A Next-Generation Apparatus for Lithium Optical
Lattice Experiments
byAviv Keshet
Submitted to the Department of Physics
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree ofDoctor of Philosophy
at theMASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
September 2012
c Aviv Keshet, MMXII. All rights reserved.
The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to
distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis documentin whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter created.

Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Department of Physics
August 24, 2012
Certified by . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wolfgang Ketterle
John D. MacArthur Professor of Physics
Thesis Supervisor
Accepted by . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Krishna Rajagopal
Professor of Physics, Associate Department Head for Education

2

A Next-Generation Apparatus for Lithium Optical LatticeExperiments
byAviv Keshet
Submitted to the Department of Physics
on August 24, 2012, in partial fulfillment of therequirements for the degree ofDoctor of Philosophy

Abstract
Quantum simulation is emerging as an ambitious and active subfield of atomic physics.
This thesis describes progress towards the goal of simulating condensed matter systems, in particular the physics of the Fermi-Hubbard model, using ultracold Lithium
atoms in an optical lattice.
A major goal of the quantum simulation program is to observe phase transitionsof the Hubbard model, into Néel antiferromagnetic phases and d-wave superfluid
phases. Phase transitions are generally accompanied by a change in an underlying
correlation in a physical system. Such correlations may be most amenable to probing
by looking at fluctuations in the system. Experimental techniques for probing density
and magnetization fluctuations in a variety of atomic Fermi systems are developed.
The suppression of density fluctuations (or atom “shot noise”) in an ideal degenerate
Fermi gas is observed by absorption imaging of time-of-flight expanded clouds. Intrap measurements of density and magnetization fluctuations are not easy to probewith absorption imaging, due to their extremely high attenuation. A method to probethese fluctuations based on speckle patterns, caused by fluctuations in the index ofrefraction for a detuned illumination beam, is developed and applied first to weaklyinteracting and then to strongly interacting in-trap gases. Fluctuation probes such asthese will be a crucial tool in future quantum simulation of condensed matter systems.
The quantum simulation experiments that we want to perform require a complex
sequence of precisely timed computer controlled events. A distributed GUI-based
control system designed with such experiments in mind, The Cicero Word Generator,
is described. The system makes use of a client-server separation between a userinterface for sequence design and a set of output hardware servers. Output hardware
servers are designed to use standard National Instruments output cards, but theclient-server nature allows this to be extended to other output hardware. Output
sequences running on multiple servers and output cards can be synchronized usinga shared clock. By using an FPGA-generated variable frequency clock, redundantbuffers can be dramatically shortened, and a time resolution of 100ns achieved overeffectively arbitrary sequence lengths.
3Experimental set-ups for producing, manipulating, and probing ultracold atomic
gases can be quite complicated. To move forward with a quantum simulation program, it is necessary to have an apparatus that operates with a reliability that is noteasily achieved in the face of this complexity. The design of a new apparatus is discussed. This Sodium-Lithium ultracold gas production machine has been engineered
to incorporate as much experimental experience as possible to enhance its reliability.
Particular attention has been paid to maximizing optical access and the utilization ofthis optical access, controlling the ambient temperature of the experiment, achieving
a high vacuum, and simplifying subsystems where possible. The apparatus is now
on the verge of producing degenerate gases, and should serve as a stable platform on
which to perform future lattice quantum simulation experiments.
Thesis Supervisor: Wolfgang Ketterle
Title: John D. MacArthur Professor of Physics

4

Acknowledgments
First and foremost, I would like to thank my parents, Leah and Joshua, and mybrother Ilan. Without your love, support, and encouragement, none of this would
have been meaningful.
I’ve been blessed with a circle of friends beyond compare. The antics of myhometown boys, Zev, Dave, and Eric, always left me looking forward to our next
meetings. Nicolas has perfected the art of the out of context text message quote, andI thank him for providing the necessary means for a necessary means for a higher
education. Leo was always a willing test subject for newly invented handshakes.
Thanks to Antoine and Miranda’s undamped oscillations between Cambridge and
New York, I know I will always have a place to stay on the east coast. Brenda, I’m
glad I was able to teach you how the moon works. And Kirill, my writing buddy, first
you destroyed and then you enhanced my productivity.
MIT has been a challenging and exciting place. It may be a cliché to say that I’ve
met the most intelligent people I’ve ever known here, but only because it is statementthat everyone here truthfully experiences.
The BEC2 lab has had a consistent stream of frighteningly smart, unique, andintense characters. Jit Kee’s commitment to doing things right if you’re going tobother doing them at all set the lab up for success. And Jit Kee, you’re welcome forthe elephant [15]. When I first joined the lab, it was clear that Dan was the hallway’s
social glue. He has grown into a close friend outside of the lab, thanks to his masteryof humor as a motivational tool, and I thank him for awarding me the first (soft) academic medal of my career. Widagdo’s technological zeal set many good precedents
in the lab, even if most of his LEDs have been decommissioned. Christian is a fascinating individual, and not just because of his two-finger typing technique. Without
his infinite patience, and his extra-sensory communication ability with any physics
experiment, nothing would ever have been accomplished. But beyond that, Christian
has a boundless curiosity, be it about physics, film, casinos, literary theory, or thefiner points of American culture. Ed has one of the fastest minds I’ve encountered,5and it’s been a challenge trying to keep up. Our contrasting styles have meshed well,and every once in a while after I’ve slowly caught up I’ve managed to convince himthat I’m right. The range of his interests, reading, and knowledge, are something I
aspire to. But please, Ed, can you learn to use the aesthetically correct staircase to
the 2nd floor? Ralf was an critical member of the group, tackling all the dirty workthat we threw his way. His love of python finally gave me somebody to talk programming with, but his musical tastes have forever ruined that one Portishead album forme. Yong’s deep experience and knowledge were great to have on the team for an
all-too-short time. Jonathan was a great partner in machine building endeavors, andhis dedication to quantifying, measuring, and understanding the things we built wasa crucial foil to my occasional sloppiness. I’ll always fondly remember our vacuum
chamber road trip up the eastern seaboard. But I fail to be convinced that there
is anything even remotely interesting about fantasy football. Wujie’s enthusiasm forphysics experiments has been evident from his arrival, and in an amazingly shorttime has ramped him from novice to expert experimentalist. This is accompanied
by an excellent sense of humor and positive attitude that I’m sure will propel thelab forward once it is under his command. Junru is the latest addition to the mix; I
haven’t had a chance to get to know him well, but I can tell he will add to the poolof unique talents that has characterized BEC2.
Outside of 26-259 and 26-256, the CUA hallway has been a wonderfully tight knitgroup. In fact, perhaps too tight knit – to our friends on the Fermi1 and Fermi2
experiments (Peyman, Cheng, Thomas, Waseem, Sara, Ibon, Peter, et. al. ) yes,
we know that you call our lab Wal-Mart behind our backs, and we also know thatyou didn’t return most of those things you “borrowed”. But we got the better end of
the deal, getting to capitalize on your building wisdom and experience, and gathering
motivational fuel from your collective enthusiasm. Andre, I’ll never forget your handwritten note “I HATE the New Word Generator!”. Your biceps failed to intimidate
me during our many impromptu joke inappropriateness contests, but did you have to
use so dern many cuss words? Ariel always seemed to understand my bizarre jokes,
even when I didn’t understand them myself, and was always ready with the per6

fect rejoinder. And, Ariel, I appreciate your commitment to classical-period-inspired
naming conventions. Hiro, as I write this I realize that I still owe you a baseball glove.
Marko, I’m glad our office could serve as the destination for you midnight wanderings. The other tall bespectacled Christian from Heidelberg, conventionally known
as Schunk, you had an endless supply of good cheer, presumably replenished by thosesweet boozy Feuerzangenbowles that you annually prepared for us. Dave Weld, I’ve
already made two Lebowski references in this section, and I fear any more would beindecorous, but take it as stated that your literacy is not unnoticed. Tout, thanks
for letting me borrow your fellow Ontarian Timur from time to time; inter-provincial
cooperation like this helps reduce BC’s western alienation. To the many other hallway participants, all of whom I could not possibly list, thank you for making the richenvironment richer.
I want to thank Joanna for solving all the administrative problems that I createdfor myself over the years. Al, on the RLE facilities team, thanks for going to bat for
us when we needed to face the wider MIT facilities inertia. Mark at the Edgerton
machine shop has been a crucial and under-appreciated resource for many students
faced with a perplexing machining operation.
Vladan, my academic advisor, has always been a source of calming guidance.
Ike, thanks for the many useful discussions on matters ranging from the minutely
technical to the quantum philosophical. David Pritchard, thanks for providing sucha wonderful welcome to the community, I’ll always remember the beautiful sailingexcursions.
I think I may be the only remaining graduate student who overlapped with Martin’s time as a grad student (for only a few days). Now I’m proud to count him asa member of my thesis committee. Martin’s enthusiasm and gregarious energy arelegendary, and made him like an unofficial second advisor to me.
Last and most certainly not least, I’d like to thank Wolfgang for making all of
this possible. Wolfgang takes fresh faced grad students with little experience, andgives them a staggering amount of trust, freedom, and an array of resources that is
dizzying. This has given me the freedom to fully explore my interests, and find the7places where I could maximally contribute, in a manner I doubt I will ever find again.
Thank you for the opportunity.

8

Contents
1 Introduction
1.1

1.2

17

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17

1.1.1

Quantum complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17

1.1.2

Cold atoms as quantum simulators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18

1.1.3

Simulating condensed matter systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18

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

20

2 Fluctuations as a Probe of Many-Body Quantum Systems
2.1

2.2

2.3

21

What can we learn from fluctuations? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23

2.1.1

Shot noise and the g (2) function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23

2.1.2

The Hanbury Brown Twiss Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24

2.1.3

The fluctuation-dissipation theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

26

2.1.4

Phase transitions, correlations, and domains . . . . . . . . . .

27

Proof of principle experiment – density fluctuations in an ideal Fermi
gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28

2.2.1

Experiment overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28

2.2.2

Observed Noise Suppressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31

2.2.3

Fluctuation dissipation theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31

2.2.4

Experimental challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31

2.2.5

The relationship between density fluctuations and light scattering 35

Measuring in-trap fluctuations with speckle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

38

2.3.1

What is speckle? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

38

2.3.2

Proof of principle experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

41

9

2.4

Searching for domains of the Stoner ferromagnet . . . . . . . . . . . .

44

2.5

Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

49

3 The Cicero Word Generator

51

3.1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

52

3.2

Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53

3.3

User Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55

3.3.1

Client – Cicero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55

3.3.2

Server – Atticus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

58

Output Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

58

3.4.1

Synchronization scheme for analog and digital channels . . . .

58

3.4.2

GPIB, Serial, and other output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

62

3.4

3.5

4 A New Apparatus for Lithium Optical Lattice Experiments

65

4.1

Motivation for a new apparatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

66

4.2

Chamber layout and viewports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71

4.2.1

Bucket windows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

72

4.2.2

Standard windows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73

4.2.3

Window materials, coatings, and purchase process . . . . . . .

74

4.2.4

Breadboards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

75

4.2.5

MOT mirror translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

77

4.2.6

MOT beam distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

79

Vacuum system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

80

4.3.1

Background gas collisions, Fermi gases, and pressure goals . .

80

4.3.2

Evaporable getter coating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

81

4.3.3

Supplier considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

82

4.4

Magnetic coils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

84

4.5

Trap coil design, fields, wiring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

84

4.5.1

Trap coil construction, mounting, connectorization, cooling . .

88

4.5.2

Safety Interlocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

93

4.3

10

4.5.3

Zeeman slower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

94

4.6

In-Vacuum Antenna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

94

4.7

Environmental control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

97

4.8

Solid state sodium laser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

99

4.9

The Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

5 Outlook and Conclusions
5.1

5.2

103

Future of cold atoms in lattices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
5.1.1

Cooling atoms in the lattice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

5.1.2

Being cold already . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

A Mechanical drawings of main chamber

107

B Mechanical drawings of other custom components

115

C Window coating specs

125

D Experiment enclosure design

129

E Suppression of Density Fluctuations in a Quantum Degenerate Fermi
Gas

133

F Speckle Imaging of Spin Fluctuations in a Strongly Interacting Fermi
Gas

143

G Correlations and Pair Formation in a Repulsively Interacting Fermi
Gas

149

H Speckle Simulation

155

I

163

Band Insulator Optimization

11

12

List of Figures
2-1 Atom shot noise in hot and cold Fermi clouds. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22

2-2 Fermi-Dirac distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29

2-3 Ballistic expansion of harmonically trapped Fermi gas. . . . . . . . .

30

2-4 Spatial distribution of atom shot noise in Fermi clouds. . . . . . . . .

32

2-5 Atom shot noise in hot and cold Fermi clouds. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33

2-6 Atom number variance profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34

2-7 Atom shot noise in hot and cold Fermi clouds, detailed. . . . . . . . .

36

2-8 Phasor diagram. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40

2-9 Speckle in the real and Fourier domains. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

42

2-10 Speckle simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

43

2-11 Speckle imaging data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45

2-12 Speckle imaging data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

46

2-13 Stoner model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47

2-14 Jumping to strong interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

48

2-15 Fluctuations at strong interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

49

2-16 Fast decay to molecular branch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

50

3-1 Architecture of control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

54

3-2 Screenshot of the main sequence editing user interface. . . . . . . . .

56

4-1 Overview of new apparatus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

70

4-2 Overview of new apparatus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71

4-3 Overview of new apparatus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

72

4-4 MOT/Lattice window occlusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73

13

4-5 Custom breadboards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

76

4-6 MOT mirror translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

78

4-7 Design of magnetic coil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

85

4-8 Magnetic bias field profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

87

4-9 Coil wiring diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

88

4-10 Coil mounting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

89

4-11 Coil electrical and water connectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

90

4-12 Improve tube soldering technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

92

4-13 Water manifold. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

93

4-14 Interlocking split ring concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

95

4-15 Air handling system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

98

5-1 Size and atom number in a 6 Li band insulator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
B-1 Top bucket drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
B-2 Side bucket drawing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

B-3 Interlocking split ring drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
C-1 Antireflection coating for 671nm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
C-2 Multi-wavelength Antireflection coating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
D-1 Design of experiment enclosure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

14

List of Tables
D.1 Parts list for enclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

15

16

Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1

Background1.1.1

Quantum complexity

In 1982, Richard Feynman gave a talk that is often credited with sparking into existence the study of quantum computing [21]. As he pointed out, physical systems canbe hard to simulate with a computer. This is especially true of quantum mechanicalsystems, in which the memory required to represent a state and the time required to
do computations with it increase exponentially with the number of degrees of freedom simulated. A classical state of N two-level objects can be represented by the
N individual object states, whereas the full quantum mechanical state requires specifying the amplitude of all 2N possibilities. And yet the universe, obeying physicallaws, is able to simulate itself perfectly in real time. This suggests that machines
taking advantage of quantum mechanics may be capable of computations that arenot (efficiently) tractable with classical machines alone.
The apparent computational power of quantum computers, built out of quantum
bits instead of normal bits, and unitary operations instead of logic gates, lies in theirvastly larger state space compared with a classical computer of the same size, andis a field of enormous activity and interest [58]. A parallel branch of investigation,
quantum simulation, uses Feynman’s insight differently. Instead of building a gen17

eral purpose quantum computer to run quantum algorithms, can we build quantum
systems which are analogues of those we wish to simulate?

1.1.2

Cold atoms as quantum simulators

Since the achievement of Bose-Einstein condensation [2, 16] and later Fermi degeneracy [17, 33] of neutral atomic gases, cold atoms have shown themselves to be an
ideal resource for quantum simulations. Cold atoms are very quantum mechanicallypure – the weakness of their coupling to the outside environment gives them longcoherence times. Many textbook quantum phenomena, such as interference between
matter waves, are readily realized with them.
The toolbox for manipulating and probing cold atoms is rapidly growing. Atoms
can be imaged in absorption, phase contrast imaging, single atom detection via fluorescence [5] or even via electron microscopes [26]. Energies can be precisely mappedwith RF spectroscopy [74, 9]. Two-body interactions can be tuned using Feshbachresonances [38, 18]. Defect-free periodic potentials for atoms (optical lattices) can becreated by interfering laser beams. Atoms in individual sites can be manipulated [79],and sites can be ramped or even split using superlattice techniques [78]. Synthetic
gauge fields which imitate a Lorentz force can be created optically [50]. Of course inpractice, not all these things can be done at once.

1.1.3

Simulating condensed matter systems

The biggest splash made by cold atom quantum simulation has been in condensed
matter physics. In particular, the BEC-BCS crossover (in which the Cooper pairsof Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer theory of type I superconductors connect smoothly toa condensate of diatomic molecules) has been an amazingly fruitful system to study.
In the 9 years since the BEC-BCS regime was first accessed with cold atoms [29, 82],
a close coupling between experimentalists and condensed matter theorists has shedlight on pair size [73], clarified the role of spin population imbalance in suppressing
superfluidity [74, 76], and by now it is theory that has to play catch-up to experi18

ments which have measured universal coefficients of the transition to superfluidity at
unitarity [48].
Another natural system to attack is fermions in a periodic potential. This is thebread and butter of condensed matter physics. Here theory has a bigger head start on
quantum simulation experiments, but the prospective payoff, new insight into high-Tc
superconductors, is even more exciting. Real condensed matter systems can be messy,
with lattice defects, long range interactions, phonons, intricate band structures, andcomplicated potentials all affecting the physics and making systems difficult to model
exactly. And yet, a wide range of interesting physical phenomena can be captured bya much simplified model, the Fermi-Hubbard hamiltonian:H = −J

X
X
X †n̂i↑ n̂i↓ +i n̂iĉjσ ĉiσ + ĉ†iσ ĉjσ + Uihiji,σ(1.1)

iHere ĉ† and ĉ are the usual fermionic creation and annihilation operators, and n̂ =ĉ† ĉ the usual number operator. The Fermi-Hubbard model describes two species offermions in the first band of a lattice, hopping around strength with J, and with an onsite inter-species repulsion U . This is a hamiltonian that is eminently realizable withfermionic gases in optical lattices, and with tunability in U , J, chemical potential,
spin imbalance, and other parameters.
Depending on choice of parameters and the system dimensionality, the FermiHubbard hamiltonian leads to states as diverse as metallic conductors, band insulators, Mott insulators, antiferromagnets (Néel states), and (it is expected) d-wave
superfluids. And understanding the simple Fermi-Hubbard model can advance ourunderstanding of the more complicated real condensed matter systems which build on
it. In particular, the remarkably high critical temperature cuprate superconductors,
whose discovery in 1986 set off a revolution in condensed matter physics [6], is believed
to be understandable in the framework of the 2D Fermi-Hubbard, but the complexities of real condensed matter systems and the difficulty in simulating many-bodyfermionic systems has made this connection the subject of vigorous investigation.
Reaching the more exotic ordered states of the Hubbard model, the Néel states
19and d-wave superfluids, is one of the major goals in the community of quantum simulation, and the goal of our lab. Doing so will require exquisite control of experimental
variables, advances in in-lattice cooling of atoms, and new ways to probe cold atom
systems. The work in this thesis is aimed in this direction. New probes based on fluctuations have been applied to trapped atomic gases. And a versatile new apparatus
has been constructed, which will be able to flexibly adjust between different latticeconfigurations and imaging configurations, able to work at high imaging resolution
without sacrificing atom number, able to work with 2D or 3D systems, and be areliable base for sophisticated experiments.

1.2

Outline of this thesis

This thesis will present progress towards experimental realization of exotic orderedstates of fermions in optical lattices. It is organized as follows.
• Chapter 2 will discuss the relevance of fluctuations in characterizing cold atom
systems, and present experiments in which probes of fluctuations were developed
and tested, and then applied to determine thermodynamic properties of bulk
fermion systems. These experiments were performed in an apparatus that was
subsequently decommissioned.
• Chapter 3 will discuss a new control software system, developed to control our(and other groups’) increasingly sophisticated experiments.
• Chapter 4 will detail the design of a new atom cooling machine, intended as anext-generation general purpose fermion optical lattice machine, incorporating
as much accumulated experimental wisdom as possible.
• Chapter 5 will discuss future directions of the new experiment, and act as aconclusion.

20

Chapter 2
Fluctuations as a Probe of
Many-Body Quantum Systems
God does not play dice.
Albert Einstein

Einstein, stop telling God what todo.
Neils BohrThis chapter will discuss a series of experiments conducted in the old apparatus
in our lab, studying noise and fluctuations in degenerate 6 Li Fermi gases [68, 69, 67].
For a more detailed treatment the reader is referred to the thesis of Christian Sanner[66] who was the main driver of these experiments.
When confronting a new physical system, it is often most intuitive to think about
its average behaviors, and tempting to gloss over underlying fluctuations as a distraction. The majority of atomic physics experiments are based on repeatedly producing cold atomic samples, prodding them, averaging over many resulting images,
and extracting physical insight from these averaged images. The reason is natural –non-systematic technical noise sources can be averaged away compared to properties
21

PHYSICAL REVIEW A 70, 013603 (2004)

Figure 2-1: Predicted dx2 −y2 momentum correlations of a d-wave superfluid, mapped
into position correlations after time-of-flight. From [1] .
of the ensemble average the system. But in performing this average, one is also averaging over fluctuating properties of the system under study, fluctuations which if
measured can tell you about correlations that are not revealed in the average, correlations whose origin can range from simple quantum statistics to complex many-bodyinteractions. Being able to see these fluctuations requires a sensitive experiment, inwhich technical noise sources are small and well-understood enough to separate themfrom the system fluctuations being measured.

FIG. 1. Fermionicsuperfluid.
(a) Angle
integratedof theConsidertwo of thebenchmarkphases ofweightthe Fermi-Hubbard
model: antiferroorrelation peak magnetic
at diametrically
oppositepoints. Both
Solidphases
line areis characterized
theordering andd-wave pairing.
by the onset
olumn integrated result relevant to experiment. (b) Weight of theof a new two-particle correlation, the antiferromagnet by a checkered magnetic orderorrelation peak for dx2!y2 i−jpairing, which may be expected in alim (−1) hσi σj i = N02 where spins σi and σj are correlated over long disalization of the|x Hubbard
model on an optical lattice. (c) and (d)−x |→∞
2
tance
|x
−
x
the d-wave superfluid
momentumspace oncorrelations with a dx −yepict $&n!r , r!# % at Ti ) 0j |,(superfluid
fractionby0.7).
r is fixedcharacter2-1).
e Fermi surface.
In (c) (seer! isFigure
variedalong the same diameter while(d) r! it is varied
around correlations,
the Fermi likesurfacethatthe relativeshould have a signature
Real-space
those insotheantiferromagnet,
ngle between rinandr! is fluctuations.
,. Dashed Momentum-spaceline corresponds
to BEChaveof also been amenable toreal-spacecorrelations
ghtly bound pairs, whereas the solid line is the BCS limit at the
probing via fluctuations. In experiments with s-wave molecular BECs, time of flightme temperature. The width of the narrow dip *%t / !mL# is limited
has been used to convert momentum correlations into correlations in the real-space
y the system’s size.
i

j

2

2

density fluctuations [30]. Theoretical proposals for seeing such correlations in a dwave superfluid [1] make a strong case that examining fluctuations will be a powerfuladial part of the pairing wave function. This is plotted forprobe.
he BCS state in
Fig. 1(a) (dashed). The solid line as well as
The1versatility
probing
fluctuations provides
the motivation behind the techther plots in Fig.
depict ofthe
experimentallyobservable
olumn integrated functions.
22
Pairing symmetries other than s-wave, would be detected
y higher angular harmonics in the pair distribution ns!r#.

niques developed in this chapter. Section 2.1 will give an overview of fluctuations,
their source, and what they can tell us about the physics of a particular system. Section 2.2 will discuss a proof-of-principle fluctuation probing experiment, in which Pauli
suppression of density fluctuations was observed in time-of-flight expanded clouds. In
Section 2.3 we will introduce a method for probing fluctuations in-trap, when atom
density is too high for normal absorption imaging, and apply this method towards
interacting and noninteracting Fermi gases. This technique is then applied to stronglyinteracting Fermi gases, hunting for ferromagnetic domain formation, in Section 2.4.

2.1

What can we learn from fluctuations?

2.1.1

Shot noise and the g (2) function

When an ensemble of N particles are independently projected into a particular state,with probability per particle p  1, the Binomial distribution tells us to expect amean of µ = N p with a variance of σ 2 = N p(1 − p) ≈ N p = µ. This is the ubiquitous“shot noise” of the Poisson distribution, which manifests itself in phenomena fromclicks of a Geiger counter, to raindrops hitting a given patch of dirt, to the numberof soldiers killed by horse kicks per year in the Prussian army [64].
Shot noise is a generic consequence of a system with many identical but uncorrelated events. Correlations between events can either enhance noise above theshot noise level (“super-poissonian”) for positive correlations, or suppress it (“subpoissonian”) for negative correlations. In the context of atoms and photons, it iscustomary to discuss the two-particle correlation function g (2) (∆x, ∆t) which tells
you the probability of finding two particles at locations and times separated by ∆xand ∆t, relative to the probabilities of each individual measurement,g (2) (∆x, ∆t) =hn(0, 0)n(∆x, ∆t)ihn(0, 0)i hn(∆x, ∆t)i

(2.1)

where h· · · i indicates an ensemble average, and where n is particle density or
probability density for occupation of a labeled state. For uncorrelated particles g (2) =23

1 everywhere. Any deviation from 1 indicates correlations. Systems with no longrange correlations may still exhibit interesting local correlations in g (2) near (0, 0).
Enhanced values indicate particles that like to bunch together, and in which density
fluctuations are enhanced relative to Poisson statistics, while suppressed g (2) values
indicate anti-bunched particles and a suppression of shot noise.

2.1.2

The Hanbury Brown Twiss Effect

The fact that quantum mechanics permits indistinguishable particles can have surprising influence on the g (2) function and fluctuations, even in situations in which
single-particle states look quite classical. Accounts of the history of studying the quantum mechanical sources of fluctuations typically begin with the astronomers RobertHanbury Brown and Richard Q. Twiss, who had early insights into the bunchingof photons, and who used a pair of photomultipliers to measure correlation between
arrivals of photons of distant stars in order to measure their angular size [8]. At thetime, without a well understood framework for thinking about lasers and coherent
states of the photon field, these correlated photons were the source of much confusion.
Hanbury Brown and Twiss in fact refer to measuring properties of “coherent” lightsources, though in modern terminology we would refer to their observations as applying to chaotic light (from a thermal source) and emphatically not true for coherent
light (lasers) which exhibit true Poisson statistics.
Consider two point sources of particles S1 and S2 and two detectors D1 and D2 .
The quantum mechanical amplitude for a detection at Da due to a particle from Sb ishSb |Da i. There are two trajectories by which a particle can be simultaneously detectedat both detectors: (S1 → D1 , S2 → D2 ) and (S1 → D2 , S2 → D1 ). If the particles areindistinguishable then the amplitude for each of these trajectories must be combined,
so the probability for a joint detection is |hS1 |D1 i hS2 |D2 i ± hS2 |D1 i hS1 |D2 i|2 , witha + sign for bosons and a − sign for fermions. As the detectors are brought closer
together, hS1 |D1 i and hS1 |D2 i must become equal (and likewise for S2 ), so the joint
detection probability for bosons approaches 4|hS1 |D1 i hS2 |D1 i|2 while for fermions it
approaches zero. Compare this to the join detection probability if the particles were24

distinguishable, 2|hS1 |D1 i hS2 |D1 i|2 (in which we add the probabilities of the two
trajectories, rather then adding their amplitudes). This enhancement / suppressionis the famous “boson bunching” and “fermion anti-bunching”, in which the g2 function
goes to 2 for bosons and 0 for fermions at small length scales.
Coherent bosonic states of light (lasers) or matter (Bose-Einstein condensates) arepurely poissonian and do not exhibit bosonic bunching. The above argument applies
only in the case of multiple phase-independent sources, and not when particles arecoming from the same macroscopically occupied mode.
Hanbury Brown and Twiss measured and used the eponymous Hanbury Brown
Twiss effect (HBT) with photons. The range of the effect on the g2 function is on
the order of the coherence length of the light source. Even before the advent oflasers there were sources of reasonably narrow-band light and narrow interference
filters which would be used on thermal sources. With atoms, the effect is harder
to see, since the distance over which the g2 function is enhanced or suppressed ison the order of the thermal de Broglie wavelength, and until the recent advances inlaser cooling and evaporative cooling this was too severe a limit to make the effectpractical to measure. Using cold atoms, the effect has by now been observed withboth bosonic and fermion atoms. In an experiment with single-atom detection via
a micro-channel plate the presence of the HBT bump with a thermal source of 4 He
atoms was observed, with the bump absent as expected when the He atoms underwent
the transition to a BEC [70]. Later 3 He, a fermion, was used and the HBT dip was
also observed [39]. In a 1D system with normal absorption imaging, and in which the
low dimensionality suppressed the transition to BEC even at low temperatures, theboson HBT bump was also observed [20].
The HBT effect gets more interesting with atoms in a periodic lattice. When asuperfluid is released from a lattice, it will produce interference peaks after time offlight. Each site can be treated as a phase coherent source, and after time of flightatoms are only observed at locations where all the sources interfere constructively.
When the phase coherence between lattice sites is lost (as in the bosonic superfluid
to Mott insulator transition), the interference peaks disappear [31]. However, the25

HBT effect does not require a phase coherent set sources (in fact it requires the opposite). Because of the periodic arrangement of incoherent sources, one can selectpairs of detection position displaced from each other by ∆xa for which the two paths(S1 → D1 , S2 → D2 ) and (S1 → D2 , S2 → D1 ) have the same relative phase for any
pair of sources Sα . Detectors at this relative displacement are, from an HBT standpoint, equivalent to having D1 and D2 on top of each other as in the earlier HBT
discussion, and thus the g (2) (∆x) originally confined near ∆x = 0 is now reproduced
at ∆x = n∆xa (for integer n). The HBT effect is a powerful tool to probe for periodicity in a system, even without the phase coherence requisite for seeing interference
effects directly in average density. A series of experiments demonstrated HBT withultracold atoms in a lattice, first with bosons [25] and later with fermions [59]. Whenanti-ferromagnetic states of atoms in optical lattices are eventually realized, findinga signature of the altered periodicity of the system with a technique such as this may
be a key probe.

2.1.3

The fluctuation-dissipation theorem

Non-equilibrium fluctuations in a system are related to equilibrium thermodynamics
of the system through the fluctuation-dissipation theorem. A system’s equilibrium
response function (such as compressibility) relates the change in some variable (suchas density) in response to a drive term (such as pressure). The same response function
determines the variable’s thermal fluctuations. The textbook example is the grandcanonical ensemble [22], in which particle number N (µ, T, V ) is controlled by chemical
potential µ. Fluctuations in N follow

2

(∆N )
where



∂hN i
∂µ




= kB T∂ hN i
∂µ


(2.2)
TV

is the response function, a formulation of compressibility. The
TV

fluctuation dissipation theorem is a powerful way to think about the source of fluctuations. From this perspective, all fluctuations are thermally activated. The idealgas, in which one expects Poisson density fluctuations even at zero temperature, is26

pathological from this point of view – it behaves this way only because its compressibility diverges as ∝ 1/T , preserving T independent fluctuations. This also indicatesthe usefulness of studying fluctuations – they can be used to determine response
functions in situations where the drive terms cannot be manipulated directly, by observing a system’s response to its thermally generated fluctuations (for instance, as inexperiments with trapped atomic Mott insulators [24, 75]). Or, if response functions
are known, fluctuations can be used as a thermometer.

2.1.4

Phase transitions, correlations, and domains

Phase transitions, be they quantum or classical, are accompanied by the emergenceof new correlations in a system. A liquid freezing into a solid loses translational
symmetry but gains a long range unit-cell correlation. Atoms undergoing transition
to a BEC gain a long range phase coherence. Or, taking an illustrative lattice model,
consider the quantum Ising model [65]HI = −JgXiσ̂ x − JXσ̂iz σ̂jz

(2.3)

hiji

in which spins on a lattice have a ferromagnetic interaction in the z direction,in the presence of a magnetic field in the perpendicular x direction with strength
set by g (the notation hiji indicates summation over nearest neighbors). For sufficiently strong field g > gc , the ground state |0i of this system is a paramagnet, with
spins preferentially aligning along the x direction. In this state, z-component spincorrelations decay exponentially, h0| σ̂iz σ̂jz |0i ∼ e−|xi −xj |/ξ . For low fields g < gc , theground state is a ferromagnet, with some spontaneous magnetization N0 (either + or-, spontaneously breaking the symmetry of the Hamiltonian) and long range correlations

lim|xi −xj |→∞h0| σ̂iz σ̂jz |0i = N02 . The critical field gc sits at the phase transition, theboundary between these two correlation behaviors.
A signature of the phase transition is thus a change in the z magnetization fluctuations. Consider a probe of total z-magnetization M̂z in some probe region V
27

containing N spins, M̂z =Xi∈Vσ̂iz where mz = ±1/2. In the strongly paramagnetic

phase, with g  gc and ξ → 0, each spin’s mz is independently
projected, resulting
D E
D E2 in M̂ z = 0 and binomial fluctuations Var (M̂ z ) ≡M̂ z − M̂ z
= N/4. Ina fully polarized ferromagnet, within a given ferromagnetic domain (i.e. for a certain
choice of spontaneous magnetization N0 = ±1/2), fluctuations in magnetization aresuppressed, Var (M̂ z ) = 0.
On the other hand, if the system is ferromagnetic but has broken into many
independent ferromagnetic domains, fluctuations can be enhanced. If there are n spins
per domain, then the probe volume will contain on average N/n independent domains,
each with total magnetization ±n/2. Each domain is independently projected, leading
to Var (M̂ z ) = (N/n)(n2 /4) = n × (N/4), an enhancement by a factor of n comparedto the binomial fluctuations of the paramagnetic phase. This is a powerful property,
because it means that even for a large probe volume V where individual domains
cannot be resolved, there is a strong signature of domain size in the magnetization
fluctuations.

2.2

Proof of principle experiment – density fluctuations in an ideal Fermi gas

This section expands upon Suppression of Density Fluctuations in a Quantum Degenerate Fermi Gas[68], which is attached as Appendix E.

2.2.1

Experiment overview

A manifestation of fermion anti-bunching is that at low temperatures a gas of fermions
will have no atom shot noise. Consider a Fermi gas in which we can count the numberof atoms in some probe volume – or equivalently, count the number of atoms in someset of elementary phase space cells (∆x∆p = ~). The Fermi-Dirac distribution tells
−1
us the probability p() of a state with energy  is p() = e(−µ)/(kT ) + 1 , where µ
is the chemical potential. As the temperature approaches zero, this approaches a step28

Figure 2-2: Fermi-Dirac distribution, for 3 temperatures.
cutoff (see Figure 2-2); phase space cells with energy below the Fermi energy will beoccupied by a single particle, with probability 1, while cells above that energy will
be empty. There is no room for fluctuations; all cells are either certainly occupied orcertainly unoccupied. Repeatedly preparing this state and counting the atoms within
the probe volume will always yield the same count. Equivalently, density fluctuations
as T → 0 are suppressed via the fluctuation dissipation theorem, due to the finite
compressibility of a degenerate Fermi gas.
Our actual experiment was a close realization of the thought experiment. Cloudsof 6 Li were repeatedly prepared and cooled to temperatures near or below degeneracy.
Absorption imaging was used to determine the column-integrated density of atoms
throughout each cloud. For each sub-bin of the cloud image, the variance in atom
number in that bin was determined over the ensemble of prepared clouds.
In principle this experiment can be performed with trapped Fermi gases. However,for typical experimental parameters with ultracold atoms absorption imaging underthese conditions has limitations. The very dense in-trap cloud is almost completely
opaque to resonant imaging light, so useful absorption imaging requires either theuse of detuned light, or small samples with high imaging resolution, both of which
introduce their own complications1 .
The same experiment can be cleaner when taking advantage of a convenient property of non-interacting Fermi gases trapped in harmonic potentials – when you release
1

Nevertheless, a similar experiment to ours was simultaneously performed in the Zurich group,
using high resolution imaging to look at in-trap density fluctuations of a Fermi gas in a small sample
[57].

29

p

Ballistic Expansion
p
2pF
x

x
2pF

Figure 2-3: Ballistic expansion of a harmonically trapped Fermi gas. Fermi statistics
are locally preserved in time of flight.

a trapped cloud by switching off the trap, the time of flight can be treated as a simple
rescaling of coordinates. This is represented pictorially in Figure 2-3 , or mathematically in [32]. Initially, because of the position-momentum symmetry of the harmonic
trap (in appropriately scaled units, the Hamiltonian is simply H = p̂2 + x̂2 ), the gas
occupies a sphere in phase space. The cloud as a whole is a degenerate Fermi gas,
but if the system contains many phase space cells (∆x∆p = ~) then the local density
approximation allows us to think of the system as a collection of local Fermi gases,
each with their own chemical potential, but with the same temperature. When thetrap is turned off and the cloud begins to expand ballistically, the sphere in phasespace begins to shear. Everywhere the gas now looks, locally, like a moving Fermi
gas, with its own Fermi energy. The temperature is the same everywhere, but decreases as the cloud expands ballistically. And at every location the local T /EF is
the same as it was for the corresponding unscaled in-trap position under the scaling√x→
1 + ω 2 t2 x (though if the trap is anistropic, the temperature in the expanded
cloud can be anisotropic). Thus, time of flight ballistic expansion simply magnifies
the cloud profile and the relative fluctuations.
30

2.2.2

Observed Noise Suppressions

Figure 2-4 shows the results of this experiment, for two cloud preparations (hot andcold). For each image bin, the atom number and atom number variance are depicted.
In a cloud with Poisson fluctuations, one would expect these images to be the same.
As the cloud temperature is lowered well below the Fermi temperature, the variance issuppressed. For the same set of clouds, the number measured atom number varianceis plotted as a function of atom number in Figure 2-5. Suppression of fluctuations
is highest near the center of the cloud, where the density is highest, and where eventhe hot cloud shows some suppression of fluctuations (the trap depth limited the
maximum temperature of clouds that we could use). In the wings of the cloud,
where the atom number is low, the hot cloud follows expected Poisson noise, while
the cold cloud shows noise suppression. Profiles of observed atom number variance,for 3 different cloud temperatures, are shown in Figure 2-6, from which the cloud
temperatures was inferred, demonstrating the capabilities of noise as a thermometer.

2.2.3

Fluctuation dissipation theorem

The appropriate formulation of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem for our experimentis (∆N )2 / hN i = nkB T κT , where n is the density of the gas, and κT = − V1 ∂V∂P T
the isothermal compressibility. An ideal Fermi gas with Fermi energy EF has a finite
compressibility of κT = 3/ (2nEF ) as T → 0. This finite compressibility leads to the
suppressed density fluctuations at low temperatures, by a factor of 3kB T /2EF .

2.2.4

Experimental challenges

Accurately determining atom shot noise fluctuations by repeated preparation of clouds
prepared a number of unique experimental challenges, described in detail in Appendix E and [66].
Atom shot noise is being measured by absorption imaging, in the presence of photon shot noise, which is always poissonian and for low light intensities this can dwarf
the atom shot noise signal. This would seem to argue for using high intensities, or
31

(a)

Atom
Count

(b)

(c)

4000
0

NumberVariance

Hot

Cold

Figure 2-4: Spatial distribution of atom shot noise in Fermi clouds. For poissonian
fluctuations, the two images at a given temperature should be identical. The varianceimages were obtained by determining the local density fluctuations from a set of 85
images taken under identical conditions. (a) Two dimensional image of the opticaldensity of an ideal Fermi gas after 7 ms of ballistic expansion. The noise data weretaken by limiting the field of view to the dashed region of interest, allowing forfaster image acquisition. (b) For the heated sample, variance and density pictures arealmost identical, implying only modest deviation from poissonian statistics. (c) Fermi
suppression of density fluctuations deep in the quantum degenerate regime manifests
itself through the difference between density and variance picture. Especially in thecenter of the cloud, there is a large suppression of density fluctuations. The varianceimages were smoothed over 6×6 bins. The width of images (b) and (c) is 2 mm.

32

Atom number variance

4000

2000

0
0

2000

4000

Atom number

Figure 2-5: Atom number variance vs average atom number. For each spatial position, the average atom number per bin and its variance were determined using 85
images. The filled and open circles in the figure are averages of different spatial bin
positions with similar average atom number. For a hot cloud at T /TF = 0.6 (filled
circles), the atom number variance is equal to the average atom number (dotted line,
full poissonian noise) in the spatial wings where the atom number is low. The deviation from the linear slope for a cold cloud at T /TF = 0.21 (open circles) is due
to Pauli suppression of density fluctuations. There is also some suppression at thecenter of the hot cloud, where the atom number is high. The solid and dashed lines
are quadratic fits for the hot and cold clouds to guide the eye.

33

Var(N)/1000
5 (a)

0

0

(c)

(b)

100
Position (pixels)

Figure 2-6: Comparison of observed variances (black dots) with a theoretical model(black line) and the observed atom number (gray), at three different temperatures (a,b, and c), showing 50, 40, and 15% suppression. Noise thermometry is implemented
by fitting the observed fluctuations, resulting in temperatures T /TF of 0.23 ± .01,
0.33 ± .02, and 0.60 ± .02. This is in good agreement with temperatures 0.21 ± .01,
0.31 ± .01, and 0.6 ± .1 obtained by fitting the shape of the expanded cloud[45]. The
quoted uncertainties correspond to 1 standard deviation and are purely statistical.

scattering many photons per atom. However, saturation effects must be avoided. If
atoms are driven outside of the linear response regime, then the usual image normalization technique of dividing a transmission image by an illumination image will pickup artifacts due to fringes in the imaging beam, again dwarfing the atom noise. Dueto Lithium’s very low mass, the dominant saturation mechanism is doppler shifting– after scattering ∼10 photons an atom picks up enough recoil momentum to to be
doppler shifted on order of the transition linewidth. These two limits set a stringent
illumination intensity range. To be sensitive enough, a camera with high quantum
efficiency > 90% percent and no cover glass or other fringe-creating elements was
carefully selected after trial and error.
Fringes in the imaging system were a major source of problems, especially due tothe ease with which the glass cell vacuum chamber could be made to shake, causing
the fringe pattern to be rearranged between probe and normalization exposures. The
required a camera with a kinetics mode feature, to have minimal delay between exposures, and an atom depumping technique that could be applied between these shots
to rapidly move them out of resonance for the normalization exposure.
34

After taking these steps to reduce technical noise, the measured atom number
variance for bins that correspond to a particular atom number in the cloud themselves
still had a lot of scatter, as can be seen in Figure 2-7. At first this effect that was
attributed to residual technical noise. Counterintuitively, almost all of the remaining
scatter is purely statistical in nature, caused by the underlying variance in sample
variance. This is given by

Var(Var(N )) =(m − 1)2(m − 1)(m − 3) 2
µ4 −
µ2
3
m
m3

(2.4)

where m is the number of observations in each sample. The moments µ2 and µ4
are the central moments of the population distribution. For a Poisson distribution,µ2 = hN i and µ4 = hN i (1 + 3 hN i)
Var(Var(N )) =(m − 1)2(m − 1)(m − 3)
hN
i(1
+
3hN
i)
−
(hN i)2
m3
m3

(2.5)

where hN i is the population mean. For m, hN i  1, this is simply 2hN i2 /m. Notethat this derivation was not presented correctly in the supplement in Appendix E.

2.2.5

The relationship between density fluctuations and lightscattering

Density fluctuations and light scattering are intimately related. The scattered field at
a given sample point is the sum of scattered field due to each individual atom. A sufficiently large collection of localized individual scatterers, if their spatial distribution
is perfectly homogenous, will not scatter light. In all directions except the forward
direction, the scatterers interfere destructively. Conversely, if the scatterers are disordered, with each scatterer location independently random (as in an ideal gas) thenin non-forward directions the scatterer phases are independently random. The fieldof N scatterers is then a random walk of N individual scatterers, with an expected√
total amplitude ∝ N and hence intensity ∝ N . Equivalently, light scattering of asource beam off an object can be thought of in the Fourier domain, as a convolution
35

Atom number variance

6000

4000

2000

0
0

2000

4000

Atom number
Figure 2-7: Atom number variance vs. atom number. Data for all of the resolution
elements is plotted. This is the same data as used in Figure 2-5. Red points are fromthe hot cloud at T /TF = 0.6, blue points from the cold cloud at T /TF = 0.21. Thereis significant scatter in the variance data, and there are many “cold” pixels which
actually have higher variance than their corresponding “hot” pixel. The red and blue
shaded regions indicate the expected 2σ scatter in sample variance that is expected
due to atom and photon counting statistics. The measured scatter agrees very wellwith the expected scatter, indicating that the scatter of the data is fully accounted
for by counting statistics. Dashed line gives poissonian noise, and solid lines are fits
to measured scatter, as in Figure 2-5. Negative values of the observed atom number
variance result from the subtraction of photon shot noise.

36between the spatial frequency spectrum of the source and of the scatterers. If thesource is a plane wave (pure DC in the Fourier domain) then scattered light (nonDC components after convolution) can only result from density fluctuations in theobject (non DC components in the object’s Fourier domain). This is captured by the
structure factor:

S(q) =

1 X −i~q·(~ri −~rj )
e
N jk

(2.6)

where ~ri is the position of atom i. Light is scattered at wavevector q with intensity I (~q) = N |f (~q)|2 S (~q) where f is the so-called “form factor”, a property of theindividual scatterers.
Quantum mechanically, light scattering means transfer of an input photon in someincoming state |ki i into a scattered state |ki + ∆ki, while simultaneously transferring
the scatterer state from some initial state |ii to final state |f i. For initial state withknown momentum |ii = |katom,i i conservation of momentum tells us that the matrix
element for this scattering process will be nonzero only for |f i = |katom,i − ∆ki. For adegenerate Fermi gas with a sufficiently high Fermi wavevector kF  ∆k, this matrix
element is suppressed, since other than for |ii states very near the Fermi surface there
are no unoccupied states |f i with the corresponding recoil momentum for the atom
to scatter into. Equivalently, the structure factor Sq < 1 [62]. This is responsible forthe widely predicted Pauli blocking of total light scattering in a deeply degenerate
Fermi gas [28]. This is exactly equivalent to saying that a degenerate Fermi gas witha de Broglie wavelength substantially smaller than the probe light wavelength will
have suppressed density fluctuations on that length scale, and therefore suppressed
light scattering.
However, this is not the regime that our experiment has probed. Indeed, if lightscattering had been suppressed by this mechanism, then absorption imaging (by which
we determined column counts of atoms) would have been impossible, since absorption(i.e. light scattering) would have been suppressed entirely, and the atom clouds
would have been transparent. In our prepared samples, kF  kR where kR is the37

recoil momentum for a resonant 671nm photon. Light scattering at large angles is
not suppressed, and therefore absorption imaging works as expected (with a slightly
reduced cross section by about 0.3%). However, density fluctuations are suppressed
for fluctuations with smaller k < kF  kR , corresponding to small light scattering
angles that are collected by our imaging system, and hence to density fluctuations at
length scales that are resolvable by the imaging system.

2.3

Measuring in-trap fluctuations with speckle

This section expands on Speckle Imaging of Spin Fluctuations in a Strongly Interacting
Fermi Gas [69], reproduced in Appendix F.
The density fluctuations study made use of the convenient time-of-flight rescaling
property of harmonically trapped Fermi gases, to allow us to study a noise propertyof the in-trap gas. Only a few special cases admit this trick (the noninteracting Fermi
gas, or Fermi gases with interactions so strong as to cause hydrodynamic expansion).
In particular, the property does not hold for atoms confined to a lattice or to generalinteracting Fermi gases. This led us to develop ideas for studying in-trap fluctuations in-trap, where resonant absorption imaging is impractical due to high densities.
Somewhat accidentally, after trying to track down an anomalous source of noise in intrap detuned absorption images, we stumbled upon a technique making use of speckle
patterns formed by objects that randomize the phase of light.

2.3.1

What is speckle?

Laser speckle is one of the easiest laser phenomena to observe – anyone who has
played with a laser pointer has noticed the grainy appearance that a laser spot has
when viewed on a rough wall or sheet of paper. The speckle pattern is caused by
the many out-of-phase scatterers of a rough surface, one that is bumpy on the scaleof the laser wavelength or greater (any scattering surface fulfills this condition – if it
wasn’t bumpy on the optical scale, it would act like a mirror instead). These scatterers independently scatter with a random phase between 0 and 2π. Each resolution
38

element of your iris receives a random walk of scattered amplitudes, in certain placesinterfering destructively, and in others constructively. The correlation length of the
speckle pattern in your iris is set by the numerical aperture of the imaging system.
Speckle has many counter-intuitive properties. For instance, the contrast of anobserved speckle pattern does not depend on the scattering plane being in focus. Thisis one reason why laser pointer spots can be difficult for the human imaging system
to focus on. For a thorough treatment of its many ins and outs the reader is referredto the definitive book on the topic [27].
Equivalently to looking at laser speckle off a rough surface, speckle can be observed in laser transmission through a phase randomizing object such as a groundglass diffuser plate. A diffuser will scramble the phases of different parts of a beam,
imparting random random phases over 0 to 2π. Once the diffuser is rough enough todo this, increasing its roughness does not increase the speckle contrast (the ratio σ/µwhere µ is the average intensity of the image and σ 2 is the intensity variance) – thisis the “fully developed” speckle limit. If imparted phases are small compared to 2π,
then the intensity contrast of the speckle pattern will be proportional to the range ofrandom phases, and can thus be a probe of phase randomness.
To turn random phase into intensity contrast, some propagation distance is required. The phase randomizing elements have some characteristic grain size, and thelight field must propagate by a distance on the order of the corresponding Rayleighlength in order for contributions from many grain elements to combine into a random
walk speckle pattern. If the phase object is observed with an imaging system, theneven with the imaging system focused on a thin phase randomizing object, intensity
speckle will result if the numerical aperture of the imaging system cannot resolve theindividual grains. In essence, this is because the finite resolution causes neighboringgrains to blur into each other, restoring the random walk argument. The correlation
length of the speckle pattern produced by an imaging system in this case comes fromthe numerical aperture of the imaging system, and not from the grain size of the
diffuser.
Speckle imaging can considered a form a phase contrast imaging without a phase
39

Figure 2-8: Left: an object which imparts a small phase shift to imaging light can be
represented as a source with phase π/2 relative to the illumination beam, yielding (tofirst order in source amplitude) only a change in the phase of resultant field. Center:
an absorption object, which affects the intensity of the transmitted field, can be
represented as a source with phase π relative to illumination field. This picture works
in the spatial domain, or in the spatial frequency domain where the object phasors
represent field at different spatial frequency components. Right – in the frequency
domain, free propagation or imaging through a defocused imaging system imparts adifferent phase to different spatial frequency components. If the system is sufficiently
defocused, the relative phases for different frequency components allow those source
terms to scramble phase contrast into a mixture of phase and amplitude contrast.
plate. Phase contrast imaging is a common technique with ultracold atoms, applied
almost immediately after condensates were first produced [3]. It is usually accomplished by inserting a phase spot into the Fourier plane of an imaging system, imparting a π/2 phase shift to the DC spatial frequency component of the light field. This
allows the illumination beam into to interfere with light from the object plane thatis in the phase quadrature, and converts phase differences into amplitude contrast.
When the phase object is random, if all that is desired is an intensity signal
with contrast that is proportional to the amount of phase noise, a phase plate is not
required. Simply defocusing the imaging system, so that a the different spatial frequencies components acquire relative phase allows half of the power (in the Fouriercomponents sense) that was initially in the phase quadrature to convert to the amplitude quadrature (see Figure 2-8). The intensity image produced by this technique is
not a reconstruction of the exact phase pattern present in the object, but neverthelesshas a contrast that is proportional to the amount of phase noise in the object.
A side-by-side comparison of the generation of weak speckle and strong speckle40

is depicted in Figure 2-9. A simple numerical simulation, corresponding to typicalparameters from our experiment, is presented in Figure 2-10, with the source code
reproduced in Appendix H. The simulation starts with a Gaussian illumination beam
and a Poisson phase object which imparts random phase to the resolution elementsof the simulation. The resultant field is Fourier transformed, and propagated by
the defocus distance. The finite aperture of the imaging system is simulated byapplying a low-pass filter in the Fourier domain. Then the field is inverse Fouriertransformed to produce the observed intensity pattern. Alternatively, a phase spot issimulated in the Fourier domain before the inverse transform, to produce a simulated
phase-contrast image. When the cloud is perfectly in focus, no speckle contrast isseen in the amplitude quadrature (normal absorption imaging), while full contrast
is seen in phase contrast imaging. As the cloud is defocused, speckle contrast in
the two quadratures is rapidly equalized at half the initial contrast, over a distancecorresponding to the Rayleigh length of the imaging system. In separate simulations
not plotted below, it was also shown that this speckle contrast is additive for many
independent planes, meaning that the speckle contrast in an absorption image can beinterpreted as coming from the column-integrated fluctuations.

2.3.2

Proof of principle experiment

In our experiment described in [69], speckle is produced by an in-trap two species
Fermi gas. The gas is prepared with a mixture of the two lowest hyperfine states of
6

Li, conventionally labelled |1i and |2i. The light used as a probe is tuned halfway

between these two species’ resonant frequencies, such that the detuning is ∼ 40MHz
for each, but of opposite sign for the two. At this detuning, the imaginary part of theatom polarizability (which contributes to absorption signal) is substantially reduced,
avoiding the opaque-cloud problems of in-trap resonant imaging. The real part ofthe polarizability (which contributes phase shift to the light, or acts as an index ofrefraction) is dominant, and is opposite sign for species |1i and |2i, meaning that forthis probe light the local index of refraction is proportional to the density difference(or magnetization) (n1 − n2 ). In a second data set for the experiment, the probe light
41

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Figure 2-9: Evolution of phase noise into visible speckle. (a) An input gaussian
beam with spatial field amplitude A(x), with spatial Fourier transform Ã(k). Lightis incident on (b) a weak random phase object, with imparted random phase  2πor (c) a strong random phase object. In the weak phase case, the field still retains
a strong component of the initial gaussian beam, whereas in the strong phase caseall of initial gaussian component has been spread to higher frequencies. After thephase objects, the beam is propagated forward in space, adding relative phase shifts
between frequency components and leading to (d) weak speckle or (e) strong speckle.
For weak speckle, propagation converts half of the phase noise into amplitude noise.
Amplitude fluctuations have a small contrast, proportional to the phase fluctuationsin the object. For strong speckle case, amplitude fluctuations have full contrast,
independent of the size of phase fluctuations in the phase object. (f ) Imaging thestrong phase object with finite resolution (applying a low-pass cutoff in the frequency
domain) retains a full contrast speckle pattern, with a larger speckle size.

42

Transmission image variance (arb. units)
0
0

2f

d

50

2f

100

Defocus distance d (μm)

150

Figure 2-10: Simulation of propagation effects after light has passed through a poissonian phase noise object. Shown are the variance measured in the amplitude orin-phase quadrature (black line) and the out-of-phase quadrature (gray line) as afunction of defocus distance, for an imaging system with a numerical aperture of 0.14.
Within a distance less than 5% of our cloud size, noise becomes equally distributed
between the two quadratures and the variances in transmission and phase-contrast
images become the same. The oscillations in phase and amplitude contrast with distance are a numerical artifact caused by the discrete grid. (Top inset) For small phasefluctuations, an in-focus phase noise object gives no amplitude contrast, but when it
is out of focus it does. (Bottom inset) Sample intensity patterns for a defocused phaseobject. The source code for the simulation which produced these plots is reproducedin Appendix H

43

is detuned ∼ 40MHz to the other side of state |2i so that the detuning of both states
is of the same sign, giving a local index of refraction (n1 /3 + n2 ). This second linear
combination of densities allows us to determine fluctuations in both density difference
and total density. The determination is cleaner for (n1 − n2 ) – at this detuning thecloud has no overall average index of refraction (since the two densities are equal on
average), and hence does not result in overall lensing, which produces some extra
noise due to normalization artifacts.
Speckle imaging was applied to determine fluctuations in both total density anddensity difference, in both non-interacting and resonantly interacting gases. Pairing
introduces a local correlation in density of |1i and |2i atoms, leading to reduced noisein the density difference (n1 − n2 ) relative to (n1 + n2 ) noise (see Figure 2-11). Or,
in terms of the fluctuation dissipation theorem, noise in the total density (n1 + n2 ) is
proportional to compressibility κ as in the previous experiment, while noise in (n1 −n2 )is proportional to the magnetic susceptibility χ. The response functions determinedin this experiment match well with theoretical calculations (see Figure 2-12).

2.4

Searching for domains of the Stoner ferromagnet

This section summarizes and slightly elaborates on Correlations and Pair Formation
in a Repulsively Interacting Fermi Gas [67], reproduced in Appendix G.
One of the conceptually simplest phase transitions that can be realized with interacting Fermi gases is Stoner ferromagnetism. The Stoner model treats two species ofrepulsively interacting fermions, with a short range repulsive interaction characterized
by a scattering length a. Consider a system of N fermions, distributed between two
spin states N1 + N2 = N , in a box of volume V. The total energy of the system (atzero temperature) comes from the Fermi gas energy of each species, plus the repulsive


5/3
5/3
interaction energy, giving E = α × N1 + N2
+ β × aN1 N2 (system volume andmass dependent terms have been folded into terms α and β for clarity). For small
44

we therefore calibrate our measurement by measuring thespin fluctuations in a noninteracting mixture, realized at
527 G where the scattering length between the two statesvanishes. Figure 3 shows raw profiles of the variances "2%and "2þ measured at the two detunings. These fluctuationsin the speckle pattern are proportional to number fluctuations in the specified probe volume V: "2% ¼ ½c"ðN1 %N2 Þ(2 and "2þ ¼ ½c0 "ðN1 =3 þ N2 Þ(2 . In these relations c
and c0 are factors which have to be calibrated. Without
interactions, N1 and N2 are uncorrelated, and one predicts½"ðN1 % N2 Þ(2 =½"ðN1 =3 þ N2 Þ(2 ¼ 2=½1 þ ð1=3Þ2 ( ¼ 1:8.

acting mi
the BECbility rep
sample asufficient
superfluid
susceptib
pressibili

1.2

8

−4

x 10

5

1/(kF a)= ∞OD Variance

OD Variance

100 µm

6
4
2
0

5

10
15
20
25
Pixels (1 pixel = 2.6 µm)

30

4

−4

x 10

χ/κ

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

1/(kF a)= 0

0.0

527

Mag

3
2
1
0

5

10
15
20 25
30
Pixels (1 pixel = 2.6 µm)

FigureExampleonline).
speckle noise(Topimage,panel)with whitebox indicating
analysisnoise
region.
FIG.2-11:
3 (color
Examplespeckle(Bottom panels) Noise data for noninteracting (left panel) and resonantly interacting
image,
whiteshowing
box theindicating
region.
(Bottom(rightpanel)withcold clouds,
variance in analysis
optical density
for n1 −n2 images
panels)noninteracting(leftarepanel)
andfitsresonantly(blackdots)Noiseand fordata
n1 +forn2 (graydots). Solid lines
gaussianto the data,anddotted lines(rightillustrate
the expected
full poissonian
noise "
for2 thecorresponding
interacting
panel)
cold clouds,
showing% (black dots)
quantities2 based on density determined from off-resonant absorption.

and "þ (gray dots). Solid lines are Gaussian fits to the data, anddotted lines illustrate the expected full Poissonian noise for thecorresponding quantities based on density determined from offresonant absorption.

FIG. 4. (#=#0 , andBCS crossare conver
temperatu
interacting
superfluid
ments. Th
based on 1
obtained fline of sighfor the com

010402-3

45

1.

1.0

Optical Density

0.6
0.4
0.2
0

∞

ity, and the ratio between the two quantities for the interacting mixtures as the interaction strength is varied throughthe BEC-BCS crossover. The susceptibility and compressibility reproduce the expected qualitative behavior: for the
sample at unitarity, where the transition temperature issufficiently high that a sizable portion of the sample issuperfluid, and for the sample on the BEC side, the spin
susceptibility is strongly suppressed relative to the compressibility. This reflects the fact that the atoms form bound1.2

kle noise(Bottomesonantly
ack dots)
data, ande for thefrom off-

-1.0

-1.5

∞

1/kF a

1.0 0

-1.0

-1.5

∞

1.0

-1.5

0.6

2

0.4

0.4

1

0.2

0.2
0.0

-1.0

3

κ / κ0χ/κ

0.6

1/kF a

1.0 0

4

0.8

0.8

1/(kF a)= 02530
2.6 µm)1/kF a1.0 0

1.0

al Density

0.6
0.4
0.2
0

∞

χ / χ0. Beforeossover,uring thealized at
wo states
nces "2%tuations
fluctua"ðN1 %ations cWithout
predicts( ¼ 1:8.

527

800

900

1000

0.0

527

800

900

1000

0

527

800

900

1000

Magnetic Field (G)Magnetic Field (G)Magnetic Field (G)

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 4.
2-12:(a)(a)TheThe ratio, (b) (b)the normalized
susceptibility
χ/χ0 , and (c)FIG.
ratioχ/κ
#=$,the normalized
susceptibility
the normalized compressibility κ/κ0 in the BEC- BCS crossover. The variances de, and(c) theof normalized
compressibility$=$0variablesin the using
BEC#=#
rived 0from
sequencesimages are converted
into thermodynamic
theBCS
crossover.
Theandvariances
derivedfrom sequencesof images
measuredtemperatures
a calibration
factor determinedfrom the non-interactinggas.
Theverticalline
indicatesthe
onset
regionofsuperfluidity,asdeterminedvia
are converted into thermodynamic variables using the measured
condensate fraction measurements. The curves show theoretical zero temperaturetemperatures
a calibration
factordeterminedtheobtained
nonestimates based onand
1st (dotted)
and 2nd order(solid)perturbativefrom
formulasinteractinggas. Thetheory
verticalline along
indicates
onset
regionfrom
ofafrom Landau Fermi-liquid
integrated
the line theof sight,
and results
Monte Carlo calculation(dashed) for thein afraction
homogeneous
system[4].
superfluidity,
as determinedviacompressibility
condensate
measurements. The curves show theoretical zero temperature estimates
based on 1st (dotted) and 2nd order (solid) perturbative formulas
obtained from Landau’s Fermi-liquid theory integrated along theline of sight, and results from a Monte Carlo calculation (dashed)
for the compressibility in a homogeneous system [32].

010402-3
46

1522

zero field using the cycling transition after aballistic expansion time of Dt = 4.6 ms. The kinetic energy was obtained from the Gaussianradial width sx as Ekin = [(3msx2)/(2Dt 2)] wherem is the mass of the 6Li atom. A minimum of
the kinetic energy at kFo a ≅ 2.2 for the coldest
temperature T/TF = 0.12 nearly coincided with

At higher temperature (e.g., T/TF = 0.39 asshown in Fig. 3), the observed nonmonotonic
behavior becomes less pronounced and shifts tolarger values of kFo a for 3 ≤ koF a ≤ 6. For all threeobserved properties (Figs. 2 to 4), a nonmonotonic
behavior is no longer observed at T/TF = 0.55 (27).
One interpretation is that at this temperature andFig. 1. Ferromagnetic phase transition at T = 0, according to themean-field model described in the
text. The onset of itinerant ferromagnetism occurs when the energy
as a function of magnetization flips
from a U shape to a W shape (A).
(B) Enthalpy, volume, and kinetic
energy, normalized to their values
for the ideal Fermi gas, and magnetization as a function of the interaction parameter kFa. kF is definedby the density of the gas. The dottedline marks the phase transition.

SEPTEMBER
2009
VOL 325 SCIENCE The
www.sciencemag.org
Figure 2-13: 18
Stonermodelof ferromagnetism.
onset of magnetization, as repulsive scattering length is increased in a two species Fermi gas. From [40].

repulsive interactions, with small a > 0, it is energetically favorable for the system totolerate small repulsive energy in order to minimuze Fermi energy, and thus N1 = N2 .
But for a sufficiently high a, it becomes preferable for the system to spontaneously
magnetize, such that either N1 or N2 ≈ N . (see Figure 2-13)
A previous experiment, performed by our next-door-neighbor lab [40], found evidence of this phase transition in strongly interacting 6 Li Fermi gases. A noninteracting
spin mixture of states |1i and |2i was prepared and confined in an optical dipole trap.
Strong repulsion was quickly switched on by jumping the applied magnetic field nearto the broad 6 Li Feshbach resonance. At these fields, 6 Li atoms are known to rapidly
form diatomic molecules, which cause heating and trap loss and lead to a short lifetime of trapped atoms (this experiment measured properties of clouds with lifetimes
as low as ∼5 ms). Nevertheless, by examining loss rate as a function of temperatureand interaction strength a, a suppression of loss at low temperature and strong interactions appeared, which was attributed to the atomic samples phase separating into
magnetic domains in which molecule formation could only occur at domain boundaries. Domains were never directly observed, but it was believed they were simply
too small to be resolved and did not have time to grow during the short gas lifetime.
47

Downloaded fro

are generic for the ferromagnetic phase transitionand should also be present in more-advanced
models (19).
We start with an atom cloud consisting of an
equal mixture of 6Li atoms in the lowest two
hyperfine states, held at 590 G in an optical
dipole trap with additional magnetic confinement (23). The number of atoms per spin state isapproximately 6.5 × 105, which corresponds toa Fermi temperature TF of ~1.4 mK. The effective temperature T could be varied between
T/TF = 0.1 and T/TF = 0.6 and was determined
immediately after the field ramp by fitting the
spatial distribution of the cloud with a finite
temperature Thomas-Fermi profile. We definek∘F as the Fermi wave vector of the noninteracting gas calculated at the trap center. Applying
the procedure discussed in (24) to repulsive interactions, we estimate that the real temperature
is approximately 20% larger than the effective
one. The effective temperature did not dependon k∘F a for kFo a < 6. At higher temperatures,
additional shot-to-shot noise was caused bylarge fluctuations in the atom number. Fromthe starting point at 590 G, the magnetic field
was increased toward the Feshbach resonance at
834 G, thus providing adjustable repulsive interactions. Because of the limited lifetime of thestrongly interacting gas, it was necessary to ap-

12=108(24)=240404(5)Energy / atom (E F)

gas with strong short-range repulsive interactions does notnvestigate this system using an ultracold gas ofexist. The fast pair formation could not be observed prethium atoms, and observe that the ferromagviously due to limited time resolution [3]. Instead, a muchtransition does not occur. A previous experislower second phase in the conversion of atoms to pairsy [3] employing a different apparatus found
was observed leading to the wrong conclusion that thedence for a ferromagnetic phase, but did not
unpaired atoms have a much longer lifetime.
expected domain structure, possibly due to theging resolution. Here we address this shortanalyzing density and spin density fluctuations
2
imaging [4]. When spin domains of m atoms
in density variance will increase by a factor ofB
1A
if individual domains are not resolved. Oneof this paper is the absence of such a significant
ich seems to exclude the possibility of a ferro0
speckle trap
magnetic
image
off
ate in the studied system.
Bfield
er model assumes a two-component Fermi gas-1A
lsive short-range interaction described by a
350 µsmeter, the scattering length. The predicted-2
ition to a ferromagnetic state requires large
t
10
0
-10
5
-5
attering lengths on the order of the interatomic
Interaction parameter (1/k Fa)
ey can be realized only by short-range attracals with a loosely bound state with binding
FIG. 1. Diagram showing energy levels and timing of thema2 Þ, with m being theatomic 2-14:
mass andDiagramaFigureshowing energy levels and timing of the experiment. The
experiment. The upper (repulsive) and lower (attractive) branchcattering length [6]. However,asshown
scheupper (repulsive) andlowernear(attractive)
branchareenergies,
a Feshbach resonance,energies,
a Feshbach resonance,
connected nearby threeFig. 1, the repulsive gas is then by necessity
body collisions.collisions.
In our experiment,
we quickly
jump fromwea quickly jump fromareconnected
bythree-bodyInourexperiment,
able with respect to decay into the bound state.
weakly interacting Fermi gas (A) to a strongly interacting one
etical studies of a Fermiagasweakly
with strong
shortinteracting
gas magnetic(A) tofielda change.
stronglyinteracting
one (B) with a rapid(B)Fermi
with a rapid
The evolutionof corresive interactions assume
that the metastablelations
and domains
and theformation and(populationofmagnetic
field change.
Theevolution
ofmolecule
correlations
domains
and the moleculeficiently long-lived [7–18]. In recent Montethe lower branch) are studied as a function of hold time t.
formation(populationof theations, the paired state is
projected out
in theAdaptedfromlower[42]. branch) are studied as a function of hold time t.

