Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 51 references

Field-induced quantum interference of inelastic scattering in ultracold atomic collisions

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that tuning an rf-induced free-free transition near a magnetically induced p-wave Feshbach resonance exposes a constructive-destructive interference pattern in the two-body loss rate of ultracold 7Li-41K collisions, and…

desk verdict A promising field-control scheme for visible interference in ultracold loss, but the calculation needs a partial-wave convergence check before the central prediction is believable. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00743 v1 pith:5OY3FLL2 submitted 2024-12-01 cond-mat.quant-gas physics.atom-phquant-ph

Ting Xie , Chuan-Cun Shu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gasphysics.atom-phquant-ph
keywords ultracoldcollisionsinelasticscatteringquantuminterferencetwo-bodylossrateFeshbachresonanceradio-frequencyfieldelectriccontrol7Li-41K
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 sets out to show that quantum interference between inelastic scattering pathways can be made visible in an observable that is routinely measured in ultracold experiments: the two-body atomic loss rate. The proposed setup applies a radio-frequency field and a static electric field to a magnetically controlled collision, creating a ring-coupling structure that links s-wave and p-wave channels in two neighbouring spin manifolds. Coupled-channel calculations for 7Li-41K predict that when the rf field drives a free-free transition close to a magnetically induced p-wave Feshbach resonance in the incoming channel, the loss coefficient shows alternating constructive and destructive interference as the magnetic field is scanned. The authors conclude that exploiting interference in ultracold inelastic scattering does not require coherent superposition states, and that the method could extend to other systems with p-wave Feshbach resonances.

What carries the argument

The central object is the ring-coupling configuration: a radio-frequency field couples channels of the same partial wave $\ell$ across adjacent spin manifolds ($M_F \rightarrow M_F \pm 1$), while a static electric field mixes s and p partial waves within one manifold. These direct couplings close into two-step loops that give two interfering pathways from the incoming s-wave channel to the outgoing p-wave channel. The second pathway is amplified when the rf frequency places a free-free resonance near the magnetically induced p-wave Feshbach resonance in the incoming channel, and the relative phase $\theta$ of the two paths, set by the scattering phases, decides whether the total loss rate adds constructively or destructively.

What would settle it

A magnetic-field scan of the 7Li-41K two-body loss rate near 788 G with an rf frequency near 176 MHz and field strengths around E = 10 kV/cm, Brf = 0.1 G should show $K_2$ alternating between the fully constructive and fully destructive envelopes over a window of tens of gauss; a single smooth resonance peak with no alternating enhancement and suppression would rule out the predicted interference.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that the total two-body loss rate $K_2$ near the incoming-channel p-wave Feshbach resonance contains a phase-controlled interference contribution that is normally swamped by one dominating pathway. For the s-wave channel in the $M_F = 2$ manifold decaying to the p-wave channel in $M_F = 1$, the two field-coupled pathways each contribute a rate, and the total carries a cross term set by the relative scattering phase $\theta$; the interference becomes usable when an rf-induced free-free resonance placed nearby makes the two pathway rates comparable. In the calculations this occurs at a combined rf-plus-magnetic resonance, and the loss coefficient jumps between fully constructive and fully destructive envelopes because the p-wave scattering phase changes rapidly as the magnetic field scans through the resonance. The paper further claims that this interference is observable even in nearly pure incoming states, so a superposition state is not a prerequisite; only two coexisting field-coupled pathways are needed.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction rests on assuming that spin-dependent anisotropic interactions in 7Li-41K are weak enough that the magnetic field confines each collision to a single spin-projection sector; if those interactions are not negligible, extra pathways can dephase and erase the interference.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the combined resonance, the two-body loss rate becomes an oscillatory function of magnetic field, allowing the loss to be enhanced or suppressed by small field adjustments.
  • Increasing the rf intensity widens the field range over which the interference is detectable, making the effect more tolerant of field noise than tuning the electric field alone.
  • Because the interference survives in nearly pure states, any ultracold mixture with a magnetically induced p-wave Feshbach resonance in the incoming channel could display the same pattern.
  • Away from the resonant region the interference is hidden by the dominant pathway, so the effect acts as a resonance-based amplifier rather than a background feature.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the interference contrast is as phase-sensitive as the model suggests, fitting the $K_2(B)$ oscillation period and contrast would give a new way to measure the p-wave scattering phase near the resonance, an extension the paper does not develop.
  • The same ring-coupling geometry could be applied to other observables, such as molecule association rates or kinetic-energy-release spectra, and to species with larger dipole moments where lower electric fields would close the ring.
  • The contrast of the predicted pattern could serve as a quantitative probe of the neglected spin-dependent couplings: stronger couplings should degrade the contrast, so a measured contrast would bound their strength.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes using combined static electric and radio-frequency fields to create 'ring-coupling' structures between different spin-exchange blocks and partial waves in 7Li-41K ultracold collisions. The authors perform close-coupling scattering calculations at T=1 nK and show that, when the rf field induces a free-free transition near a magnetically induced p-wave Feshbach resonance in the incoming channel, the total two-body loss rate K2 develops pronounced constructive and destructive interference features. They decompose the inelastic scattering into two pathways and argue that interference can be observed without the need for prepared superposition states.

Significance. If the predicted effect is correct, it provides a new, experimentally relevant handle for controlling inelastic ultracold collisions: tuning the rf frequency or field intensity near a p-wave Feshbach resonance could toggle the two-body loss over orders of magnitude. The paper uses a well-established coupled-channel framework with published LiK potentials, and the central physical mechanism — interference between the electric-field-coupled and rf-field-coupled routes — is plausible and clearly illustrated. The authors also give some attention to background losses and intraspecies collisions, which strengthens the experimental narrative. However, the central quantitative claims rely on two points that need correction or justification: an apparently misprinted interference formula and an unverified partial-wave truncation. Until these are addressed, the specific interference contrasts in Figs. 4 and 5 cannot be considered reliable.

major comments (3)
  1. [II, Eq. (8)] Equation (8) reads K20,11 = KI20,11 + KII20,11 + 2 cosθ sqrt(KI20,11 + KII20,11). Based on the preceding Landau-Zener sentence and the standard two-path interference formula, the square root should contain the product KI20,11 * KII20,11, not the sum. As written, the expression is dimensionally inconsistent (the square root of a rate is not a rate) and does not reduce correctly when one pathway dominates. Because all 'fully constructive' and 'fully destructive' envelopes Kc and Kd in Figs. 3(c,d), 4, and 5 are computed from this equation, those envelopes are not meaningful until the formula is corrected and the figures regenerated.
  2. [III, beginning of Results and Discussion] The truncation to s and p partial waves is not justified at the field strengths used. The electric-field term in Eq. (4) is a rank-1 dipole coupling that connects angular momenta ℓ and ℓ±1; at E=50 kV/cm the short-range dipole interaction can be comparable to Zeeman and hyperfine splittings. The p-wave resonance near 788 G can therefore virtually populate d-wave (ℓ=2) closed channels. The Wigner threshold law suppresses high-ℓ outgoing open channels, but it does not suppress closed-channel virtual population. The sentence later in the text (that d-wave contributions become significant when temperatures exceed the ultracold limit) addresses open-channel temperature scaling, not basis convergence. Please include a convergence test with ℓ_max=2 (or larger) at representative parameters, such as those of Fig. 4(d) and Fig. 5(c,d), and quantify how the positions and depths of the interference features shift.
  3. [I, paragraph 3] The assumption that weak spin-dependent (anisotropic) interactions are negligible for 7Li-41K is load-bearing for the single-block ring-coupling picture, but the paper does not quantify how small these interactions must be for the predicted interference contrast to survive at the 10^-15 cm^3/s level. If spin-spin or second-order spin-orbit couplings are not negligible, additional M_F-mixing pathways would introduce incoherent contributions that could partially erase the interference. Please provide a quantitative estimate (e.g., from the known anisotropy constants for LiK or a sensitivity calculation with a model anisotropic term) or state explicitly why the cited references bound these effects below the predicted interference contrast.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title] There is a typo in the title: 'scatteri ng' should be 'scattering'.
  2. [II, Eq. (6)] The notation S_cc' in Eq. (6) is introduced only as 'the scattering matrix S in the long-range'; please clarify what the subscripts c and c' denote and how they relate to 'different partial-waves with the same threshold'.
  3. [III, Fig. 2 caption] The caption says 'Long-dashed and dotted lines represent the s and p-wave bound states' without indicating which line corresponds to which wave; please identify them.
  4. [III, paragraph after Fig. 3] The text 'the tiny differences between constructive and destructive interactions for the left three routes' should read 'the remaining three routes' or 'the other three routes'.
  5. [III, paragraph before Fig. 5] There are several grammatical slips: 'The electric and rf field intensities are respective' should be 'respectively', and 'We also conscious that intraspecies collisions' should be 'We are also conscious'.
  6. [III, Fig. 1(c) reference] The labels '1/bigcircle∼ 4/bigcircle' appear garbled; they should be rendered as ①–④ or '1–4'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the interference profiles are direct outputs of the coupled-channel calculation, with the two-path decomposition used only as interpretation.

full rationale

The paper's central results (K2 and the interference patterns in Figs. 4 and 5) are obtained by numerically solving the time-independent coupled-channel Schrödinger equation with the Hamiltonian in Eqs. (1)-(5), using Li-K interaction potentials from the independent source Ref. [49]. The two-pathway decomposition in Eq. (8) is introduced after the full close-coupling calculation to interpret the computed rate coefficients; it is not used to generate the predictions. The quantities KI and KII in Eq. (8) are separately computed rates for individual pathways, not fitted parameters, and the full K2 is computed with both pathways coexisting. The choice of rf frequencies is a control parameter that places field-induced resonances near magnetic Feshbach resonances; this is a physical tuning choice, not a fit of the target loss rate. The self-citations (Refs. [31], [32], [46]) concern related inelastic-scattering and electric-field coupling studies but are not load-bearing for the central claim; the relevant potentials, resonance positions, and rf-resonance formalism come from independent sources (Refs. [49], [40], [42]). The restriction to s and p partial waves is an approximation that could affect quantitative accuracy, but it is not a circular step because the calculation does not define the predicted interference in terms of that truncation. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no result is forced by self-citation or by definition. The claimed interference is therefore a genuine numerical prediction of the stated scattering model.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central prediction rests on standard scattering theory plus input potential energy curves from prior literature. The external field intensities and rf frequencies are control settings chosen by hand to maximize visibility rather than fitted against the target result. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • rf frequency = 176 MHz (main result); 150, 185, 185.8, 97 MHz in other panels
    Hand-picked to place an rf-induced free-to-free resonance close to the magnetically induced p-wave Feshbach resonance in the incoming channel; this alignment is what makes the interference visible.
  • electric field intensity E = 10 kV/cm and 50 kV/cm
    Chosen control setting; stronger electric fields increase the s-p wave coupling that feeds Pathway II.
  • rf field intensity Brf = 0.1 G and 0.5 G
    Chosen control setting; larger Brf broadens the field range over which the interference pattern is detectable.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Born-Oppenheimer singlet and triplet potentials for 7Li-41K from Ref. [49] are accurate enough for quantitative rate-coefficient predictions.
    The close-coupling results, including the position of the p-wave Feshbach resonance near 788 G, depend on these input curves.
  • domain assumption At T = 1 nK only s and p partial waves contribute to the two-body loss.
    The paper excludes partial waves with l >= 2 because their contributions are negligible at ultracold temperature.
  • domain assumption Weak spin-dependent (anisotropic) interactions are negligible in 7Li-41K.
    Stated in Sec. I; this justifies the single-M_F block and ring-coupling model.
  • standard math The dressed-state treatment of the rf field with photon-number states and the propagation method of Refs. [47,48] give the correct S matrix.
    Eq. (1) is a standard dressed-state scattering Hamiltonian used in the ultracold collision literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Field-induced quantum interference of inelastic scattering in ultracold atomic collisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5OY3FLL2

@misc{pith2026241200743,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Field-induced quantum interference of inelastic scattering in ultracold atomic collisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5OY3FLL2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00743}
}
abstract

xploiting quantum interference remains a significant challenge in ultracold inelastic scattering. In this work, we propose a method to enable detectable quantum interference within the two-body loss rate resulting from various inelastic scattering channels. Our approach utilizes a ``ring-coupling" configuration, achieved by combining external radio-frequency and static electric fields during ultracold atomic collisions. We conduct close-coupling calculations for $^7$Li-$^{41}$K collisions at ultracold limit to validate our proposal. The results show that the interference profile displayed in two-body loss rate is unable to be observed with unoptimized external field parameters. Particularly, our findings demonstrate that the two-body loss rate coefficient exhibits distinct constructive and destructive interference patterns near the magnetically induced $p$-wave resonance in the incoming channel near which a rf-induced scattering resonance exists. These interference patterns become increasingly pronounced with greater intensities of the external fields. This work opens a new avenue for controlling inelastic scattering processes in ultracold collisions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00743 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) The created ultracold mixtures of two species con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Channel energies (solid lines) and bound states o [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. shows the relevant scattering rate coefficients as a function of magnetic field. Here γMFℓ,MFℓ ′ and KMF ℓ,M′ F ℓ ′ describer respective the partial-wave transition and two-body decay rate coefficients. The subscripts MFℓ or M′ F ℓ ′ express the corresponding incoming or outgoing chan￾nel in ℓ with MF or ℓ ′ with M′ F . The total two-body loss rate coefficient is represented by K2. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The rate coe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The rate coe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. C. Liu, B. Odom, Y . Y amamoto, and S. Tarucha, Nature (London) 391, 263 (1998)

    work page 1998

  2. [2]

    Ficek and S

    Z. Ficek and S. Swain, Quantum inter f erence and coherence : theory and experiments (Springer, New Y ork, 2005)

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    Drews, M

    B. Drews, M. Deiß, K. Jachymski, Z. Idziaszek, and J. H. De nschlag, Nat. Commun. 8, 14854 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Liu, D.-C

    L. Liu, D.-C. Zhang, H. Y ang, Y .-X. Liu, J. Nan, J. Rui, B. Z hao, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 253201 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Guo, C.-C

    Y . Guo, C.-C. Shu, D. Dong, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 223202 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    D. X. Dai, C. C. Wang, S. A. Harich, X. Wang, X. Y ang, S. Der C hao, and R. T. Skodje, S cience 300, 1730, (2003)

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    Chwede´ nczuk, F

    J. Chwede´ nczuk, F. Piazza, and A. Smerzi, Phys. Rev. A 87, 033607 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Stobi´ nska, A

    M. Stobi´ nska, A. Buraczewski, M. Moore, W. R. Clements, J. J. Renema, S. W. Nam, T. Gerrits, A. Lita, W. S. Kolthammer, A. Eckstein, and I. A. Walmsley, S ci. Adv. 5:eaau9674 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    M. D. Lachmann, H. Ahlers, D. Becker, A. N. Dinkelaker, J. Grosse, O. Hellmig, H. M¨ untinga, V . Schkolnik, S. T. Seidel, T. Wendrich, A. Wenzlawski, B. Carr ick, N. Gaaloul, D. L¨ udtke, C. Brax- maier, W. Ertmer, M. Krutzik, C. L¨ ammerzahl, A. Peters, W. P. Schleich, K. Se...

    2021

  2. [10]

    Z. Chen, I. M. Grace, S. L. Woltering, L. Chen, A. Gee, J. B augh, G. A. D. Briggs, L. Bogani, J. A. Mol, C. J. Lambert, H. L. Anderson, and J. O. Thomas, Nat. Nanotechnol. 19, 986 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Neumeier, M

    L. Neumeier, M. A. Ciampini, O. Romero-Isart, and N. Kie sel, PNAS , 121, e2306953121 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    S. E. Pollack, D. Dries, and R. G. Hulet, S cience 326, 1683 (2009)

    2009

  5. [13]

    B. K. Kendrick, H. Li, M. Li, S. Kotochigova, J. F. E. Crof t, and N. Balakrishnan, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 23, 5096 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    H. Son, J. J. Park, Y .-K. Lu, A. O. Jamison, T. Karman, and W. Ketterle, S cience, 375, 1006 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Zhao and J.-W

    B. Zhao and J.-W. Pan, Chem. S oc. Rev. 51, 1685 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Y .-X. Liu, L. Zhu, J. Luke, J. J. A. Houwman, M. C. Babin, M .-G. Hu, K.-K. Ni, arXiv:2310.07620 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    S. S. Kale, Y . P . Chen, and S. Kais, J. Chem. T heory Comput . 17, 7822 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Shapiro and P

    M. Shapiro and P . Brumer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2574 (1996)

    1996

  11. [19]

    Brumer, K

    P . Brumer, K. Bergmann, and M Shapiro, J. Chem. Phys. 113, 2053 (2000)

    2000

  12. [20]

    Herrera, Phys

    F. Herrera, Phys. Rev. A, 78, 054702 (2008)

    2008

  13. [21]

    D. B. Blasing, J. P´ erez-R´ ıos, Y . Y an, and Y . P . Chen,Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 073202 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Devolder, P

    A. Devolder, P . Brumer, and T. V . Tscherbul, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 153403 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Devolder, P

    A. Devolder, P . Brumer, and T. V . Tscherbul, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, L042025 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

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

    2010

  17. [25]

    C. Chin, V . Vuleti´ c, A. J. Kerman, and S. Chu, Phys. Rev. A 70, 032701 (2004)

    2004

  18. [26]

    Takekoshi, M

    T. Takekoshi, M. Debatin, R. Rameshan, F. Ferlaino, R. G rimm, H.-C. N¨ agerl, C. R. Le Sueur, J. M. Hutson, P . S. Julienne, S. Kotochigova, and E. Tiemann, Phys. Rev. A 85, 032506 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    C. L. Blackley, C. R. Le Sueur, J. M. Hutson, D. J. McCarro n, M. P . K¨ oppinger, H.-W. Cho, D. L. Jenkin, and S. L. Cornish, Phys. Rev. A 87, 033611 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    M. Guo, B. Zhu, B. Lu, X. Y e, F. Wang, R. V exiau, N. Bouloufa-Maafa, G. Q´ uem´ ener, O. Dulieu, and D. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 205303 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    Gr¨ obner, P

    M. Gr¨ obner, P . Weinmann, E. Kirilov, H.-C. N¨ agerl, P .S. Julienne, C. R. Le Sueur, and J. M. Hutson, Phys. Rev. A 95, 022715 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Weckesser, F

    P . Weckesser, F. Thielemann, D. Wiater, L. Karpa, K. Jac hymski, M. Tomza, A. Wojciechowska, T. Walker, and T. Schaetz, Nature (London), 600, 429 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Xie, Phys

    T. Xie, Phys. Rev. A 101, 052710 (2020). 14

    2020

  24. [32]

    T. Xie, M. Lepers, R. V exiau, A. Orb´ an, O. Dulieu, and N. Bouloufa-Maafa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 153202 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Bentine, A

    E. Bentine, A. J. Barker, K. Luksch, S. Sunami, T. L. Hart e, B. Y uen, C. J. Foot, D. J. Owens, and J. M. Hutson, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033163 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    P . D. Gregory, J. A. Blackmore, F. Matthew, L. M. Fernley , S. L. Bromley, J. M. Hutson, and S. L Cornish, New J . Phys. 23, 125004 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Wille, F

    E. Wille, F. M. Spiegelhalder, G. Kerner, D. Naik, A. Tre nkwalder, G. Hendl, F. Schreck, R. Grimm, T. G. Tiecke, J. T. M. Walraven, S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, E. Ti esinga, and P . S. Julienne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 053201 (2008)

    2008

  28. [36]

    Naik, A.Trenkwalder, C.Kohstall, F

    D. Naik, A.Trenkwalder, C.Kohstall, F. M. Spiegelhald er, M. Zaccanti, G. Hendl, F.Schreck, R. Grimm, T. M. Hanna, and P .S. Julienne, E. Phys. J. D 65, 55 (2011)

    2011

  29. [37]

    P . J. Dagdigian and L. Wharton, J. Chem. Phys. 57, 1487 (2003)

    2003

  30. [38]

    Aymar and O

    M. Aymar and O. Dulieu, J. Chem. Phys. 122, 204302 (2005)

    2005

  31. [39]

    C. He, X. Nie, V . Avalos, S. Botsi, S. Kumar, A. Y ang, and K . Dieckmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 243401 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Y . Cui, M. Deng, L. Y ou, B. Gao, and M. K. Tey, Phys. Rev. A 98, 042708 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    A. M. Kaufman, R. P . Anderson, Thomas M. Hanna, E. Tiesin ga, P . S. Julienne, and D. S. Hall, Phys. Rev. A 80, 050701(R) (2009)

    2009

  34. [42]

    M Hanna, E

    T. M Hanna, E. Tiesinga, and P . S. Julienne, New J . Phys. 12, 083031 (2010)

    2010

  35. [43]

    Xie, G.-R

    T. Xie, G.-R. Wang, Y . Huang, W. Zhang, and S.-L. Cong, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 45, 145302 (2012)

    2012

  36. [44]

    R. V . Krems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 123202 (2006)

    2006

  37. [45]

    Li and R

    Z. Li and R. V . Krems, Phys. Rev. A 75, 032709 (2007)

    2007

  38. [46]

    Xie, G.-R

    T. Xie, G.-R. Wang, W. Zhang, Y . Huang, and S.-L. Cong, Phys. Rev. A 84, 032712 (2011)

    2011

  39. [47]

    B. R. Johnson, J. Comp . Phys. 13, 445 (1973)

    1973

  40. [48]

    D. E. Manolopoulos, J. Chem. Phys. 85, 6425 (1986)

    1986

  41. [49]

    Tiemann, H

    E. Tiemann, H. Kn¨ ockel, P . Kowalczyk, W. Jastrzebski, A. Pashov, H. Salami, and A. J. Ross, Phys. Rev. A 79, 042716 (2009)

    2009

  42. [50]

    P . S. Julienne and J. M. Hutson, Phys. Rev. A 89, 052715 (2014)

    2014

  43. [51]

    Liu, X.-C

    X.-P . Liu, X.-C. Y ao, R. Qi, X.-Q. Wang, Y .-X. Wang, Y .-A. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. A 98, 022704 (2018). 15

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.