Ultracold Molecules from Ultracold Atoms:
Interactions in Sodium and Lithium Gas
byCaleb A Christensen
B.S. Physics, Iowa State University (2005)

Submitted to the Department of Physics
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree ofDoctor of Philosophy
at theMassachusetts Institute of Technology
June 2011© 2011 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. All rights reserved

Signature of Author …............................................................................................................
Department of Physics
May 20, 2011
Certified by …..........................................................................................................................
Wolfgang Ketterle
John D. MacArthur Professor of Physics
Thesis Supervisor
Certified by …..........................................................................................................................
David E. Pritchard
Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics
Thesis Supervisor
Accepted by ….........................................................................................................................
Krishna Rajagopal
Professor of Physics, Associate Department Head for Education

Ultracold Molecules from Ultracold Atoms:
Interactions in Sodium and Lithium Gas
byCaleb A Christensen
Submitted to the Department of Physics
on May 20, 2011, in partial fulfillment of therequirements for the degree ofDoctor of Philosophy

Abstract
The thesis presents results from experiments in which ultracold Sodium-6 and Lithium-23
atomic gases were studied near a Feshbach resonance at high magnetic fields. The enhanced
interactions between atoms in the presence of a molecular state enhance collisions, leading toinelastic decay and loss, many-body dynamics, novel quantum phases, and molecule
formation. Experimental data is presented alongside relevant theory and numerical models.
Results are presented for both homonuclear Na2 and Li2 molecules, as well as heteronuclear
NaLi resonances, although we were unable to isolate and measure NaLi molecules.
Furthermore, experiments and theories related to strongly-correlated quantum phases suchas Stoner model ferromagnetism, Bose mediated Fermi interactions, and Bose-Fermi
mixtures are presented as applicable to Na and Li gases. Conclusions are presented regarding
the feasibility of producing deeply bound, dipolar NaLi molecules, as well as future prospects
for strongly interacting atomic gases of Na and Li.
Thesis Supervisor: Wolfgang Ketterle
Title: John D. MacArthur Professor of Physics
Thesis Supervisor: David E. Pritchard
Title: Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics

3

to Abby4

Acknowledgments
Science cannot occur in a vacuum. Of course I mean a metaphorical social
vacuum devoid of support or human contact; every experiment I've done in the last 6
years took place in a literal vacuum.
Ultracold atomic experiments such as ours require development by generationsof graduate students, support and guidance from experienced supervisors, andcontinuous, extensive maintenance from several talented scientists. All those scientists
also require support from caring, responsible friends, family, and university staff or theywould quickly be found unresponsive in a dark corner of a laboratory.
In the following pages, I will attempt to give credit where credit is due, but I
cannot express the extent of support I have received from the people around me during
my training as a scientist and my time at MIT.
I'd first like to thank my parents Bill and Laurie, and my sisters Mariah and Tess,for convincing me as a young child that not only could I accomplish the things that I
love, but that I was surprisingly good at them.
I thank every science and math teacher I've ever had for getting me started on a
rewarding career, particularly Bob Steinke, Jan Quinlivan and Dan Gilpin, who went
above and beyond in seeking out new challenges for me outside the classroom.
I thank my professors at Iowa State University, especially Kai-Ming Ho, Gary
Tuttle, and Jim Cochran, who not only taught me amazing physics but trusted me tobuild and operate their experiments.
I thank Dave Pritchard for taking a chance by personally contacting me to work in
the 2nd floor hallway of building 26, and for always having an array of impossible
questions ready when I thought that I understood a thing or two about physics, or theworld in general.

5
I thank Wolfgang Ketterle, for teaching me everything I know about atomic
physics, and most of what I know about doing science.
I thank the 2005 class of first year MIT physics grad students who helped me
study for and survive the intimidating graduate physics courses and qualifying exams.
I thank Eleanor Barish and Joanna Keseberg for protecting me from theconfusing world of university bureaucracy and for providing smiling, human faces in a
hallway otherwise occupied by physicists.
I thank Tom Pasquini for teaching me everything I know about the making theScience Chamber work, from RF boxes to dye lasers to fiber coupling to vacuum
components. Tom has been my best example for how to have a good work ethic in grad
school without sacrificing my relationships with friends and family.
I thank Michele Saba for showing me how to encourage a team of scientists to not
only work hard, but to work together.
I thank Yong-Il Shin for teaching me the black magic of squeezing good data outof a complicated and messy machine, as well as the precise science of understanding
BEC dynamics in ultracold gases.
I thank Gyu-boong Jo for his continuous, diligent labor which produced most of
the successful experiments in the Science Chamber during my time there, and for his
relaxed confidence which is directly responsible for my own scientific attitudes in thelab.
I thank Sebastian Will for doing most of the development work on the project
which has been my only first-authored paper at MIT, and also for the excellent times
we've had in Cambridge and abroad at conferences.
I thank Ye-ryoung Lee for working beside me every step of my thesis, both inclasses, studying for qualifiers and in the laboratory for the entire time I've been an
active member of the Science Chamber. Her scientific talents and her warm personality
have been an unwavering source of support in all of my efforts.
I thank Jae Choi for his open, assertive personality and determined efforts in thelab. He was a dominant force in my personal and professional life, and he was there formost of the experiments reported in this thesis.

6
I thank Tony Kim for being a very close friend. I also thank him for his
astonishing technical skills and his remarkable ability to seemingly effortlessly
accomplish the most challenging tasks he could find, in the lab and outside it.
I thank Tout Wang for his eagerness to try any new idea, no matter how
intimidating (or even foolish) it might seem, and for his bright optimism in science andin life. I particularly thank Tout for doing the hard work producing a number of figuresand results in this thesis.
I thank Gregory Lau for his curiosity and ambition as an undergrad working in
our lab. He has also provided some of the most important data and figures presented inthis thesis.
I thank Myoung-Sun Heo for his fast friendship, his charming personality and his
genuine interest in not only the things I've done in the lab but also many aspects of mylife outside the lab.
I thank Timur Rvachov, the newest member of the Science Chamber, for bringing
some new excitement to the lab and for keeping my mind and hands in practice during
the final months of my lab work by asking me questions about all the things I had taken
for granted as a tired old grad student.
I thank Martin Zwierlein for his example of how to succeed wildly as a gradstudent and as a professor by knowing the answer to absolutely every question I could
ever ask him and by tirelessly conquering every practical and theoretical challenge heencountered as an atomic physicist.
I thank everybody on the 2nd floor of building 26. I couldn't begin to list all thepeople who have enriched my experience and enabled the success I have had at MIT.
I'd like to thank Anton Zavriyev at MagiQ Technologies for having enoughconfidence in me to offer me a great job, and for giving me valuable advice andencouragement as I make the shocking transition from a grad student into a career
scientist.
And finally, I thank Abby Christensen, my wife. She trusted me enough to follow
me across the country after dating me for only a year, she kept me fed, sheltered andclothed during a time when I may have ended up sleeping on couches in building 26, she

7is the main reason I still have a social life after 6 years of grad school, and she haspatiently remained supportive of me through all of our struggles together. I couldn't
have held myself together without her holding my hand.

8

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
1 Introduction

4
14

1.1 A Physicist's Motivation to study simple molecules

14

1.2 A Scientist's motivation to produce ultracold molecules

16

1.3 Recent history of the field

17

1.3.1 Molecular spectroscopy

17

1.3.2 Ultracold atoms

20

1.4 Molecule formation in gases of Na and Li

21

2 Basic Molecular Physics

23

2.1 Interatomic interactions

23

2.2 The Born-Oppenheimer approximation25

2.2.1 Energies and Schrodinger's equations

25

2.2.2 Numerical solutions and model potentials

29

2.2.3 Long-range interatomic forces

32

2.3 Quantum states of molecules

34

2.3.1 Nuclear rotation and vibration

34

2.3.2 Spectroscopy notation for molecular states36

2.4 Important considerations for experiments

37

2.4.1 Molecular transitions

37

2.4.2 Molecules in an electric field40

3 Molecule Formation: Collisions and Feshbach
Resonances
3.1 Atomic collisions and molecule formation

44
44

3.1.1 Inelastic collisions45

3.1.2 Useful Inelastic collisions with ultracold atoms

47

9
3.2 Collisions and losses in dilute ultracold gases
3.2.1 3-body atomic losses

49

3.2.2 2-body molecular losses

50

3.2.3 Scattering coefficients52

3.3 Feshbach resonances

56

3.3.1 Coupling between atomic and molecular states

56

3.3.2 Experimental parameters of Feshbach resonances

61

3.3.3 Scaling of loss coefficients with scattering length

63

3.3.4 Comparison of energy scales

66

3.4 Adiabatic molecule formation

sweeps48

70

3.4.1 Effects of phase-space density on molecule formation

72

3.4.2 Landau-Zener formula for non-adiabatic formation

76

3.4.3 Combined formula for non-adiabatic, finite temperature

78

3.4.4 Application to NaLi experiments

80

4 Experimental Apparatus for Ultracold Molecules
4.1 Ultracold atomic physics in the science chamber

82
82

4.1.1 Slowing atomic beams

85

4.1.2 Dual magneto-optical Traps

88

4.1.3 Quantum states of Na and Li

90

4.1.4 State preparation and evaporation of Na and Li

93

4.1.5 Optical dipole traps

96

4.1.6 Density Distributions and Imaging

98

4.2 RF techniques for preparation and study of Feshbach resonances
4.2.1 High Power RF Amplifiers
4.3 Precision control of High Magnetic Fields

101
103
104

4.3.1 High current hardware

104

4.3.2 Precision control of current

108

4.4 Techniques to measure ultracold molecules

113

4.4.1 Adiabatic sweeps for molecule formation

114

4.4.2 RF association of molecules

117

5 Feshbach Resonances in Sodium and Lithium

123

10
5.1 Feshbach resonances in Na and Li gases

123

5.1.1 New heteronuclear resonances between Na and Li

123

5.1.2 Search for the wide singlet NaLi resonance127

5.1.3 Homonuclear resonances in Na and Li

132

5.2 Measured loss rates in Na and Li mixtures

133

5.2.1 3-body atomic losses near NaLi Feshbach resonances

133

5.2.2 2-body molecular losses near a Feshbach resonance134

6 Ultracold Molecule Formation Experiments
6.1 Requirements for long-lived molecules

137
137

6.1.1 Stern-Gerlach separation

137

6.1.2 Resonant processes for separation

139

6.1.3 Unwanted resonant processes affecting molecules

140

6.2 Experimental results for Na and Li gases
6.2.1 Results from Na2 and Li2
6.3 Further considerations for molecule experiments

142
145
147

6.3.1 Empirical optimization of molecules147

6.3.2 Molecular transitions in weakly bound NaLi

149

7 Modeling Practical Molecule Formation

151

7.1 Model of real Feshbach Association procedures

151

7.1.1 Assumptions of model

151

7.1.2 Description of model

152

7.2 Application to Na2 experiments

155

7.3 Application to NaLi experiments

156

7.4 Conclusions regarding NaLi molecules

159

7.4.1 Comparison to RbK
7.5 General procedure for optimized molecule formation

160
165

8 Many-body physics near a Feshbach Resonance167

8.1 Ferromagnetism vs. molecule formation in Li mixture

168

ordering

8.1.1 Itinerant Ferromagnetism in a Fermi Gas of Ultracold Atoms

168

8.1.2 Comparison of molecule formation and ferromagnetic

175

11
8.1.3 Further study
8.2 Interesting Phases of Bose-Fermi mixtures

177
181

8.2.1 Bose-mediated Fermi-Fermi interactions

182

8.2.2 Quantum phases of Bose-Fermi mixtures

183

9 Conclusions

186

9.1 Choosing the right molecules for the right reasons

187

9.2 Possibilities for NaLi

190

9.3 Coda: the motivations of a scientist

192

AppendicesA. Diode laser system for Lithium-6

195

B. Phase Sensitive Recombination of Two Bose-Einstein Condensateson an Atom Chip

197

C. Matter-Wave Interferometry with Phase Fluctuating Bose-Einstein
Condensates

202

D. Trapping of Ultracold Atoms in a Hollow-core Photonic Crystal
Fiber

207

E. Itinerant ferromagnetism in a Fermi gas of ultracold atoms

212

Bibliography

218

12

Table of Figures
1 Molecular spectra on photographic film

19

2 Definition of molecular coordinates

26

3 Effective potentials of the NaLi molecule30

4 Turning-point method for Franck-Condon Factors

39

5 Atomic energy levels in an electric field42

6 Comparison of 2-body and 3-body loss processes

54

7 Square well model for Feshbach resonances

58

8 Measured molecular losses in RbK

66

9 Binding energy vs. B-field for NaLi and RbK

69

10 Adiabatic states across a Feshbach resonance71

11 Feshbach resonance in a QHO

73

12 Maximum conversion efficiency vs. phase-space density

75

13 BEC3 apparatus (The Science Chamber)84

14 Dual species oven for Na and Li

86

15 Hyperfine states of Na and Li in a magnetic field

91

16 Na and Li level structure with cooling and pumping transitions

94

17 Circuit diagram for precision high-field control

106

18 Blasting method of isolating molecules from atoms

115

19 RF association of molecules

118

20 RF spectrum of RbK molecules

120

Table 1: Observed Feshbach resonances in NaLi

125

21 Loss measurements near NaLi Feshbach resonances

127

22 Asymptotic bound state calculation of NaLi resonances131

23 3-body loss curve near a NaLi resonance133

24 Predicted transitions in weakly-bound NaLi molecules

141

25 Asymmetric sweep results for Na-Na, Li-Li, and NaLi resonances

144

13
Table 2: Parameters of resonances used for molecule formation

145

26 Image of Na2 molecules

146

27 Comparison of model with Na2 observations

156

28 Model of surviving NaLi molecules

157

29 Model of surviving Na and Li atoms

158

30 Possible states of repulsively interacting fermions170

31 Atomic loss rate suggesting ferromagnetic ordering

173

32 Thermodynamic data suggesting ferromagnetic ordering

174

33 Possible configurations of Ferromagnetic states

179

34 Diode laser system for Li-6

196

14

1
Introduction
1.1 A physicist's motivation to study simple molecules

The world is made of molecules. Most biological, chemical, and physicalprocesses depend on the properties of molecules. The periodic table of elements is anelegant chart which lays out the properties and patterns of atoms in an informative,
intuitive shorthand; yet it is far from a blueprint of nature. Without knowledge of theway atoms work together, there is no way to explain such basic phenomenon as thefreezing and melting of water, the release of energy during oxidation of carbon, or thestrength of the triple bond in diatomic nitrogen. But these processes which involve no
more than two elements have profound effects on nature.
To a chemist, molecules are the starting points and ending points of mostprocesses. To a physicist, molecules are a special case of a difficult problem: What
happens when particles interact? Neutrons interact with protons to form stable nuclei,
nuclei interact with electrons to form stable atoms, and atoms interact with each otherto form molecules. A physicist would claim to understand the basic forces behind the15interactions, and might even offer simple examples where problems of two or threeparticles can be explicitly solved to explain observable phenomena. However, ask aphysicist to calculate the mass of an arbitrary nucleus, and they will invoke
approximations such a mean-field theories, shell models, or semi-empirical mass
formulas1, none of which are accurate enough to account for all observed nuclei, letalone unstable nuclei that may not have been accurately measured.
Likewise, exact a priori calculations are impossible for the interactions of some ofthe electronically simplest atoms, sodium and lithium, in a very simple molecularconfiguration, a covalently bound diatomic molecule with large internuclear
separation2,3. The understanding of this simple system is evolving even today as new
data become available and new modifications to the theory account for them 4,5. The last
three years of my thesis work studying NaLi molecules have been full of open questions
regarding the dynamics of this system, and many questions remain unanswered.
The availability of ultracold atoms in recent decades has led to unprecedented
accuracy in timekeeping6,7, the first indisputable evidence of atomic Bose-Einstein
Condensates8,9, and tests of long-held theories on the foundations of superconductivity
and ferromagnetism10-16. The recent ability to form and measure simple ultracold
molecules4,17-32could allow a completely new approach to study molecular physics byconnecting the precision and elegance of ultracold atoms to the richness and mystery oftightly bound molecules.
However, forming and isolating long-lived ultracold molecules for use inspectroscopy and ultracold chemistry, despite being a major research goal of several
talented atomic physics groups26,30,33-39, has proven to be a difficult and uncertain task.

16This thesis describes the efforts of our research group to perform this feat with Sodium23 and Lithium-6, which also happen to be the atoms which have achieved the lowest
temperatures, largest BECs, and largest degenerate Fermi gases40-42. The thesis also
contains a primer in understanding basic molecular physics, a presentation of current
theories on the few-body atomic processes involved in molecule formation anddestruction, and a framework for understanding the practical challenges encountered in
an experiment on ultracold molecule formation.

1.2 A scientist's motiviation to produce ultracold molecules

The most direct benefit of ultracold molecule studies is the ability to study
molecules with the same precision as ultracold atoms. By reducing the temperatures, it
is possible to improve the knowledge of interatomic potentials by orders of magnitude
simply by allowing more accurate spectroscopy. With the elimination of Doppler
broadening it is possible to directly measure binding energies, tunneling barriers todissociation, and relaxation rates by putting the entire sample of molecules into one
quantum state and observing as they transition to another 43-45.
Heteronuclear molecules with a large electric dipole moment are particularlyinteresting. With a dense, cold sample of polarized molecules, the long-range effects of
the anisotropic electric dipole-dipole interaction could be observed directly in the shapeof a molecular cloud, although this feat has not been achieved as of the writing of thisthesis35,46.

17
Careful study of ultracold polar molecules could even provide insight into supersymmetric string theories and CP (charge-parity symmetry) violation, two very exciting
fields in high-energy physics which would seem to have nothing in common with thezero-energy science normally favored by atomic physicists. However, precision
spectroscopy of cold molecules has provided the strongest constraints to date on theelectron electric dipole moment (EDM)36.
A final application of ultracold molecules could equip computer scientists andmathematicians with a feasible, scalable platform for quantum computation. The
existence of an electric dipole and long-lived, low-energy transitions between rotational
states in a molecule could provide reliable qubit registers. Interactions between qubits
could enable universal quantum gates, and an electric field gradient combined with
precision RF sources could enable single qubit addressability within a register 47-49.
Given a cold sample of molecules, such a system can be created with optical lattices,high-voltage capacitors, and RF synthesizers; all widely used laboratory technologies.

1.3 Recent history of the field
1.3.1 Molecular spectroscopy

Although one could say that chemistry dates back to the discovery of fire, and theidea that molecules are made up of atoms can be attributed to John Dalton 50 and provenby Jean Baptiste Perrin51, the atomic and molecular spectroscopists of the early-20th
century can be given credit for developing our understanding of molecular structure and18interactions52-57. By producing a sample of a given molecule and studying it's absorption
or emission of light, the energies and relative strengths of possible transitions could be
identified. These transitions would then be compared to theories of the structure anddynamics of simple molecules.
At first the spectra took the form of arrays of lines and dense bands on
photographic film (see figure 1). By improving gratings and eventually using tunable
lasers, the bands resolved into lines, which could be interpreted by analogy to discrete
atomic spectra.
Improvements were made in the accuracy of these measurements each time themolecular sample was prepared with a more controlled state population, or in anenvironment with lower pressure and effective temperature58.
Methods starting with chemically stable molecules in thermal equilibrium could
only produce deeply bound molecules, and as such the spectroscopy provided
information mostly on short range interactions due to electrons redistributing amongatoms. Some molecules, particularly weakly-bound diatomic molecules, will not evenform at room temperature. For example, NaLi in the triplet electronic state has abinding energy of 325 K59, meaning it will quickly dissociate at room temperature.

19

figure 1: Examples of molecular spectra recorded on photographic film. This was
the preferred method of recording and studying molecular spectra for decades.
The top spectrum is from diatomic iodine, the bottom two spectra from diatomic
sulfur. Images reproduced from Herzberg (1945).

Further information could be gleaned from atomic and molecular collisions,where careful measurements of collision rates could be interpreted to provide
information on long-range interactions or weakly bound states60-62. Anotherdevelopment was photoassociation spectroscopy63-66 where atoms are driven with a laser
to produce excited state molecules which decay into ground state molecules. Such

20
methods can measure transitions among weakly-bound states, leading to informationon the longer-range Van der Waals forces neutral atoms at long distances.
A recent advance in understanding molecules has been Feshbach resonances
between atoms. These allow low energy transitions from free atoms into the mostweakly-bound molecular states, providing a source of ultracold molecules in purequantum states. This has already been used to refine the knowledge of the structure ofdiatomic molecules67,68.
Chapter 2 will be an introduction to the theories that have been developed tounderstand the details of molecular dynamics.

1.3.2 Ultracold atoms

The systematic progress in molecular science can be contrasted with the leaps
and bounds in ultracold atomic physics in the last few decades. Laser cooling andtrapping in the 1980s69-71, magnetic trapping and evaporation to BEC in the 1990s8,9, andoptical lattices and ultracold fermions in the 2000s10,15,41,72,73 have lead to a revolution in
atomic physics and experimental quantum physics in general.
The explosion in ultracold atomic physics of the last two decades has been a
dizzying, confusing ride even for those physicists like myself who have been lucky
enough participate. For the adventurous reader, or for any scientist wishing to join theultracold community, I recommend a few particularly good textbooks and review
papers31,74-79.

21
Although direct cooling of broad classes of molecules is a rich field with somemajor recent advances80-83, and there is currently an interesting proposal for laser
cooling and trapping of SrF39, these techniques have not yet been able to rival the lowtemperatures and quantum state control of ultracold atoms.
Feshbach association maintains ultracold atomic temperatures of 100 nK or less,even maintaining quantum degeneracy25,29, and it is the method used by our researchgroup as well as several others to maintain coherent control over all degrees of freedom.
By using all coherent processes, the final molecules produced are guaranteed tomaintain the pure quantum state and low entropy of the initial atoms, thus allowing themolecules to directly inherit the great precision of modern atomic physics. Feshbachresonances, along with a discussion of collisions related to molecule formation, will bepresented in chapter 3.

1.4 Molecule formation in gases of Na and Li

My thesis work has been centered around attempts to form molecules fromultracold gases of Na-23 and Li-6. If formed and driven to deeply bound states, theresult would be a gas of polar, fermionic molecules at temperatures of around 100 nK.
In Chapter 4, I describe the experimental apparatus and techniques used in this pursuit.
Finding suitable Feshbach resonances for NaLi molecules is an ongoingchallenge. A few resonances were observed in advance 4, others had been predicted5, but
we located and measured properties of several new resonances ourselves. The currently

22
known NaLi resonances, as well as Na2 and Li2 resonances, are presented in chapter 5.
In addition to forming molecules, Feshbach resonances allow control overcollisions and many-body interactions in ultracold atomic gases. These have been themost scientifically fruitful characteristic of Feshbach resonances to the rest of atomic
physics, and to condensed matter physics as well. A rich review of the previous
advances in many-body, strongly correlated physics due to tunable Feshbachinteractions can be found elsewhere31, but a few interesting applications unique to
mixtures of bosons and fermions like Na-23 and Li-6 will be addressed in Chapter 8.
In the course of my thesis, I have learned many things about the interactions ofatoms and molecules, but the original goal, forming a long-lived gas of NaLi molecules,
has eluded me. In the conclusion in Chapter 9, further possibilities are presented which
could overcome some of the challenges currently encountered in NaLi. The conclusion
also contains a discussion of the various techniques for studying Feshbach molecules,
and suggestions from theory and lab experience for choosing the right molecules for theright reasons.
The quantum science of molecular physics requires the precise techniques ofatomic physics informed by the proven, practical knowledge of chemistry. There has
always been a desire to take the first principles from physics and combine them in theright ways to make predictions of the behavior of molecules, but in practice this ischallenging and uncertain. However, with continued effort, the blind spot between
physics and chemistry will shrink, and science will undoubtedly advance in the process.

23

2
Basic Molecular Physics
2.1 Interatomic interactions

Any stable bound structure in physics is made up of particles which are able tolower their total energy by coming close together. Regardless of the number of particles,
the physical origins of the interactions involved, or the quantum states of the particles,
this somewhat trivial statement will remain true.
One recurring theme in studying molecules is the separation of energy scales.
When energy scales of different processes are widely different, most other properties are
significantly different, from length scales to time scales to the tools used to manipulate
and measure the processes. These differences are particularly useful because they also
allow the Schrodinger equations for different degrees of freedom to be solved one at atime.
When considering molecules, the core electrons of each atom, which are part of aclosed shell, can be solved while ignoring interatomic forces (to first order), because24they will remain localized near their nucleus and require very large energies to remove
or dramatically perturb. The valence electrons, part of an incomplete shell, will adapt
drastically different orbits, because their weaker binding energy can be overcome by theelectrostatic interaction with an approaching nucleus at typical molecular length scalesof several Bohr radii (a0 = 5 x 10-11). As an example, consider a lithium atom. With twoelectrons filling the first shell (the 1S state), and one electron in the second shell (2Sstate), the outer electron can be ionized with 5.4 eV, a second electron (a core electron)can only be removed with an extra 75.6 eV84.
In the ionic bonds in table salt (or more precisely, in gaseous NaCl), a chlorine
atom strips the valence electron off a sodium atom, and the nuclei bind due to theelectrostatic forces between the Na+ and Cl- ions, with only weak perturbation of theelectron orbits in each ion. At the other extreme, homonuclear diatomic molecules suchas H2 have perfect symmetry between the two nuclei, so both electrons are equally likely
to be near one nucleus as the other. The covalent binding energy comes from the factthat the electronic orbits around the two nuclei are lower in total energy than the
independent electron orbits around a single nucleus85. Most diatomic molecules fall
somewhere in between these cases, with strongly perturbed orbits that have some polar
character caused by the more electronegative nucleus attracting the electron morestrongly.
A unified, general theory of all possible atomic binding phenomena is not only
beyond the scope of this thesis, it doesn't even exist! Such a theory would have toincorporate the exact 4 body problem of a the protons and electrons in H 2, the delicate
balancing acts of organic chemical reactions and protein folding, and the highly

25
empirical sciences describing physical properties of alloys and inhomogeneousminerals. Even the relatively simple problem of a priori calculations of energy levels in
Li2 is currently intractable; useful calculations involve approximations and theconstruction of effective potentials from empirical data86.
However, there must be a place to start; a way to model simple molecules thatstarts with electrons and nuclei, combined with experiments that can compare theaccuracy of different approximations and the importance of all the possible interactions
between subatomic particles that make up molecules. The remainder of this chapter isdedicated to the theory of diatomic molecules, particularly bi-alkali molecules due to theability to cool and precisely measure alkali atoms with lasers.

2.2 The Born-Oppenheimer approximation
2.2.1 Energies and Schrodinger's equations

The first step in reducing the complexity of the task is possible because of anotherseparation in energy scales. The optical energies of electron dynamics (typically on theorder of a few eV (100s of THz)), are much larger than the energies of nuclear motion(vibrational energy levels are spaced by 1 THz at most for tightly bound molecules).
In the Born-Oppenheimer Approximation, the electron wavefunctions andeigenvalues are found for a given nuclear configuration58. The approximation isapproached by defining the basis of many-body wavefunctions to be1

 iBO,v = i r ; R v  R ,  , 26
Φ and χ are the many-body electronic and nuclear wavefunctions, respectively, withindices i and v iterating over all combinations of relevant quantum numbers.

figure 2: definition of coordinates used in molecular
wavefunctions
The coordinates in this wavefunction are illustrated in figure 2. In terms of thesecoordinates, the Hamiltonian can be written
2

H =T N  R , , T e  r V r , R
Here TN is the nuclear kinetic energy operator, Te is the electronic kinetic energy

operator, and V is the electrostatic potential energy. If a full many-body treatment isbeing used, V includes all electron-electron, electron-nucleus, and nucleus-nucleus
terms. If only the valence electrons are explicitly solved, it includes the valence27
electron-electron terms and screened electron-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus terms. The
kinetic energy terms have the form:e

3 T r =

−ℏ2
−ℏ2
2
N
∂ R2 ∂  1 ∂ sin  ∂  1
∂2
∇
;
T

R
,

,
=
∑ i
2m i
∂ R sin  ∂∂  sin 2  ∂ 2
2  R2 ∂ R

[ 







]

Note that TN uses the reduced nuclear mass μ, and is written to show the possibility ofseparation of motion along R (vibrations) from motion along θ and φ (rotations)
The first approximation occurs by assuming TN will be much smaller than Te, andneglecting it when considering the electronic motion. At this point we are ignoringterms such as spin-orbit coupling, spin-spin coupling, hyperfine interactions involving
nuclear spin, etc. These terms may be included in the zero-order Hamiltonian, or they
may be treated perturbatively or ignored all together, depending on the molecule andthe desired precision. By assuming the nuclei are clamped at a fixed R for time-scales
relevant to electronic motion, we write:
4[T e  r V  r , R] i r ; R=E eli  Ri r ; RWhich can be solved to obtain functions Eel(R). We now write the full Schrodinger
equation
5Ne
H iBO, v =〚T  R ,  , T r V r , R〛 i r ; Rv  R , , and multiply by the hermitian conjugate of Ф
6

E

total

e

N

〈 i∣i 〉 i≈ 〈 i∣〚T r V r , R〛∣ i 〉 v  R ,  ,T  R ,  , 〈 i∣ i 〉 i

If electron wavefunctions are normalized, the inner products of Ф equal 1, and by using
equation 4
7

E

total

el

N

v ≈ Ei  R v T  R , , v

Which is now a Schrodinger equation for the nuclear motion, where Eel(R) acts as an28
effective potential experienced by the nuclei.
Quantum numbers specifying the particular electronic state include Λ, theprojection of the electronic orbital angular momentum on R , S, the total electron spin
angular momentum, and Σ, the projection of S on R . These are good quantum
numbers as long as the Born-Oppenheimer approximation is valid, they rely only on thesymmetry of the potential experienced by the electrons due to stationary nuclei
separated by R. There will be multiple solutions to equation 4 of increasing energy for
any combination of these quantum numbers, just as in atoms, and the electron
wavefunction subscript i distinguishes between all such distinct wavefunctions.
When two electronic wavefunctions with different quantum numbers are nearly
degenerate at a given value of R, the BO approximation breaks down because the energyof nuclear motion can be as large as the energy difference between the two electronic
states. However, the BO wavefunctions form a complete orthogonal basis, so any exact
solution can be expressed as a linear combination of BO states. This is convenient, as“presently, ΨBO is the only available type of complete, rigorously definable basis set” formolecular wavefunctions58. In most circumstances, no more than two BO
wavefunctions will be needed, but for highly excited electronic states, many states cansimultaneously cross, making such states very difficult to analyze.
Eqs. 4 and 7 demonstrate the usefulness of the Born-Oppenheimer
approximation. The electron motion can be solved with R as a fixed parameter,
producing Eel(R). At that point, the nuclear motion can be solved using Eel(R) as aneffective potential. This separates the many-body 3-d problem of nuclear and electronic
motion into a 1-D 1-body problem for reduced nuclear motion, and the electronic

29
problem. The electronic problem is still 3-D and many-body, but can be solved using
methods similar to those developed to study atoms57,58,85,87-89.

2.2.2 Numerical solutions and model potentials

At this point we will diverge from a traditional treatment of molecular dynamics.
A traditional treatment would consider the relative importance of neglected terms in the
Hamiltonians, which angular momenta are conserved and which are not under different
circumstances (also known as Hund's cases), and ways to solve or approximate En(R).
Initially, spectroscopic features are identified and given phenomenological parameters(also known as Dunham coefficients52,53), an appropriate basis is considered for solving
the electronic equations, and the parameters (such as the exact form of the electrostatic
potential or angular momenta coupling terms) are refined until adequate agreement isobtained between theoretical energy levels and experimental spectra of moleculartransitions. As this chapter is intended to be a primer to molecules for ultracold atomic
physics, we will leave the hard work to the molecular guys.
With computers, numerical solutions can be obtained to Schrodinger's equations,and the iterative process of fitting accurate potentials Eel(R) to observations is often
feasible. A plot of the lowest electronic levels of the NaLi molecule, solved numericallyby Mabrouk and co-workers59 is given in figure 3. However, it is also instructive toconsider model potentials, where Eel(R) takes the form of a closed formula or aconvergent series2.

30

figure 3: Plots of the lowest singlet and triplet potentials of the NaLi molecule.
Note that the two figures have been rescaled and positioned so that the verticalaxes approximately match up. Reproduced from Mabrouk et. al, J. Phys. B 41,
155101 (2008)

Perhaps the simplest model potential is that of the quantum harmonic oscillator,
centered at the equilibrium separation Re. The minimum potential energy and thestiffness of the oscillator are set so that the lowest few energy levels are accurately
matched to empirical data. Anharmonic corrections can be applied to match higher
energy levels, but even qualitative features of the harmonic oscillator are clearly
unphysical, such as infinite bound vibrational levels. Therefore more accurate model
potentials are needed to draw meaningful conclusions about molecules.

31
A realistic model potential should satisfy a few important requirements. First, it
should reach a constant, finite value as R → ∞. This asymptotic value should be equal to
the total energy of the two free atoms in an electronic configuration that connects
adiabatically to the molecular state of interest. Second, it should have a minimum at R
= Re. Third, it should become infinite (or at least very large relative to dissociation) as R
→ 0, due to the repulsion between nuclei as they approach each other2.
One satisfactory option is the Morse potential90,91. This potential is described by
the function:8el−a  R− Re  2

E  R=D e [1−e]where De is the Dunham coefficient representing the depth (below dissociation) of thepotential minimum.
The Morse potential can be solved analytically under some conditions, making it
a historically important development. It has a finite number of bound energy levels,
gives accurate predictions for the first several low-lying levels, and allows foranharmonic phenomena such as overtone (Δv > 1) transitions. Many model potentials
have been proposed over the decades, each with their own advantages anddisadvantages2.
The value of model potentials is not just the ability to obtain computationallyeasy solutions, but the ability to gain an intuitive picture of the molecule to plan a courseof action for further study. The collections of parameters that make up accurate
numerical potentials are hard to visualize, but approximate curves can help develop
intuition about transitions and molecular states.

32

2.2.3 Long-range interatomic forces

The most important part of the potential for determining the behavior of weaklybound molecules is at long-range. For large separations, the electron wavefunctions arevery similar to the unperturbed atomic solutions, so the zero-order Born-Oppenheimer
solutions are not particularly enlightening. Here the interatomic interaction is mostly
due to the Van der Waals force between two polarizable particles 65.
Van der Waals forces can be interpreted as an attractive force between quantum
fluctuations of the electronic dipoles of each atom. Although ground state atoms havezero expectation value for the dipole moment 〈 d 〉=〈  g∣e r⋅z∣ g 〉 , there is a non-zero
variance
92

 d  = 〈  g∣e r⋅z  ∣ g 〉 − 〈  g∣e r⋅z∣ g 〉  = 〈  g∣e r⋅z  ∣ g 〉 0 ≠ 0222

which can be interpreted as fluctuations of the instantaneous dipole moment of either
atom. These instantaneous dipoles will “induce” a dipole moment in the other atom,
leading to weak dipole-dipole attraction.
More rigorously, by introducing a term in the Hamiltonian representing dipoledipole coupling between two atoms a and b:
10

H '=



1 d a⋅d b −3 d a⋅Rd
B⋅R
3
4 0
R

we obtain no first order perturbation to the ground state, but in second order
perturbation theory

33
2

11

[ 〈  g∣H '∣ e 〉 ] C 6
E == 6
E g −E eR2 

Where C6 is the standard notation for the constant associated with the R 6 interaction.
For excited states, the treatment is the same unless the atoms are indistinguishable ( i.e.
homonuclear molecules) and in different states, in which case the atoms are in the
superposition coupled =[∣ g a e b 〉 ±∣e a g b 〉 ]/  2 . If this is the case, there can be the first order
perturbation12 E 1= 〈  coupled∣ H '∣coupled 〉 =±2 〈 g a e b∣ H ' ∣e a g b 〉 ∝C3
R3

So in homonuclear molecules, the exited state has a much longer-range than the groundstate.
The R3 and R6 terms are only the first terms in the long-range interatomic
potential; relativistic considerations weaken the dipole-dipole correlations at longer
range92, resulting in a “retarded Van der Waals” term which varies as R 7, and potentials
will even display higher order terms which can be significant for accurate knowledge of
weakly-bound states60-62.
One specific opportunity in current atomic and molecular physics is the study ofFeshbach resonances, to addressed in more detail in chapter 3. These require accurate
knowledge of the most weakly bound vibrational states of molecules, but such states
were very hard to identify in traditional molecular spectroscopy, which starts withmolecules in the lowest energy states and drives transitions among low vibrational
states3,93-97,97. However, once a few Feshbach resonances are identified in ultracold gases
they can be used to greatly refine the knowledge of the long range molecular potential 5.

34This knowledge can be used to better predict transitions from these states to excitedstates, which can then be measured with precise spectroscopy, further refining theknowledge of the molecule67.

2.3 Quantum states of molecules
2.3.1 Nuclear rotation and vibration

Regardless of the effective potential, the eigenfunctions form recognizable
patterns and allow for further approximations to simplify the naming of energy levels
and identifying spectroscopic lines with particular transitions. The first approximation
is to separate rotation of the nuclei about the center of mass from vibrations in the
nuclear spacing. Referring back to the form of TN (equation 3), for diatomic molecules
we can separate the terms into
13

T N  R , , =T N  RH ROT

where HROT contains all terms with angular dependence.
Energy of rotation about the nuclei is quantized as usual for angular degrees of
freedom. Introducing the operator for nuclear rotation R (not to be confused with R,
the scalar value of the internuclear separation).
14

H

ROT

=

1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
R =
 R x R y  =[ J x −L x −S x  J y −L y −S y  ]
2
2
2
2R
2 R
2R

The far right side of equation 14 represents the fact that rotational motion of thenuclei is coupled to electron orbit and spin, so R is not necessarily a good quantum

35
number. The rotational operator J = (R+S+L) gives J and mJ,, which are good quantum
numbers due to the symmetry of the Born-Oppenheimer potentials. Because the S and
L operators apply only to electronic wavefunctions, HROT produces a well-defined, R
dependent energy which is independent of the vibrational motion. A detailed treatmentof these terms is beyond the scope of this thesis, but once the hard work is done 58,
equation 7 for nuclear motion can be rewritten as
15[

E total v = T N  RE eli  R]ℏ2
 J  J 1−2 v
2
2 R

where Ω = Λ + Σ. Now the effects of nuclear rotation are encapsulated in perturbations
to Eel and the rightmost term in the Hamiltonian, often called the centrifugal term. This
Schrodinger equation can be used to solve for vibrational wavefunctions.
An alternative approach is to solve first for vibrational energies independent ofrotation. Rotation can then be solved as an additional degree of freedom which perturbs
vibrational energies slightly, resulting in energy splitting of the vibrational levels into
rotational bands. The best approach depends on the energy levels being studied and thecomputational methods used.
Feshbach resonances, for reasons discussed later, only populate specificrotational states. The resonances we use conveniently populate only the R=0 states, andbecause the ground states of alkali atoms have electron orbital momentum L=0, they
adiabatically connect to L=0 molecular states. This greatly simplifies the rotational
behavior of Feshbach molecules, as the only angular momentum comes from electron
spin, which is strongly coupled to the magnetic field, and nuclear spin, which has little
effect on molecular dynamics but produces a manifold of hyperfine states for each BO

36
wavefunction. These details will be addressed in chapter III.

2.3.2 Spectroscopy notation for molecular states

I have put this off until now, but we must review spectroscopic notation ofmolecular energy levels, if only for completeness and translating the literature. Like inmany fields of quantum mechanics, the patterns of molecular transitions were catalogedby distinguishing the largest energy splittings first, followed by smaller and smaller
splittings as the experimental apparatus improved, with the theory explaining theconnection of molecular spectra to physical structure being developed later 57. For thishistorical reason, the naming of energy levels has the rather unwieldy format:
16

N 2S1 (+/-)
 v , J , m j 

where N is replaced with X for the ground electronic states and 2, 3, 4 for excitedelectronic states. Λ is replaced with Σ for states with zero orbital angular momentum
projection, Π for states with projection of 1, etc. (similar to S, P, D states for atoms).
The +/- in the superscript denotes whether wavefunctions are symmetric orantisymmetric in a plane containing the nuclei. Homonuclear molecules also havesymmetry upon reflection normal to the internuclear axis, which is labeled by anothersubscript g/u (from the German terms gerade and ungerade). As an example, the states
expected to be populated by the 796 NaLi resonance is the ground, triplet (S=1), sigma
state and is labeled by X 3 0+  v=14, J =1, m j=1 .
At this point, we abandon further adventures into the theory of diatomic

37
molecules. As can be expected, under many circumstances the approximations will be
invalidated to some degree. Because the theory is far from exact, models of themolecular energies have to be informed by spectroscopy experiments, but thoseexperiments require accurate theories to interpret the results and to anticipate where tolook for new interesting transitions.

2.4 Important considerations for experiments:
2.4.1 Molecular transitions

One aspect of molecular dynamics that is very important in experiments is thestrength of transitions between two molecular states. The matrix element for drivingsuch transitions with photons are similar to the matrix elements of atomic transitions:17〈  g∣d⋅E e i t∣e 〉 = ℏ  R e i  twhere ΩR is the Rabi frequency. It is convenient to express the strength of transitionsin terms of Rabi frequencies, because for resonant driving, the Rabi frequency is the rate
at which ground state atoms are transferred into the excited state. For Na and Li opticaltransitions, several mW/cm2 of laser light will provide Rabi frequencies of order 10
MHz. This is called the saturation intensity for alkali atoms, where the atoms undergo
spontaneous decay at the same rate as they are driven into the excited state, giving the
maximum steady state excited population and maximum fluorescence 75,92.
In molecules, however, the nuclear wavefunctions have to be considered. It is notenough that the electrons are driven to a new state; the nuclear wavefunctions must also

38
evolve into the target state.
Once again the separation of energy scales, and therefore time scales, simplifies
things. The nuclei are charged particles, so they will respond to electromagnetic forces,
but the greater mass and lower energy of vibrational motion make them rather
insensitive to the optical frequencies responsible for driving electronic transitions.
Therefore, the matrix element for molecular transitions can be separated to give:18〈  g  g∣d⋅E e i  t∣ e e 〉 = 〈 g∣d⋅E e i  t∣e 〉 〈  g∣e 〉 =ℏ  R ei  t Q v g , v e S  J g , J e 

where Q is the Franck-Condon factor depending on the vibrational states, and S is the
Hönl-London factor depending on the rotational states58. For weakly bound molecules,
the matrix element containing the electronic wavefunctions is similar to the transition
matrix element of the atomic states to which they adiabatically connect. This is not
surprising, as the electron wavefunctions of such atoms are only somewhat perturbed.
The second part, which calculates the overlap of the initial and final nuclear
wavefunctions, provides a factor which can be multiplied with the atomic matrix
element. The factor can be close to 1 for strong molecular transitions, but can bevanishingly small for transitions between very different nuclear vibrational states. The
Franck-Condon factors will sum to 1 for all possible nuclear transitions to a given
electronic state. Therefore, molecular transition matrix elements, and thus radiative
lifetimes, saturation intensities, and other experimentally relevant quantities, can be
estimated from atomic processes (which are readily studied in bi-alkali systems), as longas the numerical factors are known.
The Frank-Condon factor, which is simply a unitless number, can be calculated
numerically, obtained from empirical data, or estimated using one or more techniques

39
developed by molecular physicists. One simple technique is the use of turning points.
This only requires knowledge of the approximate binding energy and an adequate
pseudo-potential for the initial and final states. See figure 4 for a schematic
explanation of the turning point method.

figure 4: The Turning point method allows identifying transitions with goodFranck-Condon factors. If states have similar classical turning points, they arelikely to have good Franck-Condon factors.

The turning point method works because most of the wavefunction amplitude ofnuclear vibrational states occurs at the classical turning points, where the kinetic energy
is small and the local wavelength is large. This implies that for two nuclear states with

40
classical turning points at similar values of R, the Franck-Condon factor can be large(close to 1), but for two states with vastly different turning points, the factor is probably
very small. For any two particular states, this is a rough estimate, but given theuncertainty of exact vibrational energies and the challenge of setting up a newexperiment covering particular transitions (and therefore finding the appropriate lasers,
initial state preparation, etc.), the turning point method has guided the hands andminds of many molecular physicists65.

2.4.2 Molecules in an electric field:

The major motivation for producing ultracold heteronuclear molecules is to takeadvantage of their electric dipole moments. Ultracold electric dipoles can be used tosearch for an electron EDM, create quantum computing platforms, or study many bodysystems with long-range, anisotropic interactions98. To understand the advantages ofusing heteronuclear molecules for this, we first consider the Stark shift in neutral atoms.
When an atom is placed in a DC Electric field E= z , the following perturbation
is introduced to the atomic Hamiltonian:19

H ' =d⋅E=e  z
Because the coupling term has odd parity, the matrix element will be non-zero

only when coupling states of opposite parity. For atoms, this means coupling states of
odd L to states of even L.
If we consider a ground state alkali atom, the most important coupling (to first41order), is from the ground S state to the first excited P-state. Simplifying to the 2-levelproblem, we have:20[〈  S∣ H '∣S 〉 〈  S∣ H '∣ P 〉〈 P∣H '∣ S 〉 〈  P∣H '∣ P 〉

] [
=

ES
e〈 z〉
*e 〈z 〉 EP]

where <z> is shorthand for matrix element 〈  S∣ z∣ P 〉 . This is just a 2-level
Hamiltonian with well-known eigenvalues:
21

E± =

1
1
 E S E P  ±  E S −E P 2 4∣〈 z 〉∣2  e 222

As seen in figure 5, for small values of the coupling term, the energy of theeigenstate changes quadratically. This is interpreted as an induced dipole, meaning thatthe electric dipole moment (defined as dE/dε) goes from zero and increases linearlywith E-field. For large fields, the energy of the eigenstate becomes linear with E-field.
This means the atom has been fully polarized; the eigenstate is an balanced
superposition of two states of opposite parity and has maximum charge asymmetry.
As an example, in a lithium atom, this requires the coupling term to exceed theenergy splitting between 2S and 2P, or in other words:
22

e a 0  E p−E s = 1.85 eV    3.6 x 108 V /cm

Where the Bohr radius a0 is used for an estimate of <z>. By comparison, the largest DC
electric fields routinely produced in a lab are about 104 V/cm. This means that, inpractice, atoms cannot be polarized by DC lab fields.

42

figure 5: Plot of Stark shifted energies of the lowest S and P states of an alkali atom.
As discussed in the text, the field where the energies become linear (i.e. the atom ispolarized) is of order 108 V/cm.

Molecules have similar maximum ground state dipole moments as atoms (KBr,
an ionic molecule with relatively large dipole moment, has a moment of only 10.5 Debye= 4.2 ea0)99. The major difference in a heteronuclear molecule in an E-field is that the
charge imbalance between the two nuclei couples to the E-field, allowing a nonzero
coupling Hamiltonian between nuclear states of differing rotational angularmomentum. Because these states are spaced by 10-100 MHz rather than 1014 Hz,43practical lab fields can readily polarize the molecule. Some molecules, for example PbO,
can be polarized with only 10 V/cm46.
The very small E-fields required to polarize some molecules have lead chemists todefine “permanent” electric dipole moments. To a physicist, dipole moments are notpermanent; when E = 0, the true eigenstates are eigenstates of rotational kinetic energy,
not dipole moment orientation, and these states have zero expectation value of <z>.
However, the perturbation felt by another nearby molecule with “permanent” electric
dipole moment is strong enough to polarize both molecules. Similarly, if in theexperiment of interest, a polarizable system stays in the linear regime of energy vs.
external E-field, it can be considered to have a well-defined dipole moment, and the full
coupling dynamics can be ignored. This is the case for bi-alkali molecules in 10 kV/cm
laboratory fields, for PbO held between low voltage capacitor plates, or for polarchemical compounds while they are being dissolved by the “permanent” dipole momentof water molecules.

44

3
Molecule Formation:
Collisions andFeshbach Resonances
3.1 Atomic collisions and molecule formation

Traditionally, molecules for scientific study have been formed by atomic andmolecular collisions in the form of chemical reactions, either reactions occurring in a lab
specifically to produce the molecule of interest, or naturally occurring reactions which
produce stable compounds that can be refined to obtain samples of the desired
molecules.
On a microscopic level, chemical reactions are inelastic collisions. Reactant
particles approach each other with finite kinetic energy and move close enough together
that the electron clouds are strongly perturbed from the initial states. These perturbed
reactant configurations can couple to other possible combinations of bound states withthe same total atomic constituents. As the wavefunctions evolve, the system has a finite
probability to transition to a different state that can satisfy energy conservation andmomentum conservation. In high energy conditions (here meaning room temperatureor higher), many possible final states will be populated.

45
The actual processes can involve any number of initial reactant particles, canleave the product particles with more or less kinetic energy (exothermic andendothermic reactions), and can result in the emission or absorption of photons(sometimes called photochemical reactions, such as photosynthesis). The history ofchemistry has been dedicated to identifying and predicting patterns of these processes,
and modern physical chemistry has been quite successful in using physics to describe
the origins of many of these patterns99.

3.1.1 Inelastic collisions

At ultracold temperatures, such inelastic collisions are still significant, but for
many atomic physics experiments, they are considered undesirable sources ofdecoherence and trap loss. When experiments require temperatures of less than 1 μK,
the absorption or emission of optical photons will result in recoil energy in the atoms,
which leads to heating of the clouds. Even without photochemistry, the kinetic energy
released from differences in binding energies of initial and final states can be equallysignificant. If the trap has finite depth (meaning high energy particles can escapecompletely), or only traps specific quantum states (such as any magnetic trapping field),the high-energy products of such reactions will at best leave the trap immediately. At
worst, they will undergo further collisions with other ultracold particles, possibly
depositing kinetic energy into the cloud or knocking many additional particles out of the
trap.

46
At ultracold temperatures, endothermic reactions or exothermic reactions
requiring activation energy are almost impossible due to the low initial kinetic energy.
Also, by working with the proper states of the initial atoms, it is possible to eliminate
two-body inelastic collisions. To show this, consider an inelastic collision where two
atoms collide and bind into a molecule. Simultaneous conservation of center-of-mass
momentum and kinetic energy requires:23

m1 v 1m2 v 2=m1m 2 V

24

1
1
2
2
2
m1 v 1  m 2 v 2 =1/ 2 m 2m 2 V −E b22

Where V is the molecule velocity and Eb the molecular binding energy which is greaterthan 0 for a bound state. After changing to the center-of-mass frame, V=0, so thesecond equation cannot be satisfied unless v1 = v2 = Eb = 0. This trivial zero-energy,
perfectly resonant case is technically elastic (with no transfer of kinetic into internalenergy), so two-body inelastic collisions cannot result in a bound state.
3-body collisions have an extra particle to carry away the kinetic energy, but at
low densities, they occur much less frequently than 2-body collisions. By choosing thelowest hyperfine state of the two colliding atoms, the system can also avoid inelastic
collisions where the atoms leave with lower internal energy.
For low energy collisions where the de Broglie wavelength is large and theinteraction is short-range (see section 3.3.1 for a discussion of “short-range”
interactions) collisions will not cause relative rotation of the atoms, and total angularmomentum of electrons and nuclei will be preserved. This can be demonstrated byanalyzing collisions in terms of partial waves of definite angular momentum, but can be

47
intuitively understood by the fact that over interaction length scales, the atomic
wavefronts are very flat and thus do not undergo “glancing” collisions which would put
them in a rotating state. This is often referred to as the “freezing out” of P-wave andhigher order collisions1.100
Thus, the lowest hyperfine states are not even necessary; angular momentum
conservation means that the initial state must only be lower in energy than other stateswith the same total mf and the atoms will be safe from inelastic 2-body collisions.

3.1.2 Useful inelastic collisions in ultracold atoms

Inelastic collisions can be used to the ultracold physicist's advantage. For
example, when properly detuned from a Feshbach resonance in Li-6, atoms were seen toreach a thermal equilibrium of free atoms and molecules through inelastic 3-bodycollisions. Energy considerations dictated that they populated almost exclusively thenearly resonant state. The finite trap depth meant that energetic free atoms tended toescape the trap, but the bound molecules remained as the mixture continuously
evaporated. Thus, the desired chemical reaction (Li + Li → Li2), occurred with great
efficiency, the cloud was sufficiently ultracold, and the final quantum state of themolecules was well controlled13.
A type of controlled inelastic collision which relies on photochemistry is
1 Mathematically, higher partial waves have scattering amplitudes and phase shifts that depend on the
product (kr), and therefore become insignificant for small values of k (low kinetic energy) and smallvalues of r (short interaction range).

48
photoassociation. Ultracold photoassociation involves preparing a large, cold sample ofatoms, either in long-lived states in a conservative atom trap, or in a continuously
replenished trap such as a magneto-optical trap65,101. A laser is then used to drive a
specific transition to an excited molecular state. At this point, the excited molecule will
decay spontaneously, releasing fluorescence photons and populating deeply boundground state molecules. Alternatively another transition can be driven to ionize themolecule or reach a specific molecular state. These processes are generally incoherent,
but can still result in a large population of molecules in a desired quantum state.
If the downward transition is stimulated with a laser (thereby making the wholeprocess a Raman transition), it can preferentially populate a specific quantum state andalso avoids the random emission of a photon, preserving the low temperature.
Furthermore, adiabatic transfer from the colliding states to the target state through
STIRAP processes102, could allow the reversible transfer of quantum degenerate gases todeeply bound molecular states. This technique has not yet been demonstrated inphotoassociation.

3.2 Collisions and losses in dilute ultracold gases

In a dilute, cold atomic cloud, inelastic collisions can be severely restricted by the
low kinetic energy available, the low atomic density, and the symmetry of low energy
collisions. However, there are always finite inelastic collision rates, and near Feshbachresonances, the rates can be enhanced to the point that they prevent (or enable) the49
success of a proposed experiment.
In particular weakly-bound molecules can always decay to more deeply boundvibrational states. These vibrational decays are slow when the molecule is isolated 103, as
weakly-bound molecules and homonuclear diatomic molecules in general will notundergo radiative decay. Even heteronuclear bi-alkali molecules have slow radiative
decay; lifetimes are typically many milliseconds and isolated deeply bound RbK has
been observed with greater than 100 ms lifetimes.
However, collisions with another molecule or a free atom can cause strong
coupling between different vibrational states, leading to rapid “quenching” to lower
energy states and depositing the energy released into the relative motion of the moleculeand atom104,105.
Ranges for the forces between neutral atoms (less than 50 a0) are much shorter
than typical interatomic spacing (typically 1 μm in our experiments), so collisions
become less and less likely (by roughly na3) for each additional particle involved in thecollision. This motivates us to consider only few-body collisions.

3.2.1 3-body atomic losses

If hyperfine states are selected as recommended in chapter 3.1, 2-body collisions
will be elastic. Near a Feshbach resonance, the matrix elements in the scattering
process can be greatly enhanced, but they remain elastic collisions. This is often used toenhance thermalization106, hydrodynamic behaviors107, or many-body phenomena11,108.

50
The chief loss process of correctly chosen mixtures of ultracold atoms are then 3body processes. The same arguments invoking conservation of center-of-mass
momentum and angular momentum apply to collisions resulting in a bound trimer orthree atoms, so we consider collisions where two atoms become a bound molecule, andone atom remains free.
These collisions can be interpreted as a 2-body interaction occurring for a finite
time with a third particle colliding during the interaction time. This gives an intuitive
picture of the way three-body losses are enhanced near a Feshbach resonance. The
duration of the 2-body interaction can become very large close to resonance (where thelifetime h/δE becomes large for the near resonant molecular state with small binding
energy δE), allowing ample time for a third particle to become involved and cause an
inelastic collision. The collision quenches the weakly-bound molecular state coupledwith the Feshbach resonance, causing it to decay to a tightly bound state, and depositing
the remaining energy in the resulting molecule and atom.
This motivates the claim that enhanced atom loss near a Feshbach resonanceimplies that the target molecules have been produced, although in virtual, weakly boundstates. However, the molecules may be produced with substantial kinetic energy in arandom deeply bound molecular state, making them useless for further experiments inquantum phenomena.

3.2.2 2-body molecular losses

51
Not to be confused with the previously mentioned 3-body atomic losses,
molecular losses are those that occur once molecules have been produced and remain in
the trap, colliding with each other and remaining atoms. Feshbach association produces
molecules in weakly-bound states. In these states the atoms are well-separated and arebound mostly by the Van-der-waals forces rather than through typical covalent
electronic bonds. Such states are called “Halo dimers” in the literature 65.
Because the molecule can always decay farther down the vibrational ladder, 2body collisions with other atoms or molecules can always be inelastic unless themolecule is in the true ground state of the system. Furthermore, near the Feshbachresonance the bound atoms still experience resonant interactions with remaining free
atoms.
One special case worth mentioning is a 2-state mixture of indistinguishable
fermions. If molecules are formed with one particle in each state and the molecule
remains a long-range Halo dimer, each constituent fermion resembles a free atom withlong deBroglie wavelength. If a third fermion (indistinguishable from one of theconstituent fermions), participates in a collision, an inelastic decay to a deeply boundstate would require indistinguishable fermions to suddenly enter a tightly bound statemuch smaller than their initial deBroglie wavelength; and such collisions are greatly
suppressed by the Pauli-exclusion principle109,110. Once the molecule becomes moredeeply bound, however, the wavefunctions and internal states of the bound atoms
become less like the free atoms inelastic collisions can occur rapidly.
Another unique situation occurs if the molecules themselves are composite
fermions (i.e. a bound state of one bosonic atom and one fermionic atom). S-wave

52collisions are forbidden by the symmetry of the collision. If P-wave collisions are frozen
out, this should allow the fermionic molecules to be long-lived. However, this only
applies when the molecules are tightly bound; the weakly bound Halo dimers can still
experience resonant collisions between constituent atoms103,111,112.

3.2.3 Scattering coefficients

The likelihood of a given particle undergoing a 2-body collision is proportional tothe probability that a second particle is nearby. This is therefore proportional to thedensity of the collision partner. 2-body collision rates (per particle) can be written as25

 12=12 n2
Where the coefficient (beta) has units (cm3/s), and the subscript 2 on density

reflects the fact that it is the density of the species of the collision partner, not the
species whose collision rate is being measured. To clarify, ΓNa Li gives the rate at which aparticular Na atom collides with any Li atom, and depends on Li density, not Na density.
One would correctly expect that β12 = β21.
3-body collisions require yet another particle present, leading to another factor
proportional to density, and can be written26

 123 =K 123 n2 n 3

In ultracold atomic physics, these coefficients are often reported separately forelastic and inelastic collisions. This is because in finite-depth state-selective traps,
elastic collisions lead to thermal equilibrium while inelastic collisions lead to atom loss.

53
Elastic collisions can also create losses by thermally populating motional states which
can escape from the trap. Determining elastic collision rates requires carefulmeasurements of thermodynamic processes combined with accurate theories. Inelastic
collision rates, on the other hand, can be measured by simply counting the atoms
remaining in the trap for varying amounts of hold time.
As atoms are lost, density drops and collisions slow down. This gives typicalcurves for particle numbers in the presence of inelastic 2-body and 3-body collisions.
See figure 6 for a simple plot of the different processes. If a system is known toexperience both types of processes, a single lifetime measurement can be used to
identify both coefficients113, although it requires high-quality data to distinguish between
the two curves, especially in the presence of one-body processes such as background gas
collisions or heating in a finite depth trap.

54

figure 6: A plot of 2-body and 3-body losses for a homogeneous gas. All units arearbitrary. The coefficients were chosen so that losses were equally significant
initially.

These curves are not exponential as expected from density independent processes(such as radiative decay, light scattering, or collisions with background particles in theapparatus), but the term lifetime is often applied colloquially to 2-body or 3-body losses
as the inverse rate Γ -1 at which atoms are lost at a given density.
The scattering coefficients can be calculated if all the decay channels andcollisional matrix elements (coupling free atomic states to potential decay states). A
priori calculations of these rates require exact wavefunctions for the bound states, which

55
as discussed in chapter 2 are generally not well known. As such, the rates are generally
found empirically.
2-body collision rates are often presented as a cross-section σ with units of area,
defined as27

= /nv

This is partly historical, as collisions were often studied with beams of particles colliding
with other beams or with stationary targets85. The velocity v shows up because it
identifies the distance through a homogeneous density n that a particle can move in unit
time. This interpretation is consistent with many physical systems where collision rate
is proportional to v, but cross section is rather constant with v.
The cross-section interpretation also offers intuition about another importantresult. Consider particles with finite spatial extent, such as thermal atoms extended
over DeBroglie wavelength  DB = h/  2  m k B T 114. For short-range interactions with r0<< λDB, a collision will not occur if the wavefunctions never overlap, leading to a
maximum cross section for a ≥ λdB which depends on temperature (or another relevantenergy scale, such as Tf for a degenerate Fermi gas), but not on the details of theinteraction. This is called the unitarity limit115, and can be stated simply as28

4 /k 2=16 3 2DB

where the numerical factor can be found with a more careful theoretical treatment 85.
This leads directly to the unitarity limited 2-body coefficient29

= v

16 2 h 2
m3/ 2  3 k B T

For 100 nK and collisions between Na and NaLi (with reduced mass of 13.7amu), the56unitarity limited 2-body loss coefficient is 3.1 x 10-7 cm3/s.
Measured loss rates in ultracold gases are generally much lower than theunitarity limit, but near a Feshbach resonance or when dealing with weakly-boundmolecular states, inelastic losses can come close to this limit.

3.3 Feshbach resonances

The current method of choice to produce ultracold molecules in well-definedquantum states uses Feshbach resonances31. Mentioned previously, a Feshbachresonance occurs when a free atomic state and a bound molecular state have different
magnetic moments. At a specific magnetic field B0 the states become degenerate, andeven very weak coupling between the two states can result in strong interactions,adiabatic transfer between states, and enhanced inelastic collisions.

3.3.1 Coupling between atomic and molecular states

For low kinetic energy and short range potentials (k << 1/r0, where r0 is anappropriate cutoff range of the potential), the exact form of the potential is unimportant
for asymptotic properties. Intuitively, this is similar to the way that P-wave collisions
are frozen out at low energies; the atoms cannot “see” the details of the potential. The
range r0 is determined by requiring that the kinetic energy of a particle confined within

57that range is larger than the potential energy outside the range:30

T  r0   V  r0  ℏ2∣V r 0∣ r 2oThis means that potentials that fall off faster than 1/r2 may considered shortrange. Because the longest range components of neutral atomic interactions are Van
der Waals terms (which fall off at least as fast as 1/r3), we can ignore the details of thepotential when calculating scattering properties. Applying condition 30 to typicalinteratomic potentials, the length r0 is of order 2-5 nm (sometimes referred to as the
Van der Waals length lvdw in the literature116-118). Therefore we can model interatomic
interactions with square wells of width r0 and depth adjusted to match empirical results.
The initial atomic state has kinetic energy ε = k2/2μ, where μ is the reduced massof the atom pair. The atomic state experiences an interaction potential
31{

V a = −V bg for r r 0
0
r r 0}

Where Vbg is chosen to give the appropriate non-resonant scattering properties. The
molecular state has binding energy Em (relative to dissociation). The molecularpotential to which the atom couples is:32{

V m= −V c  E for rr 0
E
rr 0

}

where ΔE >> ε is the energy of the free atomic state asymptotically coupled to themolecular potential, relative to the initial atomic state, and Vc is adjusted to give thecorrect binding energy Em of the weakly bound molecular state. For brevity we willdefine the molecular energy relative to the atomic energy as the detuning δ = ΔE – Em.
See figure 7 for clarification on these potentials and energies.

58

figure 7: Illustration of energies defined in the coupled square wells analysis. The
solid line is the open channel potential Va, the dashed line the closed channel
potential Vm, and the dotted lines depict energies of the coupled states.

For our atomic system, Va corresponds to the initial state, which generally has
both atoms in one of the lowest hyperfine states at high magnetic field. These states arealways triplet states (because both electrons are anti-aligned to the magnetic field). V m
can be a singlet state or another triplet state with different ms. Therefore the coupling
between the two potentials is related to singlet-triplet coupling (or coupling between
different triplet states), which occur because of the hyperfine interaction.

59
For a Feshbach resonance, ΔE is given by the difference in Zeeman energies ofthe states, and can be changed by adjusting the magnetic field. If ΔE ≈Em , (δ ≈ 0) the
bound state is nearly resonant with the free atomic state with small energy ε. When themolecular state is lower in energy than the dissociation energy (magnetic fields where
this occurs are said to be on the molecular side of the resonance), a true bound molecule
will exist. When the molecular state is higher in energy than the dissociation energy, themolecules will very quickly dissociate into the continuum of available free atomic states.
Molecules in this situation (at magnetic fields on the atomic side of the resonance), aremetastable, and are sometimes called quasi-bound or virtual-bound molecules.
The wavefunction of a free atom, without any coupling to the molecular state, is

33{

sin K + r
for rr 0
Kr+∣a 〉 =sin kr 0 
for r r 0
kr}

where K+ and η0 are determined by requiring the wavefunctions to satisfy the
Schrodinger equation and meet boundary conditions at r0. Similarly,

34{

sin K - r
∣ m 〉 = K - r for r r 0
0 for rr 0}

where the molecular wavefunction outside the well is approximated as 0 because thepotential V(r) = ΔE >> ε in that region.
If we allow a coupling term of energy 〈  m∣V '  ε∣a 〉 ≪V bg , V c , the eigenenergies
and wavefunctions within the well will be strongly perturbed when ∣∣V '  . When|ψa> within the well changes, the phase shift η0 will have to change drastically to60
maintain the boundary condition at r0. For brevity, I will not show the math, but aninterested reader can refer to the thesis of Martin Zweirlein100 for detailed results.
This changing phase shift can be interpreted as a changing scattering length. In
fact, if the condition k << 1/r0 is met, the major effects of the resonance on the atomic
collisional states can be parametrized entirely by the scattering length a. This is possible
because the short-range potential can accurately be replaced by a hard-sphere potential
with radius that grows large and becomes negative (i.e. the wall occurs at negative r)
when the resonance is crossed. The interpretation breaks down when the radius
becomes larger than the DeBroglie wavelength at which point the dynamics can be
described by unitary physics.
The adiabatic ground state of the system connects the atomic state (on the atomic
side of the Feshbach resonance) to the molecular bound state as the magnetic field isvaried. A straightforward 2-level analysis would put the energy at
35

1
1
1
2
2
E = − [ ] V ' 22

but this ignores the fact that the real problem couples the molecular state to thecontinuum of atomic states.
For an accurate treatment, the coupling element (V'(ε)2/2 ε) should be integrated
over all possible incoming states, and the coupling V'(ε) will vary with atomic kinetic
energy, although it is expected to be constant for low energy32. Summarizing the resultsfrom theory, make the substitution:
36

g
k2
V '
= k
2m  

{g k = g 0 for k 1/ r 0
0 for k 1/ r 0}

61
where Ω is the volume of the effective potential well. The integrations over all possible
coupling states give the energies:
37

0≡∑


38

V ' 22

[

g 20 m 3/ 2
E 0≡
2 2 ℏ 2

2]

With these energies, the ground state energy below resonance (the binding energy of themolecule) is given by
39

E=−E 0−0  E 02−2 E 0 −0 

3.3.2 Experimental parameters of Feshbach resonances

If the total angular momentum of the atomic and molecular states are equal, theinteractions can occur with S-waves, and the resonance is referred to as an S-wave
Feshbach resonance. Feshbach resonances can occur when the atomic state couples to amolecular state with different total angular momentum, but in these cases the collisionmust involve higher partial waves. Although these waves are “frozen out”, whenresonantly enhanced they can still be observed and used to couple to molecular states 119.
In Cesium, S, P, D, F, and even G-wave resonances have been observed in various spinstates120.
For S-wave resonances, as previously mentioned, the perturbation of the planewaves can be described by the S-wave scattering length a, where the scattering length is
the radius of a hard sphere potential which would have the same effect on the62asymptotic long-range wavefunction.
At magnetic fields away from resonance, the scattering length will have aconstant value abg, known as the background scattering length. This is the net effect ofcoupling to all the possible non-resonant collisional states, and can have a positive or
negative value. The value of the scattering length at any field generally represents thestrength of interactions between particles.
Near resonance, the scattering length diverges. A detailed analysis of the
wavefunctions in the last section can be performed, but in the end the result can beparametrized by40

a resonant =m g 20 1
1


2
2

−
2ℏ
0

and total scattering length is41

a = a bga resonant = a bg 1−

42

 B=



B

B−B0

2 ℏ2  E 0m  a bg

Where ΔB is commonly called the resonance width, and B0 is the magnetic field at
which the (shifted) resonance occurs. Δμ = μm – μa, the difference in magnetic
moments of the atomic and molecular states. The signs of ΔB and abg determine where
scattering length diverges to +∞, which occurs on the molecular side of the resonance,
and where it diverges to -∞, the atomic side of the resonance.
For very small detunings on the molecular side of the resonance, the molecules
are Halo dimers, which resemble two atoms on a stick weakly bound by the effective
interaction. Such states have a universal binding energy given by63
E=−ℏ 2 /ma 243This is only consistent in the region where binding energy remains quadratic withmagnetic field. Beyond this region, the molecules resemble the bound molecular state
and the binding energy follows the relative Zeeman energies.
The sign of the scattering length determines whether the interactions are
repulsive or attractive. In ultracold gases, it determines mean-field interaction energy,
so a positive scattering length, corresponding to repulsive interactions, causes the gas toexpand.
A weakly-bound state causing repulsive interactions may seem counter-intuitive.
Coupling to a weakly-bound state always pushes the energy of the colliding pair up,
unless they can inelastically decay into the actual molecular state. Conversely, coupling
to virtual-bound state (with negative binding energy) will push the energy of the atoms
down, causing attractive interactions, even though the atoms will not form a boundstate.

3.3.3 Scaling of loss coefficients with scattering length.

At low temperature the scattering length (see Chapter 3.2.2) for an S-wave
collision gives the 2-body collisional cross section simply as =4 a 2 . This is not
surprising, as by construction a scattering length is the radius of a hard-sphere potential
which gives the same collisional properties as the true potential, and for a true hardsphere potential the classical interpretation is valid. The factor of 4 arises from the fact

64
that the critical impact parameter is twice the hard sphere radius.
The enhancement of a near a Feshbach resonance can be used to enhance elastic
collisions and improve thermalization106. It can also lead to enhanced inelastic
collisions, particularly causing large 3-body losses very close to resonance. The large
losses are generally the way Feshbach resonances are identified experimentally.
3-body collisions have a more complex dependence on scattering length. Generalscaling behaviors can be calculated105, but the absolute value of K3 is not so easily
determined. In the Bose-Fermi mixture of RbK, the 3-body loss coefficient was found toscale as a4, as expected.
Resonant 2-body molecular collisions have similarly complex dependence on
scattering length112, which is not surprising due to the conceptual similarity to 3-bodyatomic collisions.
Even if the loss coefficients are known exactly from scattering length, there is afurther complication in a real experiment. The interactions (elastic and inelastic)
produce mean-field energy from the average effect of collisions at the local density,
leading to expansion or contraction of the gas121 when the scattering length changes due
to a Feshbach resonance. This change in local density leads to deviations from thelosses expected in a uniform gas at the same density. Furthermore, a quantum
degenerate gas can demonstrate collective motion and hydrodynamic effects 11 which canfurther complicate the prediction of loss rates in a real experiment.
Josh Zirbel and coworkers measured many collision rates in strongly interacting
samples of RbK near a Feshbach resonance 103. Their results show that althoughquantitative agreement with simple theories is hard to observe, many of the expected

65
trends can be seen. One particularly interesting measurement is the loss rates due to
RbK-Rb collisions, which are assumed to be the most significant near resonance. See
figure 8 for a reproduction of the figure from the paper.
Note that losses are increasing near resonance, but also increase until similar tolosses due to distinguishable atoms away from resonance. This can be understood by
the fact that away from resonance, the hyperfine state in the molecules is no longer
similar to the hyperfine state of the resonantly interacting atoms, and the remaining
atoms are all distinguishable.
The loss behavior of distinguishable atoms (the dashed line in figure 8) is
predicted from112. The suppression of losses near the Feshbach resonance is due to thefact that Halo dimers have poor wavefunction overlap with the deeply bound vibrational
states to which they would decay. This suppresses the decay in the same way as aFranck-Condon factor suppresses transitions between molecular states with very
different nuclear wavefunctions.

66

figure 8: Measured coefficient for inelastic losses of RbK molecules colliding withbosonic Rb as scattering length is resonantly enhanced. Circles with error bars
are measured loss rates, and the dashed line gives the coefficient for collisions with
distinguishable particles, for comparison. Reproduced from Zirbel et. al, PRL 100,
143201 (2008).

3.3.4 Comparison of energy scales

67

In terms of experimentally useful parameters, the binding energy can be writtenas
44

E=−E o  B−B0  E −2 E 0   B−B0  ;
2
0



E 0=

m B  a bg 2
2ℏ

2



If E0 is smaller than the typical energy spread of the gas (such as kBT, Ef or meanfield interaction energy in a BEC), not all atom pairs with relative kinetic energy ε will
be uniformly perturbed by the resonance. This is often referred to as a narrow
resonance. If E0 is larger than this energy, all atom pairs are affected, and the resonanceis called a broad resonance. The distinction is important in estimating the effect of theresonance on the thermodynamics of the atom cloud31. However, the distinction
depends on the atomic density and temperature, and is not intrinsic to the particular
Feshbach resonance.
A more intrinsic distinction can be made by considering binding energy vs.
magnetic field. For large detuning, the ground state energy will be linear with magnetic
field, as it represents the energy of the magnetic dipole moment for either the free atoms
or the bound molecule. For small detunings, the energy varies quadratically, and can beinterpreted as the magnetic moment changing from the free atom case to the moleculecase. This can be used to estimate the molecular character admixed with the the atomic
character for the true ground state wavefunction at a given magnetic field.
Comparing the range of magnetic fields where the scattering length is enhanced(the resonance width ΔB, which is 2.2G for NaLi), to the range of fields where theresonant binding formula E=ℏ2 / ma 2 still predicts a magnetic moment closer to the68atomic state than the molecular state, we can make an important distinction among
different Feshbach resonances. The magnetic moment near resonance is45

2 ℏ 2  B− B0 ∂ ℏ2
−atom =≈∂ B ma 2 ma bg  B2

where the approximation holds while a >> abg. This approximate formula gives highly
unphysical magnetic moments at large values of (B-B 0), so by finding the magnetic field
detuning where it gives a prediction equal to Δμ, we can estimate the point at which themolecules are no longer mostly open-channel.
2

46

2

2 ℏ  B− B0   ma bg  BE     Bopen =
= 0
2
2
2

m abg  B
2ℏ
For the NaLi resonance at 796G (1594G), this range is about 3 mG (17 mG). If theratio δBopen/ ΔB is greater than 1, the resonance is open-channel dominated; that is theclosed channel admixture is very small for most magnetic fields that enhance atomic
scattering. If the quantity is much less than 1, the resonance is closed-channel
dominated, meaning the atoms have significant molecular character across theresonance.
The binding energy of the 796G resonance is shown in figure 8. Compare this tothe similar situation for RbK, and it becomes clear that although the resonances havevery similar resonance widths (ΔBNali = 2.2 G vs. ΔBRbK = 3.6 G)30, the range of fields
where binding energy remains quadratic is very different, since for RbK δBopen = 5.3G.

69

figure 9: Binding Energies of NaLi molecules compared to RbK molecules. Note thedifference in scales of both axes.

Other expressions representing the open-channel dominated character of aresonance can be constructed invoking the behavior of the coupled wavefunctions or thecharacteristic length scales of the Van der Waals potential31,32, but this construction isbased only on the experimentally important quantities of scattering length, magnetic
moments, and ΔB, and it identifies the range where binding energy is quadratic, which
is useful for RF spectroscopy. In fact, RF transitions become weak outside the range
δBopen, because the transition from free atomic state to bound molecular state is greatly
suppressed by poor wavefunction overlap.
The behavior of the molecular state near resonance is determined by the net
coupling to all possible free atomic states. However, many phenomena, such as
scattering and adiabatic association, depend instead on the coupling of a particularatomic state to the molecular state. Such single-channel coupling depends on
V ' 2 /2  , which, for low energy, is proportional to the quantity:

7047

 E 0 = a bg  B  
m3 /2

m

3.4 Adiabatic molecule formation

In Chapter 3 we discussed how a Feshbach resonance results from coupling free
atomic states to bound molecular states when the electronic and nuclear magnetic
moments differ. The internal states are coupled with the hyperfine interaction, and theground state of the coupled channels calculation then resembles a molecular vibrational
state with exactly zero binding energy.
When the magnetic field is far away from resonance, the states are no longer
strongly coupled, and the atoms will be in a true molecular state with finite binding
energy or a truly free atomic state with normal collisional properties. See figure 10 for
an illustration.

71

figure 10: The states coupled by a Feshbach resonance. Far from resonance, theatoms are unbound and weakly interacting (states (a) and (b). As the resonanceapproaches, state (b) couples to the molecular state (c). The free atomic state (a)adiabatically couples to a free state with slightly higher kinetic energy (d).

If the energies are changed very quickly, the wavefunctions cannot follow the
eigenstates, and the state makes a transition from one eigenstate to another. This canbe interpreted in many ways: the coupling is too weak to affect the wavefunction in thelimited perturbation time, the rapidly changing environment does work on the system,and the interactions that define the uncoupled energies of the system determine the“good” quantum numbers while the coupling interaction does not.
On the other hand, if the energies change very slowly, the atom will follow the
eigenstates, with the wavefunction adiabatically changing from the initial state to thefinal state. This is an extremely powerful experimental tool; in fact, we use it constantly
to guarantee complete transitions between atomic hyperfine states.

72

3.4.1 Effects of phase-space density on molecule
formation

The atomic and molecular states are coupled by the hyperfine interaction, so by
sweeping slowly they will adiabatically transfer from atom to molecules or back.
However, there is a major complication in that it is not just a two level system, but acontinuum of free atomic states coupled to a single molecular state. In the center-ofmass frame, a molecule can potentially dissociate to any number of possible atomic
states, especially if the sweep is not perfectly adiabatic and can deliver some extra
kinetic energy to the atoms25.
Some intuition of the full problem can be gained from two atoms with the same
mass in a quantum harmonic oscillator. The problem can be decomposed into centerof-mass and relative coordinates:
48

p12 1
p22 1
2 2
2 2
H=
 m q1  m q2
2m 2
2m 2

49

P= p1− p2, Q=q1−q2, p0= p 1 p 2  , q0 = q1q 2 /2

50

H=

p2
P2 1
 m 2 Q2  0 m 2 q 204m 4
4mHere the coordinates have been replaced with the combinations that are
intuitively associated with relative and center of mass motion. It is clear that the
problem is equivalent to independent QHOs for the relative and center-of-mass
coordinates, but with different effective mass and frequency.

73
The molecule will inherit the center-of-mass motion of the atoms, so only the
relative coordinates will be affected. But the molecule has no relative motion (apartfrom vibration and rotation, which are determined completely by the resonance used),so it connects to the ground state of the relative motion32. Other relative motion states
do not adiabatically connect to the molecular state. See figure 11 for a diagram of what
happens to the atomic states as the resonance is crossed.

figure 11: Coupling of eigenstates of relative motion in a harmonic oscillator acrossa feshbach resonance. Image reproduced from Kohler et al, RMP 78, 1311 (2006).

If starting with two uncorrelated atoms in the harmonic oscillator at a finite
temperature, the motion can be decomposed into COM and relative coordinates, and theparticles will have a finite probability to be in the ground state of relative motion, and74
therefore can still adiabatically connect to the molecular state, but with reduced
efficiency. The higher the temperature, the smaller the ground state component of the
wavefunction, and the smaller the probability to form molecules. Rather than following
this idealized system to exact solutions, I will instead refer to a paper by Shohei Watabe
and Tetsuro Nikuni122, which studies a situation more applicable to experiments.
The authors perform thermodynamic calculations of uniform density atomic andmolecular systems, calculating the entropy at varying magnetic fields and finite initial
temperature. By assuming perfectly adiabatic sweeps, they calculate the maximum
formation efficiency of molecules by connecting states of equal entropy across the
Feshbach resonance. They apply the method to Bose-Bose, Bose-Fermi, and FermiFermi mixtures with various population imbalances. As expected, molecule formation
efficiency is optimum for zero temperature and drops as temperature increases. Not
surprisingly, the result does not take a simple analytic form. See figure 12 for a few
results from their paper applied to Bose-Fermi mixtures.

75

figure 12: Maximum adiabatic molecule formation efficiency (defined as the ratio of
molecules to minority atoms) for Bose-Fermi mixtures at finite temperature. In a),
the ratio of bosons to fermions is 15:2, in b), it is 2:15 (solid line), 3:4 (dashed line)or 13:15 (dotted line). Note that the x axes are similar to reduced temperatures T/T f
or T/Tc. Figures reproduced from Watabe and Nikuni, PRA 77, 013616 (2008).

These figures show two things of interest. One, is that molecule formation can be
maximized (relative to minority atom number) by having more fermions than bosons.
The authors suggest this occurs because a boson majority gas will always have a finite
condensation temperature, stimulating bosons to join the condensate rather than form
molecules, while a fermion majority gas can pair all the bosons into molecules,
eliminating the possibility of a condensate.
Second, the molecule formation efficiency is relatively constant at low
temperature, but falls off above a specific temperature. The x axis is very similar to
reduced temperature, because Tf or Tc are proportional to ħωN1/3, so it can be

76
considered a function of phase space density. The temperature where the conversion
efficiency plateaus is near Tc for boson majority and near T/Tf = 0.5 for fermion
majority.
The theoretical results give fair agreement with experiments 23,123, apart fromfudge factors which could be justified because of non-adiabatic sweeps or losses. In our
experiments, we generally use nearly balanced mixtures, as it is hard to have stableratios of Na and Li with large imbalance. For sake of producing a simple analytic
formula to analyze experimental efforts, I propose the function:

51{

T 3f /2
a ≡ 8 T 3/ 2 for T 0.5T f
0.5 for T 0.5T f}

I give no justification for this particular function other than rough agreementwith figure 12, and the fact that it's proportional to phase space density, which has an
intuitive appeal. Because the authors did not present a plot for boson to fermion ratio of
1:1, I assume the trend of zero temperature χ0 would continue and the balanced mixture
would have approximately 50% efficiency. The 1/T 3/2 dependence seems to agree rather
well with the figure over the temperature range provided (note that T = Tf occurs around
1.4 for the dotted line in the figure).

3.4.2 Landau-Zener formula for non-adiabatic formation

To analyze fast ramps which are not adiabatic, we return to the idealized two levelproblem. Starting with the Hamiltonian:

77
52

[

− E /2ℏV 'ℏV ' E /2]and allowing ΔE to vary with time, the solutions for linear ramps of speed d(ΔE)/dt
across resonance are exactly solvable. The formula for the probability of making thetransition to the other basis state is the well known Landau-Zener formula:2

53

P transfer =1−exp[−2 ℏ V ']∣Ė∣which is valid for any 2-level Hamiltonian.
This formula has been applied to Feshbach association between two zerotemperature atoms in a harmonic oscillator24,118,124, where they found54∣

6 ℏ a   B
 LZ =  3 bg  Ḃ
 m a ho∣

Note that this formula depends only on experimentally relevant quantities mass,
scattering length, and ΔB. Also, the numerator is proportional to the energy scale ofsingle channel coupling, which makes intuitive sense.
Equation 51 assumes two distinguishable particles at zero temperature in aharmonic well. The authors extend the analysis to N particles at uniform density in a
volume V for fast sweeps (very low formation efficiency so the probability remains linearwith Ḃ ) and different quantum statistics. Quoting their results applicable todistinguishable particles:55

N mol =2  N 1 N 2∣

4 ℏ a bg  B
mV
Ḃ

∣

By replacing N/V with local particle density n78
56

n mol =2 n1 n 2∣

4  ℏ abg  BmḂ∣

we can apply these formulas to experimental circumstances.
It is worth pointing out that the constant 4π in equation 56 has not been observedto accurately match experiments, and experiments which apply this formula oftenchoose a different constant which matches the data 23,27,123. In our own experiments, wewere to able to find reasonable agreement with data from two NaLi, one Li 2 and one Na2
resonance by using the constant 0.31 instead of 4π, although the other experiments
reported used other constants. There is currently no good explanation for this in theliterature or consistent agreement over the ideal value of this constant 31. However, thegeneral dependence on density and resonance parameters has been observed in thoseexperiments which apply the formula.
These linear formulas could be extended to slow sweeps by simply using them as
the argument of the function 1-exp[x]. This would cause formation efficiency toapproach 1 rather than increasing without bound, and is the obvious extension torecover a formula more similar to the standard Landau-Zener result. However, theresults of section 3.4.1 showed that even at zero temperature formation efficiency won't
necessarily approach unity, so we need to incorporate those results as well for a realistic
formula.

3.4.3 Combined formula for non-adiabatic, finite
temperature sweeps

79

The formulas of section 3.4.2 still assume zero-temperature gases. However, they
are all related to two-body processes, for which temperature is irrelevant apart fromdetermining the probability distribution of relative kinetic energy of the two-particles.
But we already considered the effects of finite temperature in Section 3.4.1. Invoking
the intuitive notion that molecules will form if and only if an atom encounters a zeroenergy collision partner, we present the following hypothesis:

For fast sweeps in finite temperature gases, every pair of potential molecularcomponents have an independent probability to form a molecule. This probability is
the product of the probability of the pair to form molecules under adiabatic sweeps χaand the Landau-Zener probability that a non-adiabatic sweep results in a transition to
the molecular state. For nearly balanced Bose-Fermi mixtures, the function:
57

n mol = nminority

T 3f / 28T

3 /2

1−exp 2 [ n majority∣∣ℏ a bg  B]mḂshould give a reasonable estimate of molecule formation. Note that the T dependence
applies only at temperatures larger than 0.5 Tf; below that temperature, theformation is constant.

This hypothesis assumes that the small fraction of atoms which form molecules
does not affect further molecule associations (an assumption already implicit in the
many particle extension of equations 55 and 56), that association at finite energy (which
necessarily occurs in the analysis of section 3.4.1), is reduced by a Landau-Zener like

80
formula in the same way as zero-energy collisions, and that many body collisions can beignored.
All of these assumptions will be violated to some degree in a real experiment.
However, the real advantage of equation 57 is that it requires neither of theexperimentally unfeasible situations that the sweep be adiabatic or the gas be highly
degenerate, but agrees with the appropriate theories in the appropriate limits.

3.4.4 Application to NaLi experiments

The preceding analysis suggests that molecule formation will be maximized byminimizing temperature, and predicts the optimum balance for a specific mass ratio andquantum statistics of the pairing partners. It provides solid theoretical footing for theintuitive notion that molecules will only form if they can find an appropriate partner tomeet in a low energy collision.
However, it assumes completely adiabatic sweeps, which are rarely useful inpractice. Near resonance, fast inelastic collisions lead to vibrational quenching of themolecules. Therefore the field must be swept quickly through resonance, reducing theformation efficiency but ensuring that a large fraction of the formed molecules cansurvive the sweep. This was readily observed in Na2 gases25, where maximum formation
efficiency was achieved at sweeps much too fast to be adiabatic. This effect will beconsidered in the next section.
One exception to this rule is in 2-state Fermi mixtures, such as Li-6 13,110. This

81
occurs because the third atom would be in the same state as one of the constituents ofthe molecule (at least when they are well separated and still resemble free atoms), but
the collisional wavefunction must be antisymmetric and has low probability to reach theshort collision ranges necessary for inelastic collisions. Combined with the very wide
resonance in Li-6, near adiabatic formation occurred readily, even to the point that it
was difficult to ramp across resonance without forming molecules100.
For inhomogeneous trapped mixtures of Li-6 and Na-23, another effect must be
considered. If the temperature drops below Tc, Na atoms will Bose-condense. The
condensed part of the cloud will be much smaller and denser than the Li cloud, while
the thermal cloud will become more and more dilute as atoms move into thecondensate. Furthermore, gravitational sag will pull the condensate away from the trap
center, so the densest part of the Na cloud has poor spatial overlap with the densest partof the Li cloud. In RbK mixtures, these effects resulted in poor empirical formation
efficiency when the temperature dropped below Tc125.
Inelastic collisions and realistic association experiments will be addressed in
Chapters 6 and 7 when the formulas from this chapter are applied to our experimentswith ultracold Na and Li.

82

4
Experimental Apparatus for
Ultracold Molecules
4.1 Ultracold atomic physics in the science chamber

The methods of producing and studying ultracold atoms represent decades ofimpressive scientific endeavors, astounding theoretical and experimental creativity, anduncountable hours of graduate student labor. Many excellent review papers and Ph.D
theses74,75,78,79,100,126 offer detailed blueprints and histories of ultracold physics. Rather
than presenting another review here, I will concentrate on the specific technicaldemands of cooling multiple atomic species, studying Feshbach resonances, andcreating ultracold samples of molecules.
The studies of Na and Li presented in this thesis took place in Rm. 26-248B at
MIT, a laboratory affectionately named “the Science Chamber”, or less colorfully, BEC3.
The thesis of Ananth Chikkatur127 presents the most comprehensive account of thedesign and construction of the apparatus in 2001 and 2002, and the theses of Aaron

83
Leanhardt, Yong-Il Shin, Tom Pasquini, and Gyu-boong Jo describe subsequent
experiments and modifications that have made the Science Chamber the machine it istoday128-131.
The Science Chamber, illustrated in figure 13, consists of several ultra-highvacuum chambers making up the oven, the slower, the main chamber, and the sciencechamber. The oven produces the hot atomic vapor and the Zeeman slower cools theatoms so they can be initially trapped. The main chamber has many windows andmagnetic coils packed very close to the atoms, where the atoms are cooled in a magnetooptical trap and then magnetically trapped for further cooling and experiments. We candirect imaging beams and optical dipole traps from many directions into the mainchamber, but for better optical access or unique experiments, the atoms can betransferred via an optical tweezers132 to the science chamber, which has been used for
projects ranging from extremely weak single-coil magnetic traps42,133, to micro fabricatedchip traps used to load atoms into a hollow-core optical fiber134-136. The Science chamber
is designed to be easily replaced without affecting the rest of the machine. The ability toreadily modify the apparatus in major ways has encouraged the Science Chamber topursue experiments with uncertain but potentially exciting outcomes that would
discourage investing the years and dollars required to build a dedicated apparatus.
The lab contains two optical tables for generating laser light for sodium andlithium, computers for orchestrating the many electrical devices controlling theexperiment, the cameras used for collected images of the atoms and dedicated PCs foranalyzing the images. Every corner of the room is filled with power supplies of all
shapes and sizes and countless electronic devices, both commercial and custom-built.

84
The experiment is controlled by the word generator software written by Aviv Keshet
consisting of the Atticus hardware server and the Cicero user interface to create
precisely timed procedures with dozens of independent analog and digital control
channels.

figure 13: The BEC3 apparatus. The diagram is neither to scale or complete, butrather gives an overview of the functional elements mentioned in this chapter

The science chamber was originally designed to use sodium only. When
we decided to modify the apparatus to use lithium as well, we needed to make the85necessary changes to give adequate performance with both species without disrupting
the working machine more than necessary. Luckily, BEC1 and BEC2 (located in rooms
adjoining the Science Chamber) were sodium machines already modified to incorporate
lithium, so we had good examples to work from137. However, every lab presents uniquechallenges to overcome and opportunities to improve on previous designs, so I will
briefly describe the particular changes which were necessary to incorporate lithium into
the Science Chamber.

4.1.1 Slowing atomic beams

The Science Chamber produces a collimated beam of atoms from a heated ovenwhich melts and evaporates masses of pure alkali metal. The oven temperature andgeometry of the nozzle and collimating apertures must be chosen to produce a sufficient
flux of hot atoms needed for the experiment without consuming alkali faster thannecessary138,139. Because the experiment takes place under ultra-high vacuum
conditions, which requires long periods of baking and pumping out residual gases, theoven must be designed for minimal maintenance. It should be easy to replenish thereservoir of alkali, and accumulations of atoms should be easy to clean and should notcause permanent damage to any vacuum components.

86

figure 14: Dual-species oven. Numbers indicate temperature, in celcius. The
mixing nozzle allows reduced Na pressure to enter the mixing chamber, where it
matches the lower Li pressure. Beams of both atoms exit through the main nozzle
and are collimated by the skimmer.

Through years of trial and error, a reliable oven design for sodium was developed
for our group's BEC machines139. Modifying the oven for Li presented two particular

87
challenges.
First, the vapor pressure of Li is much lower than the vapor pressure of sodium at
a given temperature, preventing us from using a single oven chamber to heat both
atoms. A temperature high enough to give good Li flux would evaporate all of thesodium within 10 hours140, and the normal Na operating temperature of 250 C would
barely even melt the Li. This problem was solved by using a separate chamber for eachspecies with an mixing nozzle in between the chambers, as shown in figure 14. The
mixing nozzle restricts the flow of Na from the oven but not Li. This allowed balancing
the flux of the two species while reducing the temperature gradient required between
the two reservoirs.
A second challenge is the tendency of Li vapor to adversely interact with vacuum
components, especially glass windows. This property had already been observed in
BEC1, where they learned the hard way that windows become irreversibly opaque whenbombarded with lithium. The fact that baking didn't reverse the process suggests that
the Li diffuses into or chemically reacts with the glass. Although the problem can't be
fixed, it can be largely prevented by heating all susceptible windows to 100 C.
The atomic beams are brought from thermal velocities of 1000 m/s down to 30
m/s with a Zeeman slower75. In a Zeeman slower, a changing magnetic field keeps theatoms in resonance with an intense counter-propagating laser beam as thousands ofphoton collisions slow the atoms down one recoil velocity (~5cm/sec) at a time. The
proper length and geometry of the slower coils is different for every atom, but luckily aslower optimized for Na works rather well for Li137,138.
Many decisions during the modification favored sodium over lithium. The reason

88
for this ultimately comes from the quantum statistics of the two species. Na-23, aboson, has a finite collision rate down to zero temperature, due to the symmetry of swave collisions discussed in Chapter 3. Li-6, a fermion, can only collide with P-wave
collisions, so thermalization and evaporation become impossible as all collisions andrelaxation processes freeze out. This means that sodium can be evaporatively cooled toreach ultracold temperatures, but lithium simply cools by remaining in equilibrium withsodium. This sympathetic cooling requires much more sodium atoms than lithium
atoms, even if balanced ultracold mixtures are desired in the end. In practice, we often
intentionally reduce the amount of lithium in order to reduce the heat load, but wealways work diligently to maximize the amount of sodium that can be cooled andtrapped.
Some recent experiments have used only Li-6, prepared in a mixture of spinstates with collisions enhanced by a Feshbach resonance 106. This allows evaporative
cooling because the different spin states are distinguishable and have no restrictions onallowed partial-waves, and Feshbach enhanced elastic collisions allow for efficientevaporation of the atoms. This method requires a deep, large volume optical trap, as theuseful Li states are not magnetically trappable and must be held at very high magnetic
field during evaporation.

4.1.2 Dual magneto-optical traps

Another complication of a two species machine is the need to produce

89
simultaneous magneto-optical traps (hereafter referred to as MOTs). A MOT requires 6
carefully aligned lasers converging on the center of a magnetic quadrupole field. The
cooling lasers are tuned to just below resonance so that only atoms with shifted
resonance frequency will scatter photons. This occurs if atoms are moving with thermalvelocity into the laser beams (and giving a Doppler shift) or if they drift away from thetrap center (where the magnetic field Zeeman shifts the atoms). The atoms are pushed
into a dense, cold cloud at the center of the trap, where they minimize scattering from
the MOT lasers70.
The frequency and polarization of the cooling lasers must be optimized, andrepumping beams at different frequencies must optically pump atoms which decay into
other hyperfine levels of the ground state. In addition, the Zeeman slower laser requires
repumping, and imaging and state preparation of the atoms requires additional laser
frequencies which depend on magnetic field and quantum state 75. In the end, a typicallaser cooling experiment requires 5-10 distinct lasers with stable frequency, power, andpolarization converging on a target a few millimeters in diameter at the center of a UHVchamber packed with magnetic coils. Not only must this be repeated for the second
species, but it must be done with limited optical access and commercially available
optical elements.
If the two species used are two isotopes of the same element, the light can beproduced and manipulated with the same devices (possibly even the same laser,
depending on the circumstances), and any optical components that work for one species
will work for the other. With sodium requiring a 1 watt 589 nm dye laser and lithium
requiring a grating stabilized 671 nm diode laser with amplifier stages to produce 400

90mW, we had to design and operate two completely different laser systems, each with it's
own unique challenges. See Yong-il Shin's Ph.D thesis for a layout of the Na table129, andAppendix A for a layout of the Li table. Also, many optical components (particularly
wave plates and single mode optical fibers) have significantly different performance at
671 nm than at 589 nm. The laser wavelengths are far enough apart to separate andcombine beams with dichroic beam-splitters. These can be custom ordered from CVI;
for example; we ordered long wave pass beamsplitters which, at 45 degree incidence,reflect S-polarized 589 nm and transmit P polarized 671 nm. However, a single type of
optic cannot perfectly separate arbitrary polarizations of 589 nm and 671 nm, so beams
must be polarized and optics selected carefully to meet the design goals.
One final complication of a two species experiment is the interspecies collisional
properties. Collisions in ultracold mixtures of alkali gases were not well known prior to
the first attempts at multi-species experiments, and required some trial and error andsome luck. Na and Li turn out to be particularly cooperative, with a good ratio of elastic
to inelastic collisions in the appropriate quantum states41. However, strong photoassisted collisions in the excited states of the atoms have an effect on MOT performance,
requiring the MOTs to be slightly misaligned to avoid too much overlap in the clouds
while maintaining good magnetic trap loading of each species141.

4.1.3 Quantum states of Na and Li

The hyperfine energies of Na and Li in their ground states is shown in figure 22.

91
Li-6 has nuclear spin I = 1, Na-23 has nuclear spin I = 3/2, and both atoms have one
unpaired electron. In the ground states with L = 0, the total angular momentum is thenF = 1/2 or 3/2 for Li and F = 1 or 2 for Na. At low field, the electron and nuclear spins
couple and the largest energy splitting is the hyperfine splitting between states withdifferent values of F, and the projection mf along the magnetic field determines themagnetic moment and low field Zeeman shift. States can be labeled by ∣S I F m f 〉 .
At the magnetic fields of interest (around 1000 G), the nuclear and electron spinsalign independently to the B-field, so atomic hyperfine states can be described byquantum numbers ∣S m s I mi 〉 Na and ∣S m s I mi 〉 Li . The magnetic moment and the majorenergy splittings are determined by the electron spin, with small additional splittings
determined by the nuclear spin.

figure 15: Hyperfine States of Na and Li. Although the good quantum numberschange from low field to high field as described in the text, we unambiguously label
the states from 1-6 (1-8) for Li (Na), starting at the lowest energy state and moving
up. The states indicated in red are the ones used for Feshbach science.

92
For brevity and clarity, for the rest of this thesis the states will be labeled with asingle number in order of increasing energy as illustrated in figure 15. This number
refers to a clear state at low field or at high field, and an atom prepared in state 1 willremain in state 1 as the magnetic field is ramped up and down. Therefore, to describe
the lowest hyperfine state of Na and the second lowest hyperfine state of Li, we will
write ∣1 〉 Na and ∣2 〉 Li , or simply ∣1 2 〉 , always listing the Na quantum number first.
In the molecule, the indistinguishable electrons form triplet or singlet
configurations, but nuclear hyperfine states remain coupled independently to the field,
so molecular hyperfine states are described by ∣S m s I Na m i , Na I Li mi , Li 〉 where S = 0 for
singlet or 1 for triplet states.
The singlet and triplet states correspond to completely different electronic curves,
but the three projections ms = 0, ±1 of the triplet state are simply shifted by the Zeeman
energy. Electron spin magnetic moments are 1 μb = 1.4 MHz/G giving splitting of order 1
GHz at the magnetic fields of interest. The nuclear magnetic moments provide
additional splittings (with energies of order 100 MHz), and coupling occurs if different
states with the same total m f =ms mi , Limi , Na cross.
For experimental reasons, we use Li and Na atoms in the ∣1 〉 Na , ∣1 〉 Li , or ∣2 〉 Li
states at fields of several hundred Gauss. These states adiabatically connect to the ms =-1 triplet manifold because both electron magnetic moments (anti-parallel to the spin
angular momentum) are aligned with the magnetic field. The Feshbach resonancesused occur at fields around 800 G and 1600 G, where this state crosses boundvibrational states in the ms = +1 triplet and most likely the ms = 0 singlet potential 2.
2 The 1600 G resonance was only observed in the last few months in our lab, and it was not exactly in93
Further resonances are predicted at a variety of fields4,5, but they have not been
extensively studied because of fast inelastic decay of the atomic states or difficulty inattaining the required magnetic fields.

4.1.4 State preparation and evaporation of Na and Li

Once laser-cooled clouds of Na and Li are obtained, they have to be prepared in
the correct states, evaporatively cooled, and transferred to states appropriate for thegoals of the experiment. Previous experiments41, had identified the procedures
necessary to achieve good numbers, so we were able to follow their example.
Na-23 and Li-6 have the best collisional properties in the stretched states |86>.
However, the sodium dark-spot MOT142 produces 99% F=1 atoms (|1>Na , |2>Na , and |3>Na states), and the Li MOT produces atoms distributed among all ground hyperfine
states. The first step in obtaining pure clouds of |86> is to optically pump the atoms
released from the MOT, as shown in figure 16. Note that we do not pump out of
unwanted F=2 Na hyperfine ground states; this is a decision reached after noting thatthe additional pumping beams produced no significant improvement in final BEC
number.

the expected location of the singlet resonance, but the width seems to match the expectation. Further
experimental or theoretical tests would be required to be absolutely certain of the molecular state
involved.

94

figure 16: Na and Li energy levels and transitions used for laser
cooling and optical pumping to the desired states

95

The atoms are then caught in a Ioffe-Pritchard magnetic trap 121. See Dan
Stampur-Kurn's Ph.D. thesis126 for an excellent explanation of the design and operationof this type of trap. The trap acts an a non-isotropic 3-D harmonic potential well, so
atoms with magnetic moments anti-parallel to the local bias field (called weak-fieldseekers) are confined to the trap minimum. Once the optically pumped cloud from the
MOT is loaded into the magnetic trap (by turning off the MOT lasers and turning on the
IP trap before they escape), only the weak-field seekers remain. Any remaining atoms
which are not in the desired state are removed with RF transitions to untrapped states.
The atoms are then evaporated by driving microwave transitions between thesodium |8> state to the anti-trapped |1> state. By tuning the microwave frequency sothat only the most energetic atoms undergo spin flips (since only they can explore thehighest magnetic fields at the edge of the trap), the high-energy atoms are selectively
removed from the trap and the remaining atoms thermalize to lower temperatures 74.
The microwave frequency is gradually ramped downwards until the desired temperatureis reached.
The previously described procedures allow us to produce MOTs containing
around 1010 sodium atoms and 108 Li atoms. It is possible to optically pump and load
the atoms into the magnetic trap with about 30% efficiency. During evaporation,
sodium number drops by orders of magnitude while Li number is approximately
conserved. In the end, we can trap 107 atoms of either species at temperatures below 1
μK at a density of 1013 cm-3. This is cold enough for quantum degeneracy of either

96
species, although in our recent experiments we do not study degenerate gases in themagnetic trap.

4.1.5 Optical dipole traps

The target Feshbach resonances are between the states |1>Na and |1>Li, which arestrong-field seekers and can't be magnetically trapped, because a local magnetic field
maximum is not allowed by Maxwell's equations. Also, it requires impractically large
electric currents to produce tight magnetic traps at high bias fields. Therefore, an
optical dipole trap (hereafter referred to as an ODT) is necessary to hold the mixtures
while producing the required magnetic fields.
An ODT traps the atoms due to the AC stark shift75. A far detuned laser withfrequency lower than the resonance frequency is brought to a tight focus, and the sign ofthe stark shift lowers the atoms energy. Since the magnitude of the shift is proportional
to intensity, atoms will converge at the focus of the laser. The trap parameters for a
Gaussian beam are obtained from−ℏ 2R −ℏ 2−r / w=
I e
4
8 I s 058

 E Stark =59

F =∇  E =2

ℏ 2 I 0
r /w 20 e−r /w
rIs
2

2
0

2
0

The trap depth is obtained from the maximum stark shift at r=0, and trap frequencies
by identifying ∂F/∂r at r=0 as a spring constant.
Note that the above formulas invoke the rotating wave approximation, which is

97
not entirely valid for far detuned light. A full quantum treatment would give exact
results, but the relative importance of the counter-rotating terms is equal toa −l / a l  , where the frequencies are the laser frequency and atomic frequency.
For 1064 nm trapping light, we can multiply the results of equations 58 and 59 by 1.23
for Li and 1.29 for Na to account for this approximation.
The beam profile changes along the direction of beam propagation by simply
changing the waist as
60

w  z =w 0

z 2
1  , z r= w02 /zR

By using several watts of 1064 nm light brought to a focus between 30 and 100 μm, we
can obtain ODTs with up to 10 μK depth for both species. The different beam sizes
allow for trap frequencies ranging from 100 Hz to 2 KHz. The axial trapping is much
weaker (with trapping frequencies of a few Hz), so we usually arrange that there is asmall amount of appropriate magnetic field curvature to trap the atoms axially withfrequencies of 10 to 50 Hz.
We use an IPG 30W 1064 fiber laser (IPG YLR-30-1064-LP-SF), to provide lightfor the ODTs. It is single frequency and single mode which is important for possible use
in optical lattices. However, we have encountered several issues with failure of electricalcomponents. This is possibly due to the fact that we purchased it shortly after the model
became available, as IPG lasers purchased later by other labs seem to perform
admirably. However, it does provide a lesson in cutting edge technology; if you don't
want downtime troubleshooting and repairing devices, don't buy the newest model
unless absolutely necessary.

98

4.1.6 Density distributions and imaging

The |11> states of sodium and lithium have similar magnetic moments (both near
-1.4 MHz/G = -1 μb), and similar response to 1064 light:61

 2 / I s=3.48 Hz / mW / cm 2 Na vs 3.91 Hz /mW /cm2 Li (accounts for RWA)

so the magnetic and optical fields provide similar potentials for both atoms. Thismeans that for thermal clouds with equal atom number and temperature, the ideal gas
in-trap density distributions:62n th r =

k bTN−x /2 2e
; i =
2  /2  x  y  z
m 2i
2
i

2
i

3

are very similar, since mω2 = k, so thermal width σi is independent of mass. This is
expected, as the thermal width is determined by balancing thermal energy withpotential energy, which depends on fields, polarizability, and magnetic moment. As thetemperatures approach quantum degeneracy the differences in quantum statistics andinteractions will eliminate this symmetry. Also, trap frequencies simply scale with themass ratio, so lithium trap frequencies are approximately  23/6≈2 times higher thansodium trap frequencies. After considering the exact mass ratio, magnetic moment, andpolarizability, the high-field trap frequencies satisfy
63

Li
Li
mag
1064
= 1.96 ;= 2.06
Na
Na
mag
1064

One significant effect of having different trap frequencies is gravitational sag,which pulls the center-of-mass of the cloud away from the potential minimum. By

99
adding the force of gravity to the vertical harmonic potential:
64

1
1
g 2
g 2
1
g
2 2
2
V = m  z z mgz= m z z   −   m  z  z 2 
z
z
2
2
2
z

which, after dropping a constant term, is a vertically shifted harmonic potential with thesame frequency. The shift of g/ω2 will be different for the two species of atoms.
The smallest radial trap frequencies we use in the ODTs are 100 (200) Hz or
higher for sodium (lithium), so the sodium clouds sag by up to 25 μm, and are offset
from the Li clouds which sag less (up to 7 μm). Because typical diameters of clouds in a
trap with these frequencies are 60 microns or more, the clouds stay overlapped to alarge degree. However, if sodium is allowed to condense into a BEC, the poor overlap ofdensity profiles could be significant. For this reason, we generally keep the temperatureof the clouds close to, but just above, Tc.
The different masses of Na and Li mean that in order to reduce density to a levelappropriate for absorption imaging, the two species require different amounts ofexpansion time, and the analysis of time of flight images requires appropriate
algorithms. If both species are above degeneracy temperatures (Tc or Tf), both clouds
will have a Gaussian profile, with temperature given by.
65

k BT =

m2
 t/t of 
2

Absorption images involve taking at least 3 images: one with atoms present, onewith no atoms present, and one without any laser illumination to account forbackground light and dark counts on the CCD. The intensity of light measured at eachpixel can be used to obtain the transmission profile

100
66

T  x , y =probe with atoms−dark countprobe without atoms−dark countwhich gives the fraction of light which is transmitted through the cloud of atoms at eachpixel. This fraction is determined by the integrated optical density, giving a measure of
the number of atoms in a column with cross section equal to the pixel area. The actual
numbers of atoms in each pixel is given by67

N  x , y=

pixel size∗magnification[−ln T  x , y] photonwhere σphoton is the cross section for photon absorption (references). For photons withperfect polarization and exactly resonant frequency driving a cycling transitions (where
the excited state has nonzero Clebsch-Gordon coefficients with only one ground state),
σphoton = 6π/k2, but in practice this is generally reduced by 20% to 50%, and will befurther reduced by the Clebsch-Gordon coefficient for non-cycling transitions75.
If the temperatures drop below degeneracy (which occurs at
1 /3
1/ 3
T f =1.8 , the profiles will change to the finite temperature N or T c =0.94 Ndegenerate Fermi gas or a bimodal profile of a BEC within a dilute thermal cloud76.
Because of uncertainties in photon cross section and smaller uncertainties in trap
frequency, several formulas should be used to check for consistency. In our experiment
where the gases were above or only slightly below degeneracy temperature, a goodconsistency check was to find the point where degeneracy occurs and compare
measured T (depends only on pixel size), to Tc (which depends on total number andtrap frequency).
To obtain good mixtures of Na and Li atoms, we stop RF evaporation when the101temperature in the magnetic trap is around 10 μK, and we still have a large number ofboth species of atoms. We then adiabatically ramp the ODT up to full intensity andramp down the magnetic trap. The ODT intensity is then lowered, evaporating atoms tolower temperatures. Typically, this leaves us with around 10 6 atoms of each species attemperatures around 1 μK and densities of at least 1012 atoms/cm3.
From day to day, the relative size of the MOT clouds change, so we often adjust
our loading procedure to keep a properly balanced mixture of roughly equal numbers of
atoms. We have found that the best way to reliably change the relative balance of atoms
in the ODT is to let the MOT of one species reach equilibrium alone (typically taking 3
seconds for sodium or 8 seconds for lithium) before loading the other MOT for avariable time. Another option is to make small changes to the evaporation time or final
RF frequency to evaporate more (or less) sodium in exchange for lower (or higher)temperatures, which increases (decreases) the amount of Li loaded into the ODT.

4.2 RF techniques for preparation and study of Feshbachresonances

Once the nearly degenerate mixture is obtained in the ODT, we use RF andmicrowaves to transfer the atoms to the desired states. At low field, this requires 1.8
GHz for the sodium transition and 228 MHz for the lithium transition (appropriately
tuned to match the magnetic field, of course). In order to avoid possible 2-body losses,
the sodium should make the transition first, because |81> → |16> is energetically102
allowed but |18 → |61> is not. The frequencies are held constant while the magnetic
field is ramped, allowing adiabatic Landau-Zener transfer between the states. Changing
the RF frequency is equivalent, as long as the frequency step size is smaller than the
Rabi frequency, but in practice it is more complicated to control simultaneous RF
sweeps. The Na and Li frequencies cannot use the same synthesizers, amplifiers, or
antennas, so we have independent RF systems for low frequency (1-500 MHz), and highfrequency (up to 2 GHz).
The Science chamber was originally designed to study F=1 Na condensates at low
field, where the spin flips required (|3> → |1>) were at frequencies of 30 MHz andlower127,128. An internal antenna was built for this purpose when the chamber was
designed. This allowed efficient evaporating and state control using medium power (nomore than 5W) RF amplifiers and standard RF components.
However, when we decided to work on Feshbach resonances in both Na and Li,
we had to retro-fit the machine to drive transitions at a much wider variety of RF andmicrowave frequencies. This involved straightforward replacement of most components
and signal generators, but the bigger problem turned out to be delivering the power tothe chamber. The internal antenna works efficiently only up to 10 MHz, and thenperformance falls off noticeably.
Attempts to tune the antenna with external circuits failed to improve Rabi
frequency, likely due to parasitic capacitance to short the high frequency RF past theantenna. Also, the electromagnetic wavelength even at 2 GHz is 15 cm, which is alreadylarger than the view port dimensions (typically no more than 5 cm) in the stainless steel
vacuum chamber, so waves can't be effectively radiated into the chamber from outside

103
sources.

4.2.1 High power RF amplifiers

The eventual solution turned out to be brute force. By using 100W RF amplifiers,
we achieved up to 1 kHz Rabi frequencies for the 70 to 80 MHz hyperfine transitions in
Li atoms. For high frequencies, we created a 6 cm loop antenna which rests inside aview port as close to the atoms as possible. We deliver frequencies below 100 MHz to
the internal antenna. We then use broadband high-power amplifiers (Minicircuits ZHL100W-52 (100W, 500 MHz) and Empower RF model 1107 (25 W 2.5 GHz)), which wehave discovered are expensive, have long lead times when ordered, and are very easy to
break.
Protecting high-power RF amplifiers has proven to be a very important part ofoperating the Science Chamber. Experience has revealed a few simple rules:
First, never have an amplifier running without sufficient cooling. Air cooling isprobably good enough, but even with zero input or output power, a type A (common
high power amps are type A) RF amplifier constantly draws and dissipates it's fullelectrical load. Either turn off amplifiers when not in use (in case of cooling failure), or
use modular RF amps like those made by Empower that have built in temperaturemonitoring and protection.
Second, never exceed the rated input power. It is always tempting to crank up
the signal generator or remove attenuators to try to improve transition rates, and the104amplifier will probably survive this a few times, but it will not last long when overdriven.
Also, amplifiers are already nearly saturated at this input power, so the power gained by
overdriving the amplifier will be minimal.
Third, make sure the amplifier has a load attached and is powered on before
applying any input signal. The reason for the second and third rules is that high power
amplifiers put out more than enough energy to fry their own internal components, andwithout operating the device cautiously, the extra energy can dissipate within the
chassis rather than being transmitted down the line as intended.
These rules can also be extended to switches and power meters, which similarly
have to dissipate RF energy to do their jobs. Good RF power meters are just as
expensive and fragile as amplifiers, and equally important for working with RF andmicrowaves. RF switches are cheaper, but they are essential parts of any circuit and 9times out of 10 are the cause of RF equipment malfunctions.

4.3 Precision control of high magnetic fields
4.3.1 High current hardware

The magnetic coils for our Ioffe-Pritchard traps were designed to handle
hundreds of amps. This is was not specifically to provide large magnetic fields, but tocreate strong gradients and curvatures at the center of the vacuum chamber for tightmagnetic traps. By wiring additional high current power supplies, we were able to use
the original coil packages to produce high bias fields.

105
Using such large currents requires the proper electrical components. IGBTs andhigh power diodes are standard, although expensive, components for fast switching oflarge currents and protection of power supplies, but they must be implemented withcare. When a large current is running through a large inductor, turning it off createslarge voltage spikes (since V =L dI / dt ). The more abrupt the attempted change, thelarger the voltage spikes until the voltage can find a current path which can dissipate theenergy.
One technique is to use a diode which is reverse-biased during normal operation,
as in figure 17. The diode technique directs the current across a high-power resistor,
which allows the current to ring down exponentially with time constant τ = LR. If thering-down path was not in place, the voltage spike of hundreds or thousands of volts
would be applied across the wires, power supply and IGBT until something fails andallows the current to flow. The failing component could be the insulation of the coilpackage, the power supply, or an inquisitive grad student's body, all of which areexpensive and time-consuming to replace.

106

figure 17: High current circuitry for generating large, stable magnetic fields.
Dashed lines indicated galvanic isolation which is essential for precision andsafetyThe diode technique won't work for the anti-bias coils, which need to allow
current to flow both ways and ring down both ways. Because the diode/resistor pathhas higher resistance than the coils (typically a few ohms in the resistor vs. 0.1 ohm orless in the coil), two anti-parallel diode paths could be used to allow bi-directional ring
down. However, one resistor will then continually conduct a few amps, requiring it toconstantly dissipate tens of watts rather than just the infrequent energy pulse duringring-down. The amount of leakage current will also depend on resistor temperature andpower supply voltage, affecting current stabilization.
A better solution is a varistor. A varistor can be interpreted as two diodes wired

107back to back. Minimal current will flow until one diode undergoes reverse-breakdown,
at which point current can flow freely. The physical construction of a varistor is actuallya large number of tiny ceramic grains between electrode plates, the grains act like a vastarray of randomly oriented diodes, giving the entire structure a predictable bidirectional breakdown voltage but high-current capabilities.
Upon reaching the threshold voltage Vt, the current flows through the varistor.
Because of the non-linear relationship of current to voltage, the varistor voltage stays
relatively constant near Vt, causing a linear ring-down of current instead of an
exponential one. Vt should be selected to be safely higher than the operating voltage ofthe power supply (so it never allows leakage current to flow), but lower than the voltage
at which the weakest component will fail.
The disadvantage of using varistors is that they have a finite lifetime. Varistors,
typically used for emergency circuit protection, are rated by pulse energy; at the rated
pulse energy, they may survive thousands of pulses. This is good for avoiding irregularpower surges, but not for routine operation of a BEC machine, which can easily performa few thousand runs in a busy week. By choosing varistors with much higher energy
ratings than necessary, they can survive exponentially more pulses.
Alternatively, many varistors can be used in parallel, thereby sharing the energy
load. However, as varistors degrade, the threshold voltage drops, causing the least
healthy varistor to carry more and more of the energy load as its Vt drops further andfurther below that of its neighbors. Eventually it will catastrophically fail or conducts
leakage current under normal operation (probably failing from overheating in theprocess).

108
The failure mode can be diagnosed by measuring the ring down time of thecircuit, which rings down at a rate dI/dt = Vt/L. If Vt has changed significantly from thevalue when the varistors were new, they should be replaced. In our lab we use 10
Raychem ROV20-220M varistors in parallel to ring down our Feshbach currents, andwe have observed the ring down time to stay within 20% of it's initial value even after 2
years (and of order 100,000 ring-down cycles).
The IGBT must also be carefully selected, as it performs the high-current
switching and is used for precise current stabilization. High-current IGBTs (such as thePowerex CM1000HA-24H that we use) are large, heavy bricks with good heat sinks, butthey still have a minimum voltage drop of a few volts (corresponding to roughly two
semiconductor band-gaps), and because they conduct hundreds of amps continually,
they dissipate hundreds of watts. They are designed to safely dissipate this energy, so ifused as a simple on-off switch, this is fine. It will either conduct no current (anddissipate no power), or it will conduct at it's minimum voltage, safely operating as
intended. This is not the case if it used for stabilizing current, however.

4.3.2 Precision control of current

The Feshbach resonances used for molecule formation are rather narrow, with
ΔB of a few Gauss on top of 1000 G, but more importantly the magnetic field range forgood mixing of the molecular state is δBopen = 20 mG. This requires current stability ofat least 10-5. Unfortunately, commercial high-current power supplies cannot provide

109
this stability out of the box.
Standard regulated high-current power supplies, such as the 500 amp ESS 30500 (from Lambda EMI) used to power our coils, are always switch mode power
supplies, which are intrinsically noisy. This is a matter of efficiency; linear power
supplies have fixed transformer voltage and can only regulate current by burning
unused power (up to the full output of 15 kW) internally. Switch mode supplies operateby alternately charging and discharging capacitor arrays at high frequency (typicallytens of kHz), and by simply changing the duty cycle to build up less charge, they canregulate output power while drawing less input power. This eliminates the need to burnup the extra power, allowing switch-mode supplies to operate up to 95% efficient, nomatter the output current.
However, the high-frequency switching is also a source of noise both at theoutput and on the input mains line. This noise directly affects the current stability, butalso affects precision communication between the power supply and other devices, likean analog control voltage from a computer. Combine this with the fact that commercial
high-current supplies are rarely intended for precision use, and it becomes clear why it
is difficult to find off-the shelf solutions for precision magnetic field stabilization. As
precision magnetic field control is becoming important for many scientific experiments,
there may be commercial solutions available, but we never found proven solutions
appropriate for our application.
The performance can be greatly improved by external current stabilization. Like
any feedback circuit, this requires accurate measurement, an accurate set point, a good
PID controller, and fast control143. We use a closed-loop hall probe (F.W. Bell CLN-

110300), which can accurately measure the current at any point in the circuit whileremaining electrically isolated from the power supply. This avoids possible problems ofcrosstalk directly from the noisy power supply to the hall probe while allowing accurate
measurements of current through the coil even if there is noise introduced elsewhere in
the circuit. Internal stabilization at the power supply cannot account for such external
noise or drifts.
The hall probe outputs a current which precisely and accurately reflects thecurrent flowing through the conductor. It is important that no additional noise or
uncertainty is introduced when turning this into a voltage for the PID controller. Thisrequires a very accurate current to voltage converter. I have often searched forcommercial products with good specifications for this task, but never found anything
better than precision resistors with very small thermal coefficients. The resistors must
be selected so that they don't respond to room temperature variations or their own
ohmic heating while in use. Active stabilization and heat sinks could be used, but wefound satisfactory performance by using a network of Vishay-Dale PTF series resistors
with thermal coefficients of less than 5 ppm/K. We calculated and measured less than a10-6 drift of the Hall probe Voltage reading under normal operating conditions. The
measurement was performed by watching the reading from a Hall probe while
independently stabilizing the current with a different Hall probe of a different modeland resistor design.
The set point must be provided by the word generator, but analog outputs fromthe computers and National Instruments PXI-6733 control cards (with 16 bit analog
outputs and digital I/O ports) have finite resolution and show noise and shot to shot

111
instability of order 10-4. One could try to find better analog cards and troubleshoot all
possible sources of analog noise, but it is almost always easier and more reliable to use
digital control signals than to maintain extreme precision in analog signals.. The
SIM960 PID controller from Stanford Research Systems provides reliable, easy to tune
PID control as well as accepting RS232 digital commands to accurately establish aninternal set point.
The part of a feedback loop that actually controls the process does not require theextreme precision of the measurement and set point, because the feedback loop will
naturally compensate for it's own noise as long as the measurement and set point are
reliable. However, the actuator must have the fast response and dynamic range
necessary to correct for errors. This is where the IGBT comes in.
An insulated gate bipolar transistor is like a hybrid of a field-effect transistor(FET), and a bipolar junction transistor (BJT). It draws almost no current from the gate
like a FET, but has the reliable, high-power performance of a BJT. They make good onoff switches as mentioned earlier, but they are analog devices capable of handling a wide
range of voltage and current conditions.
By driving the gate with an opto-isolator and an amplifier stage with enoughcurrent to quickly charge/discharge the gate capacitance, all the sensitive componentsof the feedback loop are electrically isolated from the high-current circuitry. The IGBT
has a non-linear response to applied voltage, but that causes no problems for the loop.
The non-linear response does change the open-loop gain of the circuit depending on
current and voltage, so PID constants must be tuned under conditions matching thecondition where stabilization is most needed.

112
The IGBT can be used as a current throttle with a voltage controlled power supply
as in our experiment, or it can be used to shunt some current away from the coil byrunning it in parallel. The throttle setup is simpler, as one component can both switch
and stabilize, and no current from the power supply is discarded. However, the shuntconfiguration may provide better stability depending on the particular components ofthe system144. If the power supply has better relative voltage stability, the throttle
method would be best; if it has better relative current stability, the shunt configuration
can be used.
Using an IGBT as a throttle for the full current is dangerous, however. If it isnearly saturated (maximum current with minimum voltage drop), it only has todissipate a few hundred watts and has no problems. However, if the power supply
voltage is set higher than necessary, the IGBT will present the voltage drop necessary forthe target current. In an extreme example, the power supply could be supplying 30V,
with the IGBT transmitting 250 A, with a drop across the coil of ~15V. This means the
IGBT has to burn the rest of the power, amounting to almost 4 kW rather than a few
hundred watts. To protect against this, we use a scaling amplifier that adjusts the power
supply voltage to be only slightly higher than needed for a give current.
In the end, our circuit can produce fields up to 1620 G with ~10 mG RMS noise.
At 1620G, the power supply is voltage limited, and the 10 mG noise is mostly at 60 Hz
and harmonics, which are notoriously hard to track down and eliminate. The
bandwidth of the feedback is limited by the inductance of the coil to 100 Hz, but the coilinductance also acts to filter high-frequency noise before it affects the magnetic field, so
this is not a bad situation. For fast, small changes to the magnetic field, we use an

113
additional trim coil wound outside the chamber to provide an extra 10 G. The trim coilis powered by a 15 amp Kepco ATE 15-15DM, a commercial linear power supply with
off-the-shelf current stability of 0.01% RMS, more than sufficient for our demands.

4.4 Techniques to measure ultracold moleculesOnce a Feshbach resonance is located and resonant losses are observed, it can beclaimed that molecules have been formed. Resonant losses near a Feshbach resonancealways involve collisions which produce molecules. Properties of scientific interest
include molecule collision rates, binding energy or kinetic energy, electric or magnetic
moments, or density distributions. However, unless the molecules can measured anddistinguished from the atoms in some way, these quantities cannot be studied.
Before molecules have been isolated and measured, the only relevant data thatcan be obtained are atomic loss rates. These can be used to estimate the parameter B 0 towithin the width of the loss feature (for our measurements this can be a few hundredmG), but because of the difficulty in mapping 3-body losses directly to scattering length,
B0 cannot be identified more accurately than this. Magnetic fields can be measured very
accurately with atomic RF transitions, but knowledge of B0 is never more accurate thanthe best available empirical data, so the true resonance position is still unknown.
The best way to determine the true resonance location is to look for the moment
where molecules dissociate or to perform RF spectroscopy and extrapolate the binding
energy of the molecules30. However, if molecules have not yet been isolated and114
measured, these techniques cannot be used. To escape this catch-22, an experimental
method must be devised to blindly search for a molecular signal without precise
knowledge of B0 or molecular properties.

4.4.1 Adiabatic sweeps for molecule formation

Adiabatic sweeps across the resonance can form molecules without precise
knowledge of the resonance location, although such methods require that the atom
density and sweep rate will form molecules that can survive long enough to isolate andmeasure. These processes are studied in detail in chapters 6 and 7. If molecules can beformed this way, they can be separated from the atoms and imaged.
One way to achieve this separation is to blast the atoms away, then dissociate themolecules and image the cloud29. See figure 18 for an illustration of this method. If theblasting is known to eliminate the majority of a pure atomic cloud, but a significant
number of atoms are imaged after dissociation, it can be concluded that they weremolecules. The blasting must be effective at quickly removing the atoms by opticallypumping to non-resonant states or transferring enough momentum to kick them out of
the trap. This serves the dual purpose of removing the atomic background signal fromthe image and also avoids inelastic collisions between free atoms and molecules.
However, the blasting beam must not affect the molecules, so it must occur away fromresonance where the molecules are detuned from the blasting laser.

115

figure 18: Blasting method of isolating and measuring molecules. If atoms remain at
the end, but the blast beam is effective at fully removing a cloud of free atoms, one
can conclude that the remaining atoms were molecules during the hold time.

This method is very effective for homonuclear molecules, where the ground state
molecular potential varies mostly as 1/R^3 but the excited state potential varies as
1/R^6 (refer to chapter 2.2.3 for a discussion). This causes the transition for evenweakly bound molecules to be well detuned from the atomic resonance 13. Heteronuclear
molecules have an R^6 dependence in both the ground and excited states (althoughwith different coefficients), so they may remain sensitive to the blasting beam even withmoderate detuning35.
Another way to separate the molecules is with a Stern-Gerlach procedure 29. By
applying a magnetic field gradient, the atoms and molecules will separate if the trapping
potential is weak or turned off. This separation will occur whenever the particles have

116
different values of μ/m. Here there is no danger of accidentally blasting the molecules,
but the separation is slower and inelastic collisions can continue for longer. Also, themolecular cloud is expanding during separation, which can dilute the absorption imageof a molecular cloud which might already be small.
Both of these processes take a finite amount of time, both for the actual
separation or blasting and for ramping the field back and forth across the resonance.
The amount of time to separate the atoms and molecules are determined by the
maximum acceleration of the method and the cloud dimensions. For blasting, theacceleration is given by:68

a blast =  ℏ k / 4m

Since Γ/2 (the saturated resonant scattering rate) is the maximum rate at whichphotons can deliver their momentum kicks to the atoms. For Stern-Gerlach separation,
the acceleration is given by69

a SG =B '  /mreduced

for magnetic field gradient B', where δμ is the difference in magnetic moments of themolecules and atoms.
As expected the time required to separate the clouds is just  2w /a for clouds ofwidth w, but with the added complication that strong gradients must act parallel to thelarge bias field (for transverse gradients, the B-field magnitude changes in quadrature
with distance) while blasting beams can push from any direction. In our experiment, wewere able to separate atoms within 100 μs along the short cloud dimension withblasting, but had to separate magnetically along the long cloud dimension, which took
about 1 ms for gradients of order 10 G/cm. In chapter 6 this will be addressed more117
quantitatively and applied to practical formation procedure.
The association itself requires a specific ramp speed, but once safely across theresonance the magnetic field can be quickly ramped for blasting and imaging or strong
gradients quickly turned on. If the molecular lifetime is not long enough to survive theprocedure, this technique will fail to give a clear signal even if some molecules have been
formed.

4.4.2 RF association of molecules

Another possibility which has shown some success is RF association 30,100,125. Herethe atoms are prepared with one species in a non-resonant hyperfine state and themagnetic field is brought to the molecular side of the resonance. The non-resonant
species is then driven to make the transition to the resonant atomic state. See figure 19
for an illustration of this method.

118

figure 19: Rf association of molecules. The correct frequency for associating
molecules is determined by the binding energy, making this techniquesensitive to the magnetic field.

The bare atomic transition frequency gives a good reference value corresponding
to zero binding energy, although the spectroscopy may be broadened by interactions 12.
If a distinct peak can be found which is shifted from the atomic peak, it can be assumed
that molecules have been associated with the RF transition. If the peak shifts withmagnetic field in the expected way, it can be concluded that molecules have indeed
formed and the binding energy curve can be fit to theory to determine the exact
resonance location. This method has an advantage over adiabatic sweeps and119separation in that even if molecules are immediately destroyed, the RF signal can beobtained by looking for atomic depletion. See figure 20 for such a spectrum.
Practically, there are several challenges to this method. One is that the molecularpeak will be much weaker than the atomic peak. Not only must the atom undergo thenormal spin flip, but it must be near a partner atom to associate and the overlap of thefree atomic wavefunction with the bound molecular state will reduce the Rabi frequency
by a Frank-Condon factor Q. The value of the overlap integral depends on the openchannel fraction in the molecular state, which is small for finite detuning in closedchannel dominated resonances.
Also, the magnetic binding energy depends strongly on magnetic field. Because
the magnetic field fluctuates in any real experiment, the binding energy will beinhomogeneously broadened. If this broadening is larger than the already reduced Rabi
frequency, the transition will be incoherent and the transition rate will be further
reduced by Q R / B   .

120

figure 20: RF spectrum taken from a gas of Rb and K near a Feshbach resonance.
The atoms are driven into the target atomic or molecular state, the magnetic field isramped to dissociate molecules, and the resulting atomic population is measured.
Image reproduced from Zirbel et. al, Phys Rev A 78, 013416 (2008)

Summarizing these effects, The rate of RF association is given by70

P pair n , T  Q  R

Q R
 B

Where Ppair is a probability that reflects the likelihood of a given atom finding a partner.

121
For good values of Q this is not so bad, for example in RbK and Li 2 where the Feshbachstate remains open-channel dominated (with small δμ and large Q) for a wide range offields. However, for NaLi, it paints a grim picture.
For NaLi molecules, we can drive a maximum atomic Rabi frequency of about 1
kHz. With the generous assumptions Q = 0.01, Ppair = 1 and δμ = 1 MHz/G (which
already occurs less than 20 mG from the exact resonance), our inhomogeneously
broadened molecular transition rate would be 0.5 Hz. Without rebuilding theexperiment or using kW RF amplifiers (which are very expensive and possibly
dangerous to our lab and nearby labs), we would have to drive the transition for seconds
to get a good signal. With the maximum experiment time of about 4 seconds (after
which most of the atoms have been lost from the trap and the magnetic coils areoverheating) we would barely produce a 20 kHz wide feature. However, even using the
fantasy parameters given earlier, the binding energy of the molecules is around 10 kHz
this close to the resonance, making it a tough experiment to distinguish the signal froma inhomogeneously broadened atomic peak.
Gleaning such a small, broad peak from an atomic spectra is difficult, if not
impossible. In fact, the experiment is as sensitive to RF sidebands and noise as it is toreal transitions, and for some time we were distracted by distinct features which turned
out to be weak sidebands, 60 dB smaller than the carrier, produced by an Agilent
33250A arbitrary waveform generator. After replacing the generator with a cleaner
Tektronix AFG3101, the features vanished, but we still failed to observe moleculartransitions.
Proper experimental design can overcome many challenges, but a given Feshbach

122
resonance will have some hard limits imposed by nature, and it takes a little luck andcareful experimental choices to glean useful data from an experiment.

123

5
Feshbach Resonancesin Sodium and Lithium
5.1 Feshbach resonances in Na and Li gases

My experiments on ultracold molecule formation have been performed withdilute gases of Na-23 and Li-6. This choice of atoms is partly historical, as they are theatoms that have given our research group great results in experiments with quantum
degenerate gases. This is largely due to the fact that gases of Na and Li have a favorable
ratio of elastic to inelastic collisions, which has lead to efficient evaporative cooling andlong lifetimes of trapped mixtures41. It would be nice if molecules made up of Na and Li
would inherit this good fortune, although there is no solid scientific reason to expect it 3.
Even if this is not the case, any ultracold formation experiment benefits from large
3 One could appeal to the fact that the light mass of Na and Li compared to other alkalis means that thevibrational and rotational spacing of possible molecular states is larger. Because inelastic collisions
generally involve decaying to bound molecular states, this would suggest (with much hand-waving andlittle rigor) that the atoms are less likely to find an energetically appropriate decay channel.

124
initial numbers of component particles and long lifetimes during preparation
procedures.
Another motivation for studying Na and Li is the existence of several Feshbachresonances, both homonuclear and heteronuclear, at experimentally attainablemagnetic fields. Prior to the start of my research in NaLi, Na2 molecules had been
isolated and measured25,29, and Li2 molecules have been studied under a wide variety ofcircumstances14,27,145. NaLi resonances had been identified and cataloged4, but themolecules had never been isolated or measured for lifetime or formation efficiency.
The effective potentials of NaLi (refer back to figure 3 in section 2.2.2) aredeveloped from molecular spectroscopy on hot vapors or beams of molecules 3,93-97. The
molecules were formed in a hot gaseous mixture of Na and Li vapors, and are therefore
distributed among the quantum states in thermal equilibrium. The strong spectroscopiclines produced by these samples are mostly among low vibrational and rotational
nuclear states. This gives accurate knowledge of the bottoms of molecular wells (theshort range parts), but less accuracy in calculating the exact potentials near dissociation(the long-range parts).
In our experiment, we use a Feshbach resonance to populate only the R=0
rotational state in the most weakly bound vibrational states of the ground electronic
potentials. Calculating the exact fields for these resonances was impossible from the hot
spectroscopy data; however, once the resonances were found experimentally, many
more could be predicted as the long-range potentials were refined4,5.

125

5.1.1 New heteronuclear resonances between Na and Li

Prior to the start of my research, Claudiu Stan had located three NaLi Feshbachresonances and predicted the locations of several more4,138. A more detailed analysis by
Marko Gacesa and co-workers refined the predictions, by fitting their calculations to theobserved locations of the 3 verified resonances 5. The following table summarizes
Feshbach resonances we have located, and lists the fields where they were predicted tooccur prior to observation.
Observed B0 Predicted B0 Atomic States

Molecular StateΔB (G)Δμ (μb)746

746|1>Na + |1>Li|1 1 1 -1/2>

0.04

4

760

760

|1>Na + |1>Li|1 1 0 1/2>

0.31

4

795

795

|1>Na + |1>Li|1 1 -1 3/2>

2.18

4

787

780

|1>Na + |2>Li|1 1 1 -3/2>

1*

4

824

820

|1>Na + |2>Li|1 1 0 -1/2>

2*

4

851

872

|1>Na + |2>Li|1 1 -1 1/2>

4*

4

1594

1186?

|1>Na + |1>Li|0 0 0 3/2>?

8.7

2

Table 1: Feshbach resonances in NaLi. Molecular states are listed in the |S m s mi,Nami,Li> basis. The last resonance has not yet been incorporated into the model, so themolecular state is not certain. ΔB values marked with a star are estimates from loss
measurements. Predictions are taken from Gacesa et. al. PRA 78, 010701 (2008)

The first three Feshbach resonances listed (the ones observed by Stan et. al.) areclose together because for the same molecular electronic state, there are threecombinations of nuclear magnetic moment that give the same total m f as the atomic

126
states. The predicted resonances in the |12> state were an obvious place to look for new
resonances. The atomic states are still safe from 2-body inelastic collisions, have thesame electronic configuration, and also couple to three nuclear configurations.
The resonances were predicted at 787 G, 820 G, and 870G. We were able tomeasure the three body losses experimentally and found the resonances at 787G, 824G,
and 851G. Typical results of loss measurements near a Feshbach resonance are shownin figure 21.
The measurement occurs by holding the atoms at different magnetic fields for a
fixed amount of time and measuring the remaining atoms. In our NaLi experiments,
the ratio of Na to Li atoms varied from shot to shot, so we used a normalization scheme
to obtain reliable measurements of atoms. We would take a series of data and also takeseveral images with out crossing the resonance, so we could find the average initial atom
number for Na and for Li. We would normalize the atom numbers for eachmeasurement to the initial numbers. We would then take the geometric average of thenormalized Na and normalized Li numbers to obtain a single number representing
normalized atom number. Mathematically, this result is given by
71

Normalized atom number=



Na #
Li #
initial Na # initial Li #This number showed much less shot to shot and day to day instability than raw atom
numbers.

127

figure 21: Loss measurements near two Feshbach resonances between Na |1> andLi |1>. The atom numbers are normalized as described in the text. The resonanceat 1594 Gauss was identified by a blind search described below in the text.

The search for specific Feshbach resonances is a good example of the importanceof combining experiment and theory in molecular work. Blind experimental searchingfor any possible Feshbach resonances can miss narrow, weak resonances and takes along time. On the other hand, numerical theories have some uncertainty for resonancelocations even when most of the relevant data is known accurately.

5.1.2 Search for the wide singlet NaLi resonance

The UConn group predicted an 8 G wide Feshbach resonance at 1186 G in the |11> state. The width of the resonance made it an interesting target for experimental

128
efforts, and the resonance couples to the singlet molecular manifold, thereby avoiding
the need for singlet/triplet coupling to drive transitions to populate the true molecular
ground state X 1  +  v=0, j =0 . However, a few attempts to search all fields up to 1300
G failed to locate the resonant losses.
The fact that all known resonances involved the triplet manifold gives a clue tothe difficulty here. The known resonances provided no direct information on weakly
bound states of the singlet manifold. However, to get the theory to accurately match theobserved resonances, coupling between the singlet and triplet molecular states was
invoked, so indirect knowledge of the singlet states was obtained.
A simplified calculation of the magnetic fields where resonances occur is possible
by using a simple Hamiltonian146-148. The Asymptotic Bound State Hamiltonian is72

H =H rel H Z H hf

where Hrel includes the kinetic energy and effective potentials from the electronic
motion, H Z =e S⋅B−1 i 1⋅B−2 i 2⋅B is the Zeeman energy of electrons and nuclei in themagnetic field, and H hf =a hf1 /ℏ 2 i 1⋅s1 a hf2 / ℏ 2 i 2⋅s 2 is the hyperfine interaction for eachatom. If we use a basis ∣S , ms , mi1 mi2 〉 , we can rewrite the Hamiltonian73

H =H 0H Z Q H +hf H -Hf 1
H +hf =∑ a hfk /2 ℏ 2 {S z i kz  [S + i k - S - i k + ]}2
k1
H -hf =∑ −1 k−1 a hfk /2 ℏ 2 { s1z −s 2z i kz  [ s1 + −s 2 + i k -  s 1 -−s 2 - i k + ]}2k

Two simplifications have occurred here. First, the relative motion has been “solved” togive a binding energy H0 for a given basis state. The open channel has zero binding
energy and is considered completely uncoupled from the molecular states. Coupling

129
between atomic states and molecular states can be invoked to find the resonance width
as described earlier, but it is ignored in this method when finding the resonancelocations. The singlet binding energy and triplet binding energies are adjustableparameters to match experimental locations of Feshbach resonances. The relative
motion has also provided the Franck-Condon factor Q for coupling among different
molecular states.
The hyperfine interaction has been separated into two parts, the + term couples
only among singlet or among triplet states, the – term couples between singlet andtriplet states. The first two terms are diagonal among basis states, only the hyperfine
terms have off-diagonal elements. If Q can be approximated, the problem no longer
involves solving any wave equations and simply involves diagonalizing a N x N
Hamiltonian (for N basis states) whose diagonal matrix elements depend on B throughthe Zeeman term.
To solve for NaLi Feshbach resonances, we choose a single atomic state for Na
and for Li, and the Hamiltonian reproduces the standard Breit-Rabi formula for theenergy of the atoms in a magnetic field.
We then consider all molecular states with the same total m f as the atomic state.
There will probably be several coupled states, some singlet, some triplet. The hyperfine
constants ahf,Na and ahf,Li can be looked up149. The remaining unknown is the FranckCondon factor. This is possible to estimate because the singlet and triplet potentials arevery similar at long range. Invoking the turning point method, we assume that Q=1 forstates with the same binding energy (particularly for all diagonal terms), and for
different binding energies, make the approximation

130
74

Q=2

 E s E t 1 /4

 E s E t

where Es and Et are the singlet and triplet binding energies146. These two binding
energies are the only free parameters in the Hamiltonian, and they can be adjusted tomatch experimental Feshbach resonance locations.
See figure 22 for the results of such a calculation. Here we used the atomic state |11> and all possible molecular states with the same total mf = 3/2 (there are 8 suchstates) . The relevant constants were looked up and used to find the diagonal and offdiagonal terms of the Hamiltonian. The Hamiltonian was diagonalized using
Mathematica, and then Es and Et were found through a built-in optimization routine.
Numerical treatment of the molecular wavefunctions shows that this simplified
coupling scheme is not the whole story5,148. After a conversation with Marko Gacesa
about the NaLi potential, we learned that by independently adjusting multiple
parameters of the effective molecular potential, the coupling terms do not follow thebinding energies as predicted in the simple model. He suggested that the singlet state
could be much more deeply bound than initially predicted, moving the predicted 1186 G
resonance to much higher magnetic fields.

131

figure 22: Energies of the atomic state |11> (dashed line) and the eight molecularstates with the same projection of total angular momentum, calculated with thecoupled channels method. The singlet and triplet binding energies are adjusted togive good agreement with the experimental positions of the three highest energy
molecular states. Note the prediction of two resonances near 1200 G. Image
provided by Tout Wang.

Hoping that the field wasn't too far off, we pushed our search to theabsolute limit of our apparatus around 1620G, and located a broad resonance at a fieldof 1594 G (see figure 9). As of the writing of this thesis, I have not heard if this field has
been matched with revised molecular potentials, but it is almost certainly due to the132
coupling to the singlet state, and should allow refining both singlet and triplet potentialsof the NaLi molecules.

5.1.3 Homonuclear resonances in Na and Li

Homonuclear Feshbach resonances can occur in a gas of Na-23 and Li-6. If thetrapped fermionic Li-6 is all in the same internal state, S-wave collisions between atoms
cannot be anti-symmetric upon exchange of particle labels, so S-wave resonances do notoccur at all. P-wave collisions have the correct symmetry (as will any odd partial wave),
but at ultracold temperatures where the probabilities of higher partial-wave collisions
are vanishingly small, the fully polarized Fermi gas has no interactions. Feshbachresonances can certainly occur with P-wave character, and several are known 119 for Li-6,
but they are narrow and easily avoided.
A fully polarized Bose gas, on the other hand, allows even partial wave collisions(S, D etc.) and forbids odd collisions. Combined with the tendency of ultracold Bosons
to condense or bunch, this increases the likelihood for two atoms to be close enough tointeract by a factor of 2. Na2 S-wave Feshbach resonances can have a major effect on
experiments in NaLi. Some Na2 Feshbach resonances are known150; in fact, we foundresonant sodium collisions at 1590 G by surprise during our studies of the 1596 G NaLi
resonance. These additional Feshbach resonances cause undesired inelastic losses, andinterfere with preparing NaLi mixtures at desired magnetic fields unless they can becrossed very quickly to avoid losses or unwanted association.

133

5.2 Measured loss rates in Na and Li mixtures
5.2.1 3-body atomic losses near NaLi Feshbachresonances.

The most straightforward measurement of a Feshbach resonance is measuring
three-body loss rates. See figure 23 for the results of measuring atom numbers withvarying hold times near a Feshbach resonance.

figure 23: 3-body trap loss in a strongly interacting gas of Na and Li near the 796G
Feshbach resonance. The lines are obtained by numerically solving coupled
differential equations for a homogenous gas assuming only Na-Na-Li collisions(with K3 = 5 x 10-24 cm6/s) cause losses.

The most likely loss process in a resonant NaLi mixture is the 3-body collision of
two Na atoms and one Li atom, because Pauli exclusion will suppress the 3-body134collision of two fermionic Li atoms and one Na atom, and a Na-Na-Na collision is notresonantly enhanced. In the figure we fit a line to the data assuming all losses occur due
to Na-Na-Li collisions. As can be seen in the figure, this assumption fails to give exact
agreement for low atom numbers, possibly because of other mechanisms dominating
losses once the Na density is low, such as density independent background gas collisions
or heating in the finite depth ODT.

5.2.2 2-body molecular losses near a Feshbachresonance.

Without producing and isolating NaLi molecules, we have not been able tomeasure their loss rates, although a lower bound can be predicted by applying a modelwith some assumptions explained in chapter 7. However, the Na 2 and Li2 molecules
have been produced using the exact same procedures in our lab. Although we were not
the first to study either of these molecules or measure their loss rates, it was reassuring
to see that our general procedures were sound. In this section, I am providing resultsfrom earlier work, as their experiments were more extensively optimized and analyzed
than our brief forays into these bosonic molecules.
In the papers describing earlier work on Na2 molecules from the Ketterlegroup25,29, molecules could be readily formed and imaged. Lifetimes were limited tohundreds of microseconds if free Na atoms were present, but by blasting away atoms
shortly after molecules were formed, about 5% of the initial atom number would remain

135
in molecules with lifetimes of up to 20 ms.
Our attempts gave very similar results to those reported in the paper, including a~5% molecule formation, short lifetimes with atoms present, and ~10 ms lifetimes
without free atoms present.
The Na2 loss rates are informative because there is no reason to expect that NaLi
losses should be more severe. In fact, because Na2-Na collisions involve
indistinguishable bosons, where NaLi-Na collisions have one distinguishable particle
present, quantum statistics would suggest NaLi losses should be less severe. We have
not observed this to be the case, however, and we will address this issue again in
Chapter 7.
In Li2, much work has been done with the exceptionally broad Feshbachresonance centered at 834 G. This broad resonance may not be a good comparison
because of the very different dynamics expected between broad and narrow Feshbachresonances discussed in Chapter 3. However, there is a narrow Li 2 resonance in Li-6 at
543 G, which was investigate by27.
Strecker and colleagues were able to observe up to 50% of the Li atoms disappear
after a ramp across resonance to form molecules, but also see the atoms recovered if themolecules were dissociated with the reverse ramp. They were able to recover up to 85%
of the initial atom cloud, suggesting at least the remaining 35% of the atoms
adiabatically associated into molecules. The molecules displayed a very long lifetime of
up to 1 second, even in the presence of the remaining Li atoms.
Our attempts to repeat these results were unsuccessful. We were able to see only
a few percent molecule formation, although part of the problem was our trapping

136
configuration at the time. Atoms were trapped in an ODT radially, but axially held by aharmonic magnetic field. The molecular state, which is a singlet state with very small
magnetic moment, can expand in the axial direction, thereby limiting the time-scales we
could use for molecule formation. However, we were able to form a small fraction ofmolecules with a relatively fast sweep, but these molecules seemed to decay very
quickly. Because of the trapping issues, we can't make any firm conclusions regarding
the long lifetime reported in the paper.
The trapping problem was not an issue for observing Na2, because the higher
atom density and wider resonance allowed faster sweeps to be used. It is also unlikelythat the trapping was the only issue preventing good clouds of NaLi to be formed, as the796 G and 850 G NaLi resonances are of similar width to the Na 2 resonance, and the1596 G resonance is not only much wider but has less difference in magnetic moment
between the atomic and molecular states. However, resolving this problem would
certainly improve the procedure and allow better imaging of remaining molecules,
therefore making the experiment able to detect smaller fractions of molecules.

137

6
Ultracold Molecule
Formation Experiments
6.1 Requirements for long-lived molecules

The discussion of the previous chapters should make it clear that inelastic
collisions are bad for ultracold molecule experiments, and collisions between atoms andweakly bound molecules near the Feshbach resonance are likely to cause inelastic
vibrational decay. This suggests that once molecules are formed, they should be
separated from the atoms as quickly as possible.

6.1.1 Stern-Gerlach separation

Magnetic field separation will separate particles with different values of μ/m, andis simple to implement if magnetic field gradients can be applied. As in a Stern-Gerlach

138
measurement if a magnetic field gradient is applied, all particles will be accelerated by
the field according to their masses and magnetic moments. The time it takes to separate
the molecules is determined by the size of the cloud in the gradient direction and theacceleration as75

=  2w /a=



2wm
B'

where m is the reduced mass and δμ the difference in magnetic moments. For theGaussian clouds produced by typical traps, if using the 2σ radius (the radius whichcontains 95% of the total population) for the width, the overlap of the clouds is reduced
to 1/e after this time.
Because our experiment starts with a Magneto-Optical Trap, it has quadrupole
coils capable of producing a large gradient. Even if if such quadrupole coils areunavailable, the Helmholtz coils used to produce a bias field for Feshbach studies can be
modified to produce a gradient as well by shunting some of the current from one coil.
Our experiment can readily produce gradients of up to 39 G/cm by running 30 amps in
the MOT quadrupole coils. A practical limit of a few 10s of amps is encountered becauseof the switching hardware used for the MOT control, but with further modifications andhigh current power supplies, hundreds of amps could be used, producing much larger
gradients.
39 G/cm gradients apply accelerations of 942 m/s2 (or μm/ms2) for sodium, so
our clouds of a few hundred microns in length can be separated in less than 1 ms. To beable to distinguish a small molecular cloud from the tail of the atomic distribution, it
takes about twice the separation time (by then, the clouds are 4 radii apart).

139
Care should be taken with this method to avoid allowing the local magnetic fieldof the molecules from crossing the resonance. If the initial trap location does not matchthe zero of the gradient field, the local magnetic field will jump when it is switched on,
possibly dissociating the molecules or driving them to deeper binding energies thandesired. In our experiment, the zero of the field is well matched, and the gradient isturned on only when the magnetic field is a few Gauss past the resonance.

6.1.2 Resonant processes for separation

RF spectroscopy can be useful for preparing or identifying molecules, but the
momentum transfers and transition rates are far too small to produce a noticableacceleration. More useful for separating atoms from molecules are resonant opticalbeams, which can deliver forces of76

F blast = precoil ∗ / 2  a blast=9 x 105 m/ s 2

Where the sodium recoil velocity of 3 cm/s and spontaneous emission rate of 10 x 2π
MHz (divided by 2 for the saturated transmission rate) was used. Note that this isabout 1000 times larger than the Stern-Gerlach acceleration. The blasting method canalso optically pump atoms to non-resonant states, possibly allowing it to protect
molecules faster than the acceleration alone would suggest.
Because the blasting method uses the same technology as imaging near the
resonance (only with much more optical intensity), for us it was only a trivial
modification to enable the method. Another advantage is that if the molecules are not140resonant with the blasting beam, they will be unaffected by the beam and can remain in
the trap. This is probably not the case for Stern-Gerlach separation.
Until a molecular signal has been obtained, it is hard to be certain that themolecules are truly unaffected. Because of the previously mentioned difficulties ofpredicting binding energies of weakly bound molecules, the molecular excited states
may be unknown. However, in general there will be a combination of magnetic field andoptical frequency that blasts atoms sufficiently quickly without affecting the molecules
adversely.

6.1.3 Unwanted resonant processes affecting molecules

Even if the blasting beam is not affecting the molecules, the red-detuned laser
used in the ODT could possibly drive transitions to molecular excited states. This effect
was reported in Josh Zirbel's Ph.D thesis on RbK molecules125, and could be a concern
for any molecular experiment. Because of the high intensities used in trapping lasers(our trapping laser can be 108 times above saturation intensity for 10 W focused down to
30 μm), even a far detuned molecular transition can allow unacceptable scattering rates.
To calculate the likelihood of such an event, we used predictions of excited state energy
levels from Marko Gacesa (see figure 24), but because they had not been measured,assumed that the vibrational states could be randomly displaced by any amount while
keeping the same level spacing.

141

figure 24: Predicted transition wavelengths and Franck-Condon factors fortransitions from the molecularFeshbach state to the lowest lying NaLi excited state.
Note in particular that near 1064, FC factors are less than 0.1 and transitions arespaced by 20 nm. In fact, transitions are predicted to occur at 1054 and 1074 nm.
Images provided by Marko Gacesa.

Assuming a Franck-Condon factor of 0.1 (likely an overestimate as seen in figure27), to cause scattering lifetimes of less than 10 ms the IR laser must be within 10 GHz.
Because molecular excited states are spaced by a few THz, there is less than a 1% chancefor this to occur. The only guaranteed protection from these transitions is to chose atrapping laser that is red detuned beyond even the lowest energy transition from groundstate dissociation to an excited state, which would require a laser at 1370 nm or longer
wavelength for the case of NaLi.

142

6.2 Experimental results for Na and Li gases

The formulas of section 3.4 gives a probability to form molecules during amagnetic field sweep, but ignore the likelihood of the molecules being lost to collisions
during the sweep. A simple experiment can be used to measure molecule formation,even if all the molecules are promptly destroyed before they can be directly measured.
A direct measurement of atom loss after a magnetic field sweep cannot be used to
calculate molecule formation. A few papers have defended this assumption on the
grounds that other loss processes are insignificant during the experiment23,27, and havebacked up the assumption with estimates of 3-body atomic losses. However, even if theatomic mixture is long-lived on resonance, every inelastic collision involving a molecule
likely removes free atoms from the trap. This is because the major inelastic loss process
is a molecule colliding with a free atom, being quenched to a lower vibrational state, andreleasing the excess energy to both collision partners as kinetic energy 103. The highenergy particles can then potentially undergo further collisions as they leave the trap.
Also, in experimental conditions, sweeps slow enough to form a significant fraction ofmolecules may also be slow enough to experience non-negligible 3-body losses, even
before the molecules are formed.
A better estimate of molecule formation can be obtained by comparing losses due
to a sweep across resonance with losses due to the same sweep across resonance but inthe reversed direction. In this way all possible atomic loss processes that do not involve

143
adiabatic molecule formation are measured under an identical experimental procedure,
and any asymmetry between the two sweep directions can be assumed to reflect
adiabatic molecule formation, which only occurs for one direction. We will refer to thesweep which can form molecules as the forward sweep, and the reversed sweep which
does not form molecules as the backward sweep.
77

fraction of atoms lost to molecular processes=1−

forward atom number
backward atom number

The total number of extra atoms lost does not immediately give the number ofmolecules formed, but is proportional to the number of molecules formed. The
proportionality factor reflects the fact that every molecule formation and loss causes theloss of the pairing partners, the free atom which collided with them, and possibly more
atoms that undergo subsequent collisions as the high energy collision products leave thetrap. Because molecule formation and loss can occur very close to resonance, wherecollisions are frequent and the proportionality factor can be larger than 3, and can only
be known for sure if the molecules can be isolated and their original population
extrapolated from lifetime measurements.
We have performed these measurements in our experiment for Na-Na, Li-Li, and
Na-Li Feshbach resonances. See figure 27 for a plot of results for a few experiments.
You can see that in each case, it was possible to observe at least 30% more loss inforward sweeps than backward sweeps, and we can assume that this part of the atomic
cloud is lost due to collisions involving molecules.

144

figure 25: Results of comparing forward and backward sweeps across several feshbachresonance. The y axis displays the ratio of atoms remaining after forward sweeps to atoms
remaining after backward sweeps. The vertical blue lines show the sweep rate whichcorresponds to δLZ = 2 with the constant α=0.31 for all sweeps, and a factor of 2 included in
the Na2 resonance for identical bosons. The Na and Li atom numbers are firstindependently normalized to average initial atom numbers, and then normalized as
described in section 5.1.1

The Landau-Zener formation formula (equation 57 from section 3.4.3) can becompared to these results. In figure 25 a vertical line in each plot shows the point where

145
the Landau-Zener parameter δLZ = 2 while using the constant 0.31 for α.
In chapter 7 we present a numerical method for modeling these asymmetricsweep formulas, but we have not extensively tested a wide range of parameters for eachplot, so we do not draw any definite conclusions about this value of α. However, thecorrespondence of the δLZ = 2 sweep rate with the fastest sweep rates showing
significant molecular losses for several different resonances is reassuring.

6.2.1 Results from Na2 and Li2

In our experiments on Na and Li, we have explored the following Feshbachresonances in detailSpecies

B0 (G)ΔB (G)abg (a0)mred (amu)

Na-Na

907

1

63

11.5

Li-Li

543

0.1

59

3

Na-Li

796

2.2

13

4.8

Na-Li

870

4*

13.5

4.8

Na-Li

1594

8.7

12.5

4.9

Table 2: Experimentally investigated resonances in Na and Li. Numbers for Na-Na
and Li-Li was taken from Chin et. al RMP 82, 1225 (2010)

Data on asymmetric sweeps were obtained for all resonances except 870, and a variety
of formation techniques have been attempted for all of these resonances. Na 2 and Li2
Molecules have been successfully isolated, but we have not succeeded in isolating NaLi.
An example image from our successful Na2 procedures can be seen in figure 26.

146

figure 26: Image of Na atoms and molecules separated by the Stern-Gerlach
method. In (a), the cloud on the right is remaining atoms, and the left cloud is thesurviving molecules. The molecules contain about 4% of the original atom
number. b) and c) are 1-D profiles obtained by integrated the region around theatomic and molecular clouds, respectively.

These images should give an idea of the real limit of molecule studies; enoughmolecules must be formed and isolated to produce clear images of the molecular cloud.
This means the molecule cloud must be distinct from the tail of the atomic cloud (if147using Stern-Gerlach separation, as in these images), or the surviving molecules must be
distinguished from possible remaining atoms (if blasting is used without SternGerlach). The particular procedure and imaging setup used impose limits on theminimum molecule fraction that can be measured. For our imaging, we can visually
distinguish 4% molecule formation. After some integration and performing Ncounts in
the region of interest, we could observe down to 1% formation, but any smaller fraction
and the molecular peak is lost in imaging noise. Because we could not observe NaLi
molecules in images, even after integrating over the expected location of molecules, weconclude that the surviving molecule fraction is less than 1% of the initial atom number.
Slightly smaller fractions might be observed by combing through many images
with a fine-toothed analysis algorithm. However, shot to shot instability in atoms
numbers, imaging beam fluctuations, and fringes make it likely that such an algorithm
will give false positives. We did not attempt such methods to pick out procedures whichmight have been “barely successful” at forming NaLi molecules, instead devoting our
experimental time and creative energies to improving systematic methods in the hopesof getting unmistakable signals of molecule formation.

6.3 Further considerations for molecule experiments
6.3.1 Empirical optimization of molecules

A few techniques of currently successful molecule formation experiments must be
mentioned to allow this thesis to be a useful guide to Feshbach molecule formation.

148
They have not been mentioned yet because they are the result of optimization throughtrial and error, but cannot be systematically applied to an experiment that has not yet
produced any image of surviving Feshbach molecules, such as NaLi.
To optimize the surviving fraction in a successful experiment, search for thebalance of atomic densities, temperature and ramp rate that give maximum molecule
numbers. This can involve changing trap geometries, or even releasing the atoms inballistic expansion before attempting formation33.
Another important technique worth mentioning is carefully shaped magnetic
field profiles. Rather than a simple linear sweep across resonance, the field is jumped
abruptly from one field to another. This has the advantage of avoiding the portions of
the ramp where molecules do not form but losses are nevertheless enhanced. In our
experience, we improved the surviving fraction of Na2 molecules by a factor of 2 bychanging from linear ramps to shaped ramps. However, this method involves many
more free parameters, and only makes sense if a signal has already been obtained andthe procedure is being empirically optimized for surviving molecule fraction. It is
unlikely to allow significant formation in a system where linear sweeps yield no
measurable results.
Another technique, which has been previously mentioned, is to wait at a fieldwith finite molecular binding energy and to allow thermal equilibrium to populate themolecular state145. This method has only been demonstrated in the unusual case of thebroad Li2 resonance, and relies on the long-lifetimes and very strong coupling unique tothat resonance.

149

6.3.2 Molecular transitions in weakly bound NaLi

The molecules formed are in the most weakly bound vibrational states. If large
electric dipole moments are desired, more deeply bound states are required. The only
currently feasible way to achieve this is through Raman transitions, where the upward
transition is driven with a laser and the downward transition is stimulated with a laser
tuned to populate the desired state. The only way to do this coherently is by two photontransitions with shaped laser pulses in a technique known as STIRAP67. The exact
locations of excited states with good Frank-Condon overlap with the Feshbach molecule
is unknown (again, these tend to be highly vibrational levels with strong dependence on
the uncertain long-range potentials), but with cooperation between experimental
spectroscopy and theoretical refinements of the molecular potentials, the appropriate
transitions can be found.
The downward transitions also require good Frank-Condon factors, and if theatoms start in the triplet manifold, to end up in the true ground state some singlettriplet coupling is required. This can occur in the excited states of the molecules in oneof the previously mentioned violations of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation.
In the NaLi system, some estimates have been made regarding these moleculartransitions. Based on potentials incorporating data from our group on NaLi Feshbachresonances, the research group of Robin Cote from the University of Connecticut has
calculated estimates of the required transitions as seen in figure 24.
If long-lived molecules can be formed, some spectroscopic measurements can be150
performed on the most weakly bound states by simply detuning the lasers already used
to drive resonant atomic transitions. Because these states are typically a few GHz below
dissociation, the transition frequencies are well within the tuning range of lasers, andmight even be within the range of standard AOM or EOM frequency shifters. This
allows some immediate improvement in spectroscopic knowledge the moment an
atomic physicist can form measurable molecules68.

151

7Modeling Practical
Molecule Formation
7.1 Model of real Feshbach association procedures
7.1.1 Assumptions of model

Incorporating the material from previous chapters, we can now construct a
numerical model for real Feshbach Association procedures. This will be useful ininterpreting data from NaLi where we cannot measure molecule populations directly.
The model requires the following assumptions:First, the system is prepared at a boson phase space density of 1. This is done to
optimize association with large phase space density while avoiding Bose-Einstein
Condensation at phase space density of 2.677. It also simplifies the system dynamics, as
collective motion of the BEC and other effects of quantum degeneracy can be avoided.
The Fermion phase space density is less of a concern as it gets automatically capped at 1

152from Pauli Exclusion76, and the degenerate density profile remains qualitatively similar
to the thermal profile at T=Tf. For our balanced mixtures of NaLi, Na phase spacedensity ≤ 1, Li phase space density would be as high as 4 assuming a thermal
distribution, but degeneracy limits it to 1.
Second, collision and formation rates are calculated using the uniform density
equations of Chapters 5 and 6. This means hydrodynamic effects and correlations are
ignored, and densities are not allowed to redistribute during the formation sweep. The
results should be reasonably accurate as long as the mean free path is greater than theinteratomic spacing, which is the case except for unitarity limited collisions in fully
degenerate gases.
Third, molecule formation efficiency and atom loss should total less than 50%.
This will limit the effects of depleting the high-density portions of the cloud faster thanthe low density portions. The modified exponential Landau-Zener formation formula
will be used (equation 57), so molecule formation will automatically be restricted to lessthan 50%, and sweep times of interest are generally much faster than those that willseverely deplete the atom cloud, so this assumption will definitely hold.
Fourth, the only formation and collision processes considered are adiabatic
formation, 3-body atomic loss and 2-body molecular loss. In each collision only theparticles participating in the collision are lost from the trap, but they are assumed to belost from the trap immediately. These circumstances will cover the most relevant
processes near resonance.

7.1.2 Description of model

153

The model begins with a trapped gas held away from resonance. If the magnetic
field is at least 2 ∆B away from resonance, the scattering length is within 50% of abg andthe atoms will have their equilibrium non-resonant density distribution. For our
experiments, these distributions are roughly thermal distributions, as T > Tc and T/T f ~0.5 or higher.
A linear sweep is used to cross resonance. This causes the heteronuclear
scattering length to vary with time as78

a t =a bg 1−

BB
=a bg 1−B t−B0
2  B− Ḃ t−B0

Only resonant collisions are considered. Other collisions should cause minimalloss during the experiment duration. Collision rates are incorporated in the coupled
differential equations.
4

2

4

2

79

n˙Na =−K ' 3 a n na nli −a n Na nmol80n˙Li =−K ' 3 a nna n li

81

n mol
˙ =− a n Na nmol

These equations are numerically solved to obtain surviving atomic and moleculardensities. The coefficients may be known or may be treated as the free parameters ofthe model. The a4 dependence of 3-body loss agrees with losses observed in RbK 103, but
we apply a cutoff when scattering length exceeds the deBroglie wavelength. The
function β(a) probably does not have a simple analytical form, as seen in the RbK loss
paper (refer back to figure 25 in chapter 6). For the results presented in this chapter, we
use a constant value for β(a), which can be interpreted as the average value across154
resonance.
The peak density alone can be used for rough calculations, but each point in a 3-D
density distribution can be independently solved at it's local density for a more thoroughtreatment. Redistribution of densities in the trap are ignored. This can remain accurate
for fast sweeps (where total experiment time is less than a quarter trap period), but
slower sweeps may have quantitative errors.
No molecules are present at the beginning of the sweep, but as the sweep crosses
the resonance, the molecule density is calculated with the formula from chapter 5:82

n mol = nminority

T 3f / 28T

3 /2

1−exp 2 [ n majority∣∣ℏ a bg  B]mḂusing the densities present at the time the resonance is crossed. The molecular andatomic densities are all abruptly changed at this time by forming molecules with density
nmol, and removing this same density from both species of atom.
The constant α is a fudge factor invoked by all experiments which have compared
the formula to experimental results. In our experiments, we found α = 0.31 to giveadequate agreement with observations, but this value should not be considered
conclusive, as we have not done careful numerical modeling fitted to the many
experiments we have performed with various temperatures, densities and Feshbachresonances.
The simulation is then completed by allowing the linear sweep to continue for a
specific time after crossing resonance. This time represents the extra time required toseparate and measure any potential molecules. The densities at the end of this time areused as the final atom/molecule density and number.

155

7.2 Application to Na2 experiments
We first test the modeling on the case of Na2, where we are able to directly
measure molecule formation. Optimized Na2 experiments require Bose-Einstein
Condensation for maximum molecule formation, but we can still obtain measurable
molecule fractions in a thermal gas, which has a more repeatable peak atom density andthus provides more reliable data to compare to the model.
We use the measured density and temperature of the cloud (n = 1 x 1013 cm-3, T =400 nK), and the molecular loss rate β = 5.5 x 10-11 presented in Mukaiyama et. al25. We
find the constant K'3 = 5 x 105 gives good agreement with backward sweep data. At thispoint all parameters are fixed, and we model atom numbers surviving forward andbackward sweeps, as well as molecule numbers surviving forward sweeps. See figure 27
for the results and a comparison of asymmetric sweep data to experiment.

156

figure 27: Numerically modeled results for experiments near the Na2 Feshbachresonance. the bottom right compares experimental data to the model. Note themaximum molecule formation corresponds to 4% efficiency for sweeps between 2
and 10 ms, which roughly agrees with our observations.

Note the fair agreement with experiments, both the forward/backward ratio andalso the maximum molecule formation of about 4%, which drops for sweeps which are
faster than 1 ms or slower than 10 ms, which roughly agrees with experiments.

7.3 Application to NaLi experiments

157
See figures 28 and 29 for results obtained for the 796G NaLi resonance by using
measured 3-body loss (see figure 25 in chapter 5) and typical initial atomic densities
which match those used in the asymmetric sweep experiment shown in figure 27. This
analysis and the figures were provided by Gregory Lau.

figure 28: Surviving molecule density calculated using the numerical model
described in the text, and a constant 2-body loss coefficient β = 10-10 cm3/s. The
maximum surviving density near 5 x 1010 is 2.5% of the initial atomic densities(2x1012 for each species). Data provided by Gregory Lau.

158

figure 29: Atoms remaining after asymmetric sweeps across the Feshbachresonance, calculated using numerical modeling. These results are similar tomeasured atom numbers after asymmetric sweeps. Data provided by Gregory Lau.

The results use initial atom densities that match the peak densities in our
experiments, measured 3-body loss rates and known values for resonance parameters.
The atom loss results are consistent with asymmetric sweep experiments. The atom loss
results were obtained using a conversion efficiency χa = 0.1, which corresponds to T/Tf =1.2. Temperature measurements indicate that our system is colder than this (around
T/Tf = 0.5 or 0.7), but considering that the conversion efficiency is approximate, this is
not a major concern.
The results assume a 2-body molecular loss coefficient β = 10-10 cm3/s, and using
this value produces a molecular density that would be barely observable in our159
experiment. Assuming that only molecular losses are preventing us from isolating
molecules (and not possible technical difficulties), this value can be interpreted as alower bound. Because this is a constant value, the real loss coefficient may be higher orlower than this value at different stages of the experiment, in which case the boundwould apply to the average value. Furthermore, we have tried a wide variety ofexperimental parameters and magnetic field sweeps beyond those simulated in this andnever observed molecules, this lower bound is conservative.
Because this is a 2-body inelastic collision process, a unitarity limit can beapplied to find an upper bound for the possible coefficient. The rate calculated inchapter 6 is 3.1 x 10-7, 3000 times larger than the lower bound. Thus it is certainly
possible that 2-body molecule losses could prevent us from observing NaLi molecules.
Unitarity limits apply to the total elastic and inelastic collision rate, so a loss rate
close to this limit implies that almost every collision results in vibrational quenching.
The ratio of elastic to inelastic collisions can be modified by the existence of nearby
resonant trimer states, details of the vibrational wavefunctions, and other molecularproperties that are not widely studied for NaLi at this time.

7.4 Conclusions regarding NaLi molecules

Our non-observation of surviving NaLi molecules should not be interpreted as
hard evidence of physical limitations of the NaLi system. I believe no experimental
physicist should ever claim that their experiment is indisputable. However, experience160
and observation leads me to believe that our statements regarding the 2-body loss
coefficient are accurate, and 2-body collisional losses are the most likely reason for our
difficulties in isolating and studying these molecules.
One additional possibility is the narrow magnetic field range of strong mixing of
the atomic and molecular states δBopen = 18 mG is not large enough compared tomagnetic field noise, although the narrow Li2 resonance has δBopen = 0.1 mG andmolecules were isolated, so that cannot be the whole story.
Our success at forming Na2 and Li2 molecules using identical procedures andatomic properties serves as an “idiot check” that we are not making obvious mistakes.
We cannot rule out technical problems specific to NaLi such as the ODT laser driving
resonant molecular transitions. However, I also believe no experimental physicist
should blame such unlikely “boogeymen” for problems before searching for logical andlikely explanations.

7.4.1 Comparison to RbK

If the theories presented in chapter 3 are to be believed, a few general statements
can be made comparing the NaLi system to the highly successful heteronuclear BoseFermi mixture of Rb-K35,67,103,151. The adiabatic molecule formation efficiency (equation57) gives the following results for the resonances

∣

∣

∣

∣

2 T 2f n majority 4 ℏ a bg  B 2 1012−185 a 0 3.6 G
4ℏ
83 P  RbK , 546G ≈
=
2
m
Ḃ
2
27.4 amu
Ḃ
8T

161

∣

2 10 12 4  ℏ 12 a0  2.2 G
2
4.8 amu
Ḃ

∣

84

P  NaLi , 796 G ≈85

2 10 12 4  ℏ 14 a0  ~ 8G 
P  NaLi , 1594 G ≈2
4.8 amu
Ḃ∣∣

The only parameters that can depend on a particular procedure are temperature,density and sweep rate. I have used 0.5 Tf as the temperature for both experiments, and1012 for the densities. These are consistent with the published numbers 103 and with thevalues measured in our experiment, so quantum statistics are likely to have the same
effect on the two systems.
The different masses, widths, and scattering lengths of the systems put theseprobabilities, for a given sweep rate Ḃ , nearly equal for RbK and 1594G NaLi, and 796G
NaLi would be lower by a factor of 4. However, sweep rate is a readily changed
parameter in the lab, so this ratio is not meaningful on it's own.
The RbK experiment measured two-body molecule loss coefficients of around 10 -9
cm3/s near resonance. In this case the unitarity limited collision rate (for reduced massof 51.3 in a Rb-RbK collision) would be 4 x 10-8 cm3/s, 40 times higher than observed
losses. They also observed losses being enhanced with scattering length as theresonance was approached (refer back to figure 8 in section 3.3.3). If NaLi losses were
this close to the unitarity limit, it would be impossible to isolate molecules in this way.
These collision rates are calculated based on specific experimental parameters,
but a more fundamental comparison can be performed by assuming a density of −3DBwhich corresponds to phase space density of 1. The unitarity limited loss rate would be

162
86

 = n  v=

−3
atom

3

16 

2
red



3 k bT 6  k B T matom 3 /2
=


m red
h
m red

The final dependence on the ratio of boson mass to reduced mass of themolecule/boson system does not cause a significant difference (this ratio is 4.9 for NaNaLi and 3.2 for Rb-RbK). The difference in the unitarity loss coefficients reported
above reflects differences in the particular experimental values reported, but thisformula uses only definitions of phase space density and the unitarity limit.
We can also compare theoretical formation efficiency to loss probability in any
sweep experiment. Theoretical predictions111 suggest that loss coefficients would scale
as a4. The hard sphere interpretation would say cross section should scale as a 2, butinelastic processes would probably get even worse as the resonance is approached. By
using a loss rate with power law dependence on scattering length:87

 =  v therm = constant  a n v therm = constant a bg 1 B n 3k b T Bt mand integrating the 2-body collision rate across resonance:88∞
3k b T B n∫0  ni dt = constant  m ni∫0  abg 1  B t  dt∞

we can find an analytical expression for total fractional molecular loss across resonance.
We will ignore the background term in the scattering length expression. This part will
be insignificant near resonance, although it will be important for molecule losses while
separating and imaging the atoms. This leaves the resonant part89n∞ a  B 
3k b Tbg∫0  ni dt = constant  m ni∫0   Bt   dt∞

which cannot be avoided, as the molecules and atoms will experience this for any

163experiment which crosses the Feshbach resonance. For a linear sweep, this integral
takes the form:90n∞ a  B
Tc
3k b Tbg
constant n i [∫Tc  dt∫0  2 dB 2 dt]m Ḃ twhere the unitarity limited scattering length is used as a cutoff to make the integral
finite. The cutoff was implemented by defining a time Tc where the scatting length
formula gives the same results as the unitarity limit, and evaluating the integral in apiecewise fashion before and after Tc. It turns out the two parts of the piecewise
integral give similar contributions. After solving the integral and ignoring constants,
the result is proportional to
91

ni



2−2/ n3 k B T abg  B
h
 2

m
Ḃ
 2 m k b T

The precise implementation of the cutoff will affect the exact results, but thefactor of 2 dB 2−2 /n will always show up. This is significant, as it implies that while
formation efficiency depends inversely on mass, integrated losses depend at least
inversely on mass (for n = 2), but more severely for loss rates scaling with a higher
power of scattering length. This could be one clue as to why the lightweight NaLi
molecules have been more difficult to isolate than in the very similar case of RbK.
Note that this formula contains the same factor of n / Ḃ as the formation
efficiency, implying that one does not gain significantly by changing atom density
because changing the sweep rate compensates for both formation and losses. By taking
the ratio of losses to molecule formation, almost all experimental parameters cancel:

164

92

P loss=P formni2−2 /n3 k B T a bg  B
h
2 

m
Ḃ
 2 m k b T

2 T 3/f 2 ni 4 ℏ a bg  B
mḂ
8T 3/ 2∣∣

∝ mT 1 1−
n 2

T 3 /2
T 3f /2

The T dependence in this result is not quite reliable, as formation saturates at
T/Tf = 0.5 and the unitarity limited loss rate will likely saturate in the low-temperature
limit as well. Therefore, if the temperature is near degeneracy, there is little else to do to
optimize sample preparation in the hopes of obtaining good molecule formation and low
loss.
In practice, the maximum surviving fraction is known to depend on density,
perhaps due to the fact that if the density is high, losses during the time spentseparating and imaging the molecules can become as important as the resonant
processes. This makes it important to attempt a variety of methods and procedures.
In summary, there is no specific theoretical reason to assume that RbK shouldhave a huge advantage over NaLi. Because we have explored a wide variety ofexperimental parameters and Feshbach resonances, it is unlikely that small variations
in density, sweep rate, or temperature of any specific experiment can account for thedifference either.
One significant difference could be the fact that RbK uses an open-channel
dominated resonance while NaLi is closed-channel dominated, but there is no known
reason that this should affect association through magnetic sweeps. A technical issue
might be that the magnetic field noise of 10 mG is similar to δBopen for 796G, which
would not be an issue for RbK. However, this is probably not the whole story as
mentioned earlier in relation to the narrow Li2 resonance.

165
Without the ability to measure NaLi lifetimes, we cannot be sure that the inelastic
collisions tell the whole story of poor molecule production. Precise knowledge of the
wavefunctions and matrix elements for NaLi molecules, combined with knowledge oftrimer and tetramer states involved in the inelastic collisions, could be used to predictthe loss coefficients and the ratio of elastic to inelastic collisions at unitarity. Suchanalysis requires extensive experimental spectroscopy and the concentrated efforts oftalented theorists. However, if these valuable resources were readily available, what
would be the fun of such challenging experiments as ultracold heteronuclear molecule
formation?

7.5 General procedure for optimized molecule formation

In addition to motivating the model, the previous assumptions suggest a method
for optimizing sweep rates for forming molecules if nothing is known about collisions or
adiabatic formation. By modeling the asymmetric sweeps discussed in chapter 5, thecoefficients for loss and formation can be found, and a time scale can be found where asignificant amount of atom loss is attributed for molecule formation rather than just 3body atomic loss.
By running the simulation for a range of time scales, the surviving molecule
fraction is found to be optimum at somewhat faster sweeps than where molecule
formation saturates (compare figures 28 and 29). This result agrees with intuition thatmolecule losses are very fast, so it is better to err on the side of inefficient formation

166
than to allow additional time for destructive molecular collisions.

These results suggest the following procedure to form and isolate molecules:
1. Perform backward sweeps (sweeps which cannot form molecules), finding
the point at which 3-body losses result in 50% depletion of remaining
atoms.
2. Perform forward sweeps at that rate and faster, looking for the fastest
sweep that gives saturated formation efficiency, calculated from the atoms
remaining after forward and backward sweeps:
93

loss fraction due to molecules=

backward fraction− forward fraction
backward fraction

3. Try isolating molecules using sweep rates that are 3-5 times faster than thesweep with maximum molecule formation.
4. If no molecules are formed, try sweeps that are up to 10 times faster orslower.
5. If there are still no results, begin looking for technical errors in theexperiment or improving isolation and imaging techniques.

Once molecules are formed, they should be optimized empirically. The majoradvantage of this systematic method is that it requires no prior knowledge of collision
rates, exact atom densities, exact resonance location, or any knowledge at all of thenature of the resonance beyond a rough idea of the location and width.

167

8Many-body Physics Near a
Feshbach ResonanceAt many points in the previous chapters, we have mentioned that correlations,collective motion, and many-body effects complicate the dynamics near a Feshbachresonance. However, what causes confusion in one experiment can lead to great insightin another. As interactions become very strong, correlations and many-body effects canbecome as important as local two or three body processes.
This property, along with the tunability of strong interactions, the ability tomeasure complete density or momentum distributions, and the very low thermal energy
allows unprecedented preparation and measurement of strongly correlated, nonequilibrium, and many body states. Ultracold atomic physics, especially with tunableinteractions near a Feshbach resonance, has become a proving ground for complex
condensed matter theories which cannot be directly tested in any other experiments 16,152154

.

168

8.1 Ferromagnetism vs. molecule formation in Li mixtures

As one example, consider what occurs in a sample of atoms, initially on the sideof the Feshbach resonance with large positive scattering length, as it approaches theresonance. As the scattering length becomes large, the repulsive interactions create
mean-field interaction energy. If the interaction is an interspecies interaction in a twocomponent gas, and intraspecies interactions remain constant, the gas may be able tolower it's energy by locally separating the two species. This is the logic behind theStoner model for ferromagnetism155, where the energy saved by segregating magnetic
moment orientations in domains is greater than the energy required to establish thedomains, leading to spontaneous long-range ordering of spins.
Recall that near a Feshbach resonance, large positive scattering lengths occur
between free atoms only when there exists a weakly bound molecular state. This meansthat the repulsive state is not the ground state, but is only a metastable state which issusceptible to inelastic decay to molecules. Viewed in this way, the molecule associationis the unwanted property in an experiment designed specifically to produce uniquecorrelated states and inhomogeneous density with long-lived, long-range ordering.

8.1.1 Itinerant ferromagnetism in a Fermi gas of ultracold
atoms

The material in the section is taken from the paper of the same name published169
by our lab11.
The Stoner model, first proposed in 1938155, provides an intuitive argument for
the tendency of electron spins to locally align in ferromagnetic materials. This textbook
model for ferromagnetism requires no band structure or microscopic correlations tounderstand, but is a simple matter of balancing energies.
The energies to be balanced are the interaction energy, which occurs when
wavefunctions from unlike spins overlap, and the kinetic energy, which is minimized by
distributing both species homogeneously throughout the available volume.
We define the magnetization of the gas as:94= n1−n2  n1n2 This is 0 for a balanced mixture and +1 or -1 for a fully polarized mixture. The energy ofthe system takes the form:95

E f 2 V  n1n2 {

3
2
5/ 3
5/ 3
[1 1− ]
k a 11−}10
3 f

The term dependent on the dimensionless interaction parameter kf a is the interactionenergy, and the term in square brackets is the kinetic energy (from the independent
Fermi energies of the two spin states).
Two possible states of the system are shown in figure 30. Comparing the energy
for the cases of zero magnetization:96

3 2
E f 2 V  n1n2 { k a}5 3 fand the case of maximal magnetization (+1 or -1):

170
97

E f 2 V  n1n2 {

3 5 /3[2 ]0}10

we can see that maximal magnetization is favored for strong interactions (large k fa), but
zero magnetization is favored for weak interactions (small kfa). Specifically, at kfa > π/2
total energy is minimized at nonzero magnetization. An accurate treatment should take
into account that the density of the gas changes with kf a, so for a trapped atomic gas thecritical value of kf a is reduced by about 15%, and a treatment which considers second
order corrections predicts a critical value of 1.054156.

figure 30: The two many-body configurations considered in the Stoner model.
At low interaction strength to the left, the atoms will stay mixed. At highinteraction strength, the atoms can lower their energy by polarizing into one
state, which can be a superposition of the initial states.
If the scattering length is tuned to be larger than this value, the separated state isenergetically favorable to the mixed state. This is called the Stoner criterion. Note that

171
it does not depend on the fixed volume V, so it will apply even if only small parts of thecloud satisfy the criterion. There is a narrow window from
7/ 3

k f a = / 2 to k f a = 3/ 2  ≈ 1.19∗/2 in the zero order theory, where the energy is
minimized at intermediate values between zero and +1 or -1, but for larger k fa thesystem is predicted to fully magnetize.
Although intuitively appealing, the Stoner model has been in contention among
theorists for some time157. The previous situation does not take into account metallic
band structure or electron-electron correlations, which are important in any natural
ferromagnet. Furthermore, it only suggests two possible states and calculates which has
lower energy; this is far from a proof that the segregated state is the true ground state of
the system under strong interactions.
Our experiment allows an idealized realization of the Stoner model. Li-6 atoms
in an incoherent mixture (as opposed to a superposition) of the hyperfine states |1> and|2> are prepared in a harmonic trap with weak interactions by holding the mixture at
590 G. This weakly interacting mixture is known to assume the idealized fully mixed
state shown on the left in figure 30. The magnetic field is then quickly ramped to a new
field near the very wide Feshbach resonance centered near 834 G. Although the trapped
gas is inhomogeneous, in the region of peak density we can readily achieve large kf a,and studied values of kf a < 10 in this experiment.
As mentioned numerous times in this thesis, many-body effects which affect thedensity distributions can have a major effect on collision rates. In this case, the inelastic
collisions which cause decay into the molecular state require that both species

172
participate in the collision. Obviously, complete separation of the two species will
prevent such collisions, greatly reducing the rate of atom loss. If the species remain
mixed, on the other hand, collision rates will be enhanced as the magnetic field isbrought close to resonance.
In the experiment, the collision rate gave a clear sign that there was a qualitativechange in collision dynamics once a certain interaction strength was reached (see figure31). The loss rate increased as the scattering length grew, but at kf a = 2.2, the loss rate
suddenly dropped. The critical interaction parameter is not the expected 1.054 of
second order theory, or even π/2 as in the simple formula shown earlier. This shift ofthe observed critical interaction parameter has not been explained as of the writing of
this thesis.

173

figure 31: Atomic loss rate in a repulsively interacting Fermi mixture. Because loss
rate in such a mixture requires collisions between different spin states, this serves
as a test of microscopic properties of the gas.

More evidence of a qualitative change in the system can be seen by studying
thermodynamic quantities. By taking images of the atom cloud in the trap and aftersome ballistic expansion, we measured kinetic energy and cloud size (which reflects
total energy of the gas, including interaction energy) finding that they also showedchanges around kfa = 2. (see figure 32) These changes qualitatively agree with meanfield predictions, suggesting our experimental results are compatible with theferromagnetism interpretation, if not in quantitative agreement. The broadening of the174transitions can be attributed to inhomogeneous density of the trapped gas.

figure 32: More data from the repulsively interacting gas. a) shows the kinetic
energy of the cloud at different temperatures and interaction parameters. b) shows
cloud size, which reflects total energy. c) Shows the relative numbers of atoms andmolecules for different experimental parameters.

These effects can be understood by the fact that when the gas polarizes, thekinetic energy increases with the Fermi energy of the polarized state, which would have
twice the density per spin state as the unpolarized mixture if it did not expand. The
cloud size, which normally increases with repulsive interactions, reaches a plateau
because interaction energy is eliminated as kinetic energy increases, leading to a similar

175
value of total energy. An accurate thermodynamic treatment does predict a modest
decrease (around 15%) in cloud size at the transition11.
One major limitation of the experiment is the limited time for which the sample
shows these properties. After more than a few ms, losses have reduced the density andproduced a fair population of molecules (around 20%) in the trap, and the sample nolonger resembles the idealized model. We were unable to observe ferromagnetic
domains in images, possibly because they would be expected to take a finite amount oftime to grow to a resolvable size.

8.1.2 Comparison of molecule formation and ferromagnetic
ordering

Our maximum atomic lifetimes of 10 or 20 ms may be too short for domain
formation. The experimental signatures suggest that something is happening; one
would expect that domains must have macroscopic size to modify the thermodynamics
and collisions in the observed way. Domains would be expected to form with small sizes
and to grow as atoms near the boundaries migrate into domains with spin orientations
matching their own.
Based the signal to noise of our images and our camera resolution (around 2 µm),
and imaging a random arrangement of uniform sized domains in the sample, we shouldhave observed domains if they were larger in volume that 5 µm3. Domains smaller than
this would contain fewer than 50 atoms, and the significance of the thermodynamic

176
effects expected from such small domains is a open question.
A rigorous study of the competition between molecule formation andferromagnetic ordering was undertaken by David Pekker and colleagues158. The rates ofboth processes increase as the interaction parameter increases, and by theoreticallycalculating these rates, they calculated that pairing of atoms into molecules with finite
kinetic energy was always faster than ferromagnetic ordering according to Stonertheory, but that ferromagnetic domain formation was fastest near k fa = 2.
The decay of atoms into molecules could possibly be suppressed by using aclosed-channel dominated Feshbach resonance. With such a resonance, there is aregion of magnetic fields which are within ΔB (so interactions are enhanced), but
outside δBopen, so coupling between the molecular state and the atomic state is small.
As an example, with the narrow Li-6 resonance at 543G, for density of 10 12 cm-3, kfa = 4
at a detuning B-B0 = 20 δBopen. At this detuning, decay into closed-channel molecules islikely slow, but the Stoner criteria is satisfied. However, this detuning corresponds to 3
mG, demanding better magnetic field stability than readily achievable in our lab (itwould require magnetic shielding against environmental fields and 10 -6 current
stability). Also, the resonance is narrow, so only atom pairs in a narrow range of relative
energies are strongly coupled, which may prevent system-wide thermodynamic
signatures.
Other Feshbach resonances may have an experimentally accessible regime where
thermodynamic effects are observed without fast decay into molecules. However, thefact that the interacting atomic state is only a metastable state on the repulsive side of
the resonance means that the experiment will always involve competition between

177
inelastic decay and many-body ordering.

8.1.3 Further study

A vigorous debate exists among theorists about the true ground state of a twostate system of fermions with repulsive interactions, and without observing domains,
our experiment has not conclusively settled the debate. There are open questions about
the significance of correlations159,160, the effects of the exact interaction potential161, andthe possible configurations that a harmonically trapped ferromagnetic system would
adopt if it did exist162,163.
A full review of the many proposed theories of itinerant ferromagnetism isbeyond the scope of this chapter, but it is interesting to consider a few that have been
applied to our system.
Hui Zhai and Xiaoling Cui have studied an alternative state similar to thatoriginally proposed by Gutzweiler157,159. This state can be described as being
macroscopically homogeneous (meaning zero magnetization everywhere in the cloud),but with microscopic correlations of the particles causing them to avoid collisions.
In one paper160, Zhai studies the thermodynamic properties of an atomic Fermi
system in such a state, and shows qualitatively similar signatures as were observed inour experiment. In another paper159, Cui and Zhai study the energy of a single particle
in a polarized Fermi sea undergoing a spinflip into a state possessing correlations
similar to a Gutsweiler state, finding it can reduce total energy under some

178
circumstances.
These results do not attempt to prove that such correlated states are the true
ground state, but rather show that such a state is a viable alternative to a proper
ferromagnetic state with macroscopic domains. Without imaging domains, advances
will be required both from theory and in experiment to obtain enough accuracy toconclusively distinguish between correlated states and ferromagnetism.
A theory group from Ohio State University has studied the importance of theform of the interaction potential in many-body studies161. A common choice is to use a
hard-sphere potential with the same scattering length, as mentioned many times in thisthesis and used in many theories, including those of Cui and Zhai. Such a potential
ignores the existence of the bound state, however, so it may be better to use an accurate
potential where the atoms are in the upper branch of a Feshbach resonance.
By performing quantum Monte Carlo calculations they observed that bothpotentials lead to similar criteria for the transition to the ferromagnetic state, but thatcollisions and short-range correlations are very different for hard-spheres than for theupper-branch of a Feshbach resonance. Because collisions and correlations play animportant role in interpreting the experiment, this suggests that the proper potential isimportant for accurate conclusions about the existence of Stoner-type ferromagnetism.

179

figure 33: Possible configurations of spins in a ferromagnetic Fermi gas. Images
adapted from Berdnikov et. al. Phys Rev B, 79, 224403 (2009). The authors namethese configurations a) skyrmion, b) hedgehog, c) domain wall, and d) single-axis twist

It is also important to understand the possible spin profiles of a trapped
ferromagnetic gas. The picture of many randomly oriented small domains is one
possibility, but for strong, many-body interactions, the trapped gas could take many
possible configurations. Papers by research groups at University of Toronto 163 andRutgers162 suggest several possible spin configurations. See figure 34 for some images

180from the Rutgers paper. These equilibrium configurations would had been evident in
the experiment, although the growth rates and stability against inelastic collisions may
be different than in the picture of small random domains.
The variety of approaches and results is indicative of the challenges of studying
many-body, strongly correlated systems. Until it is possible to conduct a massive
numerical Monte-Carlo analysis with realistic atom numbers and exact interaction
potentials, any tractable many-body theory must make some approximations and workwithin current computational limits.
Overcoming the experimental limitations has proven difficult as well. Eddy
currents limit the speed at which our magnetic field can be stabilized after large ramps,
preventing us from instantaneously jumping from the weakly interacting mixed state to
the strongly interacting regime. Molecule formation inevitably occurs until the atoms
are fully separated, so the limit of preparation speed prevents us from observing
idealized short-time dynamics of the system. Furthermore, pushing our resolution
higher would require major changes to the apparatus, as we already operate close to thediffraction limit for our imaging system.
We also considered preparing the state by driving RF transitions from a weaklyinteracting hyperfine mixture to a strongly interacting one, which avoids the eddy
current problem. Unfortunately the intermediate strongly interacting three-state
mixture causes rapid decoherence and losses, leaving us no better off than the previous
procedure which allows some molecule formation while the fields stabilize.
We are currently pursuing other methods of measurements on the repulsively
interacting Fermi gas. By obtaining high quality images of imbalanced Fermi mixtures,

181
the inhomogeneous profile of the cloud can be used to extract thermodynamic

quantities164 such as pressure P=∂n1 n 2
∂n1−n2 and spin susceptibility =.
∂ 1 2
∂1−2 

These quantities have well-known behaviors in weakly interacting ideal gases, but
strong interactions can cause perturbations from many-body phenomena, such as
ferromagnetism.
This method requires the system to reach a thermodynamic equilibrium, so itcannot probe the unstable regions studied in the previous experiment, but may giveclues to the many-body dynamics even before a phase transition occurs. However,studies are still preliminary, and the reader will have to wait for further reports from ourlab to hear the details and the outcome of those experiments

8.2 Interesting phases of Bose-Fermi mixtures

Although NaLi molecules may have very short lifetimes due to inelastic collisions,
we have seen very long lifetimes in the Na and Li mixture even on resonance (recall
figure 23 in chapter 5). As these lifetimes are many times the trap periods, and elastic
collisions are known to be very strong on resonance, this offers us a chance to study thethermodynamics of a strongly interacting mixture of Bosons and Fermions, both inequilibrium and as it approaches equilibrium after some perturbation.
In the following sub-sections I provide a review of some interesting theoretical
proposals which might be tested in an experiment such as ours. As we haven't seriously

182
addressed the feasibility of observing any specific phenomena, I do not go into great
detail about possible experiments to accomplish these feats. However, similar to theferromagnetism experiment, it can be assumed that a combination of long lifetime, fast,accurate magnetic field control, and high-quality imaging will be necessary in any studyof these theories.

8.2.1 Bose-mediated Fermi-Fermi interactions

One physical system in which Bose-Fermi interactions are known to be relevant isin the early theories of superconductivity165. Although electrons in free space are known
to be repulsive, in a lattice the coulomb repulsion is heavily screened. As an electron
moves through the lattice, it attracts the positively charged ions in it's wake, causing
regions of net positive charge. Because other electrons will be attracted to positive
charges, this effect can be though of as weak electron-electron attraction, or more
specifically, as attractive interactions mediated by phonons.
Phonons observe bosonic statistics, so this interaction is a three-body interaction
where fermions interact indirectly via bosons. A system of non-interacting fermions(such as the Li in our NaLi mixtures), with tunable interspecies interactions with bosons(provided by the Feshbach resonances), would be an ideal situation to study such
Boson-mediated Fermi-Fermi interactions166. However, initial predictions place thetransition temperature for realistic experimental parameters as sub-nanokelvintemperatures, which is a challenge (but not an insurmountable one)42,167.

183

8.2.2 Quantum phases of Bose-Fermi mixtures

The previous example is a situation which occurs in known materials, but
examples of Bose-Fermi mixtures with conserved total particle number (such as our
atomic mixtures), are not readily observed in nature. Ultracold gases with tunableinteractions are thus a unique opportunity to study a novel system.
Francesca Marchetti and her collaborators developed a theory of the stronglyinteracting Bose-Fermi mixture and predicted possible quantum states which mightarise168. Their model uses a mean-field theory that explicitly includes the molecularstate in the Hamiltonian rather than only considering effective atom-atom interactions.
The molecular state proves to be relevant to the quantum phases whether it is a real
bound state or a quasi-bound state.
One particularly interesting prediction of the paper is the existence of a phaseseparated state when Bose-Femi interactions are strong and attractive. It is a wellknown fact that a low temperature cloud of bosons will undergo a “Bose-nova” andcollapse if there are attractive effective interactions169. This is because the attractive
interactions increase the density of the gas, which increases the attraction, which further
increases the density, causing positive feedback where a BEC will contract to highdensity until it becomes unstable to many-body relaxation processes.
However, when coupling to the molecular state is considered, these interactions
are accompanied by association with the fermions, which cannot increase to higher and184higher density because of Pauli-exclusion. The result of the analysis is a state where thebosons undergo a partial collapse, but are stopped once the Fermi pressure balances theattractive interaction. It's almost as if the bosons inherit some fermionic characterbecause of molecular coupling to the Fermions.
A real study of such systems would be affected by inelastic decays when there isstrong coupling to the molecular state, but a brief estimation in the paper suggests that
the Na and Li system, with weak repulsive background interaction and long inelastic
lifetimes, might be uniquely suited to observing the predicted dynamics. An additional
paper from the group predicted the effects that could be seen by placing such a BoseFermi mixture in an optical lattice of one-dimensional tubes, with the reduced
dimensionality producing further signatures of new quantum phases170.
Another study predicts dynamics intermediate between Bose gases and Fermi
gases by studying collective oscillation in an interacting Bose-Fermi mixture 171. A BEC
can undergo collective oscillations (sometimes referred to as hydrodynamic “breathingmodes”) at  5 and  14  where ω is the frequency of a single boson in the harmonic
trap. On the other hand, a trapped Fermi gas can have similar collective oscillations at
2ω and 4ω. By varying the relative population of Fermions and Bosons, the theory
predicts that frequencies of collective oscillations will vary continuously between thetwo cases, as if the mixture has hydrodynamic properties intermediate between those ofbosons and fermions.
Dynamics in a Bose-Fermi mixture with arbitrary strong interactions is a very
difficult problem for condensed-matter theorists. The fact that strongly interacting
Bose-Fermi mixtures are rare in nature (the only quantum degenerate example is a185
superfluid mixture of He3 and He4)172 has further prevented physicists from developing
intuition or even knowing what kind of interesting quantum phases might arise in sucha system. The existence of Bose-Fermi atomic mixtures with tunable interactions allows
the precise preparation and measurement techniques of atomic physics to be applied tothese novel many-body systems, and may lead to a variety of interesting results in the
future.

186

9Conclusions“Success is failure with no loss of enthusiasm” a fortune cookie

I have spent nearly 3 years of my Ph.D. studies working to form NaLi molecules,and during that time I have scrutinized existing research on ultracold atoms, moleculartheory, Feshbach resonances, and inelastic collisions. I have been in frequent personal
contact with other scientists, experimental and theoretical, and I have worked closelywith several other talented students and post-docs.
Yet in that time, I have not succeeded in isolating a sample of NaLi moleculesfrom their constituent atoms, nor have I succeeded in performing specificmeasurements to calculate exact collisional properties. The motivations for suchmeasurements are many, not the least of which is to develop techniques which will help
other groups perform similar experiments with molecules.
But no scientific labor is completely without fruit, and the only way to truly fail inscience is to abandon a project before gaining any understanding of it. My efforts have
not yet solved the problems I set out to solve, but my determination and perseverance

187
have brought me from utter confusion to some degree of understanding.

9.1 Choosing the right molecules for the right reasons

A large part of the difficulty in any new experiment is the fact that much is
unknown. This is rather obvious; there is little scientific motivation to study systems
which do not hold any mysteries. Perfect knowledge of one's field of study is an excitingprospect, but a scientist would quickly become bored without unanswered questions.
When I began my Ph.D studies, the only thing that was known about ultracold
NaLi molecules were the locations of a few Feshbach resonances and decades old
spectroscopy data on deeply bound molecular states. Details about the collisional
properties, formation efficiency in quantum gases, or the influence of strong
interactions at heteronuclear Feshbach resonances were guessed at, but not proven inexperiments or rigorous theories.
In spring and summer of 2006, shortly after I came to MIT, Silke and Christian
Ospelkaus, working in the research lab of Klaus Sengstock in Hamburg Germany,
performed some groundbreaking experiments on Rubidium and Potassium in an opticallattice, and showed some of the first interesting results regarding heteronuclear
molecules26,173,174. It was not too long after this that we decided to try out our favorite
atoms, Sodium and Lithium, in a heteronuclear molecule experiment. We had had great
success using these atoms to produce large degenerate gases, and they were known tohave good atomic collision properties.

188
Looking back, it is easy to say that I could have found more exciting results andwritten more papers if I had chosen another goal. I can also say that we have always hadpromising leads and exciting new ideas that spurred us forward. To abandon the projectat any point during my thesis work would have been the wrong decision at the time.
However, the particular methods and goals of our NaLi work could have beenmuch more focused and informed if I knew then what I know now. For any ultracold
physicist looking to start a new experiment on molecules, I think the most importantresults from this thesis are the formulas and experimental methods which require only
the experimentally relevant parameters of atomic masses, a bg, B0 and ΔB. It is helpful toknow the quantum state and magnetic moment of the target molecule for some formulas
as well, although these can be guessed at in most circumstances.
First, the resonance should be identified as broad or narrow. Find the couplingenergy scale
98m B   a bg 2
E 0=
2 ℏ2

and comparing it to the typical energy spread of an ultracold gas.
If the coupling is much larger than thermal energies, Fermi energy, or thechemical potential of a BEC, the resonance is broad, and is useful for studies ofthermodynamics and unitarity limited quantum behavior. The very broad Li 2 resonancehas produced spectacular results along these lines.
However, if the resonance is narrow, such as in NaLi (where E0 = 3 kHz, whichcorresponds to a temperature of around 150 nK, lower than typical temperatures in our
experiments), it will be useful for studying few body physics, such as molecule formation

189
and collisions. In such a gas, only a limited fraction of the particles are resonantlyinteracting; this could simplify the interpretation of few body physics (such as collisions
or molecule formation), without system-wide effects such as thermodynamic phasetransitions complicating the interpretation of the data.
The narrow/broad distinction depends on the density and temperature of the gas.
The resonance should also be identified as open-channel or closed-channel dominated,which depend only on the resonance and not on the experimental details of the system.
The range of strong mixing of the atomic and molecular states99 Bopen =E0should be compared to the ΔB, the range of field-dependent interactions. An openchannel dominated resonance allows strong transitions between atomic and molecularstates even away from the strongly interacting regime, making it a good candidate for
RF association and spectroscopy. It also gives a large range of fields to study the
dynamics of Halo dimers, where the molecules resemble strongly interacting atoms
more than deeply bound molecules.
If the resonance is closed-channel dominated, on the other hand, it resembles amolecule for nearly all fields in the vicinity of the Feshbach resonance. In our
experiment, this has prevented RF association or spectroscopy of the binding energy(unfortunately I didn't come to this conclusion until spending quite some time on RF
spectroscopy), but if long-lived close-channel molecules can be created, they may offer agood system to study dynamics which rely on the molecules behaving like true
molecules with limited atomic character.

190
The broad/narrow distinction and the open-channel/closed-channel distinction
are closely related (they both depend on the energy scale E0), but the distinctions do notexactly coincide, and the broad/narrow distinction, which depends on temperature anddensity, may vary from experiment to experiment even when the same resonance isused.
With a goal in mind, the measurement techniques described in chapters 6 and 7
can be performed even with no additional knowledge of the resonance or the molecules.
Using the formulas and models described in chapter 7, the results of thesemeasurements can be used to identify the importance of collisional losses in the system,
even if no molecules have been isolated yet. Also, the formulas used in the model cancompare experiments involving completely different atomic species, so existingknowledge can be applied to a newly discovered Feshbach resonance.
With some critical thinking before beginning the difficult task of studying
ultracold molecules, one can be sure to choose appropriate goals and avoid methods
which will be difficult or impossible. The successes of groups studying ultracold
molecules prove that there are many interesting possibilities for such experiments, yetthere are few suggestions in the literature of systematic ways to approach a newexperiment. Hopefully the knowledge I've obtained dealing with the frustrations offorming NaLi can inform scientists embarking on a new project in Feshbach resonances

9.2 Possibilities for NaLi

191
We have not yet exhausted possible techniques for obtaining useful results fromstrongly interacting mixtures of Na and Li. There is a chance that with a few tweaks thesame techniques described in this thesis will produce and isolate sufficient NaLi forinteresting experiments. These methods include improvements in imaging, theintroduction of a crossed dipole trap which will strongly confine all molecular states andassist in separation of atoms and molecules, and improving sample preparation andmagnetic field control at the high-field 1594 resonance (with my apologies to themagnetic coils of the science chamber).
However, these changes are at best incremental improvements in the methods
used up until this point. It is my conclusion that the most significant challenge informing NaLi molecules is large inelastic losses with 2-body loss coefficients larger thanβ = 10-10 cm3/s. If the loss coefficient is close to this value, factors of 2 or 4 in formation
efficiency or detection techniques could be all that is required. However, if thecoefficient is an order of magnitude higher, drastic changes are necessary.
It is also possible that magnetic field noise of order δBopen could be inhibiting
efficient molecule formation. The use of the broader 1594 resonance (with δBopen ~100mG) could help protect against this possibility.
One option to drastically improve the survivability of molecules is to put theatoms in an optical lattice. Although operating an optical lattice requires time, patienceand experience, many groups (including two of the Ketterle labs), have succeeded, andthe techniques are becoming routine for atomic physics. A lattice will make it possible
to isolate a few atoms at each lattice site, and any sites which hold exactly one of eachpairing partner can form a molecule which is immediately isolated from further

192
collisions.
If molecules can be successfully formed, the cooling lasers can be used forspectroscopy among the most weakly-bound molecular states. Measurements oftransitions among these states can provide useful information on the long range
molecular potentials. This knowledge is valuable to molecular theorists simply because
it can't be obtained with other methods. But it will also be useful for performing Raman
or STIRAP transitions to more deeply bound states of the molecules, which could be
used to study dipolar physics or quantum chemistry.
Even if ultracold NaLi molecules are never formed, the long atomic lifetimes onresonance suggest that strongly interacting NaLi is a good proving ground for theories
about Bose-Fermi interactions and quantum phases. Some examples of such
experiments were mentioned in Chapter 8; in fact the papers by Francesca Marchetti
specifically predict the 796G resonance in NaLi to be a good candidate to observe theirpredictions168. These experiments do not require isolated, long-lived molecules, but do
require large samples of long-lived samples of atoms which can reach thermal
equilibrium, which has been the advantage of Na and Li mixtures all along.

9.3 Coda: the motivations of a scientist

The pursuit of science is an uncertain business, and success in research canhardly be quantified in terms of satisfied and unsatisfied goals. Through careful work,
continuous review of theory and experimental methods, and determination, the growth193
of knowledge is guaranteed. Although the outcome of any particular experiment isnever certain, the net result of my countless small experiments on NaLi has been asteady crawl from confusion to understanding; hopefully my labor and this thesis willassist future scientists in their endeavors.
I have always loved working with complicated machines, solving mysterious
problems in science or in engineering, and consuming obscure and confusing texts forno reason other than to broaden my intellectual horizons. I have become elated withsuccesses in the lab, however small they may have been, and felt a strong sense ofsatisfaction upon understanding a theory which had previously left me baffled.
Although one must choose goals based on their potential benefits, whether for allof humanity or just for a small scientific sub-field, I believe results can not be the sole
motivation of a scientist. Neither can the only motivation be fame, glory, or a job
security in a tenured position at a respected university. There are other career paths
that can provide these benefits with more certainty and less effort.
I think the most important motivation of a scientist should be curiosity. It is
curiosity that pushes the frontiers of knowledge, it is curiosity that guides the mind of ayoung student learning a new field, and it is curiosity that keeps a grad student awake
through the evening, night and morning in an attempt to finally complete an important
set of data. It was certainly curiosity that kept me searching for new ideas and new data
without ever catching a glimpse of an isolated molecule of NaLi.
Every experiment involves long periods of confusion before final data can becollected and papers written. Science is hard, but scientists know it and expect it.
Curiosity, combined with patience (or stubbornness), is what kept me optimistic

194
through the inevitable frustration of the difficult experiments that I have performed inorder to write this thesis.
Now, in the last paragraph of the longest paper I hope to ever write, I am happy
to say that I have enjoyed my time in the MIT Physics department, and my efforts toadvance physics have been successful. As I move on with my career in science, I can say
with confidence that my curiosity is a strong as it was on the day I started school over 22
years ago, and it will continue to guide me in all my future adventures.

195

Appendix A
Diode laser system for Lithium-6
The following page contains a diagram of the laser table we use to produce lightfor cooling and manipulating Lithium-6. The heart of the table is a DL-100 gratingstabilized diode laser producing 25 mW of 671 nm light which is locked to an atomic
reference cell. An interested reader can refer to the Ph.D. thesis of Zoran Hadzibabic for
a comprehensive review of the motivations and techniques for the Lithium laser system.
I give Tout Wang full credit for the layout of this diagram.

196

197

Appendix B
Phase Sensitive Recombination of two Bose-Einstein
Condensates on an Atom Chip
The recombination of two split Bose-Einstein condensates on an atom chip isshown to result in heating which depends on the relative phase of the two condensates.
This heating reduces the number of condensate atoms between 10% and 40% andprovides a robust way to read out the phase of an atom interferometer without the needfor ballistic expansion. The heating may be caused by the dissipation of dark solitons
created during the merging of the condensates.

198

199

200

201

202

Appendix C
Matter-wave Interferometry with Phase Fluctuating BoseEinstein Condensates
Elongated Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) exhibit strong spatial phasefluctuations even well below the BEC transition temperature. We demonstrate that atominterferometers using such condensates are robust against phase fluctuations; i.e., therelative phase of the split condensate is reproducible despite axial phase fluctuations.
However, larger phase fluctuations limit the coherence time, especially in the presenceof some asymmetries in the two wells of the interferometer.

203

204

205

206

207

Appendix D
Trapping of Ultracold Atoms in a Hollow-core Photonic
Crystal Fiber
Ultracold sodium atoms have been trapped inside a hollow-core optical fiber. The
atoms are transferred from a free-space optical dipole trap into a trap formed by a reddetuned Gaussian light mode confined to the core of the fiber. We show that at least 5%of the atoms held initially in the free-space trap can be loaded into the core of the fiberand retrieved outside.

208

209

210

211

212

Appendix E
Itinerant Ferromagnetism in a Fermi Gas of Ultracold Atoms
Can a gas of spin-up and spin-down fermions become ferromagnetic because of
repulsive interactions? We addressed this question, for which there is not yet adefinitive theoretical answer, in an experiment with an ultracold two-component Fermi
gas. The observation of non-monotonic behavior of lifetime, kinetic energy, and size forincreasing repulsive interactions provides strong evidence for a phase transition to aferromagnetic state. Our observations imply that itinerant ferromagnetism of
delocalized fermions is possible without lattice and band structure, and our data
validate the most basic model for ferromagnetism introduced by Stoner.

213

214

215

216

217

218

Bibliography
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.

Lunney, D., Pearson, J.M. & Thibault, C. Recent trends in the determination of
nuclear masses. Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 1021 (2003).
Varshni, Y.P. Comparative Study of Potential Energy Functions for Diatomic
Molecules. Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 664 (1957).
Fellows, C.E. The NaLi 1 1Σ+(X) electronic ground-state dissociation limit. J.
Chem. Phys. 94, 5855 (1991).
Stan, C.A., Zwierlein, M.W., Schunck, C.H., Raupach, S.M.F. & Ketterle, W.
Observation of Feshbach Resonances between Two Different Atomic Species. Phys.
Rev. Lett. 93, 143001 (2004).
Gacesa, M., Pellegrini, P. & Côté, R. Feshbach resonances inultracold^{6,7}Li+^{23}Na atomic mixtures. Phys. Rev. A 78, 010701 (2008).
Essen, L. & Parry, J.V.L. An Atomic Standard of Frequency and Time Interval: ACæsium Resonator. Nature 176, 280-282 (1955).
Mohr, P.J., Taylor, B.N. & Newell, D.B. CODATA recommended values of thefundamental physical constants: 2006. Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 633-730 (2008).
Anderson, M.H., Ensher, J.R., Matthews, M.R., Wieman, C.E. & Cornell, E.A.
Observation of Bose-Einstein Condensation in a Dilute Atomic Vapor. Science 269,
198 -201 (1995).
Davis, K.B. et al. Bose-Einstein Condensation in a Gas of Sodium Atoms. Phys.
Rev. Lett. 75, 3969 (1995).
Chin, J.K. et al. Evidence for superfluidity of ultracold fermions in an optical lattice.
Nature 443, 961-964 (2006).
Jo, G.-B. et al. Itinerant Ferromagnetism in a Fermi Gas of Ultracold Atoms.
Science 325, 1521 -1524 (2009).
Schunck, C.H., Shin, Y., Schirotzek, A., Zwierlein, M.W. & Ketterle, W. Pairing
Without Superfluidity: The Ground State of an Imbalanced Fermi Mixture. Science
316, 867 -870 (2007).
Zwierlein, M. et al. Observation of Bose-Einstein Condensation of Molecules. Phys.
Rev. Lett. 91, (2003).
Zwierlein, M.W., Abo-Shaeer, J.R., Schirotzek, A., Schunck, C.H. & Ketterle, W.
Vortices and superfluidity in a strongly interacting Fermi gas. Nature 435, 10471051 (2005).
Regal, C.A., Greiner, M., Giorgini, S., Holland, M. & Jin, D.S. Momentum
Distribution of a Fermi Gas of Atoms in the BCS-BEC Crossover. Phys. Rev. Lett.
95, 250404 (2005).
Greiner, M., Regal, C.A. & Jin, D.S. Probing the Excitation Spectrum of a Fermi Gas
in the BCS-BEC Crossover Regime. Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 070403 (2005).
Chin, C. et al. Observation of Feshbach-Like Resonances in Collisions between
Ultracold Molecules. Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 123201 (2005).

219
18. Cubizolles, J., Bourdel, T., Kokkelmans, S.J.J.M.F., Shlyapnikov, G.V. & Salomon,
C. Production of Long-Lived Ultracold Li_{2} Molecules from a Fermi Gas. Phys.
Rev. Lett. 91, 240401 (2003).
19. Deiglmayr, J. et al. Formation of Ultracold Polar Molecules in the Rovibrational
Ground State. Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, (2008).
20. Deuretzbacher, F. et al. Heteronuclear molecules in an optical lattice: Theory andexperiment. Phys. Rev. A 77, (2008).
21. Gaebler, J.P., Stewart, J.T., Bohn, J.L. & Jin, D.S. p-Wave Feshbach Molecules.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 200403 (2007).
22. Herbig, J. et al. Preparation of a Pure Molecular Quantum Gas. Science 301, 1510
-1513 (2003).
23. Hodby, E. et al. Production Efficiency of Ultracold Feshbach Molecules in Bosonicand Fermionic Systems. Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, (2005).
24. Julienne, P.S., Tiesinga, E. & K&#x000F6;hler, T. Making cold molecules by timedependent Feshbach resonances. Journal of Modern Optics 51, 1787-1806 (2004).
25. Mukaiyama, T., Abo-Shaeer, J.R., Xu, K., Chin, J.K. & Ketterle, W. Dissociation and
Decay of Ultracold Sodium Molecules. Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 180402 (2004).
26. Ospelkaus, C. et al. Ultracold Heteronuclear Molecules in a 3D Optical Lattice.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 120402 (2006).
27. Strecker, K.E., Partridge, G.B. & Hulet, R.G. Conversion of an Atomic Fermi Gas toa Long-Lived Molecular Bose Gas. Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 080406 (2003).
28. Thompson, S.T., Hodby, E. & Wieman, C.E. Ultracold Molecule Production via aResonant Oscillating Magnetic Field. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 190404 (2005).
29. Xu, K. et al. Formation of Quantum-Degenerate Sodium Molecules. Phys. Rev.
Lett. 91, 210402 (2003).
30. Zirbel, J. et al. Heteronuclear molecules in an optical dipole trap. Phys. Rev. A 78,(2008).
31. Chin, C., Grimm, R., Julienne, P. & Tiesinga, E. Feshbach resonances in ultracoldgases. Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1225 (2010).
32. Köhler, T., Góral, K. & Julienne, P. Production of cold molecules via magneticallytunable Feshbach resonances. Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 1311-1361 (2006).
33. Danzl, J.G. et al. Quantum Gas of Deeply Bound Ground State Molecules. Science
321, 1062 -1066 (2008).
34. Spiegelhalder, F.M. et al. All-optical production of a degenerate mixture of ^{6}Liand ^{40}K and creation of heteronuclear molecules. Phys. Rev. A 81, (2010).
35. Ni, K.-K. et al. A High Phase-Space-Density Gas of Polar Molecules. Science 322,
231-235 (2008).
36. DeMille, D., Cahn, S.B., Murphree, D., Rahmlow, D.A. & Kozlov, M.G. Using
Molecules to Measure Nuclear Spin-Dependent Parity Violation. Phys. Rev. Lett.
100, 023003 (2008).
37. Hudson, E.R., Gilfoy, N.B., Kotochigova, S., Sage, J.M. & DeMille, D. Inelastic
Collisions of Ultracold Heteronuclear Molecules in an Optical Trap. Phys. Rev.
Lett. 100, 203201 (2008).
38. Kerman, A.J., Sage, J.M., Sainis, S., Bergeman, T. & DeMille, D. Production of
Ultracold, Polar RbCs^{*} Molecules via Photoassociation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 92,

220033004 (2004).
39. Shuman, E.S., Barry, J.F. & DeMille, D. Laser cooling of a diatomic molecule.
Nature 467, 820-823 (2010).
40. van der Stam, K.M.R., van Ooijen, E.D., Meppelink, R., Vogels, J.M. & van derStraten, P. Large atom number Bose-Einstein condensate of sodium. Rev. Sci.
Instrum. 78, 013102 (2007).
41. Hadzibabic, Z. et al. Fiftyfold Improvement in the Number of Quantum Degenerate
Fermionic Atoms. Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 160401 (2003).
42. Leanhardt, A.E. et al. Cooling Bose-Einstein Condensates Below 500 Picokelvin.
Science 301, 1513 -1515 (2003).
43. Ni, K.-K. et al. Dipolar collisions of polar molecules in the quantum regime. Nature
464, 1324-1328 (2010).
44. Quéméner, G. & Bohn, J.L. Electric field suppression of ultracold confinedchemical reactions. Phys. Rev. A 81, 060701 (2010).
45. Idziaszek, Z., Quéméner, G., Bohn, J.L. & Julienne, P.S. Simple quantum model ofultracold polar molecule collisions. Phys. Rev. A 82, 020703 (2010).
46. DeMille, D. et al. Investigation of PbO as a system for measuring the electric dipole
moment of the electron. Phys. Rev. A 61, 052507 (2000).
47. DeMille, D. Quantum Computation with Trapped Polar Molecules. Phys. Rev. Lett.
88, 067901 (2002).
48. Yelin, S.F., Kirby, K. & Côté, R. Schemes for robust quantum computation withpolar molecules. Phys. Rev. A 74, 050301 (2006).
49. Kuznetsova, E., Gacesa, M., Yelin, S.F. & Côté, R. Phase gate and readout with anatom-molecule hybrid platform. Phys. Rev. A 81, 030301 (2010).
50. Dalton, J. A new system of chemical philosophy. (London: 1808).at<http://www.archive.org/details/newsystemofchemi01daltuoft>
51. Perrin, M.J. Brownian movement and molecular reality. Ann. Chim. Phys. 18, 5(1909).
52. Dunham, J.L. The Wentzel-Brillouin-Kramers Method of Solving the Wave
Equation. Phys. Rev. 41, 713 (1932).
53. Dunham, J.L. The Energy Levels of a Rotating Vibrator. Phys. Rev. 41, 721 (1932).
54. Franck, J. & Dymond, E.G. Elementary processes of photochemical reactions.
Trans. Faraday Soc. 21, 536 (1926).
55. Coolidge, A.S., James, H.M. & Vernon, E.L. On the Determination of Molecular
Potential Curves from Spectroscopic Data. Phys. Rev. 54, 726 (1938).
56. Hulburt, H.M. & Hirschfelder, J.O. Potential Energy Functions for Diatomic
Molecules. J. Chem. Phys. 9, 61 (1941).
57. Herzberg, G. Molecular Spectra and Molecular Structure. (Van Nostrand:
Princeton, N.J., 1945).
58. Lefebvre-Brion, H. & Field,, R.W. The spectra and dynamics of diatomic
molecules. (Elsevier Academic Press,: Amsterdam ;;Boston :, 2004).
59. Mabrouk, N. & Berriche, H. Theoretical study of the NaLi molecule: potential
energy curves, spectroscopic constants, dipole moments and radiative lifetimes. J.
Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 41, 155101 (2008).
60. Fontana, P.R. Theory of Long-Range Interatomic Forces. I. Dispersion Energies

221
between Unexcited Atoms. Phys. Rev. 123, 1865 (1961).
61. Pritchard, D.E., Carter, G.M., Chu, F.Y. & Kleppner, D. Alkali-Alkali Differential
Spin-Exchange Scattering. I. Phys. Rev. A 2, 1922 (1970).
62. Pritchard, D.E. & Chu, F.Y. Alkali-Alkali Differential Spin-Exchange Scattering. II.
Phys. Rev. A 2, 1932 (1970).
63. Pichler, G., Milosevic, S., Viza, D. & Beuc, R. Diffuse bands in the visible absorption
spectra of dense alkali vapours. J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Phys. 16, 4619-4631 (1983).
64. Jones, R.B., Schloss, J.H. & Eden, J.G. Excitation spectra for the photoassociationof Kr–F and Xe–I collision pairs in the ultraviolet (208–258 nm). J. Chem. Phys.
98, 4317 (1993).
65. Jones, K., Tiesinga, E., Lett, P. & Julienne, P. Ultracold photoassociation
spectroscopy: Long-range molecules and atomic scattering. Rev. Mod. Phys. 78,
483-535 (2006).
66. Schloss, J.H., Jones, R.B. & Eden, J.G. Photoassociation of Kr–F collision pairs in
the ultraviolet. J. Chem. Phys. 99, 6483 (1993).
67. Ospelkaus, S. et al. Efficient state transfer in an ultracold dense gas ofheteronuclear molecules. Nat Phys 4, 622-626 (2008).
68. Danzl, J.G. et al. Precision molecular spectroscopy for ground state transfer ofmolecular quantum gases. Faraday Discuss. 142, 283 (2009).
69. Ashkin, A. Acceleration and Trapping of Particles by Radiation Pressure. Phys.
Rev. Lett. 24, 156 (1970).
70. Chu, S., Hollberg, L., Bjorkholm, J.E., Cable, A. & Ashkin, A. Three-dimensional
viscous confinement and cooling of atoms by resonance radiation pressure. Phys.
Rev. Lett. 55, 48 (1985).
71. Raab, E.L., Prentiss, M., Cable, A., Chu, S. & Pritchard, D.E. Trapping of Neutral
Sodium Atoms with Radiation Pressure. Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2631 (1987).
72. Bloch, I. Ultracold quantum gases in optical lattices. Nat Phys 1, 23-30 (2005).
73. DeMarco, B. & Jin, D.S. Onset of Fermi Degeneracy in a Trapped Atomic Gas.
Science 285, 1703 -1706 (1999).
74. Pethick, C. Bose-Einstein condensation dilute gas. (Cambridge U.P: N.Y., 2002).
75. Metcalf, H. Laser cooling and trapping. (Springer: New York, 1999).
76. Ketterle, W. & Zwierlein, M.W. Making, probing and understanding ultracold
Fermi gases, Proceedings of the International School of physics “Enrico
Fermi.”(2008).
77. Ketterle, W., Durfee, D.S. & Stamper-Kurn, D.M. Making, probing andunderstanding Bose-Einstein condensates, Proceedings of the International Schoolof Physics “Ernico Fermi.”(1999).
78. Leggett, A.J. Bose-Einstein condensation in the alkali gases: Some fundamental
concepts. Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 307 (2001).
79. Dalfovo, F., Giorgini, S., Pitaevskii, L.P. & Stringari, S. Theory of Bose-Einsteincondensation in trapped gases. Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 463 (1999).
80. Doret, S.C., Connolly, C.B., Ketterle, W. & Doyle, J.M. Buffer-Gas Cooled BoseEinstein Condensate. Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 103005 (2009).
81. Narevicius, E. et al. An atomic coilgun: using pulsed magnetic fields to slow asupersonic beam. New J. Phys. 9, 358-358 (2007).

222
82. Gilijamse, J.J., Hoekstra, S., Vanhaecke, N., Meerakker, S.Y.T. van de & Meijer, G.
Loading Stark-decelerated molecules into electrostatic quadrupole traps. The
European Physical Journal D 57, 9 (2010).
83. Meerakker, S.Y.T. van de, Labazan, I., Hoekstra, S., Küpper, J. & Meijer, G.
Production and deceleration of a pulsed beam of metastable NH radicals. J. Phys.
B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 39, S1077-S1084 (2006).
84. Emsley, J. The Elements, Oxford chemistry Guides. (Oxford Univ. Press, New York,
NY: 1995).
85. Eisberg, R. & Resnick, R. Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei,
and Particles. (Wiley: 1985).
86. Poteau, R. & Spiegelmann, F. Calculation of the Electronic Spectrum of Li2 Using
Effective Core Pseudopotentials and l -Dependent Core Polarization Potentials.
Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy 171, 299-308 (1995).
87. Cohen-Tannoudji, C., Diu, B. & Laloe, F. Quantum Mechanics. (Wiley-Interscience:2006).
88. Gottfried, K. & Yan, T.-M. Quantum Mechanics: Fundamentals. (Springer: 2004).
89. Hartree, D.R. The calculation of Atomic Structures. (Wiley & Sons: New York,
1957).
90. Morse, P.M. Diatomic Molecules According to the Wave Mechanics. II. Vibrational
Levels. Phys. Rev. 34, 57 (1929).
91. Morse, P.M. & Stueckelberg, E.C.G. Diatomic Molecules According to the Wave
Mechanics I: Electronic Levels of the Hydrogen Molecular Ion. Phys. Rev. 33, 932(1929).
92. Cohen-Tannoudji, C. Atom photon interactions : basic processes and applications .
(Wiley: New York [u.a.], 1992).
93. Bang, N.H., Jastrzebski, W. & Kowalczyk, P. New observation and analysis of theE(4)1Σ+ state in NaLi. Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy 233, 290-292 (2005).
94. Engelke, F., Ennen, G. & Meiwes, K.H. Laser induced fluorescence spectroscopy of
NaLi in beam and bulk. Chemical Physics 66, 391-402 (1982).
95. Jastrzebski, W., Kowalczyk, P., Nadyak, R. & Pashov, A. Spectroscopic study of theE(4)1[Sigma]+ state in NaLi. Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular andBiomolecular Spectroscopy 58, 2193-2197 (2002).
96. Kappes, M.M., Marti, K.O., Radi, P., Schär, M. & Schumacher, E. Resonant twophoton ionization of LiNa. Observation and preliminary characterization of five
new singlet states. Chemical Physics Letters 107, 6-12 (1984).
97. Petsalakis, I.D., Tzeli, D. & Theodorakopoulos, G. Theoretical study on theelectronic states of NaLi. J. Chem. Phys. 129, 054306 (2008).
98. Krems, R. Cold molecules : theory, experiment, applications. (CRC Press: Boca
Raton, 2009).
99. Barrow, G.M. Physical Chemistry. (Mcgraw-Hill College: 1996).
100. Zwierlein, M.W. High Temperature Superfluidity in an Ultracold Fermi Gas. Ph.D
Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA (2006).
101. Sage, J.M., Sainis, S., Bergeman, T. & DeMille, D. Optical Production of Ultracold
Polar Molecules. Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 203001 (2005).
102. Kuznetsova, E., Gacesa, M., Pellegrini, P., Yelin, S.F. & Côté, R. Efficient formation

223
of ground-state ultracold molecules via STIRAP from the continuum at a Feshbachresonance. New J. Phys. 11, 055028 (2009).
103. Zirbel, J.J. et al. Collisional Stability of Fermionic Feshbach Molecules. Phys. Rev.
Lett. 100, (2008).
104. D’Incao, J.P. & Esry, B.D. Mass dependence of ultracold three-body collision rates.
Phys. Rev. A 73, 030702 (2006).
105. D’Incao, J.P. & Esry, B.D. Scattering Length Scaling Laws for Ultracold Three-Body
Collisions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 213201 (2005).
106. Granade, S.R., Gehm, M.E., O’Hara, K.M. & Thomas, J.E. All-Optical Production ofa Degenerate Fermi Gas. Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 120405 (2002).
107. Trenkwalder, A. et al. Hydrodynamic Expansion of a Strongly Interacting FermiFermi Mixture. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 115304 (2011).
108. Campbell, G.K. et al. Imaging the Mott Insulator Shells by Using Atomic Clock
Shifts. Science 313, 649 -652 (2006).
109. Jochim, S. et al. Pure Gas of Optically Trapped Molecules Created from FermionicAtoms. Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 240402 (2003).
110. Petrov, D.S., Salomon, C. & Shlyapnikov, G.V. Weakly Bound Dimers of FermionicAtoms. Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 090404 (2004).
111. D’Incao, J. & Esry, B. Scattering Length Scaling Laws for Ultracold Three-Body
Collisions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, (2005).
112. D’Incao, J.P. & Esry, B.D. Suppression of Molecular Decay in Ultracold Gases
without Fermi Statistics. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, (2008).
113. Moerdijk, A.J. & Verhaar, B.J. Collisional two- and three-body decay rates of dilute
quantum gases at ultralow temperatures. Phys. Rev. A 53, R19 (1996).
114. Craik, A.D.D. THE ORIGINS OF WATER WAVE THEORY. Annual Review of
Fluid Mechanics 36, 1-28 (2004).
115. Arndt, M., Ben Dahan, M., Guéry-Odelin, D., Reynolds, M. & Dalibard, J.
Observation of a Zero-Energy Resonance in Cs-Cs Collisions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 79,
625-628 (1997).
116. Góral, K., Gajda, M. & Rza-cedillazdotewski, K. Multimode Dynamics of a Coupled
Ultracold Atomic-Molecular System. Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1397 (2001).
117. Góral, K., Köhler, T. & Burnett, K. Ramsey interferometry with atoms andmolecules: Two-body versus many-body phenomena. Phys. Rev. A 71, 023603(2005).
118. Góral, K., Köhler, T., Gardiner, S.A., Tiesinga, E. & Julienne, P.S. Adiabatic
association of ultracold molecules via magnetic-field tunable interactions. J. Phys.
B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 37, 3457-3500 (2004).
119. Schunck, C.H. et al. Feshbach resonances in fermionic^{6}Li. Phys. Rev. A 71,
045601 (2005).
120. Chin, Vuletic, Kerman & Chu High resolution feshbach spectroscopy of cesium.
Phys. Rev. Lett 85, 2717-2720 (2000).
121. Mewes, M.-O. et al. Bose-Einstein Condensation in a Tightly Confining dc Magnetic
Trap. Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 416-419 (1996).
122. Watabe, S. & Nikuni, T. Conversion efficiencies of heteronuclear Feshbach
molecules. Phys. Rev. A 77, 013616 (2008).

224
123. Papp, S. & Wieman, C. Observation of Heteronuclear Feshbach Molecules from a
Rb85–Rb87 Gas. Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, (2006).
124. Mies, F.H., Tiesinga, E. & Julienne, P.S. Manipulation of Feshbach resonances inultracold atomic collisions using time-dependent magnetic fields. Phys. Rev. A 61,
022721 (2000).
125. Zirbel, J.J. Ultracold Fermionic Feshbach Molecules. Ph.D Thesis, University ofColorado, Boulder, CO(2008).
126. Stamper-Kurn, D.M. Peeking and poking at a new quantum fluid: Studies ofgaseous Bose-Einstein condensates in magnetic and optical traps. Ph.D Thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA (2000)
127. Chikkatur, A. Colliding and Moving Bose-Einstein Condensates: Studies ofsuperfluidity and optical tweezers for condensate transport. Ph.D Thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA (2002).
128. Leanhardt, A.E. Microtraps and Waveguides for Bose-Einstein Condensates. Ph.D
Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA (2003).
129. Shin, Y.-I. Experiments with Bose-Einstein Condensates in a Double-Well
Potential. Ph.D Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA(2006)
130. Pasquini, T.A. Quantum Reflection of Bose-Einstein Condensates. Ph.D Thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA (2007).
131. Jo, G.-B. Quantum coherence and Magnetism in Bosonic and Fermionic Gases of
Ultracold Atoms. Ph.D Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
MA (2010).
132. Gustavson, T.L. et al. Transport of Bose-Einstein Condensates with OpticalTweezers. Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 020401 (2001).
133. Pasquini, T. et al. Quantum Reflection from a Solid Surface at Normal Incidence.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, (2004).
134. Christensen, C. et al. Trapping of ultracold atoms in a hollow-core photonic crystal
fiber. Phys. Rev. A 78, (2008).
135. Jo, G.-B. et al. Matter-Wave Interferometry with Phase Fluctuating Bose-Einstein
Condensates. Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 240406 (2007).
136. Jo, G.-B. et al. Phase-Sensitive Recombination of Two Bose-Einstein Condensateson an Atom Chip. Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, (2007).
137. Hadzibabic, Z. Studies of a Quantum Degenerate Fermionic Lithium Gas. Ph.D
Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA (2003).
138. Stan, C.A. Experiments with Interacting Bose and Fermi Gases. Ph.D Thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA (2005).
139. Stan, C.A. & Ketterle, W. Multiple species atom source for laser-coolingexperiments. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 76, 063113 (2005).
140. Bowles, K.J. & Rosenblum, L. Vapor Pressure of Sodium from 0.5 to 120
Atmospheres. Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data 10, 321-322 (1965).
141. Auböck, G. et al. Trap loss collisions of Li6 and Li7 with Na23 in a combined
magneto-optical trap. J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 39, S871-S879 (2006).
142. Ketterle, W., Davis, K.B., Joffe, M.A., Martin, A. & Pritchard, D.E. High densities ofcold atoms in a dark spontaneous-force optical trap. Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2253

225
(1993).
143. Bechhoefer, J. Feedback for physicists: A tutorial essay on control. Rev. Mod. Phys.
77, 783 (2005).
144. DeMarco, B. Quantum Behavior of an Atomic Fermi Gas. Ph.D thesis, University ofColorado, Boulder, CO (2001).
145. Zwierlein, M.W. et al. Observation of Bose-Einstein Condensation of Molecules.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 250401 (2003).
146. Tiecke, T.G., Goosen, M.R., Walraven, J.T.M. & Kokkelmans, S.J.J.M.F.
Asymptotic-bound-state model for Feshbach resonances. Phys. Rev. A 82, 042712(2010).
147. Wille, E. et al. Exploring an Ultracold Fermi-Fermi Mixture: Interspecies Feshbach
Resonances and Scattering Properties of^{6}Li and^{40}K. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100,053201 (2008).
148. Tiecke, T.G. Feshbach resonances in ultracold mixtures of the fermionic quantum
gases 6Li and 40K. Ph.D thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam,
Netherlands (2009).
149. Arimondo, E., Inguscio, M. & Violino, P. Experimental determinations of thehyperfine structure in the alkali atoms. Rev. Mod. Phys. 49, 31 (1977).
150. Inouye, S. et al. Observation of Feshbach resonances in a Bose-Einsteincondensate. Nature 392, 151-154 (1998).
151. Ospelkaus, S. et al. Quantum-State Controlled Chemical Reactions of Ultracold
Potassium-Rubidium Molecules. Science 327, 853-857 (2010).
152. Cheng, C.-H. & Yip, S.-K. Anisotropic Fermi Superfluid via p-Wave Feshbach
Resonance. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 070404 (2005).
153. Gurarie, V., Radzihovsky, L. & Andreev, A.V. Quantum Phase Transitions across ap-Wave Feshbach Resonance. Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 230403 (2005).
154. Ohashi, Y. BCS-BEC Crossover in a Gas of Fermi Atoms with a p-Wave Feshbach
Resonance. Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 050403 (2005).
155. Stoner, E.C. Collective Electron Ferromagnetism. Proceedings of the Royal Societyof London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 165, 372 -414 (1938).
156. Duine, R. & MacDonald, A. Itinerant Ferromagnetism in an Ultracold Atom Fermi
Gas. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, (2005).
157. Gutzwiller, M.C. Effect of Correlation on the Ferromagnetism of Transition Metals.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 10, 159 (1963).
158. Pekker, D. et al. Competition between Pairing and Ferromagnetic Instabilities in
Ultracold Fermi Gases near Feshbach Resonances. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 050402(2011).
159. Cui, X. & Zhai, H. Stability of a fully magnetized ferromagnetic state in repulsively
interacting ultracold Fermi gases. Phys. Rev. A 81, 041602 (2010).
160. Zhai, H. Correlated versus ferromagnetic state in repulsively interacting twocomponent Fermi gases. Phys. Rev. A 80, 051605 (2009).
161. Chang, C.-C., Zhang, S. & Ceperley, D.M. Itinerant ferromagnetism in a Fermi gas
with contact interaction: Magnetic properties in a dilute Hubbard model. Phys.
Rev. A 82, 061603 (2010).
162. Berdnikov, I., Coleman, P. & Simon, S.H. Itinerant ferromagnetism in an atom

226
trap. Phys. Rev. B 79, 224403 (2009).
163. LeBlanc, L.J., Thywissen, J.H., Burkov, A.A. & Paramekanti, A. Repulsive Fermi
gas in a harmonic trap: Ferromagnetism and spin textures. Phys. Rev. A 80,
013607 (2009).
164. Navon, N., Nascimbene, S., Chevy, F. & Salomon, C. The Equation of State of a
Low-Temperature Fermi Gas with Tunable Interactions. Science 328, 729-732(2010).
165. Cooper, L.N. Bound Electron Pairs in a Degenerate Fermi Gas. Phys. Rev. 104,1189 (1956).
166. Efremov, D.V. & Viverit, L. p-wave Cooper pairing of fermions in mixtures of dilute
Fermi and Bose gases. Phys. Rev. B 65, 134519 (2002).
167. Weld, D.M. et al. Spin Gradient Thermometry for Ultracold Atoms in Optical
Lattices. Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 245301 (2009).
168. Marchetti, F., Mathy, C., Huse, D. & Parish, M. Phase separation and collapse in
Bose-Fermi mixtures with a Feshbach resonance. Phys. Rev. B 78, (2008).
169. Adhikari, S.K. Mean-field description of collapsing and exploding Bose-Einsteincondensates. Phys. Rev. A 66, 013611 (2002).
170. Marchetti, F.M., Jolicoeur, T. & Parish, M.M. Stability and Pairing in Quasi-OneDimensional Bose-Fermi Mixtures. Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 105304 (2009).
171. Van Schaeybroeck, B. & Lazarides, A. Trapped phase-segregated Bose-Fermi
mixtures and their collective excitations. Phys. Rev. A 79, 033618 (2009).
172. Edwards, D.O. & Daunt, J.G. Phase Separation in He^{3}-He^{4} Mixtures near
Absolute Zero. Phys. Rev. 124, 640 (1961).
173. Ospelkaus, S. et al. Degenerate K-Rb Fermi-Bose gas mixtures with large particle
numbers. J. of Modern Optics 54, 661-673 (2007).
174. Ospelkaus, S. et al. Localization of Bosonic Atoms by Fermionic Impurities in a
Three-Dimensional Optical Lattice. Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 180403 (2006).