Probing Atomic ‘Quantum Grating’ by Collisions with Charged Particles

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript outlines an interesting concept which could potentially be exploited to identify 2- and 3-body effects according to lines 171-173.  However, I found it difficult to translate into a laboratory experiment for testing/verification.  The coordinate system shown in Fig. 1 and discussed in the text is only for the "target" atoms.  As I read the text, the same coordinate system applies for the "ion probe".  If correct, I do not see how this is phyically possible, especially considering the required uncertainties in the momenta.  I may be incorrect on this but really need energy and angle information which is not provided.  My assessment is that additional details are needed to help the general reader interpret this manuscript in order to be acceptable for publication.  For example, adding the projecile and observation information to Figure 1plus addressing items listed below is needed.

 

Equation 3 and associated text:  It is not stated, but I assume the coordinate system is that shown in Figure 1.  Please clarify for the reader.

 

Lines 121-122:  It is stated that the figure clearly shows interference.  As I read the figure, I see a simple monotonic decrease with scattering angle.  Please clarify.

 

Fig. 2:  The caption states the intensity ranges from 0 to 1 whereas the figure shows 0.5 to 1.

 

Line 145: "one can convince oneself" reads to me like "I can't provide evidence for this".  Please add explanatory information.

 

Section 3.3:  Electron capture to the continuum is strongly forward peaked and in Figure 3, the velocity (i.e. the projectile ksuby according to my assumption above about equation 3) is changing.  If correct, I have difficulty in understanding Figure 3 which requires conversion to laboratory angles.  Also, ksubtr is not defined.  I believe it is called k perpendicular in line 148.

 

Lines 171-173:  This, to me, seems to be the most interesting effect.  A couple sentences outlined a specific experimental example would help emphasize this point.

 

Last sentence in Section 3:  Does this sentence mean that the effects can be observed or not?  Please clarify.

 

Section 3.5: What would be most useful to the reader is a table providing necessary information for different atoms and projectiles and projectile energies indicating "doable" or "not possible".  Lacking this information is the reason for giving low grades on the significance and interest categories.

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper discusses the interesting scattering of a quantum particle by a quantum grating consisting in a single atom in an interference pattern. This is original work and the manuscript is well-written. The relevance of the results could nevertheless be better argued and highlighted, in both the discussion and the conclusion: what are the (quantified) experimental signatures of this type of quantum-on-quantum interference, especially compared to standard slit experiments? What are possible applications for tests of quantum mechanics or quantum optics or quantum technologies? This main issue is about improving the presentation of the results.

Beside this, the authors should address two minor issues. First, could they remind the reader of the perturbation parameter for eqn (5), i.e. what is assumed to be small in the experiments and what are the limitations of their approximation? Second, could they quantify the role of the entanglement in their claim at the end of section 3.3?

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors presented theoretical results on the atomic quantum grating　composed of atoms passing through a diffraction grating. They study the detection methods of quantum grating using projectile beams with charged particles.

The main results of the manuscript are shown in Figs. 2 and 3. When only elastic collisions of electrons are considered, the atomic quantum grating is observed as interference patterns. However, when atomic ionization processes should be considered, the authors derived spectra of emitted electrons with characteristic patterns.

The results of the manuscript are scientifically sound and will attract the interest of researchers in some fields.
Thus, I would recommend publishing the manuscript in Atoms.

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I thank the authors for their efforts in addressing my previous comments.  Except for a few minor grammatical corrections and perhaps a clarification of the caption for figure 2, I find the revised manuscript suitable for publication and recommend doing so without further review.

 

line 38:  please change "consider" to "considered"

 

line 73: delete "to" before "interact"   Also, in their response the authors state that the projectile is traveling parallel to the grating.  It would help here if "traveling parallel to the grating in the z direction", or something like that, were added, as is done in line 146.  

 

caption to Figure 2:  Does "along the x-axis" apply to the direction of the electrons (which is how I read it but is inconsistent with line 146) or it it to be associated with the differential cross section, i.e., the scattering angle?  From the authors' response to my initial review, I believe what is meant is "The differential cross section as a function of scattering angle along the x-axis for elastic scattering of 300 eV electrons incident on Xe..."

 

line 146:  please insert "the reader" after "remind"

 

section 3.6:  I find the information presented here to be very useful for planning possible experimental verification/testing of these theoretical predictions.  I thank the authors for adding it.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf