Rotating polarization magnetometry

P. W{\l}odarczyk; S. Pustelny

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 64 references

Rotating polarization magnetometry

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Rotating-polarization pumping outperforms AMOR at 100 µT

desk verdict The RotPol-vs-AMOR comparison is a real experimental result, but the headline sensitivity numbers do not survive contact with Eq. (2). read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20044 v1 pith:P5HQTUKE submitted 2024-12-28 physics.optics physics.app-ph

S. Pustelny , P. W{l}odarczyk This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.opticsphysics.app-ph

keywords rotatingpolarizationmagnetometrynonlinearmagneto-opticalrotationalignment-to-orientationconversionamplitude-modulatedNMORrubidium-87vaporcellhigh-fieldsensitivityopticalatomicmagnetometerLarmorprecession

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 magnetometer based on continuously rotating light polarization, rather than intensity-modulated light, produces larger nonlinear magneto-optical rotation signals and better sensitivity at fields around 100 µT — roughly three times Earth's field — reaching 650 fT/√Hz versus 1.15 pT/√Hz for amplitude-modulated NMOR under the same conditions. It also argues that the well-known decline of NMOR signal amplitude at high magnetic fields is not caused by alignment-to-orientation conversion, because the rotating-polarization scheme, which should be immune to that effect, shows a similar (approximately 40%) reduction with field strength. If correct, the paper offers a practical way to extend sensitive optical magnetometry to fields where conventional NMOR loses performance, and it redirects the search for the cause of the high-field decline.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the rotating-polarization pump: a Mach-Zehnder interferometer in which two orthogonally polarized beams are frequency-shifted by acousto-optic modulators driven at slightly different frequencies, so their superposition is a beam whose linear polarization precesses continuously at the difference frequency νm. When νm is set to the Larmor frequency, the rotating polarization resonantly drives a transverse atomic polarization that stays parallel to the light's polarization at all times, suppressing AOC. The same device, with a polarizer inserted after the recombining beam splitter, converts the output into amplitude-modulated light, enabling a like-for-like comparison of RotPol and AMOR under identical atomic conditions.

What would settle it

Reproduce the AMOR measurement using an amplitude-modulation scheme that does not produce the repumping relaxation described in Section III.B, e.g., by keeping light intensity constant while modulating only the degree of circular or elliptical polarization, or by adding a repump beam; if the high-field amplitude decline then differs from the RotPol decline, the paper's exculpation of AOC is invalidated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that by synchronizing the rotation of the pump beam's linear polarization with the Larmor precession of atomic spins in a coated 87Rb vapor cell, one can continuously replenish a dynamically precessing transverse atomic polarization without ever letting the light polarization and the atomic polarization point in different directions. This arrangement keeps the alignment-to-orientation conversion angle at zero while still delivering a modulated NMOR signal, and the measured signal amplitude is roughly 1.5–2 times larger and about 30% narrower than that obtained with amplitude-modulated light generated in the same setup. The comparative measurements show that the high-field amplitude reduction is nearly the same for both techniques (~40% over the explored range), which the authors take as evidence that AOC is not the main cause; they attribute the decline instead to nonlinear Zeeman splitting, decoupling of hyperfine interaction, and field inhomogeneities.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison between RotPol and AMOR assumes that the only meaningful difference between the two techniques is the presence of alignment-to-orientation conversion, even though AMOR also modulates light intensity and the paper shows that this introduces extra atomic relaxation in AMOR.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Rotating-polarization NMOR provides a practical route to sensitive magnetometry at fields up to at least 100 µT, covering a dynamic range about three times Earth's field, without active compensation.
The comparison shows that the signal and sensitivity advantage over AMOR holds across a wide range of pump and probe powers, with RotPol always giving larger amplitudes.
Since AOC is not the cause of high-field signal decline, efforts to improve high-field NMOR should focus on nonlinear Zeeman splitting, hyperfine decoupling, and magnetic-field inhomogeneity rather than on avoiding AOC.
The authors point out that increasing the atomic density close to one optical depth could raise sensitivity by roughly an order of magnitude, and that a self-oscillating mode using feedback of the rotation signal could enable automatic field tracking.

Reading between the lines

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

The comparison between RotPol and AMOR does not isolate AOC alone, because AMOR also involves sinusoidal intensity modulation that the paper itself shows introduces extra relaxation by repumping polarized atoms; if that extra relaxation rather than AOC is the dominant cause of AMOR's weaker signals, the conclusion about AOC would be unsupported.
A natural next experiment would be to measure the high-field decline using a scheme that modulates polarization direction without any intensity variation in a regime where AOC should be significant, to separate the two effects directly.
The rotating-polarization approach could be adapted to other alkali species and to chip-scale or fiber-integrated setups, and might combine with different operating regimes, though those extensions are not explored here.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The useful core of this paper is the direct experimental comparison: with a continuously rotating linear polarization pump, NMOR resonances are larger and narrower than with amplitude-modulated pumping, under otherwise matched conditions. That observation is shown consistently in the spectra, the power scans, and the field-dependence data. The authors also give a fair-fight comparison, testing AMOR at both equal average power and equal peak power, and they openly identify the extra relaxation mechanism in AMOR. The application of their existing RotPol source to NMOR magnetometry is a legitimate incremental advance, and the evidence against alignment-to-orientation conversion being the main cause of high-field signal loss is a useful data point, even if not conclusive.

The soft spots are real and one is load-bearing for the quantitative headline. Equation (2) as written does not produce a magnetic field: g mu_B / hbar has units of rad/(T s), while A/(SNR * gamma) has units of V s, so the product is V/T, not T. The correct conversion is the reciprocal. This is not a typo in a prefactor; it is the wrong dependence on linewidth and SNR. The claimed 650 fT/√Hz and 1.15 pT/√Hz therefore cannot be reproduced from the manuscript as written. Adding to that, Fig. 7's caption says the sensitivity maps were measured at ≈30 µT while the text and abstract say 100 µT, and no noise calibration, error bars, or raw sensitivity traces are provided. Those three issues together mean the headline sensitivity comparison is not substantiated.

The AOC conclusion is also weaker than the abstract suggests. The RotPol and AMOR schemes differ not only in whether alignment-to-orientation conversion can occur; they differ in intensity modulation itself, and the paper itself shows that sinusoidal amplitude modulation introduces extra relaxation. So the observed AMOR deficit could be caused by that relaxation rather than by AOC. The authors' claim that the field dependence is similar for both and relatively weak is interesting, but it is an indirect test. I would not call the AOC conclusion unsupported, but it is over-credited in the abstract, which also overgeneralizes from AMOR to all modulated-light NMOR techniques.

On the positive side, the citation pattern is clean: the only self-citation is the RotPol generator from Ref. [49], which is appropriate tooling. The experimental description is detailed enough to follow, and the F=1 pumping artifact is disclosed honestly. This is a serious experimental paper with a reproducible core, but it needs a corrected sensitivity formula, a consistent field value, and a properly quantified sensitivity analysis before the quantitative claims can be trusted.

Recommendation: send it to peer review. A good referee can sort out the sensitivity formula and force the authors to reconcile the field discrepancy. The comparative RotPol-versus-AMOR result is worth publishing even if the sensitivity numbers end up revised.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental implementation of NMOR magnetometry using continuously rotating linear polarization (RotPol) in a 87Rb vapor cell, and compares it with amplitude-modulated NMOR (AMOR). The authors report that RotPol produces larger signal amplitudes, narrower resonances, and better magnetic-field sensitivity (650 fT/√Hz versus 1.15 pT/√Hz at a stated field of 100 µT). They also conclude, from the similar field dependence of RotPol and AMOR signals and the larger RotPol amplitudes, that the well-known high-field NMOR signal deterioration is not caused by alignment-to-orientation conversion (AOC).

Significance. If fully substantiated, the technique would be a useful alternative for high-field optical magnetometry, extending sensitive NMOR operation to fields of order 100 µT and beyond. The paper provides extensive parametric maps of signal amplitude, width, and sensitivity versus pump and probe powers, and it uses the same experimental hardware for the RotPol and AMOR comparisons, which is a genuine strength. However, the quantitative sensitivity claims rest on a dimensionally inconsistent formula and an unexplained disagreement between the stated and captioned operating fields, and the AOC conclusion is not uniquely determined by the RotPol/AMOR comparison as presented.

major comments (4)

[Section III.D, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) is dimensionally inconsistent as written. If A is in volts, SNR is dimensionless, and γ is in hertz, then A/(SNR·γ) has units V·s, while gµB/ℏ has units rad/(T·s), so the right-hand side has units V/T rather than T. The correct conversion for a Lorentzian dispersion-type discriminator would instead be δB = (ℏ/(gµB))·(γ/SNR) (or h/(gµB)·(γ/SNR) for cyclic Larmor frequency). Since the reported optimal sensitivities of 650 fT/√Hz and 1.15 pT/√Hz and the entire map in Fig. 7 are derived from this relation, all quantitative sensitivity claims must be recomputed with the correct expression, and the SNR definition and noise bandwidth must be specified.
[Section III.D and Fig. 7 caption] There is a direct factual disagreement about the operating field: the text and abstract state that the sensitivity measurements were performed at 100 µT, while the Fig. 7 caption says the measurements were made at "≈30 µT." This discrepancy changes the physical regime being characterized and prevents reproduction of the reported sensitivities. The authors need to state the actual field for each data set and, ideally, show how the sensitivity varies across the 30–100 µT range.
[Fig. 7 and Section III.D] No noise calibration or error bars are provided for the sensitivity values. Since Eq. (2) depends directly on the signal-to-noise ratio, the reported sensitivity figures require a description of how the noise spectral density was measured (e.g., detector noise floor, photon shot noise, probe-power dependence, measurement bandwidth) and an uncertainty estimate for the fitted amplitude and width. Without this information, the claimed quantitative advantage of RotPol over AMOR (650 fT/√Hz versus 1.15 pT/√Hz) is not reproducible from the manuscript.
[Section III.B, Fig. 5, and Section V] The conclusion that AOC is not responsible for the high-field NMOR signal reduction is not uniquely supported by the RotPol/AMOR comparison. The two pumping schemes differ not only in polarization rotation relative to the atomic polarization but also in intensity modulation: RotPol uses continuous intensity while AMOR uses sinusoidal amplitude modulation, and the paper itself attributes the larger AMOR width to additional repumping-induced relaxation in a sinusoidally modulated pump (Section III.B). This additional relaxation mechanism could account for the smaller AMOR amplitudes and the observed linewidth differences, so the comparison does not isolate AOC. The causal claim about AOC should be tempered, or a control should be added in which the polarization-rotation character is changed without changing the intensity-modulation character.

minor comments (6)

[Section I] "surveys natural resources" should be "surveying natural resources".
[Section III.C] "interestteresting" is a typo and should be "interesting".
[Fig. 3 caption] "triple Lorenzian" should be "triple Lorentzian".
[Fig. 7 color bar] The label "Sensitivity(pT/ Hz)" should use the conventional notation "pT/√Hz."
[Section V and Section IV] The summary states that sensitivity can be increased by up to threefold, while the Discussion anticipates a ten-fold increase from concentration optimization; these two numbers should be reconciled.
[References [57] and [58]] References [57] and [58] are incomplete: they list only the journal, volume, page, and year, without author and title information.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's claims are experimental comparisons, not derivations from fitted inputs.

full rationale

The central claims are measured RotPol/AMOR signal amplitudes, widths, slopes, and sensitivities (Figs. 3-7, Table I), obtained by fitting a triple-Lorentzian profile to raw signals. Nothing in the fitting function (Eq. 1) encodes the comparative conclusion; the conclusion that RotPol outperforms AMOR and that AOC is not the main cause of high-field deterioration follows from comparing measured resonances, not from an input chosen to produce that result. The only self-citation, Ref. [49] for the rotating-polarization generator, is tooling: the apparatus is cited as a device, not as authority for the physics conclusion. The AMOR comparison does include a possible confound acknowledged by the authors themselves (sinusoidal modulation adds relaxation, Sec. III.B), but an alternative explanation is an experimental-design weakness, not circularity. The dimensional issue in Eq. (2) noted in the skeptic pass, if correct, is a correctness/reproducibility defect and does not make the comparison circular: the sensitivity values are still measured quantities reported from the fit parameters. No prediction is constructed to equal its own input, and no load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation or to a definition. The manuscript is self-contained as an experimental report, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The free parameters are the Lorentzian fit parameters used to quantify the signals, and the axioms are the standard assumptions of NMOR magnetometry plus the specific instrument and analysis assumptions listed above. The most fragile item is the sensitivity formula, which is printed incorrectly.

free parameters (3)

Central resonance amplitude A = 1.947(26) V (RotPol, 10 µW pump)
Fitted from the triple-Lorentzian model Eq (1); used in the sensitivity estimate Eq (2).
Resonance width γ = 27.17(81) Hz (RotPol, 10 µW pump)
Fitted from Eq (1); used in the sensitivity estimate Eq (2).
Satellite amplitude A1 and width γ1 = Not reported separately in the paper
Additional fit parameters in Eq (1); they characterize the side resonances but are not used in the central sensitivity claim.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The rotating-polarization generator (Ref [49]) produces light whose linear polarization rotates continuously at frequency νm without parasitic intensity modulation.
The experiment relies on this instrument working as described; no independent calibration of the rotation purity is shown in this paper.
domain assumption The triple-Lorentzian model Eq (1) adequately describes the NMOR resonance line shapes.
All amplitude and width extractions use this model; no residual analysis or alternative lineshape fits are presented.
ad hoc to paper The sensitivity formula Eq (2) correctly relates amplitude, width, and SNR to magnetic sensitivity.
The equation as printed is dimensionally inconsistent (units of 1/T), so the authors must have used an unstated corrected form; this is an unsupported assumption in the text.
domain assumption The only relevant difference between RotPol and AMOR for the AOC test is the absence or presence of AOC, with other differences (for example, pump-induced relaxation) not affecting the field-dependence trend.
The AOC conclusion assumes a differential test; the paper itself notes AMOR has an extra relaxation mechanism due to sinusoidal intensity modulation, which could confound the comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rotating polarization magnetometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P5HQTUKE

@misc{pith2026241220044,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rotating polarization magnetometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P5HQTUKE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20044}
}

read the original abstract

Precise magnetometry is vital in numerous scientific and technological applications. At the forefront of sensitivity, optical atomic magnetometry, particularly techniques utilizing nonlinear magneto-optical rotation (NMOR), enables ultraprecise measurements across a broad field range. Despite their potential, these techniques reportedly lose sensitivity at higher magnetic fields, which is attributed to the alignment-to-orientation conversion (AOC) process. In our study, we utilize light with continuously rotating linear polarization to avoid AOC, producing robust optical signals and achieving high magnetometric sensitivity over a dynamic range nearly three times greater than Earth's magnetic field. We demonstrate that employing rotating polarization surpasses other NMOR techniques that use modulated light. Our findings also indicate that the previously observed signal deterioration is not due to AOC, suggesting an alternative cause for this decline.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.20044 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. RotPol signals measured at a magnetic field of 100 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Comparison of NMOR signals measured with Rot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Amplitude of the NMOR signal versus magnetic field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Dependence of the amplitude of the RotPol signal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: presents the comparison of RotPol and AMOR magnetometry as a function of pump and probe powers. The results show that in RotPol, the optimal sensitivity of 650 fT/Hz1/2 is achieved with a pump power of 55 µW and a probe power of about 30 µW. AMOR achieves an optimal se…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

[49]

W lodarczyk, S

P. W lodarczyk, S. Pustelny, and D. Bud- ker, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 90, 013110 (2019), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/rsi/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.5066071/14756140/013110 1 online.pdf

work page doi:10.1063/1.5066071/14756140/013110 2019
[1]

Budker and M

D. Budker and M. Romalis, Nat. Phys. 3, 227 (2007)

2007
[2]

Budker and D

D. Budker and D. F. Jackson Kimball, Optical Magne- tometry (Cambridge University Press, 2013)

work page 2013
[4]

J. C. Allred, R. N. Lyman, T. W. Kornack, and M. V. Romalis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 130801 (2002)

work page 2002
[5]

E. B. Alexandrov, Phys. Scr. 2003, 27 (2003)

work page 2003
[6]

S. J. Seltzer, P. J. Meares, and M. V. Romalis, Phys. Rev. A 75, 051407 (2007)

work page 2007
[7]

Groeger, G

S. Groeger, G. Bison, J.-L. Schenker, R. Wynands, and W. A., Eur. Phys. J. D A 38, 239 (2006)

work page 2006
[8]

Pustelny, A

S. Pustelny, A. Wojciechowski, M. Gring, M. Kotyrba, J. Zachorowski, and W. Gawlik, J Appl. Phys. 103, 063108 (2008), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.2844494/13946272/063108 1 online.pdf

work page doi:10.1063/1.2844494/13946272/063108 2008

Show all 64 references

[9]

Y. J. Kim and I. Savukov, Sci. Rep. 6, 24773 (2016)

2016
[10]

A. P. Colombo, T. R. Carter, A. Borna, Y.-Y. Jau, C. N. Johnson, A. L. Dagel, and P. D. D. Schwindt, Opt. Ex- press 24, 15403 (2016)

2016
[11]

Oelsner, V

G. Oelsner, V. Schultze, R. IJsselsteijn, and R. Stolz, EPJ Quantum Technol. 6, 1 (2019)

2019
[12]

Bevington, R

P. Bevington, R. Gartman, and W. Chalupczak, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 90, 013103 (2019)

2019
[13]

J. Wang, W. Fan, K. Yin, Y. Yan, B. Zhou, and X. Song, Phys. Rev. A 101, 053427 (2020)

2020
[14]

X. Fang, K. Wei, T. Zhao, Y. Zhai, D. Ma, B. Xing, Y. Liu, and Z. Xiao, Opt. Express 28, 26447 (2020)

2020
[15]

Bison, R

G. Bison, R. Wynands, and A. Weis, Appl. Phys. B 76, 325 (2003)

2003
[16]

Murzin, D

D. Murzin, D. J. Mapps, K. Levada, V. Belyaev, A. Omelyanchik, L. Panina, and V. Rodionova, Sensors 20, 10.3390/s20061569 (2020)

2020 doi
[17]

M. J. Brookes, J. Leggett, M. Rea, R. M. Hill, N. Holmes, E. Boto, and R. Bowtell, Trends Neurosci.45, 621 (2022)

2022
[18]

Y. Lu, T. Zhao, W. Zhu, L. Liu, X. Zhuang, G. Fang, and X. Zhang, Sensors 23, 5318 (2023)

2023
[19]

A. M. Akulshin, D. Budker, F. Pedreros Bustos, T. Dang, E. Klinger, S. M. Rochester, A. Wickenbrock, and R. Zhang, Phys. Rep. 1106, 1 (2025)

2025
[20]

Bevilacqua, V

G. Bevilacqua, V. Biancalana, A. B. A. Baranga, Y. Dancheva, and C. Rossi, J Magn. Reson. 263, 10.1016/j.jmr.2015.12.018 (2016)

2016 doi
[21]

Tayler, T

M. Tayler, T. Theis, T. Sjolander, J. Blanchard, A. Kent- 8 ner, S. Pustelny, A. Pines, and D. Budker, Rev. Sci. In- strum. 88, 10.1063/1.5003347 (2017)

2017 doi
[22]

J. A. Barskiy, J. W. Blanchard, D. Budker, J. Eills, S. Pustelny, K. F. Sheberstov, M. C. D. Tayler, and A. H. Trabesinger, Prog. Nucl. Magn. Reson. Spectrosc. (2025), accepted for publication, arXiv:2409.09048

2025 arXiv
[23]

Pustelny, D

S. Pustelny, D. Kimball, C. Pankow, M. Ledbetter, P. Wlodarczyk, P. Wcislo, M. Pospelov, J. Smith, J. Read, W. Gawlik, and D. Budker, Ann. Phys. 525, 10.1002/andp.201300061 (2013)

2013 doi
[24]

Jiang, H

M. Jiang, H. Su, A. Garcon, X. Peng, and D. Budker, Nat. Phys. 17, 10.1038/s41567-021-01392-z (2021)

2021 doi
[25]

W. A. Terrano and M. V. Romalis, Quantum Sci. Tech- nol. 7, 014001 (2021)

2021
[26]

Afach, D

S. Afach, D. A. Tumturk, H. Bekker, B. C. Buchler, D. Budker, K. Cervantes, A. Derevianko, J. Eby, N. L. Figueroa, R. Folman, D. Gavil´ an-Mart ´ ın, M. Givon, Z. D. Gruji´ c, H. Guo, P. Hamilton, M. P. Hedges, D. F. J. Kimball, S. Khamis, D. Kim, E. Klinger, A. Krye- madhi, X...

2024
[27]

I. M. Bloch and S. Kalia, J. High Energ. Phys. 2024, 178

2024
[28]

S. J. Seltzer and M. V. Romalis, Appl. Phys. Lett. 85, 4804 (2004), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apl/article- pdf/85/20/4804/18600614/4804 1 online.pdf

2004
[29]

Belfi, G

J. Belfi, G. Bevilacqua, V. Biancalana, S. Cartaleva, Y. Dancheva, and L. Moi, Journal of the Optical Soci- ety of America B 24, 2357 (2007)

2007
[30]

Z. Y. Chu, X. G. Sun, S. A. Wan, and J. C. Fang, Opt. Precis. Eng. 22, 10.3788/OPE.20142207.1808 (2014)

2014
[31]

Papoyan, S

A. Papoyan, S. Shmavonyan, A. Khanbekyan, K. Khan- bekyan, C. Marinelli, and E. Mariotti, Appl. Opt. 55, 892 (2016)

2016
[32]

M. E. Limes, E. L. Foley, T. W. Kornack, S. Caliga, S. McBride, A. Braun, W. Lee, V. G. Lucivero, and M. V. Romalis, Phys. Rev. Appl. 14, 10.1103/PhysRe- vApplied.14.011002 (2020)

2020 doi
[33]

Wilson, C

N. Wilson, C. Perrella, R. Anderson, A. Luiten, and P. Light, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 10.1103/PhysRevRe- search.2.013213 (2020)

2020 doi
[34]

V. G. Lucivero, W. Lee, T. W. Kornack, M. E. Limes, E. L. Foley, and M. V. Romalis, Phys. Rev. Appl. 18, 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.18.L021001 (2022)

2022 doi
[35]

Zhang, y

L. Zhang, y. Yang, N. Zhao, J. He, and J. Wang, Sensors 22, 10.3390/s22197598 (2022)

2022 doi
[36]

Hunter, M

D. Hunter, M. S. Mrozowski, A. McWilliam, S. J. Ingleby, T. E. Dyer, P. F. Griffin, and E. Riis, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 40, 2664 (2023)

2023
[37]

Alexandrov, M

E. Alexandrov, M. Balabas, A. Pasgalev, A. Vershovskii, and N. Yakobson, Laser Phys. 6 (1996)

1996
[38]

Scholtes, S

T. Scholtes, S. Pustelny, S. Fritzsche, V. Schultze, R. Stolz, and H. G. Meyer, Phys. Rev. A 94, 10.1103/PhysRevA.94.013403 (2016)

2016 doi
[39]

Ledbetter, V

M. Ledbetter, V. Acosta, S. Rochester, D. Budker, S. Pustelny, and V. Yashchuk, Phys. Rev. A 75, 10.1103/PhysRevA.75.023405 (2007)

2007 doi
[40]

P. Put, P. Wcis lo, W. Gawlik, and S. Pustelny, Phys. Rev. A 100, 10.1103/PhysRevA.100.043838 (2019)

2019 doi
[41]

P. Put, K. Popio lek, and S. Pustelny, Scientific Reports 9, 10.1038/s41598-019-39282-3 (2019)

2019 doi
[42]

W. E. Bell and A. L. Bloom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 6, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.6.280 (1961)

1961 doi
[43]

Budker, D

D. Budker, D. F. Kimball, V. V. Yashchuk, and M. Zolo- torev, Phys. Rev. A 65, 055403 (2002)

2002
[44]

Acosta, M

V. Acosta, M. P. Ledbetter, S. M. Rochester, D. Bud- ker, D. F. Jackson Kimball, D. C. Hovde, W. Gawlik, S. Pustelny, J. Zachorowski, and V. V. Yashchuk, Phys. Rev. A 73, 053404 (2006)

2006
[45]

Gawlik, L

W. Gawlik, L. Krzemie´ n, S. Pustelny, D. Sangla, J. Zachorowski, M. Graf, A. O. Sushkov, and D. Budker, Appl. Phys. Lett. 88, 131108 (2006), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apl/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.2190457/14009075/131108 1 online.pdf

2006 doi
[46]

V. M. Acosta, M. Auzinsh, W. Gawlik, P. Grisins, J. M. Higbie, D. F. J. Kimball, L. Krzemien, M. P. Led- better, S. Pustelny, S. M. Rochester, V. V. Yashchuk, and D. Budker, Optics Express 16, 10.1364/oe.16.011423 (2008)

2008 doi
[48]

Budker, D

D. Budker, D. F. Kimball, S. M. Rochester, and V. V. Yashchuk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2088 (2000)

2000
[50]

Pustelny, V

S. Pustelny, V. Schultze, T. Scholtes, and D. Budker, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 87, 10.1063/1.4952962 (2016)

2016 doi
[51]

D. A. Steck, Rubidium 87 d line data, http://steck.us/ alkalidata (2010), revision 2.1.4, 23 December 2010

2010
[52]

Pustelny, D

S. Pustelny, D. J. Kimball, S. Rochester, V. Yashchuk, and D. Budker, Phys. Rev. A 74, 10.1103/Phys- RevA.74.063406 (2006)

2006 doi
[53]

Pustelny, D

S. Pustelny, D. F. Jackson Kimball, S. M. Rochester, V. V. Yashchuk, W. Gawlik, and D. Budker, Phys. Rev. A 73, 023817 (2006)

2006
[54]

Drampyan, S

R. Drampyan, S. Pustelny, and W. Gawlik, Phys. Rev. A 80, 033815 (2009)

2009
[55]

P. D. Schwindt, L. Hollberg, and J. Kitching, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 76, 1 (2005)

2005
[56]

J. M. Higbie, E. Corsini, and D. Budker, Rev. Sci. In- strum. 77, 10.1063/1.2370597 (2006)

2006 doi
[57]

Phys. Lett. A 48, 283 (1974)

1974
[58]

Phys.B 20, 5939 (1987)

J. Phys.B 20, 5939 (1987)

1987
[59]

M. J. Owens and R. J. Forsyth, Living Rev. Sol. Phys. 10, 5 (2013)

2013
[60]

J. E. P. Connerney, A. Adriani, F. Allegrini, F. Bagenal, S. J. Bolton, B. Bonfond, S. W. H. Cowley, J.-C. Ger- ard, G. R. Gladstone, D. Grodent, G. Hospodarsky, J. L. Jorgensen, W. S. Kurth, S. M. Levin, B. Mauk, D. J. McComas, A. Mura, C. Paranicas, E. J. Smith, R. M. Thorne...

