Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Quantum computing architecture with Rydberg gates in trapped ions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Rydberg-state electric-kick scheme can entangle any pair of trapped ions in a linear crystal in microseconds, with fields below the Inglis-Teller limit, giving trapped-ion processors all-to-all connectivity.

desk verdict Clever all-to-all Rydberg-kick gate, but a sqrt(2) error in the zero-point length doubles the gate phase and likely inflates the six-ion field claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19684 v1 pith:VVF4CXBO submitted 2024-11-29 quant-ph

Han Bao , Jonas Vogel , Ulrich Poschinger , Ferdinand Schmidt-Kaler This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords trappedionsRydbergstatesentanglinggatesquantumcomputingarchitectureelectrickickwaveformsstate-dependentpolarizabilityall-to-allconnectivitymicrosecond
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 proposes a way to entangle any two ions in a linear chain without moving them into contact: promote the chosen ions to Rydberg states, whose large electric polarizability changes their oscillation frequencies, then kick the whole crystal with a shaped electric field so that the two Rydberg ions acquire a collective geometric phase while all motional modes return to rest. For a two-ion pair the gate runs in 0.67 microseconds, and for any of the 15 pairs in a six-ion chain in 2.5 microseconds, with field strengths that stay below the Inglis-Teller limit. A continuous-waveform version removes the need for perfectly square pulses and closes all trajectories exactly. If correct, this gives trapped-ion processors microsecond all-to-all connectivity using only standard infrared addressing and electrodes, without individual ultraviolet addressing. The gate is designed to combine with shuttling or optical-tweezer reconfiguration for larger registers.

What carries the argument

The central object is the state-dependent collective-mode frequency shift: for an ion in the Rydberg state, the local transverse secular frequency changes from $\omega_x$ to $\tilde{\omega}_x$ according to Eq. (3), with $\alpha$ the Rydberg polarizability. The gate is carried by the transverse normal modes of the ion crystal, whose frequencies and eigenvectors come from Hessian matrices $B^{(j)}$ (Eq. 5) that depend on which ions are excited. An electric force $f(t)$ couples to mode $k$ through the participation factor $W_k^{(\sigma)} = \sum_n b_{kn}^{(\sigma)}$, and the gate conditions are the closure of all displacements $\beta_k^{(\sigma)}(t_g)=0$ plus the phase condition $\Delta\varphi = \pi$. The waveform is optimized by expanding it in time slices or Fourier components and taking linear combinations of the null space of the closure matrix to maximize the entangling phase per unit field amplitude, with the Inglis-Teller limit bounding the admissible field strength.

What would settle it

Measure the transverse mode frequencies of a single Rydberg ion under a known electric field and compare with Eq. (3), then run the proposed 0.67 microsecond waveform on a two-ion crystal and check that all modes return to the ground state and the accumulated phase is pi. A residual phonon occupation above about $10^{-3}$ or a phase error outside the predicted curve would indicate that the polarizability model or the assumed negligible van der Waals shift is not the one used in the calculation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the state-dependent shift of transverse collective modes, caused by the static polarizability of Rydberg-excited ions, can serve as an entangling force: an optimized electric waveform applied to the trap electrodes displaces the vibrational modes in a way that depends on which ions are in the Rydberg state, closes all trajectories after the gate time, and accumulates a pi phase difference between the |RR> state and the other basis states. The mechanism requires no Rydberg blockade and no dipole-dipole interaction: at roughly 5 micrometer spacing the van der Waals shift is treated as negligible, and all coupling comes from the polarizability-induced mode frequency shifts. With trap parameters for 40Ca+ and the measured polarizability of the 49S state, the authors find 0.67 microseconds for a two-ion gate and 2.5 microseconds for any pair in a six-ion crystal, with maximum fields near 150 V/m in the two-ion case, below the Inglis-Teller limit. They also give time-domain and frequency-domain linear-algebra constructions for waveforms that start and end at zero field, and discuss scaling: higher principal quantum number n improves the field requirements, and lifetime constraints favor the 49P state over 49S.

