Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 37 references

Making molecules by mergoassociation: the role of center-of-mass motion

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 This paper claims that center-of-mass motion must be included in mergoassociation calculations because it weakens and shifts the lowest avoided crossing.

desk verdict A solid theory paper that fixes a real omission in mergoassociation theory; the qualitative case for center-of-mass coupling is strong, while quantitative predictions rest on the single-channel contact-potential approximation. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13393 v1 pith:Y6CZ75GP submitted 2024-11-20 physics.atom-ph physics.chem-phquant-ph

Robert C. Bird , Jeremy M. Hutson This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phphysics.chem-phquant-ph
keywords mergoassociationultracoldmoleculescenter-of-massmotionopticaltweezersavoidedcrossingsRbCsscatteringlengthquantumlogicgates
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 argues that a previously neglected ingredient—the coupling between the relative motion of two trapped atoms and the motion of their shared center of mass—substantially changes the avoided crossings that drive mergoassociation, the formation of a molecule by merging two optical tweezers. For the lowest crossing, which controls molecule production from ground-state atoms and underlies proposed quantum logic gates, including the coupling shifts the crossing to larger trap separations and weakens it significantly: for RbCs under experimental anisotropies the predicted strength falls from $\Omega_{\rm eff}=14.48$ kHz to $\Omega_{\rm eff}=11.15$ kHz. The paper introduces a shifted-molecule basis set that makes converged three-dimensional calculations practical, and uses it to map the dependence of crossing strengths on the difference between the two trap frequencies. It extends the treatment to RbSr, RbYb, and CsYb, finding nearly universal level patterns when lengths are scaled by the scattering length and energies by the least-bound-state energy, and examines anisotropic tweezers and logic-gate applications. If the calculations are right, quantitative mergoassociation modeling and any experimental interpretation of crossing probabilities must include center-of-mass coupling.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a full two-body Hamiltonian separated into relative coordinate $\mathbf R$ and center-of-mass coordinate $\mathbf R$, with the traps allowed to be nonidentical and anisotropic. The load-bearing object is the motional-coupling term $\mu[\mathbf R-\mathbf R_0]^\intercal\Delta\omega^2[\mathbf R-\mathbf R_0]$, which vanishes only when the two trap-frequency tensors are equal. The direct-product approach multiplies each relative-motion basis function by harmonic-oscillator functions in the center-of-mass coordinate, but the authors find its convergence poor; they instead shift the center-of-mass functions attached to the molecular state to a new center $\tilde{\mathbf R}_0 = \mathbf R_0 - \Delta\mathbf R$, which removes a class of off-diagonal matrix elements and produces the quadratic energy shift $\Delta E_a = -\frac{\mu^2}{2M}\mathbf R_0^\intercal[\omega^2_{\rm com}]^{-1}[\Delta\omega^2]^2\mathbf R_0$ for all molecular states.

What would settle it

Measure the adiabatic-passage probability across the lowest avoided crossing for RbCs as a function of merging speed and trap-frequency difference, and compare the extracted $\Omega_{\rm eff}$ with the predicted 11.15 kHz (with center-of-mass coupling) rather than 14.48 kHz (without it).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that center-of-mass motion, neglected in previous treatments of mergoassociation, is not a small correction. It changes the level diagrams qualitatively when atoms are in motionally excited states, and it shifts and weakens the lowest avoided crossing even for ground-state atoms. Concretely, for RbCs in anisotropic tweezers the crossing strength is predicted to be 11.15 kHz with the coupling included, compared with 14.48 kHz when it is neglected; the paper notes this remains similar to the spherical-trap value with the axial frequency, which retrospectively justifies the spherical approximation used to interpret the earlier experiment. The mechanism is the coupling term $\mu[\mathbf{R}-\mathbf{R}_0]^\intercal\Delta\omega^2[\mathbf{R}-\mathbf{R}_0]$ in the two-body Hamiltonian, and the practical resolution is the shifted-molecule basis set, in which the center-of-mass harmonic functions attached to the molecular state are recentered by $\Delta\mathbf{R} = \mu/M [\omega^2_{\rm com}]^{-1}\Delta\omega^2\mathbf{R}_0$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the interatomic interaction can be represented by a single-channel contact pseudopotential with a scattering length $a$, so the molecular wavefunction and energy follow from $E_a=-\hbar^2/(2\mu a^2)$, an approximation the paper itself notes is accurate only for very large positive $a$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For RbCs with the trap frequencies used in current experiments, the lowest crossing strength is about 3 kHz weaker once center-of-mass coupling is included, so merging speeds for adiabatic passage should be re-derived from the new value.
  • The shifted-molecule basis set with (444)(222) is accurate enough for the crossings of interest and is roughly 80 times cheaper than a large direct-product basis, making full three-dimensional coupled calculations practical for planning experiments.
  • When lengths are scaled by the scattering length $a$ and energies by $|E_a|$, the level-crossing diagrams for RbSr, RbYb, and CsYb are nearly universal and depend mainly on the mass ratio, so mergoassociation should work for these systems at experimentally accessible trap frequencies.
  • The patterns for motionally excited atoms depend strongly on which trap has the higher frequency and on the merging speed, creating multiple pathways (through crossings labelled A–F) that can be steered by choosing speeds and stopping points.
  • For quantum logic gates, the position of the principal avoided crossing shifts according to Eq. (19), and unequal trap frequencies make the potential curves for excited atoms non-parallel to the ground-state curve, which is a finite-temperature fidelity issue.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural screening rule follows from the paper's scaling but is not stated there: for any heteronuclear pair with a large positive scattering length and a modest mass ratio, the same shifted-molecule calculation can predict whether mergoassociation is feasible before expensive coupled-channel potentials are built.
  • The strong dependence of crossings B and D on the frequency difference suggests a spectroscopic probe: deliberately merging traps at controlled speeds with motionally excited atoms and measuring final molecular states would map the crossing strengths and test the predicted destructive-interference minima.
  • The logic-gate discussion implies that cooling one atom better than the other is not enough; setting the better-cooled atom's trap frequency slightly above its partner's could suppress some decoherence, an operational suggestion the paper only gestures at.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper extends the theory of mergoassociation of two atoms in separate optical traps to include coupling between relative and center-of-mass motion. The authors construct basis sets of relative-motion harmonic-oscillator functions plus a single molecular state, multiplied by center-of-mass harmonic-oscillator functions, and derive the corresponding Hamiltonian and overlap matrix elements for nonidentical anisotropic harmonic traps. To cure poor convergence of the direct-product basis, they introduce a shifted-molecule basis in which the center-of-mass oscillator functions for the molecular state are recentered. Using RbCs as the main example, they show that the lowest avoided crossing, important for molecule formation and logic gates, shifts to larger trap separation and weakens when center-of-mass coupling is included. They also present scaled crossing diagrams for RbSr, RbYb, and CsYb, analyze strongly anisotropic tweezers matching current experiments, and discuss implications for quantum logic gates.

Significance. If correct, the paper identifies a genuinely important effect that all quantitative mergoassociation models must now include. The shifted-molecule basis is an elegant and efficient remedy, and the detailed matrix elements in the appendix, together with the basis-size convergence checks, make the method reproducible. The central geometric mechanism, embodied in Eq. (19), is independent of the details of the interatomic interaction, so the qualitative conclusion that center-of-mass motion shifts and weakens the lowest crossing is robust. The quantitative predictions for specific systems rest on the single-channel contact pseudopotential, a limitation the authors acknowledge; this does not undermine the main claim but should be kept in view when using the reported crossing strengths.

major comments (2)
  1. [II B, Eq. (18)] The shifted center is defined as \tilde R_0 = R_0 - \Delta R, but completing the square in V_com + V_cpl for the molecular state gives a minimum at R_0 + \Delta R. The energy shift in Eq. (19) and the matrix element in Eq. (A23) are consistent with the plus-sign choice. As written, the basis would be shifted away from the potential minimum, which would undermine the convergence improvement claimed for the shifted-molecule approach. Please correct the sign (or redefine \Delta R with the opposite sign) and check the definition of \rho in Eq. (A26).
  2. [III C, III D, Appendix A] The quantitative predictions, including the crossing strength \Omega_eff = 11.15 kHz for anisotropic RbCs tweezers and the universal scaled crossing diagrams for RbSr, RbYb, and CsYb, are computed with a single-channel contact pseudopotential. The note in Appendix A that a should be chosen to reproduce E_a fixes the binding energy but not the short-range normalization of the molecular wavefunction, which enters the coupling matrix elements in Eqs. (A6)-(A9). Finite-range and multichannel effects could shift the crossing strengths, especially for the narrow Feshbach resonances of the latter systems. Please add a sensitivity estimate or explicitly limit the quantitative claims to the contact model.
minor comments (4)
  1. [II B, text near Fig. 2] The sentence 'the uncoupled molecular levels are shifted upwards from the uncoupled ones' is self-contradictory; based on Eq. (19) the coupled molecular levels are shifted downwards from the uncoupled ones, so the wording should be corrected.
  2. [II, Eqs. (8)-(10)] The symbol R_0 is used for both the relative trap-separation vector and the center-of-mass trap-center vector, which is confusing when the two typefaces are not visually distinct; please adopt distinct notation for the two vectors.
  3. [Appendix A, Eq. (A2)] There is a stray duplicate '= =' in the definition of \psi_n; it should be removed.
  4. [Fig. 7(a)] Please state explicitly in the caption or text that the blue dashed line is the relative-motion-only approximation from Eq. (55) of Ref. [4], to make the comparison with the full calculation immediate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the center-of-mass coupling derivation is self-contained, and the contact-potential inputs are external rather than fitted to the paper's own outputs.