Adapted from [63].
240404-1! 2012 American Physical Society

As discussed in earlier section 2.1.4, fluctuations in the total magnetization of aprobe volume can be enhanced by the presence of domains, even when the domains
themselves cannot be resolved. Our success in using fluctuation probes led us to try
applying our speckle imaging technique to search for domain formation in a Stonerferromagnet. Even small domains of only a few particles n per domain should leadto strongly enhanced fluctuations by a factor of n.
A similar preparation technique to that in [40] was used. The main difference
was that our glass cell experiment did not suffer from eddy currents that make it
difficult to achieve fast magnetic field ramps, and thus we were able to jump morecleanly and quickly into the strongly interacting region in about 350 µs instead of
4.5 ms (see Figure 2-14). After this quick ramp, speckle imaging was used to probe
for magnetization fluctuations (in n1 − n2 ) in the sample. However, after a thoroughsearch through parameter space, no strong enhancement of fluctuations was observed(see Figure 2-15). This appears to rule out the formation of ferromagnetic domains,and indicates that the conclusions of [40] were incorrect. Instead, the observed change
in atom loss rate, previously attributed to phase separation, is believed to have been
an artifact of the previous experiment’s inability to probe very short timescales near48

Relative spin fluctuations

verted into molecules, while the total number Na þ 2Nmol
into an amplitude pattern during propagation. The
remains constant. The initial drop in atom number becomesng spatial fluctuations in the probe laser intensity arelarger as we increase the final magnetic field, and saturates
o determine the spin fluctuations in the sample.
at around 50% near the Feshbach resonance.
Ref. [4] we prepared samples on the lower branch of
We attribute this fast initial decay in atom number toeshbach resonance, where positive values of kF a
recombination [26,27] into the weakly bound molecularpond to a gas of weakly bound molecules. At¼ 1:2, we observed a sixfold suppression of spin
ations and a fourfold enhancement of density fluctuk Fa 00.65 1.14 2.27 ∞. Typical fluctuations in the speckle images of a non(a)
(b)
1.6
1.6
cting Fermi gas at T ¼ 0:23TF amount to 5% of thege optical signal per pixel, corresponding to aboutof Poissonian fluctuations. Those fluctuations are
1.4
1.4
fied by factors between 0.2 and 1.6 due to pairing
teractions.
1.2
1.2
his study, on the upper branch of the Feshbach reso, the situation is reversed. For unbound atoms, as the1
1ction strength increases, the two spin components
d develop stronger and stronger anticorrelations and
800
850
0
1
2
3
527 750
Magnetic field (G)Hold time (ms)ced spin fluctuations. Previous experimental work [3]veral theoretical studies [10,11,13–15,18,23] predicted
FIG. 2. Spin fluctuations (a) after 350 "s as a function ofe transition to a ferromagnetic
state where
the magnetic
Figure2-15:
Spin fluctuations(a) after 350 µs as a function of magnetic field andmagnetic field and (b) on resonance as a function of hold time
ptibility and therefore the spin fluctuations diverge.
scaledtothevalue
527 G. Even
at strong(b) on resonance as a function ofmeasured
holdattime
scaledto repulsive
the value measured at 527
t Monte Carlo simulations [19] predict such a diverinteractions, the measured spin fluctuations are barely enhanced,
G.
Even
at
strongrepulsiveinteractions,themeasuredspinaround kF a ¼ 0:83. We therefore expected an inindicating only short-range correlations and no domain forma-fluctuations are barelyof spin fluctuations by enhanced,
one or severalindicatingorders of onlytion. The
spin fluctuations
were determinedandfor squarebins ofshort-range
correlations
no domain
formation. The spin
tude, related to the size of magnetic domains.
2:6 "m, each containing on average 1000 atoms per spin state.

fluctuations were determined for square bins of 2.6 µm, each containing on average
1000 atoms per spinstate.
240404-2

the beginning of the strong interactions. Armed with faster magnetic field ramps,
our experiment observed that atom loss was not simply exponential, but rather had
a very fast initial decay followed by a much slower exponential tail (see Figure 2-16).
Whether the underlying assumptions of the Stoner model are realistic remains
open to debate [61]. The Stoner model assumes a short ranged yet strong interaction.
In systems like ours, which use a broad Feshbach resonance to achieve this interaction,
the strong interaction goes hand in hand with a strong coupling from the scatteringchannel to a molecular state, and hence high loss rate. It appears possible that forany such system the timescale for formation of ferromagnetic domains will always
be smaller than the timescale for molecule formation. Using a narrow Feshbachresonance would mean a lower molecular coupling, and hence slower decay rate, forthe same achieved scattering length. But narrow Feshbach resonances cannot betreated as yielding purely short-range interactions, once again breaking the Stonermodel assumptions.

2.5

Outlook

Fluctuation probes have shown themselves to be a very useful way to examine correlations in trapped atomic systems. In experiments performed already, these probes have49

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

PRL 108, 240404 (2012)
Hold time [ms]week endin
15 JUNE 20

For longer time scales (hundred milliseconds) we oserve a steady increase of the molecule fraction to 90%
the longest hold time. This occurs due to continuo
0.8
0.8
evaporation which cools down the system and shifts t
0.6
0.6
atom-molecule equilibrium towards high molecule fra
0.4
0.4
tions. During the same time scale, a slow loss in bo
atom number and total number is observed caused
0.2
0.2
inelastic collisions (vibrational relaxation of molecul00and evaporation loss.
Is the rapid conversion into molecules necessarily fas
than the evolution of ferromagnetic domains? Our answ
1
is tentatively yes. First, for strong interactions with k
0.8
around 1, one expects both instabilities (pair formation a
Stoner instability) to have rates which scale with the Fer
0.6
energy EF and therefore with n2=3 . Therefore, one cannchange the competition between the instabilities by wo
0.4
ing at higher or lower densities. According to Ref. [21] t
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
fastest unstable modes for domain formation have a wa
Hold time [ms]vector q $ kF =2 and grow at a rate of up to EF =4@ whthe cloud is quenched sufficiently far beyond the critic
FIG. 3 (color online). Characterization of molecule formationinteraction
Unstable
Figure 2-16: Characterization
molecule
shortand longholdstrength.
times,and modes with such wave ve
at short andof
longhold times,formation
and at differentatvaluesof thetors will develop ‘‘domains’’ of half a wavelength or siinteraction
strength.
The
closedsymbols,
circles(black)at
at different values of theinteraction strength. The closed symbols,(black)at" ¼circles#=q ¼ 2#=kF containing 5 atoms per spin state in
790 G with kF a ¼ 1:14, squares (blue) at 810 G with kF a ¼
3
volume
"
.
This
rate
is
comparable
to the observed co
a ¼ 3:5krepresent
and diamonds(red) atat
818810G with790 G with kF a = 1/14,2:27squares(blue)
GkFwith
2.27 and diamonds (red)F a = thenormalized number of free atoms, the open symbols the total
version rates into pairs of 0:13EF . Therefore, at be
at 818 G with kF a = 3.5
represent
the thosenormalized
numberof freeatoms, the open
numberof atoms including
bound in Feshbach
molecules‘‘domains’’ of a few particles could form, but before tha¼1:14).
The
crosses(green)(open
circles
at
790
G
with
k
F those bound in Feshbach
can growfurther and(open
prevent the formation of pairs (insymbols the total number of atoms including
molecules
show the molecule fraction. The characteristic time scale is set
fully polarized state), rapid pair formation takes over acircles at 790 G with kbyF athe=Fermi
1.14).
The(green)
43 !s, calculatedwith show
a cloud the molecule fraction.
time @=E
F ¼ crosses
populates the lower branch of the Feshbach resonanenergy.
The characteristic timeaveraged
scaleFermi
is setby the Fermi time ~/EF = 43µs,
withand these arguments, it see
Based calculated
on our observations
that
it
is
not
possibletorealize ferromagnetism with stroa cloud averaged Fermistate.
energy.
We obtain an atom loss rate N_ a =Na ¼ 250 s"1
short range interaction, and therefore the basic Stonat 790 G in the first 1 ms after the magnetic field switch.
model cannot be realized in nature.
Assuming a three-body process we estimate the rate
One possibility to suppress pair formation is provided"22
coefficient Leffects
field toasbePauli
3:9 # 10cm6 s"1of, density
narrow Feshbachresonances. Here the pairs have dom
demonstrated classic textbook
blocking
fluctuations,
3 at this suchthough the interaction is already sufficiently strong fornantly closed channel character and therefore a mu
many-bodyeffects
to be significant.
For stronger
interacsmaller overlap
matrix element with the free atomand raised new questions
about
another
textbookmodel,
the Stonerferromagnet.
tions, about 30% of atom loss occurs already during the
However, narrow Feshbach resonances are characteriz
relevant 100 !s of ramping through the strongly interacta long effective
Such probes, especiallying
speckleimaging, could prove to be a keyby
techniquein rangediag-and do not realize the Stonregion, indicating a lower bound of around 3 # 103 s"1model which assumes short-range interactions. Other
for the loss rate which is 13% of the inverse Fermi time
teresting topics for future research on ferromagnetism a
nosing new phases of atomic
gases.with a cloud averaged Fermi energy.
EF =@, calculated
pair formation include the effects of dimensional
After the first millisecond, the molecule formation rate
[30,31], spin imbalance [32,33], mass imbalance [3slows down, by an order of magnitude at a magnetic
lattice and band structure [35,36].
field of 790 G (and even more dramatically at higher
We now discuss whether ferromagnetism is possib
fields) when it reaches about 50%. It seems likely thatafter atoms and molecules have rapidly established loc
the molecule fraction has reached a quasi-equilibrium
equilibrium. In other words, starting at T ¼ 0, one cou
value at the local temperature, which is larger than theheat up the fully paired and superfluid system and creat
initial temperature due to local heating accompanying
gas of atomic quasiparticles which are similar to free ato
the molecule formation. Reference [28] presents a simple
with repulsive interactions. Density and temperature of tmodel for the equilibrium between atoms and molecules
atoms are now coupled. It is likely that such a state(ignoring strong interactions). For phase space densities
realized in our experiments after a few ms following t
around unity and close to resonance, the predicted
quench, until evaporative cooling converts the system inmolecule fraction is 0.5, in good agreement with oura molecular condensate over $ 100 ms. The possibilthat such a quasiparticle gas could become ferromagne
observations [29].
20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1

Molecule Fraction

0Surviving fraction

Surviving fraction

1

240404-3

50Chapter 3
The Cicero Word Generator
My whole journey is in suspense till
I receive letters from you all of the
1st of August. For if there turns out
to be any hope, I am for Epirus: if
not, I shall make for Cyzicus orsome other place. Your letter ischeerful indeed, but at the sametime, the oftener I read it, the more
it weakens the suggested ground for
hope, so that it is easy to see thatyou are trying to minister at once
to consolation and to truth.
Accordingly, I beg you to write tome exactly what you know andexactly what you think.
Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43BC),
Letters to Atticus

This chapter is nearly identical to the manuscript A Distributed GUI-based Computer Control System for Atomic Physics Experiments [44], which has been submitted
for publication.
51

3.1

Introduction

The study of Bose-Einstein condensates and degenerate Fermi gasses of trapped atoms
are one of the most active and exciting sub-fields of atomic physics. Experiments
require a sophisticated combination of vacuum, electronic, and laser technology. Most
probes of condensates and degenerate gasses are destructive, so data is acquired byrepeated “shots” in which a sample is prepared and then probed. A single shot insuch experiments takes ∼10-60s to acquire, and requires several hundred precisely
timed events, such as opening and closing of laser shutters, ramping and switchingmagnetic coils, RF evaporation sweeps, and camera triggers. Events may be as longas several seconds (the loading of a magneto-optic trap, for instance), or as short
as a microsecond (a blast of laser light to remove unwanted atoms from a trap, forinstance). Thus, these experiments require a computer control system capable ofoutputting a precisely sequenced set of outputs over a large number of analog anddigital channels.
Such experiments are also by nature permanent prototypes, in a constant stateof being upgraded, tweaked, repaired, and improved. Thus, it is desirable to havea computer control system that is intuitive to use, allowing for easy comprehension,
design and modification of output sequence by users who are not experts in the control
system’s inner workings.
This paper describes a graphical-user-interface-based distributed computer control
system developed at MIT for our experiments with ultracold atoms, called the Cicero
Word Generator. The software has been used in Fermi gas experiments in the primaryauthor’s lab [68, 69, 67]. In addition, the package (and its source code) are freely
available for download and use by other groups [42], and has been adopted in a
number of atomic physics experiments [10, 81, 40, 71, 73, 36] in groups at over 10
institutions. While designed with BEC and Fermi gas experiments in mind, it is likelythat Cicero (or ideas in its design and implementation) could be useful in other typesof experiments where elaborate and precise output sequences are required.
Our system provides outputs both on hardware clocked channels, where precise52(∼10ns) timing without shot-to-shot variation is required, as well as on software
clocked channels such as GPIB and RS232 (serial) interfaces where deterministic
timing is less feasible and generally not required. For deterministic outputs, we use
commercial National Instruments (NI) output cards, with the ability to use an FPGA
to generate a synchronization signal that allows us to reach time resolutions of ∼100ns
over effectively arbitrary length sequences. The deterministic output configuration
is discussed in Section 3.4.1. GPIB and RS232 outputs, which run in less reliable
software time, are described in Section 3.4.2.
Many experimenters in the field end up writing their own control software in-house,
often in isolation from other groups, leading to a large duplication of effort. The
authors are aware of a few other published accounts of control software systems thathave been shared between institutions [53, 60, 23, 49]. This work is complementary
to those, and is distinguished by the fact that it takes a graphical user interface
approach to designing sequences (rather than the text-based sequence programming
approach offered by others) and by its targeting of commercially available NI output
hardware rather than custom made parts. There is a tradeoff between a potentiallygreater versatility and automation in the programming-interface approach, versus
greater ease of use and comprehensibility of the graphical-interface approach, though
we attempt to address this with certain advanced features of the graphical approach
to be explained in 3.3.1.
An overview of the control system is presented in Section 3.2. The user interface
is described in Section 3.3. The details of timing and synchronization schemes aredescribed in Section 3.4.

3.2

Architecture

Cicero splits the job of designing and running output sequences using a client-server
architecture. A typical Cicero and Atticus installation is depicted in Figure 3-1. The
53

Server #1

TCP/IP

Atticus
outputserversoftware**

PXI-6534 card***
PXI-6534 card

* PXI-6713 card
Opal Kelly
XEM3001 FPGAUSB
CiceroGUI client
Atticus
outputserversoftware*** PCI-6713 card***
PCI-6533 card
PCI-6534 card
GPIB card

Server #2* sample clock input** Computer-to-cards: PCI or NI MXI bus*** Card-to-card: NI PXI or RTSI bus

digital andanalogoutputs toexperimentvariablefrequency
sampleclock
digital andanalogoutputs toexperiment
GPIB
outputs toprogrammabledevicesFigure 3-1: A typical installation of Cicero and Atticus, with two output servers. In
this case, an FPGA is being used to synthesize a sample clock used to synchronize
output channels.

54

client, generally referred to as Cicero1 , provides a graphical user interface for loading,saving, and editing sequences, and for starting runs. The server, Atticus, handles theoutput hardware configuration and converts high-level Cicero sequence objects into
an output buffer for the output hardware located on the server computer. The client
communicates with one or more servers over a standard TCP/IP network.
Splitting the output hardware from the user interface gives several advantages: itallows the system to scale to large numbers of output channels – more than could be
supported by a single computer; it allows the system to be generalized to run on othertypes of hardware, without modification of the graphical user interface, by making
other server implementations for different output hardware; and it allows for output
hardware to be physically located close to its point of use, rather than necessarily
being close to the experiment operator’s computer.
An individual shot breaks down into several steps. First, Cicero sends to eachserver a high level sequence description. The servers turn the sequence description
into output buffers for each of the channels hosted by that server. These buffers areloaded into the output card memory, and the cards are armed to begin output. Cicero
then sends a trigger command to the servers, which depending on the configuration
either initiates a shared sample clock, or outputs a trigger signal to cards using theirown internal clocks. After the sequence has run, Cicero polls the servers for any errors
encountered in the run. If no error was encountered, and Cicero is set to loop or scanover a parameter list, then Cicero repeats the process for the next shot.

3.3

User Interface

3.3.1

Client – Cicero

Cicero is a descendant of commercial Word Generator control hardware used in early
atom cooling and trapping experiments at MIT, which through front-panel programming allowed users to pre-program and then run sequences of synchronized digital
1

both the full software suite and the user interface client are generally referred to by the same
name, Cicero, but the intended meaning is usually clear from context

55

Figure 3-2: Screenshot of the main sequence editing user interface.

outputs over a collection of channels. These manually programmed devices were
eventually succeeded by several generations of computerized control systems, basedon custom software and computer integrated output cards, but retaining the basic
sequence-of-words scheme and the historical Word Generator name.
A screenshot of Cicero’s basic sequence editing user interface is depicted in Figure 3-2. A sequence consists of a series of words – columns of user-settable time
duration. In each word, the user specifies the output value of digital channels usinga grid of toggles. A word may optionally trigger ramps of analog output channels, ortrigger GPIB or RS232 output commands.
The essential elements of the user interface were carried over from previous generations of control software. The interface is intuitive to people with no programming
56

experience, and by glancing at the sequence editing screen it is easy to see which channels are doing what when. Two key user interface enhancements have been introduced
to alleviate many of the disadvantages of the GUI approach to the programming interface approach.
In our previous implementations of this basic GUI approach, it was extremely
tedious to repeat a sequence while systematically changing a parameter, a task very
common when collecting data or optimizing the apparatus. This has been alleviatedwith the introduction of variable parameters. Any numerical parameter in a sequencecan be bound to a variable by right-clicking on it and selecting from a menu of defined
variables. Variables can be assigned hard values, or defined in terms of other variables
by entering mathematical formulae, or assigned to lists which can be scanned over,allowing the variable to take on a succession of values in successive iterations of thesequence.
In our experience with these experiments and previous GUI implementations,actions which are logically a single operation often required several words in the GUI
to accomplish. A classic example is flashing on an imaging laser beam for a shortpulse. Such beams are typically controlled by a combination of an acousto-optic
modulator (very fast rise time, imperfect extinction ratio) and mechanical shutter(slow rise, perfect extinction ratio). The modulator must be kept pre-warmed forabout a second before the pulse, but must be kept off during the slow shutter risetime (∼10ms). This meant every imaging pulse word was accompanied by a pretrigger word which turned off the modulator but began opening the shutter. Such
pre-triggers could be extremely complicated if they overlapped with other pre-trigger
words or other time sensitive phases of a sequence (such as the release of atoms fromtrap for a time-of-flight image). These problems have been alleviated in Cicero byintroducing the ability to define more sophisticated digital actions than just turningon during a word. These actions are termed Pulses, and are created and edited ina special section of the GUI. They support a variety a pre- or post-trigger behavior,in essence allowing them to cause digital channel value changes at times that are
specified relative to the boundaries of the word that the Pulse is placed in, but not
57

confined to the word boundaries. Pulses are then assigned to an individual channel atgiven word by right clicking on the grid of toggles (see word 2 of Figure 3-2). Using
these pre-triggers can help ensure that each word of the sequence corresponds to one
logical operation, making the sequence more modular, easier to read, and making itmuch less tedious to accomplish sequences with overlapping pre-triggers.
A slew of other client features have been incorporated as they have become needed,
and an exhaustive description of them is beyond this paper’s scope, but they include:
the ability to loop a keep-warm sequence in the background while editing a sequencein the foreground; grouping a set of words into a module, allowing them to be batchenabled, -disabled or looped; ramps and waveforms defined graphically or symbolically; logging of run details to explorable log files or to a database (SQL); persistentvariables that can be referenced from multiple sequence files; and interspersing ofcalibration shots into a long set of parameter scanning runs.

3.3.2

Server – Atticus

The Atticus output server is quite versatile, able to communicate with a wide rangeof output hardware, in many possible timing configurations. This requires a certain
amount of installation-specific configuration. Unlike much experiment-specific control
software, Atticus makes all such configuration settings accessible to the user througha GUI, without needing to make changes to hard-coded parameters in the source
code.

3.4

Output Details

3.4.1

Synchronization scheme for analog and digital channels

Our control system is built around NI output cards, specifically the PXI- and PCI6713 (12-bit analog outputs, 8 channels) and PXI- and PCI- 6534 (32-bit output
digital output). These cards allow for deterministic sequence output, without relying
on unreliable timing supplied by a computer operating system.
58

Generically, all such output cards function in a similar manner. Before running thesequence, an output buffer for each channel is precomputed, containing the value thatthe channel will take on at each sample time. Part of the buffer resides in the card’s
on-board memory, while the rest resides on the controlling computer and is streamed
to the card as necessary. To run the sequence, a start trigger signal is supplied to thecards, which initiates output generation. A sample clock signal advances each channel
to the next sample in its buffer. By physically sharing the start trigger and/or sample
clock signals (using a card-to-card bus if the cards are co-located, or a coaxial cable
if they are physically separated) all the output samples of all cards in the experimentcan be precisely synchronized.
In the simplest realization, a few cards on a single NI bus can share a sample clockthat is generated by one of the cards’ on-board oscillators. The time resolution of theoutput sequence (i.e. the shortest word that the sequence may contain) is then set by
the the sample clock frequency. In our experience, some legacy PCI cards (still in use
in labs at MIT) can only reliable sustain continuous sample generation at rates up to∼50kHz. At rates above this, streaming from the computer memory to the card is
not always able to fill the on-board buffer’s fast enough. This translates to a shortest
word size of 20µs.
In a typical sequence, a minority of the words in which no channel values arechanging take up the majority of the sequence time (for instance during MOT loading or RF evaporation sweeps), but it is still desirable to have a few very short words
for fast operations. When used with the naive fixed-frequency sample clock describedabove, the situation is the worst of two worlds. The shortest word size is inconveniently long compared to some of the fastest operations we may want to perform,
but the vast majority of the buffer is filled with redundant repeated samples during
long words just to achieve a high time resolution, meaning the buffer is both large
and slow to generate, as well as insufficiently high resolution. The solution to these
problems is to use a sample clock that is not fixed frequency.
Instead of a fixed frequency clock, a variable frequency clock can be synthesized,
one that has edges only when the sequence calls for changes in the output values. This59

synthesized clock can then be sent to the sample clock input of the output cards, andallows the buffers on those cards to be small even while the time resolution of thesequence is high. We have developed two schemes for creating a variable frequency
clock, using either a normal digital output from an NI card, or using an FPGA.
In both schemes, for simplicity, all output cards share the same sample clock, sothat if any channel on any card needs to change values, all cards are updated. In
addition, a clock edge will occur at each word boundary even if no outputs change. In
practice, this reduces complications in the code while causing only a limited amountof redundant buffer generation.
NI Cards (such as PXI-6534) typically have two halves which can make use of
separate output buffers and sample clocks. Half of a card can be sacrificed to provide
a variable frequency clock output. If set up for this form of clock generation, asingle large buffer for this synthetic clock is calculated for each sequence run, and theappropriate digital output of the card is then fed into the sample clock inputs of othercards. The synthetic clock buffer itself is clocked using the on-board oscillator of thecard, typically at 1MHz, achieving an effective time resolution in the output sequenceof 2µs (since the shortest interval in the output sequence requires at least two samplesof the clock sequence, one positive trigger edge and one falling edge). The scheme
works, but has downsides: Half of a digital output card has to be sacrificed; the verylarge synthetic clock buffer can take several seconds to generate for each shot, andrequires a card with a large on-board buffer.
An alternate approach is to use an FPGA to synthesize the variable frequency
clock. We have made use of the XEM3001 FPGA board available from Opal Kelly,
which is inexpensive, simple, and provides an easy to use computer-USB-FPGA communication interface. The FPGA is programmed on each Atticus startup with custom clock-synthesis code. Instead of creating the large output buffer necessary forthe output-card-synthesized clock, when using an FPGA Atticus merely computes alist of clock frequencies and dwell times for these frequencies. This list is transferred
before each run to the FPGA over a USB connection. When the run is triggered, theFPGA begins synthesizing a variable frequency clock on the fly, by counting down
60

from either its on-board 10MHz oscillator or from an externally provided one. Thistranslates to a time resolution of 100ns, (with a shortest word length of 200ns), vastly
finer than needed in our experiments. None of the shortcomings of the synthetic clock
buffer apply, since no large buffer needs to be precomputed.
Using an FPGA as the synchronization source also enables a basic form of realtime sequence feedback, namely the ability to pause and retrigger a run in response
to some measurement. In the Cicero GUI, a given word can be marked with a “Holdthen Retrigger” flag. After the FPGA reaches the part of the clock generation that
corresponds to the beginning of this word, it pauses until receiving a retrigger signal on
a dedicated digital input. Doing this retriggering in hardware with an FPGA (rather
than in software, by having Atticus attempt to pause and resume output cards) allows
it to be as fast and precise as any other hardware-timed event. Sequence retriggeringof this type can help reduce shot-to-shot fluctuations caused by the environment, forinstance by triggering certain parts of the experiment to coincide with a given phaseof the AC mains line, or with the number of atoms loaded into a MOT as measured
by fluorescence detection.

3.4.2

GPIB, Serial, and other output

In addition to the various digital and analog signals synthesized by output cards,
laser cooling experiments often make use of programmable function generators andsynthesizers to produce RF and microwave sweeps. A common and obvious example
is RF evaporation, in which a synthesizer frequency must be precisely swept over arange of frequencies, often with a precisely tuned and non-uniform ramp profile. Withlegacy synthesizers, such as those from the Agilent ESG series, this is accomplishedby issuing to the device a time-series of GPIB commands jumping the device to thedesired frequency. Newer synthesizers, such as the NI-RFSG, accept commands fromthe computer using a much faster PXI interface. Many other function generators andtranslation stages accept commands over a RS232 (“Serial”) port.
What all these communication methods have in common is that they require acomputer to send the command at the correct time in the sequence, at least to the61best ability of a computer clock within the limitations of a non real-time operating
system (though the authors recently became aware of a triggerable GPIB controller
which can be pre-programmed in much the same way as our analog and digital outputs[35]).
These outputs are described as software clocked, to distinguish them from the
hardware clocked outputs which do not rely on the computer’s concept of time. Simply
relying on a computer’s on-board clock is often acceptable. The timing jitter of suchan approach is generally less than 10ms, which is good enough considering that the
GPIB command latency of a typical Agilent ESG synthesizer is over 100ms. In thismode, Atticus starts a thread at the beginning of a sequence run which continuously
polls the computer’s on-board clock. This is used to trigger the output of the correct
GPIB, serial, or RFSG commands at the correct time in the sequence run.
In some circumstances, this timing scheme fails. When an FPGA clock is being
used, along with the above described retriggering feature, any time the FPGA spends
waiting for a retrigger translates directly into a skew between the software and hardware clocked outputs. If the retrigger waits are long, this can be an unacceptable longskew. Thus, Atticus can be configured to use a different method of software clocking– FPGA polling. In this mode, Atticus continuously polls the FPGA for its accuratesequence time (which takes into account any pauses and retrigger waits). This FPGA
polled time is then used instead of the computer’s on board clock to determine whencommands are output. When configured to do so, the FPGA-derived software clock
can be broadcast over the network using a lightweight UDP stream, both to the Cicero client so that the user interface can have a more accurate display of the sequence
position, and to other Atticus hardware servers so that the software clocked eventson that server can also be kept synchronized to the hardware clocked ones.

3.5

Conclusion

The Cicero Word Generator control system provides a user-friendly and powerfulsolution to the problem of running elaborate output sequences for atomic physics
62experiments. This system should be generalizable to other types of experiments
where realtime sequence feedback (beyond pausing and resuming an output sequence)is not required, and where a rapid and intuitive sequence editing user interface isdesired. The separation of the software into a user interface program and an output
program should also allow the system to be used with output hardware other that that
described here, by writing a custom server implementation. It is the authors’ hopethat the software itself, or ideas described here, can be of use to other experimentalists.

63

64

Chapter 4
A New Apparatus for Lithium
Optical Lattice Experiments
Any sufficiently advanced
technology is indistinguishable frommagic.
Arthur C. Clarke’s Third Law

Any technology distinguishable
from magic is insufficiently
advanced.
Barry Gehm’s Corollary

Any sufficiently advanced magic is
indistinguishable from technology.
Unattributed

This chapter will discuss the design of our new experimental apparatus. It will
focus on design details and decisions that are not often discussed. A familiarity withthe basic techniques of atom cooling and trapping, and with the Sodium-Lithium
cold fermion production approach, is assumed. For a thorough treatment of the65foundations, the reader is referred to a previous PhD thesis [34] and review paper
[46].

4.1

Motivation for a new apparatus

The BEC2 lab was the second machine on the hallway to be upgraded from a Sodium
BEC machine to a dual-species Sodium-Lithium machine (original Sodium-only machine described in [19], upgrade described in [15] and [55]). Because of its glass cell
design, it was intended to be focused on fermions in optical lattices, and it produced
an excellent set of early results – the first interference peaks of a fermionic superfluid released from an optical lattice [14], and an elegant study of the critical velocity
for damping of fermions in the crossover between molecular condensates and BCS
superfluids [54].
Nevertheless, working with lattices in the apparatus proved to be quite a challenge,
and almost three years were spent trying to take these lattice experiments to the next
step, without bearing much fruit. Much time was lost due to lattice alignment stability
issues, IR laser breakdowns, and general fluctuations in cold gas production. Whenthe experiment was working, some promising preliminary progress was made setting
up experiments with optical slicing of lattice samples, with the hope of studying inlattice density profiles and seeing incompressible shells of a fermionic band insulator
and a Mott insulator. However, corrugations in both our optical slicing beams, and in
the lattice beams eventually proved to be showstoppers. And meanwhile, competing
experiments observed fermionic Mott insulators in different ways, first by seeing the
suppression of doubly-occupied lattice sites via an RF-transfer technique [41], andlater by studying the compressibility of a trapped sample by examining the cloudsize when external confinement was varied independently of lattice depth [72]. Thus,
for simplicity, we eliminated lattices from the equation and turned our attention to
studying bulk systems with noise probes, ideas we had developed with lattice systems
in mind but which were equally applicable in bulk. These fruitful investigations led
to the results presented in Chapter 2.
66

Even studying bulk systems, the experiments were quite a challenge. In addition
to the major daily effort required just to keep the machine stable and running, theglass cell design made noise experiments in particular a challenge. Because of the way
the glass cell was mounted, suspended by two bellows between the Zeeman slower andthe pump body, it had a tendency to vibrate. Due to the cell’s lack of anti-reflection
coating, these vibrations translated into quite severe moving fringes in the imaging
system, which added strong remnant fringe artifacts to normalized transmission images. For experiments where only the overall cloud profile, or an average of profiles,
was required, this was not a severe issue. But for the noise experiments, these fringes
threatened to totally overwhelm the small fluctuations being measured, and required
us to develop techniques to take pairs of images in rapid succession (see the thesis
of Christian Sanner for a detailed discussion of cameras that make this possible, andtheir many subtle and surprising details [66]).
Against this backdrop, at the Sant Feliu BEC meeting in September of 2009, an
inspiring collection of speakers both theoretical and experimental presented a compelling picture of the direction of the field of quantum simulation with ultracold
atoms. Experiments were getting more technologically sophisticated and more specialized, some with high single-lattice-site imaging resolution [5, 75], or with phaselocked two-frequency lattices (“super-lattices”, in effect lattices of tunable doublewells rather than simple sinusoidal lattices) [78, 11]. And theoretical proposals for
exciting ways to address hard problems in condensed matter physics seemed to point
the way to experiments with a high level of reliability and controllability. Our lab had
been loosely considering the idea of a major upgrade already, but after this meeting
it was concretely decided to begin designing and planning in detail.
We had a number of interrelated goals and improvements in mind when designing
the new apparatus, which we have attempted to address by specific features of the
new design.
• Reliability: The old BEC2 apparatus went through some periods of reliable
operation, but these periods were the exception. Most days in which the experiment was to be run required 3-4 hours spent optimizing, tweaking, and coaxing
67

the machine back to proper performance, and often the apparatus was only
stable enough to operate very late at night. We have attempted to address thisby much better control of ambient temperature fluctuations (Section 4.7), by
migrating to a solid state laser system for producing 589n, light (Section 4.8),
by carefully considering the mechanical stiffness and stability of mounting techniques, and many other improvements.
• Low complexity: Intimately related to the above point, the previous experiment had many layers of unnecessary complexity, in part because of its historyof upgrades, in which new features (a 6 Li MOT, for example) and subsystems
had been tacked on over time, and new breadboards hung off the experiment inevery conceivable location. In the new apparatus, we have tried to “design-in”
as many basic features as possible to avoid this problem, for instance by having
a dedicated system for delivering MOT light that does not interfere with future
use of high value surfaces of the main breadboards. This was also one reason
we selected a plugged quadrupole magnetic trap design, with its much simpler
coil configuration, over our previous Ioffe-Pritchard design.
• Versatility: Many new cold atom machines are highly specialized, for instance
the Quantum Gas Microscope from the Greiner group [5] and its offspring,an experiment which has produced spectacular results studying optical latticesystems with 1 or a few lattice planes, but is not well suited to studying bulk
samples or large 3D lattices. We elected to continue the Ketterle group traditionof making general purpose cold atom machines, which may not be the ultimate
tool for any specific study, but are adaptable to a wide variety of experiments.
• Optical access: The glass cell design of the old apparatus nominally provided
almost 2π of solid angle optical access to trapped atoms. In reality, of course,
most of this was obscured by magnet coils, and most of the access was afforded
only at steep angles relative to the glass surfaces. From our lattice studies webegan to understand that not all “optical access” is created equal, and that itis better to have near-normal incidence through glass surfaces than very steep
68incidence angles. This eventually dictated the steel chamber with many windows
approach that we used in the new apparatus.

• Good imaging: Our exploration of imaging techniques in the old apparatus
convinced us of the need to design with a clean imaging system in mind. Thismeans including vacuum viewports with a high enough numerical aperture forreasonably high resolution imaging (or, equivalently, for high light collection influorescence imaging, should future experiments make use of that), with working
distances from the trapped cloud that are compatible with available microscopic
lens systems, and with coatings than minimize reflections and fringes.

• Excellent Vacuum: To paraphrase an old IBM ad campaign, nobody got fired
for a higher vacuum 1 . In particular, future experiments with Fermi gases in
optical lattices may be even more sensitive to background gas collisions thancold atom experiments in general. Every practical effort was taken to eliminate outgassing sources in the chamber and to maximize the pumping speed,
including application of a novel getter coating to the interior of the chamber.

• Magnetic fields: 6 Li has a broad s-wave Feshbach resonance near 830G, which
is of huge importance in strongly interacting Fermi gas studies. This is a relatively high field, but readily achievable in an apparatus designed with highcurrent electromagnets, and achieving at least this field was a minimal requirement. One goal of the DARPA OLE project under which the apparatus construction was funded was to achieve fast experimental cycle times, allowing anapparatus to rapidly map out phase diagrams of condensed matter systems, forinstance. One long phase of the experiment, magnetic trap evaporation, can beshortened by having higher compression traps, so a relatively ambitious benchmark of 1000 G/cm for the achievable magnetic field gradient also guided thedesign of the coils.
1

Except perhaps a Ti filament.

69

Main Chamber

Zeeman Slower

SourceFigure 4-1: Overview of new apparatus. Heated cups containing Sodium and Lithium(far right) act as atom sources. An oven chamber houses a beam-shutter mechanism, followed by an intermediate chamber for differential pumping. Atoms thenpass through a Zeeman Slower (center), and arrive in the main chamber (left) where
all experiments take place. The main chamber is a custom steel chamber with numerous viewports for optical access, magnetic coils close to the atoms, and a L-shaped
pump body accommodating an ion pump and Titanium sublimation pump.

4.2

Chamber layout and viewports

An overview of the design is presented in Figure 4-1. The apparatus follows the same
basic pattern as previous generations of Sodium-Lithium experiments in the Ketterlegroup. A two-species oven [77] acts as the source for 23 Sodium and 6 Lithium atoms.
The oven chamber holds a collimating plate and a mechanical atomic beam shutter.
Unlike previous experiments, the motion feedthrough is a magnetically coupled linear
motion feedthrough (Lesker MPPL16-150-H) to avoid potentially leak-prone bellows.
The oven chamber is connected, through a differential pumping tube, to a smallintermediate chamber with its own pump. A second stage of differential pumping
connects the intermediate chamber to the beginning of the Zeeman slower. The
oven-intermediate and intermediate-slower interfaces can be sealed off with VAT gate
valves, allowing the main chamber to be kept under vacuum during oven refills (and70

Figure 4-2: Top view of main vacuum chamber.
hopefully the intermediate chamber too, though the long term sealing performance of
VAT valves in an alkali-heavy environment is not fully known from experience). The
slower ends in a custom-built steel vacuum chamber, the “main chamber”, in which
all cooling, trapping, and subsequent lattice experiments take place.
The main chamber is designed to provide as much optical access as possible, andto accomodate reentrant bucket windows on two axes to allow for strong magnetic
fields and field gradients and high resolution imaging. The basic top plan is presented
in Figure 4-2, while a view showing the tight squeeze of the various reentrant buckets
is depicted in 4-3. A fully detailed and dimensioned drawing of the main chamber isavailable in Appendix A, and of the bucket windows in Appendix B.
Horizontal mounting plates allow the main chamber to be held up by 3 contact
points (in addition, the weight of the large ion pump is separately supported by a labjack). Vertical mounting plates allow for a small vertical breadboard mounted to thechamber, for delivery of slower light.

4.2.1

Bucket windows

Like previous steel chamber experiments, the experiment makes use of custom reentrant “bucket windows” – these viewports allow the chamber to make use of standard
Conflat vacuum fittings, while also allowing for windows and coils to be brought muchcloser to the atom cloud position than would be possible with standard flat viewports.
71

20.8
33

31.75

Figure 4-3: Section view of the main chamber, depicting positioning of top, bottom
and side bucket windows. Side bucket is designed to fit with 1mm of clearance.
High current magnet coils are shown, along with their mounting rods, in the top andbottom buckets. Dimensions are mm.

The main chamber accommodates bucket windows on its two vertical 10” OD
ports, and on one of its horizontal 4 5/8” port. The two vertical buckets are designed
to bring a window very close to the atoms for high numerical aperture imaging andoptical access, and to bring magnetic coils close to the atoms to apply strong fields
and gradients. The side bucket is designed solely for high numerical aperture imaging,its dimensions selected to accomodate a standard microscope objective (5X MitutoyoPlan Apo NIR) at its infinite-conjugate working distance away from the atom location.
The side bucket is so close to the center of the chamber that it begins to occlude thefield of view of other viewports (see Figure 4-4), but this occlusion was deemed to becompatible with the use of those viewports as MOT / lattice ports.

The top bucket window flanges are equipped with tapped mounting holes, allowing
magnetic coils and vertical axis optics to be mounted directly to the chamber. The
side bucket is also equipped with tapped holes, for mounting to it a standard optics
cage-rod system to hold a microscope objective deep in the bucket.
72

A

Figure 4-4: View into vacuum chamber through MOT/lattice viewport. The window
field of view to opposing window is partially occluded by A, the side bucket window
tube, which reaches deeply into chamber.

4.2.2

Standard windows

In addition to the 3 custom bucket windows, the main chamber has 10 other windows
in the horizontal plane. Opposite the side bucket window is a large 4-5/8” window,
used as a general purpose window to observe the MOT, and through which the atoms
are illuminated for side bucket absorption imaging. Four 2-3/4” windows are set at45◦ from the side axis. These windows are dual-purpose MOT / lattice windows,
the optical access shared by translating a mirror as described in section 4.2.5. A
2-3/4” windows opposite the slower tube is used to apply slowing light. Since thiswindow has a line-of-sight to the oven, it is heated to ∼ 180◦ C to protect it fromalkali deposition. A second heated window is added immediately over the undervacuum one, to shield the under-vacuum window from air currents and any sourceof potentially glass-stressing temperature gradients. Four windows are offset at 22.5◦
from the slower axis. These are intended as general purpose windows for opticalplugs, dark spot repump beams, low resolution imaging, or any other uses that do
not require a dedicated axis; the two windows on the far side from the slower are
2-3/4” in size, whereas the other two are 2-1/8” due to space constraints.
73

For all the relevant dimensions, consult the drawings in Appendix A.

4.2.3

Window materials, coatings, and purchase process

The 3 bucket windows were supplied by the UK Atomic Energy Agency (UKAEA)
vacuum techniques group (contact: Simon.Hanks@ccfe.ac.uk), while the other windows were from ISI / MDC. Coatings were provided by American Photonics (contact:barry@americanphotonics.com). The windows flats were of fused silica, at the best
flatness spec available from the suppliers (λ/8 for the 3 bucket windows, λ/5 for theothers).
All the windows on the main chamber were given anti-reflection (AR) coatings.
The side bucket window and its facing observation/illumination windows were givena single-V antireflection coating for 671nm – this is intended to be the highest performance Lithium imaging axis, and we wanted a coating that did not compromisein achieving the lowest possible reflectance. All the other windows were given amulti-wavelength coatings optimized for 532nm, 589nm, 671nm, and 1064nm.
Coating standard vacuum windows is a common technique for coating companies.
The bucket window coating was a more elaborate multi-stage process. The top bucket
windows would be too large to fit in a coating machine once fully fabricated, but thehigh temperatures required to create their glass-metal seals would be damaging to
any coatings that are pre-applied to the glass flat. Therefore, the buckets were firstpartially constructed, bonding the window the a metal subassembly. This subassembly was send to the coating company to be AR coated, and then sent back to UKAEA
to be welded to the bucket.
For the side bucket, the situation was more complicated. To achieve a uniform
coating thickness, coatings are generally performed by having a planetary gear system
move either the part or the coating source in a pseudo-random pattern. However, thesmallest subassembly that the window could be pre-bonded to presented a large tube
length compared to the size of the window, meaning that a substantial region of thewindow would have been partially shadowed from the coating source and would notreceive a proper AR coating. This difficulty was overcome thanks to the cooperation
74

Figure 4-5: Custom breadboards nesting with vacuum chamber. Each board has 5
1.5 inch diameter beam holes, as well as 5 smaller mounting holes. Built by TMC(contact mckopt@aol.com).
of the coating engineer at American Photonics, who agreed to perform some coating
test shots without using a planetary gear system, allowing them to characterize thedeposition onto a stationary substrate well enough to apply a coating to the sidebucket without the shadowing problem.
Reflectance graphs produced by American Photonics, for all the coatings described, are reproduced in Appendix C.

4.2.4

Breadboards

Custom breadboards were supplied by TMC (contact: MCKOPT@aol.com). The
top and bottom skins were made from 304 Stainless Steel (a less magnetic alloy than
the typical default), with a non-magnetic honeycomb core and sidewalls. The design
depicted in Figure 4-5 (or with detailed dimensions in Appendix B) was based on
careful consideration of how to optimize space and make the most of our viewports.
75

Cutouts along the perimeter allow the breadboards to nest close to the vacuum chamber. Circular cutouts (5 per board) are strategically located for passing beams fromthe breadboards’ top surfaces to their undersides or to the main table below. In particular, cutouts near the 45-degree MOT / lattice ports allow us to feed MOT beams
from below the breadboard and send them into the chamber with translatable mirrors(see section 4.2.5) which allow the windows the be shared between MOT and lattice
beams. Having the bulky MOT telescopes tucked away frees up an enormous amountof valuable real estate on the breadboard’s upper surface. Additional cutouts on the22.5 degree axis allow for convenient delivery of the optical plug beam, and cutouts
on the side imaging axis allow for reconfigurable imaging pathways which make useof both breadboard surfaces.
The breadboards and the chamber were mounted on 2”×4” cross-section extrusions from 80/20. The large hollows of these mounting posts were filled with leadshot. The 80/20 plus lead shot solution was found to provide a simultaneously stiffer
and more vibration damping combination than off-the-shelf vibration isolation posts
from Thorlabs (DP14).

4.2.5

MOT mirror translation

The pneumatic-translation-stages for the MOT beams are shown in Figure 4-6. They
are constructed by modifying a standard translation stage (Newport 433), adding apneumatic actuator from Bimba. This design has a few advantages over any commercially available automated translation solution. It is far more compact and inexpensive
then servo-motorized translation stages with similar travel. Servo-positioning is not
required – in the mirror’s retracted position (with pneumatic actuator extended) we
obviously do not care about its exact location, and in the engaged position the stage
stops against a micrometer screw for reasonably repeatable positioning. In addition,
the mirror and stage and aligned in such a way that the stage’s movement is in theplane of the mirror, so the exact stop position does not affect the reflected MOT beam
pointing. Testing this stage configuration using a camera over several thousand cycles
revealed a beam pointing repeatability of less than 10µrad, which is certainly good76

Figure 4-6: MOT mirror translation allows viewports to serve as both lattice andMOT viewports, without compromising either performance. Left: On the undersideof the 2nd layer breadboards, MOT light for Na and Li are cleaned in polarization,
combined on a dichroic beamsplitter, and then expanded in a telescope. Placing thisseldom-adjusted set-up on the underside of the table frees up a substantial amount of
space that would otherwise take up on the top of the breadboard. Right: After being
expanded by the telescope, MOT light is fed up through 1.5” holes in the breadboard,
to a translatable mirror. When the stage’s pneumatic tube is depressurized the mirror
redirects MOT light into the vacuum chamber. When pressurized, the stage moves
the mirror out of the way, freeing up the viewport for use with lattice beams fromthe top of the breadboard.
enough for a MOT beam (compared with tested ∼1mrad repeatability from flipper
mirror Newport 8892-K).

4.2.6

MOT beam distribution

Making a MOT requires illuminating the atomic cloud from several directions (generally 6, as in our experiment), often with additional repumping light frequencies
present in one or all illumination beams. In our experiment, 6 Li is illuminated with
6 beams that each have roughly equal power in both MOT and repump frequencies,
while 23 Na just receives 6 beams of MOT light, with the repumping provided byseparate dark-spot repump beam.
In the early experiments, MOT light was prepared with the correct set of frequencies on laser tables, then fiber- (or even free-space-) coupled to the experiment table,
where its power was split into 6 beams using waveplates and polarizing beamsplitters.
77

These beams were then distributed in free space to 6 MOT telescopes, and sent into
the chamber. This tried-and-true technique certainly worked, but because of the long
free-space-propagation paths was very prone to misalignment.
Modern experiments have mostly abandoned free-space-MOT distribution thanks
to developments in fiberized systems to accomplish the same. Our experience withfiberized MOT splitters began when we replaced our old experiment’s Li MOT systemwith an evanescent fiber coupler splitting system manufactured by Evanescent Optics
Inc. (formerly known as Canadian Instrumentation and Research Ltd.). The splittermodule, designed for 671nm light, has 2 input fibers (one for MOT, the other for
repump light) and equally splits these powers into 6 output fibers. Changing to thissplitter system significantly improved the alignment stability of our Li MOT – insteadof fixing it on a near-daily basis, we needed to adjust the MOT alignment only every
6 months or so.
A few years later, based on this extremely positive experience, we tried to tackle
the Na MOT distribution problem in the same way, with a new fiber splitter for 589nm
light from the same supplier. However, after installing the system, we encounteredproblems with the splitter that were not exhibited in the Li 671nm version. Though
the splitter is made using polarization maintaining (PM) fiber, and the splitting
mechanism itself relies on a certain polarization, we observed significant polarization
drifts in the splitter output on the ∼minute timescale. These drifts made achievinga stable Na MOT difficult. After discussion with the splitter supplier, it became
evident that their fiber splitting technique is not yet well controlled at these shorter
wavelengths.
In the new experiment, we have replaced the evanescent fiber splitter with asplitter unit from Schäfter+Kirchhoff, a miniaturized free-space splitter with fiber
coupled inputs and outputs. While this system is more expensive than the evanescentwave system, its performance has made this a worthwhile investment. In the future,
I recommend the evanescent system for wavelengths of ∼671nm or longer, and the
Schäfter+Kirchhoff for shorter wavelengths.
78

4.3

Vacuum system

4.3.1

Background gas collisions, Fermi gases, and pressure
goals

Atomic physics experiments have demanding vacuum requirements – for clouds that
do not suffer from inelastic collisions or spontaneous emission heating due to resonant
light, losses are only due to collisions between trapped atoms and background gas.
Experiments with degenerate Fermi gases are even more sensitive to background gas
collisions than Bose-Einstein condensates.
In a classical Boltzman distribution gas, if a randomly chosen trapped atom hasa collision with a background gas atom and leaves the trap without any further
collisions, the temperature of the remaining gas is unchanged. In a weakly interacting
finite temperature BEC, losing a random atom causes a slight rise in the remaining
gas temperature, roughly equivalent to adding kT of heat. For a Fermi degenerategas, however, the atom will leave behind a hole in the sea, and when the remaining gas
relaxes to fill this hole it release heat in the cloud on the order of the Fermi energy.
Starting from a T = 0 Fermi gas, randomly removing 1% of the atoms, and thenallowing the cloud to relax will result in a cloud temperature of T ≈ 0.01TF (where
TF is the Fermi degeneracy temperature). Estimates for the temperature required
to observe Néel ordering are around T /TF ≈ 0.06 [47], so in a trapped cloud with afairly long vacuum lifetime of 100s, the heating due to background gas collision losses
would limit the lifetime of Néel temperatures to only a few seconds.
Our old apparatus had decent but not extraordinary vacuum relative to its peers.
About once or twice per year, when ion gauge in the main chamber began to read avalue above its minimum threshold of 9.7 × 10−11 Torr, we would fire our Titanium
pump until the pressure dropped below the gauge’s threshold. Thus a rough estimate
for the pressure in the old machine would be in the high 10−11 Torr range. With thestringent vacuum requirements to see Néel ordering in mind, we set for ourselves thegoal of improving the vacuum in our new experiment by roughly an order of magnitude79

in the new machine, compared to the previous experiment. Since the construction of
our old apparatus, new ion gauges such as the UHV-24p from Varian have become
available capable of measuring much lower pressures down to 5 × 10−12 Torr. Readingfrom this newer model of gauge in our main chamber, after the chamber has beenin operation for several months, we estimate an achieved pressure in the region of
1.6 × 10−11 Torr.

4.3.2

Evaporable getter coating

At the low pressures of experiments like ours, the pressure achieved in a vacuum
chamber is simply set by the ratio between outgassing rate and pumping rate. One
approach to achieve high pumping speeds in a chamber is to turn the whole chamber
into a pump. Getter coatings can allow one to do just that, though standard gettercoatings like that from a Titanium sublimation pump cannot be reactivated once
they are exposed to air (new Ti needs to be deposited, and this is not practical in themain body of a chamber like ours with many viewports that must be kept depositionfree). Facing a similar need, wanting to turn their large particle accelerator tubes
into pumps, vacuum researches at CERN came up with a getter alloy of Titanium,
Zirconium, and Vanadium that can be exposed to air and then reactivated by baking
at a moderate temperature of ∼180◦ C [7, 12].
This getter coating is now becoming a common ingredient in newly built atomic
physics experiments. Some groups have managed to collaborate with CERN or theirtechnology licensee SAES to get their chambers coated. Others try to apply thecoating themselves. We followed in the footsteps of the Zwierlein group’s Fermi1
experiment, which attempted applying these coatings using thermal evaporation fromTi, Zr, and V wires. In order to better quantify deposition rates of the three elements
as function of current, we built a test chamber incorporating a quartz crystal monitor
to measure film deposition rate. Resistively heated Ti and V wires could be made todeposit at measurable (though slow) rates, but Zr, due to its very low vapor pressure
right up to its very high melting point of ≈ 2128 K was impossible to evaporate
thermally in a controllable fashion.
80Indeed, thermal evaporation is not the preferred method for depositing this coating. At CERN, coatings are by magnetron sputtering in a rig with a complexity
far beyond the scope that we could implement ourselves. Fortunately, the Ti-Zr-V
coating is used at accelerator facilities in the US as well, and the very helpful vacuum scientists at Jefferson Lab who were willing to sputter coat our chamber for us
as an experiment (Phil Adderley and Marcy Stutzman of Jefferson Lab). The mainchamber was shipped to the Jefferson Labs facility in Newport News, VA, where it
received a getter coating, and then was driven under vacuum in a rented minivan
back to Cambridge, MA. It is difficult to quantitatively verify the performance of thecoating, but our achievement of low pressures in the main chamber suggests that thegetter coating is either acting as a pump, or at least acting as a suppressor of thenormal outgassing from the steel chamber walls.

4.3.3

Supplier considerations

When building a complicated vacuum chamber, one is often at the mercy of part
suppliers. As such, it seems worthwhile to pass along lore and wisdom that has bee
accumulated about potential vacuum suppliers, to guide those who would build thenext vacuum chamber. Given the number of components purchased from these suppliers, it was inevitable that certain components would have flaws, thus the judgementof a supplier’s quality should come from how the supplier responded to and addressedflaws once discovered.
MDC is to be avoided whenever possible. Unfortunately, they have the largest
catalogue of windows and standard conflat fittings. For simple parts like these, they
are reasonably reliable. For valves they should be avoided at all costs – 2 of theirgate valves failed almost immediately after first use, and 1 brand new angle valve
failed out of the box. A far superior valve supplier is VAT – though their gate valves
are pricier, they are of much higher quality, and their angle valves are both cheaper,
better, and faster shipping than MDC’s. Other MDC products, such as their highcurrent electrical feedthroughs, are shoddy in quality. When pressed for service or
support for defective parts, MDC’s customer service was reliably useless. Their large81catalog also contains many parts that are not stocked, and many have lead times
measured in months. It is typically impossible to be sure a given part is in stock
without speaking to a customer service rep.
Sharon Vacuum made our custom main chamber, as well as some other custom
components. Discussions with them were generally quite informative and helpful.
Somewhat bizarrely, the slower tube of our vacuum chamber fell off the chamber inshipment to to Jefferson Lab. Thankfully, both Sharon Vacuum and the welders andJefferson Lab were very responsive in preparing a new tube and getting it welded tothe chamber.
Varian Inc (now a division of Agilent) was, overall, easy to work with. A turbopump purchased from them had issues early in its life cycle, and they replaced
it with minimal hassle. Duniway Stockroom is a good source of basic hardware,such as gaskets, screws, plate nuts, blanks, and uncoated viewports, and keeps alarge selection in stock and ready to ship quickly. Kurt J. Lesker was good for theevaporation sources that we experimented with when trying to thermally deposit ourgetter coating, as well as a source of bellows, insulating beads, and other assorted
parts. However, a window of theirs, installed in our oven chamber, imploded after
being heated while exposed to alkali, which caused several months of down time as
it necessitated a full re-bake of the main chamber. This is one of the only known
instances of window implosion in the hallway, an event freakishly unlikely, and it is
not clear whether to judge this as a failure of Lesker or just a freak event.

4.4

Magnetic coils

4.5

Trap coil design, fields, wiring

The first BECs, at JILA and MIT, were produced in magnetic quadrupole traps.
Quadrupole traps are simple to build, and simple to understand. A pair of coils
run current in opposing directions, creating a point of zero field at the trap centerand a field strength gradient in the radial and axial directions. However, when a82magnetically trapped atom (with its magnetic dipole moment tracking the local field)
passes through the zero-field trap center, the atom’s magnetic dipole alignment cannot
adiabatically follow the field direction, resulting in Majorana losses as the atoms get
flipped into a magnetically anti-trapped state. This problem was resolved by either
moving the location of the zero field point to create a time-averaged trapping potential(in JILA experiments), or by “plugging” the hole in the trap using the dipole force
of a tightly focused laser beam, blue detuned from the resonance of the atoms.
Further BEC studies at MIT abandoned the quadrupole trap in favor of IoffePritchard traps, in which a harmonic trap is created on top of a bias field. Thiseliminated the need for plugs, and allowed for clean studies of BECs released fromharmonic magnetic traps, and became the standard magnetic trapping tool in MIT
cold atom experiments.
In the newer generations of experiments (such as ours, or the new Zwierlein group
Fermi1 experiment), the pendulum is now swinging back towards quadrupole traps.
Particularly in experiments using strongly interacting fermions in a Feshbach resonance bias field, most of the interesting science is being done in optical dipole traps
rather than in the magnetic trap, which is just a cloud preparation step. Thus, considerations of the clean harmonicity of the magnetic trap are not as relevant. The
coil geometry in a quadrupole trap is much simpler, and all the trapping coils canserve as Feshbach bias coils as well, making the trap fully dual-purpose. And optically plugged quadrupole traps are demonstrably capable of fast production of large
condensates [36] and Fermi gases.
The magnetic trap coil set design is depicted in Figure 4-7. The coil is constructedfrom fiberglass insulated square cross section copper tubing, allowing for water coolingby pumping water through the coils. The coil set is 10 layers at its widest, wound as
5 two-layer coils each with independent current and water breakouts to a bulkhead
near the chamber. From the bulkhead, the coils are wired in series to combine theminto an Outer and Inner segment, as shown.
Each coil layer has a different number of turns. This design gives a number ofadvantages over one with equal turns in each layer. The 5 layers have nearly the83Outer

65.400 mm

Inner

Coil 5
Coil 4
Coil 3
Coil 2
Coil 122.860 mm

3.880 mmFigure 4-7: Design of magnetic trapping and bias field coil set. The coil set is electrically divided into an “Inner” and “Outer” segment. Each coil layer receives independent parallel water cooling. Bucket window design allows coils to be close to theatoms, ∼ 23 mm. One of a matching pair of coils.

84same wire length despite their different diameter (their lengths ranging from 2.5m to3.3m), meaning their power consumption at a given current is roughly matched. Thismeans water cooling for the layers is more uniform, with no layer having substantiallyhigher heat load. Coil turns are on average closer to the atoms that a equal-turns-perlayer design, resulting in a higher magnetic gradient for the same total power. Whenrunning 500A in both coil sets, in counter-current configuration, simple simulations
yield a magnetic field gradient of 1000 Gauss / cm in the axial direction, with a total
power consumption of 17.4 kW (not including leads).
The same coils that are used for the magnetic trap can also be used to apply
the strong bias fields required for making use of a Feshbach resonance. Once again,
the unequal winding number of the layers is a boon. The Helmholtz condition formagnetic bias coils is fulfilled for a pair of coils when their diameters D and distanceapart L satisfy D = 2L. In this configuration, a bias field applied with the coils has
no curvature, B 00 (r = 0, z = 0) = 0. Coils closer together than Helmholtz have anegative curvature B 00 /B < 0 at the field center, and coils further than Helmholtz
have a positive curvature B 00 /B > 0. In our coil design, the outer segment coils areclose to the Helmholtz configuration. The inner segments are further from Helmholtz,
giving more curvature for the same bias. This allows the outer coils to be used toapply a strong bias field, while a smaller current in the inner coils shims out theircurvature without reducing the applied bias by much. A simulated bias field profile,with the field curvature at the center nulled by the inner segment coils, is depicted
in Figure ??.
Having only 4 independently addressable coils for all our magnetic trapping andFeshbach bias fields is a substantial simplification compared to our previous IoffePritchard trap. The coils are wired to capitalize on the simplicity, as sketched in
Figure 4-9. For both inner and outer segments, the top and bottom coils are wired
in series, driven by the same power supply. The polarity of the bottom coil in eachpair is switched by an H-bridge relative to the top, to switch between the gradient(magnetic trap) and bias (Feshbach) configurations. The H-bridges are made using high-current mechanical relays (Tyco Kilovac LEV200A4NAF), rated to 500A.
85

Axial Feshbach Field. I1 = I2 = −36.9 A, I3=I4=I5 = 500 A
1638
1637.81637.6

B−field (G)1637.41637.21637
1636.81636.6
Axial displacement
1636.4

Radial displacement

1636.2
1636
−1

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2
0
0.2
Position (r or z) (cm)

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Figure 4-8: Magnetic bias field profile, when current is run in the same direction inmatching coil sets.

86Outer Top+

Outer Bottom-

Inner Bottom-+

FESHBACH_IN-+

Inner Top

Figure 4-9: Wiring diagram for high current coils. For each segment (Inner or Outer),the Top and Botton coils are run by one power supply in series. Polarity of bottom
coils can be flipped by a mechanical relay H-bridge. This wiring is dramaticallysimpler than in our previous Ioffe-Pritchard trap.
Though these are relatively slow to actuate compared to IGBTs, they bring the advantage of having no voltage drop during operation (eliminating the need for many
water-cooled IGBTs), and providing true galvanic isolation when open (making circuit
tracing and debugging substantially easier). The slow switching time is not expected
to be capability-limiting – operations which require a very fast switch between a bias
field and a gradient field can be accomplished by having the Outer set in one configuration while the Inner set is in the other configuration. Using the Inner coils with one
power supply and Outer with another also ensures that current fluctuations during
do not shake the center position of the magnetic trap.

4.5.1

Trap coil construction, mounting, connectorization, cooling

Following the standard lab practice, coils were wound using an old lathe. To keep
the windings of the coil rigidly connected, it is important to apply liberal quantities
of epoxy during the winding process, and allow the epoxy to harden overnight before
87Figure 4-10: Left Epoxy-encased coil, with mounting rods, mounting plate, and alens tube holder attached to mounting plate. Center Coil assembly inserted into top
bucket. Right Top view of bucket, with viewport in center, and coil inserted (about
to bolted in place, via visible bolt holes on mounting plate).

tension on the windings is released. After the coils were wound, they were potted in
epoxy to enhance rigidity and to connect them to 3 threaded rods for mounting. It is
crucial to use nonmagnetic epoxy; we followed the lab tradition of using Duralco NM
25 from Cotronics. Before using any particular batch of this epoxy, it is prudent tomix a small test sample and ensure that it mostly sets overnight – in our experience
about 20% of batches do not set at all (or set very slowly, over the course of weeks),
which would not be pleasant to discover after an extensive amount of coil winding.
A waterjet cut mounting plate is used to mount both the coils and a lens tube
holder to the top and bottom ports of the main chamber. See Figure 4-10.
Each coil (top and bottom) has 10 electrical leads. These are broken out to ahigh-current manifold located close to the chamber. The distance to the breakout
was made short in order to reduce the significant voltage drop that these leads canaccumulate at target currents of 500A. The square cross-section leads are clamped tolarge aluminum lugs. These lugs are mounted to vertical aluminum 80/20 posts (seeFigure 4-11 ). The limited amount of space in this high-value section of real estatenecessitated the use of nylon spacers to insulate the lugs from the 80/20 posts andfrom the screws that hold them to the post (it is important that the lugs be mounted
rigidly, so that they do not move when tightening and losing their high-current setscrew contacts, and thus mounting them using plastic screws was not appropriate).
Care should be taken that the uninsulated sections of lead do not come in contact
with either the aluminum posts or the mounting screws.
88Figure 4-11: Coil electrical and water bulkhead. Coils leads are clamped to highcurrent aluminum lugs, which are then connected to high current welding cable (notshown). Lugs are rigidly clamped to vertical 80/20 posts, using nylon spacers toisolate them from posts and mounting screws. This design is more compact thanprevious designs using plexiglass base for lugs, and allows for adjustment of lugs withaccess from one side only. Downstream of electrical connection, coil leads are adapted
to round tubes (as described in Figure 4-12) and then to standard tube fittings forwater cooling.

89

At the high current bulkhead, the coils are also connected to cooling water. The
square cross-section tube of the coil must be sealed to a round cross-section tube inorder to accomodate standard tube fittings. This is the classic square-peg round-hole
problem that is encountered by every coil builder in the Ketterle group history, andevery coil builder tries their own approach. At first, we experimented with reshaping
the square tubing into a circle, either by forcing the tube through a round aperture,by manually sanding it into a circle, or by using a custom end-mill tool with a circularhole in it. While the last technique worked, it required a lot of finesse and was notvery repeatable. In the end, we opted for the more traditional route of silver soldering
the square tubes into circular tubes. This work was performed by the MIT central
machine shop. In previous coils, there was a worry that the soldering process could
cause solder to plug the small free-aperture of the coils. In response to this, themachine shop developed a new soldering technique which eliminated this worry. The
technique worked flawlessly and is described in Figure 4-12.
Having safety interlocks that prevent running current in the coils when they are
not water cooled is crucial in avoiding accidental destruction of the coils (which has
occurred to experiments on the hallway on at least 2 occasions, always when safety
interlocks were defeated or absent). In our experience, it is preferable to combine awater flow interlock with a coil temperature interlock. Selecting the correct waterflow-switch is important – lower quality flow switches are prone to getting clogged,
which invariably leads to those interlocks being defeated. The high quality 0804BN1
flowmeters from Proteus Industries proved itself very reliable in our old experiment,
operating for over 10 years with minimal maintenance.
These flowmeters are, however, quite bulky. In addition, to protect the coilsfrom clogging we elected to have particulate filters upstream of coil. And to improvethe modularity and reparability of the plumbing, we wanted isolation valves on the
supply and return side of each coil. These components, times 10 channels for thecoils (plus some spare channels) add up to a lot of hardware, and it took some carefulmechanical design to fit all of this in a confined space. This water manifold provides
water cooling for all our coils, and fits under the optics table, rather than towering
90

Circular tubing
0.25" OD
0.125" ID

Square coil tubing
Insulation removed
0.125" x 0.125"

Segment of circular tube
pushed onto square tube

Tubing silver soldered
together. Solder wicks
further up the outergap than the inner gap.

