Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Quadratic spin-phonon coupling and bipolarons in trapped ions

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

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

Pith's one-line read Optical tweezers in a trapped-ion crystal can create mobile bipolarons that pin when heated.

desk verdict A credible trapped-ion proposal for bipolaron simulation whose main prediction rests on an untested but plausible frozen-phonon assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04109 v1 pith:YFM2JP2I submitted 2025-02-06 quant-ph

L.P.H. Gallagher , M. Mazzanti , Z.E.D. Ackerman , R.J.C. Spreeuw , A. Safavi-Naini , R. Gerritsma This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords quadraticspin-phononcouplingbipolaronstrappedionsopticaltweezersquantumsimulationMølmer-SørenseninteractionthermallocalizationBose-Hubbardmodel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proposes a trapped-ion setup that realizes quadratic spin-phonon coupling: each ion sits in a tightly focused optical tweezer whose confining strength depends on the ion's internal state. With the tweezer intensities tuned site by site, the zero-point motion of the crystal's vibrations makes a pair of opposite spins on one site energetically cheaper than two singly occupied sites, so the ground-state manifold consists of mobile bound pairs, or bipolarons. The paper argues that adding a laser-induced tunneling term lets such a bound pair hop through the crystal, and that thermal occupation of the non-uniform phonon modes generates a disordered energy landscape that pins the pair at finite temperature. A sympathetic reader would care because this gives a concrete, continuously tunable laboratory system in which the crossover between mobile and pinned bipolarons, and the quadratic-phonon mechanism behind some proposed superconductivity scenarios, can be watched directly.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the quadratic spin-phonon coupling produced by state-dependent tweezers: each tweezer changes the local curvature of the trapping potential according to the internal state, shifting the phonon mode frequencies to $\hat{\omega}_m \approx \sqrt{\omega_m^2 + \sum_i \hat{O}_i b_{mi}^2}$. Evaluated in the rotating frame, this gives $H_{\mathrm{tw}} = \sum_m \hbar(\hat{\omega}_m - \omega_m)(\hat{a}_m^\dagger\hat{a}_m + 1/2)$, whose zero-point energy becomes the site-energy Hamiltonian $H_{\mathrm{gs}}$ after tuning the tweezer intensities. The second ingredient is a laser-induced, phonon-mediated tunneling term of Mølmer-Sørensen type with detunings chosen so that only processes conserving occupation number and total spin are resonant; the effective coupling $J_{ij} = \hbar\Omega^2 \sum_m \beta_{mi}\beta_{mj}\eta_m^2 \omega_m^\perp/(\mu^2 - \lambda_m^\perp)$ gives predominantly nearest-neighbor hopping. Together these produce a composite object, the bipolaron: an opposite-spin pair occupying one site that can move as a single particle.

What would settle it

Measure the site-resolved bipolaron probability in a ten-ion chain at $T=0$ and at $T=25\,\mu\mathrm{K}$ after 50 ms: the claim predicts near-uniform spreading in the first case and a localized distribution with $\sigma_{\mathrm{sd}}$ well below the zero-temperature value in the second; comparable spreading at both temperatures, or a sharp drop in the zero-temperature mobility, would rule out the frozen-phonon mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that choosing the state-dependent tweezer frequencies such that $\varpi_{i,3}^2 = 4\gamma/(\sum_m b_{mi}^2/\omega_m)$ and $\varpi_{i,1}^2 = \varpi_{i,2}^2 = 4g/(\sum_m b_{mi}^2/\omega_m)$ reduces the quadratic phonon coupling to the effective Hamiltonian $H_{\mathrm{gs}} = \sum_i [g(|\downarrow\rangle_i\langle\downarrow| + |\uparrow\rangle_i\langle\uparrow|) + \gamma |\uparrow\downarrow\rangle_i\langle\uparrow\downarrow|]$. When $2g > \gamma$, a single site holding both spins is favored over two singly occupied sites, producing an $N$-fold manifold of mobile bipolaron states separated from the rest of the spectrum by $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{tw}} \sim 2g-\gamma$. With a Mølmer-Sørensen-type hopping term included, the paper's simulations for ten $^{40}\mathrm{Ca}^+$ ions show the bound pair spreading across the crystal at zero temperature and becoming partially localized at $T = 25\,\mu\mathrm{K}$, with the total bipolaron probability staying high while the tweezers are on, and breaking up when they are off.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the crystal's vibrations do not change while the spins move: the vibration pattern only supplies a fixed energy landscape, and the hopping strength is taken to be unaffected by how many vibration quanta are present; if the vibrations instead evolve or swap energy with the spins during the experiment, the bipolaron's motion and its temperature pinning would be different.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A ten-ion $^{40}\mathrm{Ca}^+$ chain with the stated tweezer powers and detunings should display a bipolaron spectral gap of order $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{tw}}\sim 2g-\gamma$ and predominantly nearest-neighbor tunneling ($\max J_{ij}\sim 20$ Hz), giving a mobile bound pair at base temperature.
  • Heating the crystal to tens of microkelvin, still below the Doppler limit, should convert the spreading bipolaron into a partially pinned one, with the mobile fraction set by $P_{\mathrm{mobile}}=\prod_{m=2}^N (1-e^{-\hbar\omega_m/k_BT})$.
  • The same effective model is a Bose-Hubbard-type Hamiltonian with long-range tunneling and an onsite two-body interaction, so the experiment would serve as a tunable quantum simulator of that model class.
  • Because the mechanism mirrors quadratic electron-phonon coupling, the experiment offers a direct analog testbed for the bipolaron route to superconductivity proposed for such couplings, including its different scaling of critical temperature with ion mass.
  • The ground-state manifold of $N$ bipolarons should be robust to site-to-site tweezer intensity variations kept below about 1%, as shown by the homogeneity matrix in the paper.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper does not simulate is the full joint dynamics of spins and phonons; a master-equation or tensor-network calculation with phonon relaxation would test whether phonon-assisted hopping sharpens or erases the predicted pinning crossover.
  • The same quadratic-coupling mechanism could be used to engineer effective density-density interactions between more than two spin components, allowing pair-hopping models or charge-density-wave physics beyond the single-bipolaron sector.
  • One could deliberately break the site-homogeneity condition to imprint a designed disorder potential, turning the setup into a controlled test of Anderson localization of composite particles as a function of temperature.
  • The predicted near-independence of the ground-state population on $N$ suggests the mobility crossover is a single-particle-per-mode effect; measuring $\sigma_{\mathrm{sd}}$ for $N=10,20,30$ would test whether the thermodynamic-limit formula already applies at these sizes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an ion-trap quantum simulator for quadratic spin-phonon coupling. A linear crystal of N ions is dressed with state-dependent optical tweezers; after expanding the phonon frequency shifts to first order, the zero-point motion generates an effective spin Hamiltonian H_gs = Σ_i [g(|↓><↓| + |↑><↑|) + γ|↑↓><↑↓|]. A Mølmer-Sørensen-type interaction adds long-range spin hopping. The authors argue that for 2g>γ the ground-state manifold consists of N mobile bipolaron states, and that thermal occupation of axial phonon modes creates an inhomogeneous site-energy landscape that pins the bipolarons. Numerical simulations for N=10 40Ca+ ions show bipolaron spreading at T=0 and partial localization at T=25 μK.

Significance. If the central approximation holds, the paper offers a concrete and tunable experimental platform for bipolaron physics, with a direct analogy to quadratic electron-phonon coupling and possible implications for high-Tc superconductivity. The proposal leverages existing techniques (state-dependent tweezers and MS-type gates) and makes falsifiable predictions, notably the mobility-versus-temperature crossover in Eq. (8) and Fig. 4. The analytical mapping is clearly presented and the numerical results are consistent with the stated effective model. However, the frozen-phonon approximation is the main load-bearing assumption and is not tested, and the effective Hamiltonian in Eq. (7) is incompletely specified.

major comments (2)
  1. [Bipolaron mobility] The thermal-pinning prediction (Figs. 3 and 4) is derived under a frozen-phonon approximation in which the axial phonon occupation numbers n_m in Eq. (2) are treated as static c-numbers, while the hopping amplitude J_ij in Eq. (6) is assumed independent of phonon occupation to first order. The time-scale separation (J ~ 20 Hz versus ω_z ~ 0.5 MHz) makes the approximation plausible, but the manuscript neither estimates the non-adiabatic corrections nor computes the phonon wavefunction overlaps that renormalize the effective hopping for each spin configuration. Because the mobility and pinning claims are the central results, the authors should test this assumption with a full phonon-included simulation for a small system or provide a quantitative bound on the correction.
  2. [Hopping] The effective Hamiltonian in Eq. (7) is not fully specified. The spin operator S_i in Eq. (5) is defined as S01+S02+S13+S23 plus Hermitian conjugates, so S_03 and S_12 do not appear in the operator; nevertheless Eq. (7) lists (12,03) as a resonant pairwise process. This inconsistency makes it impossible to reproduce the numerical simulation of the bipolaron dynamics from the text. The authors should present the complete set of spin operators and the explicit form of H_J used in the simulations, and clarify how the bipolaron-hopping term (|30> → |03>) emerges from the single-particle processes.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction and Bipolaron emergence] The phrase 'emergence of mobile bipolarons' overstates the result: the parameters g and γ are chosen by construction in Eq. (3), so the bipolaron is an engineered feature rather than an emergent one. Please rephrase to reflect the designed nature of the Hamiltonian.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The quantity B_ij is not defined in the main text; please state explicitly that B_ij is the energy of the two-spin configuration with spins at sites i and j, computed with the exact Hessian for each configuration.
  3. [Eq. (8)] The derivation of Eq. (8) is not shown; adding a short derivation or a reference to the q-Pochhammer identity would help the reader verify the N→∞ limit.
  4. [Experimental considerations] The values of the detunings Δ1, Δ2, Δ3 are only specified qualitatively; a table of numerical values used in the simulations would improve reproducibility.
  5. [General] Minor typos: 'occurence' in the introduction and 'Tweezer off' in the Fig. 3 label should be corrected.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Bipolaron mobility and thermal pinning are largely encoded by the chosen tweezer Hamiltonian (Eq. 3) and the frozen-phonon assumption, though the experimental implementation and numerical simulations give the proposal some independent content.

  1. self definitional [Bipolaron emergence, parameter-setting paragraph and Eq. (3)]
    "We set the relative tweezer intensities on each site such that ϖ²_i,3 = 4 γ/(Σ_m b²_mi/ω_m) ... Setting ϖ²_i,0 = 0 for simplicity and ϖ²_i,1 = ϖ²_i,2 = 4 g/(Σ_m b²_mi/ω_m). The Hamiltonian for the ground state (gs) is now given by: Hgs = Σ_i g(|↓⟩⟨↓| + |↑⟩⟨↑|) + γ |↑↓⟩⟨↑↓|. This effective Hamiltonian will energetically favor a pair on one site over single occupation of two sites when 2g > γ."

    The interaction parameters g and γ are literally defined by the chosen tweezer intensities. Substituting ϖ²_i,1 and ϖ²_i,3 into H_tw returns Eq. (3) identically, so the 'emergence' of a ground-state manifold of N bipolarons and the gap εtw ∼ 2g − γ is not derived from an unconstrained microscopic model; it is inserted by the parameter choice. The zero-temperature mobile-bipolaron dynamics in Fig. 3 are then a simulation of this hand-built Hamiltonian, not a prediction independent of the inputs.

  2. other [Bipolaron mobility section, before Eq. (8) and Figs. 3-4]
    "The hopping term is not affected to first order by thermal phonon occupation [15, 51] and we therefore only consider the axial modes. ... The thermal occupation generates an inhomogeneous potential landscape over the ion crystal, causing the excitation to remain localized. ... This may be quantified as: Pmobile = Π_{m=2}^N (1 − e^{−ℏω_m/(kBT)})."

    With the hopping J held independent of n_m, the only temperature dependence in Hamiltonian (7) is the diagonal H_tw term proportional to Σ_m b²_mi(n_m + 1/2). Any excited nonuniform mode automatically breaks translational invariance, so the 'mobility' variable Pmobile is defined to be the probability that all non-COM modes are in their ground state. Thus Eq. (8) and the pinning crossover in Fig. 4 restate the frozen-phonon input rather than test it; the load-bearing assumption is justified by Ref. [51], which includes a current author, together with Ref. [15].

full rationale

The paper contains a genuine, self-contained derivation from the physical Hamiltonian (1) to the effective spin-phonon model (7), and the numerical simulations of the two-spin dynamics are concrete. However, the central physics claims are substantially built into the inputs. The ground-state Hamiltonian Hgs is produced by choosing the tweezer intensities to define g and γ, so the bipolaron ground-state manifold and its energy gap are installed by construction rather than discovered. The finite-temperature pinning result is obtained under a frozen-phonon approximation in which the hopping is taken to be independent of phonon occupation (justified by Ref. [15] and by Ref. [51], the latter including a current author) and the phonon numbers are treated as static c-numbers. Under that assumption, thermal pinning is essentially the diagonal H_tw term evaluated on the thermal distribution of n_m, and Eq. (8) is simply the probability that no nonuniform mode is excited. The nonzero hopping dynamics in the numerical figures are computed, not fitted, and the experimental parameter proposal is concrete; these give the work independent content and prevent a higher score. Nevertheless, the headline 'emergence of mobile bipolarons' and the thermal mobility crossover reduce, to a significant degree, to the chosen tweezer parameters plus the frozen-phonon ansatz.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model does not introduce new physical entities. It reuses the known trapped-ion toolbox (tweezers, MS interactions) and a known quasiparticle concept (bipolaron). The main 'inputs' are the energy scales g and γ and the phonon-frozen assumption.

free parameters (3)
  • g (single-occupation energy scale) = not specified (set by tweezer intensity)
    Chosen to define the onsite energy of singly occupied sites; the bipolaron-binding condition 2g > γ depends on it.
  • γ (double-occupation energy scale) = not specified (set by tweezer intensity)
    Chosen to set the energy of a bound pair; the gap to the singly-occupied states is 2g - γ.
  • Per-site tweezer intensity weights = (0.61, 0.80, 0.91, 0.97, 1, 1, 0.97, 0.91, 0.80, 0.61)
    Tuned by hand to make the spin-energy landscape homogeneous (Fig. 2); the analytic formula ϖ^2 ∝ 1/(Σ_m b_mi^2/ω_m) is the design rule, but the final weights are a numerical choice.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The tweezer potential is weak compared to the harmonic trap, so phonon frequency shifts can be treated by first-order perturbation theory.
    Used to derive Eq. (2) and the effective spin Hamiltonian; requires ϖ_i ≪ ω_z.
  • domain assumption Taylor expanding √(ω_m^2 + Σ O_i b^2) to first order in O_i is valid; long-range O_iO_j terms are neglected in the analytic derivation (but included in numerics).
    The analytic H_gs in Eq. (3) relies on this expansion; the authors acknowledge the neglected terms.
  • ad hoc to paper The phonon occupation numbers are constant during the spin dynamics, and the MS hopping term is independent of thermal phonon occupation to first order (Refs. 15, 51).
    Underlies the effective spin Hamiltonian Eq. (7) and the thermal-pinning calculation; no full phonon-included simulation is provided.
  • domain assumption The four-level encoding with |↑↑> and |↓↓> suppressed by the choice of detunings and interactions; only particle-number- and total-spin-conserving processes are resonant.
    Needed for the validity of the mapping to the two-component bosonic model.
  • domain assumption Equilibrium positions are unaffected by the tweezers because each tweezer is centered on its ion and negligibly affects neighbors.
    Justifies using the unperturbed mode vectors b_mi in the parameter-setting formula.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quadratic spin-phonon coupling and bipolarons in trapped ions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YFM2JP2I

@misc{pith2026250204109,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quadratic spin-phonon coupling and bipolarons in trapped ions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YFM2JP2I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04109}
}
read the original abstract

We consider the quantum simulation of quadratic spin-phonon coupling in a crystal of trapped ions. The coupling is implemented using tightly focused optical tweezers on each ion that change the local trapping potential in a state-dependent way. By encoding spins in the internal states of the ions and adding a tunneling term via M{\o}lmer-S{\o}rensen-type interactions, we calculate the emergence of mobile bipolarons driven by the zero-point energy of the ion crystal phonons. We show that thermal occupation may pin the bipolarons for ion crystals at finite temperature. Our scheme can be used to study and illustrate the emergence of mobile bipolarons as a function of temperature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04109 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Spins are encoded in the internal states of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (a) Tweezer matrix showing the ground state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (a) Evolution of the bipolaron probability initially at site 4, with the ion crystal temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (a) Ground state population versus temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Site j Site i (a) B ij / h (Hz) Site j Site i (b) Jij / h (Hz) 0 10 20 30 40 50 Eigenvalue # 0 100E / h (Hz) εtw (c) HJ HJ + Htw − 110 0 180 0 8 16 FIG

    Finally, setting ∆ k ≪ |µ − ωm| for all k and m assures that the effective Hamiltonian (5) remains valid to lowest order in the presence of the laser detunings ∆ j [4]. Site j Site i (a) B ij / h (Hz) Site j Site i (b) Jij / h (Hz) 0 10 20 30 40 50 Eigenvalue # 0 100E / h (Hz) εtw (c) HJ HJ + Htw − 110 0 180 0 8 16 FIG. 2: (a) Tweezer matrix showing the g...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Porras and J

    D. Porras and J. I. Cirac, Physical Review Letters 92, 207901 (2004)

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    Friedenauer, H

    H. Friedenauer, H. Schmitz, J. Glueckert, D. Porras, and T. Schaetz, Nat. Phys. 4, 757 (2008)

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    Kim, M.-S

    K. Kim, M.-S. Chang, R. Islam, S. Korenblit, L.-M. Duan, and C. Monroe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 120502 (2009)

    2009

  5. [5]

    Jurcevic, B

    P. Jurcevic, B. P. Lanyon, P. Hauke, C. Hempel, P. Zoller, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Nature 511, 202 (2014)

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Richerme, Z.-X

    P. Richerme, Z.-X. Gong, A. Lee, C. Senko, J. Smith, M. Foss-Feig, S. Michalakis, A. V. Gorshkov, and C. Monroe, Nature 511, 198 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Zhang, G

    J. Zhang, G. Pagano, P. W. Hess, A. Kyprianidis, P. Becker, H. Kaplan, A. V. Gorshkov, Z.-X. Gong, and C. Monroe, Nature 551, 601 (2017)

    2017

  8. [8]

    J. G. Bohnet, B. C. Sawyer, J. W. Britton, M. L. Wall, A. M. Rey, M. Foss-Feig, and J. J. Bollinger, Science352, 1297–1301 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Postler, S

    L. Postler, S. Heu βen, I. Pogorelov, M. Rispler, T. Feld- ker, M. Meth, C. D. Marciniak, R. Stricker, M. Ring- bauer, R. Blatt, et al., Nature 605, 675 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Postler, F

    L. Postler, F. Butt, I. Pogorelov, C. D. Marciniak, S. Heußen, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, M. Rispler, M. M¨ uller, and T. Monz, PRX Quantum 5, 030326 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    L. Egan, D. M. Debroy, C. Noel, A. Risinger, D. Zhu, D. Biswas, M. Newman, M. Li, K. R. Brown, M. Cetina, et al., Nature 598, 281 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Pogorelov, T

    I. Pogorelov, T. Feldker, C. D. Marciniak, L. Postler, G. Jacob, O. Krieglsteiner, V. Podlesnic, M. Meth, V. Negnevitsky, M. Stadler, B. H¨ ofer, C. W¨ achter, K. Lakhmanskiy, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, and T. Monz, PRX Quantum 2, 020343 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Wright, K

    K. Wright, K. M. Beck, S. Debnath, J. Amini, Y. Nam, N. Grzesiak, J.-S. Chen, N. Pisenti, M. Chmielewski, C. Collins, et al. , Nature communications 10, 5464 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Gustiani, D

    C. Gustiani, D. Leichtle, D. Mills, J. Miller, R. Grassie, and E. Kashefi, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24133 10.48550/arXiv.2410.24133 (2024)

    2024 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

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

    2016

  8. [16]

    Mølmer and A

    K. Mølmer and A. Sørensen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1835 (1999)

    1999

  9. [17]

    Mazzanti, R

    M. Mazzanti, R. X. Sch¨ ussler, J. D. Arias Espinoza, Z. Wu, R. Gerritsma, and A. Safavi-Naini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 260502 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    O. Katz, M. Cetina, and C. Monroe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 063603 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    O. Katz, L. Feng, A. Risinger, C. Monroe, and M. Cetina, Nature Physics 19, 1452–1458 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Leibfried, B

    D. Leibfried, B. DeMarco, V. Meyer, M. Rowe, A. Ben- Kish, J. Britton, W. M. Itano, B. Jelenkovi´ c, C. Langer, T. Rosenband, and D. J. Wineland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 247901 (2002)

    2002

  13. [21]

    Mezzacapo, J

    A. Mezzacapo, J. Casanova, L. Lamata, and E. Solano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 200501 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    Leibfried, R

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

    2003

  15. [23]

    D. G. Grier, Nature 424, 810 (2003)

    2003

  16. [24]

    Scholl, M

    P. Scholl, M. Schuler, H. J. Williams, A. A. Eberharter, D. Barredo, K.-N. Schymik, V. Lienhard, L.-P. Henry, T. C. Lang, T. Lahaye, A. M. L¨ auchli, and A. Browaeys, Nature 595, 233 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Bluvstein, A

    D. Bluvstein, A. Omran, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Se- meghini, S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, A. A. Michailidis, N. Maskara, W. W. Ho, S. Choi, M. Serbyn, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Science371, 1355 (2021). 6

    2021

  18. [26]

    Omran, H

    A. Omran, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, H. Bernien, A. S. Zibrov, H. Pichler, S. Choi, J. Cui, M. Rossignolo, P. Rembold, S. Mon- tangero, T. Calarco, M. Endres, M. Greiner, Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Science 365, 570 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Ashkin, J

    A. Ashkin, J. M. Dziedzic, J. E. Bjorkholm, and S. Chu, Optics letters 11, 288 (1986)

    1986

  20. [28]

    Beugnon, C

    J. Beugnon, C. Tuchendler, H. Marion, A. Ga¨ etan, Y. Miroshnychenko, Y. R. Sortais, A. M. Lance, M. P. Jones, G. Messin, A. Browaeys, and P. Grangier, Nature Physics 3, 696 (2007)

    2007

  21. [29]

    Barredo, S

    D. Barredo, S. De L´ es´ eleuc, V. Lienhard, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Science 354, 1021 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    Endres, H

    M. Endres, H. Bernien, A. Keesling, H. Levine, E. R. Anschuetz, A. Krajenbrink, C. Senko, V. Vuleti´ c, M. Greiner, and M. D. Lukin, Science 354, 1024 (2016)

    2016

  23. [31]

    T. M. Graham, M. Kwon, B. Grinkemeyer, Z. Marra, X. Jiang, M. T. Lichtman, Y. Sun, M. Ebert, and M. Saffman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 230501 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    A. M. Kaufman and K.-K. Ni, Nature Physics 17, 1324 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Stopp, M

    F. Stopp, M. Verde, M. Katz, M. Drechsler, C. T. Schmiegelow, and F. Schmidt-Kaler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 263603 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    Urech, I

    A. Urech, I. H. A. Knottnerus, R. J. C. Spreeuw, and F. Schreck, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 023245 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    luvstein, S

    D. luvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter, et al., Nature 626, 58 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Y. H. Teoh, M. Sajjan, Z. Sun, F. Rajabi, and R. Islam, Phys. Rev. A 104, 022420 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    J. D. Arias Espinoza, M. Mazzanti, K. Fouka, R. X. Sch¨ ussler, Z. Wu, P. Corboz, R. Gerritsma, and A. Safavi- Naini, Phys. Rev. A 104, 013302 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    R. Nath, M. Dalmonte, A. W. Glaetzle, P. Zoller, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and R. Gerritsma, New Journal of Physics 17, 065018 (2015)

    2015

  31. [39]

    Olsacher, L

    T. Olsacher, L. Postler, P. Schindler, T. Monz, P. Zoller, and L. M. Sieberer, PRX Quantum 1, 020316 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    L. Bond, L. Lenstra, R. Gerritsma, and A. Safavi-Naini, Phys. Rev. A 106, 042612 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Schwerdt, L

    D. Schwerdt, L. Peleg, Y. Shapira, N. Priel, Y. Florshaim, A. Gross, A. Zalic, G. Afek, N. Akerman, A. Stern, A. B. Kish, and R. Ozeri, Phys. Rev. X 14, 041017 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Z. Han, S. A. Kivelson, and P. A. Volkov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 226001 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Zhang, A

    Z. Zhang, A. Kuklov, N. Prokof’ev, and B. Svistunov, Phys. Rev. B 108, 245127 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    Zhang, A

    Z. Zhang, A. Kuklov, N. Prokof’ev, and B. Svistunov, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03266 10.48550/arXiv.2408.03266 (2024)

    2024 doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    Ragni, T

    S. Ragni, T. Hahn, Z. Zhang, N. Prokof’ev, A. Kuklov, S. Klimin, M. Houtput, B. Svistunov, J. Tempere, N. Na- gaosa, C. Franchini, and A. S. Mishchenko, Phys. Rev. B 107, L121109 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    Smith, A

    J. Smith, A. Lee, P. Richerme, B. Neyenhuis, P. W. Hess, P. Hauke, M. Heyl, D. A. Huse, and C. Monroe, Nat. Phys. 12, 907–911 (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    Morong, F

    W. Morong, F. Liu, P. Becker, K. S. Collins, L. Feng, A. Kyprianidis, G. Pagano, T. You, A. V. Gorshkov, and C. Monroe, Nature 599, 393–398 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    Mazzanti, R

    M. Mazzanti, R. Gerritsma, R. J. C. Spreeuw, and A. Safavi-Naini, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033036 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    D. F. V. James, Appl. Phys. B 66, 181 (1998)

    1998

  42. [50]

    Grimm, M

    R. Grimm, M. Weidem¨ uller, and Y. B. Ovchinnikov, Adv. At., Mol., Opt. Phys. 42, 95 (2000)

    2000

  43. [51]

    Britton, B

    J. Britton, B. C. Sawyer, C.-C. J. W. A. C. Keith, J. Fre- ericks, H. Uys, M. J. Biercuk, and J. J. Bollinger, Nature 484, 489 (2012)

    2012

  44. [52]

    Kirchmair, J

    G. Kirchmair, J. Benhelm, F. Z¨ ahringer, R. Gerritsma, C. F. Roos, and R. Blatt, New J. Phys.11, 023002 (2009)

    2009

  45. [53]

    W. M. Itano, J. C. Bergquist, J. J. Bollinger, and D. J. Wineland, Phys. Scr. T59, 106 (1995)

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.