Dispersive measurement of spin shot noise in a Bose--Einstein condensate

Junnosuke Takai; Kosuke Shibata; Naota Sekiguchi; Takuya Hirano

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Dispersive measurement of spin shot noise in a Bose--Einstein condensate

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The variance of the probe's polarization rotation grows linearly with atom number in a BEC, a signature of spin shot noise at the standard quantum limit.

desk verdict Solid dispersive spin noise measurement in a BEC; the missing absolute slope calibration is a real but fixable gap. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15546 v1 pith:AY7TAGQP submitted 2025-01-26 cond-mat.quant-gas quant-ph

Kosuke Shibata , Naota Sekiguchi , Junnosuke Takai , Takuya Hirano This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.quant-gasquant-ph PACS 03.75.Mn42.50.Lc

keywords spinshotnoiseBose-Einsteincondensatedispersivemeasurementpolarizationrotationtwo-colorprobestandardquantumlimitFaradayspinorBEC

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports the first confirmative measurement of spin shot noise in a Bose-Einstein condensate: the variance of the polarization rotation angle grows linearly with atom number, as expected for quantum projection noise of a coherent spin state at the standard quantum limit. Earlier spin noise measurements were made in thermal and cold gases, but a BEC had not shown this linear scaling because probe-induced effects such as vector and tensor light shifts add technical noise. The authors suppress those effects with a two-color probe whose power balance is stabilized, and they measure polarization rotation with a CCD camera that enables in situ, spatially resolved probing. If correct, the result establishes BECs as a platform for studying quantum spin fluctuations in spinor condensates and for shot-noise-limited spin measurement relevant to atom-based magnetometry.

What carries the argument

The central object is the collective spin $F_x$ of a $|F=2, m_z=+2\rangle$ $^{87}$Rb BEC, read out through Faraday rotation $\theta = gF_x$, with the noise model $\mathrm{Var}(\theta) = aN + bN^2 + \mathrm{Var}(\theta)_0$. The linear term is the spin shot noise $g^2|F_{\mathrm{eff}}|/2$, and the quadratic term is technical noise. The two-color probe is the mechanism that makes the measurement possible: the main and compensation beams are chosen to cancel the nonlinear tensor light shift, and the quarter-wave plate is adjusted to minimize the vector light shift. A CCD camera with region-of-interest postselection estimates $\theta = (N_V - N_H)/2(N_V + N_H)$, providing spatial mode matching and spatial resolution.

What would settle it

Measure $\mathrm{Var}(\theta)$ versus $N$ with independent calibration of $N$ and probe geometry, and compare the fitted linear slope to $g^2|F_{\mathrm{eff}}|/2$; if the slope disagrees by more than the combined uncertainties, or if a linear term persists for a spin state engineered to have suppressed projection noise, the signal is not purely spin shot noise.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the measured variance follows $\mathrm{Var}(\theta) = aN + bN^2 + \mathrm{Var}(\theta)_0$ with a linear coefficient $a = 4.7(9)\times10^{-14}$ and no significant quadratic term, identifying the linear term with spin shot noise $g^2|F_{\mathrm{eff}}|/2$ at the standard quantum limit. This is the first demonstration of real spin shot noise in a BEC. The authors attribute the absence of a quadratic term to the two-color probe: a main beam red-detuned by $-840$ MHz and a compensation beam at $+500$ MHz, with their power ratio stabilized to $8.57:1$, cancel the tensor light shift, while minimized probe ellipticity suppresses the vector light shift.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the observed linear increase of variance with atom number comes entirely from genuine spin projection noise, with every technical noise that also grows linearly with $N$—such as shot-to-shot atom number fluctuations, residual probe power imbalance, or polarization inhomogeneity—suppressed below that level; the paper does not independently calibrate the absolute slope against theory.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Spin shot noise of a BEC can now be measured in situ, allowing repeated, spatially resolved probing of quantum spin fluctuations in multi-component and spinor BECs.
Shot-noise-limited spin measurement of a BEC improves the technical-noise floor for BEC-based magnetometry and could help push energy-resolution limits toward the fundamental bound.
The two-color, power-stabilized probe provides a path toward quantum nondemolition spin measurement and measurement-induced spin squeezing in a BEC without requiring an elongated trap geometry.
The linear-versus-quadratic noise scaling gives a practical diagnostic for distinguishing quantum projection noise from technical noise in dense atomic samples.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A natural check not performed in the paper is comparing the fitted slope $4.7(9)\times10^{-14}$ to the absolute prediction $g^2|F_{\mathrm{eff}}|/2$; doing so would separate genuine projection noise from technical noise that also scales linearly with $N$, such as atom-number fluctuations or residual power imbalance.
The CCD spatial resolution suggests a direct extension: measuring the spatial correlation of spin noise across the cloud, which would test whether the shot-noise scaling holds locally and could reveal finite-size effects.
If the linear term is truly spin shot noise, the same apparatus should see the variance change when the spin state is prepared with reduced projection noise, for example by spin squeezing, providing a self-consistent test of the interpretation.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Read Shibata et al. The core result is a dispersive (polarization rotation) measurement of spin noise in a 87Rb BEC, with a two-color probe suppressing the nonlinear light shift that would otherwise produce a quadratic variance term in atom number. The variance data in Fig. 3(a) fit a linear slope of 4.7(9)x10^-14 with no significant quadratic term; without the compensation beam they see quadratic noise. That is a clean demonstration that the dominant technical noise has been removed. The camera-based detection and careful loss spectroscopy are also nicely done. This is the first time real spin shot noise—linear N scaling of spin variance—has been observed in a BEC, as opposed to the atom-number squeezing measurements done with absorptive detection. That claim is new and seems right.

The soft spot is the missing calibration. The paper states the spin shot noise coefficient should be g^2|F_eff|/2, but never computes g or F_eff and never compares the fitted slope to this prediction. Without that, the linear term is identified as spin shot noise only by its scaling and by the absence of a quadratic term. That is suggestive but not conclusive. The stress-test's specific alternative—Poissonian atom-number fluctuations acting on a residual mean rotation angle—does not actually worry me much: their measured theta ~ 1e-3 and constant across N would give a slope of order (dtheta/dN)^2, and to match the observed 4.7e-14 you would need dtheta/dN ~ 2e-7 rad/atom, which at N=1e5 gives theta ~ 0.02 rad, far above the reported 1e-3. So that channel is not numerically viable. The broader concern about absolute calibration is valid though: some other N-linear technical noise (probe power imbalance, polarization inhomogeneity) could in principle mimic spin shot noise. The authors should provide the theoretical slope and, ideally, a bound on the residual slope of the mean rotation angle.

Overall, this is a solid experimental paper with a clear new result. It deserves peer review. The revision should include the expected slope calculation and a short discussion of residual noise channels. I'd cite it once the calibration is added.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports dispersive measurement of spin shot noise in a 87Rb Bose–Einstein condensate using a two-color probe and polarization-rotation detection with a CCD camera. The authors measure the variance of the polarization rotation angle as a function of atom number, fit it with a linear function, and report a slope of 4.7(9)×10^-14 with no significant quadratic term. They attribute the linear term to spin projection noise, i.e., the standard quantum limit, and contrast it with a main-beam-only measurement showing technical noise that grows quadratically with atom number. The central claim is that this is the first confirmative observation of real spin shot noise in a BEC, enabled by suppression of the tensor light shift and power-balance stabilization.

Significance. If the central claim is quantitatively established, this would be an important experimental result: a dispersive, spatially resolved measurement of spin shot noise in a BEC, with direct implications for spinor-BEC quantum fluctuation studies and BEC-based magnetometry. The paper has clear strengths: the two-color probe with stabilized power balance is a sophisticated technical solution; the loss spectroscopy with the compensation beam is carefully done; the use of reference images to suppress slowly drifting technical noise is appropriate; and the comparison with main-beam-only data (Fig. 3(b)) provides a useful sanity check that the dominant technical noise has the expected quadratic scaling. However, the current manuscript does not provide an absolute calibration of the measured linear slope against the predicted spin-projection-noise coefficient g^2|F_eff|/2. Since the linear scaling is the only quantitative evidence for the claim, the central result remains underdetermined without this comparison.

major comments (3)

[Eq. (1) and Fig. 3(a)] The fitted slope a = 4.7(9)×10^-14 in Fig. 3(a) is never compared with the theoretically expected spin-projection-noise coefficient g^2|F_eff|/2 introduced above Eq. (1). The identification of the linear term with spin shot noise requires showing that a matches this coefficient, either from an ab initio estimate of g, chi, and F_z or from an independent calibration. Linearity in N is necessary but not sufficient: a technical-noise channel whose variance scales linearly with N, such as shot-to-shot atom-number fluctuations (Var(N) ∝ N) combined with a residual mean rotation angle proportional to N, would produce the same functional form. The paper's statement that the mean rotation angle is constant for the two-color probe (inset of Fig. 3(b)) is not backed by a numerical upper bound on the slope d<theta>/dN, so this alternative cannot be excluded by the presented data.
[Fig. 3(a) and Fig. 3(b)] The claim that no significant quadratic term is observed is not quantified. The paper reports only the linear slope and its uncertainty; the fitted value of the quadratic coefficient b in Eq. (1), with its confidence interval, should be given. Without this, the reader cannot assess whether the data actually discriminate between a pure linear model and a model with a small quadratic contribution, nor whether the absence of a quadratic term is consistent with the main-beam-only technical-noise measurement in Fig. 3(b). Reporting b and its uncertainty, together with a goodness-of-fit metric, would strengthen the evidence for shot-noise-limited behavior.
[Experimental methods, atom number determination] The atom number N is used as the independent variable in the fit, but the paper does not report how N is determined or what its uncertainty is. If N itself carries significant statistical uncertainty (e.g., from absorption imaging), the fitted slope in Fig. 3(a) can be biased, and the error bar on a would need to account for this. The authors should state the atom-number measurement method and its per-shot uncertainty, and either propagate this uncertainty into the variance fit or justify that it is negligible.

minor comments (5)

[Title and abstract] The title contains a formatting artifact: 'Bose–Einstei n' should read 'Bose–Einstein'.
[Fig. 1 and text near Fig. 1(e)] The text refers to 'the imaging camera shown in Fig. 1(e)', but the figure panels appear to be labeled (a)–(d); the intended reference is likely Fig. 1(d). Please correct the cross-reference.
[Notation, Sec. 4] The notation 'theta_w/atom' and 'theta_w/oatom' in the paragraph on reference frames is undefined and hard to parse. Define the symbols explicitly or rephrase the sentence.
[Sec. 4, main-beam-only measurement] The term 'metapulse' is used without definition. If this is a deliberate term, define it; otherwise 'two-pulse sequence' would be clearer.
[References] Reference [31] contains a stray 'suppress' in the author list ('K. Paw/suppress lowski'); this should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the linear variance scaling is an experimental observation checked against an independent theoretical prediction, and the self-citations are methodological tools.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an experimental observation: Var(theta) grows linearly with atom number, with a fitted slope of 4.7(9)x10^-14 and no significant quadratic term (Fig. 3(a)). The linear dependence is not an output of an equation derived from the fit; it is the functional form predicted by the standard spin-shot-noise expression g^2|F_eff|/2 quoted in the text. The two-color probe method and spin-resolved imaging are cited from the authors' prior work (refs [41], [45]) and are used as tools to suppress technical noise, not as premises that force the spin-shot-noise conclusion. The absence of an absolute comparison between the fitted slope and g^2|F_eff|/2 is a real calibration gap, but it does not make the argument circular: the slope is not defined to equal g^2|F_eff|/2, nor is g^2|F_eff|/2 extracted from the observed slope. Concerns about N-linear technical noise are falsifiability or correctness risks, not circularity. Therefore score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new theoretical entities. Its central claim rests on standard quantum noise formulas and on experimentally optimized parameters (detunings, power ratio) that are tuned to suppress technical noise. The fitted slope and intercept are measurement outputs, not free inputs used to force the conclusion.

free parameters (5)

Linear fit slope a = 4.7(9)x10^-14 rad^2/atom
Fitted to the Var(theta) versus N data in Fig. 3(a); the central claim that the scaling is linear rests on this fit, but the slope itself is the measured observable, not an ad hoc input.
Linear fit intercept Var(theta)_0 = approximately 4.1x10^-8 rad^2
Offset in the linear fit, includes photon shot noise and readout noise; fitted to the same data.
Power ratio main:compensation = 8.57:1
Chosen to cancel the tensor light shift; the cancellation of the quadratic technical noise relies on this ratio being correct.
Compensation beam detuning = +500 MHz
Selected from loss spectroscopy (Fig. 2) to minimize atom loss; this setting is used for the main measurement.
Main beam detuning = -840 MHz
Selected to reduce light-assisted collisional loss, as in ref. [11].

