Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 69 references

A large magneto-optical trap of cadmium atoms loaded from a cryogenic buffer gas beam

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 A magneto-optical trap loaded from a pulsed cryogenic helium buffer gas beam captures about 11 million cadmium atoms in 10 ms on a 229 nm transition, beating the photoionization losses that have limited deep-ultraviolet magneto-optical…

desk verdict A real experimental advance in DUV laser cooling that deserves a serious referee, with the central atom-number claim being conservative and the main weak point being an unresolved 3-sigma spread in the photoionization cross-section extractions. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01180 v1 pith:7UOWYHTN submitted 2025-06-01 physics.atom-ph cond-mat.quant-gas

J. E. Padilla-Castillo , S. Hofsäss , L. Palánki , J. Cai , C. J. H. Rich , R. Thomas , S. Kray , G. Meijer
show 2 more authors
S. C. Wright S. Truppe
This is my paper
classification physics.atom-phcond-mat.quant-gas
keywords cadmiummagneto-opticaltrapcryogenicbuffergasbeamdeep-ultravioletlasercoolingphotoionizationZeemansloweropticallatticeclockAlFmolecule
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

This paper demonstrates that a cryogenic helium buffer gas beam — a pulsed source that cools laser-ablated atoms in 3 K helium gas and expels them as a slow, intense pulse — can load a cadmium magneto-optical trap (a laser-cooling trap of crossed beams and a quadrupole magnet) far faster than the usual thermal-vapor source, even though the 229 nm trapping light also photoionizes the atoms. In 10 ms the trap collects $1.1(2)\times 10^{7}$ atoms of the bosonic isotope $^{112}$Cd, a loading rate above $10^{9}$ s$^{-1}$, roughly a hundred times faster than previously reported cadmium MOTs, reaching a peak density of $2.5\times 10^{11}$ cm$^{-3}$ and a phase-space density of $2\times 10^{-9}$ (a measure of proximity to quantum degeneracy). Because the $^1S_0 \to {}^1P_1$ transition at 229 nm has a very short excited-state lifetime, the radiation-pressure force is large and the trap's own quadrupole field works as a compact Zeeman slower, giving a capture velocity above 200 m/s within 5 cm. The authors quantify the dominant loss channel — resonant two-photon ionization through the $^1P_1$ state — and show that rapidly detuning the trapping light after each pulse reduces that loss enough to accumulate several atomic pulses in one trap. This matters because fast, dense loading is the missing ingredient for cadmium-based optical clocks and a direct blueprint for laser-cooling polar AlF molecules, which share cadmium's deep-ultraviolet transition.

What carries the argument

The object that carries the argument is the $^1S_0 \to {}^1P_1$ transition at 229 nm — the shortest-wavelength MOT transition built to date — whose 1.60(5) ns excited-state lifetime produces a very large radiation-pressure force and a wide 99.7 MHz linewidth. The second ingredient is the cryogenic buffer gas beam: a roughly 1 ms pulse of atoms moving near 130 m/s with a 60 m/s spread, which delivers atoms into the trap's capture window instead of building a lossy background vapor. The trap's permanent-magnet quadrupole field doubles as a Zeeman slower — a magnetic ramp that keeps decelerating atoms in resonance with the counter-propagating slowing light — covering about 140 m/s of velocity change within 5 cm. The quantitative engine is the two-photon ionization loss model $A_{\mathrm{ion}} = I\,\sigma_{\mathrm{ion}}\,\rho_{ee}/\hbar\omega$, which separates light-induced loss from background-gas loss and yields the absolute photoionization cross-section; the switched-detuning protocol then lowers the excited-state fraction $\rho_{ee}$ after loading, lengthening the MOT lifetime while preserving the fast loading rate.

What would settle it

Measure the scattering rate per atom directly in the operating MOT — for example, by imaging fluorescence from a cloud of known atom number with independently calibrated collection efficiency — and compare it with the rate predicted from the measured beam power and profile. If the intensity the atoms actually sample is several times below the inferred 2.2 W/cm$^{2}$, as the trap-frequency data hint, then the fitted photoionization cross-section and the stated peak density must be revised downward by the same factor, while the $1.1\times 10^{7}$ atoms in 10 ms would remain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a pulsed buffer gas beam removes the trade-off that has choked deep-ultraviolet MOTs: thermal-vapor loading is slow, and slow loading is fatal when the cooling light itself ionizes the atoms. By firing a short, cold pulse of atoms moving near 130 m/s from a 3 K helium buffer gas source, the authors capture up to $1.1(2)\times 10^{7}$ $^{112}$Cd atoms in 10 ms — a loading rate over $10^{9}$ s$^{-1}$ — reaching a peak density of $2.5\times 10^{11}$ cm$^{-3}$ and a phase-space density of $2\times 10^{-9}$. The same quadrupole field that traps the atoms slows the incoming beam, because the broad linewidth ($\Gamma/2\pi = 99.7$ MHz) and strong force at 229 nm make a separate Zeeman slower unnecessary. From fluorescence, absorption imaging, and trap-oscillation measurements the authors extract the trap frequency, the damping constant, and the absolute photoionization cross-section of the $^1P_1$ state, and they reproduce the loading behavior with isotope-resolved trajectory simulations. The demonstration establishes that species with severe loss channels in their main cooling cycle can still reach high-density MOTs when the loading is fast enough.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative results assume that the atoms feel the trapping-light intensity inferred from beam-power and profile measurements, but the paper's own trap-oscillation and fluorescence data indicate that the atoms actually see a lower average intensity; if so, the quoted density, phase-space density, and fitted photoionization cross-section are overestimates, while the rapid loading of roughly $10^{7}$ atoms would still stand.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Loading rates above $10^{9}$ s$^{-1}$ produce a full cadmium MOT in 10 ms, roughly a hundred times faster than thermal-vapor-loaded cadmium MOTs, shortening experimental cycles substantially.
  • The quadrupole field doubling as the Zeeman slower keeps the combined trap-and-slowing assembly at about 0.2 liters and gives a capture velocity above 200 m/s without any separate slower magnet.
  • Stepping the trapping-light detuning from $-1.5\Gamma$ to $-2\Gamma$ immediately after each pulse banks 3.5 times more atoms than a single pulse, making multi-pulse accumulation practical.
  • With a temperature near 6.3 mK, a density of $2.5\times 10^{11}$ cm$^{-3}$, and a phase-space density of $2\times 10^{-9}$, the MOT is ready for transfer into a second-stage narrow-line MOT at 326 nm, the established route toward a cadmium optical lattice clock.
  • The cryogenic-beam-plus-deep-UV recipe is the paper's stated foundation for trapping polar AlF molecules, which share cadmium's deep-UV cooling transition and comparable radiation-pressure forces.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The switched-detuning scheme generalizes to any MOT whose cooling transition doubles as a loss channel: load briefly near resonance for maximal scattering, then detune to shrink the excited-state fraction; molecular MOTs with limited photon budgets, such as AlF, are the most direct beneficiaries.
  • Because the measured ratio $\omega_{\mathrm{trap}}^{2}/\beta$ is nearly independent of laser intensity and detuning, it can serve future deep-UV MOTs as a built-in calibration observable that does not require knowing the absolute intensity.
  • The two independent determinations of the cadmium $^1P_1$ photoionization cross-section differ by roughly three standard deviations, indicating that intensity calibration rather than counting statistics currently limits such measurements; a standardized beam-overlap calibration could tighten them.
  • The absorption-based atom number is explicitly a lower bound, so an isotope-enriched target and a higher-repetition-rate ablation source — upgrades the authors name — could plausibly push the trapped atom number well beyond the quoted $1.1\times 10^{7}$.
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. This paper reports a magneto-optical trap of cadmium atoms on the 229 nm 1S0→1P1 transition, loaded from a pulsed cryogenic helium buffer-gas beam. The central results are up to 1.1(2)×10^7 112Cd atoms captured in 10 ms, a peak density of 2.5×10^11 cm^-3, a phase-space density of 2×10^-9, and a loading rate exceeding 10^9 s^-1, roughly two orders of magnitude faster than previous thermal-vapor-loaded Cd MOTs. The authors also report measurements of the MOT trap frequency and damping constant, two independent determinations of the absolute photoionization cross-section of the 1P1 state, and a switched-detuning accumulation scheme that increases the final number by a factor of 1.6 relative to fixed detuning and by 3.5 relative to single-pulse loading. A subset of the measurements was reproduced on a second, nearly identical apparatus at Imperial College London, and pyLCP trajectory simulations are used to interpret the Zeeman-slower-assisted capture and isotope-dependent loading.