Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 235 references

Ultracold polar molecules can now be manipulated with the same level of control as atoms.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 02:10 UTC pith:5FURJELF

load-bearing objection Solid, comprehensive field review with no new science; the sweeping 'molecules as controllable as atoms' conclusion leans more heavily on recent molecular BEC claims than those claims can bear. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.25519 v1 pith:5FURJELF submitted 2026-07-28 physics.atom-ph cond-mat.quant-gas

Experiments with interacting ultracold polar molecules

Philip D. Gregory , Jonathan M. Mortlock , Daniel K. Ruttley , Simon L. Cornish This is my paper
classification physics.atom-ph cond-mat.quant-gas
keywords ultracold polar moleculesdipolar interactionscollisional shieldingquantum degeneracyoptical latticesoptical tweezersspin-exchange dynamicsquantum simulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Ultracold polar molecules combine long-range, tunable dipole-dipole forces with a rich internal state space, making them attractive for quantum simulation and computation—but for years destructive collisions limited what experiments could do. This chapter argues that the obstacles are now overcome: electric-field and microwave shielding suppress the collisions, evaporative cooling has produced degenerate Fermi gases and Bose–Einstein condensates of molecules, rotational coherences last seconds, and pairs of molecules in optical tweezers can be deterministically entangled. The authors conclude that molecules can be manipulated as precisely as atoms, and that the field is ready to move from demonstrations to applications. A sympathetic reader should take this as a status report: the hard barriers the field worried about are, on this record, down.

Core claim

The chapter surveys roughly two decades of experiments to establish that the obstacles to ultracold-molecule control have been overcome. Lossy collisions can be suppressed by repulsive dipole-dipole interactions engineered with DC electric fields or circularly polarized microwaves; Fermi and Bose gases of polar molecules have been cooled to quantum degeneracy; rotational-state superpositions can be preserved for seconds by magic-angle or magic-wavelength trapping; and pairs of molecules in optical tweezers can be deterministically entangled with high fidelity. On this record, the authors state that molecules can now be manipulated with the same level of control as atoms, and that quantum sim

What carries the argument

The load-bearing ingredient is the electric dipole-dipole interaction between molecules, which can be switched on by microwave or DC electric fields that couple rotational states. The same interaction, used on its repulsive side, forms the 'collisional shield' that keeps molecules from reaching short range and forming lossy complexes. Long coherence is won by trapping light tuned to magic angles or magic wavelengths that eliminate differential light shifts, so the dipolar interactions can be described by a tunable XXZ spin Hamiltonian with exchange and Ising terms. In optical tweezers, resonant spin exchange at kHz rates entangles molecular pairs and implements an iSWAP gate.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that molecules are as controllable as atoms rests heavily on the two reported Bose-Einstein condensates of NaCs and NaRb; if the condensate-fraction fits in those experiments are later shown to be artifacts of detection or thermal distributions, the 'full quantum control' claim loses one of its key pillars.

What would settle it

Reanalyse the absorption images behind the NaCs and NaRb BEC claims: if the two-component condensate-plus-thermal fits do not survive alternative background subtraction, different expansion times, or simulated thermal distributions—or if no phase-coherence signature can be reproduced—the strongest form of the review's conclusion is undercut. A complementary check is to search for the predicted dipolar supersolid or droplet phases at the reported interaction parameters; their absence would also cast doubt on the condensate interpretation.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Collisional shielding makes evaporative cooling viable: degenerate Fermi gases of KRb and NaK and Bose-Einstein condensates of NaCs and NaRb have been produced, so quantum-degenerate molecular gases are now achievable starting points.
  • Rotational coherence times of roughly 0.8 seconds in bulk samples, beyond 1.4 seconds with spin echo, and up to 15 seconds for a single trapped molecule allow spin-exchange dynamics to run for many interaction cycles before dephasing.
  • Deterministic entanglement of molecular pairs, with reported state-preparation-and-readout-corrected fidelities up to 97.6%, realizes an iSWAP gate and makes molecules a plausible platform for small quantum processors and quantum-enhanced metrology.
  • Quantum gas microscopy of molecules resolves site-resolved spin correlations, enabling studies of XXZ magnetism, Floquet-engineered spin models, and itinerant t-J physics in optical lattices.
  • Field-linked resonances arising from microwave shielding allow scattering properties to be tuned, with inelastic collision rates varied by three orders of magnitude, and have been used to assemble weakly bound tetratomic molecules.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If molecular BECs become robust and long-lived, loading them directly into deep optical lattices should yield near-unit-filling Mott insulators of molecules, removing the roughly 15-30% filling ceiling that has limited lattice experiments; the chapter mentions this possibility but does not develop it.
  • The internal-state richness that once made molecules hard to cool may become the next resource: encoding qudits or synthetic lattice dimensions in rotational and hyperfine levels goes beyond the spin-1/2 paradigm, an idea the outlook only sketches.
  • The measured lifetimes of collision complexes for some nonreactive molecules are orders of magnitude longer than statistical theory predicts, so the loss mechanism is not fully closed; a testable extension is to look for residual loss even under perfect shielding, which would point to a second loss channel.
  • Hybrid platforms pairing molecules with Rydberg atoms could provide non-destructive molecular readout and faster entangling gates; the chapter cites emerging work, and one can infer that combining tweezer arrays of molecules with Rydberg atoms may be a route to scalable registers.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This invited review chapter surveys the experimental state of ultracold polar molecules, organized around three themes: control of molecular collisions, engineering dipolar interactions, and using optical lattices/tweezers for quantum simulation and quantum information. It reviews molecule production by magnetoassociation/STIRAP and by direct laser cooling; collisional loss mechanisms and shielding by dc electric fields and microwave fields; quantum-degenerate Fermi gases (KRb, NaK) and Bose-Einstein condensates (NaCs, NaRb); long coherence times for hyperfine and rotational states; spin-exchange dynamics in lattices; and deterministic entanglement of molecular pairs in tweezers. The chapter concludes that 'all the obstacles that have hampered progress have been overcome' and that molecules can now be manipulated with the same level of control as atoms.

Significance. The chapter is a useful and generally authoritative survey of a rapidly moving field, and it is well referenced. Its Table 1 is internally consistent and checkable (the critical fields follow from B/d), and the narrative separates established results from open questions at several points. The main weakness is that the concluding claim is stronger than the evidence presented: the Bose-Einstein condensation results, which are a key pillar of the 'full control' conclusion, rest on two very recent, small-number experiments whose fit diagnostics are not shown, and the chapter itself acknowledges that the microscopic loss mechanism for nonreactive molecules remains unresolved. With moderation of the conclusion and a more cautious presentation of the BEC evidence, the review would be a valuable reference for the community.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 3, 'Quantum-degenerate gases of polar molecules', Fig. 6(c,d), Refs. [151,152]] The text presents the NaCs and NaRb BECs as established facts and uses them to support the conclusion that molecules can be manipulated as well as atoms. The only evidence shown, Fig. 6(c,d), consists of two-component bimodal fits with no residuals, no fit uncertainties, and no model comparison. With ~2000 molecules at the onset and ~500 molecules with a 70% condensate fraction, the bimodal decomposition is vulnerable to degeneracy with a single interacting thermal distribution after imaging blur and shot noise. A review need not reanalyze the data, but a claim this strong should either quote the fit diagnostics from Refs. [151,152] or be tempered to 'reported Bose-Einstein condensation, with evidence still under active scrutiny.' As written, this is the least secure pillar of the concluding claim.
  2. [Sec. 3 (collision complexes) and Sec. 5 (Conclusion)] The body of the chapter states that complex lifetimes for nonreactive molecules are 'many orders of magnitude larger' than RRKM and that 'there is therefore still some mystery surrounding the mechanisms for collisional losses of ultracold molecules that remains to be understood.' This directly contradicts the conclusion that 'all the obstacles that have hampered progress have been overcome' and that molecules can be manipulated with 'the same level of control as atoms.' The unresolved loss mechanism is itself an obstacle to full control. The conclusion should be softened to 'principal practical obstacles' or 'many important obstacles,' while explicitly acknowledging the open microscopic collision problem.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References, Ref. [57]] The DOI for Ref. [57] appears truncated ('10.1126/science.aau53' rather than the full string); please correct it.
  2. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (2)] The matrix in Eq. (2) is not self-explanatory. It would help to state explicitly that setting P_2(cosθ)=0 gives a magic angle to first order, and to clarify the basis ordering used in the displayed matrix.
  3. [Table 1] The interaction V_dd at 1 μm is computed assuming a transition dipole of d/√3 and the maximum angular factor. This is stated in a footnote, but it is worth recalling in Sec. 4 when Eq. (3) is used, since the actual J_perp depends on the chosen rotational states and field.
  4. [Fig. 1 caption] The color coding of the upper panels is described only indirectly. A sentence making explicit that the color scale encodes the relative transition strength from the hyperfine ground state would improve readability.
  5. [Sec. 4.3] The section heading and text refer to 'Laser-coolable molecules' but at one point the text says 'laser-cooled molecules are significantly hotter than assembled molecules.' Consider standardizing the terminology to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: review's claims rest on externally published experimental benchmarks, not on its own definitions or fits.