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The spin variance decomposes as Var(theta)=aN+bN^2+Var(theta)_0 (Eq. 1).
Assumes spin shot noise scales linearly with N and technical noise (probe-induced spin changes, light shifts) scales quadratically; used to interpret the data.
standard math The polarization rotation angle is theta = g F_x with g determined by atomic optical density and probe frequency.
Standard paramagnetic Faraday rotation; assumed throughout the measurement.
domain assumption The spin shot noise variance for a coherent spin state is g^2 |F_eff|/2.
Standard result used to identify the linear term with spin shot noise; relies on the BEC being in a coherent spin state.
domain assumption The two-color probe with suitable power balance cancels the tensor (nonlinear) light shift.
Assumes the cancellation works as described in the authors' earlier work (ref. [41]); the main result depends on this cancellation.
domain assumption The BEC is prepared in a nearly pure |F=2, m_z=+2> coherent spin state.
Spin cleaning is performed, but residual population in other m_z states would alter the expected spin shot noise scaling.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dispersive measurement of spin shot noise in a Bose--Einstein condensate." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AY7TAGQP

@misc{pith2026250115546,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dispersive measurement of spin shot noise in a Bose--Einstein condensate},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AY7TAGQP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15546}
}

read the original abstract

We report dispersive spin shot noise measurement of a Bose--Einstein condensate (BEC). While dispersive probing has been used for quantum spin noise measurement of thermal and cold gases for decades, confirmative measurement of spin shot noise, i.e.,\ the linear dependence of the spin variance on the number of atoms in a BEC has been lacking. Here, we demonstrate precise spin noise measurement of a BEC of rubidium atoms at the spin shot noise level by polarization rotation using a two-color probe at optimal detunings, with power balance stabilization to suppress probe-induced excess spin noise. This work opens the possibility for the unexplored study of quantum spin fluctuations in multi-component or spinor BECs and offers an approach to improve spin measurement precision, which is relevant to atomic spin-based sensors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.15546 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (Color online) Loss by the compensation beam. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. (Color online) Spin noise measurement. (a) Variance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

[1]

We set the compensation beam detuning to +500 MHz in the following experiments

036(2), respectively. We set the compensation beam detuning to +500 MHz in the following experiments. Although we found the optimal compensation beam frequency, the optimal compensation beam still induces a larger atom loss than the optimally red-detuned main beam [11]. This is probably because the light-assisted collisional loss is not suﬃciently suppres...

work page
[2]

T. F. Watson, S. G. J. Philips, E. Kawakami, D. R. Ward, P. Scarlino, M. Veldhorst, D. E. Savage, M. G. Lagally, M. Friesen, S. N. Coppersmith, M. A. Eriksson, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Nature 555, 633 (2018)

work page 2018
[3]

Arute, K

F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, A. Dunsworth, E. Farhi, B. Foxen, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graﬀ, K. Guerin, S. Habegger, M. P. Harrigan, M. J. Hartmann, A. Ho, M. Hoﬀmann, T. Huang, T. S. ...

2019
[4]

X. Xue, B. Patra, J. P. G. van Dijk, N. Samkharadze, S. Subramanian, A. Corna, B. Paquelet Wuetz, C. Jeon, F. Sheikh, E. Juarez-Hernandez, B. P. Esparza, H. Ram- purawala, B. Carlton, S. Ravikumar, C. Nieva, S. Kim, H.-J. Lee, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, M. Veldhorst, F. Sebastiano, M. Babaie, S. Pellerano, E. Charbon, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Nature 593, 2...

work page 2021
[5]

Barnes, P

K. Barnes, P. Battaglino, B. J. Bloom, K. Cassella, R. Coxe, N. Crisosto, J. P. King, S. S. Kondov, K. Kotru, S. C. Larsen, J. Lauigan, B. J. Lester, M. McDonald, E. Megidish, S. Narayanaswami, C. Nishiguchi, R. Noter- mans, L. S. Peng, A. Ryou, T.-Y. Wu, and M. Yarwood, Nature Communications 13, 2779 (2022)

work page 2022
[6]

C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035002 (2017)

2017
[7]

I. K. Kominis, T. W. Kornack, J. C. Allred, and M. V. Romalis, Nature 422, 596 (2003)

2003
[8]

H. B. Dang, A. C. Maloof, and M. V. Romalis, Applied Physics Letters 97, 151110 (2010)

work page 2010

Show all 49 references

[9]

Wildermuth, S

S. Wildermuth, S. Hoﬀerberth, I. Lesanovsky, E. Haller, L. M. Andersson, S. Groth, I. Bar-Joseph, P. Kr¨ uger, and J. Schmiedmayer, Nature 435, 440 (2005)

2005
[10]

Vengalattore, J

M. Vengalattore, J. M. Higbie, S. R. Leslie, J. Guzman, L. E. Sadler, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, Physical Review Letters 98, 200801 (2007)

2007
[11]

