Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

This paper demonstrates a hybrid nanophotonic trap for cold cesium atoms in which the attractive force comes entirely from atom–surface interactions (Casimir–Polder plus surface charges) and the repulsive force from blue-detuned evanescent

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review

2026-08-04 15:50 UTC pith:IJQEVPWY

load-bearing objection First real demonstration of a surface-force-assisted atom trap on a nanofiber; record coherence and storage times are direct measurements, but the trap's quantitative characterization leans on a fitted charge model and a possible cold-sub-ensemble bias. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2509.17767 v1 pith:IJQEVPWY submitted 2025-09-22 quant-ph physics.atom-phphysics.optics

Hybrid Trapping of Cold Atoms with Surface Forces and Blue-Detuned Evanescent Light on a Nanophotonic Waveguide

Riccardo Pennetta , Antoine Glicenstein , Philipp Schneeweiss , J\"urgen Volz , Arno Rauschenbeutel This is my paper
classification quant-ph physics.atom-phphysics.optics
keywords cold atomsnanophotonic waveguideevanescent-field trapCasimir-Polder forcesurface chargesRamsey interferometryoptical nanofiberhybrid trap
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper reports the first experimental realization of a nanophotonic atom trap in which surface forces, not red-detuned light, provide the attraction toward the waveguide. Atoms are first loaded into a conventional two-color dipole trap and then transferred adiabatically, with 74(4)% efficiency, into a shallow hybrid trap about 650 nm from the fiber surface. Despite an estimated depth of only ~1 µK, atoms stay trapped for 140(9) ms, nearly twice as long as in the standard trap, and the Ramsey coherence time reaches 16.8(2) ms, about an order of magnitude longer than earlier nanophotonic systems. The result matters because it shows that holding atoms in low-intensity regions, where optical light shifts are small, does not require sacrificing confinement: surface forces can do the holding.

Core claim

The central claim is that a stable, loadable trap for cold atoms can be formed around a nanophotonic waveguide using attractive surface forces instead of an attractive optical potential. The paper models the surface potential as a Casimir–Polder term U_CP(r)=C3/(r-r0)^3 plus an electrostatic Stark term from charges uniformly distributed on the fiber, with a fitted charge density of 19(3) charges per micrometer. With only blue-detuned light providing repulsion, the trap minimum is estimated at ~650 nm from the surface, with depth ~1 µK and frequency ~7 kHz. The key measured results are that both storage time and Ramsey coherence time increase as the red-detuned power is reduced, reaching 140(

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a two-part potential: a repulsive optical dipole wall from blue-detuned evanescent light that pushes atoms away from the fiber, and an attractive surface potential that combines the Casimir–Polder dispersion interaction (scaling as an inverse cube in distance from the surface) with a DC Stark attraction from surface charges (scaling inversely with the square of the radial distance). The trap is loaded by adiabatically ramping down the red-detuned beam of the standard two-color trap, so atoms ride the potential minimum from its deep, high-intensity position to the shallow, low-intensity hybrid position without changing their motional-state populations.

Load-bearing premise

The trap depth, position, and frequency are not measured directly but come from a model that assumes the surface attraction is exactly the Casimir–Polder inverse-cube law plus a uniform line charge fitted to optical-depth data, so if the true surface potential differs, the trap characterization could be wrong.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the atom–surface distance or trap frequency that disagrees with the predicted ~650 nm and ~7 kHz, or a demonstration that the storage and coherence improvements vanish when the surface charges are removed or changed, would falsify the surface-potential model used to interpret the hybrid trap.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, the hybrid trap provides a practical way to suppress trap-induced light shifts by confining atoms at low optical intensity, directly extending ground-state coherence times.
  • The efficient adiabatic loading scheme makes shallow, surface-based traps usable, since direct loading from a laser-cooled cloud is very inefficient.
  • The observation that storage time grows as the trap becomes shallower challenges the simple assumption that heating in nanophotonic traps scales with trap depth, offering a new handle on the unresolved excessive-heating problem.
  • The combination of high optical depth near the surface and long coherence away from it enables a load–transfer–store–return protocol for quantum memories.
  • The fitted surface-charge density provides a way to characterize charge contamination on nanophotonic surfaces from atom-position measurements.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • One natural extension, not in the paper, is that engineering the surface potential (for example by coatings or controlled charging) could tune the trap position and depth without optics, a step toward fully laser-free trapping around waveguides.
  • Because the paper only characterizes reversible dephasing, a spin-echo or dynamical-decoupling sequence could plausibly push the effective coherence time well beyond 16.8 ms.
  • A direct, independent measurement of the trap frequency (for example by parametric excitation) or of the atom–surface distance (by position-resolved imaging) would test the fitted surface-potential model rather than relying on optical-depth data alone.
  • The same hybrid idea should transfer to other nanophotonic geometries such as micro-ring resonators or photonic crystals, though the surface-charge contribution will likely differ and would need its own characterization.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental demonstration of a hybrid nanophotonic trap for cold cesium atoms on an optical nanofiber. The trap combines a blue-detuned evanescent optical field (repulsive) with an attractive atom–surface potential, attributed to Casimir–Polder interactions plus electrostatic charges on the nanofiber. Atoms are loaded into this shallow trap by adiabatically lowering the red-detuned trapping laser from a standard two-color trap. The authors report a storage time of 140(9) ms and a Ramsey coherence time of 16.8(2) ms at zero red-detuned power, exceeding their standard-trap values and previous nanophotonic reports. A surface charge density of ζ = 19(3) charges/μm is extracted from the optical-depth-versus-P_red data, from which the trap depth (~1 μK), position (~650 nm), and frequency (~7 kHz) are estimated.

Significance. If the claims are fully substantiated, this would be an important advance: the first experimental use of surface forces as the attractive part of a nanophotonic atom trap, with a substantial improvement in coherence time. The direct measurements of storage time and Ramsey fringes, with statistical uncertainties, are valuable and reproducible in principle. However, the central interpretation rests on a fitted surface-charge model that the authors themselves concede is not conclusive, and the reported improvements may be influenced by adiabatic transfer selecting a colder sub-ensemble. The result is therefore significant but not yet fully established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3, Fig. 3 and text following] The surface-potential model is underdetermined by the data. The CP term U_CP(r)=C3/(r-r0)^3 is taken from the literature, and the charge term U_charges(r) = (1/2) α0 ζ^2/(4π^2 ε0^2 r^2) has a single free parameter ζ, fitted to the OD-versus-P_red curve in Fig. 3. The subsequently quoted trap depth (~1 μK), radial position (~650 nm), and trap frequency (~7 kHz) are outputs of this fit, not independent measurements. The paper itself states that the fit 'does not provide conclusive evidence' for the surface-interaction model. In the abstract and summary, however, the hybrid trap's properties are presented as established. The authors should either provide an independent probe of the potential (e.g., side-imaging of the atom distribution, trap oscillation measurement, or temperature measurement) or clearly restrict all quantitative claims to 'consistent with' the model.
  2. [§4, Fig. 4 (storage time)] The comparison of storage times between the standard trap and the hybrid trap is not controlled for the atomic phase-space distribution. The adiabatic transfer is lossy: the transfer efficiency saturates at 74(4)% and the residual losses are attributed to 'atoms that initially reside in higher-energy states in the standard trap.' This means the ensemble measured at P_red = 0 is a filtered sub-ensemble that is colder and has lower motional energy than the ensemble in the standard trap. A colder ensemble would naturally exhibit a longer storage time even in the same trap. Therefore the observed increase from ~78 ms (standard, from the fit in Fig. 2) to 140(9) ms at P_red = 0 cannot be unambiguously assigned to the hybrid-trap geometry without a measurement of the temperature or motional-state distribution before and after transfer.
  3. [§5, Fig. 5 (Ramsey coherence)] The same sub-ensemble-selection issue applies to the Ramsey T2* measurement. The standard-trap T2* of 1.9(1) ms is measured on the full loaded ensemble, whereas the hybrid-trap T2* of 16.8(2) ms is measured on the sub-ensemble that survives the adiabatic transfer. Because the dominant decoherence mechanism is stated to be motional-state-dependent differential light shifts, a colder, lower-energy sub-ensemble would have a longer T2* even if the trapping geometry were unchanged. To support the claim that the hybrid trap itself improves coherence, the authors should either measure T2* on a comparable sub-ensemble in the standard trap (e.g., by applying the same lossy transfer and then returning to the standard trap before the Ramsey sequence) or measure the temperature and trap occupation in the hybrid trap.
  4. [§3, CP potential for a nanofiber] The CP potential is modeled as U_CP(r) = C3/(r-r0)^3 with a single C3 value from [27]. For a dielectric cylinder of radius r0 = 225 nm, the CP potential is not generally isotropic and may differ from the planar C3/(r-r0)^3 form at the relevant distances (~650 nm). The fit may be absorbing this geometric error into the charge density ζ. The manuscript should justify the use of this form or treat the deviation as a systematic uncertainty in ζ and, consequently, in all derived trap properties.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] Notation for the red-detuned power is inconsistent: P_red, P red, and Pred are used interchangeably. Please unify.
  2. [Fig. 3] The optical-depth model is not fully specified. The derivation of OD from the atomic density distribution and the evanescent-field mode should be described, including the assumed radial/axial temperature and the weighting of the probe intensity.
  3. [§2, transfer efficiency inset] The inset of Fig. 2 shows transfer efficiency versus τ_red but does not show error bars or the fit used to guide the eye. Please clarify whether the saturation value 74(4)% is from a fit and what functional form was used.
  4. [§4, last paragraph] 'excessive heating rates' should likely be 'excess heating rates' or 'anomalous heating rates'. This is a wording issue but may confuse readers.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Fitted surface-charge model yields trap parameters presented as predictions; central storage/coherence claims are direct measurements.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Fig. 3 discussion and model paragraph (surface potential model, U_charges(r)=...; trap depth/frequency/position estimates)]
    "The resulting prediction for the OD, shown as the solid blue line in Fig. 3, fits our experimental data well for ζ=19(3) charges/µm. ... we still find it instructive to also present its predictions for further key properties of the hybrid trap, namely an estimated trap depth of ~1 µK, a trap frequency of ~7 kHz and a radial position of the minimum located ~650 nm from the nanofiber surface."

    The single free parameter ζ is fitted to reproduce the measured OD-versus-P_red curve in Fig. 3. The same fitted potential (CP + uniform line charge) is then used to compute the trap depth, frequency, and radial minimum, and these outputs are presented as 'predictions'. They are not independent measurements; they are deterministic functions of the fitted potential. Thus calling them predictions overstates their evidential status—they are model-derived estimates constrained by the same dataset. The paper itself concedes the model 'does not provide conclusive evidence'. The headline storage and coherence times, however, are measured directly via OD decay and Ramsey fringes and do not depend on this fit.

full rationale

The central empirical claims—140(9) ms storage and 16.8(2) ms Ramsey coherence—are direct measurements (Figs. 4 and 5) and stand independently of the surface-potential model. The only load-bearing fitted quantity is ζ=19(3) charges/µm, which is adjusted to OD(P_red) data; the trap depth/frequency/position are then derived from that same model and labeled predictions. This is a genuine but limited circularity: the property estimates are not independent validations. No self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem is load-bearing; the C3 coefficient is from external work, and the comparison to prior nanofiber coherence times uses published values from both the same group and others. The paper's own caveat that the surface-interaction model is not conclusive is correctly flagged. The adiabatic-transfer sub-ensemble alternative (atoms in higher states lost, leaving colder atoms) is a potential systematic effect affecting the interpretation of the longer storage/coherence times, but it is not a definitional circularity. Because the central results do not reduce to the fit, the score is 4 rather than 6.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The derivation of trap properties relies on a fitted surface charge density and standard optical and CP potentials. The central measured claims (storage time, Ramsey coherence) do not depend on these axioms.

free parameters (1)
  • surface charge density zeta = 19(3) charges/um
    Fitted to the OD versus P_red data in Fig. 3; used to produce the CP+charges model and the estimated trap depth, frequency, and radial position.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Casimir-Polder potential for a Cs atom near a dielectric cylinder is U_CP(r)=C3/(r-r0)^3 with C3=1.56 kHz um^3
    Taken from Ref. [27]; the cylinder geometry is approximated by this form, and the value is assumed valid for the nanofiber.
  • domain assumption Surface charges are uniformly distributed along the nanofiber, producing U_charges proportional to 1/r^2
    Uniform line charge model; no independent measurement of charge distribution; the fitted zeta depends on this assumption.
  • domain assumption The measured optical depth (OD) is a faithful monotonic proxy for the atom-surface distance and is modeled by the evanescent field coupling
    Fig. 3 compares measured OD with calculated OD; the calculation assumes a specific relation between atom position and OD.
  • standard math Ramping P_red down slowly transfers atoms adiabatically, preserving motional state populations
    Standard adiabatic following; supported by transfer efficiency data.
  • domain assumption Blue-detuned light provides a purely repulsive optical potential; only the scalar dipole force is considered
    Standard for far-detuned traps; absorption and vector shifts neglected.
  • domain assumption Ramsey decoherence is dominated by temperature-induced inhomogeneous differential light shifts
    Following Ref. [23]; the hybrid trap reduces intensity so T2* increases.
invented entities (1)
  • Uniform surface charge distribution on the nanofiber no independent evidence
    purpose: To supply the additional attractive potential needed to explain OD data at low P_red and to estimate the hybrid trap properties
    No direct measurement of surface charges; zeta is fitted to the same OD dataset, and the model is acknowledged by the authors as not conclusive.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
read the original abstract

We demonstrate a novel hybrid nanophotonic trap for cold neutral atoms, leveraging surface forces for attraction and blue-detuned evanescent light for repulsion. We attribute the attractive potential to a combination of Casimir-Polder interactions and electrostatic charges distributed on the waveguide surface. Despite the trap's shallow depth, we efficiently load atoms into it via adiabatic transfer from a conventional two-color dipole trap. Remarkably, the hybrid trap supports a long atomic storage time of 140(9) ms and exhibits a Ramsey coherence time of 16.8(2) ms, the latter exceeding significantly previous reports for nanophotonic systems. Our results pave the way for further exploration of atom-surface interactions at the nanoscale and illustrate the potential of harnessing surface forces to enhance storage and coherence times for atoms coupled to nanophotonic waveguides. This advancement offers new opportunities for neutral-atom quantum technologies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.17767 by Antoine Glicenstein, Arno Rauschenbeutel, J\"urgen Volz, Philipp Schneeweiss, Riccardo Pennetta.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a, b) Sketch of the potential energy of atoms in (a) a standard nanofiber-based trap and (b) a hybrid trap. (c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Bottom panel: the blue dots show a measurement of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Measured optical depth (OD) as a function of red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Ramsey interference fringes measured on the microwave clock transition of Cs (see sketch in (c)) for (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Single-atom trapping in the evanescent field of an integrated photonic resonator

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Single ultracold rubidium atom trapped in the evanescent field of an integrated silicon-nitride microring resonator, achieving single-atom cooperativity exceeding unity.

  2. The Casimir-Polder interaction between atoms and hollow-core fibers

    quant-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 7.0

    For atoms near hollow-core cylindrical shells, the Casimir-Polder potential develops distinct distance laws for dielectrics, ohmic metals, and superconductors, with shell thickness renormalizing the material's effecti...

  3. $\Lambda$-enhanced gray-molasses loading and EIT cooling of neutral atoms in nanophotonic traps

    physics.atom-ph 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    Lambda-enhanced gray-molasses loading yields a six-fold increase in trapped cesium atoms and EIT cooling extends storage time five-fold in nanophotonic nanofiber traps.

  4. Surface charges in a Rydberg atom-nanowaveguide hybrid quantum system

    physics.atom-ph 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Surface charges on the nanofiber, generated via Rydberg-ground state collisional ionization enhanced by dipole trapping fields, produce time-evolving spectral features in Rydberg excitation that are suppressed by an e...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Reiserer and G

    A. Reiserer and G. Rempe, Cavity-based quantum net- works with single atoms and optical photons, Reviews of Modern Physics87, 1379 (2015)

    2015

  2. [2]

    Chang, J

    D. Chang, J. Douglas, A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, C.-L. Hung, and H. Kimble, Colloquium : Quantum matter built from nanoscopic lattices of atoms and photons, Reviews of Modern Physics90, 031002 (2018)

    2018

  3. [3]

    A. S. Sheremet, M. I. Petrov, I. V. Iorsh, A. V. Poshakin- skiy, and A. N. Poddubny, Waveguide quantum electro- dynamics: Collective radiance and photon-photon corre- lations, Reviews of Modern Physics95, 015002 (2023)

    2023

  4. [4]

    Dordevic, P

    T. Dordevic, P. Samutpraphoot, P. L. Ocola, H. Bernien, B. Grinkemeyer, I. Dimitrova, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Entanglement transport and a nanophotonic in- terface for atoms in optical tweezers, Science373, 1511 (2021)

    2021

  5. [5]

    A. S. Prasad, J. Hinney, S. Mahmoodian, K. Hammerer, S. Rind, P. Schneeweiss, A. S. Sørensen, J. Volz, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Correlating photons using the collec- tive nonlinear response of atoms weakly coupled to an op- tical mode, Nature Photonics 10.1038/s41566-020-0692-z (2020)

    doi:10.1038/s41566-020-0692-z 2020

  6. [6]

    S. G. Menon, N. Glachman, M. Pompili, A. Dibos, and H. Bernien, An integrated atom array-nanophotonic chip platform with background-free imaging, Nature Commu- nications15, 10.1038/s41467-024-50355-4 (2024)

    doi:10.1038/s41467-024-50355-4 2024

  7. [7]

    Liedl, F

    C. Liedl, F. Tebbenjohanns, C. Bach, S. Pucher, A. Rauschenbeutel, and P. Schneeweiss, Observation of superradiant bursts in a cascaded quantum system, Phys- ical Review X14, 011020 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    X. Zhou, H. Tamura, T.-H. Chang, and C.-L. Hung, Trapped atoms and superradiance on an integrated nanophotonic microring circuit, Physical Review X14, 031004 (2024)

    2024

  9. [9]

    Vetsch, D

    E. Vetsch, D. Reitz, G. Sagu´ e, R. Schmidt, S. T. Dawkins, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Optical interface cre- ated by laser-cooled atoms trapped in the evanescent field surrounding an optical nanofiber, Physical Review Let- ters104, 10.1103/physrevlett.104.203603 (2010)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.104.203603 2010

  10. [10]

    Goban, K

    A. Goban, K. S. Choi, D. J. Alton, D. Ding, C. Lacroˆ ute, M. Pototschnig, T. Thiele, N. P. Stern, and H. J. Kimble, Demonstration of a state-insensitive, compen- sated nanofiber trap, Physical Review Letters109, 10.1103/physrevlett.109.033603 (2012)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.109.033603 2012

  11. [11]

    N. V. Corzo, J. Raskop, A. Chandra, A. S. Sheremet, B. Gouraud, and J. Laurat, Waveguide-coupled single collective excitation of atomic arrays, Nature566, 359 (2019)

    2019

  12. [12]

    Sayrin, C

    C. Sayrin, C. Clausen, B. Albrecht, P. Schneeweiss, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Storage of fiber-guided light in a nanofiber-trapped ensemble of cold atoms, Optica2, 353 (2015)

    2015

  13. [13]

    Lodahl, S

    P. Lodahl, S. Mahmoodian, S. Stobbe, A. Rauschenbeu- tel, P. Schneeweiss, J. Volz, H. Pichler, and P. Zoller, Chiral quantum optics, Nature541, 473 (2017)

    2017

  14. [14]

    Pennetta, M

    R. Pennetta, M. Blaha, A. Johnson, D. Lechner, P. Schneeweiss, J. Volz, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Collec- tive radiative dynamics of an ensemble of cold atoms cou- pled to an optical waveguide, Physical Review Letters 128, 073601 (2022)

    2022

  15. [15]

    S. Y. Buhmann,Dispersion Forces I: Macroscopic Quantum Electrodynamics and Ground-State Casimir, Casimir–Polder and van der Waals Forces(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012)

    2012

  16. [16]

    Schneeweiss, M

    P. Schneeweiss, M. Gierling, G. Visanescu, D. P. Kern, T. E. Judd, A. G¨ unther, and J. Fort´ agh, Dispersion forces between ultracold atoms and a carbon nanotube, Nature Nanotechnology7, 515 (2012)

    2012

  17. [17]

    F. R. Ong, K. Sch¨ uppert, P. Jobez, M. Teller, B. Ames, D. A. Fioretto, K. Friebe, M. Lee, Y. Colombe, R. Blatt, and T. E. Northup, Probing surface charge densities on optical fibers with a trapped ion, New Journal of Physics 22, 063018 (2020)

    2020

  18. [18]

    P. L. Ocola, I. Dimitrova, B. Grinkemeyer, E. Guardado- Sanchez, T. Dordevic, P. Samutpraphoot, V. Vuletic, and M. D. Lukin, Control and entanglement of individual ry- dberg atoms near a nanoscale device, Physical Review Letters132, 113601 (2024)

    2024

  19. [19]

    C.-L. Hung, S. M. Meenehan, D. E. Chang, O. Painter, and H. J. Kimble, Trapped atoms in one-dimensional photonic crystals, New Journal of Physics15, 083026 (2013). 6

    2013

  20. [20]

    D. E. Chang, K. Sinha, J. M. Taylor, and H. J. Kimble, Trapping atoms using nanoscale quantum vacuum forces, Nature Communications5, 10.1038/ncomms5343 (2014)

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms5343 2014

  21. [21]

    Gonz´ alez-Tudela, C.-L

    A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, C.-L. Hung, D. E. Chang, J. I. Cirac, and H. J. Kimble, Subwavelength vacuum lattices and atom–atom interactions in two-dimensional photonic crystals, Nature Photonics9, 320 (2015)

    2015

  22. [22]

    F. L. Kien, D. F. Kornovan, S. Nic Chormaic, and T. Busch, Repulsive casimir-polder potentials of low- lying excited states of a multilevel alkali-metal atom near an optical nanofiber, Physical Review A105, 042817 (2022)

    2022

  23. [23]

    Reitz, C

    D. Reitz, C. Sayrin, R. Mitsch, P. Schneeweiss, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Coherence properties of nanofiber- trapped cesium atoms, Physical Review Letters110, 243603 (2013)

    2013

  24. [24]

    Schlosser, G

    N. Schlosser, G. Reymond, and P. Grangier, Collisional blockade in microscopic optical dipole traps, Physical Re- view Letters89, 023005 (2002)

    2002

  25. [25]

    Kastberg, W

    A. Kastberg, W. D. Phillips, S. L. Rolston, R. J. C. Spreeuw, and P. S. Jessen, Adiabatic cooling of cesium to 700 nk in an optical lattice, Physical Review Letters 74, 1542 (1995)

    1995

  26. [26]

    W. Alt, D. Schrader, S. Kuhr, M. M¨ uller, V. Gomer, and D. Meschede, Single atoms in a standing-wave dipole trap, Physical Review A67, 033403 (2003)

    2003

  27. [27]

    F. L. Kien and K. Hakuta, Spontaneous radiative decay of translational levels of an atom near a dielectric surface, Physical Review A75, 013423 (2007)

    2007

  28. [28]

    Y. Meng, A. Dareau, P. Schneeweiss, and A. Rauschen- beutel, Near-ground-state cooling of atoms optically trapped 300 nm away from a hot surface, Physical Re- view X8, 10.1103/physrevx.8.031054 (2018)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.8.031054 2018

  29. [29]

    H¨ ummer, P

    D. H¨ ummer, P. Schneeweiss, A. Rauschenbeutel, and O. Romero-Isart, Heating in nanophotonic traps for cold atoms, Physical Review X9, 10.1103/physrevx.9.041034 (2019)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.041034 2019

  30. [30]

    Gouraud, D

    B. Gouraud, D. Maxein, A. Nicolas, O. Morin, and J. Laurat, Demonstration of a memory for tightly guided light in an optical nanofiber, Physical Review Letters 114, 10.1103/physrevlett.114.180503 (2015)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114.180503 2015

  31. [31]

    E. L. Hahn, Spin echoes, Physical Review80, 580 (1950)

    1950

  32. [32]

    S. J. Rahi, M. Kardar, and T. Emig, Constraints on sta- ble equilibria with fluctuation-induced (casimir) forces, Physical Review Letters105, 070404 (2010)

    2010

  33. [33]

    Earnshaw, On the nature of molecular forces which regulate the constitution of the luminiferous ether, Trans

    S. Earnshaw, On the nature of molecular forces which regulate the constitution of the luminiferous ether, Trans. Camb. Phil. Soc.7, 97(1842)

  34. [34]

    Simon, M

    C. Simon, M. Afzelius, J. Appel, A. B. de la Giro- day, S. J. Dewhurst, N. Gisin, C. Y. Hu, F. Jelezko, S. Kr¨ oll, J. H. M¨ uller, J. Nunn, E. S. Polzik, J. G. Rarity, H. D. Riedmatten, W. Rosenfeld, A. J. Shields, N. Sk¨ old, R. M. Stevenson, R. Thew, I. A. Walmsley, M. C. Weber, H. Weinfurter, J. Wrachtrup, and R. J. Young, Quan- tum memories, The Euro...

    2010

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.