Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Lifetime measurement of the 5s5p 1P1 state in strontium

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports the first direct measurement of the strontium 5s5p 1P1 lifetime, giving 5.216 ns with 0.006 ns statistical and 0.013 ns systematic uncertainty.

desk verdict Direct measurement of the Sr 1P1 lifetime is a useful new data point, but the reported central value doesn't include two known-sign corrections that shift it by about a sigma. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.07395 v2 pith:L4YNFTKB submitted 2025-01-13 physics.atom-ph

Ivana Puljić , Ana Cipriš , Damir Aumiler , Ticijana Ban , Neven Šantić This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph
keywords strontium5s5p1P1statelifetimemeasurementtime-correlatedsingle-photoncountingfemtosecondlaserexcitationblackbodyradiationshiftopticallatticeclockatomicspectroscopy
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 reports the first direct measurement of the lifetime of the strontium 5s5p ^1P_1 state, the dominant contributor to the dynamic polarizability that limits blackbody-radiation shift calculations in optical lattice clocks. Using femtosecond 461 nm pulses in a hot atomic beam and time-correlated single-photon counting, the authors record exponential fluorescence decays and obtain $\tau = (5.216 \pm 0.006_{\mathrm{stat}} \pm 0.013_{\mathrm{sys}})$ ns as a weighted mean of eight independent runs. They argue this result agrees with the lifetime inferred from a tune-out wavelength measurement and therefore brings new evidence to bear on a known 7-$\sigma$ disagreement with the photoassociation-derived value. If correct, the measurement provides an independent anchor for the Einstein A coefficient of the ^1P_1 \to ^1S_0 transition, which is needed to lower the uncertainty of Sr lattice clocks.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the time-correlated single-photon counting histogram of laser-induced fluorescence, fit by $N(t) = A\exp(-t/\tau) + p(B_1(t)+B_2(t))$, where $B_1$ and $B_2$ are background signals measured before and after the decay run and $p$ is a fitted scale factor accounting for background drift. The femtosecond pulse provides switch-off faster than the lifetime without an electro-optic modulator, and the global fit across multiple truncation times (7.6 to 10.6 ns) plus extrapolation of $\tau$ versus optical depth to zero density are what turn the raw histogram into a lifetime with controlled systematics.

What would settle it

One decisive check is to record the background with the femtosecond laser on resonance but with the strontium dispenser cold, so no atoms are excited, and compare its temporal shape with the 457 nm background; if the shapes differ in the first 10 ns by more than the quoted background error, the single-scale-factor model fails and the lifetime would shift.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a femtosecond-pulsed excitation at approximately 461 nm followed by hybrid-detector time-correlated single-photon counting can cleanly resolve the roughly 5.2 ns decay of the 5s5p ^1P_1 state in a hot atomic beam, yielding the first direct lifetime $\tau(^1P_1) = (5.216 \pm 0.006_{\mathrm{stat}} \pm 0.013_{\mathrm{sys}})$ ns. The value is reported as the weighted mean of eight independent measurements with different accumulation times, after correcting for pulse pile-up, fitting with a global truncation-time procedure, and applying systematic corrections for TAC nonlinearity, magnetic-field quantum beats, and radiation trapping extrapolated to zero optical depth. The authors find that their lifetime agrees within one $\sigma$ with the tune-out-based value and frame the result as new evidence on the discrepancy with photoassociation spectroscopy.

Load-bearing premise

The fit assumes the background recorded with the laser detuned to 457 nm is the same function of time as the background during resonant excitation except for one scale factor; if resonant light changes the scattered-light background's time shape during the first nanoseconds, the fitted lifetime is biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The measured lifetime fixes the Einstein A coefficient for the 5s5p ^1P_1 \to 5s^2 ^1S_0 transition, the dominant term in the dynamic polarizability of the clock ground state, so blackbody-radiation shift calculations for Sr lattice clocks can be anchored to a direct value.
  • Within one sigma, the result supports the tune-out-based lifetime of Heinz et al. over the photoassociation value, meaning the 7-sigma discrepancy is likely due to an error in one of the two older routes rather than in both.
  • The agreement gives an independent check on the ground-state polarizability used in Sr clock uncertainty budgets, which is relevant to the redefinition of the second and to clock-based searches for dark matter and constant variation.
  • The experiment demonstrates that femtosecond-laser excitation plus time-correlated single-photon counting is viable for short lifetimes in the blue spectral region where fast electro-optic switch-off is unavailable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the quoted systematic budget is complete, the dominant TAC nonlinearity term could be reduced by an FPGA-based time-to-digital converter, and a future measurement might reach below 0.1% total uncertainty and tighten the comparison with theory.
  • The same femtosecond-excitation and TCSPC scheme could be applied to other alkaline-earth or alkaline-earth-like atoms with blue or ultraviolet transitions, giving direct lifetimes that feed polarizability estimates in other optical-clock candidates.
  • A simultaneous in-situ measurement or modeling of the scattered-light background during resonance, rather than the detuned-laser proxy, would directly test the single-scale-factor background assumption and would also benefit any reanalysis of the present data.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a direct lifetime measurement of the 5s5p 1P1 state of strontium using time-correlated single-photon counting of laser-induced fluorescence from a hot atomic beam excited by a femtosecond laser. Eight independent decay datasets are fitted with an exponential plus a scaled background, giving a weighted mean lifetime of tau = (5.216 +/- 0.006_stat +/- 0.013_sys) ns in Eq. (3). The authors evaluate systematic effects including TAC nonlinearity, magnetic field, radiation trapping, and laser power, and they claim that this direct measurement agrees with the tune-out-based value of Heinz et al. [23] within one sigma, thereby providing new information on the 7-sigma discrepancy with the photoassociation value of Yasuda et al. [22].

Significance. If the reported lifetime is accurate, this is a valuable contribution: it is the first direct measurement of this important state lifetime, it bears directly on the dynamic polarizability correction for strontium optical lattice clocks, and the raw data are made openly available. The experimental approach, including the use of a femtosecond laser for fast switch-off, the global truncation-time fitting procedure, and the explicit error budget, is mostly careful and reproducible. However, the central value as stated in Eq. (3) is not the corrected lifetime that the authors' own systematic analyses describe, and this affects the paper's main interpretive claim about agreement with the tune-out value.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. V.B, Sec. V.E, Eq. (3)] The reported central value is not corrected for two known sign-definite systematic effects that the authors themselves quantify. In Sec. V.B the TAC calibration gives a slope of 1.00240(4), and the text states that 'the actual lifetime is shorter'; yet the authors only fold this into a 0.2% systematic uncertainty and do not shift the central value. In Sec. V.E the linear fit to the lifetime versus optical depth yields an extrapolated zero-density lifetime of 5.211 +/- 0.002 ns, a 0.096% correction relative to the 5.216 ns measured at OD=0.0011, but Eq. (3) retains 5.216 ns. Both corrections are negative, so the advertised value is biased high by roughly 0.010-0.015 ns, which is comparable to the quoted total uncertainty of about 0.014 ns. Because the paper's purpose is to arbitrate the 7-sigma discrepancy, this shift is material: it can change whether the result is 'within 1 sigma' of [23] and how the discrepancy is interpreted. The authors should correct the central value for both effects (or justify why they are not applied) and propagate the associated uncertainties accordingly.
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (2)] The background model assumes that the background measured with the laser detuned to 457 nm has the same temporal shape as the background during on-resonance acquisition, up to a single scalar factor p. This is load-bearing because the fit includes p(B1(t)+B2(t)) as the only background term, and a time-dependent background error, especially in the first few nanoseconds after the pulse, would bias the fitted exponential time constant. The paper does not provide a direct check that resonant excitation does not change the temporal shape of the scattered-light background. I recommend an explicit test, for example comparing the background shape with the laser tuned to a nearby non-resonant transition under otherwise identical conditions, or allowing a time-dependent scaling in a control fit and checking whether tau shifts by more than the quoted uncertainty.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. VI] The systematic uncertainty is given as 0.013 ns in the abstract and Eq. (3), but as 0.012 ns in Sec. VI; these should be consistent.
  2. [Sec. VI] The text says 'TSCPC technique'; this should be 'TCSPC'.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The branching ratio notation '1: 20 500' is unclear; please spell out that it means approximately one 1D2 decay per 20,500 decays from 1P1.
  4. [Sec. II] The time window is stated as 66.025 ns and the ADC bin width as 16.12 ps with 4096 bins; the product is about 66.0 ns, but the small discrepancy (0.025 ns) is not explained.
  5. [Sec. V.E] The statement that 'A was confirmed to correlate with the concentration of strontium atoms' is vague; please provide the linear relationship or a reference, since this correlation is used to estimate OD for low currents.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the lifetime is a direct TCSPC fit, and self-citations are used only for comparison and context.

full rationale

The central quantity, tau = (5.216 +/- 0.006_stat +/- 0.013_sys) ns in Eq. (3), is obtained by fitting the measured fluorescence decay histograms to Eq. (2), N(t) = A exp(-t/tau) + p(B1(t)+B2(t)), and then taking the weighted mean of eight independent datasets. No step in this chain defines tau in terms of the prior values [22] or [23], and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The cited previous works are used only for comparison with the final result, not as inputs to the fit. The self-citations [23] and [28] are contextual: [23] provides the tune-out-lifetime value used in the discrepancy discussion, and [28] describes a similar vacuum-cell design; neither is load-bearing for the measured lifetime. Systematic corrections were assessed through independent calibration measurements (TAC slope, magnetic-field scans, optical-depth extrapolation), and even if one questions whether the TAC and radiation-trapping corrections should shift the central value rather than only broaden the uncertainty, that is a correctness or reporting issue, not circularity. The only modeling assumptions, such as the scaled background p(B1+B2) and the truncation-time selection, are standard experimental analysis choices; they could bias the result if wrong, but they do not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs. Accordingly, no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The measurement rests on standard experimental assumptions plus two data-dependent analysis choices, the background scaling parameter p and the truncation-time interval. The only physics input from prior literature is the negligible branching to 1D2 and the linear radiation-trapping model; no new entities or theory parameters are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • background scaling parameter p = within a few percent of 1 across datasets
    Multiplies the measured background B1(t)+B2(t) in the decay fit (Eq. 2) to account for laser power and pointing drifts; it affects the fitted tau.
  • exponential amplitude A = varies per dataset
    Amplitude of the decay in Eq. 2; also used in Section V.E to estimate optical depth at low dispenser currents where direct OD measurements were difficult, feeding the radiation trapping correction.
  • linear extrapolation intercept tau(OD=0) = 5.211 ns
    Intercept of the linear fit of lifetime versus optical depth in Figure 5; used to estimate the 0.096% radiation trapping correction. The extrapolation assumes the linear dependence is valid at zero density.
  • fit truncation start-time range = 7.6 ns to 10.6 ns
    Chosen as the interval over which the fitted tau is constant; the final tau for each dataset is the mean over this interval. The selection is data-dependent and could bias tau if background structure mimics a decay in that window.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The excitation pulse turns off much faster than the 5 ns lifetime, so the fluorescence decay starts at a well-defined t=0.
    The pulse is 280 fs at the source and is spectrally filtered; the paper treats switch-off as effectively instantaneous (Section II) and does not deconvolve the excitation pulse.
  • domain assumption The background measured with the laser detuned to 457 nm has the same temporal shape as the background during on-resonance signal, up to a scalar factor p.
    Used in Eq. 2 and Section II; if the scattered-light background differs when the laser is resonant, especially at early times, the fitted tau could be biased.
  • domain assumption The branching ratio from the 1P1 state to the 1D2 state is negligible (1 in 20,500 photons).
    Section II cites [27]; if the branching were larger, the measured decay would not be simply the 1P1 lifetime and the single-exponential fit would be incomplete.
  • domain assumption Radiation trapping depends linearly on optical depth over the measured range.
    Section V.E uses a linear fit of tau versus OD, citing [35-37]; nonlinear behavior at the low OD values would bias the extrapolated zero-density lifetime.
  • domain assumption Zeeman quantum beats are negligible at the residual magnetic field of 0.01 G.
    Section V.D estimates the beat period at 36 microseconds, much longer than the 66 ns window; a larger residual field or field inhomogeneity would introduce cosine modulation into the decay.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lifetime measurement of the 5s5p 1P1 state in strontium." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L4YNFTKB

@misc{pith2026250107395,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lifetime measurement of the 5s5p 1P1 state in strontium},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L4YNFTKB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.07395}
}
abstract

We present a direct lifetime measurement of the $5s5p~^1P_1$ state of strontium using time-correlated single-photon counting of laser induced fluorescence in a hot atomic beam. To achieve fast switch-off times and a high signal-to-noise ratio, we excite the strontium atoms with a femtosecond pulsed laser at $\approx$461 nm and collect the fluorescence onto a hybrid single-photon detector. Analysis of the measured exponential decay gives a lifetime of the $^1P_1$ state of $\tau = (5.216 \pm 0.006_{stat} \pm 0.013_{sys})$ ns, where all the systematic effects have been thoroughly considered.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.07395 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A simplified scheme of the experimental setup and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Upper plot: Fluorescence decay curve of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Lifetime of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The measured lifetime of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    Yasuda, T

    M. Yasuda, T. Kishimoto, M. Takamoto, and H. Katori, Photoassociation spectroscopy of 88Sr: Reconstruction of the wave function near the last node, Phys. Rev. A 73, 011403 (2006)

    work page 2006

  2. [23]

    Heinz, A

    A. Heinz, A. J. Park, N. ˇSanti´ c, J. Trautmann, S. G. Porsev, M. S. Safronova, I. Bloch, and S. Blatt, State- dependent optical lattices for the strontium optical qubit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 203201 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [1]

    Aeppli, K

    A. Aeppli, K. Kim, W. Warfield, M. S. Safronova, and J. Ye, Clock with 8×10−19 systematic uncertainty, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 023401 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [2]

    Dimarcq, M

    N. Dimarcq, M. Gertsvolf, G. Mileti, S. Bize, C. W. Oates, E. Peik, D. Calonico, T. Ido, P. Tavella, F. Mey- nadier, G. Petit, G. Panfilo, J. Bartholomew, P. De- fraigne, E. A. Donley, P. O. Hedekvist, I. Sesia, M. Wouters, P. Dub´ e, F. Fang, F. Levi, J. Lodewyck, H. S. Margolis, D. Newell, S. Slyusarev, S. Weyers, J.- P. Uzan, M. Yasuda, D.-H. Yu, C. Ri...

    work page 2024

  5. [3]

    T. E. Mehlst¨ aubler, G. Grosche, C. Lisdat, P. O. Schmidt, and H. Denker, Atomic clocks for geodesy, Re- ports on Progress in Physics 81, 064401 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [4]

    Grotti, S

    J. Grotti, S. Koller, S. Vogt, S. H¨ afner, U. Sterr, C. Lis- dat, H. Denker, C. Voigt, L. Timmen, A. Rolland, F. N. Baynes, H. S. Margolis, M. Zampaolo, P. Thoumany, M. Pizzocaro, B. Rauf, F. Bregolin, A. Tampellini, P. Barbieri, M. Zucco, G. A. Costanzo, C. Clivati, F. Levi, and D. Calonico, Geodesy and metrology with a transportable optical clock, Natu...

    work page 2018

  7. [5]

    Grotti, I

    J. Grotti, I. Nosske, S. Koller, S. Herbers, H. Denker, L. Timmen, G. Vishnyakova, G. Grosche, T. Waterholter, A. Kuhl, S. Koke, E. Benkler, M. Giunta, L. Maisen- bacher, A. Matveev, S. D¨ orscher, R. Schwarz, A. Al- Masoudi, T. H¨ ansch, T. Udem, R. Holzwarth, and C. Lis- dat, Long-distance chronometric leveling with a portable optical clock, Phys. Rev. ...

    work page 2024

  8. [6]

    Takamoto, I

    M. Takamoto, I. Ushijima, N. Ohmae, T. Yahagi, K. Kokado, H. Shinkai, and H. Katori, Test of general relativity by a pair of transportable optical lattice clocks, Nature Photonics 14, 411 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 40 references
  1. [7]

    Huang, H

    Y. Huang, H. Zhang, B. Zhang, Y. Hao, H. Guan, M. Zeng, Q. Chen, Y. Lin, Y. Wang, S. Cao, K. Liang, F. Fang, Z. Fang, T. Li, and K. Gao, Geopotential mea- surement with a robust, transportable ca + optical clock, Phys. Rev. A 102, 050802 (2020)

    2020

  2. [8]

    Bothwell, C

    T. Bothwell, C. J. Kennedy, A. Aeppli, D. Kedar, J. M. Robinson, E. Oelker, A. Staron, and J. Ye, Resolving the gravitational redshift across a millimetre-scale atomic sample, Nature 602, 420 (2022)

    2022

  3. [9]

    Zheng, J

    X. Zheng, J. Dolde, M. C. Cambria, H. M. Lim, and S. Kolkowitz, A lab-based test of the gravitational red- shift with a miniature clock network, Nature Communi- cations 14, 4886 (2023)

    2023

  4. [10]

    Derevianko and M

    A. Derevianko and M. Pospelov, Hunting for topological dark matter with atomic clocks, Nature Physics 10, 933 (2014)

    2014

  5. [11]

    Arvanitaki, J

    A. Arvanitaki, J. Huang, and K. Van Tilburg, Searching for dilaton dark matter with atomic clocks, Phys. Rev. D 91, 015015 (2015). 8

    2015

  6. [12]

    Beloy, M

    K. Beloy, M. I. Bodine, T. Bothwell, S. M. Brewer, S. L. Bromley, J.-S. Chen, J.-D. Deschˆ enes, S. A. Did- dams, R. J. Fasano, T. M. Fortier, Y. S. Hassan, D. B. Hume, D. Kedar, C. J. Kennedy, I. Khader, A. Koepke, D. R. Leibrandt, H. Leopardi, A. D. Ludlow, W. F. McGrew, W. ...

    2021

  7. [13]

    Sherrill, A

    N. Sherrill, A. O. Parsons, C. F. A. Baynham, W. Bow- den, E. A. Curtis, R. Hendricks, I. R. Hill, R. Hobson, H. S. Margolis, B. I. Robertson, M. Schioppo, K. Szy- maniec, A. Tofful, J. Tunesi, R. M. Godun, and X. Cal- met, Analysis of atomic-clock data to constrain varia- tio...

    2023

  8. [14]

    Filzinger, S

    M. Filzinger, S. D¨ orscher, R. Lange, J. Klose, M. Steinel, E. Benkler, E. Peik, C. Lisdat, and N. Huntemann, Im- proved limits on the coupling of ultralight bosonic dark matter to photons from optical atomic clock comparisons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 253001 (2023)

    2023

  9. [15]

    M. S. Safronova, D. Budker, D. DeMille, D. F. J. Kimball, A. Derevianko, and C. W. Clark, Search for new physics with atoms and molecules, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 025008 (2018)

    2018

  10. [16]

    Barontini, L

    G. Barontini, L. Blackburn, V. Boyer, F. Butuc-Mayer, X. Calmet, J. R. Crespo L´ opez-Urrutia, E. A. Cur- tis, B. Darqui´ e, J. Dunningham, N. J. Fitch, E. M. Forgan, K. Georgiou, P. Gill, R. M. Godun, J. Gold- win, V. Guarrera, A. C. Harwood, I. R. Hill, R. J. Hendricks, M. J...

    2022

  11. [17]

    Middelmann, S

    T. Middelmann, S. Falke, C. Lisdat, and U. Sterr, High accuracy correction of blackbody radiation shift in an optical lattice clock, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 263004 (2012)

    2012

  12. [18]

    M. S. Safronova, S. G. Porsev, U. I. Safronova, M. G. Kozlov, and C. W. Clark, Blackbody-radiation shift in the sr optical atomic clock, Phys. Rev. A 87, 012509 (2013)

    2013

  13. [19]

    T. L. Nicholson, S. L. Campbell, R. B. Hutson, G. E. Marti, B. J. Bloom, R. L. McNally, W. Zhang, M. D. Barrett, M. S. Safronova, G. F. Strouse, W. L. Tew, and J. Ye, Systematic evaluation of an atomic clock at 2 × 10-18 total uncertainty, Nature Communications 6, 6896 (2015)

    2015

  14. [20]

    Hobson, W

    R. Hobson, W. Bowden, A. Vianello, A. Silva, C. F. A. Baynham, H. S. Margolis, P. E. G. Baird, P. Gill, and I. R. Hill, A strontium optical lattice clock with 1× 10-17 uncertainty and measurement of its absolute frequency, Metrologia 57, 065026 (2020)

    2020

  15. [21]

    Lisdat, S

    C. Lisdat, S. D¨ orscher, I. Nosske, and U. Sterr, Black- body radiation shift in strontium lattice clocks revisited, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, L042036 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Nicholson, S

    T. Nicholson, S. Campbell, R. Hutson, G. Marti, B. Bloom, R. McNally, W. Zhang, M. Barrett, M. Safronova, G. Strouse, W. Tew, and J. Ye, Systematic evaluation of an atomic clock at 2 × 10-18 total uncer- tainty, Nature Communications 6 (2015)

    2015

  17. [25]

    Becker, The Bh TCSPC Handbook, 10th edition (Becker & Hickl, 2023)

    W. Becker, The Bh TCSPC Handbook, 10th edition (Becker & Hickl, 2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    M. O. Ara´ ujo, I. Kreˇ si´ c, R. Kaiser, and W. Guerin, Su- perradiance in a large and dilute cloud of cold atoms in the linear-optics regime, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 073002 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    and is therefore negligible. An atomic beam of hot strontium atoms is generated using a dispenser (AlfaVakuo, AS-Sr-5V-600) placed in- arXiv:2501.07395v2 [physics.atom-ph] 16 Jan 2025 2 L L L z x y S1 0 P1 1 461 nm D1 2 1: 20 500 Fs Laser Detector Camera FIG. 1. A simplified s...

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Cooper, J

    A. Cooper, J. P. Covey, I. S. Madjarov, S. G. Porsev, M. S. Safronova, and M. Endres, Alkaline-earth atoms in optical tweezers, Phys. Rev. X 8, 041055 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Cipriˇ s, I

    A. Cipriˇ s, I. Pulji´ c, D. Aumiler, T. Ban, and N.ˇSanti´ c, Absolute frequency measurement of the 5s5p 1p1 - 5s5d 1d2 transition in strontium, Spectrochimica Acta Part B: Atomic Spectroscopy 216, 106942 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Felinto, C

    D. Felinto, C. Bosco, L. Acioli, and S. Vianna, Coherent accumulation in two-level atoms excited by a train of ul- trashort pulses, Optics Communications 215, 69 (2003)

    2003

  23. [31]

    Gomez, F

    E. Gomez, F. Baumer, A. D. Lange, G. D. Sprouse, and L. A. Orozco, Lifetime measurement of the 6 s level of rubidium, Phys. Rev. A 72, 012502 (2005)

    2005

  24. [32]

    G. Toh, N. Chalus, A. Burgess, A. Damitz, P. Imany, D. E. Leaird, A. M. Weiner, C. E. Tanner, and D. S. El- liott, Measurement of the lifetimes of the 7 p2P3/2 and 7p2P1/2 states of atomic cesium, Phys. Rev. A 100, 052507 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    J. E. Simsarian, L. A. Orozco, G. D. Sprouse, and W. Z. Zhao, Lifetime measurements of the 7 p levels of atomic francium, Phys. Rev. A 57, 2448 (1998)

    1998

  26. [34]

    Multinonlinearmodelfit by sjoerd smit, https: //resources.wolframcloud.com/FunctionRepository/ resources/MultiNonlinearModelFit, accessed: 2025- 01-13

    2025

  27. [35]

    Brandenberger and B

    J. Brandenberger and B. Rose, Quantum beat determina- tion of lifetimes and disalignment cross sections in neon, Optics Communications 36, 453 (1981)

    1981

  28. [36]

    E. A. Milne, The Diffusion of Imprisoned Radiation Through a Gas, Journal of the London Mathematical So- ciety s1-1, 40 (1926)

    1926

  29. [37]

    B. M. Patterson, J. F. Sell, T. Ehrenreich, M. A. Gearba, G. M. Brooke, J. Scoville, and R. J. Knize, Lifetime mea- surement of the cesium 6P3/2 level using ultrafast pump- probe laser pulses, Phys. Rev. A 91, 012506 (2015)

    2015

  30. [38]

    Pucher, P

    S. Pucher, P. Schneeweiss, A. Rauschenbeutel, and A. Dareau, Lifetime measurement of the cesium 5 2d5/2 state, Phys. Rev. A 101, 042510 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    J. Song, Q. An, and S. Liu, A high-resolution time- to-digital converter implemented in field-programmable- gate-arrays, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 53, 236 (2006)

    2006

  32. [40]

    Pulji´ c, A

    I. Pulji´ c, A. Cipriˇ s, D. Aumiler, T. Ban, and N.ˇSanti´ c, Raw data for the lifetime measurement of the 5s5p 1P1 9 state in strontium (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.