Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Field Deviations in Dipole-Driven Linear Paul Traps: Effects of Endcap Boundaries and their Minimization

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 ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Dipole-driven linear Paul traps confine ions with zero or negative endcap voltages, and a tapered electrode design cuts the axial RF coupling from 42% to 16%.

desk verdict Solid experimental demonstration of axial trapping at zero/negative endcap voltage in a dipole-driven Paul trap, but the design map rests on an unvalidated center-potential proxy. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04681 v1 pith:MHAFMJ7Q submitted 2026-08-05 physics.atom-ph

Vaibhav Mahendrakar , Nishant Joshi , S. A. Rangwala This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph
keywords linearPaultrapdipoledriveendcapelectrodesaxialconfinementradialsecularfrequencymicromotioniontrappingparametricexcitation
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

Linear Paul traps are radio-frequency ion traps with four parallel electrodes that confine ions radially and, with additional endcap electrodes, axially. They are normally operated with a quadrupole drive, but many experiments use the simpler dipole drive, where only one pair of electrodes gets the radio-frequency voltage. This paper shows that the dipole drive, combined with the finite length of the trap's endcap electrodes, changes the axial Mathieu stability region so that positive ions stay confined even when the endcap voltage is zero or negative—something that is impossible in an ideal quadrupole-driven trap. The same endcap boundaries break the radial symmetry of the $a$--$q$ parameter space, so the two radial secular frequencies become unequal, which the authors verify by parametric-excitation measurements. From simulations they build a two-dimensional design map that quantifies the deviation of the trap-center potential from the ideal value as a function of the aspect ratios $d/R$ and $r/R$, and use it to propose a tapered-electrode geometry that reduces the radial-to-axial coupling from 42% to 16% while keeping optical access.

What carries the argument

The central object is the potential at the trap centre and its deviation, under dipole drive, from the ideal value $V_{\mathrm{rf}}/2$. In an ideal infinitely long trap the dipole drive creates a spatially uniform oscillating potential on axis, which exerts no force; the finite endcaps make that axial potential curved and time-dependent, coupling radial RF to axial motion. The paper uses this centre potential—computed in simulation with one electrode pair set to 1 V and all others grounded—as a scalar measure of all the deviations (axial confinement, radial secular-frequency splitting, axial micromotion), and maps it over the two aspect ratios $d/R$ and $r/R$. The map is the design tool, and the proposed tapered electrodes work by shielding the endcaps near the trap ends so the axial potential stays flat near the centre without sacrificing optical access.

What would settle it

Choose two traps with the same percentage center-potential deviation from the map but different values of $d/R$ and $r/R$, and measure the axial secular frequency and the two radial secular frequencies in each. If the axial confinement strength or the radial splitting differs substantially between the two traps (beyond simulation error), the map's assumption that a single static metric captures all dynamic effects is falsified. More directly, in the proposed tapered trap, measure the amplitude of the axial micromotion sidebands at $\Omega_{\mathrm{rf}} \pm \omega_z$; a reduction by about a factor of 2.6 relative to the uniform trap (the ratio of 42% to 16%) would confirm the claimed drop in radial-to-axial coupling, while a much smaller drop would indicate that the static center-potential deviation does not control the micromotion amplitude.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in a dipole-driven linear Paul trap the presence of finite-length endcap electrodes makes the axial potential time-dependent, which shifts the axial $a$--$q$ stability diagram enough that stable axial confinement occurs for zero or even negative endcap voltages. The paper demonstrates this both in simulations and by trapping dark Li$^+$ ions in a real trap (Trap 2, with endcap separation 54 mm), and measures the axial secular frequency at zero endcap voltage as roughly 12 kHz, in fair agreement with simulation. It further shows that the endcap boundaries, together with the asymmetric drive, make the radial curvatures along the two transverse axes unequal, producing distinct radial secular frequencies (measured at twice the secular frequencies: 158 kHz and 184 kHz). Finally, by computing the percentage deviation of the static potential at the trap center from the ideal dipole-drive value $V_{\mathrm{rf}}/2$ across a grid of $d/R$ and $r/R$ values, the paper constructs a scale-invariant design map and proposes a tapered linear-electrode geometry that flattens the axial potential, halving the second-order curvature coefficient and cutting the center-potential deviation from 42% to 16%.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the percentage deviation of the static electric potential at the trap center—computed with one electrode pair set to 1 V and all others grounded—is a complete proxy for all dynamic trapping deviations, including axial confinement strength and radial secular-frequency splitting. If that static center-potential metric does not actually track the dynamical stability and frequency changes across the $d/R$ and $r/R$ parameter space, the map and the claimed 42%-to-16% coupling reduction would not be supported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dipole-driven traps can be built with no endcap voltage supply or with negative endcaps, simplifying the electrode stack and avoiding DC offsets on the axis.
  • The two radial secular frequencies will in general be unequal; any experiment relying on radial mode degeneracy (e.g., sideband cooling or radial-mode-coupling gates) must account for the split.
  • The 2D aspect-ratio map gives a scale-invariant way to predict how far a given trap is from ideal behaviour, which is useful when miniaturizing traps or adding optical clearance.
  • The tapered-electrode design reduces axial micromotion amplitude and the axial secular frequency while preserving the trap size and line of sight, making it attractive for hybrid ion–atom experiments.
  • The measured zero-endcap axial secular frequency and the radial splitting provide benchmark numbers for validating future LPT simulations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The map is based on a static (DC-like) potential deviation, but the actual dynamical deviations (micromotion amplitude, changes in Mathieu q) may not scale linearly with that static metric; a straightforward test is to simulate the full RF trajectory for several (d/R, r/R) points and check whether the stability boundaries and secular frequencies follow the map's contours.
  • The same static-deviation logic might apply to quadrupole drive as a measure of endcap-induced perturbations, in which case the map could be used to choose endcap separations in QD traps too.
  • Since the paper only tests one trap geometry, the generality of the map across different electrode cross-sections (e.g., blade electrodes) is untested; a numerical study varying the cross-section shape would show whether the percentage deviations remain a good proxy.
  • The tapered design's reduction in radial-to-axial coupling could allow smaller d/R ratios than are currently practical, shrinking the overall trap footprint; the paper does not explore how far the taper can be pushed before the axial potential becomes non-harmonic.
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 reports a combined experimental and numerical study of a linear Paul trap operated in the dipole-drive (DD) configuration, using cylindrical electrodes and hollow endcaps. The main claims are: (i) Li+ ions can be stably trapped axially with zero and even negative endcap voltages, owing to a time-dependent axial potential that modifies the axial a-q stability region; (ii) the DD configuration lifts the radial degeneracy and produces unequal radial secular frequencies, as confirmed by parametric-excitation measurements; and (iii) a two-dimensional design map based on the percentage deviation of the static center potential from the ideal value can classify traps and guide a tapered-electrode modification that reduces radial-to-axial coupling. The paper combines SIMION/Mathematica simulations with experimental measurements on a hybrid ion-atom trap.

Significance. If the design-map claims are supported, the paper gives practically useful guidance for dipole-driven linear Paul traps used in hybrid ion-atom experiments, where optical access and compact geometries are important. The experimental demonstration of stable trapping at zero and negative endcap voltages is a concrete and nontrivial result, and the measurement of unequal radial secular frequencies in a DD trap is a useful validation. The simulations are not fitted to the measured outcomes; the parameters are set from geometry and applied voltages, which strengthens the comparison. However, the quantitative design recommendation in Sections VI and VII rests on a static proxy whose relation to dynamic trapping properties is not established, so the design-map portion of the paper needs additional support before the broader claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section VI, Fig. 5] The assertion that 'all the effects of the DD can be mapped to one phenomenon, the potential at the centre of the trap' is not established. The map in Fig. 5 is computed from a static configuration with one electrode pair set to 1 V and all other electrodes grounded, but the axial confinement is governed by the coefficient of z^2 in the oscillating potential (hence q_z), and the radial secular-frequency splitting is determined by the difference of the x- and y-curvatures at the center. A monopole center-potential deviation does not uniquely determine these curvature quantities. The paper's own comparison in Section VII shows the tension: the conventional design has a 42% center-potential deviation and the tapered design 16%, yet the simulated axial secular frequency changes from 45 kHz to 23 kHz and the radial splitting from 46 kHz to 26 kHz, ratios that are not reproduced by the center-potential ratio (0.42/0.29). Please provide either an analytic relation between the center-potential deviation and the relevant curvatures, or a numerical scan over the (d/R, r/R) grid showing that the static proxy is rank-order correlated with the dynamic q_z and radial q parameters. Without such a check, the map should be presented only as a qualitative figure of merit, not as a quantitative predictor of radial-to-axial coupling.
  2. [Section IV, Fig. 2(b)] The central claim of a 'modified axial a-q space' is supported only by numerical trajectory simulations; no effective Mathieu equation or analytic expressions for the modified a_z and q_z parameters are given. Since the abstract and conclusions present this modification as a key finding, the authors should either derive the axial Mathieu parameters that include the time-dependent center potential and the endcap boundary, or explicitly state that the stability region is obtained purely from simulation and has not been reduced to an analytic form. In addition, the experimental verification of the negative-Vec stability region is performed only at Vrf = 70 V and at a single drive frequency; testing at least one additional Vrf value, or measuring several points along the simulated boundary, would materially strengthen the claim that the simulated stability region describes the actual trap.
  3. [Section VII, Fig. 6] The design comparison is made against a uniform trap with d/R = 1.1, whereas the experimental trap (Trap 2 in Table I) has d/R = 2.2. Please clarify which geometry the proposed tapered design is intended to replace, and why the map-based argument transfers to the experimental configuration. More importantly, the claimed reduction from 42% to 16% refers to the static center-potential deviation, while the dynamic benefit is quantified through simulated secular frequencies. The relationship between these quantities is not established, and the center-potential deviation alone does not determine the axial secular frequency or the radial splitting. The authors should report the actual q_z and radial q parameters (or the relevant Mathieu parameters) for the conventional and tapered designs, and not rely solely on the center-potential percentage to support the 'significant reduction in radial-to-axial coupling' conclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Reference [14]] There is a typographical error in the journal name: 'Applied Bhysics B' should be 'Applied Physics B'.
  2. [Table I and Section III] The definition of d is ambiguous: the text states 'd = 27 mm' for the experimental trap while Table I lists 'Endcap separation 2d (mm)' as 54 for Trap 2. To avoid confusion, state explicitly that d denotes the half-separation between the endcap electrodes in both the table and the text.
  3. [Fig. 2(d)] The experimental data on trapping with negative endcap voltages would benefit from error bars or a statement of the number of loading cycles per point, since the current plot gives no indication of statistical uncertainty in the ion counts.
  4. [Fig. 3(b)] The parametric-excitation data show a dip at 24–25 kHz from which an axial secular frequency of approximately 12 kHz is inferred. Please report the fitted peak position and its uncertainty, and state how many measurements were averaged for each drive frequency.
  5. [Fig. 4(b)] The simulated radial secular frequencies for the three traps are not tabulated; including numerical values would allow a direct quantitative comparison with the measured resonances at 2ω_y = 158 kHz and 2ω_x = 184 kHz.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the secular-frequency and stability predictions come from forward simulations with geometry-set parameters and are checked, not fitted, against experiment. A minor self-definitional labeling of the static center-potential deviation as 'radial-to-axial coupling' in Sec. VII, plus contextual self-citations, keep the score slightly above zero.

  1. self definitional [Section VII (Design to flatten axial potential), paragraph discussing Fig. 6(b)-(c) and the 42%/16% deviations]
    "For comparison, Fig. 6(b) depicts a standard linear Paul trap (LPT) of identical aspect ratios but with uniform electrode radii throughout, which exhibits a high radial-to-axial coupling of 42% (see Fig. 5). ... The potential at the center of the proposed tapered trap is 0.42 V, a 16% deviation from the ideal value of 0.5 V. This represents a significant reduction in radial-to-axial coupling compared to the 42% deviation observed in the uniform geometry."

    Fig. 5 (Sec. VI) defines the 'percentage deviation of the potential at the center' computed with one RF electrode pair at 1 V and all other electrodes grounded. By writing 'radial-to-axial coupling of 42% (see Fig. 5)' and then calling the 16% center-potential deviation 'a significant reduction in radial-to-axial coupling', the paper identifies the coupling magnitude with the static center-potential deviation. Read that way, 'coupling reduced from 42% to 16%' is the same statement as 'center deviation reduced from 42% to 16%' - true by definition of the proxy, not by measurement of axial confinement or radial splitting. This is a partial self-definitional fragment.

full rationale

The paper's central derivations are forward-modeled, not fitted. Axial and radial secular frequencies are obtained by simulating Li+ trajectories in Simion with geometric parameters (d, R, r from Table I) and applied voltages (Vrf = 70 V, Omega_rf = 2 pi x 1 MHz) as inputs; no parameter is adjusted to the measured ion-count curves or PE spectra. The experimental checks (axial survival versus endcap voltage in Fig. 2(d); PE dip at 24-25 kHz giving about 12 kHz axial against a simulated 10.3 kHz; PE resonances at 2 omega_y = 158 kHz and 2 omega_x = 184 kHz) are genuine comparisons, and the paper openly attributes the residuals to known geometry and voltage offsets. The 2D map of Sec. VI is a fresh electrostatic computation (1 V on one pair, all others grounded) across (d/R, r/R); it is not fitted to, nor defined in terms of, the dynamic outputs. The tapered design of Sec. VII is evaluated both by that proxy and, independently, by direct trajectory simulation of the secular frequencies, so its claimed benefit does not reduce to the proxy by construction. Self-citations ([13], [14], [30], [31]) document the hybrid-trap platform and the ion-source technique; they are contextual rather than load-bearing for the physics claims, and the apparatus is independently described in the text and Fig. 1. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The only circular fragment is the Sec. VII labeling of the static center-potential deviation as 'radial-to-axial coupling', which is self-definitional in isolation but backed by independent dynamic simulation. The Sec. VI assertion that all DD effects map to the center potential is an unvalidated proxy claim - a correctness or validity risk, not a circular reduction. Score 2 reflects the minor definitional labeling and contextual self-citations; the derivation chain itself is self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard Paul-trap theory and on numerical simulations that are not independently verified. The most fragile premise is that the static center-potential shift is a complete proxy for all dynamic trapping deviations; this proxy is asserted without validation and is used to design the tapered electrode geometry.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Ion motion in the trap follows the Mathieu equation derived from the ideal linear Paul trap potential.
    The paper uses the standard a-q parameter framework (Sec. II) to interpret stability and secular frequencies; this is a well-established theory.
  • domain assumption The Simion and Mathematica numerical solvers accurately solve the electrostatic boundary conditions for the trap geometries.
    All stability regions, secular frequencies, the 2D map, and the tapered design simulations depend on these solvers; no independent verification of solver accuracy is provided.
  • domain assumption The initial conditions chosen for ion trajectory simulations (zero radial velocity, axial velocity spread of 100 m/s) are representative of the experimental ion cloud.
    The simulated stability boundary in Fig. 2(b,c) depends on these initial conditions; real ions have thermal distributions and space-charge effects.
  • standard math The parametric excitation resonance occurs at twice the secular frequency for the applied drive.
    This is a standard property of parametric excitation of harmonic oscillators, used to extract secular frequencies in Secs. IV and V.
  • ad hoc to paper The static center-potential deviation, computed with one electrode pair at 1 V and all others grounded, is a valid proxy for all dynamic deviations of the dipole-driven trap.
    This assumption underlies the 2D map in Sec. VI and the claimed improvement of the tapered design in Sec. VII; it is asserted without derivation. If false, the map and design recommendation lose support.
  • domain assumption The simulated tapered-electrode design would behave as calculated if built.
    The tapered design is only simulated; no prototype was constructed or tested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Field Deviations in Dipole-Driven Linear Paul Traps: Effects of Endcap Boundaries and their Minimization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MHAFMJ7Q

@misc{pith2026260804681,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Field Deviations in Dipole-Driven Linear Paul Traps: Effects of Endcap Boundaries and their Minimization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MHAFMJ7Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04681}
}
abstract

Deviations from both the ideal linear Paul trap (LPT) geometry as well as the ideal quadrupole driving scheme introduce imperfections to ion trapping potentials. We investigate the effects of these imperfections in a LPT operated in a conventional dipole-drive configuration. We demonstrate the trapping of the Li$^+$ ions along the axial direction with zero and negative end-cap voltages. This occurs due to the modified axial $a-q$ space resulting from radial-to-axial coupling of the electric field. The dipole drive configuration lifts the degeneracy of the radial trapping potentials, resulting in unequal radial secular frequencies, and this is demonstrated experimentally. The combined effects of dipole drive and trap dimensions are summarized in a two-dimensional map that quantifies deviations from ideal behaviour. Based on this map, we propose a geometric modification that significantly reduces radial-to-axial coupling of the potential.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04681 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) The ideal linear trap with hyperbolic boundaries. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Axial direction plots. a) Curvature of potential in DD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Simulations and experimental results for axial trap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Percentage deviation of the potential at the center [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Lateral view of the new design with tapered linear [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D. J. Douglas, A. J. Frank, and D. Mao, Linear ion traps in mass spectrometry, Mass Spectrometry Reviews24, 1 (2004)

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    Kitaoka, T

    M. Kitaoka, T. Yoshida, Y. Yamamoto, K. Jung, and S. Hasegawa, Trapping and laser cooling of trace ca+ iso- topes injected from an inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer, J. Anal. At. Spectrom.28, 1292 (2013)

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    S. T. Sullivan, W. G. Rellergert, S. Kotochigova, K. Chen, S. J. Schowalter, and E. R. Hudson, Trapping molecular ions formed via photo-associative ionization of ultracold atoms, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.13, 18859 (2011)

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    H¨ arter and J

    A. H¨ arter and J. Hecker Denschlag, Cold atom–ion ex- periments in hybrid traps, Contemporary Physics55, 33 (2014)

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    W. W. Smith, O. P. Makarov, and J. Lin, Cold ion– neutral collisions in a hybrid trap, Journal of Modern Optics52, 2253 (2005)

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    K. J. Arnold, R. Kaewuam, S. R. Chanu, T. R. Tan, Z. Zhang, and M. D. Barrett, Precision measurements of the 138ba+ 6s2S1/2 −5d 2D5/2 clock transition, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 193001 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Akerman, Y

    N. Akerman, Y. Glickman, and S. Kotler, Quantum con- trol of 88sr+ in a miniature linear paul trap, Applied physics. B107(2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Manovitz, Y

    T. Manovitz, Y. Shapira, L. Gazit, N. Akerman, and R. Ozeri, Trapped-ion quantum computer with robust entangling gates and quantum coherent feedback, PRX Quantum3, 010347 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    F. G. Major, V. N. Gheorghe, and G. Werth,Charged particle traps: physics and techniques of charged particle field confinement, Vol. 37 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2005)

    2005

  2. [10]

    Monroe, D

    C. Monroe, D. M. Meekhof, B. E. King, S. R. Jefferts, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and P. Gould, Resolved- sideband raman cooling of a bound atom to the 3d zero- point energy, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 4011 (1995)

    1995

  3. [11]

    Leibfried, R

    D. Leibfried, R. Blatt, C. Monroe, and D. Wineland, Quantum dynamics of single trapped ions, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 281 (2003)

    2003

  4. [12]

    Rahaman, S

    B. Rahaman, S. Baidya, and S. Dutta, A versatile ap- paratus for simultaneous trapping of multiple species of ultracold atoms and ions to enable studies of low energy collisions and cold chemistry, The Journal of Chemical Physics160, 064201 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    K. Ravi, S. Lee, A. Sharma, G. Werth, and S. Rangwala, Combined ion and atom trap for low-temperature ion– atom physics, Applied Physics B107, 971 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    Jyothi, T

    S. Jyothi, T. Ray, and S. Rangwala, Phase-sensitive ra- dial extraction and mass spectrometry of trapped ions in a compact geometry, Applied Bhysics B118, 131 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    F. H. J. Hall and S. Willitsch, Millikelvin reactive colli- sions between sympathetically cooled molecular ions and laser-cooled atoms in an ion-atom hybrid trap, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 233202 (2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    Tomza, K

    M. Tomza, K. Jachymski, R. Gerritsma, A. Negretti, T. Calarco, Z. Idziaszek, and P. S. Julienne, Cold hybrid ion-atom systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 035001 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Feldker, H

    T. Feldker, H. F¨ urst, H. Hirzler, N. V. Ewald, M. Maz- zanti, D. Wiater, M. Tomza, and R. Gerritsma, Buffer gas cooling of a trapped ion to the quantum regime, Na- ture Physics16, 413 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Drakoudis, M

    A. Drakoudis, M. S¨ ollner, and G. Werth, Instabilities of ion motion in a linear paul trap, International Journal of Mass Spectrometry252, 61 (2006)

    2006

  11. [19]

    L. E. Filgueira, M. Luda, and C. T. Schmiegelow, Design and implementation of a blade-type linear paul trap, AIP Advances15, 105105 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    S. R. Woodrow,Linear Paul trap design for high-fidelity, scalable quantum information processing, Ph.D. thesis (2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    J. C. Schwartz, M. W. Senko, and J. E. Syka, A two- dimensional quadrupole ion trap mass spectrometer, Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry 13, 659 (2002)

    2002

  14. [22]

    Joger, H

    J. Joger, H. F¨ urst, N. Ewald, T. Feldker, M. Tomza, and R. Gerritsma, Observation of collisions between cold li atoms and yb+ ions, Phys. Rev. A96, 030703(R) (2017)

    2017

  15. [24]

    Schmid, A

    S. Schmid, A. H¨ arter, A. Frisch, S. Hoinka, and J. H. Denschlag, An apparatus for immersing trapped ions into an ultracold gas of neutral atoms, Re- view of Scientific Instruments83, 053108 (2012), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/rsi/article-pdf/doi/10. 1063/1.4718356/13546646/0531...

