abstract: We predict the quantum correlations between non-interacting particles evolving simultaneously in a disordered medium. While the particle density follows the single-particle dynamics and exhibits Anderson localization, the two-particle correlation develops unique features that depend on the quantum statistics of the particles and their initial separation. On short time scales, the localization of one particle becomes dependent on whether the other particle is localized or not. On long time scales, the localized particles show oscillatory correlations within the localization length. These effects can be observed in Anderson localization of non-classical light and ultra-cold atoms.
author: Yoav Lahini$^{1}$, Yaron Bromberg$^{1}$, Demetrios N. Christodoulides$^{2}$, and Yaron Silberberg$^{1}$
title: Quantum Correlations in Two-Particle Anderson Localization

More than fifty years ago, P.W. Anderson predicted that a single quantum particle released in a disordered lattice can exhibit exponential localization in space , a phenomenon termed Anderson Localization (AL). Since then there has been an ongoing effort to observe the signature of AL experimentally, for example using light . Recently a novel approach enabled the direct observation in space of AL for photons and ultra-cold atoms . These experiments, reporting the exponential localization of the particle density distribution, agree with the predictions of the single particle model as long as no interactions are involved.

The question arises, whether there are measurable phenomena that are not described by the single particle model when considering the localization of a few photons or atoms. It is known that when indistinguishable particles propagate together, exchange terms can result in the formation of correlations between their positions even in the absence of interactions. This result, known as the Hanbury Brown-Twiss (HBT) effect , was studied theoretically and experimentally for particles propagating in free space. It was observed that quantum statistics play a crucial role in the formation of HBT correlations - bosons tend to bunch, while fermions exhibit anti-bunching . Yet, it is not clear how HBT correlations evolve when the particles propagate through disordered media and become localized. While correlations were recently observed in the multiple-scattering of non-classical light , experiments on AL focused on the particle density distribution, and therefore could not observe spatial correlations between the localized particles. Now, experimental techniques that allow a direct observation of localization can provide access to the study of HBT correlations between particles exhibiting AL.

In this Letter we predict the correlations between *two indistinguishable* quantum particles evolving simultaneously in disordered lattices. We consider non-interacting particles, and therefore the particle-density follows the single particle dynamics: both particles undergo Anderson localization. Nevertheless, we find that the two particles develop non-trivial spatial correlations due to interferences of all the scattering paths the two particles can take *as a pair*. On short time scales, the localization of one of the particles uniquely determines whether the other particle will be localized or not. On longer time scales, when both particles localize, the particles exhibit oscillatory correlations within the localization length. Remarkably, these oscillatory correlations survive multiple scattering even after very long evolution times. In addition, we show that fermionic correlations can be reproduced by entangled bosonic states.

To study two-particle localization, we follow the formalism developed in for periodic systems. We consider a one dimensional quantum tight-binding model, given by Hamiltonian:

$$H=\sum_{n}W_{n}a_{n}^{\dagger}a_{n}-\sum_{<n,m>}T_{n,m}a_{n}^{\dagger}a_{m}\label{eq:QH}$$ where $a_{n}^{\dagger}$ is the creation operator for a particle in site $n$, $W_{n}$ is the on-site energy and $T_{n,m}$ is the tunneling amplitude between nearest neighbors. At time $t$ the creation operator at site $r$ is given by $$a_{r}^{\dagger}(t)=\sum_{r'}U_{rr'}(t)a_{r'}^{\dagger}(t=0)\label{eq:adag}$$ where the time-evolution operator $U_{rr'}(t)=(e^{i\hat{H}t})_{r,r'}$ is a unitary transformation given by calculating the exponent of the Hamiltonian matrix $\hat{H}$, and describes the amplitude for transition of a single particle located at site $r'$ at $t=0$, to site $r$ at time $t$. In the following, we study the evolution of two indistinguishable particles in a disordered lattice, where disorder is introduced by randomizing the tunneling amplitudes. We focus on the particle-density $n_{r}(t)$=$\left\langle a_{r}^{\dagger}a_{r}\right\rangle$ and on the two-particle correlation $\Gamma_{q,r}(t)$=$\left\langle a_{q}^{\dagger}a_{r}^{\dagger}a_{r}a_{q}\right\rangle$, highlighting the single-particle versus two-particle features of the dynamics.

We start by considering the evolution of a single particle, described by the particle density $n_{r}(t)=\left|U_{rr'}(t)\right|^{2}$ , where $r'$ is the location of the particle at $t=0$. In Fig. 1 we plot the evolution of the particle density for an initial condition $a_{0}^{\dagger}|0\rangle$, i.e. a single particle at site number $0$. Fig. 1a depicts the propagation of the particle in a periodic lattice, which is given by $n_{r}=J_{r-r'}^{2}(2Tt)$, where $J_{n}$ is the Bessel function of order $n$. This dynamics is known as a quantum walk , in which the particle density expands ballistically (i.e. linearly in time), and the probability to find the particle is highest at the edges of the distribution (see Fig 1b). When disorder is introduced (here by randomizing the tunneling amplitudes), the propagation changes significantly, as shown in Fig. 1c,d. A statistical average of the probability distribution over many realizations of disorder (Fig 1e,f) reveals a clear cross-over from ballistic expansion at short times to exponential localization at long times (blue arrow in Fig 1e). At intermediate times (red arrow in Fig. 1e), the particle can be either localized or ballistic .

We now consider two non-interacting particles which are initially localized on sites $r'$ and $q'$, focusing on the correlations between their locations at a later time $t$. The correlation matrix is given by $\Gamma_{q,r}=\langle\langle|U_{qr'}U_{rq'}\pm U_{qq'}U{}_{rr'}|^{2}\rangle\rangle$ . Here $\langle\langle\cdot\rangle\rangle$ signifies averaging over realizations of disorder, and the upper and lower signs describe, respectively, bosons and fermions of same spin. The depicted matrices (for example in Fig. ) represent the probability to detect at time $t$ exactly one particle at site $q$ and one particle at site $r$. As we show below, the density distribution is identical for bosons and for fermions (see Fig. e), yet the emerging quantum correlations between the particle pair depends on the initial position of each particle and on their quantum statistics.

We first consider the case in which initially the two particles are positioned at two adjacent sites in a separable state, i.e. the initial condition is given by $|\phi\rangle=a_{1}^{\dagger}a_{0}^{\dagger}|0\rangle$. We calculate the two-particle correlation function after a relatively short evolution time, in which each particle has a non-zero probability to be localized or to remain ballistic (see Fig. 1). As shown by the correlation matrix in Fig. 2a, if the two particles are bosons they can both remain ballistic (corners of the correlation matrix), or both become localized (center of the correlation matrix). The possibility for one boson to localize and the other to remain ballistic is also non-zero. However, when both bosons exhibit ballistic behavior, the probability for the two bosons to separate to two different sides of the distribution vanishes (top left and bottom right corners of the correlation matrix). This is the signature of bosonic bunching in lattices . In this case then, the two-particle correlation has two components - a ballistic component showing spatial bunching, and a localized component without spatial correlations. A closeup on the correlation in the localized component is given in Fig. b, also describing the correlation matrix at later times, when the distribution is completely localized .

In the case of fermions, the correlation matrix of Fig. c,d shows that if the two particles remain ballistic (i.e. both particles did not localize yet), they will exhibit anti-bunching and separate to opposite sides of the distribution. A closeup of the correlations inside the localized component reveals a checkers-like pattern, meaning that even when both fermions are localized they are non-trivially arranged in space. Most significantly, this checker-like pattern survives the random scattering process even after very long evolution times .

To understand the significance of the checker-like pattern we extracted from the correlation matrix the inter-particle distance probability given by $g(\Delta)=\sum_{q}\Gamma_{q,q+\Delta}$. Comparison between the results for bosons and fermions are depicted in Fig. f. Bosons (blue line) have the highest probability to be at the same site, and the probability drops monotonously with distance. In contrast, fermions have zero probability to be on the same site (as expected due to Pauli exclusion). Yet, interestingly, the correlation oscillates: the two fermions tend to be separated by an odd number of sites.

An even more dramatic effect takes place when the initial condition is such that the two particles are placed at non-adjacent sites. Consider the initial condition $|\phi\rangle=a_{-1}^{\dagger}a_{1}^{\dagger}|0\rangle$ - two particles at two sites separated by an empty site. Again we calculate the correlation function after a relatively short propagation, in which the dynamics includes both a ballistic and a localized component. For bosons (Fig. a) there are only two possibilities: either the particles are both localized (center of the correlation matrix) *OR* they both remain freely propagating (corners of the correlation matrix). The possibility for one particle to be localized and the other one to be free is diminished to nearly zero. A closeup on the correlation when both particles are localized (Fig. b) shows that in this case it is the bosons that exhibit the checkers-like pattern; they are more likely to be separated by an *even* number of sites.

For this input state, fermions exhibit a different symmetry in the correlations (Fig. c): the two particles tend to always occupy different components of the expanding wavepacket: one fermion becomes localized, while the other fermion remains freely propagating in the ballistic component. The closeup on the localized regime (Fig. d) shows a flat distribution, except for the zero probability to be at the same site. The inter-particle distance for this case is depicted in (Fig. f) .

Finally, it is of interest to consider the propagation in disordered lattices of path-entangled input bosonic states, which can be regularly generated in quantum-optics experiments. In a lattice system, such a state is given by a superposition of two bosons - placed together at one site *OR* another site $|\phi\rangle=\frac{1}{2}[(a_{r'}^{\dagger})^{2}+e^{i\theta}(a_{q'}^{\dagger})^{2}]|0\rangle$. Interestingly, properly constructed entangled states reproduce some of the features presented by fermions. In Fig we present the calculated correlation matrices for two kinds of path-entangled input states: In Fig. a, we plot the correlation matrix when the initial state is $|\phi\rangle=\frac{1}{2}[(a_{0}^{\dagger})^{2}+(a_{1}^{\dagger})^{2}]|0\rangle$. The correlation matrix shows several features that are similar to the ones exhibited by the fermions as seen in Fig. c : the two particles can both become localized, both remain ballistic, or split - one localized and one ballistic. However, they never end up on the same ballistic lobe. The main difference is in the localized region: the checker pattern disappears, and the diagonal $q=r$ of the correlation matrix now shows enhanced probability. In Fig. c we plot the correlation matrix when the initial state is $|\phi\rangle=\frac{1}{2}[(a_{-1}^{\dagger})^{2}+e^{i\pi}(a_{1}^{\dagger})^{2}]|0\rangle$. i.e. the two states are separated by an empty site. This time the pair shows a tendency to split - one boson is localized, while the other remains ballistic. The correlation matrix is similar to that exhibited by the fermion pair in Fig. c, except the enhanced probability on the matrix diagonal $q=r$.

The emergence of the checker-like patterns in the correlations can be explained in terms of the lattice eigenmodes excited in each case. Disordered lattices support two kinds of eigenmodes: flat-phased and staggered, in which adjacent sites are in phase /$\pi$ out of phase, correspondingly . Certain initial conditions, (depending on the initial distance between the two particles and their quantum statistics) involve the simultaneous excitations of both kinds of eigenmodes, resulting in a density pattern that contains a component with two-site periodicity. This effect is washed out in the density distribution averaged over all realizations of disorder, as in each realization the oscillations appear in a different location. However, the fact that such oscillations appears in each realization will be recorded in the averaged correlation.

At higher dimensional disordered systems, the single particle dynamics can be qualitatively different. For example expanding wavepacket can exhibit diffusive expansion before localization . Nevertheless, we have verified that the results described above appear also in two dimensional lattices, including the checker-like patterns.

In conclusion, we studied the evolution of two non-interacting quantum particles in disordered lattices exhibiting Anderson localization. The two-particle correlation exhibits unique features that survive the random scattering, such as oscillating correlations and correlated cross-over from ballistic propagation to localization. The correlations depend on the initial separation between the particles and on their quantum statistics. Experimentally, the bosonic correlations can be observed by injecting photon pairs generated using spontaneous parametric down conversion, into disordered waveguide lattices. Such lattices were recently used to observe Anderson localization of classical light , and were shown to be feasible for observing non-classical correlations between photon pairs . With atom-matter waves, correlations can be observed in the quantum walks of a pair of atoms in disordered lattices, offering a possibility to study the effect of interaction on correlations. Alternatively, Density-density correlations can be measured for expanding Bose-Einstein condensates in disordered optical potentials .

This work was supported by the German - Israel Foundation (GIF), the Minerva Foundation and the Crown Photonics Center.


abstract: Our article  argues that the phenomenology of interference that is traditionally regarded as problematic does *not*, in fact, capture the essence of quantum theory—contrary to the claims of Feynman and many others. It does so by demonstrating the existence of a physical theory, which we term the "toy field theory", that reproduces this phenomenology but which does not sacrifice the classical worldview. In their Comment , Hance and Hossenfelder dispute our claim. Correcting mistaken claims found therein and responding to their criticisms provides us with an opportunity to further clarify some of the ideas in our article.
author: Lorenzo Catani; Matthew Leifer; David Schmid; Robert W. Spekkens
bibliography: ReplytoHH.bib
title: Reply to "Comment on 'Why interference phenomena do not capture the essence of quantum theory' "

# On epistemic states and epistemic restrictions

Hance and Hossenfelder state

> In Spekkens' original toy model paper \[6\], an "ontic state" is defined as "a state of reality" whereas an "epistemic state" is a "state of knowledge". Both of these definitions are useless, the first because one does not know what "reality" means, the second because one does not know what "knowledge" means \[...\]

At some level, no one can reasonably claim that they fail to understand the distinction between reality and our knowledge thereof. We all understand the difference between the proposition "the back door is locked" and the proposition "I know that the back door is locked". Hance and Hossenfelder are presumably not suggesting that they fail to comprehend the distinction in this common-sense form. Rather, they are presumably suggesting that the distinction introduced in Ref.  is deficient by virtue of not having been adequately formalized.

Such a criticism might have been apt if all Ref.  had to offer in the way of trying to clarify the distinction between ontic states and epistemic states was an explanation of why it saw fit to use this terminology, namely, that the former term derives from the Greek *ontos*, meaning "to be", and the latter from the Greek *episteme*, meaning "knowledge". As it turns out, however, the discussion of this distinction in Ref.  did not, in fact, end with an explanation of the etymology. Indeed, immediately after introducing this terminology, it is stated that "To understand the content of the distinction, it is useful to study how it arises in the uncontroversial context of classical physics," followed by this elucidation of the concept:

> The first notion of state that students typically encounter in their study of classical physics is the one associated with a point in phase space. This state provides a complete specification of all the properties of the system—in particle mechanics, such a state is sometimes called a "Newtonian state". It is an ontic state. On the other hand, when a student learns classical statistical mechanics, a new kind of state is introduced, corresponding to a probability distribution over the phase space—sometimes called a "Liouville state". This is an epistemic state. The critical difference between a point in phase space and a probability distribution over phase space is not that the latter is a function. An electromagnetic field configuration is a function over three-dimensional space, but is nonetheless an ontic state. What is critical about a probability distribution is that the relative height of the function at two different points is not a property of the system—unlike the relative height of an electromagnetic field at two points in space. Rather, this relative height represents the relative likelihood that some agent assigns to the two ontic states associated with those points of the phase space. The distribution describes only what this agent knows about the system.

In other words, the distinction between ontic states and epistemic states is not novel to Ref. . It is already present in physics whenever a system being investigated is such that the investigator may have incomplete knowledge of its physical state. Classical statistical mechanics is the field of physics wherein it first became critical to develop a mathematical formalism for describing such incomplete knowledge. Thus, for instance, a microcanonical ensemble for a gas represents a state of incomplete knowledge, appropriate for any agent who knows only certain macroscopic properties of the gas.

Moreover, Ref.  goes on to formalize the distinction in terms of a discrete ontic state space and the space of probability distributions thereon. The same was done for continuous ontic state spaces in Ref. , where epistemic states are now probability densities over the ontic state space.

More generally, the ontic states of a system are the elements of the set that defines the kinematics for the system, and where functions from this set to itself define the dynamical laws. Epistemic states, on the other hand, belong to the normative theory for reasoning in the face of uncertainty, such as Bayesian probability theory. They describe the elements of the set of possible ways of knowing about the ontic state of the system according to the theory. A synthetic approach to the distinction, aiming to go beyond the classical case, has recently been presented in Ref. .

As Hance and Hossenfelder do not comment on any of the formal accounts of the distinction between ontic and epistemic states that we have just outlined, their criticism of the distinction seems to us to be devoid of any substance.

Hance and Hossenfelder ask two further questions about the status of epistemic states: "*whose* knowledge?" and "why would we care about it?"

Take the second question first. The importance of mathematically formalizing our uncertainty is apparent in all branches of the sciences, including physics. It arises in every situation where there is incomplete knowledge due to practical considerations, such as technological limitations. If the incomplete knowledge is due to a fundamental feature of the physical theory being considered rather than a technological limitation—as with the epistemic restriction in Ref.  and our toy field theory—this does not alleviate the need to formally quantify uncertainty. Rather, it makes it more acute.

What about the question "whose knowledge?" Note, first of all, that one could ask Hance and Hossenfelder's question about states of incomplete knowledge in classical statistical mechanics. Ought we to take the microcanonical ensemble to be an unprofessionally vague concept because it has not been made explicit in the textbooks *who it is* that knows the values of certain macrovariables while remaining ignorant of the values of the microvariables? No, of course not. The microcanonical ensemble describes the knowledge of *any agent* that knows only the specified macro-variables. The statistical mechanics textbooks are right not to waste space answering the question "whose knowledge?" when they ask us to imagine that only certain macroscopic variables are known.

