1:
2: \documentclass{article}
3:
4: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]
5: \newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
6:
7: %\documentclass[10pt,fleqn,titlepage]{article}
8: \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
9: \usepackage[italian,english]{babel}
10: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
11:
12:
13:
14: %\title{(???Gravitational Wave Detection by Atom
15: %Interferometry???)\\
16: %(??? Is it possible to detect gravitational waves with an atom interferometer???)}
17: %\author{Ch.J. Bord\'{e} $^{1}$, G.M. Tino $^{2}$, F. Vetrano $^{3}$}
18: %\date{\today}
19:
20: \begin{document}
21: %\maketitle
22: \selectlanguage{english}
23:
24: %\documentclass{article}
25: %\documentclass[12pt,epsf]{article}
26: %\documentstyle[prl,aps,epsf,twocolumn]{revtex}
27: %\documentstyle[prl,aps,epsf]{revtex}
28: %\documentstyle[12pt,a4,epsf]{article}
29: %\begin{document}
30: %\usepackage[english]{babel}
31: %\setlength{\textheight}{43pc}
32: %\setlength{\textwidth}{18 cm}
33:
34: \title{Is it possible to detect gravitational waves\\ with atom interferometers?}
35:
36: \author{
37: G. M. Tino $^{1}$, F. Vetrano $^{2}$}
38:
39: \date{\today}
40: \maketitle
41:
42: \begin{abstract}
43: We investigate the possibility to use atom interferometers to detect
44: gravitational waves. We discuss the interaction of gravitational waves with an
45: atom interferometer and analyze possible schemes.
46: \end{abstract}
47:
48: \vspace{5mm}
49:
50: PACS: 03.75.Dg; 04.30.-w; 04.80.Nn; 95.55.Ym; 39.20.+q
51:
52:
53:
54: \footnotetext[1]{Dipartimento di Fisica and LENS-Universit\`{a} di Firenze,
55: INFN-Sezione di Firenze, Polo Scientifico, 50019 Sesto Fiorentino, Italy -
56: E-mail: guglielmo.tino@fi.infn.it}
57:
58: \footnotetext[2]{Istituto di Fisica-Universit\`{a} di Urbino, INFN-Sezione di
59: Firenze, 61029 Urbino, Italy - E-mail: vetrano@fis.uniurb.it}
60:
61: \vspace{5mm} \textwidth = 27pc \textheight = 43pc
62: %\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0 cm}
63:
64: %\setlength{\baselineskip}{5ex}
65:
66: \section{Introduction}\label{par:Intro}
67: The direct detection of Gravitational Waves (GWs) is one of the most exciting scientific
68: goals because it would improve our understanding of laws governing
69: the universe and provide new means to observe it. The most
70: sensitive detectors which are already operating, under
71: construction or being planned are based on optical interferometers
72: \cite{Saulson1994,reviewGW,reviewLISA}. In most cases, however,
73: the sensitivities are only marginally sufficient to detect the
74: expected signals, detectors have large sizes ranging from a few km
75: on the Earth (Virgo, LIGO) to millions of km in space (LISA) and
76: the operating frequency ranges are limited. Therefore it is of
77: great interest to investigate alternative schemes that can lead to
78: a higher sensitivity, smaller sizes and extend the frequency range
79: of the detectors.
80:
81: In recent years, matter-wave interferometry with neutral atoms has undergone an
82: impressive development due to the increasing ability to control the internal
83: and external atomic degrees of freedom using laser manipulation methods
84: \cite{Berman1997,Chu2001,Peters2001,Borde2002}. Atom Interferometers (AIs) are
85: already competing with state-of-art optical interferometers in terms of
86: sensitivity. This was demonstrated experimentally for gravity acceleration
87: \cite{Peters1999}, gravity gradients \cite{McGuirk2002}, inertial and rotation
88: effects \cite{Gustafson2000,Stedman1997}. Other experiments, planned or
89: presently in progress, to investigate properties of gravitational field by AI
90: concern accurate measurements of G \cite{Bertoldi2006,Fixler2007}, test of the
91: equivalence principle \cite{Dimopoulos2006}, detection of the Lense-Thirring
92: effect \cite{HYPER2000}, deviations from the 1/r$^{2}$ Newtonian law for small
93: distances \cite{Ferrari2006}.
94:
95: In analogy to optical interferometers, in atom interferometers atomic wave
96: packets are split and recombined giving rise to an interference signal.
97: Different schemes can be used for splitting, reflecting and recombining the
98: atoms. In a particular class of interferometers, which is the one relevant in
99: this paper, the separation of the atoms is achieved by inducing a transition
100: between internal states of the atoms by an electromagnetic field. The spatial
101: separation in this case is induced by the momentum recoil and the internal and
102: external states of the atoms become entangled. Another approach is to use
103: material gratings. This raises however different problems, both conceptual and
104: technical, such as the realization and handling of the required nano-structures
105: and it will not be considered here.
106:
107: In this paper, we discuss the possibility to use AI to detect gravitational
108: waves. The interaction between matter waves and gravitational waves was already
109: investigated in \cite{Linet1976,Stodolsky1979,Anandan1982,Borde1983}. Recently,
110: due to the experimental advances, the interest was revived
111: \cite{Aspen2004,Chiao2004,Misner2006,Foffa2006,Delva2006}. The aim of the
112: present paper is to analyze possible schemes for interferometers using light
113: fields as atom optics components. Compared to \cite{Delva2006}, where only the
114: Linet-Tourrenc contribution is considered in the eikonal approximation, we take
115: into account all the contributions in phase difference inside the
116: interferometer.
117:
118: The paper is organized as follows. In Sect.~\ref{par:ABCDph} we recall the
119: ABCD formalism for matter waves and apply it to the calculation of phase shift
120: in atom interferometers in the specific case of weak gravitational field when
121: the Hamiltonian is at most quadratic in coordinates and conjugate momenta. A
122: detailed discussion about Einstein and Fermi coordinates is presented in
123: appendix. We apply the results in Sect.~\ref{par:phcalc} to derive the phase
124: shift signal for two specific atom interferometer configurations. Finally, in
125: Sect.~\ref{par:exp} we discuss possible experimental schemes and evaluate the
126: sensitivity for the detection of gravitational waves.
127:
128:
129: \section{The ABCD matrices for matter waves and phase-shift formula for
130: atom interferometers}\label{par:ABCDph} In this section we recall the ABCD
131: formalism for matter waves and apply it to calculation of phase shift formula.
132: The discussion is based on the relativistic Schroedinger-type equation for atom
133: waves and its analysis in \cite{Borde2004} and references therein.
