Quick Navigation

Topics

Quantum Algorithms

Faraday-Ramsey rotation measurement in a thin cell as an analogy to an atomic beam

arXiv
Authors: Mark Dikopoltsev, Eliran Talker, Yefim Barash, Noa Mazurski, Uriel Levy

Year

2024

Paper ID

38366

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

99

Citations

N/A

Abstract

Atomic beams are powerful tools for measuring spin coherence in hot vapors but require bulky setups, limiting device miniaturization. We demonstrate that micron-thin vapor cells can mimic atomic beam behavior by exploiting geometry-dependent velocity filtering. In a 5 μm rubidium cell, coherence is preserved for atoms moving parallel to the cell walls, enabling observation of the Faraday-Ramsey effect without buffer gas or anti-relaxation coatings. Using a spatially displaced pump-probe scheme and magnetic field scanning, we achieve clear Ramsey fringes and validate our model experimentally. This technique offers a compact alternative to atomic beam systems, supporting scalable sensors and frequency standards.

Why This Paper Matters

  • It adds a 2024 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • Atomic beams are powerful tools for measuring spin coherence in hot vapors but require bulky setups, limiting device miniaturization.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #38366 #68472 Non-equilibirum physics of dens... #68468 Error Exponents for Quantum Pac... #68462 Quantum Speed Limit under Calib... #68459 Expanding quantum magnetic field

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.