Gravitational caustics in an atom laser

Typically discussed in the context of optics, caustics are envelopes of classical trajectories (rays) where the density of states diverges, resulting in pronounced observable features such as bright points, curves, and extended networks of patterns. Here, we generate caustics in the matter waves of an atom laser, providing a striking experimental example of catastrophe theory applied to atom optics in an accelerated (gravitational) reference frame. We showcase caustics formed by individual attractive and repulsive potentials, and present an example of a network generated by multiple potentials. Exploiting internal atomic states, we demonstrate fluid-flow tracing as another tool of this flexible experimental platform. The effective gravity experienced by the atoms can be tuned with magnetic gradients, forming caustics analogous to those produced by gravitational lensing. From a more applied point of view, atom optics affords perspectives for metrology, atom interferometry, and nanofabrication. Caustics in this context may lead to quantum innovations as they are an inherently robust way of manipulating matter waves.

Matter Waves in the Talbot-Lau Interferometry

Particle paths, emitted from distributed sources and passing out through slits of two gratings, G0 and G1, up to detectors, have been computed in detail by the path integral method. The particles under consideration are fullerene molecules with a De Broglie wavelength equal to 5 pm. The slits are Gaussian functions that simulate fuzzy edges of the slits. Waves of the matter computed by this method show perfect interference patterns both between the gratings and behind the second grating. Coherent and non-coherent distributed particle sources reproducing the interference patterns are discussed in detail. Paraxial approximation results from removing the distributed sources onto innity. This approximation gives a wave function reproducing an exact copy of the Talbot carpet. PACS numbers: 03.75.-b, 03.75.Dg, 42.25.Hz

After Strict Comparison, the Conclusion of the Double Slit Test Is in Conflict with the Mathematical Model

Since they were born before physical achievements in question, light and matter waves, which have almost no physical properties, are abstract purely mathematical concepts rather than objects. The result of the double-slit test, a series of dark and bright streaks, was determined to be caused by interfering light waves. However, this plausible principle does not stand up to scientific scrutiny, and it is not difficult to find many flaws in the conclusion upon further study. For example, (1) the principle of generating multiple regular dark stripes cannot be found in the mathematical model. (2) In the mathematical model, the location where the dark stripe should appear most is actually the spot with the highest brightness. (3) Since the quantum property must be expressed in the process of interference, interference will not be triggered if all conditions are not met at the same time, and therefore, the principle of interference will be rejected. (4) Since the light comes from the radiation of the electron transition, it is impossible to generate a light source in a slit that may be a vacuum. (5) Interfering light waves can be subdivided into multiple parts and proliferate greatly. (6) A headless wave of light left outside the screen after the head disappears can still induce much interference. (7) There is no interference effect caused by reflected light waves. (8) The effect of polarization direction on interference is neglected, and the interference condition is incomplete. (9) In the causality test, to verify the effect of collapse, the photon that has collapsed into a particle should be tested again with a double slit test. (10) Whether the phenomenon of "observation determines outcome" is tampered with by observation. (11) When the phase is shifted π or the signal is reversed, waves become negative waves capable of annihilating themselves, which is typical of antimatter. In this case, matter and antimatter are conjoined. (12) If the general law of waves is followed, not only the targeted light wave passes through the slit. (13) The original version of the double-slit test cannot be reproduced, and the test results are different from those presented by contemporary technology. (14) Waves must obey Fourier's principle, but light waves, quantum waves and matter waves do not. (15) The modulation effect that waves must produce is not present in optical fiber communication. (16) If the light from different slits must interfere with each other, a mask full of slits will cause the lithographer to fail. (17) Since the size is much smaller than the wavelength, the photon is only a sampling of the light wave, but the corresponding physical properties are not presented. (18) The fact that the two stars orbiting each other do not change color only proves that the phenomenon of redshift is impossible but does not support the inference that the speed of light is constant. (19) The Michelson-Morley test process is not open and transparent enough, and pinhole diffraction and mechanical processing using broken lines instead of curves cannot be ruled out. In conclusion, Newton's particle model was wrong, but neither was the light wave theory.

After Strict Comparison, the Conclusion of Double Slit Test Is in Conflict With the Mathematical Model

Since they were born before the physical achievements in question, light and matter waves, which have almost no physical properties, are abstract purely mathematical concepts rather than objects. The result of the double-slit test, a series of dark and bright streaks, was determined to be caused by interfering light waves. However, this plausible principle does not stand up to scientific scrutiny, and it is not difficult to find many flaws in the conclusion upon further study. Such as: (1) The principle of generating multiple regular dark stripes cannot be found in the mathematical model. (2) In the mathematical model, the location where the dark stripe should appear most is actually the spot with the highest brightness. (3) Since the quantum property must be expressed in the process of interference, the interference will not be triggered if all conditions are not met at the same time, and therefore the principle of interference will be rejected. (4) Since the light comes from the radiation of the electron transition, it is impossible to generate a light source in a slit that may be a vacuum. (5) Interfering light waves can be subdivided into multiple parts and proliferated greatly. (6) A headless wave of light left outside the screen after the head disappears can still induce a lot of interference. (7) There is no interference effect caused by reflected light waves. (8) The effect of polarization direction on interference is neglected and the interference condition is incomplete. (9) In the causality test, to verify the effect of collapse, the photon that has collapsed into a particle should be tested again with a double slit test. (10) Whether the phenomenon of "observation determines outcome" is tampered with by observation. (11) When the phase is shifted π or the signal is reversed, waves become negative waves capable of annihilating themselves, which is typical of antimatter. In this case, matter and antimatter are conjoined. (12) If the general law of waves is followed, not only the targeted light wave passes through the slit. (13) The original version of the double-slit test cannot be reproduced, and the test results are different from those presented by contemporary technology. (14) Waves must obey Fourier's principle, but light waves, quantum waves and matter waves do not. (15) The modulation effect that waves must produce is not present in optical fiber communication. (16) If the light from different slits must interfere with each other, a mask full of slits will cause the lithographer to fail. (17) Since the size is much smaller than the wavelength, the photon is only a sampling of the light wave, but the corresponding physical properties are not presented. (18) The fact that the two stars orbiting each other do not change color only proves that the phenomenon of redshift is impossible, but does not support the inference that the speed of light is constant. (19) The Michelson-Morley test process is not open and transparent enough, and pinhole diffraction and mechanical processing using broken lines instead of curves cannot be ruled out. In conclusion: Newton's particle model was wrong but neither was the light wave theory.