Load-bearing premise

The whole timing and field budget rests on the assumption that the Rydberg state's response to the kicking field is captured by a single measured number, the static scalar polarizability, and that two Rydberg ions five micrometers apart barely interact; if either of those is wrong, the predicted mode shifts, trajectory closure, and phase all move.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A two-ion 40Ca+ crystal can be entangled in 0.67 microseconds with roughly 150 V/m peak field, below the Inglis-Teller limit, and with continuous waveforms that close all motional trajectories exactly.
  • In a six-ion crystal, every one of the 15 ion pairs can be gated in 2.5 microseconds with fields below the Inglis-Teller limit; reducing the gate time to 2 microseconds pushes distant pairs above the limit.
  • Rydberg-state lifetime is the dominant fidelity limit: the 0.67 microsecond gate would have about 81% fidelity with 49S, while 49P would give about 93% at 0.67 microseconds and about 99.9% at 0.1 microseconds in a faster trap.
  • Increasing the principal quantum number n always improves the dynamics because the polarizability scales roughly as $n^7$ while the Inglis-Teller limit scales as $n^{-5}$, although the gate time floor converges to about 0.38 microseconds for large n at fixed trap frequencies.
  • The radial kick direction decouples the gate from axial shuttling noise, so the gate can be combined with ion shuttling or optical-tweezer reconfiguration in a segmented trap.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because the closure conditions are linear in the waveform, the same optimization could entangle more than one pair in a single kick sequence, yielding multi-qubit gates in the same microsecond window; the paper considers only one pair at a time.
  • Editorial inference: the paper's numerical result that only higher trap frequencies lower the large-n gate-time floor suggests a testable design rule: pushing below roughly 0.38 microseconds requires stiffer radial confinement, not merely a higher Rydberg state.
  • Editorial inference: the quoted fidelities assume spontaneous emission from the excited state, so room-temperature operation will degrade them further through blackbody radiation; a quantitative blackbody-limited fidelity estimate would be a direct next check.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an entangling-gate scheme for trapped-ion crystals in which two selected ions are excited to Rydberg states, and the large polarizability of the Rydberg states changes the transverse collective-mode frequencies. A shaped electric waveform applied to the trap electrodes then produces a state-dependent motional phase; optimizing the waveform to close all trajectories and accumulate a pi phase realizes a controlled-Z gate. The authors give a two-ion four-kick example, a continuous-waveform optimization in both time and frequency domains, and an all-to-all connectivity analysis for a six-ion crystal, reporting a 0.67 microsecond two-ion gate and 2.5 microsecond gates for all 15 pairs with fields below the Inglis-Teller limit.

Significance. If the quantitative predictions survive the concerns below, this is a conceptually attractive route to fast all-to-all connectivity in small trapped-ion processors, complementing the usual nearest-neighbor or mode-coupling approaches. The control framework is elegant: the trajectory-closure conditions are explicit linear constraints, the gate-phase optimization is a deterministic eigenvalue problem, and the input parameters (trap gradients, rf drive, Rydberg principal quantum number, gate time) are stated. The use of a measured static polarizability for 40Ca+ 49S is a clear strength, and the predicted field amplitudes and gate times are concrete and falsifiable. The central idea is not circular: the pi phase is a target, not a fitted outcome, and the only fitted object is the waveform itself. However, the normalization conventions and the treatment of the Rydberg-Rydberg interaction need correction before the quantitative claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Eqs. (9)-(10)] The characteristic length l_k is defined as sqrt(hbar/(M nu_k)), but for a harmonic mode the canonical coordinate is x = sqrt(hbar/(2M nu_k)) (a + a-dagger), which is the zero-point length required by [x,p]=i hbar. With l_k as written, the displacement beta_k and the geometric phase phi_k in Eq. (10) are overestimated by a factor sqrt(2) and a factor 2, respectively, for a given electric waveform. Consequently the waveforms optimized in Section IV to reach Delta phi = pi have field amplitudes that are too low by a factor sqrt(2): the quoted 150 V/m for the two-ion gate at 0.67 microseconds would become about 210 V/m, and the six-ion maximum fields in Fig. 4(a) must be re-evaluated against the Inglis-Teller limit. Because this normalization enters every quantitative prediction, the all-to-all claim in Section V is not supported as written.
  2. [Section II.A, Eq. (3)] The state-dependent secular frequency shift in Eq. (3) appears to be a factor of two too small relative to the field convention in Eq. (1). From Eq. (1), E_x = -2 gamma_rf x cos(Omega_rf t) + 2 gamma_dc (1+epsilon) x, so the time-averaged dipole potential -1/2 alpha <E_x^2> gives a contribution -(alpha/M)[2 gamma_rf^2 + 4 gamma_dc^2 (1+epsilon)^2] to tilde(omega_x)^2, rather than the quoted -(alpha/M)[gamma_rf^2 + 2 gamma_dc^2 (1+epsilon)^2]. Since Eq. (2) uses the same gamma_rf convention, the mode-frequency differences in Table I and the gate phase in Eq. (13) may be underestimated by a factor of two; the quoted single-ion transverse shift of 2 pi times 53 kHz would become about 2 pi times 106 kHz in this derivation. The authors should either correct the coefficient after a full derivation or clearly state the convention that yields their Eq. (3).
  3. [Section II.B and Section VI] The assumption that the Rydberg-Rydberg van der Waals interaction is negligible at the ion spacings of interest is asserted but not quantified. The parameters of Section II.A give a two-ion equilibrium separation near 2.8 micrometers, and estimates for n = 49 Rydberg states suggest a van der Waals frequency-scale shift of hundreds of kHz to a few MHz for the closest pairs, comparable to the polarizability-induced mode-frequency shifts quoted in Table I. Because the van der Waals force has a spatial gradient, it modifies the Hessian in Eq. (5) and therefore the mode frequencies and the trajectory-closure conditions, not merely a constant phase. A numerical estimate for the two-ion and six-ion geometries, or a calibration argument showing that the effect is negligible, is needed to support the quantitative gate predictions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III and Fig. 2 caption] The expression t_g = (2/pi) nu_1^{0R} x 4 = 0.67 microseconds is dimensionally inconsistent; it should read t_g = 4 x (2 pi / nu_1^{0R}) = 4 / nu_1^{0R}, corresponding to four oscillation periods.
  2. [Section IV.C and Fig. 3 caption] The numerical value of the Inglis-Teller limit for n = 49, with the admixture criterion, should be stated explicitly in the main text so that the 'below limit' claims for Figs. 3 and 4 can be checked quantitatively.
  3. [Section II.B, Eq. (6)] The normalization convention for the eigenvectors b_k should be stated explicitly (for example, sum_n b_{kn}^2 = 1), since the values of W_k = sum_n b_{kn}, and hence the gate phase, depend on that convention.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical and grammatical errors (e.g., 'consiting', 'the the', '49s' for 49S, and the four-kick formula in the text), which should be corrected in a revised version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the gate phase is a design constraint, the polarizability input is an external measurement, and the waveform optimization solves first-principles closure conditions rather than fitting the claimed result.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Equations (8)-(13) define the displacement and geometric phase from the mode eigenvectors, masses, frequencies, and applied electric waveform, with the π phase appearing as a target condition, not as a fitted output. The polarizability α for the 49S state is taken from a published measurement [16]; although that measurement comes from the same research group, it is an independent, parameter-free experimental input that could falsify the gate predictions if wrong. The state-dependent frequency shift in Eq. (3) is cited to external work [22], and no uniqueness theorem or structural ansatz is imported from the authors' own prior papers to force the chosen control waveforms. The reported 2.5 µs all-to-all gate times and field amplitudes are least-norm solutions to the linear closure conditions and phase condition, computed from the stated trap parameters, rather than quantities tuned to reproduce themselves. Self-citations such as [15] and [16] support experimental feasibility and the measured polarizability but are not load-bearing in a circular sense. No equation is defined in terms of its own output, and no prediction is a renamed fit. The skeptic's concern about the characteristic length in Eq. (9) is a potential correctness or normalization issue, not a circularity, and does not change this assessment.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The scheme introduces no new physical entity. It combines known Rydberg polarizability, measured in [16], with existing trap and waveform techniques. The free parameters are realistic machine settings and target gate times, not quantities fitted to the result.

