Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 52 references

Qubit operations using a modular optical system engineered with PyOpticL: a code-to-CAD optical layout tool

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 A Python library called PyOpticL routes laser beams dynamically in CAD, letting optical subsystems be compiled as modular 'drop-in' baseplates; the authors use it to build a strontium trapped-ion laser system that achieves 99.8% detection…

desk verdict PyOpticL is a real open-source tool with a working trapped-ion demo behind it; the drop-in modularity claim outruns the evidence but not by much. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14957 v3 pith:OROCXQOV submitted 2025-01-24 quant-ph

Jacob Myers , Christopher Caron , Nishat Helaly , Zhenyu Wei , Justin Oh , Zack Gotobed , Kotaro Yabe , Robert J. Niffenegger This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords opticallayoutcode-to-CADmodularbaseplatestrappedionslasersystemsquantumcomputinghardwareopen-sourcebeam-pathrouting
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 claims that optical systems can be engineered like electronic circuits: instead of placing and aligning every component on a table by hand, a Python library called PyOpticL traces laser beams through the system and places components along the beam path automatically, so a layout script compiles into a physical CAD model. The authors argue this dynamic beam routing removes the bottleneck that has kept atomic and molecular optics experiments from being modularized and scaled up. To support the claim, they design modular 'drop-in' baseplates for common laser subsystems and assemble them into a complete 422 nm laser system for trapped strontium ions, reporting 99.8% state-detection fidelity and 99.9% single-qubit gate fidelity. If the approach generalizes, quantum-computing optics could be shared, version-controlled, and recompiled for different wavelengths and sizes the way microchip layouts are.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is beam-based routing with a binary-tree beam index: each beam segment carries a binary number (starting at 0b1; 0 for transmitted and 1 for reflected at each splitter), which gives every sub-beam a unique, readable identifier. Components are then placed relative to a beam segment by distance or cardinal direction, with no fixed coordinates, so when any element moves the whole routing re-simulates and the layout stays connected. A second load-bearing piece is a set of design conventions: all beams at one height, all beams on a 1-inch grid, and one-way branching, which together let baseplates from different scripts be joined as drop-in modules. The library is built on an open-source CAD engine with a Python back-end, which is what makes runtime variable updates and parametric recompilation possible.

What would settle it

Swap two independently designed baseplates built under the stated design rules into the strontium setup — e.g., replace the rubidium lock plate with another compiled at a different optics scale or wavelength — and measure detection and gate fidelity without any realignment step; if the ion is lost or fidelity drops measurably below the reported 99.8% and 99.9%, the claimed drop-in interchangeability fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that dynamic, beam-based routing makes optical layout scriptable and modular: PyOpticL represents each laser beam as a path carrying a unique binary index — at each splitter the transmitted beam appends 0 and the reflected beam appends 1 — and optical elements are placed along a beam segment rather than at absolute coordinates. Because the layout is defined by code and re-rendered by the underlying CAD engine, the same saturated-absorption-spectroscopy layout script can be recompiled with 1-inch, 1/2-inch mounted, mount-free 1/2-inch, or 3-mm micro-optics by swapping a dictionary of components. The authors build three kinds of modular baseplates (a diode-laser source, acousto-optic intensity and frequency modulators, and a rubidium saturated-absorption lock), combine them into a dynamic full laser system, and use it to laser-cool a single trapped strontium ion, detect its state with 99.8% fidelity, and drive Zeeman-qubit Raman transitions with 99.9% single-qubit gate fidelity. The point is not just that these particular plates work, but that the code-to-CAD architecture makes the optics recompilable and abstractable, so subsystems can be treated as black boxes in larger experiments.

Load-bearing premise

The whole 'drop-in baseplate' story rests on the assumption that the design rules — all beams at one height, on a 1-inch grid, branching one way — make any baseplate built under them align with any other without rework, a property demonstrated for the specific planar plates in this paper but not for other wavelengths, part sizes, or 3D-routed layouts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same baseplate designs can be recompiled at any wavelength and with different optics sizes, so a laser-cooling subsystem for strontium could be adapted to rubidium or neutral-atom experiments without redesign.
  • Optical subsystems become black boxes with standardized inputs and outputs, enabling hierarchical abstraction like VLSI design; the paper's example recreates a large interferometry layout using for-loops.
  • 3D-printed baseplates let researchers prototype layouts in resin and then machine the same plates in aluminum, reducing iteration time and cost; the paper reports a diode laser at roughly one-fifth the cost of commercial lasers.
  • Because layouts are scripts, hardware designs can be managed with version control and shared as open-source modules, creating a collaborative ecosystem similar to what exists for photonics layout.
  • The demonstrated detection and gate fidelities (99.8% and 99.9%) show the modular system performs at a level adequate for precision AMO and ion-trap quantum-computing applications.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the design conventions (fixed height, 1-inch grid, one-way branching) generalize, the library's value compounds with library size: every new baseplate becomes compatible with every existing one, so the hard part shifts from alignment to component metadata and beam-path logic.
  • The paper only demonstrates planar, low-profile plates; the stated limitation that 3D-printed periscopes cannot stay aligned suggests that whether the drop-in claim extends to 3D-routed layouts is an open, testable question.
  • A testable extension would apply the same code-to-CAD approach to other domains where free-space layouts must be reused across wavelengths, such as compact atomic clocks or photonic packaging, where the bottleneck is similarly layout reconfiguration rather than individual component design.
  • One implicit consequence is that alignment skill is transferred from the laboratory bench into the component library: once a mount's optical center is defined in code, anyone can compile the same layout without hands-on optical training, which could lower the barrier to entry for AMO experiments.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents PyOpticL, an open-source Python library built on FreeCAD for code-to-CAD optical layout. The central idea is beam-path-based dynamic routing: optical elements are placed along beams defined by binary-indexed paths, rather than at fixed coordinates, and layouts can be recompiled with different optics dictionaries. The authors implement modular 'drop-in' baseplates for an ECDL, saturated absorption spectroscopy, and single- and double-pass AOM subsystems, and combine them into a full 422 nm laser system for a trapped 88Sr+ ion. They report Doppler cooling of the ion, 99.8% detection fidelity in 2 ms, Raman Rabi oscillations between Zeeman sublevels, and a claimed 99.9% single-qubit gate fidelity. They also show the same SAS layout compiled at four optical scales in CAD and a rendered large-scale layout inspired by a boson-sampling experiment.

