Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 83 references

Towards a fictitious magnetic field trap for both ground and Rydberg state $^{87}$Rb atoms via the evanescent field of an optical nanofibre

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 This paper proposes an optical-nanofibre trap that confines both the ground state and a Rydberg state of 87Rb in nearly matched potentials, so atoms stay put during Rydberg excitation instead of moving and dephasing.

desk verdict A solid design extension of the nanofibre fictitious-field trap to Rydberg atoms, but the claim that the fictitious field is size-independent is asserted, not proven, and the quantitative results should be treated as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12827 v1 pith:GCZAQ3MQ submitted 2025-07-17 physics.atom-ph physics.opticsquant-ph

Alexey Vylegzhanin , Dylan J. Brown , Danil F. Kornovan , Etienne Brion , Síle Nic Chormaic This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phphysics.opticsquant-ph
keywords opticalnanofibreRydbergatomsfictitiousmagneticfieldevanescent-fieldtrappingrubidium-87vectorpolarizabilityblockadeatom-lightinterfaces
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 proposes an optical-nanofibre trap for 87Rb that confines both the electronic ground state and a Rydberg state in nearly matched potentials, so that atoms do not move or dephase when excited during a quantum operation. The trapping mechanism is a light-induced fictitious magnetic field, generated by the elliptical polarisation of the fibre's evanescent field, added to an external bias field. For the 68G9/2, mJ=9/2 Rydberg state and the 5S1/2, F=1, mF=-1 ground state, with 12 mW of 789.7 nm and 6.3 mW of 1015 nm guided light and a 45 G bias field, the authors calculate trap depths of 330 and 364 microkelvin at distances of 484 and 515 nm from the fibre surface. If the calculation holds, a single fibre-based platform could hold both states during Rydberg excitation, supporting nanofibre-coupled quantum networks and one-dimensional atom arrays.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the light-induced fictitious magnetic field, an effective field proportional to the vector polarisability of the atomic state times the cross product of the evanescent electric field with its conjugate: $\mathbf{B}_{\rm fict}^{J} = (\alpha^v_{nJ} / 8\mu_B g_{nJ}J)\, i[\mathbf{E}^* \times \mathbf{E}]$. The elliptically polarised fundamental mode of the nanofibre gives this cross product a nonzero value, so adding a uniform bias field makes the total effective field $|\mathbf{B}_{\rm fict} + \mathbf{B}_{\rm bias}|$ develop a local minimum; the magnetic potential $U = \mu_B g m |\mathbf{B}_{\rm eff}|$ then traps low-field-seeking states. Matching the ground and Rydberg traps uses the condition $\alpha^v_{nJF}/(g_{nJF}F) \approx \alpha^v_{nJ}/(g_{nJ}J)$ to make the two fictitious fields comparable in sign and magnitude, plus a second 1015 nm guided field to shift the ground-state scalar potential without disturbing the Rydberg potential.

What would settle it

Prepare 87Rb atoms near a nanofibre in several Rydberg states, for example 49D5/2, 68G9/2, and a higher-n state, and measure the trap depth, minimum position, and radial trap frequency for each; compare with the point-dipole predictions of Sections III and IV. A systematic departure that grows with n, or any deviation larger than about 0.1 mK at the operating distance of roughly 500 nm, would falsify the size-independence assumption and with it the matched ground-Rydberg trap.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the fictitious magnetic field created by an optical nanofibre's evanescent field can be vector-added to a real bias field to make a magnetic trap whose potential is nearly identical for a ground-state atom and a highly excited Rydberg atom. The authors identify the 68G9/2, mJ=9/2 state as the lowest Rydberg state whose vector polarisability matches the ground state's, and show that a second guided wavelength (1015 nm) can tune the remaining scalar light shifts so the two trap depths agree to about 10%. They further argue that the fictitious magnetic field is insensitive to the Rydberg electron's spatial extent, while the quadrupole shift and wave-function-averaged ponderomotive potential are small at trap distances beyond roughly 400 nm. The proposed configuration therefore keeps an atom confined during the microsecond timescale of a Rydberg gate, with a ground-state lifetime around 20 ms and a Rydberg-state lifetime around 100 microseconds.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the fictitious magnetic field felt by a Rydberg atom has the same shape and strength regardless of how large the atom's electron cloud is, so the point-dipole trap potentials computed for 68G9/2 remain valid.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ground-state atoms can remain trapped while being excited to 68G9/2, so motion-induced dephasing during Rydberg-blockade gates should drop sharply.
  • The two-wavelength trap with P1 = 12 mW, P2 = 6.3 mW, and Bbias = 45 G gives 330 microkelvin (Rydberg) and 364 microkelvin (ground) wells whose minima are only about 30 nm apart.
  • Axial confinement from an inhomogeneous bias field, or counterpropagating fields that modulate the fictitious field, could turn the guide into a one-dimensional array of Rydberg trapping sites.
  • Ground-state atoms should survive about 20 ms in the trap, long enough for many Rydberg experiments, while the Rydberg-state lifetime is set by blackbody radiation at about 100 microseconds.
  • Higher angular-momentum Rydberg states such as 68F and 68H can further reduce differences in depth or position between the ground and Rydberg potentials.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's assumption that the fictitious magnetic field is independent of Rydberg-atom size is the step most worth testing: a direct measurement of trap depth versus principal quantum number near the fibre would confirm or refute the point-dipole treatment.
  • If the two-trap overlap can be made exact, the same fibre could serve as both the trap and the single-photon waveguide, a dual role the authors hint at but do not quantify for the quantum-repeater protocol.
  • The matching condition could be scanned over principal quantum number and angular momentum to find magic wavelengths where ground and Rydberg potentials coincide exactly, extending the two-colour optimisation into a systematic search.
  • A similar design should work for other alkali species, such as caesium, if a Rydberg state with the required vector polarisability is identified; the authors state this as a possibility but leave the calculation for future work.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a scheme to trap both the 5S1/2 ground state and a high-n Rydberg state (68G9/2, mJ=9/2) of 87Rb in the evanescent field of an optical nanofibre, using a fictitious magnetic field from elliptically polarised guided light combined with a bias magnetic field. The authors calculate trap potentials for quasi-circularly and quasi-linearly polarised modes, report trap depths, positions, and frequencies for various parameters, and introduce a two-colour configuration (λ1≈789.7 nm and λ2=1015 nm) that brings the ground and Rydberg trap depths to within about 10% of each other (364 µK at 515 nm vs 330 µK at 484 nm in Table II, Fig. 7). They also analyze the quadrupole AC Stark shift and the effect of the Rydberg electron's spatial extent on the ponderomotive potential, asserting that the fictitious magnetic field is unaffected by the atom's size.

Significance. If the headline result holds, the scheme would provide a practical route to confining both ground and Rydberg atoms near an optical nanofibre, potentially reducing motion-induced dephasing in Rydberg-based quantum operations and enabling waveguide-coupled quantum nodes. The paper's strengths are its use of standard, externally benchmarked tools (ARC polarisabilities, established nanofibre mode formulas) and its concrete numerical predictions for trap depths, frequencies, and positions that are directly testable. The main correctness risk is the unproven assumption that the vector light shift is independent of the Rydberg electron's spatial extent, on which all the trap potentials in Sections III and IV rest.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V, paragraph beginning 'The shape and strength of the light-induced fictitious magnetic field...'] The assertion that the vector light shift (fictitious magnetic field) is independent of the size of a Rydberg atom is not derived. The overlap argument presented does not justify using the point-dipole vector polarisability times the local value of i[E*×E] for an extended Rydberg state in the strongly varying evanescent field. For n=68, the valence-electron wavefunction extends over a scale comparable to the 484 nm trap distance (Table II) and to the evanescent decay length, so the local-field approximation should be checked by an explicit calculation analogous to Eq. (17), which the paper itself uses for the ponderomotive potential. The finite-size calculation in Fig. 9 covers only the ponderomotive term and only for the smaller 49D5/2 state; it does not address the vector contribution. Until this is done, the trap depths, minimum positions, and the depth-matching ratio for the 68G9/2 headline result are not established.
  2. [Section V, Fig. 8 and Eq. (10)] The quadrupole AC Stark shift is quantified only for the 49D5/2 state at 790.2 nm and 10 mW, with the statement that it is negligible at distances larger than 400 nm. The central two-colour trap, however, uses the 68G9/2 state at 484 nm with P1=12 mW and P2=6.3 mW (Table II), and Eq. (10) omits the quadrupole term entirely. Since the scaling of the quadrupole matrix elements with n and the contribution of the 1015 nm beam are not given, the magnitude of this omitted term for the headline parameters is unknown, and the conclusion that the trap is unaffected is unsupported.
  3. [Section III, Eq. (10), and Section IV, Eq. (14)] The total trap potential and the two-colour optimisation omit the Casimir-Polder interaction with the nanofibre. The manuscript mentions in Section III that the Casimir-Polder shift for Rydberg states is 'on the order of GHz up to 300 nm away from the fibre', but it does not evaluate this shift for the 68G9/2 state at 484 nm or for the ground state at 515 nm. Without a quantitative statement that this shift is negligible at the trap positions, the reported trap depths and their matching ratio could be subject to a systematic correction of unknown size.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table II caption] The caption says 'trap configurations shown in Fig. 4' but the table refers to Fig. 7; the header also lists 'Iλ1 and Iλ1' where the second should be Iλ2.
  2. [Section IV, paragraph after Fig. 7] The sentence 'The ratio of the trap depths for the ground and the Rydberg states in the trap is around 10%' is ambiguous: the ratio is 330/364 ≈ 0.91, so the relative difference is about 9%; please rephrase for clarity.
  3. [Section IV, two-colour optimisation discussion] The optimisation of Eq. (14) is described only qualitatively; specifying the cost function, the parameter bounds, and the final residuals would make the claimed depth matching reproducible and easier to assess.
  4. [Section II, Eq. (2)] The convention and units of the vector polarisability αv are not stated explicitly; please define them and give the value for the ground state in consistent units.
  5. [Section III, Eq. (10)] The text states that the Casimir-Polder shift motivates placing the trap beyond 300 nm, but the total potential in Eq. (10) does not include this term; please state explicitly that it is negligible at the distances considered, or include it in the numerical results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: parameter-matched trap depths are the result of an openly reported optimization on externally benchmarked polarizabilities, not a fit disguised as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and externally benchmarked: trap potentials come from Eq. (10), which combines the fictitious-field expression (Eqs. (1)-(3)) from external references, the standard HE11 mode fields (Eq. (4)), and polarisabilities obtained from the public ARC package plus the textbook ponderomotive formula. The ground/Rydberg matching in Sec. IV is explicitly an engineering optimization: Eq. (12) is a design criterion used to select 68G9/2, and the powers, detuning and bias field are then varied to minimize ΔU0 (Eq. (14)). Reporting the resulting depths in Table II is reporting the objective value of an optimization, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and the values retain independent content because the potentials are not constrained a priori to have equal depths at fixed positions. Self-citations [25,26] support experimental feasibility (Rydberg excitation near a nanofibre) and, as published experiments, are real evidence rather than load-bearing circular premises. The Sec. V assertion that the fictitious magnetic field is independent of Rydberg size is a physical approximation rather than a circular reduction: it is not defined in terms of the trap results, and the paper separately calculates finite-size ponderomotive and quadrupole corrections. This assumption should be scrutinized as a correctness risk, but it does not make any predicted quantity equivalent to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard electromagnetic theory, ARC-supplied polarisabilities, and several domain assumptions about adiabatic following and the spatial extent of Rydberg wavefunctions. No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are experimental control knobs chosen to meet a design target rather than fitted to external data.

free parameters (4)
  • Guided light power P (wavelength 1) = 12 mW (two-color); 5-30 mW scan
    Chosen or optimized to achieve a trap minimum far enough from the fibre; a control parameter, not derived.
  • Bias magnetic field Bbias = 45 G (two-color); 15-90 G scan
    Set to position the trap minimum; combined with the fictitious field to create a potential minimum.
  • Wavelength detuning of 790.2 nm light (lambda1) = 788.1-789.7 nm
    Adjusted to shift the ground-state scalar potential relative to the Rydberg state to match trap depths.
  • Second wavelength power P(lambda2) = 6.3 mW at 1015 nm
    Added to produce an attractive scalar potential for the ground state and further tune trap overlap.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The HE11 mode is the only guided mode for the fibre radius and wavelengths used.
    Fibre radius a=175 nm and silica n=1.44; if higher-order modes existed, the field expressions (Eqs. 4-7) would be incomplete.
  • domain assumption The light-induced fictitious magnetic field can be treated as a real magnetic field for both ground and Rydberg states and added vectorially to Bbias.
    Relies on results from Cohen-Tannoudji and Le Kien et al.; central to Eq. (10).
  • domain assumption The atom remains in a low-field-seeking Zeeman state with potential Umag = muB g m |Beff| (adiabatic following).
    Eq. (9); spin-flip rates are computed and said to be negligible at the chosen parameters, but the assumption underpins all trap depths.
  • ad hoc to paper The vector light shift (fictitious field) is independent of the Rydberg electron's spatial extent.
    Asserted in Section V without derivation; if false, point-dipole Rydberg potentials are modified near the fibre.
  • domain assumption ARC-calculated polarisabilities are accurate, and Casimir-Polder and quadrupole shifts are negligible at the trap minimum.
    The paper uses ARC values and places the two-color trap at about 500 nm where Casimir-Polder is small, but no error analysis is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards a fictitious magnetic field trap for both ground and Rydberg state $^{87}$Rb atoms via the evanescent field of an optical nanofibre." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GCZAQ3MQ

@misc{pith2026250712827,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards a fictitious magnetic field trap for both ground and Rydberg state $^87$Rb atoms via the evanescent field of an optical nanofibre},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GCZAQ3MQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12827}
}
abstract

Cold Rydberg atoms, known for their long lifetimes and strong dipole-dipole interactions that lead to the Rydberg blockade phenomenon, are among the most promising platforms for quantum simulations, quantum computation and quantum networks. However, a major limitation to the performance of Rydberg atom-based platforms is dephasing, which can be caused by atomic motion within the trap. Here, we propose a trap for $^{87}$Rb cold atoms that confines both the electronic ground state and a Rydberg state, engineered to minimize the differential light shifts between the two states. This is achieved by combining a fictitious magnetic field induced by optical nanofibre guided light and an external bias magnetic field. We calculate trap potentials for the cases of one- and two-guided modes with quasi-linear and quasi-circular polarisations, and calculate trap depths and trap frequencies for different values of laser power and bias fields. Moreover, we discuss the impact of the quadrupole polarisability of the Rydberg atoms on the trap potential and demonstrate how the size of a Rydberg atom influences the ponderomotive potential generated by the nanofibre-guided light field. This work expands on the idea of light-induced fictitious magnetic field traps and presents a practical approach for creating quantum networks using Rydberg atoms integrated with optical nanofibres to generate 1D atom arrays.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.12827 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic of the optical nanofibre magnetic trap. The ONF-guided fundamental mode with a wavelength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Normalised vector field of the light-induced ficti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Two-dimensional plots of the fictitious mag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Radial profile of the trap potential, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The trap is formed on the left side of the ONF as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Radial profile of the trap potential, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Radial profile of the trap potential, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) Radial and (b) azimuthal profiles of the total trap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (a) 2D plot of the quadrupole AC Stark shift for 10 mW of 790.2 nm quasi-circularly polarised light. (b) 1D plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Wave function adjusted (blue line), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Isenhower, E

    L. Isenhower, E. Urban, X. Zhang, A. Gill, T. Henage, T. A. Johnson, T. Walker, and M. Saffman, Demon- stration of a neutral atom controlled-not quantum gate, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 010503 (2010)

    2010

  2. [2]

    Saffman, T

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

    2010

  3. [3]

    C. S. Adams, J. D. Pritchard, and J. P. Shaffer, Ryd- berg atom quantum technologies, J. Phys. B 53, 012002 (2019)

    2019

  4. [4]

    Jaksch, J

    D. Jaksch, J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, S. L. Rolston, R. Cˆ ot´ e, and M. D. Lukin, Fast quantum gates for neutral atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2208 (2000)

    2000

  5. [5]

    Kinos and K

    A. Kinos and K. Mølmer, Optical multiqubit gate oper- ations on an excitation-blockaded atomic quantum regis- ter, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 013205 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    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, Nat. Photonics 16, 724 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Weimer, M

    H. Weimer, M. M¨ uller, I. Lesanovsky, P. Zoller, and H. P. B¨ uchler, A Rydberg quantum simulator, Nat. Phys. 6, 382 (2010)

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    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, et al. , Quantum simulation of 2D antiferromagnets with hundreds of Rydberg atoms, Nature 595, 233 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    Bharti, S

    V. Bharti, S. Sugawa, M. Mizoguchi, M. Kunimi, Y. Zhang, S. De L´ es´ eleuc, T. Tomita, T. Franz, M. Wei- dem¨ uller, and K. Ohmori, Picosecond-scale ultrafast many-body dynamics in an ultracold rydberg-excited atomic mott insulator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 123201 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Urban, T

    E. Urban, T. A. Johnson, T. Henage, L. Isenhower, D. D. Yavuz, T. G. Walker, and M. Saffman, Observation of Rydberg blockade between two atoms, Nat. Phys. 5, 110 (2009)

    2009

  3. [11]

    Zhang, L

    X. Zhang, L. Isenhower, A. Gill, T. Walker, and M. Saffman, Deterministic entanglement of two neutral atoms via Rydberg blockade, Phys. Rev. A 82, 030306 (2010)

    2010

  4. [12]

    R. Han, H. K. Ng, and B.-G. Englert, Implementing a neutral-atom controlled-phase gate with a single Rydberg pulse, EPL 113, 40001 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    Ripka, H

    F. Ripka, H. K¨ ubler, R. L¨ ow, and T. Pfau, A room- temperature single-photon source based on strongly in- teracting Rydberg atoms, Science 362, 446 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    S. Baur, D. Tiarks, G. Rempe, and S. D¨ urr, Single- photon switch based on Rydberg blockade, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 073901 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    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, Nat. Commun 7, 1 (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    Barredo, V

    D. Barredo, V. Lienhard, P. Scholl, S. de L´ es´ eleuc, T. Boulier, A. Browaeys, and T. Lahaye, Three- dimensional trapping of individual Rydberg atoms in ponderomotive bottle beam traps, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 023201 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    S. E. Anderson, K. Younge, and G. Raithel, Trapping Rydberg atoms in an optical lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 263001 (2011)

    2011

  10. [18]

    K¨ ubler, J

    H. K¨ ubler, J. Shaffer, T. Baluktsian, R. L¨ ow, and T. Pfau, Coherent excitation of Rydberg atoms in 12 micrometre-sized atomic vapour cells, Nat. Photonics 4, 112 (2010)

    2010

  11. [19]

    Epple, K

    G. Epple, K. Kleinbach, T. Euser, N. Joly, T. Pfau, P. S. J. Russell, and R. L¨ ow, Rydberg atoms in hollow- core photonic crystal fibres, Nat. Commun 5, 1 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    M. Ke, F. Zhou, X. Li, J. Wang, and M. Zhan, Tailored- waveguide based photonic chip for manipulating an array of single neutral atoms, Opt. Express 24, 9157 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Kumlin, K

    J. Kumlin, K. Kleinbeck, N. Stiesdal, H. Busche, S. Hof- ferberth, and H. P. B¨ uchler, Nonexponential decay of a collective excitation in an atomic ensemble coupled to a one-dimensional waveguide, Phys. Rev. A 102, 063703 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Jones, G

    R. Jones, G. Buonaiuto, B. Lang, I. Lesanovsky, and B. Olmos, Collectively enhanced chiral photon emission from an atomic array near a nanofiber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 093601 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    W. Li, D. Brown, A. Vylegzhanin, Z. Shahrabifarahani, A. Raj, J. Du, and S. Nic Chormaic, Atom-light inter- actions using optical nanofibres—a perspective, JPhys. Photonics 6, 021002 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Vylegzhanin, D

    A. Vylegzhanin, D. J. Brown, S. Abdrakhmanov, and S. Nic Chormaic, Light-induced magnetic trapping for cold alkali atoms using a combined optical tweezers and nanofibre platform, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.04809 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    K. S. Rajasree, T. Ray, K. Karlsson, J. L. Everett, and S. Nic Chormaic, Generation of cold Rydberg atoms at submicron distances from an optical nanofiber, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 012038 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    Vylegzhanin, D

    A. Vylegzhanin, D. J. Brown, A. Raj, D. F. Kornovan, J. L. Everett, E. Brion, J. Robert, and S. Nic Chor- maic, Excitation of 87Rb Rydberg atoms to nS and nD states (n≤68) via an optical nanofiber, Opt. Quantum 1, 6 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Zhang, F

    L. Zhang, F. Yang, K. Mølmer, and T. Pohl, Chi- ral quantum-optical elements for waveguide-QED with sub-wavelength Rydberg-atom arrays, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01133 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    P. L. Ocola, I. Dimitrova, B. Grinkemeyer, E. Guardado- Sanchez, T. Dordevi´ c, P. Samutpraphoot, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Control and entanglement of individual Ry- dberg atoms near a nanoscale device, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 113601 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    de Hond, R

    J. de Hond, R. van Bijnen, S. Kokkelmans, R. Spreeuw, H. v. L. van den Heuvell, and N. van Druten, From co- herent collective excitation to Rydberg blockade on an atom chip, Phys. Rev. A 98, 062714 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Suleymanzade, A

    A. Suleymanzade, A. Anferov, M. Stone, R. K. Naik, A. Oriani, J. Simon, and D. Schuster, A tunable high-Q millimeter wave cavity for hybrid circuit and cavity QED experiments, Appl. Phys. Lett. 116, 104001 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    Sunami, S

    S. Sunami, S. Tamiya, R. Inoue, H. Yamasaki, and A. Goban, Scalable networking of neutral-atom qubits: Nanofiber-based approach for multiproces- sor fault-tolerant quantum computer, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.11111 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Schmied, D

    R. Schmied, D. Leibfried, R. J. Spreeuw, and S. Whit- lock, Optimized magnetic lattices for ultracold atomic ensembles, New J. Phys. 12, 103029 (2010)

    2010

  25. [33]

    Ga¨ etan, Y

    A. Ga¨ etan, Y. Miroshnychenko, T. Wilk, A. Chotia, M. Viteau, D. Comparat, P. Pillet, A. Browaeys, and P. Grangier, Observation of collective excitation of two individual atoms in the Rydberg blockade regime, Nat. Phys. 5, 115 (2009)

    2009

  26. [34]

    Saffman, X

    M. Saffman, X. Zhang, A. Gill, L. Isenhower, and T. Walker, Rydberg state mediated quantum gates and entanglement of pairs of neutral atoms, in Journal of Physics: Conference Series , Vol. 264 (IOP Publishing,

  27. [35]

    Boetes, R

    A. Boetes, R. Skannrup, J. Naber, S. Kokkelmans, and R. Spreeuw, Trapping of Rydberg atoms in tight mag- netic microtraps, Phys. Rev. A 97, 013430 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Lesanovsky and P

    I. Lesanovsky and P. Schmelcher, Magnetic trapping of ultracold Rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 053001 (2005)

    2005

  29. [37]

    Hezel, I

    B. Hezel, I. Lesanovsky, and P. Schmelcher, Ultracold Rydberg atoms in a Ioffe-Pritchard trap, Phys. Rev. A 76, 053417 (2007)

    2007

  30. [38]

    Anderson, A

    D. Anderson, A. Schwarzkopf, R. Sapiro, and G. Raithel, Production and trapping of cold circular Rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. A 88, 031401 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    Zhang, F

    S. Zhang, F. Robicheaux, and M. Saffman, Magic- wavelength optical traps for Rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. A 84, 043408 (2011)

    2011

  32. [40]

    Topcu and A

    T. Topcu and A. Derevianko, Intensity landscape and the possibility of magic trapping of alkali-metal Ryd- berg atoms in infrared optical lattices, Phys. Rev. A 88, 043407 (2013)

    2013

  33. [41]

    Corti˜ nas, M

    R. Corti˜ nas, M. Favier, B. Ravon, P. M´ ehaignerie, Y. Machu, J. Raimond, C. Sayrin, and M. Brune, Laser trapping of circular Rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 123201 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Wilson, S

    J. Wilson, S. Saskin, Y. Meng, S. Ma, R. Dilip, A. Burg- ers, and J. Thompson, Trapping alkaline earth Ryd- berg atoms optical tweezer arrays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 033201 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Cohen-Tannoudji and J

    C. Cohen-Tannoudji and J. Dupont-Roc, Experimental study of Zeeman light shifts in weak magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. A 5, 968 (1972)

    1972

  36. [44]

    Le Kien, P

    F. Le Kien, P. Schneeweiss, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Dy- namical polarizability of atoms in arbitrary light fields: general theory and application to cesium, Eur. Phys. J. D. 67, 1 (2013)

    2013

  37. [45]

    Schneeweiss, F

    P. Schneeweiss, F. Le Kien, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Nanofiber-based atom trap created by combining ficti- tious and real magnetic fields, New J. Phys. 16, 013014 (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    B. Zhao, M. M¨ uller, K. Hammerer, and P. Zoller, Efficient quantum repeater based on deterministic Rydberg gates, Phys. Rev. A 81, 052329 (2010)

    2010

  39. [47]

    LeBlanc and J

    L. LeBlanc and J. Thywissen, Species-specific optical lat- tices, Phys. Rev. A 75, 053612 (2007)

    2007

  40. [48]

    G. Yang, H. Yan, T. Shi, J. Wang, M. Zhan, et al. , Op- tically induced fictitious magnetic trap on an atom chip, Phys. Rev. A 78, 033415 (2008)

    2008

  41. [49]

    Le Kien, J

    F. Le Kien, J. Liang, K. Hakuta, and V. Balykin, Field intensity distributions and polarization orientations in a vacuum-clad subwavelength-diameter optical fiber, Opt. Commun. 242, 445 (2004)

    2004

  42. [50]

    M. C. Frawley, A. Petcu-Colan, V. G. Truong, and S. Nic Chormaic, Higher order mode propagation in an optical nanofiber, Opt. Commun. 285, 4648 (2012)

    2012

  43. [51]

    Le Kien, T

    F. Le Kien, T. Busch, V. G. Truong, and S. Nic Chor- maic, Higher-order modes of vacuum-clad ultrathin opti- cal fibers, Phys. Rev. A 96, 023835 (2017)

    2017

  44. [52]

    Nayak, P

    K. Nayak, P. Melentiev, M. Morinaga, F. Le Kien, V. Ba- lykin, and K. Hakuta, Optical nanofiber as an efficient 13 tool for manipulating and probing atomic fluorescence, Opt. Express 15, 5431 (2007)

    2007

  45. [53]

    Gokhroo, F

    V. Gokhroo, F. Le Kien, and S. Nic Chormaic, Rubidium atom spectral lineshapes in high intensity light fields near an optical nanofibre, J. Phys. B 55, 125301 (2022)

    2022

  46. [54]

    Vetsch, D

    E. Vetsch, D. Reitz, G. Sagu´ e, R. Schmidt, S. Dawkins, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Optical interface created by laser-cooled atoms trapped in the evanescent field sur- rounding an optical nanofiber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 203603 (2010)

    2010

  47. [55]

    R. K. Gupta, J. L. Everett, A. D. Tranter, R. Henke, V. Gokhroo, P. K. Lam, and S. Nic Chormaic, Machine learner optimization of optical nanofiber-based dipole traps, A VS Quantum Sci.4, 026801 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    Liedl, S

    C. Liedl, S. Pucher, P. Schneeweiss, L. P. Yatsenko, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Observation of oscillatory Ra- man gain associated with two-photon Rabi oscillations of nanofiber-coupled atoms, J. Phys. B 55, 234005 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    Pache, M

    L. Pache, M. Cordier, M. Schemmer, P. Schneeweiss, J. Volz, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Realization of a magic-wavelength nanofiber-based two-color dipole trap with sub- λ/2 spacing, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.02278 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    M´ arquez-Mijares, B

    M. M´ arquez-Mijares, B. Lepetit, and E. Brion, Nanofibre-based trap for Rb 2 molecule, Phys. Scr. 98, 115404 (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    Le Kien, P

    F. Le Kien, P. Schneeweiss, and A. Rauschenbeutel, State-dependent potentials in a nanofiber-based two- color trap for cold atoms, Phys. Rev. A 88, 033840 (2013)

    2013

  52. [60]

    Zielonkowski, J

    M. Zielonkowski, J. Steiger, U. Sch¨ unemann, M. DeKieviet, and R. Grimm, Optically induced spin precession and echo in an atomic beam, Phys. Rev. A 58, 3993 (1998)

    1998

  53. [61]

    E. J. Robertson, N. ˇSibali´ c, R. M. Potvliege, and M. P. Jones, Arc 3.0: An expanded python toolbox for atomic physics calculations, Computer Physics Communications 261, 107814 (2021)

    2021

  54. [62]

    Stourm, M

    E. Stourm, M. Lepers, J. Robert, S. Nic Chormaic, K. Mølmer, and E. Brion, Spontaneous emission and en- ergy shifts of a Rydberg rubidium atom close to an opti- cal nanofiber, Phys. Rev. A 101, 052508 (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    Sukumar and D

    C. Sukumar and D. M. Brink, Spin-flip transitions in a magnetic trap, Phys. Rev. A 56, 2451 (1997)

    1997

  56. [64]

    S.-L. Su, E. Liang, S. Zhang, J.-J. Wen, L.-L. Sun, Z. Jin, and A.-D. Zhu, One-step implementation of the Rydberg-Rydberg-interaction gate, Phys. Rev. A 93, 012306 (2016)

    2016

  57. [65]

    K¨ ubler, J

    H. K¨ ubler, J. Shaffer, T. Baluktsian, R. L¨ ow, and T. Pfau, Coherent excitation of Rydberg atoms in micrometre-sized atomic vapour cells, Nat. Photonics 4, 112 (2010)

    2010

  58. [66]

    Wongcharoenbhorn, C

    K. Wongcharoenbhorn, C. Koller, T. M. Fromhold, and W. Li, Casimir-Polder interactions of S-state Rydberg atoms with graphene, Phys. Rev. A 107, 043308 (2023)

    2023

  59. [67]

    Signoles, A

    A. Signoles, A. Facon, D. Grosso, I. Dotsenko, S. Haroche, J.-M. Raimond, M. Brune, and S. Gleyzes, Confined quantum Zeno dynamics of a watched atomic arrow, Nature Phys. 10, 715 (2014)

    2014

  60. [68]

    Le Kien, S

    F. Le Kien, S. Nic Chormaic, and T. Busch, Optical trap for an atom around the midpoint between two coupled identical parallel optical nanofibers, Phys. Rev. A 103, 063106 (2021)

    2021

  61. [69]

    Goban, K

    A. Goban, K. Choi, D. Alton, D. Ding, C. Lacroˆ ute, M. Pototschnig, T. Thiele, N. Stern, and H. Kim- ble, Demonstration of a state-insensitive, compensated nanofiber trap, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 033603 (2012)

    2012

  62. [70]

    W. Lee, M. Kim, H. Jo, Y. Song, and J. Ahn, Coherent and dissipative dynamics of entangled few-body systems of Rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. A 99, 043404 (2019)

    2019

  63. [71]

    T. F. Gallagher, Rydberg Atoms, 3 (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge, England, 2005)

    2005

  64. [72]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haber- land, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Peter- son, W. Weckesser, J. Bright,et al., Scipy 1.0: fundamen- tal algorithms for scientific computing in python, Nat. Methods 17, 261 (2020)

    2020

  65. [73]

    T. Ray, R. K. Gupta, V. Gokhroo, J. L. Everett, T. Nieddu, K. S. Rajasree, and S. Nic Chormaic, Ob- servation of the 87Rb 5S1/2 to 4D3/2 electric quadrupole transition at 516.6 nm mediated via an optical nanofibre, New J. Phys. 22, 062001 (2020)

    2020

  66. [74]

    Le Kien, S

    F. Le Kien, S. Nic Chormaic, and T. Busch, Transfer of angular momentum of guided light to an atom with an electric quadrupole transition near an optical nanofiber, Phys. Rev. A 106, 013712 (2022)

    2022

  67. [75]

    Le Kien, S

    F. Le Kien, S. Nic Chormaic, and T. Busch, Direction- dependent coupling between a nanofiber-guided light field and a two-level atom with an electric quadrupole transition, Phys. Rev. A 107, 013713 (2023)

    2023

  68. [76]

    Singh, M

    S. Singh, M. Kaur, B. Arora, and B. K. Sahoo, Higher- component quadrupole polarizabilities: Estimations for the clock states of the alkaline-earth-metal ions, Phys. Rev. A 98, 013406 (2018)

    2018

  69. [77]

    C. J. Foot, Atomic Physics , Vol. 7 (Oxford university press, Oxford, England, 2005)

    2005

  70. [78]

    Stourm, Y

    E. Stourm, Y. Zhang, M. Lepers, R. Gu´ erout, J. Robert, S. Nic Chormaic, K. Mølmer, and E. Brion, Spontaneous emission of a sodium Rydberg atom close to an optical nanofibre, J. Phys. B 52, 045503 (2019)

    2019

  71. [79]

    Stourm, M

    E. Stourm, M. Lepers, J. Robert, S. Nic Chormaic, K. Mølmer, and E. Brion, Interaction of two Rydberg atoms in the vicinity of an optical nanofibre, New J. Phys. 25, 023022 (2023)

    2023

  72. [80]

    Brion and E

    J. Brion and E. Brion, Floquet thermalisation in a Rydberg-blockaded atomic chain subject to a frequency- modulated drive, J. Phys. B 53, 105001 (2020)

    2020

  73. [81]

    J. Bai, R. Song, Z. Li, Y. Jiao, G. Raithel, J. Zhao, and S. Jia, Microwave spectroscopy and Zeeman effect of ce- sium (n+2)D5/2 → nFJ Rydberg transitions, Phys. Rev. A 109, 022818 (2024)

    2024

  74. [82]

    Fort´ agh, A

    J. Fort´ agh, A. Grossmann, C. Zimmermann, and T. H¨ ansch, Miniaturized wire trap for neutral atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5310 (1998)

    1998

  75. [83]

    Heller, P

    L. Heller, P. Farrera, G. Heinze, and H. de Riedmat- ten, Cold-atom temporally multiplexed quantum mem- ory with cavity-enhanced noise suppression, Physical Re- view Letters 124, 210504 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

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