134:
135:
136: \subsection{The ABCD matrices for matter waves}\label{par:ABCD}
137: In the following, we assume that the Hamiltonian relative to the motion of the
138: center of mass is a quadratic polynominal of momentum
139: and position operators, as in most cases of relevance in AI:%
140: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:quadH}
141: &&H= \frac{1}{2M^*}\vec{p}\cdot \stackrel{\Rightarrow}{\beta}(t) \cdot \vec{p}
142: + \frac{1}{2} \vec{p} \cdot \stackrel{\Rightarrow}{\alpha}(t) \cdot \vec{q}+
143: \nonumber\\
144: &&- \frac{1}{2} \vec{q} \cdot \stackrel{\Rightarrow}{\delta}(t) \cdot \vec{p} -
145: \frac{M^*}{2}\vec{q}\cdot \stackrel{\Rightarrow}{\gamma}(t) \cdot \vec{q} +
146: \vec{f}(t) \cdot \vec{p} - M^* \vec{g}(t) \cdot \vec{q}
147: \end{eqnarray}%
148: where $\alpha , \, \beta, \, \gamma, \, \delta$ are
149: suitable square matrices coefficients for the quadratic terms (with $\delta =
150: -\tilde{\alpha}$, where the tilde indicates the transposed matrix); $g$ is the
151: gravity vector field and $f$ is an external vector field. $M^*$ is the
152: relativistic mass ($M^* = M_0/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2},$ where $M_0$ is the rest mass).
153: The evolution of the wave packets by this Hamiltonian, via the Ehrenfest
154: theorem, can be obtained through Hamilton's equations
155: \cite{Borde2004,Antoine2003}:
156: %
157: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:Heq}
158: \frac{d\chi (t)}{dt} = \left(\begin{array}{c}
159: \frac{dH}{dp}\\
160: -\frac{1}{M^*} \frac{dH}{dq}
161: \end{array}\right) = \Gamma (t) \chi (t) + \Phi (t)
162: \end{eqnarray}
163: %
164: where
165: %
166: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:chi}
167: \chi (t) = \left( \begin{array}{c}
168: q\\
169: p/M^*
170: \end{array}\right)
171: \hspace{1cm}
172: \Phi (t) = \left( \begin{array}{c}
173: f(t)\\
174: g(t)
175: \end{array}\right)
176: \end{eqnarray}%
177: and%
178: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:Gamma}
179: \Gamma (t) = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
180: \alpha (t) & \beta (t) \\
181: \gamma (t) & \delta (t)
182: \end{array}\right)
183: \end{eqnarray}%
184: The integral of Hamilton's equations can be written through the ABCD matrices
185: as
186: %
187: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:chisol}
188: \chi (t) = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
189: A (t, t_0) & B (t, t_0) \\
190: C (t, t_0) & D (t, t_0)
191: \end{array}\right) \left[\chi (t_0) +
192: \left( \begin{array}{c}
193: \xi (t,t_0) \\
194: \psi (t,t_0)
195: \end{array}
196: \right) \right]
197: \end{eqnarray}
198: where
199: %
200: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:intpart}
201: \left( \begin{array}{c}
202: \xi (t,t_0) \\
203: \psi (t,t_0)
204: \end{array}
205: \right) =
206: \int_{t_0}^{t}\mathcal{M}(t_0,t')\Phi (t')dt'
207: \end{eqnarray}%
208: %
209: and
210: %
211: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:ABCDsol}
212: \mathcal{M} (t,t_0) = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
213: A (t, t_0) & B (t, t_0) \\
214: C (t, t_0) & D (t, t_0)
215: \end{array}\right) =
216: \mathcal{T} \textrm{exp} \int_{t_0}^{t} \Gamma (t') dt'
217: \end{eqnarray}%
218: with $\mathcal{T}$ the time ordering operator. A perturbative expansion leads
219: to \cite{Antoine2003}:
220: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:Mpert}
221: \mathcal{M} (t,t_0) = 1+ \int_{t_0}^{t} \Gamma (t') dt' + \int_{t_0}^{t} dt'
222: \int_{t_0}^{t'} \Gamma (t')\Gamma (t'')dt'' + ...
223: \end{eqnarray}%
224:
225: %
226:
227: The Eq.~(\ref{eq:ABCDsol}) can be used to find the ABCD matrices which
228: determine the evolution of the wave packets in presence of the GW, $h$. If we
229: consider the simple case in which the GW is the only (weak) field, in the two
230: coordinate systems discussed in Appendix A, for a single Fourier component $
231: \Omega$ we have up to the first
232: order in $h(\Omega)$:\\%
233:
234: \textit{Fermi coordinates}
235: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:FCsubmatr}
236: &&\stackrel{\Rightarrow}{\alpha} \,=\, \stackrel{\Rightarrow}{\delta} \, = \, 0 \nonumber\\
237: &&\stackrel{\Rightarrow}{\beta} \,=\, \stackrel{\Rightarrow}{1}\\
238: &&\stackrel{\Rightarrow}{\gamma} \,=\, \frac{\Omega^2}{2}
239: \stackrel{\Rightarrow}{h}\nonumber
240: \end{eqnarray}
241:
242: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:ABCDRBFC}
243: &&A(t_2,t_1)=1- \gamma(\Omega)e^{i\Omega t_1} \left[\frac{e^{i\Omega
244: (t_2-t_1)}-1}{\Omega^{2}}
245: +\frac{t_2-t_1}{i\Omega}\right] \nonumber\\
246: &&B(t_2,t_1)=(t_2-t_1)+\nonumber\\
247: &&+ \frac{\gamma(\Omega)}{\Omega^{2}}e^{i\Omega
248: t_1}\left[-(t_2-t_1)\left(e^{i\Omega(t_2-t_1)}+1\right)
249: +\frac{2\left(e^{i\Omega(t_2-t_1)}-1\right)}{i\Omega}\right] \nonumber\\
250: &&C(t_2,t_1)= \gamma(\Omega)e^{i\Omega t_1} \left[\frac{e^{i\Omega
251: (t_2-t_1)}-1}{i\Omega}\right]
252: \\
253: &&D(t_2,t_1)=1+ \gamma(\Omega)e^{i\Omega t_1} \left[\frac{(t_2-t_1)e^{i\Omega
254: (t_2-t_1)}}{i\Omega} +\frac{e^{i\Omega(t_2-t_1)}-1}{\Omega^{2}}\right]
255: \nonumber
256: \end{eqnarray}%
257: where $\gamma(\Omega)=h(\Omega)\Omega^{2}/2, h(\Omega)=\int h(t)\exp(-i\Omega
258: t)dt, i=\sqrt{-1}$ .\\
259:
260: \textit{Einstein coordinates}
261: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:ECsubmatr}
262: &&\stackrel{\Rightarrow}{\alpha}\, =\, \stackrel{\Rightarrow}{\delta} \,=\,
263: \stackrel{\Rightarrow}{\gamma} \,= \,0 \nonumber\\
264: &&\stackrel{\Rightarrow}{\beta} \,= \,\stackrel{\Rightarrow}{h}(t) - \stackrel{\Rightarrow}{\eta}
265: \end{eqnarray}
266:
267: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:ABCDRBEC}
268: &&A(t_2,t_1)=1\nonumber\\
269: &&B(t_2,t_1)=(t_2-t_1)+ \frac{h(\Omega)}{i\Omega}e^{i\Omega
270: t_1}\left[e^{i\Omega(t_2-t_1)}-1\right] \nonumber\\
271: &&C(t_2,t_1)=0 \\
272: &&D(t_2,t_1)=1 \nonumber
273: \end{eqnarray}
274:
275: where $\stackrel{\Rightarrow}{\eta}$ is the Minkowskian matrix.
276:
277: \subsection{The phase shift formula for atom interferometers}\label{par:ph}
278: The total phase difference between the two arms, $s$ and $i$, of an atom
279: interferometer can be expressed as the sum of three terms: the difference in
280: the action integral along each path; the difference in the phases imprinted by
281: the beam-splitters on the atom waves; the contribution from the splitting of
282: the wave packets at the exit of the interferometer \cite{Borde2004}:
283: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:Del1}
284: \Delta \varphi &=& \frac{1}{\hbar}\sum_{j=1}^{N} [S_{s}(t_{j+1},t_j) -
285: S_{i}(t_{j+1},t_j)] + \nonumber\\
286: &&+\sum_{j=1}^{N}[(k_{sj} q_{sj} - k_{ij} q_{ij}) - (\omega_{sj} -
287: \omega_{ij})t_j
288: + (\vartheta_{sj}- \vartheta_{ij})]+ \nonumber\\
289: &&+ \frac{1}{\hbar}[p_{sD}(q-q_{sD})-p_{iD}(q-q_{iD})]
290: \end{eqnarray}
291: where $S_{sj}=S_s (t_{j+1},t_j)$ and $S_{ij}=S_i (t_{j+1},t_j)$ are the action
292: integrals along $s$ $(i)$ path; $k_{sj}(k_{ij})$ is the momentum transferred
293: to the atoms by the j-th beam-splitter along the $s$ $(i)$ arm; $q_{sj}$ and
294: $q_{ij}$ are the coordinates of the beam splitter/atom interaction;
295: $\omega_{sj} (\omega_{ij})$ is the angular frequency of the laser beam;
296: $\vartheta_{sj} (\vartheta_{ij})$ is the phase of the laser beam at the j-th
297: interaction with the atom; $D$ is the exit port.
298:
299: Assuming the same input point for the two arms and using the "mid point"
300: property \cite{Borde2002} in integrating over the space at the output, the
301: phase shift difference $\Delta \varphi$ between the two arms (s,i) for an
302: interferometer with N beam splitters can be written as:
303: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:Del}
304: \Delta \varphi &=& \sum_{j=1}^{N} (k_{sj} - k_{ij})\frac{q_{sj} + q_{ij}}{2}+
305: \sum_{j=1}^{N} (\omega_{sj} -
306: \omega_{ij})t_j + \nonumber\\
307: &&+ \sum_{j=1}^{N} (\vartheta_{sj} - \vartheta_{ij}) +
308: \sum_{j=1}^{N}\frac{(M_{sj} - M_{ij}) c^2}{\hbar}\tau_j
309: \end{eqnarray}
310: where $M_{sj}(M_{ij})$ is the mass of the atom in the $s$ $(i)$ arm and
311: $\tau_j$ is a proper time at the j-th interaction.
312:
313: \section{Phase calculation for different AI geometries}\label{par:phcalc}
314: In this section, we use the ABCD formalism to find the resulting phase shift
315: $\Delta \varphi$ for typical atom interferometer schemes \cite{Berman1997}. The
316: approach is in the frequency space of complex Fourier transform in order to
317: describe both the amplitude and the phase of the resulting $\Delta \varphi$. We
318: consider here the trapezoidal interferometer, first suggested in
319: \cite{Borde1989}, and the parallelogram-shaped interferometer, both in Fermi
320: and Einstein coordinates, retaining only terms up to the first order in $h$.
321:
322: \subsection{Trapezoidal AI}\label{par:RB}
323: The scheme of a trapezoidal interferometer is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:RB}. The
324: interaction of the atom with two counter-propagating pairs of copropagating
325: beams (BS1-BS4) gives rise to a trapezoidal-shaped closed circuit. By using
326: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Del}), we obtain the expression of the phase shift for the two
327: arms
328: (s,i) of the interferometer:%
329: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:DelRB}
330: &&\Delta \varphi= k_1 q_1 + \frac{1}{2} k_{s2} (q_{s2,b} +
331: q_{i2,a})+ \frac{1}{2} k_{s3} (q_{i3,a} +
332: q_{s3,a}) + \frac{1}{2} k_{4} (q_{s4,b} + q_{i4,a}) \nonumber\\
333: &&+ 2(\Omega_L T - \Omega_{ba} \tau) + \vartheta _1 -\vartheta _2 + \vartheta
334: _3 -\vartheta _4
335: \end{eqnarray}%
336: where $\Omega_L$ is the laser frequency and $\Omega_{ba}$ is the
337: frequency of the atomic transition involving ground (a) and
338: excited (b) states; $\vartheta _i$ are the proper laser phases.
339: Expressing all the $q_j$ coordinates through the ABCD matrices,
340: the phase difference $\Delta \varphi$ at the output of the interferometer is then given by:%
341: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:DRBFC}
342: &&\Delta \varphi = k_1q_1[1-2A(T,0)+A(2T,0)]+\nonumber\\
343: &&+\frac{k_1}{2}[B(2T,0)-2B(T,0)]\left(\frac{p_1}{M_b}+\frac{p_1}{M_a} +\frac{\hbar k_1}{M_b}\right)\\
344: &&-k_1B(2T,T)\frac{\hbar k_1}{M_b}+2\Omega_L T -2\Omega_{ba} \tau + \vartheta
345: _1 -\vartheta _2 + \vartheta _3 -\vartheta _4 \nonumber
346: \end{eqnarray}%
347: where M$_{a}$ and M$_{b}$ are the masses of the atom in the ground and excited
348: state, respectively; the expression for the A, B, C, D matrices depends on the
349: coordinate system.
350:
351: Let's first consider Fermi coordinates. From Eq.~(\ref{eq:DRBFC}) and
352: Eq.~(\ref{eq:ABCDRBFC}), we obtain for the phase difference for this
353: configuration
354: %
355: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:DRBFCOm}
356: &&\Delta \varphi(\Omega)= -\frac{\Omega \, h(\Omega)}{2}
357: \left(\frac{1}{M_a}+\frac{1}{M_b}\right)T^{2}k_1p_1 \cdot\nonumber\\
358: && \cdot \left\{ \left[\sin\Omega T\left(\frac{\sin(\Omega T/2)}{\Omega T/2}
359: \right)^{2}+\frac{\cos 2\Omega T - \cos \Omega T}{\Omega T}
360: \right] + \right. \nonumber\\
361: &&\left. + \, i\left[\frac{\sin 2\Omega T - \sin \Omega T}{\Omega T} -
362: \cos\Omega T\left(\frac{\sin(\Omega T/2)}{\Omega
363: T/2} \right)^{2}\right]\right\}+\nonumber\\
364: &&+ h(\Omega) \frac{\hbar k_1^{2}T}{M_b} \left[\left(1-\frac{\sin\Omega T
365: }{\Omega T}\right)\cos\Omega T +
366: i\left(1-\frac{\sin\Omega T}{\Omega T}\right)\sin\Omega T \right]+ \nonumber\\
367: && +\frac{\Omega^{2}h(\Omega)}{2} T^{2}k_1q_1
368: \left[\frac{\sin(\Omega T/2)}{\Omega
369: T/2} \right]^{2}\left(\cos\Omega T + i\sin \Omega T \right) + \\
370: &&+ 2 \left(\Omega_L - \frac{\hbar k_1^{2}}{2 M_b}\right)T - 2\Omega_{ba} \tau
371: + \vartheta _{1F} -\vartheta _{2F} + \vartheta _{3F} -\vartheta _{4F} \nonumber
372: \end{eqnarray}
373: %
374: Considering Einstein coordinates, from Eq.~(\ref{eq:DRBFC})
375: and Eq.~(\ref{eq:ABCDRBEC}), we obtain
376: %
377: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:DRBECOm}
378: &&\Delta \varphi(\Omega) = -\frac{\Omega h(\Omega)}{2}
379: \left(\frac{1}{M_a}+\frac{1}{M_b}\right)T^{2}k_1p_1 \cdot \nonumber\\
380: && \cdot \left[\sin\Omega T\left(\frac{\sin(\Omega T/2)}{\Omega
381: T/2} \right)^{2}- i\cos\Omega
382: T\left(\frac{\sin(\Omega T/2)}{\Omega T/2} \right)^{2} \right] + \\
383: && -\frac{\hbar k_1^{2}T}{M_b}h(\Omega)\left(\cos\Omega T \frac{\sin \Omega
384: T}{\Omega T} + i \sin \Omega T
385: \frac{\sin \Omega T}{\Omega T}\right) + \nonumber\\
386: && + 2 \left(\Omega_L - \frac{\hbar k_1^{2}}{2 M_b}\right)T - 2\Omega_{ba} \tau
387: + \vartheta _{1E} -\vartheta _{2E} + \vartheta _{3E} -\vartheta _{4E} \nonumber
388: \end{eqnarray}
389: %
390: where $\vartheta _{iE}$ are the laser phases in the Einstein coordinates
391: system. They are different because in Einstein coordinates the index of
392: refraction for the vacuum
393: is varying with
394: $h(t)$ or, which is the same, we have an extra (Fourier transformed)
395: contribution $\delta k \cong k[h(t,\Omega)/2]$exp$(i \Omega t)$ to the momentum
396: transfered at the beam-splitter positions as a consequence of the apparent
397: photon velocity $v \cong c [1 + (h/2)] $. This can be accounted for in the
398: phase terms leading to an extra term $-\delta k (t,\Omega)$ in
399: Eq.~(\ref{eq:DelRB}), as in spatial beam-splitters \cite{Borde2004}. By
400: inserting these laser phases and using the coordinates transformation rules in
401: GR between the two systems here considered (see Appendix B), the resulting
402: phase shift difference is coincident with the one obtained in Fermi
403: coordinates, as expected for a scalar quantity which is a physical result in
404: spite of different descriptions.
405:
406:
407: \subsection{Parallelogram-shaped AI}\label{par:MZ}
408: The scheme of a parallelogram-shaped AI is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Diam}. In
409: this case, the interaction of the atom with four copropagating laser beams
410: gives rise to a parallelogram-shaped closed circuit.
411:
412: The phase difference at the output of this interferometer is given by:%
413: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:DDIFC}
414: &&\Delta \varphi = k_1q_1[1-2A(T,0)+A(2T,0)]+\nonumber\\
415: &&+\frac{k_1}{2}[B(2T,0)-2B(T,0)]\left( \frac{p_1}{M_a}+\frac{p_1}{M_b} +\frac{\hbar k_1}{M_b}\right) +\\
416: &&+ \frac{\hbar k_1^{2}}{2M_b}B(2T,T)\left[D(T,0)-1\right]\epsilon + \vartheta
417: _1 -\vartheta _2 - \vartheta _3 +\vartheta _4 \nonumber
418: \end{eqnarray}
419: up to the first order in $\epsilon$, where $\epsilon= (M_b-M_a)/M_a$. The only
420: difference from the case of a trapezoidal interferometer (Eq.~(\ref{eq:DRBFC}))
421: is in the recoil term, which is proportional to the relative energy difference
422: between ground and excited states. Using Fermi coordinates, from
423: Eq.~(\ref{eq:ABCDRBFC}) we
424: obtain:%
425: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:DDIFCOm}
426: &&\Delta \varphi(\Omega)= -\frac{\Omega \, h(\Omega)}{2} T^{2}k_1 \left(
427: \frac{p_1}{M_a}+\frac{p_1}{M_b}+\frac{\hbar k_1}{M_b} \right)
428: \cdot\nonumber\\
429: && \cdot \left\{\left[\sin\Omega T\left(\frac{\sin(\Omega T/2)}{\Omega T/2}
430: \right)^{2}+\frac{\cos 2\Omega T - \cos \Omega T}{\Omega T}
431: \right]+ \right. \nonumber\\
432: && \left. + i\left[\frac{\sin 2\Omega T - \sin \Omega T}{\Omega T}
433: - \cos\Omega T\left(\frac{\sin(\Omega T/2)}{\Omega
434: T/2} \right)^{2}\right]\right\}+ \nonumber\\
435: &&+\frac{\Omega^{2}h(\Omega)}{2}
436: T^{2}k_1q_1\left(\frac{\sin(\Omega T/2)}{\Omega T/2}
437: \right)^{2}\left(\cos\Omega T + i\sin \Omega T \right) + \\
438: &&+ \frac{\epsilon}{2}\frac{\hbar
439: k_1^{2}}{2M_b}h(\Omega)T^{2}\left[\left(\sin\Omega T -\frac{1- \cos\Omega
440: T}{\Omega T} \right)+ i\left(\frac{\sin \Omega T }{\Omega T} - \cos \Omega T\right)\right] + \nonumber\\
441: && +\vartheta _{1F} -\vartheta _{2F} - \vartheta _{3F} +\vartheta _{4F}
442: \nonumber
443: \end{eqnarray}
444:
445: Considering Einstein coordinates, we obtain:%
446: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:DDIECOm}
447: &&\Delta \varphi(\Omega))= -\frac{\Omega h(\Omega)}{2}
448: T^{2}k_1\left(\frac{p_1}{M_a}+\frac{p_1}{M_b}+\frac{\hbar k_1}{M_b}\right)
449: \cdot
450: \\
451: && \cdot \left[\sin\Omega T\left(\frac{\sin(\Omega T/2)}{\Omega
452: T/2} \right)^{2}- i\cos\Omega
453: T\left(\frac{\sin(\Omega T/2)}{\Omega T/2} \right)^{2} \right] + \nonumber\\
454: && + \vartheta _{1E} - \vartheta _{2E} - \vartheta _{3E}
455: +\vartheta _{4E} \nonumber
456: \end{eqnarray}
457:
458: The same considerations of paragraph \ref{par:RB} apply in this case about the
459: identity of the results in the two descriptions.
460:
461:
462: \section{Possible schemes and expected sensitivities}\label{par:exp}
463:
464: The results in previous section provide the phase shift at the
465: output of the atom interferometer induced by a gravitational wave
466: with amplitude $h$ and frequency $\Omega$ for the typical schemes
467: considered. In order to determine the sensitivity of the
468: interferometer, that is the minimum detectable amplitude
469: $h(\Omega)$, we assume shot-noise-limited detection of the atoms,
470: corresponding to a phase noise given by $\Delta
471: \varphi(\Omega))=\eta/\sqrt{\dot{N}}$ where $\eta$ is a detection
472: efficiency and $\dot{N}$ is the atoms flow at the detector. The
473: resulting sensitivity $h(\Omega)$ (at S/N ratio equal 1)
474: can be written as%
475:
476: \begin{equation}\label{eq:gensens}
477: h(\Omega)= \frac{ \eta }{\sqrt{\dot{N}}} \,\,
478: \frac{1}{ f(\Omega) \Sigma }
479: \end{equation}%
480: where $\Sigma$ is a scale factor and $f(\Omega)$ is the resonance function of
481: the interferometer. Neglecting the clock and recoil terms, from
482: Eq.~(\ref{eq:DRBFCOm}) we obtain:
483: \begin{equation}\label{eq:homega}
484: h(\Omega)= \frac{\eta\hbar}{p_{T}L \sqrt{\dot{N}}} \,\, \frac{1}{f(\Omega)}
485: \end{equation}%
486: where $L$ is the characteristic linear dimension of the interferometer, $p_T =
487: mv_T$ with $v_T$ the transversal velocity acquired by the atoms in the
488: splitting process and $2/m =
489: 1/M_a + 1/M_b$, and where%
490: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:fomega}
491: f(\Omega)= \Omega T \left\{ \left[ \sin (\Omega T)
492: \left( \frac{\sin (\Omega T)/2}{\Omega T/2}\right)^2 + \frac{\cos
493: (2 \Omega T) - \cos ( \Omega T)}{\Omega T}
494: \right] + \right. \nonumber \\
495: \left. + \, i \left[ \frac{\sin (2 \Omega T) - \sin ( \Omega T)}{\Omega T} - \cos (\Omega T) \left(
496: \frac{\sin (\Omega T)/2}{\Omega T/2}\right)^2 \right]
497: \right\}
498: \end{eqnarray}%
499: From Eq.~(\ref{eq:homega}), it is evident
500: that in order to achieve the required sensitivity while keeping a sufficiently
501: large detection bandwidth it is necessary to realize large values of $L$ and
502: $p_{T}$.
503:
504: In order to evaluate the performance of these new detectors for GWs, we
505: analyzed a few specific cases. It is important to notice that in this analysis
506: we did not treat other noise sources that, as in optical GW detectors, can
507: affect the performance of the AI detector. Examples are the suspension of
508: optics required for the manipulation of the laser beams or the phase noise of
509: the laser itself. Based on the work for optical GW detectors and progress in
510: ultrastable lasers for future optical clocks, suitable laser sources and
511: suspension systems can be envisaged. A detailed analysis of the overall noise
512: budget, including technological aspects, is beyond the scope of the present
513: paper.
514:
515: Let us consider first an atom interferometer based on a fast beam of hydrogen
516: atoms.
517: %
518: If we take $T = 10^{-3}$~s and a length $L = 10^{3}$~m, similar to present
519: optical interferometers detectors,
520: %
521: we have $v_{L} = 10^{6} $ m/s. As shown in Fig.\ref{fig:Sensitivity}, in this
522: case a sensitivity $h(\Omega)$ of about $10^{-21}/Hz^{1/2}$ is achieved for
523: $v_{T} \approx 10$ m/s with a flux of $10^{18}$ atoms/s in the atomic beam
524: \cite{Scoles1988}. The recoil velocity for a hydrogen atom absorbing a
525: $\textrm{Ly}-\alpha$ photon is $v_{rec} = 3.3$ m/s. Although the absorption of
526: a photon followed by spontaneous emission destroys coherence and cannot be used
527: to deflect atomic trajectories in an interferometer, it is conceivable to use
528: two-photon Raman transitions between the two hyperfine levels of H ground
529: state. A single Raman pulse transfers a velocity $v_{T} = 2 v_{rec}$. Raman
530: transitions have already been used in AI based on alkali atoms
531: \cite{Berman1997} and the possibility to use multiple Raman pulses sequences to
532: increase the enclosed area and the resulting sensitivity was also demonstrated
533: \cite{McGuirk2000}. A practical limitation at present would be the required
534: power $(\approx 10~W)$ of laser radiation at the Ly$\alpha$ wavelength. This is
535: orders of magnitude larger than what can be presently achieved as cw radiation
536: \cite{Eikema1999} but closer to what is produced in pulsed mode
537: \cite{Setija1993}. An alternative scheme is the excitation of a two-photon
538: transition from the ground state to long lived excited states
539: \cite{Gross1998,Hijmans2000}. A large recoil can be transfered by combining
540: $1s-2s$ excitation with optical transitions from the $2s$ state to high lying
541: $p$ states \cite{Heupel2002}. Such a scheme is also compatible with a ground
542: based apparatus because of the negligible vertical displacement of the atomic
543: beam during the short total time of flight. Other cases we considered for fast
544: beams of heavier atoms do not meet the requirements for the scheme we
545: considered because of the difficulty to transfer a large enough transverse
546: momentum to the atoms while keeping T small enough in order to keep a large
547: bandwidth. An improvement in sensitivity, at the expense of a reduced
548: bandwidth, could be achieved by increasing T and correspondingly the linear
549: dimensions of the interferometer. In this case, however, a gravity-free
550: apparatus in space should be considered (Fig.\ref{fig:Sensitivity}).
551:
552: A different case we considered is an interferometer based on cold atoms. In
553: this case, it is more useful to rewrite Eq.~(\ref{eq:homega}) in the form:
554: %
555: \begin{equation}\label{eq:homegaslow}
556: h(\Omega)= \frac{\eta\hbar}{\sqrt{\dot{N}}}
557: \left(\frac{p_{L}}{p_{T}}\right)\frac{T}{m L^{2} }\frac{1}{f(\Omega)}
558: \end{equation}
559: %
560: where $m$ is the atomic mass. It is apparent that in this scheme, by relaxing
561: the constraint on $T$, the sensitivity is better the larger is the value of $m$
562: and the smaller is $p_{L}$. As an example, if $v_{L} = 1$ m/s = $2v_T$ , $L =
563: 50$ m and $m \approx 10^{2}$ a.m.u., a sensitivity of about $10^{-21}/Hz^{1/2}$
564: results at frequencies around 10 mHz (Fig. \ref{fig:Sensitivity}). The long
565: time of flight $T \approx 50$ s, for which a gravity-free scheme would be
566: required, leads of course to a narrower bandwidth.
567:
568: %For comparison, the
569: %planned sensitivity of other detectors is shown.
570:
571: \section{Conclusions}\label{par:concl}
572: We investigated the possibility of detecting gravitational waves using atom
573: interferometers based on light fields as beam-splitters. The phase shift at the
574: output of the interferometers was calculated for presently known schemes using
575: both Einstein and Fermi coordinates. Considering sensitivities of the same
576: order of magnitude as the ones of present optical gravitational wave detectors,
577: we estimated the resulting values for relevant parameters. The results show
578: that dedicated technological developments would be needed to achieve the
579: required values which are beyond those presently available. New schemes for
580: atom interferometers, beam splitters, and high flux coherent atomic sources can
581: lead to an increase in sensitivity and make atom interferometers
582: competitive with other gravitational wave detectors.\\
583:
584: \section*{Acknowledgments}
585: The authors acknowledge useful discussions with Ch. J. Bord\'{e}.
586:
587: \section*{Appendix A: Einstein vs Fermi coordinates}\label{par:EvsF}
588:
589: %\section{Einstein vs Fermi coordinates}\label{par:EvsF}
590:
591: In general relativity (GR) all the coordinates systems are $\textit{a priori}$
592: equivalent. The predicted physical results do not depend on the specific
593: coordinates system although different descriptions depend
594: on coordinates systems. Generally speaking, a change of coordinates is defined by any set of functions%
595: \begin{equation}\label{eq:coord}
596: x^{\alpha}=x^{\alpha}(y^\beta)\longleftrightarrow y^{\alpha}=y^{\alpha}(x^
597: \beta) \;\;\; \alpha,\beta=0,1,2,3
598: \end{equation}%
599: where the invertibility is guaranteed if and only if%
600: \begin{equation}\label{eq:invert}
601: \textrm{det} \left( \frac{\partial x^{\alpha}}{\partial y^{\beta}} \right) \neq 0
602: \end{equation}%
603: In the following, we refer to the case in which deviations from the Minkowsky
604: space of special relativity are due only to GWs in the weak field
605: approximation, that is%
606: \begin{equation}\label{eq:h}
607: g_{\mu\nu}(x) = \eta_{\mu\nu}+h_{\mu\nu}(x)
608: \end{equation}
609: with $|h_{\mu\nu}|<<1$.
610: %where $\eta_{\mu\nu} = diag(1,-1,-1,-1)$ is the Minkowsky metric tensor.%
611: We assume that no other field is present. In this case, the linearized Einstein
612: field equations admit a plane wave solution for $h_{\mu\nu}$. It is always
613: possible to choose Gaussian synchronous
614: coordinates \cite{Stephani} in which%
615: \begin{equation}\label{eq:g}
616: g_{0\mu} = g_{\mu 0} = (1,0,0,0)
617: \end{equation}
618: Let's choose the particular coordinates system in which two particles A and B,
619: at rest in Minkowsky system, remain at rest even in presence of a GW. These are
620: called Einstein coordinates
621: (EC) and the related metrics can be written as%
622: \begin{equation}\label{eq:metric}
623: ds^{2}= c^{2}dt^{2} - (1-h_{+}) dx^{2} - (1+h_{+})dy^{2} - dz^{2} +
624: 2h_{\times}dxdy
625: \end{equation}%
626: for a wave propagating along the z axis; $h_{+}=h_{+}(ct-z)$ and
627: $h_{\times}=h_{\times}(ct-z)$ are the amplitudes of the two polarizations
628: states. The world-lines of a free particle are geodesics \cite{Misner}. It is
629: important to note that the proper distance between two particles A and B always
630: at
631: rest in this system is varying with the amplitude of the GW \cite{Brillet1985}:%
632: \begin{equation}\label{eq:d2}
633: d^{2} = d_{0}^{2}+h_{ij}(t)(x_{B}^{i}-x_{A}^{i})(x_{B}^{j}-x_{A}^{j})
634: \end{equation}%
635: where $ d_{0}^{2} = (x_{B}^{i}-x_{A}^{i})(x_{B}^{i}-x_{A}^{i})$ in the
636: hypothesis that the particles A and B are close enough to consider $h_{ij}$
637: depending only on t. From another point of view, we can say that the flight
638: time of a photon from A to B and back is varying, or that we have an index of
639: refraction of the vacuum which is varying with the perturbation $h_{ij}(t)$.
640:
641: The Einstein coordinates are formally the most convenient to describe plane
642: GWs; they can be considered as a "wave system (TT gauge)". This is not an
643: intuitive system, however, for measurements in a laboratory; as an extension
644: of "classical" approach, indeed, we search for inertial systems in which it is
645: possible to preserve the Newtonian idea of "rigid stick" and related
646: measurement method. Fermi coordinates (FC) are the best approximation to such a
647: "Galilean system" \cite{Misner,Manasse1963}. We choose a "fiducial observer"
648: (free falling observer) at rest in the origin; the system is related to the
649: geodesic line $x=y=z=0$. This is a Minkowskian system if we disregard small
650: terms as $h_{+}$ and $h_{\times}$ \cite{Grishchuk}. The spatial axis are built
651: as locally orthogonal coordinate lines whose direction can be checked by
652: gyroscopes \cite{Manasse1963,Brillet1985,Grishchuk}. The transformation
653: between the two systems EC and FC are \cite{Brillet1985,Grishchuk}:%
654: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:ECFC}
655: &&X=x - \frac{1}{2}h_{+}x+\frac{1}{2}h_{\times}y \nonumber \\
656: &&Y=y + \frac{1}{2}h_{+}y+ \frac{1}{2}h_{\times}x \\
657: &&Z=z + \frac{1}{4c}\dot{h}_{+}(x^{2}-y^{2})+\frac{1}{2c}\dot{h}_{\times}xy \nonumber \\
658: && T=t +\frac{1}{4c^2}\dot{h}_{+}(x^{2}-y^{2})+\frac{1}{2c^2}\dot{h}_{\times}xy
659: \nonumber
660: \end{eqnarray}
661: where X, Y, Z, T are Fermi coordinates, x, y, z, t are Einstein coordinates,
662: and the dot indicates the time derivative.
663:
664: Two particles $A$ and $B$, initially at rest in FC, move approximately as%
665: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:ABFC}
666: && X_{A,B}=x_{A,B} - \frac{1}{2}h_{+}x_{A,B}+\frac{1}{2}h_{\times}y_{A,B}\nonumber \\
667: && Y_{A,B}=y_{A,B} + \frac{1}{2}h_{+}y_{A,B}+\frac{1}{2}h_{\times}x_{A,B}\\
668: && Z_{A,B}= z_{A,B}\nonumber
669: \end{eqnarray}
670: In this case, the proper distance does not change while the distance between
671: the two particles does: the index of refraction of the vacuum is 1. Time of
672: flight of a photon between two test masses $A$ and $B$ is the same in both
673: systems: it is a physical result, indeed, in spite of the different
674: descriptions.
