Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Observation of Phase Doubling and Entanglement in Coherent Matter-Wave Reactions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Bose-condensed atoms paired into molecules emerge with twice the atomic phase, and the molecular state is entangled.

desk verdict Strong experimental advance with clean population data, but phase-doubling and Bell-state claims are model-dependent rather than independently measured. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20581 v2 pith:2ULWLVAI submitted 2025-05-26 cond-mat.quant-gas physics.atom-phquant-ph

Shu Nagata , Tadej Meznarsic , Chuixin Kong , Cheng Chin This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-phquant-ph
keywords phasedoublingmatter-wavediffractionBose-EinsteincondensateFeshbachresonancemolecularBECentanglementwitnessspinparityquantummany-bodychemistry
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 experimental evidence that chemical reactions between Bose-condensed atoms and molecules are phase-coherent processes, not incoherent thermodynamic ones. By imprinting a phase on an atomic BEC with a Bragg pulse and then converting the atoms into molecules, the authors extract the molecular wavefunction's phase from momentum-population diffraction and find it doubles the atomic phase, the matter-wave analogue of optical frequency doubling. The same diffraction data show negative spin parity and a positive Bell-state witness, which indicate the two atoms inside a molecule leave the reaction in a non-separable, entangled state close to |Φ+>. If correct, the results establish phase coherence and entanglement generation as measurable signatures of quantum many-body chemistry and open a route to controlling reaction dynamics by manipulating matter-wave phases.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the molecular mean-field wavefunction ψm(x) = Am(γ cos²τ − 2iγ2 sin τ cos τ $e^{{2ik_L x}}$ − γ sin²τ $e^{{4ik_L x}}$) (supplementary Eq. S27), whose momentum components m0, m2, m4 come from pairing atoms with the same momentum and with distinct momenta. This ansatz turns the measured diffraction populations into a phase through cot φm = (√m0 − √m4)/√m2 and into two-atom observables through the parity Czz = m0 − m2 + m4 and the Bell-state witnesses WΦ+ = −2Czz. The underlying physics is the atom-molecule field-mixing Hamiltonian H = γ ψm† ψa² + h.c., whose gauge symmetry predicts the reaction phase φR = 2φa − φm and exact phase doubling at equilibrium.

What would settle it

Find a molecular diffraction pattern in which populations appear in momentum orders beyond 0, 2kL, and 4kL, or in which m0, m2, m4 deviate from the functional forms cos⁴τ, sin²2τ, sin⁴τ with a common τ and normalization; either would break the mean-field inversion and invalidate the extracted φm, Czz, and WΦ+.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that when a phase-modulated atomic BEC is converted into a molecular BEC across a g-wave Feshbach resonance, the molecular matter wave carries the phase φm = 2φa, with a small correction φm − 2φa = −ε sin(4φa) and ε = 0.06(2). The phase is extracted from diffraction populations m0, m2, m4 using cot φm = (√m0 − √m4)/√m2, after the atoms have been Bragg-diffracted with phase φa = Ωa t/2. The same data give spin parity Czz = m0 − m2 + m4, which dips to −0.15(1), and the entanglement witness WΦ+ = 0.29(2) > 0, so the two atoms in the molecular state are non-separable and close to the Bell state |Φ+>. The molecular sum-frequency population m2 oscillates at twice the atomic Rabi frequency, and the measured coupling ratio γ2/γ = 0.82(3) agrees with the off-resonant suppression estimate 0.77(3).

Load-bearing premise

The molecular phase and entanglement conclusions assume the molecular wavefunction has the three-momentum mean-field form of Eq. (S27), so that the measured populations can be converted into a single phase and a two-qubit state.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Spatial coherence of both atomic and molecular BECs is preserved through pairing: Kapitza-Dirac and Bragg diffraction show Rabi oscillations with decoherence rates below 0.2 ms⁻¹, so reaction products inherit the phase of the reactants.
  • The molecular phase follows φm = 2φa over several Rabi cycles, meaning the reaction phase φR = 2φa − φm is locked near zero; the correction term −ε sin(4φa) encodes the momentum dependence of the pairing coupling.
  • A π/2 Bragg pulse on the atoms produces a molecular state with Czz < 0 and WΦ+ > 0, establishing that entanglement is generated by the pairing reaction itself, not only by the initial atomic coherence.
  • The measured ratio γ2/γ = 0.82(3) quantitatively matches the expected suppression of sum-frequency coupling due to the two-recoil detuning, supporting the second-harmonic/sum-frequency wave-mixing model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: because m2 carries a factor g(2), molecular diffraction could serve as a direct matter-wave Hanbury Brown–Twiss probe of second-order correlations in any atomic sample, including non-condensed or strongly correlated gases where g(2) differs from 1.
  • Beyond the paper: the phase-doubling relation suggests that any spatial phase pattern imprinted on the atoms, for example a vortex or an interferometer phase, would appear doubled in the molecular channel; this could be exploited for molecular interferometry with enhanced phase sensitivity.
  • Beyond the paper: near equilibrium the reaction phase is locked at zero, but far from equilibrium the theory predicts φR = ±π/2; the same diffraction technique could test whether ramping the magnetic field can deliberately steer the reaction phase, turning phase measurement into phase control.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experiment on a cesium Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) across a Feshbach resonance, producing a molecular BEC and probing the coherence properties of the resulting atom--molecule system. Using Kapitza--Dirac and Bragg diffraction, the authors verify spatial coherence of both atomic and molecular matter waves. They next imprint a phase pattern on the atomic BEC with a Bragg pulse, convert the atoms to molecules, and extract the molecular phase from the measured momentum populations. They report that the molecular phase evolves as phi_m = 2 phi_a over several Rabi cycles, with a small correction phi_m - 2 phi_a = -epsilon sin(4 phi_a), the matter-wave analogue of optical frequency doubling. They further measure the spin parity C_zz = m0 - m2 + m4, which reaches -0.15(1) < 0, and use this to evaluate entanglement witnesses, concluding that the molecular state is non-separable and resembles the Bell state |Phi+>. The central claims are phase doubling in the synthesis of molecules and entanglement generation during the reaction.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a notable experimental demonstration of coherent many-body reaction dynamics, the matter-wave analogue of second harmonic generation. The paper has several robust features: the measured m2 population amplitude A2 = 0.58(1) exceeds the classical-incoherent bound of 0.5, robustly indicating bosonic enhancement; the m2 population oscillates at twice the atomic Rabi frequency (2 Omega_a) while m0 and m4 oscillate at Omega_a, consistent with the nonlinear field-mixing model; and the negative spin parity C_zz < 0 is a direct, model-independent witness of non-separability for symmetric two-boson states. The manuscript also provides detailed fits and a comprehensive supplementary derivation. The main weakness is that the specific phase-doubling relation and the Bell-state characterization are extracted from the same mean-field molecular wavefunction ansatz, which converts the measured momentum populations into phases and correlators; the populations alone determine only the moduli of the amplitudes, not their relative phases.

major comments (3)
  1. [Main text, 'The molecular diffraction pattern reveals the phase modulation' and Supplementary Eq. (S27), (S32)-(S34)] The molecular phase phi_m is extracted from the measured populations using Eq. (3), cot phi_m = (sqrt(m0) - sqrt(m4))/sqrt(m2). This formula follows only from the assumed momentum-space ansatz psi_m(x) = A_m(gamma cos^2 tau - 2i gamma_2 sin tau cos tau e^{2ik_L x} - gamma sin^2 tau e^{4ik_L x}) with fixed relative phases (0, -pi/2, pi). The measured populations determine only the moduli |psi_m0|, |psi_m2|, and |psi_m4|; a molecular state with the same populations but different relative phases would in general produce a different value of phi_m. The headline claim that 'the molecular phase evolves twice as much as the atomic phase phi_m = 2 phi_a' is therefore a model-based inference rather than a directly measured observable. The paper should state this limitation explicitly and either provide a direct phase-sensitive measurement (e.g., real-space interferometry) or reframe the result as a verification of the mean-field model's predictions, citing the independent support from the population dynamics (m2 at 2 Omega_a, m0 and m4 at Omega_a) and the amplitude A2 = 0.58(1) exceeding the classical-incoherent bound.
  2. [Main text, 'To elucidate the nature of the entanglement' and Supplementary Eqs. (S43)-(S46), (S51)] The negative spin parity C_zz = m0 - m2 + m4 is directly measured and is a robust witness of non-separability for symmetric two-boson states. However, the specific Bell-state witness values, in particular W_Phi+ = -2 C_zz = 0.29(2), and the reconstructed molecular wavefunction in Eq. (S51) depend on the same mean-field ansatz S27. The signs of the cross-correlators C_xx and C_yy in Eqs. (S43)-(S44) are fixed by the assumed relative phases of the momentum components. Thus the assertion that the molecular state 'resembles |Phi+>' is not directly measured but is a consequence of the ansatz. The paper should clearly separate the robust entanglement witness (C_zz < 0) from the model-dependent full state characterization.
  3. [Supplementary Section I.C, 'Additionally, there is a 1% offset...'] The correction factor alpha = (Omega_0 + Omega_4)/(2 Omega_a) = 0.987 is applied to the atomic phase before comparing phi_m to 2 phi_a. If this factor is chosen to bring the molecular and atomic Rabi frequencies into consistency, it has the potential to bias the test of phase doubling toward agreement. The authors should justify this correction with an independent calibration (for example, simultaneous monitoring of the lattice intensity) and show that the phase-doubling conclusion is robust under variations of alpha within its full uncertainty.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Supplementary Eq. (S25)] The equation reads 'm2 = |psi_m0|^2' but should be 'm2 = |psi_m2|^2' based on the context of molecular populations in the three momentum modes.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The expressions 'm0 = cos4 Omega0 t/2, m2 = A2 sin2 Omega2 t/2' should be written as cos^4(Omega_0 t/2), sin^2(Omega_2 t/2), and sin^4(Omega_4 t/2) to avoid ambiguity with arguments of trigonometric functions.
  3. [Main text, 'A closer examination suggests a small nonlinear correction'] The experimental value epsilon = 0.06(2) is compared with the theoretical value epsilon = 0.09(2), with agreement at the ~1.5 sigma level; a brief comment on this discrepancy, given that the theoretical uncertainty is propagated from gamma_2/gamma = 0.82(3), would strengthen the presentation.
  4. [Main text, 'To elucidate the nature of the entanglement'] The Pauli basis mapping (for example, |0> and |2k_L> corresponding to |0> and |1>) is only introduced in the supplementary material; defining it briefly in the main text would make the entanglement witness discussion more self-contained.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The “observed” molecular phase φm and the |Φ+⟩ Bell-state characterization are extracted from populations via the mean-field ansatz S27, whose own algebra yields φm = 2φa; the headline phase-doubling observation partly re-imports the model, though m2 frequency doubling, negative parity Czz, and the gauge-symmetry argument are independent.

  1. self definitional [Main text Eq. (3) and Fig. 4a; Supplementary Eqs. (S27), (S32)-(S34)]
    "Applying Eq. (1), we evaluate the amplitude of the phase modulation according to cot ϕm = (√m0 − √m4)/√m2. (3) ... The molecular phase evolves twice as much as the atomic phase ϕm = 2ϕa over several Rabi cycles, confirming phase doubling during the synthesis of molecules. [Supp. S27:] we model the molecular wavefunction as ψm(x, t) = Am(γ cos²τ − 2iγ2 sin τ cos τ e^{2ik_Lx} − γ sin²τ e^{4ik_Lx})"

    The measured populations m0, m2, m4 determine only the moduli |ψm0|, |ψm2|, |ψm4|. The extraction formula Eq. (3) is not a direct phase measurement; it is derived in the supplement from the mean-field molecular wavefunction ψm(x, t) = Am(γ cos²τ − 2iγ2 sin τ cos τ e^{2ik_Lx} − γ sin²τ e^{4ik_Lx}) (S27), which fixes the unmeasured relative phases (0, −π/2, π) of the momentum components. The same ansatz yields, by algebra, ϕm = cot⁻¹[(γ/γ2) cot 2τ] = 2ϕa − ε sin 4ϕa (S32-S34), the very relation claimed to be observed. Since the population data were already matched to the model’s squared amplitudes (S29-S31), feeding them into Eq. (3) reproduces the model’s phase identity; the relative phases constituting the phase-doubling claim are never independently measured.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Main text Eq. (4) and the paragraph on nonlinear correction; Supplementary Eqs. (S29)-(S31)]
    "The correction comes from the imbalance of the SFG and SHG coupling strengths γ2 ≠ γ, and is predicted to be [32] ϕm − 2ϕa = −ϵ sin 4ϕa + O(ϵ²), (4) where we obtain ϵ = 0.06(2) from the fit to the data in Fig. 4a, which is in agreement with the theoretical value of ϵ = 1/2 (1 − γ2/γ) ≈ 0.09(2)."

    The “theoretical value” ε = (1/2)(1 − γ2/γ) is computed from γ2/γ = 0.82(3), which was itself obtained by fitting the same molecular population data (m2(τ = π/4) = γ2²/(γ2² + γ²/2) = 0.58(1), Eqs. S29-S31). The “observed” ε = 0.06(2) is extracted from the residual of ϕm − 2ϕa, where ϕm was itself computed via Eq. (3)/S32, an identity within the same ansatz. Both values are functions of the same dataset and the same model, so their agreement is an internal consistency check rather than an independent prediction of the correction to phase doubling.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self definitional [Main text paragraph “The phase doubling experiment also reveals entanglement generation...”; Supplementary Eqs. (S43)-(S46)]
    "A positive value of WΦ+ = −2Czz = 0.29(2) and negative values for all other witnesses indicates that the state resembles the Bell state |Φ+⟩. From the witnesses, we reconstruct the molecular wavefunction after a π/2-pulse |ψm⟩ = 1/2√(2 − WΦ+) |Ψ−⟩ − i/2√(2 + WΦ+) |Φ+⟩."

    The directly measured quantity is the spin parity Czz = m0 − m2 + m4, and Czz = −0.15(1) < 0 does rigorously demonstrate non-separability against the product-state bound (0 ≤ Czz ≤ 1) proven in Eqs. (S39)-(S41); that part is not circular. However, the reported witness values (Cxx = m2 − 2√m0m4, Cyy = m2 + 2√m0m4, WΦ+ = 3m2 − m0 − m4 − 1 = −2Czz) are evaluated in Eqs. (S43)-(S46) “for the molecular wavefunction in Eqs. (S27-S31)”, i.e., from the ansatz’s specific relative phases, and Cxx, Cyy are not otherwise measured. The conclusion that the state “resembles |Φ+⟩” therefore re-imports the ansatz; a molecular state with the same populations m0, m2, m4 but different relative phases would give different witnesses and a different Bell-state identification.

full rationale

The headline claim—the observation of phase doubling φm = 2φa—rests on three supports: (i) the gauge-symmetry argument for the Feshbach Hamiltonian (independent theory), (ii) the raw population oscillations with m0 and m4 at Ωa and m2 at 2Ωa (direct data), and (iii) the extracted molecular phase curve φm(φa) in Fig. 4a. Support (iii) is the circular step. Eq. (3), used to extract φm from the measured populations, is derived in the supplementary from the mean-field ansatz S27, whose algebra (S32-S34) already contains the claimed relation φm = 2φa − ε sin 4φa. The populations determine only the moduli; the relative phases giving the anti-node phase φm are assumed, not measured. The “observed” ε = 0.06(2) and its “theoretical value” ε = (1/2)(1 − γ2/γ) ≈ 0.09(2) are both functions of the same dataset and the same ansatz (γ2/γ = 0.82(3) is fitted from A2 = 0.58(1)), so the agreement is internal consistency. The entanglement claim has a non-circular core: Czz = m0 − m2 + m4 = −0.15(1) < 0 directly rules out separable states of two identical bosons (bound proven in the paper’s Eqs. S39-S41), and the doubling of the m2 oscillation frequency is raw data. However, the “state resembles |Φ+⟩” conclusion follows from WΦ+ = −2Czz evaluated via the ansatz’s Cxx, Cyy (S43-S46); the theoretical witness (S50) also uses the fitted γ2/γ, so the Bell-state characterization is model-mediated. Self-citations ([26], [31], [44]) supply experimental capabilities and parameters (molecular BEC preparation, Feshbach resonance width) but are not load-bearing for the central derivation, and no uniqueness theorems are imported. Because the central quantitative phase-doubling observation reduces in part by construction to the ansatz, while real independent evidence (frequency doubling, parity non-separability, gauge symmetry) exists, the appropriate verdict is partial circularity (score 6).

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the standard Feshbach-coupling Hamiltonian, the coherent-state mean-field approximation, and a specific molecular wavefunction ansatz used to map measured populations to phases and witness values. No new physical entities are introduced. Several parameters (gamma_2/gamma, epsilon, A2, alpha) are fitted to data and appear in the model predictions, so the phase doubling is a consistency test of the model rather than a parameter-free prediction.

free parameters (4)
  • gamma_2/gamma (sum-frequency to SHG coupling ratio) = 0.82(3)
    Inferred from the maximum m2 population A2 = 0.58(1) via Eq. (S31). Enters the predicted deviation from exact phase doubling, epsilon = (1 - gamma_2/gamma)/2.
  • epsilon (phase-doubling correction coefficient) = 0.06(2)
    Fitted from the deviation of phi_m from 2 phi_a in Fig. 4a. The theoretical expectation from gamma_2/gamma is 0.09(2), so the fit and theory agree within about 1.5 sigma.
  • A2 (amplitude of the m2 molecular population oscillation) = 0.58(1)
    Fitted from the k = 2k_L molecular population in Fig. 3c. Its value above 0.5 is the direct evidence for bosonic enhancement and feeds the entanglement witness W_Phi+.
  • alpha (atomic phase correction factor) = 0.987
    Applied to the atomic phase to compensate a 1% lattice intensity drift between atomic and molecular measurements (supplementary section IC). Not derived from first principles.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The reactive coupling is the two-body Feshbach Hamiltonian H_2 = h-bar gamma psi_m^dagger psi_a^2 + H.c. (supplementary Eq. S13).
    All reaction dynamics in the paper are derived from this Hamiltonian; three-body coupling and losses are neglected.
  • domain assumption Atomic and molecular fields can be described as coherent states psi_a = sqrt(N) e^{i phi_a}, psi_m = sqrt(M) e^{i phi_m} with large populations.
    Used in supplementary section III to derive the reaction-phase equation and in section V for the molecular wavefunction ansatz.
  • domain assumption After the Feshbach sweep, the molecular wavefunction has the mean-field form psi_m(x) = A_m(gamma cos^2 tau - 2i gamma_2 sin tau cos tau e^{2ik_L x} - gamma sin^2 tau e^{4ik_L x}) (Eq. S27).
    This is the central modeling assumption that converts measured momentum populations into molecular phase and entanglement witnesses.
  • domain assumption The atomic second-order correlation function is g(2) = 1 for the BEC (Eq. S23).
    Used to factorize the four-operator correlation <a_0^dagger a_2^dagger a_2 a_0> into products of populations; standard for a coherent state but not independently measured here.
  • standard math For two-atom product states, the parity Czz and entanglement witnesses satisfy 0 <= Czz <= 1 and W <= 0 (supplementary section VI).
    Standard quantum-information inequalities for two-qubit systems; used to interpret the measured parity and witnesses.
  • domain assumption Blowing away unpaired atoms and dissociating molecules for imaging does not alter the molecular momentum distribution.
    The measured m0, m2, m4 are assumed to faithfully represent the molecular state after the Feshbach sweep; any state-changing effect of the blow-away or imaging pulses would bias the parity and witnesses.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observation of Phase Doubling and Entanglement in Coherent Matter-Wave Reactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2ULWLVAI

@misc{pith2026250520581,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observation of Phase Doubling and Entanglement in Coherent Matter-Wave Reactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2ULWLVAI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20581}
}
read the original abstract

Chemical reactions in a statistical ensemble are conventionally regarded as incoherent processes driven by thermodynamics. In the quantum degenerate regime, where atoms and molecules form coherent matter waves, reactions are theoretically described by nonlinear mixing of matter-wave fields. In this scenario, we expect phase matching between reactants and products, analogous to the mixing of photonic fields in nonlinear optics. Here we report on the observation of phase coherent reaction dynamics of Bose-condensed atoms and molecules near a Feshbach resonance. Using matter-wave diffraction with optical lattices, we verify spatial coherence of both atoms and molecules and observe phase doubling when atomic waves combine into molecular waves, the matter-wave analogue of optical frequency doubling. The diffraction patterns further reveal two-atom entanglement generated during the reaction. Our observations establish phase coherence and entanglement generation as two essential features of "quantum many-body chemistry". Moreover, our work opens a pathway to control of reaction dynamics by manipulation of matter-wave phases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.20581 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_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 (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Nishimura, H

    Broglie, L. & Nishimura, H. Research on the theory of quanta (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    & Germer, L

    Davisson, C. & Germer, L. H. Diffraction of Electrons by a Crystal of Nickel. Physical Review 30, 705–740 (1927)

    work page 1927

  3. [3]

    & Stern, O

    Estermann, I. & Stern, O. Beugung von Moleku- larstrahlen. Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik61, 95–125 (1930)

    work page 1930

  4. [4]

    H., V. H. Preuve Experimentale de la Diffraction des Neutrons. Acad. Sci. Paris 203, 73–75 (1936)

    work page 1936

  5. [5]

    Brand, C. et al. Bragg Diffraction of Large Organic Molecules. Physical Review Letters 125, 033604 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Physical Principles of Electron Microscopy (Springer International Publishing, 2016)

    Egerton, R. Physical Principles of Electron Microscopy (Springer International Publishing, 2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Greenberger, D. M. The neutron interferometer as a de- vice for illustrating the strange behavior of quantum sys- tems. Reviews of Modern Physics 55, 875–905 (1983)

    work page 1983

  8. [8]

    Bongs, K. et al. Taking atom interferometric quantum sensors from the laboratory to real-world applications. Nature Reviews Physics 1, 731–739 (2019). 6

    work page 2019

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    & Cappellaro, P

    Degen, C., Reinhard, F. & Cappellaro, P. Quantum sens- ing. Reviews of Modern Physics 89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    Stray, B. et al. Quantum sensing for gravity cartography. Nature 602, 590–594 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Langen, T., Valtolina, G., Wang, D. & Ye, J. Quantum state manipulation and cooling of ultracold molecules. Nature Physics 20, 702–712 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    W., Yan, Z

    Park, J. W., Yan, Z. Z., Loh, H., Will, S. A. & Zwierlein, M. W. Second-scale nuclear spin coherence time of ultra- cold 23Na40K molecules. Science 357, 372–375 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    Zhou, Y. et al. Second-scale coherence measured at the quantum projection noise limit with hundreds of molec- ular ions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 053201 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Burchesky, S. et al. Rotational Coherence Times of Polar Molecules in Optical Tweezers. Physical Review Letters 127, 123202 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    M., Lu, Y

    Holland, C. M., Lu, Y. & Cheuk, L. W. On-demand entanglement of molecules in a reconfigurable optical tweezer array. Science 382, 1143–1147 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Bao, Y. et al. Dipolar spin-exchange and entanglement between molecules in an optical tweezer array. Science 382, 1138–1143 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    K., Hepworth, T

    Ruttley, D. K., Hepworth, T. R., Guttridge, A. & Cor- nish, S. L. Long-lived entanglement of molecules in magic-wavelength optical tweezers. Nature 637, 827–832 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    L., Tarbutt, M

    Cornish, S. L., Tarbutt, M. R. & Hazzard, K. R. A. Quantum computation and quantum simulation with ul- tracold molecules. Nature Physics 20, 730–740 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    & Schmied- mayer, J

    Li, C., Liang, Q., Paranjape, P., Wu, R. & Schmied- mayer, J. Matter-wave interferometers with trapped strongly interacting Feshbach molecules. Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 023217 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    L., Rey, A

    Bohn, J. L., Rey, A. M. & Ye, J. Cold molecules: Progress in quantum engineering of chemistry and quantum mat- ter. Science 357, 1002–1010 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Croft, J. F. E. et al. Universality and chaoticity in ul- tracold K+KRb chemical reactions. Nature Communica- tions 8 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    K., Paintner, T., Limmer, W., Petrov, D

    Hoffmann, D. K., Paintner, T., Limmer, W., Petrov, D. S. & Denschlag, J. H. Reaction kinetics of ultracold molecule-molecule collisions. Nature Communications 9 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Chen, X.-Y. et al. Ultracold field-linked tetratomic molecules. Nature 626, 283–287 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Liu, Y.-X. et al. Quantum interference in atom-exchange reactions. Science 384, 1117–1121 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Martins, F. B. V., Schmutz, H., Agner, J. A., Zhelyazkova, V. & Merkt, F. Microwave-Controlled Cold Chemistry. Physical Review Letters 134, 123401 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    & Chin, C

    Zhang, Z., Chen, L., Yao, K.-X. & Chin, C. Transition from an atomic to a molecular Bose–Einstein condensate. Nature 592, 708–711 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Bigagli, N. et al. Observation of Bose–Einstein conden- sation of dipolar molecules. Nature 631, 289–293 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Moore, M. G. & Vardi, A. Bose-Enhanced Chemistry: Amplification of Selectivity in the Dissociation of Molec- ular Bose-Einstein Condensates. Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 160402 (2002)

