Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 31 references

Quasi-Contact Forces with Resonant Range Control in Rydberg Atoms

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An interaction-tuned degeneracy in a two-photon Rydberg ladder makes atoms interact only at one chosen distance, with a sharply peaked, MHz-strength potential.

desk verdict A concrete and internally consistent proposal for distance-selective Rydberg interactions, but the central step treats a driven dissipative steady-state average as a conservative potential, and that mapping is never justified. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.17361 v1 pith:KLNFN6AU submitted 2025-07-23 physics.atom-ph quant-ph

Mohammadsadegh Khazali This is my paper
classification physics.atom-phquant-ph
keywords distance-selectiveinteractionsRydbergatomsinteraction-inducedresonancetwo-photonladderLorentzianpotentialdelta-shellmasterequationquantumgates
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 claims that a resonantly driven two-photon Rydberg ladder can make two ground-state atoms feel each other only at one precisely chosen interatomic separation $r_p$, giving an effective interaction $U(r)=U_0/(1+(r-r_p)^2/w^2)$ that is sharply peaked and negligible elsewhere. The peak appears because the van der Waals shift tunes a dressed doubly excited eigenstate $|\lambda_0\rangle$ into degeneracy with the ground state $|gg\rangle$ at $r=r_p$, and the resulting avoided crossing shows up as a Lorentzian light shift in the steady-state energy. The position $r_p$, width $w$, and depth $U_0$ of the peak are analytic functions of the laser Rabi frequencies, the detuning, and the intermediate-state linewidth, so the interaction can be tuned without sub-wavelength positional control and can reach MHz strength. If this is right, the scheme replaces the off-resonant Rydberg macrodimer approach with a directly tunable, sharper, and stronger alternative, enabling parallel entangling gates, customizable lattice Hamiltonians, and micrometer-bond-length molecules. The paper also derives a three-body resonance condition, indicating that the mechanism extends beyond pairs to genuine many-body interactions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the interaction-induced resonance between the ground state $|gg\rangle$ and the lowest dressed eigenstate $|\lambda_0\rangle$ of the $3\times3$ double-excitation Hamiltonian of Eq. 3. Its zero-crossing condition, $V(r_p)=2\Delta\Omega_2^2/(\Omega_2^2-4\Delta^2+\gamma^2)$ (Eq. 4), fixes the resonant separation $r_p$ through the van der Waals law $V=C_6/r^6$, and the resulting avoided crossing generates the sharply peaked, delta-function-like light shift of Eq. 6. The width of the peak is the spatial image of the intermediate-state linewidth: a small excursion $\delta V$ away from $V(r_p)$ shifts the $\lambda_0$ eigenvalue by the linear lever arm of Eq. 7, which translates into the Lorentzian half width $w/r_p\approx\gamma(\Omega_2^4+8\Delta^4)/(6\Delta\Omega_2^2(\Omega_2^2-4\Delta^2+\gamma^2))$ (Eq. 8). The peak depth $U_0$ of Eq. 9 scales as $\Omega_1^4/\gamma^2$, and the entire profile is evaluated as the steady-state energy of Eq. 2, with the two-atom density matrix obtained from a master equation that includes spontaneous emission from the intermediate and Rydberg levels.

