Paper detail

On the effect of "glancing" collisions in the cold atom vacuum standard

We theoretically investigate the effect of ``glancing" collisions on the ultra-high vacuum (UHV) pressure readings of the cold atom vacuum standard (CAVS), based on either ultracold $^7$Li or $^{87}$Rb atoms. Here, glancing collisions are those collisions between ultracold atoms and room-temperature background atoms or molecules in the vacuum that do not impart enough kinetic energy to eject an ultracold atom from its trap. Our model is wholly probabilistic and shows that the number of the ultracold atoms remaining in the trap as a function of time is non-exponential. We update the recent results of a comparison between a traditional pressure standard -- a combined flowmeter and dynamic expansion system -- to the CAVS [D.S. Barker, et al., arXiv:2302.12143] to reflect the results of our model. We find that the effect of glancing collisions shifts the theoretical predictions of the total loss rate coefficients for $^7$Li colliding with noble gases or N$_2$ by up to $0.6$ %. Likewise, we find that in the limit of zero trap depth the experimentally extracted loss rate coefficients for $^{87}$Rb colliding with noble gases or N$_2$ shift by as much as 2.2 %.

preprint2024arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access6 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.