Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Theory of itinerant collisional spin dynamics in nondegenerate molecular gases

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In ultracold molecular gases, losing the right molecules can preserve spin coherence, and shielded strongly dipolar species can natively realize U(1)-conserving random quantum circuits.

desk verdict A genuinely new spin-decoherence mechanism and a concrete shielding prediction, wrapped around a solid quasi-2D scattering model; the quantitative core leans on one fitted loss parameter that deserves a sensitivity check. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21896 v2 pith:73EPR5WL submitted 2025-05-28 cond-mat.quant-gas cond-mat.dis-nnphysics.atom-phquant-ph

Reuben R. W. Wang , John L. Bohn This is my paper
classification cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.dis-nnphysics.atom-phquant-ph
keywords ultracoldpolarmoleculesitinerantspindynamicsRamseyspectroscopycollisionaldecoherenceloss-inducedquantumautoselectionconfinement-inducedshieldingrandomcircuitsquasi-2Ddipolarscattering
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 claims that in a dilute, ultracold but nondegenerate gas of polar molecules, collisions that remove molecules from the trap can simultaneously protect the spin coherence of the molecules that remain. The mechanism turns on particle-exchange symmetry: identical fermions reach the lossy short-range channel only through the antisymmetric singlet spin component, so the molecules that have been entangled and decohered in an earlier collision are exactly the ones preferentially lost. The paper shows that this 'loss-induced quantum autoselection' reproduces the measured Ramsey contrast decay of quasi-2D confined KRb molecules, including the stretched-exponential shape and the near halt of decay at a special electric field. It then predicts that more strongly dipolar bialkali molecules, tightly confined and polarized at high electric field, can be shielded from loss in every collision channel, turning the gas into a native unitary quantum circuit with random all-to-all connectivity and a conserved charge.

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-molecule scattering S-matrix written in a symmetrized basis of three triplet states and one singlet Bell state. Elastic dipolar collisions give each channel a real scattering phase shift; short-range loss in the singlet channel is encoded as an imaginary s-wave phase shift $i\eta_s$, with $\eta_s = 0.05$ calibrated to the experimental number-loss rate. The key identity decomposes $S$ into two-site Pauli operators, $S = (g_0/4)I + (g_1/4)\sigma_Z\otimes\sigma_Z + (g_2/4)(\sigma_X\otimes\sigma_X+\sigma_Y\otimes\sigma_Y+\sigma_Z\otimes\sigma_Z)$. At the electric field where the direct and exchange phase shifts coincide, $g_1$ vanishes and the two-molecule triplet sector becomes an eigenstate of the collision operator, a decoherence-free subspace. From this S-matrix the paper constructs Kraus operators for single-molecule collisions, so a Markovian Monte Carlo simulation can follow both spin decoherence and loss; the same collision map is later converted into a continuous-time effective Hamiltonian that looks like a Brownian random circuit.