What would settle it

Hold two atoms at a variable separation $r$, drive the ladder with the parameters of Fig. 2 ($\Delta/2\pi=10$ MHz, $\Omega_1=200$ kHz, $\Omega_2/(2\Delta)=1.1$, $n=100$), and measure the interaction either by two-atom spectroscopy or through the loss triggered by intermediate-state decay. The claim predicts a Lorentzian peak in $U(r)$ centered at the $r_p$ of Eq. 4 with the width of Eq. 8 and the depth of Eq. 9; if the measured peak position, width, or depth disagrees with those scalings, or if the loss spike at $r_p$ overwhelms the coherent energy shift, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Each atom is driven by a resonant two-photon ladder (ground to intermediate with Rabi frequency $\Omega_1$, intermediate to Rydberg with $\Omega_2$, detuning $\Delta$) with $\Omega_1\ll\Omega_2$, and the two-atom steady state $\rho$ under continuous driving defines a light-shifted energy $U(r_{ij})=\mathrm{Tr}[\rho(H_i+H_j+V_{ij})]$ (Eq. 2). In the double-excitation subspace, the dressed eigenstate $|\lambda_0\rangle$ has an eigenvalue that crosses zero when the van der Waals interaction satisfies $V(r_p)=2\Delta\Omega_2^2/(\Omega_2^2-4\Delta^2+\gamma^2)$ (Eq. 4), placing $|\lambda_0\rangle$ in degeneracy with $|gg\rangle$ at the resonant separation $r_p$. The weak $\Omega_1$ coupling turns this degeneracy into an avoided crossing, which appears as a Lorentzian potential peak $U(r)=U_0/(1+(r-r_p)^2/w^2)$ (Eq. 6) whose width-to-position ratio is given by Eq. 8 and whose depth $U_0$ by Eq. 9, all controlled by the laser parameters and the intermediate-state linewidth. The regime of validity, $\Omega_2>2\Delta$ with $\Delta>0$ or $\Omega_2<2|\Delta|$ with $\Delta<0$, is the opposite of the soft-core resonant-dressing regime, and the resonant eigenstate retains little doubly excited Rydberg character, so the trapping potential is preserved and the coherent-interaction-to-loss figure of merit is $\Delta/\gamma$. The paper validates the analytic expressions against numerical master-equation simulations with spontaneous emission and derives a three-body resonance condition (Eq. 10) for an equilateral triangle, arguing that the scheme beats the macrodimer-based approach in sharpness, strength (MHz versus hundreds of hertz), and ease of tuning.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on treating $U(r)=\mathrm{Tr}[\rho(H_i+H_j+V_{ij})]$, a dissipative steady-state energy computed under continuous driving, as a genuine conservative two-body potential whose value, gradient, and profile can be used to design forces, gates, and lattice Hamiltonians, even though the resonance works by populating a lossy intermediate state.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Parallel entangling gates become feasible with global pulses, because the potential acts only near the designed spacing and suppresses cross-talk between non-neighboring qubits; the paper connects this to measurement-based quantum computing and geometric entanglement filtering for surface codes.
  • Lattice models with customizable connectivity, such as extended Hubbard, Ising, and Su–Schrieffer–Heeger Hamiltonians, can be simulated by choosing which lattice spacings sit at the resonant distance $r_p$, since $r_p$ is dialed by the laser detuning.
  • The peak depth reaches the MHz scale while the off-resonant macrodimer approach is limited to a few hundred hertz, and the profile sharpens as $\Omega_2$ moves away from the $2\Delta$ (or $2|\Delta|$) threshold, so the scheme removes the need for sub-wavelength positioning and motional-state control.
  • In the continuum limit the interaction acts as a delta-shell potential at finite radius, connecting to exactly solvable scattering models and to predicted bunching and anti-bunching of particles with off-centered contact interactions.
  • The three-body resonance of Eq. 10 opens a route to single-step, parallel stabilizer operations and genuine multi-qubit gates that pairwise interactions alone cannot deliver.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper never derives a force from $U(r)$; a direct testable extension is that the resonance should also appear as a mechanical force $F=-\nabla U$ on atoms held near $r_p$, measurable in trap or expansion dynamics, and as a correlated loss spike from the populated intermediate state, so one experiment could check both the conservative and the dissipative signatures.
  • Because $U_0\propto\Omega_1^4$ while intermediate-state population and loss also grow with $\Omega_1$, the scheme implies an optimal driving strength for a given tolerated decoherence rate; measuring the interaction-to-loss ratio versus $\Omega_1$ at fixed $\Delta$ would test that tradeoff, which the paper computes for strontium and rubidium.
  • The sharpness prediction $w/r_p\propto\gamma/\Delta$ could be tested in any species with a two-photon ladder: routing the excitation through a longer-lived intermediate, such as a clock state, should narrow the peak at the same $r_p$.
  • One could ask whether pulsed or stroboscopic driving preserves the same resonance and converts the scheme into a Floquet tool for time-averaged, distance-selective Hamiltonians; the paper analyzes only continuous driving, so this remains open.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a scheme to generate sharply peaked, distance-selective effective interactions between two ultracold atoms using a resonant two-photon ladder to a Rydberg state. In the regime Ω1 ≪ Ω2, the two-atom Hilbert space is decomposed into ground, single-excitation, and double-excitation manifolds; an interaction-induced degeneracy between the |gg⟩ state and the dressed two-excitation eigenstate |λ0⟩ at r = rp (Eq. 4) is claimed to produce a Lorentzian interaction peak U(r) = U0 / (1 + (r - rp)^2 / w^2) (Eq. 6). Analytic expressions for rp, w, and U0 are given in Eqs. 4, 8, and 9, and master-equation simulations are shown in Fig. 2. Three-body resonances are described in Fig. 3. The authors discuss applications to parallel gates for measurement-based quantum computing, simulation of lattice Hamiltonians, and giant diatomic molecules.

