Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Quantum nonlinear optics with counter-propagating photons

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 Counter-propagating photons block whole pulses for over 1 microsecond

desk verdict First counter-propagating Rydberg-polariton experiment with a clean OD scaling result, but the 'complete pulse blockade' claim is weaker than the paper's own Eq. (4) allows under the stated pulsed parameters. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01124 v1 pith:EFOCYUMZ submitted 2025-06-01 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

Bankim Chandra Das , Ashley Harkavi , Aditya Prakash , Ariel Nakav , Lee Drori , Ofer Firstenberg This is my paper
classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph
keywords quantumnonlinearopticsRydbergpolaritonsphotonblockadecounter-propagatingphotonselectromagneticallyinducedtransparencyphoton-photoncorrelationsthree-photoninteractions
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 shows that two photons meeting head-on inside a Rydberg-polariton medium interact much more lastingly than photons moving in the same direction, because the counter-propagating pair stays inside the interaction region for the entire traversal of the medium. The measured anti-correlation time grows linearly with optical depth, reaching 1.08 microseconds at optical depth 72, and the same-time coincidence drops to about four percent. Because this range is so long, a 1.1-microsecond pulse fits both inside the interaction window and inside the transmission bandwidth, so synchronized counter-propagating pulses display near-complete suppression of coincident transmission. The authors take this as evidence that timing-controlled, deterministic photon-photon interactions are achievable, and they extend the result to three photons, where a single photon colliding with a counter-propagating pair is suppressed even when pairwise blockade is incomplete.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the stationary two-polariton wavefunction in coordinate space $(x_1, x_2)$ and the diffusion-like equation for its symmetric component. For counter-propagation, the relative coordinate $r = x_2 - x_1$ plays the role of propagation coordinate, so the dissipative Rydberg potential $V(r) = r_b^6/(r_b^6 - i r^6)$ depletes the wavefunction over the full medium length, giving $\tau_{\mathrm{cross}} = L/v_g = \mathrm{OD}/(2\gamma_E)$; for co-propagation the center-of-mass coordinate is the propagation direction and bandwidth diffusion broadens the dip as $\sqrt{\mathrm{OD}}$. The same minimal Hamiltonian, extended to a three-component time-dependent equation and a stationary three-photon equation, reproduces the pulsed maps, the V-shaped spatiotemporal dispersion, and the three-photon anti-correlations without fit parameters.

What would settle it

Measure the coincidence floor while deliberately changing the fraction of spectator photons, for example by cleaning the spatial mode or polarization of the probe beams, or by varying the beam waist. If floor coincidences survive after such cleaning, the spectator attribution is wrong; if they vanish in proportion to the spectator fraction, the attribution is confirmed. A complementary check is whether $g^{(2)}_{\mathrm{cross}}(0)$ follows the predicted $e^{-2\mathrm{OD}_b}$ plus a constant floor as a function of optical depth.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that dissipative Rydberg blockade in a counter-propagating geometry produces an anti-correlation time equal to the full group delay through the medium, $\tau_{\mathrm{cross}} = \mathrm{OD}/(2\gamma_E)$, in contrast to co-propagating photons whose anti-correlation is set by the EIT bandwidth and grows only as the square root of optical depth. At $\mathrm{OD} = 72$ the counter-propagating half-width is $1.08(1)\,\mu\mathrm{s}$, more than double the co-propagating $0.48(2)\,\mu\mathrm{s}$, and the same-time correlation is $g^{(2)}_{\mathrm{cross}}(0) = 0.041(5)$. With $1.1\,\mu\mathrm{s}$ pulses that satisfy both the bandwidth and interaction-range constraints, synchronized pulses show near-complete extinction of coincident transmission, and the pulse-level suppression disappears when the pulses are separated by 1.5 or 3 microseconds. In the three-photon channel, $g^{(3)}(0,0)$ drops to $0.06(4)$ at low optical depth where the pairwise blockade is only partial, showing that the combined cross and self interactions enhance suppression beyond what two-photon correlations would suggest.

Load-bearing premise

The residual coincidence floor in $g^{(2)}(0)$, quoted as $s_{\mathrm{cross}} = 3.5\%$, is attributed entirely to non-interacting spectator photons; if those residual coincidences instead come from photons that interact only partially, the complete-blockade claim would be weakened and the blockade fidelity extracted from the data would be too high.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 1.1-microsecond counter-propagating pulse can be almost completely extinguished by a synchronized partner, making pulse timing a deterministic control knob for photon-photon interactions.
  • Because the interaction range grows linearly with optical depth rather than as its square root, longer or denser media extend the usable interaction time without the bandwidth penalty that limits co-propagating setups.
  • Three-photon suppression exceeds the independent-pairwise expectation, indicating a resource for multi-photon nonlinear operations beyond two-photon gates.
  • The measured ratio $\tau_{\mathrm{cross}}/\tau_{\mathrm{self}} \approx \sqrt{\mathrm{OD}/9}$ defines a concrete window, $\mathrm{OD} > 9$, in which counter-propagation outperforms co-propagation.
  • The analytic formulas for pulse transmission and pulse-level correlation provide a design curve for choosing pulse width and optical depth in future gate experiments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same geometry is run in the dispersive (off-resonant EIT) regime, the long mutual overlap should accumulate a coherent phase over the entire pulse, suggesting a natural extension to deterministic cross-phase gates that the paper does not yet demonstrate.
  • The linear scaling implies the 1-microsecond range is not fundamental: at higher optical depth or with Rydberg states of larger blockade radius, multi-microsecond interaction windows should be reachable, limited mainly by atomic coherence and the spectator-photon floor.
  • The V-shaped dispersion visible in the pulsed correlation map is a time-dependent few-body signature; a pulsed three-photon experiment could probe whether the enhanced suppression seen for continuous waves persists when all three pulses are synchronized.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. This paper reports an experimental study of photon-photon interactions between counter-propagating Rydberg polaritons in a cold 87Rb ensemble. The authors observe a record anti-correlation time of 1.08 microsecond in continuous wave, scaling linearly with optical depth, in contrast to the square-root scaling for co-propagating photons. They then demonstrate pulse-level blockade for synchronized 1.1-microsecond pulses, report three-photon suppression consistent with pairwise blockade, and support the observations with analytic diffusion-type models and parameter-free numerical simulations. The central claims are the linear-OD interaction range, full-pulse photon blockade, and enhanced three-photon interactions.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work establishes counter-propagating Rydberg polaritons as a qualitatively new regime of quantum nonlinear optics, with interaction ranges set by the medium length rather than the EIT bandwidth and with tunable timing control over pulse-level interactions. The paper is commendable for presenting analytic expressions with stated limitations, for using no fitted parameters in the numerical comparisons, and for reporting scaling predictions (tau_cross proportional to OD, tau_self proportional to sqrt(OD)) that are directly falsifiable. However, the 'complete blockade' claim needs quantitative reconciliation with the authors' own model, as detailed below.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV and Methods B, Eq. (4)] The claim of 'complete photon blockade of entire pulses' is not supported by the paper's own analytic model under the stated pulsed parameters. With OD=88 and 2 gamma_E = 17 x 2pi MHz (Section II), Eq. (2) gives tau_cross = OD/(2 gamma_E) = 0.82 microsecond; for T_w = 1.1 microsecond, Eq. (4) yields g2_pulse(0) = 1 - erf(tau_cross/T_sigma) = 1 - erf(0.88) = 0.21, i.e., a 21% residual coincidence rate, not the near-complete suppression claimed in the abstract and in Fig. 3g. The authors should report the measured g2_pulse(0) value and either reconcile the model with the data (e.g., by using the true anti-correlation range and including finite-bandwidth effects) or revise the 'complete' wording.
  2. [Sec. IV and Fig. 3e] The choice of 1.1 microsecond pulse width is justified by overlaying the CW anti-correlation curve measured at OD=72, 2 gamma_E = 10 x 2pi MHz (tau_cross = 1.08 microsecond), but the pulsed experiment is performed at OD=88, 2 gamma_E = 17 x 2pi MHz, for which tau_cross = 0.82 microsecond. The design analysis should use the pulsed parameter set; as written, the overlay overstates the interaction range relevant to the pulse measurements.
  3. [Methods A] The residual coincidence floor s_cross = 3.5% is attributed entirely to non-interacting 'spectator' photons, but this attribution is not independently verified. If the residual coincidences contain partially interacting photons, then the extracted blockade fidelity and the 'complete' claim are overestimated. The authors should either provide a direct characterization of the spectator population (e.g., by measuring correlations as a function of transverse mode or polarization) or weaken the claim accordingly.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (2)] The counter-propagating diffusion equation is stated as 'we obtain' from Eq. (7) without showing the transformation; since this equation backs the linear-OD scaling and the tau_cross formula, the derivation should be provided or explicitly referenced in the Methods.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption and Sec. II] The notation for gamma_E is inconsistent: the text defines 2 gamma_E as the EIT linewidth, while the Fig. 3 caption reports gamma_E values without clarifying whether these are half-linewidths. Please define the convention once and use it consistently.
  3. [Sec. IV, Fig. 3g,h] The paper does not quote numerical values for g2_pulse(0) or its uncertainty at T_w = 1.1 microsecond. Reporting these values, together with the parameters used in the color-coded analytic line, would make the 'complete' claim quantitatively checkable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the counter-propagating anti-correlation scaling is derived from a parameter-free minimal model and tested against measured g2, while the pulse-level formula uses an independently measured tau_cross as input.

