Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Blinking optical tweezers for atom rearrangements

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

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

Pith's one-line read A single 'blinking' optical tweezer can hold and rearrange up to nine atoms at one-ninth the laser power per atom, thanks to a stroboscopic phase-space condition that restores the atom's distribution each cycle.

desk verdict A clever phase-space condition for stroboscopic tweezers, experimentally demonstrated for holding and rearranging atoms, but the headline power-saving scaling rests on one fitted anharmonicity parameter and is not yet predictive. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04612 v1 pith:A7PBTPUZ submitted 2025-02-07 quant-ph physics.atom-phphysics.optics

Kangjin Kim , Kangheun Kim , Jaewook Ahn This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atom-phphysics.optics
keywords blinkingopticaltweezertime-multiplexedatomtrappingphase-spacerotationandsheararrayrearrangementneutralqubitslaserpowerefficiency
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 that a single optical tweezer can take turns holding many atoms, blinking on and off so that each atom is recaptured without being lost, instead of needing one dedicated laser beam per atom. The authors derive a stroboscopic condition under which an atom's position-momentum distribution returns to itself after each blink cycle, so the atom stays trapped indefinitely. In experiments with rubidium atoms, one blinking tweezer held up to nine atoms using one-ninth the power per atom that a static array would need, and the atoms could be rearranged into different configurations. If it works at larger scale, this would cut the laser-power bottleneck for building large neutral-atom qubit arrays.

What carries the argument

The central object is the phase-space map of an atom's position and velocity distribution in a harmonic trap: rotation $R(-\omega t_{\rm on})$ while the trap is on, and shear $T(\omega t_{\rm off})$ while it is off. The lossless condition is that some power of the combined map $(T R)^{n_p}$ equals the identity up to a rotation, which for $n_p=1$ gives the resonance $\omega t_{\rm on} = \tan^{-1}(2/(\omega t_{\rm off}))$. The long-term survival probability is then governed by the spectral norm $\|T^{n_b}\|_2$ of the effective shear, which stretches the initial Gaussian; the paper derives $P_{\rm worst} = \mathrm{erf}(\omega d / (\sigma \|T^{n_b}\|_2))$ and uses it to define the effective scaling $M_{\rm eff} = M \times P_{\rm worst}$.

What would settle it

In the same rubidium setup, raise the initial atomic temperature so that a substantial fraction of the distribution lies beyond the harmonic width $d$, and measure the survival probability after 1000 blinking cycles at the resonance condition $t_{\rm on}=1.1$ µs, $t_{\rm off}=10$ µs; if the measured survival drops far below the error-function prediction of Eq. (8), the hard-cutoff model underpinning the $1/M$ power saving fails in that regime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an optical tweezer can be turned into a 'blinking' trap that sequentially holds $M$ atoms with a single beam: during each trap-on interval the atom's phase-space distribution rotates by an angle set by the trap frequency, during the off interval it shears under free motion, and when the rotation angle and free-flight time satisfy a resonance condition (for the simplest case, $\omega t_{\rm on} = \tan^{-1}(2/(\omega t_{\rm off}))$), the two effects cancel and the distribution is restored, so the atom is recaptured. The paper argues that this makes the worst-case survival probability an error function that depends on the spectral norm of the combined rotation-shear map, giving an effective scaling $M_{\rm eff} = M \times P_{\rm worst}$, and it demonstrates experimentally that one blinking tweezer can hold $M=9$ atoms with $1/M$ the power per atom and can perform array rotation, vacancy filling, and chain-sorting rearrangements.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes every atom feels a perfect linear restoring force with a sharp hard boundary, but real traps are smooth and soften at the edges; atoms that start in the softer outer region dephase and are lost, and the paper's own data show survival dropping from 0.87 to 0.76 as this effect grows.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An $N\times M$ atom array can be held by only $N$ tweezers, each blinking through $M$ positions, cutting the per-atom laser power by a factor of $M$ for fixed trap depth.
  • Because each atom is addressed in its own time slot within the blink cycle, rearrangement passages preserve their degrees of freedom, so a single beam can rotate, sort, and fill defects in the array.
  • The practical gain is set by the trade-off between raw scaling and survival: with $M=9$ and the measured $P_{\rm worst}\simeq 0.71$, the effective scaling is about 6 atoms per beam at the demonstrated parameters.
  • The implementation uses only a 2D acousto-optic deflector and standard RF frequency switching, so the blinking scheme can be added to existing tweezer platforms without new optical hardware.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the trap can be made more harmonic, for instance by using larger waists or further cooling the initial distribution, the effective scaling $M_{\rm eff}$ would approach the raw $M$, making a single beam nearly as useful as many static beams.
  • The same rotation-shear restoration mechanism could be turned into a cooling technique: by tuning the on and off durations, the width of the momentum distribution could be reduced after each cycle, similar in spirit to delta-kick cooling inside a single tweezer.
  • Time-multiplexed addressing opens a route to gates between atoms held by the same beam, but the idle time between an atom's addresses would limit gate speed and may require a second beam for Rydberg excitation; this is an extension the paper does not explore.
  • The effective scaling formula also provides a design target: to beat the power bottleneck at large $N$, one should minimize the anharmonic correction rather than merely increase $M$.
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 manuscript proposes a 'blinking' optical tweezer that time-multiplexes one beam among M sites to trap and rearrange atoms. The authors model the stroboscopic dynamics as rotation while the trap is on and shear while it is off, derive resonant on/off conditions that return the phase-space distribution to itself, and verify the np=1 resonance in a single 87Rb atom at toff=5 and 10 microseconds. They demonstrate four rearrangement scenarios and claim an effective scaling M*_eff=6 for M=9 at 1/M power per atom.

Significance. The phase-space restoration idea is conceptually novel and testable, and the rotation/shear derivation is internally consistent. The experimental survival peaks at the predicted ton values are a genuine falsifiable check of the resonant condition. If the scaling law were made predictive, this approach would be a useful alternative for power-constrained tweezer arrays. However, the quantitative conclusions—lossless operation, M=9 arrays, and the fitted effective scaling—need additional support before the central claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§V, Eq. (11)] The effective-scaling claim M*_eff = floor(M × P*_worst) is not a predictive result because P*_worst is obtained through an empirical factor α=0.5 fitted to the toff=10 microseconds survival point. With the reported parameters (T=13 µK, ω=2π×79 kHz, d=0.90 µm), the harmonic-cutoff model of Eqs. (2) and (8) gives ωd/(σ||T_nb||_2) ≈ 4.5 for toff=5 microseconds and ≈2.5 for toff=10 microseconds, so P_worst≈1 for both cases; the observed P(1000τ)=0.76 is entirely due to the α correction. The paper should either derive α from a quantitative anharmonicity/rise-time model or measure it at several toff values and temperatures, and should show the sensitivity of Fig. 4(a) to α; otherwise the '1/M power per atom' scaling is a single-point fit, not a scaling law.
  2. [§IV, Fig. 3] The abstract's claim that arrays of up to M=9 atoms are demonstrated is not supported by the presented data. The four rearrangement scenarios in Fig. 3 explicitly use two or four atoms (e.g., 'two out of four atoms' for vacancy filling), and Fig. 4(b) shows survival data only for M=1–8; no image or statistics of nine simultaneously trapped atoms are given. In addition, the statements in §IV ('the blinking tweezer can catch M ≤ 10 atoms') and §V ('From M=10, the blinking tweezer could not handle M atoms') are inconsistent and need a quantitative explanation. Please provide the M=9 dataset or revise the abstract and effective-scaling claims accordingly.
  3. [§II and §IV] The 'lossless blinking tweezer' label is contradicted by the experimental survival probabilities reported later (0.98 at toff=5 microseconds after 100 cycles, 0.87 at toff=10 microseconds, 0.76 after 1000 cycles) and by the rearrangement success probabilities of 0.42–0.70 in Fig. 3. If 'lossless' refers only to the idealized harmonic model, this should be stated where the term is introduced and in the abstract; otherwise the language should be changed to 'low-loss' with the measured loss budget quantified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (5)] Equation (5) as written, 0 < ωton + kπ < π − 2cos^{-1}(2/√(4+ω^2toff^2)), has no solution for k=1 because the left side is at least π while the right side is strictly less than π; the k=1 series shown in Fig. 2 suggests the intended condition is ωton − kπ, or equivalently k<0.
  2. [Appendix B] The statement that 'the maximum elongation occurs during at most half of the evolution' is an unsupported assumption; please justify it or explicitly label it as an assumption, since it enters the definition of nb and hence Eq. (8).
  3. [Ref. [9]] Reference [9] contains an author-string typo ('H., W. Lee'); the second and third author initials appear to be missing or misplaced.
  4. [Fig. 3] The intermediate images marked with * are assembled from separate occupancy measurements; consider adding 'composite' to the panel labels to avoid implying that those images are direct snapshots of a single experimental run.
  5. [§III] The numerical simulation in Fig. 2 uses T=15 µK while the measured temperature is reported as T=13(2) µK; please clarify whether this difference is intentional or within the experimental uncertainty.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor fitted parameter in the effective-scaling model; the central trapping claim is experimental and not circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section V, Eqs. (9)–(11) and Fig. 4(a)]
    "The value about α = 0.5 gives P∗ worst = 0.77 for toff = 10 µs, which agrees with the experimental observation, suggesting the effective scaling of M∗ eff = ⌊9 × 0.77⌋ = 6."

    The parameter α is not derived from the theory; it is chosen so that P*_worst reproduces the measured survival at toff = 10 µs (0.76–0.77). The effective scaling M*_eff = M × P*_worst is then computed for the same toff value, so the agreement at that point is by construction. The curve in Fig. 4(a) for other toff values is an extrapolation from this single fitted point, not an independent prediction. Moreover, the harmonic model without α (Eq. 8) yields P_worst ≈ 1 for the experimental parameters (ωd/σ ≈ 12.7, ||T_nb||_2 ≈ 5.15), so virtually all the loss is attributed to the fitted α rather than to the derived survival formula. Thus the 'effective scaling' claim is a postdiction of the fitted point rather than a first-principles prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain for the resonant condition (Eq. 6) and the survival probability (Eq. 8) is self-contained: it uses the rotation and shear matrices of harmonic motion and is verified against measured survival probabilities as a function of ton without any fitted parameters. The experimental demonstration of M = 9 atoms at 1/M power is a direct measurement, not a prediction from a fitted model. The only fitted element is α introduced in Eq. (11) to absorb anharmonicity and other losses; this is clearly labeled as an empirical modification and does not affect the abstract's central claim. Self-citations [48,49] are used only for experimental setup and known diabatic effects and are not load-bearing in the derivation. The fitted α does make the effective-scaling curve in Fig. 4(a) less compelling as a predictive law, but this is a minor limitation rather than a circularity of the main result. Hence the low score.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation uses a harmonic-trap idealization, a thermal Gaussian distribution, and free-flight shear during off periods. The only fitted free parameter is alpha, which corrects the survival model to match experiment. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • alpha = 0.5
    In Eq. (11), alpha scales the argument of the error function for P*_worst. The value alpha=0.5 is chosen so that P*_worst=0.77 matches the measured survival for toff=10 micro-s. This is a fitted correction absorbing anharmonicity and experimental noise, and it directly sets the reported effective scaling M*_eff = floor(9 x 0.77) = 6.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The optical tweezer potential is modeled as a harmonic oscillator with a hard cutoff (Eq. 2).
    This permits exact rotation/shear phase-space transformations. Real tweezers are Gaussian and anharmonic, so the model is an idealization; Sec. III attributes deviations to anharmonicity.
  • domain assumption The initial phase-space distribution is a 2D Gaussian with variance sigma^2 = k_B T / m.
    Standard thermal distribution for a cold atom in a harmonic trap; used to define survival probabilities in Sec. II.
  • domain assumption During the trap-off interval the atom undergoes free motion with no external forces.
    The shear transformation assumes no potential and no collisions. Dense arrays or stray light from neighboring traps would break this.
  • ad hoc to paper The maximum phase-space elongation occurs during at most half of the evolution (Appendix B).
    This unproved estimate is used to replace (np+1) by nb=(np+1)/2 in the spectral norm for P_worst. It is a heuristic that has not been independently justified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Blinking optical tweezers for atom rearrangements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A7PBTPUZ

@misc{pith2026250204612,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Blinking optical tweezers for atom rearrangements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A7PBTPUZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04612}
}
read the original abstract

We propose and experimentally demonstrate an energy-efficient approach for holding and rearranging an N x M atom array using only N optical tweezers. This is achieved through the sequential release and recapture of M single atoms by a single optical tweezer. By employing a stroboscopic harmonic potential, the phase-space quadrature of the atom's probability distribution can be maintained under this "blinking" potential, provided the trap frequency meets the appropriate conditions. Proof-of-principle experiments confirm that a blinking tweezer can trap M atoms while requiring only 1 / M of the power per atom, and it can even facilitate rearrangement, demonstrated with arrays of up to M = 9 atoms. This method offers a scalable and reconfigurable platform for optical tweezer arrays, crucial for the preparation and manipulation of large-scale qubit systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04612 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic illustration of an atom array with blinking tweezer. In each blinking cycle, each atom in the array [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Numerical and experimental demonstration of blinking conditions. (a) Simulation result of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. According to Eq. (7), the maximum number of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Gallery of various rearrangement scenarios for the blinking array; (a) Array rotation, (b) Vacancy filling, (c) Worm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Effective scaling of the blinking tweezer array. (a) Scaling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (A7) Similarly, for np = 2, from solving the ma- trix equation T RT RT= R(θ′), one gets ωton = tan−1 (2s ± √ s2 + 3)/(s2 − 1)

    sinθ = − sin θ, and solving for θ gives θ = − tan−1 2/s, results ωton = tan−1 2 ωtoff . (A7) Similarly, for np = 2, from solving the ma- trix equation T RT RT= R(θ′), one gets ωton = tan−1 (2s ± √ s2 + 3)/(s2 − 1). Appendix B: The survival probability of an atom in a blinking trap It is worthwhile to calculate the maximum atom loss within the periodic con...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Quantum science with optical tweezer arrays of ultracold atoms and molecules,

    A. M. Kaufman and K.-K. Ni, “Quantum science with optical tweezer arrays of ultracold atoms and molecules,” Nat. Phys. 17, 1324 (2021)

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Direct Measurement of the van der Waals Interaction between Two Rydberg Atoms,

    L. B´ eguin, A. Vernier, R. Chicireanu, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, “Direct Measurement of the van der Waals Interaction between Two Rydberg Atoms,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 263201 (2013)

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Generation and manipulation of Schr¨ odinger cat states in Rydberg atom arrays,

    A. Omran, H. Levine, A. Keesling, G. Semeghini, T. T. Wang, S. Ebadi, H. Bernien, A. S. Zibrov, H. Pichler, S. Choi, J. Cui, M. Rossignolo, P. Rembold, S. Montangero, T. Calarco, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, “Generation and manipulation of Schr¨ odinger cat states in Rydberg atom arrays,” Science 365, 570 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Many-body physics with individually controlled Rydberg atoms,

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, “Many-body physics with individually controlled Rydberg atoms,” Nat. Phys. 16, 132 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Tunable two- dimensional arrays of single Rydberg atoms for realizing quantum Ising models,

    H. Labuhn, D. Barredo, S. Ravets, S. de L´ es´ eleuc, T. Macr ` ı, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, “Tunable two- dimensional arrays of single Rydberg atoms for realizing quantum Ising models,” Nature 534, 667 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Quantum phases of matter on a 256-atom programmable quantum simulator,

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

    2021

  8. [8]

    Quantum simulation of 2D antiferromagnets with hun- dreds of Rydberg atoms,

    P. Scholl, M. Schuler, H. J. Williams, A. A. Eberharter, D. Barredo, K. N. Schymik, V. Lienhard, L. P. Henry, T. C. Lang, T. Lahaye, A. M. L¨ auchli, and A. Browaeys ,“Quantum simulation of 2D antiferromagnets with hun- dreds of Rydberg atoms,” Nature 595, 233 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Quantum Ising Hamiltonian Programming in Trio, Quartet, and Sextet Qubit Systems,

    M. Kim, Y. Song, J. Kim, and J. Ahn, “Quantum Ising Hamiltonian Programming in Trio, Quartet, and Sextet Qubit Systems,” PRX Quantum 1, 020323 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    Quantum simulation of Cayley-tree Ising Hamiltonians with three- dimensional Rydberg atoms,

    Y. Song, M. Kim, H., W. Lee, and J. Ahn, “Quantum simulation of Cayley-tree Ising Hamiltonians with three- dimensional Rydberg atoms,” Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 013286 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Quantum information with Rydberg atoms,

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

    2010

  4. [12]

    Multi-qubit entangle- ment and algorithms on a neutral-atom quantum com- puter,

    T. M. Graham, Y. Song, J. Scott, C. Poole, L. Phutti- tarn, K. Jooya, P. Eichler, X. Jiang, A. Marra, B. Grinke- meyer, M. Kwon, M. Ebert, J. Cherek, M. T. Licht- man, M. Gillette, J. Gilbert, D. Bowman, T. Ballance, C. Campbell, E. D. Dahl, O. Crawford, N. S. Blunt, B. Rogers...

    2022

  5. [13]

    Quantum optimization of maximum independent set us- ing Rydberg atom arrays,

    S. Ebadi, A. Keesling, M. Cain, T. T. Wang, H. Levine, D. Bluvstein, G. Semeghini, A. Omran, J.-G. Liu, R. Samajdar, X.-Z. Luo, B. Nash, X. Gao, B. Barak, E. Farhi, S. Sachdev, N. Gemelke, L. Zhou, S. Choi, H. Pich- ler, S.-T. Wang, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, “...

    2022

  6. [14]

    Rydberg Quantum Wires for Maximum Independent Set Problems,

    M. Kim, K. Kim, J. Hwang, E.-G. Moon, and J. Ahn, “Rydberg Quantum Wires for Maximum Independent Set Problems,” Nat. Physics 18, 755 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Logical quantum processor based on reconfig- urable atom arrays,

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kalinowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. Sales Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semegh- 10 ini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D....

    2024

  8. [16]

    Acceleration and Trapping of Particles by Radiation Pressure,

    A. Ashkin, “Acceleration and Trapping of Particles by Radiation Pressure,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 24, 156 (1970)

    1970

  9. [17]

    Trapping of Atoms by Resonance Radiation Pressure,

    A. Ashkin, “Trapping of Atoms by Resonance Radiation Pressure,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 729 (1978)

    1978

  10. [18]

    Ex- perimental Observation of Optically Trapped Atoms,

    S. Chu, J. E. Bjorkholm, A. Ashkin, and A. Cable, “Ex- perimental Observation of Optically Trapped Atoms,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 314 (1986)

    1986

  11. [19]

    Optical Dipole Traps for Neutral Atoms,

    R. Grimm, M. Weidem¨ uller, and Y. B. Ovchinnikov, “Optical Dipole Traps for Neutral Atoms,”Adv. At., Mol., Opt. Phys. 42, 95 (2000)

    2000

  12. [20]

    Single Atoms in an Optical Dipole Trap: Towards a Deterministic Source of Cold Atoms,

    D. Frese, B. Ueberholz, S. Kuhr, W. Alt, D. Schrader, V. Gomer, and D. Meschede, “Single Atoms in an Optical Dipole Trap: Towards a Deterministic Source of Cold Atoms,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3777 (2000)

    2000

  13. [21]

    Sub-poissonian loading of single atoms in a microscopic dipole trap,

    N. Schlosser, G. Reymond, I. Protsenko, and P. Grangier, “Sub-poissonian loading of single atoms in a microscopic dipole trap,” Nature 411, 1024 (2001)

    2001

  14. [22]

    In situ single-atom array synthesis using dynamic holographic optical tweezers,

    H. Kim, W. Lee, H. Lee, H. Jo, Y. Song, and J. Ahn, “In situ single-atom array synthesis using dynamic holographic optical tweezers,” Nat. Commun. 7, 13317 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    Atom-by-atom assembly of defect-free one-dimensional cold atom arrays,

    M. Endres, H. Bernien, A. Keesling, H. Levine, E. R. Anschuetz, A. Krajenbrink, C. Senko, V. Vuletic, M. Greiner, and M. D. Lukin, “Atom-by-atom assembly of defect-free one-dimensional cold atom arrays,” Science 354, 1024 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    An atom-by-atom assembler of defect-free arbitrary two-dimensional atomic arrays,

    D. Barredo, S. de L´ es´ eleuc, V. Lienhard, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, “An atom-by-atom assembler of defect-free arbitrary two-dimensional atomic arrays,” Science 354, 1021 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Defect-Free Assembly of 2D Clusters of More Than 100 Single-Atom Quantum Systems,

    D. Ohl de Mello, D. Sch¨ affner, J. Werkmann, T. Preuschoff, L. Kohfahl, M. Schlosser, and G. Birkl, “Defect-Free Assembly of 2D Clusters of More Than 100 Single-Atom Quantum Systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 203601 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Enhanced atom- by-atom assembly of arbitrary tweezer arrays,

    K.-N. Schymik, V. Lienhard, D. Barredo, P. Scholl, H. Williams, A. Browaeys, and T. Lahaye, “Enhanced atom- by-atom assembly of arbitrary tweezer arrays,” Phys. Rev. A 102, 063107 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Parallel Assembly of Arbi- trary Defect-Free Atom Arrays with a Multitweezer Al- gorithm,

    W. Tian, W. J. Wee, A. Qu, B. J. M. Lim, P. R. Datla, V. P. W. Koh, and H. Loh, “Parallel Assembly of Arbi- trary Defect-Free Atom Arrays with a Multitweezer Al- gorithm,” Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 034048 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Rearrangement of individual atoms in a 2000-site optical-tweezer array at cryogenic tempera- tures,

    G. Pichard, D. Lim, ´E. Bloch, J. Vaneecloo, L. Boura- chot, G.-J. Both, G. M´ eriaux, S. Dutartre, R. Hostein, J. Paris, B. Ximenez, A. Signoles, A. Browaeys, T. Lahaye, and D. Dreon, “Rearrangement of individual atoms in a 2000-site optical-tweezer array at cryogenic tempera...

    2024

  21. [29]

    AI-Enabled Rapid Assembly of Thousands of Defect-Free Neutral Atom Arrays with Constant-Time-Overhead,

    R. Lin, H.-S. Zhong, Y. Li, Z.-R. Zhao, L.-T. Zheng, T.-R. Hu, H.-M. Wu, Z. Wu, W.-J. Ma, Y. Gao, Y.-K. Zhu, Z.-F. Su, W.-L. Ouyang, Y.-C. Zhang, J. Rui, M.- C. Chen, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, “AI-Enabled Rapid Assembly of Thousands of Defect-Free Neutral Atom Arrays with Const...

