Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Frustrated orbital Feshbach resonances in a Fermi gas

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that occupying the closed channel of an orbital Feshbach resonance blocks the scattering that creates the resonance, suppressing the three-body binding energy and driving the many-body system toward weaker pairing.

desk verdict Solid few-body physics, but the many-body claim rests on an unstable mean-field branch. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04495 v1 pith:34TRX2H4 submitted 2019-08-13 cond-mat.quant-gas

E. K. Laird , Z.-Y. Shi , M. M. Parish , J. Levinsen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gas
keywords orbitalFeshbachresonancePauliblockingclosed-channelFermisea173YbBCS-BECcrossoverthree-bodyboundstatefermionpairingfrustration
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

The paper asks whether the orbital Feshbach resonance, whose open and closed scattering channels are separated by only a tiny detuning, can be 'frustrated' by putting fermions into the closed channel. It argues that it can: an occupied closed channel blocks the two-body scattering that the resonance relies on, because the final scattering states are already filled. In the few-body trap this appears as a suppression of the ground-state binding energy by about $\sim 0.3\omega$ at the resonance, and in the many-body mean-field theory a closed-channel Fermi sea moves the chemical potential and both pairing gaps toward the BCS side, weakening superfluidity. If the claim holds, the closed channel is a practical dial for tuning orbital-Feshbach-resonance superfluids in $^{173}$Yb, and a cold-atom model for how band filling suppresses pairing in multiband systems.

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-channel transition matrix (T-matrix) of the OFR, built from the singlet and triplet scattering lengths $a_S$, $a_T$ and the detuning $\delta(B)$ between the open channel $|g\uparrow,e\downarrow\rangle$ and the closed channel $|g\downarrow,e\uparrow\rangle$. In the three-body problem the Pauli blocking enters as the minus sign in the kernel $A_{E-\delta}-B_{E-\delta}$, where $A$ describes two-body scattering and $B$ describes exchange between interacting pairs; this minus sign follows from fermionic antisymmetry, $\gamma_{n_1n_2n_3}=-\gamma_{n_3n_2n_1}$. In the many-body problem the analogous object is the Zeeman field $h$, which fills closed-channel quasiparticle states between momenta $k_{\rm min}$ and $k_{\rm max}$ and enters the coupled gap equations through the factor $1-\Theta(-E_c^k+h)$, removing those occupied states from the pairing sums.

What would settle it

Recompute the three-body and many-body quantities with the measured effective ranges $r_S\simeq126a_0$ and $r_T\simeq216a_0$ retained: if the predicted $\sim 0.3\omega$ binding suppression and the $\sim 0.2E_F$ chemical-potential shift move by an amount comparable to the effects, the zero-range premise fails; a clock-spectroscopy measurement of the three-atom bound state on a single lattice site would directly test the shift.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a medium occupying the closed channel alters the resonance itself, not just the background: adding a single closed-channel atom to two trapped open-channel atoms reduces the ground-state binding energy by about $\sim 0.3\omega$ at the OFR, and adding a closed-channel Fermi sea at fixed paired density raises the average chemical potential by about $0.2E_F$ when the unpaired density is increased by $n_{\rm paired}$, while lowering $|\Delta_o|$ and $|\Delta_c|$. On the BEC side the shift takes the explicit form $\mu\simeq -\varepsilon_b/2 + (2\pi a_T/m)\,\delta n_c$, a mean-field boson-fermion repulsion between open-channel molecules and excess closed-channel fermions. The paper identifies the origin as Pauli blocking of the closed-channel scattering states, which is possible only because the OFR detuning is so small that a real, occupied medium in the closed channel matters.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical results assume the atoms collide only at a single point, with the two measured effective ranges set to zero, and the paper asserts this does not change the relative shifts without showing a sensitivity check.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In a deep optical lattice, the three-atom binding suppression of about $\sim 0.3\omega$ should be visible with clock spectroscopy, and the paper argues this few-body signal is easier to observe than the previously attempted free-space polaron shift.
  • A fixed excess of closed-channel atoms pushes the OFR crossover toward the BCS side: both the average chemical potential and the open- and closed-channel gaps move in the direction of weaker pairing as the unpaired density grows.
  • In the BEC limit the frustration shift is a linear mean-field effect, $\mu\simeq -\varepsilon_b/2+(2\pi a_T/m)\,\delta n_c$, so closed-channel occupation acts like a repulsive boson-fermion interaction.
  • Because an occupied band Pauli-blocks pairing between other bands, the same mechanism offers a cold-atom analogue for how band filling suppresses superconductivity in multiband solid-state materials.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that the same gap equations could be scanned for stable breached-pair solutions, since the closed-channel Fermi sea removes the pairing gap over a finite momentum window; mapping that region is a direct next calculation.
  • A time-resolved extension would fill the closed channel suddenly after preparing a paired state; the mean-field result predicts the gap should relax toward the BCS side, giving a dynamical signature of frustration.
  • In the lattice setting, a concrete probe is to load exactly one $|g\downarrow\rangle$ atom with an open-channel pair on a single site and look for the $\sim 0.3\omega$ shift of the molecular line relative to the two-atom spectrum; the paper suggests clock spectroscopy but leaves the loading sequence unspecified.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the orbital Feshbach resonance (OFR) in three-dimensional 173Yb, focusing on the fact that the open and closed channels are only weakly detuned. In the few-body part, the authors add a third atom to the closed channel of a two-body OFR collision inside a 3D harmonic trap, solve the three-body problem via the determinant equation (19), and report that the low-energy ground-state binding energy is suppressed by roughly 0.3 omega at the resonance because of closed-channel Pauli blocking. In the many-body part, they formulate a mean-field BCS-BEC crossover theory with a Zeeman field that creates a closed-channel Fermi sea, solve the coupled gap equations (31), and find that increasing the unpaired closed-channel density raises the average chemical potential and lowers the pairing gaps, i.e., drives the system toward the BCS side. They also derive an analytic BEC-limit shift, mu ≈ -epsilon_b/2 + (2 pi a_T / m) delta n_c. The stated conclusion is that a closed-channel medium acts as an independent tuning knob for OFR superfluids.

Significance. If the many-body branch discussed in the paper is physically realizable, the work introduces a genuinely new control mechanism for OFR superfluids and connects to multiband superconductivity. The few-body prediction is concrete and potentially testable with clock spectroscopy in an optical lattice. The paper has real technical strengths: the two-body T-matrix is renormalized explicitly, the three-body determinant derivation in Appendix A is detailed and self-contained, and the central predictions contain no fitted parameters, with the scattering lengths taken from experiment. The BEC-limit chemical-potential shift is obtained analytically. These strengths make the paper worth serious consideration, provided the stability of the many-body solution is addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV B, after Eq. (31); Fig. 5] The many-body predictions in Fig. 5 are obtained from the out-of-phase solution of Eq. (31), which the text immediately identifies as "an excited saddlepoint" while the in-phase solution is "a very deep global minimum of Ω". A saddlepoint of the grand potential is unstable against small fluctuations, so the zero-temperature equilibrium ground state is the in-phase branch, not the branch plotted. The proposed selection protocol, described immediately after Eq. (31), is to "initially set US = 0 in Eq. (30)" and then "force the system to adiabatically maintain this phase difference". This does not resolve the stability problem, because US is fixed by the physical scattering lengths through Eq. (4) and is not an experimental tuning parameter, and an adiabatic sweep cannot keep a system on an unstable stationary point of Ω. Since the abstract's claim that a closed-channel Fermi sea "drive[s] the system towards weaker fermion pairing" rests on this branch, the authors should provide a stability analysis, for example the Hessian of Ω at the out-of-phase solution, and either show that the branch is at least metastable with an estimate of its lifetime or identify a physical mechanism that stabilizes it. Without such an analysis, the many-body claim should be presented as conditional.
  2. [Sec. II, footnote [51]; Sec. III; Sec. IV C] The quantitative predictions assume zero effective ranges rS and rT. For 173Yb, rT ≈ 216 a0 is roughly 10% of aT ≈ 1878 a0, and near the OFR the open-channel scattering length is tuned through the interference of the two channels, so finite-range corrections can affect both the resonance location and the low-energy amplitudes. Footnote [51] asserts that setting rS = rT = 0 "will not affect the relative shifts" between the two- and three-body results in Fig. 3 or between the spin-balanced and imbalanced systems in Fig. 5, but no sensitivity check is presented. Given that the central quantitative claims are the suppression of the binding energy by about 0.3ω and the BEC-limit shift μ ≈ -ε_b/2 + (2π a_T / m) δn_c, the authors should quantify the sensitivity to finite range, for instance by repeating the calculation with nonzero rS and rT or with a two-channel model that reproduces the experimental low-energy parameters.
  3. [Sec. III and Fig. 3] The orange branch in Fig. 3 is referred to as the "ground state" even though the text states that the model also contains "deep equidistant bound states" arising from the small singlet scattering length. These deep states are eigenstates of the same Hamiltonian, so the orange branch is not the global ground state but the lowest state in a restricted low-energy sector. The proposed clock-spectroscopy experiment would in principle populate the true ground state unless there is a mechanism that suppresses transitions to the deep states, such as a barrier or a short-distance loss process. The authors should either provide such a mechanism explicitly or consistently relabel this branch as a low-energy state rather than the ground state in the abstract and in Sec. III.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption does not state what the green dashed lines and blue solid lines correspond to in the figure labels, other than "two-atom problem" and "three-body" in the body text; a legend or explicit caption labels would help the reader.
  2. [Footnote [51]] The effective-range values rS ≈ 126 a0 and rT ≈ 216 a0 are stated without a reference; the authors should cite the source for these numbers.
  3. [Sec. III and Sec. IV] The phrase "ground state" is used in two different senses: in Sec. III it denotes the lowest low-energy branch, while in Sec. IV B it denotes the global minimum of the mean-field grand potential. This dual usage is confusing; consider using "low-energy branch" in Sec. III.
  4. [Sec. IV C, Eq. (35)] In the piecewise condition |μ| ≥ h, the variable h is defined in Sec. IV A, but the BEC-limit subsection does not explicitly remind the reader that h is tied to δn_c through Eq. (33); adding this connection would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central predictions follow from external scattering-length inputs and the stated model; self-citations are technical or experimental, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (three-body binding suppression and many-body pairing suppression with a closed-channel Fermi sea) are derived from the two-channel OFR model with scattering lengths aS ~ 219.7 a0 and aT ~ 1878 a0 taken from the experimental work Ref. [28]. These are external, measurable inputs; they are not fitted to the predicted energy shifts, and the predicted shifts are not used to determine them. The renormalization relation Eq. (4) and the T-matrix equations are standard, and Eq. (19) and Eqs. (30)-(31) are solved with these fixed inputs. No quantity that is called a prediction is, by construction, equal to an input: the three-body suppression emerges from the Pauli-blocking term A_{E-delta} - B_{E-delta} in Eq. (19), and the many-body shifts emerge from the gap and number equations (31)-(33). The self-citations to Refs. [63,64] concern technical reduction of summation indices in the three-body equations, not the physics of frustration, and Ref. [28] is an experimental measurement; neither is load-bearing in a circular way. The choice of the out-of-phase saddlepoint branch and the zero-effective-range approximation are explicit modeling assumptions with possible correctness or stability implications, but they are not circular because the results still derive from the stated model rather than being identical to an input. Overall, the derivation is self-contained against its external benchmarks, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions use no free parameters fitted to the target results. The model is the standard two-channel OFR model with experimental scattering lengths as inputs. The main modeling assumptions are the zero-effective-range approximation and the choice of the out-of-phase mean-field solution.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The two-channel OFR is described by a zero-range model with s-wave scattering lengths aS ~ 219.7 a0 and aT ~ 1878 a0 measured in 173Yb experiments (Ref. [28]).
    This is the standard OFR model of Zhang et al. [22]; the scattering lengths are external experimental inputs, not fitted to the target predictions.
  • ad hoc to paper The effective ranges rS, rT are set to zero (zero-range approximation).
    Simplification to make the T-matrix and three-body equations tractable; the paper asserts this does not affect relative shifts but does not demonstrate it.
  • domain assumption In the many-body problem, the closed-channel Fermi sea is treated at mean-field level with Pauli blocking entering via occupation of negative-energy quasiparticle states.
    Standard BCS-BEC mean-field decoupling; ignores fluctuations and three-body losses.
  • ad hoc to paper The physical many-body solution is the out-of-phase saddle point (Delta_o = -Delta_c limit) reached by starting from US = 0 and adiabatically following the phase difference.
    The deep in-phase solution corresponds to the unphysical deep aS bound state and is discarded; the authors argue the crossover physics is in the out-of-phase solution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Frustrated orbital Feshbach resonances in a Fermi gas." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/34TRX2H4

@misc{pith2026190804495,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Frustrated orbital Feshbach resonances in a Fermi gas},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/34TRX2H4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04495}
}
abstract

The orbital Feshbach resonance (OFR) is a novel scheme for magnetically tuning the interactions in closed-shell fermionic atoms. Remarkably, unlike the Feshbach resonances in alkali atoms, the open and closed channels of the OFR are only very weakly detuned in energy. This leads to a unique effect whereby a medium in the closed channel can Pauli block, or frustrate, the two-body scattering processes. Here, we theoretically investigate the impact of frustration in the few- and many-body limits of the experimentally accessible three-dimensional $^{173}$Yb system. We find that by adding a closed-channel atom to the two-body problem, the binding energy of the ground state is significantly suppressed, and by introducing a closed-channel Fermi sea to the many-body problem, we can drive the system towards weaker fermion pairing. These results are potentially relevant to superconductivity in solid-state multiband materials, as well as to the current and continuing exploration of unconventional Fermi-gas superfluids near the OFR.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04495 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A depiction of the OFR pairwise interaction for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. We have two open-channel atoms ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Energy spectrum for the frustrated few-body system using ultracold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Closed-channel excitation spectrum with empty (un [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The average chemical potential (a) and pairing order [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Atom populations for the three crossover scenarios [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Interaction Control of Ultracold Alkaline-Earth Atoms

    cond-mat.quant-gas 2019-08 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    A review of orbital Feshbach and confinement-induced resonances that control spin-independent and spin-exchanging interactions in ultracold alkaline-earth atoms.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [51]

    Now P↑,↓ has or- bital symmetric and antisymmetric eigenstates,|g↓,e↑⟩∓ |g↑,e↓⟩ with eigenvalues∓1 (here written in terms of the open and closed channels)

    We can see this another way by considering the permu- tation operator P↑,↓ which, when acted on a two-body state, exchanges the nuclear spins. Now P↑,↓ has or- bital symmetric and antisymmetric eigenstates,|g↓,e↑⟩∓ |g↑,e↓⟩ with eigenvalues∓1 (here written in terms of the open and closed channels). While P↑,↓ is only concerned with nuclear spin, the intera...

    work page

  2. [1]

    Lewenstein, A

    M. Lewenstein, A. Sanpera, V. Ahufinger, B. Damski, A. Sen(De), and U. Sen, Adv. Phys. 56, 243 (2007)

    work page 2007

  3. [2]

    (A16) These relations allow us to convert Eq

    By expanding both functions in the complete set of harmonic-oscillator eigenfunctions, we obtain δ(3)(x) = 1 4π ∑ κ Rκ(0)Rκ(x) and Gν(x) = 1 4π ∑ κ Rκ(0)Rκ(x) ν− 2κ . (A16) These relations allow us to convert Eq. (A13) into a one-dimensional integral, as shown: Bρ,ρ ′ E = 1 8 √ 2π ∑ κ Rκ(0) ∫ d(3)xd(3)yGE−2ρ′ ( x− √ 3y 2 ) Rκ(x)Rρ(y)Rρ′ (⏐⏐⏐⏐⏐ √ 3x + y 2 ...

    work page

  4. [3]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 885 (2008)

    2008

  5. [4]

    C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1225 (2010)

    2010

  6. [5]

    M. H. Anderson, J. R. Ensher, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell, Science 269, 198 (1995)

    1995

  7. [6]

    C. C. Bradley, C. A. Sackett, J. J. Tollett, and R. G. Hulet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1687 (1995)

    work page 1995

  8. [7]

    K. B. Davis, M. O. Mewes, M. R. Andrews, N. J. van Druten, D. S. Durfee, D. M. Kurn, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3969 (1995)

    1995

Show all 69 references
  1. [8]

    Jaksch, C

    D. Jaksch, C. Bruder, J. I. Cirac, C. W. Gardiner, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3108 (1998)

    1998

  2. [9]

    Greiner, O

    M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. Esslinger, T. W. H¨ ansch, and I. Bloch, Nature 415, 39 (2002)

    2002

  3. [10]

    Paredes, A

    B. Paredes, A. Widera, V. Murg, O. Mandel, S. F¨ olling, I. Cirac, G. V. Shlyapnikov, T. W. H¨ ansch, and I. Bloch, Nature 429, 277 (2004)

    2004

  4. [11]

    Kinoshita, T

    T. Kinoshita, T. Wenger, and D. S. Weiss, Science 305, 1125 (2004)

    2004

  5. [12]

    DeMarco and D

    B. DeMarco and D. S. Jin, Science 285, 1703 (1999)

    1999

  6. [13]

    A. G. Truscott, K. E. Strecker, W. I. McAlexander, G. B. Partridge, and R. G. Hulet, Science 291, 2570 (2001)

    2001

  7. [14]

    Schreck, L

    F. Schreck, L. Khaykovich, K. L. Corwin, G. Ferrari, T. Bourdel, J. Cubizolles, and C. Salomon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 080403 (2001)

    2001

  8. [15]

    C. A. Regal, M. Greiner, and D. S. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 040403 (2004)

    2004

  9. [16]

    Bartenstein, A

    M. Bartenstein, A. Altmeyer, S. Riedl, S. Jochim, C. Chin, J. Hecker-Denschlag, and R. Grimm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 120401 (2004)

    2004

  10. [17]

    M. W. Zwierlein, C. A. Stan, C. H. Schunck, S. M. F. Raupach, A. J. Kerman, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 120403 (2004)

    2004

  11. [18]

    Bourdel, L

    T. Bourdel, L. Khaykovich, J. Cubizolles, J. Zhang, F. Chevy, M. Teichmann, L. Tarruell, S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, and C. Salomon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 050401 (2004)

    2004

  12. [19]

    M. W. Zwierlein, A. Schirotzek, C. H. Schunck, and W. Ketterle, Science 311, 492 (2006)

    2006

  13. [20]

    G. B. Partridge, W. Li, R. I. Kamar, Y. Liao, and R. G. Hulet, Science 311, 503 (2006)

    2006

  14. [21]

    M. M. Parish, F. M. Marchetti, A. Lamacraft, and B. D. Simons, Nat. Phys. 3, 124 (2007)

    2007

  15. [22]

    D. E. Sheehy and L. Radzihovsky, Ann. Phys. 322, 1790 (2007)

    2007

  16. [23]

    Zhang, Y

    R. Zhang, Y. Cheng, H. Zhai, and P. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 135301 (2015)

    2015

  17. [24]

    The reason is that the even number of electrons (from the full outer shell) implies an even number of protons and, in turn, an even number of neutrons to render the atom a boson

    Bosonic alkaline-earth atoms do not offer the same utility, here, because their nuclei always have vanishing spins. The reason is that the even number of electrons (from the full outer shell) implies an even number of protons and, in turn, an even number of neutrons to render t...

  18. [25]

    Consequently, 3P0 is metastable with a lifetime that exceeds∼ 10 seconds [67]

    A decay from the excited state, 2S+1LJ = 3P0, back to the ground state, 1S0, is doubly forbidden in the dipole approximation, since it would involve a spin flip (∆S⁄= 0) and also because we cannot transition between twoJ = 0 states. Consequently, 3P0 is metastable with a lifeti...

  19. [26]

    Scazza, C

    F. Scazza, C. Hofrichter, M. H¨ ofer, P. C. D. Groot, I. Bloch, and S. F¨ olling, Nat. Phys. 10, 779 (2014)

    2014

  20. [27]

    Cappellini, M

    G. Cappellini, M. Mancini, G. Pagano, P. Lombardi, L. Livi, M. Siciliani de Cumis, P. Cancio, M. Pizzocaro, D. Calonico, F. Levi, C. Sias, J. Catani, M. Inguscio, and L. Fallani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 120402 (2014)

    2014

  21. [28]

    Zhang, M

    X. Zhang, M. Bishof, S. L. Bromley, C. V. Kraus, M. S. Safronova, P. Zoller, A. M. Rey, and J. Ye, Science 345, 1467 (2014)

    2014

  22. [29]

    H¨ ofer, L

    M. H¨ ofer, L. Riegger, F. Scazza, C. Hofrichter, D. R. Fernandes, M. M. Parish, J. Levinsen, I. Bloch, and S. F¨ olling, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 265302 (2015)

    2015

  23. [30]

    Pagano, M

    G. Pagano, M. Mancini, G. Cappellini, L. Livi, C. Sias, J. Catani, M. Inguscio, and L. Fallani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 265301 (2015)

    2015

  24. [31]

    Darkwah Oppong, L

    N. Darkwah Oppong, L. Riegger, O. Bettermann, M. H¨ ofer, J. Levinsen, M. M. Parish, I. Bloch, and S. F¨ olling, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 193604 (2019)

    2019

  25. [32]

    Cappellini, L

    G. Cappellini, L. F. Livi, L. Franchi, D. Tusi, D. Bene- dicto Orenes, M. Inguscio, J. Catani, and L. Fallani, Phys. Rev. X 9, 011028 (2019). 14

    2019

  26. [33]

    J. Xu, R. Zhang, Y. Cheng, P. Zhang, R. Qi, and H. Zhai, Phys. Rev. A 94, 033609 (2016)

    2016

  27. [34]

    L. He, J. Wang, S.-G. Peng, X.-J. Liu, and H. Hu, Phys. Rev. A 94, 043624 (2016)

    2016

  28. [35]

    Mondal, D

    S. Mondal, D. Inotani, and Y. Ohashi, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 969, 012017 (2018)

    2018

  29. [36]

    Mondal, D

    S. Mondal, D. Inotani, and Y. Ohashi, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 87, 084302 (2018)

    2018

  30. [37]

    Wang, J.-S

    S. Wang, J.-S. Pan, X. Cui, W. Zhang, and W. Yi, Phys. Rev. A 95, 043634 (2017)

    2017

  31. [38]

    Cheng, R

    Y. Cheng, R. Zhang, and P. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A 93, 042708 (2016)

    2016

  32. [39]

    Iskin, Phys

    M. Iskin, Phys. Rev. A 95, 013618 (2017)

    2017

  33. [40]

    Cheng, R

    Y. Cheng, R. Zhang, and P. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A 95, 013624 (2017)

    2017

  34. [41]

    Zhang, S

    Y.-C. Zhang, S. Ding, and S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A 95, 041603 (2017)

    2017

  35. [42]

    T.-S. Deng, W. Zhang, and W. Yi, Phys. Rev. A 96, 050701 (2017)

    2017

  36. [43]

    P. Zou, L. He, X.-J. Liu, and H. Hu, Phys. Rev. A 97, 043616 (2018)

    2018

  37. [44]

    Riegger, N

    L. Riegger, N. Darkwah Oppong, M. H¨ ofer, D. R. Fer- nandes, I. Bloch, and S. F¨ olling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 143601 (2018)

    2018

  38. [45]

    M. M. Boyd, T. Zelevinsky, A. D. Ludlow, S. Blatt, T. Zanon-Willette, S. M. Foreman, and J. Ye, Phys. Rev. A 76, 022510 (2007)

    2007

  39. [46]

    H¨ ofer, Ph

    M. H¨ ofer, Ph. D. Thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians-Univers- it¨ at M¨ unchen (2017)

    2017

  40. [47]

    Chen, Y.-R

    J.-G. Chen, Y.-R. Shi, X. Zhang, and W. Zhang, Front. Phys. 13, 136702 (2018)

    2018

  41. [48]

    This bestows on the system an SU( N) symme- try (N ≤ 2F + 1) [68] where the collisions do not de- pend on nuclear spin

    There is a large decoupling between the electronic-orbital and nuclear-spin degrees of freedom since the total elec- tronic angular momentum ( J) for both |g⟩ and |e⟩ is zero. This bestows on the system an SU( N) symme- try (N ≤ 2F + 1) [68] where the collisions do not de- pen...

