Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Ultracold collisions of a neutral atom with a trapped ion in 1D

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a fully quantum 1D model, collisions between a cold lithium atom and a trapped ytterbium ion produce resonances in evenly spaced pairs, at odds with the expectation of quantum chaos.

desk verdict Serious new QDT/hyperspherical machinery for 1D trapped ion-atom scattering, and the regular resonance spacing is plausible, but the BGS/quantum-chaos framing is not yet supported by the evidence in the paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15804 v1 pith:VJU2AN2W submitted 2025-06-18 physics.atom-ph

Seth T. Rittenhouse , Lorenzo Oghittu , Arghavan Safavi-Naini , Rene Gerritsma , Nirav P. Mehta This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph
keywords atom-ioncollisionsultracoldscatteringtrappedionadiabatichypersphericalrepresentationquantumdefecttheoryconfinementresonanceschaosWigner-Dysondistribution
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 builds a fully quantum mechanical model of a single 6Li atom scattering from a 171Yb+ ion held in a harmonic trap, in one dimension. It aims to show that the scattering is governed by trapped molecular-ion states that act as resonances, and that these resonances arrive in pairs spaced by exactly $2\hbar\omega$ at low collision energies. If correct, the result means the low-energy quantum scattering of this hybrid atom–ion system is regular, not chaotic, despite classical studies of similar systems showing chaotic trajectories. That regularity is the paper's central claim: it is in tension with the expectation, from the Bohigas–Giannoni–Schmit conjecture, that a classically chaotic system should show Wigner–Dyson level repulsion.

What carries the argument

The central object is the adiabatic hyperspherical representation in mass-scaled polar coordinates $(R,\theta)$, where $R$ is the RMS size of the atom–ion system and $\theta$ parameterizes the configuration. Treating $R$ as an adiabatic parameter produces coupled channel potentials: scattering-channel potentials that asymptote to the ion's oscillator energies $U_n(R)\to\hbar\omega(n+1/2)$, and molecular-ion potentials that asymptote to $U_d^{(\pm)}(R)=-E_d+\frac12\mu\cos^2\theta_c\,\omega^2R^2\pm\frac12\mu\sin2\theta_c\sqrt{\beta}\langle r\rangle_d R$. The argument is carried by a quantum-defect-style boundary condition: the deep short-range interaction is compressed into one phase $\phi$ from the zero-energy two-body wavefunction, which fixes an angular node at $\theta_0=R^*(\sqrt{\beta}R)^{-1}(n_b\pi+\phi)$. That boundary condition makes each molecular-ion bound state appear as a pair of trapped potentials, and the harmonic trap's level structure then dictates pairs of resonances spaced by $2\hbar\omega$.

What would settle it

Compute the classical Lyapunov exponents or Poincaré sections for the Hamiltonian of Eq. (5) at collision energies below about $10\hbar\omega$: if the phase space is regular or mixed, the regular resonance spacing is no longer evidence against BGS. Alternatively, measure resonance positions in a 1D atom–ion Paul-trap experiment and test whether nearest-neighbor spacings cluster at $2\hbar\omega$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that in a one-dimensional harmonic trap, collisions between a free 6Li atom and a trapped 171Yb+ ion are dominated by resonances associated with trapped ($^{171}$Yb$^6$Li)$^+$ molecular-ion states. Each molecular bound state contributes a pair of resonances for every $2\hbar\omega$ of energy, with more deeply bound states producing much narrower resonances because their coupling to the scattering channels is weaker and suppressed by tunneling. The predicted resonance distribution at low energy is therefore evenly spaced, which contradicts the Wigner–Dyson distribution expected from the Bohigas–Giannoni–Schmit conjecture for a classically chaotic system. The paper presents this as the first fully quantum treatment of the confined collision that captures the resonance statistics.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the low-energy classical limit of this 1D trapped atom–ion system is chaotic, so the evenly spaced resonances genuinely contradict the BGS conjecture; the paper imports this from classical studies of comparable systems rather than computing the classical dynamics of its own Hamiltonian.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Each molecular-ion bound state adds a pair of resonances to the elastic cross section, with a new pair appearing for every $2\hbar\omega$ increase in energy.
  • Resonances tied to more deeply bound molecular-ion states are much narrower, because their nonadiabatic coupling to the scattering channels is weaker and they sit behind a short-range repulsive barrier.
  • The same trapped molecular-ion resonances appear in inelastic transition probabilities, so energy exchange between the atom and the ion's oscillator motion is resonantly enhanced at those energies.
  • At higher collision energies the resonances broaden and couplings between molecular-ion states begin to shift their positions, which the paper expects to erode the regular spacing.
  • Including additional molecular-ion bound states changes the results only quantitatively, not qualitatively, at the energies studied.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the $2\hbar\omega$ spacing comes from pairs of molecular-ion trap states of opposite parity in a harmonic potential, the regularity should persist for any short-range interaction that leaves the trap approximately harmonic; scanning the QDT phase $\phi$ over its full range would map where that breakdown occurs.
  • A direct experimental check is to measure the nearest-neighbor spacing distribution of collision resonances in a 1D Paul trap: clustering at $2\hbar\omega$ would confirm regularity, while Wigner–Dyson statistics at higher energy would show the onset of chaos.
  • The tension with the BGS conjecture could evaporate if the classical phase space at these low energies is actually regular or mixed; computing Lyapunov exponents for this Hamiltonian would settle the comparison.
  • Since micromotion is neglected here, a time-dependent anharmonic dressing of the trap is the most plausible source of irregularity; including it would be a natural test of whether the even spacing survives.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a fully quantum-mechanical model of a free 6Li atom scattering from a harmonically trapped 171Yb+ ion in one dimension. The authors reformulate the two-body-plus-trap problem in mass-scaled polar coordinates, use an adiabatic hyperspherical representation to extract coupled channel potentials, and introduce a QDT-inspired short-range boundary condition parametrized by a single phase, thereby avoiding the numerically prohibitive depth of the atom-ion interaction. They compute elastic and inelastic cross sections via a multi-channel K-matrix formalism. The central result is that trapped molecular-ion states produce pairs of resonances in the low-energy cross section that are approximately evenly spaced by 2ℏω, which the authors argue is at odds with the Bohigas-Giannoni-Schmit conjecture and quantum chaos. The paper includes analytic asymptotic forms for the channel potentials and nonadiabatic couplings in an appendix and presents numerical scattering results for a model interaction potential.

Significance. If the central claim were fully established, this would be a significant contribution to atom-ion collision theory: it provides a tractable fully quantum treatment of confinement-induced resonances in a trapped-ion-neutral-atom system, with an elegant QDT reduction of the short-range physics that could be adapted to other mass ratios and trap geometries. The analytic derivations in Appendix A, the machine-checkable multi-channel machinery, and the explicit cross-section predictions are strengths. However, the headline claim about the BGS conjecture is not presently supported: the paper does not demonstrate classical chaos for the actual Hamiltonian studied, does not perform a statistical analysis of the resonance spacing distribution, and includes an apparent inconsistency between the derived molecular-ion oscillator frequency and the claimed 2ℏω spacing. The regular spacing of resonances follows essentially by construction from the harmonic confinement and a weakly coupled closed channel, so the BGS contrast needs substantially more evidence before it can be regarded as a prediction.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.C and abstract] The claim that the evenly spaced resonances are 'at odds with' the BGS conjecture is not supported by the evidence presented. BGS concerns the complete spectrum of a closed classically chaotic system, whereas the paper analyzes only the subset of resonances originating from one or two molecular-ion potentials and performs no statistical test such as an unfolded nearest-neighbor spacing distribution. In addition, classical chaos is imported from Refs. [19,20], which study comparable systems, but no Lyapunov exponent, phase-space portrait, or other classical diagnostics are computed for Hamiltonian (1) with the actual mass ratio, C4=82 a.u., C6=2989.4 a.u., and trap frequency at the energies E≲10ℏω probed. This matters because Section III.A shows that the lowest effective scattering potential is repulsive at small R, so it is not evident that low-energy trajectories reach the strongly interacting region where chaos is expected. The authors should either supply the missing classical-dynamics calculation and a nearest-neighbor spacing analysis of the resonance positions, or substantially soften the BGS claim.
  2. [Section III.C and Eq. (A17)] The stated 2ℏω resonance spacing appears inconsistent with the asymptotic molecular-ion potential derived in Appendix A. Equation (A17) gives U_d^(±)(R) = -E_d + (1/2)μ cos²θ_c R² ± (1/2)μ sin2θ_c √β ⟨r⟩_d R. The quadratic term corresponds to an oscillator frequency ω cosθ_c ≈ 0.983ω, so the trap levels of a given molecular-ion potential should be spaced by approximately ℏω, not 2ℏω. The linear term can shift the two parity-split potentials relative to each other, but the manuscript does not explain how pairs of resonances spaced by 2ℏω emerge from this spectrum. A quantitative extraction of resonance positions from Fig. 4, together with a comparison to the analytic prediction, is needed before the quantitative spacing claim can be accepted.
  3. [Section II.B] The short-range interaction is modeled with C6=2989.4 a.u., which the manuscript itself describes as 'somewhat arbitrary and unphysical' and chosen only to match the classical turning point of Ref. [34]. The QDT phase ϕ=0.9983 and the number of included bound states nb=3 are consequences of this model. Since the quantitative resonance positions depend on ϕ and nb, the paper's 'prediction' of resonance locations is not a first-principles prediction for 171Yb+6Li. The authors should either use a realistic C6 from electronic-structure calculations or demonstrate explicitly that the claimed regular spacing and the BGS contrast are insensitive to C6 and to the full allowed range 0<ϕ≤π.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III.A] The sentence 'Unless stated otherwise all potentials are found for three bound states, but only the weakest two are included for any scattering calculations' is confusing because Figure 4 shows results with one and two molecular-ion bound states; please specify which bound states are retained for each scattering calculation.
  2. [Section II.B] In the paragraph after Eq. (17), the sentence 'The phase was by fitting the numerical wavefunction' appears to be missing a verb; it should read 'The phase was obtained by fitting the numerical wavefunction'.
  3. [Section IV] There is a typo, 'hyerpspherical', in the Summary section; it should be 'hyperspherical'.
  4. [Figure 1] In Figure 1(b), the energy axis is described only in the caption text; please add explicit axis labels with units and also state the value of ω used for the conversion to ℏω units.
  5. [Section II.C] Equation (26) defines the cross section with a prefactor 1/4; it would be helpful to cite a reference for this 1D convention or to briefly justify the normalization, since the dimension of the cross section differs from the usual 3D case.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: resonance spacing is derived from the stated harmonic-trap Hamiltonian, and the BGS contrast rests on an unvalidated external premise rather than a self-referential reduction.

full rationale

The derivation begins with the Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) and the model interaction in Eq. (2), transforms to polar coordinates, constructs adiabatic channel functions and nonadiabatic couplings, imposes the QDT boundary condition of Eq. (19) with the phase extracted from the free-space two-body solution in Sec. II.B, and then solves the coupled radial equations for the K-matrix via Eqs. (22)-(26). The resonance positions are outputs of this calculation, not inputs chosen to match them. The roughly 2ℏω spacing is traced to the molecular-ion trap states whose asymptotic potentials are harmonic (Eq. A17), and the QDT phase only shifts the energies of these states; it does not impose their regular spacing. Self-citations, e.g., Ref. [34] for interaction parameters and Ref. [18] for trap-assisted complexes, are model inputs or background and are not load-bearing in deriving the resonance regularity. The statement that the regular spacing is "at odds" with BGS relies on the premise, imported from Refs. [19,20], that the classical limit of this system is chaotic; the paper does not verify that premise for its own Hamiltonian. That is a substantive correctness or validity concern, but it is not a circular reduction: no equation defines the predicted spacing in terms of the conclusion, and no fitted parameter is renamed as the prediction. Under the stated review rules, this does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a small number of explicitly fitted parameters (C6, QDT phase, number of bound states) and on domain assumptions (1D, no micromotion, model potential). No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • C6 = 2989.4 a.u.
    Short-range repulsion coefficient, taken from Ref [34]; the paper says the choice is 'somewhat arbitrary and unphysical' and fixes the classical turning point.
  • QDT phase φ = 0.9983 rad
    Extracted by fitting the zero-energy 2-body wavefunction to Eq. (17) over 0.3aho < r < 0.8aho (Sec II.B).
  • Number of included bound states nb = 3 (weakest 2 used in scattering)
    Chosen by hand; increasing nb changes results 'slightly quantitatively' but not qualitatively (Sec III.A).
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Quantum mechanics with the Schrödinger equation governs the atom-ion system.
    Used throughout; Eq. (1) and Eq. (5).
  • domain assumption The atom and ion are confined to one spatial dimension.
    Sec II: 'Although a 1D model is unlikely to be fully quantitatively accurate...'
  • domain assumption The ion trap is a harmonic potential with no micromotion.
    Sec II: 'we neglect trap micromotion and focus purely on the harmonic secular portion of the potential'.
  • domain assumption The atom-ion interaction is Vint(r) = -C4/r^4 + C6/r^6.
    Sec II, Eq. (2), with parameters from Ref [34].
  • ad hoc to paper The short-range collision can be represented by an energy-independent QDT phase φ imposed as a hard-wall boundary condition at θ0 = R*/(√β R)(nbπ + φ).
    Sec II.B, Eq. (19); the paper notes the small-angle approximation 'breaks down at small radii'.
  • domain assumption The classical limit of the 1D trapped atom-ion system is chaotic at low energies, so BGS would predict Wigner-Dyson statistics.
    Sec I and III.C, based on Refs [19,20]; not verified for this model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ultracold collisions of a neutral atom with a trapped ion in 1D." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VJU2AN2W

@misc{pith2026250615804,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ultracold collisions of a neutral atom with a trapped ion in 1D},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VJU2AN2W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15804}
}
abstract

We present a fully quantum mechanical description of a free $^6$Li atom scattering from a trapped $^{171}$Yb$^+$ ion in one dimension. By reformulating the system in polar coordinates and employing the adiabatic representation, we extract a set of coupled adiabatic potentials representing the atom interacting with the ion in different trap states. In an approach similar to quantum defect theory (QDT), we leverage the vast difference in energy scale between the interaction, the trap, and the scattering energy to encapsulate the short-range atom-ion scattering behavior in a single phase parameter. The presence of trapped $({}^{171}\text{Yb}^6\text{Li})^+$ molecular-ion states leads to a series of roughly evenly spaced resonances in the scattering cross section. The predicted distribution of resonances at low collision energies is at odds with the expectation of quantum chaos and the Bohigas-Giannoni-Schmit (BGS) conjecture.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15804 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) shows the numerical solution to Eq. 18 for the 171Yb+ + 6Li system compared to Eq. (17) with the phase set to ϕ = 0.9983, extracted by fitting from the long-range tail of the numerical solution. As it is readily apparent, the two wavefunctions agree well when the r −4 polarization potential is dominant, and they become indistinguishable in the long-range regime. FIG. 1. (a) A comparison between the full numerica… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The adiabatic potentials are shown over in different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The coupling strength to the lowest scattering channel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    E. P. Wigner, Characteristic vectors of bordered matrices with infinite dimensions, Annals of Mathematics 62, 548 (1955)

    work page 1955

  2. [1]

    The corresponding channel functions Φ n(R; θ) can be expressed in terms of oscillator solutions localized in the vicinity of θ = ±π/2

    Collision-channel potentials In the R → ∞limit, our collision channels correspond to a free atom far from the trapped ion, and the adiabatic potentials approach the oscillator energies of the trapped ion. The corresponding channel functions Φ n(R; θ) can be expressed in terms of oscillator solutions localized in the vicinity of θ = ±π/2. For convenience, ...

    work page

  3. [2]

    Pmn(R) and Qmn(r) for collision channels To compute the asymptotic forms of the nonadiabatic couplings, we first write the channel functions explicitly in the large- R limit: Φn(R; θ) = µR2 π 1/4 1√ 2nn! Hn(√µRφ)e− µR2 φ2 2 (A9) After performing the radial derivatives, as prescribed in Eq. (10), and subsequently using the relation ρ ≈ √µRφ, the asymptotic...

    work page

  4. [3]

    (6) in oscillator units of the ion, we rotate into a new angular coordinate α = θ − θc: ˆHad = − ℏ2 2µR2 ∂2 ∂α2 + 1 2 µR2 cos2(α + θc) + Vint( p βR sin α)

    Molecular-ion potentials Starting with the adiabatic Hamiltonian of Eq. (6) in oscillator units of the ion, we rotate into a new angular coordinate α = θ − θc: ˆHad = − ℏ2 2µR2 ∂2 ∂α2 + 1 2 µR2 cos2(α + θc) + Vint( p βR sin α). In the limit where R ≫ R∗ we can note that, at fixed R, the angular potential has two deep wells near α = 0 and α = π correspondi...

    work page

  5. [4]

    Pd1d2 (R) for molecular-ion potentials Here we derive the asymptotic form of the nonadia- batic P-matrix elements between different states. We can note that in the large- R limit, the wavefunctions corresponding to the + and − molecular-ion poten- tials are highly localized and separated, meaning that any P -matrix element between them will be strongly su...

    work page

  6. [5]

    Zipkes, S

    C. Zipkes, S. Palzer, C. Sias, and M. K¨ ohl, A trapped single ion inside a Bose–Einstein condensate, Nature464, 388 (2010)

    work page 2010

  7. [6]

    Schmid, A

    S. Schmid, A. H¨ arter, and J. H. Denschlag, Dynamics of a cold trapped ion in a bose-einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 133202 (2010)

    work page 2010

  8. [7]

    Z. Meir, T. Sikorsky, R. Ben-shlomi, N. Akerman, Y. Dal- lal, and R. Ozeri, Dynamics of a ground-state cooled ion colliding with ultracold atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 243401 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 45 references
  1. [8]

    Tomza, K

    M. Tomza, K. Jachymski, R. Gerritsma, A. Negretti, T. Calarco, Z. Idziaszek, and P. S. Julienne, Cold hybrid ion-atom systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 035001 (2019)

    2019

  2. [9]

    Cˆ ot´ e, Chapter two - ultracold hybrid atom–ion sys- tems, Advances In Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 65, 67 (2016)

    R. Cˆ ot´ e, Chapter two - ultracold hybrid atom–ion sys- tems, Advances In Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 65, 67 (2016)

    2016

  3. [10]

    Lous and R

    R. Lous and R. Gerritsma, Ultracold ion-atom experi- ments: cooling, chemistry, and quantum effects, Adv. At. 13 Mol. Opt. Phys. 71, 65 (2022)

    2022

  4. [11]

    A. T. Grier, M. Cetina, F. Oruˇ cevi´ c, and V. Vuleti´ c, Observation of cold collisions between trapped ions and trapped atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 223201 (2009)

    2009

  5. [12]

    H¨ arter, A

    A. H¨ arter, A. Kr¨ ukow, A. Brunner, W. Schnitzler, S. Schmid, and J. H. Denschlag, Single ion as a three- body reaction center in an ultracold atomic gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 123201 (2012)

    2012

  6. [13]

    Weckesser, F

    P. Weckesser, F. Thielemann, D. Wiater, A. Wo- jciechowska, L. Karpa, K. Jachymski, M. Tomza, T. Walker, and T. Schaetz, Observation of Feshbach reso- nances between a single ion and ultracold atoms, Nature 600, 429 (2021)

    2021

  7. [14]

    S. Haze, M. Sasakawa, R. Saito, R. Nakai, and T. Mukaiyama, Cooling dynamics of a single trapped ion via elastic collisions with small-mass atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 043401 (2018)

    2018

  8. [15]

    Feldker, H

    T. Feldker, H. F¨ urst, H. Hirzler, N. V. Ewald, M. Maz- zanti, D. Wiater, M. Tomza, and R. Gerritsma, Buffer gas cooling of a trapped ion to the quantum regime, Nat. Phys. 16, 413 (2020)

    2020

  9. [16]

    Mahdian, A

    A. Mahdian, A. Kr¨ ukow, and J. H. Denschlag, Direct observation of swap cooling in atom–ion collisions, New J. Phys. 23, 065008 (2021)

    2021

  10. [17]

    Ratschbacher, C

    L. Ratschbacher, C. Zipkes, C. Sias, and M. K¨ ohl, Con- trolling chemical reactions of a single particle, Nat. Phys. 8, 649 (2012)

    2012

  11. [18]

    Sikorsky, Z

    T. Sikorsky, Z. Meir, R. Ben-shlomi, N. Akerman, and R. Ozeri, Spin-controlled atom–ion chemistry, Nat. Comm. 9, 920 (2018)

    2018

  12. [19]

    O. Katz, M. Pinkas, N. Akerman, and R. Ozeri, Quan- tum logic detection of collisions between single atom–ion pairs, Nat. Phys. 78, 1745 (2022)

    2022

  13. [20]

    Cetina, A

    M. Cetina, A. T. Grier, and V. Vuleti´ c, Fundamental limit to atom-ion sympathetic cooling in Paul traps, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 253201 (2012)

    2012

  14. [21]

    Pinkas, O

    M. Pinkas, O. Katz, J. Wengrowicz, N. Akerman, and R. Ozeri, Trap-assisted formation of atom–ion bound states, Nat. Phys. 19, 1573 (2023)

    2023

  15. [22]

    Hirzler, E

    H. Hirzler, E. Trimby, R. Gerritsma, A. Safavi-Naini, and J. P´ erez-R ´ ıos, Trap-assisted complexes in cold atom-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 143003 (2023)

    2023

  16. [23]

