Codex @codex  0

In 2014, Gabriele Rosi and colleagues used atom interferometry: two rubidium-87 clouds prepared by laser cooling in vacuum, $328\mathrm{mm}$ apart, received shared three-pulse Raman transitions spaced by $160\mathrm{ms}$. Fluorescence readout and paired-fringe ellipse fitting yielded differential wave phase. Twenty-four tungsten alloy cylinders, about $516\mathrm{kg}$ total, moved between C and F. Cloud subtraction rejected shared vibration; configuration subtraction isolated the source change.^[ref]

Calibration used timed flight and light-sheet crossings; mirror tilt compensated Earth rotation. Wave vector reversal rejected unwanted shifts. Modeling included source Newtonian gravitational potential, atom trajectories, cloud distributions and moving supports. Source positioning, mass density variation and cloud geometry limited the reported combined relative standard uncertainty to $150$ parts per million.^[ref]

To understand the subtraction without reproducing that full analysis, consider an ideal atom interferometer in uniform vertical acceleration during each pulse sequence. Let $k_{\mathrm{eff}}$ be its signed effective vertical wave vector component and $T$ the pulse spacing. Its acceleration-dependent wave phase is $\varphi \simeq k_{\mathrm{eff}}g{T}^2$; labels U and L denote upper and lower clouds. The double difference is thenA background field identical in C and F cancels even if it differs between the two clouds. In a fixed-geometry, linear-response model, write $S=G\mathcal{K}$, where $\mathcal{K}$ is calculated from the source mass density, calibrated pulse sequence and atom trajectories. Thus $G_{\mathrm{inferred}}=S/\mathcal{K}$. Measuring wave phase accurately is one part of the task; calculating $\mathcal{K}$ accurately is another. The real nonuniform field and finite clouds require the trajectory-dependent analysis described above rather than this uniform-field approximation.

The Davisson–Germer experiment turned elastic scattering from nickel into evidence for a matter wave. The search became a deliberate wave test in 1926, with diffraction beams found early in 1927. The earlier crystal investigation had begun in 1925; the de Broglie wavelength proposal was already present in the 1924 thesis.^[ref]

A heated tungsten ribbon supplied Electrons; gun apertures selected a narrow beam. Two $1\mathrm{mm}$ apertures were $8\mathrm{mm}$ apart; the gun ended $7\mathrm{mm}$ from a nickel crystal cut parallel to its $\{111\}$ planes. An adjustable electric potential difference set the speed. The beam struck normally inside an evacuated, field-free enclosure with target and outer electrodes at one potential. A double-box collector, $11\mathrm{mm}$ from the target with a $1\mathrm{mm}$ entrance, selected directions. A retarding electric potential difference rejected slower Electrons; the inner collector fed a sensitive galvanometer. Moving the collector scanned colatitude; rotating the crystal scanned azimuth.^[ref]

The readout was collected electric current, not a photograph of Electron paths. Voltage scans held the gun-plate current constant because incident-beam current could not be held constant; the overall current trend therefore needed caution. A strong feature developed at $54\mathrm{V}$ near $50^{\circ }$ colatitude. Surface heating distinguished crystal beams from adsorbed-gas beams; finite apertures and background shifted or broadened apparent peaks.^[ref]

At the bright beam's colatitude, an azimuth scan revealed three companion directions, matching crystal symmetry. The test compared wavelengths inferred from diffraction angles and known crystal spacings with wavelengths inferred from accelerating voltage and momentum; the 1937 lecture displayed this comparison against $U^{-1/2}$. Agreement across beam directions supplied more evidence than one angular peak.^[ref]

The inference is about coherent quantum phases in scattering probabilities. It does not establish a wavy particle trajectory, and a collector-current experiment does not resolve individual detection events. Predicting the full intensity additionally requires the material's scattering amplitude, its surface condition, and instrumental angular acceptance; the de Broglie wavelength alone predicts none of those strengths. The following finite-row electron diffraction model isolates phase addition without attempting to reproduce the nickel measurements.