Experiments with Interacting Bose and Fermi
Gases
by

Claudiu Andrei Stan
Submitted to the Department of Physics
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree ofDoctor of Philosophy
at theMASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
July 2005
c Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2005. All rights reserved.
°

Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Department of Physics
July 10, 2005

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

Experiments with Interacting Bose and Fermi Gases
byClaudiu Andrei Stan
Submitted to the Department of Physics
on July 10, 2005, in partial fulfillment of therequirements for the degree ofDoctor of Philosophy

Abstract
In the past few years, the study of trapped fermionic atoms evolved from the firstcooling experiments which produced quantum degenerate samples to becoming oneof the most exciting branches of current atomic physics research. This thesis covers
experiments done throughout this period, which can be grouped in three sets ofstudies.
First, degenerate 6 Li Fermi gases have been produced by sympathethic coolingwith bosonic 23 Na. For this, an existing 23 Na Bose-Einstein condensation apparatus
was upgraded to an experiment capable of producing degenerate 6 Li Fermi gases and6
Li–23 Na degenerate Fermi-Bose mixtures.
The cooling methods have been developed in two different stages, resulting in the
production of degenerate 6 Li Fermi gases with temperatures below 0.05 TF and up to
7 × 107 atoms, and of degenerate 6 Li–23 Na mixtures with a few million atoms in eachof the components.
Second, the properties of 6 Li–23 Na mixtures at different magnetic fields have been
investigated, resulting in the discovery of three interspecies 6 Li–23 Na Feshbach resonances, which opens up the possibility to study strongly interacting Bose-Fermi mixtures in this system. This investigations also led to the observation of other Feshbachresonances in 6 Li and 23 Na.
Third, the properties of strongly interacting 6 Li spin mixtures in the strong interacting regime near a Feshbach resonance have been investigated. Weakly bound6
Li2 molecules have been produced and Bose condensed on the repulsive side of the
Feshbach resonance. Pure molecular condensates with up to 3 × 106 molecules havebeen produced.
The properties of the interacting Fermi gas were investigated on the attractive sideof the resonance using rapid field ramps to the other side of the resonance. Fermion
pairing, and condensation of these pairs was observed near the resonance, offering
evidence for superfluid behavior in a strongly interacting Fermi gas.
Thesis Supervisor: Wolfgang Ketterle
Title: John D. MacArthur Professor of Physics

To all from whom I have learned

Acknowledgments
The years I have spent at MIT were the ones in which, so far, I have learnt the mostand slept the least. One of the things I treasure most about this period, and benefited
me most, was the opportunity to work, interact with, and learn from the people I
have found here. Which was unexpected for the lone problem solver I used to like tobe.
First I have to thank Wolfgang Ketterle for offering me to work in his lab, for
his guidance, and for providing a work environment in which what counts most is
the quality of the work, and in which the administrative chores which usually othergraduate students are largely extinct. I was amazed by his work ethics and by therange of his expertise, from the nuts and bolts of the experiment to how to conduct
high-impact research. At a time in which he had two other working experiments, he
was also able to put a lot of time into the development of the lithium experiment andof the two unexperienced graduate students, Zoran and me, who started it. Wolfgang
is the first real leader I have encountered, and he was my main role model during myfirst years here.
Dave Pritchard is the first atomic physicist I have met upon coming here, andhad a decisive role in my path throughout the grad school, initially bringing me tothe atomic physics research by keeping me in his labs during my first term, and thenby advising me to join Wolfgang’s group at a time at which I was not considering
this very seriously. He later played much more than his required role as an academic
advisor. Our interactions during these years were rather brief, but he always gave me
excellent advice when this was needed. Each term, Dave made the fifteen minutes of
the registration feel almost like an exam, and triggered useful personal reflections on
where I was and where I was going in my endeavors at MIT.
It is a rare thing that all the graduate students, undergrads and postdocs I haveworked with shared not only a great passion for their work, but also the capacity towork hard and the to learn quickly the skills needed to bring difficult tasks to fruition.
The lithium experiment started with Zoran Hadzibabic and me, and except for ourEastern European origin and upbringing, the most obvious thing we shared than wasthat none of us knew anything about building an atomic physics experiment. Ourmode of collaboration initially puzzled many people, since our work schedules were
almost orthogonal and it was not unusual not to meet in the lab during a day ofwork. But this worked quite well, mostly because the general skills we brought with
us were complementary, and the tasks we have chosen largely non-overlapping. On
top of doing his share of experiment-building and excellent research, I thank Zoran
for contributing with a broad scientific curiosity and a cheerful attitude which I could
not have supplied myself then, and without which the lithium experiment could nothave been what it is now.
Martin Zwierlein joined us early during the experiment building phase, and starting with his first evening in Cambridge when we all went for a beer at the Middle
East, it was clear that he is one of the most enthusiastic persons I’ve ever meet, thisapplying to everything from building a laser lock and figuring the exact mathematical formula for the error signal, to playing soccer after a full night run, biking acrossMartha’s Vineyard, or singing at parties. Martin finished his months as an exchange
student leaving behind solid hardware and many fond memories, and luckily he returned soon as a graduate student. His ever strong determination to make things
work was not deterred even when others, including myself, were not sure whether wewere going in the right direction. Martin’s contribution to the lab’s best achievements
to date was essential, and a big share of my most fruitful nights in the lab were sharedwith him during the fall and winter of 2003.
Deep Gupta always impressed me with his imperturbable calmness. Deep’s patientand yet stubborn way of, as he would put it, ’wrestling the machine’ puzzled me
initially. But as soon as I had to do it myself it was obvious that it was one of thebest ways to make things working in our lab, and it was one of the most useful things
I have learnt. Kai Dieckmann had done his fair share of experiment building during
his years as a postdoc, and he is one of the people who got the research started. His
stubbornness in suggesting me to add thermocouples to the new magnetic trap paid
off through the existence of a better safety interlock setup.

As Martin, Christian Schunck joined us for a shorter period first as a diploma
student, and his qualities soon pointed him as the best choice for the next graduate
student in our group. The weeks in which we have built, ’due to a small error’
as Christian, who is one of the nicest persons I know, would put it, not one but
two magnetic traps, were filled with fun despite working round the clock to get theexperiment running again. Christian was also a great officemate, always ready tochat about wines, or to explain to me the musical structure of my favorite songs.
Yet another excellent diploma student and officemate, Sebastian Raupach waswith us through the rather crazy academic year of 2003/2004, working as hard as
everyone else, bringing some much-needed cheerfulness to the group, and still findingtime able to throw a ’Bad Taste’ party which I will always remember. Andrew ’Jamie’
Kerman joined us during the same period as a postdoc, and impressed me with his
professional attitude, his range of scientific and technical skills, and by making solid
contributions almost from the first day. With Peter Zarth, one of the latest membersof the lithium group, I’ve shared the office, and even though we didn’t have theopportunity to work together, I’ve been peeking over his shoulders and was impressedby his electronics building skills.
Ever since I have started to work with the BEC2 lab towards building a newlithium experiment, their big office in 26-259 was always an oasis to which I went
for much-needed breaks from job searching and thesis writing. Even better, working
with them was great source of satisfaction throughout my hectic last year.
Jit Kee Chin was a wonderful friend and teammate throughout this period. Her
commitment to the new lithium project is exemplary, and I have been impressed byher ability and willingness to learn the more arcane details of our vacuum systems
while maintaining a healthy critical attitude towards the solutions I have found myself. Sharing the frustrations and joys of experiment building and of getting the firstlithium MOT was a fulfilling experience. I am grateful to Jit Kee for more things
that could fit here, but I will still mention hosting a great party after my defense,
and trying to develop in me a taste for healthier food.
An anti-establishment thinker, Dan Miller was the fiercest critic of my technicalsolutions whenever he felt that they only resulted in enhanced aesthetic. While I
sometimes wished I could explain to Dan their hidden practicality, I have to admit
I cannot find either any fundamental faults of his non-aesthetic-focused style. Dan’s
somewhat unpredictable bursts of energy did save otherwise hopeless experimental
runs in the lab, and surprised me even more outside it, enough to accept some of his
challenges, as the legs-taped-together jumping races in the hallway of building 26.
Widagdo Setiawan gained a solid position as the long-term UROP of group, partly
by bringing a bit of the undergraduate MIT culture in the lab, partly by mass producing AOM drivers with front panels which sport some of the most powerful LEDs
than money can buy, and partly by withstanding the mocking generated by the aforementioned LEDs. Well, what counts in the end is that the insides to these drivers
have quietly evolved towards better reliability. I am particularly glad that Widagdo
was receptive to my equipment suggestions and starts to develop a passion for goodlooking, reliable hardware. I wish him a lot of luck with his endeavors in the lab andoutside it.
I hope that my interactions with Yingmei Liu and Kaiwen Xu have been as usefuland entertaining to them as they were to me. I have always enjoyed the playful intellectual sparrings with Kaiwen, which ranged from predicting the outcome of rather
impossible physical events to the subtle logic of embassy employees (or lack of), andwere sometimes a serious annoyance to the other people in the office. Yingmei showedme that is is possible to combine a postdoc’s maturity with an undergraduate enthusiasm towards the lab events, and even towards my stories about random subjects as
the military uses of lithium-6.
To the members of Wolfgang’s other two experiments, BEC3 and Rubidium, I am
indebted for bits of help, information or equipment that were always readily available,
and even more indebted for sharing some of the best times I had outside the lab during
these years.
Michele Saba was always ready to give a thoughtful advice when needed, or toreview a paper on a very short notice, and I have benefited a lot from his help lately.
I will remember Jamil Abo-Shaeer not only for throwing a few outstanding parties

and constantly taking care that our self-esteem doesn’t become unreasonable, butalso for giving me the first haircut in ten years. With Gretchen Campbell, Yong-Il
Shin and Takashi Mukayiama I had a great time during a conference in Spain, bothat the conference site and on the streets of Barcelona. Andre Schirotzek’s preference
for noisy music matches mine, and during his days as a diploma student in the BEC3
experiment we had fun trying to start and play synchronously a particular Sepultura
song, in rather loud volume, using lab computers from both experiments. I also haveto mention Tom Pasquini for being one of the few people in our labs which whom I
share a rather unusual preference for lab cleanliness.
One of the things I don’t expect to encounter again soon was the amazingly
efficient infrastructure of MIT and the excellent professionals which keep it going.
The late Carol Costa, who was the CUA secretary throughout most of my stay here,
made everyone’s life, including myself, much easier, and was always ready to slip theright piece of advice. Ellenor Emery Barish took Carol’s place only recently, but
I’ve already benefited many times from her timely help. Of the people in the RLE
headquarters, Maxine Samuels went through hundreds of my requisitions quick andwithout mistakes, and to my embarrassment she took care of them the same day evenwhen I was turning requisitions in Fridays after 4 pm. Peter Morley and Andrew
Gallant from MIT’s Central Machine Shop took care of making some of the moreunusual pieces of equipment and were always ready to give me expert design advice
or lend me sophisticated measurement devices.
MIT’s excellence in education applies at all levels. I had the luck of attending theclasses of two exceptional teachers, Susan Silbey (sociology and anthropology) and Jay
Scheib (theater arts), during their first term here, and feed from their enthusiasm in
discovering that MIT is a place where the high standards of hard work and creativity
apply not only to science and engineering. Susan had awakened my curiosity towards
social sciences, and in a more general sense towards the non-exact aspects of thisworld. On the practical side, the basic English writing rules learned while taking
her class later turned out to be very useful for scientific paper writing. Jay shared
his insider’s knowledge of performing arts, and inspired me to try theater acting andexperience the fun and thrill of being on the stage. I’m grateful to Susan and Jayfor making these extra-curricular explorations an important part of my learning andgrowing while at MIT.
My closest Romanian friends at MIT, Mihai Ibanescu, Iuliana Radu, Alex Salcianu, and Tudor Leu formed the right group of people from and with whom toacquire and exchange knowledge about the unfamiliar new world we arrived to a few
years ago. Although having different paths during these years, we have influenced
each other, grew up together, and looking back I’m amazed by how much we have allchanged.
Last, I would like to thank my family for its understanding support. Through theirentrepreneurship, work ethics, and moral values, my parents were the most influential
models I had during my years in school, thus, unknowingly to me then, putting meon the path I am now.

Contents
1 Introduction

17

1.1

Trapped ultracold atomic gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.2

Quantum statistical mechanics:

17

bosons, fermions, and the Bose-Einstein condensation . . . . . . . . .

20

Ultracold collisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23

1.3.1

Scattering resonances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25

1.3.2

s-wave Feshbach resonances in 6 Li . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28

1.4

The BEC-BCS crossover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29

1.5

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

31

1.3

2 Apparatus for cooling 6 Li and 23 Na
2.1

33

Overview of the experimental setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.1

Isolation from the environment and the atom sources:
the vacuum chamber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.1.2

2.2

33

33

Photons for laser cooling and imaging:
the laser systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35

2.1.3

Generation of magnetic fields for cooling and trapping. . . .

36

2.1.4

Optical trapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

38

2.1.5

Hyperfine state manipulation: the rf setup . . . . . . . . . . .

39

2.1.6

Data taking: the imaging setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40

2.1.7

Control of the experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

41

Upgrade of the vacuum chamber
for two-species experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10

41

2.2.1The 6 Li-23 Na atomic oven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

44

2.2.2

Two-stage differential pumping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

48

2.2.3

Million-cycle beam shutter and the ’cold’ plate . . . . . . . . .

52

2.2.4

Lithium vs. glass: avoiding deposition on
the slower window . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.2.5

55

Lithium preparation, beam alignment, sodiumchanges, and machine cleaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57

2.3

Lithium saturated absorption cell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

62

2.4

The rf setup for evaporative cooling and hyperfine state manipulation

64

2.4.1

Antenna design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

67

2.4.2

Using high power rf amplifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

68

Optical traps for fermions using high-power 1064nm lasers . . . . . .

71

2.5

3 Cooling 6 Li-23 Na mixtures to quantum degeneracy

76

3.1

Sympathethic cooling: our strategy and the first results . . . . . . . .

77

3.2

Sympathethic cooling in the upper hyperfine states . . . . . . . . . .

81

3.3

Production of sodium-lithium degenerate mixtures in other spin states

84

3.3.1

Production of ground state sodium-lithium mixtures

84

3.3.2

Long-lived spin mixtures: what we have investigated and what

. . . . .

might work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

86

4 Interacting Bose-Fermi mixtures:the observation of 6 Li-23 Na interspecies Feshbach resonances

88

4.1

The observation of lithium-sodium resonances . . . . . . . . . . . . .

89

4.2

New Feshbach resonances in 6 Li and 23 Na . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

91

4.3

Assignment of the molecular states involved in the 6 Li-23 Na resonances

92

5 Bose-Einstein condensation of 6 Li molecules
5.1

Molecules and the Feshbach resonances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.2

Adiabatic conversion of atoms into molecules
near a Feshbach resonance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

97
98

99

5.3

Formation of ultracold molecules by
three-body recombination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

5.4

Observation of molecular Bose-Einstein condensation . . . . . . . . . 105

6 Fermion pairing and the condensation of fermion pairs
in the strongly interacting regime
6.1

109

The conversion of fermions into composite
bosons and the BEC-BCS crossover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

6.2

Fermion pairing above the Feshbach resonance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

6.3

Condensation of 6 Li fermionic atom pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

6.4

Resonant superfluidity of the strongly interacting 6 Li gas . . . . . . . 120

7 Fermion pairing in atomic physics: future systems and geometries 123
7.1

Bare s-wave pairing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

7.2

Spin-triplet pairing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

7.3

Two-dimensional pairing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

7.4

Boson-induced pairing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

8 Conclusions

129

A Multiple species atom source for laser-cooling experiments

131

B Two-Species Mixture of Quantum
Degenerate Bose and Fermi Gases

137

C Fiftyfold Improvement in the Number of Quantum Degenerate
Fermionic Atoms

142

D Observation of Feshbach Resonances between Two Different
Atomic Species

147

E Observation of Bose-Einstein Condensation of Molecules

12

152

F Condensation of Pairs of Fermionic Atoms near a Feshbach
Resonance

157

G List of Predicted s-wave 6 Li-23 Na
Feshbach Resonances

162

H Manufacturers and suppliers

166

H.1 General supplies and materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
H.2 Chemical supplies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
H.3 Electronics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
H.4 Heating and Temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
H.5 Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
H.5.1 Handheld frequency counters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
H.5.2 General instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
H.5.3 Power supplies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
H.5.4 rf power meters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
H.6 Optics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
H.6.1 Acousto-optical modulators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
H.7 rf and microwave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
H.7.1 Amplifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
H.7.2 VCOs and compact synthesizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
H.8 Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
H.9 Transducers, control and infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
H.10 Vacuum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Bibliography

191

13

List of Figures
1-1 Trapped ultracold atoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22

1-2 Scattering resonances for a box potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25

1-3 Feshbach resonance between sodium atoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27

1-4 s-wave Feshbach resonances between lithium atoms . . . . . . . . . .

29

2-1 Two species sodium-lithium oven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45

2-2 Main oven nozzle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

46

2-3 Full atomic source vacuum setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

50

2-4 Differential pumping tubes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

51

2-5 New shutter and cold plate assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53

2-6 Sodium deposition pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61

2-7 Lithium spectroscopy cell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63

2-8 rf amplifier cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71

2-9 Optical dipole trap setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73

3-1 Sympathethic cooling of lithium with sodium . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

80

3-2 Lower vs. upper hyperfine state cooling results . . . . . . . . . . . . .

83

3-3 Degenerate mixture of sodium and lithium in the ground states . . .

85

4-1 Resonant losses in a lithium-sodium mixture . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

90

4-2 Sodium Feshbach resonances in the |1,1> state . . . . . . . . . . . . .

91

4-3 Prediction of Feshbach resonances between lithium and sodium . . . .

95

5-1 Atom-molecule level mixing at a Feshbach resonance . . . . . . . . . 100
5-2 Lithium molecule production at the 834 G Feshbach resonance . . . . 101
14

5-3 Images of 6 Li molecular Bose-Einstein condensates . . . . . . . . . . . 106
6-1 Molecular condensate size for different mean-field energies . . . . . . 111
6-2 Fermion pairing on the atomic side of the Feshbach resonance . . . . 112
6-3 Fermion pair condensate fraction as a function of magnetic field andtemperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
6-4 Contour plot of the pair condensate fraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
6-5 Formation dynamics of a fermion pair condensate . . . . . . . . . . . 118

15

List of Tables
4.1

New Feshbach resonances in 6 Li and 23 Na . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

92

4.2

Predicted 6 Li-23 Na Feshbach resonances below 1100 G . . . . . . . . .

94

G.1 Predicted 6 Li-23 Na Feshbach resonances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

16

Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1

Trapped ultracold atomic gases

The physical system which is the object of our experiments is an ultracold gas, typically at microkelvin temperatures. This immediately raises three questions: how are
they produced, why those gases do not form a condensed phase, and what is thephysical container in which we keep them.
The reason for which a solid or liquid phase is not (immediately) formed is that for
typical ultracold gas densities of 1012 -1013 cm−3 , roughly one millionth of the densityof air, ultracold gases are metastable towards liquefaction or solidification. A typicalsample of ultracold atoms can have a lifetime of a few minutes. At the same time,
the thermal equilibration of the metastable gas occurs relatively fast, typically in lessthan one second, which is essential for cooling them. The timescales for metastableand full thermal equilibration define the range of densities for which ultracold gases
can be produced.
The coldest temperatures which can be achieved by cryogenic techniques are currently in the millikelvin range, which means that ultracold gases cannot be kept in astandard container as they will thermalize fast with the container walls. The solution
is to keep them in atom traps inside an environment evacuated to very low pressures,
typically below 10−8 Torr.
Making a levitating atom trap is not a straightforward task. The problem is that17

atoms are electrically neutral and respond to external fields only through higher-ordercharge moments. If a particle with an elementary unit of charge has an potential
energy equal to the thermal energy at room temperature for an electric potential of
only 25 mV, a magnetic field of 500 T (so far achieved only by destructive methods)
is needed for a particle with a magnetic moment equal to the Bohr magneton. For
atoms electrical fields cannot be used for trapping; even for manipulation of room
temperature atoms, impractical electric fields are needed.
Of course, atom traps are possible if the thermal energy is much lower. Initialenergy reduction is achieved by laser cooling. The basic idea is to slow down a moving
atom by using a counter-propagating resonant laser beam [?]. Every time the atom
absorbs a photon, its momentum will be reduced by an amount equal to the photon
momentum. For a typical alkali atom at room the relative momentum change is small,typically 10−4 to 10−5 . What makes laser cooling practical is the high maximum
rate at which resonant photons are scattered, 107 -108 s−1 , and clever applicationsof this mechanism. For reviews of the field of laser cooling and its development,a good source are the addresses of Steven Chu [33], Claude Cohen-Tannoudji [34],and William Phillips [105] on the occasion of their award of the 1997 Nobel Prize inPhysics.
Laser cooling made possible the development of a robust radiation pressure trap,
the magneto-optical trap, or MOT [106] which provides at the same time relatively
deep atom confinement, and cooling. A MOT can capture atoms with speeds up totens of meters per second (corresponding to temperatures around one Kelvin), andcool them to sub-millikelvin temperatures.
A MOT can catch only atoms with velocities corresponding to a thermal energy
in the Kelvin range. At room temperature, only a small fraction of the atoms will
have such small kinetic energies. Our atom source is an effusive atomic oven with atemperature around 700 o K. To obtain a flux of slow atoms, they are velocity-selectedin the transversal direction by aperturing a narrow atomic beam. In principle, velocity
selection is possible along the beam as well by using a mechanical velocity selector,
but the flux of low velocity atoms, given by the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution,18

would be too low. In our experiment we use a Zeeman slower [104] to increase theslow atom flux. Slowing is achieved by passing the atoms through a variable magnetic
field solenoid coil as a red-detuned resonant laser beam is sent counterpropagating
relative to the atoms. Since the Doppler broadening is much larger than the linewidthof the optical transition, the variable magnetic field is used to maintain the atoms
resonant with the laser beam throughout their deceleration.
Laser cooling becomes inefficient below typical MOT temperatures, so we use
a third stage of cooling to lower the gas temperature from the millikelvin to themicrokelvin range. For alkali atoms which have relatively large magnetic moments,on the order of the Bohr magneton, magnetic traps with trap depths deep enough tohold laser-cooled atoms can be built [90].
In a conservative atom trap, as for example the magnetic trap, a new coolingmethod can be used. Evaporative cooling was initially proposed as a method toachieve Bose-Einstein condensates of spin-polarized atomic hydrogen [57]. Evaporative cooling involves the selective removal of the atoms with highest energy from thetrap. Removal is achieved by altering the depth of the trapping potential, which was
initially done by changing the magnetic field configuration [86]. To be efficient, evaporative cooling must truncate the high energy particles in small increments, and thetruncation rate must be slow enough that the trapped gas can thermally equilibrate
between the truncation steps.
The evaporation method we use was originally inspired by early rf spectroscopyof trapped atoms [85], and it involves applying a rf field close to resonant hyperfine
frequencies. Since the potential energy of the atoms changes as they move within thetrap, it is possible to make only the hottest atoms briefly resonant with the appliedfield at the extreme ranges of their movement. The rf field then induces transitions
to different hyperfine states which are not trapped, resulting in the removal of the
hot atoms from the trap.
Evaporative cooling brings the temperature of our trapped gases to the microkelvinrange, and is the last basic cooling step. To summarize our entire procedure, we startwith a gas at close to 1000 K and we cool it to approximately 1 µK in three distinct
19

steps, each reducing the temperature by approximately three orders of magnitude:
Zeeman slowing, MOT cooling, and evaporative cooling in an optical trap.
Giving an detailed description of these basic cooling methods is not within thescope of this thesis. For a more detailed coverage, Refs. [63], [87], and [100] are goodsources. Theses from previous members of our group are another useful references forthe cooling methods and experimental apparatuses we actually use.

1.2

Quantum statistical mechanics:
bosons, fermions, and the Bose-Einstein condensation

A particle’s properties are fully specified by its quantum state, which includes both
its internal degrees of freedom, and its external ones. The internal degrees of freedomof an atom can be described by a small set of quantum numbers. Even at room
temperature, the typical separation between electronic levels is much larger thanthermal energy, so all of our atoms are in the ground electronic manifold. Within thismanifold, the rate of spontaneous transition between hyperfine and Zeeman sublevels
is extremely low, so it is possible to trap atoms in a single ground state sublevel even
if this is not the absolute ground state.
For a given internal state, the position of the external energy levels is defined by
the external potential. In magnetic and optical dipole traps, the external potential iswell approximated by the one of a 3D harmonic oscillator, and the energy levels are
given by1
1
1
1²nx ,ny ,nz = ~[ωx (nx + ) + ωy (ny + ) + ωz (nz + )]2
2
2
2
so the state of a particle in a single internal state is fully specified by the threequantum numbers nx , ny , nz .
At high temperatures the equilibrium state of a many-particle system can be
described statistically by the average occupation number of each energy level, given

20

by the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution [74]:fM B (²) = exp[(µ − ²)/T ]where µ is the chemical potential of the system in contact with a reservoir at temperature T .
At temperatures for which the average occupation number of the lowest energy
states becomes comparable to unity, the quantum statistics of identical particles beacomes manifest and the classical Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution is no longer a good
approximation.
For a system of identical particles occupying a set of quantum levels, it is impossible to distinguish between two configurations which are different by particle
exchanges, for example particle A in state |1> and particle B in state |2> fromparticle B in state |1> and particle A in state |2>1 . Taking this into account, thetotal wavefunction of a system of particles is described by a linear combination of all
possible product states of single particle wavefunctions.
The total wavefunction must be either symmetric or antisymmetric with respect
to identical particles exchanges. Particles which have a symmetric wavefunction are
called bosons, and the ones with anti-symmetric wavefunction are called fermions.
Bosons have integer total spin, and fermions half-integer total spin. This separation has profound implication for the quantum statistics. In particular, the averageoccupancy is given by [74]:fBE (²) =1
exp[(² − µ)/T ] − 1

fF D (²) =1
exp[(² − µ)/T ] + 1

for Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac distributions.
1
I’ve been confused for quite a while by this textbook way of describing particle indistinguishability, because in this statement you can distinguish the particles. It is probably more accurate tostate that you cannot distinguish particle A in state |1> and particle A in state |2> from particle
A in state |1> and particle A in state |2>, although it might be equally confusing.

21

bosons

Energy

BEC
BEC

T=0

fermions
classical gas

cold
Fermi Sea
degeneracy temperature
Fermi energy
Temperature

Figure 1-1: Trapped ultracold atoms. The atoms occupy a discrete set of quantum
states corresponding to different energies. At high temperatures, a classical MaxwellBoltzmann distribution describes accurately the average state occupation, which forthe lowest energy levels increases with decreasing temperature. At lower temperatures
quantum statistics becomes manifest. Bosons accumulate in large numbers in the
ground state, even at finite temperatures. Fermions tend to a zero-temperature statein which each energy level is occupied by a single particle, up to a maximum energy
called Fermi energy.

At very low temperatures (Figure 1-1), as at most on fermion can occupy a quantum level, fermions occupy one by one levels with increasing energy up to a an energy
called Fermi energy. In contrast, bosons all accumulate in the ground state, and theground state occupation can be macroscopic even at finite temperatures, a phenomenon called Bose-Einstein condensation.
In the case of trapped bosons, a more practical criteria for the onset of condensation is given by the phase-space density
ρ = nλ3DB√
where n is the peak atomic density, and λDB = h/ 2πmkB T is the thermal deBroglie
wavelength. The condensation occurs when the phase-space density approaches unity,22

or more precisely when ρ = 2.612. In a physical picture, this corresponds to thesituation in which the deBroglie wavepackets of individual atoms start to overlap inreal space. Thus, the progress towards Bose-Einstein condensation in trapped atoms
is more accurately described as an effort to achieve higher phase space densities, andnot only lower temperatures.
The achievement of Bose-Einstein condensation in trapped ultracold gases wasa long-standing goal of laser cooling and spin-polarized hydrogen cooling, and wasachieved in 1995 in gases of alkali vapors [18, 39] by using the cooling techniques
described in the previous section. To a large extent, this provided the apparatus andthe experimental methods we are using to study degenerate Fermi gases today. For
reviews of the field of Bose-Einstein condensation and its development, a good source
are the addresses of Eric Cornell and Carl Wieman [35], and Wolfgang Ketterle [70]on the occasion of their award of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physics.

1.3

Ultracold collisions

The description of collisions between ultracold atoms is greatly simplified by their low
energies, and the scattering process depends on only one parameter, which is usuallychosen to be the scattering length a.
Scattering can be described quantum mechanically by specifying the center-ofmass wavefunction for the colliding particles. This wavefunction defines a scattering
state which, neglecting normalization factors, can be written as [38, 100]:
ψ = eikr + ψsc (r)which is the sum of an incoming plane wave eikr and a scattered wave ψsc (r). For aspherically symmetric scattering potential, the scattering wave is an outgoing spherical wave, ψsc (r) = f (k, θ) exp(ikr)/r, where f (k, θ) is the scattering amplitude.
The scattering state can be expanded in terms of Legendre polinomials, leading
to a partial wave expansion. The partial waves with l >0 describe effective unidimen-

23

sional scattering potentials which have a centrifugal barrier. In the case of ultracold
atoms, this barrier is high compared to the kinetic energy of the colliding atoms, andthe contribution of higher partial waves can be neglected. Thus, the collisions canonly take place only in the s-wave channel.
The effect of the s-wave interaction is to introduce a phase shift δ(k) in the scattered wave. For very low energies, it scales linearly with the wavevector amplitude,
and the proportionality constant,a = − lim (δ(k)/k)
k→0

called the scattering length, is the only parameter which characterizes low-energy
collisions.
A positive value of a corresponds to a repulsive effective interaction, and a negativevalue to an attractive one. The elastic collisional cross section is related to thescattering length by a simple formula. For distinguishable particles, such as atoms in
different internal states, the cross-section is given by
σ = 4πa2
For identical bosons, the scattering length is enhanced toσ = 8πa2
and it vanishes for identical fermions. The result for fermions shows that a gas ofidentical fermions is non-interacting at low temperatures, and as one practical consequence it makes the evaporative cooling of identical fermions impracticable becauseof the long thermalization times.
The s-wave scattering also leads to a mean-field change in the energy of a particle
moving through a gas of scatterers with density n given by:
4π~2 an
m
24

a)

b)

0

Scattering length [b]

V(r)

4

b
Atomic separation

2

0

kb
2

4

6

8

10

-2
-V0

Figure 1-2: Scattering resonances for a box potential. In a) the potential is plotted
as a function of interparticle separation. In b) the scattering length is shown inunits of the potential range b, and as a function of the parameter kb where k =√2µV0 /~. The scattering length diverges for potential parameters which correspondto the appearance of bound states as the potential is changed.

where m is the mass of the particle.

1.3.1

Scattering resonances

The value of the scattering potential can have very large values if the conditions fora scattering resonance are met. To illustrate this phenomenon, we can use a simple
unidimensional model [38]. For an attractive square potential with a depth −V0 andlength b, the solution of the Schrödinger equation outside the range of the potential b
has the form ψ(r) = C(r − a), from which we can identify a as the scattering length.
√
Defining a ’wavevector’ k by k = 2µV0 /~, where µ is the reduced mass, a is givenbya=b−tan(kb)kand is plotted in Figure 1-2.
The scattering length diverges for values of V0 and k for which kb = (2n + 1)π/2.
This corresponds to the appearance of a new bound state as the potential parameters
are varied. This is an example of a potential scattering resonance in which only the25external degrees of freedom of the scatterers are involved; the coupling between thespin degrees of freedom of the free particles and of the bound state is ignored. Nevertheless, this illustrates the more general connection between scattering resonances
and the appearance of bound states.
A different type of scattering resonance is more important for the studies of ultracold gases. These are the zero-energy Feshbach resonances (Figure 1-3). Unlike
the simple single-channel model presented above, they occur when the energy of theincoming atoms equals the energy of a bound state. This bound state has different
quantum numbers than the scattering state, but can be coupled to it by interactions
which are non-diagonal in the hyperfine states, as the exchange interaction or the
much weaker magnetic dipole interaction.
If for a given Feshbach resonance the energy of the incoming atoms and that of
the bound state have different field dependence, it is possible to tune the scattering
length by changing the value of the magnetic field:a(B) = abg (1 +∆B)
B − B0where abg is the background scattering length and B0 is the resonance field. The resonance width ∆B is proportional to the free-bound coupling matrix element squared.
Since the Feshbach resonances happen when a coupling between free and boundstates occurs, they can be used to produce bound states from free atoms. Nevertheless,the initial interest in them was driven by the possibility of tuning the sign and strengthof atom-atom interactions by simply changing the magnetic field, which allows adegree of control not available in solid-state systems.
In the case of bosonic atoms, Feshbach resonances have found only limited applicability as a tool to alter the interaction strength. Soon after their first observation
in ultracold bosonic gases [36, 64], it was found that they are also associated withvery fast atom losses [123].
Fortunately, Feshbach resonances have proven much more forgiving in the case offermionic atoms, and they have made possible the research covered in Chapters 5 and

26

800
200

850

900

950
(b)

a [a0]

100

0

-100

|f1 =
1m

Th 1 =1 f2 =res 1 mho
ld f2 =1>

Continuumf

E [GHz]-4.0

e
tat 2=1>
s
f
nd
2m

-4.2

u
=
Bo =1 f 2
f1

2m
|f 1=

e
tat =0>s
f2
d
un f 2=2 m
o
B
2
2m
|f 1=

=

f1

-4.4
(a)
800

850

B [G]

900

950

Figure 1-3: Feshbach resonances between sodium atoms, from [132]. a) Magnetic fielddependent threshold energy and two field dependent bound states for a pair of 23 Na
atoms with mF = +2. The grey area above the zero kinetic energy of the incoming
atoms (the threshold) is accessible to the open channel states. The rising boundstates have the approximate spin structures |f1 = 2, mf 1 = 1, f2 = 2, mf 2 = 1 >and |f1 = 2, mf 1 = 2, f2 = 2, mf 2 = 0 >. b) The zero-energy scattering length forcollisions between |F = 1, mf = 1 > sodium atoms.

27

6 of this thesis.

1.3.2

s-wave Feshbach resonances in 6 Li

Even before the first experiments which succeeded in cooling fermionic lithium toquantum degeneracy [129, 118], the predicted collisional properties of 6 Li raised interest in the ultracold atom community. Of course, this applies to the collisional
properties of 6 Li spin mixtures, since a single quantum state fermionic gas is noninteracting.
First, it was calculated from data obtained by two-photon photoassociative spectroscopy [17] that the triplet scattering length is unusually large, at = (−2160±250)a0 ,where a0 is the Bohr radius. This results in a large attractive interaction which could
by itself be enough to observe Cooper pairing in in an interacting Fermi gas.
Further calculations of the value of the s-wave scattering length revealed that fordifferent pairs of hyperfine states the interstate scattering length aij is much lower
at small magnetic fields, but increases sharply towards the triplet scattering length
value in a field range between 100 and 1000 G [62]. In addition, Feshbach resonanceswere predicted at magnetic fields of 800 G and 1.98 × 105 G in collisions between
atoms in the |1> and |2> high field hyperfine states (F, mF = |1/2, 1/2 > andF, mF = |1/2, −1/2 >, respectively, at low field).
Using these prediction, we have been able to observe the first resonance in 2002
[7], and another resonance at lower fields, which was not predicted. This allowed
more precise calculations of the scattering length. The variation of a12 is shown in
Figure 1-4.
Since the resonance positions could not be predicted with high accuracy initially,
the measurement of the resonance positions was performed repeatedly with increasing
precision by different groups. Currently, the best experimental data located the firstresonance at 543.28 ± 0.08 G by atom loss measurements [9], and the second one at
837 ± 5 G by rf spectroscopy [23]. The field at which the scattering length crosses
zero was measured at 528 ± 4 G by studies of evaporation rate in an optical trap [98].

28

6000

Scattering length a12 [a0]

4000
2000
0
0

400

800

1200

-2000
-4000
-6000
Magnetic Field [G]Figure 1-4: s-wave Feshbach resonances between lithium atoms in the |1> and |2>high field hyperfine states (F, mF = |1/2, 1/2 > and F, mF = |1/2, −1/2 >, respectively, at low field), as recently calculated by the group of B. J. Verhaar at Eindhoven.
The s-wave scattering length a12 , is shown as a function of magnetic field. Two Feshbach resonances occur, a narrow one at 543 G (not resolved in this graph) and a wide
one at 837 G. Another important field is 528 G, where the scattering length crosses
zero.

1.4

The BEC-BCS crossover

In comparison with the Bose-Einstein condensation, the zero-temperature behaviourof a Fermi gas made from identical particles is relatively unexciting: no phase transition occurs, and the system approaches slowly its zero-temperature limit.
The situation is changed in the case of mixtures of fermions which are interacting. At low temperature a superfluid phase transition can occur. This behavior waspreviously observed in liquid Helium-3, where a superfluid phase develops, and in thecase of superconductors. In general, the transition occurs at very low temperatures
relative to the Fermi energy of the system; for metallic superconductors this ratio is
only 10−4 .
29For superconductors, the existence of the phase transition is explained by the
Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) theory [21]. In the presence of an attractive interaction, the electron gas can lower its energy by pairwise correlating the momentum ofelectrons; this pairs are the Cooper pairs. These pairs have zero net momentum, andthe onset of superconductivity can be understood as the formation of Cooper pairs
and their simultaneous Bose-Einstein condensation.
The early proposals for observing a superfluid transition in an atomic fermionicgas [124, 61] calculated the transition temperature according to the BCS model. Thistemperature is given by [61]
Tc =

EF
π
exp(−
)
kB
2kF |a|where kF is the Fermi wavevector and |a| the scattering length. The exponential
dependence on the interaction strength normally leads to a vanishingly small value for
Tc , but near a Feshbach resonance the kF |a| product can, in the first approximation,
reach near unity values.
BCS theory is not applicable to the the strong interaction regime, defined by near
unity values of kF |a|. The theoretical treatment of the regime in which the transition
temperature approaches the Fermi temperature was initiated an attempt to explain
the properties of thin-film superconductors [45] and later to explain the propertiesof high-Tc superconductors [81, 95]. As the coupling strength is increased from zero
to very high values, two limiting situations occur. At weak coupling, BCS theory
is valid and superfluidity occurs through the formation of Cooper pairs. At verystrong coupling, bound pairs (molecules) form initially, and only at a much lower
temperatures these bosonic pairs condense giving rise to superfluid behavior. The
transition between these two regimes is smooth, and in the crossover region pairformation and pair condensation occur at distinct, but comparable temperatures.
The application of these models to ultracold atoms led to proposals for observing
the phase transition in the BEC-BCS crossover [60, 128, 75, 91, 99]. High relativetransition temperatures have been predicted, sometimes as high as 0.5 TF , and more30

usually around 0.2 TF . These temperatures were definitely within our reach, andthis thesis covers our progress towards observing the resonance superfluidity in an
ultracold fermionic lithium gas.

1.5

Outline of this thesis

This thesis covers most of the research I was involved in as a member of the ’Lithium
experiment’ since the start of this project in January 2000.
The first chapter is an introduction to this research, and briefly reviews the basic
techniques and concepts we use in our work. This knowledge was accumulated during
years of research in and outside our lab, and forms the foundation from which we
started the exploration of the physics of ultracold fermions.
Chapter 2 describes those parts of the development of the experimental apparatus
in which I was involved, both during the initial set-up stage and throughout thefollowing years. In addition to this chapter, Appendix H lists many of the suppliers
we have used to build and upgrade the apparatus.
Chapters 3 through 6 cover research done using our ultracold 23 Na - 6 Li apparatus. The original reporting of these results was done in published papers which canbe found in the Appendices. The chapters covering this work are an introduction
and at the same time a complement to the published papers. The comprehensive
experimental details and parameters can be found in the appended papers.
The first of these chapters covers our efforts to cool fermionic 6 Li to quantum
degeneracy, and to produce a degenerate 23 Na - 6 Li Fermi-Bose mixture, including
recent cooling techniques not covered in the first papers.
Chapter 4 covers the first observation of Feshbach resonance between different
atomic species, which in our case are fermionic 6 Li and bosonic 23 Na. Extending thedata analysis presented in the published paper a full list of predicted resonances was
generated and can be found in Appendix G.
Chapters 5 and 6 cover the production of weakly bound 6 Li2 molecules, and the
exploration of the BEC-BCS crossover in a strongly interacting fermionic gas, through31

the observation of Bose-Einstein condensation of molecules, and through the observation of fermion pairing and the condensation of these pairs.
Part of the collaborative research done as a member of the ’Lithium lab’ is notcovered here, and can be found in the following papers:
K. Dieckmann, C. A. Stan, S. Gupta, Z. Hadzibabic, C. Schunck, and W. Ketterle,’Decay of ultracold fermionic lithium gas near a Feshbach resonance’, Phys. Rev. Lett.
89, 203201 (2002).
S. Gupta, Z. Hadzibabic, M. W. Zwierlein, C. A. Stan, K. Dieckmann, C. H.
Schunck, E. G. M. van Kempen, B. J. Verhaar, and W. Ketterle, ’Radio-Frequency
Spectroscopy of Ultracold Fermions’, Science 300, 1723 (2003).
C. H. Schunck, M. W. Zwierlein, C. A. Stan, S. M. F. Raupach, W. Ketterle, A.
Simoni, E. Tiesinga, C. J. Williams, and P. S. Julienne , ’Feshbach resonances infermionic 6 Li ’, Phys. Rev. A 71, 045601 (2005).
M. W. Zwierlein, C. H. Schunck, C. A. Stan, S. M. F. Raupach, and W. Ketterle, ’Formation Dynamics of a Fermion Pair Condensate’, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 180401(2005).

32

Chapter 2
Apparatus for cooling 6Li and 23Na
This chapter describes the apparatus used for the production of degenerate lithiumand sodium gases. This apparatus has a long history of cooling alkali gases to degeneracy, and it was constantly upgraded for more complex experiments. The mostsignificant modification was the upgrade from a 23 Na BEC apparatus to a degenerate
Bose-Fermi, 6 Li-23 Na apparatus.
Starting with the conversion to a two-species machine, the major upgrades not already described in other theses [11, 13, 14]are covered in detail. Detailed descriptionsof the 23 Na BEC apparatus can be found in previous theses from our group [67, 122].

2.1

Overview of the experimental setup

This is a brief overview of the experimental setup. This division of the setup into
different parts is not the only one possible. The one presented here is partly inspiredby the division of experiment building into technically similar tasks.

2.1.1

Isolation from the environment and the atom sources:
the vacuum chamber

Except for the trapped atoms, all the experiment is at room temperature or above.
Taking into account that cold atom experiments hold the record for the lowest tem-33

peratures ever achieved, the thermal isolation between atoms and the experiment isremarkable.
The isolation is achieved by levitating the atoms in a trap placed inside an ultrahigh vacuum (UHV) chamber. Atoms can be coupled to the environment in three
ways: by thermal radiation, by fluctuations of the potential of the atom trap, and bycollisions with the background gas existing in the experimental region. The first two
couplings are or can be made negligible [43]. In our apparatus the collisions with thebackground gas are the limiting factor for the lifetime of a ultracold atom sample,
and can be reduced by reducing the pressure in the experiment chamber.
Any collision between a trapped atom and a fast background gas molecule results,
with a high probability, in removing the atom from the trap. The lifetime of thetrapped atoms is then defined by the collision rate with background atoms Rbg , estimated by Rbg = nbg σbg vbg /4 where nbg is the density of the background gas molecules,
vbg the average thermal speed of these molecules, and σbg the collision cross-section.
Assuming a pressure of 10−11 Torr, room temperature, and a typical cross section of 10Å2 , this gives a rate of 0.04min−1 , which suggests that at 10−11 Torr the background
losses are negligible.
However, the collision cross sections of alkali are very large compared to those ofusual gases. Sodium’s cross sections with molecular hydrogen, argon, and sodium atroom temperature are 158Å2 , 401Å2 , and 1100Å2 respectively [114, 28]. Lithium’s
cross sections are less than a factor of two smaller. This brings the estimated loss
rate per atom to 2-4min−1 and agrees with our experimental knowledge that it is
impossible to cool to degeneracy (which takes around one minute) at pressures higher
than a few 10−11 Torr.
Our experiment takes place in a multiple section steel vacuum chamber. The
main section consists of a 18-way cross to which the atom source and the pumps areattached, in which the pressure is normally smaller than 10−11 Torr. Viewports areused to bring laser beams to the atom trap region. A detailed description of the main
section can be found in [67].
The atoms used in our experiment have to be produced in the vacuum chamber,34

making the atom source a part of the vacuum setup. The design of our atom source,
a two-species sodium-lithium oven, is covered in the next section. As the pressurenear the atom source is limited to 10−8 Torr, a differential pumping setup is used injoining the source with the main section of our vacuum chamber. The differential
pumping was upgraded from the setup described in [67], and is covered in the next
section.

2.1.2

Photons for laser cooling and imaging:
the laser systems

The light used for laser cooling and trapping must satisfy a few basic requirements:
it should be monochromatic and narrowband relative to the linewidth of the resonant
optical transition of the trapped atoms, the light frequency must be stable within
the atomic linewidth, and the intensity of the beams should be on the order of thesaturation intensity of the trapped atoms.
For alkali, this requirements mean that the light used should have a linewidth ofless than 1 MHz, and an absolute frequency stability better than 1 MHz. The total
power needed ranges from tens to hundreds of milliwats.
Our laser systems are composed of a stable narrowband laser which is locked to
an atomic resonance transition for frequency stability. The output of the laser isdivided into different cooling and trapping beams. The frequency of these beams
is shifted in precise amounts by acousto-optical modulators and remains referenced
to the source frequency. Electro-optical modulators are used to generate additionalfrequency components in the same beam.
For sodium, the laser source is a Coherent 899-21 dye laser pumped by a 10W,
532nm, Millenia Xs 110 laser produced by Spectra-Physics. Details of the opticalsetup for sodium can be found in [122].
Lithium light is generated by grating-stabilized diode laser, DL100 produced byToptica. The power output of this laser, 15 mW, is too low for laser cooling, andindependent frequencies are amplified by seeding high-power single-mode diode lasers.

35

The optical setup for lithium is described in the Ph.D thesis of Zoran Hadzibabic [11]and research stage rapport of Marin Zwierlein [13].