More generally, there is, in fact, a long tradition of expressing physical laws in a pragmatic way, that is, in terms of in-principle restrictions on what any agent living in a universe following those laws might be able to do or to know. (See, for instance, the introduction of Ref. .) Consider Kelvin's formulation of the second law of thermodynamics. "It is impossible to devise a cyclically operating device, the sole effect of which is to absorb energy in the form of heat from a single thermal reservoir and to deliver an equivalent amount of work." We might call this principle a "pragmatic restriction", to parallel the notion of an epistemic restriction. Suppose someone asks: "Who does this pragmatic restriction apply to?" or simply "Who is the 'deviser'?" Is this a question that needs to be answered to understand Kelvin's formulation? No. It is understood that in Kelvin's formulation, the answer to the "who" question is *any agent at all, using any physically realizable technology whatsoever.* It is not a parochial kind of restriction, specific to some moment in technological history or some particular engineer. It is an in-principle kind of restriction. It is the same with the epistemic restriction in physical theories that posit one.

Hance and Hossenfelder claim that the epistemic restriction used in Ref.  is different from the one used in Ref. , on the grounds that the one stated in Ref.  is such that the update rule that it implies does not act locally. This is also mistaken. There is no contrast between the nature of the epistemic restriction (and consequently the update rules for epistemic states) in Ref.  and Ref. . In particular, both are explicitly local. The fact that the latter satisfies locality is emphasized throughout Ref. , in particular, as the reason we know that the toy theory cannot violate Bell inequalities. It is unclear, therefore, how Hance and Hossenfelder came to this mistaken impression.

We turn to considering the following two claims of Hance and Hossenfelder

> After all, we use quantum mechanics to predict frequencies of occurrence and not Peter Pan's knowledge about these frequencies.

and

> Indeed, one may wonder, why talk about knowledge at all? What we need to predict measurement outcomes is a prescription for the distribution of an ensemble of ontic states \[5\]. The claim of Catani et al that they can correctly reproduce observations only make sense if the "epistemic restriction" is a change to the underlying distribution of ontic states.

In these quotations, Hance and Hossenfelder are attacking the idea that probabilities ought to be defined as credences (i.e., an agent's degrees of belief) and seem to instead endorse the notion that they ought to be defined as relative frequencies. The literature on the philosophy of probability provides many arguments against this type of frequentist interpretation of probability. Indeed, it is a rare instance of something about which there seems to be *agreement* among those writing on the philosophy of probability. Myrvold, in his recent book on the philosophy of probability , goes so far as to call this view the "dead horse" of the philosophy of probability. [^1]

In our view, the key argument against interpreting probabilities as relative frequencies is the following one. Relative frequencies connect with the probability distribution assigned to a single run through the law of large numbers. But what this law states is that, in the limit of infinitely large ensembles, these relative frequencies are *likely* to converge to the probabilities in the probability distributions, in the sense that this will occur in a set of measure one of possible sequences. For a Bayesian, the notion of "likelihood" in the law of large numbers (more formally, the notion of a measure) is an appeal to probability that, like all appeals to probability, ought to be interpreted as a credence. But let us consider the frequentist alternative, that this probability also is to be interpreted as a relative frequency. This means that one must interpret the law of large numbers as stating that if one forms an infinite ensemble of copies of the original infinite ensemble, the relative frequency with which the convergence occurs in this new ensemble goes to 1. But it is not the case that the convergence must occur in *every* element of the new ensemble. So, strictly speaking, all one can claim is that in any given element of this new ensemble, it is "likely" that the convergence occurs. But now one is faced with the problem of how to interpret *this* notion of likelihood. One can define a third type of ensemble of copies of the second type of ensemble, but then another notion of likelihood appears at that level which needs to be defined. No matter how far one goes in this sequence, there always remains a concept of probability that remains undefined. In short, attempts to define probabilities as relative frequencies lead to an infinite regress.

In an appendix that we have added to our article (Appendix C.1), we discuss at length the question of what the toy field theory has to say about relative frequencies. We point out that the connection to relative frequencies comes when considering repetitions of an experiment with an i.i.d. source. If ${\bf p}$ is the probability distribution assigned to a system by an agent (i.e., representing the agent's credences about the system), then ${\bf p}^{\otimes n}$ is the probability distribution assigned to the $n$ copies of the system in the $n$-fold repetition of the i.i.d. experiment (i.e., representing the agent's credences about the $n$ system of the i.i.d. source). Then, the law of large numbers stipulates that in the limit of arbitrarily many repetitions of the experiment, the relative frequencies judged to be most likely are those that converge to the distribution ${\bf p}$.

That said, one *can* provide an account of our toy field theory in a language that is more congenial to those who are inclined to a frequentist interpretation of probability. It suffices to express facts about an infinite ensemble of repetitions of an experiment in terms of the relative frequencies that are likely to occur in this ensemble (without *defining* the probabilities in terms of these relative frequencies). This provides an alternative to the description we provided in the main text of our article (which was in terms of an agent's *state of knowledge about a particular element* of this ensemble). We make this translation in another appendix that we have added to our article (Appendix C.2).

In this new description, the transformation to the physical state induced by a beamsplitter or phase shifter describes a deterministic change in the make-up of the ensemble of physical states at a particular point in the interferometer (rather than a deterministic change in an agent's state of knowledge about a particular element of the ensemble). Similarly, in this new description, conditioning on the outcome of a measurement is no longer modelled as Bayesian updating, but as updating the ensemble that is relevant for making predictions. We describe it as follows in our Appendix C.2:

> This updating can be understood as consisting of two steps. First, one selects from the pre-existing ensemble the subensemble that is consistent with the outcome that was observed. Second, the fact that a measurement leads to a random disturbance—that is, one of several different transformations to the physical state—implies that elements of the ensemble selected in the first step get split into distinct elements (bifurcated in the case of interest here), thereby leading to an increase in the number of distinct subensembles.

For the case of a measurement on one mode, the ensemble of possibilities for the physical state of the other mode may be updated because of a pre-existing correlation between the physical states of the two modes. Consequently, such updating does not involve any nonlocal influence.

Hance and Hossenfelder also state:

> To further muddy the waters, by virtue of the "epistemic restriction" of Spekkens' original toy model, no observer can "know" what the "ontic" state is, which makes it rather unclear what it might mean for it to be "real" in the first place.

If one grants that there is a meaningful distinction between ontic states and epistemic states, then it is perfectly straightforward to imagine a scenario wherein agents can have knowledge of any of a number of aspects of the full reality, while not being able to know *all* of these aspects at once.

Plato's allegory of the cave is a useful metaphor for this aspect of epistemically restricted theories . One can imagine that the objects that are casting the shadows have a three-dimensional shape and the prisoners in the cave, by virtue of only seeing the shadows, can only come to know various two-dimensional projections of these three-dimensional shapes. Indeed, we might imagine that a given shape can be oriented in an arbitrary way relative to the light source at the mouth of the cave, such that the prisoners can come to learn *any* two-dimensional projection, while still never being able to access more than a single two-dimensional projection at a time. This limitation of the prisoners, to only ever acquiring partial information about the shape at a given time, does not in any way undermine the notion that there is, in fact, a three-dimensional shape of which the shadow they see is a two-dimensional projection.

The only way we see for someone to think that it *does* undermine this notion is if they subscribe to the *verificationist principle* of the logical positivists.[^2] This is the idea that a proposition is only meaningful if it is possible to conduct an experiment that verifies it. For the prisoners in Plato's cave, there is no experimental procedure by which they can come to learn all of the two-dimensional projections of an object at once, that is, its three-dimensional shape. It follows that endorsement of the verificationist principle stipulates that it is not meaningful to talk about its three-dimensional shape. Similarly, given that in an epistemically restricted theory there is no way to simultaneously measure all the ontic variables (i.e., every variable in a set that is sufficient to determine the ontic state), endorsement of the verification principle implies endorsement of the notion that propositions about the values of such a set of ontic variables are not jointly meaningful.

This sort of criticism of epistemically restricted theories is reminiscent of Bohr's position in the Bohr-Einstein debate. In Ref. , it was argued that Bohr's account of experiments measuring alternatively position or momentum of a particle, and in particular his account of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) experiment, harmonize quite well with the account given by the theory described therein—termed epistemically restricted Liouville mechanics (abbreviated as ERL mechanics)—where a particle has both a position and a momentum, but these can never be known simultaneously. It was furthermore argued in Ref.  that the reason Bohr ultimately rejects this account is that he endorsed a version of the verificationist principle. The argument was as follows:

> \[...\] ERL mechanics can reproduce the correlations in the original EPR thought experiment and indeed delivers the sort of interpretation of the correlations that EPR favoured, namely, one wherein position and momentum are jointly well-defined but not jointly known. Even though Bohr sought to dispute this sort of interpretation in his reply, his description of the thought experiment makes explicit reference to the positions and momenta of the systems: "In fact, even if we knew the position of the diaphragm relative to the space frame before the first measurement of its momentum, and even though its position after the last measurement can be accurately fixed, we lose, on account of the uncontrollable displacement of the diaphragm during each collision process with the test bodies, the knowledge of its position when the particle passed through the slit." Indeed, his argument for the consistency of the uncertainty principle makes no reference to the quantum formalism at all. It reads better as an argument for the consistency of the uncertainty principle within ERL mechanics. Nonetheless, Bohr denies the interpretation suggested by ERL mechanics: "we have in each experimental arrangement suited for the study of proper quantum phenomena not merely to do with an ignorance of the value of certain physical quantities, but with the impossibility of defining these quantities in an unambiguous way." The only way we see to reconcile this tension in Bohr's reply is that Bohr believed that two quantities can be jointly well-defined *only* if they can be jointly measured. In essence, Bohr was a radical positivist. Otherwise, why from the impossibility of two quantities being jointly measured would he infer the impossibility of their being jointly *well-defined*, as opposed to merely inferring the impossibility of their being jointly *known*?

More generally, there have been many persuasive arguments put forward *against* the verificationist principle and the positivist movement in the philosophy of science more generally. For those not familiar with these arguments, we recommend Quine's classic article "Two dogmas of empiricism" .

# Classicality

In Sec. V.A.3 of our article, when considering what might be genuinely nonclassical about interference phenomenology, we describe our own preferred notion of classicality. Hance and Hossenfelder's comment includes some criticisms of this notion. It should be noted, however, that the thesis of our article was not predicated on our readers espousing the notion of classicality that we favour. As such, these criticisms are not relevant to the question of primary interest in our article. Nonetheless, we take this opportunity to respond to them for the sake of clarifying what our preferred notion of classicality implies.

Hance and Hossenfelder correctly summarize our preferred notion of classicality, which includes a notion of classicality for the theory of inference, namely, that it is done using Bayesian probability theory and Boolean propositional logic. Nonetheless, they suggest that according to our preferred notion, what is usually termed "classical statistical mechanics" would come out as nonclassical. This is incorrect. What they seem to have missed is that the contrast class we had in mind in our notion, the thing that we *would* call "nonclassical", is a theory wherein the way inferences are done is *at odds with* Bayesian probability theory and Boolean propositional logic.

The use of probability in statistical mechanics is not at odds with either Bayesian probability theory or Boolean propositional logic. Consequently, there is no sense in which statistical mechanics would come out as nonclassical according to our preferred notion of classicality. Indeed, Hance and Hossenfelder do not suggest that classical statistical mechanics uses some exotic *alternative* to Bayesian probability theory, but only that "Bayesian probability theory isn't used much" in classical statistical mechanics. Although we could dispute this assessment of the prevalence of Bayesian inference in classical statistical mechanics (see, e.g., Ref. ), it is beside the point. *Even if* for some physical theory, Bayesian probability theory *was not used at all*, this would not imply that that physical theory would be judged to be nonclassical relative to our notion. A physical theory needs to commit itself to some *concrete alternative* to Bayesian probability theory or Boolean propositional logic in order for it to be judged as having a nonclassical theory of inference by the lights of our preferred notion. Lack of use is not the same as use of an alternative.

It is worth adding that we do not consider modifications to the *interpretation* of probabilities (without any difference to the formal apparatus for making predictions) to be examples of a concrete alternative to the classical theory of inference. Such an alternative must deviate from Bayesian probability theory and Boolean propositional logic in more than a cosmetic manner. As such, a mere preference for understanding the predictions of classical statistical mechanics in terms of a frequentist interpretation of probabilities rather than a Bayesian one is not sufficient for claiming that the theory of inference used therein is nonclassical. Similarly, a modification to the *scope* of some theory of inference, such as moving from Boolean propositional logic to standard predicate logic also does not constitute an example of a concrete alternative to Boolean propositional logic since the propositional segment of predicate logic is still Boolean. Examples of the sorts of modifications of logic that we *would* consider to be at odds with Boolean propositional logic are *quantum logics* . Similarly, an example of a modification of probability theory that we would consider to be at odds with Bayesian probability theory is the sort of theory of inference defined in Ref.  using conditional density operators.

Hance and Hossenfelder also seek to criticize the Leibnizian methodological principle that is part of our preferred notion of classicality. They state:

> What is empirically 'indiscernible' depends on what measurements one has made or can make. Distances below, say, a thousandth of a femtometer aren't currently 'empirically discernible'. We treat them as ontologically different in General Relativity, hence, it seems that according to the authors' position, General Relativity is not a classical theory.

Here, Hance and Hossenfelder are simply mistaken about the content of the Leibnizian methodological principle. The definition from Ref. , which was repeated in Ref. , states that the notion of empirical discernibility at issue is indistinguishability *in principle* rather than in practice, where what is possible in principle is determined by the physical theory that one is assessing.

The point is emphasized in Ref. :

> \[...\] the Leibnizian methodological principle does not appeal to a parochial kind of empirical indiscernibility, judged relative to the particular in-born capabilities of humans or their particular technological capabilities at a given historical moment, but rather to the in-principle variety of empirical indiscernibility. This variety of indiscernibility must be understood as indiscernibility for any system that might be considered an agent within the universe. This is because, as Deutsch has argued persuasively, the only in-principle limits to human capabilities are the limits imposed by physics \[\*\], and therefore the only limits on our capabilities are the limits on the capabilities of any system embedded in the universe and subject to its physical laws. \[\*\] His argument proceeds by noting that an "in-principle human capability" includes what could be achieved in a distant future with the aid of arbitrarily sophisticated technology.

Thus, the fact that certain distances that are not distinguishable by today's technology are nonetheless treated as ontologically distinct in General Relativity is not a failure of the Leibnizian methodological principle. Only if General Relativity stipulated that such distances were *in principle* empirically indistinguishable, would one conclude that General Relativity contradicted the principle. In fact, the Leibnizian methodological principle is built into General Relativity at a deep level, since this is one of main principles that guided Einstein in his development of the theory, as is argued in Ref. .

Although our article did not seek to persuade readers to endorse our preferred notion of classicality, it *did* seek to insist on a methodological point, namely, that if someone wants to claim that some particular operational phenomenology of interference *does* capture the essence of quantum theory, then they ought to back up their view with a no-go result. That is, they should articulate a formal notion of classicality within some framework for physical theories and then prove a theorem demonstrating that their notion is inconsistent with the phenomenology in question. It is important to stipulate a formal notion of classicality in such a no-go result because we do not, in fact, all agree about what the correct notion of classicality is. Indeed, there are almost as many ideas about this as there are researchers who work in the foundations of quantum theory. By abiding by the proposed methodology, one can focus the discussion on where the true disagreements lie. This is discussed further in the next section.

# On shifting the goal posts

Hance and Hossenfelder attempt to summarize part of how our theory works as follows:

> The phase of the state changes when a measurement doesn't happen, \[...\]

and then seek to critique it based on this characterization:

> \[...\] it is unclear how the absence of a measurement can locally change a state.

The summary is incorrect, however. In our theory, any mode for which no measurement is performed has its phase left invariant. Only if a measurement is actually performed on a mode can the latter's phase be randomized.

Hance and Hossenfelder also state:

> The authors seem to assume that a measurement in which no interaction happens still somehow results in an interaction (and that this interaction is still local).

Here, they at least seem to acknowledge that the measurement update rule we describe in our article *applies to the case where a measurement of occupation number is happening*, as opposed to no measurement happening. However, their claim that no interaction happens as a result of this measurement is mistaken. In our theory, every mode has a phase degree of freedom in addition to its occupation number degree of freedom, and the phase of a mode is randomized in a measurement of occupation number of that mode *regardless of whether the occupation number is found to be 0 or 1*, i.e., regardless whether or not the excitation happens to be found in that mode. It is likely that Hance and Hossenfelder's confusion results from thinking of our theory as one wherein the systems are particles, when in fact the systems in our theory are modes. To head off such confusions, we have clarified this distinction in two appendices we have added to our article (Appendix C.5 and C.6).

Hance and Hossenfelder correctly summarize an aspect of our theory when they note that it posits that information is sent over a path with occupation number zero. They are again mistaken, however, when they state that

> This only works so long as one is forbidden from blocking one of the paths or pulling out one of the mirrors. On doing either of these things, the model either falls apart or requires nonlocal update.

In two more appendices we have added to our article (Appendices C.3 and C.4), we have provided an explicit treatment of each of these cases and demonstrated that the theory has no problem treating either. It reproduces what one would expect for the analogous quantum experiment and continues to only require local causal influences to do so.

As we note in the new Appendix C.3, blocking a path amounts to implementing a destructive measurement of occupation number, one that absorbs the excitation if it is present. Consequently, one way to summarize Hance and Hossenfelder's first claim is that the toy field theory cannot account for the Mach-Zehnder interferometer experiment in the case where the measurement of the occupation number is made to be destructive rather than nondestructive.

They correctly anticipate that our response to this suggestion is that it is an instance of what we called "shifting the goal posts" in our article.[^3]

We begin by recalling how this notion was articulated in Ref. :

> No doubt those researchers who are sympathetic to the view that interference captures the essence of quantum theory will be tempted to respond to the arguments of this article as follows: "Sure, you have reproduced *some* of the phenomenology of quantum interference, but you haven't reproduced *all* of it. What about all of the experiments involving beamsplitters that are not 50-50, or involving phase shifts other than $\Phi =0$ and $\Phi = \pi$? You can't make sense of *those* in the toy field theory.

Does Hance and Hossenfelder's response fit the pattern described here? Yes, it does. Indeed, their response is essentially this: "Sure, you might have reproduced the phenomenology of quantum interference in the case where the measurement of occupation number on one of the modes is *nondestructive*, but what about the case where the measurement is *destructive*?"

As we note in our new appendix, the thesis of our article does not rely on addressing this case.

> Explicit in Feynman's account (and to an even greater degree in Elitzur and Vaidman's account) is that the destruction of interference occurs even in the case where the measurement *does not detect the excitation on its arm*. But in this case, *there is no difference* in the quantum state update rule between destructive and nondestructive measurements, as the output of the measurement device is left in the quantum vacuum state in both cases. For this reason, the distinction between destructive and nondestructive measurements is not significant for discussions of the TRAP phenomenology. It follows that if one can reproduce this phenomenology for *either* type of measurement in a classical local model, one has undermined the claim that the phenomenology necessitates a departure from the classical worldview. Hence, an explicit consideration of destructive measurements is not required to establish our thesis.

(Here, "TRAP" is an abbreviation of 'traditionally regarded as problematic'.) The same point can be made regarding any modification of the experimental scenario wherein a mirror is removed, since this case appears nowhere in discussions of what is typically regarded as problematic about interference in quantum theory.

It is odd that while Hance and Hossenfelder anticipated that we would identify their question as an instance of what we termed "shifting the goal-post", they did not bother to consider what we said about how best to approach such questions. This is what we wrote:

> If someone wishes to claim that aspects of interference beyond the TRAP phenomenology demonstrate the impossibility of maintaining a classical worldview, then not only must they specify precisely which aspects they have in mind and how they propose to formalize the notion of classicality, they must also *back up their claim* with a rigorous no-go theorem, following the methodology we endorsed above. Until they do, the view that the phenomena in question resists explanation in terms of a classical worldview is mere speculation, and might only indicate a "lack of imagination", to recall Bell's phrase.

It seems to us that Hance and Hossenfelder *do* wish to claim that aspects of interference beyond the TRAP phenomenology demonstrate the impossibility of maintaining a classical worldview. However, they fail to articulate the precise notion of classicality they have in mind, nor the precise set of operational features of quantum theory that they are appealing to, nor do they prove a no-go theorem to back up their claim. As such, their view, namely, that shifting attention to destructive measurements (or cases where a mirror is removed) implies that the interference phenomena resist explanation in terms of a classical worldview, is *mere speculation* and as a result it might merely indicate a lack of imagination on their part for what such a classical explanation might be.

Indeed, this is precisely what we show to be the case in the appendices we have added to our article (Appendices C.3 and C.4).

In the conclusions of Ref. , we noted that Feynman could have avoided making the mistaken claim that the phenomenology of interference resisted explanation in terms of a classical worldview if he had tried (and necessarily failed) to back up his belief with a no-go theorem. The same can be said of Hance and Hossenfelder's mistaken claim regarding the phenomenology of interference with destructive measurements rather than nondestructive measurements, or with a mirror removed. In this sense, their claim provides an illustration of why one ought to follow the methodology we proposed in our article. We therefore take this opportunity to repeat a maxim expressed in the introduction of our article:

> One should not be credulous of statements that a given operational phenomenology implies some interpretational claim unless the statement is backed up by a rigorous no-go theorem proving the implication (typically against the backdrop of additional assumptions).

We believe that broader adherence to this maxim can raise the level of quality of discussions concerning the foundations of quantum theory particularly between researchers who have diverging interpretational persuasions.

[^1]: Note, however, that there are versions of frequentism that do not seek to *define* probabilities as relative frequencies .

[^2]: Logical positivism is a type of empiricism (or instrumentalism) that was popular in the early twentieth century.

[^3]: They suggest further that we ourselves are guilty of some kind of shifting of the goal posts in our original paper by treating the Mach Zehnder experiment rather than the double-slit experiment. Our move is not an instance of the specific argumentative strategy we called "shifting the goal posts" in our article (which we describe below), so it is not really a tit-for-tat situation, as Hance and Hossenfelder suggest. Nonetheless, we here respond to the charge that we have done less than we needed to do to justify the thesis of our article. In the introduction of our article, we provided a summary of the arguments put forward by Feynman and others in favour of the three interpretational claims and the impossibility of a classical explanation *within the context of the double-slit experiment*. Then, in Sec. II.A, we show that the argument, *when adapted to the context of the Mach-Zehnder experiment*, is of precisely the same form. In other words, the specific aspects of the operational phenomenology that are cited in the argument are *common* to the double-slit and Mach-Zehnder scenarios, as is the logical form of the argument. As such, showing that the claimed implication is invalid in any particular scenario shows that the argument is *not valid* (in the logician's sense of the conclusion failing to follow from the premisses), and so is not to be trusted in any context in which it arises. It is for this reason that undermining the argument in the context of the Mach Zehnder experiment is sufficient to undermine it also in the context of the double-slit experiment.


abstract: We present here an analysis of the sensitivity of a time-domain atomic interferometer to the phase noise of the lasers used to manipulate the atomic wave-packets. The sensitivity function is calculated in the case of a three pulse Mach-Zehnder interferometer, which is the configuration of the two inertial sensors we are building at BNM-SYRTE. We successfully compare this calculation to experimental measurements. The sensitivity of the interferometer is limited by the phase noise of the lasers, as well as by residual vibrations. We evaluate the performance that could be obtained with state of the art quartz oscillators, as well as the impact of the residual phase noise of the phase-lock loop. Requirements on the level of vibrations is derived from the same formalism.
author: P. Cheinet, B. Canuel, F. Pereira Dos Santos, A. Gauguet, F. Leduc, A. Landragin
date: MARCH 24, 2005
title:  Measurement of the sensitivity function in time-domain atomic interferometer

# Introduction

optics is a mean to realize precision measurements in various fields. Atomic microwave clocks are the most precise realization of a SI unit, the second , and high sensitivity inertial sensors , based on atomic interferometry , already reveal accuracies comparable with state of the art sensors . Two cold atom inertial sensors are currently under construction at BNM-SYRTE , a gyroscope which already reaches a sensitivity of $2.5\times10^{-6}\,\rm{rad.s^{-1}.Hz^{-1/2}}$, and an absolute gravimeter which will be used in the BNM Watt Balance project . Although based on different atoms and geometries, the atomic gyroscope and gravimeter rely on the same principle, which is presented in figure . Atoms are collected in a three dimensional magneto-optical trap (3D-MOT) in which the atoms are cooled down to a few ${\mu} K$. In the gyroscope, $^{133}$Cs atoms are launched upwards with an angle of 8̊ with respect to verticality using the technic of moving molasses, whereas in the gravimeter, $^{87}$Rb atoms are simply let to fall. Then the initial quantum state is prepared by a combination of microwave and optical pulses. The manipulation of the atoms is realized by stimulated Raman transition pulses , using two counter-propagating lasers, which drive coherent transitions between the two hyperfine levels of the alkali atom. Three laser pulses, of durations $\tau_R-2\tau_R-\tau_R$, separated in time by $T$, respectively split, redirect and recombine the atomic wave-packets, creating an atomic interferometer . Finally, a fluorescence detection gives a measurement of the transition probability from one hyperfine level to the other, which is given by $P=\frac{1}{2}(1-\cos(\Phi))$, $\Phi$ being the interferometric phase. The phase difference between the two Raman lasers (which we will call the Raman phase throughout this article, and denote $\phi$) is printed at each pulse on the phase of the atomic wave function . As $\phi$ depends on the position of the atoms, the interferometer is sensitive to inertial forces, and can thus measure rotation rates and accelerations. A drawback of this technic is that the measurement of the interferometric phase is affected by the phase noise of the Raman lasers, as well as parasitic vibrations. The aim of this article is to investigate both theoretically and experimentally how these noise sources limit the sensitivity of such an atomic interferometer.

# sensitivity function

The sensitivity function is a natural tool to characterize the influence of the fluctuations in the Raman phase $\phi$ on the transition probability , and thus on the interferometric phase. Let's assume a phase jump $\delta \phi$ occurs on the Raman phase $\phi$ at time t during the interferometer sequence, inducing a change of $\delta P(\delta
\phi,t)$ in the transition probability. The sensitivity function is then defined by :

$$\label{eq} \ g(t)=2 \lim_{\delta \phi\rightarrow 0} \frac{\delta
P(\delta \phi,t)}{\delta \phi }.\$$

The sensitivity function can easily be calculated for infinitesimally short Raman pulses. In this case, the interferometric phase $\Phi$ can be deduced from the Raman phases $\phi_1$,$\phi_2$,$\phi_3$ during the three laser interactions, taken at the position of the center of the atomic wavepacket: $\Phi=\phi_1-2\phi_2+\phi_3$ . Usually, the interferometer is operated at $\Phi=\pi/2$, for which the transition probability is 1/2, to get the highest sensitivity to interferometric phase fluctuations. If the phase step $\delta
\phi$ occurs for instance between the first and the second pulses, the interferometric phase changes by $\delta\Phi=-\delta\phi$, and the transition probability by $\delta P=-cos(\pi/2+\delta \Phi)/2
\sim -\delta \phi/2$ in the limit of an infinitesimal phase step. Thus, in between the first two pulses, the sensitivity function is -1. The same way, one finds for the sensitivity function between the last two pulses : +1.

In the general case of finite duration Raman laser pulses, the sensitivity function depends on the evolution of the atomic state during the pulses. In order to calculate $g(t)$, we make several assumptions. First, the laser waves are considered as pure plane waves. The atomic motion is then quantized in the direction parallel to the laser beams. Second, we restrict our calculation to the case of a constant Rabi frequency (square pulses). Third, we assume the resonance condition is fulfilled. The Raman interaction then couples the two states $|a\rangle=|g_1,\overrightarrow{p}\rangle$ and $|b\rangle=|g_2,\overrightarrow{p}+\hbar
\overrightarrow{k}_{eff}\rangle$ where $|g_1\rangle$ and $|g_2\rangle$ are the two hyperfine levels of the ground state, $\overrightarrow{p}$ is the atomic momentum, $\overrightarrow{k}_{eff}$ is the difference between the wave vectors of the two lasers.

We develop the atomic wave function on the basis set $\{|a\rangle,|b\rangle\}$ so that $|\Psi(t)\rangle=C_a(t)|a\rangle+C_b(t)|b\rangle$, and choose the initial state to be $|\Psi(t_i)\rangle=|\Psi_i\rangle=|a\rangle$. At the output of the interferometer, the transition probability is given by $P=|C_b(t_f)|^2$, where $t_f=t_i+2T+4\tau_R$. The evolution of $C_a$ and $C_b$ from $t_i$ to $t_f$ is given by $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
C_a(t_f) \\
C_b(t_f)
\end{array}
\right) = M \left(
\begin{array}{c}
C_a(t_i) \\
C_b(t_i)
\end{array}\right)
 \label{eq:Cevol}$$ where $M$ is the evolution matrix through the whole interferometer. Solving the Schrödinger equation gives the evolution matrix during a Raman pulse , from time $t_0$ to time $t$:

$$M_p(t_0,t,\Omega_R,\phi)=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
e^{-i\omega_a(t-t_0)}\text{cos}(\frac{\Omega_R}{2}(t-t_0)) & -ie^{-i\omega_a(t-t_0)}e^{i(\omega_Lt_0+\phi)}\text{sin}(\frac{\Omega_R}{2}(t-t_0))\\
-ie^{-i\omega_b(t-t_0)}e^{-i(\omega_Lt_0+\phi)}\text{sin}(\frac{\Omega_R}{2}(t-t_0))
& e^{-i\omega_b(t-t_0)}\text{cos}(\frac{\Omega_R}{2}(t-t_0))
\end{array}
\right) \label{eq:Mevol}$$ where $\Omega_R/2\pi$ is the Rabi frequency and $\omega_L$, the effective frequency, is the frequency difference between the two lasers, $\omega_L=\omega_2-\omega_1$. Setting $\Omega_R=0$ in $M_p(t_0,t,\Omega_R,\phi)$ gives the free evolution matrix, which determines the evolution between the pulses. The evolution matrix for the full evolution is obtained by taking the product of several matrices. When $t$ occurs during the $i-th$ laser pulse, we split the evolution matrix of this pulse at time $t$ into two successive matrices, the first one with $\phi_i$, and the second one with $\phi =\phi_i+\delta \phi$.

Finally, we choose the time origin at the middle of the second Raman pulse. We thus have $t_i=-(T+2\tau_R)$ and $t_f=T+2\tau_R$. We then calculate the change in the transition probability for a infinitesimally small phase jump at any time t during the interferometer, and deduce $g(t)$. It is an odd function, whose expression is given here for $t>0$:

$$\label{biggeq} g(t)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
 \sin(\Omega_R t) & 0<t<\tau_R \\
 1 & \tau_R <t<T+\tau_R\\
 -\sin(\Omega_R (T-t)) & T+\tau_R<t<T+2\tau_R\\
\end{array}\right.$$

When the phase jump occurs outside the interferometer, the change in the transition probability is null, so that $g(t)=0$ for $|t|>T+2\tau_R$.

In order to validate this calculation, we use the gyroscope experiment to measure experimentally the sensitivity function. About $10^8$ atoms from a background vapor are loaded in a 3D-MOT within 125 ms, with 6 laser beams tuned to the red of the $F=4\rightarrow F'=5$ transition at 852 nm. The atoms are then launched upwards at $\sim 2.4$ m/s within 1 ms, and cooled down to an effective temperature of $\sim 2.4\mu$K. After launch, the atoms are prepared into the $\left|F=3,m_F=0\right\rangle$ state using a combination of microwave and laser pulses : they first enter a selection cavity tuned to the $\left|F=4,m_F=0\right\rangle\rightarrow\left|F=3,m_F=0\right\rangle$ transition. The atoms left in the $F=4$ state are pushed away by a laser beam tuned to the $F=4\rightarrow F'=5$ transition, 11 cm above the selection cavity. The selected atoms then reach the apogee 245 ms after the launch, where they experience three interferometer pulses of duration $\tau_R-2\tau_R-\tau_R$ with $\tau_R=20~\mu$s separated in time by $T=4.97$ ms. The number of atoms $N_{F=3}$ and $N_{F=4}$ are finally measured by detecting the fluorescence induced by a pair of laser beams located 7 cm below the apogee. From these measurements, we deduce the transition probability $N_{F=4}/(N_{F=3}+N_{F=4})$. The total number of detected atoms is about $10^5$. The repetition rate of the experiment is 2 Hz.

The set-up for the generation of the two Raman laser beams is displayed in figure . Two slave diode lasers of 150 mW output power are injected with extended cavity diode lasers. The polarizations of the slave diodes output beams are made orthogonal so that the two beams can be combined onto a polarization beam splitter cube. The light at this cube is then split in two distinct unbalanced paths.

On the first path, most of the power of each beam is sent through an optical fiber to the vacuum chamber. The two beams are then collimated with an objective attached onto the chamber (waist $w_0=15$ mm). They enter together through a viewport, cross the atomic cloud, and are finally retroreflected by a mirror fixed outside the vacuum chamber. In this geometry, four laser beams are actually sent onto the atoms, which interact with only two of them, because of selection rules and resonance conditions. The interferometer can also be operated with co-propagating Raman laser beams by simply blocking the light in front of the retroreflecting mirror. A remarkable feature of this experiment is that the three interferometer pulses are realized by this single pair of Raman lasers that is turned on and off three times, the middle pulse being at the top of the atoms' trajectory. For all the measurements described in this article, the Raman lasers are used in the $co-propagating$ configuration. The interferometer is then no longer sensitive to inertial forces, but remains sensitive to the relative phase of the Raman lasers. Moreover, as such Raman transitions are not velocity selective, more atoms contribute to the signal. All this allows us to reach a good signal to noise ratio of 150 per shot.

The second path is used to control the Raman lasers phase difference, which needs to be locked onto the phase of a very stable microwave oscillator. The phase lock loop scheme is also displayed in figure . The frequency difference is measured by a fast photodetector, which detects a beatnote at 9.192 GHz. This signal is then mixed with the signal of a Dielectric Resonator Oscillator (DRO) tuned at 9.392 GHz. The DRO itself is phase locked onto the 94th harmonics of a very stable 100 MHz quartz. The output of the mixer (IF) is 200 MHz. A local oscillator (LO) at 200 MHz is generated by doubling the same 100 MHz quartz. IF and LO are compared using a digital phase and frequency detector, whose output is used as the error signal of the phase-locked loop. The relative phase of the lasers is stabilized by reacting on the current of one of the two diode lasers, as well as on the voltage applied to the PZT that controls the length of the extended cavity diode laser .

To measure $g(t)$, a small phase step of $\delta \phi=0.107$ rad is applied at time $t$ on the local oscillator. The phase lock loop copies this phase step onto the Raman phase within a fraction of $\mu s$, which is much shorter than the Raman pulse duration of $\tau_R=20~\mu s$. Finally we measured the transition probability as a function of $t$ and deduced the sensitivity function. We display in figure the measurement of the sensitivity function compared with the theoretical calculation. We also realized a precise measurement during each pulse and clearly obtained the predicted sinusoidal rise of the sensitivity function.

For a better agreement of the experimental data with the theoretical calculation, the data are normalized to take into account the interferometer's contrast, which was measured to be $78\%$. This reduction in the contrast with respect to $100\%$ is due to the combined effect of inhomogeneous Rabi frequencies between the atoms, and unbalanced Rabi frequencies between the pulses. Indeed, the atomic cloud size of $8$ mm is not negligible with respect to the size of the single pair of Raman gaussian beams, $w_0=15$ mm. Atoms at both sides of the atomic cloud will not see the same intensity, inducing variable transfer efficiency of the Raman transitions. Moreover, the cloud moves by about $3$ mm between the first and the last pulse. In order for the cloud to explore only the central part of the gaussian beams, we choose a rather small interaction time of $T=4.97$ ms with respect to the maximum interaction time possible of $T=40$ ms. Still, the quantitative agreement is not perfect. One especially observes a significant asymmetry of the sensitivity function, which remains to be explained. A full numerical simulation could help in understanding the effect of the experimental imperfections.

# Transfer Function of the interferometer

From the sensitivity function, we can now evaluate the fluctuations of the interferometric phase $\Phi$ for an arbitrary Raman phase noise $\phi (t)$ on the lasers $$\delta\Phi=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}g(t)d\phi(t)=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}g(t)\frac{d\phi(t)}{dt}dt.$$ The transfer function of the interferometer can be obtained by calculating the response of the interferometer phase $\Phi$ to a sinusoidal modulation of the Raman phase, given by $\phi(t)=A_0
\rm{cos}(\omega_0 t+\psi)$. We find $\delta\Phi=A_0\omega_0
Im(G(\omega_0))\rm{cos}(\psi)$, where $G$ is the Fourier transform of the sensitivity function. $$G(\omega)= \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}e^{-i\omega t}g(t)dt
\label{eq:G1}$$

When averaging over a random distribution of the modulation phase $\psi$, the rms value of the interferometer phase is $\delta
\Phi^{rms}=|A_0\omega_0 G(\omega_0)|$. The transfer function is thus given by $H(\omega)=\omega G(\omega)$. If we now assume uncorrelated Raman phase noise between successive measurements, the rms standard deviation of the interferometric phase noise $\sigma^{rms}_{\Phi}$ is given by: $$\label{eq:fourier}
(\sigma^{rms}_{\Phi})^2=\int_{0}^{+\infty}|H(\omega)|^2
S_{\phi}(\omega)d\omega$$ where $S_{\phi}(\omega)$ is the power spectral density of the Raman phase.

We calculate the Fourier transform of the sensitivity function and find: $$G(\omega)=\frac{4i\Omega_R}{\omega^2-\Omega_R^2}\sin(\frac{\omega(T+2\tau_R)}{2})
(\cos(\frac{\omega(T+2\tau_R)}{2})+\frac{\Omega_R}{\omega}\sin(\frac{\omega
T}{2})) \label{eq:G3}$$

At low frequency, where $\omega<<\Omega_R$, the sensitivity function can be approximated by $$G(\omega)=-\frac{4i}{\omega}\sin^2(\omega  T/2) \label{eq:G4}$$

The weighting function $|H(2\pi f)|^{2}$ versus the frequency $f$ is displayed in figure . It has two important features: the first one is an oscillating behavior at a frequency given by $1/(T+2\tau_R)$, leading to zeros at frequencies given by $f_k=\frac{k}{T+2\tau_R}$. The second is a low pass first order filtering due to the finite duration of the Raman pulses, with an effective cutoff frequency $f_0$, given by $f_0=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{3}\frac{\Omega_R}{2\pi}$. Above 1 kHz only the mean value over one oscillation is displayed on the figure.

In order to measure the transfer function, a phase modulation $A_m
\rm{cos} (2\pi f_m t+\psi)$ is applied on the Raman phase, triggered on the first Raman pulse. The interferometric phase variation is then recorded as a function of $f_m$. We then repeat the measurements for the phase modulation in quadrature $A_m
\rm{sin} (2\pi f_m t+\psi)$. From the quadratic sum of these measurement, we extract $H(2\pi f_m)^2$. The weighting function was first measured at low frequency. The results, displayed in figure together with the theoretical value, clearly demonstrate the oscillating behavior of the weighting function. Figure displays the measurements performed slightly above the cutoff frequency, and shows two zeros. The first one corresponds to a frequency multiple of $1/(T+2\tau)$. The second one is a zero of the last factor of equation . Its position depends critically on the value of the Rabi frequency.

When comparing the data with the calculation, the experimental imperfections already mentioned have to be accounted for. An effective Rabi frequency $\Omega_{eff}$ can be defined by the relation $\Omega_{eff}\tau_0=\pi$, where $\tau_0$ is the duration of the single pulse, performed at the center of the gaussian Raman beams, that optimizes the transition probability. For homogeneous Raman beams, this pulse would be a $\pi$ pulse. This effective Rabi frequency is measured with an uncertainty of about 1 %. It had to be corrected by only 1.5 % in order for the theoretical and experimental positions of the second zero to match. The excellent agreement between the theoretical and experimental curves validate our model.

# Link between the sensitivity function and the sensitivity of the interferometer

The sensitivity of the interferometer is characterized by the Allan variance of the interferometric phase fluctuations, $\sigma^{2}_{\Phi}(\tau)$, defined as

$$\begin{aligned}
 \sigma_{\Phi}^{2}(\tau)&=&\frac{1}{2}\langle(\bar{\delta \Phi}_{k+1}-\bar{\delta \Phi}_{k})^{2}\rangle \\
&=&\frac{1}{2}\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\left\{
 \frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=1}^{n}(\bar{\delta \Phi}_{k+1}-\bar{\delta \Phi}_{k})^{2}\right\}.\label{eq:variance_allan}

\end{aligned}$$

where $\bar{\delta \Phi}_{k}$ is the average value of $\delta
\Phi$ over the interval $[t_{k},t_{k+1}]$ of duration $\tau$. The Allan variance is equal, within a factor of two, to the variance of the differences in the successive average values $\bar{\delta
\Phi}_{k}$ of the interferometric phase. Our interferometer being operated sequentially at a rate $f_c=1/T_{\rm{c}}$, $\tau$ is a multiple of $T_c$ : $\tau=m T_c$. Without loosing generality, we can choose $t_{k}=-T_c/2+k m T_c$. The average value $\bar{\delta
\Phi}_{k}$ can now be expressed as

$$\begin{aligned}
 \bar{\delta \Phi}_{k}&=&\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m}\delta \Phi_{i}=\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m}\int_{t_{k}+(i-1)T_{\rm{c}}}^{t_{k}+iT_{\rm{c}}}g(t-t_{k}-(i-1)T_{\rm{c}}-T_{\rm{c}}/2)\frac{d\phi}{dt}~dt\\
 &=&\frac{1}{m}\int_{t_{k}}^{t_{k+1}}g_k(t)\frac{d\phi}{dt}~dt
\end{aligned}$$ where $g_k(t)=\sum_{i=1}^{m}g(t-k m T_{\rm{c}}-(i-1)T_{\rm{c}})$. The difference between successive average values is then given by $$\bar{\delta \Phi}_{k+1}-\bar{\delta \Phi}_{k}=\frac{1}{m}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}(g_{k+1}(t)-g_{k}(t))\frac{d\phi}{dt}~dt$$

For long enough averaging times, the fluctuations of the successive averages are not correlated and the Allan variance is given by $$\sigma_{\Phi}^{2}(\tau)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{m^2}\int_{0}^{+\infty}
|G_m(\omega)|^2 \omega^2 S_{\phi}(\omega)d\omega$$ where $G_m$ is the Fourier transform of the function $g_{k+1}(t)-g_{k}(t)$. After a few algebra, we find for the squared modulus of $G_m$ the following expression $$|G_m(\omega)|^2=4\frac{\rm{sin}^4(\omega m
T_c/2)}{\rm{sin}^2(\omega T_c/2)}|G(\omega)|^2$$ When $\tau \rightarrow \infty$, $|G_m(\omega)|^2 \sim
\frac{2m}{T_c} \sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty}\delta(\omega-j2\pi
f_{\rm{c}})|G(\omega)|^2$. Thus for large averaging times $\tau$, the Allan variance of the interferometric phase is given by $$\label{Dick} \sigma^{2}_{\Phi}(\tau)={1\over
\tau}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}|H(2\pi n f_{\rm{c}})|^2
        S_{\phi}({2\pi n f_{\rm{c}}})$$ Equation shows that the sensitivity of the interferometer is limited by an aliasing phenomenon similar to the Dick effect in atomic clocks  : only the phase noise at multiple of the cycling frequency appear in the Allan variance, weighted by the Fourier components of the transfer function.

Let's examine now the case of white Raman phase noise : $S_{\phi}(\omega)=S_{\phi}^{\rm{0}}$. The interferometer sensitivity is given by: $$\label{whiteeq1} \sigma^{2}_{\Phi}(\tau)=(\frac{\pi}{2})^2
\frac{S_{\phi}^{\rm{0}}}{\tau}\frac{T_{\rm{c}}}{\tau_R}$$ In that case, the sensitivity of the interferometer depend not only on the Raman phase noise spectral density but also on the pulse duration $\tau_R$. For a better sensitivity, one should use the largest pulse duration as possible. But, as the Raman transitions are velocity selective, a very long pulse will reduce the number of useful atoms. This increases the detection noise contribution, so that there is an optimum value of $\tau_R$ that depends on the experimental parameters. In the case of the gyroscope, the optimum was found to be $\tau_R=20\,\mu$s.

To reach a good sensitivity, the Raman phase needs to be locked to the phase of a very stable microwave oscillator (whose frequency is 6.834 GHz for $^{87}$Rb and 9.192 GHz for $^{133}$Cs). This oscillator can be generated by a frequency chain, where low phase noise quartz performances are transposed in the microwave domain. At low frequencies ($f<10-100$ Hz), the phase noise spectral density of such an oscillator is usually well approximated by a $1/f^3$ power law (flicker noise), whereas at high frequency ($f>1$ kHz), it is independent of the frequency (white noise). Using equation and the typical parameters of our experiments ($\tau_R=20\,\rm{\mu s}$ and $T=50$ ms), we can calculate the phase noise spectral density required to achieve an interferometric phase fluctuation of 1 mrad per shot. This is equivalent to the quantum projection noise limit for $10^6$ detected atoms. The flicker noise of the microwave oscillator should be lower than $-53\,\rm{dB.rad}^2.\rm{Hz}^{-1}$ at 1 Hz from the carrier frequency, and its white noise below $-111\,\rm{dB.rad}^2.\rm{Hz}^{-1}$. Unfortunately, there exists no quartz oscillator combining these two levels of performance. Thus, we plan to lock a SC Premium 100 MHz oscillator (from Wenzel Company) onto a low flicker noise 5 MHz Blue Top oscillator (Wenzel). From the specifications of these quartz, we calculate a contribution of 1.2 mrad to the interferometric phase noise.

Phase fluctuations also arise from residual noise in the servo-lock loop. We have measured experimentally the residual phase noise power spectral density of a phase lock system analogous to the one described in figure . This system has been developed for phase locking the Raman lasers of the gravimeter experiment. The measurement was performed by mixing IF and LO onto an independent RF mixer, whose output phase fluctuations was analyzed onto a Fast Fourier Transform analyzer. The result of the measurement is displayed on figure . At low frequencies, below 100 Hz, the phase noise of our phaselock system lies well below the required flicker noise. After a few kHz, it reaches a plateau of $-119\,\rm{dB.rad}^2.\rm{Hz}^{-1}$. The amplitude of this residual noise is not limited by the gain of the servo loop. Above 60 kHz, it increases up to $-90\,\rm{dB.rad}^2.\rm{Hz}^{-1}$ at $3.5$ MHz, which is the bandwidth of our servo lock loop. Using equation , we evaluated to $0.72$ mrad its contribution to the interferometer's phase noise.

Other sources of noise are expected to contribute, which haven't been investigated here : noise of the fast photodetector, phase noise due to the propagation of the Raman beams in free space and in optical fibers .

# The case of parasitic vibrations

The same formalism can be used to evaluate the degradation of the sensitivity caused by parasitic vibrations in the usual case of counter-propagating Raman beams. As the two laser beams are first overlapped before being sent onto the atoms, their phase difference is mostly affected by the movements of a single optical element, the mirror that finally retro-reflects them.

A displacement of this mirror by $\delta z$ induces a Raman phase shift of $k_{eff}\delta z$. The sensitivity of the interferometer is then given by $$\label{Vibeq} \sigma^{2}_{\Phi}(\tau)={k_{eff}^2\over
\tau}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}|H(2\pi n f_{\rm{c}})|^2
        S_{z}(2\pi n f_{\rm{c}})$$ where $S_{z}(\omega)$ is the power spectral density of position noise. Introducing the power spectral density of acceleration noise $S_{z}(\omega)$, the previous equation can be written

$$\label{Vibeq2} \sigma^{2}_{\Phi}(\tau)={k_{eff}^2\over
\tau}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}
        \frac{|H(2\pi n f_{\rm{c}})|^2}{(2\pi n f_{\rm{c}})^4}
        S_{a}(2\pi n f_{\rm{c}})$$ It is important to note here that the acceleration noise is severely filtered by the transfer function for acceleration which decreases as $1/f^4$.

In the case of white acceleration noise $S_{a}$, and to first order in $\tau_R/T$, the limit on the sensitivity of the interferometer is given by :

$$\label{whiteeq} \sigma^{2}_{\Phi}(\tau)=\frac{k_{eff}^2
T^4}{2}\left(\frac{2T_{\rm{c}}}{3T}-1\right)\frac{S_{a}}{\tau}\$$

To put this into numbers, we now calculate the requirements on the acceleration noise of the retroreflecting mirror in order to reach a sensitivity of 1 mrad per shot. For the typical parameters of our gravimeter, the amplitude noise should lie below $10^{-8}\,\rm{m.s^{-2}.Hz^{-1/2}}$. The typical amplitude of the vibration noise measured on the lab floor is $2\times10^{-7}\,\rm{m.s^{-2}.Hz^{-1/2}}$ at 1 Hz and rises up to about $5\times10^{-5}\,\rm{m.s^{-2}.Hz^{-1/2}}$ at 10 Hz. This vibration noise can be lowered to a few $10^{-7}\,\rm{m.s^{-2}.Hz^{-1/2}}$ in the 1 to 100 Hz frequency band with a passive isolation platform. To fill the gap and cancel the effect of vibrations, one could use the method proposed in , which consists in measuring the vibrations of the mirror with a very low noise seismometer and compensate the fluctuations of the position of the mirror by reacting on the Raman lasers phase difference.

# Conclusion

We have here calculated and experimentally measured the sensitivity function of a three pulses atomic interferometer. This enables us to determine the influence of the Raman phase noise, as well as of parasitic vibrations, on the noise on the interferometer phase. Reaching a 1 mrad shot to shot fluctuation requires a very low phase noise frequency reference, an optimized phase lock loop of the Raman lasers, together with a very low level of parasitic vibrations. With our typical experimental parameters, this would result in a sensitivity of $4\times10^{-8}\,\rm{rad.s^{-1}.Hz^{-1/2}}$ for the gyroscope and of $1.5\times10^{-8}\,\rm{m.s^{-2}.Hz^{-1/2}}$ for the gravimeter.

Improvements are still possible. The frequency reference could be obtained from an ultra stable microwave oscillator, such as a cryogenic sapphire oscillator , whose phase noise lies well below the best quartz available. Besides, the requirements on the phase noise would be easier to achieve using atoms with a lower hyperfine transition frequency, such as Na or K. Trapping a very large initial number of atoms in the 3D-MOT would enable a very drastic velocity selection. The duration of the Raman pulses could then be significantly increased, which makes the interferometer less sensitive to high frequency Raman phase noise. The manipulation of the atoms can also be implemented using Bragg pulses . The difference in the frequencies of the two beams being much smaller, the requirements on the relative phase stability is easy to achieve. In that case, a different detection method needs to be implemented as atoms in both exit ports of the interferometer are in the same internal state. Using ultracold atoms with subrecoil temperature, atomic wavepackets at the two exit ports can be spatially separated, which allows for a simple detection based on absorption imaging. Such an interferometer would benefit from the long interaction times available in space to reach a very high sensitivity.

We also want to emphasize that the sensitivity function can also be used to calculate the phase shifts arising from all possible systematic effects, such as the light shifts, the magnetic field gradients and the cold atom collisions.

# Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank André Clairon for fruitful discussions and careful reading of the manuscript. This work was supported in part by BNM, CNRS, DGA and CNES. BNM-SYRTE is Unité Associée au CNRS, UMR 8630.