Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 54 references

Thermalization and Sub-Poissonian Density Fluctuations in a Degenerate Molecular Fermi Gas

T0 review · 0 major / 6 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 Feshbach molecules produced from a degenerate Bose–Fermi mixture rapidly reach thermal equilibrium with both parent atomic species, and the equilibrium is essentially preserved through coherent transfer to the ground state.

desk verdict Solid experimental letter: first atom–dimer scattering length for K–KRb* and first sub-Poissonian molecular gas fluctuations; thermalization claim is strong, with the collision-count estimate as the main quantitative soft spot. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00086 v3 pith:MI2VK4IT submitted 2019-08-30 cond-mat.quant-gas physics.atom-phphysics.chem-ph

William G. Tobias , Kyle Matsuda , Giacomo Valtolina , Luigi De Marco , Jun-Ru Li , Jun Ye This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-phphysics.chem-ph
keywords ultracoldpolarmoleculesFeshbachdegenerateFermigasatom-dimerscatteringlengththermalizationsub-PoissoniannumberfluctuationsFermi-DiracdistributionSTIRAPtransfer
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 shows that during magnetoassociation, KRb Feshbach molecules scatter elastically off the surrounding potassium atoms often enough to fully thermalize before the ramp ends, and that subsequent coherent transfer to the rovibrational ground state leaves the gas essentially in equilibrium. The authors extract a large atom–dimer scattering length for K–KRb* collisions, |a_ad| ≈ 0.74 times the K–Rb scattering length, implying more than six elastic collisions per molecule in a typical ramp. They also measure sub-Poissonian density fluctuations in both Feshbach and ground-state molecules, a first for molecules, and show that the fluctuation profile gives a T/T_F consistent with expansion thermometry. Why this matters: reaching high phase-space density in polar molecules has been limited by weak ground-state interactions, and this work shows the thermalization bottleneck can be passed before the molecules ever reach the ground state.

What carries the argument

The two load-bearing tools are (i) collisional damping of center-of-mass oscillations, where the decay rate of intentionally excited KRb* oscillations in a K cloud gives the elastic collision rate $\Gamma = n \sigma v_{\rm rel}$ and hence the atom–dimer scattering length through the s-wave formula $\sigma = 4\pi a_{\rm ad}^2/(1 + k_{\rm th}^2 a_{\rm ad}^2)$; and (ii) local number-fluctuation thermometry, where the variance-to-mean ratio $\sigma^2_N/N = \mathrm{Li}_1(-\zeta e^{-V/kT})/\mathrm{Li}_2(-\zeta e^{-V/kT})$ is fit to binned image data to extract the fugacity and T/T_F. A third element is the Feshbach ramp-rate sweep, which maps the competition between thermalizing elastic collisions and inelastic losses and confirms that thermalization saturates for intermediate ramp rates.

What would settle it

Measure the same K–KRb* elastic cross section by an independent method, e.g., from the loss rate of a trapped KRb* sample in a controlled K bath due to three-body recombination at the same fields and temperatures, and compare the extracted |a_ad| with the c = 0.74(5) scaling; a significant discrepancy would invalidate the thermalization-rate claim. Alternatively, prepare a molecular sample at T/T_F < 0.1 and check whether the variance profile still matches the predicted form with the separately measured T/T_F; if it does not, the claim that fluctuations directly probe the Fermi–Dirac distribution fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the production of a degenerate Fermi gas of polar 40K87Rb molecules is self-thermalizing: elastic collisions between Feshbach molecules and free potassium atoms during the magnetic-field ramp equilibrate the molecular sample, and the equilibrium survives the STIRAP transfer with only a small perturbation. This is established by measuring the damping of molecular center-of-mass oscillations in a potassium bath, which yields a K–KRb* s-wave atom–dimer scattering length |a_ad| that scales with the K–Rb scattering length a(B) as |a_ad| = (0.74 ± 0.05) a(B) across the tested detunings. The measured cross section implies at least six elastic collisions per molecule during a standard ramp, and the ramp-rate dependence of the final T/T_F shows an optimum around 0.5–3 G/ms, consistent with elastic thermalization winning over inelastic loss. As an independent probe of degeneracy, the paper measures the variance-to-mean ratio of molecule number in small image bins and observes sub-Poissonian fluctuations whose spatial profile matches the Fermi–Dirac prediction, giving a T/T_F in agreement with expansion measurements. The STIRAP transfer, at 85% efficiency, is shown to increase the apparent T/T_F only modestly (e.g., from 0.44 to 0.49 for one set), so the ground-state gas remains essentially in equilibrium.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the measured damping of center-of-mass oscillations is accurately converted to an atom–dimer scattering length using the s-wave zero-range formula and a Boltzmann overlap density, approximations that may be inadequate at the high collision energies and large scattering lengths probed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Degenerate polar ground-state molecules can be produced without post-transfer evaporative cooling, because the thermalization bottleneck is passed during the Feshbach ramp.
  • The measured K–KRb* atom–dimer scattering length, |a_ad| ≈ 0.74 a(B), provides a quantitative benchmark for three-body and atom–dimer scattering theory in heteronuclear systems at finite collision energy.
  • Sub-Poissonian number fluctuations in molecules can serve as a local, model-free probe of the molecular Fermi–Dirac distribution, complementing expansion thermometry in regimes where expansion is distorted.
  • The optimal magnetoassociation ramp rate for KRb is set by the balance between elastic thermalization and inelastic loss, with T/T_F minimized at 0.3 for rates near 1 G/ms.
  • STIRAP efficiency sets a floor on the achievable ground-state degeneracy unless ground-state thermalization occurs; improving transfer efficiency directly improves T/T_F.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the variance-suppression profile is sensitive to two-body correlations, the same imaging technique could detect the onset of pairing or a BCS-type crossover in a molecular Fermi gas, where standard expansion thermometry would need to be modified.
  • The measured c ≈ 0.74, below the universal prediction of 1.09, suggests that finite-range effects matter at these temperatures; a systematic study of |a_ad| versus collision energy could map where universality sets in.
  • Because STIRAP acts as a binomial state-depletion process, the fluctuation method can be inverted to measure the STIRAP conversion efficiency per momentum state, providing a diagnostic that is independent of total-number calibrations.
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

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports measurements on a degenerate Fermi gas of 40K87Rb molecules produced by magnetoassociation from a Bose–Fermi mixture. The authors measure the K–KRb* atom–dimer elastic scattering length from damping of center-of-mass oscillations and from cross-species thermalization, obtaining a scattering length magnitude well described by a scaling factor c = 0.74(5) relative to the K–Rb scattering length. They observe that the molecular T/T_F is minimized at intermediate Feshbach ramp rates, indicating a competition between thermalization and inelastic losses. They further measure sub-Poissonian number fluctuations in K, Feshbach molecules, and ground-state molecules after time-of-flight, and find that T/T_F inferred from fluctuation suppression agrees with expansion thermometry. The central claims are that Feshbach molecules rapidly thermalize with the parent atoms during the association ramp, that equilibrium is essentially maintained through coherent transfer to the ground state, and that fluctuation measurements directly probe the molecular Fermi–Dirac distribution.

Significance. These results constitute the first measurement of atom–dimer elastic scattering for a heteronuclear molecule in this regime and provide a quantitative explanation for the production of degenerate molecular samples at T/T_F = 0.3. The fluctuation thermometry is a new tool for molecules, benchmarked on non-degenerate K atoms and validated by both simulation and agreement with expansion thermometry. If the claims hold, the work strengthens the path to degenerate polar gases and offers a direct probe of quantum statistics in molecules. The experimental analysis is careful: the damping model is checked against the full two-species equations, the two independent measurements of the scattering length agree, and the STIRAP efficiency and imaging corrections are explicitly characterized.

minor comments (6)
  1. [Supplementary Material, 'Number of elastic collisions'] The estimate of Nel = 5.9 relies on a field-averaged cross section that extrapolates the measured c = 0.74 to the near-resonance region, a Boltzmann overlap density, and Fermi-temperature energy scales, while explicitly neglecting Pauli blocking of K collisions and the state distributions of K and KRb*. A sensitivity analysis (for example, varying the near-resonance contribution or the overlap density) or a more cautious wording such as 'on the order of several collisions' would strengthen the quantitative support for the 'more than 6 elastic collisions' statement, although this does not affect the central conclusion given the independent ramp-rate and cross-species thermalization evidence.
  2. [Main text, Fig. 2] The rise in T/T_F at fast ramp rates is attributed to hindered thermalization, but non-adiabatic effects during molecule association could also contribute; a brief discussion of this alternative would aid the interpretation.
  3. [Main text, Eq. (1)] The variance suppression formula is presented without derivation; a short explanation of the local density approximation and the treatment of the expanded potential V(x,z) would improve accessibility.
  4. [Main text, references] The placeholder 'xxxxx' for the Supplementary Materials link should be replaced with the actual DOI or journal URL.
  5. [Supplementary, 'Finite bin size effects'] The simulation-extracted slope of 0.4 is compared to the experimental value 0.45(4) before the 2.2 scaling factor is applied; stating this explicitly would avoid confusion about whether the simulation captures the resolution correction.
  6. [Throughout] The chemical formula 40K87Rb appears with inconsistent superscript formatting; please use a consistent notation (e.g., 40K87Rb with superscripts or a plain text equivalent).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the thermalization claim and the sub-Poissonian fluctuation thermometry rest on independent measurements and externally grounded theory.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is self-contained against its own fitted inputs. The atom-dimer scattering length |aad| is measured from collisional damping of KRb* center-of-mass oscillations, using the standard s-wave cross-section formula and a separately characterized overlap density; the single fitted parameter c = 0.74(5) is extracted from these damping data, not from the degeneracy or thermalization it is later used to estimate. The estimate of more than 6 elastic collisions during the Feshbach ramp is a derived consequence of that independently measured cross-section, and the thermalization claim is additionally supported by the ramp-rate dependence, which shows an optimum at intermediate rates, and by the agreement between expansion thermometry and fluctuation thermometry. The sub-Poissonian variance analysis uses the theoretical profile of Eq. (1) from external atomic-gas fluctuation studies, calibrates the imaging conversion and resolution corrections on non-degenerate K atoms, and compares the variance-extracted T/TF with the expansion-extracted T/TF as two different observables; the agreement is therefore not enforced by construction. Self-citations to Refs. [1] and [18] document sample preparation and the prior realization of degenerate KRb, but they do not supply the load-bearing physics of the present measurement, and no unique or ansatz-defining result is imported from the authors' prior work. The paper does not rename a known result or fit a parameter and then call a closely related quantity a prediction. Consequently, no circular step meeting the required quote-and-reduction standard is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central experimental results rest on standard quantum statistical formulas and measured quantities; the only fitted parameter is the scaling c for the atom-dimer scattering length, and the imaging correction factor is an external calibration. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • c = 0.74(5)
    Single scaling factor relating the measured K-KRb* atom-dimer scattering length to the known K-Rb atomic scattering length a(B) via |aad| = c a(B); obtained from a fit to the data in Fig. 1.
  • imaging variance scale factor = 2.2
    Correction factor applied to measured number variance to account for imaging resolution and depth-of-field effects; calibrated on non-degenerate K atoms and validated by simulation.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The variance suppression in a trapped Fermi gas follows σ_N^2/N = Li_1(-ζ e^{-V/kT})/Li_2(-ζ e^{-V/kT}) under the local density approximation
    Used to fit variance profiles and extract peak fugacity; from prior theory (Müller et al. 2010, Sanner et al. 2010).
  • domain assumption Atom-dimer collisions are s-wave and the elastic cross section is given by σ = 4πa_ad^2/(1+k_th^2 a_ad^2)
    Enables conversion from measured damping rate to scattering length; the authors note the system is outside the universal regime where the relation is most accurate.
  • domain assumption STIRAP transfer can be modeled as a binomial process with uniform efficiency p=0.85, neglecting rethermalization in the ground state
    Used to estimate the effect of STIRAP holes on occupation and variance; a simplifying statistical model.
  • domain assumption Boltzmann distributions for density overlap in the collision damping measurement
    Used to compute the overlap density n; valid since T/T_F ≈ 1 for the scattering-length measurement conditions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermalization and Sub-Poissonian Density Fluctuations in a Degenerate Molecular Fermi Gas." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MI2VK4IT

@misc{pith2026190900086,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermalization and Sub-Poissonian Density Fluctuations in a Degenerate Molecular Fermi Gas},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MI2VK4IT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00086}
}
abstract

We observe thermalization in the production of a degenerate Fermi gas of polar ${}^{40}\text{K}{}^{87}\text{Rb}$ molecules. By measuring the atom--dimer elastic scattering cross section near the Feshbach resonance, we show that Feshbach molecules rapidly reach thermal equilibrium with both parent atomic species. Equilibrium is essentially maintained through coherent transfer to the ground state. Sub-Poissonian density fluctuations in Feshbach and ground-state molecules are measured, giving an independent characterization of degeneracy and directly probing the molecular Fermi--Dirac distribution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00086 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Upper panel: example oscillations of KRb* at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. KRb [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Variance vs. mean number for non-degenerate K [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Mean (open symbols) and variance (solid symbols) profiles, in units of maximum particle number per bin, for K, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Amplitude of KRb* oscillations after two STIRAP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Measured [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Variance vs. mean slope, as a function of bin width. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows the effect on T /TF of STIRAP with con￾version efficiencies ranging between 85% and 100%. The fractional effect of STIRAP on T /TF is smallest for high initial T /TF, since the peak state occupation is initially low. For highly degenerate KRb* gases, by contrast,…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Micheli, G

    A. Micheli, G. K. Brennen, and P. Zoller, Nat. Phys. 2, 341 (2006)

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    M. A. Baranov, M. Dalmonte, G. Pupillo, and P. Zoller, Chem. Rev. 112, 5012 (2012)

    2012

  3. [3]

    K. R. A. Hazzard, S. R. Manmana, M. Foss-Feig, and A. M. Rey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 075301 (2013)

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    N. Y. Yao, A. V. Gorshkov, C. R. Laumann, A. M. L¨ auchli, J. Ye, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 185302 (2013)

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    S. V. Syzranov, M. L. Wall, V. Gurarie, and A. M. Rey, Nat. Commun. 5, 5391 (2014)

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    M. A. Baranov, M. S. Mar’enko, V. S. Rychkov, and G. V. Shlyapnikov, Phys. Rev. A 66, 013606 (2002)

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    Miyakawa, T

    T. Miyakawa, T. Sogo, and H. Pu, Phys. Rev. A 77, 061603(R) (2008)

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    Velji´ c, A

    V. Velji´ c, A. R. P. Lima, L. Chomaz, S. Baier, M. J. Mark, F. Ferlaino, A. Pelster, and A. Balaˇ z, New Journal of Physics 20, 093016 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    B. Yan, S. A. Moses, B. Gadway, J. P. Covey, K. R. A. Hazzard, A. M. Rey, D. S. Jin, and J. Ye, Nature 501, 521525 (2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    K.-K. Ni, S. Ospelkaus, M. H. G. de Miranda, A. Pe’er, B. Neyenhuis, J. J. Zirbel, S. Kotochigova, P. S. Julienne, D. S. Jin, and J. Ye, Science 322, 231 (2008)

    2008

  3. [11]

    Takekoshi, L

    T. Takekoshi, L. Reichs¨ ollner, A. Schindewolf, J. M. Hut- son, C. R. Le Sueur, O. Dulieu, F. Ferlaino, R. Grimm, and H.-C. N¨ agerl, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 205301 (2014)

    2014

  4. [12]

    P. K. Molony, P. D. Gregory, Z. Ji, B. Lu, M. P. K¨ oppinger, C. R. Le Sueur, C. L. Blackley, J. M. Hutson, and S. L. Cornish, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 255301 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    J. W. Park, S. A. Will, and M. W. Zwierlein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 205302 (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    M. Guo, B. Zhu, B. Lu, X. Ye, F. Wang, R. Vex- iau, N. Bouloufa-Maafa, G. Qu´ em´ ener, O. Dulieu, and D. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 205303 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    T. M. Rvachov, H. Son, A. T. Sommer, S. Ebadi, J. J. Park, M. W. Zwierlein, W. Ketterle, and A. O. Jamison, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 143001 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Seeßelberg, N

    F. Seeßelberg, N. Buchheim, Z.-K. Lu, T. Schneider, X.- Y. Luo, E. Tiemann, I. Bloch, and C. Gohle, Phys. Rev. A 97, 013405 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Yang, D.-C

    H. Yang, D.-C. Zhang, L. Liu, Y.-X. Liu, J. Nan, B. Zhao, and J.-W. Pan, Science 363, 261 (2019)

    2019

  10. [19]

    Ospelkaus, K.-K

    S. Ospelkaus, K.-K. Ni, D. Wang, M. H. G. de Miranda, B. Neyenhuis, G. Qu´ em´ ener, P. S. Julienne, J. L. Bohn, D. S. Jin, and J. Ye, Science 327, 853 (2010)

    2010

  11. [20]

    Mayle, G

    M. Mayle, G. Qu´ em´ ener, B. P. Ruzic, and J. L. Bohn, Phys. Rev. A 87, 012709 (2013)

    2013

  12. [21]

    Qu´ em´ ener and J

    G. Qu´ em´ ener and J. L. Bohn, Phys. Rev. A83, 012705 (2011)

    2011

  13. [22]

    Greiner, C

    M. Greiner, C. A. Regal, and D. S. Jin, Nature 426, 537 (2003)

    2003

  14. [23]

    C. A. Regal, M. Greiner, and D. S. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 083201 (2004)

    2004

  15. [24]

    Jochim, M

    S. Jochim, M. Bartenstein, A. Altmeyer, G. Hendl, C. Chin, J. H. Denschlag, and R. Grimm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 240402 (2003)

    2003

  16. [25]

    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

  17. [26]

    K. E. Strecker, G. B. Partridge, and R. G. Hulet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 080406 (2003)

    2003

  18. [27]

    M. Jag, M. Zaccanti, M. Cetina, R. S. Lous, F. Schreck, R. Grimm, D. S. Petrov, and J. Levinsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 075302 (2014)

    2014

  19. [28]

    M. Jag, M. Cetina, R. S. Lous, R. Grimm, J. Levinsen, and D. S. Petrov, Phys. Rev. A 94, 062706 (2016)

    2016

  20. [29]

    J. J. Zirbel, K.-K. Ni, S. Ospelkaus, J. P. D’Incao, C. E. Wieman, J. Ye, and D. S. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 143201 (2008)

    2008

  21. [30]

    R. S. Bloom, M.-G. Hu, T. D. Cumby, and D. S. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 105301 (2013)

    2013

  22. [31]

    Johansen, B

    J. Johansen, B. J. DeSalvo, K. Patel, and C. Chin, Nat. Phys. 13, 731 (2017)

    2017

  23. [32]

    Esteve, J.-B

    J. Esteve, J.-B. Trebbia, T. Schumm, A. Aspect, C. I. Westbrook, and I. Bouchoule, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 130403 (2006)

    2006

  24. [33]

    Gemelke, X

    N. Gemelke, X. Zhang, C.-L. Hung, and C. Chin, Nature 460, 995 (2009)

    2009

  25. [37]

    Omran, M

    A. Omran, M. Boll, T. A. Hilker, K. Kleinlein, G. Sa- lomon, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 263001 (2015)

    2015

  26. [38]

    Klempt, T

    C. Klempt, T. Henninger, O. Topic, M. Scherer, L. Kat- tner, E. Tiemann, W. Ertmer, and J. J. Arlt, Phys. Rev. A 78, 061602(R) (2008)

    2008

  27. [39]

    [48–52]) at xxxxx for additional details

    See Supplementary Materials (including Refs. [48–52]) at xxxxx for additional details

  28. [40]

    Maddaloni, M

    P. Maddaloni, M. Modugno, C. Fort, F. Minardi, and M. Inguscio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2413 (2000)

    2000

  29. [41]

    S. D. Gensemer and D. S. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 173201 (2001)

    2001

  30. [43]

    Ferlaino, R

    F. Ferlaino, R. J. Brecha, P. Hannaford, F. Riboli, G. Roati, G. Modugno, and M. Inguscio, J. Opt. B 5, S3 (2003)

    2003

  31. [44]

    D. Naik, A. Trenkwalder, C. Kohstall, F. M. Spiegel- halder, M. Zaccanti, G. Hendl, F. Schreck, R. Grimm, T. M. Hanna, and P. S. Julienne, Eur. Phys. J. D 65, 55 (2011)

    2011

  32. [45]

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

    2010

  33. [46]

    D. S. Petrov, Phys. Rev. A 67, 010703(R) (2003)

    2003

  34. [47]

    Mukaiyama, J

    T. Mukaiyama, J. R. Abo-Shaeer, K. Xu, J. K. Chin, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 180402 (2004)

    2004

  35. [48]

    C. R. Monroe, E. A. Cornell, C. A. Sackett, C. J. Myatt, 6 and C. E. Wieman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 414 (1993)

    1993

  36. [52]

    Reinaudi, T

    G. Reinaudi, T. Lahaye, Z. Wang, and D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, Opt. Lett. 32, 3143 (2007). Supplementary Materials UL TRACOLD BOSE–FERMI MIXTURE The experimental sequence for preparing the K–Rb mixture has been described in [1]. In Ref. [1], the optical traps crossed at an angle of 4...

    2007 arXiv

  37. [53]

    De Marco, G

    L. De Marco, G. Valtolina, K. Matsuda, W. G. Tobias, J. P. Covey, and J. Ye, Science 363, 853 (2019)

    2019

  38. [54]

    Ferrari, M

    G. Ferrari, M. Inguscio, W. Jastrzebski, G. Modugno, G. Roati, and A. Simoni, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 053202 (2002)

    2002

  39. [55]

    C. R. Monroe, E. A. Cornell, C. A. Sackett, C. J. Myatt, and C. E. Wieman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 414 (1993)

    1993

  40. [56]

    Wu and C

    H. Wu and C. J. Foot, J. Phys. B 29, L321 (1996)

    1996

  41. [57]

    A. Mosk, S. Kraft, M. Mudrich, K. Singer, W. Wohlleben, R. Grimm, and M. Weidem¨ uller, Applied Physics B73, 791 (2001)

    2001

  42. [58]

    Hueck, N

    K. Hueck, N. Luick, L. Sobirey, J. Siegl, T. Lompe, H. Moritz, L. W. Clark, and C. Chin, Opt. Express 25, 8670 (2017)

    2017

  43. [59]

    Reinaudi, T

    G. Reinaudi, T. Lahaye, Z. Wang, and D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, Opt. Lett. 32, 3143 (2007)

    2007

  44. [60]

    Sanner, E

    C. Sanner, E. J. Su, A. Keshet, R. Gommers, Y.-i. Shin, W. Huang, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 040402 (2010)

    2010

  45. [61]

    Amico, F

    A. Amico, F. Scazza, G. Valtolina, P. E. S. Tavares, W. Ketterle, M. Inguscio, G. Roati, and M. Zaccanti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 253602 (2018)

    2018

  46. [62]

    M¨ uller, B

    T. M¨ uller, B. Zimmermann, J. Meineke, J.-P. Brantut, T. Esslinger, and H. Moritz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 040401 (2010)

    2010

Pith tools

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