Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Strontium ${}^{1}S_{0}\!\rightarrow\!{}^{1}P_{1}$ transition frequency measurements assisted by a photonic grating chip

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two independent methods, one photonic chip, pin strontium's 461 nm transition at 650.503815(5) THz.

desk verdict First modern lab measurement of the Sr 461 nm transition frequency, with a careful covariance-based uncertainty budget; the central value is probably right, but the wavelength-meter calibration transfer to 461 nm is the one assumption to stress-test before treating the result as closed. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.29056 v1 pith:DYRZFEYN submitted 2026-07-31 physics.atom-ph

Jaewhan Lee , Hyun Gyung Lee , Won-Kyu Lee , Huidong Kim , Dohyeon Kwon , Sang-Bum Lee , Meungho Seo , Taeg Yong Kwon
show 10 more authors
Sangwon Seo Hyun-Gue Hong Seji Kang Sang Eon Park Young-Ho Park Jongcheol Park Yeeun Na Il-Suk Kang Sangsik Kim Jae Hoon Lee
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph PACS 32.30.-r06.30.Ft
keywords strontium1S0→1P1transitionabsolutefrequencymeasurementphotonicgratingchipmagneto-opticaltrapfluorescencespectroscopywavelengthmetercalibration461nm
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to re-measure the absolute frequency of strontium's 1S0 → 1P1 transition, the 461 nm line that underpins laser cooling of Sr atoms, whose accepted value has rested on a 1938 solar-spectrum analysis with a 310 MHz uncertainty. It reports 650.503815(5) THz from four datasets: three fluorescence-spectroscopy runs using an in-vacuum diffraction grating chip as a retro-reflector, and one independent determination from the velocity dynamics of a 2D grating magneto-optical trap. The result is consistent within its error bars with the 1938 value but shrinks the uncertainty to 5 MHz, a more than sixty-fold improvement. The authors argue that the demonstrated chip-based apparatus, with its rigid beam geometry and wavelength-meter calibration transfer, is a practical metrological platform for Sr-based clocks and quantum devices.

What carries the argument

The central object is a CMOS-fabricated photonic grating chip (652 nm period, Al-coated) placed below the atoms, which simultaneously functions as the diffractive element of a 2D grating magneto-optical trap and as an end mirror whose first-order diffracted beam retro-reflects the 461 nm probe, defining a counter-propagating geometry with a 20.7° angle fixed by the grating period to better than 0.1 nm. The second load-bearing mechanism is the wavelength-meter calibration transfer model: controlled offsets at 556, 578, 759, and 778 nm map to 461 nm by the constant-fractional-error relation δf/f = constant, with a fitted transfer error of 0.048%. The data pipeline combines pixel-wise hyperfine

What would settle it

Perform a direct beat-note comparison of a 461 nm laser, frequency-doubled or comb-referenced, against the authors' stabilized probe under identical conditions; a difference larger than ~1 MHz between the comb-based reading and the wavelength-meter-derived value would disprove the fractional-error transfer model and shift the combined frequency accordingly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a new value for the 88Sr 1S0 → 1P1 transition frequency: 650.503815(5) THz. It comes from four datasets — three fluorescence-spectroscopy runs in which an in-vacuum grating chip retro-reflects the probe beam (Doppler-free midpoints extracted pixel-by-pixel), and one velocity-mapping run of a 2D grating MOT — which agree and combine through a covariance-weighted mean. The value lies 345 MHz above the 1938 determination but within its expanded uncertainty, and tightens the uncertainty from 310 MHz to 5 MHz.

Load-bearing premise

The measurement rests on the assumption that the wavelength meter's error scales purely proportionally with frequency (δf/f constant) between 461 nm and the reference wavelengths; if the meter has wavelength-dependent nonlinearities that the transfer model misses, every dataset inherits the same hidden frequency shift and the quoted 5 MHz uncertainty is an underestimate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Sr laser-cooling and clock experiments can adopt 650.503815(5) THz as the working reference for the 461 nm cooling/detection transition, replacing a value inherited from 1938.
  • The agreement of two independent methods within error supports the chip-based architecture's suitability for compact cold-atom metrology.
  • The 345 MHz offset from the 1938 center may reconcile discrepancies between observed and Ritz values in Sr spectroscopic compilations.
  • The quoted 5 MHz uncertainty, dominated by the wavelength meter's 3.3 MHz absolute accuracy, sets the current practical limit of this apparatus; further gains require a comb-referenced 461 nm source.
  • The measured frequency provides a fixed anchor for isotope-shift and hyperfine-structure analyses of 86Sr and 87Sr that have long been referenced to the 1938 value.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this value holds, previously reported Sr isotope shifts anchored to the 1938 center would shift by ~345 MHz in absolute terms, though relative isotope shifts are unaffected; absolute-energy comparisons with theory should be updated.
  • The constant-δf/f wavelength-meter model could be tested directly by measuring a comb-referenced 461 nm laser against the wavelength meter, which would either validate the 5 MHz budget or reveal a missed wavelength-dependent term.
  • The grating-chip retro-reflection geometry could be transferred to other species (e.g., Ca, Yb) whose cooling transitions lack a precise modern measurement, yielding similar factor-of-ten uncertainty gains on compact platforms.
  • The velocity-based V1 method, being immune to absolute velocity calibration, suggests a route to frequency measurements that bypass wavelength meters entirely if the MOT velocity can be tied to a frequency comb via the cooling detuning.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a new absolute-frequency measurement of the 88Sr 1S0→1P1 transition at 461 nm, using two complementary methods on a grating-chip platform: spatially resolved fluorescence spectroscopy of a thermal beam with a retro-reflected probe (datasets R1–R3) and velocity mapping of a slow atomic beam from a 2D grating magneto-optical trap (dataset V1). Combining the four datasets with a covariance-based uncertainty budget and a Birge-ratio correction yields f̄88 = 650.503 815(5) THz, which improves upon the 1938 solar-spectrum value by more than a factor of 50 in uncertainty. The paper includes a detailed systematic budget with correlated terms, multi-isotope hyperfine-constrained fitting, and a wavelength-meter transfer model based on reference lasers at 556, 578, 759, and 778 nm.

Significance. If the result stands, the paper supplies a long-needed laboratory re-measurement of a foundational Sr cooling transition, replacing a nine-decade-old value with a 60-fold reduction in uncertainty. The uncertainty treatment is a genuine strength: common-mode terms are propagated through a covariance matrix, the Birge ratio is used to inflate the weighted-mean uncertainty, and the spectroscopy statistical errors are conservatively taken as pixel distributions rather than standard errors of the mean. The two methods are independent in their physics, and their consistency is encouraging. However, the absolute accuracy of the final value rests entirely on the wavelength-meter calibration chain; the validation of the fractional-error transfer model does not directly bound wavelength-dependent calibration errors at 461 nm. That gap is load-bearing for a metrology claim of this kind. The manuscript also does not provide raw data or analysis code, which limits independent verification.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.3, Fig. 6] The fractional-error transfer model is the central calibration assumption. The controlled experiment applies synthetic offsets at 578 nm and observes proportional responses at 556, 578, 759, and 778 nm; this validates the response of the WLM to a change in calibration setting, but it does not establish that the residual absolute calibration error at 461 nm is exactly proportional to frequency. All four datasets share this transfer model, so a wavelength-dependent nonlinearity at 461 nm would shift every dataset by a common unknown amount, and the covariance analysis—which only includes the manufacturer's 3.3 MHz absolute-accuracy term plus 0.56–4.22 MHz transfer scatter—could underestimate the true uncertainty by more than the quoted 5 MHz. Please provide a direct 461 nm calibration against an optical frequency comb or an independently known 461 nm reference, or quantify and include a mo
  2. [§2.2.2, V1 model] The capture-velocity model contains an 'effective interaction length D', but D is never given a numerical value, an uncertainty, or a statement of whether it is a fitted parameter or a measured quantity. If D is free, the V1 fit has an unlisted degree of freedom; if D is fixed, its uncertainty must be propagated. The claim that the V1 result is 'scale-invariant with respect to the atomic velocity' needs to be demonstrated explicitly, for example by showing that the extracted resonance frequency is insensitive to D over a reasonable range. Although V1 carries only a 13 MHz statistical weight in the combined mean, the method is presented as an independent determination and must be fully specified.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.3] Typo: 'guarantied' should be 'guaranteed'. Also, clarify in the text or Fig. 6 that the 461 nm response is inferred, not directly measured.
  2. [§3.2] The statement that agreement between the two methods provides 'strong confidence in the accuracy' should be tempered: both methods share the WLM absolute-accuracy and transfer-model systematics, so the agreement validates consistency but not the absolute scale.
  3. [§4 / Data availability] For a metrology claim, 'data available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request' is weak. Consider depositing the processed spectra, velocity maps, and analysis code in a public repository.
  4. [§1] The claim of being 'the first reported laboratory re-determination since 1938' is strong. Please add a literature-search statement or soften the wording unless a comprehensive search has been performed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all four frequency estimates come from fits of f0 to raw spectra/velocities; the WLM calibration is anchored to independent optical references, and self-citations are only to the grating-chip apparatus.

full rationale

The central frequency f̄88 = 650.503815(5) THz is obtained as a covariance-weighted mean of four datasets (V1, R1–R3). In the spectroscopy method (Sec. 2.1), f_88 is a free parameter of a multi-isotope pseudo-Voigt fit to CCD fluorescence spectra; in the velocity method (Sec. 2.2), f0 is a free parameter of a fit of the measured 2D-gMOT velocity map to a scattering-rate model cited from external works [31,38]. No fitted value is used as an input to the same fit. The wavelength-meter calibration (Sec. 2.3) determines a correction at 461 nm by transferring offsets measured at 556, 578, 759, and 778 nm reference lasers (Yb clock, Yb lattice, Rb two-photon, all traceable to OFC) under a fractional-error model δf/f = const. The model's validity was tested by applying synthetic calibration offsets at 578 nm and verifying the instrument's response at three other reference wavelengths; this test does not involve the Sr transition being measured and does not use the final frequency. The unvalidated extrapolation of the fractional-error model to 461 nm is a common-mode systematic-uncertainty concern, not a circular reduction. Self-references (e.g., Ref. [19]) are used for grating-chip fabrication and 2D-gMOT apparatus description, not to justify the frequency value; the velocity scaling is attributed to external Refs. [31,38]. No equation in the derivation chain is equivalent to its inputs by construction, and no prediction is obtained by renaming a fitted parameter.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests primarily on a wavelength-meter transfer model and on the capture-velocity scaling for the V1 dataset. No new particles, forces, or unmeasured physical constants are introduced. The main fitted quantity is the target frequency itself, which is the legitimate output of the experiment rather than a hidden ad hoc parameter.

free parameters (1)
  • Effective interaction length D in the V1 velocity model
    The capture-velocity equation in §2.2.2 contains an effective interaction length D, but no value or independent measurement of D is reported. If D is fitted or empirically normalized, the extracted resonance frequency shares that model uncertainty.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Wavelength-meter frequency offsets scale as a common fractional error across wavelengths
    Used in §2.3 and Fig. 6 to transfer calibrations from 556/578/759/778 nm references to 461 nm. If the WS8-10 has wavelength-dependent nonlinearity, all four datasets receive a common bias.
  • domain assumption The most probable velocity of atoms exiting a 2D gMOT scales as the square root of the photon scattering rate
    Invoked in §2.2.2 and used to fit the resonance frequency in the V1 dataset. The model is cited to prior work but not independently validated in this paper, and the effective length D is unspecified.
  • domain assumption Literature values for 87Sr hyperfine offsets and the 86Sr isotope shift are correct enough not to bias the fitted 88Sr center
    Used in the multi-isotope pseudo-Voigt model in §2.1.2. The 86Sr shift is allowed to vary within a literature-informed interval, but the fixed 87Sr offsets are taken from external references.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strontium ${}^{1}S_{0}\!\rightarrow\!{}^{1}P_{1}$ transition frequency measurements assisted by a photonic grating chip." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DYRZFEYN

@misc{pith2026260729056,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strontium $^1S_0\!\rightarrow\!^1P_1$ transition frequency measurements assisted by a photonic grating chip},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DYRZFEYN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29056}
}
abstract

We measure the absolute frequency of the ${}^{1}S_{0}\!\rightarrow\!{}^{1}P_{1}$ transition in strontium using two methods: fluorescence spectroscopy of a thermal atomic beam source from a compact low-power oven and velocity measurements of a slow atomic beam from a two-dimensional grating magneto-optical trap (2D gMOT). The measurements for both methods are performed in the same ultra-high vacuum chamber containing a diffraction grating chip which is placed below the strontium atoms that are being interrogated. The first method uses a probe laser beam incident on the grating chip such that the grating acts as an end mirror, with the first-order diffracted beam providing a retro-reflected probe beam. The counter-propagating laser beams traverse an atomic beam emitted from an oven, enabling spatially resolved fluorescence spectroscopy through CCD imaging and hyperfine-constrained multi-isotope fitting. The second method relies on a large profile cooling laser beam normally incident onto the grating chip which laser cools strontium atoms for a slow atomic beam source. The velocity of the atoms exiting the 2D gMOT is measured as a function of the laser detuning and intensity from which the resonance frequency can be estimated. The two methods are consistent within their quoted uncertainties. Using three datasets based on retro-beam spectroscopy measurements, and one dataset using slow atom beam velocity measurements, we determine the ${}^{1}S_{0}\!\rightarrow\!{}^{1}P_{1}$ transition frequency to be $650.503\,815(5)~\mathrm{THz}$. Our result provides a re-evaluation of this $461$ nm transition demonstrated on a compact laser cooling apparatus based on a diffraction grating platform.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29056 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Schematic of the laser frequency locking system used for the 461 nm spectroscopy beam. A 461 nm laser is frequency shifted by a double-pass AOM before being delivered to the vacuum chamber for interacting with the strontium atoms. Auxiliary lasers at 556, 578, 759, and 778 nm are monitored by a wavelength meter (HighFinesse WS8-10), while the 461 nm laser is frequency and power stabilized by PID feedback loops. … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) CCD fluorescence image recorded for the 461 nm probe beam above the chip. The bright elongated trace marks the probe–atom interaction region formed by the intersection of the probe beam with the thermal strontium atomic beam. The white box marks the region of interest (ROI) selected for beam-angle analysis. (b) Enlarged view of the ROI. A principal-component analysis (PCA) of the fluorescence distribution yields… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Height–frequency fluorescence map measured above the grating chip. The frequency axis is plotted relative to fbase = 650 500 000 MHz. The map is constructed in the PCA basis of the fluorescence track, with the horizontal direction following the probe-beam track and the vertical coordinate giving the height above the chip. (b) Representative spectra at four heights, y = 5.8, 4.1, 2.5, and 0.8 mm, together with si… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spatial maps and histograms of the fitted spectral parameters obtained from the pixel-resolved fluorescence analysis. (a) Map of the fitted 88Sr center frequency for the filtered pixel ensemble. (b) Corresponding histogram of the 88Sr center frequencies. The vertical l…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Diagnostic plots for the velocity-based fit. (a) Measured velocity-squared map as a function of cooling-beam power and detuning, with white contours showing the fitted model. (b) Parity plot comparing the model-predicted and experimentally extracted velocity-squared va…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Wavelength-meter measurement offset dependence on calibration settings. Controlled offsets were applied to a 578 nm calibration laser, and the corresponding wavelength-meter shifts were measured at 556, 578, 759, and 778 nm. The 461 nm response was inferred from the co…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Summary of the resonance-frequency estimates for the four datasets V1, R1, R2, and R3. Circular and triangular markers denote the spectroscopy results corrected using the 778-nm and 759-nm wavelength references, respectively, while the star denotes the 2D gMOT velocity…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Histograms of the fitted 88Sr resonance values from the accepted pixel spectra for datasets R2 (a) and R3 (b). The statistical uncertainty is taken as the standard deviation of each distribution, giving 3.33 MHz for R2 and 3.25 MHz for R3. The vertical lines mark the m…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Week-long 759 nm WLM stability record monitored contemporaneously with the R2 and R3 runs. The shaded band denotes ±1σ. 5.2.3 WLM frequency transfer uncertainties The uncertainty in frequency measurements at 461 nm due to the WLM (utrans) depends on multiple components…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Lett.28468

    Courtillot I, Quessada A, Kovacich R P, Zondy J J, Landragin A, Clairon A and Lemonde P 2003Opt. Lett.28468

  2. [2]

    Xu X, Loftus T H, Hall J L, Gallagher A and Ye J 2003J. Opt. Soc. Am. B20968–976

  3. [3]

    Courtillot I, Quessada-Vial A, Brusch A, Kolker D, Rovera G D and Lemonde P 2005The European Physical Journal D - Atomic, Molecular, Optical and Plasma Physics33161–171 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1140/epjd/e2005-00058-0

    doi:10.1140/epjd/e2005-00058-0

  4. [4]

    Acta A63981–986

    Poli N, Ferrari G, Prevedelli M, Sorrentino F, Drullinger R E and Tino G M 2006Spectrochim. Acta A63981–986

  5. [5]

    Nagel S B, Mickelson P G, Saenz A D, Martinez Y N, Chen Y C, Killian T C, Pellegrini P and Cˆ ot´ e R 2005Phys. Rev. Lett.94083004

  6. [6]

    Acta B551679–1692

    Bushaw B A and N¨ ortersh¨ auser W 2000Spectrochim. Acta B551679–1692

  7. [7]

    Miyake H, Pisenti N C, Elgee P K, Sitaram A and Campbell G K 2019Phys. Rev. Res.1 033113

  8. [8]

    Ludlow A D, Boyd M M, Ye J, Peik E and Schmidt P O 2015Rev. Mod. Phys.87637–701

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Hobson R, Bowden W, Vianello A, Silva A, Baynham C F A, Margolis H S, Baird P E G, Gill P and Hill I R 2020Metrologia57065026

  2. [10]

    Commun.42109

    Le Targat R, Lorini L, Le Coq Y, Zawada M, Gu´ ena J, Abgrall M, Gurov M, Rosenbusch P, Rovera D G, Nag´ orny B, Gartman R, Westergaard P G, Tobar M E, Lours M, Santarelli G, Clairon A, Bize S, Laurent P, Lemonde P and Lodewyck J 2013Nat. Commun.42109

  3. [11]

    Zheng X, Dolde J, Lochab V, Merriman B N, Li H and Kolkowitz S 2022Nature602425–430

  4. [12]

    Photon.13714–719

    Oelker E, Hutson R B, Kennedy C J, Sonderhouse L, Bothwell T, Goban A, Kedar D, Sanner C, Robinson J M, Marti G E, Matei D G, Legero T, Giunta M, Holzwarth R, Riehle F, Sterr U and Ye J 2019Nat. Photon.13714–719

  5. [13]

    Safronova M S, Porsev S G, Safronova U I, Kozlov M G and Clark C W 2013Phys. Rev. A 87(1) 012509

  6. [14]

    Kestler G, Ton K, Filin D, Safronova M S and Barreiro J T 2022Phys. Rev. A105(1) 012821

  7. [15]

    Ma X, Das S, Wilkowski D and Kwong C C 2025Phys. Rev. Appl.24(6) 064017

  8. [16]

    Kestler G, Sedlik R, Trapp E, Safronova M and Barreiro J 2026Phys. Rev. Appl.25(1) 014053

  9. [17]

    Kwon M, Holman A, Gan Q, Liu C W, Molinelli M, Stevenson I and Will S 2023Rev. Sci. Instrum.94013202

  10. [18]

    Nosske I, Couturier L, Hu F, Tan C, Qiao C, Blume J, Jiang Y H, Chen P and Weidem¨ uller M 2017Phys. Rev. A96(5) 053415 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.96.053415

    doi

  11. [19]

    Lee H G, Park Y H, Park C Y, Seo M H, Hong H G, Lee S B, Kwon T Y, Kang S, Seo S, Park S E, Na Y, Kang I S and Lee J H 2025Phys. Rev. Appl.24044065

  12. [20]

    Lett.48383–386

    Pate J M, Kitching J and Hummon M T 2023Opt. Lett.48383–386

  13. [21]

    Sitaram A, Elgee P K, Campbell G K, Klimov N N, Eckel S and Barker D S 2020Rev. Sci. Instrum.91103202

  14. [22]

    Nshii C C, Vangeleyn M, Cotter J P, Griffin P F, Hinds E A, Ironside C N, See P, Sinclair A G, Riis E and Arnold A S 2013Nature Nanotechnology8321–324 URL https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2013.47

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    Imhof E, Stuhl B K, Kasch B, Kroese B, Olson S E and Squires M B 2017Phys. Rev. A96(3) 033636 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.96.033636

    doi

  16. [24]

    Bondza S, Lisdat C, Kroker S and Leopold T 2022Phys. Rev. Appl.17044002 16 IOP PublishingJournalvv(yyyy) aaaaaa Authoret al

  17. [25]

    Heinz A, Park A J, ˇSanti´ c N, Trautmann J, Porsev S G, Safronova M S, Bloch I and Blatt S 2020Phys. Rev. Lett.124203201

  18. [26]

    Sullivan F J 1938University of Pittsburgh Bulletin351–8

  19. [27]

    5.12), [Online]

    Kramida A, Yu Ralchenko, Reader J and and NIST ASD Team 2024 NIST Atomic Spectra Database (ver. 5.12), [Online]. Available:https://physics.nist.gov/asd[2026, June 28]. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD

    2024

  20. [28]

    Sansonetti J E and Nave G 2010J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data39033103

  21. [29]

    Commun.143080

    Isichenko A, Chauhan N, Bose D, Wang J, Kunz P D and Blumenthal D J 2023Nat. Commun.143080

  22. [30]

    Sens.18100288

    Hummon M, Bopp D, Kruse J, Yulaev A, Westly D, Srinivasan K, Aksyuk V and Kitching J 2021Meas. Sens.18100288

  23. [31]

    Dieckmann K, Spreeuw R J C, Weidem¨ uller M and Walraven J T M 1998Phys. Rev. A58 3891–3895

  24. [32]

    Lauprˆ etre T, Groult L, Achi B, Petersen M, Kersal´ e Y, Delehaye M and Lacroˆ ute C 2020OSA Continuum350–57

  25. [33]

    Golub G H and Pereyra V 1973SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis10413–432

  26. [34]

    O’Leary D P and Rust B W 2013Computational Optimization and Applications54579–593

  27. [35]

    thesis Universit´ e Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris VI

    Courtillot I 2003Premi` ere observation de la transition fortement interdite 1S0-3P0 du strontium, pour une horloge optique ` a atomes pi´ eg´ esPh.D. thesis Universit´ e Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris VI

  28. [36]

    thesis University of Innsbruck

    Stellmer S 2013Quantum degenerate gases of strontiumPh.D. thesis University of Innsbruck

  29. [37]

    thesis University of Maryland, College Park

    Elgee P K 2022Grating magneto-optical traps for strontiumPh.D. thesis University of Maryland, College Park

  30. [38]

    Lunden W, Du L, Cantara M, Barral P, Jamison A O and Ketterle W 2020Phys. Rev. A101 063403

  31. [39]

    Couturier L, Nosske I, Hu F, Tan C, Qiao C, Jiang Y H, Chen P and Weidem¨ uller M 2018 Rev. Sci. Instrum.89043103

    2018

  32. [40]

    Kim H, Heo M S, Park C Y, Yu D H and Lee W K 2021Metrologia58055007 17

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.