Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Physical Review A

Comment on ‘‘Binary formation of NaNe quasibound molecules observed in spin relaxation of Na’’

W. Happer

Published Jun 1, 1985• 5 citations
Publisher

Abstract

A factor of about ${10}^{\mathrm{\ensuremath{-}}6}$ has been omitted from a key formula of the recent paper of F. A. Franz and A. Sieradzan [Phys. Rev. A 29, 1599 (1984)]. The arguments of the paper are also inconsistent with the principle of detailed balance.

DOI
10.1103/physreva.31.4020

Related papers

Response to ‘‘Comment on ‘Binary formation of NaNe quasibound molecules observed in spin relaxation in Na’ ’’

F. A. Franz, A. Sieradzan

We discuss several points not considered in the preceding Comment on our earlier work, which tend to refute the Comment.Received 26 November 1984DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.31.4022©1985 American Physical Society

Physical Review A•Jun 1, 1985•2 citations

Binary formation of NaNe quasibound molecules observed in spin relaxation of Na

F. A. Franz, A. Sieradzan

Quasibound NaNe molecules are shown to contribute strongly to the spin relaxation of Na optically pumped in the presence of Ne. Molecules formed in two-body (tunneling) collisions are distinguished from those formed in three-body collisions. The cross section for the collisional breakup of the quasibound complexes has been measured to be 3 \ensuremath{'} ${10}^{\ensuremath{-}13}$ ${\mathrm{cm}}^{2}$.

Physical Review A•Mar 1, 1984•8 citations

Reply to ‘‘Stapp’s algebraic argument for nonlocality’’

Henry Pierce Stapp

The logical structure of my recently proved nonlocality theorem [Phys. Rev. A 46, 6860 (1992)] is examined from the perspective of the theory counterfactual conditionals. It is shown in detail why the argument of Dickson and Clifton [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 49, 4259 (1994)] does not substantiate their claim.

Physical Review A•May 1, 1994•10 citations

Modelling decoherence in quantum spin systems

W Zhang, Nikolaos P. Konstantinidis, K. A. Al-Hassanieh +1 more

Our interpretation of some words in the text of the work [98] was incorrect. In fact, the parameters used in this work have been calculated theoretically, not obtained from experiments (as we assumed, and as we have written in the review). We thank Dr B Fine for bringing this point to our attention.

Journal of Physics Condensed Matter•Apr 24, 2007•2 citations

Atom loss and the formation of a molecular Bose-Einstein condensate by Feshbach resonance

Vladimir Yurovsky, A. Ben‐Reuven, Paul S. Julienne +1 more

In experiments conducted recently at MIT on Na Bose-Einstein condensates [S. Inouye et al., Nature (London) 392, 151 (1998); J. Stenger et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2422 (1999)], large loss rates were observed when a time-varying magnetic field was used to tune a molecular Feshbach resonance state near the state of a pair of atoms in the condensate. A collisional deactivation mechanism affecting a temporarily formed molecular condensate [see V. A. Yurovsky, A. Ben-Reuven, P. S. Julienne and C. J. Williams, Phys. Rev. A 60, R765 (1999)], studied here in more detail, accounts for the results of the slow-sweep experiments. A best fit to the MIT data yields a rate coefficient for deactivating atom-molecule collisions of $1.6\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{10}^{\ensuremath{-}10} {\mathrm{cm}}^{3}/\mathrm{s}.$ In the case of the fast-sweep experiment, a study is carried out of the combined effect of two competing mechanisms, the three-atom (atom-molecule) or four-atom (molecule-molecule) collisional deactivation versus a process of two-atom trap-state excitation by curve crossing [F. H. Mies, P. S. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Phys. Rev. A 61, 022721 (2000)]. It is shown that both mechanisms contribute to the loss comparably and nonadditively.

arXiv:cond-mat/0006017•Physical Review A•Sep 13, 2000•54 citations

Comment on ''Few-atom /sup 3/He--/sup 4/He mixed molecules''

Masafumi Harada

It is pointed out that a recent work by Nakaichi et al. on few-atom /sup 3/He--/sup 4/He mixed molecules is based on incorrect values of THETA/sup 2//M/sub 3/ and THETA/sup 2//M/sub 4/, where M/sub 3/ and M/sub 4/ are the masses of the /sup 3/He and /sup 4/He atoms. This is shown to affect their conclusion on the /sup 3/He(/sup 4/He)/sub 2/ system seriously.

•Feb 15, 1983•0 citations
A factor of about 10\ensuremath−6{10}^{\mathrm{\ensuremath{-}}6}10\ensuremath−6 has been omitted from a key formula of the recent paper of F. A. Franz and A. Sieradzan [Phys. Rev. A 29, 1599 (1984)]. The arguments of the paper are also inconsistent with the principle of detailed balance.
Quasibound NaNe molecules are shown to contribute strongly to the spin relaxation of Na optically pumped in the presence of Ne. Molecules formed in two-body (tunneling) collisions are distinguished from those formed in three-body collisions. The cross section for the collisional breakup of the quasibound complexes has been measured to be 3 \ensuremath{'} ${10}^{\ensuremath{-}13}$ cm2{\mathrm{cm}}^{2}cm2.
In experiments conducted recently at MIT on Na Bose-Einstein condensates [S. Inouye et al., Nature (London) 392, 151 (1998); J. Stenger et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2422 (1999)], large loss rates were observed when a time-varying magnetic field was used to tune a molecular Feshbach resonance state near the state of a pair of atoms in the condensate. A collisional deactivation mechanism affecting a temporarily formed molecular condensate [see V. A. Yurovsky, A. Ben-Reuven, P. S. Julienne and C. J. Williams, Phys. Rev. A 60, R765 (1999)], studied here in more detail, accounts for the results of the slow-sweep experiments. A best fit to the MIT data yields a rate coefficient for deactivating atom-molecule collisions of $1.6\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{10}^{\ensuremath{-}10} {\mathrm{cm}}^{3}/\mathrm{s}.$ In the case of the fast-sweep experiment, a study is carried out of the combined effect of two competing mechanisms, the three-atom (atom-molecule) or four-atom (molecule-molecule) collisional deactivation versus a process of two-atom trap-state excitation by curve crossing [F. H. Mies, P. S. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Phys. Rev. A 61, 022721 (2000)]. It is shown that both mechanisms contribute to the loss comparably and nonadditively.