full rationale

The paper's central result is the derivation of coupling between relative and center-of-mass motion for two atoms in separated traps. This follows from the exact kinetic-energy separation in Eq. (1) and the algebraic decomposition of the trap potential in Eq. (7), with the coupling term proportional to Delta omega^2. The shifted-molecule basis set and the associated energy shift, Eq. (19), are derived explicitly from completing the square in the trap potential rather than assumed from a prior result. The scattering length a and trap frequencies are external inputs: a = 554 a0 is chosen to match the RbCs bound-state energy from the experiment, and the other scattering lengths are taken from independent spectroscopic or scattering studies. The comparison with Eq. (55) of ref. [4] in Fig. 7(a) is a benchmark against an earlier approximate formula, not a fitting target. The 'universal' scaling in Sec. III C is explicitly a dimensional rescaling by a and |Ea|, so any resulting similarity is a property of the chosen scaling, not a hidden fit. The self-citations to the authors' own ref. [4] supply matrix elements and scaling conventions, but the matrix elements needed here are restated in the Appendix in algebraic form, and the new physical claim about the influence of center-of-mass motion does not reduce to those citations. The contact-pseudopotential model is a modeling approximation whose finite-range and multichannel corrections could affect quantitative values, but this is a correctness risk rather than circularity because the model parameters are not chosen to reproduce the paper's predicted crossing strengths. Overall, no step in the derivation chain is equivalent by construction to its inputs.

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

The central quantitative claims rest on a small number of external inputs: measured scattering lengths, chosen trap frequencies, and the standard single-channel contact model for the interaction. The paper's main methodological innovation, the shifted-molecule basis set, is a numerical technique rather than a new physical entity. Within the stated model, the calculations are self-contained; the main model uncertainty is the contact-potential approximation for real molecules.

free parameters (5)
  • RbCs scattering length a = 554 a0
    External input from experiment; sets the molecular binding energy Ea and the position and strength of avoided crossings. Not fitted in this paper.
  • 87Rb87Sr scattering length a = 1421(98) a0
    External input from ref [20]; used for scaled level diagrams.
  • 87Rb174Yb scattering length a = 880(120) a0
    External input from ref [21]; used for scaled level diagrams.
  • 133Cs176Yb scattering length a = 798 a0
    External input from ref [22]; used for scaled level diagrams.
  • Trap frequencies (ω1, ω2) = e.g., RbCs 100/60 kHz; other systems scaled to 2.5|Ea| and 1.5|Ea|
    Chosen to match typical experiments or scaled to binding energy; not fitted to the paper's results.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Each optical trap is harmonic and the two traps are coaligned with diagonal frequency tensors sharing principal axes.
    Used throughout Section II; real tweezers are approximately harmonic but have anharmonic corrections and may not be perfectly coaligned.
  • domain assumption The interatomic interaction is a zero-range contact pseudopotential characterized by a single scattering length a.
    Eqs. 13-15 and Appendix A; this neglects finite-range and multichannel structure, which may affect quantitative crossing strengths for real molecules.
  • domain assumption The molecular state is represented by a single bound state of the contact potential with wavefunction ψa.
    Eq. 14; the authors note it is accurate only for very large positive a, as stated in Appendix A.
  • domain assumption Adiabatic passage over avoided crossings is described by the Landau-Zener formula with merging speed proportional to Ωeff^-2.
    Used in Sections III B and III D to interpret crossing strengths; assumes isolated two-level crossings.
  • standard math Harmonic-oscillator basis functions plus the molecular function form a converging basis for the trapped-pair Hamiltonian.
    Basis-set expansion; convergence is demonstrated numerically in Figs. 2-3 but not proven analytically.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Making molecules by mergoassociation: the role of center-of-mass motion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y6CZ75GP

