Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 3 cited by

Extended Rydberg Lifetimes in a Cryogenic Atom Array

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cryogenic shielding of a cesium atom array extends the Rydberg-state lifetime to 406(36) µs, 3.3 times longer than at room temperature, by suppressing blackbody-radiation-induced transitions.

desk verdict Solid cryogenic Rydberg lifetime result with a well-controlled measurement; the 406(36) µs lifetime and the 3.3× extension over room temperature are credible and deserve peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.05959 v1 pith:T3A3RELD submitted 2026-02-05 physics.atom-ph cond-mat.quant-gasquant-ph

Junlan Jin , Yue Shi , Youssef Aziz Alaoui , Jingxin Deng , Yukai Lu , Jeff D. Thompson , Waseem S. Bakr This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phcond-mat.quant-gasquant-ph
keywords Rydbergatomsblackbodyradiationopticaltweezerarraycryogeniccesium-133T1relaxationtwo-qubitgatessingle-photonexcitation
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

The paper reports the first demonstration of extended Rydberg-state lifetimes in a cold-atom optical tweezer array inside a 4 K radiation shield. It measures the 55P3/2 Rydberg state of cesium-133 at 406(36) µs, a factor of 3.3(3) longer than at room temperature and close to the 429 µs spontaneous-decay limit. The key is suppressing blackbody radiation (BBR) that would otherwise drive transitions out of the Rydberg state. The authors also show single-photon excitation with a small differential polarizability, reducing a dephasing channel. If correct, this pushes the ground–Rydberg qubit's T1 toward its fundamental limit and directly attacks the dominant error source in neutral-atom two-qubit gates.

What carries the argument

The enabling mechanism is a two-stage cryogenic radiation shield (35 K and 4 K) whose windows are coated with indium tin oxide to block microwave blackbody radiation while transmitting optical beams, together with twisted-pair electrodes heat-sunk at both stages that attenuate GHz thermal noise. The lifetime measurement itself uses a double-π-pulse protocol: excite to the Rydberg state, wait a variable gap, transfer back to the ground state, and infer the remaining Rydberg fraction from ground-state recovery, with a resonant pushout beam continuously removing atoms that decayed to ground states.

What would settle it

Run the same double-π-pulse lifetime protocol at two different Rydberg Rabi frequencies (e.g., 1.35 MHz and 0.7 MHz) and check that the extracted lifetime is unchanged; alternatively, independently detect the Rydberg population directly after the gap (e.g., by field ionization or state-selective depletion) and compare with the ground-state-recovery result. If the time constant shifts or disagrees, the extraction assumption is violated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that enclosing a cesium-133 optical tweezer array in a 4 K radiation shield suppresses blackbody-radiation-induced Rydberg transitions so strongly that the measured lifetime of the |55P3/2, mJ=1/2⟩ state reaches 406(36) µs. This is 3.3(3) times longer than the room-temperature value of 122 µs and approaches the spontaneous-decay-limited lifetime of 429 µs. The extracted effective BBR temperature is 10+13−10 K, meaning BBR-induced decay is suppressed by more than an order of magnitude. Companion measurements at n=46 and n=50 show similar threefold extensions, consistent with an effective BBR temperature of less than 25 K.

Load-bearing premise

The lifetime measurement assumes that the ground-state fraction recovered after the second π pulse equals the remaining Rydberg population—specifically that the pushout beam removes every atom that decayed to 6S1/2 and that the π-pulse transfer efficiency has no hidden time dependence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the current 2π×1.35 MHz Rabi frequency, the T1 contribution to a two-qubit gate is projected at 6.4×10−4, below the typical room-temperature floor.
  • Reducing the excitation beam waist to 20 µm would lower that contribution to 1.6×10−4, further easing gate-error budgets.
  • For a distance-7 surface code, the paper estimates roughly two orders of magnitude reduction in logical error rate from the 3.3× lifetime improvement alone.
  • The low-BBR environment also suppresses collective avalanche loss in Rydberg-dressing schemes and should enable much longer lifetimes for circular Rydberg states.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension, not tested here, is to measure lifetimes at higher principal quantum numbers, where the n³ scaling of radiative lifetime should yield millisecond-scale lifetimes—although the n⁷ scaling of dc polarizability will make stray-field control progressively harder.
  • The protocol's reliance on ground-state recovery means an independent check, such as directly detecting Rydberg population via field ionization or state-selective depletion, would strengthen the claim that the measured time constant is purely the Rydberg lifetime.
  • The observed non-exponential decay in a dense 7×7 array hints that BBR suppression may have a second benefit: reducing correlated errors in multi-qubit Rydberg operations, since fewer population leaks to other Rydberg states mean fewer dipole–dipole-induced perturbations.
  • The 4 K shield approach is broadband, unlike room-temperature parallel-plate capacitors that suppress transitions only near a specific frequency; this should make the platform applicable to a wide range of Rydberg levels and to circular-state physics.
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