Plugged section of tube
cut off, yielding perfectly
unimpeded inner tube.

Figure 4-12: Improved tube soldering technique. Drawings not to scale.

91

Figure 4-13: High pressure (200 psi) water distribution manifold. Some fittings andadapters excluded for clarity. Supply ports are the top two rows. Each supply port
includes a valve and inline filter. Return ports are the bottom two rows. Each return
port includes a valve and a Proteus flow meter. Flow meters are oriented so that
their trip points can be adjusted from the front of the manifold. The ports are built
on a backbone of 1/2” tube fitting Ts, adapted down to 1/4” tube fitting elbows,
valves, and filters. The entire manifold fits underneath the experiment optics table.
All parts except the flow meters are standard Swagelok parts. Not shown: tube to
NPT adapters for flow meters, pressure gauge on supply and return manifold, hosesconnecting the two supply and two return backbones, main supply valve, and main
return valve.
over the machine, on the experiment table, as in our previous experiment. This has
the added safety feature that leaks or work done on the water manifold does not risk
getting water onto the experiment. The manifold design eventually used is depicted
in Figure 4-13.

4.5.2

Safety Interlocks

Integrated into the coils are 10 thermocouples, sandwiched one per coil layer, to monitor coil temperatures. The thermocouples are scanned by a commercial thermocouple
reader, with an alarm relay that opens when any coil rises above a set safety temperature. This alarm relay is wired in series with flow-ok relays of all of the used92

flow meters. This safety signal is then multiplexed to a collection of relays which areconnected to the safety interlock interrupts of all our high current power supplies.
In this way, unless a user manually defeats the interlocks, our coils are protectedfrom overheating – current cannot be run whenever water flow is insufficient or theirtemperature is too high.

4.5.3

Zeeman slower

Our Zeeman slower follows almost exactly the design laid out by [13]. In a dualspecies experiment such as ours, the required length of the slower is set by the length
required to slow the heavier species (23 Na in our case). This design is a spin-flip slower
with a decreasing-field section starting just after the oven, a zero-field bellows section
to help with alignment, and an increasing field section leading up to the chamberbody. A side benefit of the long slower is a large differential pumping rate between
the main chamber and the higher pressure intermediate and oven chambers.
A key technique invented in [13] is a major reduction in the inner diameter of the
Zeeman slower coils, made possible by using “split ring” miniflange bolt rings thatcan be assembled in place after the slower solenoid is slid over the vacuum tube. In[13] and its descendants, these rings were simply normal rotatable bolt rings that had
been cut in half in such a way that each half had 3 full bolt holes. However, because of
their non-uniform compression of the gasket, these split rings have occasionally been
responsible for leaks during vacuum assembly. We developed a superior interlocking
split ring, using a horseshoe design in which each ring segment contains 4 bolt holes(see Figure 4-14). These parts were inexpensively machined for us by Sharon Vacuum.
When assembled in place over the tube, this interlocking ring design acts like a solid
bolt ring, and eliminated sealing difficulties.

4.6

In-Vacuum Antenna

Like previous experiments, the vacuum chamber is equipped with an in-vacuum antenna. This consists of a single loop of wire, normal to the slower axis, held in place
93

2ULJLQDO%ROW5LQJ

0RGLILHG,QGLYLGXDO3LHFH

7ZR3LHFHV$VVHPEOHG

Figure 4-14: Concept for interlocking split ring design. See Figure B-3 in Appendix B
for detailed dimensioned drawing.

94

by its own elasticity sandwiched between the top and bottom buckets, in such a waythat it does not block the line of sight of any viewports. The outgassing rate of kapton insulation is inconsistently reported in the literature, varying over several ordersof magnitude; the upper estimates would have given outgassing from just the smallloop of wire that would have been the dominant gas load in the chamber. Thus, weavoided kapton insulation – the antenna is constructed from UHV grade uninsulated
oxygen free copper wire. Ceramic insulation beads are applied to the wire at strategic
locations to insulate it from the walls of the vacuum chamber.
The antenna is mainly intended for driving |1i → |2i transitions in Lithium inthe presence of a bias field. These magnetic dipole RF transitions, in the 80 MHz
range, are useful in RF spectroscopy studies and in preparing and manipulating spin
mixtures. In some experiments it is important to apply these pulses quickly, thus
having a high Rabi frequency for the drive, and thus a close proximity between
antenna and atoms, is desired. The matrix element for these transitions in a verticalbias field is also maximized by having the antenna apply a horizontal oscillating
magnetic field.
Thinking of the in-vacuum coil as an antenna can be misleading – it is more
appropriate to think of it as a small coil with which we apply oscillating magnetic
fields. At the frequency we plan to use it for, atoms are in the coil’s near field, andimpedance matching the “antenna” to achieve high radiative efficiency is irrelevant.
Instead, what is desired is to apply as large a magnetic field as possible. The numberof turns of the antenna was limited to one – with just one turn the self inductance ofthe coil already gives an imaginary impedance of approximately 50 Ω at 80 MHz, andincreasing the number of turns would cause it to present an even higher impedance
to its driving amplifier.
Space constraints inside the chamber led us to chose a 2-wire electrical feedthrough(Lesker EFT0023032) to connect to the antenna. However, this feedthrough turned
out to be very fragile, with both out-of-vacuum leads breaking off at some point
during the chamber wrapping or baking process. Wires have been reconnected to thefeedthrough using conductive epoxy, but the connection is extremely fragile. Thus,95

it is strongly recommended not to apply any stress to the antenna wires. Future
experiments that use this feedthrough should take positive measures to protect its
out-of-vacuum leads from any strain.

4.7

Environmental control

Temperature fluctuations are the bane of an atomic physics experimentalist’s existence, and nothing is more frustrating than spending hours aligning optics because
the ambient temperature changed. The old BEC2 experiment suffered terribly fromthis problem, and for many experiments the only practical hours of data taking werein the middle of the night, after several hours of warming up the machine, when temperatures were more stable. Addressing this issue was a major goal of the rebuilding
project.
The large size of the BEC2 lab, with its many heterogenous and fluctuating heatsources and large windows, makes it very difficult to control the lab’s average temperature, let alone eliminate significant temperature gradients within the room. Depending on the weather, turning on all of the power supplies, lasers, and other sourcesof heat in the lab routinely results in a temperature jump in parts of the lab of 5◦ C
over the course of 2 to 4 hours. Tuning the feedback parameters of the lab’s buildin air conditioning system was unable to address this, due to the slow response of
the room temperature to the AC. Exacerbating the matter are the fluctuations inMIT-supplied chilled water temperature – in the summer the chilled water is kept
at ∼ 5◦ C while in the winter it averages ∼ 11◦ C (since general cooling demands aremuch lower), meaning that the capacity of the air conditioning system is reduced by
as much as 40%. On top of the annual cycle, the water temperature also fluctuatesby ∼ 1◦ C throughout the day due to changing loads and cost saving adjustments by
MIT facilities.
To address the problem, the approach taken for stabilizing the experiment temperature was to enclose the experiment in a much smaller dedicated air volume, with
its own dedicated environmental control, de-coupling it to a large degree from the96

T-type
Thermocouple

Room Air

Fan-coil unit
capacity:
1 1/2 ton

0-10V
Heater Control

T-typeThermocouple

1 kW Duct
HeaterHEPA
Filters

Experiment Enclosure

1 kW Duct
HeaterHEPA
Filters

Sodium Laser Enclosure

0-10V
Water Control Valve

0-10V
Heater Control

T-typeThermocouple

Figure 4-15: Enclosure air conditioning system schematic. Cooling capacity of the
fan-coil unit is nominally 1 1/2 tons. The ton as a unit of refrigeration is fascinatingly
archaic unit that is still standard; 1 ton of cooling is equivalent to the cooling provided
by the melting of a daily delivery of 1 short ton of ice (so 1 ton = 3.52 kW). Systeminstalled by Guy Fossiano guyf@ahcmechanical.com.

problems of the larger room temperature. During the renovations to install this system, it was decided to extend this environment control to the Sodium laser table inthe same room as well, with its own enclosure.
A schematic of the enclosure air conditioning system is presented in Figure 4-15.
Air from the room is drawn into a dedicated fan-coil unit mounted in the lab ceiling.
The output of this unit is fed to two ducted 1kW electric heaters, and then to HEPA
filters feeding the two enclosures. Three simultaneous feedback loops, provided by a
Stanford Research PTC10, are used to stabilize temperature. First, the water control
valve of the fan-coil unit is used to feedback on the temperature directly after, servoing
it to 20◦ C. Next, the heater controls for each enclosure servo the temperature directly
after the corresponding HEPA to 22◦ C. The response time of the fan-coil unit is 20
minutes, while the heaters are closer to 1 or 2 minutes. This cascading air handlingcombination allows for much tighter temperature control at the enclosure than could
be accomplished with just fan-coil units. With this system we find that the the output
temperature of the HEPAs are easily stabilized to better than .1◦ C over the long term,with occasional minute-long .5◦ C bumps caused by the water control valve moving
between discrete positions (these temperature bumps at the HEPA output are notexpected to have any measurable impact on the table temperature).
Building codes for laboratories require that the air in the room has some fresh air
97exchange. This is accomplished by “makeup air conditioning” ducts with supply asmall but steady flow of external air to the room, and room exhaust ducts which suckstale air out. The effective AC capacity of our lab could be improved by exhausting
air from the hottest parts of the room. To this end, during the AC renovations we
had a accessible duct for exhaust air installed. In future, if AC capacity in the roomneeds to be increased, this access duct can be connected by a flexible extension duct
to concentrated heat sources in the lab, most prominently the Millenia laser controller
and chiller.
Something as deceptively simple as an enclosure for an experimental table actuallyrequires and demands careful attention to get right, and getting it wrong can easily
defeat the enclosure’s entire purpose. The fate of the removable hanging curtain
enclosures around our laser tables served as an object lesson – the curtains were
frequently left un-hung, or lying on the ground, were frequently in the way whentrying to work, and were always a chore to remove and replace. This inconvenience
lead to their “temporary” removal from the Lithium laser table, a removal later madepermanent.
We needed an enclosure that when closed, provided a strong air separation fromthe room, when opened provided nearly unobstructed access for working on the apparatus, was rigid enough to stand or lean on, and could be easily and quickly opened
and closed hundreds of times per day. These requirements were eventually met byusing a custom design, using components from 80/20, and based on bifold sliding
doors mechanisms. The design is described in sufficient sufficient to duplicate inAppendix D.

4.8

Solid state sodium laser

Experiments with large Sodium condensates, such as ours, require at least ∼1.5 Wof light at 589 nm, locked to the D2 line and with a linewidth of ∼1 MHz or better.
Historically, this was achieved by using tunable dye lasers with Rhodamine 6G dye.
However, as anyone who has worked with them knows, dye lasers can be fussy and98messy, and our aging Coherent 899 lasers was a major source of experiment downtime.
Advances in solid state laser technology have made a few alternatives available, andseveral of them were pursued to find a replacement for our dye laser.
Our initial line of development was to clone a system developed at ENS [56]based on sum-frequency generation. Both 1064 nm and 1319 nm light are readily
achievable lines of Nd:YAG lasers, a favorable conspiracy of nature because these two
frequencies sum to 589 nm. The ENS system used two non-planar ring oscillator
Innolight master lasers, outputting 1.1 W @ 1064 nm and 500 mW @ 1319 nm. Their
nonlinear sum-frequency generating element was a periodically-poled KTP crystal.
A doubly-resonant bowtie cavity was used to cycle both 1064 and 1319 light throughthe crystal many times, achieving very high conversion efficiency and resulting in 800
mW of 589 nm light.
Our clone system was to be a higher power version of the same system, using
the same crystal and cavity design, but with higher pump powers (2W @ 1064 nm,
800mW @ 1319 nm) to achieve output powers in the range needed for our larger
sodium clouds. Unfortunately, when scaling up to higher powers, we encounterednumerous roadblocks. With the originally tested crystals (supplied by KTH), thermal
effects at the higher powers caused major complications in locking the doubly resonantcavity. Specifically, when 1064 was coupled into the cavity, this would cause localized
heating and index change in the crystal, which would push the cavity off resonance(evidence for this was highly asymmetric cavity transmission traces, and an inability
to lock the cavity). Crystals from other suppliers (Raicol) suffered less from thisproblem, but instead exhibited nonlinear absorption of 1064nm which also prevented
cavity enhancement. Crystals in a different material were also tried (PPSLT, fromHC Photonics) but these had too low a conversion efficiency. In the end, after manydead ends, we abandoned this high power SFG project. In the process of trying
to lock a doubly resonant cavity using a complex mixture of feedback signals (asdescribed in [56]), a feature-rich FPGA-based laser lock / signal processing package
was developed, which may may still be useful, and is provided online at [43].
Ultimately, a separate turnkey yellow laser solution became available from MPB
99

Photonics. The scheme was made possible by advances in Raman amplifiers, allowing
these amplifiers to reach high powers of 1178nm light, which when frequency doubled
even with a relatively low efficiency can produce ∼1.5 W or more at 589 nm. Ourcurrent yellow laser system uses a Thorlabs 1178 single mode diode maser laser,
fiber coupled into an 1178 raman amplifier from MPB, which is fed directly into an
MPB-supplied doubling crystal. In our experience, the system is substantially lesshassle than the old dye laser. However, being a beta product, it does still sufferfrom relatively frequent component breakdowns (on average one breakdown every 4
to 6 months). Fortunately, MPB has been very responsive in repairing the units they
have sold us, and we are confident that they will improve the reliability as the productmatures.

4.9

The Future

The transformation from conception to construction of the new machine took substantially longer than initially estimated. In part this was due to our desire to finish
up ongoing experiments on the old apparatus, and in part because of unexpectedslow lab renovations, and unexpected problems such as the aforementioned window
implosion. As of this writing, the next generation of BEC2 grad students is bringing
the new apparatus fully online, so far having achieved magnetic trapping of Sodium
atoms and seen the first signs of effective RF evaporation.
Designing the new experiment, obsessing over hundreds of details, and trying to
get everything just right, has been a labor of love, a mixture of great frustrations andjoys. I hope the experiment proves to be as reliable and versatile as it was envisioned,
and that it can be a platform on which the next generations can do amazing science.

100Chapter 5
Outlook and Conclusions
My friend asked me if I wanted afrozen banana, I said “No, but I
want a regular banana later,
so. . . yeah”.
Mitch Hedberg

This chapter will briefly discuss potential directions for the new experiment in
preparing cold lattice samples.

5.1

Future of cold atoms in lattices

5.1.1

Cooling atoms in the lattice

Preparing fermionic Mott insulators in optical lattices is now a standard process inmany labs, and is expected to be readily achievable in our new apparatus. Reaching
the next level of ordering, a Néel phase, will require further reduction in temperatureor entropy. A simple estimate of entropy at the onset of antiferromagnetism is ln(2)per particle, which is the entropy of a Mott insulator with no spin correlations at all(in a simple 1-band single occupancy picture), since each site has two possible states(spin ↑ or ↓).
At temperature T , a system with a gap E between a manifold of ground and101excited states of E >> kT will carry much less entropy than a system with a similar
number of total states spread continuously in energy. This is simply because entropyP
S = −k i pi ln(pi ) goes to zero if all states are either surely occupied or surely
unoccupied pi ∈ {0, 1}, which is much closer to the case in the gapped system thanthe continuous one.
Thinking in terms of entropy has lead to creative proposals for cooling atoms ina lattice atoms that focus on squeezing out the entropy, by transferring entropy fromgapped degrees of freedom to continuous ones (which carry a larger amount of entropy at a given energy). For instance, in [37] it is proposed to trap a band insulatorof fermions in a lattice, with a background heat reservoir BEC that doesn’t feel thatlattice soaking up entropy from the fermions. The overall confining potential would
then be ramped down to allow the fermionic cloud to expand into a half-filled lattice,with hopefully low enough entropy for Néel ordering. It is not clear how experimentally realizable this proposal is – for Sodium-Lithium mixtures with a 1064nm lattice,
the low mass of Lithium means that Sodium will feel the lattice much more strongly
than Lithium. Other entropy schemes for bosons have been experimentally realized,
such as using spin entropy in a bosonic Mott insulator as a thermometer [80], or as arefrigerator for kinetic degrees of freedom in a demagnetization cooling scheme [52].

5.1.2

Being cold already

One line of approach toward Néel ordering could be to prepare a large band-insulator
sample with unity filling, and then adiabatically halve the lattice spacing along one
dimension [51]. This can be accomplished with 532nm lattice beams phase stable to1064 lattices, produced by frequency doubling. If the entropy of the band insulator
can be made low enough, and the lattice ramp made adiabatic, a very low entropy
half filled system would result.
Some simple calculations are presented here which may be of use in such a scheme.
A starting point will be 3D band insulator samples that are as large and low-entropy
as possible. Having tightly focused lattice beams means that a deep lattice can beachieved with low laser power, but also leads to a strong compression due to the102Band Insulator Radius (μm)

Lattice beam waist (μm)

Lattice beam waist (μm)

Band Insulator Atom Number (millions)Power per lattice beam (W)Power per lattice beam (W)Figure 5-1: Size and atom number of the largest possible 6 Li band insulator as afunction of lattice beam parameters. The simulations assume a 3D lattice made of
3 retroreflected 1064 nm lattice beams, each with the same beam waist and beam
power. The excluded white area of the plots are the region for which there is no trueband insulator; for which at the center of the cloud, the lattice depth is less than orequal to 8Er where Er = ~2 kL2 /(2m) is the recoil energy for lattice beams kL = 2π/λ,λ = 1064 nm.
lattice beams which limits the size of a band insulator that can be filled before theconfinement promotes atoms in the center of the cloud to the second band. The
tradeoff between power and beam waist, and the optimum band insulator size thatcan be achieved for a given lattice, is presented in Figure 5-1. The source code forthis simulation is reproduced in Appendix I.

5.2

Conclusion
Printed by Mathematica for Students

Printed by Mathematica for Students

Quantum simulation of condensed matter systems with ultracold atomic gases remains one of the most exciting avenues of atomic physics. While some results havealready been achieved, especially in bulk systems in the BEC-BCS crossover, mostof the exciting work with lattice systems still lies ahead. Catching up with and thensurpassing theory will be a major challenge in these experiments, but offers huge
potential payoff in the insight it could deliver about condensed matter systems of103

profound real-world relevance.
I hope the work in this thesis proves to be one small step towards those goals.

104Appendix A
Mechanical drawings of mainchamberThis appendix contains a fully detailed drawing of the custom steel chamber for the
new machine, as sent to Sharon Vacuum for production.

105

Main Chamber
Overview and Coordinate Reference
z
phi

18.62
x
7.00
P0: x=0, y=0, z=0y

P1: x=0, y=-9, z=-7
theta

x

9.00

6.00

P0: x=0, y=0, z=0

P1: x=0, y=-9, z=-7

Main Chamber
Conflat Ports

8

7a

9

7b

Port Location / Information Table
FlangePort Flange Focal Distanc thetaphiSpecial notes
#
OD
Point
e
(deg)
(deg)
(inches)

1

1-1/3

P0

20

0

a: -22.5
b: 22.5
a: -45b: 45
c: -135
d: 135

90

2-1/8

P0

8

3

2-3/4

P0

8

4

4-5/8

P0

6

a: -90
b: 90

90

10b
1

Tube and flange
knife edge only!
Omit Bolt ring.
Instead, please
supply 2 bolt rings
cut in half suchthat all bolt holes
are intact.

90

2

10a

2a

2b

3a

3b

90
90

Rotatable flange

4b

4a

5

2-3/4

P0

12

a: 157.5
b: 157.5(facing
ports
2a, 2b)

6

2-3/4

P0

13.5

180

90

7

10

P0

3.47

n/a

a:0
b: 1803c

Sniffer portaligned with y
axis

3d

5a

5b
6

Table continues on next page...

Main Chamber
Conflat Ports...Continued
Port #

Flange OD

Focal Point

FlangeDistance(inches)theta (deg)phi (deg)

8

8

P1

18.62

n/a

0

9

8

P1

6

180

90

10

2-3/4

Special notes

Sniffer port aligned withz axisa and b should be 2-3/4
conflat T junctions,somewhere convenienton the centerline of thehorizontal tube for port
9. Exact location is notimportant.

Main Chamber
Mounting plates & mounting holes

34 mounting holes total
8 holes.27 for all mounting holes
1 inch spacing everywhere
8.00

6 holes

7 holes
7 holes
.75

1.00

7.00
15.50

K
3.00
.85
4.00

3 holes
3 holes.25 (applies to all mounting plates)
.92

2.50
DETAIL K
SCALE 1 : 4

Main Chamber
Section Views

SECTION D-D
SCALE 1 : 8
F

D

D

F
SECTION F-F
SCALE 1 : 8

Main Chamber
Section Views...Continued

H

H
SECTION H-H
SCALE 1 : 8

112

Appendix B
Mechanical drawings of othercustom components
This appendix contains various dimensioned mechanical drawings, suitable for sending
to parts suppliers if parts are to be duplicated. The buckets depicted in Figures

113

A
88
.9
00

89.535A

12.700149

6 x1/4-20 UNC

667.31064.400Figure B-1: Mechanical drawing of top and bottom reentrant bucket window (the depicted miniflange UHV port, used for in-vacuum antenna RF feedthrough, is excluded
on one of the two buckets). Built by UKAEA (contact Simon.Hanks@ccfe.ac.uk). Dimensions are mm.

114

8 x 4-40 UNC

A

5.588mm4A

135.200

39
43

37

Figure B-2: Mechanical drawing of side reentrant bucket window. Built by UKAEA(contact Simon.Hanks@ccfe.ac.uk). Dimensions are mm.

115



5
5


5









Figure B-3: Mechanical drawing of interlocking split ring design. Any unspecified dimensions are based on the starting part, a standard miniflange rotatable bolt holding
ring. Built by Sharon Vacuum (contact larry@sharonvacuum.com). Dimensions are
inches.

116

0.39
0.28

SolidWorks Student License
Academic Use Only

Starting part MDC part number 140007

4 tapped blind holes
1 through hole
1 45 degree taper of specified depth

Modified double-sided
2.75 inch flange.

PART A
Quantity 2

4x
0.11
6-32 UNC

0.531

0.236

A

0.750

A

SECTION A-A

45°

0.400

SolidWorks Student License
Academic Use Only

Retaining ring, made of UHV
quality stainless steel

PART B
Quantity 2

Small (~.1 mm) fillet

0.150

1.299
0.598
0.125

0.250SolidWorks Student License
Academic Use Only

Tube cross section is based on
MDC part number 480000 vacuum tubing

Ball centered lengthwise along tube

UHV steel tube weldedto UHV compatible steel ballwith through hole

Differential pumping tube

PART C
Quantity 1

0.180

12

3.543

SECTION C-C

R

3
0.

C

C

SolidWorks Student License
Academic Use Only

Differential pumping tube 2Same as PART C, but with a different
tube length

PART D
Quantity 1

SECTION D-D

2.362

D

D

SolidWorks Student License
Academic Use Only

Example: assembled differential
pumping tube with alignment adjustment

Appendix C
Window coating specs

123

American Photonics PO 081710B1 AR 671

3.00
2.50
Rotation
No Rotation

2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50

0.00
550 575 600 625 650 675 700 725 750 775 800

Figure C-1: Measured AR coating performance for 671nm coating windows. The“No Rotation” trace is for the out-of-vacuum surface of the side bucket windows, forwhich the coating applied onto the stationary window..

124American Photonics PO 081710B1

5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2

Side 1side 2targets

1.5
1
0.5
0
500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1000 1050 1100

Figure C-2: Measured AR coating performance for multi-wavelength coating windows..

125

126

Appendix D
Experiment enclosure design
The parts (part numbers from the 80/20 company) as specified in Table D.1 create an
enclosure with total exterior dimensions width x length x height of 63.875 x 100.875
x 60 inches (interior 60.865 x 97.875 x 57 inches). To increase the size by dW x dL x
dH, modify the parts as follows. Increase B’s length by dW ; A by dL; and D, E, andG by dH. Increase F and J by dL/2. Increase H and I by dL/8. Increase the heightof plastic panels K and L by dH, and their width by dL/8.
Note that this part list includes parts necessary for doors on the sides of the enclosures only. It does not include parts for doors at the two ends, since in our apparatus
these ends are blocked by objects that do not allow for the bifold opening design.
On these ends, we have used simple sliding doors that grants limited accessibility but
require no opening clearance.
The enclosure uses a mix of the 1-inch and 1.5-inch series of 80/20 extrusions. The
thicker extrusions are used for structural beams for extra stiffness, while the 1-inch
series is used in the bifold doors to keep them light. Using a mixture of these twoseries is the reason that an extra set of horizontal bars is required to act as the door
guides (part F). This small added complexity was deemed to be worth the reduction
in door weight.
The enclosure is intended to hung from a framing system above the laser table,
and to hang down to a few inches below the table, with a gap of about .5 - 1 inch
between the outside of the table and the inside of the enclosure. The 7257 machining
127

B

A

K

J

E

F

G

H

C

D

L

I

B

A

C

E
K L

I H

D

G

F

J

Figure D-1: Experiment enclosure. See Table D.1 for detailed part list. For clarity,
only 1 out of the 4 bifold door sets is shown in the lower drawing.

128

Table D.1: Parts list for enclosure
LabelA

80/20 Part #1515

Quantity
2

Length (in)97.875B1515

460.875

C
D
E

2555
1515
1515

2
4
2

60
58.5

F
G

1010
1010

8
32

45.79
54.5

H
I
J

1010
1010
1515

16
16
4

10.48
9.36
48.19

K
L

2610
2610
3098
3383
2059
2067
2103
2066
2850
2116
2079
4515
3321
3320

8
8
24
64
8
8
16
16
16
170 feet
24
16
32
32

129

Options
7010 to length. 7040 sides A and C, bothends. 7257 side A at 6” and 32” from Left
End and 6” and 32” from Right End
7010 to length. 7040 sides A and C, bothends. 7257 side A at 6” and 24” from Left
End and 6” and 24” from Right End
7010 to length.
7010 to length. 7040 sides A and C, one end
only.
7010 to length
7010 to length. 7061 both ends. 7051 Accessholes, style C, in S, both ends
7010 to length. 7061 both ends.
7010 to length. 7061 both ends.
7010 cut to length. 7040 sides A and C, bothends.
7155 Cut to size 10.98 x 53 inches
7155 Cut to size 9.86 x 53 inchesoperations for parts A and B supply counter-sunk holes for 1/4-20 screw to hang theenclosure. Alternate hanging schemes are possible.
No further machining operations are required to the specified parts. A team of
two can assemble the full enclosure in a day. When hanging the doors, to ensure thatthey open and close smoothly, ensure that their weight is being carried by the door
hinges rather than by the door hanger.

130

Appendix E
Suppression of Density
Fluctuations in a Quantum
Degenerate Fermi Gas

131

PRL 105, 040402 (2010)

Selected for a Viewpoint in Physics
PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

week ending
23 JULY 2010

Suppression of Density Fluctuations in a Quantum Degenerate Fermi Gas
Christian Sanner, Edward J. Su, Aviv Keshet, Ralf Gommers, Yong-il Shin, Wujie Huang, and Wolfgang Ketterle
MIT-Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms, Research Laboratory of Electronics, and Department of Physics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge Massachusetts 02139, USA(Received 7 May 2010; published 19 July 2010)
We study density profiles of an ideal Fermi gas and observe Pauli suppression of density fluctuations(atom shot noise) for cold clouds deep in the quantum degenerate regime. Strong suppression is observedfor probe volumes containing more than 10 000 atoms. Measuring the level of suppression provides
sensitive thermometry at low temperatures. After this method of sensitive noise measurements has beenvalidated with an ideal Fermi gas, it can now be applied to characterize phase transitions in strongly
correlated many-body systems.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.040402

PACS numbers: 03.75.Ss, 05.30.Fk, 67.85.Lm

Systems of fermions obey the Pauli exclusion principle.
Processes that would require two fermions to occupy thesame quantum state are suppressed. In recent years, several classic experiments have directly observed manifestations of Pauli suppression in Fermi gases. Antibunching
and the suppression of noise correlations are a direct consequence of the forbidden double occupancy of a quantum state. Such experiments were carried out for electrons [1–3], neutral atoms [4,5], and neutrons [6]. In
principle, such experiments can be done with fermionsat any temperature, but in practice low temperatures increase the signal. A second class of (two-body) Pauli
suppression effects, the suppression of collisions, requires
a temperature low enough such that the de Broglie wavelength of the fermions becomes larger than the range of theinteratomic potential and p-wave collisions freeze-out.
Experiments observed the suppression of elastic collisions[7] and of clock shifts in radio frequency spectroscopy[8,9].
Here we report on the observation of Pauli suppressionof density fluctuations. This is, like the suppression ofcollisions between different kinds of fermions [10], amany-body phenomenon which occurs only at even lower
temperatures in the quantum degenerate regime, where theFermi gas is cooled below the Fermi temperature and thelow lying quantum states are occupied with probabilities
close to 1. In contrast, an ideal Bose gas close to quantum
degeneracy shows enhanced fluctuations [11].
The development of a technique to sensitively measuredensity fluctuations was motivated by the connection between density fluctuations and compressibility through thefluctuation-dissipation theorem. In this Letter, we validate
our technique for determining the compressibility by applying it to the ideal Fermi gas. In future work, it could be
extended to interesting many-body phases in optical lattices which are distinguished by their incompressibility [12].
These include the band insulator, Mott insulator, and also
the antiferromagnet for which spin fluctuations, i.e., fluctuations of the difference in density between the two spinstates are suppressed.
0031-9007=10=105(4)=040402(4)Until now, sub-Poissonian number fluctuations of ultracold atoms have been observed only for small clouds ofbosons with typically a few hundred atoms [13–16] anddirectly [17,18] or indirectly [19] for the bosonic Mott
insulator in optical lattices. For fermions in optical lattices,
the crossover to an incompressible Mott insulator phase
was inferred from the fraction of double occupations [20]or the cloud size [21]. Here we report the observation ofdensity fluctuations in a large cloud of fermions, showing
sub-Poissonian statistics for atom numbers in excess of
10 000 per probe volume.
The basic concept of the experiment is to repeatedly
produce cold gas clouds and then count the number ofatoms in a small probe volume within the extended cloud.
Many iterations allow us to determine the average atom
number N in the probe volume and its variance ðNÞ2 . For
independent particles, one expects Poisson statistics, i.e.,ðNÞ2 =hNi ¼ 1. This is directly obtained from thefluctuation-dissipation theorem ðNÞ2 =hNi ¼ nkB TT ,where n is the density of the gas, and T the isothermal
compressibility. For an ideal classical gas T ¼ 1=ðnkB TÞ,p

Ballistic expansion
p
2pF
x

x
2pF

FIG. 1. Phase space diagram of ballistic expansion of a harmonically trapped Fermi gas. Ballistic expansion conserves
phase space density and shears the initially occupied sphericalarea into an ellipse. In the center of the cloud, the local Fermi
momentum and the sharpness of the Fermi distribution are scaledby the same factor, keeping the ratio of local temperature to
Fermi energy constant. The same is true for all points in the
expanded cloud relative to their corresponding unscaled in-trap
points.

040402-1

Ó 2010 The American Physical Society

PRL 105, 040402 (2010)

week ending
23 JULY 2010

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

and one retrieves Poissonian statistics. For an ideal Fermi
gas close to zero temperature with Fermi energy EF , T ¼
3=ð2nEF Þ, and the variance ðNÞ2 is suppressed below
Poissonian fluctuations by the Pauli suppression factor
3kB T=ð2EF Þ. All number fluctuations are thermal, as indicated by the proportionality of ðNÞ2 to the temperaturein the fluctuation-dissipation theorem. Only for the idealclassical gas, where the compressibility diverges as 1=T,
one obtains Poissonian fluctuations even at zerotemperature.
The counting of atoms in a probe volume can be donewith trapped atoms, or after ballistic expansion. Ballistic
expansion maintains the phase space density and therefore
the occupation statistics. Consequently, density fluctuations are exactly rescaled in space by the ballistic expansion factors as shown in Fig. 1 [22,23]. Note that this
rescaling is a unique property of the harmonic oscillator
potential, so future work on density fluctuations in opticallattices must employ in-trap imaging. For the present work,
we chose ballistic expansion. This choice increases thenumber of fully resolved bins due to optical resolution
and depth of field, it allows adjusting the optimum opticaldensity by choosing an appropriate expansion time, and it
avoids image artifacts at high magnification.
We first present our main results, and then discuss
important aspects of sample preparation, calibration ofabsorption cross section, data analysis and corrections forphoton shot noise. Figure 2(a) shows an absorption imageof an expanding cloud of fermionic atoms. The probe
volume, in which the number of atoms is counted, ischosen to be 26 m in the transverse directions, and extends through the entire cloud in the direction of the line ofsight. The large transverse size avoids averaging of fluctuations due to finite optical resolution. From 85 such images, after careful normalization [24], the variance in themeasured atom number is determined as a function of
position. After subtracting the photon shot noise contribution, a 2D image of the atom number variance ðNÞ2 isobtained. For a Poissonian sample (with no suppression offluctuations), this image would be identical to an absorption image showing the number of atoms per probe volume. This is close to the situation for the hottest cloud (thetemperature was limited by the trap depth), whereas thecolder clouds show a distinct suppression of the atom
number variance, especially in the center of the cloud
where the local T=TF is smallest.
In Fig. 3, profiles of the variance are compared totheoretical predictions [25,26]. Density fluctuations atwave vector q are proportional to the structure factor
Sðq; TÞ. Since our probe volume (transverse size 26 m)
is much larger than the inverse Fermi wave vector of the
expanded cloud (1=qF ¼ 1:1 m), Sðq ¼ 0; TÞ has been
integrated along the line of sight for comparison with theexperimental profiles. Within the local density approximation, Sðq ¼ 0; TÞ at a given position in the trap is the
binomial variance nk ð1  nk Þ integrated over all momenta,
where the occupation probability nk ðk; ; TÞ is obtained
from the Fermi-Dirac distribution with a local chemical
potential  determined by the shape of the trap. Figure 4
shows the dependence of the atom number variance on
atom number for the hot and cold clouds. A statisticalanalysis of the data used in the figure is in [24].
The experiments were carried out with typically 2:5 
106 6 Li atoms per spin state confined in a round crossed
dipole trap with radial and axial trap frequencies !r ¼
2  160 s1 and !z ¼ 2  230 s1 corresponding toan in-trap Fermi energy of EF ¼ kB  2:15 K. The sam2

/1000

FIG. 2 (color online). Comparison of density images to variance images. For Poissonian fluctuations, the two images at agiven temperature should be identical. The variance images wereobtained by determining the local density fluctuations from a setof 85 images taken under identical conditions. (a) Two dimensional image of the optical density of an ideal Fermi gas after
7 ms of ballistic expansion. The noise data were taken bylimiting the field of view to the dashed region of interest,
allowing for faster image acquisition. (b) For the heated sample,
variance and density pictures are almost identical, implying only
modest deviation from Poissonian statistics. (c) Fermi suppression of density fluctuations deep in the quantum degenerate
regime manifests itself through the difference between densityand variance picture. Especially in the center of the cloud, there
is a large suppression of density fluctuations. The varianceimages were smoothed over 6  6 bins. The width of images(b) and (c) is 2 mm.