2017
[61]

M. H. Acu˜ na, J. E. P. Connerney, N. F., null, R. P. Lin, D. Mitchell, C. W. Carlson, J. McFadden, K. A. Ander- son, H. R` eme, C. Mazelle, D. Vignes, P. Wasilewski, and P. Cloutier, Science 284, 790 (1999)

1999
[62]

P. A. Koss, A. R. Durmaz, A. Blug, G. Laskin, O. S. Pawar, K. Thiemann, A. Bertz, T. Straub, and C. El- saesser, Appl. Sci. 12, 1329 (2022). 9

2022
[63]

Pustelny, A

S. Pustelny, A. Wojciechowski, M. Kotyrba, K. Sycz, J. Zachorowski, W. Gawlik, A. Cingoz, N. Leefer, J. Hig- bie, E. Corsini, M. Ledbetter, S. Rochester, A. Sushkov, and D. Budker, in Proc. SPIE , Vol. 6604 (2007)

2007
[64]

W lodarczyk, Podzespo ly elektroniczne i optoelektron- iczne w magnetometrii atomowej (eng

P. W lodarczyk, Podzespo ly elektroniczne i optoelektron- iczne w magnetometrii atomowej (eng. Electronic and op- toelectronic components in atomic magnetometry), Ph.D. thesis, University of Science and Technology (2016)

2016
[65]

Sohler, H

W. Sohler, H. Hu, R. Ricken, V. Quiring, C. Vannahme, H. Herrmann, D. B¨ uchter, S. Reza, W. Grundk¨ otter, S. Orlov, H. Suche, R. Nouroozi, and Y. Min, Opt. Pho- ton. News 19, 24 (2008)

2008
[66]

A. Boes, B. Corcoran, L. Chang, J. Bowers, and A. Mitchell, Laser Photon. Rev. 12, 1700256 (2018)

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [49]

W lodarczyk, S

P. W lodarczyk, S. Pustelny, and D. Bud- ker, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 90, 013110 (2019), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/rsi/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.5066071/14756140/013110 1 online.pdf

work page doi:10.1063/1.5066071/14756140/013110 2019

[2] [1]

Budker and M

D. Budker and M. Romalis, Nat. Phys. 3, 227 (2007)

2007

[3] [2]

Budker and D

D. Budker and D. F. Jackson Kimball, Optical Magne- tometry (Cambridge University Press, 2013)

work page 2013

[4] [4]

J. C. Allred, R. N. Lyman, T. W. Kornack, and M. V. Romalis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 130801 (2002)

work page 2002

[5] [5]

E. B. Alexandrov, Phys. Scr. 2003, 27 (2003)

work page 2003

[6] [6]

S. J. Seltzer, P. J. Meares, and M. V. Romalis, Phys. Rev. A 75, 051407 (2007)

work page 2007

[7] [7]

Groeger, G

S. Groeger, G. Bison, J.-L. Schenker, R. Wynands, and W. A., Eur. Phys. J. D A 38, 239 (2006)

work page 2006

[8] [8]

Pustelny, A

S. Pustelny, A. Wojciechowski, M. Gring, M. Kotyrba, J. Zachorowski, and W. Gawlik, J Appl. Phys. 103, 063108 (2008), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.2844494/13946272/063108 1 online.pdf

work page doi:10.1063/1.2844494/13946272/063108 2008