Canon EOS 5D Mark II
ƒ/4
24 mm
1/250
4000

On Sunday, I toured the 30 ft. tall atom fountain in the bowels of Stanford… an atom interferometer that will test the equivalence principle of Einstein’s theory of general relativity…. Does everything experience the same local gravitational pull form the Earth, regardless of mass?

It’s the working end of Puzzle 94

From the bottom of this vertical tube, Rb85 and Rb87 atoms shoot up and then fall back by gravity in a race, like the hammer and feather on the moon, but with insane precision.

Their position is only resolved by observation on their return. At apogee near the top of this photo, they are in a cloud spread over 10 centimeters of superposition.

Jason Hogan and team hopes to detect differences in gravity to 15 or maybe 16 decimal places. If they see a difference, it could suggest a fifth fundamental force (beyond electromagnetism, gravity, strong and weak forces) that operates over long distances (meters to Earths).

Interestingly, this work started in Steven Chu’s group (now head of the DOE) using a 10x smaller cesium fountain.

And a similarly short cesium fountain is the NIST atomic clock (the primary time and frequency standard in the U.S.).

10 responses to “Atomic Fountain”

  1. So fascinating! 16 decimal places?! Whoa!

  2. Steve –
    I just wrote a blog entry about what I look at when surfing the web…and I told everyone I go to your Flikr site!

    serenityinthegarden.blogspot.com/

    if you have a problem with it please let me know….who knew you would be the focus of a garden blog?

    Jan Johnsen

  3. Yeah… ~150 nanokelvin inside =)
    Jan – thanks!

    Went with my son. More detailsUnweaving the RainbowPipes + WiresWhat’s That? (94)

  4. I don’t get the superposition at the top? Velocities so slow, why not able to "see" the individual atoms? (Forgive me if this is obvious, not a physicist)…

  5. I’m not certain, but my guess is that it’s not a matter of being able to observe things, but rather a choice not to observe things, so as to preserve the quantumness of the system.

  6. I think we are addressing different questions.

    The experiment is based on the quantum nature of atom waves and thus, it is impossible to measure absolute positions of atoms "in flight".

    Particularly, an arrangement of laser pulses is used as beam splitter to make a coherence supperposition of atomic states with different initial velocities (upward). The phases of these waves are different according to the "paths followed" by the atoms. On their return, the atomic waves interfering and the interference fringes account for their phase difference. Thus, the phase shift between atoms that followed different paths can be precisely measured.

    On the other hand, the Einstein Equivalence Principle (EEP) can be written in terms of this phase shift and then the predictions of the General Relativity theory can be tested.

    Alternatively, the experiment can be described as a measurement of the gravitational redshift. According the EEP, there will be no variations the frequency of a "clock" other than those caused by gravity, that is, the gravitational redshift. A "clock" is any oscillating system. Here, the clocks are the (quantum waves of) the atoms. The gravitational redshift will decrease the oscillation frequency of the lower clock relative to the higher one. When we bring the clocks together afterwards and compare the number of elapsed oscillations, there will be a measurable phase shift between them.

    The atomic interferometry is the state of the art of metrology, and this experiment is an exquisite masterwork.

  7. Based on the above, I think a simple summation is: the atoms CAN be observed at the top, but due to old goat Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, doing so would screw up the accuracy of observing them at the bottom, and hence mosh the experiment. The experiment is measuring the elapsed time not from top to bottom but of the entire arc (bottom>top>bottom) at a know initial energy input level…

    Thanks for all the teachins’…

  8. Are you saying these Bose-Eisenstein condensate atoms are larger than a softball?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *