Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Resonant stroboscopic Rydberg dressing: electron-motion coupling and multi-body interactions

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Resonant stroboscopic Rydberg dressing generates irreducible multi-body spin interactions in both a fast-pulse and an adiabatic protocol.

desk verdict A clean analytic protocol for generating three-body Rydberg-dressed interactions, but the flagship three-body term in the non-adiabatic scheme is only numerically checked for N=2 where it reduces to two-body. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10090 v1 pith:HJL2ROFA submitted 2024-11-15 physics.atom-ph cond-mat.quant-gasquant-ph

Chris Nill , Sylvain de Léséleuc , Christian Gro{ss} , Igor Lesanovsky This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phcond-mat.quant-gasquant-ph
keywords Rydbergdressingstroboscopicmulti-bodyinteractionsspin-motioncouplingopticaltweezerseffectivespinHamiltoniansblockadeadiabaticlaserpulses
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

Rydberg dressing normally uses far-detuned continuous laser light to borrow interactions from highly excited Rydberg states. This paper asks whether the same job can be done resonantly, in short stroboscopic pulses, and claims that the answer is yes in two different protocols. In the fast-pulse protocol, mechanical forces between excited neighboring atoms couple the electronic and motional degrees of freedom, producing an effective spin Hamiltonian with a term proportional to the square of the force gradient; for more than two atoms that term is a three-body interaction that cannot be written as a sum of pairwise terms. In the slow adiabatic protocol, smoothly varying pulses accumulate spin-configuration-dependent phases, and for three atoms those phases yield a nonzero three-body coefficient alongside the usual two-body one. If both claims hold, resonant stroboscopic dressing becomes a practical route to multi-body spin Hamiltonians in cold-atom arrays.

What carries the argument

The central object is the stroboscopic time-evolution operator of one dressing cycle. For the fast-pulse protocol, the cycle is a sequence of free evolution, π pulse, interaction and gradient evolution, and π pulse; in the instantaneous-pulse limit it factorizes into three commuting pieces per atom: an effective spin evolution $e^{-iT H_{j,\mathrm{eff}}}$, a displacement operator $D(J_j)$ that shifts the atom's oscillator state by an amount set by the Rydberg force gradient and the Lamb-Dicke recoil, and the free oscillator evolution $e^{-iT\omega a_j^\dagger a_j}$. The spin Hamiltonian contains the gradient-squared term $G_j^2/\omega$, where the gradient operator is $G_j = G x_0 P_j (P_{j+1} - P_{j-1})$ for $N>2$; its square acts as a three-body interaction because it distinguishes configurations where an atom has exactly one excited neighbor from configurations where it has none or two. For the adiabatic protocol, the machinery is dynamical phase accumulation: each spin configuration acquires a phase proportional to $T$ times its energy under the effective Hamiltonian, and the $k$-body coefficients are isolated by finite differences of the configuration phases, for example $V_3 T = \varphi_{\uparrow\uparrow\uparrow} - 3\varphi_{\uparrow\uparrow} + 3\varphi_{\uparrow} - \varphi_0$.

What would settle it

Measure the configuration energies of a three-atom chain after many non-adiabatic dressing cycles, comparing configurations such as $|\uparrow\downarrow\uparrow\rangle$ and $|\uparrow\uparrow\uparrow\rangle$; the irreducible three-body term appears as a $G^2 x_0^2/\omega$-dependent energy shift that cannot be fitted by pairwise couplings alone, so observing that shift vanish at nonzero gradient $G$ would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the non-adiabatic protocol, each dressing cycle is four steps: free evolution, a resonant π pulse, a period of Rydberg-Rydberg interaction and force-gradient evolution, then a second π pulse. In the strict limit of instantaneous pulses the cycle operator factorizes as $U(T)=\prod_j e^{-iT H_{j,\mathrm{eff}}} D(J_j) e^{-iT \omega a_j^\dagger a_j}$. The effective spin Hamiltonian contains the term $\frac{\tau_2}{T}\frac{G_j^2}{\omega}(\mathrm{sinc}(\omega\tau_2)-1)$, and for $N>2$ the gradient operator $G_j$ is defined so that this term is nonzero only when exactly one neighbor of atom $j$ is excited; it therefore represents a three-body interaction that cannot be reduced to pairwise terms. In the adiabatic protocol, the laser parameters $\Omega(t)$ and $\Delta(t)$ are varied smoothly so that the spin state returns to itself while Rydberg amplitude is transiently present; each spin configuration accumulates a dynamical phase, and for three atoms on a triangle the combination $V_3 T = \varphi_{\uparrow\uparrow\uparrow} - 3\varphi_{\uparrow\uparrow} + 3\varphi_{\uparrow} - \varphi_0$ is nonzero, giving an effective Hamiltonian $H_{\mathrm{eff}} = V_3 P_1 P_2 P_3 + V_2 \sum_{i\neq j} P_i P_j + V_1 \sum_i P_i + V_0$ with a genuine three-body term.

Load-bearing premise

The argument leans on the assumption that each laser pulse is over before the atoms' motion or the Rydberg interaction can matter; if real pulses are not that short, the clean breakup of the cycle into separate steps no longer holds, and the paper validates the numerics for one parameter set without giving a general error bound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the non-adiabatic protocol, the effective spin Hamiltonian contains a $G_j^2/\omega$ term that acts as an irreducible three-body interaction for more than two atoms, so the resulting dynamics cannot be reproduced by any Hamiltonian with only pairwise couplings.
  • Choosing the interaction time $\tau_2$ so that $\omega\tau_2$ is a multiple of $2\pi$ removes the spin-motion displacement $D(J_j)$, leaving a spin-only evolution that still contains the multi-body interaction.
  • A spin-motion echo, using two consecutive dressing cycles with total duration an odd multiple of $\pi/\omega$, can decouple spin and motion even when the one-cycle condition is not met.
  • In the adiabatic protocol, the effective three-body coefficient $V_3$ is nonzero for three atoms on an equilateral triangle, and its relative size grows as the interatomic distance shrinks because shorter distances mean stronger bare Rydberg interactions.
  • The fast-pulse protocol breaks the Rydberg blockade, so two neighboring atoms can both be excited within a cycle; this is what makes the mechanical force and hence the multi-body term possible.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the irreducible three-body term survives in larger arrays, stroboscopic dressing could be used to realize pure multi-body spin Hamiltonians by adding a local field that cancels the pairwise part, a regime the paper names as future work.
  • Beyond the paper: the spin-motion echo sequence suggests a concrete experimental probe: two consecutive dressing cycles with total duration an odd multiple of $\pi/\omega$ should restore the oscillator state and remove spin decoherence; observing that echo would confirm the displacement-operator structure of $U(T)$.
  • Beyond the paper: in the adiabatic protocol the ratio $V_3/V_2$ grows as atoms are brought closer, predicting a crossover from two-body-dominated to three-body-dominated effective interactions at interatomic distances around a few micrometers for the parameters in Fig. 3; this could be tested by measuring the effective Hamiltonian on three-atom clusters at different separations.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes two stroboscopic Rydberg-dressing protocols for ultracold atoms in optical tweezers. In the non-adiabatic protocol, fast resonant pi pulses are assumed to break the Rydberg blockade, and the stroboscopic time-evolution operator is derived in the instantaneous-pulse limit as a product of an effective spin evolution, a spin-dependent displacement, and a free-oscillator evolution, Eq. (5). The effective spin Hamiltonian, Eq. (6), contains a term proportional to G_j^2/omega which, for more than two atoms, yields a three-body projector product in Eq. (7). In the adiabatic protocol, smoothly varying laser pulses are used, and for three atoms on an equilateral triangle the effective spin Hamiltonian is reconstructed from numerically computed configuration-dependent phases, leading to a nonzero three-body coefficient V3 in Eq. (13). The paper also discusses spin-motion decoherence, an echo decoupling scheme, and a trade-off between adiabaticity and Rydberg-state decay.

Significance. If the claims are correct, the paper offers a concrete mechanism for generating effective multi-body spin interactions in Rydberg tweezer arrays, with possible relevance to quantum simulation of lattice models with three-body terms and to recent ultrafast Rydberg experiments. The non-adiabatic derivation in the Supplemental Material is algebraically detailed and internally consistent, and the N=2 comparison with exact finite-pulse evolution in Fig. 2 is a useful independent check. The adiabatic protocol is grounded in explicit numerical integration, and the lifetime-versus-adiabaticity analysis is a practical input for experiments. The main weakness is that the non-adiabatic three-body term is not numerically validated in the N>2 regime where it is distinct from two-body physics, and the adiabatic V3 curve is presented without a detailed adiabaticity check along the swept distance axis.

major comments (2)
  1. [Non-adiabatic protocol, Eqs. (6)-(7) and Fig. 2] The central claim for the non-adiabatic protocol is that the G_j^2/omega term in Eq. (6) produces an irreducible three-body interaction for N>2, as written in Eq. (7). However, the only finite-pulse numerical test of the effective unitary is performed for N=2 (Fig. 2), where G_j^2 reduces to a renormalization of the two-body P1P2 term. Because the derivation relies on the instantaneous-pulse approximation (Supplemental Eqs. S6-S9), and no general error bound is provided, the paper should add an N=3 (or larger) exact finite-pulse simulation that demonstrates the three-body term quantitatively, or provide an explicit estimate of the corrections in terms of V/Omega, omega/Omega, and Gx0/Omega. Without this, the non-adiabatic multi-body claim is verified only in the regime where the three-body operator is absent.
  2. [Adiabatic protocol, Fig. 3(d) and Supplemental Table I] The three-body coefficient V3 is extracted from numerically computed phases under the assumption of adiabatic evolution. The in-adiabaticity E(T) is reported for a few parameter sets in Table I, but Fig. 3(d) sweeps the interatomic distance a0, which changes V/Omega0 over a wide range because V is proportional to a0^{-6}. For the small distances where V3/V2 is largest, the paper does not report whether the sequence remains adiabatic. Please provide E(T) along the a0 sweep of Fig. 3(d), or restrict the claim to the range where adiabaticity is verified. In addition, because Eq. (13) computes V3 by a finite-difference cancellation of large phases, an error estimate for V3 would make the quantitative results more robust.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Main text and Fig. 2 caption] The main text states 'For omega*tau2 = 0.1pi' while the caption and the surrounding discussion use omega*tau2 = 0.01pi; please make the value consistent throughout.
  2. [Supplemental Eq. (S36)] The eta^2 term in Eq. (S36) appears to be missing the factor 1/T and the projector P_j; it should read eta^2 sin(omega*tau2)/T P_j to match Eq. (6) of the main text.
  3. [Supplemental Table I, row (6)] The sentence describing row (6) says 'A significantly longer sequence duration compared to (5), lowers p but increases the in-adiabaticity drastically,' but row (6) has Gamma*T = 0.01, which is shorter than row (5)'s Gamma*T = 0.05; the description should be corrected.
  4. [Supplemental Section II.A] The term 'in-adiabaticity' is unusual; consider using 'non-adiabaticity' or 'adiabatic error' for clarity.
  5. [General] The comparison in Fig. 2 uses a harmonic-oscillator basis truncated at five excitations, while the displacement parameter J can be of order five for the chosen gradient; a short convergence check would strengthen the numerical comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: both protocols reduce directly from the microscopic Hamiltonian, and the self-citations are contextual, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The non-adiabatic stroboscopic propagator U(T) in Eq. (5) is derived in the Supplemental Material (Eqs. S4–S36) from the microscopic Hamiltonians H0 (Eq. 1) and HL (Eq. 2) under the stated instantaneous-pulse limit; the effective spin Hamiltonian in Eq. (6) and the gradient operator Gj in Eq. (7) are algebraic consequences of that derivation, including the PjPj+1Pj−1 term contained in Gj^2. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the analytic calculation contains no adjustable parameters beyond the Hamiltonian couplings. For the adiabatic protocol, the coefficients Vk in Eq. (11) are obtained by numerically integrating the full time-dependent Schrödinger equation for H0+HL for each configuration and then applying the exact linear decomposition in Eq. (13). Equation (13) is a definitional expansion of the diagonal phases, but the nonzero value of V3 is a computed output from a pairwise microscopic interaction, not an input or an assumption. The self-citations (Refs. [8,30,31,32,35,36,44]) are contextual or supporting; none carries a load-bearing step of the derivation, which is written out in the paper and supplement. The finite-pulse validation in Fig. 2 is limited to N=2, leaving the N>2 three-body term without an exact finite-pulse check, but that is a verification gap, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to experimental data; the central derivation is algebraic, and the adiabatic V_3 comes from direct numerical integration of the Schrödinger equation. The main input assumptions are ideal impulsive pulses, nearest-neighbor-only Rydberg interactions, no Rydberg decay in the non-adiabatic cycle, and a truncated oscillator basis in the numerics. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Rydberg interaction gradient G = Gx0 = 5 omega in Fig. 2(a,c), 0.3 omega in Fig. 2(b,d), 10-100 omega in SM Fig. S1
    Hand-chosen to illustrate spin-motion coupling and decoupling; the existence of the multi-body terms requires nonzero G but not these specific values.
  • Rydberg interaction strength V = V = 10.1 omega (Fig. 2), V = 4 Omega0 (Fig. 3b), V = 400-8000 Gamma (Table I)
    Hand-chosen to place the system in a blockade-breaking or strong-interaction regime; the qualitative conclusions do not depend on fitting these values to data.
  • Lamb-Dicke parameter eta = eta = 0.6 in all simulations
    Controls the laser momentum transfer strength and is set to a representative value, not fitted to experiment.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper Laser pulses are impulsive: during each pi pulse H0 is negligible so U_pi = e^{-is H_L}, with V/Omega << 1, omega/Omega << 1, G_j/Omega << 1 and Omega s = pi/2.
    Enters supplemental Eqs. (S6)-(S9) and is needed for the product form Eq. (5) of the main text.
  • domain assumption Only nearest-neighbor Rydberg interactions are included in H0.
    Eq. (1) of the main text; Rydberg interactions are long-range, and the gradient operator G_j in Eq. (7) and the multi-body terms are built from nearest-neighbor sums.
  • domain assumption Rydberg states are absent at stroboscopic times and spontaneous decay is neglected during the non-adiabatic cycle.
    Used to restrict U(T) to the |up>, |down> manifold in supplemental Eqs. (S15)-(S17); decay is discussed only for the adiabatic protocol in SM Sec. II A.
  • standard math The adiabatic theorem holds for the smooth pulses, so the spin population returns to each configuration C and only dynamical phases phi_C are accumulated.
    Main text assumes the evolution is adiabatic; SM Sec. II A defines the in-adiabaticity E, without which the phase decomposition Eq. (12) fails.
  • standard math Harmonic oscillator displacement algebra and Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff identities are valid and applicable.
    Used in supplemental Eqs. (S19)-(S30) to complete the square and factor the displacement operators in the derivation of Eq. (5).
  • domain assumption The bare Rydberg interaction is a van der Waals potential V = C6/a0^6 with the potassium 61S1/2 dispersion coefficient C6 = 119 GHz um^6.
    Used in Fig. 3(c,d) and SM Sec. II B only for the illustrative distance dependence; it is not needed for the central algebraic derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Resonant stroboscopic Rydberg dressing: electron-motion coupling and multi-body interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HJL2ROFA

@misc{pith2026241110090,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Resonant stroboscopic Rydberg dressing: electron-motion coupling and multi-body interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HJL2ROFA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10090}
}
read the original abstract

Rydberg dressing traditionally refers to a technique where interactions between cold atoms are imprinted through the far off-resonant continuous-wave excitation of high-lying Rydberg states. Dipolar interactions between these electronic states are then translated into effective interactions among ground state atoms. Motivated by recent experiments, we investigate two dressing protocols, in which Rydberg atoms are resonantly excited in a stroboscopic fashion. The first one is non-adiabatic, meaning Rydberg states are excited by fast pulses. In this case, mechanical forces among Rydberg atoms result in electron-motion coupling, which generates effective multi-body interactions. In the second, adiabatic protocol, Rydberg states are excited by smoothly varying laser pulses. We show that also in this protocol substantial multi-body interactions emerge.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10090 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) as Ω(t) = Ω0 sin2 (πt/T) (9) ∆(t) = ∆0 − (∆0 − ∆1) sin2 (πt/T). (10) The dynamical phase that is accumulated during this pulse differs for each spin configuration and yields an effective Hamiltonian in the spin space which in gen￾eral contains multi-body interactions. As an example, FIG. 3. Adiabatic dressing protocol. (a) Time￾dependent Rabi frequency Ω(t) and detuning ∆(t) for a dress￾ing cycle with duration T… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    T. F. Gallagher, Rydberg Atoms, Cambridge Monographs on Atomic, Molecular and Chemical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1994)

    1994

  2. [2]

    Saffman, T

    M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, and K. Mølmer, Quantum information with Rydberg atoms, Reviews of Modern Physics 82, 2313 (2010)

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    Bernien, S

    H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Om- ran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Probing many- body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator, Nature 551, 579 (2017)

    2017

  4. [4]

    Morgado and S

    M. Morgado and S. Whitlock, Quantum simulation and computing with Rydberg-interacting qubits, A VS Quan- tum Science 3, 023501 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Browaeys and T

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Many-body physics with individually controlled Rydberg atoms, Nature Physics 16, 132 (2020)

    2020

  6. [6]

    W. Lee, M. Kim, H. Jo, Y. Song, and J. Ahn, Coherent and dissipative dynamics of entangled few-body systems of Rydberg atoms, Physical Review A 99, 043404 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Levine, A

    H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, H. Bernien, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, H. Pichler, and M. D. Lukin, Parallel Implementation of High-Fidelity Multiqubit Gates with Neutral Atoms, Physical Review Letters 123, 170503 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    Magoni, R

    M. Magoni, R. Joshi, and I. Lesanovsky, Molecular Dy- namics in Rydberg Tweezer Arrays: Spin-Phonon Entan- glement and Jahn-Teller Effect, Physical Review Letters 131, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.093002 (2023)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.093002 2023

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    J. T. Wilson, S. Saskin, Y. Meng, S. Ma, R. Dilip, A. P. Burgers, and J. D. Thompson, Trapping Alkaline Earth Rydberg Atoms Optical Tweezer Arrays, Physical Re- view Letters 128, 033201 (2022). 6

    2022

  2. [10]

    Y.-Y. Jau, A. M. Hankin, T. Keating, I. H. Deutsch, and G. W. Biedermann, Entangling atomic spins with a Rydberg-dressed spin-flip blockade, Nature Physics 12, 71 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    Zeiher, R

    J. Zeiher, R. van Bijnen, P. Schauß, S. Hild, J.-y. Choi, T. Pohl, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Many-body interferome- try of a Rydberg-dressed spin lattice, Nature Physics 12, 1095 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    Fromholz, M

    P. Fromholz, M. Tsitsishvili, M. Votto, M. Dalmonte, A. Nersesyan, and T. Chanda, Phase diagram of Rydberg-dressed atoms on two-leg triangular ladders, Physical Review B 106, 155411 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    R. M. W. van Bijnen and T. Pohl, Quantum Mag- netism and Topological Ordering via Rydberg Dressing near F¨ orster Resonances, Physical Review Letters 114, 243002 (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    Zeiher, J.-y

    J. Zeiher, J.-y. Choi, A. Rubio-Abadal, T. Pohl, R. van Bijnen, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Coherent many-body spin dynamics in a long-range interacting ising chain, Physical Review X 7, 041063 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    Geißler, I

    A. Geißler, I. Vasi´ c, and W. Hofstetter, Condensa- tion versus long-range interaction: Competing quantum phases in bosonic optical lattice systems at near-resonant Rydberg dressing, Physical Review A 95, 063608 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Khasseh, S

    R. Khasseh, S. H. Abedinpour, and B. Tanatar, Phase diagram and dynamics of Rydberg-dressed fermions in two dimensions, Physical Review A 96, 053611 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    Guardado-Sanchez, P

    E. Guardado-Sanchez, P. T. Brown, D. Mitra, T. De- vakul, D. A. Huse, P. Schauß, and W. S. Bakr, Probing the Quench Dynamics of Antiferromagnetic Correlations in a 2D Quantum Ising Spin System, Physical Review X 8, 021069 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Weckesser, K

    P. Weckesser, K. Srakaew, T. Blatz, D. Wei, D. Adler, S. Agrawal, A. Bohrdt, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, Realiza- tion of a Rydberg-dressed extended Bose Hubbard model, arXiv:2405.20128

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    N. U. K¨ oyl¨ uo˘ glu, N. Maskara, J. Feldmeier, and M. D. Lukin, Floquet engineering of interactions and entanglement in periodically driven Rydberg chains, arXiv:2408.02741

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    Feldmeier, N

    J. Feldmeier, N. Maskara, N. U. K¨ oyl¨ uo˘ glu, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum simulation of dynamical gauge theories in periodically driven Rydberg atom arrays, arXiv:2408.02733

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    Fendley, K

    P. Fendley, K. Sengupta, and S. Sachdev, Competing density-wave orders in a one-dimensional hard-boson model, Physical Review B 69, 075106 (2004)

    2004

  14. [22]

    Lesanovsky and H

    I. Lesanovsky and H. Katsura, Interacting Fibonacci anyons in a Rydberg gas, Physical Review A 86, 041601 (2012)

    2012

  15. [23]

    Hudomal, J.-Y

    A. Hudomal, J.-Y. Desaules, B. Mukherjee, G.-X. Su, J. C. Halimeh, and Z. Papi´ c, Driving quantum many- body scars in the PXP model, arXiv:2204.13718

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    M. D. Lukin, M. Fleischhauer, R. Cote, L. M. Duan, D. Jaksch, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Dipole Blockade and Quantum Information Processing in Mesoscopic Atomic Ensembles, Physical Review Letters 87, 037901 (2001)

    2001

  17. [25]

    J.-H. Choi, B. Knuffman, T. C. Liebisch, A. Reinhard, and G. Raithel, Cold Rydberg Atoms , Vol. 54 (Elsevier, 2007)

    2007

  18. [26]

    Weidem¨ uller, There can be only one, Nature Physics 5, 91 (2009)

    M. Weidem¨ uller, There can be only one, Nature Physics 5, 91 (2009)

    2009

  19. [27]

    J. D. Pritchard, D. Maxwell, A. Gauguet, K. J. Weath- erill, M. P. A. Jones, and C. S. Adams, Cooperative Atom-Light Interaction in a Blockaded Rydberg Ensem- ble, Physical Review Letters 105, 193603 (2010)

    2010

  20. [28]

    Ga¨ etan, Y

    A. Ga¨ etan, Y. Miroshnychenko, T. Wilk, A. Chotia, M. Viteau, D. Comparat, P. Pillet, A. Browaeys, and P. Grangier, Observation of collective excitation of two individual atoms in the Rydberg blockade regime, Nature Physics 5, 115 (2009)

    2009

  21. [29]

    Barredo, S

    D. Barredo, S. Ravets, H. Labuhn, L. B´ eguin, A. Vernier, F. Nogrette, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Demonstration of a Strong Rydberg Blockade in Three-Atom Systems with Anisotropic Interactions, Physical Review Letters 112, 183002 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    F. M. Gambetta, W. Li, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and I. Lesanovsky, Engineering NonBinary Rydberg Interac- tions via Phonons in an Optical Lattice, Physical Review Letters 124, 043402 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    Bharti, S

    V. Bharti, S. Sugawa, M. Kunimi, V. S. Chauhan, T. P. Mahesh, M. Mizoguchi, T. Matsubara, T. Tomita, S. de L´ es´ eleuc, and K. Ohmori, Strong Spin-Motion Coupling in the Ultrafast Dynamics of Rydberg Atoms, Physical Review Letters 133, 093405 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Magoni, P

    M. Magoni, P. Mazza, and I. Lesanovsky, Phonon dress- ing of a facilitated one-dimensional Rydberg lattice gas, SciPost Physics Core 5, 041 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    J. I. Cirac, R. Blatt, P. Zoller, and W. D. Phillips, Laser cooling of trapped ions in a standing wave, Physical Re- view A 46, 2668 (1992)

    1992

  26. [34]

    See the Supplemental Material, which further contains the derivation of U(T ), a discussion about dressing under ultra-strong laser pulses, spin-motion echo, decoherence in the adiabatic dressing protocol and the ratio V3/V2

  27. [35]

    F. M. Gambetta, C. Zhang, M. Hennrich, I. Lesanovsky, and W. Li, Long-Range Multibody Interactions and Three-Body Antiblockade in a Trapped Rydberg Ion Chain, Physical Review Letters 125, 133602 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    C. Nill, K. Brandner, B. Olmos, F. Carollo, and I. Lesanovsky, Many-Body Radiative Decay in Strongly Interacting Rydberg Ensembles, Physical Review Letters 129, 243202 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    I. I. Ryabtsev, I. I. Beterov, D. B. Tretyakov, V. M. Entin, and E. A. Yakshina, Doppler- and recoil-free laser excitation of Rydberg states via three-photon transitions, Physical Review A 84, 053409 (2011)

    2011

  30. [38]

    Eschner, G

    J. Eschner, G. Morigi, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and R. Blatt, Laser cooling of trapped ions, Journal of the Optical So- ciety of America B 20, 1003 (2003)

    2003

  31. [39]

    Stenholm, The semiclassical theory of laser cooling, Reviews of Modern Physics 58, 699 (1986)

    S. Stenholm, The semiclassical theory of laser cooling, Reviews of Modern Physics 58, 699 (1986)

    1986

  32. [40]

    K. E. Cahill and R. J. Glauber, Ordered Expansions in Boson Amplitude Operators, Physical Review 177, 1857 (1969)

    1969

  33. [41]

    Petrosyan and K

    D. Petrosyan and K. Mølmer, Binding Potentials and Interaction Gates between Microwave-Dressed Rydberg Atoms, Physical Review Letters 113, 123003 (2014)

    2014

  34. [42]

    Sevin¸ cli and T

    S. Sevin¸ cli and T. Pohl, Microwave control of Rydberg atom interactions, New Journal of Physics 16, 123036 (2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    Scholl, H

    P. Scholl, H. J. Williams, G. Bornet, F. Wallner, D. Barredo, L. Henriet, A. Signoles, C. Hainaut, T. Franz, S. Geier, A. Tebben, A. Salzinger, G. Z¨ urn, T. Lahaye, M. Weidem¨ uller, and A. Browaeys, Microwave Engineering of Programmable X X Z Hamiltonians in Ar- rays of Rydb...

    2022

  36. [44]

    Kastner, P

    M. Kastner, P. Osterholz, and C. Gross, Ancilla-free mea- 7 surement of out-of-time-ordered correlation functions: General measurement protocol and Rydberg atom im- plementation, arXiv:2403.08670

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, QuTiP 2: A Python Framework for the Dynamics of Open Quantum Systems, Computer Physics Communications 184, 1234 (2013)

    2013

  38. [46]

    B´ eguin, A

    L. B´ eguin, A. Vernier, R. Chicireanu, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Direct measurement of the van der Waals interaction between two Rydberg atoms, Physical Review Letters 110, 263201 (2013)

    2013

  39. [47]

    G2 j ω2 + η2Pj ! (sinc(ωτ2) − 1) + η2Pj #) · D Gj ω + iηPj (e−iωτ2 − 1) . (S31) 5 If we insert this result now in Eq. (S17), we obtain Uτ1+τ2+2s = Y j (|↓⟩ ⟨↓|k − Pj) exp ( −iτ2ω

    J. B. Balewski, A. T. Krupp, A. Gaj, S. Hofferberth, R. L¨ ow, and T. Pfau, Rydberg dressing: Understanding of collective many-body effects and implications for ex- periments, New Journal of Physics 16, 063012 (2014). 1 SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL Resonant stroboscopic Rydberg dress...

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.