Significance. If the central mapping from a dissipative steady-state energy to a conservative interaction potential were justified, the proposal would be significant: it offers a laser-tunable, sharply peaked interaction with closed-form predictions for position, width, and amplitude, and it identifies parameter regimes distinct from soft-core dressing and macrodimer methods. The paper is commendable for not fitting parameters to data and for deriving the resonance condition Eq. 4 directly from the Hamiltonian rather than imposing it. However, the lack of a derivation of the conservative-potential mapping and of the Lorentzian line shape prevents the results from being used as claimed, and the applications inherit this unresolved step.

major comments (3)
  1. [Scheme, Eq. (2)] U(rij) = Tr[ρ(Hi + Hj + Vij)] is defined as the steady-state expectation value of the driven-system Hamiltonian, but the manuscript never justifies treating U as a conservative, distance-selective interaction potential. A dissipative steady state is not an eigenstate of H, and the mechanical force on slowly moving atoms is not -dU/dr: dU/dr contains a term Tr[(dρ/dr)(Hi + Hj + Vij)] that does not appear in the force-operator expectation, while spontaneous emission from the populated intermediate state adds recoil and loss. The text after Fig. 2b concedes that 'at the position of resonance, the intermediate state gets populated'; this is exactly the dissipative channel that prevents a conservative-potential reading. Since Eq. (2) is used in the Scheme and in all claimed applications (quasi-contact forces, MBQC gates, lattice Hamiltonians, giant molecules), the central claim inherits this unresolved mapping. The revision should either derive an effective closed-system Hamiltonian by adiabatic elimination with controlled approximations or simulate the coupled atom-light motion and show that a conservative force emerges.
  2. [Scheme, Eqs. (6)-(8)] The Lorentzian line shape and its width are asserted rather than derived. Eq. (8) is obtained by requiring that a displacement w away from rp shifts λ0 by γ, but this yields only the interaction-space half-width of a resonance; whether the steady-state energy U(r) is exactly Lorentzian in r is not shown. With the Fig. 2 parameters Ω1/2π = 200 kHz and γ/2π = 7.6 kHz, the drive is not perturbative in γ, so power broadening and coherent Rabi oscillations should broaden the peak beyond Eq. (8); the numerical validation in Fig. 2a is only visual, with no quantitative comparison reported. In the limit γ → 0 the Lindblad equation has no unique steady state, so the γ-controlled profile of Eq. (6) cannot be read as an intrinsic Hamiltonian interaction.
  3. [Eq. (9) and Discussion] The analytic amplitude U0 and the figure of merit Δ/γ are stated without derivation, and the claims of MHz-scale strength and 'orders-of-magnitude improvement' over macrodimer dressing are not backed by a quantitative comparison with Ref. [14] at matched parameters. A derivation of Eq. (9) and a plot or table comparing the present scheme with Ref. [14] for the same atomic species, detuning, and decoherence budget are needed to support the strength claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] There are grammatical errors and typos, e.g., 'subsystem eigenstate twist rapidly and brought into degeneracy' and 'perseverence of trapping'; these should be corrected.
  2. [Scheme, after Eq. (1)] The Lindblad master equation for ρ is not written explicitly; please provide the complete equation including Lp and Lr so that Eq. (2) is unambiguous.
  3. [Eq. (5)] The symbol Ω is used without a subscript in Eq. (5) and the surrounding text; it should be Ω2 (or Ω1 if intended) to avoid confusion.
  4. [Fig. 2] The axis label '0.11101001000U0 (kHz)' in Fig. 2a is garbled and should be replaced; the caption of Fig. 2c contains the typo 'Struntium'.
  5. [Fig. 3 and Eq. (10)] No master-equation verification of the three-body peak is provided, and the three-atom subspace decomposition is not spelled out; this is currently a conjecture rather than a validated result.
  6. [References and parameters] Reference [15] is cited for γr, but no numerical value is given; specify the Rydberg decay rate used in the simulations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the interaction profile is derived from the model Hamiltonian without fitted parameters or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The central quantity U(r) is defined in Eq. 2 as the steady-state expectation Tr[rho(H_i+H_j+V_ij)] of the driven two-atom Hamiltonian. The resonance condition in Eq. 4 follows from diagonalizing the 3x3 doubly-excited subspace Hamiltonian in Eq. 3 and setting the eigenvalue lambda0 to zero, i.e., degeneracy with |gg>. The Lorentzian peak in Eq. 6, the width expression in Eq. 8, and the amplitude in Eq. 9 are analytic approximations derived from that same Hamiltonian and its parameters, not fit to data. The master-equation simulations reproduce the same model, so they provide internal consistency checks rather than independent experimental prediction; this is a self-referential validation, but not a circular reduction of the claimed result to its inputs. The numerous self-citations in the reference list are contextual (related work, parameter sources, application proposals) and are not load-bearing for the central derivation. The reviewer's physical concern that a dissipative steady-state energy may not constitute a conservative Born-Oppenheimer potential is a correctness or modeling risk, not a circularity defect under the criteria used here.