free parameters (4)
  • Trap parameters (gamma_dc, gamma_rf, epsilon, Omega_rf) = 6.406e7 V/m^2, 1.123e9 V/m^2, 0.400, 2*pi*14.135 MHz
    Chosen by hand to give realistic secular frequencies of 6.0, 6.5 and 3.953 MHz; all quantitative gate times and field requirements depend on these values.
  • Rydberg principal quantum number and state = 49S_1/2, with 49P discussed for lifetime
    Selected for the measured polarizability in [16]; polarizability, lifetime, and Inglis-Teller field all scale with n.
  • Gate time t_g = 0.67 microseconds for two ions, 2.5 microseconds for six ions
    Target design parameters chosen to demonstrate feasibility; the optimization solves for a waveform for a given t_g.
  • Inglis-Teller purity threshold = 90% purity for the large-n limit, 97% purity quoted for the 0.67 microsecond gate
    Sets the maximum usable electric field and therefore the gate speed limit; the 90% value is an arbitrary threshold.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The state-dependent secular frequencies are described by Eq. (3) with a static scalar polarizability alpha for the Rydberg level.
    Invoked in Section II A; the gate phase and mode closure depend on these frequency shifts. A dynamic or tensor polarizability, or a different Stark shift at the operating electric field, would change all predicted times and fields.
  • domain assumption The Rydberg-Rydberg van der Waals interaction is negligible at roughly 5 micrometer ion spacing.
    Stated in Section II B; if the van der Waals shift is not negligible, the mode structure and the neglect of blockade physics break down.
  • domain assumption The trap potential is harmonic over the ion excursion and the applied electric field is spatially uniform along x.
    Used throughout Sections III to VI; the paper estimates the linear region as about 100 micrometers versus 10 nanometer ground-state size, but the electrode field map is not experimentally verified.
  • standard math The harmonic-oscillator displacement and phase formulas in Eqs. (8) to (10) are the correct driven-oscillator solution.
    Standard quantum optics, but the paper's length-scale convention in Eqs. (9) and (10) is nonstandard and appears to omit a sqrt(2) factor.
  • domain assumption Electronic state dynamics during the pulse are frozen: ions stay in their Rydberg or ground state and only Rydberg lifetime contributes to loss.
    The fidelity analysis in Section VI adds spontaneous decay as a post-hoc factor and does not model off-resonant excitation, laser phase noise, or decay during the pulse.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum computing architecture with Rydberg gates in trapped ions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VVF4CXBO

@misc{pith2026241119684,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum computing architecture with Rydberg gates in trapped ions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VVF4CXBO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19684}
}
abstract

Fast entangling gate operations are a fundamental prerequisite for quantum simulation and computation. We propose an entangling scheme for arbitrary pairs of ions in a linear crystal, harnessing the high electric polarizability of highly excited Rydberg states. An all-to-all quantum gate connectivity is based on an initialization of a pair of ions to a superposition of ground- and Rydberg-states by laser excitation, followed by the entangling gate operation which relies on a state-dependent frequency shift of collective vibrational modes of the crystal. This gate operation requires applying an electric waveform to trap electrodes. Employing transverse collective modes of oscillation, we reveal order of $\mu s$ operation times within any of the qubit pairs in a small crystal. In our calculation, we are taking into account realistic experimental conditions and feasible electric field ramps. The proposed gate operation is ready to be combined with a scalable processor architecture to reconfigure the qubit register, either by shuttling ions or by dynamically controlling optical tweezer potentials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19684 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a): Relevant energy levels and transitions for 40Ca+ ion. The qubit is encoded electronic levels, see text. (b): Proposed architecture - crystals of trapped ions (green dots) are stored in different regions of the segmented racetrack Paul trap (rf electrodes in grey, dc electrodes in yellow) and can be shuttled between these. The shown six-ion crystal allows for addressed manipulation with 729 nm for selecting the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Discrete four-kick scheme for two ions. The trap parameters chosen as in Tab. I and to fulfill frequency multiple relation 4ν (0R/R0) 2 = 3ν (0R/R0) 1 . (a): Kicking waveform, such that the gate time is tg = (2/π)ν 0R 1 × 4 = 0.67µs. The parts of each trajectory in (c)–(f) correspond to the four kicks (colors scheme). (b) Square pulse distortion induced infidelity: The dashed line is the square wave without distorti… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Continuous-kick scheme for two ions (a) Optimized continuous waveform for two ions. The trap frequencies and gate time tg are identical to that in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The maximal electric field to entangle arbitrary two ions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. Two-qubit gate protocols with microwave-dressed Rydberg ions in a linear Paul trap

    quant-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An optimized microwave-dressed Rydberg ion pulse sequence implements a 200 ns two-qubit controlled-phase gate with 99.25% simulated fidelity including finite Rydberg decay.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Sorensen and K

    A. Sorensen and K. Molmer, Physical Review Letters 82, 1971 (1999)

    work page 1999

  2. [2]

    Leibfried, B

    D. Leibfried, B. DeMarco, V . Meyer, D. Lucas, M. Barrett, J. Britton, W. M. Itano, B. Jelenkovic, C. Langer, T. Rosenband, and D. J. Wineland, Nature 422, 412 (2003)

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    T. Choi, S. Debnath, T. A. Manning, C. Figgatt, Z. X. Gong, L. M. Duan, and C. Monroe, Phys Rev Lett 112, 190502 (2014)

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    S. J. Evered, D. Bluvstein, M. Kalinowski, S. Ebadi, T. Manovitz, H. Zhou, S. H. Li, A. A. Geim, T. T. Wang, N. Maskara, H. Levine, G. Semeghini, M. Greiner, V . Vuletic, and M. D. Lukin, Nature 622, 268 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    J. J. García-Ripoll, P. Zoller, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 157901 (2003)

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    A. M. Steane, G. Imreh, J. P. Home, and D. Leibfried, New Journal of Physics 16, 053049 (2014)

    2014

  7. [7]

    Shapira, R

    Y . Shapira, R. Shaniv, T. Manovitz, N. Akerman, L. Peleg, L. Gazit, R. Ozeri, and A. Stern, Physical Review A 101, 032330 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Torrontegui, D

    E. Torrontegui, D. Heinrich, M. I. Hussain, R. Blatt, and J. J. García-Ripoll, New Journal of Physics 22, 103024 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Fast design and scaling of multi-qubit gates in large-scale trapped-ion quantum comput- ers,

    Y . Shapira, L. Peleg, D. Schwerdt, J. Nemirovsky, N. Akerman, A. Stern, A. B. Kish, and R. Ozeri, “Fast design and scaling of multi-qubit gates in large-scale trapped-ion quantum comput- ers,” (2023), arXiv:2307.09566 [quant-ph]

    2023

  2. [10]

    T. Choi, S. Debnath, T. A. Manning, C. Figgatt, Z.-X. Gong, L.- M. Duan, and C. Monroe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 190502 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    V . M. Schafer, C. J. Ballance, K. Thirumalai, L. J. Stephenson, T. G. Ballance, A. M. Steane, and D. M. Lucas, Nature 555, 75 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Saner, O

    S. Saner, O. B ˘az˘avan, M. Minder, P. Drmota, D. J. Webb, G. Araneda, R. Srinivas, D. M. Lucas, and C. J. Ballance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 220601 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Poschinger, A

    U. Poschinger, A. Walther, K. Singer, and F. Schmidt-Kaler, Phys Rev Lett 105, 263602 (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    Zhang, F

    C. Zhang, F. Pokorny, W. Li, G. Higgins, A. Poschl, I. Lesanovsky, and M. Hennrich, Nature 580, 345 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    V ogel, W

    J. V ogel, W. Li, A. Mokhberi, I. Lesanovsky, and F. Schmidt- Kaler, Phys Rev Lett 123, 153603 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Niederländer, J

    M. Niederländer, J. V ogel, A. Schulze-Makuch, B. Gély, A. Mokhberi, and F. Schmidt-Kaler, New Journal of Physics 25, 033020 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Kaufmann, T

    H. Kaufmann, T. Ruster, C. T. Schmiegelow, M. A. Luda, V . Kaushal, J. Schulz, D. von Lindenfels, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and U. G. Poschinger, Physical Review A 95, 052319 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    Hilder, D

    J. Hilder, D. Pijn, O. Onishchenko, A. Stahl, M. Orth, B. Lek- itsch, A. Rodriguez-Blanco, M. Müller, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and U. G. Poschinger, Physical Review X 12, 011032 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    S. A. Moses, C. H. Baldwin, M. S. Allman, R. Ancona, L. Ascarrunz, C. Barnes, J. Bartolotta, B. Bjork, P. Blanchard, M. Bohn, J. G. Bohnet, N. C. Brown, N. Q. Burdick, W. C. Burton, S. L. Campbell, J. P. Campora, C. Carron, J. Chambers, J. W. Chan, Y . H. Chen, A. Chernoguzov,...

    2023

  12. [20]

    Schwerdt, L

    D. Schwerdt, L. Peleg, Y . Shapira, N. Priel, Y . Flor- shaim, A. Gross, A. Zalic, G. Afek, N. Akerman, A. Stern, A. Ben Kish, and R. Ozeri, Physical Review X 14, 041017 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    H. C. Nägerl, D. Leibfried, H. Rohde, G. Thalhammer, J. Es- chner, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and R. Blatt, Physical Review A 60, 145 (1999)

    1999

  14. [22]

    Higgins, W

    G. Higgins, W. Li, F. Pokorny, C. Zhang, F. Kress, C. Maier, J. Haag, Q. Bodart, I. Lesanovsky, and M. Hennrich, Phys. Rev. X 7, 021038 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Marquet, F

    C. Marquet, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and D. F. V . James, Applied Physics B-Lasers and Optics 76, 199 (2003)

    2003

  16. [24]

    Shapira, S

    Y . Shapira, S. Cohen, N. Akerman, A. Stern, and R. Ozeri, Phys Rev Lett 130, 030602 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Walther, F

    A. Walther, F. Ziesel, T. Ruster, S. T. Dawkins, K. Ott, M. Het- trich, K. Singer, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and U. Poschinger, Phys Rev Lett 109, 080501 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    Bowler, J

    R. Bowler, J. Gaebler, Y . Lin, T. R. Tan, D. Hanneke, J. D. Jost, J. P. Home, D. Leibfried, and D. J. Wineland, Phys Rev Lett 109, 080502 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    Poschinger, A

    U. Poschinger, A. Walther, K. Singer, and F. Schmidt-Kaler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 263602 (2010)

    2010

  20. [28]

    D. T. C. Allcock, W. C. Campbell, J. Chiaverini, I. L. Chuang, E. R. Hudson, I. D. Moore, A. Ransford, C. Roman, J. M. Sage, and D. J. Wineland, Applied Physics Letters119, 214002 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    C. J. Ballance, T. P. Harty, N. M. Linke, M. A. Sepiol, and D. M. Lucas, Phys Rev Lett 117, 060504 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    Benhelm, G

    J. Benhelm, G. Kirchmair, C. F. Roos, and R. Blatt, Nature Physics 4, 463 (2008)

    2008

  23. [31]

    T. P. Harty, D. T. Allcock, C. J. Ballance, L. Guidoni, H. A. Janacek, N. M. Linke, D. N. Stacey, and D. M. Lucas, Phys Rev Lett 113, 220501 (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    A. D. Leu, M. F. Gely, M. A. Weber, M. C. Smith, D. P. Nadlinger, and D. M. Lucas, Phys Rev Lett 131, 120601 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Ziesel, T

    F. Ziesel, T. Ruster, A. Walther, H. Kaufmann, S. Dawkins, K. Singer, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and U. G. Poschinger, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 46, 104008 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    V ogel, Rydberg Ions in Motion , Ph.D

    J. V ogel, Rydberg Ions in Motion , Ph.D. thesis, Universit¨ at Mainz (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.