Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Isolating Pure Quadratic Zeeman Splitting

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Magnetic pulses isolate quadratic Zeeman phase by canceling the linear term.

desk verdict A credible proof-of-principle for isolating quadratic Zeeman phases in warm vapor, but the experimental validation is too shallow to support the 'arbitrary state control' rhetoric. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07610 v1 pith:HBL76KXK submitted 2024-12-10 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

Arash Dezhang Fard , Marek Kopciuch , Yujie Sun , Przemys{l}aw W{l}odarczyk , Szymon Pustelny This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph
keywords quadraticZeemaneffectlinearcancellationoscillatingmagneticfieldpulsenonlinearmagneto-opticalrotationrubidium-87quantum-stateengineeringspinsqueezingF=1qutrit
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 introduces a method to make atomic spins evolve under the quadratic Zeeman effect alone, canceling the normally dominant linear Zeeman effect. The pulse waveform is an oscillating magnetic field whose time-integrated current is zero, so the linear phase, which alternates sign every half-cycle, averages to zero while the quadratic phase, proportional to the square of the field, accumulates. The authors demonstrate phase imprinting up to $12\pi$ on the $F=1$ ground state of room-temperature rubidium-87 and observe the predicted signal $1-\sin\phi^{(2)}$. If the method holds, it provides a general way to imprint arbitrary phases on any spin system without strong static magnetic fields.

What carries the argument

The central object is the RLC magnetic-field pulser, an H-bridge-driven resonant circuit whose field coils carry an oscillating current that begins and ends at zero, so the time integral of the current is zero by charge conservation. Because the magnetic field is proportional to the current, the linear Zeeman phase $\phi^{(1)}$ vanishes while the quadratic phase $\phi^{(2)}\propto\int B^2\,dt$ builds up. The state is read out through nonlinear magneto-optical rotation on the $F=1$ ground state of $^{87}$Rb, with a $\pi/4$ rotation used to convert the imprinted quadratic phase into the observable $1-\sin\phi^{(2)}$.

What would settle it

Run the experiment with a controllable DC offset added to the oscillating coil current and watch the signal $\langle\hat\alpha_R\rangle$: if the cancellation mechanism is real, a nonzero offset should introduce a linear phase $\phi^{(1)}$ that modulates the $1-\sin\phi^{(2)}$ curve and increases the decay of the oscillation amplitude with pulse length.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the evolution generated by the pulse is the unitary $\hat U_\tau(T)=e^{-i\phi^{(2)}(\tau)\hat F_y^2}$, with the linear Zeeman contribution removed. For a motionless atom this cancellation is exact: since the magnetic field is proportional to the coil current and the total current integrates to zero, the linear Larmor frequency integrates to zero, while the quadratic contribution, proportional to $B^2(t)$, never changes sign and accumulates the phase $\phi^{(2)}(\tau)=\int\Omega_L^{(2)}\,dt$. The experimental signature is $\langle\hat\alpha_R\rangle \propto 1-\sin[\phi^{(2)}(\tau)]$, and measurements on the $|1\rangle_x$ state of $^{87}$Rb confirm that the phase grows linearly with pulse duration and quadratically with driving voltage.