full rationale

This paper is a review chapter, not a derivation. Its central claims, e.g. that 'molecules can now be manipulated with the same level of control as atoms' (Section 5), are supported by citing already-published experimental measurements from multiple independent groups and from the authors' own prior experimental papers. These self-citations (e.g., Durham RbCs works on complex lifetimes, coherence, tweezers, and quantum gas microscopy) are to externally published, experimentally reproducible results, not to the chapter's own conclusions. The accounts of collisional shielding, microwave shielding, quantum degeneracy, and entanglement are summaries of published benchmarks; none of the chapter's statements reduces by construction to a parameter fitted here. The BEC interpretations of NaCs and NaRb are quoted from Refs. [151,152] without re-analysis, but that is a verification/correctness issue, not circularity. No equation in the chapter defines a predicted quantity in terms of the same quantity, and no fitted input is relabeled as a prediction. Self-citation is present but not load-bearing in a circular sense. Therefore the correct score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The review is a synthesis, not a derivation. Its narrative rests on standard molecular-physics results (rigid rotor, dipole-dipole Hamiltonian, polarisability decomposition) and on the accuracy of the cited experimental papers. The only quantitative inputs are the molecular constants in Table 1, which are taken from the cited literature and not fitted or derived here; therefore no free parameters are attributed to this paper. No new entities are invented.

axioms (5)
  • standard math The dipole-dipole interaction between polar molecules is described by Eq. (1), with operators d1 and d2 and the 1/r^3 dependence.
    Used throughout Secs. 2.2 and 4 to introduce spin-exchange and XXZ models. This is a standard electromagnetic result for point dipoles.
  • standard math The rigid-rotor model adequately describes the rotational structure of the molecules considered, including the level energies E_N = B N(N+1) and selection rules ΔN=±1.
    Invoked in Sec. 2.1 as 'sufficient insight'. Underpins the discussion of microwave transitions and the rotational-state encoding used in all later sections.
  • domain assumption The cited experimental results are accurately reported in the primary literature and are representative of the field.
    The review's narrative (Secs. 4 and 5) rests on the correctness of roughly 250 cited experiments; no independent replication is performed in this chapter.
  • domain assumption The 'sticky collision + photoexcitation' mechanism, where optical trap light photoexcites metastable collision complexes, is the dominant loss mechanism for nonreactive bialkali molecules in optical traps.
    The review relies on this to explain fast losses for nonreactive molecules (Sec. 3, Fig. 2c) and to motivate collisional shielding. Though supported by calculations in Ref. [110], it is a model assumption and the review itself notes remaining mystery.
  • standard math RRKM theory provides a valid estimate for the lifetime of ultracold collision complexes.
    Used in Sec. 3 to interpret measured complex lifetimes (KRb: 0.36 μs, RbCs: 0.53 ms) and to compare with theory. This is background statistical theory.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 40761 in / 14755 out tokens · 141811 ms · 2026-08-01T02:10:46.579742+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Ultracold polar molecules have emerged as an exciting platform for experiments in quantum science, with many proposed applications seeking to leverage the existence of long-range dipolar interactions and the rich internal structure of long-lived states. However, the complexity of molecules also presents many experimental challenges. In this chapter, we review the experimental advances over the past two decades that have brought ultracold molecules under full quantum control. We focus on three key topics: control of ultracold molecular collisions, engineering dipolar interactions and nascent quantum simulations in optical lattices.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

235 extracted references · 153 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    L.D. Carr, D. DeMille, R.V. Krems, J. Ye, New Journal of Physics11(5), 055049 (2009). DOI 10.1088/1367-2630/11/5/055049

    doi:10.1088/1367-2630/11/5/055049 2009

  2. [2]

    Bell, T.P

    M.T. Bell, T.P. Softley, Mol. Phys.107(2), 99 (2009). DOI 10.1080/00268970902724955

    work page doi:10.1080/00268970902724955 2009

  3. [3]

    Qu ´em´ener, P.S

    G. Qu ´em´ener, P.S. Julienne, Chem. Rev.112, 4949 (2012). DOI 10.1021/cr300092g

    work page doi:10.1021/cr300092g 2012

  4. [4]

    Balakrishnan, J

    N. Balakrishnan, J. Chem. Phys.145, 150901 (2016). DOI 10.1063/1.4964096

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4964096 2016

  5. [5]

    Karman, M

    T. Karman, M. Tomza, J. P ´erez-R´ıos, Nat. Phys.20, 722 (2024). DOI 10.1038/ s41567-024-02467-3

    2024

  6. [6]

    Barnett, D

    R. Barnett, D. Petrov, M. Lukin, E. Demler, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 190401 (2006). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.190401

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.190401 2006

  7. [8]

    Capogrosso-Sansone, C

    B. Capogrosso-Sansone, C. Trefzger, M. Lewenstein, P. Zoller, G. Pupillo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 125301 (2010). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.125301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.104.125301 2010

  8. [9]

    Pollet, J.D

    L. Pollet, J.D. Picon, H.P. B¨ uchler, M. Troyer, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 125302 (2010). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.125302

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.104.125302 2010

  9. [12]

    Y.L. Zhou, M. Ortner, P. Rabl, Phys. Rev. A84, 052332 (2011). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevA.84. 052332

    doi:10.1103/physreva.84 2011

  10. [14]

    Lechner, P

    W. Lechner, P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 185306 (2013). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111. 185306

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.111 2013

  11. [15]

    Sundar, B

    B. Sundar, B. Gadway, K.R.A. Hazzard, Sci. Rep.8, 3422 (2018). DOI 10.1038/ s41598-018-21699-x

    2018

  12. [16]

    Sundar, M

    B. Sundar, M. Thibodeau, Z. Wang, B. Gadway, K.R.A. Hazzard, Phys. Rev. A99, 013624 (2019). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevA.99.013624

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.99.013624 2019

  13. [17]

    C. Feng, H. Manetsch, V.G. Rousseau, K.R.A. Hazzard, R. Scalettar, Phys. Rev. A105, 063320 (2022). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevA.105.063320

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.105.063320 2022

  14. [18]

    Cohen, M

    M. Cohen, M. Casebolt, Y. Zhang, K.R.A. Hazzard, R. Scalettar, Phys. Rev. A109, 013303 (2024). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevA.109.013303 Experiments with interacting ultracold polar molecules 37

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.109.013303 2024

  15. [19]

    DeMille, Phys

    D. DeMille, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 067901 (2002). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.067901

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.88.067901 2002

  16. [21]

    Pellegrini, M

    P. Pellegrini, M. Desouter-Lecomte, Eur. Phys. J. D64, 163 (2011). DOI 10.1140/epjd/ e2011-20128-x

    doi:10.1140/epjd/ 2011

  17. [22]

