Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Direct measurement of the 3P0 clock state natural lifetime in 87Sr

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Direct decay measurement fixes the 87Sr clock-state lifetime at 167 seconds

desk verdict A genuine experimental advance in direct lifetime metrology for 87Sr; the isotope-differential scheme is clever, but the 88Sr zero-depth intercept and the BBR comparison need closer scrutiny before the central value is trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06440 v2 pith:2PNUJH66 submitted 2025-05-09 physics.atom-ph

Jonathan Dolde , Dhruva Ganapathy , Xin Zheng , Shuo Ma , Kyle Beloy , Shimon Kolkowitz This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph PACS 32.70.Cs37.10.Jk
keywords opticallatticeclocksstrontium-873P0clockstateradiativelifetimeisotopesubtractionRamanscatteringblack-bodyradiationmulti-readoutmeasurement
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports a direct measurement of the natural radiative lifetime of the $^3P_0$ clock state in $^{87}$Sr, finding $167^{+79}_{-40}$ s. The authors initialize atoms in the excited clock state inside an optical lattice, watch them decay, and isolate the radiative contribution by comparing $^{87}$Sr with $^{88}$Sr at two densities and several trap depths. Because $^{88}$Sr has no hyperfine mixing, its $^3P_0$ state cannot radiatively decay to the ground state, so subtracting its zero-depth decay rate removes common-mode losses such as Raman scattering and black-body scattering. If correct, the value fixes the fundamental coherence limit of the $^{87}$Sr clock transition and sharpens the performance estimates for proposed clock-based gravitational wave detectors and long-baseline interferometers.

What carries the argument

The central object is the population rate-equation model for atoms trapped in the optical lattice, with the excited-to-ground decay rate written as $\Gamma_{eg}=\Gamma_0+\gamma U$, where $\Gamma_0$ is the radiative decay rate, $\gamma$ is the Raman scattering rate per unit trap depth, and $U$ is the effective optical trap depth. The load-bearing step is the isotope subtraction: since $^{88}$Sr lacks the hyperfine mixing that makes the clock transition weakly allowed, its zero-depth intercept represents only common-mode black-body and trap losses, so subtracting it from the $^{87}$Sr intercept isolates $\Gamma_0$. A second mechanism, the multi-readout procedure, repeatedly measures the ground-state population during a single hold while leaving the excited state intact, providing a model check that does not rely on reconstructing the excited-state decay curve from many separate runs.

What would settle it

Measure the $^{88}$Sr zero-depth decay rate with higher statistics and a controlled black-body environment: if the intercept does not approach the predicted $1.10(5)\times10^{-3}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ scattering rate but stays offset, the common-mode assumption fails and the $^{87}$Sr lifetime must be revised. A complementary check is to repeat the $^{87}$Sr measurement at a different lattice wavelength and require the same zero-depth intercept.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the radiative decay rate of the $^3P_0$ clock state in $^{87}$Sr is $6.0(19)\times10^{-3}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$, corresponding to a lifetime of $167^{+79}_{-40}$ s. The evidence comes from measured decay curves of excited-state ensembles of both isotopes at lattice depths between roughly 20 and 65 recoil energies: extrapolating the excited-to-ground decay rate $\Gamma_{eg}$ to zero trap depth removes the depth-dependent Raman contribution, and subtracting the $^{88}$Sr intercept removes black-body-induced scattering that is common to both isotopes. The paper also introduces a multi-readout scheme that repeatedly images atoms that decay into the ground state within a single run, leaving the excited state undisturbed, and uses it to validate the rate-equation model and the consistency of the extracted rates. The measured $^{88}$Sr zero-depth intercept is about $2\sigma$ below the predicted black-body scattering rate, and the analysis treats that offset as a statistical fluctuation or an unquantified common-mode effect that cancels in the isotope subtraction.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every systematic error in the $^{88}$Sr zero-depth decay-rate intercept cancels in the isotope subtraction; because the measured intercept sits about $2\sigma$ below the predicted black-body scattering rate, an isotope-dependent offset would bias the reported $^{87}$Sr lifetime.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The measured lifetime sets a quantitative upper bound on the coherent interrogation time of $^{87}$Sr clocks in synchronous differential comparisons, where the local oscillator linewidth is no longer the limiting factor.
  • Performance and sensitivity estimates for proposed space-based gravitational wave detectors and long-baseline atom interferometers that use $^{87}$Sr can be updated with this value.
  • The combination of two-isotope subtraction, density variation, and trap-depth extrapolation is a template for direct lifetime measurements of other long-lived metastable states in atoms and ions used for clocks and quantum computing.
  • The multi-readout scheme, which captures the full ground-state decay curve in a single experimental sequence, reduces sensitivity to run-to-run atom-number variations and validates the extracted rates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the unexplained $2\sigma$ offset in the $^{88}$Sr intercept is actually isotope-dependent rather than common-mode, the reported $^{87}$Sr lifetime would be biased, so a dedicated measurement of the $^{88}$Sr black-body scattering rate at controlled temperature would test the method's core assumption.
  • The same subtraction logic should transfer to other alkaline-earth-like clock species with a fermionic isotope possessing a weakly allowed clock transition and a bosonic isotope without one, provided the bosonic state can be populated and read out.
  • The multi-readout approach is reminiscent of mid-circuit measurement in quantum computing; adapted to metastable-state qubits, it could allow repeated non-destructive readout of one qubit without destroying the coherence of others.
  • Repeating the measurement at a second lattice wavelength would provide a cross-check: if the zero-depth intercept is unchanged, that strengthens the assignment of the intercept to black-body plus radiative decay rather than a depth-dependent artifact.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The authors report a direct measurement of the natural radiative lifetime of the 3P0 clock state in 87Sr. They load cold 87Sr and 88Sr ensembles into a 1D optical lattice, prepare atoms in the 3P0 state, and record ground- and excited-state populations as a function of hold time at several lattice depths. A two-channel rate-equation model is used to extract the total excited-to-ground decay rate Gamma_eg at each depth, and a linear extrapolation to zero lattice depth yields the 88Sr and 87Sr intercepts. The radiative decay rate Gamma_0 is obtained from the difference of these intercepts, giving Gamma_0 = 6.0(19) x 10^-3 s^-1 and a lifetime of 167(+79/-40) s. The paper also presents a multi-readout scheme in which ground-state population is repeatedly imaged in a single sequence, used as a consistency check of the model and fitted rates.

Significance. If the result is sound, this is a valuable direct determination of a fundamental property of a clock state that is relevant for optical lattice clocks, differential clock comparisons, long-baseline atom interferometry, and gravitational-wave detection proposals. The differential isotope-subtraction method is an appropriate way to remove black-body and common-mode contributions, and the multi-readout validation is a genuine predictive consistency check rather than a circular use of the fitted rates. The reported value agrees with theoretical predictions and with the complementary recent measurement by Kim et al., which adds credibility. The main concern is whether the assumed cancellation of the 88Sr intercept is actually demonstrated; this is the load-bearing point of the analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III vs. Appendix C] The central value Gamma_0 = 6.0(19) x 10^-3 s^-1 is computed as the difference between the zero-depth intercepts of 87Sr and 88Sr. The measured 88Sr intercept is -0.8(17) x 10^-3 s^-1, which is about 2 sigma below the predicted BBR-induced rate of 1.10(5) x 10^-3 s^-1 quoted in Section III. Because this intercept is subtracted, a negative bias of that size directly inflates Gamma_0 by roughly 0.8 x 10^-3 s^-1, which is comparable to the quoted total uncertainty of 1.9 x 10^-3 s^-1. The statement that any systematic common to both isotopes cancels is an assumption, not a demonstrated property of the measurement. Please provide an explicit test: for example, constrain the 88Sr intercept to the BBR prediction and report the resulting Gamma_0, or give an argument that an isotope-dependent offset of order 1 x 10^-3 s^-1 is excluded by the data.
  2. [Appendix B, Fig. 7] The paper compares the 88Sr zero-depth intercept with 1.10(5) x 10^-3 s^-1, but Appendix C calculates the total BBR scattering rate out of 3P0 as 2.47(14) x 10^-3 s^-1. These two values are not reconciled in the text. If 2.47(14) x 10^-3 s^-1 is the relevant rate for the Gamma_eg term in Eq. (1), then the measured 88Sr intercept is inconsistent with theory at about 3.5 sigma, making the subtraction far less innocuous than presented. Please clarify which BBR contribution actually enters the fitted Gamma_eg and recalculate the comparison consistently.
  3. [Appendix B, Fig. 7] The low-density 88Sr data produce a Raman scattering slope of 30(4) x 10^-5 (E_rec s)^-1, which is inconsistent with the high-density value of 40(5) x 10^-5 (E_rec s)^-1 used in the main fit. The paper attributes this to possible temperature differences between the two density ensembles, but it does not propagate this inconsistency into the zero-depth intercept or into Gamma_0. Please quantify how an unmodeled density- or temperature-dependent systematic in the 88Sr data would affect the extracted radiative decay rate.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A] In the sentence following Eq. (1), "where the Ng is the ground state population" should read "where N_g is the ground state population."
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] In the text of Appendix A, the phrase "where is the volume of an individual lattice site, V_site, is assumed to be constant" is missing the symbol V_site before the first "is"; the sentence should read "where V_site is the volume of an individual lattice site."
  3. [Fig. 4] The caption says "The x-axis errors in this measurement arise mostly from..."; this should be "the x-axis error bars" or "the uncertainties in the x-axis values" to avoid confusion.
  4. [Throughout] The legend labels "Boyd 2007 (Theory)", "Lu 2024", "Muniz 2021", and "Dörscher 2018" would be clearer if the figure distinguished experimental methods (direct decay versus Rabi-frequency/cavity-QED extraction) in the legend itself rather than only in the caption.
  5. [Throughout] The text uses both "E_rec" and "Erec" for the recoil energy; please choose one notation and use it consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the radiative lifetime is obtained from a differential zero-depth extrapolation between two isotopes, and the multi-readout check is an independent consistency test.

full rationale

The extraction of the 3P0 radiative lifetime is not circular. The paper measures excited-state-to-ground-state decay rates Γeg for 87Sr and 88Sr as functions of lattice depth and fits them to Eq. (2), Γeg = Γ0 + γU. The radiative decay rate Γ0 is then obtained as the difference of the two isotopes' zero-depth intercepts, relying on the physical input that 88Sr has no radiative decay of the clock state and that BBR and other common contributions cancel in the subtraction. This is a differential measurement, not a fitted constant being renamed as a prediction, and the 88Sr measurement independently constrains the common-mode contribution. The multi-readout technique uses model parameters inferred from the standard readout data and compares them against independent multi-readout population curves, which is a predictive consistency check rather than circular reasoning; the multi-readout data are not used to fit the parameters being validated. No load-bearing self-citation chain, imported uniqueness theorem, or ansatz smuggled in by citation appears; cited prior work is used for apparatus details, effective-depth formulas, and external theory comparisons. The discrepancy between the measured 88Sr zero-depth intercept and the predicted BBR scattering rate, including the numerical inconsistency between the 1.10(5)×10^-3 s^-1 quoted in Section III and the 2.47(14)×10^-3 s^-1 computed in Appendix C, is a systematic-uncertainty and correctness concern about the common-mode cancellation assumption, not a circularity of the derivation. The claimed result therefore has independent empirical content and does not reduce to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a rate-equation model with several fitted loss coefficients and on the assumption that the 88Sr reference isotope has no radiative decay and shares all non-radiative loss channels with 87Sr. The most fragile pieces are the linearity of Raman scattering with trap depth and the common-mode cancellation of the 88Sr zero-depth intercept, which is measured to be negative. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (7)
  • Radiative decay rate Γ0 (central result) = 6.0(19) x 10^-3 s^-1, lifetime 167(+79/-40) s
    Extracted as the difference between 87Sr and 88Sr zero-depth decay rates; the paper's central claim.
  • Raman scattering rate for 87Sr, γ_87 = 46(2) x 10^-5 (Erec s)^-1
    Slope of Γeg vs trap depth fit (Fig. 3); enters the extrapolation to zero depth.
  • Raman scattering rate for 88Sr, γ_88 (high-density) = 40(5) x 10^-5 (Erec s)^-1
    Slope for the reference isotope; low-density data give 30(4), a discrepancy not folded into uncertainty.
  • 88Sr zero-depth decay rate (intercept) = -0.8(17) x 10^-3 s^-1
    Used as the non-radiative background reference; its unphysical negative value is a key systematic concern.
  • Two-body loss coefficient Kee for 87Sr = 11(1) x T_r x 10^-6 cm^3 s^-1 K^-1
    Fitted from decay curves (Fig. 6); affects model but not directly the lifetime; larger than prior value 4(2).
  • Two-body loss coefficient Kee for 88Sr = 262(6) x 10^-13 cm^3 s^-1
    Fitted; inconsistent with prior 180(30) value; acknowledged in text.
  • Excited-state one-body loss rate Γe
    Inferred per isotope and density from fits to Eq. (1); values shown in Fig. 5 but not tabulated in text.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Rate equation model: dNe/dt = -(Γe+Γeg)Ne - γee Ne^2, dNg/dt = -Γg Ng + Γeg Ne (Eq. 1).
    Central model for all population curves; assumes independent exponential losses and two-body loss proportional to Ne^2 with constant effective volume.
  • domain assumption Raman scattering rate is linear in trap depth: Γeg = Γ0 + γU (Eq. 2).
    Justifies the linear extrapolation to zero trap depth; if the true depth dependence is nonlinear, the extracted Γ0 is biased.
  • domain assumption The 88Sr 3P0 state has no radiative decay to 1S0.
    This makes 88Sr a background control; relies on the absence of hyperfine mixing in 88Sr.
  • domain assumption Common non-radiative loss channels (BBR, background gas, Raman) are identical for both isotopes and cancel in the subtraction.
    The measured 88Sr intercept deviates ~2σ from theory; if any such channel is isotope-dependent, Γ0 is biased.
  • domain assumption The effective trap depth U is computed as U = U_axial(1 + k_B T_r / U_axial)^-1 with the same radial temperature for high and low density ensembles.
    Appendix B shows low-density 88Sr data are inconsistent, suggesting the temperature may differ across densities; this affects the x-axis and thus the intercepts.
  • domain assumption The two-body loss term can be reduced to an effective global volume V = 2√π σ V_site (Eq. A2).
    Requires constant site volume and stationary Gaussian distribution; authors acknowledge it breaks for low atom numbers.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Direct measurement of the 3P0 clock state natural lifetime in 87Sr." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2PNUJH66

@misc{pith2026250506440,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Direct measurement of the 3P0 clock state natural lifetime in 87Sr},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2PNUJH66}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06440}
}
read the original abstract

Optical lattice clocks based on the narrow (5s2)1S0 - (5s5p)3P0 transition in neutral strontium (Sr) are among the most precise and accurate measurement devices in existence. Although this transition is completely forbidden by selection rules, state mixing from the hyperfine interaction in 87Sr provides a weakly allowed transition that can be coherently driven with practical clock laser intensities. While the coherent interrogation times of optical clocks are typically set by the linewidth of the probe laser, this limitation can be overcome in synchronous differential comparisons between ensembles. In such measurements the natural lifetime of the 1S0-3P0 clock transition becomes the fundamental limiting factor to the duration of a single run of the experiment. However, a direct measurement of the decay rate of the clock excited state is quite challenging due to the competing effects of other loss channels such as Raman scattering, inelastic collisions and atom-loss due to background gas. In this work, we monitor the decay of Sr atoms trapped in an optical lattice and initialized in the 3P0 state. By making measurements of high and low density ensembles of both 87Sr and 88Sr across varying lattice trap depths, we isolate radiative decay, which accounts for a significant fraction of the observed decays at low depths. We obtain a natural radiative decay lifetime of 167(+79/-40) s for the 3P0 clock state in 87Sr, a value that is consistent with previously reported measurements and theoretical predictions. We also introduce an additional measurement scheme that involves repeated measurements of the ground state population within a single experimental sequence, validating our model and the consistency of the measured rates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.06440 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Population decay in an optical lattice. Two ensembles of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Population decay measurement scheme and example data for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Comparison of measured [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. one-body loss rates for ground Γ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Comparison of extracted decay rates between high [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The extracted values and their uncertainties, shown in Fig

    One-Body Loss The one-body loss from the ground state, Γ g is measured independently by loading atoms in the ground state and measuring the population decay. The extracted values and their uncertainties, shown in Fig. 5, are used to constrain fit parameters in the standard readout data analysis. The excited state loss is extracted from fitting the rate eq...

    work page

  2. [2]

    (1), the two-body loss term, γee, can be written asKee/V whereV is the effective volume of the ensemble

    Two-Body Loss In Eq. (1), the two-body loss term, γee, can be written asKee/V whereV is the effective volume of the ensemble. To calculateV , we must first sum the rate equation over every individual lattice site - X i ˙Ne,i =−(Γ e + Γeg) X i Ne,i− X i Kee Vsite N 2 e,i,(A1) where is the volume of an individual lattice site, Vsite, is assumed to be consta...

    work page

  3. [3]

    A. D. Ludlow, M. M. Boyd, J. Ye, E. Peik, and P. O. Schmidt, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 637 (2015)

    2015

  4. [4]

    Aeppli, K

    A. Aeppli, K. Kim, W. Warfield, M. S. Safronova, and J. Ye, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 023401 (2024)

    2024

  5. [5]

    Oelker, R

    E. Oelker, R. Hutson, C. Kennedy, L. Sonderhouse, T. Bothwell, A. Goban, D. Kedar, C. Sanner, J. Robinson, G. Marti, et al., Nature Photonics13, 714 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Courtillot, A

    I. Courtillot, A. Quessada, R. P. Kovacich, A. Brusch, D. Kolker, J.-J. Zondy, G. D. Rovera, and P. Lemonde, Phys. Rev. A68, 030501 (2003)

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    Takamoto, I

    M. Takamoto, I. Ushijima, N. Ohmae, T. Yahagi, K. Kokado, H. Shinkai, and H. Katori, Nature Photonics 14, 411 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Bothwell, C

    T. Bothwell, C. J. Kennedy, A. Aeppli, D. Kedar, J. M. Robinson, E. Oelker, A. Staron, and J. Ye, Nature602, 420 (2022)

    2022

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Zheng, J

    X. Zheng, J. Dolde, M. C. Cambria, H. M. Lim, and S. Kolkowitz, Nature Communications14, 4886 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    C. J. Kennedy, E. Oelker, J. M. Robinson, T. Bothwell, D. Kedar, W. R. Milner, G. E. Marti, A. Derevianko, and J. Ye, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 201302 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Beloy, M

    K. Beloy, M. I. Bodine, T. Bothwell, S. M. Brewer, S. L. Bromley, J.-S. Chen, J.-D. Deschˆ enes, S. A. Diddams, R. J. Fasano, T. M. Fortier, Y. S. Hassan, D. B. Hume, D. Kedar, C. J. Kennedy, I. Khader, A. Koepke, D. R. Leibrandt, H. Leopardi, A. D. Ludlow, W. F. McGrew, W. R....

    2021

  4. [12]

    D¨ orscher, N

    S. D¨ orscher, N. Huntemann, R. Schwarz, R. Lange, E. Benkler, B. Lipphardt, U. Sterr, E. Peik, and C. Lisdat, Metrologia58, 015005 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Hisai, D

    Y. Hisai, D. Akamatsu, T. Kobayashi, K. Hosaka, H. Inaba, F.-L. Hong, and M. Yasuda, Metrologia58, 015008 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Takano, M

    T. Takano, M. Takamoto, I. Ushijima, N. Ohmae, T. Akatsuka, A. Yamaguchi, Y. Kuroishi, H. Munekane, B. Miyahara, and H. Katori, Nature Photonics10, 662 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    Grotti, S

    J. Grotti, S. Koller, S. Vogt, S. H¨ afner, U. Sterr, C. Lisdat, H. Denker, C. Voigt, L. Timmen, A. Rolland, F. N. Baynes, H. S. Margolis, M. Zampaolo, P. Thoumany, M. Pizzocaro, B. Rauf, F. Bregolin, A. Tampellini, P. Barbieri, M. Zucco, G. A. Costanzo, C. Clivati, F. Levi, a...

    2018

  8. [16]

    Grotti, I

    J. Grotti, I. Nosske, S. Koller, S. Herbers, H. Denker, L. Timmen, G. Vishnyakova, G. Grosche, T. Waterholter, A. Kuhl, S. Koke, E. Benkler, M. Giunta, L. Maisenbacher, A. Matveev, S. D¨ orscher, R. Schwarz, A. Al-Masoudi, T. H¨ ansch, T. Udem, R. Holzwarth, and C. Lisdat, Phy...

    2024

  9. [17]

    M. Abe, P. Adamson, M. Borcean, D. Bortoletto, K. Bridges, S. P. Carman, S. Chattopadhyay, J. Coleman, N. M. Curfman, K. DeRose, T. Deshpande, S. Dimopoulos, C. J. Foot, J. C. Frisch, B. E. Garber, S. Geer, V. Gibson, J. Glick, P. W. Graham, S. R. Hahn, R. Harnik, L. Hawkins, ...

    2021

  10. [18]

    Abend, B

    S. Abend, B. Allard, I. Alonso, J. Antoniadis, H. Ara´ ujo, G. Arduini, A. S. Arnold, T. Asano, N. Augst, L. Badurina, et al., AVS quantum science6(2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Barnes, P

    K. Barnes, P. Battaglino, B. J. Bloom, K. Cassella, R. Coxe, N. Crisosto, J. P. King, S. S. Kondov, K. Kotru, S. C. Larsen, et al., Nature Communications13, 2779 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Santra, K

    R. Santra, K. V. Christ, and C. H. Greene, Phys. Rev. A69, 042510 (2004)

    2004

  13. [21]

    X. Lu, F. Guo, Y. Wang, M. Feng, T. Liang, B. Lu, and H. Chang, Phys. Rev. A108, 012820 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Kolkowitz, I

    S. Kolkowitz, I. Pikovski, N. Langellier, M. D. Lukin, R. L. Walsworth, and J. Ye, Phys. Rev. D94, 124043 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    D¨ orscher, R

    S. D¨ orscher, R. Schwarz, A. Al-Masoudi, S. Falke, U. Sterr, and C. Lisdat, Phys. Rev. A97, 063419 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    J. A. Muniz, D. J. Young, J. R. K. Cline, and J. K. Thompson, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 023152 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    X.-T. Lu, F. Guo, Y.-Y. Liu, J.-J. Xia, G.-D. Zhao, Y.-X. Chen, Y.-B. Wang, B.-Q. Lu, and H. Chang, Phys. Rev. Appl.21, 024042 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Zheng, J

    X. Zheng, J. Dolde, V. Lochab, B. N. Merriman, H. Li, and S. Kolkowitz, Nature602, 425 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Niroula, J

    P. Niroula, J. Dolde, X. Zheng, J. Bringewatt, A. Ehrenberg, K. C. Cox, J. Thompson, M. J. Gullans, S. Kolkowitz, and A. V. Gorshkov, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 080801 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    J. L. Siegel, W. F. McGrew, Y. S. Hassan, C.-C. Chen, K. Beloy, T. Grogan, X. Zhang, and A. D. Ludlow, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 133201 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    R. B. Hutson, A. Goban, G. E. Marti, L. Sonderhouse, C. Sanner, and J. Ye, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 123401 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    M. M. Boyd, T. Zelevinsky, A. D. Ludlow, S. Blatt, T. Zanon-Willette, S. M. Foreman, and J. Ye, Phys. Rev. A76, 022510 (2007)

    2007

  23. [31]

    K. Kim, A. Aeppli, W. Warfield, A. Chu, A. M. Rey, and J. Ye, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.06444 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bishof, M

    M. Bishof, M. J. Martin, M. D. Swallows, C. Benko, Y. Lin, G. Qu´ em´ ener, A. M. Rey, and J. Ye, Phys. Rev. A84, 052716 (2011)

    2011

  25. [33]

    Traverso, R

    A. Traverso, R. Chakraborty, Y. N. Martinez de Escobar, P. G. Mickelson, S. B. Nagel, M. Yan, and T. C. Killian, Phys. Rev. A79, 060702 (2009)

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.