Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Nuclear Spin Squeezing Based on Spin-Exchange Collisions

T0 review · 3 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 Tuning a magnetic field to a resonance condition can transfer spin squeezing completely from alkali-metal atoms to noble-gas nuclei, even when the two ensembles differ hugely in atom number, yielding nuclear spin-squeezed states with 10^20

desk verdict A clean and mostly correct resonance-field trick for transferring spin squeezing to noble-gas nuclei, but the days-long storage claim rests on an unmodeled assumption about collective coherence survival. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.29046 v1 pith:6N5N2YGT submitted 2026-07-31 quant-ph

He-bin Zhang , Yuanjiang Tang , Yong-Chun Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords spinsqueezingnuclearspin-exchangecollisionsnoble-gasspinsbeam-splitterinteractionHolstein-Primakofftransformationquantumnondemolitionmeasurementmacroscopicstates
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 proposes a practical way to create spin-squeezed states in noble-gas nuclear spins, which are normally too isolated to manipulate directly. The trick is to use the coherent spin-exchange interaction between alkali-metal electron spins and noble-gas nuclear spins, and to apply a magnetic field tuned to a resonance condition so that the interaction acts as a resonant beam splitter regardless of how many atoms are in each ensemble. At the right field strength, the squeezing of the alkali spins transfers completely to the nuclear spins in a time set by the collective exchange rate. This makes macroscopic quantum states involving 10^20 or more nuclear spins accessible with existing techniques, with storage times of days and readout achieved by reversing the transfer. The scheme works in hot vapor cells, which are already widely used in quantum metrology and medicine.

What carries the argument

The key object is the effective two-mode Hamiltonian Heff = (γsB − ηni/2)a†a + (γiB − ηns/2)b†b + (J/2)(ab† + ba†), obtained from the spin-exchange interaction ηS·I via the Holstein-Primakoff transformation (collective spin components map to position and momentum operators of harmonic-oscillator modes). The resonance condition Br removes the detuning caused by unequal atom numbers, turning the dynamics into a resonant beam splitter with exchange rate J = η√(ns ni); this is what enables complete squeezing transfer regardless of ni/ns.

What would settle it

After preparing a nuclear spin-squeezed state at the resonance field, turn the interaction off for a day, then back on and measure the squeezing transferred to alkali spins. If the inferred nuclear squeezing parameter is significantly worse than the initial ξ_s0² within a time much shorter than the polarization lifetime, then additional dephasing (e.g., from field gradients or diffusion) invalidates the storage claim; a similar experiment at zero storage time would verify the baseline transfer.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the resonance field Br = η(ni − ns)/(2(γs − γi)), the spin-exchange Hamiltonian between alkali and noble-gas ensembles reduces to a resonant beam-splitter interaction between two bosonic modes. Solving the Holstein-Primakoff dynamics yields sinusoidal oscillations of the squeezing parameters; after a time τop = π/J, the noble-gas nuclear spins reach a spin-squeezed state with exactly the same squeezing parameter ξ_s0² as the initial alkali-metal spin-squeezed state, independent of the ratio of atom numbers. The authors further show that the same field can switch the interaction off to store the squeezing in the long-lived nuclear spins, and on again to map the nuclear squeezing back onto

Load-bearing premise

The real spin-exchange interaction in a hot vapor cell is modeled as a single uniform collective beam-splitter interaction, neglecting spatial modes, diffusion, magnetic-field gradients, and higher-order Kerr terms; in particular, the claim that squeezed states can be stored for days assumes that collective nuclear-spin correlations survive as long as the polarization lifetime.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Nuclear spin-squeezed states containing 10^20 or more noble-gas atoms become feasible using preexisting QND-based alkali spin squeezing and hot vapor cells.
  • The spin squeezing can be stored in nuclear spins for days because the noble-gas nuclei are well isolated from the environment, with readout via an inverse transfer to alkali spins.
  • All steps — preparation of initial alkali squeezing, transfer, storage, and measurement — are independently controllable by adjusting a single magnetic field.
  • The scheme works for large ratios of atom numbers (e.g., ni/ns = 10^9) with only nanotesla-level magnetic field accuracy, using experimentally demonstrated coupling rates.
  • Strong coupling (J ≫ Γs) and high but not perfect polarization are sufficient; the transfer efficiency remains near unity in the strong-coupling regime even with imperfect polarization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the underlying interaction is a unitary beam splitter, the same resonance compensation should transfer any Gaussian spin state — not just squeezed states — between alkali and noble-gas ensembles, potentially enabling quantum memories for a broader class of nonclassical states.
  • The storage claim implicitly assumes that collective nuclear-spin coherence survives as long as the polarization lifetime; a quantitative model of diffusion and magnetic-field gradients would test whether days-long storage of squeezing is really achievable in realistic cells.
  • A macroscopic nuclear spin-squeezed state of 10^20 atoms could serve as a resource for searches for new physics (e.g., spin-coupled dark matter or Lorentz violation) by increasing the effective spin number available for precision measurements.
  • The same resonance-tuning idea might be transferable to other coherent spin-exchange or dipole-coupled ensembles where atom-number imbalance blocks squeezing transfer, suggesting a general recipe for mode-matched state exchange.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a protocol to generate nuclear spin squeezing in noble-gas ensembles by coherent transfer of squeezing from alkali-metal ensembles via spin-exchange collisions. The central theoretical device is a Holstein-Primakoff reduction of the spin-exchange Hamiltonian to a two-mode beam-splitter interaction (Eq. 5), with a resonance magnetic field (Eq. 6) that compensates for unequal atom numbers. The authors derive analytic formulas for the alkali and noble-gas squeezing parameters (Eqs. 4 and 7), show complete transfer at τop = π/J, and propose a field-switching sequence for generation, storage, and readout (Fig. 3). They further claim that the scheme can produce nuclear spin-squeezed states containing 10^20 atoms with preexisting techniques and store the squeezing for several days.

Significance. If the scheme is feasible, it would address an important gap: creating nonclassical collective states in the macroscopic, optically inaccessible noble-gas nuclear spin ensemble, with potential applications in precision measurement and quantum information. The formal derivation in Sec. II and Appendix A is internally consistent: the beam-splitter analogy is standard, the resonance condition in Eq. (6) is a simple and effective way to restore mode matching for unequal atom numbers, and the analytic formulas are useful. The proposed magnetic-field switching sequence (Sec. III) is conceptually clean. The main weakness is that the headline experimental claims—especially the days-long storage of a transverse squeezed state—are not backed by a calculation that includes the relevant decoherence mechanisms. The paper is a promising theoretical proposal, but the experimental feasibility of its most distinctive claims remains unsubstantiated.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III, Fig. 3; App. D, Eq. (D1)] The central advantage claimed for this scheme is that nuclear spin squeezing can be stored 'for several days.' However, the only relaxation analysis in the paper is the zero-dimensional Langevin model in Eq. (D1), which uses scalar decay rates Γs and Γi and then simply neglects Γi. This model does not include magnetic-field gradients, atomic diffusion, or spatial multimode effects. Spin squeezing is a transverse property of the collective mode; its lifetime is controlled by the transverse coherence time, not merely the longitudinal polarization lifetime T1. In a large cell—which would be required for 10^20 atoms—diffusion through field gradients will dephase the collective squeezed mode. The manuscript provides no estimate of T2 or of the gradient/diffusion timescale, so the claim of several-days storage is unsupported by the analysis. The authors should either add a gradient/diffusion m
  2. [§II, Eq. (5); App. B] The entire protocol rests on the single-mode, uniform-coupling beam-splitter Hamiltonian of Eq. (5). This assumes that both ensembles can be treated as two zero-dimensional collective spins with a single coupling rate J, and that spatial modes, diffusion, and inhomogeneities can be neglected. While this may be a valid approximation for small cells, the paper simultaneously advertises scalability to 10^20 atoms, which requires large volumes and makes the single-mode assumption much less innocent. Spatial variations in density, polarization, and magnetic field couple the collective mode to other modes; diffusion during the transfer time τop = π/J (~40 ms for J = 80 Hz) can also degrade the mode. Appendix B only discusses the Holstein-Primakoff validity condition (ξ² ≫ 1/n_f), not the mode-matching condition. The authors should justify the single-mode approximation at the proposed physical
  3. [§IV, 'efficient generation of long-lived nuclear spin squeezing'] The estimate that nuclear spin-squeezed states with 10^20 atoms are 'obtainable with preexisting techniques' is an extrapolation from QND experiments with 10^11–10^13 alkali atoms (Refs. [7,16]) combined with a chosen ratio ni/ns = 10^9. No concrete set of experimental parameters (cell volume, densities, magnetic-field uniformity, diffusion coefficient, spin-exchange rate) is given to show that a coherent single-mode coupling J ≈ 80 Hz can actually be realized for such a large noble-gas ensemble. The paper should provide a parameter table with realistic values and identify the limiting factor for scaling. Without this, the 10^20-atom claim is not yet a falsifiable prediction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and main text] Please use consistent notation for 10^20; the abstract and main text typeset it as '1020' in several places.
  2. [Appendix D, Eq. (D2)] The notation in Eq. (D2) is difficult to follow: 'J 2s' appears to mean J_s², and 'Js' and 'J' are mixed in the exponentials. Please clarify and check for typographical errors.
  3. [Sec. III, QND preparation] The text says 'Both spin ensembles start with CSSs' in the QND-preparation paragraph, while the main text in Sec. II says the alkali spins are initially prepared to a SSS. The ordering in Fig. 6 explains this, but the main text should be explicit that the alkali SSS is prepared first and the noble-gas spins remain in a CSS during that step.
  4. [Sec. II, Eq. (6) and Fig. 2] The signs and numerical values of the gyromagnetic ratios γs and γi are not defined. For a reader to reproduce the resonance field estimate, a table with the values for the proposed species (e.g., K-3He or Rb-129Xe) would be helpful.
  5. [Sec. IV, Fig. 4(a)] The caption of Fig. 4(a) refers to a magnetic-field accuracy of about 1 nT for J ≈ 80 Hz and ni/ns = 10^9. It would be useful to state the corresponding absolute value of Br and the experimental constraints needed to achieve such a field accuracy in a shielded vapor cell.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the squeezing-transfer result is an algebraic consequence of an externally supported model, not a fit or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained: the paper starts from the effective collective spin-exchange Hamiltonian Hse = ηS·I (Eq. 1), with the form and parameters attributed to external experimental work [44–47], not to the present authors. After a Holstein-Primakoff transformation and the addition of a magnetic field, the dynamics is solved in closed form (Appendix A), giving Eqs. (4) and (7). The resonance field Br in Eq. (6) is chosen to cancel the detuning in the beam-splitter Hamiltonian; it depends only on η, ni, ns, γs, and γi, not on the target squeezing value. The statement that the noble-gas squeezing parameter equals the initial alkali value at τop = π/J is an exact consequence of the beam-splitter state-swap evolution, not a fitted or renamed input. The QND preparation of the initial alkali squeezing is cited from independent experiments [7,15–17], and the Kitagawa–Ueda squeezing parameter is a standard external definition [1]. The only author self-citations ([23,25]) appear in a non-load-bearing introductory list of squeezing methods and play no role in the transfer derivation. The days-long storage claim rests on extrapolating noble-gas T1 to the collective squeezed state without modeling gradient or diffusion dephasing; that is a feasibility/correctness gap, not circular reasoning, because the claim is not obtained by defining the storage time as the squeezing lifetime. Overall, no step reduces by construction to its own input, so the circularity score is 0.

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

The central protocol rests on a handful of inputs from prior experiments and standard linearization; no new entities are introduced. The transfer equations are derived rather than fitted, but the headline atom number and storage time are extrapolations from cited parameters.

free parameters (5)
  • initial alkali spin-squeezing parameter ξ_s0^2 = 10^-2 (Fig. 4a); 0.1 (Fig. 7)
    The protocol transfers this input to the noble-gas nuclei; its value is set by the QND measurement strength κ^2 = k^2 n_s n_ph and is chosen, not derived from first principles.
  • collective spin-exchange rate J = ≈80 Hz (from Ref. [45])
    Sets τ_op = π/J, the resonance-field tolerance, and the feasibility estimates; taken from prior experiment rather than derived here.
  • coupling-to-decay ratio J/Γ_s = ≈10
    Maintains transfer efficiency and readout accuracy in Fig. 4(b); the paper states this is realizable in hot 3He-K mixtures [45].
  • noble-gas nuclear polarization p_i and alkali polarization p_s = p_i ≈ 0.85, p_s ≈ 1
    Used in Appendix D to show transfer survives imperfect polarization; values from cited experiments [51,52].
  • atomic numbers n_s and n_i (ratio r = n_i/n_s) = r up to 10^9; n_s ~ 10^11-10^13 in cited QND experiments
    The resonance field Br and the 10^20-atom claim depend on these numbers being simultaneously realizable; they are taken from separate experimental demonstrations.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The coherent spin-exchange interaction is H_se = ηS·I with a single uniform coupling rate η (Eq. 1).
    Adopted 'without loss of generality' from Ref. [44]; if the real vapor-cell coupling is inhomogeneous or includes spatial modes, the beam-splitter transfer model fails.
  • standard math Holstein-Primakoff linearization: Sx ≈ √ns X_a, Sy ≈ √ns P_a, Sz ≈ ⟨Sz⟩, and similarly for I, dropping higher-order terms (Eq. 2).
    Standard approximation, but it requires small spin fluctuations; the paper derives a constraint (Appendix B) yet drops the a†a b†b Kerr term without an explicit numerical bound.
  • domain assumption QND measurement plus feedback prepares an unconditional alkali SSS with ξ_s,q^2 = 1/(1 + κ^2) (Appendix C).
    Borrowed from Refs. [7,15-17]; the protocol assumes this preparation is unaffected by the presence of noble-gas buffer gas except for the controllable detuning.
  • standard math Squeezed states saturate the uncertainty product ξ_min ξ_max = 1 (Eq. B3).
    Used to derive the validity condition ξ^2 ≫ 1/n; conditional QND states may not saturate the product exactly, so the range of validity is approximate.
  • domain assumption Noble-gas relaxation is negligible (Γ_i ≈ 0) and alkali relaxation is a white-noise Langevin process (Eq. D1).
    Used in the imperfect-polarization analysis; gradient/diffusion dephasing of the squeezed collective mode is not included.
  • domain assumption Noble-gas nuclear spins have days-long coherence because of isolation from the environment (Sec. III).
    True for polarization lifetime per Ref. [26], but the storage claim requires the squeezed correlations to live that long; no decoherence model for gradients/diffusion is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nuclear Spin Squeezing Based on Spin-Exchange Collisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6N5N2YGT

@misc{pith2026260729046,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nuclear Spin Squeezing Based on Spin-Exchange Collisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6N5N2YGT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29046}
}
read the original abstract

Isolation from environment leads to the days-long lifetime of noble-gas nuclear spins, but also brings great challenges to the preparation, manipulation, and measurement of nuclear-spin quantum states. Here we find that nuclear spin squeezing, with ultra-long lifetime and huge atomic number, can be efficiently obtained and manipulated based on the coherent spin-exchange interaction between alkali-metal and noble-gas ensembles. Thanks to the considerable advantage of our proposal in preparing the spin squeezing of the macroscopic atomic ensemble with a huge atomic number, even the nuclear spin-squeezed state containing 10^20 atoms or more is obtainable with preexisting techniques. Further, the days-long storage and measurement of nuclear spin squeezing can be performed by the coherent manipulation of a magnetic field. This proposal can be implemented in hot atomic ensembles, whose ease of access and high adaptability to various environments will significantly facilitate the research and application of nuclear-spin nonclassical states in precision measurement, quantum information, and fundamental physics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29046 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Kitagawa and M

    M. Kitagawa and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. A 47, 5138 (1993)

    1993

  2. [2]

    D. J. Wineland, J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, F. L. Moore, and D. J. Heinzen, Phys. Rev. A 46, R6797 (1992)

    1992

  3. [3]

    D. J. Wineland, J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Heinzen, Phys. Rev. A 50, 67 (1994)

    1994

  4. [4]

    E. S. Polzik, Nature 453, 45 (2008)

    2008

  5. [5]

    Gross, T

    C. Gross, T. Zibold, E. Nicklas, J. Estève, and M. K. Oberthaler, Nature 464, 1165 (2010)

    2010

  6. [6]

    M. F. Riedel, P. Böhi, Y. Li, T. W. Hänsch, A. Sinatra, and P. Treutlein, Nature 464, 1170 (2010)

    2010

  7. [7]

    H. Bao, J. Duan, S. Jin, X. Lu, P. Li, W. Qu, M. Wang, I. Novikova, E. E. Mikhailov, K.-F. Zhao, K. Mølmer, H. Shen, and Y. Xiao, Nature 581, 159 (2020)

    2020

  8. [8]

    Gühne and G

    O. Gühne and G. Tóth, Physics Reports 474, 1 (2009)

    2009

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Sørensen, L

    A. Sørensen, L. M. Duan, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Nature 409, 63 (2001)

    2001

  2. [10]

    J. K. Korbicz, J. I. Cirac, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 120502 (2005)

    2005

  3. [11]

    J. Ma, X. Wang, C. Sun, and F. Nori, Physics Reports 509, 89 (2011)

    2011

  4. [12]

    Kuzmich, K

    A. Kuzmich, K. Mølmer, and E. S. Polzik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4782 (1997)

    1997

  5. [13]

    J. Hald, J. L. Sørensen, C. Schori, and E. S. Polzik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1319 (1999)

    1999

  6. [14]

    Schori, B

    C. Schori, B. Julsgaard, J. L. Sørensen, and E. S. Polzik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 057903 (2002)

    2002

  7. [15]

    Kuzmich, L

    A. Kuzmich, L. Mandel, and N. P. Bigelow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1594 (2000)

    2000

  8. [16]

    J. Kong, R. Jiménez-Martínez, C. Troullinou, V. G. Lu- civero, G. Tóth, and M. W. Mitchell, Nature Communi- cations 11, 2415 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    Kuzmich, L

    A. Kuzmich, L. Mandel, J. Janis, Y. E. Young, R. Ejnis- man, and N. P. Bigelow, Phys. Rev. A 60, 2346 (1999)

    1999

  10. [18]

    Takano, M

    T. Takano, M. Fuyama, R. Namiki, and Y. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 033601 (2009)

    2009

  11. [19]

    Auzinsh, D

    M. Auzinsh, D. Budker, D. F. Kimball, S. M. Rochester, J. E. Stalnaker, A. O. Sushkov, and V. V. Yashchuk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 173002 (2004)

    2004

  12. [20]

    Kuzmich and T

    A. Kuzmich and T. A. B. Kennedy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 030407 (2004)

    2004

  13. [21]

    Hosten, N

    O. Hosten, N. J. Engelsen, R. Krishnakumar, and M. A. Kasevich, Nature 529, 505 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    Chaudhury, S

    S. Chaudhury, S. Merkel, T. Herr, A. Silberfarb, I. H. Deutsch, and P. S. Jessen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 163002 (2007)

    2007

  15. [23]

    Y. C. Liu, Z. F. Xu, G. R. Jin, and L. You, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 013601 (2011)

    2011

  16. [24]

    Fernholz, H

    T. Fernholz, H. Krauter, K. Jensen, J. F. Sherson, A. S. Sørensen, and E. S. Polzik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 073601 (2008)

    2008

  17. [25]

    Chen, J.-J

    F. Chen, J.-J. Chen, L.-N. Wu, Y.-C. Liu, and L. You, Phys. Rev. A 100, 041801 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    T. R. Gentile, P. J. Nacher, B. Saam, and T. G. Walker, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 045004 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    T. W. Kornack, R. K. Ghosh, and M. V. Romalis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 230801 (2005)

    2005

  20. [28]

    Walker and M

    T. Walker and M. Larsen (Academic Press, 2016) pp. 373–401

    2016

  21. [29]

    Helium magnetometers,

    W. Heil, “Helium magnetometers,” in High Sensitivity Magnetometers, edited by A. Grosz, M. J. Haji-Sheikh, and S. C. Mukhopadhyay (Springer International Pub- lishing, Cham, 2017) pp. 493–521. 12

    2017

  22. [30]

    Jiang, Y

    M. Jiang, Y. Qin, X. Wang, Y. Wang, H. Su, X. Peng, and D. Budker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 233201 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    M. S. Albert, G. D. Cates, B. Driehuys, W. Happer, B. Saam, C. S. Springer, and A. Wishnia, Nature 370, 199 (1994)

    1994

  24. [32]

    Middleton, R

    H. Middleton, R. D. Black, B. Saam, G. D. Cates, G. P. Cofer, R. Guenther, W. Happer, L. W. Hedlund, G. Alan Johnson, K. Juvan, and J. Swartz, Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 33, 271 (1995)

    1995

  25. [33]

    M. J. Couch, B. Blasiak, B. Tomanek, A. V. Ouriadov, M. S. Fox, K. M. Dowhos, and M. S. Albert, Molecular Imaging and Biology 17, 149 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    J. Lee, A. Almasi, and M. Romalis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 161801 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

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

    2018

  28. [36]

    T. E. Chupp, P. Fierlinger, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and J. T. Singh, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 015001 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    Jiang, H

    M. Jiang, H. Su, A. Garcon, X. Peng, and D. Budker, Nature Physics 17, 1402 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    M. Batz, P. J. Nacher, and G. Tastevin, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 294, 012002 (2011)

    2011

  31. [39]

    T. G. Walker and W. Happer, Rev. Mod. Phys. 69, 629 (1997)

    1997

  32. [40]

    N. D. Bhaskar, W. Happer, and T. McClelland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 25 (1982)

    1982

  33. [41]

    M. A. Bouchiat, T. R. Carver, and C. M. Varnum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 5, 373 (1960)

    1960

  34. [42]

    Dantan, G

    A. Dantan, G. Reinaudi, A. Sinatra, F. Laloë, E. Gi- acobino, and M. Pinard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 123002 (2005)

    2005

  35. [43]

    Serafin, M

    A. Serafin, M. Fadel, P. Treutlein, and A. Sinatra, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 013601 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    O. Katz, R. Shaham, E. S. Polzik, and O. Firstenberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 043602 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    Shaham, O

    R. Shaham, O. Katz, and O. Firstenberg, Nature Physics 18, 506 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    O. Katz, R. Shaham, and O. Firstenberg, PRX Quantum 3, 010305 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    O. Katz, R. Shaham, E. Reches, A. V. Gorshkov, and O. Firstenberg, Phys. Rev. A 105, 042606 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    Holstein and H

    T. Holstein and H. Primakoff, Phys. Rev. 58, 1098 (1940)

    1940

  41. [49]

    R. J. Sewell, M. Koschorreck, M. Napolitano, B. Dubost, N. Behbood, and M. W. Mitchell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 253605 (2012)

    2012

  42. [50]

    Koschorreck, M

    M. Koschorreck, M. Napolitano, B. Dubost, and M. W. Mitchell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 093602 (2010)

    2010

  43. [51]

    K. B. Dideriksen, R. Schmieg, M. Zugenmaier, and E. S. Polzik, Nature Communications 12, 3699 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    W. C. Chen, T. R. Gentile, Q. Ye, T. G. Walker, and E. Babcock, Journal of Applied Physics 116, 014903 (2014)

    2014

  45. [53]

    Hammerer, A

    K. Hammerer, A. S. Sørensen, and E. S. Polzik, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1041 (2010)

    2010

  46. [54]

    Vasilakis, H

    G. Vasilakis, H. Shen, K. Jensen, M. Balabas, D. Salart, B. Chen, and E. S. Polzik, Nature Physics 11, 389 (2015)

    2015

Pith tools

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