What would settle it

Run a Ramsey contrast and number-loss measurement on the same quasi-2D molecular cloud at several temperatures and electric fields, and extract the singlet-channel loss probability from the loss rate; if the inferred imaginary phase shift departs from the fitted value 0.05 when collision energy or field changes in a regime the model claims not to matter, the autoselection picture fails. Alternatively, measure the s-wave loss probability for NaK at about 16 kV/cm and collision energy near 100 nK with axial confinement near $2\pi\times 20$ kHz; a value substantially above the predicted roughly ten percent would falsify the all-channel shielding claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central discovery is that molecular loss, instead of being a purely decohering process, can act as a post-selection that keeps the ensemble coherent. A first collision splits the two-molecule spin state into triplet and singlet sectors; because the molecules are identical fermions, only the singlet sector can reach short range and be lost, and that sector is precisely the component carrying the entanglement generated in earlier collisions. Removing it therefore suppresses the collective Ramsey contrast decay at long times. The same scattering description yields a 'Heisenberg point' in the applied electric field where the direct and exchange dipole phase shifts coincide, making the whole triplet sector a decoherence-free subspace. For more strongly dipolar species such as NaK, the paper argues that electric-field-tunable confinement-induced shielding creates repulsive barriers in the singlet channel as well, so loss can be suppressed below roughly ten percent, and coherent spin-mixing dynamics natively realize U(1)-conserving random circuits.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the singlet-channel loss can be summarized by one fixed loss probability per collision, the value fitted to the measured number-loss rate; if the true loss probability depends strongly on collision energy, electric field, or partial wave, the predicted long-time coherence and the shielding benefit would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, the Ramsey contrast of a quasi-2D molecular gas should decay as a stretched exponential whose density-normalized rate follows the measured electric-field trend, including the halt near the Heisenberg point.
  • The loss-induced autoselection mechanism implies that increasing the singlet-channel loss rate does not always accelerate decoherence; past a threshold it can lengthen coherence by preferentially removing decohered molecules.
  • For strongly dipolar bialkali molecules with tight axial confinement and high electric field, all-channel shielding implies that a gas can be kept collisionally stable for coherent spin mixing at temperatures where a KRb gas would suffer rapid loss.
  • A stable nondegenerate molecular gas should behave as a random unitary circuit with all-to-all connectivity and U(1) charge conservation, with an effective Hamiltonian of Brownian-circuit form whose couplings are set by collision rates.
  • Tuning density changes the Knudsen number and therefore the spatial connectivity of the circuit, from highly nonlocal in dilute samples to more local in hydrodynamic samples, giving an experimental knob for studying operator spreading and scrambling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The autoselection logic suggests a general strategy: deliberately engineer which entangled components are lost so that the surviving ensemble is purified, potentially preparing more pure or spin-squeezed many-body states without measurement post-selection.
  • The single-imaginary-phase-shift fit implies a quantitative prediction that the loss probability per singlet collision is roughly 20% and independent of collision energy; a state-resolved measurement of loss as a function of energy would either extend or break the model.
  • The same particle-exchange symmetry argument should apply to other identical fermionic molecules, and the paper's all-channel shielding condition gives a concrete electric-field threshold to test in NaK and other bialkalis.
  • Because the circuit model becomes non-Markovian when molecules re-collide with old partners, the paper's 95% uniqueness check sets a boundary at higher densities or lower temperatures where memory corrections would enter and the predicted Brownian-circuit behavior would need modification.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a mixed quantum-classical theory of itinerant collisional spin dynamics in quasi-2D nondegenerate polar molecules, with the pseudospin encoded in two electric-field-dressed rotational states. It derives analytic elastic scattering phase shifts and a diagonal-but-nonunitary S-matrix in the singlet/triplet basis, constructs Kraus-operator collision maps, and simulates many-body Ramsey contrast decay with a direct-simulation Monte Carlo method. The central quantitative comparison is the density-normalized decay rate κ(E) against the recent JILA KRb experiment (Fig. 5), which shows good agreement at low-to-moderate fields and a Heisenberg point around E ≈ 6.5 kV/cm. The authors introduce 'loss-induced quantum autoselection' to explain the stretched-exponential contrast decay at long times, attributing it to singlet-channel loss that post-selects less-decohered molecules. They then predict that strongly dipolar bialkalis such as NaK can achieve all-channel collisional shielding in quasi-2D confinement, enabling coherent spin-mixing dynamics that map onto random unitary circuits with U(1) symmetry.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this work establishes ultracold nondegenerate molecular gases as a platform for coherent many-body spin physics and connects molecular collisions to random-circuit and scrambling phenomenology. Strengths include the analytic Born-approximation phase shifts validated against close-coupling calculations (Fig. 3), the explicit Kraus/collision-map structure, the Monte Carlo methodology, and the concrete falsifiable prediction of s-wave shielding for NaK (Fig. 8). The paper is also candid about several limitations: negative experimental κ values are not reproduced, the interlayer explanation is acknowledged as inconclusive, and the NaK shielding threshold is a conjecture. The main weakness is that one load-bearing parameter, the imaginary singlet phase shift η_s = 0.05, is fitted to the experimental loss rate of the same dataset used for validation, so the degree of independent confirmation is partial.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV A 1, Eqs. (30)-(31)] The imaginary s-wave phase shift η_s = 0.05 is fitted to the experimental number-loss rate of the JILA-KRb dataset whose Ramsey contrast is then compared with the theory, and this parameter directly controls the inelastic rate (31), the loss probability (32), and the autoselection dynamics in Fig. 6. Because the singlet channel is attractive and barrierless, the fraction of collisions that reach the short-range absorbing region can in principle depend on collision energy, electric field, or partial wave, so an energy- and field-independent η_s is a load-bearing assumption. The manuscript should either justify this independence microscopically (e.g., via a universal-loss threshold argument for quasi-2D s-waves) or provide a sensitivity study showing that the κ(E) curve and the ζ = 0.669 vs 1.06 comparison in Fig. 6 are stable under plausible variations of η_s.
  2. [Sec. IV B, Fig. 5] The claimed quantitative agreement with experiment is incomplete: at the higher fields (E = 10 and 12.7 kV/cm) the measured κ is negative while the model remains positive, and the authors attribute this to interlayer dipolar interactions. Their own estimate in App. C, however, gives an interlayer dephasing rate roughly 30 times smaller than the intralayer decay rate and is described as inconclusive. This leaves a missing density-dependent decoherence channel in the model; the authors should either identify and model such a channel or explicitly restrict the validation claim to the field range where agreement holds and frame the high-field comparison as qualitative.
  3. [Sec. V A, Fig. 8] The prediction of all-channel confinement-induced shielding for NaK and the threshold d0E/Brot > 6 rest on modeling short-range loss by a universal absorbing boundary, with the loss probability (46) computed from this boundary. The sensitivity of P_loss to the absorbing-boundary model, to collision energy, and to the partial-wave content of the singlet channel is not explored, so the 'near complete suppression' claim is currently an unverified two-body extrapolation. The authors should state this limitation explicitly and, if possible, test at least one alternative short-range boundary condition to show that the qualitative shielding threshold is robust.
  4. [Sec. V B, Eq. (51)] The mapping to Brownian quantum circuits and the claim of random all-to-all connectivity are formal: the effective Hamiltonian (51) is derived under ergodic-motion and dilute-gas assumptions, but the paper does not quantify how the connectivity distribution depends on density or Knudsen number, nor does it provide a numerical demonstration of the claimed circuit regime. Since this is a central forward-looking claim, a quantitative criterion or a small numerical example would make the proposal more concrete and falsifiable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References] Reference [72] contains the placeholder 'cite Nielson and Chuang'; this should be completed before publication.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, e.g., 'Heiseinberg' for Heisenberg, 'inolves' for involves, 'affectation' for effect, and 'simplicitly' for simplicity; a careful proofread is needed.
  3. [Fig. 2] In subplot (b), the singlet and triplet exchange curves are distinguished only by color and legend text; using different line styles as well would improve readability, especially for printed versions.
  4. [Sec. V B] The text calls the dynamics a 'Brownian quantum circuit' while also noting that the U(1) symmetry prevents the coupling coefficients from being genuine white noise; the terminology should be qualified to avoid overstating the randomness of the circuit.
  5. [Sec. IV A 2] The term 'autoselection' is used for what is effectively a post-selection of surviving molecules; a sentence defining this term and relating it to standard post-selection would help readers not familiar with the authors' terminology.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity; the one fitted parameter (η_s=0.05) is calibrated to the number-loss rate and does not determine the central predictions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: elastic scattering phase shifts are computed from first-principles dipole moments via the Born approximation (Eq. 18) and checked against numerical scattering (Fig. 3). The only empirical input is the imaginary singlet phase shift η_s=0.05, fixed by comparison with the experimental number-loss rate (Sec. IV A 1, Eq. 31). This parameter affects the magnitude of singlet loss, but the central quantitative outputs are not forced by it: the analytic κ(E) curve (Eq. 43) is independent of η_s; the Heisenberg point is set by δ_↕=δ_Ψ+; and the NaK all-channel shielding prediction (Fig. 8) uses a universal absorbing boundary rather than η_s. The autoselection mechanism is a derived consequence of singlet loss preferentially removing the |Ψ−⟩ component that carries decoherence (Eq. 45, Sec. IV B); it is not equivalent to the input by construction, since the time-dependent contrast shape (ζ=0.669 vs 1.06) is an output of the Monte Carlo simulation, not a restatement of η_s. The KRb benchmark is an external experiment (Ref. [19]) whose authors overlap with the present paper, but that is empirical data rather than an unverified theoretical citation, so it does not constitute load-bearing self-citation. The paper also includes explicit limitation statements (the interlayer estimate is 'currently inconclusive', App. C; the Floquet discrepancy 'remains unclear', Sec. IV A 2; the all-channel shielding criterion is a 'conjecture', Sec. V A), which are validation gaps rather than circular steps. No predicted quantity reduces to a fitted value or a self-referential definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on several standard scattering and kinetic approximations, plus one fitted parameter (eta_s) and one pulse-averaging assumption (d_updown) that are load-bearing for the central mechanism.

