Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 44 references

Heterodyne detection of low-frequency fields via Rydberg EIT with phase demodulation

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 This paper claims that a heterodyne phase-demodulation method based on Rydberg EIT can detect low-frequency electric and magnetic fields, and that the observed linear Stark response arises from dipole-dipole interactions producing a…

desk verdict Useful phase-demodulation method for low-frequency Rydberg sensing, but the electric-field 'discovery' is a mechanism the data don't pin down. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24268 v1 pith:LK73K3NE submitted 2025-05-30 physics.atom-ph quant-ph

Shenchao Jin , Xiayang Fan , Xin Wang , Yi Song , Yuan Sun This is my paper
classification physics.atom-phquant-ph
keywords Rydbergatomselectromagneticallyinducedtransparencyheterodynedetectionphasedemodulationlow-frequencyelectricfieldsmagneticdipole-dipoleinteractionStarkeffect
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 develops a way to detect low-frequency (kHz-range) electric and magnetic fields with Rydberg atoms by reading the phase, not the absorption, of a probe laser under electromagnetically induced transparency (EIT). A heterodyne beat between the EIT probe and a frequency-shifted reference carries the field-induced phase modulation, and two demodulation stages recover the signal; the authors demonstrate the full cycle for magnetic fields and for electric fields. They report a magnetic sensitivity of $0.87~\mu\mathrm{T}/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$ at 3 kHz and an in-cell electric sensitivity of $42.4~\mu\mathrm{V}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-1}\mathrm{Hz}^{-0.5}$ at 5 kHz. In the electric case they observe a first-order, linear Stark response that a pure $D$ state should not exhibit, and they attribute it to Rydberg dipole-dipole interactions that admix states of different angular momentum.

What carries the argument

The central object is the real part of the EIT susceptibility, $\Re\chi(\Delta)$, whose linear term converts a small two-photon detuning $\Delta$ into a phase modulation proportional to $\Delta$, so the low-frequency field imprints its amplitude and phase on the probe beam. The detection chain is a heterodyne beat between the EIT probe and a 50-MHz-shifted reference, followed by two demodulation layers (a lock-in amplifier, then an FFT/spectrum analyzer or digital signal processor). In the electric case, the enabling mechanism is the dipole-dipole (Förster-resonant) interaction among Rydberg atoms, which admixes states of different angular momentum into the EIT destination state and thereby permits the first-order Stark shift that the linear response relies on.

What would settle it

Measure the 5 kHz screening ratio independently, for example by comparing the phase response at 5 kHz with the response at a frequency where the cell coating no longer screens, or by using internal calibrated electrodes; if the independent ratio departs from 3.5%, the quoted in-cell sensitivity ($42.4\,\mu\mathrm{V}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-1}\mathrm{Hz}^{-0.5}$) and minimum detectable field ($186\,\mu\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{cm}$) change by that factor. Separately, repeating the electric-field measurement in a vapor dilute enough that dipole-dipole interactions are negligible should suppress or eliminate the first-order Stark response if the proposed many-body mechanism is the cause.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that low-frequency fields can be sensed through the phase rather than the amplitude of light: the real part of the EIT susceptibility, $\Re\chi(\Delta)$, converts a field-induced two-photon detuning $\Delta$ into a phase modulation $\beta_l \cos(\omega_l t+\phi_l)$ on the probe laser, and heterodyne detection with two demodulation stages recovers the signal. In the electric-field case, the paper claims to observe a first-order (linear) Stark response that cannot come from a pure $58\,{}^2D_{5/2}$ state; the explanation is that Rydberg dipole-dipole interactions (with mean interatomic spacing about $4\,\mu\mathrm{m}$) induce a superposition of the D state with nearby S, P, F states, making the linear Stark effect allowed. This linear response makes the measured phase signal proportional to the electric-field amplitude over the tested range, and the authors use it to quote a minimum detectable in-cell field of $186\,\mu\mathrm{V}/\mathrm{cm}$ and sensitivity $42.4\,\mu\mathrm{V}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-1}\mathrm{Hz}^{-0.5}$ at 5 kHz, after calibrating the cell's screening ratio to approximately $3.5\%$.

