Physical Review A

Reply to “Comment on ‘Perturbative operator approach to high-precision light-pulse atom interferometry' ”

Christian Ufrecht, Enno Giese

Published Aug 20, 2020• 1 citation

Abstract

Recently, we introduced [C. Ufrecht and E. Giese, Phys. Rev. A 101, 053615 (2020)] a technique to calculate the phase of light-pulse atom interferometers caused by the presence of perturbation potentials and underlined its power by an illustrative example. In the preceding Comment [B. Dubetsky, Phys. Rev. A 102, 027301 (2020)], it was pointed out that other, less idealized situations could have been calculated as well. Our Reply emphasizes that our method is correct, the results from our example can be trivially generalized to other perturbations, and intricate effects of local environments can be even more prominent but also treated by our technique.

DOI: 10.1103/physreva.102.027302

Related papers

Perturbative operator approach to high-precision light-pulse atom interferometry

Christian Ufrecht, Enno Giese

Light-pulse atom interferometers are powerful quantum sensors, however, their accuracy for example in tests of the weak equivalence principle is limited by various spurious influences like stray magnetic fields or blackbody radiation. Improving the accuracy therefore requires a detailed assessment of the size of such deleterious effects. Here we present a systematic operator expansion to obtain phase shift and contrast analytically in powers of a perturbation potential. The result can either be employed for robust straightforward order-of-magnitude estimates or for rigorous calculations. Together with general conditions for the validity of the approach, we provide a particularly useful formula for the phase including wave-packet effects.

arXiv:2003.02042Physical Review AMay 8, 202026 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘One-state vector formalism for the evolution of a quantum state through nested Mach-Zehnder interferometers’ ”

Karol Bartkiewicz, Antonín Černoch, Dalibor Javůrek +3 more

In our recent paper [Phys. Rev. A 91, 012103 (2015)] we have provided an alternative description of a highly debated experiment by Danan et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 240402 (2013)]. The former paper has been recently commented on by Vaidman [Phys. Rev. A 93, 036103 (2016)]. In this Reply we demonstrate that the comments are either invalid or, where valid, do not affect the results of our original paper.

Physical Review AMar 31, 20167 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Coherent-state path integrals in the continuum’”

G. Kordas, S. I. Mistakidis, A. I. Karanikas

In this Reply we briefly clarify the main points of our method to construct coherent-state path integrals in the continuum and we reply to the critique raised by in the preceding Comment by Kochetov [Phys. Rev. A 99, 026101 (2019)]. By using definite examples, we prove that our approach is capable of resolving the inconsistencies accompanying the standard coherent-state path-integral representation of interacting systems.

Physical Review AFeb 13, 20193 citations

Reply to ‘‘Comment on ‘Further investigations of the operationally defined quantum phase’ ’’

J. W. Noh, A. Fougères, L. Mandeļ

It is pointed out in response to Hradil and Bajer [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 48, 1717 (1993)] that C${\mathrm{^}}_{\mathit{M}}$ and S${\mathrm{^}}_{\mathit{M}}$ cannot both be measured together by scheme 1, whereas they can by scheme 2. There is no phase angle whose cosine and sine both vanish, and putting C+iS equal to zero for certain measurement outcomes breaks the connection with phase.

Physical Review AAug 1, 19936 citations

Reply II to “Comment on ‘Some implications of the quantum nature of laser fields for quantum computations’ ”

Julio R. Gea-Banacloche

I show that there is no contradiction between the results in my original paper [Phys. Rev. A 65, 022308 (2002)] and Itano's claims in the previous Comment. The error probabilities I calculated from quantum field fluctuations can equivalently be obtained by considering the probability of spontaneous emission by the atom into the field modes that make up the laser pulse.

arXiv:quant-ph/0212027Physical Review AOct 14, 200317 citations

Comment on “Perturbative operator approach to high-precision light-pulse atom interferometry”

B. Dubetsky

An anomaly of the Earth's gravitational field could increase the second-order gravity-gradient tensor more than an order of magnitude and third-order gravity-gradient tensor more than four orders of magnitude. As a result an estimate of the systematic error in the atomic gravimetry considered in the article by Utrecht and Giese [Phys. Rev. A 101, 053615 (2020)] should be proportionally enlarged.

Physical Review AAug 20, 20201 citation