Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Precision Measurement of Spin-Dependent Dipolar Splitting in $^6$Li p-Wave Feshbach Resonances

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By suppressing magnetic-field noise to 0.1 mG, the authors resolve a 3.5 mG dipolar splitting in the |1>+|2> p-wave resonance of 6Li and show that the resonance-peak ordering reverses relative to the spin-polarized |2>+|2> case, as…

desk verdict Solid precision spectroscopy of a 3.5 mG p-wave dipolar splitting; the reversal claim is plausible but leans on a qualitative imaging assignment needing quantitative backup. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22409 v1 pith:XJAADXXT submitted 2025-05-28 cond-mat.quant-gas

Shuai Peng , Sijia Peng , Lijun Ren , Shaokun Liu , Bin Liu , Jiaming Li , Le Luo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gas
keywords 6Lip-waveFeshbachresonancedipolarsplittingmagneticdipole-dipoleinteractionspin-dependentreversaltrap-lossspectroscopyultracoldFermigasfieldnoisecompensation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper reports the first direct resolution of the magnetic dipole–dipole splitting of a p-wave Feshbach resonance in a spin-mixture Fermi gas. In the $|1\rangle+|2\rangle$ resonance of ultracold $^6$Li near 185 G, the splitting between the $m_\ell=0$ and $|m_\ell|=1$ components is $3.5\pm0.1$ mG, with $m_\ell=0$ at the lower field; in the spin-polarized $|2\rangle+|2\rangle$ resonance near 215 G it is $11.2\pm0.1$ mG with the opposite ordering. The two values agree with coupled-channel calculations, and the peak identities are checked by dissociation momentum imaging, whose double-lobed pattern marks $m_\ell=0$. The experiment demonstrates that sub-milligauss field stability plus noise modeling can resolve splittings previously beyond reach, and it pins down the dipolar interaction models that control p-wave pairing.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the claim is the magnetic dipole–dipole interaction in the closed-channel molecular state, written as $H_{ss} = 2D(r)(S_z^2 - S^2/3)$, which vanishes for singlet ($S=0$) states and lifts the degeneracy of the orbital projections $m_\ell = 0,\pm1$ when a triplet ($S=1$) admixture is present. The measured resonance structure is extracted with a thermally averaged two-body loss model that includes all $m_\ell$ components and an explicit time-dependent magnetic-noise term $B(t) = B_f + (B_{pp}/2)\sin(100\pi t)$. The orbital identity of each peak is assigned by dissociating the molecules and imaging their momentum distribution: $m_\ell=0$ gives a double-lobed pattern along the quantization axis, $|m_\ell|=1$ a nearly isotropic single peak. Together these elements convert a field environment that initially had 1.3 mG RMS noise into a 0.1-mG-resolved spectrum once the 50 Hz noise is compensated.

What would settle it

Rotate the magnetic field by 90 degrees and repeat the dissociation imaging: if the double-lobed pattern does not follow the new quantization axis, the imaging does not faithfully tag the $m_\ell=0$ orbital, and the claimed ordering reversal collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the dipolar splitting of a $^6$Li p-wave Feshbach resonance reverses its sign when the electron-spin composition of the closed-channel molecule changes from spin-polarized ($|m_S|=1$) to spin-mixture ($m_S=0$). Concretely, near 185 G the $|1\rangle+|2\rangle$ resonance shows $m_\ell=0$ at lower magnetic field than $|m_\ell|=1$, with splitting $3.5\pm0.1$ mG, while near 215 G the $|2\rangle+|2\rangle$ resonance shows the reverse ordering with splitting $11.2\pm0.1$ mG. Both orderings and magnitudes match coupled-channel predictions that include the state-specific triplet admixture ($S=1$, $m_S=0$ vs $m_S=-1$). The reversal is traced to the angular geometry of the dipole–dipole interaction: head-to-tail and side-by-side alignments exchange their attractive/repulsive character depending on whether the two electron spins are antiparallel or parallel. The paper also shows that the near-2:1 loss ratio between the $|m_\ell|=1$ and $m_\ell=0$ components ($r_1\approx0.66$) is not captured by the coupled-channel model, leaving an open question about extra decay channels.

Load-bearing premise

The reversal claim rests on the assumption that the double-lobed dissociation image uniquely marks the $m_\ell=0$ orbital; if that imaging signature is not a faithful fingerprint of the orbital, the ordering of the 3.5 mG doublet is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $3.5\pm0.1$ mG doublet in the $|1\rangle+|2\rangle$ channel is among the smallest dipolar splittings resolved for an atomic p-wave resonance, providing a quantitative benchmark for refining $^6$Li interaction potentials.
  • The spin-dependent reversal means the relative energy of the $m_\ell$ components can be switched by choosing the hyperfine-state mixture, offering a control knob for the sign of the p-wave interaction anisotropy.
  • The two-body loss model that explicitly includes magnetic noise can be transferred to other systems dominated by two-body inelastic collisions to resolve similarly small doublets.
  • The observed roughly 2:1 loss ratio between $|m_\ell|=1$ and $m_\ell=0$ is not reproduced by coupled-channel theory, indicating missing decay channels such as three-body recombination or many-body correlations that future models must include.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same spin-dependent reversal should occur in other alkali p-wave resonances, for instance in $^{40}$K, and possibly in d-wave resonances, making the effect a general probe of dipolar anisotropy rather than a $^6$Li-specific curiosity.
  • If an independent probe such as molecule radio-frequency spectroscopy confirms the $m_\ell=0$ assignment, the reversal could be used to engineer the favored pairing channel in p-wave superfluids, with implications for topological-state proposals.
  • The 0.1 mG noise-compensation scheme demonstrated here is directly portable to other precision cold-atom measurements that are currently limited by 50 Hz pick-up, such as high-accuracy spectroscopy near Feshbach resonances.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. Peng et al. report high-resolution trap-loss spectroscopy of 6Li p-wave Feshbach resonances in the |1⟩+|2⟩ spin-mixture channel near 185 G and in the |2⟩+|2⟩ spin-polarized channel near 215 G. They observe a resonance doublet with splitting 3.5 ± 0.1 mG in the former and 11.2 ± 0.1 mG in the latter, in agreement with coupled-channel predictions. The analysis uses a two-body inelastic loss model with an imaginary scattering volume, a global loss scaling factor, and a fractional |mℓ|=1 contribution; temperature data provide a cross-check. Based on dissociation momentum imaging, the authors assign the lower-field peak at 185 G to mℓ=0 and the higher-field peak to |mℓ|=1, and conclude that the dipolar splitting reverses polarity between the two configurations.

Significance. If correct, this is a high-precision benchmark for magnetic dipole-dipole interaction models in p-wave Feshbach resonances: the reported splittings are internally consistent across temperatures (3.5 ± 0.1 mG, 3.4 ± 0.2 mG, and 3.9 ± 0.3 mG from temperature data) and agree with coupled-channel predictions. The paper also demonstrates a practical active-compensation scheme for 50 Hz magnetic field noise. However, the headline qualitative result—the reversal of the mℓ ordering—depends on the momentum-imaging assignment, which is currently established only qualitatively; until that assignment is quantified or independently calibrated, the scope of the claim should be tempered.

major comments (4)
  1. [Results and Analysis (Fig. 2(b))] The reversal claim—the central new result—rests on the assignment of the lower-field peak at 185 G to mℓ=0 based solely on a qualitative double-lobed feature in a 1D column-density profile. The paper does not fit the full 2D momentum distribution to the expected L=1, mℓ=0 and |mℓ|=1 angular patterns, nor does it characterize how the 25 µs resonant-light pulse and the rapid dissociation field ramp map the molecular orbital onto the continuum. If the double-lobed profile is not unique to mℓ=0, or if dissociation scrambles the orbital character, the assignment could be reversed and the claimed ordering would be false. The same imaging is used at 215 G, where the mℓ=0 assignment is described as 'consistent with CC predictions and previous measurements'; this is a consistency check with theory, not an independent calibration. Please provide a quantitative analysis of the momentum images (e.g., fits to the expected two-body relative-momentum distributions) or an independent calibration of the assignment.
  2. [Results and Analysis, Fig. 2(a) caption; SM Section II] There is an unexplained factor-of-7 discrepancy in the reported magnetic-field noise. The main text and SM state that after compensation the 50 Hz noise is 0.1 mG RMS, while the Fig. 2(a) caption reports horizontal error bars reflecting 'RMS magnetic field noise of 0.7 mG'. Since the fitted spectrum and the sub-milligauss precision claims depend explicitly on the noise amplitude through B(t)=Bf+Bpp/2 sin(100πt), the correct value matters. Please reconcile these numbers and state the noise level used in the fits.
  3. [Eq. (4) and fit parameters] The sub-milligauss uncertainties quoted for δe12 (0.1 mG) are derived from fits in which Vbg and Δ are fixed to Ref. [39] and Veff is fixed by measured trap frequencies and T0. No sensitivity analysis is shown for these fixed inputs, nor for the assumed equal line-shape parameters of the two components. Given that the splitting is only ~3.5 mG and the field adjustment step is 1.3 mG, the reported 0.1 mG uncertainty needs a propagation analysis to be credible.
  4. [Results and Analysis / Discussion] The extracted r1=0.66 for both resonances is acknowledged to deviate from CC predictions in which the mℓ=-1 channel is non-decaying. Because r1 is a fitted parameter in the same model used to extract the splitting, a possible bias in the loss-ratio treatment could affect the fitted peak separation. Please show how the fitted δe12 changes under alternative loss-ratio constraints (e.g., fixing the mℓ=-1 loss to zero, or fitting separate amplitudes for mℓ=+1 and mℓ=-1).
minor comments (5)
  1. [SM Section II] The noise reduction is described as 'about 4 times smaller', but the quoted values go from 1.3 mG RMS to 0.1 mG RMS, which is a factor of 13; please correct this statement.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption / Results section] The phrase 'in excellent equal the obtained value in the spin-mixed case' should read 'in excellent agreement with the value obtained in the spin-mixed case'; the current wording is ungrammatical.
  3. [SM Section IV] The quoted product κV1 = (0.57 ± 0.02) × (0.09 ± 0.04) × 10−20 m3 is not a standard way to report a product of fitted parameters; please report κ and V1 separately with their individual uncertainties.
  4. [Introduction and throughout] There are several typographical issues that should be fixed in copyediting: 'may be misidentied' should be 'may misidentify', 'spin-mixtures molecular states' and 'fermi gas' are inconsistent with the journal's capitalization conventions, and the figure captions mix 'ml' with 'mℓ'.
  5. [Figure 2(c)] The label 'position(μm)' in Fig. 2(b) and related axes lacks a space and the vertical axis units are not defined; please add a scale bar or axis units for the column-density profiles.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the extracted splittings are free-fit results benchmarked against external coupled-channel predictions and fixed background parameters.

full rationale

The central quantities—the 3.5 ± 0.1 mG splitting near 185 G and the 11.2 ± 0.1 mG splitting near 215 G—are obtained by fitting the two-body loss model of Eq. (4) to the measured atom-loss spectra, with B0 and B±1 treated as free parameters. The background scattering volume Vbg and resonance strength Δ are taken from the independent work of Fuchs et al. (Ref. [39]), and the loss-rate formula Eq. (2) comes from standard references plus the authors' earlier experimental paper Ref. [7]; none of these inputs contains the target splitting value. The fitted splittings are then compared with external coupled-channel predictions from Refs. [27,28], and the observed deviation of r1 from the CC prediction (0.66 versus a predicted negligible mℓ = −1 decay) shows that the fit is not being forced to theory. The mℓ assignments, which determine the claimed ordering reversal, rest on dissociation momentum imaging—double-lobed versus single-peaked profiles—supported by external work in Refs. [5,35] and CC calculations in Refs. [27,28]; this is a measured observable, not a quantity defined in terms of the conclusion. The self-citations in the paper (e.g., magnetic-field stabilization Refs. [31–33] and cooling Ref. [30]) are technical methods and are not load-bearing for the central claim. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' own prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks, and no circular step is identified.

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

The central claim rests on the two-body loss model with fitted nuisance parameters (V1, kappa, r1) and on fixed inputs Vbg and Δ from Ref. [39]. No new physical entities are introduced. The assumptions are standard effective-range theory and a simplified single-frequency model of the magnetic noise.

free parameters (4)
  • V1 (imaginary scattering volume, |1>+|2>) = (7.6 ± 5.9) × 10^-20 m3
    Fitted to the 185 G loss spectrum; the relative uncertainty is about 80 percent, so the inelastic width is poorly constrained.
  • V1 (imaginary scattering volume, |2>+|2>) = (1.7 ± 0.2) × 10^-22 m3
    Fitted to the 215 G loss spectrum.
  • kappa (global loss scaling factor) = 1.4 ± 0.2 (185 G); 7.8 ± 0.2 (215 G)
    Fitted to normalize absolute loss rates; absorbs unknown detection or density calibration factors.
  • r1 (fractional |mℓ|=1 contribution) = 0.66 ± 0.01 (185 G); 0.68 ± 0.01 (215 G)
    Fitted relative strength of the |mℓ|=1 components; deviates from the coupled-channel expectation that the mℓ=-1 channel is non-decaying.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The p-wave inelastic rate coefficient follows the effective-range formula (Eq. 2) with a single imaginary volume V1 and effective range k_e, identical for all mℓ components.
    Used to fit the loss spectra; standard for p-wave resonances but an approximation.
  • domain assumption The background scattering volume Vbg and resonance width Δ from Ref. [39] apply unchanged to every mℓ component of the resonance.
    These values are fixed inputs for the fits; if they differed between mℓ components, the extracted splitting would shift.
  • domain assumption Residual magnetic field noise is modeled as a single 50 Hz sinusoid, B(t)=Bf+Bpp/2 sin(100πt).
    Used to include noise broadening in the fits; omits higher harmonics and non-sinusoidal fluctuations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Precision Measurement of Spin-Dependent Dipolar Splitting in $^6$Li p-Wave Feshbach Resonances." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XJAADXXT

@misc{pith2026250522409,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Precision Measurement of Spin-Dependent Dipolar Splitting in $^6$Li p-Wave Feshbach Resonances},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XJAADXXT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22409}
}
read the original abstract

The magnetic dipolar splitting of a p-wave Feshbach resonance is governed by the spin-orbital configuration of the valence electrons in the triplet molecular state. We perform high-resolution trap loss spectroscopy on ultracold 6Li atoms to resolve this splitting with sub-milligauss precision. By comparing spin-polarized (|mS| = 1) and spin-mixture (mS = 0) configurations of the triplet state, we observe a clear spin-dependent reversal in the splitting structure, confirmed via momentumresolved absorption imaging. This behavior directly reflects the interplay between electron spin projection mS and orbital angular momentum ml in the molecular states. Our results provide a stringent benchmark for dipole-dipole interaction models and lay the groundwork for controlling the pairing in p-wave superfluid systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22409 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic of spin-dependent dipole-dipole interac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Atom-loss and temperature near the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Atom-loss spectrum and temperature variation near [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

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. Universal Efimov spectra and fermionic doublets in highly mass-imbalanced cold-atom mixtures with van der Waals and dipole interactions

    cond-mat.quant-gas 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Efimov spectra and three-body parameters remain universal under strong dipole interactions, and the ratio of fermionic M_z=0 to M_z=±1 three-body parameters is universal in the large mass-imbalance limit.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [39]

    Fuchs, C

    J. Fuchs, C. Ticknor, P. Dyke, G. Veeravalli, E. Kuhnle, W. Rowlands, P. Hannaford, and C. J. Vale, Binding energies of Li-6 p-wave Feshbach molecules, Phys. Rev. A 77, 053616 (2008)

    work page 2008

  2. [1]

    J. L. Bohn, Cooper Pairing in Ultracold 40K Using Fesh- bach Resonances, Phys. Rev. A 61, 053409 (2000)

    work page 2000

  3. [2]

    C. A. Regal, C. Ticknor, J. L. Bohn, and D. S. Jin, Tuning p-wave Interactions in an Ultracold Fermi Gas of Atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 053201 (2003)

    work page 2003

  4. [3]

    Zhang, E

    J. Zhang, E. G. M. van Kempen, T. Bourdel, L. Khaykovich, J.Cubizolles, F. Chevy, M. Teichmann, L. Tarruell, S. J. J. M. F.Kokkelmans, and C. Salomon, p- wave Feshbach resonances of ultracold 6Li, Phys. Rev. A 70, 030702 (2004)

    work page 2004

  5. [4]

    C. H. Schunck, M. W. Zwierlein, C. A. Stan, S. M. F. Rau- pach, W. Ketterle, A. Simoni, E. Tiesinga, C. J. Williams, and P. S. Julienne, Feshbach resonances in fermionic Li-6, Phys. Rev. A 71, 045601 (2005)

    work page 2005

  6. [5]

    J. P. Gaebler, J. T. Stewart, J. L. Bohn, and D. S. Jin, p-wave Feshbach molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 200403 (2007)

    work page 2007

  7. [6]

    C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. S. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Fes- hbach resonances in ultracold gases, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1225–1286 (2010)

    work page 2010

  8. [7]

    S. Peng, T. Shu, B. Si, S. Peng, Y. Guo, Y. Han, J. Li, G. Wang, and L. Luo, Observation of a broad state-to-state 6 spin-exchange collision near a p-wave Feshbach resonance of Li-6 atoms, Phys. Rev. A 110, L051301 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 46 references
  1. [8]

    Gurarie, L

    V. Gurarie, L. Radzihovsky, and A. V. Andreev, Quan- tum phase transitions across a p-wave Feshbach resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 230403 (2005)

    2005

  2. [9]

    Cheng, and S.-K

    C.-H. Cheng, and S.-K. Yip, Anisotropic Fermi super- fluid via p-wave Feshbach resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 070404 (2005)

    2005

  3. [10]

    Gurarie, and L

    V. Gurarie, and L. Radzihovsky, Resonantly paired fermionic superfluids, Ann. Phys. 322, 2–119 (2007)

    2007

  4. [11]

    Tewari, S

    S. Tewari, S. Das Sarma, C. Nayak, C. Zhang, and P. Zoller, Quantum Computation Using Vortices and Majo- rana Zero Modes of a px+ipy Superfluid of Fermionic Cold Atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 010506 (2007)

    2007

  5. [12]

    Suzuki, T

    K. Suzuki, T. Miyakawa, and T. Suzuki, p-wave super- fluid and phase separation in atomic Bose-Fermi mixtures, Phys. Rev. A 77, 043629 (2008)

    2008

  6. [13]

    You, and M

    L. You, and M. Marinescu, Prospects for p-wave Paired Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer States of Fermionic Atoms, Phys. Rev. A 60, 2324–2329 (1999)

    1999

  7. [14]

    M. D. Girardeau, and E. M. Wright, Rotating ground states of a one-dimensional spin-polarized gas of fermioni c atoms with attractive p-wave interactions on a mesoscopic ring, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 200403 (2008)

    2008

  8. [15]

    Ko´ scik, and T

    P. Ko´ scik, and T. Sowi´ nski, Universality of internalcor- relations of strongly interacting p-wave fermions in one- dimensional geometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 253401 (2023)

    2023

  9. [16]

    In p-wave Feshbach resonances, open-channel states are degenerate in mℓ due to the isotropy of free-space colli- sions, while closed-channel molecules are bound and ex- perience anisotropic dipole–dipole interactions that spl it mℓ = 0 and ±1 components, imprinting the structu...

  10. [18]

    Gao, Quantum-Defect Theory of Atomic Collisions and Molecular Vibration Spectra, Phys

    B. Gao, Quantum-Defect Theory of Atomic Collisions and Molecular Vibration Spectra, Phys. Rev. A 58, 4222– 4225 (1998)

    1998

  11. [19]

    Weiner, V

    J. Weiner, V. S. Bagnato, S. Zilio, and P. S. Julienne, Experiments and Theory in Cold and Ultracold Collisions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 1–85 (1999)

    1999

  12. [20]

    B. Gao, E. Tiesinga, C. J. Williams, and P. S. Julienne, Multichannel quantum-defect theory for slow atomic col- lisions, Phys. Rev. A 72, 042719 (2005)

    2005

  13. [21]

    Lysebo, and L

    M. Lysebo, and L. Veseth, Ab initio calculation of Fes- hbach resonances in cold atomic collisions: s- and p-wave Feshbach resonances in 6Li2, Phys. Rev. A 79, 062704 (2009)

    2009

  14. [22]

    J. Li, J. Liu, L. Luo, and B. Gao, Three-body recombi- nation near a narrow Feshbach resonance in Li-6, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 193402 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    K. P. Horn, L. I. Vazquez-Salazar, C. P. Koch, and M. Meuwly, Improving Potential Energy Surfaces Using Mea- sured Feshbach Resonance States, Sci. Adv. 10, eadi6462 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    G¨ unter, T

    K. G¨ unter, T. St¨ oferle, H. Moritz, M. K¨ ohl, and T. Esslinger, p-Wave Interactions in Low-Dimensional Fermionic Gases, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 230401 (2005)

    2005

  17. [25]

    Luciuk, S

    C. Luciuk, S. Trotzky, S. Smale, Z. Yu, S. Zhang, and J. H. Thywissen, Evidence for Universal Relations De- scribing a Gas with p-wave Interactions, Nat. Phys. 12, 599–605 (2016)

    2016

  18. [27]

    Chevy, E

    F. Chevy, E. G. M. Van Kempen, T. Bourdel, J. Zhang, L. Khaykovich, M. Teichmann, L. Tarruell, S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, and C. Salomon, Resonant scattering prop- erties close to a p-wave Feshbach resonance, Phys. Rev. A 71, 062710 (2005)

    2005

  19. [28]

    Zhang, Y.-C

    R. Zhang, Y.-C. Han, S.-L. Cong, and M. B. Shundalau, The influence of collision energy on magnetically tuned Li-6–Li-6 Feshbach resonance, Chin. Phys. B 31, 063402 (2022)

    2022

  20. [29]

    E. G. M. Van Kempen, B. Marcelis, and S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, Formation of Fermionic Molecules via Inter- isotope Feshbach Resonances, Phys. Rev. A 70, 050701(R) (2004)

    2004

  21. [30]

    S. Peng, H. Liu, J. Li, and L. Luo, Collisional cooling of a Fermi gas with three-body recombination, Commun. Phys. 7, 101 (2024)

    2024

  22. [33]

    J. Li, S. Peng, Y. Xu, S, Kuang, and L. Le, Scaling law for three-body collisions near a narrow s-wave Feshbach resonance, arXiv:2212.08257 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  23. [34]

    Inada, M

    Y. Inada, M. Horikoshi, S. Nakajima, M. Kuwata- Gonokami, M. Ueda,and T. Mukaiyama, Collisional Prop- erties of p-Wave Feshbach Molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 100401 (2008)

    2008

  24. [35]

    Waseem, Z

    M. Waseem, Z. Zhang, J. Yoshida, K. Hattori, T. Saito,and T. Mukaiyama, Creation of p-wave Feshbach Molecules in Selected Angular Momentum States Using an Optical Lattice, J. Phys. B 49, 204001 (2016)

    2016

  25. [36]

    Although the temperature changes across the resonance s also show clear visibility and may serve as a viable method to determine the dipolar splitting, we currently lack an accurate model to describe the temperature dynamics (dT /dt) due to the complexity of the underlying hea...

  26. [37]

    D. V. Kurlov, and G. V. Shlyapnikov, Two-body relax- ation of spin-polarized fermions in reduced dimensionali- ties near a p-wave Feshbach resonance, Phys. Rev. A 95, 032710 (2017)

    2017

  27. [38]

    Waseem, T

    M. Waseem, T. Saito, J. Yoshida, and T. Mukaiyama, Two-body relaxation in a Fermi gas at a p-wave Feshbach resonance, Phys. Rev. A 96, 062704 (2017)

    2017

  28. [40]

    Berninger, A

    M. Berninger, A. Zenesini, B. Huang, W. Harm, H.-C. N¨ agerl, F. Ferlaino, R. Grimm, P. S. Julienne, and J. M. Hutson, Feshbach resonances, weakly bound molecular states, and coupled-channel potentials for cesium at high magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. A 87, 032517 (2013)

    2013

  29. [41]

    Y. Cui, C. Shen, M. Deng, S. Dong, C. Chen, R. L¨ u, B. Gao, M. K. Tey, and L. You, Observation of broad d-wave Feshbach resonances with a triplet structure, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 203402 (2017). 7

    2017

  30. [42]

    X. Yao, R. Qi, X. Liu, X. Wang, Y. Wang, Y. Wu, H. Chen, P. Zhang, H. Zhai, Y. Chen, and J. Pan, Degenerate Bose gases near a d-wave shape resonance, Nat. Phys. 15, 570–576 (2019)

    2019

  31. [43]

    Ho, and R

    T. Ho, and R. B. Diener, Fermion Superfluids of Nonzero Orbital Angular Momentum near Resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 090402 (2005)

    2005

  32. [44]

    Jona-Lasinio, L

    M. Jona-Lasinio, L. Pricoupenko, and Y. Castin, Three fully polarized fermions close to a p-wave Feshbach reso- nance, Phys. Rev. A 77, 043611 (2008). SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL I. DIPOLE–DIPOLE INTERACTION IN 6LI p-W A VE FESHBACH RESONANCES AND COUPLED-CHANNEL BOUND-STATE CALCULA...

    2008

  33. [45]

    Ticknor, C

    C. Ticknor, C. A. Regal, D. S. Jin, and J. L. Bohn, Mul- tiplet structure of Feshbach resonances in nonzero partial waves, Phys. Rev. A 69, 042712 (2004)

    2004

  34. [46]

    Dulieu, and P

    O. Dulieu, and P. S. Julienne, Coupled Channel Bound States Calculations for Alkali Dimers Using the Fourier Grid Method, J. Chem. Phys. 103, 60–66 (1995)

    1995

  35. [47]

    Lysebo, and L

    M. Lysebo, and L. Veseth, Ab initio calculation of Fesh- bach resonances in cold atomic collisions: s- and p-wave Feshbach resonances in 6Li2, Phys. Rev. A 79, 062704 (2009)

    2009

  36. [48]

    H. Liu, S. Peng, B. Jiao, J. Li, and L. Luo, Ultra-low noise bipolar current source for ultracold atom magnetic system, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 94, 053201 (2023)

    2023

  37. [49]

    Gerken, B

    M. Gerken, B. Tran, S. H¨ afner, E. Tiemann, B. Zhu, and M. Weidem¨ uller, Observation of dipolar splittings in high- resolution atom-loss spectroscopy of Li-6 p-wave Feshbach resonances, Phys. Rev. A 100, 050701 (2019)

    2019

  38. [50]

    Y. Chen, S. Peng, H. Gong, X. Zhang, J. Li, and L. Luo, Characterization of the magnetic field through the three- body loss near a narrow Feshbach resonance, Phys. Rev. A 103, 063311 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.