free parameters (1)
  • eta_s (imaginary s-wave phase shift) = 0.05
    Fitted to reproduce experimental number-loss rates in JILA-KRb; controls singlet-channel loss probability via Eq. (31) and underpins the autoselection mechanism.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Born approximation is valid for close-to-threshold quasi-2D dipolar scattering because colliders see only the long-range potential tail.
    Used throughout Sec. III B to derive analytic phase shifts and cross sections; validated against numerical scattering in Fig. 3 for a single field and energy point.
  • domain assumption External molecular motion can be treated classically via the truncated Wigner approximation, with spins evolving quantum mechanically between instantaneous collisions.
    Sec. IV; this adiabatic separation is essential for the mixed quantum-classical Monte Carlo scheme.
  • domain assumption The gas is Markovian: collision partners are almost always new, so one-body density matrices and per-collision Kraus maps suffice.
    Sec. IV A and App. B; supported by simulation showing >95% unique partners.
  • domain assumption All short-range inelastic events can be represented by an absorbing boundary condition, with no need to model the short-range chemistry.
    Sec. III B; this is how loss enters the S-matrix, combined with the fitted eta_s.
  • domain assumption Only M=0 dressed rotational states are populated, and the system is frozen in the ground axial harmonic state.
    Sec. II; justifies the effective spin-1/2 and quasi-2D reduction.
  • domain assumption The KDD pulse sequence effectively time-averages the direct-channel dipole moments, so that a single averaged dipole length d_updown applies to both |down down> and |up up>.
    Sec. III B, Eq. (13); without this the Heisenberg point and the decoherence-free subspace vanish (compare Eq. (44) and the dotted green curve in Fig. 5).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Theory of itinerant collisional spin dynamics in nondegenerate molecular gases." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/73EPR5WL

@misc{pith2026250521896,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Theory of itinerant collisional spin dynamics in nondegenerate molecular gases},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/73EPR5WL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21896}
}
abstract

