Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Order of Magnitude Improved Optical Trapping of Molecules Through Transverse Cooling

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Transverse Sisyphus cooling of a SrOH molecular beam raises molecules loaded into a magneto-optical trap by 12x, enabling 2.2×10^4 molecules in an ODT and revealing collision-limited lifetimes at high density.

desk verdict First clear demonstration that sub-Doppler transverse cooling improves molecular MOT loading; the factor-12 gain is credible, but absolute calibration and a density/number inconsistency need attention. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.16913 v1 pith:KRDJ6G53 submitted 2026-07-18 physics.atom-ph

Abdullah Nasir , Annika Lunstad , Mingda Li , Saif Salim , Shuqi Liu , Christian Hallas , Zack Lasner , John M. Doyle This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph
keywords transverselasercoolingSisyphusmagneto-opticaltrapopticaldipolestrontiummonohydroxidepolyatomicmoleculestwo-bodycollisionsultracold
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper demonstrates that two-dimensional Sisyphus (sub-Doppler) transverse laser cooling of a cryogenic buffer-gas beam of strontium monohydroxide (SrOH) increases the number of molecules loaded into a magneto-optical trap (MOT) by an average factor of about 12, by collimating the beam and reducing the dominant geometric loss. The achieved MOT number is 3.8(5)×10^5, and an optical dipole trap (ODT) reaches 2.2(3)×10^4 molecules at a peak density near 2×10^10 cm^-3, with the lifetime set by SrOH–SrOH two-body collisions at β≈4×10^-10 cm^3/s. The cooling method uses a Λ-enhanced gray-molasses configuration on the type-II cycling transition and is claimed to be generally applicable to all directly laser-cooled molecules. If correct, this order-of-magnitude gain directly improves the statistical reach of molecular precision experiments and helps push polyatomic samples toward the densities needed for quantum many-body studies.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is two-dimensional Sisyphus cooling of the molecular beam, implemented as a Λ-enhanced gray-molasses configuration on the type-II cycling transition of SrOH. Two orthogonal standing waves, each containing two frequency components split by 110 MHz (matching the ground-state spin-rotation splitting), create a spatially varying light shift. Molecules climb these potential hills to intensity maxima, are optically pumped into dark sublevels, and then return to intensity minima, losing kinetic energy each cycle. This cools the transverse velocity spread to well below the MOT capture velocity, collimating the beam so that a far larger fraction intersects the small MOT capture

What would settle it

Measure the transverse velocity distribution of the SrOH beam immediately after the transverse-cooling region (e.g., via a scanning probe laser that measures Doppler broadening). If the rms transverse velocity is not reduced to near or below the MOT capture velocity (~1 m/s) when the cooling is on, the 12x MOT gain cannot be attributed to beam collimation; conversely, if the gain disappears when the standing-wave angle is intentionally misaligned by a small amount, the pointing-dependence model (which the paper invokes) would be confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that applying sub-Doppler Sisyphus cooling in two dimensions to a molecular beam—before it reaches the MOT—mitigates the geometric loss that dominates molecular MOT loading, yielding a measured multiplicative increase η_TC ≈ 12. This brings N_MOT to 3.8(5)×10^5 and N_ODT to 2.2(3)×10^4, with a peak ODT density of ~2(1)×10^10 cm^-3 (extrapolated to a 40 ms hold time). The authors show that the improvement depends on the overall and relative detunings of the cooling lasers, their intensity, and the alignment of the standing waves, with a clear maximum near Δ_TC ≈ 165 MHz and Δ_Axes ≈ 0, consistent with Λ-enhanced gray-molasses cooling. At the resulting densities, the O

Load-bearing premise

The paper's headline gain assumes that the TC-on and TC-off measurements differ only in the transverse collimation of the beam; if the cooling simultaneously changes the beam's pointing or the overlap with the MOT, the reported factor of 12 would not be a pure measure of the geometric-loss reduction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A factor-of-12 increase in MOT and ODT loading is achieved purely by beam collimation, without altering the source chemistry or slowing scheme.
  • At densities near 2×10^10 cm^-3, two-body SrOH–SrOH collisions set the ODT lifetime, so further gains require larger trap volume, lower temperature, or suppression of collisions.
  • The method is claimed to apply to all known directly laser-coolable molecules, including symmetric and asymmetric top polyatomics, making the gain general.
  • The demonstrated molecule numbers move SrOH-based ultralight-dark-matter searches to within an order of magnitude of current clock-comparison limits and enable eEDM searches sensitive to CP-violating particles with masses ≫10 TeV.
  • Bringing the transverse-cooling region closer to the source (e.g., 10 cm rather than 30 cm) is predicted to yield another order-of-magnitude improvement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 12x gain appears to compound with other number-enhancement methods (e.g., chemical enhancement, high-compression MOTs), so combined approaches could push trapped molecular numbers toward 10^5–10^6.
  • The strong sensitivity of the gain to beam pointing (the paper shows that misalignment can make 2D cooling worse than 1D) suggests that practical implementations will need active or passive alignment stabilization to realize the full factor in day-to-day operation.
  • If the measured β≈4×10^-10 cm^3/s holds for other polyatomic species, it would set a fundamental density limit for unshielded molecular ODTs and emphasize the need for collisional shielding (e.g., microwave dressing) on the path to quantum degeneracy.
  • The reported peak density relies on extrapolating the ODT number to a 40 ms hold time; direct density measurements at short hold times would test the two-body loss model and refine the collisional parameters.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports a two-dimensional transverse Sisyphus cooling scheme applied to a cryogenic buffer-gas beam of SrOH prior to magneto-optical trapping. The authors measure a multiplicative increase in the number of trapped molecules of η_TC ≈ 12 (range 9–15) when the transverse cooling is on, yielding N_MOT = 3.8(5)×10^5 and, after loading into an ODT and a 150 ms hold, N_ODT = 2.2(3)×10^4 molecules, with a quoted peak density of ~2(1)×10^10 cm^-3. The ODT lifetime is reported to be limited by SrOH–SrOH two-body collisions with a rate constant β ~ 4×10^-10 cm^3/s and a one-body lifetime τ ≈ 1.9 s. The paper also characterizes the dependence of the cooling gain on laser detuning, power, and alignment, and discusses applications to ultralight dark matter searches and other molecular cooling experiments.

Significance. If the reported gain is robust, the work addresses a key bottleneck in direct molecular laser cooling: the geometric loss between a divergent beam and a small MOT capture volume. The in-situ η_TC measurement is self-contained, requiring no external benchmark, which is a strength. The paper also provides a useful parameter-space characterization (detuning, power, relative axis detuning) and an explicit discussion of the sensitivity to beam pointing, including a demonstration that mispointing can turn the gain negative. The authors are transparent about run-to-run variation and about the calibration of absolute numbers being inherited from previous work [23,41]. These features make the central result credible, but the absolute number and density claims require some clarification and, in the case of the quoted density, a correction.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III and SM2] The attribution of η_TC ≈ 12 to transverse collimation is not fully controlled. The collimated (TC-on) beam is actively re-centered on the MOT by tilting the TC standing wave (SM2, Fig. 12), and the reported gain is obtained after maximizing over powers, detunings, and alignment. The TC-off condition is not described as being re-centered or verified to overlap the MOT capture region under the same procedure. Since SM2 shows that incorrect pointing can make 2D TC worse than 1D (Fig. 11), the measured ratio could partially reflect improved beam-MOT overlap rather than reduced divergence. Please state explicitly whether the TC-off beam was verified to be centered on the MOT, or provide a control measurement with the uncooled beam re-aligned using the same feedback.
  2. [§IV and Abstract] There is an inconsistency between the quoted 'peak density' and the reported effective volume and number. With N_ODT = 2.2(3)×10^4 at 150 ms and V_eff = 2.1×10^-6 cm^3, N/V_eff ≈ 1.0×10^10 cm^-3; using the extrapolated 5(2)×10^4 at 40 ms gives ≈ 2.4×10^10 cm^-3. The abstract's ~2(1)×10^10 cm^-3 therefore appears to be N/V_eff, which for a Gaussian density distribution is a factor 2√2 ≈ 2.8 smaller than the actual peak density. Please clarify whether the quoted density is N/V_eff or the true peak density, and reconcile the abstract's pairing of the 150-ms number with a 40-ms density.
  3. [§III/SM1] The absolute numbers N_ODT and the derived density rest on a fluorescence-to-number calibration taken from refs. [23,41] and a 1.07× correction for the 93% photon budget, as described in SM1. The reported uncertainties (e.g., 2.2(3)×10^4) appear to be statistical only. Since these absolute values are headline results, please provide a systematic uncertainty estimate for the calibration transfer or state explicitly that the imaging system and detection efficiency are unchanged from the previous work.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states '2.2(3)×10^4 ultracold SrOH molecules with a peak density of ~2(1)×10^10 cm^-3'; the number is at 150 ms while the density appears to correspond to the extrapolated 40-ms value. Please make the timing consistent.
  2. [§III] The uncertainty on the headline η_TC ≈ 12 is not reported; only the range 9–15 from run-to-run variation is given. Please provide the mean and standard error for the set of measurements.
  3. [§III] In the sentence 'the MOT improvement becomes η_TC ∼4η_TCsingle', the subscript formatting of η_TCsingle is inconsistent and should be fixed.
  4. [Fig. 4 caption] The phrase 'Within Fig.a, depicted is a slice' is awkward and should be reworded for clarity.
  5. [SM2, Table I] The 'MOT gain' column lacks explicit uncertainties for the first row (by definition 1) and the rows could benefit from stating the number of repetitions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the factor-12 gain is a directly measured TC-on/off ratio; absolute numbers inherit a prior calibration but are not defined by the claims they support.

full rationale

The central claim is an experimental measurement, not a derived prediction. The paper reports 'The average multiplicative increase is observed to be η_TC ∼12' (§III) as a direct comparison of MOT number with TC on versus off. Figures 2–5 are scans of this measured gain versus laser parameters, not predictions obtained from fitted inputs. The absolute numbers N_MOT and N_ODT rely on a fluorescence-to-number calibration from earlier work [23,41], stated in SM1: 'Previous work calculated the conversion from the camera fluorescence to the trapped molecule number in the red-MOT [23, 41], and the same calibration can be used to report the ODT number using RRI.' This is an inherited experimental calibration, not a parameter fitted to the present data and then renamed as a prediction; the paper also applies an explicit 1.07 correction for finite imaging lifetime. The two-body collision rate β is obtained from a one-plus-two-body fit to measured decay curves, with the one-body lifetime checked against a dilute sample, so it is a fitted observable rather than a circularly defined quantity. The UDM sensitivity projection uses the authors' earlier framework [60] and refits vibrational constants to published levels, but that is an application of the measured molecule number, not the load-bearing derivation of the trapping improvement. The skeptical concerns about pointing asymmetry, optimization of TC parameters, source-dynamics variation in η_TC (9–15), and calibration inheritance are experimental systematic and correctness issues; the manuscript itself discloses the pointing sensitivity in SM2, where an incorrect standing-wave angle 'can deflect the beam from the MOT such that the 2D cooling results in worse MOT gains than the 1D cooling alone.' None of these issues makes a claimed output equivalent to an input by construction. Therefore no circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central differential measurement (η_TC as an in-situ on/off ratio) is parameter-free. Free parameters enter secondary claims: β and τ from the decay fit, the Eq. 1 vibrational constants fitted to previously published levels for the UDM projection, and hand-optimized laser settings whose optimum defines the headline gain. No new entities (particles, forces, dimensions) are invented; the UDM and eEDM physics referenced is external literature. The main domain assumptions are standard trap/thermal modeling (with acknowledged factor-2 systematics) and the Λ-gray-molasses interpretation of the cooling mechanism.

free parameters (4)
  • Two-body collision rate constant β = ~4×10^-10 cm^3/s (factor ~2 systematic)
    Fitted from one-plus-two-body decay of ODT density vs hold time (§IV, Fig. 6); the claim that ODT lifetime is two-body limited rests on this fit, with a uniform-density model.
  • One-body lifetime τ_single = 1.9(1) s
    Fitted simultaneously in the one-plus-two-body decay; cross-checked against a dilute-sample exponential lifetime where two-body loss is negligible.
  • Vibrational constants of Eq. 1 (Table II) = ω1=541.38, ω2=378.60, x11=-2.54, x22=-7.03, x12=-10.34, x111=0.019, x122=0.971, x222=0.346, g22=7.51
    Least-squares fit to 11 observed vibrational levels (SM3); these constants, with imposed µ-scaling, generate the UDM sensitivity projection. Fit predicts observed levels to <0.4 cm^-1.
  • TC operating point (hand-optimized) = Δ_TC≈165 MHz, δ_TC=110 MHz, Δ_Axes=0, P(I)/(II)=3:1, I_TC/I_sat≈740, 13 ms TC window with 10 ms buffer before slowing
    Chosen by maximizing η_TC in parameter scans (Figs. 2–5); the headline η_TC=12 is the optimized value, and η_TC varies 9–15 with source dynamics.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Harmonic-trap thermal model: Veff=(2√π)^3 σxσyσz with a Gaussian thermal distribution at T_ODT=54 µK
    Used in §IV to convert measured number into density and β; the authors note the uniform-density model introduces systematic deviation up to a factor of 2.
  • domain assumption Λ-enhanced gray-molasses/Sisyphus mechanism on the type-II SrOH transition with blue-detuned light cools transversely
    Standard sub-Doppler cooling theory invoked to interpret Figs. 2–4; the operating point δ_TC=110 MHz = spin-rotation splitting is read as gray molasses in a Λ-system.
  • domain assumption MOT loading loss is dominated by geometric beam divergence (capture fraction ~10^-4)
    Motivates the entire method and the expected gain scaling η_TC∝1/d² in §III.
  • domain assumption µ-scaling of vibrational constants (ω∝µ^-1/2, x∝µ^-1) mapped through the sensitivity framework of Ref. [60]
    SM3's UDM projection applies the standard isotope-shift scaling from Kozyryev et al. to the newly fitted constants; the projection is an extrapolation, not a measurement.
  • domain assumption One-plus-two-body decay model dN/dt = -N/τ - β⟨n⟩N
    Used for the Fig. 6 fit; supported by residual analysis, but β carries a factor-~2 systematic from the density-model assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Order of Magnitude Improved Optical Trapping of Molecules Through Transverse Cooling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KRDJ6G53

@misc{pith2026260716913,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Order of Magnitude Improved Optical Trapping of Molecules Through Transverse Cooling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KRDJ6G53}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.16913}
}
abstract

We demonstrate a two-dimensional Sisyphus laser cooling method that increases the number of strontium monohydroxide (SrOH) molecules loaded into a magneto-optical trap by a factor of 12. Subsequent loading into an optical dipole trap (ODT) achieves $2.2 (3)\times10^4$ ultracold SrOH molecules with a peak density of $\sim2(1)\times10^{10}~\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$. The lifetime of molecules in the ODT is limited by two-body collisions characterized by a measured collision rate constant $\beta \sim 4\times10^{-10}~\mathrm{cm^3/s}$. The cooling method developed here is generally applicable to all known cases of direct molecular laser cooling, including symmetric and asymmetric top molecules. Increases in trapped molecule number will directly improve the search for ultralight dark matter, position polyatomic molecules as a platform for probing CP-violating new particles with masses $\gg$10 TeV, and facilitate a broad range of further research in quantum science.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16913 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Experimental sequence, starting with SrOH production in a cryogenic buffer gas beam (CBGB) cell. The molecules [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Multiplicative increase ηTC in NMOT as a func￾tion of overall detuning (∆TC) of the TC lasers relative to the J = 3/2 spin-rotation level. The relative detuning between the (I) and (II) frequency components δTC in each cooling axis is held fixed to a value of 110 MHz. A maximum in ηTC oc￾curs near ∆TC ∼ 165 MHz. Around ∆TC ∼ 90 MHz, cooling becomes ineffective because the lower-frequency component approaches resonan… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. ηTC as a function of the relative detuning between the two cooling-axis frequencies, ∆Axes (see text). a MOT as described in [41], after which the molecular cloud is sub-Doppler cooled, then compressed in a CB MOT and trapped in an ODT [11]. Transverse cooling of the molecu￾lar beam is done via Sisyphus cooling in two dimensions as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: a) Increase in MOT number for scans varying [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Transverse cooling gain ηTC as a function of the overall frequency ∆TC and the power of the two frequency components with a fixed 3:1 power ratio between components (I) and (II). This asymmetry in the system comes from (I) being much closer to resonance with the J = 3/…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Measured number of molecules in the ODT as a function of time, fit to a one body, one plus two body, and two body [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Image of the molecular beam observed ∼1 m from the cell (70 cm from TC cooling region) on an EMCCD on a normalized color scale, showing both the cooling and heating effects with the laser detuned blue or red, respectively. (i) Cooling only (ii) Cooling and slowing [PI…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Beam fluorescence viewed 70 cm after cooling. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: With a set total ‘buffer time’ of 10 ms between the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: MOT gain with both axes in 2D TC, compared [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Molecular beam fluorescence viewed in the MOT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Projected 95% C.L. sensitivity of laser cooled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Probing $P,T$-Symmetry Violation with Optically Trapped Asymmetric Top Molecules

    physics.atom-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Asymmetric top M-NH2 molecules are shown to offer long-lived ground-state parity doublets and engineered clock transitions that project electron EDM sensitivity beyond current limits.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    DeMille, Phys

    D. DeMille, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 067901 (2002). [2] P. Yu, L. W. Cheuk, I. Kozyryev, and J. M. Doyle, New J. Phys. 7 21, 093049 (2019)

    2002

  2. [3]

    L. R. B. Picard, A. J. Park, G. E. Patenotte, S. Gebretsadkan, D. Wellnitz, A. M. Rey, and K.-K. Ni, Nature637, 821 (2025)

    2025

  3. [4]

    M. L. Wall, K. Maeda, and L. D. Carr, Annalen der Physik525, 845 (2013)

    2013

  4. [5]

    N. R. Hutzler, Quantum Sci. Technol.5, 044011 (2020)

    2020

  5. [6]

    Kozyryev and N

    I. Kozyryev and N. R. Hutzler, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 133002 (2017)

    2017

  6. [7]

    T. S. Roussy, L. Caldwell, T. Wright, W. B. Cairncross, Y . Shagam, K. B. Ng, N. Schlossberger, S. Y . Park, A. Wang, J. Ye, and E. A. Cornell, Science381, 46 (2023)

    2023

  7. [8]

    ACME Collaboration, Science343, 269 (2014)

    2014

  8. [9]

    Hallas, N

    C. Hallas, N. B. Vilas, L. Anderegg, P. Robichaud, A. Winnicki, C. Zhang, L. Cheng, and J. M. Doyle, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 153202 (2023)

    2023

Show all 64 references
  1. [10]

    Anderegg, B

    L. Anderegg, B. L. Augenbraun, Y . Bao, S. Burchesky, L. W. Cheuk, W. Ketterle, and J. M. Doyle, Nat. Phys.14, 890 (2018)

    2018

  2. [11]

    Sawaoka, A

    H. Sawaoka, A. Nasir, A. Lunstad, M. Li, J. Mango, Z. D. Las- ner, and J. M. Doyle, Phys. Rev. Research8, 013100 (2026)

    2026

  3. [12]

    T. K. Langin, V . Jorapur, Y . Zhu, Q. Wang, and D. DeMille, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 163201 (2021)

    2021

  4. [13]

    N. B. Vilas, P. Robichaud, C. Hallas, G. K. Li, L. Anderegg, and J. M. Doyle, Nature628, 282 (2024)

    2024

  5. [14]

    Y . Bao, S. S. Yu, L. Anderegg, E. Chae, W. Ketterle, K.-K. Ni, and J. M. Doyle, Science382, 1138 (2023)

    2023

  6. [15]

    C. M. Holland, Y . Lu, and L. W. Cheuk, Science382, 1143 (2023)

    2023

  7. [16]

    L. R. Liu, J. D. Hood, Y . Yu, J. T. Zhang, K. Wang, Y .-W. Lin, T. Rosenband, and K.-K. Ni, Phys. Rev. X9, 021039 (2019)

    2019

  8. [17]

    D. K. Ruttley, A. Guttridge, T. R. Hepworth, and S. L. Cornish, PRX Quantum5, 020333 (2024)

    2024

  9. [18]

    Jadbabaie, N

    A. Jadbabaie, N. H. Pilgram, J. Kłos, S. Kotochigova, and N. R. Hutzler, New J. Phys.22, 022002 (2020)

    2020

  10. [19]

    Hallas, G

    C. Hallas, G. K. Li, N. B. Vilas, P. Robichaud, L. Anderegg, and J. M. Doyle, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 133402 (2026)

    2026

  11. [20]

    Jorapur, T

    V . Jorapur, T. K. Langin, Q. Wang, G. Zheng, and D. DeMille, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 163403 (2024)

    2024

  12. [21]

    S. S. Yu, J. You, Y . Bao, L. Anderegg, C. Hallas, G. K. Li, D. Lim, E. Chae, W. Ketterle, K.-K. Ni, and J. M. Doyle, Nat Commun16, 6549 (2025)

    2025

  13. [22]

    Youssef, K

    E. Youssef, K. Wilson, J. Cao, R. Brislawn, A. Lakkireddy, K. Liu, A. Teo, P. Turner, and L. Anderegg, (2026), arXiv:2605.30296

    2026 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Lunstad, H

    A. Lunstad, H. Sawaoka, Z. Lasner, A. Nasir, M. Li, J. Mango, R. Fields, and J. M. Doyle, Phys. Rev. A113, 042820 (2026)

    2026

  15. [24]

    T. K. Langin and D. DeMille, New J. Phys.25, 043005 (2023)

    2023

  16. [25]

    Kozyryev, L

    I. Kozyryev, L. Baum, K. Matsuda, B. L. Augenbraun, L. An- deregg, A. P. Sedlack, and J. M. Doyle, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 173201 (2017)

    2017

  17. [26]

    Mitra, N

    D. Mitra, N. B. Vilas, C. Hallas, L. Anderegg, B. L. Augen- braun, L. Baum, C. Miller, S. Raval, and J. M. Doyle, Science 369, 1366 (2020)

    2020

  18. [27]

    G. K. Li, G. Lee, J. Mango, H. Lampson, Y . Lee, W. Wang, A. Periwal, N. B. Vilas, A. Frenett, L. Anderegg, and J. M. Doyle, (2026), arXiv:2606.12323

    2026 arXiv

  19. [28]

    B. L. Augenbraun, Z. D. Lasner, A. Frenett, H. Sawaoka, C. Miller, T. C. Steimle, and J. M. Doyle, New J. Phys.22, 022003 (2020)

    2020

  20. [29]

    Alauze, J

    X. Alauze, J. Lim, M. A. Trigatzis, S. Swarbrick, F. J. Collings, N. J. Fitch, B. E. Sauer, and M. R. Tarbutt, Quantum Sci. Tech- nol.6, 044005 (2021)

    2021

  21. [30]

    J. W. F. van Hofslot, I. E. Thompson, A. Touwen, N. Bala- subramanian, R. Bause, H. L. Bethlem, A. Borschevsky, T. H. Fikkers, S. Hoekstra, S. A. Jones, J. E. J. Levenga, M. C. Mooij, H. Mulder, B. A. Nijman, E. H. Prinsen, B. J. Schellenberg, L. van Sloten, R. G. E. Timmerman...

    2026

  22. [31]

    C. J. H. Rich,Towards sympathetic cooling of molecules using ultracold atoms, Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College London (2022)

    2022

  23. [32]

    This is discussed in Appendix V

  24. [33]

    G. P. Centers, J. W. Blanchard, J. Conrad, N. L. Figueroa, A. Garcon, A. V . Gramolin, D. F. Jackson Kimball, M. Law- son, B. Pelssers, J. A. Smiga, A. O. Sushkov, A. Wickenbrock, D. Budker, and A. Derevianko, Nat Commun12, 7321 (2021)

    2021

  25. [34]

    This is discussed in Appendix V A

  26. [35]

    N. R. Hutzler, H.-I. Lu, and J. M. Doyle, Chemical Reviews 112, 4803 (2012)

    2012

  27. [36]

    N. B. Vilas, C. Hallas, L. Anderegg, P. Robichaud, A. Winnicki, D. Mitra, and J. M. Doyle, Nature606, 70 (2022)

    2022

  28. [37]

    L. Baum, N. B. Vilas, C. Hallas, B. L. Augenbraun, S. Raval, D. Mitra, and J. M. Doyle, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 133201 (2020)

    2020

  29. [38]

    J. F. Barry, D. J. McCarron, E. B. Norrgard, M. H. Steinecker, and D. Demille, Nature512, 286 (2014)

    2014

  30. [39]

    A. L. Collopy, S. Ding, Y . Wu, I. A. Finneran, L. Anderegg, B. L. Augenbraun, J. M. Doyle, and J. Ye, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 213201 (2018)

    2018

  31. [40]

    J. E. Padilla-Castillo, J. Cai, P. Agarwal, P. Kukreja, R. Thomas, B. G. Sartakov, S. Truppe, G. Meijer, and S. C. Wright, (2025), arXiv:2506.02266

    2025

  32. [41]

    Z. D. Lasner, A. Frenett, H. Sawaoka, L. Anderegg, B. Augen- braun, H. Lampson, M. Li, A. Lunstad, J. Mango, A. Nasir, T. Ono, T. Sakamoto, and J. M. Doyle, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 083401 (2025)

    2025

  33. [42]

    For 1D cooling, some magnetic field appeared ben- eficial and we retain that optimal 1D value in our 2D cooling

    We have not observed an effect from the static magnetic field in 2D cooling. For 1D cooling, some magnetic field appeared ben- eficial and we retain that optimal 1D value in our 2D cooling

  34. [43]

    Nasir,Improved Optical Trapping of SrOH to Probe Ultra- light Dark Matter, Ph.D

    A. Nasir,Improved Optical Trapping of SrOH to Probe Ultra- light Dark Matter, Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University (2026)

    2026

  35. [44]

    M. R. Tarbutt and J. A. Devlin, Phys. Rev. Research4, L042036 (2022)

    2022

  36. [45]

    S. Ding, Y . Wu, I. A. Finneran, J. J. Burau, and J. Ye, Phys. Rev. X10, 021049 (2020)

    2020

  37. [46]

    Arrowsmith-Kron and others., Reports on Progress in Physics87, 084301 (2024)

    G. Arrowsmith-Kron and others., Reports on Progress in Physics87, 084301 (2024)

    2024

  38. [47]

    Yu and N

    P. Yu and N. R. Hutzler, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 023003 (2021)

    2021

  39. [48]

    Fleig and D

    T. Fleig and D. DeMille, New Journal of Physics23, 113039 (2021)

    2021

  40. [49]

    J. Lim, J. R. Almond, M. A. Trigatzis, J. A. Devlin, N. J. Fitch, B. E. Sauer, M. R. Tarbutt, and E. A. Hinds, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 123201 (2018)

    2018

  41. [50]

    Tarbutt, B

    M. Tarbutt, B. Sauer, J. Hudson, and E. Hinds, New J. Phys.15, 053034 (2013)

    2013

  42. [51]

    R. F. Garcia Ruizet al., Nature581, 396 (2020)

    2020

  43. [52]

    S. M. Udrescuet al., Nat. Phys.20, 202 (2024)

    2024

  44. [53]

    C. J. Conn, P. Yu, M. I. Howard, Y . Yang, C. Zhang, A. Jad- babaie, A. Gorou, A. N. Gaiser, T. C. Steimle, L. Cheng, and N. R. Hutzler, Science393, 319 (2026)

    2026

  45. [54]

    K. B. Davis, M.-O. Mewes, M. A. Joffe, M. R. Andrews, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 5202 (1995)

    1995

  46. [55]

    Masuhara, J

    N. Masuhara, J. M. Doyle, J. C. Sandberg, D. Kleppner, T. J. Greytak, H. F. Hess, and G. P. Kochanski, Phys. Rev. Lett.61, 935 (1988)

    1988

  47. [56]

    Anderegg, S

    L. Anderegg, S. Burchesky, Y . Bao, S. S. Yu, T. Karman, E. Chae, K.-K. Ni, W. Ketterle, and J. M. Doyle, Science373, 779 (2021)

    2021

  48. [57]

    Karman and J

    T. Karman and J. M. Hutson, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 163401 (2018)

    2018

  49. [58]

    Bigagli, W

    N. Bigagli, W. Yuan, S. Zhang, B. Bulatovic, T. Karman, 8 I. Stevenson, and S. Will, Nature631, 289 (2024)

    2024

  50. [59]

    Despite the reliability of these scans, because other mirrors must be adjusted to maintain the multi-pass alignment, no con- crete conclusion is drawn on the absolute angular tolerance of the initial laser beam

  51. [60]

    Kozyryev, Z

    I. Kozyryev, Z. Lasner, and J. M. Doyle, Phys. Rev. A103, 043313 (2021)

    2021

  52. [61]

    P. F. Bernath,Spectra of Atoms and Molecules(New York: Ox- ford University Press, 2005)

    2005

  53. [62]

    Sherrill, A

    N. Sherrill, A. O. Parsons, C. F. A. Baynham, W. Bowden, E. A. Curtis, R. Hendricks, I. R. Hill, R. Hobson, H. S. Margolis, B. I. Robertson, M. Schioppo, K. Szymaniec, A. Tofful, J. Tunesi, R. M. Godun, and X. Calmet, New J. Phys.25, 093012 (2023)

    2023

  54. [63]

    Kobayashi, A

    T. Kobayashi, A. Takamizawa, D. Akamatsu, A. Kawasaki, A. Nishiyama, K. Hosaka, Y . Hisai, M. Wada, H. Inaba, T. Tan- abe, and M. Yasuda, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 241301 (2022), arXiv:2212.05721

    2022 arXiv

  55. [64]

    C. J. Kennedy, E. Oelker, J. M. Robinson, T. Bothwell, D. Kedar, W. R. Milner, G. E. Marti, A. Derevianko, and J. Ye, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 201302 (2020)

    2020

  56. [65]

    A. Hees, O. Minazzoli, E. Savalle, Y . V . Stadnik, and P. Wolf, Phys. Rev. D98, 064051 (2018). Supplemental Material SM1: ODT NUMBER AND LIFETIME ODT number measurement via red-MOT recapture imaging (RRI)We measure the ODT molecule number by holding the molecules in the ODT (...

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.