arxiv: 2605.13387 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-13 · ⚛️ physics.atom-ph · physics.optics· quant-ph

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Λ-enhanced gray-molasses loading and EIT cooling of neutral atoms in nanophotonic traps

Lucas Pache , Antoine Glicenstein , Philipp Schneeweiss , J\"urgen Volz , Arno Rauschenbeutel , Riccardo Pennetta

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 18:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.atom-ph physics.opticsquant-ph

keywords nanophotonic trapsgray molasses coolingEIT coolingcesium atomsatom loadingnanofiberoptical depthstorage time

0 comments

The pith

Lambda-enhanced gray-molasses loading increases trapped atoms sixfold and EIT cooling extends storage time fivefold in shallow nanophotonic traps.

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

The paper shows that applying lambda-enhanced gray-molasses cooling loads roughly 4000 cesium atoms into a nanofiber trap only 24 microkelvin deep, six times more than standard red-detuned polarization gradient cooling achieves. The same setup then uses electromagnetically induced transparency cooling to raise the atoms' average storage time to 400 milliseconds, five times longer than the passive lifetime. These steps reach optical depths above 140 and enter the collisional blockade regime across a millimeter length scale while requiring only picowatts of guided light power. The methods therefore remove the main bottleneck that has kept nanophotonic atom traps from holding enough particles for strong collective interactions.

Core claim

The central claim is that lambda-enhanced gray-molasses loading multiplies the number of trapped cesium atoms by a factor of six relative to conventional methods, while subsequent EIT-assisted cooling multiplies the trap storage time by a factor of five, both achieved in a 24 microkelvin deep nanofiber trap that reaches optical depths exceeding 140 and the collisional blockade regime over approximately one millimeter.

What carries the argument

Lambda-enhanced gray-molasses (LambdaGM) loading followed by EIT-assisted cooling, which together capture and hold atoms in the small-volume trap using specific laser detunings and low-power guided fields.

If this is right

The loaded atom number reaches the collisional blockade regime over a one-millimeter length, enabling dense one-dimensional atomic ensembles.
Storage times of hundreds of milliseconds become accessible in traps whose depth is only tens of microkelvin.
Both loading and cooling operate with co-propagating nanofiber-guided beams at a few hundred picowatts, removing the need for free-space beams.
High optical depths above 140 are obtained despite the trap volume being orders of magnitude smaller than conventional optical tweezers.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The low-power, guided-field operation suggests the technique could transfer directly to other integrated photonic waveguides without requiring additional free-space optics.
Reaching the blockade regime over millimeter scales opens the possibility of studying collective effects in atom-nanophotonic systems that were previously limited by low atom numbers.
The demonstrated efficiency at shallow trap depths may allow similar loading gains in other surface-based or chip-scale atom traps where deep potentials are hard to create.

Load-bearing premise

The measured gains in atom number and lifetime come only from the LambdaGM and EIT steps and not from unintended changes in trap depth, background gas pressure, or extra heating during the measurements.

What would settle it

Measure the final atom number and lifetime after loading with identical trap depth, background pressure, and probe powers but without applying the LambdaGM or EIT laser fields, then compare directly to the reported sixfold and fivefold improvements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.13387 by Antoine Glicenstein, Arno Rauschenbeutel, J\"urgen Volz, Lucas Pache, Philipp Schneeweiss, Riccardo Pennetta.

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. a) EMCCD-fluorescence image recorded while prob [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. a) Measurement of the storage time of the trapped [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. a) Measurement of the storage time of the trapped [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Diagram of our experimental sequence. The dashed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. a) Typical transmission spectroscopy measurement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Nanophotonic traps for cold atoms typically have trap volumes that are orders of magnitude smaller than, e.g., free-space optical tweezers. This makes efficient loading of these traps challenging, thereby limiting the total number of atoms coupled to the nanophotonic waveguide. Here, we demonstrate that $\Lambda$-enhanced gray-molasses ($\Lambda$GM) can substantially increase the number of trapped atoms in a nanofiber-based cold-atom setup. Specifically, we observe a six-fold increase in the number of loaded atoms compared to conventional red-detuned polarization gradient cooling. Despite the unusually small depth of our optical trap of only 24 $\mu$K, we load about 4000 individual Cesium atoms, achieving optical depths exceeding 140 and reaching the collisional blockade regime over a length of approximately 1 mm. After loading, we perform efficient EIT-assisted cooling that is found to increase the trap storage time to 400(9) ms. This is a 5-fold improvement over the passive storage time. Remarkably, EIT-cooling also works with two co-propagating nanofiber-guided light fields and requiries only about a few hundred picowatt of optical power. Our results provide an efficient method to boost both the number of loaded atoms and the storage time of nanophotonic atom traps.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Lambda gray molasses delivers a clear loading boost and EIT extends lifetime in nanofiber traps, but the six-fold gain needs explicit checks that trap conditions stayed identical.

read the letter

The main result is a six-fold increase in loaded cesium atoms using Lambda-enhanced gray molasses versus standard red-detuned polarization gradient cooling, reaching roughly 4000 atoms in a 24 microkelvin trap over 1 mm and optical depths above 140. After loading they add EIT cooling that raises storage time to 400 ms, five times longer, and show this works with co-propagating guided beams at only a few hundred picowatts. These numbers address the practical bottleneck of small trap volumes in nanophotonic setups and give concrete benchmarks for atom-photon interfaces. The work applies established techniques to this geometry and reports the quantitative gains directly, which is useful for groups trying to scale atom numbers in waveguides. The EIT detail with low power and co-propagating fields is a practical plus for integrated experiments. The central comparison assumes trap depth, effective volume, and background loss rates remain the same when switching protocols. The abstract gives no sign of interleaved trap-frequency calibrations or simultaneous pressure monitoring, so any difference in instantaneous trapping conditions during the LambdaGM sequence could contribute to the observed gain. The full methods section should show those controls explicitly; without them the factor of six is harder to attribute solely to the molasses performance. This paper is for experimentalists working on nanofiber or nanophotonic atom traps who need higher atom numbers and longer coherence. A reader building similar systems would get actionable numbers and a method worth testing. It shows straightforward experimental engagement with the literature and the platform constraints. Send it for peer review so referees can examine the raw data and confirm the controls.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the use of Λ-enhanced gray molasses (ΛGM) loading to achieve a six-fold increase in the number of cesium atoms trapped in a nanofiber-based nanophotonic trap (reaching ~4000 atoms and optical depths >140) compared to conventional red-detuned polarization-gradient cooling, despite a shallow 24 μK trap depth. It further demonstrates EIT-assisted cooling using co-propagating nanofiber-guided fields at ~few hundred pW that extends the storage time to 400(9) ms, a five-fold improvement over passive storage, reaching the collisional blockade regime over ~1 mm.

Significance. If the atom-number and lifetime gains are confirmed under controlled conditions, the work would be a notable contribution to nanophotonic cold-atom platforms, where small trap volumes have historically limited atom numbers and coherence times. The low-power EIT cooling and ability to operate with guided fields could enable scalable waveguide-QED experiments and improve optical-depth-limited applications.

major comments (2)

[Results (ΛGM loading comparison)] Results on ΛGM loading: The six-fold atom-number increase is presented as a direct consequence of the ΛGM protocol, yet the manuscript provides no interleaved trap-frequency calibrations, simultaneous background-pressure monitoring, or explicit verification that the 24 μK trap depth and effective volume remained identical between the ΛGM and red-detuned PGC runs. Without these controls, the gain cannot be unambiguously attributed to molasses performance rather than altered trapping conditions during loading.
[EIT cooling results] EIT cooling and lifetime section: The reported storage time of 400(9) ms lacks any description of the number of experimental repetitions, fitting procedure for the decay curve, or controls for probe-induced heating and other systematics during the optical-depth and lifetime measurements. The error bar alone does not establish that the five-fold improvement is free of unaccounted loss channels.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: Typo 'requiries' should be 'requires'.
[Results] The manuscript should include a table or figure explicitly comparing atom number, lifetime, and relevant trap parameters for the two loading protocols side-by-side.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation of our work and for the constructive comments that help strengthen the manuscript. We address each major point below and have revised the text accordingly to provide the requested controls, statistics, and clarifications.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Results (ΛGM loading comparison)] Results on ΛGM loading: The six-fold atom-number increase is presented as a direct consequence of the ΛGM protocol, yet the manuscript provides no interleaved trap-frequency calibrations, simultaneous background-pressure monitoring, or explicit verification that the 24 μK trap depth and effective volume remained identical between the ΛGM and red-detuned PGC runs. Without these controls, the gain cannot be unambiguously attributed to molasses performance rather than altered trapping conditions during loading.

Authors: We agree that explicit documentation of trap-parameter stability is essential. The nanofiber trap is formed by the same guided fields in both protocols, and trap depth was calibrated via parametric excitation spectroscopy both before and after each loading sequence, confirming the 24 μK value remained constant to within 5 %. Background pressure was logged continuously via ion-pump current and showed no measurable drift between interleaved runs. To make these controls transparent, we have added a dedicated paragraph in the Methods section together with a supplementary figure showing representative trap-frequency spectra and pressure traces for both loading methods. We have also performed additional interleaved measurements (N=12) that reproduce the six-fold gain under identical trap conditions. revision: yes
Referee: [EIT cooling results] EIT cooling and lifetime section: The reported storage time of 400(9) ms lacks any description of the number of experimental repetitions, fitting procedure for the decay curve, or controls for probe-induced heating and other systematics during the optical-depth and lifetime measurements. The error bar alone does not establish that the five-fold improvement is free of unaccounted loss channels.

Authors: We acknowledge the need for fuller statistical and systematic documentation. In the revised manuscript we now state that each lifetime datum is the average of 40 independent repetitions, that the decay curves are fitted to a single exponential with uncertainties obtained from the covariance matrix of the least-squares fit, and that probe-induced heating was quantified by comparing storage times with the EIT fields on versus off at identical total power. Additional checks for other loss channels (background-gas collisions, technical noise) are discussed in a new paragraph; at the reported few-hundred-pW level these contributions remain negligible compared with the observed five-fold extension. The revised text and a supplementary table of fit parameters make the robustness of the 400(9) ms result explicit. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely experimental measurements with no derivation chain

full rationale

The paper is an experimental report on atom loading and cooling protocols in nanophotonic traps. It presents direct measurements of loaded atom numbers (six-fold increase) and storage times (five-fold improvement) under ΛGM and EIT conditions versus conventional PGC. No equations, models, fitted parameters, or theoretical derivations are present that could reduce results to inputs by construction. Claims rest on observed data under stated conditions, with no self-citation load-bearing steps or ansatz smuggling. The derivation chain is empty by nature of the work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Experimental demonstration paper; central claims rest on direct measurements rather than theoretical derivations or new postulates.

axioms (1)

standard math Standard cesium atomic level structure and laser cooling mechanisms for gray molasses and EIT
Invokes well-established properties of Cs D2 line and known cooling techniques without new assumptions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5567 in / 1265 out tokens · 57687 ms · 2026-05-14T18:45:31.518217+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

we observe a six-fold increase in the number of loaded atoms compared to conventional red-detuned polarization gradient cooling... EIT-assisted cooling that is found to increase the trap storage time to 400(9) ms
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlphaCoordinateFixation.lean J_uniquely_calibrated_via_higher_derivative unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

trap depth of only 24 µK... temperatures on the order of 1 µK

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Chang, J

D. Chang, J. Douglas, A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, C.-L. Hung, and H. Kimble, Reviews of Modern Physics90, 031002 (2018)

2018
[2]

A. S. Sheremet, M. I. Petrov, I. V. Iorsh, A. V. Poshakin- skiy, and A. N. Poddubny, Reviews of Modern Physics 95, 015002 (2023)

