Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Buffer gas cooling of a trapped ion to the quantum regime


Great advances in precision measurements in the quantum regime have been achieved with trapped ions and atomic gases at the lowest possible temperatures1,2,3. These successes have inspired ideas to merge the two systems4. In this way, we can study the unique properties of ionic impurities inside a quantum fluid5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 or explore buffer gas cooling of a trapped-ion quantum computer13. Remarkably, in spite of its importance, experiments with atom–ion mixtures have remained firmly confined to the classical collision regime14. We report a collision energy of 1.15(±0.23) times the s-wave energy (or 9.9(±2.0) μK) for a trapped ytterbium ion in an ultracold lithium gas. We observed a deviation from classical Langevin theory by studying the spin-exchange dynamics, indicating quantum effects in the atom–ion collisions. Our results open up numerous opportunities, such as the exploration of atom–ion Feshbach resonances15,16, in analogy to neutral systems17.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Set-up.
Fig. 2: Cooling dynamics of an ion in the ultracold buffer gas.
Fig. 3: Spin-exchange rate versus collision energy.

Data availability

The data that support the plots within this paper and other findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Source data for Figs. 2 and 3 and Extended Data Figs. 1–4 are provided with the paper.


  1. 1.

    Ludlow, A. D., Boyd, M. M., Ye, J., Peik, E. & Schmidt, P. Optical atomic clocks. Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 637–701 (2015).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Bernien, H. et al. Probing many-body dynamics on a 51-atom quantum simulator. Nature 551, 579–584 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Zhang, J. et al. Observation of a many-body dynamical phase transition with a 53-qubit quantum simulator. Nature 551, 601–604 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Tomza, M. et al. Cold hybrid ion–atom systems. Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 035001 (2019).

    ADS  MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Zipkes, C., Paltzer, S., Sias, C. & Köhl, M. A trapped ion inside a Bose–Einstein condensate. Nature 464, 388–391 (2010).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Schmid, S., Härter, A. & Denschlag, J. H. Dynamics of a cold trapped ion in a Bose–Einstein condensate. Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 133202 (2010).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Ratschbacher, L. et al. Dynamics and decoherence of a single spin-qubit in a tunable environment. Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 160402 (2013).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Meir, Z. et al. Dynamics of a ground-state cooled ion colliding with ultra-cold atoms. Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 243401 (2016).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Kleinbach, K. S. et al. Ionic impurity in a Bose–Einstein condensate at submicrokelvin temperatures. Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 193401 (2018).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Sikorsky, T., Meir, Z., Ben-shlomi, R., Akerman, N. & Ozeri, R. Spin-controlled atom–ion chemistry. Nat. Commun. 9, 920 (2018).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Haze, S., Sasakawa, M., Saito, R., Nakai, R. & Mukaiyama, T. Cooling dynamics of a single trapped ion via elastic collisions with small-mass atoms. Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 043401 (2018).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Schmidt, J., Weckesser, P., Thielemann, F., Schaetz, T. & Karpa, L. Optical traps for sympathetic cooling of ions with ultracold neutral atoms. Preprint at (2019).

  13. 13.

