Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Spin interferometry in a beam of ultracold molecules

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Ultracold YbF molecules form a spin interferometer capable of probing the electron's electric dipole moment, with a projected statistical sensitivity below 10⁻³⁰ e·cm in about 100 days.

desk verdict A solid experimental milestone for ultracold-molecule eEDM searches; the sensitivity projection is optimistic and needs a better-calibrated molecule number. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.00713 v2 pith:VTU3WXXS submitted 2026-01-31 physics.atom-ph quant-ph

R. A. Jenkins , M. T. Ziemba , F. J. Collings , X. S. Zheng , F. Castellini , E. Wursten , J. Lim , B. E. Sauer
show 1 more author
M. R. Tarbutt
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phquant-ph
keywords electronelectricdipolemomentspininterferometryultracoldmoleculesYbFmolecularbeamRamantransitionlasercoolingprecisionmeasurement
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 demonstrates a complete spin interferometer using a beam of laser-cooled YbF molecules, with all steps needed for an electron electric dipole moment (eEDM) measurement: optical pumping into a single quantum state, Raman pulses that act as splitter and recombiner, and high-efficiency detectors with temporal resolution. The interference fringes show a contrast of 0.65 and a background magnetic field of 123 pT, and every auxiliary parameter—pumping efficiency, Raman transfer efficiencies, detector cross-talk—is measured and folded into a model that reproduces the data. The authors argue that with a precession time of 5 ms and 2×10⁶ molecules per shot, the statistical sensitivity would be 8.6×10⁻³⁰ e·cm in one day, and below 10⁻³⁰ e·cm in about 100 days, which would improve on the current best limit of 4.1×10⁻³⁰ e·cm. This establishes ultracold neutral molecules as a viable route to next-generation eEDM searches.

What carries the argument

The spin interferometer: a Raman π-pulse prepares a superposition of two hyperfine states (|y⟩ and |x⟩) of the N=0 ground state; the state evolves in parallel electric and magnetic fields for time τ, acquiring a phase φ = (μ_B B − d_e E_eff)τ/ħ; a second Raman π-pulse maps this phase onto the populations of the F=1 and F=0 hyperfine states, which are read out with high-efficiency detectors. The effective electric field E_eff = 26 GV/cm is obtained from the internal polarization of YbF at 20 kV/cm applied field. The asymmetry A = cos(2φ) between the two detectors isolates the eEDM contribution.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the noise in the asymmetry as a function of integration time: if the Allan deviation does not follow the 1/√N scaling expected from quantum projection noise, or if an independent calibration of the absolute molecule number per shot gives a value significantly below 2×10⁶, the 100-day sub-10⁻³⁰ e·cm projection would be invalidated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an ultracold, neutral molecular beam can be operated as a spin interferometer whose sensitivity is sufficient to search for the electron's electric dipole moment below the current best limit. Using the YbF molecule, the authors achieve a contrast of 0.65 over a 5 ms spin-precession time, detect 2.0×10⁶ molecules per shot at 5 shots/s, and characterize the optical pumping (0.738), Raman transfer efficiencies (0.88 and 0.76), and detector efficiencies (54% per molecule for the EMCCDs). At the quantum projection noise limit, these numbers yield σ_de = 8.6×10⁻³⁰ e·cm after 24 hours, and a sub-10⁻³⁰ e·cm measurement in about 100 days. The paper also verifies the interfer

Load-bearing premise

The entire sensitivity projection stands on the assumption that the measured asymmetry is limited only by quantum projection noise (photon shot noise of detection) and that the stated molecule number per shot is accurate; the paper acknowledges that reaching the shot-noise limit at this level is unproven.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With ~100 days of operation, this apparatus can reach a statistical uncertainty below 10⁻³⁰ e·cm, improving on the current best eEDM limit (4.1×10⁻³⁰ e·cm) and constraining new physics beyond the Standard Model.
  • The demonstrated techniques—laser cooling, optical pumping, Raman pulses, and high-efficiency detection—can be transferred directly to other ultracold-molecule eEDM experiments in beams or optical traps.
  • The modular, extendable precession region and the slower molecular beams already developed by the authors could increase the precession time by more than a factor of 10, potentially reaching sensitivities below 10⁻³¹ e·cm.
  • Applying the same methods to 171YbF and 173YbF would extend the search to P,T-violating nuclear moments (Schiff moment, magnetic quadrupole moment).

Reading between the lines

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

  • The projected sensitivity assumes the experiment runs at the quantum projection noise limit; the paper itself notes that reaching this limit is challenging and that excess-noise studies are ongoing. If excess noise appears, the required integration time grows correspondingly.
  • The molecule number per shot, n=2×10⁶, is reconstructed from detected photon counts, the estimated photons scattered per molecule, and detector efficiencies, without a quoted uncertainty. An independent, calibrated measurement of the absolute flux would test this load-bearing number.
  • The demonstrated contrast of 0.65 at 5 ms suggests that if the beam velocity is reduced (e.g., by the developed slower source and radiation-pressure slowing), the precession time could be extended by an order of magnitude, making the same apparatus competitive for sub-10⁻³¹ e·cm searches.
  • The interferometric approach itself—using a Raman splitter/recombiner on ultracold molecules—could be adapted to measure other symmetry-violating moments, such as the nuclear Schiff moment, with species-specific modifications.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a complete characterization of a spin interferometer for ultracold YbF molecules, aimed at a future electron electric dipole moment (eEDM) measurement. The authors demonstrate laser cooling, optical pumping to a single quantum state (efficiency 0.738(11)), Raman transfer in both the splitter and recombiner (χ1=0.88, χ2=0.76), and state-selective detection with EMCCDs and PMTs (54% and 4.5% per-molecule detection efficiency, respectively). They record interference fringes with contrast C=0.65 and show that this contrast is consistent with a model whose inputs — χ1, χ2, xA, xB, and Pbg — are measured in separate runs. The main forward-looking claim is that with C=0.65, τ=5 ms, n=2.0×10^6 molecules per shot, and 5 shots/s, the statistical sensitivity would be σ_de=8.6×10^-30 e cm in 24 h, and below 10^-30 e cm in about 100 days.

Significance. If the central sensitivity projection is sound, the paper represents an important step toward a next-generation eEDM search with ultracold neutral molecules: it validates each required technique on a species with a large effective electric field and shows that the measured interferometer contrast is quantitatively explained by independently determined inefficiencies. The cross-validation in Fig. 4 and Appendix C — where the interference contrast is predicted from separately measured Raman efficiencies, detector cross-talk, and background — is a genuine strength and goes beyond a simple fit. The reported methods are also directly transferable to other ultracold-molecule eEDM and symmetry-violation searches. However, the projection relies on a molecule number per shot that is not explicitly measured in the manuscript, and on shot-noise-limited operation that the authors themselves note is not yet demonstrated; these issues must be fixed before the feasibility claim can be accepted as stated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Detection / Appendix A / Discussion and outlook] The sensitivity projection in the Discussion uses n=2.0×10^6 molecules per shot, but this number is never directly measured or derived in the manuscript. The only related numbers are the statement that the EMCCDs measure about 10^6 photons per shot, that molecules scatter on average 13.4 photons, and that the EMCCD detection efficiency is 54%. If the 54% is interpreted as the fraction of scattered photons detected, these numbers imply n≈1.4×10^5, a factor of 14 below the quoted value. If the 54% is instead the per-molecule detection probability, the text still does not give the mean number of detected photons per detected molecule needed to convert the observed photon counts into n. Because the 100-day sub-10^-30 e cm claim tolerates only roughly a 35% overestimate in n, the authors must provide a direct measurement of n, or an unambiguous calibration chain with a quoted uncertainty, bef
  2. [Discussion and outlook] The statement that a statistical uncertainty below 10^-30 e cm is feasible in about 100 days assumes the apparatus operates at the quantum projection noise limit. The authors explicitly note that reaching this limit is challenging and that excess noise sources are under study. As written, the headline feasibility claim therefore rests on an unproven assumption. The projection should be explicitly conditioned on QPN-limited operation, and the sensitivity in the presence of plausible excess noise (e.g., a noise factor of 1.5–2) should be shown. This is a load-bearing issue because the central significance of the paper depends on this projection.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract / Appendix A] The abstract states that the detectors 'approach unit efficiency', but Appendix A reports 54% efficiency for the EMCCDs and 4.5% for the PMTs. This overstatement should be corrected or qualified.
  2. [Detection / Fig. 4] Weighted mean values such as ⟨B⟩=-0.18, ⟨C⟩=0.65, ⟨Bbg⟩=123 pT, ⟨χ1⟩=0.88, and ⟨χ2⟩=0.76 are quoted without uncertainties in the text. Please include the error bars, especially for C, since it enters directly into the sensitivity formula.
  3. [Detection] The sentence 'The EMCCDs measure about 10^6 photons per shot' should specify whether this is per detector, summed over both detectors, and whether it is background-subtracted. This will help readers reproduce the molecule-number calibration.
  4. [Appendix C, Eq. (C10)] The frequency-doubled term D is fixed to zero in the fits. Please state explicitly why a nonzero D is negligible at the current precision, and whether this choice biases the fitted B or C.
  5. [Fig. 2] The axis labels 'σA' and 'σB' are confusing; they appear to denote the two detector regions but are not defined in the caption. Clarify the notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the interference-contrast model is a genuine cross-validation using separately measured auxiliary parameters, and the sensitivity projection is a standard shot-noise expression; the n=2.0e6 input is unverified but not circular.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The phase relation φ=(μ_B B − d_e E_eff)τ/ħ is textbook, and the interferometer asymmetry model (Appendix C, Eqs. C5–C10) is evaluated using χ1, χ2, x_A, x_B, and P_bg measured in separate runs, then compared to interference data as a cross-check (Fig. 4), not fitted to the same data. Raman efficiencies are independently modeled from Rabi frequencies and beam profiles (Fig. 6). The sensitivity projection σ_de=ħ/(2CE_eff τ√n) is a standard shot-noise formula evaluated with the demonstrated C=0.65, τ=5 ms and an assumed n=2.0×10^6; it is not a fitted output. The paper explicitly concedes that shot-noise-limited operation is not yet established: 'While it is challenging to reach the shot noise limit at this level... We are currently studying sources of excess noise and systematic error in the experiment.' A verifiability concern, not circularity, is that n=2.0×10^6 molecules per shot is not derived in the paper; the stated EMCCD photon count, 13.4 photons/molecule, and 54% detection efficiency would imply a much smaller n. Self-citations to prior work [22,27] support apparatus capabilities but do not smuggle in the central result.

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

Central claims rest on standard YbF molecular inputs from prior literature — several from the group itself (E_eff^max=−26 GV/cm, η(E)=0.693 from the program's methods paper [14]; b_00=0.933(3), r=0.93, Γ=35.8×10⁶ s⁻¹ from ref. [28]) — plus two assumptions the paper itself flags: operation at the quantum projection noise limit and correctness of the absolute molecule-number calibration (n=2.0×10⁶/shot, derived from detection-efficiency estimates). The only parameters genuinely fitted to data are the detector-model rates R_01 and R_1e^max (App. B), which do not enter the eEDM phase. The per-curve B, C, B_bg are measurement extractions cross-validated by the Appendix C model. No invented entities.

free parameters (5)
  • R_01 microwave coupling rates = 0.1×10⁶ s⁻¹ (detector A), 0.49×10⁶ s⁻¹ (detector B) at 10 dBm
    Chosen so the four-level detector model reproduces the measured signal ratios in Fig. 2 (Appendix B). Explicit fitting, not measurement; confined to detector characterization.
  • R_1e^max peak excitation rate = 2.5×10⁶ s⁻¹
    Same Appendix B fit; the peak laser cycling rate in the detector model.
  • Contrast C = 0.65 (weighted mean)
    Free parameter of each Eq. (C10) fit; enters the sensitivity projection directly. Cross-validated by Eq. (C7) from independently measured χ1, χ2, x_A, x_B, so it is a measurement extraction, not an ad hoc input.
  • Offset B = −0.18 (weighted mean)
    Free parameter of the Eq. (C10) fits; sets the fringe baseline. Consistent with the background expression (C6).
  • Background magnetic field B_bg = 123 pT (weighted mean)
    Free parameter of the Eq. (C10) fits; consistent with the low-noise environment claimed in [27].
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption YbF effective electric field E_eff^max = −26 GV/cm and polarization factor η(E) = 0.693 at E = 20 kV/cm
    Invoked in the Overview to define E_eff = E_eff^max·η(E), converting precession frequency into d_e units; taken from earlier molecular-structure work via the group's own methods paper [14]. Not derived or independently verified here; an error shifts the projected d_e sensitivity linearly.
  • domain assumption Linear Zeeman phase φ = (μ_B·B − d_e·E_eff)·τ/ℏ with electron g-factor g≈2; no nonlinear Zeeman corrections over the nT operating range
    Used in the Overview and in Eqs. (C5)–(C10). Standard for a ²Σ molecule at these field levels but stated as exact without explicit approximation.
  • domain assumption Quantum projection noise is the only noise on the final asymmetry at the projected sensitivity
    Underlies σ_de = ℏ/(2CE_effτ√n). The authors state reaching the shot-noise limit is not yet demonstrated and that excess-noise/systematic studies are ongoing (Discussion).
  • ad hoc to paper Four-level rate model (states 0,1,e,d; rates R_01, R_1e, branching r=0.93, Γ=35.8×10⁶ s⁻¹) with Gaussian R_1e(t) of width τ=33 µs describes detector cycling and cross-talk
    Appendix B; R_01 and R_1e^max are chosen to match the Fig. 2 data, with r and Γ from ref. [28]. This is a model tailored to explain the detector signals, not a first-principles prediction.
  • domain assumption Vibrational branching ratio b_00 = 0.933(3) for the A²Π1/2–X²Σ⁺ transition
    From ref. [28]; used to compute the ideal optical-pumping efficiency ϵ_OP = 0.756(9), checked against the measured 0.738(11).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin interferometry in a beam of ultracold molecules." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VTU3WXXS

@misc{pith2026260200713,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin interferometry in a beam of ultracold molecules},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VTU3WXXS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.00713}
}
abstract

We describe a spin interferometer using ultracold YbF molecules and develop the complete set of techniques needed to measure the electron's electric dipole moment, $d_e$, with this apparatus. The molecules are cooled in an optical molasses and prepared in a single internal quantum state. A Raman transition prepares a spin superposition which evolves in parallel magnetic and electric fields before a second Raman transition maps the phase onto the populations of two hyperfine states. These populations are read out using detectors that have spatial and temporal resolution and approach unit efficiency. We characterize the efficiencies and fidelities of all these steps and evaluate the sensitivity of this approach to measuring $d_e$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.00713 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Illustration of the experiment. (b) Relevant energy levels of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Detector characterization, showing efficiency of mea [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Raman transfer in the recombiner, for three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The results of this model fit very well to the data, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Interference fringes for the same three velocities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Rate model to describe detectors. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) shows the efficiency of the splitter, χ1, determined from PMT data equivalent to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Y. Ema, T. Gao, and M. Pospelov, Standard model pre- diction for paramagnetic electric dipole moments, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 231801 (2022)

    2022

  2. [2]

    Engel, M

    J. Engel, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and U. van Kolck, Elec- tric dipole moments of nucleons, nuclei, and atoms: The Standard Model and beyond, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.71, 21 (2013)

    2013

  3. [3]

    Nakai and M

    Y. Nakai and M. Reece, Electric dipole moments in nat- ural supersymmetry, J. High Energ. Phys.31

  4. [4]

    T. E. Chupp, P. Fierlinger, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and J. T. Singh, Electric dipole moments of atoms, molecules, nuclei, and particles, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 015001 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    M. S. Safronova, D. Budker, D. DeMille, D. F. J. Kimball, A. Derevianko, and C. W. Clark, Search for new physics with atoms and molecules, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 025008 (2018)

    2018

  6. [6]

    Dine and A

    M. Dine and A. Kusenko, Origin of the matter-antimatter asymmetry, Reviews of Modern Physics76, 1 (2003)

    2003

  7. [7]

    A. D. Sakharov, Violation of CP invariance, C asym- metry, and baryon asymmetry of the universe, Phys.- Uspekhi34, 392 (1991)

    1991

  8. [8]

    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, An improved bound on the electron’s electric dipole moment, Science381, 46 (2023)

    2023

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    J. J. Hudson, D. M. Kara, I. J. Smallman, B. E. Sauer, M. R. Tarbutt, and E. A. Hinds, Improved measurement of the shape of the electron, Nature473, 493 (2011)

    2011

  2. [10]

    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, Improved limit on the electric dipole moment of the electron, Nature562, 355 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    Y. Zhou, Y. Shagam, W. B. Cairncross, K. B. Ng, T. S. Roussy, T. Grogan, K. Boyce, A. Vigil, M. Pettine, T. Zelevinsky, J. Ye, and E. A. Cornell, Second-scale co- herence measured at the quantum projection noise limit with hundreds of molecular ions, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 053201 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    N. J. Fitch and M. R. Tarbutt, Laser-cooled molecules, in Adv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys., Vol. 70 (Elsevier, 2021) pp. 157–262

    2021

  5. [13]

    B. L. Augenbraun, L. Anderegg, C. Hallas, Z. D. Lasner, N. B. Vilas, and J. M. Doyle, Direct laser cooling of poly- atomic molecules, in Adv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys., Vol. 72 (Elsevier, 2023) pp. 89–182

    2023

  6. [14]

    N. J. Fitch, J. Lim, E. A. Hinds, B. E. Sauer, and M. R. Tarbutt, Methods for measuring the electron’s electric dipole moment using ultracold YbF molecules, Quantum Sci. Technol.6, 014006 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Aggarwal, H

    P. Aggarwal, H. L. Bethlem, A. Borschevsky, M. Denis, K. Esajas, P. A. B. Haase, Y. Hao, S. Hoekstra, K. Jung- mann, T. B. Meijknecht, M. C. Mooij, R. G. E. Timmer- mans, W. Ubachs, L. Willmann, and A. Zapara, Measur- ing the electric dipole moment of the electron in BaF, Eur....

    2018

  8. [16]

    B. L. Augenbraun, Z. D. Lasner, A. Frenett, H. Sawaoka, C. Miller, T. C. Steimle, and J. M. Doyle, Laser- cooled polyatomic molecules for improved electron elec- tric dipole moment searches, New J. Phys.22, 022003 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    Z. Zeng, S. Deng, S. Yang, and B. Yan, Three- dimensional magneto-optical trapping of barium monofluoride, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 143404 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Bause, N

    R. Bause, N. Balasubramanian, T. Fikkers, E. H. Prin- sen, K. Steinebach, A. Jadbabaie, N. R. Hutzler, I. A. Aucar, L. F. Paˇ steka, A. Borschevsky, and S. Hoekstra, Prospects for measuring the electron’s electric dipole mo- ment with polyatomic molecules in an optical lattice (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    Takahashi, H

    Y. Takahashi, H. D. Ramachandran, A. Jadbabaie, Y. Zeng, C. Zhang, and N. R. Hutzler, Engineered molec- ular clock transitions for symmetry violation searches (2025), arXiv:2508.06787 [physics.atom-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Anderegg, N

    L. Anderegg, N. B. Vilas, C. Hallas, P. Robichaud, A. Jadbabaie, J. M. Doyle, and N. R. Hutzler, Quan- tum Control of Trapped Polyatomic Molecules for eEDM Searches, Science382, 665 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    J. Lim, J. R. Almond, M. A. Trigatzis, J. A. Devlin, N. J. Fitch, B. E. Sauer, M. R. Tarbutt, and E. A. Hinds, Laser cooled YbF molecules for measuring the electron’s elec- tric dipole moment, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 123201 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Alauze, J

    X. Alauze, J. Lim, M. A. Trigatzis, S. Swarbrick, F. J. Collings, N. J. Fitch, B. E. Sauer, and M. R. Tarbutt, An ultracold molecular beam for testing fundamental physics, Quantum Sci. Technol.6, 044005 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Rockenh¨ auser, F

    M. Rockenh¨ auser, F. Kogel, T. Garg, S. A. Morales- Ram ´ ırez, and T. Langen, Laser cooling of barium monofluoride molecules using synthesized optical spec- 6 tra, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 043161 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Zhang, Z

    Y. Zhang, Z. Zeng, Q. Liang, W. Bu, and B. Yan, Doppler cooling of buffer-gas-cooled barium monofluo- ride molecules, Phys. Rev. A105, 033307 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    Z. D. Lasner, A. Frenett, H. Sawaoka, L. Anderegg, B. Augenbraun, H. Lampson, M. Li, A. Lunstad, J. Mango, A. Nasir, T. Ono, T. Sakamoto, and J. M. Doyle, Magneto-optical trapping of a heavy polyatomic molecule for precision measurement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 083401 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    Truppe, M

    S. Truppe, M. Hambach, S. M. Skoff, N. E. Bulleid, J. S. Bumby, R. J. Hendricks, E. A. Hinds, B. E. Sauer, and M. R. Tarbutt, A buffer gas beam source for short, in- tense and slow molecular pulses, J. Mod. Opt.65, 246 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    F. J. Collings, N. J. Fitch, J. M. Dyne, R. A. Jenkins, E. Wursten, M. T. Ziemba, X. S. Zheng, F. Castellini, J. Lim, B. E. Sauer, and M. R. Tarbutt, Low-noise en- vironment for probing fundamental symmetries, New J. Phys.27, 105004 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    Zhuang, A

    X. Zhuang, A. Le, T. C. Steimle, N. E. Bulleid, I. J. Smallman, R. J. Hendricks, S. M. Skoff, J. J. Hudson, B. E. Sauer, E. A. Hinds, and M. R. Tarbutt, Franck- Condon factors and radiative lifetime of the A 2Π1/2- X2Σ+ transition of ytterbium monofluoride, YbF, Phys. Chem. Ch...

    2011

  21. [29]

    Each velocity bin is assigned a weight proportional to its eEDM sensitivity, i.e. toτ √n

  22. [30]

    A. D. White, S. Popa, J. Mellado-Mu˜ noz, N. J. Fitch, B. E. Sauer, J. Lim, and M. R. Tarbutt, Slow molecular beams from a cryogenic buffer gas source, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 043232 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Athanasakis-Kaklamanakis, G

    M. Athanasakis-Kaklamanakis, G. Peng, S. Li, H. Septien-Gonzalez, C. Debavelaere, A. D. White, S. Popa, J. Lim, B. E. Sauer, and M. R. Tarbutt, Slowing YbF molecules using radiation pressure, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 043235 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    Grasdijk, O

    O. Grasdijk, O. Timgren, J. Kastelic, T. Wright, S. Lam- oreaux, D. DeMille, K. Wenz, M. Aitken, T. Zelevinsky, T. Winick, and D. Kawall, CeNTREX: a new search for time-reversal symmetry violation in the 205Tl nucleus, Quantum Sci. Technol.6, 044007 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    C. J. Ho, J. Lim, B. E. Sauer, and M. R. Tarbutt, Mea- suring the nuclear magnetic quadrupole moment in heavy polar molecules, Front. Phys.11, 1086980 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    DeMille, N

    D. DeMille, N. R. Hutzler, A. M. Rey, and T. Zelevinsky, Quantum sensing and metrology for fundamental physics with molecules, Nat. Phys.20, 741 (2024). [35]https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18436145

    2024 doi

  27. [36]

    End Matter Appendix A: Experimental details—The experiment begins with a cryogenic buffer gas source similar to the one described in [26]

    Laird Eccosorb HR. End Matter Appendix A: Experimental details—The experiment begins with a cryogenic buffer gas source similar to the one described in [26]. Here, YbF molecules are produced by laser ablation of a Yb target in the presence of SF 6 inside a copper cell cooled t...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.