Example team · Fictional people and results, shown on the real Library screens. The two papers and the checks of them are real. What am I looking at?

Berry Science Library

← Quantum Science in Space

Shared in Quantum Science in Space · Negative result

A longer lens is not a stronger one: at 1.8 ms the cloud expands as fast as without

Authors
Jonas Weber, Example Institute for Space Quantum Science (fictional)
Contributors
Claude Code · Opus 5.5 · Berry Science agent skills

Published 2026-10-08 · Last reviewed 2026-10-09 · Reviewed · 0 candidate issues

Scanning the lens duration from 0.3 to 1.8 ms, the expansion energy is lowest at τ* = 0.91 ± 0.02 ms, as the model of [1] predicts (0.88 ms), and rises again beyond it: at 1.8 ms it is 501 ± 46 pK, the energy without a lens within the uncertainty. A longer pulse over-focuses the cloud instead of cooling it further.

Holds when: Same condensate and sequence as [2]; one lens, fired 20 ms after release.

Figure 1. Measured expansion energy against lens duration, with the thin-lens model of [1] (dashed). Bars are one standard deviation over five shots.

Conventions

units.lab v1
Lengths in mm or µm, times in ms or s, accelerations in mm/s²; z points away from the chip surface. Expansion energies as k_B·T in pK, with k_B T = m σ_v². · units

Evidence

  1. Evidence 1 · Code · python

    import numpy as npfrom scipy.optimize import curve_fitscan = np.loadtxt("run-1008-tau-scan/energies.csv", delimiter=",", skiprows=1)tau, energy, err = scan[:, 0]*1e-3, scan[:, 1], scan[:, 2]   # s, pK, pKdef model(tau, tau_star, e0, floor):     # thin-lens model of claim [1]    return floor + (e0 - floor) * (1 - tau/tau_star)**2p, cov = curve_fit(model, tau, energy, sigma=err, absolute_sigma=True,                   p0=[0.9e-3, 520, 80])print(f"tau_star = {p[0]*1e3:.2f} ± {np.sqrt(cov[0,0])*1e3:.2f} ms")print(f"E(1.8 ms) = {energy[tau == 1.8e-3][0]:.0f} ± {err[tau == 1.8e-3][0]:.0f} pK")

  2. Evidence 2 · Parameters · yaml

    lens_fired_at: 20 ms after releasedurations: [0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9, 1.1, 1.3, 1.5, 1.8] msshots_per_point: 5widths_from: time of flight 20–300 ms, as in claim [2]field_of_view: 1.2 mm × 1.2 mm

  3. Evidence 3 · Output

    tau_star = 0.91 ± 0.02 ms
E(1.8 ms) = 501 ± 46 pK

  4. Evidence 4 · Data · csv

    tau_ms,energy_pK,err_pK
0.3,265,25
0.5,154,15
0.7,127,9
0.9,96,8
1.1,83,9
1.3,184,15
1.5,265,25
1.8,501,46

Provenance

recorded_by
Berry Science agent skills · record-claim
code
ran exactly as shown (confirmed by the author)
anchors
run:2026-10-08-tau-scan, dataset:energies.csv

References

  1. [1]

    A model of the cloud after release: the residual magnetic push and the best lens duration · in this Library · replicates

    The predicted optimum, measured.

  2. [2]

    A 0.9 ms magnetic lens slows the cloud's expansion about seven-fold · in this Library · extends

    The same lens, scanned in duration.

Review reports

Review report · by Mira Okafor

2026-10-09

Candidate issues, not verified.

The scan agrees with the model; one question about the last point.

  1. 1Minorrejected

    Could the 1.8 ms point be an imaging artefact? An over-focused cloud first contracts and then spreads fast; if it leaves the field of view, the fitted width is too small and the energy too low — or the fit fails.

    points at: Figure 1

    methodological

Reply · by Jonas Weber

2026-10-09

At 1.8 ms the cloud is 69 µm rms after 300 ms — well inside the 1.2 mm field of view (Evidence 2). The point stands.

  1. 69 µm rms against a 1.2 mm field of view: nothing leaves the image.

    answers: point 1 above

Reply · by Mira Okafor

2026-10-09

Agreed — marking my point rejected.

Cite this claim

Jonas Weber (2026). A longer lens is not a stronger one: at 1.8 ms the cloud expands as fast as without. Berry Science Library. 07c59032-ad9b-5291-8a07-524bcc907a63