2.1.3

Generation of magnetic fields for cooling and trapping

Magnetic fields, along with laser beams, are the basic tools used for laser cooling.
The usefulness of the magnetic fields comes from the fact that that alkali atoms haverelatively large magnetic moments due to their unpaired electron. Also, unlike bar
magnets, atoms will not ’turn’ towards the field source during experimentally relevanttimescales; in a classical sense, the orientation of the dipole relative to the magnetic
field remains constant.
To the first approximation, atomic energy scales linearly with the modulus of themagnetic field, which makes the design of static potential traps easy to understand:generate a field configuration with a spatial extremum in the field modulus and theatoms will be trapped (or expelled, depending on the orientation of the moment)
there. In addition, different electronic levels have different magnetic moments, whichleads to the original Zeeman effect: the wavelength of atomic transitions varies withthe magnetic field. This effect is used in magneto-optical trapping and in the Zeeman
slowing.
A given spatial configuration of the field can be achieved with either electric currents or permanent magnets. Permanent magnets cannot be switched off and theyfound limited applicability in laser cooling, which is a succession of a few different
cooling stages which require different field configurations. Coils with high permeability cores, a common solution for basic lab magnets, have the disadvantage of corehysteresis, which makes the switch-off slow and incomplete.
Creating a given field configuration with currents is achieved in most of the casesby adding loops of wire connected in series, forming coils or solenoids. For our experiments, the design of the coils often reduces to the problem of filling a limited volumeof space with loops of wire in the most efficient way.
The fields which have to be produced, up to 0.1 T, might seem small compared to
the few Tesla easily achievable in a standard lab electromagnet. However, we cannot
36

take advantage of iron cores which enhance the field thousands of times, and thedesign of our coils is quite demanding. We operate our coils at current densities atwhich the ohmic heating rate of the copper approaches 100o C per second. Of course,
we do not let the temperature raise indefinitely, but we actively cool the coils. It isthe cooling capacity which ultimately limits the fields we can achieve.
Given the target field parameters and the physical space in which a coil can beplaced (condition especially important for the magnetic trap)one can choose to wind
many turns using thin wire or a few turns using thick wire, or equivalently, one canuse small or large currents to achieve the target fields. Our choice of large currents
and low voltages has its roots in early atom cooling experiments at MIT which used
in-vacuum coils. Such coils must have a simple design (few loops of thick wire) forcompatibility with high vacuum. The high current know-how which was accumulated
since then made it practical to keep using the high current design. Compared to ahigh-voltage design, switching and connecting are more difficult, but it is safer andallows faster switch-off times.
Our experiment was the first in which a cloverleaf magnetic trap [88] was used.
This first trap served us faithfully for six years, until it was heated to destruction
in just a few seconds as a result of a combined failure of the cooling setup and of
the safety interlock. Our new trap, although built on the same principles as theoriginal one [122], was optimized for steady-state production of dc magnetic fields up
to 1000 G. The construction materials, the cooling system, and the safety interlock
were all significantly upgraded over the first generation trap, and the description ofthis technological tour-de-force can be found in Christian Schunck’s diploma thesis[14]. With careful temperature monitoring, uniform dc fields up to 2000 G should beachievable, but the dc power supplies needed are not yet commercially available.
Small magnetic fields needed for Earth field compensation are generated by uncooled coils made from heater wire, and wrapped around the main vacuum chamberin pairs aligned with the three orthogonal axes of the machine.

37

2.1.4

Optical trappingFirst experiments on degenerate atomic gases, in both bosons and fermions, used amagnetic trap for the last stage of cooling. Magnetic trapping works only for hyperfine
states which have an increasing energy with the increasing field, and the inhomogenous magnetic fields experienced by the trapped atoms can only be varied over alimited range. Optical dipole traps can trap any spin state in arbitrary homogenous
magnetic fields, but the price to be paid is a reduced trap depth compared to magnetic traps. Nevertheless, optical traps have become an essential tool in ultracold
atom research.
Optical trapping can be intuitively understood by assuming that atoms are loose
neutral charge distributions which can be deformed by an applied electric field. In astatic uniform field the atom will develop a dipole moment aligned with the field. If
the field has gradient, the atom will experience a force towards the region of higher
field intensity. This is a quite general response of a polarizable object: it also explains
why light neutral objects as dust particles are captured by electrostatically charged
bodies.
A light field is a time-varying electrical field. The induced dipole moment of theatom will, in general, be out of phase with the driving field. Let’s assume that theatom has a single resonant frequency, which is a good approximation for alkali atoms.
If driven well below the resonant frequency, the dipole will be able to adjust to changes
in the field and will be always aligned to the field, thus experiencing a force towards
the high intensity regions. Well above the resonant frequency, the momentary induced
dipole will be in opposite phase to the field, and thus antialigned to the field. The
atom will be repelled by the high intensity regions. In our lab practice, red-detuned
beams are used to create attractive potentials for trapping, and blue-detuned beams
to create repulsive potentials for optical manipulations of the trapped atoms.
Optical traps for ultracold atoms are realized by focusing a laser beam which has
a frequency below the optical resonance of the trapped atom. The focal region has
the highest intensity and atoms are trapped there. We trap both sodium and lithium

38

using a 20W, 1064 nm Nd-YAG laser focused to a few tens of microns.
Switching of the trap on or off faster than one microsecond is achieved by controlling the power of the rf source which drives an AOM inserted in the beam path.
rf power modulation is also used to control laser intensity, and thus trap depth, overfour orders of magnitude.

2.1.5

Hyperfine state manipulation: the rf setup

Transfer between different hyperfine ground states can be done by driving directtransitions between states, or by optical pumping involving temporary transfer to an
excited state. The direct transfer is slower than the optical pumping, but increases
the kinetic energy of the atoms by a negligible amount compared to the energy scales
in an ultracold gas. It is the preferred method for state manipulation in ultracoldgases when speed is not critical.
Evaporation in the magnetic trap is done by selective transfer of the highest energy
trapped atoms to magnetically untrapped states. Direct transfer between different
hyperfine states in lithium is required by our cooling procedure. These tranfers aredone by either using rf radiation at the transition frequency, or by performing an
adiabatic Landau-Zener sweep across the transition frequency.
The rf fields are generated by a setup in which rf signal from a frequency synthesizer is amplified to a few watts power amplifier, and sent to an antenna placed near
the atom sample. Up to 500 MHz we use a rectangular multi-loop antenna placed
inside our vacuum chamber, and from 1 to 2 GHz an external circular single-loop
antenna. The available frequencies ranges, 1-500 MHz and 1-2 GHz, are defined by
the operation ranges of the two power amplifiers we use. However, these ranges cover
all frequencies needed in our experiment.
Frequency sweeping for evaporation is done in steps by updating synthesizer frequency and amplitude every 50 ms. The sweep is remotely controlled via a GPIB
interface, which allows programming nonlinear sweep rates.
Hyperfine transfer is usually done with Landau-Zener sweeps which give morestable results compared to a single frequency pulse. Landau-Zener sweeps require39continuous frequency change. Fast, continuous linear sweeps with upper frequencies
up to 80 MHz can be executed by synthesizers which use direct digital synthesis (DDS)
technology. Above 80 MHz a continuous sweep is achieved by mixing the sweep froma DDS synthesizer with a high single frequency signal. Another sweep method weused for magnetic field dependent transitions was to keep the RF frequency constantand sweep the magnetic field instead.

2.1.6

Data taking: the imaging setup

Most of the data in our experiments is provided by pictures of the atom clouds. The
atoms are illuminated with resonant light, and imaged on the surface of a sensitive
CCD camera. As atoms absorb the resonant light, the image taken by the camera willcontain the shadow of the atom cloud. In principle, images of the atoms in the trap
could be taken, giving information about the density distribution in the trap, but theresolution of the imaging system is not high enough for detailed pictures. The usualapproach is to release the atoms from the trap and image them after a variable timeof flight, from which the total atom number and the atom momentum distribution in
the trap can be extracted.
We have two imaging setups, one along the vertical axis of the machine and theother along the horizontal axis (parallel with the long axis of the magnetic trap).
For each setup three lenses with focal lengths in the order of hundreds of millimetersbring the imaged point approximately one meter away from the atom traps, where
space for our relatively large camera is available. Magnifications between 0.5X and
10X can be set by changing the focal length of the imaging lenses. Most of the time
we operate at a magnification of 2X for both vertical and horizontal imaging. For 2X
imaging we achieve an optical resolution of approximately 10 µm, comparable to the
13 µm pixel size of the camera chip.
Lithium and sodium are imaged separately by illuminating the trapped sample
with the proper resonant light. In the case of mixtures using light resonant with one
given species will image only that species as the light is not absorbed by the otherspecies. Imaging both species in the same experimental sequence is possible by either
40

taking a lithium and then a sodium image in rapid sequence, or by setting the imaging
such that sodium and lithium clouds are imaged in different positions on the camera
chip, case in which both resonant light beams can be turned on simultaneously andthe resulting image will contain shadows from both species.

2.1.7

Control of the experiment

The remotely controllable parameters of our experiment are either digital (whether agiven laser beam is on or off, for example) or analog (the value of the current given by
a power supply), and a set of these values defines the state of the apparatus. In total,
we can control 64 digital values and 16 analog values. An experimental sequence isthen defined by the time variation of the apparatus state (or the ’word’ in lab jargon).
A computer program used to generate the experimental sequence as a series ofconsecutive apparatus states, each state being maintained for a given time. The
experimenter inputs the sequence of states and their duration. This sequence divided
into a sequence of equal and much shorter experimental states which loaded into thememory of the computer. Two digital, and two analog digital output PC cards use
the memory data to generate synchronously TTL and 0-10 V analog signals which
we use to control the apparatus state.
The simplest experiments, as for example the production of a BEC, need less then
10 states which are the basic laser cooling stages: MOT loading, capture in the magnetic trap, evaporative cooling, and an imaging sequence. Some of the experiments
described in this thesis needed up to 50 successive experimental states.

2.2

Upgrade of the vacuum chamber
for two-species experiments

A lithium-sodium experiment built on the structure of a sodium experiment needs, inaddition to the built-in atomic sodium source, an additional atomic lithium source.
Adding a second lithium source is the straightforward solution, but rather than in41

creasing the complexity of the experiment, we have chosen to develop a single dual
atomic source. This approach allowed for a simplified Zeeman cooling scheme, andsaved time by limiting the extent of modifications to our existing vacuum chamber.
Also, since it was not clear initially that the goal of cooling fermions can be achieved,
easily reversible modifications to our running BEC experiment were the best choice.
The new dual source was designed to be fully interchangeable with the existing sodium
oven.
Another reason for which the dual source was appealing to us is linked to thehistory of the original 23 Na BEC machine which was to be upgraded to a two-species
experiment. It has been under vacuum since 1996, and there were concerns that theassembly of the vacuum chamber was not perfect. Despite reliable performance since
1996, it was hard to predict whether the chamber could achieve ultra-high vacuum
after being vented. The main concern was (and still is) that repeated baking at toohigh temperatures in the past will prevent us from re-baking the chamber.
To keep the upgrade to a two-species experiments simple, not loosing the vacuumin the main chamber was considered crucial. We know now, from the experience of
BEC II lab, that after a very clean venting with ultrapure argon it is possible toachieve UHV without baking. However, given the knowledge about vacuum technology within our group at that time, the ’vacuum fear’ was legitimate.
As stated in the previous section of this thesis, the only place for the atom source(s)is inside the vacuum chamber. Apparently, this means that a adding a new species toan experiment cannot be done without breaking vacuum. However, in the old BEC
experiment the main chamber and the atomic oven were isolated by a gate valve
so that sodium changes can be performed without losing the vacuum in the mainchamber.
The gate valve is placed before the Zeeman slower. This means that the only way
for the lithium atoms into the machine is to come along with sodium through the
Zeeman slower which was designed for sodium. In addition, if we wanted to load areasonably-sized lithium MOT from an atomic beam, we also had to increase the fluxof slow lithium atoms. Fortunately, calculations show that a Zeeman slower designed
42for sodium will work for lithium, the price to be paid being a smaller relative velocity
capture range (see discussion in [1]).
Summing all these considerations, the design requirements for the new atom
source were that it should produce overlapping atomic beams of sodium and lithium,sodium beam being (at least) as intense as the existing sodium beam, and ideally thesodium/lithium fluxes should be independently tunable. Also, the fast atom beams
should be both slowed by the existing Zeeman slower.
The vacuum upgrade parts and concepts were built and verified separately fromthe BEC machine. We have built an auxiliary atomic beam experiment, which contained an effusive lithium oven with the same design as the sodium ovens used in our
BEC experiments, a third generation spin-flip Zeeman slower designed for sodium[30], and a magneto-optical trap for lithium.
The auxiliary setup allowed us to test the concept of two-species Zeeman slowing,
and also to accumulate a lot of useful knowledge about the properties of lithium. The
Zeeman slower designed for sodium worked well for lithium. However the constructionof the lithium oven was more challenging. While the simple design imported from thesodium ovens used in the BEC machines was good, the standard materials we usedcaused failures in the new operating regimes.
The lithium oven had to be operated at 400-450 o C. At this temperature, theexternal band heaters corroded and sometimes failed, and the copper gaskets bonded
to the knife edge flanges. A bonded flange is extremely difficult to disassemble; ifenough force is applied (by this meaning hammering it) it will yield, but the flanges
cannot be reused.
We have tried nickel gaskets to avoid bonding. As long as they are not wetted
by liquid lithium, bonding is avoided. If exposed to liquid lithium, the nickel gaskets
absorb lithium forming a brittle, soft, and adhering-to-steel alloy. Both times I havedisassembled flanges in which nickel gaskets were exposed to liquid lithium the gasket
was torn in two parts, with each part solidly stuck to one of the flanges. In addition, lithium diffuses to some extent through the nickel and green deposits (probably
lithium salts) are found outside the flanges.
43Even if the lithium wetting is avoided, nickel gaskets did not seal reliably because
the gaskets are too hard and the knife edges could not cut deep enough into themfor a good seal. The use of flanges made from type 316 stainless steel in combination
with nickel gaskets eventually solved the sealing problem. Having figured most of thelithium handling tricks, we were ready to build a two-species sodium-lithium atom
source.

2.2.1

The 6 Li-23 Na atomic oven

The simplest vacuum upgrade strategy required the development of a two-species
source. When we have started the upgrade, we could not find any reference about atwo-species atom source. A two-species thallium-sodium oven was under development
at Berkeley, but we were able to learn about it [113] only after completing our own
design.
Facing the task of inventing a two-species source, the best approach was to keep
it as simple as possible. The source was going to be a two-species oven based as muchas possible on our own sodium oven design, which will have a single nozzle from which
both sodium and lithium will effuse forming a two-species atomic beam.
The main design challenge was the big difference in the vapor pressures of sodium
and lithium at the same temperature, which meant that a single-chamber oven inwhich both lithium and sodium would be heated will not perform well enough as
a lithium source. The solution for the difference in vapor pressures was a multiple
chamber oven design, shown in Fig. 2-1.
What took most of the build time – almost one year – was learning how to deal
with lithium. It took only one Saturday morning to design the chambers and thenozzles, and this design worked from the first attempt. Ovens are relatively simple
devices and their properties can easily be calculated analytically. This design operated
with excellent performances, and it was duplicated in the BEC2 apparatus as part oftheir upgrade to lithium-sodium operation.

44

Mixing chamber

Experiment _>Sodiumreservoir
450 ºC
MixingnozzleOvennozzleNaLi

360 ºC

380 ºC

10 cm

Figure 2-1: Exploded cross section view, to scale, of the 23 Na-6 Li source. The ovenis built from 2.75 inch ConFlat fittings, made from 316 SS. Alkali receptacles arecapped half nipples, and the nozzles are machined from double-sided blanks. The 2
mm diameter mixing nozzle is angled to achieve a length of 32 mm, and the thin ovennozzle has a diameter of 4 mm. A copper plate with a 7.5 mm hole, shown at theright edge of the figure, acts as a collimation aperture. Black rectangles represent thesix resistive band heaters used for temperature adjustment. The shown temperaturesof the alkali receptacles and of the mixing chamber are typical for double species
operation.

Design and construction of the multiple species ovenA detailed description of the oven, and the design criteria for a more general multiple
species source are found in the following publication:
C. A. Stan and W. Ketterle, ’Multiple species atom source for laser-cooling experiments’, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 76, 063113 (2005).
(Included in Appendix A) Ref.[1]For those interested in effusive ovens design, two old, but still useful design references can be found in Norman Ramsey’s book [107] and in a review of thermal atomic
sources[115].
Main oven nozzle construction
The construction of the main oven nozzle (Fig. 2-2) has features not covered in thepaper referenced above. It is adjustable relative to the long axis of the machine. It is
45

2.75

1.30

0.20
45°

0.425

8-32 tapped

0.15

0.40

0.35

0.10
0.30
0.20
0.50

1.50

Figure 2-2: Main oven nozzle. Dimensions in inches. On the right side, the fixedpart is machined from a double-sided, 2.75” CF blank. On the left side, the mobile
part, is machined from 304 SS stock; the hole in the center is the oven nozzle and its
position can be adjusted relative to the center of the two-sided flange. The two parts
are kept together with wide head 8-32 machine screws made from 304 SS.

a necessary caution, because the oven is attached to an older chamber which cannot
be easily realigned. The figure shown specifies the design of the nozzle used in the
BEC1 experiment. The nozzle used in the BEC2 experiment is identical with the
exception of the nozzle diameter, 0.2” instead of 0.15”. This modification was done
to compensate for an additional misalignment of the BEC2 apparatus.
Thermal management considerations
In my own view, most of the ’voodoo’ associated with the design and operation of
atomic ovens comes from bad thermal management. Proper thermal management isessential for proper operation of the double oven, and of any effusive oven. By thisI mean knowing what is the target temperature for any spot in the oven, achievingthat temperature reasonably fast, and with good stability. This goal can be achieved
without using a large number of heaters and temperature controllers.
The number of heaters can be minimized by the proper use of insulation: the moreinsulation is used, the better the temperature uniformity. However, over-insulating
the oven is also bad, because cooling power is necessary to lower the thermal time46

constant of the oven, which leads to faster equilibration and better temperature control. In principle, an effusive oven can be operated by a single heater placed near thenozzle, but extra heaters provide more flexible control.
Band heaters should be placed around flanges and alkali receptacles; tape heaters,
hard to install reproducibly, should be avoided. Tape heaters are ideal for vacuum
baking though, where the goal is to heat a large proportion of the internal surface ofthe chamber fast, and flanges (which have a small internal surface) can lag behind.
For ovens though, heating should be applied to the parts which have the highest
thermal inertia, and to points where precise temperature control is desired, as thealkali receptacles.
The power of band heaters should match their thermal load; at normal operating
temperature, a heater should operate at one third to one half of its full power. A
smooth thermal gradient should be achieved, with the nozzle the hottest point andthe alkali metal the coldest part. For alkali, 30-40 o C difference between the hottest
and coldest spots is enough to prevent clogging if the gradient is smooth; the higher
the difference, the better.
Using faulty gaskets and fittings
Unfortunately, the quality of ’standard’ nickel gaskets varies between different manufacturers and even from different batches. Older nickel gaskets were manufactured
by punching them from a nickel plate. Their surface is rugged, and they cannot
be used for multiple sealing because gasket’s surface features imprint on the knife
edges. Newer gaskets are machined to achieve surface uniformity. However, machining sometimes hardens the gasket surface to the point at which a reliable seal cannot
be achieved. The best nickel gaskets we have used (a particular batch from MDC)
can seal even against standard 304 SS fittings, while the best 316 SS fittings (madeby A&N) work even with punched nickel gaskets.
While building the oven for the BEC2 apparatus, we have experienced repeatedsealing failures because we tried to use lower quality fittings with relatively hardgaskets. The quality of the fittings is ultimately defined by their sealing properties,
47

but in this case the difference between the good and the bad fittings was visible in
the quality of the machining.
For a first seal (at least), leaks can be fixed by heating the flange to high temperatures. We have done it at 500 o C for one hour. Most likely this works because thenickel alloy used, Nickel 200, has a sharp change in mechanical properties between
300 and 400 o C, its elongation under constant stress increasing by almost 50%. It istherefore possible that heating to only 400 o C will be enough.
We have recently ordered a new set of nickel gaskets from Vacs SEV Co. We
have not tested them yet, but we hope these are the best gaskets we can get, for two
reasons. First, according to the manufacturer machining and annealing are very wellcontrolled. Second, Nickel 201 instead of Nickel 200 is used. With a lower carbon
content than 200, 201 is softer and rated to higher temperature: 677 o C instead of
315 o C.

2.2.2

Two-stage differential pumping

Combining high intensity atomic beams with UHV in our apparatuses requires theuse of a differential pumping setup. A collimated atomic beam is compatible with
UHV because as long as there are no collisions in the beam, all atoms will travelto the same spot, where they can be captured before randomly re-scattering, which
would lead to a pressure raise. For lithium and sodium the sticking coefficient to astainless steel surface at room temperature is close to unity and special beam catchers
are not needed.
In our case, introducing the atomic beam in the main chamber is complicatedby the fact that the beam is generated in a section of the machine in which thepressure cannot be easily lowered below 10−8 Torr. In addition to the atomic beam,
background gas will diffuse into the main chamber compromising the vacuum.
Reduction of the background gas diffusion while maintaining the beam flux isachieved by connecting the main and the oven chamber with a long narrow tube. In
a molecular picture, what the tube does is to geometrically favor the passage of atoms
in the beam, which would pass through the tube without collisions. Background gas
48

have to bounce randomly inside the tube many times before they can enter the mainchamber, and with high probability bouncing results in returning to the high pressurechamber.
The differential pumping factor, given by the ratio of the pressures in the ovenand the main chamber, is calculated from pumping speeds and conductances. As an
example, we can consider the simple case of two vacuum chambers connected by adifferential pumping tube. In first chamber the pressure is P1 . In the second chamber
the base pressure is negligible, and the pumping speed is S2 . The conductance ofthe tube is C. For a typical differential pumping application we can assume that thepressure in the second chamber is much smaller and that the conductance C is small.
The gas leak into the second chamber given by P1 C. This leak is the dominant
gas load in the second chamber, so the pressure there is P2 = P1 C/S2 . The ratio
of pressures, of the differential pumping factor, is given by P1 /P2 = S2 /C and in in
principle can be made very large.
However, in our apparatuses the main chamber pumping speed is on the order of1000 L/s, and the differential pumping tube conductance cannot be lowered below
a few tenths L/s without obstructing the atomic beam. This means that to achieve
below 10−11 Torr in the main chamber, the pressure in the oven chamber should be
at most 10−8 Torr. Such an oven pressure was difficult to achieve, and the BEC1
apparatus needed to boost its differential pumping rate by increasing the pumping
speed in the main chamber. This was done by cooling with liquid nitrogen surfaces
inside the main chamber, adding one more procedure to an already complicated experiment. Also, achieving an oven pressure low enough required baking after eachsodium loading, and the oven chamber had to be cleaned twice a year, which stopped
the experiments up to one week for each cleaning.
The new two-species oven was expected to create a bigger gas load because its
higher operating temperatures, making the original differential pumping problematic.
To solve this problem we have rebuilt the whole oven section from scratch, adding an
additional differential pumping stage.
The new setup is shown in Fig. 2-3. The fundamental modification is the addition
49

TP
AV

DPT2

DPT1
IP1
CP

IG2
IP2
GV1

OVEN

GV2

IG1
R-Shutter

10 cm

Figure 2-3: Exploded top view, to scale, of the upgraded vacuum setup. Only the components in the main horizontal plane are explicitly shown. The main parts installed
above and below this plane are the ion pumps (IP1 on top, IP2 on bottom), turbopump (TP, top), ion gauges (IG1 and IG2, top) and the collimating plate (CP, bottom).
Also indicated in the figure are the positions of the: oven, rotary feedthrough shutter (R-Shutter), intermediate gate valve (GV1), main gate valve (GV2), differential
pumping tubes (DPT1 and DPT2) and manual angle valve (AV). The main gate valve
is connects the setup to the main vacuum chamber.

of an intermediate vacuum chamber, which is a simple 2.75” CF six-way cross to which
an 55 L/s ion pump, an ion gauge and the two differential pumping tubes are attached.
The setup installed in BEC2 is identical with the exception of the shutter setup andthe use of a 4.5” CF four-way cross instead of the 2.75” six-way cross to which therotary feedthrough is attached.
The differential pumping tubes are shown in Fig. 2-4. The first one is similar insize and conductance to the old DPT, and creates a pressure ratio between the ovenand the intermediate chamber approximately 500. The second DPT created a pressure
50

1 in
Figure 2-4: The differential pumping tubes. The image is to scale, including therelative position of the tubes. On the left side, the first DPT is made from a 5” long,0.25” OD stainless steel vacuum tubing. It is passing through a steel ball to which
it is welded. The first DPT can freely rotate against the circular hole in the flange,
thus adjusting the pointing of the atomic beam. It is locked by squeezing the ballbetween the flange and a counterplate (shown in black in the figure). The second
DPT is a 2.5” long, 0.375” OD vacuum tubing centered and welded orthogonally toanother 2.75” CF flange.

ratio between the intermediate chamber and the main chamber of approximately 100.
The maximum pressure ratio between oven and the main chamber, 5 · 104 , is achieved
when the pressure in the oven is high. At lower pressures the gas load originatingfrom the oven diminishes and becomes comparable to the background load in theintermediate and main chambers and the pressure ratio drops (but the vacuum levelin the main chamber still improves).
The two-stage differential pumping setup allows for quite high oven pressures. In
BEC2, healthy sodium BEC’s have been produced at an oven pressure of 7·10−7 Torr.
Such oven pressures are actually hard to achieve because even after a sodium change
the pressure drops fast below 10−7 Torr; in the case of BEC2 we ’took advantage’of the fact that the system was freshly installed and not properly pumped down. In
BEC1 we don’t know the highest pressure at which experiment runs reliably, but itshould be above 10−7 Torr.
In addition to the new differential pumping setup, the design on the oven chamber
was improved for faster pumpdown after sodium changes. This was achieved bykeeping the setup as simple as possible and by installing the pumps close to thecustom six-way cross to which the oven is attached, to avoid losing pumping speed.

51

The ion pump is mounted on the top of the custom six-way cross. Previously, the fearof alkali poisoning of the pump led to a design in which the ion pump was connectedto the cross via an elbow and a chevron baffle which both reduced the pumping speed.
Only a baffle is used now to shield the 60 L/s pump from alkali atoms, and we had
no problems with alkali poisoning in three years of operation with an already old ion
pump. The 70 L/s turbopump is connected to (and isolated from) the chamber by a4.5” CF right-angle valve which has high conductance. These upgrades and a betterloading procedure (see next sections) result in achieving pressures good enough forrunning the experiment within hours of a sodium change, and without baking.
The total length of the vacuum apparatus exceeds the length of the optical table
on which the experiment is set up. As a result, the oven section ’hangs’ outside theoptical table and needs a stable support. In BEC1 and BEC2 this was achieved withstainless steel profiles (Dexion and UniStrut, respectively), which were both hardto adjust and prone to sagging over extended periods of time. The new ovens anddifferential pumping setups are supported by cross-linked, T-slot aluminum profiles(80/20 Inc.). The setup avoids eccentric weights which would torque the chamber.
The heavy ion pumps are mounted directly under or above the axis of the apparatus,
improving its mechanical stability. We have discovered that even under the whole
weight of the setup the structure in BEC1 did not sag or deform in three years ofoperation.

2.2.3

Million-cycle beam shutter and the ’cold’ plate

The atomic beam has to be turned off during cooling, because the flux of hot atoms ishigh enough to cause significant trap losses. Also, exposing the trapped atoms for ashort time to the hot atomic beam is probably the most reproducible way of reducing
the number of ultracold atoms in the trap. We know empirically that our apparatus
can be tuned to produce large degenerate clouds, however it is hard to reduce thenumber of degenerate atoms by adjusting MOT loading or the cooling parameters.
Switching the atomic beam on or off is done by mechanical shuttering. The shutter
has to be reliable, reasonably fast (50-100 ms), and easy to adjust and service. The
52

10 cmFigure 2-5: New shutter and cold plate assembly, rotated 90o . Atomic beam direction is from top to bottom. A custom 4.5” CF reducer flange has two diametrally
opposed 1.33” ports. The distance between port centers is 1.5”. For the cold platethe 0.375” copper rod of a commercial high-current feedthrough is attached via ajoining piece to a 1/8” thick collimating plate (shown in black). The shutter consistsof a pneumatically actuated linear motion actuator. A stainless steel flag (shown inblack) attached to the end of the actuator’s rod shutters the atomic beam.

shutter used with the old sodium oven was actuated by a solenoid placed in the ovenchamber, and servicing required breaking the vacuum in the oven chamber.
When the oven in BEC1 apparatus was changed, this design was abandoned infavor of one based on a rotary feedthrough (Fig. 2-3). Although adjustable without
opening the chamber, a proper balance between shutter speed and shutter backlash
has to be achieved by trial and error. Initially it took a few weeks of operation to
get the proper setting, and we had occasional problems caused by the sticking of the
shutter rod to alkali-coated surfaces inside the custom six-way cross.
The installation of a two-species oven in the BEC2 apparatus provided the opportunity for designing a better beam shutter (Fig. 2-5). To move in vacuum, across 1-2
cm, a beam block weighing not more than a few grams, the best actuators available
are linear motion feedthroughs. Coupled with a pneumatic actuator, they provide low
backlash and constant force across the movement range. Also, a linear feedthroughdesign is simpler to attach to the vacuum chamber than a rotary one.
However, the reliability of these actuators was of serious concern: vacuum manufacturers were only guaranteeing it to 104 cycles, and one such actuator used in our
experiment in the early 90’s had a catastrophic failure leading to the venting thevacuum chamber after only a few months of operation.
53

The inspiration (and courage) to design such a shutter came from learning that
Veeco offers such a shutter, guaranteed for one million cycles, for molecular beam
epitaxy systems. Nevertheless, this commercial shutter is expensive and difficult to
integrate into our design.
The ’trick’ we use to vastly improve the actuator bellows’ reliability is to use it
only in the center, and across one-third to one-fourth, of its rated operating travel.
Since we typically need half inch of travel to shutter the beam, we use pneumaticallyactuated, 2” linear motion feedthroughs. Restriction of the range of movement andsome damping are done by stacking a few reinforced rubber washers1 around theexternal shaft of the actuator. On one side they are easily stacked after removing theexternal stop knob; on the other side they have to be cut radially and slid through theslit in the actuator body because in the MDC feedthroughs the pneumatic actuator
shaft is welded to the vacuum bellows. The total cost of the components used in thisshutter is less than one-fifth of price of the Veeco shutter.
The linear shutter design was bench-tested for endurance2 by repeatedly turning
it on and off at a rate of one cycle per second. After almost two weeks of continuous
operation, one million cycles were completed without damaging the bellows, whichcorresponds to around 20 years of running the experiment. However, the sealing orings of the pneumatic actuator were not lubricated during the test and started toleak after 400000 cycles. For the shutter installed in the experiment lubrication isprovided by an oil mister in the compressed air line.
One of the advantages of using a linear feedthrough is the possibility to mount iton the same 4.5” CF flange as the collimating plate, as seen in Fig. 2-5. As it will
be detailed in the oven maintenance section, this simplifies considerably the periodic
cleaning of the oven chamber.
In the past, the collimating plate had to be TEC or liquid nitrogen cooled toachieve good pressures in the oven chamber. We have discovered that because of
the better pumping speed in the new setup, cooling the collimating plate (historically
1

McMaster-Carr, part number 90131A103
It was highly unusual to do such a thorough testing, but it was granted by the fact the shutter
had to ’live’ for 100 manufacturer specified lifetimes.
254

called the ’cold’ plate) is unnecessary. In the new shutter and collimating plate design
we are still providing for external cooling if this is ever going to be needed, however
the plate support is simplified. The plate is attached via an eccentric piece to an 1.33”
CF current feedthrough. The feedthrough’s 3/8” copper rod offers enough thermal
conductivity to maintain a temperature difference of only a few degrees between theplate and the external part of the rod. Eccentric mounting allows for a bigger amountof alkali to be collected by the plate before cleaning is needed.

2.2.4

Lithium vs. glass: avoiding deposition on
the slower window

An universal annoyance associated with the use of a Zeeman slower is the deposition of
the atoms from the beam on the window through the laser slowing light is introduced
into the machine. For sodium this problem is solved by heating the slower window to
80-90 o C, which makes the evaporation rate of the sodium layer on the window fasterthan the deposition rate.
Since our first experiments on the beam line we have tried to use the same methodin the case of lithium, assuming that only the temperature will be different. A
deposition formed on the slower window as expected, but upon heating to around
200 o C it was not completely cleared. Heating the window to about 300 o C madethings worse: the opacity of the deposition increased, and the viewports developed
vacuum leaks. Correlating this to instances of window etching when our lithium
absorption cell was heated without a buffer gas inside, we arrived at the conclusionthat lithium, once deposited onto glass, diffuses into the glass and chemically reacts
with it, leading to permanent damage to the viewports.
Window damage occurred within one month of operation of the lithium beam
setup. However, this setup did not have an atomic shutter and we estimated that for
the BEC apparatus which has a lower beam duty cycle we can still run experimentsfor one year or more before having to worry about the slower window. Also, mild
heating of the slower window was expected to reduce the deposition rate. We have55

chosen the temperature to be 100 o C, which based on experimental observations weassumed it was below the threshold at which chemical reaction with the glass occurs.
Although a visible deposition formed on the slower window within months of using
the BEC apparatus, we have continued to use it for three years and still have goodenough MOT loading rates. From the loading rates and the visual inspection of theslower window we concluded that the transmission loss through the deposited layer
was still small.
After around three years of operation, the two-species oven was removed to clean
the oven chamber of deposited sodium. This allowed us to measure directly thetransmission of the slower window. We have been more than a bit surprised to
discover that the transmission through the deposited layer was only 20%. Such atransmission is unacceptably low, and we almost took the decision to break the mainchamber vacuum for the first time in nine years and exchange the slower window.
However, as a last attempt we have tried to heat the slower window to hightemperatures. This time, we calculated what temperature would be needed to desorb
the layer in one day, if we ignore chemical reactions. The total thickness layer was
calculated from the lithium beam flux and the estimated time spent with the atomic
beam on, and evaporation rate can be calculated from the vapor pressure curves.
These back-of-the-envelope calculations resulted in a required heating temperatureof 240 o C. Although the estimate of the evaporation rate was a factor of ten too
optimistic, we have been able to improve the transmission of the layer to more than
50%, and thus avoid changing the slower window.
Being able to clean, even partially, the deposition, contradicts the previous observations in the beam line and lithium cell. The lithium we use was stored under oiland then chemically cleaned; vacuum cleanliness, on the other hand, could be only
achieved by vacuum distillation. My best assumption is that the first time it is heatedlithium releases oils and solvents and it is these substances which damage the window
most. In a BEC apparatus this dirt is probably removed during the first oven bake.
To avoid lithium deposition, we are heating now the slower window to 200 o C. It
is possible to heat the slower windows up to 260 o C and still maintain good vacuum56

in the main chamber, although some outgassing occurs during the first heating. The
only concern is the thermal insulation of the slower window.
The window has to be heated uniformly, which around 200 o C becomes a challenge
as glass is thermally insulating and air currents have significant cooling power. A
second viewport is externally stacked against the window, creating an insulating air
cushion. To avoid a fast temperature drop during a power failure which could damage
the window, thick insulation is used around the heater and the flanges.

2.2.5

Lithium preparation, beam alignment, sodiumchanges, and machine cleaning

Lithium preparation
Natural lithium has contains 7.5% Lithium-6 and 92.5% Lithium-7. Atomic ovens
are not, to the first approximation, isotopically selective, so using natural lithium
results in only 7.5% of the atoms in the beam being the isotope Lithium-6. As
the resonant light frequencies are well separated, we do not have to worry about
concurrent Lithium-7 laser cooling when Lithium-6 cooling light is used. Nevertheless,we use 95% isotopically enriched Lithium-6, which increases the atom source efficiency.
Enriched isotopes are usually very expensive, but Lithium-6 was produced andstocked in large quantities in US during the fifties and sixties because it is one of
the strategic nuclear materials, used for rapid production of tritium in thermonuclear
devices. Small quantities of enriched Lithium-6 are readily available at a price of
20-30$ per gram.
The only packaging available from commercial suppliers is in metal chunks stored
under mineral oil, which are typically surface oxidized. For our experiments we needto remove the oil as much as possible, or else the oil will contaminate the vacuum
chamber. However, since the lithium is a reactive metal a safe cleaning procedure isneeded.
In our first lithium cleaning procedure, the chunks were first dipped in cyclohexane
to remove the oil, and then the oxide layer was removed by scraping it with a knife.
57

It was a tedious procedure because it had to be done in a glove box.
We are now having the Lithium-6 cleaned and repackaged in sealed glass ampoules
by a laboratory3 . We have used their chemical cleaning procedure ourselves once andwe have found it superior to the our first cleaning method.
The new procedure can be performed in a ventilated hood. The oil is removed
using acetone, and some additional oxidation can occur. The oxide layer is chemicallycleaned next by dipping in a methanol-dry ice solution. If lithium is kept in thesolution for too long, it will all react with methanol and be lost. As soon the lithium
surface becomes shiny and yellow, the metal is transferred to a CF nipple which isthen filled with clean argon. A white powdery layer formed on the metal we cleaned
since we did not work in an inert atmoshpere. However, the lithium repackaged by
the laboratory has a metallic appearance and is probably cleaner.
After cleaning the lithium is not fully vacuum compatible. Baking is necessary tooutgas foreign substances, which takes around one day at 400 o C. Attack of viewport
glass surfaces by the outgassed substances can occur but is preventable by keeping a
few millitorrs of clean argon in the chamber during baking.
Beam alignment
Alignment of the atomic beam during the installation of the new ovens was complicated by the requirement that main chamber vacuum had to be preserved. Without
this requirement, it is possible to look or send a laser beam through the machineduring assembly.
The two points which define the direction of the atomic beam are the center of theslower window and the center of the MOT trapping volume. The direct line of sight
between these two points is obstructed by the main gate valve during the assemblyof the oven section. Therefore the alignment is done to two orthogonal planes. The
vertical plane of the beam is defined by two plumb lines, one suspended in front of
the slower window, the other right above the MOT trapping region. The horizontal
plane is defined by two rigid bars aligned parallel and at the same height as the two
3

Materials Process Center, Ames Laboratory, Ames, IA58reference points.
The alignment of the first differential pumping tube and of the oven nozzle tothe two planes can be done by eye. The accuracy of the alignment by eye is very
good; telescopes or collimated laser beams are not necessary. It was necessary, bothfor BEC1 and BEC2, to change the position of the oven end of the slower tube.
Although connected to the main chamber and under vacuum, this end can be safely
and easily moved by 1-2 cm in any direction.
The alignment was checked before loading the alkali by exchanging the oven witha 2.75” CF viewport. Gate valves were opened and an unobstructed line view throughthe machine from the oven to the slower window was observed. The viewport exchange
can be also used to verify slower window transmission and for alignment of the slower
beams.
Sodium changes
With the new setup the sodium changes became easier and faster. The use of a cup
allows loading more sodium than before. Instead of using a few 5 g sodium ampoules,
a single 25 g or 50 g ampoule is used, which extends the time between sodium changes
to three or six months.
Because some of the sodium dissolves into the lithium in the mixing chamber,depletion of sodium is not evident as soon as the sodium reservoir is depleted. It takes
about half a day of sodium operation until the sodium MOT becomes much smaller
than usual and the florescence of the atomic beam near the oven drops considerably,
which signals that a sodium change is needed. The drop in fluorescence and MOT
size can be caused by bad laser performance and it takes some experience to diagnose
sodium depletion. An useful parameter for diagnose is the elapsed time since thelast sodium change which is measured by a timer linked to the sodium cup heater.
The sodium consumption rate is around 0.02 g/hr and can vary by at most 10-20%.
With a 25 g load, sodium is not going to be depleted after only 500 hours of oven
operation4 !
4This is valid for BEC1’s oven operating at 360o C; the consumption rate in BEC2 has yet to be59

A sodium change starts with switching off all oven heaters a few hours before theoven is opened. After removing the insulation around the sodium cup and elbow, thecup flange is opened, the glass residue is thrown away, a new ampoule is broken andplaced in the cup, and the cup is resealed. The insulation is refitted and the new
sodium is baked by turning on the oven for a few hours. Pressures low enough forrunning the experiment are achieved in a few hours without baking the whole ovenchamber.
For a fast pumpdown after sodium changes, it is essential that proper venting
is used, and that the time between opening the oven and resealing is kept as short
as possible. Grade 5.0 argon gas is used for venting. If possible, the venting line
and the turbopump are kept filled with clean argon at atmospheric pressure between
sodium changes. The venting line is flushed with fresh argon for 15 minutes before
opening the oven. Opening and resealing the oven can be somewhat difficult because
the nickel gaskets require a higher sealing torque, but with proper preparation thechange time can be kept below 20 minutes.
Besides venting, two design factors of the two-species oven allow fast sodiumchanges. First, the narrow mixing nozzle reduces the probability of atmospheric gases
diffusion when it is flushed with argon. Second, the high oven operating temperatureprovide by default a very fast baking of the sodium ampoule and of the sodium ovenchamber.
Machine cleaning
In two or three years of operation more than a hundred grams of sodium evaporated
from the oven will deposit in most part inside the oven chamber, eventually blocking
the atomic beam. When this happens the sodium has to be cleaned from the chamber.
In the past, this required complete disassembly of the oven setup and cleaning eachpart independently, a difficult and hazardous procedure.
A much simpler cleaning procedure was recently performed in the BEC1 apparatus. The sodium deposition pattern is shown in Fig. 2-6. It occurs mainly on thedetermined and might be different because the main nozzle diameter is not the same.

60

<- Oven

Main chamber ->Figure 2-6: Sodium deposition pattern after 3 years of operation. Deposition occurs
mainly on the cold plate and in the oven arm of the custom six-way cross. A channel
forms in both lumps but becomes narrow enough to obstruct the atom beam. If thethin metal shutter flag is used, the deposition on the flag is negligible. Both lumps
can be removed without full disassembly of the oven section.

collimating plate and inside one arm of the six-way cross.
To clean the plate, the most efficient procedure is to simply exchange the fullshutter/plate setup with a clean one. Since the two will experiments have the same
shutter/plate, a third setup should be ready for quick exchange.
The lump in the six-way cross is best removed by opening the 4.5” flange of theoven’s conical reducer. The oven is then placed in an argon-filled bag to avoid degradation of the alkali in the oven. The lump should be removed by using a screwdriveror a knife. Residue on the walls can be scraped off, however extremely cautious cleaning is not necessary. Cleaning with solvents should be avoided as it will introduce
vapor in the chamber. Next, the oven is reattached to the setup.
It should be possible to simultaneously clean the plate and the lump in a relatively
short time so that baking of the oven chamber is not needed. During our first cleaning
we were not aware of the existence of the lump, and the machine was opened twice,once for the plate and once for the lump.
Another place where sodium deposition occurs is the shutter flag. In BEC1, thisdeposition was always negligible, which is not well understood. My assumption isthat this occurs because of shutter flag heating due to the slowing beam. At first61

sight, this seems unlikely, but stainless steel, despite its shiny appearance, absorbs
approximately half of the incident light at visible wavelengths regardless of the surface
quality. Taking into account the power of the slowing beam and the small mass ofthe flag, this results in a local heating above the sodium melting temperature within
seconds.
In BEC2, the flag is masked by the actuator’s rod and this protecting mechanism
will not work. Nevertheless, this suggests a flag cleaning procedure which does not
involve opening the vacuum chamber. Focusing a few tens of milliwatts of sodium
light at the flag should heat it locally fast enough that the sodium deposition will bemelted or evaporated in a reasonable amount of time.

2.3

Lithium saturated absorption cell

Atomic absorption cells must provide a atomic density enough for at least a few
percent absorption of a resonant laser beam. For all alkali except lithium, commercial
cells are available. They are made of a glass tube ended with optical quality windows.
A small amount of metal is placed in the chamber and the cell is then evacuated. To
achieve the desired absorption, they are heated above room temperature.
Lithium are more difficult to build because they have to be heated to 350-400 o C,
temperature at which reaction of lithium with the glass can make the cell permanently
opaque. Also, a glass cell heated to these temperature will have a limited lifetime;in commercial glass sodium cells heated above 200 o C outgassing compromises thevacuum in a few months.
We have tried first to build a lithium cell based on the ’six-shooter’ design in [82].
Although we have been able to see fluorescence for the first time by using it, thiscell required constant care to avoid lithium deposition, and had a high failure rateof the cartridge heaters when operated around 400 o C. All-metal cells with sapphire
windows were an alternative, but we did not attempt to build them as they required
heating the whole cell at 350-400 o C.
In the end, we have designed our own cell (Figure 2-7), inspired by our experience62Figure 2-7: Side and top views, to scale, of the main part of the lithium saturated
absorption cell. Dimensions in inches. Two standard 2.75” CF viewports are mounted
to the sides, and an all-metal valve with 1.33” CF ports is attached to the top. Lithium
is placed in the lower appendix. The lower appendix is heated externally by a bandheater to approximately 350 o C. The cell is filled with 10 mTorr of high purity argon.

with lithium ovens. Instead of aiming at creating a uniform vapor pressure in thecell, only the lithium reservoir of the cell is heated. The lithium is evaporated fromthe reservoir and deposits on the cell walls. While this design consumes the lithium,the cell can be operated for a long time before all the lithium is depleted.
The cell is filled with a small amount of argon buffer gas. The buffer gas serves
three purposes. First, it prevents lithium deposition on the windows which are notheated. Second, it reduces the lithium evaporation rate, enhancing the life of the cell.
Third, above the reservoir the lithium atoms diffuse slowly in the buffer gas insteadof flying in a straight path, which enhances the fluorescence signal. The buffer gas
pressure is chosen as high as possible, but low enough that the pressure broadeningof the Doppler-free signal just becomes noticeable. Buffer gas pressure is tuned byallowing a small argon leak through a metering valve while the cell is pumped witha turbopump. Pressures up to a few hundred mTorr can be set without overloading63

the turbopump.
After loading fresh lithium in the reservoir, the cell is first baked at approximately
200 o C for one day, while maintaining a pressure of 100 mTorr of argon. Then, thecell is allowed to cool and the pressure is tuned while the broadening of the Dopplerfree signal is monitored. After achieving the optimum pressure the all-metal valve issealed and the cell can be disconnected from the vacuum pumps. We have found thata pressure of 10 mTorr is optimal5 .
The temperature of the reservoir is set to the lowest value at which the laser
locking can be reliably done, 350 o C, for efficient use of the lithium. We first loaded
the cell with a few grams of lithium and the cell worked for one year before the lithium
was depleted. With a 10g load, the cell still works after two years.

2.4

The rf setup for evaporative cooling and hyperfine state manipulation

In the days of the sodium BEC experiment, the only daily interaction of the trapped
atoms with rf was during evaporation. The transition used is |1, −1 >→ |1, 0 >at low magnetic field. The frequency varies from 30 MHz to 1-2 MHz. The setup
consisted of a GPIB-controlled synthesizer, a 2W amplifier, and an antenna placedin the vacuum chamber.
Adding lithium to the experiment needed new frequencies. First, the sodium
evaporation must be done to a different state to insure that lithium is not evaporated
as well. Initially, the |1, −1 >→ |2, −1 > transfer was used to evaporate sodium
F=1 atoms. We are now evaporating |F, mF >= |2, 2 > atoms using the |2, 2 >→|1, 1 > transition. Both transitions are typically driven within 100 MHz of the sodium
hyperfine frequency, 1.772 Ghz.
The hyperfine state of lithium has to be changed a few times during a typicalexperiment. The |3/2, 3/2 >→ |1/2, 1/2 > transfer requires a 228 MHz oscillating
field, and |1 >→ |2 >, |2 >→ |3 > transitions at high field require around 80 MHz.
5

The 100 mTorr value given in [13] is erroneous, as we have recently verified.