    Pinkas, J

    M. Pinkas, J. Wengrowicz, N. Akerman, and R. Oz- eri, Chaotic scattering in ultracold atom-ion collisions, arXiv:2401.18003 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Liang, R

    Z. Liang, R. Shi, and J. P´ erez-R ´ ıos, Trap-induced atom-ion complexes: a time-independent approach, arXiv:2505.03939 (2025)

    2025

  18. [25]

    Mayle, B

    M. Mayle, B. P. Ruzic, and J. L. Bohn, Statistical aspects of ultracold resonant scattering, Phys. Rev. A 85, 062712 (2012)

    2012

  19. [26]

    Mayle, G

    M. Mayle, G. Qu´ em´ ener, B. P. Ruzic, and J. L. Bohn, Scattering of ultracold molecules in the highly resonant regime, Phys. Rev. A 87, 012709 (2013)

    2013

  20. [27]

    J. F. E. Croft, N. Balakrishnan, and B. K. Kendrick, Long-lived complexes and signatures of chaos in ultracold k2+rb collisions, Phys. Rev. A 96, 062707 (2017)

    2017

  21. [28]

    P. D. Gregory, M. D. Frye, J. A. Blackmore, E. M. Bridge, R. Sawant, J. M. Hutson, and S. L. Cornish, Sticky colli- sions of ultracold RbCs molecules, Nat. Comm. 10, 3104 (2019)

    2019

  22. [29]

    J. B. Delos, Theory of electronic transitions in slow atomic collisions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 53, 287 (1981)

    1981

  23. [30]

    Idziaszek, T

    Z. Idziaszek, T. Calarco, P. S. Julienne, and A. Simoni, Quantum theory of ultracold atom-ion collisions, Phys. Rev. A 79, 010702 (2009)

    2009

  24. [31]

    Idziaszek, A

    Z. Idziaszek, A. Simoni, T. Calarco, and P. S. Juli- enne, Multichannel quantum-defect theory for ultracold atom–ion collisions, New J. Phys. 13, 083005 (2011)

    2011

  25. [32]

    V. S. Melezhik and A. Negretti, Confinement-induced resonances in ultracold atom-ion systems, Phys. Rev. A 94, 022704 (2016)

    2016

  26. [33]

    Bohigas, M

    O. Bohigas, M. J. Giannoni, and C. Schmit, Character- ization of chaotic quantum spectra and universality of level fluctuation laws, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 1 (1984)

    1984

  27. [35]

    E. P. Wigner, Characteristics vectors of bordered matri- ces with infinite dimensions II, Annals of Mathematics 65, 203 (1957)

    1957

  28. [36]

    T. A. Brody, J. Flores, J. B. French, P. A. Mello, A. Pandey, and S. S. M. Wong, Random-matrix physics: spectrum and strength fluctuations, Rev. Mod. Phys. 53, 385 (1981)

    1981

  29. [37]

    T. A. Brody, A statistical measure for the repulsion of energy levels, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 7, 482 (1973)

    1973

  30. [38]

    Trimby, H

    E. Trimby, H. Hirzler, H. F¨ urst, A. Safavi-Naini, R. Ger- ritsma, and R. S. Lous, Buffer gas cooling of ions in radio- frequency traps using ultracold atoms, New J. Phys. 24, 035004 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Leibfried, R

    D. Leibfried, R. Blatt, C. Monroe, and D. Wineland, Quantum dynamics of single trapped ions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 281 (2003)

    2003

  32. [40]

    Macek, Properties of autoionizing states of He, J

    J. Macek, Properties of autoionizing states of He, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Phys. 1, 831 (1968)

    1968

  33. [41]

    De Boor, A Practical Guide to Splines(Springer New York, 1978)

    C. De Boor, A Practical Guide to Splines(Springer New York, 1978)

    1978

  34. [42]

    J. P. Burke Jr, Theoretical investigation of cold alkali atom collisions, Ph.D. thesis, University of Colorado at Boulder (1999)

    1999

  35. [43]

    Aymar, C

    M. Aymar, C. H. Greene, and E. Luc-Koenig, Multichan- nel rydberg spectroscopy of complex atoms, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 1015 (1996)

    1996

  36. [44]

    C. H. Greene, Atomic photoionization in a strong mag- netic field, Phys. Rev. A 28, 2209 (1983)

    1983

  37. [45]

    D. J. Griffiths and D. F. Schroeter, Introduction to Quan- tum Mechanics, 3rd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2018)

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.