Talk:Atom interferometer

Old comments??

The video for this article seems unrelated and biased as an advertising agent for NASA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.196.20.77 (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The claim that light is not subject to gravity is incorrect. The discussion following this claim will therefore require a better justification.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atom interferometer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150614082636/http://www.research.physics.berkeley.edu/packard/related/Gyros/LaserRingGyro/Steadman/StedmanReview1997.pdf to http://www.research.physics.berkeley.edu/packard/related/Gyros/LaserRingGyro/Steadman/StedmanReview1997.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Atom not atomic.

@Nerd271 Sorry but I reverted the change of Atom -> Atomic. Even the reference you added calls it Atom: "Atom Wave Interferometry with Diffraction Gratings of Light". I know it seems logical but that is not the terminology used.

Also the laser beam aspect belongs in the body rather that the first sentence. Atom interference predates lasers. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

But some other sources that I have consulted, including Hecht's Optics and the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology use "atomic" instead. Atomic interferometry today uses lasers, as Hecht explains. This is a well-known textbook. I will restore this bit. Nerd271 (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the lead should be very concise, very focused, with just essential information about the interferometry using atoms. Then ideally the rest acts like summary of the article.

In that spirit I think the information that other sources use "Atomic" belongs in the lead paragraph. Sorry I didn't realize that Hecht used "atomic" since your ref used "atom". (I would appreciate the page number in Hecht if possible, I couldn't find his discussion).

The laser bit however seems like an important detail. One could say "Atoms are manipulated in vacuum chambers" or any number of other observations related to the mechanism of these experiments. Vacuum chamber are actually required, but lasers are an issue of practically. Thus to me the sentence on lasers looks stuck in.

If we had a section laser cooling applied to atoms for interferometry, then a sentence in the lead would be great. Can we do that? Johnjbarton (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The reference to Hecht's book includes page numbers; they are 420-1.

Please include a section detailing the use of lasers. Nerd271 (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)