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    A tweezer array with 6100 highly co- herent atomic qubits,

    H.J. Manetsch, G. Nomura, E. Bataille, K. H. Leung, X. Lv, and M. Endres, “A tweezer array with 6100 highly co- herent atomic qubits,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12021 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Supercharged two-dimensional tweezer array with more than 1000 atomic qubits,

    L. Pause, L. Sturm, M. Mittenb¨ uhler, S. Amann, T. Preuschoff, D. Sch¨ affner, M. Schlosser, and G. Birkl, “Supercharged two-dimensional tweezer array with more than 1000 atomic qubits,” Optica 11, 222 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Scalable Multilayer Architecture of Assembled Single-Atom Qubit Arrays in a Three-Dimensional Talbot Tweezer Lattice,

    M. Schlosser, S. Tichelmann, D. Sch¨ affner, D. O. de MEllo, M. Hambach, J. Sch¨ utz, and G. Birkl, “Scalable Multilayer Architecture of Assembled Single-Atom Qubit Arrays in a Three-Dimensional Talbot Tweezer Lattice,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 180601 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    Gerchberg- Saxton algorithm for fast and efficient atom rearrange- ment in optical tweezer traps,

    H. Kim, M. Kim, W. Lee, and J. Ahn, “Gerchberg- Saxton algorithm for fast and efficient atom rearrange- ment in optical tweezer traps,” Opt. Express 27, 2184 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Multiple optical trapping and binding: new routes to self-assembly,

    T. ˇCiˇ zm´ ar, L. D. Romero, K. Dholakia, and D. L. An- drews, “Multiple optical trapping and binding: new routes to self-assembly,” J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 43, 102001 (2010)

    2010

  27. [35]

    Pattern formation and flow control of fine particles by laser-scanning micromanipulation,

    K. Sasaki, M. Koshioka, H. Misawa, N. Kitamura, and H. Masuhara, “Pattern formation and flow control of fine particles by laser-scanning micromanipulation,” Opt. Lett. 16, 1463 (1991)

    1991

  28. [36]

    Construction of multiple-beam optical traps with nanometer-resolution position sensing,

    K. Visscher, S. P. Gross, and S. M. Block, “Construction of multiple-beam optical traps with nanometer-resolution position sensing,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics 2, 1066 (1996)

    1996

  29. [37]

    Femtosecond optical tweezers for in-situ control of two- photon fluorescence,

    B. Agate, C. T. A. Brown, W. Sibbett, and K. Dholakia, “Femtosecond optical tweezers for in-situ control of two- photon fluorescence,” Opt. Express 12, 3011-3017 (2004)

    2004

  30. [38]

    Two-dimensional programmable tweezer arrays of fermions,

    Z. Z. Yan, B. M. Spar, M. L. Prichard, S. Chi, H. T. Wei, E. Ibarra-Garc ´ ıa-Padilla, K. R. A. Hazzard, and W. S. Bakr, “Two-dimensional programmable tweezer arrays of fermions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 123201 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Three-Dimensional Viscous Confinement and Cooling of Atoms by Resonance Radiation Pressure,

    S. Chu, L. Hollberg, J. E. Bjorkholm, A. Cable, and A. Ashkin, “Three-Dimensional Viscous Confinement and Cooling of Atoms by Resonance Radiation Pressure,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 48 (1985)

    1985

  32. [40]

    Energy distribution and cooling of a single atom in an optical tweezer,

    C. Thuchendler, A. M. Lance, A. Browaeys, Y. R. P. Sor- tais, and P. Grangier, “Energy distribution and cooling of a single atom in an optical tweezer,” Phys. Rev. A 78, 033425 (2008)

    2008

  33. [41]

    Proposal for optically cooling atoms to temperatures of the order of 10 −6 K,

    S. Chu, J. E. Bjorkholm, A. Ashkin, J. P. Gordon, and L. W. Hollberg, “Proposal for optically cooling atoms to temperatures of the order of 10 −6 K,” Opt. Lett. 11, 73 (1986)

    1986

  34. [42]

    Manipulation of Motional Quantum States of Neutral Atoms,

    M. Morinaga, I. Bouchoule, J.-C. Karam, and C. Sa- lomon, “Manipulation of Motional Quantum States of Neutral Atoms,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4037 (1999)

    1999

  35. [43]

    Atom Optics Realization of the Quantum δ-Kicked Rotor,

    F. L. Moore, J. C. Robinson, C. F. Bharucha, B. Sun- daram, and M. G. Raizen, “Atom Optics Realization of the Quantum δ-Kicked Rotor,” Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 4598 (1995)

    1995

  36. [44]

    Delta Kick Cooling: A New Method for Cooling Atoms,

    H. Ammann, and N. Christensen, “Delta Kick Cooling: A New Method for Cooling Atoms,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2088 (1997)

    1997

  37. [45]

    W. P. Schleich, Quantum Optics in Phase Space(Wiley- VCH, Berlin, 2001)

    2001

  38. [46]

    Optical molasses,

    P. D. Lett, W. D. Phillips, S. L. Rolston, C. E. Tanner, R. N. Watts, and C. I. Westbrook, “Optical molasses,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 6, 2084 (1989)

    1989

  39. [47]

    Sympathetic Cooling with Two Atomic Species in an Optical Trap,

    M. Mudrich, S. Kraft, K. Singer, R. Grimm, A. Mosk, and M. Weidem¨ uller, “Sympathetic Cooling with Two Atomic Species in an Optical Trap,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 253001 (2002)

    2002

  40. [48]

    Optimal Cold Atom Thermome- try Using Adaptive Bayesian Strategies,

    J. Glatthard, J. Rubio, R. Sawant, T. Hewitt, G. Baron- 11 tini, and L. A. Correa, “Optimal Cold Atom Thermome- try Using Adaptive Bayesian Strategies,” PRX Quantum 3, 040330 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Hwang, A

    H. Hwang, A. Byun, J. Park, S. de L´ es´ eleuc, and J. Ahn, ”Optical tweezers throw and catch single atoms,” Optica 10, 401 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    Fast and reliable atom transport by optical tweezers,

    S. Hwang, H. Hwang, K. Kim, A. Byun, S. Jeong, M. P. Soegianto, and J. Ahn, “Fast and reliable atom transport by optical tweezers,” Optica Quantum 3, 64 (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    Very long storage times and evaporative cooling of cesium atoms in a quasielectrostatic dipole trap,

    H. Engler, T. Weber, M. Mudrich, R. Grimm, and M. Weidem¨ uller, “Very long storage times and evaporative cooling of cesium atoms in a quasielectrostatic dipole trap,” Phys. Rev. A 62, 031402 (2000)

    2000

  44. [52]

    Measurement of the van der Waals interac- tion between two Rydberg atoms,

    L. Beguin, “Measurement of the van der Waals interac- tion between two Rydberg atoms,” Ph. D. Thesis, Insti- tut d’Optique Graduate School (2013)

    2013

  45. [53]

    Three-dimensional rear- rangement of single atoms using actively controlled opti- cal microtraps,

    W. Lee, H. Kim, and J. Ahn, “Three-dimensional rear- rangement of single atoms using actively controlled opti- cal microtraps,” Opt. Express 24, 9816 (2016)

    2016

  46. [54]

    Collisional Blockade in Microscopic Optical Dipole Traps,

    N. Schlosser, G. Reymond, and P. Grangier, “Collisional Blockade in Microscopic Optical Dipole Traps,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 023005 (2002)

    2002

Pith tools

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