full rationale

The paper's central counter-propagating prediction, tau_cross = OD/(2gamma_E), follows from the minimal two-polariton propagation equation (Eq. 2), whose inputs are independently measured or known atomic and optical parameters. The comparison with the measured g2(tau) width in Fig. 2d is a parameter-free validation rather than a fit: the OD, gamma_E, rb, and C6 are not adjusted to reproduce the observed tau_cross. The pulse-level expressions in Methods B, Eq. (4), use the independently measured CW anti-correlation time and the EIT spectrum as inputs; they are not fitted to the pulsed-blockade data, and the resulting trade-off curve is compared with measured transmission and correlation values, so the prediction remains falsifiable. The spectator-photon floor (scross = 3.5%) is presented as a measured background level, not as a parameter fitted to enforce the blockade claim. Self-citations to Refs. [19] and [24] support the numerical integration technique and the experimental platform, but they do not smuggle in the new counter-propagating result, which is derived and tested here. The phrase 'complete photon blockade' may overstate what the paper's own Eq. (4) would predict under the pulsed parameters (OD = 88, 2gamma_E = 17*2pi MHz, giving about 21% residual pulse coincidences), but that is an internal-consistency or overclaim concern, not a circular reduction of an output to an input. No step in the derivation chain reduces by construction to its own inputs, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted in the reported models. OD, rb, γE, C6, and the correlation floors are measured or derived from known atomic properties. The floors s_cross and s_self are experimental baselines, not adjustments used to force agreement. The main assumptions are standard EIT polariton theory plus a uniform-density simplification and the spectator-floor attribution.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Three-level EIT Hamiltonian with adiabatic elimination of the intermediate state (Eqs. 5-6, Methods C).
    Standard slow-light polariton approximation; relies on ρg^2 >> Ω^2 to reduce the dynamics to a dual-band propagation equation.
  • domain assumption Symmetric-component approximation: neglect the antisymmetric part of the two-polariton wavefunction (Methods C).
    Invoked to obtain the diffusion equations from Eq. (7); prior works [9,17,19] found little effect on the correlation functions.
  • domain assumption Uniform atomic density approximation in the analytic model (Methods C).
    Used to define la = L/OD and derive τcross = OD/(2γE); full numerical simulations use the actual Gaussian density profile and match the data.
  • domain assumption Dissipative interaction potential V(r) = rb^6/(rb^6 - i r^6), with rb determined from C6 and γE.
    Standard form for Rydberg blockade in the on-resonance dissipative regime; the potential is not fitted to the data.
  • domain assumption Residual correlation floor is entirely due to non-interacting spectator photons (Methods A).
    The paper attributes the floor to beam tails and imperfect polarization; this is plausible but not directly measured, and it underlies the 'complete blockade' interpretation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum nonlinear optics with counter-propagating photons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EFOCYUMZ

@misc{pith2026250601124,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum nonlinear optics with counter-propagating photons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EFOCYUMZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01124}
}
abstract

Realizing strong interactions between individual photons is a cornerstone for advancing photonic quantum computing and quantum nonlinear optics. Here, we experimentally demonstrate strong interactions between counter-propagating photons mediated by Rydberg polaritons, achieving a record-long anti-correlation range exceeding $1~\mu s$. This extended range enables the use of photon pulses that are long enough to fit within the polariton bandwidth, yet short enough to remain within the interaction range. Under these conditions, we observe complete photon blockade of entire pulses, tunable by the pulse timing, thus demonstrating the potential for controlled, deterministic operations. Extending to the three-photon regime, we observe enhanced interactions when a photon encounters two counter-propagating photons. Our results, supported by analytical theory and rigorous numerical simulations, establish counter-propagating Rydberg polaritons as a powerful platform for engineering interactions in quantum light fields.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.01124 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. f shows the measured same-time two-photon correlation g (2)(0) as a function of OD and ODb for both geometries. In the co-propagating case, bandwidth￾induced broadening delays the suppression of g (2) self(0), whereas in the counter-propagating case, g (2) cross(0) de￾creases more rapidly with OD. An analytical expres￾sion for g (2) cross(0) can be derived from Eq. (2) by ne￾glecting diffusion and solving for ψ(R = … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

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. Fast Quantum Interconnects via Neutral Atom Ensembles

    quant-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A cavity-free interconnect using qubit-controlled Rydberg reflection in atomic ensembles is predicted to generate remote entanglement at rates ~3×10^5 s^-1 in ytterbium.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    In both cases, the anti-correlation vanishes with pulse separation ∆T , confirming that the interaction can be tuned via timing

    ≪ 1, while the 2.3- µs pulses show only partial block- ade. In both cases, the anti-correlation vanishes with pulse separation ∆T , confirming that the interaction can be tuned via timing. The pulse-level transmission and correlation are shown in Fig. 3h for different pulse durations Tw. As ex- pected, the transmission increases with Tw and asymp- totical...

    work page 1982

  2. [2]

    A. Kala, D. Sharp, M. Choi, A. Manna, P. Deshmukh, V. Kizhake Veetil, V. Menon, M. Pelton, E. Waks, and A. Majumdar, Opportunities and challenges of solid-state 10 quantum nonlinear optics, ACS nano (2025)

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    D. E. Chang, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum nonlinear optics—photon by photon, Nature Photonics 8, 685 (2014)

    2014

  4. [4]

    Tiarks, S

    D. Tiarks, S. Schmidt-Eberle, T. Stolz, G. Rempe, and S. D¨ urr, A photon–photon quantum gate based on Ryd- berg interactions, Nat. Phys. 15, 124 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    Gorniaczyk, C

    H. Gorniaczyk, C. Tresp, J. Schmidt, H. Fedder, and S. Hofferberth, Single-photon transistor mediated by interstate rydberg interactions, Physical review letters 113, 053601 (2014)

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    The pulse-level cross-correlation g(2) pulse(∆T ) is evaluated as g(2)(T1, T2), using a single correlation time-bin of width 2 Tw covering the full pulse duration

    In the finite-pulse experiments, we vary the relative timing ∆ T = T2 − T1 between the cen- ters of the two input pulses, T1 and T2. The pulse-level cross-correlation g(2) pulse(∆T ) is evaluated as g(2)(T1, T2), using a single correlation time-bin of width 2 Tw covering the full pulse duration. At high OD, the measured two-photon correlations g(2)(0) do ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Stolz, H

    T. Stolz, H. Hegels, M. Winter, B. R¨ ohr, Y.-F. Hsiao, L. Husel, G. Rempe, and S. D¨ urr, Quantum-Logic Gate between Two Optical Photons with an Average Efficiency above 40%, Phys. Rev. X 12, 021035 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Chang, V

    D. Chang, V. Gritsev, G. Morigi, V. Vuleti´ c, M. Lukin, and E. Demler, Crystallization of strongly interacting photons in a nonlinear optical fibre, Nature physics 4, 884 (2008)

    work page 2008

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Rosenblum, O

    S. Rosenblum, O. Bechler, I. Shomroni, Y. Lovsky, G. Guendelman, and B. Dayan, Extraction of a single photon from an optical pulse, Nature Photonics 10, 19 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    Otterbach, M

    J. Otterbach, M. Moos, D. Muth, and M. Fleischhauer, Wigner crystallization of single photons in cold rydberg ensembles, Physical Review Letters 111, 113001 (2013)

    2013

  3. [11]

    Firstenberg, T

    O. Firstenberg, T. Peyronel, Q.-Y. Liang, A. Gorshkov, M. Lukin, and V. Vuleti´ c, Attractive photons in a quan- tum nonlinear medium, Nature 502, 71 (2013)

    2013

  4. [12]

    L. W. Clark, N. Schine, C. Baum, N. Jia, and J. Simon, Observation of laughlin states made of light, Nature 582, 41 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    S. H. Cantu, A. V. Venkatramani, W. Xu, L. Zhou, B. Je- lenkovi´ c, M. D. Lukin, and V. Vuleti´ c, Repulsive photons in a quantum nonlinear medium, Nature Physics 16, 921 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Stiesdal, H

    N. Stiesdal, H. Busche, K. Kleinbeck, J. Kumlin, M. G. Hansen, H. P. B¨ uchler, and S. Hofferberth, Con- trolled multi-photon subtraction with cascaded rydberg superatoms as single-photon absorbers, Nature Commu- nications 12, 4328 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Bienias, S

    P. Bienias, S. Choi, O. Firstenberg, M. F. Maghrebi, M. Gullans, M. D. Lukin, A. V. Gorshkov, and H. B¨ uchler, Scattering resonances and bound states for strongly interacting rydberg polaritons, Physical Review A 90, 053804 (2014)

    2014

  8. [16]

    Gullans, J

    M. Gullans, J. Thompson, Y. Wang, Q.-Y. Liang, V. Vuleti´ c, M. D. Lukin, and A. V. Gorshkov, Effective field theory for rydberg polaritons, Physical review let- ters 117, 113601 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    D. Roy, C. M. Wilson, and O. Firstenberg, Colloquium: Strongly interacting photons in one-dimensional contin- uum, Reviews of Modern Physics 89, 021001 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    N. Jia, N. Schine, A. Georgakopoulos, A. Ryou, L. W. Clark, A. Sommer, and J. Simon, A strongly interacting polaritonic quantum dot, Nature Physics 14, 550 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    B. C. Das, D. Kiselov, L. Drori, A. Nakav, A. Poddubny, and O. Firstenberg, Multiband dispersion and warped vortices of strongly-interacting photons, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.11553 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    Firstenberg, C

    O. Firstenberg, C. S. Adams, and S. Hofferberth, Non- linear quantum optics mediated by rydberg interactions, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 49, 152003 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Peyronel, O

    T. Peyronel, O. Firstenberg, Q.-Y. Liang, S. Hofferberth, A. Gorshkov, T. Pohl, M. Lukin, and V. Vuleti´ c, Quan- tum nonlinear optics with single photons enabled by strongly interacting atoms, Nature 488, 57 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    S. Baur, D. Tiarks, G. Rempe, and S. D¨ urr, Single- photon switch based on rydberg blockade, Physical Re- view Letters 112, 073901 (2013)

    2013

  15. [23]

    Liang, A

    Q.-Y. Liang, A. Venkatramani, S. Cantu, T. Nichol- son, M. Gullans, A. Gorshkov, J. Thompson, C. Chin, M. Lukin, and V. Vuleti´ c, Observation of three-photon bound states in a quantum nonlinear medium, Science 359, 783 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    Tiarks, S

    D. Tiarks, S. Schmidt, G. Rempe, and S. D¨ urr, Optical π phase shift created with a single-photon pulse, Science Advances 2, e1600036 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    J. D. Thompson, T. L. Nicholson, Q.-Y. Liang, S. H. Cantu, A. V. Venkatramani, S. Choi, I. A. Fedorov, D. Viscor, T. Pohl, M. D. Lukin, et al., Symmetry- protected collisions between strongly interacting pho- tons, Nature 542, 206 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    Drori, B

    L. Drori, B. C. Das, T. D. Zohar, G. Winer, E. Poem, A. Poddubny, and O. Firstenberg, Quantum vortices of strongly interacting photons, Science 381, 193 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Friedler, D

    I. Friedler, D. Petrosyan, M. Fleischhauer, and G. Kur- izki, Long-range interactions and entanglement of slow single-photon pulses, Physical Review A 72, 043803 (2005)

    2005

  20. [28]

    Gorshkov, J

    A. Gorshkov, J. Otterbach, M. Fleischhauer, T. Pohl, and M. Lukin, Photon-photon interactions via rydberg blockade, Physical Review Letters 107, 133602 (2011)

    2011

  21. [29]

    L. Yang, B. He, J.-H. Wu, Z. Zhang, and M. Xiao, In- teracting photon pulses in a rydberg medium, Optica 3, 1095 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    B. He, A. V. Sharypov, J. Sheng, C. Simon, and M. Xiao, Two-photon dynamics in coherent rydberg atomic ensem- ble, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 133606 (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    Bienias and H

    P. Bienias and H. P. B¨ uchler, Two photon conditional phase gate based on rydberg slow light polaritons, Jour- nal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 53, 054003 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    D. P. Ornelas-Huerta, P. Bienias, A. N. Craddock, M. J. Gullans, A. J. Hachtel, M. Kalinowski, M. E. Lyon, A. V. Gorshkov, S. L. Rolston, and J. V. Porto, Tunable three- body loss in a nonlinear rydberg medium, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 173401 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

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