Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 48 references

Phase-Noise-Induced Heating in Optical Lattices

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Phase noise can dominate heating in deep optical lattices.

desk verdict A useful, mostly sound paper on phase-noise heating in optical lattices, but the 1D rate has a factor-4 error; the triangular result used for the experiment appears correct. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07442 v1 pith:T62TABRT submitted 2026-08-07 cond-mat.quant-gas physics.atom-phquant-ph

Jean Paul Nohra , Cyprien Daix , Joris Verstraten , Maxime Dixmerias , Tim de Jongh , Bruno Peaudecerf , Fabrice Gerbier , Tarik Yefsah This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-phquant-ph
keywords opticallatticesphasenoiselaser-inducedheatingFermigoldenrulequantumgasmicroscopyultracoldlithium-6self-heterodyneinterferometry
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 argues that the phase noise of the laser beam forming an optical lattice, not just its intensity noise, can be the dominant heating source for trapped atoms. The key regime is light atomic species and deep lattices, the kind used in quantum gas microscopes. The authors derive a simple Fermi golden rule rate that connects the lattice heating to the power spectral density of laser phase noise, with a characteristic $\tau^2 \omega_{\mathrm{lat}}^5/\omega_R$ scaling set by the optical path delay between interfering beams. They show that this prediction, using phase-noise spectra measured independently by self-heterodyne interferometry, reproduces the measured heating rates of lithium-6 in a triangular lattice without free parameters. If right, the result turns laser phase noise from an afterthought into a criterion for choosing and stabilizing lasers.

What carries the argument

The central object is the random displacement of the lattice potential $x_0(t)=\phi_{21}(t)/k_L$ caused by the relative phase $\phi_{21}(t)$ of two interfering laser arms arriving with a time delay $\tau$. The paper connects this displacement to the laser's phase-noise spectrum $S_{\phi_L}$ through $S_{x_0}(\omega)= (2/k_L^2)(1-\cos\omega\tau)S_{\phi_L}(\omega)$, then feeds this into the Fermi golden rule rate for a fluctuating harmonic oscillator, $\Gamma_{x_0}^H = \pi M \omega_{\mathrm{lat}}^3 S_{x_0}(\omega_{\mathrm{lat}})/(2\hbar)$, adapted to lattice wells of frequency $\omega_{\mathrm{lat}}$. Self-heterodyne interferometry supplies the measured $S_{\phi_L}$ used as parameter-free input.

What would settle it

Measure the heating rate while varying the optical path delay $\tau$ between the lattice arms: the model predicts a strict $\tau^2$ scaling of $\Gamma_{x_0}^H$ at fixed $\omega_{\mathrm{lat}}$ and $S_{\phi_L}$. Alternatively, vibrationally isolate or phase-lock the folding mirrors and check whether the unexplained 500 kHz heating resonance for the quieter laser disappears, which would confirm an unmodeled technical noise source.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that relative phase fluctuations between the lattice beams randomly translate the lattice potential, producing linear heating that can exceed parametric heating from intensity fluctuations. For a one-dimensional lattice the trap-center spectrum is $S_{x_0}(\omega)= (2/k_L^2)[1-\cos(\omega\tau)] S_{\phi_L}(\omega)$, yielding $\Gamma_{x_0}^H \simeq \pi \tau^2 \omega_{\mathrm{lat}}^5 S_{\phi_L}(\omega_{\mathrm{lat}})/(4\omega_R)$ at short delays. The same scaling holds for a triangular lattice formed by folding one beam, with a prefactor of $1/3$ instead of $1/4$ in the total rate. Measured heating rates of $^6$Li in a triangular lattice match these predictions when the independently measured $S_{\phi_L}$ is inserted, while the estimated intensity-noise contribution is far smaller; the quieter laser shows the predicted baseline plus an unexplained resonance near 500 kHz attributed to technical noise not captured in the self-heterodyne measurement.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction assumes that all the relative phase noise between lattice beams is just the laser's own phase noise delayed by free-space propagation time, with no extra jitter from mirror vibrations or other technical sources; if such extra noise exists, the independently measured laser spectrum cannot fully predict the heating.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For quantum gas microscopy, where lattice depths of $s \sim 1000$ are common, phase noise will often set the heating floor even for lasers whose intensity noise is well controlled.
  • Laser selection for optical lattice experiments should include the phase-noise spectral density at the lattice frequency $\omega_{\mathrm{lat}}$, not just relative intensity noise.
  • Balancing the path lengths of the lattice arms reduces heating as $\tau^2$, and active phase stabilization of the optical paths should suppress the same mechanism.
  • The model, with only a geometry-dependent prefactor, extends to cubic and other single-wavelength lattice geometries and to other atomic species.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the $\tau^2$ scaling by inserting a variable fiber delay in one lattice arm would isolate phase-noise heating from competing mechanisms and would make the claimed dominance easy to verify or refute.
  • The same reasoning may apply to optical clocks and atom-interferometer lattices where laser phase noise couples to the atom phase; the relative-delay dependence suggests technical noise can be rejected by path-length engineering.
  • The unexplained 500 kHz resonance in the quieter laser suggests that in-situ measurement of the actual lattice phase noise, rather than a lab-bench self-heterodyne trace, may be needed for quantitative predictions in all cases.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies heating of ultracold atoms in optical lattices induced by laser phase noise. It derives a Fermi-golden-rule rate for phase-noise-induced heating from the laser phase-noise power spectral density S_phiL, argues that this mechanism can dominate over intensity noise for light atoms and deep lattices, and tests the prediction by measuring heating of 6Li in a two-dimensional triangular lattice created by two different lasers. The central quantitative comparison uses the independently measured S_phiL and known trap frequencies with no fitted parameters; the model reproduces the data for the noisier laser A, while for the quieter laser B it provides a baseline above which an unexplained resonance near 500 kHz is observed.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a practically useful predictive framework for choosing lasers and stabilization requirements for optical-lattice experiments, including quantum-gas microscopes. Its main strength is that the experimental comparison is a genuine test: the heating data are not used to fit the phase-noise model, and the triangular-lattice rate used in the experiment appears to be derived correctly. However, a factor-of-four error in the one-dimensional result presented as the 'first main result', together with the unexplained laser-B resonance, means the manuscript needs revision before the quantitative claims can be accepted as stated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section II.1, Eqs. (6)-(7), and Section II.2, Eq. (9)] The trap-center power spectral density is overestimated by a factor of 4. For the standing-wave potential V=V_lat sin^2[k_L(x-x_0)], the interference term is proportional to cos(2k_L x + phi_1 - phi_2), so the potential shift is x_0=(phi_2-phi_1)/(2k_L), not x_0=phi_21/k_L as stated in the text and in Fig. 1(b). With phi_21(t)=phi_L(t-tau)-phi_L(t), Eq. (6) should read S_x0(omega)=(1-cos(omega tau))/(2 k_L^2) S_phiL(omega), and Eq. (7) should have prefactor pi/16 instead of pi/4. Equation (9) should correspondingly have prefactor pi instead of 4pi. I checked that the triangular-lattice rate in Eq. (13), used for the experimental comparison, is consistent with the intensity-maximum condition, so this error does not invalidate the central experimental test; however, Eq. (7) is presented as the general quantitative result, and the factor of 4 changes the quantitative guidance in Fig. 1. The phase-variable convention should also be reconciled between Section II.1 and Appendix A so that phi_21 is defined consistently.
  2. [Section III.2, Fig. 3] The model does not describe the laser-B data near omega_lat/(2pi) ~ 500 kHz, where the measured heating clearly exceeds the phase-noise prediction. The paper attributes this to a 'possibly technical origin' not probed by the self-heterodyne measurement, but the central claim that the model 'accurately reproduce[s] the measured heating rates' is therefore strictly supported only for laser A. For laser B the prediction should be described as a baseline or lower bound. Because one candidate explanation is that the lattice phase noise is not fully determined by the free-space propagation delay assumed in Appendix A, the authors should either directly measure or bound the RIN of laser B in the relevant band, or otherwise demonstrate that the 500 kHz feature does not indicate an additional phase-noise path, and they should state this limitation explicitly in the abstract and conclusion.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption and panels (c,d)] The notation 'square epsilon / x0' in the legend is unclear; please define the normalized rates directly, for example Gamma_epsilon^H/omega_lat and Gamma_x0^H/omega_lat.
  2. [Appendix B, Eq. (B2)] The estimator S_Phi(Omega=omega_m)=<|Phi~_T(omega_m)|^2> is missing the normalization factor needed for a periodogram, so the units are ambiguous as written; the averaging notation '< . >= 1/P P P ...' also appears corrupted and should be cleaned up.
  3. [Section III.2] The statement that the expected heating rate due to spontaneous emission is 'comparably low' would be more convincing with a one-line estimate or a specific reference, since this is one of the inputs to the claim that phase noise is the dominant measured mechanism.
  4. [Appendix C, Eq. (C2)] The comparison in Fig. 6 sets the proportionality coefficient in Eq. (C2) to one; this should be stated explicitly as a heuristic zero-parameter comparison rather than a fitted prediction, because the proportionality coefficient is not derived.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the predicted heating rates are compared to independently measured phase-noise spectra with no fitted parameters, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a quantitative prediction of lattice heating from an independently measured laser phase-noise spectrum, and the comparison is a genuine out-of-sample test rather than a circular reduction. In Sec. II.1 the fluctuating-lattice Hamiltonian is reduced to a harmonic trap with center x0(t)=phi_21(t)/k_L and spring-constant fluctuation epsilon(t); the heating rates (3) and (5) are taken from Savard et al. [31,32], external references, not from the authors' own prior work. The input S_phiL(omega) is obtained in Appendix B by self-heterodyne interferometry with a separate 20 m delay line, with the transfer function correction taken from external Ref. [43]; it is not extracted from the heating data. In Sec. III.2 the measured heating rates are extracted with the descriptive exponential form (14) whose free parameters (T0, T_inf, gamma) are not used as inputs to the model, and the model curves in Fig. 3 are produced from Eq. (13) using the measured S_phiL and known trap frequencies only, with no fitted coupling constant. Appendix A computes the triangular-lattice spectral densities from the same assumed delay relation phi_i(t)=phi_L(t-(i-1)tau); this is the physical model being tested, not a definition of the output in terms of the measured heating. The authors' self-citations [22-30] concern the apparatus, thermometry, and previous quantum-gas experiments, and are not load-bearing for the phase-noise heating formula; no uniqueness theorem or prior 'prediction' by the same authors is invoked to forbid alternatives. The paper explicitly flags its own modeling limitation, namely the neglect of folding-mirror vibrations and the assumption of a perfectly symmetric geometry in Appendix A, and it acknowledges the unexplained 500 kHz resonance for laser B in Sec. III.2; both are clearly stated limitations rather than circular re-use of the input. A reader's concern about the factor-of-4 prefactor in Eq. (7) is a correctness issue about the 1D standing-wave displacement x0=phi_21/(2k_L), but it does not make the derivation circular, and the experimental test uses the triangular-lattice total rate (13), which the skeptic independently checked. No step in the derivation chain reduces by construction to its own input, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on standard quantum mechanics and on two load-bearing domain assumptions: the harmonic oscillator / Fermi golden rule picture, and the specific phase-noise transfer model phi_i(t) = phi_L(t - (i-1) tau). The latter is stated as a simplification and is the most fragile part. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • T0, T_inf, gamma (Eq. 14) = per dataset
    Heuristic exponential saturation fit to temperature vs hold time; used only to extract heating rates, not part of the theory model.
  • Spilling-lifetime proportionality coefficient (Eq. C2) = 1
    Set by hand for comparison; not fitted.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Fermi golden rule applies to inter-band transitions driven by small amplitude and phase fluctuations in deep lattices; the potential can be treated as a harmonic oscillator per site.
    Invoked in Sec. II.1 to derive Eqs. (3) and (5); valid for deep lattices s > ~10.
  • ad hoc to paper Relative phase between lattice beams is phi_i(t) = phi_L(t - (i-1) tau), with no additional noise from mirror vibrations or beam pointing.
    Appendix A, stated explicitly as a simplifying assumption; if violated, measured S_phiL cannot predict lattice heating.
  • domain assumption The fluctuating potential has the same spatial symmetry as the static lattice, so it induces only inter-band, not intra-band or quasi-momentum-changing, transitions.
    Sec. II.1, used to restrict heating to local harmonic oscillator transitions.
  • domain assumption Heating dynamics are two-dimensional; energy redistribution to the z direction is negligible over the hold time, and tunneling between sites is negligible.
    Sec. III.1, justified by the Gaussian envelope and deep lattices.
  • standard math Wiener-Khintchin theorem and Fourier shift theorem.
    Used to relate correlation functions to power spectral densities, Eq. (4) and Appendix A.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phase-Noise-Induced Heating in Optical Lattices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T62TABRT

@misc{pith2026260807442,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phase-Noise-Induced Heating in Optical Lattices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T62TABRT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07442}
}
read the original abstract

We experimentally and theoretically study the origin of heating in optical lattices by disentangling the respective roles of intensity and phase noise depending on the lattice parameters. While intensity noise is widely identified as a major limiting factor, we show that phase noise can become the dominant heating source, especially for light atoms and deep optical lattices. We provide a simple theoretical framework to predict the phase-noise-induced heating from the power spectral density of the laser phase noise, which can be measured experimentally. We show that such predictions can accurately reproduce the measured heating rates of lithium-6 atoms in a triangular lattice. Our approach is readily generalized to other lattice geometries and atomic species.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07442 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. Temperature along the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Geometry of the triangular lattice. The incoming [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Measured power spectral density of the laser phase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Measured lifetime [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Phase-Noise-Induced Heating in Optical Lattices

    Fluctuating one-dimensional optical lattices We start by examining the simplest situation: a single particle in one dimension trapped in the periodic poten- tial created by a standing wave, V(x) =V lat 1 +ε sin2 kL(x−x 0) .(1) The potential depthV lat =sE R is proportional to the mean intensity ¯Iof the lattice lasers, whereE R = ℏ2k2 L/(2M) is the recoil...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    Hubbard regime

    Intensity-induced versus phase-induced heating To compare the two heating mechanisms, we consider the normalized rates Γε H ωlat ≃πω R √sSε 4ωR √s ,(8) Γx0 H ωlat ≃4πτ 2ω3 Rs2SϕL 2ωR √s ,(9) which we have rewritten to highlight the dependence on the reduced lattice depthsand on the recoil frequency (or, equivalently, on the atomic species under considera-...

    work page

  3. [3]

    noisy” and a “quiet

    Phase-noise-induced heating in two-and three-dimensional lattices The calculations of Section II 1 are readily extended to different lattice geometries in higher dimensions. The case of cubic lattices, created by three mutually perpen- dicular and independent one-dimensional lattices, is par- ticularly simple, since it reduces to the case of Section II 1 ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Experimental setup The experiments are performed with a balanced two- component cold gas in the two lowest-lying hyperfine ground states of 6Li (see [22, 38] for a detailed descrip- tion of the experimental apparatus). Briefly, we prepare a nearly degenerate two-component Fermi gas using evap- orative cooling in a dipole trap at a bias magnetic field ofB=...

    work page

  5. [5]

    low-frequency

    Heating measurements After preparation, we hold the atomic gas in the lat- tice potential for a variable timet hold. We then release the cloud from the traps and record absorption pictures after a variable time of flight up to 800µs (depending on the lattice depth). We extract the total atom num- berNand the temperatureTalong each direction from the time-...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Grynberg and C

    G. Grynberg and C. Robilliard, Phys. Rep.355, 335 (2001)

    2001

  7. [7]

    Greiner, O

    M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. Esslinger, T. W. H¨ ansch, and I. Bloch, Nature415, 39 (2002)

    2002

  8. [8]

    Bloch, J

    I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 885 (2008)

    2008

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Hemmerich and T

    A. Hemmerich and T. W. H¨ ansch, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 410 (1993)

    1993

  2. [10]

    Grimm, M

    R. Grimm, M. Weidem¨ uller, and Y. B. Ovchinnikov, in Advances In Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, Vol. 42, edited by B. Bederson and H. Walther (Aca- demic Press, 2000) pp. 95–170

    2000

  3. [11]

    S. L. Campbell, R. B. Hutson, G. E. Marti, A. Goban, N. Darkwah Oppong, R. L. McNally, L. Sonderhouse, J. M. Robinson, W. Zhang, B. J. Bloom, and J. Ye, Sci- ence358, 90 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Weidem¨ uller, A

    M. Weidem¨ uller, A. Hemmerich, A. G¨ orlitz, T. Esslinger, and T. W. H¨ ansch, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 4583 (1995)

    1995

  5. [13]

    Morsch and M

    O. Morsch and M. Oberthaler, Rev. Mod. Phys.78, 179 (2006)

    2006

  6. [14]

    Fedoseev, H

    V. Fedoseev, H. Lin, Y.-K. Lu, Y. K. Lee, J. Lyu, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 043601 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    J¨ ordens, N

    R. J¨ ordens, N. Strohmaier, K. G¨ unter, H. Moritz, and T. Esslinger, Nature455, 204 (2008)

    2008

  8. [16]

    Schneider, L

    U. Schneider, L. Hackerm¨ uller, S. Will, Th. Best, I. Bloch, T. A. Costi, R. W. Helmes, D. Rasch, and A. Rosch, Science322, 1520 (2008)

    2008

  9. [17]

    Aidelsburger, M

    M. Aidelsburger, M. Atala, M. Lohse, J. T. Barreiro, B. Paredes, and I. Bloch, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 185301 (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    Miyake, G

    H. Miyake, G. A. Siviloglou, C. J. Kennedy, W. C. Bur- ton, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 185302 (2013)

    2013

  11. [19]

    Struck, C

    J. Struck, C. ¨Olschl¨ ager, R. Le Targat, P. Soltan- Panahi, A. Eckardt, M. Lewenstein, P. Windpassinger, and K. Sengstock, Science333, 996 (2011)

    2011

  12. [20]

    W. S. Bakr, J. I. Gillen, A. Peng, S. F¨ olling, and M. Greiner, Nature462, 74 (2009)

    2009

  13. [21]

    J. F. Sherson, C. Weitenberg, M. Endres, M. Cheneau, I. Bloch, and S. Kuhr, Nature467, 68 (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    L. W. Cheuk, M. A. Nichols, K. R. Lawrence, M. Okan, H. Zhang, E. Khatami, N. Trivedi, T. Paiva, M. Rigol, and M. W. Zwierlein, Science353, 1260 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    M. F. Parsons, A. Mazurenko, C. S. Chiu, G. Ji, D. Greif, and M. Greiner, Science353, 1253 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    M. Boll, T. A. Hilker, G. Salomon, A. Omran, J. Ne- spolo, L. Pollet, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Science353, 1257 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Gross and I

    C. Gross and I. Bloch, Science357, 995 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    Gross and W

    C. Gross and W. S. Bakr, Nat. Phys.17, 1316 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Verstraten, K

    J. Verstraten, K. Dai, M. Dixmerias, B. Peaudecerf, T. de Jongh, and T. Yefsah, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 083403 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    de Jongh, J

    T. de Jongh, J. Verstraten, M. Dixmerias, C. Daix, B. Peaudecerf, and T. Yefsah, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 183403 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    Xiang, E

    J. Xiang, E. Cruz-Col´ on, C. C. Chua, W. R. Milner, J. De Hond, J. F. Fricke, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 183401 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    R. Yao, S. Chi, M. Wang, R. J. Fletcher, and M. Zwier- lein, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 183402 (2025). 8

    2025

  23. [31]

    Dixmerias, J

    M. Dixmerias, J. Verstraten, C. Daix, B. Peaudecerf, T. de Jongh, and T. Yefsah, Fluctuation thermom- etry of an atom-resolved quantum gas: Beyond the fluctuation-dissipation theorem (2025), arXiv:2502.05132 [cond-mat]

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    J. M. Mortlock, A. P. Raghuram, B. P. Maddox, P. D. Gregory, and S. L. Cornish, Nat. Commun.17, 518 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    C. Daix, M. Dixmerias, Y.-Y. He, J. Verstraten, T. de Jongh, B. Peaudecerf, S. Zhang, and T. Yefsah, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 153402 (2026)

    2026

  26. [34]

    Dixmerias, G

    M. Dixmerias, G. D. V. D. Vecchio, C. Daix, J. Ver- straten, T. de Jongh, B. Peaudecerf, P. L. Dous- sal, G. Schehr, and T. Yefsah, Universal Random Ma- trix Behavior of a Fermionic Quantum Gas (2025), arXiv:2510.25735 [cond-mat]

    2025

  27. [35]

    C. Daix, P. M. Tam, M. Dixmerias, J. Verstraten, T. de Jongh, B. Peaudecerf, C. L. Kane, and T. Yef- sah, Probing the Fermi Sea Topology in a Quantum Gas (2025), arXiv:2511.23353 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2025

  28. [36]

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

    1997

  29. [37]

    M. E. Gehm, K. M. O’Hara, T. A. Savard, and J. E. Thomas, Phys. Rev. A58, 3914 (1998)

    1998

  30. [38]

    M. E. Gehm, K. M. O’Hara, T. A. Savard, and J. E. Thomas, Phys. Rev. A61, 029902 (2000)

    2000

  31. [39]

    C. W. Gardiner, J. Ye, H. C. Nagerl, and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. A61, 045801 (2000)

    2000

  32. [40]

    Blatt, A

    S. Blatt, A. Mazurenko, M. F. Parsons, C. S. Chiu, F. Hu- ber, and M. Greiner, Phys. Rev. A92, 021402 (2015)

    2015

  33. [41]

    Mazurenko, S

    A. Mazurenko, S. Blatt, F. Huber, M. F. Parsons, C. S. Chiu, G. Ji, D. Greif, and M. Greiner, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 90, 033101 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    In practice, this regime is not very common in quantum gas experiments, and the single-particle dynamics is in any case almost always irrelevant

    In principle, one could also distinguish a weak lattice regime withs≪1, the analog of the regime of weakly- bound electrons in solid-state physics. In practice, this regime is not very common in quantum gas experiments, and the single-particle dynamics is in any case almost al...

  35. [43]

    S. Jin, K. Dai, J. Verstraten, M. Dixmerias, R. Alhyder, C. Salomon, B. Peaudecerf, T. de Jongh, and T. Yefsah, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 013158 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1225 (2010)

    2010

  37. [45]

    Laser A, with refer- ence number ALS-IR-1064-50-I-SF (year 2017), uses an internal seed

    Manufacturer: Azur Light Systems. Laser A, with refer- ence number ALS-IR-1064-50-I-SF (year 2017), uses an internal seed. Laser B, with reference number ALS-IR- 1064-50-A-CP-SF (year 2023), uses the ORION 1064nm laser module from RIO as an external seed

    2017

  38. [46]

    The manufacturer specifications indicate a RIN ranging approximately from−140 dB/Hz to−160 dB/Hz for laser A, and from−145 dB/Hz to−153 dB/Hz for laser B, in the frequency range 0.1−3 MHz relevant to this work

  39. [47]

    Laurent, M

    S. Laurent, M. Pierce, M. Delehaye, T. Yefsah, F. Chevy, and C. Salomon, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 103403 (2017)

    2017

  40. [48]

    Z. Yuan, H. Wang, P. Liu, B. Li, B. Shen, M. Gao, L. Chang, W. Jin, A. Feshali, M. Paniccia, J. Bowers, and K. Vahala, Opt. Express30, 25147 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.