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a significant experimental advance: it demonstrates that a cryogenic buffer-gas beam can load a deep-UV MOT of a species with a strong two-photon ionization loss channel, using a compact integrated Zeeman slower and a switched-detuning strategy to accumulate multiple pulses. The paper has important strengths. The atom-number measurement is based on absorption imaging with the resonant cross-section and neglect of line-broadening, so the quoted 1.1(2)×10^7 is explicitly a lower bound; this protects the central loading-rate claim. The switched-detuning gain is a direct comparative observation that does not depend on the photoionization cross-section. The independent partial reproduction at ICL and the use of an open-source simulation code add credibility. The quantitative photoionization characterization is, however, not yet on the same footing as the core loading demonstration: the two cross-section determinations disagree by about 3σ, and the trap-frequency measurements used to support the intensity calibration are made with large-amplitude oscillations and are therefore not directly comparable to the small-oscillation Doppler theory.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III C, Table II] The two independent extractions of the 1P1 photoionization cross-section, 0.2(2)×10^-16 cm² (beam-loaded, FHI) and 0.8(2)×10^-16 cm² (dispenser-loaded, ICL), disagree by about 3σ, and the beam-loaded value is consistent with zero at the 1σ level. The abstract states that the absolute photoionization cross-section has been determined, and the conclusion states that photoionization losses have been characterized, but as presented the data constrain σ_ion only weakly and the two experiments are not mutually consistent under the model of Eq. (5). I ask the authors to reconcile these values explicitly, for example by identifying and propagating a common systematic model for the intensity actually seen by the atoms and for the spatial averaging in ρ_ee, or by quoting the result as a range or upper bound with the dominant systematics. Without this, the quantitative loss characterization is not established.
  2. [Section III B, Eqs. (3)-(4)] The measured trap frequency and damping constant are extracted from center-of-mass oscillations following kicks of 3–5 m/s, which produce excursions of order 1 mm for ω_trap ≈ 4.5×10^3 s^-1. In the 145–250 G/cm gradient and with 3.5 mm 1/e² beams, the atoms therefore sample substantially position-dependent magnetic fields and laser intensity during the oscillation. Equations (3)–(4) describe small-amplitude motion at the trap center, so the factors of 2.5 and 6 in Table I do not by themselves quantify the effective intensity correction at the trap center. Since Section III C invokes this discrepancy as evidence that 'atoms experience a lower average intensity than inferred from beam profile and power measurements,' the authors should either support that inference with a small-amplitude oscillation measurement or with a model that accounts for the position dependence of the scattering rate along the observed trajectory. The good agreement of the intensity-insensitive ratio ω_trap²/β is encouraging but does not fix the absolute scale.
  3. [Abstract and Section II] The abstract states that the setup 'yielding a capture velocity exceeding 200 m/s' as a result of this work, but this value comes from the pyLCP trajectory simulations in Section II (Fig. 1d), not from a direct velocity measurement. The simulated capture velocity depends on the assumed forward velocity distribution (mean 130 m/s, FWHM 60 m/s), the assumed transverse velocity profile, and the ad hoc 1.5 mrad slower-beam misalignment, none of which is independently characterized in the manuscript. The loading enhancement with the slower laser is a direct observation, but the specific capture-velocity claim should be presented as a simulation prediction (as it is in Section II) rather than as an experimental result, or supported by a velocity-selective or time-of-flight measurement.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III C] The text refers to 'Figure 4a)' when describing the MOT number and lifetime versus detuning, but the relevant panel is Figure 5a.
  2. [Section II] The phrase 'bored i' appears to be a typographical error for the inner bore diameter d_i of the permanent magnets.
  3. [Abstract] The abstract should distinguish more clearly between measured quantities and simulation predictions; in particular, the capture-velocity statement needs the same qualification as the main text.
  4. [Section III A] It would be helpful to state explicitly in the caption of Figure 2a that the fluorescence-based estimate N_MOT = 1.2×10^6 relies on the assumed peak intensity and scattering model, since the text makes this clear but the caption does not.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MOT loading demonstration, trap dynamics, density and phase-space-density numbers are independent measurements, and the self-citations supply only measured inputs and comparisons rather than load-bearing justifications.