  42. [49]

    open” and “closed

    We see in Fig. 1 that the atom pair ( g↑, e↓) has a lower energy than the pair ( g↓, e↑), which leads to the labels of “open” and “closed” for the scattering channels. How- ever this designation is somewhat arbitrary since, by in- terchanging the channel labels and reversing t...

  43. [50]

    The mass of the fermionic isotope 173Yb is 172.9 amu

  44. [52]

    [28]: aS≃ 219.7a0 and aT ≃ 1878a0, where a0 = 0.529 ˚A is the Bohr radius

    We use scattering lengths for the 173Yb system that have been experimentally determined in Ref. [28]: aS≃ 219.7a0 and aT ≃ 1878a0, where a0 = 0.529 ˚A is the Bohr radius. For simplicity, we set the singlet and triplet effective ranges, rS ≃ 126a0 and rT ≃ 216a0, to zero. We do ...

  45. [53]

    B. A. Lippmann and J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 79, 469 (1950)

    1950

  46. [54]

    [28] employed a 3D optical lattice at a wavelength of 759 .3 nm and with a depth of 29.8 times the recoil energy, giving a confinement frequency ω≃ 2π× 20 kHz

    The experiment in Ref. [28] employed a 3D optical lattice at a wavelength of 759 .3 nm and with a depth of 29.8 times the recoil energy, giving a confinement frequency ω≃ 2π× 20 kHz

  47. [55]

    For convenience, the factors of √ 2 are chosen so that the effective masses for the center-of-mass motion and the relative motion are the same

  48. [56]

    Smirnov, Nucl

    Y. Smirnov, Nucl. Phys. 39, 346 (1962)

    1962

  49. [57]

    Busch, B.-G

    T. Busch, B.-G. Englert, K. Rzaewski, and M. Wilkens, Found. Phys. 28, 549 (1998)

    1998

  50. [58]

    Hofrichter, L

    C. Hofrichter, L. Riegger, F. Scazza, M. H¨ ofer, D. R. Fernandes, I. Bloch, and S. F¨ olling, Phys. Rev. X 6, 021030 (2016)

    2016

  51. [59]

    Giorgini, L

    S. Giorgini, L. P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1215 (2008)

    2008

  52. [60]

    Chen, T.-S

    J.-G. Chen, T.-S. Deng, W. Yi, and W. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A 94, 053627 (2016)

    2016

  53. [61]

    Deng, Z.-C

    T.-S. Deng, Z.-C. Lu, Y.-R. Shi, J.-G. Chen, W. Zhang, and W. Yi, Phys. Rev. A 97, 013635 (2018)

    2018

  54. [62]

    Xu and R

    J. Xu and R. Qi, Eur. Phys. J. 72, 65 (2018)

    2018

  55. [63]

    W. V. Liu and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 047002 (2003)

    2003

  56. [64]

    E. K. Laird, Z.-Y. Shi, M. M. Parish, and J. Levinsen, Phys. Rev. A 96, 032701 (2017)

    2017

  57. [65]

    E. K. Laird, T. Kirk, M. M. Parish, and J. Levinsen, Phys. Rev. A 97, 042711 (2018)

    2018

  58. [66]

    X.-J. Liu, H. Hu, and P. D. Drummond, Phys. Rev. A 82, 023619 (2010)

    2010

  59. [67]

    Scazza, Ph

    F. Scazza, Ph. D. Thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians-Univers- it¨ at M¨ unchen (2015)

    2015

  60. [68]

    S. G. Porsev, A. Derevianko, and E. N. Fortson, Phys. Rev. A 69, 021403 (2004)

    2004

  61. [69]

    M. A. Cazalilla and A. M. Rey, Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 124401 (2014)

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.