Colliding and Moving Bose-Einstein Condensates: Studies ofsuperﬂuidity and optical tweezers for condensate transport
byAnanth P. Chikkatur
Submitted to the Department of Physics
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements for the degree ofDoctor of Philosophy
at theMASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
October 2002
c Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2002. All rights reserved.


Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Department of Physics
October 18, 2002

Certiﬁed by . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wolfgang Ketterle
John D. MacArthur Professor of Physics
Thesis Supervisor

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

Colliding and Moving Bose-Einstein Condensates: Studies ofsuperﬂuidity and optical tweezers for condensate transport
byAnanth P. Chikkatur
Submitted to the Department of Physics
on October 18, 2002, in partial fulﬁllment of therequirements for the degree ofDoctor of Philosophy

Abstract
In this thesis, two diﬀerent sets of experiments are described. The ﬁrst is an exploration of
the microscopic superﬂuidity of dilute gaseous Bose-Einstein condensates. The second setof experiments were performed using transported condensates in a new BEC apparatus.
Superﬂuidity was probed by moving impurities through a trapped condensate. The
impurities were created using an optical Raman transition, which transferred a small fractionof the atoms into an untrapped hyperﬁne state. A dramatic reduction in the collisions
between the moving impurities and the condensate was observed when the velocity of the
impurities was close to the speed of sound of the condensate. This reduction was attributed
to the superﬂuid properties of a BEC.
In addition, we observed an increase in the collisional density as the number of impurity
atoms increased. This enhancement is an indication of bosonic stimulation by the occupied
ﬁnal states. This stimulation was observed both at small and large velocities relative to the
speed of sound. A theoretical calculation of the eﬀect of ﬁnite temperature indicated thatcollision rate should be enhanced at small velocities due to thermal excitations. However, inthe current experiments we were insensitive to this eﬀect. Finally, the factor of two between
the collisional rate between indistinguishable and distinguishable atoms was conﬁrmed.
A new BEC apparatus that can transport condensates using optical tweezers was constructed. Condensates containing 10-15 million sodium atoms were produced in 20 s using
conventional BEC production techniques. These condensates were then transferred into
an optical trap that was translated from the ‘production chamber’ into a separate vacuum
chamber: the ‘science chamber’. Typically, we transferred 2-3 million condensed atoms
in less than 2 s. This transport technique avoids optical and mechanical constrainsts of
conventional condensate experiments and allows for the possibility of novel experiments.
In the ﬁrst experiments using transported BEC, we loaded condensed atoms from theoptical tweezers into both macroscopic and miniaturized magnetic traps. Using microfabricated wires on a silicon chip, we observed excitation-less propagation of a BEC in amagnetic waveguide. The condensates fragmented when brought very close to the wire surface indicating that imperfections in the fabrication process might limit future experiments.
Finally, we generated a continuous BEC source by periodically replenishing a condensate
held in an optical reservoir trap using fresh condensates delivered using optical tweezers.
More than a million condensed atoms were always present in the continuous source, raising
the possibility of realizing a truly continuous atom laser.
Thesis Supervisor: Wolfgang Ketterle
Title: John D. MacArthur Professor of Physics
2

To my parents
Purushotham and Indirafor making all of this possible...

3

Acknowledgments
There are many people who have made my life most productive and satisfying during thelast ﬁve years on the 2nd ﬂoor hallway of building 26 at MIT. I am grateful to Wolfgang
Ketterle for giving me the opportunity to become a part of the AMO community here.
Wolfgang has been an inspiration for me throughout my graduate school career. I am mostimpressed by him as a scientist. He has that eternal curiosity, the joy of working in the laband being able to communicate his excitement to rest of us. His ability to focus on whatreally matters is impressive. This characteristic of Wolfgang has only grown over the years,
despite winning various accolades and prizes, including the Nobel. Wolfgang has also beena wonderful physics teacher and a mentor to me. I owe him many thanks for teaching me
to be a better scientist.
I also thank Dave Pritchard for his insightful discussions. Dave has been collaboratingwith us since 1999, and it is truly a privilege to have worked closely with scientists such as
Wolfgang and Dave. I have also had the pleasure of interacting with Dan Kleppner, who
was my academic advisor.
When I joined the group in the summer of 1997, it was the twilight of Wolfgang’s timein the lab. I was one of his ﬁrst students who did not work with him directly in the lab
due to his expanding work load. Therefore, it has been the cadre of graduate students
and post-docs to whom I owe a great deal for teaching me to be an AMO experimentalist.
Speciﬁcally, I thank Dan Stamper-Kurn, Axel Görlitz and Todd Gustavson. At diﬀerent
stages of my graduate career, each of them have been invaluable to me as colleagues and asteachers.
In the summer of 1997, when I ﬁrst joined the group, I worked with Dan Kurn (later
Dan Stamper-Kurn) on setting up the optics for the optical dipole trap. This was my ﬁrst
taste of the teamwork and camraderie that has always been a hallmark of the Ketterle labs.
I spent many weeks working with Dan, Hans Miesner and Mike Andrews trying conﬁne a
BEC optically. I thank Mike Andrews for patiently answering all of my initial questions
about how the apparatus worked. I was impressed by his ability to rapidly change things andknowing exactly how to ﬁx something in the lab. During 1998-1999, there were two teams
working on the ‘old lab’ apparatus, one lead by Dan Stamper-Kurn and Hans Miesner, andthe other by Jörn Stenger and Shin Inouye. I participated with both teams and beneﬁtted
from learning various techniques and sharing the excitement of discovering new BEC eﬀects
with them.
Dan was not only my colleague and oﬃce-mate at MIT, but most importantly, he is
my friend and teacher. His views on physics and scientiﬁc community at large inspired me
and I learned a lot of the BEC physics from him. We also had long discussions on various
other topics ranging from Jewish traditions to politics in science. He was the person that
I most looked up to in the lab. I beneﬁtted both scientiﬁcally and personally by working
closely with Dan. The two post-docs, Hans and Jörn, taught me to balance life in the lab
4with the world outside. The lab-life was always entertaining with Jörn’s lively descriptionof power supplies and magnetic coils. ‘Shunty’ Shin was the quietest and the most modest
member of the group, yet at the same time his insights and experimental skills were amazing.
Although I did not get to spend much time with him during his last year, he has always
been a good friend and trusted colleague. Tilman Pfau, in a very short period of time,
became an important member of group because of his deep understanding of physics andgeneral helpful nature.
In spring of 1999, we were joined by Axel Görlitz. Axel and I worked as a team on thecollisions project. We spent a lot of time together in the lab sorting out various technicalissues, and with his experience we made fast progress on understanding the collision physics
and implementing it in the lab. This period of time, working with Axel, was my mostproductive time in the lab in terms of the AMO physics I learned. The team work and spirit
remained at high levels when we were joined by Todd Gustavson and Aaron Leanhardt
in late 1999. I had then decided to work on building a new BEC machine to transportcondensates. Todd and I took charge of building this new apparatus: the ‘science chamber’.
We worked as a true team and spent a lot of time getting ultra-high vacuum, and then
BEC in the new chamber. Todd’s high spirit and ever optimistic approach was inspiring.
Despite the fact that Axel, Todd and I also had lots of heated discussions on physics anddesign of the chamber, we always compromised and worked together such that the personalchemistry in the lab was never better. It was truly my good fortune to learn from Todd’s
large technical capabilities and ability to design things. Aaron joined our group as a new
graduate student in fall of 1999. He quickly got engaged in the lab by designing the newmagnetic trap and by helping Deep with the Zeeman slower. I have always been impressedby his stamina, work ethic and attention to details. He is an excellent leader and scientist,
and will be a wonderful professor one day. Last year, Yong-Il Shin and David Kielpinski
joined Aaron and I to work exclusively on the science chamber. I am grateful to Yong for
all his eﬀorts in ensuring the success of the continuous BEC. Yong and Aaron embody thekind of self-motivated students that I have had the privilege of working with at MIT.
Last, but not least, I express my thanks to Deep Gupta for being not only my colleague,
but also my good friend and house-mate. Deep joined Dave Pritchard’s interferometrygroup at the same time I joined the Ketterle group in 1997. He and Dave Pritchard laterjoined forces with us. Although we worked most closely during the construction of new
apparatus, my best memories of him will always be of us drumming together at various
occasions. I am also very grateful to him for a careful reading of my thesis.
While I have worked intimately with the people described above, the larger Ketterlegroup has also been important for making my MIT life memorable. I thank Chandra
Raman and Roberto Onofrio for their kindness and humor, Jamil Abo-Shaeer for breaking
the stress-ﬁlled tension in the lab with his quirky humor and antics, Zoran Hadzibabic
for his ever-present calmness, Chris Kuklewicz and Johnny Vogels for helping me build

5and improve the word generator, Johnny for his amazing patience with me and for his
entertaining wildness in the lab, James Anglin for explaining the nuances underlying BEC
theory, and ﬁnally Dominik Schneble and Deep for reading through large parts of this thesis.
I would also like to acknowledge the contributions of Till Rosenband, Robert Löw and
Edem Tsikata for building parts for the science chamber, Claudio Stan for technical help,
Kaiwen Xu, Kai Dieckmann, Micah Boyd and Gretchen Campbell for helping me with mycomputer troubles, and ﬁnally Gretchen and Jit Kee Chin for being my coﬀee partners. Theinteractions with the larger MIT physics community has also been wonderful, in particularwith the hydrogen, ICR and interferometer groups. It has been my pleasure to have known
James Thompson, Simon Rainville, Mike Bradley, Julia Steinberger, Kendra Vant, Lia
Matos, David Kokorowski, Alex Cronin, Joel DeVries, Pradeep Sarin and Augustine Urbas.
We have had the best of times both at MIT and on the softball ﬁeld as ‘Balldrivers’.
Especially after the birth of the Center for Ultra-cold Atoms (CUA), I have had increased
contact with members of Harvard AMO groups, in particular with the Doyle and Prentiss
groups. I especially thank Mukund Vengalatorre and Mara Prentiss for their assistancewith our ﬁrst atom chip.
Carol Costa, our secretary, was the ﬁrst person that I met at MIT when I joined thegroup in 1997. Throughout the last ﬁve years, she has been a great help for simplifying
and solving the complex bureaucracy of MIT, and generally making life in building 26
better. I also would like to thank the support staﬀ at RLE, in particular Al McGurl, Gerry
Power, Bill Gibbs and Maxine Samuels, for their understanding and patience. During theconstruction of the science chamber, Fred Cote of the Edgerton Center Student Shop wasextremely helpful and generous to us.
I have also beneﬁted personally interacting with the larger MIT community, especiallyvolunteering with the student group, Asha-MIT. This group provided me with an opportunity to explore issues outside of physics. I am grateful to all of the Asha volunteers at
MIT for sharing many of their Sunday afternoons with me. I am deeply thankful to myfriends, Kerry and Rajesh, who have always supported me through thick and thin. Theirfriendship is very dear to me, in ways I cannot even express. Our discussions have led me tosee the world in a new light and made me a better person. I am also grateful for the larger
friendships that I have developed with the Indian community here in the Boston area. I also
thank all of my friends from Rochester and in Boston for their support and encouragement
throughout the last ﬁve years.
Finally, I would like to thank Anita, my sister, who has always supported me with my‘crazy’ decisions, and my parents, Indira and Purushotham. I am forever grateful for thesacriﬁces that they have made in their lives to give me the opportunity to study at a place
like MIT. They have always been, and continue to be, my ﬁrst and foremost teachers. With
love...

6

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Oﬃce ofNaval Research (ONR), the Army Research Oﬃce and the Joint Services Electronics Program (JSEP) of the Army Research Oﬃce (ARO), the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), and the Packard Foudation. I also appreciate the support of a
NSF Graduate Fellowship and a JSEP Graduate Fellowship.

7

Contents
1 Introduction
1.1

15

What is Bose-Einstein Condensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

1.1.1

History of BEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16

The BEC theory: understanding a quantum gas using statistics . . . . . . .

16

1.2.1

Basics of Quantum Statistical Mechanics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16

1.2.2

Quantum gas of indistinguishable atoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17

1.2.3

Number Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18

Superﬂuid helium: the road to dilute quantum gases . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19

1.3.1

Helium to dilute gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20

1.4

My life on the second ﬂoor of MIT Building 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20

1.5

Outline of this thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22

1.2

1.3

2 Suppression and enhancement of collisions: BEC Superﬂuidity
2.1
2.2
2.3

23

Collisions in general . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24

2.1.1

2-body collisions and the scattering length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24

Understanding BEC - mean ﬁeld theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25

2.2.1

Static structure factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

26

Scattering of light and massive particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27

2.3.1

Bosonic stimulation or matter wave interference? . . . . . . . . . . .

31

2.3.2

The structure factor, again . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33

2.4

Landau’s critical velocity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34

2.5

Macroscopic and Microscopic measurements of critical velocity . . . . . . .

35

2.5.1

Liquid Helium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35

2.5.2

Critical velocity for dilute gas BEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

36

2.5.3

Turbulence in BEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37

A brief history of BEC collision studies in our lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37

2.6.1

Bragg spectroscopy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37

2.6.2

First evidence of collisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

38

2.6.3

An aside: Superradiance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

38

2.6.4

A ‘condensate collider’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39

2.6

8

2.6.5

Small-angle Bragg scattering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40

Theory of collisions in a BEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

41

2.7.1

Collisional cross section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

42

2.7.2

Lab frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

42

2.7.3

Center-of-mass frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

43

2.7.4

Impurity scattering: large momentum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

44

2.7.5

Impurity scattering: small momentum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45

2.7.6

Collisional density for a trapped BEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

46

2.7.7

Collisional superradiance: theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

49

S-wave scattering at large momentum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

50

2.8.1

Raman and Bragg light scattering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

50

2.8.2

Comparing distinguishable and indistinguishable collisions . . . . . .

51

Impurity collisions at small velocities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

56

2.9.1

Collective Ampliﬁed Elastic Scattering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57

2.9.2

Observation of Superﬂuidity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

58

2.10 Finite temperature eﬀects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

60

2.11 Discussion: 4 wave mixing/pair correlations/superﬂuidity . . . . . . . . . .

65

2.7

2.8

2.9

3 Construction of the Science Chamber apparatus

67

3.1

Overview and goals of BEC-III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

68

3.2

Design and structure of the apparatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

70

3.2.1

Vacuum pumps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73

3.2.2

The slower port . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

74

3.2.3

The Science Chamber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

76

3.2.4

Mounting the chamber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

76

Sodium atomic beam and Zeeman slower characterization . . . . . . . . . .

79

3.3.1

Sodium oven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

79

3.3.2

Spin-ﬂip Zeeman slower: design parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

81

3.3.3

Building the slower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

84

3.3.4

Testing the slower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

87

3.4

Bakeout–attaining UHV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

94

3.5

RF coils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

98

3.6

Cloverleaf trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

99

3.6.1

Compensation coils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

102

3.6.2

High current switching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

102

Light for the MOT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

103

3.7.1

Looking at the atoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

105

3.8

The Word Generator – computer control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

105

3.9

Making the BEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

106

3.10 Moving condensates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

108

3.3

3.7

9

3.10.1 The tweezers trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

109

3.10.2 Motion parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

110

3.10.3 Vibration isolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

111

3.10.4 Condensates on the move . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

112

3.10.5 Air bearing stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

114

3.11 Final thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

116

4 Macroscopic and miniaturized wiretraps

117

4.1

Mesoscopic Z-wiretrap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

118

4.2

Atom chip and magnetic waveguides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

121

4.3

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

124

5 Generation of a Continuous Source of Bose-Einstein Condensed atoms 125
5.1

What is an atom laser? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

126

5.2

Why was continuous BEC hard to make? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

127

5.3

Solutions to technical problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

127

5.3.1

Physical separation of the reservoir trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

127

5.3.2

Beam shutter to block the MOT light . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

128

5.3.3

Optical reservoir trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

129

5.3.4

Condensate merger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

130

Making the continuous BEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

130

5.4.1

Crossed-dipole continuous BEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

134

5.5

Phase of the continuous BEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

136

5.6

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

137

5.4

6 Outlook

138

A Designs for the BEC-III vacuum chamber

140

B Designs for the Oven148

C Companies

154

C.1 Vacuum hardware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

154

C.2 Optics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

156

C.3 Wire for solenoids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

156

C.4 Bakeout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

157

C.5 Powersupplies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

157

C.6 Translation stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

157

D Suppression and enhancement of impurity scattering in a Bose-Einsteincondensate

159

10

E Transport of Bose-Einstein Condensates with Optical Tweezers

164

F

169

A Continuous Source of Bose-Einstein Condensed Atoms

11

List of Figures
2-1 Dispersion curves for condensates, free particles and superﬂuid 4 He . . . . .

27

2-2 The static structure factor of a condensate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28

2-3 A schematic of Stokes and anti-Stokes processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30

2-4 Elastic S-wave collisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39

2-5 The condensate collider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40

2-6 A polar plot of momentum transfer during collisions . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47

2-7 Suppression of collisions: theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47

2-8 Comparison of indistinguishable and distinguishable atom scattering . . . .

52

2-9 Large velocity (2k) collisional density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

54

2-10 Comparison of theory vs. experiment for 2k collisions . . . . . . . . . . . .

55

2-11 Small velocity collisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

56

2-12 Collisional superradiance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57

2-13 Suppression of collisions: experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

59

2-14 Numerical simulation of collisional density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

60

2-15 A polar plot of momentum transfer for anti-Stokes collisions . . . . . . . . .

61

2-16 Contributions to the collisional density at ﬁnite temperature (kB T = µ) . .

62

2-17 Eﬀect of ﬁnite temperature on the total cross-section . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63

2-18 Measured condensate temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

64

2-19 Comparing data with theory including ﬁnite temperature eﬀects . . . . . .

64

2-20 Collisions between condensates in a 1D optical lattice . . . . . . . . . . . .

66

3-1 Photos of the BEC-III apparatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71

3-2 A schematic of the BEC-III apparatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

72

3-3 Mounting of the Zeeman slower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

75

3-4 Arrangement of 80/20 posts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

78

3-5 A schematic of the oven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

80

3-6 Total length of the Zeeman slower vs. capture velocity . . . . . . . . . . . .

83

3-7 Length of decreasing ﬁeld slower vs. capture velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . .

83

3-8 Desired proﬁle of the magnetic ﬁeld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

84

3-9 Cross-section of the slower solenoids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

86

3-10 Calculated magnetic ﬁeld proﬁle from the slower solenoids . . . . . . . . . .

8812

3-11 Bench measurements of magnetic ﬁeld produced by the slower solenoid . . .

88

3-12 Doppler-free and Doppler-sensitive ﬂuorescence from the ‘raw’ atomic sodium
beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

89

3-13 Doppler sensitive ﬂuorescence from the slowed sodium beam . . . . . . . . .

90

3-14 A schematic of the diﬀerential absorption measurement . . . . . . . . . . .

91

3-15 A typical diﬀerential absorption signal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

91

3-16 Crossed beam diﬀerential absorption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

93

3-17 Velocity tuning of the slower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

93

3-18 Doppler insensitive optical pumping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

94

3-19 A view of the apparatus prior to bakeout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

96

3-20 Variation of the pressure during a bakeout cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

96

3-21 RF coils on the bucket window . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

98

3-22 A photo of the cloverleaf coil set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

99

3-23 A schematic of the relevant atomic transitions in sodium . . . . . . . . . . .

103

3-24 A photo of the dark-MOT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

104

3-25 The ﬁrst condensates in BEC-III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

108

3-26 The trajectory of the translational stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

110

3-27 The ﬁrst translational stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

112

3-28 Lifetime of BEC in the main and science chambers . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

113

3-29 A photo of the air-bearing stage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

114

3-30 BEC lifetime using the air-bearing stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

115

4-1 A photo of the Z-shaped wiretrap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

118

4-2 Condensates in the science chamber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

119

4-3 BEC lifetime in the macroscopic wiretrap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

120

4-4 Moving BECs in the wiretrap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

120

4-5 A photo of the atom chip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

121

4-6 Microfabricated magnetic trap and waveguide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

122

5-1 Schematic of the setup of Continuous BEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

129

5-2 Merging of two condensates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

131

5-3 Timing sequence for making a continuous BEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

133

5-4 A continuous source of Bose-Einstein condensed atoms . . . . . . . . . . . .

134

5-5 A continuous BEC in the crossed-dipole conﬁguration . . . . . . . . . . . .

135

13

List of Tables
2.1

Comparing indistinguishable and distinguishable cross-sections . . . . . . .

45

3.1

Timeline for BEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

107

14

Chapter 1

Introduction
1.1

What is Bose-Einstein Condensation

Bose-Einstein Condensation (BEC) is so well known now that it has almost become ahousehold name, at least in the houses of most physicists. Awarding of the 2001 Nobel
Prize for Physics to Wolfgang Ketterle (my adviser and mentor), Eric Cornell and Carl
Wieman “for the achievement of Bose-Einstein condensation in dilute gases of alkali atoms,
and for early fundamental studies of the properties of the condensates,” [20–22] has increased
the public awareness and curiosity about BEC. Most lay people tend to understand BEC
as atom lasers. Analogous to photons in an optical laser, the Bose condensed atoms arein a coherent state that forms the key ingredient for an atom-laser [23, 24]. The output of
the laser is coherent, diﬀraction-limited, and very bright, which is in stark contrast to theproperties of the more familiar particle sources, such as the photons emanating from lightbulbs and the atoms in the air that we breathe.
To lay people, I usually answer the question, “What is a BEC?”, by the statement,“BEC is the giant matter-wave that is formed when atomic matter waves begin to overlap”.
Technically, this ‘giant matter wave’ is the macroscopic occupation of a single-particle wavefunction of a many-body system. And, the atomic waves ‘begin to overlap’ when the spacing
between atoms, d = n−1/3 , becomes equal to their de-Broglie wavelength, λdB =h
2πM kB T ,or in other words, when the phase space density ρ = nλ3dB is of order unity. The mass of
the atom is denoted by M , T is the temperature of the system, n is the gas density, andh and kB are Planck and Boltzmann constants, respectively. Entering the regime whereρ ∼ 1 requires high density or low temperatures. At high densities, such as the density ofwater (∼ 1023 cm−3 ), the strong interactions between atoms preclude Bose condensation
as gases transition into liquids and solids. Therefore, in order to minimize interactions
between atoms in a gas, one uses dilute gases (n = 1013 − 1015 cm−3 ), implying that dilute
gas BEC occurs only at low temperatures (µK to nK range). At low temperatures, thequantum eﬀects become more apparent and a deeper understanding the phase transition
from a ‘normal’ gas to a Bose condensed gas requires the synthesis of classical statistical15

mechanics with quantum mechanics.

1.1.1

History of BEC

Given the maturity of the ﬁeld, it almost meaningless to write yet another summary of thehistorical roots of BEC. I will, however, give a very brief summary of the important theoretical concepts for understanding BEC and then describe its manifestation in the laboratory.
The ﬁrst chapter of the Varenna lecture notes [25], the doctoral theses of Dan StamperKurn [26] and Shin Inouye [27], and the Physics 2001 Nobel Lectures [21, 22] provide an
excellent overview of the history of BEC. These references and the references therein discussboth the theoretical and the experimental eﬀorts leading to the ﬁrst observation of BEC in
dilute gases[28–31].

1.2

The BEC theory: understanding a quantum gas using
statistics

Theoretical understanding of Bose-Einstein condensation requires knowledge of the basic
assumptions underlying of quantum statistical mechanics, the consequence of indistinguishability of atoms, and of atom number conservation.

1.2.1

Basics of Quantum Statistical Mechanics

Statistical mechanics explains the phenomena of the macroscopic physical world based on
the statistics of the microscopic world. The claim is that regardless of how a system reaches
equilibrium, the equilibrium state can be derived using only statistics. Since the microscopic
world is governed by the laws of quantum mechanics, especially at low temperatures, it isquantum statistical mechanics that is of interest. The fundamental assumption of statisticalmechanics is that for a system in interacting with an external world such that its total energy
is approximately constant, all micro-states of that system satisfying the conservation laws
(such as energy, momentum, and number) are equally likely to be occupied. This is theprinciple of equal a priori probability. Quantum mechanically, the wavefunction of thesystem |Ψ at equilibrium is given byΨ=bi Φi ,

(1.1)

iwhere {Φi } is complete orthonormal basis set of wavefunctions of the system, and
2|bi | =

1:0 :if Φi satisﬁes the conservation laws,
otherwise.

16

.

(1.2)

The coeﬃcients {bi } depend only the system coordinates and its phases are random numbers, therefore averaging over the Hilbert space of |Φi  implies averaging over the external
world in an average manner1 . The value of any observable of the system O can be calculated
by averaging over the eigenfunctions of the system:

O =

2
i | Φi |O|Φi 
i |b
.
2
i |bi |

(1.3)

Thus, we can imagine averaging over an ensemble of systems each representing an eigenfunction Φi of the system. This ensemble is the micro-canonical ensemble. In the density
matrix formulation, the elements of the density matrix of the system can written as
ρij|bi |2= δij |bi |2 , with
Γ(E)−1 :
=
0
:

(1.4)
if Φi |H|Φi  = E,
otherwise.

,

(1.5)

where H is the system Hamiltonian and Γ(E) is the volume of phase space that has energy
E. All thermodynamic functions can be derived using the density matrix above [32].
The classic pedagogical problem in statistical mechanics is to derive the equilibrium
properties of a N-particle ideal gas in a volume V by enumerating the microscopic statesthat the N-atoms in the gas occupy and the probability of their occupation. The dynamics
of the N-particle microstates can be very complicated and hence studying the evolution ofa gas to its equilibrium is very diﬃcult. However, using the ergodic hypothesis, one canperform an ensemble average over these states to determine the most probable distributionof states, which is the equilibrium distribution. In fact, one need not even study the N-body
distribution function, but only a single-particle function. This is valid assuming that thegas is very dilute and that the correlations between particles are lost immediately after any
collisions, i.e., the gas is under molecular chaos [32]. Interatomic interactions, or collisions,is the responsible for molecular chaos. Some aspects of these collisions in BEC are studied
in Chapter 2.

1.2.2

Quantum gas of indistinguishable atoms

The statistics of identical atoms dramatically depends on the atoms’ spin. By the spinstatistics theorem [33], the occupation probability of identical atoms is diﬀerent for bosons(integer-spin atoms) and fermions (half-integer spin atoms). This arises from a fundamental
symmetry (parity) consideration that requires the total wavefunction be either symmetric(bosons) or anti-symmetric (fermions) under exchange of any two particles:Ψ(1, 2, 3, ....k..l...N ) = ±Ψ(1, 2, 3, ....l..k...N )1

Note that the external coordinates are time averaged with the assumption of random phases [32].

17

(1.6)

with + sign corresponding to bosons and − for fermions. The Hilbert space of wavefunctions with energy E is then divided into fermionic and bosonic wavefunctions, where thesewavefunctions satisfy the symmetry conditions. The occupation number of these new energy
eigenstates is then


ni =

with



i ni = N and

0, 1, 2...N: for bosons,0, 1: for fermions.

,

(1.7)



i ni Ei = E.

Using the Grand Canonical formulation where the number of particles in the system isalso allowed to vary, with the average number of particles being N, the average occupation
number isni  = 


exp



exp

Ei −µ
kB T
Ei −µ
kB T




−1

−1

−1
+1

:

for bosons,:for fermions.

,

(1.8)

where µ is the chemical potential.
In the high temperature limit, the equations for fermions and bosons both reduce to theclassical Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution:
B
= exp
nM
i

µ − Ei
kB T

,

(1.9)

As discussed earlier, this equilibrium distribution can be derived without any consideration
for how the system evolves into that equilibrium state.

1.2.3

Number Conservation

Studying eq. 1.8, it becomes obvious that the fraction of bosons occupying the lowest single
particle energy state (Ei = 0 for an ideal gas) is
z
N0
=
,
N
1−z

where z = expµ
kB T(1.10)

is the fugacity. As the temperature of the gas gets close to zero, alarge fraction of atoms occupy the single particle ground state. This macroscopic occupationof the ground state is the result of the conservation of atom number: the atoms cannot be
destroyed! This situation is very much diﬀerent from photons and phonons in a solid, where
lowering temperature only leads to a reduction in the number of photons/phonons as they
disappear into the blackbody cavity or the crystal.
In the thermodynamic limit, BEC transition is a ﬁrst order phase transition with thetotal density of the system beingn=g3/2 (z) N0
,
+
V
λ3dB

18

(1.11)

where Bose function gn (z) =∞zk
k=0 kn .

In ﬁnite systems, the transition is smooth. First

term in eq. 1.11 is the number of atoms in the excited states and the second term is thedensity of condensed atoms. As noted in section 1, the number of condensed atoms becomesmacroscopic only when nλ3dB > g3/2 (1), where g3/2 (1) = ζ(3/2) = 2.612...2 . The transition
temperature Tc is
kB Tc = 2π2 /m
and the fraction of condensed atoms is
N0  0  =
3/2
 1− TN
Tcn
ζ(3/2)

2/3,: nλ3dB ≤ ζ(3/2),: nλ3dB ≥ ζ(3/2).

(1.12).

(1.13)

Typically, for our sodium Bose-Einstein condensates, the number density is 1014 cm−3 andthe transition temperature is around a µK. For trapped gases, the physics is essentially thesame except that the critical temperature and condensate fraction depend on the number
N and the average trap frequency ω. See [34] for details.

1.3

Superﬂuid helium: the road to dilute quantum gases

While the theoretical framework for quantum gases and BEC presented above was understood as early as 1925 by Einstein, its experimental manifestation had occurred earlier withthe liquefaction of 4 He in 1911 by K. Onnes. Although preliminary evidence indicated a
new phenomenon below 2.2K [35], it was only in 1938 the ‘superﬂuid’ aspects of helium-II
became apparent when the viscosity of the liquid was shown to drop dramatically near the‘lambda’ transition at 2.19K. London [36, 37] ﬁrst posited a BEC of 4 He to explain the
low viscosity of helium II as measured by Allen and Miesner [38] and Kapitza [39], andthe fountain eﬀect [40]. London’s daring idea was further improved by Lazlo Tisza by his
two-ﬂuid model [41], a normal ﬂuid and a superﬂuid, which explained all the observed phenomena and also predicted the mechano-caloric eﬀect and a temperature wave, i.e., second
sound, which is the out of phase oscillation of the normal ﬂuid and the superﬂuid. Thissecond sound was observed in helium II in 1960 [42] and related phenomenon was observedin gaseous BECs in 1998 [43]. Around the same time, Landau derived another two ﬂuid
model using a phenomenological approach to quantum liquids, in which the normal ﬂuid
was replaced by a weakly interacting gas of elementary excitations: phonons and rotons.
Landau’s superﬂuid did not mention Bose-Einstein statistics at all; nevertheless, his superﬂuid contained atoms in the ground state. It was intuitive and phenomenological, unlike
London and Tisza’s microscopic approach. One big diﬀerence between the two appears at
low temperature: Landau’s theory predicts phonon like excitations whereas the London
2

ζ(x) is the Riemann zeta function and ζ(3/2) ∼ 2.612

19

and Tisza theory predicts free particle excitations. The dispersion relation of superﬂuid
4 He conﬁrmed Landau’s predictions of phonons at low momenta.

Bogoliubov’s microscopic theory of weakly interacting Bose gases in 1947 was the ﬁrst
attempt to understand the underlying physics behind superﬂuid 4 He [44]. He modiﬁed
the ideal Bose gas by including a weak two-body interaction, and used a ﬁeld theoretical
approach to diagonalize the many-body density matrix. The essentials of this theory will
be discussed more in detail in chapter 2.2. Bogoliubov’s theory, like Landau’s, predicteda phonon spectrum at low temperatures, but unlike Landau, it does not have any roton
excitations. Despite the fact that this theory does not explain superﬂuid 4 He too well, it
forms the basis of the theory of dilute-gas Bose-Einstein condensation [45].

1.3.1Helium to dilute gases

Initial experiments to achieve Bose condensation in dilute gases were pioneered by groups
studying spin-polarized hydrogen (for review, see [46]). It was known that hydrogen would
remain a gas even at T = 0 [47, 48], and eﬀorts to reach BEC in spin-polarized hydrogenwere underway since the late 70’s. However, it was only in 1998 that BEC in hydrogen was
ﬁrst realized at MIT [49].
Another avenue towards gaseous BEC opened up with the advent of laser cooling andtrapping of alkali atoms in the 100 µK range. Further cooling in a magnetic trap using forced
RF evaporation [50] led to the ﬁrst achievement of a dilute rubidium gas Bose condensate
in 1995 by Eric Cornell and Carl Wieman [51]. Four months later, the MIT group led by
Wolfgang Ketterle also produced a BEC in sodium atoms [52].
As mentioned earlier, for a summarized history on BEC theory and experiments prior
to 1995, see [25, 46].

1.4

My life on the second ﬂoor of MIT Building 26

My life as a Bose condenser at MIT began two years after the ﬁrst discovery of BEC. I
arrived in the summer of 1997 to the second ﬂoor of MIT’s building 26 and have ever since
been engaged in exploring the physics at the edge of quantum mechanics and condensed
matter. In my ﬁrst project I helped to conﬁne condensates in optical traps [6]. The summer
months were spent trying to align and transfer the condensate from a magnetic trap to theoptical trap. It was during this time that I was exposed not only to the physics of BECs but
also the ways in which the Ketterle group functions. The entire group worked as a team,which I quickly became part of as I learned about the experimental apparatus.
The apparatus that I worked on was then termed as the ‘old lab’, where the ﬁrst BEC
experiments were performed. The ‘new lab’ was the second glass cell based BEC apparatus
that was just getting started. This project was led by Chandra Raman, Roberto Onofrio
and Dallin Durfee. The ‘new lab’ apparatus came online in early 1999.
20

I was involved in various projects from summer of 1997 to early 2000 in the ‘old lab’.
The optical conﬁning of atoms immediately led to studies of Feshbach resonances [53, 54]3 .
The old lab group consisted of Dan Stamper-Kurn, Hans Miesner, Jörn Stenger and Shin
Inouye and myself. We explored the physics of reversible formation of a BEC in a combined
magnetic and optical trap [7], spinor physics [8, 9, 11], and Bragg scattering [10]. We also
discovered superradiance [12] and used it for amplifying matter waves [14]. The physics
explored during this time has been summarized in the theses of Dan Stamper-Kurn [26]and Shin Inouye [27]. In addition, a brief history of our Bragg scattering and related
experiments is described in sec. 2.6.
While doing Bragg spectroscopy in BECs, we discovered that Bragg outcoupled atoms
can collide (see ﬁg. 2-4). Exploration of these collisions is a signiﬁcant part of my thesis(chapter 2). Along with Axel Görlitz and Dan-Stamper-Kurn, I led the exploration ofsuperﬂuid collisions. During this time, various parallel projects were being taken up led by
Shin Inouye, Deep Gupta and Tilman Pfau [17, 55]. Although we were working on two setsof projects at any given time, the entire old lab team was actively involved in performing
the experimental analysis and maintaining the apparatus4 .
During the summer of 1999, the experiments were halted as the laboratory infrastructure was to be renovated. The old lab apparatus could not be moved, and so the experimenton the optics table was boxed up and rest of infrastructure such as the electronics, powersupplies, etc. was removed and then put back together. The renovations signiﬁcantly
improved the lab life. The dark and dull second ﬂoor hallway of building 26 became brightand oddly colorful. The ﬁrst experiments, after the apparatus was put back together, explored superﬂuidity using BEC collisions [1] and matter-wave ampliﬁcation [14]. With thearrival of Todd Gustavson in Fall of 1999, we were also geared up to build a third BEC
machine.
At this time, I decided to stop working fulltime on current projects and apply myself tobuilding a new BEC machine, which is described in chapter 3. While I was still involved
in some experiments in the old lab, I was more engaged with the construction of new BEC
apparatus. The building eﬀort was a singular example of team work and spirit.
With an additional BEC apparatus, the lab terminology had to be changed. In keepingwith MIT tradition5 , the original apparatus was now called ‘BEC-I’, the glass cell apparatus
being ‘BEC-II’ and the new ‘science chamber apparatus’ was ‘BEC-III’. All of these threeexperiments made BEC using sodium atoms, whereas the latest ‘BEC-IV’ experiment, which
essentially followed the design of BEC-III, used rubidium atoms to make condensates. In
addition, the BEC-I apparatus was given a new life by mixing fermionic lithium atoms witha sodium BEC, by adding a two-species oven [56]. This is the current nomenclature of theexperiments at the MIT BEC factory.
3

I was not involved in this work since I was busy taking MIT physics classes.
Hence, the reason for all of team members being co-authors on all of the papers.
5
At MIT, the buildings are named by numbers rather than names.
421

Having worked on functioning BEC experiment (BEC-I) for 2 12 years, I end my graduate
career by building a BEC apparatus [2]. The apparatus has a moving optical tweezers, withwhich we have transported condensates more than 40 cm (limited only by the vacuum
chamber). Interestingly, the beginning and the end of my career as a graduate student has
involved optical trapping of BEC. The optical trap, which was the cause of many sleeplessnights during the summer of 1997, is now used routinely to move condensates around. Even
now, it is simply amazing to imagine the invisible infrared light clutching the cold condensate
from the security of its magnetic blanket and gently gliding it into a new chamber.

1.5

Outline of this thesis

This thesis is essentially a summary of experiments on which I was the lead graduate student.
Chapter 2 describes the experiments on collisions with BEC, where we ﬁrst demonstrated
microscopic superﬂuidity in gaseous BEC [1]. This work was on done using the BEC-I
apparatus. Chapter 3 describes the construction of BEC-III apparatus [2]. The chapter iswritten not only as a guide for future Bose condensers who will experiment with it, but also
for people in the ﬁeld who might want to build a similar apparatus. Although rarely done,
the technical design of the apparatus is included in appendices A and B. I believe thatat this point of time future researchers should be not be too burdened by building BEC
machines, but should rather focus on the physics that can be explored with them. Making
a BEC should not be much harder than making a magneto-optical trap (MOT).
The ﬁrst experiments in BEC-III studying Bose condensed atoms in macroscopic andminiaturized magnetic wiretraps [2, 3] is described in chap. 4. Finally, the demonstration ofa continuous source of Bose condensed atoms [4] is discussed in chap. 5. Such a continuous
source is the key element in a continuous wave atom laser.

22

Chapter 2

Suppression and enhancement ofcollisions: BEC Superﬂuidity
In this chapter I will discuss the eﬀects of atomic collisions in Bose-Einstein condensatesthat was presented in the following publication:• A. P. Chikkatur, A. Görlitz, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, S. Inouye, S. Gupta, and W.
Ketterle, “Suppression and enhancement of impurity scattering in a Bose-Einsteincondensate,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 483-486 (2000). Included in Appendix D.
Many phenomena in physics involve enhancement or suppression of scattering processes.
A classic example of enhancement is in the optical laser, where photons are ampliﬁed due
to bosonic stimulation. For suppression, we need to look no further than superﬂuidity ofliquid helium and superconductivity of metals at low temperature. Both the suppression
and enhancement are collective eﬀects. In the laser, the macroscopic occupation of a single
laser mode enhances the probability to scatter into that mode, and in superﬂuid liquid
helium and superconductors, the dissipative eﬀects are suppressed due to collective interactions. Similarly, even in Bose condensates we have already seen such enhancement andsuppression. For example, in BEC-light interactions where we have observed enhancementof Rayleigh scattering in superradiance [12], and suppression of light scattering due to quantum depletion [13]. For material particles colliding with BECs, we have observed both asuppression due to superﬂuidity and an enhancement due to bosonic stimulation [1]. In
this chapter, I describe these experiments on particle scattering from a BEC. First, I will
present a general theory of scattering in BECs, describe aspects of superﬂuidity relevant
for this work, and compare it to analogous work in liquid 4 He. Then I will discuss thehistory of BEC collision studies in our laboratory, and then ﬁnally present details of theexperiment concerning the superﬂuid properties of a BEC that was published in ref. [1].
This early work has led to more recent BEC collision studies by my colleagues in BEC-II,
where pair correlated beams were generated [57], using the enhanced scattering we had ﬁrst
23

observed [1].

2.1

Collisions in general

Before describing the basic theory underlying scattering of atoms in a BEC, I would liketo emphasize some aspects of atomic collisions that are relevant for both theory and experiments. Collisions underpin the theoretical foundations of statistical mechanics in kinetic
theory. Equilibrium statistical mechanics tells us that Bose-Einstein condensation occurs
when the phase-space density ρ ∼ 1. However, it does not tell us how a gas of atoms
initially at room temperature reaches that equilibrium state to BEC. The kinetic theory ofgases provides that missing link. A fundamental assumption of kinetic theory is that atoms
collide: it is through collisions/interactions between atoms that the equilibrium state of asystem is reached. Using Boltzmann transport equations [32] one can explain the manner inwhich equilibrium is reached from a non-equilibrium state. This is true not just for making
BECs but for all equilibrium phenomenon in general.
While the role of atomic collisions in statistical mechanics is now well accepted, as
an experimentalist working on making BECs, collisions are far more important becauseof their critical role in evaporative cooling. Laser cooled gases at temperatures of a few
hundred microkelvins enter into the degenerate regime via atomic collisions by evaporative
cooling. In evaporative cooling, the high energy tail of the equilibrium Maxwell-Boltzmann
distribution for atoms is eliminated. This tail is then ‘regenerated’ by collisions between theatoms within a few collision times [58], and the temperature of the system is lowered1 . In
fact, for evaporative cooling to work, the ratio of “good” to “bad” collisions needs to be large.
The “good” collisions are elastic collisions, which conserve and redistribute energy, such as
the s-wave collisions discussed in this chapter. The “bad” collisions are inelastic collisions
arising from dipolar relaxation and three-body recombination, where atoms gains kinetic
energy while changing their internal states. Three-body recombination is an importantmechanism that limit the lifetime of condensates at high densities. However, it is elastic
two-body collisions that matter the most for understanding the physics of weakly interacting
gaseous BEC.

2.1.1

2-body collisions and the scattering length

During elastic collisions the kinetic energy is conserved, which implies that in the center-ofmass frame, the initial relative momentum merely rotates into a ﬁnal relative momentum
with the same magnitude. And for most low-energy collisions of interest, and certainly forthe collisions between atoms in a BEC, the rotation of the initial relative momentum isalso independent of the scattering angles, i.e., the collisions scatter atoms into all angles
1
 For atoms in a magnetic trap, an rf of frequency ν expels atoms with velocities larger than
2h(ν − ν0 )/m, where hν0 = µB B0 and B0 is the magnetic ﬁeld at the bottom of the magnetic trap.

24

with equal probability. Since only the l = 0 partial wave contributes to the collision, thecollision process is commonly referred to as “s-wave collisions.” For all BECs produced thus
far, this is the relevant collision process. For atoms with a large magnetic dipole, suchas chromium with 6µB , magnetic dipolar interactions may also become important and thespatial isotropy of the collisions no longer holds [59, 60]. For sodium atoms, the s-wave
2

regime is below a temperature of T ∼ k1B Ma2  2.8 mK, where a is the two-body scattering
length for sodium. The scattering length, a, is the eﬀective “hard-sphere range” of cold
atoms. While the scattering process only depends on a, and not on the details of the interatomic potential, the value of the scattering length is very sensitive to this potential. The
scattering length is determined by the energy of the last bound state of the inter-atomic2. It is the most important parameter for the mean-ﬁeld
potential, where Ebound  − 2Ma2theory of Bose-Einstein condensed atoms. Basics of this theory are presented in the next
section 2.2.
The scattering length for sodium atoms has been measured most accurately by photoassociating two sodium atoms. Initial measurements by the NIST group measured as-wave scattering length of 2.75 ± 0.26 nm [61], which has been later narrowed down toa = 2.80 ± 0.02 nm [62]2 . Besides these molecular spectroscopy measurements, the scattering length was also determined from the mean-ﬁeld energy of a BEC [63]. This measurement
was consistent with the photoassociation results, but with a large error bar. The BEC collision experiments that will be described here (sec. 2.8) oﬀer another distinct technique formeasuring the scattering length independent of the mean-ﬁeld theory. The term containing the scattering length in the mean-ﬁeld approximation is due to the coherent ‘forward
scattering’ (∝ a) that results from a ﬁrst order perturbative calculation for the energy ofthe system, whereas the scattering length in BEC collisional cross-section described in thischapter arises from the ‘incoherent’ elastic scattering (∝ a2 ). This is due to calculating thechange in the initial wavefunction using second order perturbative theory. Forward scattering and incoherent scattering can be related by the optical theorem for scattering [64].

2.2

Understanding BEC - mean ﬁeld theory

In this section, I will brieﬂy describe the Bogoliubov theory [44] for dilute weakly interacting
Bose gases. This linearized many-body ﬁeld theory that can be applied directly to most of
the experiments that have been done in dilute gases so far. This theory has been explainedin various review papers [26, 34]. The theory includes only the two-body interaction between
atoms, which is treated as a pseudo-potential,
V(r1 − r2 ) =4π2 aδ(r1 − r2 ),
M

2

(2.1)

In this thesis, value of a is assumed to be 2.75 nm based on [61], since the more recent photoassociation
measurement occurred after the experimental analysis on BEC collisions was done in early 2000.

25

where a is the two-body scattering length between the atoms. The interaction strength is2ausually denoted by g = 4π
M . The Hamiltonian in the second quantized notation for ahomogeneous gas of atoms in a volume V is
H = H0 + Hint 2 k 2 †gâ âk +
=
2M k
2V
k



â†l â†n âk âm δl+n−k−m .

(2.2)

k,l,m,nThe operators â†k (âk ) are creation(destruction) operators for particles with wavevector k.
Since the atoms are all indistinguishable, there is a factor 1/2 in Hint to prevent overcounting.
When a Bose condensate is present, a large number of particles, N0 , is in the groundstate. In the Bogoliubov prescription the operators â†0 , â0 are replaced by the c-number√
N0 . After making this substitution, the Hamiltonian can be diagonalized asH=ωkB b̂†k b̂k ,

(2.3)

k

where the Bogoliubov operator b̂†k = uk â†k + vk â−k . The coeﬃcients uk = cosh φk andvk = sinh φk , with tanh 2φk = µ/(ωk0 + µ), ωk0 = 2 k 2 /2M is the free-particle kinetic
energy and µ = gN0 /V is the chemical potential of the BEC. The quasi-particle excitations
are created and destroyed by the Bogoliubov operators, b̂†k ,b̂k , with energyωkB =

ωk0 (ωk0 + 2µ).

(2.4)

Figure 2-1 illustrates the behavior of the dispersion relation of the condensate and afree particle. At low momenta, the energy of quasi-particle excitation is phonon-like with
E = kc = pc, thus the excitations have a constant speed, c. At momenta larger than2

M c, the excitations are free-particle-like (E ∼ (k)2M ) with an energy shift of µ. It is thisdispersion relation which gives rise to the Landau critical velocity, which is discussed in sec.
2.4.

2.2.1

Static structure factor

An important property of the condensate relevant for understanding collisions is the static
structure factor, S(q). The structure factor is the density-density correlation of the condensate wavefunction,(2.5)
S(q) = ψc |ρ̂(q)ρ̂† (q)|ψc /N,
where |ψc  is deﬁned by b̂k |ψc  = 0, and ρ̂(q) = m â†m+q âm is the Fourier transform of theatomic density operator at wavevector q. Evaluating eq. 2.5 gives S(q) = (uq −vq )2 = ωq0 /ωqB
(see ﬁg. 2-2). For large q, S(q) → 1. This is the value for thermal clouds, indicating
26

6
µ

E/µ

4
2
0
0

1

2

3

p / (Mc)
Figure 2-1: The energy-momentum dispersion relation for free particles (dashed line) and acondensate (solid line). The energy
is in units of the chemical potential µ and the momentumµ/M is the speed of sound of the condensate. For
p is in units of M c, where c =comparison, the dotted line shows the dispersion line for superﬂuid 4 He, indicating theroton branch. The energy scale and momentum are arbitrary for this curve.

that large momentum density ﬂuctuations do not involve the whole condensate. At low q,
the ﬂuctuations involve the whole condensate through phonon excitations, which are moreqdiﬃcult to excite; this is indicated by S(q) → 2M
c . This suppression was ﬁrst measured byour group when we excited phonons using Bragg beams [13], see sec. 2.6.5. The structure
factor can also be derived using a mean-ﬁeld Gross-Pitaevskii approach. Details can befound in sec. 8.5 of Dan Stamper-Kurn’s thesis.