64

Except for the 80 MHz, the new frequencies for lithium and sodium needed newsetups as the hardware in the original setup did not have the power nor the necessary
bandwidth.
Besides frequency accuracy (which can be easily achieved if the frequency source
is a synthesizer), the main requirement of an rf setup for generating oscillating fields
is that the fields can induce stimulated transitions fast enough. In our experiments,’fast enough’ translates into the qualitatively requirements for evaporative coolingand for state transfers.
Rf-induced evaporation can be understood in the dressed atom picture formalism[68]. In this approach, one considers the total energy of the atom plus the field of N
rf photons, which leads to an energy level diagram in which the Zeeman pattern isshifted upwards by N~ω, with ω the rf frequency. At magnetic fields at which therf frequency is in resonance curves with ∆N = 1 cross, and coupling between statestransforms this crossing into an avoided crossing.
In the magnetic trap, the higher the atom energy, the higher the magnetic fields
experienced at the extreme range of movement, which means that the rf frequency
can be tuned such that only the highest energy atoms reach the level crossing. For
efficient evaporation, these crossings have to be passed adiabatically so that any hot
atom reaching the crossing can follow its curve to an untrapped. A Landau-Zener
probability calculation using typical trap parameters and atom temperatures results
in a required rf field amplitude of 10–100 mG.
For state transfers of ultracold atoms, the desired transfer time is on the order of
1 ms, which is typically faster than atomic losses, or the experiments we perform, so
the transfer can be done without supplemental losses and not interfere with the rest of
the experiment. Equivalently, this requires a Rabi oscillation frequency of ωR ∼ 2π · 1
kHz.
The amplitude of the oscillating field can be deduced from the Rabi frequency
formula:−→→|−µ · Brf |
ωR =
~

65

−→
−
where →
µ is the magnetic dipole moment of the transition we want to drive, and Brf
is the amplitude of the oscillating field.
For transitions within the same Zeeman sublevel, driven at low field, the numerator
in the formula above is equal with gF µB Brf . From this, one concludes that the desired
Rabi frequency requires on the order of 1 mG field amplitude - easily achievablecentimeters away from a single-loop, centimeter-size antenna driven directly by asynthesizer. However, at high field, lithium states |1 >,|2 >, and |3 > have the same
electronic magnetic spin state, and transitions between these states will have matrix
elements on the order of the nuclear magneton as well. Taking this into account, theRF setup should produce oscillating fields with a maximum amplitude of 0.1-1 G;with this amplitude efficient evaporation, and the preparation of any hyperfine state
are possible.
Even knowing the desired amplitude of the oscillating field, the RF setup design
is complicated by the change of the antenna impedance and of the amplifier power
delivered to the antenna as the frequency is varied. Also, the surrounding stainlesssteel vacuum chamber makes the calculation of the rf fields at the trap site very
difficult. As a result I do not advise an analytical approach towards building the
setup, unless one has previous expertise with the generation of rf radiation. However,
the trial and error procedure can be made easier by measurements.
We have used small pickup loops to estimate the efficiency of a setup. A 1cm diameter loop can be connected directly to an rf power meter and allows benchcomparison of different antennas. The signal from the loop can be amplified for higher
sensitivity.
Although we have not tried it, I believe a network analyzer could be used todiagnose and improve our setups. The analyzer’s main advantage is the possibility ofmeasuring the rf phase and power delivered to the antenna, information which canbe used to make the circuit resonant.
Because of the difficulty of calculating analytically the rf setup parameters, theguidelines given below are empirical ones, learned from assembling such systems for a
few different frequency ranges and two experiments, BEC1 and BEC2. They worked,
66and with some unavoidable tweaking will be probably appropriate for other ultracold
atom experiments.

2.4.1

Antenna design

For low-frequency applications (up to 500 MHz), we use in BEC16 the old rf antenna,
made of two square 12 by 2.5 cm loops in Helmholtz configuration. The in-vacuum
loops, separated by 2.5 cm, are centered around the center of the trap. Its total
length (and the distance to the trapped atoms) are smaller than the wavelength,
so the antenna operates in a quasistatic mode: the field at the atoms is the one
generated by the instantaneous oscillating current in the rf antenna. In dc operation,
the antenna creates a field of approximately 300 mG/A. The loop is connected to two
vacuum BNC feedthroughs. We use the first one to connect the amplifier, and thesecond to terminate the circuit with a 5 W rated 50Ω terminator. The same port canbe used to measure the power arriving at the terminator if a 50Ω attenuator and apower meter are connected instead.
The inner antenna is driven by an amplifier/multiplexer unit (see next subsection)
built around a 20 W amplifier module. At 80 Mhz, up to 15 W of rf can be dissipatedin the terminator; at 228 Mhz, only 7 W, probably because of the increased impedanceof the coil. The absorbed power data, measured as described, is probably the bestsource for estimating the amplitude of the oscillating magnetic field when the coilgeometry is precisely known. This setup will be duplicated to upgrade the one in use
in BEC2.
For high frequency transitions (1-2 GHz in BEC1, 0.8-4 GHz in BEC2, given by
the bandwidth of the synthesizers and amplifiers used in each experiment), the innerantenna is no longer appropriate. Its total length equals a few vacuum wavelengths of
the rf radiation and its performance will be strongly dependent on frequency. Since
we did not want to open the main vacuum chamber, the only option is to use an
external antenna.
After a few attempts with different designs, the simplest design performed best.
6

The similar design of the low-frequency antenna used in BEC2 can be found in [78].

67The basic rule is to use a single loop of wire with a total length approximately equal
to the vacuum wavelength of the radiated rf. In principle, a multiple wavelengthcircumference loop should increase the field linearly with the number of turns, but
we always found their performance to be inferior to the single loop.
Regarding construction, the simplest one again performed best: the loop is madefrom the inner conductor of the coaxial line which transmits the rf from the amplifier.
The inner conductor is stripped to the desired length, bent into shape, and its tip
soldered to the outer conductor.
In BEC1, we use an approximately 5 cm diameter round loop, built from RG8/U coaxial conductor. RG-8/U cable was used because it has lower losses than thestandard RG-58 cable. At 2 GHz, the rf power transmitted through a few meters of
RG-58 drops by more than a factor of 2. The loop is placed as close as possible tothe atoms, on top of the recessed top vacuum viewport of the main chamber. The
distance between atoms and antenna is 8 cm. Compared to the inner antenna, it has
a much weaker DC field, 7 mG/A, but as at higher frequencies the magnetic momentwith which atoms respond to the external fields is the Bohr magneton [107], the fields
needed are smaller.
In BEC2, 1.77 GHz evaporation was achieved using a 2.5 by 5 cm rectangular loop.
The loop was made from RG-58 cable and was wrapped in teflon tape to prevent
glass cell scratching and electrical contact with the magnetic trap coils. Custom
high quality cables manufactured by Midwest Microwave will be used in the final
high-frequency setup to reduce signal loss.

2.4.2

Using high power rf amplifiers

Commercial benchtop rf amplifiers with a few watts output are expensive. We arebuilding our rf amplifier boxes in house, by adding the functionality we need to commercial amplifier modules: ac line operation, rf switching capability, and multiplexing
multiple inputs.

68Choosing amplifier modules
With the antennas we use, we have observed that amplifiers with a maximum output
between 5 and 20 W are needed for ’saturating’ the rf driven transitions. By ’saturation’ I mean a practical criteria: for more power the gain in evaporation efficiency
is negligible. For smaller power outputs, the smaller Rabi frequency makes itself felt,
for example by limiting the shortest evaporative cooling time possible.
Compared to other modular rf electronics we routinely use, these high-power amplifiers are relatively expensive ($ 1-3 K, depending on power and frequency range),
generally need a matched load at all times, and dissipate considerable heat. ClassA amplifiers, for example, acquire their excellent operating charcteristics by consuming a constant total power regardless of the input. Part of this power is dissipatedthermally, and the amplifier actually runs cooler when it delivers maximum output
power.
One important (and not obvious) consideration in choosing the amplifier moduleis the protection options it has. It should have thermal protection (switching the amplifier off if the case temperature exceeds a certain value), input overload protection,and good load mismatch survival (operating for a while at full input, and with theoutput shorted or open). I have seen a few non-protected amplifier modules madeby MiniCircuits failing suddenly after months or years of operation, but so far thisdidn’t happen to any of the protected amplifiers.
The quality of the amplifier design can be judged in part by the size of the module (smaller is better) and by the power consumed for a given maximum output
power(again, smaller is better).
For low frequency, we use 2-525 MHz, 20 W amplifiers produced by Delta RF
Technology. For high frequency we use in BEC1 a 1-2 Ghz, 10 W amplifier made by
OPHIR RF, and in BEC2 a 0.8-4.2 Ghz, 8 W amplifier manufactured by EmPowerRF Systems.

69

Assembling an ’amplifier box’
The main concern with high power amplifiers is the proper dissipation of heat.
Heatsinks are a must, and often they must be installed by us as manufacturers typically sell only the bare amplifier modules. As ready-made heatsinks of the right size
are not always available, we cut them from anodized heatsink stock7 .
Even with a relatively large heatsink, forced air cooling is typically needed. The
dissipated heat can slowly increase the internal temperature in a standard size 19”
rack enclosure, leading to long warmup times and reducing the lifetime of electronic
components.
A typical air cooling setup can be seen in Fig. 2-8. Air at room temperature isadmitted through apertures which direct the air flow around heat dissipating devices:
the amplifiers and the power supplies. Three or four low-voltage, low noise DC fans areused for redundancy, and circulate the air from inside to the outside of the enclosure(this ’pull’ configuration makes the cooling more efficient).
The same thermal management enhances the frequency and power stability of
AOM drivers and allows building multiple channels into the same enclosure. A pictureof such a 4-channel driver is also shown in Fig. 2-8.
During most of the lithium experiments, multiple rf frequencies are used during asingle experimental run. Having a dedicated antenna/amplifier/synthesizer setup foreach frequency is impractical. The optimal hardware use and experimental flexibility
is achieved by using the same antenna and amplifier, and by changing the frequency of
the input signal. Some of the signals are frequency sweeps for Landau-Zener transfers
and require a dedicated synthesizer only for this task, therefore we built inside theamplifier enclosure a switching setup capable of choosing between multiple rf inputs.
A 4-to-1 switch controlled by two independent TTL signals is easiest built byusing two rows of standard rf switches. The first row has two switches and therefore
4 rf inputs and 2 rf outputs. These outputs are directly connected to the inputs ofthe second row switch. The first TTL signal controls the switches in the first row, the7

We have bought type 66199 and 62705 extrusions in bulk from R-Theta: http://www.rtheta.com/, Mississauga, ON, Canada.

70

a)

b)

Figure 2-8: Air cooling for a high power rf amplifier. The 8W, 0.8-4.2 GHz amplifierin a) is mounted on a 4 × 11 × 1.25” heatsink, with the fins facing down, in the righthalf of the box. Arrows indicate the the direction of the airflow. Air enters throughthree front, and one lateral vent holes, and is expelled by three fans in the back. Also
visible inthe lower left side is the 4 to 1 switch assembly made from three rf switches.
In picture b), the same cooling method is used for a 4-channel AOM driver. The four
amplifiers are mounted on a single large heatsink in the right side of the box, and alarge front venting slit is used.

second TTL the second row switch. For any given combination of TTL signals there
is one (and only one) input connected to the 4-to-1 output. By adding more switch
rows, it is possible to control 2N channels with N logic signals. For our experiments
4 inputs are sufficient.
The high-frequency amplifier used in BEC1 has an incorporated frequency doubler because the GPIB-controlled synthesizer we use for sodium evaporation has amaximum output frequency of 1.28 GHz. It is the only amplifier box we use that
does not have multiple input capability, nevertheless multiple frequency operation istrivial because the synthesizer is remotely controllable.

2.5

Optical traps for fermions using high-power
1064nm lasers

Optical traps are a standard part of our experimental setup, because the lithium
hyperfine states used for experiments with interacting fermions, |1 > and |2 >, are71not magnetically trappable. Compared to the optical trapping of sodium BECs, thetrapping of fermionic lithium proved more demanding technically.
The cause of additional difficulty arises from the higher trap depth needed to trap
fermions. In the case of BECs, the trap depth needs to be bigger than the chemical
potential, which for typical experimental parameters is a few hundred nanokelvins.
For fermions, the trap depth must be bigger than the Fermi energy, typically a few
tens of microkelvins. As the depth of the optical traps scales linearly with the total
power used8 , it can be seen that the typical power needed to trap degenerate lithiumis one hundred times higher than in the case of sodium BEC’s. This agrees well with
our first attempts to trap lithum: if 10 mW of IR light was enough to trap a sodium
BEC, at least 1 W was needed to efficiently catch lithium from the magnetic trap.
Even more power is needed for efficient evaporative cooling in the ODT. A ratioof trap depth to the temperature of approximately 10 is typically needed [96]. As at
the beginning of the evaporation the temperature of lithium is approximately equal
to the Fermi temperature, this brings the trap depth requirement to nearly 1 mK,
and the IR power needed to approximately 10 W.
Our ODT setup, shown in Fig. 2-9, evolved from a setup appropriate for trapping
sodium, going through a few iterations as the requirements for a good lithium ODTbecame more demanding for new experiments.
The first setup, used for the observation of Feshbach resonances in lithium-6, wastypical for a sodium ODT. A 5 W, 1064 nm diode-pumped Nd:YAG laser9 is used
as a source. The beam was passed through a 40 MHz AOM for fast switching andpower control, and then coupled into a single-mode fiber which selects the TEM00
mode. After the fiber the beam passes through a mechanical shutter and a series of 3
telescopes which expand the it to 1-3 cm diameter. The expanded beam is introduced
into the horizontal MOT beam path by a dichroic mirror placed inside the last MOT
telescope. The beam is then focused by the last MOT lens.
Transversal alignment of the ODT is achieved by changing the beam pointing. For
8Practical numerical formulas for the ODT parameters can be found in [69] for sodium and [12]for lithium.
9Spectra-Physics model BL-106C, Mountain View, CA.

72

Mechanicalshutter
0th ord.
1st ord.

ODT

MOT telescope

Beam
block

Cleanup fiber

2nd telescope

3rd telescope

Dichroic mirror

1st telescope

40 MHzAOM

Laser

Movable lensFigure 2-9: Schematic drawing of the ODT setup. The path of the ODT light isshown in thin solid line. The horizontal MOT beam is shown with a thin dashed line.

longitudinal alignment, the last telescope is built such that its focal point is imaged
1:1 onto the ODT focus. The first lens of this telescope is mounted on a longitudinaltranslation stage, and by moving it the longitudinal position of the focal point canbe adjusted. The ODT waist is adjusted by changing the size of the expanded beam
introduced into the MOT path.
The main limitation of this first setup was the maximum available power. Of
the 5 W of the laser source, only up to 1-2 W can be coupled into the single mode
fiber; at higher powers the fiber coupling efficiency varies in time due to the heating
and thermal expansion of the fiber input port, and the fiber is easily damaged if thealignment is not perfect. Trapping the lower hyperfine states of lithium at high magnetic fields was also made more difficult by the longitudinal magnetic anti-trapping
potential created by the bias coils of our old magnetic trap.
Improvement of the longitudinal trapping was achieved in part by the new magnetic trap which can create a flatter bias magnetic field, and in part by using a more73

powerful source, a 20 W, 1064 nm Yb fiber laser10 . To take advantage of the available power, the single-mode fiber was abandoned, sacrificing somewhat the beam
quality. Up to 7 W were now available at the ODT position. With this setup wewere able to achieve near 100% ODT loading efficiency from the magnetic trap, andto evaporatively cool lithium and lithium molecules.
This second generation setup was marginal for producing molecular lithium BECs,
for two reasons. First, the ODT power could be lowered reproducibly only by a factor
of approximately 100 using our power control setup. At low powers, the discreet stepsof our computer generated analog signal prevented us from smoothly tuning the final
trap depth. Second, the complicated optical setup easily introduced astigmatism inthe beam. The trap had an asymmetric longitudinal trapping potential and evenmultiple longitudinal trapping maxima.
The third generation setup was made by increasing the dynamical range of thepower control and by improving the beam quality and stability. The dynamical range
limitation originates in the rf setup of the AOM driver. For power control an analog rf
attenuator is inserted between the signal generated by an VCO and the amplifier, andcontrolled by one of the computer analog channels. For high attenuations (resulting
in low rf powers to the AOM and low power in the beam) the attenuator becomes
too sensitive to small changes in the control signal. We have solved this problem byinserting a second attenuator independently controlled by a second analog channel,
which improved the dynamical range to approximately 10000.
To improve beam quality, we have used higher quality optics and more stable
mounts. In the first part of the setup (AOM and the first telescope), where thebeam is millimeter-sized, the hardware quality is most important. There we use 10-5
surface quality lenses with high energy coatings, and high energy mirrors, mounted
on 2” high, 1.5” diameter steel rods. The stiffness of the whole setup was enhanced
wherever it was possible. These efforts paid off not only in the ODT profile quality,
but also in long- and short-term stability. The lifetime of molecular BECs improved
from 200 ms to 10 s. Also, the new setup is stable from run to run. Previously, it was
10

IPG Photonics model PYL-20-LP, Oxford, MA.

74

an event to switch on the apparatus and to discover that the ODT was still aligned.
The latest improvement, which brings the ODT quality close to the one of themagnetic trap in terms of smoothness and symmetry, was driven by the study of therotational properties of the interacting lithium mixture in the BEC-BCS crossover.
A new type of single-mode fiber designed for high powers was installed to clean up
the beam profile without sacrificing power and trap depth. This setup seems to markthe end of a four-year quest in our lab for the ’perfect’ single-focus ODT.

75

Chapter 3
Cooling 6Li-23Na mixtures toquantum degeneracy
The first goal of our experiment was the production of degenerate 6 Li Fermi gases
and of 6 Li-23 Na quantum degenerate Fermi-Bose mixtures. This goal was achieved in
two steps. The atom number and temperatures we have initially aimed to (and alsoachieved) were similar to the parameters of other degenerate fermion experiments.
These first cooling experiments are reported in
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)(Included in Appendix B) Ref.[2]However, soon after we had the degenerate Fermi-Bose system at our hands it
became obvious that for many of the experiments we could think of, better parameters were needed. A second experimental effort was directed at improving the atom
number of the degenerate 6 Li Fermi seas, and concluded with excellent results. The
improved experimental cooling procedure is reported in76

Z. Hadzibabic, S. Gupta, C. A. Stan, C. H. Schunck, M. W. Zwierlein, K. Dieckmann, and W. Ketterle , ’Fiftyfold Improvement in the Number of Quantum Degenerate Fermionic Atoms’, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 160401 (2003)(Included in Appendix C) Ref.[3]The success of cooling in the magnetic trap, which is described in the attachedpapers, is strongly dependent on the choice of spin states for lithium and sodium andthe list of ’good’ spin mixtures is short. However, the use of optical traps allowed
us to produce new degenerate lithium, and lithium-sodium spin mixtures. These
new lithium-sodium mixtures allowed us to observe interspecies Feshbach resonances,and evaporation of lithium spin mixtures in the optical trap was essential for theexperiments described in the Chapters 5 and 6.

3.1

Sympathethic cooling: our strategy and thefirst results

The cooling of dilute gases of fermionic atoms to quantum degeneracy was achieved a
few years after the observation of Bose-Einstein condensation in dilute gases of bosonicatoms. The reason is the statistics of fermions at very low temperatures. In a sample
of degenerate fermions the thermalization rate drops very fast with temperature due tothe Pauli suppression of the only thermalization process possible in trapped ultracoldgases, the s-wave collisions.
A thermalization rate which is fast relative to the three-body decay is essential toachieve a degenerate gas via evaporative cooling, because at the typical densities andtemperatures required the gas is unstable towards the formation of a solid phase. It
can be argued that the same Pauli suppression which slows thermalization would slow
three-body loss as well, however losses due to the presence of background gas typically limit the duration of ultracold atom experiments to approximately one minute.
Significant advances in commercial vacuum technology will be needed before successful evaporative cooling of single quantum state fermion gases can be attempted, andeven so the long duty cycle of the experiment might prove impractical.
77

The solution for cooling fermions is the use of distinguishable particles. This opens
the door for new loss processes and increases the complexity of the experiment, but
it is the price to pay for producing degenerate fermion gases. A few strategies are
possible. One is to use a small amount of different particles (not used for further experiments) to maintain thermalization rates while evaporating the useful component,
and was not used so far for cooling fermions. The two strategies which have beenused are either to start with a double mixture with equal numbers and evaporate
both, or to start with a imbalanced mixture in which the more numerous component
is cooled by evaporation while the useful, but less numerous initially, component is
sympathethically cooled.
Having at our hands sodium BEC apparatuses which produced the largest alkali
condensates to date, our approach was to use a large bosonic sodium cloud to cool
sympathethically a relatively small lithium atomic cloud. Using this approach, thebest one can hope in degenerate lithium atom numbers is comparable to the numberof degenerate bosons, because the heat capacity of lithium (proportional with atom
number for non-degenerate samples) must be at most comparable to the sodium heat
capacity. Since the lithium is not consumed during evaporation, this allowed us tobypass the requirement for a large amount of precooled lithium atoms, which canbe only achieved in a state-of-the-art MOT. A standard lithium MOT with 107 –108
atoms is sufficient, target which can be achieved with a standard optical setup and alow-power laser system.
The experimental setup, described in the previous chapter, was thought as a lowcost modification of an existing sodium BEC apparatus, and one year and a half after
starting the fermionic lithium project all the experimental bits were in place and we
had a double species sodium-lithium MOT. But to actually cool lithium, a coolingprocess had to be developed.
At low temperatures, the losses due to spin-exchange collisions are high and usually make evaporative cooling inefficient. They have to be avoided by a proper choiceof the spin states, and for single species experiments the usual solution is to use
from a given hyperfine F manifold the states with maximum quantum mF number,
78

because spin conservation prevents spin exchange collisions. For a mixture with different species, suppression will occur if one uses same-sign maximal mF states for bothcomponents. This gives a few choices for ’good’ spin mixtures, which are further
selected by requirements for trapping (in the case of magnetic traps, magneticallytrappable states must be used), and by the specifics of the experiment.
Initially, the only choice we had for a ’good’ mixture was with sodium in the|F, mF >= |1, −1 > and lithium in the |F, mF >= |1/2, −1/2 > hyperfine states.
In the case of lithium, a strong quadratic Zeeman effect makes the |1/2, −1/2 > untrappable above 27 G, limiting the trap depth in a magnetic trap to an equivalenttemperature of 330 µK. Therefore, before lithium can be efficiently trapped in thisstate, lithium has to be precooled in a different spin state after catching in the magnetic trap. Such a two-stage cooling method was initially used in 6 Li-7 Li sympathethic
cooling experiments [118], and we have adapted it for 6 Li-23 Na cooling by performing
the initial stage of evaporation in a mixture of lithium in the upper hyperfine states
which are magnetically trappable, with sodium in the lower |1, −1 > hyperfine state.
The results of these first sympathethic cooling experiments are shown in Fig. 3-1.
The data shown is for the last stage of cooling, when lithium in the |1/2, −1/2 > state
is sympathethically cooled by sodium in the |1, −1 > state. The number of lithium
atoms, typically 2×105 , remains approximately constant during cooling, as the losses
in the this lithium-sodium spin mixture are small.
As it can be seen in the figure, the lithium temperature follows the sodium temperature only to the point at which the lithium cloud has approximately the Fermi temperature. Slower thermalization was ruled out by keeping both lithium and sodium
for a few seconds at fixed trap depth, which did not bring the lithium temperature
closer to the sodium temperature. The lack of perfect themalization could be due
to an unfavorable rate of elastic to inelastic collisions in the sodium-lithium mixture,or just technical, however it was not subject to further studies as a better coolingprocedure was later developed.
These first sympathethic cooling experiments resulted in a cold fermion gas withparameters comparable to other ultracold fermion experiments at that time. How79

2

1.0
T/TF

Lithium Temperature [μK]

1.5

0.5

0

0.0
0

5

10

15

Sodium trap depth [μK]

Figure 3-1: Sympathethic cooling results for a mixture of sodium and lithium in thelower hyperfine states. The black circles represent the temperature of lithium as afunction of the trap depth for sodium. Lithium temperature was by fitting absorbtion
images with semiclssical Thomas-Fermi distributions. The dotted line represents the
expected temperature of the sodium, assuming that evaporative cooling practicallystops at a ratio of sodium temperature to sodium trap depth of approximately 10.
On the right axis the degeneracy is indicated. T/TF does not scale in a perfect linear
fashion with T for this data set, as the atom number varies up to a factor of 2 among
different lithium data points.

ever, it soon became obvious that a wide range of standard techniques used in BEC
research, as velocimetry at long expansion times or Bragg spectroscopy, could not be
used with similar signal-to-noise ratios in fermionic clouds 10 to 100 times smaller
than a typical sodium BEC.
The significant improvement achieved by using a sodium-lithium mixture in upper hyperfine states is covered in the next section. However, I do not think that all
things being equal, a mixture of sodium and lithium in the lower hyperfine states at
microkelvin temperatures is inferior to an upper hyperfine states mixture for sympathethic cooling. The shortcomings of our first cooling procedure most likely originate

80

in the complicated procedure for evaporation in the magnetic trap. It was not obvious, and therefore not attempted, to optically pump the lithium atoms from the
MOT in the |3/2, 1/2 > upper hyperfine state which seems to have lowest losses in a
mixture with |1, −1 > sodium atoms. Also, we were not able at that point to havea highly efficient rf-driven hyperfine transfer between the upper and the lower states.
Our skills at transferring atoms using rf and microwave fields have increased sincethen and I believe if we would try the same procedure today better results can beachieved.

3.2

Sympathethic cooling in the upper hyperfine
statesThere are two sodium-lithium mixtures in which spin exchange is suppressed, andwhich are magnetically trappable: |1, −1 > sodium with |1/2, −1/2 > lithium, and|2, 2 > sodium with |3/2, 3/2 > lithium. Our first cooling procedure produced the firstone. Since the second mixture has a higher energy, it was reasonable to assume that
it would be worse than the lower state mixture for sympathethic cooling. However,since the upper states are magnetically trappable at all fields, it was hoped that asimpler (and thus less lossy) cooling procedure was going to lead to better results.
Upper hyperfine state cooling was not initially an option in the magnetic trap,
since sodium could not be efficiently cooled and then condensed in the |2, 2 > state
before. The first upper hyperfine state sodium condensates have been achieved by
rf transfer of a |1, −1 > sodium condensate in an optical trap [50]. From this work,
which investigated the properties of |2, −2 > and |2, 0 > condensates in an opticaltrap, and from subsequent work on optically trapped, rf-produced |2, 2 > condensatesin a magnetic trap [79], two important facts were revealed.
First, the lifetime of |2, 2 > and |2, −2 > stretched state condensates was a few
seconds. Although smaller than the lifetime of a |1, −1 > condensates, this lifetime
indicated that direct evaporative cooling to BEC in the |2, 2 > stretched state should81be possible. The second important observation was the very small lifetime of condensates in the |2, 0 > non-stretched state, which revealed that the losses and crosssection for spin exchange in the upper hyperfine manifold of sodium are very high.
For direct condensation in the upper state, a significant fraction of the MOT atoms
have to be loaded into the magnetic trap. Here significant means comparable to theloading efficiency of |1, −1 > atoms. Since most of the atoms in our dark MOT arein the lower manifold distributed equally among the sublevels, and out of the threestates only one is trappable, approximately one third of the MOT atoms are loaded,
and they are all in the same state.
To load |2, 2 > atoms, the MOT atoms are optically pumped from the F=1 to
the F=2 manifold (hyperfine pumping) using F=1→F’=1 resonant light, and within
the upper manifold towards the stretched state (Zeeman pumping) using F=2→F’=2
resonant light. Both pumping beams are σ + –polarized. Although we can control
independently the duration and sequence of hyperfine and Zeeman pumping, simultaneous pumping also works well.
The light frequencies for optical pumping were chosen empirically by using different pairs of F→F’ transitions for the best results. Although for hyperfine pumping
the F=1→F’=2 transition has a better Clebsch-Gordon coefficient, we achieved best
results with F=1→F’=1 pumping in both BEC1 and BEC2 F=2 cooling experiments.
After optical pumping the sodium cloud is loaded in the magnetic trap, and iscomposed of a mixture of |2, 2 >, |2, 1 >, and |2, 0 > magnetically trappable hyperfine
states. Removal of atoms in the |2, 1 > and |2, 0 > states is essential as they havea short lifetime due to spin-exchange collisions and produce losses of the |2, 2 >component as well. This is done by separating the state energies with a 80 G magnetic
field and selective RF-induced spin flip to untrapped states of the |2, 1 > and |2, 0 >states.
At the highest densities achieved during evaporative cooling, the few second lifetime of the pure |2, 2 > cloud was too short to obtain a large condensate. Therefore,
the cloud density is reduced during evaporation by decompressing the magnetic trap.
The decompression point is chosen by stopping the evaporation at various trap depth
82

2 TF

1 TF
0.5 TF-500

0.5 TF
DF
0

-1

500

0

1

Size [mm]Size [μm]Figure 3-2: Absorption images and corresponding Thomas-Fermi fits of ultracold
lithium clouds obtained by two cooling methods. On the left side, three images,in trap, of lithium in the |1/2, −1/2 > hyperfine state sympathethically cooled by|1, −1 > sodium atoms, at different temperatures. On the right side, a typical lithium
image after 8 ms TOF in the case of cooling |3/2, 3/2 > lithium atoms with |2, 2 >sodium atoms. The size of the images (∼3mm) and the normalization are similar for
all images, thus the area of the clouds is indicative of the gain in atom number, from
1-2×105 to 3-7×107 . With the first method, the lowest temperatures were around 0.5
T/TF , while temperatures as low as 0.05 T/TF have been achieved with the second
method.

and observing the losses in the sodium cloud. The trap is decompressed upon reaching the trap depth at which losses start to occur, which corresponds to a temperatureof approximately 10 µK. The evaporation is then resumed and F=2 BECs with up
to 2×107 atoms are obtained.
Knowing how to cool large numbers of |2, 2 > sodium atoms, sympathethic coolingof |3/2, 3/2 > lithium atoms was straightforward. Zeeman and hyperfine state opticalpumping are done after the lithium MOT in the same fashion as for the sodium,
however the lower densities of the lithium cloud allow near full transfer of the MOT
atoms to the |3/2, 3/2 > state. Throughout the sodium evaporation the lithium atom
number remains constant, so most of the lithium caught in the magnetic trap is cooled
to degeneracy.
A visual example of the improvement in atom numbers by using the upper hyperfine state method and of the resulting signal to noise can be seen in Fig. 3-2. If before
imaging could only be done in trap or at very short time of flights, the increased atom

83

number allows crisp absorption imaging for millimeter-sized clouds expanded during
time-of-flight. As the lithium atom number is similar to the one of the largest alkali
BECs, the experimental methods developed for condensates can be applied to ourdegenerate Fermi gas while achieving the same signal-to-noise levels.

3.3

Production of sodium-lithium degenerate mixtures in other spin states

The degenerate sodium-lithium mixture in the upper hyperfine states, or the justthe lithium Fermi gas are the starting sample for our experiments. However, mostof the mixture experiments done afterwards, or the one we think of doing, need asodium-lithium mixture in other hyperfine states. This section covers the productionof Bose-Fermi mixtures; the evaporative cooling of lithium-only spin mixtures, which
completes the list of cooling methods used in our experiment, can be found in Chapter
5.
The spin state of a single component degenerate cloud can be manipulated relatively easily using rf Landau-Zener sweeps. Using multiple rf fields, the spin state ofdifferent components can be in principle changed sequentially or simultaneously totransfer the mixture components to the desired states. We have observed significant
losses during our first attempts to do multiple Landau-Zener sweeps. Also, anotherproblem associated with the production of spin mixtures from a degenerate |2, 2 >Na |3/2, 3/2 >Li mixture by rf transfer is the shot-to-shot stability of atom numbers andsodium/lithium number ratios. We have overcame these problems to create a groundstate |1, 1 >Na -|1/2, 1/2 >Li mixture. The procedure used there should be applicableto other mixtures as well.

3.3.1

Production of ground state sodium-lithium mixtures

A degenerate ground state mixture was produced for the observation of interspecies
6Li-23 Na resonances [4]. Since the ground states are not magnetically trappable,
84

Figure 3-3: Same shot image of a degenerate ground state sodium-lithium mixture in
the optical trap. On the left side, lithium is imaged after 3 ms TOF; on the right side,
sodium after 13 ms TOF. The mixture contains 3.4×106 sodium atoms and 2.8×106
lithium atoms.

the mixture was produced, cooled and confined into an optical trap from a hotter|2, 2 >Na -|3/2, 3/2 >Li mixture.
To achieve largest numbers, a sensible approach is to produce first an ultracold
lithium-sodium mixture by the best method available, sympathethic cooling in theupper hyperfine states in the magnetic trap. However, directly catching a |2, 2 >Na |3/2, 3/2 >Li double degenerate mixture in the optical trap has two disadvantages.
First, the atom numbers are relatively small, and second, the ratio of sodium tolithium atoms fluctuates and is difficult to control.
These problems have been solved by loading the upper hyperfine state mixture
into the ODT before reaching degeneracy. The evaporation was stopped at a sodium
trap depth of approximately 20 µK, and the mixture was loaded into a deep opticaltrap (1064 nm, 9W, 25 µm beam waist) and further cooled evaporatively by ramping
down the ODT beam power. ODT evaporation was stopped at a trap depth equal to
2-3 times lithium’s Fermi temperature, and to approximately 10 times the sodium’s
condensation temperature. A typical absorption image is shown in Fig. 3-3: degenerate mixtures with 3 million atoms in each species are produced by this method.
For hyperfine transfer with almost 100% efficiency, simultaneous Landau-Zenersweeps work best. Rather than doing the sweep at constant magnetic field by ramping85

the rf frequency, we have found that the transfer can be done faster if the rf frequency
is held constant and the magnetic field is ramped. While for our second-lived mixture
shorter sweeps only improved the atom number, fast sweeps might be essential if
production of a short-lived mixture is desired.

3.3.2

Long-lived spin mixtures: what we have investigatedand what might work

For further studies of degenerate sodium-lithium mixtures, the question arises ofwhat spin mixtures are likely to have long enough lifetimes to perform experiments.
What is long enough depends on the experiment, but by this I will understand here alifetime on the order of one second or more, which is enough for most ultracold atom
experiments.
Given the current experimental setup, the best approach for making a specified
mixture is to prepare it in an optical trap from a precooled upper hyperfine state
mixture as described in the previous section; even for the |1, −1 >Na -|1/2, −1/2 >Li
mixture, it gives better results than the first magnetic trap cooling procedure we haveused.
If a mixture has a lifetime on the order of seconds a necessary requirement isthat all components have such a lifetime. Ultracold, single-state lithium clouds are
long-lived because collisions are suppressed by the Pauli principle. In the case of
sodium, all lower hyperfine states have a few seconds lifetime in an optical trap [121],
although spin-exchange collisions in a |1, 0 > cloud will generate a measurable amountof |1, 1 > and |1, −1 > atoms within one second. For the upper hyperfine states, only
the stretched states, |2, −2 > [50] and |2, 2 > [79] are stable. Five sodium hyperfine
states and all lithium hyperfine states can be in principle used as mixture ingredients.
Mixtures of lithium and sodium in stretched states with the same mF sign arestable against spin-exchange and should be long-lived. We have investigated so far
the properties of |1, −1 >Na -|1/2, −1/2 >Li , |1, 1 >Na -|1/2, 1/2 >Li , and |2, 2 >Na |3/2, 3/2 >Li mixtures and found all of them to have lifetimes of at least 10 s at86

typical magnetic trap densities. It is reasonable to assume that the other five possible
mixtures are also long-lived.
For mixtures in which spin exchange is not suppressed, |1, −1 >Na -|3/2, 1/2 >Li
has a loss rate slow enough to be used for sympathethic cooling. Also, in a |1, −1 >Na |3/2, 3/2 >Li mixture with a dominant sodium fraction, lithium is depleted, but thisprocess takes a few seconds. These results are somewhat surprising given that the spin
exchange rate is expected to be high, however it indicates that even in the presenceof spin exchange sodium-lithium mixtures might have a lifetime of a second or more,
making them suitable for experiments if not for direct cooling.

87

Chapter 4Interacting Bose-Fermi mixtures:the observation of 6Li-23Na
interspecies Feshbach resonances
In addition to the sympathethic cooling experiments, the other major part of ourstudies of Bose-Fermi mixtures is the observation of 6 Li-23 Na interspecies Feshbachresonances. These results are reported in
C. A. Stan, M.W. Zwierlein, C. H. Schunck, S.M. F. Raupach, and W. Ketterle ,’Observation of Feshbach Resonances between Two Different Atomic Species’, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 93, 143001 (2004)(Included in Appendix D) Ref.[4]The existence of Bose-Fermi resonances at fields which are experimentally accessible makes possible a list of exciting future experiments. Feshbach resonances allow
the tuning of interspecies interaction strength, which might lead to the observation ofboson-mediated Cooper pairing [54, 25], supersolid order [29], and phase separation[92]. If these resonances can be used for efficient production of ultracold heteronuclear molecules, such molecules can be used for quantum computation [40], for studies
of correlated many-body systems [51, 20], and for higher sensitivity electron dipole
moment searches [76].
88

4.1

The observation of lithium-sodium resonances

Near a Feshbach resonance the rate of three-body losses is dramatically enhanced.
Losses are easier to measure than the elastic scattering length, and in ultracold gases,
as a function of the magnetic field, there is no other strong resonant loss except for a
Feshbach resonance. Therefore, the most practical means for observing a resonanceis to search for magnetic field resonant losses.
This approach was used before in our lab for the first observations of Feshbachresonances in 23 Na [64] and in 6 Li [7]. The main difference between these experiments
and the observation of 6 Li-23 Na interspecies resonances is that no theoretical predictions were available in the latter case, so the search was performed across the whole
range of magnetic fields available experimentally.
In principle, one can search for Feshbach resonances in a lithium-sodium mixture
in which lithium and sodium can be in any of the possible ground hyperfine states,
which gives us a list of 6×8=48 possible mixtures. However, for both the observation
the future use of these resonances it is important that the Fermi-Bose mixture has along lifetime, and the most stable mixture is the one made from lithium and sodiumin their absolute ground states, |1/2,1/2>Li and |1,1>Na (|1>Li and |1>Na at highfield).
We have chosen to search for resonances in the ground state mixture. The ground
hyperfine states are not magnetically trappable, and even if they were, our cloverleaf
magnetic trap cannot provide enough stiffness at high fields. The mixture has to be
trapped in an optical trap, and then uniform, dc magnetic fields of up to 1040 G canbe applied.
For the observation of lithium-lithium resonances, combining the optical trappingwith a high magnetic field was difficult because of the anti-trapping potential generated by the bias coils of the old magnetic trap. Fortunately, as the new magnetic
trap was specifically designed to generate stable uniform magnetic fields for 6 Li experiments, optical trapping of the mixture could be easily accomplished. Making a
mixture of lithium and sodium in their ground states with stable shot-to-shot numbers

89

1000

500

1
Li

Na atom # (normalized)

1

Na Na

0.5

Na

Na

Na
0

Li atom # (normalized)

0

NaLi

0.5

NaLi
0
0

500
Magnetic field [G]1000

Figure 4-1: Coarse scan for Feshbach resonances in a |1/2,1/2>Li – |1,1>Na mixture.
Labels in the figure indicate whether the loss occurs because of a lithium only, sodium
only, or lithium-sodium resonance. Some of the loss features are composed of multiple
resonances, as revealed by a finer scan.

was less straightforward, and the procedure is described in Chapter 3.
The initial search for resonances was performed by dividing the available magnetic
field range of 1040 G into 20 G intervals, and sweeping the field across individual
ranges at a speed of approximately 20 G/s. The sodium and lithium atom numbers
were plotted as a function of magnetic field and normalized to the average atom
number, as seen in Figure 4-1.
Before this work, we know only of the existence of two sodium resonances at 855
and 910 G, and we have been pleased to see many new loss features. However, someof these turned out to be lithium-only or sodium-only resonances. The assignment ofresonance types was done by measuring losses in a pure sample of lithium or sodium,
as well as in the mixture. Seeing a loss in both mixture components, as it is the casefor some of the resonances in Figure 4-1, is not sufficient proof for an interspecies
resonance, as the energy released in a three-body inelastic collision in one species canbe transferred to atoms of the other species. Of the new resonances observed, the ones90

Na Atom # (normalized)

1

0.5

0
500

600

700
Magnetic Field [G]

800

900

Figure 4-2: Magnetic field resonant losses in a |1,1> sodium sample. The lowest
six loss features occur because of d-wave Feshbach resonances. The highest two arepreviously known s-wave resonances. For this data, the field was scanned across 2
G intervals, and the atom number was normalized to the atom number after a much
faster scan across the same field range.

at 746.0, 759.6, and 795.6 G are interspecies lithium-sodium Feshbach resonances.

4.2

New Feshbach resonances in 6Li and 23Na

The observation of new Feshbach resonances in a pure sample of sodium was a surprise, because the same sample was scanned for losses in our lab years before, when
the Feshbach resonances were observed for the first time, and only the two s-wave resonances at 855 and 910 G were observed. The result of a resonant loss scan performedin the same way as lithium-sodium scan, but across 2 G intervals, and normalized by
dividing the atom number after slow (2 s) and fast (0.1 s) ramps, is shown in Figure
4-2.
The new resonances are narrower and exhibit lower losses than the previously
known s-wave sodium resonances. This, combined with the more sensitive search91

Table 4.1: New Feshbach resonances in 6 Li and 23 Na. The lithium and sodium states
are labeled in the high-field basis.
Magnetic field[G]
159.14±0.14
185.09±0.08
214.94±0.08
494.9±0.2509.7±0.2
538.4±0.2
588.6±0.2
647.2±0.2
665.2±0.2

Type

Li states

Na states

p-wavep-wavep-waved-waved-waved-waved-waved-waved-wave|1>+|1>|1>+|2>|2>+|2>
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
|1>+|1>|1>+|1>|1>+|1>|1>+|1>|1>+|1>|1>+|1>

Theoretical prediction[G]
159.15±0.04
185.15±0.04
214.90±0.04
—
—
—
—
—
—

procedure we used, and with the fact that the previous searches targeted a different
field range, explains why they have not been observed before.
In addition to the sodium resonances, a p-wave resonance at 159 G was observedin a pure |1/2,1/2> lithium cloud. Additional searches revealed two related lithium
p-wave resonances, and the position of these resonances was used to improve the valueof the singlet scattering length in 6 Li [9]. The complete list of the new lithium-onlyand sodium-only resonances we observed is shown in Table 4.1.

4.3

Assignment of the molecular states involved in
the 6Li-23Na resonances

If the 6 Li-23 Na interatomic potential was known, it would have been possible to predict
the exact position of the interspecies resonances. However, it is possible to estimate
with good accuracy the resonance positions if only the energy of the last triplet or
singlet bound state of the 6 Li23 Na molecule, at zero magnetic field, is known.
Our search for resonances was performed without knowing any of these parameters, however the observation of resonances allowed us to estimate the energy of thelast bound triplet state. Knowing this value, we were able to predict the full list ofinterspecies resonances due to this triplet molecular state.
92

Since Feshbach resonances occur when the energy of two incoming atoms matches
the energy of a bound molecular state, the prediction of resonances involves calculating the the energy of the atoms, and of the molecule, as a function of magnetic field.
For the incoming atoms, this is just the sum of their hyperfine and Zeeman energies,
as the kinetic energy of ultracold atoms can be neglected.
The electronic and nuclear spin degrees of freedom generate a 48-fold multiplicity
of a given electronic state of the 6 Li23 Na molecule. This degeneracy is lifted byhyperfine and Zeeman interactions and groups the molecular states into different
manifolds. The strongest effect is given by the electronic spin coupling, which gives
rise to separated singlet (12) and triplet (36) manifolds.
For the magnetic fields at which we observe the resonances, the molecular state isthen specified in the |S, mS , mI, Li , mI, Na > basis, where S is the total electronic spin,mS the electronic spin magnetic number, and mI, Li , mI, Na the nuclear spin magnetic
number of the lithium and sodium nuclei.
For s-wave collisions, the total magnetic number mF is conserved. For the incoming
atoms it is the sum of the atomic mF ’s, and for the molecule by the sum of mS , mI, Li ,and mI, Na . Thus, a given pair of incoming atoms can couple only to a subset ofmolecular states defined by the total mF .
The energy of the molecular hyperfine states within a mF subset can be calculated
relative to a constant equal to the molecular energy at zero field if the singlet-triplet
separation is large. The Hamiltonian is:Hint = Hhf + HZeeman
with
Hhf =

haLi
haNa ~ ~hf ~ ~
S · iLi + hf S
· iNa
2
2

and
~ · (gS S~ + gLi ~iLi + gNa ~iNa )HZeeman = µB B
The energy levels for the mF =1/2 and mF =-1/2 subsets are plotted in Fig. 4-3,

93

Table 4.2: Predicted 6 Li-23 Na Feshbach resonances below 1100 G. Sodium and lithium
states are given in the high-field basis. The triplet molecular state is characterized by
the projection of the total electronic spin, and of the projections of the nuclear spinsof 6 Li and 23 Na.
Magnetic field
[G]
717.4
763.1
790.7
821.1
836.4
848.2
876.7
895.9
921.1
924.1
949.2
970.2
992.2
998
1026.91066.71095.1Na state

Li state

|1>
|1>
|1>
|1>
|2>
|1>
|1>
|2>
|1>
|2>
|1>
|2>
|3>
|2>
|2>
|3>
|3>

|1>
|1>
|2>
|1>
|1>
|2>
|3>
|1>
|2>
|2>
|3>
|1>
|1>
|2>
|3>
|1>
|2>

Molecular state|mS , mi,Li , mi,Na >|1, 1, -1/2>|1, 0, 1/2>
|1, 1, -3/2>|1, -1, 3/2>
|1, 1, -3/2>|1, 0, -1/2>|1, 0, -3/2>|1, 0, -1/2>|1, -1, 1/2>
|1, 0, -3/2>|1, -1, -1/2>|1, -1, 1/2>
|1, 0, -3/2>|1, -1, -1/2>|1, -1, -3/2>|1, -1, -1/2>|1, -1, -3/2>

Observed at[G]746.0±0.4
759.6±0.2—
795.6±0.2
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

and the energy levels for the mF =3/2 and mF =-3/2 subsets can be found in Ref. [4].
If the (not hyperfine-split) molecular energy at zero magnetic field is not known, theabsolute position of these curves is not fixed, but the shape of the curves remains thesame. If Feshbach resonances are observed, the molecular energy can be estimatedby plotting the energy of the incoming atoms, and by shifting the molecular curves
up and down until the resonance positions match the crossings between atomic andmolecular levels.
Such an analysis performed with the three resonances observed reveled that the
triplet, and not singlet, molecular levels are the ones coupled to the atomic levels,and resulted in an estimate of the energy of the last bound triplet state of the 6 Li23 Na
molecule of -5550 ± 140 MHz. The resulting predicted fields for the observed resonances, listed in Table 4.1, agree satisfactorily with the measured ones, given therelative simplicity of this approach.
94

|1,1>Na+|1/2,-1/2>Li|1,-1>Na+|1/2,1/2>Li
2500
3000

2000

Magnetic field [G]
1000
2000

0

1000

|1, 0, -3/2>|1, -1, -1/2>

3000|1, 1, -3/2>|1, 0, -1/2>|1, -1, 1/2>

|0, 1, -3/2>|0, 0, -1/2>|0, 1, -1/2>-5000|0, -1, 1/2>

|0, 0, 1/2>
|0, -1, 3/2>|-1, 1, -1/2>|-1, 0, 1/2>|-1, -1, 3/2>

Energy/h [MHz]-10000|-1, -1, 1/2>|-1, 0, 3/2>
-15000Figure 4-3: Plot of molecular energy levels. This plot contains two graphs, on theleft side for total mF =-1/2 and on the right side for total mF =1/2. Solid lines show
the magnetic field dependence of triplet molecular energy levels. The energy levels
are given in the |mS , mi,Li , mi,N a > basis, where mS is the total molecular electronic
spin magnetic number (S = 1 for the triplet state), and mi,Li , mi,N a the magnetic
quantum numbers of the nuclear spins. This basis is appropriate for the magnetic
fields at which the resonances occur. At low fields the |F, mF > molecular hyperfine
basis is appropriate, and the states with the same F are degenerate at zero field. On
each side, the dotted line represents the threshold energy of lithium and sodium atoms
in a pair of hyperfine states which can couple in a s-wave collision to the respective
molecular levels. Feshbach resonances occur where the atomic and molecular energies
are equal, which corresponds in this figure to the crossing of solid and dashed lines.

95

Using the estimated molecular energy, the position of all resonances expected
to occur due to this molecular state can be calculated. A full list, for all possiblecombinations of atomic hyperfine states, is given in Appendix G. Of practical interest
are the ones occuring at experimentally accessible magnetic fields, and in atomic
mixtures which are expected to have good collisional properties. They are listed inTable 4.2.
Two interspecies resonances between the same sodium state and different lithium
states, and occuring at the same field, could be used to observe boson-induced interactions between fermions and possibly boson-induced Cooper paring [131, 54]. As
it can be seen from the table, our simple model does not predict such coupled resonances, however the positions of the other resonances will have to be determined
experimentally before this possibility is ruled out.

96Chapter 5
Bose-Einstein condensation of 6Li
molecules
While the combination of laser cooling and evaporative cooling proved to be very
successful for bringing both bosonic and fermionic atoms to quantum degeneracy,these techniques cannot not be used in the same fashion to cool molecules. Direct
molecule cooling techniques as buffer-gas cooling [133] or electrostatic trapping [24]have not been successful yet in producing quantum degenerate molecules.
The first observation of Bose-Einstein condensation of molecules was achieved bycreating ultracold molecules from ultracold fermionic atoms near a Feshbach resonance and is the subject of this chapter. Most of the experiments covered in thischapter have been reported in
M.W. Zwierlein, C. A. Stan, C. H. Schunck, S.M. F. Raupach, S. Gupta, Z. Hadzibabic, and W. Ketterle, ’Observation of Bose-Einstein Condensation of Molecules’,Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 250401 (2003)(Included in Appendix E) Ref.[5]

97

5.1

Molecules and the Feshbach resonances

Although Feshbach resonances occur because of the coupling between a bound molecular state and two colliding atoms, the initial interest in their observation and use inultracold atom experiments was geared towards tuning of the scattering length, which
promised to bring an unprecedented level of control of the interaction strength. However, soon after the first observation of resonances in sodium [64] and rubidium [36]the initial enthusiasm was tempered by the observation of anomalously high decay
rates near the resonances [123].
The high decay rates could be explained by taking into account the molecular state[127, 16]. The losses occur because near the resonance the atom-molecule couplingis strong enough to efficiently populate the molecular state, which is unstable on
both sides of the resonance. In the region of negative scattering length the state has
negative binding energy and experiences fast one-body decay. In the region of positive
scattering length the molecule is bound, but since it is in a highly excited vibrational
state it collisions will relax it to lower vibrational levels, with a large release of energy.
The accessibility of the molecular state as demonstrated by the decay rates suggested the possibility of using the Feshbach resonances for the production of ultracold
molecules [127, 16, 89]. The first evidence for the formation of ultracold molecules
came in an experiment which coherently coupled atoms and molecules in a rubidium
BEC [42], and indicated a sub-millisecond lifetime of the molecular state.
Back in our lab at that time, we were puzzled by some features of our recent
observation of Feshbach resonances in lithium, which we know now that were causedby molecule formation. One was the apparent shift of the resonance to lower fields,
which occurs because molecules form and decay on the positive scattering length side.
More puzzling was the kinetics of the decay. Based on our previous experience
with sodium resonances, we expected three-body decay, but two-body kinetics wasobserved instead. Our best guess at that time was that a long-lived quasi-bound stateis formed and the decay occurs in two steps, similar to the resonance recombinationin spin-polarized hydrogen. For hydrogen, the process ’proceeds in two stages: First a98

pair of H-atoms collide and are trapped into a long-lived quasi-bound state (resonancestate); subsequently this quasi-molecule is stabilized in a collision with a third body inwhich it has a transition to a bound state’ (from [119]).
This quote uses a chemistry language, and to translate it to atomic physics terminology ’quasi-bound’ has to be understood as ’weakly bound’, and ’bound state’as the ’ground state’. Taking this into account, what is described here is exactly
what happens near a Feshbach resonance if we equate the quasi-bound state with a
Feshbach-produced molecule. In hindsight, it seems remarkable to me that we cameearly so close to realizing that we are forming long-lived molecules. Unfortunately
our assumption that the ’quasi-bound’ state decays fast and an experimental accident(damage to the magnetic trap) prevented us from further studies at that point.
Using a Feshbach resonance, 40 K2 molecules have been first produced from a twocomponent Fermi gas a year later [110]. Within the next few months, this method
was successfully applied to other two-component Fermi gases [125, 37] and to Bose
gases [56, 135, 44]. All these experiments created molecules by using magnetic fieldsweeps, a production method which is covered next.

5.2

Adiabatic conversion of atoms into molecules
near a Feshbach resonance

The first method by which molecules were produced, and which could be applied
to both bosonic and fermionic atoms, was by using magnetic fields sweeps. The
coupling between atomic and molecular levels results in an avoided crossing between
these levels. As it can be seen in Figure 5-1, this allows us to cross between atomic
and molecular levels.
If the rate of change of the magnetic field is slow enough, the crossing is traversed
adiabatically. Starting from the side of the resonance in which the atoms have lower
energy, a slow ramp will convert the atoms into molecules. If the ramp speed is fast,
the system will evolve non-adiabatically as if no coupling exists, and will remain in99

Atomic state

le
cu
e
l
o

d

oc
iss

ia t

ion

EnergyM

Molecule formation

Molecular state

Magnetic Field

Figure 5-1: Crossing of atomic and molecular states near a Feshbach resonance. The
coupling between states gives rise to an avoided crossing and connects the atomic
and molecular levels, shown here in solid lines. The dashed lines indicate the energy
dependence in the absence of coupling. To make molecules, a slow adiabatic ramp
from high to low field is used. As molecules are unbound at fields above the resonance,
they can be dissociated by a reverse field ramp.

its initial state, either atomic or molecular.
What is fast or slow is defined by the Landau-Zener probability that the system
will make a non-adiabatic jump between the levels at the crossing [137, 116]:|H12 |2

P = e−2π( ~(∂E/∂t) )where |H12 | is the coupling matrix element, and(∂E/∂t) = (∂(Eatoms − Emolecule )/∂B)(∂B/∂t) is the energy slew rate.
This simple Landau-Zener picture is complicated by the fact that the molecularstate has negative binding energy on the side of the resonance on which it has ahigher energy that the atomic state. Relative to the time scales used in our sweep
experiments, a molecule with negative binding energy will decay very fast, which100Lithium atom number [millions]

3

2

1

0
700

900
800
Magnetic Field [G]1000

Figure 5-2: Production of lithium molecules at the 834 G Feshbach resonance. The|1>-|2> lithium mixture is cooled and held at 970 G, then the magnetic field is ramped
to different end fields, after which the field is tuned off for imaging. At zero field,
molecules do not absorb light resonant with atoms, and the molecule formation isseen as a loss in atom number. For this data, an atom-molecule conversion efficiencyof 85% was observed.

means that starting with atoms, we cannot practically create quasi-bound moleculesby using a reverse sweep. However, this allows us to efficiently dissociate moleculeswith a reverse ramp, which is needed to observe molecules.
Near the resonance, these molecules are very weakly bound and have a large
size, which allows us to image their atomic components with light resonant with theatomic transitions. But as soon as the molecules are taken away from the resonancethe molecular wavefunction is no longer the product of atomic wavefunctions, andthe molecule is no longer resonant to the light at atomic resonance frequencies. Thus,
molecule formation can be observed as a loss in atom numbers as the resonance iscrossed, as seen in Figure 5-2.
The atom loss due to molecule formation is reversible if other losses do not occur,and the initial atom numbers can be observed if the molecules are dissociated by areverse field ramp. The formed molecules are vibrationally excited, and will eventually101decay to the ground state. As the frequency of the radiative transition to the next
lower vibrational state is in the gigahertz range, radiative decay will take far longer
than the typical time duration of ultracold atom experiments. However, other singlebody processes as inelastic spin relaxation can cause spontaneous decay of thesemolecules on much faster timescales [126]. Fortunately, this is not a limitation inexperiments with 6 Li.
The two-body picture of molecular production near Feshbach resonances suggeststhat the production is a task easily achieved for most of the atomic species used inultracold atom experiments. Nevertheless, in a real experiments the typical densities
the atomic and molecular gas density is high enough that a high collision rate isestablished. Vibrational relaxation of the molecules occurs readily as a result ofcollisions, and the resulting kinetic energy release destroys the trapped moleculargas.
In the case of bosonic atoms, molecular loss due to collisions is severe for typicaldensities. Thus the atom-molecule conversion requires separation of molecules fromthe atom soon after production, and efficiencies of only a few percent could be initiallyachieved [56, 135, 44]. Still, in the low density limit the maximum conversion efficiency
depends only on the phase-space density [59], and high conversion efficiencies havebeen observed in both bosonic and fermionic systems for unusually low densities(∼ 1011 cm−3 ). At low phase space density, the conversion efficiency is limited by thefact that in order to form a molecule, the constituent atoms need to be close in thephase space.
In the case of fermionic atoms, unexpectedly long molecular lifetimes have been
observed [111, 125, 37]. In the case of 6 Li, molecules will not decay for many seconds,
allowing almost lossless production of molecules by field ramps. The long lifetimes
are a consequence of the suppression of vibrational relaxation near the resonance,
because for spatially extended molecules made from fermions, inelastic collisions withother molecules or atoms are excluded by the Pauli principle [102, 103].
The molecules formed by field ramps have no additional kinetic energy. The smallbinding energy is converted into the interaction energy of the molecular magnetic
102

moment with the external field. This adiabatic formation can be regarded as a very
exotic form of chemistry, since chemical reactions always generate or consume kinetic
energy at the microscopic level.

5.3

Formation of ultracold molecules by
three-body recombination

The adiabatic creation of weakly bound molecules implies that starting with a gas of
atoms at zero temperature, a zero temperature molecular gas can be created. Sincestrongly interacting degenerate Fermi gases had been produced by evaporation inan optical trap [97], it seemed that a BEC of weakly bound 6 Li molecules could
be produced by ramping the degenerate Fermi gas through the wide Feshbach resonance centered at 837 G. However, additional heating and incomplete atom-molecule
conversion made a second stage of cooling on the repulsive side of the resonancenecessary.
A more efficient method for production of degenerate molecular samples is possible
in the case of 6 Li, because of the long molecular lifetime near the resonance. The
discovery of efficient molecule production by three-body recombination at magnetic
fields on the repulsive side of the resonance [65] led to a proposal for condensation of
weakly bound 6 Li molecules [31], and we have used this approach ourselves to achievea molecular BEC.
This proposal can be summarized as follows. In a mixture of two atomic species
with diatomic molecules formed from these species, in which all components are in
the ground motional state, the equilibrium phase-space densities are related by theequation:φM = φN φN 0 eE/kT
where E is the molecular binding energy, and φM , φN , and φN 0 are, respectively, thephase-space densities of the molecules, of the first atomic species, and of the second atomic species. The trap depth is assumed to be very large, so the atoms and103

molecules cannot leave the trap.
This equation resembles the Saha ionization equation if the phase-space densities
are replaced with normal densities, and it suggests that as the molecule is more deeply
bound, the system will shift more towards molecule formation as the number of atoms
is exponentially suppressed. However, if this equation is applied to the case of trapped
ultracold atoms a different behavior is predicted. For deeply bound molecules, theenergy released during formation heats the atomic sample significantly and reduces
the phase-space density; counter-intuitively, if the binding energy is infinite, no cold
molecules can form.
The equation also predicts that starting with an atomic gas the molecule production is inefficient right at the resonance. The equilibrium molecule conversion, as
measured by the molecular phase-space density, initially increases, peaks and thendrops as the field is swept away from the resonance towards the repulsive side. Closeto resonance, the molecular phase space density increases approximately linearly withthe binding energy.
Assuming that the atoms can be selectively removed from a thermally equilibrated
mixture, an efficient evaporative cooling scheme can be devised. At finite temperature
a pure molecular cloud is not in thermal equilibrium on the repulsive side of theresonance, and a fraction of unbound atoms will form. The dissociation of molecules isan endothermic process, so only molecules with sufficient kinetic energy can dissociate.
The atoms resulted from the dissociation will have reduced kinetic energy, and if they
thermalize with the molecular cloud the dissociation process will cool the sample.
In an optical trap, loosely bound molecules experience the same trapping frequencies as atoms and twice the trapping depth for atoms. The factor of two difference intrapping depth makes a big difference for evaporative cooling. At a molecular truncation parameter Um /kB T = 10 , where Um is the molecular trap depth, the molecule
evaporation becomes negligible, but the atoms can be still removed from the trap as
their truncation parameter is half of the molecular one.
This cooling method will work best at a value of the magnetic field dependent on
the trap parameters. Too close to the resonance, molecule dissociation occurs without104

a reduction in temperature (but the difference in trapping depths still favors atom
evaporation), and too far from the resonance molecules will not have enough energy todissociate (and the molecules are more likely to relax vibrationally). For the optimalvalue of the magnetic field, it was predicted that this cooling method works better
than standard evaporative cooling and a five order of magnitude reduction in phasespace density can be achieved in six seconds, shorter than the observed molecular
lifetime.

5.4

Observation of molecular Bose-Einstein condensation

Given the favorable properties of 6 Li molecules, and the large number of ultracold
lithium atoms we can achieve in our experiment, we were had good prospects for observing the molecular Bose-Einstein condensation. However, subtle technical failures
prevented the normal operation of our apparatus through the summer and early fallof 2003, when most of the ultracold molecule creation experiments have been conducted. Fortunately, we have been able to fix these problems just in time to directly
observe the Bose-Einstein condensation of 6 Li molecules.
We had tried before to cool an interacting mixture of lithium by evaporation in the
optical trap, with mixed results. These experiments were performed on the repulsive
side on the Feshbach resonance and aimed at the production of an ultracold interacting
gas with properties similar to the one reported in [97]. Although we have been able
to observe hydrodynamic expansion from the optical trap, which was a direct proofof the strongly interacting regime, the lifetime of our lithium spin mixture was shortand we could not achieve good signal-to-noise ratios.
Cooling the mixture with the goal to condense molecules, we had a few unknowns.
One was the proper choice of the magnetic field. 760-770 G , which is halfway between
the peak loss observed in our experiment (680 G) and the then-predicted position of
the resonance (850 G) was a reasonable starting point. Also, we did not know what

105

a)

c)

b)

Figure 5-3: Images of 6 Li molecular Bose-Einstein condensates. These images haveapproximately the same field-of-view and normalization, showing the progress fromthe first signal to the current experiments. a) Top imaging image of one of thefirst molecular BECs produced. The two hyperfine states are imaged separately andsimultaneously at high field. The condensate appears at the bottom of the molecular
cloud and is spilled from the trap. Total molecule number is approximately 2 × 105 .
b) The optical trap asymmetry was compensated using a magnetic field gradient, andthe two hyperfine states imaged together at zero field. A condensed molecule numberof 7.3 × 105 is obtained from fitting. c) A recent molecular BEC with approximately
4 million molecules, in side imaging.

would be the exact signature of the condensation. Our lab has a tradition of producing
evidence about new phenomena in the form of single absorption images which clearly
reveal new features, and we hoped to observe such a image.
Initial expectations were that as molecules start to form, they could be seen as a
distinct area in a absorption image taken after time-of-flight at high field, because they
expand slower than the atoms at the same temperature because of their larger mass.
Upon further cooling, a condensate would form, and an absorption picture would be’trimodal’ with three increasingly darker, visually distinct areas of the condensate, themolecular cloud, and the atomic cloud. The ’trimodal’ distributions were never seen,
and the reason for this is that at our usual evaporation field of 770 G, the binding
energy of the molecules is a few times higher than the condensation temperature.
By the time the condensation occurs, the thermally equilibrated cloud contains anegligible atom fraction.
Given our experimental parameters, the conversion of atoms into molecules occurs separately from the condensation of molecules, which was identified by a sharp
increase in the optical density of the molecular cloud. The optical trap setup we were106

using when this experiment was done had a rough and asymmetric axial profile. Also,at the ODT power levels at which condensation occurred, the trap depth could becontrolled only in relatively large discrete steps. The result is that the sharp increasein the optical density of the cloud at condensation occurred simultaneously with theloss of condensed molecules from the trap, and the first molecular BEC images, shownin Figure 5-3, reveal the early spill of the condensate from the trap. Even taking into
account the spilling, the condensation was unambiguous as a time-of-flight analysis
revealed a very low kinetic energy of the trapped cloud.
A quick improvement of the optical trap was possible by using a magnetic field
gradient to partially correct the axial asymmetry, and condensates with up to 900000
molecules have been obtained. This also increased the lifetime of the trapped condensate to values large enough for establishment of thermal equilibrium in all three
dimensions. The short condensate lifetime, on the order of one hundred milliseconds,
was caused by the imperfections of our optical trap, and triggered a major upgradeof our optical trap setup, described in Chapter 2. With the improved optical trap
setup, condensates with 3-4 million molecules and lifetimes on the order of ten seconds are now routinely produced. These 6 Li molecular condensates provide us now
with a standard starting point for the exploration of the strongly interacting regime
in fermionic spin mixtures.
The production of Bose-Einstein condensates of weakly bound molecules was simultaneously reported by Debbie Jin’s group at JILA [52] and Rudolf Grimm’s groupat Innsbruck [66]. In the JILA experiment, 40 K molecules were produced by a slow
sweep across the resonance as the short lifetime of potassium molecules does not
permit production of molecules by three-body recombination. The lifetime of the40

K molecular BEC was too short to achieve three-dimensional thermalization. The

first 6 Li molecular condensation experiment at Innsbruck used the same production
method as the one we used. It offered only indirect evidence for the condensation, bystudies of trap spilling and of collective excitation frequencies.
Our observation of molecular condensation was the latest of the three, and bydirect observation of three-dimensional condensation completed the quest to condense107particles more complex than atoms.

108Chapter 6
Fermion pairing and thecondensation of fermion pairs
in the strongly interacting regime
The production of the 6 Li molecular BEC provided to us an excellent starting point
towards the investigation of the properties of the degenerate, strongly interacting
fermion gases. Our first studies of the strongly interacting regime focused on theexistence and nature of fermion pairing near the Feshbach resonance, at magnetic
fields at which molecules are unbound in vacuum.
Using a detection technique developed at JILA and initially applied to study
fermion pairing in a 40 K system [112], we have observed the condensation of 6 Li neara Feshbach resonance. The 6 Li pair condensation is the main subject of this chapter
and was reported in
M.W. Zwierlein, C. A. Stan, C. H. Schunck, S.M. F. Raupach, A. J. Kerman, and
W. Ketterle, ’Condensation of Pairs of Fermionic Atoms near a Feshbach Resonance’,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 120403 (2004)(Included in Appendix F) Ref.[6]

109

6.1

The conversion of fermions into composite
bosons and the BEC-BCS crossover

One fundamental opportunity offered by the Feshbach resonances between fermionic
atoms is the study of the creation of composite bosons. Unlike the usual ’instantaneous’ composite particle generation by chemical or nuclear reactions, near a Feshbach resonance it is possible to explore in a continuous way the transformation of afermionic ensemble into a bosonic one.
Fermions and bosons systems have very different mechanical-statistical properties
at zero and low temperatures; one example is the energy of the system, which is higher
for Fermi ensemble. If a given system can evolve between Fermi and Bose statistics,
the question is how the two statistics are connected in the crossover region.
In the case of formation by collisions, the composite particle production is linked
to a resonant enhancement of the effective interactions in the system and these interactions alter the characteristic properties of the Fermi and Bose systems in such a
way that they connect in the crossover region.
In the case of ultracold molecules produced near a Feshbach resonance, we cantake the total energy as an example of a variable which varies continuously acrossthe crossover. The effective interaction is attractive on the atomic (fermionic) side of
the resonance, repulsive on the molecular (bosonic) side of the resonance, and reaches
very high values at the resonance. The interaction thus lowers the energy of the Fermi
gas. Although the scattering length can have very high values, the energy change isunitarity limited at the resonance [55], effect which was observed experimentally in6

Li [97, 48, 26]. On the molecular side the energy of the Bose gas is increased, but

only up to the unitarity-limited value [58].
The molecular BEC described in the previous chapter is in the strongly interacting
regime. At 770 G, as it can be seen in Figure 6-1 a), the BEC size is increased byinteractions to the point where the characteristic thermal-condensate bimodal density
profile is difficult to observe, although a condensate fraction can be still extracted
by fitting. For an easy observation of the bimodal density profile, the interactions
110

1.0x107a)4

Molecules/mm

Molecules/mm

6x106

2

0
0.0

b)

0.5

0.0
0.5

1.0

1.5

0.0

mm

1.0

0.5
mm

Figure 6-1: Molecular condensate size for different mean-field energies. Both graphs
show integrated radial density profiles extracted from absorption images, for molecular BECs produced at 770G. Also shown is a two-component thermal and condensate
fit to the data. a) The 10 ms time-of-flight is done at the production field, and themean-field repulsion expands the condensate to a size similar to that of the thermal
cloud. The condensate fraction is 85 %. b) The magnetic field is switched off at
the beginning of the time-of-flight and the condensate expands less due to a reduced
mean-field energy, resulting in clearly separated thermal and condensate profiles. The
condensate fraction is 65 %.

have to be reduced shortly before the time-of-flight analysis (Figure 6-1 b)). Besidedemonstrating visually the condensation, this probing technique leads to easier data
analysis and provides reliable thermometry.
The first studies of the BEC-BCS crossover in 6 Li investigated the trapped size ofthe cloud at temperatures low enough to condense the molecules [22]. As the valueof the magnetic field was varied from 740 G to 1440 G, the molecular BEC evolved
reversibly into a strongly interacting Fermi gas. The size of the cloud, normalized tothe size of a non-interacting Fermi gas with identical parameters, increased smoothly
from the molecular to the atomic side of the resonance. A similar experiment mapped
the release energy of the cloud relative to the Fermi energy using time-of-flight analysis[27], and reported also a smooth crossover from a Bose to a Fermi gas.

111

1.0x106

1.5x106

Atom number

Atom number

a)

0.5

0.0

b)

1.0

0.5

0.0
800

900
Magnetic Field [G]

1000

800

900
Magnetic Field [G]1000

Figure 6-2: Fermion pairing on the atomic side of the Feshbach resonance. The number of unpaired atoms was measured as a function of the magnetic field for different
densities. After producing a molecular BEC at 770 G, the field was slowly ramped todifferent values within the resonance region. The atom number was measured afterswitching off the magnetic field, which renders molecules invisible to our detection
scheme. As the total number of atoms, paired and unpaired, is constant, the molecule
number is given by half of the missing atom number. The dashed line indicates theresonance position as measured by the onset of molecule dissociation at very low densities. a) The field was switched off during time-of-flight to approach the low-density
limit b) The field was switched off while the atoms were still trapped, indicating theexistence of paired atoms on the atomic side of the resonance.

6.2

Fermion pairing above the Feshbach resonanceThe continuous variation of physical variables as the magnetic field is tuned acrossthe Feshbach resonance prevents the sudden appearance of qualitative features as theresonance is crossed from the molecular to the atomic side. However, fermion pairingon the atomic side of the resonance is a qualitatively new many-body effect, and one
particularly suited to study in ultracold gases, where the simple two-body pairing (nobound molecules on the atomic side of the resonance) can be also explored.
Our first experimental observations suggesting fermion pairing above the Feshbachresonance came from the determination of Feshbach resonance shifts and broadening
by molecule dissociation. As it can be seen in Figure 6-2, at high densities thepersistence of a missing atomic fraction at fields above the resonance indicates theexistence of fermion pairs which are converted into (invisible) molecules during the112imaging sequence.
The existence of stable atom pairs at a magnetic field at which molecules areunbound in vacuum can be understood in a simple zero temperature picture. Let’s
assume that an unbound molecule is formed from atoms in a two-component Fermi
gas. In vacuum, this molecule would spontaneously decay with a lifetime which gets
shorter as the (anti)binding energy increases [93]. After decay the constituent atoms
will each carry half of the molecular (anti)binding energy. However, if the molecule isgenerated in a zero-temperature atomic mixture and if the (anti)binding energy is lessthen twice the Fermi energy, all the atomic states which would be populated after the
dissociation are already occupied, so the molecular dissociation is Pauli suppressed.
In an equilibrium state, we would have then a stabilized pair bosonic gas coexistingwith two Fermi gases with Fermi energies equal to half of the (anti)binding energy.
At finite temperatures, Pauli blocking will still increase the lifetime of the pair, which
could be a significant effect in our experiments. For T/TF = 0.05, the occupation
number of the low energy states is 1 − 1 × 10−8 , resulting in a Pauli blocking factor
for the dissociation of a very weakly unbound molecule of 10−16 .
While it would have been worthwhile to continue investigations of fermion pairing by resonance shifts, we have soon learned of a better method for investigation offermion pairing developed at JILA [112]. The new experimental method involved a
rapid magnetic field ramp technique which converts fermion pairs into stable molecules. Its advantage comes from the fact that since the rapid ramp operates onpairs of atoms, the molecules produced have the same kinetic energy as the original
pair. Unlike pairs, molecules will not dissociate as the Fermi energy is lowered during
time-of-flight so the momentum distribution of the molecules will be the same as thecenter-of-mass momentum distribution of the pairs. Also, because of the strong paircoupling near the Feshbach resonance the rapid ramp can be performed adiabaticallyin a timescale short compared to the other timescales in the system, so the momentum
distribution will not be altered.
The rapid ramp method promised to offer a way to convert Cooper pairs in the
BCS limit to individual particles which can be detected directly, and to which stan113

dard ultracold atom techniques can be applied. The results of the JILA experimentleft open the possibility of detecting BCS-type pairing in strongly interacting Fermi
gases by the projection method, and we have used this technique to investigate pairingin our 6 Li system.

6.3

Condensation of 6Li fermionic atom pairs

In the 40 K JILA experiment not only fermion pairing, but also Bose condensationof these pairs was observed at magnetic fields at which two-body physics does notsupport a bound state. Since the collisional properties of 6 Li and 40 K are different[62] we have adapted the rapid ramp method to our system to observe and study thisresonant condensation phenomenon.
The rapid ramp method is an accurate probe of the system properties only if it
can be performed in a time which short comparative to the other equilibration time
the system. If a measurement or an established theory predicting the equilibration
time are not available, one can only state that this time is longer than the fastest
timescale in the system, which in our case is the collision time. In the stronglyinteracting regime, unitarity limits the maximum collision rate to a value on theorder of the inverse of the Fermi energy divided by ~.
Compared to the potassium experiment, the magnetic field range in Gauss which
has to be swept during the rapid ramp is 200 times bigger. In addition, the Fermi
energy of our lithium clouds is ten times bigger than the Fermi energy in the potassium
experiments, leading to a desired rapid ramp sweep rate in our experiments a few
thousands times faster than the one used in potassium, 20 G/ms. This is far beyond
the analog control capabilities of our power supplies, so in the end we just switched off
the current in our coils, which results in a non-linear decay of the field with an initialrate of 30 G/µs. It is possible to change this decay rate by tuning the impedanceof the magnetic trap coils. However we have not done it since the electrical circuit
is optimized to avoid generation of voltage spikes at switchoff. This rate is not fastenough to rule out collisions during the rapid ramp, but we have proven in subsequent114

Condensate Fraction

0.8

0.4

0.0
700

800

900
Magnetic Field [G]1000

Figure 6-3: Fermion pair condensate fraction as a function of magnetic field andtemperature. The different data sets are each characterized by the same temperature,
which is parametrized by the molecular condensate fraction NC /Ntot at 820 G (opencircles: 0.8; filled circles: 0.58; open squares: 0.51; filled squares: 0.34; ’+’ : 0.21;
triangles: 0.08; ’×’: <0.01).

experiments that equilibration takes place on a longer timescale [10].
The experimental procedure we used involved producing a molecular BEC at afield of 770 G, followed by an adiabatic ramp to different test fields. Then the opticaltrap was switched off and the rapid ramp was done after a variable wait time of up
to 500 µs. After a few ms time-of-flight at zero field, the molecules were dissociatedby ramping the field up and above the Feshbach resonance, and the resulting atoms
were imaged at zero field. The delay between the trap release and the rapid ramp has
the purpose of reducing the cloud density, thus slowing down the system dynamics.
Of course, this delay must not be too big such that the pairs are dissociated; for up
to 500 µs pair dissociation is not observable.
The molecular clouds produced after the rapid ramp showed a clear bimodal structure, reflecting the condensation of fermion pairs above the resonance. Condensate

115

0.0

0.2

Condensate fraction at 820 G

0.05
0.2

0.2

0.4

0.35

0.6

0.6

T/TF

0.8

0.05
700

800
900
Magnetic field [G]1000

Figure 6-4: Contour plot of the pair condensate fraction. The plot was createdby interpolating the data shown in Figure 6-3. The temperature is parametrized
by the condensate fraction at 820 G, and by the degeneracy temperature T/TF .
The degeneracy temperature is difficult to measure accurately, and only the range isindicated in the figure. For maximum densities the region where kF |a| ≥ 1 extends
from about 710 G onward.

fractions were calculated from absorption images for different fields and temperatures,as it can be seen in Figure 6-3. All the data points, including the ones below theresonance, were taken using the rapid ramp method. To change the temperature, theevaporation was stopped before obtaining a pure molecular BEC, and the cloud washeated parametrically for the highest temperature data sets. Because of the large
background scattering length of 6 Li and of the high densities of our system, we were
not able to probe deep in into the BCS side of the resonance and pair condensation
was observed up to the highest fields we can generate.
A different way to present the data is a to generate a ’phase diagram’ contour
plot of the condensate fraction vs. magnetic field and temperature, as seen in Figure
6-4. Not included in this data is the observation that as the temperature is lowered,pair formation starts to occur before the pairs condense, which is different from the116

weakly interacting BCS case in which Cooper pair formation and condensation occur
simultaneously.
The exact position of the resonance was not known when our experiment was
performed, and it was necessary to accurately measure the resonance position. Thiswas done by starting with a molecular condensate at a field below the resonance, andthen ramping up the field until molecule dissociation is observed. This was done at
the lowest densities and slowest field ramps we could achieve in our experiment toavoid many-body effects, and we have obtained a value of 822 ± 3 G for the resonanceposition.
For a while, this was the best available position measurement of the 300 G wide
resonance. However, the discrepancy with the 837 ± 5 G value obtained by rf spectroscopy of the 6 Li molecules [23] revealed that at finite densities and field ramp speeds
molecules can be destroyed by two different mechanisms before their energy reaches
the atomic dissociation threshold. The first mechanism is density dependent, as longrange molecules can be dissociated by few-body collisions when interparticle spacing
matches molecular size [77]. Molecules can also be destroyed close to the resonancefor field ramp rates at which the size of the molecule cannot follow adiabatically thefield [37]. Extrapolation of these two effects to zero density and zero ramp rates leads
to a corrected resonance position which agrrees with the spectroscopic measurements[9].
The error in the original resonance position measurement is does not influence
the interpretation of the pair condensation experiments as the condensation occurs
over a much larger field range. However, it reveals the ’fragility’ of the molecules andpairs in a narrow field range near the resonance, which can explain the shift in theminimum damping rate of axial compression mode in [23] and the decreased vortex
lattice lifetime in a narrow field range near the resonance [138].
One important question about the rapid ramp experiments was whether theyprobe the equilibrium state of the system or the pair condensates are formed during
the rapid field ramp. Although the rapid ramp time is longer than the unitarity
limited collision time, Pauli suppression was expected to enhance relaxation times by
117

0.4

850

0.2

900
950
0

5

Time [ms]10

Magnetic Field [G]Condensate Fraction

0.6

15

Figure 6-5: Formation dynamics of a fermion pair condensate. The condensate fraction of the fermion pair condensate was measured while the magnetic field was modulated at a high rate. The bottom line shows the variation of the magnetic field, andthe filled circles show the measured condensate fraction. In this figure the magnetic
field axis is inverted so that at equilibrium high values in the upper curve correspondto high values in the lower curve. The vertical dashed lines indicate the local maxima
in the condensate fraction, which lags behind the maximum in the magnetic field
curve by approximately 500 µs. The Fermi energy of the cloud is TF =2µK.

a factor equal to (T/TF )2 .
We have been able to measure the condensate formation time in a subsequent setof experiments [10]. The magnetic field was modulated at a high rate and the paircondensate fraction was measured at variable times after starting the modulation. As
it can be seen in Figure 6-5 the relaxation time was measured to be τR =500±100 µs fora Fermi energy of 2µK. This is two orders of magnitude slower than the time needed
for projection and proved that in our experiments the projection method probes theequilibrium state of the system. We have also found that molecule conversion during
the rapid ramp is more efficient for condensed pairs than for thermal pairs whichleads for an overestimate of low values of condensate fraction; fortunately this effectis negligible for the highest condensate fractions we observed.
118

The modulation of the magnetic field in these experiments required modulationof currents up to 500 A by 50 A at a rate up to 1 kHz 1 . At these high modulation
rates, the lagging behind of the magnetic field due to eddy currents induced into thesteel vacuum chamber was a concern. This delay was measured to be 85±5 µs by
probing the atoms with a Zeeman-sensitive optical transition, and the amplitude was
reduced to 95% of the dc value.
The maximum observed condensate fraction of 80% offers additional insight into
the nature of the pairs. One of the questions still to be answered is whether thesepairs are momentum-correlated Cooper-type pairs with a size much bigger than theinterparticle spacing, or spatially localized pairs with a molecular character.
In the JILA experiment, it was assumed that delocalized pairs in the open channel
would be converted into molecules by the rapid ramp. However, given the ramp
speed and the poor spatial overlap between the delocalized pair and the molecular
wavefunctions, it is unclear why a molecule would be formed from a long-range pairrather than from next-neighbor atoms. However, the maximum 15% condensate
fraction observed in the potassium experiment leaves open the possibility that the
rapid ramp has a limited conversion efficiency, producing pairs from both delocalized
pairs and next-neighbor atoms.
The highest condensate fractions observed in our experiment approach unity. A
random molecule creation from next-neighbor atoms cannot explain the large proportion of molecules with ground center-of-mass motion state, so most of the molecules
have to be created from preformed pairs, which must then have a size comparable orsmaller than the interparticle spacing.
The nature of pairs observed in the projection experiments was the subject ofsubsequent theoretical work. The model of molecules stabilized by the Fermi sea canbe more rigorously explained in terms of a pair wavefunction which is composed ofa closed channel (molecular) part and an open channel (Cooper pair) part [47]. In
1

This once again challenged our abilities to control high currents. We have achieved this by using
one of the high-current IGBT switches in an analog mode, a somewhat risky approach as the power
dissipation in the transistor is very high. It was a nice surprise to see this working without initiallydamaging the equipment.

119the field ranges in which pair condensation was observed, the pair wavefunction waspredicted to be dominantly molecular [47].
Other theoretical papers explained the nature of the pairs as either Cooper pairs[41], an intermediate type of Cooper pairs which are spatially correlated and have asize comparable to the interparticle spacing [19], or ruled out molecular pairs for 6 Li
but not for 40 K [84]. Given the recent observation of superfluidity in the crossover
region for 6 Li [138], investigations of the nature of the pair might lead to a better
understanding of the phenomenon of resonance superfluidity.

6.4

Resonant superfluidity of the strongly interacting 6Li gas

The quest to observe superfluidity in a strongly interacting Fermi gas was one of themost important goals of ultracold fermion research, and was recently concluded by
the observation of quantized vortex lattices in an interacting 6 Li gas [138]. Quantizedvortices are an unambiguous signal of superfluid flow, but before this final proof anumber of experiments incrementally strengthened the evidence for superfluidity, andare reviewed below.
The progress towards observing superfluidity was considerably accelerated by the
production of molecular BECs [52, 66, 5, 22]. A molecular BEC is not absolutely
necessary for the production of an ultracold fermionic gas in the superfluid regime;
evaporative cooling in an optical trap in the repulsive regime can produce interacting fermionic gases for which measured temperatures are comparable or below
the predicted transition temperature [97]. Nevertheless, the molecular BEC offersa convenient way for cooling and diagnosing the interacting gas. It also makes theapplication of standard BEC investigation techniques and the interpretation of theresults more intuitive.
After the observation of molecular condensation, quite a few investigation paths
have been taken by the groups studying ultracold fermions, most of them very suc-120

cessful in providing scientifically relevant data about the physics of the BEC-BCS
crossover.
A first generation of experiments investigated the variation of easily observable
experimental parameters as the as the cloud size in trap [22] and the release energyof the cloud [26] and have reveled the smooth nature of the crossover.
The pair condensation experiments [112, 6] have been the first ones to investigate
the microscopic behavior of the sample on the BCS side of the resonance and havebeen covered in the previous sections. Another microscopic approach was taken by
the Innsbruck group which observed the pairing gap in 6 Li by spectroscopic methods [32]. At magnetic fields below the resonance, both atomic and molecular signals
were observed similar to the spectrum previously observed in 40 K [110] with a separation equal to the molecular binding energy. As expected, the atomic signal was
reduced as the temperature was lowered and the molecular fraction increased. Abovethe resonance, in addition to the atomic signal a second feature was observed at
higher energies, indicating the existence of paired atoms. The shape and temperaturedependence of the pair feature agreed well with a theoretical calculations for a superfluid Fermi gas in an inhomogenous system [73], thus offering evidence for superfluid
behavior.
Another set of two experiments which offered evidence for superfluid behavior
studied collective excitations. The first one measured the frequencies and damping rates of the radial breathing mode [71]. While the frequency of the breathingmode was in excellent agreement with the prediction for an hydrodynamic gas withunitarity-limited collisions, the damping rate decreased as the temperature was lowered. The hydrodynamic behavior can occur either because of superfluidity or becauseof collisions in a normal gas. However, in a normal gas Pauli suppression is expected
to lower the collision rate, thus increasing the damping rate as the temperature islowered, so the observed damping dependence on temperature is consistent with superfluid behavior.
The other experiment investigating collective oscillations [23] showed a strong dependence of the radial mode frequency on the coupling strength, including an abrupt
121change in the mode frequency and anomalously strong damping at 910 G. While thesefeatures are not understood, it was suggested that they could be the signature of thetransition from a superfluid to a normal phase.
Yet another type of experiment involved measurement of the heat capacity of
an interacting 6 Li gas [72]. A jump in the heat capacity was observed as the gas
temperature was lowered below T = 0.27 TF , which was interpreted as the signatureof the transition to a superfluid state.
In the light of the recent observation of vortex lattices, although these intermediate experiments were not able to conclusively prove superfluidity, they generate
opportunities for future investigations regarding the validity of the new theoreticalmodels developed in conjunction with these experiments. Given the range of experimental approaches already available for studying the resonance superfluidity and thenumber of research groups which can produce ultracold interacting fermions, it is normal to expect fast progress towards understanding resonant fermionic superfluidity,
and exciting research opportunities in the near future.

122

Chapter 7
Fermion pairing in atomic physics:
future systems and geometries
For fermionic systems, the existence superfluid phase is connected to a pairing mechanism between fermions [21]. The pairing mechanism is linked the macroscopic properties of the superfluid phase, and the variety of pairing mechanisms encountered in
the nature are responsible for the existence of a range of superfluid phenomena as
metal superconductivity, high-Tc superconductivity, or the superfluidity of 3 He.
Ultracold atomic gases are a physical system which can be used to model condensed systems in the dilute limit, where system properties can be linked to firstprinciples and microscopic behavior much more easily. Also, the degree of experimental control of system properties can in principle be used to create new strongly
correlated systems, a promise which was partly fulfilled by the observation of resonance superfluidity in 6 Li.
This chapter presents a list of pairing mechanisms leading to superfluidity which
given the current development of the ultracold atoms research could be observed andinvestigated in the next years.

123

7.1

Bare s-wave pairing

The classic example of s-wave pairing is the Cooper pairing, which is responsible
for superconductivity in metals [21]. In the case of metals, it is a boson-induced
interaction. Trapped ultracold fermionic gases are a even simpler system as pairing
occurs due to a direct interaction between two different states. Bulk s-wave pairingis the simplest pairing mechanism, and in atomic physics experiments the strong
interacting unitarity-limited regime is also accessible, making this type of pairing andthe associated superfluidity most energetically favorable.
s-wave pairing and superfluidity was recently observed [112, 6, 32, 138] and was
already covered in this thesis. This confirmed the promise of ultracold atom experiments as a tool to study fermionic superfluidity, and opens the path for new studies.
Higher partial wave pairing occurs in nature if the s-wave interaction is forbidden
as in the case of p-wave pairing of superfluid 3 He [80], or in restricted geometries,
as the planar d-wave pairing in high-Tc cuprate superconductors [130]. While thesetypes of pairing might be more difficult to observe experimentally, they are extremely
relevant as an approach to understanding the behavior and properties of condensed
state superconductors and superfluids.

7.2

Spin-triplet pairing

The classic example of spin-triplet pairing is superfluid 3 He [80], and such pairingalso occurs in exotic superconductors as Sr2 RuO4 [83]. This type of superfluidity
is described by a tensorial order parameter which leads the existence of anisotropic
superfluid phases and, in the case of 3 He, to a rich phase diagram [134].
Spin-triplet pairing occurs if the spin-singlet pairing if forbidden, as it is the casein a system of polarized fermions. Due to the Pauli exclusion principle, only oddwave components can contribute to the spatial part of the pair wavefunction, and thep-wave pairing is the most energetically favorable.
The critical temperature for p-wave pairing in a single-state 6 Li gas was estimated124based on the background value of the p-wave scattering length, ap , and predicted tobe very low [61]:

Tc '

EF
π
}
exp{−
kB
2(kF |ap |)3

Analogous to the case of s-wave pairing in 6 Li spin mixtures, the recently observed
p-wave Feshbach resonances in 6 Li can be used to increase the scattering length tovalues at which the product kF |ap | is close to unity. Another proposal involves using
dc electric fields to enhance ap [136]. Thus, the transition temperature could beenhanced to experimentally reachable values.
An interesting point about spin-triplet pairing is that since it could be accessible
only in a magnetic field (close to a Feshbach resonance), it could lead to the formationof a non-unitary superfluid phase [80]. Analog to the A1 phase in 3 He, pairing of thespin triplet component with the spins aligned to the external field might occur before
the pairing of the anti-aligned triplet component.

7.3

Two-dimensional pairing

The interest in the pairing properties of 2D Fermi systems was triggered by experimental indications that the high-Tc superconductivity in cuprates originates in atomic
layers within the material [130]. In 2D Fermi gases, bound states can be formed bys-wave attractive interactions even when they are infinitesimally small [117]. S-wave
pairing in two dimensions has the peculiar property that the system has a Cooper
instability if and only if a bound state exists, and in the BCS approximation the gap
function and the chemical potential can be determined analytically [108]:

∆0 =

p
Ea
2EF Ea , µ = EF −,2

where Ea is the free-space two-particle binding energy. The BCS limit corresponds
to Ea ¿ EF , and the BEC limit to Ea À EF . The crossover between the two
regimes occurs as the chemical potential changes sign, Ea = 2EF . In the crossover125

regime, more accurate calculations predict better collisional properties than in the 3D
case, and high superfluid transition temperatures, TC ' 0.1TF [101]. The 2D p-wave
pairing is predicted to have an exponential dependence on the interaction strength,
as in the case of 3D pairing [109].
From the experimental point of view, the steps which have to be taken towards observation of 2D pairing are very similar to the ones already taken towards observationof bulk s-wave superfluidity. A first experimental goal would be the realization of a 2D
Fermi gas, then the investigation of bound state properties as a function of interaction
strength, and finally the observation of the 2D superfluid transition. In particular,
the measurements of Ea and ∆0 by RF spectroscopy should be straightforward.
Two-dimensional atom traps have been already used in our lab for the study of
23

Na Bose condensation in 1D and 2D geometries [49]. For a Fermi gas, the 2D

requirement ~ωt > EF , where ωt is the trapping frequency in the tight direction,is more restrictive than for a BEC, in the sense that for the same trap geometry
the number of fermions which can be trapped is smaller. The maximum fermion
number is given by N = ( ωωh1t )( ωωh2t ), with ωh2 and ωh2 the trapping frequencies in the
weak horizontal directions. For the elliptical focus optical trap used in our 2D Bose
experiments, the maximum fermion number would be approximately 2500, which isalready enough to perform experiments. Given the 20-fold higher laser powers we canuse now for optical trapping, it should be possible to increase N either by generating
a more elliptical focus, by fast scanning of the trapping beam in a horizontal plane,by adding magnetic field gradients, or by a combination of these.

7.4

Boson-induced pairing

Interaction between fermions can be modified by their environment through higherorder processes. One classic example is the lattice-mediated electron-electron interaction in conventional superconductors. In the case of mixtures of two spin statesof trapped fermions, it was predicted that induced interactions will weaken the bareattractive interactions, leading to a decrease in the transition temperature [54]. In ul126

tracold gas experiments, the goal is then to observe environment-induced interactions
that enhance TC . It is predicted that if the bare boson-boson interaction is repulsive
the induced fermion-fermion interaction is attractive. The boson-induced attraction
enhances the bare fermion attraction and in the case of s-wave pairing in the presenceof bosons the critical temperature is given by [131]:k B TC =γ 2 7/3π( ) EF exp(−)
π e2 tan δ0tot (kF )withtan δ0tot (kF ) ' −kF aF F (1 −a2BF (mB + mF )2)
aBB aF F
mB mF

where aBB , aBF , and aBF are the boson-boson, boson-fermion, and fermion-fermion
scattering lengths. This result assumes the same interaction between the boson andthe two fermionic atoms, aBF 1 = aBF 2 = aBF .
Since bosonic stability requires aBB > 0, the main requirement for a strong induced interaction is a large boson-fermion scattering length. The recently observed
6

Li-23 Na Feshbach resonances could be used to tune the value of aBF to enhance

the induced interactions. The boson-induced effects could be initially studied in thestrongly interacting s-wave case by simply adding sodium to a strongly interacting
lithium mixture. While not dominant, boson-induced attraction might change thesuperfluid transition temperature.
To dominate the bare s-wave interaction, boson-induced s-wave pairing requires
strong interaction of bosons with both fermionic states, and ideally requires the use of
two coupled Feshbach resonances. Assuming particular values for the not accurately
known singlet and triplet K-Rb scattering lengths, such resonances were predicted tooccur in collisions between fermionic 40 K and bosonic 87 Rb [120].
For the case of 6 Li and 23 Na, the simple model presented in Chapter 4 predicts
a few pairs of resonances separated by less than 1 G at rather impractical magnetic
fields (Table G.1). However, since these predictions are unlikely to have an accuracy
better than a few tens of Gauss, an experimental search for all interspecies resonances
below 1100 G is the best approach for finding (or not!) useful coupled resonances in127the 6 Li - 23 Na system.
Enhancement of p-wave pairing does not require coupled Feshbach resonances.
Estimates of highest possible transition temperatures in a 3D system seem too low
to be observable [46], but in a 2D system the p-wave pairing gap can be of the orderof the Fermi energy [94], similar to direct s-wave pairing in 2D.

128

Chapter 8
Conclusions
The ultracold fermion research at MIT started in the winter of 2000 with an idea for
sympathethic cooling, one empty lab, and with mainly two graduate students, Zoran
and myself. At that time, only one other lab had produced degenerate fermions(and they were not lithium atoms), and a few other ultracold fermions experiments
were developed. In our case, it was not known if the collisional properties of sodiumlithium mixtures were favorable, and we have spent a first year and a half not knowing
whether our work will lead to ultracold fermions.
One year into the project, the various parts of the experiments started to takeshape, and the progress was boosted by the addition of three new members: Martin,
Deep and Kai. With more than twice the numbers and being able to tap into their
combined atom cooling knowledge, degenerate fermions have been produced within
the next year.
Since we have been able to cool lithium, the results have not failed to appear,
and the investigation of the new fermion physics continued at an ever-increasing rate,
which is still a source of amazement to me. In the early days, even Wolfgang would
say that work with fermions advances at half the pace of BEC research so we should
not worry too much. But the cooling idea we were not sure it would work turned
out to produce larger numbers of degenerate fermions than the number of degeneratebosons achieved in the same BEC1 machine.
The next period was marked by solid progress made by the original extended129

team joined by Christian, first as a diploma student and then as a graduate student.
The interacting regime in lithium was achieved and then investigated by studies ofFeshbach resonance and then by rf spectroscopy, and these years were also defined bya continuous improvement of the machine, sometimes in radical ways as it was thecase with the new magnetic trap, and sometimes more incremental.
The fall of 2003 came with the departure of more than half of the initial team.
Only two veterans, Martin and me, were left to deal with a machine which performed
poorly over the whole summer, at a time when fermion research started to speed
up with the production of lithium molecules. But contrary to the expectations, thebest time for our experiment had just started. With Christian, Sebastian and Jamie
completing the lab, the next half year was the most productive ever, with molecularcondensation, pair condensation and interspecies resonances observed one after theother.
During the last months of my stay at MIT, helping building the second fermion
experiment was the best distraction from job hunting and thesis writing I could
dream of. Jit-Kee, Dan, Widagdo and Yingmei are now approaching completion ofthis second project with fast steps, and many exciting projects are in sight.
Looking back, it was an amazing journey from almost nothing to seeing someof most important promises of ultracold fermion research becoming reality. For thenear future, many of the most interesting experiments are already within reach: characterizing the fermionic superfluidity, putting fermions into optical lattices, making
heteronuclear molecules, studying 2D fermion pairing, and other discoveries I cannot
predict now. Given the great resources at hand in terms of equipment and knowledge,
and the excellent people which are continuing the work, it might be just the beginningof a great time.

130

Appendix A
Multiple species atom source forlaser-cooling experiments
C. A. Stan and W. Ketterle”Multiple species atom source for laser-cooling experiments,”
Rev. Sci. Instrum. 76, 063113 (2005)

131

REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS 76, 063113 共2005兲

Multiple species atom source for laser-cooling experiments
C. A. Stana兲 and W. Ketterle
Department of Physics, MIT-Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms, and Research Laboratory of Electronics,
MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

共Received 25 March 2005; accepted 26 April 2005; published online 1 June 2005兲
We describe the design of a single beam, multiple species atom source in which the flux of any
component can be separately adjusted. Using this design we have developed a 23Na– 6Li atom source
for ultracold atom experiments. The fluxes of lithium and sodium are independently tunable,
allowing operation as a single 23Na or 6Li source as well as a double source with equal atomic fluxes
in each component. © 2005 American Institute of Physics. 关DOI: 10.1063/1.1935433兴

I. INTRODUCTION

In recent years a number of frontier atomic physics experiments have used more than one atomic species. The mostprecise measurement of the electrical dipole moment of theelectron to date1 used two atoms to suppress systematic errors. Ultracold mixtures of two atomic species are used for
sympathethic cooling of fermions,2–4 for the study of atomic
Bose-Fermi mixtures,5 and of interspecies Feshbachresonances.6,7 Simultaneous laser cooling of the atomic components is used to study interspecies collisions,8,9 and to produce ultracold heteronuclear molecules,10 which might beused for quantum computation11 or the observation of exotic
many-body states.12,13
Vapor cells and atomic beams are the most common
atom sources for cold atom experiments. In a vapor cell, an
atomic trap is loaded from background gas. Higher background gas pressures result in faster loading rates, but above
optimum pressure losses due to collisions with the background gas increase as fast as the loading rate. Multispecies
vapor cells have been used to generate a slow beam of rubidium and cesium atoms.8
Loading an atomic trap from a collimated beam of atoms
is compatible with ultrahigh vacuum and avoids backgroundgas collisions. The flux of atoms slow enough to be capturedby the trap can be considerably increased compared to athermal beam by using a Zeeman slower.14 The Zeeman
slower system has higher loading rates than a vapor cell.
A multiple-species experiment can be designed withmultiple independent beam sources, but this increases its
complexity. We have developed a two-species atomic ovenfor 23Na and 6Li which works with a single Zeeman slower
to load 23Na and 6Li magneto-optical traps 共MOTs兲 simultaneously.
The article is organized as follows: In Sec. II we present
the general design and operation criteria for a multiple species oven, and in Sec. III the construction of the sodiumlithium source. We describe the operation of this source andits performance in Sec. IV, and we discuss in Sec. V theapplicability of the sodium-lithium design to other atomic
species used in laser-cooling experiments.
a兲Electronic mail: thyx@mit.edu

0034-6748/2005/76共6兲/063113/5/$22.50

II. GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA FOR A MULTIPLE
SPECIES SOURCE

Effusive ovens15 are simple and efficient atom sources.
They consist of an evacuated reservoir chamber in which thedesired species is stored in solid or liquid form, and is inequilibrium with its vapor. The vapor effuses through a small
opening toward the experiment. The flux is easily controlled
by changing the oven temperature and thus the equilibrium
vapor pressure in the reservoir.
The relation between the flux and the vapor pressure islinear as long as the vapor pressure is low enough that theflow through the oven nozzle is molecular. Equivalently, themean free path at the vapor pressure is bigger than the nozzle
size. Operation beyond the linear regime results in viscous or
supersonic flows, characterized by higher total atom fluxes
and by a depletion of the low velocity tail of the Maxwell
distribution. Zeeman slowing usually captures the lowvelocity tail and therefore requires operation of the oven in
the linear regime.
If multiple atomic or molecular species must be present
in the beam, loading a single reservoir with more than one
pure substance is in general not appropriate. The vapor pressures at the same temperature are likely to be different. The
ratio of fluxes is then fixed at approximately the ratio of thevapor pressures, which has a weak dependence on temperature. In the case of our experiment, sodium has a vapor pressure three orders of magnitude higher than lithium at thesame temperature, meaning that at optimum sodium flux thelithium flux is too low, and at the optimum lithium flux thesodium consumption rate is impractical.
A solution to this problem is the use of multiple reservoirs, each holding a pure component, connected to a mixing
chamber 共Fig. 1兲. The design requirements for all reservoirs
is that they should deliver their component to the mixing
chamber at an adjustable rate. In steady state, the mixing
chamber should not absorb the components. Then, the flux of
one species through the oven nozzle equals the flux throughthe mixing nozzle, and can be tuned by changing the temperature of the reservoir.
For simplicity we will assume that the pressures in thereservoirs are much bigger than the pressure in the mixing
chamber, which in its turn is much bigger than the pressure

76, 063113-1© 2005 American Institute of Physics

063113-2

Rev. Sci. Instrum. 76, 063113 共2005兲

C. A. Stan and W. Ketterle

FIG. 1. Design of a multiple species oven. Reservoirs containing pure components are connected to a mixing chamber through mixing nozzles. The
mixing chamber is connected to the experiment through the oven nozzle.
Pi,R are the saturated vapor pressures at the reservoir temperatures Ti. In the
mixing chamber a gaseous mixture at temperature TM is formed, with partialpressures Pi,M . PE is the pressure in the experiment chamber. Nozzle
vacuum conductances are shown in italics. For proper operation, Pi,R
Ⰷ Pi,M Ⰷ PE.

outside the oven. Such pressure ratios are also the best
choice for oven operation, as it will be seen below.
The throughput of the ith component, Qi,R, from the ith
reservoir to the mixing chamber is given by
Qi,R = Ci共Pi,R − Pi,M 兲 ⯝ Ci Pi,R ,where Ci is the conductance of the ith mixing nozzle, Pi,R thevapor pressure in the ith reservoir, and Pi,M the partial pressure in the mixing chamber. Assuming that the reservoirs are
not contaminated with different species, and that Pi,M issmaller than the saturated vapor pressure in the mixing
chamber, the throughput of the component from the oven to
the experiment is given by
Qi,T = C0 Pi,M = Qi,R − Pi,M

Cj ,
兺
j⫽i

where C0 is the vacuum conductance of the oven nozzle andPi,M is the partial pressure of component i in the mixing
chamber. The second term in the sum denotes the loss ofcomponent i by backflow into other reservoirs. It can bemade negligible if all the mixing nozzle conductances C j aremuch smaller than C0.
In steady state operation, assuming that all mixing
nozzles have conductances much smaller than the ovennozzle,Qi,T = Qi,R = Ci Pi,R
and the flux of component i from the oven can be tuned byheating the reservoir in the same way as for a simple effusiveoven.
Backflow of other species from the mixing chamber into
the reservoir is not desirable, for two reasons. First, theseother species will be lost into the reservoir rather than making the effusive beam. Second, different species could reactwith or dissolve into the pure substance loaded in the reservoir, reducing its vapor pressure.16
Reducing the backflow to negligible levels and evencomplete suppression can be achieved by a proper design of

FIG. 2. Exploded cross-section view, to scale, of the 23Na– 6Li source. Theoven is built from 2.75 in. ConFlat fittings, made from 316 SS. Alkali
receptacles are capped half nipples, and the nozzles are machined fromdouble-sided blanks. The 2 mm diameter mixing nozzle is angled to achievea length of 32 mm, and the thin oven nozzle has a diameter of 4 mm. A
copper plate with a 7.5 mm hole, shown at the right edge of the figure, acts
as a collimation aperture. Black rectangles represent the six resistive bandheaters used for temperature adjustment. The shown temperatures of thealkali receptacles and of the mixing chamber are typical for double species
operation.

the mixing nozzles. Backflow occurs through diffusion
against the constant stream of atoms or molecules comingfrom the reservoir. If this stream is sufficiently fast it willblow away diffusing components before they could reach thereservoir.
We have estimated the parameters of the mixing nozzle
by requiring that in the nozzle the diffusion speed of component j into component i is smaller than the macroscopic
speed of the stream. For a nozzle made of a long cylindricaltube, the approximate condition for suppression is␭ j,Pi,R ⬍ d,where ␭ j,Pi,R is the mean free path of species j in the gas of iat reservoir i pressure Pi,R, and d is the nozzle diameter. An
equivalent statement is that the flow in the mixing nozzle
should be viscous or at least in the intermediate regime.
Chemical reactions and solution formation is also a concern for the mixing chamber, but negative effects can bediminished by raising the temperature of the chamber. As
long as the partial pressures of different components are below their saturated vapor pressure, condensation will not occur, and the rate of chemical reactions will be significantly
decreased. The guidelines for temperature settings are completed by the condition that the nozzles should have the highest temperatures in the oven to avoid clogging.
III. SODIUM-LITHIUM ATOM SOURCE

A schematic of our 23Na– 6Li oven is given in Fig. 2. Theoven follows the basic design principles described above, but
its construction was simplified by putting the lithium in the
mixing chamber rather than in its own reservoir. This modification was necessary to keep the maximum oven temperature at the specified operation limit of ConFlat knife-edge
vacuum flanges, 450 °C. The vapor pressure required forproper operation of a lithium reservoir must be tens times
bigger than the vapor pressure in the mixing chamber, andcan be achieved only at higher temperatures. Building theoven from ConFlat parts makes it compatible with the rest of
our vacuum chamber, and allows easy assembly and disassembly during alkali reloading.

063113-3

Rev. Sci. Instrum. 76, 063113 共2005兲

Multiple species atom source

Since the lithium is placed in the mixing chamber,chemical reaction and alloy formation are possible. The binary phase diagram of sodium and lithium17 exhibits immiscibility regions. Above lithium’s melting temperature of
180.6 °C, the mixture is liquid at all concentrations, but it
can phase separate into sodium-rich and lithium-rich liquids.
Above the critical temperature 303.2 °C, the sodium and thelithium are fully miscible.
A small amount of sodium always dissolves into thelithium during two species operation. Above the critical temperature there is only one liquid phase, a solution of sodiumin lithium. The concentration of sodium can be estimated byassuming that the solution is ideal and thus obeys Raoult’s
law. Raoult’s law states that the vapor pressure of the soluteis smaller than the saturated vapor pressure by the atomic
concentration of the solute in the solvent. The vapor pressureof sodium is three orders of magnitude higher than lithium’sat the same temperature. In an alloy above which both elements have equal partial vapor pressures, the atomic concentration of sodium is then only 0.1%. The sodium-lithium
mixture exhibits a tendency toward phase separation. Therefore a positive deviation from Raoult’s law is expected,18 andthe real sodium concentration is smaller than our estimate.
Since the sodium concentration is small, lithium vapor pressure is not decreased significantly by the presence of sodium.
The sodium-lithium oven is built from 2.75 in. ConFlat
fittings. The presence of lithium, which reacts with metals
more aggressively than other alkali, and the relatively highoperating temperatures required the use of nonstandard materials for the fittings and the gaskets. Copper gaskets are thestandard choice, but when heated to 400–450 °C they canbond to the knife edges, making disassembly difficult. Annealed nickel gaskets were chosen for their high temperature
performance and for their good compatibility with molten
alkali metals.
Nickel gaskets, even when fully annealed, are harderthan copper gaskets, and their properties vary among manufacturers and different batches. As a result, reliable sealing
and resealing was difficult when we used standard ConFlat
fittings made from type 304 stainless steel. The knife edge
dulls after only a few reseals, probably because of annealingof type 304 when it is cycled from room temperature to
400–450 °C.
We have overcome this problem by using slightly modified fittings made from type 316 stainless steel. A chromiumnickel steel, type 316’s composition differs from type 304’s
by the addition of 2%–3% molybdenum. It is offered as amaterial option by vacuum manufacturers for its better hightemperature strength. We have found that type 316 fittings
were indeed superior to standard type 304 fittings between
400 and 450 °C and could be resealed multiple times.
The fittings were modified by removing a 0.127 mm
layer of material from the flange faces. By doing this the
knife edge recession is reduced and the knife edge can cut
deeper into the nickel gaskets, which we often found to bethinner than industry specifications. The modified fittings
were manufactured by A&N Corporation 共Williston, FL兲.19
The oven nozzle has a diameter of 4 mm, equal to thenarrowest collimating aperture, a differential pumping tube.

The mixing nozzle is a 2 mm diameter, 32 mm long tube
angled with respect to the axis of the machine. Both nozzles
were machined in double-sided ConFlat blanks.
For heating, band heaters are placed around flanges andaround alkali receptacles. We have used custom Mi-Plus
heaters manufactured by TEMPCO 共Wood Dale, IL兲.20 They
can be operated at temperatures up to 760 °C, and have incorporated K-type thermocouples, ensuring reproducible
temperature readout. The heater powers are 100 W for thealkali receptacles, 150 W for the receptacle flanges, and
300 W for the nozzle flanges.
The heaters are controlled by commercial temperature
controllers. The oven is thermally insulated by wrapping firstceramic fiber tape to form a 1 cm thick layer of insulation.
Two or three layers of household use aluminum foil arewrapped on top of this layer. Temperature stability is approximately 0.1 °C.
The oven is connected to a section of our apparatus inwhich the pressure is 1 ⫻ 10−8 Torr. In this section the beam
is collimated to 5 ⫻ 10−5 sr divergence by a differential
pumping tube with an inner diameter of 4 mm.
IV. OPERATION AND PERFORMANCEThe oven is loaded with 25 g of 23Na and 10 g of isotopically enriched 6Li 共95% purity兲. Sodium is commerciallyavailable in sealed glass ampoules which we break just before loading. Enriched 6Li is available as chunks under mineral oil, and has to be cleaned prior to loading. We had the6
Li cleaned and repackaged into sealed glass ampoules by amaterials preparation laboratory.21
The target alkali temperatures are achieved by setting thereceptacle heaters to these temperatures, 360 °C for sodium
and 380 °C for lithium. The heaters around the flanges of thereceptacles are set to 20 °C above the alkali temperature fora smooth thermal gradient from the alkali receptacles to thenozzles. Nozzle heaters are both set to 450 °C. The nozzles
are the hottest areas in the oven to prevent their clogging.
When the experiment is not running, nozzle heaters are kept
on while the other heaters are turned off. From this idle state,
it takes less than 10 min to heat the oven to its operating
temperatures.
The mixing nozzle operates in the viscous flow regime.
Its conductance, 0.08 L / s, is difficult to calculate in this regime, and was measured from the sodium consumption rate.
At 450 °C the calculated molecular flow conductance of theoven nozzle is 2.6 L / s for sodium and 5 L / s for lithium.
This results in a ratio of sodium pressures in the reservoir
and the mixing chamber of approximately 30. The partialpressures in the mixing chamber are 4 ⫻ 10−3 Torr for sodium and 4 ⫻ 10−5 Torr for lithium.
Alkali-alkali collision cross sections at room temperatureare quite large, making the mean free paths in alkali vapor
considerably shorter than those encountered in normal
vacuum practice. We have estimated the cross sections using
the Massey-Mohr formula22

␴ = 5 ⫻ 1011共C6/␷兲2/5 ,where ␴ is the collision cross-section in cm2, C6 the van der
Waals coefficient in erg cm6, and ␷ the speed in cm/ s. For

063113-4

Rev. Sci. Instrum. 76, 063113 共2005兲

C. A. Stan and W. Ketterle

sodium we have used the experimental value of C6 given in
Ref. 23 and for lithium the theoretical calculation given in
Ref. 24.
The estimated mean free path of lithium in the sodium
reservoir is 0.1 mm, satisfying the condition for backflow
suppression given in the previous section. The estimatedmean free paths for sodium and lithium in the mixing chamber are 1.7 and 2.8 mm, slightly lower than required formolecular flow through the 4 mm oven nozzle. In this regime
the oven nozzle conductance, calculated using conductance
tables given in Ref. 16, is not significantly changed from its
molecular flow value.
Total sodium atom flux, measured from the sodium consumption rate, is 1.6⫻ 1017 s−1. A lithium flux of 3
⫻ 1015 s−1 was estimated from the vapor pressure. The fluxes
in the collimated beam are approximately 104 times lower.
The limits on flux tuning are given by different factors for
sodium and lithium. For sodium, the minimum operating
temperature is approximately 200 °C, the equilibrium temperature with only the nozzle heaters on. The upper limit
360 °C is given by the requirement that the flow through theoven nozzle is molecular. For lithium the upper limit 435 °C
is given by the requirement that the nozzles are the hottest
part of the oven. We have decided not to operate the lithium
reservoir below the critical temperature 303.2 °C to avoid apossibly complicated dependence between reservoir temperature and atom flux. The atomic fluxes can be varied overthree orders of magnitude, between 1.3⫻ 1014 and 1.6⫻ 1017 s−1 for sodium, and from 5 ⫻ 1013 to 3 ⫻ 1016 s−1 forlithium.
The Zeeman slower originally designed for sodium was
modified for double operation by overlapping lithium laser
slowing light with the sodium slowing light. With this double
atom source we can load sodium, lithium, or overlapping
double species MOTs. The lithium MOT traps 3 ⫻ 108 atoms
and loads in approximately 4 s. The sodium MOT traps 1010
atoms and loads in approximately 2 s. The atom numbers
given are accurate within a factor of 2. For the double species MOT, the number of lithium atoms is reduced to approximately half, as measured from the drop in MOT fluorescence intensity. The number of sodium atoms is notchanged.
The double species MOT provides an excellent starting
point for further cooling the mixture into quantum degeneracy. Bose-Einstein condensates of 23Na with 2 ⫻ 107 atoms
and degenerate 6Li Fermi gases with 5 ⫻ 107 atoms are routinely produced.25
With a full 25 g sodium load, the oven operates continuously for 1200–1300 h. We have estimated that the 10 glithium load should last for 10 000 hours at the maximum
flux. Sodium changes are performed twice a year. We do notfind any lithium deposits in the sodium reservoir, which
proves that the mixing nozzle design suppresses lithium
backflow. The low conductance mixing nozzle allows cleanventing with high purity argon during the changes, and baking is not needed. The experiment can be run again within
hours of sodium reloading.
Most of the effused sodium deposits on the collector
plate and on the walls of the 4.5 in. ConFlat six-way cross towhich the oven is attached. Sodium needs to be cleaned
every 2–3 years. The deposition occurs in readily accessible
areas and the cleaning procedure takes at most a few days.
V. DISCUSSION

Efficient loading of a multiple-species MOT using a
multiple species oven requires the use of a Zeeman slowing
scheme which operates for all species. While laser beams
with different frequencies can be easily overlapped, the solenoid coil which generates the spatially varying magnetic
field is the same for all species.
It is possible to design a solenoid which will operate formore than one alkali atom. The most important parameter forthe design of a Zeeman slower is the maximum accelerationof an atom interacting with a resonant laser beam:amax =

␲ប⌫,m␭

where ⌫ and ␭ are the linewidth and the wavelength of theresonant light, and m is the mass of the atom. In the case ofalkali atoms, it is the atom mass which varies most from
species to species. The maximum acceleration decreases
from lithium to cesium.
The construction of the slowing coil defines the maximum speed of the atoms which can be slowed 共the capture
velocity兲, and the acceleration of the slowed atoms. This acceleration must be smaller than amax. Since amax decreases
with mass, a coil designed for a given alkali will work also
for lighter species. However, at the same capture velocity
and same temperature a smaller part of the MaxwellBoltzmann distribution can be slowed for the lighter atom. In
our experiment, the performance of sodium-designed coils at
slowing lithium was satisfactory.
The use of a single beam, multiple atom source can significantly simplify the design of a multiple species lasercooling experiment. The general design criteria given in Sec.
II is applicable for any mixture of pure substances as long as
chemical reactions do not occur between the components.
The trichamber thallium-sodium oven described in Ref. 1,
developed independently from ours, uses the same principle
as our sodium-lithium source.
The ConFlat construction we adopted for our sodiumlithium oven does not require complicated machining andcan be applied to many of the atomic isotopes used in lasercooling experiments. The main limitation of the ConFlat design using 316 SS parts and nickel gaskets is its maximum
operating temperature. Multiple reassembly can be easily
achieved at temperatures up to 400 °C. We have been able toreassemble a flange heated to 500 °C and we have learned
that the seals are reliable to at least 650 °C, although theymight not be resealable.
Given the typical atomic fluxes needed in laser-coolingexperiments, partial pressures in the mixing chamber should
be around 1 ⫻ 10−3 Torr. Alkali isotopes of K, Rb, and Cs all
have vapor pressures higher than sodium. Ca, Sr, and Yb
isotopes which have been laser-cooled to high phase spacedensities26–28 have vapor pressures comparable with lithium.
The design described here should work for all these species.

063113-5

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by the NSF, ONR, USARO,
and NASA. We thank Michele Saba and Zoran Hadzibabic
for a critical reading of the manuscript.
1Rev. Sci. Instrum. 76, 063113 共2005兲

Multiple species atom source

B. C. Regan, E. D. Commins, C. J. Schmidt, and D. DeMille, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 88, 071805 共2002兲.
2
Z. Hadzibabic, C. A. Stan, K. Dieckmann, S. Gupta, M. W. Zwierlein, A.
Görlitz, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 160401 共2002兲.
3
A. G. Truscott, K. E. Strecker, W. I. McAlexander, G. B. Partridge, and R.
G. Hulet, Science 291, 2570 共2001兲.
4
F. Schreck, L. Khaykovich, K. L. Corwin, G. Ferrari, T. Bourdel, J. Cubizolles, and C. Salomon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 080403 共2001兲.
5
G. Modugno, G. Roati, F. Riboli, F. Ferlaino, R. J. Brecha, and M. Inguscio, Science 297, 2240 共2002兲.
6
C. A. Stan, M. W. Zwierlein, C. H. Schunck, S. M. F. Raupach, and W.
Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 143001 共2004兲.
7
S. Inouye, J. Goldwin, M. L. Olsen, C. Ticknor, J. L. Bohn, and D. S. Jin,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 183201 共2004兲.
8
N. Lundblad, D. C. Aveline, R. J. Thompson, J. M. Kohel, J. RamirezSerrano, W. K. Klipstein, D. G. Enzer, N. Yu, and N. Maleki, J. Opt. Soc.
Am. B 21, 3 共2004兲.
9
M. S. Santos, P. Nussenzveig, L. G. Marcassa, K. Helmerson, J. Flemming, S. C. Zilio, and V. S. Bagnato, Phys. Rev. A 52, R4340 共1996兲.
10
J. P. Shaffer, W. Chalupczak, and N. P. Bigelow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1124
共1999兲.
11
D. DeMille, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 067901 共2002兲.

12

K. Góral, L. Santos, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 170406
共2002兲.
13
M. A. Baranov, M. S. Mar’enko, V. S. Rychkov, and G. V. Shlyapnikov,
Phys. Rev. A 66, 013606 共2002兲.
14
W. D. Phillips and H. Metcalf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 596 共1982兲.
15
K. J. Ross and B. Sonntag, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 66, 4409 共1995兲.
16
S. Dushman, Scientific Foundations of Vacuum Technique 共Wiley, New
York, 1962兲, pp. 104–111, 710–722.
17
T. B. Massalski, H. Okamoto, P. R. Subramanian, and L. Kacprzak, Binary
Alloy Phase Diagrams 共ASM International, Materials Park, OH, 1990兲,pp. 2448–2450.
18
H.-G. Lee, Chemical Thermodynamics for Metals and Materials 共Imperial
College Press, London, 1999兲, pp. 83–86.
19
A&N Corporation, Williston, FL.
20
TEMPCO Electric Heater Corporation, Wood Dale, IL.
21
Materials Preparation Center, Ames Laboratory, Ames, IA.
22
H. S. W. Massey and C. B. O. Mohr, Proc. R. Soc. London A144, 188
共1934兲.
23
U. Buck and H. Pauly, Z. Phys. 185, 155 共1965兲.
24
P. R. Fontana, Phys. Rev. 123, 1865 共1961兲.
25
Z. Hadzibabic, S. Gupta, C. A. Stan, C. H. Schunck, M. W. Zwierlein, K.
Dieckmann, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 160401 共2003兲.
26
T. Binnewies, G. G. Wilpers, U. Sterr, F. Riehle, and J. Helmcke, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 87, 123002 共2001兲.
27
H. Katori, T. Ido, Y. Isoya, and M. Kuwata-Gonokami, Phys. Rev. Lett.
82, 1116 共1999兲.
28
Y. Takasu, K. Maki, K. Komori, T. Takano, K. Honda, M. Kumakura, T.
Yabuzaki, and Y. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 040404 共2003兲.

Appendix B
Two-Species Mixture of Quantum
Degenerate Bose and Fermi Gases
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).

137

VOLUME 88, NUMBER 16

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

22 APRIL 2002

Two-Species Mixture of Quantum Degenerate Bose and Fermi Gases
Z. Hadzibabic, C. A. Stan, K. Dieckmann, S. Gupta, M. W. Zwierlein, A. Görlitz,* and W. Ketterle
Department of Physics, MIT-Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms, and Research Laboratory of Electronics,
MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139(Received 26 December 2001; published 4 April 2002)
We have produced a macroscopic quantum system in which a 6 Li Fermi sea coexists with a large andstable 23 Na Bose-Einstein condensate. This was accomplished using interspecies sympathetic coolingof fermionic 6 Li in a thermal bath of bosonic 23 Na. The system features rapid thermalization and long
lifetimes.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.160401

PACS numbers: 05.30.Fk, 32.80.Pj, 39.10. +j, 67.60. –gExperimental methods of laser and evaporative cooling,used in the production of atomic Bose-Einstein condensates (BEC) [1], have recently been extended to realize
quantum degeneracy in trapped Fermi gases [2–5]. Whatmakes gaseous fermionic systems particularly appealing toinvestigate is the relative ease with which their properties
can be varied. This allows the exploration of a vast rangeof experimental regimes, from noninteracting to strongly
correlated. In the first case, purely quantum statistical effects can be studied, such as the implications of Pauli exclusion on scattering properties of the system. In the otherextreme, exciting new regimes of BCS-like fermionic superfluidity may be within reach [6 –9]. An additional areaof interest is the production of a dilute quantum degenerate mixture of Bose and Fermi gases, akin to the stronglyinteracting 4 He-3 He liquid. This would extend the list of
possible experimental studies even further, to include effects such as interaction-driven phase separation [10] or
BEC-induced interactions between fermions.
In this Letter, we report the production of a new
macroscopic quantum system, in which a degenerate 6 Li
Fermi gas coexists with a large and stable 23 Na BEC. We
have achieved high numbers of both fermions 共.105 兲 andbosons 共.106 兲, and 6 Li quantum degeneracy characterized
by a temperature of one-half the Fermi temperature 共TF 兲.
This provides us with the starting point for studies ofthe degenerate 6 Li Fermi gas, which is regarded as aparticularly promising candidate for the BCS transition[6,7]. Further, favorable collisional properties makethe 6 Li-23 Na system very promising for studies of thedegenerate Bose-Fermi mixtures, including the limitations
to the cooling process [11,12]. It is also worth noting
that, in our experiment, a mixture of two different atomic
species has been simultaneously brought into quantum
degeneracy for the first time.
Our experimental approach is based on sympathetic
cooling of fermions in a large bosonic “refrigerator.” In
contrast to the bosonic case, two-body elastic collisions
are absent in a single-component Fermi gas at ultralow
temperatures due to the Pauli exclusion principle. This
lack of thermalization precludes direct implementationof forced evaporative cooling. Therefore, cooling offermions into the quantum degenerate regime must rely
on collisions between distinguishable atoms. In two
experiments which produced degenerate Fermi gases,
mixtures of two fermionic spin states were simultaneously
evaporated and mutually cooled [2,5]. Two groups havealso demonstrated sympathetic cooling of 6 Li by the 7 Libosonic isotope, thus also producing the first quantum
degenerate Bose-Fermi mixtures. However, this system
has a limitation that, in the upper hyperfine state, the 7 Li
condensate is unstable [3], while scattering properties
in the lower hyperfine state make sympathetic coolinginefficient, and limit the size of both 6 Li and 7 Li samples[4]. We have overcome both of these limitations by usinga large 23 Na cloud, instead of 7 Li, for sympathetic coolingof 6 Li. Our work provides the natural progression in the
search for an ideal Bose-Fermi system, where a “good”
Bose-Einstein condensate is chosen, and then combinedwith a favorable fermionic species. Similar two-species
experiments are currently being pursued by three othergroups [13 –15]. Given the vast variety of collisional
properties among alkali gases, and a limited choice offavorable Bose-Fermi combinations, the properties of the6
Li-23 Na mixture are truly fortuitous. In our experiment,
we have observed rapid interspecies thermalization,
while low rates for both intra- and interspecies inelastic
collisions result in a lifetime longer than 10 s. Both thepresence of sufficient “good” (elastic) collisions needed
for interspecies thermalization and the slow rate of “bad”(inelastic) collisions could not be taken for granted before
our studies.
For this experiment, we have upgraded our 23 Na BEC
apparatus [16] to allow for both lithium and sodium operation, while making minimal modifications to the original
setup. The additional laser light needed for optical coolingof 6 Li was generated by a low power, diode laser system[17]. The lithium (671 nm) and sodium (589 nm) laser
beams were overlapped using dichroic beam-splitters, andthe spatial arrangement of the laser and atomic beams used
to trap, cool, and detect lithium was identical to the original
sodium setup. Specifically, a two-species magneto-opticaltrap (MOT) was loaded from a single two-species atomic
beam, slowed in the same Zeeman slower previously used

160401-1© 2002 The American Physical Society

0031-9007兾02兾 88(16)兾160401(4)$20.00

160401-1

VOLUME 88, NUMBER 16

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

in sodium-only experiments. The fact that the maximum
spontaneous light force deceleration is twice as large for6
Li as for 23 Na allowed us to slow lithium atoms withoutcompromising the slowing efficiency for sodium.
To implement our experimental strategy, we have developed a two-species oven in which the vapors of 6 Li and23
Na were mixed, and a single atomic beam containing
both species was produced (Fig. 1). The main difficulty indesigning such an oven is that, at the same temperature, thevapor pressure of lithium is 3 orders of magnitude lower
than that of sodium. To achieve comparable atomic fluxesof both species, the alkali vapors must be produced in separate chambers, and then delivered to a mixing chamber,at controllable rates. In our design, the lithium chamber
was also used for mixing. To operate the oven in either
single- or two-species mode, we tuned the atomic fluxes
independently by changing the temperatures of the alkali
reservoirs. The maximum atom fluxes into the solid angle
subtended by the MOT region were 3 3 1011 s21 for 6 Li
and 2 3 1012 s21 for 23 Na.
Under typical operating conditions, 5 s of loading resulted in single-species MOTs with 2 3 107 lithium atoms
or 6 3 109 sodium atoms. When both MOTs were operated simultaneously, interspecies light-assisted collisions reduced the number of lithium atoms by a factor of about
4, while the sodium atom number was not noticeably
affected. The number of 6 Li atoms in the MOT was
maximized when the trapping and the repumping lightfrequencies were tuned 25 MHz below the corresponding
resonances. The resulting temperature of the lithium atoms
was ⬃700 mK.
Since the 23 Na BEC is produced in the jF, mF 典 苷
j1, 21典 lower hyperfine ground state, to avoid inelastic
spin-exchange collisions, it is preferred to magneticallytrap 6 Li in the corresponding j1兾2, 21兾2典 state. (Here, F isthe total angular momentum, and mF is its projection along
the quantization axis.) However, the maximum magnetic
trap depth in the j1兾2, 21兾2典 state is only 330 mK (see22 APRIL 2002

Fig. 2), considerably lower than our MOT temperature.
Further, due to the inefficiency of sub-Doppler coolingmechanisms, it is not possible to optically cool lithium
to temperatures which would make magnetic trapping inthis state efficient [17]. Therefore, to avoid drastic losses
due to the limited trap depth, lithium atoms were optically
pumped and then magnetically trapped in the F 苷 3兾2
manifold. Before loading the magnetic trap, 4 ms wereallowed for the sub-Doppler polarization gradient coolingof sodium, during which the lithium cloud was in free
expansion. This reduced the transfer efficiency of lithium
atoms into the trap by a factor of 2, limiting it to about
12%. We have thus magnetically trapped ⬃6 3 105 6 Li
atoms in the upper hyperfine state and ⬃2 3 109 23 Na
atoms in the lower one. At low energies, our cloverleaf
magnetic trap is harmonic and axially symmetric. In
the lower hyperfine states, the trapping frequencies forlithium (sodium) are vz 苷 2p 3 26 共16兲 Hz axially andvr 苷 2p 3 354 共221兲 Hz radially.
Once the atoms were loaded into the magnetic trap,
we started the forced evaporative cooling of sodium [1].
A varying microwave field near 1.77 GHz was used togradually lower the trap depth for 23 Na, selectivelytransferring the most energetic atoms into the untrapped
j2, 22典 state. This microwave field does not affect the 6 Li
atoms, which were therefore not evaporated. Cooling of
the lithium sample was instead achieved through thermal
contact with sodium. We observed efficient sympathetic
cooling of 6 Li in the upper hyperfine state by 23 Na in thelower one, and have successfully cooled this Bose-Fermi
mixture into simultaneous quantum degeneracy. This observation indicates a surprisingly favorable ratio between

Hyperfine transfer|3/2, 3/2>

Loading|3/2, 1/2>
|3/2, -1/2>

Transfer Nozzle
450 ºCEnd of cooling 228 MHz

Main Nozzle
450 ºC|3/2,-3/2>

Trapping limit, 27 G
Zeeman slower|1/2, -1/2>

Trap bottom, 1 G
0|1/2, 1/2>
40

80

B field [G]6

Na reservoir
200 ºC - 400 ºC

Li reservoir
280 ºC - 400 ºC

FIG. 1. Two-species oven. 6 Li and 23 Na vapors were produced
in separate chambers to allow for independent control of theatom fluxes. The two species were mixed in the lithium chamber.
The transfer nozzle has a conductance 40 times lower than themain nozzle, and limits the undesirable diffusion of lithium into
the sodium chamber.

160401-2

FIG. 2. Li in the magnetic trap. Ground state energy levels:
The six hyperfine states are labeled in the low magnetic field,
jF, mF 典 basis. The j1兾2, 21兾2典 state becomes strong field seeking for fields above 27 G, limiting the trap depth to 330 mK.
Cooling path: Atoms in the j3兾2, 1兾2典 upper hyperfine state
were loaded into the magnetic trap at a temperature of 700 mK.
After the initial cooling stage to 50 mK, the atoms were transferred to the j1兾2, 21兾2典 state, and further cooled to a final
temperature of 330 nK.

160401-2

VOLUME 88, NUMBER 16

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

the good and bad interspecies collisions in this mixture.
The losses due to inelastic spin-exchange collisions took
place only on a time scale of several seconds, comparable
to the total evaporation time of 15 s.
In order to produce a collisionally stable Bose-Fermi
mixture, it is necessary to transfer the lithium atoms to thelower hyperfine state. To minimize the initial losses due
to spin-exchange collisions, this transfer should take place
as early in the cooling process as possible. On the other
hand, before lithium atoms can be efficiently trapped in
the lower hyperfine state, they must be cooled significantly
below 330 mK. Therefore, we implemented sympathetic
cooling in two stages (see Fig. 2). We optimized the initial evaporation stage to reach a temperature of ⬃50 mK
in 5 s, while losing less than half of the lithium atoms, andmaintaining the conditions for efficient sodium evaporation. At this point, we found that a substantial fraction oflithium atoms was in the j3兾2, 1兾2典 state. They could thus
be transferred to the j1兾2, 21兾2典 state on a single-photon
rf transition at 228 MHz, which is, to first order, independent of the magnetic field. This simplification over asimilar hyperfine transfer previously employed in [4] was
not expected. After the rf pulse was applied, the remainingF 苷 3兾2 atoms were optically pumped into untrapped hyperfine states, and expelled from the trap. If this “cleanup”
light pulse was omitted, spin-exchange collisions between
lithium atoms in different hyperfine states led to a rapid
loss of atoms from the trap [18]. The overall efficiencyof our hyperfine transfer was ⬃50%. The evaporation wasthen resumed for another 10 s. We observed efficient sympathetic cooling of the j1兾2, 21兾2典 atoms, and cooled bothgases into quantum degeneracy without observable losses
in the lithium atom number.
Figure 3(a) displays the effect of sympathetic coolingon the 6 Li cloud. Absorption images of the trapped 6 Li
gas were taken after the 23 Na evaporation was terminatedat different trap depths, and the sample was allowed toequilibrate for 1 s. Cooling (from top to bottom) is seenin the shrinking of the density distribution and an increasein the peak optical density. In contrast to standard evaporative cooling, and the mutual cooling between two Fermi
species, the total number of atoms remains constant.
Quantitative analysis of the 6 Li clouds is depicted inFig. 3(b). We performed two-dimensional fits to therecorded column densities using both a simple Gaussianmodel and a semiclassical (Thomas-Fermi) distribution fortrapped noninteracting fermions. In the latter approach,the probability that an atom has position r៬ and momentump៬ is obtained from the Fermi-Dirac distribution for the
total (kinetic and potential) energy of the particle. The
fitting function for the spatial distribution of atoms in thetrap is then obtained by integrating over the momentum
degrees of freedom. While the Gaussian model gives a
valid description of the gas only in the classical, hightemperature limit, the Thomas-Fermi approach is valid
at all temperatures, as long as the number of particles in
160401-3

22 APRIL 2002a)b)

Optical Density
0

1.5

2 TF

1 TF

0.5 T F
-500

DF
0

500

Axial distance [µm]FIG. 3. Onset of Fermi degeneracy. Three pairs of images (topto bottom) correspond to T兾TF 苷 2, 1, and 0.5. (a) Column
densities of the 6 Li cloud were recorded by absorption imaging.
(b) Axial line density profiles and the Thomas-Fermi fits to thedata are plotted. The arrow indicates the size of the Fermi
diameter, DF .

the system is large [19]. Indeed, at higher temperatures,the two fits performed equally well, and yielded the same
temperature. However, at a temperature of about 400 nK,
the classical fits started to fail. This was indicated by the
relative growth of the reduced x 2 values, by up to 20%
above the corresponding values for the fermionic fits.
For the coldest samples, Gaussian fits also overestimatedthe temperature by ⬃15%. From the fitted number ofatoms in the system (NLi ⬃ 1.4 3 105 , TF 艐 670 nK),
we found that the noticeable inadequacy of the classicalfits occurred at ⬃0.6 TF , which is a clear signature of
the Fermi degeneracy. Figure 3(b) shows projected line
densities along the axial direction of the 6 Li cloud and theThomas-Fermi fits to the data. Theparrow indicates thesize of the Fermi diameter, DF 苷 2 2kB TF 兾共mvz2 兲, forthe fitted atom number. The spatial extent of the coldest
cloud 共T 艐 330 nK 艐 0.5 TF 兲 is already comparable
to the minimum size the system would assume at zerotemperature. Typical densities of the coldest lithium
samples were ⬃1012 cm23 .
In Fig. 4, the temperature of the 6 Li cloud is plotted asa function of the final 23 Na trap depth. The coldest lithium
samples were produced in coexistence with almost puresodium condensates with ⬃2 3 106 atoms. The lifetimeof this degenerate mixture was limited to about 10 s by thethree-body decay of the BEC, while the lithium cloud had
a lifetime longer than 100 s. The lifetime of either species
was not detectably affected by the presence of the otherone. Even after sodium was lost from the trap, the energyof the lithium cloud did not increase noticeably 共,5 nK兾s兲during its slow decay. We also compared the 6 Li temperatures with the temperatures of the 23 Na cloud, extracted
from the thermal wings of the bosonic density distribution.
In hotter samples, the two agreed to within 10%. However,for the coldest samples we observed a discrepancy between
the two temperatures. The lowest measurable temperature
160401-3

VOLUME 88, NUMBER 16

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

tion to a fermionic superfluid state, for which 6 Li is a very
promising candidate.
We thank Florian Schreck for useful discussions andChristian Schunck for experimental assistance. This research was supported by NSF, ONR, ARO, NASA, and theDavid and Lucile Packard Foundation. M. W. Z. acknowledges the support of the Studienstiftung des deutschen
Volkes and the Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris.

1.5

Lithium Temperature [ µK]

22 APRIL 2002

1.0

2

0.5

1

T/TF
0
0

5

10

15

0.0
0

5

10

15

Sodium Trap Depth [ µK]

FIG. 4. Temperatures of the 6 Li cloud as a function of the 23 Natrap depth. Each data point is an average of three measurements.
The error bars indicate the shot-to-shot fluctuations, while theuncertainties of the fits are comparable or smaller. In the casewhen sodium was completely evaporated from the trap (c.f. zero
trap depth data point), the very last stage of sympathetic coolingbecame inefficient due to the vanishing heat capacity of thebosonic reservoir. The inset shows the same temperature datascaled to the Fermi temperature.

of sodium was T  170 nK, about half the corresponding
lithium value. We verified that, in these samples, extending
the thermalization time at the end of evaporation up to 10 s
did not lower the lithium temperature any farther. The reasons for the observed temperature discrepancy are worthyof further investigation. Simple spatial separation of thetwo clouds due to different gravitational sags can be readily ruled out. However, some form of phase separation of
the two species [10], or constant heating of the fermioniccloud [12], could play a role.
In conclusion, we have produced a system in whicha 6 Li Fermi sea coexists with a 23 Na BEC. This provides us with a starting point for studies of the degenerate Bose-Fermi mixtures. In particular, the observed
temperature difference between the two spatially overlapped species might provide further insight into the limitsof sympathetic cooling. Further, by loading the degenerate Fermi cloud into an optical trap, effects of magnetically tunable interactions between lithium atoms in
different spin states can be studied [18]. A particularly
appealing prospect is the observation of the BCS transi-

160401-4*Current address: Universität Stuttgart, 5. Phys. Inst.,
Stuttgart, Germany.
[1] Bose-Einstein Condensation in Atomic Gases, Proceedingsof the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi,”
Course CXL, edited by M. Inguscio, S. Stringari, and
C. Wieman (IOS Press, Amsterdam, 1999).
[2] B. DeMarco and D. S. Jin, Science 285, 1703 (1999).
[3] A. G. Truscott, K. E. Strecker, W. I. McAlexander, G. B.
Partridge, and R. G. Hulet, Science 291, 2570 (2001).
[4] F. Schreck, L. Khaykovich, K. L. Corwin, G. Ferrari,
T. Bourdel, J. Cubizolles, and C. Salomon, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 87, 080403 (2001).
[5] S. R. Granade, M. Gehm, K. M. O’Hara, and J. E. Thomas,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 120405 (2002).
[6] H. T. C. Stoof, M. Houbiers, C. A. Sackett, and R. G. Hulet,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 10 (1996).
[7] M. Houbiers, R. Ferwerda, H. T. C. Stoof, W. I. McAlexander, C. A. Sackett, and R. G. Hulet, Phys. Rev. A 56, 4864
(1997).
[8] M. A. Baranov and D. S. Petrov, Phys. Rev. A 58, R801
(1998).
[9] M. Holland, S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, M. L. Chiofalo, andR. Walser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 120406 (2001).
[10] K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1804 (1998).
[11] E. Timmermans and R. Côté, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 3419
(1998).
[12] E. Timmermans, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 240403 (2001).
[13] J. Goldwin, S. B. Papp, B. DeMarco, and D. S. Jin, Phys.
Rev. A 65, 021402(R) (2002).
[14] G. Modugno, G. Ferrari, G. Roati, R. J. Brecha, A. Simoni,and M. Inguscio, Science 294, 1320 (2001).
[15] M. Mudrich, S. Kraft, K. Singer, R. Grimm, A. Mosk, and
M. Weidemüller, physics/0111213.
[16] M. O. Mewes, M. R. Andrews, N. J. van Druten, D. M.
Kurn, D. S. Durfee, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77,
416 (1996).
[17] U. Schünemann, H. Engler, M. Zielonkowski, M. Weidemüller, and R. Grimm, Opt. Commun. 158, 263 (1998).
[18] M. Houbiers, H. T. C. Stoof, W. I. McAlexander, and R. G.
Hulet, Phys. Rev. A 57, R1497 (1998).
[19] D. A. Butts and D. S. Rokhsar, Phys. Rev. A 55, 4346
(1997).

160401-4

Appendix C
Fiftyfold Improvement in the
Number of Quantum Degenerate
Fermionic Atoms
Z. Hadzibabic, S. Gupta, C. A. Stan, C. H. Schunck, M. W. Zwierlein,
K. Dieckmann, and W. Ketterle”Fiftyfold Improvement in the Number of Quantum Degenerate
Fermionic Atoms,”
Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 160401 (2003)

142

VOLUME 91, N UMBER 16

PHYSICA L R EVIEW LET T ERS

week ending
17 OCTOBER 2003

Fiftyfold Improvement in the Number of Quantum Degenerate Fermionic Atoms
Z. Hadzibabic, S. Gupta, C. A. Stan, C. H. Schunck, M.W. Zwierlein, K. Dieckmann, and W. Ketterle
Department of Physics, MIT-Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms, and Research Laboratory of Electronics, MIT,
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA(Received 2 June 2003; published 16 October 2003)
We have produced a quantum degenerate 6 Li Fermi gas with up to 7  107 atoms, an improvement bya factor of 50 over all previous experiments with degenerate Fermi gases. This was achieved bysympathetic cooling with bosonic 23 Na in the F  2, upper hyperfine ground state. We have alsoachieved Bose-Einstein condensation of F  2 sodium atoms by direct evaporation.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.160401

PACS numbers: 05.30.Fk, 32.80.Pj, 39.25.+k, 67.60.–g

Over the last few years, there has been significant
progress in the production of quantum degenerate atomic
Fermi gases (40 K [1,2] and 6 Li [3–6]) and degenerate
Bose-Fermi mixtures (7 Li-6 Li [3,4], 23 Na-6 Li [6], and87
Rb-40 K [2]). These systems offer great promise forstudies of new, interaction-driven quantum phenomena.
The ultimate goal is the attainment of novel regimes of
BCS-like superfluidity in a gaseous system [7–11]. The
current efforts to induce and study strong interactions in a
Fermi gas [12 –21] are complemented with the ongoing
efforts to improve fermion cooling methods, which would
lead to lower temperatures and larger samples.
The main reason why studies of degenerate Fermi gases
are still lagging behind the studies of atomic BoseEinstein condensates (BECs) is the complexity of coolingmethods. The Pauli exclusion principle prohibits elastic
collisions between identical fermions at ultralow temperatures and makes evaporative cooling of spinpolarized fermionic samples impossible. For this reason,
cooling of fermions must rely on some form of mutual or
sympathetic cooling between two types of distinguishable
particles, either two spin states of the same atom [1,5] or
two different atoms [2– 4,6]. A key element in fermion
cooling is the design of better ‘‘refrigerators’’ for sympathetic cooling.
In this Letter, we report the first production of degenerate Fermi samples comparable in size with the largest
alkali BECs [22]. We successfully cooled up to 7  107
magnetically trapped 6 Li atoms to below half the Fermi
temperature (TF ). This is an improvement in atom number
by a factor of 50 over the largest previously reported
Fermi sea [21]. Further, in samples containing up to 3 
107 atoms, we observed temperatures as low as 0:05 TF ,the lowest ever achieved. At these temperatures, the fractional occupation of the lowest energy state differs fromunity by less than 108 .
As in our previous work [6], 6 Li atoms were magnetically trapped in the F  3=2, upper hyperfine groundstate, and sympathetically cooled by bosonic 23 Na. The
crucial improvement was our achievement of forced
evaporation of sodium in the jF; mF i  j2; 2i, upper
hyperfine ground state, producing large and stable BECs

with up to 107 atoms. This allowed us to create a magnetically trapped 23 Na-6 Li, Bose-Fermi mixture which isstable against spin-exchange collisions at all densities,
and dramatically boosted our fermion atom number.
The criteria for designing sympathetic cooling experiments include the heat capacity of the refrigerator, and theinterspecies collisional properties, both elastic and inelastic [23]. Large and stable 23 Na condensates are an
appealing choice for sympathetic cooling of fermions.
Further, a favorable mass ratio allows for simultaneous
Zeeman slowing of 23 Na and 6 Li [6], and for simultaneous
magnetic trapping without large differences in the gravitational sag. The interspecies collisional properties are
generally not predictable and have to be tested experimentally. In order to minimize all possible inelastic processes, the natural choice is to magnetically trap both
species in their lower hyperfine ground states. However,at temperatures reachable by laser cooling (  300 K),
6
Li can be efficiently magnetically trapped only in theupper hyperfine state, F  3=2 [4,6] [Fig. 1(a)]. On theother hand, until now sodium had been successfully
evaporated only in the lower, F  1 hyperfine state.
This was a limiting factor for sympathetic cooling of
6 Li, since the mixture of sodium in the lower, and lithium
in the upper hyperfine state is not stable against spinexchange collisions. The inelastic loss rate increases as
the temperature is lowered and the density grows. In ourprevious work [6], we partially overcame this problem bytransferring lithium atoms into the lower hyperfine state
after an initial sympathetic cooling stage to 50 K. By
achieving forced evaporative cooling and Bose-Einsteincondensation of sodium in the F  2 state, we have now
realized a more robust sympathetic cooling strategy anddramatically improved the size and temperature of adegenerate Fermi system.
We loaded 3  109 sodium and up to 108 lithium
atoms in their upper hyperfine states from a two-species
magneto-optical trap (MOT) into the magnetic trap. The
adverse effect of light assisted collisions in a two-species
MOT [6,24] was minimized by slightly displacing thetwo MOTs with respect to each other. This was achievedin a reproducible manner by aligning both MOTs to the160401-1

 2003 The American Physical Society

0031-9007=03=91(16)=160401(4)$20.00

160401-1

(a)

(a)

(b)
6

Li

week ending
17 OCTOBER 2003

PHYSICA L R EVIEW LET T ERSVOLUME 91, N UMBER 16
23| 32 , 32

Na

(b)

|2, 2
|2, 1

| 32 , 12|2, 0| 32 ,- 12|2,-1

228 MHz1772 MHz

|2,-2

3 mm
| 32 ,- 32|1,-1| 12 ,- 12

|1, 0
|1, 1

| 12 , 12

0

100
200
Magnetic Field (G)

0

100
200
Magnetic Field (G)FIG. 1. Hyperfine structures of 6 Li and 23 Na. The states arelabeled in the low field, jF; mF i basis. (a) Because of finite trap
depth of kB  300 K in the j1=2; 1=2i state, lithium canbe efficiently loaded into the magnetic trap only in the upper,F  3=2 hyperfine state. (b) Sodium is magnetically trappablein the j1; 1i and in the jF  2; mF  0i states. Previously,
sodium had been evaporatively cooled to BEC only in thej1; 1i, lower hyperfine state.

zero of the magnetic field and then changing the balanceof the 6 Li laser beams along one direction. The lithium
MOT was thus displaced by 3–5 mm, comparable to theradius of the sodium cloud.
During the typical 30 s of sympathetic cooling, we
observed no significant inelastic loss of lithium atoms(by three-body collisions or dipolar relaxation), the final
number of degenerate atoms being at least half of thenumber initially loaded in the trap. On the other hand, we
observed a favorable rate of elastic collisions between thetwo species, with the interspecies thermalization time
being shorter than 1 s. Therefore, sodium atoms in theupper hyperfine state have ideal properties as a refrigerant
for 6 Li.
Since our primary interest was cooling of fermions, we
evaporated all sodium atoms in order to get lithium to thelowest possible temperatures. Even in our largest 6 Li
samples, of 7  107 atoms, we achieved temperatures
below 0:5TF . Temperatures in the range 0:05–0:2TF could
be achieved by reducing the 6 Li atom numbers only
slightly, to 3  107 . Such big clouds had a high enough
optical density for crisp absorption imaging even after
ballistic expansion to a size larger than 1 mm [Fig. 2(a)].
Temperatures were extracted from the absorption images of expanding clouds released from the trap, using
a semiclassical (Thomas-Fermi) fit to the Fermi-Dirac
momentum distribution [6,25] [Fig. 2(b)]. In the ultradegenerate limit, the Fermi distribution is only weakly
sensitive to the temperature. While the statistical uncertainty of our fits was generally very small, we have foundthat the fits along the axial and the radial direction of the160401-2

Fermi Diameter

FIG. 2. Large and ultradegenerate Fermi sea. (a) Absorption
image of 3  107 6 Li atoms released from the trap and imaged
after 12 ms of free expansion. (b) Axial (vertical) line density
profile of the cloud in (a). A semiclassical fit (thin line) yields atemperature T  93 nK  0:05TF . At this temperature, thehigh energy wings of the cloud do not extend visibly beyond
the Fermi energy, indicated in the figure by the momentumspace Fermi diameter.

cloud can yield slightly different temperatures. Using thisdiscrepancy as the dominant source of uncertainty, we
estimate the temperature of our coldest samples to be
0:050:03
0:02 TF .
At present, it is not clear what are the fundamental
limits of our sympathetic cooling strategy. One potential
limitation could arise from the superfluid nature of the
BEC, which prevents further cooling of fermions withvelocities lower than the speed of sound in the condensate
6[23,26]. However,pin our large Li samples, the Fermi
velocity, 2kB TF =m, greatly exceeds the typical soundvelocity in the largest 23 Na BECs. Further, when thesympathetic cooling was optimized to produce the largest
and the coldest 6 Li samples, the 23 Na cloud remained
thermal at all times. Therefore, we do not expect thesuperfluidity of bosons to be a limiting factor.
We have also produced stable degenerate Bose-Fermi
mixtures, with more than 106 atoms in each species(Fig. 3). In typical samples, the peak density of 6 Li was
nLi  3  1012 cm3 , while peak densities of the thermal
and the condensed 23 Na components were nth
Na  7 
131012 cm3 and nBECcm3 . At these denNa  5  10
sities, the mixture had a lifetime of several seconds.
This observation could be used to estimate upper limits
for the rate constants of various two- and three-bodyinelastic processes in the mixture.
In the rest of the Letter, we summarize the numerous
steps which were introduced to prepare sodium in theF  2 state as a refrigerant.
In contrast to 87 Rb, condensation of sodium by evaporative cooling was previously achieved only in the lower,j1; 1i hyperfine state. F  2 sodium condensates could
thus be studied only by transferring optically trappedF  1 BECs into this state [27,28]. Condensation in theupper hyperfine state of sodium is more difficult than in
the lower state for two reasons: (1) the requirement for
efficient optical pumping in dense laser-cooled samples,
160401-2

PHYSICA L R EVIEW LET T ERSVOLUME 91, N UMBER 16
23Na

1.7 mm

6Li

FIG. 3. Two-species mixture of degenerate Bose and Fermi
gases. After release from the magnetic trap, both 6 Li and 23 Na
clouds were imaged onto the same camera using separate lightpulses. The times of free expansion of the two gases could bevaried independently. This dual-imaging technique allowed for
optimizing the cooling strategy for either single- or twospecies experiments. For the displayed image, the expansion
times were tLi  8 ms and tNa  25 ms , and the atom numbers
were NLi  107 and NNa  6  106 . Sodium was cooled below
the condensation temperature, corresponding to 0:2TF for thelithium cloud.

and (2) an order of magnitude higher three-body loss rate
coefficient [27].
The basic setup of our experiment is described in [6]. In
10 s, we collected typically 1010 23 Na atoms, and 108
6
Li atoms in a magneto-optical trap. Typical MOT temperatures were 0.7–1 mK. Sodium was collected in a dark
spontaneous-force optical trap (SPOT) variant of the
MOT [29], and therefore most of the atoms were in theF  1 hyperfine state. Lithium was collected in a standard MOT, with about 2=3 of the atoms in the F  3=2
state.
Before the transfer into the magnetic trap, the atoms
were optically pumped into the stretched hyperfine
ground states, j2; 2i for 23 Na, and j3=2; 3=2i for 6 Li.
A magnetic guide field of 3 G was applied, and the atoms
were optically pumped for 2 ms, using  polarized lighttuned to the D2 transitions. The intensities of the pumping
laser beams were about 0:1 mW=cm2 . To achieve both F(hyperfine) and mF (Zeeman) pumping, two light beams
were used for each species.
In the case of lithium, the excited state hyperfine
structure is not resolved, and the two laser beams were
simply tuned in resonance with the F  1=2 and the F 
3=2 ground state manifolds. In the case of sodium, we
explored the efficiency of optical pumping using transitions to different excited hyperfine states F0 . We observed
the most efficient transfer into the magnetic trap if theF  1 ! F0  1 transition was used for hyperfine pumping, even though Clebsch-Gordan coefficients favor theF  1 ! F0  2 transition for more efficient pumping.
Zeeman pumping of sodium was done on the F  2 !
F0  2 transition, in order to make j2; 2i a dark state
and avoid unnecessary heating of the sample.
In this way, almost all the lithium atoms could bepumped into the j3=2; 3=2i state. On the other hand,
160401-3

week ending
17 OCTOBER 2003

the density of sodium atoms in the dark SPOT is 1011 cm3 , and Zeeman pumping is notoriously difficultat such high densities. In our experiments, the fraction of
atoms pumped into the j2; 2i state was limited to about
30%, with most of the remaining atoms distributed
among the other mF sublevels of the F  2 manifold.
After the optical pumping stage, the atoms were loaded
into a Ioffe-Pritchard magnetic trap with a radial gradientof 164 G=cm and axial curvature of 185 G=cm2 . Sodium
atoms in all three jF  2; mF  0i states are, at least
weakly, magnetically trappable [Fig. 1(b)]. However,
only pure j2; 2i samples are stable against inelastic
spin-exchange collisions. A crucial step in preparing
the samples for efficient forced evaporation was to actively remove jF  2; mF  0; 1i atoms from the trap,
before they engaged in inelastic collisions with thej2; 2i atoms. The atoms were loaded into a weak magnetic trap, with a high bias field of 80 G. This field splits
the F  2 Zeeman sublevels by kB  2:8 mK . Since
this splitting was larger than the temperature of thecloud, the different states could be resolved in microwave
or rf spectroscopy, and the jF  2; mF  0; 1i atoms
could be selectively transferred to the untrapped jF 
1; mF  0; 1i lower hyperfine states. This transfer wasdone with a microwave sweep near the 23 Na hyperfine
splitting of 1.77 GHz. In this way, all the j2; 2i atoms
initially loaded into trap could be preserved. We were alsoable to load some of the untrapped atoms produced during
the sweep by optically pumping them out of the F  1ground states, thus giving them a second chance to fall
into the j2; 2i state. The final setup consisted of two
microwave sweeps, the first of 0.8 s duration with theoptical pumping light on, and the second of 2.4 s duration
without the light. In this way, the overall transfer efficiency from the MOT to the magnetic trap was improved
to about 35%, comparable to our standard F  1 BEC
experiments [30].
After this purification of the j2; 2i sample, the magnetic trap was tightened by reducing the bias field to 3.8 G
in 2.4 s. Resulting trapping frequencies were 204 Hz(400 Hz) radially and 34 Hz (67 Hz) axially for thesodium (lithium) stretched state. This provided goodconditions for forced runaway evaporation of sodium.
Evaporation was done on the j2; 2i ! j1; 1i microwave transition near 1.77 GHz. In contrast to radio-frequency evaporation, this ensured that 6 Li was far off
resonance. Further, microwave evaporation avoided any
undesirable aspects of incomplete evaporation into the
jF  2; mF  0; 1i states, which could lead to inelastic
losses [31].
After 15 s of evaporation, the sodium atoms reached atemperature of T  10 K. At this point, to avoid threebody losses in the j2; 2i state [27], the trap was weakened to frequencies of 49 Hz (96 Hz) radially, and 18 Hz(35 Hz) axially for sodium (lithium). The final evaporation to BEC took another 15 s. In this way, in the absence
160401-3

VOLUME 91, N UMBER 16

PHYSICA L R EVIEW LET T ERS

of lithium atoms, we could produce almost pure j2; 2i
BECs containing up to 107 atoms. The lifetime of the
BEC in the weak trap was longer than 3 s. In contrast to
our previous work [27,28], studies of F  2 condensates
are now possible without the added complexity of an
optical trap.
In conclusion, by creating a superior refrigerant
for sympathetic cooling of 6 Li, we have produced
the coldest and the largest quantum degenerate Fermi
gas so far. The atom numbers in our samples arecomparable with the largest alkali BECs, and the temperatures are reaching the current practical detection
limit. In analogy with Bose-Einstein condensates, we
expect these large samples to ensure a sufficient signalto-noise ratio for all the standard techniques of BEC
research, such as velocimetry using long expansion times,
rf spectroscopy with Stern-Gerlach separation duringballistic expansion, direct nondestructive imaging of
the trapped clouds, and Bragg spectroscopy. The nextchallenge is to maintain a similar combination of number
and temperature for an interacting two-component Fermi
gas [20].
We thank A. E. Leanhardt for a critical reading of themanuscript. This work was supported by the NSF, ONR,
ARO, and NASA.
Note added.—Very recently, a similar number of 6 Li
atoms were cooled into quantum degeneracy using sympathetic cooling with 7 Li [32].

[1] B. DeMarco and D. S. Jin, Science 285, 1703 (1999).
[2] G. Roati, F. Riboli, G. Modugno, and M. Inguscio, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 89, 150403 (2002).
[3] A. G. Truscott, K. E. Strecker, W. I. McAlexander, G. B.
Partridge, and R. G. Hulet, Science 291, 2570 (2001).
[4] F. Schreck, L. Khaykovich, K. L. Corwin, G. Ferrari,
T. Bourdel, J. Cubizolles, and C. Salomon, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 87, 080403 (2001).
[5] S. R. Granade, M. E. Gehm, K. M. O’Hara, and J. E.
Thomas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 120405 (2002).
[6] Z. Hadzibabic, C. A. Stan, K. Dieckmann, S. Gupta,
M.W. Zwierlein, A. Görlitz, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 88, 160401 (2002).
[7] M. Houbiers and H. T. C. Stoof, Phys. Rev. A 59, 1556
(1999).
[8] M. Holland, S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, M. L. Chiofalo,and R. Walser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 120406 (2001).
[9] E. Timmermans, K. Furuya, P.W. Milonni, and A. K.
Kerman, Phys. Lett. A 285, 228 (2001).
[10] Y. Ohashi and A. Griffin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 130402(2002).

160401-4

week ending
17 OCTOBER 2003[11] W. Hofstetter, J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, E. Demler, and M. D.
Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 220407 (2002).
[12] T. Loftus, C. A. Regal, C. Ticknor, J. L. Bohn, and D. S.
Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 173201 (2002).
[13] K. Dieckmann, C. A. Stan, S. Gupta, Z. Hadzibabic, C. H.
Schunck, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 203201(2002).
[14] K. M. O’Hara, S. L. Hemmer, S. R. Granade, M. E. Gehm,
J. E. Thomas, V. Venturi, E. Tiesinga, and C. J. Williams,
Phys. Rev. A 66, 041401 (2002).
[15] C. A. Regal, C. Ticknor, J. L. Bohn, and D. S. Jin, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 90, 053201 (2003).
[16] K. M. O’Hara, S. L. Hemmer, M. E. Gehm, S. R. Granade,and J. E. Thomas, Science 298, 2179 (2002).
[17] M. E. Gehm, S. L. Hemmer, S. R. Granade, K. M.
O’Hara, and J. E. Thomas, Phys. Rev. A 68, 011401(R)(2003).
[18] C. A. Regal and D. S. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 230404(2003).
[19] T. Bourdel, J. Cubizolles, L. Khaykovich, K. M. F.
Magalhães, S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, G.V. Shlyapnikov,
and C. Salomon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 020402 (2003).
[20] S. Gupta, Z. Hadzibabic, M.W. Zwierlein, C. A. Stan,
K. Dieckmann, C. H. Schunck, E. G. M. van Kempen,
B. J. Verhaar, and W. Ketterle, Science 300, 1723
(2003).
[21] C. A. Regal, C. Ticknor, J. L. Bohn, and D. S. Jin, Nature(London) 424, 47 (2003).
[22] J. R. Abo-Shaeer, C. Raman, J. M.Vogels, and W. Ketterle,
Science 292, 476 (2001).
[23] E. Timmermans and R. Côté, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 3419
(1998).
[24] V. Wippel, C. Binder, and L. Windholz, Eur. Phys. J. D 21,
101 (2002).
[25] D. A. Butts and D. S. Rokhsar, Phys. Rev. A 55, 4346
(1997).
[26] A. P. Chikkatur, A. Görlitz, D. M. Stamper-Kurn,
S. Inouye, S. Gupta, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett.
85, 483 (2000).
[27] A. Görlitz, T. L. Gustavson, A. E. Leanhardt, R. Löw,
A. P. Chikkatur, S. Gupta, S. Inouye, D. E. Pritchard, and
W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 090401 (2003).
[28] A. E. Leanhardt, A. Görlitz, A. P. Chikkatur,
D. Kielpinski, Y. Shin, D. E. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 190403 (2002).
[29] W. Ketterle, K. B. Davis, M. A. Joffe, A. Martin, andD. E. Pritchard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2253 (1993).
[30] M.-O. Mewes, M. R. Andrews, N. J. van Druten, D. M.
Kurn, D. S. Durfee, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77,
416 (1996).
[31] B. Desruelle, V. Boyer, S. G. Murdoch, G. Delannoy,
P. Bouyer, A. Aspect, and M. Lécrivain, Phys. Rev. A
60, R1759 (1999).
[32] K. E. Strecker, G. B. Partridge, and R. G. Hulet, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 91, 080406 (2003).

160401-4

Appendix D
Observation of Feshbach
Resonances between Two Different
Atomic Species
C. A. Stan, M.W. Zwierlein, C. H. Schunck, S.M. F. Raupach,and W. Ketterle”Observation of Feshbach Resonances between Two Different Atomic
Species,”
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 143001 (2004)

147

VOLUME 93, N UMBER 14

PHYSICA L R EVIEW LET T ERS

week ending
1 OCTOBER 2004

Observation of Feshbach Resonances between Two Different Atomic Species
C. A. Stan, M.W. Zwierlein, C. H. Schunck, S. M. F. Raupach, and W. Ketterle
Department of Physics, MIT-Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms,
and Research Laboratory of Electronics, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA(Received 4 June 2004; published 30 September 2004)
We have observed three Feshbach resonances in collisions between 6 Li and 23 Na atoms. The
resonances were identified as narrow loss features when the magnetic field was varied. The molecularstates causing these resonances have been identified, and additional 6 Li-23 Na resonances are predicted.
These resonances will allow the study of degenerate Bose-Fermi mixtures with adjustable interactions
and could be used to generate ultracold heteronuclear molecules.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.143001

PACS numbers: 32.80.Pj, 34.50.–s, 67.60.–gFeshbach resonances [1,2] have made it possible tocontrol interactions in ultracold atomic gases. By tuning
the magnetic field near a value where the energy of two
free atoms coincides with a molecular bound state, thesign and strength of the atomic interactions can be varied.
Such tunable interactions were used to Bose-Einsteincondense atomic species with unfavorable collisional
properties [3–5], for cooling fermionic mixtures to degeneracy [6], and to produce bright solitons [4,7].
Measurements of Feshbach resonances led to precise
determinations of interatomic potentials [8]. An important recent application of Feshbach resonances was the
production of ultracold molecules from ultracold atoms[9], and Bose-Einstein condensation of molecules[10].
So far, all experiments on Feshbach resonances studied
collisions between two atoms of the same species. A few
theoretical papers predicted Feshbach resonances between different atomic species [11], but these have notbeen observed. Interspecies Feshbach resonances should
lead to a host of new scientific phenomena, including thestudy of ultracold Fermi-Bose mixtures with tunableinteractions, for which boson-mediated Cooper pairing[12], phase separation [13], and supersolid order [14] havebeen predicted. These resonances may also be used to
produce polar molecules, at phase-space densities higher
than those obtained by heteronuclear photoassociation[15]. Eventually, such molecules could be used for quantum computation [16], for studies of correlated manybody systems [17,18], and for searches for an electronic
dipole moment [19].
In this work, we studied collisions between fermionic6
Li and bosonic 23 Na. In the absence of any theoreticalprediction, it was not clear if there were any resonancesin the accessible range of magnetic fields. Three s-wave
Feshbach resonances were observed and assigned.
An ultracold mixture of 6 Li in the jF; mF i  j3=2; 3=2i
and 23 Na in the jF; mF i  j2; 2i hyperfine states wasproduced by forced microwave evaporation of 23 Na in amagnetic trap as previously described in [20]. The evaporation was stopped before reaching quantum degeneracy,

and the mixture was transferred into a single focus
1064 nm optical dipole trap with a waist of 25 m anda maximum power of 9 W. The 6 Li and 23 Na atoms werethen transferred to the j1=2; 1=2i and j1; 1i hyperfine
states, respectively, by simultaneous RF Landau-Zenersweeps. The sweeps were done by ramping the magnetic
field from nine to 10 G in 10 ms while keeping the RF
frequencies constant at 249.8 MHz for 6 Li and 1790 MHz
for 23 Na yielding a transfer efficiency close to 100%. This
mixture of atoms in their lower hyperfine states was
further cooled to quantum degeneracy by ramping down
the laser power of the optical trap from 9 W to 220 mW
in 1.4 s.
Atom numbers were determined from absorption images of the atom clouds. For imaging, a second LandauZener sweep was used to transfer lithium and sodium
back into their upper hyperfine states, where both species
could be probed using cycling transitions. Lithium andsodium were imaged at the end of the experiment by
taking first a lithium and then a sodium absorption image
in rapid succession. Typically, mixtures of 2  106 degenerate fermions at T=TF  0:25 with a condensed 23 Na
cloud of 2  106 atoms were produced at a temperatureof 900 nK. The peak densities were 1  1013 cm3 for 6 Li
and 2  1014 cm3 for 23 Na. The lifetime of the mixture
was longer than 10 s.
We searched for Feshbach resonances up to the maximum magnetic field available experimentally, 1025 G, bysweeping the magnetic field across 20 G intervals at a rateof 21 G=s and determining the number of atoms left. Theintervals containing resonances were identified by ahigher loss rate. Precise measurements of the resonancepositions were done by starting at a field near the resonance, and varying the end point of a constant rate sweep
towards or across the resonance. The resonances werelocated by a sudden drop in the atom number, as seen in
Fig. 1 for the resonance at 746 G. The magnetic field wascalibrated by driving, at the resonance fields, RF transitions between the j1=2; 1=2i and j3=2; 3=2i, or between the j1=2; 1=2i and j3=2; 1=2i hyperfine states of
6 Li (written in the low-field basis).

143001-1

 2004 The American Physical Society

0031-9007=04=93(14)=143001(4)$22.50

143001-1

Atom Number

3x10

6

TABLE I. Location of 6 Li-23 Na Feshbach resonances and theassignment of the molecular states which cause the resonances.
Here S, MS , mi;Li , and mi;Na denote the total electronic spin, themagnetic quantum number for total electronic spin, and themagnetic quantum number for the 6 Li and for the 23 Na nuclear
spin. Also listed are the ramp speeds for which 50% of theatoms were lost.

SodiumLithium

2week ending
1 OCTOBER 2004

PHYSICA L R EVIEW LET T ERSVOLUME 93, N UMBER 14

1

Magnetic field
(G)
a

0
740

Na

Li

Na

746:0
759:6
795:6

c

745
Magnetic Field [G]
b

a

Li

b

750

Li

Na

In the same magnetic field range, we have observed one
Li and six 23 Na single species Feshbach resonances
which have not been observed before [21,22].
Interspecies 6 Li-23 Na resonances were identified after
checking that for a pure sample of either lithium or
sodium, no resonant losses occurred at the same field.
Three 6 Li-23 Na resonances were observed, as listed inTable I.
The measured 10%–90% loss widths for the threeresonances, between 0.8 and 0.4 G, are comparable tothe short term magnetic noise, and are thus upper limits
on the resonance widths. The sweep rate at which 50% of
the atoms are lost is also a measure of the resonance
143001-2

Molecular state
jS MS mi;Li mi;Na i

15
0.3
10

j1 1 1 3=2i
j1 1 0 1=2i
j1 1 1 1=2icFIG. 1. Determination of the position of the Feshbach resonance at 746 G. The magnetic field was swept down at a rate of
5:7 G=s from a field above the resonance to a variable final field.
As the resonance was crossed, a sharp loss in atom number wasobserved. Top: 6 Li (circles) and 23 Na (open squares) atom
numbers vs the final field. The solid line (6 Li) and the dashedline (23 Na) are empirical tangent hyperbolic fits to the data.
Both fits locate the resonance at 746:0 0:4 G. Bottom: Theabsorption images show the lithium cloud on the left side andthe sodium cloud on the right. They were taken at the threemagnetic fields labeled a, b, and c. No losses were observed forlithium only (upper row) and sodium only (middle row),whereas the mixture (bottom row) showed the onset of losses
of both species at the resonance. The sodium images clearlyshow the bimodal distribution characteristic for a Bose condensate. The field of view of each absorption image was
6 mm  3 mm.

6

0:4
0:2
0:2

Ramp speed(G/s)

strength [23] and is less sensitive to field noise. Its values
are listed in Table I.
The losses are either due to (inelastic) three-bodyrecombination, or due to resonant molecule formation
during the sweep. Other two-body loss mechanisms are
not possible for 6 Li and 23 Na both in their lowest energy
hyperfine state. It should be noted that in the mixture near
single species sodium Feshbach resonances, enhanced
losses were also observed for lithium, presumably in athree-body process involving a sodium dimer and a lithium atom. Also, sodium losses were observed near the
single species lithium resonance.
We assign the molecular states causing these resonances by extending the approach presented in [24] tothe case of two distinguishable atoms. Without the knowledge of the exact interatomic potentials the energies of
the weakest bound molecular states cannot be predicted.
However, one can still approximate the molecular hyperfine structure and Zeeman shifts and predict a pattern of
Feshbach resonances with the molecular binding energy
at zero magnetic field as the only adjustable parameter.
We have checked that this procedure, applied to 23 Na,
reproduces all Feshbach resonances measured experimentally or predicted by coupled channels calculations
to within 5%.
The Coulomb interaction between two atoms naturally
preserves their total electronic spin S~  s~1  s~2 . If weneglect the hyperfine interaction, S is thus a good quantum number and the bound states are either singlet(S  0) or triplet (S  1). The molecular hyperfine energy at zero field is approximated as the sum of thehyperfine interaction for the two atoms:Na~~
Hhf  haLi
hf s~1  iLi  hahf s~2  iNa ;with s~1;2 the spins of the two valence electrons, i~Li Na
the nuclear spin of the 6 Li (23 Na) nucleus (iLi  1,
iNa  3=2), and the hyperfine constants aLi
hf 
885:8131
1
MHz
[25].
152:1368 1 MHz, aNa
We
rehf
~
write Hhf in terms of S:
143001-2

|1,-1>Na + |1/2,-1/2>Li|1,1>Na + |1/2,1/2>Li|S MS mi,Li mi,Na >2000

week ending
1 OCTOBER 2004

PHYSICA L R EVIEW LET T ERSVOLUME 93, N UMBER 14

1500

Magnetic Field [G]
1000

500

500

0

1000

|S MS mi,Li mi,Na >1500|1 1 -1 3/2>
|1 1 0 1/2>
|1 1 1 -1/2>|1 1 -1 -3/2>-4000|1 0 0 -3/2>|1 0 1 1/2>

|1 -1 -1 1/2>
|1 -1 0 -1/2>|1 -1 1 -3/2>-8000-12000

Energy / h [MHz]|1 0 -1 -1/2>|1 0 0 3/2>

|1 -1 1 3/2>

FIG. 2. Feshbach resonances in collisions between 6 Li in j1=2; 1=2i and 23 Na in j1; 1i hyperfine states. The solid lines show
the energy dependence of triplet hyperfine molecular states for which coupling to the open channel is allowed by conservation of thetotal MF . The dashed line shows the open channel energy threshold, equal to the sum of hyperfine energies of the incoming particle.
The three observed Feshbach resonances occur in the j1=2; 1=2iLi  j1; 1iNa collision channel, at the crossing of the threshold withthree molecular states between 700 and 850 G. For this channel, two other resonances should occur near 1700 G. In the
j1=2; 1=2iLi  j1; 1iNa collision channel, one resonance can be predicted to occur near 1100 G and another two near 2000 G.

haLi
haNa
haLi
hf ~ ~
S  iLi  hf S~  i~Na  hf s~1  s~2  i~Li
2
2
2
haNa
 hf s~2  s~1  i~Na2  V;
 Vhf
hf

Hhf 


~ and thus
Here, Vhf
contains the terms proportional to S,
preserves the separation of the orbital from the spin
problem. Vhf, however, mixes singlet and triplet states.
Following [24], we will assume that the singlet-triplet
Li
spacing is large compared to aNa
hf and ahf , so that we canneglect Vhf . In this approach, the orbital (Coulomb) partof the interaction remains decoupled from the spin part,which alone is responsible for the magnetic field dependence of the states.
For nonzero magnetic field, the spin part of the molecular hyperfine states is described by the Hamiltonian


Hint
 Vhf
 VZeeman

with
VZeeman  B B~  gS S~  gLi i~Li  gNa i~Na ;where gS , gLi , and gNa are the g factors of the electron, of
the 6 Li, and of the 23 Na nucleus. For collisions between
j1; 1iNa  j1=2; 1=2iLi the total MF  32 . In s-wave scattering, this incoming (open) channel can be coupled only
to molecular states with the same MF . In total, one cancount two singlet and six triplet spin states with MF  32 .
Feshbach resonances occur at the magnetic fields at
which a molecular hyperfine state has the same orbital
plus hyperfine energy as the colliding atoms. The twoalmost degenerate singlet spin states cannot explain theexistence of three well-separated resonances. Thus, the143001-3

observed resonances can be assigned to three triplet spinstates with MS  1, differing only in their nuclear magnetic quantum numbers, as shown in Fig. 2. Using theorbital energy EB as a free parameter, we performed aleast-squares fit of the level crossings of these states withthe atomic threshold, to the three experimentally obtained resonance positions. This resulted in EB 
5550 140 MHz, which represents an estimate of theenergy of a weakly bound triplet state of the 6 Li-23 Na
interatomic potential. The error was estimated by finding
the values of EB which fit either the lowest (746 G) or thehighest (796 G) resonance. The resulting resonant magnetic fields are 717, 763. and 821 G. In view of thesimplicity of the approach, the agreement with the observed resonance positions is satisfactory. Inverting thesign of the magnetic field, we obtain the level diagram forcollisions of j1; 1iNa  j1=2; 1=2iLi (Fig. 2) which
predicts several additional resonances.
The observed Feshbach resonances may be used to
produce 6 Li23 Na molecules by sweeping the magnetic
field across the resonance. Atom pairs are converted
into molecules by passing adiabatically through theLandau-Zener avoided crossing [9,23]. The efficiency ofthis conversion depends on the lifetime of the molecular
cloud. In experiments with bosons, due to rapid vibrational relaxation, short molecular lifetimes on the orderof a few ms have been observed. However, conversion
efficiencies of a few % could still be obtained [26]. The
lifetime could be substantially increased by removing theleftover unbound atoms with a short light pulse [27].
Fermionic atoms offer the advantage of long molecular
lifetimes due to Pauli suppression [28–30]. In the case of
6
Li2 and 40 K2 , highly vibrationally excited molecules
were stable close to the resonance, where the molecules
143001-3

VOLUME 93, N UMBER 14

PHYSICA L R EVIEW LET T ERS

have a dominant atomic character [31]. Further awayfrom the resonance, as the molecules become morestrongly bound, the fermionic statistics of the constituentsis no longer dominant, and loss rates increase [28,29].
We expect the opposite behavior for fermionic molecules produced near interspecies Feshbach resonances
between a bosonic and fermionic atom. Far away fromthe resonance, all collisions between the molecules shouldbe Pauli suppressed. Near the resonance, the collisions oflong-range molecules are better approximated as collisions of their fermionic and bosonic atoms, and no significant suppression of collisions is expected. Therefore, along-lived cloud of heteronuclear fermionic molecules
could be realized by sweeping the magnetic field acrossand beyond the Feshbach resonance, and removing unbound atoms of both species with resonant light pulses.
In conclusion, we have observed three 6 Li-23 Na
Feshbach resonances and assigned them to weakly boundmolecular states using a simple model. These resonances
could be used for efficient production of ultracold heteronuclear molecules.
This work was supported by the NSF, ONR, ARO, andNASA. We thank Andrew Kerman for fruitful discussions
and experimental assistance and Zoran Hadzibabic for a
critical reading of the manuscript. S. Raupach is gratefulto the Dr. Jürgen Ulderup Foundation for financial
support.
Note added.—After this work was completed, the observation of Feshbach resonances in collisions between
rubidium and potassium atoms was reported [32].

[1] S. Inouye, M. R. Andrews, J. Stenger, H.-J. Miesner,
D. M. Stamper-Kurn, and W. Ketterle, Nature (London)
392, 151 (1998); P. Courteille, R. S. Freeland, D. J.
Heinzen, F. A. van Abeelen, and B. J. Verhaar, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 81, 69 (1998).
[2] W. C. Stwalley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 1628 (1976); E.
Tiesinga, B. J. Verhaar, and H. T. C. Stoof, Phys. Rev. A
47, 4114 (1993).
[3] S. L. Cornish, N. R. Claussen, J. L. Roberts, E. A. Cornell,and C. E. Wieman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1795 (2000).
[4] L. Khaykovich, F. Schreck, G. Ferrari, T. Bourdel, J.
Cubizolles, L. D. Carr, Y. Castin, and C. Salomon,
Science 296, 1290 (2002).
[5] T. Weber, J. Herbig, M. Mark, H.-C. Nägerl, and R.
Grimm, Science 299, 232 (2003).
[6] K. M. O’Hara, S. L. Hemmer, M. E. Gehm, S. R. Granade,and J. E. Thomas, Science 298, 2179 (2002).
[7] K. E. Strecker, G. B. Partridge, A. G. Truscott, and R. G.
Hulet, Nature (London) 417, 150 (2002).
[8] P. J. Leo, C. J. Williams, and P. S. Julienne, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 85, 2721 (2000).
[9] C. A. Regal, C. Ticknor, J. L. Bohn, and D. S. Jin, Nature(London) 424, 47 (2003).
[10] M. Greiner, C. A. Regal, and D. S. Jin, Nature (London)
426, 537 (2003); S. Jochim, M. Bartenstein, A.

143001-4

week ending
1 OCTOBER 2004

Altmeyer, G. Hendl, S. Riedl, C. Chin, J. H.
Denschlag, and R. Grimm, Science 302, 2101 (2003);
M. Bartenstein, A. Altmeyer, S. Riedl, S. Jochim, C.
Chin, J. H. Denschlag, and R. Grimm, Phys. Rev. Lett.
92, 120401 (2004); M.W. Zwierlein, C. A. Stan, C. H.
Schunck, S. M. F. Raupach, S. Gupta, Z. Hadzibabic,
and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 250401 (2003).
[11] J. P. Burke, Jr., J. L. Bohn, B. D. Esry, and C. H. Greene,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2097 (1998); A. Simoni, F. Ferlaino,
G. Roati, G. Modugno, and M. Inguscio, Phys. Rev. Lett.
90, 163202 (2003).
[12] H. Heiselberg, C. J. Pethick, H. Smith, and L. Viverit,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2418 (2000); M. J. Bijlsma, B. A.
Heringa, and H. T. C. Stoof, Phys. Rev. A 61, 053601(2000).
[13] K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1804 (1998).
[14] H. P. Büchler and G. Blatter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 130404(2003).
[15] J. P. Shaffer, W. Chalupczak, and N. P. Bigelow, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 82, 1124 (1999); U. Schlöder, C. Silber, andC. Zimmermann, Appl. Phys. B 73, 801 (2001); M.W.
Mancini, G. D. Telles, A. R. L. Caires, V. S. Bagnato, andL. G. Marcassa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 133203 (2004); A. J.
Kerman, J. M. Sage, S. Sainis, T. Bergeman, and D.
DeMille, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 153001 (2004).
[16] D. DeMille, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 067901 (2002).
[17] K. Goral, L. Santos, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett.
88, 170406 (2002).
[18] M. A. Baranov, M. S. Marenko, V. S. Rychkov, and G.V.
Shlyapnikov, Phys. Rev. A 66, 013606 (2002).
[19] M. G. Kozlov and L. N. Labzowsky, J. Phys. B 28, 1933
(1995).
[20] Z. Hadzibabic, S. Gupta, C. A. Stan, C. H. Schunck, M.W.
Zwierlein, K. Dieckmann, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 91, 160401 (2003).
[21] C. H. Schunck, M.W. Zwierlein, C. A. Stan, S. M. F.
Raupach, W. Ketterle, A. Simoni, E. Tiesinga, C. J.
Williams, and P. S. Julienne, cond-mat/0407373.
[22] C. H. Schunck et al. (to be published).
[23] F. A. van Abeelen and B. J. Verhaar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83,
1550 (1999).
[24] A. J. Moerdijk, B. J. Verhaar, and A. Axelsson, Phys. Rev.
A 51, 4852 (1995).
[25] E. Arimondo, M. Inguscio, and P. Violino, Rev. Mod.
Phys. 49, 31 (1977).
[26] S. Dürr, T. Volz, and G. Rempe, cond-mat/0405606.
[27] K. Xu, T. Mukaiyama, J. R. Abo-Shaeer, J. K. Chin, D. E.
Miller, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 210402(2003).
[28] C. A. Regal, M. Greiner, and D. S. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92,
083201 (2004).
[29] J. Cubizolles, T. Bourdel, S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, G.V.
Shlyapnikov, and C. Salomon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91,
240401 (2003).
[30] K. E. Strecker, G. B. Partridge, and R. G. Hulet, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 91, 080406 (2003).
[31] D. S. Petrov, C. Salomon, and G.V. Shlyapnikov, condmat/0309010.
[32] S. Inouye, J. Goldwin, M. L. Olsen, C. Ticknor, J. L.
Bohn, and D. S. Jin, cond-mat/0406208.

143001-4

Appendix E
Observation of Bose-Einstein
Condensation of Molecules
M.W. Zwierlein, C. A. Stan, C. H. Schunck, S.M. F. Raupach, S. Gupta,
Z. Hadzibabic, and W. Ketterle”Observation of Bose-Einstein Condensation of Molecules,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 250401 (2003)

152

VOLUME 91, N UMBER 25

PHYSICA L R EVIEW LET T ERS

week ending
19 DECEMBER 2003

Observation of Bose-Einstein Condensation of Molecules
M.W. Zwierlein, C. A. Stan, C. H. Schunck, S. M. F. Raupach, S. Gupta, Z. Hadzibabic, and W. Ketterle
Department of Physics, MIT–Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms, and Research Laboratory of Electronics, MIT,
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA(Received 27 November 2003; published 15 December 2003)
We have observed Bose-Einstein condensation of molecules. When a spin mixture of fermionic 6 Li
atoms was evaporatively cooled in an optical dipole trap near a Feshbach resonance, the atomic gas wasconverted into 6 Li2 molecules. Below 600 nK, a Bose-Einstein condensate of up to 900 000 molecules
was identified by the sudden onset of a bimodal density distribution. This condensate realizes the limitof tightly bound fermion pairs in the crossover between BCS superfluidity and Bose-Einsteincondensation.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.250401

PACS numbers: 03.75.Ss, 05.30.Jp

Over the past few years, many different approaches
have been used to cool and trap molecules [1,2]. One
major goal has been the creation of molecular BoseEinstein condensates, which could lead to advances inmolecular spectroscopy, studies of collisions, and precision tests of fundamental symmetries.
Recently, a new technique for creating ultracold molecules led to major advances towards molecular BoseEinstein condensation (BEC). Molecules were produced
from ultracold atoms [3–9] near a Feshbach resonance[10], where a molecular state is resonant with the atomic
state and molecules can form without heat release. Thesemolecules are highly vibrationally excited and would
usually undergo fast decay. However, in the case of fermionic atoms the molecules showed very long lifetimes[7–9,11]. This has been attributed to Pauli suppression of
the vibrational quenching process, which couples a very
weakly bound molecular state to much more tightly
bound lower lying vibrational states [12]. We havenow been able to cool such molecules to Bose-Einsteincondensation.
This Bose-Einstein condensate represents one extremeof the crossover from Bose-Einstein condensation oftightly bound pairs (molecules) to BCS superfluidity of
Cooper pairs, where fermions form delocalized pairs inmomentum space [13].
In most of the recent experiments, molecules wereformed by sweeping an external magnetic field throughthe Feshbach resonance, adiabatically converting atoms
to molecules [3–6,8]. This atom-molecule coupling is acoherent two-body process [14].
In the case of 6 Li, experimental work indicated [7,9]and theoretical work predicted [15,16] that cooling theatoms at constant magnetic field would create an atommolecule mixture in thermal equilibrium. In this case, theatoms and molecules are coupled by three-body recombination [17]. For temperatures lower than the binding
energy of the molecular state, an almost pure molecular
gas should form, and at even lower temperatures, a molecular Bose-Einstein condensate. This work demonstrates that this surprisingly simple method to create

molecular condensates works. The success of this approach depends on a very favorable ratio of collisional
rates for formation and decay of molecules which may beunique to 6 Li.
The goal of molecular BEC was reached in several
steps. Using Feshbach resonances, atomic condensates
were put into an atom-molecule superposition state [2].
Pure molecular gases made of bosonic atoms were created close to [6] or clearly in [4] the quantum-degenerate
regime, but the effective heating time (of about 2 ms in
Ref. [4]) was too short to reach equilibrium. Earlier thismonth, while this work was in progress, two papers were
submitted. Reference [18] observed a quantum-degenerate gas of potassium molecules with an effective lifetimeof 5 to 10 ms, sufficiently long to reach equilibrium in
two dimensions and to form a quasi- or nonequilibrium
condensate [19]. Reference [20] provided indirect evidence for a long-lived condensate of lithium molecules[21]. Here we observe the formation of a condensate
by evaporative cooling of a molecular gas close toequilibrium.
The basic scheme of the experiment is similar to ourearlier work when we identified two Feshbach resonancesin lithium by monitoring the loss of trapped atoms due tothree-body recombination as a function of the external
magnetic field [22]. This process leads to ultracold molecules in the highest vibrational state below the continuum.
However, no attempt was made to detect these molecules
because until very recently [7,9] they were believed todecay rapidly.
Our experimental setup was described in Refs. [22,23].
After laser cooling and sympathetic cooling with sodium
atoms in a magnetic trap, 35  106 lithium atoms in the
jF; mF i  j3=2; 3=2i state were transferred into an optical trap formed by a single far detuned laser beam with up
to 7 Wof power at 1064 nm. The beam had a 20 m waist
and was aligned horizontally along the symmetry axis of
the magnetic trap. This generated a 650 K deep trapping
potential with 15 kHz radial and 175 Hz axial trapping
frequencies. They were determined with an accuracyof 10% by exciting dipolar oscillations with an atomic

250401-1

 2003 The American Physical Society

0031-9007=03=91(25)=250401(4)$20.00

250401-1

sodium condensate and scaling them to lithium atoms
using the ratios of polarizabilities and masses.
The 6 Li atoms were then transferred to the lowest energy state j1i, using an adiabatic frequency sweep aroundthe lithium hyperfine splitting of 228 MHz. dc magnetic
fields of up to 1025 G could be applied, a range encompassing the j1i  j2i Feshbach resonance [22,24,25],
where j2i denotes the second lowest hyperfine state of 6 Li.
Most of our experiments were performed at a magnetic
field of 770 G. This was below but still within the width of
the broad Feshbach resonance. Here the atomic scattering
length is positive corresponding to a stable weakly boundmolecular state. Using rf-induced transitions near
80 MHz, an equal mixture of states j1i and j2i wasprepared with a ratio of temperature T to Fermi temperature TF around 0.3. The sample was cooled in 350 ms by
ramping down the laser power of the optical trap totypically 103 of the maximum power resulting in a
calculated trap depth for unbound atoms of 650 nK. The
weakly bound molecules have twice the atomic polarizability. They experience the same trap frequencies andtwice the trap depth as the lithium atoms. Therefore, we
expect mainly atoms to be evaporated.
Atoms and molecules were detected by absorption
imaging after ballistic expansion times of 1 to 30 ms.
During the time of flight, the magnetic field was suddenly
switched off, and atoms in both states were imaged
simultaneously since the two optical transition frequencies are equal at zero field. Molecules were detected byfirst dissociating them by sweeping the magnetic field
across the Feshbach resonance up to 925 G and then byimaging the resulting atoms at zero field. With the
Feshbach sweep, molecules and residual atoms were imaged together. Without it, only the unbound atoms weredetected after switching off the magnetic field. We havefound that during the initial phase of the evaporative
cooling the atomic population dominated. A significant
molecule fraction formed around T  2 K, and in the
final phase of the cooling, no atoms could be discerned.
The absorption images and profiles shown in Figs. 1 and 2
therefore represent purely molecular column densities.
When the laser power of the optical dipole trap was
ramped down, the shrinking size of the cloud in absorption imaging signaled lower temperatures. Very abruptly,
the smooth distribution changed to a bimodal distribution—the well-known ‘‘smoking gun’’ of Bose-Einsteincondensation [26,27] (Figs. 1 and 2). Because of a slightasymmetry of our trapping potential, the centers of thecondensate and of the thermal cloud were shifted.
The phase transition could be identified by plotting theeffective area of the cloud vs laser power P [Fig. 3(a)]. At
the phase transition, there was an abrupt change in slope,
whereas the temperature changed smoothly. For a classical gas, the area depends only on temperature and trap
frequencies, which vary smoothly with P.
Quantitative information on temperature, total atom
number, and condensate fraction was obtained by fitting
250401-2

week ending
19 DECEMBER 2003

PHYSICA L R EVIEW LET T ERS

FIG. 1. Observation of Bose-Einstein condensation in a molecular gas. Shown are three single-shot absorption images
after 6 ms of ballistic expansion for progressively lower
temperatures (left to right). The appearance of a dark spot
marks the onset of BEC. The field of view for each image is
1:4  1:4 mm2 . The long axis of the optical dipole trap wasvertical in the image.

axial profiles (such as in Fig. 2) using a bimodal distribution: a Bose-Einstein distribution for the broad normalcomponent and a Thomas-Fermi distribution for the narrow (condensate) component. Condensates containing up
to 900 000 molecules and condensate fractions of up to
75% were obtained. The onset of BEC was observed at atemperature of 600 nK with 1:4  106 molecules. For an
ideal gas with this number of molecules, the predicted
BEC transition temperature TC  0:94 h! N 1=3 =kB is
650 nK, where ! denotes the geometric mean of the three
trapping frequencies. This agreement is fortuitous, given
the uncertainty in the trap frequencies at low power [28].
The cooldown is characterized in Fig. 3. Axial temperatures were obtained from the spatial extent of thethermal cloud (the size stayed almost constant during thetime of flight). The axial temperatures are in arbitrary

Molecule Number Per Unit Length [ 1/mm ]VOLUME 91, N UMBER 25

0.9 mW

2.4 mW

2.7 mW

3.3 mW

4.5 mW
1x10

6

8.9 mW

0
0.0

0.5

1.0

Position [ mm ]FIG. 2. Bimodality in the density distribution of a moleculargas. Shown are radially averaged profiles through absorption
images such as those in Fig. 1, as a function of final laser power.
The dashed lines are fits to the thermal clouds.

250401-2

Temperature [nK]2Effective Area [mm ]VOLUME 91, N UMBER 25
0.8

PHYSICA L R EVIEW LET T ERS

(a)

0.6
0.4
0.2

(b)
1000

500

Condensate Fraction

0
1.0

(c)

0.5

0.0
0

5
10
Laser Power [mW]15

FIG. 3. Characterization of the phase transition. (a) The effective area is the integrated optical density divided by thepeak optical density of the absorption images. The ‘‘sudden
shrinking’’ of the area coincides with the appearance of abimodal density distribution and indicates the BEC phasetransition. (b) The radial (squares) and axial (triangles) temperatures varied smoothly during the evaporation. The axial
temperatures are in arbitrary units. (c) Condensate fraction.
Below the critical temperature, the condensate fraction increased from zero to up to 75%.

units [28]. Absolute radial temperatures were obtained
from the ballistic expansion. All of our temperature
measurements are consistent with equilibration in three
dimensions.
From the expansion of the largest condensates, we
determined the mean-field energy  to be 300 
100 nK. The peak density n of the condensate was obtained from the fit to be 7  1013 cm3 . The relation  4h2 an=m, where m is the molecular mass, implies amolecular scattering length of a  8 nm with an uncertainty of 60%. These uncertainties were estimated fromthe discrepancy of fits done at different times of flightwhich were not fully consistent. This might reflect asymmetries and anharmonicities of the trapping potential
which were not characterized.
It was predicted that the molecular scattering length a
is 0.6 times the atomic scattering length aa [12]. At ourmagnetic field of 770 G, the predicted value of aa lies
between 140 and 340 nm depending on the uncertain
position of the Feshbach resonance between 810 and
850 G [25]. The discrepancy between the predicted andobserved values of a needs further study.
The molecular gas decayed faster than extrapolated
from Refs. [7,9]. Just above Tc , the thermal cloud had apeak density of 1  1013 cm3 and an initial decay timeof about 1 s. Condensate numbers decayed to one third
250401-3

week ending
19 DECEMBER 2003

after a hold time of 30 ms. Those short lifetimes may
reflect leakage or heating in our optical dipole trap at low
laser power. In the present experiments, the laser power
was not stabilized. The lifetime of the thermal gas ismuch longer than estimated values of the axial trap
period of 100 ms and of the collision time of 2 ms, whichshould lead to full equilibrium. Depending on how thecondensate grew during the evaporative cooling, its lifetime may have been too short to develop phase coherencein the axial direction [19].
Using the experimentally determined scattering
length, we find that the molecular cloud at Tc has a ratioof mean-free path to radius close to 10 and should show
only negligible anisotropy during ballistic expansion[19]. Therefore, the onset of strongly anisotropic expansion is a distinguishing feature of the molecular condensate (Fig. 1).
The 6 Li2 molecules are extremely weakly bound. The
molecular binding energy depends on the atomic scattering length aa as h2 =ma2a [29]. For an assumed aa 
200 nm the binding energy is 2 K. The molecular state
which causes the Feshbach resonance is the X 1 g ;v 
38 state. This state is tightly bound, but near the Feshbachresonance it is strongly mixed with the state of the colliding atoms, and the molecular wave function is spread out
over an extension of order aa =2 [29].
Direct evidence for the large size of the molecules was
obtained by resonant imaging during ballistic expansion
at high magnetic fields. At 770 G, molecules could bedirectly imaged using light in resonance with the atoms at
the same field. The absorption was comparable to thezero-field absorption signal obtained after dissociating
the molecules. This shows that the molecular bond is so
weak that the absorption line is shifted from the atomic
line by less than a linewidth . The molecules are expected to absorb most strongly near the outer turning
point R. The excited state potential is split by the resonantvan der Waals interaction  h =R 3 , where  isthe resonant wavelength divided by 2 and  is
3=4; 3=2 for different excited molecular states. The
observed absorption signal implies a molecular size R
100 nm. It is this huge size compared with the muchsmaller size of the molecule in lower vibrational states
which, together with Fermi statistics, inhibits vibrational
relaxation and leads to the long lifetimes [12].
Condensates were observed after evaporative cooling at
various magnetic fields between 720 and 820 G. At thelower magnetic fields, the condensate expanded more
slowly, consistent with the predictions of a smaller repulsive mean-field energy.
In future work, we plan to use the molecular BEC as
the starting point for studying the BEC-BCS crossover[13]. By ramping up the magnetic field across the
Feshbach resonance, the molecules are dissociated into
fermionic atoms and the interaction between the atoms
changes from repulsive to attractive, allowing for theformation of Cooper pairs. Starting with an almost pure250401-3

VOLUME 91, N UMBER 25

PHYSICA L R EVIEW LET T ERS

condensate and conserving entropy, a Fermi sea should
form with temperatures well within the range where BCS
type superfluidity has been predicted [30,31].
In conclusion, we have realized Bose-Einstein condensates of up to 900 000 molecules by evaporative coolingof a spin mixture of fermionic lithium atoms.
This work was supported by the NSF, ONR, ARO, andNASA. We thank A. Leanhardt for helpful comments.
S. Raupach is grateful to the Dr. Jürgen Ulderup foundation for financial support.
Note added.—In an optical trap with a slightly enlarged beam waist, we were recently able to hold molecular condensates for up to 400 ms (or three axial trapping
periods) which should result in 3D equilibration. The 1=edecay time was about 200 ms.

[1] J. D. Weinstein, R. DeCarvalho, T. Guillet, B. Friedrich,and J. M. Doyle, Nature (London) 395, 148 (1998);
T. Takekoshi, B. M. Patterson, and R. J. Knize, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 81, 5105 (1998); R. Wynar, R. S. Freeland,
D. J. Han, C. Ryu, and D. J. Heinzen, Science 287, 1016
(2000); H. L. Bethlem, G. Berden, F. M. H. Crompvoets,
R. T. Jongma, A. J. A. van Roij, and G. Meijer, Nature(London) 406, 491 (2000); C. Chin, A. J. Kerman,
V. Vuletic, and S. Chu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 033201 (2003).
[2] E. A. Donley, N. R. Claussen, S. T. Thompson, and C. E.
Wieman, Nature (London) 417, 529 (2002).
[3] C. A. Regal, C. Ticknor, J. L. Bohn, and D. S. Jin, Nature(London) 424, 47 (2003).
[4] K. Xu, T. Mukaiyama, J. R. Abo-Shaeer, J. K. Chin, D. E.
Miller, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 210402(2003).
[5] S. Dürr, T. Volz, A. Marte, and G. Rempe, e-print condmat/0307440.
[6] J. Herbig, T. Kraemer, M. Mark, T. Weber, C. Chin, H.-C.
Nägerl, and R. Grimm, Science 301, 1510 (2003).
[7] J. Cubizolles, T. Bourdel, S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, G.V.
Shlyapnikov, and C. Salomon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91,
240401 (2003).
[8] K. E. Strecker, G. B. Partridge, and R. G. Hulet, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 91, 080406 (2003).
[9] S. Jochim, M. Bartenstein, A. Altmeyer, G. Hendl,
C. Chin, J. H. Denschlag, and R. Grimm, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 91, 240402 (2003).
[10] W. C. Stwalley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 1628 (1976);
E. Tiesinga, B. J. Verhaar, and H. T. C. Stoof, Phys. Rev.
A 47, 4114 (1993); S. Inouye, M. R. Andrews, J. Stenger,
H.-J. Miesner, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, and W. Ketterle,
Nature (London) 392, 151 (1998); P. Courteille, R. S.
Freeland, D. J. Heinzen, F. A. van Abeelen, and B. J.
Verhaar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 69 (1998).
[11] C. A. Regal, M. Greiner, and D. S. Jin, e-print cond-mat/
0308606.
[12] D. S. Petrov, C. Salomon, and G.V. Shlyapnikov, e-printcond-mat/0309010.
[13] M. Randeria, in Bose-Einstein Condensation, editedby A. Griffin, D. Snoke, and S. Stringari (Cambridge
University, Cambridge, 1995), pp. 355–392; H. T. C.

250401-4

week ending
19 DECEMBER 2003

Stoof, M. Houbiers, C. A. Sackett, and R. G. Hulet,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 10 (1996); E. Timmermans,
K. Furuya, P.W. Milonni, and A. K. Kerman, Phys.
Lett. A 285, 228 (2001); M. Holland, S. J. J. M. F.
Kokkelmans, M. L. Chiofalo, and R. Walser, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 87, 120406 (2001); Y. Ohashi and A. Griffin, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 89, 130402 (2003).
[14] P. D. Drummond, K.V. Kheruntsyan, and H. He,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3055 (1998); P. Tommasini,
E. Timmermans, M. Hussein, and A. Kerman, e-printcond-mat/9804015; F. A. van Abeelen and B. J. Verhaar,Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1550 (1999); F. H. Mies, E. Tiesinga,
and P. S. Julienne, Phys. Rev. A 61, 022721 (2000).
[15] S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, G.V. Shlyapnikov, and
C. Salomon, e-print cond-mat/0308384.
[16] C. Chin and R. Grimm, e-print cond-mat/0309078.
[17] P. O. Fedichev, M.W. Reynolds, and G.V. Shlyapnikov,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2921 (1996); B. D. Esry, C. H. Greene,and H. Suno, Phys. Rev. A 65, 010705 (2001); D. S. Petrov,
Phys. Rev. A 67, 010703 (2003).
[18] M. Greiner, C. A. Regal, and D. S. Jin, Nature (London)
426, 537 (2003).
[19] I. Shvarchuck, C. Buggle, D. S. Petrov, K. Dieckmann,
M. Zielonkowski, M. Kemmann, T. G. Tiecke, W. v.
Klitzing, G.V. Shlyapnikov, and J. T. M. Walraven, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 89, 270404 (2002).
[20] S. Jochim, M. Bartenstein, A. Altmeyer, G. Hendl,
S. Riedl, C. Chin, J. H. Denschlag, and R. Grimm,
Science (to be published).
[21] This work inferred the presence of a condensate from thenumber of particles in a shallow trap and the magnetic
field dependence of the loss rate consistent with meanfield effects. No observation of a phase transition ormeasurements of equilibration, temperature, or condensate fraction were reported.
[22] K. Dieckmann, C. A. Stan, S. Gupta, Z. Hadzibabic, C. H.
Schunck, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 203201(2002).
[23] Z. Hadzibabic, S. Gupta, C. A. Stan, C. H. Schunck, M.W.
Zwierlein, K. Dieckmann, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 91, 160401 (2003).
[24] T. Bourdel, J. Cubizolles, L. Khaykovich, K. M. F.
Magalhães, S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, G.V. Shlyapnikov,
and C. Salomon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 020402 (2003).
[25] S. Gupta, Z. Hadzibabic, M.W. Zwierlein, C. A. Stan,
K. Dieckmann, C. H. Schunck, E. G. M. v. Kempen, B. J.
Verhaar, and W. Ketterle, Science 300, 1723 (2003).
[26] M. H. Anderson, J. R. Ensher, M. R. Matthews, C. E.
Wieman, and E. A. Cornell, Science 269, 198 (1995).
[27] K. B. Davis, M.-O. Mewes, M. R. Andrews, N. J. vanDruten, D. S. Durfee, D. M. Kurn, and W. Ketterle,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3969 (1995).
[28] The trap frequencies were scaled from measurements
done at full power. The axial frequency was affectedby small magnetic field curvatures which were negligible
at high laser power.
[29] T. Köhler, T. Gasenzer, P. S. Julienne, and K. Burnett,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 230401 (2003).
[30] L. D. Carr, G.V. Shlyapnikov, and Y. Castin, e-print condmat/0308306.
[31] J. N. Milstein, S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, and M. J.
Holland, Phys. Rev. A 66, 043604 (2002).

250401-4

Appendix F
Condensation of Pairs of FermionicAtoms near a Feshbach
Resonance
M.W. Zwierlein, C. A. Stan, C. H. Schunck, S.M. F. Raupach, A. J.
Kerman, and W. Ketterle”Condensation of Pairs of Fermionic Atoms near a Feshbach
Resonance,”
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 120403 (2004)

157

VOLUME 92, N UMBER 12

PHYSICA L R EVIEW LET T ERS

week ending
26 MARCH 2004

Condensation of Pairs of Fermionic Atoms near a Feshbach Resonance
M.W. Zwierlein, C. A. Stan, C. H. Schunck, S. M. F. Raupach, A. J. Kerman, and W. Ketterle
Department of Physics, MIT-Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms, and Research Laboratory of Electronics, MIT,
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA(Received 1 March 2004; published 25 March 2004)
We have observed Bose-Einstein condensation of pairs of fermionic atoms in an ultracold 6 Li gas at
magnetic fields above a Feshbach resonance, where no stable 6 Li2 molecules would exist in vacuum. We
accurately determined the position of the resonance to be 822  3 G. Molecular Bose-Einsteincondensates were detected after a fast magnetic field ramp, which transferred pairs of atoms at close
distances into bound molecules. Condensate fractions as high as 80% were obtained. The large
condensate fractions are interpreted in terms of preexisting molecules which are quasistable even
above the two-body Feshbach resonance due to the presence of the degenerate Fermi gas.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.120403

PACS numbers: 03.75.Ss, 05.30.Fk

Ultracold atomic gases have become a medium torealize novel phenomena in condensed matter physics
and test many-body theories in new regimes. The particle
densities are 108 times lower than in solids, but at temperatures in the nanokelvin range, which are now routinely achieved, interactions and correlations become
important. Of particular interest are pairing phenomena
in fermionic gases, which have direct analogies to superconductivity [1].
The interactions which drive the pairing in these gases
can be controlled using a Feshbach resonance [2], inwhich a molecular level is Zeeman tuned through zerobinding energy using an external magnetic field. This
provides an opportunity to experimentally probe what is
known as the BCS-BEC crossover; as the strength of theeffective attractive interaction between particles is increased a continuous transition from condensation ofdelocalized Cooper pairs to condensation of tightly
bound bosonic molecules is predicted [3–6]. Whereas in
the BCS limit the pairing is a strictly many-body effect[7], in the BEC limit a pair of fermions is bound even as
an isolated molecule. A novel form of high-temperature
superfluidity has been predicted to emerge in the crossover region [3–6]. Until recently, the observation of condensation phenomena in fermionic atomic gases was
restricted to the extreme BEC limit, where several groups
have observed Bose-Einstein condensation of diatomic
molecules [8–11].
An important step was recently reported, in whichcondensation of atomic 40 K fermion pairs was observedon the BCS side of a Feshbach resonance [12]. It wasargued that those pairs were not bound into molecules, but
merely moved together in a correlated fashion, similar to
Cooper pairs of electrons in a superconductor [13].
However, the exact nature of these pairs remained unclear.
In this Letter, we apply similar techniques to 6 Li atoms,
which have very different collisional properties [14], andobserve the pair condensation phenomenon above a
Feshbach resonance. In contrast to the previous work,where at most 15% of the atom pairs were condensed[12], condensate fractions of up to 80% were observed. We
argue that such a high condensate fraction is unlikely forpairs which are long range, but rather it indicates acondensate of short-range atom pairs which are essentially molecular in character even on the BCS side of theresonance.
A simple argument supports this possibility. In thebasic picture of a Feshbach resonance, a molecular state
above the dissociation threshold has a finite lifetime,
which becomes shorter as the energy of the state increases, as recently observed [15]. In the presence of the
Fermi sea, its lifetime will be increased due to Pauliblocking. The molecular level will be populated until its
energy becomes larger than twice the Fermi energy corresponding to the total number of atoms. The BCS-BEC
crossover is expected to occur at this point, and not at thelocation of the two-body Feshbach resonance [5,6].
The basic setup of our experiment was described in[10]. By sympathetic cooling of 6 Li atoms with 23 Na in amagnetic trap, a degenerate gas of about 3  107 6 Li
fermions at 0:3T=TF was created. After transfer into
an optical dipole trap (maximum power 9 W focused toan e2 radius of 25 m), an equal mixture of atoms in thelowest two hyperfine states j1i and j2i was prepared. The
sample was evaporatively cooled at a magnetic field of
770 G using an exponential ramp-down (time scale 
400 ms) of the optical trap to a final laser power of
15 mW. This created essentially pure Bose-Einstein condensates of up to 3  106 6 Li2 molecules. The observed
trap vibrational frequencies could be pdescribedby thefollowing
expression:


115
Hz
P
,


1:1 Hzradaxp
P 120B, where P is the optical power in mW, and B
is the magnetic field in kG. The latter dependence arises
from the residual axial curvature of the magnetic field.
Considerable improvements over our previous setup [10]led to an improved e1 condensate lifetime of 10 s at
770 G. Moreover, within the experimental uncertainty
in the total number of molecules (50%), mean-field

120403-1

 2004 The American Physical Society

0031-9007=04=92(12)=120403(4)$22.50

120403-1

VOLUME 92, N UMBER 12

PHYSICA L R EVIEW LET T ERS

measurements were consistent with a molecule-molecule
scattering length of 0:6a, where a is the atomic scattering
length [16,17].
Previously, the location of the 6 Li Feshbach resonancewas determined either by observing a peak in the inelastic loss [18] or the interaction energy of a j1i  j2i mixture [19]. A more accurate determination can be made bymapping out the onset of dissociation of the molecularstate [12,15]. After releasing an almost pure molecularsample from the trap at 770 G, the magnetic field waslinearly ramped up in 10 ms to a variable value. Duringthat time, the particle density dropped by a factor of 1000.
If the field crossed the resonance, molecules dissociatedinto atoms. These atoms were then imaged at zero field,
where the remaining molecules were not detected [10].
The Feshbach resonance appeared as a sharp onset in thenumber of detected atoms (Fig. 1). The speed of thedownward ramp to zero field had to be chosen carefully.
Fast ramps could dissociate very weakly bound molecules[20], such that the Feshbach resonance appeared systematically shifted to lower fields. For too slow a ramp-down,on the other hand, we found that even for clouds as diluteas 3  1010 cm3 molecules were recreated, lowering
the measured atomic fraction. However, when we varied
the ramp rate over more than 3 orders of magnitude, we
found a range of rates which gave identical thresholds at
822  3 G (Fig. 1).
To produce samples in the crossover region, we started
with an essentially pure Bose-Einstein condensate ofmolecules formed at 770 G. The laser power of the opticaltrap was increased in 500 ms from 15 to 25 mW in orderto accommodate larger Fermi clouds above the resonance.
In some experiments, we used a deeper trap with up to
150 mWof power; the additional compression was carried

Atomic Fraction

1.0

week ending
26 MARCH 2004

out after ramping in 500 ms to 900 G to avoid enhanced
losses on the BEC side of the resonance. Once the final
trap depth was reached, the magnetic field was ramped in
500 ms to values between 650 and 1025 G. The adiabaticity of this ramp was checked by ramping back to 770 G
and observing an identical density profile and condensate
fraction, similar to studies in Ref. [8]. At 1025 G, the total
peak density of the spin mixture in the deepest trap was
3  1013 cm3 , corresponding to a Fermi energy of
3:6 K and inverse Fermi wave vector k1
F ’ 2000a0 ,where a0 denotes the Bohr radius.
To probe the gas, we released it from the trap, and aftera variable delay d of usually 40 s, applied a rapidtransfer technique [12]: the magnetic field was switched
off exponentially to zero with an initial slew rate of
30 G=s, which adiabatically converted pairs of atoms
into deeply bound molecules at zero field [21]. As long as
no collisions or other dynamics occur during this ramp,
the velocity distribution of the resulting molecules thenconstitutes a probe of the atom pairs’ center-of-mass
motion before the measurement. After 3–6 ms time offlight at zero field, we dissociated the molecules with a
3 ms field pulse to 900 G and imaged the resulting atoms
after 2 ms at zero field [10,22]. We could also selectively
detect any remaining atoms by omitting the dissociation
pulse, and we observed that for d 500 s, less than
10% of the sample consisted of atoms, independent of theinitial magnetic field. At longer delay times, the atommolecule conversion became less efficient due to thedecreased density.
Typical absorption pictures of molecular clouds after
the rapid transfer ramp are shown in Fig. 2 for different
temperatures, clearly exhibiting a bimodal distribution.
This is evidence for condensation of pairs of 6 Li atoms on
the BCS side of the Feshbach resonance. The condensate
fractions were extracted from images like these, using a
Gaussian fit function for the ‘‘thermal’’ part and a

0.5

0.0
750

800
850
Magnetic Field [G]900FIG. 1. Determination of the Feshbach resonance position.
Shown is the onset of molecule dissociation when the magnetic
field was slowly raised and then ramped down to zero field witha variable rate: Using a switch-off of the power supply at an
initial rate of 30 G=s (crosses), a linear ramp to zero field of
100 G=ms (circles), a linear ramp for 16 ms at 12:5 G=ms,
followed by switch off (triangles). The identical threshold forthe two lowest ramp rates determines the resonance position to
be 822  3 G, marked by an arrow.

120403-2

FIG. 2 (color online). Emergence of a Bose-Einstein condensate of atom pairs as the temperature was lowered. Shown arecolumn densities (after 6 ms of time of flight) of the fermion
mixture after a rapid transfer ramp from 900 G for threedifferent initial temperatures T=TF  0:2, 0.1 and 0.05, together with their axially integrated radial density profiles.
The dashed line is a Gaussian fit to the thermal component.
Condensate fractions are 0.0, 0.1, and 0.6. Each cloud consistsof about 2  106 molecules. The field of view is 3  3 mm.

120403-20.8

Condensate Fraction

0.8

Condensate Fraction

week ending
26 MARCH 2004

PHYSICA L R EVIEW LET T ERSVOLUME 92, N UMBER 12

0.4

0.4

0.0
0.0

700
600

800

800
900
Magnetic Field [G]

1000

1000

Magnetic Field [G]Thomas-Fermi profile for the ‘‘condensate.’’ Figures 3–5
show the observed condensate fraction as a function ofboth magnetic field and temperature. The striking features of these data are the high condensate fraction of
80% near resonance, and the persistence of large condensate fractions on the BCS side of the resonance all
the way to our maximum field of 1025 G. After 10 shold time, this value was still as high as 20%. Theseobservations were independent of whether the final magnetic field was approached starting with a Fermi sea or amolecular condensate. Note that for our peak densities,
the strongly interacting region of kF jaj > 1 extends from710 G onward.
There is experimental evidence that the observed paircondensates existed before the sweep and were not produced during the sweep by collisions. First, the observed
condensate fraction depended on the initial magnetic
field. Second, the condensate fraction did not change
when we varied the delay time d (between release of
the atoms from the trap and the magnetic field ramp) from0 to 200 s, although the density of the cloud changed bya factor of 4 [25]. However, we cannot rule out withcertainty that the momentum distribution of the pairs is
modified by collisions during the ramp [26]. At our highest densities, it takes about 4 s to take the molecules
created during the ramp out of the strongly interacting
region (kF jaj 1). A classical gas at the Fermi temperature would have a unitarity limited collision time comparable to the inverse of the Fermi energy divided by h,which is about 2 s. However, this may be affected by
120403-3

FIG. 4. Condensate fraction for different temperatures as afunction of magnetic field. The temperature of the molecular
cloud was varied by stopping the evaporative cooling earlier
and applying parametric heating before ramping to the final
magnetic field. Temperatures are parametrized by the molecular condensate fraction N0 =N at 820 G (open circles: 0.8; filled
circles: 0.58; open squares: 0.51; filled squares: 0.34; ‘‘ ’’:
0.21; triangles: 0.08; ‘‘’’: <0:01). The lowest temperature
was realized in the shallow trap (P 25 mW); the higher
temperatures required a deeper trap (P 150 mW).

Pauli blocking for the atoms and bosonic stimulation forthe molecules.
Assuming that collisions during the ramp can be neglected, it is still crucial to ask what exactly happens
during the rapid transfer ramp, and what kind of pairs
would likely be detected. A reasonable assumption is that
atoms form molecules preferentially with their nearest
neighbor, independent of the center-of-mass velocity ofthe pair. If, as our data show, a large fraction of the0
Condensate Fraction at 820 G

FIG. 3. Condensate fraction after the rapid transfer vs initial
magnetic field, for different hold times at that field in theshallow trap (P 25 mW). Crosses: 2 ms hold time, after
500 ms ramp to 1000 G and 4 ms ramp to the desired field;
squares and circles: 100 ms and 10 s hold time, after 500 ms
ramp from 770 G. The reduction of the condensate fraction forlong hold times far on the left side of the resonance is probably
due to the rapidly increasing inelastic losses for the more
tightly bound molecules [20,23]. The lower condensate fraction
at high field for long hold times is probably an effect of lower
density since the number of atoms had decayed by a factor of 4
without change in temperature.

0.2
0.1

0.2
0.3

T/TF

0.4
0.5

0.6
0.7

0.8

0.05
700

800
900
Magnetic Field [G]1000

FIG. 5 (color online). Temperature and magnetic field ranges
over which pair condensation was observed (using the samedata as in Fig. 4). The right axis shows the range in T=TF
(measured at 1025 G) which was covered. For high degeneracies, fitting T=TF was less reliable and we regard the condensate fraction as a superior ‘‘thermometer.’’ Note that for an
isentropic crossover from a BEC to a Fermi sea, T=TF isapproximately linearly related to the condensate fraction on
the BEC side [24]. For our maximum densities the region wherekF jaj 1 extends from about 710 G onward.

120403-3

VOLUME 92, N UMBER 12

PHYSICA L R EVIEW LET T ERS

detected molecules are in a zero-momentum state after
the fast transfer, this means that nearest neighbors had
opposite momenta. If the distance between the fermions
with opposite momenta making up each pair were comparable to or larger than the interatomic distance (as inlong-range Cooper pairs) one would not expect to findhigh condensate fractions; on the contrary, the transfer
into a tightly bound molecular state would randomly pick
one of the nearest neighbors, resulting in a thermal molecule. We regard our observed high condensate fractions asevidence for the existence of condensed atomic pairs
above the Feshbach resonance, which are smaller in size
than the interatomic distance and, therefore, molecular incharacter. Their stability may be affected by Pauli blocking and mean-field effects, but their binding should be a
two-body effect and not a many-body effect as in the caseof Cooper pairs.
In conclusion, we have observed 6 Li2 molecular BoseEinstein condensates after a fast downward magnetic
field ramp starting with equilibrium samples at fields
on either side of the broad 6 Li Feshbach resonance.
Since there are no truly bound molecular states above
the resonance, we tentatively interpret our results as a
Bose-Einstein condensate of pairs of atoms which aremolecular in character and stabilized by the existenceof the Fermi sea. This condensate would drain particles
from the Fermi sea and lead to a reduced atomic Fermi
energy roughly equal to half the energy of the molecularlevel [5,6]. Indeed, both in Ref. [8] and in the present
work, a reduction in the size of the cloud was observed as
the Feshbach resonance was approached from above,
which may be due to this effect. In agreement withtheoretical predictions [6] we have observed pair condensation in the regime where T=TF < 0:2 and kF jaj > 1(Fig. 5). The exact nature of the atom pairs remains tobe elucidated; they could be related to virtual states orscattering resonances in the continuum; they may turnout to be the tight-binding limit of Cooper pairs. It is also
possible that the pair condensate is a superposition stateof molecules and Cooper pairs [4 –6]. We regard thecharacterizing feature of the BCS-BEC crossover a qualitative change of the pairing phenomenon which has not
yet been observed.
This work was supported by NSF, ONR, ARO, andNASA. We thank Walter Hofstetter, Michele Saba, andZoran Hadzibabic for stimulating discussions. S. R. isgrateful to the Dr. Jürgen Ulderup foundation for financial
support.

[1] H. T. C. Stoof and M. Houbiers, in Bose-Einstein
Condensation in Atomic Gases, Proceedings of theInternational School of Physics Enrico Fermi, Course
CXL, edited by M. Inguscio, S. Stringari, and C. Wieman(IOS Press, Amsterdam, 1999), pp. 537–553.

120403-4

week ending
26 MARCH 2004

[2] E. Tiesinga, B. J. Verhaar, and H. T. C. Stoof, Phys. Rev. A
47, 4114 (1993); W. C. Stwalley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 1628
(1976); S. Inouye et al., Nature (London) 392, 151(1998); P. Courteille et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 69 (1998).
[3] D. M. Eagles, Phys. Rev. 186, 456 (1969); A. J. Leggett, inModern Trends in the Theory of Condensed Matter.
Proceedings of the XVIth Karpacz Winter School ofTheoretical Physics, Karpacz, Poland, 1980 (SpringerVerlag, Berlin, Karpacz, Poland, 1980), pp. 13–27;
P. Nozières and S. Schmitt-Rink, J. Low Temp. Phys.
59, 195 (1985).
[4] E. Timmermans et al., Phys. Lett. A 285, 228 (2001);
M. Holland et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 120406 (2001);
J. Stajic et al., e-print cond-mat/0309329; A. Perali et al.,e-print cond-mat/0311309; R. Combescot, e-print condmat/0310583; J. Kinnunen, M. Rodriguez, and P. Törmä,e-print cond-mat/0401543.
[5] Y. Ohashi and A. Griffin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 130402(2002).
[6] G. M. Falco and H. T. C. Stoof, e-print cond-mat/
0402579.
[7] M. Houbiers et al., Phys. Rev. A 56, 4864 (1997).
[8] S. Jochim et al., Science 302, 2101 (2003); M. Bartenstein et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 120401 (2004).
[9] M. Greiner, C. A. Regal, and D. S. Jin, Nature (London)
426, 537 (2003).
[10] M.W. Zwierlein et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 250401 (2003).
[11] T. Bourdel et al., e-print cond-mat/0403091.
[12] C. A. Regal, M. Greiner, and D. S. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92,
040403 (2004).
[13] NIST and University of Colorado at Boulder press release,
January 28, 2004; http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/
releases/fermi_condensate.htm.
[14] M. Houbiers et al., Phys. Rev. A 57, R1497 (1998).
[15] T. Mukaiyama et al., e-print cond-mat/0311558 [Phys.
Rev. Lett.(to be published)].
[16] D. S. Petrov, C. Salomon, and G.V. Shlyapnikov, e-printcond-mat/0309010.
[17] The smaller value reported in our previous work [10] wasbased on an incorrect extrapolation of trap frequencies to
100 times lower power. The radial trap frequency wasstrongly influenced by multiple intensity maxima in the
optical focus.
[18] K. Dieckmann et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 203201 (2002).
[19] T. Bourdel et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 020402 (2003).
[20] J. Cubizolles et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 240401 (2003).
[21] According to Fig. 1, this fast ramp can dissociate weakly
bound molecules at low density, but at high density weobserved an atom-molecule conversion 90%.
[22] At this point the cloud was sufficiently dilute that the
final switch off of the field did not reconvert atoms intomolecules.
[23] S. Jochim et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 240402 (2003).
[24] L. D. Carr, G.V. Shlyapnikov, and Y. Castin, e-print condmat/0308306 [Phys. Rev. Lett. (to be published)].
[25] The condensate peak broadened for longer d and could
not be reliably discerned after 200 s.
[26] In the 40 K experiment, the ratio of the effective sweep
rate through resonance and Fermi energy was similar [12].

120403-4

Appendix G
List of Predicted s-wave 6Li-23Na
Feshbach ResonancesThis appendix lists the prediction for all the 6 Li-23 Na Feshbach resonances, obtained
as described in Chapter 4. The last column lists the collisional properties of thelithium-sodium mixtures, covered in more detail in Chapter 3. The ones labeled’Yes’ are stable against spin-exchange collisions and have lifetimes in excess of a few
seconds at typical ultracold atom experiments. For the ones labeled ’Maybe’, basedon experimental observations, the mixture lifetime is expected or was observed to
be long enough to perform typical experiments. The mixtures labeled with ’No’ areexpected to have strong losses.

162

Table G.1: Predicted 6 Li-23 Na Feshbach resonances. Sodium and lithium states are
given in the high-field basis. The triplet molecular state is characterized by the
projection of the total electronic spin, and of the projections of the nuclear spins of6
Li and 23 Na.
Magnetic Field [G]Na state
Li state
Molecular state
Good mixture?
|mS , mi,Li , mi,Na >
717.4
|1>
|1>
|1, 1, -1/2>
Yes
763.1
|1>
|1>
|1, 0, 1/2>
Yes
790.7
|1>
|2>
|1, 1, -3/2>
Maybe
821.1
|1>
|1>
|1, -1, 3/2>
Yes
836.4
|2>
|1>
|1, 1, -3/2>
Maybe
848.2
|1>
|2>
|1, 0, -1/2>
Maybe
876.7
|1>
|3>
|1, 0, -3/2>
Maybe
895.9
|2>
|1>
|1, 0, -1/2>
Maybe
921.1
|1>
|2>
|1, -1, 1/2>
Maybe
924.1
|2>
|2>
|1, 0, -3/2>
Maybe
949.2
|1>
|3>
|1, -1, -1/2>
Maybe
970.2
|2>
|1>
|1, -1, 1/2>
Maybe
992.2
|3>
|1>
|1, 0, -3/2>
Maybe
998
|2>
|2>
|1, -1, -1/2>
Maybe1026.9|2>|3>|1, -1, -3/2>
Maybe1066.7|3>|1>|1, -1, -1/2>
Maybe1095.1|3>|2>|1, -1, -3/2>
Yes
1206.5|4>|1>|1, -1, -3/2>
No
1493
|1>
|5>
|1, 1, -1/2>
Maybe1493.9|1>|6>|1, 1, 1/2>
Yes
1603.5|1>|4>|1, 1, -3/2>
Maybe1603.9|1>|5>|1, 0, 1/2>
Maybe1605.7|1>|6>|1, 0, 3/2>
Yes
1659.5|2>|6>|1, 1, -1/2>
Maybe1689.4|1>|1>|0, 1, 1/2>
Yes
1699.3|1>|1>|0, 0, 3/2>
Yes
1703
|1>
|2>
|0, 1, -1/2>
Maybe1711.1|1>|3>|0, 1, -3/2>
Maybe1716.6|1>|2>|0, 0, 1/2>
Maybe1726.5|1>|2>|0, -1, 3/2>
Maybe1728.4|1>|4>|1, 0, -1/2>
Maybe1729.4|1>|5>|1, -1, 3/2>
Maybe1731.1|1>|3>|0, 0, -1/2>
Maybe1744.6|1>|3>|0, -1, 1/2>
Maybe
1774.1|2>|6>|1, 0, 1/2>
Maybe
1774.5|2>|5>|1, 1, -3/2>
Maybe1817.1|2>|1>|0, 1, -1/2>
Maybecontinued on next page163

Table G.1: continued
Magnetic Field [G]Na state
1825.91830.1
1839.81840.11844.61854
1854.21855
1857.6
1869.4
1872.91901.2
1901.7
1901.8
1951.7
1965.91967.6
1971.7
1974.3
1974.91984.6
1995
1996.92006
2012.1
2019.62023.22027.52028.32042
2042.82065.62089.12099.22099.52109.42119.62142.62162.42171.42174.8

|2>
|2>
|2>
|5>
|2>
|6>
|2>
|7>
|2>
|1>
|2>
|2>
|2>
|2>
|8>
|7>
|3>
|3>
|5>
|6>
|3>
|3>
|3>
|8>
|3>
|7>
|3>
|5>
|6>
|2>
|2>
|8>
|7>
|3>
|3>
|6>
|8>
|7>
|6>
|4>
|8>

Li state
|2>
|1>
|1>
|1>
|2>
|1>
|3>
|1>
|2>
|4>
|3>
|4>
|5>
|6>
|1>
|1>
|1>
|6>
|1>
|1>
|1>
|2>
|1>
|2>
|2>
|2>
|3>
|2>
|2>
|4>
|5>
|1>
|1>
|6>
|5>
|1>
|2>
|2>
|2>
|1>
|3>

164

Molecular state
Good mixture?
|mS , mi,Li , mi,Na >|0, 1, -3/2>
Maybe|0, 0, 1/2>
Maybe
|0, -1, 3/2>
Maybe
|1, 0, -3/2>
No|0, 0, -1/2>
Maybe|1, 1, -3/2>
No|0, 0, -3/2>
Maybe|1, 1, -1/2>
No|0, -1, 1/2>
Maybe
|1, -1, 1/2>
Maybe
|0, -1, -1/2>
Maybe|1, 0, -3/2>
Maybe|1, 0, -1/2>
Maybe|1, -1, 3/2>
Maybe
|1, 1, 1/2>
Yes
|1, 0, 1/2>
No|0, 1, -3/2>
Maybe|1, 1, -3/2>
Maybe|1, -1, -1/2>
No|1, 0, -1/2>
No|0, 0, -1/2>
Maybe|0, 0, -3/2>
Yes|0, -1, 1/2>
Maybe
|1, 1, -1/2>
No|0, -1, -1/2>
Yes|1, 1, -3/2>
No|0, -1, -3/2>
Yes|1, -1, -3/2>
No|1, 0, -3/2>
No|1, -1, -1/2>
Maybe|1, -1, 1/2>
Maybe
|1, 0, 3/2>
Yes
|1, -1, 3/2>
No
|1, 0, -1/2>
Maybe|1, 0, -3/2>
Maybe|1, -1, 1/2>
No
|1, 0, 1/2>
No
|1, 0, -1/2>
No|1, -1, -1/2>
No|0, 0, -3/2>
No|1, 1, -3/2>
Nocontinued on next page

Table G.1: continued
Magnetic Field [G]Na state
2186.42197.22198.42216.52238.82239
2239.12244.82277.92299.62328
2332.12435.92464
2464.4

|4>
|7>
|4>
|6>
|3>
|3>
|3>
|8>
|7>
|8>
|4>
|7>
|8>
|4>
|4>

Li state
|1>
|3>
|2>
|3>
|4>
|6>
|5>
|2>
|2>
|3>
|6>
|3>
|3>
|6>
|5>

165

Molecular state|mS , mi,Li , mi,Na >|0, -1, -1/2>|1, 0, -3/2>|0, -1, -3/2>|1, -1, -3/2>|1, -1, -3/2>|1, -1, 1/2>
|1, -1, -1/2>|1, -1, 3/2>
|1, -1, 1/2>
|1, 0, -1/2>|1, 0, -3/2>|1, -1, -1/2>|1, -1, 1/2>
|1, -1, -1/2>|1, -1, -3/2>

Good mixture?
No
No
Yes
No
Maybe
Maybe
Maybe
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

Appendix H
Manufacturers and suppliersThis appendix lists most of the manufacturers and suppliers I have used for building,
upgrading and maintaining the experiment. It is by no means a complete list of the
suppliers needed to build ultracold atom experiments. However, it contains both themost frequently used suppliers and those manufacturers which supplied special items
and I could only find after spending a lot of time searching. I hope it will be an usefulreference for new lab members.

166

H.1

General supplies and materials

MIT ECAT
Address

On-campus

Web

http://web.mit.edu/ecat/

Notes

MIT’s purchase site from partner suppliers: Airgas, Apple Computer, Dell Computer, DHL, GovConnection, Grainger, Minuteman
Press of Cambridge, Nextel, Office Depot, Verizon Wireless, VWR
International. Heavily discounted, sometimes as low as 25% forchemical supplies.

McMaster-Carr
Address
New Brunswick, NJ
Web

http://www.mcmaster.com/

Notes

One of the biggest industrial supplies distributors. This is our main
source for raw materials, tools and basic electrical supplies. Convenient and fast web search interface, short lead times, low prices.

Grainger
Address

Boston, MA

Web

http://www.grainger.com/

Notes

Another industrial supplier. A place to search if McMaster doesn’t
have it. Slow search interface, but it sells directly to MIT via ECAT.

Graybar
Address

St. Louis, MO

Web

http://www.graybar.com/

Notes

Tools, wire & cable, infrastructure supplies.

Cole-Parmer
Address

Vernon Hills, IL

Web

http://www.coleparmer.com/

Notes

Big general chemistry and biology lab supplier. A good place tosearch for very basic lab equipment.

167

VWR International
Address
Boston, MA
Web

http://www.vwrsp.com/

Notes

Very similar to Cole-Parmer. Has a stockroom on campus (Room56-070), and good discounts.

Fisher Scientific
Address
Pittsburgh, PA

H.2

Web

https://www1.fishersci.com/index.jsp

Notes

Large lab supplier, an alternative to Cole-Parmer and VWR.

Chemical supplies

Sigma-Aldrich
Address
St. Louis, MO
Web

http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/

Notes

Chemical supplier conglomerate, contains by now the Sigma,
Aldrich, Fluka, Riedel-deHaën, Supelco, and SAEN brands. Sells
enriched Lithium-6.

Alfa Aesar
Address

Ward Hill, MA

Web

http://www.alfa.com/alf/index.htm

Notes

Laboratory chemical supplier. It has a comprehensive pure metals
offering.

ESPI (Electronic Space Products International)
Address
Ashland, OR
Web

http://www.espi-metals.com/index.htm

Notes

Pure metals supplier, one good choice for getting ampoule-sealed
sodium.

168

Strem Chemicals
Address
Newburyport, MA
Web

http://www.strem.com/code/index.ghc

Notes

A smaller chemicals supplier, oriented more towards the researchmarket. The other good source for ampoule-sealed sodium, theytend to have lower prices than ESPI.

Icon Isotopes
Address

Summit, NJ

Web

http://www.iconisotopes.com/

Notes

A source for enriched Lithium-6; they normally process the metallic
lithium into reagents, but we have been able to get the raw metal.

Materials Preparation Center
Address
Ames, IA
Web
Notes

http://www.mpc.ameslab.gov/services/metal alloys.html¯
This small government lab specializes in preparation and processing of unusual and rare materials. They accept orders only fromthe government or universities, and only when an alternate service
provider does not exist. They have cleaned and repackaged ourenriched Lithium-6.

H.3

Electronics

Newark InOne (formerly Newark electronics)
Address
Lowell, MA
Web

http://www.newark.com/

Notes

The supplier of electronic components we use most. The web interface allows stock checks. Good delivery time.

169

Dig-Key Corporation
Address
Thief River Falls, MN
Web

http://www.digikey.com/

Notes

If Newark doesn’t have it in stock, check Digi-Key. The alternative
to Newark, with very similar product range and prices. Good webinterface also.

MPJA (Marlin P. Jones & Assoc., Inc.)
Address
Lake Park, FL
Web

http://www.mpja.com/contact.asp

Notes

The very cheap components source, sometimes as low as one-tenthof the standard prices. This also means a small product range andlower reliability.

JDR Microdevices
Address
San Jose, CA
Web

http://www.jdr.com/interact/default.asp

Notes

This small computer components supplier sells the ’grey’ electronics
boxes, which are the best 19” rackmount enclosures I could find.

Belden CDT Electronics Division
Address
Richmond, IN
Web

http://www.belden.com/

Notes

One of the biggest wire and cable manufacturers, including industrystandard and higher quality coaxial cables.

Bergquist Company
Address
Chanhassen, MN
Web

http://www.bergquistcompany.com/

Notes

Manufacturer of thermally conductive films and sheets used forheatsinking, the alternative solution to heat conductive grease.

170

C&H Technology, Inc.
Address
Minnetonka, MN
Web

http://www.chtechnology.com/

Notes

Manufacturer of power electronics, including high-current diodes,
air and liquid heatsinks.

R-Theta Inc.
Address

Mississauga, ON, Canada

Web

http://www.r-theta.com/indexf.html

Notes

Manufacturer of heatsinks and water-cooled plates for electronic
components. This is the manufacturer of the heatsink bars we areusing. In bulk (500$ minimum order), their extruded heatsinks are afactor of ten cheaper than the heatsinks available from distributors.

Aavid Thermalloy
Address
Concord, NH
Web

http://www.aavidthermalloy.com/

Notes

Another heatsink and water-cooled plate manufacturer, with a similar product range as R-Theta. We have not bought extrusions fromthem due to their higher minimum order limit.

MELCOR Corporation
Address
Trenton, NJ
Web

http://www.melcor.com/

Notes

Thermoelectric cooling elements and electronics cooling equipment.

171

H.4

Heating and Temperature

Omega Engineering Inc.
Address
Stamford, CT
Web

http://www.omega.com/

Notes

This is the default place to start looking for heating and temperature measurement hardware. In addition to a comprehensive
list of temperature products, Omega also offers a wide variety offorce/pressure/flow transducers and process control equipment.

TEMPCO Electric Heater Corporation
Address
Wood Dale, IL
Web

http://www.tempco.com/

Notes

Manufacturer of electrical heaters, temperature sensors and controllers. The products are similar to the one offered by Omega, but
often cheaper or with more features. They are the manufacturersof the custom band heaters for the sodium-lithium ovens.

Ogden Manufacturing Co.
Address
Arlington Heights, IL
Web

http://www.ogdenmfg.com/

Notes

Electrical heater manufacturer.

Plastic Process Equipment, Inc.
Address
Macedonia, OH
Web

http://www.ppe.com/default.htm

Notes

Another electrical heater manufacturer from which we have orderedin the past.

172

Cotronics Corp.
Address
Brooklyn, NY
Web

http://cotronics.com/vo/cotr/

Notes

Manufacturer of high-temperature epoxy resins and ceramic adhesives. The magnetic trap in BEC1 was mold into a solid single
piece using a Cotronics epoxy resin. Their non-magnetic resins are
an excellent choice for bonding high-current coils.

H.5

Instruments

H.5.1

Handheld frequency counters

Optoelectronics, Inc.
Address
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Web

http://www.optoelectronics.com/

Notes

Manufacturer of handheld frequency counters with LCD display.

STARTEK International, Inc.
Address
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Web

http://www.startekvideo.com/

Notes

Manufacturer of handheld frequency counters with LED display.
The company no longer produces these very practical counters, but
still services them and sometimes will have a few to sell.

H.5.2

General instruments

Aeroflex Incorporated
Address
Plainview , NY
Web

http://www.aeroflex.com/

Notes

Manufacturer of RF signal sources and test equipment.

173

Agilent Technologies (formerly Hewlett-Packard)
Address
Englewood, CO
Web

http://www.home.agilent.com/USeng/home.html

Notes

High-end manufacturer of a wide range of test and measurement
equipment. High quality, good technical support, high prices. Mostof the frequency synthesizers we bought recently are from Agilent.
We are also bought one of their 6-1/2 digit multimeters for precise
magnetic field calibration; we have chosen it over a Keithley unit
because of its better trigger timing jitter.

Keithley Instruments
Address
Cleveland, OH
Web

http://www.keithley.com/

Notes

Test and measurement equipment manufacturer. Their productrange overlaps partially with Agilent’s, where they produce similar products, only slightly better or worse than Agilent’s. Their
multimeter-based data acquisition units are in particular a gooddeal and we use them for temperature interlock. Keithley also produces a range of PC data acquisition cards which sometimes havebetter specs than the ones made by National Instruments.

Stanford Research Systems
Address
Sunnyvale,CA
Web

http://www.thinksrs.com/

Notes

Manufacturer of quality scientific instruments. Some of their products are unique in their capabilities, as the high-frequency lock-in
amplifiers. We are using their lock-in amplifiers, a low-noise current
preamplifier, and a few of their 30 MHz DDS synthesizers.

174

Rohde & Schwarz USA
Address
Columbia, MD
Web

http://www.rohde-schwarz.com/

Notes

Synthesizers, handheld spectrum analyzers, power meters.

F.W. Bell (part of Sypris Test&Measurement)
AddressOrlando, FL
Web

http://www.fwbell.com/

Notes

Manufacturers of high precision magnetometers. They also produce
the fast, high-accuracy closed loop current sensors used in our magnetic trap setup.

H.5.3

Power supplies

Lambda Americas Inc. (formerly Lambda EMI, formerly Electronic Measurements Inc.)
Address
Neptune, NJ
Web

http://www.lambda-emi.com/

Notes

Manufacturer of most of the high-current dc power supplies we use
today. The 650 µs response time of the ESS series is not yet matchedby other manufacturers. Currently the maximum output of the
ESS series is 15 kW; we could use higher outputs to produce higher
magnetic fields.

Elgar Electronics Corporation
Address
San Diego, CA
Web

http://www.elgar.com/

Notes

Elgar owns the Sorensen and PowerTen brands. Both have in theirproduct lines efficient, up to 30 kW dc power supplies.

175Kepco, Inc.
Address

Flushing, NY

Web

http://www.kepcopower.com/

Notes

Programmable dc power supplies.

Xantrex Technology
Address
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Web

http://www.xantrex.com/index.asp

Notes

Programmable dc power supplies, comparable to Lambda andSorensen products.

H.5.4

rf power meters

Aeroflex, Wichita Division (formerly IFR, formerly Marconi Instruments)
Address

Wichita, KS

Web

http://www.aeroflex.com/

Notes

Manufacturer of the white handheld RF power meter we use.

LP Technologies, Inc.
Address
Wichita, KS
Web

http://www.lptech.com/

Notes

Manufacturer of the black handheld RF power meter we use. Thispower meter is much cheaper, but has questionable accuracy andvery few features.

Giga-tronics Incorporated
Address
San Ramon, CA
Web

http://www.gigatronics.com/

Boonton Electronics
Address
Parsippany, NJ
Web

http://www.boonton.com/

176

H.6

OpticsThorlabs, Inc.
Address
Newton, NJ
Web

http://www.thorlabs.com/

Notes

The best price/quality ratio for optic mounts and components.
Their product range increased significantly during the last few years.
Our group can also take advantage of a special 8% discount. Mostof the mounts we use are made by ThorLabs. We also use theirhardware to drive laser diodes.

Melles Griot
Address

Carlsbad, CA; Rochester, NY

Web

http://www.mellesgriot.com/

Notes

Comprehensive laser and optics manufacturer and distributor. Except for optical tables, we do not buy a lot from them.

Newport Corporation
Address
Irvine, CA
Web

http://www.newport.com/

Notes

Optics and laser manufacturer and distributor. My favorite sourcefor higher quality optomechanics.

They have recently bought

Spectra-Physics.
CVI Laser, LLC
Address
Putnam, CT
Web

http://www.cvilaser.com/

Notes

High-quality and high-power coated optics. They also manufactured
the dichroic mirrors we use.

Meadowlark Optics
Address
Frederick, CO
Web

http://www.meadowlark.com/

Notes

Polarization optics.

177

Edmund Optics Inc. (Edmund Industrial Optics)
Address
Barrington, NJ
Web

http://www.edmundoptics.com/US/

Notes

Budget optics and optical components.

Fiber Instrument Sales, Inc.
Address
Oriskany, NY
Web

http://www.fiberinstrumentsales.com/

Notes

Fiber optics supplier, including connectors and assembly equipment.

Kinetic Systems, Inc.
Address
Boston, MA
Web

http://www.kineticsystems.com/

Notes

Optical tables and vibration isolation products.

TMC Technical Manufacturing Corporation
Address
Peabody, MA
Web

http://www.techmfg.com/

Notes

Optical tables and vibration isolation products.

Lenox Laser
Address

Glen Arm, MD

Web

http://www.lenoxlaser.com/index.html

Notes

High-energy pinholes.

Reynard Corporation
Address
San Clemente, CA
Web

http://www.reynardcorp.com/

Notes

Optical components, including filters, polarizers, and high-energy
pinholes.

178

OPTHOS Instruments, Inc.
Address
Rockville, MD
Web

http://www.e-opthos.com/index.htm

Notes

Na, K, Rb, and Cs absorption cells.

H.6.1

Acousto-optical modulators

IntraAction Corp.
Address
Bellwood, IL
Web

http://www.intraaction.com/

Notes

IntraAction’s AOMs have excellent prices and good performance.
Unfortunately, they almost never deliver as promised, especially forhigh-frequency models. It happened more than once that an AOM
promised in two weeks was delivered after 4 or 6 months.

Isomet Corporation
Address
Springfield, VA
Web

http://www.isomet.com/

Notes

Low-frequency (<400 MHz) modulators.

Crystal Technology, Inc.
Address
Palo Alto, CA
Web

http://www.crystaltechnology.com/

Notes

Modulators up to 350 MHz center frequency. Most of the 350 MHz
TeO2 modulators we have used mysteriously lowered their efficiency
after one or two months of operation.

Brimrose Corporation of America
Address
Baltimore, MD
Web

http://www.brimrose.com/

Notes

AOMs up to 3500 MHz, with very good quoted efficiency. Much
more expensive than other manufacturers.

179

H.7

rf and microwave

Mini-Circuits
Address
Brooklyn, NY
Web

http://www.minicircuits.com/

Notes

Mini-Circuits is our main source of microwave components. It packages discrete components into shielded, connectorized units. They
have most of the components we need, and they are typically instock. Their low point is the reliability and price of rf amplifiers,
but they compensate for it by usually having them in stock.

Aeroflex/Inmet, Inc. (formerly Inmet Microwave)
Address
Ann Arbor, MI
Web

http://www.inmetcorp.com/

Notes

High-power passive components.

Midwest Microwave
Address
Saline, MI
Web

http://ebiz.midwest-microwave.com/cgi-bin/mmb2c/main.html

Notes

High-power passive components, including custom low-loss cable
assemblies.

Pasternack Enterprises, Inc.
Address
Irvine, CA
Web

http://www.pasternack.com/

Notes

Coaxial cables and connectors.

Semflex
AddressMesa, AZ

Web

http://www.semflex.com/homepage.htm

Notes

Low-loss and high-power cable assemblies. Expensive.

180

Narda Microwave
Address
Folsom, CA; Hauppauge, NY
Web

http://www.nardamicrowave.com/

Notes

Active and passive components.

RF Associates Inc.
Address
Topsfield, MA
Web

http://www.rfassociates-ne.com/

Notes

Local RF and microwave distributor.

H.7.1

Amplifiers

Delta RF Technology
Address
Sparks, NV
Web

http://www.drft.com/

Notes

One of the best amplifier suppliers. Their units are rugged, reliable,
and relatively cheap. Availability is occasionally a problem.

Ophir RF
Address

Los Angeles, CA

Web

http://www.ophirrf.com/

Notes

Ophir specializes in high-power (>1W) amplifiers. We have usedsome of their 10W amplifier modules with very good results. Somewhat expensive though.

Empower RF Systems, Inc.
Address
Inglewood, CA
Web

http://www.empowerrf.com/

Notes

Large number of quality models, sometimes low priced; we haveused them. They are almost never stocking them, so the lead time
is typically 4-6 weeks.

181

NEXTEC Microwave & RF
Address
Santa Clara, CA
Web

http://www.nextec-rf.com/

Notes

Amplifer modules with design and specifications comparable toMini-Circuits models.

HD Communications Corp.
AddressRonkonkoma, NY
Web

http://www.rfamplifiers.com/

Notes

Wide amplifier module range.

KMIC Technology, Inc.
Address
San Jose, CA
Web
MITEQ
AddressWeb

H.7.2

http://www.kmictech.com/

Hauppauge, NY
http://www.miteq.com/index.html

VCOs and compact synthesizers

Bonn Hungary Electronics
Address
Budapest, HungaryWebhttp://www.bonn-hungary.hu/

Notes

Frequency synthesizers can be built in sizes comparable to a cigarette pack, sacrificing somewhat the frequency accuracy setting resolution. However, they cost one quarter the price of a standard
benchtop synthesizer. Most of the compact synthesizers require external digital or analog frequency control, but Bonn offers a modelwith display and front panel setting which covers 0.3 to 3 GHz in
50 kHz steps in a very compact size.

182

APA Wireless Technologies
Address
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Web

http://www.apawireless.com/

CERNEX, Inc.
Address
Sunnyvale, CA
Web

http://www.cernex.com/

Elcom Technologies
Address
Rockleigh, NJ
Web

http://www.elcom-tech.com/

General Electronic Devices
Address
San Marcos, CA
Web

http://www.gedlm.com/

Herley Industries, Inc.
Address
Lancaster, PA
Web

http://www.herley.com/

Meret Optical Communications, Inc.
Address
San Diego, CA
Web

http://www.meretoptical.com/

Sirenza Microdevices, Inc.
Address
Broomfield, CO
Web

http://www.sirenza.com/corporate home.asp¯

Synergy Microwave Corporation
Address
Paterson, NJ
Web

http://www.synergymwave.com/

TRAK Microwave Corporation
Address
Tampa, FL
Web

http://www.trak.com/

183

H.8

SafetyTrinity Technologies
Address
Minneapolis, MN
Web

http://www.lasersafety.com/

Notes

Laser safety products: eyewear, windows, sheets, barriers.

Safety Label Solutions, Inc.
Address
Milford, PA

H.9

Web

http://safetylabelsolutions.com/

Notes

Safety labels.

Transducers, control and infrastructure

Humphrey Products Company
Address
Kalamazoo, MI
Web

http://www.controlandpower.com/catalog/html/humphrey.htm

Notes

Humphrey solenoid valves are used in most pneumatically controlled vacuum devices, for example in the gate valves and motion
feedthroughs.

Legris Connectic
AddressMesa, AZ
Web
Notes

http://www.legris.com/Legris/en US/home2.nsf/vuid/HomePage¯
Manufacturer of push-on pneumatic connectors. Legris connectors
are used in MDC gate valves and are much easier to install thancompression fittings.

184

Swagelok Company
Address
Solon, OH
Web

http://www.swagelok.com/

Notes

In addition to its own brand of compression fittings, Swagelok offers
a comprehensive assortment of quality fluid connectors, tubing andvalves.

Parker Instrumentation
Address
Huntsville, AL
Web

http://www.parker.com/instrumentation/

Notes

Parker Instrumentation offers a wider range of fluid fittings, valves,tubing and manifolds than Swagelok.

80/20 Inc.
Address

Columbia City, IN

Web

http://www.8020.net/

Notes

The leading US supplier of aluminum T-slotted profiles for framing
and support structures.

ElastoMetall Kentucky LLC
Address
Frankfort, KY
Web

http://www.elastometall.com/

Notes

Passive vibration isolation products. We have used steel-rubbersteel joints from ElastoMetall to mount mechanical shutters and to
reduce vibrations generated by our water distribution panel.

Flowmeter DirectoryWeb
http://www.flowmeterdirectory.com/
Notes

Comprehensive online resource for fluid flowmeters.

185

McMillan Company
Address
Georgetown, TX
Web

http://www.mcmflow.com/

Notes

Cheap turbine fluid flowmeters. Most of the flowmeters used in our
experiments are made by them. We had reliability problems using
them in the BEC1, and we had later switched to thermal flowmeters.
They work well if the water is not algae-contaminated though.

weber Sensors Inc.
Address
Woodstock, GA
Web

http://www.captor.com/wsi.htm

Notes

Manufacturer of fluid flowmeters. Their ’flow-captor’ inline thermal
flow meters have no internal moving parts and are used in the BEC1
watercooling circuit.

Purolator Air Filtration
Address
Henderson, NC
Web

http://www.purolatorair.com/

Notes

Air filters for the laminar flow boxes.

Parker Process Filtration
Address
Indianapolis, IN
Web

http://www.parker.com/filtration/

Notes

Quality filter cartridges for the water cooling system.

MSC Filtration Technologies
Address
Enfield, CT
Web

http://www.mscliquidfiltration.com/

Notes

Liquid and air filtration equipment.

Leslie’s Swimming Pool Supplies
Address
Phoenix, AZ
Web

http://www.lesliespool.com/

Notes

Algicides and cleaning substances the water cooling system.

186

Weber Industries, Inc. (Webtrol Pumps)
Address
St. Louis, MO
Web

http://www.webtrol.com/

Notes

Manufacturer of Webtrol line of heavy duty, high-pressure booster
pumps. The booster pump in BEC1 is a Webtrol.

Process Equipment & Supply Inc.
Address
Cleveland, OH
Web

http://www.proequip.com/

Notes

Manufacturer of the Branson brand of ultrasonic cleaners and ultrasonic cleaning solutions.

EH Hinds
Address
Notes

Watertown, MA
Heavy equipment hauling and machinery moving. We have usedtheir services for the delivery and installation of optical tables. They
can also deal with other heavy equipment.

H.10

VacuumA&N Corporation
Address
Williston, FL
Web

http://www.ancorp.com/

Notes

A&N is the only company which we found so far capable of producing quality custom fitting for the two-species oven. They have alsoa well-stocked, comprehensive line of ConFlat fittings.

BOC Edwards
Address
Wilmington, MA
Web

http://www.bocedwards.com/

Notes

BOC Edwards offers a large variety of vacuum components. We
have bought roughing pumps from them.

187

Duniway Stockroom Corp.
Address
Mountain View, CA
Web

http://www.duniway.com/

Notes

Competitively priced and second-hand components. The source forextra-long vacuum bolts and studs.

Huntington Mechanical Laboratories, Inc.
Address
Mountain View, CA
Web

http://huntvac.com/

Notes

Huntington offers a comprehensive list of motion feedthroughs, andproduces custom chambers and bellows.

James Glass Company
Address
Hanover, MA
Notes

Glassblowers for scientific equipment, including UHV glass cells.

Kurt J. Lesker Company
Address
Clairton, PA
Web

http://www.lesker.com/newweb/index.cfm

Notes

Kurt J. Lesker manufactures and distributes a full range of vacuum
hardware. We also had a good experience with their custom built
hardware.

MDC Vacuum Products Corporation
Address
Hayward, CA
Web

http://www.mdc-vacuum.com/

Notes

MDC manufactures a full line of ConFlat fittings, valves andfeedthroughs. The only UHV gate valve supplier we have used in thepast six years. Recently, their competitive pricing and availability
made MDC our principal source for fittings.

188Nor-Cal Products, Inc.
Address
Yreka, CAWeb

http://www.n-c.com/

Notes

Another comprehensive vacuum supplier. We have not bought fromthem in quite a while now.

Pfeiffer Vacuum
Address
Nashua, NH
Web

http://www.pfeiffer-vacuum.com/

Notes

Major vacuum supplier. We have bought from them a helium leakchecker recently, and we use a few older Pfeiffer-Balzers turbopumps
and roughing pumps.

Systems Design & Fabrication, Inc.
Address
Fall River, MA
Web

http://www.systemsfab.com/

Notes

Systems Design & Fabrication took over Varian’s custom manufacturing. They have manufactured the first set of hardware for
BEC2’s two species oven. We had major problems getting leaktight seals with their fittings.

Thermionics Vacuum Products
Address
Port Townsend, WA
Web

http://www.thermionics.com/

Notes

Thermionics Vacuum provides a complete line of high and ultra highvacuum components, including motion feedthroughs. In particular,
they are one of the few ion pump manufacturers.

Vacs SEV Co.,Ltd.
Address
Tokyo, JapanWeb

http://sev-vacuum.com/

Notes

Special vacuum gaskets, including the (possibly) best ConFlat nickel
gaskets available. We have recently bought gaskets from them.

189

Varian, Inc. Vacuum Technologies
Address
Lexington, MA
Web

http://www.varianinc.com/cgi-bin/nav?/products/vacuum/

Notes

Varian manufactures a complete line of UHV components. They
are the only manufacturer supplying all types of pumps and vacuum
gauges. All of our ion pumps and titanium sublimation pumps are
made by Varian, as well as most of our turbopumps. We also use
almost exclusively Varian hardware for vacuum measurement. They
have recently terminated their custom chamber building business.

Veeco Instruments
Address
Woodbury, NY
Web

http://www.veeco.com/

Notes

Veeco manufactures vacuum equipment for the semiconductor industry, relevant to us being their fast linear beam shutters andheated viewports.

190

Bibliography[1] C. A. Stan and W. Ketterle. Multiple species atom source for laser-coolingexperiments. Rev. Sci. Instrum., 76:063113, 2005.
[2] Z. Hadzibabic, C. A. Stan, K. Dieckmann, S. Gupta, M. W. Zwierlein, A.
Görlitz and W. Ketterle. Two species mixture of quantum degenerate Bose andFermi gases. Phys. Rev. Lett., 88:160401, 2002.
[3] Z. Hadzibabic, S. Gupta, C. A. Stan, C. H. Schunck, M. W. Zwierlein, K.
Dieckmann and W. Ketterle. Fifty-fold improvement in the number of quantum
degenerate fermionic atoms. Phys. Rev. Lett., 91:160401, 2003.
[4] C. A. Stan, M. W. Zwierlein, C. H. Schunck, S. M. F. Raupach and W. Ketterle.
Observation of Feshbach resonances between two different atomic species. Phys.
Rev. Lett., 93:143001, 2004.
[5] M. W. Zwierlein, C. A. Stan, C. H. Schunck, S. M. F. Raupach, S. Gupta,
Z. Hadzibabic and W. Ketterle. Observation of Bose-Einstein Condensation of
Molecules. Phys. Rev. Lett., 91:250401, 2003.
[6] M. W. Zwierlein, C. A. Stan, C. H. Schunck, S. M. F. Raupach, A. J. Kerman
and W. Ketterle. Condensation of Pairs of Fermionic Atoms near a Feshbach
Resonance. Phys. Rev. Lett., 92:120403, 2004.
[7] K. Dieckmann, C. A. Stan, S. Gupta, Z. Hadzibabic, C. Schunck and W. Ketterle. Decay of ultracold Fermionic lithium gas near a Feshbach resonance.
Phys. Rev. Lett., 89:203201, 2002.
191

[8] S. Gupta, Z. Hadzibabic, M. W. Zwierlein, C. A. Stan, K. Dieckmann, C. H.
Schunck, E. G. M. v. Kempen, B. J. Verhaar and W. Ketterle. RF Spectroscopy
of Ultracold Fermions. Science, 300:1723-1726, 2003.
[9] C. H. Schunck, M. W. Zwierlein, C. A. Stan, S. M. F. Raupach and W. Ketterle.
Feshbach resonances in fermionic lithium-6. Phys. Rev. A, 71:045601, 2005.
[10] M. W. Zwierlein, C. H. Schunck, C. A. Stan, S. M. F. Raupach and W. Ketterle.
Formation Dynamics of a Fermion Pair Condensate. Phys. Rev. Lett., 94:180401,
2005.
[11] Z. Hadzibabic. Studies of a Quantum Degenerate Fermionic Lithium Gas. Ph.D.
Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003.
[12] S. Gupta. Experiments with Degenerate Bose and Fermi Gases. Ph.D. Thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003.
[13] M. Zwierlein. Cooling and Trapping a Bose-Fermi Mixture of Dilute Atomic
Gases. Stage de Recherche, MIP, 2e Année Thesis, École Normale Supérieure
Paris, France, 2001.
[14] C. Schunck. Study of an ultracold cloud of fermionic lithum-6 atoms near a
Feshbach resonance. Diploma Thesis, University of Heidelberg, Germany, 2002.
[15] S. M. F. Raupach. Experimental Investigations of Novel Quantum States inCondensed Matter: Scattering Resonances and the Fermion-Boson Crossoverin Ultracold Alkali-Vapours. Diploma Thesis, University of Leipzig, Germany,
2004.
[16] F. A. van Abeelen and B. J. Verhaar. Time-Dependent Feshbach Resonance
Scattering and Anomalous Decay of a Na Bose-Einstein Condensate. Phys. Rev.
Lett., 83:1550-1553, 1999.
[17] E. R. I. Abraham, W. I. McAlexander, J. M. Gerton, R. G. Hulet, R. Côté and
A. Dalgarno. Triplet s-wave resonance in 6 Li collisions and scattering lengthsof 6 Li and 7 Li. Phys. Rev. A, 55:R3299, 1997.
192

[18] 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, 269:198-201, 1995.
[19] A. V. Avdeenkov and J. L. Bohn. Pair wave functions in atomic Fermi condensates. Phys. Rev. A, 71:023609, 2005.
[20] M. A. Baranov, M. S. Mar’enko, V. S. Rychkov and G. V. Shlyapnikov. Superfluid pairing in a polarized dipolar Fermi gas. Phys. Rev. A, 66:013606,
2002.
[21] J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper and J. R. Schrieffer. Theory of Superconductivity.
Phys. Rev., 108:1175, 1957.
[22] M. Bartenstein, A. Altmeyer, S. Riedl, S. Jochim, C. Chin, J. H. Denschlag
and R. Grimm. Crossover from a molecular Bose-Einstein condensate to adegenerate Fermi gas. Phys. Rev. Lett., 92:120401, 2004.
[23] M. Bartenstein, A. Altmeyer, S. Riedl, S. Jochim, C. Chin, J. H. Denschlag
and R. Grimm. Collective Excitations of a Degenerate Gas at the BEC-BCS
Crossover. Phys. Rev. Lett., 92:203201, 2004.
[24] H. L. Bethlem, G. Berden, F. M. H. Crompvoets, R. T. Jongma, A. J. A. van
Roij and G. Meijer. Electrostatic trapping of ammonia molecules. Nature,
406:491, 2000.
[25] M. J. Bijlsma, B. A. Heringa and H. T. C. Stoof. Phonon exchange in dilute
Fermi-Bose mixtures: Tailoring the Fermi-Fermi interaction. Phys. Rev. A,
61:053601, 2000.
[26] T. Bourdel, J. Cubizolles, L. Khaykovich, K. M. F. Magalhães, S. J. J. M. F.
Kokkelmans, G. V. Shlyapnikov and C. Salomon. Measurement of the Interaction Energy near a Feshbach Resonance in a 6 Li Fermi Gas. Phys. Rev. Lett.,
91:020402, 2003.

193

[27] T. Bourdel, L. Khaykovich, J. Cubizolles, J. Zhang, F. Chevy, M. Teichmann,
L. Tarruell, S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans and C. Salomon. Experimental Studyof the BEC-BCS Crossover Region in Lithium 6. Phys. Rev. Lett., 93:050401,
2004.
[28] U. Buck and H. Pauly. Measurement of the van der Waals potential between
alkali atoms. Z. Phys., 185:155-168, 1965.
[29] H. P. Büchler and G. Blatter. Supersolid versus Phase Separation in Atomic
Bose-Fermi Mixtures. Phys. Rev. Lett., 91:130404-130404, 2003.
[30] A. P. Chikkatur. Colliding and Moving Bose-Einstein Condensates: Studies
of superfluidity and optical tweezers for condensate transport. Ph.D. Thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2002.
[31] C. Chin and R. Grimm. Thermal equilibrium and efficient evaporation of an
ultracold atom-molecule mixture. Phys. Rev. A, 69:033612, 2004.
[32] C. Chin, M. Bartenstein, A. Altmeyer, S. Riedl, S. Jochim, J. H. Denschlag
and R. Grimm. Observation of the Pairing Gap in a Strongly Interacting Fermi
Gas. Science, 305:1128-1130, 2004.
[33] S. Chu. The manipulation of neutral particles. Rev. Mod. Phys., 70:685, 1998.
[34] C. N. Cohen-Tannoudji. Manipulating atoms with photons. Rev. Mod. Phys.,
70:707, 1998.
[35] E. A. Cornell and C. E. Wieman. Bose-Einstein condensation in a dilute gas,
the first 70 years and some recent experiments. Rev. Mod. Phys., 74:875, 2002.
[36] P. Courteille, R. S. Freeland, D. J. Heinzen, F. A. van Abeelen and B. J.
Verhaar. Observation of a Feshbach resonance in cold atom scattering. Phys.
Rev. Lett., 81:69-72, 1998.

194

[37] J. Cubizolles, T. Bourdel, S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, G. V. Shlyapnikov andC. Salomon. Production of Long-Lived Ultracold Li2 Molecules from a Fermi
gas. Phys. Rev. Lett., 91:240401, 2003.
[38] J. Dalibard. Collisional dynamics of ultra-cold atomic gases, in Bose-Einstein
Condensation in Atomic Gases, M. Inguscio and S. Stringari and C.E. Wieman
eds., pp. 321-350. IOS Press, 1999.
[39] 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., 75:3969-3973, 1995.
[40] D. DeMille. Quantum Computation with Trapped Polar Molecules. Phys. Rev.
Lett., 88:067901-067904, 2002.
[41] R. B. Diener and T.-L. Ho. Projecting Fermion Pair Condensates into MolecularCondensates. preprint cond-mat/0404517, 2004.
[42] E. A. Donley, N. R. Claussen, S. T. Thompson and C. E. Wieman. Atommolecule coherence in a BoseEinstein condensate. Nature, 417:529, 2002.
[43] D. Durfee. Dynamic Properties of Dilute Bose-Einstein Condensates. Ph.D.
Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1999.
[44] S. Dürr, T. Volz, A. Marte and G. Rempe. Observation of Molecules Produced
from a Bose-Einstein Condensate. Phys. Rev. Lett., 92:020406-020404, 2004.
[45] D. M. Eagles. Possible Pairing without Superconductivity at Low Carrier Concentrations in Bulk and Thin-Film Superconducting Semiconductors. Phys.
Rev., 186:456463, 1969.
[46] D. V. Efremov and L. Viverit. p-wave Cooper pairing of fermions in mixturesof dilute Fermi and Bose gases. Phys. Rev. B, 65:134519, 2002.
[47] G. M. Falco and H. T. C. Stoof. Crossover Temperature of Bose-Einstein Condensation in an Atomic Fermi Gas. Phys. Rev. Lett., 92:130401, 2004.
195

[48] M. E. Gehm, S. L. Hemmer, S. R. Granade, K. M. O’Hara and J. E. Thomas.
Mechanical stability of a strongly interacting Fermi gas of atoms. Phys. Rev.
A, 68:011401, 2003.
[49] A. Görlitz, J. M. Vogels, A. E. Leanhardt, C. Raman, T. L. Gustavson, J.
R. Abo-Shaeer, A. P. Chikkatur, S. Gupta, S. Inouye, T. Rosenband and W.
Ketterle. Realization of Bose-Einstein condensates in lower dimensions. Phys.
Rev. Lett., 87:130402-130404, 2001.
[50] A. Görlitz, T. L. Gustavson, A. E. Leanhardt, R. Lw, A. P. Chikkatur, S. Gupta,
S. Inouye, D. E. Pritchard and W. Ketterle. Sodium Bose-Einstein Condensatesin the F=2 State in a Large-volume Optical Trap. Phys. Rev. Lett., 90:090401,
2003.
[51] K. Góral, L. Santos and M. Lewenstein. Quantum Phases of Dipolar Bosons in
Optical Lattices. Phys. Rev. Lett., 88:170406-170404, 2002.
[52] M. Greiner, C. A. Regal and D. S. Jin. Emergence of a molecular BoseEinsteincondensate from a Fermi gas. Nature, 426:537, 2003.
[53] T. W. Hänsch and A. L. Schawlow. Cooling of gases by laser radiation. Opt.
Commun., 13:68, 1975.
[54] H. Heiselberg, C. J. Pethick, H. Smith and L. Viverit. Influence of Induced
Interactions on the Superfluid Transition in Dilute Fermi Gases. Phys. Rev.
Lett., 85:2418, 2000.
[55] H. Heiselberg. Fermi systems with long scattering lengths. Phys. Rev. A,
63:043606, 2001.
[56] J. Herbig, T. Kraemer, M. Mark, T. Weber, C. Chin, H.-C. Nägerl and R.
Grimm. Preparation of a Pure Molecular Quantum Gas. Science, 301:1510,
2003.

196

[57] H. F. Hess. Evaporative cooling of magnetically trapped and compressed spinpolarized hydrogen. Phys. Rev. B, 34:3476, 1986.
[58] T.-L. Ho. Universal Thermodynamics of Degenerate Quantum Gases in the
Unitarity Limit. Phys. Rev. Lett., 92:090402, 2004.
[59] E. Hodby, S. T. Thompson, C. A. Regal, M. Greiner, A. C. Wilson, D. S. Jin,
E. A. Cornell and C. E. Wieman. Production Efficiency of Ultracold Feshbach
Molecules in Bosonic and Fermionic Systems. Phys. Rev. Lett., 94:120402, 2005.
[60] M. Holland, S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, M. L. Chiofalo and R. Walser. Resonance Superfluidity in a Quantum Degenerate Fermi Gas. Phys. Rev. Lett.,
87:120406, 2001.
[61] M. Houbiers, R. Ferwerda and H. T. C. Stoof. Superfluid state of atomic 6 Li ina magnetic trap. Phys. Rev. A, 56:4864, 1997.
[62] M. Houbiers, H. T. C. Stoof, W. I. McAlexander and R. G. Hulet. Elastic andinelastic collisions of 6 Li atoms in magnetic and optical traps. Phys. Rev. A,
57:R1497, 1998.
[63] M. Inguscio, S. Stringari and C. E. Wieman. Bose-Einstein condensation in
atomic gases. IOS Press, Amsterdam, 1999.
[64] 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, 392:151-154, 1998.
[65] S. Jochim, M. Bartenstein, A. Altmeyer, G. Hendl, C. Chin, J. H. Denschlag and
R. Grimm. Pure Gas of Optically Trapped Molecules Created from FermionicAtoms. Phys. Rev. Lett., 91:240402, 2003.
[66] S. Jochim, M. Bartenstein, A. Altmeyer, G. Hendl, S. Riedl, C. Chin, J. Hecker
Denschlag and R. Grimm. Bose-Einstein Condensation of Molecules. Science,
302:2101, 2003.
197

[67] M. A. Joffe. Trapping and cooling atoms at high densities. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1993.
[68] W. Ketterle and N. J. van Druten. Evaporative cooling of trapped atoms,
in Advances in Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, B. Bederson and H.
Walther eds., pp. 181-236. Academic Press, San Diego, 1996.
[69] W. Ketterle, D. S. Durfee and D. M. Stamper-Kurn. Making, probing andunderstanding Bose-Einstein condensates, in Bose-Einstein condensation in
atomic gases, M. Inguscio, S. Stringari and C.E. Wieman eds., pp. 67-176.
IOS Press, Amsterdam, 1999.
[70] W. Ketterle. When atoms behave as waves: Bose-Einstein condensation andthe atom laser, in Les Prix Nobel 2001, pp. 118-154. The Nobel Foundation,
Stockholm, 2002.
[71] J. Kinast, S. L. Hemmer, M. E. Gehm, A. Turlapov and J. E. Thomas. Evidence for Superfluidity in a Resonantly Interacting Fermi Gas. Phys. Rev. Lett.,
92:150402, 2004.
[72] J. Kinast, A. Turlapov, J. E. Thomas, Q. Chen, J. Stajic and K. Levin. Heat
Capacity of a Strongly-Interacting Fermi Gas. Science, 307:1296, 2005.
[73] J. Kinnunen, M. Rodriguez and P. Torma. Pairing Gap and In-Gap Excitationsin Trapped Fermionic Superfluids. Science, 305:1131, 2004.
[74] C. Kittel and H. Kroemer. Thermal Physics. W. H. Freeman, New York, 1980.
[75] S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, J. N. Milstein, M. L. Chiofalo, R. Walser and M.
J. Holland. Resonance superfluidity: Renormalization of resonance scattering
theory. Phys. Rev. A, 65:053617, 2002.
[76] M. G. Kozlov and L. N. Labzowsky. Parity Violation Effects in Diatomics. J.
Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys., 28:1933-1961, 1995.

198

[77] T. Köhler, T. Gasenzer, P. S. Julienne and K. Burnett. Long-range nature of
Feshbach molecules in Bose-Einstein condensates. Phys. Rev. Lett., 91:230401,
2003.
[78] C. E. Kuklewicz. Surface excitations and critical velocity of a Bose-Einsteincondensate. S.M. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2000.
[79] A. E. Leanhardt, A. Görlitz, A. P. Chikkatur, D. Kielpinski, Y. Shin, D. E.
Pritchard and W. Ketterle. Imprinting vortices in a Bose-Einstein condensate
using topological phases. Phys. Rev. Lett., 89:190403, 2002.
[80] A. J. Leggett. A theoretical description of the new phases of liquid 3 He. Rev.
Mod. Phys., 47:331, 1975.
[81] A. J. Leggett. Diatomic molecules and Cooper pairs, in Proceedings of the
XVIth Karpacz Winter School of Theoretical Physics, Karpacz, Poland, 1980,
pp. 13-27, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
[82] K. G. Libbrecht, R. A. Boyd, P. A. Willems, T. L. Gustavson and D. K. Kim.
Teaching physics with 670 nm diode lasersconstruction of stabilized lasers andlithium cells. Am. J. Phys., 63:729, 1995.
[83] A. P. Mackenzie and Y. Maeno. The superconductivity of Sr2 RuO4 and thephysics of spin-triplet pairing. Rev. Mod. Phys., 75:657-656, 2003.
[84] M. Mackie and J. Piilo. Feshbach-Resonant Interactions in 40 K and 6 Li Degenerate Fermi Gases. Phys. Rev. Lett., 94:060403, 2005.
[85] A. G. Martin, K. Helmerson, V. S. Bagnato, G. P. Lafyatis and D. E. Pritchard.
rf Spectroscopy of Trapped Neutral Atoms. Phys. Rev. Lett., 61:2431, 1988.
[86] N. Masuhara, J. M. Doyle, J. C. Sandberg, D. Kleppner, T. J. Greytak, H.
F. Hess and G. P. Kochanski. Evaporative Cooling of Spin-Polarized Atomic
Hydrogen. Phys. Rev. Lett., 61:935-938, 1988.
[87] H. J. Metcalf and P. v. d. Straten. Laser Cooling and Trapping. Springer, 2001.
199

[88] 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., 77:416-419, 1996.
[89] F. H. Mies, E. Tiesinga and P. S. Julienne. Manipulation of Feshbach Resonances in Ultracold Atomic Collisions using Time-dependent Magnetic Fields.
Phys. Rev. A, 61:022721, 2000.
[90] 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.
[91] J. N. Milstein, S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans and M. J. Holland. Resonance theoryof the crossover from Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer superfluidity to Bose-Einsteincondensation in a dilute Fermi gas. Phys. Rev. A, 66:043604, 2002.
[92] K. Mølmer. Bose Condensates and Fermi Gases at Zero Temperature. Phys.
Rev. Lett., 80:1804, 1998.
[93] T. Mukaiyama, J. R. Abo-Shaeer, K. Xu, J. K. Chin and W. Ketterle. Dissociation and Decay of Ultracold Sodium Molecules. Phys. Rev. Lett., 92:180402,
2004.
[94] J. Mur-Petit, A. Polls, M. Baldo and H.-J. Schulze. Pairing in two-dimensionalboson-fermion mixtures. Phys. Rev. A, 69:023606, 2004.
[95] P. Nozières and S. Schmitt-Rink. Bose condensation in an attractive fermion
gas: from weak to strong coupling superconductivity. J. Low Temp. Phys.,
59:195-211, 1985.
[96] K. M. O’Hara. Optical Trapping and Evaporative Coolinf of Fermionic Atoms.
Ph.D. Thesis, Duke University, 2000.
[97] K. M. O’Hara, S. L. Hemmer, M. E. Gehm, S. R. Granade and J. E. Thomas.
Observation of a Strongly Interacting Degenerate Fermi Gas of Atoms. Science,
298:2179, 2002.
200

[98] K. M. O’Hara, S. L. Hemmer, S. R. Granade, M. E. Gehm, J. E. Thomas,
V.Venturi, E. Tiesinga and C. J. Williams. Measurement of the Zero Crossing
in a Feshbach Resonance of Fermionic 6 Li. Phys. Rev. A, 66:041401(R), 2002.
[99] Y. Ohashi and A. Griffin. BCS-BEC Crossover in a Gas of Fermi Atoms witha Feshbach Resonance. Phys. Rev. Lett., 89:130402, 2002.
[100] C. J. Pethick and H. Smith. Bose-Einstein Condensation in Dilute Gases.
Cambridge University Press, 2001.
[101] D. S. Petrov, M. A. Baranov and G. V. Shlyapnikov. Superfluid transition inquasi-two-dimensional Fermi gases. Phys. Rev. A, 67:031601, 2003.
[102] D. S. Petrov, C. Salomon and G. V. Shlyapnikov. Weakly Bound Dimers of
Fermionic Atoms. Phys. Rev. Lett., 93:090404-090404, 2004.
[103] D. S. Petrov, C. Salomon and G. V. Shlyapnikov. Scattering properties of
weakly bound dimers of fermionic atoms. Phys. Rev. A, 71:012708, 2005.
[104] W. D. Phillips and H. Metcalf. Laser deceleration of an atomic beam. Phys.
Rev. Lett., 48:596, 1982.
[105] W. D. Phillips. Laser cooling and trapping of neutral atoms. Rev. Mod. Phys.,
70:721, 1998.
[106] E. L. Raab, M. Prentiss, A. Cable, S. Chu and D. E. Pritchard. Trappingof Neutral Sodium with Radiation Pressure. Phys. Rev. Lett., 59:2631 - 2634,
1987.
[107] N. F. Ramsey. Molecular beams. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1963.
[108] M. Randeria, J.-M. Duan and L.-Y. Shieh. Bound states, Cooper pairing, andBose condensation in two dimensions. Phys. Rev. Lett., 62:981, 1989.
[109] M. Randeria, J. M. Duan and L. Y. Shieh.

Superconductivity in a two-

dimensional Fermi gas: Evolution from Cooper pairing to Bose condensation.
Phys. Rev. B, 41:327343, 1990.
201

[110] C. A. Regal, C. Ticknor, J. L. Bohn and D. S. Jin. Creation of ultracold
molecules from a Fermi gas of atoms. Nature, 424:47, 2003.
[111] C. A. Regal, M. Greiner and D. S. Jin. Lifetime of molecule-atom mixturesnear a Feshbach resonance in 40K. Phys. Rev. Lett., 92:083201, 2004.
[112] C. A. Regal, M. Greiner and D. S. Jin. Observation of Resonance Condensationof Fermionic Atom Pairs. Phys. Rev. Lett., 92:040403, 2004.
[113] B. C. Regan, E. D. Commins, C. J. Schmidt and D. DeMille. New Limit on theElectron Electric Dipole Moment. Phys. Rev. Lett., 88:071805, 2002.
[114] S. Rosin and I. I. Rabi. Effective Collision Cross Sections of the Alkali Atoms
in Various Gases. Phys. Rev., 48:373, 1935.
[115] K. J. Ross and B. Sonntag. High temperature metal atom beam sources. Rev.
Sci. Instrum., 66:4409-4433, 1995.
[116] J. R. Rubbmark, M. M. Kash, M. G. Littman and D. Kleppner. Dynamical
effects at avoided level crossings: A study of the Landau-Zener effect using
Rydberg atoms. Phys. Rev. A, 23:3107, 1981.
[117] S. Schmitt-Rink and C. M. Varma. Pairing in two dimensions. Phys. Rev. Lett.,
63:445, 1989.
[118] F. Schreck, L. Khaykovich, K. L. Corwin, G. Ferrari, T. Bourdel, J. Cubizolles
and C. Salomon. Quasipure Bose-Einstein Condensate Immersed in a Fermi
Sea. Phys. Rev. Lett., 87:080403-080404, 2001.
[119] I. F. Silvera and J. T. M. Walraven. Spin-Polarized Atomic Hydrogen, in
Progress in Low Temperature Physics, D.F. Brewer ed., p. 139. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1986.
[120] A. Simoni, F. Ferlaino, G. Roati, G. Modugno and M. Inguscio. Magnetic Control of the Interaction in Ultracold K-Rb Mixtures. Phys. Rev. Lett., 90:163202163204, 2003.
202

[121] 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., 80:2027-2030, 1998.
[122] D. M. Stamper-Kurn. Peeking and poking at a new quantum fluid: Studies ofgaseous Bose-Einstein condensates in magnetic and optical traps. Ph.D. Thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1999.
[123] 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., 82:2422-2425, 1999.
[124] H. T. C. Stoof, M. Houbiers, C. A. Sackett and R. G. Hulet. Superfluidity ofspin polarized 6 Li. Phys. Rev. Lett., 76:10, 1996.
[125] K. E. Strecker, G. B. Partridge and R. G. Hulet. Conversion of an Atomic
Fermi Gas to a Long-Lived Molecular Bose Gas. Phys. Rev. Lett., 91:080406,
2003.
[126] S. T. Thompson, E. Hodby and C. E. Wieman. Spontaneous Dissociation of85

Rb Feshbach Molecules. Phys. Rev. Lett., 94:020401, 2005.

[127] E. Timmermans, P. Tommasini, R. Côté, M. Hussein and A. Kerman. Rarified Liquid Properties of Hybrid Atomic-Molecular Bose-Einstein Condensates.
Phys. Rev. Lett., 83:2691, 1999.
[128] E. Timmermans, K. Furuya, P. W. Milonni and A. K. Kerman. Prospect of
creating a composite Fermi Bose superfluid. Phys. Lett. A, 285:228, 2001.
[129] A. G. Truscott, K. E. Strecker, W. I. McAlexander, G. B. Partridge and R. G.
Hulet. Observation of Fermi Pressure in a Gas of Trapped Atoms. Science,
291:2570-2572, 2001.
[130] C. C. Tsuei and J. R. Kirtley. Pairing symmetry in cuprate superconductors.
Rev. Mod. Phys., 72:969, 2000.
203

[131] L. Viverit. Boson-induced s-wave pairing in dilute boson-fermion mixtures.
Phys. Rev. A, 66:023605, 2002.
[132] J. M. Vogels. Feshbach Resonances in Bose-Einstein condensates. Ph.D. Thesis,
Eindhoven University of Technology, 1999.
[133] J. D. Weinstein, R. DeCarvalho, T. Guillet, B. Friedrich and J. M. Doyle. Magnetic trapping of calcium monohydride molecules at millikelvin temperatures.
Nature, 395:148-150, 1998.
[134] J. C. Wheatley. Experimental properties of superfluid 3 He. Rev. Mod. Phys.,
47:415, 1975.
[135] K. Xu, T. Mukaiyama, J. R. Abo-Shaeer, J. K. Chin, D. E. Miller and W.
Ketterle. Formation of Quantum-Degenerate Sodium Molecules. Phys. Rev.
Lett., 91:210402, 2003.
[136] L. You and M. Marinescu.

Prospects for p-wave paired Bardeen-Cooper-

Schrieffer states of fermionic atoms. Phys. Rev. A, 60:2324, 1999.
[137] C. Zener. Non-Adiabatic Crossing of Energy Levels. Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser.
A, 137:696, 1932.
[138] M. W. Zwierlein, J. R. Abo-Shaeer, A. Schirotzek, C. H. Schunck and W.
Ketterle. Vortices and Superfluidity in a Strongly Interacting Fermi Gas. ,2005.

204