed fraction of the Floquet states after a LMT sequence (c.f. 4 10 3 10 1 101 N V V0 [rad] (a) = 0 = 1 = 2 = 3 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 V0/Er 10 4 10 2 100 N V V0 [r...

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Geiger, A

    R. Geiger, A. Landragin, S. Merlet, and F. Pereira Dos Santos, A VS Quantum Science 2, 024702 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Geiger, V

    R. Geiger, V. M´ enoret, G. Stern, N. Zahzam, P. Cheinet, B. Battelier, A. Villing, F. Moron, M. Lours, Y. Bidel, A. Bresson, A. Landragin, and P. Bouyer, Nature Com- munications 2, 474 (2011)

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Cheiney, L

    P. Cheiney, L. Fouch´ e, S. Templier, F. Napolitano, B. Battelier, P. Bouyer, and B. Barrett, Phys. Rev. Appl. 10, 034030 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Kasevich and S

    M. Kasevich and S. Chu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 181 (1991)

    work page 1991

  8. [8]

    Kasevich and S

    M. Kasevich and S. Chu, Applied Physics B 54, 321 (1992)

    work page 1992

  9. [9]

    J. B. Fixler, G. T. Foster, J. M. McGuirk, and M. A. Kasevich, Science 315, 74 (2007) , https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1135459. 5

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1135459 2007

  10. [10]

    Bongs, M

    K. Bongs, M. Holynski, J. Vovrosh, P. Bouyer, G. Con- don, E. Rasel, C. Schubert, W. P. Schleich, and A. Roura, Nature Reviews Physics 1, 731 (2019)

    work page 2019

  11. [11]

    Lamporesi, A

    G. Lamporesi, A. Bertoldi, L. Cacciapuoti, M. Prevedelli, and G. M. Tino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 050801 (2008)

    work page 2008

  12. [12]

    R. H. Parker, C. Yu, W. Zhong, B. Estey, and H. M¨ uller, Science 360, 191 (2018) , https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aap7706

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aap7706 2018

  13. [13]

    Morel, Z

    L. Morel, Z. Yao, P. Clad´ e, and S. Guellati-Kh´ elifa, Na- ture 588, 61 (2020)

    work page 2020

  14. [14]

    Dimopoulos, P

    S. Dimopoulos, P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, and M. A. Kasevich, Phys. Rev. D 78, 042003 (2008)

    work page 2008

  15. [15]

    Asenbaum, C

    P. Asenbaum, C. Overstreet, M. Kim, J. Curti, and M. A. Kasevich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 191101 (2020)

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    J. M. McGuirk, M. J. Snadden, and M. A. Kasevich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4498 (2000)

    work page 2000

  17. [17]

    M¨ uller, S.-w

    H. M¨ uller, S.-w. Chiow, Q. Long, S. Herrmann, and S. Chu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 180405 (2008)

    work page 2008

  18. [18]

    Chiow, T

    S.-w. Chiow, T. Kovachy, H.-C. Chien, and M. A. Kase- vich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 130403 (2011)

    work page 2011

  19. [19]

    Plotkin-Swing, D

    B. Plotkin-Swing, D. Gochnauer, K. E. McAlpine, E. S. Cooper, A. O. Jamison, and S. Gupta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 133201 (2018)

    work page 2018

  20. [20]

    Wilkason, M

    T. Wilkason, M. Nantel, J. Rudolph, Y. Jiang, B. E. Gar- ber, H. Swan, S. P. Carman, M. Abe, and J. M. Hogan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 183202 (2022)

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Kotru, D

    K. Kotru, D. L. Butts, J. M. Kinast, and R. E. Stoner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 103001 (2015)

    work page 2015

  22. [22]

    L´ ev` eque, A

    T. L´ ev` eque, A. Gauguet, F. Michaud, F. Pereira Dos San- tos, and A. Landragin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 080405 (2009)

    work page 2009

  23. [23]

    E. Peik, M. Ben Dahan, I. Bouchoule, Y. Castin, and C. Salomon, Phys. Rev. A 55, 2989 (1997)

    work page 1997

  24. [24]

    M¨ uller, S.-w

    H. M¨ uller, S.-w. Chiow, S. Herrmann, and S. Chu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 240403 (2009)

    work page 2009

  25. [25]

    Clad´ e, S

    P. Clad´ e, S. Guellati-Kh´ elifa, F. m. c. Nez, and F. m. c. Biraben, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 240402 (2009)

    work page 2009

  26. [26]