2.3

Scattering of light and massive particles

In this section, I will describe the theory of scattering in Bose-Einstein condensates andderive the collisional scattering rate starting from the basic four-wave mixing Hamiltonian.
Aspects of the collisional rate will be discussed in the following sections. Parts of thetheoretical formulations presented here are summarized in section I of ICAP-2000 proceedings [65], and also in the Cargese notes of 2001 [66]. Those parts are slightly edited andexpanded here.
The rate equations for scattering (both for light and massive particles) can be derived
using Fermi’s Golden Rule. This is useful to see the similarities and diﬀerences between thediﬀerent processes. The use of Fermi’s Golden rule is valid when the scattering populates
many ‘incoherent’ collisional modes. This is a perturbative approach which excludes any
coherent oscillations and only includes the production of elementary excitations in thecondensate.
When a condensate scatters a photon or material particle, the scattering is described

27

S(q)

1.0

0.5

0.0
0

2

4
6
hq / Mc8

10

Figure 2-2: The static structure factor of a condensate. The dashed line is the value for athermal cloud, and the solid is for a condensate.

by the 4-wave mixing HamiltonianH = Cĉ†l â†n ĉk âm δl+n−k−m(2.6)

k,l,m,nHere ĉk (ĉ†k ) is the destruction (creation) operator for the scattered particles, and âk (â†k ) is
the destruction (creation) operator for atomic plane waves of wavevector k. The strengthof the coupling is parametrized by the coeﬃcient C, and the δ function ensures momentum
conservation (with an uncertainty of /D, where D is the dimension of the condensate).
When the scattered particles are indistinguishable from the condensate atoms, theHamiltonian, eqn. 2.6, describes the mean-ﬁeld energy of a single condensate:Câ†0 â†0 â0 â0 .

(2.7)

Comparing eqns. 2.2 and 2.7, we can identify the coeﬃcient for indistinguishable particles
asC=

2π2 ag=.
2V
MV

The Hamiltonian H also describes pair correlations and quantum depletion (C

(2.8)


† †
q âq â−q â0 â0 )and the damping of collective excitations where a quasi-particle in mode k decays into twoother excitations (Beliaev damping, 2C l,n â†n â†l âk â0 δl+n−k−0 ) or promotes an existing
quasi-particle in mode l to higher energy (Landau damping, 4C k,n â†0 â†n âl âk δ0+n−l−k ).
Consider now the scattering process where a system with N0 atoms in the condensate ground state and Nq quasi-particles with wavevector q scatters particles with incident
momentum k into a state with momentum k − q. The initial and ﬁnal states are|i = |nk , nk−q ; N0 , Nq 

28

|f  = |nk − 1, nk−q + 1; N0 − 1, Nq + 1,(2.9)

respectively, where nk denotes the population of scattering particles with wavevector k.
This choice of ﬁnal states implies that we neglect scattering between quasi-particles andconsider only processes involving the macroscopically occupied zero-momentum state ofthe condensate. Formally, we replace the Hamiltonian (Eq. 2.6) by C k,q (ĉ†k−q â†q ĉk â0 +ĉ†k−q â†0 ĉk â−q ).

It should be emphasized that, due to the interatomic interactions, the quasi-particles
with occupation Nq are not the plane waves created by the operator â†q , but the quantaof collective excitations with wavevector q. The quasi-particle states are eigenfunctions of
the Bogoliubov operator b̂†q b̂q . Therefore, the square of the matrix element M1 between theinitial and ﬁnal state is|M1 |2 = | f |H |i|2= |C|2 | N0 = N − 1, Nq = 1|ρ̂† ('q)|N0 = N, Nq = 0|2 (Nq + 1)(nk−q + 1)nk (2.10)
where ρ̂(q) =†m âm+q âm

is the Fourier transform of the atomic density operator at

wavevector q. Including the static structure factor of the condensate, we obtain for the
scattering matrix element M1|M1 |2 = |C|2 S(q)(Nq + 1)(nk−q + 1)N0 nk .

(2.11)The scattering rate W1 for the process |nk , nk−q ; N0 , Nq  → |nk − 1, nk−q + 1; N0 − 1, Nq + 1follows from Fermi’s golden rule as
W1 =2π|M1 |2 δ(Ek − Ek−q − ωqB ),

(2.12)

where Ek is the energy of the incident particle with momentum k, and ωqB is the energyof quasi-particles with momentum q. To obtain the net scattering rate, one has to include
the reverse process |nk , nk−q ; N0 , Nq  → |nk + 1, nk−q − 1; N0 + 1, Nq − 1 by which atoms
scatter back into the condensate. The square of the matrix element M2 for this process is|M2 |2 = |C|2 S(q)Nq nk−q (N0 + 1)(nk + 1).

(2.13)The net rate W+ of scattering atoms from the condensate into the quasi-particle mode q is
the diﬀerence of the two partial rates W+ = W1 −W2 . Assuming N0  1 (i.e. N0 +1 ≈ N0 ),we obtain for the net rate
W+ =

2π 2
|C| S(q)N0 [nk (Nq + nk−q + 1) − Nq nk−q ]δ(Ek − Ek−q − ωqB )

29(2.14)

a)

N0

nk-q

N-q

nk-q

+

+

+

+

nk

Nq

nk

N0

b)

Figure 2-3: A schematic of Stokes and anti-Stokes process where the condensate gains momentum q. a) Stokes process where the scattering particle (gray) with momentum kcollides with the condensate, loses energy while being transferred to momentum (k − q).
A quasiparticle (black) with momentum q is created such that a net momentum q istransferred to the condensate. b) Anti-Stokes process where the scattering particle annihilates a quasiparticle with momentum −q, transferring it into the condensate, while gaining
energy. The scattering particle, however, loses momentum q to the condensate. The left
side of the dashed line is the initial state and right side is the ﬁnal state.

With the dynamic structure factor S(q, ω) = S(q)δ(ω − ωqB ) eq. 2.14 simpliﬁes to
W+ /N0 =2π 2|C| nk S(q, ω)(Nq + nk−q + 1)
2

(2.15)The rate W+ in eq. 2.14 is the rate for the Stokes process where Ek > Ek−q . Momentum
transfer q to the condensate is also possible as an anti-Stokes process where a quasi-particle
with momentum −q is scattered into the condensate, and the scattered particle gains
energy (see ﬁg. 2-3). The net rate W− for this process is obtained in an analogous way as
W− =

2π 2
|C| S(q)N0 [nk (N−q − nk−q ) − (N−q + 1)nk−q ]δ(Ek − Ek−q + ωqB ).


(2.16)The net scattering rates in eqs. 2.14 and 2.16 are the product of three terms.
• The static structure factor S(q) represents the squared matrix element for the condensate to absorb momentum q.
• The delta function denotes the density of ﬁnal states.
• The bosonic stimulation term represents stimulation by the occupation in the ﬁnal
state either of the scattering particles or the condensate.
The interplay of these three terms is responsible for the suppression and enhancement ofphysical processes in a condensate. The properties of the condensate as an intriguing manybody system are reﬂected in the structure factor, which was deﬁned earlier in sec. 2.2.1.
The density of states is responsible for superﬂuidity because it vanishes for incident particle
velocities that are smaller than the Landau critical velocity, which is discussed in sec. 2.4.
30

Finally, bosonic stimulation by the occupancy Nq of ﬁnal states was responsible for theobserved enhanced collisions that will be discussed in sec. 2.9.1. This bosonic stimulation is
also responsible for interesting light-condensate interactions, such as superradiance, matterwave ampliﬁcation and optical ampliﬁcation in a condensate [12, 14, 55]. The concept ofbosonic stimulation is itself quite interesting and I would like to describe some of the subtlety
surrounding this concept in the next section.

2.3.1

Bosonic stimulation or matter wave interference?

Traditionally, bosonic stimulation is thought to arise from proper normalization of a symmetric wavefunction. The stimulation is presumed to occur only for a system of bosons, andhence the name. However, in this section, I would like to emphasize that bosonic stimulation in eqs. 2.14 and 2.16 can also be considered as arising from density ﬂuctuations fromthe macroscopically occupied states, i.e, enhanced diﬀraction oﬀ matter-wave gratings are
responsible for the enhanced rate. This is the classical understanding of Bragg diﬀraction.
This alternative view, which I personally like, was ﬁrst put forth by Wolfgang Ketterle
during the discussions in our lab on whether fermionic atoms can show superradiance-typeeﬀects and 4-wave mixing. Ref. [67], section 10 of Cargese notes [66], and Shin Inouye’s
thesis [27] discuss this issue in detail. I want to present a ‘historical’ account of this idea asan example of kind of ‘wild’ theorizing that comes out of second ﬂoor of building 26; theseideas have almost always led to new insights in our understanding of atomic physics.
After the matter-wave ampliﬁcation experiment [14] it became very interesting for us
to consider whether fermions could also be ampliﬁed in this manner. The group had many
discussions, primarily in the hallway where all of us would gather and hash our idea. During
these discussions, we intuitively felt that fermions should be able to undergo matter-wave
ampliﬁcation, and the gain would be limited only by its very short coherence time. This view
was buttressed by the fact that thermal clouds could undergo superradiance. As we noted in
our paper [12], the coherence time for thermal atoms is very short and hence the thresholdfor superradiance is higher than for BECs3 . Many hallway discussions on the second ﬂoorof Building 26, primarily involving Wolfgang, Shin, Axel and myself, led to ﬁne-tuning of
the arguments that are presented in ref. [67]. When Wolfgang presented these ideas to
the rest of the atomic physics community, they were met with surprise and disagreement
despite the fact that nobody could come up with a good counterargument for why fermions
could not 4-wave mix or be ampliﬁed at temperatures above degeneracy. It seemed that theidea that only bosons could produce bosonic stimulation was well entrenched in the ﬁeld.
This only seemed to imply to us that there was some fundamental misconception of bosonicstimulation.
From what I remember there were two key insights: one evening, Wolfgang, Shin and3
In fact, in our experiments, even with high light intensities, we were never able to observe superradiancefor thermal clouds close to Tc .

31

I were discussing the problem in the hallway, when Shin posited that since there is nodiﬀerence between fermionic or bosonic atoms in Dicke superradiance, it should be possible
for fermionic atoms to undergo superradiance and matter wave ampliﬁcation. Wolfgang
then added that this was possible if the fermionic state was prepared in such a way thata part of the wavefunction would be symmetrized, while the total wavefunction was stillanti-symmetric. Then bosonic stimulation and matter wave ampliﬁcation can still occur for
the quantum numbers that were symmetrized.
We were all conﬁdent at this point that fermions would undergo matter wave ampliﬁcation and that it could be considered as diﬀraction of a matter wave grating. It seemed thatbosonic stimulation is not required for four-wave mixing. Perhaps, bosonic stimulation canbe fully explained using matter-wave interference. However, there was still one place wherebosonic stimulation seemed to play a big role, and that was in the formation of a BEC. In
other words, bosonic stimulation arising simply from proper symmetrization of the wavefunction, rather than from any physical process, was believed to be responsible for making a
BEC. Even now, this idea has simply been accepted as one of the bizarre eﬀects in quantum
statistics: a statistical ‘attraction’ to the ground state [21, 68]. During a group picnic ofsorts at Dave Pritchard’s summer house in Rhode Island, Wolfgang pointed out that BEC
formation can also be considered as enhanced scattering into the macroscopic ground state
due to an enhanced matter wave grating between a thermal atom and the large number ofatoms in the ground state. Another thermal atom diﬀracting oﬀ this grating would thenhave an enhanced rate to enter the ground state similar to the enhancement in Dicke’s
superradiance. So, the ‘mysterious inﬂuence’ [21] is demystiﬁed as ampliﬁcation due to thepresence of macroscopic occupation of the ground state4 [67]. This simple picture completed
the idea that bosonic stimulation can be considered as nothing but enhanced matter wave
diﬀraction!
I have always been fond of this idea of Wolfgang. As an experimental physicist, I
have much better intuition for physical processes that I can imagine in my mind. Atoms
diﬀracting oﬀ a matter-wave grating to form a BEC is much easier to understand andimagine than the unphysical picture of normalization of wavefunctions somehow leading to
BEC.
The bosonic stimulation (or grating enhancement) played a constant role in the lab, because all experiments involving light and BECs, because any Raman and Bragg interaction
with condensates led to superradiance if we were not careful. Secondly, during the data
analysis for the collision work, we realized that bosonic stimulation was responsible for theenhanced elastic collisions we observed (see section 2.9.1). Once again it was not something
we expected.
Although I have emphasized that similarity between fermions and bosons regarding fourwave mixing and matter wave ampliﬁcation, there are some key diﬀerences. The ﬁrst obvious
4

The matter wave ampliﬁcation has a broad proﬁle.

32

fact that the occupation number of states for fermions can only be 0 or 1, whereas bosons
can have any number of particles occupying a state. This Pauli blocking has importantconsequences for collisions between fermionic atoms [69]. Therefore, fermions must be
non-degenerate (T > 0) and only a part of their wavefunction can be symmetrized (i. e.
bosonic), and the total wavefunction must be anti-symmetric [67]. For fermions, this statemust be created somewhat artiﬁcially, whereas bosons are always in a symmetrized state.
So, two clouds of fermions that overlap will not show matter-wave interference unless they
are specially prepared, but two bosonic clouds will always interfere. Finally, the coherencetime for fermions is limited by Doppler broadening inherent in the ﬁnite temperature cloud.
This short coherence time could imply that parasitic incoherent processes can dominate
over the stimulated process.

2.3.2

The structure factor, again

As shown in sec. 2.3, the scattering rate is proportional to the static structure factor S(q),which is a measure of the density-density correlations at wavevector q associated with themomentum transfer. Although it was deﬁned in sec. 2.2.1, I would like to expand on therole of the structure factor in scattering in this section.
The factor consists of two parts, one reﬂects the average atomic density ρ̃(q) = ψc |ρ̂(q)|ψc 
and the other one the ﬂuctuations δ ρ̂(q) = ρ̂(q) − ρ̃(q),S(q) ==1ψc |(ρ̃(q) + δ ρ̂(q))(ρ̃∗ (q) + δ ρ̂† (q))|ψc N
1 ρ̃(q)ρ̃∗ (q) + ψc |δ ρ̂(q)δ ρ̂† (q)|ψc N(2.17)(2.18)In a system without ﬂuctuations (δ ρ̂(q) = 0), there is only scattering when the stationary density modulation allows for a momentum transfer at wavevector q (ρ̃(q) = 0)
and the incident particles fulﬁll the Bragg condition. For electromagnetic waves, one wellknown example is X-ray scattering oﬀ a crystal lattice. Electrons in such a lattice form
stationary Bloch waves (superpositions of plane waves and Bragg scattered plane waves)and propagate without attenuation. Scattering only occurs at irregularities of the latticeor thermal ﬂuctuations. For atomic waves, such non-zero density modulations are createdduring four-wave mixing, where the interference between a condensate and moving matterwave forms a density grating from which condensate atoms diﬀract.
For a system without any density modulations (ρ̃(q) = 0), scattering occurs randomly
due to the density ﬂuctuations. A Bose-Einstein condensate might appear perfectly ordered.
However, as we have learned from our Bragg experiments [10, 13], it has density ﬂuctuations
similar to a classical ideal gas. The structure factor only diﬀers from an ideal gas whenthe momentum transfer is comparable or less than the speed of sound (times the massM ). For electromagnetic waves, these density ﬂuctuations cause Rayleigh scattering. In
close analogy, if a matter wave propagates through a condensate, there will be elastic
33

scattering. It is this elastic scattering that is described in this chapter. On length scales
larger than the healing length, the condensate has reduced density ﬂuctuations, and wehave seen that electromagnetic radiation of suﬃciently long wavelength can propagate withlittle scattering [13], i.e., Rayleigh scattering of long wavelength photons is suppressed. In
the next sections, the equivalent result for long wavelength matter waves, and also a new
eﬀect, namely the complete suppression of scattering for velocities below the Landau criticalvelocity, will be discussed.

2.4

Landau’s critical velocity

The δ function in the eq. 2.14 ensures energy conservation. The dispersion relations for
excitations in a condensate and for the scattering particle determine the density of statesavailable for the scattering.
Energy-momentum conservation for impurity particles, the delta function in eq. 2.14,
requires Ek − Ek−q = ωqB . Expanding this equation gives(k/M )q cos θ = ωqB + q 2 /2M,

(2.19)

where θ is the angle between k and q. Since cos θ ≤ 1, the l. h. s. is always less than vq,
where v = k/M is the initial velocity of the impurities. For simplicity, equal mass M
for the impurity and condensate atoms is assumed. Thus, collisions with the condensate
are only possible if the maximum energy transfer from the impurity particles is suﬃcient
to excite a quasi-particle, i.e., v > ωqB /q + q/2M. The minimum velocity, in the limit oflarge impurity mass, is vL = min(ωqB /q), where vL is the Landau critical velocity [70] forsuperﬂuidity below which no dissipation occurs because the density of ﬁnal states vanishes.
For ﬁnite impurity mass, the second term in the r. h. s. of the eq. 2.19 cannot be ignored,
and this term becomes important when calculating the suppression of the scattering rate
(see sec. 2.7.1). Thus, the Landau critical velocity is derived from a kinematic condition
that determines the density of states available for the scattering process.
For light scattering, the dispersion relation is Ek = kcl with cl denoting the speed oflight, whereas for impurities, it is Ek = (k)2 /2M . Since cl  vL = c, the density of statesis always non-vanishing for light scattering even at low momenta. Only the matrix elementin eq. 2.12 is relevant for the process.
It is important to note that for a true ideal gas BEC, the Landau critical velocity
is zero. So, BEC of an ideal gas is not a superﬂuid. The question of whether one canhave a superﬂuid without a BEC is interesting. The requirements for deﬁning a superﬂuid
and a BEC are diﬀerent, and these issues are explored in Tony Leggett’s review paper onsuperﬂuidity [71]. In this thesis, a superﬂuid system is deﬁned as one that has a non-zeroLandau velocity.

34

2.5

Macroscopic and Microscopic measurements of criticalvelocity

Usually, critical velocities for excitations are not limited by elementary excitations, butrather by eﬀects related to turbulence. Experiments studying the critical velocities inliquid helium forced the liquid through channels, packed powder, and adsorbed ﬁlms, andhave found a critical velocity much smaller than the Landau velocity [72]. This was due
to turbulence related eﬀects such as formation of vortices. Vortex formation has a lower
threshold that is determined by channel dimension and surface eﬀects (see ref. [72] fordetails). Therefore, suppression of vortex formation by using microscopic ions was importantin observing the Landau velocity in liquid helium. In liquid helium (for low pressures), as
discussed in the next section, the drift velocity of ions is limited by the formation of charged
vortex rings [72] before the roton excitations. It was only by putting superﬂuid liquid He
under high pressure that the Landau velocity was observed.
Even for similar experiments in BEC, turbulence-related eﬀects such as vortex formation
determine the critical velocity when using macroscopic objects inside the superﬂuid. If the√size of an object is larger than the condensate’s healing length ξ = 1/ 8πna, then the object
can be considered as macroscopic and the probability for vortex generation is increased. The
critical velocity for vortex excitations is lower than the Landau velocity. The condensate
healing length is the size scale over which the wavefunction of a condensate with a given
chemical potential can vary, 2 /(2M ξ 2 ) = µ. Only a microscopic impurity can probe theLandau velocity because its eﬀective size, which is given by the scattering length between
the impurity and the condensate atoms (∼ nm), is usually smaller than the condensate’s
healing length (∼100 nm).

2.5.1

Liquid Helium

The ﬁrst direct measurement of the Landau critical velocity in a superﬂuid was exploredin the liquid helium-II system. Landau’s dispersion curve for helium, which is shown inﬁg. 2-1, has a phonon branch at low momenta and a roton branch at intermediate values.
This curve predicts a critical velocity that is determined by roton excitation at about 46
m/s [72, 73]. The ﬁrst experimental measurements of the velocity was done by pushingnegative ions through helium II at high pressure and low temperature, and measuring
the drag on these ions [73]. Low temperatures of about 0.5 K were required to ensurethat scattering from the thermal phonons did not dominate the measured drag. Highpressures (> 20 bars) were required to prevent turbulence and charged vortex-rings were
not excited as the ion was accelerated through the superﬂuid by an electric ﬁeld E. At
low pressures, the ions are actually semi-macroscopic as they are surrounded by hundredsof helium atoms (see references cited in [73]). Therefore, these large balls could not be
accelerated to velocities larger than 30 m/s because their energy was converted into vortex
35

rings rather than into their velocity. Meyer and Reif [74] showed that under pressures close
to solidiﬁcation at 25 bars, these vortices were not nucleated and hence negative ions could
be accelerated to speeds of 50-60 m/s. More details on the experiments are given in [73].
Allum and collaborators then measured the drag on an ion, which was zero below 46 m/s
for 25 atm. and dramatically rose up when accelerated to velocities larger than this value.
This was close to the predicted value of the Landau critical velocity at 25 atm. Anotherimportant measurement was the determination of excitations for velocities larger than vL .
By measuring the drift velocity as a function of the electric E, they showed that these
excitations were due to two-roton emission, rather than single-roton emission [73]. Further
experiments measured the critical velocity as a function of pressure in isotopically pure
4 He [75].

However, it is interesting that even at high pressures of 25 atm. the ions form a “semimacroscopic” ball with a mass of about 72m4 , where m4 is the mass of 4 He [73]. Nonetheless, the ions were able to reach the Landau velocity without exciting vortex rings. Suchmacroscopic balls of atoms could also be formed in a BEC if the impurities are ions.

2.5.2

Critical velocity for dilute gas BEC

For the excitation spectrum of the condensate (eq. 2.4), the Landau velocity is the Bogoli
ubov speed of sound vL = c = µ/M . There is no roton branch for a BEC. Impurity(distinguishable) particles moving below this speed cannot transfer their energy to the condensate. In contrast, for photons, dEk /d(k) = cl  c, and scattering is always possible.
It is important here to note that one needs distinguishable, impurity particles to observe
the superﬂuid “drag-free” ﬂow for BECs. If instead of using impurity particles, one uses
atoms of the same kind as the atoms in the condensate to scatter oﬀ the condensate, thenthe δ function will always be satisﬁed. The density of states is always available, and it canbe regarded as scattering between a quasi-particle and a condensate. Note that although
the density of states is non-vanishing it is not constant [76]. So, there is no Landau criticalvelocity for scattering of atoms which are indistinguishable from condensate atoms.
In contrast, microscopic impurity particles traversing through a condensate collide only
above a critical velocity, and by studying the rate of collisions one can probe superﬂuidity.
One would expect that if the particles are travelling below the Landau velocity (speed ofsound) then they simply move through the condensate without colliding: a key signatureof superﬂuidity. This collision-less ﬂow is in fact a limiting process for sympathetic coolingof fermions using condensates [77].
In order to observe any measurable collisions in a ﬁnite sized BEC, the collisional density, as deﬁned by nσl, must be on the order of one, where n is the condensate density,
σ the collisional cross-section and l is the path length of particle through the condensate.
Typically, with 20 million atoms in our condensates, the collisional density along the condensate radius of about 10 µm is about one. So, an impurity particle will collide with the36condensate with a large probability. The collisional density for a inhomogeneous condensate
will be discussed in more detail in sec. 2.7.6.

2.5.3

Turbulence in BEC

The ﬁrst signatures of critical velocities in BEC were measured by stirring a condensate
using a focused blue-detuned light beam [15, 78]. These experiments measured a criticalvelocity of about c/10, consistent with the theory that the light beam excited vortices
in the condensate, which then resulted in heating of the condensate [79–81]. When thelight beam was stirred with speeds below c/10, practically no heating was observed. At
larger velocities, vortex formation due to stirring was actually observed by the observationof a fringe dislocation in a matter wave interference between a stirred condensate and aundisturbed local oscillator [17]. This experiment was also the ﬁrst experiment where weobserved the phase wrap of ±2π associated with vortices of opposite polarities produced
during the stirring process. A similar matter wave interference experiment was also observedin the Paris group [82], where the vortices were produced using rotating laser beams. The
vortex formation in a BEC is related to excitations of unstable surface modes [83–85]. In
more recent experiments, rotating laser beams can be used to produce large number ofvortices, which then form ordered lattices [86, 87]. Both the critical velocity experiments
and the experiments exploring vortex lattices will be covered in a future Ph.D. thesis of mycolleague Jamil Abo-Shaeer. Studies of vortices in dilute gas BEC have become an exciting
ﬁeld both experimentally and theoretically.

2.6

A brief history of BEC collision studies in our lab

Studying collisions in BEC was serendipitous in that we saw the ﬁrst evidence of elastic
collisions between a BEC and atoms moving with large relative velocity during our initial
experimental studies of Bragg spectroscopy [10] in September of 1999. We were not looking
for collisions, it just happened.

2.6.1

Bragg spectroscopy

The long summer of 1997 led to a very successful period in the laboratory where we explored
BEC physics in optical dipole traps (ODTs) [6] (see sec. 1.4). After this exploration, we
decided to explore the physics of condensates in optical lattices, i.e., BECs in 1D standingand “walking” light waves. We spent a couple of months trying to setup the lattices using
the infrared laser that was used for ODT, a 980 nm MOPA. Unfortunately (or fortunately)
we never succeeded due to technical limitations of the MOPA laser5 . We ﬁnally decided to5

The output of the MOPA laser was externally controlled by the current for the MOPA diodes. The
diode temperature was not stablized and hence the frequency of the laser was randomly changing along withmode-hops. This random frequency noise was irrelevant for the ODT, but destroyed lattices due to phase37

just use the laser light that was used for making the MOT. This light was detuned fromthe condensate resonance by about 1.8 GHz. We immediately obtained our ﬁrst evidence
for BECs in optical lattices when we saw a condensate being split into many orders of
Kapitza-Dirac diﬀraction [27]. The Kaptiza-Dirac diﬀraction occurs for short pulses ofcounter-propagating laser beams [88]. We also observed Bragg diﬀraction for longer pulses
when the relative detuning between the laser beams was equal to 100 kHz= (2k)2 /(2M ),where the wavevector k = 2π/λ with λ = 589 nm. We then decided to probe the linewidthof the condensate using Bragg spectroscopy [10].

2.6.2First evidence of collisions

We obtained the ﬁrst evidence of elastic collisions in our lab while studying Bragg scattering in Bose condensates. Initially, we explored the outcoupling of atoms using counterpropagating Bragg beams along the radial and axial directions of the condensate. Bragg
spectroscopy worked well along the radial direction, and in fact, all of the data for thepaper on Bragg spectroscopy [10] were taken with the counter-propagating beams oriented
perpendicular to the condensate axis (see [26, 27] for details). When we outcoupled atoms
along the axial direction, we discovered to our surprise that the outcoupled atoms collided
with the condensate! These collisions resulted in the time-of-ﬂight image shown in ﬁgure
2-4. It was immediately obvious to us that this was a result of s-wave elastic scattering. The
collided atoms fall uniformly on a sphere with radius M v/2, where v is the relative velocity
between the condensate and outcoupled atoms. In the time-of-ﬂight images, we observed
the integrated collisional sphere: the collisional halo. Compared to the radial direction, thecollisional density along the condensate axis was 10 times larger, and therefore the collisions
became more noticeable and obvious. I was quite moved by the beautiful symmetry of theprocess. We were seeing elastic scattering! The scattering that is responsible for making
the BEC itself.

2.6.3

An aside: Superradiance

We decided to explore these elastic collisions in a BEC after we wrapped up the experiments
on Bragg spectroscopy. However, before we ever got to studying the collisions, we discovered
another eﬀect again due to serendipity or just dumb luck! This was the phenomenon ofsuperradiance.
During a routine Bragg spectrocopy run, we accidently turned up the power of the Bragg
beams, and to our amazement, we discovered condensate-like atom clouds shooting out with
momentum perpendicular to the Bragg beams. This was impossible to explain using theoptical lattice physics we were exploring. Even more surprisingly, the eﬀect happened evenwith a single beam! That very night, we understood this phenomenon as collective Rayleighnoise.

38

Figure 2-4: Observation of elastic collisions between the condensate (lower black dot) andBragg diﬀracted atoms (upper spot). The image is taken after a time-of-ﬂight of 30 ms,
and shows the velocity distribution after the collision. The products of the collision are
distributed over a sphere in momentum space leading to the observed s-wave halo. The
height of the image is 3.2 mm.

scattering or Brioulloin scattering. Wolfgang has given a good description of the events ofthat night in his Nobel lecture [22].
We spent a couple of months exploring the physics of superradiance in a BEC before
getting back to studying collisions. This physics is very much related to the scattering theory
described in sec. 2.3, where photons from the single laser beam, nk , Rayleigh scatter from thecondensate, and resulting quasi-particles Nq bosonically enhances further stimulation. In
other words, the matter wave grating between the condensate, N0 , and the quasi-particles,
Nq , stimulate further scattering in the mode with the highest gain [12].

2.6.4A ‘condensate collider’

Initially, we decided to study collisions between two condensates, since we were interested instudies of interaction between atom lasers and condensate-condensate collisions in general.
So, we studied collisions using magnetically accelerated condensates. Two condensates werecreated in a magnetic trap, one sitting at the bottom, the other one held up in the trapping
potential by a blue-detuned light sheet that forms a repulsive potential for atoms. Thisinitial situation was created by splitting a condensate into two roughly equal halves using
a light sheet [89] and then shifting the center of the magnetic trap by applying a magnetic
ﬁeld gradient. By varying the strength of the gradient, we could control the separation
distance and hence the relative potential energy of the two condensates. When the lightsheet was switched oﬀ, one condensate accelerated and slammed into the other. The violent
collision was observed in situ by phase contrast imaging and was also analyzed by absorption

39

3.33 ms/image

9

12
13
15
Time after release (ms)16

Figure 2-5: Collisions between two condensates. One condensate was held up in the magnetic trapping potential by a blue-detuned light sheet and suddenly released. A series ofphase-contrast images (upper part) and time-of-ﬂight absorption images display the collision. The phase contrast pictures show the spreading of the upper condensate during
acceleration, its collision, and merging with the stationary cloud. The time-of-ﬂight pictures represent the velocity distribution. Before the scattering event, there were two distinct
peaks representing the accelerated and the stationary condensate. After the collision, only
one cloud was left which was heated up by the collision.

imaging after ballistic expansion (ﬁg. 2-5).
This ‘condensate collider’ method shown in ﬁg. 2-5 suﬀered from large initial velocities
and a large velocity spread of the incident condensate. By using the green light sheet,
we would never be able to make the relative velocities smaller than the speed of sound of
the condensate. Separating the two clouds necessarily meant that the second condensate
had to be at least a Thomas-Fermi radius away from the condensate at the bottom of thetrap, which implied that the energy per atom of the separated condensate had to be larger
than the chemical potential of the condensate at rest. Hence, the relative velocity of thecollisional pairs would always be larger than the speed of sound of the bottom condensate.
The large velocity spread of the top condensate resulted from the spatial compression in
the small trap formed by the magnetic gradient and the light sheet.

2.6.5

Small-angle Bragg scattering

Both a narrower velocity distribution and small velocities could be achieved using lightscattering rather the condensate collider. Also, at this time, we became interested in probing
the superﬂuid aspects of collisions. For this we needed distinguishable atoms, or impurity
atoms, and the relative velocities had to be less than the speed of sound. Impurity atoms
could be created using a Raman transition, where the outcoupled atoms could be in the
mF = 0 hyperﬁne state and could act as impurity atoms (see section 2.8.1). It was for these40

reasons that we set up the laser beams for small-angle Bragg/Raman scattering. ‘Bragg’scattering is deﬁned as scattering where the internal hyperﬁne state of the atoms do notchange, as opposed to ‘Raman’ scattering where the diﬀracted atoms are in a diﬀerent
hyperﬁne state (see section 2.8.1).
We had used counter-propagating beams for all our work on Bragg spectroscopy. This
created outcoupled atoms moving at a relative velocity of 2k = 6 cm/s, far larger thanthe usual speed of sound of our condensates, which is typically about 1 cm/s. Therefore toprobe aspects of superﬂuidity, we needed to reduce the angle between our Bragg beams. The
momentum transferred to the condensate is 2k sin(θ/2), where θ is the angle between the
beams. We set up optics such that the laser beams propagated with an angle of 14◦ between
them, through the top window of the vacuum chamber (see pg. 149 of Dan Stamper-Kurn’s
thesis for a schematic of the experimental setup). We expected the out-coupled atoms to
be moving with a velocity less than 1 cm/s through the condensate, in the phonon regime
rather than in the free-particle regime. Before setting up beams to produce mF = 0 atoms,
we decided to reproduce Bragg scattering at the small angle. To our great surprise, we
simply could not outcouple any atoms! Strangely, we were able to do so after a shortamount of ballistic expansion when the condensate density was reduced, but not in the
trap. We soon realized that this suppression of long-wavelength excitations was not due toany technical problems but due to the ordered nature of the BEC with interacting atoms.
As was noted in eq. 2.14, the rate of excitation is proportional to the static structure factor
q
S(q), which approaches zero as 2M
c , where c is the condensate speed of sound. We thenexplored the physics of the static structure factor [13] before ﬁnally returning to studying
collisions.

2.7

Theory of collisions in a BEC

When we ﬁnally got around to studying collisions, the ﬁrst experiments explored the difference in cross-section between distinguishable and indistinguishable atoms. These experiments were performed by producing atoms using counter-propagating light beams which
produced atoms moving at 6 cm/s. The collisional density of the condensate was probed,
and the collisional density for indistinguishable atoms was found to be twice that for the
distinguishable atoms. These large angle collisions are discussed in sec. 2.8.
The second set of experiments used distinguishable impurity atoms at small velocities
that were produced using small-angle Raman scattering. By varying the condensate density,and hence the speed of sound, we were able to study the condensate collisional density as
function of v/c. We observed a dramatic reduction in the collisions as the speed of the
impurities, v, was reduced to a value close to the speed of sound c. This suppression is dueto the superﬂuid nature of condensates. These experiments are described in detail in sec.
2.9.

41

In both these experiments, we observed bosonic stimulation of the collisional products
which increased the rate of collisions. This stimulation exploited in experiments concerning
4-wave mixing [90] and entangled squeezed beams [57]. A theoretical formulation of thestimulated collisions is presented in sec. 2.7.7. However, before describing the experimental
realization, I will ﬁrst describe the perturbative theory for collisions in the next sections.
In this section, I will derive some basic expressions relevant for condensate collisions.
Some of these expressions have been derived earlier [77, 91]. In sec. 2.7.1, I will describe how
one obtains the collisional cross section at large impurity velocities for both distinguishable
and indistinguishable atoms from the Hamiltonian (eq. 2.6). Then impurity scattering at
velocities close to the speed of sound is discussed(sec. 2.7.5), and an expression for thecollisional density of an inhomogeneous condensate is presented in sec. 2.7.6. Finally, abasic theory of collisional superradiance is presented in sec. 2.7.7.

2.7.1

Collisional cross section

Before the experiments described in this thesis, most theory papers on condensates only
considered mean-ﬁeld repulsion between outcoupled atoms in mode k and the condensate at
rest (mode 0); see for example, [92, 93]. Thus, they only considered the term 2Câ†k â†0 â0 âk in
the Hamiltonian, eq. 2.6. This term leads to a distortion of the outcoupled beam. However,this two-mode approximation neglects the scattering into the empty modes, described by
H = 2C †âl â†n âk â0 δl+n−k−0(2.20)

l,nthat results in a scattering rate for particles in mode k
Wswave = n0 σv(2.21)

with the condensate density n0 = N0 /V , the cross-section σ and the relative velocity v =k/M . Eq. 2.21 describes the cross-section for the quantum mechanical interaction between
two matter waves.

2.7.2

Lab frame

Let us assume that the incident velocity is much larger than the speed of sound v  cs .
Therefore, there is no distinction between free particles and quasi-particles. For indistinguishable atoms in a homogeneous system, I will derive the expression 2.21 both in thelab frame and in the center of mass frame for pedagogical reasons. In the lab frame, theHamiltonian (2.20) can be written as
H = 4Câ†k−q â†q âk â0 ,q42(2.22)

where the prime indicates that we are integrating over only one hemisphere in q-spacesince we have indistinguishable atoms. The additional factor of 2 (compared to eq. 2.20)
accounts for the fact that for indistinguishable atoms, the ﬁnal state (k − q, q) appears
twice in the summation (as k − q, q and q, k − q). In the perturbative limit, consider thecollision between one particle with momentum k with a pure condensate with N0 atoms.
The initial and ﬁnal states |nk , nk−q ; N0 , Nq 6 (see eq. 2.9) are|i = |1, 0; N0 , 0
|f  = |0, 1; N0 − 1, 1.

(2.23)The square of the matrix element for the Hamiltonian (eq.2.22) between these two states is|M |2 = 16|C|2 N0 . Using Fermi’s golden rule (eq. 2.12), the scattering rate is given as
Wswave =2π |M |2 δ(Ef − Ei )

Ef



=
=


2π
2
0
|M
|
δ(ωk−q+ ωq0 − ωk0 )
2
q

2π
2 V
|M |
dΩ dq q 2 δ(fq0 (cos θ)),
2
(2π)3

(2.24)

where fq0 (cos θ) = /M (q 2 − kq cos θ). The δ-function above implies that the transferredmomentum, q = k cos θ, can only vary between [0, k], with θ ∈ [0, π]. Thus, the collisional
products fall on a sphere with radius k/2 that is centered on k/2, which is exactly what
we see in time-of-ﬂight images (ﬁg. 2-4). Evaluating the δ-function and substituting C =2π2 a/M V (see sec. 2.3) gives Wswave = (N0 /V )(8πa2 )(k/M ), where the cross-section
σindist = 8πa2 .
Note that in order to derive the simple result for the cross-section (8πa2 ), I have assumed
a free-particle dispersion relationship in eq. 2.24. While this is valid at very high particle
velocities, a more accurate result valid at all velocities would need to explicitly consider
the indistinguishable particles as Bogoliubov excitations such that the δ-function becomesB + ω B − ω B ). The s-wave cross-section of 8πa2 is then valid only in the large velocityδ(ωk−qqklimit of the colliding particle. See ref. [76] for the full description for the collisions between
indistinguishable atoms and the condensate.

2.7.3

Center-of-mass frame

It is also instructive to perform the same calculation as above in the center-of-mass (c-o-m)
frame. In this description that it becomes obvious that the speed v in eq. 2.21 is due to the6

The distinction between nl and Nl becomes irrelevant for distinguishable atoms

43

density of ﬁnal states. The Hamiltonian in the c-o-m frame becomesH = 4C

â†q â†−q âk/2 â−k/2 .

(2.25)

q

Using equivalent initial and ﬁnal states in the perturbative limit (eq. 2.23), the square of
the matrix element is again |M |2 = 16|C|2 N0 , and Fermi’s Golden rule gives
Wtot ==

2π |M |2 δ(Ef − Ei )

f

dρ
2π
|M |2
δ(Ef − Ei ) dEf
dEf(2.26)

with the ﬁnal and initial energies Ef = 2 × 2 q 2 /2M , Ei = 2 × 2 (k/2)2 /2M . The densityof ﬁnal states dρ/dEf is equal to half the density of single particle states evaluated atEsingle = Ef /2. The density of single particle states at energy E is

V
1
dρ 
= ×
2π

dE single 2 (2π)3

2M
2

3/2 √

E

(2.27)

The additional factor of (1/2) comes from the fact that for pairs of indistinguishable particles, we only count the number of states in one hemisphere for indistinguishable particles.
Thus, the density of ﬁnal states is
1 dρ 
V π
dρ
=
=

dEf
2 dE E=Ef /2 (2π)3 2

2M
2

3/2 

Ef /2

(2.28)

Substituting eq. 2.28 into eq. 2.26 with q = k/2 ﬁnally gives eq. 2.21 with σindist = 8πa2 ,as expected.
In the c-o-m frame, it is obvious that the scattered particles occupy a shell in momentum
space at q = k/2 (see ﬁg. 2-4). The quantum-mechanical origin of the relative velocity v in√eq. 2.21 is now seen to lie in the density of ﬁnal states which is proportional to E ∝ v.
The scattering of atoms into empty modes as laid out here is not described by the GrossPitaevskii equation (which only describes macroscopically occupied modes), but can be
accounted for by introducing a complex scattering length into the Gross-Pitaevskii equation
[94].

2.7.4

Impurity scattering: large momentum

For the scattering of impurity atoms with the same mass as the condensate atoms theconstant C in eq. 2.6 isC=

4π2 a,MV
44(2.29)

Indistinguishable

Distinguishable

2π2 aMV

4π2 aMV

The number of relevant terms
in the Hamiltonian

4

1

Square of the matrix element
Density of states
Cross-section∼ 64a2
1V
2 × (2π)38πa2∼ 16a2

C in Hamiltonian

V
(2π)3
4πa2

Table 2.1: The various numerical factors relevant for getting the correct value of the crosssection of indistinguishable and distinguishable collisions.

or more generally C = 2π2 a /µV , where µ is the reduced mass and a is now the scattering
length for collisions between condensate and impurity atoms. For the experimental situation
described here, a is the scattering length between condensate atoms in the |F = 1, mF =−1 hyperﬁne state and atoms in the |F = 1, mF = 0 state. For sodium, a ≈ a [26]. The
factor of two between eqs. 2.29 and 2.8 is necessary to avoid double counting of identicalatom pairs. If we repeat the above derivations for impurity atoms, we obtain a cross-sectionof σ0 = 4πa2 , whereas the cross-section for indistinguishable particles is twice as large. This
reﬂects several factors of 2 and 4, as shown in table 2.1.
For distinguishable atoms, the constant C is 2 times larger, but the factor of 4 in eq.
2.22 is 1 for impurity atoms, which expresses that each initial and ﬁnal state appears only
once in eq. 2.6; ﬁnally, the momentum integral for distinguishable particles extends over
the whole hemisphere whereas indistinguishable particles have half the number of possible
ﬁnal states. With these changes, one can easily obtain the fact that the cross-section is
4πa2 when v  c. Typically, however, the 8πa2 cross-section for indistinguishable atoms is
explained as due to the ‘exchange term’.

2.7.5

Impurity scattering: small momentum

When the speed of the impurities is close to the speed of sound of the condensate, then the
impurities can excite only phonons rather than free particles, and as noted earlier, there canbe no excitations when the impurity velocity is below the Landau critical velocity, which
for particle scattering is the condensate’s speed of sound.
The matrix element in the perturbative limit (no stimulation by the ﬁnal states) becomes|M |2 = |C|2 S(q)N0 , where C is deﬁned as in eq. 2.29. Using Fermi’s golden rule in the labframe, the rate of excitations is
Wswave =2π |M |2 δ(Ef − Ei )

Ef

45

=
=


2π
0
N0 |C|2
S(q)δ(ωk−q+ ωqB − ωk0 )
2

q

2π
2 V
N0 |C|dΩ dq q 2 S(q)δ(fqB (cos θ)),
2
(2π)3

(2.30)(2.31)

where fqB (cos θ) = q 2 /2M + ωqB − vq cos θ, and we have assumed that the impurity atoms
have the same mass as the condensate atoms. The δ-function restricts the q-space to values
between 0 and Q, where Q = M v(1 − 1/η 2 ) with η = v/c being larger than 1. For large
η, the maximum momentum transfer is k = M v. If η < 1, then the δ-function cannot
be satisﬁed and the integral vanishes. This explicitly shows that the Landau criterion is
intimately connected to the accessible density of states. The integral above then simpliﬁesto2

Wswave = (N0 /V )(4πa )

22
M2

1
v

 Q
dq q S(q)0= (N0 /V ) σ(η) v.

(2.32)

The collisional cross-section is now σ(η) = σ0 F (η) where σ0 = 4πa2 andF (η) =

1 − 1/η 4 − ln(η 4 )/η 2: if η > 1,0

: otherwise.

(2.33)The suppression factor F (η) is determined by two factors: the phase space restriction
due to the δ function in eq. 2.31, and an additional suppression at low momentum transfers
by the structure factor of the condensate. For decreasing velocity, the possible scattering
angles θ become restricted to a forward scattering cone (θ < arccos(1/η)), which shrinks tozero solid angle at the Landau critical velocity (ﬁg. 2-6). This reﬂects that near the Landau
velocity, the scattered particle has “diﬃculties” to provide enough energy per momentum
to create phonons. The maximum energy transfer occurs when the momentum transfer iscollinear with the incident velocity, i.e., for small scattering angles. In contrast, for large
impurity velocities, the scattering is isotropic in the center-of-mass frame and the densityof states is uniform. A graph of the suppression factor as function of impurity velocity isshown in ﬁg. 2-7. In the ﬁgure, the dotted line is the suppression where only the phase-space
restriction (Landau criterion) is included. However, the dotted line does not have a real
physicl meaning since the same interactions, which are responsible for the Landau criterion,
are also responsible for S(q) < 1 at low q.

2.7.6

Collisional density for a trapped BEC

The collisional density is deﬁned as the particle density that an impurity particle experiences
as it travels through the condensate. For a homogeneous condensate, the relevant quantity
is actually the collision rate (= nσv), however, for an inhomogeneous condensate, the

46

qy
1.0

10
3
1.8
1.5

0.5

1.3
1.1

- 0.5

qx
0.5

0

Cross-section [in units of 4πa2]

Figure 2-6: Momentum transfer in collisions. The polar diagram shows the momentum
transfer (in units of the initial momentum) vs. scattering angle θ for diﬀerent values ofη = v/cs (10, 3, 1.8, 1.5, 1.3, 1.1). As the impurity velocity approaches the speed of sound(η → 1), the scattering cone shrinks to zero solid angle.

1.0

0.5

0.0

0

2

4

6

8

10

Impurity velocity [in units of the speed of sound]Figure 2-7: Suppression of collisions. Shown is the suppression factor as a function of
the impurity velocity (normalized by the speed of sound cs , solid line). The dotted line
represents the suppression due to phase-space restriction alone (i.e., setting the structure
factor S(q) = 1).

47

collisional density is more relevant and is deﬁned asn(r)σdl, where

dl is the impurity

path length. The collisional density is proportional to the rate of collisions for impurities as
they transverses through the condensate, since the C =nk−q
1 dnk−qnk = nk dt × t, where t = l/v

is the time for completely traversing the condensate.
Generally, when N particles impinge upon a scattering media, the number of particles
that are scattered dN = −rN dt, where r = nσv is the scattering rate. Thus, after
traversing a distance l in time t, the particle number is reduced by e−nσl , and the numberof collided particles is given by 1 − e−nσl .
In our experiments, the situation is similar to the “half-collision” process that is described in ref. [95], where the impurity atoms are created from the “parent” BEC. When impurity atoms travel radially (in the x̂-direction) out of the condensate, they experience a collisional density of dxn(x, y, z)σ, where n(x, y, z) = n0 1 − (x/xT F )2 − (y/yT F )2 − (z/zT F )2is the condensate density with xT F = M2µω2 (similarly for yT F and zT F ) being the Thomasx

Fermi radius. n0 is the peak condensate density, ωx is the trapping frequency in the x
direction, and µ is the chemical potential.
The fraction of atoms that collide is then given by

1−



dr nI (r) × exp dx n(x , y, z)σ
dr nI (r)(2.34)

where the impurity density nI (r) = α n(r) is a small fraction α of the condensate densityn(r). This impurity density proﬁle is created using light scattering where the pulse durationis shorter than the mean ﬁeld broadening for the condensate. See section 2.8.1 for moredetails. Here, I have assumed that the cross-section is constant, i.e., the impurity velocity
is large compared to the condensate speed of sound, and in addition, the atoms all exit
the condensate in the radial direction (x̂) only. Therefore the inﬂuence of the mean-ﬁeld
repulsion and gravity (in the ẑ-direction) is ignored.
For the large velocity scattering, the out-coupled atoms travel in the radial direction(x), and the peak collisional density experienced by an atom at the edge of the condensate
as it traverses through the entire condensate in the Thomas-Fermi approximation is given
by β = 4/3 × n0 σxT F . Performing the integration in eq. 2.34 gives the fraction of collided
atoms as71−

5
[1 − HyperGeometric1F1(2/3, 5/3, −β)].
2β(2.35)

where the HyperGeometric1F1 is the Kummer conﬂuent hypergeometric function. Experimentally, β is solely determined by the chemical potential of the condensate and theµM
collisional cross-section β = 4/3 × ( 4π
2µ/(M ωx2 ). The chemical potential µ is2a ) × σ ×determined by a ﬁt to the ballistic expansion of the condensate [96]. The collisional density
7

The integration is easy to do in Mathematica.

48

experienced by an atom scattering oﬀ the condensate is given by− ln

5[1 − HyperGeometric1F1(2/3, 5/3, −β)] .
2β(2.36)

Inclusion of the suppression of the collision cross-section (eq. 2.33), mean-ﬁeld repulsion
and gravity requires a numerical integration of eq. 2.34 assuming a local density approximation [34, 97]. However, eq. 2.36 is valid in the limit of high impurity velocities.

2.7.7

Collisional superradiance: theory

In the above sections, I have assumed a perturbative approach, where the population of
the ﬁnal states is ignored, to the calculation of the collisional cross-section and hence thecollisional density. However, bosonic stimulation (i.e. stimulation by the occupation of
the ﬁnal states) can lead to an enhancement in the observed collisional density. Thisenhancement can occur both due to occupation of the condensate quasi-particle modes at
ﬁnite temperature Nq (T ), and due to the occupation of impurity particle modes (nq > 1).
In all of the experiments studying the condensate collisional density, the temperature T
was close to the chemical potential µ. Thus, only the phonon quasi-particle modes were
occupied at these temperatures and for the large-angle collisions the ﬁnal states were quasifree-particle states. Therefore, ﬁnite temperature eﬀects did not play a role for 2k collisions.
The only possible stimulation is from large occupation of the impurity modes. However,at small impurity momentum, stimulation due to ﬁnite temperature eﬀects may become
important and is discussed in sec. 2.10.
The number of possible modes for impurity scattering is calculated by the number ofallowed states within an energy interval ∆E ≈ h × v/rT F using a modiﬁed eq. 2.28 as
Nmode =
≈

3/2 

Vk
2M
π
3
(2π)
2
Vk k 2,4π rT FEf /2 ∆E
(2.37)

where Vk = Nk /nk is the volume in which impurity atoms are coupled out, Ef = 2 ×(k/2)2 /2M , and rT F is the Thomas-Fermi radius along the condensate’s radial direction.
Let Cr = n0 σrT F be deﬁned as the collisional density experienced by an impurity atom as it
traverses along the radial direction of a condensate. This is also the probability for an atom
to be scattered into a collisional mode. Thus, when the number of collided atoms Nk × Cr islarger than the number of modes, bosonic stimulation can begin to enhance the scattering.
This condition can be expressed in terms of the outcoupled fraction α = Nk /N0 as
α>

ka
Cr

49

2

.

