Impact of ion motion on atom-ion confinement-induced resonances in hybrid traps

Antonio Negretti; Vladimir S. Melezhik; Zbigniew Idziaszek

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 68 references

Impact of ion motion on atom-ion confinement-induced resonances in hybrid traps

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Ion micromotion shifts but does not destroy atom-ion confinement-induced resonances in hybrid traps.

desk verdict A plausible numerical extension of atom-ion CIR theory to a moving ion in a Paul trap; the qualitative result looks right, but the quantitative CIR shifts rest on an unquantified Pulay-type term. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01151 v2 pith:SG3EXRLZ submitted 2019-08-03 physics.atom-ph quant-ph

Vladimir S. Melezhik , Zbigniew Idziaszek , Antonio Negretti This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.atom-phquant-ph PACS 32.60.+i33.55.Be32.10.Dk33.80.Ps

keywords confinement-inducedresonanceatom-ionscatteringPaultrapmicromotionhybridlow-dimensionalsemiclassicaldynamicsultracoldcollisions

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 asks whether the unavoidable micromotion of an ion in a radio-frequency Paul trap prevents confinement-induced resonances in a hybrid atom-ion system, where a single atom moves through a quasi-one-dimensional waveguide centered on the ion. By treating the atom quantum mechanically and the ion classically for the 6Li/174Yb+ pair, the authors find that micromotion does not eliminate the resonance: perfect transmission and reflection survive. The resonance position shifts strongly with the kinetic energy the ion receives from the radio-frequency drive, so the RF fields become a practical tuning knob for the effective atom-ion interaction. At low ion energies the static-ion value $a_\perp/a_s\simeq 1.4603$ is recovered, while larger ion energies move the resonance away from that value.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a time-dependent semiclassical collision model. The atom obeys the three-dimensional time-dependent Schrödinger equation in a tight waveguide plus the atom-ion potential, with the ion position entering as a time-dependent parameter; the ion obeys classical Hamilton equations in the linear Paul-trap fields, with the atom-ion interaction replaced by its quantum expectation value over the instantaneous atom wavefunction. The interaction is a regularized polarization potential that reduces to $-C_4/r^4$ at large distances and can be tuned to any scattering length. Resonance positions are extracted from the forward scattering amplitude $f_+(k)$, via the condition $g_{1D}\to\pm\infty$, equivalently $T\to 0$, with $g_{1D}=\lim_{k\to0}(\hbar^2 k/m_a)\,\mathrm{Re}\,f_+/\mathrm{Im}\,f_+$. The argument's load-bearing approximation is the neglect of the functional derivatives $\partial\Psi/\partial r_i$ in the ion equations of motion.

What would settle it

Solve the same Li/Yb+ collision with the omitted $\partial\Psi/\partial r_i$ terms included and compare the resonance position as a function of ion energy; if the shift exceeds the resonance width, the quantitative prediction fails. A complementary experimental check is to measure the waveguide transmission versus radio-frequency drive power and see whether the transmission dip moves by the predicted amount.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the intrinsic micromotion of a trapped ion does not destroy atom-ion confinement-induced resonances, and that the resonance position is controlled mainly by the ion's kinetic energy rather than by its instantaneous position. In the zero-initial-energy limit the computed resonance position agrees with the static-ion result, approximately $a_\perp/a_s\simeq 1.4603$ for small $R_*/a_\perp$. As the mean ion energy rises above the s-wave threshold $E_*\simeq 6.4\,\mu\mathrm{K}$, the resonance position shifts markedly and the effective coupling constant $g_{1D}$ at fixed scattering parameters changes. Throughout the investigated range the qualitative phenomenology, vanishing transmission and divergent $g_{1D}$ at resonance, remains intact. The authors also observe that the ion gains energy during the collision and estimate a probability of about 14% for forming an atom-ion molecule in the attractive case.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the atom wavefunction's dependence on the ion position can be ignored when writing the ion's classical equations of motion; if that coupling is significant, the computed ion trajectory and the predicted resonance shift would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The static-ion approximation is reliable at ion energies below roughly 10 $\mu\mathrm{K}$ in a secular harmonic trap and within $E_\perp\le 1\,\mu\mathrm{K}$, $E_\parallel\le 5\,\mu\mathrm{K}$ in the full Paul trap, so experiments in that window can use the standard resonance condition.
Changing the radio-frequency drive amplitude or frequency shifts the resonance, giving an externally controlled tuning parameter for atom-ion interactions in low dimensions.
The resonance's perfect transmission and reflection signatures survive micromotion, indicating that confinement-induced resonances should be observable in current hybrid traps despite ion motion.
The calculated ion heating during collisions means that cold collisions near a resonance will modify the ion's energy, a back-action that must be accounted for in experiments.
The predicted roughly 14% molecule-formation probability suggests that confined collisions near a resonance can serve as a pathway to forming molecular ions.

Reading between the lines

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

If the resonance shift is indeed governed by ion kinetic energy rather than micromotion phase, sweeping the RF drive should scan the resonance continuously, allowing the one-dimensional coupling $g_{1D}$ to be probed without retuning the magnetic field or waveguide width.
The small atom-ion mass ratio is likely what keeps micromotion benign; for comparable masses the neglected $\partial\Psi/\partial r_i$ terms and the larger micromotion energy could push the resonance outside the accessible range, so the conclusion should not be extrapolated without additional checks.
The authors' suggestion of a possible dual resonance from s- and p-wave interference could be tested by computing the resonance shift as a function of ion energy and looking for a transmission maximum inside the resonant region.
The same semiclassical machinery could be adapted to simulate micromotion-induced energy shifts in two-qubit gates or in transport through ion chains.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line: this is a solid extension of the static-ion CIR treatment, and I'd send it out, but the headline numbers should not be taken as final until the authors quantify the ∂Ψ/∂ri terms they drop.

What's new: they take the earlier static-ion CIR framework [25] and let the ion move classically in a Paul trap while the atom stays quantum. The specific result—CIR position shifts with initial ion kinetic energy, especially outside a small stable plateau—is not in the earlier work. The zero-energy limit reproduces Olshanii's 1.4603 and the static-ion result, which is the right external check. The numerical setup with regularized potential and 2D-DVR/split-operator is well established from their earlier papers, and they give enough detail that the method is reproducible.

Soft spots. The main one is Eq. (11). They drop the functional derivative of Ψ with respect to ion position in the ion force. That is a Pulay-type term, and near a CIR the closed channel is nearly degenerate, so ∂Ψ/∂ri should be enhanced. The paper itself says including it is future work. Without an estimate of its size, the quantitative CIR-position shifts in Figs. 6–7 are not secured. The qualitative statement—micromotion doesn't destroy the resonance—probably survives, but I'd want the magnitude before trusting the control-knob claim.

Also, the criterion for extracting the CIR position from an oscillating g1D(t) is never stated precisely; they say "looking for singular points," but the figure shows g1D oscillating, so a reader can't reproduce the extraction. No numerical convergence or error discussion is given. And the classical ion description is borderline at the lowest initial energies: with ωi=2π×63 kHz, ℏωi/kB≈3 μK, and they go to E⊥,E‖→0; the requirement Ei≫ℏωi is violated at the low end. The 14% molecule formation probability also sits uneasily with the elastic T/R formulas, since that is an inelastic channel.

Citation pattern looks fine; self-citations point to the method they actually use. The paper is honest about what it leaves out. I'd send this to a competent referee—the questions above are answerable—but I would not treat the quantitative shifts as predictions until the dropped term in Eq. (11) is bounded.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies atom-ion confinement-induced resonances (CIRs) in a hybrid setup consisting of a Li atom in a quasi-1D optical waveguide and a Yb+ ion in a linear Paul trap. The atom is evolved quantum mechanically via the 3D time-dependent Schrödinger equation, while the ion motion is treated classically with a Hamilton equation whose potential includes the quantum expectation value of the atom-ion interaction. A regularized -C4/r4 potential is tuned to model different free-space scattering lengths. The authors calculate the forward scattering amplitude, transmission, reflection, and the effective 1D coupling constant g1D, and extract the CIR position as a function of the initial ion energy. They report that for zero initial ion energy the CIR coincides with earlier static-ion results, that for low ion energies the static approximation remains valid, and that at larger ion energies the CIR position shifts substantially while perfect transmission/reflection features persist. The central claim is that intrinsic micromotion is not detrimental to the CIR and that the ion kinetic energy controlled by the rf fields provides a new tuning knob.

Significance. If the quantitative claims hold, this is an important step for atom-ion CIR physics: it extends previous static-ion predictions to a realistic Paul-trap environment, identifies a potentially useful control parameter, and is formulated for the experimentally relevant 6Li-174Yb+ pair with concrete trap parameters. The paper benefits from external benchmarks: the zero-energy CIR is checked against the Olshanii value 1.4603 and against the authors' earlier static-ion results, which mitigates concerns about circularity. The numerical method is described in enough detail to be reproduced, although no code is made available. The qualitative statement that micromotion shifts but does not necessarily destroy the CIR is plausible and less sensitive to the technical approximations; however, the quantitative prediction that the CIR position can be controlled by ion kinetic energy rests on an unquantified approximation in the ion force, as detailed below.

major comments (3)

[Sec. II.C, Eq. (11)] The omission of the functional derivatives ∂Ψ/∂ξi in the ion force is a load-bearing approximation that is not quantified. Near the CIR the closed transverse channel is almost degenerate with the entrance channel, so the atom wavefunction depends strongly on the instantaneous ion position; the discarded term 2Re⟨∂Ψ/∂ri|V|Ψ⟩ can then be of the same order as the retained Hellmann-Feynman term ⟨Ψ|∂V/∂ri|Ψ⟩. The ion trajectory generated by this force determines the CIR shifts in Figs. 5–7, and Section IV explicitly defers inclusion of the functional derivatives to future work. I request either a numerical estimate of the discarded term on a representative trajectory, a convergence check, or a consistency test (for example, energy conservation of the coupled atom-ion system) before the quantitative control claim can be regarded as secure.
[Sec. III, Figs. 3–7] The criterion for locating the CIR singularity from the time-dependent observables is not stated. The authors report CIR positions obtained "by looking for the positions of the singular points in the coupling constant g1D(E⊥,E∥)", but Figs. 3 and 4 show that g1D(t), T(t), and f+(t) oscillate in the asymptotic region with periods set by 2π/(2ω⊥), ωi, or Ωrf depending on the interaction strength. No time window, averaging procedure, or finite-grid method is given for extracting a single asymptotic value, and no error bars or numerical uncertainties are reported for the CIR positions in Figs. 5–7. Since the central quantitative result is the location of the CIR as a function of ion energy, this extraction ambiguity needs to be resolved in the revised manuscript.
[Sec. II.C] The classical treatment of the ion is justified by the condition Ei ≫ ℏωi, but the representative nonzero-energy case E⊥ = E∥ = 0.25E* = 4.25 μK does not clearly satisfy this inequality: with ωi = 2π×63 kHz, ℏωi/kB ≈ 3 μK, giving a ratio of only about 1.4. The paper should discuss whether the classical-ion approximation is reliable at the energies where the CIR shift begins to appear, and whether the low-energy regime E⊥ ≤ 1 μK is affected by this marginal validity.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract] The phrase "additional mean for tuning" should read "additional means for tuning".
[References] Reference [5] lists the page as "03500"; the correct page for Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 035003 (2019) should be given.
[Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 captions] The captions refer to "black cycles" and "open cycles"; these should be "black circles" and "open circles".
[Reference [46]] The journal name in reference [46] is misspelled as "Hypeﬁne Int." and should be "Hyperfine Interact.".
[Sec. III] The value of E* is inconsistent: the text near Fig. 2 states E⊥ = E∥ = 0.25E* = 4.25 μK, which implies E*/kB ≈ 17 μK, while later in Sec. III the s-wave threshold is quoted as E* ≃ 6.4 μK. Please reconcile these numbers.
[Sec. III] The relation between the CIR position a⊥/as = 1.544 used in Fig. 3 and the zero-range value 1.4603 quoted in Fig. 5 should be stated explicitly, since both are described as the static-ion CIR; presumably the difference is a finite-range correction proportional to R*/a⊥, but this is not explained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CIR-position shifts are new numerical outputs, and the zero-energy/static-ion limits are checked against the independent Olshanii value and prior static-ion benchmarks.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The potential parameters b and c are chosen to produce a specified free-space scattering length as, and then the coupled time-dependent Schrödinger equation for the atom and classical Hamilton equations for the ion are integrated to extract the scattering amplitude f+(k), the transmission T, and the effective coupling g1D. The CIR position is identified as the divergence of g1D or T→0. The target claim, namely that the CIR position shifts with initial ion kinetic energy, is not used to fit any parameter; it is an output of the simulation. The zero-energy, static-ion limits are compared with the independent Olshanii value a⊥/as = 1.4603 (Ref. [22]) and with the authors' earlier static-ion calculation (Ref. [25]), which serve as external benchmarks rather than as premises that force the new result. The regularized potential (Eq. 3) is reused from Ref. [44] and the semiclassical propagation method from Refs. [45-48]; these are numerical and modelling tools, not assertions of the predicted resonance shift. The only notable caveat is the neglect of the functional derivatives ∂Ψ/∂ri in Eq. (11), which the authors explicitly state will be taken into account in future work. That is a quantitative correctness limitation, not a circular reduction: the paper's equations do not define the predicted CIR shift in terms of the input parameters by construction. Accordingly, no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities. It relies on a model potential, a semiclassical approximation, and standard CIR scattering theory. The main free parameter set is the short-range potential pair (b,c) used to dial the scattering length; the classical-ion approximation and the neglect of wavefunction functional derivatives are the most consequential axioms.

free parameters (1)

b and c (regularized potential parameters) = varied to set free-space scattering length as
Short-range parameters of the model potential in Eq. (3); the authors vary them to realize desired ratios a_perp/as. The central CIR position results depend on as and R* through this model potential.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The atom-ion interaction at large distances is the polarization potential -C4/r^4.
Standard for ion-atom collisions; C4 is computed from static polarizability and used throughout the paper.
ad hoc to paper The regularized potential (3) with parameters b and c can represent any scattering length as while preserving the -C4/r^4 tail.
Model potential introduced in Ref. [44]; the paper assumes the CIR position depends only on as and R*, not on the short-range form of the potential.
ad hoc to paper The ion motion can be treated classically with the neglect of functional derivatives ∂Ψ/∂ri = 0 (Eq. 11).
Explicit approximation in the Hamilton equations; justified by separation of energy/time scales, but the paper does not quantify the error.
standard math The initial atom wave-packet is sufficiently monochromatic and the scattering amplitude extraction of Eq. (17) with e^{i(k-kf)z} approximately 1 is valid.
Follows Ref. [24]; numerically verified by checking the mean atomic energy stays below the 3ℏω_perp threshold.
domain assumption The elastic scattering approximation for T and R in Eq. (18) holds.
Current conservation is assumed; however, the simulation finds roughly 14% molecule formation for the attractive case, making this assumption inconsistent for that case.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impact of ion motion on atom-ion confinement-induced resonances in hybrid traps." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SG3EXRLZ

@misc{pith2026190801151,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impact of ion motion on atom-ion confinement-induced resonances in hybrid traps},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SG3EXRLZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01151}
}

read the original abstract

We investigate confinement-induced resonances in atom-ion quantum mixtures confined in hybrid traps. Specifically, we consider an ion confined in a time-dependent radio-frequency Paul trap with linear geometry, while the atom is constrained to move into a quasi-one-dimensional optical waveguide within the ion trap. We evaluate the impact of the ion intrinsic micromotion on the resonance position. Thus, we solve the atom-ion dynamics semiclassically, namely the atom dynamics is governed by the three-dimensional time-dependent Schr\"odinger equation, whereas the ion motion is described by the classical Hamilton equations. We find that the energy of the ion provided by the oscillating radiofrequency fields can affect the resonance position substantially. Notwithstanding, the peculiar phenomenology of those resonances regarding perfect transmission and reflection is still observable. These findings indicate that the intrinsic micromotion of the ion is not detrimental for the occurrence of the resonance and that its position can be controlled by the radiofrequency fields. This provides an additional mean for tuning atom-ion interactions in low spatial dimensions. The study represents an important advancement in the scattering physics of compound atomic quantum systems in time-dependent traps.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01151 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: (color online) The calculated evolution in time of the ion trajectory (left column), being initially at the state with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: (color online) The calculated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: (color online) The calculated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: (color online) The calculated position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6: The dependence of the CIR position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7: The dependence of the CIR position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

[25]

Melezhik and A

V.S. Melezhik and A. Negretti, Phys. Rev. A 94, 022704 (2016)

work page 2016
[1]

Cˆ ot´ e, V

R. Cˆ ot´ e, V. Kharchenko, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 093001 (2002)

work page 2002
[2]

J. M. Schurer, A. Negretti, and P. Schmelcher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 063001 (2017)

work page 2017
[3]

Cˆ ot´ e, Phys

R. Cˆ ot´ e, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 5316 (2000)

work page 2000
[4]

Mukherjee, Phys

R. Mukherjee, Phys. Rev. A 100, 013403 (2019)

work page 2019
[5]

Tomza, K

M. Tomza, K. Jachymski, R. Gerritsma, A. Negretti, T. Calarco, Z. Idziaszek, and P. S. Julienne, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 03500 (2019)

work page 2019
[6]

Kleinbach, F

K.S. Kleinbach, F. Engel, T. Dieterle, R. L¨ ow, T. Pfau, and F. Meinert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 193401 (2018)

work page 2018
[7]

Cetina, A.T

M. Cetina, A.T. Grier, and V. Vuletic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 253201 (2012)

work page 2012

Show all 68 references

[8]

L. H. Nguyen, A. Kalev, M. D. Barrett, and B.-G. En- glert, Phys. Rev. A 85, 052718 (2012)

2012
[9]

Joger, A

J. Joger, A. Negretti, and R. Gerritsma, Phys. Rev. A 89, 063621 (2014)

2014
[10]

F¨ urst and N.V

H.A. F¨ urst and N.V. Ewald, T. Secker, J. Joger, T. Feld- ker, and R Gerritsma, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Phys. 51, 195001 (2018)

2018
[11]

Tomza, Ch

M. Tomza, Ch. P. Koch, and R. Moszynski, Phys. Rev. A 91, 042706 (2015)

2015
[12]

Feldker, H

T. Feldker, H. F¨ urst, H. Hirzler, N. V. Ewald, M. Mazzanti, D. Wiater, M. Tomza, and R. Gerritsma, arXiv:1907.10926

1907 arXiv
[13]

Ewald, T

N.V. Ewald, T. Feldker, H. Hirzler, H. F¨ urst, and R. Gerritsma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 253401 (2019)

2019
[14]

S. Haze, J. Wolf, M. Deiß, L. Wang, G. Raithel, and J.-H. Denschlag, arXiv:1901.11069

1901 arXiv
[15]

Engel, T

F. Engel, T. Dieterle, T. Schmid, C. Tomschitz, C. Veit, N. Zuber, R. L¨ ow, T. Pfau, and F. Meinert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 193401 (2018)

2018
[16]

Secker, R

T. Secker, R. Gerritsma, A.W. Glaetzle, and A. Negretti, Phys. Rev. A 94, 013420 (2016)

2016
[17]

Secker, N

T. Secker, N. Ewald, J. Joger, H. F¨ urst, T. Feldker, and R. Gerritsma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 263201 (2017)

2017
[18]

Idziaszek, T

Z. Idziaszek, T. Calarco, P. S. Julienne, and A. Simoni, Phys. Rev. A 79, 010702(R) (2009)

2009
[19]

Doerk, Z

H. Doerk, Z. Idziaszek, and T. Calarco, Phys. Rev. A 81, 012708 (2010)

2010
[20]

Bissbort, D

U. Bissbort, D. Cocks, A. Negretti, Z. Idziaszek, T. Calarco, F. Schmidt-Kaler, W. Hofstetter, and R. Ger- ritsma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 080501 (2013)

2013
[21]

Tempere, and J

Casteels, W., J. Tempere, and J. Devreese, J. Low Temp. Phys. 162, 266 (2011)

2011
[22]

Olshanii, Phys

M. Olshanii, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 938 (1998)

1998
[23]

Melezhik, and P

J.I Kim, V.S. Melezhik, and P. Schmelcher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 193203 (2006)

2006
[24]

Melezhik, J.I

V.S. Melezhik, J.I. Kim, and P. Schmelcher, Phys. Rev. A 76, 053611 (2007)

2007
[26]

Sroczy` nska, T

M. Sroczy` nska, T. Wasak, K. Jachymski, T. Calarco, and Z. Idziaszek, Phys. Rev. A 98, 012708 (2018)

2018
[27]

Shadmehri and V.S

S. Shadmehri and V.S. Melezhik, Phys. Rev. A 99, 032705 (2019)

2019
[28]

Haller, M

E. Haller, M. Gustavsson, M. J. Mark, J. G. Danzl, R. Hart, G. Pupillo, H.-C. N¨ agerl, Science325, 1224 (2009)

2009
[29]

Schurer, R

J.M. Schurer, R. Gerritsma, P. Schmelcher, and A. Ne- gretti, Phys. Rev. A 93, 063602 (2016)

2016
[30]

Ebgha, S

M. Ebgha, S. Saeidian, P. Schmelcher, and A. Negretti, arXiv:1902.09594

1902 arXiv
[31]

Michelsen, M

A. Michelsen, M. Valiente, N.T. Zinner, and A. Negretti, arXiv:1907.07090

1907 arXiv
[32]

Jachymski, T

K. Jachymski, T. Wasak, Z. Idziaszek, P.S. Julienne, A. Negretti, and T. Calarco, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 013401 (2018)

2018
[33]

Wasak, K

T. Wasak, K. Jachymski, T. Calarco, and A. Negretti, Phys. Rev. A 97, 052701 (2018)

2018
[34]

Dehkharghani, E

A.S. Dehkharghani, E. Rico, N.T. Zinner, and A. Ne- gretti, Phys. Rev. A 96, 043611 (2017)

2017
[35]

Negretti, R

A. Negretti, R. Gerritsma, Z. Idziaszek, F. Schmidt- Kaler, and T. Calarco, Phys. Rev. B 90, 155426 (2014)

2014
[36]

Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, P.R

D. Gonz´ alez-Cuadra, P.R. Grzybowski, A. Dauphin, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 090402 (2018)

2018
[37]

Gonzlez-Cuadra, A

D. Gonzlez-Cuadra, A. Dauphin, P.R. Grzybowski, P. Wjcik, M. Lewenstein, and A. Bermudez, Phys. Rev. B 99, 045139 (2019)

2019
[38]

Pupillo, A

G. Pupillo, A. Griessner, A. Micheli, M. Ortner, D.- W. Wang, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 050402 (2008)

2008
[39]

Ratschbacher, C

L. Ratschbacher, C. Sias, L. Carcagni, J. M. Silver, C. Zipkes, and M. K¨ ohl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 160402 (2013)

2013
[40]

F¨ urst, T

H. F¨ urst, T. Feldker, N. V. Ewald, J. Joger, M. Tomza, and R. Gerritsma, Phys. Rev. A 98, 012713 (2018)

2018
[41]

Sikorsky, M

T. Sikorsky, M. Morita, Z. Meir, A. A. Buchachenko, R. Ben-shlomi, N. Akerman, E. Narevicius, T. V. Tscherbul, and R. Ozeri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 173402 (2018)

2018
[42]

T. V. Tscherbul, P. Brumer, and A. A. Buchachenko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 143201 (2016)

2016
[43]

Idziaszek, T

Z. Idziaszek, T. Calarco, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A 76, 033409 (2007)

2007
[44]

Krych and Z

M. Krych and Z. Idziaszek, Phys. Rev. A 91, 023430 (2015)

2015
[45]

Melezhik and P

V.S. Melezhik and P. Schmelcher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1870 (2000)

2000
[46]

Melezhik, Hypeﬁne Int

V.S. Melezhik, Hypeﬁne Int. 138, 351 (2001)

2001
[47]

Melezhik, J.S

V.S. Melezhik, J.S. Cohen, and C.Y. Hu, Phys. Rev. A 69, 032709 (2004)

2004
[48]

Melezhik and L.A

V.S. Melezhik and L.A. Sevastianov, Analytical and Computational Methods in Probability Theory, LNCS 10684, 449 (2017)

2017
[49]

Joger, H

J. Joger, H. F¨ urst, N. Ewald, T. Feldker, M. Tomza, and R. Gerritsma, Phys. Rev. A 96, 030703(R) (2017)

2017
[50]

S. Haze, R. Saito, M. Fujinaga, and T. Mukaiyama, Phys. Rev. A 91, 032709 (2015)

2015
[51]

S. Haze, M. Sasakawa, R. Saito, R. Nakai, and T. Mukaiyama, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 043401 (2018)

2018
[52]

Saito, S

R. Saito, S. Haze, M. Sasakawa, R. Nakai, M. Raoult, H. Da Silva, Jr., O. Dulieu, and T. Mukaiyama, Phys. Rev. A 95, 032709 (2017)

2017
[53]

Schmidt, A

J. Schmidt, A. Lambrecht, P. Weckesser, M. Debatin, L. Karpa, and T. Schaetz, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021028 (2018)

2018
[54]

Leibfried, R

D. Leibfried, R. Blatt, C. Monroe, and D. Wineland, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 281 (2003)

2003
[55]

Berkeland, J.D

D.J. Berkeland, J.D. Miller, J.C. Berquist, W.M. Itano, and D.J. Wineland, J. Appl. Phys. 83, 5025 (1998)

1998
[56]

Landau and E.M

L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, in Mechanics (Pergamon, New York, 1976). pp.93-95

1976
[57]

J.I. Kim, J. Schmiedmayer, and P. Schmelcher, Phys. Rev. A 72, 042711 (2005). 15

2005
[58]

Bergeman, M.G

T. Bergeman, M.G. Moore, and M. Olshanii, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 163201 (2003)

2003
[59]

DeVoe, Phys

R.G. DeVoe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 063001 (2009)

2009
[60]

Melezhik and P

V.S. Melezhik and P. Schmelcher, New J. Phys. 11, 073031 (2009)

2009
[61]

Stock, I

R. Stock, I. H. Deutsch, and E. L. Bolda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 183201 (2003)

2003
[62]

Melezhik, AIP Conference Proceedings 1479 (2012) p.1200

V.S. Melezhik, AIP Conference Proceedings 1479 (2012) p.1200

2012
[63]

Melezhik, A computational method for quantum dynamics of a three-dimensional atom in strong ﬁelds, in Atoms and Molecules in Strong External Fields , Eds

V.S. Melezhik, A computational method for quantum dynamics of a three-dimensional atom in strong ﬁelds, in Atoms and Molecules in Strong External Fields , Eds. P. Schmelcher and W. Schweizer (Plenum, New-York and London, 1998) p.89

1998
[64]

Melezhik, Phys

V.S. Melezhik, Phys. Lett. A 230, 203 (1997)

1997
[65]

Melezhik and D

V.S. Melezhik and D. Baye, Phys. Rev. C59, 3232 (1999)

1999
[66]

Melezhik, EPJ Web of Conf

V.S. Melezhik, EPJ Web of Conf. 108, 01008 (2016)

2016
[67]

Hairer, Ch

E. Hairer, Ch. Lubich, and G. Wanner. Geometric Nu- merical integration. Structure-Preserving Algorithms for Ordinary Diﬀerential Equations (Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2006).Ch.I

2006
[68]

We have veriﬁed this fact by numerical simulations for our parameters as well

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [25]

Melezhik and A

V.S. Melezhik and A. Negretti, Phys. Rev. A 94, 022704 (2016)

work page 2016

[2] [1]

Cˆ ot´ e, V

R. Cˆ ot´ e, V. Kharchenko, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 093001 (2002)

work page 2002

[3] [2]

J. M. Schurer, A. Negretti, and P. Schmelcher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 063001 (2017)

work page 2017

[4] [3]

Cˆ ot´ e, Phys

R. Cˆ ot´ e, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 5316 (2000)

work page 2000

[5] [4]

Mukherjee, Phys

R. Mukherjee, Phys. Rev. A 100, 013403 (2019)

work page 2019

[6] [5]

Tomza, K

M. Tomza, K. Jachymski, R. Gerritsma, A. Negretti, T. Calarco, Z. Idziaszek, and P. S. Julienne, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 03500 (2019)

work page 2019

[7] [6]

Kleinbach, F

K.S. Kleinbach, F. Engel, T. Dieterle, R. L¨ ow, T. Pfau, and F. Meinert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 193401 (2018)

work page 2018

[8] [7]

Cetina, A.T

M. Cetina, A.T. Grier, and V. Vuletic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 253201 (2012)

work page 2012