Coherent enhancement of collection of light from linear ion crystals

A. Kovalenko; A. Le\v{s}und\'ak; D. Babjak; K. Singh; L. Slodi\v{c}ka; M. T. Pham; O. \v{C}\'ip; P. Ob\v{s}il; T. D. Tran

Coherent enhancement of collection of light from linear ion crystals

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A chain of nine trapped calcium ions boosts collected scattered light by a factor of 3.05 using axial interference.

desk verdict A solid experimental demonstration of multi-ion cooperative collection enhancement that deserves refereeing; the main measured result does not depend on the simplified model. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12369 v1 pith:YVW3PGCJ submitted 2024-12-16 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

T. D. Tran , D. Babjak , A. Kovalenko , K. Singh , M. T. Pham , P. Obšil , A. Lešundák , O. Číp

show 1 more author

L. Slodička

This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph

keywords ioncrystalsphotoncollectionconstructiveinterferencelinearPaultrapfree-spaceopticstrappedionscalcium-40barium-138

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 and demonstrates a way to collect more scattered light from a linear string of trapped ions by pointing the detector along the trap axis and tuning the trap so that light from different ions interferes constructively in that direction. In a nine-ion 40Ca+ crystal the authors measure a relative collection enhancement of 3.05 ± 0.09 at a numerical aperture of about 0.07, and the enhancement grows with ion number up to the tested nine ions. The same geometry is intrinsic to standard linear Paul traps, so the scheme offers a route to efficient free-space photon collection without bulky high-numerical-aperture optics.

What carries the argument

The key object is the far-field interference sum I(β) = |Σ_j U_j(β)|^2, which reduces to Σ_{a,b} cos(k Δ_{a,b}^d), with path differences Δ_{a,b}^d = l(v_a - v_b)(cos α − cos β). This formula turns the ion-crystal geometry into a phased-array antenna: the axial trapping frequency sets the single length scale l that controls the relative phases, and the collection solid angle along the axis is where the angular gradient of the pattern is smallest. Thermal motion enters through a Debye–Waller factor exp(−½ $k^{2}$_eff $σ^{2}$_{a,b}) multiplying each cosine, and the experiment tunes l by scanning the tip-electrode voltage to find the constructive maximum at NA ≈ 0.07.

What would settle it

Measure the relative enhancement for a single ion's full dipole pattern at NA = 0.07 and compare with the model's isotropic prediction; more directly, measure P_D,rel for five 138Ba+ ions under the same trap parameters and check whether it reaches the predicted 3.93 rather than the calcium value.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a linear ion crystal can act as a phased array for elastically scattered light: when the ions are held in a single harmonic axial potential at spacings of several wavelengths, the far-field intensity along the axial direction can be made constructively interfering by adjusting the axial confinement length scale l. The paper's far-field model sums equal-amplitude contributions from all ions with relative phases set by the path difference l(v_a - v_b)(cos α - cos β), where α is the excitation angle and β the observation angle, and predicts near-linear enhancement with ion number n at small NA. Experimental tests with up to nine 40Ca+ ions confirm relative gains rising to 3.05 ± 0.09; simulations including Doppler-limit thermal motion and a measured coherent fraction reproduce the trend, and predictions for 138Ba+ indicate further improvements of about 1.45 times for five ions.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on treating each ion as an identical, isotropic point scatterer with equal amplitude; if real dipole emission patterns add significant angular structure, the optimized crystal lengths and the quoted enhancement factors could shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim holds, small-NA axial collection can reach detection efficiencies comparable to high-NA radial objectives: the measured absolute efficiency for nine ions (0.051 %) approaches the 0.06 % obtained with an NA ≈ 0.3 objective on the same apparatus.
The scheme is intrinsic to linear Paul traps, so it can be adopted without altering trap geometry.
The method extends to ion crystals prepared in collective electronic excitations (W states), where inelastic and multilevel losses are absent.
Using heavier species such as 138Ba+ is predicted to give roughly 1.45 times the five-ion calcium enhancement, because lower Doppler-limit position variance preserves interference visibility.
Small-NA collection has a large depth of focus, allowing many ions to be monitored simultaneously and enabling state mapping onto the direction of scattered light.

