Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 53 references

Effective potential and scattering length of shielding polar molecules

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 ↗

Pith's one-line read Shielding with elliptical microwaves plus a static field can cancel the residual attractive force between polar molecules, producing a fully repulsive interaction with no shallow bound states.

desk verdict The new static-plus-elliptical shielding scheme is worth a look, but the complete cancellation claim is likely an artifact of the J=0,1 truncation. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22122 v1 pith:VZZP2QZ6 submitted 2025-05-28 cond-mat.quant-gas

Peng Xu , Gang Chen This is my paper
classification cond-mat.quant-gas
keywords polarmoleculesmicrowaveshieldingeffectivepotentialscatteringlengthdipole-dipoleinteractionBornapproximationultracoldquantumgasesBose-Einsteincondensates
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 asks whether shielding fields can remove the residual attractive force that makes ultracold polar molecular gases lose atoms through inelastic collisions and bound-state formation. It derives the effective interaction between two molecules for three shielding schemes: an elliptical microwave field, elliptical plus linear microwaves, and elliptical microwaves combined with a static electric field. The first two schemes suppress the attraction only partially and can still support shallow bound states. The third scheme, the paper argues, can cancel the anti-dipolar part of the interaction completely when the field parameters obey $1-4s^2p^2=0$ and $\alpha=n\pi/2$, leaving a fully repulsive shielding core. If correct, this gives a practical route to stable quantum-degenerate dipolar gases.

What carries the argument

The central object is the second-order perturbative effective potential obtained by projecting the dipole-dipole interaction onto the highest dressed eigenstate manifold of the two-molecule Hamiltonian. For the elliptical-plus-static scheme the key coefficient is $1-4s^2p^2$, with $s=v/u$ the ratio of dressed-state amplitudes and $p$ the static-field mixing coefficient; its zero, together with $\alpha=n\pi/2$, selects the parameter set where the $r^{-3}$ anti-dipolar term vanishes. The analysis also relies on a two-rotational-manifold truncation and on the rotating-wave approximation, and on a Born-approximation reduction to a zero-range contact plus long-range dipole pseudopotential.

What would settle it

Look for a bound state or a negative scattering length in the full multichannel calculation, or in a loss measurement, for NaCs under combined elliptical and static fields tuned to $1-4s^2p^2=0$ with $\alpha=n\pi/2$; any shallow bound state or negative $a_s$ there would contradict the complete-cancellation claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that combining an elliptically polarized microwave field with a static electric field can make the effective potential between two ultracold polar molecules fully repulsive. In the derived second-order effective potential, $V_{\rm eff}=C_3r^{-3}[(1-4s^2p^2)(3\cos^2\theta-1)+3F\sin^2\theta]+C_6r^{-6}(c_1+u^4c_2/9)$, the anisotropic $r^{-3}$ term carries the anti-dipolar attraction. Setting $1-4s^2p^2=0$ and $\alpha=n\pi/2$ (so $F=0$) kills that term, while the $C_6r^{-6}$ term remains as a repulsive shielding core, so the potential supports no shallow bound states. The paper verifies the effective potential against exact diagonalization of the full Hamiltonian and the scattering length against multichannel calculations, and checks that the Born-approximation pseudopotential reproduces partial-wave amplitudes. It contrasts this with elliptical-only and elliptical-plus-linear shielding, where the attraction is only partially suppressed and field-linked tetramer states can still appear.

Load-bearing premise

The exact vanishing of the attraction relies on the two-rotational-manifold truncation and on a second-order perturbation treatment that keeps only the matrix elements $\langle 1|V|2\rangle$ and $\langle 1|V|3\rangle$; if neglected couplings or higher rotational states contribute at the experimental parameters, a residual attractive force remains.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the cancellation point, shielded NaCs molecules should have no shallow field-linked tetramer bound states, so the condensate lifetime is expected to improve.
  • The effective potential gives a single-channel description of collisions that agrees with multi-channel scattering lengths, enabling many-body studies of the ground state and excitation spectrum.
  • Under elliptical-plus-linear shielding, the attractive direction can be rotated by tuning the linear field, which could be used to shape tetramer states in real space.
  • The Born pseudopotential is quantitatively accurate for positive scattering lengths, but the paper notes it may fail in the negative-scattering-length regime where the shielding core is large.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the cancellation condition depends on experimentally tunable Rabi frequencies and detuning, a direct test would be to sweep the static field or microwave power across the predicted zero while monitoring loss or bound states; a residual resonance at the zero would indicate neglected higher-order or higher-manifold terms.
  • The same formalism is stated to apply to fermionic as well as bosonic molecules, so the complete-cancellation scheme could be tested in quantum-degenerate Fermi gases of molecules, not only NaCs condensates.
  • The paper notes in passing that a finite but large anti-dipolar interaction would already differ from atomic condensates; a natural extension is to map that regime by deliberately detuning from the cancellation point.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives effective Born-Oppenheimer potentials for ultracold NaCs molecules under three shielding configurations: an elliptical microwave field alone, elliptical plus linear microwave fields, and elliptical microwave plus a static electric field. For each configuration it computes two-body scattering lengths by both single-channel effective-potential and multichannel scattering calculations, and then reduces the effective potential to a zero-range contact term plus a 1/r^3 dipole-dipole tail under the Born approximation, with t-matrix ratio tests of the resulting pseudopotential. The central new claim is in Section V: for the elliptical-plus-static configuration, the anti-dipolar 1/r^3 interaction can be completely canceled when 1−4s^2p^2=0 and α=nπ/2, leaving a purely repulsive C6/r^6 shielding core and, consequently, no shallow bound states.

Significance. If the central cancellation claim survives a more complete treatment of the molecular rotational structure, it is practically significant: residual attractive 1/r^3 tails are a known source of inelastic losses and three-body recombination in microwave-shielded molecular condensates, and a fully repulsive effective potential would help stabilize long-lived quantum gases. The paper's analytic formulas and the detailed appendices are useful, and the t-matrix consistency checks are a genuine strength. However, the confidence in the main claim is currently bounded by the two-manifold rotational truncation; the comparisons labeled 'full Hamiltonian' validate only the perturbative treatment within that truncated space, not the truncation itself. The result is therefore promising but needs a rotational-convergence check before it can be regarded as established.

major comments (3)
  1. [II, V (Eq. (13), Appendix A3)] The cancellation condition 1−4s^2p^2=0 is derived from single-molecule dressed states built only from the J=0 and J=1 manifolds, and the 'full Hamiltonian' comparisons in Fig. 3 use the same 5-dimensional subspace of Appendix A3. At the parameters of Fig. 3 the static field is Ωdc=0.87b, while the J=1→J=2 rotational spacing is 4b; the dipole operator couples the dressed state to J=2 with strength comparable to Ωdc, so the exact first-order 1/r^3 coefficient C3 receives relative corrections of order (d0E_dc/4b)^2, i.e., several percent or more. Because a residual attractive 1/r^3 tail, however small, dominates the repulsive 1/r^6 shield at sufficiently large r and supports a Rydberg-like series of shallow bound states, the statements that the anti-dipolar interaction is 'completely canceled' and that 'there are no shallow bound states' are not established by the present calculation. Please recompute C3 including J=2 (and, if possible, higher-J) admixtures, or provide a quantitative upper bound on the omitted contribution and show how the cancellation condition shifts.
  2. [Section II, Appendix A3, Fig. 3] The paper repeatedly describes the dashed curves in Figs. 1–3 and the multichannel scattering calculations of Appendix B as 'full Hamiltonian' results. In fact, the Hilbert space is truncated to the two lowest rotational manifolds (Section II), and for the static-field case the even-parity subspace has only five symmetrized states (Appendix A3). Exact diagonalization of this truncated model is a useful nonperturbative check of the effective-potential derivation, but it is not a check of the rotational truncation. The terminology should be changed to something like 'exact diagonalization within the truncated model,' and the truncation error should be assessed separately, especially for the static-field configuration where Ωdc is not small compared with the J=1→J=2 gap.
  3. [Section VI] The conclusion acknowledges that the pseudopotential framework 'may not be valid in the negative scattering length regime,' yet Section VI and the abstract also describe the pseudopotential as 'rigorously verified through partial wave analysis.' These statements are in tension. The t-matrix ratio tests are performed at selected positive-scattering-length parameters, and the pseudopotential drops the C6/r^6 shielding term that is present in the effective potential from which a_s was extracted. Please either restrict the 'rigorous verification' claim to the tested regime or provide a quantitative error estimate for the pseudopotential approximation near the parameters where it is used to discuss bound states and condensation lifetimes.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figs. 1–3] The horizontal axes use r0=10^3 a_B, but r0 is not defined in the text or captions; please define it explicitly.
  2. [Tables I–V and VI–X] The index convention for t^{l'm'}_{lm}/t^{20}_{00} is hard to parse from the tables; please state clearly whether rows or columns denote initial/final partial waves, and note that the main-text tables are exact results while the appendix tables are pseudopotential predictions. The small numerical differences between corresponding entries should be quantified.
  3. [Abstract and Section IV] The abstract says the second method 'allows for the construction of bound states with different polarization shapes,' while the text mainly says the angular shape of the potential, and hence the spatial shape of tetramer states, can be tuned; please align the wording with what is actually demonstrated.
  4. [Appendix B, Eq. (B11)] The definition of the scattering length mixes the K matrix and the t matrix in one equation; please make the low-energy limit explicit, e.g., a = −lim_{k1→0} K_{00,00}/k1 = −lim_{k1→0} t_{00,00}/k1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the effective potential and the 1−4s²p²=0 cancellation condition are derived by perturbation theory from the stated truncated Hamiltonian; the scattering length is computed, not fitted, and the t-matrix-ratio checks are independent of the input a_s. The shared J=0,1 truncation in the 'full Hamiltonian' checks is a robustness caveat, not a circular step.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The effective potentials (Eqs. 6, 9, 13) are obtained by first- and second-order perturbation theory from the two-molecule Hamiltonian (Eqs. 3, 8, 11) in the explicitly stated J=0,1 two-manifold truncation (Section II), and the central cancellation condition 1−4s²p²=0 in Eq. (13) is a derived relation among the field parameters (with δ=10 MHz and Ω_σ=10 MHz satisfying it at Ω_dc=0.87b), not an imposed input. The scattering length a_s is computed by solving the single-channel and multi-channel Schrödinger equations (Appendices B and C) and is then used as the strength of the zero-range term in the pseudopotential; the paper's verification of the pseudopotential uses the ratios t_l'm'/lm / t20_00 (Tables I–V versus VI–X), which do not involve a_s at all, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction pattern. No load-bearing self-citation is present: the reviewed earlier result (elliptical case) is attributed to Deng et al. (ref. [34]) and the dual-microwave works to refs. [35,36], none of which share authors with the present paper. The genuine caveat, stated by the paper itself in Section II, is that the 'full Hamiltonian' comparisons use the same two-rotational-manifold truncation (Appendix A), so they validate the perturbative effective potential within the model but do not test the truncation; this is a robustness and validity concern for the claimed exact cancellation, not a circular reduction of the derivation to its own output.

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

The central derivation rests on standard quantum scattering approximations (BO, RWA, perturbation theory, Born approximation) and a two-rotational-manifold truncation. No new entities are introduced. The only fitted-style parameter is the pseudopotential contact strength, which is computed from the effective potential rather than external data.

free parameters (1)
  • Contact interaction strength u0 in the pseudopotential = 4πℏ² a_s/(2M) with a_s computed from the effective potential
    This parameter is not fitted to experiment; it is determined from the single-channel scattering length and serves as the low-energy constant of the Born-approximation pseudopotential. It is a model parameter rather than an experimental fit.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Two-rotational-manifold truncation: only |0,0>, |1,-1>, |1,0>, |1,1> are retained.
    Invoked in Section II to restrict the Hilbert space; standard for microwave shielding with detunings small compared with the rotational constant (b/ℏ = 2π × 1.74 GHz).
  • domain assumption Rotating-wave approximation: co-rotating frame drops high-frequency terms in the interaction tensor.
    Used in Sections III-V to obtain the single-molecule Hamiltonians and the Σ2,m tensors; valid when microwave frequencies are near resonance and field amplitudes are not too large.
  • domain assumption Born-Oppenheimer approximation for separating internal and relative motion.
    Invoked at the start of Section III; standard in ultracold molecule collision theory.
  • domain assumption Second-order perturbation theory with neglect of matrix elements other than ⟨1|V|2⟩ and ⟨1|V|3⟩ when δ_r ≲ 1.
    Stated in Section III; this truncation is necessary for the compact forms of Veff and is a load-bearing approximation for the cancellation condition.
  • domain assumption Born approximation for the pseudopotential: the long-range potential is weak enough that the first Born amplitude captures the scattering.
    Used in Section III and Appendix D to construct the zero-range plus dipole pseudopotential; the paper verifies it via t-matrix ratios but notes it may break down for negative scattering lengths.
  • standard math Parity symmetry decouples even-parity 10-dimensional subspace from odd-parity 6-dimensional subspace.
    Stated in Section II; follows from the dipole-dipole interaction preserving parity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effective potential and scattering length of shielding polar molecules." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VZZP2QZ6

@misc{pith2026250522122,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effective potential and scattering length of shielding polar molecules},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VZZP2QZ6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22122}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the effective potential and scattering length of ultracold polar molecules under different shielding techniques. First, we derive the effective potential for two polar molecules in the presence of an elliptical polarization field, combined elliptical and linear polarization fields, and combined elliptical polarization and static fields. The effective potential is then expressed as a sum of a zero-range contact interaction and a long-range dipole-dipole interaction under the Born approximation. We find that the first two shielding methods only partially suppress attractive interactions, while the second method allows for the construction of bound states with different polarization shapes. The last shielding method can achieve complete cancellation of residual attractive forces, which is particularly significant for maintaining quantum degeneracy in ultracold dipolar systems. Our results provide a comprehensive understanding of the effective potential and scattering length of shielding polar molecules, which is crucial for studying many-body physics in ultracold dipolar systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22122 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Adiabatic potentials along [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a). However, this does not imply that the effec￾tive potential becomes entirely repulsive or that there are no shallow bound states when 1 − 2s 2 = 0, as the most attractive direction is not in the xy-plane and changes for different Ωπ due to the second line of the effective potential. For example, when α = 0, ϕ = 0, the most attractive direction is along cos θ ∝ √ 2s/√ 1 + 2s 2, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figur… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Adiabatic potentials along [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    A. V. Gorshkov, P. Rabl, G. Pupillo, A. Micheli, P. Zoller, M. D. Lukin, and H. P. B¨ uchler, Suppression of inelastic collisions between polar molecules with a repulsive shield, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 073201 (2008)

    work page 2008

  2. [36]

    Lassabli` ere and G

    L. Lassabli` ere and G. Qu´ em´ ener, Controlling the scat- tering length of ultracold dipolar molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 163402 (2018)

    2018

  3. [1]

    Elliptical polarization field The Hamiltonian for two molecules under an elliptical polarization field is H=E −8 r 2 15 π3/2 d2 0 4πϵ0r3 2X m=−2 Y ∗ 2,m(ˆr)Σ2,m, (A1) where E=   δ+ Ω eff 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 (δ+ Ω eff) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 (δ+ Ω eff) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0δ0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 (δ−Ω eff) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 (δ−Ω eff) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0δ−Ω eff   ,...

    work page

  4. [2]

    The matrix form of the Hamiltonian in Eq

    Correspondingly, the free energies of these states areδ+Ω eff, (δ+Ω eff)/2, (δ+Ω eff)/2,δ, (δ−Ω eff)/2, (δ−Ω eff)/2,δ−Ω eff. The matrix form of the Hamiltonian in Eq. (3) can be found in Appendix A 1. The effective potential can be obtained by projecting the dipole-dipole interaction onto the system’s highest- energy eigenstate manifold. Within the pertur...

    work page

  5. [3]

    Combined elliptical and linear polarization fields The Hamiltonian for two molecules under combined elliptical and linear polarization fields is H=E −8 r 2 15 π3/2 d2 0 4πϵ0r3 2X m=−2 Y ∗ 2,m(ˆr)Σ2,m, (A7) where E=   δ+ Ω eff 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 (δ+ Ω eff) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 (δ+ Ω eff) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0δ0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 (δ−Ω eff) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 (δ−Ω...

    work page

  6. [4]

    Combined elliptical polarization and static fields The Hamiltonian for two molecules under combined elliptical polarization and static fields is H=E −8 r 2 15 π3/2 d2 0 4πϵ0r3 2X m=−2 Y ∗ 2,m(ˆr)Σ2,m, (A14) 9 where E=   δ+ Ω eff 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 (δ+ Ω eff) 0 0 0 0 0δ0 0 0 0 0 δ−Ωeff 2 0 0 0 0 0δ−Ω eff   ,(A15) Σ2,0 = 1 4π √ 6 q2   2v2(−u2 + 4...

    work page

  7. [5]

    4 7 1− 2 3 sin2 2α C lm l′m′20 + 2 7 r 2 3 sin 2α C lm l′m′22 +C lm l′m′2−2 # − C6 r6 r 2l′ + 1 2l+ 1 C l0 l′040

    Elliptical polarization field According to Eq. (6), the effective potential matrix elements are (Veff)lm,l′m′ = C3 r3 r 2l′ + 1 2l+ 1 C l0 l′020 h 2C lm l′m′20 + √ 6 sin 2α C lm l′m′22 +C lm l′m′2−2 i + C6 r6 r 2l′ + 1 2l+ 1 4 5 1− 1 3 sin2 2α δll′δmm′ − C6 r6 r 2l′ + 1 2l+ 1 C l0 l′020 " 4 7 1− 2 3 sin2 2α C lm l′m′20 + 2 7 r 2 3 sin 2α C lm l′m′22 +C lm...

    work page

  8. [6]

    √ 2 7 √ 5 s(−3 cosα−cos 3α+ 3 sinα−sin 3α) +p 2 12 7 r 2 5 s(cosα−s 2 cosα−sinα+s 2 sinα) # Clm l′m′41 −C lm l′m′4−1 + C6 r6 s 2l′ + 1 2l+ 1 Cl0 l′040

    Combined elliptical and linear polarization fields According to the equation in Eq. (9), the effective potential matrix element is (Veff)lm,l′m′ = C3 r3 s 2l′ + 1 2l+ 1 Cl0 l′020 h 2 1−2s 2 Clm l′m′20 + 2 √ 3s(−cosα+ sinα) Clm l′m′21 −C lm l′m′2−1 + √ 6 sin 2α Clm l′m′22 +C lm l′m′2−2 i + C6 r6 s 2l′ + 1 2l+ 1 2 15 3 + 2s2 + cos 4α +p 2 4 15 1 +s 4 + 2s2 ...

    work page

Show all 53 references
  1. [7]

    u4 9 36 7 r 2 5 1−2s 2 −8s 2p2 +s 4 + 8s4p2 sin 2α # Clm l′m′42 +C lm l′m′4−2 + C6 r6 s 2l′ + 1 2l+ 1 Cl0 l′040

    Combined elliptical polarization and static fields According to the equation in Eq. (13), the effective potential matrix element is (Veff)ll′mm′ = C3 r3 s 2l′ + 1 2l+ 1 Cl0 l′020 h 2(1−4s 2p2)Clm l′m′20 + √ 6 sin(2α) Clm l′m′22 +C lm l′m′2−2 i + C6 r6 s 2l′ + 1 2l+ 1 2 15 (4−c...