Load-bearing premise

The linear-phase cancellation is derived for motionless atoms; in the actual room-temperature vapor, moving atoms sample the inhomogeneous coil field, so the linear phase is not exactly zero for each atom, and the method relies on high oscillation frequencies to keep the residual dephasing small.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same pulse sequence can imprint an arbitrary $\phi^{(2)}$ on any spin value $F$, since the evolution operator depends only on $\hat F_y^2$ and not on the total angular momentum.
  • It gives a method for preparing superposition states among magnetic sublevels in room-temperature vapors, as demonstrated for the $F=1$ qutrit.
  • Because the phase is calibrated by pulse duration and amplitude, the technique can serve as a building block for quantum-state and process tomography in systems with $F\ge 1$.
  • The nonlinearity of the evolution, proportional to $\hat F_y^2$, is the same nonlinearity used for one-axis spin squeezing, so the method is a candidate driver for squeezing in warm ensembles.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension, not made in the paper, is to actively shape or servo the current waveform so the net current vanishes for every atom individually, which would suppress the residual motional dephasing that currently limits long pulses.
  • The cancellation condition could be tested directly by adding a small static field during the pulse: the signal should then acquire a linear-phase modulation proportional to that field, providing a quantitative check of the method's premise.
  • The same zero-net-current idea might transfer to other spin systems whose Hamiltonians contain a linear term that changes sign under a pulsed drive, wherever the desired nonlinear term does not.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes and tests a method for generating a pure quadratic Zeeman phase in an atomic ensemble by applying an oscillating magnetic-field pulse whose time-integrated current is zero. The theoretical part expands the Breit-Rabi formula to second order, argues that the linear Zeeman phase integrates to zero for motionless atoms, and derives the effective evolution operator U = exp(-i phi^(2) F_y^2) for spin-1 atoms, leading to the prediction <alpha_R> ∝ 1 - sin(phi^(2)) (Eqs. A.5 and A.8). The experimental part uses nonlinear magneto-optical rotation in a room-temperature 87Rb vapor to measure the amplitude of the free-induction decay as a function of pulse duration and amplitude (Figs. 5 and 6), and compares frequency-dependent dephasing with Monte Carlo simulations (Fig. 7). The authors report quadratic-phase imprints up to 12π and argue that higher oscillation frequencies suppress motion-induced linear-phase dephasing.

Significance. If fully validated, the method would be a useful tool for quantum-state engineering in warm atomic vapors and other spin systems, because it isolates a nonlinear spin interaction without requiring strong DC fields or AC-Stark-based nonlinearities. The theoretical derivation is self-contained and does not rely on fitted parameters for the phase predictions, and the Monte Carlo treatment of atomic motion is a reasonable first step. However, the experimental validation is not yet at the level required for the central claim of exact linear-phase cancellation: the data are presented without uncertainties, the comparison with theory is qualitative, and no direct test of the residual linear-phase quadrature is provided.