full rationale

The central claims are direct experimental observations, not reductions of inputs to outputs. The atom number N_MOT = 1.1(2)x10^7 is obtained from an absorption image using the resonant cross-section, with the paper explicitly noting that neglected broadening 'set[s] a lower bound to N_MOT' (Section III A); this conservative construction cannot manufacture a larger number from assumptions. The peak density and phase-space density follow from N, the measured cloud size, and T = m*omega_trap^2*<x^2>/k_B, where omega_trap = 4.5(1)x10^3 s^-1 is independently fit from damped center-of-mass oscillations and <x^2> from the images; equipartition is a standard external relation, not a fitted ansatz. The Doppler-theory comparison in Section III B is unforced: equations (3) and (4) predict omega_trap = 11.2x10^3 s^-1 and beta = 16.0x10^3 s^-1, which 'significantly exceed the experimentally observed ones,' and the paper reports this discrepancy instead of adjusting parameters to force agreement. The intensity-insensitive ratio omega_trap^2/beta is a genuine, unadjusted cross-check (theory 7.9x10^3 s^-1, experiment 8.1(5)x10^3 s^-1), not a fitted coincidence. The photoionization cross-section is a fit to loss-rate data using equation (5), presented as a measurement with honest systematic-error discussion; the paper explicitly acknowledges that the two extractions 'differ by approximately three standard deviations' (Table II) and compares them against the external result of Brickman et al. [20], so the fitted quantity is not renamed as a prediction nor used to force the central claim. The capture velocity exceeding 200 m/s is a pyLCP simulation output that 'qualitatively reproduce[s] the experimental observations'; it is not used retroactively to set experimental parameters. Self-citations ([30], [33], [32], [70]) supply measured isotope shifts, the 1P1 lifetime, and beam-brightness comparisons; Ref. [33] is an external published measurement with stated uncertainties and does not contain the present target results, so per the review rules it counts as real evidence rather than circular support. The intensity-calibration concern raised by the reader is a systematic-uncertainty issue, not circularity: the paper states that 'atoms experience a lower average intensity than inferred from beam profile and power measurements' but does not then re-derive the same measured trap frequencies or cross-sections from that adjusted intensity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rely on standard Doppler MOT rate-equation models, the stated buffer gas beam velocity distribution, the measured magnetic field profile, and the assumption that non-photoionization losses are independent of MOT parameters. The photoionization cross-section is the main fitted parameter and its two datasets do not fully agree. No new particles or entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Photoionization cross-section sigma_ion (Cd 1P1) = 0.2(2) x 10^-16 cm^2 (beam-loaded); 0.8(2) x 10^-16 cm^2 (dispenser-loaded)
    Fitted from the intensity dependence of the MOT loss rate using Eq. 5 (Figure 4). The two values differ by ~3 sigma, and the paper attributes the spread to systematic intensity calibration. This parameter is a measurement product rather than a prerequisite for the main MOT demonstration.
  • Buffer gas beam forward velocity distribution (mean, FWHM) = mean = 130 m/s, FWHM = 60 m/s
    Input to pyLCP trajectory simulations (Section II) used to predict capture velocity and isotope-dependent loading fractions. The distribution is stated as 'representative' of the beam but is not independently characterized in this paper.
  • Transverse velocity width and slower-beam misalignment = top-hat range 14 m/s; angle 1.5 mrad
    Simulation inputs in Section II chosen to reproduce experimental conditions. The misalignment in particular is a heuristic correction, not a measured quantity.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Doppler MOT rate-equation model with effective two-level parameters (Gamma_eff = 3Gamma/2, s_eff = 2s/3)
    Used to convert fluorescence into atom number (Eq. 1) and to derive trap frequency and damping (Eqs. 3-4). This is standard in MOT physics for alkaline-earth-like atoms, and the measured ratio omega^2/beta agrees with the model, but the absolute values disagree with experiment by factors of 2-6.
  • domain assumption The intersystem decay 1P1 -> 3Pj is negligible
    Section III C states this channel 'is highly unlikely and has not been measured or detected so far'; the loss model therefore attributes all losses to two-photon ionization and background collisions.
  • domain assumption Background gas collision loss rate A0 is independent of MOT parameters
    Used in the loss model A = A_ion + A0 (Section III C) following standard practice (Ref. [56]).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A large magneto-optical trap of cadmium atoms loaded from a cryogenic buffer gas beam." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7UOWYHTN

@misc{pith2026250601180,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A large magneto-optical trap of cadmium atoms loaded from a cryogenic buffer gas beam},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7UOWYHTN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01180}
}
abstract

We demonstrate rapid loading of a magneto-optical trap (MOT) of cadmium atoms from a pulsed cryogenic helium buffer gas beam, overcoming strong photoionization losses. Using the $ ^1S_0 \rightarrow{} ^1P_1 $ transition at 229 nm, we capture up to $ 1.1(2) \times 10^7$ $^{112}$Cd atoms in 10 ms, achieving a peak density of $2.5 \times 10^{11}$cm$^{-3}$ and a phase-space density of $ 2 \times 10^{-9} $. The large scattering force in the deep ultraviolet enables Zeeman slowing within 5 cm of the trap, yielding a capture velocity exceeding 200 m/s. We measure the MOT trap frequency and damping constant, and determine the absolute photoionization cross section of the $^1P_1 $ state. Photoionization losses are mitigated via dynamic detuning of the trapping light's frequency, allowing efficient accumulation of multiple atomic pulses. Our results demonstrate the benefits of deep-UV (DUV) transitions and cryogenic beams for loading high-density MOTs, especially for species with significant loss channels in their main cooling cycle. The cadmium MOT provides a robust testbed that benchmarks our DUV laser cooling system and establishes the foundation for trapping and cooling polar AlF molecules, which share many optical and structural properties with Cd.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.01180 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. a) Diagram of the relevant Cd energy levels, for bosonic (left) and fermionic (right) isotopes. b) Experimental setup: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. a) Blue: Loading the MOT with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Center-of-mass oscillations of the atomic cloud fol [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The loss rate from the MOT is dominated by two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Control of photoionization losses from the MOT. a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. D. Ludlow, M. M. Boyd, J. Ye, E. Peik, and P. O. Schmidt, Optical atomic clocks, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 637 (2015)

    2015

  2. [2]

    Beloy, M

    Boulder Atomic Clock Optical Network (BACON) Col- laboration*, K. Beloy, M. I. Bodine, T. Bothwell, S. M. Brewer, S. L. Bromley, J.-S. Chen, J.-D. Deschˆ enes, S. A. Diddams, R. J. Fasano, T. M. Fortier, Y. S. Hassan, D. B. Hume, D. Kedar, C. J. Kennedy, I. Khader, A. Koepke, D. R. Leibrandt, H. Leopardi, A. D. Ludlow, W. F. McGrew, W. R. Milner, N. R. Ne...