Significance. If the technical claims hold, PyOpticL is a potentially valuable contribution to the open-source AMO and trapped-ion hardware ecosystem. The paper's main strength is an existence proof: a user can write a Python script that generates CAD models of functional optical baseplates, align them with simple conventions, and actually use the resulting laser system to cool, detect, and drive qubit transitions in a trapped ion. The four-scale CAD recompilation and the rendered large-scale layout illustrate the intended abstraction mechanism. The code is freely available, which is a genuine asset for the community. However, the quantitative support for two load-bearing numbers—the 99.8% detection fidelity and the 99.9% gate fidelity—is currently insufficient, and the central 'drop-in' modularity claim is asserted but not measured. These issues do not invalidate the tool, but they need to be addressed before the paper can support its strongest conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Raman Laser for Zeeman qubit gate operations] The claim of 'single-qubit gate fidelity of 99.9%' (Fig. 6c) is a load-bearing quantitative result, but no definition, protocol, or uncertainty is given. The paper does not state the fit function used for the Rabi oscillations, the number of experimental cycles, the Rabi pulse duration, the π-pulse calibration, or whether the quoted number is corrected for state preparation and measurement errors. As written, a reader cannot distinguish a true gate fidelity from the contrast of a sinusoid. Please either provide the complete measurement protocol and statistical error bars, or rephrase the claim as 'Rabi oscillation contrast of 99.9%' rather than 'gate fidelity'.
  2. [Laser cooling and detection] The 99.8% detection fidelity in Fig. 5b is similarly under-specified. The paper reports a single histogram without error bars, without the photon-count threshold used, and without the number of bright and dark measurements. To support the high-fidelity detection claim, please report the full bright/dark distributions, the threshold choice, and a confidence interval on the misclassification probability, or explicitly label the value as a single-run estimate.
  3. [Code-to-CAD: Dynamic Layout and Routing / SI 'Design Conventions'] The central 'drop-in' modularity claim is asserted but never quantitatively demonstrated. The sentence 'We have found that in practice further automatic alignment is not necessary' (Section: Code-to-CAD) is an anecdotal statement; no swap test is reported, and no beam-pointing or fiber-coupling repeatability data are given. The SI design conventions (fixed height, 1-inch grid, one-way branching) are sensible rules that make layouts easier to reason about, but they are not a measurement of interchangeability. The periscope exception in 'Rapid Prototyping with 3D Printing' is an explicit counterexample showing that the conventions do not guarantee physical stability for all components. Please either add a quantitative baseplate-swapping test (e.g., fiber-coupling power or beam position before/after replacement) or revise the abstract and main-text claims to 'can be aligned with only the two input mirrors' instead of 'drop-in without realignment.'
  4. [Dynamic layout along beam path / Fig. 2] The four-scale SAS recompilation in Fig. 2 is a CAD exercise; only the 1/2-inch mounted version was built and tested. The abstract's claim that the baseplates 'can be used for any wavelength' is therefore an extrapolation from a single physical implementation at 422 nm. This is acceptable if clearly framed as a design capability, but the paper should explicitly state which layouts were physically realized and which were rendered only, and should temper the 'any wavelength' wording to 'designed for any wavelength within the component library' pending further demonstrations.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 2] The four configurations (1-inch, 1/2-inch mounted, 1/2-inch unmounted, mini-optics) are not labeled in the figure or caption; adding a legend or text labels would improve readability.
  2. [Fig. 5a] The Doppler scan does not show error bars or the number of repetitions; a short statement about the scan procedure and uncertainty would be helpful.
  3. [Raman Laser for Zeeman qubit gate operations] Please specify the beam geometry (co-propagating or counter-propagating), the measured Raman Rabi frequency, and the pulse length used for the π rotation, since these define the gate that is claimed.
  4. [Introduction / Acknowledgments] The acknowledgments credit the MIT Quanta Lab's C4PO library as an inspiration, but the main text does not compare PyOpticL's capabilities with C4PO. A brief technical comparison would help readers understand what is new beyond the existing OpenSCAD-based approach.
  5. [Rapid Prototyping with 3D Printing] There is a typo in 'perisocopes' (should be 'periscopes') in the paragraph discussing 3D-printed periscope stability.
  6. [Scalable Optical Design] The 'roughly recreate' of the boson-sampling layout in Fig. 7 is not quantitatively described; specifying the number of optical elements, the loop patterns, and any simplifying deviations would make the scalability demonstration more informative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: physical measurements are external to the PyOpticL design tool, and scaling claims are extrapolations rather than derived-from-input predictions.

full rationale

No circularity found. The paper's central physical results—the Doppler cooling scan, 99.8% detection fidelity histogram, 99.9% single-qubit gate fidelity from Raman Rabi oscillations, Rb saturated-absorption peaks, and ECDL frequency-stability measurements—are all measured against independent external references (ion fluorescence, atomic resonances, and a wavemeter). These measurements validate that the laser system works, and they do not depend on PyOpticL's internal assumptions for their truth; PyOpticL is the CAD tool used to generate the layouts, and the success of the built system is a falsifiable external demonstration rather than a restatement of the tool's conventions. The modular 'drop-in' scaling claim is supported by one built system plus CAD recompilations at four scales, and the SI design conventions are asserted rather than systematically stress-tested; that is an extrapolation or correctness risk, not a circular argument. The only self-reference is to the project's own GitHub repository as the software artifact, which is not load-bearing for any measured physical quantity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

PyOpticL is an engineering artifact rather than a theory, so the ledger contains design conventions and modeling assumptions rather than fitted constants. The central results (fidelities) are measured externally. The paper introduces no speculative physical entities.