Load-bearing premise

The in-cell electric-field sensitivity figures rest on a screening calibration of about 3.5% at 5 kHz that the paper states without giving its protocol or uncertainty; if the true screening ratio differs, the quoted minimum detectable field and sensitivity scale with it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same phase-demodulation apparatus can be used for both electric and magnetic low-frequency sensing, potentially combining both functions in one device.
  • Because the readout is phase-based and does not require the signal to match a Rydberg resonance, the method can track frequency-modulated signals (demonstrated with a linear chirp at 3 kHz) and offers a broad instantaneous bandwidth.
  • The heterodyne scheme avoids the interferometer locking needed in homodyne phase sensing, making the sensor more robust for practical deployment.
  • Electric-field performance at low frequency is currently bounded by the vapor-cell screening effect, which behaves like a high-pass filter; reducing or calibrating this screening is the main path to better sensitivity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the dipole-dipole explanation for the linear Stark response is right, tuning atomic density or using engineered two-species Förster resonances could deliberately enhance the electric-field response; the paper only hints at multi-species extensions.
  • The quoted in-cell electric sensitivity is a direct multiple of the 3.5% screening ratio; an independent screening measurement would either confirm the headline numbers or rescale them proportionally.
  • The phase-demodulation idea should transfer to other Rydberg EIT configurations and other low-frequency sources, since it relies only on the linear term of the EIT susceptibility rather than on the specific $^{87}\mathrm{Rb}$ levels used.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a heterodyne phase-demodulation scheme for detecting low-frequency electric and magnetic fields with Rydberg EIT. A probe laser phase is modulated when the Rydberg level shifts under the applied field; two-stage demodulation (50 MHz heterodyne beat followed by low-frequency lock-in) recovers the signal. Magnetic-field measurements on the 60S1/2 Rydberg state yield a sensitivity of 0.87 µT/√Hz at 3 kHz and successful recovery of a linearly chirped FM signal. For electric fields, measurements on 58D5/2 at 5 kHz show a response linear in the applied amplitude, which the authors attribute to Rydberg dipole-dipole interactions mixing D with nearby S, P, F states and producing a first-order Stark shift. With a screening ratio calibrated to about 3.5% at 5 kHz, the authors quote an in-cell minimal detectable field of 186 µV/cm and a sensitivity of 42.4 µV cm^-1 Hz^-0.5.

Significance. The heterodyne phase-readout approach is a practical and potentially scalable alternative to interferometric homodyne detection, and the magnetic-field demonstration is a clear proof of principle with a well-defined demodulation chain and a stated sensitivity. If the electric-field mechanism and calibration were secured, the quoted in-cell sensitivity would be an interesting advance for low-frequency Rydberg sensing. However, the paper's central discovery claim for the electric case, namely that dipole-dipole interactions induce a first-order Stark response, is not backed by a calculation, a density-dependence test, or a control experiment. The headline in-cell electric-field numbers also rest on a screening calibration described in one sentence without protocol or uncertainty. These are load-bearing gaps rather than cosmetic issues.

major comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 (electric-field results)] The first-order response at the signal frequency is equally explained by a stray dc electric field through the 2E_dc E_sig cos(ωt) cross term of the second-order Stark effect. The manuscript states that the linear response persists at zero magnetic bias, but this does not control for a dc electric field, and no measurement, nulling, or compensation of stray dc fields in the vapor cell is reported. The dipole-dipole explanation is therefore not established. The authors should provide a quantitative estimate of the proposed state mixing and a control experiment (e.g., density dependence, a different Rydberg state, or deliberate variation of a compensated dc field) that distinguishes the two mechanisms.
  2. [Electric-field sensitivity and screening-ratio paragraph] The in-cell sensitivity numbers 186 µV/cm and 42.4 µV cm^-1 Hz^-0.5 are directly proportional to the screening ratio, but the paper gives no protocol, uncertainty, or frequency dependence for the 'approximately 3.5%' calibration at 5 kHz. The frequency response in Fig. 5 is also attributed to the screening effect, so the same missing calibration information affects that interpretation. Without these details the quoted in-cell values cannot be evaluated or reproduced.
  3. [Dipole-dipole mechanism paragraph ('average inter-atomic distance between two 87Rb')] The relevant length scale for Rydberg dipole-dipole interactions is the spacing between Rydberg atoms, not the average distance between ground-state 87Rb atoms. The paper does not report the Rydberg excitation fraction or Rydberg-atom density, so the 4 µm estimate does not by itself support a Förster-resonance mechanism. A quantitative treatment including the Rydberg density, the proposed mixing amplitude, and the relevant Förster defects is needed before the claimed discovery is supported.
  4. [Fig. 2(a) and magnetic-field sensitivity discussion] With a dc bias of 1.9 Gs and a sinusoidal signal amplitude of 8.3 Gs, the total magnetic field changes sign during each cycle. The text asserts that the bias places the Zeeman shift in its linear regime, but this linearity should be justified over the full field excursion; otherwise the calibration of demodulated phase amplitude to magnetic-field amplitude is not transparent.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Before Fig. 4] The text immediately preceding Fig. 4 contains an uninterpretable sequence of '/uni000000...' tokens that should be removed before submission.
  2. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption lists four slopes but does not explicitly map them to the four bias-field values; the correspondence should be stated.
  3. [Eq. (1) and Eq. (2)] The sign convention for the two-photon detuning Δ is not specified before Eq. (1) is linearized in Eq. (2); this matters for the sign of the first-order phase response.
  4. [General notation] Use standard unit symbols such as 'G' rather than 'Gs' throughout the text and figure captions.
  5. [Abstract and conclusion] The phrase 'we discover that' overstates the support for the dipole-dipole mechanism given the absence of control measurements; a more cautious formulation would better match the evidence presented.
  6. [Reproducibility] A data-availability statement with the raw FFT spectra and demodulation traces would improve reproducibility and allow quantitative comparison with future work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the EIT phase-response derivation is standard, experimental sensitivities come from measured spectra, and the screening calibration is an underspecified but ordinary experimental conversion factor rather than a fitted input renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks rather than circular. Equation (1) is a standard expression for the real part of the linear susceptibility in an EIT three-level system, and Eq. (2) is a Taylor expansion of that expression for small detuning. The experimental phase-demodulation signals are independent measurements, and the magnetic-field sensitivity (0.87 μT/√Hz) is obtained from the measured signal-to-noise ratio of the demodulated spectrum, not from a fit to a model that already contains that number. The electric-field sensitivity is obtained by measuring the external field amplitude at which the demodulated phase peak emerges from the noise, then applying a separately calibrated screening ratio (stated as approximately 3.5% at 5 kHz) to convert external field to in-cell field. This is a normal calibration step, even though the calibration protocol is not described in detail; the lack of protocol is a reproducibility concern, not a circularity. The paper's central explanatory claim — that the observed linear-in-electric-field response arises from Rydberg dipole-dipole interactions producing a superposition of states with different angular momenta — is asserted with the phrase 'according to our theoretical and experimental investigations' but is not derived from the measurement in a way that makes the conclusion equivalent to the input. The data only show linearity; the dipole-dipole mechanism is a hypothesis offered to explain that linearity. That hypothesis may be under-supported, and the alternative explanation of a stray dc electric field producing a 2 E_dc E_ac cross term is not experimentally excluded, but this is a scientific-control or correctness issue, not a circular reduction. No load-bearing self-citation appears: the cited works by the authors (Refs. [35], [36], [41], [43]) are background context or future outlook, not the basis of the central derivation. No equation is equal by construction to a fitted quantity, and no measured sensitivity is renamed as a prediction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central calculation uses standard EIT susceptibility with no fitted parameters, but the conversion of external to in-cell electric-field amplitude relies on an unquantified screening calibration, and the explanation of the linear Stark response rests on an ad hoc many-body mechanism without independent support.

free parameters (1)
  • Screening ratio at 5 kHz = ~3.5%
    Calibrated experimentally to convert external electric field amplitudes to the in-cell field seen by atoms; no uncertainty given. Used to compute in-cell minimum detectable field of 186 μV/cm and sensitivity of 42.4 μV cm^-1 Hz^-0.5.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Three-level EIT susceptibility model (Eq. 1) describes the experimental response.
    The real atomic system has hyperfine structure, Doppler broadening, and collisions, but the paper uses the idealized three-level model throughout.
  • domain assumption The low-frequency field induces a quasi-static detuning and the EIT phase response follows the instantaneous steady-state susceptibility.
    Stated around Eq. (2) as 'effectively like the instantaneous response'; no validity bound is given for the frequencies used.
  • domain assumption The linearized phase response (Eq. 2) is accurate for the signal amplitudes used; higher-order terms are neglected.
    The authors note higher-order effects exist but are small; no quantitative bound is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The dipole-dipole interaction between Rydberg atoms at ~4 μm average spacing induces enough state mixing to create a permanent dipole moment and a first-order Stark effect.
    Introduced specifically to explain the observed linear electric-field response; no calculation or control experiment supports it, and the relevant Förster channels are not identified.
invented entities (1)
  • Rydberg dipole-dipole interaction-induced state superposition (mixing of D with S, P, F states)
    purpose: To explain the first-order (linear) Stark response observed in the low-frequency electric-field measurement.
    The mechanism is proposed after observing the linear response and is not independently tested (e.g., via density variation or a control Rydberg state).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Heterodyne detection of low-frequency fields via Rydberg EIT with phase demodulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LK73K3NE