    2012

  16. [25]

    J. M. Heinrich,A Be + Ion Trap for H + 2 Spectroscopy, Ph.d. thesis, Sorbonne Universit´ e, Facult´ e des Sciences et Ing´ enierie (2018), hAL Thesis: tel-02049379v1

    2018

  17. [26]

    C. Hempel,Digital Quantum Simulation, Schr¨ odinger Cat State Spectroscopy and Setting Up a Linear Ion Trap, Doctoral thesis (2014), institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information (IQOQI), Austrian Academy of Sciences

    2014

  18. [27]

    C. J. Ballance, High-fidelity quantum logic in Ca + (2014), department of Physics, Hertford College

    2014

  19. [28]

    D. A. Dahl, Simion 8.x (2022)

    2022

  20. [29]

    Wolfram Research, Inc., Mathematica, version 13.x (2023)

    2023

  21. [30]

    Joshi, V

    N. Joshi, V. Mahendrakar, M. Niranjan, R. S. Yadav, E. Krishnakumar, A. Pandey, R. Vexiau, O. Dulieu, and S. A. Rangwala, Efficient associative ionization of ultra- cold lithium and the long-lived li + 2 , Phys. Rev. Res.8, L032008 (2026)

    2026

  22. [31]

    Details about the instrument will be reported in a sepa- rate publication.,

  23. [32]

    X. Zhao, V. L. Ryjkov, and H. A. Schuessler, Parametric excitations of trapped ions in a linear rf ion trap, Phys. Rev. A66, 063414 (2002)

    2002

  24. [33]

    Schmidt, D

    J. Schmidt, D. H¨ onig, P. Weckesser, F. Thielemann, T. Schaetz, and L. Karpa, Mass-selective removal of ions from paul traps using parametric excitation, Appl. Phys. B126(2020)

    2020

  25. [34]

    Jyothi, K

    S. Jyothi, K. N. Egodapitiya, B. Bondurant, Z. Jia, E. Pretzsch, P. Chiappina, G. Shu, and K. R. Brown, A hybrid ion-atom trap with integrated high resolution mass spectrometer, Review of Scientific Instruments 90, 103201 (2019),https://arxiv.org/abs/https: //pubs.aip.org/aip/...

    2019

  26. [35]

    Schmidt, P

    J. Schmidt, P. Weckesser, F. Thielemann, T. Schaetz, and L. Karpa, Optical traps for sympathetic cooling of ions with ultracold neutral atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 053402 (2020)

    2020

  27. [36]

    C. J. Ballance, T. P. Harty, N. M. Linke, M. A. Sepiol, and D. M. Lucas, High-fidelity quantum logic gates us- ing trapped-ion hyperfine qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 060504 (2016)

    2016

  28. [37]

    M. K. Joshi, A. Fabre, C. Maier, T. Brydges, D. Kiesen- hofer, H. Hainzer, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Polarization- gradient cooling of 1D and 2D ion coulomb crystals, New Journal of Physics22, 103013 (2020)

    2020

  29. [38]

    Kaewuam, A

    R. Kaewuam, A. Roy, T. R. Tan, K. J. Arnold, and M. D. Barrett, Laser spectroscopy of 176lu+, Journal of Modern Optics65, 592 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1080/09500340.2017.1411539

    2018

  30. [39]

    Olmschenk, D

    S. Olmschenk, D. N. Matsukevich, P. Maunz, D. Hayes, L.-M. Duan, and C. Monroe, Quantum teleportation be- tween distant matter qubits, Science323, 486 (2009)

    2009

  31. [40]

    Surendra, A

    S. Surendra, A. Hoffmann, and M. K¨ ohl, Two-phase driving of a linear radio-frequency ion trap (2026), arXiv:2602.07700 [quant-ph]

    2026

Pith tools

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