Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Rydberg atoms for electric field gradiometry

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 2D array of Rydberg atoms can act as a spatially resolving electric-field gradiometer, reading field variations through the size of the Rydberg blockade near a Förster resonance.

desk verdict A credible Rydberg-array gradiometer proposal with a genuinely new multi-row architecture, but the unspecified Rabi frequency makes the calibration curves unreproducible and the few-μm resolution claim overreaches. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.01665 v2 pith:RFSQOVSR submitted 2025-09-01 quant-ph cond-mat.quant-gas

Philip Kitson , Wayne J. Chetcuti , Gerhard Birkl , Luigi Amico , Juan Polo This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.quant-gas
keywords RydbergatomselectricfieldsensingFörsterresonanceblockadegradiometryopticaltweezerarraysdensity-densitycorrelationsquantum
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 proposes that a two-dimensional array of Rydberg atoms can serve as a spatially resolving electric-field sensor, and backs the proposal with a concrete operating principle. The principle is that near a Förster resonance—where an applied field tunes a pair of Rydberg states into degeneracy—the dipole-dipole interaction strengthens and the Rydberg blockade radius grows sharply with the local field. By arranging atoms in rows with different interatomic spacings, the maximum probability of fully exciting a row, Fmax, becomes a sensitive readout of the field strength, with a few-micrometre spatial resolution. For fields that vary across the array, the paper shows that two-body density-density correlations reproduce the field's spatial profile for sinusoidal, gradient, and laser-like Gaussian shapes. A working version of this design would give a distributed, single-shot quantum sensor for electric-field gradiometry in cold-atom laboratories.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the effective two-level Förster interaction. For each atom pair the Hamiltonian is written in the subspace {|α,α⟩, |+⟩}, with |+⟩ the symmetric superposition of the two exchange partners, and has entries δ(E) and C3(E)/R^3; its lower eigenvalue V(E) = (δ − √(δ^2 + 4C3^2/R^6))/2 sets the interaction strength. Because the blockade radius R_b = (C6/Ω)^{1/6} with C6 = C3^2/(ℏ|δ|), it grows as δ→0, which is exactly what happens at the Förster resonance. The paper obtains δ(E) and C3(E) for the chosen 87Rb pair from atomic-structure calculations, inserts V(E) into the many-body Rydberg Hamiltonian, and reads out the field through two observables: Fmax (Eq. 5), the maximu

What would settle it

A full multilevel simulation of the same 87Rb states, including all near-degenerate pair channels and three-body Förster processes, can be compared with the Fmax(E,R) curves in Fig. 3; a shift or broadening of the resonance dip beyond the target sensitivity would invalidate the two-state mapping. A direct experiment measuring Fmax versus E at R=15 μm should show a sharp minimum at E≈29.8 mV/cm; if no such dip appears, the proposed sensor principle is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Rydberg blockade, which normally suppresses simultaneous excitation of nearby atoms, can be turned into a field-mapping observable by operating near a Förster resonance. The paper studies 87Rb atoms in a 2D optical-tweezer geometry and considers the Rydberg pair states |59D3/2,59D3/2⟩ and |57F5/2,61P1/2⟩, whose energy defect δ(E) vanishes at Eres ≈ 29.8 mV/cm. Near that field the effective interaction changes from van der Waals (R^-6) to resonant dipole-dipole (R^-3) and the blockade radius Rb(E) = (C3^2/(ℏ|δ|Ω))^{1/6} reaches a maximum. The paper computes the excited-state dynamics for uniform and inhomogeneous fields and shows that the maximum fully-excited-st

Load-bearing premise

The sensor model assumes each atom pair is fully captured by the two-state Förster Hamiltonian with δ(E) and C3(E) from a single pair of Rydberg states at zero magnetic field; if additional near-degenerate pair states or three-body processes contribute, the field-to-signal mapping would shift and bias the inferred field.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Engineered row spacings allow several electric-field measurements in one experimental shot: rows with separations near the blockade radius are sensitive probes, while very small and very large spacings supply normalisation baselines.
  • Sensitivity is tunable through geometry: smaller spacings give a broad dynamic range, while larger spacings near the Förster resonance give high precision due to the steep Fmax slope.
  • The density-density correlator extends the sensor from uniform-field detection to gradiometry, resolving field profiles such as sinusoidal modulations, linear gradients, and focused-laser Gaussian shapes.
  • The few-micrometre resolution is set by the tweezer-array pitch, offering spatial mapping at scales difficult for bulk vapour-cell Rydberg sensors.
  • Because the blockade maximum coincides with the resonance where δ→0, the sensor is most sensitive in exactly the field range where the interaction is strongest.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the authors demonstrate shape recovery but do not provide an inversion algorithm that converts measured correlator values into a calibrated field profile with uncertainties; constructing such a calibration is a direct next step.
  • Beyond the paper: a full multilevel simulation including all near-degenerate pair channels and three-body Förster processes would test how much the two-state truncation shifts the predicted Fmax(E,R) calibration.
  • Beyond the paper: because the resonance field and blockade radius depend on atomic species and principal quantum number, a multi-species or multi-manifold array could cover a much wider dynamic range than the single 87Rb resonance studied here.
  • Beyond the paper: the same blockade-radius response could be read out dynamically rather than at the Fmax time, which might extract directional gradient information and improve noise rejection.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a quantum electric-field gradiometer based on a 2D array of 87Rb Rydberg atoms. The sensing mechanism relies on the strong dependence of the Rydberg blockade radius on the applied electric field near a Förster resonance. The authors model the many-body dynamics with a spin-1/2 Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) whose two-body interaction V(E) is obtained from a two-level Förster model (Eqs. 2–3) using ARC-computed energy defects and dipole matrix elements. They introduce Fmax, the maximum population of the fully excited state over one Rabi period (Eq. 5), and show for N=3 atoms that Fmax varies sharply with E for fixed separation (Figs. 2–3). For N=19 atoms under spatially varying fields, they compute density-density correlators and argue that these reveal the field profile (Fig. 4). They then propose a multi-row tweezer-array design with different intra-row spacings to obtain simultaneous, single-shot field measurements and claim a 'few μm' spatial resolution.

Significance. The conceptual core is attractive: using the Förster-enhanced blockade as a local field-to-observable transducer is a natural idea, and the density-density correlator is a well-chosen observable for spatially varying fields. The paper gives a concrete atomic level scheme and uses ARC input, so the calculations are grounded in realistic level structure rather than fitted to a target response. If the missing calibration and validation issues are fixed, the scheme could be a useful distributed sensing modality. As it stands, however, the quantitative sensor proposal is underdetermined: the central calibration curves depend on an unspecified Rabi frequency, and the advertised spatial-resolution claim is not derived from any estimation or noise analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Models and Methods, Eq. (1); Figs. 2–4, 7; Eq. (8)] The Rabi frequency Ω never takes a numerical value anywhere in the manuscript. The Hamiltonian depends on the dimensionless ratios V_ij/Ω, the time axis in Figs. 2–4 and 7 is scaled by 2π/Ω, and Eq. (8) defines R_b ∝ Ω^{−1/6}. Consequently the curves Fmax(E,R) in Fig. 3(b), the blockade radii in Fig. 6(b), and the design conclusions (R=15 µm broad dynamic range, R=20 µm high sensitivity near E∈(27,30) mV/cm) are predictions for an unspecified drive strength. Please state Ω (or Ω/2π) and use that value in all calculations, or demonstrate that the stated conclusions are unchanged over the experimentally accessible Ω range. Without this, the calibration curves are not reproducible.
  2. [Abstract; 'Sensing of Electric Fields'] The claim of 'detection of spatial variations in the electric field with a resolution of a few μm' is not derived. Figure 4 shows correlator patterns for sinusoidal, gradient, and Gaussian field profiles on a 15 µm lattice, but there is no reconstruction algorithm, no resolvability criterion, and no treatment of measurement shot noise, laser noise, or decoherence. The mapping from correlator values to local field values is presented qualitatively. Please either remove the quantitative resolution claim or supply the missing analysis, including finite measurement statistics and experimental imperfections; the paper's central sensor claim depends on this.
  3. [Models and Methods, after Eq. (2)] The two-level Förster truncation to the subspace {|α,α⟩, |+⟩} is not validated. Near resonance δ(E)→0, so additional near-degenerate pair states or three-body channels could modify V(E) and therefore bias the inferred field. The authors also compute C3(E) and δ(E) at Bz=0 while citing Ref. [38], where the resonance was measured at Bz=3 G. Please benchmark the two-level effective interaction against a multilevel ARC pair-state calculation at the relevant E and R, and specify the magnetic-field operating point. This is needed to make the central E→V→Fmax mapping reliable.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sensing of Electric Fields] Typo: 'E ∈ (27, 30) µm' should be 'E ∈ (27, 30) mV/cm'.
  2. [Appendix, Eq. (8)] The angular part of the interaction is said to be 'set to 1' without defining the angular dependence. Please give the full expression or state explicitly the geometry assumed.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The phrase 'with Ω corresponding to the Rabi frequency' is circular; specify the intended experimental value or state that plots are shown for arbitrary Ω.
  4. [Conclusion] The authors correctly note that the operational range is constrained by the atomic species and Rydberg levels, but no quantitative dynamic-range estimate is given. Since Fig. 3(b) contains the relevant data, a brief quantitative statement would strengthen the sensor proposal.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the field-to-fidelity mapping is computed from atomic inputs, not fitted to the target response.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity. The effective interaction V(E) is computed from ARC atomic data (C3(E), δ(E)), then inserted into the Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) and solved for the dynamics. The observables Fmax (Eq. 5) and the density-density correlator are simulated for known field configurations. The proposed sensing protocol uses these simulated responses as a forward calibration: given a computed Fmax(E) relation, an unknown field can be inferred. This is not circular because the response curves are not constructed from the fields they are later used to recover — they are independent outputs of the microscopic model. The only mild self-reference is that the same V(E) is used to define the blockade radius Rb (Eq. 8) and to explain the Fmax behavior, but Rb is not used to generate the Fmax data, so no quantity reduces to its own input. The unspecified Rabi frequency Ω is a reproducibility and quantitativeness gap, not an equivalence between input and output; it does not make the derivation circular. Citations to prior tweezer experiments (Refs. [30]–[32]) provide context and are not load-bearing in the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The proposal relies on standard Rydberg-blockade physics with one undetermined control parameter (Ω) and several idealizations (closed system, two-level truncation, isotropic interactions). No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Rabi frequency Ω = not stated
    The time evolution depends on the ratio V_ij/Ω. Ω is never given a numerical value, yet the Fmax curves and correlator values depend on it. Without it the simulations are not reproducible.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The system is closed and evolves unitarily under the Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) with no losses or dephasing.
    Used in all simulations; no decoherence model is included.
  • domain assumption The two-level Förster truncation (Eq. 2) captures all relevant physics for the chosen states.
    The Hilbert space is truncated to |α,α> and |+>. Other pair states and three-body effects are ignored, which may alter V(E) near crossings.
  • domain assumption ARC-computed C3(E) and δ(E) at Bz=0 accurately describe the 87Rb states.
    The entire response Fmax(E) depends on these inputs; no experimental validation is provided in this work.
  • domain assumption The dipole-dipole interaction is isotropic (angular component set to 1 in Eq. 8).
    Used in the blockade radius definition in the Appendix; it ignores the angular dependence of the interaction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rydberg atoms for electric field gradiometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RFSQOVSR

@misc{pith2026250901665,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rydberg atoms for electric field gradiometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RFSQOVSR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01665}
}
abstract

We propose a quantum sensor for electric fields based on networks of Rydberg atoms. The sensing mechanism exploits the strong dependence of the Rydberg blockade on the applied electric field near a F\"orster resonance. In this regime, variations of the electric field across the array lead to local changes in the blockade radius. Therefore, owing to its spatially distributed architecture, the device can operate as a gradiometer. Our analysis shows that our scheme enables detection of spatial variations in the electric field with a resolution of a few $\mu$m. We analyse the dynamics of Rydberg excitations for systems with different spatial geometries and electric field configurations to establish the relation between the applied field and the blockade response. For spatially inhomogeneous fields, we also provide another observable, density-density correlations, that can probe the field's spatial structure.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01665 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic arrangement of a 2D tweezer array (grey [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The fidelity F of the basis states for three interacting atoms having a separation R = 15 µm over a Rabi period, t ∈ (0, τ = 2π/Ω) for different electric fields E with Ω corresponding to the Rabi frequency. a) E = 0 with Fmax = 0.938 being the maximum projection over the fully excited state (see Eq. (5)). b) E = 25 mV/cm with Fmax = 0.564. c) E = Eres = 29.787 mV/cm (corresponding to the resonant electric field) wit… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. a) The maximum fidelity for populating the fully excited state, Fmax ( Eq. (5)) for N = 3 over the time period t ∈ (0, 2π/Ω). The atoms have a fixed separation which in￾creases from R = 5 µm to R = 40 µm for the different electric fields E = (0, 10, 20, 25, 27, 29, Eres) mV/cm. b) Fmax as a function of a uniform electric field across all N = 3 atoms for fixed separations R = (5, 15, 20, 40) µm. resonance, we compute… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top: The applied electric field configuration E/Eres across N = 19 atoms, which are separated by a distance R = 15 µm. Bottom: The corresponding density-density correlator ⟨ninj ⟩ for the above electric field configurations recorded at maximum population of the fully e…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The relative energies ϵ in units of the Planck constant h for the pair states |59D3/2, 59D3/2⟩ and |57F5/2, 61P1/2⟩ when coupled (black) and uncoupled (coloured). The two atoms are separated by a distance R = 8.1µm and magnetic field Bz = 0 G [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: a) Effective interaction V between two Rydberg atoms separated by a distance R when subjected to electric field E = 0 mV/cm (Rc = 6.68 µm), E = 28.2 mV/cm (Rc = 14.15 µm), E = 29 mV/cm (Rc = 52.95 µm) and E = 34.4 mV/cm (Rc = 9.76 µm). The change of behaviour between t…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The maximum projection Fmax of |Ψ⟩ to the Fock state |11, · · · , 1N ⟩ over the period t ∈ (0, τ = 2π/Ω) for N atoms, where Ω is the Rabi frequency. a) All atoms are subject to the same electric field (either E = 0 or E = Eres) and have atom separation R. b) All atoms …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top: The applied electric field configuration E/Eres across N = 3 atoms, which are separated by a distance R = 15 µm. Bottom: The corresponding density-density correlator ⟨ninj ⟩ for the above electric field configurations recorded at maximum population of the fully ex…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. Reinforcement-Learned Electric-Field Sensing with Asymmetrically Blockaded Rydberg Arrays

    quant-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A theoretical proposal showing that asymmetric-blockade Rydberg arrays with reinforcement-learned pulse phases can achieve near-Heisenberg scaling for scalar field sensing and full vector field reconstruction via a sp...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [38]

    Reinhard A, Younge K C and Raithel G 2008 Physical Review A 78 ISSN 1094-1622 URL http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.78.060702

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.78.060702 2008

  2. [1]

    1088/1674-1056/abd76f

    Wu X, Liang X, Tian Y, Yang F, Chen C, Liu Y C, Tey M K and You L 2021 Chinese Physics B 30 020305 ISSN 1674-1056 URL http://dx.doi.org/10. 1088/1674-1056/abd76f

    work page 2021

  3. [2]

    The term C3/R3 represents the resonant dipole–dipole matrix element between the pair states, withC3 being de- pendent on the dipole matrix elements of the pair states

    Therefore, in the subspace {|α, α⟩, |+⟩}, the interaction can be described by an effective two-level F¨ orster Hamiltonian: V (α) = δ C 3/R3 C3/R3 0 , (2) where we define the so-called energy defectδ = 2ϵα−ϵα′ − ϵα′′ , with ϵη denoting the single-atom energy of state η. The term C3/R3 represents the resonant dipole–dipole matrix element between the pair s...

    work page 1929

  4. [3]

    Adams C S, Pritchard J D and Shaffer J P 2019 Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 53 012002 ISSN 1361-6455 URL http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1088/1361-6455/ab52ef 6

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6455/ab52ef 2019

  5. [4]

    1088/0034-4885/51/2/001

    Gallagher T F 1988 Reports on Progress in Physics 51 143–188 ISSN 1361-6633 URL http://dx.doi.org/10. 1088/0034-4885/51/2/001

    work page 1988

  6. [5]

    Jaksch D, Cirac J I, Zoller P, Rolston S L, Cˆ ot´ e R and Lukin M D 2000 Physical Review Letters 85 2208–2211 ISSN 1079-7114 URL http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.2208

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.85.2208 2000

  7. [6]

    Lukin M D, Fleischhauer M, Cote R, Duan L M, Jaksch D, Cirac J I and Zoller P 2001 Physical Review Letters 87 ISSN 1079-7114 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.87.037901

    work page 2001

  8. [7]

    F¨ orster T 1948 Annalen der Physik 437 55–75 ISSN 1521-3889 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ andp.19484370105

    work page 1948

Show all 40 references
  1. [8]

    Sahoo H 2011 Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology C: Photochemistry Reviews 12 20–30

    2011

  2. [9]

    Anderson W R, Robinson M P, Martin J D D and Gallagher T F 2002 Physical Review A 65 ISSN 1094- 1622 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.65. 063404

    2002 doi

  3. [10]

    Walker T G and Saffman M 2005 Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 38 S309–S319 ISSN 1361-6455 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 0953-4075/38/2/022

    2005

  4. [13]

    Ryabtsev I I, Tretyakov D B, Beterov I I and Entin V M 2010 Physical Review Letters 104 ISSN 1079-7114 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.073003

    2010 doi

  5. [14]

    108.113001

    Nipper J, Balewski J B, Krupp A T, Butscher B, L¨ ow R and Pfau T 2012 Physical Review Letters 108 ISSN 1079- 7114 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 108.113001

    2012 doi

  6. [15]

    Nipper J, Balewski J B, Krupp A T, Hoffer- berth S, L¨ ow R and Pfau T 2012 Phys. Rev. X 2(3) 031011 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevX.2.031011

    2012

  7. [16]

    Faoro R, Pelle B, Zuliani A, Cheinet P, Arimondo E and Pillet P 2015 Nature Communications 6 ISSN 2041-1723 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9173

    2015 doi

  8. [17]

    Tretyakov D, Beterov I, Yakshina E, Entin V, Ryabtsev I, Cheinet P and Pillet P 2017 Physical Review Letters 119 ISSN 1079-7114 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.119.173402

    2017

  9. [18]

    Ryabtsev I I, Beterov I I, Tretyakov D B, Yakshina E A, Entin V M, Cheinet P and Pillet P 2018 Physical Review A 98 ISSN 2469-9934 URL http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.98.052703

    2018 doi

  10. [19]

    Cheinet P, Pham K L, Pillet P, Beterov I, Ashkarin I, Tretyakov D, Yakshina E, Entin V and Ryabtsev I 2020 Quantum Electronics 50 213–219 ISSN 1468-4799 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1070/QEL17253

    2020 doi

  11. [20]

    Ryabtsev I I, Ashkarin I N, Beterov I I, Yakshina E A, Tretyakov D B, Entin V M and Cheinet P 2025 Investi- gation of three-body f¨ orster resonance for various spatial configurations of the three interacting rubidium rydberg atoms URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.22259

    2025 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Beterov I I, Ashkarin I N, Yakshina E A, Tretyakov D B, Entin V M, Ryabtsev I I, Cheinet P, Pillet P and Saffman M 2018 Physical Review A 98 ISSN 2469-9934 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.042704

    2018 doi

  13. [22]

    Ryabtsev I I, Ashkarin I N, Beterov I I, Tretyakov D B, Yakshina E A, Entin V M and Cheinet P 2025 Splitting of the three-body f¨ orster resonance in rb rydberg atoms as a measure of dipole-dipole interaction strength URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.13658

    2025

  14. [23]

    Emperauger G, Qiao M, Bornet G, Chen C, Martin R, Chew Y T, G´ ely B, Klein L, Barredo D, Browaeys A and Lahaye T 2025 Physical Review A 111 ISSN 2469- 9934 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.111. 062806

    2025 doi

  15. [24]

    doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.89.035002

    Degen C, Reinhard F and Cappellaro P 2017 Reviews of Modern Physics 89 ISSN 1539-0756 URL http://dx. doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.89.035002

    2017 doi

  16. [26]

    Yuan J, Yang W, Jing M, Zhang H, Jiao Y, Li W, Zhang L, Xiao L and Jia S 2023 Reports on Progress in Physics 86 106001 ISSN 1361-6633 URL http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1088/1361-6633/acf22f

    2023 doi

  17. [27]

    1038/nature18327

    Facon A, Dietsche E K, Grosso D, Haroche S, Rai- mond J M, Brune M and Gleyzes S 2016 Nature 535 262–265 ISSN 1476-4687 URL https://doi.org/10. 1038/nature18327

    2016

  18. [28]

    Kumar S, Fan H, K¨ ubler H, Jahangiri A J and Shaffer J P 2017 Optics Express 25 8625 ISSN 1094-4087 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.25.008625

    2017 doi

  19. [29]

    1038/nphoton.2016.214

    Wade C G, ˇSibali´ c N, de Melo N R, Kondo J M, Adams C S and Weatherill K J 2016 Nature Photonics 11 40–43 ISSN 1749-4893 URL http://dx.doi.org/10. 1038/nphoton.2016.214

    2016

  20. [30]

    org/10.1088/1361-6455/ab6051

    Meyer D H, Castillo Z A, Cox K C and Kunz P D 2020 Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 53 034001 ISSN 1361-6455 URL http://dx.doi. org/10.1088/1361-6455/ab6051

    2020 doi

  21. [31]

    Pause L, Sturm L, Mittenb¨ uhler M, Amann S, Preuschoff T, Sch¨ affner D, Schlosser M and Birkl G 2024Optica 11 222 ISSN 2334-2536 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/ OPTICA.513551

  22. [32]

    Schlosser M, Tichelmann S, Sch¨ affner D, de Mello D O, Hambach M, Sch¨ utz J and Birkl G 2023 Phys. Rev. Lett. 130(18) 180601 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.180601

    2023 doi

  23. [33]

    Sch¨ affner D, Schreiber T, Lenz F, Schlosser M and Birkl G 2024 PRX Quantum 5 ISSN 2691-3399 URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.010311

    2024 doi

  24. [34]

    Dunning F B, Killian T C, Yoshida S and Burgd¨ orfer J 2016 Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 49 112003 ISSN 1361-6455 URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.1088/0953-4075/49/11/112003

    2016 doi

  25. [35]

    1038/s41567-019-0733-z

    Browaeys A and Lahaye T 2020 Nature Physics 16 132–142 ISSN 1745-2481 URL http://dx.doi.org/10. 1038/s41567-019-0733-z

    2020

  26. [36]

    1038/NPHYS1178

    Urban E, Johnson T A, Henage T, Isenhower L, Yavuz D D, Walker T G and Saffman M 2009 Nature Physics 5 110–114 ISSN 1745-2481 URL http://dx.doi.org/10. 1038/NPHYS1178

    2009

  27. [37]

    Ga¨ etan A, Miroshnychenko Y, Wilk T, Chotia A, Viteau M, Comparat D, Pillet P, Browaeys A and Grangier P 7 2009 Nature Physics 5 115–118 ISSN 1745-2481 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/NPHYS1183

    2009 doi

  28. [39]

    Ravets S, Labuhn H, Barredo D, B´ eguin L, Lahaye T and Browaeys A 2014 Nature Physics 10 914–917 ISSN 1745- 2481 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys3119

    2014 doi

  29. [40]

    cpc.2017.06.015

    ˇSibali´ c N, Pritchard J, Adams C and Weatherill K 2017 Computer Physics Communications 220 319–331 ISSN 0010-4655 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. cpc.2017.06.015

    2017 doi

  30. [41]

    Saffman M, Walker T G and Mølmer K 2010 Reviews of Modern Physics 82 2313–2363 ISSN 1539-0756 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.82.2313

    2010 doi

  31. [42]

    Otto J S, Kjærgaard N and Deb A B 2020Physical review research 2 033474

  32. [43]

    org/10.1364/OE.502183 APPENDIX: SENSING ELECTRIC FIELDS THROUGH R YDBERG A TOM NETWORKS A

    Wu C E, Kirova T, Auzins M and Chen Y H 2023 Optics Express 31 37094 ISSN 1094-4087 URL http://dx.doi. org/10.1364/OE.502183 APPENDIX: SENSING ELECTRIC FIELDS THROUGH R YDBERG A TOM NETWORKS A. Rydberg Interactions, Rydberg Blockade and F¨ orster Resonance To provide a compreh...

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.