SciPost Submission Page
Number-resolved imaging of $^{88}$Sr atoms in a long working distance optical tweezer
by N. C. Jackson, R. K. Hanley, M. Hill, F. Leroux, C. S. Adams, M. P. A. Jones
This is not the latest submitted version.
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Ryan Hanley · Matthew Hill · Niamh Jackson · Matthew Jones |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.03233v4 (pdf) |
| Date submitted: | 2020-01-14 01:00 |
| Submitted by: | Hill, Matthew |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approach: | Experimental |
Abstract
We demonstrate number-resolved detection of individual strontium atoms in a long working distance low numerical aperture (NA = 0.26) tweezer. Using a camera based on single-photon counting technology, we determine the presence of an atom in the tweezer with a fidelity of 0.989(6) within a 200 $\mu$s imaging time. Adding continuous narrow-line Sisyphus cooling yields similar fidelity, at the expense of much longer imaging times (30 ms). Under these conditions we determine whether the tweezer contains zero, one or two atoms, with a fidelity $>$0.8 in all cases with the high readout speed of the camera enabling real-time monitoring of the number of trapped atoms. Lastly we show that the fidelity can be further improved by using a pulsed cooling/imaging scheme that reduces the effect of camera dark noise.
Author comments upon resubmission
List of changes
Please see responses to referees for changes.
Current status:
Reports on this Submission
Report #2 by Anonymous (Referee 1) on 2020-1-23 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:1904.03233v4, delivered 2020-01-23, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.1469
Report
The authors have substantially improved the calculation and discussion of imaging fidelity. My one remaining request would be to mention in the abstract the degree of loss associated with the quoted fidelity. Generally, loss and fidelity limit the performance of an experiment in a similar manner, so it is important to know both. In particular, past experiments have typically optimized for simultaneously low loss and high fidelity, so knowing both numbers is critical for comparison. If loss is not mentioned, the reader may assume that it has been included in the definition of fidelity. Apart from that small but I think important point, I now recommend the manuscript for publication.
Requested changes
see above