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    J. J. McFerran, L. Yi, S. Mejri, S. Di Manno, W. Zhang, J. Gu´ ena, Y. Le Coq, and S. Bize, Erratum: Neutral atom frequency reference in the deep ultraviolet with fractional uncertainty = 5.7×10 −15 phys. rev. lett. 108, 183004 (2012), Physical Review Letters115, 219901 (2015)

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Ohmae, F

    N. Ohmae, F. Bregolin, N. Nemitz, and H. Katori, Direct measurement of the frequency ratio for hg and yb optical lattice clocks and closure of the hg/yb/sr loop, Optics Express28, 15112 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Ruschewitz, J

    F. Ruschewitz, J. L. Peng, H. Hinderth¨ ur, N. Schaffrath, K. Sengstock, and W. Ertmer, Sub-kilohertz optical spec- troscopy with a time domain atom interferometer, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 3173 (1998)

    work page 1998

  6. [6]

    Poli, F.-Y

    N. Poli, F.-Y. Wang, M. G. Tarallo, A. Alberti, M. Prevedelli, and G. M. Tino, Precision measurement of gravity with cold atoms in an optical lattice and com- parison with a classical gravimeter, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 038501 (2011)

    2011

  7. [7]

    M. Abe, P. Adamson, M. Borcean, D. Bortoletto, K. Bridges, S. P. Carman, S. Chattopadhyay, J. Cole- 10 man, N. M. Curfman, K. DeRose, T. Deshpande, S. Di- mopoulos, C. J. Foot, J. C. Frisch, B. E. Garber, S. Geer, V. Gibson, J. Glick, P. W. Graham, S. R. Hahn, R. Harnik, L. Hawkins, S. Hindley, J. M. Hogan, Y. Jiang, M. A. Kasevich, R. J. Kellett, M. Kibu...

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    G. M. Tino, Testing gravity with cold atom interferom- etry: results and prospects, Quantum Science and Tech- nology6, 024014 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 69 references
  1. [10]

    A. J. Daley, M. M. Boyd, J. Ye, and P. Zoller, Quantum computing with alkaline-earth-metal atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 170504 (2008)

    2008

  2. [11]

    A. V. Gorshkov, M. Hermele, V. Gurarie, C. Xu, P. S. Julienne, J. Ye, P. Zoller, E. Demler, M. D. Lukin, and A. M. Rey, Two-orbital SU(N) magnetism with ultracold alkaline-earth atoms, Nature Physics6, 289 (2010)

    2010

  3. [12]

    A. J. Daley, Quantum computing and quantum simula- tion with group-II atoms, Quantum Information Process- ing10, 865 (2011)

    2011

  4. [13]

    Pagano, F

    G. Pagano, F. Scazza, and M. Foss-Feig, Fast and Scalable Quantum Information Processing with Two- Electron Atoms in Optical Tweezer Arrays, Advanced Quantum Technologies2, 1800067 (2019)

    2019

  5. [14]

    I. S. Madjarov, J. P. Covey, A. L. Shaw, J. Choi, A. Kale, A. Cooper, H. Pichler, V. Schkolnik, J. R. Williams, and M. Endres, High-fidelity entanglement and detection of alkaline-earth Rydberg atoms, Nature Physics16, 857 (2020)

    2020

  6. [15]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and S. Nascimb` ene, Quantum sim- ulations with ultracold quantum gases, Nature Physics 8, 267 (2012)

    2012

  7. [16]

    Sch¨ afer, T

    F. Sch¨ afer, T. Fukuhara, S. Sugawa, Y. Takasu, and Y. Takahashi, Tools for quantum simulation with ultra- cold atoms in optical lattices, Nature Reviews Physics2, 411 (2020)

    2020

  8. [17]

    J. C. Berengut, D. Budker, C. Delaunay, V. V. Flam- baum, C. Frugiuele, E. Fuchs, C. Grojean, R. Harnik, R. Ozeri, G. Perez, and Y. Soreq, Probing new long- range interactions by isotope shift spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 091801 (2018)

    2018

  9. [18]

    M. S. Safronova, D. Budker, D. DeMille, D. F. J. Kimball, A. Derevianko, and C. W. Clark, Search for new physics with atoms and molecules, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 025008 (2018)

    2018

  10. [19]

    B¨ uki, D

    M. B¨ uki, D. R¨ oser, and S. Stellmer, Frequency- quintupled laser at 308 nm for atomic physics applica- tions, Appl. Opt.60, 9915 (2021)

    2021

  11. [20]

    Brickman, M.-S

    K.-A. Brickman, M.-S. Chang, M. Acton, A. Chew, D. Matsukevich, P. C. Haljan, V. S. Bagnato, and C. Monroe, Magneto-optical trapping of cadmium, Phys. Rev. A76, 043411 (2007)

    2007

  12. [21]

    Kaneda, J

    Y. Kaneda, J. M. Yarborough, Y. Merzlyak, A. Ya- maguchi, K. Hayashida, N. Ohmae, and H. Katori, Continuous-wave, single-frequency 229 nm laser source for laser cooling of cadmium atoms, Opt. Lett.41, 705 (2016)

    2016

  13. [22]

    Schussheim and K

    D. Schussheim and K. Gibble, Laser system to laser-cool and trap cadmium: towards a cadmium optical lattice clock, inFrontiers in Optics / Laser Science(Optica Publishing Group, 2018) p. LTh1F.2

    2018

  14. [23]

    Yamaguchi, M

    A. Yamaguchi, M. S. Safronova, K. Gibble, and H. Ka- tori, Narrow-line cooling and determination of the magic wavelength of Cd, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 113201 (2019)

    2019

  15. [24]

    J. N. Tinsley, S. Bandarupally, J.-P. Penttinen, S. Man- zoor, S. Ranta, L. Salvi, M. Guina, and N. Poli, Watt- level blue light for precision spectroscopy, laser cooling and trapping of strontium and cadmium atoms, Opt. Ex- press29, 25462 (2021)

    2021

  16. [25]

    J. N. Tinsley, S. Bandarupally, M. Chiarotti, S. Manzoor, L. Salvi, and N. Poli, Prospects for a simultaneous atom interferometer with ultracold cadmium and strontium for fundamental physics tests, inOptical and Quantum Sens- ing and Precision Metrology II, Vol. 12016, edited ...

    2022

  17. [26]

    Bandarupally, J

    S. Bandarupally, J. N. Tinsley, M. Chiarotti, and N. Poli, Design and simulation of a source of cold cadmium for atom interferometry, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics56, 185301 (2023)

    2023

  18. [27]

    Gibble, Laser-cooling Cadmium Bosons and Fermions with Near Ultraviolet Triplet Excitations, Journal of Physics: Conference Series2889, 012006 (2024)

    K. Gibble, Laser-cooling Cadmium Bosons and Fermions with Near Ultraviolet Triplet Excitations, Journal of Physics: Conference Series2889, 012006 (2024)

    2024

  19. [28]

    Lavigne, T

    Q. Lavigne, T. Groh, and S. Stellmer, Magneto-optical trapping of mercury at high phase-space density, Phys. Rev. A105, 033106 (2022)

    2022

  20. [29]

    V. A. Dzuba and A. Derevianko, Blackbody radiation shift for the 1S0 −3 P0 optical clock transition in zinc and cadmium atoms, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics52, 215005 (2019)

    2019

  21. [30]

    Ohayon, S

    B. Ohayon, S. Hofs¨ ass, J. E. Padilla-Castillo, S. C. Wright, G. Meijer, S. Truppe, K. Gibble, and B. K. Sahoo, Isotope shifts in cadmium as a sensitive probe for physics beyond the standard model, New Journal of Physics24, 123040 (2022)

    2022

  22. [31]

    Truppe, S

    S. Truppe, S. Marx, S. Kray, M. Doppelbauer, S. Hofs¨ ass, H. C. Schewe, N. Walter, J. P´ erez-R ´ ıos, B. G. Sar- takov, and G. Meijer, Spectroscopic characterization of aluminum monofluoride with relevance to laser cooling and trapping, Phys. Rev. A100, 052513 (2019)

    2019

  23. [32]

    Hofs¨ ass, M

    S. Hofs¨ ass, M. Doppelbauer, S. Wright, S. Kray, B. Sar- takov, J. P´ erez-R ´ ıos, G. Meijer, and S. Truppe, Optical cycling of AlF molecules, New Journal of Physics23, 075001 (2021)

    2021

  24. [33]

    Hofs¨ ass, J

    S. Hofs¨ ass, J. E. Padilla-Castillo, S. C. Wright, S. Kray, R. Thomas, B. G. Sartakov, B. Ohayon, G. Meijer, and S. Truppe, High-resolution isotope-shift spectroscopy of Cd I, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 013043 (2023)

    2023

  25. [34]

    Kuwamoto, K

    T. Kuwamoto, K. Honda, Y. Takahashi, and T. Yabuzaki, Magneto-optical trapping of Yb atoms using an intercombination transition, Physical Review A 60, R745 (1999)

    1999

  26. [35]

    Hemmerling, G

    B. Hemmerling, G. K. Drayna, E. Chae, A. Ravi, and J. M. Doyle, Buffer gas loaded magneto-optical traps for Yb, Tm, Er and Ho, New Journal of Physics16, 063070 (2014)

    2014

  27. [36]

    J. J. McClelland and J. L. Hanssen, Laser cooling without repumping: A magneto-optical trap for erbium atoms, 11 Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 143005 (2006)

    2006

  28. [37]

    C. C. Bradley, J. J. McClelland, W. R. Anderson, and R. J. Celotta, Magneto-optical trapping of chromium atoms, Phys. Rev. A61, 053407 (2000)

    2000

  29. [38]

    J. Miao, J. Hostetter, G. Stratis, and M. Saffman, Magneto-optical trapping of holmium atoms, Phys. Rev. A89, 041401 (2014)

    2014

  30. [39]

    Sukachev, A

    D. Sukachev, A. Sokolov, K. Chebakov, A. Akimov, S. Kanorsky, N. Kolachevsky, and V. Sorokin, Magneto- optical trap for thulium atoms, Phys. Rev. A82, 011405 (2010)

    2010

  31. [40]

    M. Lu, S. H. Youn, and B. L. Lev, Trapping ultracold dysprosium: A highly magnetic gas for dipolar physics, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 063001 (2010)

    2010

  32. [41]

    Eustice, K

    S. Eustice, K. Cassella, and D. Stamper-Kurn, Laser cooling of transition-metal atoms, Phys. Rev. A102, 053327 (2020)

    2020

  33. [42]

    Barry, D

    J. Barry, D. McCarron, E. Norrgard, M. Steinecker, and D. DeMille, Magneto-optical trapping of a diatomic molecule, Nature512, 286 (2014)

    2014

  34. [43]

    Truppe, H

    S. Truppe, H. Williams, M. Hambach, L. Caldwell, N. Fitch, E. Hinds, B. Sauer, and M. Tarbutt, Molecules cooled below the doppler limit, Nature Physics13, 1173 (2017)

    2017

  35. [44]

    Anderegg, B

    L. Anderegg, B. L. Augenbraun, E. Chae, B. Hemmer- ling, N. R. Hutzler, A. Ravi, A. Collopy, J. Ye, W. Ket- terle, and J. M. Doyle, Radio frequency magneto-optical trapping of CaF with high density, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 103201 (2017)

    2017

  36. [45]

    A. L. Collopy, S. Ding, Y. Wu, I. A. Finneran, L. An- deregg, B. L. Augenbraun, J. M. Doyle, and J. Ye, 3D magneto-optical trap of yttrium monoxide, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 213201 (2018)

    2018

  37. [46]

    Z. D. Lasner, A. Frenett, H. Sawaoka, L. Anderegg, B. Augenbraun, H. Lampson, M. Li, A. Lunstad, J. Mango, A. Nasir, T. Ono, T. Sakamoto, and J. M. Doyle, Magneto-optical trapping of a heavy polyatomic molecule for precision measurement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 083401 (2025)

    2025

  38. [47]

    N. B. Vilas, C. Hallas, L. Anderegg, P. Robichaud, A. Winnicki, D. Mitra, and J. M. Doyle, Magneto- optical trapping and sub-doppler cooling of a polyatomic molecule, Nature606, 70 (2022)

    2022

  39. [48]

    Z. Zeng, S. Deng, S. Yang, and B. Yan, Three- dimensional magneto-optical trapping of barium monofluoride, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 143404 (2024)

    2024

  40. [49]

    N. R. Hutzler, H.-I. Lu, and J. M. Doyle, The buffer gas beam: An intense, cold, and slow source for atoms and molecules, Chemical Reviews112, 4803 (2012), pMID: 22571401

    2012

  41. [50]

    Truppe, M

    S. Truppe, M. Hambach, S. M. Skoff, N. E. Bulleid, J. S. Bumby, R. J. Hendricks, E. A. Hinds, B. E. Sauer, and M. R. Tarbutt, A buffer gas beam source for short, in- tense and slow molecular pulses, Journal of Modern Op- tics65, 648 (2018)

    2018

  42. [51]

    Eckel, D

    S. Eckel, D. S. Barker, E. B. Norrgard, and J. Scher- schligt, Pylcp: A python package for computing laser cooling physics, Computer Physics Communications270, 108166 (2022)

    2022

  43. [52]

    Gr¨ unert and A

    J. Gr¨ unert and A. Hemmerich, Sub-doppler magneto- optical trap for calcium, Phys. Rev. A65, 041401 (2002)

    2002

  44. [53]

    F. Y. Loo, A. Brusch, S. Sauge, M. Allegrini, E. Ari- mondo, N. Andersen, and J. W. Thomsen, Investigations of a two-level atom in a magneto-optical trap using mag- nesium, Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics6, 81 (2003)

    2003

  45. [54]

    X. Xu, T. H. Loftus, M. J. Smith, J. L. Hall, A. Gal- lagher, and J. Ye, Dynamics in a two-level atom magneto- optical trap, Phys. Rev. A66, 011401 (2002)

    2002

  46. [55]

    Kohns, P

    P. Kohns, P. Buch, W. S¨ uptitz, C. Csambal, and W. Ert- mer, On-line measurement of sub-doppler temperatures in a rb magneto-optical trap-by-trap centre oscillations, Europhysics Letters22, 517 (1993)

    1993

  47. [56]

    D. N. Madsen and J. W. Thomsen, Measurement of ab- solute photo-ionization cross sections using magnesium magneto-optical traps, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics35, 2173 (2002)

    2002

  48. [57]

    J. C. Shaw and D. J. McCarron, Bright, continuous beams of cold free radicals, Phys. Rev. A102, 041302 (2020)

    2020

  49. [58]

    Madsen, P

    D. Madsen, P. Yu, S. Balslev, and J. Thomsen, Gener- ation of 99-mW continuous-wave 285-nm radiation for magneto-optical trapping of Mg atoms, Applied Physics B: Lasers and Optics75, 835 (2002)

    2002

  50. [59]

    Riedmann, H

    M. Riedmann, H. Kelkar, T. W¨ ubbena, A. Pape, A. Ku- losa, K. Zipfel, D. Fim, S. R¨ uhmann, J. Friebe, W. Ert- mer, and E. Rasel, Beating the density limit by contin- uously loading a dipole trap from millikelvin-hot magne- sium atoms, Physical Review A86, 043416 (2012)

    2012

  51. [60]

    E. A. Curtis, C. W. Oates, and L. Hollberg, Quenched narrow-line laser cooling of 40 Ca to near the photon recoil limit, Physical Review A64, 031403 (2001)

    2001

  52. [61]

    Binnewies, G

    T. Binnewies, G. Wilpers, U. Sterr, F. Riehle, J. Helm- cke, T. E. Mehlst¨ aubler, E. M. Rasel, and W. Ertmer, Doppler Cooling and Trapping on Forbidden Transitions, Physical Review Letters87, 123002 (2001)

    2001

  53. [62]

    Gr¨ unert and A

    J. Gr¨ unert and A. Hemmerich, Sub-Doppler magneto- optical trap for calcium, Physical Review A65, 041401 (2002)

    2002

  54. [63]

    Katori, T

    H. Katori, T. Ido, Y. Isoya, and M. Kuwata-Gonokami, Magneto-Optical Trapping and Cooling of Strontium Atoms down to the Photon Recoil Temperature, Phys- ical Review Letters82, 1116 (1999)

    1999

  55. [64]

    Courtillot, A

    I. Courtillot, A. Quessada, R. P. Kovacich, J.-J. Zondy, A. Landragin, A. Clairon, and P. Lemonde, Efficient cool- ing and trapping of strontium atoms, Optics Letters28, 468 (2003)

    2003

  56. [65]

    Nosske, L

    I. Nosske, L. Couturier, F. Hu, C. Tan, C. Qiao, J. Blume, Y. H. Jiang, P. Chen, and M. Weidem¨ uller, Two-dimensional magneto-optical trap as a source for cold strontium atoms, Physical Review A96, 053415 (2017)

    2017

  57. [66]

    Honda, Y

    K. Honda, Y. Takahashi, T. Kuwamoto, M. Fujimoto, K. Toyoda, K. Ishikawa, and T. Yabuzaki, Magneto- optical trapping of Yb atoms and a limit on the branch- ing ratio of the 1P1 state, Physical Review A59, R934 (1999)

    1999

  58. [67]

    Letellier, ´A

    H. Letellier, ´A. Mitchell Galv˜ ao De Melo, A. Dorne, and R. Kaiser, Loading of a large Yb MOT on the 1S0 →1P1 transition, Review of Scientific Instruments94, 123203 (2023)

    2023

  59. [68]

    Hachisu, K

    H. Hachisu, K. Miyagishi, S. G. Porsev, A. Derevianko, V. D. Ovsiannikov, V. G. Pal’chikov, M. Takamoto, and H. Katori, Trapping of Neutral Mercury Atoms and Prospects for Optical Lattice Clocks, Physical Review Letters100, 053001 (2008)

    2008

  60. [69]

    Petersen, R

    M. Petersen, R. Chicireanu, S. T. Dawkins, D. V. Mag- 12 alh˜ aes, C. Mandache, Y. Le Coq, A. Clairon, and S. Bize, Doppler-Free Spectroscopy of the 1S0−3P0 Optical Clock Transition in Laser-Cooled Fermionic Isotopes of Neutral Mercury, Physical Review Letters101, 183004 (2008)

    2008

  61. [70]

    S. C. Wright, M. Doppelbauer, S. Hofs¨ ass, H. Chris- tian Schewe, B. Sartakov, G. Meijer, and S. Truppe, Cryogenic buffer gas beams of AlF, CaF, MgF, YbF, Al, Ca, Yb and NO – a comparison, Molecular Physics121, e2146541 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

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