F. Yang, A. J. Koll´ ar, S. F. Taylor, R. W. Turner, and B. L. Lev, Phys. Rev. Appl. 7, 034026 (2017)

2017
[12]

Sekiguchi, K

N. Sekiguchi, K. Shibata, A. Torii, H. Toda, R. Ku- ramoto, D. Fukuda, and T. Hirano, Phys. Rev. A 104, L041306 (2021)

2021
[13]

S. P. Alvarez, P. Gomez, S. Coop, R. Zamora-Zamora, C. Mazzinghi, and M. W. Mitchell, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, e2115339119 (2022)

2022
[14]

R. H. Koch, D. J. Van Harlingen, and J. Clarke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 2132 (1980)

1980
[15]

R. H. Koch, D. J. Van Harlingen, and J. Clarke, Applied Physics Letters 38, 380 (1981)

1981
[16]

Giovannetti, S

V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 010401 (2006)

2006
[17]

Boixo, S

S. Boixo, S. T. Flammia, C. M. Caves, and J. Geremia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 090401 (2007)

2007
[18]

Pezz` e, A

L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Reviews of Modern Physics 90, 035005 (2018)

2018
[19]

S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3439 (1994)

1994
[20]

Vasilakis, H

G. Vasilakis, H. Shen, K. Jensen, M. Balabas, D. Salart, B. Chen, and E. S. Polzik, Nature Physics11, 389 (2015)

2015
[21]

H. Bao, J. Duan, S. Jin, X. Lu, P. Li, W. Qu, M. Wang, I. Novikova, E. E. Mikhailov, K.-F. Zhao, K. Mølmer, H. Shen, and Y. Xiao, Nature 581, 159 (2020)

2020
[22]

J. Kong, R. Jim´ enez-Mart´ ınez, C. Troullinou, V. G. Lu- civero, G. T´ oth, and M. W. Mitchell, Nature Communi- cations 11, 2415 (2020)

2020
[23]

Appel, P

J. Appel, P. J. Windpassinger, D. Oblak, U. B. Hoﬀ, N. Kjaergaard, and E. S. Polzik, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, 10960 (2009), arXiv:0810.3545

2009 arXiv
[24]

Takano, M

T. Takano, M. Fuyama, R. Namiki, and Y. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 033601 (2009)

2009
[25]

R. J. Sewell, M. Koschorreck, M. Napolitano, B. Dubost, N. Behbood, and M. W. Mitchell, Physical Review Let- ters 109, 253605 (2012)

2012
[26]

Colangelo, F

G. Colangelo, F. M. Ciurana, L. C. Bianchet, R. J. Sewell, and M. W. Mitchell, Nature 543, 525 (2017)

2017
[27]

Hemmer, E

D. Hemmer, E. Monta˜ no, B. Q. Baragiola, L. M. Norris, E. Shojaee, I. H. Deutsch, and P. S. Jessen, Phys. Rev. A 104, 023710 (2021)

2021
[28]

Est` eve, C

J. Est` eve, C. Gross, A. Weller, S. Giovanazzi, and M. K. Oberthaler, Nature 455, 1216 (2008)

2008
[29]

Gross, T

C. Gross, T. Zibold, E. Nicklas, J. Est` eve, and M. K. Oberthaler, Nature 464, 1165 (2010)

2010
[30]

Muessel, H

W. Muessel, H. Strobel, D. Linnemann, D. B. Hume, and M. K. Oberthaler, Physical Review Letters 113, 103004 (2014)

2014
[31]

D. M. Stamper-Kurn and M. Ueda, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1191 (2013)

2013
[32]

M. A. Kristensen, M. B. Christensen, M. Gajdacz, M. Iglicki, K. Paw/suppress lowski, C. Klempt, J. F. Sherson, K. Rzazewski, A. J. Hilliard, and J. J. Arlt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 163601 (2019)

2019
[33]

H. D. Politzer, Phys. Rev. A 54, 5048 (1996)

1996
[34]

Navez, D

P. Navez, D. Bitouk, M. Gajda, Z. Idziaszek, and K. Rza ¸ ˙ zewski, Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 1789 (1997)

1997
[35]

Kuzmich, N

A. Kuzmich, N. P. Bigelow, and L. Mandel, Europhysical Letters 42, 481 (1998)

1998
[36]

Takahashi, K

Y. Takahashi, K. Honda, N. Tanaka, K. Toyoda, K. Ishikawa, and T. Yabuzaki, Physical Review A 60, 4974 (1999)

1999
[37]