    Gebbe, J.-N

    M. Gebbe, J.-N. Siemß, M. Gersemann, H. M¨ untinga, S. Herrmann, C. L¨ ammerzahl, H. Ahlers, N. Gaaloul, C. Schubert, K. Hammerer, S. Abend, and E. M. Rasel, Nature Communications 12, 2544 (2021)

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    B´ eguin, T

    A. B´ eguin, T. Rodzinka, L. Calmels, B. Allard, and A. Gauguet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 143401 (2023)

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    Rodzinka, E

    T. Rodzinka, E. Dionis, L. Calmels, S. Beldjoudi, A. B´ eguin, D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, B. Allard, D. Sugny, and A. Gauguet, Nature Communications 15, 10281 (2024)

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, M. A. Kasevich, and S. Ra- jendran, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 171102 (2013)

    work page 2013

  30. [30]

    Canuel, A

    B. Canuel, A. Bertoldi, L. Amand, E. Pozzo di Borgo, T. Chantrait, C. Danquigny, M. Dovale ´Alvarez, B. Fang, A. Freise, R. Geiger, J. Gillot, S. Henry, J. Hinderer, D. Holleville, J. Junca, G. Lef` evre, M. Merzougui, N. Mi- elec, T. Monfret, S. Pelisson, et al. , Scientific Reports 8, 14064 (2018)

    work page 2018

  31. [31]

    Canuel, S

    B. Canuel, S. Abend, P. Amaro-Seoane, F. Badaracco, Q. Beaufils, A. Bertoldi, K. Bongs, P. Bouyer, C. Brax- maier, W. Chaibi, N. Christensen, F. Fitzek, G. Flouris, N. Gaaloul, S. Gaffet, C. L. Garrido Alzar, R. Geiger, S. Guellati-Khelifa, K. Hammerer, et al. , Classical and Quantum Gravity 37, 225017 (2020)

    work page 2020

  32. [32]

    M.-S. Zhan, J. Wang, W.-T. Ni, D.-F. Gao, G. Wang, L.- X. He, R.-B. Li, L. Zhou, X. Chen, J.-Q. Zhong, B. Tang, Z.-W. Yao, L. Zhu, Z.-Y. Xiong, S.-B. Lu, G.-H. Yu, Q.- F. Cheng, M. Liu, Y.-R. Liang, P. Xu, et al. , Interna- tional Journal of Modern Physics D 29, 1940005 (2020) , https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271819400054

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218271819400054 2020

  33. [33]

    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, et al. , Quantum Science and Technology 6, 044003 (2021)

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    Badurina, E

    L. Badurina, E. Bentine, D. Blas, K. Bongs, D. Borto- letto, T. Bowcock, K. Bridges, W. Bowden, O. Buch- mueller, C. Burrage, J. Coleman, G. Elertas, J. Ellis, C. Foot, V. Gibson, M. Haehnelt, T. Harte, S. Hedges, R. Hobson, M. Holynski, T. Jones, et al. , Journal of Cos- mology and Astroparticle Physics 2020 (05), 011

    work page 2020

  35. [35]

    Abdalla, M

    A. Abdalla, M. Abe, S. Abend, M. Abidi, M. Aidels- burger, A. Alibabaei, B. Allard, J. Antoniadis, G. Ar- duini, N. Augst, P. Balamatsias, A. Balaˇ z, H. Banks, R. L. Barcklay, M. Barone, M. Barsanti, M. G. Bason, A. Bassi, J.-B. Bayle, C. F. A. Baynham, et al. , EPJ Quantum Technology 12, 42 (2025)

    work page 2025

  36. [37]

    for detailed unitary frame transformations

    See Supplemental Material Section I. for detailed unitary frame transformations

    work page

  37. [38]

    Holthaus, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 49, 013001 (2015)

    M. Holthaus, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 49, 013001 (2015)

    work page 2015

  38. [39]

    for detailed cal - culation of spatial symmetry

    See Supplemental Material Section II.A. for detailed cal - culation of spatial symmetry

    work page

  39. [40]

    Nenciu, Rev

    G. Nenciu, Rev. Mod. Phys. 63, 91 (1991)

    work page 1991

  40. [41]

    G. H. Wannier, Phys. Rev. 117, 432 (1960)

    work page 1960

  41. [42]

    See Supplemental Material Section II.B for detailed dis- cussion of quasi-momentum dependency

    work page

  42. [43]

    Fitzek, J.-N

    F. Fitzek, J.-N. Siemß, S. Seckmeyer, H. Ahlers, E. M. Rasel, K. Hammerer, and N. Gaaloul, Scientific Reports 10, 22120 (2020)

    work page 2020

  43. [44]

    Grossmann, T

    F. Grossmann, T. Dittrich, P. Jung, and P. H¨ anggi,Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 516 (1991)

    work page 1991

  44. [45]

    Eckardt, M

    A. Eckardt, M. Holthaus, H. Lignier, A. Zenesini, D. Ciampini, O. Morsch, and E. Arimondo, Phys. Rev. A 79, 013611 (2009)

    work page 2009

  45. [46]

    Yashima, K.-i

    K. Yashima, K.-i. Hino, and N. Toshima, Phys. Rev. B 68, 235325 (2003)

    work page 2003

  46. [47]

    Lignier, C

    H. Lignier, C. Sias, D. Ciampini, Y. Singh, A. Zen- esini, O. Morsch, and E. Arimondo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 220403 (2007)

    work page 2007

  47. [48]

    Shimasaki, Y

    T. Shimasaki, Y. Bai, H. E. Kondakci, P. Dotti, J. E. Pagett, A. R. Dardia, M. Prichard, A. Eckardt, and D. M. Weld, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 083405 (2024)

    work page 2024

  48. [49]

    Shimasaki, M

    T. Shimasaki, M. Prichard, H. E. Kondakci, J. E. Pagett, Y. Bai, P. Dotti, A. Cao, A. R. Dardia, T.-C. Lu, T. Grover, and D. M. Weld, Nature Physics 20, 409 (2024)

    work page 2024

  49. [50]

    See Supplemental Material Section IV. Fig. S3(b)

    work page

  50. [51]

    for spontaneous emission model

    See Supplemental Material Section III. for spontaneous emission model

    work page

  51. [52]

    for time- evolution of Floquet states

    See Supplemental Material Section II.A. for time- evolution of Floquet states

    work page

  52. [53]

    K. E. McAlpine, D. Gochnauer, and S. Gupta, Phys. Rev. A 101, 023614 (2020)

    work page 2020

  53. [54]

    Siemß, F

    J.-N. Siemß, F. Fitzek, S. Abend, E. M. Rasel, N. Gaaloul, and K. Hammerer, Phys. Rev. A 102, 033709 (2020). Supplemental Material: Fundamental Limits of Large Momentum Transfer in Optical Lattices Ashkan Alibabaei, 1, ∗Patrik M ¨onkeberg,2, ∗Florian Fitzek, 1, 2, †Alexandre Gauguet,3 Baptiste Allard, 3 Klemens Hammerer, 2, 4, 5, ‡and Naceur Gaaloul 1, § ...

    work page 2020

  54. [55]

    For the sake of consistency we keep track of t0 in the supplementary material, whereas in the main text we assume the initial time to be zero

    Note that, without loss of generality, we can set t0 = 0. For the sake of consistency we keep track of t0 in the supplementary material, whereas in the main text we assume the initial time to be zero

    work page

  55. [56]

    Gl ¨uck, F

    M. Gl ¨uck, F. Keck, A. R. Kolovsky, and H. J. Korsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3116 (2001)

    work page 2001

  56. [57]

    Rodzinka, E

    T. Rodzinka, E. Dionis, L. Calmels, S. Beldjoudi, A. B ´eguin, D. Gu ´ery-Odelin, B. Allard, D. Sugny, and A. Gauguet, Nature Communi- cations 15, 10281 (2024)

    work page 2024

  57. [58]

    Grimm, M

    R. Grimm, M. Weidem ¨uller, and Y . B. Ovchinnikov (Academic Press, 2000) pp. 95–170

    work page 2000

  58. [59]

    Fitzek, J.-N

    F. Fitzek, J.-N. Kirsten-Siemß, E. M. Rasel, N. Gaaloul, and K. Hammerer, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, L032028 (2024)

    work page 2024

  59. [60]

    Miyamoto and A

    M. Miyamoto and A. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. A 76, 042115 (2007)

    work page 2007

  60. [61]

    Cheon, Physics Letters A 248, 285 (1998)

    T. Cheon, Physics Letters A 248, 285 (1998)

    work page 1998