  2. [8]

    (l m),(l′m′) (0 0) (2 0) (4 0) (6 0) (0 0)∗1 0 0 (2 0) 1−0.63889 0.14286 0 (4 0) 0 0.14286−0.17424 0.05638 (6 0) 0 0 0.05638−0.08131 TABLE VI

    Elliptical polarization field The ratiot l′m′ lm /t20 00 for differentl, m, l′, m′ is shown in Tables VI and VII. (l m),(l′m′) (0 0) (2 0) (4 0) (6 0) (0 0)∗1 0 0 (2 0) 1−0.63889 0.14286 0 (4 0) 0 0.14286−0.17424 0.05638 (6 0) 0 0 0.05638−0.08131 TABLE VI. The ratiot l′m′ lm /...

  3. [9]

    (l m),(l′m′) (0 0) (2 0) (2 1) (2 2) (0 0)∗1−0.37653 0 (2 0) 1−0.63888 0.12028 0 (2 1)−0.37653 0.12028−0.31944 0.29462 (2 2) 0 0 0.29462 0.63888 TABLE VIII

    Combined elliptical and linear polarization fields The ratiot l′m′ lm /t20 00 for differentl, m, l′, m′ is shown in Tables VIII and IX. (l m),(l′m′) (0 0) (2 0) (2 1) (2 2) (0 0)∗1−0.37653 0 (2 0) 1−0.63888 0.12028 0 (2 1)−0.37653 0.12028−0.31944 0.29462 (2 2) 0 0 0.29462 0.63...

  4. [10]

    Combined elliptical polarization and static fields The ratiost l′m′ lm /t20 00 for differentl, m, l′, m′ is shown in Table X

  5. [11]

    M. H. Anderson, J. R. Ensher, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell, Observation of bose-einstein condensation in a dilute atomic vapor, Science269, 198 14 (l m),(l′m′) (0 0) (2 0) (2 1) (2 2) (0 0)∗1−2.14274 0 (2 0) 1−0.63889 0.68447 0 (2 1)−2.14274 0.68447−0.31944 ...

    1995

  6. [12]

    K. B. Davis, M. O. Mewes, M. R. Andrews, N. J. van Druten, D. S. Durfee, D. M. Kurn, and W. Ketterle, Bose-einstein condensation in a gas of sodium atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 3969 (1995)

    1995

  7. [13]

    J. R. Abo-Shaeer, C. Raman, J. M. Vogels, and W. Ket- terle, Observation of vortex lattices in bose-einstein con- densates, Science292, 476 (2001)

    2001

  8. [14]

    Greiner, O

    M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. Esslinger, T. W. H¨ ansch, and I. Bloch, Quantum phase transition from a superfluid to a mott insulator in a gas of ultracold atoms, Nature415, 39 (2002)

    2002

  9. [15]

    Gross and I

    C. Gross and I. Bloch, Quantum simulations with ultra- cold atoms in optical lattices, Science357, 995 (2017)

    2017

  10. [16]

    T.-W. Mao, Q. Liu, X.-W. Li, J.-H. Cao, F. Chen, W.- X. Xu, M. K. Tey, Y.-X. Huang, and L. You, Quantum- enhanced sensing by echoing spin-nematic squeezing in atomic bose–einstein condensate, Nat. Phys.19, 1585 (2023)

    2023

  11. [17]

    K.-K. Ni, S. Ospelkaus, M. De Miranda, A. Pe’Er, B. Neyenhuis, J. Zirbel, S. Kotochigova, P. Julienne, D. Jin, and J. Ye, A high phase-space-density gas of polar molecules, Science322, 231 (2008)

    2008

  12. [18]

    Ospelkaus, K.-K

    S. Ospelkaus, K.-K. Ni, G. Qu´ em´ ener, B. Neyenhuis, D. Wang, M. H. G. de Miranda, J. L. Bohn, J. Ye, and D. S. Jin, Controlling the hyperfine state of rovi- bronic ground-state polar molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 030402 (2010)

    2010

  13. [19]

    Takekoshi, L

    T. Takekoshi, L. Reichs¨ ollner, A. Schindewolf, J. M. Hut- son, C. R. Le Sueur, O. Dulieu, F. Ferlaino, R. Grimm, and H.-C. N¨ agerl, Ultracold dense samples of dipolar rbcs molecules in the rovibrational and hyperfine ground state, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 205301 (2014)

    2014

  14. [20]

    P. K. Molony, P. D. Gregory, Z. Ji, B. Lu, M. P. K¨ oppinger, C. R. Le Sueur, C. L. Blackley, J. M. Hut- son, and S. L. Cornish, Creation of ultracold 87Rb133Cs molecules in the rovibrational ground state, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 255301 (2014)

    2014

  15. [21]

    J. W. Park, S. A. Will, and M. W. Zwierlein, Ultracold dipolar gas of fermionic 23Na40K molecules in their abso- lute ground state, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 205302 (2015)

    2015

  16. [22]

    Valtolina, K

    G. Valtolina, K. Matsuda, W. G. Tobias, J.-R. Li, L. De Marco, and J. Ye, Dipolar evaporation of reactive molecules to below the fermi temperature, Nature588, 239 (2020)

    2020

  17. [23]

    X. He, K. Wang, J. Zhuang, P. Xu, X. Gao, R. Guo, C. Sheng, M. Liu, J. Wang, J. Li,et al., Coherently form- ing a single molecule in an optical trap, Science370, 331 (2020)

    2020

  18. [24]

    Ferrier-Barbut, H

    I. Ferrier-Barbut, H. Kadau, M. Schmitt, M. Wenzel, and T. Pfau, Observation of quantum droplets in a strongly dipolar bose gas, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 215301 (2016)

    2016

  19. [25]

    Casotti, E

    E. Casotti, E. Poli, L. Klaus, A. Litvinov, C. Ulm, C. Politi, M. J. Mark, T. Bland, and F. Ferlaino, Ob- servation of vortices in a dipolar supersolid, Nature , 1 (2024)

    2024

  20. [26]

    Y.-C. Tsui, M. He, Y. Hu, E. Lake, T. Wang, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, M. P. Zaletel, and A. Yazdani, Direct observation of a magnetic-field-induced wigner crystal, Nature628, 287 (2024)

    2024

  21. [27]

    De Miranda, A

    M. De Miranda, A. Chotia, B. Neyenhuis, D. Wang, G. Qu´ em´ ener, S. Ospelkaus, J. Bohn, J. Ye, and D. Jin, Controlling the quantum stereodynamics of ultracold bi- molecular reactions, Nature Physics7, 502 (2011)

    2011

  22. [28]

    A. N. Carroll, H. Hirzler, C. Miller, D. Wellnitz, S. R. Muleady, J. Lin, K. P. Zamarski, R. R. Wang, J. L. Bohn, A. M. Rey,et al., Observation of generalized tj spin dy- namics with tunable dipolar interactions, Science388, 381 (2025)

    2025

  23. [29]

    K.-K. Ni, S. Ospelkaus, D. Wang, G. Qu´ em´ ener, B. Neyenhuis, M. De Miranda, J. Bohn, J. Ye, and D. Jin, Dipolar collisions of polar molecules in the quan- tum regime, Nature464, 1324 (2010)

    2010

  24. [30]

    Chotia, B

    A. Chotia, B. Neyenhuis, S. A. Moses, B. Yan, J. P. Covey, M. Foss-Feig, A. M. Rey, D. S. Jin, and J. Ye, Long-lived dipolar molecules and feshbach molecules in a 3d optical lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 080405 (2012)

    2012

  25. [31]

    Stevenson, S

    I. Stevenson, S. Singh, A. Elkamshishy, N. Bigagli, W. Yuan, S. Zhang, C. H. Greene, and S. Will, Three- body recombination of ultracold microwave-shielded po- lar molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 263402 (2024)

    2024

  26. [32]

    Matsuda, L

    K. Matsuda, L. De Marco, J.-R. Li, W. G. Tobias, G. Val- tolina, G. Qu´ em´ ener, and J. Ye, Resonant collisional shielding of reactive molecules using electric fields, Sci- ence370, 1324 (2020)

    2020

  27. [33]

    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,et al., Tuning of dipolar in- teractions and evaporative cooling in a three-dimensional molecular quantum gas, Nat. Phys.17, 1144 (2021). 15

    2021

  28. [35]

    Karman and J

    T. Karman and J. M. Hutson, Microwave shielding of ultracold polar molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 163401 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Dutta, B

    J. Dutta, B. Mukherjee, and J. M. Hutson, Universality in the microwave shielding of ultracold polar molecules, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.03170 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    J. Lin, G. Chen, M. Jin, Z. Shi, F. Deng, W. Zhang, G. Qu´ em´ ener, T. Shi, S. Yi, and D. Wang, Microwave shielding of bosonic narb molecules, Phys. Rev. X13, 031032 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Bigagli, C

    N. Bigagli, C. Warner, W. Yuan, S. Zhang, I. Steven- son, T. Karman, and S. Will, Collisionally stable gas of bosonic dipolar ground-state molecules, Nature Physics 19, 1579 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Schindewolf, R

    A. Schindewolf, R. Bause, X.-Y. Chen, M. Duda, T. Kar- man, I. Bloch, and X.-Y. Luo, Evaporation of microwave- shielded polar molecules to quantum degeneracy, Nature 607, 677 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Bigagli, W

    N. Bigagli, W. Yuan, S. Zhang, B. Bulatovic, T. Kar- man, I. Stevenson, and S. Will, Observation of bose– einstein condensation of dipolar molecules, Nature631, 289 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    J. R. Taylor,Scattering theory: the quantum theory of nonrelativistic collisions(Courier Corporation, 2012)

    2012

  35. [43]

    Karman, Z

    T. Karman, Z. Z. Yan, and M. Zwierlein, Resonant and first-order dipolar interactions between ultracold 1Σ molecules in static and microwave electric fields, Phys. Rev. A105, 013321 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    Deng, X.-Y

    F. Deng, X.-Y. Chen, X.-Y. Luo, W. Zhang, S. Yi, and T. Shi, Effective potential and superfluidity of microwave-shielded polar molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 183001 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    F. Deng, X. Hu, W.-J. Jin, S. Yi, and T. Shi, Two- and many-body physics of ultracold molecules dressed by dual microwave fields, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.05210 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Karman, N

    T. Karman, N. Bigagli, W. Yuan, S. Zhang, I. Stevenson, and S. Will, Double microwave shielding, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.08095 (2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    Yi and L

    S. Yi and L. You, Trapped atomic condensates with anisotropic interactions, Phys. Rev. A61, 041604 (2000)

    2000

  40. [48]

    Yi and L

    S. Yi and L. You, Trapped condensates of atoms with dipole interactions, Phys. Rev. A63, 053607 (2001)

    2001

  41. [49]

    J. Bohn, M. Cavagnero, and C. Ticknor, Quasi-universal dipolar scattering in cold and ultracold gases, New Jour- nal of Physics11, 055039 (2009)

    2009

  42. [50]

    B. R. Johnson,Multichannel log-derivative method for scattering calculations, Tech. Rep. (Ohio State Univ., Columbus, 1973)

    1973

  43. [51]

    Macˆ edo-Lima and L

    M. Macˆ edo-Lima and L. Madeira, Scattering length and effective range of microscopic two-body potentials, Rev. Bras. Ens. Fis.45, e20230079 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    X.-Y. Chen, A. Schindewolf, S. Eppelt, R. Bause, M. Duda, S. Biswas, T. Karman, T. Hilker, I. Bloch, and X.-Y. Luo, Field-linked resonances of polar molecules, Nature614, 59 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    X.-Y. Chen, S. Biswas, S. Eppelt, A. Schindewolf, F. Deng, T. Shi, S. Yi, T. A. Hilker, I. Bloch, and X.-Y. Luo, Ultracold field-linked tetratomic molecules, Nature 626, 283 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

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