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

The central derivation rests on the master-equation model and on the interpretation of a steady-state expectation value as an interaction potential. No parameters are fitted to external data; laser parameters are controls and atomic constants are cited from literature. The main unstated assumption is the conservative-potential interpretation.

assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The steady-state density matrix under continuous driving yields an effective interaction potential U(r)=Tr[rho(H_i+H_j+V_ij)] that describes conservative, distance-selective forces.
    Invoked in the Scheme section (Eq. 2) and used for all subsequent interaction profiles; no proof or justification that dissipative steady-state energy equals a Born-Oppenheimer potential.
  • domain assumption The two-atom Hilbert space splits into ground, single-excitation, and double-excitation manifolds with transitions mediated only by weak Omega1, allowing perturbative subspace diagonalization.
    Requires Omega1 << Omega2 and Delta >> gamma; stated in Scheme section and used to write Eq. 3 and Eq. 5.
  • domain assumption The van der Waals interaction acts only between doubly Rydberg-excited states |ee> with C6/r^6 from prior literature, with no higher-order multipole or orientation dependence.
    Used in Eq. 3 and in Eq. 4 to set the resonance condition; orientation and angular dependence are neglected.
  • ad hoc to paper The Lorentzian line shape U=U0/(1+((r-rp)/w)^2) is the correct form for the interaction peak.
    Eq. 6 is asserted rather than derived; the paper does not show how the density-matrix solution reduces to a Lorentzian.
  • domain assumption The three-body resonance condition in an equilateral triangle is obtained from a collective-level decomposition into four decoupled subspaces, ignoring other geometric configurations and decay channels.
    Used for Eq. 10 and Fig. 3; only equilateral geometry considered.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quasi-Contact Forces with Resonant Range Control in Rydberg Atoms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KLNFN6AU

@misc{pith2026250717361,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quasi-Contact Forces with Resonant Range Control in Rydberg Atoms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KLNFN6AU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.17361}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce a novel method to engineer sharply peaked, distance-selective interactions between neutral atoms by exploiting interaction-induced resonances within a resonantly driven Rydberg ladder system. By tuning laser parameters, a subsystem eigenstate twist rapidly and brought into degeneracy with the atomic ground state at precisely defined interatomic separations, resulting in an effective potential sharply localized around this resonance distance. Unlike previous off-resonant macrodimer-based schemes, our approach significantly enhances interaction sharpness and strength, reaching MHz scales, and provides straightforward experimental tunability without requiring sub-wavelength positional control. Analytic expressions, validated through comprehensive master-equation simulations, detail the interaction profile's amplitude, width, and resonant distance. This precise control facilitates parallel entangling gates crucial for measurement-based quantum computing and enables simulation of complex lattice Hamiltonians with customizable connectivity. Additionally, our scheme opens possibilities for novel studies in molecular physics through micrometer-scale bond-length diatomic molecules.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.17361 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. a to the Rydberg state |e⟩ via the intermediate state |p⟩. In the rotating frame, the single-atom Hamiltonian reads Hi = Ω1 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. b represents the evolution of single atom density matrix elements at the position of resonance. Clearly, at the position of resonance, the intermediate state gets populated. In case that Ω2 2 −4∆2 ≪ Ω 2 2 , then the double Rydberg-excitation probability from Eq. 5 remains small, which is essential for preserving the trap. In this regime, the relevant figure of merit i.e., the ratio of coherent in￾teraction strength … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [14]

    Z. Shi, M. Khazali, L. Qin, Y. Zhou, and Y. Zhong, Pat- tern formations and their active manipulation in Rydberg noisy-dressed Bose-Einstein condensates, Opt. Lett. 49, 6517 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Khazali, Discrete-time quantum-walk & Floquet topological insulators via distance-selective Rydberg- interaction, Quantum 6, 664 (2022)

    M. Khazali, Discrete-time quantum-walk & Floquet topological insulators via distance-selective Rydberg- interaction, Quantum 6, 664 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [2]

    2Ω" Ω! 𝑔𝑒𝑒#𝑔𝑝𝑒# 𝑔𝑔𝑒# 𝑔𝑔𝑝# 𝑔𝑝𝑝#−Δ −2Δ−ΔV |𝑔𝑔𝑔⟩ 2Ω! 𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑝𝑝𝑒#𝑝𝑒𝑒# 𝑒𝑒𝑒 3Ω!−3Δ−2Δ-∆+V3V (a) (b) 3Ω

    + γ2 Ω2 2 2 γ2 Ω2 2 4 ∆2 γ2 + ( 4 ∆2 + Ω2 2 )2 . (9) Equations 4, 6, 8, and 9 together capture both the line shape and the maximum interaction strength in these two detuning regimes. Considering three atoms in an equilateral triangle ge- ometry, three-body interaction resonances emerge along- side the familiar two-body peaks (Fig. 3a). Under 4 3Ω! 2Ω"2Ω" ...

    work page

  4. [3]

    C. L. Hung, A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, J. I. Cirac, and H. J. Kimble, Quantum spin dynamics with pairwise- tunable, long-range interactions, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113, E4946 (2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [4]

    H. J. Chen, Y. Q. Yu, D. C. Zheng, and R. Liao, Extended Bose-Hubbard model with cavity-mediated infinite-range interactions at finite temperatures, Sci. Rep. 10, 9076 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [5]

    Baier et al., Extended Bose-Hubbard models with ul- tracold magnetic atoms, Science 352, 201 (2016)

    S. Baier et al., Extended Bose-Hubbard models with ul- tracold magnetic atoms, Science 352, 201 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [6]

    Y. Lu, W. Chen, S. Zhang, K. Zhang, J. Zhang, J. N. Zhang, and K. Kim, Implementing Arbitrary Ising Models with a Trapped-Ion Quantum Processor, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 050602 (2025)

    work page 2025

  8. [7]

    Mohseni, P

    M. Mohseni, P. Rebentrost, S. Lloyd, and A. Aspuru- Guzik, Environment-assisted quantum walks in photo- synthetic energy transfer, J. Chem. Phys. 129, 174106 (2008)

    work page 2008

Show all 31 references
  1. [8]

    Erman and S

    F. Erman and S. Seymen, A direct method for the low energy scattering solution of delta shell potentials, Eur. Phys. J. Plus137, 330 (2022)

    2022

  2. [9]

    Stock, A

    R. Stock, A. Silberfarb, E. L. Bolda, and I. H. Deutsch, Generalized pseudopotentials for higher partial wave scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 023202 (2005)

    2005

  3. [10]

    Witthaut, S

    D. Witthaut, S. Mossmann, and H. J. Korsch, Bound and resonance states of the nonlinear Schr¨ odinger equation in simple model systems, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.38, 1777 (2005)

    2005

  4. [11]

