Lamb-Dicke Dynamics of Interacting Rydberg Atoms Coupled to the Motion of an Optical Tweezer Array

Aslam Parvej; Ludwig Mathey

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Lamb-Dicke Dynamics of Interacting Rydberg Atoms Coupled to the Motion of an Optical Tweezer Array

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Weakly interacting Rydberg atoms form limit tori and limit cycles

desk verdict A useful parameter scan undone by a dimensional inconsistency in the Rabi Hamiltonian; the phase diagram is not reliable as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.22669 v1 pith:23SKKUII submitted 2025-06-27 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

Aslam Parvej , Ludwig Mathey This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph

keywords Lamb-DickeregimeRydbergatomsopticaltweezerarraysspin-motioncouplinglimitcycletorusdynamicalphasesvanderWaalsinteraction

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 tries to establish that the vibrational motion of atoms in an optical tweezer array, when coupled to Rydberg excitations through the laser that drives them, is an active part of the many-body dynamics rather than a passive background. In the weakly interacting regime, with interatomic spacing four times the Rydberg blockade radius, exact numerical time evolution of a 20-site chain finds three distinct long-time dynamical regimes. With no Lamb-Dicke coupling, the internal population simply performs Rabi oscillations. With coupling and equal trap frequencies for the ground and Rydberg states, the system settles onto a quasiperiodic limit torus in the joint phase space of density, displacement, and momentum; increasing the Rydberg-state trap frequency shifts it to a periodic limit cycle.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Lamb-Dicke Hamiltonian of Eqs. (2)-(7): a Rabi drive with Franck-Condon factors $\exp(-\eta_{gR}^2/2)$ coupling the ground and Rydberg states, state-specific harmonic traps with frequencies $\omega_{0,g}$ and $\omega_{0,R}$, and a van der Waals interaction expanded to second order in atomic displacement around each tweezer center. The zeroth-order term is the usual density-density Rydberg interaction, the first-order term is a staggered displacement potential, and the second-order term is a phonon-assisted spin-exchange hopping. A crucial modeling choice is the replacement of each atom's bosonic phonon ladder by the two lowest oscillator levels, with creation and annihilation operators written as Pauli operators $\sigma^\pm_j$. This truncation is what makes the many-body problem tractable with exact diagonalization on 20 sites, and it is also the assumption that carries the reported phases.

What would settle it

Re-run the same time evolution at $\eta_R = 0.1$ and $\omega_{0,R} = \omega_{0,g} = 2\pi\times 10$ kHz with three or four phonon levels per site instead of two; if the phase-space trajectory remains a closed torus with the same incommensurate frequencies, the phase is robust, and if it dissolves or changes character, the reported limit torus is a truncation artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the Lamb-Dicke coupling between the internal Rydberg transition and the motional states of the tweezers generates qualitatively different asymptotic dynamics depending on the trap frequencies and Lamb-Dicke parameters. For $\eta_g = \eta_R = 0$, the density $\langle\tau^z_T\rangle$ oscillates at the Rabi frequency $\Omega_0 = 2\pi\times 10\,\mathrm{kHz}$ with no motional excitation. At $\eta_R = 0.1$ with $\omega_{0,R} = \omega_{0,g} = 2\pi\times 10\,\mathrm{kHz}$, the long-time trajectory forms a torus in the space spanned by displacement $\langle\sigma^x_T\rangle$, momentum $\langle\sigma^y_T\rangle$, and internal density $\langle\tau^z_T\rangle$, with two incommensurate Fourier peaks signaling quasiperiodicity. At larger $\omega_{0,R}$ and smaller $\eta_R$, the system crosses into a limit cycle with a single dominant Fourier peak at a frequency different from the Rabi frequency. The discussion states the conclusion directly: the limit tori and limit cycle states are generated by the Lamb-Dicke coupling.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that two harmonic-oscillator levels per atom are enough, replacing the full phonon ladder by a single excited state, and the reported tori and cycles have not been checked against a larger phonon cutoff.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In the decoupled limit the motional sector stays empty and the internal density oscillates purely at the Rabi frequency, so any deviation from this baseline in an experiment is a direct signature of spin-motion coupling.
At equal trap frequencies the Lamb-Dicke coupling produces stable quasiperiodic motion, meaning the tweezer array can sustain a coherent motional state without external engineering of dissipation.
Increasing the Rydberg-state trap frequency while lowering the Lamb-Dicke parameter switches the phase from torus to limit cycle, giving a single experimental knob to select the asymptotic dynamics.
The parameters used ($\omega_{0,R}/2\pi = 3$-$14$ kHz, $\eta_R = 0.08$-$0.1$, $N = 20$, $R/R_b = 4$) lie in a range the paper argues is experimentally realizable, so the predicted phases are in principle testable in current tweezer platforms.

Reading between the lines

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

If the tori and cycles survive a larger phonon cutoff, the same mechanism could be used to prepare long-lived motional superposition states of individual tweezers, since the spin-motion coupling creates coherent phonon oscillations rather than decoherence.
The torus-to-cycle transition is a sharp change in the character of the long-time trajectory; a natural extension is to check finite-size scaling with larger $N$ to see whether it sharpens into a genuine dynamical phase transition.
Because the model truncates the phonon ladder to two levels, it is formally close to a spin-boson or Rabi-dimer model; mapping the tweezer chain onto such a model could reveal which couplings are essential for the limit cycle and which are incidental.

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

Dear colleague,

Here is my read of Parvej & Mathey, arXiv:2506.22669. The punchline: the paper's central phase diagram is not supported because the Rabi Hamiltonian it is built on has a dimensional inconsistency. This is not a quibble; it changes the physics at every point in the scan.

What the paper does well: it writes down a spin-motion model for Rydberg tweezer arrays coupling internal and motional degrees via Lamb-Dicke terms, including state-dependent trapping and van der Waals interactions expanded to second order. The numerical method (exact diagonalization plus RK4) is standard and appropriate for N=20 sites. The authors identify a 'limit torus' and a 'limit cycle' in the eta_R-omega_0,R plane, and they show Fourier transforms to support the distinction. If the Hamiltonian were right, this would be a useful parameter map for choosing trap frequencies and wavelengths.

Now where it falls apart. In Eq. (2), the Rabi term is multiplied by zeta, and the motional factors H_m2..H_m4 each carry an additional zeta^2. Appendix A8 defines zeta as a length (a combination of x0,g and x0,R). The main text says zeta is a frequency ratio, but the appendix is explicit: zeta has units of length. The net Rabi operator is therefore proportional to zeta^3, i.e., energy times length cubed. Since zeta depends on the trap frequency, this spurious prefactor rescales the coupling differently at every point of the Fig. 2 scan. The matrix elements in A10 repeat the same zeta^3 structure. The phase boundaries and closed orbits in the paper are not attributable to the stated Lamb-Dicke dynamics until this is fixed. This is an internal inconsistency, not a disagreement with consensus.

There are additional, secondary problems. The two-level truncation of the phonon Hilbert space is never validated; for eta up to 1.0 and trap frequencies down to 0.5 kHz, higher phonon levels should matter. No convergence check against phonon cutoff is shown. The paper also assigns contradictory trap frequencies to the same limit-cycle point: Section VI says omega0,R/2pi = 10 kHz for the limit-cycle phase, while Fig. 2(F) uses 14 kHz. Calling a closed orbit in unitary dynamics a 'limit cycle' is misleading without dissipation. No code or data are released.

Who is this for? A researcher working on spin-motion coupling in Rydberg tweezers might extract qualitative ideas, but no one can trust the quantitative phase map. The paper deserves a serious referee because the underlying questions are relevant and the model is standard, but the referee should demand a rewritten Hamiltonian with consistent units, a proper definition of zeta, a phonon-cutoff convergence check, and corrected parameter labels.

My recommendation: reject in present form, but the paper is not beyond repair. If the authors fix the dimensional inconsistency and provide convergence checks, it could be a modest, useful extension.

Best, [Your name]

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies a one-dimensional chain of optically trapped Rydberg atoms with state-dependent trapping frequencies, including the coupling of internal (Rydberg) and motional (tweezer-vibration) degrees of freedom. The authors derive a Lamb-Dicke Hamiltonian, truncate each atom's vibrational Hilbert space to two harmonic-oscillator levels, and use exact diagonalization with RK4 time evolution to investigate the long-time dynamics for different trap frequencies and Lamb-Dicke parameters. They report three dynamical phases: Rabi oscillations in the decoupled limit, a limit-torus phase at equal trap frequencies with eta_R=0.1, and a limit cycle as the trap frequency is increased (or eta_R is reduced). The main claim is the identification of these phases as emergent Lamb-Dicke dynamics in a weakly interacting Rydberg tweezer array with R/R_b=4.

Significance. If the reported phases were robust, this would be a notable step toward simulating spin-motion coupling in Rydberg tweezer arrays and could motivate experiments with state-dependent traps. The paper is explicit about its numerical setup (ED, RK4, N=20 sites, 171Yb parameters) and provides Fourier spectra in support of the phase classification. However, the significance is conditional on resolving the dimensional inconsistency in the Rabi Hamiltonian and on verifying that the two-phonon-level truncation does not qualitatively change the dynamics.

major comments (3)

[Sec. II, Eq. (2)-(3); Appendix A8-A10] The prefactor zeta defined in Eq. (A8) has units of length because x0 = sqrt(hbar/(m omega)), and the motional operators in Eq. (3) contain additional factors of zeta^2, so the Rabi coupling in Eq. (2) is proportional to zeta^3 for the m2-m4 terms and to zeta for the m1 term. This makes H_Rabi dimensionally inconsistent and not a valid energy operator. Since zeta varies with the trap frequencies, the spurious prefactor rescales the Rabi coupling at every point of the phase diagram in Fig. 2, so the reported phases and their boundaries are not attributable to the stated physics. The definition must be corrected (e.g., to a dimensionless combination) and all matrix elements in Eq. (A10) rederived.
[Appendix A2 and A11; Fig. 2 parameter scan] The vibrational Hilbert space of each atom is truncated to two states, with a^dagger and a replaced by sigma^+ and sigma^-, but no convergence check against the phonon cutoff is provided. The scan includes eta_R up to 1.0 and omega_0,R down to 0.5 kHz, where higher phonon levels can have significant occupation. The claimed limit torus and limit cycle could be truncation artifacts. The authors should show results for at least three or four phonon levels and confirm that the phase diagram is stable.
[Sec. II and V; Fig. 2] The parameter labels are internally contradictory. zeta is called 'the ratio of the trapping frequency of the Rydberg state to the ground state' (Sec. II) but is defined as a length in Eq. (A8). The blockade radius is given as R_b = 2.7 um in Sec. II and R_b = 2.15 um in Sec. V. The limit-cycle phase in Fig. 2 is labeled (omega_0,R, eta_R) = (14.0 kHz, 0.08), while the text in Sec. V locates the limit-cycle transition at omega_0,R = 2 pi x 10 kHz and eta_R = 0.08 and separately describes eta=1.0 at omega_0,R = 10 kHz. These inconsistencies must be resolved before the phase diagram can be reproduced.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (4)] The ramp Omega(t) = t(r/T) is dimensionally unclear; specify the units of r and the intended expression (likely Omega(t) = r t for t < T).
[End of Sec. II] The sentence 'the typical distance between optical tweezers in um' is incomplete; provide the value of R used in the simulations.
[Eq. (A10)] The symbol 'R' is used in the matrix elements, conflicting with the interatomic distance R; use zeta or another symbol.
[Sec. VI and throughout] The phrase 'N/2 interacting Rydberg atoms on N = 20 sites' is ambiguous; clarify whether the chain has 20 atoms or 10 atoms.
[Fig. 4 and 6] In the Fourier transforms, the frequency axis is described as 'f = 2 pi x 10 kHz' for a peak at the Rabi frequency; specify whether the plotted frequency is angular or cyclic.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the phase diagram is produced by direct numerical simulation with stated inputs, and the only self-citation is non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The Hamiltonian in Eqs. (1)-(7) and Appendix A is built from stated microscopic inputs: state-dependent trap frequencies, laser Rabi frequency, Lamb-Dicke parameters, and a van der Waals interaction expanded around equilibrium. The reported phases (Rabi oscillations, limit torus, limit cycle) are read off from time evolution and discrete Fourier transforms of computed observables; they are not imposed by construction, and no parameter is fitted to force the phase labels. The only overlap with the authors' prior work is reference [12], cited in the introduction for recoil-free state preparation; it is not load-bearing for the central claim and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from it. The dimensional inconsistency noted in Eq. (2) and Appendix A10 is a correctness or units concern, not a circularity: a spurious prefactor would invalidate the simulation, but it would not make the output equivalent to the input. The missing phonon-cutoff check is likewise a robustness issue. Under the stated circularity criteria, none of these constitute a reduction of the prediction to its own inputs, so the circularity score is 0.

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

The central claim rests on a truncated spin-boson model assembled from standard approximations. No data fitting is performed, so the ledger is dominated by modeling choices rather than invented parameters. The hand-picked (omega_0,R, eta_R) pairs in Fig. 2 are the only genuinely free inputs, and they are internally inconsistent with Sec. VI.

free parameters (4)

eta_R values in phase diagram = 0.45, 0.32, 0.18, 0.13, 0.10, 0.08
Hand-picked paired values for each trap frequency in Fig. 2; not derived from the stated wavelength range and inconsistent with Section VI for the limit-cycle point.
omega_0,R values in phase diagram = 2 pi x (0.5, 1.0, 3.0, 6.0, 10.0, 14.0) kHz
Scanned parameter for the phase map; the map's ordering along this axis is the basis for the reported phase sequence.
C6 van der Waals coefficient = 1 MHz micrometer^6
Stated experimental input for Yb Rydberg interaction; not fitted in this work.
Rabi frequency Omega0/2pi = 10 kHz
Chosen drive amplitude for the simulations.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Two-level truncation of phonon Fock space
Replaces bosonic ladder operators with Pauli matrices in App. A2/A11; no convergence test is given.
domain assumption Nearest-neighbor, second-order expansion of the vdW potential
Eqs. (6)-(7); assumes small oscillations and ignores beyond-NN terms.
standard math Rotating-wave approximation for the drive
Used in Eq. (2); standard approximation for a near-resonant laser.
domain assumption Weak interaction regime with R/Rb = 4
The paper restricts the phase map to this regime in Secs. V and VI; the phase diagram may not generalize.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Lamb-Dicke Dynamics of Interacting Rydberg Atoms Coupled to the Motion of an Optical Tweezer Array." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/23SKKUII

@misc{pith2026250622669,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Lamb-Dicke Dynamics of Interacting Rydberg Atoms Coupled to the Motion of an Optical Tweezer Array},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/23SKKUII}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.22669}
}

read the original abstract

Neutral Rydberg atoms trapped in optical tweezer arrays provide a platform for quantum simulation and computation. In this work, we investigate the Lamb-Dicke dynamics of coupled Rydberg atoms for different trapping frequencies. We model the atomic motion by both internal and motional degrees of freedom, in which the motional states arise due to the oscillation of each atom in optical tweezer traps due to the light-atom interaction. In this setup, the internal states are coupled to a laser light with a Rabi frequency, while each internal state of each atom is also harmonically trapped with a trap frequency that depends on the internal state. The impact of the coherent motion of the optical tweezers on the collective dynamics of the many-body Rydberg atoms is explored for varying Lamb-Dicke parameters and with different trap frequencies. We see the occurrence of dynamical phases e.g., Rabi oscillations in the decoupled limit, the limit torus phase for magic trapping, and the limit cycle phase as the trap frequency is further increased.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.22669 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Lamb-Dicke coupled interacting Rydberg atoms. Fig. ((a)) shows interacting Rydberg atoms trapped in an optical tweezer and atoms are driven by a CW laser of frequency Ω0. In Fig. ((b)) sketch of two atoms, (Atom1) and (Atom2) in which internal states on each atom are |g⟩ and |R⟩ and the motional states are represented by |0⟩ and |1⟩ by truncating to two levels of the boson states. We consider state-specific trapping… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Dynamical phases of the interacting Rydberg atoms. In each three-dimensional figure (A)-(F) the displacement ⟨σ x T ⟩ and the momentum ⟨σ y T ⟩ in the motional space of the optical tweezer, and the total density of the Rydberg atoms ⟨τ z T ⟩ in the internal state for different ω0,R and ηR are shown. The bicolor arrow at the center displays six different values of (ω0,R, ηR) for six different phases: (A)(ω0,R, ηR) =… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Ramp protocol, density, & phase space trajectory (a) Protocol of Rabi frequency, (b) population density ⟨τ z T ⟩ and (c) ⟨σ z T ⟩ in internal and motional spaces, respectively along with (d) displacement ⟨σ x T ⟩ and (e) momentum ⟨σ y T ⟩ in motional space on the Rydberg chain in the decoupling limit (ηg = ηR = 0) as a function of t/T for the system size N = 20. Inset (f) corresponds to the phase space of Rabi o… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Discrete Fourier transform of total density. (a) on the internal state and (b) on the motional state with ηg = ηR = 0 for N = 20 sites. ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Discrete Fourier transform of total density. (a) on the internal state and (b) on the motional state with ηR = 0.1 and trap frequencies ω0,g = ω0,R = 2π × 10 kHz for N = 20 sites i.e., N/2 atoms. tive spectrum for the system size N = 20 in the decoupled limit ηg = ηR …

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Ramp protocol, density, & phase space trajectory for ω0,R = 2π × 10kHz, ηR = 0.1. (a) Protocol of Rabi frequency, (b) population density ⟨τ z T ⟩ and (c) ⟨σ z T ⟩ in internal and motional spaces, respectively along with (d) displacement ⟨σ x T ⟩ and (e) momentum ⟨σ y…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Phase space trajectories of interacting Rydberg atoms with ηg = ηR = 0. Phase space plot shows the total density ⟨τ z T ⟩ in the internal space, momentum ⟨σ y T ⟩, and displacement ⟨σ x T ⟩ in the motional space. Trajectories along the z-direction show only the Rabi o…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Protocol, the total density on internal and motional spaces, displacement & momentum in the motional space on the Rydberg atom chain with ω0,R = 2π × 10 kHz. Fig. (a)-(d) shows the Rabi frequency Ω0(t) with ramp protocol starting linearly with ramp rate r. Fig. (e)-(h)…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Discrete Fourier transform of total density. Fig. (a)-(c) on the internal state and (d)-(f) on the motional state with η = 0.1 and trap frequencies ω0,g = ω0,R = 2π × 10 kHz for N = 20 sites i.e., N/2 atoms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

[1]

The quantum many-body dynamics in the decoupled limit (ηR = ηg = 0) show the Rabi oscillation phase

We use exact diagonalization (ED) to solve the Hamil- tonian and the RK4 method to solve the dynamics of the Lamb-Dicke coupled system. The quantum many-body dynamics in the decoupled limit (ηR = ηg = 0) show the Rabi oscillation phase. It is characterized by the fast oscillation of the total density in the internal state of Rydberg atoms. We focus mainly...

work page
[2]

C. D. Bruzewicz, J. Chiaverini, R. McConnell, and J. M. Sage, Trapped-ion quantum computing: Progress and challenges, Appl. Phys. Rev. 6, 021314 (2019)

2019
[3]

Monroe, W

C. Monroe, W. C. Campbell, L.-M. Duan, Z.-X. Gong, 7 A. V. Gorshkov, P. W. Hess, R. Islam, K. Kim, N. M. Linke, G. Pagano, P. Richerme, C. Senko, and N. Y. Yao, Programmable quantum simulations of spin systems with trapped ions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025001 (2021)

work page 2021
[4]

D. B. Tretyakov, I. I. Beterov, V. M. Entin, and I. I. Ryabtsev, Application of Rydberg atoms to quantum computing, in Quantum Informatics 2005 , Vol. 6264, edited by Y. I. Ozhigov, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE, 2006) p. 62640I

work page 2005
[5]

Saffman, T

M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, and K. Mølmer, Quantum information with rydberg atoms, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 2313 (2010)

2010
[6]

S. R. Cohen and J. D. Thompson, Quantum computing with circular rydberg atoms, PRX Quantum 2, 030322 (2021)

work page 2021
[7]

A. W. Glaetzle, R. M. W. van Bijnen, P. Zoller, and W. Lechner, A coherent quantum annealer with rydberg atoms, Nature Communications 8, 15813 (2017)

work page 2017
[8]

Ebadi, T

S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Se- meghini, A. Omran, D. Bluvstein, R. Samajdar, H. Pich- ler, W. W. Ho, S. Choi, S. Sachdev, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum phases of matter on a 256-atom programmable quantum simulator, Nature 595, 227 (2021)

2021

Show all 33 references

[9]

L. D. Carr, D. DeMille, R. V. Krems, and J. Ye, Cold and ultracold molecules: science, technology and appli- cations, New Journal of Physics 11, 055049 (2009)

2009
[10]

J. A. Blackmore, L. Caldwell, P. D. Gregory, E. M. Bridge, R. Sawant, J. Aldegunde, J. Mur-Petit, D. Jaksch, J. M. Hutson, B. E. Sauer, M. R. Tarbutt, and S. L. Cornish, Ultracold molecules for quantum sim- ulation: rotational coherences in caf and rbcs, Quantum Science and Te...

2018
[11]

Huang, D

H.-L. Huang, D. Wu, D. Fan, and X. Zhu, Supercon- ducting quantum computing: a review, Science China Information Sciences 63, 180501 (2020)

2020
[12]

W. M. Kaminsky, S. Lloyd, and T. P. Orlando, Scal- able superconducting architecture for adiabatic quantum computation, arXiv: Quantum Physics (2004)

2004
[13]

L. Kley, N. Heimann, A. Parvej, L. Broers, and L. Mathey, Optimal recoil-free state preparation in an op- tical atom tweezer (2024), arXiv:2411.02262 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[14]

Semeghini, H

G. Semeghini, H. Levine, A. Keesling, S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, D. Bluvstein, R. Verresen, H. Pichler, M. Kalinowski, R. Samajdar, A. Omran, S. Sachdev, A. Vishwanath, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Probing topological spin liquids on a programmable quantum simulator, ...

2021 doi
[16]

B. Yan, S. A. Moses, B. Gadway, J. P. Covey, K. R. A. Hazzard, A. M. Rey, D. S. Jin, and J. Ye, Observation of dipolar spin-exchange interactions with lattice-confined polar molecules, Nature 501, 521 (2013)

2013
[17]

P. N. Jepsen, J. Amato-Grill, I. Dimitrova, W. W. Ho, E. Demler, and W. Ketterle, Spin transport in a tunable heisenberg model realized with ultracold atoms, Nature 588, 403 (2020)

2020
[18]

F. M. Gambetta, W. Li, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and I. Lesanovsky, Engineering nonbinary rydberg interac- tions via phonons in an optical lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 043402 (2020)

2020
[19]

P. P. Mazza, R. Schmidt, and I. Lesanovsky, Vibrational dressing in kinetically constrained rydberg spin systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 033602 (2020)

2020
[20]

Magoni, R

M. Magoni, R. Joshi, and I. Lesanovsky, Molecular dy- namics in rydberg tweezer arrays: Spin-phonon entangle- ment and jahn-teller effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 093002 (2023)

2023
[21]

M´ ehaignerie, C

P. M´ ehaignerie, C. Sayrin, J.-M. Raimond, M. Brune, and G. Roux, Spin-motion coupling in a circular-rydberg- state quantum simulator: Case of two atoms, Phys. Rev. A 107, 063106 (2023)

2023
[22]

Zhang, M

Z. Zhang, M. Yuan, B. Sundar, and K. R. A. Hazzard, Motional decoherence in ultracold-rydberg-atom quan- tum simulators of spin models, Phys. Rev. A110, 053321 (2024)

2024
[23]

Y. Chew, T. Tomita, T. P. Mahesh, S. Sugawa, S. de L´ es´ eleuc, and K. Ohmori, Ultrafast energy ex- change between two single rydberg atoms on a nanosec- ond timescale, Nature Photonics 16, 724 (2022)

2022
[24]

Bharti, S

V. Bharti, S. Sugawa, M. Kunimi, V. S. Chauhan, T. P. Mahesh, M. Mizoguchi, T. Matsubara, T. Tomita, S. de L´ es´ eleuc, and K. Ohmori, Strong spin-motion cou- pling in the ultrafast dynamics of rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 093405 (2024)

2024
[25]

Zeiher, R

J. Zeiher, R. van Bijnen, P. Schauß, S. Hild, J.-y. Choi, T. Pohl, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Many-body interferome- try of a rydberg-dressed spin lattice, Nature Physics 12, 1095 (2016)

2016
[26]

Guardado-Sanchez, P

E. Guardado-Sanchez, P. T. Brown, D. Mitra, T. De- vakul, D. A. Huse, P. Schauß, and W. S. Bakr, Probing the quench dynamics of antiferromagnetic correlations in a 2d quantum ising spin system, Phys. Rev. X 8, 021069 (2018)

2018
[27]

S. Guo, J. Huang, J. Hu, and Z.-X. Li, Order by disorder and an emergent kosterlitz-thouless phase in a triangular rydberg array, Phys. Rev. A 108, 053314 (2023)

2023
[28]

Signoles, T

A. Signoles, T. Franz, R. Ferracini Alves, M. G¨ arttner, S. Whitlock, G. Z¨ urn, and M. Weidem¨ uller, Glassy dy- namics in a disordered heisenberg quantum spin system, Phys. Rev. X 11, 011011 (2021)

2021
[29]

Borish, O

V. Borish, O. Markovi´ c, J. A. Hines, S. V. Rajagopal, and M. Schleier-Smith, Transverse-field ising dynamics in a rydberg-dressed atomic gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 063601 (2020)

2020
[30]

Takei, C

N. Takei, C. Sommer, C. Genes, G. Pupillo, H. Goto, K. Koyasu, H. Chiba, M. Weidem¨ uller, and K. Ohmori, Direct observation of ultrafast many-body electron dy- namics in an ultracold rydberg gas, Nature Communica- tions 7, 13449 (2016)

2016
[31]

C. Ates, T. Pohl, T. Pattard, and J. M. Rost, Many-body theory of excitation dynamics in an ultracold rydberg gas, Phys. Rev. A 76, 013413 (2007)

2007
[32]

C. Chen, G. Bornet, M. Bintz, G. Emperauger, L. Leclerc, V. S. Liu, P. Scholl, D. Barredo, J. Hauschild, S. Chatterjee, M. Schuler, A. M. L¨ auchli, M. P. Zale- tel, T. Lahaye, N. Y. Yao, and A. Browaeys, Continuous symmetry breaking in a two-dimensional rydberg array, Nature ...

2023
[33]

K. Kim, F. Yang, K. Mølmer, and J. Ahn, Realization of an extremely anisotropic heisenberg magnet in rydberg atom arrays, Phys. Rev. X 14, 011025 (2024). 8

2024
[34]

Steinert, P

L.-M. Steinert, P. Osterholz, R. Eberhard, L. Festa, N. Lorenz, Z. Chen, A. Trautmann, and C. Gross, Spa- tially tunable spin interactions in neutral atom arrays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 243001 (2023). Appendix A: Derivation of Hamiltonian in Eq. 1 We define the internal state o...

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

The quantum many-body dynamics in the decoupled limit (ηR = ηg = 0) show the Rabi oscillation phase

We use exact diagonalization (ED) to solve the Hamil- tonian and the RK4 method to solve the dynamics of the Lamb-Dicke coupled system. The quantum many-body dynamics in the decoupled limit (ηR = ηg = 0) show the Rabi oscillation phase. It is characterized by the fast oscillation of the total density in the internal state of Rydberg atoms. We focus mainly...

work page

[2] [2]

C. D. Bruzewicz, J. Chiaverini, R. McConnell, and J. M. Sage, Trapped-ion quantum computing: Progress and challenges, Appl. Phys. Rev. 6, 021314 (2019)

2019

[3] [3]

Monroe, W

C. Monroe, W. C. Campbell, L.-M. Duan, Z.-X. Gong, 7 A. V. Gorshkov, P. W. Hess, R. Islam, K. Kim, N. M. Linke, G. Pagano, P. Richerme, C. Senko, and N. Y. Yao, Programmable quantum simulations of spin systems with trapped ions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025001 (2021)

work page 2021

[4] [4]

D. B. Tretyakov, I. I. Beterov, V. M. Entin, and I. I. Ryabtsev, Application of Rydberg atoms to quantum computing, in Quantum Informatics 2005 , Vol. 6264, edited by Y. I. Ozhigov, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE, 2006) p. 62640I

work page 2005

[5] [5]

Saffman, T

M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, and K. Mølmer, Quantum information with rydberg atoms, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 2313 (2010)

2010

[6] [6]

S. R. Cohen and J. D. Thompson, Quantum computing with circular rydberg atoms, PRX Quantum 2, 030322 (2021)

work page 2021

[7] [7]

A. W. Glaetzle, R. M. W. van Bijnen, P. Zoller, and W. Lechner, A coherent quantum annealer with rydberg atoms, Nature Communications 8, 15813 (2017)

work page 2017

[8] [8]

Ebadi, T

S. Ebadi, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Se- meghini, A. Omran, D. Bluvstein, R. Samajdar, H. Pich- ler, W. W. Ho, S. Choi, S. Sachdev, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum phases of matter on a 256-atom programmable quantum simulator, Nature 595, 227 (2021)

2021