Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A Robust Strontium Tweezer Apparatus for Quantum Computing

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 compact strontium apparatus loads single atoms into a 5×5 tweezer array with 99% survival during imaging.

desk verdict A solid, well-documented Sr tweezer apparatus paper with a real single-atom array demonstration; the main caveat is the inferred vacuum pressure, which matters for the full-stack promise, not for the core result. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.16564 v3 pith:YSXQWJVN submitted 2026-01-23 physics.atom-ph quant-ph

Marijn Venderbosch , Rik van Herk , Zhichao Guo , Jesús del Pozo Mellado , Max Festenstein , Deon Janse van Rensburg , Ivo Knottnerus , Yu Chih Tseng
show 6 more authors
Alexander Urech Robert Spreeuw Florian Schreck Rianne Lous Edgar Vredenbregt Servaas Kokkelmans
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phquant-ph
keywords strontiumopticaltweezerssingle-atomarrayquantumcomputingmagneto-opticaltrapZeemanslowerclocktransitionRydbergstates
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 construction and successful operation of a strontium-based optical tweezer apparatus designed for quantum computing with neutral atoms. The authors demonstrate that their custom vacuum system, laser chain, and control hardware can reliably prepare individual strontium atoms in a 5×5 array of optical tweezers, with an imaging fidelity of about 0.997 and a survival probability of 0.99 during imaging. The key advance is showing that a deflection stage (instead of the usual 2D MOT) can deliver enough cold strontium atoms while keeping the science chamber at very low pressure, which is expected to benefit long coherence times and Rydberg-state lifetimes. If correct, this apparatus provides a working hardware base for clock-qubit manipulation and Rydberg-mediated entanglement in strontium.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the combination of a high-flux strontium source (oven plus spin-flip Zeeman slower) with a 20° deflection stage using a single retro-reflected 461 nm molasses beam. The deflection stage removes line-of-sight between oven and science cell, reducing blackbody radiation and maintaining low vacuum pressure, while still providing sufficient loading for the tweezer array. Single-atom preparation relies on attractive Sisyphus cooling in the 813 nm magic-wavelength tweezers, which simultaneously induces light-assisted collisions to ensure at most one atom per site. The tweezers are shaped by a spatial light modulator with Gerchberg–Saxton and Zernike phase masks, and all las

What would settle it

Measure the science-chamber pressure with an in-situ gauge (e.g., a cold-cathode or extractor gauge) or perform a Ramsey coherence measurement on the 698 nm clock transition at the operating magnetic field; if the pressure reads above ~1×10^{-10} mbar or the coherence time is markedly shorter than expected from the inferred pressure, the central claim of a full-stack processor platform is weakened.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim to have realized a versatile, robust strontium tweezer apparatus that stochastically loads a 5×5 array of optical tweezers with single 88Sr atoms. They achieve a typical filling fraction of ~46%, an imaging fidelity of ~0.997, and a survival probability of 0.99^{+0.01}_{-0.02} during imaging. A custom oven, a spin-flip Zeeman slower, and a deflection stage based on transverse optical molasses produce a controlled atomic flux into a science chamber whose pressure is inferred to be ~3×10^{-11} mbar. After two-stage laser cooling, the tweezers have a 1/e² waist of 0.81(2) µm and trap frequencies of 12.7(4) kHz (longitudinal) and 86.4(3) kHz (radial). The paper argues that thes

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the apparatus can serve as the core of a full-stack quantum processor rests on an inferred science-chamber pressure of 3×10^{-11} mbar, obtained by comparing the measured MOT lifetime with that of other setups rather than by direct measurement; if the true pressure is higher, the long coherence times and Rydberg lifetimes that motivate the processor goal would not be realized.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the inferred science-chamber pressure is accurate, the apparatus should support long coherence times on the 698 nm clock transition and long Rydberg-state lifetimes, enabling high-fidelity single- and two-qubit gates.
  • The 0.81 µm tweezer waist and measured trap frequencies are compatible with resolved-sideband cooling to the motional ground state, a prerequisite for high-fidelity gates.
  • The demonstrated 5×5 array with 46% filling can be combined with movable tweezers (already planned) to assemble fully filled, defect-free arrays.
  • The rack-mounted, frequency-comb-stabilized laser system and the control software allow multi-day unattended operation, a practical requirement for a service-oriented quantum computing backend.
  • The design choices—deflection stage, low-pressure science cell, and flexible magnetic field control—are directly transferable to other alkaline-earth species with low vapor pressure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors infer the science-chamber pressure (3×10^{-11} mbar) indirectly by comparing MOT lifetime with other groups, not by a direct in-situ gauge; a direct pressure measurement or a coherence-time measurement on the clock transition would validate the long-coherence claims.
  • Because the deflection stage eliminates line-of-sight to the oven, the approach may reduce blackbody-radiation-induced Rydberg decoherence more effectively than conventional 2D-MOT designs, a testable advantage for Rydberg gate fidelity.
  • The observed 3.4% trap-depth uniformity across the array after three SLM phase-mask iterations suggests that the same optimization method could be extended to larger arrays (e.g., 10×10) with only a modest increase in optimization rounds.
  • The 12.7 kHz longitudinal trap frequency is low enough that Raman or microwave sideband cooling would require careful management of the Lamb–Dicke parameter; if ground-state cooling is not achieved, the projected gate fidelities would need to be re-evaluated.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports the design, construction, and characterization of a strontium-88 optical-tweezer apparatus intended as the basis for a neutral-atom quantum computer. A custom oven, spin-flip Zeeman slower, and transverse-molasses deflection stage deliver a controllable Sr flux to a science cell. A two-stage blue/red MOT produces ~3e5 atoms at 5(1) uK, and an SLM-generated 5x5 array of 813-nm tweezers is stochastically loaded with single atoms using Sisyphus cooling and light-assisted collisions. The authors report a filling fraction of ~46%, imaging fidelity of ~0.997, survival probability 0.99^{+0.01}_{-0.02}, and a tweezer waist of 0.81(2) um. The paper frames the apparatus as the core of a full-stack quantum computing processor, with the science-chamber pressure quoted as 3e-11 mbar.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a useful and well-characterized Sr tweezer platform: single-atom loading of a 5x5 array with high survival and measured trap parameters is directly relevant to Sr clock/Rydberg qubit experiments. Strengths include the openly available data and code (Ref. [54]), the clear bimodal photon-count histogram (Fig. 9b) supporting single-atom preparation, the array-averaged survival scan peaking near the predicted AC-Stark-shifted resonance (Fig. 9c), and the parametric-heating loss features used for trap-frequency extraction (Fig. 10c). The engineering choices, especially the deflection stage and rack-mounted laser system, are of practical interest. The central single-atom demonstration does not depend on the indirect pressure estimate, but the broader full-stack processor promise is quantitatively tied to that estimate and to the quoted fidelity, both of which need stronger support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.D / Abstract] The abstract states the science-chamber pressure is 3e-11 mbar, but the support in Section III.D is an indirect comparison of the MOT lifetime with Ref. [30]; the ion-pump reading is not an absolute pressure calibration, and no systematic uncertainty or account of other loss channels (e.g., Sr coating, light-assisted losses, field noise) is provided. Since this number anchors the long-coherence/Rydberg-lifetime motivation for the full-stack processor claim, please either add an in-situ pressure measurement or an upper bound, or clearly label the abstract value as a rough estimate with a caveat.
  2. [Section IV.B / Fig. 9b] The imaging fidelity of ~0.997 is quoted without a definition, a fitting model, or an uncertainty. The bimodal histogram in Fig. 9b shows overlapping tails around the threshold of 5.67 photons; a threshold optimized on the same data can bias the fidelity estimate upward. Please specify exactly how the fidelity was computed (e.g., a two-component fit or two-image correlation), report a confidence interval, and ideally validate on an independent subset of runs. This is a central performance parameter and should not remain a bare number.
  3. [Section IV.C / Fig. 10c] The trap frequencies and the derived waist w0 = 0.81(2) um are quoted with fit-only uncertainties. The anharmonic correction factor (~1.8) is applied without propagating its uncertainty, and the power-scaling factor chi is also excluded from the quoted errors. Because the waist is derived from U0 and the trap frequencies, the reported uncertainty is likely understated. Please provide a systematic error budget for U0, omega, and w0, including the anharmonic correction and the power-calibration uncertainty.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 10c caption] The caption says 'the axial direction (orange points)' but the text refers to radial and longitudinal directions; please correct the inconsistent terminology.
  2. [Section IV.A / Abstract] The atom number N ~ 3e5 is stated for a blue-MOT loading time of 1500 ms, while the typical loading time is 400 ms. The abstract should either specify the loading time or quote the number for the standard sequence.
  3. [Section IV.B / Fig. 9c] The Sisyphus cooling detuning is given as -2.64 MHz in the text, the survival maximum is at -2.7 MHz, and the estimated AC-Stark-shifted resonance is -2.35 MHz. Please clarify which value is used in the sequence and how the offset is interpreted.
  4. [Appendix A] The sentence near 'lting in a higher survival probability' appears truncated or corrupted; please rewrite the passage so the optimization description is complete.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the array-loading demonstration is direct experimental characterization; the only overlapping-author input (Ref. [42] polarizability ratio) is independent and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are direct experimental observations, not derived constants: bimodal single-atom photon statistics (Fig. 9b), survival probability from paired images (Fig. 9c), trap depth from loss spectroscopy (Fig. 10b), trap frequencies from parametric heating (Fig. 10c), and a waist computed from those independent measurements. None of the quoted numbers is defined in terms of its own output. The one overlapping-author citation, Ref. [42], supplies the 3P1/1S0 polarizability ratio used to convert the +3.37 MHz loss feature into U0 and to estimate the -2.35 MHz cooling resonance. That ratio is a published, externally falsifiable prior measurement; it is an input to the interpretation, not something the present paper fits or predicts. The survival maximum at -2.7 MHz was located by scanning the Sisyphus detuning, then compared with the calculated -2.35 MHz resonance, so this is a consistency check rather than a fit masquerading as a prediction. The detection threshold is a single-parameter classification choice on the measured histogram; the reported imaging fidelity is an in-sample characterization, and the bimodality evidence for single-atom loading does not rest on it. The abstract's 3e-11 mbar pressure is inferred indirectly from MOT lifetime comparison with Ref. [30]; this is a caveat for the forward-looking processor goal but is not a circular derivation. Overall, the demonstrated array result stands on its own data.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All listed free parameters are calibration or characterization outputs rather than hidden model constants; they do not constitute circularity, but the trap-depth/trap-frequency/waist chain relies on literature polarizability ratios and an anharmonic correction factor. The pressure estimate is an indirect inference. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Blue MOT loading time t_load = 400 ms typical
    Chosen empirically to uniformly load the tweezer array; not derived from first principles.
  • Sisyphus beam detuning during LAC = -2.64 MHz
    Set to compensate the differential AC Stark shift; the optimal value is found by scanning survival probability.
  • Detection threshold = 5.67 photons
    Chosen to maximize the probability of correctly labeling atom presence in the bimodal photon-count histogram.
  • Trap depth U0 = h × 11.08(7) MHz
    Derived from a Gaussian fit to loss spectroscopy and a polarizability ratio taken from Ref. [42].
  • Trap frequencies (longitudinal, radial) = 5.74(2) kHz, 51.3(2) kHz at reduced depth
    From Lorentzian fits to parametric heating loss features, converted using an anharmonic correction factor of ~1.8.
  • Tweezer waist w0 = 0.81(2) µm
    Computed from trap depth and frequencies assuming a Gaussian trap; not directly imaged with an independent method.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Sr atomic energy levels and transition linewidths (461 nm broad, 689 nm narrow, 813 nm magic wavelength) are as tabulated in standard atomic physics references.
    Required for the entire laser-cooling and trapping scheme; not proved in the paper.
  • domain assumption The optical-molasses deflection stage deflects slowed atoms into the science chamber with the simulated efficiency (~85%).
    Section III C; no direct measurement of deflection efficiency is presented, only indirect evidence through MOT atom number.
  • domain assumption The science-chamber pressure is inferred from MOT lifetime comparison with Ref. [30] and ion-pump readings.
    Section III D; if other loss mechanisms shorten the MOT lifetime, the inferred 3×10^-11 mbar pressure would be biased.
  • domain assumption The polarizability ratio for Sr 3P1(mj=±1)/1S0 at 813 nm from Ref. [42] is accurate.
    Used in Section IV C to convert the measured loss resonance to U0 and to predict the Sisyphus-cooling resonance. Ref. [42] is by current co-authors and is not independently reproduced here.
  • domain assumption Parametric heating resonances in shallow Gaussian traps are shifted by a factor of ~1.8 relative to the harmonic prediction, following Ref. [49].
    Section IV C; used to convert measured loss-feature frequencies to trap frequencies, and the associated uncertainty is not included in the quoted errors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Robust Strontium Tweezer Apparatus for Quantum Computing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YSXQWJVN

@misc{pith2026260116564,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Robust Strontium Tweezer Apparatus for Quantum Computing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YSXQWJVN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.16564}
}
abstract

Neutral atoms for quantum computing applications show promise in terms of scalability and connectivity. We demonstrate the realization of a versatile apparatus capable of stochastically loading a 5x5 array of optical tweezers with single $^{88}$Sr atoms featuring flexible magnetic field control and excellent optical access. A custom-designed oven, spin-flip Zeeman slower, and deflection stage produce a controlled flux of Sr directed to the science chamber. In the science chamber, featuring a vacuum pressure of $3 \times 10^{-11}$ mbar, the Sr is cooled using two laser cooling stages, resulting in $\sim 3 \times 10^5$ atoms at a temperature of 5(1) $\mu$K. The optical tweezers feature a $1/e^2$ waist of 0.81(2) $\mu$m, and loaded atoms can be imaged with a fidelity of $\sim 0.997$ and a survival probability of $0.99^{+0.01}_{-0.02}$. The atomic array presented here forms the core of a full-stack quantum computing processor targeted for quantum chemistry computational problems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.16564 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Laser system stabilization for the Sr-88 clock [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. CAD image of the Sr tweezer apparatus. From the oven, the atoms are slowed in the spin-flip Zeeman slower using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. CAD images of the oven. a) Cutout image of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The science chamber (glass cell) with surround [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Blue MOT operation. a) In-situ absorption image [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Overview of the experimental time sequence used to load and image the tweezer array. The atoms are cooled using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Temperature measurement of the sMOT. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Schematic optical setup used for the tweezer pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Single-atom imaging and thresholding. a) Av [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Characterization of the tweezers. a) Uniformity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]

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. General circuit mapping algorithm for neutral atom quantum computers

    quant-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A graph-theoretic nonlinear integer program solved via genetic algorithm reduces qubit transfers in neutral atom quantum circuit compilation compared to prior zoned-architecture compilers.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [54]

    Peruzzo, J

    A. Peruzzo, J. McClean, P. Shadbolt, M.-H. Yung, X.-Q. Zhou, P. J. Love, A. Aspuru-Guzik, and J. L. O’Brien, Nature Communications5, 4213 (2014)

    2014

  2. [30]

    Snigirev, A

    S. Snigirev, A. J. Park, A. Heinz, I. Bloch, and S. Blatt, Physical Review A99, 063421 (2019)

    2019

  3. [1]

    Chinnarasu, C

    R. Chinnarasu, C. Poole, L. Phuttitarn, A. Noori, T. M. Graham, S. N. Coppersmith, A. B. Balantekin, and M. Saffman, PRX Quantum6, 020350 (2025)

    2025

  4. [2]

    Henriet, L

    L. Henriet, L. Beguin, A. Signoles, T. Lahaye, A. Browaeys, G.-O. Reymond, and C. Jurczak, Quantum 4, 327 (2020)

    2020

  5. [3]

    Dalyac, L

    C. Dalyac, L. Leclerc, L. Vignoli, M. Djellabi, W. d. S. Coelho, B. Ximenez, A. Dareau, D. Dreon, V. E. Elfving, A. Signoles, L.-P. Henry, and L. Henriet, The European Physical Journal A60, 177 (2024)

    2024

  6. [4]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. Sales Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semegh- ini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Nature626, 58 (2024)

    2024

  7. [5]

    H. J. Manetsch, G. Nomura, E. Bataille, X. Lv, K. H. Leung, and M. Endres, Nature647, 60 (2025)

    2025

  8. [6]

    N.-C. Chiu, E. C. Trapp, J. Guo, M. H. Abobeih, L. M. Stewart, S. Hollerith, P. L. Stroganov, M. Kalinowski, A. A. Geim, S. J. Evered, S. H. Li, X. Lyu, L. M. Peters, D. Bluvstein, T. T. Wang, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Nature646, 1075 (2025)

    2025

Show all 60 references
  1. [7]

    Norcia, A

    M. Norcia, A. Young, and A. Kaufman, Physical Review X8, 041054 (2018)

    2018

  2. [8]

    Cooper, J

    A. Cooper, J. P. Covey, I. S. Madjarov, S. G. Porsev, M. S. Safronova, and M. Endres, Physical Review X8, 041055 (2018)

    2018

  3. [9]

    Takamoto, F.-L

    M. Takamoto, F.-L. Hong, R. Higashi, and H. Katori, Nature435, 321 (2005)

    2005

  4. [10]

    Aeppli, K

    A. Aeppli, K. Kim, W. Warfield, M. S. Safronova, and J. Ye, Physical Review Letters133, 023401 (2024)

    2024

  5. [11]

    I. S. Madjarov, A. Cooper, A. L. Shaw, J. P. Covey, V. Schkolnik, T. H. Yoon, J. R. Williams, and M. En- dres, Physical Review X9, 041052 (2019)

    2019

  6. [12]

    I. S. Madjarov, J. P. Covey, A. L. Shaw, J. Choi, A. Kale, A. Cooper, H. Pichler, V. Schkolnik, J. R. Williams, and M. Endres, Nature Physics16, 857 (2020)

    2020

  7. [13]

    Schine, A

    N. Schine, A. W. Young, W. J. Eckner, M. J. Martin, and A. M. Kaufman, Nature Physics18, 1067 (2022)

    2022

  8. [14]

    Schioppo, N

    M. Schioppo, N. Poli, M. Prevedelli, S. Falke, C. Lisdat, U. Sterr, and G. M. Tino, Review of Scientific Instru- ments83, 103101 (2012)

    2012

  9. [15]

    Bennetts, C.-C

    S. Bennetts, C.-C. Chen, B. Pasquiou, and F. Schreck, Physical Review Letters119, 223202 (2017)

    2017

  10. [16]

    Giardini, L

    V. Giardini, L. Guariento, A. Fantini, S. Storm, M. In- guscio, J. Catani, G. Cappellini, V. Gavryusev, and L. Fallani, Atoms14, 1 (2025)

    2025

  11. [17]

    K. Wen, H. Chen, X. Yan, Z. Ren, C. He, E. Ha- jiyev, W. Preston Tsz Fung, and J. Gyu-Boong, Chinese Physics B33, 120703 (2024)

    2024

  12. [18]

    H¨ olzl, A

    C. H¨ olzl, A. G¨ otzelmann, M. Wirth, M. S. Safronova, S. Weber, and F. Meinert, Physical Review Research5, 033093 (2023)

    2023

  13. [19]

    Ammenwerth, H

    M. Ammenwerth, H. Timme, F. Gyger, R. Tao, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, Physical Review Letters135, 143401 (2025)

    2025

  14. [20]

    Quantum Inspire Home (2025)

    Qutech. Quantum Inspire Home (2025)

    2025

  15. [21]

    Ry emulator: Operational specifics (2025)

    2025

  16. [22]

    TU/e’s quantum computer digital twin is a Qubit Hero (2025)

    2025

  17. [23]

    Lipinski, T

    M. Lipinski, T. Wlostowski, J. Serrano, and P. Alvarez, in 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Precision Clock Synchronization for Measurement, Control and Commu- nication(IEEE, Munich, Germany, 2011) pp. 25–30

    2011

  18. [24]

    J. R. Rumble,CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (CRC Press, 2024)

    2024

  19. [25]

    Senaratne, S

    R. Senaratne, S. V. Rajagopal, Z. A. Geiger, K. M. Fuji- wara, V. Lebedev, and D. M. Weld, Review of Scientific Instruments86, 023105 (2015)

    2015

  20. [26]

    R. H. Jones, D. R. Olander, and V. R. Kruger, Journal of Applied Physics40, 4641 (1969)

    1969

  21. [27]

    H. C. W. Beijerinck and N. F. Verster, Journal of Applied Physics46, 2083 (1975)

  22. [28]

    Steckelmacher, Reports on Progress in Physics49, 1083 (1986)

    W. Steckelmacher, Reports on Progress in Physics49, 1083 (1986)

    1986

  23. [29]

    T. F. Gallagher and W. E. Cooke, Physical Review Let- ters42, 835 (1979)

    1979

  24. [31]

    A. V. Taichenachev, V. I. Yudin, C. W. Oates, C. W. Hoyt, Z. W. Barber, and L. Hollberg, Physical Review Letters96, 083001 (2006)

    2006

  25. [32]

    Borkowski, L

    M. Borkowski, L. Reichs¨ ollner, P. Thekkeppatt, V. Barb´ e, T. van Roon, K. van Druten, and F. Schreck, Review of Scientific Instruments94, 073202 (2023)

    2023

  26. [33]

    Katori, T

    H. Katori, T. Ido, Y. Isoya, and M. Kuwata-Gonokami, Physical Review Letters82, 1116 (1999)

    1999

  27. [34]

    Bourdeauducq, R

    S. Bourdeauducq, R. J¨ ordens, P. Zotov, J. Britton, D. Slichter, D. Leibrandt, D. Allcock, A. Hankin, F. Ker- marrec, Y. Sionneau, R. Srinivas, T. R. Tan, and J. Bohnet, ARTIQ 1.0 (2016)

    2016

  28. [35]

    Sinara Open Hardware Project (2023)

    2023

  29. [36]

    Yasuda, T

    M. Yasuda, T. Kishimoto, M. Takamoto, and H. Katori, Physical Review A73, 011403 (2006)

    2006

  30. [37]

    Yasuda and H

    M. Yasuda and H. Katori, Physical Review Letters92, 153004 (2004)

    2004

  31. [38]

    Arora, S

    P. Arora, S. B. Purnapatra, A. Acharya, R. Kumar, and A. Sen Gupta, MAPAN27, 31 (2012)

    2012

  32. [39]

    Nogrette, H

    F. Nogrette, H. Labuhn, S. Ravets, D. Barredo, L. B´ eguin, A. Vernier, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Physical Review X4, 021034 (2014)

    2014

  33. [40]

    Gerchberg, Optik (1972)

    R. Gerchberg, Optik (1972)

    1972

  34. [41]

    The method of finding the Zernike phase mask is explained in section A

    and centered around the middle of the SLM pixel ar- ray. The method of finding the Zernike phase mask is explained in section A. The SLM plane is conjugated [39] with the pupil of the microscope objective using a Keplerian telescope with a magnification given by the ratio of f...

  35. [42]

    Urech, I

    A. Urech, I. H. A. Knottnerus, R. J. C. Spreeuw, and F. Schreck, Physical Review Research4, 023245 (2022)

    2022

  36. [43]

    V. N. Mahajan and G.-m. Dai, JOSA A24, 2994 (2007)

    2007

  37. [44]

    J. P. Covey, I. S. Madjarov, A. Cooper, and M. Endres, Physical Review Letters122, 173201 (2019)

    2019

  38. [45]

    Schlosser, G

    N. Schlosser, G. Reymond, I. Protsenko, and P. Grangier, Nature411, 1024 (2001)

    2001

  39. [46]

    K. D. Nelson, X. Li, and D. S. Weiss, Nature Physics3, 556 (2007). 12

    2007

  40. [47]

    used to compute trap frequencies are shown for the longitudinal (blue) and radial (orange) trapping direc- tions. The measurement was performed by first adia- batically lowering the trapping laser power [48] to a fac- torχ= 0.21 (longitudinal) orχ= 0.35 (radial) of the maximum...

    2021

  41. [48]

    I. S. Madjarov,Entangling, controlling, and detecting in- dividual strontium atoms in optical tweezer arrays, Ph.D. thesis, Caltech (2021)

    2021

  42. [49]

    T. A. Savard, K. M. O’Hara, and J. E. Thomas, Physical Review A56, R1095 (1997)

    1997

  43. [50]

    de L´ es´ eleuc,Quantum simulation of spin models with assembled arrays of Rydberg atoms, Ph.D

    S. de L´ es´ eleuc,Quantum simulation of spin models with assembled arrays of Rydberg atoms, Ph.D. thesis, l’Universit´ e Paris-Saclay (2018)

    2018

  44. [51]

    J´ auregui, Physical Review A64, 053408 (2001)

    R. J´ auregui, Physical Review A64, 053408 (2001)

    2001

  45. [52]

    H.-S. Chon, G. Park, S.-B. Lee, S. Yoon, J. Kim, J.-H. Lee, and K. An, Journal of the Optical Society of America A24, 60 (2007)

    2007

  46. [53]

    De Keijzer, O

    R. De Keijzer, O. Tse, and S. Kokkelmans, Quantum7, 908 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    Barredo, S

    D. Barredo, S. de L´ es´ eleuc, V. Lienhard, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Science354, 1021 (2016)

    2016

  48. [56]

    Venderbosch, R

    M. Venderbosch, R. van Herk, Z. Guo, J. Del Pozo Mel- lado, M. Festenstein, D. Janse van Rensburg, I. Knot- tnerus, Y. C. Tseng, A. Urech, R. Spreeuw, F. Schreck, R. Lous, E. Vredenbregt, and S. Kokkelmans, Data and code for ”A Robust Strontium Tweezer Apparatus for Quantum Co...

    2026

  49. [57]

    Mazzanti, C

    M. Mazzanti, C. Robalo Pereira, N. A. Diepeveen, B. Gerritsen, Z. Wu, Z. E. D. Ackerman, L. P. H. Gallagher, A. Safavi-Naini, R. Gerritsma, and R. X. Sch¨ ussler, Physical Review A110, 043105 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    Jenkins, J

    A. Jenkins, J. W. Lis, A. Senoo, W. F. McGrew, and A. M. Kaufman, Physical Review X12, 021027 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    Endres, H

    M. Endres, H. Bernien, A. Keesling, H. Levine, E. R. Anschuetz, A. Krajenbrink, C. Senko, V. Vuletic, M. Greiner, and M. D. Lukin, Science354, 1024 (2016)

    2016

  52. [60]

    P. B. Wigley, P. J. Everitt, A. van den Hengel, J. W. Bastian, M. A. Sooriyabandara, G. D. McDonald, K. S. Hardman, C. D. Quinlivan, P. Manju, C. C. N. Kuhn, I. R. Petersen, A. N. Luiten, J. J. Hope, N. P. Robins, and M. R. Hush, Scientific Reports6, 25890 (2016). Appendix A: ...

    2016

Pith tools

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