We study the fully itinerant dynamics of ultracold but nondegenerate polar molecules with a spin-$1/2$ degree of freedom encoded into two of their electric field dressed rotational states. Center of mass molecular motion is constrained to two-dimensions via tight confinement with a one-dimensional optical lattice, but remains mostly unconstrained within the plane. The pseudospins can become entangled through ultracold dipolar collisions, for which the locality of interactions is greatly relaxed by free molecular motion. At the level of single-molecule observables, collision-induced entanglement manifests as spin decoherence, for which our theoretical calculations serve well to describe recent Ramsey contrast measurements of quasi-2D confined KRb molecules at JILA [A. Carroll et al., Science 388 6745 (2025)]. In presenting a more detailed theoretical analysis of the KRb experiment, we highlight a key finding that molecular loss enhanced by particle exchange symmetry can lead to a suppression of collective spin decoherence, a mechanism with refer to as ``loss-induced quantum autoselection". We then show that by utilizing bialkali species with sufficiently large dipole moments, loss can be near completely suppressed in all collision channels via electric field tunable confinement-induced collisional shielding. The afforded collisional stability permits fully coherent spin mixing dynamics, natively realizing unitary circuit dynamics with random all-to-all connectivity and U(1) charge conservation. This work establishes a bridge between the domains of ultracold molecular collisions and many-body spin physics, ultimately proposing the use of nondegenerate bulk molecular gases as a controllable platform for nonequilibrium explorations of itinerant quantum matter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21896 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) The dressed state energies of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The quasi-2D adiabatic curves in the (a) direct and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Ratio of the direct and triplet exchange integral [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Direct interacting differential cross section, normal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Density normalized contrast decay rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Contrast decay as a function of time from Monte [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Singlet-channel loss probability as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Lowest adiabatic potential energy curves for singlet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Equivalent quantum circuit representations of itin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Probability that a collision partner was previously [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Experiments with interacting ultracold polar molecules

    physics.atom-ph 2026-07 unverdicted

    A book chapter reviews the experimental milestones in ultracold polar molecules: from collisional control to quantum degeneracy and molecular entanglement.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

134 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The molecules then undergo classical motion in phase space, progressing forward in discrete time steps of ∆tvia St¨ ormer-Verlet symplectic integration [64]

    Monte Carlo simulations In our mixed quantum-classical treatment of Marko- vian spin dynamics, the simulation commences by taking W[q(0),q(0)] to be a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, and approximating it with discrete phase space points sampled from it: W[q(0),q(0)]≈ NmolX i=1 δ2(q−q i)δ2(p−p i).(29) All the molecules are assumed identically prepared in t...

  2. [2]

    Mobile molecules

    Quantum Markov chain model To gain further intuition of the contrast dynamics, we consider a scenario in which the ultracold gas remains dilute while takingN mol → ∞. In these limits, we can approximate the dephasing of one-body density matrices as caused by collisional encounters with partners strictly in theϱ(0) =|+⟩ ⟨+|state. Such a series of encoun- 1...

  3. [3]

    Numerical scattering solutions To obtain theK-matrix, we numerically solve the ra- dial Schr¨ odinger equation of (14). In this work, we utilize a quasi-adiabatic coupling scheme that utilizes the quasi- adiabatic eigenstates Φ(z;r), satisfying: − ℏ2 2mr ∂2 ∂z 2 +V ν,ν (r, z) +Vext,z(z) Φnz (z;r) =W nz (r)Φnz (z;r),(A21) whereW nz (r) are the quasi-adiaba...

  4. [4]

    L. R. B. Picard, G. E. Patenotte, A. J. Park, S. F. 20 Gebretsadkan, and K.-K. Ni, PRX Quantum5, 020344 (2024)

    2024

  5. [5]

    D. K. Ruttley, A. Guttridge, T. R. Hepworth, and S. L. Cornish, PRX Quantum5, 020333 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    B. Yan, S. A. Moses, B. Gadway, J. P. Covey, K. R. A. Hazzard, A. M. Rey, D. S. Jin, and J. Ye, Nature501, 521 (2013)

    2013

  7. [7]

    L. D. Marco, G. Valtolina, K. Matsuda, W. G. To- bias, J. P. Covey, and J. Ye, Science363, 853 (2019), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aau7230

    doi:10.1126/science.aau7230 2019

  8. [8]

    Valtolina, K

    G. Valtolina, K. Matsuda, W. G. Tobias, J.-R. Li, L. De Marco, and J. Ye, Nature588, 239 (2020)

    2020

Show all 134 references
  1. [9]

    Schindewolf, R

    A. Schindewolf, R. Bause, X.-Y. Chen, M. Duda, T. Karman, I. Bloch, and X.-Y. Luo, Nature607, 677 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Bigagli, W

    N. Bigagli, W. Yuan, S. Zhang, B. Bulatovic, T. Kar- man, I. Stevenson, and S. Will, Nature631, 289 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    H. P. B¨ uchler, E. Demler, M. Lukin, A. Micheli, N. Prokof’ev, G. Pupillo, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 060404 (2007)

    2007

  4. [12]

    L. D. Carr, D. DeMille, R. V. Krems, and J. Ye, New Journal of Physics11, 055049 (2009)

    2009

  5. [13]

    A. V. Gorshkov, S. R. Manmana, G. Chen, J. Ye, E. Demler, M. D. Lukin, and A. M. Rey, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 115301 (2011)

    2011

  6. [14]

    Langen, G

    T. Langen, G. Valtolina, D. Wang, and J. Ye, Nature Physics20, 702 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    S. L. Cornish, M. R. Tarbutt, and K. R. A. Hazzard, Nature Physics20, 730 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    A. V. Gorshkov, S. R. Manmana, G. Chen, E. Demler, M. D. Lukin, and A. M. Rey, Phys. Rev. A84, 033619 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    Kruckenhauser, L

    A. Kruckenhauser, L. M. Sieberer, L. De Marco, J.-R. Li, K. Matsuda, W. G. Tobias, G. Valtolina, J. Ye, A. M. Rey, M. A. Baranov, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A102, 023320 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Zhang and M