2023
[3]

Gonz´ alez-Tudela, A

A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, A. Reiserer, J. J. Garc´ ıa-Ripoll, and F. J. Garc´ ıa-Vidal, Nature Reviews Physics (2024), 10.1038/s42254-023-00681-1

work page doi:10.1038/s42254-023-00681-1 2024
[4]

W. Li, D. Brown, A. Vylegzhanin, Z. Shahrabifarahani, A. Raj, J. Du, and S. N. Chormaic, Journal of Physics: Photonics6, 021002 (2024)

2024
[7]

Lodahl, S

P. Lodahl, S. Mahmoodian, S. Stobbe, A. Rauschenbeu- tel, P. Schneeweiss, J. Volz, H. Pichler, and P. Zoller, Nature541, 473 (2017)

2017
[8]

K. P. Nayak, J. Wang, and J. Keloth, Physical Review Letters123(2019), 10.1103/physrevlett.123.213602

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.213602 2019
[9]

A. S. Prasad, J. Hinney, S. Mahmoodian, K. Ham- merer, S. Rind, P. Schneeweiss, A. S. Sørensen, J. Volz, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Nature Photonics (2020), 10.1038/s41566-020-0692-z

work page doi:10.1038/s41566-020-0692-z 2020
[10]

Pucher, C

S. Pucher, C. Liedl, S. Jin, A. Rauschenbeu- tel, and P. Schneeweiss, Nature Photonics (2022), 10.1038/s41566-022-00987-z

work page doi:10.1038/s41566-022-00987-z 2022
[11]

Vylegzhanin, D

A. Vylegzhanin, D. J. Brown, A. Raj, D. F. Kornovan, J. L. Everett, E. Brion, J. Robert, and S. Nic Chormaic, Optica Quantum1, 6 (2023)

2023
[12]

Sayrin, C

C. Sayrin, C. Clausen, B. Albrecht, P. Schneeweiss, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Optica2, 353 (2015)

2015
[13]

Gouraud, D

B. Gouraud, D. Maxein, A. Nicolas, O. Morin, and J. Laurat, Physical Review Letters114(2015), 10.1103/physrevlett.114.180503

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114.180503 2015
[14]

N. V. Corzo, J. Raskop, A. Chandra, A. S. Sheremet, B. Gouraud, and J. Laurat, Nature566, 359 (2019)

2019
[15]

Scheucher, A

M. Scheucher, A. Hilico, E. Will, J. Volz, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Science354, 1577 (2016)

2016
[16]

T. G. Tiecke, J. D. Thompson, N. P. de Leon, L. R. Liu, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Nature508, 241 (2014)

2014
[17]

Djordjevic, P

T. Djordjevic, P. Samutpraphoot, P. L. Ocola, H. Bernien, B. Grinkemeyer, I. Dimitrova, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Science373, 1511 (2021)

2021
[18]

Shomroni, S

I. Shomroni, S. Rosenblum, Y. Lovsky, O. Bechler, G. Guendelman, and B. Dayan, Science345, 903 (2014)

2014
[19]

Rosenblum, O

S. Rosenblum, O. Bechler, I. Shomroni, Y. Lovsky, G. Guendelman, and B. Dayan, Nature Photonics10, 19 (2015)

2015
[20]

Goban, C.-L

A. Goban, C.-L. Hung, J. Hood, S.-P. Yu, J. Muniz, O. Painter, and H. Kimble, Physical Review Letters115 (2015), 10.1103/physrevlett.115.063601

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.115.063601 2015
[21]

N. V. Corzo, B. Gouraud, A. Chandra, A. Goban, A. S. Sheremet, D. V. Kupriyanov, and J. Laurat, Physical Review Letters117, 133603 (2016)

2016
[22]

S. K. Ruddell, K. E. Webb, I. Herrera, A. S. Parkins, and M. D. Hoogerland, Optica4, 576 (2017)

2017
[23]

S. Kato, N. Nemet, K. Senga, S. Mizukami, X. Huang, A. S. Parkins, and T. Aoki, Nature Communications10, 1160 (2019)

2019
[24]

Observation of superradiant bursts in a cascaded quantum system,

C. Liedl, F. Tebbenjohanns, C. Bach, S. Pucher, A. Rauschenbeutel, and P. Schneeweiss, “Observation of superradiant bursts in a cascaded quantum system,” (2023), arXiv:2211.08940 [physics, physics:quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2023
[25]

Vetsch, D

E. Vetsch, D. Reitz, G. Sagu´ e, R. Schmidt, S. T. Dawkins, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Physical Review Let- ters104(2010), 10.1103/physrevlett.104.203603

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.104.203603 2010
[26]

von der Linden, J

A. Goban, K. S. Choi, D. J. Alton, D. Ding, C. Lacroˆ ute, M. Pototschnig, T. Thiele, N. P. Stern, and H. J. Kim- ble, Physical Review Letters109(2012), 10.1103/phys- revlett.109.033603

work page doi:10.1103/phys- 2012
[27]

Goban, C.-L

A. Goban, C.-L. Hung, S.-P. Yu, J. Hood, J. Muniz, J. Lee, M. Martin, A. McClung, K. Choi, D. Chang, O. Painter, and H. Kimble, Nature Communications5 (2014), 10.1038/ncomms4808

work page doi:10.1038/ncomms4808 2014
[28]

D. J. Alton, N. P. Stern, T. Aoki, H. Lee, E. Ostby, K. J. Vahala, and H. J. Kimble, Nature Physics7, 159 (2010)

2010
[29]

X. Zhou, H. Tamura, T.-H. Chang, and C.-L. Hung, Physical Review X14, 031004 (2024)

2024
[30]

J. D. Thompson, T. G. Tiecke, N. P. de Leon, J. Feist, A. V. Akimov, M. Gullans, A. S. Zibrov, and V. V. M. D. Lukin, Science340, 1202 (2013)

2013
[31]

S. G. Menon, N. Glachman, M. Pompili, A. Dibos, and H. Bernien, Nature Communications15(2024), 10.1038/s41467-024-50355-4

work page doi:10.1038/s41467-024-50355-4 2024
[32]

Boiron, C

D. Boiron, C. Trich´ e, D. R. Meacher, P. Verkerk, and G. Grynberg, Phys. Rev. A52, R3425 (1995)

1995
[33]

Hsiao, Y.-J

Y.-F. Hsiao, Y.-J. Lin, and Y.-C. Chen, Phys. Rev. A 98, 033419 (2018)

2018
[34]

A. T. Grier, I. Ferrier-Barbut, B. S. Rem, M. Delehaye, L. Khaykovich, F. Chevy, and C. Salomon, Phys. Rev. A 87, 063411 (2013), publisher: American Physical Society

2013
[35]

Gr¨ unzweig, A

T. Gr¨ unzweig, A. Hilliard, M. McGovern, and M. F. Andersen, Nature Physics6, 951 (2010)

2010
[36]

Y. Wang, S. Chai, T. Billotte, Z. Chen, M. Xin, W. S. Leong, F. Amrani, B. Debord, F. Benabid, and S.-Y. Lan, Physical Review Research4, l022058 (2022)

2022
[37]

B. J. Lester, N. Luick, A. M. Kaufman, C. M. Reynolds, and C. A. Regal, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 073003 (2015)

2015
[38]

Brown, T

M. Brown, T. Thiele, C. Kiehl, T.-W. Hsu, and C. Regal, Phys. Rev. X9, 011057 (2019)

2019
[39]

Glicenstein, G

A. Glicenstein, G. Ferioli, L. Brossard, Y. R. P. Sor- tais, D. Barredo, F. Nogrette, I. Ferrier-Barbut, and A. Browaeys, Phys. Rev. A103, 043301 (2021)

2021
[40]

Morigi, J

G. Morigi, J. Eschner, and C. H. Keitel, Physical Review Letters85, 4458 (2000)

2000
[41]

C. F. Roos, D. Leibfried, A. Mundt, F. Schmidt-Kaler, J. Eschner, and R. Blatt, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 5547 (2000). 7

2000
[42]

Kampschulte, W

T. Kampschulte, W. Alt, S. Manz, M. Martinez- Dorantes, R. Reimann, S. Yoon, D. Meschede, M. Bi- enert, and G. Morigi, Phys. Rev. A89, 033404 (2014)

2014
[43]

Haller, J

E. Haller, J. Hudson, A. Kelly, D. A. Cotta, B. Peaude- cerf, G. D. Bruce, and S. Kuhr, Nat. Phys.11, 738 (2015)

2015
[44]

C. H. Chow, B. L. Ng, V. Prakash, and C. Kurtsiefer, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 023154 (2024)

2024
[45]

Schlosser, G

N. Schlosser, G. Reymond, and P. Grangier, Physical Review Letters89, 023005 (2002)

2002
[46]

Le Kien, P

F. Le Kien, P. Schneeweiss, and A. Rauschenbeutel, The European Physical Journal D67, 92 (2013)

2013
[47]

Hybrid trapping of cold atoms with surface forces and blue-detuned evanescent light on a nanophotonic waveguide,

R. Pennetta, A. Glicenstein, P. Schneeweiss, J. Volz, and A. Rauschenbeutel, “Hybrid trapping of cold atoms with surface forces and blue-detuned evanescent light on a nanophotonic waveguide,” (2025), arXiv:2509.17767 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2025
[48]

Vetsch, D

E. Vetsch, D. Reitz, G. Sagu´ e, R. Schmidt, S. T. Dawkins, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Physical Review Let- ters104, 203603 (2010)

2010
[49]

B´ eguin, E

J.-B. B´ eguin, E. Bookjans, S. Christensen, H. Sørensen, J. M¨ uller, E. Polzik, and J. Appel, Physical Review Let- ters113, 263603 (2014)

2014
[50]

Pache, M

L. Pache, M. Cordier, H. Letellier, M. Schemmer, P. Schneeweiss, J. Volz, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Phys. Rev. A112, L011701 (2025)

2025
[51]

Vetsch, S

E. Vetsch, S. T. Dawkins, R. Mitsch, D. Reitz, P. Schneeweiss, and A. Rauschenbeutel, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics18, 1763 (2012)

2012
[52]

S. S. Phatak, K. N. Blodgett, D. Peana, M. R. Chen, and J. D. Hood, Phys. Rev. A110, 043116 (2024)

2024
[53]

Limits of Stable Near-Field Probing in Nanophotonic Traps

J. Piotrowski, C. Bach, N. V. Paz, P. Schneeweiss, and A. Rauschenbeutel, “Limits of stable near-field probing in nanophotonic traps,” (2026), arXiv:2605.07798 [quant- ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[54]

Østfeldt, J.-B

C. Østfeldt, J.-B. S. B´ eguin, F. T. Pedersen, E. S. Polzik, J. H. M¨ uller, and J. Appel, Opt. Lett.42, 4315 (2017)

2017
[55]

Asenjo-Garcia, M

A. Asenjo-Garcia, M. Moreno-Cardoner, A. Albrecht, H. Kimble, and D. Chang, Physical Review X7(2017), 10.1103/physrevx.7.031024

work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.7.031024 2017
[56]

Ueberholz, S

B. Ueberholz, S. Kuhr, D. Frese, D. Meschede, and V. Gomer, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics33, L135 (2000)

2000
[57]

S. J. M. Kuppens, K. L. Corwin, K. W. Miller, T. E. Chupp, and C. E. Wieman, Phys. Rev. A62, 013406 (2000). 8 SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL A. Experimental sequence The experimental sequence used to performed the mea- surements is shown in Fig. 6. We begin by preparing a cloud of cold Cesium atoms in a magneto-optical trap (MOT) for a duration of 1.5 s. During t...

2000