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports the first demonstration, to my knowledge, of extended Rydberg lifetimes in a cryogenic optical tweezer array. The authors enclose a Cs atom array in a 4 K radiation shield with ITO-coated windows to suppress BBR, use single-photon excitation to nP3/2 Rydberg states, and measure the lifetime of 55P3/2 as 406(36) µs — a factor of 3.3(3) longer than the room-temperature value and close to the spontaneous-decay limit of 429 µs. The effective BBR temperature is inferred as 10+13−10 K. The measurement protocol uses a sparse 3×3 array, pushout of decayed ground-state atoms, and a release-recapture scheme with a fixed release time of 16 µs. They also demonstrate coherent Rabi oscillations, Ramsey coherence time of 6.2(4) µs, and a small differential light-shift coefficient of 29(15) kHz/MHz².

Significance. The significance of this work is high for neutral-atom quantum computing. It directly demonstrates a route to suppress BBR-induced Rydberg decoherence, which is becoming the dominant T1 error in two-qubit gates. The paper is careful: the protocol is well-controlled, with a sparse array to avoid collective effects, pushout characterization for both hyperfine levels, and a release-time control. The measured lifetime is consistent with ARC calculations and the 1σ uncertainty is sufficient to exclude the room-temperature lifetime by many standard deviations. The light-shift measurement is also useful. The work will be of broad interest to the atomic physics and quantum information communities.

minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3(a) and Fig. S2] The x-axis labels appear as 't (µs)' with values 2–12. Since the fitted lifetime is 406 µs, the units should be clarified (e.g., if these are in units of 10² µs or if the axes are mislabeled). Please ensure the axis labels are unambiguous.
  2. [Supplemental S2] The raw P_g(t) data and fit parameters are not provided. Including a data table or repository would facilitate independent verification of the exponential fit and the stated 36 µs uncertainty.
  3. [Supplemental S2] The release-loss control extends to 30 µs, while the lifetime measurement uses release times up to 28 µs; this is consistent, but a short sentence connecting the maximum release time in the lifetime data to the control would help the reader.
  4. [Main text, p.4] The statement that BBR transitions are suppressed by 'more than one order of magnitude' would be stronger if the suppression factor at the 1σ upper bound (≈23 K) were quoted explicitly rather than only the value at 10 K.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is a measured lifetime benchmarked against external ARC calculations.

full rationale

The paper's main result is an experimental measurement, not a derivation: the 406(36) µs lifetime is obtained by fitting P_g(t) to an exponential decay, and the room-temperature reference (122 µs), spontaneous-decay limit (429 µs), and effective BBR temperature (10+13−10 K) are all computed with the external ARC package [24], not from the measured data. The measured lifetime is then compared with these independent calculations, so there is no fitted parameter being renamed as a prediction. The auxiliary results (light-shift coefficient, T2*, vacuum lifetime) are likewise direct measurements. Self-citations in the references ([4], [8], [11], [25], [27]) appear only for background context or outlook, and none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or load-bearing justification; the BBR-suppression mechanism relies on external work ([23], [24]). Assumptions in the lifetime extraction (pushout efficiency, π-pulse fidelity) are experimental systematics checked in Supplemental S2 and would be correctness issues if invalid, not circularity. No step reduces a claimed prediction to its own input by construction.

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

No hidden free parameters were introduced: the quoted lifetime and effective-BBR temperature are measurement/inference outputs, not ad hoc inputs. The central result rests on ARC model lifetimes, an exponential-decay model, the assumption that the shielded environment is describable by one effective BBR temperature, and the use of a sparse array to suppress collective effects.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption ARC-calculated Rydberg lifetimes and matrix elements are accurate.
    Used as the external benchmark for room-temperature (122 µs) and zero-BBR (429 µs) values; errors would shift the inferred effective BBR temperature but not the raw lifetime ratio. Invoked in Fig. 3(b) text: 'both calculated using ARC'.
  • domain assumption Exponential decay of P_g(t) with no offset describes Rydberg loss.
    Fit model for Fig. 3(a); S2 supports with release-loss and pushout controls but no independent verification at long t.
  • domain assumption The cryogenic environment is an isotropic BBR bath at a single effective temperature.
    BBR leaks through windows/beam paths are mitigated with ITO but not directly characterized; the angular and spectral distribution is not measured.
  • domain assumption At 24 µm spacing and n≤55 the 3×3 array is free of collective Rydberg effects.
    S3 shows strong collective effects at 12 µm spacing in a 7×7 array; the threshold spacing for negligible effects is not quantified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extended Rydberg Lifetimes in a Cryogenic Atom Array." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T3A3RELD

@misc{pith2026260205959,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extended Rydberg Lifetimes in a Cryogenic Atom Array},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T3A3RELD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.05959}
}
abstract

We report on the realization of a $^{133}$Cs optical tweezer array in a cryogenic blackbody radiation (BBR) environment. By enclosing the array within a 4K radiation shield, we measure long Rydberg lifetimes, up to $406 (36)\,\mu$s for the $55 P_{3/2}$ Rydberg state, a factor of 3.3(3) longer than the room-temperature value. We employ single-photon coupling for coherent manipulation of the ground-Rydberg qubit. We measure a small differential dynamic polarizability of the transition, beneficial for reducing dephasing due to light intensity fluctuations. Our results pave the path for advancing neutral-atom two-qubit gate fidelities as their error budgets become increasingly dominated by $T_1$ relaxation of the ground-Rydberg qubit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.05959 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) UHV cryostat with 4K and 35K radiation shields inside a room-temperature vacuum chamber. The atomic beam [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Coherent control of the ground-Rydberg qubit. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Light shift of the 55 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Protocols of coherent motion control for an interaction-driven Rydberg gate

    physics.atom-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Lattice pinning plus a motion-echo sequence suppresses position-induced errors in interaction-driven Rydberg CZ gates to the 10^-4 level at ~10 ns Rydberg dwell times.

  2. Fault-tolerant quantum computation with static atomic buses

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Static atomic buses enable high-fidelity long-range CZ gates in neutral atoms, delivering >10x better logical error rates than shuttling for FTQC with ~100 µs gates and ~1 ms QEC cycles.

  3. Dirac Spin Liquid Candidate in a Rydberg Quantum Simulator

    cond-mat.quant-gas 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Experimental preparation of a Dirac spin liquid candidate in a 114-atom Rydberg kagome array shows correlations consistent with a gapless U(1) state.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Bluvstein, H

    D. Bluvstein, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, M. Kalinowski, A. Keesling, N. Maskara, H. Pichler, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Nature604, 451 (2022)

    2022

  2. [2]

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

    2025

  3. [3]

    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

  4. [4]

    Y. Li, Y. Bao, M. Peper, C. Li, and J. D. Thompson, arXiv:2506.15633 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    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

  6. [6]

    B. W. Reichardt, A. Paetznick, D. Aasen, I. Basov, J. M. Bello-Rivas, P. Bonderson, R. Chao, W. van Dam, M. B. Hastings, R. V. Mishmash, A. Paz, M. P. da Silva, A. Sundaram, K. M. Svore, A. Vaschillo, Z. Wang, M. Zanner, W. B. Cairncross, C.-A. Chen, D. Crow, H. Kim, J. M. Kindem, J. King, M. McDonald, M. A. Norcia, A. Ryou, M. Stone, L. Wadleigh, K. Barn...

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    J. A. Muniz, D. Crow, H. Kim, J. M. Kindem, W. B. Cairncross, A. Ryou, T. C. Bohdanowicz, C.-A. Chen, Y. Ji, A. M. W. Jones, E. Megidish, C. Nishiguchi, M. Ur- banek, L. Wadleigh, T. Wilkason, D. Aasen, K. Barnes, J. M. Bello-Rivas, I. Bloomfield, G. Booth, A. Brown, M. O. Brown, K. Cassella, G. Cowan, J. Epstein, M. Feld- kamp, C. Griger, Y. Hassan, A. H...

    2025

  8. [8]

    Zhang, G

    B. Zhang, G. Liu, G. Bornet, S. P. Horvath, P. Peng, S. Ma, S. Huang, S. Puri, and J. D. Thompson, arXiv:2506.13724 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Bluvstein, A

    D. Bluvstein, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, S. J. Evered, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, G. Baranes, A. Gu, T. Manovitz, M. Xu, 6 M. Kalinowski, S. Majidy, C. Kokail, N. Maskara, E. C. Trapp, L. M. Stewart, S. Hollerith, H. Zhou, M. J. Gul- lans, S. F. Yelin, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, M. Cain...

    2026

  2. [10]

    S. J. Evered, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, S. Ebadi, T. Manovitz, H. Zhou, S. H. Li, A. A. Geim, T. T. Wang, N. Maskara, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Nature622, 268 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Peper, Y

    M. Peper, Y. Li, D. Y. Knapp, M. Bileska, S. Ma, G. Liu, P. Peng, B. Zhang, S. P. Horvath, A. P. Burgers, and J. D. Thompson, Phys. Rev. X15, 011009 (2025)

    2025

  4. [12]

    Radnaev, W

    A. Radnaev, W. Chung, D. Cole, D. Mason, T. Bal- lance, M. Bedalov, D. Belknap, M. Berman, M. Blakely, I. Bloomfield, P. Buttler, C. Campbell, A. Chopinaud, E. Copenhaver, M. Dawes, S. Eubanks, A. Friss, D. Gar- cia, J. Gilbert, M. Gillette, P. Goiporia, P. Gokhale, J. Goldwin...

    2025

  5. [13]

    J. A. Muniz, M. Stone, D. T. Stack, M. Jaffe, J. M. Kindem, L. Wadleigh, E. Zalys-Geller, X. Zhang, C.-A. Chen, M. A. Norcia, J. Epstein, E. Halperin, F. Hum- mel, T. Wilkason, M. Li, K. Barnes, P. Battaglino, T. C. Bohdanowicz, G. Booth, A. Brown, M. O. Brown, W. B. Cairncros...

    2025

  6. [14]

    Senoo, A

    A. Senoo, A. Baumg¨ artner, J. W. Lis, G. M. Vaidya, Z. Zeng, G. Giudici, H. Pichler, and A. M. Kaufman, arXiv:2506.13632 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    R. B.-S. Tsai, X. Sun, A. L. Shaw, R. Finkelstein, and M. Endres, PRX Quantum6, 010331 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    Roffe, Contemp

    J. Roffe, Contemp. Phys.60, 226 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    T. F. Gallagher and W. E. Cooke, Phys. Rev. Lett.42, 835 (1979)

    1979

  10. [18]

    W. P. Spencer, A. G. Vaidyanathan, D. Kleppner, and T. W. Ducas, Phys. Rev. A24, 2513 (1981)

    1981

  11. [19]

    W. P. Spencer, A. G. Vaidyanathan, D. Kleppner, and T. W. Ducas, Phys. Rev. A25, 380 (1982)

    1982

  12. [20]

    Schymik, S

    K.-N. Schymik, S. Pancaldi, F. Nogrette, D. Barredo, J. Paris, A. Browaeys, and T. Lahaye, Phys. Rev. Appl. 16, 034013 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Pichard, D

    G. Pichard, D. Lim, E. Bloch, J. Vaneecloo, L. Boura- chot, G.-J. Both, G. M´ eriaux, S. Dutartre, R. Hostein, J. Paris, B. Ximenez, A. Signoles, A. Browaeys, T. La- haye, and D. Dreon, Phys. Rev. Appl.22, 024073 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Zhang, T.-W

    Z. Zhang, T.-W. Hsu, T. Y. Tan, D. H. Slichter, A. M. Kaufman, M. Marinelli, and C. A. Regal, PRX Quantum 6, 020337 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Meinert, C

    F. Meinert, C. H¨ olzl, M. A. Nebioglu, A. D’Arnese, P. Karl, M. Dressel, and M. Scheffler, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023192 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    ˇSibali´ c, J

    N. ˇSibali´ c, J. D. Pritchard, C. S. Adams, and K. J. Weatherill, Comput. Phys. Commun.220, 319 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    T. L. Nguyen, J. M. Raimond, C. Sayrin, R. Corti˜ nas, T. Cantat-Moltrecht, F. Assemat, I. Dotsenko, S. Gleyzes, S. Haroche, G. Roux, T. Jolicoeur, and M. Brune, Phys. Rev. X8, 011032 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    Cantat-Moltrecht, R

    T. Cantat-Moltrecht, R. Corti˜ nas, B. Ravon, P. M´ ehaignerie, S. Haroche, J. M. Raimond, M. Favier, M. Brune, and C. Sayrin, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 022032 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    S. R. Cohen and J. D. Thompson, PRX Quantum2, 030322 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    See Supplemental Material

  21. [29]

    Colombe, D

    Y. Colombe, D. H. Slichter, A. C. Wilson, D. Leibfried, and D. J. Wineland, Opt. Express22, 19783 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    Jandura and G

    S. Jandura and G. Pupillo, Quantum6, 712 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Khaneja, T

    N. Khaneja, T. Reiss, C. Kehlet, T. Schulte-Herbr¨ uggen, and S. J. Glaser, Journal of Magnetic Resonance172, 296 (2005)

    2005

  24. [32]

    P. W. Shor, Phys. Rev. A52, R2493 (1995)

    1995

  25. [33]

    Gottesman,Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Cor- rection(California Institute of Technology, 1997)

    D. Gottesman,Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Cor- rection(California Institute of Technology, 1997)

    1997

  26. [34]

    Knill and R

    E. Knill and R. Laflamme, Phys. Rev. A55, 900 (1997)

    1997

  27. [35]

    A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Phys. Rev. A86, 032324 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    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, Nat. Phys.16, 857 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    E. A. Goldschmidt, T. Boulier, R. C. Brown, S. B. Koller, J. T. Young, A. V. Gorshkov, S. L. Rolston, and J. V. Porto, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 113001 (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    Boulier, E

    T. Boulier, E. Magnan, C. Bracamontes, J. Maslek, E. A. Goldschmidt, J. T. Young, A. V. Gorshkov, S. L. Rolston, and J. V. Porto, Phys. Rev. A96, 053409 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    I. Cong, H. Levine, A. Keesling, D. Bluvstein, S.-T. Wang, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. X12, 021049 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Zeiher, R

    J. Zeiher, R. van Bijnen, P. Schauß, S. Hild, J.-y. Choi, T. Pohl, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Nature Physics12, 1095 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    J. A. Hines, S. V. Rajagopal, G. L. Moreau, M. D. Wahrman, N. A. Lewis, O. Markovi´ c, and M. Schleier- Smith, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 063401 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    A. Cao, W. J. Eckner, T. Lukin Yelin, A. W. Young, S. Jandura, L. Yan, K. Kim, G. Pupillo, J. Ye, N. Dark- wah Oppong, and A. M. Kaufman, Nature634, 315 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    H. Wu, R. Richaud, J.-M. Raimond, M. Brune, and S. Gleyzes, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 023202 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    H¨ olzl, A

    C. H¨ olzl, A. G¨ otzelmann, E. Pultinevicius, M. Wirth, and F. Meinert, Phys. Rev. X14, 021024 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Pultinevicius, A

    E. Pultinevicius, A. G¨ otzelmann, F. Thielemann, C. H¨ olzl, and F. Meinert, arXiv:2510.27471 (2025). 7 SUPPLEMENT AL MA TERIAL S1. EXPERIMENT AL SEQUENCE The 3D MOT beams consist of two pairs of counter propagating horizontal cooling beams with 1.6 mm waist (1/e 2 radius), a...

    2025

Pith tools

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