    2002

  21. [29]

    K., Chernyak, V

    Malla, R. K., Chernyak, V. Y., Sun, C. & Sinitsyn, N. A. Coherent Reaction between Molecular and Atomic Bose–Einstein Condensates: Integrable Model. Physical Review Letters 129, 033201 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    J., Wynar, R., Drummond, P

    Heinzen, D. J., Wynar, R., Drummond, P. D. & Kheruntsyan, K. V. Superchemistry: Dynamics of Cou- pled Atomic and Molecular Bose–Einstein Condensates. Physical Review Letters 84, 5029–5033 (2000)

    2000

  23. [31]

    & Chin, C

    Zhang, Z., Nagata, S., Yao, K.-X. & Chin, C. Many-body chemical reactions in a quantum degenerate gas. Nature Physics 19, 1466–1470 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    See supplementary materials

  25. [33]

    Quantum theory of second harmonic gener- ation

    Agarwal, G. Quantum theory of second harmonic gener- ation. Optics Communications 1, 132–134 (1969)

    1969

  26. [34]

    & Tiesinga, E

    Chin, C., Grimm, R., Julienne, P. & Tiesinga, E. Fes- hbach resonances in ultracold gases. Reviews of Modern Physics 82, 1225–1286 (2010)

    2010

  27. [35]

    & Ling, A

    Anwar, A., Perumangatt, C., Steinlechner, F., Jen- newein, T. & Ling, A. Entangled photon-pair sources based on three-wave mixing in bulk crystals. Review of Scientific Instruments 92 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    & Illuminati, F

    Dell’Anno, F., De Siena, S. & Illuminati, F. Multiphoton quantum optics and quantum state engineering. Physics Reports 428, 53–168 (2006)

    2006

  29. [37]

    & Illuminati, F

    Adesso, G. & Illuminati, F. Entanglement in continuous- variable systems: recent advances and current perspec- tives. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoreti- cal 40, 7821–7880 (2007)

    2007

  30. [38]

    Poulsen, U. V. & Mølmer, K. Quantum states of bose- einstein condensates formed by molecular dissociation. Physical Review A 63, 023604 (2001)

    2001

  31. [39]

    Sackett, C. A. et al. Experimental entanglement of four particles. Nature 404, 256–259 (2000)

    2000

  32. [40]

    & Lewenstein, M

    Hyllus, P., G¨ uhne, O., Bruß, D. & Lewenstein, M. Rela- tions between entanglement witnesses and bell inequali- ties. Physical Review A 72, 012321 (2005)

    2005

  33. [41]

    & Search, C

    Meiser, D., Meystre, P. & Search, C. P. Molecule forma- tion as a diagnostic tool for second-order correlations of ultracold gases. Physical Review A 71, 033621 (2005)

    2005

  34. [42]

    & Ovchinnikov, Y

    Grimm, R., Weidem¨ uller, M. & Ovchinnikov, Y. B. Opti- cal Dipole Traps for Neutral Atoms. vol. 42 of Advances In Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics , 95–170 (Aca- demic Press, 2000)

    2000

  35. [43]

    Rafac, R. J. & Tanner, C. E. Measurement of the ratio of the cesium d-line transition strengths. Phys. Rev. A 58, 1087–1097 (1998)

    1998

  36. [44]

    Coherent Dynamics and Reactions in Atomic and Molecular Bose-Einstein Condensates

    Zhang, Z. Coherent Dynamics and Reactions in Atomic and Molecular Bose-Einstein Condensates . Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago (2022). 1 Supplementary Material I. METHODS A. Preparation of atomic and molecular BECs Our experiment starts with 120 , 000 Bose-condensed 133Cs a...

    2022

  37. [45]

    (S19) In our experiment, the Bragg pulse resonantly couples two atoms with identical momentum k to a molecule with momentum 2k

    + H.c.. (S19) In our experiment, the Bragg pulse resonantly couples two atoms with identical momentum k to a molecule with momentum 2k. However, coupling two atoms with momenta 0 and 2 kL into a molecule, described by m† 2a0a2, is an off-resonant process with detuning ℏ∆ = 2ER...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.