Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 30 references

A single atom emitting resonance fluorescence into a coherent beam, and its use for non-destructive atom thermometry

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single 87Rb atom, fluorescing into a weak coherent beam, imprints its thermal motion on the interference visibility, letting photon-count histograms serve as a non-destructive, time-resolved thermometer.

desk verdict Real demonstration of single-atom interference with an external coherent beam, with a useful thermometry spin-off; the calibration model and a dimension typo need fixing before I'd trust the 4% number. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.29515 v2 pith:DAH3JPCQ submitted 2026-07-31 physics.atom-ph

Tomáš Lamich , Laura Zarraoa , Sondos Elsehimy , Morgan W. Mitchell , Romain Veyron This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph
keywords resonancefluorescencesingletrappedatominterferencevisibilitynon-destructivethermometryrubidium-87photon-countingstatisticsopticaldipoletraptime-resolvedtemperaturemeasurement
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 shows that a single trapped rubidium atom can act as its own thermometer: resonance fluorescence from the atom interferes with a weak coherent probe beam, and the visibility of that interference falls as the atom heats up because thermal motion washes out the phase between the two fields. The authors build a photon-counting model of this effect, fit histograms of detected photons, and convert the fitted visibility into a temperature estimate. Using 1200 atoms with 80 ms of illumination per atom, they report 4% relative temperature uncertainty at about 30 microkelvin with roughly 200 microsecond time resolution, all without destroying the atom. This matches release-and-recapture thermometry while being non-destructive and much faster.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the visibility-temperature relation: V = 2 sqrt(Nsc Npr)/(Nsc + Npr) * exp(-sigma_phi^2/2), with sigma_phi^2 = 2 k_B T/(m omega^2), where Nsc and Npr are the collected counts from scattered and probe light, and omega is the trap frequency. This is paired with a photon-count distribution formed by convolving the arcsine distribution of the interference term with Poisson counting noise and a Gaussian noise PDF, which lets the authors extract the visibility from histograms and invert it through Eq. 8 to obtain a temperature estimate.

What would settle it

Measure the atom's position distribution directly via fluorescence imaging at ~200 us resolution while simultaneously recording the visibility histograms, and check whether the position variance actually equals k_B T/(m omega^2) at every time bin; alternatively, interleave the visibility readout with an independent thermometer such as resolved-sideband spectroscopy at several temperatures inside 18-133 uK and look for a systematic divergence at the high end, where trap anharmonicity is expected to break the Gaussian-phase assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In a far-off-resonance optical dipole trap, a single 87Rb atom is driven by a strong pump and a weak coherent probe at the same frequency. The collected photon flux in the probe mode follows Ncoll = Nsc + Npr - 2 sqrt(Nsc Npr) cos(phi), so the atom can either amplify or deamplify the coherent beam depending on the relative phase between scattered and probe light. The paper confirms this predicted first-order interference and shows that, after averaging over atomic motion, the visibility decays as exp(-sigma_phi^2/2), where sigma_phi^2 = 2 k_B T/(m omega^2) is the variance of the phase imprinted by the atom's center-of-mass position. Fitting the measured photon-count histograms with a distrib

Load-bearing premise

The temperature estimate assumes the atom's position follows a Boltzmann distribution in a harmonic, Y-Z symmetric trap, so that the phase fluctuations are Gaussian with variance 2 k_B T/(m omega^2); if the trap is anharmonic or the position distribution becomes non-thermal while the atom heats, the inferred temperature is biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Trapped-atom experiments can monitor center-of-mass temperature without losing the atom, removing the need to reload and recool for every thermometry point.
  • The demonstrated 4% uncertainty at ~30 uK with ~200 us time resolution improves on the ~10% destructive release-and-recapture benchmark used in the same setup.
  • The interference signal also offers a path-stabilization handle: because the observed flux depends on the pump-probe phase, the same signal could lock optical path lengths to a single emitter.
  • At high probe flux the configuration approaches homodyne detection of resonance fluorescence, potentially opening the signal to studies of quantum dynamics.
  • The method should transfer to other trapped neutral atoms and ions, since it only requires a resonant two-level transition and a coherent probe beam.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors do not go this far, but the same signal could be phase-locked and turned into a continuous, real-time temperature servo, making microsecond-timescale feedback cooling of single atoms practical.
  • A variant in which the probe is introduced after collection, via a weak beamsplitter and a coherent state, would extend the method to emitters coupled to only one traveling mode; the paper mentions the idea in passing, but its noise floor and practical limits are left open.
  • Because the measurement is non-destructive, repeated readings on the same atom could track heating dynamics shot by shot rather than averaging over many atoms, at the cost of a more complex statistical reconstruction.
  • A visible signature of trap anharmonicity would be a systematic drift of the inferred temperature with probe intensity or time-bin position at fixed physical temperature, which would test the Gaussian phase-variance assumption directly.
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 reports an experiment in which a single 87Rb atom in a far-off-resonance optical dipole trap is simultaneously illuminated by a resonant pump beam and a weak resonant probe beam. The collected probe-mode light shows first-order interference that depends on the relative phase between the probe and the atom's resonance fluorescence, confirming the predictions of Goncalves et al. The authors develop a statistical model of the photon-count histograms, including an arcsine distribution convolved with technical noise, and use the fitted visibility to infer the atomic center-of-mass temperature. They report temperature uncertainties of about 4% for ~30 μK temperatures with ~200 μs time resolution, using 1200 atoms with 80 1-ms exposures each, and compare the resulting temperatures with release-and-recapture thermometry at the endpoints.

Significance. If the method works as claimed, it provides a non-destructive, time-resolved thermometer for single trapped atoms and ions, with better time resolution than destructive methods and without losing the atom. This would be useful for optimizing cooling, feedback control, and quantum information experiments. The central interference observation is interesting and the statistical model is clearly presented. The paper also gives a concrete, falsifiable prediction connecting interference visibility to temperature, using independently measured scattering rates, probe rates, and trap frequency rather than a fitted temperature constant. However, the manuscript contains several dimensional inconsistencies in the printed formulas and does not quantify a potentially important systematic bias from position-dependent scattering amplitudes and trap anharmonicity; these issues need to be addressed before the accuracy claim is fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eqs. (1)-(2) and text after Eq. (2)] The steady-state density-matrix elements are printed as rho_ee = |Omega|^2/Gamma_0 and rho_eg = i Omega/Gamma_0. As written, rho_ee has units of rate (s^-1) rather than dimensionless population, and rho_eg is likewise dimensionally inconsistent. Similarly, the phase variance is stated as sigma_phi^2 = 2 k_B T/(m omega^2), which has units of length^2; since phi_cm = 2pi(dY-dZ)/lambda, the variance must contain (2pi/lambda)^2. This is not a purely cosmetic issue: Eq. (8) includes lambda^2/(4pi^2), which is inconsistent with the printed sigma_phi^2. Please correct these formulas and re-derive Eqs. (2) and (8) so that the numerical factors can be checked.
  2. [Eqs. (3)-(8) and Fig. 3] The visibility model averages only the phase phi_cm and takes the amplitude prefactor sqrt(Nsc Npr) outside the average. However, the paper itself notes in the discussion of Fig. 3 that the mean count shifts as the atom heats, attributed to reduced light shifts and collection efficiency at larger displacements. At the temperatures considered, the rms displacement is a substantial fraction of the 1.32 um waist, so position-dependent scattering amplitude and trap anharmonicity can reduce the visibility independently of temperature. Equation (8) attributes all visibility loss to the Gaussian phase variance, which would bias the inferred temperature. The quoted 4% uncertainty is the fit covariance only and does not include this calibration error. Please provide a quantitative estimate of this systematic bias, for example from a Monte Carlo using the measured intensity profile, or restrict th
  3. [Heating model, Eqs. (13)-(14) and Fig. 4] The validation against release-and-recapture (R&R) thermometry uses R&R only at the two endpoints, t=0 and t=1 ms. The 'interpolated R&R' curve is generated by assuming T(t) = T_init + alpha * integral Nsc(t') dt' with alpha chosen to force T(1 ms) = T_end. Thus the mid-range agreement visible in Fig. 4 is not an independent check of the visibility thermometer; it is a consistency check with a model whose free parameter is fixed by the endpoints. The same pump-only scattering data are used in both the heating interpolation and in fixing the amplitude prefactor for the visibility model. This does not make the estimator circular, but it does mean the reported 4% uncertainty does not yet establish absolute accuracy at intermediate temperatures. Please state this limitation explicitly and, if possible, add an intermediate-temperature calibration.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (13)] The fitted decay rate is given as xi = 0.51/s, but the time axis is in ms and the data visibly decay on a 1-ms scale. This is presumably 0.51/ms; please correct the unit.
  2. [Fig. 7] Axis label 'Colleted counts' -> 'Collected counts'.
  3. [References and acknowledgments] The name 'Goncalves' is spelled inconsistently: 'Goncalves' in the abstract and reference [19], but 'Gonçalves' in the acknowledgments. Please standardize.
  4. [Abstract and Sec. IV] The abstract claims 'time-resolved' thermometry with '200 us time resolution.' This is the bin width of an ensemble average over 80 exposures per atom and 1200 atoms, not a single-shot real-time measurement. The text later notes the fit becomes unstable at low photon numbers and above ~70 uK; this limitation should be stated in the abstract or at least in the conclusions.
  5. [Data availability] The statement 'available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request' is weaker than current best practice; consider depositing the processed histograms and fitting code in a public repository to support reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the temperature estimator inverts an independently measured visibility, with no fitted temperature parameter and no calibration to the R&R anchors.

full rationale

The central thermometry claim, Eq. (8), is an inversion of the visibility expression Eq. (4). The inputs to Eq. (8) are the measured visibility V=(b-a)/(b+a) from maximum-likelihood histogram fits, independently measured photon numbers Nsc and Npr, and independently measured trap frequency ω. No parameter of Eq. (8) is fitted to the R&R temperatures; the R&R-derived T(t) is used only as an external comparison curve, anchored at endpoints, and is not fed into the estimator. The model is taken from the authors' prior work [19], but this paper tests it experimentally (phase-dependent enhancement/suppression and visibility decline), so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The main vulnerability—Eq. (8) attributes all visibility loss to a Gaussian phase variance, potentially folding in amplitude-position correlations and anharmonicity—is a systematic-error concern, not a circularity: the measured visibility would differ if those effects were present, and the theory could be falsified. The fitted σ_n and the interpolation constants α and ξ are not used in the temperature estimator itself. Thus no step in the derivation chain reduces by construction to its own inputs.

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

The central thermometer uses no fitted temperature-calibration constant: T is computed from measured Nsc and Npr, fitted a and b, and the independently determined trap frequency. The fitted parameters sigma_n, xi, and alpha belong to technical noise and the auxiliary heating model used only for comparison. The main domain assumption is thermal equilibrium in a harmonic trap.

free parameters (5)
  • a (lower bound of the arcsine distribution) = not stated in text; obtained by maximum-likelihood fits to histograms
    Fitted via Eq. 6 for each time bin and Npr/Nsc ratio; the visibility V=(b-a)/(b+a) and hence T in Eq. 8 depend on it.
  • b (upper bound of the arcsine distribution) = not stated in text; obtained by maximum-likelihood fits to histograms
    Fitted via Eq. 6; used with a to compute visibility and temperature.
  • sigma_n (technical noise variance) = varies from about 20 to 160 counts across time bins (Figure 6)
    Fitted in the maximum-likelihood histograms of Eq. 6; accounts for slow drifts of Nsc, Npr, and C. It is not used in the temperature estimator, but it is a fit parameter of the model.
  • xi (pump-scattering decay rate) = 0.51 per ms
    Fitted to the pump-only scattering rate in Figure 7 using Eq. 13; used to model the heating rate and construct the interpolated R&R comparison curve.
  • alpha (heating conversion coefficient) = 40.18 uK per count
    Chosen such that T(1ms)=T_end in Eq. 14. This is a calibration for the comparison curve only; it does not enter the visibility temperature estimator.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The atom is a closed two-level system on the F=2,mF=-2 to F'=3,mF'=-3 transition.
    Optical pumping prepares the stretched state and the transition is closed, so the model ignores other hyperfine and magnetic sublevels.
  • domain assumption The atomic center-of-mass distribution in the trap is Boltzmann with the same harmonic frequency omega in the Y and Z directions.
    This gives the Gaussian distribution of phi_cm with variance 2kBT/(m omega^2) and underlies Eq. 8. The trap is not directly verified to be harmonic over the sampled temperature range.
  • domain assumption The path phase phi_path is uniformly distributed over the many 1 ms acquisitions and 1200 atoms.
    Needed for the arcsine distribution in Eq. 7; the paper notes slow path drifts over minutes, so the histogram average should sample all phases.
  • domain assumption The detected photon number for a fixed mean is Poisson distributed, and technical fluctuations are zero-mean Gaussian.
    Standard photon-counting model; used in Eq. 6.
  • standard math Standard two-level optical Bloch equations in the low-saturation limit (Eq. 1).
    Provides the density-matrix expressions for rho_ee and rho_eg. Note the paper writes rho_ee=|Omega|^2/Gamma_0, which is dimensionally inconsistent; the intended relation is rho_ee approximately |Omega|^2/Gamma_0^2. This axiom is standard once corrected.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A single atom emitting resonance fluorescence into a coherent beam, and its use for non-destructive atom thermometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DAH3JPCQ

@misc{pith2026260729515,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A single atom emitting resonance fluorescence into a coherent beam, and its use for non-destructive atom thermometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DAH3JPCQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29515}
}
abstract

Using a far-off-resonance optical dipole trap, we place a single neutral $^{87}$Rb atom in a weak, atom-resonant coherent beam, while also strongly illuminating it from an orthogonal direction to produce resonance fluorescence. The atom-modified coherent beam is then collected and its photon statistics analyzed. We observe first-order interference that can increase or decrease the beam flux, depending on the relative phase of the coherent beam and resonance fluorescence. This confirms predictions of Goncalves et al. [Phys. Rev. A 104, 013724]. The interference visibility is also shown to be a sensitive, time-resolved, non-destructive thermometer: by fitting the resulting photon count distributions, we infer the center-of-mass localization of the atom within the trap. With $1200$ atoms and integration time of $80\mathrm{ms}$ per atom, we demonstrate temperature uncertainties of $4 %$ for $\sim 30 \mu\mathrm{K}$ temperatures at $\sim 200\mu\mathrm{s}$ time resolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29515 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Left: Experimental geometry. Four high numerical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Experimental sequence. An atom is loaded to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Thermometry from interference visibility, estimated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Pump-scattering spectra at zero magnetic field (blue) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Average scattering rate from a single atom induced [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Progress in trapped-ion quantum simulation,

    M. Foss-Feig, G. Pagano, A. C. Potter, and N. Y. Yao, “Progress in trapped-ion quantum simulation,” Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics16, 145 (2025)

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Quan- tum computing with neutral atoms,

    L. Henriet, L. Beguin, A. Signoles, T. Lahaye, A. Browaeys, G.-O. Reymond, and C. Jurczak, “Quan- tum computing with neutral atoms,” Quantum4, 327 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Quan- tum networks with neutral atom processing nodes,

    J. P. Covey, H. Weinfurter, and H. Bernien, “Quan- tum networks with neutral atom processing nodes,” npj Quantum Information9, 90 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Excitation of a single atom with exponentially rising light pulses,

    S. A. Aljunid, G. Maslennikov, Y. Wang, H. L. Dao, V. Scarani, and C. Kurtsiefer, “Excitation of a single atom with exponentially rising light pulses,” Physical Re- view Letters111, 103001 (2013)

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    An atom and a photon,

    J. Volz, M. Weber, D. Schlenk, W. Rosenfeld, C. Kurt- siefer, and H. Weinfurter, “An atom and a photon,” Laser Physics17, 1007 (2007)

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Event-ready bell test using entangled atoms simultaneously closing detection and locality loopholes,

    W. Rosenfeld, D. Burchardt, R. Garthoff, K. Redeker, N. Ortegel, M. Rau, and H. Weinfurter, “Event-ready bell test using entangled atoms simultaneously closing detection and locality loopholes,” Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 010402 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Single-atom resolved collective spectroscopy of a one-dimensional atomic array,

    B. Hofer, D. Bloch, G. Biagioni, N. Bonvalet, A. Browaeys, and I. Ferrier-Barbut, “Single-atom resolved collective spectroscopy of a one-dimensional atomic array,” PRX Quantum6, 030364 (2025)

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    A simplified mølmer–sørensen gate for the trapped ion quantum computer,

    H. Azuma, “A simplified mølmer–sørensen gate for the trapped ion quantum computer,” Physica Scripta99, 045107 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Exploring the finite- temperature behavior of rydberg atom arrays: A tensor network approach,

    Y. Han, H. Zhang, and L. He, “Exploring the finite- temperature behavior of rydberg atom arrays: A tensor network approach,” Phys. Rev. B111, 235133 (2025)

    2025

  2. [10]

    Highly efficient opti- cal quantum memory with long coherence time in cold atoms,

    Y.-W. Cho, G. T. Campbell, J. L. Everett, J. Bernu, D. B. Higginbottom, M. T. Cao, J. Geng, N. P. Robins, P. K. Lam, and B. C. Buchler, “Highly efficient opti- cal quantum memory with long coherence time in cold atoms,” Optica3, 100 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    Energy distribution and cooling of a single atom in an optical tweezer,

    C. Tuchendler, A. M. Lance, A. Browaeys, Y. R. P. Sor- tais, and P. Grangier, “Energy distribution and cooling of a single atom in an optical tweezer,” Phys. Rev. A78, 033425 (2008)

    2008

  4. [12]

    Three-dimensional viscous confinement and cooling of atoms by resonance radiation pressure,

    S. Chu, L. Hollberg, J. E. Bjorkholm, A. Cable, and A. Ashkin, “Three-dimensional viscous confinement and cooling of atoms by resonance radiation pressure,” Phys. Rev. Lett.55, 48 (1985)

    1985

  5. [13]

    Observation of atoms laser cooled below the doppler limit,

    P. D. Lett, R. N. Watts, C. I. Westbrook, W. D. Phillips, P. L. Gould, and H. J. Metcalf, “Observation of atoms laser cooled below the doppler limit,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 169 (1988)

    1988

  6. [14]

    Resolved- sideband raman cooling of a bound atom to the 3d zero- point energy,

    C. Monroe, D. M. Meekhof, B. E. King, S. R. Jefferts, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and P. Gould, “Resolved- sideband raman cooling of a bound atom to the 3d zero- point energy,” Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 4011 (1995)

    1995

  7. [16]

    Preparation of 87rb and 133cs in the motional ground state of a single optical tweezer,

    S. Spence, R. V. Brooks, D. K. Ruttley, A. Guttridge, and S. L. Cornish, “Preparation of 87rb and 133cs in the motional ground state of a single optical tweezer,” New Journal of Physics24, 103022 (2022)

    2022

  8. [17]

    Light interference from single atoms and their mirror images,

    J. Eschner, C. Raab, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and R. Blatt, “Light interference from single atoms and their mirror images,” Nature413, 495 (2001)

    2001

  9. [18]

    Interferometric thermometry of a single sub-doppler-cooled atom,

    L. Slodiˇ cka, G. H´ etet, N. R¨ ock, S. Gerber, P. Schindler, M. Kumph, M. Hennrich, and R. Blatt, “Interferometric thermometry of a single sub-doppler-cooled atom,” Phys. Rev. A85, 043401 (2012)

    2012

  10. [19]

    Un- conventional quantum correlations of light emitted by a single atom in free space,

    D. Goncalves, M. W. Mitchell, and D. E. Chang, “Un- conventional quantum correlations of light emitted by a single atom in free space,” Phys. Rev. A104, 013724 (2021)

    2021

  11. [20]

    Maltese cross coupling to individ- ual cold atoms in free space,

    N. Bruno, L. C. Bianchet, V. Prakash, N. Li, N. Alves, and M. W. Mitchell, “Maltese cross coupling to individ- ual cold atoms in free space,” Opt. Express27, 31042 (2019)

    2019

  12. [21]

    Manipulating and measuring single atoms in the maltese cross geometry [version 2; peer re- view: 2 approved],

    L. Bianchet, N. Alves, L. Zarraoa, N. Bruno, and M. Mitchell, “Manipulating and measuring single atoms in the maltese cross geometry [version 2; peer re- view: 2 approved],” Open Research Europe1(2022), 10.12688/openreseurope.13972.2

    2022 doi

  13. [22]

    Cooling a single atom in an optical tweezer to its quantum ground state,

    A. M. Kaufman, B. J. Lester, and C. A. Regal, “Cooling a single atom in an optical tweezer to its quantum ground state,” Phys. Rev. X2, 041014 (2012)

    2012

  14. [23]

    Polarization-gradient cooling of 1d and 2d ion coulomb crystals,

    M. K. Joshi, A. Fabre, C. Maier, T. Brydges, D. Kiesen- hofer, H. Hainzer, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, “Polarization-gradient cooling of 1d and 2d ion coulomb crystals,” New Journal of Physics22, 103013 (2020)

    2020

  15. [24]

    Sub-doppler cooling of a trapped ion in a phase-stable polarization gradient,

    E. Clements, F. W. Knollmann, S. Corsetti, Z. Li, A. Hattori, M. Notaros, R. Swint, T. Sneh, M. E. Kim, A. D. Leu, P. Callahan, T. Mahony, G. N. West, C. Sorace-Agaskar, D. Kharas, R. McConnell, C. D. Bruzewicz, I. L. Chuang, J. Notaros, and J. Chiaverini, “Sub-doppler cooling...

    2026

  16. [25]

    Quantify- ing the role of thermal motion in free-space light-atom interaction,

    Y.-S. Chin, M. Steiner, and C. Kurtsiefer, “Quantify- ing the role of thermal motion in free-space light-atom interaction,” Phys. Rev. A95, 043809 (2017)

    2017

  17. [26]

    Feed- back cooling of a single neutral atom,

    M. Koch, C. Sames, A. Kubanek, M. Apel, M. Balbach, A. Ourjoumtsev, P. W. H. Pinkse, and G. Rempe, “Feed- back cooling of a single neutral atom,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 173003 (2010)

    2010

  18. [27]

    Feedback cooling of a single trapped ion,

    P. Bushev, D. Rotter, A. Wilson, F. m. c. Dubin, C. Becher, J. Eschner, R. Blatt, V. Steixner, P. Rabl, and P. Zoller, “Feedback cooling of a single trapped ion,” Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 043003 (2006)

    2006

  19. [28]

    Telling differ- ent unravelings apart via nonlinear quantum-trajectory averages,

    E. Pi˜ nol, T. K. Mavrogordatos, D. Keys, R. Veyron, P. Sierant, M. Angel Garc ´ ıa-March, S. Grandi, M. W. Mitchell, J. Wehr, and M. Lewenstein, “Telling differ- ent unravelings apart via nonlinear quantum-trajectory averages,” Phys. Rev. Res.6, L032057 (2024)

    2024

  20. [29]

    Quantum jump unravelings for non-markovian open system dynamics: a review,

    F. Settimo and J. Piilo, “Quantum jump unravelings for non-markovian open system dynamics: a review,” (2026), arXiv:2605.07797 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Quantum jump spectroscopy of a single neutral atom for precise sub- wavelength intensity measurements,

    L. C. Bianchet, N. Alves, L. Zarraoa, T. Lamich, V. Prakash, and M. W. Mitchell, “Quantum jump spectroscopy of a single neutral atom for precise sub- wavelength intensity measurements,” Phys. Rev. Res.4, L042026 (2022)

    2022

  22. [31]

    Ab- 6 solute frequency references at 1529 and 1560 nm using modulation transfer spectroscopy,

    Y. N. M. de Escobar, S. P. ´Alvarez, S. Coop, T. Vander- bruggen, K. T. Kaczmarek, and M. W. Mitchell, “Ab- 6 solute frequency references at 1529 and 1560 nm using modulation transfer spectroscopy,” Opt. Lett.40, 4731 (2015). 7 End matter for: A single atom emitting resonance ...

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.