Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Dual atom (87Rb-133Cs) grating magneto-optical trap

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single planar grating chip, illuminated by one combined laser beam, simultaneously captures 87Rb and 133Cs atoms in a magneto-optical trap.

desk verdict Working dual-species Rb-Cs grating MOT with a credible central demonstration, but the quantitative design claims rest on an unvalidated scalar model and should be treated as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14440 v1 pith:M75CDHZ5 submitted 2024-12-19 physics.atom-ph

Lei Xu , Muming Li , Zhilong Yu , Zheyu Liu , Junyi Duan , Fang Wang , Feng Zhao , Xiaochi Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph PACS 37.10.Gh42.25.Fx
keywords dual-speciesmagneto-opticaltrapgratingdual-wavelengthrubidium-87cesium-133diffractionefficiencycoldatomscompactquantumdevices
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 claims that a single planar diffraction grating, illuminated by one combined laser beam containing both 780 nm and 852 nm light, can serve as the core of a compact dual-species magneto-optical trap (MOT)—a device that cools and traps atoms with laser light and magnetic fields. The authors design the grating's period, etching depth, duty cycle, and gold coating so that both rubidium-87 and cesium-133 see efficient first-order diffraction and a balanced force geometry. They report simultaneously trapping 1.6×$10^{8}$ 87Rb atoms and 7.8×$10^{6}$ 133Cs atoms in such a grating MOT. If correct, this offers a route to miniature multi-species cold atom sources for atomic clocks, interferometers, and quantum sensors.

What carries the argument

The central object is the planar gold-coated binary grating chip, whose three one-dimensional sub-gratings are arranged at 120° to generate the six-beam MOT geometry from a single incident beam. The design is carried by three formulas: the scalar diffraction efficiency expressions (eqs. 2–3) that link period, etching depth, duty cycle, and coating to first-order efficiency; the balance factor $\eta_B$ (eq. 4) that quantifies how close the three diffracted beams come to an optimal axial restoring force; and the steady-state atom-number formula (eq. 5) that converts the resulting capture velocities into predicted atom counts. The simulation workflow sweeps the period and depth, requires balance factors between 0.95 and 1.05 and efficiencies between 36% and 44%, and then maximizes the estimated atom number.

What would settle it

Measure the first-order diffraction efficiency and Stokes parameter S3 at 780 nm and 852 nm for a series of grating periods around d=1150 nm (e.g., 1050–1300 nm) and compare with the scalar-model predictions; if a neighboring period yields substantially higher efficiency or balance factor, the claimed optimality of d=1150 nm is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a dual-color grating chip can be designed to capture two atomic species at once. By sweeping the grating period d from 1150 nm to 1300 nm and fixing the etching depth at T=210 nm, duty cycle r=0.5, and gold coating thickness h=100 nm, the simulation predicts first-order diffraction efficiencies near 36–44% and balance factors in the 0.95–1.05 range for both 780 nm (Rb) and 852 nm (Cs) light. Using a capture-velocity model, the authors estimate atom numbers above $10^{7}$ for both species in the d=1150–1230 nm range. The fabricated chip, with d=1150 nm, was tested in a grating MOT and produced simultaneous clouds of 1.6×$10^{8}$ 87Rb and 7.8×$10^{6}$ 133Cs, with the Rb count matching the theoretical estimate and the Cs count falling short, which the authors attribute to fabrication errors and the offset between the magnetic-field zero-crossing and the light-force balance point.

Load-bearing premise

The design assumes that the scalar diffraction formula for uncoated gratings predicts the gold-coated grating's efficiency well enough to select the final parameters, even though the paper itself notes the formula is for uncoated gratings and reports measured deviations in efficiency and polarization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single compact chip and one combined laser beam can replace the six-beam optics of a conventional dual-species MOT, shrinking the hardware for experiments that need two cold alkali species.
  • The grating parameters can be re-optimized by the same simulation for other wavelength pairs, enabling other dual-color or dual-species combinations beyond Rb-Cs.
  • The reported Rb atom number of 1.6×10^8 is comparable to single-species grating MOTs, so the dual-species capability does not necessarily come at the cost of the primary species' performance.
  • Because the Cs cloud position is offset from the Rb cloud, future dual-species GMOT devices must control fabrication uniformity across grating zones to overlap the clouds for applications like interspecies collisions or Rydberg interactions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The scalar-model dependence on gold's wavelength-dependent reflectivity suggests that coating materials with flatter reflectivity across the two wavelengths (e.g., silver or a dielectric stack) might get both species closer to the ideal 33% first-order efficiency simultaneously, a direction the paper does not explore.
  • The fact that the Cs atom number fell short of the theoretical estimate while Rb matched it hints that the capture-velocity model may need separate calibration for heavier species or that the zero-point offset is more severe for Cs; a systematic scan of grating periods at 852 nm with the same vacuum conditions would separate these effects.
  • The same design workflow could be applied to the emerging dual-species Rydberg arrays used for electric-field sensing, where a compact chip-based cold source of Rb and Cs would reduce system size.
  • If fabrication uniformity across the three sub-gratings is improved, the spatial offset between the two clouds may be reduced, which could matter for quantum gate fidelity in future cold-atom processors.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a design method for a dual-color grating chip for a dual-species (87Rb and 133Cs) magneto-optical trap. The design parameters (period, etching depth, duty cycle, coating material and thickness) are selected using diffraction-efficiency simulations and a capture-velocity/atom-number model. The fabricated grating chip is used to simultaneously trap 1.6e8 87Rb atoms and 7.8e6 133Cs atoms. The paper claims that the design method provides guidance for future multispecies cold atom systems.

Significance. If the central demonstration holds, simultaneous trapping of two alkali species with different D2 wavelengths on a single planar grating chip is a useful step toward compact dual-species cold atom sources for precision measurements. The paper openly reports deviations between measured and simulated grating performance, and the reported atom numbers are substantial for a compact GMOT. However, the quantitative claims of design optimality and atom-number prediction are weakened by the absence of simulation details and by large measured deviations in key grating parameters.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1] The numerical method used to compute the diffraction efficiencies of the gold-coated grating is not described. Equations (2) and (3) are explicitly stated to apply to uncoated gratings, and although the text says the parameters were re-swept after including the coating effect, the paper does not identify the electromagnetic simulation method (e.g., RCWA, FDTD, or a proprietary solver) used to obtain the curves in Figures 2, 3, and 8. This omission prevents a reader from reproducing or assessing the design-parameter selection, which is the basis for the claimed optimal parameters (T=210 nm, r=0.5, h=100 nm, d=1150 nm).
  2. [Tables 1 and 2] The large deviations in S3 (up to 62.4% for 780 nm, Chip2) and in η1 (up to 22.3% for 780 nm, Chip3) are attributed to fabrication imperfections without supporting evidence. The paper does not provide a measured profile of the fabricated grating (e.g., duty cycle, etch depth, or gold thickness from SEM or AFM) or a tolerance analysis linking plausible fabrication variations to the observed efficiency and polarization deviations. Since the atom-number estimate in Eq. (5) depends on v_c^4 and the capture velocity is obtained from the force model in Eqs. (6)-(9), which is sensitive to S3 and the diffraction efficiency, the observed deviations can nonlinearly alter the predicted atom numbers. The paper should quantify the propagation of these deviations and compare the result with the observed Cs shortfall (7.8e6 measured versus the 1e7-scale prediction).
  3. [Section 3.2] The absolute atom numbers (1.6e8 for 87Rb and 7.8e6 for 133Cs) are reported without any description of the detection method, calibration procedure, or uncertainty estimate. Without these details, the quantitative comparison to the theoretical predictions in Section 2.2 is not meaningful, and the statement that the Rb number reached the theoretical estimation level cannot be verified.
  4. [Sections 2.2 and 3.2] The capture-velocity model in Section 2.2 assumes an incident intensity of one saturation intensity and a detuning of 1.5 times the natural linewidth, whereas the experimental characterization in Figure 10 shows atom numbers increasing up to optical power densities of 15-20 mW/cm^2 (well above I_sat for both species) and detunings of 8-9 MHz. The paper does not explain how a model evaluated at low intensity is used to select design parameters that “maximize the number of atoms” at the very different experimental operating point, so the design-optimality claim is not directly supported by the reported data.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 8(a)] The vertical axis label “Stocks 3” should be “Stokes parameter S3”.
  2. [Figure 10] The axis label “Optical indensity” should be “Optical intensity”.
  3. [Section 3.2] The transition notation “|F=4> to |F’=3co5>” contains a typo; the excited-state hyperfine level should be written correctly.
  4. [Section 4] The phrase “positions ... are not exactly overlapped radically” should read “radially”.
  5. [References] Reference [12] is a manuscript in preparation; if it is not essential to the argument, consider replacing it with a published source or removing it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the design loop is a stated optimization and the atom-number estimates use independent, standard MOT-loading models with fixed inputs; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: scalar diffraction efficiency (eqs. 2–3, cited to Cotter et al. [26]) → parameter scan over d, T, r, h → balance factor (eq. 4, cited to Burrow et al. [27]) → capture velocity from a scattering-force model (eqs. 6–9, cited to Vangeleyn [31]) → atom number N = (S/8σ)(v_c/v_T)^4 (eq. 5, cited to McGilligan et al. [28]) → selection of d = 1150 nm to maximize the simulated atom number → fabrication and comparison with measured atom numbers. At no step is any model parameter fitted to the measured atom counts; the experimental values are compared with, not used to tune, the simulation. Choosing parameters that maximize a computed figure of merit is an optimization, not a circular reduction. The paper also contains honest limitation statements: it notes that eqs. (2)–(3) are 'general expressions for the diffraction efficiency of uncoated gratings' and re-sweeps parameters near the initial values for the Au-coated case, and it reports S3 deviations up to 62.4% and η1 deviations up to 22.3% (Tables 1–2), attributing them to fabrication imperfections. Whether the scalar model is adequate for a gold-coated, polarization-sensitive grating is a validation and correctness risk, not a self-referential reduction, because the predicted atom number still depends on stated inputs (I = I_sat, detuning = 1.5Γ, gradient 8 G/cm, S3 = 1) and a literature cross-section. The self-citations (refs. 6, 7, 8, 25) occur in introductory context or alongside external references (e.g., '[13][24][25][26][27][28]') and are not load-bearing for the design method or predictions; the load-bearing modeling is external (Cotter, Burrow, McGilligan, Vangeleyn). The paper explicitly acknowledges that the measured Rb count matches the theoretical estimate while the Cs count does not, offering fabrication errors and zero-point offset as explanations, which is an independent comparison rather than a circular fit. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Verdict: no significant circularity.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central result rests on standard grating theory, MOT loading models, and a set of engineering design parameters chosen by hand. The most fragile assumption is the applicability of uncoated-grating scalar formulas to the fabricated gold-coated grating, which is directly challenged by the measured deviations.

free parameters (5)
  • Grating period d = 1150 nm
    Chosen by hand from a 1150-1300 nm candidate range to maximize simulated atom number while easing fabrication (Section 2.2).
  • Etching depth T = 210 nm
    Selected as 'easier to fabricate' from the simulated 175-215 nm range where efficiency is stable (Section 2.1).
  • Duty cycle r = 0.5
    Set to minimize zero-order and maximize first-order diffraction per eqs. (2)-(3); a standard choice but still a design assumption.
  • Au coating thickness h = 100 nm
    Set to 100 nm considering fabrication cost; assumed to be optically thick, but reflectivity at 780/852 nm differs and is not independently measured.
  • Operating conditions for atom-number prediction = I=I_sat, Δ=1.5Γ, B'=8 G/cm
    Input assumptions for the capture-velocity calculation (Section 2.2); choices are stated but not derived or varied systematically in the estimate.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Scalar diffraction theory (eqs. 2-3) applies to the gold-coated grating.
    The paper states equations (2) and (3) are for uncoated gratings but uses them after a re-sweep to model the coated chip (Section 2.1); measured deviations indicate the assumption is imperfect.
  • domain assumption Balance factor η_B (eq. 4) is the correct metric for optimizing MOT force balance.
    Adopted from Burrow et al. (ref 27); no independent validation for the dual-species case is provided.
  • domain assumption Steady-state atom number follows N = S/(8σ)(v_c/v_T)^4 and neglects cold collisions.
    Equation (5), standard MOT loading model; the stated justification is the low rate of cold collisions relative to background-gas collisions.
  • domain assumption Force model (eqs. 6-9) with S3=1 accurately describes the GMOT forces.
    Assumed in the capture-velocity calculation; experimental S3 deviates significantly from 1 (Tables 1-2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dual atom (87Rb-133Cs) grating magneto-optical trap." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M75CDHZ5

@misc{pith2026241214440,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dual atom (87Rb-133Cs) grating magneto-optical trap},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M75CDHZ5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14440}
}
read the original abstract

This paper proposes a dual-color grating chip design method for simultaneously capturing dual atomic clouds (87Rb and 133Cs). By simulating key parameters such as the grating period, etching depth, duty cycle, coating material, and thickness, the optimal design parameters were determined to ensure efficient dual-wavelength diffraction and maximize the number of captured atoms. Experimental results demonstrate the simultaneous trapping of 1.6E8 87Rb atoms and 7.8E6 133Cs atoms, thereby offering an approach for multi-species cold atom systems. This dual-species grating magneto-optical trap (GMOT) system has potential applications in precision measurements such as cold atom clocks, quantum interferometers, and quantum electrometry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14440 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of grating structure(2D) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Simulation diagram showing the dependence of the grating diffraction rate with T and d (r = 0.5). (a) Variation in the diffraction rate with T-d at an incidence of 780 nm and (b) 852 nm. Burrow et al.[27] proposed the concept of a balance factor, which is expressed by equation (4), where η₁ is the first-order diffraction efficiency, η₀ is the zero-order diffraction efficiency, and θ is the diffraction angle: 𝜂𝜂𝐵𝐵 = … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Diffraction rates obtained from various grating parameters and their corresponding balance factors. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Shape of the grating magneto-optical trap region Therefore, 𝑆𝑆 = 6√3 ∙ ( ℎ 2 )2 ∙ tan𝜃𝜃 cos𝜃𝜃 ，where h denotes the height of the trap and θ is the diffraction angle. The components of vc along the axial and radial directions are defined as vz, vx and vy, as shown in […
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Variations in the maximum capture velocity with the grating period d. The results in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Estimation of theoretical atomic number as a function of grating period [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Overview of grating chip; (b) SEM image of grating chip. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Fig.8. Comparison between simulation (lines) and experimental results (squares). (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Schematic diagram of grating magneto-optical trap constructed by vacuum chamber and cooling light. The applied magnetic field gradient was 8 G/cm. The 780 nm cooling beam was red￾detuned by 8 MHz from the 87Rb D2 transition |F=2> to |F’=3>;. the 852 nm cooling light wa…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (a) Atom number versus the magnetic field gradient; (b) Atom number versus the cooling laser optical intensity; (c) Atom number versus the cooling laser detuning. 4. Conclusion We proposed a design method for a dual-color grating chip to capture dual-species atomic cl…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    High-performance coherent population trapping clock based on laser-cooled atoms,

    X. Liu, N. Ru, J. Duan, et al., “High-performance coherent population trapping clock based on laser-cooled atoms,” Chin. Phys. B 31, 043201 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Metasurface -integrated elliptically polarized laser -pumped SERF magnetometers,

    Z. Liang, J. Hu, P. Zhou, et al. , “Metasurface -integrated elliptically polarized laser -pumped SERF magnetometers,” Microsyst. Nanoeng. 10, 101 (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Ultra- wide range non -contact surface profilometry based on reconfigurable fiber interferometry,

    A. K. Maurya, K. Chatterjee, and R. Jha, “Ultra- wide range non -contact surface profilometry based on reconfigurable fiber interferometry,” Opt. Lett. 49, 3588–3591 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    A pyramid MOT with integrated optical cavities as a cold atom platform for an optical lattice clock,

    W. Bowden, R. Hobson, I. R. Hill, et al., “A pyramid MOT with integrated optical cavities as a cold atom platform for an optical lattice clock,” Sci. Rep. 9, 11704 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    A surface -patterned chip as a strong source of ultracold atoms for quantum technologies,

    C. C. Nshii, M. Vangeleyn, J. P. Cotter, et al., “A surface -patterned chip as a strong source of ultracold atoms for quantum technologies,” Nat. Nanotechnol. 8(5), 321–324 (2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Low power consumption grating magneto -optical trap based on planar elements,

    Z. Y u, Y . Zhu, M. Yao, et al. , “Low power consumption grating magneto -optical trap based on planar elements,” Opt. Express 32(6), 8919 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Grating magneto -optical trap optimization and drift- mitigation based on Bayesian learning,

    Z. Yu, L. Chen, J. Duan, et al., “Grating magneto -optical trap optimization and drift- mitigation based on Bayesian learning,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 124, 064001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Concept of a miniature dipole trap system based on a simple-architecture grating chip,

    Y . Zhu, S. Wei, J. Duan, et al., “Concept of a miniature dipole trap system based on a simple-architecture grating chip,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 41, 72–78 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Achromatic, planar Fresnel -reflector for a single -beam magneto-optical trap,

    S. A. Bondza, T. Leopold, R. Schwarz, et al. , “Achromatic, planar Fresnel -reflector for a single -beam magneto-optical trap,” Rev. Sci. Instrum. 95, 013202 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Experiments with ultracold strontium in compact grating magneto -optical trap geometries,

    A. Sitaram, “Experiments with ultracold strontium in compact grating magneto -optical trap geometries,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland - College Park (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    A high -flux cold atom source based on a nano -structured atom chip,

    H. Heine, “A high -flux cold atom source based on a nano -structured atom chip,” Leibniz University of Hanover (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    Bose-Einstein condensate source on an optical grating-based atom chip for quantum sensor applications

    R. Calviac, A. Rouxel, S. Charlot, et al. , Laboratoire Collisions Agregats Reactivite, 118 Route de Narbonne, Toulouse, 31062, FRA, is preparing a manuscript to be called “Bose-Einstein condensate source on an optical grating-based atom chip for quantum sensor applications.”

  5. [13]

    Two-color grating magneto -optical trap for narrow -line laser cooling,

    S. Bondza, C. Lisdat, S. Kroker, et al. , “Two-color grating magneto -optical trap for narrow -line laser cooling,” Phys. Rev. Appl. 17(4), 044002 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    Ultrastable optical clock with two cold-atom ensembles,

    M. Schioppo, R. C. Brown, W. F. McGrew, et al., “Ultrastable optical clock with two cold-atom ensembles,” Nat. Photonics 11, 231 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    Design of a dual species atom interferometer for space,

    T. Schuldt, C. Schubert, M. Krutzik, et al., “Design of a dual species atom interferometer for space,” Exp. Astron. 39, 167–206 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    Interspecies collision -induced losses in a dual species 7Li–85Rb magneto-optical trap,

    S. Dutta, A. Altaf, J. Lorenz, et al. , “Interspecies collision -induced losses in a dual species 7Li–85Rb magneto-optical trap,” J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 47 (2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    Achieving ultracold Bose-Fermi mixture of 87Rb and 40K with dual dark magnetic-optical- trap,

    J. Miao, et al., “Achieving ultracold Bose-Fermi mixture of 87Rb and 40K with dual dark magnetic-optical- trap,” Chin. Phys. B 31 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Improved Tests of Local Position Invariance Using 87Rb and 133Cs Fountains,

    J. Guéna, M. Abgrall, D. Rovera, et al., “Improved Tests of Local Position Invariance Using 87Rb and 133Cs Fountains,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    Simultaneous use of Cs and Rb Rydberg atoms for dipole moment assessment and RF electric field measurements via electromagnetically induced transparency,

    M. T. Simons, J. A. Gordon, and D. L. Holloway, “Simultaneous use of Cs and Rb Rydberg atoms for dipole moment assessment and RF electric field measurements via electromagnetically induced transparency,” J. Appl. Phys. 120(12) (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    Compact Rb optical frequency standard with 10−15 stability,

    S. Zhang, X. Zhang, J. Cui, et al., “Compact Rb optical frequency standard with 10−15 stability,” Rev. Sci. Instrum. 88(10), 103106 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Compact frequency standard based on an intracavity sample of cold cesium atoms,

    S. T. Müller, D. V . Magalhães, R. V . Alves, et al., “Compact frequency standard based on an intracavity sample of cold cesium atoms,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 28, 2592-2596 (2011)

    2011

  14. [22]

    A dual-species Rydberg array,

    S. Anand, C. E. Bradley, R. White, et al., “A dual-species Rydberg array,” Nat. Phys. (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Rydberg states of alkali atoms in atomic vapour as SI- traceable field probes and communications receivers,

    N. Schlossberger, N. Prajapati, S. Berweger, et al., “Rydberg states of alkali atoms in atomic vapour as SI- traceable field probes and communications receivers,” Nat. Rev. Phys. 6, 606–620 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Grating design methodology for laser cooling,

    R. Calviac, A. Monmayrant, P. Dubreuil, et al., “Grating design methodology for laser cooling,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 41(7), 1533 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    High diffraction efficiency grating atom chip for magneto-optical trap,

    J. Duan, X. Liu, Y . Zhou, et al., “High diffraction efficiency grating atom chip for magneto-optical trap,” Opt. Commun. 513, 128087 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Design and fabrication of diffractive atom chips for laser cooling and trapping,

    J. P . Cotter, J. P. McGilligan, P. F. Griffin, et al., “Design and fabrication of diffractive atom chips for laser cooling and trapping,” Appl. Phys. B 122(6), 172 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Optimal binary gratings for multi-wavelength magneto- optical traps,

    O. S. Burrow, R. J. Fasano, W. Brand, et al., “Optimal binary gratings for multi-wavelength magneto- optical traps,” Opt. Express 31(24), 40871–40880 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Diffraction -grating characterization for cold -atom experiments,

    J. P. McGilligan, P. F. Griffin, E. Riis, et al., “Diffraction -grating characterization for cold -atom experiments,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 33(6), 1271–1277 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    Intensities and field enhancement of light scattered from periodic gratings: study of Ag, Au, and Cu surfaces,

    N. García, G. Díaz, J. J. Saénz, and C. Ocal, “Intensities and field enhancement of light scattered from periodic gratings: study of Ag, Au, and Cu surfaces,” Surf. Sci. 143(2–3), 342-358 (1984)

    1984

  22. [30]

    Phase-space properties of magneto -optical traps utilising micro-fabricated gratings,

    J. P . McGilligan, P. F. Griffin, E. Riis, et al., “Phase-space properties of magneto -optical traps utilising micro-fabricated gratings,” Opt. Express 23, 8948–8959 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    Atom trapping in non-trivial geometries for micro-fabrication applications,

    M. Vangeleyn, “Atom trapping in non-trivial geometries for micro-fabrication applications,” University of Strathclyde (2011)

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.