free parameters (2)
  • Optics scale factors = 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.25
    Chosen by hand in the SI dictionaries (minioptics, halfinchunmounted, halfinchmounted, oneinchmounted) to represent different optic sizes; they determine baseplate dimensions but are not fitted to measurements.
  • Design grid spacing = 1 inch
    A stated design convention (SI Design Conventions) governing all baseplate layouts; the modular compatibility of baseplates depends on this grid, but it is an arbitrary choice.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Simplified geometric beam tracing (reflection, transmission, focal length, diffraction) is sufficient to model optical paths for layout design.
    PyOpticL uses a rule-based path system rather than full ray tracing (Section 'Beam Simulation'); this is adequate for mechanical layout but not for optical performance analysis.
  • domain assumption All beams remain at a fixed height, on a 1-inch grid, with one-way branching, making baseplates drop-in compatible.
    Stated as design conventions in the SI; the modularity claim depends on this assumption holding across different subsystems.
  • domain assumption FreeCAD's Python bindings support efficient parametric redraw at runtime, while OpenSCAD does not (x = x + 1 impossible).
    The choice of FreeCAD as the underlying engine is justified on these grounds in Section 'FreeCAD vs. OpenSCAD'; if this technical comparison were wrong, the architecture would need revisiting.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Qubit operations using a modular optical system engineered with PyOpticL: a code-to-CAD optical layout tool." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OROCXQOV

@misc{pith2026250114957,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Qubit operations using a modular optical system engineered with PyOpticL: a code-to-CAD optical layout tool},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OROCXQOV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14957}
}
read the original abstract

Complex optical design is hindered by conventional piecewise setup, which prevents modularization and therefore abstraction of subsystems at the circuit level. This limits multiple fields that require complex optics systems, including quantum computing with atoms and trapped ions, because their optical systems are not scalable. We present an open-source Python library for optical layout (PyOpticL) which uses beam-path simulation and dynamic beam-path routing for quick and easy optical layout by placing optical elements along the beam path without a priori specification, enabling adaptive, path-based layouts with automatic routing and connectivity. We use PyOpticL to create modular `drop-in' optical baseplates for common optical subsystems used in atomic and molecular optics (AMO) experiments including laser sources, frequency and intensity modulation, and locking to an atomic reference for stabilization. We demonstrate this minimal working example of a dynamic full laser system for strontium trapped ions by using it for laser cooling, qubit state detection, and over 99% fidelity single-qubit gates with 3D printed baseplates. This enables a new paradigm of design abstraction layers for engineering optical systems leveraging modular baseplates, as they can be used for any wavelength in the system and enables scaling up the underlying optical systems for quantum computers. This new open-source hardware and software code-to-CAD library seeks to foster open-source collaborative hardware and systems design across numerous fields of research including AMO physics and quantum computing with neutral atoms and trapped ions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14957 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. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Laser - Extended cavity diode lasers (ECDLs) as a source of narrow linewidth laser light

    work page

  2. [2]

    Laser stabilization - Locking to atomic transi- tions for absolute laser stabilization

    work page

  3. [3]

    Com- monly with ’single-pass’ and ’double-pass’ configu- rations

    Pulse control - Acousto-optical modulators for modulating the laser intensity and frequency. Com- monly with ’single-pass’ and ’double-pass’ configu- rations

    work page

  4. [4]

    Beam delivery - Finally, the light must be deliv- ered to the target trapped ion, atom, sample, etc., with a precisely aligned lens. 6 FIG. 4. Extended cavity diode laser:PyOpticL 422 nm extended Cavity Diode Laser (ECDL) with almost all off-the-shelf components. The only custom part is a 3D printed mount for the grating with a dynamic Littrow angle. Here...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Kulkarni, A

    S. Kulkarni, A. Umi´ nska, J. Gleason, S. Barke, R. Fer- guson, J. Sanju´ an, P. Fulda, and G. Mueller, Applied optics 59, 6999 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Zhang, J

    Z. Zhang, J. Xiang, Y. Meng, W. Ren, S. Deng, and D. L¨ u, Optical Fiber Technology72, 102974 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    S. A. Knappe, H. G. Robinson, and L. Hollberg, Optics express 15, 6293 (2007)

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    Maurice, Z

    V. Maurice, Z. L. Newman, S. Dickerson, M. Rivers, J. Hsiao, P. Greene, M. Mescher, J. Kitching, M. T. Hummon, and C. Johnson, Optics Express 28, 24708 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Strangfeld, S

