Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 111 references

Spectroscopic characterization of aluminum monofluoride with relevance to laser cooling and trapping

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 AlF is a practical molecule for laser cooling: Q-lines closed, one repump gives about 10^4 photons

desk verdict Excellent, data-rich spectroscopy that makes a strong case for AlF as a laser-cooling candidate, but the flagship '10^4 photons with one repump' number rests on an unmeasured v''=2 branching ratio that the paper's own data suggest could be off by an order of magnitude. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11774 v1 pith:GNCDJ2KY submitted 2019-08-30 physics.atom-ph physics.chem-ph

S. Truppe , S. Marx , S. Kray , M. Doppelbauer , S. Hofsäss , H. C. Schewe , N. Walter , J. Pérez-Ríos
show 2 more authors
B. G. Sartakov G. Meijer
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phphysics.chem-ph
keywords lasercoolingaluminummonofluoridemolecularspectroscopyhyperfinestructureFranck-Condonfactorsopticalcyclingelectricdipolemomentmagneto-opticaltrap
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 tries to establish that aluminum monofluoride (AlF) is a practical molecule for laser cooling and trapping, with a single vibrational repump laser enabling roughly ten thousand scattered photons. It grounds that claim in a full spectroscopic characterization of the X, A, and metastable a states: kHz-level hyperfine and rotational structure, an A-state lifetime of $1.90\pm0.03$ ns, vibrational branching to $v''=1$ of $(5.60\pm0.02)\times10^{-3}$, a spin-forbidden A-to-a loss near $10^{-7}$ per cycle, and electric dipole moments in all three states. These numbers set every known loss channel in the optical cycling transition, and together they imply that Q-line cycling is rotationally closed and bright enough to slow a cryogenic buffer-gas or supersonic beam over a few centimeters. If correct, AlF becomes a credible route to high-density ultracold dipolar molecular samples.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Q-line of a $^1\Pi \leftarrow {}^1\Sigma^+$ electronic transition. Angular-momentum selection rules make every Q-line rotationally closed, so a molecule excited on Q(1) cannot decay into other rotational levels of the ground state except through a hyperfine-mixing leak below $10^{-5}$. Around that closed line the paper assembles the quantities that fix the photon budget: the radiative lifetime, the off-diagonal vibrational branching ratio, the spin-forbidden electronic branching ratio, and the hyperfine-resolved level structure that tells which laser frequencies address which components. The measured electric dipole moments in the X, a, and A states let the same Hamiltonian describe behaviour in external electric fields up to 150 kV/cm.

What would settle it

Run a cycling test on a slow AlF beam: drive the Q(1) line with the main laser plus one 0-1 repump and count fluorescence photons per molecule until the signal drops. The paper's numbers predict about $10^4$ photons before $v''=2$ accumulation dominates; a measured photon budget an order of magnitude smaller would invalidate the single-repump scheme.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the $A\,^1\Pi - X\,^1\Sigma^+$ transition of AlF meets the requirements for laser cooling: all Q-lines are rotationally closed, nearly all decay returns to the vibrational ground state, and the residual loss channels are small. Specifically, the A-state lifetime is measured as $1.90\pm0.03$ ns, the off-diagonal vibrational branching to $v''=1$ is $(5.60\pm0.02)\times10^{-3}$, the hyperfine-induced rotational leak is below $10^{-5}$, and the spin-forbidden decay into the metastable $a\,^3\Pi$ state is about $10^{-7}$ per cycle. With one repump laser on the 0-1 band, the molecule can scatter about $10^4$ photons before accumulating in $v''=2$, a velocity change of 382 m/s, enough to stop a buffer-gas or supersonic beam. The same closed-Q-line structure on the $a\,^3\Pi - X\,^1\Sigma^+$ band gives a route to narrow-line cooling toward sub-microkelvin temperatures.

Load-bearing premise

The single-repump cooling budget rests on the measured vibrational branching ratio $A_{01}/A_{11}=(5.59\pm0.02)\times10^{-3}$ being a true population ratio; if the two laser-induced-fluorescence signals used to extract it were not strictly linear in laser power or the two beams were not identically overlapping Gaussian modes, the ratio would be biased and the number of repump lasers required would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single repump laser on the 0-1 band yields about $10^4$ scattered photons per molecule, a velocity change of 382 m/s, sufficient to slow a cryogenic buffer-gas beam or a supersonic beam to rest.
  • With the measured A-state decay rate of $2\pi\times 83.8$ MHz, the stopping distance for a 150 m/s buffer-gas beam is about 2 cm and for a 300 m/s supersonic beam about 8 cm.
  • Because the $a\,^3\Pi - X\,^1\Sigma^+$ Q-lines are also rotationally closed, a second-stage narrow-line cooling scheme on that band is feasible, with a natural final temperature in the microkelvin range.
  • The Stark shift-to-mass ratio in the $a\,^3\Pi_1$, J=1 level is only about 20% below metastable CO, and AlF can additionally be manipulated by electric fields in its singlet ground state.
  • The complete set of hyperfine, rotational, and dipole-moment parameters provides a benchmark for quantum-chemistry calculations of this molecule.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Not drawn in the paper: if the $10^4$-photon budget survives a direct cycling test, AlF should reach magneto-optical trap densities far beyond those typical of association-based ultracold samples, because its bimolecular loss channel is strongly endothermic.
  • A direct cycling measurement with one repump would separate the measured vibrational branching from any hidden loss and could be performed with present laser technology by observing fluorescence decay as a function of scattered photon number.
  • The two nuclear spins ($I_{\rm Al}=5/2$, $I_{\rm F}=1/2$) in the most abundant isotopomer are fully resolved here; that combination may make AlF useful for quantum-state-controlled collisions or for precision tests needing a heavy molecule with strong internal interactions.
  • The near-degeneracy of the F=2 and F=3 hyperfine components in the ground rotational level, split by less than 1 kHz, could serve as a sensitive magnetometer or a clock-like transition if coherence can be maintained.
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 paper reports a comprehensive spectroscopic characterization of aluminum monofluoride (AlF) with the explicit goal of assessing its suitability for laser cooling and trapping. Using a pulsed molecular beam with laser-radio-frequency/microwave multiple-resonance and laser-induced-fluorescence detection, the authors determine the hyperfine structure and rotational constants of the X1Σ+, a3Π, and A1Π states; measure the radiative lifetime of the A1Π state; measure the vibrational branching ratios from A1Π to X1Σ+ v''=1; observe for the first time the spin-forbidden A1Π→a3Π transition; and measure the electric dipole moments in all three states. The central conclusion is that AlF is an excellent candidate for laser cooling on any Q-line of the A1Π-X1Σ+ band and for trapping at high densities, with a quantitative projection that about 10^4 photons can be scattered with a single vibrational repump laser.

Significance. If the quantitative claims hold, this is a substantial and useful contribution to the molecular laser-cooling community. The paper provides a large amount of high-quality experimental data: 138 rf/microwave transition frequencies with loop-closure consistency checks, a measured A-state lifetime (1.90±0.03 ns) in agreement with theory (1.89 ns), two independent measurements of the vibrational branching ratio, the first measurement of the weak A1Π→a3Π loss channel at the 10^-7 level, and accurate electric dipole moments in three electronic states. These data constitute a solid foundation for designing laser-slowing and MOT schemes for AlF and serve as a benchmark for ab initio calculations. However, the quantitative laser-cooling projection depends on an unmeasured vibrational branching ratio to X1Σ+ v''=2 and on a measured A01 branching ratio that shows a sizable internal discrepancy; these issues need to be addressed before the central quantitative claims can be fully endorsed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section XI and Table VI] The statement that 'with one vibrational repump laser it is possible to scatter about 10^4 photons' is set by the branching ratio A02/A00, but A02/A00 is never measured; Table VI lists only the calculated value 0.1×10^-3. The same table shows that the calculated A01 values (4.7×10^-3 and 4.8×10^-3) underestimate the measured values (7.3±1×10^-3 and 5.59±0.02×10^-3), so the theoretical vibrational branching pattern is not validated at the factor-of-two level needed for this projection. If A02/A00 were 1×10^-3 rather than 0.1×10^-3, the single-repump photon number would be about 10^3, which would not slow a 300 m/s supersonic beam to rest. The qualitative 'excellent candidate' claim survives, but the quantitative photon budget should be explicitly tied to a measured or bounded A02/A00, or the text should state clearly that this number relies on an unverified calculation.
  2. [Section IX B and Table VI] The two experimental determinations of the A1Π→X1Σ+ vibrational branching ratio, A01/A00=(7.3±1)×10^-3 from dispersed fluorescence and A01/A11=(5.59±0.02)×10^-3 from the power-ratio method, differ by about 30%, which is much larger than the quoted uncertainty of the second method. The abstract and Section XI quote the latter value as being 'in good agreement with theoretical predictions,' but the former is about 55% above the calculated 4.7×10^-3. The paper does not discuss this internal discrepancy. Because this ratio directly sets the number of repump lasers required for the cooling scheme, the authors should either reconcile the two measurements or propagate the difference into a systematic uncertainty on the laser-cooling design.
  3. [Section IX B, second method] The power-ratio measurement of A01/A11 assumes that the laser-induced fluorescence signals are strictly proportional to laser power, that the two laser beams have identical Gaussian spatial profiles and overlap, and that the excitation is unsaturated. The paper reports that 16 power pairs and two rotational lines were used, but it does not show a linearity plot or a power-dependence residual. Given the 30% discrepancy with the dispersed-fluorescence method, this assumption is not adequately supported. The authors should provide the power-scaling data or add a systematic uncertainty that accounts for possible saturation and beam-mismatch effects.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IX B] The relation between the measured emission amplitude ratio ν01A01/(ν00A00)=(7±3)×10^-3 and the quoted A01/A00=(7.3±1)×10^-3 should be written out explicitly, since the conversion between detected amplitude and Einstein A coefficient is not shown.
  2. [Section VI and Table I] The new parameter eq0QLS(Al) is introduced to obtain a kHz-level fit, and the text notes that it has not been described in the literature before. A short operator definition and a comment on its correlation with the other quadrupole parameters would help readers reproduce the fit and assess its physical significance.
  3. [Figure 6 caption] The F-quantum-number assignments in the R2(0) spectrum are said to be based on Section VI, but the assignment logic is not summarized in the caption. A one-sentence explanation would improve readability.
  4. [Abstract and Section XI] The quoted vibrational branching ratio is given as (5.60±0.02)×10^-3 in the abstract and as (5.6±0.02)×10^-3 in Section XI, but Table VI lists both A01/A00 and A01/A11. Please ensure the text consistently states which ratio is being quoted when discussing the repump requirement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all load-bearing quantities are measured directly, and derived cooling metrics are independent of those measurements.

full rationale

The paper's central claim that AlF is a good laser-cooling candidate rests on measured quantities: the A 1Pi, v=0 radiative lifetime (1.90 +/- 0.03 ns from a Voigt fit to LIF linewidths), the vibrational branching ratios (A01/A00 = (7.3 +/- 1)e-3 by dispersed LIF and A01/A11 = (5.59 +/- 0.02)e-3 by a two-laser power-ratio measurement), the spin-forbidden A-a branching ((1.0 +/- 0.1)e-7 from relative ToF amplitudes), and electric dipole moments from Stark-shift measurements. None of these is fitted to the cooling claim or derived from it. The hyperfine-mixing rotational loss below 1e-5 is computed from hyperfine parameters obtained from a Hamiltonian fit to line positions and line shapes; the loss itself is not a fitted parameter, so this is a genuine derived prediction rather than a self-defined one. The photon budget of ~1e4 photons with one repump uses the calculated A02/A00 = 0.1e-3 value listed in Table VI, which is admittedly not measured in this work; this is a validation gap or an unverified calculation, but not circularity, because the calculation is not tuned to reproduce the 1e4-photon claim. Self-citations to rate models and MOT proposals (e.g., Refs. [107-109]) are used only to translate the measured spontaneous decay rate into stopping distances and capture velocities; they do not determine any measured spectroscopic constant. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained: measurement inputs, fitted Hamiltonian parameters, and calculated cooling metrics are distinct, and no prediction reduces by construction to an input or to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central feasibility claim rests on measured transition frequencies, lifetimes, branching ratios, and dipole moments, which are direct observables with stated uncertainties. The main assumptions are the completeness of the effective Hamiltonian, the resemblance-based assignment of the A-state hyperfine structure, the NO-based Doppler calibration, and the linearity of LIF signals in the power-ratio method. The ad hoc eq0QLS term and the polarizability anisotropy are additional fit-driven inputs without independent evidence.

free parameters (4)
  • a(Al) in A1Pi state = 113 +/- 5 MHz
    Fitted to LIF spectra of the A1Pi v=0 state (Sec. VIII). Used to calculate the hyperfine-mixing rotational loss of ~1e-5 that appears in the laser-cooling analysis.
  • a(F) in A1Pi state = 181 +/- 5 MHz
    Fitted to the same LIF spectra; affects the simulated A-state line shapes and the hyperfine-mixing loss.
  • Gaussian FWHM in A-state Voigt fit = 10 MHz (from NO calibration)
    Fixed in the fit of A-state LIF lines (Sec. VIII); if the actual AlF Doppler width were larger, the extracted Lorentzian width and hyperfine parameters would shift somewhat, though the 84 MHz Lorentzian is robust.
  • Polarizability anisotropy alpha2 in a3Pi state = -1.25 Å^3
    Introduced ad hoc in Sec. X to reproduce the high-field Stark spectrum at 152.5 kV/cm (Fig. 21); no independent constraint is provided.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The effective Hamiltonian (Eqs. 2-6) with tensor-operator matrix elements correctly describes the rovibronic, fine, and hyperfine structure of AlF in the X, a, and A states.
    Used in all fits and simulations (Secs. V-X); any missing interaction term would bias the reported constants and derived loss rates.
  • ad hoc to paper The hyperfine structure of the A1Pi J=1 level is assigned by resemblance to the a3Pi1 J=1 level.
    Sec. VIII: the F and F1 assignments are inferred from the similarity of the Q-branch spectrum to Fig. 6, not from an independent measurement.
  • domain assumption The residual Doppler width of the AlF beam is bounded by the NO calibration (12 MHz FWHM), fixed as 10 MHz in the Voigt fit.
    Sec. VIII: NO lines at a similar wavelength and same beam conditions set the Gaussian width; the lifetime extraction is insensitive at this scale, but the hyperfine parameters are more sensitive.
  • domain assumption The photoionization cross-section from the A1Pi state equals the measured a3Pi value (3.6 +/- 0.5)x10^-17 cm^2.
    Sec. IX D: used to estimate the photoionization loss rate of 4 s^-1; even order-of-magnitude uncertainty leaves the loss negligible (2x10^-9).
  • domain assumption LIF signals in the power-ratio measurement are proportional to laser power for both vibrational bands.
    Sec. IX B: the ratio of Einstein B coefficients is set equal to the ratio of laser powers that equalize LIF amplitudes; saturation or optical pumping would bias this ratio.
invented entities (2)
  • Spin-orbit correction to the Al quadrupole coupling, eq0QLS(Al)
    purpose: To fit the hyperfine levels of the a3Pi state across different Omega-manifolds.
    Introduced in Sec. VI and stated to have not been described before; it is supported only by the improvement in the fit to the 138 measured transitions, with no external prediction or separate measurement.
  • Polarizability anisotropy alpha2 = -1.25 Å^3 for the a3Pi state
    purpose: To reproduce the high-field Stark spectrum at 152.5 kV/cm.
    Fitted from a single spectrum (Fig. 21); no independent measurement or ab initio value is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spectroscopic characterization of aluminum monofluoride with relevance to laser cooling and trapping." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GNCDJ2KY

@misc{pith2026190811774,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spectroscopic characterization of aluminum monofluoride with relevance to laser cooling and trapping},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GNCDJ2KY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11774}
}
abstract

Here we report on spectroscopic measurements of the aluminum monofluoride molecule (AlF) that are relevant to laser cooling and trapping experiments. We measure the detailed energy level structure of AlF in the X$^1\Sigma^+$ electronic ground state, in the A$^1\Pi$ state, and in the metastable a$^3\Pi$ state. We determine the rotational, vibrational and electronic branching ratios from the A$^1\Pi$ state. We also study how the rotational levels split and shift in external electric and magnetic fields. We find that AlF is an excellent candidate for laser cooling on any Q-line of the A$^1\Pi$ - X$^1\Sigma^+$ transition and for trapping at high densities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.11774 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Potential energy curves of the three electronic states of AlF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Energy level diagram of the relevant electronic states of AlF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Schematic of the experimental setup. A supersonic molecular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (17 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Excitation spectrum of the R [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Excitation spectrum of the a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows the Zeeman splitting of the F = 4,+ ← F = 4,− [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) High-resolution excitation spectrum of the Q [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Observed line shapes for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Hyperfine energy level diagram of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Hyperfine structure for rotational levels up to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Only the terms eq0Q, CI(Al), CI(F) and the nuclear-nuclear spin-spin interaction term D1 contribute to the hyperfine struc- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Hyperfine energy level structure for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Observed hyperfine resolved components of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Observed laser-induced fluorescence excitation spectra of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Hyperfine energy level structure for the J=1 rotational level [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Dispersed fluorescence spectrum after excitation on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_15.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. (a) Spectrum of the A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: , the measured R2(0) transition is shown for three dif￾ferent electric field strengths. The observed splitting of the J = 1 level in the a3Π, v = 0 state directly determines µ(a). The entire spectrum shifts to higher frequency with increasing electric field due to the…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21. Spectrum of the R [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_21.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: The dashed contour indicates the 1σ standard devi￾ation. The most probable values for the dipole moments are indicated by the cross as µ(X) = 1.515 ± 0.004 Debye and µ(a) = 1.780±0.003 Debye. The value of µ(X)reported here is in agreement with the only experimental va…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    L. D. Carr, D. DeMille, R. V . Krems, and J. Ye, New Jour- nal of Physics 11 (2009), 10.1088/1367-2630/11/5/055049, arXiv:0904.3175

    work page Pith review arXiv 2009

  2. [2]

    J. L. Bohn, A. M. Rey, and J. Ye, Science 357, 1002 (2017), arXiv:1708.02806

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    R. V . Krems, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 10, 4079 (2008)

    2008

  4. [4]

    Balakrishnan, The Journal of Chemical Physics 145, 150901 (2016)

    N. Balakrishnan, The Journal of Chemical Physics 145, 150901 (2016)

    2016

  5. [5]

    DeMille, J

    D. DeMille, J. M. Doyle, and A. O. Sushkov, Science 357, 990 (2017), arXiv:1704.07928

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    M. S. Safronova, D. Budker, D. DeMille, D. F. J. Kimball, A. Derevianko, and C. W. Clark, Reviews of Modern Physics 90, 025008 (2018), arXiv:1710.01833

    arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    DeMille, Physical Review Letters 88, 067901 (2002), arXiv:0109083 [quant-ph]

    D. DeMille, Physical Review Letters 88, 067901 (2002), arXiv:0109083 [quant-ph]

    2002

  8. [8]

    S. A. Moses, J. P. Covey, M. T. Miecnikowski, D. S. Jin, and J. Ye, Nature Physics 13, 13 (2016), arXiv:1610.07711

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

Show all 111 references
  1. [9]

    J. A. Blackmore, L. Caldwell, P. D. Gregory, E. M. Bridge, R. Sawant, J. Aldegunde, J. Mur-Petit, D. Jaksch, J. M. Hut- son, B. E. Sauer, M. R. Tarbutt, and S. L. Cornish, Quantum Science and Technology4, 014010 (2018), arXiv:1804.02372

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    K.-K. Ni, T. Rosenband, and D. D. Grimes, Chemical Science 9, 6830 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    J. M. Sage, S. Sainis, T. Bergeman, and D. DeMille, Physical Review Letters 94, 203001 (2005), arXiv:0501008 [physics]

    2005

  4. [12]

    K.-K. Ni, S. Ospelkaus, M. H. G. de Miranda, A. Pe’er, B. Neyenhuis, J. J. Zirbel, S. Kotochigova, P. S. Julienne, D. S. Jin, and J. Ye, Science 322, 231 (2008), arXiv:0808.2963

    2008 arXiv

  5. [13]

    L. R. Liu, J. D. Hood, Y . Yu, J. T. Zhang, N. R. Hut- zler, T. Rosenband, and K.-K. Ni, Science 360, 900 (2018), arXiv:1804.04752

    2018 arXiv

  6. [14]

    J. D. Weinstein, R. DeCarvalho, T. Guillet, B. Friedrich, and J. M. Doyle, Nature 395, 148 (1998), arXiv:9810036 [physics]

    1998

  7. [15]

    H. L. Bethlem, G. Berden, and G. Meijer, Physical Review Letters 83, 1558 (1999)

    1999

  8. [16]

    Vanhaecke, U

    N. Vanhaecke, U. Meier, M. Andrist, B. H. Meier, and F. Merkt, Physical Review A75, 031402 (2007)

    2007

  9. [17]

    Narevicius, A

    E. Narevicius, A. Libson, C. G. Parthey, I. Chavez, J. Nare- vicius, U. Even, and M. G. Raizen, Physical Review A 77, 1 (2008), arXiv:0804.0219

    2008 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Zeppenfeld, B

    M. Zeppenfeld, B. G. U. Englert, R. Glöckner, A. Prehn, M. Mielenz, C. Sommer, L. D. van Buuren, M. Motsch, and G. Rempe, Nature 491, 570 (2012), arXiv:1208.0046 [physics.atom-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  11. [19]

    E. S. Shuman, J. F. Barry, and D. DeMille, Nature 467, 820 (2010), arXiv:1103.6004. 23

    2010 arXiv

  12. [20]

    M. T. Hummon, M. Yeo, B. K. Stuhl, A. L. Collopy, Y . Xia, and J. Ye, Physical Review Letters 110, 1 (2013), arXiv:1209.4069

    2013 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Zhelyazkova, A

    V . Zhelyazkova, A. Cournol, T. E. Wall, A. Matsushima, J. J. Hudson, E. A. Hinds, M. R. Tarbutt, and B. E. Sauer, Physical Review A 89, 053416 (2014), arXiv:1308.0421

    2014 arXiv

  14. [22]

    J. Lim, J. R. Almond, M. A. Trigatzis, J. A. Devlin, N. J. Fitch, B. E. Sauer, M. R. Tarbutt, and E. A. Hinds, Physical Review Letters 120, 123201 (2018), arXiv:1712.02868

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Kozyryev, L

    I. Kozyryev, L. Baum, K. Matsuda, B. L. Augenbraun, L. An- deregg, A. P. Sedlack, and J. M. Doyle, Physical Review Let- ters 118, 173201 (2017), arXiv:1609.02254

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    J. F. Barry, D. J. McCarron, E. B. Norrgard, M. H. Steinecker, and D. DeMille, Nature 512, 286 (2014), arXiv:1404.5680

    2014 arXiv

  17. [25]

    H. J. Williams, S. Truppe, M. Hambach, L. Caldwell, N. J. Fitch, E. A. Hinds, B. E. Sauer, and M. R. Tarbutt, New Jour- nal of Physics 19, 113035 (2017), arXiv:1706.07848

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Anderegg, B

    L. Anderegg, B. L. Augenbraun, E. Chae, B. Hemmerling, N. R. Hutzler, A. Ravi, A. Collopy, J. Ye, W. Ketterle, and J. M. Doyle, Physical Review Letters 119, 103201 (2017), arXiv:1705.10288

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    A. L. Collopy, S. Ding, Y . Wu, I. A. Finneran, L. Anderegg, B. L. Augenbraun, J. M. Doyle, and J. Ye, Physical Review Letters 121, 213201 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    Truppe, H

    S. Truppe, H. J. Williams, M. Hambach, L. Caldwell, N. J. Fitch, E. A. Hinds, B. E. Sauer, and M. R. Tarbutt, Nature Physics 13, 1173 (2017), arXiv:1703.00580

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    T. Chen, W. Bu, and B. Yan, Physical Review A 96, 053401 (2017), arXiv:1709.07602

    2017 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Aggarwal, H

    The NL-eEDM collaboration, P. Aggarwal, H. L. Bethlem, A. Borschevsky, M. Denis, K. Esajas, P. A. B. Haase, Y . Hao, S. Hoekstra, K. Jungmann, T. B. Meijknecht, M. C. Mooij, R. G. E. Timmermans, W. Ubachs, L. Willmann, and A. Za- para, The European Physical Journal D 72, 197 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Albrecht, M

    R. Albrecht, M. Scharwaechter, T. Sixt, L. Hofer, and T. Lan- gen, (2019), arXiv:1906.08798

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    G. Z. Iwata, R. L. McNally, and T. Zelevinsky, Physical Re- view A 96, 022509 (2017), arXiv:1705.00113

    2017 arXiv

  25. [33]

    E. B. Norrgard, E. R. Edwards, D. J. McCarron, M. H. Stei- necker, D. DeMille, S. S. Alam, S. K. Peck, N. S. Wadia, and L. R. Hunter, Physical Review A 95, 062506 (2017), arXiv:1702.02548

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    L. Xu, Y . Yin, B. Wei, Y . Xia, and J. Yin, Physical Review A 93, 013408 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    Kozyryev, T

    I. Kozyryev, T. C. Steimle, P. Yu, D.-T. Nguyen, and J. M. Doyle, New Journal of Physics 21, 052002 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Nakhate, T

    S. Nakhate, T. C. Steimle, N. H. Pilgram, and N. R. Hutzler, Chemical Physics Letters 715, 105 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    H. J. Williams, L. Caldwell, N. J. Fitch, S. Truppe, J. Rode- wald, E. A. Hinds, B. E. Sauer, and M. R. Tarbutt, Physical Review Letters 120, 163201 (2018), arXiv:1711.07355

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    D. J. McCarron, M. H. Steinecker, Y . Zhu, and D. DeMille, Physical Review Letters 121, 013202 (2018), arXiv:1712.01462

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Anderegg, B

    L. Anderegg, B. L. Augenbraun, Y . Bao, S. Burchesky, L. W. Cheuk, W. Ketterle, and J. M. Doyle, Nature Physics 14, 890 (2018), arXiv:1803.04571

    2018 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Anderegg, L

    L. Anderegg, L. W. Cheuk, Y . Bao, S. Burchesky, W. Ketterle, K.-K. Ni, and J. M. Doyle, , 1 (2019), arXiv:1902.00497

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    J. Lim, M. D. Frye, J. M. Hutson, and M. R. Tarbutt, Physical Review A 92, 053419 (2015), arXiv:1508.03987

    2015 arXiv

  34. [42]

    H. Son, J. J. Park, W. Ketterle, and A. O. Jamison, , 1 (2019), arXiv:1907.09630

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    B. K. Stuhl, M. T. Hummon, M. Yeo, G. Quéméner, J. L. Bohn, and J. Ye, Nature 492, 396 (2012), arXiv:1209.6343

    2012 arXiv

  36. [44]

    De Marco, G

    L. De Marco, G. Valtolina, K. Matsuda, W. G. Tobias, J. P. Covey, and J. Ye, Science 7230 (2019), 10.1126/sci- ence.aau7230

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    N. J. Fitch and M. R. Tarbutt, ChemPhysChem 17, 3609 (2016), arXiv:1609.05823

    2016 arXiv

  38. [46]

    A. M. Jayich, X. Long, and W. C. Campbell, Physical Review X 6, 041004 (2016), arXiv:1603.08053

    2016 arXiv

  39. [47]

    X. Wu, T. Gantner, M. Koller, M. Zeppenfeld, S. Chervenkov, and G. Rempe, Science 358, 645 (2017), arXiv:1710.05988

    2017 arXiv

  40. [48]

    S. E. Galica, L. Aldridge, D. J. McCarron, E. E. Eyler, and P. L. Gould, Physical Review A 98, 023408 (2018), arXiv:1804.04184

    2018 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Petzold, P

    M. Petzold, P. Kaebert, P. Gersema, M. Siercke, and S. Os- pelkaus, New Journal of Physics 20 (2018), 10.1088/1367- 2630/aab9f5, arXiv:1712.05157

    2018 arXiv

  42. [50]

    D. J. McCarron, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 51, 212001 (2018)

    2018

  43. [51]

    B. K. Stuhl, B. C. Sawyer, D. Wang, and J. Ye, Physical Re- view Letters 101, 243002 (2008), arXiv:0808.2171

    2008 arXiv

  44. [52]

    M. D. Di Rosa, The European Physical Journal D 31, 395 (2004)

    2004

  45. [53]

    R. J. Hendricks, D. A. Holland, S. Truppe, B. E. Sauer, and M. R. Tarbutt, Frontiers in Physics 2, 1 (2014), arXiv:1404.6174v1

    2014 arXiv

  46. [54]

    M. R. Tarbutt, Contemporary Physics 59, 356 (2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    Wells and I

    N. Wells and I. C. Lane, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 13, 19018 (2011)

    2011

  48. [56]

    S. R. Langhoff, C. W. Bauschlicher, and P. R. Taylor, The Journal of Chemical Physics 88, 5715 (1988)

    1988

  49. [57]

    H. C. Ko, M. A. Greenbaum, J. A. Blauer, and M. Farber, The Journal of Physical Chemistry 69, 2311 (1965)

    1965

  50. [58]

    R. F. Barrow, I. Kopp, and C. Malmberg, Physica Scripta 10, 86 (1974)

    1974

  51. [59]

    J. M. Brown, I. Kopp, C. Malmberg, and B. Rydh, Physica Scripta 17, 55 (1978)

    1978

  52. [60]

    D. R. Lide, The Journal of Chemical Physics 38, 2027 (1963)

    1963

  53. [61]

    D. R. Lide, The Journal of Chemical Physics 42, 1013 (1965)

    1965

  54. [62]

    F. C. Wyse, W. Gordy, and E. F. Pearson, The Journal of Chemical Physics 52, 3887 (1970)

    1970

  55. [63]

    Hoeft, F

    J. Hoeft, F. J. Lovas, E. Tiemann, and T. Törring, Zeitschrift für Naturforschung A 25, 1029 (1970)

    1970

  56. [64]

    Honerjäger and R

    R. Honerjäger and R. Tischer, Zeitschrift für Naturforschung A 29, 342 (1974)

    1974

  57. [65]

    G. D. Rochester, Physical Review 56, 305 (1939)

    1939

  58. [66]

    H. C. Rowlinson and R. F. Barrow, Proceedings of the Physical Society. Section A 66, 437 (1953)

    1953

  59. [67]

    S. M. Naudé and T. J. Hugo, Physical Review 90, 318 (1953)

    1953

  60. [68]

    S. M. Naudé and T. J. Hugo, Canadian Journal of Physics 31, 1106 (1953)

    1953

  61. [69]

    S. M. Naudé and T. J. Hugo, Canadian Journal of Physics 32, 246 (1954)

    1954

  62. [70]

    Rosenwaks, R

    S. Rosenwaks, R. Steele, and H. Broida, Chemical Physics Letters 38, 121 (1976)

    1976

  63. [71]

    I. Kopp, B. Lindgren, and C. Malmberg, Physica Scripta 14, 170 (1976)

    1976

  64. [72]

    Gross, C

    P. Gross, C. S. Campbell, P. J. C. Kent, and D. L. Levi, Dis- cussions of the Faraday Society 4, 206 (1948)

    1948

  65. [73]

    Gross, C

    P. Gross, C. Hayman, and D. L. Levi, Transactions of the Faraday Society 50, 477 (1954)

    1954

  66. [74]

    R. F. Barrow, J. W. C. Johns, and F. J. Smith, Transactions of the Faraday Society 52, 913 (1956). 24

    1956

  67. [75]

    Zhang, Infrared Spectroscopy of Molecules in the Gas Phase, Ph.D

    K. Zhang, Infrared Spectroscopy of Molecules in the Gas Phase, Ph.D. thesis, Waterloo (1997)

    1997

  68. [76]

    R. S. Freund and W. Klemperer, The Journal of Chemical Physics 43, 2422 (1965)

    1965

  69. [77]

    R. A. Frosch and H. M. Foley, Physical Review 88, 1337 (1952)

    1952

  70. [78]

    R. Zare, A. Schmeltekopf, W. Harrop, and D. Albritton, Jour- nal of Molecular Spectroscopy 46, 37 (1973)

    1973

  71. [79]

    Brown, E

    J. Brown, E. Colbourn, J. Watson, and F. Wayne, Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy 74, 294 (1979)

    1979

  72. [80]

    Brown and A

    J. Brown and A. Merer, Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy74, 488 (1979)

    1979

  73. [81]

    Brazier, R

    C. Brazier, R. Ram, and P. Bernath, Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy 120, 381 (1986)

    1986

  74. [82]

    Gordy and R

    W. Gordy and R. L. Cook, Microwave molecular spectra (Wi- ley, New York, 1984)

    1984

  75. [83]

    Carrington and J

    A. Carrington and J. A. Brown, Rotational spectroscopy of di- atomic molecules (Cambridge University Press, 2003)

    2003

  76. [84]

    C. H. Townes and A. L. Schawlow, Microwave Spectroscopy (Dover publications, Inc., New York, 1975)

    1975

  77. [85]

    Klaus, S

    T. Klaus, S. Takano, and G. Winnewisser, Astronomy and Astrophysics 322, L1 (1997)

    1997

  78. [86]

    J. P. Champion, M. Loete, and G. Pierre, Spectroscopy of the Earth’s atmosphere and interstellar medium , edited by K. N. Rao and A. Weber (Academic Press, Columbus, OH, 1992) pp. 339–422

    1992

  79. [87]

    Veldhoven, J

    J. Veldhoven, J. Küpper, H. L. Bethlem, B. Sartakov, A. J. A. Roij, and G. Meijer, The European Physical Journal D31, 337 (2004)

    2004

  80. [88]

    D. V . Dearden, R. D. Johnson, and J. W. Hudgens, The Journal of Physical Chemistry 95, 4291 (1991)

    1991

  81. [89]

    J. L. Kohl and W. H. Parkinson, The Astrophysical Journal 184, 641 (1973)

    1973

  82. [90]

    J. J. Gilijamse, S. Hoekstra, S. A. Meek, M. Metsälä, S. Y . T. van de Meerakker, G. Meijer, and G. C. Groenen- boom, The Journal of Chemical Physics 127, 221102 (2007), arXiv:0710.2240

    2007 arXiv

  83. [91]

    T. C. James, The Journal of Chemical Physics55, 4118 (1971)

    1971

  84. [92]

    Brown, J

    J. Brown, J. Hougen, K.-P. Huber, J. Johns, I. Kopp, H. Lefebvre-Brion, A. Merer, D. Ramsay, J. Rostas, and R. Zare, Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy 55, 500 (1975)

    1975

  85. [93]

    J. K. Watson, Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy 66, 500 (1977)

    1977

  86. [94]

    Veseth, Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics 3, 1677 (1970)

    L. Veseth, Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics 3, 1677 (1970)

    1970

  87. [95]

    L. G. Piper and L. M. Cowles, The Journal of Chemical Physics 85, 2419 (1986)

    1986

  88. [96]

    S. E. Maxwell, N. Brahms, R. DeCarvalho, D. R. Glenn, J. S. Helton, S. V . Nguyen, D. Patterson, J. Petricka, D. DeMille, and J. M. Doyle, Physical Review Letters 95, 173201 (2005)

    2005

  89. [97]

    N. R. Hutzler, H.-I. Lu, and J. M. Doyle, Chemical Reviews 112, 4803 (2012), arXiv:1111.2841

    2012 arXiv

  90. [98]

    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, Journal of Modern Optics 65, 648 (2018)

    2018

  91. [99]

    R. J. Le Roy, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radia- tive Transfer 186, 167 (2017)

    2017

  92. [100]

    Yousefi and P

    M. Yousefi and P. F. Bernath, The Astrophysical Journal Sup- plement Series 237, 7 (2018)

    2018

  93. [101]

    N. L. Garland and D. R. Crosley, Journal of Quantitative Spec- troscopy and Radiative Transfer 33, 591 (1985)

    1985

  94. [102]

    MOLPRO, version 2019.2, a package of ab initio programs,

    H.-J. Werner, P. J. Knowles, G. Knizia, F. R. Manby, M. Schütz, P. Celani, W. Györffy, D. Kats, T. Korona, R. Lindh, A. Mitrushenkov, G. Rauhut, K. R. Shamasundar, T. B. Adler, R. D. Amos, S. J. Bennie, A. Bernhardsson, A. Berning, D. L. Cooper, M. J. O. Deegan, A. J. Dobbyn, ...

    2019

  95. [103]

    The calculations employ the A V5Z [112] basis set for each atom

    The MRCI calculations are fed with the natural orbitals from a Multi-Configuration Self-Consistent Field (MCSCF) calcu- lation with a complete active space (CAS) consisting of nine orbitals with A1 symmetry, three with B1 symmetry and three with B2 symmetry associated with the ...

  96. [104]

    D. E. Woon and E. Herbst, Astrophysical Journal, Supplement Series 185, 273 (2009)

    2009

  97. [105]

    Kaneda, J

    Y . Kaneda, J. M. Yarborough, Y . Merzlyak, A. Yamaguchi, K. Hayashida, N. Ohmae, and H. Katori, Optics Letters 41, 705 (2016)

    2016

  98. [106]

    Burkley, A

    Z. Burkley, A. D. Brandt, C. Rasor, S. F. Cooper, and D. C. Yost, 80523, 1 (2018), arXiv:1811.09874

    2018 arXiv

  99. [107]

    M. R. Tarbutt, B. E. Sauer, J. J. Hudson, and E. A. Hinds, New Journal of Physics 15, 053034 (2013), arXiv:1302.2870

    2013 arXiv

  100. [108]

    E. B. Norrgard, D. J. McCarron, M. H. Steinecker, M. R. Tar- butt, and D. DeMille, Physical Review Letters 116, 063004 (2016)

    2016

  101. [109]

    M. R. Tarbutt, New Journal of Physics 17, 015007 (2015), arXiv:1409.0244

    2015 arXiv

  102. [111]

    S. A. Meek, H. L. Bethlem, H. Conrad, and G. Meijer, Physi- cal Review Letters 100, 153003 (2008), arXiv:0801.2943

    2008 arXiv

  103. [112]

    K. L. Schuchardt, B. T. Didier, T. Elsethagen, L. Sun, V . Guru- moorthi, J. Chase, J. Li, and T. L. Windus, Journal of Chemi- cal Information and Modeling 47, 1045 (2007)

    2007

Pith tools

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