Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 43 references

A saturation-absorption rubidium magnetometer with multilevel optical Bloch-equation modeling for intermediate-to-high fields

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A multilevel optical Bloch-equation model in the uncoupled |mI, mJ> basis reproduces the sub-Doppler saturated-absorption spectra of 87Rb in the hyperfine Paschen-Back regime and retrieves magnetic fields from 0.2 to 0.4 T with a precision

desk verdict Solid OBE extension and a working 0.2–0.4 T rubidium magnetometer, but the headline ±0.0017 T precision rests on an untested one-to-one mapping from Gaussian peak fits to Hamiltonian eigenfrequencies. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.09115 v2 pith:P3CAUYMP submitted 2026-01-14 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

Mayand Dangi , Prateek Rajan Gupta , Joseph Kasti , Nivedan Vishwanath , Michael Zepp , David Smith , Benedikt Geiger , Jennifer T. Choy This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph PACS 32.60.+i07.55.Ge
keywords saturatedabsorptionspectroscopyrubidium-87magnetometryhyperfinePaschen-BackregimeopticalBlochequationshigh-fieldDoppler-freeZeemantransitionsphysics-constrainedoptimization
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 rubidium-87 vapor cell, interrogated with counter-propagating pump and probe beams in a strong magnetic field, can serve as an absolute magnetometer in the hyperfine Paschen-Back regime (0.2–0.4 T). The key is a multilevel optical Bloch-equation model solved in the uncoupled |mI, mJ> basis, which reproduces the measured sub-Doppler saturated-absorption spectra, including state mixing and saturation broadening. Using this model to compute the field-dependent transition frequencies, the authors infer magnetic fields from the positions of the Doppler-free Zeeman peaks with ±0.0017 T precision and 0.42 mT/√Hz sensitivity. If correct, this provides a compact, calibration-free route to high-field magnetometry without thin cells or single-line tracking, and a validated forward model for generating synthetic training data for machine-learning sensors.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the multilevel optical Bloch-equation model solved in the uncoupled |mI, mJ> basis. Starting from the Liouville–von Neumann equation with a magnetic-field-dependent Hamiltonian, the authors derive a set of 40 coupled differential equations for the populations and coherences of the 24 sublevels of the 87Rb D2 line (8 ground, 16 excited), after applying the rotating-wave approximation and selection rules. The model incorporates power broadening via the Rabi frequency and Doppler averaging over the Maxwell–Boltzmann velocity distribution. The resulting fluorescence signal is compared to experiment. The field-inference step then uses the same Hamiltonian's eigenfrequencies a

What would settle it

A point-by-point comparison of the OBE-simulated lineshape with the measured spectrum at a field where two transitions approach crossing (e.g., near B where the σ− lines 4 and 5 become nearly degenerate) would reveal whether the Gaussian-fitted centers deviate from the Hamiltonian eigenfrequencies beyond the claimed ±0.0017 T equivalent. If the centers shift without a corresponding change in the Hamiltonian eigenvalues, the central assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the multilevel optical Bloch-equation framework, previously used for zero-field saturated absorption, can be transplanted to the hyperfine Paschen-Back regime of 87Rb by re-expressing the density-matrix equations in the uncoupled |mI, mJ> basis. In this basis the field-dependent Hamiltonian is diagonalized directly, and the 24 sublevels of the D2 line are connected by σ+ and σ− transitions. The model reproduces the measured spectra at B = 0.4092 T (and other fields), with power-broadening ratios and Doppler-width scaling matching the analytic two-level predictions. The authors then treat the spectrum as a fingerprint: they optimize the single parameter B to mini

Load-bearing premise

The field-inference pipeline assumes each measured saturated-absorption peak is an isolated Doppler-free resonance whose Gaussian-fitted center maps one-to-one to an eigenfrequency of the field-dependent Hamiltonian; unresolved crossover or overlapping σ+ and σ− lines could bias the retrieved field.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Magnetic fields between 0.2 and 0.4 T can be read from a single saturated-absorption spectrum with sub-mT precision, without thin-cell geometries or tracking a single extreme-state resonance.
  • The validated OBE model generates high-fidelity synthetic spectra, which can train machine-learning algorithms for autonomous, real-time field estimation in MRI and fusion environments.
  • The method separates the problem into a physics-based forward model and a scalar parameter fit, so the same sensor hardware can be re-calibrated for different field ranges simply by changing the Hamiltonian.
  • The demonstrated power-broadening and Doppler-scaling agreement indicates the model captures the dominant nonlinear physics, making it a candidate replacement for linear-susceptibility codes in Doppler-free high-field spectroscopy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The one-to-one mapping between Gaussian-fitted line centers and Hamiltonian eigenfrequencies could be extended to a full-lineshape fitting that uses the OBE spectrum directly, potentially removing biases from unresolved crossover resonances and overlapping manifolds.
  • Because the eigenfrequencies in the |mI, mJ> basis are nearly linear in B at these fields, the inverse problem may reduce to a simple linear regression over peak shifts, making the sensor even easier to deploy in dynamic environments.
  • The same modeling approach could be applied to other alkalis (e.g., 85Rb, 133Cs) or to the D1 line, widening the field range and allowing cross-checks by probing different manifolds.
  • A direct test of the assumption could be to scan the magnetic field continuously and verify that the fitted peak centers track the Hamiltonian predictions to within the claimed precision across intervening crossings, where crossover resonances are expected.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents SASHMAG, a rubidium-87 vapor-cell magnetometer operating in the hyperfine Paschen-Back regime at fields from 0.2 T to 0.4 T. The authors develop a multilevel optical Bloch-equation (OBE) model in the |m_I, m_J> basis to simulate saturated absorption spectra at sub-Doppler resolution, and they infer the magnetic field by minimizing the squared difference between experimentally extracted Gaussian peak centers and Hamiltonian eigenfrequencies. They report field estimates of 0.4092 ± 0.0017 T, 0.3263 ± 0.0016 T, and 0.2602 ± 0.0016 T, with a sensitivity of 0.42 mT/√Hz. The OBE model is validated against measured spectra qualitatively (Fig. 4) and against analytical power-broadening and Doppler-scaling predictions using simulated spectra (Fig. 5).

Significance. If the central claims hold, this work provides a useful route to absolute magnetic-field measurement in the intermediate-to-high field regime without thin-cell techniques or single-line tracking. The use of a multilevel OBE model in the uncoupled basis is a technically appropriate extension of earlier work by Maguire et al., and the inverse-problem approach of fitting Hamiltonian line positions to measured peak centers is physically well motivated. The Monte Carlo uncertainty propagation in Eqs. (9)-(10) is a sound way to estimate statistical precision, and the reported ±0.0017 T precision is plausible if the peak-center extraction is unbiased. However, the paper's central claim of a 'validated simulation' and the quoted precision rest on an untested assumption that each fitted Gaussian peak corresponds one-to-one to an isolated Doppler-free transition frequency. The absence of a quantitative model-vs-experiment comparison, and the presence of closely spaced peaks and potential crossover resonances, make the current evidence insufficient to support the stated precision and the claim that the OBE model reproduces measured spectra.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. IV C, 'sensitivity'] The sensitivity of 0.42 mT/√Hz is quoted without derivation or supporting data. No noise spectrum, bandwidth specification, or repeated-measurement analysis is provided. If this is intended as a sensor performance figure, it needs a clear definition (e.g., standard deviation of field estimates as a function of integration time) and experimental evidence. If it is derived from the Monte Carlo uncertainty and a single scan duration, that should be stated explicitly. Without this, the sensitivity claim is not assessable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] There is a typographical error in the abstract: 'with a precision of ±0.0017 T)' has an unmatched parenthesis. Also, 'we demonstrate magnetic field retrieval from 0.2 T to 0.4 T with a precision of ±0.0017 T' appears twice in slightly different forms in the abstract and introduction.
  2. [Sec. II C, Eq. (7)] The notation ρ_avg^{ββ}(v_i, Δ) is not formally defined before use. It is clear from context that it is the time-averaged excited-state population from the OBE, but a brief definition would improve readability.
  3. [Sec. III, Fig. 2] The caption of Fig. 2 describes the reference optics arm as 'top, orange section' and main experiment as 'bottom, blue section,' but the figure appears to be grayscale in the print version. If color is not used, the text should refer to spatial positions or use distinguishable labels.
  4. [Appendix A, Eq. (A24)] In Eq. (A24), the index in the term −i(ω_βα − ω)˜ρ_βγ appears to have a typo: it should be ˜ρ_βα, not ˜ρ_βγ. The subsequent derivation uses ˜ρ_βα, so this is likely a typographical error.
  5. [References] Ref. [14] is a commercial spec page (Lake Shore) with no author or year; it would be better cited as a product manual with access date. Ref. [36] is a thesis; if used for the optimization algorithm, a more accessible reference or description in the text would be helpful.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Field inference is a legitimate inverse problem, but the central model-validation claim is partially circular: B is fitted to the experimental peak positions via Eq. (8), and the same peak positions are then said to be 'predicted' by the model at that fitted B.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV B (Fig. 4(a)) and Section IV C, Eq. (8)]
    "Figure 4(a) presents the simulated saturated absorption spectrum calculated at a magnetic field of B=0.4092 T. This precise field value was determined via the spectral optimization algorithm (detailed in Sec. IV C) and is consistent with independent measurements taken with a Hall probe sensor (≈0.4 T). The model successfully predicts the resonance positions and the relative absorption depths."

    B=0.4092 T is the output of the least-squares fit in Eq. (8), which minimizes the residual between the experimentally extracted line centers ν_exp^(k) and the Hamiltonian eigenfrequencies ν_theo^(k)(B). The simulated spectrum at that B therefore matches the very line centers that were used to determine B. Calling this agreement a 'prediction' conflates a fit with a forecast: the resonance-position agreement is enforced by construction rather than demonstrated independently. The relative absorption depths are not in the loss function, so that part is not circular, but the position agreement is. The coincident Hall-probe check is only quoted as '≈0.4 T' and is too coarse to independently validate the claimed ±0.0017 T precision.

full rationale

The magnetometry method itself is not circular: the physics-constrained optimization of Eq. (8) is a standard inverse problem, and the Monte Carlo uncertainty propagation (Eqs. 9-10) is a legitimate error analysis of that fit. There is no load-bearing self-citation: the OBE framework is attributed to Maguire et al. [28], the Hamiltonian uses standard 87Rb constants, and the crossover-resonance caveat is cited to external work [27]. The circular step is in the validation narrative: the paper fits B to the experimental line centers and then presents the resulting line-position agreement as the model 'predicting' those centers. This reduces the central 'model reproduces measured spectra' claim to a self-consistency check for the peak positions, although the relative absorption depths and the power/Doppler scaling checks do provide partial independent content. The unresolved Doppler-free/Gaussian peak-to-eigenfrequency mapping and possible line-pulling or crossover bias are correctness risks rather than circularity, so they do not increase the circularity score beyond the fitted-input-called-prediction loop.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on standard OBE and atomic-structure assumptions. The only quantity fitted to data is the magnetic field B itself, which is the sensor's output; this limits circularity, but it also means the 'agreement' of the simulation at B=0.4092 T is not an independent check. The one-to-one peak-to-eigenfrequency assignment is an additional unvalidated modeling assumption.

free parameters (1)
  • Magnetic field B (one per measured spectrum) = 0.4092 T, 0.3263 T, 0.2602 T
    Obtained by least-squares minimization of Eq. (8) against measured line centers; then used as the fixed field for the simulated OBE spectrum in Fig. 4(a), making that spectral comparison partly self-referential.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Rotating-wave approximation in the OBE (dropping e^{±2iωt} terms)
    Used in Appendix A to derive Eqs. (2)-(4) from the Liouville-von Neumann equation.
  • domain assumption Ground-ground and excited-excited coherences vanish because the optical field couples only ground-excited pairs
    Sec. II B reduces 576 equations to 40; assumes no other decoherence or coupling within manifolds.
  • domain assumption Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution and neglect of velocity-changing collisions
    Used for Doppler averaging in Eq. (7); collisional broadening and vapor density effects are stated to be negligible/normalized in Sec. IV B.
  • domain assumption Faraday geometry imposes Δm_J = ±1 selection rules for the σ± components of the linearly polarized probe
    Sec. III states propagation parallel to B; this determines which transitions appear in Tables I and II.
  • domain assumption Atomic constants (hyperfine splittings, lifetimes, dipole matrix elements) from Steck [34] are accurate in this regime
    Used as inputs to the Hamiltonian and OBE; no independent measurement of these constants is presented.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A saturation-absorption rubidium magnetometer with multilevel optical Bloch-equation modeling for intermediate-to-high fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P3CAUYMP

@misc{pith2026260109115,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A saturation-absorption rubidium magnetometer with multilevel optical Bloch-equation modeling for intermediate-to-high fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P3CAUYMP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.09115}
}
abstract

We present SASHMAG (Saturated Absorption Spectroscopy High-field MAGnetometer), an atomic sensor designed for precision magnetic-field measurements in the intermediate-to-high field regime ($>0.2\,\text{T}$) using Rubidium-87 ($^{87}Rb$). The sensor operates in the hyperfine Paschen-Back regime, where the hyperfine and Zeeman interactions decouple, and utilizes counter-propagating pump-probe configuration in Faraday geometry to resolve isolated, Doppler-free Zeeman transitions. To interpret the resulting spectra in this strongly field-dependent regime, we developed a comprehensive multilevel optical Bloch-equation model solved explicitly in the uncoupled $\ket{m_I, m_J}$ basis, capturing state mixing and nonlinear saturation dynamics. This model reproduces measured spectra at sub-Doppler resolution and is consistent with analytical expectations for power broadening and thermal Doppler scaling. Magnetic field estimation is performed using a physics-constrained optimization routine that infers the magnetic field by minimizing the residual between experimentally extracted line centers and calculated transition frequencies from the field-dependent Hamiltonian. We demonstrate magnetic field retrieval from $0.2\,\text{T}$ to $0.4\,\text{T}$ with a precision of $\pm 0.0017 \,\text{T}$). Furthermore, the validated simulation establishes a foundation for generating synthetic training datasets, paving the way for autonomous, Machine Learning-enhanced magnetometry in applications ranging from MRI to fusion reactors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.09115 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Experimental setup for saturated absorption spectroscopy (SAS) of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Optical schematic of the experimental setup for satu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Frequency calibration and reference signals. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Stimulated saturated absorption spectra at magnetic field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Simulated spectra showing power broadening at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [27]

    Ciampini, R

    D. Ciampini, R. Battesti, C. Rizzo, and E. Arimondo, Optical spectroscopy of a microsized rb vapor sample in magnetic fields up to 58 t, Physical Review A96, 052504 (2017)

    2017

  2. [1]

    Ground-State Diagonals (˙ρ αα) For the time evolution of the ground-state diagonals, ˙ραα, using equation (A1) and including the phenomeno- logical decay and repopulation terms: ˙ραα =− i ℏ X γ H I αγργα −ρ αγH I γα + 1 τ X β (Cβα)2 ρββ (A6) Since the interaction HamiltonianH I couples only be- tween ground states (α) and excited states (β), the sum- mati...

  3. [2]

    Excited-State Diagonals (˙ρ ββ ) For the time evolution of the excited-state diagonals, we start from the master equation, ˙ρββ =− i ℏ X γ H I βγ ργβ −ρ βγ H I γβ − 1 τ ρββ ,(A13) and note that the interaction Hamiltonian couples only excited statesβto ground statesα. Thus, the sum re- duces to ˙ρββ =− i ℏ X α H I βαραβ −ρ βαH I αβ − 1 τ ρββ .(A14) Using ...

  4. [3]

    For general indices, ifβis not equal toα, ˙ρβα =−iω βαρβα − i ℏ X γ H I βγ ργα −ρ βγ H I γα − 1 2τ ρβα (A18) whereω βα =ω β −ω α

    Off-Diagonal Elements (˙ρ βα,β̸=α) Equation A1 gives us the time evolution of the off- diagonal density-matrix elements, which includes terms for phenomenological coherence decay. For general indices, ifβis not equal toα, ˙ρβα =−iω βαρβα − i ℏ X γ H I βγ ργα −ρ βγ H I γα − 1 2τ ρβα (A18) whereω βα =ω β −ω α. Considering the rotating frame transformation a...

  5. [4]

    Angular Coupling Coefficients The dipole matrix element g H I e is given by[38]: g H I e =⟨nL∥er∥n ′L′⟩(−1)L′−1+mL √ 2L+ 1 L′ 1L mL′ q−m L ×δ s,s′ δms,m′s . (A26) Here⟨nL∥er∥n ′L′⟩is thereduced dipole matrix element, and theangular coupling coefficientfor any photon po- larization (q= 0,±1) is given by: Cq = (−1)L′−1+mL √ 2L+ 1 L′ 1L mL′ q−m L (A27)

  6. [5]

    N. P. Ong and L. Li, Quantum matter in ultrahigh mag- netic fields (2021), arXiv:2103.09155 [cond-mat]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [6]

    Kraff, A

    O. Kraff, A. Fischer, A. M. Nagel, C. M¨ onninghoff, and M. E. Ladd, Mri at 7 tesla and above: demonstrated and potential capabilities, Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging41, 13 (2015)

    2015

  8. [7]

    Trattnig, E

    S. Trattnig, E. Springer, W. Bogner, G. Hangel, B. Strasser, B. Dymerska, P. L. Cardoso, and S. D. Robinson, Key clinical benefits of neuroimaging at 7 t, Neuroimage168, 477 (2018)

    2018

Show all 43 references
  1. [8]

    Okada, K

    T. Okada, K. Fujimoto, Y. Fushimi, T. Akasaka, D. H. Thuy, A. Shima, N. Sawamoto, N. Oishi, Z. Zhang, T. Fu- naki,et al., Neuroimaging at 7 tesla: a pictorial narrative review, Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery12, 3406 (2022)

    2022

  2. [9]

    V. Zapf, M. Jaime, and C. Batista, Bose-einstein conden- sation in quantum magnets, Reviews of Modern Physics 86, 563 (2014)

    2014

  3. [10]

    g 2 Collaborationet al., Magnetic-field measurement and analysis for the muon g-2 experiment at fermilab, Physical Review A103, 042208 (2021)

    M. g 2 Collaborationet al., Magnetic-field measurement and analysis for the muon g-2 experiment at fermilab, Physical Review A103, 042208 (2021)

    2021

  4. [11]

    S. K. Lewin, C. E. Frank, S. Ran, J. Paglione, and N. P. Butch, A review of ute2 at high magnetic fields, Reports on Progress in Physics86, 114501 (2023)

    2023

  5. [12]

    M. V. Kartsovnik, High magnetic fields: a tool for study- ing electronic properties of layered organic metals, Chem- ical reviews104, 5737 (2004)

    2004

  6. [13]

    Bottura, S

    L. Bottura, S. Prestemon, L. Rossi, and A. V. Zlobin, Superconducting magnets and technologies for future col- liders, Frontiers in Physics10, 935196 (2022)

    2022

  7. [14]

    T. Shen, L. Garcia Fajardo, C. Myers, A. Hafalia Jr, J. L. Rudeiros Fern´ andez, D. Arbelaez, L. Brouwer, S. Caspi, P. Ferracin, S. Gourlay,et al., Design, fabrication, and characterization of a high-field high-temperature super- conducting bi-2212 accelerator dipole magnet, P...

    2022

  8. [15]

    Buzio, Fabrication and calibration of search coils, arXiv preprint arXiv:1104.0803 (2011)

    M. Buzio, Fabrication and calibration of search coils, arXiv preprint arXiv:1104.0803 (2011)

    2011 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Vayakis, S

    G. Vayakis, S. Arshad, D. Delhom, A. Encheva, T. Gia- comin, L. Jones, K. M. Patel, M. P´ erez-Lasala, M. Por- tales, D. Prieto, F. Sartori, S. Simrock, J. A. Snipes, V. S. Udintsev, C. Watts, A. Winter, and L. Zabeo, De- velopment of the ITER magnetic diagnostic set and spec-...

    2012

  10. [17]

    Y. Ma, G. Vayakis, L. B. Begrambekov, J. J. Cooper, I. Duran, M. Hirsch, H. P. Laqua, P. Moreau, J. W. Oosterbeek, P. Spuig, T. Stange, and M. Walsh, Design and development of ITER high-frequency magnetic sen- sor, Fusion Engineering and Design112, 594 (2016)

    2016

  11. [18]

    Moreau, A

    P. Moreau, A. Le-Luyer, P. Spuig, P. Malard, F. Saint- Laurent, J. F. Artaud, J. Morales, B. Faugeras, H. Heumann, B. Cantone, M. Moreau, C. Brun, R. Nouailletas, E. Nardon, B. Santraine, A. Berne, P. Ku- mari, S. Belsare, and WEST Team, The new magnetic diagnostics in the WES...

    2018

  12. [19]

    I. Lake Shore Cryotronics, F71 and f41 teslameter specifications,https://www.lakeshore.com/products/ categories/specification/magnetic-products/ gaussmeters-teslameters/f71-and-f41-teslameters, accessed: 2025-12-26

    2025

  13. [20]

    Banasek, J

    J. Banasek, J. Engelbrecht, S. Pikuz, T. Shelkovenko, and D. Hammer, Measuring 20–100 t b-fields using zee- man splitting of sodium emission lines on a 500 ka pulsed power machine, Review of Scientific Instruments87, 11D407 (2016)

    2016

  14. [21]

    Tsuji-Lio, T

    S. Tsuji-Lio, T. Akiyama, E. Sato, T. Nozawa, H. Tsut- sui, R. Shimada, M. Takahashi, and K. Terai, Fiberoptic heterodyne magnetic field sensor for long-pulsed fusion devices, Review of Scientific Instruments72, 413 (2001)

    2001

  15. [22]

    W. Garn, R. Caird, D. Thomson, and C. Fowler, Tech- nique for measuring megagauss magnetic fields using zeeman effect, Review of Scientific Instruments37, 762 (1966). 11

    1966

  16. [23]

    Gomez, S

    M. Gomez, S. Hansen, K. Peterson, D. Bliss, A. Carlson, D. Lamppa, D. Schroen, and G. Rochau, Magnetic field measurements via visible spectroscopy on the z machine, Review of Scientific Instruments85, 11E609 (2014)

    2014

  17. [24]

    Banasek, J

    J. Banasek, J. Engelbrecht, S. Pikuz, T. Shelkovenko, and D. Hammer, Measuring 10–20 t magnetic fields in single wire explosions using zeeman splitting, Review of Scientific Instruments87, 103506 (2016)

    2016

  18. [25]

    Stærkind, K

    H. Stærkind, K. Jensen, J. H. M¨ uller, V. O. Boer, E. T. Petersen, and E. S. Polzik, Precision measurement of the excited state land´ e g-factor and diamagnetic shift of the cesium d 2 line, Physical Review X13, 021036 (2023)

    2023

  19. [26]

    George, N

    S. George, N. Bruyant, J. B´ eard, S. Scotto, E. Arimondo, R. Battesti, D. Ciampini, and C. Rizzo, Pulsed high mag- netic field measurement with a rubidium vapor sensor, Review of Scientific Instruments88, 073102 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Our framework 3 enables the simulation of 87RbSAS spectra in large mag- netic fields in the|m I , mJ ⟩basis

    and is adapted here for the hyperfine Paschen-Back regime of 87Rbin the|m I , mJ ⟩basis. Our framework 3 enables the simulation of 87RbSAS spectra in large mag- netic fields in the|m I , mJ ⟩basis. We consider theD 2 transition (5 2S1/2 →5 2P3/2), which involves a total of N= ...

  21. [29]

    Klinger, H

    E. Klinger, H. Azizbekyan, A. Sargsyan, C. Leroy, D. Sarkisyan, and A. Papoyan, Proof of the feasibility of a nanocell-based wide-range optical magnetometer, Ap- plied Optics59, 2231 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Sargsyan, G

    A. Sargsyan, G. Hakhumyan, A. Tonoyan, P. Petrov, and T. Vartanyan, Study of the rb d 2-line splitting in a strong transverse magnetic field with doppler-free spectroscopy in a nanocell, Optics and Spectroscopy119, 202 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    Stærkind, K

    H. Stærkind, K. Jensen, J. H. M¨ uller, V. O. Boer, E. S. Polzik, and E. T. Petersen, High-field optical cesium magnetometer for magnetic resonance imaging, PRX Quantum5, 020320 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Scotto, D

    S. Scotto, D. Ciampini, C. Rizzo, and E. Arimondo, Four-level n-scheme crossover resonances in rb satu- ration spectroscopy in magnetic fields, arXiv preprint arXiv:1509.06978 (2015)

    2015 arXiv

  25. [33]

    L. P. Maguire, R. M. Bijnen, E. Mese, and R. E. Scholten, Theoretical calculation of saturated absorption spectra for multi-level atoms, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics39, 2709–2720 (2006)

    2006

  26. [34]

    M. A. Zentile, J. Keaveney, L. Weller, D. J. Whiting, C. S. Adams, and I. G. Hughes, Elecsus: A program to calculate the electric susceptibility of an atomic ensem- ble, Computer Physics Communications189, 162 (2015)

    2015

  27. [35]

    Keaveney, C

    J. Keaveney, C. S. Adams, and I. G. Hughes, Elecsus: Extension to arbitrary geometry magneto-optics, Com- puter physics communications224, 311 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Keaveney, F

    J. Keaveney, F. Ponciano-Ojeda, S. Rieche, M. Raine, D. Hampshire, and I. Hughes, Quantitative optical spec- troscopy of 87rb vapour in the voigt geometry in dc mag- netic fields up to 0.4 t, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics52, 055003 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    Ponciano-Ojeda, F

    F. Ponciano-Ojeda, F. Logue, and I. Hughes, Absorption spectroscopy and stokes polarimetry in a 87rb vapour in the voigt geometry with a 1.5 t external magnetic field, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics54, 015401 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    D. Reed, N. ˇSibali´ c, D. Whiting, J. Kondo, C. Adams, and K. Weatherill, Low-drift zeeman shifted atomic fre- quency reference, OSA Continuum1, 4 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    D. A. Steck, Rubidium 87 d line data, available online at http://steck.us/alkalidata(2025), revision 2.3.4

    2025

  32. [40]

    C. J. Foot,Atomic physics, Vol. 7 (Oxford university press, 2005)

    2005

  33. [41]

    Scotto,Rubidium vapors in high magnetic fields, Ph.D

    S. Scotto,Rubidium vapors in high magnetic fields, Ph.D. thesis, Universit´ e Paul Sabatier-Toulouse III (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    Center for High Throughput Computing, Center for high throughput computing (2006)

    2006

  35. [43]

    F. S. Ponciano-Ojeda,Stokes polarimetry and magnetom- etry using a thermal Rb vapour in the Voigt geometry with large magnetic fields, Ph.D. thesis, Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.