    Q. Wei, Y. Cao, S. Kais, B. Friedrich, ChemPhysChem17, 3714 (2016). DOI 10.1002/cphc. 201600781

    doi:10.1002/cphc 2016

  18. [23]

    K.K. Ni, T. Rosenband, D.D. Grimes, Chem. Sci.9, 6830 (2018). DOI 10.1039/C8SC02355G

    work page doi:10.1039/c8sc02355g 2018

  19. [24]

    Sawant, J.A

    R. Sawant, J.A. Blackmore, P.D. Gregory, J. Mur-Petit, D. Jaksch, J. Aldegunde, J.M. Hutson, M.R. Tarbutt, S.L. Cornish, New J. Phys.22(1), 013027 (2020). DOI 10.1088/1367-2630/ ab60f4

    doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ 2020

  20. [26]

    Zhang, M.R

    C. Zhang, M.R. Tarbutt, PRX Quantum3, 030340 (2022). DOI 10.1103/PRXQuantum.3. 030340

    doi:10.1103/prxquantum.3 2022

  21. [27]

    Wang, C.P

    K. Wang, C.P. Williams, L.R. Picard, N.Y. Yao, K.K. Ni, PRX Quantum3, 030339 (2022). DOI 10.1103/PRXQuantum.3.030339

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.3.030339 2022

  22. [28]

    Asnaashari, R.V

    K. Asnaashari, R.V. Krems, T.V. Tscherbul, J. Phys. Chem. A127(31), 6593 (2023). DOI 10.1021/acs.jpca.3c02835

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.jpca.3c02835 2023

  23. [29]

    Salumbides, J.C.J

    E.J. Salumbides, J.C.J. Koelemeij, J. Komasa, K. Pachucki, K.S.E. Eikema, W. Ubachs, Phys. Rev. D87, 112008 (2013). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.112008

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.87.112008 2013

  24. [30]

    Safronova, D

    M.S. Safronova, D. Budker, D. DeMille, D.F.J. Kimball, A. Derevianko, C.W. Clark, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 025008 (2018). DOI 10.1103/RevModPhys.90.025008

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.90.025008 2018

  25. [31]

    DOI 10.1038/s41586-018-0599-8

    ACME Collaboration, Nature562, 355 (2018). DOI 10.1038/s41586-018-0599-8

    doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0599-8 2018

  26. [32]

    Hutzler, Quant

    N.R. Hutzler, Quant. Sci. Technol.5, 044011 (2020). DOI 10.1088/2058-9565/abb9c5

    work page doi:10.1088/2058-9565/abb9c5 2020

  27. [34]

    Arrowsmith-Kron, M

    G. Arrowsmith-Kron, M. Athanasakis-Kaklamanakis, M. Au, J. Ballof, R. Berger, A. Borschevsky, A.A. Breier, F. Buchinger, D. Budker, L. Caldwell, C. Charles, N. Dat- tani, R.P. de Groote, D. DeMille, T. Dickel, J. Dobaczewski, C.E. D¨ ullmann, E. Eliav, J. Engel, M. Fan, V. Flambaum, K.T. Flanagan, A.N. Gaiser, R.F. Garcia Ruiz, K. Gaul, T.F. Giesen, J.S.M...

    2024

  28. [35]

    DeMille, N.R

    D. DeMille, N.R. Hutzler, A.M. Rey, T. Zelevinsky, Nat. Phys.20, 741 (2024). DOI 10.1038/s41567-024-02499-9

    doi:10.1038/s41567-024-02499-9 2024

  29. [36]

    Stuhl, M.T

    B.K. Stuhl, M.T. Hummon, J. Ye, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem.65, 501 (2014). DOI 10.1146/ annurev-physchem-040513-103744

    2014

  30. [37]

    Chervenkov, X

    S. Chervenkov, X. Wu, J. Bayerl, A. Rohlfes, T. Gantner, M. Zeppenfeld, G. Rempe, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 013001 (2014). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.013001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.112.013001 2014

  31. [38]

    X. Wu, T. Gantner, M. Koller, M. Zeppenfeld, S. Chervenkov, G. Rempe, Science358, 645 (2017). DOI 10.1126/science.aan3029