(2.38)

For sodium atoms with v= 6 cm/s, ka=0.06; thus, a unity collisional density for impurities
results in all of the modes being occupied for only 0.4% of atoms outcoupled! For scatteringof indistinguishable atoms, the condition is the same, but the cross-section in the collisional
density is twice as large as that for impurity scattering. The condition shown above can also
be derived using a more involved theory that explicitly includes bosonic stimulation [57, 98].
Experimentally, we measured the time-integrated collisions after all of the outcoupledatoms had fully traversed the condensate. The collisional density is obtained from counting
the number of atoms that collide and the number passes through without colliding (see sec.
2.8.2). The bosonic enhancement becomes obvious when the measured collisional density
increases with number of outcoupled atoms. In the perturbative limit, this collisional rateis independent of the number of outcoupled atoms, and hence, the number of collisions is
proportional to Nk . With bosonic stimulation the number of collisions is proportional to(Nk−q + 1)Nk ∼ Nk2 . Thus, the measured collisional density per particle increases with
Nk . The enhancement increases as the number of outcoupled atoms scattered into theﬁnite modes is larger than the number of modes, similar to superradiance of light in acondensate [12].

2.8

S-wave scattering at large momentum

Experimentally, we used light scattering to outcouple a small fraction of atoms from thecondensate. These atoms were produced using counter-propagating light beams and hence
collided with the condensate with a relative velocity of 6 cm/s. This was large comparedto the speed of sound in the condensate. In time-of-ﬂight imaging, the collisions resulted ins-wave halos as shown in ﬁg. 2-4. By counting the number of the atoms that had collided
and the number outcoupled from the condensate, we could measure the fraction of collided
atoms, and thus determine the collisional density of condensate. The collisional density
gives a measure of the cross-section for collisions.

2.8.1

Raman and Bragg light scattering

Light scattering was used to produce both distinguishable and indistinguishable atoms. To
create indistinguishable atoms, i.e., atoms in the same hyperﬁne state as the condensate(|F = 1, mF = −1), an moving optical intensity grating is imprinted on the condensate
using two counter-propagating light beams that are detuned 1.6 GHz below the |F = 1 →|F  = 0, 1, 2 optical transitions. A small number of atoms is then diﬀracted with a velocityof 6 cm/s. This is referred to as Bragg scattering. The diﬀracted atoms are still in thesame magnetic hyperﬁne state as the condensate, since the optical intensity grating alone
does not couple to the atomic spins. Whereas, for Raman scattering, a polarization grating
is imprinted on the condensate, which couples to the electron’s spin. This transfers thediﬀracted atoms with velocity 6 cm/s to the mF = 0 hyperﬁne state. Details on the50

Bragg/Raman scattering can be found in refs. [26, 99]. In most of the literature, bothof these scattering mechanisms are considered as “Raman” scattering. We use “Bragg”
scattering to refer to processes which do not change the hyperﬁne state, and “Raman” forthose that do.
In the particle picture, light scattering can be viewed as a process where an atom absorbs
a photon from one beam and is then stimulated to scatter it into the other beam. In thispicture, Bragg scattering requires the same transition for both atom-light interactions,
i.e., a σ +(−) transition for absorption and σ +(−) transition for the stimulated emissionor π 0 transitions for both absorption and emission. Therefore, the hyperﬁne state of thescattered atoms remain the same. For Raman scattering, |mF = −1 → |mF = 0, therequired transitions are σ + followed by π 0 or vice-versa, with the diﬀracted atoms changing
their magnetic quantum number.
Most of the experimental details for the collision work can be found in ref. [1], whichis reproduced in appendix D. Few more details regarding the production of the scatteredatoms are given below.
For producing indistinguishable atoms at 6 cm/s, the counter-propagating Bragg lightbeams had the same polarizations, typically linearly polarized in the plane deﬁned by themagnetic ﬁeld (also the condensate axis) and the wavevector of the light beam. This polarization suppressed superradiance [12]. The beams were passed through two acousto-optic
modulators operating with a frequency diﬀerence ω = q 2 /2M = 100 kHz for q/M = 6
cm/s. For the Raman transitions, one of the Raman beams was linearly polarized along
the direction of the magnetic ﬁeld (inducing π 0 transitions), similar to the Bragg beams,
and the other beam was polarized perpendicular to the magnetic ﬁeld (which drove σ + andσ − ) transitions). The frequency diﬀerence between the two beams was ω = q 2 /2M + ωZm ,where ωZm was the Zeeman splitting between the |mF = −1 and |mF = 0 states in theoﬀset ﬁeld of the magnetic trap. The number of outcoupled Raman atoms was proportional to the product of intensities of the two beams, Nimp ∝ I I⊥ . In order to suppress
superradiance [12], the intensity of laser beam whose polarization was perpendicular to thecondensate axis, I⊥ , was lower than I . The beam I had the lower frequency compared toI⊥ in order to ensure that the Rayleigh scattered atoms (from the higher intensity I beam)
did not overlap with the collisions resulting from the outcoupled atoms during the ballistic
expansion. See ﬁgure 2-8.

2.8.2

Comparing distinguishable and indistinguishable collisions

For both Bragg and Raman scattering, the light pulses were on for only 10 µs. Thus, thepulse-width broadening (∼ 16 kHz) was larger than the mean-ﬁeld broadening(∼ 2 kHz).
This resulted in the density distribution of outcoupled atoms being a copy of the original
condensate, satisfying the condition nI (r) = α n(r) (see sec. 2.7.6). After the productionof the scattering atoms, we held the condensate in the magnetic trap for 4-5 ms in order to51

a)Rayleigh Scatteringc)b)

1.2 mm

I⊥
x
P2hk

I||

mF = 0mF = -1

Stern-Gerlach
Figure 2-8: Indistinguishable and distinguishable atom scattering. Shown are absorption
images resonantly imaged on the cycling transition after ballistic expansion. a) Scatteringof indistinguishable (Bragg) atoms results in the typical s-wave halo. The outcoupling
fraction is about 30%. b) A similar image with distinguishable (Raman), mF = 0, atoms
results in a lower number of collisions although the outcoupling fraction is slightly larger(37%). The time of ﬂight for both images is 30 ms. The total number number of atoms, N tot ,is calculated by counting the atoms in the large dashed box and the number of unscatteredatoms, N unscatt , is counted in the small box. The momentum transferred, P2k , is given by
M/ttof multiplied by the distance between the condensate and unscattered atoms. c) Anabsorption image after 25 ms of ballistic expansion along with an applied magnetic ﬁeld
gradient which separates the mF = 0 atoms from the mF = −1 atoms. The strong beamI induced Rayleigh scattering mainly in the mF = −1 condensate atoms. The beam I⊥
has a larger frequency compared to I , which results in outcoupling of atoms away from theRayleigh scattering.

ensure that all of the atoms had exited the condensate, before suddenly switching oﬀ thetrap and imaging the atoms on the cycling transition [100].
To determine the collisional density that the distinguishable and indistinguishable atoms
experienced as they traversed through the condensate, we took data with variable outcoupling fractions using both Raman and Bragg beams. Typical images comparing the two areshown in ﬁgure 2-8. The images are of comparable outcoupled fractions. It is immediately
clear that the indistinguishable, mF = −1, atoms collide more than the distinguishable,
mF = 0, atoms. In the images (ﬁg. 2-8), the object plane of the imaging axis was not
perpendicular to the momentum transfer q, but at an angle of about 45◦ , which resulted
in the unscattered outcoupled atoms and the condensate appearing inside the observed
integrated collisional halo8 .
The fraction of collided atoms was measured using a momentum analysis of time-of-ﬂight
absorption images similar to ﬁg. a,b. These images provide the momentum distribution of
the atoms, and the total transferred momentum is obtained from the time-of-ﬂight images
8

For example, if the imaging axis was along q, then we would not have observed the unscattered atoms
at all, but only would have seen the condensate at the center of a collisional halo.

52

by multiplying the number of collided atoms by the distance from the condensate.
P tot =

M 
Ni xi
ttof

(2.39)i=

N outcop funscatt +N outcopfhalo
2

× P2k ,(2.40)

where the ﬁrst equality (eq. 2.39) is calculated from the images, Ni is number of atoms at
position xi (which is along the momentum transferred q) integrated along the y-direction,and the sum is over the total number of pixels in the x-direction in a large box enclosing
the collisional halo (see ﬁg. 2-8b). P2k is the momentum of the outcoupled atoms. The
momentum P = 0 is deﬁned to be at the center of the condensate (marked by × in ﬁg. 2-8b).
funscatt is deﬁned as fraction of unscattered (non-collided) outcoupled atoms and fhalo is thefraction of atoms in the collisional halo. The factor of 2 in eq. 2.40 is because the collision
between an outcoupled atom and a condensate results in two atoms with momenta lower
than 2k, both of which are in the halo9 . The momentum of unscattered atoms measured, where Niunscatt and xunscatt
are deﬁned similarly to Ni
as P unscatt = i Niunscatt xunscattiiand xi , but only in a small box surrounding the unscattered atoms (see ﬁg. 2-8b). The
fraction of outcoupled atoms is given by f outcoup = P tot /P2k and the measured collisional
density is then given by< C >= − ln

P unscatt
P tot.

(2.41)

A key advantage of using this technique is that secondary collisions do not aﬀect measurement since all collisional products are present in the time-of-ﬂight image. In addition, since
it is the ratio of two momenta that is related to the collisional density, a lot of systematics
in absorption imaging is eliminated, including the actual value of P2k . In addition, since
the condensate is at P = 0, the eﬀect of the “blacking out” of the condensate due to highoptical density is lowered when measuring P tot . The imaging axis being at 45◦ to q is not
relevant for measuring < C >.
The collided fraction can also be determined by counting the number of collided atoms
and the un-collided atoms. The number counting technique is only better than the momentum analysis when counting atoms that are separated using Stern-Gerlach magnetic ﬁeld,
because number counting then has no counting errors resulting from Rayleigh scatteringand the presence of a thermal cloud surrounding the condensate. However, in order tominimize systematic errors for comparing collisions between distinguishable and indistinguishable atoms and the condensate, a Stern-Gerlach separation for Raman scattered atoms
was not used. The number counting technique was used for calculating collisional density
for impurity atoms at low velocities (see sec. 2.9).
The measured collisional density using the momentum analysis is shown in ﬁgure 2-9 as
9This is only true when Stern-Gerlach separation is not used, because then both collided atoms are in
the halo.

53Collisional density (<C>)

Bragg (Indist.)
Raman (Dist.)
Raman (calculated)

1.0

0.5

0.0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Fraction outcoupled
Figure 2-9: The measured collisional density vs. fraction of outcoupled atoms for large
velocities (2k). The circles represent the collisional density of the condensate for indistinguishable (Bragg) atoms, calculated using eq. 2.41 and solid squares are for distinguishable(Raman) atoms. The open squares is the theoretical collisional density calculated using themeasured chemical potential of the condensate and eq. 2.36 with σ = 4πa2 . The dashedline is a straight-line ﬁt to the circles and solid line for the solid squares for values with lessthan 30% outcoupled fraction. See text for more information.

a function of the outcoupled fraction. The solid circles and squares are the measured collisional density of the condensate using eq. 2.41 for scattering from the with indistinguishable
and distinguishable atoms, respectively. The dashed and solid lines are straight-line ﬁts tothe circles and squares, respectively. Only values with less than 30% outcoupling are included in the ﬁts. The non-zero slopes imply that bosonic stimulation is responsible forthe increase in the measured collisional density. The collisional density in the perturbative
limit, i.e., at zero outcoupled fraction, can be estimated by the intercepts of the ﬁtted lines.
For Bragg scattering, the value was 0.56 ± 0.02 and for Raman scattering, 0.29 ± 0.08. For
these measured collisional densities, the expected fractions above which bosonic stimulation is important is 1% and 4% for Bragg and Raman scattering, respectively. The ratioof collisional densities for Bragg and Raman scattering was 1.93 ± 0.54, which is consistent
with the expected value of 2. However, the large error bar is indicative of the fact thatin the perturbative regime where the factor of 2 is expected, precise measurements where
hindered by the diﬃculty of counting very small numbers of atoms.
In the initial stages of the experiments, we were unaware of the fact that we weresensitive to collisional superradiance. In fact, all of the data for scattering at both large
momentum and small momentum was taken assuming that we were in the perturbative
limit. However, we were not! It was only during Dan Stamper-Kurn’s visit back to MIT,in early January 2000, that we realized that the collision rate was increasing with increased
outcoupling. We then retook the data for low velocites at small outcoupling (discussed in54

<C>meas / <C>theory

4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Fraction outcoupled
Figure 2-10: Ratio of measured collisional density to the expected perturbative collisional
density as a function of outcoupled fraction. In the perturbative limit (small outcoupling
fraction), the measured values correspond to the expected theoretical values.

sec. 2.9) such that we were less sensitive to bosonic stimulation. However, we did not retakethe data for comparing the collisional densities for Bragg and Raman scattering. Hence,the dearth of data at low output coupling.
The value of the ratio stated here (1.93 ± 0.54) is diﬀerent from the value quoted in the
published work, 2.1 ± 0.3 [1]. In the published work, we had ignored the systematic error
resulting from bosonic stimulation. But, both values agree within error bars.
The open squares in ﬁg. 2-9 represent the theoretical collisional densities calculated usingeq. 2.36 and the chemical potential of the condensate in images similar to ﬁg. 2-8b. The
chemical potential was calculated using its relation to the radial width of the condensate intime-of-ﬂight absorption images [96] as
ωr2
1
r2 ,
µ= M
2 1 + ωr2 t2 tof(2.42)

where t is the time-of-ﬂight, ωr is the radial trapping frequency, rtof is the radial halfwidth of the condensate in the absorption image obtained using a one-dimensional ﬁt to thecentral region of the condensate in the radial direction. Regions of the condensate proﬁlethat were ‘blacked out’ due to high optical density and near the collisional halo and Rayleighscattering were ignored in the ﬁt.
The ratio of the measured collisional density using the momentum analysis and the theoretical collisional density in the perturbative limit is shown in ﬁg. 2-10 using the same dataas those of ﬁg. 2-9. As expected, the ratio approached 1 at low outcoupling. The straightline ﬁt extrapolated to zero outcoupling gives a ratio of 1.1 ± 0.2, once again indicating
the presence of bosonic stimulation at large outcoupling values. This can be considered asmeasanother measurement of the scattering length, where aatheory = 1.05 ± 0.10. As mentioned
earlier, a more accurate measurement can be obtained by taking more data at low coupling,55

Unscatteredimpurities

(b)

(c)

Nback

mF= 0

Nsurv
Ncoll

Collidedatoms

Stern-Gerlach Recoil(a)mF= -1Figure 2-11: Superﬂuid suppression of collisions. The impurity mF = 0 atoms (top) traveled
at 7 mm/s along the condensate axis (upward in image) and were separated from thecondensate (bottom) by a magnetic ﬁeld gradient applied during ballistic expansion (see(c)). (a) Absorption image after 50 ms of time of ﬂight shows the collisional products as
indicated by the arrow. For this image, vg /c = 2.7, and the collided fraction is about 20%
is determined by counting atoms in the boxes shown in the ﬁgure (see text). (b) Similar
image as (a) with vg /c = 1.6, where the collisions are suppressed. The outcoupled atoms(impurities) were distorted by mean-ﬁeld repulsion. The images are 2.0×4.0 mm.

thereby reducing the eﬀect of bosonic stimulation.

2.9

Impurity collisions at small velocities

The superﬂuid aspects of a condensate can only be explored when the impurity velocity
is close to the speed of sound. For that, impurities were produced with an initial velocityof 7 mm/s along the condensate axis using Raman light scattering at small angle (seesec. 2.6.5 and 2.8.1). The peak speed of sound of the condensate was varied between 1.1
and 0.55 cm/s by adiabatically decompressing the gradient ﬁeld of the clover-leaf magnetic
trap [100], and thus η was varied over a range from 1 to 5. The initial impurity velocity(along the condensate axis) quickly gets modiﬁed by two main eﬀects: gravity (in the
downward direction) and mean-ﬁeld repulsion (in the radial direction of the condensate).
In the experimental condition, the predominant velocity was actually the mean velocity due√
to gravitational acceleration when the impurity atoms left the condensate, vg = 2gzT F ,and it ranged between 17 mm/s for the tightly conﬁned condensates (large c) and 26 mm/s
for the loosely conﬁned condensates (small c).
Unlike collisions observed in the large velocity limit, the collisions at low velocities simply
appear below the outcoupled Raman atoms in ballistic images, since the collided atoms havelower axial velocities, ﬁg. 2-11a. The superﬂuid suppression of impurity collisions is evident
in ﬁg. 2-11b, where the collisions have dramatically decreased when the velocity is closer tothe speed of sound.

56

Collided Fraction

0.20

0.10

0.00
0

1
2
3
4 x106
Initial number of outcoupled atoms

Figure 2-12: Collective ampliﬁed elastic scattering in a Bose-Einstein condensate. Shown isthe fraction of collided atoms vs. the number of initially outcoupled atoms. For this data,
vg /c=4.9 and the chemical potential was 1.8 kHz.

The number of collided atoms is determined by counting the number of collided atoms
in a surrounding box in time-of-ﬂight absorption images (Ncoll in ﬁg. 2-11a). The collided
atoms in the box Ncoll also overlapped with the small Raman outcoupled mF = 0 thermal
cloud. This thermal background was subtracted by counting the number of atoms in a box
Nback that is above the unscattered Raman atoms. The collisions are expected only to be
below the unscattered (survived) Raman atoms (measured in the box Nsurv ), whereas thethermal cloud should be distributed equally above and below the surviving atoms. Thus, themeasured number of collided atoms was given by Ncoll − Nback . However, the total numberof collided atoms was about twice the measured number, since we expect only half of thecollisional products to be in the box Ncoll : the rest was overlapped with the unscatteredatoms in the box Nsurv because the distribution of the unscattered atoms has an axial widthroughly equal to the axial displacement of the Raman scattered atoms in the time-of-ﬂight
images. The collided fraction fcoll is given byfcoll =

2 × (Ncoll − Nback )(Ncoll − Nback ) + Nsurv(2.43)The initial number of outcoupled atoms is (Ncoll − Nback ) + Nsurv .

2.9.1

Collective Ampliﬁed Elastic Scattering

A plot of the collided fraction as a function of number of outcoupled atoms is shown in ﬁgure
2-12. Similar to the large velocity collisions (ﬁg. 2-9), the increase in the collided fraction isdue to bosonic stimulation or collectively ampliﬁed elastic scattering. One might speculatethat instead of bosonic stimulation, outcoupling Raman atoms from the condensate itself
might result in an observed increase in collided fraction. As the number of outcoupledatoms increased, the collisional density of the condensate might decrease slightly due to the57reduction in the condensate density, or increase slightly due to a smaller critical velocity
for dissipation. However, these eﬀects are small (10-20%) compared to observed two-foldincrease in collided fraction.
A calculation of the threshold for the stimulation is complicated by the fact that the
number of available collisional modes is hard to estimate. It is complicated by two main
factors: an increasing velocity, hence increasing k in eq. 2.37, as the impurities traverse thecondensate, and the additional complication of the phase-space restriction in the angular
distribution. Also, the threshold for bosonic stimulation is even harder to estimate since
the collisional density (C) is changing as the impurities traverse through the condensate,
due to the varying F (η).
It is important to note here that at very low outcoupling fractions, the measured collisional densities become sensitive to signal-to-noise in the absorption images. Both the number of collided atoms and the unscattered atoms are small, and hence dividing two small
numbers can give rise to increased ﬂuctuations in the measured collisional densities. This is
the main reason for the observed increase of ﬂuctuations for small outcoupling fractions inﬁg. 2-12. Also, the collisional enhancement is not directional such as in superradiance [12],but similar to omni-directional superﬂuoresence [101].

2.9.2

Observation of Superﬂuidity

The probability of collisions is measured by the collided fraction in the limit of low bosonicenhancement. The collided fraction (at low values) at various values of η is a measure of thecollisional density: fcoll (η) = 1 − exp(−C(η)) ≈ Cmeas (η). In the experiment, η changes as
the impurity particle traverses through the condensate due to the gravitational accelerationand due to the inhomogeneous density distribution. So, the data is compared to η ≡ vg /c,√where vg = 2gzT F and c is the peak speed of sound. To compare with theory, Cmeas (η) is
divided by collisional density at large velocities, C∞ ≈ (5/12)nσ0 zT F ; the exact value of C∞
is given by eq. 2.36. The measured relative collisional density as a function of η is shownin ﬁgure 2-13. The theoretical expected relative collisional density is given by
dr nI (r) × dz  n(r ) σ0 F (η)
C(η)


≈
,
C∞
dr nI (r) × dz  n(r ) σ0

(2.44)

where F (η) is given by eq. 2.33. The solid circles in ﬁg. 2-13 are determined by averaging
the collided fractions obtained by many iterations of the experiment where the outcouplednumber of atoms was less than 106 . The error bars are a measure of the statistical uncertainty10 . The number of outcoupled atoms was kept below 106 to minimize the eﬀects ofbosonic stimulation. However, the measured collisional density is clearly higher than the
expected value. This could be due to the fact that bosonic enhancement is aﬀecting the10

The error bar is the standard deviation divided bycondensate number was below 106 .

58√

N , where N is number of iterations where theRelative collisional density

1.0

0.5

0.0
0

1

2
3
η = vg / c

45

Figure 2-13: Onset of superﬂuid suppression of collisions. The solid circle and open squares
are two measures of the observed collisional density normalized to the predicted collisional
density in the limit of high velocities C∞ as the density of the condensate was increased(plotted from right to left). The solid circles were obtained by averaging the measured
collisional density where the outcoupled fraction was less than 5% (< 106 impurity atoms),
and the squares were obtained by extrapolating to zero outcoupling fraction (see text). The
x-axis is η = vg /c which is a measure of the impurity velocity over the speed of sound.
The solid line is the theoretically expected collisional density calculated by a numericalintegration of Eq. 2.44.

measured collisional density even at outcoupling fractions of less than 5-10%. This is notunreasonable since at high velocities (6 cm/s) with η ∼ 10, bosonic stimulation alreadystarts at 4% outcoupling.
Another method of extracting the perturbative collisional density is to extrapolate to thezero outcoupling fraction by ﬁtting the collided fraction (such as in ﬁg. 2-12) to a straightline; these extrapolated values are shown as squares in ﬁg. 2-13. Since the data was taken
at low outcoupling fractions only, the extrapolation is not always accurate, especially at
low η. Such unreliable data is excluded in ﬁg. 2-13. Nevertheless, the extrapolated values
are closer to the theoretically expected perturbative values. Thus, it is clear that bosonicstimulation might be present even at reasonably low outcoupling fractions and hence it isdiﬃcult to get an accurate measurement of the perturbative collisional density. In addition,
it is possible that there is some other systematic error in the measurement of the absolutedensity, which can result in higher measured values of the collisional density [1].
Another systematic that one might consider is the eﬀect of the mean-ﬁeld and the initial
axial velocity of the atoms on the collisional density. All of the analysis above was done assuming that gravity is key force that accelerates the atoms out of the condensate. However,mean-ﬁeld repulsion expels the atoms out radially, which might reduce or increase the path
length of the outcoupled atom, and the initial axial velocity might increase the collisional
density by having the atom travel longer through the condensate. A numerical simulationof the collisional density experienced by atoms under these diﬀerent forces indicated that59

Relative
collisional density

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0

1

2
3
η = vg / c

45

Figure 2-14: A numerical simulation testing the eﬀect of various factors on the collisional
density. The solid line is the relative collisional density as a function of η = vg /c similar to
ﬁg. 2-13. The solid circle is the relative collisional density including only the gravitational
force. As expected these circles fall on the solid curve. The open square is the calculated
collisional density where the atoms experience all three eﬀects: gravity, mean-ﬁeld repulsion
and the initial axial velocity. The open circle includes only the initial axial velocity and theopen triangles only the mean-ﬁeld repulsion.

gravity is indeed a major eﬀect and inclusion of the mean-ﬁeld repulsion and the initial
axial velocity only changed the results due to gravity alone at most by 10% (see ﬁg. 2-14).
However, the dramatic decrease in collisional density near η ∼ 1 is the signature for microscopic superﬂuidity, and that result is valid regardless of the systematic eﬀects of bosonicstimulation and absolute density measurements. Note that with bosonic stimulation, thedramatic decrease in the collisional cross-section is actually enhanced. One might hope thatby ﬁtting these data points to a theoretical curve, we can extract a measurement of the
Landau critical velocity and therefore a measurement of the scattering length. However,the systematic eﬀects mentioned above and the ﬁnite temperature eﬀects that is discussed
in the next section preclude such a possibility.

2.10

Finite temperature eﬀects

As mentioned earlier in sec. 2.7.7, in addition to bosonic stimulation by occupation of the
ﬁnal states, the thermal occupation of phonons can also stimulate scattering. In this section,
I will discuss the perturbative eﬀects of these thermal phonons on the collisional density.
At ﬁnite temperatures (kT ∼ µ), the condensate is in thermal contact with phonon-like
quasiparticles with energy ωqB and momentum q that have an occupation probability ofNq  =1ω B
exp( kBqT ) − 1.

(2.45)

These thermally excited quasi-particles can induce both the Stokes and the anti-Stokes
60

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4q

x

-1
-2

qy

Figure 2-15: Momentum transfer for the cooling anti-Stokes process. The polar diagramshows the momentum transfer (in units of M c) vs. scattering angle θ for diﬀerent valuesof η = v/c=(0.5, 0.8, 1.0, 3.0), from bottom to top. As the impurity velocity decreases
below the speed of sound, the scattering occurs with a minimum q, and extends to inﬁnity,
whereas for above the speed of sound, all values of q are allowed.

processes (eqs. 2.14, 2.16 with nk , nk−q  N±q ). The Stokes process adds energy to thecondensate, whereas the anti-Stokes process cools the condensate by removing a quasiparticle and transferring the quasiparticle energy to the impurity. The total rate per particle
including the thermal excitations isT =Wswave==W+  + W− 
2π0
S(q)[1 + Nq ]δ(ωk−q
N0 |C|2− ωk0 + ωqB )
2

q
2π
V
N0 |C|2
2

(2π)3




0
− ωk0 − ωqB )+S(q) N−q δ(ωk−q(2.46)dΩ dq q 2 S(q)
(1 + Nq )δ(fqB+ (cos θ)) + N−q δ(fqB− (cos θ))(2.47)

where fqB+ (cos θ) = q 2 /2M − vq cos θ + ωqB (deﬁned earlier in sec. 2.7.5 as fqB ) and
fqB− (cos θ) = q 2 /2M −vq cos θ −ωqB . The properties of fqB+ (cos θ) are that the momentum
transferred q can range from 0 to Q = M v(1 − 1/η 2 ) where the angle θ ∈ [0, arccos(1/η)]with η > 1. However, the properties of fqB− (cos θ) are that for η > 1, all values of q are
allowed and θ ∈ [π/2, − arccos(1/η)]. For η < 1, only momentum transfer above a minimum
value Qmin = M v(1/η 2 − 1) is allowed, implying θ ∈ [π/2, π]. Fig. 2-15 shows the phasespace allowed for the anti-Stokes process, similar to ﬁg. 2-6. For η < 1, one can see theminimum q required by the distance that line is shifted from the origin. Unlike ﬁg. 2-6, thisﬁgure shows a negative q, indicating that the momentum is transferred to the impurity.
So, if the velocity of the impurity is small or if η is close to 1, the anti-Stokes process
dominates and all momentum transfers are essentially allowed. This can eﬀectively cool
the condensate by transferring the quasiparticles with low values of momentum −|q| ∼ 0
into the condensate. These low momentum quasi-particles have the largest population (seeeq. 2.45). In addition, as the temperature increases, quasi-particle populations with higher

61[ / 4πa2 ]Cross-section

1.0

0.5

0.0
1

0

2

3 4
η=v/c

5

6

7

Figure 2-16: Stokes and anti-Stokes contribution to the total cross-section at ﬁnite temperature. Shown is the total cross-section as a function of η for kB T = µ (solid line). The
dashed line and dashed-dot line are the anti-Stokes and Stokes contributions, respectively.
These plots of compared with the zero temperature result (dotted line).

q increases, and this population gets transferred into the condensate at low values of η.
Interestingly, unlike the Stokes process, where the maximum q was equal to the impurity
momentum, the anti-Stokes can transfer limitless energy into the impurity from the thermal
quasi-particles, although the probability of ﬁnding such a large energy thermal quasi-particle
is very small. Note that after the cooling collision, a non-equilibrium distribution is created,which must then be equilibrated to a lower temperature. This requires further collisions
between the condensate and the thermal cloud.
Simplifying the Stokes rate in eqn. 2.47 gives8
W+ (η > 1, β) = (nσ0 v) 2η

 1 (η−1/η)
2

0

y2

dy 
1 + y2exp(βy 1 + y 2 ),exp(βy 1 + y 2 ) − 1(2.48)

q
2µwhere y = 2M
c and β = kB T . The anti-Stokes rate for η > 1 is

8
W− (η, β) = (nσ0 v) 2
η

 ∞
γ

y2
1

,
dy 
2
1 + y exp(βy 1 + y 2 ) − 1(2.49)

where γ = 0 for η > 1, and γ = 12 (1/η − η) for η < 1. Similar results have been derived laterin ref. [102]. As expected, for T = 0 (β → ∞), W+ → Wswave given by eqns. 2.32 and 2.33,
and W− → 0. A plot of W+ , W− and the total rate at kB T = µ is given in ﬁg. 2-16. The plotshows the enhanced probability for cooling collisions for η < 1. In addition, the total rate
for various temperatures are plotted in ﬁg. 2-17. As noted earlier, at higher temperatures,the cooling collisions dominate and impurities are transferred to higher momentum withgreater probability at low η than at higher values of η. However, these collisions would62

[ / 4πa2 ]Cross-section

2

1

0
0

1

2

3 4 5
η=v/c

6

7

Figure 2-17: Eﬀect of ﬁnite temperature on the cross-section. Shown is the total crosssection as a function of η for various temperatures kB T = {0, µ/2, µ, 2µ}, from the bottom
to the top in the graph.

transfer momentum perpendicular to the initial impurity momemtum (see ﬁg. 2-15).
Given the apparent large scattering that seems to be present at even η < 1, one mightask how close to T = 0 do we need to be, in order to observe the superﬂuid like behavior.
In our experiments, by ﬁtting the condensate proﬁle one can extract the temperature of thecondensate. Since the various values of η were attained by decompressing the magnetic trap,
the temperature of the cloud was not constant as η was varied, but it decreased as the trap
was decompressed. So, for η = vg /c ∼ 1, the temperature is around 350 nK and dropped toaround 100 nK for the largest measured η ∼ 5. Therefore, the more relevant quantity is theratio of the temperature to the chemical potential, which is shown in ﬁg. 2-18; on average
kB T ∼ µ to within 40%. Therefore, one might naively expect that thermally populatedquasi-particles might enhance both the Stokes and anti-Stokes scattering11 . However, due
to the gravitational acceleration, we were not able to probe well below the Landau criticalvelocity where only the thermally assisted collisions are possible. Most importantly, using
the number counting technique that was used to determine the collided fraction (sec. 2.9),
we explictly subtracted the small signal of the energy gain collisions from the energy loss
collisions, thus cancelling most of the ﬁnite-temperature eﬀects12 . Thus, our measured
collision rate is actually measuring W+ − W− , which is close to the zero temperature result,as shown in ﬁg. 2-19. The triangles in the ﬁgure are numerically calculated net cross-section(σ+ − σ− ) based on the measured temperatures shown in ﬁg. 2-18.
11This possible eﬀect was pointed out to us by Sandro Stringari in late 2000. His inquiries inspired me tocalculate the eﬀect of ﬁnite temperature on the collision rate that has been described in this section, and I
re-analyzed the data to extract the temperatures shown in ﬁg. 2-18.
12Also, we would not have counted the anti-Stokes collisions with large q since they would be present
outside the number counting boxes (see ﬁg. 2-11).

63

kBT / µ

2.0

1.0

0.0
0

1

2
3
η = vg / c

4

5

2

Cross section [in units of 4πa ]Figure 2-18: The condensate temperature. Shown are the ratio of measured temperatures
extracted from a bimodal ﬁt to the condensate to the chemical potential of the condensate
as a function of η = vg /c.

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

0

1

2
3
η = vg / c

45

Figure 2-19: Temperature dependent cross-section vs. η. Shown is the cross-section atzero temperature (solid line) and at a ﬁnite temperature kT = µ, which is typical forour experimental conditions (dotted line). The ﬁnite temperature cross-section includes
collisions involving thermally occupied quasi-particles where the impurities lose or gain
energy. In the experiment, we measured the number of impurities which lost its energy
minus the number which gained energy. Thus, the relevant theory is the net cross-section
deﬁned as σloss − σgain (dashed line). The experimental measured cross-sections (solid
circles) should be compared to this dashed curve. The triangles are numerically calculated
net cross-section (σloss − σgain )using measured temperatures shown in ﬁg. 2-18. Note thatwhen the gain process is dominant over the loss process (near η ∼ 1), the net cross-section
can be negative.

64

It is important to note again that I have only calculated and described the ﬁnite temperature eﬀects at a perturbative level. The thermally occupied modes not only enhance
the scattering as described here, but also lead to bosonic stimulation which further scattersatoms into these modes.

2.11

Discussion: 4 wave mixing/pair correlations/superﬂuidity

The discussion, thus far, has been on scattering of atoms oﬀ a condensate. We have seenthat this scattering can be enhanced by bosonic stimulation and suppressed by the collective nature of the Bose condensate: S(q) and superﬂuidity (for distinguishable atoms). It
is important to note that the s-wave scattering process that we have studied is spontaneous
4-wave mixing13 , in analogy with the stimulated 4-wave mixing ﬁrst demonstrated by the
NIST group [90]. The Hamiltonian eq. 2.20 is the same for both cases. The NIST group
showed that 3 macroscopically occupied states will stimulate the formation of a fourth wave
due to bosonically stimulated collisions. The initial theory for the NIST experiments did nottake the spontaneous scattering into account [103]. However, spontaneous scattering was animportant process in the NIST experiment as shown by the theoretical treatments including
the elastic scattering [94, 95], which are in better agreement with the experiments. Nevertheless, even these theories do not include the possibility of Bose-enhanced spontaneous
scattering.
The NIST experiment exempliﬁes the omniprescence of collisions in most BEC experiments. Similar to the parasitic eﬀect of superradiance in BEC experiments involving strong
laser light, any experiment that involves large number of atoms in diﬀerent momentum
states will result in s-wave collisions, especially for condensates with high densities. For
these experiments, the collisions are more parasitic rather than being interesting [104]. One
such example is shown in ﬁgs. 2-20.
The observation of enhanced scattering (ﬁg. 2-12) was the ﬁrst observation of collisional
gain which can be used to generate macroscopic pair-correlated beams of atoms that are
number squeezed [105, 106]. Of course, in our case, we did not observe “beams” but theentire halo was enhanced. While I was engaged with the building of the science chamberapparatus, my colleague Johnny Vogels pushed this idea further and generated pair correlated beams using a very small number of seed atoms. Although this experiment is similar
to the NIST experiment, it used a smaller seed and observed a gain of 20! [57]. The NIST
group observed a gain of 1.5 [90], and our collision experiment at small angle observed again of 2 (ﬁg. 2-12) and a gain of about 4 for 2k collisions (ﬁg. 2-10).
In addition, the collisions will also play a role in the output coupling of atoms lasers [107–110] from large BEC reservoirs [4]. Collisions between the outcoupled atoms and the reservoir condensate can limit the coherence of atom laser output. Hence, condensate reservoirs
13

The spontaneously generated collisions were then stimulated.

65

Figure 2-20: Condensates undergoing collisions after Kapitza-Dirac diﬀraction in a 1D
optical lattice.

will need to be of low density to minimize such collisional losses.
The superﬂuid properties of BEC continue to hold great interest for researchers allover the world. Many techniques for producing vortices have been implemented [3, 78, 111].
Studies of vortex lattices have yielded rich results (e.g. [87, 112]). The critical velocity
for breakdown of superﬂuidity has been studied in optical lattices [113]. Our experimenthas been been the only microscopic test of superﬂuidity in a BEC thus far, and theoreticalstudies of impurities in a BEC continue to hold great interest [114–116]. Further experiments
involving collisions of the kind studied here could in principle measure the scattering lengthand thus provide another measurement of this important parameter.
Finally, all of these experiments were mainly in the microscopic regime. However, using
an optical trap [6], one can study collisions from the microscopic to the mesoscopic regime.
In an optical trap, both the mF = 0 and the mF = −1 atoms can be trapped. In fact, thetwo components are immiscible and therefore form ‘bubbles’ [9, 11]. Using RF techniques,
we can vary the amount of mF = 0 atoms, and hence, we can control the size of these
bubbles. By applying magnetic ﬁeld gradients, one can induce motion of the mF = 0
bubble relative to the condensate, which then collide. Collisions between the mF = 0
bubble and the condensate could reveal the transition of excitations from phonon regime tovortex generation. Another advantage of optical traps is that it can trap all spin states which
implies that there is no acceleration due to mean-ﬁeld repulsion between the mF = 0 and
mF = −1 states, but only a weak spin-dependent repulsion that makes them immiscible.

66

Chapter 3

Construction of the Science
Chamber apparatus
In this chapter I will describe the key features of the new apparatus (BEC-III) for transporting condensates using optical tweezers. The transport technique and the new chamber
was presented in the following publication:• T. L. Gustavson, A. P. Chikkatur, A. E. Leanhardt, A. Görlitz, S. Gupta, D. E.
Pritchard and W. Ketterle, “Transport of Bose-Einstein Condensates with OpticalTweezers” , Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 020401 (2002). Included in Appendix E.
The ﬁrst experimenters who produced BEC in 1995 [28, 30, 52] did not speciﬁcally design
their apparatuses for studying BEC physics because the experimental realization of BEC
was still speculative then, and it was considered a risky endeavour [22]. They were more
focused on realizing BEC rather than experimenting with it. Of course, after the spectaculardemonstration of BEC in 1995 and the exploration of BEC physics in the following years,
many groups started to build experimental apparatuses that were speciﬁcally geared to
produce a BEC and study its properties. A common feature amongst these new systems
was that, similar to the initial experiments, they experimented with condensates in the same
physical location as where they produced the condensates. In other words, the production
and the “science” was done in the same location. By 2001, a few groups had magneticallytransported ‘hot’ MOT-cooled atomic clouds into a separate region where they were thenevaporated to BEC [117–119]. The main impetus for this was to eliminate the double MOT
conﬁguration. While these groups had moved hot atoms, we had a more daring goal: we
wanted to move condensates over distances of up to half a meter using optical techniques.
We hoped to combine the well-oiled condensate making machinery we had developed witha moving optical tweezers that could transport condensates to separate vacuum chamber.
We hoped to then perform novel BEC experiments in this separate, ‘science’, chamber suchas loading BECs in miniaturized atom traps and waveguides, continuous atom lasers, BECs
67

in optical and microwave cavities, low-magnetic ﬁeld spinor physics, and precision atominterferometry.
In this and the next chapters I will discuss the construction of the new apparatus (BEC
III) [2] and describe some of the ﬁrst experiments. I am writing this chapter as a guide ofsorts to BEC-III for future graduate students in the Ketterle group, and for people in theﬁeld who might want to construct a similar apparatus in their own laboratories. While someof the technical details are speciﬁc, a lot of it might be useful for other experimentalists.
Appendix C provides information about the products and companies from which we boughtsome of the major equipment. Appendices A and B give technical drawings for the main
vacuum chamber and some of the oven parts. The early successes are discussed in thenext chapters. In chapter 4, I will discuss some aspects of the macroscopic and microscopic
wiretraps into which we loaded condensates that were transported using optical tweezers.
The production of the continuous source of BEC is discussed in chapter 5.

3.1

Overview and goals of BEC-III

As noted in the introduction, the ‘old-lab’ group that was working with the BEC-I apparatus decided in the Fall of 1999 to focus its eﬀorts on the construction of a new BEC-III
apparatus. The decision to build the chamber was a long time in the making. For a year
prior to 1999, there was a general consensus in the group to build a new chamber in which
we could transport condensates from one chamber to another, however, it was only after
Todd Gustavson joined our group as a post-doc in October 1999 that the project reallybegan to take shape. The main reason for the delay was that our group was really productive in 98/99 and we were discovering and studying various aspects of BEC using the
BEC-I apparatus; some of this work is described in sec. 2.6. We simply did not have the
manpower to start a new building project. So, Todd’s arrival ﬁnally gave us the impetus to
fully focus on the project. As mentioned in the introduction (sec. 1.4), I decided to be thelead graduate student in this endeavour, so it was Todd and I who led the overall eﬀort forthe project.
The construction of BEC-III was deemed as a team eﬀort right from the start. All of us
were to be involved in experimental eﬀorts in BEC-I while developing equipment for BECIII. After completing the experimental work on BEC collisions and some initial work on
developing the pancake shaped optical dipole trap [18, 19], I thoroughly focused my eﬀorts
on the new apparatus. The essential breakdown of tasks was as follows: Todd developed
the design for the new vacuum chamber incorporating input from the group. Deep Gupta
took charge of building an oven and a Zeeman slower: he provided the chamber with alarge ﬂux of cold sodium atoms. Deep and Aaron Leanhardt wound the slower solenoid
and tested the slower. Aaron also designed the clover-leaf magnetic coils and provided itwith cooling water and power supplies. All of the cooling and probing laser light was to68

be transported to the apparatus using optical ﬁbers. So, Axel Görlitz ﬁberized all of thecooling and probing light and delivered light to the chamber. Initial tests of transporting
condensates in BEC-I using optical tweezers was led by Axel, Todd and Robert Löw. Shin
Inouye, Aaron and I built some electronics for the apparatus. I was in charge of putting
the chamber together, getting ultra-high vacuum (UHV) with Todd, building the computer
control (‘the word generator’), and ﬁnally, along with Todd, managing the entire project sothat our dream of moving condensates came to fruition during late summer of 2001.
During the initial discussions on how to move condensates, we considered moving atoms
magnetically, similar to the Hänsch group [117], or by using 1D optical lattices, similar towork done in the Raizen and Salomon group [120, 121]. Given our key goal of transportingthe condensates into a separate vacuum-isolated science chamber, magnetic transport implied that we had to devise methods by which we could maintain the magnetic trap throughthe vacuum gate valve1 . Although technically possible, it was a much more complicatedtask than moving condensates optically. However, using lithographic wires, the Hänschgroup has succeeded in moving BECs about a cm [122]. The Bragg accelerator techniquerequires a tight 1D lattice. Although the conﬁnement along the lattice direction is high,transverse conﬁnement is weak unless the beams are focused. Thus, transporting atoms
in the horizontal plane would limit the travel distance to the Rayleigh range of the laser
beam and a large trap depth would require lots of laser power, which might heat up thecloud. We could attempt to transport the atoms in the vertical direction such that thetight direction is in the direction of gravity. Even here, the condensate might spread out
in the transverse direction due to the weak conﬁnement. Of course, transverse conﬁnement
can be provided using an another focused beam or magnetic coils, which would only leadto additional complexity.
Thus, we converged on the optical tweezers as a method to transfer condensates. We had
developed the ﬁrst techniques for conﬁning BECs in a singly focused optical trap [6] using far
oﬀ-resonant infrared laser light. We felt that the step of moving the condensate by moving
the focus of this trap was simpler than other possibilities. In essence, our static opticaltrap of 1998 would be used as a moving optical tweezers for condensates. Moving opticaltweezers can also provide the same conﬁnement for the condensate during its travel. Steve
Chu had pioneered the ﬁeld of using optical tweezers [123] for moving, holding, pushing andmanipulating bacteria, dna, polymers, etc. Now, we wanted to use it to transport BECs.
The apparatus would then be similar to a beamline, viz. accelerator particle physics.
Our accelerator would be an optical tweezers and our particles were condensed macroscopic
quantum objects. We would be able to deliver condensates on demand for various applications. It would almost be a users facility, where many experimental setups could beappended onto the main chamber. Perhaps, in the future, our group could collaborate with1

For example, by winding external coils around the valve or by putting coils inside vacuum, which could
then be translated into the open valve during the transport.

69

groups who would want a BEC for their experiments, but not necessarily want to build awhole apparatus required for making it2 .
A remark on units in this chapter: most of units are mixed, i.e., SI along with English
units. While I could have used a consistent system of units, I felt that it would be artiﬁcial.
For example, describing vacuum ﬂanges and ﬁtting would be confusing in SI, since inches
are the standard units in the U.S. On the other hand, magnetic ﬁeld gradients are typicallymeasured in G/cm, not G/inch. So, I hope that these mixed units only convey the confusionand clarity that exists while building a new machine.

3.2

Design and structure of the apparatus

By 1999, our lab had produced BECs in both a steel vacuum chamber [52](BEC-I) anda glass cell chamber [78, 124] (BEC-II). However, right from the start it was obvious to
us that we wanted to build BEC-III using a steel chamber. Common arguments in favor
of using glass cells are the increased optical access, the possibility of putting coils for themagnetic trap close to the atoms, and the lack of eddy currents when the magnetic trap isturned oﬀ. However, putting magnetic traps close to the cell will inevitably decrease theavailable optical access. Also, we did not observe any serious problems with eddy currents
in BEC-I. The glass cell in BEC-II was simply much more fragile than the steel chamber of
BEC-I. The addition of the pumps near the glass cell requires glass to metal seals which aresusceptible to vacuum leaks and breaking of the cell itself3 . A long glass cell also limits the
conductance to the vacuum pumps, thereby making it diﬃcult to reach UHV. Therefore,
we decided to build our apparatus around a steel vacuum chamber that was speciﬁcallydesigned for making BEC. Besides, while our main chamber was to be made of steel, we
could always use a glass-cell as our science chamber.
A steel chamber design almost automatically limits the type of magnetic coil conﬁguration to be of the cloverleaf type [26, 100], especially if the coils are to be outside thechamber. Compared to the standard Ioﬀe-bar and pinch coil conﬁguation, the cloverleaf
conﬁguration maximizes the optical access, since all 360◦ between the coils is available foruse4 . We decided against placing our magnetic coils inside the chamber based on our previous vacuum problems with coils inside the chamber [22]. So, we decided to use similar
re-entrant ‘bucket’ ports as in BEC-I, but one that was more shallow and larger. The innerdiameter and the depth of the buckets were 14.6 and 10 cm, respectively (see appendix A
for the exact speciﬁcations). This allowed us to build slightly bigger cloverleaf coil sets (sec.
3.6), that were then placed inside the buckets.
2

Realistically, such a user facility might be unfeasible currently since constructing BEC machines is not
as expensive as building a particle accelerator.
3
In fact, during the construction of BEC-II, we broke two glass cells before ﬁnally aligning the current
glass cell.
4
Dan Stamper-Kurn’s new BEC apparatus in U.C. Berkeley uses a steel chamber with Ioﬀe bars andpinch coils that are placed inside the chamber [125].

70

a)

b)

Figure 3-1: BEC-III apparatus. a) The vacuum chamber in August 2000 with all of thewindows and the re-entrant bucket ports mounted on it. The Kimball physics sciencechamber (left of the main chamber) is attached. b) The same chamber in summer 2001,
with all of the infrastructure for making a BEC attached on the main chamber (left). The
science chamber with the external compensation coils is on the right. Note the relatively
free access to the science chamber when compared with the main chamber.

The vacuum chamber, which was built by Sharon Vacuum Inc. was based around there-entrant bucket ports and was shaped like a wheel with ports surrounding the inner space
between the buckets (see ﬁg. 3-1). A schematic of the chamber is shown in ﬁgure 3-2. Detailsof the chamber design are given in appendix A. The chamber was made out of 304 stainlesssteel that was initially mechanically polished on the inside and then electropolished. The
electropolishing minimizes the inner surface area, which helps reduce the ‘dirt’ inside thechamber and also decreases the surface area of chamber walls onto which gases can adsorb.
The bucket ports (Fig. MIT/L2a,b in appendix A) were built by Sharon vacuum and thesmall 1.25 outer diameter (OD) bucket windows were built by UKAEA, who welded thesewindows onto the buckets supplied to them by Sharon Vacuum. UKAEA windows havegood ﬂatness over a large clear aperture for given port size. We had 0.75 OD windows.
In addition to these bucket windows, we also got UKAEA to build two other windows forthe chamber where we needed large clear aperture: the imaging window (port #6) and thetweezers window (port #3). Similar to the bucket ports, these windows were oﬀset into thechamber. This could allow for a lens to be moved closer to the atoms inside the chamber
and thereby maximize the solid angle for imaging. Designs for these windows are also inappendix A. None of these windows, including the bucket windows, had anti-reﬂection
coatings. Only the MOT windows (on ports # 4, 7, 10, 12, 18), the slower window (# 13)
and bottom probe window (# 16) had anti-reﬂection coatings centered at both 589 and1064 nm.

71

Sodium Ampules
10 g
TEC cold platefor Na collection

Oven
Ion Pump (75 L/s)

Oven
Gate valve

Feedthroughfor Beam Shutter

Slower Ion Pump
(55 L/s)

Decreasing fieldslower tube xx long
0.75 ODxyMini-flange Bellows
attached using the cut
retaining rings.

zIncreasing fieldslower tube 16 long
0.75 OD; welded tomain chamber#7
Kimball Physics
Science chamber

Science chamber
Gate Valve
Bellows

#6
#5

#10

57º

146º

#11

Ti-sublimation
pump

#4

90º
124º

34º
Y

F1=(0, 0, 3.47)
X

#3

0º

F3=(0, -0.918, 3.47)#1,#2: base chamber (10 conflat)#19
Science chamber
Ion Pump (75 L/s)

#13

6-32 screws#18

Main Chamber
Ion pump
75 L/s#12#16
1/2 threaded rods with
hex nuts for support

13.65
80/20

Newport RS4000 optics table5 x 8 x 18

Figure 3-2: The essential features of the BEC-III apparatus, including the science chamber.
Details about the design are presented in appendix A. The schematic is drawn to scale. The
main ports are labelled. See text for more information. The deﬁnition of the ‘lab directions’is also shown, x is along the direction of the tweezers beam, y is into the page and z is in
the direction of gravity. The distance from the optics table to the false ceiling is 92 .
72

3.2.1

Vacuum pumps

The main chamber port is connected to a large L-shaped tube (6 OD) that acted as thepumping region via a 4 × 6 rectangular port that was 4 high; see appendix A. Compared
to a circular port, the rectangular port increased the conductance of the main chamber tothe pumping region [126]. The pumps for the main chamber consisted of a Varian Starcell
ion-pump (75 L/s) attached on the short end of the ‘L’ (shown in ﬁg. 3-2) and two titanium
sublimation getter pumps (TSPs). One TSP was attached with a cryoshield on the longside of the ‘L’ (into the page in ﬁg. 3-2)5 , and the second TSP was directly in front of theion pump. The two ion pumps coated all of the inner walls of the ‘L’-shaped tube withtitanium. The length of the long leg of the ‘L’ was determined by ensuring that TSP did
not have direct line of sight into the chamber6 .
The oven region had a 75 L/s Noble diode pump which allowed us to reach pressures of
mid-10−8 Torr during operating conditions. A narrow ‘diﬀerential pumping tube’ between
the oven region and the beginning of the slower region allowed for a factor of 500 pressure
diﬀerential between the regions (see sec. 3.3.1). At the beginning of the slower, where thepressure was typically high 10−10 Torr, we had another ion pump (55 L/s), which whencombined with the 1 m long slower tube gave us an additional pressure diﬀerential of morethan a factor of 1000 between the slower and main chamber. These two pressure diﬀerential
factors were multiplicative, giving a total diﬀerential factor of about 5 × 105 from the ovenregion to region where the condensate atoms were produced. Thus, we can run the ovenwith pressures at about 10−7 Torr without aﬀecting the lifetime of the condensate in themain chamber. BEC-I and II also had a similar diﬀerential pumping tube between ovenand the slower. However, neither of them had a pumping region between the beginning of
the slower and the main chamber. Hence, the pressure diﬀerential factors from the small
tube and slower tube were additive rather than multiplicative. BEC-I only had a 1/2 meterslower tube with a large (2 OD) diameter slower tube. This implied that we had to run
the experiment using a liquid nitrogen cooled titanium pumping in the main chamber anda nitrogen cooled oven cold plate [127]. Although we had no problems running the BEC-I
apparatus under these conditions for more than 6 years, we decided to provide the newchamber with a large margin of safety.
We measured the pressure inside our vacuum chamber using ion gauges. It was important to place the gauges carefully such that we were able to accurately estimate thepressure near the condensate atoms. In the main chamber, we had two UHV-24p gauges
which were placed oﬀ ports #7 and #19. We felt that the pressure reading in the gauge
5
The cryoshield was added safety in case we needed additional pumping at liquid nitrogen temperatures.
We have never had to use it since the pumping from the TSP at room temperature and ion pumps wereenough to reach below 10−10 Torr.
6
To prevent coating of the probe window (port #16) with titanium, we bent a thin piece of stainless steel
sheet metal in a circular shape and wedged it inside port #16, such that the probe window was protected.
The spring action held the piece against the port walls.

73

in port #7 would be worst background pressure limiting the lifetime of atoms, since it was
furthest from the pumping region7 . After baking out the chamber , we reached pressures
below 2 − 3 × 10−11 Torr8 . At these UHV pressures, the lifetime of magnetically trapped
atoms was longer than a minute.

3.2.2

The slower port

An important design constraint was that the Zeeman slower and the oven had to be at anangle relative to the plane perpendicular to gravity. One axis of the horizontal plane was
occupied by the cloverleaf magnetic trap to ensure that the tight radial direction of themagnetic trap was along the direction of gravity. The other axis had to be free for the
optical tweezers such that one of the tight directions of the tweezers trap was along gravity.
Thus, the Zeeman slower and oven, which were along the horizontal axis in both BEC-I
and BEC-II, was at an angle of 57◦ with respect to the horizontal (see schematic). A 16long steel tube with 0.75 OD (0.68 ID) was welded onto the main chamber as shown inﬁg. 3-2; port #5. The increasing ﬁeld slower solenoid was mounted on this tube (see sec.
3.3.2).
The on-axis magnetic ﬁeld of the slower solenoid scales as d2 /z 3 (eq. 3.5), where d isthe diameter of the solenoid and z is the distance from the coil along the axis. Hence,by decreasing the coil diameter, we can dramatically decrease the drop-oﬀ distance of themagnetic ﬁeld. This is important especially at the end of the slower, where the MOT should
be as close as possible to the end of the slower to increase the ﬂux of cold atom. With astandard 0.75 OD tube with miniﬂanges (port #5), the inner diameter of the solenoid
must be atleast as large as 1.33 . However, a tube without the ﬂanges, but with only
the insert9 is 0.84 . Thus, the solenoid ID could be as small as that if we had only therotatable miniﬂange insert rather than the retaining ring on port #5. The inner coil of theslower solenoids was then wound on a 1 OD brass tube with 0.87 ID (see sec. 3.3.3). The
solenoid was slid onto the tube and later attached to miniﬂange bellows that connected thevacuum chamber to the decreasing ﬁeld slower solenoid and the oven (see ﬁg. 3-3). Thisdecreasing ﬁeld slower tube also did not have its retaining rings on the ﬂange. After theslower solenoids was mounted on the tube, we attached the slower tube to the miniﬂange
bellows using miniﬂange rings that were split into two semi-circles between the screw holes.
This technique allowed us to have a smaller slower solenoid inner diameter.
The bellows allowed for mechanical isolation between the oven and the main chamber.
It also could be used for slight tweaks to the oven and decreasing ﬁeld slower in case of
7

Unfortunately, the thermal light emitted from the ion gauge in port #7 during its operation aﬀected
our imaging since added background light onto the camera. Hence, this gauge is usually oﬀ and we only use
the bottom gauge at port#19 for checking the pressure.
8
At these low pressures, the current in the ion gauge ﬁlaments were very low. Usually it was out of range,
giving rise to an error in the Varian gauges, E03.
9
The insert is the part with the knife edges on it.

74

Figure 3-3: Mounting the Zeeman slower. The Zeeman slower is mounted onto the chamber.
The center of photo shows the decreasing ﬁeld slower. The increasing ﬁeld slower is on the
tube attached onto the chamber below it. The gap between the two tubes was bridged using
standard mini-ﬂange bellows and the special cutaway mini-ﬂange retaining rings. To theleft is my colleague Deep Gupta and right, Todd Gustavson.

misalignments. In addition, the space between the two slower solenoids is important toallow for optical pumping of the atomic beam such that the atoms remain in the cyclingtransition in the increasing ﬁeld slower section as well. See sec. 3.3.3. The 3.5 long bellows
provided this space. It was important not to stress the mini-ﬂange bellows too much, since
they are prone to leaks.
At the other end of the slower (port #13), it was important to ensure that the hot
sodium atoms that were not captured by the MOT do not aﬀect the lifetime of the MOT
and the condensate. The hot atoms hit the slower window on port #13 and diﬀusively
reﬂect from this window. The window was maintained at a temperature around 90◦ C toensure that the sodium atoms do not stick to the window. These reﬂected atoms must be
directed quickly into the pumping region so that they will not return to the center of thechamber. In order to do so, we had a large tube (2.5 OD) that was oﬀset from the slower
tube, such that the atomic beam travelled along the top edge of the port (see ﬁg. 3-2). The
slowing light beam had to counter-propagate along the atomic beam, hence, an adapter


piece was fashioned with a 2 34 ﬂange that was oﬀset from a 4.5 ﬂange. The large diametertube (2.5 OD) provided a region with large conductance to the pumping region, such thatthe hot sodium atoms could be pumped away. In order to minimize the directly reﬂected
atoms from coming back to the chamber center, we mounted a 2.4 OD circular aluminum
piece along the atomic beam path with a 1 circular hole whose center was oﬀset such that75

slowing beam was not blocked. The piece was mounted to the chamber using two 6-32
hex nuts that were welded near the rectangular ﬂange (see ﬁg. 1c in appendix A). Thus,
the large diameter tube combined with the aluminum piece ensured that the reﬂected hot
sodium atoms did not unduly reduce the lifetime of the MOT and the magnetically trapped
atoms.

3.2.3

The Science Chamber

One of the key features of the science chamber is that it can be as simple or as complicatedas needed. For the ﬁrst experiments, we decided to use a simple ‘spherical square’ steel
chamber from Kimball physics (MCF450-SS204R04-A). The chamber had two 4.5 tapped

ports, three 2 34 tapped ports, one 2 34 rotatable ﬂange and four miniﬂange tapped ports.
See ﬁg. 3-1b.
The science chamber was isolated from the main chamber by a MDC pneumatically

operated gate valve to which a 2 34 bellows is attached. The bellows ‘mechanically isolated’
the main chamber from the science chamber, such that any science chamber modiﬁcations(or attaching a new science chamber) would not stress the gate valve, causing a vacuum
leak in the main chamber10 . The mechanical actuator side (with visible springs) of the gate
valve faced the science chamber and the steel plate side faced the main chamber. A 2 34

bellows connected the gate valve to a tapped port of the science chamber.
The pumping region for the science chamber was a long 4 OD tube to which a 75 L/sion pump and a titanium sublimation pump were attached. The long tube was attached tothe bottom ﬂange of the science chamber (see ﬁg. 3-2). While the chamber was small enoughthat the ion pump would be suﬃcient to reach pressures below 10−11 Torr, the titanium
sublimation provided the extra pumping speed to minimize the pumping and bakeout time
for the science chamber. The chamber also had a UHV-24p ion gauge and a Dycor residual
gas analyzer (RGA) that was used for analyzing the partial pressure of gases during the
bakeout (see sec. 3.4).
Although the chamber described above was designed to as simple as possible, it caneasily be replaced by a larger, more complicated chamber. The pumping region (with thelong tube) is ﬂexible enough to be used with any other replacement chamber.

3.2.4

Mounting the chamber

The description of the chamber mounting in this section is speciﬁc for this apparatus, andis intended mainly as a guide for the future students working on this experiment. However,some of the design principles discussed below might be helpful for other researchers as well.
10

Initially, instead of the bellows (3.5 long), we used a short (0.68 long) adapter from Kimball physics
to connect the science chamber to the gate valve. This was to reduce the distance that the optical tweezers
had to travel before entering the science chamber. However, we decided that mechanical isolation withthe bellows was more important to the future experiments in the science chamber than reducing the travel
distance of the tweezers.

76

The entire apparatus was mounted onto a 8 × 5 × 18 Newport RS4000 optical table.
Given the high center of gravity due to the 1 m height of the slower and the oven, we decided
to increase the weight of the table by using an 18 thick optical table. The honeycomb coreis made of ferromagnetic steel whereas the topskin is a 14 thick non-magnetic 304-stainlesssteel plate with 14 − 20 tapped holes. The table height had to be as low as possible toensure that the oven did not hit the ceiling, therefore, four 10 high non-isolating legs weretied together with tie-bar ﬂanges that had re-tractable casters11 Thus, ground vibrationsin the Hz to kHz regime can aﬀect the apparatus. Although these vibrations could impact
precision measurements, we decided to use the simpler non-ﬂoating setup.
The chamber was mounted about a foot oﬀ the table using ﬁve 1.5 Newport posts
attached to Thorlabs BA2 bases. The posts were mounted onto 1.75 square steel plates
that were welded on the centerline of the L-shaped 6 bottom steel tube. See appendix A,
ﬁg. 1d for details. It was important to place the support structure (the square plates) awayfrom the ﬂanges since the weight of the structure could lead to vacuum leaks as a result ofstresses near the ﬂanges12 . The distance from the table to the center of the bottom tube is
13.65 .
In addition to these supports, the ion pumps were supported separately in order tominimize the stress on the ﬂanges. The support structure also allowed for easy alignmentof the ion pumps. The basic scheme is shown in ﬁg. 3-2 for the main chamber ion pump.
The pump was placed on an aluminum plate that was attached to a second plate, separated
by about 2 using 1/2 threaded rods and hex nuts. The bottom plate was mounted tothe optics table using 2 -square T-slotted aluminum posts made by 80/20. By cranking on
the hex nuts below the top plate, the height of the top plate was adjusted so that the ionpump ﬂange just ‘kissed’ the ﬂange on the chamber, whereupon the ﬂanges were tightened
together13 . All of the ion pumps on the apparatus were supported in a similar fashion (seeﬁg. 3-4).
The entire Zeeman slower and oven assembly was supported by 80/20 T-slotted 2 -squarealuminum posts. This aluminum erector set was more ﬂexible than the steel unistrut anddexion system used for BEC-I. The oven assembly had to be about one meter above themain chamber at an angle of 57◦ . The arrangement of the supporting posts is shown inﬁg. 3-4. All of the posts were rigidly connected to each other using ‘anchor fastners’ that
required short posts perpendicular to the ones shown in ﬁg. 3-4. The structure was strong
and rigid enough to support the heavy weight of all the vacuum structure and ion pumps.
The slower tube and the oven had to be aligned such that it was 57◦ with respect to thehorizontal. For this, we fashioned two V-shaped 1/2 thick aluminum pieces that were
mounted on the 80/20 posts; see ﬁg. 3-4. Two of the ports of the oven 4.5 six-way cross11

The 10 legs could be replaced by pneumatically isolating ones.
During 94-95, BEC-I experienced many vacuum leaks when it was supported near the ﬂanges. See [22].
13
It was important to use winged copper gaskets so that the gasket did not fall oﬀ while adjusting theheight of the pump.
1277

Z-axis view of
80/20 posts

Oven Ion Pump
2
Chevron Baffle

Oven
Ion Pump (75 L/s)

6V shaped Al piece
used for alignmentof the slower and oven

10.2Atomic
Beam

12
7

7.3

Slower Ion Pump
(55 L/s)

5.8

Slower Ion Pump
9

90º
57º

124º
146º

34º
Y

F1=(0, 0, 3.47)
X0ºF3=(0, -0.918, 3.47)#1,#2: base chamber (10 conflat)

Figure 3-4: Arrangement of 80/20 posts. The view of the posts from the side view. The
inset has the view of the posts from above. The entire 80/20 posts are rigidly connected toeach other using ‘anchor fasteners’. The ‘V’ shaped aluminum piece used for aligning theslower and oven is also shown. The ﬁgure is drawn to scale.
78

rested inside the V. This allowed us to rotate the entire slower and oven vacuum parts
such that they were aligned with the angled main chamber port #5. The ﬁne-tuning of thealignment was done using a He-Ne laser beam as a guide. The laser beam was sent throughthe center of the slower window (port #13) and centered through port #5. The oven andslower parts were then aligned such that the He-Ne beam passed through the diﬀerential
pumping tube and the nozzle.
Two angled 80/20 pieces were mounted along the slower tube (as shown in ﬁg. 3-4).
By mounting posts attached to these angled pieces, the weight of the slower solenoids were
supported. This was to ensure that the solenoid’s weight did not stress the long thin slower
tubes. The science chamber was held by supporting the 4 tube and the ion pump using
80/20 posts similar to the rest of the chamber.

3.3

Sodium atomic beam and Zeeman slower characterization

In this section, I describe the characteristics of the slower and the sodium oven. As mentioned earlier, the oven and the slower were designed, built and tested by my colleagues
Deep Gupta and Aaron Leanhardt. I will ﬁrst describe the essentials of the oven design andthe generation of an atomic beam. Some of the designs of the oven parts are in appendix
B. The design constraints and characteristics of the slower will be described later.

3.3.1

Sodium ovenIn this section, I describe the production of the sodium atomic beam. The beam starts
from the oven, where the sodium atoms are ﬁrst vaporized. The oven is a simple 2 34 steel
nipple. Usually, we place two ampules, each containing 5 grams of sodium, in this nipple
and heat it to about 260◦ C when operating the machine (see ﬁg. 3-5). In BEC-I and II, theoven was just a 2 34 elbow into which the sodium ampules were placed and then blanked oﬀ.

However, since our oven was tilted by 57◦ , we added a short nipple such that liquid sodium
would not just ﬂow into the nozzle when tilted. The melting point of sodium is about 98◦ C,

and the vapor pressure of sodium at 260◦ C (533 K) is 2.9 × 10−3 Torr. This vapor escaped
through a small copper nozzle of 4 mm diameter (see ﬁg. 3-5). The nozzle was maintained
at a temperature of 350◦ C. The sodium vapor, which was at thermal equilibrium at 350◦ C(∼620 K), sprayed out from the nozzle in ∼ 2π solid angle into a 4.5 six way cross where
we had a cold plate. The cold plate served to collect most of the sodium that sprayed out of
the nozzle. It was a simple L-shaped copper plate that was attached to a copper slug that
could be externally cooled using either liquid N2 or thermo-electric coolers (TECs)14 . The
design of the cold plate and the slug are given in appendix B. The key element of the design
14

Since the pressure in the oven was good enough, the cold plate was maintained at room temperature.

79

G.V.

Port for opticalpumping

Copper Slug attachedto the L-shaped cold plateand skimmer
Copper skimmer
Oven Nozzle
350o C

SlowerOven
Elbow
300o C
CopperNozzlepiece with
4 mm hole

Slower Ion
Pump 55 L/sOven Nipple
260o C

Double sided flange withdifferential pumping tube

Figure 3-5: The essential features of the oven. More detailed designs of some of the specialparts are given in appendix B. The schematic is drawn to scale. The dashed rectangle
near the slower indicates the slower ion pump, which is oriented out of the page. The
beam shutter rotated in a plane perpendicular to the page, and was controlled by a rotating
actuator (not shown). The oven temperatures given correspond to operating conditions.
The entire oven is rotated by 57◦ as shown in ﬁgure 3-2.

was to weld the copper slug onto a very thin steel wall in order to minimize the thermal
contact of the cold copper slug to the rest of the steel chamber. The L-shaped copper plate
had 0.6 OD hole with a skimmer attached to it (as shown in ﬁg. 3-5). The skimmer helped
to minimize the clogging of the hole in the cold plate by the collected sodium. The entire
cold plate assembly can be removed by taking out only one ﬂange and thus, it can be easily
cleaned. The beam shutter was located immediately after the cold plate. It was a simple‘ﬂag’ made out of 1 wide copper sheet attached to a copper post that was connected toa rotating actuator. The actuator rotated the ﬂag such that it let the atomic beam passthrough (during MOT) or blocked it (all other times).
One of the 4.5 ﬂanges is connected to a 75 L/s noble diode ion pump, which is the
only pump in the oven region (see the inset of ﬁg. 3-4). In order to prevent ‘alkali pumppoisoning’, the pump was connected through an elbow and a Chevron baﬄe. The baﬄe
and elbow ensured that the sodium atoms do not enter the pump and collect on the pumpanodes, thereby shorting them out15 . The baﬄe reduced the pumping rate of the ion pumpby about a factor of 2. Nevertheless, the ion pump helped maintain a typical pressure ofabout 5 × 10−8 Torr during running conditions.
The sodium beam after the beam shutter still has a large transverse velocity spread.
15
Mark Kasevich told us about ion pumps being ‘poisoned’ by alkalis when pumping cesium atoms withstandard ion pumps without any baﬄes.

80

However, after the beam passes through the long narrow ‘diﬀerential pumping tube’, thespread is narrowed and an atomic beam is created. The long tube also provided the pressure
diﬀerence between the oven and slower region. It was 4.75 long with 0.25 OD (0.18 ID).
The tube was centered on and welded onto a double-sided 2 34 ﬂange16 . This tube reduced
the conductance between the oven and the slower region. The conductance of a long roundtube for air at 22◦ C is given by17 :Ctube = 12.1

d3
,
l

(3.1)

where the conductance Ctube is in L/s, d and l are the diameter and length of the tube,
respectively, in cm [126]. Thus the conductance of the diﬀerential tube is 0.1 L/s. The differential pumping factor is usually noted by the ratio of the pressures between two chambers
P1 /P2 separated by a region of low conductance, and is given by
C(P1 − P2 ) = SP2→ P1 /P2 ≈ S/C,

(3.2)

where P2 and P1 are the pressures in the low and high pressure regions, respectively, C isthe conductance of the tube connecting the two regions and S is the pumping speed in the
low pressure region. In eq. 3.2, P1 − P2 ≈ P1 since P2 is usually very small compared toP1 . Assuming pumping speed in the slower region is 55 L/s (from the slower ion pump),
the diﬀerential pumping factor is about 575 using eq. 3.2.
The ﬂange containing the diﬀerential pump tube was connected to a 2 34 4-way crossthat was used to implement optical pumping to increase the ﬂux of the sodium atoms as
explained in sec. 3.3.4. The atomic beam then passes through the oven gate valve and intoanother 4-way cross which then leads to the decreasing ﬁeld section of the slower.

3.3.2

Spin-ﬂip Zeeman slower: design parameters

As the atomic beam passes through the Zeeman slower, a major portion was slowed froma temperature of 620K to an energy of about 1.2K (∼ 30 m/s). These cold atoms werethen captured by the magneto-optical trap, which was 4 away from the end of the slower.
The essential feature of the Zeeman slower is that the slower magnetic ﬁelds maintain theresonance between the atoms in the beam and the slowing light by compensating for the
Doppler shifts using the Zeeman eﬀect [128].
In contrast to BEC-I, but similar to BEC-II, we decided to use a spin-ﬂip Zeeman
slower to increase the capture velocity of the slower. The spin-ﬂip slower has two parts: 1)
where the magnetic ﬁeld is positive and its magnitude is decreasing along the beam path,16
17

It was important to weld the tube on both sides of the ﬂange to minimize virtual leaks.
The main gas load is from hydrogen, not air. However, the conductance for air is a good approximation.

81

the ‘decreasing ﬁeld’ section, and 2) a section where the magnetic ﬁeld is negative and its
magnitude increases along the beam path, the ’increasing ﬁeld’ section. See ﬁg. 3-8.
The slowing light beam counter-propagated relative to the atomic beam and slowed
atoms using the F = 2 → F  = 3 cycling transition. The key constraint for our slower
was that we decided to use the same slowing light that was used in BEC-I, which is 1 GHz
red-detuned from the F = 2 → F  = 3 transition (see ﬁg. 3-23 and Dan Stamper-Kurn’s
thesis [26]). The 1 GHz detuning in the slowing beam implied a maximum magnetic ﬁeldof about 710 Gauss at the end of the increasing ﬁeld section of the slower, and thus amaximum capture velocity of 589 m/s, assuming a ﬁnal slowed velocity of about 30 m/s[k(vc − vf ) = µB B , where k = 2π/λ]. At 620K, the most probably velocity of the beam isabout 820 m/s 18 . The average velocity in the beam is 890 m/s 19 . Clearly, this indicatedthat by increasing the capture velocity in the slower, we could increase the ﬂux of slow
atoms at the MOT. The ﬂux of the atoms also decreases as (L + Loven )−2 , where L is thelength of the slower and Loven is the length between the oven nozzle and the beginning of
the slower. Increasing the capture velocity increases the total length of the slower (see ﬁg.
3-6). Thus, there is an optimum capture velocity where the ﬂux at the slower is maximized.
This optimum capture velocity is around 900 m/s.
In general, the capture velocity of a slower can be increased by either increasing themagnitude of magnetic ﬁeld at the end of increasing ﬁeld section of the slower or by adding
an additional decreasing ﬁeld section to the slower. Since we wanted to maintain the 1 GHz
detuning for slowing light, we had to use a decreasing ﬁeld slower. We chose an initial ﬁeldof 440 G with a capture velocity of 950 m/s [kv = µB Bi − δ, where δ = −2π × 1GHz].
The next important criterion of the slower is its length. The total length of a slower asa function of the capture velocity vc is given by (for vf = 0)
L=

vc2
,
2f amax(3.3)

where the amax = kΓ
2M is the maximum acceleration (requiring inﬁnite laser power), and f is
the fraction of the maximum acceleration that can be achieved given the ﬁnite intensity ofslowing laser beam. The slower was designed assuming f = 0.6, which implied that slowing
intensity on resonance had to be at least 1.5I0 , where I0 = 6 mW/cm2 is the saturation
intensity for sodium20 . A plot of the total slower length for various values of f is shown inﬁg. 3-6. In our case, we also had the constraint of the slowing laser detuning being 1 GHz
from the resonance. This implied that the increasing ﬁeld slower had to be ∼ 32 cm longfor f = 0.6. With this condition, the lengths of the decreasing ﬁeld for various f are shownin ﬁg. 3-7. The proﬁle of the magnetic ﬁeld as a function of distance is given byBT
The most probable velocity is 1.22α, where α = 2kM[129].
√
19
The average velocity is 3/4 πα.
20Note that with more slowing laser power, the slowing is more forgiving with respect to magnetic ﬁeld
imperfections.
1882

Total length (m)

1.0
0.8

f=0.5

0.6

0.6

0.7

0.4
600

1000
700
800
900
Capture velocity (m/s)

Figure 3-6: The total length of the slower as a function of the capture velocity for f =0.5, 0.6, 0.7. f is the fraction of the maximum acceleration, determined by the available
laser power. The dashed line is at 950 m/s where the total length is 83 cm for f = 0.6.

Length (m)

0.6
f=0.5

0.6

0.4

0.7

0.2
0
600

700
800
900
Capture velocity (m/s)

1000

Figure 3-7: The length of the decreasing ﬁeld slower as a function of the capture velocity
for f = 0.5, 0.6, 0.7. The dashed line is at 950 m/s where the length is 52 cm for f = 0.6.

83Magnetic Field (G)400200
Decreasing fieldsection0

Increasing fieldsection

-200
-400
-600
0

20

40
60
Length (cm)80

Figure 3-8: The shape of the magnetic ﬁeld as a function of distance. The plotted ﬁeld isfor Bi =440 G, vc = 950 m/s. The negative ﬁelds indicates the increasing ﬁeld portion of
the slower. The dashed line indicates the magnetic ﬁeld if the slower is operated at f = 0.6,
the solid line is the ﬁeld where f = 0.4 after 75 cm. The solid line is the ﬁeld proﬁle that
we used.

kvc
B(z) = Bi +
µB




1−

2f amax z
1+
vc2


,

(3.4)

where Bi is the initial magnetic ﬁeld of the decreasing ﬁeld slower and the capture velocity
kvc = 2π × 1GHz − µBi . The theoretical magnetic ﬁeld is plotted in ﬁg. 3-8. The magnetic
ﬁelds from the decreasing and the increasing ﬁeld are oriented in opposite directions, whichis indicated by negative ﬁelds for the increasing ﬁeld slower. However, to be safer (assuming
lower slowing laser power), the length of the increasing ﬁeld slower was increased near theend of the slower such that the slowing would occur at f = 0.4. So, the slower was designed
to operate at f = 0.6 until 75 cm, after which it is at f = 0.4. The two proﬁles areshown in ﬁg. 3-8. The length of the increasing ﬁeld slower increased to ∼ 36.4 cm with this
modiﬁcation.
The theoretical analysis of the slower is now complete. The challenge of constructing
a successful slower lies in matching the magnetic ﬁeld produced by real solenoids to thetheoretically calculated ﬁeld. The closer the real ﬁeld is to the calculated ﬁeld, the closer
it performs to the theoretical expectations.

3.3.3

Building the slower

In BEC-I, the slower solenoid was constructed out of insulated round hollow copper wires21 .
In BEC-II, square hollow copper tubing was used to construct the slower. The advantage ofsquare tubing is that it maximizes electrical conductivity per unit volume since it is easier
to wind one loop next to and on top of each other using square wires as opposed to circularwires. The hollow wires allow for water cooling, wherein pressurized water ﬂow through21

Incidentally, refrigerator tubing was used for winding the slower.

84the hollow core cools the current carrying wires22 . We used a square copper wire made ofcopper alloy 101 23 with 1/8 square and 0.0625 square hole. The wire was bought from
Small Tube Products, and was insulated using Double Dacron Glass Fuse (DDG; see app.
C). The turns of the solenoid were then hand-wound around a brass tube of 1 OD (0.87
ID) that was mounted on a lathe. With the insulated wire, a solenoid with ten turns was
3.5 cm long (0.35 cm/turn). The magnetic ﬁeld proﬁle along the symmetry axis of a single
current carrying loop isµ0 I/dB(z) =  ,2 3/2
1 + ( 2z
d )

(3.5)

where I is the current, d is the diameter of the coil and µ0 is the magnetic permittivity.
These loops were combined to make solenoids of varying turns and diameters to match thetheoretical proﬁle (ﬁg. 3-8).
One half of the cross-section of the slower solenoids is shown in ﬁg. 3-9. The entire
solenoid was broken into sections as labelled in ﬁg. 3-9. The decreasing ﬁeld solenoid was
broken into 3 sections (D1, D2, D3) which were wound on top of each other. Section D1
consisted of 2 layers of 135 and 121 turns, section D2 was made of 2 layers of 107 and 93
turns, and section D3 had 6 layers of 77, 61, 43, 25, 15 and 6 turns, respectively. The
spacing between the turns was all uniform. These sections allowed for parallel water ﬂow
through them, thereby cooling the coils more eﬃciently, while being electrically connected
in series such that one current ﬂowed through the entire decreasing ﬁeld solenoid.
In order to prevent the coils and layers from ‘springing out’, we used an epoxy to thehold the layers of coils in place during the winding. We used a high temperature epoxy
from Dexter Hysol (Epoxi-Patch Kit 1C White), which was rated up to 150◦ C. Althoughhigher temperature epoxies were available, the insulation for the wires were rated only for150◦ C. The epoxy gave the solenoids their characteristic white color, as seen in ﬁg. 3-324 .
The increasing ﬁeld slower was broken up into two separate current carrying sections,labelled as the ‘low-current’ and ‘high-current’ sections (see ﬁg. 3-9). The low-current
section was made of 2 sections: IL1 made of 2 layers of 84 and 58 turns, and IL2 madeof 3 layers of 37, 17, and 7 turns, respectively. Note the spacing between the turns in IL1
was not uniform throughout, but is double-spaced near the beginning. The high-current
section was made of 2 layers of 10 and 9 turns each. The water connections were once
again in parallel for maximum cooling, and whereas the current for low-current sections
were in series. The key reason for the high current section near the end of the increasingﬁeld slower was to reduce the coil diameter at the end of the slower, thereby lowering thestray magnetic ﬁeld from the slower solenoid in the MOT region, which was 4 away fromthe end of the slower; also see sec. 3.2.2. With 100 A on the high-current section, a strayﬁeld of about 4 G was compensated by running current in an extra coil (18 turns) that was
22This tubing was ﬁrst suggested to us by Mark Kasevich.
This alloy had the right tempering for winding.
24
After heating the slower to about 100◦ C during the bakeout, the epoxy turned yellow.
2385a) D3 Out
D3 In

0

5

10

15

20

25

D2 Out

30

35

D1 In

D2In

D1 Out40

45

Position (cm)b)

IL2 out
IL1 in0IL2 inIL1 out

IH in
IH out

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Position (cm)Figure 3-9: Half cross-sections of the slower solenoids. a) decreasing ﬁeld solenoid, b)
increasing ﬁeld solenoid. For the increasing ﬁeld, the low current section is indicated byopen squares and the high current by the solid squares. The numbers near the end of thecoils indicate the solenoid sections. The measured ﬂow rates for the decreasing ﬁeld slower
sections are 100, 90, 60 ml/min for D1, D2 and D3, respectively. For the increasing ﬁeld,
the ﬂow rates are 140, 200 and 400 ml/min for IL1, IL2 and IH, respectively.

wound around the chamber25 . There was also an additional 0.8 G/cm gradient along theslower axis, which was not compensated.
Typically, the slower solenoids are operated with 15 A in the decreasing ﬁeld solenoid,and 38 and 105 A in the increasing ﬁeld low-current and high-current sections, respectively.
As mentioned earlier, it was essential to cool the solenoids using pressurized water. The
total length of wire for the decreasing ﬁeld solenoid was about 109 m, excluding about 3 mof additional length for connecting the solenoid to power supplies and water connections.
The wire length for the increasing ﬁeld solenoid was 37 m, with extra 2 m of connecting
wires.
The power dissipated in the solenoids can result in large temperature increase in theabsence of cooling. For the 1/8 square hollow tubing, the dissipated power (in watts) is
given by
P = 2.65 × 10−3 × I 2 × l,

(3.6)

where I is the current in amperes and l is the length of the wire in meters. About 65 W is
expected to be dissipated in the decreasing ﬁeld solenoid for 15 A of current ﬂowing throughthe 109 m of 1/8 square tubing. Without water cooling, the copper would begin heat up
rather rapidly especially since conduction or convection is small. The required ﬂow rate for25

The plane of this slower-compensation coil was approximately perpendicular to the slower axis.

86cooling the square tubing is
F = 14.3 × P/∆TH2 O ,(3.7)

where F is the ﬂow rate in ml/min, P is the dissipated power in watts and ∆TH2 O isthe estimated change in the water temperature in Celsius. For cooling of all high current
solenoids, we set the maximum temperature change in the ﬂowing water to be 25◦ C. The
chosen ﬂow rate was at least higher by about a factor of 2 from this maximum value. Thus,
for a typical ﬂow rate of 80 ml/min through the decreasing ﬁeld slower solenoid, 65 W
would result in a temperature increase of the water by about 12◦ C. Typical ﬂow rates foreach section of the slower solenoid are listed in the caption of ﬁg. 3-9.
The calculated ﬁeld of the slower (using eq. 3.5) is plotted in ﬁg. 3-10. Using a gaussmeter, the magnetic ﬁeld produced by the solenoids was measured and compared with thecalculated ﬁelds (ﬁg. 3-11). The gap between the two slower solenoids was bridged by
the miniﬂange bellows (see sec. 3.2.2). This gap was also used for optical pumping theatoms back into the cycling transition when the magnetic ﬁeld changes direction. Since theLarmor precession is very fast, the atoms follow the local magnetic ﬁeld and is always in the|F = 2, mF = −2 state. However, the polarization of the light changes its polarity as themagnetic ﬁeld changes direction. Thus, in order to be on the cycling transition, the atoms
must be pumped from the mF = −2 to the mF = +2 state before they enter the increasingﬁeld solenoid.

3.3.4

Testing the slower

Once the slower solenoid was constructed, its performance was measured using a test sodium
atomic beam apparatus. The atomic beam proﬁle in the test apparatus was similar to theone described above in sec. 3.3.1. The test chamber had a pressure of between 10−7 – 10−8
Torr and was pumped using a turbo pump. The ﬂux of cold atoms was measured using
both ﬂuorescence and diﬀerential absorption techniques, where a probe laser frequency wasscanned over a range of 10 GHz, which was much larger than the Doppler broadening. The
scanning probe laser beam was generated by operating a separate Coherent 699 dye laserand slowing beam was obtained using the 899 dye laser (see sec. 3.7). While the probe light
was transported to the test beam apparatus using an optical ﬁber, the slowing light simply
travelled through air about 20 m to the test setup. Although it is to measure the slow atom
ﬂux using diﬀerential absorption technique, the initial tests of the slower were done using
ﬂuorescence of the atomic beam since it was easier to implement. Both Doppler-free andDoppler-sensitive ﬂuorescence were measured, where the probe beam was at an angle 90◦
and 45◦ relative to the atomic beam, respectively. Scans of the hot thermal ‘raw’ beam areshown in ﬁg. 3-12. The ﬂuorescence signal was collected by a photo-diode and ampliﬁed.
Although the velocity scale was not calibrated to the probe laser frequency, the width of
the Doppler sensitive scan was consistent with the expected thermal velocity of the atoms

87Magnetic Field (G)

500
300
100
20

-100

40

60

80

100

-300
-500
-700

Figure 3-10: The calculated shape of the magnetic ﬁeld produced by idealized slower
solenoids as a function of distance (cm). Both the increasing and decreasing magnetic
ﬁeld are shown. The proﬁles shown are for 13.8 A in the decreasing ﬁeld, -15 A and -100 A
in the increasing ﬁeld slower. The gray line is the theoretical curve based on eq. 3.4. Notethat due to the small diameter of the coils near the end of the increasing ﬁeld slower, themagnitude of magnetic ﬁeld outside the slower rapidly decreases, especially when comparedto the beginning part of the decreasing ﬁeld slower, which has coils with a larger diameter.
The gap of about 7 cm between the two solenoids is also indicated. This gap was bridged
by the miniﬂange bellows (see sec. 3.2.2) and is used for optical pumping. See text.

400

Magnetic Field (G)

200
0
-200
-400
-600
0

20

40
60
Distance (cm)

80

100

Figure 3-11: Bench measurements of the magnetic ﬁeld produced by the slower solenoid asa function of distance (cm). The gray lines are the calculated curves shown as black lines
in ﬁg. 3-10. The black dots are the magnetic ﬁelds measured using a Gauss-meter.

88

Fluorescence signal (arb.)

1.7 GHz

0

2

4
6
8
Laser Frequency (GHz)10

Figure 3-12: Fluorescence from the raw atomic sodium beam. The solid line is a Dopplerfree scan and the dotted line is a Doppler-sensitive scan (45◦ ). The probe laser beam isscanned over a range of 10 GHz for the Doppler sensitive scan and only 5 GHz for the
Doppler-free scan. The larger peaks are the ﬂuorescence from the F = 2 atoms and smaller
ones, separated by 1.7 GHz, are the F = 1 atoms. The hyperﬁne splitting (60 MHz) isalso visible in both peaks of the Doppler insensitive scan. The y-axis for both scans arearbitrary and diﬀerent.

in the beam.
A typical Doppler sensitive (45◦ ) scan of slowed atomic beam is shown in ﬁg. 3-13. The
slowing light counter-propagated relative to the atomic beam and the probe beam was 45◦
relative to the atomic beam. The ﬂuorescence signal was collected at a window that wasperpendicular to the sodium beam. The black solid line in ﬁg. 3-13 is the slowed atomic
beam with about 40 mW in the slowing beam and the slower solenoids fully energized. The
slowing beam had sidebands at 1.75 GHz that were created using an electro-optic modulator.
Before the atoms enter the slower solenoid region, the blue sideband optically pumps theatoms from the F = 1 manifold into F = 2 cycling transition. The dashed line is similar
except without the slowing sidebands. The gray line is the unslowed, ‘raw’ atomic beam. As
the dashed line indicates, without the blue sideband the ﬂux of the slowed atoms is small due
to lack of optical pumping. Secondly, due to oﬀ-resonant scattering, the cooling is ineﬃcient
as indicated by larger width of the dashed-line peak. Nonetheless, there is slowing and somecooling as indicated by comparable area, since atoms in the cycling transition remain inthis closed cycle as they are slowed. Finally, without the blue sideband, the atoms leaving
the slowing solenoid region are scattered into the F = 1 manifold, presumably due to oﬀresonant scattering. With the sideband, the eﬃciency of slowing is high and the atoms aremaintained in the F = 2 manifold. The ‘L’ in the ﬁgure denotes the location of the slowing
laser detuning from the F = 2 → F  = 3 transition. As noted earlier, this detuning is
2π× 1 GHz. This location also indicates the velocity of atoms which are resonant with the89Fluorescence signal (arb.)

1.5
L

1.0
0.5
0.0
0

1

2
3
4
Laser Frequency (GHz)5

Figure 3-13: Doppler sensitive ﬂuorescence from the slowed sodium beam. The black solidline is the ﬂuorescence of the slowed atomic beam with about 40 mW of slowing powerwith sidebands at 1.75 GHz. The dashed line is ﬂuorescence without the slowing beam
sidebands. The gray solid line is the ‘raw’ atomic beam without any slowing light. The
decreasing ﬁeld solenoid was energized with 12 A and the increasing ﬁeld solenoid with 16
and 100 A for low current and high current sections, respectively. ‘L’ marks the detuningof the slowing laser beam from resonance (1 GHz) at zero magnetic ﬁeld.

laser light at zero magnetic ﬁeld (kv = δ = 2π× 1 GHz). This graph clearly indicates theeﬃcient transfer of the hot atoms into the cold atom peak.
Using a diﬀerential absorption technique, we obtained a more quantitative measure of
the slow atom ﬂux, since the minimization of background light and the calculation of thesolid angle for the ﬂuorescence light collection were harder to do. For absorption, thekey technical issue is that the sensitivity had to be less than 0.1%. The schematic of the
setup is shown in ﬁg. 3-14. The probe light, which was scanned over a range of 5 GHz,
was split using a beam splitter. One of the beams passed through the atomic beam into
photodiode A, and the other simply entered into photodiode B without passing throughthe atomic beam. The path lengths of the two beams were roughly equal to ensure thatthe beam pointing ﬂuctuations due to various optical elements were comparable. In orderto minimize polarization ﬂuctuations, the beam A was sent through windows that were at
Brewster’s angle before and after the atomic beam. The diﬀerential signal (A − B) was
obtained using a SRS diﬀerential ampliﬁer. The sensitivity of the absorption signal is givenA
and was typically of the order 5 × 103 . In order to attain such high sensitivity, we
by A−B

had to minimize the r.m.s. value of A − B. This required us to tilt the probe beam optics
at large angles relative to the laser beam to minimize etaloning eﬀects.
A typical signal is shown in ﬁg. 3-15. The signal from the ‘raw’ thermal atomic beam(solid gray line) shows both the F = 2 and the F = 1 manifold, which were not clearly visible
in the ﬂuorescence scans (compare ﬁg. 3-12). The sensitivity of the diﬀerential absorption90

B

End ofSlowerl
Slowing
light

13 cm

A
Figure 3-14: A schematic of the diﬀerential absorption measurement of the slowed atomic
beam. The slowed atomic beam is shown in gray. The photodiode signals, A & B, aresubtracted and ampliﬁed using a Stanford Research Systems (SRS) diﬀerential ampliﬁer.
The transverse spread of the atomic beam due to scattered photons is indicated by l.

0 2 4 6 8 10 velocity (F=2) in (m/s)/100% absorption

2.0
1.5
L

1.0
F=2

F=1

0.5
0.0
0.0

1.0

2.0
3.0
4.0
Probe frequency (GHz)

5.0

Figure 3-15: A typical diﬀerential absorption signal. The black solid line is the slowed beamwith both slower solenoids fully energized. The dashed line is with only the increasing slower
solenoid on, and the gray line is the ‘raw’ atomic beam without any slowing. Note thatboth F = 2 and F = 1 manifold are visible in all three scans. The top scale converts theprobe frequency into a velocity scale, where the peak of the slowed atom ﬂux was at ∼100
m/s and peak of the raw thermal beam was at 900 m/s. ‘L’ again depicts the laser detuningfrom resonance. The currents for the slowing solenoid were 15, 31 and 80 Amps for thedecreasing, increasing low current and high current sections, respectively. The total slowing
laser power was about 70 mW with the sidebands.

91

was > 2 × 103 and the maximum ‘raw’ beam absorption was 0.3%. The dashed line in theﬁgure is the absorption when only the increasing ﬁeld solenoid is on, and the solid line is
the result with the full slower solenoids. With the decreasing ﬁeld slower, the ﬂux of slow
atoms is ﬁve times larger than without! The transfer of the hot atoms to the cold atom
peak is clearly visible here as well.
The ﬂux of hot atoms at location of the MOT is about 2×1012 cm−2 s−1 , where the mean
velocity of atoms at the nozzle (620 K) is 770 m/s for a sodium partial pressure of 3.14×10−3
Torr (determined by the oven temperature of 530 K). Using the absorption signal, the cold
atom ﬂux can be determined. The absorption signal is equal to 1 − exp(−α) ≈ α = nσl,where n is the peak density of the cold atom ﬂux, σ is the optical absorption cross-section
and l is the length of the atomic beam traversed by the probe beam. From the absorptionscans, α is the peak absorption (typically 1-2% for oven temperatures near 270◦ C), σ isassumed to be the on-resonance absorption cross-section 7/15×6π/k 2 , and l was determinedby the transverse expansion of the slow atomic beam after its exit from the slower26. To slow
a sodium atom from about 950 m/s to 30 m/s, requires about 30,000 photons

900 m/s
3 cm/s.

Hence, each component of the transverse velocity at the slower exit due to spontaneous√√
scattering of these photons is about 30, 000/ 3 × 3 cm/s ≈ 3 m/s 27 . Given that the ﬁnal
longitudinal velocity was vF = 30 m/s, and the distance from the exit of the slower to theprobe beam was 13 cm, l = 4.5 cm. Note that l ∝ 1/vF . Due to various line broadening
mechanisms, the width of the absorption peak was not the natural linewidth but larger(∆v ∼ 40 m/s), hence the real peak absorption signal (∼ 1%) must also be larger thanthe measured value by a factor of about k∆v
Γ ≈ 6.8. Thus, the peak density was given byα
7−3
10 cm−2 s−1 . The rate ofσl × 6.8  1.5 × 10 cm . The ﬂux is then given by nvF  5 × 10

atoms entering the MOT region is given by the ﬂux multiplied by the MOT ’capture area’
or by πl2 /4, whichever is smaller28 . Assuming that the capture area of the MOT is given by
the 1 diameter MOT beams, we obtained a rate of about 3 × 1011 slow atoms per second
being delivered by the slower into the MOT. This rate matched very well with the expected
delivery rate of the slower.
To determine the exact ﬁnal longitudinal velocity of the atoms, diﬀerential absorption
measurements were done using a crossed-beam technique, as shown in ﬁg. 3-16a, where theA-B signal resulted in a signal that is shown in ﬁg. 3-16b. The velocity of the atoms canbe calculated from the distance between the two peaks, since a zero velocity atoms are
precisely in the center of the two peaks. The velocity of the slowed atoms as a function of
the current in the high current section of the increasing ﬁeld slower solenoid is shown in ﬁg.
3-17. Typically, the slower is operated around 100 A, where vF is close to 30 m/s. As the26

The polarization of the atoms at the probing region is unknown and they are assumed to be unpolarized.
Hence, the Clebsch-Gordon factor of 7/15.
√
27
The scattering is assumed to be isotropic, hence the factor of 3.
28
2
If the area is determined by πl /4, then the rate of atoms entering the MOT region is independent of
the ﬁnal velocity vF .

92

a)

l
Slowing
light

A

B

b) 1.5% absorption

1.0

F=2

F=1

0.5
0.0
-0.5
F=2

-1.0
-1.5
0

1

2
3
4
5
6
7
Probe frequency [GHz]8

Final velocity (m/s)

Figure 3-16: Crossed beam diﬀerential absorption of the slow atomic beam. a) A schematicof the crossed beam diﬀerential absorption measurement of the slowed atomic beam(similar
to previous schematic). The photodiode signals, A & B, are subtracted and ampliﬁed using
an SRS diﬀerential ampliﬁer, which results in b). The probe frequency was scanned over arange of 7 GHz (arbitrary oﬀset). The solid black line is the diﬀerential absorption of theslow beam, where the center-point between the two peaks gives the zero-velocity marker.
The slower currents were 15, 35 and 95 A, and slowing light had sidebands. The solid grayline is the ‘raw’ beam. Both F = 2 and F = 1 peaks are visible on the positive absorption
scale. The raw beam signal was also ﬁltered, hence the lower noise level.

200
150
100
50
0
50

60 70 80 90
Current (Amps)

100

Figure 3-17: Velocity tunability of the slower. The velocity of the slow atoms in theatomic beam as a function of slower current is shown. The velocity is calculated using
the crossed-beam absorption technique as a function of the current in the high-current
section of increasing ﬁeld slower solenoid.