Hammerer, K

K. Hammerer, K. Mølmer, E. S. Polzik, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A 70, 044304 (2004)

2004
[38]

B. Q. Baragiola, L. M. Norris, E. Monta˜ no, P. G. Mick- elson, P. S. Jessen, and I. H. Deutsch, Physical Review A 89, 033850 (2014)

2014
[39]

M. W. Mitchell and S. Palacios Alvarez, Rev. Mod. Phys. 92, 021001 (2020). 6

2020
[40]

P. J. Windpassinger, M. Kubasik, M. Koschorreck, A. Boisen, N. Kjærgaard, E. S. Polzik, and J. H. M¨ uller, Measurement Science and Technology 20, 055301 (2009)

2009
[41]

F. M. Ciurana, G. Colangelo, R. J. Sewell, and M. W. Mitchell, Opt. Lett. 41, 2946 (2016)

2016
[42]

Takai, K

J. Takai, K. Shibata, N. Sekiguchi, and T. Hirano, Phys. Rev. A 107, 053308 (2023)

2023
[43]

I. H. Deutsch and P. S. Jessen, Optics Communications 283, 681 (2010)

2010
[44]

Steﬀen, W

A. Steﬀen, W. Alt, M. Genske, D. Meschede, C. Robens, and A. Alberti, Review of Scientiﬁc Instruments 84, 126103 (2013)

2013
[45]

A. A. Wood, L. D. Turner, and R. P. Anderson, Phys. Rev. A 94, 052503 (2016)

2016
[46]

Shibata, N

K. Shibata, N. Sekiguchi, and T. Hirano, Phys. Rev. A 103, 043335 (2021)

2021
[47]

G. A. Smith, S. Chaudhury, A. Silberfarb, I. H. Deutsch, and P. S. Jessen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 163602 (2004)

2004
[48]

Koschorreck, M

M. Koschorreck, M. Napolitano, B. Dubost, and M. W. Mitchell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 093602 (2010)

2010
[49]

Burnett, P

K. Burnett, P. S. Julienne, and K.-A. Suominen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1416 (1996)

1996

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

We set the compensation beam detuning to +500 MHz in the following experiments

036(2), respectively. We set the compensation beam detuning to +500 MHz in the following experiments. Although we found the optimal compensation beam frequency, the optimal compensation beam still induces a larger atom loss than the optimally red-detuned main beam [11]. This is probably because the light-assisted collisional loss is not suﬃciently suppres...

work page

[2] [2]

T. F. Watson, S. G. J. Philips, E. Kawakami, D. R. Ward, P. Scarlino, M. Veldhorst, D. E. Savage, M. G. Lagally, M. Friesen, S. N. Coppersmith, M. A. Eriksson, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Nature 555, 633 (2018)

work page 2018

[3] [3]

Arute, K

F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell, B. Burkett, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, R. Collins, W. Courtney, A. Dunsworth, E. Farhi, B. Foxen, A. Fowler, C. Gidney, M. Giustina, R. Graﬀ, K. Guerin, S. Habegger, M. P. Harrigan, M. J. Hartmann, A. Ho, M. Hoﬀmann, T. Huang, T. S. ...

2019

[4] [4]

X. Xue, B. Patra, J. P. G. van Dijk, N. Samkharadze, S. Subramanian, A. Corna, B. Paquelet Wuetz, C. Jeon, F. Sheikh, E. Juarez-Hernandez, B. P. Esparza, H. Ram- purawala, B. Carlton, S. Ravikumar, C. Nieva, S. Kim, H.-J. Lee, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, M. Veldhorst, F. Sebastiano, M. Babaie, S. Pellerano, E. Charbon, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Nature 593, 2...

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Barnes, P

K. Barnes, P. Battaglino, B. J. Bloom, K. Cassella, R. Coxe, N. Crisosto, J. P. King, S. S. Kondov, K. Kotru, S. C. Larsen, J. Lauigan, B. J. Lester, M. McDonald, E. Megidish, S. Narayanaswami, C. Nishiguchi, R. Noter- mans, L. S. Peng, A. Ryou, T.-Y. Wu, and M. Yarwood, Nature Communications 13, 2779 (2022)

work page 2022

[6] [6]

C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035002 (2017)

2017

[7] [7]

I. K. Kominis, T. W. Kornack, J. C. Allred, and M. V. Romalis, Nature 422, 596 (2003)

2003

[8] [8]

H. B. Dang, A. C. Maloof, and M. V. Romalis, Applied Physics Letters 97, 151110 (2010)

work page 2010