675:
676: It is to be noted that the particle $A$ moves with respect to the particle $B$
677: as subjected to the $"$tidal$"$ force $F_{A,i}=\frac{1}{2}m_A
678: x^j\frac{d^2h_{ji}}{dt^2}$.
679:
680: From Eq.~(\ref{eq:ECFC}), it appears that in the study of interaction of GW
681: with experimental devices, Einstein coordinates are not the most suitable
682: because of the very complex motion resulting for an observer in the laboratory
683: frame; Fermi coordinates can indeed be considered as the natural extension of a
684: "Cartesian inertial system" of the local observer
685: \cite{Gualdi1982,Flores1986,Faraoni1992}.
686:
687: \section*{Appendix B: Gauge invariance}\label{par:gauge}
688:
689: Demonstrating the invariance of the results in Sect.~3 under general gauge
690: transformations is the subject of ongoing work; here we restrict the discussion
691: to the so called "long wavelength approximation" \cite{Flores1986,Faraoni1992}.
692:
693: It is easy to see that the transformation matrix S from EC to FC of Appendix A
694: behaves as
695: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:S}
696: S=I+ O(h)
697: \end{eqnarray}
698: where I is the identity matrix; furthermore from Eq.\ref{eq:ECFC}, we get
699: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:T}
700: T=t+ O(hL^2/c \lambda)
701: \end{eqnarray}
702: From Eq.\ref{eq:S}, using Eq.\ref{eq:T} in the approximation $L/\lambda
703: \rightarrow 0$ after the insertion of the $\delta k$ term for proper laser
704: phases, the identity of results in both coordinates systems used in Sect.3
705: follows.
706:
707: It is worth noting that, starting from general FC, it is possible to build a simpler "laboratory
708: frame", that is a \textit{rigid coordinates system}
709: \cite{Misner2006,Grishchuk}, which preserves the FC properties in the
710: hypothesis of constant $z$ (wavefront of the gravitational plane wave) near the
711: $Z=0$ plane (the plane of the interferometer)
712: \cite{Delva2006,Grishchuk,Grishchuk2004}.
713: Considering for simplicity only the $+$
714: polarization, the transformation law from the EC with metric
715: \begin{equation}\label{eq:metric2}
716: ds^{2}= c^{2}dt^{2} - (1-h_{+}) dx^{2} - (1+h_{+})dy^{2} - dz^{2}
717: \end{equation}%
718: to the rigid system, is
719: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:ECFC2}
720: && t=T \nonumber\\
721: &&x=X + \frac{1}{2}h_{+}X \nonumber \\
722: &&y=Y - \frac{1}{2}h_{+}Y \\
723: &&z=Z \nonumber
724: \end{eqnarray}
725: with transformation matrix
726: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:ABCDs}
727: \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
728: 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
729: \frac{1}{2c}\dot{h}_+ X & 1+\frac{1}{2}h_+ & 0 & -\frac{1}{2c}\dot{h}_+ X \\
730: -\frac{1}{2c}\dot{h}_+ Y & 0 & 1-\frac{1}{2}h_+ & \frac{1}{2c}\dot{h}_+ Y\\
731: 0 & 0 & 0 & 1
732: \end{array}\right)
733: \end{eqnarray}%
734: and metric
735: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:metrics}
736: &&ds^{2}=c^{2}dT^{2} - dX^{2} - dY^{2} - dZ^{2} + \\
737: &&+ \frac{\dot{h}_+}{c}\left(XdXdZ - YdYdZ - cXdXdT + c Y dY dT
738: \right)\nonumber
739: \end{eqnarray}%
740: Writing proper ABCD matrices for the rigid coordinates system by using
741: Eq.~\ref{eq:metrics}, the same
742: results as in Eq.~\ref{eq:DRBFCOm} or Eq.~\ref{eq:DDIFCOm} can be obtained,
743: thus demonstrating the identity of the results in rigid, Fermi, and Einstein
744: coordinates systems.
745:
746:
747: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
748:
749: \bibitem{Saulson1994} For an introduction, see e.g. : P.R. Saulson,
750: \textit{Fundamental of Interferometric GW detectors}, World
751: Scientific, Singapore (1994)
752: \bibitem{reviewGW}For a general update see the following special issue:
753: Classical and Quantum Gravity, 23 (2006)
754: \bibitem{reviewLISA}For LISA project, see the
755: special issue: Classical and Quantum Gravity, 22, (2005)
756: \bibitem{Berman1997} P. Berman (Ed.), \textit{Atom Interferometry}, Academic Press, N.Y.
757: (1997)
758: \bibitem{Chu2001} S. Chu, in \textit{Coherent atomic matter
759: waves}, LXXII Les Houches Session, R. Kaiser, C. Westbrook, F.
760: David (Eds.), Springer Verlag, N.Y. (2001)
761: \bibitem{Peters2001} A. Peters, K.Y.
762: Chung, S. Chu, Metrologia, 38, 25-61 (2001)
763: \bibitem{Borde2002} Ch. J. Bord\'{e},
764: Metrologia, 39, 435-463 (2002)
765: \bibitem{Peters1999} A. Peters, K.Y.
766: Chung, S. Chu, Nature, 400, 849-852 (1999)
767: \bibitem{McGuirk2002} J.M. McGuirk, G.T.
768: Foster, J.B. Fixler, M.J. Snadden, M.A. Kasevich, Phys. Rev. A,
769: 65, 33608 (2002)
770: \bibitem{Gustafson2000} T.L. Gustafson, A. Landragin, M.A. Kasevich,
771: Class. Quantum Grav. 17, 2385-2398 (2000)
772: \bibitem{Stedman1997} G.E. Stedman, Rep.
773: Prog. Phys., 60, 615-688 (1997)
774: \bibitem{Bertoldi2006} A. Bertoldi, G. Lamporesi, L. Cacciapuoti, M. de Angelis, M. Fattori,
775: T. Petelski, A. Peters, M. Prevedelli, J. Stuhler, G.M. Tino, Eur. Phys. J. D
776: 40, 271-279 (2006)
777: \bibitem{Fixler2007} J. B. Fixler, G. T. Foster, J. M. McGuirk, M. A. Kasevich, Science 315, 74-77
778: (2007)
779: \bibitem{Dimopoulos2006} S. Dimopoulos, P.W. Graham, J.M. Hogan, M.A.
780: Kasevich, gr-qc/0610047
781: %\bibitem{Stuhler2003} J. Stuhler, M. Fattori, T.
782: %Petelski, G.M. Tino, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt. 5, 75
783: %(2003)
784: \bibitem{HYPER2000} HYPER, Assessment Study Report, ESA-SCI (2000), 10 , July
785: 2000; C. Jentsch, T. M\"{u}ller, E. M. Rasel, and W. Ertmer, Gen. Rel. Grav.
786: 36, 2197-2221 (2004).
787: \bibitem{Ferrari2006} G. Ferrari, N. Poli, F. Sorrentino, G. M. Tino,
788: Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 060402 (2006), and references therein.
789: %\bibitem{Tino2003} G.M. Tino in \textit{2001: A Relativistic Spacetime Odyssey}, I
790: %Ciufolini, D. Dominici, L. Lusanna Eds., World Scientific, Singapore (2003) and
791: %references therein.
