Experiments with Bose-Einstein Condensates in a
Double-Well Potential
by

Yong-Il Shin
B.S., Physics (2000)
Seoul National University
Submitted to the Department of Physics
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree ofDoctor of Philosophy
at theMASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
February 2006
c Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2006. All rights reserved.

Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Department of Physics
November 17, 2005

Certified by . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wolfgang Ketterle
John D. MacAurthur Professor of Physics
Thesis Supervisor
Certified by . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
David E. Pritchard
Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics
Thesis Supervisor

Accepted by . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Thomas J. Greytak
Professor of Physics, Associate Department Head for Education

Experiments with Bose-Einstein Condensates in a Double-Well Potential
by
Yong-Il Shin
Submitted to the Department of Physics
on November 17, 2005, in partial fulfillment of therequirements for the degree ofDoctor of Philosophy

Abstract
Trapped atom interferometry was demonstrated with Bose-Einstein condensates in an optical double-well trap. Coherent splitting of trapped condensates was performed by deforming
an optical single-well potential into a double-well potential, and the relative phase of thetwo split condensates was shown to be reproducible. Microfabricated atom chips were developed with prospect for chip-based confined-atom interferometry. The same dynamical
splitting scheme was implemented in a purely magnetic double-well potential on an atom
chip and interference of two split condensates was observed, but not reproducible phase.
Coherent optical coupling between two spatially separated condensates was realizedusing stimulated light scattering. The relative phase of the two condensates was continuously measured with an optical method, which demonstrated atom interferometry without
need for a conventional beam splitter or recombiner. The Josephson-like phase dynamics
of the coherent optical coupling was investigated and it was experimentally shown thatthe induced atomic currents depend on the relative phase of the two condensates and an
additional controllable coupling phase.
Condensates in an optical dipole trap were distilled into a second empty dipole trap
adjacent to the first one. We showed that the distillation was driven by thermal atoms
spilling over the potential barrier separating the two wells and then forming a new condensate. This thermodynamic relaxation process serves as a model system for metastability incondensates and provides a test for quantum kinetic theories of condensate formation.
Doubly quantized vortices were topologically imprinted in spinor condensates and thestability of the vortex state was investigated. The decay of a doubly-quantized vortex core
into two singly-quantized vortex cores was observed using a tomographic imaging technique.
The characteristic time scale of the splitting process was found to be longer at higher atom
density.
Thesis Supervisor: Wolfgang Ketterle
Title: John D. MacAurthur Professor of Physics
Thesis Supervisor: David E. Pritchard
Title: Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics

To my parents, Kwang-Bum Shin and Young-Hee Yoonand my sister Ji-Young

Acknowledgments
My graduate life at MIT was enjoyable. Being a graduate student with oppressive thesis
requirements, of course, is generally not an ideal way to be happy, but I can definitely saythat my past four and half years in Building 26 was full of challenges and adventures throughwhich I could observe and identify myself. Most of those challenges and adventures resulted
from the struggle with super cold sodium atoms, but I know all of these were possible only
because there were many people encouraging, supporting and helping me throughout thewhole journey.
First of all, I would like to thank Wolfgang Ketterle and Dave Pritchard for providing
me with the opportunity to work with them. I was extremely lucky to have Wolfgang andDave as thesis supervisors not only because they are great physicists but also because they
really care about students’ independence as researchers. Wolfgang’s concise statement andscientific assessment on research projects always provided a clear picture of what we were
doing in the lab. His considerate encouragement has been a great source of my ‘careless’bravery in experiments. Dave showed me an example of how one can be happy with doing
science. His scientific analysis on everything always inspired me. The scientific enthusiasm
and the solid work ethic they showed me in the past years have set a standard for me andI believe it will work as a guideline for the rest of my research life.
It has been a great privilege to join the science chamber team using MIT’s third generation BEC machine. When I joined the team in September 2001, it was eight months after
the first BEC with the machine. As a user and janitor of the machine, I am greatly indebted
to the builders of the machine. In particular, I thank Ananth Chikkatur and Aaron Leanhardt for teaching me how to drive this wonderful machine for scientific research. Ananth
introduced me to the flavor of the BEC experiments at MIT. The patience that he showed
me when I worked on my first project, the control system for the translation stage and hisleadership in the ‘continuous condensate’ project really helped me to be integrated in the
team.
Aaron laid the solid foundation of our microtrap technique. He initiated the atom
chip and the optical double well system, without which the experiments described in thisthesis would have never happened. I was always fascinated by his broad knowledge of themachine and his quick evaluation of the feasibility of new experimental ideas. His working
style, particularly in the lab, was so strong that sometimes it was quite hard for me to keep
following him physically in a literal sense. However, I learned many things from his diligent
and thrustful leadership, which essentially helped me to develop my own working style. He
was also a selfless leader placing the interest of the whole team before anything. Particularly,
I am deeply grateful to him for letting me lead the ‘trapped atom interferometer’ project
when we had to divide our team into two subgroups.

I have been benefited from working with Michele Saba, André Schirotzek, Christian Sanner, Tom Pasquini and Gyu-Boong Jo. Michele was a great labmate who could immediately
compensate for the early loss of Aaron. Most of the experiments were carried out with him
and his physical insight always brought an interesting spin on our experimental results. He
always kindly counseled me on any problem from how to kick a soccer ball better to how
to write a research proposal. He has unique and interesting opinions on any issue, so it was
great fun to discuss with him, especially in a dark laboratory at around midnight.
Due to the short cycle of the team projects, our team advantageously had excellent
diploma students from Germany. André and Christian were diploma students who worked
with us for one year. Their enthusiasm and strong motivation helped me to keep myself
upright in the mid-period of my graduate life that would have possibly been a slump.
André has also been a perfect officemate with agreeable tastes in (heavy-metal) music,(Chinese truck) food, (sweaty) sports, (sleepy) classics, and etc. Having the machine run
on Christmas and playing foot-volley ball at early morning with being desperate for the‘recoil momentum’ project were small parts of my pleasant memories with him. I am
looking forward to working with him in the Li lab soon. Christian was calm and veryskillful almost at everything. I have enjoyed talking with him and learning from him. I
believe he will make a great scientist. I thank Tom and Gyu-Boong for helping me in thelab and wish them good luck with coming research projects.
Center for Ultracold Atoms was a great place for studying AMO physics. The weekly
CUA seminar presented by world-leading speakers was one of the great benefits I have hadfrom the center. Also, the big size of graduate students made it possible to ask diverse
helps at various times and to make our own soccer and softball team. I thank Jamil
Abo-Shaeer for organizing many unforgettable bond-enhancing gatherings, Claudiu Stanfor his professional advises on various technical issues, Kaiwen Xu for discussing theoreticalproblems and teaching how to make a fiber tip, Deep Gupta for teaching how to changedye, Gretchen Campbell for her considerate caring for group events, Martin Zwierlein for
his endless upbeat mood and organizing our soccer team, Micah Boyd for his love of Naboo,and Dave Kielpinski for showing what is the best lab-behavior. I also thank Ellenor Barish,
Carol Costa, Maureen Howard, and Maxine Samuels for their administrative help and Fred
Cote for his kind advises on machining.
I would like to thank people who supported me outside the lab: Jaehyuk Choi who
welcomed me in Cambridge with a McDonald burger for the dinner of the first night, Boguk
Kim who shared a dorm apartment with me for one year and evacuated, Daihyun Lim whoruined my precious futon cover with pasting almost digested food, and Kyungjoon Lee whoalways emphasizes the importance of marriage and brags of his adorable baby. They are all
good friends. I am grateful to Prof. Wonho Jhe for introducing atom optics experiments

to me when I had to decide a graduate school. I thank Eunjong Hong and Hyungjoon Cho
for their life advises, and the members of the KGSA soccer team for their ‘craziness’.
Finally, I thank my family for its unconditional support and love. My parents KwangBum Shin and Young-Hee Yoon have always encouraged me to live with a dream. Without
their endless blessing I would not be able to become who I am.

This work was supported by the Army Research Office (ARO), the Defense advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Office of Naval Research (ONR).

Contents
1 Introduction

13

1.1

Bose-Einstein Condensation in dilute atomic gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

1.2

Quantum Statistics: Boson vs Fermion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14

1.3

Criterion for Bose-Einstein Condensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16

1.4

Phase Transition and Order Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17

1.5

Macroscopic Matter Wave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18

1.6

Phase of a Condensate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20

1.7

Relative Phase of Two Condensates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21

1.8

Outline of the Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22

2 BEC Machine and Microtraps
2.1

23

BEC Experiments in ‘Science’ Chamber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23

2.1.1

Basic Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24

2.1.2

Machine Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29

2.2

Optical Double-Well Trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30

2.3

Magnetic Microtrap on an Atom Chip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31

2.3.1

Chip Fabrication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32

2.3.2

Proximity Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33

2.3.3

Current Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34

2.3.4

Chip Development at MIT

35. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 Coherent Splitting of a Condensate in a Double-Well Potential
3.1

3.2

3.3

39

Dynamic Splitting of Condensates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

41

3.1.1

BEC in a Double-Well Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

41

3.1.2

Requirements for Coherent Dynamic Splitting . . . . . . . . . . . . .

43

Coherent Splitting in an Optical Double-Well Potential . . . . . . . . . . . .

44

3.2.1

Coherence Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

46

3.2.2

Trapped Atom Interferometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

49

Toward Atom Interferometry on an Atom Chip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

51

7

3.3.1

Magnetic Double-Well Trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

52

3.3.2

Symmetric Axial Confinement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53

3.3.3

Interference of Two Condensates Split with an Atom Chip . . . . . .

55

3.3.4

Stability of Trapping Potentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

58

3.3.5

Discussion: Alternative Splitting Schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61

4 Dynamics of Optically Coupled Condensates
4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

Continuous Measurement of the Relative Phase of Two Condensates . . . .

67

4.1.1

Beating between Two Atom Lasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

67

4.1.2

Optical Measurement of Relative Phase Evolution . . . . . . . . . .

69

4.1.3

Interferometry without a Beam Splitter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

72

Theoretical Models for Phase Measurment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

74

4.2.1

Momentum Interferometry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

74

4.2.2

What is Really Interfering? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

76

4.2.3

Theoretical Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

77

Optical Weak Coupling of Two Spatially Separate Condensates . . . . . . .

80

4.3.1

Bi-directional Bragg Outcoupling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

81

4.3.2

Phase-Controlled Optical Coupling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

81

4.3.3

Optical Josephson Coupling on a Ring Geometry . . . . . . . . . . .

84

Diagnostic Applications of Continuous Bragg Scattering . . . . . . . . . . .

85

5 Distillation of Condensates
5.1
5.2

87

Thermal Relaxation in a Double-Well Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

89

5.1.1

Relaxation Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

94

Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

96

6 Dynamical Instability of a Doubly Quantized Vortex State
6.1

6.2

6.3

65

97

Topological Imprinting of a Vortex State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

99

6.1.1

Berry’s Phase in Spin Rotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

99

6.1.2

Phase Imprinting of Multiply Quantized Vortex States . . . . . . . .

101

6.1.3

Vortex Experiments on an Atom Chip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

103

Observation of Splitting of a Doubly Quantized Vortex Core . . . . . . . . .

104

6.2.1

Density dependence of Decay Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

105

6.2.2

Dynamical Instability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

106

6.2.3

Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

108

Observation of Coreless Vortices: Spin Textures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

110

7 Conclusion

113

8

A Designs for the Apparatus

115

B Atom Interferometry with Bose-Einstein Condensates in a Double-Well
Potential

118

C Interference of Bose-Einstein Condensates split with an Atom Chip

123

D Light Scattering to Determine the Relative Phase of Two Bose-Einstein
Condensates

128

E Optical Weak Link between Two Spatially Separated Bose-Einstein Condensates

133

F Distillation of Bose-Einstein Condensates in a Double-Well Potential

138

G Coreless Vortex Formation in a Spinor Bose-Einstein Condensate

143

H Dynamical Instability of a Doubly Quantized Vortex in a Bose-Einstein
Condensate

148

Bibliography

153

9

List of Figures
2-1 Experimental procedures with BEC-III machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24Sodium 23 Na energy levels and the relevant atomic transitions . . . . . . . .

26

2-3 Experimental setup for optical tweezers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28

2-4 Schematic diagram of the optical setup for an optical double-well trap . . .

31

2-5 Chip fabrication process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32

2-6 Photographs of atom chip sets

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

36

2-7 Wire patterns of the Atom chips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

38

3-1 Splitting a condensate in an optical double-well potential . . . . . . . . . .

44

3-2 Matter wave interference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45

3-3 Phase coherence of dynamically split condensates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47

3-4 Perturbation from splitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

48

3-5 Trapped-atom interferometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

50

3-6 Magnetic double-well potential on an atom chip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

52

3-7 Experimental procedures with an atom chip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

54

3-8 Symmetric axial confinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

54

3-9 Atom chip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55

3-10 Splitting of a condensate on an atom chip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

56

3-11 Long-living axial motion and unclean releasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57

3-12 Interference of two condensates split with an atom chip . . . . . . . . . . .

58

3-13 Magnetic trapping potential during splitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

59

3-14 Vortex interference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

60

3-15 Lifetime near the merge point and remaining fraction during splitting . . .

61

3-16 One-to-two scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

62

3-17 Three-wire scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63

3-18 Axial splitting for optical preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

64

4-1 Phase sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

66

4-2 Continuous outcoupling from two separate condensates . . . . . . . . . . . .

68

4-3 Continuous optical readout of the relative phase of two condensates . . . . .

70

2-2

10

4-4 Interferometry with two trapped condensates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73

4-5 Momentum distribution of two separate condensates . . . . . . . . . . . . .

75

4-6 Bragg out-coupling fro two separate condensates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

78

4-7 Relative phase of out-coupled patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

83

4-8 Josephson optical coupling on a ring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

84

4-9 Phase-sensitive out-coupling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

85

4-10 Trap characterization with a continuous outcoupling . . . . . . . . . . . . .

86

5-1 Scheme for distillation of condensates in a double-well potential . . . . . . .

88

5-2 Time evolution of atom clouds in a double-well potential . . . . . . . . . . .

90

5-3 Approach to thermal equilibrium in a double-well potential . . . . . . . . .

93

5-4 Measurement of the onset of condensation with interference fringes . . . . .

94

5-5 Onset time of condensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

95

6-1 Berry’s phase in spin rotation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

101

6-2 Topological phase imprinting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

102

6-3 Vortex experiment on an atom chip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

103

6-4 Tomographic imaging technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

105

6-5 Splitting of a doubly-quantized vortex core . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

106

6-6 Density dependence of the decay process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

107

6-7 Topological phase imprinting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

109

6-8 Coreless vortices in spinor condensates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

111

6-9 Spin texture vs. final axial magnetic field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

112

11

List of Tables
2.1

Production procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25

2.2

Properties of substrate materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35

12

Chapter 1

Introduction
1.1

Bose-Einstein Condensation in dilute atomic gases

Bose-Einstein Condensation (BEC) is the underlying mechanism for quantum phenomena
such as superfluidity and superconductivity. The phenomenon of a macroscopic number ofidentical particles condensing in a single quantum-mechanical state was predicted in 1924
by Bose and Einstein [12, 13] and has been studied in diverse systems such as He4 superfluid
and superconductors. The history of BEC study in its early stages is reviewed in Ref. [14]and references therein.
In 1995, Bose-Einstein condensation was experimentally realized in a new system: diluteatomic gases [15]. This historic discovery opened a new golden era of BEC study; in contrast
to the other systems confronting with the complexity of the particle interaction, the weaklyinteracting atomic system provides a unique opportunity for the systematic investigationof Bose-Einstein condensates in a regime where interactions are perturbative and theorytractable. In the subsequent years, the novel properties of Bose-Einstein condensates such asphase coherence [16], superfluidity, and quantized vortices [17, 18, 19] were experimentallyinvestigated. In recognition of these remarkable achievements, the 2001 Nobel Prize forPhysics was awarded to Eric Cornell, Wolfgang Ketterle, and Carl Wieman [20, 21].
Over the last decade, the field of quantum degenerate gases has developed in a dramatic way [22, 23]. The number of species of Bose condensed atoms has grown to two
digits1 , and the range of experimental research topics has been extended to spinor condensates [34, 35, 36], condensates in lattice potentials [37, 38], and low-dimensional condensates [39, 40, 41, 42, 43]. This explosive and steady progress in the field was made possibleby the constructive interference of technical advances in experimental atomic physics andwell-founded condensed matter theory; the current BEC study represents a fascinating
1 87

52

Rb [15], 23 Na [24], 7 Li [25, 26], 1 H [27], 85 Rb [28], 4 He∗ [29], 41 K [30], 133 Cs [31], 174 Yb [32], andCr [33]13

interdisciplinary research area. More surprisingly, quantum degenerate Fermi gases were
demonstrated with 40 K [44] and 6 Li [45] and experimental explorations of the crossover
between a BEC and a Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) superfluid were recently reported,
addressing a long-standing problem in condensed matter theory.
My Ph.D. research described in this thesis is mainly concerned with atom optics with
Bose-Einstein condensates, which are a gigantic quantum matter wave. Having full control
over the phase coherence of matter waves is the ultimate goal of atom optics, which opens
the prospects for novel applications such as atom interferometry and quantum information
processing. We developed microtraps for condensates, such as magnetic traps with microfabricated atom chips and an optical double-well trap having a tunable well-separation.
Most of the experiments in this thesis were designed for investigating technical possibilities
to measure and manipulate the relative phase of two separate condensates. As main results,
we demonstrated coherent, dynamic splitting of a trapped condensate, optical read-out of
the relative phase of two condensates, and optical Josephson-like coupling between two
spatially separate condensates.
In this introduction, I present and discuss several crucial concepts for understanding
the phenomenon of Bose-Einstein condensation: what determines bosons and fermions,consequences in quantum statistics, a criterion for Bose-Einstein condensation, and an orderparameter for the phase transition. A mean-field theory for dilute Bose-Einstein condensatesis introduced by deriving the Gross-Pitaevskii equation. In the following discussion on theorder parameter of condensates, I address the conceptual question: what is the phase of a
Bose-Einstein condensate; is it a real physical quantity or just a convenient field-theoreticaltool? There are still theoretical debates on this issue. I simply recapitulate a couple ofviewpoints on the controversy and express my preference. This discussion is very relevantto the experiments described in this thesis. In the end, the outline of this thesis is presented.

1.2

Quantum Statistics: Boson vs Fermion

The principle of the indistinguishability of the particles of a same kind requires a fundamental change in the description of a system of identical particles. Even in classical statisticalphysics, the need for the indistinguishability is indicated in the Gibbs’ paradox, saying thatthe fact that identical particles are distinguishable is contradictory to the fact that theentropy is an extensive variable of a system [46]. This can be solved by reducing the configuration space under the principle of indistinguishability, resulting in a topologically different
configuration space than the simple Cartesian product of the one-particle spaces [47]. The
meaning of the particles being indistinguishable is that the physical situation is unchanged14

if the particles are interchanged. In the quantum description, it is expressed as|ψ(P (x1 , · · · , xN ))|2 = |ψ(x1 , · · · , xN )|2 ,(1.1)

where ψ is a wave function of the N-particle system, and P is any permutation of the N
particle coordinates, {xi }. Because any P can decompose into a product of exchanges, χij ,between two particles, i and j, we have a simple sufficient condition,|ψ(χ(x1 , · · · , xN ))|2 = |ψ(x1 , · · · , xN )|2⇔ ψ(χ(x1 , · · · , xN )) = eiξ ψ(x1 , · · · , xN ).

(1.2)
(1.3)

Since naturally χ2 = I, where I is the identical operator2 , ei2ξ = 1, i.e., eiξ = 1 or eiξ = −1.

According to the exchange property, there are two classes of particles existing in nature:bosons with eiξ = 1 and fermions with eiξ = −1.

The consequences of the restriction deeply affect the quantum statistics which the parti-

cles of each class should follow, and the resulting statistics are called Bose-Einstein statistics
for bosons and Fermi-Dirac statistics for fermions. For distinguishable particles, the classical statistics is Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics. The most dramatic difference of the twoquantum statistics is that many bosons can occupy a same state but fermions are fundamentally prohibited to multiply occupy a state, which is called the exclusion principle.
Consequently, at zero temperature, i.e, in the true ground state, bosons would be all together in the single-particle ground energy level, and fermions would pile up one particle ineach adjacent level from the bottom. One minor remark on the indistinguishability of theparticles is that it is a principle, i.e., an axiomatic statement, which has been supported bya myriad of experimental measurements.
What determines particles to be bosons or fermions? There is a spin-statistics theorem
saying that particles with an integer spin are bosons obeying Bose-Einstein statistics, andparticles with a half-odd integer spin are fermions obeying Fermi-Dirac statistics. In therelativistic arguments in context of quantum field theory, the question can be recasted in thefollowing form [49]: what determines the (anti)commutative relations of field operators forparticles? The commutative and anti-commutative relation of field operators are associatedwith bosons and fermions. The basic requirements for a consistent relativistic theory with agiven pair of the spin of a particle and the (anti)commutative relations of the field operators
are that it should have no negative energy states and that the causality should be preserved,
i.e., two observables with a space-like separation should commute each other. Based on
2
In a higher than three dimensional space, χ2 = I is the case. However, in lower dimensions, thisrequirement is relaxed, resulting in the concept of an anyon [47]. Fractional statistics were experimentallyobserved in a two-dimensional condensed matter system [48].

15these requirements, Pauli [50] showed that particles with integer spin should obey BoseEinstein statistics due to the causality, and particles with arbitrary half-odd integer spinshould obey Fermi-Dirac statistics due to the nonexistence of negative energy states. Morerigorous mathematical treatments can be found in Ref. [51].3

1.3

Criterion for Bose-Einstein Condensation

Bose-Einstein condensation of particles in a physical system is a macroscopic occupation
in a single state of the system; the ‘macroscopic’ occupation means that the number ofparticles in the state is a finite fraction of N , i.e., O(N ), where N is the total numberof particles in the system. In a system of fermionic particles, the occupation number isbounded to be O(1) due to the exclusion principle and thus Bose-Einstein condensation isfundamentally prohibited.
The criterion for Bose-Einstein condensation can be mathematically expressed in a simple form. We have the density matrix, σ, for a given state of the system of identical N boson
particles. By definition, the density matrix has all information of the system. We obtain asingle-particle density matrix, σ1 , by tracing down σ with respect to particles 2,3,...,N.
σ1 ≡ N tr2···N (σ),(1.4)

where we multiply by N for a physically more intuitive interpretation. Because of the
permutation symmetry in the bosonic system, σ1 has all information about a single particle,
i.e., the population distribution and the allowed single-particle states. The eigenfunctionsfor σ1 , {ψi }, and the corresponding eigenvalues, {ni }, represent the single-particle states

defined in the given many-body state and the occupation number of each corresponding
state, respectively. Therefore, the criterion for Bose-Einstein condensation can be rewrittenas∃n0 ∼ O(N ) ⇐⇒ BEC,

(1.5)

and the associated single-particle wave function, ψ0 is the state where a macroscopic numberof particles stay, and may be called the wave function of a condensate. This criterion
provides a straightforward evaluation method for the existence of Bose-Einstein condensates,
and it can be generally applied to most of systems even in the case including interparticle
interactions and not in the true ground state.
Penrose and Onsager generalized the criterion (1.5), and suggested an alternative math3

A non-relativistic geometrical argument was suggested in Ref. [47]. One might find a simple argumentwith the conjecture that the exchange operator might be expressed as a sum of spin rotation and inversion.

16

ematical form of the criterion for Bose-Einstein condensation [52]:lim|x−y|→∞hψˆ† (x)ψ̂(y)i = f ∗ (x)f (y) 6= 0,(1.6)

and the wave function of the condensate, ψ0 , is one of possible solution for f (x). Yangelaborated on the concept of off-diagonal long-range order based on the above criterion,and emphasized that it is a quantum phenomenon not describable in classical mechanicalterms [53]. However, the off-diagonal long-range order loses its application to the trappedboson system because the asymptotic behavior is not well defined due to the finite size ofthe system.

1.4

Phase Transition and Order Parameter

Bose-Einstein condensation, first introduced as a pure population condensing effect, is aquantum phase transition. Thermodynamic calculations of an interacting bose gas show a
discontinuity of specific heat at the beginning of condensation, implying that Bose-Einsteincondensation is a second-order phase transition4 [54]. The analogy between the discontinuity
in this phase transition and the λ-transition of liquid He4 , at which the specific heat becomes
logarithmically infinite, hinted that the underlying principle of the superfluidity of liquid
He4 might be Bose-Einstein condensation [55].
In most of phase transitions, a phase with higher symmetries transforms into a phasewith lower symmetries as the temperature comes down through the critical temperature. A
liquid changes into a solid, losing translational and rotational symmetries, and a ferromagnet
obtains a macroscopic net magnetization in the absence of a magnetic field, losing thesymmetry of spin rotation. Accordingly, the ground state of the system at zero temperaturemight not have the full symmetries residing in the governing Hamilitonian. Many possible
but ‘non-superposable’ ground states would be degenerate and equivalent with respect tothe lost symmetry, but one of them should be selected for each real system. In this context,
the idea of spontaneous symmetry breaking has been introduced to account for the criticalphenomena in condensed matter physics and elementary particle physics [56, 49].
In his discussion of a second-order phase transition, Landau pointed that in order toquantitatively describe a phase transition, an order parameter, vanishing in one phase andbecoming non-zero in the other phase, is necessary to describe the dynamics of the newphase [57]. For example, the order parameter for the solid is the crystal structure andfor the ferromagnet is the net magnetization. It is commonly believed that establishinga nonzero order parameter in a phase transition comes with the spontaneous symmetry4

Bose-Einstein condensation in an non-interacting bose gas is a first-order transition like a liquid-gas
transition.

17

breaking.
What is the broken symmetry in Bose-Einstein condensation, and what is the corresponding order parameter? This question is quite legitimate because we know that BoseEinstein condensation is a second-order phase transition, and as investigated in He4 superfluidity, the macroscopic properties of a Bose-Einstein condensed phase is totally different
from a non-condensed phase. The off-diagonal long-range order might be an order parameter for Bose-Einstein condensates, which has been objected due to the physical requirementthat the order parameter should be determined by local dynamical variables [54]. The
choices of the broken symmetry and the order parameter are not always obvious from thefirst principles. Generally, people suggest that Bose-Einstein condensation break the gauge
symmetry related to the choice of a global phase of creation and annihilation operators andthat the order parameter be equal to the wave function of the condensate.

1.5

Macroscopic Matter Wave

A pictorial description on the condensation process [58] provides insight into the wave function of a condensate, elucidating the aforementioned mathematical criterion. In quantum
mechanics, the qwave nature of a particle delocalizes the particle over its de Broglie wavelength, λdB =2πh̄2 /mkB T . When the temperature of a gas gets low enough to make1

λdB comparable to the interparticle separation n− 3 , where n is the density of particles,
matter wave packets of the indistinguishable particles start overlapping. When the phasespace density ρ = nλ3dB exceeds 1, the phase transition to a single macroscopic matter wave
occurs. This is a Bose-Einstein condensate: a gigantic quantum object.
The macroscopic matter wave is embodied by the wave function of the condensate.
In following, I summarize a mean-field (Hartree) approach to obtain the Gross-Pitaevskii
equation which describes BEC dynamics in terms of the wave function of the condensate.
Basically, mean-field description deals with how a single particle feels the averaged interaction from the other particles.
The Hamiltonian of a system of N interacting particles is
H=

N  2
X
p
i

i=1

2m



+ V (xi ) + U0

Xi<j

δ(xi − xj ),(1.7)

where V (x) is the external potential for particles and the interparticle potential is simplified
2

6
by defining an effective potential5 with U0 = 4πah̄
m , where a is the s-wave scattering length.

The physical justification for the s-wave approximation can be found in Ref. [54].
5
6

Fermi first introduced this approach as the ‘pseudopotential’ method. E. Fermi, Ricerca Sci.7, 13 (1936).
For 23 Na, a = 2.93 ± 0.06 nm from Ref. [59], which gives U0 = h × 1.62 × 10−14 kHz/cm3 .

18

The mean-field theory starts with an ansatz for the many-body wave function,
Ψ(x1 , x2 , ..., xN ) =NYφ(xi ),

(1.8)

i=1

and the total energy of state, E, will be
E=N

Z

dx



h̄2
N −1
|∇φ(x)|2 + V (x)|φ(x)|2 +U0 |φ(x)|4 .
2m
2


(1.9)

Minimization of E subject to the constraint of normalization of φ(x) and the introduction of√
the wave function of the condensate, ψ(x) = N φ(x), would result in the time-independent
Gross-Pitaevskii equation,
h̄2 2∇ + V (x) + U0 |ψ(x)|2 ψ(x) = µψ(x),−2m(1.10)

where µ = ∂E/∂N is the chemical potential of the system. The generalized time-dependent∂ ψ(x, t) = µψ(x, t) gives a non-linear Schrödinger equation
Gross-Pitaevskii equation ih̄ ∂tgoverning the dynamics of the wave function of the condensate.
The mean-field approach has been very successful in accounting for most of the experimental results. Nevertheless, as being one of simplest approaches for many-body systems,
the mean-field theory has some theoretical inconsistencies to be improved. Leggett [60]pointed out that the mathematical origin of the limitation is the fact that the trial ansatz (Eq. 1.8)
does not allow two-particle correlation and restricts the whole description in a reduced
Hilbert space. Since the two-particle interaction would cause some correlation between
particles especially in a short range separation, a better ansatz should accommodate thepossibility of two-particle correlations, which is the essence of the advanced Bogoliubov
approach. For theoretical details, please refer to Ref. [61, 62, 60].
From the viewpoint of a macroscopic matter wave, Bose-Einstein condensates open
a new era for atom optics; BECs are to atom interferometry what lasers are to opticalinterferometry, i.e., a coherent, single-mode, and highly brilliant source. Since the remarkable demonstration of the macroscopic interference of two gaseous Bose-Einstein condensates [16], exploiting the laser-like coherence of gaseous Bose-Einstein condensates has been
one of hottest topics in atom optics. Furthermore, the nonlinearity due to atom-atom interactions in the governing Hamiltonian allows the study of nonlinear atom optics. Analogiesof the phenomena in nonlinear optics, such as matter wave amplification [63], four-wave
mixing [64, 65], and soliton formation [66] have been experimentally demonstrated.

19

1.6

Phase of a Condensate

At first sight, using the wave function of a condensate for describing its dynamics inspires
us to believe that this method might be the only natural choice for the order parameter for
Bose-Einstein condensation. However, when it comes to symmetry breaking, the situation
is in confusion. Theoretically, it is generally believed that Bose-Einstein condensation is aspontaneous breakdown of the gauge symmetry resulting in the well-defined global phasefactor of the field operator, ψ̂, for particles.
hψ̂(x)iBEC = φ(x) 6= 0,(1.11)

which means that in the presence of a Bose-Einstein condensate, the expectation value ofthe field operator has a non-vanishing value, i.e., a coherent state of matter. The function
φ(x) is equivalent to the wave function of the condensate, possessing a well-defined phase,i.e, φ(x) =n(x)eiθ(x) , where n is the particle density of the condensate and θ is thepphase of the condensate. Anderson [67] argued that the observation of Josephson effects
demonstrated the existence of the phase of a condensate, emphasizing that every partof condensates should have a definite phase value. Furthermore, some people argue thatEq. (1.11) is even the only legitimate definition of the order parameter. Most of establishedtheoretical works were based on the assumption of the gauge symmetry breaking.
However, the non-vanishing expectation value of the field operator ψ̂ for massive particles is not an easy idea to accept. In quantum mechanics, field operators for particles are
not observables because of their non-hermitian property, and mathematically the field operators couple two Hilbert subspaces with different particle numbers, i.e., ψ̂ : HN +1 −→ HN ,where HN represents a Hilbert subspace with N particles. Generally, HN ’s for a massive

particle are distinguishable under the super-selection rules.7 Therefore, the idea of the nonvanishing expectation value of the field operator, allowing the superposition of states withdifferent particle number, seems to be a theoretically artificial tool.
The necessity of the phase of a Bose-Einstein condensate is controversial. Javanainen andYoo [68] demonstrated that quantum measurements entangling two condensates generate
a relative phase of the two condensates. Mølmer [69] criticized that the phase concept
in quantum system is overall fictitious, pointing out that observable phenomena do notdepend on whether an absolute phase exists or not. Leggett [60] showed his strong opinion
that coherent states of matters violating the super-selection rule are physically impossible.
Furthermore, a theoretical formalism without assuming the gauge symmetry breaking wasdeveloped [70, 71, 72]. On the other hand, Dunningham and Burnett [73] tried to justify
the definition of coherent states by introducing a reference condensate as a phase standard.
7

All observables commute with the atom number operator N̂ .

20

Lieb et al. [74] and Sütő [75] showed that the gauge symmetry breaking is asymptoticallyequivalent to Bose-Einstein condensation in a thermodynamic limit.
I support the opinion that Bose-Einstein condensation does not necessarily imply spontaneous symmetry breaking. First of all, the global phase of a condensate is not measurable.
I believe that everything in nature should be understood in its simplest form. Therefore we
could abolish the concept of a definite global phase of condensates if only a consistent theory
explains the whole phenomena without the concept. The absolute value of a quantum dynamic phase is physically meaningless, and only comparing quantum phases, i.e., measuring
relative phases is experimentally allowed via phase sensitive dynamics or interference effects.
Even in a single condensate, it is the relative phase of two points of the condensate that is
physically relevant. This viewpoint might be similar to Landau’s philosophy for hydrodynamic equations, where he mentioned that only important quantities are density and flow
rate. In an aesthetic viewpoint, assigning a definite phase to a condensate might look more
beautiful from the standpoint of symmetry breaking and second-order phase transitions. In
a practical viewpoint, assuming coherent states might be justified to be more efficient forcalculations. However, it should be noted that a definite global phase is not necessary fordescribing BEC dynamics.

1.7

Relative Phase of Two Condensates

I emphasized that the relative phase of two condensates is a measurable quantity anddoes not have a conceptual problem with respect to symmetry breaking. In the following, I
illustrate the relative phase, using a two-mode system where only two orthogonal states, areallowed for particles. The two states are designated by ψA and ψB , and the corresponding
field operators are â†A and â†B , respectively. Two many-body states are considered: acoherent state and a number (Fock) state.
|ψcoh i ==|ψnum i =1√(â†A + eiφr â†B )N |0i
N
2 N!
1

N
X

!

N inφr †N −n †nâAâB |0i,en√2N N ! n=0
1†N/2 †N/2âA âB |0i,(N/2)!

(1.12)(1.13)

where |0i is a particle vacuum state. In the coherent state, all particles stay in the same
single-particle state, √12 (ψA + eiφr ψB ), and we say that two condensates represented by ψA

and ψB have a well-defined relative phase φr . Even though for the two states the average
particle numbers in each single-particle state are equal to N/2, the coherent state is asuperposition of a number of number states with regular phase relations. Number states are21

states with fixed particle number in each single-particle state. Therefore, two condensates
having a well-defined relative phase means that there is corresponding uncertainty in particle
numbers of the two condensates with strong correlation among number states.
The above consideration may be extended to the case of a single condensate. Indeed,in the case of the coherent state, we can call the two condensates as a single condensate
because one single-particle wave function describes the whole system. If we rephrase thisstatement, we can claim that the relative phase of any two points in a single condensate
is well-defined and consequently there are corresponding density fluctuations in a single
condensate. This picture focus just on the internal phase relation in a condensate, notirritating our intuition by breaking particle number conservation. The definition of the longrange order parameter shows this intrinsic property of a condensate, even though it can not
be rigorously applied to a finite-size sample.

1.8

Outline of the Thesis

This thesis is organized as follows. Chapter 2 briefly describes experimental proceduresin our BEC apparatus and introduces the microtraps which we used for the experiments
presented in this thesis, such as an optical double-well trap and a magnetic microtrap on an
atom chip. Chapter 3 focuses on ‘coherent splitting’ experiments, where we tried to split
a condensate into two parts with a well-defined relative phase. Splitting was performed
by deforming a single-well potential into a double-well potential, and this scheme was implemented in an optical trap and a magnetic trap. Chapter 4 describes dynamics of two
optically coupled condensates. Two spatially separate condensates were optically coupled
via Bragg scattering, and phase-sensitive atomic currents were established between the twocondensates. The relative phase was optically read out and the coupling dynamics wereexperimentally investigated. Chapter 5 and 6 deal with somewhat different topics. Chapter 5 reports thermal relaxation processes in a double-well potential. With a condensate in
one well, a metastable state was prepared by making the other well deeper than the wellhaving the condensate. A new condensates formed up in the lower well and the distillation
process was studied. Chapter 6 describes vortex experiments with an atom chip. A doubly quantized vortex state were topologically imprinted by adiabatic spin rotation, and adoubly-quantized vortex core was observed to split into two singly-quantized vortex cores.
In Chapter 7, some concluding remarks and prospective are included.
Publications directly related to this thesis are added in Appendices B-H. Most of thecontents of this thesis are based on what we discussed in the publications. Although I tried
to put an original spin on discussing our work, large portions of the text reproduce the published work, especially when technical discussions were already optimized for publication.

22

Chapter 2

BEC Machine and Microtraps
Experimental techniques for producing Bose-Einstein condensates of gaseous atoms havebeen developed rapidly since the first realization in 1995 [15, 24] with pioneering breakthroughs such as a dark spontaneous force optical trap (dark-SPOT) [76] and a timeaveraged orbiting (TOP) trap [77]. Now, the technical recipe for making Bose-Einsteincondensates is well established. Moreover, Bose-Einstein condensates were created with all
optical methods [78] as well as in a miniaturized magnetic trap [79, 80].
All of the experiments described in this thesis were carried out with BEC-III machinein MIT. The first BEC with the machine was produced in early 2001. A comprehensive
description of the machine design and performance is provided in Ref. [81]. In this chapter, I
overview the experimental procedures in our apparatus with some maintenance information
for next users, and describe the microtraps used for the experiments, such as an optical
double-well trap and a magnetic microtrap on an atom chip. The development of atom
chips in MIT is outlined at the end of this chapter.

2.1

BEC Experiments in ‘Science’ Chamber

The BEC-III machine features itself for an auxiliary vacuum chamber - the ‘science’ chamber(SC).1 The purpose of the science chamber is to physically separate BEC experiment spacefrom BEC production space. In a conventional BEC apparatus, mechanical and opticalaccesses to condensates are restricted due to the presence of large magnetic coils and theoptics for laser cooling which are indispensable to BEC production. Adding new components
on the apparatus without disturbing the pre-existing production setup sometimes requires
serious compromises in designing a new experiment. Thus having separate experiment space
would give great flexibility to accommodate further complicated experiments and allow a
rapid cycle of various experiments as well. The high productivity of the BEC-III machine1

Some people prefer the nomenclature of ‘experiment’ chamber rather than ‘science’ chamber.

23

BEC Production

Transportation

Loading in Microtraps
Initialization

Figure 2-1: Experimental procedures with BEC-III machine. (a) A Bose-Einstein condensate of 23 Na atoms is generated in the production chamber after radio-frequency (rf)evaporation cooling in a Ioffe-Pritchard type magnetic trap. (b) The condensate is loaded
into optical tweezers and (c) transported into the science chamber by moving the focal spotof the optical tweezers. (d) The condensate is loaded into a microtrap and initialized forfurther designed experiments.

over the past four years with a very diverse range of experiments definitely proves thisadvantage. In Figure 2-1, the general experimental procedures with BEC-III machine areillustrated. A Bose-Einstein condensate is produced in the production chamber, and thenthe condensate is transported to the science chamber by using optical tweezers. Once thecondensate is located in the science chamber, it is initialized for a designated experiment;
ready to go for the BEC study.

2.1.1

Basic Operations

BEC experiments generally consist of three steps: 1) preparing condensates, 2) perturbing
and manipulating the condensates, and 3) observing or measuring the condensates’ responses. In this secion, I present a very brief overview of the basic operations: production,
manipulation, and imaging. For a more comprehensive review and detailed description of
hardware and experimental parameters, please refer to Ref. [58, 82, 81].

24

Production
Bose-Einstein condensates with 23 Na atoms in the |F = 1, mF = −1i state are createdin a static Ioffe-Pritchard magnetic trap. A slow thermal atomic beam out of a spinflip Zeeman slower is continuously loaded into a dark-SPOT [76] type magnetic-optical trap
(MOT) [83]. The Zeeman slower has a zero-field point along the axis to increase the capture
velocity of the slower. The slow thermal atomic beam has a mean velocity ∼ 30 m/s andatomic flux ∼ 1011 atoms/s. After turning off the atomic beam, atoms are additionallycooled down by applying a dark polarization-gradient cooling (PGC).2 For the PGC, thefrequency of the MOT beams is shifted further to the red and repumping sidebands areadded by an electro-optic modulator (EOM). Reviews on laser cooling techniques can befound in Ref. [84, 85, 86, 87]. Atoms in the |F = 1, mF = −1i state are captured in a
Ioffe-Pritchard (IP), cloverleaf magnetic trap. In a dark-SPOT MOT, most of atoms in thecenter region are in the |F = 1i state. However, we found that a small fraction of atoms

are optically pumped into the |F = 2i state by the strong slowing beam passing throughthe MOT cloud. This might be the reason why a stronger slowing beam results in smaller

condensates. After catching the atom cloud in a magnetic trap, forced evaporative coolingis applied using a radio frequency (rf) transition from the |F = 1, mF = −1i state to the|F = 1, mF = 0, +1i states. Typical condensates contain over 1.5 × 107 atoms.
Procedure
Atomic oven
Slowing and MOT loading
Dark PGC
Catching in a IP trap
rf-evaporation to BEC
Decompression
Loading in Tweezers
Transporting in the SC

Duration

Atom number(density)(1014 cm−3 )

2s
5 ms
1s
∼ 25 s
2s
0.5 s
2s

1010
∼ 1.5 × 107(1011 cm−3 )(1014 cm−3 )Temperature
530 K∼ 1 mK
100 µK∼ 500 nK

∼ 5 × 106
1 − 2 × 106

Table 2.1: Production procedures. Atoms are loaded in a MOT, cooled down to BEC, andtransferred to the science chamber. The duration of each procedure and the approximate
atom number, density and temperature after accomplishing each procedure are presented.

Laser system
When BEC-III machine was built, we shared a laser system with the BEC-I machine.
Because of high demand, we decided to build a new laser system for BEC-III machine, andin February 2003, BEC-III machine was equipped with its own laser system. The basic
2

It is called a ‘dark’ PGC because the most of atoms are in the dark state, |F = 1i. As far as I know,
the real mechanism of this dark PGC has never been investigated systematically.

25

design of the new laser system is identical to that of the old laser system. A 589 nm
yellow laser light is generated from a dye laser pumped by a 532 nm green laser. The laser
frequency is locked to a Fabry-Perot cavity, and the reference for the cavity is an externalsaturation-absorption spectroscopy (SAS) [88] lock-in scheme. One technically interesting
aspect is a 500-600 MHz high frequency acousto-optic modulator (AOM). The diffraction
efficiency of the AOM is as high as ∼ 60%, but the output mode is not good enough tomake the fiber-coupling efficiency over 60%. A schematic diagram of the laser system is in
Appendix A.

(a)

(b)

F'=3

m=-3 -2

58.3 MHz

3P3/2

15.9 MHz-1
1/15 1/5

F'=2
34.3 MHz
15.8 MHz

Trapping
F=2 probe

0

+1
2/5

+2
2/3

+3
1

3/5

8/15 1/3

m=-2 -10+1+2 F=2m=-2 -1

0

+1

+2

F'=1
F'=0

F'=3

589.158 nm
Repumping
F=1 probe

Slowing(1 GHz detuned)

(c)
F=2
1/12

664.359 MHz

3S1/2

1/3

1771.626 MHz

m=-1

F=1

(d)

1/4

atomic mass
wavelength
linewidth
saturation intensity
magnetic moment
cross section

0

F'=2

1/2

1/4
+1 F=1m = 3.81 x 10-26 kg
λ = 589.158 nm
Γ = 2π x 10 MHz
IS = 6.40 mW/cm2µ = µB/2 = 0.7 MHz/Gσge = 1.66 x 10-9 cm2

Figure 2-2: Sodium 23 Na energy levels and the relevant atomic transitions. (a) Laser coolingand optical imaging use the D2 line. Relative strength of the (b) |F = 2i → |F ′ = 3i and(c) |F = 1i → |F ′ = 2i electric dipole transitions [87]. Only σ + and half of π transitions
are indicated for simplicity. (d) Sodium atomic parameters.

Manipulation Tools
Manipulation of condensates can be categorized into three groups according to the atomic
properties effected: 1) center-of-mass motion, 2) atomic transition, and 3) atomic collision.
26

• Center-of-mass motion - Magnetic force and optical dipole force are included in thiscategory, which affect the external motion of atoms in condensates. These forces are basedon the magnetic and electric dipole moments of atoms. Potentials with desired configurations can be formed by tailoring the spatial pattern of external fields such as magnetic field
and laser beam intensity. All BEC experiments use a trapping potential to isolate atoms
from hot and decoherencing environment. The optical dipole potential relies on dipole transitions between excited states and the ground state, i.e., ac Stark shifts, and it can confine
atoms in any magnetic state, allowing the study of spinor condensates, which is impossible in an magnetic trap confining atoms only in weak-field seeking states. Furthermore,
the laser frequency dependence of optical potential [89] and the interference effects of laser
beams provide much wider applications such spin-dependent optical lattice potential [90].
In the experiments described in Chapter 3, condensates wave functions were dynamically
deformed by changing the geometry of trapping potentials.
• Atomic transition - Atomic optical transition and magnetic transition are used toprepare condensates in target states. This category contains, for examples, Bragg transitions between different external momentum states and Raman transitions between different
atomic internal states. Bragg scattering provides a robust probing method for the dynamical
structure factor of condensates [91, 92]. In the experiments described in Chapter 4, Bragg
scattering was used for detecting the relative phase of two condensates [11] and opticallycoupling two separate condensates [5].
• Atomic collision - BEC dynamics is strongly affected by atom-atom interactions whichmake atomic condensates an interesting system for many-body physics and nonlinear atom

optics. The effective atom-atom interactions are determined by the scattering propertiesof atoms. The scattering properties are adjustable with external magnetic field. Since anatom has a magnetic moment and consequently the energy levels of the molecular states of
two colliding atoms depend on a magnetic field, a scattering resonance happens when theenergy of the bound molecular state crosses zero. At this moment the effective scattering
length diverges. This is called Feshbach resonance [93], which gives a substantial freedom
to atomic systems with quantum degenerate gases: an experimental knob for tuning atomatom interactions. This method allows the study of BEC-BCS crossover.
Transport and Optical Tweezers
The optical tweezers is our method to transport condensates from the main (production)chamber to the Science chamber. The idea is straightforward: loading condensates in an
optical dipole trap and moving the center of the optical trap, i.e., the focal spot of thelaser beam to the target position in the Science chamber. A schematic setup for the opticaltweezers for transportation is provided in Figure 2-3. The early developing story of the27

Science Chamber Main Chamber
M2

B
B‘

A‘
L3

L2

A
L1

M1

Figure 2-3: Experimental setup for optical tweezers. The collimated infrared (IR) beam is
focused by the tweezers lens L1 and the focal point of the tweezers lens is transferred by
the one-to-one telescope (L2 and L3 ), forming optical tweezers in the vacuum chambers.
By moving the tweezers lens in the longitudinal propagation direction, the optical tweezers
correspondingly move between the production chamber and the science chamber. When the
optical tweezers are located in the center of the production chamber (A′ ), the focal point of
the tweezers lens is placed on the first mirror M1 so that the position A′ is adjusted by thesecond mirror M2 . On the other hand, when the optical tweezers are located in the centerof the science chamber (B ′ ), the focal point of the tweezers lens is placed on the second
mirror M2 so that the position B ′ is adjusted by the first mirror M1 .

optical tweezers is described in Ref. [81]. The first lens is mounted on a linear air-bearing
translation stage.3 The trajectory of the translation stage has a trapezoidal acceleration
profile where the acceleration linearly increases and decreases to ensure the total travel
time for a given distance. The power of the optical tweezers is roughly proportional to thetraveling velocity.4
The trajectory of the optical tweezers should pass two points in the chambers. One is
the initial position of condensates in the main chamber and the other one is the center ofa microtrap in the science chamber. In order to facilitate the two-point alignment of the
optical tweezers, two mirrors are placed in the beam path before the one-to-one telescope
and the axial positions of two mirrors were selected to make them correspond to the focal
positions in the main chamber and the science chamber. This configuration allows, ideally,
to move independently the tweezers position in the main chamber and in the science chamberby adjusting one of the mirror at time. Please see Figure 2-3 for details. The positions of
the focal spot in the main chamber and the science chamber can be adjusted independently
to some extent. This design is extremely helpful when we have two different experiment
setups in the science chamber and change the final position of the optical tweezers every
other day.
3

Aerotech ABL20040
The first intuition suggests that the power should be proportional to the acceleration. The power profile
was empirically adjusted.
428

Optical Imaging
Most of the data presented in this thesis was acquired by taking destructive, absorption
images. Two atomic transitions were used for this purpose: the |F = 1, mF = −1i → |F ′ =2, m′F = −2i transition (F = 1 image) and the |F = 2, mF = −2i → |F ′ = 3, m′F = −3icycling transition (F = 2 image). For F = 2 images, condensates in the F = 1 hyperfine

level were optically pumped into the F = 2 hyperfine level, and then imaged by the resonant
probe beam. The images are focused on a CCD camera. An absorption image of atoms
in a trap directly provides the spatial distribution of the trapped atoms. An absorption
image after ballistic expansion by releasing atoms out of the trap provides the momentum
distribution of the atoms.5
Absorption images provide the column density of atomic clouds integrated along theprobe beam direction. The total number of atoms, N , in the absorption images taken alongz-direction is given
N=

Z

dxdy

− ln(t(x, y))A X=− ln(t̄(x, y)),σ0σ0 pixels(2.1)

where σ0 is the resonant cross-section, A is the pixel area in the image. t is the transmission,and t̄ is the coarse averaged transmission over the pixel area. For F = 2 images, σ0 =3λ2 /2π, and for F = 1 images, σ0 = 3λ2 /4π, where λ is the resonance wavelength of the
optical transition.
Other image techniques such as absorption imaging, phase-contrast imaging [94], andfluorescent imaging may be used according to the purpose of experiments. Detailed description on the quantitative analysis of absorption images is provided in Ref. [58].

2.1.2

Machine Maintenance

BEC-III machine has been operated about for five years without major problems, whichreflects that the machine was designed out of valuable experiences with the previous generation BEC machines. In the following, several maintenance notes are presented.
• Sodium oven - The sodium oven is one of the main parts requiring periodic mainte-

nance. We have to open the oven for regular oven cleaning and sodium refill. We added a
45◦ elbow in front of the half-nipple sodium cup to prevent spilling-over and accommodate
more sodium. With 25 g sodium, the operation lifetime showed over 2000 hr which corresponds to the duration of six-month intensive operation. The oven ion pump seems to be
degrading. When the oven was designed, an elbow and a Chevron baffle were connected
to prevent the ion pump from being seriously poisoned by alkalis, but five-year exposure5

During expansion, the mean-field energy of condensates is converted to kinetic energy, giving faster
expansion in the more tightly confining direction.

29

to the running condition may be too much for the ion pump. When the oven was vented
and re-pumped out, baking-out of the ion pump turns out to be necessary for achieving thetypical pressure ∼ 5 × 10− 8 torr at the running condition.

• Science chamber pumping body - The pumping body for the science chamber was

replaced to improve the vacuum in the chamber. In the new pumping body, the ion pumpare placed farther away from the science chamber in order to reduce the effect of fields fromthe ion pump magnet on the experiments. For future reference, the design of the pumping
body is included in Appendix. A.
• Replacing experiment setups in the science chamber - Experiment setups in the sci-ence chamber have been replaced almost every six months. Because the safe region in thescience chamber for the optical tweezers to deliver condensates without any serious problem
is horizontally ∼ 1′′ , the large 6′′ -cube science chamber can support a couple of different experiment setups if they do not conflict over optical accesses for probing. Setup replacementtakes less than two weeks: venting the chamber, installing new setups, attaining ultra-highvacuum (UHV), and making condensates. Typically, new experiment setups are pre-baked
in a test chamber, which helps to get UHV back in the science chamber. In the case of awell-prepared setup, four-day baking at ∼ 150 ◦ C is enough to reach the typical vacuum of∼ 1 × 10−10 torr.

2.2

Optical Double-Well Trap

Figure 2-4 shows a schematic diagram of the optical setup for an optical double-well potential which is used for the experiments described in Chapters 3, 4, 5. The separation of
two traps is dynamically controlled by the frequency difference of the driving rf signals andthe depths of the optical traps were stabilized by giving a negative feedback to the powerof the rf signals. It is helpful to select a frequency range where the diffraction efficiency of
the AOM is almost uniform. The total power of the laser beam was monitored, and using
a pinhole, the power of one of the two diffracted beam was preferentially monitored, too.
This double monitoring allows stabilizing the trap depths individually. The optical traps
were turned off by switching off the rf signals with additional help of a fast LCD shutter to
get rid of leakage lights.
Since the separation of two traps is determined by the frequency difference of the driving
rf signals, the trap position fluctuations due to mechanical vibrations of in-transit mirrors
is common to both traps. This common-mode rejection feature is crucial to experiments
requiring a precise double-well potential. Another advantage of using an AOM is that two
optical traps are automatically co-planar, which is important to observe the matter wave
interference of two condensates. We tried to generate an optical double-well potential with

30

F
AOM

F

BB

θ

d
f1, f2PBS
LCD
Shutter

PD2

PD1

Figure 2-4: Schematic diagram of the optical setup for an optical double-well trap. An
acousto-optic modulator (AOM) is driven simultaneously by two frequencies, f1 and f2 ,and diffracted a collimated infrared (IR) beam into two beams. The AOM is placed in
the focal plane of a lens of focal length F so that after the lens, the two diffracted beams
propagate parallel to each other forming two optical traps. The radial separation of thetwo traps, d, is controlled by the frequency difference, ∆f = |f1 − f2 |, determining thediffraction angle difference, θ. The zeroth order beam is blocked before the lens (BB). The
laser beams for the optical traps are sampled out and monitored by photo diodes. Photo
diode 2 (PD2) preferentially monitors one of the beams.

two independent optical traps using two polarization beam splitters (PBSs), but we could
not observe matter wave interference with them, which we attributed to the possible twistof the axes of the two traps. However, one technical note for using an AOM for generating
a muti-well potential is that the beam profile of the diffracted beam seems to be affectedby the presence of the other diffracted beam. Extreme care was required.

2.3

Magnetic Microtrap on an Atom Chip

The concept of an atom chip was introduced with the idea of integrating atom-optics elements on a microfabricated device [95]. The fabrication technology, which has flourishedin the micro-electronics industry, makes this idea conceivable. Miniaturizing and aligning atom-optics elements with sub-micron precision would significantly improve control
over atoms. Furthermore, since in the proximity of the potential source the field gradientis higher and the length scale of the potential is smaller, using the proximity of miniaturized atom-optics elements would allow tighter confinement with small power consumption and more precise positioning of atoms. At first, atom chips were developed based on
millimeter-size current-carrying wires. Magnetic wave guides [96, 97], microtraps [98, 99],
and beam splitters [100] were experimentally demonstrated with thermal atoms. Recently,
Bose-Einstein condensed atoms were added on this atom chip technology [79, 80], opening31Laser / e-beam

Lithography

Mask
ResistSeed layer / Adhesion layer
Substrate

Developing

Deposition
Electroplating

Evaporation

Stripping

Stripping / Lift-off

Figure 2-5: Fabrication process for conducting wires on an atom chip. The pattern ofwires is defined on a substrate using lithography technique. Conducting wires grow on
the substrate with evaporation or (and) electroplating. The final structure is established bychemical processes. For technical information for each fabrication process, refer to Ref. [106].

the prospect for chip-based atom optics with Bose-Einstein condensates as coherent matterwave source [6, 101, 102, 103].
Atom chip technology keeps being developed, including the integration of optical andelectric components on a chip as well as magnetic components and extending its format
to magnetic films, hard disks, and ferromagnets. Comprehensive reviews on the working
principles of microtraps and atom chip fabrication can be found in Ref. [104, 105].

2.3.1

Chip Fabrication

The fabrication procedures for conducting wires on a substrate are illustrated in Figure 2-5.
Compared to typical chip devices, an atom chip is a current-based device; the current distribution directly affects the magnetic potential on a chip so that controlling the homogeneous
conductivity and the uniform shape of wires determines the performance of the atom chip.
Furthermore, the situation becomes more non-trivial because the cross section of the wires
should be larger than several ten µm2 to accommodate an operating current of a few A. The
thickness of wires on atom chips will be a few µm, much larger than in thin film (< 1 µm)
applications in typical micro-electronics.
Fabricating very uniform conducting wires with a thick metal film is the technical challenge in the atom chip fabrication. Considering the advantage of using the proximity of32

wires for tighter confinement, we might suggest to bring atoms closer to the wires in orderto reduce the operation current. However, proximity effects put fundamental limits on theclosest distance from the wires, which will be described in the next subsection. Practically,
fabrication processes and materials should be carefully selected according to the purpose ofexperiments.

2.3.2

Proximity Effects

Using the proximity of the potential source allows tighter confinement with small power
consumption and accurate manipulation of atoms. However, there could be some problems
about placing an ultra-cold atom cloud very close to a room-temperature surface. The
magnetic field on an atom chip is directly determined by the current distribution in thewires of the atom chip, and thus, if the current distribution is not perfectly controlled,
atoms would be affected in an uncontrollable way. Placed closer to the wires, atoms will
be more sensitive to imperfections of the current distribution. When an atom in the |F =1, mF = −1i state is placed 100 µm away from a straight wire carrying 1 A, the magnetic
potential of the atom is 14 MHz, so a small deviation of the current would make a potential
variation comparable to condensate’s chemical potential which is typically a few kHz.
Proximity effects due to the imperfections of the current distribution can be divided
into two groups: static and dynamic. Static effects are about spatial fluctuation of thecurrent distribution. Spatial fragmentation of a condensates near a current-carrying wire
was reported in several atom chip experiments [6, 107, 9, 108], and it was found that thisfragmentation effect is caused by current path deviations within the conducting wires, i.e.,current was not flowing straight so that the magnetic potential along the wire is not uniform [109, 110, 111, 112]. The potential roughness can happen due to imperfect fabricationof wires such as corrugated edges, rough top surface, and inhomogeneous deposition of conducting material. Even for very straight wires, current deviations may arise from otherfundamental mechanism such as electromigration [113, 114]. The best uniformity in thegeometrical shape of wires was reported in Ref. [115], where electron beam lithography
and a lift-off procedure were used for making the atom chip. However, they still observed
potential roughness and suggested the role of local fluctuations in wire composition.
On the other hand, dynamic proximity effects are about temporal fluctuations of thecurrent distribution, i.e., noise currents in wires. The current noises are fundamental or
technical. At a finite temperature, currents are generated by thermal agitation of electrons
in a conductor, which is called Johnson thermal noise [116]. In magnetic traps, atoms
experience magnetic field fluctuations due to the current noise, which have harmful effects
such as spin-flip induced trap loss, heating, and decoherence. The field fluctuations might
induce magnetic transitions between Zeeman sublevels. Spin-flipped atoms are repelled
33

from the magnetic trap. Field fluctuations could also shake the magnetic trap and heat up
the atoms into higher vibration modes. Heating and reduced trap lifetime near a currentcarrying wire were reported in early atom chip experiments [80, 107, 9]. Direct comparisonof experimental results with theoretical predictions requires more careful and systematic
controls for clear distinction of the effects of the fundamental noises from those of technicalnoises [9]. Recent observations [108, 117, 118] showed good agreement with theoreticalpredictions [119, 120, 121], showing a fundamental limit to the lifetime of condensates neara conducting wire.
The proximity effects restrict atom chip design in a serious way. With regard to coherent
manipulation, decoherence due to spatially inhomogeneous field fluctuation [122, 123, 124] isa formidable problem to be solved or might be a failure reason for further application such asatom interferometry and quantum information processing. However, various experimental
and theoretical investigations for solving or circumventing these problems are undergoing.
Long coherence lifetime for internal states was observed with a high value of magnetic
field [125], and interestingly, use of dilute alloys of noble metals was suggested to reducethe magnetic noises at low temperature [126].

2.3.3

Current Capacity

The limiting factor for the current capacity for a wire is the increase of the wire temperature
due to ohmic heating. The electric resistivity of the wires will subsequently increase so thatthe heating effect is exponentially accelerated and ends up blowing the wire off. This is
how a fuse works to prevent over-current. Therefore, the solution for improving the current
capacity of a chip wire is clear: decreasing the electric resistivity of the wire and increasing
the thermal conductance to the substrate.
In terms of bulk electric resistivity (Ag: 1.6 µΩ·cm, Cu: 1.7 µΩ·cm, Au: 2.2 µΩ·cm),
Ag can be called the best candidate for the conducting material for wires. However, it wasreported that Au shows the best performance when microfabricated in small wires, reachingcurrent densities ∼ 108 A/cm2 at liquid nitrogen temperature [127] and > 107 A/cm2 atroom temperature [128]. Current density of 107 A/cm2 means that 1 A can flow in a wire of

1 µm height and 10 µm width. Superconductors are excluded in this consideration becauseof the fundamental limitation on the maximum current density, such as the critical field andflux pinning. In our atom chip development, the sheet resistance of 2 µm-thick evaporated
Au film was measured to less than 0.015 Ω/sq. which corresponds to 75 % of the bulk
conductivity.6
An ideal substrate for an atom chip should be a good electric insulator for preventing
leakage currents and a good thermal conductor for fast heat dissipation. We tested silicon
6

For Au film deposition, we used an external vendor. (Thinfilms, Inc./www.thinfilmsinc.com)

34

Property
Thermal conductivity
Heat capacity
Thermal expansion
Density
Electric resistivity

Unit
W/mK
J/kg mK
10−6 /◦ C
g/cm3
Ω·cm

Si
163
700
4.2
2.3

Al2 O327.2
419
5.6/5.0
3.97> 1014

AlN
170-190
800-1000
4.6
3.3> 1014

Al
237
900
2.7

Table 2.2: Relevant properties of substrate materials. Al2 O3 has different thermal expansion
rates depending on the expanding axis. The data for Al is for comparison.

(Si) substrates, sapphire (Al2 O3 ), and aluminium nitride (AlN). Relevant properties ofthese material are provided in Table. 2.2. All of them have proper electric and thermal
properties and have been reported to be used as a chip substrate. Sapphire is attractive forits high optical transmission allowing more optical accesses to atoms. However, it showed
relatively poor performance in our test experiments. When a sapphire substrate experienced
extreme local heating of a current-carrying wire, it cracked. The chip failure was causedby substrate cracking, not by wire blowing-up. We attribute this result to its relatively low
thermal conductivity and thermal expansion coefficients which have different values for two
crystal axes. Sapphire seems to be physically vulnerable to high temperature gradients.
AlN has as good thermal conductivity as aluminum and Si and it is perfectly insulating
as a ceramic material. One technical problem with AlN is that the surface roughness ofcommercially polished AlN substrates is > 1 µm, which affects the straightness of the metal
wires.7 We found the best solution for our chip substrate to be Si.

2.3.4

Chip Development at MIT

An atom chip setup consists of an atom chip, supporting structure, and electric connection
parts. Figure 2-6(d) shows how the components were assembled. The atom chip was glued
on an Al base block for better heat dissipation. A vacuum compatible epoxy with highthermal conductivity8 was used, which significantly helped improve the current capacity ofchip wires. The Al block with the atom chip was secured by four stainless rods welded ona vacuum CF flange with a 25-pin type-D electrical feedthrough.9 Then, the atom chip
was electrically connected with a kapton coated UHV ribbon cable to the feedthrough.
For connecting external wires to the atom chip, several methods such as spot-welding,mechanical clamping, and soldering were used.
Since 2001, atom chip experiments have been carried out in BEC-III machine and several
7

In private communication, Anderson group in JILA claimed that they developed a special polishingtechnique for AlN substrates.
8
H77 from epoxy technology (www.epotek.com)
9
MDC vacuum products corp. (www.mdc-vacuum.com) The feedthrough could handle up to 6 A without
any vacuum problem. The toughest test condition was 4 pins having 6 A individually.

35

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 2-6: Photographs of atom chip sets. (a) Atom chip-I (2001). (b) Atom chip-III(2003). (c) Atom chip-IV (2004). (d) Atom chip-V (2005). The dimension of the aluminumbase block in each image is 2′′ × 2′′ × 0.5′′ . The features of each atom chip are described in
the text.

36

atom chips were developed. In the following, I describe the features of each atom chip andthe technical problems we experienced with each generation. Photo images of the atom chip
setups are provided in Figure 2-6.
Atom chip-I (October 2001) featured a Z-wire trap and a straight magnetic wave guide.
The atom chip was fabricated by the Microsystems Technology Laboratories in MIT. Copper
wires were electroplated to a thickness of 10 µm and the current capacity of a 50 µm-wide
wire was less than 1.8 A in a continuous mode. The wire connection was done with spotwelding technique. However, after high temperature baking (∼ 200◦ C), 70% of connections
fell off so that we could not make full use of all wires on the chip. Excitationless propagationof condensates in a magnetic waveguide [6] and topological formation of vortex states [8]were demonstrated. Furthermore, the spatial fragmentation of condensates near a wire was
first reported with this chip [6], and the proximity effects were subsequently studied [9].
From the second generation, we have collaborated with Mukund Vengalattore at Harvard, Prentiss group. We provided him with optical masks and metal-filmed substrates, andhe fabricated atom chips for us. Atom chip-II (December 2002) was designed for generatinga double-well potential using a two-wire scheme [129]. The chip surface faced sideways inorder to open a vertical optical access. Electric connection was done by a mechanical clamping method. A group of several wires were pressed down on the corresponding connection
pads by a single ceramic bar. Unfortunately, the chip performance was disastrous after
high temperature baking; non-negligible leakage currents run between wires which were
supposed to be isolated. We attributed this failure to the breakdown of the insulating layer
due to the combination of high pressure from the clamps and high baking temperature.
Because several wires were placed under one single clamping bar, to ensure that all wires
were connected it was likely to overpressure the external wires on the chip.
With lessons from Atom chip-II, we improved a couple of issues with Atom chip-III(October 2003). To avoid possible overpressure, we individually clamped down externalwires on the chip connection pads. A small piece of ceramic was glued on the end of a small
screw, and this screw worked as a single clamp secured by a Al holder which provides aspring effect due to its long arm. The structure can be seen in Figure 2-6(b). Also, theother vacuum components except the atom chip were pre-baked in a test chamber at hightemperature and the real chip setup was mildly baked in the science chamber at less than150◦ C. This individual clamping method was successful. The design of Atom chip-III was
similar to that of Atom chip-II, but it has independent endcap wires, which enabled us to
study the stability of a doubly quantized vortex state [3].
The goal of Atom chip-IV design (July 2004) was to generate a double-well potential
with trapping parameters similar to the optical double-well potential [1] where we demonstrated the feasibility of coherent splitting. To achieve the trapping condition without being

37

(b)

(a)

24mm
R

R‘

(d)
30mm

(c)

S S‘

Q

Front

P P‘

Back

Q‘

Figure 2-7: Wire patterns of the atom chip. (a) Atom chip-III with four individual endcap
wires. A thick line on the right side is a RF antenna. (b) Atom chip-IV. Various spacing
between wires for a two-wire scheme. (c) Atom chip-V. Several modulated wires are placedon the right side of the chip. (d) Atom chip-VI. The chip is designed double-sided for
implementing the axial splitting.

affected by the proximity effects, we improved the current capacity of chip wires. The chip
wires of 12 µm height and 50 µm width were electroplated with Au on a thermally oxidized Si substrate with a 2-µm-thick Au evaporated film. With this hybrid deposition, we
could increas the current capacity to 6 A in a continuous mode. Chapter 3 has a detailed
description of the chip setup.
Atom chip-V (June 2005) was prepared for the experiment of guiding atoms inside ahollow core photonic crystal fiber. Such a fiber is based on an omnidirectional Bragg reflector
formed by a regular array of holes and is able to guide the light inside a hollow core. The
atoms can be guided by the light inside the fiber and hopefully trapped and transported
efficiently to distant location. The motivation of the experiment is using an atom chip asa precise positioning tool for atoms which may solve the atom-injection problems. Insteadof using clamps, external wires were soldered on the chip in order to have open space for
integrating a hollow fiber on the atom chip. Silver solder with a high melting point10 wasused for baking and vacuum properties. Technical details for soldering were taken careof by Gyuboong Jo. At the moment when I write this thesis, Atom chip-VI for atominterferometry is in preparation.
10

Amtech solder products, Inc. (www.amtechinc.com)

38

Chapter 3

Coherent Splitting of a Condensate
in a Double-Well Potential
This chapter describes experimental efforts to demonstrate a coherent beam splitter for
developing a chip-based confined-atom interferometer. The results were reported in thefollowing publications:• Y. Shin, M. Saba, T. A. Pasquini, W. Ketterle, D. E. Pritchard, and A. E. Leanhardt, Atom Interferometry with Bose-Einstein Condensates in a Double-Well Potential, Physical Review Letters 92, 050405 (2004). Included in Appendix B.
• Y. Shin, C. Sanner, G.-B. Jo, T. A. Pasquini, M. Saba, W. Ketterle, D. E. Pritchard,
M. Vengalattore and M. Prentiss, Interference of Bose-Einstein Condensates split withan Atom Chip, Physical Review A 72, 021604(R) (2005). Included in Appendix C.
An interferometer is a measurement device based on the wave nature of probe particles.
The working principle of the interferometers is that the probe particles are coherently split
into two or more paths and then recombined to read out the phase difference among thepaths. Thanks to the intrinsic sensitivity of atoms to the environment, atom interferometers
have been used to sense accelerations [130, 37] and rotations [131, 132], monitor quantum
decoherence [133], characterize atomic and molecular properties [134], and measure fundamental constants [130, 135], showing comparable or even better performances than the
optical counterparts. It had been anticipated that exploiting Bose-Einstein condensed atoms
would upgrade the conventional thermal-atom interferometers: Bose-Einstein condensates
having a uniform quantum phase are to matter wave interferometry what lasers are to optical interferometry, i.e. a coherent, single-mode, and highly brilliant source. Moreover,atom interferometry with confined particles has the prospects of improving flexibility andcapability in analogy with optical interferometry using fiber-optic devices.
Diverse atom optical elements such as mirrors, beam splitters, gratings and waveguides
were introduced, and have been developed for the coherent manipulation of matter waves.
39

An atom chip, as described in Section 2.3, integrates these elements on a microfabricateddevice allowing for precise and stable alignment [96, 97, 99]. Recently, this atom chiptechnology has been combined with Bose-Einstein condensed atoms [79, 80], and opened
the prospect for chip-based confined-atom interferometers with Bose-Einstein condensates.
Current proposals for confined-atom interferometers rely on a dynamic method: Splitting an atomic wave packet by deforming a single potential well into two potential wells
and recombining the atomic wave packets by the reverse process [129, 136, 137]. This
chapter deals with our experimental efforts to implement this scheme with Bose-Einsteincondensates in optical and magnetic microtraps. In Section 3.1, I depict the dynamics ofa Bose-Einstein condensates in a double-well potential and outline relevant physics for coherent dynamic splitting. In the next two section, I describe the experimental study on
dynamic splitting of Bose-Einstein condensates in a double-well potential.
There are two sets of experiments. The first set of the experiments (Section 3.2) used an
optical double-well that was introduced in Section 2.2. We demonstrated coherent splittingof Bose-Einstein condensates and performed a trapped atom interferometer with the optical
double-well system [1]. These results are remarkable in that the experimental feasibility ofthe scheme for confined-atom interferometers based on dynamic splitting is confirmed. In
addition to technical challenges related to adiabatic manipulation of matter waves, it has
not been even theoretically clear if the two condensates generated after macroscopic large
splitting end up in a phase-coherent state or a number-squeezed state [138, 139, 140, 141].
A central prerequisite for confined-atom interferometers was demonstrated: A condensate
can be coherently split into two halves with a determined relative phase and the two halves
can be separated by an arbitrary distance, much larger than the dimension of the original
condensate.
In the second set of the experiments (Section 3.3), we studied the dynamical splitting ofcondensates in a purely magnetic double-well potential on an atom chip. Inspired by the observation of coherent dynamic splitting with an optical double-well potential in the previous
experiments, we developed an atom chip capable of duplicating the previous experimental
conditions such as trap confinement and trapping geometry, which is a quite reasonablestrategy for developing a chip-based atom interferometer. Matter wave interference of two
split condensates was observed, from which the coherence of the splitting process was investigated. It was found that the stability of the magnetic double-well potential needs tobe improved for coherent splitting. I propose several alternative schemes.

40

3.1

Dynamic Splitting of Condensates

Coherent splitting of matter waves is dividing the matter waves into two different wave
packets with a well-defined relative phase, which is a prerequisite for further applications
such as atom interferometry and quantum information processing. The methods envisioned
for coherent splitting can be divided in two classes. One is splitting in momentum spaceand subsequently generating a spatial separation, using scattering of atoms from a periodic
optical potential [142, 102]. The other is dynamic splitting by directly deforming a single
wave packet into two spatially separate wave packets, which can be considered as cutting
off the weak link between two wave packets, i.e., stopping tunneling through the barrier
separating two wave packets. Splitting in momentum space has led to remarkably cleaninterferometric measurements and this method was generally used in atom interferometers
using thermal atoms in free space. However, it has been pointed out that momentum
splitting is not always accompanied by full spatial separation of the two wave packets sothat spatially dependent phase shifts induced by atom-atom interactions during separation
are problematic [102, 143]. Dynamic splitting in real space instead is perfectly compatible
with keeping atoms confined, a feature beneficial to the versatility of interferometers.

3.1.1

BEC in a Double-Well Potential

Dynamic splitting of a Bose-Einstein condensate has been theoretically studied in the context of two coupled condensates in a double-well potential, which is one of the simplest extensions of the study of a single condensate. Since a Bose-Einstein condensate is describedby a macroscopic wave function with an arbitrary but fixed phase, the double-well system
has quantum tunneling through a potential barrier separating two condensates. Moreover,atom-atom interactions in condensates add to the simple single-particle quantum tunnelingsystem richer physics such as Josephson effects [144] which are direct manifestation of thephase of a macroscopic quantum system.
The governing Hamiltonian in the double-well system can be represented by nonlinear
time-dependent many-body Schrödinger equations, which are, however, generally known
to be difficult to solve. Most of theoretical investigations were based on the two-mode
approximation [145, 146, 141], where the state space of the system is restricted to a smaller
space spanned by only two single-particle states. Usually, the two states are the motional
ground states for each well or equivalently, the left state φL and the right state φR , aresimply constructed from the single-particle ground state φg and the first excited state φeof the double well potential. φL ≡ √12 (φg + φe ) and φR ≡ √12 (φg − φe ) are localized in
the left well and the right well, respectively. φL (t) and φR (t) may be functions of time

especially when the double-well potential transforms in dynamic splitting process. There

41

might be another recipe for the two states: constructing the two wave functions from theGross-Pitaevskii equations in each well with a given atom number and updating them withatom numbers in each well changing during evolution. However, this method is not only
numerically heavy but also unnecessary for our purpose to obtain insights on the underlying
physics.
The simplified Hamiltonian in the restricted state-space is given as1†2 2
2
H = −g(U1 − 2U2 )a†L a†R aL aR − J[a†L aR + a†R aL ] + gU2 [a†2
L aR + aR aL ],
2

(3.1)

where a†L and a†R are the mode creation operators for φL and φR , respectively. U1 =R

dx|φL,R |4 represents on-site atom-atom interaction in one well and U2 =R

dx|φL |2 |φR |2

represents atom-atom interaction between the two wells. The first term is proportional tothe product of the atom numbers in each well, NL NR = ha†L aL a†R aR i, the second term

represents single-particle hopping with the effective single-particle tunneling strength, J,1

and the third term represents two-particle hopping which will be ignored in the following
description. We assumed that φL and φR are symmetric and ignored the term proportional
to the total atom number, N = NL + NR = ha†L aL + a†R aR i. The complete derivation canbe found in Ref. [141].

What is the many-body ground state for this Hamiltonian? The ground state is determined out of the competition between the on-site interaction energy and the tunnelingenergy. Two limiting cases help understand the physical effects of the energy terms. When
there are no atom-atom interactions, i.e., g = 0, the ground state is the one with all atoms
in the state φg = √12 (φL + φR ), a coherent state with a definite relative phase. On theother hand, when tunneling is prohibited, i.e., J = 0, the minimization of the total energy
suggests that the ground state is the one with equal population in each well because NL NR
has a minimum value at NL = NR for fixed N . Therefore, the tunneling-dominated situation has the ground state close to a coherent state having a well-defined relative phase,and the interaction-dominated situation has the ground state close to a Fock state having
fixed atom numbers for the two wells. In a periodic potential such as an optical lattice, thesuperfluid-Mott insulator transition originates from the same physical mechanism.
The dynamics of a Bose-Einstein condensate in a double-well potential has been theoretically investigated by many authors, in particular focusing on nonlinear Josephson oscillations. The physical origin of the phenomena is the nonlinear coupling between the relative
phase and the population imbalance of two condensates; the two variables are quantummechanically conjugate to each other.2 Since the population imbalance is not accessible
1

J = J0 − gN UR
3 , where J0 is the ideal single-particle tunneling rate, N = NL + NR is the total atom
number, and U3 = dx|φL |2 φ∗L φR .
2
In a thermodynamical limit, N ≫ 1.

42

with superconductor Josephson junctions, the system of two coupled atomic condensatesallows the investigations of novel effects such as macroscopic quantum self-trapping [147]and π-phase oscillations [148].
A real situation of Bose-Einstein condensates in a double-well potential may have more
complicated and interesting physics originated from additional terms ignored in Eq. (3.1).
In the experimental situations described in Chapter 4 and 5, the tunneling term is extremely
negligible. Instead, the experiment in Chapter 4 deals with an external, optical coherent
coupling between two condensates and the experiment in Chapter 5 deals with incoherent
thermal coupling between two condensates at finite temperature.

3.1.2

Requirements for Coherent Dynamic Splitting

Coherent dynamic splitting is equivalent to decreasing the tunneling rate J → 0 resulting

in a final coherent state with a well-defined relative phase. This splitting can be physically implemented by increasing the height of the potential barrier between the two wells.
However, as explained in the previous subsection, the true ground state with J = 0 is a
Fock state with a completely random relative phase. When we start with a coherent statewith large tunneling and increase the height of the potential barrier, the number fluctuation
tends to evolve from Poissonian to sub-Poissonian increasing the uncertainty of the relative

phase [146]. Therefore, an extremely slow splitting process satisfying the adiabaticity of theinternal phase dynamics over the whole process will never generate a coherent state, whichsuggests one criterion for the upper bound for the time scale of the splitting process.
Fundamental limits on the phase coherence between isolated condensates arise due tothe phase diffusion [149, 138, 139, 140, 141]. A coherent state is a superposition of many
number states. Due to atom-atom interaction, the energy of a number state nonlinearly
depends on the atom number, which cause the relative phase to naturally diffuse [149, 138].
This phase diffusion gives another consideration for the upper bound: The splitting process
is required to be finished before the relative phase diffuses away.
One of the conceivable methods for coherent dynamic splitting might be abruptly removing the tunneling between the two wells. However, the abrupt rise of the potential barrier
and the accompanying rapid change in the double well potential would induce collective
excitations in the initially stationary condensate. Therefore the splitting process should
be slow enough to keep the condensates in the stationary ground states of the resulting
individual wells. The time scale for ramping up the potential barrier needs to be larger
than the oscillation period which is the inverse of the trap frequency.
In conclusion, coherent dynamic splitting requires to be diabatic with respect to theinternal phase dynamics and adiabatic with respect to the external motional dynamics.
The detailed analysis on the adiabaticity conditions for coherent dynamic splitting can be
43

found in Ref. [145, 146, 141].

3.2

Coherent Splitting in an Optical Double-Well Potential

Dynamic splitting of Bose-Einstein condensates was investigated first with an optical doublewell potential. Condensates were initially loaded from the tweezers into an optical trap
shown in figure 3-1(a). The potential barrier between the two wells was smaller than thepeak atomic mean field energy so that the trap was characterized as a single-well containing
a single connected condensate with a uniform phase. Starting with the dimpled single-welltrap was beneficial to reduce collective excitations accompanying the splitting process, suchas radial dipole oscillations. Increasing the barrier height without changing the centers of
the two wells might be more ideal in terms of quietness, but in atom interferometry larger
separation is preferred. After holding the cloud in this dimpled single-well trap over 10 s todamp excitations which might have been caused during the loading procedure, condensates
were almost stationary.
(a)

(b)

(c)
U0

di

df

x
g

Figure 3-1: Splitting Procedure in an optical double-well potential. A Bose-Einstein condensate was split into two parts by deforming (a) an optical single-well potential into (b)a double-well potential. The experimental setup for the optical double-well potential was
described in Section 2.2. The 1/e2 -intensity radius of the focused beam corresponding to asingle-well potential was 5 µm. In the typical experimental condition, the separation of thetwo well di = 6 µm for initial single-well trap and df = 13 µm for final double-well trap. A
single, isolated potential well had trap depth of U0 = h × 5 kHz, which was determined frominterferometric measurements described in Section 3.2.2, and radial (axial) trap frequency
fr = 615 Hz (fz = 30 Hz). The potential “dimple” in (a) was < h × 500 Hz which wasmuch less than the peak atomic mean field energy of ∼ h × 3 kHz allowing the trap to be
characterized as a single-well. The potential “barrier” in (b) was h × 4.7 kHz which waslarger than the peak atomic mean field energy allowing the resulting split condensates tobe characterized as independent. The atom number of condensates was ∼ 105 . (c) The absorption image shows two well-separated condensates confined in the double-well potential
diagramed in (b). The field of view is 200 µm × 350 µm. The gravitation, ~g, points into
the page.

The single-well trap was deformed into the double-well potential shown in figure 3-1(b)by linearly increasing the distance between the two wells to 13 µm in 5 ms. The splitting

44

time and the final distance between the two wells were experimentally optimized for longcoherence time after splitting. The operating principle of the optical double-well potential
was described in Section 2.2. The amplitudes of the rf signals were tailored during the
splitting process to yield nearly equal population and trap depths for each potential well.
(a)gx
Optical Density(b)

Position

Figure 3-2: Matter wave interference. (a) Absorption image of condensates released fromthe double-well potential immediately after splitting and allowed to overlap during 30 ms ofballistic expansion. The imaging axis was parallel to the direction of gravitational acceleration, ~g. The field of view is 600 µm × 450 µm. (b) Radial density profiles were obtained byintegrating the absorption signal between the dashed lines, and typical images gave > 60%
contrast. The solid line is a fit to a sinusoidally-modulated Gaussian curve from which thespatial phase of the interference pattern was determined (see text for details). This figure
presents data acquired in a single realization of the experiment.

The relative phase of the two split condensates was determined by the spatial phaseof the matter wave interference pattern formed by releasing the condensates from the
double-well potential and letting them ballistically expand and overlap (Figure 3-2). Fora ballistic expansion time much larger than the trap oscillation period and neglecting interactions during ballistic expansion, each condensate has a quadratic phase profile [62],p~ 2 + φ± ), where ± denotes one well or the other, n± is
ψ± (~r, t) = n± (~r, t) exp(i m |~r ± d/2|2h̄t

~ is the starting position of the ballistic
the condensate density, m is the atomic mass, ±d/2

expansion, and φ± is the condensate phase. Thus, the full density profile of the interference
pattern takes the formmd√
x + φr )),n(~r, t) = (n+ + n− + 2 n+ n− cos(
h̄t
45

(3.2)

where φr = φ+ − φ− is the relative phase between the two condensates and d~ = dx̂. To
determine φr , the integrated cross section shown in Figure 3-2(b) was fit with a sinusoidally-

modulated Gaussian curve, G(x) = A exp(−(x−xc )2 /σ 2 )(1+B cos( 2πλ (x−x0 )+φf )), where
φf is the phase of the interference pattern with respect to a chosen fixed x0 . Ideally, if x0
is set at the center of the two wells, then φr = φf . However, misalignment of the imaging
axis with the direction of gravitational acceleration created a constant offset, φf = φr + δφ.
With t = 30 ms the measured fringe period, λ = 41.5 µm, was within 4% of the point source
formula prediction [Eq. (3.2)], ht/md = 39.8 µm.

3.2.1

Coherence Time

Each realization of the experiment produced an interference pattern with the same spatial
phase. This reproducibility demonstrated that the two condensates in a double-well potential had deterministic relative phase and that deforming the optical potential from a single
well into a double well coherently split the condensate. This result is remarkable in that it
experimentally confirms the feasibility of coherent dynamic splitting of a condensate.
We attribute this success to the favorable feature of the optical setup for a double-wellpotential: since both wells are derived from a single laser beam passing through an AOM,
vibrations and fluctuations of the laser beam are rejected as common modes. Furthermore,
an optical trap provides clean releasing of condensates because it can be turned off rapidly.
In the past experiment where a double-well potential was created by splitting a magnetically trapped condensate with a blue-detuned laser beam [16], coherent splitting, i.e., a
reproducible relative phase between the split condensates could not be observed due tofluctuations in the position and the power of the splitting laser beam and irreproducible
turn-off of the high current magnetic trap that initiated ballistic expansion.
The relative phase between the separated condensates was observed to evolve linearlyin time (Figure 3-3(a)). This evolution was primarily attributed to a small difference in thewell depths. Equal population in each potential well indicates that the well depths of the two
wells were equal at the moment of splitting, but due to the frequency-dependent diffraction
efficiency of the AOM mentioned before, the well depths could happen to be changed after
splitting. Since the two condensates had equal peak atomic mean field energy, the differenceof the chemical potentials of the two condensates reflected the difference in the well depths.
The rate of relative phase evolution could be tailored by adjusting the relative intensity ofthe two laser beams generating the wells.
The standard deviation of eight measurements of φr was < 40 degrees for condensates
split then held separated for up to 1 ms and increased to over 90 degrees after 5 ms holding(Figure 3-3(b)). Here, we can ask two relevant questions on coherence after splitting: What
determined the initial phase uncertainty and what made the phase uncertainty growing? In
46

(c)

90
135

Spatial Phase (deg)

(a)
180

45

180

0

225

90

315
270

0 ms Hold

(d)

90
135

45

0

(b)

Standard Deviation
(deg)

180

0

225

315
270

90

3 ms Hold

(e)

90
135

45

45

180

0
0

1

2
3
4
Hold Time (ms)

0

5
225

315
270

5 ms Hold

Figure 3-3: Phase coherence of the separated condensates. (a) The spatial phase of thematter wave interference pattern is plotted versus hold time after splitting the condensate.
Each point represents the average of eight measurements. The phase evolution was due
to unequal trap depths for the two wells, which was determined from the linear fit to be
h × 70 Hz or ∼ 1% of the trap depth. (b) Standard deviation of eight measurements of therelative phase. The definition of the standard deviation of phase might not be clear becauseof the module property of phase. However, considering that a random distribution of phases
between −180 and +180 degrees would have a standard deviation of ∼ 104 degrees (dashedline), the results quantitatively confirm the reproducible nature of the splitting process andthe coherent evolution of the separated condensates. Polar plot representation of eightphase measurements for (c) 0 ms holding, (d) 3 ms, and (e) 5 ms.

47

√

our experimental condition, we would expect a phase diffusion time t ∼ h Nµ ≈ 250 ms [149]because of Poissonian number fluctuations in a coherent state. As described in Section 3.1,

the localization due to atom-atom interactions may reduce the initial phase coherence ofthe split condensates but this would also extend the phase diffusion time [138, 139, 140,
150, 141]. Apparently, the coherence time observed in our experiment was almost one ordermagnitude smaller than this phase diffusion time, so definitely, the coherence time was
not limited by these fundamental issues, but some technical issues. For example, we could
not certainly determine the spatial phase of fringes at hold times > 5 ms because of axial
and breathing-mode excitations created during the splitting process. These excitations are
represented as angled and curved fringes, i.e., the relative phase of two condensates along
the axial direction is not uniform, meaning relative axial motions of the two condensates.
Matter wave interference patterns after 5 ms holding are displayed in Figure 3-4.

gx
Figure 3-4: Perturbation from splitting process. Matter wave interference patterns after
5 ms holding are displayed. The curvature of the interference fringes increased with holdtime limiting the coherence time of the separated condensates to 5 ms. When we determined
the relative phase of two condensates from the spatial phase of the interference pattern, we
picked up the region where the tangent direction of fringes was parallel to the axial direction,
meaning the relative axial motion of the two condensates was at rest. The two black dashedlines in each image indicate the region used for phase measurement and the white dashedlines are guiding lines for phase comparison. The field of view is 450 µm × 700 µm.
In a perfect symmetric double-well potential, the splitting process can not induce axial
relative motions of two split condensates, due to mirror symmetry, and therefore angled
fringes would not appear. In principle, slower splitting should result in more straight andparallel fringes, but the straightness of fringe patterns could not be improved with evenlarger splitting time > 5 ms. Therefore, the observation of angled fringes obviously showsthat the two traps are not symmetric. With numerical simulation, Collins et.al. [151] pointed
that these asymmetric fringe patterns suggest the presence of slight additional geometry
variations of the two traps. If the two traps are not parallel, the splitting process would notoccur at the same time along the axial direction and the condensates would flow down tothe converging direction. If the two traps do not have the same axial position, the splitting48

direction would not be normal to the axial direction and induce the relative axial motions.
Even though the two optical beams for the two traps have almost same optical paths,
they can have different focal positions due to optics aberration and beam profile difference.
Unfortunately, there is no easy experimental knob for controlling the relative axial positionof the two traps. In the experiment, extreme care for optical alignment was needed.

3.2.2

Trapped Atom Interferometry

As a proof-of-principle experiment, we performed trapped atom interferometry with condensates using the coherent splitter described in the previous section. The phase sensitivityof the trapped-atom interferometer was demonstrated by applying ac Stark phase shifts toeither (or both) of the two separated condensates. Phase shifts were applied to individual
condensates by pulsing off the optical power generating the corresponding potential well
for a duration τp ≪ 1/fr . Figure 3-5(a) shows that the spatial phase of the matter wave

interference pattern shifted linearly with the pulse duration, as expected. Due to the inhomogeneous optical potential, U (r), the applied ac Stark phase shifts varied across thecondensate as ∆φ(r) = −U (r)τp /h̄. Averaging this phase shift over the inhomogeneouscondensate density, n(~r), we approximate the expected spatial phase shift of the matterwave interference pattern as ∆φ̄ = N1R

d3~r n(~r)∆φ(~r) = (U0 − 27 µ)∆t/h̄, where N is thenumber of atoms, and U0 is the potential well depth, and µ is the atomic mean field energy.3

The measured phase shifts yielded U0 = h × 5 kHz (Figure 3-5(c)), which was consistent

with calculations based on the measured trap frequencies.

In a good atom interferometer, the phase evolution of atoms in one arm should be
independent of the phase evolution of atoms in the other arm. If there is some interaction
between the two arms, i.e., some phase coupling between the two separate condensates, thenthe relative phase would show nonlinearity such as Josephson oscillations [147, 62], which
would make the interpretation of the external effects extremely complicated or practically
impossible. Due to the large well separation and mean field energy h × 1.7 kHz below thebarrier height, the single-particle tunnelling rate in our system was ∼ 5 × 10−4 Hz [62],and the condensates were effectively decoupled. The linear behavior in Figure 3-5(a) of therelative phase of the two condensates indirectly shows the absence of coupling between thetwo separate condensates.
As a supplementary experiment, we performed an experiment where the time of applying
ac Stark phase shifts was controlled. Because the relative phase of the two condensates
3This first-order approximation gives rise to an interesting question about its validity. Nonuniform phaseshifts physically correspond to forces and cause external motions. In our situation, it is a breathing mode.
Phase gradient represents kinetic energy and the subsequent phase evolution would become faster so thatthe averaging method might underestimte the resulting phase shift. In our experiment, τp ≪ 1/fr to ensurethat the phase difference across the condensate is small.

49

(a)
Spatial Phase (deg)Spatial Phase (deg)

540
360
180
0
-180
-360
-540

0

(b)

20
splitting40

τp (µs)150 µs

60

60
0
-60
-120
0

80
free expansion

200

400

600

1 ms

free expansion

τd (µs)splitting

(d)

800

on
off

on
off

(c)

120

τp

τd

50 µs

Figure 3-5: Trapped-atom interferometry. (a) ac Stark phase shifts were applied to either
well exclusively (solid circles and open circles) or both wells simultaneously (crosses) byturning off the corresponding rf signal(s) driving the AOM for a duration τp . The resulting
spatial phase of the matter wave interference pattern scaled linearly with τp and hence
the applied phase shift. Applying the ac Stark shift to the opposite well (solid versus open
circles) resulted in an interference pattern phase shift with opposite sign. Applying ac Stark
shifts to both wells (crosses) resulted in no phase shift for the interference pattern. Thisdata was taken with a slightly modified experimental setup such that the trap depth of theindividual potential wells was U0 = h × 17 kHz, corresponding to a 270 degree phase shift
for a 50 µs pulse. (b) The time sequence of the optical intensity for the well(s) temporarily
turned off. (c) Independent evolution of two separate condensates. A 50 µs pulse induced a
70 degree shift independent of the pulse delay, τd , showing that there is no phase coupling
between the two condensates. The experimental setup was as described in Figure. 3-1(U0 = h × 5 kHz). ac Stark phase shifts were applied to either well exclusively in the same
way as in (a). (d) The time sequence of the optical intensity for the well temporarily turned
off.

50

was linearly running in time, applying phase shifts at different time means applying itwith different relative phases. The measured phase shifts of the matter wave interference
depended only on the time-integral of the applied ac Stark phase shifts (Figure 3-5(c)),
as expected for uncoupled condensates. The final relative phase, φr , should be the sameon different phase trajectories because the history of phase accumulation does not affectthe total amount of accumulated phase. For coupled condensates, a time dependent signal
would appear due to nonlinearity.
As a summary of this section, we have performed atom interferometry with Bose-Einsteincondensates confined in an optical double-well potential. The large spatial separation between the potential wells guaranteed that each condensate evolved independently and allowed for addressing each condensate individually. The phase readout scheme using matterwave interference after ballistic expansion allowed us to avoid deleterious mean field effects
inherent in proposals using in-trap wavepacket recombination [152]. If we propagate theseparated condensates along a waveguide prior to phase readout, the atom interferometer
would have an enclosed area and become rotation-sensitive. Implementing this idea withchip-based magnetic waveguides [6] is a motivation for the experiment described in the next
section.

3.3

Toward Atom Interferometry on an Atom Chip

Encouraged by the successful demonstration of trapped atom interferometry with BoseEinstein condensates in the previous experiment, we made efforts to realize a chip-based
atom interferometer. The reason why we want to do an almost same experiment withan atom chip as what we already did with the optical system is that in the viewpointof atom interferometry, the magnetic system currently looks more promising to extend toa rotation-sensitive geometry. In addition to the technical advantages of atom chips as
discussed in Section 2.3, atom chips based on current-carrying wires can create a magnetic
double-guiding potential with adjustable separation.
The primary goal of the following chip experiment is to duplicate the previous optical experiment; achieving coherent splitting of a condensate on an atom chip. Since wedemonstrated coherent splitting with the optical double-well potential and identified theexperimental parameter window for coherent splitting, generating a magnetic double-wellpotential having similar trapping parameters would be definitely a reasonable strategy forcarrying out the corresponding chip experiment, which suggests that the magnetic doublewell potential have trap frequency over 300 Hz and barrier height over 5 kHz with a wellseparation less than 30 µm. Although we can fulfill these requirements easily by bringing
the atoms very close to the current-carrying wire, deleterious proximity effects such as frag-

51

d

IC

BX< BX0θ

BX> BX0

IC

BZ= 0

x
(a)

z

(b)

(c)

(e)

(f)

BZ> 0

(d)

Figure 3-6: Magnetic doube-well potential in a two-wire scheme. An atom chip is set facing+z-direction and two straight wires are fabricated on the chip, having currents IC in −ydirection. With an external magnetic field Bx , two local minima in the magnetic field areplaced on the same side of the chip. (a) Increasing Bx results in moving the two minima
from open circles to solid circles. The dashed line indicate the trajectories which the two
minima follow with Bz =0. The center line is perpendicular to the chip surface and in the
middle of the two chip wires, and the circle passes the two wire with a diameter of d. At
the merge point M , the two minima are coalesced with Bx = Bx0 . Color contour plots of amagnetic field with (b) Bx < Bx0 and (c) Bx < Bx0 . Corresponding plots for Bz > 0 are
displayed in (d), (e), and (f). With a non-zero Bz , the two minima can not be completely
merged.

mentation and lifetime reduction [6, 107, 9, 108, 111] impose restrictions on the minimum
distance between atoms and chip surfaces. With our moderate in-house fabrication quality,
the experiment should be performed at least 200 µm away from wires in order to avoid
fragmentation [6], meaning that high current capacity is needed for satisfying the above
requirements for the trap geometry. Atom chip-IV was developed under this condsideration(Section 2.3).

3.3.1

Magnetic Double-Well Trap

A magnetic double well potential was realized with an atom chip using a two-wire scheme [129].
The basic geometry of an atom chip for a double-well potential is illustrated in figure 3-6.
When two chip wires have currents, IC , in the −y direction and the external magnetic52

field, Bx , is applied in the +x direction, two lines of local minima in the magnetic field are
generated above the chip surface. Each local minimum has a quadruple field configurationin the xz plane, and with an additional non-zero magnetic field in the axial direction (ydirection), two Ioffe-Pritchard magnetic traps can be formed. The relative magnitude ofBx to the field from IC determines the direction of separation and the distance of the two
traps. The two traps are separated in z-direction with Bx < Bx0 (Figure 3-6(b)) and in
x-direction with Bx > Bx0 (Figure 3-6(c)). Bx0 = µ0 IC /πd is the critical field magnitude
for merging two magnetic harmonic potential to form a single quartic potential, where dis the distance between the two chip wires and µ0 is the permeability of the vacuum. The
merge point is located at the middle of the two wires and d/2 away from the chip surface.
When Bx > Bx0 , the two trap centers are located symmetric on the circle which isdetermined by the two chip wires and the merge point (Figure 3-6(a)), which can be easily
understood by observing that the z-component of magnetic field from the two wires is zeroon the circle. When the angle of the two trap centers on the circle is 2θ, the corresponding
value for Bx is given as
Bx =

Bx0
µ0 IC 1=.
πd cos θ
cos θ

(3.3)

When θ ≪ 1, the distance between the two trap centers s iss

s = d sin θ ≈ d

2π
∆Bx ,
µ0 IC

(3.4)

where ∆Bx = Bx − Bx0 .

Experimental procedures are described in Figure 3-7. A condensate is loaded at thebottom well with Bx < Bx0 and split into two parts by increasing Bx over Bx0 . The
relative phase of the two split condensates is determined by releasing the condensates andrecording their interference pattern like in the previous experiment.

3.3.2

Symmetric Axial Confinement

A small magnetic field in the z-direction can break the symmetry between the relative
positions of the two traps with respect to the two chip wires, as the two wells have opposite responses to Bz . For example, when Bx > Bx0 and the two wells are separated in
x-direction, positive Bz makes the left well move downward and the right upward (Figure 36(f)). Furthermore, with a nonzero Bz , the two wells do not merge completely at any Bx .4
In order to place the two wells at the same height and split atoms symmetrically, Bz should
be kept zero along the axial, y-direction. If Bz changes along the axial direction, the two
4This property can be used for asymmetric splitting. In our experiment, Bz = 0 was found confirming
symmetric splitting with equal populations in each well.

53

L
BX

P

BX

(a)

R

L

R
Time-of-flight

P

(b)

(c)

Figure 3-7: Experimental procedures with an atom chip. (a) A condensate is loaded at P .
(b) The condensate is split into two parts, L and R, by increasing the external magnetic
field Bx . (c) A matter wave interference pattern is formed by releasing the two condensatesand letting them overlap during time-of-flight. The relative phase of the two condensate ismeasured by the spatial phase of the interference pattern.

wells are no longer parallel and the gravitational force would cause an axial displacementof the two split condensates. Therefore, when the axial trapping potential is added to form
up Ioffe-Prichard magnetic traps, it should be carefully designed to ensure that condensates split perpendicular to the axial direction and stay in the same axial position. When
endcap wires are placed only on the chip surface as in Atom Chip III which was used forzvortex experiments in Chapter 6, a non-zero field gradient ∂B∂y inevitably accompanies afield curvature∂ 2 By∂y 2

for the axial confinement, i.e., Bz changes from positive to negative

along the axial direction (Figure 3-8(a)). Actually, we observed that two condensates were
axially misaligned after splitting (Figure 3-8(b)), which brought this symmetry issue to ourattention.
(a)

(b)

By
z

Bz

300 µmyFigure 3-8: (a)Magnetic field from endcap wires for axial confinement. In Atom chip-III, theendcap wires for axial confinement were fabricated on a substrate. The detailed description
on the wire pattern can be found in Chapter 6. In addition to the field curvature ∂ 2 By /∂y 2
for axial confinement, a non-zero field gradient ∂Bz /∂y is generated from the endcap wires.
(b) Absorption image of two split condensates. After splitting, the two split condensates
were axially misplaced due to the non-zero field gradient ∂Bz /∂y. The dashed line indicatesthe chip surface.

The experimental setup of the atom chip is shown in Figure 3-9. The atom chip was set

54

to face downward and the two traps are horizontally separated when Bx > Bx0 . In orderz
to provide the axial confinement and at the same time minimize ∂B∂y , we placed two pairsof external wires 1.5 mm above and 4 mm below the chip surface. This three-dimensional
design of axial confinement was necessary for obtaining the interference signal of two split
condensates. Moreover, maintaining the geometric symmetry of two wells will be crucial
for longer coherence time after splitting [1].
mirror

(b)

(a)

IB

IB

IC
IC

BEC’s

IT

IT

y

z
external wires

Figure 3-9: (a) Schematic diagram of the atom chip (Atom chip-IV). A magnetic doublewell potential is created by two chip wires with a current IC in conjunction with an external
magnetic field. The chip wires of 12 µm height and 50 µm width were electroplated with Au
on a thermally oxidized Si substrate with a 2-µm-thick Au evaporated film. The chip was
glued on an Al block for heat dissipation and the current capacity was 6 A in a continuous
mode. The distance between two wires was 300 µm or 500 µm. A pair of external wires
with IB above the chip surface provided the axial confinement along the y direction, andthe other pair of external wires with IT with the chip surface were used for compensating
the anti-symmetry effect from the pair of external wires above the chip surface (for detail,see text). Gravity was in the +z direction. (b) Photo of the atom chip set. Using the chipsurface and the mirror, images of atoms can be taken from the direction normal to the chipsurface.

3.3.3Interference of Two Condensates Split with an Atom Chip

Bose-Einstein condensates of |F = 1, mF = −1i 23 Na atoms were loaded in a bottom wellwith Bx < Bx0 . Experimental parameters were IC = 1.8 A, Bx0 = 24 G, By = 1 G,
d = 300 µm, and the axial trap frequency fy = 13 Hz. Condensates were first loaded in thebottom well 500 µm away from the chip surface, brought up to 30 µm below the merge pointin 1 s, and held for 2 s in the bottom well to damp out excitations. The whole experiment
was carried out with a radio-frequency (rf) shield [58] and before splitting, condensatescontained over 8.0 × 105 atoms without discernible thermal components. Splitting was doneby ramping ∆Bx = Bx − Bx0 linearly from -140 mG to 100 ± 20 mG in 200 ms. The
55

separation between two condensates was controlled by the final value of Bx . After splitting,two condensates were released from the magnetic trap and the absorption image was taken
along the axial direction.

Increase BX

Figure 3-10: Splitting of a condensate on an atom chip. A condensate is split into two partsby increasing the external magnetic field Bx . A series of absorption images of atoms in trapwith different Bx are provided.

In order to observe matter wave interference pattern of two split condensates, the two
split condensates should spatially overlap during ballistic expansion. It sounds a very simple
requirement but extra technical efforts were needed to obtain the first fringe image. First
issue was about clean and rapid releasing. In the two wire scheme, the responses of the two
wells to an external magnetic field are opposite and thus any kind of uncontrolled residual
field in the turn-off process would cause the two condensates to be kicked in opposite
directions, preventing a spatial overlap during time-of-flight (Figure 3-11(e)). With highcurrent fast-switching MOSFETs, the magnetic trap could be turned off within 20 µs much
shorter than the inverse of any trap frequency. The external bias field Bx was provided bya pair of macroscopic external coils having currents ∼ 28 A.5

Second issue was about long-living axial dipole oscillation. In principle, the axial di-pole oscillation should not affect the visibility of the interference pattern because the twocondensates would oscillate in phase after splitting in a perfectly symmetric double-wellpotential. Furthermore, this can be used for developing a rotation-sensitive atom interferometer with a guiding potential. However, the axial trap frequencies for two wells were
found to be different by 17 % and the two condensates had different axial velocity shortly
after splitting, which would result in tilted fringes with respect to the sight line of theabsorption image. We attributed this asymmetry to the imperfect fabrication of the chip
wires, observing that the fragmentation pattern of clouds near the two wires are different.
Furthermore, the centers of the oscillations of the two condensate were axially different. We
tried to adjust the currents in the external coils for axial confinement in order to reduce
5

Another method for clean turn-off might be using the µ-wave transition from the |1, −1i state to |2, 0i
state [153].

56

Axial Position (a.u.)

(a)

(d)

(e)
0

100

200

(b)

300

400 (ms)

(c)

0 ms

420 msFigure 3-11: Long-living axial motion and unclean releasing. (a) The dipole oscillation in
the axial direction had a very long lifetime. After splitting, the two condensates showed
different oscillation periods. Bottom absorption images of atoms in traps at (b) 0 ms and(c) 420 ms after splitting. (d) A green light (a repulsive potential) was applied at the end
part of condensates in order to damp the long-lived axial dipole oscillation. The dashedregion indicates the position of the green light. (e) Non-synchronized slow turn off of themagnetic potential induced mechanical perturbation on two condensates when they werereleased.

the displacement, and searched for more homogeneous parts of the chip wires. At the end,
the long-living axial dipole oscillation was damped by applying a repulsive potential wallat the one end of condensates with a blue-detuned laser beam (532 nm) before splitting.
Finally, matter wave interference fringes were observed after releasing the condensatesand letting them expand in time-of-flight (Figure 3-12). High visibility of fringes indicatesthat the splitting procedure was smooth enough to produce two condensates having uniform
phases along their long axis perpendicular to the splitting direction. The relative phaseof the two split condensates was determined from the spatial phase of the matter wave
interference pattern as in the previous experiment.
The relative phase of two split condensates turned out to be unpredictable when they
were fully separated (Figure 3-12). The separation of two condensates was determined fromthe spacing, λs , of the interference fringes, using the formula, d = ht/mλs The typicalfringe spacing was λ ≈ 15 µm with t = 22 ms, corresponding to d ≈ 26 µm. Given the
precise knowledge of the fabricated wires, the full trap parameters can be calculated. We

assumed that the condensates followed trap centers in the motional ground state. Whenthe separation is less than 20 µm and two condensates are linked, the uncertainty of thespatial phase of fringes was less than 60◦ , and when the barrier height was over 1.5 kHz,the relative phase started to be random. Since the chemical potential of the condensates,µ = 1.4 ± 0.2 kHz, was very close to the barrier height, the condensates just started to lose57

1 kHz

2 kHz

3 kHz

Spatial Phase (deg)

180
120
60
0
-60
-120
-180
22

24

26

28

Seperation (µm)

Figure 3-12: Interference of two condensates split with an atom chip. The separation of
two condensates was determined from the spacing of interference fringes. Fifty data points
for the same experimental conditions are plotted. Three dashed lines indicate the distancesof two wells with the barrier height of 1 kHz, 2 kHz, and 3 kHz, respectively. The chemical
potential of the condensates µ = 1.4 ± 0.2 kHz.
their coupling at this point. We tried to reduce the phase uncertainty by optimizing the
splitting time, the final separation, and trap frequencies. However, full investigation was
limited by short lifetime of condensates near the merge point.

3.3.4

Stability of Trapping Potentials

During the splitting process, condensates experience a dramatic change in the trapping
geometry.

Figure 3-13 shows how the trapping potential changes during the splitting

process. When condensates come closer to the merge point, the bottom well and the top wellmerge. Generally, the merging of two harmonic conservative potentials creates a quartic
potential with zero harmonic trap frequency. Due to gravitation, fz is always over 200 Hz
but fx vanishes at the merge point. Immediately after the merge point, the trajectory of thetrap centers abruptly changes its direction from vertical to horizontal, and the separationof two wells quickly increases to 15 µm with a small magnetic field change of δBx ≈ 10 mG.
For a single particle in a harmonic potential with trap frequency, fx , the quantity α ≡1 dfx
fx2 dtaccounts for the transition probability from the ground state to the first excitedstate in transforming the potential, and it can parameterize the external adiabaticity ofthe process. α ≪ 1 should be maintained to keep the particle staying in the motional

ground state. Neglecting the collective excitations of a condensate, we apply this criterion,∂fx dBx
α ≡ f12 ∂B≪ 1, to our situation. The harmonic trap frequency, fx defined at the
x dt
x

x
centers of wells, in the splitting direction vanishes at the merge point. With dB
dt = 1.2 G/s,58

α < 1 at fx > 150 Hz, but obviously, α diverges to infinity near the merge point and its
definition no longer holds.
Since the energy level spacing becomes smaller, the adiabatic condition in the quartic
potential around the merge point becomes more stringent. The abrupt change of trapping potential will induce mechanical perturbations of condensates, particularly inducing
quadrupole excitations via coupling between radial modes and axial modes. Subsequentdissipation or coupling into internal excitation modes [101] would make the relative phaseof two split condensates unpredictable.
0

2

4 kHz

(a)

z (µm)

0
10∆BX = 0 mG

20
-10

0

∆BX = 50 mG

10 -100∆BX = 100 mG

10

-10

30

separation
barrier

0

10

(c)

300

Separation (µm)

Trap Frequency (Hz)

(b)

200

fX
fZ

100
0
-50

0

50

100

20

4

10

2

0

0
50

150

6

100

Barrier Height (kHz)x (µm)

150∆BX (mG)∆BX (mG)

Figure 3-13: Magnetic trapping potential during splitting. (a) Radial cross sections of trapping potential including gravity for ∆Bx =0, 50, 100 mG, where ∆Bx is the field deviationfrom the critical field magnitude Bx0 which is the field magnitude for forming a single
quartic trap. The origin of coordinates is the merge point without gravity. Contour lines
correspond to 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2 kHz above the bottom of the trap. (b) Trap frequencies in eachdirection. (c) Separation of two trap centers and barrier height between two wells.

Surprisingly, a phase singularity was observed in the interference patterns with highvisibility. The fork shape of interference fringes represents a phase winding around a vortex
core [154]. This vortex interference pattern appeared more frequently with faster splitting
and further separation and the observed phase singularity definitely shows the breakdown ofadiabaticity of splitting process. Splitting might be considered as slicing condensates in two
parts. Furthermore, the abrupt change of the moving trajectory from vertical to horizontal
at the merge point could cause some ‘rotation’. The fact that the observed “forks” (Figure 314) always open towards the top implies that the the slicing always occurred in the same
59

(a)

(b)

Figure 3-14: Vortex interference. (a) An absorption image showing the vortex interference
pattern of a vortex state. The probability of vortex generation was ∼8 % with the experimental parameters in Fig. 3-12, where data points with vortices were not included. Vortex
interference patterns appeared more frequently with faster splitting and further separation.
(b) Same as (a), but with lines indicating regions with constant phase.

direction and created either vortices with positive charge on the left side or with negative
charge on the right side. Experimental study on the probability of vortex generation withthe slicing method was reported in Ref. [154].6
As a method to reduce the motional perturbation, one could consider starting with two
weakly-linked condensates in a double-well potential where the barrier height is lower thanthe chemical potential of condensates and controlling the coupling between two condensateswith a small change of the barrier height. However, because the sensitivity of the trapping
potential to the magnetic field is extremely high, when the trap centers locate near themerge point, it was technically difficult to have a stable double-well potential with a small
barrier height. Small fluctuations of currents or external magnetic field will shake and heatup condensates. The lifetime of condensates measured around the merge point was > 5 s
away from the merge point (∆Bx < −50 mG or ∆Bx > 150 mG) and < 100 ms near

the merge point (0 < ∆Bx < 100 mG).7 The high field-sensitivity was also indicated in themeasurements of remaining fraction of a condensate during splitting. In the splitting processchanging ∆Bx from -140 mG to 250 mG for 500 ms, 60 % of a condensate disappeared.
The remaining fractions of the condensates were inversely proportional to the time spent in
the low lifetime region (0 < ∆Bx < 100 mG) near the merge point.
With a barrier height of 0.5 kHz in our experiment, the sensitivity of the barrier height
and the condensate separation to Bx is 0.04 kHz/mG and 0.3 µm/mG, respectively. δBx =1 mG corresponds to δIC = 7.5 × 10−5 A. Therefore, extreme current stabilization and
6
Another possible vortex formation mechanism is topological imprinting when the zero point of themagnetic field crosses though condensates resulting in a doubly quantized vortex in spin-1 condensates [8, 3].
However, since we have never observed the interference pattern of a doubly quantized vortex and turning
off magnetic traps was done too fast for atom spins to adiabatically follow the magnetic field direction, we
think that this scenario is unlikely.
7
For “after-splitting” positions, condensates were moved only to the left well by detouring the merge
point.

60

(a) 10

Remaing Fraction

Lifetime (s)

8
6
4
2

Remining fraction

(b)

1.0

1.0

0
0

0.6

400
800
Splitting time (ms)

0.2

0
-200

-100

0

100

200

-100

∆BX (mG)

0

100

200

300

∆BX (mG)

Figure 3-15: (a) Lifetime of a condensate near the merge point. Including gravity, themerged well was formed at ∆Bx ≈ 50 mG. For ∆Bx > 50 mG, condensates were moved only
to the left well by detouring the merge point. The data points in the dashed box showed
bad lifetimes for unidentified technical reasons. (b) Remaining fraction of a condensate
during splitting. The splitting process was changing ∆Bx from -140 mG to 250 mG over
500 ms. The number of condensed atoms were measured in the middle of splitting by
suddenly releasing the condensate when ∆Bx reached a target value. The inset shows final
remaining fraction versus splitting time.

shielding of ambient magnetic field fluctuations may be necessary for controlling a phasecoherent splitting process. Estève et al. [155] discussed the stability of a magnetic doublewell potential on an atom chip and suggested that the separation of two wires be smaller
than 10 µm in order to maintain the fluctuation of tunneling rate at less than 10% with
δB < 1 mG.

3.3.5

Discussion: Alternative Splitting Schemes

We have demonstrated splitting of a Bose-Einstein condensate in a magnetic double-wellpotential on an atom chip and observed the interference of the two condensates released
from an atom chip. High field sensitivity of the magnetic potential geometry around themerge point prevented coherent splitting with a predictable phase. Since coherent splittingof trapped condensates were demonstrated with our optical double-well system [1], there is,in principle, no fundamental limitation on realizing the same experiment with an atom chip,once the magnetic potential has a same level of stability. We emphasize that the current
problem with the atom chip is a technical one. Recently, coherent splitting of a condensate
on an atom chip was reported [103] using a field-induced adiabatic potential [156].
Actually, interesting double-well phenomena such as quantum tunneling and nonlinear
self-trapping were directly observed in an optical double-well system which was created by
combining a single optical dipole trap with a well-controlled periodic optical lattice potential [157]. Then, we can not help asking what are the advantages of magnetic micropotentials
on an atom chip over these optical systems? As we mentioned before, in the viewpoint of61

atom interferometry, the magnetic system looks more promising to extend to wave guiding
potentials with a rotation-sensitive geometry. In the following, we suggest several alternative splitting schemes for preparing a coherent state of two condensates, which we plan on
investigating with Atom chip-VI.
One-To-Two Scheme
In the splitting process of the two-wire scheme, a condensates trapped in the bottom wellmoves upward and abruptly split in the horizontal direction when it reaches the merge
point. It is like having the condensate hit the top ceiling and splash violently. This rapidchange of moving direction, which might induce some vortices in the condensate, could not
be avoided due to the short lifetime around the merge point in our previous experiment.
d

(a)
h1

(b)

IC

IM

IC
h2

BX

BX

Figure 3-16: One-to-two scheme. Three chip wires are equally spaced on a chip surface.
(a) A condensate is prepared in a single-wire trap using the middle chip wire. The external
magnetic field Bx > Bx0 . (b) The splitting process is done by decreasing the current in the
middle wire, IM , and simultaneously increasing the currents in the outer wires, IC . Whenthe final currents in the outer wires are same as the initial current in the middle wire,
the distance of the trap centers from the chip surface is maintained at a same value, i.e.,h1 = h2 .

With the motivation to make the splitting process happen along one horizontal line,
which is the case in the optical double-well system, we consider a ‘one-to-two’ scheme
illustrated in Figure 3-16. Instead of increasing the external magnetic field with fixedcurrents in chip wires, the current distribution on the chip wires is controlled to deforma single well potential into a double-well potential at the same height. Three chip wires
are equally spaced on a chip surface. The key idea is that the distance, h1 , from thechip surface in the single-wire case (Figure 3-16(a)) is the same as h2 in the two-wire case
(Figure 3-16(b)).
h1 =
h2 =

µ0 IM
,
2πBx
µ0 IC
d
cos θ =
.
2
2πBx

(3.5)
(3.6)

where IM is the current in the middle chip wire and we used Eq. 3.3. When IM = IC ,h1 = h2 . Therefore, we can imagine a splitting process at a same height where IM (t) +62

IC (t) =constant. The numeric simulation including gravitation showed that this scheme ispromising in terms of vertical motional perturbation.
Three-Wire Scheme
Si substrate

(b)

(a)

Through-wafer Etching

substrate 1

IB
Si-Si substrate bonding

substrate 2

IC

Wire deposition

IC

Figure 3-17: (a) Three-wire scheme. A double-well potential is generated by three built-in
wires on an atom chip with no external control field. The control field is provided by thecurrent of the inner wire, IB , in the trench. (b) Three-dimensional structuring can be doneby using through-wafer etching and Si-Si substrate bonding.

A double-well potential is generated by three chip wires as in Figure 3-17. The role ofthe external magnetic field in the two-wire scheme is substituted by the current of the inner
wire IB . This design allows for overall screening of external magnetic field noise and a more
precise control of the splitting process with small currents. Furthermore, the field gradientfrom IB enhances the tightness of the confinement. When the wires are connected in series,
the final separation of the two wells will be intrinsically stable even with possible current
fluctuations because the separation is determined by the ratio of IB and IC .
Axial Splitting
Another alternative for preparing a coherent state of two spatially separate condensates isfirst having two condensates in ground states in each well and establishing a well-defined
relative phase later with an optical method [11], which is described in Chapter 4. Even
though the optical phase imprinting method is almost non-destructive, it is desired tostart with a large atom number for signal-to-noise ratio. Two separate condensates canbe prepared without passing through the merge point where rapid heating was observed.
The splitting procedure is illustrated in Figure 3-18. A condensate is first split in the axial
direction and the two split condensates are then moved into the left well and the right well,respectively. The asymmetric effect due to the field gradient ∂Bz /∂y from a Z-shape wirein the middle is used for this purpose. At the end, IZ is slowly turned off to place the two63condensates in the same axial position.
(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

x
y

BX < BX0IZ

IZ

BX < BX0

BX > BX0

BX > BX0

Figure 3-18: Axial splitting. (a) A condensate is prepared in the bottom well (Bx < Bx0 ).
(b) The condensate is split in the axial direction by increasing the current in the Z-shaped
wire, IZ . (c) When Bx is increased over Bx0 , the upper condensate moves to the left welland the lower condensate moves to the right well due to the field gradient ∂Bz /∂y generated
from IZ . (d) Two condensates are placed at the same axial position after turning IZ off.

64

Chapter 4

Dynamics of Optically Coupled
Condensates
This chapter deals with the situation where two spatially separate condensates are opticallycoupled by Bragg scattering. The experiments were reported in two publications:• M. Saba, T. A. Pasquini, C. Sanner, Y. Shin, W. Ketterle, and D. E. Pritchard,Light Scattering to Determine the Relative Phase of Two Bose-Einstein Condensates,
Science 307, 1945 (2005). Included in Appendix D.
• Y. Shin, G.-B. Jo, M. Saba, T. A. Pasquini, W. Ketterle, and D. E. Pritchard, Optical Weak Link between Two Spatially Separate Bose-Einstein Condensates, PhysicalReview Letters 95, 170402 (2005). Included in Appendix E.

The phase coherence of Bose-Einstein condensates was dramatically demonstrated byobservation of matter wave interference of two condensates [16] and the phase dynamics
of condensates was central for a variety of experiments, including solitons and vortices
in a single condensate, and Josephson oscillation in two coupled condensates. However,most of phase measuring methods have been based on atom number counting via lightabsorption where the measurement processes involve whole condensates. For this reason, awell-defined initial phase is required in order to trace the temporal evolution of the phase
dynamics, which is actually the same reason why we need a coherent beam splitter for
atom interferometry. Therefore having a monitoring tool for condensate phases without
destroying the whole condensates will definitely relax some technical limitation on the studyof phase dynamics. This is the motivation of the experiments described in this chapter.
One of the simplest scheme for measuring the relative phase of two condensates without
destroying all of them is using small portions of the condensates: phase sampling is illustrated in Figure 4-1. Some atoms are sampled out from the two big mother condensates,
forming two little condensates. Let’s call them son and daughter. The relative phase of65the son and the daughter condensate was measured by a conventional method using interference fringes or a phase-sensitive transition. Then, the relative phase of the two mothercondensates can be deduced from that of the son and the daughter if they are coherently
sampled out to have a well-defined phase relation to their own mother condensates. Thisidea can be extended by using continuous sampling: extracting continuous atom lasers fromthe condensates [158, 159, 160]. Each atom in the atom lasers carries the phase information of the source at the moment when it was coupled off. Two major challenges in theexperimental implementation of this scheme are coherent sampling and phase measurement
without perturbing the mother condensates.

BEC A

BEC B

Coherent
samplingA‘

B‘

Phase measurement

Figure 4-1: Phase sampling. The relative phase of two condensates, BEC A and BEC B, isdetermined by measuring the relative phase of small portions of two condensates, A′ and B′ ,which are coherently sampled out of mother condensates, BEC A and BEC B, respectively.
The process of coherent sampling establishes well-defined phase relation between mothercondensates and sampled son and daughter condensates.

In this chapter, I describe a series of experiments motivated by this phase sampling
scheme. Two spatially separate Bose-Einstein condensates were prepared in an optical
double-well potential as introduced in Chapter 3. Coherent continuous sampling, i.e., atom
lasers from the two condensates were generated by Bragg scattering process and the relative phase of the two spatially separate condensates was determined by interference of thetwo atom lasers. Furthermore, the same phase information could be obtained from thestimulated light scattering accompanied with Bragg outcoupling. The optical signal would
allow real-time phase measurement and novel quantum phase engineering such as phasefeedback and phase creation. I develop a theoretical model for the situation, elaboratingon the optical coupling which establishes phase-sensitive atomic currents between two spatially separate condensates. A concept is introduced, namely, Josephson coupling of two
spatially non-overlapped quantum systems via intermediate systems. We experimentally66

demonstrated that the atomic current can be controlled by an additional coupling phase
due to the presence of the intermediate systems.

4.1

Continuous Measurement of the Relative Phase of Two
Condensates

4.1.1

Beating between Two Atom Lasers

Our experiment situation is schematically illustrated in Figure 4-2(a). Two Bose-Einsteincondensates containing 1 − 2 × 106 sodium atoms in the |F = 1, mF = −1i state wereprepared in an optical double-well potential where the potential barrier between the wells

was so high and thick that the two condensates were expected to be independent (no tunneling). Phase measurement fundamentally requires the spatial overlap of two condensates
under investigation. In other words, the son and the daughter condensate should meet eachother to reveal their phase relation. We applied two counter-propagating laser beams for
Bragg scattering to the two condensates in the separation direction so that the directionof imparted momentum from the scattering process was parallel to the displacement of
the two condensates. Since the trap depth (≃ 5 kHz) was much smaller than the recoil
energy (≃ 100 kHz), the Bragg scattered atoms flew away from the trap, establishing an
outcouped atom beam from the condensate. Consequently, two atomic beams from eachtrapped condensates would overlap during propagation.
In our experiment, the Bragg laser beams were 1.1 GHz red detuned with repect tothe |F = 1i → |F ′ = 2i transition and the frequency difference between the two Bragg

beams, ν, was 102 kHz, resonant for Bragg scattering with counter propagating beams(4h̄2 k2 /2m = 4×h×25 kHz, the additional 2 kHz accounted for the mean field energy). The
Bragg scattering rate was of the order of 200 Hz and the spontaneous Rayleigh scattering
rates of the Bragg beams were in the 10 − 100Hz range.

Two atomic beams from the two condensates overlapped during propagation and adensity oscillation was observed as the interference of the two atomic beams (Figure 42(b)-(d)). The spatial distribution of the outcoupled atomic beam density represents the
temporal distribution of the relative phase of the two mother condensates. In order toconfirm that the observed density oscillation was the manifestation of the relative phaseevolution, we controlled the phase evolution rate by applying magnetic field gradients, B ′ ,in the separation direction. Since atoms were in the magnetic sensitive state, the field
gradient induced the potential difference according to the spatial separation. The shift ofthe density oscillation frequency was linearly proportional to the applied magnetic field
gradient (Figure 4-4(a)).1
1

When atoms propagated out from the condensates, they were still affected by the field gradient. They

67

(b)

(a)
Bragg beam 1
Bragg beam 2

f+ν

f

BEC’s

z

x

(c)
outcoupled
atoms

(d)

Figure 4-2: Continuous outcoupling from two separate condensates. (a) Schematic description of experimental situation. Two Bragg laser beams are applied to two separate,
trapped condensates and outcouple an atomic beam from the condensates. In the typicalcondition, the separation between the two wells was ≈ 14 µm, the trap frequencies were
≃ 325 Hz radially and ≃ 10 Hz axially, and the overall trap depth U0 ≃ h × 5 kHz. The
gravity is in +z-direction. (b)-(d) Absorption images (z-direction) were taken after 8 ms
outcoupling and 5 ms additional time-of-fligh. High-contrast oscillation in the stream of outcoupled atoms are clearly visible. An additional magnetic field gradients of (b) 1.15 G/cm
and (d) -0.77 G/cm were applied in +x-direction. The field of view in each image is
1.35 mm × 0.90 mm.

68

The concept of beating atom lasers was previously exploited in a couple of experiments.
Spatial coherence in a single condensate was measured by generating two atom lasers fromdifferent positions of the condensate [161]. Gravity was measured by a beating frequency
of atoms outcoupled from a vertical array of regularly spaced condensates in an opticallattice [37, 162], where the interference signal was actually established by Landau-Zehner
tunneling between different band states but it can be regarded as interference of atom lasers
originated from many sites in a generalized sense.
There is one question which helps understand what is really happening in our situation.
What if the two source condensate are out of phase? Should the two atomic beams alreadyoutcoupled from the condensate suddenly disappear when they meet each other? This
event would definitely violate the atom number conservation. What really happens inthe situation is that the atoms outcoupled from the left condensates are pumped into theright condensates by the Bragg coupling when the atoms spatially pass though the rightcondensate. In the other case when the two condensate are in phase, more atoms will
be coupled out from the right condensate due to constructive interference. Therefore, theobserved interference pattern resulted from the fact that the outcoupling efficiency fromthe right condensates was enhanced or suppressed by the presence of the atoms outcoupledfrom the left condensate according to the phase relation. This picture based on the local
dynamics in matter waves provides clear understanding of the underlying mechanism of oursituation. This discussion will be elaborated in section 4.2.

4.1.2

Optical Measurement of Relative Phase Evolution

Even though in the previous experiment we were able to measure the temporal evolutionof the relative phase of two condensates over 8 ms, we had to interrupt the experiment toilluminate atoms with a resonant laser beam to take an absorption image. In principle, wemight be able to spatially mask the condensates from the probe beam and measure only
outcoupled atoms to monitor the relative phase without destroying the whole condensates.
However, this selective measurement requires a time delay for the outcoupled atoms to moveaway from the condensates. Bragg outcoupling method for generating atom lasers provide
us with a great chance for optical detection. Bragg scattering is a two-photon stimulated
scattering process and for each scattered (outcoupled) atom, a photon is transferred fromone beam to the counter propagating one. Therefore, all information contained in thestream of outcoupled atoms is also present in the scattered light and can be collected bymonitoring the intensity of one or both of the Bragg laser beams.
This optical detection was successfully demonstrated. The two Bragg beams were set
would eventually slow down or speed up, showing the chirping of the oscillation frequency. Because thiseffect was very small for our experimental conditions, we assumed that the density oscillation was uniform
over the whole atomic beam.

69

Position

1

2

1

2

Time (ms)Signal0-10Time (ms)3

Figure 4-3: Continuous optical readout of the relative phase of two condensates. In theupper panel is the optical signal image detected by streaking the CCD camera. The traces,
offset vertically for clarity, are cross sections of the images. The central trace corresponds
to the upper image integrated between the dashed lines. Bragg scattering starts at t = 0
when the strong Bragg beam is turned on. The relative depth of the two wells was different
for the three traces, generating a difference in the oscillation frequency. The overall slopeof the traces was due to spontaneous Rayleigh scattering of the light from the atoms in thecondensates. As the time went on, the condensates were depleted, the light transmission
increased more due to the reduction of Rayleigh scattering. Excitations in the condensates
appeared as tilted or curved fringes in the streak images; in such cases, we took crosssections from portions of the images where fringes were vertical and therefore the phaseevolution was less perturbed.

70

to be minimally angled against each other in the horizontal plane so that one of the beams
could be picked up after passing through the condensates. The signal was faint and care wastaken to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. In order to reduce the intensity fluctuation of the
background light without compromising the intensity of the Bragg scattered photons, theintensities of the two Bragg beams were strongly stabilized and set to be very asymmetric.
The background intensity of the detected light was leveled down by decreasing the intensityof the picked Bragg beam, I1 , and the Bragg scattering rate was compensated by increasing
the intensity of the other Bragg beam, I2 . Since the stimulated two-photon Bragg scattering
rate is proportional to the product of the intensities of the two beams, I1 × I2 , and thespontaneous one-photon Rayleigh scattering rate is proportional to the sum of the intensities

I1 + I2 , the asymmetric intensities would result in fast depletion of condensates due toRayleigh scattering. In our experiment, the intensity ratio was I1 /I2 ≃ 0.1. Even though
the Rayleigh scattering rate was increased by factor of 2, the effective gain in the signal-tonoise ratio was positive.
The dynamics of the optical signal was measured with a CCD camera in streaking
mode. The light crossing the condensates was selected with a slit-shaped aperture andimaged on a few-pixel wide vertical stripe of the CCD camera. Streaking the CCD pixel
rows horizontally at a 50 kHz rate produced images with time on one axis and spatial
position along the condensates on the other axis (Figure 4-3). We first tried to use a low
noise photo-multiplier tube (PMT) as a light detector, but failed to observe an oscillating
signal. The advantage of using a CCD camera is the inherent spatial resolution of the CCD
camera as well as a high quantum efficiency. When the condensates do not have a uniform
relative phase along the axial direction, the integrated optical signal would have a reduced
or completely diminished oscillation amplitude. Indeed, most of experimental data showed
curved patterns.
In order to prevent the transient intensity fluctuation from deteriorating the light signal,
we applied the weak, detecting Bragg beam 1 ms earlier than the strong Bragg beam. The
intensity of the detecting Bragg beam oscillated in time at a frequency controlled by the
relative energy between the two wells. The oscillating signal was observed to build up
during the first ≃ 250 µs after the strong Bragg beam was applied. This delay is the timerequired for the outcoupled atoms to travel from one condensate to the other one and startinterference. This observation supports the dynamic picture discussed before. Anothernoticeable observation is that the initial phase of the oscillation was random, indicatingthat the two condensates were independent.
A merit of the optical detection is that it directly measures the beat frequency withaccuracy not depending on calibration of image magnification or other disturbances affecting
atoms during time-of-flight. Furthermore, this technique can be developed into a real-71

time measurement, opening interesting future perspectives. Active phase control could beachieved by feeding the real-time light signal back to a device providing external phaseshifts and preparing the desired phase at the desired time. In principle, the uncertainty inthe relative phase could even be squeezed by the feedback [163].

4.1.3

Interferometry without a Beam Splitter

Atom interferometry with two trapped Bose-Einstein condensates was realized by continuous monitoring of the time evolution of the relative phase. Figure 4-4 demonstrates thesensitivity of the interferometer to an applied external force (magnetic field gradient) andto the application of a potential difference between the two wells (ac Stark shift). The
sensitivity of the present measurements was limited by mechanical excitations that cause
chirping of the frequency during the observation time and shot-to-shot variations.
The atom interferometer demonstrated here has a remarkable feature. Since the interferometric information is contained in the beat frequency of two condensates and thecontinuous measurement allows for determining external phase shifts in a single experimental realization, the interferometer is independent of the initial relative phase between thecondensates. This means that there is no need for a coherent beam splitter which was, in
Chapter 3, described as indispensable to atom interferometry. This provoking statement
becomes comprehensible if the purpose of an interferometer is clarified. In atom interferometers, we want to measure phase shifts associated with a given interaction so that atleast two pieces of information should be obtained: phase before the interaction and phase
after the interaction. In the conventional single-particle picture, these quantities can not be
determined in a single experimental realization and thus a coherent beam splitter is required
to ensure the initial phase. However, in our interferometer, the coherence of Bose-Einsteincondensates allows for measuring the two quantities in a single experimental realization.
The situation may be analogous to interference of two lasers. Coherent sampling may be
regarded as a beam splitter that picks up a small portion of the laser; one can monitor the
beating frequency of two lasers by mixing a small fraction of their intensities.
Furthermore, the atom interferometer works with two condensates even in a Fock state
where the relative phase is completely undetermined. Phase measurement process drives
the system into a state with an arbitrary but well-defined relative phase as a back actionof the measurement [68, 164]. This effect physically originates from the fact that we do
not know from which condensate outcoupled atoms come. No phase diffusion is expectedduring the measurement. This is a general manifestation of the influence of measurement
on a quantum system [165], similar to the quantum Zeno effect where the time evolution issuppressed by repeated or continuous measurements.
On the other hand, our atom interferometer has a couple of fundamental limitations.
72

Oscillation frequency (KHz)

Frequency Shift (kHz)

0.4

(a)

0.2
0.0
-0.2

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

5

(b)

4
3
2
1
0
1.5

0.4

Gradient (G/cm)

2.0

2.5

3.0

Well balance (arb. units)

Figure 4-4: Interferometry with two trapped condensates. (a) The two well depths wereprepared offset by ≃ 0.53 kHz in the absence of magnetic field gradients, and the shift of thebeat frequency with respect to this initial value is plotted versus the applied magnetic field
gradient. The beat frequency is determined from absorption images of the outcoupled atom
stream (Figure 4-2). The solid line is a linear fit to the data; the dashed line represents
the theoretical value µB B ′ d/2h expected for the evolution of the relative phase of the twocondensates due to the difference in energy induced by the gradient (B ′ is the independently
measured magnetic gradient, µB is Bohr magneton, and d is the separation of the twocondensates). (b) Beat frequency measured in the optical signal is shown as a function of
the relative depth of the two potential wells. The well balance parameter is proportional tothe differnece in optical power used to create each of those wells.

While the phase measurement method introduced here is almost non-destructive, the finite
number of atoms in the condensates limits the total interrogation time and consequently
the signal-to-noise ratio. Instead of applying the Bragg beams continuously, using two
Bragg pulses with a time delay may extend the effective interrogation time. The first phasemeasurement sets an initial relative phase between the two condensates at each experimental
run and the second phase measurement determines a phase shift during the time delay.2 This
two-pulse scheme was experimentally demonstrated [11] (Appendix D) and the correlation
between the first measured phase and the second measured phase was observed.
The second fundamental limitation is a nonlinear effect of the outcoupling process on
the time evolution of a relative phase. As mentioned before, if the relative phase stays at
a constant value, there is a possibility that the population of the right condensate is dramatically changed by constructive or destructive interference resulting in large asymmetric
depletion. The induced chemical potential difference would affect the phase evolution in return and thus the measured beat frequency would reflect not only the environment but also
the coupling mechanism. In our experiments, the outcoupling efficiency was set very low
to ensure the linear regime. However, interestingly, we did not observe oscillation frequencies below 500 Hz (Figure 4-4). Short observation time and excitations could contribute to2This scheme is different from the Ramsey separated-oscillatory-field technique which has a enhanced
sensitivity based on the interference of the two separate fields.

73this, but the ultimate limit is set by this nonlinear effect because the asymmetric depletion
would be enhanced at low beat frequencies. The chemical potential difference induced by
the asymmetric depletion would be as large as a few h×100 Hz in a few ms for our experimental parameters, which set a lower bound to the measurable beat frequency. Thisis analogous to the inhibition of slow large amplitude Josephson oscillations in a nonlinear
junction [147]. One positive note is that if the relative phase is actively controlled, atoms
can be coherently transferred from one well to the other one, replenishing one of the twocondensates without scrambling its phase, a method that could lead to a continuous atom
laser [7].

4.2

Theoretical Models for Phase Measurment

4.2.1

Momentum Interferometry

Several physical interpretations of the experiment are possible besides the interference of
atom lasers from the condensates. Pitaevskii and Stringari [166] introduced the interferenceof two spatially separate condensates in momentum space and showed that in the presenceof coherence, interference fringes appear in the dynamical structure factor, measurable
through Bragg scattering. Also, they pointed out the possibility of creation of coherence asa back action of the measurement process.
Scattering experiments provide information on the excitation spectrum of a given physical system: by scattering a probe particle from the system and measuring the change inmomentum and energy of the probe particle, we are allowed to watch the response propertiesof the system to the perturbation.3 Bragg scattering directly probes density fluctuations
and equally measures the dynamic structure factor S(~q, ω), which is crucial in the theoreticaldescription of many-body systems [91].
In the atomic viewpoint, Bragg scattering is an optical transition between two different
momentum states as described in Section 2.1.3. Absorbing one photon and emitting another one in different direction, the atom receives a momentum kick without changing theinternal state. This Bragg scattering is Doppler-sensitive; due to energy and momentum
conservation, there is a resonant initial momentum state of the atom with given directions
and frequencies of the photons. Therefore, we can simply conclude that the probability ofthe two-photon scattering is proportional to the probability for atoms to be in the specificmomentum state.
The momentum distribution of two condensates is dependent of the relative phase of thetwo condensates. For example, we have two condensates described by wavefunctions, ΨL (x)and ΨR (x), respectively. The two condensates are separated by d and do not have a spatial
3

It is not wrong to say that scattering is the only way to perturb and investigate a physical system.

74

(a)

ΨL

(b)

ΨR

x

h φ
d 2π

h
d

d

p

Figure 4-5: (a) Two condensates are described by wavefunctions, ΨL (solid) and ΨR(dashed), respectively, and the displacement of the two condensates is d in coordinate
space. (b) Momentum representation of the two condensates when they have the relative
phase of φ. The fringe pattern has a periodicity of hd .

overlap, i.e., ΨL (x)ΨR (x) = 0, ∀x. For simplicity, we assume ΨL (x + d/2) = ΨR (x − d/2).

In the presence of coherence, the wavefunction for the whole condensates may be definedas,1
Ψ(x) = (ΨL (x) + eiφ ΨR (x)),
2

(4.1)

representing a coherent state with the relative phase of φ. Taking the Fourier transform of
this coordinate representation of the wavefunction, we have the momentum representationof the wavefuntion, Φ(p). The momentum distribution n(p) is given asdn(p) = |Φ(p)|2 = 2n0 (p)[1 + cos( p + φ)],
h̄

(4.2)

where n0 (p) is the momentum distribution of one condensate, ΨL,R (x). The momentum
distribution shows a periodicity of h/d and an offset from zero determined by the relative
phase as illustrated in Figure 4-5.
Bragg scattering from condensates becomes more complicated due to atom-atom interactions, but the underlying physical mechanism is the same as that in the single-particle
case. By measuring the Bragg scattering rate, we probe the population in a specific momentum state, which is a phase-sensitive quantity. Moreover, time-resolved Bragg scattering
becomes a probe for the temporal evolution of the relative phase as we demonstrated in theprevious experiments [11].
This interpretation based on the momentum interference of the two condensates provides
a complementary understanding to the atom-laser interpretation.

75

4.2.2

What is Really Interfering?

Optical readout of the relative phase of two condensates has been theoretically investigatedand photon scattering from two separate wave packets provided a model system for thisstudy. Cohen-Tannoudji [168] argued that photon scattering may be considered as position
measurement of the scattered atom to localize the atom and reduce the length of spatial
coherence. Localizing the atoms is incompatible with obtaining information about therelative phase. On the other hand, Rza̧żewski et al [169], and Dubetsky et al [170] showedthat the spontaneous emission carries the information of the relative phase of the two wave
packets in form of the spectral line shape of the emitted photon due to the Doppler shifts.
They claimed that no information of the relative phase can be extracted from angular
distribution of the emitted beam intensity because interference signal would be washed
out after integrating over emitted photon frequency. In our experiments, we selected thefrequency of emitted photons via Bragg two-photon stimulated scattering. There is one
aspect we have to emphasize in this optical read-out discussion: the interference signal does
not result only from the interference of photons emitted from the two wave packets, butalso from the interference of final states of atoms.
In order to clarify what really determines the interference signal, we consider the situation where a glass wall is placed between the two atomic wave packets. The glass wallis perfectly transparent for photons, but is perfectly opaque for atoms. By calculating the
dynamic structure factor S(q, ω), we sketch out the effect of the presence of the glass wallon the interference signal.
S(q, ω) ≡Xn|hn|eiqx |0i|2 δ(ω − (ωn − ω0 )),(4.3)

where |ni is an eigenstate of the given system with energy of h̄ωn and |0i is the initial stateof two wave packets. We assume that atoms are initially trapped in a double-well potential

and the system has a well defined energy of h̄ω0 . Due to the presence of the glass wall, |ni

is divided into two groups, the left eigenstates, |nL i and the right eigenstates, |nR i. The
glass wall is located at x = 0.

|nL,R i ∼(eiqx − e−iqx0(x < 0, x > 0)(x > 0, x < 0)

(4.4)

With |0i = |ψL i + eiφ |ψR i, where |ψL i (|ψR i) represents the left (right) wave packet

vanishing at x > 0 (x < 0),

S(q, ω)∝ |hnL |eiqx |0i|2 + |hnR |eiqx |0i|2= |hnL |eiqx |ψL i|2 + |eiφ hnR |eiqx |ψR i|2
76

(4.5)
(4.6)

= |hnL |eiqx |ψL i|2 + |hnR |eiqx |ψR i|2 .

(4.7)

S(q, ω) does not depend on the relative phase any more, which means that the interference
signal will disappear due to the presence of the glass wall. Physically, the glass wall modifies
the Hamiltonian for atoms so that the left wave packet and the right wave packet arecoupled to two distinctive groups of excited states via scattering process. Therefore, thephase-sensitivity of S(q, ω) results from the interference of the transition amplitudes of thetwo wave packets to the same excited states, which emphasizes the importance of the spatial
overlap of scattered atoms in our experiments
This conclusion provides a interesting interpretation of the spectroscopic resolution necessary to measure the relative phase. If two wave packets are separated by d, then theoscillation in momentum space would have a periodicity of h̄/d and the energy difference
between two peaks would be ∆E = vrec (h̄/d), where vrec is the recoil velocity after Bragg
scattering. Due to time-energy uncertainty, we need to have ∆t = h̄/∆E = d/vrec to resolve
this energy difference. This is the travel time for scattered atoms from one wave packet tothe other with the recoil velocity.
As a summary of this section, we conclude that in optical scattering process, the interference signal having the information of the relative phase is essentially from the interferenceof scattered atoms, not only from scattered photons. The relative phase of two condensates
can not be measured without any type of spatial recombination of the two condensates.

4.2.3

Theoretical ModelIn the previous discussion, we presented a dynamic structure factor interpretation as a complementary description to the atom-laser description. However, when two condensates havea different chemical potential and the relative phase evolves, this interpretation does notgive a clear picture. Of course, we can divide the dynamic evolution into small pieces witha fixed relative phase, but this approach might not be able to provide unified understandingon the real situation.
In this section, we provide a theoretical model elaborating on the underlying mechanismof the optical outcoupling. We use the conventional wavefunction description for condensates in order to account for the temporal evolution of the relative phase. The simplified
situation is illustrated in Figure 4-6. Two condensates 1 and 2 are trapped in a double-wellpotential and optically coupled into unconfined states by a single pair of Bragg beams.
Ignoring the accumulated phase shifts due to the interaction with the condensates, we approximate the unconfined coupling states as truncated free propagating states, i.e., the ex√cited coupling states from the two trapped condensates as ψi (x, t) ∝ Θ(x − xi ) γNi eiχi (x,t)(i = 1, 2), respectively, where Θ(x) is the Heaviside step function, γ is the Bragg outcou-

77

k1
hν

hν

k2

E
U1

µ1

U2

µ2

d

x1

x2

x

Figure 4-6: Optical out-coupling from two separate condensates. Two condensates aretrapped at x = x1 and x2 (d = x2 −x1 ). A pair of Bragg beams in x direction with frequency
difference ν are applied to two condensates and make transitions to higher momentum statesto generate a continuous atomic beam from each condensate. The two atomic beams areoverlapped in x > x2 , forming a matter wave interference pattern. U1 (U2 ) denotes thetrap depth of the left (right) well, µ˜1 (µ˜2 ) the mean-field interaction energy of the left
(right) condensate, and k1 (k2 ) the wave number of the atomic beam from the left (right)
condensate outside the trap.

pling efficiency, Ni is the total atom number of condensate i. Because the excited states
are free propagating states, χi (x, t) = ki x − ωi t + χi0 is the phase of the coupling state withh̄2 k 2h̄ωi = 2mi , where m is atomic mass. The phase continuity at the coupling position x = xi
requiresχi (xi , t) = φi (t) + φB (xi , t) − π/2,

(4.8)

where φi (t) is the phase of the condensate, φB (x, t) = 2kr x − νt + φB0 is the phase of the
Bragg beams with wave number kr and frequency difference ν, and the last phase term of−π/2 is the phase shift attributed to the scattering process [171].

In a linear regime with γ ≪ 1, φi is not perturbed by the coupling, i.e., φi (t) = − µh̄i t+φi0 .

µi = −Ui + µ̃i is the chemical potential of the condensate, where Ui denotes the trap depth
and µ̃i is the mean-field interaction energy of condensate i. Satisfying the phase relation

Eq. (4.8) at all t requiresh̄ωi = h̄ν + µi ,(4.9)

χi0 = −δki xi + φB0 + φi0 − π/2,

(4.10)

where δki = ki − 2kr . Eq. (4.9), the temporal part in Eq. (4.8), corresponds to energy
conservation.

In the overlapping region, x > x2 , the two atomic beams from each condensate forma matter wave interference pattern, and the outcoupled atom density n(x, t) = |ψ1 (x, t) +

ψ2 (x, t)|2 . For a better interpretation, we define the right outcoupled atom density nR (s, t) ≡78

n(s + x2 , t), where s indicates the distance from the right condensate,nR (s, t) =pγ
(Nt + 2 N1 N2 cos(∆k s + φr (t) − δk1 d)),2vr

(4.11)

where Nt = N1 + N2 , ∆k = k2 − k1 , d = x2 − x1 , and φr (t) = φ2 (t) − φ1 (t). We approximateh̄krithe propagating velocity vi = h̄k2m ≃ 2vr with δki ≪ 2kr , where vr = m is the recoil

velocity. The spatial and temporal modulation of the outcoupled atom flux nR represents
the evolution of the relative phase φr , which was directly demonstrated in our previous
experiments [11].
Using the wavefunction description is somewhat similar to the atom-laser description.
Here, we want to remind ourselves of the matter wave interference interpretation, again.
When atoms are outcoupled from condensate 1, they carry the phase information of thecondensate. At the moment when they spatially overlap with condensate 2, the outcoupledatoms from condensate 1 are coupled into or amplified by condensate 2, depending on therelative phase φr . This aspect will be investigated in the experiment described in Section 4.3.
The finite size of the condensates affects the contrast of the interference signal. In themodel described above, we assume the two condensates as point sources, and therefore
the phase condition for matter wave interference is required at the condensate position.
However, when the condensate have a finite size, the phase matching condition should be
fulfilled over the whole condensate; a more stringent requirement. With a chemical potential
difference ∆µ, the difference of the wave numbers of two atom laser is ∆k = m∆µ/h̄2 kr ,where we assume that the trap depth is smaller than the kinetic energy of outcoupledatoms. In order to obtain an interference signal with a reasonable contrast, the phasemodulation over the condensate has to be ∆kl < 1, where l is the size of the condensate.
Naively speaking, constructive and destructive interference happen alternatively over thecondensate when ∆kl > 1, resulting in a decrease of the signal amplitude. This condition
gives an upper bound for the measurable beat frequency,∆µ/h̄ < h̄kr /ml.

(4.12)The same condition can be obtained by considering the momentum uncertainty δk ofout-coupled atoms. δk might be the same as the initial momentum uncertainty of a single
condensate, i.e., δk ∼ 1/l, which can also be inferred from the energy uncertainty due
to the finite coupling time between the mother condensate and out-coupled atoms. The
coupling time is δt = lm/h̄kr and the corresponding energy uncertainty is δε ∼ 1/δt =h̄2 kr 1m l

2= h̄ kmr δk . When ∆µ > δε, the energy state of atoms outcoupled from the leftcondensate is very different from that of atoms outcoupled from the right condensate. The
two condensates are not coupled to the same excited state; no phase information and no79

fringes are obtained. This condition is exactly equivalent to Eq. 4.12. With the upperbound condition, the maximum separation of two condensates in the gravitational direction
would be dmax ≈ 40 µm with condensates that extend over l ≈ 5 µm.

In the above analysis, we simply considered the one-dimensional situation and neglected

the effect of the Rayleigh scattering of Bragg photons. The divergence of the atom laser due
to the mean-field interaction with the condensates [172] would be another factor reducing
the signal amplitude.

4.3

Optical Weak Coupling of Two Spatially Separate Condensates

Josephson effects [144] are quantum phenomena in which the current between two weakly
coupled, macroscopic quantum systems depends on the relative phase of the two systems.
These effects have been considered as direct evidence for the existence of the phase ofa macroscopic quantum system [67] and have been observed in quantum systems such as
superconductors [173], superfluid 3 He [174], and Bose condensed gases [175, 157]. Josephson
coupling between two systems is typically established via tunneling through a separating
potential barrier or via an external driving field as in the internal Josephson effect [176, 177].
Both couplings require spatial overlap of the two systems due to the intrinsic locality of thecoupling interactions.
The concept of Josephson coupling can be extended to include two spatially separate
quantum systems by using intermediate coupling systems. If the phase relations among
these systems are preserved and thus the net particle exchange is phase-sensitive, the two
spatially separate systems might be regarded as being effectively Josephson-coupled via theintermediate systems. Furthermore, the phase of the coupling may be actively controlled byadjusting the coupling states of the intermediate systems. This idea has been theoreticallyintroduced in the context of relative phase measurement [178].
In the previous section, we observed that there is an effective atomic current from theleft condensate to the right condensate depending on the relative phase of the two condensates. According to the generalized Josephson coupling discussed above, these unconfinedpropagating atoms constitute the intermediate coupling system in our case. In this section,
we investigate a situation where two condensates are irradiated by two pairs of Bragg beams,
allowing bidirectional atom exchange between two separate condensates. The two pairs of
Bragg beams couple out beams of atoms propagating to the left or the right, respectively.
Depending on the relative phases of the two condensates and the coupling states, we observe only one outcoupled beam propagating to one or the other side, or two identical beams
propagating in opposite directions (Figure 4-7). This demonstrates the control of coupling80

phase and establishes a new scheme to realize Josephson effects with two non-overlapping
condensates.

4.3.1

Bi-directional Bragg Outcoupling

In Section 4.2.3, we presented a theoretical model for the case with a single pair of Bragg
beams, and derived the right outcoupled atom density nR (s, t). Now, we consider anotherpair of Bragg beams to out-couple atoms in −x direction. Modifying the previous calculation

by ki,r → −ki,r , the left out-coupled atom density nL (s, t) ≡ n(x1 −s) is obtained in a similar
way.

p
γ
(Nt + 2 N1 N2 cos(∆ks + φr (t) + δk2 d)),2vrpγ
(Nt + 2 N1 N2 cos(∆ks + φr (t) − δk1 d)).
nR (s, t) =2vr

nL (s, t) =(4.13)(4.14)

Considering all atom flux for each condensate, we obtain the rate equations for N1 and N2 .
For example, the left condensate has influx of γN2 from the right condensate and outflux
of γN1 and nL (0, t) in +x and −x direction, respectively. The final rate equations readṄ1 = −2γ(N1 +Ṅ2 = −2γ(N2 +p

N1 N2 cos(φr (t) − δk1 d)),(4.15)

N1 N2 cos(φr (t) + δk2 d)).

(4.16)

p

Except for the global depletion effect of Bragg scattering, the rate equations definitely
show the Josephson-character of the optical coupling using bi-directional Bragg scattering,i.e., that the atom currents into the condensates depend on the relative phase of the twocondensates.
One interesting observation is that there are additional phase terms, −δk1 d and δk2 d.

These phase terms can be interpreted as the phase shift which outcoupled atoms would
accumulate during the flight from one condensate to the other with respect to the Bragg
beam phase φB which is acting as the phase reference. This phase shift is the key element
for an actively-controlled optical coupling and its physical importance will be manifest in
the following experiment.

4.3.2

Phase-Controlled Optical Coupling

The optical Josephson coupling has a unique feature in the control of the phase accumulated
by atoms in the coupling state [178]. Since the intermediate system “delivers” the phase
information from one condensate to the other, the phase can be manipulated in transit andconsequently, the phase of the effective coupling can be controlled without affecting thetwo condensates. In the bidirectional coupling scheme, the control of the coupling phase81

is embodied by the phase shift terms, −δk1 d and δk2 d. We define the coupling phase asθ ≡ (δk1 + δk2 )d, and with δki ≪ 2kr , approximate θ as
θ=d
µ1 + µ2
4Er
+
),
(ν −
vr
h̄
2h̄

(4.17)

2 2

kr
where Er = h̄2m
is the recoil energy. θ is equivalent to the relative phase of nL and nR .

When θ = 0 (θ = π) (mod 2π), nL and nR will show (anti)symmetric correlation.
The control of the coupling phase θ was experimentally demonstrated. In this experiment, the 1/e2 -intensity radius of a focused laser beam for a single well was 7.6 µm and thetypical trap depth was U1,2 ∼ h × 18 kHz. The separation of the two wells was d = 11.4 µm

and each well started with a condensate of ∼ 5 × 105 atoms. Two pairs of Bragg beams
parallel to the separation direction were applied to the condensates by retroreflecting two
copropagating laser beams with frequency difference ν. The lifetime of condensates was over

18 s and the 1/e depletion time due to Bragg scattering into both directions was 4.5 ms.
The coupling phase θ was controlled with Bragg frequency difference ν Eq. 4.17. When
ν was varied, the outcoupling pattern cycled through symmetric and antisymmetric correlations (Figure 4-7). The coupling phase θ was fit to the observed patterns for each Bragg frequency (Figure 4-7(e)). The linear dependence was measured as ∂θ/∂ν = (2.4± 0.2 kHz)−1 ,which is consistent with the predicted value d/vr = (2.6 kHz)−1 . This clearly demonstrates
the presence and control of the coupling phase in our optical coupling scheme. With theantisymmetric condition, θ = π, as a function of the propagating relative phase, the output
oscillated between predominantly to the left and predominantly to the right (Figure 4-7(c)and (d)). The experimental situation has perfect mirror symmetry. Unidirectional output
in a symmetric situation is a macroscopic consequence of the condensates’ phase.
We might expect that large depletion would give a chance to observe some of nonlinear
effects such as the transition between symmetric correlation to antisymmetric correlation
because the correlation phase is a function of the chemical potentials. However the weaksignal after large depletion prevented from observing the transition in our experimental
condition.4
The long condensates used here introduce a new degree of freedom into the usual pointlike Josephson junctions: the condensates can have a spatially varying phase along theaxial direction. Furthermore, spatial control with barrier heights or well separations could
create spatially varying coupling along the condensate axis, and realize, e.g., ring currents.
Josephson vortex [179] and modulational instabilities [180] in elongated coupled condensates
were theoretically suggested.
2

In a harmonic potential, the chemical potential decay as µ(t) = µ0 e− 5 γt , much slower than the atom
number N (t) = N0 e−γt .
482

Optical Density (a.u.)

(a)

3

(b)

2
1
0

Optical Density (a.u.)

0

(c)

3

Relative phase of Patterns

4

1
2
3
Out-coupling Time (ms)

4

(d)

2
1
0
0

(e)

1
2
3
Out-coupling Time (ms)

2π

π

0
100

101

102

Bragg frequency (kHz)

Figure 4-7: Symmetric and antisymmetric correlation between out-coupled atom patterns.
Two pairs of Bragg beams with same frequency difference ν were applied to two condensatesin order to out-couple atoms in either +x or −x direction. Absorption images were taken
at 2 ms after 5 ms out-coupling and the left out-coupled atom patterns were compared withthe corresponding right patterns. Symmetric correlation between two patterns was observedat (a) ν = 2π × 100.5 kHz and (c) antisymmetric at ν = 2π × 101.5 kHz. The field of viewis 900 µm × 590 µm. (b,d) Out-coupled atom flux densities were obtained by integrating
optical densities between the dashed lines and converting the spatial coordinate to the time
coordinate. The solid (dashed) lines correspond to left (right) out-coupled atoms. (e) The
correlation phase θ of the two out-coupled patterns showed a linear dependency on ν with∂θ/∂ν = (2.4 kHz)−1 .

83

4.3.3

Optical Josephson Coupling on a Ring Geometry

BEC1

B

Bragg 1A
BEC2Bragg2

Figure 4-8: Optical coupling of two condensates on a ring. Two condensates are confinedat opposite sides on a ring-shaped waveguide and a pair of Bragg beams out-couple atoms
in the clockwise direction. The shaded boxes A and B are phase modulators for atoms andphotons, respectively.

One limitation of the bidirectional coupling scheme is that atoms are depleted out of
the system due to the linear geometry. Even though the pattern of outcoupled atoms isa crucial signal for monitoring the coupling dynamics, the coupling time is fundamentally
limited due to the finite size of condensates. To overcome this shortcoming, we envisage asystem preserving the total atom number like in Figure 4-8, where atoms circulate between
two condensates in a ring waveguide. With assumptions that the traveling time δt foratoms from one condensate to the other is short enough to satisfy φ˙r δt ≪ 1 and thatthe density profiles are constant over the trajectories between the two condensates, thegoverning equation, in a linear regime, of the population difference of the two condensatesispṄ2 − Ṅ1 = 2γ N1 N2 cos(φr − φm ),(4.18)

where φm is the effective coupling phase which is determined by the accumulated phaseshift over the round trajectories and the phase of the Bragg beams. The derivation of theequation is straightforward and similar to the calculation in Section 4.2.3.
Particularly, the ring geometry has an enclosed area so that this scheme may be developed into a rotation-sensitive device using the Sagnac effect; a neutral atom analogue
of a superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID). Confining potentials with ringgeometry have already been realized [181, 182, 183]. Different from the typical atom interferometry, the two condensates in the above scheme are used as quantum phase references.

84

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Figure 4-9: Monitoring of slow relative axial motions. Two chemical potentials were equalized within 400 Hz and the temporal evolution of the relative phase of two condensatesalong the axial (z) direction was recorded in the out-coupled atom patterns. (a) represent relative dipole oscillation, corresponding to relative velocity ≈ 0.3 mm/s, (b) relative
quadruple oscillation.

4.4

Diagnostic Applications of Continuous Bragg Scattering

Continuous Bragg outcoupling can diagnose the relative axial motion of two condensates.
Since the optical coupling is established selectively at the same axial position, axial gradients of the relative phase are directly observed through tilted fringes in the pattern ofoutcoupled atoms. In principle, we can rebuild the relative axial motion of the two condensates over the interrogation time from an out-coupled atom pattern. In Figure 4-9, we
present several examples showing the effects of relative dipole and quadruple axial motionsof two condensates. Furthermore, because the out-coupling efficiency is directly sensitive of
the relative phase, there is no limit for detectable slow motions. Figure 4-9(a) represents a
relative velocity ≈ 300 µm/s corresponding to ≈ 0.13 nK.5

Continuous Bragg scattering was used to characterize the trap depth and the trap fre-quency of a single optical trap (Figure 4-10). Since momentum and energy imparted in the
scattering process are precisely defined, we can determine the depth of a trap by measuring
the kinetic energy of atoms coupled out of the trap. We measured the traveling distance
D of outcoupled atoms with fixed traveling time t, and determined the trap depth U fromthe relation, D/t =p

4vr2 − 2U/m, ignoring the mean-field interaction with the condensate

and the finite size of the trap. Additionally, the exact knowledge of the recoil velocity vr
calibrates the optical magnification of images.

The trap frequency was measured using velocity sensitivity of Bragg scattering. Whena condensate oscillates in a trap, atoms are coupled out only when the condensate is at the5

We could not rule out the possibility that the observed motion is induced by the coupling process.

85

resonant velocity. Since the dipole oscillation of a condensate in a harmonic trap is the sameas the trap frequency f , the outcoupling frequency is the same as f when Bragg beams are
tuned at the maximum velocity (Figure 4-10(b)), 2f at zero velocity (Figure 4-10(c)). Even
though the frequency resolution is limited by the finite coupling time, this method provides
a lot of information in a single measurement. For example, the pattern of outcoupled atoms
in Figure 4-10(b) is curved because the trap frequency changes along the axial direction.
xx (pixel)

(a)

280

240

0.6

200
0.0

(b)

1.0
2.0
Trap Depth (a.u.)

2.0

(c)

101.5 kHz(d)

114 kHz(e)

120 kHz

Velocity

Resonant of the right side in (d)Both sides in (b)TimeThe left side in (d)Figure 4-10: Trap characterization with a continuous outcoupling. (a) Trap depth measurement. Atoms were out-coupled from a single well and escape velocity vf was measured bytraveling distance D with fixed traveling time t = 7 ms, changing the trap depth U which
was monitored in an arbitrary unit with the total power of the laser beam forming the single
well. The solid line is a fitting curve (see the text for details.) with 1 a.u.= 18.0 kHz and1 pixel= 3.11 µm. Dipole oscillation in x-direction was induced by suddenly shifting thetrap center. Trap frequency measurement. The out-coupling pattern with Bragg frequency
difference (b) ν = 2π × 101.5 kHz, (c) ν = 2π × 114 kHz, and (d) ν = 2π × 120 kHz, whichcorrespond to the resonant velocity ≈ 0 mm/s, ≈ 4 mm/s, and ≈ 6 mm/s, respectively.
In (c) and (d), the left and the right pattern have antisymmetric correlation because theresonant velocities for the left-side outcoupling and the right-side outcoupling have opposite
signs.

86

Chapter 5

Distillation of Condensates
This chapter describes the experimental investigation on thermal relaxation in a double-wellpotential, which was reported in the publication:• Y. Shin, M. Saba, A. Schirotzek, T. A. Pasquini, A. E. Leanhardt, D.E. Pritchard, and
W. Ketterle, Distillation of Bose-Einstein Condensates in a Double-Well Potential,
Physical Review Letters 92, 150401 (2004). Included in Appendix F.

Bose-Einstein condensation is the accumulation of a macroscopic number of bosonic particles in the lowest quantum state and the formation process of a Bose-Einstein condensate
and related thermodynamics have attracted great interest. People look for the answers forthe following questions: how fast a condensate grows out of non-condensed atoms and how
a condensate builds up the phase coherence in itself. Experimental studies of condensation
dynamics have been carried out with dilute atomic gases, including the observations of thebosonic stimulation effect on the growth of condensates [184], the growth and collapse ofcondensates with attractive interactions [185], and local formation of condensates in hydrodynamic regime [186]. However, there are still discrepancies between theoretical predictions
and experimental results [187, 188]. The description of the formation of the condensate isa current theoretical frontier and requires finite-temperature quantum kinetic theories.
Dynamics of a system can be investigated by perturbing the system quicker than any
equilibration process and monitoring how the system in a nonequilibrium state evolves
into thermal equilibrium. Experimental challenges are preparing the system in a welldefined nonequilibrium state and measuring the meaningful thermodynamic quantities ofthe evolving system without ambiguity. The aforementioned experiments [184, 188, 186]
exploited a shock cooling method to prepare a well-defined initial state of thermal clouds,
where a tail of the thermal distribution is quickly truncated. However, this quick forced
evaporation may lead to a complicated initial state due to the one-dimensional nature of
the truncation and nonergodic effects [189].
87

V
a

b

c

∆U
d

Figure 5-1: Scheme for distillation of condensates in a double-well potential. (a) Condensates are loaded into the left well. (b) A new ground state is created by linearly ramping
the trap depth of the right well from zero to the final value. (c) Atoms transfer into theright well via high-energy thermal atoms, and a new condensate starts to form in the rightwell. (d) The whole system has equilibrated. V denotes the height of the potential barrier
between the two wells, which is measured with respect to the bottom of the left well, and∆U denotes the trap depth difference between the two wells.

Metastable states can help understand thermodynamic processes due to their intrinsically long relaxation time. Metastable situations for a condensate can be created bymodifying a system to have one or more even lower quantum state. The original condensate
realizes that it is in the wrong state and eventually migrates to the true ground state of thesystem. This is the situation which we experimentally explore using a double-well potential
and we measure the time scale for this equilibration process.
The experimental scheme is described in Figure 5-1. Equilibrium Bose-Einstein condensates in an optical dipole trap are prepared and a metastable situation is set by creating asecond trap horizontally adjacent to the first. When the new trap is deeper than the original trap, condensates happen to be not in the ground state any more and try to migrate
into the empty well. The resulting double-well potential is characterized by the trap depth
difference between the two wells, ∆U , and the height of the potential barrier between thetwo wells, V . Since the probability of quantum tunneling through the barrier is extremely
small [62], the coupling between the two wells occurs only by the incoherent transfer ofhigh-energy thermal atoms over the potential barrier between the two wells. Since ∆U
and V are adjustable, we can control the flux of the incoherent coupling between the twopotential wells. By monitoring the time evolution of the double-well system we characterize
how these variables, ∆U and V , determine the dynamics.
This double-well system can be a good model system for studying thermodynamic
processes, having the advantage of being an almost closed system (little evaporation) withwell defined initial conditions and widely adjustable time scales (through the height of thebarrier). A similar situation was investigated with spinor condensates. Spinor Bose-Einsteincondensates are multi-component quantum systems where the components are coupled andcan exchange particles, showing rich ground states and collective excitations [34]. Several
groups have observed long-lived metastable configurations [190, 191, 192, 193] and specu-

88lated about transport of atoms from one domain to another via the thermal cloud [190, 192].
While spinor condensates provide unique opportunities for studying Bose-Einstein thermodynamics with tunable heat and particle bath,1 the systems involve additional complexities
such as spin dynamics and collisional losses [194, 192, 193, 195]. The double-well systemallows us to characterize thermal relaxation processes in their simplest realization.
The relaxation process we study is relevant for other questions. The incoherent transport observed here in a double well-potential imposes stringent limitations on future experiments aiming at the observation of coherent transport in Josephson junctions at finite
temperature [147, 196, 197]. To observe quantum tunneling, the thermal
q relaxation timeτth (∝ exp[V /kB T ]) should be longer than the tunneling time τtu (∝ exp[ V /mh̄2 w]) where
w is the thickness of the barrier. Our observation of condensate growth in one potential well

due to the addition of thermal atoms realizes the key ideas of proposals on how to achieve acontinuous atom laser [198] which is different from the experiment where condensates werereplenished with transported condensates [7].

5.1

Thermal Relaxation in a Double-Well Potential

The following experiment was carried out with Bose-Einstein condensates in the |F =1, mF = −1i state using the optical double-well potential as in Chapter 3 and 4. The
1/e2 intensity radius of the focused beam corresponding to a single well was 11.3 µm. The

details of the initial preparation and the experimental procedures are described in Ref. [2](Appendix F). The potential was transformed into a double-well potential by linearlyramping the right well potential from zero to the final value of UR over 500 ms while
keeping UL constant. The effective ramping time during which the trap depth differenceis less than the temperature, Ti , was 500 ms×(Ti /UR ) ≈ 40 ms which is much faster than

the typical relaxation time of ≈ 500 ms. The barrier height was set higher than the peakatomic mean field energy of condensates so that condensed atoms remained confined to theleft well during the transformation.
Figure 5-2 shows the dynamical evolution for a situation where the right well was much
deeper than the left well. In that case, the right well was filled first by thermal atoms,
which then formed a new condensate. Condensates that initially existed only in the left
well were almost completely distilled within 3 s to form condensates of comparable size inthe right well.
The whole system may be partitioned into five parts: 1) condensed atoms in the left
well, 2) condensed atoms in the right well, 3) thermal atoms in the left well with kinetic
energy lower than the potential barrier, 4) thermal atoms in the right well with kinetic
1

In spinor condensate system, magnetic fields act as a barrier height, using the magnetic properties ofatoms.

89

Hold Time

(a)

0s

0.25 s 0.5 s

1s

1.5 s

2s

3s

3.5 s

(b)

0s

0.5 s

1s

1.5 s

2s

2.5 s

3s

Figure 5-2: Time evolution of atom clouds in a double-well potential. (a) The absorption
images were taken for various hold times after creating the right well. The field of viewof each absorption image is 130 µm × 1160 µm. Before ramping up the right well, thetemperature of the initial clouds in the left well was Ti = (180 ± 90) nK and the numberof condensed atoms was Ni = (1.1 ± 0.1) × 106 with a peak mean field energy of µ̃0 ≈kB × 300 nK. The trap depths were UL = kB × 2.4 µK (left well) and UR = kB × 2.9 µK(right well) with a potential barrier of V = kB × 510 nK between them. During thehold time, the radial separation between the potential wells was 15.9 µm. For clarity, theseparation was increased to d = 31.2 µm just before taking absorption images. (b) A seriesof absorption images after 1 ms ballistic expansion. The initial condensate was distilledfrom the left to the right well.

90energy lower than the potential barrier, and 5) thermal atoms accessible to the both wellswith high kinetic energy. The particle exchanges among the subparts might be modeledwith simple rate equations to describe the full evolution of the system. However, due topossible ambiguity, we did not try this approach.
The time evolution of the double-well system was characterized by monitoring the number of condensed atoms and the temperature of clouds in each well. Actually, the system
under investigation was not in equilibrium and thus the temperature might not hold its definition in our situation. Especially at the beginning of the thermal relaxation, the hottest
thermal atoms in the left well spilled over the potential barrier to fill and share the trapping
volume of the right well. We, however, assumed local equilibrium in each well and determined the temperature with the density distribution of thermal atoms, which was necessary
to extract physically relevant information from our observation. This assumption might bejustified by a short collision time, τcol ≈ 1 ms, but its validity should be carefully examined.
The fitted value of the temperature of clouds and the number of condensed atoms ineach well were obtained by fitting radially-integrated one-dimensional atomic density crosssections to a bimodal distribution. For the condensate, we used a Thomas-Fermi distribution, and determined the number of condensed atoms by measuring the axial length of thecondensate. This measurement was supplemented by taking absorption images with 1 ms
ballistic expansion to distinguish the condensate from the thermal atoms around it (Figure 5-2(b)). For thermal clouds, the fits to a Bose-Einstein distribution were restricted only
to the wings to avoid the distortions due to the mean field repulsion of the condensate [199].
The temperature turned out to be very sensitive to the value of the chemical potential of
the thermal clouds. Assuming local equilibrium, we set the chemical potential of the thermal
clouds in each well equal to that of the condensates in the same well. This constraint meansthat thermal clouds in contact with condensates always have the phase-space density at its
saturated value of 2.61. In the dynamical situation, the presence of a condensate coexistingwith a thermal cloud with a phase-space density less than 2.61 can not be excluded [194, 195],
but a precise measurement of a value of the phase-space density is generally difficult in a
non-equilibrium situation. In the absence of a condensate, the chemical potential of thethermal cloud was determined by the fit to a Bose-Einstein distribution.
Density Distribution of a Bose Gas
We consider the density distribution of Bose condensed atomic gases trapped in a threedimensional harmonic potential:
U (~r) =1
m(ωx2 x2 + ωy2 y 2 + ωz2 z 2 ).
2

91

(5.1)

In the Thomas-Fermi limit, the density of the condensate part isnc (~r) = max(

µc − U (~r)
, 0),
g

(5.2)

where µc is the chemical potential of the condensate and g = 4πh̄2 a/m. In the harmonic
trap, the condensate has a parabolic density profilenc (~r) =

N
x2
y2
z2
15
max(1 − 2 − 2 − 2 , 0),8π xm ym zm
xm ym zm

where N is the total number of condensed atoms, im =

(5.3)

q

2µc /mωi2 (i = x, y, z). The column

density ñc and the radially (xy)-integrated one-dimensional density n̄c are given by
5 N
x2
z2
max((1 − 2 − 2 )3/2 , 0)
2π xm zm
xm zm
Z
15 N
z2
n̄c (z) ≡dydx nc =max((1 − 2 )2 , 0)
16 zm
zm

ñc (x, z) ≡Z

dy nc =

(5.4)
(5.5)

With the assumption kB T ≫ h̄ωx,y,z , we can obtain the density distribution of thethermal atoms,nth (~r) =where λdB =1g 3 (ζ(~r)),λ3dB 2(5.6)

q2πh̄2 /mkB T , ζ(~r) = exp((µth − V (~r))/kB T ), µth is the chemical potentialof the thermal cloud, and V (~r) is the potential thermal atoms feel at ~r. The Bose functions
are given by gα (z) =P∞l α
l=0 z /l .

In the absence of a condensate, V (~r) = U (~r). The column density ñth and the radially(x−y)-integrated one-dimensional density n̄th are given by
√
m
π
2 2
2 2
ñth (x, z) ≡dy nth = 3 yth g2 (e(µth − 2 (ωx x +ωz z ))/kB T )
λdB
Z
1
π
2 2
n̄th (z) ≡dydx nth = 3 xth yth g 5 (e(µth − 2 mωz z )/kB T ),2
λdB
Z

where ith =

(5.7)
(5.8)

q

2kB T /mωi2 (i = x, y).

In the presence of a condensate, the mean-field repulsion from the condensate results inV (~r) = U (~r) + 2gnc (~r). There are no simple analytic expressions for ñth and n̄th , but inthe region |z| > zm outside the condensate, Eq. (5.7) and (5.8) can be used with µth = µc .
Fitting Results
Figure 5-3 displays the evolution of the condensed atom number and temperature for thesituation in Figure 5-2. The initial, abrupt increase in the temperature of the thermal clouds
92

BEC Size (106 atoms)

1.0

0.5

Temperature (nK)

0
0

1

0

1

2

3

2

3

500
400
300
200

Hold Time (s)Figure 5-3: Approach to thermal equilibrium in a double-well potential. The temperatureand the number of condensed atoms in each well are shown as a function of hold time after
creating the right well. Open and solid circles represent atoms in the left and the right
well, respectively. Every data point is averaged over three measurements, and the error
bar shows ± one standard deviation. The experimental parameters are the same as for the
results shown in Fig. 5-2.

in the right well indicates that high energy thermal atoms rapidly transferred into the rightwell.2 Condensates started to form in the right well after (400 ± 150) ms and saturated

within 2 s, resulting in ∼ 50% of the condensate being transferred. The final temperaturein the right well was Tf ∼ 350 nK, which is ∼ 150 nK higher than the initial temperature
Ti . This increase of temperature reflects the energy gained by the atoms when they “fall”

into the right potential well which is deeper by ∆U = 480 nK. After 3.5 s, the total numberof atoms in the whole system was Nf = (0.6 ± 0.1) × 106 , which is 15% less than expected
for the measured lifetime of τ = 12.1 s. Evaporative cooling due to finite trap depth may

explain both the atom loss and the fact that the temperature increase was much less than∆U .
Even after 3.5 s hold time, full global equilibrium was not reached. This can be seen
in both the temperature and the condensed atom numbers. As the chemical potential ofcondensates in the right well was lower than the trap bottom of the left well, there should
2

The fit values for the temperature of the right well at hold times less than 1 s parametrize a cloud ourof equilibrium due to the violent evolution.

93

not have been any condensate remaining in the left well in global equilibrium. However,
Figure 5-2 shows a small condensate of ∼ 103 atoms in the left well even after 3.5 s holding.

Furthermore, the temperature in the left well was measured ∼ 100 nK lower than in the rightwell. Note that in our trap geometry, the exchange of thermal atoms might be geometricallysuppressed due to the small “contact area” between the two elongated cigar shaped clouds.
Moreover, if the transferred thermal atoms have high angular momentum, they have poor
collisional coupling to the cold trapped atoms like the Oort cloud in magnetic traps [200].
Indeed, the density of thermal atoms with higher energy than the potential barrier in theleft well after 3.5 s holding is ∼ 3 × 1011 /cm3 , and their collision time with the atoms
confined in this well is (nσvrel )−1 ≈ 0.5 s. More quantitative study of the slow relaxation
process with this metastable state might lead to useful insights.

5.1.1

Relaxation Rate

600 ms

650 ms

700 ms

800 msHold Time

Figure 5-4: Measurement of the onset of condensation with interference fringes. The onset
time in the right well was measured by observing the appearance of a matter wave interference pattern when the condensates were released from the double-well potential. The
separation of the two wells was d = 15.9 µm and the trap depth difference was ∆U ≈ 420 nK.
Absorption images with variable hold times are provided and resolvable fringe patterns appear after 650 ms hold time.

Another quantity of interest in the condensate formation process is the onset time ofcondensation, i.e., the hold time until a condensate first appears in the newly createdadjacent well [184, 187, 188]. The formation of a new condensate is a clearly distinctive
event in the thermal relaxation. To avoid ambiguities in fitting small condensates, we
determined the onset time in the right well by observing the appearance of interference
fringes when two condensates were released from the double-well potential (Figure 5-4).
For two pure condensates, the visibility of the interference fringes is larger than 55% aslong as the number ratio of the two condensates is larger than η =0.05. Using the methods
described in Ref. [1], we have observed discernible interference fringes down to η = 0.08,
corresponding to ∼ 8 × 104 condensed atoms in the right well.
94

(b)
4

4
3
2

No Fringe

Fringe Onset Time (s)

(a)

-120
0
120

3

240
360
480

2

1

1

0

0
-240

∆U / kB (nK)0240
∆U / kB (nK)

480

240

360
480
600
(V-∆U/2) / kB (nK)

Figure 5-5: Onset time of condensation. UL was kept at kB × 2.4 µK for all experiments.
(a) The separations of the two wells, d, were 14.3 µm (open circle), 15.1 µm (solid circle),and 15.9 µm (open square). Interference fringes were not observed at ∆U = −kB × 240 nK
even after 20 s hold time. The energy diagrams for the double-well potential are provided.
(b) The same data are plotted vs. V − ∆U/2 where V is the height of the potential barrier.
Onset times were measured as a function of d and ∆U (Figure 5-5). The qualitative
understanding of the dependence of the thermal relaxation rate on V and ∆U can be easily
obtained. The barrier of height V provides the ‘resistance’ against equilibration, since
thermal atoms must have a kinetic energy larger than V to transfer from the left well to theright well. On the other hand, the potential well difference ∆U can expedite the process.
When thermal atoms transfer to the right well, they would be rethermalized by themselves.
Some of them would be captured in the right well and some of them would come back in
the original left well with higher kinetic energy, accelerating the process by heating thecondensate in the left well. Therefore, the equilibrium process will be faster with larger ∆Uand smaller V .
The experimental result definitely shows this behavior. Phenomenologically, we foundthat the condensate onset time depends only on the combination (V −∆U/2) with an almost

exponential dependence (Figure 5-5(b)). (V − ∆U/2) can be considered as (Vef f − ∆U ),where Vef f = [V + (V + ∆U )]/2 is the average height of the barrier measured from eachwell. The exponential behavior of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution may explain theobserved dependence.
In two limiting cases, no interference patterns were observed. When the trap depth
difference is larger than the peak atomic mean field energy of condensates, i.e. |∆U | > µ̃0 ,it is energetically favorable for condensates to remain in the lower well. We observed nointerference pattern when ∆U = −kB × 240 nK even after 20 s hold time. On the other
hand, when ∆U ≥ kB × 360 nK, the ‘appearance and then disappearance’ of interference95fringes was observed because the condensates were completely distilled into the right well.
In the limit where the barrier height is smaller than the peak atomic mean field energy of
condensates, i.e. V < µ̃0 , condensate atoms can directly ‘spill’ over the potential barrier.
Indeed, we observed that condensates appeared in the right well immediately for V lessthan ∼ kB × 290 nK, consistent with µ̃0 ∼ kB × 300 nK.

5.2

Discussion

In conclusion, we have created Bose-Einstein condensates in a metastable state in a doublewell potential and studied their dynamical evolution. The observed distillation was driven
by thermal atoms spilling over the potential barrier separating the two wells and thenforming a new condensate. The onset time of a new condensate was measured over a verybroad range from a few ten millisecond to a few seconds with various trap parameters.
Kinetics of Bose-Einstein condensation is generally believed to have several qualitatively
different stages [201, 202, 203, 204]. In a rapidly cooled atomic gas near the critical temperature, particles first relax into low energy states according to classical Boltzmann kinetics,
and once the particles are concentrated enough in the low energy states where interparticle
interaction energy is dominant over kinetic energy, the coherent evolution of the low lying
levels should be taken into account and from this point the occupation number in eachlevel can not represent the state of the system. It is theoretically anticipated that a quasicondensate with suppressed density fluctuation would appear having a spatially fluctuatingphase. A genuine condensate with a uniform phase would emerge after a system-dependent
phase relaxation time [203, 205]. A numerical simulation based on full quantum kinetic
theory [206, 187, 207] showed a quantitative agreement with this phase ordering scenario,emphasizing the role of highly occupied low-lying excitation levels. Furthermore, the local
formation of condensates reported in Ref. [186] shows the experimental feasibility of thestudy of this phenomenon.
We speculate that the interference method used for detecting new condensates mightallow to study how the phase coherence emerges with condensation. Taking advantage of
having another condensate as phase reference might be a more direct method to study
the phase coherence build-up mechanism in condensation than Bragg scattering [42] andcondensate focusing [186]. Indeed, this was the original motivation of this distillation experiment. We could verify the nonuniformity of the phase of a newly formed condensate byobserving a fragmented fringe pattern (see the 650 ms-holdtime image in Figure 5-4), but
unfortunately the experiment apparatus was not stable enough to allow systematic studies.

96Chapter 6

Dynamical Instability of a Doubly
Quantized Vortex State
This chapter describes vortex experiments on atom chips. Experimental results were reported in the following publications.
• A. E. Leanhardt, A. Görlitz, A. P. Chikkatur, D. Kielpinski, Y. Shin, D. E. Pritchard,
and W. Ketterle, Imprinting Vortices in a Bose-Einstein Condensate using Topological
Phases, Physical Review Letters 89, 190403 (2002).
• A. E. Leanhardt, Y. Shin, D. Kielpinski, D. E. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle, CorelessVortex Formation in a Spinor Bose-Einstein Condensate, Physical Review Letters 90,
140403 (2003). Included in Appendix G.
• Y. Shin, M. Saba, M. Vengalattore, T.A. Pasquini, C. Sanner, A.E. Leanhardt, M.
Prentiss, D.E. Prichard, and W. Ketterle, Dynamical Instability of a Doubly Quantized
Vortex in a Bose-Einstein condensate, Physical Review Letters 93, 160406 (2004).
Included in Appendix H.

A Bose-Einstein condensate is described by a macroscopic wave function and the velocity is represented by the spatial gradient of the quantum phase, meaning that a condensate
can sustain a rotational flow only around a density singularity. Since the condensate wave
function should be single-valued, the change of the phase value over any closed path must
be a multiple of 2π. This is the Onsager-Feynman quantization condition [208, 209]. Consequently, atoms in a Bose-Einstein condensate circulate with angular momentum only equal
to an integer multiple of h̄, in the form of a quantized vortex [210].
Superfluidity is closely related to a Bose-Einstein condensates and it is generally believed that Bose-Einstein condensation is an underlying physical mechanism for superfluidity. However, Huang [211] clearly stated that superfluidity and Bose-Einstein condensation
are independent concepts, showing that superfluidity emerges in lower dimension without
Bose-Einstein condensation and a Bose-Einstein condensate in a disordered system does97

not have superfluidity. Simply, the ideal Bose gas at zero temperature is not a superfluid
because of the absence of atom-atom interaction. Superfluidity is a collective property notrelying on the existence of Bose-Einstein condensates.
One aspect of superfluidity of a Bose-Einstein condensate can be investigated with thestability of a quantized vortex state. Vortices are excited states of motion and therefore
energetically unstable towards relaxation into the stationary ground state. However, quantization constrains the decay: a vortex in Bose-Einstein condensates cannot simply fadeaway or disappear, it is only allowed to move out of the condensate or annihilate withanother vortex of opposite circulation. Vortex decay and metastability have been a central
issue in the study of superfluidity [212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217]. Since stable quantized vortices indicate the existence of a condensate wave function and phonon-like quasiparticles inthe excitation spectrum, the observation of stable quantized vortices is taken as conclusive
evidence for superfluidity. In almost pure condensates, vortices with lifetimes up to tens ofseconds have been observed in atomic condensates [17, 18, 19].
Generally, the study of topological excitation and their stability is an active frontierin the field of quantum degenerate gases. One of interesting subjects is the stability ofmultiply-quantized vortex states. Giving a Bose-Einstein condensate angular momentum
per particle larger than h̄ can result in one multiply-quantized vortex with large circulationor, alternatively, in many singly-quantized vortices each with angular momentum h̄. The
kinetic energy of atoms circulating around the vortex is proportional to the square of theangular momentum; therefore the kinetic energy associated with the presence of a multiplyquantized vortex is larger than the kinetic energy of a collection of singly-quantized vortices
carrying the same angular momentum. In an energetic sense, a multiply-quantized vortex
may decay into many singly-quantized vortices. Observations of arrays of singly-quantizedvortices in rapidly rotating condensates [18, 19] indirectly suggests that the instability leads
to fast decay of multiply-quantized vortices.
A multiply-quantized vortex is believed to decay coherently by splitting into singlyquantized vortices and transferring the kinetic energy to coherent excitation modes. Thisphenomenon is called dynamical instability and it is driven not by dissipation in an external bath, but by atomic interactions [214, 218, 219, 220]. On the other hand, the existenceof stable multiply-quantized vortices in trapped Bose-Einstein condensates has been predicted with a localized pinning potential [218] or in a quartic trapping potential [221].
Stable doubly-quantized vortices were observed in superconductors in presence of pinning
forces [222] and in superfluid 3 He-A which has a multicomponent order parameter [223].
Recently, surprisingly long lifetime of a “giant” vortex core has been reported [224]. In thischapter, I describe our experimental study of a doubly quantized vortex state.

98

6.1

Topological Imprinting of a Vortex State

Preparing condensates in vortex states is an experimentally challenging task. One of thesimplest methods for injecting angular momentum into condensates is mechanically rotating
the condensates, analogous to the rotating bucket experiments with 4 He. Vortices have been
generated by rotating condensates with an optical stirer (a repulsive optical potential) [18,19] and an anisotropic trapping potential [225, 226], and slicing condensates above thecritical velocity [154].
Another type of methods for creating vortex states is directly imprinting the phasepattern of the vortex states on condensates. With two-component condensates, a dynamicalphase imprinting technique was demonstrated [227, 17]. The phase imprinting technique
is versatile because the spatial phase pattern can be directly tailored according to thefinal target state. Furthermore, this technique provides a unique opportunity for studying
dynamically unstable states due to the fast preparation. Dynamics of solitons in condensates
were investigated with the phase imprinting technique, and actually vortices were also
observed through the decay of solitons [228, 66, 229].
In the experiments described in this chapter, a doubly quantized vortex state was prepared using a topological phase imprinting method [230, 8]. In the following subsections,
the working principle of the method is presented.

6.1.1

Berry’s Phase in Spin Rotation

Berry introduced additional quantum phase factors for a quantum system experiencing
adiabatic changes, and formulated the geometric feature of the quantum phase factors in
his seminal paper [231]. This subsection shows the basic definition of Berry’s phase andillustrate its consequences in spin rotation.
When a quantum system is governed by time-independent Hamilitonian H and thesystem is in the nth eigenstate |nH i from the ground state |0i of the system, the state of
the system |ψi, in Schrödinger picture, evolves as|ψ(t)i = e−iEn t/h̄ |nH i,(6.1)

where En is the corresponding eigenenergy and |ψ(0)i = |nH i. The phase factor e−iEn t/h̄is called a dynamic phase factor due to the energy of the system. Let’s imagine that theexternal environment for the system is time-dependent. For simplicity, assume that the
Hamilitonian H is parameterized with χ, i.e., H = H(χ) and χ = χ(t). If R is changing
very slowly, slower than any transition frequency, we can expect the state of the system
to adiabatically follow the change and keep staying in the nth eigenstate |nH(χ) i which is
i

Rt

′

′

also time-dependent. Naively we might think the phase factor would be e− h̄ 0 dt En (χ(t )) .
99

However, Berry verified that the final state should be− h̄i|ψ(t)i = e

Rt0dt′ En (χ(t′ )) iγ(C)e|nH(χ) i,(6.2)

reflecting the adiabatic change, where γ in the second phase factor is called Berry’s phase.
At first sight, it might be claimed that we can simplify the situation by redefining the ntheigenstate as eiγ |nH (χ)i. However, Berry’s phase γ(C) depends on not only the final valueof R but also the trajectory of R to the final value.

The path-dependence of Berry’s phase is clearly illustrated in spin rotation. Imagine aspin-1 particle pointing in +z direction and rotate the spin direction to −z direction. In

the conventional notation taking +z direction as a quantization axis, angular momentum−→
operator F is presented as


0 1 0





0 −1

 Fy
1 
i 
Fx
=√ 
=√ 
,
1
1 0 1 


h̄
h̄
2
2
0
0 1 0

0

1

0




−1 
,
0



1 0

0





Fz
=
0 0 0 .
h̄
0 0 −1

(6.3)

−
→
i
The rotation operator R(n̂, θ) = e− h̄ n̂· F θ , which rotates the spin by θ in n̂ direction (|n̂| =1). Consider rotation with n̂ = x̂ cos φ + ŷ sin φ, and then

i






cos2 θ2

R(φ, θ) = e− h̄ θ(Fx cos φ+Fy sin φ) =  − √i2 sin θeiφ

− √i2 sin θe−iφ− sin2 2θ ei2φcos θ

− √i2 sin θeiφ− sin2 2θ e−i2φ






− √i2 sin θe−iφ  . (6.4)
cos2 2θ

Applying R(φ, π) on the initial state | + 1iz makes the spin point in −z direction at the endof the rotation.






cos2 π2R(φ, π)| + 1iz =  − √i2 sin πeiφ  = −ei2φ | − ziz .
− sin2 π2 ei2φ

(6.5)

Notice that the phase factor ei2φ depends on the rotation axis. For example, a final statewith π-rotation in +x and one with with π-rotation in +y are completely out of phase.
The above consideration can be straightforwardly extended to the case with a particle
with spin-F . Especially, when the spin travels back to its initial position, Berry’s phaseaccompanying the spin trajectory can be unambiguously defined without bothering thedefinition of the final state. For a spin F particle in a eigenstate |mF i, Berry’s phase,γ(C), accompanying an adiabatic change represented by a closed loop, C, on the surfaceof the spin sphere in Figure 6-1 is given by γ(C) = −mF Ω(C), where Ω is the solid angle

subtended by a surface bounded by the spin trajectory, C [231]. The relation to a solid

100

(a)

(b)

z

z

(c)

z

F
C
y

y

y
x

+z

e

iπ

-z

π rotation in +x+z-z

π rotation in +yFigure 6-1: Berry’s phase in spin rotation. When a spin initially prepared in the | + zi stateis transformed into the | − zi by rotation, the final phase factor of the spin state depends
on the direction of the rotation axis. The final state with (a) π-rotation in +x direction isout of phase to that with (b) π-rotation in +y direction. Generally, Berry’s phase, γ(C),accompanying an adiabatic change represented by a closed loop, C, on the surface of thespin sphere is proportional to the solid angle subtended by a surface bounded by the spin
trajectory, C.

angle in Hamiltonian’s parameter space is a universal property of Berry’s phase, and thatis why it is called a geometrical phase in contrast to a dynamical phase.1

6.1.2

Phase Imprinting of Multiply Quantized Vortex States

Gaseous condensates trapped in a magnetic trap are generally spin polarized so that the
spin direction of each atom in the condensate can be manipulated by adiabatically changing
a magnetic field direction at the position of the atom. Therefore, a specific phase pattern
in a condensate can be prepared by rotating each atom in a proper direction because thefinal phase of a spin state depends on the direction of a rotation axis as we discussed in theprevious subsection.
A vortex formation method using a magnetic field rotation was suggested in Refs. [232,230, 233, 234]. Let’s assume that a spinor condensate polarized in |F, mF i is prepared ina Ioffe-Pritchard trap. The quantization axis is in the +z direction. The transverse field

configuration of the magnetic trap is given in Figure 6-2(a). The initial axial magnetic field
is in +z direction and is ramped down to a negative value. This field inversion process iscarried on slowly enough that spins can adiabatically follow the field direction. Due to thenonzero transverse field, spins effectively rotate and the rotation direction is determined by
the transverse field direction. As we can see in Figure 6-2, the rotation axis n̂ changes along1
In mathematics, the difference between ‘geometrical’ and ‘topological’ is whether length(measure) is
important or not in description. We named the vortex generation method as a ‘topological’ phase imprinting,instead of ‘geometrical’, because the spatial dependence, i.e., the topological shape of rotation axes is essential
to generate a vortex state.

101

(a)

y

(b)

y

φ
x

x

b(φ)
n(φ)

Figure 6-2: (a) The transverse magnetic field in a Ioffe-Pritchard magnetic trap has aquadrupole field configuration. When the axial (z-direction) magnetic field changes from a
positive value to a negative value, the rotation axis, n̂, of the magnetic field depends on theazimuthal angle, φ. (b) The rotation axis, n̂(φ), and the transverse field direction, b̂ along
the dashed circumference.

the circumference indicated by a dashed line.
n̂(φ) = x̂ sin φ + ŷ cos φ,(6.6)

where φ is the azimuthal angle at the atomic position. Assuming that the field inversion
makes π-rotation from +z direction to −z direction, the final spin state after the rotation

is given by−→iπ|ψi = e− h̄ n̂(φ)· F |F, mF i

= (−1)F +mF e−i2mF φ |F, −mF i.

(6.7)
(6.8)

Reflecting the azimuthal dependence of the rotation axis n̂(φ), the condensate after the field
inversion ends up with a 4mF π phase winding; a multiply quantized vortex state for F ≥ 1.

Rotating spins in a twisted way results in a spatial phase modulation in a condensate,

injecting angular momentum and kinetic energy into the condensate. It is generally believedthat state-to-state transfer by an adiabatic change always leaves the entropy of a system
unchanged so that the ground states of two Hamiltonians can be connected by an adiabatic
transfromation from one Hamiltonian to the other. However, the above situation showsthat this general belief is not universally true because of the presence of singularities.2

2

The situation may be considered as a two-dimensional space embedded in a three-dimensional spacebecause the spin rotation is not applicable at the trap center.

102

6.1.3Vortex Experiments on an Atom Chip
(a)

(b)
Bz
IL

BEC

IR

IC

z
IL

IR

BEC with a vortex

x
y

z

3 mm

g

Figure 6-3: Vortex experiment on an atom chip. (a) Wire pattern on the atom chip. A
magnetic trap is formed by a current IC flowing through the center wire in conjunction witha external uniform magnetic field Bx . The axial confinement along z direction is generated
by currents IL and IR in the end-cap wires. Each current is controlled independently. (b)Imprinting of a vortex in a Bose-Einstein condensate. By inverting the z direction magnetic
field Bz , a doubly quantized vortex was imprinted in |F = 1i condensates. The direction of
IL and IR were also reversed to maintain the axial confinement.

Our vortex experiments were carried out with atom chips. Bose-Einstein condensatesof 23 Na atoms in the |F = 1, mF = −1i state were loaded into a Ioffe-Pritchard magnetic

trap generated by a microfabricated atom chip, and vortices were topologically imprinted
in the condensates by inverting the axial magnetic field. The wire pattern on the atom
chip is shown in Figure 6-3(a). We designed an atom chip with separate end-cap wires,allowing independent control of the axial magnetic field. Also, the axial trap position andthe axial trap frequency of the inverted trap were matched to those of the original wire
trap by adjusting the final values for IL and IR after field inversion. With the simple Zshaped wire trap, it is technically impossible to change the sign of the axial magnetic fieldcurvature. Typical radial trap frequency fr ∼ 250 Hz, and axial trap frequency fz ∼ 3 Hz.

Bz was ramped linearly from ∼ 0.5 G to ∼ −0.5 G in ≈ 10 ms. More detailed information

on experiment parameters such as size of condensates, life times of condensates, and loss
rate due to spin flips, were described in Ref. [8, 10, 3].
Atom chips demonstrated their superb capability for precise manipulation of atoms

throughout the vortex experiments. The experimental implementation of the vortex formation method might look simple; just inverting the axial magnetic field. However, to maintainthe confinement after inverting, the axial field curvature should be also inverted. Furthermore, matching the trap parameters before and after imprinting is crucial for preparing
clean vortex states. In real experiments, since the radial trap frequency fr is proportional
to the square root of axial magnetic field Bz (fr ∝ |Bz |−1/2 ), the vortex imprinting process

is accompanied by sudden mechanical perturbations: 1) squeezing in the radial direction103

as Bz passes through zero can lead quadruple excitations, 2) the change in the verticaltrap position due to a gravitational sag (∝ fr−2 ) can induce vertical dipole excitation, 3)
mismatching in the axial trap position and the axial trap frequency after the field inversion
will bring axial excitations. Small operating currents and adequate spatial design of atom
chips made the vortex experiments possible.3

6.2

Observation of Splitting of a Doubly Quantized Vortex
Core

The topological phase imprinting method was experimentally demonstrated in our first
vortex experiment [8], generating multiply quantized vortex states with F = 1 and F = 2
atoms. The axial angular momentum per particle of the vortex states were measured using
surface wave spectroscopy [236, 237, 238], showing the consistence with the predicted values,
2h̄ for F = 1 atoms and 4h̄ for F = 2 atoms. This experiment was carried out with a Z-wiretrap on Atom chip-I. As mentioned before, it was technically impossible to keep condensatesconfined after imprinting.
With a newly designed atom chip (Figure 6-3), we investigated the stability of a doubly
quantized vortex state, focusing on how a doubly-quantized vortex core decays into twosingly-quantized core. Absorption images was taken along the imprinted vortex line after
releasing the condensate and letting it expand during time-of-flight. The size of a doublyquantized vortex core was typically ∼ 40 µm with 15 ms time-of-flight.

However, the visibility of a vortex core in an integrated absorption image completely

vanished within 30 ms (Figure 6-4(a)) so that further evolution of the vortex core could
not be monitored with integrated absorption images. To reduce blurring due to possible
bending of the vortex line [239], we employed a tomographic imaging technique [16]. As
illustrated in Figure 6-4(b), a 30 µm thick central slice of the condensate was selectively
pumped into the F = 2 hyperfine level with a sheet of laser light perpendicular to thecondensate long axis, and then the radial profile of the condensate in the selected region
was imaged with a light pulse resonant with the F = 2 → F ′ = 3 cycling transition. This
tomographic imaging technique was crucial for observing the time evolution of vortex cores
beyond 30 ms.
A series of absorption images of the splitting process of a doubly-quantized vortex coreis provided in Figure 6-5. Images taken just after imprinting show a doubly-quantizedvortex core of high visibility. The visibility of the core decreased with evolution time, which
we attribute to bending of the vortex line [239] and other excitations created during the3

The same vortex imprinting method was implemented with 87 Rb atoms in a macroscopic trap anddeleterious effects due to a gravitational sag were reported [235].

104

(a)

0 ms

10 ms

20 ms

30 ms

(b)

BEC

Figure 6-4: Tomographic imaging technique. (a) The visibility of a vortex core in an
integrated F = 1 absorption image completely vanished within 30 ms. (b) A central sliceof a condensate in the F = 1 hyperfine state is selectively pumped into the F = 2 hyperfine
state with a sheet of a pumping beam, and then the radial profile of the condensate in theselected region is imaged with a probe pulse resonant with the F = 2 → F ′ = 3 cyclingtransition.

imprinting process which we discussed in the previous section. Later in the evolution, thecentral core deformed into an elliptical shape and split into two closely-spaced cores. Oncethe two cores were separated by their diameter, they appeared well resolved in our images.
The angular position of the two cores was random for each experimental realization withthe same evolution time, so the precession frequency and the precession direction of twocores could not be determined with our destructive image technique.

6.2.1

Density dependence of Decay Rate

To investigate the dependence of the instability of a doubly-quantized vortex state on themean field atomic interaction, we measured the characteristic time scale of the splittingof a doubly-quantized vortex core as a function of the atom density. Atom density wascontrolled by removing a variable number of atoms with rf evaporation before imprinting
a vortex. Images were classified as follows: images where the two cores were separated bymore than one core diameter were labelled as “two visible cores”; images with a clearlydefined circular central core were labelled as “one core”; images in the intermediate range,
105

7 ms

22 ms

35 ms

50 ms

62 ms

75 ms

Figure 6-5: Splitting of a doubly-quantized vortex core. Axial absorption images of condensates was taken after 15 ms of ballistic expansion with a variable hold time after imprinting
a doubly quantized vortex. A tomographic imaging technique was used. A doubly quantizedvortex decayed into two singly quantized vortices. For this data, the interaction strength
was anz ≈ 7.5 (see text for definition). The field of view in each image is 320 µm × 320 µm.
where the central core was elliptical but the two cores were not resolved, or with a bad
visibility were labelled as “undetermined”. For example, the images at 62 ms and 75 ms in
Figure 6-5 and Figure 6-6A were classified as “two visible cores”, and 50 ms in Figure 6-5,
and Figure 6-7(a) and (c) as “undetermined”.
Experimental results are provided in Figure 6-6 as a function of the linear atom densitynz (along the condensate long axis) multiplied by the s-wave scattering length a. The
rescaled quantity, anz = a |ψ(r)|2 dxdy corresponds to the strength of the mean fieldR

interaction, with ψ(r) being the condensate wavefunction. The total atom number in theabsorption image is linearly proportional to nz because only a central slice of the condensate
contributes to the image. Results in Figure 6-6 clearly demonstrate that a doubly-quantizedvortex core splits more slowly as the density becomes higher.

6.2.2

Dynamical Instability

Multiply-quantized vortices in a harmonic potential are predicted to be dynamically unstable [214], i.e., the vortices spontaneously decay into other states even in the absence ofdissipation and external perturbations. Static stability is concerned with that the energy ofthe given system has a local extreme in the parameterized Hamilitonian space and dynamical
stability considers the temporal evolution of the given system with arbitrary infinitesimal
perturbation. Typically, the analysis on dynamical stability uses approximate linearized
equations of motions. In the Bogoliubov framework, which is believed to well describe
quantized vortices in one component condensates, this dynamical instability manifests as
106

(a)

A

two visible cores
undetermined
one core

Hold Time (ms)

80

60

7 ms

B

B

40

20
A

57 ms

0

(b)

Separation (µm)

0

2

4

6

8

anz

10

12

14

150
100
50
0
0

20

40
60
Hold Time (ms)80

Figure 6-6: Density dependence of the decay process. (a) The time scale for the decay
process of doubly quantized vortex states was measured by observing the vortex coresand classifying them as one vortex (open circles) or two vortices (solid circles). Data
were collected with three axial trap frequencies fz = 2.7, 3.7, 12.1 Hz and the interaction
strength anz was controlled by changing the atom number by rf induced evaporation before
imprinting. Typical absorption images for (A) fast decay at low density (anz = 1.5) and(B) slow decay at high density (anz = 10.1). The field of view in the absorption images is
300 µm × 300 µm. (b) The separation of two visible cores vs. the hold time for 2 < anz < 3(solid triangles) and 6 < anz < 8 (open triangles). The solid and dashed lines indicate thediameter of one vortex core and of the condensate, respectively.

107the existence of excitation modes with a complex eigenfrequency. The nonvanishing imaginary part of the eigenfrequency implies an exponential growth in time of the corresponding
excitation mode, leading to decay of the multiply-quantized vortex state. This spectral instability is a general parametric phenomenon occurring when several modes compete duringcoherent evolution and has been studied in many other nonlinear physical systems.
For a doubly-quantized vortex state in a cylindrically symmetric condensate, it wastheoretically found that there are two excitation modes with a complex eigenfrequency [214,219]. One of them is confined inside the doubly-quantized vortex core; the growth of
this so-called “core” mode induces splitting of the original doubly-quantized vortex core
into two separate singly-quantized vortex cores. The other mode, having the conjugate
eigenfrequency, grows with the core mode in order to conserve energy. In the low density
limit, this mode corresponds to the co-rotating quadrupole mode, leading to oscillationsin the surface shape of condensates. We always observed that the surface of condensateschanged into a quadrupole shape as the two cores appeared, as shown in Figure 6-6A, andthe ellipticity was larger at lower density.
Once the doubly-quantized vortex core splits into two cores, the distance between the twocores was almost constant (∼ 50 µm) during the further evolution, as shown in Figure 66(b). This is evidence that the separation process was driven mainly by the dynamical
instability, and not by dissipation, which would gradually increase the separation of the twocores. Dissipative processes were minimized by performing the experiments at the lowest
possible temperature. Condensates did not have any discernible thermal components evenafter extended hold time. Furthermore, the energy released by the dissociation of the
doubly-quantized vortex was ∼ 5 nK negligible to the critical temperature ∼ 240 nK. For

the upper bound to the temperature of < 100 nK, Ref. [240] predicts that dissipative decay
time to be ≈ 1.5 s for a single vortex, a time scale much longer than what we observed.

What is the further evolution of the two cores? Some of the images at low density

showed a regular surface modulation, as in Figure 6-7(a), which was not seen in clouds witha single core. This indicates that higher-order surface modes are excited during the coherent
evolution [241]. Several images, especially those labelled as “undetermined”, suggest thatvortex lines crossed [219, 242], as in Figure 6-7(c). In our system, it was difficult to trace
the positions of the two cores beyond 80 ms hold time.

6.2.3

Discussion

According to the above observations such as the ellipticity of the cloud, the surface modulation, and the rapid saturation of the core separation, the decay of the doubly-quantizedvortex state seems to be due to dynamical instability. However, there is a qualitative discrepancy between theoretical calculation and our observation. The dynamical instability
108

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 6-7: Examples for the dynamic evolution after imprinting a doubly quantized vortex:(a) Surface Exicitation. Regular density modulation of the surface was observed after 51 ms
hold time for anz = 1.8 (b) same as (a) with a contour line. (c) Crossing of vortex lines.
55 ms hold time and anz = 8.4. (d) same as (c) with guide lines for vortex lines. The fieldof view is 270 µm × 270 µm.
of the doubly-quantized vortex state is related to the magnitude of the imaginary part ofthe complex eigenfrequency, and, according to the numeric calculation in Ref. [219], nonvanishing imaginary part of the eigenfrequency appears at anz < 3 and anz ∼ 12, showing
a quasi-periodic behavior as a function of the interaction strength, anz . In contrast to

this prediction, the experiment showed a monotonic increase of the lifetime with no hint of
periodic behavior.
However, we should remind that the calculated instability is not directly comparable tothe observed lifetime. In the theoretical calculation, the imaginary part represents only the
initial instability, whereas our criterion for decay was the observation of two separated vortex
cores. Therefore, there is no information on how the exponential growth of excitation modes
would affect the following evolution and it is possible that the dynamical instability changes
after the doubly-quantized vortex state is significantly perturbed [215, 220]. Furthermore,
the theoretical investigation was based on two-dimensional calculation. The real situation
is more complicated: 1) The density, i.e., the interaction strength is changed along the axial
direction. One might imagine the twisting of two vortex lines in three dimension [219]. 2)
The trap has ∼ 2% asymmetry in the radial trap frequency due to the gravitational sag. 3)

A certain amount of excitations must be induced by the imprinting process, as described in
Section 6.1.3.
Recently, Jackson et al. [243] emphasized the role of static instability of the doublyquantized vortex state. Even though we excluded the possibility of thermal dissipation, theslow decay with a higher atom density reminds of the zero-point energy argument: Since
the size of the vortex core decreases with a higher peak density, the zero-point energy of
the core mode increases and consequently slows down the thermal dissipation of the vortex
state [212]. Interestingly, Gawryluk et al. [244] presented a three-dimensional numericalsimulation consistent with our observation.
One possible extension of this experiment is combining this setup with an one-dimensional
optical lattice along the axial direction, which would realize a two-dimensional trap array.
109

Reducing the axial dimension, one may have a simpler situation. Dynamics of a vortex
line in a stack of weakly coupled two-dimensional condensates were theoretically investigated [245, 246].

6.3

Observation of Coreless Vortices: Spin Textures

In spinless or spin-polarized condensates, vortices need to have cores where the density ofcondensed particles is zero because the condensate wave function is single-valued. However,in spinor condensates represented by a complex vector wave function with an internal, spin
degree of freedom, coreless vortices exist as spin textures [247, 248]. With the spin-rotation
topological imprinting technique, we created coreless vortices where each spin component
has a different phase winding [10]. Coreless vortices in spinor condensates are different
from the vortex states with two component condensates [17] where one component fill up
the core of the vortex cores of the other condensate. Fundamentally, condensate mixtures
are different from spinor condensates because of the presence of coherent coupling among
components [210].
Let’s have a closer look at what is happening inside condensates during the field inversion. The axial magnetic field Bz is ramped from +Bz0 (> 0) to −Bz0 , and the rotation

angle θ is given by θ(Bz ) = cot−1 (Bz /Br ) with the assumption that the initial spin is parallel to z-direction (Bz0 ≫ Br ), where Br is the transverse field at atom position. According
to Eq. (6.3), a spinor condensate initially prepared in the |1, −1iz state is transformed into

sin2 2θ ei2φ






R(φ, θ(Bz ))|1, −1iz =  − √1 sin θeiφ  ,2cos2 2θ

(6.9)

where φ → π2 − φ to account for the field direction in Figure 6-2. During the field inversion

θ : 0 → π, the population transfers from the |1, −1i state with no vortex into the |1, 0i

state with a singly quantized vortex and the |1, +1i state with a doubly quantized vortex.

Because Br ∝ r, the rotation angle θ also has radial dependence and outer atoms will rotate

further when Bz > 0. We can imagine a coreless vortex state where a vortexless |1, −1icomponent in the center is surrounded by other circulating components.

When θ ≈ π2 (Bz ≈ 0), a physically interesting situation happens; all three spin states

are almost equally populated, but each state has a different phase winding from each otherso that the corresponding centrifugal force would separate them in the radial direction.
However, the atomic Zeeman energy would compete this segregation effect because themisalignment of spins from the magnetic field direction costs energy. The competition
between kinetic energy and Zeeman energy would cause interesting dynamics of the spin
110

(a)

(c)

(b)

(d)

mF = +1

mF = 0mF = -1

mF = -1

mF = 0mF = +1

Figure 6-8: Coreless vortices in F = 1 spinor condensates. Coreless vortices were imprinted
by ramping the axial magnetic filed Bz to zero in a Ioffe-Pritchard magnetic trap. The spin
texture was diagnosed by a projection method, suddenly switching (a,b) Bz ≪ 0 and (c,d)
Bz ≫ 0. Axial absorption images were taken after 20 ms time-of-flight. In (b) and (d),the three spin states were spatially separated by a magnetic field gradient. The magnetic
sublevel number mF is defined with respect to +z quantization axis.

texture.
The nature of the spin texture with Bz ≈ 0 was experimentally studied by a projec-tion method. The experimental conditions for producing the spin texture were similar to
those for the previous vortex experiments. After ramping down Bz → 0, the strong axial

magnetic field was suddenly switched on to project the condensate wave function onto abasis quantized in the axial, z direction. This experimental technique corresponds to thetheoretical decomposition of the wave function in the z quantization axis. Following thefield projection, condensates were released and each spin component was spatially separated
during time-of-flight by an additional field gradient, an implementation of the Stern-Gerlach
effect. Coreless vortices having three spin states with different vorticities were observed anda typical absorption image is provided in Figure 6-8.
When the projection field was applied in +z direction (positive projection), additionalring structures were observed in |1, −1i and |1, 0i states. They may be a signature of spinwave excitations [34, 35], but we attribute these effects mainly to technical imperfections in

our field control. Detailed analysis of the projection method and possible technical issues aredescribed in Ref. [10]. Changing the final value of Bz in the vortex imprinting process, thespin textures were measured (Figure 6-9), which clearly demonstrates that the populationtransfers from the |1, −1i state to the |1, +1i state.

Studying the dynamic evolution and the stability of the spin texture was limited by

the short lifetime of condensates which was ∼ 1 ms with Bz ≈ 0 due to non-adiabatic(Majorana) spin flips at the trap center. The spin flip effect was directly confirmed byobserving atom leakage out of the magnetic trap. Using an optical dipole trap might be an111

alternative method to study the dynamics. However, it was technically difficult to overlap
an optical trap with a magnetic trap and hold atoms stably.
(a) negative projection(b) positive projection

BZ,final

mF= +1 mF= 0 mF= -1

(c)

BZ

positive projection

BZ0
BZ,final
0

time

negative projection

Figure 6-9: Spin textures vs. final axial magnetic field. Vortex states were imprinted byramping down Bz from Bz0 to Bz,f inal ≈ 0. Changing the final field value Bz,f inal aroundzero, spin textures were measured by suddenly switching (a) Bz ≪ 0 (negative projection)and (b) Bz ≫ 0 (positive projection). The field control is sketched in (c).

112

Chapter 7

Conclusion
Experimental breakthroughs that access previously unexplored regions and interactions,which may be ultrafast phenomena, ultra small objects, ultra low temperatures, or extremely large cosmic objects, have always uncovered new and unexpected physical scenarios.
This indisputable fact always drives and challenges experimentalists to expand the experimentally accessible realm with new techniques and systems. Experimental realization of
Bose-Einstein condensation with a weakly interacting neutral atoms is one clear example ofthese efforts. Since 1995, the quantum degenerate atomic gas system has provided a magnificent playground where experimentalists can play at will with quantum coherent matterwaves and a simplified bridge to many-body physics through which one can investigate
sophisticated concepts in condensed matter physics.
As a small effort along this line, I and my colleagues have tried to expose condensates
to new environments to see something unobservable before. The main theme in this thesis
research was phase dynamics of Bose-Einstein condensates, and for this we have developed
an optical double-well system and magnetic microtraps on an atom chip. Dynamic coherent
splitting of a trapped condensate was demonstrated by deforming a single well potential
into a double-well potential and this coherent beam splitter allowed performing a ‘proofof-principle’ experiment of confined atom interferometry with Bose-Einstein condensates.
Coherent optical coupling and incoherent thermal coupling of two spatially separate condensates were investigated in a double-well potential system. An optical read-out of therelative phase of the two condensates was developed using phase-sensitive atomic currents
between the two condensates. A doubly-quantized vortex state was topologically imprinted
by adiabatic spin rotation and the reliability of the creation method made it possible tostudy the stability of a doubly-quantized vortex state.
The idea of the atom chip was suggested at first for the technical advantages of using theproximity of the potential source such as tighter confinement with small power consumption and precise spatial control due to microfabrication. This idea has been successfully
113

demonstrated in the last decade and now people desire and investigate to integrate every
experimental manipulation tool on a microchip, such as optical fibers, optical cavities, andelectric field sources. Experiments meticulously designed on a micron scale would open
many prospects. For examples, an atom chip combined with an optical cavity would allow
a strong coupling between atoms and photons because of its precise positioning ability and
one with a single-atom detector would open up the field of quantum atom optics. The atom
chip technology is envisioned to be a platform with a quantum tool box for future atomic
physics experiments.
Fundamentally, miniaturization brings us deeper into quantum regime. Quantum phenomena such as quantum tunneling become important at a microscopic scale and thus, I
believe that the future development of the atom chip technology will be directed toward
more miniaturization down to a sub-micron scale beyond simple integration of conventional
components. Well-controlled sub-micron potentials would give us a chance to study quantum transport, effects of disorder potentials, and low-dimensional physics. Currently, an
optical lattice may be a unique system with a sub-micron scale and implementing submicron potentials on a microchip is hampered by the deleterious proximity effects. Thissurface effects might be regarded as being a fundamentally unavoidable limit, but given
the previous achievements in many other research groups, I expect that this limit will bepushed back at the end.

114

Appendix A

Designs for the Apparatus
This appendix contains the diagrams for the laser system and the science chamber pumping
body.

115

8.5 W

AOM
EOM
PBS

90

-600

~1.7GHz

+760

λ/2

310

+555

-109

92

155

+205

+200

λ/4

270

Bragg

27
+560

-200

(-118 for Molasses)

-395

170
-13

Trapping
light
7
λ/2

-600

35

-395

10
+1315

Repumping
light

+195

25
+1710

10

Sodium Cell

-239
λ/4
0.8 mm diameter

100

Lock-inSlowing
light

80
-955

F=2 light

42 uW

PD

λ/4

0

+197.5+1713 F=1 light

+199

λ/4

PD

1mm diameter
32 uW
-273
1

~1.7GHz

Laser system diagram. A 518 nm yellow laser light is generated from a dye laser system pumped by a 532 nm green light. The
laser frequency is locked to a Fabry-Perot cavity, and the reference for the cavity is an external saturation-absorption spectroscopy(SAS) lock-in scheme enclosed by a dashed line. Modulation frequencies of acousto-optic modulators (AOMs) and electro-optic
modulators (EOMs) are indicated inside the corresponding modulators. The numbers along the laser line represent laser
frequency in MHz with respect to the F=2 -> F'=3 transition. The numbers inside boxes represent laser power in mW.

~850

+205

+555

1 W Greenlight

Spectra-Phyiscs
Millenia (532 nm)
Coherent 899 dye laser
w/ Fabry-Perot lock

37

10.0

(a)

6.0

6" Rotatable CFF
Clearance holes(Ion pump)

(0,0)

4.75

2.75" Rotatable CFF on
1.5" pipe
Clearance holes(Ti-sublimation)

6.5

9.6

Y

4.5

12.0

X

(b)

5/16" Hole in mounting tabs
Welded on centerlines of 4" Tube
1.75"x 1.75", 0.2" thick, 304 satinless

6" Rotatable CFF
on 4.0" pipe
Clearance holes(X=0, Y=0, Z=-4.1)

6" Rotatable CFF
Clearance holes

4.1

Science chamber pumping body. (a) Top view. (b) Side view.
The axis direction follows the BEC-III convention: +x to the hallway, +y to BEC-I, and +z in gravity.

4.5

6.5

4.0

10

Y

Z

4.5" Fixed CFF
Tapped holes
As close as possible theMain pipe

13.6

Appendix B

Atom Interferometry with
Bose-Einstein Condensates in a
Double-Well Potential
This appendix contains a reprint of Ref. [1]: Y. Shin, M. Saba, T.A. Pasquini, W. Ketterle,
D.E. Pritchard, and A.E. Leanhardt, Atom Interferometry with Bose-Einstein Condensatesin a Double-Well Potential, Physical Review Letters 92, 050405 (2004).

118

VOLUME 92, N UMBER 5

PHYSICA L R EVIEW LET T ERS

week ending
6 FEBRUARY 2004

Atom Interferometry with Bose-Einstein Condensates in a Double-Well Potential
Y. Shin, M. Saba, T. A. Pasquini, W. Ketterle, D. E. Pritchard, and A. E. Leanhardt*
Department of Physics, MIT-Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms, and Research Laboratory of Electronics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA(Received 17 July 2003; published 6 February 2004)
A trapped-atom interferometer was demonstrated using gaseous Bose-Einstein condensates coherently split by deforming an optical single-well potential into a double-well potential. The relative phasebetween the two condensates was determined from the spatial phase of the matter wave interference
pattern formed upon releasing the condensates from the separated potential wells. Coherent phaseevolution was observed for condensates held separated by 13 m for up to 5 ms and was controlled byapplying ac Stark shift potentials to either of the two separated condensates.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.050405

PACS numbers: 03.75.Dg, 03.75.Lm, 39.20.+q

Atom interferometers have been used to sense accelerations [1,2] and rotations [3,4], monitor quantum
decoherence [5], characterize atomic and molecular properties [6], and measure fundamental constants [1,7].
Demonstrating atom interferometry with particles confined by magnetic [8–11] and optical [12] microtraps andwaveguides would realize the matter wave analog of optical interferometry using fiber-optic devices. Current
proposals for confined-atom interferometers rely on theseparation and merger of two potential wells to split andrecombine atomic wave packets [13–15]. Atom-atom interactions tend to localize particles in either potential
well and reduce the coherence of the splitting and recombination processes [16,17], whereas tunneling serves todelocalize the atomic wave packets and maintain a welldefined relative phase between the potential wells [16].
Bose-Einstein condensates are to matter wave interferometry what lasers are to optical interferometry, i.e., acoherent, single-mode, and highly brilliant source. Condensates have been coherently delocalized over multiple
sites in optical lattices where the tunneling energy dominates the on-site atom-atom interaction energy due to thesubmicron barrier between neighboring potential wells[2,18–21]. Here, the thin barrier helps to maintain phasecoherence across the lattice, but also prevents addressing
individual lattice sites. To construct a versatile atom interferometer capable of sensing forces with arbitrary
spatial variation two individually addressable interfering
paths are needed. This apparently simple requirement
represents a considerable challenge when it comes tosplitting a Bose-Einstein condensate with a thick barrierthat prevents tunneling and separates the resulting
condensate pair by large distances (that allow for individual addressability) without affecting their quantum
mechanical phase in an uncontrolled way. In addition to
the technical challenges, it is not even clear theoreticallyif the two condensates generated after splitting will sharethe same phase (a phase-coherent state) or if each will
have a well-defined number of particles without relative
phase coherence (a number-squeezed state) [16,22 –24].

In this Letter, we demonstrate that a condensate can be
split coherently along two separated paths by deforming
an initially single-well potential into two wells. The
relative phase between the two condensates was determined from the spatial phase of the matter wave interference pattern formed upon releasing the atoms from theseparated potential wells [25,26]. This scheme realizes atrapped-atom interferometer. The large well separation(13 m) (i) allowed ac Stark phase shifts to be applied
to either condensate by temporarily turning off the laser
beam generating its potential well and (ii) suppressedtunneling such that the phase of each condensate evolved
independently. Without the aid of tunneling to preserve
phase coherence, the measured coherence time of theseparated condensates was 5 ms.
Bose-Einstein condensates containing over 107 23 Na
atoms were created in the jF  1; mF  1i state in amagnetic trap, captured in the focus of a 1064 nm opticaltweezers laser beam, and transferred into an auxiliary‘‘science’’ chamber as described in Ref. [27]. In the science chamber, the condensate was loaded from the opticaltweezers into a secondary optical trap formed by a counterpropagating, orthogonally polarized 1064 nm laser
beam. The secondary optical trap was formed by a collimated laser beam that passed through an acousto-optic
modulator (AOM) and was focused onto the condensate
with a lens [Fig. 1(a)]. The AOM was driven simultaneously by two radio frequency (rf) signals to tailor the
shape of the potential from single well [Fig. 1(b)] todouble well [Fig. 1(c)]. The separation between the potential wells was controlled by the frequency difference
between the rf drives. The waist of each focused beam
was 5 m. A single, isolated potential well was characterized by a trap depth U0  h  5 kHz, where h is
Planck’s constant, and a radial (axial) trap frequency
fr  615 Hz (fz  30 Hz).
Condensates were initially loaded from the tweezers
into a single-well trap [Fig. 1(b)]. After holding thecloud for 15 s to damp excitations, the condensate contained 105 atoms with a peak atomic mean field energy

050405-1

 2004 The American Physical Society

0031-9007=04=92(5)=050405(4)$22.50

050405-1

VOLUME 92, N UMBER 5

PHYSICA L R EVIEW LET T ERS

FIG. 1. Optical double-well potential. (a) Schematic diagramof the optical setup for the double-well potential. An acoustooptic modulator (AOM) was driven by two frequencies, f1 and
f2 , and diffracted a collimated beam into two beams. The
AOM was placed in the focal plane of a lens of focal length F
so that the two beams propagated parallel to each other. The
radial separation of the potential wells, d, was controlled by thefrequency difference, f  jf1  f2 j. The acceleration due togravity, g~ , points into the page. The absorption image shows
two well-separated condensates confined in the double-wellpotential diagrammed in (c). The field of view is 70 
300 m. Energy diagrams for (b) initial single-well trap withd  6 m and (c) final double-well trap with d  13 m. In
both (b) and (c), U0  h  5 kHz and the peak atomic mean
field energy was h  3 kHz. The potential ‘‘dimple’’ in (b)was <h  500 Hz which was much less than the peak atomic
mean field energy allowing the trap to be characterized as asingle well. The potential ‘‘barrier’’ in (c) was h  4:7 kHz
which was larger than the peak atomic mean field energy
allowing the resulting split condensates to be characterized
as independent.

  h  3 kHz. The single-well trap was deformed into adouble-well potential [Fig. 1(c)] by linearly increasing
the frequency difference between the rf signals driving
the AOM over 5 ms. The amplitudes of the rf signals were
tailored during the splitting process to yield nearly equalatom number and trap depths for each potential well.
Condensates realized from the double-well potential
ballistically expanded, overlapped, and interfered (Fig. 2).
Each realization of the experiment produced a matterwave interference pattern with the same spatial phase.
This reproducibility demonstrated that deforming theoptical potential from a single well into a double well coherently split the condensate into two clouds with deterministic relative phase, i.e., the relative phase between thetwo condensates was the same from shot to shot.
This experiment derived its double-well potential froma single laser beam passing through an AOM. Vibrations
and fluctuations of the laser beam were common mode toboth wells, and a clean and rapid trap turn-off wasachieved by switching off the rf power driving theAOM. In contrast, past experiments created a doublewell potential by splitting a magnetically trapped condensate with a blue-detuned laser beam [25]. Such work
was unable to observe a reproducible relative phase be050405-2

week ending
6 FEBRUARY 2004

FIG. 2. Matter wave interference. (a) Absorption image of
condensates released from the double-well potential in Fig. 1(c)immediately after splitting and allowed to overlap during
30 ms of ballistic expansion. The imaging axis was parallelto the direction of gravitational acceleration, g~ . The field ofview is 600  350 m. (b) Radial density profiles were obtained by integrating the absorption signal between the dashedlines, and typical images gave > 60% contrast. The solid line isa fit to a sinusoidally modulated Gaussian curve from which thephase of the interference pattern was extracted (see text). This
figure presents data acquired in a single realization of theexperiment.

tween the split condensates, due to fluctuations in theblue-detuned laser beam and irreproducible turn-off ofthe high current magnetic trap that initiated ballistic
expansion.
The relative phase between the two separated condensates was determined by the spatial phase of their matterwave interference pattern. For a ballistic expansion timet  1=fr , each condensate
profilep had a quadratic phase[28],  r~; t  n ~r; t exp im=2ht
 jr~  d~=2j2  ,where  denotes either well, n is the condensate density, m is the atomic mass, d~ is a vector connecting thetwo wells,  is the condensate phase, and h  h=2.
Interactions between the two condensates during ballistic
expansion have been neglected. The total density profile
for the matter wave interference pattern takes the form



md
p
x r ; (1)nr~; t  nn 2 n n cosht
where r     is the relative phase between
the two condensates and d~  dx^ . To extract r , an integrated cross section of the matter wave interference
pattern [Fig. 2(b)] was fitted with a sinusoidally modulated Gaussian curve, Gx  A exp x  xc 2 =2 f1
B cos 2= x  x0
f g, where f is the phase of
the interference pattern with respect to a chosen fixed x0 .
Ideally, if x0 was set at the center of the two wells, thenr  f . However, misalignment of the imaging axis
with the direction of gravitational acceleration created aconstant offset, f  r . With t  30 ms themeasured fringe period,   41:5 m, was within 4%of the point source formula prediction [Eq. (1)],ht=md  39:8 m.
050405-2

week ending
6 FEBRUARY 2004

PHYSICA L R EVIEW LET T ERS

The relative phase between the separated condensates
was observed to evolve linearly in time [Fig. 3(a)]. Thisevolution was primarily due to a small difference in thewell depths and could be tailored by adjusting the relative
intensity of the two laser beams generating the wells.
The standard deviation of eight measurements of r
was <90 for condensates split then held separated for5 ms [Fig. 3(b)]. For hold times 1 ms, the standard
deviation was substantially smaller, <40 . Since a random distribution of phases between 180 and 180
would have a standard deviation of 104 , the measured
results quantitatively confirm the reproducible nature of
the splitting process and the coherent evolution of theseparated condensates.
The number-phase uncertainty principle provides afundamental limit to the phase coherence between
isolated condensates due to phase diffusion [16,22 –
24,29,30]. For Poissonian number fluctuations about amean condensate atom numberp N, we expect a phasediffusion time 1=2=5h N  250 ms. Atom-atominteractions may localize particles in either potential
well during splitting and reduce the relative number
fluctuations. This would reduce the measured coherenceof the split condensates, but extend the phase diffusion
time. The uncertainty in determining r at hold times>5 ms is attributed to axial and breathing-mode excitations created during the splitting process. These excitations led to interference fringes that were angled and had

substantial curvature, rendering a determination of r
impossible. Splitting the condensate more slowly did not
improve the measured stability of r since we were unable to split the condensate much slower than the axial
trap period and much faster than the expected phasediffusion time.
The phase sensitivity of the trapped-atom interferometer was demonstrated by applying ac Stark phase shifts toeither (or both) of the two separated condensates. Phase
shifts were applied to individual condensates by pulsing
off the optical power generating the corresponding potential well for a duration p  1=fr . The spatial phase of
the matter wave interference pattern shifted linearly withthe pulse duration, as expected [Fig. 4(a)]. Becauseof the inhomogeneous optical potential, Ur , the applied
ac Stark phase shifts varied across the condensate asr  Ur p =h.
 Inhomogeneous phase shifts
should lead to an excitation of the condensate that was(a)
Spatial Phase (deg)VOLUME 92, N UMBER 5

splitting540

150 µsfree expansion

τp

360
180
0
-180
-360
-540
0

Spatial Phase (deg)

(b)

20

splitting

1 ms

80

0
free expansion

-60
τd

0

050405-3

60

60

-120

FIG. 3. Phase coherence of the separated condensates. (a) The
spatial phase of the matter wave interference pattern is plottedversus hold time after splitting the condensate. Each point
represents the average of eight measurements. The phase evolution was due to unequal trap depths for the two wells, which
was determined from the linear fit to be h  70 Hz or 1% of
the trap depth. (b) Standard deviation of eight measurements of
the relative phase. A standard deviation 104 (dashed line) is
expected for random relative phases. Matter wave interference
patterns after 0 and 5 ms holding are displayed. The curvatureof the interference fringes increased with hold time limiting
the coherence time of the separated condensates to 5 ms.

40
τp (µs)

120

200

400
τd (µs)

50 µs

600

800

FIG. 4. Trapped-atom interferometry. (a) ac Stark phaseshifts were applied to either well exclusively (solid circles
and open circles) or both wells simultaneously (crosses) byturning off the corresponding rf signal(s) driving the AOM fora duration p . The resulting spatial phase of the matter wave
interference pattern scaled linearly with p and hence theapplied phase shift. Applying the ac Stark shift to the opposite
well (solid versus open circles) resulted in an interference
pattern phase shift with opposite sign. Applying ac Stark shifts
to both wells (crosses) resulted in no phase shift for theinterference pattern. These data were taken with a slightly
modified experimental setup such that the trap depth of theindividual potential wells was U0  h  17 kHz, corresponding to a 270 phase shift for a 50 s pulse. (b) A 50 s pulse
induced a 70 shift independent of the pulse delay, d . The
experimental setup was as described in Fig. 1 (U0 h  5 kHz). Solid and open circles have the same meaning asin (a). The insets show the time sequence of the opticalintensity for the well(s) temporarily turned off.

050405-3

VOLUME 92, N UMBER 5

PHYSICA L R EVIEW LET T ERS

probably too small to be observed. We assume that themeasured phase shift can be found by averaging theapplied inhomogeneous phase shift overR the inhomogeneous condensate density:   N1 d3 r~nr~ ~r RU0  27  t=h,
 where N  d3 r~n~r is the number ofatoms. The measured phase shifts yielded U0 
h  5 kHz [Fig. 4(b)], which was consistent with calculations based on the measured trap frequencies.
The measured phase shifts in the interferometer depended only on the time integral of the applied ac Starkphase shifts [Fig. 4(b)]. For uncoupled condensates, thefinal relative phase, r , should be the same on any phasetrajectory because the history of phase accumulation does
not affect the total amount of accumulated phase. For
coupled condensates, Josephson oscillations between thewells would cause the relative phase to vary nonlinearlywith time and produce a time dependent signal in
Fig. 4(b). The single-particle tunneling rate and Josephson oscillation frequency in our system were calculated tobe 5  104 Hz [28] and 1 Hz [31], respectively.
In conclusion, we have performed atom interferometry
with Bose-Einstein condensates confined by opticalpotentials. A coherent condensate beam splitter was demonstrated by deforming a single-well potential into adouble-well potential. The large spatial separation between the potential wells allowed each condensate to
evolve independently and for addressing each condensate
individually. Recombination was performed by releasing
the atoms from the double-well potential and allowing
them to overlap while expanding ballistically. Implementing a similar readout scheme with magnetic potentials generated by microfabricated current carrying
wires should be possible. Propagating the separated condensates along a microfabricated waveguide prior tophase readout would create an atom interferometer withan enclosed area, and hence with rotation sensitivity.
We thank W. Jhe, C.V. Nielsen, and A. Schirotzek forexperimental assistance and S. Gupta, Z. Hadzibabic, and
M.W. Zwierlein for critical comments on the manuscript.
This work was funded by ARO, NSF, ONR, and NASA.
M. S. acknowledges additional support from the Swiss
National Science Foundation.

*URL: http://cua.mit.edu/ketterle_group/[1] A. Peters, K. Y. Chung, B. Young, J. Hensley, and S. Chu,
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 355, 2223 (1997).
[2] B. P. Anderson and M. A. Kasevich, Science 282, 1686
(1998).
[3] A. Lenef, T. D. Hammond, E. T. Smith, M. S. Chapman,
R. A. Rubenstein, and D. E. Pritchard, Phys. Rev. Lett.
78, 760 (1997).
[4] T. L. Gustavson, P. Bouyer, and M. A. Kasevich, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 78, 2046 (1997).
[5] M. S. Chapman, T. D. Hammond, A. Lenef, J. Schmiedmayer, R. A. Rubenstein, E. Smith, and D. E. Pritchard,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3783 (1995).

050405-4

week ending
6 FEBRUARY 2004

[6] C. R. Ekstrom, J. Schmiedmayer, M. S. Chapman, T. D.
Hammond, and D. E. Pritchard, Phys. Rev. A 51, 3883
(1995).
[7] S. Gupta, K. Dieckmann, Z. Hadzibabic, and D. E.
Pritchard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 140401 (2002).
[8] H. Ott, J. Fortagh, G. Schlotterbeck, A. Grossmann, andC. Zimmermann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 230401 (2001).
[9] W. Hänsel, P. Hommelhoff, T.W. Hänsch, and J. Reichel,
Nature (London) 413, 498 (2001).
[10] A. E. Leanhardt, A. P. Chikkatur, D. Kielpinski, Y. Shin,
T. L. Gustavson, W. Ketterle, and D. E. Pritchard, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 89, 040401 (2002).
[11] S. Schneider, A. Kasper, C. vom Hagen, M. Bartenstein,
B. Engeser, T. Schumm, I. Bar-Joseph, R. Folman,
L. Feenstra, and J. Schmiedmayer, Phys. Rev. A 67,
023612 (2003).
[12] R. Dumke, T. Müther, M. Volk, W. Ertmer, and G. Birkl,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 220402 (2002).
[13] E. A. Hinds, C. J. Vale, and M. G. Boshier, Phys. Rev. Lett.
86, 1462 (2001).
[14] W. Hänsel, J. Reichel, P. Hommelhoff, and T.W. Hänsch,Phys. Rev. A 64, 063607 (2001).
[15] E. Andersson, T. Calarco, R. Folman, M. Andersson,
B. Hessmo, and J. Schmiedmayer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88,
100401 (2002).
[16] C. Menotti, J. R. Anglin, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys.
Rev. A 63, 023601 (2001).
[17] J. A. Stickney and A. A. Zozulya, Phys. Rev. A 66,
053601 (2002).
[18] C. Orzel, A. K. Tuchman, M. L. Fenselau, M. Yasuda, and
M. A. Kasevich, Science 291, 2386 (2001).
[19] F. S. Cataliotti, S. Burger, C. Fort, P. Maddaloni,
F. Minardi, A. Trombettoni, A. Smerzi, and M. Inguscio, Science 293, 843 (2001).
[20] M. Greiner, I. Bloch, O. Mandel, T.W. Hänsch, andT. Esslinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 160405 (2001).
[21] M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. Esslinger, T.W. Hänsch, and
I. Bloch, Nature (London) 415, 39 (2002).
[22] J. Javanainen and M. Wilkens, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 4675
(1997).
[23] A. J. Leggett and F. Sols, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1344
(1998).
[24] J. Javanainen and M. Wilkens, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1345
(1998).
[25] M. R. Andrews, C. G. Townsend, H.-J. Miesner, D. S.
Durfee, D. M. Kurn, and W. Ketterle, Science 275, 637(1997).
[26] O. Mandel, M. Greiner, A. Widera, T. Rom, T.W.
Hänsch, and I. Bloch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 010407(2003).
[27] T. L. Gustavson, A. P. Chikkatur, A. E. Leanhardt,
A. Görlitz, S. Gupta, D. E. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 020401 (2002).
[28] F. Dalfovo, S. Giorgini, L. P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari,Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 463 (1999).
[29] M. Lewenstein and L. You, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3489
(1996).
[30] J. A. Dunningham, M. J. Collett, and D. F. Walls, Phys.
Lett. A 245, 49 (1998).
[31] A. Smerzi, S. Fantoni, S. Giovanazzi, and S. R. Shenoy,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4950 (1997).

050405-4

Appendix C

Interference of Bose-Einstein
Condensates split with an Atom
Chip
This appendix contains a reprint of Ref. [4]: Y. Shin, C. Sanner, G.-B. Jo, T. A. Pasquini,
M. Saba, W. Ketterle, D. E. Pritchard, M. Vengalattore and M. Prentiss, Interference of
Bose-Einstein Condensates split with an Atom Chip, Physical Review A 72, 021604(R)(2005).

123

RAPID COMMUNICATIONSPHYSICAL REVIEW A 72, 021604共R兲 共2005兲

Interference of Bose-Einstein condensates split with an atom chip
Y. Shin, C. Sanner, G.-B. Jo, T. A. Pasquini, M. Saba, W. Ketterle, and D. E. Pritchard*
MIT-Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms, Research Laboratory of Electronics, Department of Physics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA

M. Vengalattore and M. Prentiss
MIT-Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms, Jefferson Laboratory, Physics Department, Harvard University,
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA
共Received 10 June 2005; published 11 August 2005兲
We have used a microfabricated atom chip to split a single Bose-Einstein condensate of sodium atoms into
two spatially separated condensates. Dynamical splitting was achieved by deforming the trap along the tightly
confining direction into a purely magnetic double-well potential. We observed the matter wave interference
pattern formed upon releasing the condensates from the microtraps. The intrinsic features of the quartic
potential at the merge point, such as zero trap frequency and extremely high field-sensitivity, caused randomvariations of the relative phase between the two split condensates. Moreover, the perturbation from the abruptchange of the trapping potential during the splitting was observed to induce vortices.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.72.021604

PACS number共s兲: 03.75.Dg, 03.75.Kk, 39.20.⫹q

Coherent manipulation of matter waves is the ultimate
goal of atom optics, and diverse atom optical elements havebeen developed such as mirrors, beamsplitters, gratings, andwaveguides. An atom chip integrates these elements on a
microfabricated device allowing precise and stable alignment关1–3兴. Recently, this atom chip technology has been combined with Bose-Einstein condensed atoms 关4,5兴, and opened
the prospect for chip-based atom interferometers with BoseEinstein condensates. Despite various technical problems
关6–10兴, there have been advances toward that goal, such as
excitationless propagation in a waveguide 关6兴 and demonstration of a Michelson interferometer involving splitting
along the axis of a single waveguide 关11兴.
Coherent splitting of matter waves into spatially separate
atomic wave packets with a well-defined relative phase is aprerequisite for further applications such as atom interferometry and quantum information processing, and it has beena major experimental challenge. The methods envisioned
for coherent splitting on atom chips can be divided in twoclasses. One is splitting in momentum space and subsequently generating a spatial separation, using scattering ofatoms from a periodic optical potential 关11,12兴. The other isdynamical splitting by directly deforming a single wave
packet into two spatially separated wave packets, which
can be considered as cutting off the link between two wave
packets, i.e., stopping tunneling through the barrier separating two wave packets. Splitting in momentum space has
led to remarkably clean interferometric measurements
when the atoms were allowed to propagate freely after
splitting, but it has been pointed out that momentum splittingof confined atoms 共e.g., inside a waveguide兲 is problematicdue to spatially dependent phase shifts induced by atomatom interactions during separation 关11,13兴. Dynamical
splitting in real space instead is perfectly compatible with

*URL: http://cua.mit.edu/ketterleគgroup/1050-2947/2005/72共2兲/021604共4兲/$23.00

keeping atoms confined, a feature beneficial to the versatilityof interferometers. There has been a theoretical debate
concerning the adiabatic condition for coherent dynamical
splitting 关14–17兴. In our recent experiment with an optical
double-well potential, we demonstrated that it is possible todynamically split a condensate into two parts in a coherent
way 关18兴.
In this work, we studied the dynamical splitting of condensates in a purely magnetic double-well potential on an
atom chip. We developed an atom chip to generate asymmetric double-well potential and succeeded in observing
the matter wave interference of two split condensates, fromwhich the coherence of the splitting process was investigated. We found that the mechanical perturbations during
splitting are violent enough to generate vortices in condensates. We discuss the adiabatic condition of the splitting
process.
A magnetic double-well potential was realized withan atom chip using a two-wire scheme 关19兴. The experimental setup of the atom chip is shown in Fig. 1. When two
chip wires have currents, IC, in the −y direction andthe external magnetic field, Bx, is applied in the +x direction,
two lines of local minima in the magnetic field are generated
above the chip surface. Each local minimum has a quadruple
field configuration in the xz plane, and with an additional
nonzero magnetic field in the axial direction 共y-direction兲,
two Ioffe-Pritchard magnetic traps can be formed. The
relative magnitude of Bx to the field from IC determines
the direction of separation and the distance of the two
traps. The atom chip was set to face downward and thetwo traps are vertically 共horizontally兲 separated whenBx ⬍ Bx0共Bx ⬎ Bx0兲. Bx0 = ␮0IC / ␲d is the critical fieldmagnitude for merging two magnetic harmonic potentials toform a single quartic potential, where d is the distance
between the two chip wires and ␮0 is the permeability ofthe vacuum. The merge point is located at the middle ofthe two wires and d / 2 away from the chip surface. In our
experiment, d = 300 ␮m; thus, the splitting happened

021604-1©2005 The American Physical Society

RAPID COMMUNICATIONSPHYSICAL REVIEW A 72, 021604共R兲 共2005兲

SHIN et al.

FIG. 1. 共Color online兲 Schematic diagram of the atom chip. A
magnetic double-well potential was created by two chip wires witha current IC in conjunction with an external magnetic field. The
distance between the two chip wires was 300 ␮m. A pair of externalwires with IB provided the axial confinement along the y direction,
and another pair of external wires with IT were used for reducing
the antisymmetry effect. 共For details, see text.兲 Gravity was in the+z direction.

more than 200 ␮m away from the chip wires to avoid deleterious surface effects 关6–10兴. The chip wires of 12 ␮mheight and 50 ␮m width were electroplated with Au on athermally oxidized Si substrate with a 2-␮m-thick Au evaporated film. The chip was glued on an Al block for heat dissipation 关20兴 and the current capacity was 5 A in a continuous mode.
The axial trapping potential was carefully designed toensure that condensates split perpendicular to the axial
direction and stay in the same axial position. The two
wells have opposite responses to Bz: positive Bz makes
the left 共right兲 well move upward 共downward兲. If Bz changes
along the axial direction, the two wells are no longer parallel
and the gravitational force would cause an axial displacement of the two split condensates. When endcap wires
are placed only on the chip surface as in our previous
work 关21兴, a nonzero field gradient ⳵Bz / ⳵y inevitably accompanies a field curvature ⳵2By / ⳵y 2 for the axial confinement,i.e., Bz changes from positive to negative along the axial
direction. In order to provide the axial confinement and at
the same time minimize ⳵Bz / ⳵y, we placed two pairs of
external wires 1.5 mm above and 4 mm below the chipsurface. This three-dimensional design of axial confinement
was necessary for obtaining the interference signal of two
split condensates. Moreover, maintaining the geometric symmetry of two wells will be crucial for longer coherence timeafter splitting 关18兴.
The splitting process was demonstrated with the experimental procedures described in Fig. 2. Bose-Einstein condensates of 兩F = 1 , mF = −1典 23Na atoms were transferred andloaded in a magnetic trap generated by the atom chip
关6,21,22兴. Experimental parameters were IC = 1.8 A, Bx0= 24 G, By = 1 G, and the axial trap frequency f y = 13 Hz.
Condensates were first loaded in the bottom well, 500 ␮maway from the chip surface, brought up to 30 ␮m below themerge point in 1 s, and held there for 2 s to damp out excitations. The long-living axial dipole excitation induced in thetransfer phase was damped by applying a repulsive potential
wall at the one end of the condensates with a blue-detuned

FIG. 2. Splitting of condensates. 共a兲 Condensates were initiallyloaded and prepared in the bottom well and 共b兲 split into two partsby increasing the external magnetic field, Bx. For clarity, two condensates were split by 80 ␮m. The dash line indicates the chipsurface position. The currents in the chip wires flow into the pageand Bx is parallel to the wire separation. Two condensates werereleased from the magnetic double-well potential and the matterwave interference pattern of two condensates formed after time-offlight. 共c兲 Typical absorption image of interference fringes taken
after 22 ms time-of-flight. The fringe spacing was 14.8 ␮m, corresponding to a condensate separation of 25.8 ␮m.

laser beam 共532 nm兲1. The whole procedure was carried out
with a radio-frequency 共rf兲 shield and, just before splitting,condensates contained over 8.0⫻ 105 atoms without a discernible thermal population. Splitting was done by ramping⌬Bx = Bx − Bx0 linearly from −140 mG to 100± 20 mG in
200 ms. The separation between two condensates was controlled by the final value of Bx. The magnetic trap was thenquickly turned off within 20 ␮s, a duration much shorter
than the inverse of any trap frequency, preventing random
perturbations. High-contrast matter wave interference fringes
were observed after releasing the condensates and letting
them expand in time-of-flight 共Fig. 2兲, indicating that the
splitting procedure was smooth enough to produce two condensates having uniform phases along their long axial axis
perpendicular to the splitting direction. In order to study thecoherence of the splitting, the relative phase of the two split
condensates was determined from the spatial phase of thematter wave interference pattern.
The relative phase of two split condensates turned out tobe unpredictable when they were fully separated 共Fig. 3兲.
The separation of two condensates was determined from thespacing, ␭s, of the interference fringes, using the formula d= ht / m␭s where h is Planck’s constant, m is atomic mass, andt is time-of-flight. The typical fringe spacing was ␭⬇ 15 ␮m with t = 22 ms, corresponding to d ⬇ 26 ␮m. Given
the precise knowledge of the fabricated wires, the full trap
parameters can be calculated. Assuming that the condensates
followed trap centers in the motional ground state, it was
found that when the barrier height was over 1.5 kHz, the1

In a perfectly symmetric double-well potential, two condensates
would oscillate in phase after splitting. Furthermore, this could be
used for developing a rotation-sensitive atom interferometer with a
guiding potential. However, the axial trap frequencies for the two
wells were found to be different by 12% due to the imperfect fabrication of wires.

021604-2

RAPID COMMUNICATIONSPHYSICAL REVIEW A 72, 021604共R兲 共2005兲

INTERFERENCE OF BOSE-EINSTEIN CONDENSATES…

FIG. 3. Spatial phase of interference fringes. The separation of
two condensates was determined from the spacing of interference
fringes. Fifty repetitions of the same experiment are plotted, where
the experimental control value for the external magnetic field, Bx,
was fixed when the atoms were released. Three dash lines indicate
the separations of two wells with the barrier height of 1 kHz,
2 kHz, and 3 kHz, respectively.

relative phase started to be random.2 Since the chemical potential of the condensates, ␮ = 1.4± 0.2 kHz, was very close
to this barrier height, the condensates just started to lose theircoupling at this point.
Surprisingly, a phase singularity was observed in the interference patterns with high visibility. The fork shape ofinterference fringes represents a phase winding around a vortex core 关23兴. This vortex interference pattern appeared more
frequently with faster splitting and further separation. An external perturbation can lead to internal excitations in condensates. Splitting might be considered as slicing condensates in
two parts. The fact that the observed “forks” 共Fig. 4兲 always
open towards the top implies that the slicing always occurredin the same direction and created either vortices with positive
charge on the left side or with negative charge on the rightside. A possible vortex formation mechanism is topologicalimprinting when the zero point of the magnetic field crosses
though condensates resulting in a doubly quantized vortex inspin-1 condensates 关21,22兴. However, since we have neverobserved the interference pattern of a doubly quantized vortex, we think that this scenario is unlikely.
We now discuss how the trapping potential changes
during the splitting process 共Fig. 5兲. When condensates split
into two wells, the trap frequency, f x, in the splitting direction vanishes and the separation of two wells abruptly increases to 15 ␮m with a small magnetic field change of␦Bx ⬇ 10 mG. For a single particle in a harmonic potential,
the quantity ␣ ⬅ 共1 / f 2x 兲共⳵ f x / ⳵Bx兲共dBx / dt兲 accounts for thetransition probability from the ground state to the first excited state and parametrizes the external adiabaticity of theprocess, neglecting the collective excitations of a condensate.
␣ Ⰶ 1 should be maintained to keep condensates staying in
the motional ground state. With dBx / dt = 1.2 G / s, ␣ ⬍ 1 at
f x ⬎ 150 Hz, but obviously, ␣ diverges to infinity near themerge point and its definition no longer holds. Since the2
When the separation was less than 20 ␮m and two condensates
were linked, the uncertainty of the spatial phase of fringes was lessthan 60°.

FIG. 4. Vortex interference. 共a兲 An absorption image showing
the vortex interference pattern of a vortex state. The probability ofvortex generation was ⬃8% for the experimental parameters of Fig.
3, where data points with vortices were not included. Vortex interference patterns appeared more frequently with faster splitting andfurther separation. 共b兲 Same as 共a兲, but with lines indicating regionswith constant phase.

energy level spacing diminishes, the adiabatic condition in
the quartic potential around the merge point becomes more
stringent. The abrupt change of trapping potential will induce
mechanical perturbations of condensates. Subsequent dissipation or coupling into internal excitation modes 关24兴 would
make the relative phase of two split condensates unpredictable. The observed phase singularity definitely shows thebreakdown of adiabaticity.
One possible alternative to avoid passing through themerge point is starting with two weakly linked condensatesin a double-well potential where the barrier height is lower
than the chemical potential of condensates and controllingthe coupling between two condensates with a small changeof the barrier height. This method was used to reduce themotional perturbation in our previous work 关18兴. However,

FIG. 5. 共Color online兲 Trapping potential during splitting. 共a兲
Radial cross sections of trapping potential including gravity for⌬Bx = 0, 50, and 100 mG, where ⌬Bx is the field deviation from thecritical field magnitude Bx0 which is the field magnitude for forming
a single quartic trap. The origin of coordinates is the merge point
without gravity. Contour lines correspond to 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2 kHz
above the bottom of the trap. 共b兲 Trap frequencies in each direction.
共c兲 Separation of two trap centers and barrier height between two
wells.

021604-3

RAPID COMMUNICATIONSPHYSICAL REVIEW A 72, 021604共R兲 共2005兲

SHIN et al.

since the sensitivity of the trapping potential to the magnetic
field is extremely high when the trap centers are close to themerge point, it was technically difficult to have a stabledouble-well potential with a small barrier height. The lifetime of condensates measured around the merge point was⬎5 s away from the merge point 共⌬Bx ⬍ −50 mG or ⌬Bx⬎ 150 mG兲 and ⬍100 ms near the merge point 共0 ⬍ ⌬Bx⬍ 100 mG兲.3 With a barrier height of 0.5 kHz in our experiment, the sensitivity of the barrier height and the condensate
separation to Bx is 0.04 kHz/ mG and 0.3 ␮m / mG, respectively. ␦Bx = 1 mG corresponds to ␦IC = 7.5⫻ 10−5 A. Extreme current stabilization and shielding of ambient magnetic
field fluctuations may be necessary for controlling a phasecoherent splitting process. Another alternative for preparing
a coherent state of two spatially separated condensates isfirst preparing two condensates in the ground states ineach well and then establishing a well-defined relative phasewith an optical method 关25兴. This scheme is currently underinvestigation.
In conclusion, we have demonstrated the interference of
two Bose-Einstein condensates released from an atom chip.
The condensates were created by dynamical splitting of asingle condensate and could be kept confined in a magnetic
double-well potential, separated by an arbitrary distance. We
studied the coherence of the dynamical splitting process bymeasuring the relative phase of two split condensates andidentified technical limitations, intrinsic to the magnetic field
geometry, that prevented coherent splitting with a predictablephase. This study is a promising step in the route towards
atom chip interferometers and might serve as a guide for thedesign of future microfabricated atom optics devices.

3
For positions with ⌬Bx ⬎ 0 共“after” splitting兲, the condensates
were moved to the left well without passing through the merge
point.

This work was funded by ARO, NSF, ONR, DARPA, andNASA. C.S. acknowledges additional support from the Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes, G.-B.J. from the Samsung
Lee Kun Hee Scholarship Foundation, and M.S. from the
Swiss National Science Foundation.

关1兴 D. Müller, D. Z. Anderson, R. J. Grow, P. D. D. Schwindt, andE. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 5194 共1999兲.
关2兴 N. H. Dekker, C. S. Lee, V. Lorent, J. H. Thywissen, S. P.
Smith, M. Drndić, R. M. Westervelt, and M. Prentiss, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 84, 1124 共2000兲.
关3兴 R. Folman, P. Krüger, D. Cassettari, B. Hessmo, T. Maier, and
J. Schmiedmayer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4749 共2000兲.
关4兴 H. Ott, J. Fortagh, G. Schlotterbeck, A. Grossmann, and C.
Zimmermann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 230401 共2001兲.
关5兴 W. Hänsel, P. Hommelhoff, T. W. Hänsch, and J. Reichel, Nature 共London兲 413, 498 共2001兲.
关6兴 A. E. Leanhardt, A. P. Chikkatur, D. Kielpinski, Y. Shin, T. L.
Gustavson, W. Ketterle, and D. E. Pritchard, Phys. Rev. Lett.
89, 040401 共2002兲.
关7兴 J. Fortágh, H. Ott, S. Kraft, A. Günther, and C. Zimmermann,
Phys. Rev. A 66, 041604共R兲 共2002兲.
关8兴 A. E. Leanhardt, Y. Shin, A. P. Chikkatur, D. Kielpinski, W.
Ketterle, and D. E. Pritchard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 100404
共2003兲.
关9兴 M. P. A. Jones, C. J. Vale, D. Sahagun, B. V. Hall, and E. A.
Hinds, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 080401 共2003兲.
关10兴 J. Estève, C. Aussibal, T. Schumm, C. Figl, D. Mailly, I. Bouchoule, C. I. Westbrook, and A. Aspect, Phys. Rev. A 70,
043629 共2004兲.
关11兴 Y.-J. Wang, D. Z. Anderson, V. M. Bright, E. A. Cornell, Q.
Diot, T. Kishimoto, M. Prentiss, R. A. Saravanan, S. R. Segal,
and S. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 090405 共2005兲.
关12兴 P. J. Martin, B. G. Oldaker, A. H. Miklich, and D. E. Pritchard,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 515 共1988兲.

关13兴 M. Olshanii and V. Dunjko, e-print cond-mat/0505358.
关14兴 J. Javanainen and M. Wilkens, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 4675
共1997兲.
关15兴 A. J. Leggett and F. Sols, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1344 共1998兲.
关16兴 C. Menotti, J. R. Anglin, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev.
A 63, 023601 共2001兲.
关17兴 L. Pezzé, A. Smerzi, G. P. Berman, A. R. Bishop, and L. A.
Collins, e-print cond-mat/0411567.
关18兴 Y. Shin, M. Saba, T. A. Pasquini, W. Ketterle, D. E. Pritchard,and A. E. Leanhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 050405 共2004兲.
关19兴 E. A. Hinds, C. J. Vale, and M. G. Boshier, Phys. Rev. Lett.
86, 1462 共2001兲.
关20兴 S. Groth, P. Krüger, S. Wildermuth, R. Folman, T. Fernholz, J.
Schmiedmayer, M. Mahalu, and I. Bar-Joseph, Appl. Phys.
Lett. 85, 2980 共2004兲.
关21兴 Y. Shin, M. Saba, M. Vengalattore, T. A. Pasquini, C. Sanner,
A. E. Leanhardt, M. Prentiss, D. E. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 160406 共2004兲.
关22兴 A. E. Leanhardt, A. Görlitz, A. P. Chikkatur, D. Kielpinski, Y.
Shin, D. E. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89,
190403 共2002兲.
关23兴 S. Inouye, S. Gupta, T. Rosenband, A. P. Chikkatur, A. Görlitz,
T. L. Gustavson, A. E. Leanhardt, D. E. Pritchard, and W.
Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 080402 共2001兲.
关24兴 H. Ott, J. Fortágh, S. Kraft, A. Günther, D. Komma, and C.
Zimmermann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 040402 共2003兲.
关25兴 M. Saba, T. A. Pasquini, C. Sanner, Y. Shin, W. Ketterle, andD. E. Pritchard, Science 307, 1945 共2005兲.

021604-4

Appendix D

Light Scattering to Determine theRelative Phase of Two
Bose-Einstein Condensates
This appendix contains a reprint of Ref. [11]: M. Saba, T.A. Pasquini, C. Sanner, Y. Shin,
W. Ketterle, D.E. Pritchard, Light Scattering to Determine the Relative Phase of Two
Bose-Einstein Condensates, Science 307, 1945 (2005).

128

REPORTS
that we designed for preferential absorption ofchemical nerve agents. HC is an acidic, strong–hydrogen-bonding polycarbosilane (25). We
coated a sensor with a thin layer (È100 nm)
of HC and tested the response to several
analytes. The response of this polymer-coatedsensor to repeated 10-s doses of acetone
ranging from 60 to 540 ppm is shown in
Fig. 4. The acetone produces a large, rapid
response that is È100 times larger than the
response measured in the same sensor before
the HC deposition. The HC concentrates theacetone vapor in the vicinity of the SWNTs,
which increases the response while maintaining a rapid response time. The response to asingle 200-s dose of DMMP delivered at
320 ppb shows that the measured gain for
DMMP relative to the uncoated sensor is about
500 (Fig. 4). Note that the low diffusion rateof DMMP in the HC causes a slower recovery
rate, t90 0 370 s. For water and chloroform,
the polymer coating produces much lower response gains of 1 and 10, respectively. Thus,
the HC provides a large chemically selective
gain, demonstrating the feasibility of SWNT
sorption-based chemical sensing.
These sensor characteristics compare favorably with those of commercial chemicapacitors. Using a signal-to-noise ratio of 3:1 as adetection criterion, we estimate that MDL 0
0.5 ppm and t90 G 4 s for acetone and MDL 0
0.5 ppb and t90 0 370 s for DMMP. For thesesame analytes, the commercial sensor achieves
a MDL 0 2 ppm and t90 0 228 s for acetone
and MDL 0 2 ppb and t90 0 3084 s for
DMMP (4). We attribute our faster response
and recovery times to the use of a muchthinner layer of chemoselective material. For
HC, the minimum layer thickness was limitedby the tendency of the HC to form a discontinuous film below È100 nm.
Our initial polymer-coated SWNT sensors
achieve both higher sensitivity and faster
response times than do current chemicapacitors. However, both of these properties can besubstantially improved with a few designmodifications. The sensitivity is currently
limited by the small series capacitance of the
thick SiO2 layer. By thinning the SiO2 layeror replacing it with a high–dielectric constantinsulator (28), we estimate that we canincrease the series capacitance by about afactor of 10, which should produce a comparable increase in response.
The response time for analytes such as
DMMP is limited by diffusion through thelayer of HC. Because the SWNT capacitor isbased on a surface effect, we can improve theresponse time and still achieve chemical gain
by using extremely thin layers of chemoselective material down to, and including, asingle molecular monolayer.
To explore this limit of a chemoselective monolayer, we coated the SiO2 surface
with a self-assembled monolayer (SAM) of

allyltrichlorosilane. We then reacted the terminal alkenes with hexafluoroacetone to
produce a monolayer of hexafluoroisopropanolthat partially covers the SWNTs with fluoroalchohol groups. The response of this SAMcoated sensor to repeated 10-s doses of DMMP
ranging from 320 ppb to 2.9 ppm is shown in
Fig. 4. For this sensor, the response tracks ourvapor-delivery system, indicating that t90 G
4 s, and we measured a MDL 0 50 ppb.
Notably, with the SAM coating, the capacitance response of DMMP relative to that ofwater is increased by a factor of 40, indicatingthat we achieved substantial chemically selective gain. These initial promising results
indicate that optimization of the chemoselective monolayers to better cover the SWNTs,
combined with improved sensor design, canresult in a new class of sorption-based sensors
that combine the features of low power, highsensitivity, and fast response time.
References and Notes
1. R. A. McGill et al., Sens. Actuators B 65, 10 (2000).
2. J. W. Grate, B. M. Wise, M. H. Abraham, Anal. Chem.
71, 4544 (1999).
3. H. T. Nagle, S. S. Schiffman, R. Gutierrez-Osuna, IEEE
Spectr. 35, 22 (1998).
4. S. V. Patel et al., Sens. Actuators B 96, 541 (2003).
5. G. Delapierre, H. Grange, B. Chambaz, L. Destannes,
Sens. Actuators 4, 97 (1983).
6. A. Hierlemann et al., Sens. Actuators B 70, 2 (2000).
7. M. P. Eastman et al., J. Electrochem. Soc. 146, 3907
(1999).
8. M. C. Lonergan et al., Chem. Mater. 8, 2298 (1996).
9. J. R. Li, J. R. Xu, M. Q. Zhang, M. Z. Rong, Carbon 41,2353 (2003).
10. E. S. Snow, J. P. Novak, P. M. Campbell, D. Park, Appl.
Phys. Lett. 82, 2145 (2003).
11. E. S. Snow, P. M. Campbell, J. P. Novak, Appl. Phys.
Lett. 86, 033105 (2005).
12. D. R. Lide, CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (CRC
Press, Boca Raton, FL, ed. 75, 1995), pp. 15-43–15-49.
13. G. M. Kosolapoff, J. Chem. Soc. 3222 (1954).

14. J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics (Wiley, New
York, ed. 2, 1975), pp. 155–158.
15. S. Brunauer, P. H. Emmett, E. Teller, J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 60, 309 (1938).
16. Density functional calculations of adsorbates ongraphene sheets in uniform electric fields were
performed using the generalized-gradient approximation and the Perdue, Burke, Ernzerhof parameterization of exchange and correlation in the Gaussian 03
localized-basis package (Gaussian 03, Revision C.02;
M. J. Frisch et al., Gaussian, Inc., Pittsburgh PA, 2003).
17. J. H. Walther, R. Jaffe, T. Halicioglu, P. Koumoutsakos,
J. Phys. Chem. B 105, 9980 (2001).
18. J. Kong et al., Science 87, 622 (2000).
19. L. Valentini et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 82, 961 (2003).
20. T. Someya, J. Small, P. Kim, C. Nuckolls, J. T. Yardley,
Nano Lett. 3, 877 (2003).
21. J. Li et al., Nano Lett. 3, 929 (2003).
22. A. Goldoni, R. Larciprete, L. Petaccia, S. Lizzit, J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 125, 11329 (2003).
23. P. Qi et al., Nano Lett. 3, 347 (2003).
24. L. Valentini et al., Diamond Relat. Mater. 13, 1301 (2004).
25. J. P. Novak et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 83, 4026 (2003).
26. Charge transfer from an analyte can potentially cause
a capacitance response by changing the quantum
capacitance of the nanotubes. We have simulated thischemical doping effect by applying to the substrate asmall dc offset to the ac bias, which increases the
charge in the SWNTs. By measuring the resulting
capacitance and resistance responses, we calibrated
the effect of a charge offset. For the vapors we havetested, most do not produce a measurable resistance
response, and those that do, produce a resistancechange that is much too small (based on thiscalibration) to account for the change in capacitance.
27. For an example, see the supplementary data available at Science Online.
28. B. M. Kim et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 84, 1946 (2004).
29. We gratefully acknowledge financial support from theHomeland Security Advanced Research Projects Administration, the Office of Naval Research, and theNaval Research Laboratory Nanoscience Institute.
Supporting Online Materialwww.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/307/5717/1942/
DC1
SOM Text
Fig. S1
27 December 2004; accepted 1 February 2005
10.1126/science.1109128

Light Scattering to Determine
the Relative Phase of Two
Bose-Einstein Condensates
M. Saba,* T. A. Pasquini, C. Sanner, Y. Shin, W. Ketterle,
D. E. Pritchard
We demonstrated an experimental technique based on stimulated lightscattering to continuously sample the relative phase of two spatially separated
Bose-Einstein condensates of atoms. The phase measurement process created a
relative phase between two condensates with no initial phase relation, read out
the phase, and monitored the phase evolution. This technique was used torealize interferometry between two trapped Bose-Einstein condensates
without need for splitting or recombining the atom cloud.
The outstanding property of atoms in a BoseEinstein condensate (BEC) is their coherence:
They all have the same phase. This property
became apparent when high-contrast interference between condensates was observed (1–3).
Phase coherence between spatially separated

www.sciencemag.org

SCIENCEVOL 307

condensates has led to the observation of ahost of phenomena, including Josephson oscillations (3, 4), number squeezing (5), and thetransition from superfluid to Mott insulator (6).
The evolution of the phase is affected byexternal potentials acting on the atoms and has

25 MARCH 2005

1945

REPORTS
been exploited for interferometric measures ofgravity and other interactions (3, 7–9). Ideally,
one could reach extreme interferometricsensitivity by coherently extracting atoms
from two distant condensates and letting theminterfere (10). So far, however, the relative
phase of condensates has been measured only
destructively, by taking an absorption imageof interfering atomic waves.
Several methods have been considered todetermine the relative phase of two separated
atomic wavepackets spectroscopically by thescattering of light. In the simple case of asingle atom delocalized in two separate wells,
spontaneous photon scattering leaves the atom
localized in one well, destroying the spatial
coherence without giving any interferometric
information (11, 12). On the other hand,selecting the frequency of the scatteredphotons makes it possible to retrieve interference from specially prepared wavepackets,
like two spatially separated components moving on parallel trajectories (13). BECs offer
the possibility of scattering many photons out
Department of Physics, MIT-Harvard Center for
Ultracold Atoms, and Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
*To whom correspondence should be addressed.
E-mail: msaba@mit.edu

of the same coherent ensemble, affecting onlya small fraction of the atoms in the condensates and providing an almost nondestructive
measurement of the relative phase between
the two condensates (14–16). Thus, light scattering could be used to compare the phase of
two separate condensates at multiple subsequent times, realizing an interferometer withneither coherent splitting nor recombination of
the wavepacket.
Even if the condensates are in states withpoorly defined relative phase (such as the socalled Fock states, in which the atom number
is well defined), they still interfere with eachother. In this case, the relative phase is
Bcreated[ in the measurement process by projecting the system on a coherent state with awell-defined phase (17–21).
We show that stimulated light scattering
can be used to continuously sample therelative phase between two spatially separate
BECs. The basis of our measurement is thatthe structure factor of two neighboring BECs
shows interference fringes in momentum
space (21). This interference can be pictured
in a very direct way: Let us continuously
impart some momentum Y
q to a fraction of theatoms in each condensate, so that they moveparallel to the displacement of the twocondensates. When the atoms from the first
condensate reach the second one, the two

Fig. 1. Interference of
two atom lasers coupled
out from two independent condensates. (A)Energy diagram of thetwo BECs (BEC I and
BEC II) confined in an
optical double-well trap.
(B) Experimental scheme
for continuous phasemeasurement. Two laser beams were applied
to the condensates tooutcouple a few atoms
from the trap. Detecting the rate of outcoupled atoms or thenumber of scatteredphotons gives a measurement of the relative phase between thecondensates. The control coils generate magnetic field gradientsthat affect the frequency of interference oscillations. Gravity points
down in this picture. (Cto E) Absorption images showing the optical density of the atom clouds were taken from top after applying the Bragg beams (gravity points
into the page). The thick shadows on the far left in each panel are the unresolved two condensates; tothe right are the atoms that were continuously outcoupled and flew from left to right. High-contrast
oscillations in the stream of outcoupled atoms are clearly visible. In the central picture (D),oscillations originated from the imbalance in the depth of the two wells. In (C), an additional
magnetic field gradient of 1.15 G/cm was applied with the control coils; in (E), the gradient was
j0.77 G/cm (with the positive direction pointing to the right). Images were taken after an additional 5 ms of time of flight, and the field of view in each picture is 1.35 mm  0.90 mm.

1946

25 MARCH 2005

VOL 307

streams of atoms moving with momentum Yqwill overlap and interfere. The process can berephrased as beating of two atom lasers
originating from the two condensates. If therelative phase of the condensates is fixed, thetotal number of moving atoms depends onthe value of the momentum q and oscillates
sinusoidally with periodicity h/d as q isscanned (h is Planck_s constant and d is thedisplacement of the condensates). If instead
the phase evolves in time and the momentumY
q is fixed, the number of atoms in the moving
stream will vary in time at the same rate as
the relative phase.
The experimental tool used to impart a precise momentum to atoms in a BEC is Bragg
scattering (22, 23). Two counterpropagatingYlaser beams with wavevectors k 1;2 hit the atoms
so that, by absorbing a photon from one beamand reemitting it into the otherone,
the atoms
YY
acquire recoil momentum Iðk 2 jk 1 Þ, provided
that the energy difference between photons
matches the atom recoil energy.
In our experiment (Fig. 1, A and B), two
independent cigar-shaped BECs containing,106 sodium atoms were prepared in a
double-well optical dipole trap (8) and were

Fig. 2. Continuous optical readout of therelative phase of two condensates. In the upper
panel is the optical signal image detected bystreaking the CCD camera (24). The traces,
offset vertically for clarity, are cross sections of
the images (the central trace corresponds tothe upper image integrated between thedashed lines). Bragg scattering starts at t 0 0
when the second beam is turned on. The
relative depth of the two wells was different
for the three traces, generating a difference inthe oscillation frequency. The overall slope on
the traces was due to spontaneous Rayleighscattering of the light from the atoms in thecondensates. As the time went on, the condensates were depleted and the Rayleighscattering was reduced. Excitations in thecondensates appeared as tilted or curved
fringes in the streak image; in such cases, wetook cross sections from portions of theimages where fringes were vertical and therefore the phase evolution was less perturbed.

SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org

REPORTS

Fig. 3. Interferometry with two trapped BECs. (A) The two well depths were prepared offset by, 0.53 kHz in the absence of magnetic field gradients, and the shift of the beat frequency withrespect to this initial value is plotted versus the applied magnetic field gradient. The beat frequency is determined from pictures similar to those in Fig. 2. The solid line is a linear fit to thedata; the dashed line represents the frequency mBB¶d/2h expected for the evolution of the relative
phase of the two condensates due to the difference in energy induced by the gradient (B¶ is theindependently measured magnetic gradient, mB is half Bohr magneton corresponding to themagnetic moment of the atoms, and d is the displacement of the two condensates). (B) Beatfrequency measured in the optical signal is shown as a function of the relative depth of the twopotential wells. The well balance parameter is proportional to the difference in optical power used
to create each of those wells and was controlled by the power in each of the two radio frequencies
fed into the acousto-optical modulator. arb., arbitrary.

A

B

C

Phase 1

Phase 2

D

90

E

Phase 2 - Phase 1
90

Signal90

180
Pulse 1

-1

0

1

0 180

0 180

0

Pulse 2

2

3

Time (ms)45Relative phase (deg)a fundamental limitation to the minimum measurable frequency due to interactions between
atoms. If the phase stays (almost) constantfor a long time, one of the two condensates
can end up continuously amplifying or deamplifying the atoms outcoupled from the otherone, causing asymmetric depletion of the condensates and therefore a difference in chemical
potential, as large as a few h  100 Hz in a
few milliseconds under our experimental parameters. This is analogous to the inhibition ofslow, large-amplitude Josephson oscillations
in a nonlinear junction (25). If the relative
phase is actively controlled, atoms can be coherently transferred from one well to the other,
replenishing one of the two condensates without scrambling its phase; a method that could
lead to a continuous atom laser (26).
The interferometric information containedin the beat frequency of two condensates is
independent of the initial phase between thecondensates and eliminates the need for coherent beam splitting (10). The present measurements already show a sensitivity below 100 Hz,
limited by mechanical excitations that cause
chirping of the frequency during the observation time and shot-to-shot variations. Morefundamentally, the finite number of atoms in
the condensates limits the number of Braggscattered photons and therefore the signalto-noise ratio. No phase diffusion is expectedduring the measurement, the oscillations being
continuously driven by the laser beams (27, 28).
This is a general manifestation of the influenceof measurement on a quantum system (29),similar to the quantum Zeno effect, where thetime evolution is suppressed by repeated orcontinuous measurements.
A more versatile interferometric scheme
can be obtained by applying two successive
Bragg pulses to the pair of condensates and exploiting the fact that the optical phase readout
allows comparison of subsequent measurements on the same pair of condensates. A first
Bragg pulse lasting 1 ms determined a randomly varying relative phase between the twocondensates at each realization of the experiment (Fig. 4B). A second Bragg pulse followed after allowing the two condensates to
evolve for some delay (0.5 ms) and measured
a relative phase again random at each shotin the scattered light and could be gathered inreal time by monitoring the intensity of one of
the Bragg laser beams, instead of interrupting
the experiment to illuminate atoms with a resonant laser for absorption imaging. The dynamics of the optical signal was measured witha charge-coupled device (CCD) camera instreaking mode, generating images with timeon one axis and spatial information on theother (Fig. 2) (24). The intensity of the Bragg
beam oscillated in time at a frequency controlled by the relative energy between the two
wells. The oscillating signal built up during thefirst , 250 ms, this being the time required forthe outcoupled atoms to travel from one condensate to the other one and start interference.
Interferometry between two trapped BECs
was realized by continuous monitoring of theirbeat frequency. Figure 3 demonstrates the sensitivity of the interferometer to an applied external force (magnetic field gradient) and to
the application of a potential difference between the two wells (dynamical Stark shift
induced by increasing the laser power in oneof the two wells).
We did not observe oscillation frequencies
below 500 Hz. Short observation times andexcitations could contribute to this, but there isilluminated with two counterpropagating Bragg
beams to impart recoil momentum to a few
atoms (24). The Bragg-scattered atoms flew
away from the trap because the trap was shallower than the recoil energy. In the stream ofoutcoupled atoms (Fig. 1, C to E), the spatial
modulations in the absorption images reflect temporal oscillations in the number ofatoms outcoupled from the two condensates,
implying a continuous evolution of the relative phase f with time t at a rate df/dt 0 DE/h,caused by the energy offset DE between thecondensates. The three images were takenwith different magnetic field gradients appliedwith the control coils. The difference in magnetic field between the two wells modifed theenergy offset DE and therefore affected thebeat frequency df/dt of the two condensates.
The fact that the fringes are not straight everywhere can be related to motional excitationsin the condensates and the perturbing effectof the optical dipole potential on the time-offlight trajectory of the atoms.
For each atom outcoupled from thecondensate, a photon was transferred fromone beam to the counterpropagating one.
Therefore, all information contained in thestream of outcoupled atoms was also present

300
200
100
0
-100
-50

6
270

270

Fig. 4. Preparing a relative phase between two independent BECs with no
initial phase relation. (A) The temporal trace of the Bragg beam intensity
shown with the pulse sequence. (B) Phase of the oscillations recorded
during the first pulse. (C) Phase during the second pulse. (D) Phasewww.sciencemag.org

SCIENCE

270

0

50

100

150

Applied phase shift (deg)difference between (B) and (C). (E) Phase difference between theoscillations in two pulses as a function of the phase shift applied during
the evolution time between pulses. Each point is the average of several
shots (between 3 and 10).

VOL 307

25 MARCH 2005

1947

REPORTS(Fig. 4C). Comparison with the phase measured in the first pulse shows that the two measurements were correlated (Fig. 4D). In otherwords, the first measurement established a definite relative phase between the two condensates that may not have had a defined phase
before, and the second measurement verified
that the condensates evolved with that particular phase during the interval between pulses.
Interferometry was demonstrated by putting
an interaction time between the two pulses
and changing the outcome of the second
measurement. We briefly modified the energy
offset between the two wells during the interval between the pulses, when the phase was
not being observed. Figure 4E compares themeasured phase shift with the value DEDt/h
expected from an energy offset DE applied
for a time Dt. The agreement between the prediction and the measurement demonstrates thatthe relative phase can be engineered by applying external forces to the atoms.
Active control of the phase opens interesting future perspectives: One could measure the light signal in real time and feed backthe phase measurement into the control coils(or into the acousto-optical modulator that
controls the two laser powers, creating the
double-well potential), preparing the desired
phase at the desired time. In principle, theuncertainty in the relative phase could even besqueezed by the feedback, allowing sub–shotnoise interferometry (5, 10, 30).
Several physical interpretations of theexperiment are possible besides the interference of two atom lasers. One is interference inmomentum space (21): The zero-momentum
component of the momentum distribution of
the double condensate depends sinusoidallyon the relative phase of the condensates and isprobed with Doppler-sensitive spectroscopy(realized by Bragg scattering). Yet anotherpoint of view is that light scattering probes theexcitation spectrum through the dynamical
structure factor. The structure factor is phasesensitive and shows interference fringes without requiring spatial overlap between the twocondensates, as long as the excited states(after light scattering) have spatial overlap.
This picture emphasizes that overlap between
scattered atoms, as well as scattered photons,
is crucial to our method: No phase information can be retrieved from two atomic wavepackets that scatter the same light but whose
excited states are disconnected, like two condensates separated by a transparent glass wall.
The concept of beating atom lasers waspreviously exploited to measure spatial coherence in a single condensate (31) and for experiments done in optical lattices, whereatoms outcoupled from a large vertical arrayof regularly spaced condensates interfered andtheir beating frequency measured gravity(3, 10). In this case, condensates were split
coherently by raising the optical lattice poten-

1948

tial. Coupling was established by tunneling ofatoms between adjacent lattice sites anddepended exponentially on the barrier shape,whereas the laser beams in our scheme
established a coupling through a state delocalized over the barrier. In principle, larger
barriers could be overcome by imparting
larger momenta in the Bragg process. Fromthe standpoint of precision interferometry,
optical lattices have the advantage of a very
well-known and controlled displacement between condensates, whereas the optical detection that we introduce here measures the beatfrequency continuously and in real time, withaccuracy not depending on the calibration ofimage magnification (3) or other disturbances
affecting atoms during time of flight.
Our scheme to nondestructively measure thebeat frequency of two previously independent
condensates, thus establishing phase coherence,
could permit us to couple condensates displacedby tens of microns on atom chips or in othermicrotraps, to explore Josephson oscillations,
phase diffusion, and self-trapping. We havealready demonstrated its potential in exploiting
the phase coherence of BECs to create a novel
type of atom interferometer.
References and Notes
1. M. R. Andrews et al., Science 275, 637 (1997).
2. D. S. Hall, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman, E. A. Cornell,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1543 (1998).
3. B. P. Anderson, M. A. Kasevich, Science 282, 1686 (1998).
4. F. S. Cataliotti et al., Science 293, 843 (2001).
5. C. Orzel, A. K. Tuchman, M. L. Fenselau, M. Yasuda,
M. A. Kasevich, Science 291, 2386 (2001).
6. M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. Esslinger, T. W. Hänsch,
I. Bloch, Nature 415, 39 (2002).
7. S. Gupta, K. Dieckmann, Z. Hadzibabic, D. E. Pritchard,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 140401 (2002).
8. Y. Shin et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 050405 (2004).
9. Y. J. Wang et al., preprint available at http://www.
arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0407689 (2004).
10. M. A. Kasevich, CR Acad. Sci. IV 2, 497 (2001).

11. C. CohenTannoudji, F. Bardou, A. Aspect, in Laser
Spectroscopy X, M. Ducloy, E. Giacobino, Eds. (World
Scientific, Singapore, 1992), p. 3.
12. K. Ra˛żewski, W. Żakovicz, J. Phys. B 25, L319 (1992).
13. B. Dubetsky, P. R. Berman, J. Mod. Opt. 49, 55 (2002).
14. J. Javanainen, Phys. Rev. A 54, 4629(R) (1996).
15. A. Imamoglu, T. A. B. Kennedy, Phys. Rev. A 55,
849(R) (1997).
16. J. Ruostekoski, D. F. Walls, Phys. Rev. A 56, 2996 (1997).
17. J. Javanainen, S. M. Yoo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 161 (1996).
18. M. Naraschewski, H. Wallis, A. Schenzle, J. I. Cirac,
P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A 54, 2185 (1996).
19. J. I. Cirac, C. W. Gardiner, M. Naraschewski, P. Zoller,
Phys. Rev. A 54, 3714(R) (1996).
20. Y. Castin, J. Dalibard, Phys. Rev. A 55, 4330 (1997).
21. L. Pitaevskii, S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4237 (1999).
22. M. Kozuma et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 871 (1999).
23. J. Stenger et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 4569 (1999).
24. Information on materials and methods is available
on Science Online.
25. A. Smerzi, S. Fantoni, S. Giovanazzi, S. R. Shenoy,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4950 (1997).
26. A. P. Chikkatur et al., Science 296, 2193 (2002).
27. M. Lewenstein, L. You, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3489 (1996).
28. J. Javanainen, M. Wilkens, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 4675
(1997).
29. J. A. Wheeler, W. H. Zurek, Quantum Theory andMeasurement (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ,
1983).
30. J. M. Geremia, J. K. Stockton, H. Mabuchi, Science 304,
270 (2004).
31. I. Bloch, T. W. Hansch, T. Esslinger, Nature 403, 166(2000).
32. This work was funded by the Army Research Office,the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, NSF,
the Office of Naval Research, and NASA. M.S. acknowledges additional support from the Swiss National Science Foundation and C.S. from the Studienstiftung desdeutschen Volkes. We thank G. Jo for experimental assistance, A. Schirotzek for contributions in theearly stage of the work, and M. Zwierlein for a critical reading of the manuscript. We are indebted to
A. Leanhardt for stimulating suggestions that initiatedthis research and insightful comments on the experiment and the manuscript.
Supporting Online Materialwww.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/307/5717/1945/
DC1
Materials and Methods
16 December 2004; accepted 3 February 2005
10.1126/science.1108801

Cool La Niña During theWarmth of the Pliocene?
R. E. M. Rickaby and P. Halloran
The role of El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) in greenhouse warming andclimate change remains controversial. During the warmth of the early-mid
Pliocene, we find evidence for enhanced thermocline tilt and cold upwelling in
the equatorial Pacific, consistent with the prevalence of a La Niña–like state,rather than the proposed persistent warm El Niño–like conditions. Our Pliocene paleothermometer supports the idea of a dynamic ‘‘ocean thermostat’’ inwhich heating of the tropical Pacific leads to a cooling of the east equatorial
Pacific and a La Niña–like state, analogous to observations of a transient increasing east-west sea surface temperature gradient in the 20th-century tropical Pacific.
In 1976, the equatorial Pacific, potentiallydriven by anthropogenic warming, switchedfrom a weak La NiDa state to one in which
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford,
Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PR, UK.

25 MARCH 2005

VOL 307

El NiDo occurs with greater frequency andintensity (1). For the current climate system,
El NiDo years are warmer and La NiDa years
are cooler (2). In the future, more persistent El NiDo could amplify global warming.
Determining what drives ENSO and how

SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org

Appendix E

Optical Weak Link between Two
Spatially Separated Bose-Einstein
Condensates
This appendix contains a reprint of Ref. [5]: Y. Shin, G.-B. Jo, M. Saba, T.A. Pasquini, W.
Ketterle, D.E. Pritchard, Optical Weak Link between Two Spatially Separated Bose-Einstein
Condensates, Physical Review Letters 95, 170402 (2005).

133

PRL 95, 170402 (2005)

week ending
21 OCTOBER 2005

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

Optical Weak Link between Two Spatially Separated Bose-Einstein Condensates
Y. Shin, G.-B. Jo, M. Saba, T. A. Pasquini, W. Ketterle, and D. E. Pritchard*
Department of Physics, MIT-Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms, and Research Laboratory of Electronics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02139, USA(Received 6 July 2005; published 17 October 2005)
Two spatially separate Bose-Einstein condensates were prepared in an optical double-well potential. A
bidirectional coupling between the two condensates was established by two pairs of Bragg beams which
continuously outcoupled atoms in opposite directions. The atomic currents induced by the optical
coupling depend on the relative phase of the two condensates and on an additional controllable couplingphase. This was observed through symmetric and antisymmetric correlations between the two outcoupledatom fluxes. A Josephson optical coupling of two condensates in a ring geometry is proposed. The
continuous outcoupling method was used to monitor slow relative motions of two elongated condensatesand characterize the trapping potential.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.170402

PACS numbers: 03.75.Lm, 03.75.Pp, 74.50.+r

Josephson effects [1] are quantum phenomena in which
the current between two weakly coupled, macroscopic
quantum systems depends on the relative phase of thetwo systems. These effects are direct evidence for the
existence of the phase of a macroscopic quantum system[2] and observed in quantum systems such as superconductors [3], superfluid 3 He [4], and Bose condensed gases[5,6]. Josephson coupling between two systems is typicallyestablished via tunneling through a separating potential
barrier or via an external driving field as in the internal
Josephson effect [7,8]. Both couplings require spatial overlap of the two systems due to the intrinsic locality of thecoupling interactions.
The concept of Josephson coupling can be extended toinclude two spatially separate quantum systems by using
intermediate coupling systems. If the phase relations
among these systems are preserved and thus the net particle
exchange is phase sensitive, the two spatially separate
systems might be regarded as being effectively Josephson
coupled via the intermediate systems. Furthermore, thephase of the coupling may be actively controlled by adjusting the coupling states of the intermediate systems. Thisidea has been theoretically introduced in the context ofrelative phase measurement [9].
In this Letter, we experimentally demonstrate phasesensitive optical coupling of two spatially separate BoseEinstein condensates using Bragg scattering. The situation
we are investigating is two condensates, irradiated by twopairs of Bragg beams [Fig. 1(a)]. The two pairs of Bragg
beams couple out beams of atoms propagating to the left or
the right, respectively, and these unconfined propagating
atoms constitute the intermediate coupling system in ourscheme. Depending on the relative phases of the two condensates and the coupling states, we observe only one
outcoupled beam propagating to one or the other side, or
two identical beams propagating in opposite directions(Fig. 2). This demonstrates phase control of currents andestablishes a new scheme to realize Josephson effects with
two nonoverlapping condensates. In the following, we
0031-9007= 05=95(17)=170402(4)$23.00

present a model for the phase-sensitive outcoupling process and an experimental test of the prediction that thephase of the atomic currents into each condensate can becontrolled. Finally, we suggest a Josephson optical coupling of two condensates in a ring geometry.
First, we elaborate on the situation with a unidirectional
optical coupling [Fig. 1(b)]. We use the conventional wave
function description for condensates. Two condensates 1
and 2 are trapped in a double-well potential and opticallycoupled into unconfined states by a single pair of Bragg
beams. Ignoring the accumulated phase shifts due to theinteraction with the condensates, we approximate the unconfined coupling states as truncated free propagatingp
states, i.e., i x; t / x  xi  Ni eii x;t (i  1; 2),
where x is the Heaviside step function,  is the outcoupling efficiency of the Bragg beams, Ni is the total atom
(a)

(b)

k1

E
hν
f, f+ν

f, f+ν

U1

hν

k2

U2
µ1

BEC’s

µ2

x

d

x1

x2

FIG. 1. Optical coupling between two separate condensates.
(a) Bidirectional coupling. Two pairs of Bragg beams withfrequencies f and f   are applied to two separate condensates.
(b) Outcoupling process. Two condensates are trapped at x  x1
and x2 d  x2  x1 . A pair of Bragg beams with frequency
difference  generate a continuous atomic beam from eachcondensate. The two atomic beams overlap in x > x2 , forming
a matter wave interference pattern. U1 (U2 ) denotes the trap
depth of the left (right) well, ~1 (~2 ) the mean-field interactionenergy of the left (right) condensate, and k1 (k2 ) the wave
number of the atomic beam from the left (right) condensate
outside the trap.

170402-1

 2005 The American Physical Society

PRL 95, 170402 (2005)

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

week ending
21 OCTOBER 2005

where ki  ki  2kr . Equation (2), the temporal part in
Eq. (1), corresponds to energy conservation.
In the overlapping region, x > x2 , the two atomic beams
from each condensate form a matter wave interference
pattern, and the outcoupled atom density nx; t 
j 1 x; t  2 x; tj2 . For a better interpretation, we define
the right outcoupled atom density nR s; t  ns  x2 ; t,where s indicates the distance from the right condensate,p

Nt  2 N1 N2 cosks  r t  k1 d ;nR s; t 
2vr
(4)FIG. 2. Symmetric and antisymmetric correlation between outcoupled atom patterns. Two pairs of Bragg beams [Fig. 1(a)]outcoupled atoms in either x or x direction. Absorption
images were taken after 5 ms outcoupling and 2 ms additionalballistic expansion. The left outcoupled atom patterns were compared with the corresponding right patterns. Symmetric correlation between two patterns was observed at (a)   2100:5 kHz and (c) antisymmetric at   2 101:5 kHz. The
field of view is 900 m 590 m. (b), (d) Outcoupled atom
flux densities were obtained by integrating optical densities
between the dashed lines and converting the spatial coordinate
to the time coordinate. The solid (dashed) lines correspond to left
(right) outcoupled atoms. (e) The coupling phase  of the twooutcoupled patterns showed a linear dependence on  with
@=@  2:4 kHz1 .

number of condensate i, and i x; t  ki x  !i t  i0 is@ 2 k2the phase of the coupling state with @!i  2mi , where m is
atomic mass. The phase continuity at the coupling positionx  xi requires
i xi ; t  i t  B xi ; t  =2;

(1)

where i t is the phase of the condensate, B x; t 
2kr x  t  B0 is the phase of the Bragg beams withwave number kr and frequency difference , and =2 isthe phase shift attributed to the scattering process [10]. In alinear regime with   1, i is not perturbed by the
coupling, i.e., i t   @i t  i0 , where @ is Planck’s
constant divided by 2 and i  Ui  ~i [Fig. 1(b)] is
the chemical potential of the condensate. Satisfying thephase relation Eq. (1) at all t requires@ !i  @  i ;(2)

i0  ki xi  B0  i0  =2;(3)

where Nt  N1  N2 , k  k2  k1 , d  x2  x1 , andr t  2 t  1 t. We approximate the propagating@krivelocity vi  @k
2m ’ 2vr with ki  2kr , where vr  m is
the recoil velocity. According to the relative phase r ,outcoupled atoms from the left condensate are coupled
into or amplified by the right condensate. The spatial andtemporal modulation of the outcoupled atom flux nR represents the evolution of the relative phase r , which was
directly demonstrated in our previous experiments [11].
The phase term k1 d can be interpreted as the phaseshift which outcoupled atoms would accumulate during theflight from the left condensate to the right with respect tothe Bragg beam phase B which is acting as the phasereference. A similar relation between nR and r can beobtained in terms of the dynamic structure factor of 2
separate condensates [12], but the phase modulation of
coupling states in the middle of two condensates is likely
to be ignored in the conventional impulse approximation[13]. This phase shift is the key element for an actively
controlled optical coupling and its physical importancewill be manifest in the following bidirectional coupling
scheme.
We now add another pair of Bragg beams to outcouple
atoms in the x direction. Modifying the above calculation
by ki;r ! ki;r , the left outcoupled atom density nL s; t nx1  s is given asp

Nt  2 N1 N2 cosks  r t  k2 d :nL s; t 
2vr
(5)Considering the atom flux for each condensate, we find rateequations for N1 and N2 . For example, the left condensate
has influx of N2 from the right condensate and outflux ofN1 and nL 0; t in x and x direction, respectively. The
final rate equations readp
N_ 1;2  2 N1;2  N1 N2 cosr t k1;2 d : (6)Except for the global depletion effect of Bragg scattering,
the rate equations describe Josephson oscillations due tothe bidirectional optical coupling, i.e., that the atomic
currents into the condensates depend on the relative phase.
The optical Josephson coupling has a unique feature in
the control of the phase accumulated by atoms in the170402-2

PRL 95, 170402 (2005)

coupling state [9]. Since the intermediate system ‘‘delivers’’ the phase information from one condensate to theother, the phase can be manipulated in transit and consequently, the phase of the effective coupling can be controlled without affecting the two condensates. In thebidirectional coupling scheme, the control of the couplingphase is embodied in the phase shift terms, k1 d andk2 d. We define the coupling phase as   k1  k2 d,and with ki  2kr , approximate  asweek ending
21 OCTOBER 2005

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS



d
4E
  2; r 1
vr
@
2@

(7)

One limitation of the bidirectional coupling scheme isthat atoms are depleted out of the system due to the linear
geometry. Even though the pattern of outcoupled atoms is a
crucial signal for monitoring the coupling dynamics, thecoupling time is fundamentally limited. To overcome thisshortcoming, we envisage a system preserving total atom
number like in Fig. 3, where atoms circulate between two
condensates in a ring waveguide. With assumptions thatthe traveling time t for atoms from one condensate to theother is short enough to satisfy _ r t  1 and that thedensity profiles are constant over the trajectories between
the two condensates, the governing equation, in a linear
regime, is

2 2

where Er  @2mkr is the recoil energy.  is equivalent to therelative phase of nL and nR . When   0 (  ) (mod 2),nL and nR will show (anti)symmetric correlation.
The control of the coupling phase  was experimentally demonstrated. Condensates of 23 Na atoms in the
jF  1; mF  1i state were prepared in an optical
double-well potential as described in Ref. [14]. The
1=e2 -intensity radius of a focused laser beam for a single
well was 7:6 m and the typical trap depth was U1;2
h 18 kHz. The separation of the two wells was d 
11:4 m and each well started with a condensate of 5
105 atoms. Two pairs of Bragg beams parallel to the separation direction were applied to the condensates by retroreflecting two copropagating laser beams with frequency
difference . The lifetime of condensates was over 18 s.
The 1=e depletion time due to Bragg scattering into both
directions was 4.5 ms, resulting in the magnitude of initialatom currents 1:1 108 atoms=s. Outcoupling patterns
were measured by taking absorption images of outcoupledatoms.
When the Bragg frequency difference  was varied, theoutcoupling pattern cycled through symmetric and antisymmetric correlations (Fig. 2). The coupling phase  was
fit to the observed patterns for each Bragg frequency[Fig. 2(e)]. The linear dependence was measured as@=@  2:4 0:2 kHz1 , which is consistent with thepredicted value d=vr  2:6 kHz1 . This clearly demonstrates the presence and control of the coupling phase in
our optical coupling scheme. With the antisymmetric condition,   , as a function of the propagating relative
phase, the output oscillated between predominantly to theleft and predominantly to the right [Figs. 2(c) and 2(d)].
The experimental situation has perfect mirror symmetry.
Unidirectional output in a symmetric situation is a macroscopic consequence of the condensates’ phase.
Control of the coupling phase can be used to introduce
temporal and spatial variations of Josephson-type coupling. Temporal control with real-time feedback could
ensure the coherent and continuous replenishment of acondensate [see Ref. [15] ]. For elongated condensates, as
used here, spatial control with barrier heights or well
separations could create spatially varying coupling along
the condensate axis, and realize, e.g., ring currents.

p
N_ 2  N_ 1  2 N1 N2 cosr  m ;(8)where m is the effective coupling phase which is determined by the accumulated phase shift over the roundtrajectories and the phase of the Bragg beams.
The long condensates used here introduce a new degreeof freedom into the usual pointlike Josephson junctions:the condensates can have a spatially varying phase along
the axial direction. Since the optical coupling is selectively
established between condensates at the same axial position, axial gradients of the relative phase are directly
observed through tilted fringes in the pattern of outcoupledatoms. In Fig. 4, we present two examples showing theeffects of relative dipole and quadruple axial motions of
two condensates. Josephson vortex [16] and modulational
instabilities [17] in elongated coupled condensates weretheoretically suggested.
Continuous Bragg scattering was used to characterize
the trap depth and the trap frequency of a single optical trap
(Fig. 5). Since momentum and energy imparted in the
scattering process are precisely defined, the kinetic energy
of atoms coupled out of a trap determines the depth of the
trap. We measured the traveling distance D of outcoupledatoms with fixed traveling time t, and determined the trapp
depth U from the relation, D=t  4v2r  2U=m, ignoring
the mean-field interaction with the condensate and thefinite size of the trap. Additionally, the exact knowledge

BEC1

B

Bragg 1A
BEC2Bragg 2

FIG. 3. Optical coupling of two condensates on a ring. Twocondensates are confined at opposite sides on a ring-shaped
waveguide and a pair of Bragg beams (Bragg 1 and 2) outcouple
atoms in the clockwise direction. The shaded boxes A and B arephase modulators for atoms and photons, respectively.

170402-3

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERSPRL 95, 170402 (2005)
(a)

(b)

z
x

FIG. 4. Monitoring of slow relative axial motions. Two chemical potentials were equalized within 400 Hz and the temporal
evolution of the relative phase of two condensates along the axial
z direction was recorded in the outcoupled atom patterns.
(a) represents relative dipole oscillation, corresponding to relative velocity 300 m=s or kinetic energy of 130 pK kB ,and (b) relative quadruple oscillation. kB is the Boltzmann
constant.

of the recoil velocity vr calibrates the optical magnificationof images.
On the other hand, the trap frequency was measured
using velocity sensitivity of Bragg scattering. When acondensate oscillates in a trap, atoms are coupled out
only when the condensate is at the resonant velocity.
Since the dipole oscillation of a condensate in a harmonic
trap is the same as the trap frequency f, the outcoupling
frequency is the same as f when Bragg beams are tuned at
the maximum velocity [Fig. 5(b)], 2f at zero velocity[Fig. 5(c)]. Even though the frequency resolution is limitedby the finite coupling time, this method provides a lot of
information in a single measurement. For example, thepattern of outcoupled atoms in Fig. 5(b) is curved because
the trap frequency changes along the axial direction.
The system studied here is perfectly symmetric. Nevertheless, in any realization of the experiment, the relative
phase of the two condensates assumes a specific value andspontaneously breaks the symmetry. The unidirectional(a)2D

D (pixel)

130
120

(b)

x

110
100
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Trap Depth (a.u.)

2.5

(c)

FIG. 5. Trap characterization by continuous outcoupling.
(a) Atoms were outcoupled from a single well and the traveling
distance D with fixed traveling time t  7 ms was measured,changing the trap depth U by varying the total power of the laser
beam forming the single well. The solid line is a fitting curve(see the text for details) with 1 a:u:  18:0 kHz and 1 pixel 
3:11 m. Dipole oscillation in the x direction was inducedby suddenly shifting the trap center. (b) Outcoupling patternwith Bragg frequency difference   2 114 kHz and(c)   2 101:5 kHz, which correspond to resonant velocities of  4 mm=s and  0 mm=s, respectively. In (b), the left
and the right pattern have antisymmetric correlation.

week ending
21 OCTOBER 2005

output is equivalent to the magnetization in a ferromagnet,
which, by spontaneous symmetry breaking, points into a
specific direction. Spontaneous symmetry breaking can beobserved in the interference pattern of two overlapping
condensates which has a definite phase [18]. Unidirectional output in a symmetric situation more dramaticallyshows the existence of the condensates’ phase.
In conclusion, we experimentally studied the optical
coupling between two spatially separate condensates usingbidirectional Bragg scattering and demonstrated that thephase of the coupling currents can be controlled. This
scheme is a new approach for observing Josephson phenomena, but also for monitoring condensate motion andcharacterizing trapping potentials.
This work was funded by NSF, ONR, DARPA, ARO,
and NASA. G.-B. J. acknowledges additional support fromthe Samsung Lee Kun Hee Foundation, and M. S. from the
Swiss National Science Foundation.

*URL: http://cua.mit.edu/ketterle_group/[1] B. D. Josephson, Phys. Lett. 1, 251 (1962).
[2] P. W. Anderson, in Lectures on The Many-Body Problem,
edited by E. R. Caianiello (Academic, New York, 1964),
Vol. 2, pp. 113–135.
[3] P. W. Anderson and J. W. Rowell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10, 230(1963).
[4] S. V. Pereverzev, A. Loshak, S. Backhaus, J. C. Davis, andR. E. Packard, Nature (London) 388, 449 (1997).
[5] F. S. Cataliotti, S. Burger, C. Fort, P. Maddaloni, F. Minardi, A. Trombettoni, A. Smerzi, and M. Inguscio,
Science 293, 843 (2001).
[6] M. Albiez, R. Gati, J. Fölling, S. Hunsmann, M. Cristiani,and M. K. Oberthaler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 010402 (2005).
[7] J. Williams, R. Walser, J. Cooper, E. Cornell, andM. Holland, Phys. Rev. A 59, R31 (1999).
[8] P. Öhberg and S. Stenholm, Phys. Rev. A 59, 3890 (1999).
[9] A. Imamoglu and T. A. B. Kennedy, Phys. Rev. A 55,
R849 (1997).
[10] J. M. Vogels, J. K. Chin, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett.
90, 030403 (2003).
[11] M. Saba, T. A. Pasquini, C. Sanner, Y. Shin, W. Ketterle,
and D. E. Pritchard, Science 307, 1945 (2005).
[12] L. Pitaevskii and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4237
(1999).
[13] F. Zambelli, L. Pitaevskii, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, and
S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. A 61, 063608 (2000).
[14] Y. Shin, M. Saba, T. A. Pasquini, W. Ketterle, D. E. Pritchard, and A. E. Leanhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 050405(2004).
[15] A. P. Chikkatur, Y. Shin, A. E. Leanhardt, D. Kielpinski,
E. Tsikata, T. L. Gustavson, D. E. Pritchard, and
W. Ketterle, Science 296, 2193 (2002).
[16] V. M. Kaurov and A. B. Kuklov, Phys. Rev. A 71,
011601(R) (2005).
[17] I. Bouchoule, physics/0502050.
[18] M. R. Andrews, C. G. Townsend, H.-J. Miesner, D. S.
Durfee, D. M. Kurn, and W. Ketterle, Science 275, 637(1997).

170402-4

Appendix FDistillation of Bose-Einstein
Condensates in a Double-Well
Potential
This appendix contains a reprint of Ref. [2]: Y. Shin, M. Saba, A. Schirotzek, T.A. Pasquini,
A.E. Leanhardt, D.E. Pritchard, W. Ketterle, Distillation of Bose-Einstein Condensates ina Double-Well Potential, Physical Review Letters 92, 150401 (2004).

138

VOLUME 92, N UMBER 15

week ending
16 APRIL 2004

PHYSICA L R EVIEW LET T ERSDistillation of Bose-Einstein Condensates in a Double-Well Potential
Y. Shin, M. Saba, A. Schirotzek, T. A. Pasquini, A. E. Leanhardt, D. E. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle*
Department of Physics, MIT-Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms,
and Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA(Received 21 November 2003; published 13 April 2004)
Bose-Einstein condensates of sodium atoms, prepared in an optical dipole trap, were distilled into asecond empty dipole trap adjacent to the first one. The distillation was driven by thermal atoms spillingover the potential barrier separating the two wells and then forming a new condensate. This processserves as a model system for metastability in condensates, provides a test for quantum kinetic theories
of condensate formation, and also represents a novel technique for creating or replenishing condensatesin new locations.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.150401

PACS numbers: 03.75.Lm, 64.60.My

The characteristic feature of Bose-Einstein condensation is the accumulation of a macroscopic number ofparticles in the lowest quantum state. Condensate fragmentation, the macroscopic occupation of two or morequantum states, is usually prevented by interactions [1],but may happen in spinor condensates [2,3]. However,multiple condensates may exist in metastable situations.
Let us assume that an equilibrium condensate has formed
in one quantum state, but now we modify the systemallowing for one even lower state. How does the original
condensate realize that it is in the wrong state and eventually migrate to the true ground state of the system?
What determines the time scale for this equilibration
process? This is the situation which we experimentally
explore in this Letter using a double-well potential.
The process we study is relevant for at least four different questions. (1) The description of the formation of thecondensate is a current theoretical frontier and requires
finite-temperature quantum kinetic theories. There arestill discrepancies between theoretical predictions andexperimental results [4,5]. Our double-well system has
the advantage of being an almost closed system (little
evaporation) with well-defined initial conditions andwidely adjustable time scales (through the height of thebarrier). (2) Spinor condensates show rich ground states
and collective excitations due to the multicomponent
order parameter [2]. Several groups have observed longlived metastable configurations [6 –9] and speculated
about transport of atoms from one domain to anothervia the thermal cloud [6,8]. The double-well potential
allows us to characterize such distillation processes intheir simplest realization. (3) The incoherent transportobserved here in a double-well potential imposes stringent limitations on future experiments aiming at theobservation of coherent transport in Josephson junctions[10 –12]. (4) Our observation of condensate growth in one
potential well due to the addition of thermal atoms realizes the key ideas of proposals on how to achieve acontinuous atom laser [13] which is different from theexperiment where condensates were replenished withtransported condensates [14].
The scheme of the experiment is shown in Fig. 1. BoseEinstein condensates in an optical dipole trap were prepared in a metastable state by creating a second trap
horizontally adjacent to the first. Since the probabilityof quantum tunneling through the barrier was extremely
small [15], the coupling between the two wells occurred
only by the incoherent transfer of high-energy thermal
atoms over the potential barrier between the two wells.
The second trap was filled first by thermal atoms, whichthen formed a new condensate. By monitoring the time
evolution of the double-well system, we characterized
how differences in chemical potential and the height ofthe barrier determined the dynamics.
Bose-Einstein condensates containing over 107 23 Na
atoms were created in the jF  1; mF  1i state in amagnetic trap, captured in the focus of a 1064 nm opticaltweezers laser beam, and transferred into an separate‘‘science’’ chamber as described in Ref. [16]. In the science chamber the condensate was transferred from theoptical tweezers into another optical trap formed by a

FIG. 1. Scheme for distillation of condensates in a doublewell potential. (a) Condensates are loaded into the left well.
(b) A new ground state is created by linearly ramping the trap
depth of the right well from zero to the final value. (c) Atoms
transfer into the right well via high-energy thermal atoms, anda new condensate starts to form in the right well. (d) The wholesystem has equilibrated. V denotes the height of the potential
barrier between the two wells, which is measured with respect
to the bottom of the left well, and U the trap depth difference
between the two wells.

150401-1

 2004 The American Physical Society

0031-9007=04=92(15)=150401(4)$22.50

V
∆U

a

b

c

d

150401-1

PHYSICA L R EVIEW LET T ERS

counterpropagating, orthogonally polarized 1064 nm laser beam. As in Ref. [17], the double-well potential was
created by passing a collimated laser beam through an
acousto-optic modulator that was driven by two radiofrequency (rf) signals. The separation between the potential wells, d, was proportional to the frequency difference,and the individual trap depth was tailored by controlling
the rf power at the two frequencies. Typical parameters
were an 1=e2 radius of each focused beam of 11:3 m, a
single-well potential depth of U  kB  2:4 K, where
kB is the Boltzmann constant, and a radial (axial) trap
frequency, fr  830 Hz (fz  12:4 Hz). As shown in
Fig. 1, condensates were initially loaded into the left
well with depth UL while the trap depth of the right
well, UR , was maintained at zero. After holding thecondensates for 2 s to damp excitations which might
have been caused by the loading process, the temperature
was Ti  180  90 nK, the number of condensed atoms
Ni  1:1  0:1  106 with a peak mean field energy of~ 0  kB  300 nK, and the lifetime   12:1  1:5 s.
The potential was transformed into a double-well potential by linearly ramping the right well potential fromzero to the final value of UR over 500 ms while keeping
UL constant. This time scale was chosen to be much
longer than the radial trap period of 1 ms to avoid
excitations. The resulting double-well potential is characterized by the trap depth difference between the two
wells, U  UR  UL , and the height of the potential
barrier between the two wells, V, which is measured withrespect to the bottom of the left well, i.e., the wellinitially full of atoms. The barrier height was set higher
than the peak atomic mean field energy of condensates sothat condensed atoms remained confined to the left wellduring the transformation.
The thermal relaxation process was observed by taking
absorption images of clouds confined in the double-wellpotential for various hold times after turning on the rightwell. In order to fully resolve the clouds in the two wells,
their distance was increased to d  31:2 m just before
taking absorption images. We assume that this did notchange either the number of atoms in each well or theaxial density distributions, since this additional separation was done in 10 ms, which is much shorter than theaxial trap period of 100 ms, and the height of thepotential barrier exponentially increases when the two
wells move apart.
Figure 2 shows the dynamical evolution for a situation
where the right well was much deeper than the left well.
In that case, condensates that initially existed only in theleft well were almost completely distilled within 3 s toform condensates of comparable size in the right well.
The time evolution of the double-well system wascharacterized by monitoring the number of condensed
atoms and the temperature of clouds in each well. These
numbers were obtained by fitting radially integrated onedimensional atomic density cross sections to a bimodal
150401-2

week ending
16 APRIL 2004

0 ms
250 ms
500 msTime

VOLUME 92, N UMBER 15

1000 ms
1500 ms
2000 ms
3000 ms
3500 ms

FIG. 2. Time evolution of atom clouds in a double-well potential. The left (right) well appears as the top (bottom) atom
cloud in the images. A condensate was distilled from the left tothe right well. The absorption images were taken for various
hold times after creating the right well. The field of view of
each absorption image is 130 m  1160 m. The trap depths
were UL  kB  2:4 K (left well) and UR  kB  2:9 K(right well) with a potential barrier of V  kB  510 nK between them. During the hold time, the radial separation between the potential wells was d  15:9 m.

distribution. The assumption of local equilibrium in eachwell is justified by a short collision time col  1 ms. For
the condensate, we used a Thomas-Fermi distribution,and for the thermal clouds the fits to a Bose-Einstein
distribution were restricted only to the wings to avoid the
distortions due to the mean field repulsion of the condensate [18]. The temperature turned out to be very sensitive to the value of the chemical potential of the thermal
clouds. Assuming local equilibrium, we set the chemical
potential of the thermal clouds in each well equal to thatof the condensates in the same well. In the absence of acondensate, the chemical potential of the thermal cloud
was determined by the fit to a Bose-Einstein distribution.
Figure 3 displays the condensed atom number andtemperature for the images of Fig. 2. Condensates started
to form in the right well after 400  150 ms and saturated within 2 s, resulting in 50% of the condensate
being transferred. The final temperature in the right well
was Tf  350 nK, which is 150 nK higher than theinitial temperature Ti . This increase of temperature reflects the energy gained by the atoms when they ‘‘fall’’into the right potential well which is deeper by U 
480 nK. After 3.5 s, the total number of atoms of thewhole system was Nf  0:6  0:1  106 , which is 15%
less than expected for the measured lifetime of  
12:1 s. Evaporative cooling due to finite trap depth may
explain both the atom loss and the fact that the temperature increase was much less than U.
Even after 3.5 s hold time, full global equilibrium was
not reached. This can be seen in both the temperature and150401-2

0.5
0.25
0
1

2

3

Hold Time (s)

500
400
300
200
0

1

2

3

Hold Time (s)FIG. 3. Approach to thermal equilibrium in a double-wellpotential. The temperature and the number of condensed atoms
in each well are shown as a function of hold time after creating
the right well. Open and solid circles represent atoms in the left
and the right well, respectively. Every data point is averaged
over three measurements, and the error bar shows  one
standard deviation. The experimental parameters are thesame as for the results shown in Fig. 2.

the condensed atom numbers. As the chemical potentialof condensates in the right well was lower than the trap
bottom of the left well, there should not have been any
condensate remaining in the left well in global equilibrium. However, Fig. 2 shows a small condensate of 103
atoms in the left well even after 3.5 s holding.
Furthermore, the temperature in the left well was measured 100 nK lower than in the right well.
On first sight, this slow approach towards equilibrium
is surprising. In evaporative cooling, one has very fastcooling for a ratio of the height of the potential barrier tothe temperature of less than 3 [19], as in our experiment.
Note, however, that in our trap geometry the exchange ofthermal atoms is geometrically suppressed due to thesmall ‘‘contact area’’ between the two elongated cigarshaped clouds. Moreover, if the transferred thermal atoms
have high angular momentum, they have poor collisional
coupling to the cold trapped atoms such as the Oort cloudin magnetic traps [20]. Indeed, the density of thermal
atoms with higher energy than the potential barrier in theleft well after 3.5 s holding is 3  1011 =cm3 , and theircollision time with the atoms confined in this well isnvrel 1  0:5 s.
Another quantity of interest in the condensate formation process is the onset time of condensation, the holdtime until a condensate first appears [4,5,21]. To avoid
ambiguities in fitting small condensates, we determined
150401-3

Onset Time (s)0.75

the onset time in the right well by observing the appearance of interference fringes when two condensates werereleased from the double-well potential. For two purecondensates, the visibility of the interference fringes islarger than 55% as long as the number ratio of the twocondensates is larger than   0:05. Using the methods
described in Ref. [17], we have observed discernible
interference fringes down to   0:08, corresponding to8  104 condensed atoms in the right well.
Onset times were measured as a function of d and U(Fig. 4). The condensate formation is driven by the potential well difference U, whereas the barrier of height
V provides the ‘‘resistance’’ against equilibration, since
thermal atoms must have a kinetic energy larger than
V to transfer from the left well to the right well.
Phenomenologically (see inset of Fig. 4), the condensate
onset time depends only on the combination V  U=2
with an almost exponential dependence. V  U=2 canbe considered as Veff  U, where Veff  V V
U =2 is the average height of the barrier measured
from each well.
In two limiting cases, no interference patterns wereobserved. When the trap depth difference is larger thanthe peak atomic mean field energy of condensates, i.e.,jUj > ~ 0 , it is energetically favorable for condensates
to remain in the lowest well. We observed no interference
pattern when U  kB  240 nK even after 20 s holdtime. The disappearance of interference fringes was observed when U kB  360 nK due to complete distillation of the condensates into the right well. In the limit

43
2

No fringe

1.0Interference Onset Time (s)6Number of Condensed Atoms (10 )Temperature (nK)

1.25

0

week ending
16 APRIL 2004

PHYSICA L R EVIEW LET T ERSVOLUME 92, N UMBER 15∆U / kB (nK)

4

-120
0
120

3

240
360
480

2
1
0
240

360
480
600
(V-∆U/2) / kB (nK)

1
0
-240

-120

0

120

240

360

480

Potential Well Difference ∆U / kB (nK)

FIG. 4. Onset time of condensation. The onset time in theright well was measured by observing the appearance of amatter wave interference pattern when the condensates werereleased from the double-well potential. The trap depth difference is defined as U  UR  UL . UL was kept at kB  2:4 K
for all experiments. The separations of the two wells, d, were
14:3 m (open circle), 15:1 m (solid circle), and 15:9 m(open square). Interference fringes were not observed at U 
kB  240 nK even after 20 s hold time. The inset shows thesame data plotted vs V  U=2, where V is the height of thepotential barrier.

150401-3

VOLUME 92, N UMBER 15

PHYSICA L R EVIEW LET T ERS

where the barrier height is smaller than the peak atomic
mean field energy of condensates, i.e., V < ~ 0 , condensate atoms can ‘‘spill’’ over the potential barrier. Indeed,
we observed that condensates appeared in the right wellimmediately for V less than kB  290 nK, consistent
with 
~ 0  kB  300 nK.
To observe quantum tunneling, the thermal relaxation time th / exp V=kB Tp
should be longer than thetunneling time tu / exp V=mh 2 w , where w is the
thickness of the barrier. For a thick barrier such as
ours ( > 5 m), the tunneling time is extremely long( > 105 s) and thermal relaxation is likely to dominate.
A high and thin barrier is necessary to observe tunnelingand the related Josephson effects.
In conclusion, we have created Bose-Einstein condensates in a metastable state in a double-well potential andstudied the dynamical evolution. The observed distillation process is important for equilibration in spinor condensates and for replenishing condensates in continuous
atom lasers.
This work was funded by ARO, NSF, ONR, and NASA.
We thank K. Xu for a critical reading of the manuscript.
M. S. acknowledges additional support from the Swiss
National Science Foundation.

*URL: http://cua.mit.edu/ketterle_group/[1] P. Nozières, in Bose-Einstein Condensation, edited by
A. Griffin, D.W. Snoke, and S. Stringari (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1995).
[2] T.-L. Ho, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 742 (1998).
[3] T. Ohmi and K. Machida, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 67, 1822
(1998).
[4] C.W. Gardiner, M. D. Lee, R. J. Ballagh, M. J. Davis, andP. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5266 (1998).
[5] M. Köhl, M. J. Davis, C.W. Gardiner, T.W. Hänsch, andT. Esslinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 080402 (2002).

150401-4

week ending
16 APRIL 2004

[6] H.-J. Miesner, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, J. Stenger, S. Inouye,
A. P. Chikkatur, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82,
2228 (1999).
[7] D. M. Stamper-Kurn, H.-J. Miesner, A. P. Chikkatur,
S. Inouye, J. Stenger, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett.
83, 661 (1999).
[8] H. Schmaljohann, M. Erhard, J. Kronjäger, M. Kottke,
S. van Staa, K. Arlt, J. Bongs, and K. Sengstock, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 92, 040402 (2004).
[9] M.-S. Chang, C. D. Hamley, M. D. Barrett, J. A. Sauer,
K. M. Fortier, W. Zhang, L. You, and M. S. Chapman,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 140403 (2004).
[10] A. Smerzi, S. Fantoni, S. Giovanazzi, and S. R. Shenoy,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4950 (1997).
[11] S. Giovanazzi, A. Smerzi, and S. Fantoni, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 84, 4521 (2000).
[12] L. Pitaevskii and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 180402(2001).
[13] M. Holland, K. Burnett, C. Gardiner, J. I. Cirac, andP. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A 54, R1757 (1996).
[14] A. P. Chikkatur, Y. Shin, A. E. Leanhardt, D. Kielpinski,
E. Tsikata, T. L. Gustavson, D. E. Pritchard, and
W. Ketterle, Science 296, 2193 (2002).
[15] F. Dalfovo, S. Giorgini, L. P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari,Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 463 (1999).
[16] T. L. Gustavson, A. P. Chikkatur, A. E. Leanhardt,
A. Görlitz, S. Gupta, D. E. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 020401 (2002).
[17] Y. Shin, M. Saba, T. A. Pasquini, W. Ketterle, D. E.
Pritchard, and A. E. Leanhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92,
050405 (2004).
[18] M. Naraschewski and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, Phys. Rev. A
58, 2423 (1998).
[19] W. Ketterle and N. J. van Druten, Adv. At. Mol. Opt.
Phys. 37, 181 (1996).
[20] E. A. Cornell, J. R. Ensher, and C. E. Wieman, inProceedings of the International School of PhysicsEnrico Fermi, edited by M. Inguscio, S. Stringari, andC. E. Wieman (IOS, Amterdam, 1999).
[21] H.-J. Miesner, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, M. R. Andrews, D. S.
Durfee, S. Inouye, and W. Ketterle, Science 279, 1005
(1998).

150401-4

Appendix G

Coreless Vortex Formation in a
Spinor Bose-Einstein Condensate
This appendix contains a reprint of Ref. [10]: A.E. Leanhardt, Y. Shin, D. Kielpinski, D.E.
Pritchard, W. Ketterle, Coreless Vortex Formation in a Spinor Bose-Einstein Condensate,
Physical Review Letters 90, 140403 (2003).

143

VOLUME 90, N UMBER 14

PHYSICA L R EVIEW LET T ERS

week ending
11 APRIL 2003

Coreless Vortex Formation in a Spinor Bose-Einstein Condensate
A. E. Leanhardt, Y. Shin, D. Kielpinski, D. E. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle*
Department of Physics, MIT-Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms, and Research Laboratory of Electronics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139(Received 20 December 2002; published 9 April 2003)
Coreless vortices were phase imprinted in a spinor Bose-Einstein condensate. The three-component
order parameter of F  1 sodium condensates held in a Ioffe-Pritchard magnetic trap was manipulated
by adiabatically reducing the magnetic bias field along the trap axis to zero. This distributed thecondensate population across its three spin states and created a spin texture. Each spin state acquired adifferent phase winding which caused the spin components to separate radially.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.140403

Spin textures play a central role in describing thephysics of elementary particles [1], liquid 3 He-A [2– 4],
the quantum Hall effect [5], and gaseous Bose-Einsteincondensates [6 –10]. Topological defects vary between
superfluid systems described by scalar and vector orderparameters. In spinless or spin-polarized condensates,
line defects such as vortices have cores where the densityof condensed particles is necessarily zero to keep theorder parameter single valued [11–13]. However, in condensates with an internal, spin degree of freedom, coreless vortices exist as spin textures [4,14]. Such structures
are referred to as skyrmions (Anderson-Toulouse vortices[3]) or merons (half-skyrmions, Mermin-Ho vortices [2])depending on the boundary conditions of the system.
In this Letter, we study spin textures in a Bose-Einsteincondensate. Coreless vortices were created in F  1spinor condensates held in a Ioffe-Pritchard magnetic
trap by adiabatically reducing the magnetic bias fieldalong the trap axis to zero. This continuously transformed
the initially spin-polarized condensate into a coherent
superposition of three spin states, each with a different
phase winding. The resulting angular momentum perparticle varied between spin states and the condensate
evolved such that states with more angular momentum
per particle circulated around states with less angularmomentum per particle. Thus, the condensate had a net
axial magnetization that varied with radial position.
Previous work on vortices in a two-component systemused laser, microwave, and radio frequency fields to spatially and temporally control the interconversion between
components [14]. However, without these applied fields
the two components evolved independently as distinguishable fluids. In our work, the spin states can freely
interconvert at all points in space and time such that the
spin texture would continually heal itself even in thepresence of state-dependent losses.
In cylindrical coordinates, the spin-F condensate
wave
functioncan be written as jr; ; zi p
nr; ; zjr; ; zi, where n is the atomic number density and the 2F  1 component spinor ji P2Fmz F mz jF; mz i; jhjij  1 describes a spin texture.
140403-1

0031-9007=03=90(14)=140403(4)$20.00

PACS numbers: 03.75.Lm, 03.65.Vf, 03.75.Mn, 67.57.Fg

A Ioffe-Pritchard magnetic trap consists of an axial
bias field (with curvature) and a two-dimensional quadrupole field in the orthogonal plane [15,16]:^ ;
B~ r; ; z  Bz z^  B0 r cos2^r  sin2

(1)

where B0 is the radial magnetic field gradient and quadratic terms have been neglected. For a condensate ofradial extent R confined in a Ioffe-Pritchard magnetic
trap with Bz  B0 R > 0, ji  jF; mz  mF i, where mz
and mF are the projection of the atomic spin along the zaxis and local magnetic field direction, respectively.
Adiabatically ramping Bz from Bz  B0 R > 0 to zerorotates the atomic spin about the position-dependent
axis n^   sincosy^ , and drives the transitionPx^jm
Fj
jF; mz  mF i ! mmz expimz  mF jF; mz iz jmF j[17,18]. Thus, the condensate population is distributed
across 2jmF j  1 spin states with each acquiring a different topological phase factor and angular momentum perparticle due to the variation of Berry’s phase with magnetic quantum number [19].
The condensate remains in the state jF; mF i with respect to the local magnetic field provided the local
Zeeman energy, gF B B2z  B0 r2 1=2 , dominates the
local kinetic energy associated with the spin texture,h 2 =mr2 , where gF is the Landé g factor, B is theBohr magneton, and m is the atomic mass. For Bz  0,
atomic spins aligned with the quadrupole magnetic field
produce the planar spin texture in Fig. 1(a). However, theinfinite kinetic energy associated with the wave function
singularity at r  0 creates a nonplanar spin texture overa disk of radius h 2 =mgF B B0 1=3 , with higher angularmomentum spin states residing outside those with lower
angular momentum.
Bose-Einstein condensates containing over 107 23 Na
atoms were created in the j1; 1i state in a magnetic trap, captured in the focus of an optical tweezers
laser beam, and transferred into an auxiliary ‘‘science’’chamber as described in Ref. [21]. In the science chamber, the condensate was loaded into a microfabricated
Ioffe-Pritchard magnetic trap formed by a Z-shaped 2003 The American Physical Society

140403-1

(a)

y

(b)

y

x

x

FIG. 1. Planar spin textures. Spins aligned with twodimensional (a) quadrupole and (b) hexapole magnetic fields
produce textures with winding numbers 1 and 2, respectively. Counterclockwise traversal of the dashed contours in (a)and (b) leads to clockwise (negative) spin rotation, with thewinding number defined as the integer number of revolutions
made by the spin vector while circumnavigating the singularity
at the origin [20].

50 m 10 m electroplated copper wire carrying current I and an external magnetic bias field, B? , as described in Ref. [22]. Typical wiretrap parameters wereI  720 mA, B?  5:3 G, and Bz  1:3 G, resulting in aradial magnetic field gradient B0  180 G=cm. This produced axial and radial trap frequencies !z  2 4 Hz
and !?  2 250 Hz, respectively. Condensates in thewiretrap had
2 106 atoms, a Thomas-Fermi radiusof 5 m, and a lifetime 25 s.
Coreless vortices imprinted onto the condensate wave
function by adiabatically ramping Bz ! 0 are shown in
Fig. 2. To observe the nature of the spin texture, an axial
bias field was switched on nonadiabatically along either
the negative [Figs. 2(b) –2(d)] or positive [Figs. 2(e) –2(h)] z axis. Switching the axial bias field on suddenly‘‘froze’’ the atomic spins and effectively ‘‘projected’’ thecondensate wave function onto a basis quantized withrespect to the local (axial) magnetic field. This allowed
the spin states to be separated by a magnetic field gradientapplied during ballistic expansion. Switching the direction of the axial projection field exchanged the roles of thej1; 1i and j1; 1i states. Figures 2(a) and 2(e) show thecoreless nature of the vortices, while Figs. 2(b) and 2(f)show the concentric cylinder structure resulting from thecompetition between the atomic Zeeman energy and the
kinetic energy of the rotating spin states. We assume thatthe two-dimensional (!z!? ) ballistic expansion
process simply magnifies the condensate wave function,
as it does in the expansion of a single-component condensate with vortices [23,24].
Along the wiretrap axis, the magnetic field was
B~ r  0; ; z  Bz  12B00 z2 ^z ;(2)where quadratic terms neglected in Eq. (1) are included.
Nonzero axial magnetic field curvature, B00 5 G=cm2 ,implies that the spin texture had a slight axial depen140403-2

week ending
11 APRIL 2003

PHYSICA L R EVIEW LET T ERSVOLUME 90, N UMBER 14

dence. The axial bias field was ramped linearly fromBz  1:3 G to Bz 0 in 10 ms to imprint the corelessvortices. This compressed the condensate radially andincreased the condensate chemical potential from B =2 3 mG to  B =2 27 mG. Ramping
Bz ! 0 fast compared to the axial trap period (250 ms),
but slow compared to the initial radial trap period (4 ms),
guaranteed that the axial magnetic field variation remained constant throughout the experiment at Bz
3 mG, while at Bz 0 the radial magnetic field variation
was Br 27 mG. The images shown in Fig. 2 integrated the atomic number density along the z axis andtherefore averaged over the minor (Bz
Br ) axial
variation to the spin texture.
To project the condensate wave function onto a basis
quantized with respect to the local magnetic field, an
10 G axial bias field was switched on at a rate of B_ z 
2 105 G=s along either the negative or the positive z
axis. 100 s later the magnetic trap was switched off
allowing the atoms to expand ballistically. For 0  Br Br , the Landau-Zener nonadiabatic transition probability, expB B2r =h B_ z  0:9, was sufficiently close
to unity that the atomic spins remained ‘‘frozen’’ during
the sudden application of the axial bias field and the spin
texture could be accurately diagnosed. While the total
condensate density monotonically decreased as a function of radial position [Figs. 2(a) and 2(e) ], the densityof each spin component peaked at a different radiussignifying a variation in the angular momentum perparticle between spin states [Figs. 2(b) and 2(f)].
Applying the projection field along the positive z axis
generated additional rings of atoms in the j1; 1i andj1; 0i states [Fig. 2(f)]. Ramping Bz ! 0 in 10 ms caused
nonadiabatic spin flips for atoms near r  0 resulting in
an atom loss of 50% [18]. If these atoms had not left thecondensate before the projection field was applied, they
may have contributed to the images displayed in Fig. 2(f).
The additional rings of atoms may also correspond to a
low energy, radial spin-wave excitation [6,7]. However,
we could not identify any asymmetry between applying
the projection field along the positive versus negative zaxis that would account for the presence of the extra rings
in Fig. 2(f), but not in Fig. 2(b).
Engineering topological states in a Bose-Einsteincondensate has received much theoretical attention[17,25–30]. The evolution of a condensate confined in a
Ioffe-Pritchard magnetic trap while ramping Bz ! 0 is
described by a position-dependent spin rotation about then^  axis through an angle r [18]~

 n^ rjr; ; zi  eiF =hj0 i;(3)

where F~ is the spin operator and j0 i  jF; mz  mF i is apolarized spinor. For j0 i  j1; 1i, Eq. (3) gives thecondensate spinor in the laboratory frame as
140403-2

VOLUME 90, N UMBER 14

PHYSICA L R EVIEW LET T ERS

week ending
11 APRIL 2003

FIG. 2. Coreless vortex formation in a spinor Bose-Einstein condensate. Coreless vortices were imprinted by ramping Bz ! 0 anddiagnosed by suddenly switching (a) –(d) Bz
0 and (e) –(h) Bz  0. Axial absorption images display the optical density ofcondensates after 20 ms of ballistic expansion (a),(e) without and (b),(f) with a magnetic field gradient applied to separate thedifferent spin states. (c),(g) Azimuthally averaged optical density vs radial position for spin components shown in (b) and (f),respectively. The radial separation of the spin states resulted from their relative phase windings and is a clear signature of the~ mF 1 =~n mF 1  nn total , vsskyrmion/meron wave function [Eq. (4)]. (d),(h) Axial magnetization per particle, M=N  B =2 ~radial position. The absorption imaging light was resonant with the F  2 ! F0  3 transition. The atoms were optically pumped
into the F  2 hyperfine level with a pulse resonant with the F  1 ! F0  2 transition. This provided equal imaging sensitivity toeach spin state. The field of view in (a), (b), (e), and (f) is 1:0 mm 3:0 mm.

jr; ; zi  cos2 r=2j1; 1i
1 p sinrei j1; 0i
2
 sin2 r=2ei2 j1; 1i:(4)0  0 and skyrmions (merons) are described by theboundary condition 1   [1  =2].
The radial dependence of r is determined by requiring the Gross-Pitaevskii energy functional,EZ

d3 r~ n




 
h 2
c
c jF~ j2hrjri  V  0  2 2 n ;
2m
2
2 h
(5)

be stationary with respect to variations in . Equation (5)uses the Thomas-Fermi approximation, and hrjri PFyV  gF B F~  B~ =h,F~ mz F rmz  rmz ,hjF~ ji, c0  4h 2 a =m, and c2  4h 2 a=m. Herea  2a0  a2 =3 and a  a2  a0 =3 characterize
two-body interactions, where a0 and a2 are scattering lengths for collisions with total angular momentum
F  0 and F  2, respectively [6]. For c2 > 0, the atomic
interactions are antiferromagnetic (polar), as in 23 Na [31],while for c2 < 0 they are ferromagnetic, as in 87 Rb [32].
140403-3

Using Eq. (4) as a trial spinor, we find that r satisfies
the meron boundary conditions and varies from 0  0,
due to the kinetic energy of the spin texture, to 1 
=2, due to the atomic Zeeman energy, over a characteristic length scale given by the larger of h 2 =mgF B B0 1=3
and jBz j=B0 . We observed that the boundary condition
0  0 was maintained regardless of the sign of Bz ,i.e., atomic spins along the trap axis always remained in
the initial state. If the atomic spins had simply followed
the local magnetic field, r would satisfy tanr 
B0 r=Bz . Thus, scanning Bz from slightly positive toslightly negative would instantaneously change theboundary condition at the origin from 0  0 to0   and flip the atomic spins along the trap axis.
The trial spinor in Eq. (4) does not have the mostgeneral form since it was derived by rotating a polarized
spinor [Eq. (3)] and is inherently ferromagnetic, jF~ j  h.

Accordingly, the spin-dependent interaction term in
Eq. (5) does not vary with  and therefore does notcontribute to the determination of r. This restriction
is not severe since the Zeeman energy dominates the spindependent interaction energy in our experiment.
In future experiments, it should be possible to overlap the condensate with an optical dipole trap so that,after ramping Bz ! 0, relaxing the radial magnetic field
140403-3

VOLUME 90, N UMBER 14

PHYSICA L R EVIEW LET T ERS

gradient would allow for the spin-dependent interactions
to determine the evolution of the condensate. It is predicted that skyrmions/merons in condensates with antiferromagnetic (ferromagnetic) interactions are unstable(stable) [9,10,33–39]. Presently, excitations created during the field ramping process have prevented a study ofthe stability of coreless vortices in an antiferromagnetic
23
Na condensate. However, we were able to imprint the
spin texture in the presence of an optical dipole trap, as
well as produce vortices with a 4 phase winding in an
optical dipole trap by fully inverting the axial bias field[18]. At zero magnetic field, it may be possible to observe
multiply charged vortices in a spinor condensate ‘‘unwind’’ themselves as predicted in Ref. [6]. The unwinding
process is precisely the position-dependent spin rotation
demonstrated in previous work [18], with the spin texture
investigated here as an intermediate state [37].
In conclusion, we have demonstrated a robust technique for creating coreless vortices in a Bose-Einsteincondensate. Our technique can be extended to generate
spin textures with arbitrary winding number and variable
angular momentum per particle by using higher-order,
axisymmetric multipole magnetic fields and condensateswith different spin. This work opens up the opportunity to
study the stability of topological defects in spinor BoseEinstein condensates.
We are grateful to K. Machida for bringing the spin
texture studied here to our attention. We thank T. Pasquini for experimental assistance and J. R. Anglin and
M. Crescimanno for valuable discussions. This work was
funded by ONR, NSF, ARO, NASA, and the David andLucile Packard Foundation.

*Electronic address: http://cua.mit.edu/ketterle_group/[1] T. H. R. Skyrme, Proc. R. Soc. London A 260, 127 (1961).
[2] N. D. Mermin and T.-L. Ho, Phys. Rev. Lett. 36, 594(1976).
[3] P.W. Anderson and G. Toulouse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 508(1977).
[4] R. Blaauwgeers, V. B. Eltsov, M. Krusius, J. J. Ruohio,
R. Schanen, and G. E. Volovik, Nature (London) 404, 471(2000).
[5] D.-H. Lee and C. L. Kane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 1313
(1990).
[6] T.-L. Ho, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 742 (1998).
[7] T. Ohmi and K. Machida, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 67, 1822
(1998).
[8] S.-K. Yip, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4677 (1999).
[9] U. A. Khawaja and H. Stoof, Nature (London) 411, 918(2001).
[10] U. A. Khawaja and H. T. C. Stoof, Phys. Rev. A 64,
043612 (2001).
[11] E. J. Yarmchuk, M. J.V. Gordon, and R. E. Packard, Phys.

140403-4

week ending
11 APRIL 2003

Rev. Lett. 43, 214 (1979).
[12] K.W. Madison, F. Chevy, W. Wohlleben, and J. Dalibard,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 806 (2000).
[13] J. R. Abo-Shaeer, C. Raman, J. M. Vogels, and W.
Ketterle, Science 292, 476 (2001).
[14] M. R. Matthews, B. P. Anderson, P. C. Haljan, D. S. Hall,
C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83,
2498 (1999).
[15] Y.V. Gott, M. S. Ioffe, and V. G. Tel’kovskii, Nucl. Fusion(Suppl.) 3, 1045 (1962).
[16] D. E. Pritchard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 1336 (1983).
[17] T. Isoshima, M. Nakahara, T. Ohmi, and K. Machida,Phys. Rev. A 61, 063610 (2000).
[18] A. E. Leanhardt, A. Görlitz, A. P. Chikkatur, D.
Kielpinski, Y. Shin, D. E. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 190403 (2002).
[19] M.V. Berry, Proc. R. Soc. London A 392, 45 (1984).
[20] N. D. Mermin, Rev. Mod. Phys. 51, 591 (1979).
[21] T. L. Gustavson, A. P. Chikkatur, A. E. Leanhardt,
A. Görlitz, S. Gupta, D. E. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 020401 (2002).
[22] A. E. Leanhardt, A. P. Chikkatur, D. Kielpinski, Y. Shin,
T. L. Gustavson, W. Ketterle, and D. E. Pritchard, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 89, 040401 (2002).
[23] E. Lundh, C. J. Pethick, and H. Smith, Phys. Rev. A 58,
4816 (1998).
[24] F. Dalfovo and M. Modugno, Phys. Rev. A 61, 023605(2000).
[25] J. Williams and M. J. Holland, Nature (London) 401, 568(1999).
[26] J. Ruostekoski, Phys. Rev. A 61, 041603(R) (2000).
[27] K.-P. Marzlin, W. Zhang, and B. C. Sanders, Phys.
Rev. A 62, 013602 (2000).
[28] U. Leonhardt and G. E. Volovik, JETP Lett. 72, 46(2000).
[29] J. Ruostekoski and J. R. Anglin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86,3934 (2001).
[30] H. Pu, S. Raghavan, and N. P. Bigelow, Phys. Rev. A
63, 063603 (2001).
[31] J. Stenger, S. Inouye, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, H.-J. Miesner,
A. P. Chikkatur, and W. Ketterle, Nature (London) 396,
345 (1998).
[32] N. N. Klausen, J. L. Bohn, and C. H. Greene, Phys. Rev. A
64, 053602 (2001).
[33] R. A. Battye, N. R. Cooper, and P. M. Sutcliffe, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 88, 080401 (2002).
[34] T. Mizushima, K. Machida, and T. Kita, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 89, 030401 (2002).
[35] T. Isoshima and K. Machida, Phys. Rev. A 66, 023602(2002).
[36] Y. Zhang, W.-D. Li, L. Li, and H. J.W. Müller-Kirsten,
Phys. Rev. A 66, 043622 (2002).
[37] J.-P. Martikainen, A. Collin, and K.-A. Suominen, Phys.
Rev. A 66, 053604 (2002).
[38] T. Mizushima, K. Machida, and T. Kita, Phys. Rev. A
66, 053610 (2002).
[39] H. Zhai, W. Chen, Z. Xu, and L. Chang, cond-mat/
0210397.

140403-4

Appendix H

Dynamical Instability of a Doubly
Quantized Vortex in a
Bose-Einstein Condensate
This appendix contains a reprint of Ref. [3]: Y. Shin, M. Saba, M. Vengalattore, T.A.
Pasquini, C. Sanner, A.E. Leanhardt, M. Prentiss, D.E. Pritchard, W. Ketterle, Dynamical
Instability of a Doubly Quantized Vortex in a Bose-Einstein Condensate, Physical Review
Letters 93, 160406 (2004).

148

VOLUME 93, N UMBER 16

PHYSICA L R EVIEW LET T ERS

week ending
15 OCTOBER 2004

Dynamical Instability of a Doubly Quantized Vortex in a Bose-Einstein Condensate
Y. Shin,1 M. Saba,1 M. Vengalattore,2 T. A. Pasquini,1 C. Sanner,1 A. E. Leanhardt,1 M. Prentiss,2
D. E. Pritchard,1 and W. Ketterle1,*1

MIT-Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms, Research Laboratory of Electronics, Department of Physics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02139, USA
2
MIT-Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms, Jefferson Laboratory, Physics Department, Harvard University,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02138, USA(Received 1 July 2004; published 14 October 2004)
Doubly quantized vortices were topologically imprinted in jF  1i 23 Na condensates, and their time
evolution was observed using a tomographic imaging technique. The decay into two singly quantizedvortices was characterized and attributed to dynamical instability. The time scale of the splitting
process was found to be longer at higher atom density.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.160406

PACS numbers: 03.75.Kk, 03.75.Lm, 67.90.+z

Quantum fluids, like superfluid He, electrons in a superconductor, or a Bose-Einstein condensate of atoms,
are described by a macroscopic wave function. This requires the flow field to be irrotational, and gives rise tosuperfluidity and quantized circulation [1]. Atoms in a
Bose-Einstein condensate, for example, can only circulate with an angular momentum equal to an integer
multiple of h, in the form of a quantized vortex [2].
Vortices are excited states of motion and therefore
energetically unstable towards relaxation into the groundstate, where the condensate is at rest. However, quantization constrains the decay: a vortex in Bose-Einstein condensates cannot simply fade away or disappear, it is only
allowed to move out of the condensate or annihilate withanother vortex of an opposite circulation. Vortex decay
and metastability, due to inhibition of decay, has been acentral issue in the study of superfluidity [3–8]. In almost
pure condensates, vortices with lifetimes up to tens ofseconds have been observed [9–11].
Giving a Bose-Einstein condensate an angular momentum per particle larger than h can result in one multiply quantized vortex with large circulation or, alternatively, in many singly quantized vortices each with anangular momentum h.
 The kinetic energy of atoms circulating around the vortex is proportional to the square of
the angular momentum; therefore the kinetic energy associated with the presence of a multiply quantized vortex
is larger than the kinetic energy of a collection of singly
quantized vortices carrying the same angular momentum. A multiply quantized vortex can decay coherently by
splitting into singly quantized vortices and transferring
the kinetic energy to coherent excitation modes, a phenomenon called dynamical instability, which is driven byatomic interactions [5,12 –14] and not caused by dissipation in an external bath. Observations of arrays of singly
quantized vortices in rapidly rotating condensates [10,11]
indirectly suggest that the dynamical instability leads tofast decay of multiply quantized vortices. However, theexistence of stable multiply quantized vortices in trapped

Bose-Einstein condensates has been predicted with alocalized pinning potential [12] or in a quartic potential[15]. Stable doubly quantized vortices were observed insuperconductors in the presence of pinning forces [16] andin superfluid 3 He-A, which has a multicomponent orderparameter [17]. Recently, formation of a multiply quantized vortex in a Bose-Einstein condensate has been
demonstrated using topological phases [18,19], and surprisingly, a long lifetime of a ‘‘giant’’ vortex core has beenreported [20]. The study of topological excitation and its
stability is an active frontier in the field of quantum
degenerate gases [21,22].
In this Letter, we study the time evolution of a doubly
quantized vortex state in a Bose-Einstein condensate,and directly confirm its dynamical instability by observing that a doubly quantized vortex core splits into twosingly quantized vortex cores. The characteristic timescale of the splitting process was determined as a function of atom density and was longer at higher atomic
density.
Bose-Einstein condensates of 23 Na atoms were transferred into an auxiliary chamber [23] and loaded into a
Ioffe-Pritchard magnetic trap generated by a microfabricated atom chip [24 –26]. The wire pattern on the atom
chip is shown in Fig. 1(a). In our previous work [19], weused a Z-shaped wire trap where changing the sign of theaxial magnetic field curvature was technically impossible
so that we could not trap condensates after imprinting avortex. To overcome this technical difficulty, we designed
our new chip with separate end cap wires, allowing independent control of the axial magnetic field. Typicalwire currents were IC  1:53 A in the center wire andIL  IR  0:1 A in the end cap wires, and the external
magnetic field was Bz  450 mG and Bx  5:3 G, resulting
in a radial (axial) trap frequency fr  220 Hz (fz  3 Hz)
and a distance of the trap from the chip surface of d 
600 m. After holding condensates for 2 s to damp excitations, which might have been caused by the loading
process, condensates contained over 1:5  106 atoms, and160406-1

 2004 The American Physical Society

0031-9007=04=93(16)=160406(4)$22.50

160406-1

(a)

(b)
IC

x
y

z

IL

IR

IL
3 mm

Bz

BEC

z
IR

g

BEC with a vortex

FIG. 1. (a) Wire pattern on the atom chip. A magnetic trap isformed by a current IC flowing through the center wire in
conjunction with an external uniform magnetic field Bx . The
axial confinement along the z direction is generated by currents
IL and IR in the end cap wires. Each current is controlled
independently. A 2 m thick Au film was deposited by evaporation on a thermally oxidized Si substrate and wires were
patterned by photolithography and wet etching. The width ofthe center wire and the end cap wires were 50 m and 100 m,
respectively. (b) Imprinting of a vortex in a Bose-Einsteincondensate. By inverting the z direction magnetic field Bz , adoubly quantized vortex was imprinted in jF  1i condensates,
using topological phases as in Ref. [19]. The direction of IL and
IR were also reversed to maintain the axial confinement. The
dashed lines indicate the selective probing region for tomographic imaging as described in the text.

the lifetime of condensates was  8 s with a radiofrequency (rf) shield [27].
Doubly quantized vortices were topologically imprinted in condensates by inverting the axial magnetic
field, Bz , as in Ref. [19]. Bz was ramped linearly from
450 mG to 460 mG in 12 ms. As Bz passed zero, thesign of the axial field curvature was changed by reversing
the directions of IL and IR in 1 ms. The trap position andthe axial trap frequency of the inverted trap were matchedto those of the original wire trap by adjusting the final
values for IL and IR . Losses due to nonadiabatic spin flips
as Bz passed through zero reduced the number of atoms in
the condensate after imprinting to about 1  106 , giving a typical healing length of   0:4 m. The lifetimeof condensates after imprinting was less than 2 s.
The vortex imprinting process was accompanied by asudden mechanical squeeze in the radial direction and akick in the vertical direction. The radial trap frequency isinversely proportional to the square root of the bias
magnetic field (fr / jBz j1=2 ) and became temporarily
higher during field inversion. Additionally, the vertical
position of the trap center changed as the gravitational sag(/ fr2 ) changed from 5:1 m to zero. The ThomasFermi radius of condensates in the loading phase was5 m. After imprinting a vortex, the amplitude ofquadruple oscillation in the axial direction was 20%of the axial length of condensates (600 m), but there
was no detectable dipole oscillation in the verticaldirection.
The decay of a doubly quantized vortex state wasstudied by taking absorption images along the imprinted
vortex line after releasing the condensate and letting it
160406-2

week ending
15 OCTOBER 2004

PHYSICA L R EVIEW LET T ERSVOLUME 93, N UMBER 16

expand for 15 ms. The visibility of a vortex core in an
integrated absorption image completely vanished within
30 ms. To reduce blurring due to possible bending of thevortex line [28], we employed a tomographic imaging
technique [29]. A 30 m thick central slice of the condensate [see Fig. 1(b)] was selectively pumped into theF  2 hyperfine level with a sheet of laser light perpendicular to the condensate long axis; the radial profile ofthe condensate in the selected region was then imaged
with a light pulse resonant with the F  2 ! F0  3
cycling transition. In our absorption images, the size ofa doubly quantized vortex core was typically 40 m.
This tomographic imaging technique was crucial forobserving the time evolution of vortex cores beyond
30 ms.
A series of absorption images of the splitting process isprovided in Fig. 2. Images taken just after imprinting
show a doubly quantized vortex core of high visibility;
the visibility of the core decreased with time, an effect we
attribute to bending of the vortex line [28] and otherexcitations created during the imprinting process. Laterin the evolution, the central core deformed into an elliptical shape and split into two closely-spaced cores. Oncethe two cores were separated by their diameter, they
appeared well resolved in our images. The angular position of the two cores was random for each experimental
realization with the same evolution time, so the precession frequency of the two cores could not be determinedwith our destructive image technique.
To investigate the dependence of the instability on themean field atomic interaction, we measured the characteristic time scale of splitting of a doubly quantized vortex
core as a function of the atom density. Atom density wascontrolled by removing a variable number of atoms with
rf evaporation before imprinting a vortex. Images wereclassified as follows: images where the two cores wereseparated by more than one core diameter were labeled as‘‘two visible cores’’; images with a clearly-defined circu-

7 ms

22 ms

35 ms

50 ms

62 ms

75 ms

FIG. 2. Decay of a doubly quantized vortex. Axial absorption
images of condensates after 15 ms of ballistic expansion with avariable hold time after imprinting a doubly quantized vortex.
A doubly quantized vortex decayed into two singly quantizedvortices. For this data, the interaction strength was anz  7:5(see text for definition). The field of view in each image is
320 m  320 m.

160406-2

lar central core were labeled as ‘‘one core’’; images in theintermediate range, where the central core was ellipticalbut the two cores were not resolved, and images with abad visibility were labeled as ‘‘undetermined’’. For example, the images at 62 ms and 75 ms in Fig. 2 andFig. 3(a) were classified as two visible cores, and at
50 ms in Fig. 2, and Fig. 4(a) and 4(c) as undetermined.
Experimental results are provided in Fig. 3 as a function of the linear atom density nz (along the condensate
long axis) multiplied by the s-wave
scattering length a.
R
The rescaled quantity, anz  a j rj2 dxdy corresponds
for a cylindrical condensate to the strength of the mean
field interaction, with r being the condensate wave
function. Results in Fig. 3 clearly demonstrate that adoubly quantized vortex core splits more slowly as thedensity becomes higher.
Once the doubly quantized vortex core split into twocores, the distance between the two cores was almost
constant ( 50 m ) during the further evolution, as
shown in Fig. 3(c). This is evidence that the separation
process was driven mainly by the dynamical instability,and not by dissipation, which would gradually increaseb

two visible cores
undetermined
one core

100aHold Time (ms)

80

60

40

20

Separation (µm)

0
0

2

4

c

6

anz

8

10

12

14

150
100
50
0
0

20

40

60

80

Hold Time (ms)FIG. 3. Density dependence of the decay process. The timescale for the decay process of doubly quantized vortex states
was measured by observing the vortex cores and classifying
them as one vortex (open circles) or two vortices (solid circles).
Data were collected with three axial trap frequencies fz  2:7,
3.7, and 12.1 Hz and the interaction strength anz was controlled
by changing the atom number by rf induced evaporation before
imprinting. Typical absorption images for (a) fast decay at low
density (anz  1:5) and (b) slow decay at high density (anz 10:1). The field of view in the absorption images is 300 m 
300 m. (c) The separation of two visible cores vs the holdtime for 2 < anz < 3 (solid triangles) and 6 < anz < 8 (opentriangles). The solid and dashed lines indicate the diameter of
one vortex core and of the condensate, respectively.

160406-3

week ending
15 OCTOBER 2004

PHYSICA L R EVIEW LET T ERSVOLUME 93, N UMBER 16

the separation of the two cores. Dissipative processes wereminimized by performing the experiments at the lowest
possible temperature. Condensates did not have any discernible thermal atoms even after an extended hold time.
Furthermore, the energy released by the dissociation of
the doubly quantized vortex was 5 nK, negligible to thecritical temperature 240 nK. For the upper bound of
temperatures <100 nK, Ref. [30] predicts that the dissipative decay time be  1:5 s for a single vortex, a timescale much longer than what we observed.
Multiply quantized vortices in a harmonic potential are
predicted to spontaneously decay into other states even in
the absence of dissipation and external perturbations [5].
In the Bogoliubov framework, which is believed to describe well quantized vortices in one component condensates, the dynamical instability manifests as the existence of excitation modes with a complex eigenfrequency.
The nonvanishing imaginary part of the eigenfrequency
implies an exponential growth in time of the corresponding excitation mode, leading to decay of the multiply
quantized vortex state. This spectral instability is a general parametric phenomenon occurring when several
modes compete during coherent evolution, and has beenstudied in many other nonlinear physical systems (see,e.g., Ref. [31,32], and references therein).
For a doubly quantized vortex state in a cylindricallysymmetric condensate, it was theoretically found that
there are two excitation modes with a complex eigenfrequency [5,13]. One of them is confined inside the doubly
quantized vortex core; the growth of this so-called‘‘core’’ mode induces splitting of the original doubly
quantized vortex core into two separate singly quantizedvortex cores. The other mode, having the conjugate eigenfrequency, grows with the core mode in order toconserve energy. In the low density limit, this mode
corresponds to the corotating quadrupole mode, leading
to oscillations in the surface shape of condensates. We
always observed that the surface of condensates changed
into a quadrupole shape as the two cores appeared, as
shown in Fig. 3(a), and the ellipticity was larger at lower
density.
The dynamical instability of the doubly quantizedvortex state is related to the magnitude of the imaginary
a

b

c

d

FIG. 4. Examples for the dynamic evolution after imprinting
a doubly quantized vortex: (a) Surface excitation. Regulardensity modulation of the surface was observed after 51 ms
hold time for anz  1:8. (b) Same as (a) with a contour line.
(c) Crossing of vortex lines. 55 ms hold time and anz  8:4.
(d) Same as (c) with guidelines for vortex lines. The field ofview is 270 m  270 m.

160406-3

VOLUME 93, N UMBER 16

PHYSICA L R EVIEW LET T ERS

part of the complex eigenfrequency, and, according to thenumeric calculation in Ref. [13], the nonvanishing imaginary part of the eigenfrequency appears at anz < 3 andanz  12, showing a quasiperiodic behavior as a functionof the interaction strength anz . The experiment showed amonotonic increase of the lifetime with no hint of periodic behavior. However, the calculated instability is notdirectly comparable to the observed lifetime. The imaginary part represents only the initial instability. Our criterion for decay was the observation of two separated
vortex cores. It is possible that the dynamical instabilitychanges after the doubly quantized vortex state is significantly perturbed [7,14]. It would be helpful to have more
inclusive calculations leading to a lifetime directly comparable with the experiments.
What is the further evolution of the two cores? Some of
the images at low density showed a regular surface modulation, as in Fig. 4(a), which was not seen in clouds with asingle core. This indicates that higher-order surface
modes are excited during the coherent evolution [33].
Several images, especially those labeled as undetermined, suggest that vortex lines crossed [13,34], as inFig. 4(c). In our system, it was difficult to trace thepositions of the two cores beyond 80 ms hold time.
In conclusion, we observed how a doubly quantizedvortex splits into a pair of singly quantized vortices, andfound higher stability at higher atom density. The topological phase imprinting technique is unique in generating doubly quantized or quadruply quantized vortex
states [19,35]; a key feature is the rapid preparation ofwell-determined vortex states, which gives access to theirdynamical instabilities and coherent evolution.
This work was funded by ARO, NSF, ONR, and NASA.
M. S. acknowledges additional support from the Swiss
National Science Foundation and C. S. from theStudienstiftung des deutschen Volkes. We thank M.
Möttönen and K. Machida for helpful discussions.

*Electronic address: http://cua.mit.edu/ketterle_group/[1] P. Nozière and D. Pines, The Theory of Quantum Liquids(Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, 1990).
[2] C. J. Pethick and H. Smith, Bose-Einstein Condensationin Dilute Gases (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, England 2002).
[3] D. S. Rokhsar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 2164 (1997).
[4] R. J. Dodd, K. Burnett, M. Edwards, and C.W. Clark,
Phys. Rev. A 56, 587 (1997).
[5] H. Pu, C. K. Law, J. H. Eberly, and N. P. Bigelow, Phys.
Rev. A 59, 1533 (1999).
[6] D. A. Butts and D. S. Rokhsar, Nature (London) 397, 327(1999).
[7] J. J. Garcı́a-Ripoll and V. M. Pérez-Garcı́a, Phys. Rev. A
60, 4864 (1999).
[8] S. M. M. Virtanen, T. P. Simula, and M. M. Salomaa, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 86, 2704 (2001).

160406-4

week ending
15 OCTOBER 2004

[9] M. R. Matthews, B. P. Anderson, P. C. Haljan, D. S. Hall,
C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83,
2498 (1999).
[10] K.W. Madison, F. Chevy, W. Wohlleben, and J. Dalibard,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 806 (2000).
[11] J. R. Abo-Shaeer, C. Raman, J. M. Vogels, and W.
Ketterle, Science 292, 476 (2001).
[12] T. P. Simula, S. M. M. Virtanen, and M. M. Salomaa, Phys.
Rev. A 65, 033614 (2002).
[13] M. Möttönen, T. Mizushima, T. Isoshima, M. M.
Salomaa, and K. Machida, Phys. Rev. A 68, 023611(2003).
[14] T. Isoshima, J. Huhtamäki, and M. M. Salomaa, Phys.
Rev. A 68, 033611 (2003).
[15] E. Lundh, Phys. Rev. A 65, 043604 (2002).
[16] M. Baert, V.V. Metlushko, R. Jonckheere, V.V.
Moshchalkov, and Y. Bruynseraede, Phys. Rev. Lett.
74, 3269 (1995).
[17] R. Blaauwgeers, V. B. Eltsov, M. Krusius, J. J. Ruohio, R.
Schanen, and G. E. Volovik, Nature (London) 404, 471(2000).
[18] T. Isoshima, M. Nakahara, T. Ohmi, and K. Machida,Phys. Rev. A 61, 063610 (2002).
[19] A. E. Leanhardt, A. Görlitz, A. P. Chikkatur, D.
Kielpinski, Y. Shin, D. E. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 190403 (2002).
[20] P. Engels, I. Coddington, P. C. Haljan, V. Schweikhard,and E. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 170405 (2003).
[21] U. A. Khawaja and H. Stoof, Nature (London) 411, 918(2001).
[22] J. Ruostekoski and J. R. Anglin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91,
190402 (2003).
[23] T. L. Gustavson, A. P. Chikkatur, A. E. Leanhardt, A.
Görlitz, S. Gupta, D. E. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 020401 (2002).
[24] H. Ott, J. Fortagh, G. Schlotterbeck, A. Grossmann, andC. Zimmermann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 230401 (2001).
[25] W. Hänsel, P. Hommelhoff, T.W. Hänsch, and J. Reichel,
Nature (London) 413, 498 (2001).
[26] A. E. Leanhardt, A. P. Chikkatur, D. Kielpinski, Y. Shin,
T. L. Gustavson, W. Ketterle, and D. E. Pritchard, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 89, 040401 (2002).
[27] W. Ketterle, D. S. Durfee, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, inProceedings of the International School of Physics —Enrico Fermi, edited by M. Inguscio, S. Stringari, andC. E. Wieman (IOS, Amsterdam, 1999).
[28] P. Rosenbusch,V. Bretin, and J. Dalibard, Phys. Rev. Lett.
89, 200403 (2002).
[29] M. R. Andrews, C. G. Townsend, H.-J. Miesner, D. S.
Durfee, D. M. Kurn, and W. Ketterle, Science 275, 637(1997).
[30] P. O. Fedichev and G.V. Shlyapnikov, Phys. Rev. A 60,
R1779 (1999).
[31] J. R. Anglin, Phys. Rev. A 67, 051601 (2003).
[32] G. P. Agrawal, P. L. Baldeck, and R. R. Alfano, Phys.
Rev. A 39, 3406 (1989).
[33] K. Kasamatsu, M. Tsubota, and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. A
67, 033610 (2003).
[34] J. J. Garcı́a-Ripoll and V. M. Pérez-Garcı́a, Phys. Rev. A
64, 053611 (2001).
[35] Y. Kawaguchi and T. Ohmi, cond-mat/0402553.

160406-4

Bibliography[1] Y. Shin, M. Saba, T. A. Pasquini, W. Ketterle, D. E. Pritchard, and A. E. Leanhart. Atom interferometry with Bose-Einstein condensates in a double-well potential.
Physical Review Letters, 92:050405, February 2004.
[2] Y. Shin, M. Saba, A. Schirotzek, T.A. Pasquini, A. E. Leanhardt, D. E. Pritchard,
and W. Ketterle. Distillation of Bose-Einstein condensates in a double-well potential.
Physical Review Letters, 92:150401, April 2004.
[3] Y. Shin, M. Saba, M. Vengalattore, T. A. Pasquini, C. Sanner, A. E. Leanhardt,
M. Prentiss, D. E. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle. Dynamical instability of a doubly
quantized vortex in a Bose-Einstein condensate. Physical Review Letters, 93:160406,
October 2004.
[4] Y. Shin, C. Sanner, G.-B. Jo, T. A. Pasquini, M. Saba, W. Ketterle, D. E. Pritchard,
M. Vengalattore, and M. Prentiss. Interference of Bose-Einstein condensates split
with an atom chip. Pysical Review A, 72:021604(R), August 2005.
[5] Y. Shin, G.-B. Jo, C. Sanner, M. Saba, T. A. Pasquini, K. Ketterle, and D. E.
Pritchard. Optical weak link between two spatially separate Bose-Einstein condensates. Physical Review Letters, 95:170402, October 2005.
[6] A. E. Leanhardt, A. P. Chikkatur, D. Kielpinski, Y. Shin, T. L. Gustavson, W. Ketterle, and D. E. Pritchard. Propagation of Bose-Einstein condensates in a magnetic
waveguide. Physical Review Letters, 89:040401, July 2002.
[7] A. P. Chikkatur, Y. Shin, A. E. Leanhardt, D. Kielpinski, E. Tsikata, T. L. Gustavson,
D. E. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle. A continuous source of Bose-Einstein condensed
atoms. Science, 296:2193, June 2002.
[8] A. E. Leanhardt, A. Görlitz, A. P. Chikkatur, D. Kielpinski, Y. Shin, D. E. Pritchard,
and W. Ketterle. Imprinting vortices in a Bose-Einstein condensate using topologicalphases. Physical Review Letters, 89:190403, November 2002.
[9] A. E. Leanhardt, Y. Shin, A. P. Chikkatur, D. Kielpinski, W. Ketterle, and D. E.
Pritchard. Bose-Einstein condensates near a microfabricated surface. Physical Review
Letters, 90:100404, March 2003.
[10] A. E. Leanhardt, Y. Shin, D. Kielpinski, D. E. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle. Coreless vortex formation in a spinor Bose-Einstein condensate. Physical Review Letters,
90:140403, April 2003.

153

[11] M. Saba, T. A. Pasquini, C. Sanner, Y. Shin, W. Ketterle, and D. E. Pritchard. Light
scattering to determine the relative phase of two Bose-Einstein condensates. Science,
307:1945, March 2005.
[12] S. N. Bose. Plancks gesetz und lichtquantenhypothese. Zeitschrift fuer Physik, 26:178,
1924.
[13] A. Einstein. Quantentheorie des einatomigen idealen gases - zweite abhandlung.
Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Bericht 1:3, 1925.
[14] A. Griffin. A brief history of our understanding of BEC:From Bose to Beliaev. In
M. Inguscio, S. Stringari, and C. E. Wieman, editors, Bose-Einstein Condensation in
Atomic Gases, page 1, Amsterdam, 1999. IOS Press.
[15] M. H. Anderson, J. R. Ensher, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell.
Observation of Bose-Einstein condensation in a dilute atomic vapor. Science, 269:198,
July 1995.
[16] M. R. Andrews, C. G. Townsend, H.-J. Miesner, D. S. Durfee, D. M. Kurn, and
W. Ketterle. Observation of interference between two Bose condensates. Science,
275:637, January 1997.
[17] M. R. Matthews, B. P. Anderson, P. C. Haljan, D. S. Hall, C. E. Wieman, and E. A.
Cornell. Vortices in a Bose-Einstein condensate. Physical Review Letters, 83:2498,
August 1999.
[18] K. W. Madison, F. Chevy, W. Wohlleben, and J. Dalibard. Vortex formation in a
stirred Bose-Einstein condensate. Physical Review Letters, 84:806, January 2000.
[19] J. R. Abo-Shaeer, C. Raman, J. M. Vogels, and W. Ketterle. Observation of vortex
lattices in Bose-Einstein condensates. Science, 292:496, April 2001.
[20] E. A. Cornell and C. E. Wieman. Nobel lecture: Bose-Einstein condensation in adilute gas, the first 70 years and some recent experiments. Reviews of Modern Physics,
74:875, July 2002.
[21] W. Ketterle. Nobel lecture: When atoms behave as waves: Bose-Einstein condensationand the atom laser. Reviews of Modern Physics, 74:1131, October 2002.
[22] M. Inguscio, S. Stringari, and C. E. Wieman, editors. Bose-Einstein Condensation in
Atomic Gases. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 1999.
[23] J. R. Anglin and W. Ketterle. Bose-Einstein condensation of atomic gases. Nature,
416:211, March 2002.
[24] K. B. Davis, M.-O. Mewes, M. R. Andrews, N. J. van Druten, D. S. Durfee, D. M.
Kurn, and W. Ketterle. Bose-Einstein condensation in a gas of sodium atoms. PhysicalReview Letters, 75:3969, November 1995.
[25] C. C. Bradley, C. A. Sackett, J. J. Tollett, and R. G. Hulet. Evidence of Bose-Einsteincondensation in an atomic gas with attractive interactions. Physical Review Letters,
75:1687, August 1995.

154

[26] C. C. Bradley, C. A. Sackett, and R. G. Hulet. Bose-Einstein condensation of lithium:
Observation of limited condensate number. Physical Review Letters, 78:985, Februrary
1997.
[27] D. G. Fried, T. C. Killian, L. Willmann, D. Landhuis, S. C. Moss, D. Kleppner,and T. J. Greytak. Bose-Einstein condensation of atomic hydrogen. Physical Review
Letters, 81:3811, November 1998.
[28] S. L. Cornish, N. R. Claussen, J. L. Roberts, E. A. Cornell, and C. E. Wieman.
Stable 85 Rb Bose-Einstein condensates with widely tunable interactions. PhysicalReview Letters, 85:1795, August 2000.
[29] A. Robert, O. Sirjean, A. Browaeys, J. Poupard, S. Nowak, D. Boiron, C. I. Westbrook, and A. Aspect. A Bose-Einstein condensate of metastable atoms. Science,
292:461, April 2001.
[30] F. Pereira Dos Santos, J. Léonard, J. Wang, C. J. Barrelet, F. Perales, E. Rasel,
C. S. Unnikrishnin, M. Leduc, and C. Cohen-Tannoudji. Bose-Einstein condensationof metastable helium. Physical Review Letters, 86:3459, April 2001.
[31] G. Modugno, G. Ferrari, G. Roati, R. J. Brecha, A. Simoni, and M. Inguscio. BoseEinstein condensation of potassium atoms by sympathetic cooling. Science, 294:1320,
November 2001.
[32] T. Weber, J. Herbig, M. Mark, H.-C. Nägerl, and R. Grimm. Bose-Einstein condensation of cesium. Science, 299:232, January 2003.
[33] Axel Griesmaier, Jörg Werner, Sven Hensler, Jürger Stuhler, and Tilman Pfau. BoseEinstein condensation of chromium. Physical Review Letters, 94:160401, April 2005.
[34] T.-L. Ho. Spinor Bose condensates in optical traps. Physical Review Letters, 81:742,
July 1998.
[35] T. Ohmi and K. Machida. Bose-Einstein condensation with internal degrees of freedom
in alkali atom gases. Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, 67:1822, June 1998.
[36] J. Stenger, S. Inouye, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, H.-J. Miesner, A. P. Chikkatur, and
W. Ketterle. Spin domains in ground-state Bose-Einstein condensates. Nature,
396:345, November 1998.
[37] B. P. Anderson and M. A. Kasevich. Macroscopic quantum interference from atomic
tunnel arrays. Science, 282:1686, November 1998.
[38] M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. Esslinger, T. W. Hänsch, and I. Bloch. Quantum phasetransition from a superfluid to a Mott insulator in a gas of ultracold atoms. Nature,
415:39, January 2002.
[39] S. Dettmer, D. Hellweg, P. Ryytty, J. J. Arlt, W. Ertmer, K. Sengstock, D. S. Petrov,
G. V. Shlyapnikov, H. Kreutzmann, L. Santos, and M. Lewenstein. Observation ofphase fluctuations in elongated Bose-Einstein condensates. Physical Review Letters,
87:160406, October 2001.

155

[40] A. Görlitz, J. M. Vogels, A. E. Leanhardt, C. Raman, T. L. Gustavson, J. R. AboShaeer, A. P. Chikkatur, S. Gupta, S. Inouye, T. Rosenband, and W. Ketterle. Realization of Bose-Einstein condensates in lower dimensions. Physical Review Letters,
87:130402, September 2001.
[41] D. Hellweg, L. Cacciapuoti, M. Kottke, T. Schulte, K. Sengstock, W. Ertmer, andJ. J. Arlt. Measurement of the spatial correlation function of phase fluctuating BoseEinstein condensates. Physical Review Letters, 91:010406, July 2003.
[42] S. Richard, F. Gerbier, J. H. Thywissen, M. Hugbart, P. Bouyer, and A. Aspect. Momentum spectroscopy of 1D phase fluctuations in Bose-Einstein condensates. PhysicalReview Letters, 91:010405, July 2003.
[43] T. Kinoshita, T. Wenger, and D. S. Weiss. Observation of a one-dimensional TonkGirardeau gas. Science, 305:1125, July 2004.
[44] B. DeMarco and D. S. Jin. Onset of Fermi degeneracy in a trapped atomic gas.
Science, 285:1703, September 1999.
[45] A. G. Truscott, K. E. Strecker, W. I. McAlexander, G. B. Partridge, and R. G. Hulet.
Observation of Fermi pressure in a gas of trapped atoms. Science, 291:2570, March
2001.
[46] F. Reif. Fundamentals of statistical and thermal physics. McGraw-Hill, 1965.
[47] J. M. Leinaas and Myrheim J. On the theory of identical particles. Nuovo Cimento
So. Ital. fis., 37B:1–23, January 1977.
[48] F. E. Camino, W. Zhou, and V. J. Goldman. Direct observation of fractional statistics
in two dimensions. arXiv:con-mat/0502406, 2005.
[49] M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder. An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory. Perseus
Books, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1995.
[50] W. Pauli. The connection between spin and statistics. Physical Review, 58:716–722,
August 1940.
[51] R. F. Streater and A. S. Wightman. PCT, Spin and Statistics, and All That. Benjamin, New York, 1964.
[52] O. Penrose and L. Onsager. Bose-Einstein condensation and liquid helium. PhysicalReview, 104:576, November 1956.
[53] C. N. Yang. Concept of off-diagonal long-range order and the quantum phases ofliquid He and of superconductors. Reviews of Modern Physics, 34:694, October 1962.
[54] K. Huang. Statistical Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons, 1987.
[55] F. London. The λ-phenomenon of liquid helium and the Bose-Einstein degeneracy.
Nature, 141:643, April 1938.
[56] P. Anderson. Basic Notions of Condensed Matter Physics. Perseus Books Group,
second edition, 1997.
156

[57] L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz. Statistical Physics Part I. Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford, third edition, 1980.
[58] W. Ketterle, D. S. Durfee, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn. Making, probing and understanding Bose-Einstein condensates. In M. Inguscio, S. Stringari, and C. E. Wieman,editors, Bose-Einstein Condensation in Atomic Gases, page 67, Amsterdam, 1999.
IOS Press.
[59] F. A. van Abeelen and B. J. Verhaar. Determination of collisional properties of cold
Na atoms from analysis of bound-state photoassociation and Feshbach resonance fielddata. Physical Review A, 59:578, January 1999.
[60] A. J. Leggett. Bose-Einstein condensation in the alkali gases: Some fundamental
concepts. Reviews of Modern Physics, 73:307, April 2001.
[61] A. S. Parkins and D. F. Walls. The physics of trapped dilute-gas Bose-Einsteincondensates. Physics Reports, 303:1, 1997.
[62] F. Dalfovo, S. Giorgini, L. P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari. Theory of Bose-Einsteincondensation in trapped gases. Reviews of Modern Physics, 71:463, April 1998.
[63] S. Inouye, T. Pfau, S. Gupta, A. P. Chikkatur, A. Görlitz, D. E. Pritchard, and
W. Ketterle. Phase-coherent amplification of atomic matter waves. Nature, 402:641,
December 1999.
[64] L. Deng, E. W. Hagley, J. Wen, M. Trippenbach, Y. Band, P. S. Julienne, J. E.
Simsarian, K. Helmerson, S. L. Rolston, and W. D. Phillips. Four-wave mixing withmatter waves. Nature, 398:218, March 1999.
[65] J. M. Vogels, K. Xu, and W. Ketterle. Generation of macroscopic pair-correlated
atomic beams by four-wave mixing in Bose-Einstein condensates. Physical Review
Letters, 89:020401, July 2002.
[66] B. P. Anderson, P. C. Haljan, C. A. Regal, D. L. Feder, L. A. Collins, C. W. Clark,
and E. A. Cornell. Watching dark solitons decay into vortex rings in a Bose-Einsteincondensate. Physical Review Letters, 86:2926, April 2001.
[67] P. W. Anderson. Special effects in superconductivity. In E. R. Caianiello, editor,
Lectures on The Many-Body Problem, volume 2, page 113, New York, 1964. Academic
Press.
[68] J. Javanainen and S. M. Yoo. Quantum phase of a Bose-Einstein condensate with anarbitrary number of atoms. Physical Review Letters, 76:161, January 1996.
[69] K. Mølmer. Optical coherence: a convenient fiction. Physical Review A, 55:3195,
April 1997.
[70] C. W. Gardiner. Particle-number-conserving bogoliubov method which demonstrates
the validity of the time-dependent gross-pitaevskii equation for a highly condensed
Bose gas. Physical Review A, 56:1414, August 1997.
[71] Y. Castin and R. Dum. Low-temperature Bose-Einstein condensate in time-dependent
traps: Beyond the u(1) symmetry-breaking approach. Physical Review A, 57:3008,
April 1998.
157

[72] S. Stenholm. The question of phase in a Bose-Einstein condensate. Physica Scripta,
T102:89, 2002.
[73] J. A. Dunningham and K. Burnett. Phase standard for Bose-Einstein condensates.
Physical Review Letters, 82:3729, May 1999.
[74] E. H. Lieb, R. Seiringer, and J. Yngvason. Justification of c-number substitutions inbosonic hamiltonian. Physical Review Letters, 94:080401, March 2005.
[75] A. Sütő. Equivalence of Bose-Einstein condensation and symmetry breaking. PhysicalReview Letters, 94:080402, March 2005.
[76] W. Ketterle, K. B. Davis, M. A. Joffe, A. Martin, and D. E. Pritchard. High densities
of cold atoms in a dark spontaneous-force optical trap. Physical Review Letters,
70:2253, April 1991.
[77] W. Petrich, M. H. Anderson, J. R. Ensher, and E. A. Cornell. Stable, tightly confining
magnetic trap for evaporative cooling of neutral atoms. Physical Review Letters,
74:3352, April 1995.
[78] M. D. Barrett, J. A. Sauer, and M. S. Chapman. All-optical formation of an atomic
Bose-Einstein condensate. Physical Review Letters, 8:010404, June 2001.
[79] H. Ott, J. Fortagh, G. Schlotterbeck, A. Grossmann, and C. Zimmermann. BoseEinstein condensation in a surface microtrap. Physical Review Letters, 87(23):230401,
December 2001.
[80] W. Hänsel, P. Hommelhoff, T. W. Hänsch, and J. Reichel. Bose-Einstein condensationof a microelectric chip. Nature, 413:498–501, October 2001.
[81] A. P. Chikkatur. Colliding and Moving Bose-Einstein Condensates: Studies of superfluidity and optical tweezers for condensate transport. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, October 2002.
[82] D. M. Stamper-Kurn. Peeking and poking at a new quantum fluid: Studies of gaseous
Bose-Einstein condensates in magnetic and optical traps. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, February 2000.
[83] E. L. Raab, M. Prentiss, A. Cable, S. Chu, and D. E. Pritchard. Trapping of neutral
sodium atoms with radiation pressure. Physical Review Letters, 59:2631, December
1987.
[84] S. Chu. The manipulation of neutral particles. Review of Modern Physics, 70:685,
July 1998.
[85] C. N. Cohen-Tannoudji. Manipulating atoms with photons.
Physics, 70:707, July 1998.

Review of Modern[86] W. D. Phillips. Laser cooling and trapping of neutral atoms. Review of Modern
Physics, 70:721, July 1998.
[87] H. J. Metcalf and P. van der Straten. Laser Cooling and Trapping. Springer-Verlag,
New York, 1999.
158

[88] T. W. Hänsch, I. S. Shahin, and A. L. Schawlow. High-resolution saturation spectroscopy of the sodium D lines with a pulsed tunable dye laser. Physical Review
Letters, 27:707, September 1971.
[89] R. Grimm, M. Weidemüller, and Y. B. Ovchinnikov. Optical dipole traps for neutral
atoms. Advances in Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 42:95, 2000.
[90] O. Mandel, M. Greiner, A. Widera, T. Rom, T. W. Hänsch, and I. Bloch. Coherent transport of neutral atoms in spin-dependent optical lattice potentials. PhysicalReview Letters, 91:010407, July 2003.
[91] P. Nozières and D. Pines. The Theory of Quantum Liquids. Perseus Books Publishing,
1999.
[92] J. Stenger, S. Inouye, A. P. Chikkatur, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, D. E. Pritchard, and
W. Ketterle. Bragg spectroscopy of a Bose-Einstein condensate. Physical Review
Letters, 82:004569, June 1999.
[93] S. Inouye, M. R. Andrews, J. Stenger, H.-J. Miesner, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, and
W. Ketterle. Observation of Feshbach resonances in a Bose-Einstein condensate.
Nature, 392:151, March 1998.
[94] M. R. Andrews, M.-O. Mewes, N. J. van Druten, D. S. Durfee, D. M. Kurn, and
W. Ketterle. Direct, nondestructive observation of a Bose condesate. Science, 273:84,
1996.
[95] R. Folman and J. Schmiedmayer. Matering the language of atoms. Nature, 413:466,
October 2001.
[96] D. Müller, D. Z. Anderson, R. J. Grow, P. D. D. Schwindt, and E. A. Cornell. Guiding
neutral atoms around curves with lithographically patterned current-carrying wires.
Physical Review Letters, 83:5194, December 1999.
[97] N. H. Dekker, C. S. Lee, V. Lorent, J. H. Thywissen, S. P. Smith, M. Drndić, R. M.
Westervelt, and M. Prentiss. Guiding neutral atoms on a chip. Physical Review
Letters, 84:1124, February 2000.
[98] J. Reichel, W. Hänsel, and T. W. Hänsch. Atomic micromanipulation with magnetic
surface traps. Physical Reveiw Letters, 83:3398, October 1999.
[99] R. Folman, P. Krüger, D. Cassettari, B. Hessmo, T. Maier, and J. Schmiedmayer.
Controlloing cold atoms using nanofabricated surfaces: Atom chips. Physical Review
Letters, 84:4749, May 2000.
[100] D. Cassettari, B. Hessmo, R. Folman, T. Maier, and J. Schmiedmayer. Beam splitterfor guided atoms. Physical Review Letters, 85:5483, December 2000.
[101] H. Ott, J. Fortágh, S. Kraft, A. Günther, D. Komma, and C. Zimmermann. Nonlinear
dynamics of a Bose-Einstein condesate in a magnetic waveguide. Physical Review
Letters, 91:040402, July 2003.

159

[102] Y.-J. Wang, D. Z. Anderson, V. M. Bright, E. A. Cornell, Q. Diot, T. Kishimoto,
M. Prentiss, R. A. Saravanan, S. R. Segal, and S. Wu. An atom michelson interferometer on a chip using a Bose-Einstein condensate. Physical Review Letters, 94:090405,
March 2005.
[103] T. Schumm, S. Hofferberth, L. M. Andersson, S. Wildermuth, S. Groth, I. Bar-Joseph,J. Schmiedmayer, and P. Krüger. Matter wave interferometry in a double well on an
atom chip. Nature Physics, 1:57, October 2005.
[104] E. A. Hinds and I. G. Hughes. Magnetic atom optics: mirrors, guides, traps, andchips for atoms. Journal of Physics D: Appled Physics, 32:R119, September 1999.
[105] R. Folman, P. Krüger, J. Schmiedmayer, J. Denschlag, and C. Henkel. Microscopic
atom optics: From wire to an atom chip. Advances in Atomic, Molecular, and Optical
Physics, 48:263, 2002.
[106] I. Brodie and J. J. Muray. The Physics of Micro/Nano-Fabricatoin. Plenum Press,
New York, 1992.
[107] J. Fortágh, H. Ott, S. Kraft, A. Günther, and C. Zimmermann. Surface effects inmagnetic microtraps. Physical Review A, 66:041604(R), October 2002.
[108] M. P. A. Jones, C. J. Vale, D. Sahagun, B. V. Hall, and E. A. Hinds. Spin coupling
between cold atoms and the thermal fluctuations of a metal surface. Physical Review
Letters, 91:080401, August 2003.
[109] S. Kraft, A. Günther, H. Ott, D. Wharam, C. Zimmermann, and J. Fortágh. Anomalous longitudinal magnetic field near the surface of copper conductors. Journal of
Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, 35:L469, November 2002.
[110] M. P. A. Jones, C. J. Vale, D. Sahagun, B. V. Hall, C. C. Eberlein, B. E. Sauer,
K. Furusawa, D. Richardson, and E. A. Hinds. Cold atoms probe the magnetic fieldnear a wire. Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, 37:L15,
January 2004.
[111] J. Estève, C. Aussibal, T. Schumm, C. Figl, D. Mailly, I. Bouchoule, I. Westbrook,
and A. Aspect. Role of wire imperfections in micromagnetic traps for atoms. PhysicalReview A, 70:043629, October 2004.
[112] T. Schumm, J. Estève, C. Figl, J.-B. Trebbia, C. Aussibal, H. Nguyen, D. Mailly,
I. Bouchoule, C. I. Westbrook, and A. Aspect. Atom chips in the real world: theeffects of wire currugation. European Physics Journal D, 32:171, 2005 2005.
[113] J. R. Lloyd. Electromigration in integrated circuit conductors. Journal of Physics D:
Applied Physics, 32:R109, 1999.
[114] B. D. Schrag and G. Xiao. Submicron electrical current density imaging of embedded
microstructure. Applied Physics Letters, 82:3272, May 2003.
[115] P. Krüger, L. M. Andersson, S. Wildermuth, S. Hofferberth, E. Haller, S. Aigner,
S. Groth, I. Bar-Joseph, and J. Schmiedmayer. Disorder potentials near lithographically fabricated atom chips. arXiv:cond-mat/0504686, April 2005.
160

[116] T. Varpula and T. Poutanen. Magnetic field fluctuations arising from thermal motionof electric charge in conductors. Journal of Applied Physics, 55:4015, June 1984.
[117] J. M. McGuirk, D. M. Harber, J. M. Obrecht, and E. A. Cornell. Alkali-metal adsorbate polarization on conducting and insulating surfaces probed with Bose-Einsteincondensates. Physical Review A, 69:062905, June 2004.
[118] Y.-J. Lin, I. Teper, C. Chin, and V. Vuletić. Impact of Casimir-Polder potential on
Johnson noise on Bose-Einstein condensate stability near surfaces. Physical Reveiw
Letters, 92:050404, February 2004.
[119] C. Henkel and M. Wilkins. Heating of trapped atoms near thermal surfaces. Europhysics Letters, 47:414, August 1999.
[120] C. Henkel, S. Pötting, and M. Wilkens. Loss and heating of particles in small andnoisy traps. Applid Physics B, 69:379, December 1999.
[121] C. Henkel and S. Pötting. Coherent transport of matter waves. Applied Physics B,
72:73–80, January 2001.
[122] C. Henkel, P. Krug̈er, R. Folman, and J. Schmiedmayer. Fundamental limits forcoherent manipulation on atom chips. Applied Physics B, 76:173–182, February 2003.
[123] C. Henkel and S. A. Gardiner. Decoherence of Bose-Einstein condensates in microtraps. Physical Review A, 69:043602, April 2004.
[124] C. Schroll, W. Belzig, and C. Bruder. Decoherence of cold atomic gases in magnetic
microtraps. Physical Review A, 68:043618, October 2003.
[125] P. Treutlein, P. Hommelhoff, T. Steinmetz, T. W. Hänsch, and J. Reichel. Coherencein microchip traps. Physical Review Letters, 92:203005, May 2004.
[126] V. Dicovsky, Y. Japha, C. Henkel, and R. Folman. Reduction of magnetic noise inatom chips by material optimization. European Physics Journal D, 35:87, July 2005.
[127] M. Drndić, K. S. Johnson, J. H. Thywissen, M. Prentiss, and R. M. Westervelt.
Micro-electromagnets for atom manipulation. Applied Physics Letters, 72:2906, June
1998.
[128] S. Groth, P. Krüger, S. Wildermuth, R. Folman, T. Fernholz, J. Schmiedmayer,
M. Mahalu, and I. Bar-Joseph. Atom chips: Fabrication and thermal properties.
Applied Physics Letters, 85:2980, October 2004.
[129] E. A. Hinds, C. J. Vale, and M. G. Boshier. Two-wire waveguide and interferometerfor cold atoms. Physical Review Letters, 86:1462, February 2001.
[130] A. Peters, K. Y. Chung, B. Young, J. Hensley, and S. Chu. Precision atom interferometry. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A, 355:2223,
1997.
[131] A. Lenef, T. D. Hammond, E. T. Smith, M. S. Chapman, R. A. Rubenstein, and D. E.
Pritchard. Rotation sensing with an atom interferometer. Physical Review Letters,
78:760, February 1997.
161

[132] T. L. Gustavson, P. Bouyer, and M. A. Kasevich. Precision rotation measurementswith an atom interferometer gyroscope. Physical Review Letters, 78:2046, March 1997.
[133] M. S. Chapman, T. D. Hammond, A. Lenef, J. Schmiedmayer, R. A. Rubenstein,
E. Smith, and D. E. Pritchard. Photon scattering from atoms in an atom interferometer: Coherence lost and regained. Physical Review Letters, 75:3783, November
1995.
[134] C. R. Ekstrom, J. Schmiedmayer, M. S. Chapman, T. D. Hammond, and D. E.
Pritchard. Measurement of the electric polarizability of sodium with an atom interferometer. Physical Review A, 51:3883, May 1995.
[135] S. Gupta, K. Dieckmann, Z. Hadzibabic, and D. E. Pritchard. Contrast interferometry
using Bose-Einstein condensates to measure h/m and α. Physical Review Letters,
89:140401, September 2002.
[136] W. Hänsel, J. Reichel, P. Hommelhoff, and T. W. Hänsch. Trapped-atom interferometer in a magnetic microtrap. Physical Review A, 64:063607, 2001.
[137] E. Andersson, T. Calarco, R. Folman, M. Andersson, B. Hessmo, and J. Schmiedmayer. Multimode interferometer for guided matter waves. Physical Review Letters,
88:100401, March 2002.
[138] J. Javanainen and M. Wilkens. Phase and phase diffusion of a split Bose-Ephysicalreview lettersinstein condensate. Physical Review Letters, 78:4675, June 1997.
[139] A. J. Leggett and F. Sols. Comment on ”phase and phase diffusion of a split BoseEinstein condensate”. Physical Review Letters, 81:1344, August 1998.
[140] J. Javanainen and M. Wilkens. Physical Review Letters, 81:1345, August 1998.
[141] C. Menotti, J. R. Anglin, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller. Dynamic splitting of a BoseEinstein condensate. Physical Review A, 63:023601, 2001.
[142] P. J. Martin, B. G. Oldaker, A. H. Miklich, and D. E. Pritchard. Bragg scattering ofatoms from a standing light wave. Physical Review Letters, 60:515, February 1988.
[143] M. Olshanii and V. Dunjko. Interferometry in dense nonlinear media and interactioninduced loss of contrast in microfabricated atom interferometers. arXiv:condmat/0505358, 2005.
[144] B. D. Josephson. Possible new effects in superconductive tunneling. Physics Letters,
1:251, July 1962.
[145] R. W. Spekkens and J. E. Sipe. Spatial fragmentation of a Bose-Einstein condensate
in a double-well potential. Physical Review A, 59:3868, May 1999.
[146] J. Javanainen and M. Y. Ivanov. Splitting a trap containing a Bose-Einstein condensate: Atom number fluctuations. Physical Review A, 60:2351, September 1999.
[147] A. Smerzi, S. Fantoni, S. Giovanazzi, and S. R. Shenoy. Quantum coherent atomic
tunneling between two trapped Bose-Einstein condensates. Physical Review Letters,
79:4950, December 1997.
162

[148] S. Raghavan, A. Smerzi, S. Fantoni, and S. R. Shenoy. Coherent oscillations between
two weakly coupled Bose-Einstein condensates: Josephson effects, π oscillations, andmacroscopic quantum self-trapping. Pysical Review A, 59:620, January 1999.
[149] M. Lewenstein and L. You. Quantum phase diffusion of a Bose-Einstein condensate.
Physical Review Letters, 77:3489, October 1996.
[150] J. A. Dunningham, M. J. Collett, and D. F. Walls. Quantum state of a trapped
Bose-Einstein condensate. Physics Letters A, 245:49, August 1998.
[151] L. A. Collins, L. Pezzé, A. Smerzi, G. P. Berman, and A. R. Bishop. Double-slit
interferometry with a bose-einstein condensate. Physical Review A, 71:033628, March
2005.
[152] James A. Stickney and Alex A. Zozulya. Wave-function recombination instability incold-atom interferometers. Phys. Rev. A, 66:053601, 2002.
[153] D. M. Harber, J. M. Obrecht, J. M. McGuirk, and E. A. Cornell. Measurement of thecasimir-polder force through center-of-mass oscillations of a Bose-Einstein condensate.
Physical Review A, 72:033610, September 2005.
[154] S. Inouye, S. Gupta, T. Rosenbend, A. P. Chikkatur, A. Görlitz, T. L. Gustavson,
A. E. Leanhardt, D. E. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle. Observation of vortex phasesingularities in Bose-Einstein condensates. Physical Review Letters, 87:080402, August
2001.
[155] J. Estève, T. Schumm, J.-B. Trebbia, I. Bouchoule, A. Aspect, and C. I. Westbrook.
Realizing a stable magnetic double-well potential on an atom chip. European PhysicalJournal D, 35:141, July 2005.
[156] O. Zobay and B. M. Garraway. Two-dimensional atom trapping in field-induced
adiabatic potentials. Physical Review Letters, 86:1195, February 2001.
[157] M. Albiez, R. Gati, J. Fölling, S. Hunsmann, M. Cristiani, and M. K. Oberthaler. Direct observation of tunneling and nonlinear self-trapping in a single Bosonic Josephson
junction. Physical Review Letters, 95:010402, July 2005.
[158] M.-O. Mewes, M. R. Andrews, D. M. Kurn, D. S. Durfee, C. G. Townsend, and
W. Ketterle. Output coupler for Bose-Einstein condensed atoms. Physical Review
Letters, 78:582, January 1997.
[159] E. W. Hagley, L. Deng, M. Kozuma, J. Wen, K. Helmerson, S. L. Rolston, and W. D.
Phillips. Quasi-continuous atom laser. Science, 283:1706, March 1999.
[160] I. Bloch, W. Hänsch, and T. Esslinger. Atom laser with a cw output coupler. PhysicalReview Letters, 82:3008, april 1999.
[161] I. Bloch, T. W. Hänsch, and T. Esslinger. Measurement of the spatial coherence of atrapped Bose gas at the phase transition. Nature, 403:166, January 2000.
[162] M. Kasevich. Atom inteferometry with Bose-Einstein condensed atoms. Comptes
Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences Série IV, 2:497, April 2001.

163

[163] J. M. Geremia, J. K. Stockton, and H. Mabuchi. Real-time quantum feedback control
of atomic spin-squeezing. Science, 304:270, April 2004.
[164] Y. Castin and J. Dalibard. Relative phase of two Bose-Einstein condensates. PhysicalReview A, 55:4330, June 1997.
[165] J. A. Wheeler and W. H. Zurek. Quantum Theory of Measurement. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1983.
[166] L. Pitaevskii and S. Stringari. Interference of Bose-Einstein condensates in momentum
space. Physical Review Letters, 83:4237, November 1999.
[167] Miye Park. How to Grow Our Nigella. (private communication), Boston, MA, 2005.
[168] C. Cohen-Tannoudji. Review on fundamental processes in laser cooling. In M. Ducloy
and E. Giacobino, editors, Laser Spectroscopy X, page 3, Singapore, 1992. World
Scientific.
[169] K. Rza̧żewski and W. Żakowicz. Spontaneous emission from an extended wave packet.
Journal of Physics B, 25:L319, 1992.
[170] B. Dubetsky and P. R. Berman. Spectrum of light scattering from an extended atomic
wave packet. Journal of Modern Optics, 49:55, March 2002.
[171] J. M. Vogels, J. K. Chin, and W. Ketterle. Coherent collisions between Bose-Einsteincondensates. Physical Review Letters, 90:030403, January 2003.
[172] Y. Le Coq, J. H. Thywissen, S. A. Rangwala, F. Gerbier, S. Richard, G. Delannoy,
P. Bouyer, and A. Aspect. Atom laser divergence. Physical Review Leters, 87:170403,
October 2001.
[173] P. W. Anderson and J. W. Rowell. Probable observation of the Josephson supercoducting tunneling effect. Physical Review Letters, 10:230, March 1963.
[174] S. V. Pereverzev, A. Loshak, S. Backhaus, J. C. Davis, and R. E. Packard. Quantum
oscillations between two weakly coupled resrvoirs of superfluid 3 He. Nature, 388:449,
July 1997.
[175] F. S. Cataliotti, S. Burger, C. Fort, P. Maddaloni, F. Minardi, A. Trombettoni,
A. Smerzi, and M. Inguscio. Josephson junction arrays with Bose-Einstein condensates. Science, 293:843, August 2001.
[176] J. Williams, R. Walser, J. Cooper, E. Cornell, and M. Holland. Nonlinear Josephsontype oscillations of a driven, two-component Bose-Einstein condensate. Physical Review A, 59:R31, January 1999.
[177] P. Öhber and S. Stenholm. Internal Josephson effect in trapped double codensates.
Physical Review A, 59:3890, May 1999.
[178] A. Imamoglu and T. A. B. Kennedy. Optical measurements of the condensate phase.
Physical Review A, 55:R849, February 1997.
[179] V. M. Kaurov and A. B. Kuklov. Josephson vortex between two atomic Bose-Einsteincondesates. Physical Review A, 71:011601(R), January 2005.
164[180] I. Bouchoule. Modulational instabilities in Josephson oscillations of elongated coupledcondensates. European Physical Journal D, 35:147, June 2005.
[181] J. A. Sauer, M. D. Barrett, and M. S. Chapman. Storage ring for neutral atoms.
Physical Review Letters, 87:270401, December 2001.
[182] S. Gupta, K. W. Murch, K. L. Moore, T. P. Purdy, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn. BoseEinstein condensation in a circular waveguide. Physical Review Letters, 95:143201,
September 2005.
[183] A. S. Arnold, C. S. Garvie, and E. Riis. A condensate storage ring. arXiv:condmat/0506142, June 2005.
[184] H.-J. Miesner, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, M. R. Andrews, D. S. Durfee, S. Inouye, and
W. Ketterle. Bosonic stimulation in the formation of a Bose-Einstein condensate.
Science, 279:1005, February 1998.
[185] J. M. Gerton, D. Strekalov, I. Prodan, and R. G. Hulet. Direct observation of growthand collapse of a Bose-Einstein condensate with attractive interactions. Nature,
408:692, December 2000.
[186] I. Shvarchuck, Ch. Buggle, D. S. Petrov, K. Dieckmann, M. Zielonkowski, M. Kemmann, T. G. Tiecke, W. von Klitzing, G. V. Shlyapnikov, and J. T. M. Walraven.
Bose-Einstein condensation into nonequilibrium states studied by condensate focusing. Physical Review Letters, 89:270404, December 2002.
[187] C. W. Gardiner, M. D. Lee, R. J. Ballagh, M. J. Davis, and P. Zoller. Quantum
kinetic theory of condensate growth: Comparison of experiment and theory. PhysicalReview Letters, 81:5266, December 1998.
[188] M. Köhl, M. J. Davis, C. W. Gardiner, T. W. Hänsch, and T. Esslinger. Growth of
Bose-Einstein condensates from thermal vapor. Physical Review Letters, 88:080402,
February 2002.
[189] W. Ketterle and N. J. van Druten. Evaporative cooling of trapped atoms. Advancesin Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 37:181, 1996.
[190] H.-J. Miesner, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, J. Stenger, S. Inouye, A. P. Chikkatur, and
W. Ketterle. Observation of metastable states in spinor Bose-Einstein condensates.
Physical Review Letters, 82:2228, March 1999.
[191] D. M. Stamper-Kurn, H.-J. Miesner, A. P. Chikkatur, S. Inouye, J. Stenger, and
W. Ketterle. Quantum tunneling across spin domains in a Bose-Einstein condensate.
Physical Review Letters, 83:661, July 1999.
[192] H. Schmaljohann, M. Erhard, J. Kronjäger, M. Kottke, S. van Staa, K. Arlt, J. Bongs,
and K. Sengstock. Dynamics of F = 2 spinor Bose-Einstein condensates. PhysicalReview Letters, 92:040402, January 2004.
[193] M.-S. Chang, C. D. Hamley, M. D. Barrett, J. A. Sauer, K. M. Fortier, W. Zhang,
L. You, and M. S. Chapman. Observation of spinor dynamics in optically trapped
87rb Bose-Einstein condensates. Physical Review Letters, 92:140403, April 2004.
165

[194] H. J. Lewandowski, J. M. McGuirk, D. M. Harber, and E. A. Cornell. Decoherencedriven cooling of a degenerate spinor Bose gas. Physical Review Letters, 91:240404,
December 2003.
[195] M. Erhard, H. Schmaljohann, J. Kronjäger, K. Bongs, and K. Sengstock. BoseEinstein condensation at constant temperature. Physical Review A, 70:031602(R),September 2004.
[196] S. Giovanazzi, A. Smerzi, and S. Fantoni. Josephson effects in dilute Bose-Einsteincondensates. Physical Review Letters, 84:4521, May 2000.
[197] L. Pitaevskii and S. Stringari. Thermal vs quantum decoherence in double welltrapped Bose-Einstein condensates. Physical Review Letters, 87:180402, October 2001.
[198] M. Holland, K. Burnett, C. Gardiner, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller. Theory of an atom
laser. Physical Review A, 54:R1757, September 1996.
[199] M. Naraschewski and D. M. Stamper-Kurn. Analytical description of a trapped semiideal Bose gas at finite temperature. Physical Review A, 58:2423, September 1998.
[200] M. Inguscio, S. Stringari, and C. Wieman, editors. Bose-Einstein Condensation in
Atomic Gases, Proceedings of the International School of Physics ”Enrico Fermi,”
Course CXL, Amsterdam, 1999. IOS.
[201] D. V. Semikoz and I. I. Tkachev. Kinetics of Bose condensation. Physical Review
Letters, 74:3093, April 1995.
[202] Yu. M. Kagan, B. V. Svistunov, and G. V. Shlyapnikov. Sov. Phys. JETP, 75:387,
1992.
[203] Yu. Hagan. Kinetics of Bose-Einstein condensate formation in an interaction Bose gas.
In A. Griffin, D. W. Snoke, and S. Stringari, editors, Bose-Einstein Condensation,
page 202, New York, 1995. Camridge University Press.
[204] H. T. C. Stoof. Initial stages of Bose-Einstein condensation. Physical Review Letters,
78:768, February 1997.
[205] K. Damle, S. N. Majumdar, and S. Sachdev. Phase ordering kinetics of the Bose gas.
Physical Review A, 54:5037, December 1996.
[206] C. W. Gardiner, P. Zoller, R. J. Ballagh, and M. J. Davis. Kinetics of Bose-Einsteincondensation in a trap. Physical Review Letters, 79:1793, September 1997.
[207] M. D. Lee and C. W. Gardiner. Quantum kinetic theory. vi. the growth of a BoseEinstein condensate. Physical Review A, 62:033606, August 2000.
[208] L. Onsager. Suppl. N. Cim., 6:249, 1949.
[209] R. P. Feynman. In C. J. Gorter, editor, Progress in Low Temperature Physics, volume 1, page 17, Amsterdam, 1955. North-Holland.
[210] C. J. Pethick and H. Smith. Bose-Einstein Condensation in Dilute Gases. Cambridge
University Press, New York, 2002.
166

[211] K. Huang. Bose-Einstein condensation and superfluidity. In A. Griffin, D. W. Snoke,
and S. Stringari, editors, Bose-Einstein Condensation, page 31, New York, 1995.
Camridge University Press.
[212] D. S. Rokhsar. Vortex stability and persistent currents in trapped Bose gases. PhysicalReview Letters, 79:2164, September 1997.
[213] R. J. Dodd, K. Burnett, M. Edwards, and C. W. Clark. Excitation spectroscopy ofvortex states in dilute Bose-Einstein condensed gases. Physical Review A, 56:587, July
1997.
[214] H. Pu, C. W. Law, J. H. Eberly, and N. P. Bigelow. Coherent disintegration and stability of vortices in trapped Bose condensates. Physical Review A, 59:1533, February
1999.
[215] J. J. Garcı́a-Ripoll and V. M. Pérez-Garcı́a. Stability of vortices in inhomogenous
Bose-Condensates subject to rotation: A 3D analysis. Physical Review A, 60:4864,
December 1999.
[216] D. A. Butts and D. S. Rokhsar. Predicted signatur of rotating Bose-Einstein condensates. Nature, 397:327, January 1999.
[217] S. M. M. Virtanen, T. P. Simula, and M. M. Salomaa. Structure and stability ofvortices in dilute Bose-Einstein condensates at ultralow temperatures. Physical Review
Letters, 86:2704, March 2001.
[218] T. P. Simula, S. M. M. Virtanen, and M. M. Salomaa. Stability of multiquantum
vortices in dilute Bose-Einstein condensates. Physical Review A, 65:033614, February
2002.
[219] M. Möttönen, T. Mizushima, T. Isoshima, M. M. Salomaa, and K. Machida. Splitting of a doubly quantized vortex through interwinding in Bose-Einstein condensates.
Physical Review A, 68:023611, August 2003.
[220] T. Isoshima, J. Huhtamäki, and M. Salomaa. Instabilities of off-centered vortices ina Bose-Einstein condensate. Physical Review A, 68:033611, September 2003.
[221] E. Lundh. Multiply quantized vortices in Bose-Einstein condensates. Physical Review
A, 65:043604, March 2002.
[222] M. Baert, V. V. Metlushko, R. Jonckheere, V. V. Moshchalkov, and Y. Bruynseraede.
Composite flux-line lattices stabilized in superconducting films by a regular array ofartificial defects. Physical Review Letters, 74:3269, April 1995.
[223] R. Blaauwgeers, V. B. Eltsov, M. Krusius, J. J. Ruohio, R. Schanen, and G. E.
Volovik. Double-quantum vortex in superfluid 3He-A. Nature, 404:471, March 2000.
[224] P. Engels, I. Coddington, P. C. Haljan, V. Schweikhard, and E. A. Cornell. Observation of long-lived vortex aggregates in rapidly rotating Bose-Einstein condensates.
Physical Review Letters, 90:170405, May 2003.
[225] P. C. Haljan, I. Coddington, P. Engels, and E. A. Cornell. Driving Bose-EinsteinCondensate vorticity with a rotating normal cloud. Physical Review Letters,
87:210403, November 2001.
167

[226] E. Hodby, G. Hechenblaikner, S. A. Hopkins, O. M. Maragò, and C. J. Foot. Vortex nucleation in Bose-Einstein condensates in an oblate, purely magnetic potential.
Physical Review Letters, 88:010405, January 2002.
[227] J. E. Williams and M. J. Holland. Preparing topological states of a Bose-Einsteincondensate. Nature, 401:568, October 1999.
[228] Z. Dutton, M. Budde, C. Slowe, and L. V. Hau. Observation of quantum shockwaves created with ultra-compressed slow light pulses in a Bose-Einstein condensate.
Science, 293:663, July 2001.
[229] N. S. Ginsberg, J. Brand, and L. V. Hau. Observation of hybrid soliton vortex-ring
structures in Bose-Einstein condensates. Physical Review Letters, 94:040403, February
2005.
[230] T. Isoshima, M. Nakahara, T. Ohmi, and K. Machida. Creation of a persistent current
and vortex in a Bose-Einstein condensate of alkali-metal atoms. Physical Review A,
61:063610, June 2000.
[231] M. V. Berry. Quantal phase factors accompanying adiabatic changes. Procedings of
the Royal Society of London A, 392:45, March 1984.
[232] M. Nakahara, T. Isoshima, K. Machida, S.-I. Ogawa, and T. Ohmi. A simple method
to create a vortex in a Bose-Einstein condensate of alkali atoms. Physica B, 284288:17, July 2000.
[233] S.-I. Ogawa, M. Möttönen, M. Nakahara, T. Ohmi, and H. Shimada. Method tocreate a vortex in a Bose-Einstein condensate. Physical Review A, 66:013617, July
2002.
[234] M. Möttönen, N. Matsumoto, M. Nakahara, and T. Ohmi. Continuous creation of avortex in a Bose-Einstein condensate with hyperfine spin F = 2. Journal of Physics:
Condensed Matter, 14:13481, December 2002.
[235] Y. Kawaguchi, M. Nakahara, and T. Ohmi. Topological vortex formation in a BoseEinstein condensate under gravitational field. Physical Review A, 70:043605, October
2004.
[236] F. Zambelli and S. Stringari. Quantized vortices and collective oscillations of a trapped
Bose-Einstein condensate. Physical Review Letters, 81:1754, August 1998.
[237] F. Chevy, K. W. Madison, and J. Dalibard. Measurement of the angular momentumof a rotating Bose-Einstein condensate. Physical Review Letters, 85:2223, September
2000.
[238] P. C. Haljan, B. P. Anderson, I. Coddington, and E. A. Cornell. Use of surface-wave
spectroscopy to characterize tilt modes of a vortex in a Bose-Einstein condensate.
Physical Review Letters, 86:2922, April 2001.
[239] P Rosenbusch, V. Bretin, and J. Dalibard. Dynamics of a single vortex line in a
Bose-Einstein condensate. Physical Review Letters, 89:200403, November 2002.

168

[240] P. O. Fedichev and G. V. Shlyapnikov. Dissipative dynamics of a vortex state in atrapped Bose-condensed gas. Physical Review A, 60:R1779, September 1999.
[241] K. Kasamatsu, M. Tsubota, and M. Ueda. Nonlinear dynamics of vortex lattice
formation in a rotating Bose-Einstein condensate. Physical Review A, 67:033610,
March 2003.
[242] J. J. Garcı́a-Ripoll and V. M. Pérez-Garcı́a. Vortex bending and tightly packed vortex
lattices in Bose-Einstein condensates. Phyical Review A., 64:053611, October 2001.
[243] A. D. Jackson, G. M. Kavoulakis, and E. Lundh. Stability of the solutions of theGross-Pitaevskii equation. arXiv:cond-mat/0507455, July 2005.
[244] K. Gawryluk, M. Brewczyk, and K. Rza̧żewski. Thermal instability of a doubly
quantized vortex in a Bose-Einstein condensate. arXiv:cond-mat/0505725, May 2005.
[245] J.-P. Martikainen and H. T. C. Stoof. Quantum theory of a vortex line in an opticallattice. Physical Review A, 69:053617, May 2004.
[246] J.-P. Martikainen and H. T. C. Stoof. Vortex-line solitons in a peroidically modulated
Bose-Einstein condensate. Physical Review Letters, 93:070402, August 2004.
[247] U. A. Khawaja and H. Stoof. Skyrmions in a ferromagnetic Bose-Einstein condensate.
Nature, 411:918–920, June 2001.
[248] U. A. Khawaja and H. T. C. Stoof. Skyrmion physics in Bose-Einstein ferromagnets.
Physical Review A, 64:043612, October 2001.

169