    C. Zhang and M. Tarbutt, PRX Quantum3, 030340 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    K. Wang, C. P. Williams, L. R. Picard, N. Y. Yao, and K.-K. Ni, PRX Quantum3, 030339 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Sroczy´ nska, A

    M. Sroczy´ nska, A. Dawid, M. Tomza, Z. Idziaszek, T. Calarco, and K. Jachymski, New Journal of Physics 24, 015001 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    J.-R. Li, K. Matsuda, C. Miller, A. N. Carroll, W. G. Tobias, J. S. Higgins, and J. Ye, Nature614, 70 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    A. N. Carroll, H. Hirzler, C. Miller, D. Wellnitz, S. R. Muleady, J. Lin, K. P. Zamarski, R. R. W. Wang, J. L. Bohn, A. M. Rey, and J. Ye, Science388, 381 (2025), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.adq0911

    2025 doi

  15. [23]

    M. H. G. de Miranda, A. Chotia, B. Neyenhuis, D. Wang, G. Qu´ em´ ener, S. Ospelkaus, J. L. Bohn, J. Ye, and D. S. Jin, Nature Physics7, 502 (2011)

    2011

  16. [24]

    Mayle, B

    M. Mayle, B. P. Ruzic, and J. L. Bohn, Phys. Rev. A 85, 062712 (2012)

    2012

  17. [25]

    J. F. E. Croft and J. L. Bohn, Phys. Rev. A89, 012714 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    Christianen, T

    A. Christianen, T. Karman, and G. C. Groenenboom, Phys. Rev. A100, 032708 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    P. D. Gregory, M. D. Frye, J. A. Blackmore, E. M. Bridge, R. Sawant, J. M. Hutson, and S. L. Cornish, Nature Communications10, 3104 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    Bause, A

    R. Bause, A. Schindewolf, R. Tao, M. Duda, X.- Y. Chen, G. Qu´ em´ ener, T. Karman, A. Christianen, I. Bloch, and X.-Y. Luo, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 033013 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Bause, A

    R. Bause, A. Christianen, A. Schindewolf, I. Bloch, and X.-Y. Luo, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A127, 729 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    P. S. ˙Zuchowski and J. M. Hutson, Phys. Rev. A81, 060703 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    J. N. Byrd, J. A. Montgomery, and R. Cˆ ot´ e, Phys. Rev. A82, 010502 (2010)

    2010

  24. [32]

    E. R. Meyer and J. L. Bohn, Phys. Rev. A82, 042707 (2010)

    2010

  25. [33]

    M.-G. Hu, Y. Liu, D. D. Grimes, Y.-W. Lin, A. H. Gheorghe, R. Vexiau, N. Bouloufa-Maafa, O. Dulieu, T. Rosenband, and K.-K. Ni, Science366, 1111 (2019), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aay9531

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    Micheli, G

    A. Micheli, G. Pupillo, H. P. B¨ uchler, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A76, 043604 (2007)

    2007

  27. [35]

    Qu´ em´ ener and J

    G. Qu´ em´ ener and J. L. Bohn, Phys. Rev. A83, 012705 (2011)

    2011

  28. [36]

    B. Zhu, G. Qu´ em´ ener, A. M. Rey, and M. J. Holland, Phys. Rev. A88, 063405 (2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    Nahum, J

    A. Nahum, J. Ruhman, S. Vijay, and J. Haah, Phys. Rev. X7, 031016 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    M. P. Fisher, V. Khemani, A. Nahum, and S. Vijay, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics14, 335 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Grimm, M

    R. Grimm, M. Weidem¨ uller, and Y. B. Ovchinnikov, in Advances In Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, Vol. 42, edited by B. Bederson and H. Walther (Aca- demic Press, 2000) pp. 95–170

    2000

  32. [40]

    Viola and S

    L. Viola and S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. A58, 2733 (1998)

    1998

  33. [41]

    Viola and E

    L. Viola and E. Knill, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 037901 (2003)

    2003

  34. [42]

    D. A. Lidar, Review of decoherence-free subspaces, noiseless subsystems, and dynamical decoupling, in Quantum Information and Computation for Chemistry (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2014) pp. 295–354

    2014

  35. [43]

    Polkovnikov, Annals of Physics325, 1790 (2010)

    A. Polkovnikov, Annals of Physics325, 1790 (2010)

    2010

  36. [44]

    Lepers, R

    M. Lepers, R. Vexiau, M. Aymar, N. Bouloufa-Maafa, and O. Dulieu, Phys. Rev. A88, 032709 (2013)

    2013

  37. [45]

    Quantitatively, we can estimate the dipolar mean-field interaction energy experienced per particleϵ mf in a Maxwell-Boltzmann distributed gas with the analytic formula in Ref. [128]. We will consider the regime wherebyϵ mf ≪k BT, which is the case for JILA-KRb withϵ mf /(kBT)≲...

  38. [46]

    H. R. Sadeghpour, J. L. Bohn, M. J. Cavagnero, B. D. Esry, I. I. Fabrikant, J. H. Macek, and A. R. P. Rau, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics33, R93 (2000)

    2000

  39. [47]

    J. L. Bohn, M. Cavagnero, and C. Ticknor, New Journal of Physics11, 055039 (2009)

    2009

  40. [48]

    Matsuda,Tunable dipolar interactions and collisional shielding in a quantum gas of polar molecules, Ph.D

    K. Matsuda,Tunable dipolar interactions and collisional shielding in a quantum gas of polar molecules, Ph.D. thesis, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Child,Molecular Collision Theory, Molecular Biol- ogy (Academic Press, 1974)

    M. Child,Molecular Collision Theory, Molecular Biol- ogy (Academic Press, 1974)

    1974

  42. [50]

    Qu´ em´ ener, inCold Chemistry: Molecular Scattering and Reactivity Near Absolute Zero(The Royal Society of Chemistry, 2017)

    G. Qu´ em´ ener, inCold Chemistry: Molecular Scattering and Reactivity Near Absolute Zero(The Royal Society of Chemistry, 2017). 21

    2017

  43. [51]

    A. M. Souza, G. A. ´Alvarez, and D. Suter, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 240501 (2011)

    2011

  44. [52]

    Ticknor, Phys

    C. Ticknor, Phys. Rev. A80, 052702 (2009)

    2009

  45. [53]

    Ticknor, Phys

    C. Ticknor, Phys. Rev. A81, 042708 (2010)

    2010

  46. [54]

    As a result, the molecules only experience weak dipole-dipole interactions in the effective interaction region, leav- ing their outgoing wavefunctions mostly unperturbed

    Although usually applied to high energy collisions, the Born approximation is valid here based on the following physical argument: when close-to-threshold, the scat- terers only see the long-range tail of the dipole-dipole potential before reflecting off the potential barrier....

  47. [55]

    R. G. Newton, Foundations of Physics9, 929 (1979)

    1979

  48. [56]

    Jaksch, H.-J

    D. Jaksch, H.-J. Briegel, J. I. Cirac, C. W. Gardiner, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 1975 (1999)

    1999

  49. [57]

    G. K. Brennen, I. H. Deutsch, and P. S. Jessen, Phys. Rev. A61, 062309 (2000)

    2000

  50. [58]

    [70], slower 100µs pulses were utilized for Flo- quet engineering of the interactions

    In Ref. [70], slower 100µs pulses were utilized for Flo- quet engineering of the interactions. An increase in spin decoherence at larger effective dipolar interactions was observed, compared to the case of native interactions achieved with static electric fields. We suspect th...

  51. [59]

    Conservation ofm ϕ only remains strictly true if the wavefunction amplitude is truly negligible in the in- termolecular short-range, otherwise the molecules could exert sufficient torques to reorient themselves and break the cylindrical symmetry

  52. [60]

    J. L. Bohn and D. S. Jin, Phys. Rev. A89, 022702 (2014)

    2014

  53. [61]

    Johnson, Journal of Computational Physics13, 445 (1973)

    B. Johnson, Journal of Computational Physics13, 445 (1973)

    1973

  54. [62]

    Bilitewski and N

    T. Bilitewski and N. R. Cooper, Phys. Rev. A91, 033601 (2015)

    2015

  55. [63]

    Wigner, Phys

    E. Wigner, Phys. Rev.40, 749 (1932)

    1932

  56. [64]

    J. E. Moyal, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cam- bridge Philosophical Society45, 99–124 (1949)

    1949

  57. [65]

    G. A. Baker, Phys. Rev.109, 2198 (1958)

    1958

  58. [66]

    G. A. Bird, The Physics of Fluids13, 2676 (1970), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pfl/article- pdf/13/11/2676/12625869/2676 1 online.pdf

    1970

  59. [67]

    Verlet, Phys

    L. Verlet, Phys. Rev.159, 98 (1967)

    1967

  60. [68]

    More details can be found in the Supplementary Materials of Ref

    Tracking only the single-molecule states is valid since subsequent collisions of a moleculeB, previously colli- sionally entangled with another moleculeA, cannot de- crease the reduced density matrix purity ofAso long as the subsequent collision partners ofB, orBitself, do not...

  61. [69]

    R. R. W. Wang, A. G. Sykes, and J. L. Bohn, Phys. Rev. A102, 033336 (2020)

    2020

  62. [70]

    K.-K. Ni, S. Ospelkaus, D. Wang, G. Qu´ em´ ener, B. Neyenhuis, M. H. G. de Miranda, J. L. Bohn, J. Ye, and D. S. Jin, Nature464, 1324 (2010)

    2010

  63. [71]

    Qu´ em´ ener and J

    G. Qu´ em´ ener and J. L. Bohn, Phys. Rev. A81, 022702 (2010)

    2010

  64. [72]

    Signoles, T

    A. Signoles, T. Franz, R. Ferracini Alves, M. G¨ arttner, S. Whitlock, G. Z¨ urn, and M. Weidem¨ uller, Phys. Rev. X11, 011011 (2021)

    2021

  65. [73]

    Miller, A

    C. Miller, A. N. Carroll, J. Lin, H. Hirzler, H. Gao, H. Zhou, M. D. Lukin, and J. Ye, Nature633, 332 (2024)

    2024

  66. [74]

    Ciccarello, S

    F. Ciccarello, S. Lorenzo, V. Giovannetti, and G. M. Palma, Physics Reports954, 1 (2022), quantum colli- sion models: Open system dynamics from repeated in- teractions

    2022

  67. [75]

    Note that the use of channel here differs from that em- ployed to describe scattering channels, but is rather a channel in the quantum information theory sense [cite Nielson and Chuang]

  68. [76]

