Open Access
Add to BibSonomy
Abstract
We demonstrate the superior performance of dielectric fluoride coatings versus oxide coatings in long term vacuum operation of a high power deep-ultraviolet enhancement cavity. In ultra-high vacuum (10−8 mbar), the fluoride optics can maintain up to 10 W of stable intracavity power on one hour time scales, a record-high at these vacuum levels, whereas for the oxide optics, we observe rapid degradation at lower intracavity powers with a rate that increases with power. After observing degradation in high vacuum, we can recover the fluoride and oxide optics with oxygen; however, this recovery process becomes ineffective after several applications. For the fluoride optics, we see that initial UV conditioning in an oxygen environment helps to improve the performances of the optics. In oxygen-rich environments from ∼10−4 mbar, the fluoride optics can stably maintain up to 20 W of intracavity power on several-hour time scales whereas for the oxide optics there is immediate degradation with a rate that increases with decreasing oxygen pressure.
© 2021 Optical Society of America under the terms of the OSA Open Access Publishing Agreement
Corrections
4 November 2021: A typographical correction was made to the author listing.
1. Introduction
Continual innovation of deep-ultraviolet (deep-UV) laser technology is beneficial for precision scientific measurement, materials processing, biomedicine, and many other industrial and medicinal applications [1–3]. Understanding the performance of optics at high average deep-UV powers is of growing importance. Both picosecond pulsed and continuous wave laser systems below 250 nm operating at Watt-level average powers have been demonstrated recently [4–6]. Numerous applications would immediately gain from increased stability at these powers such as laser cooling of AlF at 227.5 nm [7] and mercury at 253.7 nm [8], as well as two-photon cooling of hydrogen at 243 nm [9]. A laser-based parity measurement in hydrogen [10] would also benefit from increased deep-UV Rabi frequencies, as would Rydberg excitation for fast entanglement of strontium ions [11] or studies of strong long-range interactions in a lithium optical lattice [12] at 243 nm or 231 nm, respectively. Anti-matter wave interferometry with positronium could also be envisaged [13].
One particular area of research that profits notably from advances in deep-UV radiation sources is precision two-photon spectroscopy of simple and exotic atoms. For example, comparison of the 1S-2S transition in hydrogen [14] and anti-hydrogen [15] has tested CPT invariance at a level of $2{\times }10^{-12}$, and requires 243 nm radiation. At 205 nm, differing measurements on the 1S-3S transition of hydrogen [16,17] has contributed notably to the proton radius puzzle. A new experiment underway on the 1S-2S transition in Muonium at 244 nm promises a substantial improvement in the determination of the muon mass and tests of lepton universality [18]; at 252.5 nm, precision two-photon spectroscopy in Xenon [19] has recently been demonstrated for future neutron EDM measurements at TRIUMF [20].
While the high precision advantage of two-photon spectroscopy comes from its removal of the first-order Doppler effect and access to long-lived states, this second order process suffers from low cross-sections. This can be overcome with the high peak power offered through pulsed laser systems, but introduces many systematics—these can be removed through use of a continuous wave (CW) laser enhanced in an optical cavity. While such enhancement cavities have been built, e.g., [14,15,19], they operate at modest intracavity powers (<1 W CW), and are limited to low buildup by the available reflectivity of deep-UV optics. Impressively, up to 30 W of CW intracavity power has been demonstrated, but required 0.67 mbar of oxygen on the mirrors to prevent UV-assisted degradation [9]. This degradation is attributed to surface oxygen depletion and/or hydrocarbon contamination [21–23]. In principle, both of these effects are reversible by keeping O$_2$ present on the mirrors, as was required in [9,17,19]. However, such a solution is not ideal. In [19], the precision of the measurement was limited by pressure shifts introduced by the required O$_2$ level. In [9], reaching a vacuum of $5{\times }10^{-8}$ mbar for spectroscopy required a technically demanding differential pumping setup with geometric constraints that significantly limited the intracavity power [24]. Furthermore, implementing such pumping requirements would be challenging in the setups required to study anti-hydrogen [15] and muonium [18] where complicated beamline and cryogenic environment constraints exist. For these reasons, a stable deep-UV cavity operating with Watt-level circulating powers in ultra-high vacuum or reduced oxygen pressures would be of great interest to the laser spectroscopy community.
The previous enhancement cavities that observed degradation utilized oxide-based dielectric coatings for their high reflective mirrors. To better understand the degradation process, an interesting alternative are fluoride coatings. With no oxides present, the latter should be insensitive to surface oxygen depletion. Furthermore, low fluence pulsed studies of fluoride coatings show an extremely high durability with initial UV conditioning, an effect not observed with oxide coatings [25,26]. Therefore, in this work, we test the performance of both fluoride-based and oxide-based coatings at intra-cavity powers from 1W to 10 W at 244 nm in ultra-high vacuum, and 15 W to 20 W in various oxygen pressures. At high powers, we observe superior performance in the stability of the fluoride coated optics relative to the oxide coated optics.
2. Experimental setup
A schematic of the experimental setup is shown in Fig. 1. Inspired by recent demonstrations of high-power Yb-fiber amplifiers [6,27,28] near 976 nm, the system utilizes a frequency doubled fiber-amplifier developed in collaboration with Toptica for generation of the fundamental IR radiation at 976 nm and second harmonic generation to 488 nm. The system can deliver up to 7 W of IR power and 5 W in the blue; with this, up to 1.8 W of 244 nm power can be generated in a "home-built" resonant doubling stage.
The second harmonic enhancement cavity that generates 244 nm radiation uses a standard bow tie geometry and is maintained on resonance using the Pound-Drever-Hall (PDH) locking technique [29]. A slow piezoelectric (PZT) stack (PZT1, CTS NAC2123-H20-C01) and fast PZT chip (PZT2, CTS NAC2122-C04) are used for active length stabilization, with the latter mounted using the technique described in [30]. The cavity mirrors (LaserOptik GmbH) consist of a $2.5 \%$ transmission input coupler (IC1) and three high reflection mirrors at 488 nm ($<99.8\%$); two of these mirrors have a radius of curvature of 200 mm to focus the beam within the doubling crystal with a waist of ${47}\;\mathrm{\mu} \textrm {m}$ by ${44}\;\mathrm{\mu} \textrm {m}$. The doubling occurs in a 10 mm long Brewster-cut Caesium Lithium Borate (CLBO) crystal (Oxide) in a Type-1 critical phase matching configuration ($\theta = 76.4 ^{\circ }, \phi = 45 ^{\circ }$). The hygroscopic crystal is kept at ${150}^{\circ }\textrm {C}$ in an Al oven and flushed continuously with oxygen. A dichroic Brewster plate (OC1, Spectral Optics) couples the UV radiation out of the cavity.
As was shown in [6], the CLBO can output >1 W of radiation on the one hour time scale with no evidence of degradation. Enabled by the increased stability in the IR and blue stages of our laser system, we have observed similar powers on significantly longer time scales (See Fig. 2). We measure a slight degradation of $\sim$1-2$\%$ per hour in total power, which we attribute to damage on the 244 nm coating of the dichroic output coupler (OC1). This damage is visible by eye upon inspection, and the power can be recovered by moving to a new spot on the output coupler.
The 244 nm light is enhanced in a linear, vacuum cavity consisting of commercial, dielectric mirrors coated through electron beam evaporation by LaserOptik GmbH. The input coupler (IC2) used was interchanged between a HfO$_2$/Al$_2$O$_3$ coating on a SiO$_2$ substrate or a MgF$_2$/LaF$_3$ coating on a CaF$_2$ substrate, which we will refer to from this point forward as the oxide-IC and fluoride-IC, respectively. Both input couplers were flat with a measured transmission of $0.015$ for the oxide-IC and $0.024$ for the fluoride-IC. Only a fluoride-coated mirror was used for the high reflector (HR), with the same coating and substrate as the fluoride-IC, albeit more dielectric stacks to increase the reflectivity. The HR has a 4 m radius of curvature and a manufacturer specified reflectivity $> 98.5\%$. The mirrors are 0.50 m apart, and the Gaussian beam inside the cavity is approximately collimated with a beam waist of ${\sim }0.3$ mm. One spherical lens and two cylindrical lenses (to compensate for walk-off in the CLBO) are used for mode matching into cavity. When optimally aligned, measurements of the rejection signal ratio indicate input coupling efficiency of $80\%$. We isolate the back-reflected power using a polarizing beam-splitter and a Faraday rotation stage. A portion of this back-reflected signal is used for PDH locking, where the HR is mounted on an annular PZT stack (PZT3, CTS NAC2123-H20-C01) using the method described in [31] for active stabilization.
The transmitted power through the HR is used to monitor the intracavity power with a calibrated UV thermal power meter (PM2, Thorlabs S401C). This, combined with the measured HR transmission ($T_{\textrm {HR}} = 0.0012$), yields the intracavity power, $P_{cav}$. As seen in Fig. 1, the input power, $P_{o}$ is monitored with a sensitive, calibrated UV photodiode (PM1, Thorlabs S120VC) placed directly after the last mirror before the vacuum enhancement cavity. The mirror is backside polished, and the leakage light is calibrated to the UV power entering the cavity. In this way, both the input power and intracavity power are monitored non-destructively, enabling in situ measurement of the cavity power enhancement $\beta = P_{cav}/P_{o}$ in a way which is independent of any power drifts from the UV laser system leading to the cavity.
Fig. 1. Experimental setup: 244 nm radiation is generated through a frequency quadrupled ytterbium-doped fiber amplified laser system. This radiation is then coupled into a vacuum enhancement cavity. Extended cavity diode laser (ECDL), tapered amplifier (TA), second harmonic generation (SHG), lithium triborate (LBO), polarizing beam splitter (PBS), electro-optic modulator (EOM), L1-L5 (mode matching lenses), photodiode (PD), power monitor (PM), caesium lithium borate (CLBO), input coupler (IC), output coupler (OC), high reflector (HR), piezoelectric transducer stack (PZT).
Fig. 2. Performance of the 244 nm laser system over long time scales. The laser can output 1 W of 244 nm power over several hour time scales without degradation of the CLBO crystal. We attribute the slow degradation observed to damage of the output coupler.
The cavity is operated in a variable oxygen purge mode or ultra-high vacuum (UHV) mode. In the O$_2$ mode, two leak valves are adjusted to maintain a fixed flow of fresh O$_2$ (6.0 grade) on the cavity mirrors. For high O$_2$ pressures of $10^{-1}$ mbar or more, only a roughing pump is used. For O$_2$ pressures at or below $10^{-3}$ mbar, a turbo pump is used to maintain the pressure equilibrium. The lowest equilibrium pressure of fresh O$_2$ we can confidently maintain is $10^{-4}$ mbar, limited by the precision of the leak valves. In the UHV mode, there is no oxygen purge, and the pressures reach below $10^{-8}$ mbar. To limit possible hydrocarbon contaminants, we minimize use of any plastics and only use UHV compatible components. The vacuum windows are sealed with indium instead of O-rings, the PZT is UHV compatible, the HR is mounted to PZT3 with Torr seal, and PZT3 is mounted following the design in [31] using PEEK screws, as PEEK is known to have low outgassing rates. All other elements in the system are either stainless steel, copper, or aluminum.
3. Results and discussion
We measured the power enhancement factor $\beta$ versus time in high vacuum and different oxygen pressures, with various intracavity powers. The input coupler was interchanged between the oxide-IC and fluoride-IC, while the high reflector was a fluoride-HR for all measurements.
In Fig. 3, we give the enhancement factor in high vacuum as a function of time for both the oxide-IC and fluoride-IC for different intracavity powers. At low powers of ${\sim }1.5$ W (Fig. 3(a)), we observe little or no degradation for both coatings. However, there appears to be slow oscillations of small amplitude, with the oxide-IC. As we increase the intracavity powers by inserting more input power (Figs. 3(b)– 3(d)), we observe an increased rate of degradation with the oxide-IC, limiting the asymptotic power to a few watts. Small amplitude, slow oscillations are also observed in these measurements, and appear to relax on a shorter time scale for increased starting powers. At higher powers, the enhancement factor decreases by approximately a factor of two in one hour, with a rate that decreases as the overall enhancement factor decreases. Similar to what was observed in [9], degradation is easily visible on the coating after inspection. For the fluoride-IC, the data given in Figs. 3(a)– 3(d) was measured continuously while increasing the input power every hour. Furthermore, prior to the ultra-high vacuum measurement, the fluoride-IC was conditioned in $10^{-3}$ mbar of O$_2$ with 16 W of intracavity power for several hours. As seen in Figs. 3(a)–3(d), performance with the fluoride-IC is stable on one hour timescales with up to 10 W of intracavity power. A slight decrease in the enhancement from 40 to 34 is visible. We attribute the drop in enhancement to a slow degradation of the fluoride-IC. Rotating the fluoride-IC is sufficient to regain enhancement, and upon careful inspection, an inhomogeneity in the coating is visible by eye after running at these high powers in ultra-high vacuum for an extended period. Nonetheless, the drop in enhancement of 4$\%$ per hour seen with the fluoride-IC is an order of magnitude smaller than the 50$\%$ drop seen with the oxide-IC. As shown in Fig. 4, we observed that the rate of enhancement decrease for the fluoride-IC was highly reliant on the initial UV conditioning of the IC in an oxygen environment.
Fig. 3. Enhancement versus time with fluoride-IC (CaF$_2$) versus oxide-IC (SiO2) for different intracavity powers at $10^{-8}$ mbar. For the fluoride-IC measurements, (a)-(d) were taken consecutively without pause or moving to a new position on the IC.
Fig. 4. Enhancement versus time with unconditioned and conditioned fluoride-IC. Intracavity power of 8 W for conditioned IC, 10 W start power for unconditioned IC.
We next tested whether higher average intra-cavity powers could be accommodated, relying on the higher start enhancement of the oxide-IC by introducing intermittent oxygen revivals. As shown in Fig. 5, in accordance with [9,23], the oxide-IC can be rapidly revived after degradation by flowing oxygen while maintaining a buildup of ultraviolet light in the enhancement cavity. However, even though reviving is possible a few times, eventually the enhancement can no longer be fully recovered. A similar behavior was observed with the fluoride-IC.
Fig. 5. Oxygen recovery of enhancement at $10^{-8}$ mbar with 3 W start power for oxide-IC (SiO$_2$), by momentarily flushing O$_2$ on the mirrors surface.
As observed, an intermittent revival mode with oxygen in ultra-high vacuum is not a sustainable option. However, as oxygen revives the input couplers, it is interesting to study their performance in oxygen-rich environments. The performance of the mirrors at high intracavity powers with a continuous oxygen purge of $10^{-4}$ mbar to 1 mbar is shown in Fig. 6. With the oxide-IC, we observe a rapid initial drop in enhancement, that increases with decreasing oxygen pressure. However, with the fluoride-IC, we see stable powers over the entire range of oxygen pressures.
Fig. 6. Enhancement versus time with fluoride-IC (CaF$_2$) versus oxide-IC (SiO$_2$) at different O$_2$ pressures. For the fluoride-IC measurements, (a)-(d) were taken consecutively without pause or moving to a new position on the IC.
As was the case with Figs. 3(a)–3(d), Figs. 6(a)–6(d) were measured continuously for the fluoride-IC. Unlike the high vacuum case, we do not observe a noticeable drop in enhancement over this four hour time scale, indicating improved performance in oxygen. To test this, we moved to a new spot on the fluoride-IC, and measured for four hours at $10^{-3}$ mbar as seen in Fig. 7. After an initial slight decrease in enhancement, we observe degradation-free performance over this time scale. We attribute the initial drop in the first 30 minutes to UV-absorption assisted heating of the optics before the enhancement cavity, which can affect the input coupling efficiency.
To our knowledge, CW intracavity powers between 5 W to 30 W at these deep-UV wavelengths have been only demonstrated once before [9]. They used the same oxide-based mirrors used here and observed rapid (<1 min) degradation of the mirrors at oxygen pressures below 0.67 mbar, attributing the result to hydrocarbon contamination versus surface oxygen depletion. Using the fluoride-IC, our system cannot be affected by surface oxygen depletion. Therefore, it is reasonable to attribute the degradation of the fluoride-IC to hydrocarbon contamination. As seen in Fig. 6(a), for the same oxide-based input coupler used in [9], we observe degradation at 1 mbar, which is higher than their 0.67 mbar threshold. This could indicate slightly higher hydrocarbon contamination in our system or could be attributed to the fact that differential pumping was implemented in [9] but not yet in the system studied here.
UV-ozone cleaning is a commonly used method to remove surface hydrocarbon contaminants [32]. With an O$_2$ purge, the 244 nm intracavity radiation continuously generates ozone and atomic oxygen. Simultaneously, the 244 nm radiation also decomposes hydrocarbon contaminants into a variety of substances, including excited molecules and free radicals. The latter react with the atomic oxygen to form simpler volatile molecules, such as H$_2$O, CO$_2$, and NO$_x$, that are easily desorbed from the surface. The robustness of UV-ozone cleaning in our system is demonstrated clearly by the rapid revival of the oxide-IC in Fig. 5.
Interestingly, as seen in Figs. 6(b)–6(b) and 7, with the fluoride-IC, we observe degradation-free enhancement on one hour time scales with up to four orders less oxygen maintained on the mirrors than was required for the oxide-IC used in [9], and on four hour time scales with up to three orders of magnitude less oxygen. This suggests that the UV-ozone cleaning method is more effective for fluoride optics or there is an additional mechanism involved. UV conditioning of fluoride coatings is a well documented method to decrease their absorption [25,26,33], and was clearly observed in our results (see Fig. 4). While the exact conditioning mechanism is not fully understood, Heber et. al. [26,33] attribute it partially to radiation desorption of hydrocarbons on the surface, which they could not observe with oxide coatings. This desorption was observed in both air and argon atmospheres, suggesting hydrocarbon contaminants on fluoride coatings can be removed in oxygen-free or oxygen reduced environments—removing reliance on UV-ozone cleaning. This would explain why the fluoride-IC in our system can operate degradation free at significantly reduced O$_2$ pressures. However, as observed in ultra-high vacuum, the radiation desorption cleaning method by itself is unable to fully prevent hydrocarbon contamination. This suggests the degradation free performance at low oxygen pressures relies on both cleaning methods. What remains unclear is the inability of UV-ozone cleaning to completely remove the effects of hydrocarbon contamination in ultra-high vacuum over time. Future work should try to characterize the surface contaminants present after this irreversible degradation, or whether the coating is damaged.
4. Summary
In this work we have shown that relative to dielectric oxide-coated optics, a high-power, deep-UV CW enhancement cavity operating at 244 nm in ultra-high vacuum with UV conditioned dielectric fluoride-coated optics can have a degradation rate an order of magnitude smaller. This enables stable operation on hour time scales with up to 10 W of intracavity power. To our knowledge, these are the highest CW deep-UV intracavity powers maintained on these time scales in ultra-high vacuum, and almost an order of magnitude higher than has been demonstrated with oxide-coated optics at these wavelengths. While combining oxygen with the deep-UV radiation can revive the optics after degradation, this method of revival is not sustainable.
However, with a continuous oxygen purge, we have shown that fluoride-coated optics can operate degradation-free with intracavity powers of up to 20 W on multi-hour time scales with three to four orders of magnitude less oxygen than is required to prevent severe degradation with oxide-coated optics. Demonstration of such high powers on these time scales was enabled by the stability of our CW 244 nm laser system, which can maintain Watt-level output powers on half-day time scales.
Degradation of optics is a common hindrance to long term stability and power scaling of systems requiring deep-UV wavelengths. We have shown that fluoride-coated optics are a promising alternative to oxide-coated optics for development of a robust deep-UV CW enhancement cavity at increased intracavity powers and reduced reliance on UV-ozone cleaning.
Funding
Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (197346); European Research Council (818053-Mu-MASS).
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dylan Yost (CSU) for providing some of the optics used here as well as thoughtful discussions about the research. We also appreciate Samuel Cooper’s (CSU) comments on this article as well as Michele Masseroni and Rebekka Garreis at ETH for their time helping us clean and diagnose the mirrors. We are extremely grateful to Konstantinos Simeonidis for his contributions to the laser system.
Disclosures
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Data availability
Data underlying the results presented in this paper are not publicly available at this time but may be obtained from the authors upon reasonable request.
References
1. N. Savage, “Ultraviolet lasers,” Nat. Photonics 1(2), 83–85 (2007). [CrossRef]
2. H. Lu, H. Xu, J. Zhao, and D. Hou, “A deep ultraviolet mode-locked laser based on a neural network,” Sci. Rep. 10(1), 116 (2020). [CrossRef]
3. C. R. Smith, A. Moltke, A. I. Adamu, M. Michieletto, P. Bowen, P. M. Moselund, C. Markos, and O. Bang, “Low-noise tunable deep-ultraviolet supercontinuum laser,” Sci. Rep. 10(1), 18447 (2020). [CrossRef]
4. B. Willenberg, F. Brunner, C. R. Phillips, and U. Keller, “High-power picosecond deep-UV source via group velocity matched frequency conversion,” Optica 7(5), 485–491 (2020). [CrossRef]
5. H. Turcicova, O. Novak, L. Roskot, M. Smrz, J. Muzik, M. Chyla, A. Endo, and T. Mocek, “New observations on DUV radiation at 257 nm and 206 nm produced by a picosecond diode pumped thin-disk laser,” Opt. Express 27(17), 24286–24299 (2019). [CrossRef]
6. Z. Burkley, A. D. Brandt, C. Rasor, S. F. Cooper, and D. C. Yost, “Highly coherent, watt-level deep-UV radiation via a frequency-quadrupled yb-fiber laser system,” Appl. Opt. 58(7), 1657–1661 (2019). [CrossRef]
7. S. Truppe, S. Marx, S. Kray, M. Doppelbauer, S. Hofsäss, H. C. Schewe, N. Walter, J. Pérez-Ríos, B. G. Sartakov, and G. Meijer, “Spectroscopic characterization of aluminum monofluoride with relevance to laser cooling and trapping,” Phys. Rev. A 100(5), 052513 (2019). [CrossRef]
8. R. Zhao, X. Fu, L. Zhang, S. Fang, J. Sun, Y. Feng, Z. Xu, and Y. Wang, “High-power continuous-wave narrow-linewidth 253.7 nm deep-ultraviolet laser,” Appl. Opt. 56(32), 8973–8977 (2017). [CrossRef]
9. S. F. Cooper, Z. Burkley, A. D. Brandt, C. Rasor, and D. C. Yost, “Cavity-enhanced deep ultraviolet laser for two-photon cooling of atomic hydrogen,” Opt. Lett. 43(6), 1375–1378 (2018). [CrossRef]
10. C. Rasor and D. C. Yost, “Laser-based measurement of parity violation in hydrogen,” Phys. Rev. A 102(3), 032801 (2020). [CrossRef]
11. C. Zhang, F. Pokorny, W. Li, G. Higgins, A. Pöschl, I. Lesanovsky, and M. Hennrich, “Submicrosecond entangling gate between trapped ions via rydberg interaction,” Nature 580(7803), 345–349 (2020). [CrossRef]
12. E. Guardado-Sanchez, B. Spar, P. Schauss, R. Belyansky, J. T. Young, P. Bienias, A. V. Gorshkov, T. Iadecola, and W. S. Bakr, “Quench dynamics of a fermi gas with strong long-range interactions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.05871 (2020).
