Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

The European Physical Journal Special Topics

Closure of an atom interferometer with a nearby oscillating pendulum

Michael Manicchia, Jens Berdahl, Takaho Tsubakiyama, Frank A. Narducci

Published Dec 4, 2025• 2 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1140/epjs/s11734-025-02067-z

Related papers

Two dimensional analysis of a free oscillation atom interferometer

Rudra Kafle, Alex A. Zozulya

Bulletin of the American Physical Society•Feb 28, 2012•0 citations

Achieving long interaction times with a free-oscillation atom interferometer

Adam Fallon, Robert H. Leonard, R. A. Horne +2 more

Bulletin of the American Physical Society•Jun 6, 2013•0 citations

Entanglement witness for combined atom interferometer-mechanical oscillator setup

Gayathrini Premawardhana, Deven P. Bowman, Jacob M. Taylor

We investigate how to entangle an atom interferometer and a macroscopic mechanical oscillator to create nonclassical states of the oscillator. This work is done in the context of an experimental-theoretical collaboration that aims to implement the proposal in the paper “Using an Atom Interferometer to Infer Gravitational Entanglement Generation,” written by Carney . []. Here, we propose an entanglement witness (EW), from whose violation the generation of entanglement can be determined. We do this for three scenarios: the noiseless case, when including thermal noise, and with atomic dephasing. Thermal noise can arise from two sources: the first being when the oscillator starts in a thermal state, and the second when a continuous thermal bath is in contact with the oscillator. We find that for the appropriate oscillator quality factor Q , violation always exists for any value of coupling λ and thermal occupancy n ¯ . Cooling the oscillator to its ground state provides an O ( n ¯ ) improvement in the EW violation than when starting in a thermal state; in this case, we find that couplings of λ = 10 − 4.5 require at least ∼ 10 5.2 measurements for violation to be observed. For atomic dephasing, we find that EW violation can exist for an atom interferometer with a coherence time of 600 s, which is the parameter our experimental collaborators hope to reach. Finally, we consider how to use magnetic interactions to realize this idea within the context of the torsional pendulum that has been planned for our collaboration.

arXiv:2503.09990•Physical Review Research•Sep 19, 2025•0 citations

Contribution to the theory of atom interferometers

Charles Antoine, Christian Bordé

•Jan 1, 2004•0 citations

Atom interferometry and quantum optics

Herman C. W. Beijerinck, K. A. H. van Leeuwen

•Jan 1, 2007•0 citations

Wave-particle duality: suggestion for an experiment

Rathindra Nath Sen

Feynman contended that the double-slit experiment contained the `only mystery' in quantum mechanics. The mystery was that electrons traverse the interferometer as waves, but are detected as particles. This note was motivated by the question whether single electrons can be detected as waves. It suggests a double-slit interferometry experiment with atoms of noble gases in which it may be possible to detect an individual atom as a probability wave, using a detector which can execute two different types of simple harmonic motion: as a simple pendulum, and as a torsion pendulum. In the experiment, a torsional oscillation will never be induced by the impact of a probability wave, but will always be induced by the impact of a particle. Detection as a wave is contingent on the atom interacting much more strongly with the macroscopic detector as a whole than with its microscopic constituents. This requirement may be more difficult to meet with electrons, protons, neutrons or photons than with atoms.

arXiv:1201.5304•Jan 23, 2012•0 citations
We investigate how to entangle an atom interferometer and a macroscopic mechanical oscillator to create nonclassical states of the oscillator. This work is done in the context of an experimental-theoretical collaboration that aims to implement the proposal in the paper “Using an Atom Interferometer to Infer Gravitational Entanglement Generation,” written by Carney . []. Here, we propose an entanglement witness (EW), from whose violation the generation of entanglement can be determined. We do this for three scenarios: the noiseless case, when including thermal noise, and with atomic dephasing. Thermal noise can arise from two sources: the first being when the oscillator starts in a thermal state, and the second when a continuous thermal bath is in contact with the oscillator. We find that for the appropriate oscillator quality factor Q , violation always exists for any value of coupling λ and thermal occupancy n ¯ . Cooling the oscillator to its ground state provides an O ( n ¯ ) improvement in the EW violation than when starting in a thermal state; in this case, we find that couplings of λ = 10 − 4.5 require at least ∼ 10 5.2 measurements for violation to be observed. For atomic dephasing, we find that EW violation can exist for an atom interferometer with a coherence time of 600 s, which is the parameter our experimental collaborators hope to reach. Finally, we consider how to use magnetic interactions to realize this idea within the context of the torsional pendulum that has been planned for our collaboration.
Feynman contended that the double-slit experiment contained the `only mystery' in quantum mechanics. The mystery was that electrons traverse the interferometer as waves, but are detected as particles. This note was motivated by the question whether single electrons can be detected as waves. It suggests a double-slit interferometry experiment with atoms of noble gases in which it may be possible to detect an individual atom as a probability wave, using a detector which can execute two different types of simple harmonic motion: as a simple pendulum, and as a torsion pendulum. In the experiment, a torsional oscillation will never be induced by the impact of a probability wave, but will always be induced by the impact of a particle. Detection as a wave is contingent on the atom interacting much more strongly with the macroscopic detector as a whole than with its microscopic constituents. This requirement may be more difficult to meet with electrons, protons, neutrons or photons than with atoms.