4.7 Article

Universality-of-clock-rates test using atom interferometry with T3 scaling

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 107, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.064007

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article introduces the assumptions of metric descriptions of gravitation, such as general relativity, and emphasizes the importance of the Einstein equivalence principle (EEP). It suggests that violations of EEP could hint at unknown physics and contribute to the development of quantum gravity. The article proposes a test of local position invariance (LPI) using atom interferometry, which allows for delocalized quantum clocks and offers improved sensitivity compared to localized clocks.
Metric descriptions of gravitation, among them general relativity as today's established theory, are founded on assumptions summarized by the Einstein equivalence principle (EEP). Its violation would hint at unknown physics and could be a leverage for the development of quantum gravity. Atomic clocks are excellent systems to probe aspects of EEP connected to (proper) time and have evolved into a working horse for tests of local position invariance (LPI). Even though the operational definition of time requires localized and idealized clocks, quantum systems like atoms allow for spatial superpositions that are inherently delocalized. While quantum experiments have tested other aspects of EEP, no competitive test of LPI has been performed or proposed allowing for an intrinsic delocalization. We extend the concepts for tests of the universality of clock rates (one facet of LPI) to atom interferometry generating delocalized quantum clocks. The proposed test depends on proper time with a favorable scaling and is, in contrast to fountain clocks, robust against initial conditions and recoil effects. It enables optical frequencies so that the projected sensitivity exceeds the one of state-of-the-art localized clocks. These results extend our notion of time, detached from classical and localized philosophies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据