    A. Strangfeld, S. Kanthak, M. Schiemangk, B. Wiegand, A. Wicht, A. Ling, and M. Krutzik, JOSA B 38, 1885 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    gdsfactory 7.25.2 — gdsfactory,

    “gdsfactory 7.25.2 — gdsfactory,” https://gdsfactory. github.io/gdsfactory/index.html

  3. [11]

    PyOpticL,

    “PyOpticL,” https://github.com/UMassIonTrappers/ PyOpticL

  4. [12]

    FreeCAD: Your own 3D parametric modeler,

    “FreeCAD: Your own 3D parametric modeler,” https: //www.freecad.org/

  5. [13]

    Kasprowicz, P

    G. Kasprowicz, P. Kulik, M. Gaska, T. Przywozki, K. Pozniak, J. Jarosinski, J. W. Britton, T. Harty, C. Balance, W. Zhang, et al., in Quantum 2.0 (Optica Publishing Group, 2020) pp. QTu8B–14

    2020

  6. [14]

    Duke compact Ion Trap System,

    “Duke compact Ion Trap System,” https://euriqa. pratt.duke.edu/research/compact-ion-trap-system

  7. [15]

    Pogorelov, T

    I. Pogorelov, T. Feldker, C. D. Marciniak, L. Postler, G. Jacob, O. Krieglsteiner, V. Podlesnic, M. Meth, V. Negnevitsky, M. Stadler, et al., PRX Quantum 2, 020343 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    R. F. Spivey, I. V. Inlek, Z. Jia, S. Crain, K. Sun, J. Kim, G. Vrijsen, C. Fang, C. Fitzgerald, S. Kross, et al., IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering 3, 1 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    T. Chen, J. Kim, M. Kuzyk, J. Whitlow, S. Phiri, B. Bon- durant, L. Riesebos, K. R. Brown, and J. Kim, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering 3, 1 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Jayich lab ucsb double-pass-breadboard,

    “Jayich lab ucsb double-pass-breadboard,” https:// github.com/Jayich-Lab/double-pass-breadboard

  11. [19]

    Aosense rack laser system,

    “Aosense rack laser system,” https://aosense.com/ products/lasers/rack-laser-system/

  12. [20]

    rack-laser-system,

    “rack-laser-system,” https://www.aqt.eu/rowan/

  13. [21]

    Riegel, W

    J. Riegel, W. Mayer, and Y. van Havre, Freecad- spec2002. pdf (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    OpenSCAD,

    “OpenSCAD,” https://openscad.org

  15. [23]

    Machado, N

    F. Machado, N. Malpica, and S. Borromeo, Plos one 14, e0225795 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Vescent saturated absorption spectroscopy systems,

    “Vescent saturated absorption spectroscopy systems,” https://www.vescent.com/manuals/doku.php?id=d2: spectroscopy_module_210 ()

  17. [25]

    Christ, A

    M. Christ, A. Kassner, R. Smol, A. Bawamia, H. Heine, W. Herr, A. Peters, M. C. Wurz, E. M. Rasel, A. Wicht, et al., CEAS Space Journal 11, 561 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    K¨ urbis, A

    C. K¨ urbis, A. Bawamia, M. Krueger, R. Smol, A. Pe- ters, A. Wicht, and G. Tr¨ ankle, Applied Optics 59, 253 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Madkhaly, L

    S. Madkhaly, L. Coles, C. Morley, C. Colquhoun, T. Fromhold, N. Cooper, and L. Hackerm¨ uller, PRX Quantum 2, 030326 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Christ, C

    M. Christ, C. Zimmermann, S. Neinert, B. Leykauf, K. D¨ oringshoff, and M. Krutzik, arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.10274 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Arnold, J

    A. Arnold, J. Wilson, and M. Boshier, Review of Scien- tific Instruments 69, 1236 (1998)

    1998

  22. [30]

    Hawthorn, K

    C. Hawthorn, K. Weber, and R. E. Scholten, Review of scientific instruments 72, 4477 (2001)

    2001

  23. [31]

    E. C. Cook, P. J. Martin, T. L. Brown-Heft, J. C. Gar- man, and D. A. Steck, Review of Scientific Instruments 83 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    Dutta, D

    S. Dutta, D. Elliott, and Y. P. Chen, Applied Physics B 106, 629 (2012)

    2012

  25. [33]

    S. C. Doret, Review of Scientific Instruments 89 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    E. H. Chang, J. Rivera, B. Bostwick, C. Schneider, P. Yu, E. R. Hudson, H. Collaboration, et al., Review of Scien- tific Instruments 94 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Schkolnik, O

    V. Schkolnik, O. Fartmann, and M. Krutzik, Laser Physics 29, 035802 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Daffurn, R

    A. Daffurn, R. F. Offer, and A. S. Arnold, Applied Optics 60, 5832 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Thorlabs saturated absorption spectroscopy systems,

    “Thorlabs saturated absorption spectroscopy systems,” https://www.thorlabs.com/newgrouppage9.cfm? objectgroup_id=5616 ()

  30. [38]

    Akerman, Trapped ions and free photons, Ph.D

    N. Akerman, Trapped ions and free photons, Ph.D. thesis, The Weizmann Institute of Science (Israel) (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    Madej, L

    A. Madej, L. Marmet, and J. Bernard, Applied Physics B 67, 229 (1998)

    1998

  32. [40]

    Wiegand, B

    B. Wiegand, B. Leykauf, R. J¨ ordens, and M. Krutzik, Review of Scientific Instruments 93 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    K. Jung, K. Yamamoto, Y. Yamamoto, M. Miyabe, I. Wakaida, and S. Hasegawa, Japanese Journal of Ap- plied Physics 56, 062401 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    Ruster, C

    T. Ruster, C. T. Schmiegelow, H. Kaufmann, C. Warschburger, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and U. G. Poschinger, Applied Physics B 122, 254 (2016)

    2016

  35. [43]

    Ozeri, W

    R. Ozeri, W. M. Itano, R. Blakestad, J. Britton, J. Chi- averini, J. D. Jost, C. Langer, D. Leibfried, R. Reichle, S. Seidelin, et al., Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecu- lar, and Optical Physics 75, 042329 (2007). 11

    2007

  36. [44]

    A. J. Olson, S.-J. Wang, R. J. Niffenegger, C.-H. Li, C. H. Greene, and Y. P. Chen, Physical Review A 90, 013616 (2014)

    2014

  37. [45]

    C.-H. Li, C. Qu, R. J. Niffenegger, S.-J. Wang, M. He, D. B. Blasing, A. J. Olson, C. H. Greene, Y. Lyanda- Geller, Q. Zhou, et al., Nature Communications 10, 375 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter, et al., Nature 626, 58 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Zhong, Y.-H

    H.-S. Zhong, Y.-H. Deng, J. Qin, H. Wang, M.-C. Chen, L.-C. Peng, Y.-H. Luo, D. Wu, S.-Q. Gong, H. Su, et al., Physical review letters 127, 180502 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    Cooper, L

    N. Cooper, L. Coles, S. Everton, R. Campion, S. Mad- khaly, C. Morley, W. Evans, R. Saint, P. Kr¨ uger, F. Oruˇ cevi´ c,et al. , arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.07708 (2019). 12 SUPPLEMENT AR Y INFORMA TION Design Conventions Following some conventions (i.e. design rules) helps orga...

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    All beams at a fixed height

  42. [50]

    This ensures that all baseplates are compatible and easily aligned with each other

    All beams along a fixed 1-inch grid. This ensures that all baseplates are compatible and easily aligned with each other. This also eases the conception of optical layout upon fixed ‘cardinal directions’

  43. [51]

    All baseplates branch off the same direction from the main beam (all left or all right) so all outputs into optical fibers are the same direction

    One way branching. All baseplates branch off the same direction from the main beam (all left or all right) so all outputs into optical fibers are the same direction. These conventions are meant to be broken for specific cases, but setting conventions aids in the modularization...

  44. [52]

    Not only were they completely customizable but were often an order of magnitude cheaper than commercial lasers (if commercial options existed at all)

    which needed many narrow linewidth lasers for various atomic transitions and operations such as laser cooling and atomic state preparation and/or repumping. Not only were they completely customizable but were often an order of magnitude cheaper than commercial lasers (if comme...

Pith tools

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