792: \bibitem{Linet1976} B. Linet, P. Tourrenc, Can. J.
793: Phys., 54, 1129-1133 (1976)
794: \bibitem{Stodolsky1979} L. Stodolsky, GRG, 11, 391-405
795: (1979)
796: \bibitem{Anandan1982} J. Anandan, R.Y. Chiao, Gen. Rel. Grav. 14, 515-521 (1982)
797: \bibitem{Borde1983} Ch. J. Bord\'{e}, J. Sharma, Ph. Tourrenc, and Th. Damour,
798: J. Physique L-983, 44 (1983)
799: \bibitem{Aspen2004} Preliminary results of this work were presented by one of the authors at
800: \textit{2004 Aspen Winter Conference on Gravitational Waves and
801: their Detection}, Aspen, February 2004
802: ($\underline{http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/LIGO \, \,
803: web/Aspen2004/pdf/vetrano.pdf}$)
804: \bibitem{Chiao2004} R.Y. Chiao, A.D. Speliotopoulos, J. Mod. Opt.
805: 51, 861 (2004)
806: \bibitem{Misner2006} A. Roura, D.R. Brill, B.L. Hu, C.W. Misner, W.D. Phillips,
807: Phys. Rev. D 73, 084018 (2006)
808: \bibitem{Foffa2006} S. Foffa, A. Gasparini, M. Papucci , R. Sturani,
809: Phys. Rev. D 73, 022001 (2006)
810: \bibitem{Delva2006} P. Delva, M.-C. Angonin, P. Tourrenc, Phys. Lett. A 357,
811: 249-254 (2006)
812: \bibitem{Borde2004} Ch. J. Bord\'{e}, Gen. Rel. Grav. 36, 475-501 (2004)
813: \bibitem{Antoine2003} C. Antoine, Ch. J. Bord\'{e}, J.
814: Opt. B : Quantum Semiclass. Opt., 5, 199-207 (2003)
815: \bibitem{Borde1989} Ch. J. Bord\'{e}, Phys. Lett. A
816: 140, 10-12 (1989)
817: \bibitem{Scoles1988} G. Scoles Ed., Atomic and Molecular Beam Methods, Oxford Un.
818: Press, New York (1988)
819: \bibitem{McGuirk2000}J.M. McGuirk, M.J. Snadden, M.A. Kasevich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4498
820: (2000)
821: \bibitem{Eikema1999} K.S.E. Eikema, J. Walz, T.W. H\"{a}nsch, Phys. Rev. Lett.
822: 83, 3828 (1999)
823: \bibitem{Setija1993} I.D. Setija et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2257
824: (1993)
825: \bibitem{Gross1998} B. Gross, A. Huber, M. Niering, M.
826: Weitz, T.W. H\"{a}nsch, Europhys. Lett. 44, 186 (1998)
827: \bibitem{Hijmans2000} T.W. Hijmans, P.W.H. Pinkse, A.P. Mosk, M.
828: Weidmuller, M.W. Reynolds, J.T.M. Walraven, C. Zimmerman, Hyperf. Interact.
829: 127, 175 (2000)
830: \bibitem{Heupel2002} T. Heupel, M. Mei, M. Niering, B. Gross, M.
831: Weitz, T.W. H\"{a}nsch, Ch.J. Bord\'{e}, Europhys. Lett. 57, 158 (2002)
832: \bibitem{Stephani} H. Stephani, \textit{General Relativity},
833: Cambridge University Press, 2nd Edition,New York (1990)
834: \bibitem{Misner} C.W. Misner, K.S. Thorne, A. Wheeler, \textit{Gravitation}, Freeman
835: and Co, S.Francisco (1973)
836: \bibitem{Brillet1985} A. Brillet, T. Damour, Ph. Tourrenc, Ann.
837: Phys. Fr. 10, 201-218 (1985)
838: \bibitem{Manasse1963} F.K. Manasse, C.W. Misner, J. Math.
839: Phys. 4, 735-745 (1963)
840: \bibitem{Grishchuk} L.P. Grishchuk and A.G. Polnarev, in \textit{General
841: Relativity and Gravitation}, A. Held Ed., Vol. 2, Plenum press,
842: New York (1981)
843: \bibitem{Gualdi1982} P.L. Fortini, C.
844: Gualdi, Nuovo Cim. 71 B, 37-54 (1982)
845: \bibitem{Flores1986} G. Flores, M. Orlandini,
846: Nuovo Cim. 91 B, 236-240 (1986)
847: \bibitem{Faraoni1992} V.
848: Faraoni, Nuovo Cim. 107 B, 631-642 (1992)
849: \bibitem{Grishchuk2004} D. Baskaran, L.P. Grishchuk, Class. Quant.
850: Grav. 21, 4041-4061 (2004)
851: %\bibitem{Grishchuk2004} L.P. Grishchuk, in \textit{Astrophysics Update}, J.W. Mason Ed.,
852: %Vol. 1, 281-310, Springer-Praxis (2004)
853: %\bibitem{Flanagan2005} E.E. Flanagan, S. A. Hughes, New J.Phys., 7, 204, 1-50 (2005)
854:
855: \end{thebibliography}
856:
857: \clearpage
858:
859: \begin{figure}[ht]
860: \centering
861: \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Fig1.eps}
862: \caption{Scheme of the trapezoidal interferometer. Dotted arrows represent
863: laser beams acting as beam-splitters (BS1-BS4); bold continuous arrows show the
864: relevant momentum transferred to the atom; a: ground internal atomic state; b:
865: excited internal atomic state; \textbf{k}: transferred momentum (in $\hbar$
866: units). In the text $T_1$ = $T_2$ = $T$ and $T'$ $\rightarrow $ 0
867: .}\label{fig:RB}
868: \end{figure}
869:
870: \begin{figure}[ht]
871: \centering
872: \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Fig2.eps}
873: \caption{Scheme of a parallelogram interferometer. Dotted arrows represent
874: laser beams acting as beam-splitters (BS1-BS4); bold continuous arrows show the
875: relevant momentum transferred to the atom; a: ground internal atomic state; b:
876: excited internal atomic state; \textbf{k}: transferred momentum (in $\hbar$
877: units). In the text $T_1$ = $T_2$ = $T$ and $T'$ $\rightarrow $ 0 .}
878: \label{fig:Diam}
879: \end{figure}
880:
881: \begin{figure}[ht]
882: \centering
883: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Fig3.eps}
884: \caption{Sensitivity curves of GW detectors based on atom interferometry for
885: the three parameter sets discussed in the text: $L = 10^3$ m, $v_L = 10^6$ m/s
886: (continuous line); $L = 2 \cdot 10^5$ m, $v_L = 5 \cdot 10^7$ m/s (dotted
887: line); $L = 50$ m, $v_{L} = 1$ m/s (dashed-dotted line).}
888: \label{fig:Sensitivity}
889: \end{figure}
890:
891:
892:
893:
894: \end{document}
895: