Interactions and charge transfer dynamics of an Al$^+$ ion immersed in ultracold Rb and Sr atoms

Mateusz Lisaj; Micha{\l} Tomza

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 97 references

Interactions and charge transfer dynamics of an Al$^+$ ion immersed in ultracold Rb and Sr atoms

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper predicts that an Al$^+$ ion immersed in ultracold Rb or Sr reacts only through slow radiative charge transfer and association, with reactive rates at least $10^4$ times below the Langevin limit.

desk verdict First ab initio interaction and charge-transfer data for Al+ with Rb and Sr, worth a serious referee, with the R-independent spin-orbit approximation as the main caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07492 v2 pith:IAPGK7R2 submitted 2019-08-20 physics.atom-ph cond-mat.quant-gasphysics.chem-phquant-ph

Micha{l} Tomza , Mateusz Lisaj This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.atom-phcond-mat.quant-gasphysics.chem-phquant-ph PACS 34.70.+e34.50.-s

keywords ultracoldion-atomcollisionsradiativechargetransferassociationAl+ionpotentialenergycurvesspin-orbitcouplingquantumlogicspectroscopyhybridsystems

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 tries to establish a complete ab initio picture of what happens when an Al$^+$ ion collides with a neutral Rb or Sr atom at ultracold temperatures. It calculates potential energy curves and transition electric dipole moments for the $(\mathrm{Al+Rb})^+$ and $(\mathrm{Al+Sr})^+$ molecular ions, then uses them to predict elastic, radiative charge transfer, and radiative association rate constants. The key quantitative claim is that charge-rearranging reactions are rare: all reactive rates are at least $10^4$ times smaller than the Langevin capture rate, and the branching between final electronic states is strongly shaped by spin-orbit coupling. If true, these numbers determine how long an Al$^+$ clock ion survives in a cold neutral gas and make single charge-transfer events detectable with quantum logic spectroscopy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the set of ab initio potential energy curves and transition electric dipole moments for $(\mathrm{Al+Rb})^+$ and $(\mathrm{Al+Sr})^+$, computed with RCCSD(T) and MRCISD+Q methods using scalar-relativistic pseudopotentials for Rb and Sr, with spin-orbit coupling added perturbatively by diagonalizing the non-relativistic curves with constant SO matrix elements. These curves feed a time-independent scattering calculation whose $S$ matrices yield the elastic and inelastic rate constants. The spin-orbit mixing, effective mainly near dissociation, is what converts the simple non-relativistic branching pattern into the relativistic branching ratios and opens formally forbidden triplet channels.

What would settle it

A cold hybrid ion-atom experiment that measures the products of Al$^+$ + Rb collisions would test the central claim: the paper predicts a fine-structure ratio $K_{\rm RCT}(\mathrm{Al}({}^2P_{1/2})):K_{\rm RCT}(\mathrm{Al}({}^2P_{3/2}))$ near 5:1 and all reactive rates at least $10^4$ times below the Langevin rate; observing a ratio near 1:1 or reactive rates within an order of magnitude of Langevin would contradict it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a new class of cold ion-atom systems based on a closed-shell Al$^+$ ion, whose interaction with Rb or Sr is governed by one entrance potential curve ($B\,{}^2\Sigma^+$ or $B\,{}^1\Sigma^+$) but whose charge transfer populates several relativistic states of the $\mathrm{Al}({}^2P_J) + X^+$ asymptote. From first-principles electronic structure, the authors obtain the full non-relativistic and spin-orbit coupled curves and transition dipole moments, and show that radiative charge transfer dominates radiative association for Al$^+$+Sr (by a factor of about 250 for $B\to X$) while the two processes are comparable for Al$^+$+Rb (association is about twice charge transfer for $B\to X$). They also find strong final-state selectivity: charge transfer into the ground $X$ ($\Sigma$) state exceeds that into $A$ ($\Pi$) by factors of 15 (Rb) and 25 (Sr), and spin-orbit mixing enhances the relativistic $(2)_{1/2}$ channel in Rb by factors of 2--3, while in Sr the ratio of charge-transfer rates into Al(${}^2P_{1/2}$) and Al(${}^2P_{3/2}$) is about 1:2.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted branching ratios assume the spin-orbit coupling matrix elements between molecular electronic states are constant and equal to their asymptotic atomic values, so if short-range relativistic mixing differs materially from those values, the relativistic rates and fine-structure ratios would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In Al$^+$+Rb cold collisions, the dominant reactive process is radiative association into $X\,{}^2\Sigma^+$, with a rate constant near $9\times10^{-14}$ cm$^3$/s, about twice the radiative charge transfer rate into the same state.
In Al$^+$+Sr collisions the ordering reverses: radiative charge transfer into $X\,{}^1\Sigma^+$ is about 250 times faster than radiative association into that state.
Charge transfer strongly favors the ground $\Sigma$ state over the excited $\Pi$ state in both systems, by factors of 15 (Rb) and 25 (Sr).
All reactive rate constants are at least $10^4$ times smaller than the Langevin capture rate, so thousands of ion-atom collisions are needed per reactive event.
The narrow Al$^+$ clock transition, read out through a co-trapped ion by quantum logic spectroscopy, can serve as a state-sensitive monitor of these rare collision events.

Reading between the lines

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

The same electronic-structure and scattering pipeline should transfer to other closed-shell main-group ions such as Ga$^+$ or In$^+$ paired with alkali or alkaline-earth atoms, where the same one-entrance-curve, spin-orbit-selected radiative exit structure is likely.
The predicted $\approx 5$ fine-structure branching ratio in Rb and $\approx 1/2$ in Sr could be tested by spectrally resolving the emitted photon in radiative charge transfer, which would give a direct read on the constant-SO-matrix-element approximation.
The very low reactive rates imply sympathetic cooling of Al$^+$ by Rb or Sr should be limited by micromotion heating rather than by charge-transfer loss; the paper notes the heating challenge but does not fold this into the rate analysis.
The vibrational transition-dipole maps the paper reports could support two-photon schemes to form deeply bound AlRb$^+$ and AlSr$^+$ molecular ions, but the paper does not optimize such pulses.

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

First ab initio potential curves and transition dipole moments for (Al+Rb)+ and (Al+Sr)+, with radiative charge transfer and association rates built from them, and a concrete proposal to use the Al+ clock transition via quantum logic spectroscopy as a probe. That combination is new and useful. The electronic structure is benchmarked against NIST levels within 0.5%, and the long-range multipole expansion matches the ab initio curves over a broad range; the agreement is real evidence the curves are usable. The scattering machinery is standard. The entrance-channel scattering length is scanned, not fitted, so the rates are conditional on that parameter but not circular.

The main soft spot is the one the authors themselves flag: the spin-orbit matrix elements are fixed at their asymptotic atomic values, with the R-dependence ignored. The relativistic branching ratios — the factor of roughly 2 into (2)1/2 in Al+Rb and the 0.1/0.2 scalings in Al+Sr — are direct consequences of the mixing those constants produce. At intermediate R, where the non-relativistic X and A curves become close, the mixing is most sensitive to the actual R-dependence, and that is exactly the region sampled by the continuum wavefunctions driving radiative charge transfer. The authors assert that the dynamics are dominated by intermediate and long range, which may be right, but they do not show R-dependent SO curves or any sensitivity test. The non-relativistic results and the overall ordering B to X versus B to A do not depend on this, so the main conclusion — reactive rates at least 10^4 below Langevin — survives. The specific relativistic rate ratios should be read as estimates.

The other weakness is reproducibility. The numerical curves are available from the authors upon request, which is weaker than depositing them. For a paper whose main product is quantitative predictions, that is a real shortcoming. The stated 5–15% electronic-structure uncertainty is also never propagated to the rate constants, which limits how much weight one can put on the absolute values.

This is a solid system-specific study for the cold hybrid ion-atom community. It deserves a serious referee rather than a desk reject. With the data deposited and a sensitivity analysis of the SO approximation, it would be a solid contribution.

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports ab initio potential energy curves and transition electric dipole moments for the (Al+Rb)+ and (Al+Sr)+ ion-atom systems, computed with RCCSD(T) and MRCISD+Q methods using small-core relativistic pseudopotentials for Rb and Sr. Long-range interaction coefficients are obtained from perturbation theory and compared with the supermolecular curves. These electronic structure data are used in quantum scattering calculations to predict elastic scattering, radiative charge transfer, and radiative association rate constants. Relativistic effects are included by diagonalizing spin-orbit Hamiltonians with R-independent matrix elements fixed at the asymptotic atomic values of the Al fine-structure splitting. Representative predictions include KRCT(B2Σ+→X2Σ+) ≈ 4.5×10^-14 cm^3/s and KRA ≈ 9×10^-14 cm^3/s for Al+Rb, with substantially smaller rates for Al+Sr, and all reactive rates at least 10^4 times smaller than the Langevin rate. The authors propose probing these processes by monitoring the Al+ clock transition via quantum logic spectroscopy.

Significance. The paper makes a valuable contribution by extending cold hybrid ion-atom collision studies to an Al+ ion, a species not previously treated in this context, and by proposing a concrete experimental detection scheme using quantum logic spectroscopy. The electronic structure calculations are benchmarked against NIST ionization potentials and atomic excitation energies to within 0.5%, and the long-range multipole expansion matches the ab initio curves over a broad range, lending confidence to the non-relativistic potentials and transition moments. The scattering calculations follow standard quantum methods, and the presentation of both non-relativistic and relativistic branching ratios is informative for future experiments. The principal weakness is that the relativistic branching ratios rely on an R-independent spin-orbit approximation that is not quantitatively validated; if this approximation is shown to be adequate or a sensitivity analysis confirms stability, the fine-structure-resolved predictions would be an important resource.

major comments (1)

[Sec. II (Eqs. (2)–(6))] The spin-orbit coupling matrix elements are taken to be R-independent and equal to their asymptotic atomic values, with the justification that the dynamics is dominated by intermediate- and long-range distances. This approximation is load-bearing for the relativistic branching ratios reported in Sec. III B, such as KRCT((3)1/2 → (2)1/2) ≈ 2·KRCT(B2Σ+ → A2Π), KRCT((3)0+ → (1)0+) ≈ 0.1·KRCT(B1Σ+ → X1Σ+), and KRCT((3)0+ → (2)0+) ≈ 0.2·KRCT(B1Σ+ → X1Σ+). These ratios are determined by the mixing coefficients obtained by diagonalizing the spin-orbit Hamiltonians, and the mixing is most sensitive at internuclear distances where the non-relativistic energy gaps (e.g., the X/A or X/a3Π separations) are comparable to the spin-orbit coupling scale of ~112 cm^-1. At those distances, an R-dependence of the spin-orbit matrix elements could materially change the mixing and hence the branching ratios. The manuscript does not provide R-dependent spin-orbit curves or a sensitivity analysis (e.g., varying the SO constants by 10–20%). The factor-10 suppression in the (1)0+ channel and the nonzero rate into the nominally dark (2)0+ channel indicate that the rates are indeed sensitive to the mixing. I recommend that the authors either compute R-dependent spin-orbit matrix elements from the MRCI wavefunctions or add a sensitivity analysis demonstrating that the branching ratios are stable under reasonable variations of the spin-orbit constants.

minor comments (6)

[Sec. III B] The ratio of KRCT(B1Σ+ → X1Σ+) to KRCT(B1Σ+ → A1Π) in Al+Sr is quoted as 25, but the listed values 1.4×10^-17 and 5×10^-19 give a factor of 28; please reconcile.
[Sec. III B] The sentence 'the radiative charge transfer is 250 times more probable than the radiative association for Al++Sr collisions' contradicts the quoted rates (KRA ≈ 3.5×10^-15 cm3/s vs KRCT ≈ 1.4×10^-17 cm3/s), which instead show that radiative association is about 250 times larger; please correct.
[Sec. III B] The ratio of KRCT(B2Σ+ → A2Π) to KRA(B2Σ+ → A2Π) in Al+Rb is quoted as 13.5, but the listed values 3×10^-15 and 2×10^-16 give a factor of 15; please reconcile.
[Sec. III B] The statement that non-radiative charge transfer rates are 'at least ten orders (one order) of magnitude smaller' is ambiguous; please state explicitly whether the intended meaning is ten orders of magnitude for Rb and one order of magnitude for Sr.
[Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'ulracold' should be 'ultracold', 'relatvistic' should be 'relativistic', 'equalibrium' should be 'equilibrium', 'patter' should be 'pattern', and 'rotational consonants' should be 'rotational constants'.
[Sec. III A] The electronic structure data are stated to be available from the authors upon request; consider placing them in a public repository to support reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ab initio potentials, transition moments, and scattering rates are derived from independent electronic-structure inputs; self-citations are methodological and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central results are the ab initio potential energy curves, transition electric dipole moments, long-range coefficients, and the cold-collision rate constants built from them. These are obtained from coupled-cluster and MRCISD+Q electronic-structure calculations on the (Al+Rb)+ and (Al+Sr)+ systems, with the atomic properties cross-checked against external benchmarks such as the NIST Atomic Spectra Database and previously published polarizabilities. No equation defines a target result in terms of a fitted parameter: the scattering lengths are scanned (as=0.5 R4 and 1.5 R4) rather than fitted, and the reported rates are computed from the stated interaction potentials and transition moments. The relativistic branching ratios, e.g., KRCT((3)0+ -> (1)0+) ≈ 0.1 * KRCT(B1Σ+ -> X1Σ+), follow from diagonalizing the spin-orbit Hamiltonians in Eqs. (2)-(6); they are consequences of the model, not inputs renamed as predictions. The paper's self-citations, mainly Refs. [48,51,67] for the scattering implementation and Ref. [49] for the electronic-structure scheme, are methodological citations to prior work by the same group; they do not supply the central results or invoke any uniqueness theorem that forces the conclusions. The one stated limitation, 'we neglect the R-dependence of the matrix elements of the spin-orbit coupling assuming their asymptotic values,' is a genuine approximation with potential quantitative impact on the relativistic branching ratios, but it is an accuracy concern, not circularity: the approximation is an input assumption, and the derived rates would change if it were relaxed, which is exactly what a non-circular derivation should do. Similarly, the statement that 'non-radiative charge transfer ... estimated using Landau-Zener formula ... are at least ten orders ... of magnitude smaller' is an external estimate used to justify neglect, not a self-referential conclusion. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks and the central predictions do not reduce to their inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest on ab initio electronic structure with benchmark checks against NIST atomic energies. The only hand-set numbers are the two entrance-channel scattering lengths, which are scanned rather than fitted. Approximations, including R-independent spin-orbit coupling and neglected radial couplings, are explicitly stated. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)

Entrance-channel scattering length as = as = 0.5 R4 and as = 1.5 R4
The short-range phase is not known, so rate constants are computed for two typical scattering lengths; small-energy resonance positions depend on it, but quoted magnitudes do not (Sec. III B, Fig. 7).

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Born-Oppenheimer separation of electronic and nuclear motion.
Used to define potential energy curves before scattering; standard for ion-atom systems.
ad hoc to paper Spin-orbit coupling matrix elements are R-independent and set to their asymptotic values.
Stated in Sec. II after Eqs. (2)-(6); controls mixing in relativistic states and is explicitly acknowledged.
domain assumption Hyperfine structure is negligible for entrance-channel scattering.
Sec. II; Al, Rb, Sr+ hyperfine neglected as small for the entrance channels.
domain assumption Non-adiabatic radial couplings can be neglected relative to radiative charge transfer.
Justified by Landau-Zener estimates in Sec. III B; if wrong, non-radiative channels would contribute to the rates.
standard math Radiative transitions can be treated in first order via Fermi golden rule and Einstein coefficients.
Standard perturbative treatment of spontaneous emission in scattering; rates are small relative to Langevin rates.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interactions and charge transfer dynamics of an Al$^+$ ion immersed in ultracold Rb and Sr atoms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IAPGK7R2

@misc{pith2026190807492,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interactions and charge transfer dynamics of an Al$^+$ ion immersed in ultracold Rb and Sr atoms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IAPGK7R2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07492}
}

abstract

Atomic clocks based on an Al$^+$ ion sympathetically cooled by a laser-cooled alkaline-earth ion have achieved unprecedented accuracy. Here, we investigate theoretically interactions and charge transfer dynamics of an Al$^+$ ion immersed in an ultracold gas of Rb and Sr atoms. We calculate potential energy curves and transition electric dipole moments for the (Al+Rb)$^+$ and (Al+Sr)$^+$ ion-atom systems using coupled cluster and multireference configuration interaction methods with scalar relativistic effects included within the small-core energy-consistent pseudopotentials in Rb and Sr atoms. The long-range interaction coefficients are also reported. We use the electronic structure data to investigate cold collisions and charge transfer dynamics. Scattering of an Al$^+$ ion with alkali-metal or alkaline-earth-metal atom is governed by one potential energy curve whereas charge transfer can lead to several electronic states mixed by the relativistic spin-orbit coupling. We examine the branching ratios resulting from the interplay of the short- and long-range effects, as well as the prospects for the laser-field control and formation of molecular ions. We propose to employ the atomic clock transition in an Al$^+$ ion to monitor ion-atom scattering dynamics via quantum logic spectroscopy. The presented results pave the way for the application of atomic ions other than alkali-metal and alkaline-earth-metal ones in the field of cold hybrid ion-atom experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07492 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Non-relativistic molecular potentials energy curv [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Non-relativistic singlet (a) and triplet (b) molecu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Transition electric dipole moments between the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. The long-range part of the interaction potentials [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. Radiative association rate constants as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

[1]

where the Al + ion and the X=Rb(Sr) atom sponta- neously form an Al X + molecular ion emitting a pho- ton of energy hv

5R4 are presented. where the Al + ion and the X=Rb(Sr) atom sponta- neously form an Al X + molecular ion emitting a pho- ton of energy hv. Scattering of the Al + ion with the Rb(Sr) atom is governed by one potential energy curve of the B2Σ+(B1Σ+) symmetry, whereas the charge transfer driven by the transition electric dipole moment can lead to two electron...

2000
[2]

and (3). The leading long-range induction interaction given by the C4 coeﬃcient for the Al + ion interacting with the Rb or Sr atom determines the characteristic interac- tion length scale R4 = √ 2µC 4/ ℏ2 and the related en- ergy scale E4 = ℏ2/ 2µR 2 4 relevant for ultracold ion- atom collisions [ 15]. For the Al ++Rb and Al ++Sr sys- tems they take valu...
[3]

Blatt and C

R. Blatt and C. Roos, Nat. Phys. 8, 277 (2012)

2012
[4]

D. J. Wineland, J. C. Bergquist, J. J. Bollinger, R. E. Drullinger, and W. M. Itano, Proc. 6th Symp. Frequency Standards and Metrology (2002)

2002
[5]

C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035002 (2017)

2017
[6]

D. J. Wineland, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1103 (2013)

2013
[7]

Both approaches TABLE III

ob- tained within the perturbation theory. Both approaches TABLE III. Electrostatic, induction, and dispersion inter ac- tion coeﬃcients (in atomic units) describing the long-rang e part of the interaction potentials between the Al + ion and the Rb or Sr atom and between the Rb + or Sr + ion and the Al atom, all in the ground electronic state. System Sym....
[8]

Haeﬀner, C

H. Haeﬀner, C. F. Roos, and R. Blatt, Phys. Rep. 469, 155 (2008)

2008

Show all 97 references

[9]

In Al++Rb collisions, the formation of molecular ions in vibrational levels with the vibrational quantum number around v = 24 and the binding energy around 2155 cm−1 of the X 2Σ+ electronic state is the most probable. In Al++Sr collisions, the formation of molecular ions in vi...

2016
[10]

Huntemann, C

N. Huntemann, C. Sanner, B. Lipphardt, C. Tamm, and E. Peik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 063001 (2016)

2016
[11]

M. G. Kozlov, M. S. Safronova, J. R. Cre- spo L´ opez-Urrutia, and P. O. Schmidt, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 045005 (2018)

2018
[12]

P. O. Schmidt, T. Rosenband, C. Langer, W. M. Itano, J. C. Bergquist, and D. J. Wineland, Science 309, 749 (2005)

2005
[13]

Rosenband, D

T. Rosenband, D. B. Hume, P. O. Schmidt, C. W. Chou, A. Brusch, L. Lorini, W. H. Oskay, R. E. Drullinger, T. M. Fortier, J. E. Stalnaker, S. A. Diddams, W. C. Swann, N. R. Newbury, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and J. C. Bergquist, Science 319, 1808 (2008)

2008
[14]

C. W. Chou, D. B. Hume, J. C. J. Koele- meij, D. J. Wineland, and T. Rosenband, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 070802 (2010)

2010
[15]

Tomza, K

M. Tomza, K. Jachymski, R. Gerritsma, A. Ne- gretti, T. Calarco, Z. Idziaszek, and P. S. Julienne, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 035001 (2019)

2019
[16]

J.-S. Chen, S. M. Brewer, C. W. Chou, D. J. Wineland, D. R. Leibrandt, and D. B. Hume, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 053002 (2017)

2017
[17]

S. M. Brewer, J.-S. Chen, A. M. Hankin, E. R. Clements, C. W. Chou, D. J. Wineland, D. B. Hume, and D. R. Leibrandt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 033201 (2019)

2019
[18]

H¨ arter and J

A. H¨ arter and J. H. Denschlag, Contemp. Phys. 55, 33 (2014)

2014
[19]

Cˆ ot´ e,Adv

R. Cˆ ot´ e,Adv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 65, 67 (2016)

2016
[20]

K. Ravi, S. Lee, A. Sharma, G. Werth, and S. Rangwala, Nat. Commun. 3, 1126 (2012)

2012
[21]

Bloch, J

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

2008
[22]

Gross and I

C. Gross and I. Bloch, Science 357, 995 (2017)

2017
[23]

Cˆ ot´ e and A

R. Cˆ ot´ e and A. Dalgarno, Phys. Rev. A 62, 012709 (2000)

2000
[24]

Zipkes, S

C. Zipkes, S. Palzer, C. Sias, and M. K¨ ohl, Nature 464, 388 (2010)

2010
[25]

O. P. Makarov, R. Cˆ ot´ e, H. Michels, and W. W. Smith, Phys. Rev. A 67, 042705 (2003)

2003
[26]

H¨ oltkemeier, P

B. H¨ oltkemeier, P. Weckesser, H. L´ opez-Carrera, and M. Weidem¨ uller,Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 233003 (2016)

2016
[27]

Petrov, C

A. Petrov, C. Makrides, and S. Kotochigova, J. Chem. Phys. 146, 084304 (2017)

2017
[28]

Feldker, H

T. Feldker, H. F¨ urst, H. Hirzler, N. Ewald, M. Mazzanti, D. Wiater, M. Tomza, and R. Gerritsma, arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.10926 (2019)

2019 arXiv
[29]

F. H. J. Hall and S. Willitsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 233202 (2012)

2012
[30]

Saito, S

R. Saito, S. Haze, M. Sasakawa, R. Nakai, M. Raoult, H. Da Silva, O. Dulieu, and T. Mukaiyama, Phys. Rev. A 95, 032709 (2017)

2017
[31]

Ratschbacher, C

L. Ratschbacher, C. Zipkes, C. Sias, and M. Kohl, Nat. Phys. 8, 649 (2012)

2012
[32]

F¨ urst, T

H. F¨ urst, T. Feldker, N. V. Ewald, J. Joger, M. Tomza, and R. Gerritsma, Phys. Rev. A 98, 012713 (2018)

2018
[33]

Sikorsky, M

T. Sikorsky, M. Morita, Z. Meir, A. A. Buchachenko, R. Ben-shlomi, N. Akerman, E. Narevicius, T. V. Tscher- bul, and R. Ozeri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 173402 (2018)

2018
[34]

Cˆ ot´ e and I

R. Cˆ ot´ e and I. Simbotin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 173401 (2018)

2018
[35]

F. H. Hall, P. Eberle, G. Hegi, M. Raoult, M. Aymar, O. Dulieu, and S. Willitsch, Mol. Phys. 111, 2020 (2013)

2013
[36]

Sikorsky, Z

T. Sikorsky, Z. Meir, R. Ben-shlomi, N. Akerman, and R. Ozeri, Nat. Comm. 9, 920 (2018)

2018
[37]

Bissbort, D

U. Bissbort, D. Cocks, A. Negretti, Z. Idziaszek, T. Calarco, F. Schmidt-Kaler, W. Hofstetter, and R. Gerritsma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 080501 (2013)

2013
[38]

Doerk, Z

H. Doerk, Z. Idziaszek, and T. Calarco, Phys. Rev. A 81, 012708 (2010)

2010
[39]

A. T. Grier, M. Cetina, F. Oruˇ cevi´ c, and V. Vuleti´ c, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 223201 (2009)

2009
[40]

Smith, D

W. Smith, D. Goodman, I. Sivarajah, J. Wells, S. Baner- jee, R. Cˆ ot´ e, H. Michels, J. A. Mongtomery, and F. Nar- ducci, Appl. Phys. B 114, 75 (2014)

2014
[41]

S. T. Sullivan, W. G. Rellergert, S. Kotochigova, and E. R. Hudson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 223002 (2012)

2012
[42]

W. G. Rellergert, S. T. Sullivan, S. Kotochigova, A. Petrov, K. Chen, S. J. Schowalter, and E. R. Hudson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 243201 (2011)

2011
[43]

S. Haze, S. Hata, M. Fujinaga, and T. Mukaiyama, Phys. Rev. A 87, 052715 (2013)

2013
[44]

F. H. J. Hall, M. Aymar, N. Bouloufa-Maafa, O. Dulieu, and S. Willitsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 243202 (2011)

2011
[45]

Jyothi, T

S. Jyothi, T. Ray, S. Dutta, A. R. Allouche, R. Vexiau, O. Dulieu, and S. A. Rangwala, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 213002 (2016)

2016
[46]

Joger, H

J. Joger, H. F¨ urst, N. Ewald, T. Feldker, M. Tomza, and R. Gerritsma, Phys. Rev. A 96, 030703 (2017)

2017
[47]

Z. Meir, T. Sikorsky, R. Ben-shlomi, N. Akerman, Y. Dal- lal, and R. Ozeri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 243401 (2016)

2016
[48]

H¨ arter, A

A. H¨ arter, A. Kr¨ ukow, A. Brunner, W. Schnit- zler, S. Schmid, and J. Hecker Denschlag, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 123201 (2012)

2012
[49]

Deiglmayr, A

J. Deiglmayr, A. G¨ oritz, T. Best, M. Weidem¨ uller, and R. Wester, Phys. Rev. A 86, 043438 (2012)

2012
[50]

Tomza, M

M. Tomza, M. H. Goerz, M. Musia/suppress l, R. Moszynski, and C. P. Koch, Phys. Rev. A 86, 043424 (2012). 13

2012
[51]

K. S. Kleinbach, F. Engel, T. Dieterle, R. L¨ ow, T. Pfau, and F. Meinert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 193401 (2018)

2018
[52]

Schmid, C

T. Schmid, C. Veit, N. Zuber, R. L¨ ow, T. Pfau, M. Tarana, and M. Tomza, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 153401 (2018)

2018
[53]

Tomza, Phys

M. Tomza, Phys. Rev. A 92, 062701 (2015)

2015
[54]

Tomza, F

M. Tomza, F. Pawlowski, M. Jeziorska, C. P. Koch, and R. Moszynski, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 13, 18893 (2011)

2011
[55]

D. E. Woon and T. H. Dunning Jr, J. Chem. Phys. 98, 1358 (1993)

1993
[56]

Tomza, C

M. Tomza, C. P. Koch, and R. Moszynski, Phys. Rev. A 91, 042706 (2015)

2015
[57]

Werner and P

H. Werner and P. J. Knowles, J. Chem. Phys. 89, 5803 (1988)

1988
[58]

P. J. Knowles, C. Hampel, and H.-J. Werner, J. Chem. Phys. 99, 5219 (1993)

1993
[59]

Boys and F

S. Boys and F. Bernardi, Mol. Phys. 19, 553 (1970)

1970
[60]

Tao and Y.-K

F.-M. Tao and Y.-K. Pan, J. Chem. Phys. 97, 4989 (1992)

1992
[61]

Dolg and X

M. Dolg and X. Cao, Chem. Rev. 112, 403 (2012)

2012
[62]

I. S. Lim, P. Schwerdtfeger, B. Metz, and H. Stoll, J. Chem. Phys. 122, 104103 (2005)

2005
[63]

I. S. Lim, H. Stoll, and P. Schwerdtfeger, J. Chem. Phys. 124, 034107 (2006)

2006
[64]

Tomza, W

M. Tomza, W. Skomorowski, M. Musial, R. Gon- zalez Ferez, C. P. Koch, and R. Moszynski, Mol. Phys. 111, 1781 (2013)

2013
[65]

Derevianko, S

A. Derevianko, S. G. Porsev, and J. F. Babb, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 96, 323 (2010)

2010
[66]

Molpro, version 2012.1, a package of ab initio pro- grams,

H.-J. Werner, P. J. Knowles, G. Knizia, F. R. Manby, M. Sch¨ utz, P. Celani, T. Korona, R. Lindh, A. Mitrushenkov, G. Rauhut, K. R. Shamasundar, T. B. Adler, R. D. Amos, A. Bernhardsson, A. Berning, D. L. Cooper, M. J. O. Deegan, A. J. Dobbyn, F. Eckert, E. Goll, C. Hampel, A....

2012
[67]

K. G. Dyall and K. Fægri Jr, Introduction to relativistic quantum chemistry (Oxford University Press, 2007)

2007
[68]

NIST Atomic Spectra Database http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/ASD
[69]

Jeziorski, R

B. Jeziorski, R. Moszynski, and K. Szalewicz, Chem. Rev. 94, 1887 (1994)

1994
[70]

M. Li, M. Mills, P. Puri, A. Petrov, E. R. Hudson, and S. Kotochigova, Phys. Rev. A 99, 062706 (2019)

2019
[71]

Korona, M

T. Korona, M. Przybytek, and B. Jeziorski, Mol. Phys. 104, 2303 (2006)

2006
[72]

Tomza, R

M. Tomza, R. Gonz´ alez-F´ erez, C. P. Koch, and R. Moszynski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 113201 (2014)

2014
[73]

B. R. Johnson, J. Chem. Phys. 69, 4678 (1978)

1978
[74]

E. R. Sayfutyarova, A. A. Buchachenko, S. A. Yakovleva, and A. K. Belyaev, Phys. Rev. A 87, 052717 (2013)

2013
[75]

Rouse and S

I. Rouse and S. Willitsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 143401 (2017)

2017
[76]

Mitroy, M

J. Mitroy, M. S. Safronova, and C. W. Clark, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 43, 202001 (2010)

2010
[77]

Krych, W

M. Krych, W. Skomorowski, F. Paw/suppress lowski, R. Moszynski, and Z. Idziaszek, Phys. Rev. A 83, 032723 (2011)

2011
[78]

Idziaszek, A

Z. Idziaszek, A. Simoni, T. Calarco, and P. S. Julienne, New J. Phys. 13, 083005 (2011)

2011
[79]

da Silva Jr, M

H. da Silva Jr, M. Raoult, M. Aymar, and O. Dulieu, New J. Phys. 17, 045015 (2015)

2015
[80]

Z. Meir, M. Pinkas, T. Sikorsky, R. Ben- shlomi, N. Akerman, and R. Ozeri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 053402 (2018)

2018
[81]

R. D. Levine, Molecular reaction dynamics (Cambridge University Press, 2009)

2009
[82]

A. K. Belyaev and O. V. Lebedev, Phys. Rev. A 84, 014701 (2011)

2011
[83]

S. M. Brewer, J.-S. Chen, K. Beloy, A. M. Han- kin, E. R. Clements, C. W. Chou, W. F. Mc- Grew, X. Zhang, R. J. Fasano, D. Nicolodi, H. Leop- ardi, T. M. Fortier, S. A. Diddams, A. D. Ludlow, D. J. Wineland, D. R. Leibrandt, and D. B. Hume, Phys. Rev. A 100, 013409 (2019)

2019
[84]

Guggemos, M

M. Guggemos, M. Guevara-Bertsch, D. Heinrich, O. A. Herrera-Sancho, Y. Colombe, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, New J. Phys. 21, 103003 (2019)

2019
[85]

N. V. Vitanov, A. A. Rangelov, B. W. Shore, and K. Bergmann, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 015006 (2017)

2017
[86]

Cetina, A

M. Cetina, A. T. Grier, and V. Vuleti´ c, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 253201 (2012)

2012
[87]

Schmidt, P

J. Schmidt, P. Weckesser, F. Thielemann, T. Schaetz, and L. Karpa, arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08352 (2019)

2019 arXiv
[88]

Schneider, M

C. Schneider, M. Enderlein, T. Huber, and T. Schaetz, Nat. Photon. 4, 772 (2010)

2010
[89]

Gacesa, J

M. Gacesa, J. A. Montgomery, H. H. Michels, and R. Cˆ ot´ e,Phys. Rev. A 94, 013407 (2016)

2016
[90]

Vutha, T

A. Vutha, T. Kirchner, and P. Dub´ e, arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.00973 (2018)

2018 arXiv
[91]

K. Chen, S. J. Schowalter, S. Kotochigova, A. Petrov, W. G. Rellergert, S. T. Sullivan, and E. R. Hudson, Phys. Rev. A 83, 030501 (2011)

2011
[92]

F. Wolf, Y. Wan, J. C. Heip, F. Gebert, C. Shi, and P. O. Schmidt, Nature 530, 457 (2016)

2016
[93]

Gibble, Phys

K. Gibble, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 180802 (2013)

2013
[94]

A. C. Vutha, T. Kirchner, and P. Dub´ e, Phys. Rev. A 96, 022704 (2017)

2017
[96]

Hankin, E

A. Hankin, E. Clements, Y. Huang, S. Brewer, J.-S. Chen, C. Chou, D. Hume, and D. Leibrandt, arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.08701 (2019)

2019 arXiv
[97]

Davis, P

J. Davis, P. Dub´ e, and A. C. Vutha, arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.06443 (2019)

2019 arXiv
[112]

A 2Π / 2Π SO (R → ∞) = A 3Σ / 3Π SO (R → ∞) = A 3Σ / 1Π SO (R → ∞ ) = A 3Π / 1Π SO (R → ∞ ) = ∆ EAl fs / 3 and A 2Σ / 2Π SO (R → ∞ ) = A 1Σ / 3Π SO (R → ∞ ) = √ 2∆EAl fs / 3

1 cm−1 [ 63]. A 2Π / 2Π SO (R → ∞) = A 3Σ / 3Π SO (R → ∞) = A 3Σ / 1Π SO (R → ∞ ) = A 3Π / 1Π SO (R → ∞ ) = ∆ EAl fs / 3 and A 2Σ / 2Π SO (R → ∞ ) = A 1Σ / 3Π SO (R → ∞ ) = √ 2∆EAl fs / 3. In the present study, we neglect the R-dependence of the matrix elements of the spin-orb...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

where the Al + ion and the X=Rb(Sr) atom sponta- neously form an Al X + molecular ion emitting a pho- ton of energy hv

5R4 are presented. where the Al + ion and the X=Rb(Sr) atom sponta- neously form an Al X + molecular ion emitting a pho- ton of energy hv. Scattering of the Al + ion with the Rb(Sr) atom is governed by one potential energy curve of the B2Σ+(B1Σ+) symmetry, whereas the charge transfer driven by the transition electric dipole moment can lead to two electron...

2000

[2] [2]

and (3). The leading long-range induction interaction given by the C4 coeﬃcient for the Al + ion interacting with the Rb or Sr atom determines the characteristic interac- tion length scale R4 = √ 2µC 4/ ℏ2 and the related en- ergy scale E4 = ℏ2/ 2µR 2 4 relevant for ultracold ion- atom collisions [ 15]. For the Al ++Rb and Al ++Sr sys- tems they take valu...

[3] [3]

Blatt and C

R. Blatt and C. Roos, Nat. Phys. 8, 277 (2012)

2012

[4] [4]

D. J. Wineland, J. C. Bergquist, J. J. Bollinger, R. E. Drullinger, and W. M. Itano, Proc. 6th Symp. Frequency Standards and Metrology (2002)

2002

[5] [5]

C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 035002 (2017)

2017

[6] [6]

D. J. Wineland, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1103 (2013)

2013

[7] [7]

Both approaches TABLE III

ob- tained within the perturbation theory. Both approaches TABLE III. Electrostatic, induction, and dispersion inter ac- tion coeﬃcients (in atomic units) describing the long-rang e part of the interaction potentials between the Al + ion and the Rb or Sr atom and between the Rb + or Sr + ion and the Al atom, all in the ground electronic state. System Sym....

[8] [8]

Haeﬀner, C

H. Haeﬀner, C. F. Roos, and R. Blatt, Phys. Rep. 469, 155 (2008)

2008