13. M. K. Oberthaler, “Antimatter wave interferometry with positronium,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. B 192(1-2), 129–134 (2002). [CrossRef]
14. C. G. Parthey, A. Matveev, J. Alnis, B. Bernhardt, A. Beyer, R. Holzwarth, A. Maistrou, R. Pohl, K. Predehl, T. Udem, T. Wilken, N. Kolachevsky, M. Abgrall, D. Rovera, C. Salomon, P. Laurent, and T. W. Hänsch, “Improved measurement of the hydrogen 1S–2S transition frequency,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107(20), 203001 (2011). [CrossRef]
15. M. Ahmadi, B. X. R. Alves, C. J. Baker, W. Bertsche, A. Capra, C. Carruth, C. Cesar, M. Charlton, S. Cohen, R. Collister, S. Eriksson, A. Evans, N. Evetts, J. Fajans, T. Friesen, M. Fujiwara, D. R. Gill, J. S. Hangst, W. N. Hardy, M. Hayden, C. Isaac, M. Johnson, J. Jones, S. Jones, S. Jonsell, A. Khramov, P. Knapp, L. Kurchaninov, N. Madsen, D. Maxwell, J. T. K. McKenna, S. Menary, T. Momose, J. Munich, K. Olchanski, A. Olin, P. Pusa, C. Rasmussen, F. Robicheaux, R. L. Sacramento, M. Sameed, E. Sarid, D. Silveira, G. Stutter, C. So, T. Tharp, R. Thompson, D. van der Werf, and J. Wurtele, “Characterization of the 1S–2S transition in antihydrogen,” Nature 557(7703), 71–75 (2018). [CrossRef]
16. H. Fleurbaey, S. Galtier, S. Thomas, M. Bonnaud, L. Julien, F. Biraben, F. Nez, M. Abgrall, and J. Guéna, “New measurement of the 1S–3S transition frequency of hydrogen: contribution to the proton charge radius puzzle,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 120(18), 183001 (2018). [CrossRef]
17. A. Grinin, A. Matveev, D. C. Yost, L. Maisenbacher, V. Wirthl, R. Pohl, T. W. Hänsch, and T. Udem, “Two-photon frequency comb spectroscopy of atomic hydrogen,” Science 370(6520), 1061–1066 (2020). [CrossRef]
18. P. Crivelli, “The Mu-MASS (muonium laser spectroscopy) experiment,” Hyperfine Interact. 239(1), 49 (2018). [CrossRef]
19. E. Altiere, E. R. Miller, T. Hayamizu, D. J. Jones, K. W. Madison, and T. Momose, “High-resolution two-photon spectroscopy of a 5p56p←5p6 transition of xenon,” Phys. Rev. A 97(1), 012507 (2018). [CrossRef]
20. R. Picker, “How the minuscule can contribute to the big picture: the neutron electric dipole moment project at TRIUMF,” in Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Meson-Nucleon Physics and the Structure of the Nucleon (MENU2016), (2017), p. 010005.
21. R. R. Kunz, V. Liberman, and D. K. Downs, “Experimentation and modeling of organic photocontamination on lithographic optics,” J. Vac. Sci. Technol., B: Microelectron. Process. Phenom. 18(3), 1306–1313 (2000). [CrossRef]
22. J. Hollenshead and L. Klebanoff, “Modeling radiation-induced carbon contamination of extreme ultraviolet optics,” J. Vac. Sci. Technol., B: Microelectron. Nanometer Struct.--Process., Meas., Phenom. 24(1), 64–82 (2006). [CrossRef]
23. D. Gangloff, M. Shi, T. Wu, A. Bylinskii, B. Braverman, M. Gutierrez, R. Nichols, J. Li, K. Aichholz, M. Cetina, M. Cetina, L. Karpa, B. Jelenkovic, I. Chuang, and V. Vuletic, “Preventing and reversing vacuum-induced optical losses in high-finesse tantalum (V) oxide mirror coatings,” Opt. Express 23(14), 18014–18028 (2015). [CrossRef]
24. S. F. Cooper, A. D. Brandt, C. Rasor, Z. Burkley, and D. C. Yost, “Cryogenic atomic hydrogen beam apparatus with velocity characterization,” Rev. Sci. Instrum. 91(1), 013201 (2020). [CrossRef]
25. E. Eva, K. Mann, N. Kaiser, B. Anton, R. Henking, D. Ristau, P. Weissbrodt, D. Mademann, L. Raupach, and E. Hacker, “Laser conditioning of LaF3/MgF2 dielectric coatings at 248 nm,” Appl. Opt. 35(28), 5613–5619 (1996). [CrossRef]
26. J. Heber, R. Thielsch, H. Blaschke, N. Kaiser, U. Leinhos, and A. Görtler, “Changes in optical interference coatings exposed to 193-nm excimer laser radiation,” in Laser-Induced Damage in Optical Materials: 1998, vol. 3578 (International Society for Optics and Photonics, 1999), pp. 83–96.
27. Z. Burkley, C. Rasor, S. F. Cooper, A. D. Brandt, and D. C. Yost, “Yb fiber amplifier at 972.5 nm with frequency quadrupling to 243.1 nm,” Appl. Phys. B 123(1), 5–6 (2017). [CrossRef]
28. J. Wu, X. Zhu, H. Wei, K. Wiersma, M. Li, J. Zong, A. Chavez-Pirson, V. Temyanko, L. J. LaComb, R. A. Norwood, and N. Peyghambarian, “Power scalable 10 W 976 nm single-frequency linearly polarized laser source,” Opt. Lett. 43(4), 951–954 (2018). [CrossRef]
29. R. W. P. Drever, J. L. Hall, F. V. Kowalski, J. Hough, G. M. Ford, A. J. Munley, and H. Ward, “Laser phase and frequency stabilization using an optical resonator,” Appl. Phys. B 31(2), 97–105 (1983). [CrossRef]
30. T. C. Briles, D. C. Yost, A. Cingöz, J. Ye, and T. R. Schibli, “Simple piezoelectric-actuated mirror with 180 kHz servo bandwidth,” Opt. Express 18(10), 9739–9746 (2010). [CrossRef]
31. A. Chadi, G. Méjean, R. Grilli, and D. Romanini, “Note: Simple and compact piezoelectric mirror actuator with 100 kHz bandwidth, using standard components,” Rev. Sci. Instrum. 84(5), 056112 (2013). [CrossRef]
32. R. Kohli, “Applications of uv-ozone cleaning technique for removal of surface contaminants,” in Developments in Surface Contamination and Cleaning: Applications of Cleaning Techniques, R. Kohli and K. Mittal, eds. (Elsevier, 2019, Ch. 9, pp. 355–390).
33. J. Heber, R. Thielsch, H. Blaschke, N. Kaiser, K. R. Mann, E. Eva, U. Leinhos, and A. Goertler, “Stability of optical interference coatings exposed to low-fluence 193-nm ArF radiation,” in Optical Microlithography XI, vol. 3334 (International Society for Optics and Photonics, 1998), pp. 1041–1047.
