Characterization of Feshbach resonances in $^6\mathrm{Li}{-}^7\mathrm{Li}$ using improved interaction potentials

Jing-Chen Zhang; Paul Julienne; Yu Liu

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Characterization of Feshbach resonances in $^6\mathrm{Li}{-}^7\mathrm{Li}$ using improved interaction potentials

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper predicts that all Feshbach resonances in the lowest hyperfine channel of 6Li-7Li are narrow (0.01–0.1 G), strongly closed-channel dominated, and predominantly triplet in electronic spin character, contrasting sharply with homonucl

desk verdict Improved homonuclear Li potentials are a real step forward, but the 6Li–7Li resonance catalog rests on an untested arithmetic mean of shift parameters and should be treated as a qualitative guide, not a validated prediction. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.02361 v2 pith:HV33ZNF4 submitted 2026-03-02 physics.atom-ph cond-mat.quant-gas

Jing-Chen Zhang , Paul Julienne , Yu Liu This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.atom-phcond-mat.quant-gas PACS 34.20.Cf34.50.Cx67.85.-d

keywords Feshbachresonanceslithiumdimersultracoldcollisionsinteractionpotentialscoupled-channelsscatteringlengthSTIRAPheteronuclearmolecules

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 builds improved interaction potentials for lithium dimers by adding small quadratic short-range shifts to spectroscopically accurate Morse/long-range curves for the singlet and triplet electronic states, then fitting the four shift parameters to measured binding energies, scattering lengths, and resonance positions of 6Li2 and 7Li2. The fit reduces the overall reduced chi-squared from about 123 to 1.41 and reproduces the last singlet bound level of 6Li2 to ~0.01 MHz. Using these potentials in coupled-channels calculations, the paper predicts that all Feshbach resonances in the lowest hyperfine channel of mixed 6Li-7Li are narrow (~0.01–0.1 G), strongly closed-channel dominated, and predominantly triplet in electronic spin character—unlike the broad, open-channel, singlet-dominated resonances of the homonuclear systems. This matters because the resonances provide a foundation for designing Raman optical-transfer pathways to produce ultracold Li2 molecules in deeply bound rovibrational levels of both potentials across all three isotopologues.

What carries the argument

The central object is the modified MLR potential: a spectroscopically accurate Morse/long-range analytic potential-energy curve for each of the X1Σ+ and a3Σ+ states, augmented by a quadratic inner-wall shift term V_shift(R) = S_S (R - R_e,S)^2 for R < R_e,S. The four shift parameters (singlet and triplet for each homonuclear isotopologue) are the only free parameters in a weighted least-squares fit to threshold observables; mixed-isotope 6Li-7Li potentials are constructed by arithmetic averaging of the homonuclear shifts, with the difference taken as uncertainty. Resonance classification relies on the dimensionless resonance-strength parameter s_res and on open/closed-channel fractions extra

What would settle it

Measure the predicted 214 G resonance in the (1,1) channel of 6Li-7Li with sub-10-mG resolution; if it is absent or displaced by more than the stated uncertainty, the mixed-isotope shift averaging fails. Alternatively, measure the singlet fraction of the Feshbach molecule near 226 G via radio-frequency spectroscopy; a singlet fraction far from the near-zero predicted value would disprove the predominantly-triplet claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the near-threshold physics of 6Li-7Li is governed by the last bound vibrational level of the triplet a3Σ+ potential (v=10), not the singlet potential as in 6Li2 and 7Li2. Consequently, the Feshbach molecules in the (1,1) entrance channel remain predominantly triplet across the entire field range and are closed-channel dominated, with resonance-strength parameters s_res around 10^-5 to 10^-3 and widths of tens of milligauss. The paper validates the underlying potentials by reproducing the last singlet and triplet bound levels of 6Li2 to ~0.01 MHz and ~1 MHz, and by matching four of five predicted (1,1) resonances to measured positions within experimental uncertainty

Load-bearing premise

The mixed-isotope 6Li-7Li potentials are obtained by averaging the fitted short-range shifts of the two homonuclear systems, and if the true 6Li-7Li short-range correction differs from this arithmetic mean—as the paper itself cautions—the predicted resonance positions, widths, and spin characters would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The 6Li-7Li (1,1) resonances are too narrow for broad magnetic tuning, but four of them match measured positions within ~1 G at ~240 G, providing a benchmark for the triplet interaction potential.
The predominantly triplet Feshbach molecules naturally favor STIRAP transfer to deeply bound triplet levels of a3Σ+; reaching singlet X1Σ+ levels requires an intermediate state with mixed singlet-triplet character.
The predicted extremely narrow 214 G resonance has not been observed and offers a direct, unambiguous test of the model and the mixed-isotope shift assumption.
The broad resonance in the (6,1) channel near 525 G is too short-lived (lifetime ~2 μs) for coherent molecule formation, despite its large width.
The improved homonuclear potentials reduce the reduced chi-squared from ~123 to 1.41 and reproduce recent high-precision bound-state data, so they supersede earlier potentials for threshold scattering calculations.

Reading between the lines

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

A global fit that includes heteronuclear 6Li-7Li spectroscopy, rather than the arithmetic-mean shift prescription, would likely resolve the few-gauss residuals at ~550 G and remove the reliance on ad hoc inner-wall shifts.
The switch of the least-bound level from singlet to triplet with reduced mass may be a general feature of heteronuclear alkali mixtures, suggesting similarly narrow, triplet-dominated resonances in other mixed isotope combinations.
Because the 6Li-7Li resonance positions are extremely sensitive to the triplet short-range phase, precision measurements of these resonances could serve as a sensitive probe of the triplet potential, complementing spectroscopy.
One could test the predicted spin character directly via rf spectroscopy of the Feshbach molecule near a resonance, measuring the singlet fraction and checking the predicted near-zero values.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know two things. First, the homonuclear part is genuinely good: refitting the MLR potentials with the inner-wall shift brings the reduced chi-squared from about 123 to 1.41, and the external check against the Semczuk binding energies improves by roughly an order of magnitude over Julienne–Hutson. That is a real contribution. Second, the headline 6Li–7Li predictions are built on an arithmetic mean of the 6Li6Li and 7Li7Li shift parameters, and the paper openly says that mean may not faithfully represent the correction for the heteronuclear system. The stress-test note is accurate: the predicted (1,1) poles at 544.23 and 552.43 G miss the measured values by 4.3 and 3.8 G, far outside the quoted uncertainties. So the quantitative resonance catalog is not yet validated.

What is new and useful: this is the first coupled-channel characterization of 6Li–7Li with BBO-corrected potentials, and the spin-character analysis — triplet, closed-channel-dominated, narrow — is a direct output of the wavefunctions and is likely robust, because the last-bound-state assignment (triplet v=10) is not sensitive to the averaging details. The paper also gives a thoughtful discussion of why the shift terms perturb intermediate vibrational levels, and it flags the need for a global fit including heteronuclear data. That is honest and helpful.

Soft spots, in proportion. The main one is the mean-shift assumption; it is load-bearing for every number in Tables IV and V. The paper concedes this, but that does not make the predictions solid. The measured resonances it compares against come from a 2005 conference proceedings, which may have larger systematic errors than the quoted 0.8–0.9 G, but even taking that at face value, several-gauss discrepancies mean the catalog should be treated as indicative. A second, minor issue: the shift parameters are fitted only to homonuclear data, so heteronuclear predictions are extrapolations. The paper says this too.

Who is this for? Anyone working on ultracold Li mixtures or STIRAP to Li2 molecules. The improved homonuclear potentials and the qualitative spin-character picture are worth having; the specific resonance positions and widths should be used with caution until either a global fit or new 6Li–7Li data settles the shift question.

My recommendation: send it to peer review. The homonuclear improvement is solid, the limiting assumption is clearly stated, and the paper makes testable predictions. A good referee will ask for a more systematic treatment of the BBO scaling or for a fit that includes heteronuclear data, but the work deserves referee time.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper refines Li–Li interaction potentials by adding a quadratic inner-wall shift to previously published MLR potential curves and fitting four shift parameters to homonuclear 6Li2 and 7Li2 threshold data. The fitted potentials give a reduced chi-squared of 1.41 over 18 observables (compared with ~123 for Ref. [13]) and reproduce the last bound levels of 6Li2 from Ref. [14] to ~0.01 MHz (singlet) and ~1 MHz (triplet). The authors then construct 6Li–7Li potentials by taking the arithmetic mean of the homonuclear shift parameters and use those potentials in coupled-channel calculations to predict s-wave Feshbach resonances. In the lowest hyperfine channel they find narrow, strongly closed-channel-dominated, predominantly triplet resonances, and they catalog additional resonances in excited channels. Comparison with experiment shows that two of the four measured (1,1) resonances are reproduced within about 1 G, while the two near 544 G and 552 G are off by about 4 G.

Significance. The homonuclear fit is a genuine, carefully validated improvement: the reduced chi-squared is reduced by two orders of magnitude and the external check against Ref. [14] is about ten times better than Ref. [13]. The qualitative prediction that the lowest-channel 6Li–7Li resonances are narrow, closed-channel dominated, and predominantly triplet is physically interesting and likely robust, since it follows from the least-bound triplet state being near threshold. The paper is also transparent about the limitations of the mixed-isotope potential. However, the quantitative 6Li–7Li resonance catalog is not yet validated: the two high-field pole positions differ from experiment by several gauss, far outside the quoted uncertainties, and the excited-channel inelastic widths in Table V have a sign inconsistency. The work is a solid contribution to the homonuclear potentials and a promising but provisional treatment of the heteronuclear system.

major comments (2)

[Section III B, Eq. (16) and Table IV] The 6Li–7Li potentials are constructed by setting S_S^(6,7) = (S_S^(6,6)+S_S^(7,7))/2 and taking |S^(6,6)−S^(7,7)| as the uncertainty. This is an interpolation assumption, not a derived property of how beyond-Born-Oppenheimer corrections scale with reduced mass. It is load-bearing because every resonance position, width, and channel fraction in Tables IV and V is computed from these averaged potentials. Table IV shows the consequence: the predicted (1,1) poles at 544.23(57) G and 552.43(57) G differ from the measured 539.9(8) G and 548.6(9) G by 4.3 G and 3.8 G, respectively—several times the quoted experimental (~0.8–0.9 G) and theoretical (~0.57 G) uncertainties. The quoted theoretical uncertainties therefore cannot be complete unless they include the systematic error of the mean prescription. I request a sensitivity analysis varying S_S^(6,7) over its stated uncertainty, or better, a
[Section III B, Table V] The text preceding Table V states that the resonances in the higher hyperfine channels have Γ_B^inel > 0, but every row of Table V reports a negative Γ_B^inel (e.g., −3.322×10^-6 mG for the 252.38-G (2,1) resonance). A negative width is unphysical in Eq. (9) because Γ_B^inel is associated with the finite lifetime of the quasi-bound state. Unless there is an unexplained sign convention in the complex scattering-length fit, the extracted inelastic widths are internally inconsistent. Please correct the sign convention or the extracted values, and verify that the products a_res Γ_B^inel and (a_bg/a0)Δ remain consistent after the correction.

minor comments (5)

[Table I] The last two rows of the 7Li–7Li block both read S_(7,7)_0; the second should very likely be S_(7,7)_1. Please fix the label.
[Several places] There are typographical errors: 'Mangetically' in the Introduction, 'calcualtions' in the Table IV caption, 'discrepencies' in Section IV, and 'close-channel' in Section III D (should be 'closed-channel').
[Equations (1) and (16)] The shift term is defined twice, in Eq. (1) and again as Eq. (16). Please define it once and refer back to avoid redundancy.
[Section II A] The definition of reduced chi-squared as χ^2_ν = χ^2/ν with ν = N−M is standard, but the notation 'χ^2_ν = χ^2_ν' in the text appears garbled. Please clarify.
[Table IV and surrounding text] The text says five poles are identified, but Table IV lists only four and says the 214-G resonance is too narrow to be characterized. Please make the status of the 214.5-G pole explicit in the table caption or text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 6Li–7Li resonance predictions are genuine coupled-channel outputs benchmarked against independent measurements; the arithmetic-mean interpolation is an acknowledged model limitation, not a circular input.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The four shift parameters S_0^(6,6), S_1^(6,6), S_0^(7,7), S_1^(7,7) are fitted to homonuclear 6Li–6Li and 7Li–7Li threshold observables (Table I), and the 6Li–7Li potentials are constructed via the arithmetic-mean prescription S_S^(6,7) = (S_S^(6,6)+S_S^(7,7))/2 (Sec. III B). This is an interpolation/assumption, not a fit to 6Li–7Li data, and the paper explicitly concedes that 'the arithmetic-mean prescription may not faithfully represent the threshold-specific correction required for the 6Li−7Li system' (Sec. IV). That is a model-uncertainty caveat, not a circular reduction: no equation defines the predicted 6Li–7Li resonance positions, widths, or spin characters as the fitted homonuclear parameters themselves. The resonance catalog in Tables IV and V is obtained from coupled-channel scattering calculations, and the main claims are checked against independent external measurements: Table IV compares predicted 6Li–7Li poles to Ref. [16], and Table III validates the fitted homonuclear potentials against post-fit measurements of Ref. [14]. The spin-character analysis (Sec. III C) is a direct projection of coupled-channel wavefunctions via Eqs. (22) and (23), not an input assumption. The self-citations to Julienne and Hutson (Ref. [13]) and to Chin, Grimm, Julienne, and Tiesinga (Ref. [2]) are methodological references for the shift-term procedure and two-channel resonance formalism, not load-bearing uniqueness theorems; moreover, the paper independently re-fits the potentials and computes reduced chi-squared values from the cited data. The residual few-gauss discrepancies at ~550 G (Table IV) further show that the predictions are not forced by construction. The arithmetic-mean assumption and the potential's inability to fully reproduce measured 6Li–7Li resonances are correctness/validation risks, but they are not circularity. Overall circularity score: 1 (essentially no circularity; the small non-zero reflects the acknowledged interpolation limitation and minor reliance on prior work by a co-author, neither of which is load-bearing).

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

The model depends on the fixed MLR potentials and four fitted shift parameters; the mixed-isotope prediction further depends on an ad hoc mean-shift choice. No new physical entities are introduced. The single-resonance parametrization and d-wave truncation are standard assumptions.

free parameters (6)

MLR singlet/triplet potential parameters [25,26] = not refit (fixed inputs)
Held fixed; determine the baseline PECs and BBO corrections that the shift term modifies.
S_0^(6,6) = 16.031(5)
Quadratic inner-wall shift amplitude for the X1Σ+ potential, fitted to 6Li–6Li threshold data (Table I).
S_1^(6,6) = 1.6987(9)
Quadratic inner-wall shift amplitude for the a3Σ+ potential, fitted to 6Li–6Li data.
S_0^(7,7) = 16.80(4)
Singlet shift amplitude fitted to 7Li–7Li data.
S_1^(7,7) = 1.47(9)
Triplet shift amplitude fitted to 7Li–7Li data.
S_S^(6,7) = ≈16.42 (singlet), ≈1.58 (triplet)
Arithmetic mean of the homonuclear shifts; uncertainty set by |S(6,6)−S(7,7)|. This is an ad hoc chosen value, not fitted to 6Li–7Li data.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The 2013 MLR potentials [25,26] with BBO corrections are accurate enough that a quadratic inner-wall shift for R<R_e,S suffices to correct threshold physics without changing the number of bound states.
Invoked in Sec. II C 1 and Eq. 16; if false, the fitted shift model cannot represent the true short-range correction.
ad hoc to paper The arithmetic-mean prescription S_S^(6,7) = (S_S^(6,6)+S_S^(7,7))/2 yields a valid mixed-isotope potential.
Sec. III B; the paper itself states the difference |S(6,6)−S(7,7)| dominates the error budget and the mean may not faithfully represent the threshold-specific correction.
domain assumption The coupled-channels basis truncated at partial waves up to d-wave (L=2) and including all spin channels with the same M_F is sufficient.
Sec. II C 2; higher partial waves neglected.
domain assumption The single-resonance formulas (Eqs. 8 and 9) adequately describe the resonances despite possible overlap.
Sec. II B; the authors state the standard single-resonance parametrization is adequate for the resonances considered here.
domain assumption The Hamiltonian, including hyperfine, Zeeman, and magnetic dipole–dipole terms (Eqs. 11–14), is complete for Li–Li collisions.
Sec. II C 1; omitted terms (e.g., relativistic corrections beyond spin–spin) assumed negligible.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Characterization of Feshbach resonances in $^6\mathrm{Li}{-}^7\mathrm{Li}$ using improved interaction potentials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HV33ZNF4

@misc{pith2026260302361,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Characterization of Feshbach resonances in $^6\mathrmLi-^7\mathrmLi$ using improved interaction potentials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HV33ZNF4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.02361}
}

abstract

We characterize Feshbach resonances in all isotopologues of the $\mathrm{Li}{-}\mathrm{Li}$ system with improved interaction potentials. Starting from spectroscopically accurate Morse/long-range (MLR) potential-energy curves for the singlet ($X^{1}\Sigma^{+}$) and triplet ($a^{3}\Sigma^{+}$) electronic states of $\mathrm{Li}_2$, we apply small phenomenological inner-wall adjustments (following Julienne and Hutson, Phys. Rev. A 89, 052715 (2014), arXiv:1404.2623v3) and fit the resulting potentials to threshold measurements for the $^{6}\mathrm{Li}{-}^{6}\mathrm{Li}$ and $^{7}\mathrm{Li}{-}^{7}\mathrm{Li}$ isotopologues, including binding energies, scattering lengths, and Feshbach resonance positions. Using the optimized potentials in coupled-channels scattering calculations, we predict and characterize s-wave Feshbach resonances in the $^{6}\mathrm{Li}{-}^{7}\mathrm{Li}$ isotopologue. In its lowest-energy hyperfine channel, all resonances are narrow ($\sim 0.01{-}0.1$ G), strongly closed-channel dominated, and predominantly triplet in electronic spin character, in marked contrast to the homonuclear systems. These results provide a foundation for designing Raman optical-transfer pathways to produce ultracold $\mathrm{Li}_2$ molecules in deeply bound rovibrational levels of both the $X^1\Sigma^{+}$ and $a^3\Sigma^{+}$ potentials across all three isotopologues.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.02361 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Adiabatic Born–Oppenheimer (ABO) potential energy curves for the ground singlet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. (a) Zeeman shifts of the lowest hyperfine thresh [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Closed-channel fraction for the lowest-energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Vibrational-level energy shifts produced by adding the short-range shift term to the Li [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Unitary transformations connecting the three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references

[13]

J. G. Danzl, E. Haller, M. Gustavsson, M. J. Mark, R. Hart, N. Bouloufa, O. Dulieu, H. Ritsch, and H.-C. N¨ agerl, Science321, 1062 (2008)

2008
[14]

J. G. Danzl, M. J. Mark, E. Haller, M. Gustavsson, R. Hart, J. Aldegunde, J. M. Hutson, and H.-C. N¨ agerl, Nature Physics6, 265 (2010)

2010
[1]

Hamiltonian and Interaction Potentials The interaction Hamiltonian for two alkali atoms in their electronic ground state ( 2S1/2) is[12, 13]: ˆH= ℏ2 2µ " −R −1 d2 dR2 R+ ˆL2 R2 # + ˆha + ˆhb + ˆV(R),(11) whereµis the reduced mass of the two atoms,Rthe internuclear separation, and ˆLthe relative orbital angu- lar momentum. The single-atom Hamiltonian for a...
[2]

Quantity

Coupled-channel calculations We numerically solve the Schr¨ odinger equation ˆHΨ(R) =EΨ(R) (17) using the coupled channel method [31]. In this formu- lation, the total radial wave function is expanded in a channel basis set as: Ψ(R) = 1 R X j ψj(R)|j(τ)⟩,(18) 6 whereψ j(R) and|j(τ)⟩are the radial wave function and thechannel functionof thej-th channel, re...
[3]

TDB↔MB transformation The transformation between the TDB and MB is field independent and is given by standard angular- momentum recoupling of electronic and nuclear spins. 13 FIG. 6. Unitary transformations connecting the three bases used in this work, introduced in Sec.II A:(a) TDB: |ms,a, mi,a;m s,b, mi,b;ℓm ℓ⟩.(b) MB:|Sm S;Im I ;ℓm ℓ⟩ withS=s a +s b an...
[4]

The Hamiltonian is block di- agonal in the conserved projectionm f =m s +m i

TDB↔AZB transformation The AZB is constructed from eigenstates of the single- atom hyperfine–Zeeman Hamiltonian in a magnetic field Bˆz, ˆhat(B) =ζ ˆi·ˆs+g sµBBˆsz +g iµNB ˆiz,(A2) whereζis the atomic hyperfine constant,g s andg i are the electron and nuclearg-factors, andµ B (µN ) is the Bohr (nuclear) magneton. The Hamiltonian is block di- agonal in the...
[5]

Appendix B: Symmetries and constraints The MOLSCAT/BOUND code suite [31, 32] exploits conservation laws and exchange symmetry to speed up the coupled-channel calculations

AZB↔MB transformation The AZB–MB transformation follows from composi- tion: UAZB→MB(B) =U TDB→MB UAZB→TDB(B) =U TDB→MB U † TDB→AZB(B).(A6) andU MB→AZB(B) =U † AZB→MB(B). Appendix B: Symmetries and constraints The MOLSCAT/BOUND code suite [31, 32] exploits conservation laws and exchange symmetry to speed up the coupled-channel calculations. In particular, ...
[6]

In the bases of Sec

Conserved quantities In a magnetic field, the Hamiltonian conserves the total projection of angular momentum onto the space-fixedz axis (taken alongB). In the bases of Sec. II A, this may be written equivalently as Mtot =m f,a +m f,b +m ℓ =m S +m I +m ℓ =M F +m ℓ, (B1) whereM F =m S +m I =m f,a +m f,b. This conserva- tion law block-diagonalizes the couple...

Show all 50 references

[7]

Symmetrized basis for identical particles For homonuclear dimers, the total two-atom wavefunc- tion must have definite symmetry under exchange of the two identical atoms. For example, the symmetrized AZB channel functions can be written as: |{β1β2}ρ;ℓm ℓ⟩=N |β1⟩a |β2⟩b +ρ(−1) ...
[8]

N. F. Mott and H. S. W. Massey, Theory of atomic collisions, 3rd ed. (Oxford University Press, London, 1965)

1965
[9]

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

2010
[10]

I. M. Georgescu, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 153 (2014)

2014
[11]

S. L. Cornish, M. R. Tarbutt, and K. R. A. Hazzard, Nature Physics20, 730 (2024)

2024
[12]

K.-K. Ni, S. Ospelkaus, D. J. Nesbitt, J. Ye, and D. S. Jin, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.11, 9626 (2009)

2009
[15]

K.-K. Ni, S. Ospelkaus, M. H. G. de Miranda, A. Pe’er, B. Neyenhuis, J. J. Zirbel, S. Kotochigova, P. S. Julienne, D. S. Jin, and J. Ye, Science322, 231 (2008)

2008
[16]

T. M. Rvachov, H. Son, A. T. Sommer, S. Ebadi, J. J. Park, M. W. Zwierlein, W. Ketterle, and A. O. Jamison, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 143001 (2017)

2017
[17]

Liu and K.-K

Y. Liu and K.-K. Ni, Annual Review of Physical Chemistry 73, 73 (2022)

2022
[18]

Cˆ ot´ e, A

R. Cˆ ot´ e, A. Dalgarno, and M. J. Jamieson, Phys. Rev. A50, 399 (1994)

1994
[19]

Berninger, A

M. Berninger, A. Zenesini, B. Huang, W. Harm, H.-C. N¨ agerl, F. Ferlaino, R. Grimm, P. S. Julienne, and J. M. Hutson, Phys. Rev. A87, 032517 (2013)

2013
[20]

P. S. Julienne and J. M. Hutson, Phys. Rev. A89, 052715 (2014)

2014
[21]

Semczuk, W

M. Semczuk, W. Gunton, W. Bowden, and K. W. Madison, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 055302 (2014)

2014
[22]

E. G. M. v. Kempen, B. Marcelis, and S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, Phys. Rev. A70, 050701 (2004)

2004
[23]

Zhang, E

J. Zhang, E. G. M. van Kempen, T. Bourdel, L. Khaykovich, J. Cubizolles, F. Chevy, M. Teichmann, L. Tarruell, S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelman, and C. Salomon, AIP Conference Proceedings770, 228 (2005)

2005
[24]

R. V. Krems, W. C. Stwalley, and B. Friedrich, Cold Molecules: Theory, Experiment, Applications (CRC Press, New York, 2009)

2009
[25]

J. M. Brown and A. Carrington, Rotational Spectroscopy of Diatomic Molecules, Cambridge Molecular Science (Cambridge University Press, 2003)

2003
[26]

J. M. Hutson, New Journal of Physics9, 152 (2007)

2007
[27]

D. Naik, A. Trenkwalder, C. Kohstall, F. M. Spiegelhalder, M. Zaccanti, G. Hendl, F. Schreck, R. Grimm, T. M. Hanna, and P. S. Julienne, The European Physical Journal D65, 55 (2011)

2011
[28]

T. L. Nicholson, S. Blatt, B. J. Bloom, J. R. Williams, J. W. Thomsen, J. Ye, and P. S. Julienne, Phys. Rev. A92, 022709 (2015)

2015
[29]

M. D. Frye and J. M. Hutson, Phys. Rev. Research2, 013291 (2020)

2020
[30]

Jachymski and P

K. Jachymski and P. S. Julienne, Phys. Rev. A88, 052701 (2013)

2013
[31]

H. T. C. Stoof, J. M. V. A. Koelman, and B. J. Verhaar, Phys. Rev. B38, 4688 (1988)

1988
[32]

Gunton, M

W. Gunton, M. Semczuk, N. S. Dattani, and K. W. Madison, Phys. Rev. A88, 062510 (2013)

2013
[33]

Semczuk, X

M. Semczuk, X. Li, W. Gunton, M. Haw, N. S. Dattani, J. Witz, A. K. Mills, D. J. Jones, and K. W. Madison, Phys. Rev. A87, 052505 (2013)

2013
[34]

R. J. Le Roy, N. S. Dattani, J. A. Coxon, A. J. Ross, P. Crozet, and C. Linton, The Journal of Chemical Physics 131, 204309 (2009)

2009
[35]

N. S. Dattani and R. J. Le Roy, Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy268, 199 (2011)

2011
[36]

G. F. Gribakin and V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. A48, 546 (1993)

1993
[37]

Gao, Phys

B. Gao, Phys. Rev. A62, 050702 (2000)

2000
[38]

J. M. Hutson and C. R. Le Sueur, Computer Physics Communications241, 9–18 (2019)

2019
[39]

J. M. Hutson and C. R. Le Sueur, Computer Physics Communications241, 1 (2019)

2019
[40]

Bartenstein, A

M. Bartenstein, A. Altmeyer, S. Riedl, R. Geursen, S. Jochim, C. Chin, J. H. Denschlag, R. Grimm, A. Simoni, E. Tiesinga, C. J. Williams, and P. S. Julienne, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 103201 (2005)

2005
[41]

Z¨ urn, T

G. Z¨ urn, T. Lompe, A. N. Wenz, S. Jochim, P. S. Julienne, and J. M. Hutson, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 135301 (2013)

2013
[42]

P. Dyke, S. E. Pollack, and R. G. Hulet, Phys. Rev. A88, 023625 (2013)

2013
[43]

X. Du, L. Luo, B. Clancy, and J. E. Thomas, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 150401 (2008)

2008
[44]

E. L. Hazlett, Y. Zhang, R. W. Stites, and K. M. O’Hara, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 045304 (2012)

2012
[45]

S. E. Pollack, D. Dries, M. Junker, Y. P. Chen, T. A. Corcovilos, and R. G. Hulet, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 090402 (2009)

2009
[46]

Gross, Z

N. Gross, Z. Shotan, O. Machtey, S. Kokkelmans, and L. Khaykovich, Comptes Rendus Physique12, 4 (2011)

2011
[47]

F. A. van Abeelen, B. J. Verhaar, and A. J. Moerdijk, Phys. Rev. A55, 4377 (1997)

1997
[48]

V. V. Flambaum, G. F. Gribakin, and C. Harabati, Phys. Rev. A59, 1998 (1999)

1998
[49]

K¨ ohler, K

T. K¨ ohler, K. G´ oral, and P. S. Julienne, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 1311 (2006)

2006
[50]

Polovy, E

G. Polovy, E. Frieling, D. Uhland, J. Schmidt, and K. W. Madison, Phys. Rev. A102, 013310 (2020)

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [13]

J. G. Danzl, E. Haller, M. Gustavsson, M. J. Mark, R. Hart, N. Bouloufa, O. Dulieu, H. Ritsch, and H.-C. N¨ agerl, Science321, 1062 (2008)

2008

[2] [14]

J. G. Danzl, M. J. Mark, E. Haller, M. Gustavsson, R. Hart, J. Aldegunde, J. M. Hutson, and H.-C. N¨ agerl, Nature Physics6, 265 (2010)

2010

[3] [1]

Hamiltonian and Interaction Potentials The interaction Hamiltonian for two alkali atoms in their electronic ground state ( 2S1/2) is[12, 13]: ˆH= ℏ2 2µ " −R −1 d2 dR2 R+ ˆL2 R2 # + ˆha + ˆhb + ˆV(R),(11) whereµis the reduced mass of the two atoms,Rthe internuclear separation, and ˆLthe relative orbital angu- lar momentum. The single-atom Hamiltonian for a...

[4] [2]

Quantity

Coupled-channel calculations We numerically solve the Schr¨ odinger equation ˆHΨ(R) =EΨ(R) (17) using the coupled channel method [31]. In this formu- lation, the total radial wave function is expanded in a channel basis set as: Ψ(R) = 1 R X j ψj(R)|j(τ)⟩,(18) 6 whereψ j(R) and|j(τ)⟩are the radial wave function and thechannel functionof thej-th channel, re...

[5] [3]

TDB↔MB transformation The transformation between the TDB and MB is field independent and is given by standard angular- momentum recoupling of electronic and nuclear spins. 13 FIG. 6. Unitary transformations connecting the three bases used in this work, introduced in Sec.II A:(a) TDB: |ms,a, mi,a;m s,b, mi,b;ℓm ℓ⟩.(b) MB:|Sm S;Im I ;ℓm ℓ⟩ withS=s a +s b an...

[6] [4]

The Hamiltonian is block di- agonal in the conserved projectionm f =m s +m i

TDB↔AZB transformation The AZB is constructed from eigenstates of the single- atom hyperfine–Zeeman Hamiltonian in a magnetic field Bˆz, ˆhat(B) =ζ ˆi·ˆs+g sµBBˆsz +g iµNB ˆiz,(A2) whereζis the atomic hyperfine constant,g s andg i are the electron and nuclearg-factors, andµ B (µN ) is the Bohr (nuclear) magneton. The Hamiltonian is block di- agonal in the...

[7] [5]

Appendix B: Symmetries and constraints The MOLSCAT/BOUND code suite [31, 32] exploits conservation laws and exchange symmetry to speed up the coupled-channel calculations

AZB↔MB transformation The AZB–MB transformation follows from composi- tion: UAZB→MB(B) =U TDB→MB UAZB→TDB(B) =U TDB→MB U † TDB→AZB(B).(A6) andU MB→AZB(B) =U † AZB→MB(B). Appendix B: Symmetries and constraints The MOLSCAT/BOUND code suite [31, 32] exploits conservation laws and exchange symmetry to speed up the coupled-channel calculations. In particular, ...

[8] [6]

In the bases of Sec

Conserved quantities In a magnetic field, the Hamiltonian conserves the total projection of angular momentum onto the space-fixedz axis (taken alongB). In the bases of Sec. II A, this may be written equivalently as Mtot =m f,a +m f,b +m ℓ =m S +m I +m ℓ =M F +m ℓ, (B1) whereM F =m S +m I =m f,a +m f,b. This conserva- tion law block-diagonalizes the couple...