@misc{pith2026241113393,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Making molecules by mergoassociation: the role of center-of-mass motion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y6CZ75GP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13393}
}
read the original abstract

In mergoassociation, two atoms in separate optical traps are combined to form a molecule when the traps are merged. Previous theoretical treatments have considered only the relative motion of the atoms, neglecting coupling to the motion of the center of mass. We develop a theoretical method to include the coupling to center-of-mass motion and consider its consequences for experiments for both weak and strong coupling. We consider the example of RbCs and then extend the treatment to other systems where mergoassociation may be effective, namely RbSr, RbYb and CsYb. We consider the role of the coupling when the traps are anisotropic and the potential use of moveable traps to construct quantum logic gates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13393 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic representation of the energy levels involved [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Levels of Rb and Cs atoms in separated spherical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Levels of Rb and Cs atoms in separated spheri [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Levels of Rb and Cs in separated spherical traps as a function of separation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Levels of Rb and Cs in separated spherical traps as a function of separation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The strength of avoided crossings A to D as a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: shows level crossing diagrams for 87Rb87Sr, 133Cs176Yb and 87Rb174Yb with ℏω1 = 2.5|Ea| and ℏω2 = 1.5|Ea|. It may be seen that the crossing dia￾grams differ in detail, but show fairly similar patterns of avoided crossings in all the cases shown, with only weak dependen…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Levels of Rb and Cs atoms in sepa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [4]

    This leaves Eqs

    Shifted-molecule basis set For the shifted-molecule basis set, the center-of-mass functions| ˜NX ˜NY ˜NZ⟩ are shifted in R for functions containing |a⟩ but not for those containing|nxnynz⟩. This leaves Eqs. A11 and A15 unchanged, but Eqs. A12 and A16 are replaced by ⟨a ˜N ′ X ˜N ′ Y ˜N ′ Z| ˆH trap com (R) + V trap cpl (R, R)|a ˜NX ˜NY ˜NZ⟩ = E ˜NX ˜NY ˜N...

    work page

  2. [5]

    Relative motion For the relative coordinate, we use a nonorthogonal basis set formed from 3-dimensional harmonic-oscillator func- tions |nxnynz⟩ = |nx⟩|ny⟩|nz⟩, supplemented by a single molecular function |a⟩. The harmonic-oscillator functions are ψn(α) = = (2nn!βrel,α)−1/2π−1/4Hn((α − α0)/βrel,α) exp(− 1 2 ((α − α0)/βrel,α)2), (A2) where α = x, y or z, β...

    work page

  3. [1]

    7 is the motional coupling be- tween relative and center-of-mass motions, characterized by ∆ω2

    (12) The last term in Eq. 7 is the motional coupling be- tween relative and center-of-mass motions, characterized by ∆ω2. We restrict the discussion here to the case where the two traps are coaligned, so that the tensors ω2 1, ω2 2, ω2 rel, ω2 com and ∆ ω2 all have the same principal axes and ∆ ω2 = ( ω1 + ω2)(ω2 − ω1). We choose Cartesian axes along thes...

    work page 2000

  4. [2]

    Mergoassociation with atoms in motional ground states For mergoassociation from atoms in their motional ground states, the most important quantity is the strength Ω eff of the lowest avoided crossing, near z0 = 2000 a0 in Figs. 5 and 6. The strength of this crossing for RbCs is shown in Fig. 7(a) as a function of ωRb − ωCs. Here ωRb + ωCs is held constant...

    work page 2000

  5. [3]

    Under these circumstances, there are several avoided crossings that can be involved, labeled A to F in Fig

    Mergoassociation with motionally excited atoms It is important to understand what happens when traps containing motionally excited atoms are merged. Under these circumstances, there are several avoided crossings that can be involved, labeled A to F in Fig. 6(a). The probability of traversing an avoided crossing adiabatically is quantified by the Landau-Ze...

    work page 2000

  6. [6]