    Bougas, N

    G. Bougas, N. L. Harshman, and P. Schmelcher, Impact of dark states on the stationary properties of quantum particles with off-centered interactions in one dimension, Phys. Rev. A110, 023327 (2024)

    2024

  5. [12]

    C. Gaul, B. J. DeSalvo, J. A. Aman, F. B. Dunning, T. C. Killian, and T. Pohl, Resonant Rydberg Dressing of Alkaline-Earth Atoms via Electromagnetically Induced Transparency, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 243001 (2016)

    2016

  6. [13]

    Khazali, Rydberg noisy dressing and applications in making soliton molecules and droplet quasicrystals,Phys

    M. Khazali, Rydberg noisy dressing and applications in making soliton molecules and droplet quasicrystals,Phys. Rev. Research3, L032033 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Hollerith et al., Realizing distance-selective interac- tions in a Rydberg-dressed atom array, Phys

    S. Hollerith et al., Realizing distance-selective interac- tions in a Rydberg-dressed atom array, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 113602 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Kunze et al., Lifetime measurements of highly excited Rydberg states of strontium I, Z

    S. Kunze et al., Lifetime measurements of highly excited Rydberg states of strontium I, Z. Phys. D27, 111 (1993)

    1993

  9. [17]

    Khazali, Universal terminal for cloud quantum com- puting, Sci

    M. Khazali, Universal terminal for cloud quantum com- puting, Sci. Rep. 14, 15412 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Khazali and K

    M. Khazali and K. Mølmer, Fast multi-qubit gates via adiabatic evolution in dark state manifolds of Rydberg atoms and superconducting circuits, Phys. Rev. X 10, 021054 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Khazali, Ultratight confinement of atoms in a Ryd- berg empowered optical lattice, Quantum 9, 1585 (2025)

    M. Khazali, Ultratight confinement of atoms in a Ryd- berg empowered optical lattice, Quantum 9, 1585 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    Khazali, Fast multicomponent cat-state generation under resonant or strong-dressing Rydberg-Kerr interac- tion, Phys

    M. Khazali, Fast multicomponent cat-state generation under resonant or strong-dressing Rydberg-Kerr interac- tion, Phys. Rev. A109, 053716 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Saffman, T

    M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, and K. Mølmer. Quantum information with Rydberg atoms, Reviews of modern physics 82 2313-2363 (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    Khazali and W

    M. Khazali and W. Lechner, Scalable quantum proces- sors empowered by the Fermi scattering of Rydberg elec- trons, Commun. Phys. 6, 57 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Khazali, All-optical quantum information processing via a single-step Rydberg blockade gate,Opt

    M. Khazali, All-optical quantum information processing via a single-step Rydberg blockade gate,Opt. Express31, 13970 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Momtaheni and M

    A. Momtaheni and M. Khazali, Quantum compu- tation with long-lived Rydberg-Landau atoms fea- turing suppressed ionization by the Magnetic Cage, arXiv:2506.00575 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Khazali, Quantum information and computation with Rydberg atoms, Int

    M. Khazali, Quantum information and computation with Rydberg atoms, Int. J. At. Phys.10, 19 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Khazali, C

    M. Khazali, C. Murry, and T. Pohl, Polariton exchange interactions in multichannel optical networks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 113605 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Khazali, Progress towards macroscopic spin and me- chanical superposition via Rydberg interaction, Phys

    M. Khazali, Progress towards macroscopic spin and me- chanical superposition via Rydberg interaction, Phys. Rev. A 98, 043836 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    Khazali, K

    M. Khazali, K. Heshami, and C. Simon, Single-photon source based on Rydberg exciton blockade, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.50, 215301 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    Khazali, H

    M. Khazali, H. W. Lau, A. Humeniuk, and C. Si- mon, Large Energy Superpositions via Rydberg Dressing, Phys. Rev. A94, 023408 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    Khazali, K

    M. Khazali, K. Heshami, and C. Simon, Photon-photon gate via the interaction between two collective Rydberg excitations, Phys. Rev. A91, 030301(R) (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    Khazali, M. Applications of atomic ensembles for pho- tonic quantum information processing and fundamental tests of quantum physics (Doctoral dissertation, Univer- sity of Calgary (Canada)) (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.