major comments (3)
  1. [§V, Eq. (A.1), Eq. (A.8), Fig. 7] The central experimental claim—that the linear Zeeman phase is canceled—is tested only through the amplitude of the free-induction decay. Equation (A.1) shows that the signal contains two quadratures, proportional to <alpha_R> and <alpha_I>, and Eq. (A.8) predicts <alpha_I>=0 only if the linear phase is exactly canceled. For atoms moving through the inhomogeneous field of the pulse coils, the residual linear phase is not zero and it does not merely damp the amplitude: it rotates the coherence and produces a nonzero <alpha_I>. The amplitude alone cannot distinguish the pure-quadratic model of Eq. (A.8) from a model with imperfect cancellation plus additional damping. The paper itself notes in Section V that the simulations do not exactly predict the data, especially at lower frequencies. A direct null test is needed: fit both quadratures of the signal and report the fitted <alpha_I> (or the full FID phase) as a function of tau and frequency, ideally with a deliberately introduced linear-gradient control.
  2. [§V, Figs. 5–7] The experimental points in Figs. 5–7 are shown without error bars, and the theoretical lines in Fig. 6 are presented without uncertainty bands. Given that the text states that the simulations only capture trends and that several data points at 100 and 140 kHz could not be extracted because of low signal-to-noise ratio, the quantitative claims—'confirm the linear dependence of phi^(2) on tau' and 'quadratic scaling with the magnetic-field amplitude'—are not supported by a quantitative goodness-of-fit or residual analysis. Error bars from repeated measurements or from fit uncertainties, together with residual plots or chi-squared values, are necessary to assess the agreement between Eq. (5) and the data.
  3. [§III and Appendix A] The cancellation argument in Section III is explicitly restricted to motionless atoms. In Appendix A, the evolution operator in Eq. (A.4) is derived by assuming that the linear phase averages out exactly, and Eq. (A.8) then gives <alpha_I>=0. The paper acknowledges the moving-atom issue and treats residual linear phases as a source of dephasing in Section V. However, the manuscript does not provide a quantitative bound on the residual linear phase under the experimental conditions (e.g., the maximum |phi^(1)| accumulated by an atom crossing the coil region at the thermal velocity). Without such a bound, or a direct measurement of the quadrature, the claim that the pulse 'effectively compensates' the linear Zeeman effect remains stronger than what the presented data demonstrate.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 6] The y-axis tick labels appear corrupted ('9 9 10 12'); please regenerate the figure so that the axis is readable and consistent with the label phi^(2) [π rad].
  2. [Section V] There are several typographical errors, including 'precesison' and 'ampltitude', and the phrase 'above 300 kHz but not higher' is redundant.
  3. [Section II, Fig. 2] The main text says the current amplitude is roughly 6.5 A, while the Fig. 2 caption states approximately 7.0 A; please reconcile these numbers.
  4. [Reference [40]] The author list of Ref. [40] contains an incomplete entry ('B. D.'); the full name should be given.
  5. [Appendix A] The derivation of Eq. (5) assumes no relaxation, but the experimental signals are damped (Eq. A.1 includes e^{-γt}). Please state explicitly how the amplitude used to extract phi^(2) is separated from the relaxation envelope in the fits.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the quadratic-phase evolution and signal formula follow from the Breit-Rabi expansion and the circuit design; self-citations supply measurement formalism but not the central claim.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. Starting from the Breit-Rabi formula [Eq. (1)], the authors expand the energy shift through second order in the magnetic field [Eq. (2)] and define the accumulated linear and quadratic phases via Eq. (3). Because the magnetic field is proportional to the coil current and the RLC pulser is designed so that the time-integrated current is zero, the linear phase averages out while the quadratic phase does not; this is a direct consequence of the stated expansion and circuit design, not an imported conclusion. The evolution operator [Eqs. (A.4)-(A.5)] and the measured signal [Eq. (A.8)] follow by explicit rotation algebra from the prepared state [Eq. (A.3)] and the observable definitions [Eq. (A.2)]. The observable definitions are cited to prior work by the same group [Refs. (5), (37), (38)], but those works provide the NMOR measurement formalism and do not themselves assert the pure-quadratic cancellation; the load-bearing physics of the quadratic phase generation is derived in this paper from the Breit-Rabi expansion and the zero-net-current pulse. The experimental phase extraction uses the oscillation of the signal amplitude versus pulse duration (Figs. 5-6), and the theoretical predictions in Fig. 6 are computed from independent circuit parameters, coil geometry, and known rubidium constants, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The residual linear phase due to atomic motion through field gradients is explicitly acknowledged in Section V and treated as dephasing, supported only qualitatively by Monte Carlo simulations (Fig. 7); this is a validation limitation rather than a circular reduction, because the theoretical derivation does not assume the experimental confirmation. Overall, no step in the paper's derivation chain reduces by construction to its own inputs.

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

No free parameters are introduced into the theoretical predictions; the phase is computed from the circuit parameters and known atomic constants. The key assumptions are the validity of the Breit-Rabi expansion, the neglect of the nuclear term, the exact cancellation of the linear phase for a zero-area current pulse, and quasi-static field conditions.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Breit-Rabi formula accurately describes the energy levels of the Rb-87 ground state in magnetic fields up to at least 25 G.
    Used in Eq. (1) and expanded to second order in B. This is a standard and well-verified formula.
  • domain assumption The nuclear g-factor contribution is negligible (g_I << g_J), so the linear Zeeman term is proportional to m_F and the quadratic term to m_F^2.
    Stated in Section III, valid for alkali atoms.
  • domain assumption The linear Zeeman phase cancels exactly when the time-integrated current through the coils is zero, argued from charge conservation on the capacitor.
    Section III. This holds for motionless atoms; for moving atoms it is approximate.
  • domain assumption The magnetic field produced by the Helmholtz coils is proportional to the current and quasi-static at 326 kHz, so the field at each atom is I(t) times a spatial factor.
    Used implicitly in the phase integral; valid because the electromagnetic wavelength is much larger than the cell.
  • domain assumption The ground-state coherence evolution during the pulse is purely unitary and described by the diagonal phase operator; relaxation and light shifts are neglected during the manipulation stage.
    Used in Appendix A to derive Eq. (5); the paper later accounts for relaxation phenomenologically.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Isolating Pure Quadratic Zeeman Splitting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HBL76KXK

@misc{pith2026241207610,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Isolating Pure Quadratic Zeeman Splitting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HBL76KXK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07610}
}
read the original abstract

Nonlinear magnetic interactions provide access to complex quantum spin dynamics and thus enable the study of intriguing physical phenomena. However, these interactions are often dominated by the linear Zeeman effect, which can complicate system dynamics and make their analysis more challenging. In this article, we theoretically and experimentally introduce a method to induce the quadratic Zeeman effect while effectively compensating for its linear counterpart. By isolating the quadratic Zeeman contributions, we demonstrate and analyze controlled superposition generation between specific magnetic sublevels in room-temperature rubidium-87 atoms. This study opens avenues for controlling any spin system, regardless of its total angular momentum, which we plan to explore further in the context of quantum-state tomography and engineering (e.g., spin squeezing).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07610 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic diagram of the pulse generator. Sw1 to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Simulated (a) and measured (b) currents through [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Simulated contributions to the Larmor frequency due [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Schematic of the experimental setup. The green, red, and purple single-headed arrows illustrate the propagation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The value of the measured observable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Amplitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, 10th ed. (Cambridge University Press, USA, 2011)

    2011

  2. [2]

    Miranowicz, S

    A. Miranowicz, S. K. ¨Ozdemir, J. Bajer, G. Yusa, N. Imoto, Y. Hirayama, and F. Nori, Quantum state to- mography of large nuclear spins in a semiconductor quan- tum well: Optimal robustness against errors as quantified by condition numbers, Phys. Rev. B 92, 075312 (2015)

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Chaudhury, S

    S. Chaudhury, S. Merkel, T. Herr, A. Silberfarb, I. H. Deutsch, and P. S. Jessen, Quantum control of the hy- perfine spin of a cs atom ensemble, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 163002 (2007)

    2007

  4. [4]

    Colangelo, R

    G. Colangelo, R. J. Sewell, N. Behbood, F. M. Ciurana, G. Triginer, and M. W. Mitchell, Quantum atom–light interfaces in the gaussian description for spin-1 systems, New Journal of Physics 15, 103007 (2013)

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Kopciuch and S

    M. Kopciuch and S. Pustelny, Optical reconstruction of the collective density matrix of a qutrit, Phys. Rev. A 106, 022406 (2022)

    2022

  6. [6]

    Budker and D

    D. Budker and D. F. Jackson Kimball, Optical Magnetometry (Cambridge University Press, 2013)

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    S. R. de Echaniz, M. Koschorreck, M. Napolitano, M. Kubasik, and M. W. Mitchell, Hamiltonian design in atom-light interactions with rubidium ensembles: A quantum-information toolbox, Physical Review A 77, 032316 (2007)

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    Pawela and Z

    L. Pawela and Z. Pucha la, Quantum control with spec- tral constraints, Quantum Information Processing 13, 227 (2012)

    work page 2012

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Zeeman, On the Influence of Magnetism on the Nature of the Light Emitted by a Substance., Astrophys

    P. Zeeman, On the Influence of Magnetism on the Nature of the Light Emitted by a Substance., Astrophys. J. 5, 332 (1897)

  2. [10]

    Breit and I

    G. Breit and I. I. Rabi, Measurement of nuclear spin, Phys. Rev. 38, 2082 (1931)

    1931

  3. [11]

    Budker and M

    D. Budker and M. Romalis, Optical magnetometry, Na- ture Physics 3, 227 (2007)

    2007

  4. [12]

    Budker, D

    D. Budker, D. F. Kimball, S. M. Rochester, V. V. Yashchuk, and M. Zolotorev, Sensitive magnetometry based on nonlinear magneto-optical rotation, Phys. Rev. A 62, 043403 (2000)

    2000

  5. [13]

    J. C. Allred, R. N. Lyman, T. W. Kornack, and M. V. Ro- malis, High-sensitivity atomic magnetometer unaffected by spin-exchange relaxation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 130801 (2002)

    2002

  6. [14]

    E. B. Alexandrov, Recent progress in optically pumped magnetometers, Physica Scripta 2003, 27 (2003)

    2003

  7. [15]

    P. D. D. Schwindt, S. Knappe, V. Shah, L. Hollberg, J. Kitching, L.-A. Liew, and J. Moreland, Chip-scale atomic magnetometer, Appl. Phys. Lett. 85, 6409 (2004)

    2004

  8. [16]

    Groeger, G

    S. Groeger, G. Bison, J.-L. Schenker, R. Wynands, and W. A., A high-sensitivity laser-pumped mx magnetome- ter, Eur. Phys. J. D A 38, 239 (2006)

    2006

  9. [17]

    S. J. Seltzer, P. J. Meares, and M. V. Romalis, Syn- chronous optical pumping of quantum revival beats for atomic magnetometry, Phys. Rev. A 75, 051407 (2007)

    2007

  10. [18]

    Pustelny, A

    S. Pustelny, A. Wojciechowski, M. Gring, M. Kotyrba, J. Zachorowski, and W. Gawlik, Magnetometry based on nonlinear magneto-optical rotation with amplitude- modulated light, J Appl. Phys 103 (2008)

    2008

  11. [19]

    Y. J. Kim and I. Savukov, Ultra-sensitive magnetic mi- croscopy with an optically pumped magnetometer, Sci. Rep. 6, 24773 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    A. P. Colombo, T. R. Carter, A. Borna, Y.-Y. Jau, C. N. Johnson, A. L. Dagel, and P. D. D. Schwindt, Four- channel optically pumped atomic magnetometer for mag- netoencephalography, Opt. Express 24, 15403 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Oelsner, V

    G. Oelsner, V. Schultze, R. IJsselsteijn, and R. Stolz, Per- formance analysis of an optically pumped magnetometer in earth’s magnetic field, EPJ Quantum Technology 6, 1 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Bevington, R

    P. Bevington, R. Gartman, and W. Chalupczak, Imaging of material defects with a radio-frequency atomic mag- netometer, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 90, 013103 (2019). 9

    2019

  15. [23]

    J. Wang, W. Fan, K. Yin, Y. Yan, B. Zhou, and X. Song, Combined effect of pump-light intensity and modulation field on the performance of optically pumped magne- tometers under zero-field parametric modulation, Phys. Rev. A 101, 053427 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    X. Fang, K. Wei, T. Zhao, Y. Zhai, D. Ma, B. Xing, Y. Liu, and Z. Xiao, High spatial resolution multi-channel optically pumped atomic magnetometer based on a spa- tial light modulator, Opt. Express 28, 26447 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Chalupczak, R

    W. Chalupczak, R. M. Godun, S. Pustelny, and W. Gaw- lik, Room temperature femtotesla radio-frequency atomic magnetometer, Appl. Phys. Lett. 100, 242401 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    I. K. Kominis, T. W. Kornack, J. C. Allred, and M. V. Romalis, A subfemtotesla multichannel atomic magne- tometer, Nature 422, 596 (2003)