    Karman, N

    T. Karman, N. Bigagli, W. Yuan, S. Zhang, I. Steven- son, and S. Will, Double microwave shielding (2025), arXiv:2501.08095 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2025

  69. [77]

    Liu and K.-K

    Y. Liu and K.-K. Ni, Annual Review of Physical Chem- istry73, 73 (2022)

    2022

  70. [78]

    Devolder, T

    A. Devolder, T. Tscherbul, and P. Brumer, Lever- aging reactant entanglement in the coherent control of ultracold bimolecular chemical reactions (2025), arXiv:2505.10684 [physics.atom-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Y.-X. Liu, L. Zhu, J. Luke, J. J. A. Houwman, M. C. Babin, M.-G. Hu, and K.-K. Ni, Science384, 1117 (2024), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.adl6570

    2024 doi

  72. [80]

    Grassl, T

    M. Grassl, T. Beth, and T. Pellizzari, Phys. Rev. A56, 33 (1997)

    1997

  73. [81]

    Wang and G

    G. Wang and G. Qu´ em´ ener, New Journal of Physics17, 035015 (2015)

    2015

  74. [82]

    Bluvstein, H

    D. Bluvstein, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, M. Kalinowski, A. Keesling, N. Maskara, H. Pichler, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Nature604, 451 (2022)

    2022

  75. [83]

    Maskara, S

    N. Maskara, S. Ostermann, J. Shee, M. Kalinowski, A. McClain Gomez, R. Araiza Bravo, D. S. Wang, A. I. Krylov, N. Y. Yao, M. Head-Gordon, M. D. Lukin, and S. F. Yelin, Nature Physics21, 289 (2025)

    2025

  76. [84]

    C. R. Monroe, E. A. Cornell, C. A. Sackett, C. J. Myatt, and C. E. Wieman, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 414 (1993)

    1993

  77. [85]

    Goldwin, S

    J. Goldwin, S. Inouye, M. L. Olsen, and D. S. Jin, Phys. Rev. A71, 043408 (2005)

    2005

  78. [86]

    Y. Tang, A. Sykes, N. Q. Burdick, J. L. Bohn, and B. L. Lev, Phys. Rev. A92, 022703 (2015)

    2015

  79. [87]

    Patscheider, L

    A. Patscheider, L. Chomaz, G. Natale, D. Petter, M. J. Mark, S. Baier, B. Yang, R. R. W. Wang, J. L. Bohn, and F. Ferlaino, Phys. Rev. A105, 063307 (2022)

    2022

  80. [88]

    J.-R. Li, W. G. Tobias, K. Matsuda, C. Miller, G. Val- tolina, L. De Marco, R. R. Wang, L. Lassabli` ere, G. Qu´ em´ ener, J. L. Bohn, and J. Ye, Nat. Phys.17, 1144 (2021)

    2021

  81. [89]

    Huang,Statistical Mechanics(Wiley, 1987)

    K. Huang,Statistical Mechanics(Wiley, 1987)

    1987

  82. [90]

    R. R. W. Wang and J. L. Bohn, Phys. Rev. A108, 013322 (2023)

    2023

  83. [91]

    L. Masi, T. Petrucciani, G. Ferioli, G. Semeghini, G. Modugno, M. Inguscio, and M. Fattori, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 020601 (2021)

    2021

  84. [92]

    Lashkari, D

    N. Lashkari, D. Stanford, M. Hastings, T. Osborne, and P. Hayden, Journal of High Energy Physics2013, 22 (2013)

    2013

  85. [93]

    Zhou and X

    T. Zhou and X. Chen, Phys. Rev. E99, 052212 (2019)

    2019

  86. [94]

    Xu and B

    S. Xu and B. Swingle, Phys. Rev. X9, 031048 (2019)

    2019

  87. [95]

    Agarwal, S

    L. Agarwal, S. Sahu, and S. Xu, Journal of High Energy Physics2023, 37 (2023). 22

    2023

  88. [96]

    Scrambling refers to a unitary process that maps initial pure product states to macroscopically entangled states

  89. [97]

    Sekino and L

    Y. Sekino and L. Susskind, Journal of High Energy Physics2008, 065 (2008)

    2008

  90. [98]

    ’t Hooft, Nuclear Physics B256, 727 (1985)

    G. ’t Hooft, Nuclear Physics B256, 727 (1985)

    1985

  91. [99]

    Susskind, L

    L. Susskind, L. Thorlacius, and J. Uglum, Phys. Rev. D 48, 3743 (1993)

    1993

  92. [100]

    Brown and O

    W. Brown and O. Fawzi, Scrambling speed of random quantum circuits (2013), arXiv:1210.6644 [quant-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  93. [101]

    A. V. Gorshkov, P. Rabl, G. Pupillo, A. Micheli, P. Zoller, M. D. Lukin, and H. P. B¨ uchler, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 073201 (2008)

    2008

  94. [102]

    Lassabli` ere and G

    L. Lassabli` ere and G. Qu´ em´ ener, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 163402 (2018)

    2018

  95. [103]

    Karman, Z

    T. Karman, Z. Z. Yan, and M. Zwierlein, Phys. Rev. A 105, 013321 (2022)

    2022

  96. [104]

    Qu´ em´ ener, J

    G. Qu´ em´ ener, J. L. Bohn, and J. F. E. Croft, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 043402 (2023)

    2023

  97. [105]

    N. Y. Yao, F. Grusdt, B. Swingle, M. D. Lukin, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, J. E. Moore, and E. A. Demler, Inter- ferometric approach to probing fast scrambling (2016), arXiv:1607.01801 [quant-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Bentsen, T

    G. Bentsen, T. Hashizume, A. S. Buyskikh, E. J. Davis, A. J. Daley, S. S. Gubser, and M. Schleier-Smith, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 130601 (2019)

    2019

  99. [107]

    Hashizume, G

    T. Hashizume, G. S. Bentsen, S. Weber, and A. J. Daley, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 200603 (2021)

    2021

  100. [108]

    Barral, M

    P. Barral, M. Cantara, L. Du, W. Lunden, J. de Hond, A. O. Jamison, and W. Ketterle, Nature Communica- tions15, 3566 (2024)

    2024

  101. [109]

    Xiang, E

    J. Xiang, E. Cruz-Col´ on, C. C. Chua, W. R. Milner, J. de Hond, J. F. Fricke, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 183401 (2025)

    2025

  102. [110]

    R. Yao, S. Chi, M. Wang, R. J. Fletcher, and M. Zwier- lein, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 183402 (2025)

    2025

  103. [111]

    W. S. Bakr, J. I. Gillen, A. Peng, S. F¨ olling, and M. Greiner, Nature462, 74 (2009)

    2009

  104. [112]

    J. S. Rosenberg, L. Christakis, E. Guardado-Sanchez, Z. Z. Yan, and W. S. Bakr, Nature Physics18, 1062 (2022)

    2022

  105. [113]

    Christakis, J

    L. Christakis, J. S. Rosenberg, R. Raj, S. Chi, A. Morn- ingstar, D. A. Huse, Z. Z. Yan, and W. S. Bakr, Nature 614, 64 (2023)

    2023

  106. [114]

    Aaronson, inProceedings of the 50th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2018 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2018) p

    S. Aaronson, inProceedings of the 50th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2018 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2018) p. 325–338

    2018

  107. [115]

    Huang, R

    H.-Y. Huang, R. Kueng, and J. Preskill, Nature Physics 16, 1050 (2020)

    2020

  108. [116]

    Kokail, R

    C. Kokail, R. van Bijnen, A. Elben, B. Vermersch, and P. Zoller, Nature Physics17, 936 (2021)

    2021

  109. [117]

    H.-Y. Hu, S. Choi, and Y.-Z. You, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 023027 (2023)

    2023

  110. [118]

    R. R. W. Wang and J. L. Bohn, Phys. Rev. A106, 053307 (2022)

    2022

  111. [119]

    R. R. W. Wang and J. L. Bohn, Phys. Rev. A107, 033321 (2023)

    2023

  112. [120]

    R. R. W. Wang and D. A. Messenger, Phys. Rev. A111, 033311 (2025)

    2025

  113. [121]

    Khemani, A

    V. Khemani, A. Vishwanath, and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. X8, 031057 (2018)

    2018

  114. [122]

    Nahum, S

    A. Nahum, S. Vijay, and J. Haah, Phys. Rev. X8, 021014 (2018)

    2018

  115. [123]

    Schuster and N

    T. Schuster and N. Y. Yao, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 160402 (2023)

    2023

  116. [124]

    Y. Tang, W. Kao, K.-Y. Li, S. Seo, K. Mallayya, M. Rigol, S. Gopalakrishnan, and B. L. Lev, Phys. Rev. X8, 021030 (2018)

    2018

  117. [125]

    Peter, S

    D. Peter, S. M¨ uller, S. Wessel, and H. P. B¨ uchler, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 025303 (2012)

    2012

  118. [126]

    Koschorreck, D

    M. Koschorreck, D. Pertot, E. Vogt, and M. K¨ ohl, Na- ture Physics9, 405 (2013)

    2013

  119. [127]

    G. M. Bruun and E. Taylor, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 245301 (2008)

    2008

  120. [128]

    H. Lee, S. I. Matveenko, D.-W. Wang, and G. V. Shlyap- nikov, Phys. Rev. A96, 061602 (2017)

    2017

  121. [129]

    Bilitewski, L

    T. Bilitewski, L. De Marco, J.-R. Li, K. Matsuda, W. G. Tobias, G. Valtolina, J. Ye, and A. M. Rey, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 113401 (2021)

    2021

  122. [130]

    Wellnitz, M

    D. Wellnitz, M. Mamaev, T. Bilitewski, and A. M. Rey, Phys. Rev. Res.6, L012025 (2024)

    2024

  123. [131]

    Lahaye, C

    T. Lahaye, C. Menotti, L. Santos, M. Lewenstein, and T. Pfau, Reports on Progress in Physics72, 126401 (2009)

    2009

  124. [132]

    D. T. Colbert and W. H. Miller, The Journal of Chemical Physics96, 1982 (1992), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article- pdf/96/3/1982/18997949/1982 1 online.pdf

    1992

  125. [133]

    S. K. Adhikari and M. S. Hussein, American Journal of Physics76, 1108 (2008), https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article- pdf/76/12/1108/13073964/1108 1 online.pdf

    2008

  126. [134]

    J. L. Beckey, N. Gigena, P. J. Coles, and M. Cerezo, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 140501 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

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