Reading between the lines

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

Extending beyond the paper: the model's neglect of dipole polarization could be tested by rotating the excitation laser's linear polarization relative to the trap axis and checking whether the optimal enhancement shifts.
Extending beyond the paper: the narrow constructive lobe emitted along the axis could be mode-matched to an optical cavity or waveguide, potentially combining the phased-array gain with resonator enhancement.
Extending beyond the paper: the predicted barium enhancement is a concrete falsifiable target — repeating the n = 5 experiment with 138Ba+ should yield P_D,rel ≈ 3.93 if the thermal-motion model is correct.
Extending beyond the paper: individual phase control (Eq. 3) effectively turns the string into a programmable beam shaper, and extending that control to larger n may recover enhancement where harmonic compression alone fails.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First experimental scaling of coherent photon-collection enhancement for n>2 trapped ions, and the central number (3.05±0.09 for nine 40Ca+ ions) comes straight from count rates, not from the fitted model. That makes the headline result solid.

The genuinely new things: systematic optimization over the harmonic length scale l, the first multi-ion scaling data (n=2 to 9), and the demonstration that a small-NA axial aperture can beat the collection of a much higher-NA radial objective in this apparatus. The use of a single harmonic parameter to sweep the interference condition is elegant and practical.

The paper treats its own limitations honestly: Eq. (1) neglects dipole orientation and multilevel structure, and they say so. I agree with the stress-test that this doesn't touch the measured enhancement, because the single-ion reference and the measured count-rate ratio carry the same dipole factor. The coherent fraction fcoh is fitted, but only as a consistency check; the enhancement itself is not derived from it. That's fine.

Soft spots, in proportion: the 138Ba+ predictions are model-based and would benefit from a vectorial check, especially since the paper acknowledges the simplification; the absolute collection efficiency (0.05%) is still low, though the relative gain is what matters; and the claim that the scheme is 'intrinsic to diverse trap designs' is plausible but not demonstrated beyond this one trap geometry. These are minor. I'd also note the comparison with the NA=0.3 objective is apples-to-oranges on absolute numbers, but they frame it carefully.

The thermal-motion analysis (Eq. 6) and the scaling of fcoh with n are nice touches. The citation pattern looks fine, with prior two-ion interference work properly credited.

Who this is for: trapped-ion experimentalists looking for cheap collection wins, and people working on collective scattering from ion strings. The referee can add value by asking for the vectorial polarization check and a clearer error budget on the single-ion reference rate. Overall: solid experimental paper, no load-bearing flaw. Send it to review.

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a scheme for enhancing the collection efficiency of light scattered from linear ion crystals by exploiting constructive far-field interference along the axial direction of a linear Paul trap. The authors develop a scalar interference model (Eq. 1), optimize the relative collection enhancement over the axial length scale for up to ten ions, and report an experimental demonstration with 40Ca+ crystals of up to nine ions. The measured relative enhancement reaches 3.05 ± 0.09 for the nine-ion crystal, normalized to the measured single-ion count rate via Eq. (4). The paper further predicts larger enhancements for 138Ba+ and discusses extensions to collective single-excitation states.

Significance. The central experimental result is convincing and significant: a factor-of-three enhancement of collected photonic signal from a linear ion crystal, obtained without high-NA optics, is measured directly from photon-count rates and does not depend on the fitted coherent fraction fcoh. The use of a single-ion reference and explicit background subtraction makes the main claim robust. The scalar model's neglect of dipole anisotropy does not undermine the measured enhancement, since Eq. (4) is model-independent and the collection cone (NA ≈ 0.07) is small enough that the single-ion radiation pattern is slowly varying across the detected solid angle. The predicted Ba+ gains and the universality claims are model-based and would benefit from a vectorial check, but they are secondary to the demonstrated effect. Overall, the paper reports a useful and broadly applicable collection technique with a direct experimental validation.

minor comments (5)

[Methods, Eq. (1)] The intermediate expression for the intensity in Eq. (1) is written as |Σ_{a,b} U_a U_b|, but the correct form should use U_a U_b^* (with a complex conjugate) before taking the real part to obtain the final cosine double sum; please correct this notation.
[Methods, polarization discussion] The statement that neglecting dipole orientations 'provide[s] on average the same enhancement' is not self-evident; a brief quantitative argument, for example that the single-ion dipole angular factor varies by only a few percent over the NA ≈ 0.07 cone, would clarify why the scalar model is adequate at the quoted working points.
[Results, Fig. 3] Figure 3 and the accompanying text present data for n = 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 ions but omit n = 8; please state whether the eight-ion crystal was not measured and, if so, why it was excluded.
[Experimental test] The background count rate is given as a single value, C_bg = 24 ± 5 counts/s, while the axial voltage U_tip is scanned over a substantial range; please comment on whether the electrode-scattering background was verified to be stable across the scan.
[Methods, Eq. (1)] The text describing the path difference Δ_{a,b}^d should explicitly state the full expression l(v_a - v_b)(cos α - cos β), since the later formulas use this angular dependence and the current wording is incomplete.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central measured enhancement is a direct count-rate ratio, and the theory is a parameter-free far-field sum.

full rationale

The central experimental claim (3.05 ± 0.09 for nine 40Ca+ ions) is evaluated via Eq. (4), P_exp_D,rel = (C(n) − C_bg)/((C(n=1) − C_bg)n), using directly measured count rates and background. This expression is the definition of relative collection enhancement, not a quantity derived from the fitted coherence fraction. The fit parameter f_coh enters only through Eq. (5) as a consistency/modeling analysis and is explicitly not used to obtain the reported maximal enhancements. The theoretical prediction Eq. (1) is an independent far-field interference sum over stated ion equilibrium positions in a harmonic potential, with no free parameters; the thermal-motion extension Eq. (6) uses standard Debye–Waller factors with Doppler-limit variances. Self-citations [32,34,46] provide previous demonstrations and efficiency comparisons but are not load-bearing for the new nine-ion measurement. The acknowledged neglect of polarization and dipole orientation is a stated simplifying assumption and does not constitute circularity; the measured enhancement remains a direct experimental observable. Therefore no circular step reduces the central claim to its inputs.

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

The central measured enhancement rests on a simple scattering model with an assumed identical amplitude per ion and a neglect of dipole anisotropy; the model is conventional and the fitted coherent fraction is the only explicit free parameter used in the data analysis. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)

fcoh = Fitted per ion number from local fits; decreases about 20% for n>5.
Fraction of coherently scattered light is fitted to the measured P_expD,rel(l) data using Eq. (5); it absorbs residual model mismatch, so the theory-data comparison is not fully parameter-free.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption All ions scatter with equal amplitude (epsilon_j = 1).
Invoked in Methods after Eq. (1) to simplify the far-field sum; plausible for small crystals and wide beams, but not measured.
domain assumption Polarization and dipole orientation can be neglected because they average to the same enhancement.
Stated in Methods; the 3.3 G field and linear polarizations break isotropy, so this is an approximation rather than an exact symmetry.
domain assumption Ion positions follow the single harmonic Coulomb crystal model with positions z_i = l v_i.
Standard model from ref. 37, used to compute equilibrium positions and the length scale l; validated in the paper by the consistency of the measured scaling.
domain assumption Motional dephasing is characterized by Gaussian variance sigma^2_ab from normal modes at the Doppler limit.
Used in Eq. (6) to predict thermal-motion reductions; assumes independent thermal oscillators and the Doppler-cooling temperature, which is an approximation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coherent enhancement of collection of light from linear ion crystals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YVW3PGCJ

@misc{pith2026241212369,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coherent enhancement of collection of light from linear ion crystals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YVW3PGCJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12369}
}

abstract

The efficient detection of light from trapped ions in free space is paramount for most of their applications. We propose a scheme to enhance the photon collection from linear ion strings. It employs the constructive interference of light scattered from ions along the axial direction in linear Paul traps. The coherent enhancement of photon collection is numerically optimized for a range of feasible spatial angles and realistic ion positions in a single harmonic Coulomb potential. Despite the large mutual distance of scatterers on the order of many wavelengths of scattered light, presented experimental tests confirm the feasibility of enhancements by a factor of $3.05 \pm 0.09$ with a crystal of nine $^{40}$Ca$^+$ ions. Further significant improvements using different ion species, which allow for suppression of the sensitivity to the residual thermal motion, are predicted. The proposed collection geometry is intrinsic to diverse linear ion trap designs and the methodology can be directly applied to an observation of scattering from ion crystals prepared in collective electronic excitations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12369 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Illustration of the coherent enhancement of collection of light from linear ion crystals in a single harmonic trapping [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Simulations of the relative enhancement of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Summary of the measured enhancements of col [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

[1]

Guerin, M

W. Guerin, M. Rouabah, and R. Kaiser, Journal of Mod- ern Optics 64, 895 (2017)

work page 2017
[2]

Sangouard, C

N. Sangouard, C. Simon, H. De Riedmatten, and N. Gisin, Reviews of Modern Physics 83, 33 (2011)

2011
[3]

Chaneli` ere, G

T. Chaneli` ere, G. H´ etet, and N. Sangouard, inAdvances In Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics , Vol. 67 (El- sevier, 2018) pp. 77–150

work page 2018
[4]

M. K. Tey, G. Maslennikov, T. C. Liew, S. A. Aljunid, F. Huber, B. Chng, Z. Chen, V. Scarani, and C. Kurt- siefer, New Journal of Physics 11, 043011 (2009)

work page 2009
[5]

Alt, Optik 113, 142 (2002)

W. Alt, Optik 113, 142 (2002)

work page 2002
[6]

K. D. Nelson, X. Li, and D. S. Weiss, Nature Physics 3, 556 (2007)

2007
[7]

Gerber, D

S. Gerber, D. Rotter, M. Hennrich, R. Blatt, F. Rohde, C. Schuck, M. Almendros, R. Gehr, F. Dubin, and J. Es- chner, New Journal of Physics 11, 013032 (2009)

work page 2009
[8]

W. S. Bakr, J. I. Gillen, A. Peng, S. F¨ olling, and M. Greiner, Nature 462, 74 (2009)

2009

Show all 54 references

[9]

Gross and W

C. Gross and W. S. Bakr, Nature Physics17, 1316 (2021)

2021
[10]

Wong-Campos, K

J. Wong-Campos, K. Johnson, B. Neyenhuis, J. Mizrahi, and C. Monroe, Nature Photonics 10, 606 (2016)

2016
[11]

Fuhrmanek, R

A. Fuhrmanek, R. Bourgain, Y. R. Sortais, and A. Browaeys, Physical Review Letters 106, 133003 (2011)

2011
[12]

Shu, C.-K

G. Shu, C.-K. Chou, N. Kurz, M. R. Dietrich, and B. B. Blinov, JOSA B 28, 2865 (2011)

2011
[13]

Maiwald, A

R. Maiwald, A. Golla, M. Fischer, M. Bader, S. Heugel, B. Chalopin, M. Sondermann, and G. Leuchs, Physical Review A 86, 043431 (2012)

2012
[14]

Zarraoa, R

L. Zarraoa, R. Veyron, T. Lamich, and M. W. Mitchell, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.08674 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[15]

Araneda, G

G. Araneda, G. Cerchiari, D. B. Higginbottom, P. C. Holz, K. Lakhmanskiy, P. Obˇ sil, Y. Colombe, and R. Blatt, Review of Scientific Instruments 91 (2020)

2020
[16]

Heine, M

D. Heine, M. Wilzbach, T. Raub, B. Hessmo, and J. Schmiedmayer, Physical Review A 79, 021804 (2009)

2009
[17]

C.-K. Chou, C. Auchter, J. Lilieholm, K. Smith, and B. Blinov, Review of Scientific Instruments 88 (2017)

2017
[18]

C. R. Clark, C.-w. Chou, A. Ellis, J. Hunker, S. A. Kemme, P. Maunz, B. Tabakov, C. Tigges, and D. L. Stick, Physical Review Applied 1, 024004 (2014)

2014
[19]

E. W. Streed, A. Jechow, B. G. Norton, and D. Kielpin- ski, Nature Communications 3, 933 (2012)

2012
[20]

Leibfried, R

D. Leibfried, R. Blatt, C. Monroe, and D. Wineland, Re- views of Modern Physics 75, 281 (2003)

2003
[21]

Duan and C

L.-M. Duan and C. Monroe, Reviews of Modern Physics 82, 1209 (2010)

2010
[22]

A. D. Ludlow, M. M. Boyd, J. Ye, E. Peik, and P. O. Schmidt, Reviews of Modern Physics 87, 637 (2015)

2015
[23]

C.-w. Chou, C. Kurz, D. B. Hume, P. N. Plessow, D. R. Leibrandt, and D. Leibfried, Nature 545, 203 (2017)

2017
[24]

C. D. Bruzewicz, J. Chiaverini, R. McConnell, and J. M. Sage, Applied Physics Reviews 6, 021314 (2019)

2019
[25]

Monroe, W

C. Monroe, W. C. Campbell, L.-M. Duan, Z.-X. Gong, A. V. Gorshkov, P. W. Hess, R. Islam, K. Kim, N. M. Linke, G. Pagano, et al., Reviews of Modern Physics 93, 025001 (2021)

2021
[26]

Postler, S

L. Postler, S. Heußen, I. Pogorelov, M. Rispler, T. Feld- ker, M. Meth, C. D. Marciniak, R. Stricker, M. Ring- bauer, R. Blatt, et al. , Nature 605, 675 (2022)

2022
[27]

Krutyanskiy, M

V. Krutyanskiy, M. Canteri, M. Meraner, J. Bate, V. Kr- cmarsky, J. Schupp, N. Sangouard, and B. P. Lanyon, Physical Review Letters 130, 213601 (2023)

2023
[28]

Takahashi, E

H. Takahashi, E. Kassa, C. Christoforou, and M. Keller, Physical Review Letters 124, 013602 (2020)

2020
[29]

Casabone, K

B. Casabone, K. Friebe, B. Brandst¨ atter, K. Sch¨ uppert, R. Blatt, and T. Northup, Physical Review Letters 114, 023602 (2015)

2015
[30]

Bushev, G

P. Bushev, G. H´ etet, L. Slodiˇ cka, D. Rotter, M. Wilson, F. Schmidt-Kaler, J. Eschner, and R. Blatt, Physical Re- view Letters 110, 133602 (2013)

2013
[31]

Cerchiari, G

G. Cerchiari, G. Araneda, L. Podhora, L. Slodiˇ cka, Y. Colombe, and R. Blatt, Physical Review Letters 127, 063603 (2021)

2021
[32]

Obˇ sil, A

P. Obˇ sil, A. Leˇ sund´ ak, M. T. Pham, G. Araneda, M. ˇC ´ ıˇ zek, O.ˇC ´ ıp, R. Filip, and L. Slodiˇ cka, New Journal of Physics 21, 093039 (2019)

2019
[33]

S. Wolf, J. Wechs, J. von Zanthier, and F. Schmidt-Kaler, Physical Review Letters 116, 183002 (2016)

2016
[34]

Araneda, D

G. Araneda, D. B. Higginbottom, L. Slodiˇ cka, Y. Colombe, and R. Blatt, Physical Review Letters 120, 193603 (2018)

2018
[35]

Verde, A

M. Verde, A. Schaefer, B. Zenz, Z. Shehata, S. Richter, C. T. Schmiegelow, J. von Zanthier, and F. Schmidt- Kaler, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.12513 (2024)

2024
[36]

Tamura, H

H. Tamura, H. Nguyen, P. R. Berman, and A. Kuzmich, Physical Review Letters 125, 163601 (2020)

2020
[37]

James, Applied Physics B 66, 181 (1998)

D. James, Applied Physics B 66, 181 (1998)

1998
[38]

D. G. Enzer, M. M. Schauer, J. J. Gomez, M. S. Gulley, M. H. Holzscheiter, P. G. Kwiat, S. K. Lamoreaux, C. G. Peterson, V. D. Sandberg, D. Tupa, A. G. White, R. J. Hughes, and D. F. V. James, Physical Review Letters85, 2466 (2000)

2000
[39]

Fishman, G

S. Fishman, G. De Chiara, T. Calarco, and G. Morigi, Physical Review B 77, 064111 (2008)

2008
[40]

J. P. Schiffer, Physical Review Letters 70, 818 (1993)

1993
[41]

Mielec, M

N. Mielec, M. Altorio, R. Sapam, D. Horville, D. Holleville, L. A. Sidorenkov, A. Landragin, and R. Geiger, Applied Physics Letters 113, 161108 (2018). 9

2018
[42]

H. C. N¨ agerl, D. Leibfried, H. Rohde, G. Thalhammer, J. Eschner, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and R. Blatt, Physical Re- view A 60, 145 (1999)

1999
[43]

Debnath, N

S. Debnath, N. M. Linke, C. Figgatt, K. A. Landsman, K. Wright, and C. Monroe, Nature 536, 63 (2016)

2016
[44]

Richter, S

S. Richter, S. Wolf, J. von Zanthier, and F. Schmidt- Kaler, Physical Review Research 5, 013163 (2023)

2023
[45]

Leˇ sund´ ak, T

A. Leˇ sund´ ak, T. M. Pham, M. ˇC ´ ıˇ zek, P. Obˇ sil, L. Slodiˇ cka, and O.ˇC ´ ıp, Optics Express28, 13091 (2020)

2020
[46]

Obˇ sil, L

P. Obˇ sil, L. Lachman, T. Pham, A. Leˇ sund´ ak, V. Hucl, M. ˇC ´ ıˇ zek, J. Hrabina, O.ˇC ´ ıp, L. Slodiˇ cka, and R. Filip, Physical Review Letters 120, 253602 (2018)

2018
[47]

Singh, A

K. Singh, A. Cidrim, A. Kovalenko, T. Pham, O. ˇC ´ ıp, L. Slodiˇ cka, and R. Bachelard, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.09465 (2024)

2024
[48]

D. C. Cole, J. J. Wu, S. D. Erickson, P.-Y. Hou, A. C. Wilson, D. Leibfried, and F. Reiter, New Journal of Physics 23, 073001 (2021)

2021
[49]

H¨ affner, W

H. H¨ affner, W. H¨ ansel, C. Roos, J. Benhelm, D. Chek- al Kar, M. Chwalla, T. K¨ orber, U. Rapol, M. Riebe, P. Schmidt, et al. , Nature 438, 643 (2005)

2005
[50]

W. M. Itano, J. C. Bergquist, J. J. Bollinger, D. J. Wineland, U. Eichmann, and M. G. Raizen, Physical Re- view A 57, 4176 (1998)

1998
[51]

L.-M. Duan, M. D. Lukin, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Na- ture 414, 413 (2001)

2001
[52]

Slodiˇ cka, G

L. Slodiˇ cka, G. H´ etet, N. R¨ ock, P. Schindler, M. Hen- nrich, and R. Blatt, Physical Review Letters 110, 083603 (2013)

2013
[53]

Pogorelov, T

I. Pogorelov, T. Feldker, C. D. Marciniak, L. Postler, G. Jacob, O. Krieglsteiner, V. Podlesnic, M. Meth, V. Negnevitsky, M. Stadler, et al. , PRX Quantum 2, 020343 (2021)

2021
[54]

Kranzl, M

F. Kranzl, M. K. Joshi, C. Maier, T. Brydges, J. Franke, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Physical Review A105, 052426 (2022)

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Guerin, M

W. Guerin, M. Rouabah, and R. Kaiser, Journal of Mod- ern Optics 64, 895 (2017)

work page 2017

[2] [2]

Sangouard, C

N. Sangouard, C. Simon, H. De Riedmatten, and N. Gisin, Reviews of Modern Physics 83, 33 (2011)

2011

[3] [3]

Chaneli` ere, G

T. Chaneli` ere, G. H´ etet, and N. Sangouard, inAdvances In Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics , Vol. 67 (El- sevier, 2018) pp. 77–150

work page 2018

[4] [4]

M. K. Tey, G. Maslennikov, T. C. Liew, S. A. Aljunid, F. Huber, B. Chng, Z. Chen, V. Scarani, and C. Kurt- siefer, New Journal of Physics 11, 043011 (2009)

work page 2009

[5] [5]

Alt, Optik 113, 142 (2002)

W. Alt, Optik 113, 142 (2002)

work page 2002

[6] [6]

K. D. Nelson, X. Li, and D. S. Weiss, Nature Physics 3, 556 (2007)

2007

[7] [7]

Gerber, D

S. Gerber, D. Rotter, M. Hennrich, R. Blatt, F. Rohde, C. Schuck, M. Almendros, R. Gehr, F. Dubin, and J. Es- chner, New Journal of Physics 11, 013032 (2009)

work page 2009

[8] [8]

W. S. Bakr, J. I. Gillen, A. Peng, S. F¨ olling, and M. Greiner, Nature 462, 74 (2009)

2009