Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Concepts of Laser Cooling PDF
Concepts of Laser Cooling PDF
INTERACTION
Concepts of Laser Cooling and Applications
Hanspeter Helm1
40
0µ
m
1
http://frhewww.physik.uni-freiburg.de helm@uni-freiburg.de
Cover page:
1 A Short History 1
3 Optical Molasses 13
3.1 Classical Rate Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2 Radiation Force on Moving Atoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.3 Friction in Optical Molasses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.4 Diffusion in Optical Molasses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4 Magneto-Optic Trap 21
6 Dressed States 33
6.1 Uncoupled Atom-Laser States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
6.2 Atom-Laser Coupling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
6.3 Effects Of Spontaneous Emission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
I
II CONTENTS
9 Polarization Gradients 65
11 Orientational Cooling 75
11.1 Equilibrium for Stationary Atom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
11.2 State of Moving Atom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
11.3 Coupling in the Rotating System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
11.4 Motion-Induced Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
11.5 Light Pressure on an Oriented Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
12 VSCPT 83
12.1 Dark States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
12.2 Optical Pumping in Velocity Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
12.3 Momentum-Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
12.4 Motion Induced Atom-Laser Coupling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
12.5 Decay Due to Spontaneous Emission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
13 Evaporative Cooling 93
13.1 Bose-Einstein Condensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
13.2 Atom-Atom Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
13.3 Collisions of Cold Atoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
13.4 Mean-Field Approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
13.5 Magnetic Trapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
13.6 Evaporative Cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
13.7 Diagnostics on BE Condensates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
15 Appendices 113
A-1 Ammonia Molecule and Maser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
A-2 Bloch Vector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
A-3 Clebsch-Gordan Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
A-4 Partial Wave Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
A-5 Rotation of Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
A-6 Slowly-Varying Amplitude Approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
A-7 Landau-Zener Crossing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
A-8 Hyperfine Zeeman Structure of Rb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
A-9 Atom Interferometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
A-10 Multiphoton Bragg Scattering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
A-11 Feshbach Resonances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
A-12 Atomic Fountain Clock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
CONTENTS III
Bibliography
Chapter 1
A Short History
Our daily experience tells us that neutral macroscopic objects can be moved,
slowed down, or held by physical contact with other bodies. This contact
appears to be entirely different from the way in which we control the motion
of electrically charged or magnetized objects with electromagnetic fields.
A closer look at these phenomena tells us however that there is little difference.
Whenever we hold a piece of paper between our fingers, our skin approaches
the surface of the paper to within atomic dimensions. Electrons at the surface
of the paper and our skin repel each other. This charge displacement gives rise
to dipoles and electric fields which are sufficiently strong to grab the paper.
Mechanical grip and friction, both of which which are required to move macro-
scopic objects have their origin in electromagnetic forces1 which appear when
objects approach each other to atomic distances [1].
Techniques were developed during the past 30 years which permit manipula-
tion of atoms and small objects, with astounding precision and ease, using forces
exerted by light. A main difference to the conventional mechanical manipula-
tion appears to be that neutral objects can be moved without the conventional
physical contact. Nevertheless contact is made by the electromagnetic field and
its interaction with atomic dipoles, quite analogous to the origin of mechanical
grip. Keys to the control of the external degrees of freedom of a neutral particle
by light are
A history of events which lead to this control shows the close-knit interac-
tion between basic research on one side and the development of new technologies
which pave the way to new applications. An original motivation was the de-
sire to reduce/eliminate uncertainties in precision spectroscopy, which originate
from thermal motion.
1
2 CHAPTER 1. A SHORT HISTORY
ωA = ωL − ~k · ~v , (1.1)
where ωL is the frequency of the laser in the laboratory frame and ~k is the
wave vector.2 For a thermal speed distribution the Doppler effect gives rise to
a Gaussian distribution of the spectral absorption and emission profile.3
Why should one try to cool atoms with laser light? Curiosity was often at
work, but there are numerous applications, some of which are realized already :
photon absorption/emission) is a Gaussian distribution and we make the assumption that the
Doppler-width is much larger than the natural line width
4 The observation of an atom resting on a surface is not an alternative, as the interaction
of the atom with the surface leads to a distortion of the atomic eigenfrequencies.
3
(GPS) only works because precise atomic clocks synchronize the signals
of different satellites. High-speed telecommunication is synchronized with
atomic clocks. Very likely a Strontium-based atomic clock, developed at
the PTB in Braunschweig, will form the new international time basis in
the near future.
• Atom optics: Lenses formed by light fields can be used to focus / col-
limate beams of slow atoms. Any optical element can be formed by ap-
propriately shaped light fields, one can built gratings, beam splitters and
mirrors for atoms from light. In general these elements only work for atoms
which are cooled to low translational energies. Reason is that the forces
exerted by light are typically small.
Light and glass, as we know it in conventional optics, can make the same
physics as atoms and light, a topic also known as atom optics.
Atomic-scale architecture appears in sight by controlled guiding of indi-
vidual atoms by tailored light fields.
In the same way as a photon can interfere with itself (and only with it-
self), atoms or molecules can interfere. In an atom interferometer an
atomic wavepacket passes along spatially different paths which are recom-
bined later. Path differences in the domain of a fraction of the atom’s
de-Broglie wavelength lead to noticeable shifts of the interference pattern.
Atom interferometry with freely falling atoms [4] permitted the most pre-
cise determination of the local gravitational acceleration. There are plans
for atomic gyroscopes for an improved inertial guiding system.
The de-Broglie wavelength of an atom moving with the recoil speed is
equivalent to the wavelength of the light causing the recoil. The recoil
speed, vR , can be calculated from h̄ k = M vR . For a Rb atom after
a recoil due to a photon at the resonance line at 780 nm de-Broglie
wavelength is λdB = h/p = h/(M vR ) = 780 nm.
5 For example in the reaction 137 Cs →137 Ba + e− + ν the neutrino mass appears in the
55 56 e
energy/momentum balance. Provided one begins with a very cold Cs atom and measures the
recoil of the Ba atom, in coincidence with that of the electron, one might deduce the mass of
the neutrino from the conservation of momentum and energy.
4 CHAPTER 1. A SHORT HISTORY
Milestones
1619 Kepler postulates in his treatise ”De Cometis” that the pressure of light
is responsible for the direction of a comet’s tail (away from the sun).
1873 Crookes thinks that he observes the pressure of light in his radiometer.6
1873 Maxwell formulates the force exerted by an electromagnetic wave in
absorption and reflexion. This force is 5 orders of magnitude lower than
what Crookes observed in his radiometer (and of opposite sign). According
to Maxwell the force associated with the light pressure on a surface A is
W
F = (1 + r) = A · w · (1 + r) , (1.2)
c
where r is the coefficient of reflection of the surface.7 The power W
signifies the energy impinging on the surface per unit time ([Watt] =[J/s]),
c is the speed of light. The pressure acts in the direction of the propagation
of light. The light pressure is equal to the radiation energy per unit
volume (energy density of the electromagnetic field, w, with the dimension
[J/m3 ]).
In the photon picture the force (1.2) can be explained as follows. Each
photon transfers the momentum p = h̄ k (1 + r). The radiation intensity
(W/m2 ) is I = N h̄ω/A , where A is the area, h̄ω is the photon energy,
and N the number of photons hitting the area per second (photon flux).8
Thus we have
W = I A = N h̄ω . (1.3)
the black surface by hot atoms (bad vacuum!) outweighs the radiation pressure.
7 The reflection is r = 0 for a black body and r = 1 for an ideal mirror.
8 The photon flux density is N/A = I/(h̄ω).
9 A Freiburg glassblower, C. Kramer, was instrumental in this experiment as he fabricated
the perfect glass valves which enabled Lebedev to produce very high vacuum, thus eliminating
Crookes’ problem.
5
Around 1970 such experiments became much simpler, as one then had access to
lasers and much higher photon flux. These opportunities lead to new thoughts:
Could one build an optical trap to hold atoms? First ideas to this topic came
from Lethokov and his group in Moscow [10] and from the Ashkin at Bell Labs.
1968 Letokhov suggested that forces associated with the light shift of atomic
levels in a standing wave may be sufficient to confine atoms. These forces
were demonstrated for the first time in an experiment in 1987 in Paris [6].
1978 Ashkin concluded: ”The forces exerted by a focused beam of laser light
are strong enough to push tiny particles around freely in various mediums.
Several applications based on this finding are proposed” [11].
1986 Stenholm reviewed the semiclassical theory of the mechanical action of
light in resonant interaction with atoms [12].
Many groups have since worked on laser cooling and atom trapping and many
novel technologies emerged from this research.
1997 Nobel Price awarded to
Steven Chu, William D. Phillips und Claude Cohen-Tannoudji
”for development of methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light.”
2001 Nobel Price awarded to
Eric A. Cornell, Carl E. Wieman and Wolfgang Ketterle ”for the
achievement of Bose-Einstein condensation in dilute gases of alkali atoms,
and for early fundamental studies of the properties of the condensates.”
6
Chapter 2
v
h̄~k + M~vi = h̄~k 0 + M~vf (2.1) a
For sodium we have |k| = 2π/λ with λ = 586 nm, M = 23 amu and obtain
ωi − ωf = ∆ω = k vR ≈ 2π × 50 kHz . (2.5)
7
8 CHAPTER 2. MECHANICAL FORCES OF LIGHT
Velocity changes caused by the interaction of atoms with visible light are very
small. Nevertheless a proposal to use the photon momentum for cooling of
atoms was made in 1968 by Lethokov in Moskow [10]. In 1975 Wineland and
Dehmelt in Seattle [13] and Hänsch and Schawlow in Stanford [14] examined
schemes for cooling and by 1985 neutral atoms were cooled to ≈1 mK, using
a laser configuration now known as optical molasses. This paved the way for
trapping atoms. A variety of optical, magnetic, and magneto-optical traps in
use today. Soon temperatures of 100 µK, then 200 nK and lower were reached,
the lowest temperatures ever demonstrated in a laboratory.
In a simplified approach one may identify two origins for the force of light.
At high laser intensity and in spatially inhomogeneous light fields the distinction
between the two becomes blurred as we will see later.
δ = ωL − ω0 − ~k · ~v = ωA − ω0 . (2.6)
When the laser is red detuned from resonance, ωL − ω0 < 0, the Doppler effect
leads to preferential absorption of photons by atoms drifting against the laser
beam (in which case ~k · ~v is negative). The atoms are effectively cooled be-
cause the direction of momentum transfer in spontaneous emission is in general
isotropic and hence the mean momentum transfer due to spontaneous emission
is zero.
This force fluctuates in time due to the random time at which absorption
happens and due to the random direction of spontaneous emission, leading to a
diffusion of atoms in momentum space. As we shall see this diffusion results in
a small heating term which limits the lowest temperature that can be achieved
by this method. The spontaneous force depends on detuning, the closer one is
to resonance the more frequently absorption can happen. However: stimulated
emission competes with spontaneous emission and stimulated emission compen-
sates the momentum transfer from absorption.1
The Rabi frequency in a two level system (the rate at which population
oscillates between ground and excited state, see Chapter 5) is
where d is the dipole moment of the optical transition. The laser intensity can
in principle grow to arbitrarily high values, and equally the Rabi frequency.
1 This is true only if both processes occur with the same plane wave.
2.1. SPONTANEOUS FORCE 9
On the other hand, the rate of emission of spontaneous photons rises linearly
with intensity only at low values of intensity. The spontaneous rate eventually
saturates, as we need to give the excited state time to spontaneously emit.
We denote the rate of scattering photons2 by Γscatt . The spontaneous force
exerted by a beam of light which propagates along the vector ~k is
Γ I/I0
F~ = h̄~k · , (2.10)
2 1 + I/I0 + (2δ/Γ)2
I 2Ω21
= . (2.11)
I0 Γ2
At the saturation intensity the squared Rabi frequency is equal to one half the
squared spontaneous rate. The saturation intensity is defined as the intensity
of a resonant laser (δ = 0) such that the scattering rate is equal to one quarter
of the spontaneous rate, Γscatt = Γ/4. The natural decay rate Γ is related to
the natural lifetime of the excited state by τ = 1/Γ. The maximal spontaneous
force (I → ∞) is
Γ
F~max = h̄~k (2.12)
2
in which case we have Γscatt = Γ/2.
2π 2π 9
k= = 10 ≈ 107 m−1
λ 586
and the maximal acceleration due to light is
We see that the spontaneous force can be much larger than the gravitational
force, but is typically much smaller than electrical forces on charged objects.
Next we consider the time required to slow down a thermal atom : The
mean thermal speed of sodium at 300 K is
r
8kB T
hvi = ≈ 500 m/s . (2.13)
πM
• the recoil speed of a sodium atom after absorption of a photon at 586 nm
ta p e r
22869 atoms after b ia s
413497 scattering events
at a laser detuning of
a to m ic
∆ = -10 GHz b e a m
original
s o u rc e c o o lin g la s e r
distribution
B (z )
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
v HmsL z
M1
Problems appear if we direct a laser against an atomic beam and com-
pensate the Doppler shift by a suitable detuning ~k ·~v from resonance (for
v=500 m/s the optimal detuning would be ≈ −5 GHz). After cooling
for some time the atoms fall out of resonance.
To cool further we would need to tune the laser closer to resonance
again. This can be done by actively changing the laser frequency or by
spatially changing the atomic resonance frequency via the Zeeman effect
in a device named Zeeman-slower [15] (above, right).
F h̄kΓ I/I0
a= = ·
M 2M 1 + I/I0
x
R
For a cylindrical lens and atoms guided along a 3
z
radius of curvature, R, we have
a to m ic b e a m
M vθ2 /R = F (~k · ~v = 0)
d e fle c tin g
In this way Ertmer [16] bent a beam of atoms la s e r b e a m
2) The dipole force (at times referred to as stimulated force) can be seen as
a consequence of stimulated absorption / stimulated emission events involving
spatially different plane waves of identical frequency. This was formulated first
by Dalibard and Cohen-Tannoudji [17]. In the presence of plane waves
of different ~k, but equal |~k|, a redistribution of photons in the different waves
may occur, thus causing changes in the atom’s momentum, see Chapter 8. The
dipole force may also be viewed as a consequence of the light shift of atomic
energies, see Chapter 6.
F a
b F b
a
a
a
b
b
b
F b a
F a
If we neglect reflection at the interface we see that more light is refracted in the
direction of lower laser intensity. As a result a net acceleration of the sphere in
the direction of higher laser intensity occurs.
If on the other hand we consider a focussed laser beam in water (ns < nH2 O ),
the opposite holds, the sphere is driven out of the laser beam. This explanation
12 CHAPTER 2. MECHANICAL FORCES OF LIGHT
is consistent with that of the classical oscillator for which the refractive index
changes from a value n < 1 to n > 1 in the vicinity of the optical resonance.
An important application of this effect is realized so-called laser tweezers.
Using a focussed light beam, tuned far off resonance, one may steer and move
nearly macroscopic objects (cells), under the lens of a microscope. In this case
dissipation occurs due to friction of the particles in the liquid surroundings.
Fz = q · v x × B y , (2.16)
which acts in the direction ~k = {0, 0, kz }. Since |B| = |E|/c, the mean force is
q
hF i = hv Ei . (2.17)
c
The work done by a light wave per unit time, W (that is power) is equal to force
× velocity [Nm/s = J/s = W]. The velocity here being the speed of light, we
have hF i = W/c. The energy absorbed from the light wave per second is equal
to c times the force. With the definition of power in the photon picture (N is
the number of photons which impact on a surface A per second, and h̄ω is the
energy of a single photon)
W = I A = N h̄ω . (2.18)
Since ∆p/∆t = F , the momentum transferred by the light field is equal to the
energy absorbed in one second, divided by c. The momentum transferred by a
light wave of power W , which is fully absorbed, is therefore equal to
N h̄ω
∆p = , (2.19)
c
and the momentum of a single photon is therefore
h̄ω h̄2π
p= = = h̄k . (2.20)
c λ
P = F/A = w , (2.21)
the radiation pressure on a fully absorbing object being equal to w, the energy
density of the radiation field received by the object [Ws/m3 = J/m3 = N/m2 ].
Chapter 3
Optical Molasses
Atoms in the gas phase may be cooled using counter-propagating and red-
detuned laser beams. This configuration can be realized in 3 dimensions
and was named optical molasses (optische Melasse).
The first realization of molasses cooling was reported in 1986 by Chu et al. [19].
Origin for cooling is a friction term which appears in the spontaneous force
action of counter-propagating beams. We explore the force, the friction and the
associated diffusion in momentum space, at first using a classical rate model.
Γ2
L(ω) = L(ω0 ) (3.1)
4(ω − ω0 )2 + Γ2
where the angular frequency is ω = 2πν and L(ω0 ) is the amplitude of the pro-
file at the central frequency, ω0 . The full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) is
given by ∆ω = 2π∆ν = Γ, the natural linewidth.
1 If we introduce the detuning, δ,
δ = ω − ω0 , where ω is the frequency
of observation and normalize the maxi-
LH∆L
1
2
mum of the profile to one, we may write
M2
1
0 L(δ) = 2 . (3.2)
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 1 + (2δ/Γ)
2∆G
13
14 CHAPTER 3. OPTICAL MOLASSES
1.0 1.0
0.9 0.8
N1 -N2
0.8 0.6
N1
0.7 0.4
0.6 0.2
0.5 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
S=2 R G S=2 R G
• R Γ : we have N1 = N/2.
The saturation parameter S is defined as the ratio between the pumping rate
and half the rate of spontaneous emission:
2R 2 I(ω)
S(ω) = = · σ(ω)
Γ h̄ω · Γ
2 I(ω) 1
= · σ(ω0 ) 2
h̄ω · Γ 1 + (2δ/Γ)
I(ω) 1
= · 2 , (3.10)
I0 1 + (2δ/Γ)
h̄ω0 · Γ
I0 = . (3.11)
2σ(ω0 )
For I = I0 , the pumping rate (at resonance δ = 0) is just one half the rate of
spontaneous emission.2
N
α(ω) = σ(ω)Neff = σ(ω)(N1 − N2 ) = σ(ω) . (3.12)
1+S
σ(ω0 ) N N σ(ω0 )
α(ω) = 2 · = 2 = σeff (δ, I) · N ,
1 + (2δ/Γ) 1+S 1 + I/I0 + (2δ/Γ)
were we have inserted for S the expression from Eq. (3.10). The spectral profile
of the absorption coefficient is again Lorentzian, but now with an increased
width and reduced height. The intensity dependence of the scattering rate by
a single atom (N = 1) is
I Γ
Γscatt = σeff = σeff I/I0
h̄ω 2σ(ω0 )
Γ I/I0
= · . (3.13)
2 1 + I/I0 + (2δ/Γ)2
2 For alkali atoms the saturation intensity is in the range of a few mW/cm2 .
16 CHAPTER 3. OPTICAL MOLASSES
0.4
II0 = 5
0.3
Gscat G
1
0.2
0.1
M3 0.1
0.0
-4 -2 0 2 4
2∆G
The scattering rate reaches the value Γ/2 at high intensity and δ = 0.
Notice the power broadening with increasing intensity.
The profile approaches the natural linewidth at low intensity.
Ω21
ρee = , (3.14)
Γ2 + 2Ω21 + 4δ 2
where Ω1 is the Rabi frequency Ω1 = |dge |E0 /h̄ . The relationship between
the Rabi frequency and the saturation intensity is
2Ω21 I
2
= . (3.15)
Γ I0
The rate of scattering of spontaneous photons is given by the product of
excited state population and the spontaneous rate
Γscatt = Γ · ρee
Γ 2Ω21
= · 2
2 Γ + 2Ω21 + 4δ 2
Γ 2Ω21 /Γ2
= ·
2 1 + 2Ω21 /Γ2 + (2δ/Γ)2
Γ I/I0
= · (3.16)
2 1 + I/I0 + (2δ/Γ)2
This expression is identical to the one which we derived from the classical rate
equation model, Equation (3.13).
F~ = h̄~k · Γscatt
Γ I/I0
= h̄~k . (3.17)
2 1 + I/I0 + (2δ/Γ)2
If our atom is moving with the velocity ~v , then the effective detuning needs to
account for the Doppler shift, δeff = δ − ~k · ~v = ωL − ω0 − ~k · ~v , hence
Γ I/I0
F~ (~v ) = h̄~k i2 . (3.18)
2
h
1 + I/I0 + 2(δ − ~k · ~v )/Γ
Γ I/I0
F~ (~v ) ≈ h̄~k · i2 . (3.19)
2
h
~
1 + 2(δ − k · ~v )/Γ
Γ I/I0 Γ I/I0
F (v) = h̄k · 2 − h̄k · . (3.20)
2 1 + [2(δ − kv)/Γ] 2 1 + [2(δ + kv)/Γ]2
1. 1.
G = 2Π10MHz G = 2Π10MHz
∆ = 60MHz ∆ = 25MHz
0.5 0.5
-1
k = 10 m7
k = 107 m -1
F 0. F 0.
M4
-0.5 -0.5
-1. -1.
-10 -5 0 5 10 -10 -5 0 5 10
v ms v ms
In the vicinity of v = 0, F (v) shows a linear dependence on v over a small
range of velocities, ∆v ≈ Γ/k. The slope of F (v) near v = 0 is maximal if
18 CHAPTER 3. OPTICAL MOLASSES
√
2|δ|/Γ = 1/ 3. For δ < 0 (red-detuned ) the force is always directed opposite to
the atomic motion. We may expand (3.20) in the vicinity of v = 0
1 1 8kδv/Γ2
2
− 2
= + O(v 3 ) + ...
1 + [2(δ − kv)/Γ] 1 + [2(δ + kv)/Γ] [1 + (2δ/Γ)2 ]2
2δ I/I0
F (v) ≈ 4h̄k 2 vh i2 = −α · v = −γ M v , (3.21)
Γ 2
1 + (2δ/Γ)
with ER being the recoil energy. Equation (3.24) tells us the average time after
which a photon recoil occurs. For sodium and I = I0 this time is 130 ns.
process there are two steps, one due to absorption and one due to emisson. After
n spontaneous events the mean value is
hp2x i = 2nh̄2 k 2 = 2Γscatt t h̄2 k 2 (3.25)
where t gives the time over which the scattering rate is Γscatt . The factor
two originates from the two recoils per scattering event. The mean squared
momentum increases with time, hence the mean kinetic energy of the atom
rises. The temporal change of the mean square momentum is
dhp2x i/dt = 2Γscatt · h̄2 k 2 (3.26)
number of atoms
60 000
200
50 000
p2x HÑkL2
px Ñk
40 000 4
0
30 000
-200 20 000 2
10 000 9080 M5
-400
0
0 50 100 150 200 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 10 00020 00030 00040 00050 000
atom number
atom number p2x HÑkL2
We now equate the rate of increase of the kinetic energy due to momentum
diffusion with the rate of energy loss due to radiative friction. The latter is
derived from F = −αv, where α is taken from Eq. (3.21). The rate of cooling
by friction is obtained using the following argument: An atom travels per second
a distance of v meters against the friction force F . Hence the cooling rate is
equal to hF vi = −αhv 2 i. In stationary state we may write
d 2
hp i/2M = −hĖcooling i = αhv 2 i
hĖheating i = (3.27)
dt x
In this one-dimensional problem we have a single degree of freedom. For this
motion we define a temperature equivalent T ,
1 1
M hv 2 i = kB T . (3.28)
2 2
Inserting (3.27) and (3.21) we obtain a temperature which depends on detuning
2
h̄Γ 1 + (2δ/Γ) h̄Γ Γ δ
kB T = − · =− + (3.29)
4 2δ/Γ 4 2δ 2Γ
kB T = 0.6
2 0.4 M6
The minimum, the Doppler cooling limit, 0.2
In this model we have assumed that the radiation forces from the two laser
beams are additive. For I/I0 > 1 this model fails as it does not account for the
fact that the atom may absorb photons from one of the waves and stimulate it
into the other wave.
A typical arrangement of molasses cooling in
m o la s s e s 3D. After turning off the laser beams the
b e a m s
atoms fall due to gravity and are recorded
in time when they pass through the resonant
m o la s s e s
probe beam. From the temporal distribution
of the fluorescence of atoms in the probe beam
the temperature of the falling atoms can be es-
fa llin g timated. If an external force acts on the atom,
a to m s
the atom may reach a drift velocity such that
the friction just balances the external force
p ro b e
b e a m
vdrift = Fext /α (3.30)
c o lle c tio n
o p tic s
With the external force being gravity we have
d e te c to r Fext = −αv = −M g and obtain vdrif t = g/γ.
Under optimal conditions (3.23) we would expect a drift due to gravity of 0.4
mm/s for sodium and 5 mm/s for cesium. This would amount to a substantial
loss of atoms. Similar losses were expected in the case of unbalanced laser inten-
sities. Experiments however showed that molasses atoms are quite insensitive to
intensity imbalance. In addition molasses temperatures much lower than those
predicted by the Doppler limit were observed.
& ! !
Magneto-Optic Trap
The molasses concept does not provide a spatial confinement and concentration
of atoms in a trap. To achieve trapping a distinguished location in space must
be defined where cold atoms should accumulate. This can be achieved in a
magneto-optic trap as proposed by Dalibard and first realized in 1987 [23]. The
concept is most easily introduced in 1D, for an optical transition from a state
with total angular momentum F = 0 to a state with F = 1.
Opposing magnetic field coils (anti- F=1
E
Helmholtz configuration) form a spatial mF=+1
domain with a magnetic field zero at the
mF= 0
trap center. At this location the mF lev-
els in the excited state are degenerate, mF=-1
the degeneracy being lifted as we move hw0 s+ s-
away from the trap center. In sodium a hwL
!#
!" !#
!$
!" !# M7
!
#
!"
!"
%&'()*+,-.+)/0-12+/3
.
21
22 CHAPTER 4. MAGNETO-OPTIC TRAP
Near the trap center the magnetic field varies approximately linearly with
the distance z from the trap center. We write for the magnetic detuning due to
the Zeeman effect, ∆ωz = βz, where β = gµB h̄ dB/dz is the detuning gradient
in units of Hz/m. At low laser intensity the sum of forces of two counter-
propagating laser beams of equal frequency is therefore F (v) = Fσ+ + Fσ−
( )
h̄kΓ Iσ+ /I0 Iσ− /I0
F (v) =
2 2 − 2 (4.1)
1+4 [(δ−kv−βz)/Γ] 1+4 [(δ+kv +βz)/Γ]
Β 1, 2, 5 mTcm Β 1, 2, 5 mTcm
1 1
0.75 ∆ 2Π 10 MHz 0.75 ∆ 2Π 10 MHz
2Π 10 MHz 2Π 10 MHz
0.5 v 0 ms 0.5 v 2 ms
0.25 0.25
F 0 F 0
0.25 5 0.25 5
0.5 2 0.5 2
0.75 1 0.75 1
10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10
z mm z mm
When we set Iσ+ = Iσ− = I we obtain in the limit of small speed and small
M8 Zeeman energy shift from a series expansion in lowest order
8h̄kδ I/I0 α
F (v, z) ≈ 2 (kv + βz) = −αv + βz . (4.2)
Γ k
2
1 + (2δ/Γ)
an expression similar to that obtained for the optical molasses, but now with
the effective detuning kv + βz. A velocity dependent force term and a spatially
dependent force term appear. In this way the atoms feel where the center of
the trap is and undergoes a damped motion to this position.
8h̄k 2 δ I/I0
γ= 2 . (4.4)
MΓ
2
1 + (2δ/Γ)
23
From the spatial dependence in Eq. (4.2) one obtains for the trap frequency
2 8h̄kβδ I/I0
ωtrap = 2 . (4.5)
MΓ
2
1 + (2δ/Γ)
Limitations A limit in the peak atom density in the trap appears due to ra-
diation trapping [24] (Strahlungseinschluss). Light scattered by trapped atoms
may excite other atoms with incorrect polarization when the cloud of cold atoms
becomes opaque. One way to circumvent this problem is to use a dark spot in
the trap center [25]. An additional problem appears as a consequence of accel-
eration in atomic collisions of excited state atoms with ground state atoms. If
spontaneous emission occurs during the collision process, the collision partners
may emerge with high kinetic energy and leave the trap.
Applications MOTs are the most commonly used atom traps today. Initially
they were fed from Zeeman slowers. Monroe [26] realized that one could directly
capture atoms from the room temperature gas phase into the MOT. As the MOT
is isotopically selective one may use it to trap rare isotopes from a mixture [27].
The density can be made so high that collisions and radiation trapping are
limiting factors [24], the maximal density achieved is typically 1011 cm−3 .
2D MOTs are used as atomic funnels to generate beams with near zero
longitudinal speed [28, 29], as slow atom sources [30] or as atomic fountains.
Vapor-cell MOT Monroe [26] showed that the slow component of a room
temperature Maxwellian distribution can be directly captured into the damped
HO potential of a MOT . In this way he generated a cloud of 107 Cs atoms
in a volume of ≈ 1 mm3 . The atom number results from the balance between
capture rate and loss rate.
The normalized velocity distribution of atoms in the gas phase is
r
4 v2
2
v 2kB T
f (v) = √ 3 exp − 2 where u= (4.8)
πu u M
is the most probable speed. We define a maximal capture velocity vc . The rate
of capture is given by the number of atoms with speeds below vc which enter a
sphere with volume V , and radius r :
1 vc 1 v4 v6
Z
n v f (v) dv × 4πr2 = √ c3 n × 4πr2 + O( c5 ) . (4.9)
4 0 πu u
The number of atoms which enter this sphere per second is given by the rate
3/2
M
R = 0.68 n V 2/3 vc4 , (4.10)
2kB T
where n is the density of atoms in the vapor at the temperature T (300 K). The
volume of the sphere is V ≈ 0.1 cm3 .
The loss rate of captured atoms due to collisions with hot Cs atoms is given by
p
1/τ = nσhvi = nσ 8kB T /πM (4.11)
The density of trapped atoms in the stationary state Ns is obtained from the
balance of both rates
dNs Ns
=R− =0 (4.12)
dt τ
Since initially N (t = 0) = 0, the cold atom density builds up according to
which is independent of pressure. The time of loading the trap of course depends
on the vapor pressure.
Which parameters define the critical capture velocity vc ? Typically one uses a
detuning from resonance by about the natural linewidth. In this case we have
The picture below shows a sketch of Monroe’s trap. The vacuum vessel is made
of glass with a glass-to-metal transition to the ion pump.
26 CHAPTER 4. MAGNETO-OPTIC TRAP
Chapter 5
H = H0 + W , (5.2)
Ω0
where the term W couples the states |1i and |2i while
hϕn |W|ϕn i = 0 ist. We look for solutions to
E1 1
H |ψi = E |ψi . (5.3)
and multiply from the left with the bras h1| and h2| respectively. If we consider
the orthonormality hϕn |ϕm i = δnm and define Hnm = hϕn |H|ϕm i we obtain
c1 (H11 − E) + c2 H12 = 0
c1 H21 + c2 (H22 − E) = 0, (5.6)
∗
Here H12 = H21 = W with W = hϕ1 |W|ϕ2 i . Non trivial solutions for (5.6)
appear when the determinant of the coefficients c1 and c2 vanishes:
H11 − E W
=0 (5.7)
W H22 − E
27
28 CHAPTER 5. COUPLING BETWEEN 2 STATES
E + E +
E 2
E +
E 2
E 2
h M 0 h M 0
2 W 2 W
E 1
E 1
E 1
E -
, E
E E -
-
In
a )
the right figure we considerb ) the case that the energy gapc ) between the
unperturbed states varies along the x-axis according to h̄ω0 = x. The
perturbation W leads to a repulsion of the states from the unperturbed
energies E1 , E2 . The repulsion is larger, the smaller the energy gap h̄ω0 .
The energy gap between the perturbed levels is
p
E+ − E− = (h̄ω0 )2 + 4W 2 . (5.9)
E+ − E− = 2W . (5.10)
In the left figure the perturbation is very small compared to the unper-
turbed energy gap. For W h̄ω0 the energy shift is
1 W2
∆E = (E+ − E− − h̄ω0 ) ≈ , (5.11)
2 h̄ω0
which corresponds to the result from stationary perturbation theory in
second order, as we required that hϕn |W|ϕn i = 0.
H = H0 + H1 (t) . (5.18)
we have
H0 = |eihe| + |gihg| H0 |eihe| + |gihg|
= h̄ωe |eihe| + h̄ωg |gihg| (5.20)
with the eigenvalue equations H0 |ei = h̄ωe |ei and H0 |gi = h̄ωg |gi, where the
atomic frequency is equal to ω0 = ωe − ωg .
We define the dipole matrixelement d~eg = |q| he|ˆ
x x|gi, where q is the ele-
mentary charge. The field term now is
H1 (t) ~
= − |q| ˆx xE(t)
= − |eihe| + |gihg| |q|ˆ ~
x x |eihe| + |gihg| E(t)
= − d~eg E(t)
~ ( |eihg| + |gihe| ) (5.21)
with the classical laser field
~ 1
= ˆx E0 cos ωL t = ˆx E0 eiωL t + e−iωL t .
E(t) (5.22)
2
We define the Rabi-frequency, Ω1 , as
|deg |E0
Ω1 = . (5.23)
h̄
30 CHAPTER 5. COUPLING BETWEEN 2 STATES
We obtain the time dependent amplitudes by inserting (5.16) into (5.17). Using
(5.20) and (5.21) and applying from left the bras he| and hg| respectively on
(5.17) we obtain
i
ċe = −iωe ce + Ω1 cg eiωL t + e−iωL t
2
i
ċg = −iωg cg + Ω1 ce eiωL t + e−iωL t .
(5.24)
2
We introduce the time-dependent functions
ce = Ce e−iωe t and cg = Cg e−iωg t (5.25)
and obtain
i h i
Ċe = Ω1 Cg ei(ω0 −ωL )t + ei(ω0 +ωL )t (5.26)
2
i h i
Ċg = Ω1 Ce e−i(ω0 −ωL )t + e−i(ω0 +ωL )t (5.27)
2
Neglecting the rapidly varying terms e±i(ω0 +ωL )t (rotating wave approximation),
we obtain the simplified equations
i i
Ċe = Ω1 Cg e−iδt and Ċg = Ω1 Ce e+iδt , (5.28)
2 2
where we introduced the detuning δ = ωL − ω0 . To solve we differentiate (5.28)
once and insert Ċg and Ċe from (5.28)
Ω2
C̈e −iδ C˙e − 1 Ce ,
=
4
2
Ω
C̈g = +iδ C˙g − 1 Cg . (5.29)
4
With the generalized Rabi frequency
q
Ω = Ω21 + δ 2 (5.30)
Ω21 − δ 2
2 2 2 Ωt 2 Ωt
|Ce (t)| − |Cg (t)| = sin − cos (5.34)
Ω2 2 2
In the general case we have for the population in the excited state
Ω21 − δ 2
Ωt
|Ce (t)|2 = sin2 (5.36)
Ω2 2
∆=0.5
CeHtL
0.6
ulations return to the ground state af-
0.4 M 11
ter a period t = 2π/Ω. In the presence
0.2
of detuning the excited state population
0.0
0 Π 2Π 3Π never reaches the value 1 and oscillates
time more rapidly, with the generalized Rabi
frequency Ω.
Polarization : The oscillating electric field induces the atomic dipole moment
1.0 È ce * ce È 1.0 È ce * ce È
∆=0 È ce * cg È ∆=0.2 È ce * cg È
Re@ ce * cg D Re@ ce * cg D
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
M 12
-0.5 -0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
time time
Coherence and population at δ = 0 and δ = 0.2 for deg = 1, ωL = 100,
Ω1 = 1. Note that under realistic conditions the ratio ωL /Ω1 is orders
of magnitude larger, for alkalis at I = I0 we have ωL /Ω1 ≈ 107 s.
Dressed States
The dressed atom approach is specifically suited in the limit of high laser
intensity. This can be understood from the following argument. For Rabi fre-
quencies Ω1 , which are large compared to the damping rate by spontaneous
decay, it is a good approximation to first consider energy levels of the combined
system: atom + laser photons together (the dressed states) and only later in-
troduce the spontaneous channel. In this approach one first defines uncoupled
atom-laser states which describe the total energy of atom + laser photons.
In a second step the interaction Hamiltonian H1 is considered. Its action is to
shift the energies of the dressed states. These new states (they are diagonal in
H1 ) are termed coupled dressed states. These are coherent superpositions
of ground and excited state of our atom, in a firm phase relationship with the
driving laser field(s). In a third step spontaneous emission (coupling with
the other modes of the radiation field, the bath) is taken into account. This
process appears as population transfer between the coupled dressed states.
In the dressed states scheme one can easily account for effects of the spatial
variation of the properties of the laser field. This is an important bridge to
realistic environments encountered in experiments:
• A focussed laser beam requires a description which accounts for the spatial
dependence of the Rabi-frequency.
• Superimposing two or more light fields typically means that the polariza-
tion properties of the resultant field show a spatial dependence.
The spatial variation of intensity and polarization are readily accounted for in
the dressed atom approach, even for multi-level atoms.
33
34 CHAPTER 6. DRESSED STATES
The atomic electric dipole operator is odd (ungerade). It couples only states of
opposite parity. We assume that the states |ei and |gi are of opposite parity
and that our two-level atom is embedded in a laser field with frequency ωL with
a detuning from resonance by δ = ωL − ω0 .
The electromagnetic field is quantized on to a complete set of orthonormal
~ λ (~r), one of which is the laser field, E
field distributions, E ~ L (~r). Here ~r is
the position vector, introduced to indicate the spatial dependence of the field
properties.2 The Hamiltonian of the free radiation field is
h̄ωλ a†λ aλ + 1/2
X
Hλ = (6.1)
λ
where a†λ and aλ are the creation- und annihilation-operators of a photon in the
mode λ. For the laser Hamiltonian we write
HL = h̄ωL a†L aL + 1/2 , (6.2)
where a†L and aL are the creation- und annihilation-operators for photons in
the laser mode. The number operator a†L aL applied to the eigenfunctions of HL
gives us the number of photons N in the laser mode.
ÈN+1\
We first define uncoupled atom-laser
states: We turn off the photon-atom Èe\ ΩL
interaction and dress the atomic basis
M 14 states with a given number of photons, Ω0 ÈN\
N . This is equivalent to trapping an
atom and N photons in a fictitious box Èg\ ΩL
and calculating the total energy con-
tained in this box. ÈN-1\
Note that the dressed states in each family have equal parity.3 However, they
differ in parity from that of the next neighbor pairs, E(N ± 1). The infinite
number of possible dressed states thus groups into families of alternating parity.
VAL = −d~ · E
~L (6.3)
The dipole operator connects states of opposite parity, see Eq. (5.21),
where V p
is the mode volume and ~L is the laser polarization. Note that the ex-
pression h̄ωL /20 V has the dimensions of an electric field. With the definition
r
h̄ωL
v=− ~L · d~eg (6.6)
20 V
The operator aL destroys a photon in the laser mode, the operator a†L creates a
photon. The operator b takes our atom from the excited state into the ground
state, the operator b† takes the atom from the ground state into the excited
state. The term VAL in (6.7) contains four contributions,
• a†L b describes the transition from the excited into the ground state, con-
current with creation of a photon in the laser mode (stimulated emission).
• The terms aL b und a†L b† do not obey energy conservation and are not
considered further.
3 This is because in each pair the states of opposite parity, |ei and |gi, are dressed with a
√
In the HO description
√ of the laser mode we have a†L |N i = N + 1|N + 1i and
aL |N + 1i = N + 1|N i. Hence we can write for the coupling matrix element
for stimulated absorption between the states in each family, E(N ),
and relate these quantities with those of the quantized field [36]
r
~ h̄ωL p
E0 = 2~L hN i . (6.9)
20 V
With the definition of the Rabi-frequency
|d~ge E~ 0|
Ω1 = (6.10)
h̄
we obtain for the interaction terms (6.8)
1
he, N |VAL |g, N +1i = h̄Ω1
2
1
hg, N +1|VAL |e, N i = h̄Ω1 . (6.11)
2
Next we consider the consequences of the interaction terms (6.11). In the
absence of interaction, the states of each pair in a family are spaced by the laser
detuning from resonance δ = ωL − ω0 . If we introduce an energy scale relative
to the energy (N+1) h̄ωL − h̄δ/2 we can write for the Hamiltonian of the dressed
states of each family
+δ Ω1 (r)
h̄
HDA = . (6.12)
2 Ω1 (r) −δ
q
h̄Ω = h̄ Ω21 + δ 2 . (6.15) È1,N\
It is important to realize that the coupled dressed states, |1, N i und |2, N i, are
now superpositions of the uncoupled dressed states, see (5.12),
sin 2β = Ω1 /Ω , or Èe,N\
energy
cos 2β = −δ/Ω . Ωo
W1
M 17
The figure shows the perturbed energy È2,N\
of the two states of a family by the full
lines as a function of the detuning. The 0
noninteracting dressed states are shown detuning ∆
by the dashed lines.
For a detuning of δ = 0 we have β = π/4 (complete mixing), for Ω1 = 0 we
obtain β = π/2 (unperturbed states). The light-shifting of dressed states may
be projected back into the conventional energy representation of the free atom.
From this we deduce the following light shift of atomic energies:
∆<0 ∆>0
Èe\ Èe\
: Ω0 ΩL >: Ω0 ΩL > M 18
Èg\ Èg\
VAL = 0 VAL ¹ 0 VAL = 0 VAL ¹ 0
• For red detuning, δ < 0, the states |gi und |ei are energetically pushed
apart, the potential energy of the ground state decreases whereas the
potential energy of the excited state increases.
• The opposite effect occurs in the case of blue detuning: The interaction
pushes the states |gi und |ei closer to each other when δ > 0. In other
words the potential energy of the ground state increases whereas the po-
tential energy of the excited state decreases.
38 CHAPTER 6. DRESSED STATES
Note that these new states are superpositions of |gi und |ei, they each contain
character of both, |gi und |ei, to a degree given by the mixing angle.
In general the light shift is tiny! To see its magnitude we choose a strong optical
transition with a dipole moment of magnitude of 1 debye = 3.33 × 10−30 C m.
(A dipole moment of 1 debye corresponds to two elementary charges separated
by 20 pm. This definition was made when CGS units were in use.) At an
electric field strength of 1 V/cm (corresponds to I ≈ 1.3 mW/cm2 ) we have a
Rabi-frequency, Ω1 = 3 MHz, corresponding to an energy shift at resonance
of h̄Ω1 = 2 neV ≈ 20 µK . In the context of cold atoms, when translational
energies are in the µK range and below, these small energy shifts translate into
Himalayan-like potential energy landscapes an atom has to navigate through,
on length scales of the size of a laser focus or the wavelength of light.
When we switch from the uncoupled dressed states to the coupled basis
each state contains both |gi as well as |ei character.
Autler-Townes profile :
Èp,N\
Èp,N\
When a strong laser field couples the
transition |gi to |ei, a weak laser
probing the transition from some Ωp
other state, |p, N i, at photon energies M 21
near ωp , will experience absorption at
the energies of both coupled states of Èe,N\ È1,N\
the family, {|1, N i, |2, N i}. ∆ W
Èg,N+1\ È2,N\
41
42 CHAPTER 7. DENSITY MATRIX FOR A TWO-LEVEL ATOM
The coefficients give the probability amplitudes for finding the system in state
|ei and |gi respectively. The expectation value of an observable A is
hAi = hΨ|A|Ψi = |ce |2 Aee + |cg |2 Agg + c∗e cg Aeg + c∗g ce Age . (7.3)
The total Hamiltonian contains one part for the free atom and a second part
describing the interaction with an external field
H = HA + H1 . (7.4)
The free atom Hamiltonian is1
HA = h̄ωe |eihe| + h̄ωg |gihg| (7.5)
• For the equation of motion of the density operator we obtain the general-
ized Schrödinger equation (von-Neumann equation)
d d d d
ρ= (|ΨihΨ|) = |ψi hψ| + |ψi hψ|
dt dt dt dt
i i
= − H |ψihψ| + |ψihψ| H
h̄ h̄
i h i
= − H, ρ (7.18)
h̄
ρ2 = ρ Tr (ρ2 ) = 1 .
1 h i 0 −i(ωe − ωg )ρeg
HA , ρ = (7.25)
ih̄ i(ωe − ωg )ρge 0
ρ̇ee = ρ̇gg = 0
ρ̇eg = −i (ωe − ωg ) ρeg . (7.26)
If the reservoir remains unobserved and if (due to the huge size of the reservoir)
there is no retroactive effect from the reservoir on to the atom, we may neglect
the term HR and treat the spontaneous emission VAR in a phenomenological
relaxation matrix. We also assume that the photon number in the laser
mode is so large that stimulated absorption and stimulated emission leave the
photon number in the laser mode unchanged. In this case we stay with the
approximation to the Hamiltonian used so far
H ≈ H A + H1 . (7.29)
i Γ
Ċe = Ω1 Cg e−iδt − Ce . (7.30)
2 2
Without coupling to a laser field (Ω1 = 0) the relaxation term describes the
exponential decay of the excited state
In the Master Equation (7.18) this relaxation brings about the additional term
atom into the empty reservoir of vacuum modes might be reabsorbed. However this can only
happen with significant probability if the atom is embedded in an appropriate resonator.
46 CHAPTER 7. DENSITY MATRIX FOR A TWO-LEVEL ATOM
For population elements this expression gives the exponential decay ρii ∝ exp(−Γt).
If Γ describes the spontaneous decay rate, then ρii Γ is equal to the rate of emis-
sion of spontaneous photons from state i. In our two-level atom the excited
state will loose population
Due to this decay the off-diagonal terms decay with a rate [31]
Γ
ρ̇eg = − ρeg . (7.35)
2
These loss and gain terms result automatically when introducing the Liouvillian.
7.3 Liouvillian
Dissipation and decoherence is formally introduced in the Master Equation in
the so-called Liouvillian, L, in Lindblad form [37] using the atomic transition
operators b = |gihe| (transition of atom from excited to ground state) and
b† = |eihg| (transition from ground state to excited state)
d i i Γ †
ρ b b + b† b ρ − 2b ρ b† .
ρ = − [H, ρ] + Lρ = − [H, ρ] − (7.36)
dt h̄ h̄ 2
We abbreviate (7.36) by defining an energy-conserving and a dissipative part
d d d
ρ= ρ + ρ . (7.37)
dt dt 0 dt dis
We use this formalism in the following to derive solutions to the Master Equation
of the coherently driven two-level atom under inclusion of spontaneous emission.
The resulting equations (Optical Bloch Equations) provide a realistic description
of the two-level atom and serve to explain forces experienced by the two-level
atom in an external laser field. They also provide a microscopic explanation of
the susceptibility of a dielectric medium.
h̄Ω1 −iωL t
H1 = − (e + e+iωL t ) |eihg| + |gihe| . (7.38)
2
If we set the energy reference at the ground state level (h̄ωg = 0), the atomic
Hamiltonian is (ω0 = ωe − ωg )
Using H = HA + H1 we obtain
˙ 0 = +(i/2)Ω1 (e−iωL t +e+iωL t ) (ρeg −ρge ) ,
he|ρ̇0 |ei = ρee
˙ 0 = −(i/2)Ω1 (e−iωL t +e+iωL t ) (ρeg −ρge ) ,
hg|ρ̇0 |gi = ρgg
˙ 0 = +(i/2)Ω1 (e−iωL t +e+iωL t ) (ρee −ρgg ) − iω0 ρeg ,
he|ρ̇0 |gi = ρeg
˙ 0 = −(i/2)Ω1 (e−iωL t +e+iωL t ) (ρee −ρgg ) + iω0 ρge .
hg|ρ̇0 |ei = ρge
Accounting for spontaneous emission of the excited state with a rate5 Γ we
obtain the dissipative and decoherence terms
he|ρ̇dis |ei = ρ̇ee dis = −Γ ρee ,
hg|ρ̇dis |gi = ρ̇gg dis = +Γ ρee ,
he|ρ̇dis |gi = ρ̇eg dis = −(Γ/2) ρeg ,
hg|ρ̇dis |ei = ρ̇ge dis = −(Γ/2) ρge .
We may suppress the explicit time dependence by introducing the rotating basis
(rotating wave approximation, RWA):
ρ̃eg = ρeg e+iωL t ρ̃ge = ρge e−iωL t
ρ̃gg = ρgg ρ̃ee = ρee (7.40)
Neglecting the high frequency terms e±2iωL t we obtain with δ = ωL −ω0
i
ρ̃˙ ee = + Ω1 ρ̃eg − ρ̃ge − Γ ρ̃ee
2
i
ρ̃˙ gg = − Ω1 ρ̃eg − ρ̃ge + Γ ρ̃ee
2
i
ρ̃˙ eg = + Ω1 ρ̃ee − ρ̃gg + iδ ρ̃eg − (Γ/2) ρ̃eg
2
i
ρ̃˙ ge = − Ω1 ρ̃ee − ρ̃gg − iδ ρ̃ge − (Γ/2) ρ̃ge (7.41)
2
These equation are also known under the term optical Bloch-Equations. They
describe the coherently driven two-level atom in analogy to the treatment in
Chapter 5 but include dissipation. The so called Bloch-vector graphically il-
lustrates the evolution of the coherently driven two-level atom. This topic is
discussed in Appendix A-2.
2Ω21 I
= (7.44)
Γ2 I0
we rewrite the population of the excited state as
1 I/I0
ρee = · . (7.45)
2 1 + I/I0 + 4δ 2 /Γ2
The rate of scattering of spontaneous photons of an atom at rest is
Γ I/I0
Γscat = Γ ρee = · . (7.46)
2 1 + I/I0 + 4δ 2 /Γ2
This is equal to the expression which we had derived from the classical rate-
equation model in section (3). The spontaneous force is obtained by multiplying
the scattering rate with the photon momentum
Γ I/I0
F~spontan = h̄~k Γ ρee = h̄~k · . (7.47)
2 1 + I/I0 + 4δ 2 /Γ2
Note that this so-called spontaneous force does not describe the momentum
transfer due to spontaneous emission, but rather the momentum transfer which
occurs prior to spontaneous emission, when the atom undergoes stimulated ab-
sorption from the directed laser beam with wave vector ~k. The momentum
vector in spontaneous emission is taken to be zero, on average, based on the
assumption that spontaneous photons are emitted isotropically.
7.6 Susceptibility
In Appendix A-6 we consider the propagation of an electromagnetic wave in a
medium and interpret the relationship between the real and imaginary part of
the susceptibility (χ = χ0 + i χ00 ) with the refractive index and the coefficient of
absorption of the medium
1 ω 00
nr = 1 + χ0 and α= χ . (7.48)
2 c
In the following we attempt a microscopic description of the medium by relating
refractive index and absorption coefficient to properties of the two-level atom.
p̃A = |deg | (ρ̃eg + ρ̃ge ) = |deg | (ρeg e+iωL t + ρ∗eg e−iωL t ) . (7.49)
P0 = N |deg | ρeg .
7.7. DIPOLE FORCE 49
|deg | |deg |2
χ = 2N ρeg = 2N ρeg . (7.50)
0 E0 0 h̄ Ω1
The complex coherence (7.43) implies a complex susceptibility
χ = χ0 + i χ00 (7.51)
where
|deg |2 2δ
χ0 = −N (7.52)
0 h̄ 4δ 2 + Γ2 + 2Ω21
|deg |2 Γ
χ00 = +N . (7.53)
0 h̄ 4δ 2 + Γ2 + 2Ω21
For small Rabi frequency Ω1 Γ, the last term in the denominator can be
neglected and we obtain a susceptibility which is independent of the intensity of
the pump laser. The term 2Ω21 in the denominator is origin for power broadening.
0.2
Im! Χ"$ Χ"
Re! Χ"$ Χ'
0.2
0
!.2
0
!3 !2 !1 0 1 2 3 !3 !2 !1 0 1 2 3
∆ ∆
If we equate the atomic dipole moment p~A to the polarization induced by the
laser field (7.49) we obtain with the definition of the Rabi frequency, Ω1 =
|deg |E0 /h̄,
h̄ Ω1 (~r)
Udip (~r) = −|deg | ρ̃eg + ρ̃ge E0 (~r) = − ρ̃eg + ρ̃ge . (7.55)
2
2Ω1 (δ − iΓ/2) ∗
ρ̃eg = − ρ̃eg = ρ̃ge (7.56)
4δ 2 + Γ2 + 2Ω21
h̄ δ Ω21
Udip (~r) = . (7.57)
4δ 2 + Γ2 + 2Ω21
50 CHAPTER 7. DENSITY MATRIX FOR A TWO-LEVEL ATOM
The spatial dependence of Udip (~r) typically arises usually from the spatial distri-
bution of laser intensity, I(~r) ∝ Ω21 (~r). For large detuning the dipole potential
(7.57) is equivalent to the results in Eq. (6.15) and Eq. (5.11)
h̄ Ω21 (~r)
Udip (~r) ≈ . (7.58)
4δ
With the saturation intensity from Equation (3.11) we may write
h̄ Γ2 I(~r)
Udip (~r) ≈ . (7.59)
8δ I0
Rather different looking equations are found in the literature. One of them
appears as Eq.(1) in [6]
2Ω2
h̄ δ
Udip = ln 1 + 2 1 2 . (7.60)
2 4δ + Γ
Various expressions for the dipole potential are compared in the figure below.
0.2 Ñ∆ W1 2
ln@1+ D
0.1 4 ∆2
Udip 0.0
-0.1
ÑW21
-0.2 4∆
M 26 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
detuning ∆ W1
Predictions of Eq. (7.57) (red) and Eq. (7.60) (green) for the dipole po-
tential for Ω1 = 1, Γ = 1. The blue curve is an alternate expression
sometimes found in the literature. The dashed line is the energy of the
coupled dressed state |1, N i in the limit Ω1 /δ 1 , Eq. (7.58).
For the red, blue and green curves, starting from δ = 0, the potential
initially grows with detuning, δ, reaches a maximum and then falls off for
larger detuning, the overall sign of the potential depending on the sign
of δ. The four equations agree in their prediction at large detuning.
k ∆v Γ . (8.1)
h̄2 k 2
ER = h̄Γ . (8.2)
2M
51
52 CHAPTER 8. DIPOLE FORCE AND DISSIPATION
where a†L , aL are the creation and annihilation operators for a photon in the
laser mode. The expectation value a†L aL gives us the number of photons in the
laser mode (N ). The atom couples to the quantized electromagnetic field EL (r)
in stimulated one-photon absorption and emission (d = dipole matrix element)
VAL (r) = −d EL (r) b† aL + b a†L . (8.6)
After diagonalization we obtain the coupled dressed states of family E(N ) which
we label by |1, N ; ri und |2, N ; ri. These states lie at the energy
1
U1,N (r) = + h̄Ω(r) (8.11)
2
1
U2,N (r) = − h̄Ω(r) . (8.12)
2
They are spaced by h̄ times the effective Rabi frequency
q
Ω(r) = Ω21 + δ 2 . (8.13)
These new states are mixtures of the basis states |g, N +1i und |e, N i with the
state vectors
|1, N ; ri = + cos β |e, N i + sin β |g, N +1i (8.14)
|2, N ; ri = − sin β |e, N i + cos β |g, N +1i . (8.15)
The mixing angle, β = β(r), is defined by
δ Ω1 (r)
cos 2β(r) = − and sin 2β(r) = . (8.16)
Ω(r) Ω(r)
• For Ω1 = 0 (no laser field) we have sin 2β = 0 and a mixing angle β = 90o ,
hence cos β = 0 and the states |1, N ; ri ≡ |g, N + 1i, |2, N ; ri ≡ |e, N i
are pure basis states. For δ = 0 we have cos 2β = √ 0 and a mixing angle
β = 45o . In this case the state |1, N ; ri = (1/ 2)(|g, N + 1i + |e, N i)
aquires a 50 % admixture of excited state character.
The origin for the dipole force is that in an inhomogeneous laser field the energies
and eigenvectors depend on the position of the atom, as intensity and therefore
Rabi frequency vary in space. This is shown schematically in a cross section
through a laser beam profile.
Outside the laser field the !) *% +&
dressed states coincide with !" #$% $- $) & !" #% $- $) &
the uncoupled bare states,
! " ! ! *% +
the detuning of each family
pair being δ. Inside the laser !' #$% & !' #$% &
field the states are superposi- !, *% +&
tions of |g, N + 1i and |e, N i . / 01 23 ' $04 ' :; 1 23 ' $04 ' . / 01 23 ' $04 '
and their separation is larger, 56 1 ' 7 $8 ' 6 9 56 1 ' 7 $8 ' 6 9 56 1 ' 7 $8 ' 6 9
h̄Ω.
The direction of the light shift < = 1 202= ;
of the states |gi und |ei de- !) *% $($) +&
pends on the sign of the de- !" #$% & !" #% &
tuning. The light shift is ! ! ! *% $($) +
"
greatly exaggerated in this
drawing. In this example the !' #$% $($) & !' #$% $($) &
detuning is positive. !, *% $($) +&
The state |g, N +1i and hence |gi shifts up in energy when δ is positive, but it
shifts down in energy when δ is negative. This sign agrees with the prediction
of the dipole potential which we had derived in Eq. (7.57).
54 CHAPTER 8. DIPOLE FORCE AND DISSIPATION
Èg,N+1\ È1,N\
In the coupled basis, both states
EHNL in each family E(N ) share |gi
Èe,N\ È2,N\ and |ei character, hence both con-
tribute in spontaneous transitions
ΩL to the members of the lower lying
family, E(N −1). These four tran-
È1,N-1\
sitions separate into the Mollow
Èg,N\
triplet [33]. Two side bands ap-
∆ W EHN-1L
pear at ωL ± Ω, symmetric to the
Èe,N-1\ È2,N-1\ central line at frequency ωL .
The strength of the transition moment in each line is defined by the dipole
matrix elements, now defined in terms of the coupled states. The actual line
strength observed in the Mollow triplet also reflects the population of the re-
spective coupled state, as will be discussed later. We derive the transition
moment for each line from the dipole matrix elements
dij = d hi, N −1| b |j, N i (8.17)
where the operator b projects the |ei-admixture in the members of family |j, N i
by spontaneous emission into the |gi-admixture in the members of family |i, N−
1i. The dipole transition matrix element between the bare atomic states is
d = hg|x|ei. With i = 1, 2 we characterize the two states in the family, the
second index refers to the emitting member. Inserting the state vectors from
Eq. (8.14) and (8.15) we obtain
d11 = −d22 = +d cos β sin β
d12 = −d sin2 β (8.18)
2
d21 = +d cos β
The dipole matrix elements dij depend on Ω via the mixing angle and therefore
also on the position of the atom, r. One may now define a Master equation for
a density matrix ρ(r), for the dressed atom at position r which describes the
time dependence of the two-level properties in the presence of the laser field,
including the coupling to the empty modes of the vacuum. DCT show that an
explicit solution of the Master equation is not actually required for gaining a
deeper understanding of the dynamics of the moving atom. Rather it is sufficient
to evaluate the reduced populations, Πi , by summing over the states
X
Πi (r) = ρii = hi, N ; r|ρ(r)|i, N ; ri . (8.19)
N
and, in the case that higher order contributions to the dipole force are consid-
ered, also information about the reduced coherences, ρij (r),
X
ρij (r) = hi, N ; r|ρ(r)|j, N ; ri . (8.20)
N
8.2. MOLLOW TRIPLET 55
In the following the assumption is made that the three lines in the Mollow triplet
are well separated in energy, Ω1 (r) Γ, the large intensity limit.
Γ12 = Γ sin4 β
Γ21 = Γ cos4 β (8.22)
with Γ being the spontaneous rate of the pure atomic state, |ei. In the stationary
case the derivatives on the left hand side of Equation (8.21) are set to zero. As
the sum of the reduced populations has to equal to one, Π1 + Π2 = 1, we can
predict the stationary populations from (8.21)
Γ12 sin4 β
Πst
1 = = 4
Γ21 + Γ12 sin β + cos4 β
Γ21 cos4 β
Πst
2 = = 4 . (8.23)
Γ21 + Γ12 sin β + cos4 β
With this result we can now predict the intensity distribution in the Mollow
triplet for a stationary atom. The number of spontaneous photons per second
is given by the product of transition rate and population, Πst
j Γij .
1.0 90
85
P1 st
steady state population
0.8 80
mixing angle Β
75
0.6
70
0.4 65
60
0.2 P2 st 55
50
0.0 45
45 60 75 90 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
mixing angle Β W1 ∆
In steady state we have for the two contributions to the central line
sin4 β
Πst
1 Γ11 = cos β 2 sin β 2
sin4 β + cos4 β
cos4 β
Πst
2 Γ22 = cos β 2 sin β 2 . (8.24)
sin4 β + cos4 β
They differ greatly from each other unless δ = 0, e.g. β = π/4. For the two side
56 CHAPTER 8. DIPOLE FORCE AND DISSIPATION
bands we obtain
sin4 β
Πst
1 Γ21 = 4 cos β 4
sin β + cos4 β
Πst
2 Γ12 = Πst
1 Γ21 . (8.25)
We see that, under stationary conditions and for an atom at rest, an equal
number of spontaneous photons appears in the two side bands. In the special
case that δ = 0 (or Ω1 → ∞), the sidebands are each half the height of the
central peak.
In general the intensity varies with spatial position and hence Π and β
depend on the position of the atom. A key question now is how much time does
an atom require to reach the stationary condition if we move it from one point
in space to another? A rough estimate of this time is given by the inverse of
the sum of the two side-band rates
Γpop = Γ12 + Γ21 = Γ sin4 β + cos4 β
(8.26)
This internal time scale of the dressed atom will be used in an estimate of the
magnitude of dissipation, see Section 8.5.
!' #% ( !' #% ,
!" #$% $& $' ( !) #$% (
In order to derive a value for the force acting on an atom in the light field, we
have to take into account that the population is distributed over both members
of a family pair. The force acting on the atom is proportional to the spatial
gradient of the light-shifted potential. Owing to the symmetry of Eq. (8.27)
the force is equal but of opposite sign for the two dressed-atom states. The
overall force results from the sum of forces on both dressed-atom states, the
contribution of each being weighted by the respective population. Obviously we
end up with a repulsive light potential in the case of blue detuning, when the
dominant population resides in state |1, N i, but an overall attractive potential
for red detuning.
If we assume that the stationary population (8.23) has been established by some
means and evaluate the dipole force from the mean of energy gradients, weighted
by the respective populations, we obtain
F~dip
st
(r) = −Πst ~ st ~
1 (r) ∇U1 (r) − Π2 (r) ∇U2 (r) (8.29)
h̄δ ~ (I/I0 )
∇
F~dip
st
=− . (8.31)
4 1 + I/I0 + (2δ/Γ)2
Without assumping a large detuning in Eq. (8.29) the dipole force appears as
2
F~dip
st
= −∇~ h̄δ ln 1 + Ω1 (8.32)
2 2δ 2
with the dipole potential
Ω21
h̄δ
Udip = ln 1 + 2 . (8.33)
4 2δ
The change of the energy of the electromagnetic field (laser photons + fluores-
cence photons) during the time dt, which we need to move the atom by the
distance dr, is
During the time dt, dN laser photons with energy h̄ωL disappear and dN flu-
orescence photons are emitted. Photons, which are spontaneously emitted in
transitions of the central lines of the Mollow triplet,
need not be counted, as they have the same energy as the laser photons. However
each emission in the side bands
|1, N ; ri → |2, N −1; ri
|2, N ; ri → |1, N −1; ri (8.38)
changes the energy of the electromagnetic field1 by the amount +h̄Ω or −h̄Ω.
In case that dUF is different from zero the intensity of the side bands in the
Mollow triplet is not balanced. From this we may derive an expression for the
actual force expression on a slowly moving atom.
Mean dipole force for a very slow atom : We use the force expression
F~dip = −Π1 ∇U
~ 1 − Π2 ∇U
~ 2 (8.39)
and assume that the Doppler detuning is much smaller than the spontaneous
rate, kv Γ. This corresponds to a situtation when
v λΓ. (8.40)
Under this condition the atom moves only a very small portion of an optical
wavelength during one spontaneous relaxation time. As a consequence the pop-
ulations in the moving atom will be very close to that given by the stationary
1 Actually because of the Doppler effect, the mean frequencies of the three components
of the fluorescence spectrum are slightly shifted from the values ωL , ωL + Ω, ωL − Ω. The
spectrum is shifted to a center at ωL − ~k · ~v . If n fluorescence cycles occur per second, the
energy balance dUF of the field must be corrected by an amount −n dt h̄~k ·~v = −n h̄~k ·d~
r. This
corresponds to the work done against the radiation pressure force nh̄~k. As we are interested
in the dipole force, we neglect this contribution here.
8.5. DISSIPATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS 59
and remember that Γpop signifies the rate at which the stationary state popu-
lation is reached. The characteristic time for this is τpop = 1/Γpop . Hence we
may approximate the gradient in (8.41) using the stationary populations
~ st
τpop~v · ∇Π i (r) ≈ −Πi (r) + Πst
i (r) (8.42)
Πi (r) ≈ Πst
i (r − v · τpop ) (8.43)
and obtain
DCT’s argument: The relaxation between the states |1, N i und |2, N i requires
a characteristic time, τpop . A moving atom cannot instantaneously respond
to the changing Rabi-frequency. As a result there will be a delay in reaching
equilibrium, with the consequence that (for an atom moving with speed v) the
population at a spatial position r will approximately correspond to the popula-
tion which was present at some earlier time, when the atom was at r − v · τpop .
We now consider the consequence of this retardation for the case of blue de-
tuning. As we move with the atom out of the laser field, the state |1, N ; ri
progressively acquires more |g, N + 1i character. For δ > 0 the state |1, N ; ri
always carries a higher admixture of |g, N + 1i than does the state |2, N ; ri.
As the inversion always stays below 50 %, the state |1, N ; ri carries a higher
population than the state |2, N ; ri. We therefore have
Πst st
1 (r) > Π2 (r) . (8.45)
At the same time the contamination of state |1, N ; ri by |e, N i increases when
the Rabi frequency increases. From this it follows that Πst1 (r) decreases when
we move the atom in the direction of higher laser intensity, that is
Πst st
1 (r−dr) > Π1 (r) . (8.46)
The figure below, on the left, depicts the situation of the stationary atom from
(8.45) and (8.46) at two positions, r and r − dr.
( )
! & *+. ! *+.#1 ! ( )
*+,- +.
& &
! ( )
*+,- +. & "$ 0+ & "$ 0+
& - + # 1 #"# # # # 3 4 3
+,- + + +
60 CHAPTER 8. DIPOLE FORCE AND DISSIPATION
We now consider an atom which moves with the speed v in the direction
of higher laser intensity (see the figure above, on the right). At the position r
the population in the moving atom Π1 (r) is not equal to the population Πst 1 (r),
but rather it corresponds approximately to the population Πst 1 (r − dr), where
dr = vτpop . From this we conclude
Π1 (r) = Πst st
1 (r−vτpop ) > Π1 (r) , (8.47)
Π2 (r) = Πst st
2 (r−vτpop ) < Π2 (r) . (8.48)
The force at which a moving atom is pushed out of the blue-detuned field,
~
h̄∇Ω
F~dip = − [Π1 (r) − Π2 (r)] , (8.49)
2
is larger than the force experienced by a nonmoving atom in the stationary
case, as given in Equation (8.29). This additional force depends on the speed
of the atom and acts like a friction force. The higher the speed of the atom, the
larger is the deviation of the population at the position r from the stationary
population. From this (so far qualitative) argument we conclude that the dipole
force contains a friction term when δ is positive.2
Πi (r) = Πst
i (r−vτpop ) (8.50)
into Equation (8.49) and use for the stationary populations the expression (8.23)
3
Ω21 (r)
2h̄δ
F~dip (r, v) = F~dip
st
(r) − 2 α · ~v ) α
(~ ~ (8.51)
Γ Ω1 (r) + 2δ 2
the abbreviation α
~ is
~ 1 (r)
∇Ω Ω ~
α
~= = 2 ∇Ω . (8.52)
Ω1 (r) Ω1
2 When the detuning is negative, δ < 0, the reverse holds, the speed-dependent term to the
world. As soon as he reaches the top the stone rolls down again.
8.6. ATOMIC MOTION IN A STANDING WAVE 61
where Ωmax
1 is the Rabi frequency at the
$1
antinodes of the standing wave. The figures
show as a function of z, for the parameters 0
Λ!2 Λ
Ωmax
1 = 1 and δ = +0.2, 0 3Λ!2
90
45
0 Λ!2 Λ 3Λ!2
• the Rabi frequency, Ω1 (z),
#1
1
• the light shifted energies U1 und U2 . At the U1
0 $ ∆
nodes the energy gap is small, ∆U = δ, at the U2
"g(
• the absolute amplitudes of |gi and |ei of #1
dissipative nature of the dipole force for blue detuning. In order to do this we
show the potential energy landscape of the dressed states of three families along
the standing wave. The periodic splitting in potential energy for each family
serves to indicate the continuous exchange between potential and kinetic energy
of the atom as it moves along the standing wave. What follows is valid for blue
detuning, δ > 0, the reverse conclusion applies in case of red detuning.
One side band is preferentially emitted
near the antinodes. At the antinodes the
1 ,N + 1 ;r state |1, N + 1; ri (purely ground state
- n + 1 in the absence of the laser field) has the
2 ,N + 1 ;r highest contamination by |e, N i. At these
positions a spontaneous transition into
state |2, N ; ri of the lower family has the
highest probability. The latter is purely
1 ,N ;r excited state in the absence of the laser
- n field, but has its highest contamination by
2 ,N ;r
|gi character at the antinode.
In between these two points of preferential emission in the side bands the atom
always experiences more uphill than downhill paths. As a result this process con-
tinuously extracts kinetic energy from the atom and redistributes it into energy
of the spontaneous photons. This is the reason for the name Sisyphus cooling.
To quantify this effect, we explore the change in the kinetic energy of an atom
which moves over a distance equal to one wavelength of the standing wave laser:
Z λ
∆W = Fdip dz = λ hF i (8.54)
0
At very low atomic speed : Here the time the atom takes to move over the
distance of one wavelength is very much larger then the spontaneous emission
time. In other words the atom undergoes many spontaneous emission events
during the time it travels over one wavelength. In this situation the speed de-
pendence of the dipole force derives from the small time delay required to attain
the stationary population.
1 λ
Z
hF i = Fdip (z, v)dz
λ 0
3
1 λ st 1 λ 2h̄δ Ω21 (r)
Z Z
= F (z)dz − α2 v dz (8.56)
λ 0 dip λ 0 Γ Ω21 (r) + 2δ 2
1 λ
Z
= − γ v dz (8.57)
λ 0
The first contribution on the right hand side of Equation (8.56) vanishes, the
second term in (8.57) may be written (with M being the mass of the atom)
Mv
hF i = − . (8.58)
τ
The characteristic time τ is positive for δ > 0 and negative for δ < 0. The time
τ is proportional to 1/δ and it can be much shorter than the characteristic time
for cooling by the spontaneous force, see Equation (3.24),
M
τspon = = h̄/ER (8.59)
h̄k 2
We conclude that in a standing wave of high laser intensity the friction in the
dipole force can, for low atomic speed, be much larger than the friction term of
the spontaneous force.
-1 0 0 F o rc e f
An explicit calculation of the dependence ( u n its h k / /2 )
of the dipole force on atomic speed (in -5 0
-7 5
units of Γ/k) is shown here. The mean
dipole force is given in units of the maxi-
F (h k / /2 )
-5 0
mal spontaneous force, h̄kΓ/2, see Equa- 0 0 .1 0 .2
tion (3.17). The insert gives the depen-
dence at low speed, the linear result which -2 5
V e lo c ity v
we found in Equation (8.58) is given by ( u n its / /k )
The dependence of the force on the atomic speed in the figure above
may be understood from the following arguments
• The maximum in the force occurs at a speed v ≈ 0.5 Γ/k. At this speed
the atom travels over a distance of half a wavelength during one spon-
taneous emission time, optimal for the Sisyphus effect. Without detailed
calculation we understand the effective exchange between kinetic energy
64 CHAPTER 8. DIPOLE FORCE AND DISSIPATION
and the energy of the electromagnetic field when the emission in the Mol-
low side bands occurs from near a potential maximum of the light-shifted
states.
• At very low speed the force increases linearly with speed. This is because
the non-stationary population is carried over ever increasing distances of
the potential energy difference and the asymmetry in the Mollow side band
increases with increasing v, until the optimal transport of population over
a mean distance of λ/2 occurs, the position of the force maximum.
Under realistic conditions the dipole force can greatly exceed the sponta-
neous force. A 1 W laser, focussed to a spot of 100 µm diameter can generate
a Rabi frequency Ω1 = 1000 Γ. The figure on page 63 gives the dipole force in
this case for a detuning of δ = +200 Γ.
Aspect et al. [38] have used a blue-detuned standing wave to demonstrate the
cooling aspect of the dipole force. Directing an atomic beam perpendicular to
the standing wave laser beam, they were able to show the collimating force on
the atomic beam. Since this original demonstration of the cooling aspect of the
dipole force only few applications for trapping and cooling by the dipole force
have appeared. This is largely related to the difficulty of trapping atoms using
repulsive light-shifts of Gaussian beams. Nevertheless the ability of generating
hollow light beams promises future applications of the dissipative dipole force
for damping the radial motion of atoms in tubes of blue-detuned light.
a http://nobelprize.org/nobel prizes/physics/laureates/1997/illpres/doppler.html
−
Polarization Gradients
65
66 CHAPTER 9. POLARIZATION GRADIENTS
Both schemes require low intensity, low enough that the time for redistribution
of population among Zeeman-sublevels in the ground state is of the order of the
time the atom takes to travel the distance of about a quarter of the wavelength
of the laser light. Under such conditions very strong cooling forces appear.
In the following two chapters we derive semi-classical expressions for the friction
coefficient for both cases. We will see that under proper conditions the temper-
ature of atoms can approach the recoil energy. At this point one enters a regime
where the de-Broglie wavelength of the atom is of the order of the wavelength
of the light. At this point two wave descriptions meet and the semi-classical
treatment, in which the atomic position is precisely identified, becomes invalid.
Time Scales
The initial proposal for laser-cooling was based on the Doppler-effect. An
atom which moves at red-detuning (ωL − ω0 = δ < 0) in a standing wave
is closer to resonance with the counterpropagating wave. This wave exerts a
stronger radiation pressure and damps the atomic motion in a way as if the
atom moves in a viscous medium (optical molasses). The range of velocities
which can be captured in this process is governed by the natural width of the
excited state1
k ∆v ≈ Γ . (9.1)
Γ
kB TD = h̄ . (9.2)
2
In experiments around 1988 evidence was found that experimental temperatures
could fall well below the Doppler limit [21, 22]. For Rb, Na and Cs temperatures
were observed near the recoil energy3
h̄2 k 2
kB TR = . (9.3)
2M
In reaction to these findings two groups [39, 40] independently presented models
for new cooling mechnisms. Arguments why such low temperatures can be
reached are:
1) Friction arises for a moving atom, if the internal atomic equilibrium popu-
lation can not be established rapidly enough. With internal atomic equi-
librium we refer to the equilibrium of population in the Zeeman-sublevels,
as appropriate for the local radiation field. This process of approaching
equilibrium can be characterized by an adiabaticity-parameter, ζ, which is
1 For Rb we have ∆v = Γ/k ≈ 6·106 · 780·10−9 ≈ 5 m/s.
2 For Rb we have TD = h̄Γ/(2kB ) ≈ 2π · 10−34 · 6·106 /(2 · 1.38·10−23 ) ≈ 140 µK.
2
3 For Rb TR ≈ 2π 10−34 /(780·10−9 ) /(2 · 87·1.6·10−27 · 1.38·10−23 ) ≈ 170 nK .
67
given by ratio of the distance v τ , which the atom covers during the char-
acteristic internal relaxation time τ , and the laser wavelength, λ = 2π/k,
vτ
ζ = 2π = kvτ . (9.4)
λ
2) For a two-level system we have a single internal characteristic time, the
time for spontaneous relaxation, τ = 1/Γ. The corresponding adiabaticity
parameter is4
ζS = k v τ = k v/Γ . (9.5)
However alkali-atoms have several Zeeman substates in their ground elec-
tronic state. This means that there is an additional internal time, the time
for optical pumping from one Zeeman-sublevel, gM , into another Zeeman
sublevel, for example g−M . We call this time for optical pumping
−1
τZ = Γ0 . (9.6)
where Γ0 is the mean scattering rate of the ground state5 . The scattering
rate Γ0 depends on laser intensity and can be made very small. For an
atom with more than one ground state level we may therefore introduce
a second adiabaticity parameter,
ζZ = k v τZ = kv/ Γ0 . (9.7)
At low laser intensity, the Rabi frequency Ω1 is small compared to Γ. Then
we have an optical pumping rate, Γ0 , which can be many times smaller
than the spontaneous emission rate Γ:
Ω1 Γ → Γ0 Γ → ζZ ζS (9.8)
From this it follows that strong nonequilibrium effects may occur at speeds,
kv ≈ Γ0 , much smaller than the typical speed in the Doppler scheme,
kv ≈ Γ. We show below that the resulting non-equilibrium effects give
rise to strong friction for slow atoms.
3) The most important ingredient for this cooling scheme concerns the spa-
tial polarization gradients. Strong dissipation only appears when the
anisotropy of the ground state equilibrium configuration depends strongly
on the atom’s spatial position. The word anisotropy refers to an orienta-
tion of the ground state wavefunction.
Cooling by polarization gradients requires the presence of several Zeemann
sublevels in the ground state of the atom. In this case one needs to consider that
the Rabi frequency depends on the laser polarization and the magnetic quantum
number of the atomic state. The latter dependence is brought about by the de-
pendence of the line strength on magnetic quantum number (which is expressed
by the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients, see appendix A-3). As a consequence a spa-
tial modulation of light-shifted energies and of the atomic wavefunction results
which can lead to a sisyphus effect of dissipation.
4 For Rb the value of ζ = k v/Γ ≈ v/(5 m/s). This means that for a Rb-atom with a speed
of v=5 m/s one spontaneous emission occurs during the time the atom takes to travel one
wavelength.
5 h̄Γ0 describes the energy width of the ground state.
68 CHAPTER 9. POLARIZATION GRADIENTS
What is Orientation?
Orientation occurs when Zeeman substates with M -values of opposite sign are
not equally populated.
What is Alignment?
Alignment indicates that the Zeeman sublevels are not in equilibrium, but states
of equal values of |M | are equally populated.
M 27 .
Chapter 10
Lin-Lin Polarization
Gradients
We consider a one-dimensional molasses from two plane wave lasers at the same
frequency, ωL , with orthogonal linear polarization (lin⊥lin). The laser beams
propagate in opposite directions along the z-axis. In this case the resultant
polarization varies in space periodically from σ + to σ − to σ + . As a result we
have a spatially periodic situation where the equilibrium ground state popula-
tion changes from one where all population is pumped into the ground state
level g+M , to one where all population is transferred to g−M . The periodic
transfer of population among the M -states can lead to cooling if the differ-
ent M -state energies experience different light-shifts, in which case the spatial
gradients of the light shift exert a dipole force on the atom.
The two laser beams are assumed to have the same real amplitude, E0 , which
gives us for the superposition field of two counterpropagating waves1
~ t) = E + (z) E0 e−iωL t ,
E(z, E + (z) = ˆx eikz + ˆy e−ikz . (10.1)
giving
√
+ ˆx + ˆy ˆy − ˆx
E (z) = 2 √ cos kz − i √ sin kz (10.2)
2 2
M 28
1 A change of polarization in space will occur even if the amplitudes of the two waves are
not taken as equal. A change in polarization type in space in general always occurs when
counterpropagating light fields meet, the only exceptions being two parallel, linearly polarized
waves (lin || lin) or two equal circularly polarized waves ( σ ± ||σ ± ).
69
70 CHAPTER 10. LIN-LIN POLARIZATION GRADIENTS
0 l /8 l /4 3 l /8 l /2 5 l /8 z
% & & % L in s - L in s + L in s -
& # # &
# #
( ( g -1 /2 g + 1 /2 g -1 /2
"& $% ' & $%
• Linear polarization (at z = 0, λ/4, λ/2, . . .): The transitions from g+1/2 and
from g−1/2 have equal strength. According to Eq. (8.28) the energy shift of the
two Zeeman substates is proportional to 2/3.
10.1. SISYPHUS EFFECT 71
• Circular, σ − , (at z = λ/8, 5λ/8, . . .): The transition from g−1/2 is three
times stronger than g+1/2 . At the position of σ − -polarization the g−1/2 state is
light shifted three times more than the state g+1/2 .
• Circular, σ + , (at z = 3λ/8, 7λ/8, . . .): The transition from g+1/2 is three
times stronger than g−1/2 . At the position of σ + -polarization the light shift of
the g+1/2 state is three times stronger than that of g−1/2 .
State of the moving atom : A Sisyphus effect appears when the time
required for repumping between the two Zeeman substates, τZ , is of the order of
the time that the atom takes to move over a distance of λ/4. In this case the
atom stays in state g−1/2 and climbs up the potential hill prior to absorption of
a σ + -photon, which pumps it back into the state g+1/2 .
E n e rg y This is similar to the case in stimulated
molasses (see page 62), but here the laser
intensity is much lower and the laser is red
detuned. When cooling with polarization
gradients, the light shift ∆ is made much
smaller than Γ. Kinetic energy of the atom
is effectively transferred to potential en-
ergy of the atom, given that the time re-
quired for repumping between the Zeeman
0 l /8 l /4 3 l /8 l /2 5 l /8 z levels is chosen properly.
The atomic momentum can decrease when climbing up the potential hill be-
cause of a coherent redistribution of photons between the two counterpropagat-
ing waves. The atom absorbs photons from one wave and stimulates it into the
opposite wave. In this fashion arbitrary changes in the atomic momentum in
72 CHAPTER 10. LIN-LIN POLARIZATION GRADIENTS
F = −α · v (10.4)
k · v ≈ Γ0 = 1/τZ (10.5)
! #$ 2 5 4 2 !2 2 3 $
! ! #! %
!
"! #! $
& ' ( ) * +, -
. / 0 1 2!2 2 3 4
"$ $
"! #$
The dashed line represents the radiation pressure from the sum of the two
Doppler-shifted counterpropagating waves, Eq. (3.18). The force resulting from
the polarization gradient is given by the full line, shown in closer detail in the
inset. It is obvious that at very low speed the force increases linearly, much
steeper than the conventional Doppler-cooling (dashed line).
We may rewrite Eq. (10.8) for conditions appropriate at low laser intensity,
(Ω1 Γ). If we also demand |δ| Γ we obtain from Eq. (3.16)
Γ0 ∝ Ω21 Γ/δ 2
∆ ∝ Ω21 /δ
αZ ∝ −hk 2 · δ/Γ (10.9)
At large detuning, δ, the friction coefficient αZ is much larger than the optimal
friction coefficient for Doppler-cooling αD (see Eq. 3.29 for 2δ/Γ = −1)
αD ≈ −hk 2 . (10.10)
E + (z) = [(ˆ
X − i ˆY ) cos kz − (ˆ
Y + i ˆX ) sin kz] (10.11)
(10.11) represents any field configuration along the z-axis in terms of a su-
perposition of σ + and σ − light, each weighted by the respective trigonomet-
74 CHAPTER 10. LIN-LIN POLARIZATION GRADIENTS
2Ω21 /Γ2
2 1
U±1/2 = h̄∆± = h̄δ ± cos 2kz . (10.14)
1 + (2δ/Γ)2 3 3
With this potential energy we define the spatially dependent force for each
Zeeman component
d 2 2Ω21 /Γ2
f±1/2 = − U±1/2 = ∓ h̄kδ sin 2kz , (10.15)
dz 3 1 + (2δ/Γ)2
and a mean force
The equilibrium populations for a stationary atom are easily determined at the
special points where the polarization is either circular or linear. D&CT use opti-
cal Bloch equations to predict the z-dependence of the equilibrium populations
for a stationary atom and obtain2
2
Πstat
+1/2 = sin kz , Πstat 2
−1/2 = cos kz . (10.17)
hΩ21
kB T = , (10.19)
8|δ|
a value much smaller than the Doppler limit Eq. (3.29). For the limiting mean
|δ|
speed they predict vrms > h̄k
M Γ which is larger than the recoil speed.
2 See Eq. (4.5) to (4.14) in [39].
Chapter 11
Orientational Cooling
M 29
75
76 CHAPTER 11. ORIENTATIONAL COOLING
Jg > 1/2 and the lasers are red-detuned. This cooling mechanism is active if a
common excited state exists which is coupled by σ + −σ − light with two Zee-
man-components of the ground state. In the following example we consider the
Clebsch-Gordan coefficients for a transition Jg = 1 ↔ Je = 2. In this scheme
the common excited state is |e0 i.
I +
I -
e -2 e -1 e 0 e + 1 e + 2
1 1
A y 6 6
1 1 1
x 1 2 2 2
1 2 1
2 3
0
z
y g -1 g 0 g + 1
This state is coupled via σ + and σ − light with |g−1 i and |g+1 i. The thermal
N
(statistical) population of the Zeeman ground state levels is NM = 2J+1 , where
N is the total number of atoms and NM is the number of atoms in the level with
magnetic quantum number M . At equilibrium and without external radiation
field, the three ground-state sublevels each carry one-third of the population.
This equilibrium is modified by optical pumping.
Next we explore the fluorescence spectrum under the condition that the
laser intensity is very weak, Ω1 Γ and the detuning is large, |δ| Γ. We
expect a Raleigh line at the laser frequency ωL , corresponding to absorption and
emission back into the same Zeeman ground state. In addition we also expect a
Stokes-line at ωL + ∆0 /4 (when the atom starts in |g0 iy and emits into |g−1 iy
or |g+1 iy ) and an anti-Stokes line at ωL − ∆0 /4 (when the atom starts in |g−1 iy
or |g+1 iy and emits into |g0 iy ). At equilibrium the two side bands are of equal
strength, each side band being three times weaker than the central line.2
When the atom is at some other po-
sition along z, an identical equilib-
rium builds up, a stationary atom in
h , 1 = 34 h , 0 h , 1 = 34 h , 0
the ground state showing some align- h , 0
ment along the local polarization vec-
tor ˆY (z). As the laser intensity is con-
stant everywhere, the times it takes to g -1
y
g + 1
y
reach this equilibrium is independent
of z. What is different is that the laser g 0
y
ϕ(z) = −k z = −k v t . (11.3)
To treat this case D&CT transform into a frame centered at the atom and
rotating, such that the laser polarization in this new frame keeps the fixed
direction Y . This transformation introduces an inertial force (a pseudo force
which acts like a magnetic field along the z-axis) in form of an additional term in
the Hamiltonian, Vrot = kvJz , which couples the eigenstates |g±1 iy with |g0 iy .
This coupling is indicated in the Figure above by the thick arrows. It is pro-
portional to the atomic velocity v and involves a fictitious angular momentum,
Jz , pointing along the direction of translational motion.
When taking into account the coupling a set of new perturbed eigenstates |Gm iy
appears, which exhibit some orientation parallel to the z-axis. This oriented
ground state experiences the radiation pressure from the two laser beams dif-
2 We predict the relative strength in the spontaneous spectrum from a balance of events:
we multiply the equilibrium ground state population with the rate of excitation and multiply
it with the rate of spontaneous decay. In this way we get for the contributions to the central
9 · 2 · 2 + 4 · 1 · 1 + 4 · 1 · 1 = 6 , and for the Stokes line at ω − ∆ /4 (equivalently
line at ωL , 17 3 3 17 2 2 17 2 2 17 L 0
for anti-Stokes) 17 9 · 2 · 1+ 9 · 2 · 1 = 2 .
3 6 17 3 6 17
78 CHAPTER 11. ORIENTATIONAL COOLING
ferently. This is the actual origin for strong cooling at red detuning.
The properties of the unitary transformation operator T and its adjoint T + are
T ~
Ψ(~r) −→ Ψ0 (R)
↓ H ↓ T HT +
T ~
HΨ(~r) −→ T HT + Ψ0 (R)
∂Ψ
ih̄ = HΨ , (11.5)
∂t
by replacing Ψ with T + Ψ0
∂T + 0 ∂Ψ0 +
ih̄ Ψ + ih̄ T = HT + Ψ0 (11.6)
∂t ∂t
and applying the transformation T
∂T + ∂Ψ0
ih̄ T Ψ0 + ih̄ T T + = T HT + Ψ0 . (11.7)
∂t ∂t
Since T T + = 1 we obtain for the Schrödinger equation in the moving frame
∂Ψ0 ∂T +
T + T HT + Ψ0
ih̄ = − ih̄
∂t ∂t
Vrot + H0 Ψ0
= (11.8)
This simple result follows from an elaborate calculation [42] outlined in the box
on page 82.4 We retain only the dipole matrix element Dy . The price for this
simplicity is the additional term which appears as the first term on the right
hand side of Eq. (11.8), which D&CT refer to as inertial term. It arises because
T explicitly depends on time,
∂T + (t)
−ih̄ T (t) = kvJz = Vrot . (11.11)
∂t
In the following we consider the moving atom under quasi-stationary condi-
tions and account for the inertial term in the Hamiltonian by first-order pertur-
bation theory.
With this relationship we predict the matrix elements in the y-basis using the
expansion (11.12)-(11.14)
√
y hg+1 |Vrot |g0 iy = y hg0 |Vrot |g+1 iy = +h̄kv/ 2 (11.15)
√
y hg−1 |Vrot |g0 iy = y hg0 |Vrot |g−1 iy = −h̄kv/ 2 (11.16)
y hgm |Vrot |gm iy = 0 (11.17)
No diagonal elements of Vrot appear, hence the energy diagram of the ground
states on page 77 is not modified. Next we account for the couplings (11.15)
and (11.16) in first order perturbation theory.
4 The transformation (11.4) was chosen to accomplish such a simple result, the polarization
set-up of beams shown on page 76: σ + -light propagates along the z-axis while
the σ − -light propagates in the opposing direction. The probability that an atom
in state |g−1 iz absorbs a σ − photon is six times larger than the probability for
absorbing a σ + photon. The opposite holds for the |g+1 iz state. Since the
|g−1 iz is more strongly populated than |g+1 iz we conclude that the radiation
pressure from both beams is unbalanced: The atom scatters more photons from
the counterpropagating σ − beam than from the copropagating σ + beam. This
difference is not due to the Doppler effect but has its origin in the uneven
population of Zeeman levels of equal |m|, that is orientation. This orientation is
carried into regions of new alignment before spontaneous relaxation can achieve
equilibrium. The number unbalanced photons scattered per unit time is
Γ0
Γ0 Πz+1 − Πz−1 ∝
kv (11.24)
∆0
where Γ0 is the mean scattering rate of a ground state atom. Every σ − photon
transfers to the atom −h̄k and each σ + photon transfers +h̄k. The mean rate
of momentum transfer appears as independent of laser intensity
Γ0
F ∝ −h̄k 2 v. (11.25)
∆0
V E L O C IT Y
Near v = 0 the friction coefficient is u n it / /k
-1 1
very large. This cooling method op-
erates efficiently only at low atomic
speeds, k∆v ≈ ∆. As the speed
increases the result evolves into the
-0 .1 5
Doppler force result, Eq. (3.20), which
is shown by the dashed line.
The kinetic energy is not dissipated from the atom through a sisyphus-type ef-
fect, but rather because the atom scatters more photons from the beam counter-
propagating its motion than from the one co-propagating. At low speed it does
this much more frequently than expected from the Doppler-shift.
Considerations so far were based on a continuous energy loss, averaged over the
distance of the order of a wavelength. At temperatures well below the Doppler limit one
enters a realm where the de-Broglie wavelength is of the order of the laser wavelength.
In this case the mean energy of the atom is of the order of the recoil energy (Rb at
780 nm has TR ≈ 700 nK).
To account for the discrete momentum transfer DCT [39] carried out a full quantum
treatment at low speeds using a simplified five level W -scheme, see below. Beginning
82 CHAPTER 11. ORIENTATIONAL COOLING
e -2 e 0 e 2
Parameters:
1 1
t = 2 0 0 0 / -1
σ+ − σ−
1 1
2 2 t = 1 0 0 0 / -1
δ = −Γ
-1
t = 3 0 0 /
Ω1 = 0.2Γ
t = 0
g -1 g + 1 -5 0 h k 0 5 0 h k
VSCPT
Velocity Selective Coherent Population Trapping
All cooling mechanism discussed so far show under certain external condi-
tions (detuning, intensity, polarization) a friction term which slows the motion
of the atom. Spontaneous emission is always the reason that kinetic energy of
the atom can be removed from the atomic system. For example in the case of
sisyphus cooling: in the case of blue detuning and high intensity as well as in the
case of low intensity and red detuning it is spontaneous emission which extracts
potential energy which the atom previously gained from kinetic energy. Also in
Doppler cooling and in polarization gradient cooling with σ +−σ − light the blue
detuned spontaneous emission (relative to the absorbed photon energy) is the
origin of dissipation.
In all these laser cooling processes fluorescence never stops and as a conse-
quence the recoil energy ER should appear as an ultimate limit for cooling.
At this limiting temperature TR the
ER = kB TR = h̄2 k 2 /(2M ) (12.1) spatial extent of the atomic wavepacket
(deBroglie wavelength) is equal to the
Atom λL ER vR λdB a photon wavelength. In this situation
He 1082 ≈4 90 1082 the atom will average over effects which
Na 589 ≈1 30 589 change over the distance of a wave-
Cs 894 ≈ 0.1 3 894 length. In this case it is necessary to
nm µK mm/s nm also describe the motion of the atomic
a at v = vR
wave packet quantum mechanically.
There are however possibilities to cool below the recoil limit. In order to do
so spontaneous emission must cease. This can be achieved for certain laser-atom
combinations, for example für σ + −σ − –light and transitions between Jg = 1 →
Je = 1. In this case the rate of fluorescence of the atom can become zero, if
the atom is motionless and if the atom is given sufficient time to evolve into a
so called dark state. A dark state develops if the atom is pumped by two laser
beams into a non-absorbing superposition state of two ground state levels. In
case of VSCPT the superposition state is a combination of two ground-state
Zeeman levels with opposing linear (mechanical) momentum. This combination
is a perfect trap for atoms with v = 0, and less good so for |v| > 0 [43, 44, 45].
The VSCPT-scheme selects by itself (stochastically) atoms with velocities in the
vicinity of v = 0 and shields these from the unwelcome spontaneous emission,
for ever longer times the closer v is to zero.
83
84 CHAPTER 12. VSCPT
The enrichment of atoms in the velocity range near v = 0 has been termed
Velocity Selective Coherent Population Trapping . This enrichment de-
velops by itself in the process of the statistical distribution of recoil momenta
in spontaneous emission.
e ) > I
M L 1
M L 2 / /
@
g 2
g 1 @
e e e e - e 0 e + e = 2 3 P
-1 0 + 1 1
s + s -
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
1 1 1 0 1
2
0
2 - 2
+ 2
g = 2 3 S 1
g -1 g 0 g + 1 g - g 0 g +
1) Non-moving atom : A stationary atom sees both laser beams at the same
frequency and a coherent superposition of the states |g+1 i and |g−1 i forms which
is decoupled from |e0 i. This situation evolves when the amplitudes for excitation
from |g+1 i → |e0 i and |g−1 i→ |e0 i interfere destructively. The non-absorbing
state (the dark state) is the superposition state
1
ΨN C = √ (|g+1 i + |g−1 i) (12.2)
2
where the plus sign appears in this definition of the dark state because the re-
spective Clebsch Gordan coefficients in our example happen to have opposite
sign. The dark state is formed in the presence of the appropriate laser field. In
the absence of decoherence effects the dark state persists in this laser field, that
is the atom never reaches the excited state |e0 i. The dark state also persists
when both lasers are turned off concurrently and no external effects decohere
the dark state.
2) Atom moves along the z-axis: In this case the two-photon resonance
condition is no longer fulfilled as the Doppler effect leads to different frequencies
in the moving atomic frame. A simple argument shows that the excitation
amplitudes cannot be fully destructive in this case, only atoms with speed zero
can fulfill condition (12.2) for counter-propagating laser beams.
How can an atom reach the near-dark state condition v ≈ 0 ?
→ By chance the atom may fall into this velocity class in a spontaneous event.
0 v 0 v
12.3 Momentum-Families
We have previously always sharply defined the position of the atom, z = vt.
When the momentum uncertainty ∆p is smaller than h̄k, then the spatial co-
herence wavelength ζA = h̄/∆p exceeds the laser wavelength. In this case the
atomic wavefunction must be constructed from the product of a wavefunction
describing the internal state of the atom (discrete Hilbert space) and a second,
continuous one, which describes the translation of the atomic wavepacket.
For this we introduce basis states with quantum numbers for the internal
degrees of freedom and the translational state of the atom. In the absence of
spontaneous emission these basis states form closed families whose members are
coupled to each other by stimulated emission and absorption.
The state |e0 , pi describes an atom in the excited state with the linear mo-
mentum p along the z-direction. Due to momentum conservation this state
couples with a σ + -wave to the ground state |g−1 , p − h̄ki, as σ + light propa-
gates along the positive z-direction. This wave imparts in the atom in stimulated
emission a recoil by −h̄k, hence the change in the external state to |p − h̄ki.
On the other hand the σ − -wave couples the excited state in stimulated emission
only to the ground state |g+1 , p + h̄ki. The family of the three states
n o
F(p) = |e0 , pi, |g−1 , p − h̄ki, |g+1 , p + h̄ki (12.3)
ext int p2
HA = HA + HA = + h̄ω0 |e0 ihe0 | . (12.10)
2M
In the absence of laser-atom coupling the eigenstates of the family F(p) are
described by the Schrödinger equations
(p ± h̄k)2
HA |g±1 , p ± h̄ki = |g±1 , p ± h̄ki (12.11)
2M
p2
HA |e0 , pi = + h̄ω0 |e0 , pi . (12.12)
2M
It follows for the dark state that
(p−h̄k)2 (p+h̄k)2
1
HA |ΨN C (p)i = √ |g−1 , p−h̄ki + |g+1 , p+h̄ki (12.13)
2 2M 2M
After introducing Eq. (12.6) and (12.8) we obtain with p = M v,
2
p
HA |ΨN C (p)i = + ER |ΨN C (p)i + h̄kv |ΨC (p)i (12.14)
2M
2
p
HA | Ψ C (p) i = + ER |ΨC (p)i + h̄kv |ΨN C (p)i (12.15)
2M
HA shifts the energy of dark and bright state by p2 /2M + ER and causes a
motional coupling between bright and dark state
hΨC (p)|HA |ΨN C (p)i = h̄kv . (12.16)
of magnitude equal to the Doppler frequency shift kv times h̄.
88 CHAPTER 12. VSCPT
9 1
2 @
k p /M
/ C' / N' C
O C (p ) O 'N C (p )
−δ̄ − iΓ/2 Ω1 /2 0
Heff = h̄
Ω1 /2 0 kv (12.19)
0 kv 0
1. special case, p = 0
1
|ΨN C (p = 0)i = √ |g−1 , −h̄ki + |g+1 , h̄ki (12.20)
2
12.5. DECAY DUE TO SPONTANEOUS EMISSION 89
This state is decoupled from the two other family members of (12.18). An atom
in this state stays in this state indefinitely, a perfect trap for atoms as long the
two lasers stay turned on and there are no velocity changing collisions. We find
the decay rates of the two other states by diagonalizing
!
−δ̄ − i Γ/2 Ω1 /2
Heff (p = 0) = h̄ . (12.21)
Ω1 /2 0
The excited state emits at the rate Γ. When Ω1 Γ and Ω1 |δ̄| the complex
eigenvalue of the bright state is
2
0 (Ω1 /2)
δ̄C − i Γ0C /2 = . (12.22)
δ̄ + i Γ/2
This value tends to zero for Ω1 → 0. The imaginary part of this eigenvalue
Ω21
Γ0C = Γ , (12.23)
4δ̄ 2+ Γ2
represents the energetic width of the bright state. The bright state obtains a
finite width due to optical pumping of the magnitude Γ0C ∝ Ω21 . This width rep-
resents a contamination of |ΨC (0)i by the excited state. The real part represents
a small energy shift of magnitude
0 Ω21
δ̄C = δ̄ . (12.24)
4δ̄ 2 + Γ2
0 0 k2 v2
δN C − i ΓN C /2 = 0 − i Γ0 /2
. (12.27)
−δ̄C C
0 0 4 k2 v2 4 k2 v2
δ̄N C (p) = δ̄C 0 2 0
= δ̄ . (12.29)
4 δ̄C + ΓC 2 Ω21
90 CHAPTER 12. VSCPT
We see that the state |ΨN C (p)i is contaminated by |ΨC (p)i via the off-diagonal
coupling kv in Eq. (12.19). As a consequence even the dark state obtains a
small contamination by the excited state, the contamination diminishing as the
atomic velocity v gets smaller. By waiting long enough we automatically select
atoms which are near p = 0. These atoms appear then in a linear superposition
of the two ground states |g−1 i und |g+1 i in different motional states, p + h̄k and
p − h̄k. The residual momentum width ∆p decreases the longer we wait, the
waiting time Θ being characterized by
Θ > 1/Γ0N C (p) . (12.30)
This time describes the time the atom was allowed to develop into the dark state
in the two laser fields. Inserting (12.28) we obtain for the residual momentum
M Ω1
∆p < √ √ (12.31)
2k Γ Θ
a value not bound by the recoil momentum.
. (p -u -h k ) . (p ) . (p ) . (p -u + h k )
g -1 ,p -u -2 h k g -1 ,p -h k g -1 ,p -u g -1 ,p + h k g -1 ,p -h k g -1 ,p -u g 1 ,p + h k g -1 ,p -u + 2 h k
If the system lands in a family with smaller momentum, the atom will remain
for a longer time in this family before undergoing renewed absorption. The dis-
tribution of waiting times for an atom to absorb appears as a Lévy distribution.
-1 -1 -1 -1
P (p z) 3 = 5 0 / 3 = 1 5 0 / 3 = 4 0 0 / 3 = 1 0 0 0 /
-h k 0 + h k p z
-h k 0 + h k p z
How does the excited state know that after spontaneous emission it
should end up in either the dark or the bright state ?
It is perfectly reasonable to ask how the atom, in the above case with p near
zero, chooses to enter either the dark or the bright state. Would the foremost
decision of the atom in the excited state |e0 i not be to either radiate into state
|g−1 i or else |g+1 i? The quantum mechanical answer is into both until either the
photon emitted is detected or the ground state formed is interrogated further.
A very useful quantum-mechanical interpretation was introduced by Aspect
and Kaiser1 as briefly outlined in the following:
Spontaneous emission from state |e0 i is a measurement process with two
possible outcomes, the final state being |g−1 i or |g+1 i. This is equivalent to the
case of a spin 12 particle in a Stern-Gerlach magnet. When oriented along z the
magnet selects, with equal probability spin up | ↑iz or | ↓iz . If we carry out
an additional measurement with a second Stern-Gerlach magnet, now oriented
horizontal along x, the outcome of such a measurement will be | →ix or | ←ix ,
again with equal probability. In fact
√ √
| ↑ iz = | →ix + | ←ix / 2 | ↓iz = | →ix − | ←ix / 2,
√ √
| →ix = | ↑ iz + | ↓ iz / 2 | ←ix = | ↑ iz − | ↓ iz / 2 .
In this manner falling into the dark or bright state is the consequence of a two
stage measurement process, since equivalently
√ √
|g+1 i = |ΨN C i + |ΨC i / 2 |g−1 i = |ΨN C i − |ΨC i / 2,
√ √
|ΨN C i = |g+1 i + |g−1 i / 2 |ΨC i = |g+1 i − |g−1 i / 2 ,
the second measurement being done by the laser fields. A quantitative experi-
ment was recently made showing that the atom decides with 50 % probability
to end up in the dark state and with 50% probability in the bright state.[51]
Quantum Filtering Process, A. Aspect and R. Kaiser, Foundations in Physics 20 1413 (1990).
[50]
92 CHAPTER 12. VSCPT
Chapter 13
Evaporative Cooling
it is easy to accept that at low temperatures and at sufficiently high density ad-
jacent atoms overlap in their spatial wavefunctions and their indistinguishability
comes into play. A quantum mechanical phase-transition occurs when the mean
distance between atoms is of the order of the de-Broglie wavelength. In this sense
identical particles may occupy a coherent macroscopic quantum state. For non-
interacting particles this occurs when the product of the de-Broglie wavelength
and density exceeds the critical value
Provided all atoms occupy the same ground state we may describe the macro-
scopic wavefunction as product of single-particle wave functions. The surprising
aspect of Bose-Einstein condensation is that this phase transition occurs in the
absence of an interaction between the particles as we know it from phase transi-
tions in real gases. Interaction as it usually occurs between particles appears as
a perturbing factor. Bose-Einstein like condensation 1 can occur when a small
interaction is present between the atoms and when the mean collision rate is
small enough to avoid molecule formation in three-particle collisions. Indeed it
was believed for a long time that at sufficient high density (as required by the
critical phase density) condensation into a solid phase would occur prior to BEC.
BEC was first achieved with alkali atoms in 1995 [52, 53, 54], then with
atomic hydrogen in 1998 [55], in 2001 with He-atoms [56] then Cromium atoms
[57] and recently also with molecules such as Li2 [58]. 2
93
94 CHAPTER 13. EVAPORATIVE COOLING
Evaporative cooling does not have the temperature and density limits which
we know from laser cooling. In evaporation the high energy component of the
atoms energy distribution is selectively removed from the sample and by ther-
malization of the residual atoms a lower temperature is achieved. This method
is always connected with a substantial (> 99%) loss of atoms. The magnitude
of the elastic cross section is crucial in how fast the re-thermalization occurs.
This method is applied repeatedly and in the case of magnetic traps a runaway
condition can be achieved in the sense that the increase in atom density associ-
ated with lowering the temperature, accelerates the re-thermalization. Typical
time spans are (1 − 30 s). Longer time spans are impractical as the residual
background gas density is usually leading to heating and further loss of atoms.
The largest condensates shown today are made of about 2 × 107 atoms in the
case of sodium and by about 1 × 109 atoms in the case of atomic hydrogen.
13.2. ATOM-ATOM INTERACTIONS 95
Bosonic atoms
Atoms with integer total spin are bosons. This happens when the sum of pro-
tons, neutrons and electrons is even. With the exception of beryllium all neu-
tral elements have a bosonic member in their isotopes. Under which conditions
can we consider particles which are built from fermions as pointsize bosons ?
When the internal excitation energy is much larger than kB T then the internal
degrees of freedom are practically frozen and irrelevant for a thermodynamic
description of the particle. Bosons of one isotope may appear with different
spin structure, specifically hyperfine states with small energy differences. An
example are H(1s)-Atoms which appear in F = 1 und F = 0 total angular
momentum quantum numbers. This provides the possibility of forming BECs
of different total angular momentum components.
40 000 4000
3 +
20 000 Su 2000
energy Hcm-1 L
energy Hcm-1 L
3 +
HH1sL + HH1sL Su RbH5sL + RbH5sL
0 0
M 30
-20 000 1 + -2000
Sg 1 +
Sg M 31
-40 000 -4000
0 2 4 6 8 10 5 10 15 20 25
R HbohrL R HbohrL
Alkalis have potential energy curves that are similar to those of H2 but their
triplet form is more tightly bound and due to their higher mass their zero point
energies are much smaller. In alkali condensates the three-body recombination
Rb + Rb + Rb → Rb2 + Rb + ∆E (13.4)
limits the maximal density of the condensate and its lifetime, but not the fact
that condensation can be reached. In this sense the three-body reaction also
limits the lifetime of the condensate. The rate coefficient for reaction (13.4) is
96 CHAPTER 13. EVAPORATIVE COOLING
near 10−28 cm6 s−1 . Typical lifetimes for condensates are in the range from sec-
onds to minutes. This is basically the time that it takes at typical temperatures
(0.5-2 µK) and densities of 1014 -1015 cm−1 until the energy gain in molecule
and cluster formation leads to the evaporation of the condensate. In process
13.4 the binding energy of the molecule is released into translational energy. For
Rb2 1 Σ+
g the energy release is about 0.6 eV.
Lclass = µ b v0 . (13.5)
eikR
Ψ ∝ eikz + f (k, θ) , (13.6)
R
where f (k, θ) is the scattering amplitude. As shown in Appendix A-4 the scat-
tering amplitude is defined p in terms of the phase shifts δ` of the partial waves
of angular momentum L = `(` + 1) h̄
∞
1 X h i
f (k, θ) = (2` + 1) e2iδ` (k) − 1 P` (cos θ) (13.7)
2ik
`=0
The phase shifts result from a solution of the radial equation in the central
potential
d2
2 `(`+1) 2µ
uk,` (R) + k − + U (R) uk,` (R) = 0 (13.8)
dR2 R2 h̄2
for the amplitudes of the partial waves with the boundary condition uk,` (0) = 0.
The second term in Eq. (13.8) gives the centrifugal potential. The following
picture gives the effective potential experienced by the collision partner
`(` + 1) 2
Ueff (R) = U (R) + h̄ (13.9)
2µR2
The total elastic scattering cross section is given by the integral over the
squared scattering amplitude. In terms of the partial waves as the sum over the
contributions of all scattering phases δ` :
Z ∞ ∞
8π X
σ(k) = 2π |f (k, θ)|2 sin θ dθ = (2` + 1) sin2 δ` (k) (13.10)
0 k2
`(gerade)
The sum in (13.10) is written for identical bosons. In this case only even partial
waves contribute (a consequence of the indistinguishability of scattering angles θ
and π +θ), see Appendix A-4. The value δ` gives the phase shift √ of the scattered
wave relative to the incoming wave. The wavenumber k = 2µE/h̄ gives the
number of oscillations of the continuum function per unit length. The effective
potential is specific for each partial wave and so is each phase shift. We may
accept from the above picture that at low temperature3 the higher partial waves
do not feel the molecular potential, they are reflected at the long range repulsive
wall of the effective potential which is barely modified by molecular forces. At
low temperature the contribution from s-wave scattering dominates (` = 0). In
this case the total cross section is
8π
σ0 (k) = sin2 δ0 (k) . (13.11)
k2
To illustrate the meaning of the phase shift we show in the following numer-
ical solutions of the radial Schrödinger equation for a potential energy curve
of 87 Rb2 . At the left solutions for bound states are shown (E < 0). These
states correspond to vibrational states of the Rb2 -molecule.4 The right picture
shows examples for continuum wavefunctions (E > 0) for the triplet ground state
87
Rb(5s)+87 Rb(5s). At large distances the continuum wavefunctions appear as
sin(kR + δ), a wave shifted by δ.
20
0 16
15
3
10
GHz 6 MHz 8
5
9 4
2
1
12 0
100 200 300 400 500 100 200 300 400 500
R bohr R bohr
12
20
∆0 k
10 15
10
MHz 8 MHz
5
6
0
We see at the right picture that the scattering length is about a0 = +90 bohr.
The potential pushes the wave from the origin. For positive scattering lengths
the potential appears repulsive.
There is also the case of a negative scattering length. The exact magnitude
and sign of the scattering length depends on the location of the highest bound
state. If the highest bound state is just below the dissociation limit (E = 0), the
scattering length is positive and the potential acts repulsive for low energy par-
ticles. If however an additional bound state would just fit into the bound region,
if the potential minimum was slightly more attractive, the scattering length is
negative and the potential appears attractive. If the last bound state5 is exactly
5 The location of the last bound state in the potential depends on the area suspended by
13.3. COLLISIONS OF COLD ATOMS 99
at the limit, then the scattering phase is δ = π/2 and the scattering length is
a0 → −∞. When a bound resonance passes through E = 0 the phase shift jumps
by π and the scattering length jumps from −∞ to +∞.
With the definition (13.14) the total cross section for s-wave scattering
σ0 = 8πa20 . (13.15)
87
The cross section for Rb-atom is about
σ0 = 8π 902 = 2 × 105 bohr2 = 5 × 10−12 cm2 (13.16)
This cross section determines the rate of thermalization of cold atoms
Rtherm = N v̄ σ0 (13.17)
At a density of N = 1012 cm3 the rate is
Rtherm ≈ 5 × 10−12 3 × 101 × 1012 = 15 s−1 (13.18)
To calculate the rate at room temperature at least all partial waves for which
the maximum in the effective potential is below the collision energy E have to
be included. For U (R) = −C6 /R6 the maximum in the effective potential is
mF where −F ≤ mF ≤ F .
Requirement for trapping in static magnetic fields is the presence of a local mini-
mum of the potential energy (13.26). The so called weak-field seeking states (the
states for which gF mF > 0) are accelerated towards the minimum of potential
energy. On the other hand the strong-field seeking states (gF mF < 0) are accel-
erated towards the maximal potential energy. In the case of static fields there
is no maximum of B in free space. Hence strong-field seeking states cannot be
trapped in static magnetic fields.
An atom moving in an inhomogeneous ' $ % ( #
- . / 01 2 345 6 7 8
$
&! " "
the direction of the field vector changes
' % &#
is small compared to the classical rate
$
dθ gF µB |B|
< ωLarmor =
$ % ) ' % "
$
) * + ,- . /01 2 3 4
ter, (B0 6= 0). Now atoms in the & ! " # &
Ti Tf Ti
Ecut
fE fE fE
E E E
rf-evaporation : A Zeeman transition can be induced by an external rf-field
of suitable frequency. In this way a transition from a trapped state into an un-
trapped state may occur. The spatial dependence of resonance energy for such
transitions is governed by the Zeemann-effect. Therefore the choice of frequency
governs the height of the potential barrier above which atoms are transferred
from bound to unbound states. The rf-knife selectively removes the hottest
atoms, see black arrows in the picture on page 102. The radial coordinate for
the resonance condition is given by
can be selectively removed. The energy h̄ω0 corresponds to the energy sepa-
ration of Zeeman-components at the trap center, the position of the minimum
magnetic field.7 By reducing the rf-frequency ωrf with time one may lower the
height of the barrier without changing the form of the magnetic trap potential.
The deviation from the linear Zee-
man Effect (dashed lines in figure 9 ) : ;
( ) *+ , -./ !
on page 102) plays a significant role.
9 ) : <
Due to the interaction of states with ' "
#
equal quantum number mF which $
% , / 6> ?
9 ) : 0
is indicated in the figure [67]. Here the atom is pumped again (by the same
frequency field at position C and again at D until the atom leaves the trapping
areas along the energy curve of mF = −1.
Evaporation is effective in cooling if thermalization of the remaining atoms
leads to lower temperature. From Monte-Carlo simulations one has learned how
to optimize this process [68]. An rf-induced cooling scheme was also attempted
in an optical dipole trap but with only poor results [69]. More successful is
evaporation by successive lowering of the trap barrier of the dipole potential
[70, 71, 72].
Sideband Cooling
This concept originated in experiments with trapped ions [78] and was further
developed by the groups of C. Salomon in Paris [79], and S. Chu in Stanford [80].
If atoms (ions) are trapped in an external potential, approximated by a harmonic
potential with eigenfrequency ωHO and the width of the excited state is smaller
than the energy gap h̄ωHO , then sidebands can be resolved in the excitation
spectrum, corresponding to electronic transitions with concurrent change in
vibrational quantum number v.
E E E
x x x
105
106 CHAPTER 14. SIDEBAND COOLING
At small values of η the transition back into the electronic ground state is most
probably diagonal (with no change in vibrational quantum number)
In this fashion one may reduce the vibrational energy by one. A cooling limit
appears from non-resonant transitions
|g, vi + h̄(ω0 − ωHO ) → |e, vi (14.5)
|g, vi + h̄(ω0 − ωHO ) → |e, v + 1i (14.6)
which may lead to heating. At high laser intensity such transitions are difficult
to suppress unless Γ ωv . The concept of EIT cooling, introduced by Morigi
in 2000 [82] circumvents this problem and was successfully demonstrated in the
laboratory [83] for ions, but not yet for neutral atoms.
h̄2 K 2 h̄2 K 0 2
Ee + = Eg + + h̄ω (14.9)
2M 2M
and due to momentum conservation
h̄K ~ 0 + h̄~k
~ = h̄K (14.10)
14.1. LAMB-DICKE PARAMETER 107
~ 0 = −~k.
~ = 0 and hence K
In the center of mass frame of the atom we have K
Then the photon’s energy is
where
h̄2 k 2 h̄2 ω 2
Erec = = . (14.12)
2M 2M c2
Since h̄ω M c2 the recoil term leads to a change of wavelength from the reso-
nance wavelength by a tiny amount which is usually neglected. In this case we
have h̄ω ≈ h̄ω0 = Ee −Eg , consistent with the assumption M = ∞.
~
In a reference frame which moves with the speed of the atom ~v = h̄K/M we
have from (14.9) and (14.10)
In these considerations we have assumed that the center of mass of the atom
is free to move in space. If the atom is trapped in an external potential then
relation (14.10) is no longer valid and we have instead of (14.9)
(i) (f )
Ee + Ecm = Eg + Ecm + h̄ω (14.14)
()
where Ecm is the translational energy of the center-of-mass motion before and
(i) (f )
after the spontaneous event. Under certain circumstances we have Ecm = Ecm .
In this case the photon appears at the frequency ω0 and no recoil and no Doppler
effect appears.
Such a situation occurs when an atom is firmly trapped in a crystalline
matrix and the phonon energy in the crystal is larger than the recoil energy
(Mößbauer effect). It also appears when the mean free path of the atom is
smaller than the wavelength of the emitted light, for example when an atom is
trapped in an external potential of suitable dimensions or when a molecule/atom
is embedded in a high pressure gas. In the latter case this effect was first ob-
served by Dicke [84]. Dicke observed a narrowing of vibrational lines of molecules
for which the vibrational frequency is much smaller than the frequency of colli-
sions with gas atoms, an effect which is known as the Dicke-effect.
Here |ii describes the internal state and |χn i the external motion of the center-
of-mass. The vibrational states, |χn i are at the energy En . Initially our atom
is in the electronic ground state, |gi in the vibrational level |χn i
After absorbing one photon we find the atom in the excited state |ei in the
vibrational state |χm i
Now we explore the probability that the vibrational state of the atom changes
in such a transition. We characterize the electronic interaction by the Rabi
frequency Ω1 and explicitly account for the spatial variation of the light field
h̄ ~
H1 = − Ω1 eik·~x (|eihg| + |gihe|) (14.18)
2
Applied to our product state we have
h̄ ~
hφf |H1 |φi i = − Ω1 hχm | eik·~x |χn i (14.19)
2
a product of an electronic transition matrix element and an element which
describes the change in vibrational motion. The expression
~
hχm | eik·~x |χn i = F (n, m, η) (14.20)
and recall that the HO may be described in ladder operators. The reduced
spatial variable of the HO is
r
M ωHO 1
x = √ a† + a ,
X̂ = (14.22)
h̄ 2
Combining (14.21) and (14.22) we write for the Frank-Condon factor
~ †
hχm | eik·~x |χn i = hχm | eiη(a +a)
|χn i (14.23)
where for simplicity we have assumed ~k || ~x). For small values of η we may
expand the exponential function
†
eiη(a +a)
≈ 1 + iη a† + a + ...
(14.24)
and see that in the limit η → 0 due to the orthogonality of the vibrational
wavefunctions χ only diagonal transitions (m = n) will occur. In this case the
atom is firmly trapped and cannot absorb any recoil energy. In fact the entire
trap takes up the recoil energy, analogous to the Mößbauer effect.
At low values of η sidebands appear, m = n ± 1 weighted with a probability
of about η 2 .
14.2. DEGENERATE RAMAN SIDEBAND COOLING 109
1 In this 1D lattice the authors trapped a total of 107 atoms in a cigar-shaped cloud with a
vertical FWHM of 2.5 mm. This length corresponds to 4700 individual pancake shaped traps
each with an aspect ratio of 1000, spaced by 532 nm. The vertical density distribution is
approximately Gaussian, yielding a population of ≈2000 atoms per trap in the central region.
110 CHAPTER 14. SIDEBAND COOLING
We consider a system containing a ground state |gi, an excited state |ei and
a third state |ri. The excited state has the natural width Γ and transitions
from it to |gi and |ri are dipole allowed. We now pump |ri → |ei with a strong
and blue detuned coupling laser at ωr = ωre + δr and observe the absorption
spectrum on the transition |gi → |ei at the frequency ωg = ωge + δg .
are defined via the mixing angle 2θ = arctan Ωr /δr . When Ωr is chosen small
compared to δr , the state |+i contains only a weak admixture of |ei and a width
Γ0 Γ. The weak cooling laser observes these light shifted states and sees the
absorption spectrum indicated in the figure above. Two states at the energies
h̄ωge − ∆ and h̄ωge + δr + ∆ appear with substantially different widths.
Im@ Ρ3,2 D
Im@ Ρ3,2 D
0.002 Wg =0.02
∆r =1
0.002 Wg =0.02
∆r =10
0.002 Wg =0.02
∆r =25
sees a Fano-like pro-
0.001 0.001 0.001
0.000 0.000 0.000
file. A broad absorp-
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
detuning ∆g HMHzL detuning ∆g HMHzL detuning ∆g HMHzL
tion peak appears near
resonance δg ≈ 0 with a
0.03 Wr =2.8 0.03 Wr =6.5 0.03 Wr =10
width ≈ Γ and a very
Im@ Ρ3,2 D
Im@ Ρ3,2 D
Im@ Ρ3,2 D
M 34 0.01
∆r =1
0.01
∆r =10
0.01
∆r =25
narrow resonance, near
0.00 0.00 0.00
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
detuning ∆g HMHzL
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
detuning ∆g HMHzL
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
detuning ∆g HMHzL
δg ≈ δr with a width
Γ0 Γ. The narrow
0.03 0.03 0.03
peak mirrors the small
Im@ Ρ3,2 D
Im@ Ρ3,2 D
Im@ Ρ3,2 D
The top row shows the development of the Autler-Townes profile with in-
creasing blue detuning at constant intensity of the coupling laser Ωr = 1 MHz.
The center row shows spectra where the intensity is chosen such that the dis-
tance between the absorption zero and the blue detuned narrow peak is exactly
14.3. EIT COOLING 111
1 MHz. The required value of Ωr increases from 2.8 to 10 MHz. The bottom
row gives a close-up near the absorption zero.
We now introduce the translational motion of our atom in an external po-
tential by a vibrational quantum number v. We assume that the vibrational
spacings are identical for the three electronic states and are given by the har-
monic oscillator energy h̄ωHO . This is a good assumption for trapped ions where
the trap potential derives from the electric charge. This is not a good assump-
tion for neutral atoms in an optical dipole trap where the trap potential derives
from the polarizability of the electronic state.
For trapped ions typical eigenfrequencies are of the order of ωHO = 2π MHz.
This may be compared to Γ = 2π × 5 MHz.
When including the translational motion the EIT spectra shown above are
appropriate for diagonal vibrational transitions v → v 0 . For off-diagonal transi-
tions v → v 0 ±∆v the effective detuning of the cooling laser is δgeff → δg ∓∆v ωHO .
This is shown in the figure for ∆v = +1, 0, −1 where the detuning of the cou-
pling laser was chosen δr = +25 MHz.
v v 1
Χg
The probability for transitions with ∆v 6= 0
is controlled pby the Lamb-Dicke parameter
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
η = |~kg − ~kr | hx2 iwhere hx2 i = h̄/(M ωHO ) is
∆eff
g MHz
the size of the HO ground state wavefunction and
~kg (~kr ) are the wave vectors for the cooling and
coupling lasers. For small values of η the only
v v significant off-diagonal transitions are ∆v = ±1.
Χg
Appendices
UHxL
M 35
E0
x
-a 0 +a
vibrational states in which NH3 can be realized (as a molecule with n=4 atoms there are
(3n-6)=6 vibrational normal modes), the rotational levels ought to be taken into account... .
113
114 AMMONIA MOLECULE and MASER
rate of tunneling being given by the rate of vibration in each well (that is the
eigenfrequency of the HO, ω) multiplied with the transmission probability2 , T ,
h 2√2m Z x2 p i
Rt = ωT with T ∝ exp − U (x) − E0 dx (A-1.1)
h̄ x1
where m is the mass of the nitrogen atom, E0 is the energy of the vibrational
ground-state level and U (x) is the potential energy curve describing the double
minimum potential. If we identify ΨL and ΨR with the solutions of H0 and the
coupling energy h̄Rt with the perturbation W, with W = h̄Rt , we find for the
perturbed wavefunctions (mixing angle β = π/4)
1
|ψA i = √ |ΨL i − |ΨR i
2
1
|ψS i = √ |ΨL i + |ΨR i
2
which are named symmetric and antisymmetric for obvious reason.
-a 0 +a
In the perturbed basis, |ψS i, |ψA i , we now have a diagonal (unperturbed)
Hamiltonian
E0 + W 0
H= . (A-1.3)
0 E0 − W
In the following we explore the action of an external electric field on this system
and attempt to explain the principle of the ammonia maser.
In the classical configuration our ammonia molecule has a dipole moment d~0 .
In the presence of an electric field E~ the classical potential energy is −d~0 · E~ .
For simplicity we assume the external electric field to point along the ~x-axis.
With the interaction η = |d~0 · E|
~ our Hamiltonian is
E0 + W η
H= . (A-1.4)
η E0 − W
p
Solutions are E± = E0 ± W 2 + η 2 with the wavefunctions
|ψ+ i = sin β |ψS i + cos β |ψA i
|ψ− i = cos β |ψS i − sin β |ψA i , (A-1.5)
2 The so-called Gamov-factor.
APPENDIX 115
d2 E 2
E± ≈ E0 ± W + 0 . (A-1.6)
2W
Energy Harb.unitsL
nia molecules are either strong- ÈΨA \
field seeking, |ψ− i, or weak-field EA
seeking, |ψ+ i. Thus we may
ES M 37
separate molecules in the upper ÈΨS \
state from those in the lower state ÈΨ- \ ÈΨR \
with the help of an inhomoge-
neous electric field. 0 2 4 6 8 10
Electric Field Strength HkVcmL
At the end of the field region these molecules adiabatically return to |ψA i and
are guided into a resonator optimized for 24 GHz. In this way one achieves
inversion in the two-level system. After the resonator is filled with a few spon-
taneous photons formed in the transition |ψA i → |ψS i, the electromagnetic
field inside the resonator is amplified by stimulated emission from subsequent
molecules and the resonator turns into a source of microwave radiation at 24
GHz. This radiation can be extracted with a suitable antenna.
U and V are the real and the imaginary parts of the coherence, W is the
population inversion
W
We now define the additional vector
~ = (−Ω1 , 0, −δ)
Ω (A-2.4)
atom stays either in its ground or in its excited state. A so called π-pulse at
resonance (δ = 0) transfers the entire population from the ground state to the
excited state (left figure), or else back from the excited to the ground state. In
the non-resonant case (right figure) the excited state is only partially populated.
The path of the Bloch vector and the Ω-vector are shown in blue.
W W
-V -V
M 39
W
-U -U
For δ = 0 the equations (A-2.3) have exact solutions for arbitrary pulse shapes
U (t, δ = 0) = 0 (A-2.7)
2 V (t, δ = 0) = + sin θ(t) (A-2.8)
2 W (t, δ = 0) = − cos θ(t) (A-2.9)
with the definition of the angle
Z t
θ(t) = dt0 Ω1 (t0 ) . (A-2.10)
−∞
The angle θ(t) is referred to as the pulse area. In case the pulse area is equal to
π the population is inverted (δ = 0 is assumed). In case the pulse area is equal
to 2π the population is brought back entirely to its initial state.
W W
-V -V
W -U W -U
This figure shows the action of the After excitation the system decays
pump pulse. The path of the Bloch back into the ground state along the
vector is shown blue. The pulse trans- red path. The radius of the spiral di-
fers population from the ground state minishes with time, a sign of loss of
to a value slightly below the maximal coherence. The inversion finally drops
inversion possible at this detuning. to zero, W = −1/2.
Now the excitation field is turned on at t=0
and stays on indefinitely. Parameters are W
Ω1 = 1, δ = 0.2, and Γ = 0.2. The length
of the torque vector is shown reduced by a
factor of 2. The population of the excited
state initially oscillates, but eventually settles
to a value slightly below 1/2, W (t → ∞) < 0. -V
Note that a small coherence remains at long
times, corresponding to the competition be- W -U
tween the coherent driving and the stochas-
tic spontaneous emission (compare with the
Monte-Carlo result for many atoms, page 32).
Note that the stationary point to which the system converges for t → ∞ should
agree with the stationary solution predicted by Equations (7.42) and (7.43):
Ω21 1
ρee = = = 0.4545 (A-2.14)
4δ 2 + Γ2 + 2Ω21 0.16 + 0.04 + 2
and
2Ω1 (δ − i Γ/2) 0.4 − 0.2 i
ρ̃eg = − =− = −0.18 + 0.09 i (A-2.15)
4δ 2 + Γ2 + 2Ω21 2.2
The stationary result for the Bloch vector is {U = −0.18, V = 0.09, W = −0.045}.
This agrees with the numerical solution of Eq. (A-2.11)-(A-2.13), visible as the
endpoint of the blue spiral in the figure above.
APPENDIX 119
ω03 ~ 0 j1 m1 i |2 dΩ
dWρ (γJM ; γ 0 j1 m1 ) = | ˆρ hγJM |D|γ (A-3.6)
hc3
where D ~ is the electric dipole moment, ˆρ the polarization vector and γ char-
acterizes the electronic state. Integration over all space and summation over
the possible polarizations and possible m-values gives for W the Einstein A-
coefficient.
ˆ 0 = ˆz
1
ˆ±1 = ∓ √ (ˆx ± iˆ
y )
2
~ is represented by4
In the spherical basis the operator D
D0 = Dz
1
D±1 = ∓ √ (Dx ± iDy ) (A-3.7)
2
The advantage lies in the simplicity with which a general matrix elements of
the vector operator can be developed. With the abbreviation q = −1, 0, 1 we
express the product
X
~ = D cos θ ~ =
ˆρ · D ∗q Dq (A-3.8)
ˆD
q
and hence
X
~ 0 j1 m1 i =
ˆρ hγJM |D|γ ∗q hγJM |Dq |γ 0 j1 m1 i (A-3.9)
q
where q and Dq are the spherical components of the vectors r and D. This
matrix element can now be separated into two parts. One expression stands
for the geometry, symmetry and selection rules of the system, a second for the
electron dynamics. This separation is the essence of the Wigner-Eckart theorem
according to which
J 1 j1
hγJM |Dq |γ 0 j1 m1 i = (−1)J−M (γJ||D||γ 0 j1 )
−M q m1 | {z }
J 1 j1
= (−1)J−M D (A-3.10)
−M q m1
4 With ~ = e~
D r expression (A-3.7) is proportional to spherical harmonics Y`m :
p p
D 0 = 4π/3 |~r| Y10 und D±1 = 4π/3 |~ r| Y1±1
APPENDIX 121
The reduced dipole matrix element D contains only electronic properties of the
system. All angular dependent terms enter in the pre-factor and the 3j-symbol.
Also the selection rules for electric dipole radiation follow from the properties
of the 3j-symbols. We have ∆M = −1, 0, +1, corresponding to q = −1, 0, 1 as
well as ∆J = 0, ±1.
In this case right- (∆M = +1) and left- (∆M = −1) circularly polarized light
is observed. These components are abbreviated as σ + and σ − . Their intensity
is proportional to the square of the 3j-symbols.
2
J 1 j1
∆M = +1 , dW ∝ dΩ (A-3.13)
−M 1 M − 1
2
J 1 j1
∆M = −1 , dW ∝ dΩ (A-3.14)
−M −1 M + 1
% & & %
& # # &
# #
Lklass = µ b v0 = b p . (A-4.1)
Here v0 is the relative speed and p the relative momentum of the particles.
Classically the impact parameter b can change continuously, as can Lklass . In
quantum mechanics we demand that the angular momentum is an integer mul-
tiple of h̄, L = h̄`. With the de-Broglie wavelength λ and the wavenumber
(momentum) for the relative motion k = 2π/λ we may define a transition from
the classical to the quantum picture
At a fixed momentum the impact parameter can only change in discrete units,
a consequence of the uncertainty relation.5
In quantum mechanics we describe the incoming particle as a plane wave,
along the z-direction. The scattering center is at the origin and R gives the
distance from the origin, z = R cos θ. A plane wave can be expanded in terms
of an infinite number of spherical waves
~
X
eik ·~r = eikR cos θ = i` (2` + 1) j` (kR) P` (cos θ) (A-4.3)
`
where the radial functions j` (kR) are spherical Bessel functions and the angular
term are Legendre polynomials. Below we show the real part of Eq. (A-4.3)
for various values of the maximum ` included in the sum against two spatial
coordinates. The wave vector is taken as k = 2π.
.
M 41
5 We consider two Rb atoms which collide with a relative speed of 1 cm/s (the temperature
equivalent is 263 nK). The corresponding de-Broglie wavelength is 72 nm and the wavenumber
is 8.7×107 m−1 . For ` = 1 we obtain b = 11 nm. In words: for classical impact parameters
b < 11 nm is the angular momentum zero!
124 PARTIAL WAVE EXPANSION
~ eikR
Ψ ∝ eik ·~r + f (θ, φ) (A-4.4)
R
where f (θ, φ) is the scattering amplitude. The sum of squares of the scattering
amplitude defines the total elastic scattering cross section
Z
σ= dΩ |f (θ, φ)|2 (A-4.5)
For elastic scattering the energy of the wave does not change and the scattering
amplitude is determined by the Schrödinger equation
h̄2
− ∆ + U (R) ~ Ψk (R) ~ = Ek Ψk (R)
~ (A-4.6)
2µ
Here the kinetic energy is Ek = h̄2 k 2 /(2µ) = 12 µv02 . For a central potential the
angular momentum is conserved and an expansion of Ψk (R) ~ in terms of partial
waves is possible, such that each scattered angular momentum component can
be compared with the incoming term from the plane wave expansion.
∞
X u` (kR)
Ψk (R, θ) = P` (cos θ) (A-4.7)
R
`=0
d2
2 `(`+1) 2µ
u` (kR) + k − + 2 U (R) u` (kR) = 0 . (A-4.8)
dR2 R2 h̄
M 42
Examples of Abs[Ψk, (R, θ)] are shown for δ` =0 with k = 2π. Contours
are given for values Abs[Ψk, (R, θ)] equal to 0.1 and 1. The effect of the
phase shift δ on Abs[Ψk, (R, θ = 0)] for ` = 0 is shown below.
1 1 1
Π Π
ÈYk HR,Θ=0LÈ
ÈYk HR,Θ=0LÈ
ÈYk HR,Θ=0LÈ
∆=0 ∆= ∆=
4 2
0 0 0
0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2
R R R
By comparing the coefficients of Eq. (A-4.10) with Eq. (A-4.4) we obtain for
the scattering amplitude
∞
1 X h i
f (θ, φ) = f (θ) = (2` + 1) e2iδ` (k) − 1 P` (cos θ) . (A-4.11)
2ik
`=0
We see that contributions with zero phase shift (or of multiples of π) do not
contribute to the scattering amplitude. To determine the cross section we need
to evaluate the scattering phase shifts from the radial equations with the bound-
ary conditions from Eq. (A-4.10) and u` (R = 0) = 0. Introducing (A-4.11) in
(A-4.5) one obtains for the elastic cross section
4π X
σ= (2` + 1) sin2 δ` (k) . (A-4.12)
k2
`
˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜
For identical particles scattering by
angles of θ and π + θ cannot be dis-
!" # !$ #
tinguished. A consequence is that
!" # !" #
for identical bosons
Z !$ # !$ #
σ= dΩ |f (θ) + f (π + θ)|2 !$ #
% #
!" #
& #
and that partial waves of odd parity do not contribute to scattering of identical
bosons. The total cross section for identical bosons appears as
8π X
σ= (2` + 1) sin2 δ` (k) . (A-4.13)
k2
`(even)
126 ROTATION OF BASIS
∂ 1 ∂2
|φ0 i = |φ0 i + (−φ) |φ0 i + (−φ)2 2 |φ0 i + . . . (A-5.2)
∂φ 2! ∂φ
The minus sign expresses the fact that for a positive rotation of the coordinates
we examine the portion of the function |φ0 i at negative angles. This series
expansion corresponds to the exponential form
∂ i
|φ0 i = exp −φ |φ0 i = exp − φJz |φ0 i (A-5.3)
∂φ h̄
The z-component of the angular momentum operator is the generating function
of an infinitesimal rotation around the z-axis. For an arbitrary rotation around
an axis n̂ we have
i ~
Rn (α) = exp − αJ · n̂ , (A-5.4)
h̄
where J~ · n̂ = −ih̄ ∂α
∂
. In the following we suppress h̄.
3
z
M 43
O
X
. y
?
.
Y N
x
This expression is difficult to handle as we need to define new axes. Euler angles
are distinguished in that the rotation (A-5.5) is equivalent to
In the old co-oordinate system the new z-axis has the polar angles (θ, φ).
The rotated state has in general no well defined projection of M . The amplitudes
J
of the rotation matrix DM 0 M (φ, θ, χ) weigh the contributions of unrotated kets
0
|JM iZ in a state of the new basis |JM iz . We obtain the expansion coefficients
(the full rotation matrix, in German: Kreiselfunktionen) with the help of Eq. (A-
5.6)
J 0
DM 0 M (φ, θ, χ) = Z hJM |R(φ, θ, χ)|JM iZ
0
= Z hJM |e−iφJZ e−iθJY e−iχJZ |JM iZ . (A-5.8)
The factorization into individual rotations by the Euler angles leads to simplified
expressions. Since M (and M 0 ) are eigenvalues of JZ , the first and last term in
Eq. (A-5.8) can be expressed in simple exponential functions
X 1
e−iαJZ |JM i = (−iα)ν (JZ )ν |JM i
ν
ν!
X 1
= (−iαM )ν |JM i
ν
ν!
= e−iαM |JM i
128 ROTATION OF BASIS
As a result we obtain
J
DM 0 M (φ, θ, χ) = hJM 0 |e−iφJZ e−iθJY |JM i e−iχM
0
= e−iφM hJM 0 |e−iθJY |JM i e−iχM
0
= e−iφM dJM 0 ,M (θ) e−iχM (A-5.9)
More problematic is the evaluation of the reduced rotation matrix
dJM 0 ,M (θ) = hJM 0 |e−iθJY |JM i , (A-5.10)
Wigner succeeded first in calculating this real matrix (pages 84-87 in [41]).
For the example J = 1 one obtains (page 89 of [90])
# #
" ) " ))
" ! ) # )) # )))
When we rotate the quantization axis (z-axis) by an angle of 90o around the
x-axis into the y-axis, then this is equivalent to the rotation by the Euler angles
M0
X 0
= e−iχM dJM 0 ,M (θ) e−iφM |gM 0 iz (A-5.13)
M0
X π 0
= e+iM π/2 1
dM 0M e−iM π/2
|gM 0 iz . (A-5.14)
2
M0
where P is the polarization density. For the field and polarization we write
1h i
E = E0 e−i(ωt−kz) + E0? ei(ωt−kz)
2
1h i
P = P0 e−i(ωt−kz) + P0? ei(ωt−kz) (A-6.2)
2
where ω and k = ω/c are the frequency and wave number of the field, respec-
tively. In terms of the new variables
Assuming that the amplitudes E0 and P0 vary slowly in time and space
we neglect all but the lowest non-vanishing order on each side of (A-6.6) and
obtain
∂ iω
E0 = P0 . (A-6.7)
∂z 20 c
130 Slowly varying amplitude approximation
P0 = 0 χ E0 (A-6.8)
∂ ω
E0 = ( i χ0 − χ00 ) E0 . (A-6.9)
∂z 2c
The real part χ0 determines the shift of the phase front of the wave and the
imaginary part χ00 describes absorption. If we introduce the refractive index
1
nr = 1 + χ0 (A-6.10)
2
and the absorption coefficient
ω 00
α= χ (A-6.11)
c
we obtain the wave equation in the slowly-varying amplitude approximation
∂ ω h αi
E0 = i k(nr − 1) − E0 . (A-6.12)
∂z 2c 2
At low light level the dependence of nr and α on the field intensity can be
neglected and the solution for the field envelope is
with the complex amplitude A = |A|eiφ . With the definition of the field as
1h i
E= E0 e−i(ωt−kz) + E0? ei(ωt−kz) (A-6.14)
2
we obtain for the field in the presence of a medium, characterized by nr and α
1.0 1.0
0.8 W = 0.4 0.8 v=1
0.6 0.6 2
P12 P12
0.4 0.2 0.4 4
0.2 0.1 0.2
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
speed of crossing v interaction energy W
At very low speeds the energy uncertainty is small and the system chooses the
adiabatic path, P12 → 1. At high speeds the systems tends to diabatic passage.
Parameters: h̄ = 1, ∆f = 1.
132 LANDAU-ZENER
Output coupler for the atom laser : In the atom laser [96] a mirror
equivalent for coupling out a portion of the condensate into the continuum
is used which is based on a dynamic transition across a LZ crossing. The
condensate which we call state |1i is in a magnetic bottle. The continuum
is state |2i and RF pumping connects the two states. At a specific distance
from the trap center the energy gap between the trapped Zeeman state and
the continuum Zeeman state is E0 . If we irradiate the system with the radio
frequency ωRF = E0 /h̄ with a Rabi frequency Ω1 = |d12 |E0RF /h̄ over a time
period τ a superposition state forms between the bound and the continuum
state according to Eq. (5.31) and (5.32)
Here Ω1 τ is the pulse area from Eq. (A-2.10). To control the strength of cou-
pling the authors use an RF signal which changes in frequency with time. In
the frame of dressed states we have a curve crossing at a fixed position in space
between the bound state |1i an the continuum state dressed with one photon
|2i + h̄ωRF (t). The curves cross at a time when E0 = h̄ωRF (t).
In the atom laser experiment we have the following equivalences with respect
to the LZ picture introduced above x ≡ t, ∆f v ≡ dωRF /dt and W ≡ Ω1 .
Images of coherent atom beams (pulsed and CW) are shown below [97].
APPENDIX 133
Without external field the sole interaction term for hyperfine structure is the
contact term, which accounts for the fact that the magnetic field inside the
nucleus is different from that outside:
Whf = A I · S (A-8.2)
F=I+S (A-8.3)
and introduce the basis functions |I = 3/2, S = 1/2; F, MF i The possible values
for the total angular momentum in this case are F = 1 und F = 2. In this case
we may rewrite Eq. (A-8.2) as
1
A F2 − I2 − S2
AI · S = (A-8.4)
2
The eigenvalues of the I · S operator in the |F, MF i basis are
Ah̄2
A I · S |F, MF i = [F (F + 1) − I(I + 1) − S(S + 1)] |F, MF i . (A-8.5)
2
where we use the quantum numbers F, I, and S. From this equation we obtain
the following energy corrections due to the contact term Eq. (A-8.2)
Ah̄2 3
+ for F = 2 , MF = 0, ±1, ±2
2 2
Ah̄2 5
− for F = 1 , MF = 0, ±1 . (A-8.6)
2 2
The degeneracy of the 5s-level is thus removed: we obtain a threefold generate
level F = 1 and a five-fold degenerate level F = 2. The experimental hyperfine
splitting of the 5s-level in 87 Rb is [98]
W = A I · S + 2ω0 Sz + ωn Iz (A-8.11)
W1 = A Iz Sz + 2ω0 Sz + ωn Iz (A-8.12)
and
1
W2 = A (I+ S− + I− S+ ) (A-8.13)
2
where we have as usual
I± = Ix ± i Iy and S± = Sx ± i Sy (A-8.14)
Table 15.1: Energy matrix for coupled spin 1/2 + spin 3/2 states in a magnetic field.
1 3
ms mI 2
+ 2
− 21 + 3
2
1
2
+ 1
2
− 12 + 1
2
− 12 − 1
2
1
2
− 1
2
1
2
− 3
2
− 12 − 3
2
1 3 3A
2
+ 2 4
+ ω0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
√
− 12 + 3
2
0 − 3A
4
− ω0 3 A/2 0 0 0 0 0
1 1
√ A
2
+ 2
0 3 A/2 4
+ ω0 0 0 0 0 0
− 12 + 1
2
0 0 0 −A
4
− ω0 0 A 0 0
A
√
− 12 − 1
2
0 0 0 0 4
− ω0 0 3 A/2 0
1
2
− 1
2
0 0 0 A 0 −A
4
+ ω0 0 0
1 3
√
2
− 2
0 0 0 0 3 A/2 0 − 3A
4
+ ω0 0
− 12 − 3
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3A
4
− ω0
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
The linear Zeeman effect
MHz
MHz
0 0
appears for the low field
!2 !2 states of F = 1 and F = 2.
!4 !4
!6 !6
B !Gauss" B !Gauss"
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
6000
4000
2000
!2000
manifold is spaced by 6.8
GHz at low field.
!4000
!6000
B !Gauss"
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
30000
20000
10000
Paschen-Back effect at
MHz
high field.
!10000
!20000
!30000
B !Gauss"
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
APPENDIX 137
F /2 p u ls e F p u ls e F /2 p u ls e
z ( b e a m s p litte r ) ( m ir r o r ) ( b e a m s p litte r )
A
2
B A B 3
2
?
1
A
th
A P a
B 1 B B
2
?
1
P a th B
t
0 T 2 T
A phase difference in the two paths arises from the different magnitude of action
along the two paths. The classical action corresponds to the time integration
over the particle energy
Z 2T
1
Sclass = M v 2 − M gz dt . (A-9.1)
0 2
In the experiment this classical action ist much larger than h̄. The phase dif-
ference in the two paths appears as
A B
∆φpath = Sclass − Sclass /h̄ . (A-9.2)
This phase difference in Eq. (A-9.2) vanishes when g is independent of z, an
assumption well justified on the basis of the small size of the interferometer.
A second contribution to the phase difference appears from the local phase
of the Raman transitions. Whenever the atomic state changes due to the inter-
action
H1 = h̄Ω1 ei(k1 z−ω1 t) |3ih1| + h̄Ω2 ei(−k2 z−ω2 t) |3ih2| + c.c. (A-9.3)
a phase information [100]
φi = ±(keff zi − ωeff ti ) (A-9.4)
is imprinted in the atom where zi is the position of the atom at time ti and
where the sign depends on the initial state of the atom. Four critical transfers
of phase occur as they are marked in the Figure on page 138. The phase φA 1
in imprinted in the atom when it leaves the original flight direction and travels
along path A. This atom experiences a second phase shift φA 2 , when it is pumped
back into state |1i to continue along the horizontal direction. An atom which
passes the first beam splitter undeflected experiences a phase shift φB 2 at the
π-pulse and continues in the interferometer as state |2i. If this atom decides at
the second beam splitter to change the direction to horizontal, it experiences a
phase shift φA3 . The phase difference of the superposition state which emerges
at the exit of the interferometer is
∆φL = φA A B A
1 − φ2 − φ2 − φ3 (A-9.5)
APPENDIX 139
In the absence of gravitation this phase difference would vanish due to the
symmetry of the interferometer.
The gravitational field destroys this symmetry as atoms in the second time
period fall three times as deep, a consequence of the relationship s = gt2 /2.
In order to calculate (A-9.5) we determine the spatial positions of the atom in
the different interferometer parts. We set z = 0 and vz = 0 at the entrance to
the interferometer. An atom along path A will reach after a time T the height
z2A = T h̄keff /M − gT 2 /2 with the vertical velocity v2A = h̄keff /M − gT . An atom
on path B on the other hand will sink to a position z2B = −gT 2 /2 where its
vertical velocity is v2B = −gT . Immediately after the mirror Raman pulse we
have v2A = −gT and v2B = h̄keff /M − gT . At the end of the second segment of
the interferometer atoms reach the position z3A = h̄keff T /M − 2gT 2 . The sum
of these contributions gives a phase difference
Hence the phase shift is directly related to the local value of g. A precise mea-
surement of g requires T to be chosen as large as possible. This is achieved best
in an atomic fountain in which atoms are thrown up vertically.
For this purpose atoms were first collected
in a MOT and then, after a phase of
polarization gradient cooling the trapping
beams from above were detuned red and
the beams from below were detuned blue
by ∆ω. This causes a moving polariza-
tion gradient in which atoms√move with a
stationary speed v = c ∆ω/( 2 ω0 ) in the
vertical direction. Stationary, because at
this speed the atoms see both beams at
the same frequency. After 200 µs at ∆ω =
3 MHz, all atoms are pumped into state |1i
and all lasers are turned off. In this fash-
ion an atomic fountain emerges with initial
speed of a few meters/second which can be
operated at a repetition rate of 1 Hz.
In this fountain the interferometer dis-
cussed above was realized by sending the
Raman beams parallel to the beam in the
fountain.
The wavepackets separate vertically in the time between the first and second
π/2-pulse (path A and path B). At the turning point in the gravitational field
the spatial separation of the two paths amounts to about 1.1 mm, at T = 160 ms.
The following pictures show the vertical trajectory and the spatial separation of
the wavepackets as function of time. The starting speed is vz = 1.5 m/s. The
height at the turning point is 12.5 cm at a flight time of 160 ms.
In the arrangement on page 138 the pulse area is determined by the time of flight
of atoms through the laser beam. In the fountain the pulse area is controlled by
the pulse duration. The three Raman pulses were realized using square pulses
of 40, 80 and 40 µs duration, the pulses being tuned on resonance as dictated
by the momentary speed. Due to the gravitational acceleration the atoms see
140 ATOM INTERFEROMETRY
cm 0.6
6 mm
0.4
4
0 0.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
seconds seconds
ω1 − ω2 = 4nωR . (A-10.1)
Now we consider a recent experiment9 where atoms in a 1.5 meter tall foun-
tain travel against the gravitational field with a speed of ≈ 450 m/s and a
transfer with n = 10 is used. The two lasers are well detuned from resonance by
δ = 4 GHz. Due to the free fall the resonance condition for ω1 − ω2 changes by
23 MHz/s which is accounted for by an EOM throughout the experiment. At
time t1 a π/2 pulse (duration of 100 µs) transfers the momentum of 2n photons
to the atom with 50% probability, thus the atom wavepacket separates with
a relative velocity of 2nvR (vR is the one-photon recoil speed). Depending on
whether momentum was transferred or not, the atom follows trajectory 1 or 6.
The path separations are greatly exaggerated in the figure below.
Π Π Π Π
2 2 2 2
After a time T a second pulse stops
2 this relative motion and after a further
time interval T 0 a third pulse directs
1 3 the wavepacket portions against each
other. Finally at time t4 = t1 + 2T + T 0
4
a fourth pulse overlaps the atoms again.
height
a
6 5 b
In this way two conjugate interferom-
eters appear with outputs labeled (a),
(b) and (c), (d). Because of the mo-
tion of the atoms, which gives rise to a
T T' T c Doppler frequency shift, addressing the
d upper and lower interferometer requires
t1 t2 t3 t4
two separate laser frequencies for ω2 .
time
The probability that an atom arrives at output (c) is proportional to the phase
by cos2 φ where φ now contains two contributions, φ = φF + φI . A classical
term appears from the free evolution of the atom φF = Sclass /h̄, which accounts
8 H. Müller, S. Chiow, Q. Long, S. Herrmann, and S. Chu, Atom Interferometry with up
for the energy change associated with the recoil. A second term from the inter-
action with the local light field φI , because whenever a photon is absorbed, the
laser phase is added to the matter wave phase and subtracted for emission of a
photon.
The fluorescence f1 , f2 of the two outputs of each interferometer is detected
as the atoms pass a photomultiplier tube located near the initial launch position.
Herer 1 and 2 stand for (a) and (b) and for (c) and (d) respectively. To take
out fluctuations of the initial atom number, the normalized fluorescence f =
(f1 − f2 )/(f1 + f2 ) is used to monitor the fringe pattern when scanning the
phase of the last beam splitter, the fringe period being 2π/n. The arrival times
are separated on a scale of greater than about 1 ms and hence the individual
ports can be monitored separately.
The setup allows for improved precision as the momentum-space splitting of
the wavepacket (usually 2h̄k) increases by a factor of n2 . This was exploited in
a recent implementation of this interferometer10 the non-vertical deflection of
the atoms by the Coriolis acceleration ( Ω × ~v ) caused by the Earth’s rotation.
10 S. Lan, P. Kuan, B. Estey, P. Haslinger, and H. Müller, Influence of the Coriolis Force
Structure Constant Based on Atom Interferometry, Physica Scripta T102 82-88 (2002).
12 H. Müller, A. Peters, and S. Chu, A precision measurement of the gravitational redshift
For a given value of ` this equation has a disrecte spectrum of N bound state
solutions at energies Ev,` for E < 0 and a continuous spectrum of scattering
states with E > 0. Bound states for a given ` are labeled by the vibrational
quantum number v = 0, ..., N − 1 when counting up from the bottom of the
potential. To label threshold bound states we use the quantum number n =
−1, −2, ... counting down from the top of the potential for the last, next to
last, etc. The bound state solutions En,` are normalized to unity, hn `|n `i2 =
1, as they tend to zero for R → ∞. The scattering solutions represent the
incident plane plus a scattered wave and approach (A-4.10) where δ` (E) is
the scattering phase shift, the key parameter that incorporates the effect of
the potential interaction in the collision. The continuum wave function |E `i
is normalized per unit energy, hE `|E 0 `i = δ(E − E 0 ). For van der Waals
potentials, U (R) ∝ R−6 , the tangens of the phase shift varies as k for s waves
near threshold, 13
Alkali- metal atoms which are commonly used in Feshbach resonance ex-
periments with Bose-Einstein condensates have a 2 S1/2 electronic ground state.
The singlet and triplet states which emerge from their interaction, see page 95,
characterize the chemical bonding at short-range. Due to the hyperfine struc-
ture of the atomic states the singlet and triplet terms evolve from the hyperfine
split dissociation limits in a way shown below for 85 Rb.
13 H.Friedrich, Theoretische Atomphysik, Springer (1994) Chapter 1.4
14 C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne and E. Tiesinga, Feshbach resonances in ultracold gases,
Rev. Mod. Phys. 82 1225-1258 (2010).
144 ATOM INTERFEROMETRY
Hcm-1 L
0.2
U H 1000 cm-1 L
0 a b
Rb H5sL+Rb H5sL
0.0 È1\a +È2\b , È2\a +È1\b
U-ECoulomb
-1
-0.2
-2 1 +
Sg È1\a +È1\b
-3 -0.4
singlet
-4
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 20 22 24 26
R HbohrL R HbohrL
Adding a magnetic field, see A-8, the atomic hyperfine states (F = 1, 2) split
into 3 and 5 Zeeman states respectively and the twelve molecular states shown
above split into 64 molecular states, the dissociation limits now being character-
ized by the magnetic quantum numbers of the two free atoms, |F1 m1 i+ |F2 m2 i.
Note that the Ground state Zeeman shift in Rb is typically 0.70 MHz/Gauss, by
comparison the hyperfine splitting (F = 1, 2) is 6.8 GHz. Hence at low magnetic
field the 64 molecular states practically coincide with the 12 molecular states
shown above.
In the context of multiple bound states emerging from different dissociation
limits it is clear that the following schematic situation (shown below) may ap-
pear: A bound state in the potential UB (R) converging to the dissociation limit
|F10 m01 i + |F20 m02 i is embedded in the continuum channel of the potential VA (R)
arising from |F1 m1 i + |F2 m2 i.
2
Collision channels may be ÈF'1 m'1 \+ÈF'2 m'2 \
grouped into two classes, 1 v
”closed” (bound) and ”open” 0
EHkL
ÈF1 m1 \+ÈF2 m2 \
(continuum) channels. A third
energy
-1000
distinct class, ”quasi-bound”,
-2000 B A
may also appear but does not in
the case shown here. -3000
In the absence of interaction -4000
between the potentials A and B, 8 12 16 20
R HbohrL
the scattering in the continuum
of channel of A is separate and independent of the presence of possible bound
states in B which might occur at the scattering energy E. An example of such
a bound state is the red vibrational level labelled v.
Very generally interactions appear which were not part of the Hamiltonian
used to generate the potential functions VA (R) and VB (R). Such interactions
allow the continuum channel to feel the presence of bound state channels equiv-
alent to the coupling in the Landau-Zener case of actual curve crossing (A-7).
In this case the situation may be handled by defining two coupled Schrödinger
APPENDIX 145
Π
sociation limit. With φv we desig-
d∆
2
dE
nate the bound state wavefunction
in potential B in the absence of in-
G
teraction. We have for the predisso-
ciation rate13
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
energy Γ = 2π|hφv |VAB |uA 2
0 i| .
When we apply a magnetic field the Zeeman-splitting among the various disso-
ciation limits |F1 m1 i + |F2 m2 i changes. Hence we can shift the absolute energy
of the level v with respect to the dissociation limit of potential A with an ex-
ternal magnetic field. We may even make the bound level cross from E > 0 to
E < 0. When the field is tuned such that the bound state in B is at the en-
ergy E = 0 in the open channel, the s-wave scattering length diverges (A-11.2).
Hence one may magnetically tune the scattering length, a topic of many recent
studies with Bose-Einstein Condensates.15
Denschlag, Tuning the Scattering Length with an Optically Induced Feshbach Resonance,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 123001 (2004).
146 Atomic fountain clock
The ultimate limitation to the accuracy of an atomic fountain clock are colli-
sions between Cs atoms in the beam. These lead to a measurable frequency
shift.
Because of the extremely low relative velocities of the atoms, the cross sections
are large. By varying the density of Cs atoms in the fountain, Gibble found fre-
quency shifts of the order of a few mHz for an atomic density of 109 cm−3 [104].
Bibliography
[1] C. Cohen-Tannoudji and W.D. Phillips. New Mechanisms for Laser Cooling.
Phys. Today 43, October, 33-40 (1990). 1
[2] W. Neuhauser, M. Hohenstatt, P. E. Toschek, and H. Dehmelt, Localized visible
Ba+ mono-ion oscillator. Phys. Rev. A 22 1137 (1980). 2
[3] C. Amole et al., Resonant quantum transitions in trapped antihydrogen atoms.
Nature 483 439-443 (2012). 3
[4] A. Peters, K. Chung, and S. Chu, High-precision gravity measurements using
atom interferometry. Meterologica 38 25-61 (2001). 3, 137
[5] V. S. Letokhov and V. G. Minogin, Cooling, trapping, and storage of atoms by
resonant laser fields. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 69 413-419 (1979). 3
[6] C. Salomon, J. Dalibard, A. Aspect, H. Metcalf, and C. Cohen-Tannoudji. Chan-
neling Atoms in a Standing Wave. Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 1659 (1987). 5, 50
[7] J. C. Maxwell, Lehrbuch der Elektricität und des Magnetismus, 792 Deutsch
von B. Weinstein, Berlin 1883. 4
[8] P. Lebedev, Untersuchungen über die Druckkräfte des Lichtes. Annalen d.
Physik, 11 433-458 (1901). 4
[9] A. Ashkin, History of Optical Trapping and Manipulation of Small-Neutral Par-
ticle, Atoms and Molecules. IEEE Journal on Selected Topics in Quantum Elec-
tronics 6 841-856 (2000). 5
[10] V. S. Letokhov, Narrowing of the Doppler Width in a Standing Light Wave.
JETP Letters 7 272 (1968). 5, 8
[11] A. Ashkin, Trapping of Atoms by Resonance Radiation Pressure. Phys. Rev.
Lett. 40 729 (1978). 5, 11
[12] S. Stenholm, The semiclassical theory of laser cooling. Rev. Mod. Phys. 58
699-739 (1986). 5
[13] D. J. Wineland and H. Dehmelt, Proposed 1014∆ν < ν Laser Fluorescence Spec-
troscopy on Tl+ Mono-Ion Oscillator III (side band cooling). Bull. Am. Phys.
Soc. 20, 637 (1975). 8
[14] T. W. Hänsch and A. L. Schawlow, Cooling of gases with laser radiation. Opt.
Commun. 13 68 (1975). 8
[15] J. Prodan, W. D. Phillips, and H. Metcalf, Laser Production of a Very Slow
Monoenergetic Atomic Beam. Phys. Rev. Lett. 49 1149 (1982). 10
[16] K. Sengstock und W. Ertmer, Laser manipulation of atoms. Adv. At. Molec.
Opt. Physics 35 1 (1995). 10
[17] J. Dalibard und C. Cohen-Tannoudji, Dressed-atom approach to atomic motion
in laser light: the dipole force revisited. JOSA B 2 1707-1720 (1985). 11, 51, 64
147
148 BIBLIOGRAPHY
[40] P. J. Ungar, D. S. Weiss, E. Riis, and S. Chu, Optical molasses and multilevel
atoms: theory. J. Opt. Soc. Am B, 6 2058-2071 (1989). 66
[41] A. Lindner, Drehimpulse in der Quantenmechanik Teubner (1984) 78, 128, 151
[42] Manuel Gessner, private communication. 79, 82
[43] A. Aspect et al., Laser Cooling below the one-photon recoil energy. J. Opt. Soc.
Am. B 6 2112 (1989). 83
[44] C. Cohen-Tannoudji, in Laser Manipulation of Atoms and Ions, Proceedings of
the Varenna Summer School 1991, NorthHolland, p. 99-169. 83
[45] C. Cohen-Tannoudji, Laserkühlung an der Grenze des Machbaren. Physikalische
Blätter 51 91-95 (1995). 83
[46] Reference [34], Chapter III, page 201. 88
[47] A. Aspect, E. Arimondo, R. Kaiser, N. Vansteenkiste, and C. Cohen-Tannoudji,
Laser Cooling below the One-Photon Recoil Energy by Velocity-Selective Co-
herent Population Trapping. Phys. Rev. Lett. 61 826 (1988). 91
[48] J. Lawall et al.,Two-Dimensional Subrecoil Laser Cooling. Phys. Rev. Lett. 73
1915 (1994). 91
[49] J. Lawall et al., Three-Dimensional Laser Cooling of Helium Beyond the Single-
Photon Recoil Limit. Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 4194 (1995). 91
[50] A. Aspect and R. Kaiser, Linear Momentum Conservation in Coherent Popula-
tion Trapping: A Case Study for a Quantum Filtering Process, Foundations in
Physics 20 1413 (1990). 91
[51] F. Meinert, C. Basler, A. Lambrecht, S. Welte, and H. Helm, Quantitative anal-
ysis of the transient response of the refractive index to conditions of electromag-
netically induced transparency. Phys. Rev. A 85 013820 (2012). 91
[52] M.H. Anderson, J.R. Ensher, M.R. Matthews, C.E. Wieman, and E.A. Cornell,
Observation of Bose-Einstein Condensation in a Dilute Atomic Vapor. Science
269 198 (1995). 93
[53] C. C. Bradley, C. A. Sackett, J. J. Tollett, and R. G. Hulet, Evidence of Bose-
Einstein Condensation in an Atomic Gas with Attractive Interactions. Phys.
Rev. Lett. 75 1687 (1995). 93
[54] K. B. Davis, M. -O. Mewes, M. R. Andrews, N. J. van Druten, D. S. Durfee,
D. M. Kurn, and W. Ketterle, Bose-Einstein Condensation in a Gas of Sodium
Atoms. Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 3969 (1995). 93
[55] D. G. Fried, T. C. Killian, L. Willmann, D. Landhuis, Bose-Einstein Conden-
sation of Atomic Hydrogen. S. C. Moss, D. Kleppner, and Thomas J. Greytak,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 3811 (1998). 93
[56] F. P. Dos Santos, J. Lonard, J. Wang, C. J. Barrelet, F. Perales, E. Rasel, C. S.
Unnikrishnan, M. Leduc, and C. Cohen-Tannoudji, Bose-Einstein Condensation
of Metastable Helium. Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 3459 (2001). 93
[57] A. Griesmaier, J. Stuhler and T. Pfau, Production of a chromium Bose-Einstein
condensate. Appl. Phys. B 82 211 (2006). 93
[58] S. Jochim, M. Bartenstein, A. Altmeyer, G. Hendl, S. Riedl, C. Chin, J. Hecker
Denschlag, and R. Grimm, Bose-Einstein condensation of molecules. Science 302
2101 (2003). 93
[59] http://www.uibk.ac.at/exphys/ultracold/atomtraps.html 93
[60] E. P. Gross, Structure of a quantized vortex in boson systems. Nuovo Cimento
20, 454 (1961). 100
150 BIBLIOGRAPHY
[61] L. P. Pitaevskii, Vortex lines in an imperfect Bose gas. Sov. Phys. JETP-USSR
13, 451 (1961). 100
[62] K. Burnett, P. S. Julienne, P. D. Lett, E. Tiesinga, and C. J. Williams, Quantum
encounters of the cold kind. Nature 416 225-232 (2002). 100
[63] A. Midgall, J. V. Prodan, W. D. Phillips, Th. H. Bergeman and H. J. Metcalf,
First Observation of Magnetically Trapped Neutral Atoms. Phys. Rev. Lett. 54
2596 (1985). 100
[64] D. E. Pritchard, Cooling neutral atoms in a magnetic trap for precision spec-
troscopy. Phys. Rev. Lett. 51 1336 (1983). 101
[65] T. Bergeman, G. Erez, and H. J. Metcalf, Magnetostatic trapping fields for
neutral atoms. Phys. Rev. A 35 15351546 (1987). 101
[66] H. F. Hess, Evaporative cooling of magnetically trapped and compressed spin-
polarized hydrogen. Phys. Rev. B 34 3476 (1986). 103
[67] W. Ketterle et. al., Proceed. Int. School of Physics, Enrico Fermi 1998 Course
CXL, Bose-Einstein Condensation of Atomic Gases, editors: M. Iguscio, S.
Stringari, and C. E. Wieman, (IOS Press Ohmsha, 1999) p. 67-176. 104, 150
[68] E. Arimondo et. al. in Reference [67] p. 573-590. 104
[69] K. W. Miller. S. Dürr, and C. Wieman, RF-induced Sisyphus Cooling in an
Optical Dipole Trap. Phys. Rev. A 66 023406 (2002) 104
[70] M. D. Barrett, J. A. Sauer, and M. S. Chapman, All-Optical Formation of an
Atomic Bose-Einstein Condensate. Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 010404 (2001). 104
[71] T. Weber, J. Herbig, M. Mark, H.-C. Nägerl, R. Grimm, Bose-Einstein Conden-
sation of Cesium. Science 299 232 (2003). 104
[72] G. Cennini, G. Ritt, C. Geckeler, and M. Weitz, All-Optical Realization of an
Atom Laser. Phys. Rev Lett. 91 240408 (2003). 104
[73] D. S. Durfee and W. Ketterle, Experimental studies of Bose-Einstein condensa-
tion. Optics Express 2 299 (1998). 104
[74] B. P. Anderson and M. A. Kasevich, Macroscopic quantum interference from
atomic tunnel arrays. Science 282 1686 (1998). 104
[75] M. R. Andrews, C. G. Townsend, H.-J. Miesner, D. S. Durfee, D. M. Kurn, W.
Ketterle, Observation of Interference Between Two Bose Condensates. Science
275 637 (1997). 104
[76] D. S. Hall, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell, Measurements of
Relative Phase in Two-Component Bose-Einstein Condensates. Phys. Rev. Lett.
81 1543 (1997). 104
[77] W. Ketterle, Experimental studies of Bose-Einstein condensation. Physics Today
52 30-35 1999. 104
[78] D. J. Wineland, W. M. Itano, J. C. Bergquist, and R. G. Hulet, Laser-cooling
limits and single-ion spectroscopy. Phys. Rev. A 36 2220 (1987). 105
[79] H. Perrin, A. Kuhn, I. Bouchoule and C. Salomon, Sideband cooling of neutral
atoms in a far-detuned optical lattice. Europhys. Lett. 42 395-400 (1998). 105
[80] V. Vuletic, C. Chin, A. J. Kerman, and S. Chu, Degenerate Raman Sideband
Cooling of Trapped Cesium Atoms at Very High Atomic Densities. Phys. Rev.
Lett. 81 5768-5771 (1998). 105, 109
[81] I. H. Deutsch and P. S. Jessen, Quantum-state control in optical lattices. Phys.
Rev. A 57 1972-1986 (1997). 109
[82] G. Morigi, J. Eschner, and Christoph H. Keitel, Laser Cooling Using Electro-
magnetically Induced Transparency. Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 4458 (2000). 106, 110
BIBLIOGRAPHY 151