Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 62 references

Tune-out wavelength for the thulium atom near 576 nm

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 thulium atom's 576 nm tune-out wavelength is measured and pinned at 575.646 nm in air, where the atomic polarizability vanishes.

desk verdict First Tm tune-out measurement with a solid central value; the refined uncertainty rests on a two-point trap-loss bracket that's plausible but not airtight. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.20726 v1 pith:IWOLUGMY submitted 2026-02-24 physics.atom-ph quant-ph

Ivan Pyrkh , Arjuna Rudnev , Daniil Pershin , Davlet Kumpilov , Ivan Cojocaru , Vladimir Khlebnikov , Pavel Aksentsev , Ayrat Ibrahimov
show 7 more authors
Sergey Kuzmin Alexander Raskatov German Subbotin Kirill Dyadkin Anna Zykova Vladislav Tsyganok Alexey Akimov
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phquant-ph PACS 32.10.Dk37.10.De
keywords tune-outwavelengththulium-169dynamicpolarizabilityopticaldipoletrapscalartensorvectorRFlossspectroscopyBose-Einsteincondensation575nm
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 that the ground state of thulium-169 has a tune-out wavelength near 576 nm: a wavelength at which the atom's dynamic polarizability is zero, so a laser at that wavelength exerts no dipole force on the atom in a specific polarization geometry. The authors predict the value from second-order perturbation theory over 59 known transitions, then measure it with two complementary methods: trap-frequency measurements and RF loss spectroscopy, which separate scalar and tensor polarizabilities without needing to detect negative polarizability directly. A direct trap-loss experiment brackets the zero between 575.642 nm, where atoms remain trapped, and 575.650 nm, where they are expelled, refining the tune-out wavelength to 575.646 +0.004/-0.004 nm in air. A sympathetic reader would care because a tune-out wavelength is a tool for state-selective manipulation: it allows an optical trap to affect all atoms except those in a chosen state, which is useful for quantum simulation and precision measurement.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dynamic polarizability α_total(λ), decomposed into scalar, tensor, and vector parts. For the chosen geometry (θ_k=90°, linear polarization), the vector part drops out and the total polarizability becomes α_total = α_scal + α_ten × (3cos²θ_p − 1)/2 × angular-momentum factor. The experiment measures trap oscillation frequencies in a crossed optical dipole trap to extract α_total as a function of θ_p, RF spectroscopy measures the differential Stark shift between hyperfine levels to isolate the tensor part, and ellipticity scans isolate the vector part. The tune-out wavelength is then found by fitting the polarizability versus wavelength with a Lorentzian centered at th

What would settle it

Measure the number of atoms surviving in the crossed dipole trap as a function of the 576 nm wavelength with 0.001 nm steps across 575.640–575.655 nm, holding all beam powers and alignment fixed. If atoms survive on both sides of 575.646 nm, or if the disappearance wavelength shifts by more than the stated uncertainty, the tune-out assignment is wrong. Additionally, an independent sum-over-states calculation using a different set of experimentally determined transition probabilities should reproduce the zero at 575.646 ± 0.004 nm; if it predicts a zero outside this range, the modeling or the m

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The total dynamic polarizability of the thulium-169 ground state (F=4, m_F=-4) in a linearly polarized 576 nm optical dipole trap with θ_p=0° and θ_k=90° vanishes at 575.646 nm in air. This zero was not merely calculated: the trap-loss experiment showed atoms survive at 575.642 nm and disappear at 575.650 nm, directly demonstrating the sign change of the polarizability and improving the wavelength determination. The measured scalar and vector polarizabilities agree with the model within uncertainty, while the tensor polarizability shows a slight systematic deviation; nevertheless, the fitted angular dependence is consistent with the RF spectroscopy results. The paper also demonstrates Bose–E

Load-bearing premise

The trap-loss bracket is interpreted as the sign change of the total polarizability, assuming that no wavelength-dependent loss mechanism other than the repulsive dipole potential (such as photoassociation or collision losses peaking at 575.650 nm) removes the atoms on the negative side; the BEC results argue against resonant scattering heating but do not eliminate all other loss channels.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The measured tune-out wavelength provides a benchmark for atomic structure calculations: the scalar and vector polarizabilities agree with theory, but the tensor polarizability discrepancy indicates that transition data used in the sum-over-states model need refinement.
  • A 576 nm dipole trap operating at the tune-out wavelength can hold thulium atoms in excited hyperfine states while leaving ground-state atoms unaffected, enabling state-selective trapping and sorting in optical lattices.
  • Because BEC was achieved across the entire 575.348–575.689 nm range, the tune-out region is compatible with quantum-degenerate experiments, so the tune-out condition can be used in condensate-based studies without sacrificing evaporative cooling.
  • The combination of trap-frequency and RF-loss spectroscopy demonstrated here offers a path to measuring tune-out wavelengths in other lanthanides and complex atoms where tensor and vector polarizabilities are large, without requiring measurements in the negative-polarizability regime.
  • If the tune-out wavelength can be stabilized relative to a narrow atomic transition, it may serve as a wavelength reference or as a tool for suppressing light shifts in thulium optical clocks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The bracket 575.642–575.650 nm is only 8 pm wide; a finer scan of atom survival with sub-picometer steps and longer hold times could push the tune-out wavelength uncertainty below the current ±0.004 nm, limited ultimately by the wavelength calibration and the sharpness of the trap-loss edge.
  • The slight but consistent deviation of the measured tensor polarizability from theory suggests that the reduced dipole matrix elements for the relevant excited states carry systematic errors; an independent measurement at another wavelength, such as the previously studied 532 nm and 1064 nm traps, could determine whether the deviation is wavelength-dependent or a constant offset.
  • The trap-loss sign-change interpretation assumes that no other loss mechanism turns on sharply between 575.642 and 575.650 nm. A testable extension is to measure the inelastic collision rate and light-assisted loss rate across this narrow window; if those rates are flat, the survival/disappearance contrast is unambiguously the polarizability zero.
  • State-selective trapping at the tune-out wavelength could be combined with thulium's Feshbach resonances to create species- or state-selective interactions in a mixture, since the trap would be invisible to the ground state while still confining other states.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a theoretical prediction and experimental measurement of a tune-out wavelength for the ground state of 169Tm (F=4, m_F=-4) near 576 nm. The theory uses second-order perturbation theory with 59 NIST-database transitions to calculate the scalar, tensor, and vector dynamic polarizabilities. Experimentally, the authors measure trap frequencies in a crossed optical dipole trap and RF-loss spectra, extract the tensor polarizability, and separately determine scalar and vector components. A Lorentzian fit extrapolates a zero at 575.646 +0.016/-0.014 nm (air), and a direct trap-loss bracket (atoms remain at 575.642 nm, disappear at 575.650 nm) refines the value to 575.646 +/- 0.004 nm. Bose-Einstein condensation is achieved across 575.348-575.689 nm, which is used to argue that photon-scattering heating is negligible in this range.

Significance. If correct, this is the first measurement of a tune-out wavelength for thulium and provides an important tool for state-selective trapping in a species used for quantum simulation and precision measurements. The use of two independent experimental routes - trap-frequency/RF-loss spectroscopy and direct trap-loss bracketing - and the demonstration of BEC across the zero are clear strengths. The model prediction (575.568 +/- 0.07 nm) agrees with the measured zero within about one standard deviation, lending credibility. However, the final refined value rests on a two-point bracket, and the tensor-polarizability discrepancy is larger than the text acknowledges; both points need to be addressed before the result is fully convincing.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Fig. 5] The refined value 575.646 +/- 0.004 nm rests entirely on a two-point bracket: atoms survive at 575.642 nm and disappear at 575.650 nm. Interpreting the disappearance as negative polarizability assumes that no wavelength-selective loss other than the sign of the yODT potential acts in this 8 pm window. A narrow photoassociation resonance, a laser mode hop, or a collision loss localized at 575.650 nm would produce the same observable. The BEC at 575.689 nm argues against broad photon-scattering heating but does not exclude a narrow loss at 575.650 nm. Please add intermediate wavelengths or otherwise demonstrate that the loss onset is due to the potential sign (e.g., power dependence, or loss-rate versus wavelength) before the +/- 0.004 nm refinement is used.
  2. [Eq. (13), Section II] The measurement 575.646 +0.016/-0.014 nm is obtained from a Lorentzian fit, but Eq. (13) is not legibly typeset and the parameters are not specified. In particular, lambda0 = 576.4287 nm is described only as 'the nearest transition' with no identification, source, or uncertainty. Because the zero is obtained by extrapolating data taken at 575.348-575.689 nm, please identify the transition, report A, B, lambda0 and their correlations, and justify a single-resonance Lorentzian given that scalar, tensor, and vector polarizabilities have different wavelength dependences.
  3. [Table 1 / Section III] The tensor polarizability discrepancy is larger than the text's 'slight deviation': at 575.526 nm, theory (-197 a.u.) differs from the RF value (-163 +/- 8 a.u.) by about 4 sigma, and similar 3-4 sigma deviations occur at 575.608 and 575.445 nm. Since at theta_p = 0 the total polarizability is the sum of scalar and tensor parts, this discrepancy directly bears on the theoretical tune-out prediction (575.568 +/- 0.07 nm). Please quantify how the tensor uncertainty propagates to the predicted zero and discuss whether the NIST/Wickliffe-Lawler transition data used for the tensor term are adequate.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III, end] 'positive at 574.642 nm' should read '575.642 nm'.
  2. [Section IV] The statement that the zero was 'confirmed to be around the predicted wavelength of 575.646+...' conflates measured and predicted values; the model prediction is 575.568 +/- 0.07 nm.
  3. [Table 1] The theory column has no explicit uncertainties; please add them or refer clearly to the shaded band in Fig. 4.
  4. [Equations] Equations (6), (8), (10), (12), and (13) contain typesetting/OCR artifacts. The final manuscript should be checked so that all formulas are unambiguous.
  5. [Fig. 5] Please specify the yODT power and trap depth at each wavelength, since the loss interpretation depends on the potential depth.
  6. [References] For the NIST database reference, include the version/access date used.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the theoretical prediction is based on independent NIST transition data, and the measured tune-out wavelength is extracted from direct polarizability measurements and a trap-loss sign-change bracket.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is self-contained rather than circular. The theoretical prediction of the tune-out wavelength is obtained by summing second-order perturbation-theory contributions from 59 known atomic transitions taken from the NIST database [58], with transition probabilities from an external source [66]; no measured polarizability value or tune-out result is fed back into this calculation. The experimental side is an independent measurement: scalar, tensor, and vector polarizabilities at five wavelengths are determined from trap-frequency measurements, RF-assisted loss spectroscopy, and polarization-ellipticity measurements, respectively. The reported tune-out wavelength 575.646 nm is obtained by fitting these measured polarizabilities with a Lorentzian (Eq. 13), and the trap-loss experiment at 575.642/575.650 nm provides a separate, direct sign-change bracket. The refined uncertainty ±0.004 nm comes from that bracket rather than from reusing the fitted curve. The only mild concern one might raise is that the trap-loss interpretation assumes atom loss at 575.650 nm is due to a repulsive potential rather than a wavelength-selective loss process; however, that is an experimental systematic assumption, not a circular derivation. The paper also demonstrates BEC across the wavelength range, arguing against resonant-scattering heating. Thus there is no step in which an output is defined in terms of its own input, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation chain supports the main result.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or forces are introduced. The paper uses standard atomic-physics theory and measured beam parameters; the only fitted quantities are the Lorentzian parameters used to locate the zero.

free parameters (3)
  • Lorentzian amplitude A = not reported
    Equation (13) fits measured scalar/tensor/vector polarizabilities vs wavelength; amplitude determines steepness of zero crossing.
  • Lorentzian offset B = not reported
    Offset in Eq (13) fitted to measured polarizabilities.
  • Lorentzian center λ0 = 576.4287 nm
    Called 'the nearest transition' but no transition identification or uncertainty is given; if fitted, it is a free parameter; if taken from a line list, the source is missing.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Dynamic polarizability can be computed by second-order perturbation theory summing over dipole-allowed transitions (Eq 3).
    Standard quantum mechanical sum-over-states formula with Wigner 6-j symbols; not proved in the paper.
  • domain assumption Thulium-169 ground-state hyperfine levels are described by J, F, I with g-factors g_3=1.284, g_4=0.999; the polarization geometry enters through Eq (4)-(5).
    Section II uses these quantum numbers and g-factors to convert measured trap frequencies and RF shifts into α_scalar, α_tensor, α_vector.
  • domain assumption The crossed ODT is harmonic and its x-frequency is related to total polarizability by Eq (8), assuming Gaussian beam waists and exact overlap/focus.
    Section III measures trap frequencies and infers polarizability; misalignment or waist error would scale all polarizabilities.
  • ad hoc to paper A single-resonance Lorentzian (Eq 13) with center 576.4287 nm adequately represents the wavelength dependence of polarizability between 575.348 and 575.689 nm.
    Used to interpolate the zero; no derivation or identification of the transition is given.
  • domain assumption Magnetic field (4.464 G) and polarization ellipticity are calibrated well enough that θ_k=90°, θ_p, ε in Eqs (4),(5),(10)-(12) are known.
    Vector polarizability extraction assumes exact field direction and ellipticity measurement via Eq (15).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tune-out wavelength for the thulium atom near 576 nm." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IWOLUGMY

@misc{pith2026260220726,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tune-out wavelength for the thulium atom near 576 nm},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IWOLUGMY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.20726}
}
abstract

We report the theoretical prediction and measurement of a tune-out wavelength for the ground state of the thulium atom in a linearly polarized optical dipole trap with a wavelength of approximately 576 nm. The measurements were conducted using a combination of trap frequency and RF loss spectroscopy, thus making it possible to separate the scalar and tensor parts of the total polarizability without measurements in the range of negative total polarizability. The calculated tune-out wavelength is consistent with the measured one of $575.646_{-0.014}^{+0.016}$ nm in air. The existence of the zero in the polarizability for the Tm ground state was confirmed by the trap loss experiment, which also made it possible to refine the tune-out wavelength to $575.646_{-0.004}^{+0.004}$. Despite the presence of an imaginary part of the polarizability at some wavelengths, it was experimentally demonstrated that, with a proper choice of the dipole trap polarization, it was possible to achieve Bose-Einstein condensation of thulium atoms in the range from 575.348 to 575.689 nm, covering the tune-out wavelength.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references

  1. [2]

    Chalopin, P

    T. Chalopin, P. Bojović, D. Bourgund, S. Wang, T. Franz, I. Bloch, and T. Hilker, Optical Superlattice for Engineering Hubbard Couplings in Quantum Simulation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 053402 (2025)

    2025

  2. [3]

    R. Tao, M. Ammenwerth, F. Gyger, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, High -fidelity detection of large-scale atom arrays in an optical lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, (2023)

    2023

  3. [4]

    Yost and T

    D. Yost and T. Bothwell, Prospective Optical Lattice Clocks in Neutral Atoms with Hyperfine Structure, Atoms 2024, Vol. 12, Page 14 12, 14 (2024)

    2024

  4. [5]

    Anonymous, Entanglement-enhanced optical ion clock, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2025)

    2025

  5. [7]

    P. M. Kannath, G. S. Agarwal, and A. Kumar, Quantum sensing with bright two -mode squeezed light in a distributed network of gyroscopes, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 043269 (2025)

    2025

  6. [8]

    Ledesma, K

    C. Ledesma, K. Mehling, J. Shao, J. D. Wilson, P. Axelrad, M. Nicotra, D. Z. Anderson, and M. Holland, Demonstration of a programmable optical lattice atom interferometer, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 043120 (2024)

    2024

  7. [9]

    LeDesma, K

    C. LeDesma, K. Mehling, and M. Holland, Vector atom accelerometry in an optical lattice, Sci. Adv. 11, (2025)

    2025

  8. [10]

    Aeppli, K

    A. Aeppli, K. Kim, W. Warfield, M. S. Safronova, and J. Ye, Clock with 8*10^ -19 Systematic Uncertainty, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 023401 (2024)

    2024

Show all 62 references
  1. [11]

    R. Tao, M. Ammenwerth, F. Gyger, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, High -Fidelity Detection of Large-Scale Atom Arrays in an Optical Lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 013401 (2024)

    2024

  2. [12]

    L. Su, A. Douglas, M. Szurek, A. H. Hébert, A. Krahn, R. Groth, G. A. Phelps, O. Marković, and M. Greiner, Fast single atom imaging for optical lattice arrays, Nature Communications 2025 16:1 16, 1017 (2025)

    2025

  3. [13]

    Bland, G

    T. Bland, G. Lamporesi, M. J. Mark, and F. Ferlaino, Vortices in dipolar Bose–Einstein condensates, C. R. Phys. 24, 1 (2023)

    2023

  4. [14]

    Kirkby, A

    W. Kirkby, A. C. Lee, D. Baillie, T. Bland, F. Ferlaino, P. B. Blakie, and R. N. Bisset, Excitations of a Binary Dipolar Supersolid, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 103401 (2024)

    2024

  5. [15]

    Sohmen, M

    M. Sohmen, M. J. Mark, M. Greiner, and F. Ferlaino, A ship -in-a-bottle quantum gas microscope setup for magnetic mixtures, SciPost Physics 15, 182 (2023)

    2023

  6. [16]

    E. Poli, A. Litvinov, E. Casotti, C. Ulm, L. Klaus, M. J. Mark, G. Lamporesi, T. Bland, and F. Ferlaino, Synchronization in rotating supersolids, Nature Physics 2025 21:11 21, 1820 (2025)

    2025

  7. [17]

    Soave, A

    E. Soave, A. Canali, Z. X. Ye, M. Kreyer, E. Kirilov, and R. Grimm, Optically trapped Feshbach molecules of fermionic 161Dy and 40K, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033117 (2023)

    2023

  8. [18]

    E. T. Davletov, V. V. Tsyganok, V. A. Khlebnikov, D. A. Pershin, D. V. Shaykin, and A. V. Akimov, Machine learning for achieving Bose -Einstein condensation of thulium atoms, Phys. Rev. A (Coll Park). 102, 011302 (2020)

    2020

  9. [19]

    D. A. Kumpilov et al., Inspiration from machine learning on the example of optimization of the Bose-Einstein condensate of thulium atoms in a 1064-nm trap, Phys. Rev. A (Coll Park). 109, 33313 (2024)

    2024

  10. [20]

    V. V. Tsyganok et al., Bose-Einstein condensate as a diagnostic tool for an optical lattice formed by 1064 nm laser light, (2023)

    2023

  11. [21]

    Anonymous, Factor of 1000 suppression of the depolarization rate in ultracold thulium collisions, Phys. Rev. Res. (2026)

    2026

  12. [22]

    V. A. Khlebnikov, V. V Tsyganok, D. A. Pershin, E. T. Davletov, E. Kuznetsova, and A. V. Akimov, Characterizing the temperature dependence of Fano -Feshbach resonances of ultracold polarized thulium, Phys. Rev. A (Coll Park). 103, 023306 (2021)

    2021

  13. [23]

    V. A. Khlebnikov, D. A. Pershin, V. V. Tsyganok, E. T. Davletov, I. S. Cojocaru, E. S. Fedorova, A. A. Buchachenko, and A. V. Akimov, Random to Chaotic Statistic Transformation in Low -Field Fano -Feshbach Resonances of Cold Thulium Atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 213402 (2019)

    2019

  14. [24]

    E. T. Davletov, V. V Tsyganok, V. A. Khlebnikov, D. A. Pershin, and A. V Akimov, Random Matrix Theory Analysis of a Temperature-Related Transformation in Statistics of Fano–Feshbach Resonances in Thulium Atoms, Entropy 22, 1394 (2020)

    2020

  15. [25]

    Mishin, D

    D. Mishin, D. Tregubov, N. Kolachevsky, and A. Golovizin, Coherence of Microwave and Optical Qubit Levels in Neutral Thulium, PRX Quantum 6, 040329 (2025)

    2025

  16. [26]

    Golovizin, D

    A. Golovizin, D. Tregubov, D. Mishin, D. Provorchenko, N. Kolachevsky, and N. Kolachevsky, Compact magneto-optical trap of thulium atoms for a transportable optical clock, Optics Express, Vol. 29, Issue 22, Pp. 36734-36744 29, 36734 (2021)

    2021

  17. [27]

    Golovizin, E

    A. Golovizin, E. Fedorova, D. Tregubov, D. Sukachev, K. Khabarova, V. Sorokin, and N. Kolachevsky, Inner-shell clock transition in atomic thulium with a small blackbody radiation shift, Nat. Commun. 10, (2019)

    2019

  18. [28]

    Aikawa, A

    K. Aikawa, A. Frisch, M. Mark, S. Baier, A. Rietzler, R. Grimm, and F. Ferlaino, Bose- Einstein condensation of erbium, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 1 (2012)

    2012

  19. [29]

    M. Lu, N. Q. Burdick, S. H. Youn, and B. L. Lev, Strongly dipolar Bose -Einstein condensate of dysprosium, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 1 (2011)

    2011

  20. [30]

    M. H. Anderson, J. R. Ensher, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell, Observation of Bose-Einstein Condensation in a Dilute Atomic Vapor, Science (1979). 269, 198 (1995)

    1979

  21. [31]

    Miyazawa, R

    Y. Miyazawa, R. Inoue, H. Matsui, G. Nomura, and M. Kozuma, Bose -Einstein Condensation of Europium, (2022)

    2022

  22. [32]

    C. C. Bradley, C. A. Sackett, and R. G. Hulet, Bose-Einstein Condensation of Lithium: Observation of Limited Condensate Number, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 985 (1997)

    1997

  23. [33]

    K. B. Davis, M. O. Mewes, M. R. Andrews, N. J. Van Druten, D. S. Durfee, D. M. Kurn, and W. Ketterle, Bose-Einstein condensation in a gas of sodium atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3969 (1995)

    1995

  24. [34]

    Schneider, M

    Ch. Schneider, M. Enderlein, T. Huber, and T. Schaetz, Optical Trapping of an Ion, Nat. Photonics 4, 772 (2010)

    2010

  25. [35]

    Weckesser, F

    P. Weckesser, F. Thielemann, D. Hoenig, A. Lambrecht, L. Karpa, and T. Schaetz, Trapping, shaping, and isolating of an ion Coulomb crystal via state -selective optical potentials, Phys. Rev. A (Coll Park). 103, 013112 (2021)

    2021

  26. [36]

    J. M. Cui, S. J. Sun, X. W. Luo, Y. F. Huang, C. F. Li, and G. C. Guo, Cold hybrid electrical-optical ion trap, Phys. Rev. Appl. 23, 054044 (2025)

    2025

  27. [37]

    Schmidt, A

    J. Schmidt, A. Lambrecht, P. Weckesser, M. Debatin, L. Karpa, and T. Schaetz, Optical Trapping of Ion Coulomb Crystals, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021028 (2018)

    2018

  28. [38]

    Huber, A

    T. Huber, A. Lambrecht, J. Schmidt, L. Karpa, and T. Schaetz, A far -off-resonance optical trap for a Ba+ ion, Nature Communications 2014 5:1 5, 5587 (2014)

    2014

  29. [39]

    Grimm and Y

    R. Grimm and Y. B. Ovchinnikov, Optical dipole traps for neutral atoms, Advances In Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 42, 95 (1987)

    1987

  30. [40]

    Greiner and S

    M. Greiner and S. Fölling, Optical lattices, Nature 453, 736 (2008)

    2008

  31. [41]

    J. Wang, X. He, M. Zhan, and P. Xu, Trapping a single atom in a blue detuned optical bottle beam trap, Optics Letters, Vol. 35, Issue 13, Pp. 2164-2166 35, 2164 (2010)

    2010

  32. [43]

    Le Kien, P

    F. Le Kien, P. Schneeweiss, A. Rauschenbeutel, F. Le Kien, P. Schneeweiss, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Dynamical polarizability of atoms in arbitrary light fields: General theory and application to cesium, European Physical Journal D 67, (2013)

    2013

  33. [44]

    X. Chu, A. Dalgarno, and G. C. Groenenboom, Dynamic polarizabilities of rare -earth- metal atoms and dispersion coefficients for their interaction with helium atoms, Phys. Rev. A 75, 1 (2007)

    2007

  34. [45]

    Trubko, M

    R. Trubko, M. D. Gregoire, W. F. Holmgren, and A. D. Cronin, Potassium tune -out- wavelength measurement using atom interferometry and a multipass optical cavity, Phys. Rev. A (Coll Park). 95, (2017)

    2017

  35. [46]

    Arora, M

    B. Arora, M. S. Safronova, and C. W. Clark, Tune-out wavelengths of alkali-metal atoms and their applications, Phys. Rev. A 84, (2011)

    2011

  36. [48]

    A. J. Fallon, E. R. Moan, E. A. Larson, and C. A. Sackett, Measurement of the Rb 87 D -line vector tune-out wavelength, Phys. Rev. A (Coll Park). 105, (2022)

    2022

  37. [49]

    Bause, M

    R. Bause, M. Li, A. Schindewolf, X. Y. Chen, M. Duda, S. Kotochigova, I. Bloch, and X. Y. Luo, Tune-Out and Magic Wavelengths for Ground-State Na 23 K 40 Molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 1 (2020)

    2020

  38. [50]

    Ratkata, P

    A. Ratkata, P. D. Gregory, A. D. Innes, J. A. Matthies, L. A. McArd, J. M. Mortlock, M. S. Safronova, S. L. Bromley, and S. L. Cornish, Measurement of the tune -out wavelength for 133Cs at 880 nm, 1 (2021)

    2021

  39. [51]

    V. V. V Tsyganok, D. A. A. Pershin, E. T. T. Davletov, V. A. A. Khlebnikov, and A. V. V Akimov, Scalar, tensor, and vector polarizability of Tm atoms in a 532 -nm dipole trap, Phys. Rev. A (Coll Park). 100, 042502 (2019)

    2019

  40. [52]

    V. V. Tsyganok et al., Losses of thulium atoms from optical dipole traps operating at 532 and 1064 nm, Phys. Rev. A (Coll Park). 107, 023315 (2023)

    2023

  41. [53]

    E. S. Kalganova, A. A. Golovizin, D. O. Shevnin, D. O. Tregubov, K. Y. Khabarova, V. N. Sorokin, and N. N. Kolachevsky, Trapping of thulium atoms in a cavity -enhanced optical lattice near a magic wavelength of 814.5 nm, Quantum Elec. (Woodbury). 48, 415 (2018)

    2018

  42. [54]

    Golovizin, E

    A. Golovizin, E. Fedorova, D. Tregubov, D. Sukachev, K. Khabarova, V. Sorokin, and N. Kolachevsky, Inner-shell clock transition in atomic thulium with a small blackbody radiation shift, Nature Communications 2019 10:1 10, 1 (2019)

    2019

  43. [55]

    J. H. Becher, S. Baier, K. Aikawa, M. Lepers, O. Dulieu, F. Ferlaino, J. -F. Wyart, O. Dulieu, and F. Ferlaino, Anisotropic polarizability of erbium atoms, Phys. Rev. A (Coll Park). 97, 012509 (2018)

    2018

  44. [56]

    W. Kao, Y. Tang, N. Q. Burdick, and B. L. Lev, Anisotropic dependence of tune -out wavelength near Dy 741-nm transition, Opt. Express 25, 3411 (2017)

    2017

  45. [57]

    V. V. Tsyganok, D. A. Pershin, E. T. Davletov, V. A. Khlebnikov, and A. V. Akimov, Scalar, tensor, and vector polarizability of Tm atoms in a 532-nm dipole trap, Phys. Rev. A (Coll Park). 100, 042502 (2019)

    2019

  46. [58]

    Kramida, Yu

    A. Kramida, Yu. Ralchenko, J. Reader, and The NIST ASD Team (2018), NIST Atomic Spectra Database, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (Ver. 5.6.1) (2019)

    2018

  47. [59]

    I. S. S. Cojocaru et al., Light -assisted collisions in ultracold Tm atoms, Phys. Rev. A (Coll Park). 95, 012706 (2017)

    2017

  48. [60]

    V Tsyganok et al., Polarized cold cloud of thulium atom, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 51, 165001 (2018)

    V. V Tsyganok et al., Polarized cold cloud of thulium atom, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 51, 165001 (2018)

    2018

  49. [61]

    Kumpilov et al., Transport of magnetically sensitive atoms in a magnetic environment, Appl

    D. Kumpilov et al., Transport of magnetically sensitive atoms in a magnetic environment, Appl. Phys. Lett. 126, (2025)

    2025

  50. [62]

    V. Khlebnikov et al., The loss spectrum of cold polarized thulium atoms in optical dipole trap at low magnetic The Loss Spectrum of Cold Polarized Thulium Atoms in Optical Dipole Trap at Low Magnetic Fields, 020019, (2020)

    2020

  51. [63]

    D. A. Pershin et al., Microwave coherent spectroscopy of ultracold thulium atoms, Phys. Rev. A (Coll Park). 00, 3100 (2020)

    2020

  52. [64]

    V. V. Tsyganok, D. A. Pershin, V. A. Khlebnikov, E. T. Davletov, and A. V. Akimov, Zeeman Spectroscopy of Ultracold Thulium Atoms, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics 128, (2019)

    2019

  53. [65]

    D. A. Pershin, V. V. Tsyganok, V. V. Yaroshenko, V. A. Khlebnikov, E. T. Davletov, E. L. Svechnikov, V. N. Sorokin, P. V. Kapitanova, and A. V. V. Akimov, Microwave Spectroscopy of Ultracold Thulium Atoms, Bulletin of the Lebedev Physics Institute 45, 377 (2018)

    2018

  54. [66]

    M. E. Wickliffe and J. E. Lawler, Atomic transition probabilities for Tm I and Tm II, Journal of the Optical Society of America B 14, 737 (1997)

    1997

Pith tools

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