Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Optical Trapping of SrOH Molecules for Dark Matter and T-violation Searches

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports an optical dipole trap holding about 1,400 SrOH molecules and shows that the vibrational science states proposed for electron-EDM and ultralight-dark-matter searches survive for hundreds of milliseconds, limited by natural

desk verdict First ODT of SrOH is real, but the loss budget has an internal inconsistency (1.5 s vs 0.91 s predicted) that the authors need to fix. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.01618 v1 pith:OAUTP2UP submitted 2025-09-01 physics.atom-ph cond-mat.quant-gas

Hiromitsu Sawaoka , Abdullah Nasir , Annika Lunstad , Mingda Li , Jack Mango , Zack D. Lasner , John M. Doyle This is my paper
classification physics.atom-phcond-mat.quant-gas
keywords opticaldipoletrapSrOHpolyatomicmoleculessub-Dopplercoolingelectronelectricmomentultralightdarkmattervibrationallifetimesblackbodyradiation
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 reports an optical dipole trap for strontium monohydroxide (SrOH), a polyatomic molecule whose internal structure is suited to two kinds of new-physics searches. About 1,400 molecules are held in a 1064 nm optical trap, and three vibrationally excited 'science states' are populated by optical pumping: one proposed for measuring the electron's electric dipole moment and two proposed for sensing ultralight dark matter through the proton-to-electron mass ratio. The measured lifetimes—320, 135, and 190 ms—match the limits set by spontaneous emission and black-body radiation. If this holds, trapped SrOH can serve as a platform for competitive electron-EDM and dark-matter searches with long interrogation times.

What carries the argument

The paper's central objects are the 'science states' of SrOH—vibrational levels with structural features (closely spaced parity-doublet states in the bending mode, and closely spaced levels of different vibrational character with different anharmonicities) that make them sensitive to time-reversal violation and to variations of the proton-to-electron mass ratio. The experimental machinery that carries the argument is the sequence: sub-Doppler Λ cooling to about 34 µK, single-frequency cooling to about 17 µK, a conveyor-belt magneto-optical trap that compresses the cloud to match the optical dipole trap, and optical pumping that prepares each science state. The lifetimes are interpreted using

What would settle it

Measure the optical trap lifetime of one science state, say X(010), as a function of trapped-molecule density at fixed temperature and vacuum. If the inverse lifetime grows with density, an inelastic collision channel contributes and the claim that the state is radiative-decay limited is false. Conversely, varying the vacuum pressure or ambient temperature and observing the predicted change in lifetime would confirm the loss budget.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that SrOH can be laser-cooled, compressed, and held in an optical dipole trap with about 1400(300) molecules, and that the vibrationally excited states relevant to proposed searches—the X̃ 2Σ+(010) bending mode for the electron electric dipole moment and the X̃ 2Σ+(200) and X̃ 2Σ+(0310) manifolds for ultralight dark matter—survive in the trap for hundreds of milliseconds. Those lifetimes are consistent, within uncertainties, with the sum of spontaneous radiative decay and black-body-radiation-driven loss; the ground-state trap lifetime of 1.5 s is dominated by black-body excitation. The conclusion is that the science states are not limited by the trapp

Load-bearing premise

The result assumes that every loss channel besides spontaneous emission, black-body radiation, and a roughly 3-second vacuum background is negligible; in particular, no density-dependent two-body collisions or light-induced heating have been separately ruled out.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With the demonstrated ~10^3 trapped molecules, the paper states that an improvement over current ultralight-dark-matter limits is available, as proposed in [2].
  • With a projected ~10^5 molecules and near-unity state preparation, an electron-EDM measurement competitive with the next projected result should be possible using the (010) bending state.
  • The hundreds-of-milliseconds lifetimes imply interrogation times long enough for the proposed microwave ultralight-dark-matter transitions and electron-EDM coherence measurements.
  • The same cooling, compression, and loading chain gives a route to trapping heavier radioactive species such as RaOH, extending T-violation sensitivity into the 1000 TeV range.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the radiative-limited interpretation holds, the main future lever for sensitivity is increasing molecule number and reducing the black-body photon environment, not further state engineering.
  • A direct test of the radiative-limited claim would be to measure a science-state lifetime at two different ambient temperatures: the black-body contribution should shift in a calculable way while spontaneous decay stays fixed.
  • The same optical-pumping ladder could be used to measure the X(200)–X(0310) microwave transition frequencies directly inside the trap, turning the lifetime platform into a functioning ultralight-dark-matter sensor.
  • The comparison between measured and predicted lifetimes depends on transition-dipole calculations; improved ab initio values for the dipole derivatives would sharpen the test and could be benchmarked by the reported lifetimes.
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 reports the first optical dipole trap (ODT) of SrOH molecules, with 1400(300) molecules confined at a trap depth of about 750 μK after a sequence of RF MOT, Λ-enhanced gray molasses cooling, single-frequency cooling, and conveyor-belt MOT compression. Through optical pumping, the authors prepare and measure ODT lifetimes of the vibrationally excited science states X̃(010), X̃(200), and X̃(03¹0), obtaining 320(30), 135(17), and 190(30) ms, respectively. They also measure a ground-state ODT lifetime of 1.5(0.1) s. The central claim is that the observed loss rates are consistent with spontaneous radiative decay plus blackbody radiation (BBR) excitation, with a small additional vacuum-loss contribution, making the platform suitable for proposed eEDM and ultralight dark matter searches.

Significance. The experimental milestone is substantial: trapping 10^3 SrOH molecules in an ODT and preparing them in vibrational states proposed for eEDM and UDM searches is an important step for polyatomic-molecule precision measurement. The cooling and compression sequence is technically impressive, and the measured science-state lifetimes are new, useful data. If the loss attribution is correct, the demonstration of hundreds-of-millisecond lifetimes in these science states is a significant advance. However, the quantitative loss budget presented in the Supplemental Material has internal inconsistencies and relies on unquantified, partially unpublished theory; these issues must be resolved before the central claim can be accepted as established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Supplemental D, ground-state loss budget] The rate budget 1/τ_full = 1/τ_sp + 1/τ_BBR + 1/τ_vac uses τ_vac ≈ 3 s. For the ground state, the text quotes a BBR-limited lifetime of 1.3 s from Ref. [61] and a measured ODT lifetime of τ = 1.5(0.1) s. With the stated vacuum lifetime, the predicted total is 1/(1/1.3 + 1/3) ≈ 0.91 s, which disagrees with the measurement by roughly 5σ. The two inputs cannot both be correct. Moreover, τ_vac is described as 'consistent with the measured loss rate of molecules in our ODT,' which suggests a post hoc choice rather than an independent constraint. This inconsistency directly undermines the use of the same budget for the science-state lifetimes.
  2. [Table I and Supplemental D, (010) comparison] For the X̃(010) state, the full estimated lifetime is 427 ms, while the measured value is 320(30) ms. This is a 3.6σ discrepancy using the stated experimental uncertainty, not the '3σ level' claimed in the text. The suggested explanation—10–30% uncertainty in the transition-dipole derivatives—is not quantified, and the calculations are described as 'partially presented in Ref. [61]' with additional unpublished work. Without actual theory error bars or a quantitative sensitivity analysis, the statement that the measured lifetimes are 'consistent with spontaneous radiative decay and black-body excitation limits' is not supported for this state.
  3. [Supplemental D, BBR rate formula] The equation Γ_BBR,ij = Σ Γ_sp,ij / (e^{ℏω_ij/(k_BT)} − 1) appears to include only BBR-stimulated emission from state i to lower states j. For a molecule in a vibrational state at room temperature, BBR absorption to higher vibrational states is also a loss channel; indeed, the ground-state lifetime is said to be limited by BBR excitation to three other vibrational states. The formula as written does not include upward transitions. This is not merely a presentation issue: the numerical BBR lifetimes in Table I are central to the loss budget. Please provide the complete expression, including absorption terms and degeneracy factors, or explicitly state the convention used.
  4. [Lifetime measurement systematics] The measured ODT lifetimes are fit to single exponentials, and no density-dependence measurement, residual-gas pressure measurement, or separate characterization of two-body loss is reported. Given that the quoted τ_vac ≈ 3 s is an estimate from other lab systems, non-radiative loss at the tens-of-percent level cannot be excluded by the data as presented. The paper should either provide an independent check (e.g., varying density or pressure) or soften the claim that the science-state lifetimes are fully accounted for by spontaneous decay and BBR.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Main text and Table I] Notation for the measured lifetimes is inconsistent: τ(010), τ200, and τ(0310) are used interchangeably. Please adopt a single convention, e.g., τ(010), τ(200), τ(03¹0).
  2. [Main text, Conveyor-belt MOT section] The text states a '∼10 fold decrease in cloud diameter' from 650 μm to 83 μm; the actual factor is about 7.8. Please correct the wording.
  3. [Supplemental D, Eq. D1] The claim that rotational contributions to S_ij are 'constant among all transitions' is stated without demonstration. A brief justification or citation would be helpful.
  4. [References and data availability] The theory lifetimes rely on calculations 'partially presented in Ref. [61]' and on unpublished work by Cheng and Zhang. For reproducibility, please provide a table of the calculated dipole derivatives and their estimated uncertainties, or cite a publicly available source.
  5. [Supplemental D, ground-state comparison] The statement 'the range of this estimated value of τ_vac does not significantly affect our results' is not quantitatively supported. For the ground state, varying τ_vac from 3 s to ∞ changes the predicted lifetime from 0.91 s to 1.3 s, a large effect. Please show the sensitivity for each state.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; central claim is an experimental measurement compared with independent theoretical estimates.

full rationale

The paper's central result is the measured ODT lifetimes of SrOH science states (320(30), 135(17), 190(30) ms) and the claim that these are consistent with spontaneous radiative decay and BBR limits. The theoretical lifetimes are computed from transition dipole moments and harmonic oscillator matrix elements, using parameters from independent quantum chemistry calculations (partially published in Ref. [61] by the same group, and partially from Cheng and Zhang). The measured lifetimes are obtained by exponential fits to fluorescence decay; they are not inputs to the theory. The vacuum lifetime of 3 s is estimated from prior lab experience and is explicitly stated not to significantly affect results; although it is checked against the measured ground-state loss, the science-state lifetimes are much shorter so the comparison is insensitive to this parameter. No equation reduces the predicted lifetimes to the measured values. The paper acknowledges a 3σ discrepancy for the (010) state and attributes it to expected 10-30% theory uncertainty, which is a limitation in the comparison but not a circular derivation. Self-citations (e.g., Ref. [61]) provide independent published calculations and are not load-bearing in a circular sense. Thus no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on interpreting measured ODT lifetimes as radiative- and BBR-limited. The only adjustable input introduced for the theory comparison is the vacuum lifetime (about 3 s), plus theory-derived transition dipole derivatives. Remaining assumptions are standard molecular-physics approximations. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Vacuum-limited ODT lifetime tau_vac = approximately 3 s
    Estimated from similar vacuum systems in the authors' lab and described as 'consistent with the measured loss rate'. It enters the theoretical full lifetime as 1/tau_full = 1/tau_sp + 1/tau_BBR + 1/tau_vac, and is not measured directly for this trap.
  • Measured exponential lifetimes for ODT states = ground: 1.5(0.1) s; (010): 320(30) ms; (200): 135(17) ms; (0310): 190(30) ms
    Experimental observables obtained by fitting decaying exponentials to fluorescence versus hold time. They are not tuning parameters, but they are fitted values on which the central claim rests.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption ODT loss is dominated by spontaneous radiative decay, BBR excitation, and vacuum background collisions; no density-dependent or light-induced loss contributes comparably.
    The comparison in Supplemental Table I assumes only these loss channels. No density-dependence measurement is reported.
  • domain assumption Rotational contributions to transition strengths S_ij are constant among all relevant transitions and can be ignored.
    Supplemental D states 'our calculations have shown them to be constant among all transitions we consider' but no calculation is shown.
  • domain assumption Vibrational matrix elements are computed in a 2D harmonic oscillator approximation.
    Equation D1 and the matrix elements use 2D harmonic oscillator wavefunctions; anharmonic corrections are neglected.
  • domain assumption The transition dipole derivatives |dmu/dQ1| and |dmu/dQ2| from external calculations are valid.
    Values and uncertainties are taken from calculations by Lan Cheng and Chaoqun Zhang, only partially reported in Ref [61]. These set the spontaneous decay rates.
  • ad hoc to paper Vacuum lifetime is approximately 3 s.
    A single value estimated from similar vacuum systems; the paper argues the uncertainty does not significantly affect results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optical Trapping of SrOH Molecules for Dark Matter and T-violation Searches." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OAUTP2UP

@misc{pith2026250901618,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optical Trapping of SrOH Molecules for Dark Matter and T-violation Searches},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OAUTP2UP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01618}
}
read the original abstract

We report an optical dipole trap of strontium monohydroxide (SrOH) with 1400(300) trapped molecules. Through optical pumping, we access vibrational states that are proposed for improved probes of the electron's electric dipole moment (eEDM) and ultralight dark matter (UDM). For each of these states, the lifetime of trapped molecules is measured, and found to be consistent with spontaneous radiative decay and black-body excitation limits, making this platform viable for these eEDM and UDM searches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01618 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sub-Doppler cooling of SrOH. (a) Level diagram showing transitions involved in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Conveyor belt MOT (CB MOT) of SrOH. (a) Level diagram showing transitions involved in the CB MOT, where the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Science state lifetimes in the ODT. Lifetimes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time of flight temperature measurement of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Magneto-Optical Trapping of a Metal Hydride Molecule

    physics.atom-ph 2025-12 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    A magneto-optical trap for CaH molecules is demonstrated, trapping about 230 molecules at sub-millikelvin temperatures with lifetimes up to 30 ms.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [61]

    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 6 N. R. Hutzler, (2025), arXiv:2508.08368

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Kozyryev and N

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

    work page 2017

  3. [2]

    Kozyryev, Z

    I. Kozyryev, Z. Lasner, and J. M. Doyle, Phys. Rev. A 103, 043313 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [3]

    DeMille, Phys

    D. DeMille, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 067901 (2002)

    2002

  5. [4]

    Yelin, K

    S. Yelin, K. Kirby, and R. Côté, Phys. Rev. A 74, 050301 (2006)

    work page 2006

  6. [5]

    K.-K. Ni, T. Rosenband, and D. D. Grimes, Chem. Sci. 9, 6830 (2018)

    2018

  7. [6]

    Sawant, J

    R. Sawant, J. A. Blackmore, P. D. Gregory, J. Mur-Petit, D. Jaksch, J. Aldegunde, J. M. Hutson, M. R. Tarbutt, and S. L. 5 Cornish, New J. Phys. 22, 013027 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [7]

    Q. Wei, S. Kais, B. Friedrich, and D. Herschbach, J. Chem. Phys. 135, 154102 (2011)

    work page 2011

Show all 62 references
  1. [8]

    P. Yu, L. W. Cheuk, I. Kozyryev, and J. M. Doyle, New J. Phys. 21, 093049 (2019)

    2019

  2. [9]

    V . V . Albert, J. P. Covey, and J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. X 10, 031050 (2020)

    2020

  3. [10]

    B. R. Heazlewood and T. P. Softley, Nat. Rev. Chem. 5, 125 (2021)

    2021

  4. [11]

    E. B. Norrgard, D. S. Barker, S. Eckel, J. A. Fedchak, N. N. Klimov, and J. Scherschligt, Commun. Phys. 2, 77 (2019)

    2019

  5. [12]

    Kobayashi, A

    J. Kobayashi, A. Ogino, and S. Inouye, Nat. Commun. 10, 3771 (2019)

    2019

  6. [13]

    Y . Bao, S. S. Yu, L. Anderegg, E. Chae, W. Ketterle, K.-K. Ni, and J. M. Doyle, Science 382, 1138 (2023)

    2023

  7. [14]

    C. M. Holland, Y . Lu, and L. W. Cheuk, Science 382, 1143 (2023)

    2023

  8. [15]

    N. B. Vilas, P. Robichaud, C. Hallas, G. K. Li, L. Anderegg, and J. M. Doyle, Nature 628, 282 (2024)

    2024

  9. [16]

    Anderegg, N

    L. Anderegg, N. B. Vilas, C. Hallas, P. Robichaud, A. Jad- babaie, J. M. Doyle, and N. R. Hutzler, Science 382, 150–154 (2023)

    2023

  10. [17]

    Anderegg, B

    L. Anderegg, B. L. Augenbraun, E. Chae, B. Hemmerling, N. R. Hutzler, A. Ravi, A. Collopy, J. Ye, W. Ketterle, and J. M. Doyle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 103201 (2017)

    2017

  11. [18]

    H. J. Williams, S. Truppe, M. Hambach, L. Caldwell, N. J. Fitch, E. A. Hinds, B. E. Sauer, and M. R. Tarbutt, New J. Phys. 19, 113035 (2017)

    2017

  12. [19]

    J. F. Barry, D. J. McCarron, E. B. Norrgard, M. H. Steinecker, and D. Demille, Nature 512, 286 (2014)

    2014

  13. [20]

    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

  14. [21]

    Z. Zeng, S. Deng, S. Yang, and B. Yan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 143404 (2024)

    2024

  15. [22]

    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

  16. [23]

    N. B. Vilas, C. Hallas, L. Anderegg, P. Robichaud, A. Winnicki, D. Mitra, and J. M. Doyle, Nature 606, 70 (2022)

    2022

  17. [24]

    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

  18. [25]

    Prehn, M

    A. Prehn, M. Ibrügger, R. Glöckner, G. Rempe, and M. Zep- penfeld, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 063005 (2016)

    2016

  19. [26]

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

    2020

  20. [27]

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

    2013

  21. [28]

    M. L. Wall, K. Maeda, and L. D. Carr, New J. Phys.17, 025001 (2015)

    2015

  22. [29]

    Andreev, D

    V . Andreev, D. G. Ang, D. DeMille, J. M. Doyle, G. Gabrielse, J. Haefner, N. R. Hutzler, Z. Lasner, C. Meisenhelder, B. R. O’Leary, C. D. Panda, A. D. West, E. P. West, and X. Wu, Na- ture 562, 355 (2018)

    2018

  23. [30]

    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, Science 381, 46 (2023)

    2023

  24. [31]

    The quantum number ℓ represents the vibrational angular momentum associated with the bending mode and is typically omitted when v2 = 1, where ℓ = 1 is the only allowed value

    Vibrational states of linear triatomic molecules such as SrOH are denoted as (v1v2ℓv3), where v1, v2, and v3 correspond to quanta in the symmetric stretch, bend, and antisymmetric stretch modes, respectively. The quantum number ℓ represents the vibrational angular momentum ass...

  25. [32]

    Arvanitaki, J

    A. Arvanitaki, J. Huang, and K. Van Tilburg, Phys. Rev. D 91, 015015 (2015)

    2015

  26. [33]

    Y . V . Stadnik and V . V . Flambaum, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 201301 (2015)

    2015

  27. [34]

    P. W. Graham and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. D 88, 035023 (2013)

    2013

  28. [35]

    Brdar, J

    V . Brdar, J. Kopp, J. Liu, P. Prass, and X. P. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 97, 043001 (2018)

    2018

  29. [36]

    Banerjee, H

    A. Banerjee, H. Kim, and G. Perez, Phys. Rev. D 100, 115026 (2019)

    2019

  30. [37]

    Y . V . Stadnik and V . V . Flambaum, Phys. Rev. A94, 022111 (2016)

    2016

  31. [38]

    Brzeminski, Z

    D. Brzeminski, Z. Chacko, A. Dev, and A. Hook, Phys. Rev. D 104, 075019 (2021)

    2021

  32. [39]

    Cosme, J

    C. Cosme, J. G. Rosa, and O. Bertolami, J. High Energ. Phys. 2018, 129

    2018

  33. [40]

    Truppe, H

    S. Truppe, H. J. Williams, M. Hambach, L. Caldwell, N. J. Fitch, E. A. Hinds, B. E. Sauer, and M. R. Tarbutt, Nature Physics 13, 1173 (2017)

    2017

  34. [41]

    L. W. Cheuk, L. Anderegg, B. L. Augenbraun, Y . Bao, S. Burchesky, W. Ketterle, and J. M. Doyle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 083201 (2018)

    2018

  35. [42]

    S. Ding, Y . Wu, I. A. Finneran, J. J. Burau, and J. Ye, Phys. Rev. X 10, 021049 (2020)

    2020

  36. [43]

    science states

    using SF cooling. The ODT is formed by a focused 1064 nm beam with 10.8 W of power, producing a trap depth of ∼ 750 µK. To load molecules into the ODT we turn on SF cooling for 60 ms with the ODT light on. SF cooling is advan- tageous for this stage as the light shift due to t...

    2023

  37. [44]

    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

  38. [45]

    G. K. Li, C. Hallas, and J. M. Doyle, New J. Phys. 27, 043002 (2025)

    2025

  39. [46]

    Hallas, G

    C. Hallas, G. K. Li, N. B. Vilas, P. Robichaud, L. Anderegg, and J. M. Doyle, (2024), arXiv:2404.03636

    2024 arXiv

  40. [47]

    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, (2024), arXiv:2409.15262

    2024 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Z. Zeng, S. Yang, S. Deng, and B. Yan, (2025), arXiv:2506.12892

    2025 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Caldwell, J

    L. Caldwell, J. A. Devlin, H. J. Williams, N. J. Fitch, E. A. Hinds, B. E. Sauer, and M. R. Tarbutt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 033202 (2019)

    2019

  43. [50]

    Boiron, C

    D. Boiron, C. Triché, D. R. Meacher, P. Verkerk, and G. Gryn- berg, Phys. Rev. A 52, R3425 (1995)

    1995

  44. [51]

    J. A. Devlin and M. R. Tarbutt, New J. Phys.18, 123017 (2016)

    2016

  45. [52]

    Sievers, N

    F. Sievers, N. Kretzschmar, D. R. Fernandes, D. Suchet, M. Ra- binovic, S. Wu, C. V . Parker, L. Khaykovich, C. Salomon, and F. Chevy, Phys. Rev. A91, 023426 (2015)

    2015

  46. [53]

    Aspect, E

    A. Aspect, E. Arimondo, R. Kaiser, N. Vansteenkiste, and C. Cohen-Tannoudji, Phys. Rev. Lett.61, 826 (1988)

    1988

  47. [54]

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

    2021

  48. [55]

    Gaul and R

    K. Gaul and R. Berger, Physical Review A 101, 10.1103/Phys- RevA.101.012508 (2020)

    2020 doi

  49. [56]

    Lunstad, H

    A. Lunstad, H. Sawaoka, Z. D. Lasner, A. Nasir, M. Li, J. Mango, R. Fields, and J. M. Doyle, in prep. (2025)

    2025

  50. [57]

    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

  51. [58]

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

    2023

  52. [59]

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

    2012

  53. [60]

    Zhang, P

    C. Zhang, P. Yu, C. J. Conn, N. R. Hutzler, and L. Cheng, Phys- ical Chemistry Chemical Physics 25, 32613 (2023)

    2023

  54. [62]

    overall temperature

    N. B. Vilas, C. Hallas, L. Anderegg, P. Robichaud, C. Zhang, S. Dawley, L. Cheng, and J. M. Doyle, Phys. Rev. A 107, 062802 (2023). Supplemental Material Appendix A: Sub-Doppler temperature measurements In order to measure the temperature of the sub-Doppler cooled cloud of SrO...

    2023

Pith tools

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