5 (a)

0

0

(b)

(c)

100
Position (bins)

FIG. 3. Comparison of observed variances (black dots) with atheoretical model (black line) and the observed atom number(gray), at three different temperatures (a, b, and c), showing 50,
40, and 15% suppression. Noise thermometry is implemented byfitting the observed fluctuations, resulting in temperatures T=TF
of 0:23  :01, 0:33  :02, and 0:60  :02. This is in good
agreement with temperatures 0:21  :01, 0:31  :01, and 0:6 :1 obtained by fitting the shape of the expanded cloud [32]. The
quoted uncertainties correspond to 1 standard deviation and are
purely statistical.

040402-2

Atom number variance

PRL 105, 040402 (2010)

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

bin, the atom number variance ðNÞ2 is obtained by subtracting the known photon shot noise from the variance inthe optical density ðODÞ2 [24]:

4000

1
1
2

ðNÞ2 ¼ ðODÞ2 
2
hN
hN
i
A
1
2i

2000

0

week ending
23 JULY 2010

0

2000

4000

Atom number

FIG. 4. Atom number variance vs average atom number. For
each spatial position, the average atom number per bin and its
variance were determined using 85 images. The filled and open
circles in the figure are averages of different spatial bin positions
with similar average atom number. For a hot cloud at T=TF ¼
0:6 (filled circles), the atom number variance is equal to theaverage atom number (dotted line, full Poissonian noise) in thespatial wings where the atom number is low. The deviation fromthe linear slope for a cold cloud at T=TF ¼ 0:21 (open circles) isdue to Pauli suppression of density fluctuations. There is also
some suppression at the center of the hot cloud, where the atom
number is high. The solid and dashed lines are quadratic fits forthe hot and cold clouds to guide the eye.

ple was prepared by laser cooling followed by sympathetic
cooling with 23 Na in a magnetic trap. 6 Li atoms in thehighest hyperfine state were transferred into the opticaltrap, and an equal mixture of atoms in the lowest two hyperfine states was produced. The sample was then evaporatively cooled by lowering the optical trapping potential ata magnetic bias field B ¼ 320  5 G where a scattering
length of 300 Bohr radii ensured efficient evaporation.
Finally, the magnetic field was increased to B ¼ 520  5 G,
near the zero crossing of the scattering length. Absorption
images were taken after 7 ms of ballistic expansion.
We were careful to prepare all samples with similar
cloud sizes and central optical densities to ensure thatthey were imaged with the same effective cross section
and resolution. Hotter clouds were prepared by heating thecolder cloud using parametric modulation of the trapping
potential. For the hottest cloud this was done near 520 G toavoid excessive evaporation losses.
Atomic shot noise dominates over photon shot noise
only if each atom absorbs several photons. As a result,the absorption images were taken using the cycling transition to the lowest lying branch of the 2 P3=2 manifold.
However, the number of absorbed photons that could be
tolerated was severely limited by the acceleration of theatoms by the photon recoil, which Doppler shifts the atoms
out of resonance. Consequently, the effective absorption
cross section depends on the probe laser intensity andduration. To remove the need for nonlinear normalization
procedures, we chose a probe laser intensity corresponding
to an average of only 6 absorbed photons per atom during a
4 s exposure. At this intensity, about 12% of the 6 Li
saturation intensity, the measured optical density was
20% lower than its low-intensity value [24]. For each

(1)Here, hN1 iðhN2 iÞ are the average photon numbers per bin ofarea A in the image with (without) atoms and  is theabsorption cross section.
The absorption cross section is a crucial quantity in theconversion factor between the optical density and thenumber of detected atoms. For the cycling transition, theresonant absorption cross section is 2:14  1013 m2 .
Applying the measured 20% reduction mentioned above
leads to a value of 1:71  1013 m2 . This is an upper limit
to the cross section due to imperfections in polarization andresidual line broadening. An independent estimate of theeffective cross section of 1:48  1013 m2 was obtained bycomparing the integrated optical density to the number of
fermions necessary to fill up the trap to the chemical
potential. The value of the chemical potential was obtained
from fits to the ballistic expansion pictures that allowed
independent determination of the absolute temperature andthe fugacity of the gas. We could not precisely assess theaccuracy of this value of the cross section, since we did not
fully characterize the effect of a weak residual magnetic
field curvature on trapping and on the ballistic expansion.
The most accurate value for the effective cross section wasdetermined from the observed atom shot noise itself. The
atom shot noise in the wings of the hottest cloud is
Poissonian, and this condition determines the absorption
cross section. Requiring that the slope of variance of theatom number ðNÞ2 vs atom number N is unity (see Fig. 4)
results in a value of ð1:50  0:12Þ  1013 m2 for theeffective cross section in good agreement with the two
above estimates.
The spatial volume for the atom counting needs to belarger than the optical resolution. For smaller bin sizes (i.e.,
small counting volumes), the noise is reduced since thefinite spatial resolution and depth of field blur the absorption signal. In our setup, the smallest bin size without
blurring was determined by the depth of field, since thesize of the expanded cloud was larger than the depth offield associated with the diffraction limit of our opticalsystem. We determined the effective optical resolution bybinning the absorption data over more and more pixels of
the CCD camera, and determining the normalized central
variance ðNÞ2 =N vs bin size [24]. The normalized variance increased and saturated for bin sizes larger than
26 m (in the object plane), and this bin size was usedin the data analysis. We observe the same suppression
ratios for bin sizes as large as 40 m, corresponding tomore than 10 000 atoms per bin.
For a cold fermion cloud, the zero temperature structure
factor SðqÞ becomes unity for q > 2qF . This reflects the040402-3

PRL 105, 040402 (2010)

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

fact that momentum transfer above 2qF to any particle will
not be Pauli suppressed by occupation of the final state. In
principle, this can be observed by using bin sizes smaller
than the Fermi wavelength, or by Fourier transforming the
spatial noise images. For large values of q, Pauli suppression of density fluctuations should disappear, and the noise
should be Poissonian. However, our imaging system loses
its contrast before q  2qF [24].
Observation of density fluctuations, through thefluctuation-dissipation theorem, determines the productof temperature and compressibility. It provides an absolute
thermometer, as demonstrated in Fig. 3 if the compressibility is known or is experimentally determined from theshape of the density profile of the trapped cloud [17,27].
Because variance is proportional to temperature for T 
TF , noise thermometry maintains its sensitivity at very low
temperature, in contrast to the standard technique of fitting
spatial profiles.
Density fluctuations lead to Rayleigh scattering of light.
The differential cross section for scattering light of wave
vector k by an angle  is proportional to the structure factor
SðqÞ, where q ¼ 2k sinð=2Þ [26]. In this work, we havedirectly observed the Pauli suppression of density fluctuations and therefore SðqÞ < 1, implying suppression of lightscattering at small angles (corresponding to values of q
inversely proportional to our bin size). How are the absorption images affected by this suppression? Since thephoton recoil was larger than the Fermi momentum of the
expanded cloud, large-angle light scattering is not suppressed. For the parameters of our experiment, we estimatethat the absorption cross section at the center of a T ¼ 0
Fermi cloud is reduced by only 0.3% due to Pauli blocking[28]. Although we have not directly observed Pauli suppression of light scattering, which has been discussed forover 20 years [28–30], by observing reduced density fluctuations we have seen the underlying mechanism for suppression of light scattering.
In conclusion, we have established a sensitive techniquefor determining atomic shot noise and observed the suppression of density fluctuations in a quantum degenerate
ideal Fermi gas. This technique is promising for thermometry of strongly correlated many-body systems and forobserving phase-transitions or cross-overs to incompressible quantum phases.
We acknowledge Joseph Thywissen and Markus Greiner
for useful discussions. This work was supported by NSF
and the Office of Naval Research, AFOSR (through the
MURI program), and under Army Research Office grant
no. W911NF-07-1-0493 with funds from the DARPA
Optical Lattice Emulator program.
Note added in proof.—Results similar to ours are reported in Ref. [31].

week ending
23 JULY 2010

[1] W. D. Oliver, J. Kim, R. C. Liu, and Y. Yamamoto, Science
284, 299 (1999).
[2] M. Henny et al., Science 284, 296 (1999).
[3] H. Kiesel, A. Renz, and F. Hasselbach, Nature (London)
418, 392 (2002).
[4] T. Rom et al., Nature (London) 444, 733 (2006).
[5] T. Jeltes et al., Nature (London) 445, 402 (2007).
[6] M. Iannuzzi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 080402 (2006).
[7] B. DeMarco et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 4208 (1999).
[8] M. W. Zwierlein, Z. Hadzibabic, S. Gupta, and W.
Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 250404 (2003).
[9] S. Gupta et al., Science 300, 1723 (2003).
[10] B. DeMarco, S. B. Papp, and D. S. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86,
5409 (2001).
[11] J. Estève et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 130403 (2006).
[12] Q. Zhou, Y. Kato, N. Kawashima, and N. Trivedi,
arXiv:0901.0606.
[13] C. S. Chuu et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 260403 (2005).
[14] J. Estève et al., Nature (London) 455, 1216 (2008).
[15] S. Whitlock, C. F. Ockeloen, and R. J. C. Spreeuw, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 104, 120402 (2010).
[16] A. Itah et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 113001 (2010).
[17] N. Gemelke, X. Zhang, C. L. Hung, and C. Chin, Nature(London) 460, 995 (2009).
[18] M. Greiner (unpublished).
[19] M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. W. Hänsch, and I. Bloch, Nature(London) 419, 51 (2002).
[20] R. Jördens et al., Nature (London) 455, 204 (2008).
[21] U. Schneider et al., Science 322, 1520 (2008).
[22] S. Gupta, Z. Hadzibabic, J. R. Anglin, and W. Ketterle,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 100401 (2004).
[23] G. M. Bruun and C. W. Clark, Phys. Rev. A 61, 061601(R)(2000).
[24] See supplementary material at http://link.aps.org/
supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.040402 for additional details.
[25] Y. Castin, in Proceedings of the International School ofPhysics Enrico Fermi, Course CLXIV, edited by M.
Inguscio, W. Ketterle, and C. Salomon (IOS,
Amsterdam, 2008).
[26] D. Pines and P. Nozières, The Theory of Quantum Liquids(Addison-Wesley, MA, 1988), Vol. 1.
[27] Q. Zhou and T. L. Ho, arXiv:0908.3015.
[28] A. Görlitz, A. P. Chikkatur, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. A
63, 041601(R) (2001).
[29] K. Helmerson, M. Xiao, and D. E. Pritchard, inInternational Quantum Electronics Conference 1990,
Book of Abstracts, econf QTHH4 (1990).
[30] B. Shuve and J. H. Thywissen, J. Phys. B 43, 015301(2010). (and references therein)[31] T. Mueller et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 040401(2010).
[32] W. Ketterle and M. W. Zwierlein, in Proceedings of theInternational School of Physics Enrico Fermi, Course
CLXIV, edited by M. Inguscio, W. Ketterle, and C.
Salomon (IOS, Amsterdam, 2008).

040402-4

Suppression of Density Fluctuations in a Quantum Degenerate Fermi Gas:
Supplementary Information

EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS

Optical density

To accurately measure the atom number variance it isnecessary to eliminate patterns in the absorption images
whose ﬂuctuations increase the observed noise. Weakreﬂections of the probe beam from the walls of the glass
cell and from optical elements in the imaging system caninterfere with the probe beam itself, leading to spatial
ﬂuctuations in its intensity proﬁle. To reduce interference
fringes and ensure uniform illumination, the central areaof the probe beam is imaged onto the sample througha 2 mm aperture. Even though the residual fringes are
small, there are two signiﬁcant eﬀects of inhomogeneous
illumination which must be addressed.
First, if the time elapsed between the image with atoms
and the reference image without atoms is too large, mechanical vibrations of the optics will cause the intensity
proﬁle of the probe to change between the two images,
creating artifacts in the absorption image. To reduce
this eﬀect, we operate our CCD in fast kinetics mode,with a time interval ≈ 500µs between exposures. Since
there is no longer enough time for the atoms to exit theframe between images, before taking the reference image
we optically pump the atoms from the |1⟩ state to the |6⟩state, and from the |2⟩ state to the |5⟩ state (|1⟩ refers
to the lowest hyperﬁne state, etc.), by exciting them tothe mJ = 1/2 excited state manifold. At the magnetic
ﬁelds used in the experiment, these levels are separated
in frequency from the |2⟩ state used for imaging by ≈ 2
GHz and contribute negligibly to resonant imaging.
Second, if the average probe intensity is too high, theatoms subjected to higher intensities will have a lower
eﬀective cross-section, and so any spatial ﬂuctuations in
the beam intensity will be ‘imprinted’ onto the absorption images. As a result, in our experiment we use aprobe beam with maximum intensity of 0.12 of the saturation intensity Isat =2.54 mW/cm2 , where these eﬀects
are relatively small. The variation of optical density withintensity is shown in Fig. 1.
Additionally, the exposure time must be kept very
short to prevent the atoms from moving between pixels during the exposure. The expected motion of atoms
during the 4 µs exposure is on the order of 1 µm, muchsmaller than the eﬀective pixel size.

1.4

1.2

1
0.05

0

Probe laser intensity (I / ISAT)
FIG. 1: Determination of the absorption cross section. The
observed optical density decreases with increasing probe lightintensity. The line is a quadratic fit to the data. The reduction of the cross section is mainly due to the Doppler
effect caused by acceleration of the atoms by radiation pressure; a smaller reduction results from the partial saturation of
the optical transition. At the probe light intensity chosen inthis study (shaded bar), the number of photons absorbed per
atoms is about 6. The decrease of the cross section is slightly
larger than that predicted by simple models.

must ﬁrst eliminate the eﬀect of ﬂuctuations in the total
atom number between experimental cycles. Initially, we
select the 85 images used in the analysis from a larger
group of ≈ 150 images, using an automated procedure tochoose the images whose total atom numbers are closest
to the center of the distribution. A very small number ofimages (< 1%) are manually excluded because of obvious
artifacts in the frame due to dust particles or other large
perturbations. Then, we subtract a ﬁtted proﬁle fromeach OD image before computing the variance. Initially
we subtracted a ﬁtted 2D Thomas-Fermi proﬁle, but wereplaced this with a Gaussian ﬁt which had an insignificant eﬀect on the variances, while taking considerably
less computation time.
We then compute the variance in optical density ateach position. That variance has contributions from photon and atom shot noise, given by the following formula:(∆(OD))2 =NOISE DETERMINATIONIn this experiment the local atom number variance isdetermined by comparing the measured number of atoms
in the same bin across a series of images. To do this, we

0.1

1
1
σ2
+
+ 2 (∆Natom )2⟨N1 ⟩ ⟨N2 ⟩ A(1)This equation holds bin by bin: N1 is the average numberof photons measured in a given bin position for the image with atoms, and N2 is the average number of photons
measured in that bin for the reference image. (∆Natom )2is the variance in atom number for that bin, σ is the2

Atom number variance

(a)

(b)

6000

6000

4000

4000

2000

2000

0

0

0

2000

4000

0

Atom number

2000

4000

Atom number

FIG. 2: Atom number variance vs. atom number. (a) Data for all of the resolution elements is plotted. Red points are from the
hot cloud at T /TF = 0.6, blue points from the cold cloud at T /TF = 0.21. There is significant scatter in the variance data, andthere are many “cold” pixels which actually have higher variance than their corresponding “hot” pixel. (b) The red and blue
shaded regions indicate the expected 2σ scatter in sample variance that is expected due to atom and photon counting statistics.
The large circles are variance data averaged over pixels with similar atom number for hot (red) and cold (blue) cloud. The bars
show the measured 2σ scatter of the data points. The measured scatter agrees very well with the expected scatter, indicatingthat the scatter of the data is fully accounted for by counting statistics. Negative values of the observed atom number varianceresult from the subtraction of photon shot noise.

Atom number variance

5000

0

0

Position (bins)

100

FIG. 3: Determination of profiles of the atom number variancefor a cold cloud. For each bin, the total photon count is determined, and its contribution (red) to the total variance of the
optical density (blue) is subtracted. The obtained atom number variance (green) is compared to the average atom number(black). The displayed trace reveals 50% noise suppression in
the center of the cloud. The apparently high suppression of
atom variation in the wings is a statistical fluctuation. Fig. 2
shows that the suppression is monotonic in atomic density.

absorption cross section, and A is the eﬀective bin area.
The atom number variance is isolated by calculating theﬁrst two photon shot noise terms and subtracting them.
The analysis used in the paper also subtracts contributions from detector read noise and photon shot noise in
the dark ﬁeld, but these are fairly small contributions.
The determination of N1 and N2 depends on the CCD
gain, which is measured to be 1.18 (counts/electron) from≈ 240 pairs of images without atoms, employing the assumption that the detector statistics are Poissonian. After the subtraction of photon shot noise (and technicalnoise), the remaining variance in optical density is dueto the atom number variance. Fig. 3 shows the contributions of photon and atom number variance to the overallnoise in optical density.
The large scatter of the measured atom number variance, as depicted in Fig. 2, is not primarily due to technical noise, but instead a statistical property of the sampling distribution of the variance. The shaded areas arederived from theoretical values for the variance of thesample variance. This is given by
Var(Var(N )) =(m − 1)(m − 3)(m − 1)2
µ4 −
µ2
m3
m3

(2)

where m is the number of observations in each sample.
The moments µ2 and µ4 are the central moments of the
population distribution. For a Poisson distribution, µ2 =⟨N ⟩3 and µ4 = ⟨N ⟩(1 + 3⟨N ⟩), and for m, ⟨N ⟩ ≫ 1,
this expression reduces to 2⟨N ⟩2 /m. Fig. 2b shows the3comparison between the expected and measured variancein the sample variance.
IMAGING SYSTEM CHARACTERIZATIONThe blurring of adjacent pixels due to ﬁnite opticalresolution eﬀectively decreases the measured atom number variance. This eﬀect is avoided by binning the datausing a suﬃciently large bin size (Fig. 5). In our experiment, this bin size is determined by the extension of
the cloud along the optical axis, which is much larger
than the depth of focus of the diﬀraction limit of the lenssystem.
Atom noise allows us to characterize the transfer function of our imaging system. Fig. 4 shows the average
power spectrum (modulus squared of the spatial Fouriertransform) of the optical density images. Because theFourier transform of uncorrelated ﬂuctuations is ﬂat, thedeviation from ﬂatness of the density noise corresponds
to blurring induced by the lens, barring the central peakcorresponding to the shape of the cloud. For wavevectors
q much larger than the resolution limit of the detection
scheme, the atom number ﬂuctuations are no longer imaged, and the power spectrum is the photon shot noise.
For our experiment this happens for q < qF . Comparison of the power spectra for the cold and the hot cloudshows, at small values of q, a 50% suppression, consistent with the results obtained using spatial bins. If theimaging system still had contrast at q > 2qF , we would
expect the ratio of the power spectra to approach unity,
since momentum transfer q > 2qF to a Fermi cloud has
negligible Pauli suppression.

4Power (arb units)

(a)
200
100
0

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

q / qF
(b)

(c)

-1
0

qy / qF
1-1

0

1

qx / qF
FIG. 4: (a) Radially averaged power spectra of optical density
images for hot (solid line) and cold (dashed line) samples (b)Power spectrum of cold sample (arbitrary units) (c) Power
spectrum of hot sample (arbitrary units). A constant offset isadded to the power spectrum for the hot sample to equalize
the levels of photon shot noise.

1

Var(N)/N

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0

10

20

30

40

Bin size (μm)
FIG. 5: Observed atom number variance versus bin size forheated (dashed line) and cold (solid line) samples, normalized
to 1 for Poissonian statistics. A plateau is reached when theblurring of the bins due to finite optical resolution is negligible.

140

Appendix F
Speckle Imaging of Spin
Fluctuations in a Strongly
Interacting Fermi Gas

141

PRL 106, 010402 (2011)

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

week ending
7 JANUARY 2011

Speckle Imaging of Spin Fluctuations in a Strongly Interacting Fermi Gas
Christian Sanner, Edward J. Su, Aviv Keshet, Wujie Huang, Jonathon Gillen, Ralf Gommers, and Wolfgang Ketterle
MIT-Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms, Research Laboratory of Electronics, and Department of Physics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge Massachusetts 02139, USA(Received 8 October 2010; revised manuscript received 10 December 2010; published 6 January 2011)
Spin fluctuations and density fluctuations are studied for a two-component gas of strongly interacting
fermions along the Bose-Einstein condensate-BCS crossover. This is done by in situ imaging of dispersive
speckle patterns. Compressibility and magnetic susceptibility are determined from the measured fluctuations. This new sensitive method easily resolves a tenfold suppression of spin fluctuations below shotnoise due to pairing, and can be applied to novel magnetic phases in optical lattices.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.010402

PACS numbers: 05.30.Fk, 03.75.Ss, 67.85.Lm

One frontier in the field of ultracold atoms is the realization of quantum systems with strong interactions andstrong correlations. Many properties of strongly correlated
systems cannot be deduced from mean density distributions. This has drawn interest toward novel ways of probing cold atoms, e.g., via rf spectroscopy [1,2], Bragg andRaman scattering [3], interferometric methods [4,5], andby recording density correlations [6–8]. Further insight
into quantum systems is obtained by looking not only at
expectation values, but also at fluctuations. Several recent
studies looked at density fluctuations, either of bosons
around the Mott insulator transition [9–11], or of a gas ofnoninteracting fermions [12,13].
In this Letter, we extend the study of fluctuations ofultracold gases in several ways. First, we introduce thetechnique of speckle imaging as a simple and highly
sensitive method to characterize fluctuations. Second, weapply it to a two-component Fermi gas across the BoseEinstein condensate (BEC)-BCS crossover. Third, we directly measure fluctuations in the magnetization, i.e., thedifference of the densities in the two different spin components, bypassing the need to measure the individual
densities separately.
Our work is motivated by the prospect of realizing wideclasses of spin Hamiltonians using a two-component gas ofultracold atoms in an optical lattice [14,15]. An important
thermodynamic quantity to characterize two-component
systems is the spin susceptibility, which provides a clear
signature of phase transitions or crossovers involving theonset of pairing or magnetic order [16–19]. At a ferromagnetic phase transition the susceptibility diverges, whereas
in a transition to a paired or antiferromagnetic phase thesusceptibility becomes exponentially small in the ratio of
the pair binding energy (or antiferromagnetic gap) to thetemperature. The fluctuation-dissipation theorem relates
response functions to fluctuations, consequently the spin
susceptibility can be determined by measuring the fluctuations in the relative density of the two spin components.
In our experiment, we image the atom clouds using lightdetuned from resonance so that each atom’s real
0031-9007=11=106(1)=010402(4)polarizability, which contributes to the refractive index, ismuch larger than its imaginary polarizability, which contributes to absorption. Since the detunings for the two spinstates are different, spin fluctuations lead to fluctuations in
the local refractive index, resulting in phase shifts of theimaging light that vary randomly in space. We measurethese phase shifts by imaging the resulting speckle
patterns.
These speckle patterns are created by propagation,
which converts the spatially varying phase shifts of theimaging light into an intensity pattern on our detector
without the use of a phase plate. Spin and density fluctuations occur on all spatial scales down to the interatomic
separation; the smallest observable fluctuations have awavelength equal to the imaging system’s maximum resolution. In our system that length has a Rayleigh range, andhence a depth of field, smaller than the cloud size, so therecorded image is necessarily modified by propagation
effects. Propagation mixes up amplitude and phase signals[Fig. 1]. This can be easily seen in the case of a phasegrating, which creates an interference pattern further
downstream; after propagating for a distance equal to theRayleigh range of the grating spacing, the imprinted phaseis converted into an amplitude pattern. This feature of
speckle makes our imaging technique both simple androbust. It is insensitive against defocusing, and allows us
to image fluctuations of the real part of the refractive index(i.e., a phase signal) without a phase plate or other Fourier
optics.
Similar physics is responsible for laser speckle when arough surface scatters light with random phases [20], andoccurs when a Bose-Einstein condensate with phase fluctuations develops density fluctuations during expansion[21], or when a phase-contrast signal is turned into an
amplitude signal by deliberate defocusing [22].
The experiments were performed with typically 106 6 Li
atoms in each of the two lowest hyperfine states j1i and j2i
confined in an optical dipole trap oriented at 45 to theimaging axis with radial and axial trap frequencies !r ¼
2  108:9ð6Þ s1 and !z ¼ 2  7:75ð3Þ s1 . For the010402-1

Ó 2011 The American Physical SocietyTransmission image variance (arb. units)

PRL 106, 010402 (2011)d

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

2f

2f

0
0

50

week ending
7 JANUARY 2011

100

150

Defocus distance d (µm)

FIG. 1. Simulation of propagation effects after light has passed
through a Poissonian phase noise object. Shown are the variancemeasured in the amplitude or in-phase quadrature (black line)
and the out-of-phase quadrature (gray line) as a function of
defocus distance, for an imaging system with a numericalaperture of 0.14. Within a distance less than 5% of our cloudsize, noise becomes equally distributed between the two quadratures and the variances in transmission and phase-contrast
images become the same. (Top inset) For small phase fluctuations, an in-focus phase noise object gives no amplitude contrast,
but when it is out of focus it does. (Bottom inset) Sample
intensity patterns for a defocused phase object.

samples imaged at 527 G, the sample preparation was
similar to that described in [13], with a temperature of
0:14ð1ÞTF . The samples imaged at other magnetic fields
were prepared in a similar fashion, except that evaporation
was performed at 1000 G to a final temperature of T ¼
0:13ð1ÞTF before ramping the magnetic field over 1.5 s toits final value. The temperature at 1000 G was determinedby fitting a noninteracting Thomas-Fermi distribution intime of flight. The temperatures at other points in the
crossover were related to that value assuming an isentropic
ramp, using calculations presented in [23]. Using thismethod we obtain temperatures of 0:13ð1ÞTF at 915 G,
0:19ð1ÞTF at 830 G, and 0:19ð3ÞTF at 790 G where additional evaporation was performed to achieve a central
optical density similar to that at the other magnetic fields.
The extent of the cloud along the imaging direction was
135 m, much larger than the Rayleigh range of 8 m forour imaging system with a NA of 0.14.
The superfluid to normal phase boundary was determined by measuring condensate fraction [Fig. 2] using
the standard magnetic field sweep technique [24,25]. For
this, the magnetic field was rapidly switched to 570 G totransfer atom pairs to more deeply bound pairs (molecules)
which survive ballistic expansion. For resonant imaging of
the molecules, the field was ramped back to 790 G over
10 ms. The condensate fraction was determined by fitting
the one-dimensional density profiles with a bimodal
distribution.

FIG. 2. Measured condensate fraction as a function of dimensionless interaction strength 1=ðkF aÞ. Insets show typical images
from which the condensate fraction was extracted by fitting abimodal distribution. The dashed line is a sigmoidal fit to guidethe eye.

As previously described, propagation converts spatial
fluctuations in the refractive index into amplitude fluctuations on the detector. For different choices of the probe
light frequency, the two atomic spin states will have different real polarizabilities and the local refractive index will
be a different linear combination of the (line-of-sight integrated) column densities n1 and n2 . To measure the susceptibility we choose a probe light frequency exactly
between the resonances for states j1i and j2i, so that thereal polarizabilities are opposite and the refractive index is
proportional to the magnetization (n1  n2 ). The intensity
fluctuations on the detector after propagation are consequently proportional to the fluctuations in magnetization.
Since a refractive index proportional to (n1 þ n2 ) occurs
only in the limit of infinite detuning, we measure thefluctuations in the total density by exploiting the fact thatthe fluctuations in total density can be inferred from thefluctuations in two different linear combinations of n1 andn2 . For convenience, we obtain the second linear combination using a detuning that has the same value, but opposite sign for state j2i, and therefore three times the value forstate j1i. With this detuning, we record images of thefluctuations in (n1 =3 þ n2 ).
In principle, this information can be obtained by taking
separate absorption images on resonance for states j1i andj2i. However, the images would have to be taken on a timescale much faster than that of atomic motion and there
would be increased technical noise from the subtraction oflarge numbers. The use of dispersive imaging has the
additional advantage over absorption in that the numberof scattered photons in the forward direction is enhanced
by superradiance. As a result, for the same amount ofheating, a larger number of signal photons can be collected[26]. This is crucial for measuring atomic noise, which
requires the collection of several signal photons per atom.
The choice of detuning between the transitions of the twostates has the important feature that the index of refraction
for an equal mixture fluctuates around zero, avoiding any
lensing and other distortions of the probe beam. This is not

010402-2

PRL 106, 010402 (2011)

The observed ratio of 2 =2þ ¼ 1:56ð14Þ reflects excess
noise contributing to 2þ due to residual systematic dispersive effects and is accounted for by setting c0 =c ¼
pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
1:8=1:56. For high temperatures, the atomic noise of thenoninteracting gas approaches shot noise; for lower temperatures we observe a reduction in noise due to Pauliblocking as in our previous work [13]. With our new
method, we easily discern spin fluctuations with a varianceof less than 10% of atom shot noise.
The fluctuation-dissipation theorem connects the variances ½ðN1  N2 Þ2 and ½ðN1 þ N2 Þ2 to the susceptibility~ and the compressibility ~ via ½ðN1  N2 Þ2 ¼~ and ½ðN1 þ N2 Þ2 ¼ 3N=2ðT=TF Þ~ with3N=2ðT=TF Þ
N ¼ N1 þ N2 and T=TF being the temperature measured
in units of the Fermi temperature TF . Recomposing thevariances from the two experimentally accessible
linear combinations these relations become 2 =Nc2 ¼~
3=2ðT=TF Þand
9=42þ =Nc02  1=42 =Nc2 ¼
. The constants c and c0 are determined using
3=2ðT=TF Þ~
the noise measurements at 527 G for a noninteracting~¼
Fermi gas for which ~ ¼ 1 þ OððT=TF Þ2 Þ. This
analysis ignores line-of-sight integration corrections.
Figure 4 shows the spin susceptibility, the compressibility, and the ratio between the two quantities for the interacting mixtures as the interaction strength is varied throughthe BEC-BCS crossover. The susceptibility and compressibility reproduce the expected qualitative behavior: for the
sample at unitarity, where the transition temperature issufficiently high that a sizable portion of the sample issuperfluid, and for the sample on the BEC side, the spin
susceptibility is strongly suppressed relative to the compressibility. This reflects the fact that the atoms form bound
1/kF a1.2

100 µm8

1/(kF a)= ∞

6
4
2
0

5

10
15
20
25
Pixels (1 pixel = 2.6 µm)

30

1/kF a
-1.0

−4

x 10

∞

-1.5

1.0 0

1/kF a
-1.0

∞

-1.5

1.0 0

-1.0

-1.5

4

1.0
0.8
3

0.6

0.0

2

1

0.2

1/(kF a)= 0

3

0.6
0.4

0.4

4

κ / κ0

χ/κ

0.8

0.2

5

OD Variance

OD Variance

−4

1.0 0

1.0

Optical Density

0.6
0.4
0.2
0

∞

χ / χ0the case for other choices of detuning, and indeed, we
observe some excess noise in those images (see below).
At the detunings chosen, 10% residual attenuation is observed, some due to off-resonant absorption, some due todispersive scattering of light out of the imaging system bysmall scale density fluctuations. The contribution to thevariance of the absorption signal relative to the dispersive
signal scales as ð2Þ2 =2  0:006 and can be neglected in
the interpretation of the data.
The noise analysis procedure was nearly identical to that
performed in [13]. A high-pass filter with a cutoff wavelength of 13 m was applied to each image of the cloud tominimize the effect of fluctuations in total atom number.
Then, for each pixel position, the variance of the opticaldensities at that position in the different images was computed. After the subtraction of the contribution of photon
shot noise, the resulting variance image reflects the noise
contribution from the atoms.
The goal of our noise measurements is to determine atvarious interaction strengths the normalized susceptibility~ ¼ =0 and compressibility ~ ¼ =0 , where 0 ¼
3n=2EF and 0 ¼ 3=2nEF are the susceptibility and compressibility of a zero-temperature noninteracting Fermi gas
with the same total density n and Fermi energy EF . Before
studying spin fluctuations through the BEC-BCS crossover,
we therefore calibrate our measurement by measuring thespin fluctuations in a noninteracting mixture, realized at
527 G where the scattering length between the two statesvanishes. Figure 3 shows raw profiles of the variances 2
and 2þ measured at the two detunings. These fluctuationsin the speckle pattern are proportional to number fluctuations in the specified probe volume V: 2 ¼ ½cðN1 
N2 Þ2 and 2þ ¼ ½c0 ðN1 =3 þ N2 Þ2 . In these relations c
and c0 are factors which have to be calibrated. Without
interactions, N1 and N2 are uncorrelated, and one predicts½ðN1  N2 Þ2 =½ðN1 =3 þ N2 Þ2 ¼ 2=½1 þ ð1=3Þ2  ¼ 1:8.

x 10

week ending
7 JANUARY 2011

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

0.0
527

800

900

1000

0
527

800

900

1000

527

800

900

1000

Magnetic Field (G)Magnetic Field (G)Magnetic Field (G)

(a)

(b)

(c)

2
1
0

5

10
15
20 25
30
Pixels (1 pixel = 2.6 µm)

FIG. 3 (color online). (Top panel) Example speckle noise
image, with white box indicating analysis region. (Bottom
panels) Noise data for noninteracting (left panel) and resonantlyinteracting (right panel) cold clouds, showing 2 (black dots)and 2þ (gray dots). Solid lines are Gaussian fits to the data, anddotted lines illustrate the expected full Poissonian noise for thecorresponding quantities based on density determined from offresonant absorption.

FIG. 4. (a) The ratio =, (b) the normalized susceptibility
=0 , and (c) the normalized compressibility =0 in the BECBCS crossover. The variances derived from sequences of images
are converted into thermodynamic variables using the measured
temperatures and a calibration factor determined from the noninteracting gas. The vertical line indicates the onset region ofsuperfluidity, as determined via condensate fraction measurements. The curves show theoretical zero temperature estimates
based on 1st (dotted) and 2nd order (solid) perturbative formulas
obtained from Landau’s Fermi-liquid theory integrated along theline of sight, and results from a Monte Carlo calculation (dashed)
for the compressibility in a homogeneous system [32].

010402-3

PRL 106, 010402 (2011)

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

molecules or generalized Cooper pairs; the spin susceptibility should be exponentially small in the binding energy,
while the enhanced compressibility reflects the bosoniccharacter of the molecular condensate. At 915 G and1000 G, where the sample is above the superfluid criticaltemperature, the susceptibility is larger but still below its
value for the noninteracting gas, reflecting the persistenceof pair correlations even in the normal phase of the gas.
Above the Feshbach resonance, for attractive interactions, we compare our results to first and second order
perturbation theory in the small parameter kF a. This
ignores the instability to the superfluid BCS state at exponentially small temperatures. The perturbation theory is
formulated for the Landau parameters for a Fermi liquid[16,27]. The susceptibility and compressibility are givenby 0 = ¼ ð1 þ F0a Þm=m , 0 = ¼ ð1 þ F0s Þm=m ,where m ¼ mð1 þ F1s =3Þ is the effective mass, and Fls ,Fla are the lth angular momentum symmetric and antisymmetric Landau parameters, respectively. Although the experimental data are taken for relatively strong interactions
outside the range of validity for a perturbative description,
the predictions still capture the trends observed in thenormal phase above the Feshbach resonance. This showsthat more accurate measurements of the susceptibility, anda careful study of its temperature dependence, are required
to reveal the presence of a possible pseudogap phase.
In our analysis we have neglected quantum fluctuations
which are present even at zero temperature [16,28]. They
are related to the large-q static structure factor SðqÞ measured in [29] and proportional to the surface of the probe
volume, scaling with N 2=3 logðNÞ. For fluctuations of thetotal density, their relative contribution is roughly
N 1=3 =ðT=TF Þ, and at most 40% for our experimental
parameters. Attractive interactions and pairing suppress
both the thermal and quantum spin fluctuations, but it is
not known at what temperature quantum fluctuations become essential.
Spin susceptibilities can also be obtained from the equation of state which can be determined by analyzing the
average density profiles of imbalanced mixtures [30]. Our
method has the advantage of being applicable without
imbalance, and requires only local thermal equilibrium.
Moreover fluctuations can be compared with susceptibilities determined from the equation of state to perform
absolute, model-independent thermometry for strongly interacting systems [31].
In conclusion, we have demonstrated a new technique todetermine spin susceptibilities of ultracold atomic gases
using speckle imaging. We have validated and calibrated
this technique using an ideal Fermi gas and applied it to astrongly interacting Fermi gas in the BEC-BCS crossover.
This technique is directly applicable to studying pairingand magnetic ordering of two-component gases in opticallattices.

week ending
7 JANUARY 2011

We acknowledge Qijin Chen and Kathy Levin for providing calculations of condensate fraction, Gregory
Astrakharchik and Stefano Giorgini for providing
Monte Carlo results for the compressibility, Sandro
Stringari and Alessio Recati for discussions, and Yong-il
Shin for experimental assistance. This work was supported
by NSF and the Office of Naval Research, AFOSR(through the MURI program), and under Army Research
Office Grant No. W911NF-07-1-0493 with funds from the
DARPA Optical Lattice Emulator program.

[1] S. Gupta et al., Science 300, 1723 (2003).
[2] C. A. Regal and D. S. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 230404(2003).
[3] J. Stenger et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 4569 (1999).
[4] T. Kitagawa et al., arXiv:1001.4358.
[5] Z. Hadzibabic, S. Stock, B. Battelier, V. Bretin, and J.
Dalibard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 180403 (2004).
[6] T. Jeltes et al., Nature (London) 445, 402 (2007).
[7] T. Rom et al., Nature (London) 444, 733 (2006).
[8] M. Greiner et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 110401 (2005).
[9] N. Gemelke et al., Nature (London) 460, 995 (2009).
[10] W. S. Bakr et al., Science 329, 547 (2010).
[11] J. F. Sherson et al., Nature (London) 467, 68 (2010).
[12] T. Müller et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 040401 (2010).
[13] C. Sanner et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 040402 (2010).
[14] L.-M. Duan, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett.
91, 090402 (2003).
[15] A. B. Kuklov and B. V. Svistunov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90,
100401 (2003).
[16] A. Recati and S. Stringari, arXiv:1007.4504.
[17] G. M. Bruun et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 030401 (2009).
[18] N. Trivedi and M. Randeria, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 312(1995).
[19] C.-C. Chien and K. Levin, Phys. Rev. A 82, 013603(2010).
[20] J. W. Goodman, Speckle Phenomena in Optics (BenRoberts and Company, Greenwood Village, CO, 2007).
[21] D. Hellweg et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 010406 (2003).
[22] L. D. Turner et al., Opt. Lett. 29, 232 (2004).
[23] Q. Chen, J. Stajic, and K. Levin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95,
260405 (2005).
[24] M. Greiner et al., Nature (London) 426, 537 (2003).
[25] M. W. Zwierlein et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 250401 (2003).
[26] W. Ketterle, D. S. Durfee, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, inProceedings of the International School of Physics Enrico
Fermi, Varenna, 1998 (IOS, Amsterdam, 1999).
[27] E. M. Lifshitz and L. P. Pitaevskii, Statistical Physics Part2, 3rd ed., Course of Theoretical Physics Vol. 9 (Pergamon
Press Inc., Oxford, 1980);[28] G. E. Astrakharchik, R. Combescot, and L. P. Pitaevskii,
Phys. Rev. A 76, 063616 (2007).
[29] E. D. Kuhnle et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 070402 (2010).
[30] C. Salomon (private communication).
[31] D. McKay and B. DeMarco, arXiv:1010.0198.
[32] G. E. Astrakharchik, J. Boronat, J. Casulleras, and S.
Giorgini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 200404 (2004).

010402-4

146

Appendix G
Correlations and Pair Formation ina Repulsively Interacting Fermi
Gas

147

PRL 108, 240404 (2012)

week ending
15 JUNE 2012PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

Correlations and Pair Formation in a Repulsively Interacting Fermi Gas
Christian Sanner, Edward J. Su, Wujie Huang, Aviv Keshet, Jonathon Gillen, and Wolfgang Ketterle
MIT-Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms, Research Laboratory of Electronics, and Department of Physics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA(Received 9 August 2011; published 13 June 2012)
A degenerate Fermi gas is rapidly quenched into the regime of strong effective repulsion near a
Feshbach resonance. The spin fluctuations are monitored using speckle imaging and, contrary to several
theoretical predictions, the samples remain in the paramagnetic phase for an arbitrarily large scattering
length. Over a wide range of interaction strengths a rapid decay into bound pairs is observed over times on
the order of 10@=EF , preventing the study of equilibrium phases of strongly repulsive fermions. Our worksuggests that a Fermi gas with strong short-range repulsive interactions does not undergo a ferromagnetic
phase transition.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.240404

PACS numbers: 03.75.Ss, 67.85.Lm, 75.10.Lp

0031-9007=12=108(24)=240404(5)time evolution of the system [19,20]. Theoretical studies
concluded that the pairing instability is somewhat fasterthan the ferromagnetic instability [21]. The second major
result of this paper is to show that pair formation occurs
indeed on a very short time scale. The measured time
constant of 10@=EF (where EF is the Fermi energy) indicates that the metastable repulsive state will never reachequilibrium and that, even in a metastable sense, a Fermi
gas with strong short-range repulsive interactions does notexist. The fast pair formation could not be observed previously due to limited time resolution [3]. Instead, a muchslower second phase in the conversion of atoms to pairs
was observed leading to the wrong conclusion that theunpaired atoms have a much longer lifetime.

2

Energy / atom (E F)

Many-body systems can often be modeled using contact
interactions, greatly simplifying the analysis while maintaining the essence of the phenomenon to be studied. Suchmodels are almost exactly realized with ultracold gases dueto the large ratio of the de Broglie wavelength to the rangeof the interatomic forces [1]. For itinerant fermions withstrong short-range repulsion, textbook calculations predicta ferromagnetic phase transition—the so-called Stoner instability [2].
Here we investigate this system using an ultracold gas offermionic lithium atoms, and observe that the ferromagnetic phase transition does not occur. A previous experimental study [3] employing a different apparatus foundindirect evidence for a ferromagnetic phase, but did notobserve the expected domain structure, possibly due to thelack of imaging resolution. Here we address this shortcoming by analyzing density and spin density fluctuations
via speckle imaging [4]. When spin domains of m atoms
form, the spin density variance will increase by a factor ofm [5], even if individual domains are not resolved. One
main result of this paper is the absence of such a significant
increase which seems to exclude the possibility of a ferromagnetic state in the studied system.
The Stoner model assumes a two-component Fermi gas
with a repulsive short-range interaction described by asingle parameter, the scattering length. The predicted
phase transition to a ferromagnetic state requires large
repulsive scattering lengths on the order of the interatomic
spacing. They can be realized only by short-range attractive potentials with a loosely bound state with binding
energy @2 =ðma2 Þ, with m being the atomic mass and abeing the scattering length [6]. However, as shown schematically in Fig. 1, the repulsive gas is then by necessity
only metastable with respect to decay into the bound state.
Many theoretical studies of a Fermi gas with strong shortrange repulsive interactions assume that the metastablestate is sufficiently long-lived [7–18]. In recent Monte
Carlo simulations, the paired state is projected out in the

B
1

A

0
magnetic
field-1

speckle trap
image
off
B
A

350 µs

-2

t

10

5

0

-5

-10

Interaction parameter (1/k Fa)

FIG. 1. Diagram showing energy levels and timing of theexperiment. The upper (repulsive) and lower (attractive) branchenergies, near a Feshbach resonance, are connected by threebody collisions. In our experiment, we quickly jump from aweakly interacting Fermi gas (A) to a strongly interacting one(B) with a rapid magnetic field change. The evolution of correlations and domains and the molecule formation (population of
the lower branch) are studied as a function of hold time t.
Adapted from [42].

240404-1

Ó 2012 American Physical Society

week ending
15 JUNE 2012PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

The experiments were carried out with typically
4:2  105 6 Li atoms in each of the two lower spin states
j1i and j2i confined in an optical dipole trap with radial andaxial trap frequencies !r ¼ 2  100ð1Þ s1 and !z ¼
2  9:06ð25Þ s1 . The sample was evaporatively cooled
at a magnetic bias field B ¼ 320 G, identical to the procedure described in [22]. Then the magnetic field was slowly
ramped to 730 G (kF a ¼ 0:35) in 500 ms. The fraction of
atoms being converted to molecules during the ramp was
measured (see below for method) to be below 5%. The
temperature of the cloud was typically 0:23ð3ÞTF at 527 Gwith a Fermi energy of EF ¼ kB TF ¼ h  6:1 kHz. After
rapidly switching the magnetic field from 730 G to the final
value in less than 350 s, spin fluctuations were measured
by speckle imaging. Optionally an appropriate rf pulse wasapplied directly before imaging to rotate the spin orientation along the measurement axis. Due to the use of 20 cm
diameter coils outside the vacuum chamber, the inductanceof the magnet coils was 330 H and the fast switching
was accomplished by rapidly discharging capacitors
charged to 500 V.
Experimentally, spin fluctuations are measured using thetechnique of speckle imaging described in Ref. [4]. For an
appropriate choice of detuning, an incident laser beam
experiences a shift of the refractive index proportional tothe difference between the local populations of the two
spin states N1 and N2 . Spin fluctuations create spatial
fluctuations in the local refractive index and imprint aphase pattern into the incoming light, which is then converted into an amplitude pattern during propagation. The
resulting spatial fluctuations in the probe laser intensity areused to determine the spin fluctuations in the sample.
In Ref. [4] we prepared samples on the lower branch of
the Feshbach resonance, where positive values of kF a
correspond to a gas of weakly bound molecules. At
kF a ¼ 1:2, we observed a sixfold suppression of spin
fluctuations and a fourfold enhancement of density fluctuations. Typical fluctuations in the speckle images of a noninteracting Fermi gas at T ¼ 0:23TF amount to 5% of theaverage optical signal per pixel, corresponding to about
50% of Poissonian fluctuations. Those fluctuations are
modified by factors between 0.2 and 1.6 due to pairingand interactions.
In this study, on the upper branch of the Feshbach resonance, the situation is reversed. For unbound atoms, as theinteraction strength increases, the two spin components
should develop stronger and stronger anticorrelations andenhanced spin fluctuations. Previous experimental work [3]and several theoretical studies [10,11,13–15,18,23] predicteda phase transition to a ferromagnetic state where the magnetic
susceptibility and therefore the spin fluctuations diverge.
Recent Monte Carlo simulations [19] predict such a divergence around kF a ¼ 0:83. We therefore expected an increase of spin fluctuations by one or several orders ofmagnitude, related to the size of magnetic domains.

Figure 2 shows the observed spin fluctuations enhancement compared to the non-interacting cloud at 527 G. The
variance enhancement factor reaches its maximum value of
1.6 immediately after the quench, decreasing during the
2 ms afterward. The absence of a dramatic increase showsthat no domains form and that the sample remains in theparamagnetic phase throughout. Similar observations weremade for a wide range of interaction strengths and wait
times. Note that first-order perturbation theory [24] predicts an increase of the susceptibility by a factor of 1.5 at
kF a ¼ 0:5 and by a factor of 2 at kFa ¼ 0:8 (i.e., no
dramatic increase for kF a < 1). Therefore, our data show
no evidence for the Fermi gas approaching the Stonerinstability.
Before we can fully interpret these findings, we have totake into account the decay of the atomic sample on theupper branch of the Feshbach resonance into bound pairs.
We characterize the pair formation by comparing the total
number of atoms and molecules Na þ 2Nmol (determinedby taking an absorption image after ballistic expansion athigh magnetic field where molecules and atoms have thesame absorption resonance) to the number of free atoms(determined by rapidly sweeping the magnetic field to 5 G
before releasing the atoms and imaging the cloud, converting pairs into deeply bound molecules that are completely
shifted out of resonance) [25].
The time evolution of the molecule production (Fig. 3)
shows two regimes of distinct behavior. For times less than
1 ms, we observe a considerable number of atoms converted into molecules, while the total number Na þ 2Nmol
remains constant. The initial drop in atom number becomeslarger as we increase the final magnetic field, and saturates
at around 50% near the Feshbach resonance.
We attribute this fast initial decay in atom number torecombination [26,27] into the weakly bound moleculark Fa 0Relative spin fluctuations

PRL 108, 240404 (2012)

1.6

0.65 1.14 2.27 ∞

(a)

1.6

1.4

1.4

1.2

1.2

1

1
527 750800

Magnetic field (G)

850

(b)

0

1

2

3

Hold time (ms)FIG. 2. Spin fluctuations (a) after 350 s as a function ofmagnetic field and (b) on resonance as a function of hold timescaled to the value measured at 527 G. Even at strong repulsive
interactions, the measured spin fluctuations are barely enhanced,
indicating only short-range correlations and no domain formation. The spin fluctuations were determined for square bins of
2:6 m, each containing on average 1000 atoms per spin state.

240404-2

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

PRL 108, 240404 (2012)
Hold time [ms]
20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0

0

Molecule Fraction

Surviving fraction

1

0Surviving fraction

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Hold time [ms]FIG. 3 (color online). Characterization of molecule formation
at short and long hold times, and at different values of theinteraction strength. The closed symbols, circles (black) at
790 G with kF a ¼ 1:14, squares (blue) at 810 G with kF a ¼
2:27 and diamonds (red) at 818 G with kF a ¼ 3:5 represent thenormalized number of free atoms, the open symbols the total
number of atoms including those bound in Feshbach molecules(open circles at 790 G with kF a ¼ 1:14). The crosses (green)show the molecule fraction. The characteristic time scale is set
by the Fermi time @=EF ¼ 43 s, calculated with a cloud
averaged Fermi energy.

state. We obtain an atom loss rate N_ a =Na ¼ 250 s1
at 790 G in the first 1 ms after the magnetic field switch.
Assuming a three-body process we estimate the rate
coefficient L3 at this field to be 3:9  1022 cm6 s1 ,though the interaction is already sufficiently strong for
many-body effects to be significant. For stronger interactions, about 30% of atom loss occurs already during therelevant 100 s of ramping through the strongly interacting region, indicating a lower bound of around 3  103 s1
for the loss rate which is 13% of the inverse Fermi time
EF =@, calculated with a cloud averaged Fermi energy.
After the first millisecond, the molecule formation rate
slows down, by an order of magnitude at a magnetic
field of 790 G (and even more dramatically at higher
fields) when it reaches about 50%. It seems likely thatthe molecule fraction has reached a quasi-equilibrium
value at the local temperature, which is larger than theinitial temperature due to local heating accompanying
the molecule formation. Reference [28] presents a simple
model for the equilibrium between atoms and molecules(ignoring strong interactions). For phase space densities
around unity and close to resonance, the predicted
molecule fraction is 0.5, in good agreement with ourobservations [29].

week ending
15 JUNE 2012For longer time scales (hundred milliseconds) we observe a steady increase of the molecule fraction to 90% for
the longest hold time. This occurs due to continuous
evaporation which cools down the system and shifts theatom-molecule equilibrium towards high molecule fractions. During the same time scale, a slow loss in both
atom number and total number is observed caused byinelastic collisions (vibrational relaxation of molecules)
and evaporation loss.
Is the rapid conversion into molecules necessarily fasterthan the evolution of ferromagnetic domains? Our answer
is tentatively yes. First, for strong interactions with kF a
around 1, one expects both instabilities (pair formation andStoner instability) to have rates which scale with the Fermi
energy EF and therefore with n2=3 . Therefore, one cannotchange the competition between the instabilities by working at higher or lower densities. According to Ref. [21] thefastest unstable modes for domain formation have a wave
vector q  kF =2 and grow at a rate of up to EF =4@ when
the cloud is quenched sufficiently far beyond the criticalinteraction strength. Unstable modes with such wave vectors will develop ‘‘domains’’ of half a wavelength or size
 ¼ =q ¼ 2=kF containing 5 atoms per spin state in a
volume 3 . This rate is comparable to the observed conversion rates into pairs of 0:13EF . Therefore, at best,‘‘domains’’ of a few particles could form, but before they
can grow further and prevent the formation of pairs (in afully polarized state), rapid pair formation takes over andpopulates the lower branch of the Feshbach resonance.
Based on our observations and these arguments, it seems
that it is not possible to realize ferromagnetism with strong
short range interaction, and therefore the basic Stonermodel cannot be realized in nature.
One possibility to suppress pair formation is provided bynarrow Feshbach resonances. Here the pairs have dominantly closed channel character and therefore a muchsmaller overlap matrix element with the free atoms.
However, narrow Feshbach resonances are characterized
by a long effective range and do not realize the Stonermodel which assumes short-range interactions. Other interesting topics for future research on ferromagnetism andpair formation include the effects of dimensionality[30,31], spin imbalance [32,33], mass imbalance [34],lattice and band structure [35,36].
We now discuss whether ferromagnetism is possible
after atoms and molecules have rapidly established local
equilibrium. In other words, starting at T ¼ 0, one could
heat up the fully paired and superfluid system and create agas of atomic quasiparticles which are similar to free atoms
with repulsive interactions. Density and temperature of theatoms are now coupled. It is likely that such a state isrealized in our experiments after a few ms following thequench, until evaporative cooling converts the system intoa molecular condensate over  100 ms. The possibility
that such a quasiparticle gas could become ferromagnetic

240404-3

PRL 108, 240404 (2012)PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

has not been discussed in the literature. Our experiments do
not reveal any major increase in spin fluctuations which
seems to exclude a ferromagnetic state. In the simplest
picture, we could regard the atomic quasiparticles as free
atoms, and then apply the Stoner model to them.
Ferromagnetic domain formation is analogous to phaseseparation between the two spin components [3]. Since
dimers interact equally with the two spin components, one
might expect that even a noticeable dimer fraction should
not suppress the tendency of the atomic gas to form domains. Therefore, in a simple model, one may neglect
dimer-atom interactions.
If the Stoner model applies to this quasiparticle gas, thenext question is whether the temperature is low enoughfor the ferromagnetic phase transition. Available theoretical treatments do not predict an exact maximum transition
temperature to the ferromagnetic state and obtain an
unphysical divergence for large scattering lengths. Since
the only energy scale is the Fermi temperature, one would
expect a transition temperature which is a fraction of
the Fermi temperature [37], higher or around thetemperature scale probed in our experiments. However,even above the transition temperature, the susceptibility
is enhanced. A simple Weiss mean field or Stonermodel leads to the generic form of the susceptibilityðTÞ ¼ 0 ðTÞ=ð1  w0 ðTÞÞ, where 0 ðTÞ is the Paulisusceptibility of the non-interacting gas and w the interaction parameter. This formula predicts a twofold increasein the susceptibility even 50% above the transition temperature, which is well within the sensitivity of ourmeasurements.
Therefore, our experiment can rule out ferromagnetism
for temperatures even slightly lower than the experimental
temperatures. Temperatures are very difficult to measure
in a transient way for a dynamic system which may not be
in full equilibrium. For example, cloud thermometry
requires full equilibration and lifetimes much longer thanthe longest trap period. We attempted to measure thetemperature after the hold time near the Feshbach resonance by quickly switching the magnetic field to weakinteractions at 527 G and then performing noise thermometry using speckle imaging [4]. We measure columnintegrated fluctuations that are 0.61(8) of the Poisson value
which implies an effective temperature well below TF ,around 0.33(7) TF , not much higher than our initial
temperature of 0.23 TF . Although the cloud is not in fullequilibrium, an effective local temperature can still beobtained from noise thermometry.
Alternatively, we can estimate the temperature increase
from the heat released by pair formation. A simple model[38] accounting for the relevant energy contributions
predicts for kF a ¼ 1 that molecule fractions of higher
than 20% result in a final temperature above 0:4TF , anestimate which is higher than the measurement reported
above. One may hope that closer to resonance many-bodyweek ending
15 JUNE 2012

effects lower the released energy; however, as we show
in the Supplemental Material (Fig. 1 of [38]) this is
not necessarily the case due to the repulsive interactionenergy.
Our experiment has not shown any evidence for a possible ferromagnetic phase in an atomic gas in ‘‘chemical’’equilibrium with dimers. This implies one of the following
possibilities. (i) This gas can be described by a simple
Hamiltoninan with strong short range repulsion.
However, this Hamiltonian does not lead to ferromagnetism. This would be in conflict with the results of recent
quantum Monte Carlo simulations [19,20] and second
order perturbation theory [11], and in agreement withconclusions based on Tan relations [39]. (ii) The temperature of the gas was too high to observe ferromagnetism.
This would then imply a critical temperature around or
below 0:2T=TF , lower than generally assumed. (iii) The
quasiparticles cannot be described by the simple model ofan atomic gas with short-range repulsive interactions dueto their interactions with the paired fraction.
A previous experiment [3] reported evidence for ferromagnetism by presenting non-monotonic behavior of atom
loss rate, kinetic energy and cloud size when approaching
the Feshbach resonance, in agreement with predictions
based on the Stoner model. Our measurements confirm
that the properties of the gas strongly change near
kF a ¼ 1. Similar to [3], we observe features in kinetic
and release energy measurements near the resonance (seeSupplemental Material [38]). However, the behavior ismore complex than that captured by simple models. The
atomic fraction decays non-exponentially (see Fig. 3), andtherefore an extracted decay time will depend on the detailsof the measurement such as time resolution. Reference [3]found a maximum of the loss rate of 200 s1 for a Fermi
energy of 28 kHz. Our lower bound of the decay rate of3  103 s1 is 15 times faster at a five times smaller Fermi
energy. Our more detailed study rules out that Ref. [3] has
observed ferromagnetic behavior.
Our conclusion is that an ultracold gas with strong shortrange repulsive interactions near a Feshbach resonanceremains in the paramagnetic phase. The fast formation ofmolecules and the accompanying heating makes it impossible to study such a gas in equilibrium, confirming predictions of a rapid conversion of the atomic gas to pairs[21,40]. The Stoner criterion for ferromagnetism obtains
when the effective interaction strength times the density ofstates is larger than one. This is a at least an approximately
valid criterion for multi-band lattice models [41]. We haveshown here that this criterion cannot be applied to Fermi
gases with short-range repulsive interactions (the basic
Stoner model) since the neglected competition with pairing
is crucial.
This work was supported by NSF and ONR, AFOSR
MURI, and under ARO Grant No. W911NF-07-1-0493
with funds from the DARPA Optical Lattice Emulator

240404-4

PRL 108, 240404 (2012)PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

program. We are thankful to Eugene Demler, David
Pekker, Boris Svistunov, Nikolay Prokof’ev, andWilhelm Zwerger for valuable discussions and to David
Weld for critical reading of the manuscript.

[1] W. Ketterle and M. W. Zwierlein, in Proceedings of theInternational School of Physics ‘‘Enrico Fermi,’’ Course
CLXIV (IOS, Amsterdam, 2007).
[2] D. W. Snoke, Solid State Physics: Essential Concepts(Addison-Wesley, San Francisco, 2008).
[3] G.-B. Jo, Y.-R. Lee, J.-H. Choi, C. A. Christensen, T. H.
Kim, J. H. Thywissen, D. E. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle,
Science 325, 1521 (2009).
[4] C. Sanner, E. J. Su, A. Keshet, W. Huang, J. Gillen, R.
Gommers, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 010402(2011).
[5] This is illustrated by a simplified model assuming
Poissonian fluctuations in a given probe volume within
the atom sample. With on average N atoms in this volume,
one would pmeasurea standard deviation in the atom
ﬃﬃﬃﬃ
number of N . However, if the atoms formed clusters
each made of m atoms, thepﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
standard
deviation of theﬃnumber of clusters would
be ﬃ N=m, leading to a variancepﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
in atom number of ðm N=mÞ2 ¼ mN.
[6] Potentials with a positive scattering length a have nobound state only if the effective range re is larger thana=2. Otherwise, the s-wave scattering amplitude fðkÞ ¼
1=ð1=a þ re k2 =2  ikÞ has a pole on the imaginary axis
corresponding to a bound state.
[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. Amoruso, I. Meccoli, A. Minguzzi, and M. P. Tosi, Eur.
Phys. J. D 7, 441 (1999).
[9] L. Salasnich, B. Pozzi, A. Parola, and L. Reatto, J. Phys. B
33, 3943 (2000).
[10] T. Sogo and H. Yabu, Phys. Rev. A 66, 043611 (2002).
[11] R. A. Duine and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95,
230403 (2005).
[12] H. Zhai, Phys. Rev. A 80, 051605 (2009).
[13] G. J. Conduit and B. D. Simons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103,
200403 (2009).
[14] L. J. LeBlanc, J. H. Thywissen, A. A. Burkov, and A.
Paramekanti, Phys. Rev. A 80, 013607 (2009).
[15] I. Berdnikov, P. Coleman, and S. H. Simon, Phys. Rev. B
79, 224403 (2009).
[16] X. Cui and H. Zhai, Phys. Rev. A 81, 041602 (2010).
[17] S. Zhang, H. Hung, and C. Wu, Phys. Rev. A 82, 053618(2010).
[18] H. Heiselberg, Phys. Rev. A 83, 053635 (2011).
[19] S. Pilati, G. Bertaina, S. Giorgini, and M. Troyer, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 105, 030405 (2010).

week ending
15 JUNE 2012[20] S.-Y. Chang, M. Randeria, and N. Trivedi, Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108, 51 (2010).
[21] D. Pekker, M. Babadi, R. Sensarma, N. Zinner, L. Pollet,
M. W. Zwierlein, and E. Demler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106,050402 (2011).
[22] C. Sanner, E. J. Su, A. Keshet, R. Gommers, Y. Shin, W.
Huang, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 040402(2010).
[23] M. Sandri, A. Minguzzi, and F. Toigo, Europhys. Lett. 96,
66 004 (2011).
[24] A. Recati and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 080402(2011).
[25] S. Jochim, M. Bartenstein, A. Altmeyer, G. Hendl, C.
Chin, J. Hecker Denschlag, and R. Grimm, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 91, 240402 (2003).
[26] C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Rev.
Mod. Phys. 82, 1225 (2010).
[27] G. J. Conduit and E. Altman, Phys. Rev. A 83, 043618(2011).
[28] C. Chin and R. Grimm, Phys. Rev. A 69, 033612(2004).
[29] Note that the drop in molecule formation after 1 ms cannot
be explained by the drop in atomic density by a factor of 2
due to conversion into molecules and to an increase in thesize of the sample due to the increased repulsive interactions.
[30] N. D. Drummond, N. R. Cooper, R. J. Needs, and G. V.
Shlyapnikov, Phys. Rev. B 83, 195429 (2011).
[31] V. Pietilä, D. Pekker, Y. Nishida, and E. Demler, Phys.
Rev. A 85, 023621 (2012).
[32] X.-J. Liu and H. Hu, Phys. Rev. A 82, 043626(2010).
[33] H. Dong, H. Hu, X.-J. Liu, and P. D. Drummond, Phys.
Rev. A 82, 013627 (2010).
[34] C. W. von Keyserlingk and G. J. Conduit, Phys. Rev. A 83,
053625 (2011).
[35] C.-C. Chang, S. Zhang, and D. M. Ceperley, Phys. Rev. A
82, 061603 (2010).
[36] G. Carleo, S. Moroni, F. Becca, and S. Baroni, Phys. Rev.
B 83, 060411 (2011).
[37] X.-J. Liu, H. Hu, and P. D. Drummond, Phys. Rev. A 82,
023619 (2010).
[38] See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/
supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.240404 for a discussion of cloud release energy and heating due to molecule formation.
[39] M. Barth and W. Zwerger, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 326, 2544
(2011).
[40] S. Zhang and T.-L. Ho, New J. Phys. 13, 055003(2011).
[41] J. Bünemann, W. Weber, and F. Gebhard, Phys. Rev. B 57,
6896 (1998).
[42] L. Pricoupenko and Y. Castin, Phys. Rev. A 69, 051601(2004).

240404-5

Appendix H
Speckle Simulation

153

7/23/12 3:23 PM/Users/akeshet/Documents.../ImageMatrix.m%%% Speckle simulation class, and static simulation functions.
%%% Figure generation made use of VarianceVsDefocus and%%% VarianceVsDefocusPhasecontrast routines.
classdef ImageMatrix < handle
properties
dataMatrix
fourierDataMatrix
nPixelsdelta
deltavtransmissionMatrix
illuminationMatrix
atPerPixel
endmethods(Static)
function [variance densityfactor]= VarianceVsDensity
for i=0:100
a=ImageMatrix.OutOfFocusNoiseSimulation(2048, 50, i);a.MakeTransmissionMatrix();
temp = a.transmissionMatrix(800:1200, 800:1200);
variance(i+1) = var(temp(:));
densityfactor(i+1)=i/5;
i
end
end
function [variance defocus] = VarianceVsDefocus
for i=0:1500
a=ImageMatrix.OutOfFocusNoiseSimulation(2048, i*.1, 1);a.MakeTransmissionMatrix();
temp = a.transmissionMatrix(800:1200, 800:1200);
variance(i+1) = var(temp(:));
defocus(i+1)=i*.1;
i
end
end
function [variance defocus] = VarianceVsDefocusPhasecontrast
for i=0:1500
a=ImageMatrix.OutOfFocusNoiseSimulation(2048, i*.1, []);
a.AddPhaseSpot();a.InverseFourierTransform();a.MakeTransmissionMatrix();
temp = a.transmissionMatrix(800:1200, 800:1200);
variance(i+1) = var(temp(:));
defocus(i+1)=i*.1;
i
end
end
function [variance nplanes] = VarianceVsNplanes

endfor (i=1:15)
for (j=1:10)
a=ImageMatrix.MultiPlaneNoiseSimulation(2048, i, []);
a.MakeTransmissionMatrix();
temp = a.transmissionMatrix(800:1200, 800:1200);
variance(i) = variance(i) + var(temp(:))/10;
nplanes(i)=i;
i
j
end
end

1 of 6

7/23/12 3:23 PM/Users/akeshet/Documents.../ImageMatrix.m2 of 6function output = MultiPlaneNoiseSimulation (nnn,nPlanes, dPerPlane)
if (isempty(nPlanes))
nPlanes = 10;
end
if (isempty(dPerPlane))
dPerPlane=10;
end
a=ImageMatrix;
a.InitGaussianMatrix(0, nnn, []);
atomsPerSquareMicron = 44.4444;
atomsPerPixel = atomsPerSquareMicron * (a.delta^2);
areaPhasePerAtom = 0.27;
phaseDegPerAtom = areaPhasePerAtom / (a.delta^2);
for i=1:nPlanes
a.AddNoiseToMatrix(atomsPerPixel/nPlanes, phaseDegPerAtom, a.nPixels/8);
a.FourierTransform;
a.Propagate(dPerPlane);a.InverseFourierTransform;
end
a.LowPassFilter(.25);
a.InverseFourierTransform;
end

output=a;function output=OutOfFocusNoiseSimulation(nnn, defocus, densityFactor)
if (isempty(defocus))
defocus=10
end
if (isempty(densityFactor))
densityFactor=1;
end
a=ImageMatrix;
a.InitGaussianMatrix(0, nnn, []);
atomsPerSquareMicron = 44.4444 * densityFactor;
atomsPerPixel = atomsPerSquareMicron * (a.delta^2);
a.atPerPixel = atomsPerPixel;
areaPhasePerAtom = 0.27;
phaseDegPerAtom = areaPhasePerAtom / (a.delta^2);
a.AddNoiseToMatrix(atomsPerPixel, phaseDegPerAtom, a.nPixels/8);
a.FourierTransform;
a.Propagate(defocus);a.LowPassFilter(.25);
a.InverseFourierTransform;%
a.PlotImage;%a.deltaend

output=a;function [varData meanData]=VerticalStack(nnn, nShots)
allData(1:nShots, 1:nnn, 1:nnn)=0;
for i=1:nShots
allData(i,:,:)=abs(ImageMatrix.OutOfFocusNoiseSimulation(nnn)).^2;i
end
varData=squeeze(var(allData));meanData=squeeze(mean(allData));

7/23/12 3:23 PM
end/Users/akeshet/Documents.../ImageMatrix.m3 of 6end

methodsfunction MakeTransmissionMatrix(obj)
obj.transmissionMatrix=(abs(obj.dataMatrix).^2)./obj.illuminationMatrix;
end
function InitGaussianMatrix(obj, zref, nnn, field)
if (isempty(nnn))
nnn=4096;
end
if (isempty(field))field=614.4;
end
if (isempty(zref))zref=0;end
obj.delta = field/nnn;
obj.nPixels = nnn;
s1=num2str(zref);s2=num2str(nnn);
s3=num2str(field);cache_filename = strcat(’gausscache’, s1,s2,s3,’.mat’);if (exist(cache_filename, ’file’))disp(’loading initial gaussian matrix from cached file’);load(cache_filename);obj.dataMatrix = gcache;
obj.illuminationMatrix=abs(obj.dataMatrix.^2);
returnenddisp(’synthesizing initial gaussian matrix (will be saved to cache file)’);obj.delta = field / obj.nPixels;[pp,qq]=meshgrid(énnn/2:nnn/2é1);
xx=obj.delta*pp;
yy=obj.delta*qq;
zz=zref*ones(nnn);end

obj.dataMatrix=gaussian(xx,yy,zz,[],[],[]);
obj.illuminationMatrix=abs(obj.dataMatrix.^2);
gcache = obj.dataMatrix;
save(cache_filename, ’gcache’);function AddNoiseToMatrix(obj, atomsPerPixel, phaseDegreesPerAtom, halfBoxSize)boxSize = 2 * halfBoxSize + 1;
randn(’state’, sum(100*clock));
randPhases= exp(((2*pi*1i*phaseDegreesPerAtom/360)*(poissrnd(atomsPerPixel,boxSize,boxSize)époissrnd(atomsPerPixel,boxSize,boxSize))));
indexRange = (obj.nPixels/2+1éhalfBoxSize):(obj.nPixels/2+1+halfBoxSize);obj.dataMatrix(indexRange, indexRange) = obj.dataMatrix(indexRange,
indexRange) .* randPhases;7/23/12 3:23 PM/Users/akeshet/Documents.../ImageMatrix.m

4 of 6end
function PlotImage(obj)colormap(gray);
imagesc(abs(obj.dataMatrix).^2);end
function PlotSpectrum(obj)
imagesc(abs(obj.fourierDataMatrix));end
function FourierTransform(obj)[mm1,nn2]=ndgrid(1:obj.nPixels,1:obj.nPixels);
signmatrix=(é1).^(mm1+nn2);
fouriermatrix1=obj.delta^2*obj.nPixels^2*ifft2(obj.dataMatrix’).*signmatrix;%fourierpixelmatrix=fouriermatrix1’;
clear trandposedDataMatrix mm1 nn2 signmatrix;%output1=[fourierpixelmatrix,fourierpixelmatrix;fourierpixelmatrix,
fourierpixelmatrix];
nnn=obj.nPixels;%obj.fourierDataMatrix=output1(nnn/2+1:nnn/2+nnn,nnn/2+1:nnn/2+nnn);
obj.fourierDataMatrix = circshift(fouriermatrix1’, [nnn/2, nnn/2]);end
function Propagate(obj,propdist)
nnn=obj.nPixels;[xxmatrix,yymatrix]=meshgrid(énnn/2:nnn/2é1);
deltav=1/(nnn*obj.delta);
vxx=deltav*xxmatrix;
vyy=deltav*yymatrix;
clear xxmatrix yymatrix;
lambda=671/1000;
radicand=ones(nnn)*1/(lambda^2)évxx.^2évyy.^2;
clear vxx vyy;
c1matrix=(radicand<0);
c2matrix=(c1matrix<0.5);c3matrix=éc1matrix+c2matrix;
c3matrix=double(c3matrix);
hmatrix=exp(é1i*2*pi*propdist*sqrt(radicand).*c3matrix);
clear c1matrix c2matrix c3matrix radicand;end

obj.fourierDataMatrix=hmatrix.*obj.fourierDataMatrix;
function InverseFourierTransform(obj)
nnn=obj.nPixels;
deltav=1/(nnn*obj.delta);[mm1,nn2]=ndgrid(1:nnn,1:nnn);
signmatrix=(é1).^(mm1+nn2);
clear mm1 nn2;
fourierout=deltav^2*signmatrix.*fft2(obj.fourierDataMatrix’);
clear signmatrix;%output1=[outputpixelmatrix,outputpixelmatrix;outputpixelmatrix,
outputpixelmatrix];7/23/12 3:23 PM/Users/akeshet/Documents.../ImageMatrix.m%obj.dataMatrix=output1(nnn/2+1:nnn/2+nnn,nnn/2+1:nnn/2+nnn);
obj.dataMatrix = circshift(fourierout’, [nnn/2, nnn/2]);end
function LowPassFilter(obj, vmax)
if (isempty(vmax))
vmax=0.25;
end
nnn=obj.nPixels;
delta=obj.delta;[xxmatrix,yymatrix]=meshgrid(énnn/2:nnn/2é1);
deltav=1/(nnn*delta); %pixelsize deltavx and deltavy
obj.deltav=deltav
vxx=deltav*xxmatrix;
vyy=deltav*yymatrix;
passmatrix=(vxx.^2+vyy.^2)<=vmax^2;
obj.fourierDataMatrix=passmatrix.*obj.fourierDataMatrix;
end
function AddPhaseSpot(obj)
nnn=obj.nPixels;[xxmatrix,yymatrix]=meshgrid(énnn/2:nnn/2é1);
deltav=1/(nnn*obj.delta); %pixelsize deltavx and deltavy
vxx=deltav*xxmatrix;
vyy=deltav*yymatrix;
prehh1=vxx.^2+vyy.^2;
prehh3=(prehh1<=0.003^2);
obj.fourierDataMatrix(prehh3) = obj.fourierDataMatrix(prehh3).*1i;endfunction HighPassFilter(obj, vmin)
if (isempty(vmin))vmin=.0025;
end
nnn=obj.nPixels;
delta=obj.delta;[xxmatrix,yymatrix]=meshgrid(énnn/2:nnn/2é1);
deltav=1/(nnn*delta); %pixelsize deltavx and deltavy
vxx=deltav*xxmatrix;
vyy=deltav*yymatrix;
passmatrix=(vxx.^2+vyy.^2)>=vmin^2;
end

end

obj.fourierDataMatrix=passmatrix.*obj.fourierDataMatrix;end%%% Gaussian Generation Helper Functions
function output=gaussian(x,y,z, waist, lamb, a0)
global w0 z0
if (isempty(waist))

5 of 6

7/23/12 3:23 PM
end/Users/akeshet/Documents.../ImageMatrix.m

6 of 6

waist = 200;

if (isempty(lamb))
lamb = 671/1000;end
if (isempty(a0))
a0 = 1;end
w0 = waist;z0 = w0^2*pi/lamb;k = 2*pi/lamb;if z(1,1)==0
output = a0*w0./w(z).*exp(é(x.^2 + y.^2)./w(z).^2).*exp(é1i*k*z + 1i*zet(z));
elseoutput = a0*w0./w(z).*exp(é(x.^2 + y.^2)./w(z).^2).*exp(é1i*k*z é 1i*k*(x.^2 +y.^2)./(2*r(z)) + 1i*zet(z));
end
endfunction outw=w(zzz)global w0 z0
outw = w0*sqrt(1 + (zzz/z0).^2);end
function outr=r(zzz)global z0
outr = zzz.*(1 + (z0./zzz).^2);end
function outzet=zet(zzz)global z0
outzet = atan(zzz/z0);
end

160

Appendix I
Band Insulator Optimization

161

In[49]:=Needs@"PlotLegends`"D

Constants
In[50]:=

l = 1064.0*^-9;l0 = 671.0*^-9;
c = 3.0*^8;
h = 6.626*^-34;— = h ê H2 pL;m = 9.96*^-27;
wL = H2 pL c ê l;
w0 = H2 pL c ê l0 ;G = H2 pL * 5.87*^6;
kL = H2 pL ê l;
Er = —2

kL 2
H2 mL

;

In[61]:=

H*Recoil energy sanity check, lithium recoil for 1064 nm is ~29 kHz*LEr ê hOut[61]=29 381.8

FormulasIn[62]:=

In[63]:=

Udip @II_D := - 3 p

wa @U0_D := 2
4

c2
2 w0

3

G

Er Abs@U0D—

1
w0 - wL+1
w0 + wL

II; H* From Grimm et all '99*L; H*From BlochêDalibardêZwerger Rev Mod Phys*L

Abs@U0D

3ê4

Abs@U0D

1ê2

F;
Er
Er
p
H*From BlochêDalibardêZwerger Rev Mod Phys, approximate for deep lattices*L
H*In both expressions U0 is the full absolute height*L
J@U0_D :=ErExpB- 2

In[65]:=
In[66]:=

W@U0_D = 4 J@U0D; H*Width of band, from BlochêDalibardêZwerger*L

Printed by Mathematica for Students

2

BandInsulatorWorksheet.nb

Plots -- Basic Lattice Properties
In[67]:=

p1 = Plot@wa @u * Er D, 8u, 0, 20<, PlotLabel Ø "Lattice site trap frequency",
AxesLabel Ø 8"Lattice Depth ê Er ", "Trap frequency HradêsL"<D
Lattice site trap frequency

Trap frequency HradêsL
1.5 µ 106Out[67]=1.0 µ 106500 000

5
In[68]:=

10

15

20

Lattice Depth ê Er

p2 = Plot@W@u * Er D ê —, 8u, 0, 20<, PlotLabel Ø "Width of First Band",
AxesLabel Ø 8"Lattice Depth ê Er ", "First band width HradêsL"<D
Width of First BandFirst band width HradêsL

200 000

Out[68]=150 000
100 000
50 0005In[69]:=

10

15

20

Lattice Depth ê Er

p3 = Plot@HW@u * Er D ê —L ê wa @u * Er D, 8u, 0, 20<,
PlotRange Ø All, PlotLabel Ø "Bandwidth ê Band Spacing",
AxesLabel Ø 8"Lattice Depth ê Er ", "Dimensionless"<D
Dimensionless
1.4

Bandwidth ê Band Spacing

1.2
1.0
Out[69]=

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
5

10

15

20

Lattice Depth ê Er

Printed by Mathematica for StudentsBandInsulatorWorksheet.nb

Trapping potential from beam power
In[70]:=

I0FromPower@P_, w_D := 2 *

P
p w2

;

RadialOnlyGaussianBeamIntensity@r_, P_, w_D := I0FromPower@P, wD ExpB

- 2 r2w^2F;

H* From http:êêen.wikipedia.orgêwikiêGaussian_beam *L
TrapFrequency@U0_, w_D := 4

Abs@U0D1ê2

m w2

H*From Grimm et all '99*L
In[73]:=PlotAUdip @RadialOnlyGaussianBeamIntensity@rad * 10 ^ - 6, 5, 50*^-6DD ë —, 8rad, - 200, 200<,
PlotLabel Ø "Radial profile of gaussian potential for 5 Watt 50 micron single beam",
AxesLabel Ø 8"Radial position HmmL", "Potential depth HradêsL"<E
Radial profile of gaussian potential for 5 Watt 50 micron single beam
Potential depth HradêsL

-200

-100

100

200

Radial position HmmL

-2 µ 106-4 µ 106

Out[73]=-6 µ 106-8 µ 106-1 µ 107
In[74]:= H*Sanity check, ~2kHz for a 5W beam focused to a 50 micron waist seems about right*L
TrapFrequencyAUdip @I0FromPower@5, 50*^-6DD, 50*^-6E ë H2 pL
Out[74]=2078.79

In[75]:=

4 * Udip @I0FromPower@5, 100*^-6DD ë Er

Out[75]=- 54.5492

Band Insulator Region Size -- Sandbox
In[76]:=

H*Consider a lattice in 1D, inside of an overall trap provided by the confining
potential of the other two directions of lattice beam. In this situation,
it so happens that the effective "confining potential" provided
by the other two beams is the same as the lattice depth.*L

In[77]:=

TestLatticeParameters = 8P Ø 1, w Ø 200*^-6<;
LatticeDepth@r_, P_, w_D := 4 * Udip @RadialOnlyGaussianBeamIntensity@r, P, wDD;

In[79]:=

Printed by Mathematica for Students

3

4

BandInsulatorWorksheet.nb

In[80]:=

Plot@LatticeDepth@rad * 10 ^ - 6, P, wD ê Er ê. TestLatticeParameters, 8rad, 0, 200<D
-0.5

-1.0

Out[80]=

-1.5

-2.0

-2.5
50
In[81]:=

100

150

200

Plot@8— wa @LatticeDepth@rad * 10 ^ - 6, P, wDD,
LatticeDepth@rad * 10 ^ - 6, P, wD - LatticeDepth@0, P, wD,
W@LatticeDepth@rad * 10 ^ - 6, P, wDD< ê h ê. TestLatticeParameters, 8rad, 0, 1000<D

80 00060 000Out[81]=40 000

20 000

200

400

600

800

1000

Band Insulator Region -- Plots
In[84]:=

BIRadiusSolution = Solve@8LatticeDepth@rad, P, w * 10 ^ - 6D - LatticeDepth@0, P, w * 10 ^ - 6D ã
— wa @LatticeDepth@0, P, w * 10 ^ - 6DD, rad > 0<, 8rad<, RealsD@@1DD;

In[85]:=

ContourPlot@Hrad * 10 ^ 6L ê. BIRadiusSolution,
8P, 0, 5<, 8w, 1, 200<, ContourLabels Ø True,
RegionFunction Ø Function@8P, w<, - LatticeDepth@0, P, w * 10 ^ - 6D > 8 Er D,
BoundaryStyle Ø Automatic, Contours Ø Range@10D * 20, PlotLabel ->"Radius of maximally filled band insulator Hin mmL in an isotropic 3D Lattice",
FrameLabel Ø 8"Power per lattice beam HWL", "Waist size per lattice beam HmmL"<,
ImageSize Ø LargeD;

In[86]:=

ContourPlotB

4

p rad3 * 1012 ê. BIRadiusSolution,
3
8P, 0, 5<, 8w, 1, 200<, ContourLabels Ø True,
RegionFunction Ø Function@8P, w<, - LatticeDepth@0, P, w * 10 ^ - 6D > 8 Er D,
BoundaryStyle Ø Automatic, PlotRange Ø 80, 10 000 000<, Contours Ø Range@20D, PlotLabel Ø"Number of band insulator region atoms Hin millionsL in an isotropic 3D Lattice",
FrameLabel Ø 8"Power per lattice beam HWL", "Waist size per lattice beam HmmL"<,
ImageSize Ø LargeF;

Printed by Mathematica for Students

166

Bibliography[1] E Altman, E Demler, and M Lukin. Probing many-body states of ultracold
atoms via noise correlations. Physical Review A, 70(013603), 2004.
[2] 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(5221):198–201, January 1995.
[3] M. R. Andrews, M.-O. Mewes, N. J. van Druten, D S Durfee, D. M. Kurn, and
W Ketterle. Direct, Nondestructive Observation of a Bose Condensate. Science,
273(5271):84–87, January 1996.
[4] G E Astrakharchik, J Boronat, J Casulleras, and S Giorgini. Equation of Stateof a Fermi Gas in the BEC-BCS Crossover: A Quantum Monte Carlo Study.
Physical review letters, 93(20):200404 EP –, January 2004.
[5] W Bakr, J Gillen, A Peng, S Fölling, and M Greiner. A quantum gas microscopefor detecting single atoms in a Hubbard-regime optical lattice. Nature, 462:74–77,
2009.
[6] J G Bednorz and K A Müller. Possible high Tc superconductivity in the BaLaCuO
system. Zeitschrift für Physik B Condensed Matter, 64(2):189–193, January 1986.
[7] C Benvenuti, P Chiggiato, P Costa Pinto, and A Escudeiro. Vacuum properties
of TiZrV non-evaporable getter films. Vacuum, 60:57–65, 2001.
[8] R Hanbury Brown and R Q Twiss. Correlation between Photons in two Coherent
Beams of Light. Nature, 177(4497):27–29, January 1956.
[9] G Campbell, J Mun, M Boyd, P Medley, and A Leanhardt. Imaging the Mott
insulator shells by using atomic clock shifts. Science, 313(649), 2006.
[10] Robert Campbell, Robert Smith, Naaman Tammuz, Scott Beattie, Stuart Moulder, and Zoran Hadzibabic. Efficient production of large 39 K Bose-Einstein condensates. Physical Review A, 82(6), December 2010.
[11] Yu-Ao Chen. Controlling Correlated Tunneling and Superexchange Interactions
with ac-Driven Optical Lattices. Physical review letters, 107(21):210405 EP –,January 2011.
167

[12] P Chiggiato and C Pinto. Ti-Zr-V non-evaporable getter films: from development to large scale production for the Large Hadron Collider. Thin Solid Films,
515:382–388, 2006.
[13] Ananth P. Chikkatur. Colliding and Moving Bose-Einstein Condensates: Studies
of superfluidity and optical tweezers for condensate transport. PhD thesis, MIT,
October 2002.
[14] J. K. Chin, D. E. Miller, Y Liu, C Stan, W Setiawan, C Sanner, K Xu, and
W Ketterle. Evidence for superfluidity of ultracold fermions in an optical lattice.
Nature, 443(7114):961–964.
[15] Jit Kee Chin. Strongly-interacting Fermions in an Optical Lattice. PhD thesis,
MIT, August 2007.
[16] 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, November 1995.
[17] B DeMarco and D S Jin. Onset of Fermi Degeneracy in a Trapped Atomic Gas.
Science, 285(5434):1703–1706, January 1999.
[18] K Dieckmann, C A Stan, S Gupta, Z Hadzibabic, C H Schunck, and W Ketterle. Decay of an Ultracold Fermionic Lithium Gas near a Feshbach Resonance.
Physical review letters, 89(20):203201, October 2002.
[19] Dallin S. Durfee. Dynamic Properties of Dilute Bose-Einstein Condensates. PhD
thesis, MIT, October 1999.
[20] J Esteve, JB Trebbia, T Schumm, A Aspect, CI Westbrook, and I Bouchoule.
Observations of density fluctuations in an elongated bose gas: Ideal gas andquasicondensate regimes. Physical review letters, 96(13):130403, 2006.
[21] Richard Feynman. Simulating physics with computers. International Journal of
Theoretical Physics, 21(6):467–488, January 1982.
[22] Robert J. Finkelstein. Thermodynamics and Statistical Physics: A Short Introduction. W. H. Freeman and Company, 1969.
[23] Peter E Gaskell, Jeremy J Thorn, Sequoia Alba, and Daniel A Steck. An opensource, extensible system for laboratory timing and control. Review of Scientific
Instruments, 80(11):115103, 2009.
[24] Nathan Gemelke, Xibo Zhang, Chen-Lung Hung, and Cheng Chin. In situ observation of incompressible Mott-insulating domains in ultracold atomic gases.
Nature, 460(7258):995–998, August 2009.
[25] F Gerbier, A Widera, O Mandel, T Gericke, and I Bloch. Spatial quantum noiseinterferometry in expanding ultracold atom clouds. Nature, 434:481–484, 2005.
168

[26] Tatjana Gericke, Peter Würtz, Daniel Reitz, Tim Langen, and Herwig Ott. Highresolution scanning electron microscopy of an ultracold quantum gas. Nature
Publishing Group, 4(12):949–953, October 2008.
[27] Joseph W. Goodman. Speckle Phenomena in Optics: Theory and Applications.
Roberts and Company Publishers, 2007.
[28] A Görlitz and W Ketterle. Enhancement and suppression of spontaneousemission and light scattering by quantum degeneracy. Physical Review A,
63(4):041601 EP –, January 2001.
[29] M Greiner, C Regal, and D Jin. Emergence of a molecular Bose–Einstein condensate from a Fermi gas. Nature, 426:537–540, 2003.
[30] M Greiner, C Regal, J Stewart, and D Jin. Probing pair-correlated fermionic
atoms through correlations in atom shot noise.
Physical review letters,
94(110401), 2005.
[31] Markus Greiner, Olaf Mandel, Tilman Esslinger, Theodor W Hänsch, and Immanuel Bloch. Quantum phase transition from a superfluid to a Mott insulator
in a gas of ultracold atoms. Nature, 415(6867):39–44, January 2002.
[32] Subhadeep Gupta, Zoran Hadzibabic, James Anglin, and Wolfgang Ketterle.
Collisions in Zero Temperature Fermi Gases. Physical review letters, 92(10),March 2004.
[33] Z Hadzibabic, S Gupta, C Stan, C Schunck, M Zwierlein, K Dieckmann, and
W Ketterle. Fiftyfold Improvement in the Number of Quantum Degenerate
Fermionic Atoms. Physical review letters, 91(16):160401, October 2003.
[34] Zoran Hadzibabic. Studies of a Quantum Degenerate Fermionic Lithium Gas.
PhD thesis, MIT, 2003.
[35] David S Hall. Triggerable general-purpose interface bus controller. Review of
Scientific Instruments, 75(2):562, 2004.
[36] Myoung-Sun Heo, Jae-yoon Choi, and Yong-il Shin. Fast production of large
23
Na Bose-Einstein condensates in an optically plugged magnetic quadrupole
trap. Physical Review A, 83(1), January 2011.
[37] Tin-Lun Ho and Qi Zhou. Squeezing out the entropy of fermions in opticallattices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(17):6916–6920,
January 2009.
[38] 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(6672):151–154, March 1998.
169

[39] T Jeltes, J M McNamara, W Hogervorst, W Vassen, V Krachmalnicoff,
M Schellekens, A Perrin, H Chang, D Boiron, A Aspect, and C I Westbrook.
Comparison of the Hanbury Brown–Twiss effect for bosons and fermions. Nature, 445(7126):402–405, January 2007.
[40] G B Jo, Y R Lee, J H Choi, C A Christensen, T H Kim, J H Thywissen, D E
Pritchard, and W Ketterle. Itinerant Ferromagnetism in a Fermi Gas of Ultracold
Atoms. Science, 325(5947):1521–1524, September 2009.
[41] R Jördens, N Strohmaier, K Günter, and H Moritz. A Mott insulator of fermionic
atoms in an optical lattice. Nature, 455:204–208, 2008.
[42] Aviv Keshet. The Cicero Word Generator. https://github.com/akeshet/
Cicero-Word-Generator, 2012. [Online; accessed 13-July-2012].
[43] Aviv Keshet. USRP based PID controller. https://github.com/akeshet/
USRP-PID-Controller, 2012. [Online; accessed 13-July-2012].
[44] Aviv Keshet and Wolfgang Ketterle. A Distributed GUI-based Computer Control
System for Atomic Physics Experiments. http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.2607,
August 2012.
[45] W. Ketterle and M. W. Zwierlein. Proceedings of the International School ofPhysics Enrico Fermi, Course CLXIV. IOS, Amsterdam, 2008.
[46] Wolfgang Ketterle and Martin W Zwierlein. Making, probing and understanding
ultracold Fermi gases. http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.2500, February 2008.
[47] Arnaud Koetsier, R Duine, Immanuel Bloch, and H Stoof. Achieving the Néelstate in an optical lattice. Physical Review A, 77(2):023623, February 2008.
[48] M J H Ku, A T Sommer, L W Cheuk, and M W Zwierlein. Revealing theSuperfluid Lambda Transition in the Universal Thermodynamics of a Unitary
Fermi Gas. Science, 335(6068):563–567, February 2012.
[49] H. J. Lewandowski, D. M. Harber, D. L. Whitaker, and E. A. Cornell. Simplified
system for creating a bose-einstein condensate. http://jila.colorado.edu/
bec/CornellGroup/JLTP_Lewandowski2003.pdf, 2003.
[50] Y J Lin, R L Compton, K Jiménez-Garcı́a, J V Porto, and I B Spielman. Synthetic magnetic fields for ultracold neutral atoms. Nature, 462(7273):628–632,
December 2009.
[51] Michael Lubasch, Valentin Murg, Ulrich Schneider, J Ignacio Cirac, and MariCarmen Banuls. Adiabatic Preparation of a Heisenberg Antiferromagnet Using
an Optical Superlattice. Physical review letters, 107(16):165301 EP –, January
2011.
170

[52] Patrick Medley, David M Weld, Hirokazu Miyake, David E Pritchard, and Wolfgang Ketterle. Spin Gradient Demagnetization Cooling of Ultracold Atoms.
Physical review letters, 106(19):195301 EP –, January 2011.
[53] Todd Meyrath and Florian Schreck. A Laboratory Control System for Cold AtomExperiments. http://iqoqi.at/control, 2006.
[54] D Miller, J Chin, C Stan, Y Liu, and W Setiawan. Critical velocity for superfluid
flow across the BEC-BCS crossover. Physical review letters, 99(070402), 2007.
[55] Daniel E. Miller. Studying Coherence in Ultra-Cold Atomic Gases. PhD thesis,
MIT, August 2007.
[56] E Mimoun, L Sarlo, J-J Zondy, J Dalibard, and F Gerbier. Solid-state laser
system for laser cooling of sodium. Applied Physics B, 99(1-2):31–40, April 2010.
[57] Torben Müller, Bruno Zimmermann, Jakob Meineke, Jean-Philippe Brantut,
Tilman Esslinger, and Henning Moritz. Local Observation of Antibunching in aTrapped Fermi Gas. Physical review letters, 105(4), July 2010.
[58] Michael A. Nielsen and Isaac L. Chuang. Quantum Computation and Quantum
Information. Cambridge University Press, 2000.
[59] Van Oosten, U Schneider, S Fölling, B Paredes, and I Bloch. Free fermion
antibunching in a degenerate atomic Fermi gas released from an optical lattice.
Nature, 444:733–736, 2006.
[60] Scott F. Owen and David S. Hall. Fast line-based experiment timing system forlabview. Review of Scientific Instruments, 75(1):259–265, 2004.
[61] David Pekker, Mehrtash Babadi, Rajdeep Sensarma, Nikolaj Zimmer, Lode Pollet, Martin W Zwierlein, and Eugene Demler. Competition between Pairing andFerromagnetic Instabilities in Ultracold Fermi Gases near Feshbach Resonances.
Physical review letters, 106(5):050402 EP –, January 2011.
[62] David Pines and Philippe Nozières. The Theory of Quantum Liquids, volume 1.
W. A. Benjamin, Inc., 1966.
[63] Ludovic Pricoupenko and Yvan Castin. One particle in a box: The simplest
model for a Fermi gas in the unitary limit. Physical Review A, 69(5):051601 EP–, January 2004.
[64] M. P. Quine and E. T3 Seneta. Bortkiewicz’s Data and the Law of Small
Numbers. International Statistical Review / Revue Internationale de Statistique,55(2):173–181, January 1987.
[65] Subir Sachdev. Quantum Phase Transisitons. Cambridge University Press, 2ndedition, 2011.
171

[66] Christian Sanner. Fluctuations in Quantum Degenerate Fermi Gases. PhD thesis,
MIT / Heidelberg University, 2012.
[67] Christian Sanner, Edward Su, Wujie Huang, Aviv Keshet, Jonathon Gillen, and
Wolfgang Ketterle. Correlations and Pair Formation in a Repulsively Interacting
Fermi Gas. Physical review letters, 108(24), June 2012.
[68] Christian Sanner, Edward Su, Aviv Keshet, Ralf Gommers, Yong-il Shin, Wujie Huang, and Wolfgang Ketterle. Suppression of Density Fluctuations in a
Quantum Degenerate Fermi Gas. Physical review letters, 105(4), July 2010.
[69] Christian Sanner, Edward Su, Aviv Keshet, Wujie Huang, Jonathon Gillen, Ralf
Gommers, and Wolfgang Ketterle. Speckle Imaging of Spin Fluctuations in a
Strongly Interacting Fermi Gas. Physical review letters, 106(1), January 2011.
[70] M Schellekens, R. Hoppeler, A Perrin, J. Viana Gomes, D Boiron, A Aspect,
and C I Westbrook. Hanbury Brown Twiss Effect for Ultracold Quantum Gases.
Science, 310(5748):648–651, January 2005.
[71] A Schirotzek, C Wu, A Sommer, and Martin W Zwierlein. Observation of Fermi
polarons in a tunable Fermi liquid of ultracold atoms. Physical review letters,
102(230402), 2009.
[72] U Schneider, L Hackermuller, S Will, Th Best, I Bloch, T A Costi, R W Helmes,
D Rasch, and A Rosch. Metallic and Insulating Phases of Repulsively Interacting
Fermions in a 3D Optical Lattice. Science, 322(5907):1520–1525, December 2008.
[73] C Schunck, Y Shin, A Schirotzek, and W Ketterle. Determination of the fermion
pair size in a resonantly interacting superfluid. Nature, 454:739–744, 2008.
[74] C Schunck, Y Shin, A Schirotzek, M Zwierlein, and W Ketterle. Pairing without superfluidity: The ground state of an imbalanced Fermi mixture. Science,
316(867), 2007.
[75] Jacob F Sherson, Christof Weitenberg, Manuel Endres, Marc Cheneau, Immanuel
Bloch, and Stefan Kuhr. Single-atom-resolved fluorescence imaging of an atomic
Mott insulator. Nature, 467(7311):68–72, August 2010.
[76] Y Shin, C Schunck, A Schirotzek, and W Ketterle. Phase diagram of a twocomponent Fermi gas with resonant interactions. Nature, 451:689–694, 2008.
[77] C Stan and Wolfgang Ketterle. Multiple species atom source for laser-coolingexperiments. Review of Scientific Instruments, 76(063113), 2005.
[78] S. Trotzky, P. Cheinet, S Fölling, M. Feld, U Schnorrberger, A. M. Rey,
A. Polkovnikov, E. A. Demler, M. D. Lukin, and I Bloch. Time-Resolved Observation and Control of Superexchange Interactions with Ultracold Atoms in
Optical Lattices. Science, 319(5861):295–299, January 2008.
172

[79] Christof Weitenberg, Manuel Endres, Jacob F Sherson, Marc Cheneau, Peter
Schauß, Takeshi Fukuhara, Immanuel Bloch, and Stefan Kuhr. Single-spin addressing in an atomic Mott insulator. Nature, 471(7338):319–324, March 2011.
[80] David M Weld, Patrick Medley, Hirokazu Miyake, David Hucul, David E
Pritchard, and Wolfgang Ketterle. Spin Gradient Thermometry for Ultracold
Atoms in Optical Lattices. Physical review letters, 103(24):245301 EP –, January 2009.
[81] Tarik Yefsah, Rémi Desbuquois, Lauriane Chomaz, Kenneth Günter, and Jean
Dalibard. Exploring the Thermodynamics of a Two-Dimensional Bose Gas. Physical review letters, 107(13), September 2011.
[82] M Zwierlein, C Stan, C Schunck, S Raupach, S Gupta, Z Hadzibabic, and W Ketterle. Observation of Bose-Einstein Condensation of Molecules. Physical review
letters, 91(25):250401, December 2003.

173