Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 34 references

Direct Measurement of the $5s5p\,{}^1P_1 \to 5s4d\,{}^1D_2$ Decay Rate in Strontium

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The decay path that quietly drains strontium atom traps runs half as fast as theorists claimed, a direct measurement shows.

desk verdict The branching ratio measurement is new and likely right; the decay rate headline is derived from the authors' own prior product and the abstract oversells it. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.22184 v3 pith:DCXVQ747 submitted 2025-10-25 physics.atom-ph

Naohiro Okamoto , Takatoshi Aoki , Yoshio Torii This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph PACS 32.70.Cs37.10.Gh42.50.Vk
keywords strontiumatomicdecayratebranchingratiomagneto-opticaltrapopticalpumping5s4d1D2statelasercoolingtweezers
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 reports the first direct, theory-free measurement of two linked atomic-decay quantities in neutral strontium: the branching ratio of the 5s4d 1D2 state decaying to the metastable 5s5p 3P2 state, and the rate at which the laser-cooling 5s5p 1P1 state leaks into the 5s4d 1D2 state. The measured branching ratio, 0.177(4), is about half the 0.322 value that has been widely used for decades, meaning the dominant loss channel in strontium magneto-optical traps is weaker than assumed. The measured decay rate, 5.3(5)×10^3 s⁻¹, agrees with an old indirect measurement but is substantially lower than a recent high-profile theoretical prediction used in optical-tweezer modeling. If these numbers hold, models of strontium laser cooling and single-atom fluorescence detection need to be revised, as do the atomic-structure calculations that produced the conflicting theoretical values.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a transient-response measurement on a magneto-optical trap: the 448-nm laser optically pumps the 5s4d 1D2 state (which is populated by leakage from the 461-nm cooling transition) back to the ground state; when this pumping light is switched off, the trapped atom number falls exponentially with a time constant that encodes the 1P1→1D2 decay rate, and the ratio of final to initial atom number encodes the branching fraction that returns to the cooling cycle. That exponential relaxation, together with previously measured total loss rates and the relative contributions of three decay paths (91.4%, 4.6%, 0.12%), yields the two target values without atomic-structure calcula

What would settle it

A direct, independent measurement of the 1D2→3P2 branching ratio—e.g., by state-selective detection of atoms decaying to 3P2 after preparing 1D2 atoms via a different route, such as a two-photon excitation or a different optical-pumping scheme—should observe a value near 0.177 rather than 0.322. Also, re-analyzing optical-tweezer single-atom survival data with the new decay rate (5.3×10^3 s⁻¹) should produce a consistent branching ratio without invoking the higher Cooper value.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

By observing the transient response of trapped strontium-88 atoms after switching off a 448-nm optical-pumping laser, the authors extract the product of the 1P1→1D2 decay rate and the 1D2→3P2 branching ratio, then use the already-determined value of that product to separate the two factors. They find the 1D2→3P2 branching ratio is 0.177(4), significantly below the widely cited Bauschlicher value of 0.322, and they determine the 1P1→1D2 decay rate to be 5.3(5)×10^3 s⁻¹, a value free of theoretical input. This contradicts the recent Cooper et al. theory (9.25(40)×10^3 s⁻¹) that was consistent with optical-tweezer single-atom fluorescence data, while confirming the older Hunter et al. measureme

Load-bearing premise

The decomposition of the measured loss rate into three decay paths, using relative contributions (91.4%, 4.6%, 0.12%) imported from the same group's previous work, is taken as a fixed input; if any of those weights carries hidden theoretical assumptions or unaccounted systematic error, the central branching-ratio result would shift by more than the quoted uncertainty.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Strontium magneto-optical trap loss rates should be roughly half of what the Bauschlicher-based estimate implied, changing predicted loading and steady-state atom numbers.
  • The survival probability for single strontium atoms in optical-tweezer fluorescence detection should be re-evaluated using the new branching ratio and decay rate, potentially resolving the tension between the Cooper theory and the Hunter experiment.
  • Atomic-structure calculations for Sr that predict the 1P1→1D2 decay rate near 9×10^3 s⁻¹ are called into question; a re-derivation of the singlet–triplet mixing matrix elements is needed.
  • The derived 1D2→3P1 decay rate (1.95(10)×10^3 s⁻¹) provides an independent benchmark for future theory that treats spin-forbidden transitions in alkaline-earth atoms.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the new branching ratio is correct, the effective loss channel per 1P1 atom drops from the old 1:150,000 to about 1:340,000, which means reported trap-loading efficiencies in some strontium experiments may have been underestimated or the repumping requirements are less stringent than thought.
  • The Cooper et al. value that was consistent with optical-tweezer survival rates may have compensated an erroneous decay rate with a different branching ratio; a direct re-analysis of those tweezer experiments using separate measurements of both quantities could identify which piece was wrong.
  • The same transient technique could be applied to other alkaline-earth-like atoms (e.g., Ca, Yb) whose 1P1–1D2–3P2 decay chains are also poorly constrained, producing a consistent set of experimentally grounded branching ratios.
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 an experimental study of the decay chain 5s5p 1P1 → 5s4d 1D2 → 5s5p 3P2 in 88Sr in a 461-nm MOT. By switching off the 448-nm repump and fitting the transient fluorescence, the authors extract γ_1D2 = 2.37(1)×10^3 s^-1. From an additional 481-nm-off loss measurement and the decay-path decomposition of their prior work [27], they derive the 1D2→3P2 branching ratio B = 0.177(4), and, using the product A_{1P1→1D2}B from [27], the 1P1→1D2 decay rate A = 5.3(5)×10^3 s^-1. They compare these values with previous theory (Bauschlicher et al., Cooper et al.) and experiment (Hunter et al.).

Significance. If correct, these results provide long-sought experimental benchmarks for Sr laser cooling and single-atom fluorescence detection, and the 1D2→3P2 branching ratio is a clear and surprising discrepancy with the widely cited 1985 Bauschlicher value. The paper has notable strengths: internal consistency with the independently measured γ_1D2 value from Husain and Roberts, a reduced χ² of 0.96 over the detuning series, and no observed detuning dependence of B. The central claim, however, rests on the decay-path decomposition imported from the authors' prior paper [27], which is not documented or cross-checked in this manuscript.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (6) and subsequent text] The extraction of B hinges on the relative decay-path contributions 91.4(3)%, 4.6(2)%, and 0.120(5)% imported from Ref. [27]. Since B = 0.914 L / (f A_{1P1→1D2}), an error in the leading weight propagates almost linearly into B and then into A_{1P1→1D2}. The present text does not show how these weights were obtained, whether they are purely experimental or partly theoretical for the 3D2/3D1 branching ratios, or how their uncertainties were estimated. If the weights share apparatus systematics with the present setup, the 0.3% uncertainty is likely underestimated. The authors should provide a derivation or independent validation of the decomposition, and state explicitly whether any theoretical input enters.
  2. [Title and Abstract] The title claims a 'Direct Measurement of the 5s5p 1P1 → 5s4d 1D2 Decay Rate,' but A_{1P1→1D2} is not directly measured in this work. It is obtained as (A_{1P1→1D2}B_{1D2→3P2})/B, using the product 9.3(9)×10^2 s^-1 from the authors' previous paper [27] divided by the newly measured branching ratio. The abstract's claim that this rate is determined 'without relying on theoretical calculations' is therefore contingent on the experimental status of the previous product and of the weights in Eq. (6). The title and abstract should be revised to accurately describe the derived nature of A and the reliance on [27].
  3. [Eq. (6) and Fig. 2 inset] The loss-rate measurement L is described in the inset of Fig. 2 as the decay when the 481-nm light is switched off while keeping 461 and 483 nm on, but the text does not state whether the 448-nm light is on or off during this measurement. This matters: if 448 nm is on, the 1D2→3P2 path is suppressed and Eq. (6) would not describe the dominant loss channel. Please clarify the experimental condition and ensure Eq. (6) corresponds to it.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table I] There is a numerical inconsistency in the derived A_{1D2→3P1} value. Using B = 0.177(4), γ_1D2 = 2.37(1)×10^3 s^-1, and A_{1D2→1S0} ≈ 100 s^-1 as stated in the text gives A_{1D2→3P1} ≈ 1.85(10)×10^3 s^-1, not 1.95(10)×10^3 s^-1. Please correct the table or explain the calculation.
  2. [Notation near Eq. (6)] Eq. (6) defines L but does not explicitly define B_{3D2→3P2} and B_{3D1→3P2}. These should be defined in text for clarity.
  3. [Figure 2 inset] The inset caption should state the 448-nm light condition explicitly, as noted in the major comment, and also whether the decay is fit to a single exponential over the full trace or to an initial-rate region.
  4. [Abstract and Ref. [25]] The abstract calls the Bauschlicher value 0.322 'widely cited' but does not quote its theoretical uncertainty. Adding this uncertainty would help the reader judge the significance of the 0.177(4) deviation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No definitional circularity; the central branching ratio is extracted from new data, but the extraction uses an unshown decay-path decomposition imported from the same group's prior work.

full rationale

The central result B(1D2->3P2)=0.177(4) is not fitted to the theory it challenges. The paper measures the 481-off loss rate L (Eq. 6) and the quantity f*A(1P1->1D2) from a separate 448-off transient (Eqs. A6-A12), then extracts B from these measured quantities. The comparison to Bauschlicher's 0.322 is external and does not enter the derivation. The only notable self-citation is the decay-path decomposition '91.4(3)%, 4.6(2)%, and 0.120(5)%' imported from Ref. [27]; the present text does not show how those weights were obtained. This is a load-bearing input and a documentation gap, and it creates a correlation with the same group's earlier apparatus, but it is not a definitional reduction: the weights are not the target branching ratio, and no equation defines the target in terms of itself. Likewise, A(1P1->1D2) = 5.3(5)e3 s^-1 is obtained by dividing the product A(1P1->1D2)*B(1D2->3P2) from Ref. [27] by the newly measured B; this is a ratio of two independent measurements. Overall, the derivation chain is not circular, but the unshown [27] decomposition prevents a fully self-contained verdict, so a low non-zero score is appropriate.

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

The work adds no new entities or ad hoc constants. It relies on standard rate-equation modeling, an adiabatic approximation, and prior measured/theoretical inputs: the 3P1 lifetime, the decay-path decomposition from Ref [27], and the theoretical E2 rate A(1D2→1S0). The biggest unpaid input is the Ref [27] decomposition, which is load-bearing for both headline numbers.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Rate-equation model ignores losses other than to 1D2/3P1 and treats background-gas and two-body losses as negligible (<1 s^-1).
    Invoked in Eq. (1) and conservation Eq. (2)/(A1); if these losses are not negligible, the extracted decay rates are biased.
  • domain assumption The 448 nm optical pumping makes steady-state 1D2 population negligible before switch-off.
    Assumed so that switching off 448 nm produces a clean transient; upper 8P1 lifetime ~30 ns vs 1D2 lifetime ~400 µs.
  • domain assumption Adiabatic elimination of the 3P1 population is valid.
    Appendix A takes dN3P1/dt≈0 because A3P1→1S0=4.699(7)×10^4 s^-1 ≫ γ1D2=2.37×10^3 s^-1.
  • domain assumption Relative decay-path contributions from Ref [27] (91.4(3)%, 4.6(2)%, 0.120(5)%) correctly describe the 1P1→3P2 loss channels in Eq. (6).
    This is the key input used to isolate the 1D2 contribution from the total 481-off loss rate; the values are not re-derived or independently validated in the present text.
  • domain assumption The theoretical electric-quadrupole rate A(1D2→1S0) from Ref [25] is adopted for the derived A(1D2→3P1) in Table I.
    Table I derives A(1D2→3P1) by subtracting this theory value; it does not affect the headline B or A values but affects the derived 3P1 table entry.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Direct Measurement of the $5s5p\,{}^1P_1 \to 5s4d\,{}^1D_2$ Decay Rate in Strontium." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DCXVQ747

@misc{pith2026251022184,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Direct Measurement of the $5s5p\,^1P_1 \to 5s4d\,^1D_2$ Decay Rate in Strontium},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DCXVQ747}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.22184}
}
abstract

We report the first direct experimental determination of the branching ratio of the $5s4d\,{}^1D_2 \to 5s5p\,{}^3P_2$ transition and the decay rate of the $5s5p\,{}^1P_1 \to 5s4d\,{}^1D_2$ transition in neutral strontium. For more than four decades, these quantities lacked an experimental determination independent of theoretical input. We measure the branching ratio to be $0.177(4)$, significantly lower than the widely cited theoretical value of $0.322$ [C. W. Bauschlicher Jr. {\it et al.}, J. Phys. B \textbf{18}, 1523 (1985)]. We also determine the decay rate to be $5.3(5)\times10^3\,\mathrm{s^{-1}}$, consistent with the value reported by Hunter [L. R. Hunter {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{56}, 823 (1986)] but substantially lower than the recent theoretical prediction of $9.25(40)\times10^3\,\mathrm{s^{-1}}$ [A. Cooper {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. X \textbf{8}, 041055 (2018)]. These measurements provide an experimental benchmark for quantitative modeling of loss processes in laser cooling and single-atom fluorescence detection in optical tweezers with Sr.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.22184 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Energy level diagram of Sr relevant to this study. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Extracted branching ratios for different trapping light [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Comparison of the literature values and the present [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [27]

    Okamoto, T

    N. Okamoto, T. Aoki, and Y. Torii, Analyzing the op- tical pumping on the 5s4d 1D2−5s8p 1P1 transition in a magneto-optical trap of Sr atoms, Phys. Rev. A112, 043118 (2025)

    2025

  2. [1]

    S. L. Campbell, R. B. Hutson, G. E. Marti, A. Goban, N. D. Oppong, R. L. McNally, L. Sonderhouse, J. M. Robinson, W. Zhang, B. J. Bloom, and J. Ye, A Fermi- degenerate three-dimensional optical lattice clock, Sci- ence358, 90 (2017)

    2017

  3. [2]

    Oelker, R

    E. Oelker, R. B. Hutson, C. J. Kennedy, L. Sonder- house, T. Bothwell, A. Goban, D. Kedar, C. Sanner, J. M. Robinson, G. E. Marti, D. G. Matei, T. Legero, M. Giunta, R. Holzwarth, F. Riehle, U. Sterr, and J. Ye, Demonstration of 4.8×10 −17 stability at 1 s for two inde- pendent optical clocks, Nature Photonics13, 714 (2019)

    2019

  4. [3]

    T. L. Nicholson, S. L. Campbell, R. B. Hutson, G. E. Marti, B. J. Bloom, R. L. McNally, W. Zhang, M. D. Barrett, M. S. Safronova, G. F. Strouse, W. L. Tew, and J. Ye, Systematic evaluation of an atomic clock at 2× 10−18 total uncertainty, Nature Communications6, 6896 (2015)

    2015

  5. [4]

    W. F. McGrew, X. Zhang, R. J. Fasano, S. A. Sch¨ affer, K. Beloy, D. Nicolodi, R. C. Brown, N. Hinkley, G. Mi- lani, M. Schioppo, T. H. Yoon, and A. D. Ludlow, Atomic clock performance enabling geodesy below the centimetre level, Nature564, 87 (2018)

    2018

  6. [5]

    S. M. Brewer, J.-S. Chen, A. M. Hankin, E. R. Clements, C. W. Chou, D. J. Wineland, D. B. Hume, and D. R. Leibrandt, 27Al+ Quantum-Logic Clock with a System- atic Uncertainty below 10 −18, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 033201 (2019)

    2019

  7. [6]

    Bothwell, D

    T. Bothwell, D. Kedar, E. Oelker, J. M. Robinson, S. L. Bromley, W. L. Tew, J. Ye, and C. J. Kennedy, JILA SrI optical lattice clock with uncertainty of 2.0×10 −18, Metrologia56, 065004 (2019)

    2019

  8. [7]

    Nemitz, T

    N. Nemitz, T. Ohkubo, M. Takamoto, I. Ushijima, 5 M. Das, N. Ohmae, and H. Katori, Frequency ratio of Yb and Sr clocks with 5×10 −17 uncertainty at 150 sec- onds averaging time, Nature Photonics10, 258 (2016)

    2016

Show all 34 references
  1. [8]

    Beloy, M

    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....

    2021

  2. [9]

    Delva, J

    P. Delva, J. Lodewyck, S. Bilicki, E. Bookjans, G. Val- let, R. Le Targat, P.-E. Pottie, C. Guerlin, F. Mey- nadier, C. Le Poncin-Lafitte, O. Lopez, A. Amy-Klein, W.-K. Lee, N. Quintin, C. Lisdat, A. Al-Masoudi, S. D¨ orscher, C. Grebing, G. Grosche, A. Kuhl, S. Rau- pach, U. ...

    2017

  3. [10]

    Takamoto, I

    M. Takamoto, I. Ushijima, N. Ohmae, T. Yahagi, K. Kokado, H. Shinkai, and H. Katori, Test of general relativity by a pair of transportable optical lattice clocks, Nature Photonics14, 411 (2020)

    2020

  4. [11]

    Bothwell, C

    T. Bothwell, C. J. Kennedy, A. Aeppli, D. Kedar, J. M. Robinson, E. Oelker, A. Staron, and J. Ye, Resolving the gravitational redshift across a millimetre-scale atomic sample, Nature602, 420 (2022)

    2022

  5. [12]

    Zheng, J

    X. Zheng, J. Dolde, M. C. Cambria, H. M. Lim, and S. Kolkowitz, A lab-based test of the gravitational red- shift with a miniature clock network, Nature Communi- cations14, 4886 (2023)

    2023

  6. [13]

    Kolkowitz, S

    S. Kolkowitz, S. L. Bromley, T. Bothwell, M. L. Wall, G. E. Marti, A. P. Koller, X. Zhang, A. M. Rey, and J. Ye, Spin–orbit-coupled fermions in an optical lattice clock, Nature542, 66 (2017)

    2017

  7. [14]

    A. J. Daley, M. M. Boyd, J. Ye, and P. Zoller, Quan- tum Computing with Alkaline-Earth-Metal Atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 170504 (2008)

    2008

  8. [15]

    Schine, A

    N. Schine, A. W. Young, W. J. Eckner, M. J. Martin, and A. M. Kaufman, Long-lived Bell states in an array of optical clock qubits, Nature Physics18, 1067 (2022)

    2022

  9. [16]

    R. Tao, O. Lib, F. Gyger, H. Timme, M. Ammenwerth, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, Universal gates for a metastable qubit in strontium-88 (2025), arXiv:2506.10714 [quant- ph]

    2025 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Kolkowitz, I

    S. Kolkowitz, I. Pikovski, N. Langellier, M. D. Lukin, R. L. Walsworth, and J. Ye, Gravitational wave detec- tion with optical lattice atomic clocks, Phys. Rev. D94, 124043 (2016)

    2016

  11. [18]

    M. Abe, P. Adamson, M. Borcean, D. Bortoletto, K. Bridges, S. P. Carman, S. Chattopadhyay, J. Cole- 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. Hawki...

    2021

  12. [19]

    Kobayashi, A

    T. Kobayashi, A. Takamizawa, D. Akamatsu, A. Kawasaki, A. Nishiyama, K. Hosaka, Y. Hisai, M. Wada, H. Inaba, T. Tanabe, and M. Yasuda, Search for Ultralight Dark Matter from Long-Term Frequency Comparisons of Optical and Microwave Atomic Clocks, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 241301 (2022)

    2022

  13. [20]

    Dimarcq, M

    N. Dimarcq, M. Gertsvolf, G. Mileti, S. Bize, C. W. Oates, E. Peik, D. Calonico, T. Ido, P. Tavella, F. Mey- nadier, G. Petit, G. Panfilo, J. Bartholomew, P. De- fraigne, E. A. Donley, P. O. Hedekvist, I. Sesia, M. Wouters, P. Dub´ e, F. Fang, F. Levi, J. Lodewyck, H. S. Margo...

    2024

  14. [21]

    Derevianko, Feasibility of Cooling and Trapping Metastable Alkaline-Earth Atoms, Phys

    A. Derevianko, Feasibility of Cooling and Trapping Metastable Alkaline-Earth Atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 023002 (2001)

    2001

  15. [22]

    Yasuda and H

    M. Yasuda and H. Katori, Lifetime Measurement of the 3P2 Metastable State of Strontium Atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 153004 (2004)

    2004

  16. [23]

    L. R. Hunter, W. A. Walker, and D. S. Weiss, Observa- tion of an atomic Stark–electric-quadrupole interference, Phys. Rev. Lett.56, 823 (1986)

    1986

  17. [24]

    Yasuda, T

    M. Yasuda, T. Kishimoto, M. Takamoto, and H. Katori, Photoassociation spectroscopy of 88Sr: Reconstruction of the wave function near the last node, Phys. Rev. A73, 011403 (2006)

    2006

  18. [25]

    C. W. Bauschlicher Jr, S. R. Langhoff, and H. Partridge, The radiative lifetime of the 1D2 state of Ca and Sr: a core-valence treatment, Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics18, 1523 (1985)

    1985

  19. [26]

    X. Xu, T. H. Loftus, J. L. Hall, A. Gallagher, and J. Ye, Cooling and trapping of atomic strontium, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B20, 968 (2003)

    2003

  20. [28]

    H. G. C. Werij, C. H. Greene, C. E. Theodosiou, and A. Gallagher, Oscillator strengths and radiative branch- ing ratios in atomic Sr, Phys. Rev. A46, 1248 (1992)

    1992

  21. [29]

    S. G. Porsev, M. G. Kozlov, Y. G. Rakhlina, and A. Dere- vianko, Many-body calculations of electric-dipole ampli- tudes for transitions between low-lying levels of Mg, Ca, and Sr, Phys. Rev. A64, 012508 (2001)

    2001

  22. [30]

    Cooper, J

    A. Cooper, J. P. Covey, I. S. Madjarov, S. G. Porsev, M. S. Safronova, and M. Endres, Alkaline-Earth Atoms in Optical Tweezers, Phys. Rev. X8, 041055 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Samland, S

    J. Samland, S. Bennetts, C.-C. Chen, R. G. Escud- ero, F. Schreck, and B. Pasquiou, Optical pumping of 5s4d 1D2 strontium atoms for laser cooling and imaging, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 013319 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Okamoto, T

    N. Okamoto, T. Aoki, and Y. Torii, Limitation of single- repumping schemes for laser cooling of Sr atoms, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 043088 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Husain and G

    D. Husain and G. Roberts, Radiative lifetimes, diffusion 6 and energy pooling of Sr(5s5p( 3PJ )) and Sr(5s4d( 1D2)) studied by time-resolved atomic emission following pulsed dye-laser excitation, Chemical Physics127, 203 (1988)

    1988

  26. [34]

    Kwela, Z

    J. Kwela, Z. Konefal, R. Drozdowski, and J. Heldt, Ob- servation of the electric-field-inducedE1 transition be- tween 5s4d 1D2 and 5s 2 1S0 levels in Sr I, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik D Atoms, Molecules and Clusters9, 215 (1988)

    1988

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.