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aan3029 2017

  32. [39]

    van de Meerakker, P.H.M

    S.Y.T. van de Meerakker, P.H.M. Smeets, N. Vanhaecke, R.T. Jongma, G. Meijer, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 023004 (2005). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.023004

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.94.023004 2005

  33. [40]

    Rieger, T

    T. Rieger, T. Junglen, S.A. Rangwala, P.W.H. Pinkse, G. Rempe, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 173002 (2005). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.173002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.173002 2005

  34. [41]

    Kleinert, C

    J. Kleinert, C. Haimberger, P.J. Zabawa, N.P. Bigelow, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 143002 (2007). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.143002 38 Philip D. Gregory, Jonathan M. Mortlock, Daniel K. Ruttley, and Simon L. Cornish

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.99.143002 2007

  35. [42]

    Hogan, C

    S.D. Hogan, C. Seiler, F. Merkt, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 123001 (2009). DOI 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.103.123001

    2009

  36. [43]

    Englert, M

    B.G.U. Englert, M. Mielenz, C. Sommer, J. Bayerl, M. Motsch, P.W.H. Pinkse, G. Rempe, M. Zeppenfeld, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 263003 (2011). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.263003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.107.263003 2011

  37. [44]

    Zeppenfeld, B.G.U

    M. Zeppenfeld, B.G.U. Englert, R. Gl ¨ockner, A. Prehn, M. Mielenz, C. Sommer, L.D. van Buuren, M. Motsch, G. Rempe, Nature491(7425), 570 (2012). DOI 10.1038/nature11595

    work page doi:10.1038/nature11595 2012

  38. [45]

    Nikolov, J.R

    A.N. Nikolov, J.R. Ensher, E.E. Eyler, H. Wang, W.C. Stwalley, P.L. Gould, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 246 (2000). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.246

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.84.246 2000

  39. [46]

    J.M. Sage, S. Sainis, T. Bergeman, D. DeMille, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 203001 (2005). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.203001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.94.203001 2005

  40. [47]

    Deiglmayr, A

    J. Deiglmayr, A. Grochola, M. Repp, K. M¨ortlbauer, C. Gl¨ uck, J. Lange, O. Dulieu, R. Wester, M. Weidem¨ uller, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 133004 (2008). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.133004

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.101.133004 2008

  41. [48]

    Jones, E

    K.M. Jones, E. Tiesinga, P.D. Lett, P.S. Julienne, Rev. Mod. Phys.78, 483 (2006). DOI 10.1103/RevModPhys.78.483

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.78.483 2006

  42. [49]

    C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne, E. Tiesinga, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1225 (2010). DOI 10.1103/RevModPhys.82.1225

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.82.1225 2010

  43. [50]

    Vitanov, A.A

    N.V. Vitanov, A.A. Rangelov, B.W. Shore, K. Bergmann, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015006 (2017). DOI 10.1103/RevModPhys.89.015006

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.89.015006 2017

  44. [52]

    Takekoshi, L

    T. Takekoshi, L. Reichs ¨ollner, A. Schindewolf, J.M. Hutson, C.R. Le Sueur, O. Dulieu, F. Ferlaino, R. Grimm, H.C. N ¨agerl, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 205301 (2014). DOI 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.113.205301

    2014

  45. [53]

    Molony, P.D

    P.K. Molony, P.D. Gregory, Z. Ji, B. Lu, M.P. K¨oppinger, C.R. Le Sueur, C.L. Blackley, J.M. Hutson, S.L. Cornish, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 255301 (2014). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113. 255301

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.113 2014

  46. [54]

    Park, S.A

    J.W. Park, S.A. Will, M.W. Zwierlein, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 205302 (2015). DOI 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.114.205302

    2015

  47. [55]

    M. Guo, B. Zhu, B. Lu, X. Ye, F. Wang, R. Vexiau, N. Bouloufa-Maafa, G. Qu ´em´ener, O. Dulieu, D. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 205303 (2016). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116. 205303

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116 2016

  48. [56]