@misc{pith2026250524268,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Heterodyne detection of low-frequency fields via Rydberg EIT with phase demodulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LK73K3NE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24268}
}
read the original abstract

Recently, the rapid progress of quantum sensing research reveals that the Rydberg atoms have great potentials in becoming high-precision centimeter-scale antenna of low-frequency fields. In order to facilitate efficient and reliable detection of low-frequency fields via Rydberg atoms, we design, implement and analyze a special but low-cost and scalable method based on heterodyning processes under the condition of electromagnetically induced transparency (EIT) embedded in typical two-photon ground-Rydberg transition. Instead of relying on observing changes in absorption of light by Rydberg atoms, our method focuses on the phase modulation effect on the probe laser induced by the low-frequency fields via the Rydberg EIT mechanism and utilizes a demodulation process to accurately retrieve the signal. The general principles of our method apply to both electric and magnetic fields and it is even possible to realize the combination of both functionalities in the same apparatus. In particular, we experimentally demonstrate the full cycle of operations with respect to both cases. In the measurement of low-frequency electric fields, we discover that the Rydberg dipole-dipole interaction among atoms induce linear superposition of Rydberg states with different angular momentum that generates a first-order response corresponding to the signature of linear Stark effect. As the Rydberg atoms have excellent coupling strengths with electric fields, our results indicate that our method can hopefully reach high-precision performance for practical tasks in the future.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24268 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color online) (a) Schematics of experimental setup. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (Color online) Results of low-frequency magnetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color online) The spectrum peak strengths of de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Color online) Performance with respect to different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Color online) Performance with respect to different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  2. [2]

    Schlossberger, N

    N. Schlossberger, N. Prajapati, S. Berweger, A. P. Ro- tunno, A. B. Artusio-Glimpse, M. T. Simons, A. A. Sheikh, E. B. Norrgard, S. P. Eckel, and C. L. Holloway, Nature Reviews Physics6, 606 (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Zhang, Y

    H. Zhang, Y. Ma, K. Liao, W. Yang, Z. Liu, D. Ding, H. Yan, W. Li, and L. Zhang, Science Bulletin69, 1515 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Saffman, T

    M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, and K. Mølmer, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 2313 (2010)

    2010

  5. [5]

    Moreover, the response of system is en- dowed with a clear frequency-dependent feature

    These results demonstrate compatibility with low- frequency electric signals in this initial experimental im- plementation. Moreover, the response of system is en- dowed with a clear frequency-dependent feature. One major cause is the frequency-dependence of the screen- ing effect, namely that the metallic layer of the vapor cell functions like a high-pas...

    work page

  6. [6]

    J. A. Sedlacek, A. Schwettmann, H. K¨ ubler, R. L¨ ow, T. Pfau, and J. P. Shaffer, Nature Physics8, 819 (2012)

    2012

  7. [7]

    J. A. Sedlacek, A. Schwettmann, H. K¨ ubler, and J. P. Shaffer, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 063001 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    D. A. Anderson, S. A. Miller, G. Raithel, J. A. Gordon, M. L. Butler, and C. L. Holloway, Phys. Rev. Appl.5, 034003 (2016). 6

    work page 2016

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    J. Han, T. Vogt, C. Gross, D. Jaksch, M. Kiffner, and W. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 093201 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    K. C. Cox, D. H. Meyer, F. K. Fatemi, and P. D. Kunz, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 110502 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    M. Jing, Y. Hu, J. Ma, H. Zhang, L. Zhang, L. Xiao, and S. Jia, Nature Physics16, 911 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Ouyang, Y

    K. Ouyang, Y. Shi, M. Lei, and M. Shi, Applied Physics Letters123, 264001 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Liu, L.-H

    Z.-K. Liu, L.-H. Zhang, B. Liu, Z.-Y. Zhang, G.-C. Guo, D.-S. Ding, and B.-S. Shi, Nature Communications13, 1997 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    Tu, K.-Y

    H.-T. Tu, K.-Y. Liao, H.-L. Wang, Y.-F. Zhu, S.-Y. Qiu, H. Jiang, W. Huang, W. Bian, H. Yan, and S.-L. Zhu, Science Advances10, eads0683 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    L. A. Downes, L. Torralbo-Campo, and K. J. Weatherill, New Journal of Physics25, 035002 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Y. Cai, S. Shi, Y. Zhou, Y. Li, J. Yu, W. Li, and L. Li, Phys. Rev. Appl.19, 044079 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    P. K. Elgee, J. C. Hill, K.-J. E. LeBlanc, G. D. Ko, P. D. Kunz, D. H. Meyer, and K. C. Cox, Applied Physics Let- ters123, 084001 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Calero, R

    V. Calero, R. Fern´ andez-Mateo, H. Morgan, P. Garc ´ ıa- S´ anchez, and A. Ramos, Phys. Rev. Appl.15, 014047 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    D. H. Meyer, P. D. Kunz, and K. C. Cox, Phys. Rev. Appl.15, 014053 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Z. Ding, Y. Liu, K. Yang, Y. Li, R. Ran, Y. Lin, and Y. Fu, IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation 72, 9558 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Z. Ding, Y. Liu, K. Yang, Y. Li, R. Ran, Y. Lin, and Y. Fu, IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters 24, 247 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    Jau and T

    Y.-Y. Jau and T. Carter, Phys. Rev. Appl.13, 054034 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    M. J. Lim, M. Cervantes, C. Brady, S. McPoyle, and J. Simmermon, Applied Physics Letters123, 051106 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    L. Li, Y. Jiao, J. Hu, H. Li, M. Shi, J. Zhao, and S. Jia, Opt. Express31, 29228 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    I. M. Savukov, S. J. Seltzer, M. V. Romalis, and K. L. Sauer, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 063004 (2005)

    2005

  18. [26]

    Chalupczak, R

    W. Chalupczak, R. M. Godun, and S. Pustelny (Aca- demic Press, 2018) pp. 297–336

    2018

  19. [27]

    Budker and M

    D. Budker and M. Romalis, Nature Physics3, 227 (2007)

    2007

  20. [28]

    J. C. Allred, R. N. Lyman, T. W. Kornack, and M. V. Romalis, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 130801 (2002)

    2002

  21. [29]

    B. Zhao, L. Li, Y. Zhang, J. Tang, Y. Liu, and Y. Zhai, IEEE Sensors Journal23, 18949 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    I. K. Kominis, T. W. Kornack, J. C. Allred, and M. V. Romalis, Nature422, 596 (2003)

    2003

  23. [31]

    H. B. Dang, A. C. Maloof, and M. V. Romalis, Applied Physics Letters97, 151110 (2010)

    2010

  24. [32]

    Deans, Y

    C. Deans, Y. Cohen, H. Yao, B. Maddox, A. Vigilante, and F. Renzoni, Applied Physics Letters119, 014001 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Maddox and F

    B. Maddox and F. Renzoni, Applied Physics Letters122, 144001 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Budker, D

    D. Budker, D. F. Kimball, S. M. Rochester, V. V. Yashchuk, and M. Zolotorev, Phys. Rev. A62, 043403 (2000)

    2000

  27. [35]

    Fleischhauer, A

    M. Fleischhauer, A. Imamoglu, and J. P. Marangos, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 633 (2005)

    2005

  28. [36]

    W. Qu, S. Jin, J. Sun, L. Jiang, J. Wen, and Y. Xiao, Nature Communications11, 1752 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Zhang, S

    X. Zhang, S. Jin, W. Qu, and Y. Xiao, Applied Physics Letters119, 054001 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Hammerer, A

    K. Hammerer, A. S. Sørensen, and E. S. Polzik, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1041 (2010)

    2010

  31. [39]

    Finkelstein, S

    R. Finkelstein, S. Bali, O. Firstenberg, and I. Novikova, New Journal of Physics25, 035001 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    W. Yang, M. Jing, H. Zhang, L. Zhang, L. Xiao, and S. Jia, Phys. Rev. Appl.19, 064021 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Osterwalder and F

    A. Osterwalder and F. Merkt, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 1831 (1999)

    1999

  34. [42]

    X. Lu, Y. Sun, and H. Metcalf, Phys. Rev. A84, 033402 (2011)

    2011

  35. [43]

    Y. Zeng, P. Xu, X. He, Y. Liu, M. Liu, J. Wang, D. J. Papoular, G. V. Shlyapnikov, and M. Zhan, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 160502 (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    Sun, SCIENCE CHINA Physics, Mechanics & Astron- omy67, 120311 (2024)

    Y. Sun, SCIENCE CHINA Physics, Mechanics & Astron- omy67, 120311 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

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