    Center-of-mass motion To include coupling to center-of-mass motion, we multiply each function in the basis set for relative motion with a set of 3-dimensional harmonic-oscillator functions in the center-of-mass coordinates, |NX NY NZ⟩ = |NX ⟩|NY ⟩|NZ⟩, with functions Ψ α(α) defined by analogy with Eq. A2. The matrix elements of ˆTrel(R), V trap rel (R), V...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Coupling between relative and center-of-mass motions The matrix elements of V trap cpl (R, R) may be factorized ⟨n′ xn′ yn′ zN ′ X N ′ Y N ′ Z|V trap cpl (R, R)|nxnynzNX NY NZ⟩ = µ⟨n′ xn′ yn′ z|(R − R0)⊺|nxnynz⟩∆ω2⟨N ′ X N ′ Y N ′ Z|R − R0|NX NY NZ⟩ (A15) ⟨aN ′ X N ′ Y N ′ Z|V trap cpl (R, R)|aNX NY NZ⟩ = µ⟨a|(R − R0)⊺|a⟩∆ω2⟨N ′ X N ′ Y N ′ Z|R − R0|NX NY...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Jachymski, Z

    K. Jachymski, Z. Idziaszek, and T. Calarco, Feshbach res- onances in a nonseparable trap, Phys. Rev. A 87, 042701 (2013)

    work page 2013

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    D. K. Ruttley, A. Guttridge, S. Spence, R. C. Bird, C. R. Le Sueur, J. M. Hutson, and S. L. Cornish, Formation of ultracold molecules by merging optical tweezers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 223401 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Stock, I

    R. Stock, I. H. Deutsch, and E. L. Bolda, Quantum state control via trap-induced shape resonance in ultracold atomic collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 183201 (2003)

    2003

  3. [11]

    Stock and I

    R. Stock and I. H. Deutsch, Trap-induced resonances in controlled collisions of cesium atoms, Phys. Rev. A 73, 032701 (2006)

    2006

  4. [12]

    R. C. Bird, C. R. Le Sueur, and J. M. Hutson, Making molecules by mergoassociation: two atoms in adjacent 13 nonspherical optical traps, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 043086 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Idziaszek, T

    Z. Idziaszek, T. Calarco, and P. Zoller, Controlled col- lisions of a single atom and an ion guided by movable trapping potentials, Phys. Rev. A 76, 033409 (2007)

    2007

  6. [14]

    Deuretzbacher, K

    F. Deuretzbacher, K. Plassmeier, D. Pfannkuche, F. Werner, C. Ospelkaus, S. Ospelkaus, K. Sengstock, and K. Bongs, Heteronuclear molecules in an optical lat- tice: Theory and experiment, Phys. Rev. A 77, 032726 (2008)

    2008

  7. [15]

    Mentink and S

    J. Mentink and S. Kokkelmans, Two interacting atoms in an optical lattice site with anharmonic terms, Phys. Rev. A 79, 032709 (2009)

    2009

  8. [16]

    B. C. Yang, M. D. Frye, A. Guttridge, J. Aldegunde, P. S. ˙Zuchowski, S. L. Cornish, and J. M. Hutson, Magnetic Feshbach resonances in ultracold collisions between Cs and Yb atoms, Phys. Rev. A 100, 022704 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Jachymski, Impact of overlapping resonances on mag- netoassociation of cold molecules in tight traps, J

    K. Jachymski, Impact of overlapping resonances on mag- netoassociation of cold molecules in tight traps, J. Phys. B - At. Mol. Opt. 49, 195204 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    Jachymski, Precise Feshbach resonance spectroscopy using tight anharmonic traps, J

    K. Jachymski, Precise Feshbach resonance spectroscopy using tight anharmonic traps, J. Phys. B - At. Mol. Opt. 53, 065302 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    J. D. Hood, Y. Yu, Y.-W. Lin, J. T. Zhang, K.Wang, L. R. Liu, B. Gao, and K.-K. Ni, Multichannel interac- tions of two atoms in an optical tweezer, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023108 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Huang and C

    K. Huang and C. N. Yang, Quantum-mechanical many- body problem with hard-sphere interaction, Phys. Rev. 105, 767 (1957)

    1957

  13. [21]

    universal

    and 133Cs176Yb with a = 798 a0 [22]. In the absence of coupling between relative and center- of-mass motions, the mergoassociation problem scales conveniently with lengths expressed in terms of the rel- ative harmonic length for relative motion, βrel. This is the scaling we us...

    2000

  14. [22]

    P. S. ˙Zuchowski, J. Aldegunde, and J. M. Hutson, Ultra- cold RbSr molecules can be formed by magnetoassocia- tion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 153201 (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    D. A. Brue and J. M. Hutson, Magnetically tunable Fesh- bach resonances in ultracold Li-Yb mixtures, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 043201 (2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    D. A. Brue and J. M. Hutson, Prospects of forming molecules in 2Σ states by magnetoassociation of alkali- metal atoms with Yb, Phys. Rev. A 87, 052709 (2013)

    2013

  17. [25]

    Mukherjee, M

    B. Mukherjee, M. D. Frye, and J. M. Hutson, Feshbach resonances and molecule formation in ultracold mixtures of Rb and Yb( 3P) atoms, Phys. Rev. A 105, 023306 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Barb´ e, A

    V. Barb´ e, A. Ciamei, B. Pasquiou, L. Reichs¨ ollner, F. Schreck, P. S. ˙Zuchowski, and J. M. Hutson, Obser- vation of Feshbach resonances between alkali and closed- shell atoms, Nat. Phys. 14, 881 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Franzen, A

    T. Franzen, A. Guttridge, K. E. Wilson, J. Segall, M. D. Frye, J. M. Hutson, and S. L. Cornish, Observation of magnetic Feshbach resonances between Cs and 173Yb, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 043072 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Ciamei, J

    A. Ciamei, J. J. Szczepkowski, A. Bayerle, V. Barb´ e, L. Reichs¨ ollner, S. M. Tzanova, C.-C. Chen, B. Pasquiou, A. Grochola, P. Kowalczyk, W. Jastrzebski, and F. Schreck, The RbSr 2Σ+ ground state investigated via spectroscopy of hot and ultracold molecules, Phys. Chem. Chem...

    2018

  21. [29]

    Borkowski, P

    M. Borkowski, P. S. ˙Zuchowski, R. Ciury lo, P. S. Juli- enne, D. Kedziera, L. Mentel, P. Tecmer, F. M¨ unchow, C. Bruni, and A. G¨ orlitz, Scattering lengths in isotopo- logues of the RbYb system, Phys. Rev. A 88, 052708 (2013)

    2013

  22. [30]

    Guttridge, M

    A. Guttridge, M. D. Frye, B. C. Yang, J. M. Hutson, and S. L. Cornish, Two-photon photoassociation spec- troscopy of CsYb: ground-state interaction potential and interspecies scattering lengths, Phys. Rev. A 98, 022707 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    P. S. Julienne, Ultracold molecules from ultracold atoms: a case study with the KRb molecule, Faraday Discuss. 142, 361 (2009)

    2009

  24. [32]

    Takekoshi, M

    T. Takekoshi, M. Debatin, R. Rameshan, F. Ferlaino, R. Grimm, H.-C. N¨ agerl, C. R. Le Sueur, J. M. Hutson, P. S. Julienne, S. Kotochigova, and E. Tiemann, Towards the production of ultracold ground-state RbCs molecules: Feshbach resonances, weakly bound states, and coupled- c...

    2012

  25. [33]

    Gr¨ obner, P

    M. Gr¨ obner, P. Weinmann, E. Kirilov, H.-C. N¨ agerl, P. S. Julienne, C. R. Le Sueur, and J. M. Hutson, Observation of interspecies Feshbach resonances in an ultracold 39K- 133Cs mixture and refinement of interaction potentials, Phys. Rev. A 95, 022715 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    S. G. H. Brookes and J. M. Hutson, Interaction poten- tial for NaCs for ultracold scattering and spectroscopy, J. Phys. Chem. A 126, 3987 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Making molecules by mergoassociation: the role of center-of-mass motion

    R. C. Bird and J. M. Hutson, http://doi.org/ 10.15128/r1nv935294b, supporting data for “Making molecules by mergoassociation: the role of center-of-mass motion”

    doi

  28. [36]

    P. S. Julienne and J. M. Hutson, Contrasting the wide Feshbach resonances in 6Li and 7Li, Phys. Rev. A 89, 052715 (2014)

    2014

  29. [37]

    I. S. Gradshteyn, I. M. Ryzhik, D. Zwillinger, and V. Moll, Table of Integrals, Series, and Products; 8th ed. (Academic Press, Amsterdam, 2015)

    2015

Pith tools

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