    Seeßelberg, X.Y

    F. Seeßelberg, X.Y. Luo, M. Li, R. Bause, S. Kotochigova, I. Bloch, C. Gohle, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 253401 (2018). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.253401

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.253401 2018

  49. [57]

    Yang, D.C

    H. Yang, D.C. Zhang, L. Liu, Y.X. Liu, J. Nan, B. Zhao, J.W. Pan, Science363, 261 (2019). DOI 10.1126/science.aau53

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aau53 2019

  50. [58]

    M.G. Hu, Y. Liu, D.D. Grimes, Y.W. Lin, A.H. Gheorghe, R. Vexiau, N. Bouloufa-Maafa, O. Dulieu, T. Rosenband, K.K. Ni, Science366, 1111 (2019). DOI 10.1126/science.aay9531

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aay9531 2019

  51. [59]

    Voges, P

    K.K. Voges, P. Gersema, M. Meyer zum Alten Borgloh, T.A. Schulze, T. Hartmann, A. Zen- esini, S. Ospelkaus, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 083401 (2020). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125. 083401

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125 2020

  52. [60]

    Cairncross, J.T

    W.B. Cairncross, J.T. Zhang, L.R.B. Picard, Y. Yu, K. Wang, K.K. Ni, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 123402 (2021). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.123402

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.123402 2021

  53. [61]

    Stevenson, A.Z

    I. Stevenson, A.Z. Lam, N. Bigagli, C. Warner, W. Yuan, S. Zhang, S. Will, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 113002 (2023). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.113002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.130.113002 2023

  54. [62]

    C. He, X. Nie, V. Avalos, S. Botsi, S. Kumar, A. Yang, K. Dieckmann, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 243401 (2024). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.243401

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.243401 2024

  55. [63]

    Danzl, E

    J.G. Danzl, E. Haller, M. Gustavsson, M.J. Mark, R. Hart, N. Bouloufa, O. Dulieu, H. Ritsch, H.C. N¨agerl, Science321, 1062 (2008). DOI 10.1126/science.1159909

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1159909 2008

  56. [64]

    F. Lang, K. Winkler, C. Strauss, R. Grimm, J.H. Denschlag, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 133005 (2008). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.133005

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.101.133005 2008

  57. [65]

    Rvachov, H

    T.M. Rvachov, H. Son, A.T. Sommer, S. Ebadi, J.J. Park, M.W. Zwierlein, W. Ketterle, A.O. Jamison, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 143001 (2017). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.143001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.143001 2017

  58. [66]

    Stuhl, B.C

    B.K. Stuhl, B.C. Sawyer, D. Wang, J. Ye, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 243002 (2008). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.243002 Experiments with interacting ultracold polar molecules 39

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.101.243002 2008

  59. [67]

    Di Rosa, Eur

    M.D. Di Rosa, Eur. Phys. J. D31(2), 395 (2004). DOI 10.1140/epjd/e2004-00167-2

    work page doi:10.1140/epjd/e2004-00167-2 2004

  60. [68]

    Shuman, J.F

    E.S. Shuman, J.F. Barry, D. DeMille, Nature467, 820 (2010). DOI 10.1038/nature09443

    doi:10.1038/nature09443 2010

  61. [69]

    Barry, D.J

    J.F. Barry, D.J. McCarron, E.B. Norrgard, M.H. Steinecker, D. DeMille, Nature512, 286 (2014). DOI 10.1038/nature13634

    doi:10.1038/nature13634 2014

  62. [70]

    Norrgard, D.J

    E.B. Norrgard, D.J. McCarron, M.H. Steinecker, M.R. Tarbutt, D. DeMille, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 063004 (2016). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.063004

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.063004 2016

  63. [71]

    Truppe, H.J

    S. Truppe, H.J. Williams, M. Hamback, L. Caldwell, N.J. Fitch, E.A. Hinds, B.E. Sauer, M.R. Tarbutt, Nat. Phys.13, 1173 (2017). DOI 10.1038/nphys4241

    doi:10.1038/nphys4241 2017

  64. [72]

    Anderegg, B.L

    L. Anderegg, B.L. Augenbraun, E. Chae, B. Hemmerling, N.R. Hutzler, A. Ravi, A. Col- lopy, J. Ye, W. Ketterle, J.M. Doyle, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 103201 (2017). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.103201

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.103201 2017

  65. [73]

    Anderegg, B.L

    L. Anderegg, B.L. Augenbraun, Y. Bao, S. Burchesky, L.W. Cheuk, W. Ketterle, J.M. Doyle, Nat. Phys.14, 890 (2018). DOI 10.1038/s41567-018-0191-z

    doi:10.1038/s41567-018-0191-z 2018

  66. [74]

    Cheuk, L

    L.W. Cheuk, L. Anderegg, B.L. Augenbraun, Y. Bao, S. Burchesky, W. Ketterle, J.M. Doyle, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 083201 (2018). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.083201

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.083201 2018

  67. [75]

    Caldwell, J.A

    L. Caldwell, J.A. Devlin, H.J. Williams, N.J. Fitch, E.A. Hinds, B.E. Sauer, M.R. Tarbutt, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 033202 (2019). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.033202

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.033202 2019

  68. [76]

    Y. Lu, C.M. Holland, L.W. Cheuk, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 213201 (2022). DOI 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.128.213201

    2022

  69. [77]

    Collopy, S

    A.L. Collopy, S. Ding, Y. Wu, I.A. Finneran, L. Anderegg, B.L. Augenbraun, J.M. Doyle, J. Ye, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 213201 (2018). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.213201

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.213201 2018

  70. [78]

    Y. Wu, J.J. Burau, K. Mehling, J. Ye, S. Ding, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 263201 (2021). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.263201

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.263201 2021

  71. [79]

    Burau, P

    J.J. Burau, P. Aggarwal, K. Mehling, J. Ye, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 193401 (2023). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.193401

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.130.193401 2023

  72. [80]

    Z. Zeng, S. Deng, S. Yang, B. Yan, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 143404 (2024). DOI 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.133.143404

    2024

  73. [81]

    Rockenh ¨auser, F

    M. Rockenh ¨auser, F. Kogel, T. Garg, S.A. Morales-Ram´ırez, T. Langen, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 043161 (2024). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.043161

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.6.043161 2024

  74. [82]

    Padilla-Castillo, J

    J.E. Padilla-Castillo, J. Cai, P. Agarwal, P. Kikreja, R. Thomas, B.G. Sartakov, S. Truppe, G. Meijer, S.C. Wright, arXiv:2506.02266 (PRL accepted) (2025). DOI 10.1103/ksnd-9fyf

    arXiv 2025

  75. [83]

    Vilas, C

    N.B. Vilas, C. Hallas, L. Anderegg, P. Robichaud, A. Winnicki, D. Mitra, J.M. Doyle, Nature 606, 70 (2022). DOI 10.1038/s41586-022-04620-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04620-5 2022

  76. [84]

    Brown, A

    J.M. Brown, A. Carrington,Rotational spectroscopy of diatomic molecules(Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2003)

    2003

  77. [85]

    Hermsmeier, A.M

    R. Hermsmeier, A.M. Rey, T.V. Tscherbul, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 143403 (2024). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.143403

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.143403 2024

  78. [86]

    Ospelkaus, K.K

    S. Ospelkaus, K.K. Ni, G. Qu´em´ener, B. Neyenhuis, D. Wang, M.G.H. de Miranda, J.L. Bohn, J. Ye, D.S. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 030402 (2010). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.030402

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.104.030402 2010

  79. [87]

    Will, J.W

    S.A. Will, J.W. Park, Z.Z. Yan, H. Loh, M.W. Zwierlein, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 225306 (2016). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.225306

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.225306 2016

  80. [88]

    Gregory, J

    P.D. Gregory, J. Aldegunde, J.M. Hutson, S.L. Cornish, Phys. Rev. A94, 041403 (2016). DOI 10.1103/PhysRevA.94.041403

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.94.041403 2016

Showing first 80 references.