93

% absorption

0.3
0.2
F=1

F=2

0.1
0.0
0

1
2
3
Probe Frequency [GHz]4

Figure 3-18: Doppler insensitive optical pumping. Shown are the Doppler sensitive diﬀerential absorption scans of the hot atomic beam after the slower with (solid) and without(dashed) optical pumping.

velocity is varied from about 100 m/s to about 40 m/s, the ﬂux of atoms (measured by thepeak absorption signal) was essentially constant.
As a ﬁnal test of the slower, we implemented additional Doppler insensitive opticallypumping of the atomic beam to test if it would improve the slow atom ﬂux. As noted earlier,the sidebands on the slowing light beam pumped atoms from the F = 1 to F = 2 manifold,albeit it is Doppler sensitive. Thus, using the extra windows on the 4-way cross immediately
after the nozzle (see ﬁg. 3-5), we implemented an optical pumping scheme by illuminating
the atomic beam with a 3 mm wide circularly polarized 6 mW laser beam resonant with
the F = 1 → F  = 2 transition. The atoms were polarized by a magnetic ﬁeld of about 5 Galong the pumping beam axis, using coils that were wound on vacuum window ports. The
pumping was successful and about 70% of the atoms in the F = 1 were transferred into
F = 2 29 . See ﬁgure 3-18. However, this additional increase did not noticeably improve
the slow atom ﬂux as measured using diﬀerential absorption. We did not fully explore theoptical pump since we had enough slow atom ﬂux to make a dense, dark MOT without it.
Thus, in the ﬁnal setup, side optical pumping was not implemented.

3.4

Bakeout–attaining UHVDuring the time the slower was being tested by Deep and Aaron, Todd and I put thevacuum chamber and its associated support structure together (see sec. 3.2.4). This wasdone using only silver-plated vacuum bolts, rather than using vacuum grease on the threadsof standard steel bolts to prevent mechanical seizing of the bolts during the bakeout cycle.
In the previous experiments (BEC-I and II), the chambers were baked out to temperatures
greater than 300◦ C. However, we decided that it was unnecessary for us to expose the29

In addition, the atoms were also Zeeman pumped into the dark F = 2, mF = 2 state using theF = 2 → F  = 2 transition.

94

chamber to such high temperatures30 , since the vacuum pressure is essentially determinedby the ‘coldest’ part of the vacuum chamber. The most temperature sensitive elements ofthe chamber were the slower solenoids and the gate valves. The gate valve had a maximum
bake temperature of 200◦ C when the valve was closed (250◦ C when open)31 . The epoxy
and the wire insulation used for the slower solenoids had a maximum temperature ratingof 150◦ C. Hence, with the slower solenoids mounted, the maximum bake temperature waschosen to be around 120◦ C to prevent overheating of the solenoids. However, in order tobake the chamber had a hotter temperature, we implemented a two-part bakeout strategy:
1) bake the chamber at a maximum ‘high’ temperature of 200◦ C without the slower solenoids
to initially rid the chamber of dirt and then 2) bake the chamber with the slower solenoids
mounted at a low temperature of 120◦ C.
Reaching ultra-high vacuum is an art in itself. It is a constant struggle between humancreativity and patience versus nature’s inherent abhorrence of vacuum. The entire process
takes about two weeks, during which any wrong step could lead to poor vacuum in thechamber and a repetition of the whole process from the start. The nominal pressuresneeded for our experiments is low-10−11 Torr, where the lifetime of the magnetically trapped
atoms is a few minutes. During the pump-down, the main physical processes limiting
the pressure inside the chamber are the desorption of gases from the inner surfaces of
the chamber and the diﬀusion of hydrogen from the steel. Permeation of gases throughsteel and glass is the ultimate limit for vacuum. The rate of desorption from the surface
scales as 1/t, where t is the pump-down time [126]. The rate constant for desorption
is exponentially dependent on the binding energy and the surface temperature. Thus,
increasing the temperature to a modest value of even 100◦ C increases the desorption rateof water from steel dramatically. Diﬀusion of hydrogen from steel takes a longer time; therate constant for diﬀusion decreases as D/t, where D is the diﬀusion constant [126]. The
diﬀusion constant is also exponentially dependent on the temperature of the steel walls anda modest increase in temperature can lead a large rise in the outgassing rate.
For the pump down, we typically used a Varian turbo-molecular pump (70 L/s) backed
by a ‘roughing’ rotary-vane mechanical pump by CIT-Alcatel. Within 15 minutes of operation, we typically reached a pressure of 10−5 Torr (if the chamber was clean). For the
bakeout, the band heaters were mounted on chamber ports and the chamber was wrappedwith heater tape. The band heaters and heater-tapes were connected to variable AC voltage transformers (variacs); see ﬁgure 3-19. The chamber was completely covered with twolayers of thin aluminium foil to maintain uniform temperatures across the chamber.
Typically, before heating the chamber, the pressure in the main chamber was around10−7 Torr; see ﬁgure 3-20.

The chamber temperature was raised by about 50◦ every twohours. It was very important to monitor the temperatures around each heating element30

At around 350◦ -400◦ C, the knife edges start to lose their sharpness, so one must be careful when re-using
vacuum parts baked out to such high temperatures.
31
The gate valves had Kalrez seals in order to increase the bake temperature.

95

Figure 3-19: A photo of the chamber just prior to the bakeout. The variacs are connectedto the band heaters and heater tapes attached to the chamber. The chamber was thencovered with aluminium foil and heated up.

1 E-05

Cooldown
beginsPressure (Torr)

1 E-06

1 E-07

Degassing
1 E-08

Ion pumps
on

1 E-09Temp.
increased
1 E-101 E-11
11/26/00

11/28/00

11/30/00

12/2/00

12/4/00

12/6/00

Bake out time

Figure 3-20: Typical variation of the pressure in the vacuum chamber during bakeout. The
solid square symbols indicate the pressure measured by the ion gauge at the top of thechamber (port #7), the open triangles the pressure in the science chamber, and the graycrosses the pressure measured by the slower region, right in front of the slower ion pump(see ﬁg. 3-5).

96

every half hour initially to ensure that we were not raising the temperature too fast or too
slow, which could result in cracks in the vacuum windows. The temperatures were measured
manually using a hand-held temperature gauge attached to a thermocouple that was placed
against the hot chamber walls. During this time, the ion gauges were turned oﬀ periodicallywhen the pressure rose about 10−5 Torr. Regarding the vacuum windows, it was importantto keep in mind that the hot air outside the chamber rises upwards and so maintaining auniform temperature across the vacuum chamber meant that the heating elements on thewindows on the bottom of the chamber (ports # 12, 13, 18, and 19) required more powercompared to top ports. The turbo pump was heated to only about 70◦ C since the turbo
pump blades are very sensitive to high temperatures, including thermal radiation. So, we
had to even keep the vacuum elbow connecting the turbo pump to the chamber below
70◦ C 32 . Once the entire chamber was heated to maximum temperature, we degassed thevarious active elements in the chamber such as the ion pumps (1 hour), TSP (30 A for 2
hours on each ﬁlament), ion gauges (1 hour for each ﬁlament) and the residual gas analyzer(RGA; 30 minutes). The degassing was performed during both bakeout cycles. During
this time, when the chamber was maximally hot, we still had to monitor the chamber
temperature at various locations periodically to ensure that no part of the heating elements
broke down during the bakeout.
Finally, the ion pumps were turned on and left on for a couple of days before we started
to cool down the chamber. During this time, we turned on the RGA and measured thepartial pressures of gases present inside the vacuum chamber33 . The the main gas load in
the chamber after heating is from hydrogen (H2 and H). During its operation, the RGA
releases CO, which the same molecular mass as N2 , and hence we see a peak at mass 28.
Although similar, this peak does not indicate a leak. A leak in the chamber would beindicated by a 1:4 ratio of the mass peaks at 32 and 28 (O2 and N2 ). In addition, a leak can
be detected by measuring the gas load of helium inside the chamber as the gas is sprayedoutside the chamber. A strong suppression of all the gases, apart from hydrogen, indicatesthat the bakeout is nearing its end.
The cool down was a very crucial step where we had to be very careful not to lower
the temperature too quickly. Typically, as the temperature is lowered, we observed thepressure drop by about an order magnitude for a temperature drop of about 50◦ C. Whenthe chamber is cooled to the ambient room temperature, the pressure inside the mainchamber was mid-10−10 Torr. At this point, we ﬁred our TSP getter pumps (15 min at
47 A), which pushed pressures below mid-10−11 Torr, below which our ion gauges become
inoperational due to lack of ion current in the ﬁlament34 . Thus, the entire pump-down cycle
32

In addition, we had a fan cooling the turbo pump such that its air currents only cooled the pump andnot the rest of the chamber.
33
It was important to cool the RGA slightly since the electronics in the attached RGA head cannot handle
very high temperatures. We used a fan, similar to the turbo pump, to cool the RGA head during its
operation.
34
As mentioned earlier, this low current error in the Varian ion-gauges is termed ‘E03’, error #3.

97

RF coils

Re-entrant
bucket window

FeedthroughFigure 3-21: A photo of the rf coils mounted on one of the re-entrant bucket windows. Eachcoil consisted of two turns, and they were attached through a miniﬂange feedthrough. The
ground of the BNC feedthrough unfortunately got shorted to the bucket and hence to therest of the chamber.

that lasted about two weeks was aimed at eliminating the ﬁlament current on the gauges,
signalling yet another victory over nature’s abhorrence of vacuum.
While the main chamber and oven bakeout cycles were very successful, we had somediﬃculties with the science chamber. The reason was a mechanical ﬂaw in the Kimballphysics steel chamber, where one of the 4.5 knife-edges was tilted by about 10 mils. Thisﬂaw resulted in a leak in the science chamber that was detected by measuring heliumpressure using the RGA35 . This leak limited the pressure to the mid-10−10 Torr in thescience chamber. Since this was a ﬂaw in the chamber itself, we had to replace the chamberby another similar Kimball Physics chamber. With this replacement, we reached a pressure
below 5 × 10−11 Torr in the science chamber after another bakeout.
Attaining UHV in a large vacuum chamber is no easy task. It requires a considerable
amount of patience and hard work and the possibility of leaks (virtual and real) only increase
with addition of complex elements inside the vacuum chamber. During its operation, themain chamber is surrounded by various infrastructure necessary for making large BECs, suchas electronics, magnetic trap coils, optics, etc. Baking out the chamber necessarily requires
removing all of the surrounding infrastructure, and therefore, doing the BEC ‘science’ in a
separate vacuum chamber that is easy to remove, install and bakeout is essential for doing
more complicated BEC experiments.

3.5

RF coils

As in BEC-I, the RF coils for BEC-III were placed inside the chamber. For details on
making of RF coils and RF evaporation, see chap. 3 of Chris Kuklewicz’s thesis [130] and35
In fact, we accidently vented the main chamber when attempting to check for a leak in the sciencechamber with the RGA was connected to the oven region.

98

14 cmQuadrupole coil
6 radial turns
7 axial layers

Anti-Bias coil
6 radial turns
3 axial layers

Curvature coil
6 radial turns
8 axial layers

Cloverleaf coil
4 radial turns
3 axial layers

Figure 3-22: A photo of the one of the coil sets for the cloverleaf magnetic trap. The numberof turns in each of the coils is shown in the ﬁgure. The spacing between the two coil sets
was roughly 1.25 .

the Varenna notes [100]. A review of evaporative cooling is given in ref. [58].
The RF coils consisted of two rectangular coils of two turns each, with dimensions of
14 × 2.5 cm, as shown in ﬁg. 3-21. The coils were connected in a Helmholtz conﬁguration
to produce a bias ﬁeld at the center of the chamber. The coils were wound using kapton
insulated copper wire36 , around four threaded rods that were attached to the chamber using
the 6-32 screws welded on the bucket ﬂange (see ﬁg. MIT/L2a,b in appendix A). The coils
were connected to a miniﬂange BNC vacuum feedthrough. This feedthrough was attached
to one of the miniﬂange ports on the re-entrant bucket windows. The output (30 MHz-1
MHz) of a SRS DS345 function generator was ampliﬁed by a 1-Watt RF ampliﬁer and sent
into the chamber through the BNC feedthrough.

3.6

Cloverleaf trap

As mentioned earlier, we used a Ioﬀe-Pritchard type magnetic trap in the cloverleaf conﬁguration to make our BEC. The re-entrant bucket ports were designed to hold the cloverleaf
trap outside the vacuum chamber, yet close enough to the atoms for providing high magnetic
ﬁeld gradients. The trap was designed, wound, and tested by Aaron Leanhardt. The coils
were wound using the insulated 1/8 hollow square tubing (3.5 mm OD with insulation)that was used for constructing the slower.
Rather than a schematic, a photo of the actual coils is shown in ﬁg. 3-22. For a wiring
36

22 AWG with a maximum current rating of 5.5A.

99

diagram and a discussion of the magnetic ﬁelds produced by the cloverleaf coils, see sec. 3.5
of Dan Stamper-Kurn’s thesis [26] and the Varenna notes [100]. Essentially, the cloverleaf
coils produce a 2D radial quadrupole ﬁeld. Each of the eight cloverleaf coils consisted of
4 radial turns and 3 axial layers. The wound coils were held together using DEVCON 5minute epoxy, whose maximum temperature rating was 93◦ C 37 . These coils were closest to
the chamber, with a separation between two coil sets of about ∼ 1.25 . By measuring the√radial trap frequency of a BEC (νr ∝ B  / B0 ), we measured the magnetic ﬁeld gradientproduced by the cloverleaf coils to be .617 G/(cm A) 38 . This implied that by running 500 Aof current, we could achieve a gradient of about 300 G/cm. Additional bias ﬁelds resulting
from the cloverleaf coils was partially cancelled by an extra ‘trombone’ coil mounted behindthe entire coil set that could be translated by a few cm, see below.
Directly around the cloverleaves was the anti-bias coil, which was used to cancel themagnetic bias ﬁeld produced by the curvature coil that was directly behind the cloverleaf
coils. The inner diameter of the curvature coil was 1.25 such that the coil could just be
slid around the ‘bucket window’. The curvature coil had 6 radial turns and 8 axial layers,
and the anti-bias coil had 6 radial turns and 3 axial layers. The two coils were connected
in series, such that the total curvature expected from coils was 0.994 G/(cm2 A) with aresulting bias ﬁeld of 0.1 G/A 39 . At 200 A, the net calculated bias ﬁeld was around 20 G,
which was rather large. By measuring the axial trap frequency of a magnetically trapped
BEC, we measured the curvature of the ﬁnal magnetic trap to be 1.062 G/(cm2 A) and thetotal bias ﬁeld measured using a BEC, including the curvature/anti-bias trombone coil (seebelow) and assuming no contribution from the cloverleaf coils, was 0.087 G/A (8.45 G at
97 A). Since this bias ﬁeld was rather large, we reduced the ﬁnal bias ﬁeld for making a
BEC using external y-compensation coils (see secs. 3.6.1 and 3.9) such that the magnetic
bias ﬁeld at the bottom of our trap was typically about 1.5 G.
In BEC-I, one of the curvature coils and an anti-bias coil were run in an anti-Helmholtz
conﬁguration to make a 3D quadrupole magnetic ﬁeld for the MOT (see [26], pg. 59). Whileit was suﬃcient, the coils did not make perfect ﬁeld gradients, since the coils were of diﬀerent
sizes. Instead, we decided to build separate quadrupole coils to make the MOT. This coil
was also designed to provide large enough gradients so that we could produce BECs in an
optically plugged trap similar to the ﬁrst experiments at MIT. In this ﬁrst experiment [52],
BEC was made by evaporating atoms in a plugged trap made by combining a sphericalquadrupole magnetic trap with a repulsive optical dipole beam focused on the magnetic
zero. Evaporation in this quadrupole trap can be very fast (∼ 5-7 s) due to the tightconﬁnement. Thus, with a fast evaporation cycle, we could make a BEC in the plugged
quadrupole trap, transfer it into the tweezers trap, and transfer it in the science chamberin less than 10 seconds.
37

Hence, the coil sets would have to be removed for a bakeout of the main chamber.
A bench test measured the ﬁeld gradient produced by the coils to be 0.629 G/(cm A).
39
With the bench test, we measured 0.975 G/(cm2 A) for the curvature.
38

100

The quadrupole coil consisted of two sections wound on top of each other: one with 4
radial and 7 axial layers, and the other with 2 radial and 7 axial layers. The quadrupole
coil was placed around the curvature coils. The calculated gradient from these coils was
1.275 G/(cm A) and bench measurements gave a value of 1.288 G/(cm A).
The electrical connections for these coils were all made outside the coil structure itself,
unlike in the ﬁrst cloverleaf coils [26]. This allows for a re-arrangement of coil connectionsin the future. For example for a Feshbach experiment one needs very stable magnetic ﬁelds
at around a kG [53, 131]. Thus if the curvature and the anti-bias coils were connected in a
Helmholtz conﬁguration, we could get upto 3 G/A for each pair such that with 250 A of
current, we could get upto 1500 G. In addition, the quadrupole coils can also be conﬁgured
in a Helmholtz conﬁguration, and they could generate about 980 G for 250 A of current40 .
Apart from these major coils, we also wound additional coils that would produce bias
ﬁelds in the x and z directions. These coils could be used to control the radial position of
the magnetic trap. These coils had 2 axial and 1 radial turns. These coils are expected
to produce about 8 mG/A. Finally, we wound two adjustable coils that are called the‘trombone coils’ for historical reasons. These coils were supposed to compensate for the bias
ﬁeld produced by the cloverleaf coils and the curvature/anti-bias coils. The coils were runin series with their respective coils, and by adjusting the axial distance from the magnetic
trap, we hoped to compensate for the bias ﬁelds such that changes in the current would
not alter the bias ﬁeld at the bottom of the trap. The cloverleaf trombone was made of 4
axial layers and 1 radial turn and the curvature/anti-bias trombone coil was made of 5 axial
layers and 1 radial turn. The cloverleaf trombone coil eﬀectively cancelled the residual bias
ﬁeld arising from the cloverleaf coils such that the residual ﬁeld was only 1.6 mG/A in the+ŷ-direction. However, even with the curvature/anti-bias trombone coil, the net residualbias ﬁeld from the curvature/anti-bias coils was about 94 mG/A in the +ŷ-direction. Thus,
the trombone coil for the curvature was ineﬀective, and as mentioned earlier, an additional
bias ﬁeld produced by external y-compensation coils was used to reduce the oﬀset magnetic
ﬁeld of the trap.
The coils (except for the adjustable ‘trombone’ coils) were all initially held together
with a thin kapton insulated wire as shown in ﬁg. 3-22. Finally, the coils were rigidly
held by epoxying the entire coil set with Dexter-Hysol epoxi-patch EPK-1C-White (sameas the slower epoxy). The coils were attached to 1/2 -threaded rods that were connected
to an aluminum plate. With this aluminum plate, we mounted the coil set onto the bucket
ﬂange using the 1/4-20 tapped holes on the ﬂange (see ﬁg. MIT/L2a in app. A). The‘trombone’ coils were also connected to these threaded rods, using which the ﬁnal positionof the trombone coils could be adjusted. It was important to be sure that the threadedrods and nuts were non-magnetic. A thin Kapton sheet was glued on the front of the coils
40

The maximum current in the curvature, anti-bias and the quadrupole coils is limited by present ﬂow
rates for water cooling101

to insulate the coils from any contact shorts that might result when the coilset was pressed
into the bucket port.
Finally, to reduce the resistance of the wires, the 1/8 hollow square wires were silversoldered outside the coil set to hollow circular wires of 0.25 OD and 0.12 ID. This increased
the conductivity of the wires by a factor of 12. Thus, for running 500 A of current throughthe cloverleafs coils a 30 V power supply was suﬃcient. In addition, circular wires wereeasier to connect to water sources using Swagelok connectors.
The high currents in the cloverleaf coils require water cooling. In order to maintain atemperature rise of only 25◦ C for the ﬂowing water, the ﬂow rate in each cloverleaf coil set(four leaves plus the leads) was about 1.1 L/min and 1.0 L/min in the curvature/anti-bias
coils.

3.6.1

Compensation coils

Finally, in order to compensate for stray magnetic bias ﬁelds in the main chamber, we wound
two external coils in each direction such that in Helmholtz conﬁguration, they produced
about 1 G/A at the center of the chamber41 . They were wound using a 16-gauge stranded
wire that was insulated with a high temperature silicone-rubber insulation (200◦ C). Basedon the directions deﬁned in ﬁg. 3-2, the circular y-coils had 15 turns each, and were woundaround the 8 port just behind the bucket ﬂanges. The x and z coils were rectangular with
12 turns each.
For the science chamber, we also wound external coils (two coils in each direction) suchthat the Helmholtz pair produced about 1 G/A and in the anti-Helmholtz conﬁguration,
they produced about 0.2 G/cm/A. See ﬁg. 3-1b.

3.6.2

High current switching

The cloverleaf gradient coils were connected to a 30V-500A Lambda EMI power supply
and the curvature/anti-bias and the quadrupole coils were each connected to a 20V-250A
power supply. To energize the increasing ﬁeld section of the slower solenoid and for a modematched transfer from the MOT to the Ioﬀe-Pritchard trap, we used Xantrex power supplies.
The 15 A for the decreasing ﬁeld slower solenoid and 5.6 A for the slower compensation coilwere provided by Sorenson power supplies. All power supplies were operated in currentmode. The switching of the high currents was done using high current IGBTs42 and low
currents using 40A-MOSFETs that were all controlled by TTL signals from the ‘word
generator’ (see sec. 3.8). Since IGBTs dropped about 2 V, about a kW had be dissipatedin the IGBTs using water cooling.
41

The y-compensation coils produced 1.4 G/A.
For the cloverleaf coils, we used two IGBTs in parallel and for the curvature/antibias coils we used asingle 600 A IGBT.
42

102

3P3/2{F’ = 360 MHz2
1
0

On resonance : F=2 probe (σ-)-18 MHz detuned: MOT

34 MHz16 MHzOn resonance: F=1 probe (σ-)
repumping light

Slowing light, σ(1 GHz detuned)

3S 1/2{F=21.77 GHz
F=1

Figure 3-23: A schematic of the relevant atomic transitions in sodium.

3.7

Light for the MOT

The starting point for almost all BEC experiments is the magneto-optical trap43 .

Amagneto-optical trap requires nearly-resonant laser light to cool and trap the atoms. Thislaser light is usually 3Γ/2 ∼ 15 MHz detuned from the F = 2 → F  = 3 cycling transition.
A schematic of the atomic levels and the detuning of laser light required for the MOT, slowing and probing beams are shown in ﬁg. 3-23. In all of our experiments, we used a dark-spot
MOT [133], which required a separate repumping beam resonant on the F = 1 → F  = 2
transition. This allowed for a much denser, darker MOT than the standard ‘bright’ MOT.
For a ‘bright’ MOT, the repumping light was generated by adding 1.71 GHz sidebands on
the MOT light. The slowing light, as mentioned earlier, was detuned by 1 GHz from theF = 2 → F  = 3 transition. For more detailed information on the generation of the laser
light, see sec. 3.4 of Dan Stamper-Kurn’s thesis [26]. When building the apparatus for BECIII, we decided to use the existing laser system for BEC-I and split the laser time between
BEC-I and BEC-III. This was initially convenient since it was the members of BEC-I whowere involved in building BEC-III44 . The laser system for BEC-I was a Coherent 899 dyelaser with a high pressure nozzle45 that was pumped by Spectra Physics Millenia laser (532
nm, 8.5 W). All of the laser light described above was generated from the output of thedye laser. Typically, about 2 W of the golden-yellow sodium light is generated from thedye laser. The laser frequency was referenced to an external saturation-absorption lock-in
scheme and was locked to a Fabry-Perot cavity.
43

Hydrogen-BEC uses cryogenically cooled atoms instead of a magneto-optical trap for pre-cooling, see[132].
44
More recently, BEC-III is engaged in building a new laser system for itself to increase eﬃciency. Detailsof this new system will be presented in a future thesis.
45
The dye pressure is typically 12 bars.

103

1"

Bucket window

Dark MOT

Figure 3-24: A photo of the dark-MOT. The photo is taken through the ‘tweezers port’(#3). The bright spot in the middle of the chamber are about 1% of the trapped atoms(the rest are in the dark . The re-entrant bucket windows are also visible. The spacing
between the buckets is about 1 .

Not having to build another laser system enabled us to push ahead with the constructionof the new apparatus and focus on transporting atoms. Although we did not have to generate
the light, we still had to bring it over onto the optical table. This was accomplished using
optical ﬁbers. Optical ﬁbers have now become a standard tool for optics; they are almost as
easy to make and use as the BNC-cables for electronics. Axel Görlitz led the eﬀort to ﬁberize
our laser beams and bring them over onto the optics table. Using a standard Thorlabs ﬁber
making kit, we connectorized our optical ﬁbers. All of the ﬁbers were non-polarization
maintaining ﬁbers, except the slowing light ﬁber. This was important to ensure that theslowing light had good polarization to maintain atoms on the cycling transition. Typicallaser powers after the ﬁber are 100 mW for the MOT light, 20 mW for the repumping light,
30 mW for the slowing light and less than a mW for the probing beams.
The MOT light was split into 6 beams, whose relative beam intensities could be independently controlled, and sent into the vacuum chamber through ports #4, 7, 12, 18 andthe bucket windows. The repumping beam was sent through an opaque spot46 of about 4
mm OD, and the shadow from this spot is imaged onto the atoms using port #10. A photoof the dark MOT is shown in ﬁg. 3-24. Typical ﬁeld gradient for the MOT was 11 G/cm
(9 A) along the axial-direction, produced using the quadrupole coils. Despite the fact that
we used non-polarization maintaining ﬁbers, the stability of the ﬁbers and optics setup wasgood enough such that a re-alignment of the MOT beams was not required for more than
3-4 weeks.
46

The dark spot is just a circular piece of paper glued onto a glass slide.

104

3.7.1

Looking at the atoms

To observe the atoms in either absorption imaging or in phase-contrast imaging [26, 100],
the atoms were imaged onto a Roper Scientiﬁc/Princeton Instruments CCD camera using
achromatic lenses. Typically, we magniﬁed the atoms by a factor of 2. The CCD camera
was back-illuminated47 and was capable of kinetic mode. The chip size was 6.65 × 13.3 mm(512 × 1024, 13 µm long, square pixels). Half of the chip was covered such that the images
could be obtained in only 512 × 512 pixels. The other half was used for frame-transfer. We
also used the accompanying Windows based WinView software for transferring the images
from the camera.

3.8

The Word Generator – computer control

During its routine operation, a BEC experiment is nothing but precisely timed electronic
pulses that add and shift frequency components to our laser light using acousto-optic andelectro-optic modulators, open/close optical and mechanical shutters, and turn on/oﬀ various MOSFET and IGBT switches for power supplies and function generators. A BEC iscreated when the sodium atoms dance to this tune of optical and electronic cues. It isamazing that a quantum object (BEC) is created using mainly macroscopic elements. The
only microscopic and quantum-mechanical elements are the sodium atoms and the photons
from the laser beams.
Controlling the timing of these electronic pulses that make the BEC is extremely important. Fortunately, we could borrow a lot of the infrastructure and expertise from Chris
Kuklewicz (from BEC-II), who had written new software using National Instruments LabWindows/CVI software. This new ‘Word Generator’48 (WG) was a signiﬁcant improvement
over the BEC-I computer control equipment using older, now obsolete, Macintosh hardware.
We improved upon Chris’s WG by increasing the number of digital bits to 64 and the number of analog channels to 16 49 . Detailed information about the Word Generator and its
functioning is given in chap. 4 of Chris’s thesis [130]. I will only provide the basic essentials
below.
Two National Instruments digital cards (PCI-DIO-32HS) provide the 64 channel digital
outputs and two high speed 12-bit 8 channel analog cards (PCI-6713) provide the 16 analog
outputs. These four cards, along with a GPIB card (PCI-GPIB), were mounted in a standard PC. The cards were all connected together by a RTSI cable. The timing of all of thecards (except the GPIB card) was controlled by one of the PCI cards50 , with a 2 µs update
47

The back illumination increases the quantum eﬃciency at 600 nm from 30% to 85%.
The computer software is called a ‘Word Generator’ since a single sequence of TTL pulses and analog
signals is called a ‘word’. One ‘word’ is made of 64 digital bits and an analog buﬀer for 16 channels. A
combination of these ‘words’ is then the electronic ‘BEC poetry’.
49
All four BEC experiments at MIT are now using the second generation hardware/software that wasdeveloped for BEC-III.
50
In the current BEC-III WG, an older analog card (C-type) is set as the master timing card, with the48

105

rate for all cards. The GPIB timing was still controlled explicitly by the computer [130].
The GPIB bus directly controlled frequency and amplitude of the rf ouput from a SRS
DS345 function generator.
The 12-bit analog channels that provide voltage from -10 to 10 V were fairly noisy andunfortunately had a resolution of only 5 mV (20 V / 4096). Nonetheless, it was used tocontrol the current output of power supplies and the intensity of the infrared laser light forthe optical tweezers. This low resolution aﬀected some of the experiments such as moving
condensate in miniaturized wiretraps (see chap. 4). The ground of the analog output was
typically isolated from the lab using a INA117 diﬀerential ampliﬁer which also provided theoutput with a current output/sink of about 20 mA. The voltage output from each of thesechannels could be controlled independently and arbitrarily.
Each of the 64 output channels from the digital cards was optically isolated and converted to a standard rail-to-rail TTL (0-5 V) using a 74OL6000 optoisolator. The TTL
output was then buﬀered through an ACTQ-series buﬀer chip, that provided the channel
with a maximum current output/sink of 24 mA. Any spurious switching noise on the TTL
output was eliminated by adding a RC element51 that also increased the 1/e rise/fall time
for the TTL signals to 400 ns. The TTL outputs controlled various electronics controlling
the laser frequency and intensity, and switches for powersupplies during the various stagesof making a BEC.

3.9

Making the BEC

Finally, by early 2001, all of the elements for making BECs were added to the BEC-III
apparatus. We had the UHV in our chamber, the word generator was online, various
switching electronics were being implemented, the cloverleaf coil sets were installed in thebuckets, the golden-yellow laser light for the MOT garlanded our optics table, and we wereready to observe some quantum mechanics in action!
A cold dense atomic cloud is an important pre-requisite for making a BEC. Transferring
this cold cloud into a magnetic trap and evaporating it to BEC is a relatively simple step.
I will not present here the time-sequence for making a BEC, since it will be provided inchapter 5, where the making of the continuous BEC source is described. Rather, a sequenceof events in the lab that resulted in a BEC is given in the table 3.1. The ﬁnal bakeout ofthe vacuum chamber was ﬁnished by Jan 22, 2001, when we had good UHV both in mainchamber and the science chamber. About 30 days later, our ﬁrst BEC was born, shortly
after midnight on Feb 24, 2001. See ﬁg. 3-25. It was only due to eﬃcient team-work andexperience that we were able to make a BEC in the new apparatus so quickly. A roughestimate indicated that the BEC had about 3 million atoms. And over the next few days,
other cards slaved to it. Usually, a digital card is set as the master.
51
The output from the buﬀer is connected in series with a 8.2Ω resistor and a 18 nF capacitor is connected
between the BNC output and ground of the TTL breakout panel.

106

Date

Event

Jan 22, 2001

• The ﬁnal bakeout of the science chamber is done.
• We have good vacuum in both chambers.

Feb 1, 2001

• The optics for the MOT and probing are all aligned.
• Various electronics for the power supplies is built.
• The computer control ‘Word Generator 3’ comes online.

Feb 3, 2001

• First atomic beam in the chamber.
• A bright MOT is loaded from the hot thermal beam.
• No evidence of atomic beam slowing due to lack of laser power inthe slowing beam.

Feb 6, 2001

• Beam slowing works.
• A good bright MOT and preliminary dark MOT is set up.

Feb 16, 2001

• Most electronics for magnetic trap is setup except for IGBTs.
• Good dark MOT with nice polarization-gradient molasses.
• Transfer of atoms to the quadrupole magnetic trap.
• Long lifetimes (> 60 s) in the magnetic trap is observed.

Feb 20, 2001

• The IGBTs for switching high currents are installed.
• Atoms are transferred into the Ioﬀe-Pritchard-type clover-leaf
magnetic trap.
• Evaporated atoms, but runaway regime is not reached due to highbias ﬁeld (∼6 MHz) at the trap bottom.

Feb 23, 2001

• The magnetic bias is reduced using external y-compensation coils
to about 1 G (∼ 700 kHz).
• The runaway regime of evaporative cooling is reached.
• First evidence of BEC just after midnight, Feb 24, 2001.

Table 3.1: The major events in the process of making the ﬁrst condensates in BEC-III, andtheir associated dates are listed above.

107

a)

b)

Figure 3-25: The ﬁrst condensates in BEC-III. a) An absorption image after about 25 ms ofballistic expansion of the condensate on Feb 24, 2001. The condensate number was about
3.2 million. b) An absorption image of a pure condensate after 60 ms of ballistic expansion(Feb 28, 2001). The condensate atom number was about 14 million with a radial and axialtrapping frequency of about 2π × 300 Hz and 17 Hz, respectively. The bias ﬁeld at thebottom of the trap was about 600 mG. Image size for a) 2 × 2 mm and b) 1 × 2 mm.
(reCHECK)

after adjusting various parameters, the condensates contained more than 10 million atoms.
The lifetime of these large number condensates was about 2 s without an rf-shield [100],> 10 s with an rf-shield. The lifetime increased when we reduced the density by decreasing
the radial trap frequency, indicating that we were limited by density-dependent three-bodycollisions.
To my great amazement, we did not hit any major hurdles in making a BEC. In fact,
we even eliminated the polarization-gradient molasses step. The atoms from the MOT
appeared to be cold enough that the molasses step was unnecessary. The biggest hurdle
was simply the time required to build various electronics. The quick progress is only atestament to the strength and expertise available to us (and me) within the group. As
mentioned in the introduction, it is the eﬃcient teamwork that make the Ketterle labs
what they are today.

3.10

Moving condensates

Once making a BEC had become routine (which only takes about a week), we focussed oureﬀort on transferring the magnetically conﬁned BEC into the moving optical tweezers trap.
The center of the science chamber was about 34 cm from the magnetic trap position in themain chamber. Thus, our goal was to move the condensates 34 cm into the science chamber,where could then load these transported condensates into a wiretrap, see chap. 4. In thissection, while I will focus on the ﬁnal working conﬁguration for the moving tweezers, I wantto present some of the failed initial attempts as a guide of what not to do. I hope that someof this information will be useful to future researchers embarking on similar experiments.

1083.10.1

The tweezers trap

For the optical tweezers, we used a laser operating at 1064 nm that was generated using a
20 W IPG Photonics ﬁber laser. The output of this laser was split into two beams. Bothbeams passed through two separate acousto-optic modulators (AOM) and then coupled into
two 5 m long optical ﬁbers. One of the output of the ﬁbers was used for the optical tweezers
and the other for making the reservoir trap for the continuous BEC (chap. 5). The AOMs
were used to control the intensity of the laser light after the ﬁber.
Initially, our goal was to transfer the atoms into a pancake shaped optical dipole
trap [18, 19], which could be translated. The cylindrical optical dipole trap (ODT) was
to be created using cylindrical lenses. A ‘standard ODT’ uses spherical lenses and the trap
is shaped like a highly elongated cigar, almost one-dimensional. The key reason for using
the cylindrical ODT was to increase the number of atoms that could be transferred into
the science chamber. A cylindrical ODT does not suﬀer from the enormous three-bodylosses that result from the high condensate density in the standard ODT [6]. In addition, the larger trap volume implies that we can hold many more condensed atoms (∼ 107
atoms [19]) than a standard ODT. Initial moving tests in BEC-I, where a cylindrical ODT
was implemented, indicated that we could move the trapped condensate by about 2 cm
without much loss. In BEC-III, we were unsuccessful in translating the atoms trappedusing a cylindrical ODT into the science chamber that was about 30 cm away. We spent
many months debugging the system, but eventually we decided to use spherical lenses andmove the condensate atoms using the standard pencil-shaped ODT. We believe that themain problem was due to poor beam quality and abberations in the cylindrical ODT that
arose while the lens was translated. Although it might be possible to translate a cylindricalODT created using anamorphic prism pairs, we simply decided to work with a standard
ODT. In addition, the use of air-bearing translation stage (discussed in sec. 3.10.5) mightalso improve the translation of the cylindrical ODT.
For the standard ODT, the beam from the ﬁber was expanded and then focused into
the vacuum chamber. The beam diameter out of the ﬁber was about 1 mm. We expanded
the beam size52 to about 3 cm using large f /# telescopes. A parallel beam was thenfocused by a 500 mm achromatic lens that was on a linear-motion translational stage. The
parallel beam had to be aligned to the translational stage’s linear motion. The focus of
this beam was then imaged onto the atoms using another roughly 1:1 telescope53 . During
the translation, the numerical aperture of the focussed laser beam does not change. At thecondensate position, the infrared focus had a 1/e2 beam waist radius of w0 = 24 µm.
52
The beam size was only measured visually on a IR-ﬂuorescence card, which typically over-estimates thebeam diameter.
53
The ﬁnal imaging telescope was actually about 1:1.3, leading to a 30% magniﬁcation of tweezers translation relative to the stage translation.

109

d
d/2

vmax
amax
tr

ta

tr

tv

tr

ta

tr

-amax

Figure 3-26: The trajectory of the translational stage. a) The motion parameters of thestage. The solid tine is the acceleration, the dashed line is the velocity and the dotted lineis the travel distance of the stage. The rate of change of the acceleration is governed by thejerk. For a given distance d and the maximum value of the jerk, acceleration and velocity,
the times tr , ta and tv are calculated. See text. b) The power of the infrared laser during
the translation.

3.10.2

Motion parameters

Initially, we used a MICOS/Phytron #MT-150-400-DC220 linear translation stage with
400 mm maximum travel and 120 mm/s maximum velocity. The motor was a DC brushless
servo type, with 0.5 µm encoder resolution. We observed that the during the motion of
the stage, the re-circulating ball bearing system produced a lot of vibration on the stage.
Therefore, we had to isolate the lens on the stage. Initially, we just placed pieces of damping
rubber, sorbothane, on top of the translation stage and under a breadboard to which the
500 mm lens was mounted. In addition, to decrease the vibration frequency, we added a
few kilograms of lead.
The position of the stage was controlled by a Galil motor controller that servoed the stage
position to a trajectory speciﬁed in terms of jerk (derivative of acceleration) j, acceleration a,velocity v, and distance d. The acceleration proﬁle of the translational stage was trapezoidal(see ﬁg. 3-26), with a rising slope deﬁned by the jerk and a ﬂat top deﬁned maximum
acceleration and a decreasing slope deﬁned by the jerk. In addition, if the maximum velocity
had been reached, there was a period of zero acceleration. To decelerate, the proceduredescribed above was reversed. The velocity and the distance of the stage at the end of the
trapezoidal acceleration was

vtz =

dtz =

jt2r + jtr ta: if a = amax (tr = amax /j)

jt2r: otherwise.

jt3r + 3/2jt2r ta + 1/2jtr t2a:

if a = amax (tr = amax /j)

jt3r

:

otherwise.

110

,

(3.8)

,

(3.9)

where the rampup time of the acceleration was tr and ta is the region of time where theacceleration was ﬂat with a = amax = jtr . The time ta was calculated by ensuring thateither vtz = vmax or dtz = d/2 at the end of the trapezoid. If dtz < d/2, then the velocity
was kept constant for a time tv = (d − 2dtz )/vmax . The total time for the transfer was
ttot = 4tr + 2ta + tv .
In the initial experiments, apart from the travel distance, we speciﬁed the maximum jerk,
acceleration or velocity. The transfer time was determined by these parameters as discussed
above. However, in the later experiments, based on a given travel time and distance, themaximum jerk, speed and acceleration was determined by assuming a sinusoidal velocity
proﬁle. Using the maximum travel parameters (calculated from the sinusoidal curve), thestage was moved using the trapezoidal acceleration proﬁle described above. This ensured
that the total travel time was very close to the required travel time.

3.10.3Vibration isolation

Using this system, we were able to transport the condensate in a cylindrical trap only about
10-15 cm before we lost all of the atoms. Initially, we were concerned about magnetic ﬁeld
gradients that might have reduced the trap depth during the transfer, thereby possibly
pulled the atoms out of the trap. However, we lost the atoms even when the atoms were in
the mF = 0 state, which is nominally magnetic ﬁeld insensitive. And in addition, simply
increasing the power of the infrared laser to deepen the trap did not help much, sincewith too much power the lifetime of the atoms was marginal. Therefore, we were thenconcerned with beam proﬁle changes as the trap was translated and also with vibrationsof the t-stage that could parametrically heat the atoms. To test the vibration on thestage, we used an Isotron accelerometer placed on top the stage. We discovered to ouramazement that without any vibration isolation, the stage was accelerated to values closeto g(!) in the vertical direction near the radial trap frequency when the stage was translated
at velocities close to 9 cm/s. Clearly such vibration would expel atoms out of the trap. At
slow velocities (5 mm/s), the vibration was close to 0.07g, which was acceptable but still
not very satisfactory. Also, we realized that the damping provided by just the sorbothane
was unsatisfactory since it did not reduce these large vibrations by much.
Once we realized this problem, we immediately decided to increase the damping byusing four Newport NewDamp elastomeric isolators. This set of four NewDamp isolators
were to be used with minimum load of 80 kg, which was provided by a stack of lead bricks.
See ﬁg. 3-27. With this lead stack, the amplitude of the vibrations was reduced by morethan a factor of 10. The advantage of the NewDamp isolators was that they have a roughly
constant resonance frequency over a large range of load weight. However, even with thisincreased vibration isolation, we were still unable to transport the atoms in a cylindrical
ODT for more than 15 cm. Therefore, we might have been plagued by bad beam proﬁleand abberations during the translation. Rather than analyze the beam proﬁle, we decided111

500 mm lensa)b)

Sorbothane

Lens

Newdamp

Sorbothane

Figure 3-27: Photos of the vibration isolation required for the translation. a) The initialisolation was provided only by sorbothane which was underneath the breadboard. This
setup was later modiﬁed with additional isolation, as shown in b). The ﬁnal conﬁguration
included 80 kg of lead bricks on top of NewDamp isolation. In addition to the lead stack, we
also used sorbothane underneath the breadboard on which the 500 mm lens was mounted.
The translation stage moved the lens from right to left in the photo.

to implement the standard ODT using spherical lenses.

3.10.4

Condensates on the move

It is interesting to note that after many months of unsuccessful attempts to transport the
BEC in the science chamber using cylindrical ODT, we succeeded on the ﬁrst try withthe standard ODT. All of the transfer was done using the trapezoidal acceleration proﬁledescribed in sec. 3.10.2. We typically transferred about a million condensed atoms that had
a lifetime of 16 s. See ﬁg. 3-28.
The key technical problem to overcome was the transfer of condensates from the magnetic trap into the cigar-shaped standard ODT was not as simple as in our previous experiment [6]. In the earlier experiments, the weak axis of both the magnetic trap and the opticaltrap were in same direction. However, in our case, the axis of the optical dipole trap wasalong a radial direction of the magnetic trap. Thus, it was very important to decompress
the magnetic trap as much as possible in the radial direction before turning on the optical
dipole trap. Else, the condensate was compressed enormously in all three directions and welost atoms almost immediately due to three-body collisions.
The magnetic trap was ﬁrst decompressed by increasing the oﬀset magnetic bias ﬁeld

112

7

Atom Number

10

Main chamber
Science chamber

6

10

5

10

0

20
Time (s)40

Figure 3-28: Lifetime of optically conﬁned Bose-Einstein condensates in the main andscience chambers. The number of condensed atoms is plotted vs. trapping time. Circles
and triangles represent data in the main and science chambers, respectively. Both traps
had the same characteristics with 90 mW power and trap frequencies of 4 Hz axially and440 Hz radially. The ﬂuctuations in the science chamber data are mainly due to alignment
irreproducibilities in the translation stage (see text). The lines are exponential ﬁts tothe data. The lifetimes in the main and the science chambers were 20 ± 2 and 16 ± 4 s,
respectively.

from 1.5 G to about 8.5 G 54 . This reduced the radial trap frequency from 200 Hz toabout 87 Hz. The trap was further decompressed by lowering the currents in the cloverleaf
gradient coils and the curvature coils by a factor of 10 simultaneously. This maintained theposition of the trap roughly in the same spot in two dimensions; due to the reduced trap
frequency, the condensate dropped down (gravitational sag). The radial trap frequency was
reduced to 45 Hz 55 . The condensate was transferred to the optical trap by ramping theinfrared laser light linearly up to 180 mW in 600 ms and then suddenly switching oﬀ thedecompressed magnetic trap. The optical trap depth is proportional to P/w02 , where P is
the power, and was 11 µK for 180 mW [2]. The transfer eﬃciency into the optical trap wasclose to 100%. The laser light was then ramped down to 90 mW during the ﬁrst secondof the transfer into the science chamber, in order to minimize three-body loss. The trap
frequencies of the optical trap was 440 Hz (radial) and 4 Hz (axial) with 90 mW of infraredlaser power.
After transferring the condensate into the optical trap, we pushed the 500 mm lens on thetranslation stage and transported atoms into the science chamber. Typical travel parameters
were jerk = 20 mm/s3 , acceleration = 37 mm/s2 , and velocity = 70 mm/s, yielding a totaltransfer time of 7.5 s. Although, the transfer worked for a large range of transfer parameters.
However, as the ﬁg. 3-28 indicates, the shot-to-shot number ﬂuctuations was rather high,∼ 20%, because of the alignment uncertainty of the optical tweezers due to variations in
54

This was done by simply ramping down the current in the y-compensation coils, see sec. 3.6
By lowering the current in the curvature coils, we also reduced the oﬀset ﬁeld of the magnetic trap,
which increased the radial trap frequency
55

113

500 mm lensGraniteBlock

Inlet for air

Figure 3-29: Photo of the air-bearing Aerotech translational stage. The 500 mm lens ismounted directly onto the stage. The stage is mounted to a precision polished granite blockto maintain the ﬂatness of the stage.

the compression of the rubber vibration dampers as the stage was moved back-and-forth.
The transported atoms were then loaded into a macroscopic Z-shaped wiretrap, which
is described in the next chapter.

3.10.5Air bearing stage

After the ﬁrst experiments, it became immediately clear to us that we needed to ﬁnd atranslational stage that did not produce vibrations as it translated. On hindsight, there-circulating ball-bearing system was clearly a bad choice due to the inherent vibrations.
Although we were able to circumvent the problem by using vibration isolators and stacks
of lead bricks, it is decidedly better not to have the vibrations in the ﬁrst place.
While the science chamber was being baked out with the new atom chips (see chap. 4),
we replaced the MICOS stage with an Aerotech linear air-bearing stage, ABL20040, with
400 mm travel. The stage required 80 psi of clean dry air pressure and is driven by a DC
brushless motor. The position of the stage could be read-out using a non-contact linear
encoder that is repeatable to 0.3 µm. Using the encoder, we could control the acceleration,
velocity and position of the stage by the Galil controller. The maximum load weight is
50 kg. To maintain the ﬂatness of the stage, we had to mount the stage onto an Impala
black granite block whose top surface was polished to within 3 µm ﬂatness over 50 cm. The
ﬂatness of the optical table was not good enough.
With the air-bearing translation, we now eﬃciently transfer upto 4 million condensed
atoms into the science chamber. Currently, we move the condensates in 2 s, although the114

Condensate number

10

x10

6

5

0
0

20

40
60
Time (s)80

Figure 3-30: Lifetime of the Bose condensed atoms in the main and science chamber. The
condensate was transported using the air-bearing stage. Circles and triangles represent
data in the main and science chambers, respectively. Both traps were similar but weretaken with slightly diﬀerent infrared power. In the science chamber, the infrared power was(0.3V CONVERT!!) and the radial trap frequency was 425 Hz. In the main chamber, theinfrared power was 0.4 V (CONVERT). The lines are exponential ﬁts to the data. The
lifetimes in the main and the science chambers were 35 ± 3 and 21 ± 3 s, respectively. The
lifetime in the main chamber was obtained by ﬁtting data after 10 s, since during that the
number measurement was complicated due to the quadrupole excitations from the magnetic
trap switch-oﬀ.

transfer has been achieved within 1.25 s. Typical transfer parameters for the 2 s transfer
were jerk = 1220 mm/s3 , acceleration = 390 mm/s2 , and velocity = 250 mm/s. Comparedto the old stage, we have such reduced vibrations that the 500 mm lens is mounted on thestage without any vibration isolators. See ﬁg. 3-29. We are essentially limited by the lossof atoms due to three-body recombination by the high condensate density. Typical infrared
power was around 50 mW, compared to the 90 mW with the older stage. To increase
the axial trapping frequency (and the density) during the transfer, we increased the power
during the transfer by a factor of six. At the end of the motion, the power was reduced
back. Due to this density increase and due to the initial quadrupole sloshing in the opticaltrap, the condensate is heated up a bit when it arrives in the science chamber. We typicallydecrease the power slightly and hold the trap at a constant position for about 1 s, to damp
out excitations via evaporation. The only remaining excitation is the residual longitudinalsloshing, which is practically impossible to damp out.
The 1/e lifetime of the optical dipole trap in the science chamber was about 21 ± 3 s;
the lifetime in the main chamber was about 35 ± 3 s (see ﬁg. 3-30), mainly limited bybackground gas collisions.

115

3.11

Final thoughts

In this chapter I have described in detail the making and the workings of the new BEC-III
apparatus in the Ketterle group. As I had mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, I
hope that this chapter will be useful for future experimentalists who may attempt to build
such separated chambers for BEC production and BEC science. While some of the design
considerations and details might only be useful to few researchers outside, it is a partial
record of the structure and functionality of the BEC-III apparatus. Clearly this is not the
only way to build ‘science chambers,’ but it is ours and it is especially dear to me.
The ﬁrst success of the science chamber was loading a BEC into a macroscopic magnetic
trap from the optical tweezers, which is described in the next chapter. After this initial success, we broke vacuum in the science chamber (and maintained UHV in the main chamber),and replaced the macroscopic wire with miniaturized wires on an atom-chip. In addition,
we installed a mechanical shutter for blocking the MOT light. This shutter was one of the
key elements for our success in making the continuous BEC; see chap. 5. The successful
bakeout of the science chamber with a turn-around time of less than three weeks was verysatisfying. All of the set goals were accomplished.
It is said that the best form of ﬂattery is copying or reproduction; thus, the best indication of our success was that an (almost) identical vacuum chamber has now been successfully
implemented for the rubidium BEC-IV apparatus. They plan to use the same moving optical tweezers technique for their science chamber.

116

Chapter 4

Macroscopic and miniaturized
wiretraps
In this chapter I will describe the ﬁrst experiments in the science chamber, where we loadedtransported atoms into both macroscopic and miniaturized single-wire magnetic traps. This
work is presented in these papers:• T. L. Gustavson, A. P. Chikkatur, A. E. Leanhardt, A. Görlitz, S. Gupta, D. E.
Pritchard and W. Ketterle, “Transport of Bose-Einstein Condensates with OpticalTweezers” , Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 020401-4 (2002). Included in Appendix E.
• 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” , Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 040401-4 (2002).
The route to BEC required a marriage between optical trapping techniques and magnetic
trapping. Although, the ﬁrst trapping of neutral atoms with magnetic ﬁelds was facilitatedby using laser cooled atoms [134], it was only in 1994-95 that the techniques were combinedwith rf-evaporation to ﬁnally reach BEC [22]. Magnetically trapped atoms continue to be
workhorse of the BEC industry1 , and the trend has been to produce magnetic traps that aresmaller and use less power[136]. Both mesoscopic [137, 138] and micro-fabricated [139–146]
magnetic traps and guides using simple wire conﬁgurations have already been implemented
for cold neutral atoms. As our ﬁrst demonstration of the utility of transported BECs,
we loaded a BEC from the optical tweezers into a single wire Ioﬀe-Pritchard trap. After
this initial work, we then loaded a transported BEC into a micro-fabricated magnetic trap
and waveguide formed by running currents in lithographic wires on substrates, similar tointegrated circuit chips. A key goal of using BECs in these magnetic waveguides is to enable
small scale atom interferometers. This work is still in progress and will be the focus of Aaron
1

Except for the Chapman group who produced the ﬁrst all optical BEC [135].

117

Miniflange Feedthrough

5 mm

4.5"

Figure 4-1: A photo of the Z-shaped wiretrap in the science chamber. The central segment islabelled and is 5 mm in length. The end segments are connected to a miniﬂange feedthrough(rated to maximum current of 5 A).

Leanhardt’s future Ph.D. thesis. Thus, I will only highlight some of the key features of thiswork and the advantages of using transported condensates.

4.1

Mesoscopic Z-wiretrap

The mesoscopic wire trap we chose to load was a Z-shaped wiretrap (wire diameter =1.27 mm) [140, 147] (see ﬁg. 4-1). The wire was connected using one of the miniﬂange
feedthroughs of the science chamber (see sec. 3.2.3). The length of central segment of the‘Z’ was L = 5 mm long. The current ﬂowing through this wire combined with an external
magnetic ﬁeld produced a 2D quadrupolar ﬁeld conﬁguration near a ﬁeld zero. It is thisﬁeld conﬁguration that was used to produce the magnetic waveguides [138]. The current in
the end segments of the Z provide axial conﬁnement and allows for a non-zero oﬀset ﬁeld
for the trap. The magnetic ﬁeld conﬁguration is of a Ioﬀe-Pritchard type [147]. The trap
center is located at z0 = (µ0 /2π)Iw /B0 below the central wire, where the external bias ﬁeld
B0 is equal and opposite in direction to the magnetic ﬁeld produced by the current Iw in
the wire. The axial curvature provided by the two end segments is B  ∝ B0 /L2 and thebias ﬁeld at the trap bottom Bbot ∝ (Iw z0 )/(4z02 + L2 ) [147]. The radial gradient B  is√
(2π/µ0 )B02 /Iw , and the radial trap frequency is proportional to B  / Bbot .
The optical tweezers transported the BEC such that it was about 750 µm below thecentral segment of the Z-wiretrap. To transfer the BEC into the wiretrap, the current in thewire Iw and the currents producing the bias ﬁeld B0 were linearly ramped up in 1 s. The
118

(a)
740 µm

(b)

x

(c)

(d)

(e) 5 mm
Iw

y
z

ODT

B0

Figure 4-2: Absorption images of condensates in the science chamber, side view. All images
have the same scale. Condensates of  6 × 105 atoms in: a) optical trap and b) wiretrap.
The center segment of the Z-shaped wire is visible as a dark speckled horizontal strip and is
740 µm above the trapped atoms. Condensate released from: c) an optical trap after 10 msec
time-of-ﬂight and d) wiretrap after 23 ms time-of-ﬂight. e) Schematic of the wiretrap, topview. Iw = 2 A is the current through the wire, B0 = 2.9 G is the bias ﬁeld. Atoms aretrapped below the 5 mm long central segment of the wire, which is aligned with the opticaltrap axis. The supporting end segments, which provide ﬁeld curvature, are truncated in theﬁgure. The wiretrap was located 36 cm from where the condensates were produced. The
directions relative to the wiretrap is deﬁned in b), where the +y-direction is into the page.

optical trap and the wiretrap were aligned to be at the same location using magnetic ﬁelds.
The vertical height was controlled by 
the magnetic ﬁeld By and the other radial direction
was controlled by Bz , such that B0 =By2 + Bz2 . See ﬁg. 4-2e. The optical trap was thenslowly ramped down to zero, transferring the condensate into the magnetic wiretrap. Nearly
100% eﬃcient transfer was achieved for B0 = 2.9 G (By = 2.7 G and Bz = 0.92 G) and
Iw = 2.0 A. The residual magnetic ﬁelds in the science chamber, estimated to be about 300
mG, were not compensated. The trap frequencies were measured to be 36.0±0.8 Hz radiallyand 10.8 ± 0.1 Hz axially. The lifetime of the condensate in the wiretrap was measured tobe 5 ± 1 s 750 µm2 from the edge of the wire. The lifetime was much shorter (100 ± 25ms) when the condensate was moved closer to the wire (80 µm); see ﬁg. 4-3. This lifetime
was improved by adding a radio frequency shield to limit the trap depth [100]. By reducing
the current in the wire, condensates were also moved to within a few microns from the wire
surface (see ﬁg. 4-4).
These initial experiments (presented in [2]) were geared towards testing the tweezers
2

The centroid of the current density was 0.64 mm away from the wire edge.

119Condensate number

800

x10

3

600
400
200
0
0

2

4
Time (s)68wiretrap position (mm)Figure 4-3: Lifetime of the wiretrap with the trap position at 750 µm (circles) and 80 µm(triangles). Exponentials ﬁt to the data are shown, where the 1/e lifetimes were measured
to be 5 ± 1 s for 750 µm and 100 ± 25 ms for 80 µm.

1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0

1
2
wire current (A)3

Figure 4-4: The position of the wiretrap as a function of the current in the wire. The
external ﬁeld was maintained at 2.9 G throughout, and so the trap frequency varied as thetrap position was translated.

120

Gold wires

Kapton copper wires

Figure 4-5: A photo of the atom chip. The silicon wafer, at the center, is pressed against
the aluminum block with two small screws. Below the aluminum block is the feedthrough.
The connections to the feedthrough are made using kapton-insulated copper wires. Near
the chip, the copper wires are bonded to a thin gold ribbon, which are then wire-bonded to
1 mm copper pads on the chip.

technology and understanding the basics of condensates in wiretraps. Immediately afterwards we decided to push the size of the wire from about a mm to tens of microns, using
lithographic wires.

4.2

Atom chip and magnetic waveguides

As mentioned earlier, a key application for BEC tweezers was to load condensates into
micro-fabricated magnetic waveguides [139–146]. These waveguides are made using lithographically imprinted wires on either sapphire or silicon chips; hence the term ‘atom chip’.
The waveguides, analogous to ﬁber optics for light, may lead to improved manipulationof condensates, enabling sensitive atom interferometers. An alternative method of loading
BEC into waveguides is to make a BEC on an atom chip [122, 148] directly. This requires
designing structures on (or behind) the chip that allow for large currents needed for a large
trap depth necessary for conﬁning laser cooled atoms. The advantage of tweezers is that
we separate the BEC production from chip technology. Therefore, we can build magnetic
traps on our chips which dissipate only a few watts of power and can be more ﬂexible. In
addition, we can have quick turn-around time for testing new chips and designs.
A photo of the ﬁrst chip is shown in ﬁg. 4-5. We mounted this chip using the top 4.5”
ﬂange of the science chamber (see sec. 3.2.3) such that the chip was about 1 mm above the

121

IRF

I1

BEC

Tweezers
I2

B||
g
B⊥
Si Substrate

25 mm

Figure 4-6: Microfabricated magnetic trap and waveguide. Optical tweezers loaded a BoseEinstein condensate into the Z-wire trap formed by currents I1 and I2 in conjunction withthe magnetic bias ﬁeld B⊥ . Lowering I2 to zero released the condensate into a single-wiremagnetic waveguide. Atom ﬂow was from left to right. The condensate was trapped above
the plane of the paper and the gravitational force, g, points out of the page. Note that the‘lab’ directions as deﬁned in ﬁg. 4-2b are such that +ŷ is in the direction of g, +x̂ is along
B|| , and −ŷ is along B⊥ . All microfabricated features are drawn to scale.

center of the chamber, where the transported BEC arrives from the main chamber. The
optical tweezers BEC transfer was made using the air-bearing Aerotech translation stage.
Similar to the macroscopic Z-wiretrap, we planned to load a BEC from the tweezers into a
microscopic Z-wiretrap that was formed by wires on the chip.
The chip was a 600 µm thick, 25 mm-square silicon wafer that was mounted on analuminum block. The connections from the chip to the outside were made using a 2 34 ”
feedthrough with 24 connections. The kapton wires from the feedthrough were bonded
to a 5 × 2 mil gold ribbon which were individually wire-bonded to 1 mm-square copper
pads on the chip. The wires on the chip were initially etched using e−beam lithography
and then electroplated with copper upto 10 µm height3 . The wires were all 50 µm wide
and the minimum separation distance between wires was 50 µm (100 µm center-to-center).
The schematic of the wires is shown in ﬁg. 4-6. Although the initial chip was intended
to test primitive atom interferometers, we were unable to do so since only about 30% of
24 wire connections survived the bakeout. Luckily, we were able to still load atoms into a
microscopic Z-wiretrap using the surviving connections (see ﬁg. 4-6).
Transported BECs of about 2-3 million atoms were initially loaded into a Z-wiretrap
3

The MIT Microsystems Technology Laboratories (MTL) made the chip for us.

122formed by currents I1 and I2 along with an orthogonal magnetic bias ﬁeld B⊥ (see ﬁg.
4-6). Typical loading conditions were I1 = I2 = 1.2 A and B⊥ = 5.4 G, corresponding toa separation of 450 µm between the BEC and the microchip. The currents were ramped
up linearly in 250 ms. A longitudinal bias ﬁeld, B|| , tailored the transverse trap frequency
while nominally keeping the trap center in the same location relative to the surface of the
microchip. Transfer eﬃciency from the optical tweezers to the Z-wire trap was near unity
and BEC lifetimes over 10 s were observed with the application of a RF shield [100] producedby the current IRF on an auxiliary wire as shown in ﬁg. 4-6.
The BEC was transferred into the waveguide by linearly ramping the current I2 to zero in
250 ms. The atoms were smoothly accelerated into the waveguide by the remaining endcapof the Z-wire trap. Downstream, the eﬀect of this endcap was negligible and we observed
BEC propagation at a constant velocity of 3.0 cm/s after a propagation distance of 4 mm for
I1 = 1200 mA. Upon releasing the BEC from the Z-wire trap, its longitudinal velocity wascontrolled by applying an external magnetic ﬁeld gradient of variable amplitude for a ﬁxed
time. The ﬁeld gradient was linearly ramped up and down over 6.5 ms to prevent creating
excitations and was held constant for 52 ms. With modest gradients of 0 − 0.6 G/cm,
we were able to vary the atomic velocity over the range 3.0 − 6.6 cm/s corresponding tolongitudinal kinetic energies in the range 25 − 120 kHz.
Releasing the BEC into the waveguide produced little variation in its transverse conﬁnement and position relative to the microchip. The longitudinal potential experienced
by the propagating atoms was determined by the local magnetic ﬁeld (due to the Zeeman
interaction) and vertical position of the guide center (due to the gravitational interaction).
BEC propagation in the single wire magnetic waveguide was very smooth unless it was
perturbed (see also [149]). Perturbations to the guiding potential arise from geometricdeformations of the current carrying wires on the substrate. The extent to which suchdeformations alter the potential experienced by the atoms depends on the atom-wire separation distance, r, longitudinal extent of the perturbation, A, wire width, w, and wire
height, h. Under our guiding conditions (r  w, h) the waveguide potential only responds
to changes in the centroid of the current density. Preliminary experiments have shown thatthese changes in the direction of the current density centroid can result in large excitationsof the BEC as it propagates in the waveguide [3]. Similar perturbations also fragment thecondensate axially when it is brought closer than 150 µm from the wire [3]. These preliminary experiments and further experiments will be described in a future Ph.D. thesis by
Aaron Leanhardt.
In addition, initial eﬀorts to push the condensate into the quasi-1D limit [18, 150] were
not successful. We tried to enter the regime both by ‘stretching’ out the condensate in the
waveguide [18] and by reducing the number of atoms in the condensate. However, we were
not able to obtain a deﬁnite signal that the condensates were in the 1D regime. Due to thefragmentation mentioned above, we had to work with condensates far from the wire, which123resulted in a weaker radial trap frequency. Stronger radial conﬁnement will require us tobring BECs closer to the wire without fragmentation.

4.3

Discussion

Future work will explore the utility of BEC for miniature atom interferometers, gyroscopes,
etc. The work of this thesis has provided key technologies for that and also revealed potential
problems to be overcome.
We have demonstrated that optical tweezers can be combined with atom chip technology.
Our ﬁrst experiments indicated that the manufacturing process of these chips are crucial
for a successful implementation of atom interferometers on a chip. The fragmentationand short lifetimes were also observed in other laboratories [122, 148, 151]. It is importantto understand and eliminate the fragmentation of the condensate at short distances fromthe microscopic wires and to increase the lifetime of condensates at these close distances.
Shorter distances allow us to get to higher radial trap frequencies and into the quasi-1D
regime where we need to operate the atom interferometers. This regime is important because
population in the higher radial modes can lead to loss of coherence in the beam splitter.
These ﬁrst experiments with miniaturized atom chips will explore the new possibilities
for BEC beams [152]. Experiments could include a condensate beam-splitter on a chip,an atom interferometer, and studies of quantum point contact [153]. Along with otherapproaches [122, 148, 154], our BEC tweezers technique will have invaluable contributions
to this new ﬁeld.

124

Chapter 5Generation of a Continuous Sourceof Bose-Einstein Condensed atoms
In this chapter I will describe the ﬁrst experiments on continuous Bose-Einstein condensation, a crucial step towards continuous atom lasers. This work was presented in thefollowing publication:• 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 (2002). Included in Appendix F.
Optical lasers are ubiquitous in today’s world. They are used in bar-code scanners,
optometrist oﬃces for laser surgery, security systems, CD players, rock concerts, telecommunications, precision cutting tools, laser pointers, etc.

The laser, when invented in1960 [155, 156], was not envisioned for such widespread public use, but as a research tool for
improving atomic and molecular spectroscopy and for telecommunication [157]. Similarly,
the atom lasers [107–110] of today are thought to be useful for fundamental atom optics
research. However, as of now, the atom laser is a solution waiting for a problem1 . Somereasons for this are highlighted by diﬀerences between optical and atom lasers. Unlike optical lasers, atom lasers are much more diﬃcult to produce and are extremely fragile. In
addition, continuous atom lasers have not yet been demonstrated. The atom lasers have all
been operated in pulsed mode since condensed atoms were outcoupled until the condensate
was depleted. After the depletion, it took tens of seconds to form another BEC to outcouple
from. This is unlike the optical regime where it took only six months from the pulsed rubylaser [155] to the continuous-wave (cw) HeNe laser [156]. In this chapter, I will describe theﬁrst demonstration of a continuous BEC source, which is a key element of a cw atom laser.
This was only possible in the BEC-III apparatus where condensates could be continuously
stored in a reservoir trap in the science chamber while new condensates were being produced
1

After its invention, the cw HeNe laser was immediately used to transmit telephone signals [157].

125

in the main chamber to be merged with the continuous BEC in the reservoir. This physicalseparation of the BEC production from the BEC storage was crucial.

5.1

What is an atom laser?

Many people initially objected to the term ‘atom laser’ since ‘LASER’ was an acronym
denoting light ampliﬁcation by stimulated emission of radiation. However, as Dan Kleppner
has eloquently pointed out [23], the term ‘laser’ is no longer an acronym but is used to mean
a source of radiation in the coherent state. Whether the radiation is photons or atoms is
immaterial. In this sense, outcoupling of coherent atoms via stimulated processes is an atom
laser [24]. Analogous to its optical cousin, the cavity for an atom laser is the atom trap andthe gain medium is the thermal cloud from which evaporative cooling and Bose stimulation
enhances the scattering rate into the coherent state [158]. The threshold for ‘atom lasing’is the critical temperature Tc . There are of course some diﬀerences. The key one beingthat atoms cannot be destroyed (chemical potential µ = 0 and number conservation isstrictly held) whereas photons can be absorbed into matter (µ ≡ 0 and there is no number
conservation). Secondly, optical lasing typically uses a non-equilibrium inversion process,whereas the formation of a condensate occurs near a thermal equilibrium.
The ﬁrst atom laser was demonstrated when the ﬁrst order coherence of BECs wasshown using the now classic two condensate interference experiment [89], and when theatoms were outcoupled using pulsed RF2 [107]. Currently, we have many outcoupling
schemes: the mode-locked outcoupler from 1D optical lattices [108], the quasi-continuous
Raman outcoupler [110] and the continuous RF outcoupling [109]. However, as mentioned
earlier, all of these produce a pulsed atom laser simply because the outcoupling is from apulsed source.
Initial theoretical work on cw-atom lasers studied optical pumping of incoming atoms
into the laser mode [159–161]. While not fundamentally impossible, this method suﬀers fromheating due to reabsorption of scattered light [162]. More recently, evaporative cooling of aslow atomic beam from the typical phase-space density of laser cooling (10−6 ) into quantum
degeneracy has been studied [163]. Prior to our work, experimental eﬀorts have been
focused on the production and guiding of a beam of laser-cooled atoms [164–166]. These
groups plan to continuously cool the atoms into degeneracy while they are guided. It is
important to note that the optical pumping scheme is an open system and hence not inthermal equilibrium 3 , whereas both our scheme and the magnetic guiding schemes maintainthe system in thermal equilibrium.
2

One might wonder if ballistic expansion of BEC, by turning oﬀ the trap suddenly, can also be considered
as a singly pulsed atom laser.
3
There is no need for collisions anywhere.

126

5.2

Why was continuous BEC hard to make?

A continuous BEC has been diﬃcult to make simply because of the enormous parameter
space that needs to be traversed to make and store BECs. A typical cooling cycle for BECs
involves laser cooling followed by evaporative cooling. During laser cooling, atoms scatteraround 107 photons/s, whereas during evaporative cooling, light scattering must be lessthan 10−1 photons/s, since any scattering would cause heating and trap loss. Also, atoms
are cooled by a factor of a thousand from about 100 µK to 100 nK temperatures during
evaporative cooling. This requires a near perfect isolation of the hot atoms from the cold, asa single 100 µK atom has enough energy to knock thousands of atoms out of the condensate.
A continuous atom laser requires the continuous presence of condensed atoms in a trap.
This can implemented either by pulsed generation or by continuous generation [164–166].
The pulsed generation with continuous storage scheme, which we have implemented, issimilar to a scheme in which a pulsed optical laser delivers photons to an external storage
cavity from which a cw laser beam can then be extracted. In both cases, the problem ismore of a technical nature. The key technical problems that need to be solved for making
a continuous BEC source are:
• The continuous condensate stored in a reservoir trap needs to be separated from thepulsed source.
• During laser cooling, the scattered light must be shielded from the continuous condensate.
• The eﬀect of stray magnetic ﬁelds during the turn-on and operation of the magnetic
trap must have minimal (or no) impact on the reservoir trap holding the continuous
BEC.
• Finally, a successful method of merging condensates has to be found.

5.3

Solutions to technical problems

The technical problems described above, of course, have technical solutions. Sometimes,
simple technical solutions can solve seemingly complicated problems4 .

5.3.1

Physical separation of the reservoir trap

The apparatus described in chapter 3 was ideally suited for producing a continuous BEC,
since we could use the tweezers to transport condensates from where they were produced
into a physically separated reservoir trap. The reservoir trap was in the science chamber,
4

The RF outcoupler [107] was one such technical solution to the ‘diﬃcult’ problem of output coupling [158].

127

about 32 cm away from the production of the condensates in the main chamber (see ﬁg.
5-1). This solved the ﬁrst problem of physically separating cold BEC atoms from the ‘hot’
laser-cooled atoms.

5.3.2

Beam shutter to block the MOT light

To prevent laser light from aﬀecting the condensate in the reservoir trap, we used a simple
mechanical shutter to block the view from the science chamber to the main chamber (seeﬁg. 5-1). The science chamber was connected to the main chamber through a gate valve
and bellows (sec. 3.2.3). Thus, we had an aperture of 1.37” diameter between the sciencechamber and the main chamber. To minimize the amount of MOT light scattered into
the science chamber, the 1.37” aperture was reduced to 1 cm5 by an aluminum plate that
was attached internally in the science chamber using the ‘Groove Grabber’ technology
implemented Kimball Physics vacuum chambers. While the MOT was operated, we had
two sources of light entering the science chamber through the aperture: scattered light from
MOT and repumping beams and the ﬂuorescence from the conﬁned atoms in the MOT itself.
The condensate lifetime in the science chamber was not reduced when only the MOT light
was on, hence the eﬀect of scattered light was negligible6 . However, during its operation,
about 1015 photons/s are scattered from the 1010 trapped atoms in the dark MOT. This
leads to about a mW of isotropically scattered ﬂuorescence, which leads to several Hz ofphoton scattering 32 cm away. Thus, without shielding this ﬂuorescence from the MOT,
a BEC in the science chamber was destroyed rather quickly. In addition, the inside of thescience chamber was well polished such that any light that scatters into the science chamber
could bounce around a few times before exiting the chamber through the windows.
Thus, to shield the condensate from the light scattered by trapped MOT atoms, we implemented a simply shutter that blocked the 1 cm aperture. A pneumatic linear feedthroughwas attached to the bottom ﬂange of the 4” pumping tube. The feedthrough was connected
to an aluminum plate that acted as shutter (see ﬁg. 5-1). The shutter was translated up
and down using UHV bellows connected to the pneumatic linear actuator. Unfortunately,
during the motion of the shutter, some residual gas was released7 , which increased thebackground pressure, limiting the lifetime of the atoms in the science chamber to 22 s. The
shutter blocked the 1 cm aperture only during the 2 s that the MOT was on in the mainchamber (see ﬁg. 5-3). In order to reduce vibrations from the shutter, it was slowly raised
up and down such that it took about a second to fully close the aperture.
5

1 cm aperture was large enough for the tweezers beam to enter the science chamber without any clippingof the beam.
6
Note that the MOT light was 1.7 GHz detuned from resonance with the condensate atoms and it was
only the scattered repumping light that was would have been most detrimental.
7
The speed of the shutter motion was minimized to reduce outgassing.

128

Slo
we
dN
a

32 cm
Shutter

Pumps

Slide

Tweezers

1cm
aperture

Pumps
gPneumatic
Linear Actuator

Figure 5-1: A schematic of the setup for continuous BEC. On the right is the main chamberwhere the BEC is produced. A tweezers beam transports the BEC from the main to thescience chamber, where a reservoir trap maintains condensed atoms. The beam shutter
used for blocking the MOT light is shown in gray. We merged the transported condensateswith the condensate in the reservoir by tilting a glass slide in the reservoir trap infrared
beam.

5.3.3

Optical reservoir trap

It was important to use an optical trap as the reservoir trap to minimize eﬀects of straymagnetic ﬁelds from the cloverleaf magnetic traps since optically conﬁned atoms are notsensitive to magnetic bias ﬁeld; only ﬁeld gradients can aﬀect them. The ﬁeld gradientswere less than 100 mG/cm in the science chamber.
We initially tried to hold atoms in the science chamber in a magnetic Z-wiretrap (seesec. 4.2, [3]), but the atoms were lost when the magnetic ﬁelds for the Zeeman slower andthe MOT were switched on, displacing the center of the magnetic trap. Another problem
with a magnetic trap is its long range. Magnetic forces can accelerate the condensate in thetweezers as it approaches the magnetic trap, and the new condensate will violently collidewith the condensate in the reservoir. Optical traps, on the other hand, have a more limited
trap volume and depth. Hence, we can bring the condensates as close as the traps’ beam
waist before they are aﬀected by each other’s presence.
As mentioned earlier (sec. 3.10.1), the laser light for the reservoir trap was produced by
a 1064 nm laser that was coupled through an optical ﬁber. The intensity of the light wascontrolled by an AOM before the ﬁber. The optical axis of the laser beam for the continuous
reservoir was parallel to the tweezers beam with a vertical displacement of 70 µm, which
was suﬃcient to ensure that the two traps did not aﬀect each other before the merger (see129

ﬁg. 5-2). The trap characteristics were similar to the tweezers trap, which used 50 mWof laser power focused to 1/e2 beam waist radius of w0 =26 µm with a radial trapping
frequency of 440 Hz and a depth of about 2.7 µK. In order to prevent the two beams
from interfering during the merger, the polarization of the reservoir trap beam had to beorthogonal to the polarization of the tweezers beam. The AOMs for the two beams had
a frequency diﬀerence of 10 MHz, so one might nominally expect that polarization of thebeams would not matter, since any intensity grating would be rapidly washed away due
to the 10 MHz frequency diﬀerence. However, the merger was only successful when thepolarization of beams was mostly orthogonal.

5.3.4

Condensate merger

Condensates held in the tweezers beam were transferred into the reservoir by slowly lowering
the reservoir trap to the position of the tweezers focus over 500 ms (see ﬁg. 5-2B-H). It was
critical to merge the condensates along the tightly conﬁning radial direction. The large
radial trap frequencies (> 400 Hz) ensured that the merger could be done quickly and yet
be almost adiabatic, and that the radial excitations during the merger could be damped out
quickly. Tilting of a glass slide in the reservoir beam optical path allowed us to translate thereservoir trap vertically as shown in ﬁg. 5-2A8 . Initially, we tried to merge the condensates‘directly,’ without any vertical translation. This resulted in severe heating and atom loss.
Thus, the vertical translation was essential.
The collinear arrangement and the similar trapping frequencies ensured good overlap
and “mode matching” during the merger of the two traps. The ﬁnite trap depth of the
optical trap ensured dissipation by evaporative cooling. The merging of two separate condensates with a random relative phase into one condensate requires dissipation to damp out
excitations caused by the merger. Assuming that the merger creates a soliton-like excitation
at the interface of the two condensates, the excitation energy per atom is approximately
equal to the chemical potential times the ratio of the healing length to the condensate size
(E ∼ µ RTξ F ). In our experiment, this energy was typically of the order of a nanokelvin andcould be dissipated by evaporative cooling with only a small loss in the number of condensed
atoms.
It is important that the merger process be adiabatic simply to reduce excitations during the merger. Fast mergers would be like a collision between the two condensates(sec.
2.6.4,[1]).

5.4

Making the continuous BEC

Finally, after solving the technical problems, we demonstrated the continuous BEC. Due tothe relatively short lifetime (20 s), the production cycle for condensates had to be shortened
8Note that the slide was placed between a pair of beam expanding lenses.

130

A)

Continuous BEC reservoir
Tweezers

Slide

70 µm

B)

70 µm
0 ms

C)

60 µm
100 msD)

50 µm
200 msE)

35 µm
300 msF)

25 µm
350 msG)
400 msH)
500 msI)

J)

Figure 5-2: Merging of two condensates. A) Arrangement of the two optical traps. Bothoptical traps were horizontal. The focus of the tweezers beam was translated about 0.3 m
from the production chamber to the science chamber. The tweezers beam placed a newcondensate 70 µm below the condensate held in the reservoir. The merging of the twocondensates was accomplished by tilting a glass slide, which translated the reservoir laser
beam vertically. The schematic is not drawn to scale. The absorption images B-H), taken
after 2 ms of ballistic expansion, show the approach and merging of the two condensates.
The relative distance between the two traps and the elapsed time are given in the ﬁgure.
The total time for the merger was 500 ms. In images G) and H), the traps overlapped.
Image I) is an absorption image before the merger with 12 ms of ballistic expansion for thecondensate trapped by the tweezers and 9 ms for the condensate in the continuous reservoir.
Image J) is an absorption image after complete merger with 12 ms of ballistic expansion.
The ﬁeld of view is 0.2 × 4.2 mm2 (B-H) and 0.7 × 1.7 mm2 (I,J).

131

from the usual 25 s to 12 s. This was achieved primarily by shortening the evaporation cyclefrom 20 s to 8 s. The shortened cycle reduced the typical condensate number before thetransfer into the tweezers beam to 6 × 106 atoms, which is a factor of three lower than ourusual operating conditions. Nonetheless, the number of condensed atoms transported tothe science chamber did not change noticeably. Larger condensates suﬀered from stronger
three-body loss during the transfer from the magnetic to the tweezers trap. After making
the BEC, it was transferred into the tweezers laser beam as discussed in chap. 3. The
tweezers beam transported the condensates into the science chamber in 1.25 s using the
air bearing translational stage (see sec. 3.10.5). After the initial excitations of the tweezers
BEC had damped out in 1 s, the glass slide was tilted in 500 ms and the reservoir trap
was lowered 70 µm to the position of the tweezers focus and the condensates were merged(ﬁg. 5-2). The intensity of the tweezers beam was then linearly ramped to zero in another500 ms, and the reservoir was raised back to its original position. After careful optimizationof all parameters, condensates could be merged with 25% loss in the total atom number(see ﬁg. 5-4). This loss was partially due to three-body recombination in the combined trap
and partially due to the dissipation of excitations caused during the merger.
Within the next 18 s, a new condensate was produced, transported into the sciencechamber, and merged with the condensate reservoir. This cycle was repeated many times
to create a continuous source of condensed atoms. See ﬁg. 5-3 for the timing sequence inthe cycle.
In 5-3a, the dashed black line is the power for the tweezers beam. Note the sixfold
increase in power during the 1.25 s transfer. The solid black line is the power for the
reservoir beam, which was kept at 50 mW most of the time except during the merger, when
it was slightly lowered to 40 mW. It was raised back up to 50 mW when the mechanicalshutter was being closed. The gray dotted line depicts the vertical position of the reservoir
trap relative to the tweezers beam position. Nominally, the reservoir was 70 µm above
the tweezers beam except during the merger. The shaded region indicates the time during
which the MOT light was on (2.25 s). At this time, the shutter (gray solid line in ﬁg. 5-3a)
was up and it blocked the MOT light from entering the science chamber. The sequenceof magnetic trap currents is shown in ﬁg. 5-3b. For magnetic bias ﬁelds, gradients andcurvatures made by these currents, see sec. 3.6. The black solid line is the current in thecloverleaf gradient coils. During evaporation, it was ramped up to 496 A to increase thecollision rate during evaporative cooling and then ramped down to 227 A near the end of
the evaporation cycle. As noted earlier, the rf evaporation cycle from 30 MHz to about 1
MHz was reduced to 8 s from the typical 20 s. The current in the curvature coils (black
dashed line) was kept at 97 A throughout except during decompression when it was lowered
to 6 A. During the decompression, the current in the gradient coils were reduced from 227
A to 34 A. The solid gray line is the extra 30 A of negative current in the curvature coils
used for mode-matching the magnetic trap to the MOT (see [26]), and the gray dotted line

132

600

ODT power (mW)

a)
a)

400

200

70 µm

0
0

9

18

27

36

9

18
Time (s)

27

36

500
b)

Current (A)

400

300

200

100

0
0

Figure 5-3: Making a continuous BEC. The timing schemes for a) the optical traps and b)
the currents for the magnetic trap are shown for the initial loading of the condensate into thereservoir (0-18 s) and the next cycle (> 18 s). Further cycles just repeated the cycle shown
from 18-36 s. Data from four such cycles are shown in ﬁg. 5-4. The black solid and dashedlines in a) depict the optical power of the reservoir and the tweezers beams, respectively.
The gray dashed line indicates the vertical position of the reservoir trap relative to thetweezers trap in the science chamber and the gray solid line is the position of mechanicalshutter which was closed during MOT operation. The gray shaded region indicates the time
when the MOT is on. In b), the current in the cloverleaf gradient coils, the curvature/antibias coils, the extra ‘bias’ coil and the external y−compensation coils are shown as solid
black, dashed black, solid gray and dotted gray lines, respectively.
133

6

Condensate atom number (x10 )

3.0
2.0

1.0

0.5
0

18

36
Time (s)5472

Figure 5-4: A continuous source of Bose-Einstein condensed atoms. The solid circles inthe semi-log plot represent the atom number in the continuous reservoir and the open
squares show the number of condensate atoms transferred from the production chamber.
The dashed lines indicate the beginning of a new cycle and the solid lines are exponentiallydecaying curves determined by a simultaneous ﬁt to the three cycles after the ﬁrst cycle.
The number of atoms for each data point was obtained from a separate absorption image,similar to Figs. 1I,J.

is the current in the extra y−compensation coils used for lowering the oﬀset ﬁeld of themagnetic trap. It is ramped down during the ‘bias’ decompression (see sec. 3.10.4).
The number of atoms in both optical traps was determined from absorption images taken
after ballistic expansion (ﬁg. 5-2I-J). Pure condensates with negligible thermal fraction wereobserved in both traps. Fig. 5-4 demonstrates the continuous presence of more than a million
condensate atoms in the reservoir. The optical tweezers delivered a fresh condensate with
2.0 × 106 atoms in each cycle. Before the merger, the number of condensed atoms in thereservoir had decayed to 1.0×106 atoms, and grew to 2.3×106 atoms after the merger. These
numbers were obtained from a simultaneous exponential ﬁt for the three cycles following
the ﬁrst cycle (Fig. 2) with a statistical error of 0.05 × 106 atoms. Therefore, the merged
condensate is signiﬁcantly larger than each of the two condensates before the merger. During
the 18 s production and transfer cycle, the condensate in the reservoir decayed with a 1/elifetime of 22 ± 1 s, mainly limited by background pressure.

5.4.1

Crossed-dipole continuous BEC

In a preliminary experiment, we were also able to produce a continuous BEC using thereservoir and tweezers traps in a crossed-dipole conﬁguration, where the axis of the tweezers
beam was perpendicular to the reservoir trap. The timing of the transfer was similar to the134Condensate atom number

1.0x10

6

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0

19.2

38.4
Cycle time (s)

57.6

76.8

Figure 5-5: A continuous source of Bose-Einstein condensed atoms in the crossed-dipole
conﬁguration. The solid circles represent the atom number in the continuous reservoir. The
dashed lines indicate the beginning of a new cycle. Each cycle was 19.2 s long. The dashedregion indicates the time during which the MOT was on. The number of atoms for eachdata point was obtained from a separate absorption image, similar to Figs. 1I,J.

parallel conﬁguration, except that we used a 9 s evaporation cycle and the MOT was on
for 2.05 s (instead of 2.25). Thus, the production cycle was 19.2 s long. The key diﬀerence
between the crossed dipole and the parallel conﬁgurations was that we used condensate
atoms in the mF = 0 hyperﬁne state rather than the mF = −1 state to make the BEC.
In fact, only the magnetically insensitive mF = 0 atoms survived in the reservoir trap andmF = −1 atoms were forced out of the trap by a ﬁeld gradient. In the crossed conﬁguration,
the weak axis of the reservoir trap was along the direction of the strongest ﬁeld gradient in
the science chamber, which was from the ion pump (see ﬁg. 3-2). Once the BEC was loaded
from the magnetic trap into the tweezers beam, we transferred the BEC atoms from the
mF = −1 into the mF = 0 state using a Landau-Zener transfer in the main chamber9 [100],and then translated the atoms into the science chamber. We typically transferred about
one million mF = 0 condensed atoms in the science chamber. By tilting a slide we lowered
the reservoir trap to the location of the tweezers beam with the new condensate and merged
the two. See ﬁg. 5-5.
However, compared to the parallel conﬁguration, the atom number in the reservoir was
lower by an order of magnitude. Although we never lost all of the condensate, we only
had about 100,000 atoms in the reservoir atoms during the production cycle. This wasdue to a rapid loss of atoms when the two traps overlapped, possibly due to three-bodyrecombination resulting from increased density. In the crossed conﬁguration, during the9

In 400 ms, we ramped a bias ﬁeld to about 4 G in the main chamber for the 5 ms transfer.

135

merger, we have tight conﬁnement in all directions, whereas in the parallel conﬁguration(ﬁg. 5-2A) the axial direction is weaker than the radial direction even during the merger.
In addition, we noticed a sudden drop in the atom number, when the mechanical shutter
blocking the MOT light was opened. We suspected that it might be due to residual gases
released during the opening/closing of the shutter. As noted earlier, the optical trap oriented
perpendicular to the tweezers beam was not as robust as in the collinear conﬁguration due
to the ﬁeld gradients from the ion pump.
The collinear conﬁguration is signiﬁcantly better than the crossed-dipole conﬁguration.
Apart from the obvious fact that we had more atoms in the parallel case, the number ofcondensed atoms in the reservoir also increased after each merger, whereas it decreased in
the crossed case due to excessive three-body recombination.

5.5

Phase of the continuous BEC

An interesting aspect of the continuous BEC is its phase. In the experiments, we havedemonstrated a continuous presence of condensed atoms, but the condensate phase was
not measured. Measuring the phase of a condensate is not a trivial task. Apart from anµtoverall global phase, all condensates evolve with a phase factor e−i  , and this phase willchange as the chemical potential µ of the condensate changes due to the ﬁnite lifetime of
the condensate. This phase diﬀusion due to change in atom number of a single condensate
has never been measured. So far, the phase evolution of condensates has been traced only
over sub-second time intervals [108, 167]. Also, the phase diﬀusion of a condensate trappedin a 2D optical lattice has been observed [104], although the dephasing was attributed toresidual lattice vibration. A measurement of the phase of the continuous BEC source would
require separating a small part of the source as a local oscillator, and maintaining its phaseover the duration of the entire experiment. This seems to be out of the reach of current
experiments.
The most interesting phase question arises during the condensate merger process. The
freshly prepared condensates have a random phase relative to the condensate in the reservoir
trap, and therefore, in the current experiment, the phase of the source after replenishment
will be random relative to the phase before the merger. One might speculate that in the limitof a large continuously held condensate merging with a smaller condensate, the phase of thelarge condensate should dominate. Each replenishment would create some excitation, andrelaxation would result in a condensate with a slightly modiﬁed phase, a process reminiscentof phase diﬀusion in an optical laser. However, quantum tunnelling of condensates between
the two traps might strongly aﬀect the overall phase if the merger process is adiabatic.
Since a non-adiabatic merger might increase the induced phase excitations, it is completely
unclear whether the phase of the merged condensate could be controlled and maintained tobe the same as before the merger. These and other aspects of phase dispersion and diﬀusion

136

during the merger warrant further theoretical studies [168].
In principle we might be able to use the phase-coherent matter wave ampliﬁcation
technique [14, 169] to phase coherently replenish a stationary continuous BEC source. For
example, if we had a stationary source that overlapped with the moving condensate dressedby a laser beam, light scattering could phase-coherently amplify the condensate in thereservoir using atoms from the moving condensate. In this scheme, the necessary dissipation
is provided by the optical pumping process.

5.6

Discussion

The continuous BEC can easily be combined with any of the outcoupling schemes [108–110] to produce a cw atom laser. The best outcoupling scheme might be to use a pairof Bragg beams10 . The variation of the atom number in the continuous source need notnecessarily lead to intensity ﬂuctuations of the atom laser output. By varying the intensityof the outcoupling Bragg beams with some feedback, we could compensate for the cyclic
variation in the density of the continuous BEC source, thereby outcoupling a continuous
atomic matter wave with constant amplitude.
In principle, multiple replenishments of a condensate could lead to a vast improvementin the size of the condensates. With an improved lifetime in the science chamber, thecondensate number might increase after each merge, whereas in the current experiments
it reached equilibrium after just two ﬁllings due to the limited lifetime of 22 s. However,
the accumulation of more atoms in an optical trap will increase the density, and therefore,
the loss of atoms by inelastic processes. This loss could be mitigated by an increase intrap volume as was realized using cylindrical optics [18, 19]. Thus, condensates with atom
number > 108 could in principle be produced. This would be larger than any condensate
produced thus far using the standard combination of laser cooling and evaporative cooling.
Finally, this is the ﬁrst time that a BEC has been transferred from one optical trap toanother. All previous BEC manipulation experiments dealt with transferring BECs frommagnetic to optical traps [6].

10

In this experiment, we did not add any outcoupling beams, since the intensity of the atom laser output
would be too small to detect using our current imaging system. We need to improve the atom number by
about a factor of 10.

137

Chapter 6

OutlookDuring my ﬁve year graduate career at MIT, the ﬁeld of Bose-Einstein Condensation has
grown enormously and matured as new groups and new ideas sprouted across the world.
When I joined the MIT group in 1997, it was only a handful of groups in the U.S. studying
BEC, but since then many more groups have begun BEC experiments both in the U.S. and inEurope and Asia. In addition, it is no longer just rubidium, sodium and lithium atoms thathave condensed, but the family has increased to include hydrogen [132], potassium [170],
meta-stable He∗ [171, 172], and, most recently, cesium [173]. The variety of magnetic andoptical trapping techniques for BEC manipulation has increased, including the realizationof the all-optical BEC [135].
The ﬁeld of BEC is being driven on two ends of a spectrum. One end exploring physics
with minimal interactions and small atom number, which is useful for precision measurements, atom laser and atom interferometer experiments. The BEC in this case is the perfect
input state for manipulation of atoms. On the other end, condensates with maximal interactions and large atom numbers are used to explore the boundary between condensed
matter and atomic physics. Collective eﬀects become important and studies of superﬂuidity,
vortex physics, superradiance, etc. have been explored. Recently, with BEC in 3D opticallattices [174], the ﬁeld is also expanding into exploring strongly correlated systems.
The addition of moving optical tweezers combined with a science chamber expands
the phase space of both types of BEC experiments that can be easily accomplished. The
advantage with this technique is that we need not compromise on BEC production andmaintain the usual infrastructure for production, yet at the same time, we are free to put inas many experimental devices into the vacuum chamber as we wish. The turn-around time,
including bakeout, for new devices is only 2-3 weeks. A high resolution imaging system caneasily be implemented in the science chamber such that low atom numbers can easily beobserved, for example, in magnetic waveguides that might be used for atom interferometers.
The initial experiments with miniaturized magnetic waveguides [3] have shown the potential
to realize full-scale atom interferometers, although they were limited by the nano-fabrication
process itself [3]. Once better fabrication processes are developed, micro-manipulation of138

BECs using miniaturized wires could lead to new BEC waveguide physics [153] with a scopefor precision measurements [175]. In fact, it might even be possible for these waveguides tobe combined with a cw-atom laser using the continuous BEC.
Another interesting area of study with the science chamber is surface eﬀects on BECs.
Quantum reﬂection [176, 177] of cold atoms from surfaces is a very interesting ﬁeld of study,
especially with condensates. Typically, the van der Waals (− Cr33 ) and the Casimir (∼ r14 )surface-atom interactions are attractive such that atoms stick to the surface. However,if the atoms near the surface have very low velocities, their deBroglie wavelength is verylarge such that the probability of an atom to be present near the surface is very small.
Hence, the atoms are reﬂected despite the attractive force. The typical range of the vander Waals force is around 1 µm. The characteristic scale for a BEC is its healing length,ξ = (8πna)−1/2 . Thus, for sodium BEC to be reﬂected from a surface, its healing lengthmust be longer than a micron, which implies a condensate density less than 1.5 × 1013 cm−3and a speed of sound less than 2 mm/s. Typically, trapped condensate densities are in therange of 1014 cm−3 , and decompressing density by an order of magnitude is no easy task
due to the weak dependence of the condensate density on atom number (n ∝ N 2/5 ). The
best way to reduce density is to lower the trap frequencies (n ∝ ω 6/5 ), which is diﬃcult
due to the gravity. Nonetheless, under microgravity (or compensated gravity) conditions, it
should be possible to observe quantum reﬂection of Bose condensates from surfaces. In fact,
an initial experiment attempting to observe such reﬂection from a glass slide failed due tohigh condensate density and residual axial sloshing of the optically trapped condensate. If
quantum reﬂection is indeed observed, one can hope to ‘trap’ condensates in a watch glassor guide them through hollow glass ﬁbers without the condensate being destroyed.
Using condensates in the miniaturized Z-wiretrap, we produced vortices using a topological phase [5] by reversing the magnetic bias ﬁeld of an Ioﬀe-Pritchard magnetic trap. Using
this technique, we can hope to study complicated topological structures using spinor BECs
such as Skyrmions, Mermin-Ho and Anderson-Toulouse vortices [178]. Quantum wavefunction engineering with BECs will produce new and interesting BEC physics, especially whencombined with both optical and magnetic trapping techniques.
Finally, the collisions physics which we initially explored [1] will continue to lead to new
and interesting physics. Not only can we explore the rich boundary between microscopic andmacroscopic manifestation of superﬂuidity, we can also create entangled beams using BEC
collisions [57]. These entangled beams can perhaps be combined with atom interferometers
to explore issues of decoherence and quantum computing.
The ﬁeld of BEC has grown enormously during my tenure at MIT. The expanding
number of groups and places with BEC is just one signature of this growth. Many a times
in the past, atomic physics had been pronounced dead by many important people, however,each time a new phenomenon, with new physics, has ‘rescued’ the ﬁeld. I believe that theﬁeld of BEC is still on the verge of reaching its zenith. The best is yet to come...

139

Appendix A

Designs for the BEC-III vacuum
chamberThis appendix includes the designs for the science chamber that were developed mainly
by my colleague Todd Gustavson. The following pages contain the designs sent to Sharon
Vacuum and UKAEA for making the chamber.
The chamber was constructed out of non-magnetic 304 stainless steel. The ﬁgures inthis appendix are drawn to scale and all units are in inches. All ﬂanges had clearance holes.
Note that some ﬂanges in the ﬁgures are rendered transparent to avoid obscuring hidden
ﬂanges.

140

Fig 1a. Trapping Chamber: Front viewRotatable miniflange
without ring, only the insert.

#7
#8,#9
#6
#5

#4
#10

90º
57º

124º
146º

34º
Y

#11

X

0º

#3

#1,#2: base chamber (10 conflat)

#20

#12
Spot-welded #6-32 nuts (2)(see Fig. 1c)

#14

#19

4x6 rectangularconnection port:
6 along X, 4 along Z.
See side view.

#18
#22

#21
#17

#13

#15

#16

9.0

#21

#22

#17

#2

#16

#15
(4x6 rectangle: 4 along Z)

Other radial ports
omitted for simplicity

#3

3.47

#1

+Z

Fig 1b. Trapping Chamber: Side view(+X: out of plane)(0, 0, 0)+Y

Baseplate/Reference plane

20.4

This end
UP#15

Fig.#1c Port 13 Nut spot-weldView through Port#13 flange
Spot-weld #6-32 nuts (2)screw axis parallel to port.
Weld plane is 1.75
from intersection between
Port#13 and rectangular tube.

Z axis45º

Z=0These nuts were used to attach a 2.4diameter aluminum piece with
an off-centered 1 hole. The piece prevented some of the reflected
dosium atoms were entering the main chamber. See section 3.2.2.

#21

#22

#17

2.0

(#13)

#16

(#18)

Fig 1d. Trapping Chamber: Bottom view
Mounting lug positions
CLR for 0.5 bolt,
centered
1.75

1.75

Tab detail: 304 stainless, 0.375 thick.
Welded on centerline of 6 tube.

3.0

#15

Fig. 2a Large Bucket Window
Front view (non-vacuum side)10 conflat
flange with clear holes

Extra mounting holes
1/4-20 tapped, 0.5 deep
on 6.75 diameter bolt circle
15 holes, 22.5 deg apart.
The holes were used for
mounting the magnetic
trap into the bucket.

Miniflange
half-nipple

20º

3.44

1.0 dia. hole(centered)orientationof leak-checkgroove(4) #6-32 nuts spot-welded near bucket end.
see side view for depth. These nuts were used
to hold the RF coils. See sec. 3.5

10 conflat
flange (clear holes)
0.625

Fig.#2b Large Bucket Window: Side

#6-32 nut (4) nuts
as shown in Fig. #2a Front view.

Miniflange

Window
assembly (tubulated)
1.125 OD(Length =1.25)UKAEA
Clear aperture
0.75
UKAEA

1.0 diameter hole(centered) (Sharon)

Vacuum6 diameter endcap
0.118+/-0.010 thickAir

Recess:6 diameter tube
Extra mounting holes
1/4-20 tapped 0.5 deep
See Front view (fig. 2a)

Vacuum side(knife edge)

2.990

Fig 3: Recessed window (UKAEA)
The tweezers window length is
2.3 and the imaging window
is 3.25
3.25/2.3
Extra mounting holes
1/4-20 tapped
center on 2.75 diameterbolt circle
8 holes, 45 deg apart0.5 depth

Vacuum side
(Knife-edge)
Air

Window:
1.97
clear aperture

Tube OD is 2.68.
It fits inside 2.9 ID.

4.5 conflat

Appendix B

Designs for the Oven
This appendix includes the designs for the science chamber that were developed mainly by
my colleague Deep Gupta. The following pages contain the designs sent to MIT Central
Machine Shop for custom oven parts.

148

Fig 1a: Copper Nozzle
1.3 copper disk,
0.1 thick
4 mm diameterhole in center

0.25 diameter through holes,
centered on 0.9 concentric
circleFig 1b: 2-3/4 double sided flange for Nozzle
TOP VIEW
tapped holes (2)for 10-32 screws
centered on a 0.9diameter circle.

0.5 diameter
through hole
centered on flange

2.73

SIDE VIEW

tapped holes
for 10-32 screws(depth=0.5)

0.75
0.5 diamthru holeFig 2: L-shaped copper coldplate
Front View

Side View
5/8

1.5

3/8
1.6
2.5

1.3

0.75

1.9
thru holes for
10-32 screws
on a 0.9 dia.
circle0.6 diamhole

Top View
3/8
thru holes
for 10-32
screws

3/4

3/8

Fig 3: Copper skimmer
side view
0.4 (roughly)
1/16

3/8

0.6

0.3

120 degrees
Copper cone at
120 degrees
thru holes for
10-32 screws
on a 0.9 dia.
circle.

1.25 OD copper
disk, 1/16 thick.
0.3 hole(centered)front view

Fig 4: Cold plate feedthrough0.75
tapped hole for
10-32 screw(centered)knife edge

4.0
3.2

stainlesssteel tube,
1.75 OD,
1/32 thick

1/32
0.2
0.7

0.2
tapped holes (2) for
10-32 screws,
centered on a 0.75
dia. circle.

1.75 O.D.

0.5

Copper slugWeldstainless steel(304ss)
oxygen free copper

Fig 5: Differential pumping tube
TOP VIEW
stainless steel
tube - 0.25 O.D.,
4.75 length,
welded concentric
to flange.

2.73

SIDE VIEW

stainless steel
tube - 0.25 O.D.

2weld on both sides

0.75
2.73
2

Appendix C

Companies
A few of the major companies from where we bought equipment is listed below. Wherever
appropriate, contact information is given.

C.1

Vacuum hardware

1 Sharon Vacuum
The custom designed vacuum chamber (see appendix A) was built by Sharon vacuumin Massachusetts. Sharon also built the large buckets shown in ﬁg. 2a,b of appendix
A. These buckets were then sent oﬀ to UKAEA (see below) to put on the 1” windows.
Sharon also built the same chamber again for BEC-IV.
Contact information:
Sharon Vacuum
69 Falmount Ave.
Brockton, MA 02301
Tel: 508-588-2323

2 UKAEAUKAEA is based in U.K. and they made the windows with the large clear aperture.
We used to them to make the bucket windows. These windows were then welded
onto the buckets made by Sharon Vacuum. In addition, they made the smaller bucket
windows shown in ﬁg. 3 of appendix A. The windows were attached to steel using
non-magnetic diﬀusion bonding.
Contact information:
Simon Hanks, External Sales Manager
UKAEA
D4/05, Culham Science Centre
Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 3DB
154

Tel: 011-1235-463708

3 Varian Vacuum Technologies• Two VacIon Plus 75 L/s Noble diode ion pump, one 75 L/s Starcell ion pump(which is good when combined with a TSP) and one 55 L/s Ion pump for theslower.
• Three UHV-24p nude tungsten ionization gauges and one Bayard-Alpert (BA)ion gauge for the oven. The BA gauge is more rugged to frequent exposure to
air compared to the UHV gauges.
• Controllers, cards and cables for the ion gauges and pumps.
• Three TSP ﬁlaments and one cryoshield.
4 MDC Vacuum Products Corp.

• Two pneumatically operated gate valves. Model# GV1500M-P-11 with a Kalrez
seal for high temperature bake-ability (250◦ C in the open position).
• Four all-metal manually operated valves Model# MAV-150-VG.
5 Spectrum Thin Films
The company provided anti-reﬂection coatings for our vacuum windows for broadband
visible and 1064 nm.
Contact information:
Spectrum Thin Films
100-E Knickerbocker Ave.
Bohemia, NY 11716
Tel: 631-589-3514

6 Insulator Seal
• Mini-ﬂange ﬂoating shield single ended feedthrough for the RF coils. See sec.
3.5.
• KAP2 - Kapton insulated wire (single conductor) for RF coils. 0.89 mm OD and
0.61 mm wire OD. Maximum current of 5.5 A.
• 4 copper conductor (15 A max) mini-ﬂange feedthrough for the macroscopic
Z-wire trap.
• winged gaskets.
1557 Cooke Vacuum• The Chevron baﬄe for protecting the oven ion pump. See sec. 3.3.1.

C.2

Optics1 Newport corporation
Newport RS4000-58-18 optical table 5’ × 8’ × 18”.
The top skin is made of 304 stainless steel. The table is mounted on four R1-2000-410tc
non-isolating 10” legs. The legs are tied together on tie-bars with have retractable
casters (TBC-58).
2 Thorlabs: Various opto-mechanical elements.

C.3

Wire for solenoids

1 Small Tube Products
We used 1/8” square OD, 0.032” wall copper wire, made of copper alloy 101. It costs
almost a dollar a foot and the lead time is on the order of a month.
Contact information:
Small Tube Products
PO Box 1674
Altoona, PA 16603-1674
Contact Debbie Valentino
Tel 814-695-4491(x221)

2 Essex Group Inc
The wire from Small Tube products was insulated by Essex Group using Double
Dacron Glass Fuse (DDG). This increased the OD of the tube from 0.32 cm to about
0.35 cm. This cost about 30c a foot and the lead time is only a few days.
Contact Information:
Essex Group Inc.
Magnet Wire and Insulation
3201 Woodpark Blvd
Charlotte, NC 28206
Contact - Wayne
Tel: 704-598-0222

156

3 Dexter Corp. The white epoxy for the holding the slower solenoid and cloverleaf coils wereobtained from Dexter Corp. We used Epoxi-Patch Kit 1C White, which a maximum
temperature rating of 150◦ C. It can be obtained from a local supplier. We bought itfrom Industrial Sales in Tweksbury, MA.

C.4

Bakeout

1 Dycor LC100M Mass spectrometer
2 Plastics Process Inc.: Band heaters
3 Omega: Heater tapes

C.5

Powersupplies

1 Lambda EMI

2 Sorenson

3 Agilent Technologies

4 Xantrex

C.6

Translation stage

1 Aerotech Inc.
ABL20040: linear air-bearing stage with 400 mm travel required 80 psi of clean dry
air. The position of the stage could be read-out using a non-contact linear encoderthat is repeatable to 0.3 µm.
Contact Information:
Aerotech Inc.
101 Zeta Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15238
Tel: 412-967-6440

2 Galil Motion Control
We bought the motion controller for the translational stage from this company.
157

Contact Information:
Galil Motion Control Inc.
575 Maude Court
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Tel: 408-746-2315

3 Rock of Ages
Impala black granite surface plate: 44 × 10 × 6 thick. Top ﬁnish ﬂat to 0.00012
with M8 threaded inserts. 14 − 20 threaded inserts on the bottom.
Contact Information:
Rock of Ages
Precision Granite Products
RR 1, Box 1140
560 Graniteville Road Graniteville, VT 05654
Tel: 802-476-2294

158

Appendix D

Suppression and enhancement of
impurity scattering in a
Bose-Einstein condensate
This appendix includes the following paper [2]: A. P. Chikkatur, A. Görlitz, D. M. StamperKurn, S. Inouye, S. Gupta, and W. Ketterle, “Suppression and enhancement of impurity
scattering in a Bose-Einstein condensate,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 483-486 (2000).

159

VOLUME 85, NUMBER 3

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

17 JULY 2000

Suppression and Enhancement of Impurity Scattering in a Bose-Einstein Condensate
A. P. Chikkatur, A. Görlitz, D. M. Stamper-Kurn,* S. Inouye, S. Gupta, and W. Ketterle
Department of Physics and Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139(Received 23 March 2000)
Impurity atoms propagating at variable velocities through a trapped Bose-Einstein condensate were
produced using a stimulated Raman transition. The redistribution of momentum by collisions between the
impurity atoms and the stationary condensate was observed in a time-of-flight analysis. The collisionalcross section was dramatically reduced when the impurity velocity was reduced below the condensate
speed of sound, in agreement with the Landau criterion for superfluidity. For large numbers of impurity
atoms, we observed an enhancement of atomic collisions due to bosonic stimulation. This enhancement
is analogous to optical super-radiance.
PACS numbers: 03.75.Fi, 34.50. – s, 67.90. + z

One manifestation of superfluidity is that objects traveling below a critical velocity yL through a superfluid propagate without dissipation. Landau [1] used simple kinematicarguments to derive an expression for the critical velocityyL 苷 min关E共p兲兾p兴, where E共p兲 is the energy of an elementary excitation with momentum p.
When superfluid 4 He was forced through capillaries, adsorbed films, and tightly packed powders [2], the onset of
dissipation was found at velocities much lower than theLandau critical velocity due to turbulence and vortex formation in the superfluid. The Landau critical velocity canusually be observed only by moving microscopic particles
through the superfluid which do not create a macroscopic
flow pattern. Studies of superfluidity with microscopic objects were pursued in liquid 4 He by dragging negative ionsthrough pressurized 4 He [3], and by scattering 3 He atoms
off superfluid 4 He droplets [4].
Atomic Bose-Einstein condensates are superfluid gases
and show phenomena analogous to superfluid liquids, albeit at 8 orders of magnitude lower density. For a homogeneous gaseous Bose-Einstein condensate, the Bogoliubov
spectrum indicates a Landau
p critical velocity equal to the
speed of sound yL 苷 c ⬅ m兾M, where m is the chemical potential and M is the mass of condensate atoms. The
first evidence for a critical velocity in a Bose condensate
was obtained by stirring the condensate with a macroscopic
object (a laser beam) [5]. The observed critical velocity
was much lower than the speed of sound. Recent studies
of superfluidity have revealed quantized vortices [6,7] anda nonclassical moment of inertia [8].
In this Letter, we report on a study of the motion of
microscopic impurities through a gaseous Bose-Einsteincondensate. The impurity atoms were created using astimulated Raman process which transferred a small fraction of the condensate atoms into an untrapped hyperfine
state with well-defined initial velocity. As these impurities
traversed the condensate, they dissipated energy by colliding with the stationary condensate, which resulted in aredistribution of momenta of the impurities. As the impurity velocity was reduced below the speed of sound, we
0031-9007兾00兾85(3)兾483(4)$15.00

observed a dramatic reduction in the probability of collisions, which is evidence for superfluidity in Bose-Einsteincondensates.
Our experiments were performed on Bose-Einstein condensates of sodium atoms in the jF 苷 1, mF 苷 21典 hyperfine ground state. Condensates of ⬃107 atoms werecreated using laser and evaporative cooling and stored ina cylindrically symmetric magnetic trap [9] with an axialtrapping frequency of 16 Hz. The density of the condensate was varied by adiabatically changing the radial trapping frequency between 165 and 33 Hz. Hence, the peak
speed of sound ranged between 1.1 and 0.55 cm兾s.
Impurity atoms were created using a Raman transition,in which the condensate was exposed to a pair of laser
beams. The laser beams had orthogonal linear polarizations, thus driving a Raman transition from the trappedjF 苷 1, mF 苷 21典 state to the untrapped jF 苷 1, mF 苷
0典 hyperfine ground state [10]. The beams passed throughtwo acousto-optic modulators operating with a frequency
difference v 苷 vZm 1 h̄q2 兾共2M兲, where h̄vZm is the
Zeeman splitting between the jmF 苷 21典 and jmF 苷 0典
states in the offset field of the magnetic trap. The momentum transfer from the light field to the mF 苷 0 atoms
is h̄q 苷 2h̄k sinu兾2, where k is the light wave vector andu is the angle between the two laser beams. The Raman
light fields were typically pulsed on for about 10 ms at an
intensity of several mW兾cm2 . The fraction of transferred
atoms was varied by changing the light intensity.
Collisions between the impurities and the condensate
were analyzed by time-of-flight absorption imaging. For
this, the magnetic trap was suddenly switched off 4 ms after the Raman pulse, by which time the impurity atoms had
fully traversed the condensate. After an additional 5 ms, amagnetic field gradient was pulsed on for 30 ms, spatiallyseparating the mF 苷 0 atoms from the condensate. Aftera total time of flight of typically 60 ms, all atoms were optically pumped into the jF 苷 2, mF 苷 2典 state and resonantly imaged on the cycling transition.
Collisions at ultracold temperatures are in the s-wave
regime. The products of such collisions between free
© 2000 The American Physical Society

483

VOLUME 85, NUMBER 3

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

17 JULY 2000

particles are evenly distributed [11] in momentum spaceover a spherical shell around the center-of-mass momentum of the collision partners. A time-of-flight picturerecords the momentum distribution of the released cloud.
Thus, collisions between the condensate and the impurities are visible as a circular halo which represents theline-of-sight integrated spherical shell. Figure 1 shows atypical absorption image of collisions in the free particle
regime for impurity atoms with a velocity of 2h̄k兾M 苷
6 cm兾s, produced by counterpropagating Raman beams.
To probe for superfluidity, we produced impurity atoms
at low velocities (7 mm兾s) by using Raman beams whichintersected at an angle of 艐14± and aligned symmetrically
about the radial direction, so that the difference vectorq 苷 k1 2 k2 was directed axially [12]. The trajectoryof the impurity atoms was initially in the axial direction,
but was soon modified by two forces: a downward gravitational acceleration along a radial direction (into the pagein images and hereafter denoted as the z axis), and the radial mean-field repulsion of the mF 苷 0 impurities fromthe mF 苷 21 condensate.
The small axial velocity imparted by the Raman beams
is crucial for distinguishing the products of elastic collisions from the unscattered impurities in time-of-flight
imaging. Figure 2a shows a time-of-flight image of impurity scattering for the case of a low density condensate(small c). The axial velocity imparted by Raman scattering displaces the unscattered mF 苷 0 atoms upward in
the image, whereas collisions with the stationary condensate produce impurity atoms with smaller axial velocities
which then appear below the unscattered atoms in the image. The acceleration of the impurities due to gravity andmean field precluded the observation of well-defined collision halos as shown in Fig. 1. In contrast, Fig. 2b shows atime-of-flight image for the case of a high density conden-sate (large c), for which the number of collided atoms isgreatly diminished, indicating the suppression of impurity
collisions due to superfluidity.
The number of collided atoms was determined by counting impurity atoms in a region of the time-of-flight image
below the unscattered impurity atoms, which also contained Raman outcoupled thermal mF 苷 0 atoms. Hence,
the number of collided atoms in the counting region was
obtained by subtracting the thermal background which was
determined by counting a similar sized region above theunscattered impurity atoms where we expect few collision
products. This number was doubled to obtain the total
number of collided atoms since we expect only about halfof the collision products to be in the counting region; theremainder was overlapped with the unscattered impurities
because the distribution of unscattered atoms has an axial
width roughly equal to the axial displacement of Raman
scattered atoms in the time-of-flight images.
In studying these collisions, we discovered that thefraction of collided atoms increased with the number ofoutcoupled impurities (see Fig. 3). According to a perturbative treatment described below, the collision probability
should be independent of the number of impurities. If
the number of outcoupled atoms is increased, one would
expect the collision probability to decrease slightly due
to the reduction in the condensate density, or to increaseslightly because the smaller condensate density implies asmaller critical velocity for dissipation. However, theseeffects are smaller (10%–20%) than the observed twofold
increase in the collided fraction.
Rather, this large increase can be explained as acollective self-amplification of atomic scattering, akin to
the recently observed super-radiant amplification of lightscattering from a Bose-Einstein condensate [13]. Collisions between impurity atoms and the condensate transfer

FIG. 1. Observation of s-wave halos created by elastic collisions between the condensate and impurity atoms traveling at
6 cm兾s radially (right to left in images). (a) Absorption image after 50 ms of time of flight shows the velocity distribution after collisions between the condensate and the outcoupledmF 苷 0 atoms. The collisional products are distributed overa sphere in momentum space. (b) Same as (a), but using aStern – Gerlach-type magnetic field gradient along the condensate axis to separate the mF 苷 0 atoms (top) from the mF 苷 21
condensate [bottom, see (c)]. The fringes are an imaging artifact. Images are 4.5 mm 3 7.2 mm. Note: the imaging axis istilted by 45± with respect to the plane shown in (c).

FIG. 2. Superfluid suppression of collisions. The impurity
mF 苷 0 atoms (top) traveled at 7 mm兾s along the condensate
axis (upward in image) and were separated from the condensate(bottom) by a magnetic field gradient applied during ballistic
expansion [see (c)]. (a) Absorption image after 50 ms of timeof flight shows the collisional products as indicated by the arrow.
For this image, yg 兾c 苷 2.7 (see text), and the collided fraction
is about 20%. (b) Similar image as (a) with yg 兾c 苷 1.6, where
the collisions are suppressed. The outcoupled atoms (impurities) were distorted by mean-field repulsion. The images are
2.0 mm 3 4.0 mm.

484

VOLUME 85, NUMBER 3

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

Collided Fraction

0.20

0.10

0.00
0

1
2
3
4 x106
Initial number of outcoupled atoms

FIG. 3. Collective amplified elastic scattering in a BoseEinstein condensate. Shown is the fraction of collided atoms
vs the number of initially outcoupled atoms. For this data,yg 兾c 苷 4.9 and the chemical potential was 1.8 kHz.

Relative Collisional Density

atoms from a macroscopically occupied initial state to
final momentum states which were previously empty. The
population in these final states can stimulate further scattering by bosonic enhancement and this effect increases
for larger outcoupling. This collisional amplification is notdirectional, and is similar to the recently observed opticalomnidirectional superfluorescence [14]. In contrast, theobservation of four-wave mixing of atoms [15] represents
the case where collisions were stimulated by a single
macroscopically occupied final mode.
Figure 4 shows the decrease of collision probability as
the velocity of the impurity atoms approached the speedof sound in the condensate. The collision probability wasdetermined by averaging over many iterations of the experiment with the number of outcoupled atoms kept below 106 to minimize the collective enhancement. For
our experimental conditions, the impurity velocity was

1.0

0.5

0.0
0

1

2

3

4

5

η = vg / c
FIG. 4. Onset of superfluid suppression of collisions. Shownis the observed collisional density normalized to the predictedcollisional density in the limit of high velocities C` as the density of the condensate was increased (plotted from right to left).
The collisional density is proportional to the collision probability of the impurities (see text). The x axis is h 苷 yg 兾c which
is a measure of the impurity velocity over the speed of sound.
The solid line is the theoretically expected collisional density
calculated by a numerical integration of Eq. (1). The error bars
represent the statistical uncertainty.

17 JULY 2000

predominantly determined by the gravitational acceleration g 苷p9.8 m兾s2 , which imparted an average velocityof yg 苷 2gzc , where zc is the Thomas-Fermi radius of
the condensate in the z direction. This downward velocity
ranged from 17 mm兾s for tightly confined condensates to
26 mm兾s for loosely confined condensates, and was larger
than the initial 7 mm兾s velocity imparted by Raman scattering. Thus, the effect of superfluidity on impurity scattering depends primarily on the parameter h 苷 yg 兾c whichis the ratio of the typical impurity velocity yg pto the speedof sound at the center of the condensate c 苷 m兾M. Experimentally, h is determined using the radial trapping frequency and the chemical potential m which is determinedfrom the expansion of the condensate in the time-of-flightimages [9].
Scattering of impurities from a Bose-Einstein condensate has been studied theoretically in Refs. [16,17]. The
predicted cross section for collisions between an mF 苷 0
impurity atom at momentum h̄k and a mF 苷 21 condensate of density n0 is obtained by calculating the collision
rate G using Fermi’s golden rule:µ ∂2 Zh̄a
G 苷 n0dq dV q2 S共q兲
M
µ
∂
h̄q2
h̄k ? q
B
2
2 vq
3d
M
2M
苷 n0 s共h兲y ,Here, S共q兲 苷 vq0 兾vqB is the static structure factor of
the condensate with h̄vq0 苷 h̄2 q2 兾2M and h̄vqB 苷ph̄vq0 共h̄vq0 1 2m兲 being the energies of a free particle
and a Bogoliubov quasiparticle of momentum q, respectively. The collision cross section is s共h兲 苷 s0 F共h兲,
where h 苷 y兾c, y 苷 h̄k兾M is the impurity velocity, and2s0 苷 4pa0,21, where a0,21 苷 2.75 nm [18] is the scattering length for s-wave collisions between the jmF 苷 0典
and jmF 苷 21典 states of sodium. For h , 1, F共h兲 苷 0
and, for h . 1, F共h兲 苷 1 2 1兾h 4 苷 log共h 4 兲兾h 2 .
We can approximate our experiment by considering the
motion of the mF 苷 0 atoms under the gravitational acceleration alone and ignoring the effects of the initial axial velocity and mean-field expulsion [19]. The mF 苷 0 atoms
falling through the
R condensate experience a collisional
density C 共h兲 苷 dz n共x, y, z兲s共h兲, where n共x, y, z兲 isthe condensate density, and h is determined by the local
condensate density and the downward impurity velocity.
The collisional density relative to its value at large velocities C` is given byRR
dr nI 共r兲 3 dz 0 n共r 0 兲s0 F共h兲
C 共h兲
R
R
艐
,
(1)
dr nI 共r兲 3 dz 0 n共r 0 兲s0C`where we assume that the condensate density n共r兲 is in theThomas-Fermi limit [9] and that the initial impurity density
nI 共r兲 ~ n共r兲 [20]. The solid line in Fig. 4 was determinedby numerically integrating Eq. (1). To compare the collision probability for the different data points, we divided
485

VOLUME 85, NUMBER 3

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

the observed collided fraction by C` 苷 共5兾12兲 3 n0 s0 zc .
The observed decrease in the collisional density for smallh (Fig. 4) shows the superfluid suppression of collisions.
Numerical simulations ruled out the possibility that theobserved decrease in collisional density could be caused
solely by variations of the path length of particle trajectories due to mean-field repulsion and initial velocity.
The measured values in Fig. 4 are systematically larger
by a factor of about 2 than expected theoretically. This discrepancy is also seen for impurity collisions at velocities of
6 cm兾s for which superfluidity should play no role. While
we cannot presently account for this systematic error inmeasuring absolute densities, the observation of suppression of collisions due to superfluidity is robust, since it
requires only a relative comparison of collision probabilities at different h.
The method presented here can generally be used to
study ultracold collisions. In this study, we focused oncollisions between atoms in different hyperfine states. By
driving a Bragg transition [21] instead of a Raman transition, we have also observed collisions between atoms inthe same internal state. At a velocity of 6 cm兾s, we foundthe collision cross section to be 2.1 6 0.3 times larger thanin the Raman case, reflecting the exchange term in elastic collisions for identical particles that increases the crosssection from 4pa2 to 8pa2 .
Raman transitions are one way to realize output couplers
for atom lasers [10,22,23]. Theoretical treatments of atom
lasers have typically considered only the condensate andthe outcoupled atoms in a two-mode approximation andignored the modes accessible by collisions [24]. However,
our experiment shows that, as the outcoupled atoms passthrough the condensate, they collide and populate modes
coupled by atomic scattering [25]; the collisions may evenbe enhanced by bosonic stimulation. In principle, suchcollisional losses can be avoided by lowering the density.
However, an alternative route to suppressing collisions is
to increase the density until the speed of sound is larger
than the velocity of the outcoupled atoms, thus realizing a“superfluid” output coupler. Therefore, Raman transitions
with small recoil or rf output couplers [22] might be mostsuitable for realizing atom lasers with large condensates.
In conclusion, we have studied collisions between impurity atoms and a Bose-Einstein condensate. Both theobserved superfluid suppression of collisions and the collective enhancement are crucial considerations for the future development of intense atom lasers.
We are grateful to D. E. Pritchard and Y. Band for valuable discussions. This work was supported by ONR, NSF,
JSEP, ARO, NASA, and David and Lucile Packard Foundation. A. P. C. acknowledges additional support from the
NSF, A. G. from DAAD, and D. M. S. K. from JSEP.

486

17 JULY 2000

*Present address: Norman Bridge Laboratory of Physics,
California Institute of Technology 12-33, Pasadena, CA
91125.
[1] L. D. Landau, J. Phys. (Moscow) 5, 71 (1941).
[2] D. R. Tilley and J. Tilley, Superfluidity and Superconductivity (IOP, New York, 1990), pp. 41 – 53.
[3] L. Meyer and F. Reif, Phys. Rev. 123, 727 (1961); D. R.
Allum, P. V. E. McClintock, A. Phillips, and R. M. Bowley,
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London A 284, 179 (1977).
[4] J. Harms and J. P. Toennies, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 344(1999).
[5] C. Raman et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2502 (1999).
[6] M. R. Matthews et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2498 (1999).
[7] K. W. Madison, F. Chevy, W. Wohlleben, and J. Dalibard,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 806 (2000).
[8] O. M. Marago et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2056 (2000).
[9] W. Ketterle, D. S. Durfee, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, in
Bose-Einstein Condensation in Atomic Gases, Proceedingsof the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi,”
Course CXL, edited by M. Inguscio, S. Stringari, and C. E.
Wieman (IOS Press, Amsterdam, 1999).
[10] E. W. Hagley et al., Science 283, 1706 (1999).
[11] K. Gibble, S. Chang, and R. Legere, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75,
2666 (1995).
[12] D. M. Stamper-Kurn et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2876
(1999).
[13] S. Inouye et al., Science 285, 571 (1999).
[14] A. I. Lvovsky, S. R. Hartmann, and F. Moshary, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 82, 4420 (1999).
[15] L. Deng et al., Nature (London) 398, 218 (1999).
[16] E. Timmermans and R. Côté, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 3419
(1998).
[17] Z. Idziaszek, K. Rzazewski, and M. Wilkens, J. Phys. B
32, L205 (1999).
[18] E. Tiesinga et al., J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol.
101, 505 (1996); T.-L. Ho, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 742(1998).
[19] A numerical simulation showed that including these effects
changes the collisional density by less than 20%.
[20] The Raman transition strength is uniform over the entire
condensate since the frequency broadening due to finite
pulse length (16 kHz) was larger than the broadening due
to mean field (⬃2 kHz).
[21] J. Stenger et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 4569 (1999).
[22] M.-O. Mewes et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 582 (1997);
I. Bloch, T. W. Hänsch, and T. Esslinger, Phys. Rev. Lett.
82, 3008 (1998).
[23] B. P. Anderson and M. A. Kasevich, Science 282, 1686
(1998).
[24] For example, R. J. Ballagh, K. Burnett, and T. F. Scott,Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 1607 (1997); Y. B. Band, P. S. Julienne,
and M. Trippenbach, Phys. Rev. A 59, 3823 (1999).
[25] Motivated by our results, collisions were recently included
in a theoretical treatment of interaction between condensates: Y. B. Band, M. Trippenbach, J. P. Burke, Jr., and P. S.
Julienne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5462 (2000).

Appendix E

Transport of Bose-Einstein
Condensates with Optical Tweezers
This appendix includes the following paper [2]: T. L. Gustavson, A. P. Chikkatur, A. E.
Leanhardt, A. Görlitz, S. Gupta, D. E. Pritchard and W. Ketterle, “Transport of BoseEinstein Condensates with Optical Tweezers” , Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 020401 (2002).

164

VOLUME 88, NUMBER 2

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

14 JANUARY 2002

Transport of Bose-Einstein Condensates with Optical Tweezers
T. L. Gustavson, A. P. Chikkatur, A. E. Leanhardt, A. Görlitz,* S. Gupta, 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 28 August 2001; published 21 December 2001)
We have transported gaseous Bose-Einstein condensates over distances up to 44 cm. This was accomplished by trapping the condensate in the focus of an infrared laser and translating the location of thelaser focus with controlled acceleration. Condensates of order 106 atoms were moved into an auxiliarychamber and loaded into a magnetic trap formed by a Z-shaped wire. This transport technique avoids
the optical and mechanical access constraints of conventional condensate experiments and creates many
new scientiﬁc opportunities.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.020401

PACS numbers: 03.75.Fi, 32.80.Pj, 39.25. +k

Since the achievement of Bose-Einstein condensation(BEC) in dilute gases of alkali atoms in 1995, intensive experimental and theoretical efforts have yielded a great dealof progress in understanding many aspects of BEC [1,2].
Bose-Einstein condensates are well-controlled ensemblesof atoms useful for studying novel aspects of quantum optics, many-body physics, and superﬂuidity. Condensates
are now used in scientiﬁc studies of increasing complexity
requiring multiple optical and magnetic ﬁelds as well as
proximity to surfaces.
Conventional condensate production techniques severely limit optical and mechanical access to experiments
due to the many laser beams and magnetic coils needed tocreate BECs. This conﬂict between cooling infrastructure
and accessibility to manipulate and study condensateshas been a major restriction to previous experiments.
So far, most experiments are carried out within a few
millimeters of where the condensate was created. What is
highly desirable is a condensate “beam line” that delivers
condensates to a variety of experimental platforms. Transport of charged particles and energetic neutral particles
between vacuum chambers is standard, whereas it is achallenge to avoid excessive heating for ultracold atoms.
Thus far, transport of large clouds of atoms has only beenaccomplished with laser-cooled atoms at microkelvintemperatures [3,4]. Condensates are typically a few ordersof magnitude colder and hence much more sensitive toheating during the transfer.
In this Letter, we demonstrate an application of opticaltweezers that can transfer Bose condensates over distancesof at least 44 cm (limited by the vacuum chamber) witha precision of a few micrometers. This separates the region of condensate production from that used for scientiﬁcstudies. The “science chamber” has excellent optical andmechanical access, and the vacuum requirements in thisregion may well be less stringent than those necessary for
production of BEC. This technique is ideally suited todeliver condensates close to surfaces, e.g., to microscopic
waveguides and into electromagnetic cavities. We haveused this technique to transfer condensates into a macro-scopic wiretrap [5–10] located 36 cm away from the point
where the condensates were produced.
An alternative but less ﬂexible method to create condensates close to surfaces is to evaporatively cool directly in awiretrap, as was accomplished very recently [11,12]. Recently, small condensates were also produced directly in an
optical trap [13], eliminating the complexities of magnetic
trapping. Although evaporation in these small traps can bevery fast due to the tight conﬁnement, the small trap volume fundamentally limits the number of condensed atoms.
In contrast, the optical tweezers method combines deliveryof condensates into microtraps with the well-establishedtechniques of creating large condensates.
The experiment was carried out in a new sodium condensation apparatus that is an evolution of the original
MIT design, which has been described previously [14].
The main challenge was to integrate two additional viewports for the optical tweezers into the stainless steel ultrahigh vacuum (UHV) chamber. The optical tweezers beam
had to be perpendicular to gravity, due to the relatively
weak axial conﬁnement. As a result, the atomic beamand the Zeeman slower could not be arranged horizontally as in our previous BEC apparatus. The slower wasplaced at an angle of 33± from vertical. The magnetic
trap coils were mounted outside the vacuum in recessed
ports. A schematic is shown in Fig. 1. The science chamber was isolated from the trapping chamber by a gate
valve that allows the science chamber to be modiﬁed oreven replaced without compromising the UHV trapping
chamber.
The trapping and science chambers were each pumped
by separate ion and titanium sublimation pumps, reachingpressures ⯝10211 torr. The oven chamber was differentially pumped relative to the trapping chamber and cansupport a factor of 105 pressure difference. The Zeeman
slower combined decreasing and increasing magnetic ﬁeld
slowing (a so-called “spin-ﬂip slower”) and delivered .1011
slowed atoms兾s, and ⯝1010 atoms were loaded into a dark
spontaneous force optical trap (dark-SPOT) type magnetooptical trap (MOT) after 3 s [1].

020401-1© 2002 The American Physical Society

0031-9007兾02兾 88(2)兾020401(4)$20.00

020401-1

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

Slo
we
d

CameraNa

VOLUME 88, NUMBER 2

36 cm
GV

IR

Pumps

SC

S
Liglowin
ht g

Pumps
g

Probe Light

FIG. 1. Schematic of the apparatus, side view. The sciencechamber (labeled SC) is isolated by a gate valve (GV) from thetrapping chamber. The large circle represents a 10 in. Conﬂat
nipple and the dashed circle is the chamber wall. The magnetic
trap coils are mounted in 6 in. recessed ports (not shown), bolted
onto the 10 in. nipple. The central arrows represent four of thesix orthogonal MOT beams. The other two MOT beams passthrough the small windows indicated by the small central circle.
The end of the Zeeman slower, shown at the top right, is 33±
from vertical. The optical tweezers transfer beam is horizontal,
with its focus shifting from the MOT position a distance of
36 cm to the Z-shaped wiretrap in the science chamber. Drawn
to scale.

Atoms were transferred into an Ioffe-Pritchard –typemagnetic trap wound in a cloverleaf conﬁguration witha radial gradient of 140 G兾cm, axial curvature of
100 G兾cm2 , and axial bias ﬁeld of 100 G. The atoms
were then compressed radially in 3.5 s by reducing theaxial bias ﬁeld. Forced rf evaporative cooling took a totalof 30 s during which the gradient ﬁeld was ramped from
140 to 280 G兾cm in 4.5 s for additional compression, held
constant at 280 G兾cm for 21 s, then ﬁnally ramped downin 4.5 s to 140 G兾cm to minimize three-body loss. Typicalcondensates contain 共10 20兲 3 106 atoms, and we expect
to increase these numbers with further optimization.
The condensate in the magnetic trap had to be decompressed considerably in order to reduce density dependent
losses during the transfer and to improve spatial overlap
with the optical tweezers (optical dipole trap), because its
long axis was along the radial direction of the magnetic
trap. The magnetic trap was ﬁrst decompressed by increasing the axial bias ﬁeld, which decreased the radial trapping
frequency from 200 to 85 Hz. The condensate was further
decompressed by lowering the current by a factor of 10 inboth the gradient and curvature coils simultaneously.
The optical dipole trap was produced by focusing an
infrared laser (1064 nm) onto the center of the magnetic
trap [15]. The output of the laser was spatially ﬁltered
020401-2

14 JANUARY 2002

by a single-mode ﬁber and its intensity was adjusted withan acousto-optic modulator placed before the ﬁber. Afterthe ﬁber, the beam was expanded and collimated, and thenfocused by a 500 mm achromatic lens placed on a translational stage. This focus was imaged onto the condensate
by a relay telescope, yielding a 1兾e2 beam waist radius at
the condensate of w0 苷 24 mm.
The condensate was transferred by ramping the infraredlaser light linearly up to 180 mW in 600 ms and then suddenly switching off the decompressed magnetic trap. The
infrared beam was aligned transversely to within ⬃20 mmof the condensate. The optical trap depth is proportional toP兾w02 , where P is the power, and was 11 mK for 180 mW[16]. The transfer efﬁciency into the optical trap was close
to 100%. The laser light was then ramped down to 90 mW
during the ﬁrst second of the transfer into the sciencechamber, in order to minimize three-body loss. The measured optical trap frequencies at 90 mW were 4 Hz axially and 440 Hz radially.
The transport of the condensate to the science chamber
was accomplished by translating the 500 mm lens. This
was achieved using a linear translation stage (MICOS/
Phytron No. MT-150-400-DC220) with 400 mm maximum travel, 0.5 mm encoder resolution, and 120 mm兾s
maximum velocity. The stage was driven by a dc brushless
servo motor, chosen to minimize vibration. A feedback
loop in the motor controller servoed the stage position toa trajectory speciﬁed in terms of jerk (derivative of acceleration), acceleration, velocity, and distance. Efﬁcienttransfer requires smooth, adiabatic motion. We useda trapezoidal acceleration proﬁle that increased withconstant jerk, had a ﬂat top upon reaching maximum
acceleration, and decreased at constant jerk, followed bya period of zero acceleration upon reaching maximum
velocity. For deceleration, the opposite procedure wasfollowed. Initially, we found that mechanical vibrations in
the translation stage motion caused loss of atoms due to severe heating. This problem was eliminated by adding twostages of vibration isolation using rubber dampers and leadweights, which reduced the vibrations by a factor of 100.
Once accomplished, the transfer was quite robust andworked for a range of motion parameters, up to 200 mm兾s2
acceleration, 80 mm兾s velocity, ⬃1000 mm兾s3 jerk, andwith transfer times as short as 4 s. The best transfer wasachieved with the following maximum values: jerk 苷
20 mm兾s3 , acceleration 苷 37 mm兾s2 , and velocity 苷
70 mm兾s, yielding a total transfer time of 7.5 s. Routinely
we were able to transfer condensates with more than
6 3 105 atoms into the science chamber. A complete systematic study of motion parameters was not practical due
to large shot-to-shot ﬂuctuations in the number of atoms
transferred. We attribute this to alignment uncertainty ofthe optical tweezers due to variations in the compressionof the rubber vibration dampers when the stage was moved
back and forth. We plan to eliminate this problem by
installing a smoother translation stage.
020401-2

VOLUME 88, NUMBER 2

14 JANUARY 2002

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

The lifetimes of the atoms in the optical dipole trap
in both the trapping and science chambers are shown in
Fig. 2. In the trapping chamber, the initial loss was dueto three-body decay and then the lifetime of 20 6 2 s waslimited mainly by background gas collisions. In the science chamber, the measured lifetime of 16 6 4 s was limited by background gas collisions. The noise in the lifetime
data in the science chamber was due to shot-to-shot ﬂuctuations in the transfer. In general, the pressure and thus the
background-limited lifetimes in the science and trapping
chambers need not be equal, since the time required to perform experiments may be shorter than the time needed forevaporative cooling. The number of transferred atoms was
about 4 times lower than the number remaining in the optical trap after simply holding atoms in the trapping chamber
for 7.5 s, which implies that the loss during the translationof the condensate was comparable to the loss from the initial three-body decay. By using a large volume dipole trapwith an elliptical focus in which three-body recombination
is greatly diminished [17], it should be possible to deliver
multimillion atom condensates. First attempts to translate
such an elliptical focus failed, probably due to aberrationsin the focusing optics.
To demonstrate the utility of the optical tweezers
transport, we delivered condensates into a magnetic trap
formed by a current Iw in a Z-shaped macroscopic wire
[18,19] (diameter 苷 1.27 mm) and a bias ﬁeld B0 coplanar with the Z-shaped wire and orthogonal to its central
segment, as shown in Fig. 3. The length of the central
wire was L 苷 5 mm, and the supporting end segments

were longer than 25 mm. The trap position is located at
z0 苷 共m0 兾2p兲Iw 兾B0 below the central wire, where theexternal bias ﬁeld is equal and opposite in direction to
the magnetic ﬁeld produced by the wire. The two end
segments provide the axial curvature B00 ~ B0 兾L2 andproduce a bias ﬁeld at the trap bottom Bbot ~ 共Iw z0 兲兾
共4z02 1 L2 兲 [19]. The radial gradient B0 is 共2p兾m0 兲B20 兾Iw ,and the radial trap frequency is proportional to B02 兾Bbot .
The optical trap was aligned to overlap the original
condensate in the trapping chamber magnetic trap and to
be about 1 mm below the wire in the science chamber.
The current in the wiretrap and the current producing thebias ﬁeld B0 were linearly ramped up in 1 s. The optical trap was then slowly ramped down to zero, transferring the condensate into the magnetic wiretrap. Nearly
100% efﬁcient transfer was achieved for B0 苷 2.9 G and
Iw 苷 2.0 A [20]. The trap frequencies were measured to
be 36.0 6 0.8 Hz radially and 10.8 6 0.1 Hz axially. The
lifetime of the condensate in the wiretrap was measured tobe 5 6 1 s. This lifetime could probably be improved byadding a radio frequency shield to limit the trap depth [14].
By reducing the current in the wire, condensates were also
moved to within a few microns from the wire surface.

(a)
740 µm7

Atom Number

10

Trapping chamber
Science chamber

(b)

6

10

(c)

5

(e) 5 mm
Iw

ODT

B0

10

0

20
Time (s)40

FIG. 2. Lifetime of optically conﬁned Bose-Einstein condensates in the trapping and science chambers. The number of condensed atoms is plotted vs trapping time. Circles and triangles
represent data in the trapping and science chambers, respectively.
Both traps had the same characteristics with 90 mW power andtrap frequencies of 4 Hz axially and 440 Hz radially. The ﬂuctuations in the science chamber data are mainly due to alignment
irreproducibilities in the translation stage (see text). The lines
are exponential ﬁts to the data. The lifetimes in the main andthe science chambers were 20 6 2 and 16 6 4 s, respectively.

020401-3(d)FIG. 3. Absorption images of condensates in the science chamber, side view. All images have the same scale. Condensatesof ⯝6 3 105 atoms are shown in (a) optical trap and (b) wiretrap. The center segment of the Z-shaped wire is visible as adark speckled horizontal strip and is 740 mm above the trapped
atoms. The condensate was released from (c) an optical trap
after 10 msec time of ﬂight and (d) wiretrap after 23 ms timeof ﬂight. (e) Schematic of the wiretrap, top view. Iw 苷 2 A isthe current through the wire, and B0 苷 2.9 G is the bias ﬁeld.
Atoms are trapped below the 5-mm-long central segment of thewire, which is aligned with the optical trap axis. The supporting end segments, which provide ﬁeld curvature, are truncatedin the ﬁgure. The wiretrap was located 36 cm from where thecondensates were produced.

020401-3

VOLUME 88, NUMBER 2

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

In conclusion, we have used an optical dipole trap as atool for moving and manipulating condensates over a rangeof 44 cm, and used this tool to load atoms into a magnetic
trap 36 cm away from the center of the trapping chamber.
The ability to move and position condensates allows them
to be produced under optimal conditions, then moved toanother region to perform experiments requiring maximal
optical and mechanical access. This ﬂexibility will be important for the next generation of BEC experiments, manyof which may require close proximity between condensatesand other materials.
One key application that is hotly pursued by several groups is to load condensates into microfabricatedmagnetic waveguides built using lithographic wires onsubstrates, similar to integrated circuit chips [11,12,18,
21 –25]. Such waveguides, analogous to ﬁber optics forlight, may lead to improved manipulation of condensates,
enabling sensitive atom interferometers. Other applications include studies of condensate-surface interactions[26,27] and experiments which require extreme magnetic
shielding such as some proposed studies of spinor condensates [28,29]. Another possible application is producing
a continuous atom laser. Previously demonstrated atom
lasers work by depleting a single condensate [30–33]. A
continuous atom laser could be produced by repeatedlytransferring condensates into a reservoir from whichatoms are continually outcoupled. The dipole trap could
be used to transfer atoms into an optical or magnetic trap
reservoir that is spatially separated from the condensate
production region to avoid losses due to scattered light.
Finally, one could move condensates into high ﬁnesse
optical or microwave cavities.
This work was funded by ONR, NSF, ARO, NASA,and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. A. E. L.,
A. P. C., and A. G. acknowledge additional support from
NSF, JSEP, and DAAD, respectively. We are indebted toT. Rosenband and S. Inouye for their important contributions to the apparatus. We thank D. Schneble for a criticalreading of the manuscript.

*Current address: Universität Stuttgart, 5. Physikalisches
Institut, Stuttgart, Germany.
†
Electronic address: http://cua.mit.edu/ketterle_group/[1] W. Ketterle, D. Durfee, and D. Stamper-Kurn, in Proceedings of the International School of Physics — Enrico Fermi,
edited by M. Inguscio, S. Stringari, and C. Wieman (IOS
Press, Tokyo, 1999), p. 67.
[2] F. Dalfovo, S. Giorgini, L. P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari,Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 463 (1999).
[3] M. Greiner, I. Bloch, T. W. Hänsch, and T. Esslinger, Phys.
Rev. A 63, 031401 (2001).

020401-4

14 JANUARY 2002

[4] T. Kishimoto, P. Schwindt, Y.-J. Wang, W. Jhe, D. Anderson, and E. Cornell, DAMOP/DAMP Poster (London,
Ontario, Canada, 2001).
[5] J. Schmiedmayer, Eur. Phys. J. D 4, 57 (1998).
[6] J. Fortagh, A. Grossman, C. Zimmermann, and T. W.
Hänsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5310 (1998).
[7] J. Denschlag, D. Cassettari, and J. Schmiedmayer, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 82, 2014 (1999).
[8] J. Denschlag, D. Cassettari, A. Chenet, S. Schneider, and
J. Schmiedmayer, Appl. Phys. B 69, 291 (1999).
[9] J. Fortagh, H. Ott, A. Grossman, and C. Zimmermann,
Appl. Phys. B 70, 701 (2000).
[10] M. Key, I. G. Hughes, W. Rooijakkers, B. E. Sauer, E. A.
Hinds, D. J. Richardson, and P. G. Kazansky, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 84, 1371 (2000).
[11] H. Ott, J. Fortagh, G. Schlotterbeck, A. Grossmann, andC. Zimmermann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 230401 (2001).
[12] W. Hänsel, P. Hommelhoff, T. W. Hänsch, and J. Reichel,
Nature (London) 413, 498 (2001).
[13] M. D. Barrett, J. A. Sauer, and M. S. Chapman, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 87, 010404 (2001).
[14] M.-O. Mewes, M. Andrews, N. van Druten, D. Kurn,
D. Durfee, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 416 (1996).
[15] D. M. Stamper-Kurn, M. R. Andrews, A. P. Chikkatur,
S. Inouye, H.-J. Miesner, J. Stenger, and W. Ketterle,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2027 (1998).
[16] The counter-rotating term adds 29% more to the trap depth
calculated using the rotating wave approximation.
[17] A. Görlitz et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 130402 (2001).
[18] J. Reichel, W. Hänsel, and T. W. Hänsch, Phys. Rev. Lett.
83, 3398 (1999).
[19] A. Haase, D. Cassettari, B. Hessmo, and J. Schmiedmayer,
Phys. Rev. A 64, 043405 (2001).
[20] The residual magnetic ﬁelds in the science chamber, estimated to be about 300 mG, were not compensated.
[21] J. D. Weinstein and K. G. Libbrecht, Phys. Rev. A 52, 4004
(1995).
[22] D. Müller, D. Z. Anderson, R. J. Grow, P. D. D. Schwindt,and E. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 5194 (1999).
[23] 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 (2000).
[24] D. Cassettari, A. Chenet, R. Folman, A. Hasse, B. Hessmo, P. Krüger, T. Maier, S. Schneider, T. Calarco, and
J. Schmiedmayer, Appl. Phys. B 70, 721 (2000).
[25] R. Folman, P. Krüger, D. Cassettari, B. Hessmo, T. Maier,and J. Schmiedmayer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4749 (2000).
[26] F. Shimizu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 987 (2001).
[27] C. Henkel and M. Wilkens, Europhys. Lett. 47, 414 (1999).
[28] C. K. Law, H. Pu, and N. P. Bigelow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81,
5257 (1998).
[29] T.-L. Ho and S. K. Yip, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4031 (2000).
[30] M.-O. Mewes, M. Andrews, D. Kurn, D. Durfee, C. Townsend, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 582 (1997).
[31] B. Anderson and M. Kasevich, Science 282, 1686 (1998).
[32] I. Bloch, T. W. Hänsch, and T. Esslinger, Phys. Rev. Lett.
82, 3008 (1999).
[33] E. Hagley, L. Deng, M. Kozuma, J. Wen, K. Helmerson,
S. Rolston, and W. Phillips, Science 283, 1706 (1999).

020401-4

Appendix F

A Continuous Source of
Bose-Einstein Condensed Atoms
This appendix includes the following paper [4]: 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 (2002).