    2003

  19. [27]

    Acosta, M

    V. Acosta, M. P. Ledbetter, S. M. Rochester, D. Bud- ker, D. F. Jackson Kimball, D. C. Hovde, W. Gawlik, S. Pustelny, J. Zachorowski, and V. V. Yashchuk, Nonlin- ear magneto-optical rotation with frequency-modulated light in the geophysical field range, Phys. Rev. A 73, 053404 (2006)

    2006

  20. [28]

    Chalupczak, A

    W. Chalupczak, A. Wojciechowski, S. Pustelny, and W. Gawlik, Competition between the tensor light shift and nonlinear zeeman effect, Phys. Rev. A 82, 023417 (2010)

    2010

  21. [29]

    Gawlik and S

    W. Gawlik and S. Pustelny, Nonlinear magneto-optical rotation magnetometers, in High Sensitivity Magnetometers, edited by A. Grosz, M. J. Haji-Sheikh, and S. C. Mukhopadhyay (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017) pp. 425–450

    2017

  22. [30]

    Hovde, B

    C. Hovde, B. Patton, O. Versolato, E. Corsini, S. Rochester, and D. Budker, Heading er- ror in an alignment-based magnetometer, in Unattended Ground, Sea, and Air Sensor Technologies, Vol. 8046, edited by E. M. Carapezza, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE, 2...

    2011

  23. [31]

    S. M. Rochester and D. Budker, Atomic polarization vi- sualized, American Journal of Physics 69, 450 (2001)

    2001

  24. [32]

    Budker, D

    D. Budker, D. F. Kimball, S. M. Rochester, and V. V. Yashchuk, Nonlinear magneto-optical rotation via alignment-to-orientation conversion, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 2088 (2000)

    2000

  25. [33]

    Mozers, L

    A. Mozers, L. Busaite, D. Osite, and M. Auzinsh, An- gular momentum alignment-to-orientation conversion in the ground state of rb atoms at room temperature, Phys. Rev. A 102, 053102 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    Auzinsh, K

    M. Auzinsh, K. Blushs, R. Ferber, F. Gahbauer, A. Jar- mola, and M. Tamanis, Electric-field-induced symmetry breaking of angular momentum distribution in atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 043002 (2006)

    2006

  27. [35]

    S. M. Rochester, M. P. Ledbetter, T. Zigdon, A. D. Wilson-Gordon, and D. Budker, Orientation-to- alignment conversion and spin squeezing, Phys. Rev. A 85, 022125 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    Budker, W

    D. Budker, W. Gawlik, D. F. Kimball, S. M. Rochester, V. V. Yashchuk, and A. Weis, Resonant nonlinear magneto-optical effects in atoms, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 1153 (2002)

    2002

  29. [37]

    Kopciuch, M

    M. Kopciuch, M. Smolis, A. Miranowicz, and S. Pustelny, Optimized optical tomography of quantum states of a room-temperature alkali-metal vapor, Phys. Rev. A 109, 032402 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Piotrak, M

    M. Piotrak, M. Kopciuch, A. D. Fard, M. Smolis, S. Pustelny, and K. Korzekwa, Perfect quantum protrac- tors, Quantum 8, 1459 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Pustelny, D

    S. Pustelny, D. F. Jackson Kimball, S. M. Rochester, V. V. Yashchuk, and D. Budker, Influence of magnetic- field inhomogeneity on nonlinear magneto-optical reso- nances, Phys. Rev. A 74, 063406 (2006)

    2006

  32. [40]

    Zhivun, A

    E. Zhivun, A. Wickenbrock, J. Sudyka, B. Patton, S. Pustelny, and B. D., Vector light shift averaging in paraffin-coated alkali vapor cells, Opt. Express 14, 15383 (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.