Planck–Scale Signals from Interference Pattern in a Bose–Einstein Condensate

E. Castellanos∗
Departamento de Fı́sica,
Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del Instituto Politécnico Nacional,
A. P. 14-740, 07000 México D. F., México.

J. I. Rivas†
Departamento de Fı́sica,
Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Iztapalapa,
A. P. 55-534, 09340 México D. F., México.

SOMETHING

PACS numbers: 04.60Bc, 04.90.+e, 05.30.Jp

I. INTRODUCTION results obtained in reference [20], suggest that many–

In some quantum–gravity schemes, the possibility that
the space-time could be quantized, can be characterized,
from a phenomenological point of view, as a modifica-
tion in the dispersion relation of microscopic particles
[1–9] (and references therein). This characteristic fea-
ture, emerges as an adequate tool to test experimentally
some quantum–gravity effects. Nevertheless, the most
difficult aspect in searching experimental hints relevant
for the quantum–gravity problem is the smallness of the
involved effects [3, 4]. If this kind of deformations are
characterized by some Planck scale, then the quantum
gravity effects becomes very small [2, 5].
In the non–relativistic limit, it is generally accepted
that the deformed dispersion relation for the energy E
of microscopic particles, can be expressed, in ordinary
units, as follows [5, 6]
p2 1  p3 
E ' mc2 + + ξ1 mcp + ξ2 p2 + ξ3 , (1)
2m 2Mp mc
being c the speed of light, and Mp (' 2.18 × 10−8 Kg)
the Planck mass. The three parameters ξ1 , ξ2 , and ξ3 ,
are model dependent [2, 5], and should take positive or
negative values close to 1. There is some evidence within
the formalism of Loop quantum gravity [5–8] that indi-
cates non–zero values for the three parameters, ξ1 , ξ2 , ξ3 ,
and particularly [7, 9] that produces a linear–momentum
term in the non–relativistic limit.
In references [5, 6] it was suggested the use of ultra–
precise cold–atom–recoil experiments to constrain the
form of the energy-momentum dispersion relation in the
non–relativistic limit. There, the bound obtained for ξ1 is
at least four orders of magnitude smaller than the corre-
sponding bound of reference [20] associated with the con-
densation temperature in a Bose–Einstein condensate,
trapped in a harmonic oscillator potential. However, the
∗ Electronic address: ecastellanos@fis.cinvestav.mx.
† Electronic address: jirs@xanum.uam.mx
body contributions would allow to improve, in principle,
the bounds associated with ξ1 . In other words, many–
body systems could be used to test the sensitivity to some
effects arising from Planck scale regime.
Here, let us add that among the issues related to Bose–
Einstein condensates, we find its possible use as tools
in searching quantum and also classical gravity manifes-
tations, for instance, to detect gravitomagnetic effects,
in the context of Lorentz violation or to provide phe-
nomenological constrains on Planck–scale physics, [16–
23].
Indeed, many body systems as tools in searching quan-
tum gravity manifestations, through modifications of the
uncertainty principle, has been analyzed in the context of
the center of mass motion of macroscopic bodies [24–26].
However, in reference [26], it was argued that this fea-
ture can not be used in this context, due to an incorrect
extrapolation criterion of Planck–scale space–time quan-
tization for fundamental particles, to macroscopic bodies.
According to reference [26], the center of mass motion of
a macroscopic body should be affected by Planck–scale
quantization, more weakly than its constituents due to a
suppression of the form N −s , being N the number of par-
ticles composing the system, with s some positive power.
However, the use of the Bogoliubov formalism associ-
ated with a Bose–Einstein condensate confined in a box,
open the possibility to explore some alternative scenarios
associated with Planck scale manifestations in the corre-
sponding ground state energy of the N–body system, by
analyzing the associated speed of sound, as it was sug-
gested in reference [23]. In reference [23], it was proved
that the corrections upon the ground state energy and
the corresponding speed of sound, caused by a deformed
dispersion relation, scales as a non trivial function of the
number of particles. Thus, the argument that a macro-
scopic body should be affected by Planck–scale quanti-
zation more weakly than its constituents, does not seems
to be a generic criterion..
Furthermore, let us emphasize that the approach fol-
lowed in reference [23], and also the followed in the
present analysis, suggest alternative scenarios compared
 2

to those followed in references [24–26]. Basically, the energy

main difference lies in the in the fact that the corrections
caused by a deformed dispersion relation represent a col- E = Ef low + U (R) (4)
lective behavior of all the particles forming the conden-
sate, not the properties of a single point, like the center where Ef low is the kinetic energy associated with the
of mass motion. In other words, the corrections caused particle currents
by the deformation parameters are analyzed over some
~2
Z
properties of the condensate, in which, the corrections Ef low = d r|ψ(r)|2 (∇φ)2 . (5)
caused by a deformed dispersion relation on the ground 2m
state energy and the corresponding pressure (see below),
Conversely, U (R) can be interpreted as an effective po-
scales with the number of particles, together with a non–
tential, and is equal to the total energy of the condensate
trivial function of the trap parameters. Additionally, the
when the phase φ does not vary in space, in which we
approach followed in the present manuscript (and also
have the contributions of the zero point energy, the har-
the results obtained in reference [23]) suggests that this
monic oscillator potential, and the contributions due to
type of macroscopic systems, i.e., a Bose–Einstein con-
the interactions among the particles forming the conden-
densate, may be more sensitive, in some cases, to Planck–
sate. Notice that we have inserted also the contribution
scale manifestations than its constituents.
Eα caused by the deformation parameter α
On the other hand, the analysis made in reference [23]
corresponds to a Bose–Einstein condensate confined in a U (R) = Ezp + Eosc + Eint + Eα . (6)
box, and it is clear from the experimental point of view,
that there is no condensate in a box. Usually, the con- When the external potential V (r) = mω 2 r2 /2 is turned
finement of the condensate can be obtained by using har- off at t = 0, the effective potential U (R) associated with
monic traps, among others [10]. In order to extend our the system seems to be
analysis to a more realistic scenario, the formalism devel-
oped in reference [23] must be also extended to a Bose– 3 ~2 3
U (R) = N + mw0 2 R2 N (7)
Einstein condensate trapped in a harmonic oscillator type 4 mR2 4
potential. In fact, as we will see later in the manuscript, U0 2~
the inclusion of a trapping potential improves the sen- + 3/2 3
N 2 − α √ N,
2(2π) R πR
sitivity of the macroscopic system, in the corresponding
speed of sound to Planck-scale effects, in almost three or- where we have used the trial function (3) to obtain the
ders of magnitude, compared to the sensitivity obtained above expression.
in reference [23], in the case of a Bose–Einstein conden- Notice that the equilibrium radius of the system R0 ,
sate in a box. Thus, we have also an additional tool in can be obtained by minimizing the total energy (4). The
this scenario, i.e., a many–body system plus the inclusion contribution of the kinetic energy (5) is positive definite,
of a trapping potential, in which both properties could and is zero when the phase φ is constant. Using this
be used, in principle, to improve the sensitivity of the facts, the equilibrium condition can be expressed as [30]
system to Planck–scale effects.
d U (R)
R0 =0 (8)
II. FREE EXPANSION OF A CONDENSATE dR
R=R0

Let us propose the following energy associated with the This implies that
system, in which we have introduced the contributions of
3~2 3U0 2~
the deformation parameter α 2N + 3/2 3
N2 − α√ N = 0. (9)
" mR0 2(2π) R0 πR0
~2
Z
E(ψ) = dr |∇ψ(r)|2 + V (r)|ψ(r)|2 (2) When R differs from the equilibrium condition (9), there
2m
# is a force that change R. In order to determines an equa-
1 4 tion for the dynamics of the system, we have to find the
+ U0 |ψ(r)| + ~α|ψ(r)|∇|ψ(r)|| ,
2 corresponding kinetic energy Ef low in function of time
trough its dependence on the radius R. Changing R from
notice that if we set α = 0, we recover the usual result its initial value to a new value R̃ amounts to a uniform
[30]. Additionally, as usual, let us employ a trial function dilation of the system, since the new density distribu-
of the form [30] tion |ψ(r)|2 = n(r) may be obtained from the old one by
N 1/2 changing the radial coordinate of each atom by a factor
ψ(r) = exp(−r2 /2R2 ) exp(iφ(r)). (3) R̃/R. Thus the velocity of a particle can be expressed as
π 3/4 R3/2
Thus, by inserting the trial function (3) in the energy Ṙ
functional (2) we are able to obtain the corresponding v(r) = r . (10)
R
 3

Consequently, the kinetic energy is given by and

mṘ
Z 1 3 ~αN 
Ef low = d r r2 n(r). (11) λ= ~v 0 − √ (16)
2R β2 4 π

Notice that we are able to re–express the kinetic energy When alpha tends to zero we recover the usual case
Ef low as follows R2 − R02 = v02 t2

mN d rn(r) r2 2
R
Ef low = R Ṙ . (12)
2R2 d rn(r) III. INTERFERENCE PATTERN OF TWO
R 2
CONDENSATES AND PLANCK SCALE SIGNALS
Defining an effective mass mef f = Nm Rd rn(r) r , we can
R2 d rn(r)
re–express the kinetic energy as Ef low = 12 mef f Ṙ2 . The If there is coherence between two condensates, the
ratio between the integrals in Eq. (12) is a mean–square state may be described by a single condensate wave func-
radius of the condensate. tion, which has the following form
For the trial function Eq. (3), the effective mass is p p
mef f = 3N m/2. Then, by using the the energy con- ψ1,2 (r, t) = N1 ψ1 (r, t) + N2 ψ2 (r, t). (17)
servation condition, this leads to the following relation After the free expansion, the two condensates overlap
and interfere. If the effects of interactions are neglected
3mṘ2 3~2 U0 2~ in the overlap region, the particle density at any point is
+ + N − α√ (13)
4 4mR2 3/2 3
2(2π) R πR given by
3~2 U0 2~
= 2 + 3/2
N − α√ , n1,2 (r, t) = |ψ1,2 (r, t)|2 = N1 |ψ1 (r, t)|2 + N2 |ψ2 (r, t)|2 (18)
4mR0 2(2π) R03 πR0 p
+ 2 N1 N2 Re|ψ1 (r, t)ψ2∗ (r, t)|,
where R0 is the radius at time t = 0. Eq. (13) must be
solved numerically. However, neglecting the interactions,
i.e., setting U0 = 0, we are able to obtain an analytical IV. DISCUSSION
solution for the above equation ???? , with the result
s Something in the way she moves....
1 2~αN 3~2
β R + √ R−
2 2 (14)
β2 π 4m
s
Acknowledgments
~αN n h 2 ~αN  ~αN 2 i
− √ 3 ln β R + √ + β2R + √ − λ2 β 4
πβ π π
This work was partially supported by CONACyT
o r 4
México under grants CB-2009-01, no. 132400, CB-
− ln[λβ 2 ] = t
3m 2011, no. 166212, and I0101/131/07 C-234/07 of the
Instituto Avanzado de Cosmologı́a (IAC) collaboration
Where (http://www.iac.edu.mx/). E. C. acknowledges CONA-
3mv0 2
2mαN v0 CyT for the postdoctoral grant received. J. I. Rivas ac-
β2 = − √ (15) knowledges CONACyT grant No. 18176.
4 π

[1] G. Amelino-Camelia, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 12 (2003) Great Britian, 2002.

1633.
[2] G. Amelino-Camelia, Living Rev. Rel. 16 (2013) 5.
[3] V. A. Kosteleckỳ, R. Lehnert, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001)
065008.
[4] G. Amelino-Camelia, arXiv:0806.0339v2 (2013).
[5] G. Amelino-Camelia, C. Läemmerzahl, F. Mercati, G. M.
Tino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009) 171302.
[6] F. Mercati, D. Mazon, G. Amelino-Camelia, J. M. Car-
mona, J. L. Cortés, J. Induráin, C. Lämmerzahl, G. M.
Tino, Class. Quant. Grav. 27 (2010) 215003.
[7] G. Amelino-Camelia, Nature 398 (1999) 216-218.
[8] L. Smolin, Three roads to quantum gravity, Basic Books,
[9] J. Alfaro, H. A. Morales-Técotl, L. F. Urrutia, Phys. Rev.
D 66 (2002) 24006.
[10] F. Dalfovo, S. Giorgini, L. P. Pitaevskii, S. Stringari, Rev.
Mod. Phys. 71 (1999) 463-512.
[11] Z. Yan, Physica A 298 (2001) 455-464.
[12] V. I. Yukalov, Phys. Rev. A 72 (2005) 033608.
[13] K. Aikawa, A. Frisch, M. Mark, S. Baier, A. Rietzler, R.
Grimm, F. Ferlaino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 210401.
[14] M. R. Andrews, D. M. Kurn, H.-J. Miesner, D. S. Durfee,
C. G. Townsend, S. Inouye, W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett.
79 (1997) 553-556.
[15] M. R. Andrews, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, H.-J. Miesner, D.
 4

S. Durfee, C. G. Townsend, S. Inouye, W. Ketterle, Phys. [27] A. Camacho, arXiv:1205.4774v1 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

Rev. Lett. 80 (1998) 2967. (2012).
[16] A. Camacho, Class. Quantum Grav. 23 (2006) 7355. [28] B. González-Fernández, A. Camacho, arXiv:1306.6680
[17] E. Castellanos, A. Camacho, Gen. Rel. Grav. 41 (2009) (2013).
2677-2685. [29] L. Pitaevski, S. Stringari, Bose-Einstein Condensation,
[18] E. Castellanos, A. Camacho, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 25 Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2003.
(2010) 459-469. [30] C. J. Pethick, H. Smith, Bose-Einstein Condensation in
[19] E. Castellanos, C. Laemmerzahl, arXiv:1202.3806 (2011). Dilute Gases, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge,
[20] E. Castellanos, C. Laemmerzahl, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 27 2004.
(2012) 1250181. [31] E. Zaremba, Phys. Rev. A 57 (1998) 518-521.
[21] A. Camacho, E. Castellanos, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 27 [32] M. Ueda, Fundamentals and New Frontiers of Bose-
(2012) 1250198. Einstein Condensation, World Scientific, Singapore,
[22] E. Castellanos, G. Chacon-Acosta, Phys. Lett. B 722 2010.
(2013) 119-122. [33] R. P. Feynman, A. R. Hibbs, Quantun Mechanics and
[23] E. Castellanos, Euro. Phys. Lett. 103 (2013) 40004. Path Integrals, McGrawHill, New York, 1965.
[24] I. Pikovski, M. R. Vanner, M. Aspelmeyer, M. S. Kim, [34] A. Griffin, T. Nikuni, E. Zaremba, Bose-Condensed
C. Brukner, Nature Phys. 8 (2012) 393-397. Gases at Finite Temperatures, Cambridge University
[25] J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D, 86 (2012) 124040. Press, Cambridge, 2009.
[26] G. Amelino-Camelia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 101301.