    Daley, A. J., Fedichev, P. O. & Zoller, P. Single-atom cooling by superfluid immersion: a nondestructive method for qubits. Phys. Rev. A 69, 022306 (2004).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Schmid, T. et al. Rydberg molecules for ion–atom scattering in the ultracold regime. Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 153401 (2018).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Idziaszek, Z., Simoni, A., Calarco, T. & Julienne, P. S. Multichannel quantum-defect theory for ultracold atom–ion collisions. New J. Phys. 13, 083005 (2011).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Tomza, M., Koch, C. P. & Moszynski, R. Cold interactions between an Yb+ ion and a Li atom: prospects for sympathetic cooling, radiative association, and Feshbach resonances. Phys. Rev. A 91, 042706 (2015).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Chin, C., Grimm, R., Julienne, P. S. & Tiesinga, E. Feshbach resonances in ultracold gases. Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1225–1286 (2010).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Itano, W. M., Bergquist, J. C., Bollinger, J. J. & Wineland, D. J. Cooling methods in ion traps. Phys. Scr. 1995, 106–120 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Major, F. G. & Dehmelt, H. G. Exchange-collision technique for the RF spectroscopy of stored ions. Phys. Rev. 170, 91–107 (1968).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Cetina, M., Grier, A. T. & Vuletić, V. Fundamental limit to atom–ion sympathetic cooling in Paul traps. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 253201 (2012).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Leibfried, D. et al. Experimental determination of the motional quantum state of a trapped atom. Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 4281–4285 (1996).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    DeVoe, R. G. Power-law distributions for a trapped ion interacting with a classical buffer gas. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 063001 (2009).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Zipkes, C., Ratschbacher, L., Sias, C. & Köhl, M. Kinetics of a single trapped ion in an ultracold buffer gas. New J. Phys. 13, 053020 (2011).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Chen, K., Sullivan, S. T. & Hudson, E. R. Neutral gas sympathetic cooling of an ion in a Paul trap. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 143009 (2014).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Rouse, I. & Willitsch, S. Superstatistical energy distributions of an ion in an ultracold buffer gas. Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 143401 (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Höltkemeier, B., Weckesser, P., López-Carrera, H. & Weidemüller, M. Buffer-gas cooling of ions in a multipole radio frequency trap beyond the critical mass ratio. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 233003 (2016).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Fürst, H. et al. Prospects of reaching the quantum regime in Li–Yb+ mixtures. J. Phys. B 51, 195001 (2018).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Berkeland, D. J., Miller, J. D., Bergquist, J. C., Itano, W. M. & Wineland, D. J. Minimization of ion micromotion in a Paul trap. J. Appl. Phys. 83, 5025–5033 (1998).

  29. 29.

    Krych, M. & Idziaszek, Z. Description of ion motion in a Paul trap immersed in a cold atomic gas. Phys. Rev. A 91, 023430 (2015).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Fürst, H. et al. Dynamics of a single ion-spin impurity in a spin-polarized atomic bath. Phys. Rev. A 98, 012713 (2018).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Joger, J. et al. Observation of collisions between cold Li atoms and Y+ ions. Phys. Rev. A 96, 030703(R) (2017).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Fürst, H. A. Trapped Ions in A Bath of Ultracold Atoms. PhD thesis, Univ. Amsterdam (2019).

  33. 33.

    Ewald, N. V., Feldker, T., Hirzler, H., Fürst, H. & Gerritsma, R. Observation of interactions between trapped ions and ultracold Rydberg atoms. Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 253401 (2019).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Taylor, P. et al. Investigation of the \({}^{2}{S}_{1/2}{-}^{2}{D}_{5/2}\) clock transition in a single ytterbium ion. Phys. Rev. A 56, 2699–2704 (1997).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


This work was supported by the European Union via the European Research Council (Starting Grant 337638) and the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (Vidi Grant 680-47-538, Start-up Grant 740.018.008 and Vrije Programma 680.92.18.05) (R.G.). D.W. and M.T. were supported by the National Science Centre Poland (Opus Grant 2016/23/B/ST4/03231) and PL-Grid Infrastructure. We thank J. Walraven and C. Coulais for comments on the manuscript.

Author information




T.F. and R.G. conceived the experiment. T.F., H.F., H.H., N.V.E. and M.M. performed the experiment. H.F. and R.G. performed molecular dynamics simulations, D.W. and M.T. performed quantum scattering simulations. All authors contributed to discussions about the experiment, the analysis of the data and the preparation of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Gerritsma.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Time-of-flight (TOF) data of the atomic cloud after release from the dipole trap.

We plot \({\sigma }_{{\rm{x}}}\) (blue) and \({\sigma }_{{\rm{y}}}\) (yellow). We average the temperature \({T}_{{\rm{x}}}\) and \({T}_{{\rm{y}}}\) to determine the atom temperature \({T}_{{\rm{a}}}\) a, TOF data for cold atoms after a buffer gas cooling time of 1 s. We determine an average atom temperature of \({T}_{{\rm{a}}}\) = 2.0(0.8) μK. The error bars are quite large for this measurement as the atomic density is at the lower limit of what we can reliably measure in our system. b, TOF data for cold atoms before the buffer gas cooling. We determine \({T}_{{\rm{a}}}\) = 2.6(0.3) μK. c, TOF data for the atomic cloud used for the spin-exchange rate measurement, we determine a temperature of \({T}_{{\rm{a}}}\) = 11.6(0.5) μK. Error bars denote standard deviations of fitted cloud sizes.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Micromotion analysis with resolved sideband spectroscopy.

In part a and b Rabi oscillations on the carrier and the micromotion sideband for optimal compensation settings are plotted. From a comparison of the Rabi frequencies \({\varOmega }_{{\rm{car}}}=2\pi \times 32.0(0.8)\)kHz and \({\varOmega }_{{\rm{MM}}}=2\pi \times 7.0(0.5)\)kHz in combination with the applied laser powers of \({P}_{411}=32\)μW and \({P}_{411}=840\)μK, respectively we obtain a residual micromotion energy of \({\overline{E}}_{{\rm{eMM}}}/{k}_{{\rm{B}}}=21.5(1.5)\)μK. Part c shows a frequency scan over the carrier transition, carried out with a laser power of \({P}_{411}=61\)μW. A clear peak is visible. For the data plotted in part d the frequency of the laser is shifted by \(-{\varOmega }_{{\rm{rf}}}=-1.85\)MHz compared to c and the power is increased to \({P}_{411}=21.7\)mW. At the expected resonance frequency for the micromotion sideband we do not see a clear peak, only the background is higher compared to c due to off-resonant carrier excitation at these high laser powers. If we shift the ion out of the optimal position for minimal micromotion we observe a clear resonance again as plotted in e. We conclude that the Rabi frequency \({\varOmega }_{{\rm{MM}}}\) on the micromotion sideband presented in e is not larger than the Rabi frequency on the carrier \({\varOmega }_{{\rm{car}}}\) presented in c. From this we obtain an upper limit of the axial micromotion at the optimal position of \({\overline{E}}_{{\rm{eMM}}}/{k}_{{\rm{B}}}=33\)μK. Error bars correspond to quantum projection noise.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Calculated energy distribution after buffer gas cooling of the ion using the parameters from the experiment.

The frequency of average secular kinetic energies is shown and fitted with a thermal distribution for a harmonic oscillator with a temperature of \({T}_{\sec }^{\perp }=38.2\) μK. No observable deviation from the thermal distribution is found. The results shown are from 300 simulation runs. In these simulations, the secular kinetic energy of the ion was obtained by filtering out energy contributions with a frequency higher than half the trap drive frequency, \({\varOmega }_{{\rm{rf}}}/2\), as explained in ref. 26.

Extended Data Fig. 4

\({\chi }^{2}\) as a function of the singlet \({a}_{{\rm{S}}}\) and triplet \({a}_{{\rm{T}}}\) scattering lengths with the number of Langevin collisions optimized for each set of scattering lengths.

Source data

Source Data Fig. 2

a, Ion temperature (microkelvin) versus sympathetic cooling time (ms) and error. Insets and b, Probability of finding ion in S state versus laser interrogation time (microseconds) and errors. c, Probability of finding ion in S state versus laser frequency (MHz) and errors.

Source Data Fig. 3

Spin flip probability versus average collision energy (microkelvin) and errors.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 1

Radial atomic cloud sizes (micrometres) versus time-of-flight expansion (microseconds) and errors.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 2

a,b, Probability of finding ion in S state versus laser interrogation time (microseconds) and errors. c-e, Probability of finding ion in S state versus laser frequency (MHz) and errors.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 3

Simulation. Calculated probability of finding an ion at an average kinetic energy (microkelvin).

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 4

\({{\rm{Chi}}}^{2}\) of best fit as a function of singlet (x-axis) and triplet (y-axis) scattering length

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Feldker, T., Fürst, H., Hirzler, H. et al. Buffer gas cooling of a trapped ion to the quantum regime. Nat. Phys. 16, 413–416 (2020).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing