Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 32 references

MEMS Vapor Cells-based Rydberg-atom Electrometry Toward Miniaturization and High Sensitivity

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Wafer-level MEMS vapor cells bring Rydberg-atom electrometry to chip scale and detect microwave fields as weak as 2.8 mV/cm.

desk verdict A solid MEMS fabrication advance with an unsupported headline sensitivity number—the engineering deserves review, but the 2.8 mV/cm claim needs a defined noise floor and calibration. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.01911 v1 pith:MPYJB2HF submitted 2025-09-02 physics.atom-ph quant-ph

Yintao Ma , Beibei Sun , Pan Chen , Yao Chen , Yanbin Wang , Ju Guo , Mingzhi Yu , Ping Yang
show 2 more authors
Qijing Lina Libo Zhao
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phquant-ph
keywords RydbergatomselectrometryMEMSvaporcellsmicrowaveelectricfieldsensingEIT-ATsplittingchip-scalequantumsensorscesiumcellwafer-levelfabrication
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 sets out to show that the glass-blown vapor cells used in Rydberg-atom electrometry can be replaced by wafer-level MEMS cells without losing sensitivity, removing a barrier to chip-scale microwave field sensors. It reports a glass-silicon-glass cell with a 6-mm-thick silicon core at 10,000 Ω·cm resistivity, batch-fabricated by anodic bonding, and uses it both to stabilize the probe laser via saturated absorption and to measure a 29.75 GHz microwave field through EIT-AT splitting. The claimed result is a minimal detectable microwave field of 2.8 mV/cm, with a 4-fold increase in optical interrogation length over previous MEMS cells. A sympathetic reader would care because if these cells work as described, Rydberg electrometry can move from laboratory glassware to manufacturable, integrated quantum sensors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the glass-silicon-glass MEMS vapor cell: high-resistivity (10,000 Ω·cm) 6-mm-thick silicon forms the optical cavity, bonded to BF33 borosilicate glass by two anodic bonding steps, with cesium released from Cs2CrO4/Zr/Al pills and diffusing through microchannels into the interrogation volume. In operation, a ladder three-level cesium scheme (852 nm probe, 510 nm coupling) produces electromagnetically induced transparency; a 29.75 GHz microwave field dresses the Rydberg states and creates Autler-Townes splitting whose frequency separation equals the microwave Rabi frequency, so the EIT-AT splitting is a direct measure of the field amplitude. The three-chamber cell e

What would settle it

Place a calibrated electric-field probe at the same position as the MEMS cell while applying a known microwave power from the horn; if the measured field differs from the value used in Eq. (3) by more than experimental uncertainty, the claimed 2.8 mV/cm detection limit is not established. In addition, measuring the EIT-AT splitting slope with a low-resistivity silicon cell of identical geometry would test whether the 10,000 Ω·cm resistivity is actually doing the work claimed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a specially tailored MEMS vapor cell—glass on both sides of a 6 mm, 10,000 Ω·cm silicon wafer, with cesium dispensers separated by microchannels—is sufficient to perform Rydberg-atom electrometry, matching the functions of conventional hand-blown cells. The authors demonstrate laser frequency stabilization with the same MEMS cell using saturated absorption spectroscopy, then use the 48D5/2 → 46F7/2 Rydberg transition at 29.75 GHz to observe EIT-AT splitting whose separation is linear in the applied microwave field. From the fitted slope of 46.3 MHz/√mW they quote 2.8 mV/cm as the minimum detectable field. The high resistivity is intended to minimize RF distortion an

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the conversion from applied microwave power to field amplitude at the atoms is correct and that the high-resistivity silicon does not noticeably disturb the measured microwave field; neither is quantified, and the noise floor or SNR defining 'minimal detectable' is not specified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Rydberg microwave sensors could be batch-produced at wafer scale, shrinking the size, weight, and cost of what are currently hand-built glass cells.
  • A single MEMS cell can serve both laser frequency locking and field sensing, simplifying the optical architecture of a Rydberg receiver.
  • The four-fold increase in optical interrogation length directly raises signal strength for a given atomic density, the lever that keeps sensitivity high while shrinking the sensor.
  • If high-resistivity silicon indeed avoids RF distortion, chip-scale Rydberg sensors gain a material choice compatible with standard MEMS bonding processes.
  • The 2.8 mV/cm floor puts wafer-level cells in the same sensitivity conversation as conventional Rydberg vapor-cell electrometers, supporting practical portable RF field meters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The quoted 2.8 mV/cm depends on an unstated conversion from horn power to field amplitude at the atoms; until a traceable field calibration is reported, that number is better read as an order-of-magnitude demonstration than a rigorous detection limit.
  • If the high-resistivity silicon's RF transparency is confirmed by direct measurement, the same packaging approach could extend to other Rydberg-based devices, such as receivers, imagers, and field probes, where cell material is currently a constraint.
  • A controlled comparison holding geometry fixed and varying only silicon resistivity would isolate how much of the performance gain comes from the material rather than the thicker optical path.
  • The demonstrated 4-fold length improvement suggests a scaling path toward thicker silicon or folded optical paths, but that path will eventually hit limits from microwave field uniformity and from the difficulty of anodic bonding very thick wafers.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper reports wafer-level MEMS cesium vapor cells with a glass-silicon-glass sandwich structure, using 6-mm-thick, 10,000 Ω·cm silicon to extend the optical interrogation path. The cells are used both for saturated absorption spectroscopy (SAS) laser frequency stabilization and for Rydberg-atom electrometry based on EIT-AT splitting of the |48D5/2>→|46F7/2> transition at 29.75 GHz. The authors report a linear slope of 46.3 MHz/√mW for the AT splitting versus the square root of microwave power and claim a minimum detectable microwave field of 2.8 mV/cm, along with a 4-fold improvement in optical interrogation length compared with previous MEMS cells.

Significance. If the metrological claims are properly supported, this work represents a useful advance toward chip-scale Rydberg-atom electrometry. The strengths are the detailed wafer-level fabrication process, the use of ultra-high-resistivity thick silicon to extend the optical path, the replacement of glass-blown cells in both frequency-stabilization and electrometry roles, and the differential detection scheme that improves the EIT signal-to-noise ratio by about a factor of 20. The EIT-AT splitting data show the expected linear dependence on the square root of microwave power. However, the headline sensitivity value and the microwave-transparency claims require quantitative support before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Rydberg-atom electrometry, Eq. (3) and Fig. 7(b)] The minimum detectable field of 2.8 mV/cm is not supported by the data presented. The fitted slope of 46.3 MHz/√mW relates the EIT-AT splitting to the square root of applied microwave power; it is not a field sensitivity. Converting this slope to an electric field requires: (i) the atomic dipole moment μ for the |48D5/2>→|46F7/2> transition used in Eq. (3), (ii) a measured or simulated calibration between the horn output power and the microwave electric-field amplitude at the atom cloud inside the MEMS cell, and (iii) an explicit detection criterion (e.g., SNR=1, noise floor, minimum resolvable splitting, averaging time). None of these is given. Please provide the calibration procedure, the μ value, uncertainties/error bars, and the noise-floor definition. Without these, the central sensitivity claim cannot be evaluated.
  2. [Microfabrication and Discussion, 6-mm high-resistivity silicon] The statement that 10,000 Ω·cm silicon 'may provide less disturbance' to RF fields is not quantified. Even if resistive absorption is small, the relative permittivity of silicon (~11.7) will refract and reflect the incident 29.75 GHz field, modifying the field inside the through-hole optical cavity and therefore any power-to-field calibration. Please provide a quantitative estimate or measurement of this perturbation (e.g., full-wave simulation of the field inside the cell, comparison with a glass-only cell, or an in-situ field calibration) and state how the reported 2.8 mV/cm value accounts for it. In addition, the '4-fold improvement in optical interrogation length' needs an explicit baseline: relative to which prior MEMS cell geometry or reference is the factor of 4 defined?
  3. [Saturated absorption spectroscopy (SAS)] The claim that the laser frequency is 'locked ... keeping the frequency stability better than 5 MHz' is unsupported. No measurement of the locked laser frequency is reported: no error signal, beat-note measurement, Allan deviation, or timescale is given. Since one of the paper's stated contributions is replacing the traditional glass-blown SAS cell with the MEMS cell, this performance claim should be documented with a standard frequency-stability measurement.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Eq. (1)] The fitting function in Eq. (1) has undefined or corrupted notation (e.g., the 'ii' subscripts and the odd formatting of the sum/integral). Please rewrite it with all parameters defined.
  2. [Materials and methods] 'Electromagnetic induction transparency' should be 'electromagnetically induced transparency' (EIT).
  3. [Abstract] The abstract states 'resistivity exceeding 10,000 cm'; the units should be 10,000 Ω·cm as used in the main text.
  4. [Introduction] The phrase 'alkali alkali-metal vapor cells' contains a typo; remove the duplicate 'alkali'.
  5. [Experimental results, Figs. 6 and 7] The figures show fitted curves and slopes without error bars or the number of repeated measurements. Please add uncertainties to the linewidth, slope, and amplitude data, and state how many independent scans were averaged.
  6. [Terminology] The paper alternates between 'minimum detectable' and 'minimal detectable' field. Use one term consistently and define it operationally in the electrometry section.
  7. [Data availability] The data availability statement says the data are not publicly available. Given the metrological claims, depositing raw EIT-AT spectra, calibration data, and fitting scripts would strengthen reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the EIT-AT sensitivity relation is a standard external formula, the fitted slope is an empirical calibration, and the 2.8 mV/cm claim, though under-supported, is not a reduction to a fitted parameter or self-citation by construction.

full rationale

The paper's electrometry derivation uses the standard EIT-AT relation in Eq. (3), E = ℏΩ_MW/μ = 2πℏΔf/μ, citing external refs [30-32] rather than the authors' own work. This is an established physical formula, not an ansatz smuggled in via self-citation. The measured linear dependence of EIT-AT splitting on the square root of microwave power (slope 46.3 MHz/√mW, Fig. 7(b)) is an empirical calibration of the sensor response. The 2.8 mV/cm 'minimal detectable field' is stated as a sensitivity value, but no equation in the paper derives it by construction from that slope; there is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The lack of an explicit power-to-field conversion and noise-floor criterion is a real evidence gap, but it is not a circular reduction. The self-citations ([15], [24]) appear in contextual lists (examples of glass-blown Rydberg cells and miniaturized magnetometer vapor cells) and are not load-bearing for the central electrometry claim; no uniqueness theorem from the authors is invoked. The reported 4-fold optical-interrogation-length improvement is a geometric claim about the 6-mm silicon wafer versus an unspecified baseline, not a derived prediction. The limitations section also acknowledges remaining issues (stray fields, bonding temperature), consistent with the sensitivity claim being a measurement result rather than a closed-form derivation from assumptions. Therefore no circular step reduces the paper's claims to its inputs.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its free parameters are fitting coefficients and an unstated calibration factor; the axioms are standard atomic physics and fabrication assumptions.

free parameters (4)
  • C = not given
    Coefficient in empirical broadening model Γ(Pp)=C√Pp+Γ0 used to extrapolate intrinsic linewidth.
  • Γ0 (intrinsic EIT linewidth) = ≈10.1 MHz
    Extrapolated to zero probe power from fits; lacks error bars.
  • Microwave power-to-field conversion factor = not stated
    Needed to convert horn power to E-field amplitude for the 2.8 mV/cm claim; not given.
  • Linear fit slope of AT splitting vs square root of power = 46.3 MHz/√mW
    Fit to data in Fig. 7(b); residuals and uncertainty not reported.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Eq. (3): E = (2πℏ/μ) Δf relating AT splitting to E-field
    Taken from refs 30 to 32; standard Rydberg-EIT result.
  • domain assumption High-resistivity silicon (10,000 Ω·cm) is RF-transparent enough not to distort measured microwave fields
    Stated as justification for material choice; no direct measurement of field perturbation.
  • domain assumption Anodic bonding at 300°C yields hermetic ultra-high vacuum compatible with Rydberg states
    Assumed from process; no measurement of vacuum level in final cell.
  • domain assumption The two optical cavities in the three-chamber cell are identical
    Required for differential detection to suppress common-mode noise.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MEMS Vapor Cells-based Rydberg-atom Electrometry Toward Miniaturization and High Sensitivity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MPYJB2HF

@misc{pith2026250901911,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MEMS Vapor Cells-based Rydberg-atom Electrometry Toward Miniaturization and High Sensitivity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MPYJB2HF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01911}
}
read the original abstract

Rydberg-atom electrometry, as an emerging cutting-edge technology, features high sensitivity, broad bandwidth, calibration-free operation, and beyond. However, until now the key atomic vapor cells used for confining electric field-sensitive Rydberg atoms nearly made with traditional glass-blown techniques, hindering the miniaturization, integration, and batch manufacturing. Here, we present the wafer-level MEMS atomic vapor cells with glass-silicon-glass sandwiched structure that are batch-manufactured for both frequency stability and electric field measurement. We use specially customized ultra-thick silicon wafers with a resistivity exceeding 10,000 cm, three orders of magnitude higher than that of typical silicon, and a thickness of 6 mm, providing a 4-fold improvement in optical interrogation length. With the as-developed MEMS atomic vapor cell, we configured a high-sensitivity Rydberg-atom electrometry with the minimal detectable microwave field to be 2.8 mV/cm. This combination of miniaturization and sensitivity represents a significant advance in the state-of-the-art field of Rydberg-atom electrometry, paving the way for chip-scale Rydberg-atom electrometry and potentially opening up new applications in a wider variety of fields.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01911 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Microfabrication procedure of wafer-scale atomic vapor cells. (i) An array of silicon through-holes is drilled into the silicon wafer using mechanical processing method. A protective layer is deposited on the silicon surface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Microfabricated MEMS atomic vapor cells. (a) wafer-level vapor cells. (b) double-chamber vapor cell chip for laser frequency stabilization. (c) triple-chamber vapor cell chip for RF electric field measurement. Experimental setup The schematic of the Rydberg-atom electrometry is depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic of the Rydberg-atom electrometry. (a) Experimental setup. Three￾chamber MEMS atomic vapor cell with two optical cavities serves as the core sensitive component for differential detection of Rydberg-atom electrometry. HWP: half-wave plate; PBS: polarizing beam splitter; M: mirror; DM: dichroic mirror; BD: balance detectors; SAS: saturated absorption spectroscopy. (b) Energy-level diagram of Rydberg atoms. E… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: SAS of Cs atoms D2 line in MEMS atomic vapor cell. The inset figure shows the energy level structure of Cs atoms. EIT signal and differential detection We would like to begin by providing a brief description of how EIT signals are detected before conducting RF-field me…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Experimentally measured typical EIT signals of differential detection and single￾channel configurations under different probing power. According to the fitting results of Eq. (1), the dependencies between the EIT spectral amplitude, linewidth and probing power are show…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) EIT spectrum under different probing powers at a fixed coupling power of 50 mW. (b) EIT amplitude as a function of probing powers. (c) EIT linewidth versus probing powers. Rydberg-atom electrometry Next, we configured a Rydberg-atom electrometry for measuring the e…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., Macquart J

    Shannon R. M., Macquart J . P., Bannister K.W. et al. The dispersion –brightness relation for fast radio bursts from a wide-field survey. Nature 562, 386–390 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Maeda H., Norum D. V . L., and Gallagher T. F., Microwave Manipulation of an Atomic Electron in a Classical Orbit. Science 307 (5716), 1757-1760 (2005)

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    , and Driver L

    Kanda M. , and Driver L. D., An Isotropic Electric -Field Probe with Tapered Resistive Dipoles for Broad -Band Use, 100 kHz to 18 GHz , IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques 35 (2), 124-130 (1987)

    work page 1987

  4. [4]

    K., Zhang L

    Liu Z. K., Zhang L. H., Liu B., Zhang Z. Y ., Guo G. C., Ding D. S., and Shi B. S., Deep learning enhanced Rydberg multifrequency microwave recognition, Nat. Commun. 13, 1 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    A., Schwettmann A., Kübler H., Löw R., Pfau T., and Shaffer J

    Sedlacek J. A., Schwettmann A., Kübler H., Löw R., Pfau T., and Shaffer J. P., Microwave electrometry with Rydberg atoms in a vapour cell using bright atomic resonances, Nat. Phys. 8, 819 (2012)

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    T., Prajapati N., and Holloway C

    Artusio-Glimpse A., Simons M. T., Prajapati N., and Holloway C. L., Modern RF measurements with hot atoms: A technology review of Rydberg atom -based radio frequency field sensors, IEEE Microw. Mag. 23, 44 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Antennas Propagation 62, 6169 (2014)

    Holloway C., Gordon J., Jef ferts S., Schwarzkopf A., Anderson D., Miller S., Thaicharoen N., and Raithel G., Broadband Rydberg atom-based electric-field probe for SI-traceable, self-calibrated measurements, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagation 62, 6169 (2014)

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Yuan J., Yang W., Jing M., Zhang H., Jiao Y ., Li W., Zhang L., Xiao L., and Jia S., Quantum sensing of microwave electric fields based on Rydberg atoms, Rep. Prog. Phys., 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Jing M., Hu Y ., Ma J., Zhang H., Zhang L., Xiao L., and Jia S., Atomic superheterodyne receiver b ased on microwave dressed Rydberg spectroscopy, Nat. Phys. 16, 911 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    H., Kunz P

    Meyer D. H., Kunz P. D., and Cox K. C., Waveguide-Coupled Rydberg Spectrum Analyzer from 0 to 20 GHz, Phys. Rev. Appl. 15, 014053 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Hu J., Li H., Song R., Bai J., Jiao Y ., Zhao J., and Jia S., Continuously tunable radio frequency electrometry with Rydberg atoms, Appl. Phys. Lett. 121, 014002 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    G., Šibalic N., de Melo N

    Wade C. G., Šibalic N., de Melo N. R., Kondo J. M., Adams C. S., and Weatherill K. J., Real -time near-field terahertz imaging with atomic optical fluorescence, Nat. Photonics 11, 40 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    A., MacKellar A

    Downes L. A., MacKellar A. R., Whiting D. J., Bourgenot C., Adams C. S., and Weatherill K. J., Full-Field Terahertz Imaging at Kilohertz Frame Rates Using Atomic Vapor, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011027 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    H., Liu Z

    Liu B., Zhang L. H., Liu Z. K., Zhang Z. Y ., Zhu Z. H., Gao W., Guo G. C., Ding D. S., and Shi B. S., Highly sensitive measurement of a megahertz RF electric field with a Rydberg-atom sensor, Phys. Rev. Appl. 18, 1 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Liu B., Zhang L., Wang Q., Ma Y ., Han T., Liu Z., Zhang Z., Shao S., Zhang J., Li Q., Chen H., Han Y ., Ding D., and Shi B., Cavity-Enhanced Rydberg Atom Microwave Receiver. Chin. Phys. Lett., 42, 5: 053201 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    A., Atomic measurements of high-intensity VHF-band radio-frequency fields with a Rydberg vapor-cell detector, Phys

    Paradis E., Raithel G., and Anderson D. A., Atomic measurements of high-intensity VHF-band radio-frequency fields with a Rydberg vapor-cell detector, Phys. Rev. A 100, 013420 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Yang W., Jing M., Zhang H., Zhang L., Xiao L., and Jia S., Radio frequency electric field-enhanced sensing based on the Rydberg atom -based superheterodyne receiver, Opt. Lett. 49, 2938–2941 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    L., Reinhard F., and Cappellaro P., Quantum sensing, Rev

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

    2017

  11. [19]

    Applied Physics Reviews, 5(3) , 031302, (2018)

    Kitching J., Chip-scale atomic devices. Applied Physics Reviews, 5(3) , 031302, (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Shah, V ., Knappe, S., Schwindt, P. D. D. & Kitching, J. Subpicotesla atomic magnetometry with a microfabricated vapour cell. Nat. Photonics 1, 649–652 (2007)

    2007

  13. [21]

    & Zhang, G

    You, Z., Ma, B., Ruan, Y ., Chen, S. & Zhang, G. Microfabrication of MEMS alkali metal vapor cells for chip-scale atomic devices. Opt. Precis. Eng. 21, 1440–1446 (2013)

    2013

  14. [22]

    & Kitching, J

    Schwindt, P., Knappe, S., Shah, V ., Hollberg, L. & Kitching, J. Chip-scale atomic magnetometer. Appl. Phys. Lett. 85, 6409–6411 (2004)

    2004

  15. [23]

    M., Shkel A

    Noor R. M., Shkel A. M., MEMS Components for NMR Atomic Sensors. Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems 27, 6 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Microsyst & Nanoeng 10, 121 (2024)

    Ma Y., Chen Y., Yu M., Wang Y ., Lu S., Guo J., Luo G., Zhao L., Yang P., Lin Q., and Jiang Z., Ultrasensitive SERF atomic magnetometer with a miniaturized hybrid vapor cell. Microsyst & Nanoeng 10, 121 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    , Toward the measurement of microwave elect ric field using cesium vapor mems cell

    Zhao, R., Feng, M., Zhu, J., Li, Z., Zheng, J., Ma, Z., Shi, Y ., Tang, J., Liu, J. , Toward the measurement of microwave elect ric field using cesium vapor mems cell. IEEE Electron Device Letters 44 (12), 2031–2034 (2023)

  18. [26]

    B., Meraki A., Shillingburg H., Lavallee G., Liu M., Eichfeld C., Simons M

    Artusio-Glimpse A. B., Meraki A., Shillingburg H., Lavallee G., Liu M., Eichfeld C., Simons M . T., Holland G., Holloway C . L., Aksyuk V. A., and Lopez D., Wafer- level fabrication of all-dielectric vapor cells enabling optically addressed Rydberg atom electrometry, https://a...

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    T., Gordon J

    Simons M . T., Gordon J . A., Holloway C . L., Fiber-coupled vapor cell for a portable Rydberg atom-based radio frequency electric field sensor, Applied Optics 57, 6456-6460 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    W., Doppler‐free saturated absorption: Laser spectroscopy, Am

    Preston D. W., Doppler‐free saturated absorption: Laser spectroscopy, Am. J. Phys. 64, 1432–1436 (1996)

    1996

  21. [29]

    G., Zanoni A., Corrielli G., Osellame R., Mitchell M

    Lucivero V. G., Zanoni A., Corrielli G., Osellame R., Mitchell M. W., Laser-written vapor cells for chip -scale atomic sensing and spectroscopy, Opt. Express 3 0, 27149- 27163 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    T., Gordon J

    Simons M. T., Gordon J. A., Holloway C. L., Anderson D. A., Miller S. A., Raithel G., Using frequency detuning to improve the sensitivity of electric field measurements via electromagnetically induced transparency and Autler-Townes splitting in Rydberg atoms, Appl. Phys. Lett....

    2016

  23. [31]

    L., Prajapati N., Artusio-Glimpse A

    Holloway C. L., Prajapati N., Artusio-Glimpse A. B., Berweger S., Simons M. T. Kasahara Y ., Alu A., and Ziolkowski R. W., Rydberg atom -based field sensing enhancement using a split-ring resonator, Appl. Phys. Lett. 120, 204001 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    Express 31, 1692-1704 (2023)

    Feng Z., Liu X., Zhang Y., Ruan W., Song Z., and Qu J., Atom-based sensing technique of microwave electric and magnetic fields via a single rubidium vapor cell, Opt. Express 31, 1692-1704 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.