169

RESEARCH ARTICLE

A Continuous Source of
Bose-Einstein Condensed Atoms
A. P. Chikkatur,* Y. Shin, A. E. Leanhardt, D. Kielpinski,
E. Tsikata, T. L. Gustavson, D. E. Pritchard, W. Ketterle
A continuous source of Bose-Einstein condensed sodium atoms was created byperiodically replenishing a condensate held in an optical dipole trap with newcondensates delivered using optical tweezers. The source contained more than1 ⫻ 106 atoms at all times, raising the possibility of realizing a continuous atom
laser.
The gaseous Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC)
is a macroscopic quantum system with analogies to superconductors, superfluids, and optical lasers (1, 2). However, unlike these othersystems, BECs have so far been only producedin pulsed mode. As with optical lasers, pulsed
operation has less stringent technical requirements. In the optical domain, the leap from apulsed ruby laser (3) to a more complex
continuous wave (CW) helium-neon laser (4)took only about 6 months, whereas for atomic
condensates, it has taken considerably longer
to produce a continuous source of coherent
atoms. Such a source is the most crucial
prerequisite for realizing continuous atom
lasers.
The challenge in realizing a continuous
BEC source originates in the extreme parameter space covered during a typical coolingcycle required for BEC production, which
consists of laser cooling followed by evaporative cooling. During optical cooling, atoms
scatter around 107 photons/s, whereas during
evaporative cooling any photon scattering
would cause heating and trap loss and, therefore, has to be less than 10⫺1 photons/s.
During evaporative cooling, atoms are cooled
by a factor of a thousand from about 100 ␮K
to sub-microkelvin temperatures. This requires a near-perfect isolation of the hot atoms from the cold, because a single lasercooled atom has enough energy to knock
thousands of atoms out of the condensate.
Until now, little progress has been madetoward continuous Bose-Einstein condensation. Early theoretical work considered therealization of a continuous-atom laser using
optical pumping of incoming atoms into thelaser mode (5, 6). More recently, evaporative
cooling of a slow atomic beam from thetypical phase-space density of laser cooling(10⫺6) into quantum degeneracy has beensuggested (7). Experimental work has so far
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. Email: ananth@mit.edu

only addressed the production and guiding ofa beam of laser-cooled atoms (8–10).
Our approach in this work is based on ourrecent realization of moving optical tweezers
for BECs (11, 12). Here, we use the tweezers
to transport sodium condensates from where
they are produced into a reservoir trap. The
freshly produced condensates periodically replenish the condensate in the reservoir trap,
thereby continuously maintaining a condensate of more than 106 atoms.
Merging of two separate condensates with arandom relative phase into one condensate requires dissipation to damp out the excitations
caused by the merger. Assuming that the merger creates a solitonlike excitation at the interfaceof the two condensates, the excitation energy
per atom is approximately equal to the chemical
potential times the ratio of the healing length tothe condensate size. In our experiment, thisenergy was typically on the order of a nanokelvin and could be dissipated by evaporative
cooling with a only a small loss in the numberof condensed atoms.

Periodic Replenishment of an Optical
Trap
The continuous reservoir was an optical trap
located in the “science chamber” of the experimental apparatus that has been describedin detail in (11). Condensates were producedin the “production chamber” by a combination of laser cooling and evaporative cooling(1). The magnetically trapped condensate
was then adiabatically decompressed andtransferred into the focus of the tweezers
beam (13). The optical traps for both thetweezers and the continuous reservoir were
produced with focused infrared (1064 nm)
laser beams with similar trap parameters. The
intensities of the beams were controlled independently with two acousto-optic modulators, and the beams were spatially filtered byseparate single-mode fibers. The laser beam
for the tweezers was expanded and focusedby a 500-mm achromatic lens placed on an
air-bearing translation stage. Fifty mW oflaser power focused to 1/e2 beam waist radiusof w0 ⫽ 26 ␮m created a cigar-shaped trapwith a radial trapping frequency of 440 Hz

and a depth of about 2.7 ␮K. Translation of
the 500-mm lens moved condensates in thefocus of the tweezers beam by ⬃0.3 m fromthe production chamber into the sciencechamber (11). The condensates were transported in 1.25 s and held for 1 s to allow
condensate excitations to damp out; only
small residual dipole oscillations remained.
The optical axis of the laser beam for thecontinuous reservoir was parallel to the tweezers beam with a vertical displacement of
about 70 ␮m, which was sufficient to ensurethat the two traps did not affect each otherbefore the merger. The vertical distance between the two traps was controlled by tilting
a glass slide in the optical path of the laser
beam for the reservoir (Fig. 1A). Condensates
held in the tweezers beam were transferred
into the reservoir by slowly lowering thereservoir trap to the position of the tweezers
focus over 0.5 s (see Fig. 1, B to H). The
intensity of the tweezers beam was then linearly ramped to zero in another 0.5 s, and thereservoir was raised back to its original position. Within the next 18 s, a new condensate
was produced, transported into the sciencechamber, and merged with the condensate
reservoir. This cycle was repeated manytimes, and thus, a continuous source of condensed atoms was realized.
The number of atoms in both optical traps
was determined from absorption images taken after ballistic expansion (Fig. 1, I and J).
Pure condensates with negligible thermal
fraction were observed in both traps. Figure 2
demonstrates the continuous presence ofmore than a million condensate atoms in thereservoir. The optical tweezers delivered afresh condensate with 2.0 ⫻ 106 atoms ineach replenishment cycle. Before the merger,
the number of condensed atoms in the reservoir had decayed to 1.0 ⫻ 106 atoms andgrew to 2.3 ⫻ 106 atoms after the merger.
These numbers were obtained from a simultaneous exponential fit for the three cycles
after the first cycle (Fig. 2), with a statisticalerror of 0.05 ⫻ 106 atoms. Therefore, themerged condensate is significantly larger
than each of the two condensates before themerger. During the 18 s production and transfer cycle, the condensate in the reservoir decayed with a 1/e lifetime of 22 ⫾ 1 s, limited
by background pressure.

Overcoming Technical Problems
To maintain a continuous BEC reservoir while
making a new condensate, several problems
had to be addressed: stray resonant light duringlaser cooling, stray magnetic fields during laserand evaporative cooling, fast production of condensates in the production chamber, and merging of two condensates without excessive heating and atom loss.
Stray resonant light scattered by the atoms trapped in the magneto-optical trapwww.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 296 21 JUNE 2002

2193

RESEARCH ARTICLE(MOT) was detrimental to the condensed
atoms stored in the reservoir. This light hada direct line-of-sight to the reservoir
through the 1-cm aperture separating the
production and science chambers. At a distance of about 0.3 m from the MOT, anestimated 1 mW of isotropically scatteredresonant light leads to photon scattering
rates of several Hz, and indeed, we observed an immediate loss of the condensate
in the reservoir when this light was notblocked by a mechanical shutter. The shutter consisted of a simple aluminum platethat covered the aperture between the twochambers during the 2 s that the MOT wason. It was operated with a pneumatic linear
actuator using ultrahigh vacuum bellows.
Unfortunately, during the motion of the
shutter, some residual gases were released,
which increased the background pressure,
limiting the lifetime of the atoms in thescience chamber to 22 s.
Due to this relatively short lifetime, the production cycle for condensates had to be short-Fig. 1. Merging of two condensates. (A) Arrangement of the two optical traps. Both optical traps were horizontal. The focus of thetweezers beam was translated about 0.3 m
from the production chamber to the sciencechamber. The tweezers beam placed a newcondensate 70 ␮m below the condensate heldin the reservoir. The merging of the two condensates was accomplished by tilting a glass
slide, which translated the reservoir laser beamvertically. The schematic is not drawn to scale.
The absorption images (B to H), taken after 2
ms of ballistic expansion, show the approachand merging of the two condensates. The distance between the two traps and the elapsed
time are given. In (G) and (H), the traps overlapped. (I) is an absorption image before themerger with 12 ms of ballistic expansion for thecondensate trapped by the tweezers and 9 ms
for the condensate in the continuous reservoir.
(J) is an absorption image after complete merger, with 12 ms of ballistic expansion. The ﬁeldof view is 0.2 ⫻ 4.2 mm (B) to (H) and 0.7 ⫻1.7 mm (I) and ( J).

2194

ened from the usual 35 to 12 s. This wasachieved primarily by shortening the evaporation cycle from 30 to 9 s. The shortened cycle
reduced the typical condensate number before
the transfer into the tweezers beam to 6 ⫻ 106
atoms, which is a factor of three lower than ourusual operating conditions. Nonetheless, thenumber of condensed atoms transported to thescience chamber did not change noticeably. The
smaller condensates suffered from less threebody loss during the transfer from the magnetic
to the tweezers trap.
It was essential to use an optical-dipole trap
for the continuous condensate source, because
atoms in optical traps are insensitive to straymagnetic bias fields produced during the condensate production cycle. We initially tried tohold atoms in the science chamber in a magnetic trap (12), but the atoms were lost when themagnetic fields for the “Zeeman slower” andthe MOT were switched on and displaced thecenter of the magnetic trap. Another problem
with a magnetic trap is its long range. Magnetic
forces would accelerate the condensate in thetweezers as it approached the magnetic trap,
and the new condensate would collide violently
with the condensate in the reservoir. Opticaltraps, on the other hand, have a more limited
trap volume and depth. Hence, we could bringthe condensates as close as the traps’ beam
waist before they were affected by each other’s
presence.
Condensate atoms in the reservoir were immune to magnetic bias fields, but not to strayfield gradients, because the atoms were in themagnetically sensitive ⱍF ⫽ 1, mF ⫽ –1⬎
hyperfine state. However, no detrimental effects were observed during BEC production,
consistent with gradient fields measured to be
below 100 mG/cm. We also produced a continuous BEC source containing atoms in the magnetically insensitive ⱍF ⫽ 1, mF ⫽ 0⬎ hyperfine state. For that, a Landau-Zener sweep (1)transferred condensate atoms from the mF ⫽ –1
to the mF ⫽ 0 state after the condensate was
loaded into the tweezers beam in the production
chamber. The number of condensed atoms in

the reservoir trap was similar to the number
measured for mF ⫽ –1 atoms.
Finally, the key step in realizing a continuous condensate source was adding the freshly
prepared condensates to the reservoir trap withminimal excitations of the condensate. It was
critical to merge the condensates along thetightly confining radial direction. The large radial trap frequencies (⬎400 Hz) ensured thatthe merger could be done quickly and yet bealmost adiabatic and that the radial excitations
during the merger could be damped out quickly.
The collinear arrangement and the similar trapping frequencies ensured good overlap and“mode matching” during the merger of the two
traps. After careful optimization of all parameters, condensates could be merged with a 25%
loss in the total atom number (Fig. 2). These
losses are due partially to three-body recombination in the combined trap and partially to thedissipation of excitations caused during themerger. The finite trap depth of the optical trap
ensured dissipation by evaporative cooling.
In a preliminary experiment, we showedthat it was also possible to merge two condensates in a crossed dipole configuration,
where the axis of the tweezers beam wasperpendicular to the reservoir trap. We produced a continuous BEC source in this configuration as well, albeit with atom numbers
lower by an order of magnitude. We observed
rapid loss of atoms when the two traps overlapped, possibly due to three-body recombination resulting from increased density.
In principle, multiple replenishments of acondensate could lead to a vast improvement in
the size of the condensates. With an improved
lifetime in the science chamber, the condensate
number would increase after each merge,
whereas we reached equilibrium after just two
fillings due to the limited lifetime of 22 s.
However, the accumulation of more atoms inan optical trap will increase the density, andtherefore, the loss of atoms by inelastic processes. This loss could be mitigated by an increasein trap volume, as was realized using cylindrical
optics (14, 15). With such improvements, it

Fig. 2. A continuous
source of Bose-Einstein condensed atoms. The solid circles
in the semi-log plot
represent the atom
number in the continuous reservoir, andthe open squares
show the number ofcondensate
atoms
transferred from theproduction chamber.
The dashed lines indicate the beginning ofa new cycle, and thesolid lines are exponentially decaying curves determined by a simultaneous ﬁt to the three cycles
after the ﬁrst cycle. The number of atoms for each data point was obtained from a separate
absorption image, similar to the ones in Fig. 1, I and J.

21 JUNE 2002 VOL 296 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org

RESEARCH ARTICLE
should be possible to transfer condensates containing more than 107 atoms and accumulate
more than 108 atoms in the continuous source.
This would be larger than any condensate produced thus far using the standard combinationof laser cooling and evaporative cooling.

Outlook: Condensate Phase and CWAtom Lasers
An interesting aspect of the continuous BEC is
its phase. So far, the phase evolution of condensates have been traced only over sub-second
time intervals (16, 17). A measurement of thephase of the continuous BEC source would
require separating a small part of the source asa local oscillator and maintaining its phase overthe duration of the entire experiment. Although
this seems to be out of the reach of current
experiments, one may speculate on how thephase would evolve during replenishment of acondensate. The freshly prepared condensates
have a random phase relative to the condensate
in the reservoir trap, and therefore, in the current experiment, the phase of the source after
replenishment will be random relative to thephase before the merger. However, in the limitof a large continuously held condensate merging with a smaller condensate, one would expect the phase of the large condensate to dominate. Each replenishment would create someexcitation, and relaxation would result in a condensate with a slightly modified phase, a process reminiscent of phase diffusion in an opticallaser. This and other aspects of the merger
warrant future theoretical studies, such as ofphase coherence, dissipation, and the role ofquantum tunnelling during the merger.
In principle, it would be possible to re-plenish a stationary continuous BEC sourcewith an incoming moving condensate using
phase coherent amplification (18, 19). Whilea stationary source overlaps with a moving
condensate dressed by a laser beam, lightscattering could phase-coherently amplify thecondensate in the reservoir using atoms fromthe moving condensate. In this scheme, thenecessary dissipation is provided by the optical pumping process.
All atom lasers to date (16, 20–22) haveoperated in a pulsed mode. Coherent streams ofatoms were generated until a single condensate
was completely depleted. Using our continuous
BEC source, one could implement CW-outcoupling and create a truly continuous atom laser.
By varying the intensity of the outcoupling fieldwith some feedback, one could compensate forthe cyclic variation in the density of the continuous BEC source, thereby outcoupling a continuous atomic-matter wave with constant amplitude. The optical analog of this configuration
would be a pulsed laser that delivers photons toan external storage cavity from which a CW
laser beam is then extracted. Although a longstorage time for photons is not feasible, it isstraightforward for atoms. Furthermore, themerger of several pulses requires dissipationand cooling, and therefore interactions, which
are present between atoms, but not between
photons.

Conclusion
In this work, techniques were developed to
produce a new condensate in proximity to another condensate and to merge condensates. We
have used these techniques to create a continuous source of Bose-Einstein condensed atoms.

References and Notes
1. W. Ketterle, D. Durfee, D. Stamper-Kurn, Proceedingsof the International School of Physics-Enrico Fermi, M.
Inguscio, S. Stringari, C. Wieman, Eds. (IOS Press,
Amsterdam, 1999), pp. 67–176.
2. F. Dalfovo, S. Giorgini, L. P. Pitaevskii, S. Stringari, Rev.
Mod. Phys. 71, 463 (1999).
3. T. H. Maiman, Nature 187, 493 (1960).
4. A. Javan, W. R. Bennett, D. Herriott, Phys. Rev. Lett. 6,106 (1961).
5. R. J. C. Spreeuw, T. Pfau, U. Janicke, M. Wilkens,
Europhys. Lett. 32, 469 (1995).
6. M. Olshanii, Y. Castin, J. Dalibard, Proceedings of the
12th International Conference on Laser Spectroscopy,
M. Inguscio, M. Allegrini, A. Sasso, Eds. ( World Scientiﬁc, New York, 1996), pp. 7–12.
7. E. Mandonnet et al., Eur. Phys. J. D 10, 9 (2000).
8. B. K. Teo, G. Raithel, Phys. Rev. A 63, 031492(R)(2001).
9. P. Cren, C. F. Roos, A. Aclan, J. Dalibard, D. GuéryOdelin (2002). Preprint, http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/condmat/0203618.
10. W. Rooijakkers, M. Vengalattore, R. Conroy, M. Prentiss, personal communication.
11. T. L. Gustavson et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 020401(2002).
12. A. E. Leanhardt et al., (2002). Preprint, http://xxx.
lanl.gov/abs/cond-mat/0203214.
13. D. M. Stamper-Kurn et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2027
(1998).
14. A. Görlitz, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 130402 (2001).
15. A. Görlitz et al., in preparation.
16. B. Anderson, M. Kasevich, Science 282, 1686 (1998).
17. D. S. Hall, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman, E. A. Cornell,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1543 (1998).
18. S. Inouye et al., Nature 402, 641 (1999).
19. M. Kozuma et al., Science 286, 2309 (1999).
20. M.-O. Mewes et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 582 (1997).
21. I. Bloch, T. W. Hänsch, T. Esslinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82,
3008 (1999).
22. E. Hagley et al., Science 283, 1706 (1999).
23. Funded by the Ofﬁce of Naval Research, NSF, Army
Research Ofﬁce, NASA, and the David and Lucile
Packard Foundation. A.E.L. acknowledges additional
support from NSF. We thank Z. Hadzibabic for a
critical reading of the manuscript.
12 April 2002; accepted 8 May 2002

REPORTS

Coherent Spin Oscillations in a
Disordered Magnet
S. Ghosh,1 R. Parthasarathy,1 T. F. Rosenbaum,1* G. Aeppli2
Most materials freeze when cooled to sufﬁciently low temperature. We ﬁnd thatmagnetic dipoles randomly distributed in a solid matrix condense into a spin liquidwith spectral properties on cooling that are the diametric opposite of those forconventional glasses. Measurements of the nonlinear magnetic dynamics in the
low-temperature liquid reveal the presence of coherent spin oscillations composedof hundreds of spins with lifetimes of up to 10 seconds. These excitations can belabeled by frequency and manipulated by the magnetic ﬁelds from a loop of wireand can permit the encoding of information at multiple frequencies simultaneously.
Magnetic solids offer arrays of quantum degrees of freedom, or spins, that interact witheach other in a manner and strength ranging
from the long-range ferromagnetism of ironand nickel to the nano-antiferromagnetism ofvortices in high-temperature superconduc-tors. Unfortunately, there is a large barrier toexploiting quantum effects in magnetic solids; namely, the rarity of coherence effects
that can be simply manipulated and observed(1). In particular, it is difficult to create themagnetization oscillations corresponding toprepared superpositions of states, which areso straightforwardly created in liquid-phasenuclear magnetic resonance experiments. The“decoherence” for the solid magnets is generally attributed to disorder and to the coupling of the electronic spins to other degrees
of freedom, such as nuclear spins, atomic
motion, and conduction electrons. Here we
describe coherence effects in a magnet,
LiHo0.045Y0.955F4, which is highly disordered but does not suffer from coupling toeither conduction electrons or to atomic motions, because it is a strongly ionic insulator
with the spins derived from small, nonoverlapping electronic orbitals.
1
The James Franck Institute and Department of Physics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637,
USA. 2NEC Research Institute, 4 Independence Way,
Princeton, NJ 08540, USA.

*To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: t-rosenbaum@uchicago.edu

www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 296 21 JUNE 2002

2195

Bibliography[1] A. P. Chikkatur, A. Görlitz, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, S. Inouye, S. Gupta, and W.
Ketterle, “Suppression and enhancement of impurity scattering in a Bose-Einsteincondensate,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 483 (2000).
[2] T. L. Gustavson, A. P. Chikkatur, A. E. Leanhardt, A. Görlitz, S. Gupta, D. E.
Pritchard, and W. Ketterle, “Transport of Bose-Einstein Condensates with OpticalTweezers,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 020401 (2002).
[3] 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,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 040401 (2002).
[4] 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 (2002), published online in Science Express on May 16,
2002. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1072825.
[5] A. E. Leanhardt, A. Görlitz, A. P. Chikkatur, D. Kielpinski, Y. Shin, D. Pritchard, and
W. Ketterle, “Imprinting Vortices in a Bose-Einstein Condensate using Topological
Phases,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 190403 (2002).
[6] D. M. Stamper-Kurn, M. R. Andrews, A. P. Chikkatur, S. Inouye, H.-J. Miesner,
J. Stenger, and W. Ketterle, “Optical conﬁnement of a Bose-Einstein condensate,”
Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2027 (1998).
[7] D. M. Stamper-Kurn, H.-J. Miesner, A. P. Chikkatur, S. Inouye, J. Stenger, and W.
Ketterle, “Reversible formation of a Bose-Einstein condensate,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 81,
2194 (1998).
[8] 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(1998).
[9] 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,”
Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2228 (1999).
[10] J. Stenger, S. Inouye, A. P. Chikkatur, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, D. E. Pritchard, and
W. Ketterle, “Bragg spectroscopy of a Bose-Einstein condensate,” Phys. Rev. Lett.
82, 4569 (1999).

173

[11] 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,”
Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 661 (1999).
[12] S. Inouye, A. P. Chikkatur, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, J. Stenger, D. E. Pritchard, and
W. Ketterle, “Superradiant Rayleigh scattering from a Bose-Einstein condensate,”
Science 285, 571 (1999).
[13] D. M. Stamper-Kurn, A. P. Chikkatur, A. Görlitz, S. Inouye, S. Gupta, D. E.
Pritchard, and W. Ketterle, “Excitation of phonons in a Bose-Einstein condensate
by light scattering,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2876 (1999).
[14] S. Inouye, T. Pfau, S. Gupta, A. P. Chikkatur, A. Görlitz, D. E. Pritchard, and
W. Ketterle, “Observation of phase-coherent ampliﬁcation of atomic matter waves,”
Nature 402, 641 (1999).
[15] R. Onofrio, C. Raman, J. M. Vogels, J. R. Abo-Shaeer, A. P. Chikkatur, and W.
Ketterle, “Observation of Superﬂuid Flow in a Bose-Einstein Condensed Gas,” Phys.
Rev. Lett. 85, 2228 (2000).
[16] A. Görlitz, A. P. Chikkatur, and W. Ketterle, “Enhancement and suppression of
spontaneous emission and light scattering by quantum degeneracy,” Phys. Rev. A 36,
041601(R) (2001).
[17] S. Inouye, S. Gupta, T. Rosenband, 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,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 080402 (2001).
[18] A. Gölitz, 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,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 87,
130402 (2001).
[19] A. Görlitz, T. L. Gustavson, A. E. Leanhardt, R. Löw, A. P. Chikkatur, S. Gupta, S.
Inouye, D. E. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle, Sodium Bose-Einstein Condensates in the
F=2 State in a Large-volume Optical Trap, 2002, pre-print cond-mat/0208385.
[20] The Nobel Prize in Physics 2001;
available at http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/2001/.
[21] E. A. Cornell and C. E. Wieman, “Bose-Einstein Condensation in Dilute Gas: The
ﬁrst 70 years and some recent experiments (Nobel lecture),” Chem. Phys. Chem. 3,
476 (2002).
[22] W. Ketterle, “When Atoms Behave as Waves: Bose-Einstein Condensation and
the Atom Laser (Nobel Lecture),” Chem. Phys. Chem. 3, 736 (2002), available at
http://cua.mit.edu/ketterle group/Projects 2002/Pubs 02/kett02 Nobel lecture.pdf.
[23] D. Kleppner, ‘Physics Today’, Aug. 1997, p. 11; Jan. 1998, p. 90.
[24] W. Ketterle, McGraw-Hill 1999 Yearbook of Science and Technology, companion volume to Encyclopedia of Science and Technology (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1999), p.
43.
174

[25] A. Griﬃn, in Bose-Einstein condensation in atomic gases, Proceedings of the International School of Physics Enrico Fermi, Course CXL, edited by M. Inguscio, S.
Stringari, and C. Wieman (IOS Press, Amsterdam, 1999), p. 591.
[26] D. M. Stamper-Kurn, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1999.
[27] S. Inouye, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2001.
[28] M. H. Anderson, J. R. Ensher, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell,“Observation of Bose-Einstein Condensation in a Dilute Atomic Vapor,” Science 269,
198 (1995).
[29] K. B. Davis, M.-O. Mewes, M. A. Joﬀe, M. R. Andrews, and W. Ketterle, “Evaporative Cooling of Sodium Atoms,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 5202 (1995).
[30] C. C. Bradley, C. A. Sackett, J. J. Tollet, and R. G. Hulet, “Evidence of Bose-Einstein
Condensation in an Atomic Gas with Attractive Interactions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 75,
1687 (1995).
[31] C. C. Bradley, C. A. Sackett, and R. G. Hulet, “Bose-Einstein Condensation of
Lithium: Observation of Limited Condensate Number,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 985(1997).
[32] K. Huang, Statistical Mechanics (Wiley, New York, 1987).
[33] W. Pauli, “The Connection Between Spin and Statistics,” Phys. Rev. 58, 716722(1940).
[34] F. Dalfovo, S. Giorgini, L. P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, “Theory of Bose–Einsteincondensation in trapped gases,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 463 (1999).
[35] D. Pines and P. Nozires, The Theory of Quantum Liquids, Vol. 1 (Addison-Wesley,
Reading, MA, 1988).
[36] F. London, “The λ -phenomenon of liquid helium and the Bose-Einstein degeneracy,”
Nature 141, 643 (1938).
[37] F. London, “On the Bose-Einstein Condensation,” Phys. Rev. 54, 947 (1938).
[38] J. F. Allen and A. D. Misener, “Flow of liquid helium II,” Nature 141, 75 (1938).
[39] P. Kapitza, “Viscosity of liquid helium below the λ-point,” Nature 141, 74 (1938).
[40] J. F. Allen and H. Jones, “New Phenomena Connected with Heat Flow in Helium II,”Nature 141, 243 (1938).
[41] L. Tisza, “Transport Phenomena in Helium II,” Nature 141, 913 (1938).
[42] V. P. Peshkov, Soviet Physics JETP 11, 580 (1960).
[43] D. M. Stamper-Kurn, H.-J. Miesner, S. Inouye, M. R. Andrews, and W. Ketterle,“Collisionless and hydrodynamic excitations of a Bose-Einstein condensate,” Phys.
Rev. Lett. 81, 500 (1998).
[44] N. N. Bogoliubov, “On the theory of superﬂuidity,” J. Phys. (USSR) 11, 23 (1947).
175

[45] L. Pitaevskii, “The problem of the form of the spectrum of elementary excitations ofliquid helium II,” Sov. Phys. JETP 12, 155 (1960).
[46] A. Griﬃn, D. W. Snoke, and S. Stringari, Bose-Einstein Condensation (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1995), (editors).
[47] C. E. Hecht, “The Possible Superﬂuid Behaviour of Hydrogen Atom Gases and Liquids,” Physica 25, 1159 (1959).
[48] W. C. Stwalley and L. H. Nosanow, “Possible “new” quantum systems,” Phys. Rev.
Lett. 36, 910 (1976).
[49] D. G. Fried, T. C. Killian, L. Willmann, D. Landhuis, S. C. Moss, D. Kleppner, andT. J. Greytak, “Bose-Einstein Condensation of Atomic Hydrogen,” Phys. Rev. Lett.
81, 3811 (1998).
[50] H. F. Hess, “Evaporative cooling of magnetically trapped and compressed spinpolarized hydrogen,” Phys. Rev. B 34, 3476 (1986).
[51] M. Anderson, J. Ensher, M. Matthews, C. Wieman, and E. Cornell, “Observation of
Bose-Einstein Condensation in a Dilute Atomic Vapor,” Science 269, 198 (1995).
[52] K. B. Davis, M.-O. Mewes, M. R. Andrews, N. J. van Druten, D. S. Durfee, D. M.
Kurn, and W. Ketterle, “Bose-Einstein Condensation in a Gas of Sodium Atoms,”
Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3969 (1995).
[53] 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 (1998).
[54] J. Stenger, S. Inouye, M. R. Andrews, H.-J. Miesner, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, and W.
Ketterle, “Strongly enhanced inelastic collisions in a Bose-Einstein condensate near
Feshbach resonances,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2422 (1999).
[55] S. Inouye, R.F.Löw, S. Gupta, T. Pfau, A. Görlitz, T. L. Gustavson, D. E. Pritchard,
and W. Ketterle, “Ampliﬁcation of light and atoms in a Bose-Einstein condensate,”
Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4225 (2000).
[56] Z. Hadzibabic, C. A. Stan, K. Dieckmann, S. Gupta, M. W. Zwierlein, A. Görlitz, and
W. Ketterle, “Two-Species Mixture of Quantum Degenerate Bose and Fermi Gases,”
Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 160401 (2002).
[57] J. M. Vogels, K. Xu, and W. Ketterle, “Generation of Macroscopic Pair-Correlated
Atomic Beams by Four-Wave Mixing in Bose-Einstein Condensates,” Phys. Rev. Lett.
89, 020401 (2002).
[58] W. Ketterle and N. J. van Druten, in Advances in Atomic, Molecular, and Optical
Physics, edited by B. Bederson and H. Walther (Academic Press, San Diego, 1996),
Vol. 37, pp. 181–236.
[59] K. Gral, K. Rzazewski, and T. Pfau, “Bose-Einstein condensation with magnetic
dipole-dipole forces,” Phys. Rev. A 61, 051601(R) (2000).

176

[60] S. Giovanazzi, A. Görlitz, and T. Pfau, “Tuning the dipolar interaction in quantum
gases,” (2002), pre-print cond-mat/0204352 v2.
[61] E. Tiesinga, C. J. Williams, P. S. Julienne, K. M. Jones, P. D. Lett, and W. D. Phillips,“A spectroscopic determination of scattering lengths for sodium atom collisions,” J.
Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 101, 505 (1996).
[62] C. Samuelis, E. Tiesinga, T. Laue, M. Elbs, H. Knckel, and E. Tiemann, “Cold atomic
collisions studied by molecular spectroscopy,” Phys. Rev. A 63, 012710 (2001).
[63] M. O. Mewes, M. R. Andrews, N. J. van Druten, D. M. Kurn, D. S. Durfee, and
W. Ketterle, “Bose-Einstein condensation in a tightly conﬁning DC magnetic trap,”
Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 416 (1996).
[64] J. J. Sakurai, Modern Quantum Mechanics (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts,
1994).
[65] W. Ketterle, A. Chikkatur, and C. Raman, in Seventeenth International Conferenceon Atomic Physics, Florence, Italy, 2000 (American Institute of Physics, New York,
2001), pp. 337–355.
[66] W. Ketterle and S. Inouye, compte rendus de l’acadmie des sciences, Srie IV - PhysiqueAstrophysique, vol. 2, pp. 339-380 (2001); e-print cond- mat/0101424 29.
[67] W. Ketterle and S. Inouye, “Does matter wave ampliﬁcation work for fermions?,”
Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4203 (2001).
[68] A. Einstein, “Quantentheorie des einatomigen idealen Gases. II,” Sitzungsber. Preuss.
Akad. Wiss. Bericht 1, 3 (1925).
[69] B. DeMarco, S. B. Papp, and D. S. Jin, “Pauli Blocking of Collisions in a Quantum
Degenerate Atomic Fermi Gas,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5404 (2001).
[70] L. D. Landau, “The theory of superﬂuidity of helium II,” J. Phys. (USSR) 5, 71(1941).
[71] A. J. Leggett, “Superﬂuidity,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, S318 (1999).
[72] D. R. Tilley and J. Tilley, Superﬂuidity and Superconductivity (IOP Publishing Ltd.,New York, 1990), pp. 41–53.
[73] D. R. Allum, P. V. E. McClintock, A. Phillips, and R. M. Bowley, “The breakdown ofsuperﬂuidity in Liquid 4 He: An experimental test of Landau’s theory,” Phil. Trans.
R. Soc. A 284, 179 (1977).
[74] L. Meyer and F. Reif, “Ion Motion in Superﬂuid Liquid Helium under Pressure,”
Phys. Rev. 123, 727 (1961).
[75] T. Ellis, C. I. Jewell, and P. McClintock, “Measurement of Landau velocity in He II,”
Phys. Lett. 78A, 358 (1980).
[76] N. Katz, J. Steinhauer, R. Ozeri, and N. Davidson, “Beliaev damping of quasi-particles
in a Bose-Einstein condensate,” (2002), pre-print cond-mat/0206234.
177[77] E. Timmermans and R. Cótê, “Superﬂuidity in Sympathetic Cooling with Atomic
Bose-Einstein Condensates,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 3419 (1998).
[78] C. Raman, M. Khl, R. Onofrio, D. S. Durfee, C. E. Kuklewicz, Z. Hadzibabic, and W.
Ketterle, “Evidence for a critical velocity in a Bose-Einstein condensed gas,” Phys.
Rev. Lett. 83, 2502 (1999).
[79] T. Frisch, Y. Pomeau, and S. Rica, “Transition to Dissipation in a Model of Superﬂow,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 1644 (1992).
[80] M. Crescimanno, C. G. Koay, R. Peterson, and R. Walsworth, “Analytical Estimateof the Critical Velocity for Vortex Pair Creation in Trapped Bose Condensates,” Phys.
Rev. A 62, 063612 (2000).
[81] B. Jackson, J. F. McCann, and C. S. Adams, “Dissipation and Vortex Creation in
Bose-Einstein Condensed Gases,” Phys. Rev. A 61, 051603(R) (2000).
[82] F. Chevy, K. W. Madison, V. Bretin, and J. Dalibard, “Interferometric detection ofa single vortex in a dilute Bose-Einstein condensate,” Phys. Rev. A 64, 031601(R)(2001).
[83] K. W. Madison, F. Chevy, V. Bretin, and J. Dalibard, “Stationary States of a Rotating
Bose-Einstein Condensate: Routes to Vortex Nucleation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4443
(2001).
[84] S. Sinha and Y. Castin, “Dynamic instability of a rotating Bose-Einstein condensate,”
Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 190402 (2001).
[85] J. R. Anglin, “Local Vortex Generation and the Surface Mode Spectrum of Large
Bose-Einstein Condensates,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 240401 (2001).
[86] K. W. Madison, F. Chevy, W. Wohlleben, and J. Dalibard, “Vortex formation in a
stirred Bose-Einstein condensate,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 806 (2000).
[87] J. R. Abo-Shaeer, C. Raman, J. M. Vogels, and W. Ketterle, “Observation of Vortex
Lattices in Bose-Einstein Condensates,” Science 292, 476 (2001).
[88] S. Gupta, A. Leanhardt, A. Cronin, and D. Pritchard, compte rendus de l’acadmie
des sciences, Srie IV - Physique Astrophysique, vol. 2, pp. 479-479 (2001).
[89] 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 (1997).
[90] 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 (1999).
[91] Z. Idziaszek, K. Rzazewski, and M. Wilkens, “Scattering of Atoms on the BoseEinstein condensate,” J. Phys. B 32, L205 (1999).
[92] R. J. Ballagh, K. Burnett, and T. F. Scott, “Theory of an output coupler for a trapped
Bose-Einstein condensate,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 1607 (1997).
178

[93] Y. B. Band, P. S. Julienne, and M. Trippenbach, “Radio-frequency output couplingof the Bose-Einstein condensate,” Phys. Rev. A 59, 3823 (1999).
[94] Y. B. Band, M. Trippenbach, J. P. Burke, and P. S. Julienne, “Elastic Scattering Lossof Atoms from Colliding Bose-Einstein Condensate Wave Packets,” Phys. Rev. Lett.
84, 5462 (2000).
[95] M. Trippenbach, Y. Band, and P. Julienne, “Theory of four-wave mixing of matterwaves from a Bose-Einstein condensate,” Phys. Rev. A 62, 023608 (2000).
[96] Y. Castin and R. Dum, “Bose-Einstein condensation in time dependent traps,” Phys.
Rev. Lett. 77, 5315 (1996).
[97] A. J. Leggett, “Bose-Einstein condensation in the alkali gases: Some fundamental
concepts,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 307 (2001).
[98] V. Yurovsky, “Quantum eﬀects on dynamics of instabilities in Bose-Einstein condensates,” Phys. Rev. A 65, 033605 (2002).
[99] F. Zambelli, L. Pitaevskii, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, and S. Stringari, “Dynamic structure
factor and momentum distribution of a trapped Bose gas,” Phys. Rev. A 61, 063608(2000).
[100] W. Ketterle, D. S. Durfee, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, in Bose-Einstein condensation in
atomic gases, Proceedings of the International School of Physics Enrico Fermi, Course
CXL, edited by M. Inguscio, S. Stringari, and C. Wieman (IOS Press, Amsterdam,
1999), pp. 67–176.
[101] A. I. Lvovsky and S. R. Hartmann, “Omnidirectional Superﬂuoresence,” Phys. Rev.
Lett. 82, 4420 (1999).
[102] A. Montina, “Impurity Scattering in a Bose-Einstein Condensate at ﬁnite temperature,” (2002), pre-print cond-mat/0204129.
[103] M. Trippenbach, Y. Band, and P. Julienne, “Four-wave mixing in scattering of BoseEinstein condensates,” Opt. Express 3, 530 (1998).
[104] M. Greiner, I. Bloch, O. Mandel, T. W. H”ansch, and T. Esslinger, “Exploring Phase
Coherence in a 2D Lattice of Bose-Einstein Condensates,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 160405(2001).
[105] H. Pu and P. Meystre, “Creating Macroscopic Atomic Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Statesfrom Bose-Einstein Condensates,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3987 (2000).
[106] L.-M. Duan, A. Srensen, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, “Squeezing and Entanglement ofAtomic Beams,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3991 (2000).
[107] M.-O. Mewes, M. Andrews, D. Kurn, D. Durfee, C. Townsend, and W. Ketterle,“Output Coupler for Bose-Einstein Condensed Atoms,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 582(1997).
[108] B. Anderson and M. Kasevich, “Macroscopic Quantum Interference from Atomic Tunnel Arrays,” Science 282, 1686 (1998).
179[109] I. Bloch, T. W. Hänsch, and T. Esslinger, “Atom Laser with a cw Output Coupler,”
Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3008 (1999).
[110] E. Hagley, L. Deng, M. Kozuma, J. Wen, K. Helmerson, S. Rolston, and W. Phillips,“A Well-Collimated Quasi-Continuous Atom Laser,” Science 283, 1706 (1999).
[111] 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,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2498 (1999).
[112] P. Engels, I. Coddington, P. C. Haljan, and E. A. Cornell, “Nonequilibrium eﬀects
of anisotropic compression applied to vortex lattices in Bose-Einstein condensates,”(2002), pre-print cond-mat/0204449.
[113] S. Burger, F. S. Cataliotti, C. Fort, F. Minardi, and M. Inguscio, “Superﬂuid andDissipative Dynamics of a Bose-Einstein Condensate in a Periodic Optical Potential,”
Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4447 (2001).
[114] G. Astrakharchik, J. Boronat, J. Casulleras, and S. Giorgini, “Superﬂuidity vsBose-Einstein condensation in a Bose gas with disorder,” (2001), pre-print condmat/0111165.
[115] I. Mazets, “Quantum acoustic bremsstrahlung of impurity atoms in a Bose–Einsteincondensate,” (2002), pre-print cond-mat/0205235.
[116] A. Montina, “Thermalization of an impurity cloud in a Bose-Einstein condensate,”(2002), pre-print cond-mat/0205474.
[117] M. Greiner, I. Bloch, T. W. Hänsch, and T. Esslinger, “Magnetic transport of trapped
cold atoms over a large distance,” Phys. Rev. A 63, 031401 (2001).
[118] T. Kishimoto, P. Schwindt, Y.-J. Wang, W. Jhe, D. Anderson, and E. Cornell, “BoseEinstein Condensation and Wave-guide Interferometry”, 2001, DAMOP/DAMP (London, Ontario).
[119] H. J. Lewandowski, D. M. Harber, D. L. Whitaker, and E. A. Cornell, “Observation of
Anomalous Spin-State Segregation in a Trapped Ultracold Vapor,” Phys. Rev. Lett.
88, 070403 (2002).
[120] K. W. Madison, C. F. Bharucha, P. R. Morrow, S. R. Wilkinson, Q. Niu, B. Sundaram,and M. G. Raizen, “Quantum transport of ultracold atoms in an accelerating opticalpotential,” Appl. Phys. B 65, 693 (1997).
[121] E. Peik, M. B. Dahan, I. Bouchoule, Y. Castin, and C. Salomon, “Bloch oscillations
and an accelerator for cold atoms,” Appl. Phys. B 65, 685 (1997).
[122] W. Hnsel, P. Hommelhoﬀ, T. W. Hnsch, and J. Reichel, “Bose-Einstein condensation
on a microelectronic chip,” Nature 413, 498 (2001).
[123] A. Ashkin, “Optical trapping and manipulation of neutral particles,” Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 94, 4853 (1997).
[124] R. Onofrio, D. S. Durfee, C. Raman, M. Khl, C. E. Kuklewicz, and W. Ketterle,“Surface excitations in a Bose-Einstein condensate,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 810 (2000).
180

[125] D. M. Stamper-Kurn, 2002, Private communication.
[126] J. O’Hanlon, A User’s Guide to Vacuum Technology (Wiley, New York, 1989).
[127] M. A. Joﬀe, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1993.
[128] W. D. Phillips, in Laser Manipulation of Atoms and Ions, Proceedings of the International School of Physics Enrico Fermi, Course CXVIII, edited by E. Arimondo, W.
Phillips, and F. Strumia (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1992), pp. 289–343.
[129] N. Ramsey, Molecular Beams (Oxford University Press, New York, 1959).
[130] C. Kuklewicz, Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2000.
[131] 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,” Phys.
Rev. Lett. 85, 1795 (2000).
[132] D. G. Fried, T. C. Killian, L. Willmann, D. Landhuis, S. C. Moss, D. Kleppner, andT. J. Greytak, “Bose-Einstein Condensation of Atomic Hydrogen,” Phys. Rev. Lett.
81, 3811 (1998).
[133] 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,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2253
(1993).
[134] A. L. Migdall, J. V. Prodan, W. D. Phillips, T. H. Bergeman, and H. J. Metcalf,“First Observation of Magnetically Trapped Neutral Atoms,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 54,
2596 (1985).
[135] M. D. Barrett, J. A. Sauer, and M. S. Chapman, “All-Optical Formation of an Atomic
Bose-Einstein Condensate,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 010404 (2001).
[136] T. Esslinger, I. Bloch, and T. W. Hnsch, “Bose-Einstein condensation in a quadrupoleIoﬀe-conﬁguration trap,” Phys. Rev. A 58, R2664 (1998).
[137] J. Fortagh, A. Grossman, C. Zimmermann, and T. W. Hänsch, “Minaturized Wire
Trap for Neutral Atoms,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5310 (1998).
[138] J. Denschlag, D. Cassettari, and J. Schmiedmayer, “Guiding Neutral Atoms with aWire,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2014 (1999).
[139] J. D. Weinstein and K. G. Libbrecht, “Microscopic magnetic traps for neutral atoms,”
Phys. Rev. A 52, 4004 (1995).
[140] J. Reichel, W. Hänsel, and T. W. Hänsch, “Atomic Micromanipulation with Magnetic
Surface Traps,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3398 (1999).
[141] 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,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 5194 (1999).
[142] 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,” Phys. Rev. Lett.
84, 1124 (2000).
181

[143] D. Cassettari, A. Chenet, R. Folman, A. Hasse, B. Hessmo, P. Krüger, S. Schneider, T. Calarco, and J. Schmiedmayer, “Micromanipulation of Neutral Atoms with
Nanofabricated Structures,” Applied Phys. B 70, 721 (2000).
[144] R. Folman, P. Krüger, D. Cassettari, B. Hessmo, T. Maier, and J. Schmiedmayer,“Controlling Cold Atoms using Nanofabricated Surfaces: Atom Chips,” Phys. Rev.
Lett. 84, 4749 (2000).
[145] H. Ott, J. Fortagh, G. Schlotterbeck, A. Grossmann, and C. Zimmermann, 2001,
ICOLS XV poster (Snowbird, Utah).
[146] J. Reichel, W. Hänsel, P. Hommelhoﬀ, R. Long, T. Rom, T. Steinmetz, and T. W.
Hänsch, 2001, ICOLS XV poster (Snowbird, Utah).
[147] A. Haase, D. Cassettari, B. Hessmo, and J. Schmiedmayer, “Trapping neutral atoms
with a wire,” Phys. Rev. A 64, 043405 (2001).
[148] H. Ott, J. Fortagh, G. Schlotterbeck, A. Grossmann, and C. Zimmermann, “BoseEinstein Condensation in a Surface Microtrap,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 230401 (2001).
[149] K. Bongs, S. Burger, S. Dettmer, D. Hellweg, J. Arlt, W. Ertmer, and K. Sengstock,“Waveguide for Bose-Einstein condensates,” Phys. Rev. A 63, 031602 (2001).
[150] 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 of
Phase Fluctuations in Elongated Bose-Einstein Condensates,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 87,
160406 (2001).
[151] J. Fortagh, H. Ott, S. Kraft, and C. Zimmermann, “Surface Eﬀects on a Bose-Einstein
Condensate in a Magnetic Microtrap,” (2002), pre-print cond-mat/0205310.
[152] P. Leboeuf and N. Pavloﬀ, “Bose-Einstein beams: Coherent propagation through a
guide,” Phys. Rev. A 64, 033602 (2001).
[153] J. H. Thywissen, R. M. Westervelt, and M. Prentiss, “Quantum Point Contacts for
Neutral Atoms,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3762 (1999).
[154] E. A. Hinds, C. J. Vale, and M. G. Boshier, “Two-Wire Waveguide and Interferometer
for Cold Atoms,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1462 (2001).
[155] T. H. Maiman, “Stimulated Optical Radiation in Ruby,” Nature 187, 493 (1960).
[156] A. Javan, W. R. Bennett, and D. Herriott, “Population Inversion and Continuous
Optical Maser Oscillation in a Gas Discharge Containing a He-Ne Mixture,” Phys.
Rev. Lett. 6, 106 (1961).
[157] B. Blair, ‘Scientists Who Made A Diﬀerence, Ali Javan: The Gas Laser and Beyond’,
http://www.azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/42 folder/42 articles/42 javan.html.
[158] M. Holland, K. Burnett, C. Gardiner, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, “Theory of an atom
laser,” Phys. Rev. A 54, R1757 (1996).
[159] R. J. C. Spreeuw, T. Pfau, U. Janicke, and M. Wilkens, “Laser-like scheme for atomicmatter waves,” Europhys. Lett. 32, 469 (1995).
182

[160] M. Olshanii, Y. Castin, and J. Dalibard, in Proceedings of the 12th International
Conference on Laser Spectroscopy, edited by M. Inguscio, M. Allegrini, and A. Sasso(World Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 1996), p. 7.
[161] L. Santos, F. Floegel, T. Pfau, and M. Lewenstein, “Continuous optical loading of a
Bose-Einstein condensate,” Phys. Rev. A 63, 063408 (2001).
[162] D. Schneble, H. Gauck, M. Hartl, T. Pfau, and J. Mlynek, in Bose-Einstein condensation in atomic gases, Proceedings of the International School of Physics Enrico
Fermi, Course CXL, edited by M. Inguscio, S. Stringari, and C. Wieman (IOS Press,
Amsterdam, 1999), pp. 487–488.
[163] E. Mandonnet, R. Dum, A. Minguzzi, I. Carusotto, Y. Castin, and J. Dalibard,“Evaporative cooling of an atomic beam,” Eur. Phys. J. D. 10, 9 (2000).
[164] B. K. Teo and G. Raithel, “Loading Mechanism for Atomic Guides,” Phys. Rev. A
63, 031492(R) (2001).
[165] P. Cren, C. F. Roos, A. Aclan, J. Dalibard, and D. Guéry-Odelin, 2002, pre-print,
cond-mat/0203618.
[166] W. Rooijakkers, M. Vengalattore, R. Conroy, and M. Prentiss, 2002, private communication.
[167] D. S. Hall, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell, “Measurements ofRelative Phase in Two-Component Bose-Einstein Condensates,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 81,
1543 (1998).
[168] D. Jaksch, S. Gardiner, K. Schulze, J. Cirac, and P. Zoller, “Uniting Bose-Einstein
Condensates in Optical Resonators,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4733 (2001).
[169] M. Kozuma, Y. Suzuki, Y. Torii, T. Sugiura, T. Kuga, E. W. Hagley, and L. Deng,“Phase coherent ampliﬁcation of matter waves,” Science 286, 2309 (1999).
[170] 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 (2001).
[171] 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 (2001).
[172] F. P. D. Santos, J. Lonard, J. Wang, C. J. Barrelet, F. Perales, E. Rasel, C. S.
Unnikrishnan, M. Leduc, and C. Cohen-Tannoudji, “Bose-Einstein Condensation ofMetastable Helium,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3459 (2001).
[173] R. Grimm group at Innsbruck (2002);
see http://exphys.uibk.ac.at/ultracold/CsBEC.html.
[174] M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. Esslinger, T. W. Hnsch, and I. Bloch, “Quantum Phase
Transition from a Superﬂuid to a Mott Insulator in a Gas of Ultracold Atoms,” Nature
415, 39 (2002).

183

[175] S. Gupta, K. Dieckmann, Z. Hadzibabic, and D. E. Pritchard, “Contrast Interferometry using Bose-Einstein Condensates to Measure h/m and α,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 89,
140401 (2002).
[176] I. A. Yu, J. M. Doyle, J. C. Sandberg, C. L. Cesar, D. Kleppner, and T. J. Greytak,“Evidence for universal quantum reﬂection of hydrogen from liquid 4 He,” Phys. Rev.
Lett. 71, 1589 (1993).
[177] F. Shimizu, “Specular Reﬂection of Very Slow Metastable Neon Atoms from a Solid
Surface,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 987 (2001).
[178] T. Mizushima, K. Machida, and T. Kita, “Mermin-Ho Vortex in Ferromagnetic Spinor
Bose-Einstein Condensates,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 030401 (2002).

184