87

Rubidium Bose-Einstein condensates: Machine

Construction and Quantum Zeno Experiments
byErik William Streed
Submitted to the Department of Physics
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree ofDoctor of Philosophy
at theMASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
January 2006
c Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2006. All rights reserved.

Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Department of Physics
January 9, 2006

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

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

87

Rubidium Bose-Einstein condensates: Machine Construction and
Quantum Zeno Experiments
byErik William Streed
Submitted to the Department of Physics
on January 9, 2006, in partial fulfillment of therequirements for the degree ofDoctor of Philosophy

Abstract
This thesis details construction of a new apparatus for the production of 87 Rb Bose-Einsteincondensates and a subsequent quantum Zeno effect experiment.
An experimental apparatus for producing large Bose-Einstein condensates of 87 Rb isdescribed in detail. A high flux thermal atomic beam is decelerated by a Zeeman slower
and is then captured and cooled in a magneto-optical trap. The atoms are then transferedinto a cloverleaf style Ioffe-Pritchard magnetic trap and cooled to quantum degeneracy withradio frequency induced forced evaporation. Condensates containing up to 20 million atoms
can be produced every few minutes.
The quantum Zeno effect is the suppression of transitions between quantum states byfrequent measurement. Oscillation between two ground hyperfine states of a magneticallytrapped 87 Rb Bose-Einstein condensate, externally driven at a transition rate ωR , was substantially suppressed by destructively measuring one of the levels with resonant opticalscattering. While an ideal continuous measurement will stop the transition, any real measurement method will occur at a finite rate. The suppression of the transition rate in the
two level system was quantified for pulsed measurements with a time between pulses δt
and weak continuous measurements with a scattering rate γ. We observe that the weakcontinuous measurements exhibit the same suppression in the transition rate as the pulsed
measurements when γδt = 3.60(0.43). This is in agreement with the previously predictedvalue of 4. Increasing the measurement frequency suppressed the transition rate to 0.005ωR .

Thesis Supervisor: Wolfgang Ketterle
Title: John D. MacArthur Professor of Physics
Thesis Supervisor: David E. Pritchard
Title: Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics

2

“The universe is a surprisingly benevolent place.” -Prof. Daniel
Kleppner3

Acknowledgments
No man is an island. No thesis is solely the work of one person. I must express mygratitude to the many people who have assisted me. First I must acknowledge my researchadvisers Wolfgang Ketterle and Dave Pritchard. They have vastly expanded the frontiers ofcondensed matter and atomic physics. Both are blessed with keen insight into the nature ofscientific discovery. To my original academic adviser Dan Kleppner, for allowing me to defer
enrollment for a year and whose sage observation adorns this tome. My lab mates Dominik
Schnenble, Yoshio Torii, Mindy Kellogg, Micah Boyd, Gretchen Campbell, Jongchul Mun,
and Patrick Medley are all good people to work with and were generally tolerant of myquirks. Two undergraduate researchers Xin ”James” Sun and Pavel Gorelick were intrepid
enough to be my advisees during the construction phase of the Rubidium BEC machine. I
hope they benefited as much from the experience as I did. Fred Cote who recently retired
from supervising the Student Shop and Carol Costa our departed group secretary are twovery special people who both strove to make MIT a more humane place. Maxine Samuels,
Lorraine Simmons, Mary Young, Dave Foss, Al McGurl and Bill Gibbs of the ResearchLaboratory for Electronics provided excellent support to all of us in the Ketterle group.
Samson Timoner provided me with motivation from beyond the pale edge of graduation,
the MIT thesis LaTex files, and occasionally a car. Wren Montgomery demonstrated forme that graduate school can be much much worse, but also that it can get much muchbetter. Dave Kielpinski, my future boss, presented me with an offer I couldn’t refuse. For
my grounding in mathematics I must give credit to the University of Minnesota Talented
Youth in Mathematics Program. To my parents Pam and Karl Streed, without whom I
wouldn’t have made it this far.
I’d also like to thank my girlfriend Allison Roberts and my brother Kurt Streed forbeing there when I really needed it.

Construction of the 87 Rb Bose-Einstein condensate machine was supported by theUnited States National Science Foundation (NSF) Center for Ultracold Atoms (CUA). The
Quantum Zeno experiments were supported by the United States Army Research Office
MURI program and the CUA.

4

Contents
1 Preface

8

2 Introduction

10

2.1

On Bose-Einstein Condensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10

2.1.1

The Phase Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

2.1.2

Properties of a Pure Condensate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

2.1.3

Loss processes

15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 A large atom number 87 Rb Bose Einstein Machine

18

3.1

System Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18

3.2

High Flux Rb Oven

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

21

3.2.1

Effusive Ovens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21

3.2.2

Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23

3.2.3

Design table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25

Zeeman Slower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25

3.3.1

Slower Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28

Lasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29

3.4.1

Fiber Coupling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31

3.4.2

Injection Locking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32

Computer Control and Imaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32

3.5.1

Free Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33

3.5.2

State Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34

3.5.3

Repumping effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34

3.5.4

Camera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35

3.6

Magneto Optical Trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35

3.7

Magnetic Trapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

36

3.7.1

Fields in a Ioffe-Pritchard Magnetic Trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

36

3.7.2

Circuitry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39

3.7.3

Turnoff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

42

3.7.4

Wire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

43

3.7.5

Cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

44

3.3
3.4

3.5

5

3.7.6Fabrication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45

3.8

Evaporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45

3.9

Anomalous Losses in Deep Traps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47

3.9.1

Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47

3.9.2

Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47

3.9.3

Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

48

3.9.4

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

48

4 The Quantum Zeno Effect in Bose-Einstein Condensate
4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

51

Previous Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

51

4.1.1

Pulsed Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53

4.1.2

Continuous Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53

4.1.3

Relevance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55

4.1.4

Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55

Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

56

4.2.1

Two level system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

56

4.2.2

State Measurement by Light Scattering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61

4.2.3

Simultaneous Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

62

4.2.4

Pulsed Measurement Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

64

4.2.5

Continuous Measurement Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

68

Technical Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71

4.3.1

Optical Opacity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71

4.3.2

RF Detuning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73

4.3.3

Clock shift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

75

4.3.4

Polarization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

76

4.3.5

Superradiance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

76

4.3.6

Collisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

77

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

79

A Rubidium Oven Plans

81

B Publication: Large Atom Number BEC Machines

90

C Publication: Continuous and Discrete Quantum Zeno Effect106

D Degenerate Bose gases in one and two dimensions

112

D.1 Confinement to one dimension. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

112

D.1.1 Tonks-Girardeau Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

113

D.2 Confinement to two dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

114

D.2.1 Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

114

6

E Rubidium Properties

117

E.1 Physical Properties of Rubidium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

117

E.1.1 Vapor Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

118

E.1.2 Spectroscopy Cell Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

118

7

Chapter 1

Preface
Dear Reader,This is a physics thesis. I have written down extensive technical details on the construction of a machine built at MIT to produce Bose-Einstein condensates of 87 Rubidium atoms.
In addition I describe the results of a series of experiments demonstrating the quantum
Zeno effect performed with this apparatus. Before diving into these topics I’d like to use
this space to place my graduate work in a much broader context and voice some concerns forthe future. I live in a society that is increasingly dominated by the effects from advances inscience and changes in technology. The rapidly crumbling barriers to accessing many typesof information has increased the velocity at which scientific research is performed. Several
segments of western society and other societies have reacted adversely to these changes. The
consequences of these reactions has impacted United States science policy and influenced
the direction of my personal and professional lives.
During my adult lifetime I have witnessed a dramatic change in the accessibility of
information through the Internet. In the summer of 1996 I worked as an undergraduate
research assistant for Prof. John Roberts at Caltech. I investigated the conformal chemistryof β-alanine [1] by varying the dielectric constant of the surrounding solvent. Prior tostarting this job I had broken my foot and was in a cast for most of the summer. I spent a
miserable week limping around Millikan Library, chasing down articles listed in Chemical
Abstracts to find information on the the temperature dependence of the dielectric constantof ethanol/water solutions [2]. With the changes brought about by the Internet, today thissame task would took me less then three minutes. An inexperienced undergrad might require
an hour or two to retrieve the relevant information. This ease of access to a broad variety
of information will continue to profoundly change our lives into the foreseeable future.
However ease of access to information should not be confused with dissemination ofknowledge or the development of wisdom. One of the places that these differences aremost important is the growing debate over the place and function of science in our society.
Currently these contentions revolve around questions in the biological realm regarding thenature and origin of life. Contention between Darwin’s theory of evolution and religious
8beliefs has lead to temporary corruptions of science education in Kansas, Pennsylvania,
and Georgia. Some scientific discoveries, such as that the earth is flat, are at odds withcertain religious teachings. However many others can be reconciled by clearly delineating
the bounds of science. Namely that science is composed of theories which are disprovable.
The universe is much more then this. I predict that the emerging rift between the scientificcommunity and communities of faith (Christian, Muslim, etc.) will increase to a dangerous
degree unless active measures are taken to demarcate this difference.
The reduction of financial support by the federal government to research in the physicalsciences has been influenced by the priorities of religious groups within the United States.
Upon completion of my graduate program at MIT I will undertake a post doctoral appointment at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia. Budget cuts to science programs
have unquestionably contributed to my employment outside of the country. While I feel myreturn to the United States is likely, it is by no means certain in an era of declining funding
for my field.
Erik

9Chapter 2

Introduction
This is a thesis about the quantum nature of our universe. Most of our daily experiences
can readily be explained by the classical mechanics of Newton and electromagnetic theory of Maxwell. The quantum nature of our universe is both subtle and profound in its
impact. Negatively charged electrons do not spiral into the positive charge of the atomic
nucli because uncertainty in their position and momentum balances localization around thenucleus against their rate of movement about the region. A quantum state can exist in asuperposition of many different states with differing characteristics so long as one does notmeasure it.
That quantum mechanics successfully predicts physical phenomena is sufficient to satisfy
quantum pragmatists, who view the theory only as a means to an end. However, quantum
idealists are concerned by what monsters might be masked in its mechanisms. This thesis
touches both topics. First there is a description of the construction, characterization, andoperation of a machine to cool 87 Rb from a boiling hot vapor to ultra cold temperaturesa few billionths of a degree above absolute zero. At these low temperatures the quantum
state of Bose-Einstein condensate can be achieved for experimentally obtainable densities.
The second component of this thesis details an experimental demonstration of the Quantum
Zeno effect, where measurements are used to inhibit quantum dynamics and partially freeze
a two level system in its initial state. The Quantum Zeno effect is an essential experimentin quantum mechanics since it relates the quantum system to the classical measurement
apparatus.

2.1

On Bose-Einstein Condensation

Bose-Einstein condensation is both a particular and peculiar state of matter. It was firstsuggested by Einstein [3], who applied the statistical model Bose [4] used for photons toparticles. Bose derived the Planck’s formula for black body radiation, a well establishedexperimental phenomena, from statistical considerations. Einstein predicted that for particles the entire system would occupy the ground state at sufficiently low temperatures. This10

transition from a classical thermal gas to a quantum degenerate Bose-Einstein condensate
occurs when the phase space density, ρ = nλ3dB is increased to ∼ 1, where n is the number
density of particles per unit volume and λdB is the thermal de Broglie wavelength [5] of theatoms. In quantum mechanical terms phase space density is the probability of finding an
atom in a particular state.
So in principle, getting a BEC is easy: you simply cool down until the critical phasespace density is reached. In practice, the procedure is more complicated. The physics ofdifferent cooling techniques limit the range of their effectiveness. Ice water is very goodat cooling down a hot coffee, but will not get you very far in making liquid helium. This
thesis describes the variety of different techniques used to both cool the atoms and increase
their density. Table 2.1 shows how we increase phase space density by roughly 16 orders ofmagnitude to achieve Bose-Einstein condensation in 87 Rb.
To put this number in perspective, the difference in number between you, the reader,
occupying a single seat in a stadium and an entire stadium full of people is four to fiveorders of magnitude. The difference in number between you, the reader, and all the otherpeople on the planet is between 9 and 10 orders of magnitude. Combining these two if every
person on the planet were in the unlikely position of carrying a stadium in their pocket,
what our Bose-Einstein condensate machine does is to reduce the situation of an atom frompossibly being located in any seat in any pocket of any person to one particular seat wehave designated in our pocket. This seat, or quantum state, has the fortunate distinguishingproperty of being the lowest energy state. By cooling, or successively persuading the atom
to forsake the higher energy seats we can condense it down to one particular location.
While astrophysicists may work with a greater range of phenomena, their systems can’t
be contained in a single lab, nor can an experiment be triggered with the push of a single
button.
Prior to 1995 Bose-Einstein condensation of particles was limited to explaining thesuperfluid properties of cryogenic liquid 4 He below the Λ transition at 2.2K. Most solidmaterial, like the stainless steel used to construct vacuum and cryogenic chambers, hasstrong interactions between its components which prevent the de Broglie wavelength fromincreasing much beyond the size of an atom-atom bond length. The attraction between 4 He
atoms is the weakest of any traditional condensed matter system, enough so that the BEC
transition can be approached in the liquid state. Unfortunately even though the interaction
is weak, the high densities present in this system complicate theoretical modeling.
The development of laser cooling techniques [6–13] in the 1980’s revolutionized the fieldof atomic physics and resulted in the awarding of 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics [14–16] to several pioneers in the field. The temperatures reached by these techniques, a few millionths ofa degree above absolute zero, and were far below that reached through cryogenic methods.
It became conceivable that laser cooled atoms could be further chilled and their density
increased to the point of Bose-Einstein condensation. While subsequent laser cooling tech-

11

Stagen (/cm3 )Temperature

Velocitya

ρ

Oven

1013

383K

334 m/s

10−14

Thermal Beam

107

n/a

334 m/s

10−20

Slowed Beam

107

n/a

43 m/s10−18

Loading MOTb

1010

150µK

210 mm/s

10−7Compressed MOTb

1011

300µK

300 mm/s

4 × 10−7

Molassesb

1011

10µK

54 mm/s

6 × 10−5

Magnetic trap

1011

500µK

380 mm/s

2 × 10−7

BEC Transition

3 × 1013

500 nK

12 mm/s

2.61

Pure BEC

1014

250 nKc

8.5 mm/s

100

Table 2.1: Typical phase space densities (ρ) during BEC production. Numbers given are for the
87 Rb apparatus.
amost probable
Typical values, not measured separatelyc
Chemical potentialbniques were able to approach but not reach condensate, an alternative technique of radio
frequency induced evaporative cooling used by groups at MIT, U. Colorado, and Rice led
to the achievement of condensation in 1995. The 2001 Nobel Prize in Physics would subsequently be awarded to three of these investigators [17, 18]. Major work by many groups
around the world has now extended these cooling techniques to an impressive number of
atomic species: 87 Rb [19], 23 Na [20], 7 Li [21, 22], 1 H [23], 85 Rb [24], 4 He* [25, 26], 41 K [27],133 Cs [28], 174 Yb [29], and 52 Cr [30].

Recent informal discussions have suggested that aStrontium isotope may be the next contender to join the list of condensed atoms.
A distinguishing characteristic of most Bose-Einstein experimental apparatuses is themethod in which atoms are laser cooled and then loaded into a trap for evaporative cooling.
Our approach at MIT employs atomic ovens and Zeeman slowing. Other approaches use
variations of a vapor cell magneto-optical trap (MOT), in a double MOT configuration,
surface MOT [31], or as a source of low velocity atoms [32, 33]. An important figure of
merit of a BEC experiment is the number of atoms in the condensate. Large atom number
allows better signal-to-noise ratios, greater tolerance against misalignments, and greaterrobustness in day-to-day operation. Since 1996, the MIT sodium BEC setups have featured
the largest alkali condensates. They routinely produce condensates with atom numbers
between 20 and 100 million. Since the diode lasers used to cool rubidium are less expensive
and more reliable than the dye lasers needed for sodium, most new groups have chosen towork with rubidium. The majority of rubidium experiments use vapor cell MOTs, however
the typical sizes of the condensates created with vapor cells MOTs are smaller then those12realized with a Zeeman slower. The construction of vapor cell MOT rubidium condensate
machines is extensively detailed in the literature [34].
When the Center for Ultracold Atoms was created at MIT and Harvard, a major goal
for the Center was to create 87 Rb condensates with large atom number using the techniquesdeveloped for 23 Na condensates. A large part of my graduate career at MIT was spenttransferring these techniques and constructing our 87 Rb BEC machine.
The most recent, third-generation, sodium and rubidium experiments at MIT were bothdesigned with an additional vacuum chamber (“science chamber”) into which cold atoms
can be moved using optical tweezers. The multi-chamber design allows us to rapidly reconfigure the experimental setup in the science chambers while keeping the BEC production
chamber under vacuum. This has allowed very different experiments to be performed in
rapid succession [35–46] without major modifications to the BEC production side of themachine.

2.1.1

The Phase Transition

The Bose-Einstein condensation phase transition occurs
q when the uncertainty in each particles location, or the de Broglie wavelength λdB =2π~2kB T m is close to the spacing between

particles n−1/3 , or more specifically nλ3dB ≈ 2.612. As the atoms are cooled into the condensate their energy is dominated by atom-atom interactions rather then their kinetic energy(the Thomas-Fermi limit).
This is not a feature of an ideal condensate, but an effect specific to the condensed
species atomic state. The energy from the atom atom interactions is known in the BoseEinstein condensate literature as the mean field energy. It is proportional to the density andthe s-wave scattering length. In the Thomas-Fermi approximation the mean field energy(Vint ) of the condensate matches the potential energy (Vtrap ) and both greatly exceed the
kinetic energy. In a condensate the sum of the two is equal to the chemical potential (µ)
such that the density is complementary to the shape of the potential (Vint + Vtrap = µ).
The result of this phase transition is shown in Fig. 2-1, where the dramatic difference inprofile between the thermal and BEC atoms is shown. Of particular note is the extremely
high peak density in a condensate accompanied by a sharp edge in the distribution due tothe fixed energy or chemical potential of the condensate. The thermal distribution has astatistical distribution of energy among its atoms resulting in a boundary that is fuzzy.

2.1.2

Properties of a Pure Condensate

The edge of the condensate is defined by the Thomas-Fermi radius ri , where the potential
energy matches the chemical potential from the mean field. In a harmonic trap this results
in a parabolic spatial distribution of the density n(x, y, z)

13Figure 2-1: Distribution of atoms in a harmonic trap for BEC (left) and thermal (right)
states in 1 dimension. The BEC profile complements that of the trapping potential and has
a sharp boundary. The thermal profile is more diffuse and has a fuzzy boundary.

sn(x, y, z) = np

1−x2 y 2 z 2− 2 − 2
rx2
ry
rz

(2.1)

where np is the peak density. Integrating this density over the occupied ellipsiod wheren(x, y, z) > 0 gives a total atom numberN=8π
r x r y rz n p
15

(2.2)

with the average density throughout the occupied volume n̄ = 52 np . At the center of thetrap the potential energy vanishes and the chemical potential is entirely that of the mean
field
µ=

4π~2 anpm(2.3)

where m is the mass of the particle and a is the s-wave scattering length.
Moving out from the center of the condensate to the end, the harmonic trapping potential
energy
1
Utrap = m ωx2 x2 + ωy2 y 2 + ωz2 z 2
2

(2.4)

is equal to the mean field chemical potential at the point where the density drops to zero.

µ = 21 mωx2 rx2(2.5)µ = 12 mωy2 ry2(2.6)µ = 12 mωz2 rz2(2.7)

Combining these, we can solve for the chemical potential µ in terms of the number ofatoms Nµ=~ω̄ a 2/5
15N
2
ā

14

(2.8)

where ω̄ = (ωx ωy ωz )1/3 is the geometric mean trap frequency and ā =

q

~
mω̄

is thegeometric mean of the quantum harmonic oscillator length. This formula can also be recast
to determine the peak density np from the atom number N.

np =

2.1.3

225N 28πa3 ā12

1/5
(2.9)

Loss processes

Trapping ultracold atoms requires that they be isolated from the surrounding environment.
The laser and magnetic trapping techniques confine the atoms, out of contact with theroom temperature chamber walls. Collisions with background gas molecules result in loss
from the trap, requiring low vacuum pressure for long atom cloud lifetime. At the highdensities found in condensates, two and three body inelastic scattering processes can also
result in heating and loss of atoms from the trap. The trapped atoms are surrounded by
the room temperature black body radiation from the chamber walls. In cryogenic liquid
helium systems this would cause extremely rapid heating because of the relatively large
optical absorption cross section. The trapped alkali atoms are transparent to almost allof the black body spectrum due to their spare and narrow linewidth transitions and are
generally decoupled from the influence of this radiation.
Vacuum Pressure
At nanokelvin temperatures, all room temperature particles are extremely energetic in comparison with the trapped atoms. A collision with a background particle will typically impartenough energy to knock an ultracold atom out of the trap. This process occurs at a constantrate, independent of density, temperature or phase state (thermal vs. BEC). The small scattering cross section between the background particles and the trapped atoms allows us tomagnetically trap ultracold atomic clouds with lifetimes of several minutes in the < 10−11
torr ultrahigh vacuum (UHV) environment of the main production chamber. This duration
is far longer then any experiments we will likely attempt in the near future and effectively
sets the background decay rate at zero. Attempts to measure this lifetime accurately ran
into the technical limitation of our control computer only being able to hold sequences lessthen about five minutes in length due to memory constraints.
To achieve pressures < 10−11 torr we have followed the general guidelines set out in
Ref. [47] for constructing vacuum systems. The main chamber body was constructed ofnonmagnetic 304 stainless steel and then electropolished to reduce the surface roughness.
To minimize the number of components inside the vacuum system the magnetic trap coils
are placed outside the vacuum chamber. Informal discussion with groups that magnetic
trap coils inside the chamber report that they are vulnerable to coupling in RF noise fromswitching high current power supplies, resulting in anomalous trap losses. The only com-15

ponent placed inside our main vacuum chamber was the RF evaporation antenna (Fig.
3-2).
In the science chamber vacuum pressure can be a limiting factor. The science chamber
typically has several pieces of hardware inside the vacuum system, such as wire traps,
coils, or specially prepared materials such as hard drive platters. These specialty items
often cannot be baked at the high temperatures used in the main chamber. Instead thescience chamber is baked out to ∼ 10−10 torr without the temperature sensitive materials to
reduce the gas load when the temperature sensitive materials are installed. Typical sciencechamber lifetimes are a few minutes, longer then the few seconds typically needed for atypical experiment.
Inelastic collisions
Inelastic collisions are a dominant source of losses at BEC densities. In collisions between
two or three particles, the state of the product particles can change so long as overall
physical quantities such as energy, momentum, and angular momentum are conserved.
Dipolar relaxation is an inelastic collision process where changes in the internal states of theatoms is converted to kinetic energy. Atoms in spin states |F, mF i which are “stretched”(e.g. F = |mF |) do not undergo spin relaxation at low magnetic field since changing
spin states would violate conservation of angular momentum. At higher magnetic field themixing between states breaks down this conservation as atoms in a particular state will
have characteristics of several |F, mF i states. By further increasing the magnetic field theangular momentum of the electron and nuclear spins decouple and are conserved separately,
inhibiting dipolar relaxation. The low field |F, mF i basis is appropriate for describing thestates of the 87 Rb atoms in our magnetic trap.
If three atoms undergo a simultaneous collision three body recombination can occur,
resulting in the production of an dimer molecule and atom pair. The energy driving thesecollisions is the binding energy associated with the product molecular vibrational levels
rather than hyperfine energy differences in dipolar collisions. Three body decay is often thedominant source of intrinsic losses in 87 Rb Bose-Einstein condensates.
Calculating measurable loss rates for two and three body processes in condensates requires converting between the peak density np and the first and second order density moments < n > and < n2 >. The generic density weighted function< η >=1
NZ

η(~r0 )n(~r0 )d3~r0(2.10)

8
gives first and second order density moments < n >= 27 np and < n2 >= 21
np for a BEC

in the Thomas-Fermi limit. For three body decay the atom loss rate is Γ3 = K3 n2 =
8 2
K3 21
np . Both the two and three body decay processes are concentrated at the center of

the trap, where the highest densities occur.

16

Blackbody Radiation
The trapped atoms are exposed to black body radiation from the surrounding room temperature chamber, but are transparent to most of the spectrum. The transitions to which
the black body radiation can couple are the optical transitions used for laser cooling and themicrowave hyperfine transitions. For optical transitions, which have energies much greater
3
than kB T , the excitation rate is τopt
exp (−~ωopt /kB T ), where ωopt is the frequency of thetransition and τopt is the lifetime of the excited state. For rubidium in a 25◦ C chamber thisgives a characteristic excitation lifetime of ∼ 1011 years. Raising the chamber temperature
to 680◦ C increases the optical excitation rate into the experimentally relevant domain of
once per minute. The hyperfine transitions are significantly lower in energy compared to
3 kB T
kB T and have an excitation rate of τhf, which is once per year at 25◦ C in 87 Rb.
s ~ωhf s

Neither of these excitation rates are limitations on current experiments.

17

Chapter 3

A large atom number 87Rb Bose
Einstein MachineThis chapter contains an expanded version of the portions of ”Large atom number BoseEinstein Condensate machines” [48] specific to the 87 Rb BEC machine. Material edited
from the published version is included here. Appendix B contains a copy of the manuscript
RSI MS# A050544R as accepted for publication on December 13, 2005.

3.1

System Overview

Fig. 3-1 shows the layout of our vacuum system. An ultracold Bose-Einstein condensate
is made through a four stage process. In the first stage a thermal beam of rubidium atoms
emanates from the oven. Next, the 87 Rb atoms in the beam are decelerated with the Zeeman
slower. In the main chamber, these slowed atoms are captured and cooled with a six-beammagneto-optical trap (MOT) [9], consitituting the third stage. The MOT is loaded withatoms from the Zeeman slower until it reaches equilibrium. To begin an experiment andstart the final stage the atoms are optically pumped into the F=1 hyperfine ground state.
Turning on the Ioffe-Pritchard magnetic trap captures atoms in the weak field seeking
F=1, mF =-1 state. The trapped atoms are evaporatively cooled by removing hotter atoms
through radio frequency (RF) induced transitions to untrapped states. Reducing the RF
frequency lowers the effective depth of the magnetic trap, allowing us to progressively cool tohigher densities and lower temperatures until the atoms reach BEC. Magnetically trapped
atoms in the F=2, mF =+2 state have also been evaporated to BEC.
Ultracold atoms can be transported from the main chamber into the science chamber
by loading the atoms into the focus of an optical tweezer and then translating the focus. In
this manner 23 Na BECs were transported [35]. The axes of the oven and Zeeman slower are
tilted by 57◦ from horizontal to allow a horizontal orientation for the weak trapping axes
18

}

Oven
1m

}

ZeemanSlowerg

Cloverleaf style
Ioffe-Pritchard
Magnetic Trap

Optical Tweezers
Beampath andTranslation Axis

}
}
Main
Chamber

ScienceChamber

Figure 3-1: Vacuum system diagram and major subsystems.
of both the optical tweezers and magnetic trap. Vibrational heating during transport citedin [35] was reduced by the use of Aerotech ABL2000 series air bearing translation stages.
Technical problems related to the greater mass and higher three body recombination rate in
87 Rb were overcome by transporting ultracold atoms just above the transition temperature19Tc , and then evaporating to BEC at the destination. The greater mass results in greater
inertia and hence the need for a steeper optical potential to translate the atoms. The
restricted optical access (Fig. 3-2) limited our ability to make a steep optical potential witha tight focus. This meant we needed to use higher powers to create the optical gradientnecessary to transport the 87 Rb atoms. Ch. 3.9 discusses investigations where the deep
trap depths, regardless whether they were optical or magnetic, were found to be unsuitablefor holding dense 87 Rb Bose-Einstein condensates.

Figure 3-2: Main chamber vacuum system cross section showing re-entrant bucket windows,
magnetic trap coils, and RF antenna. View from above.

The cloverleaf-style Ioffe-Pritchard magnetic trap coils fit inside two re-entrant bucket
windows 1 , allowing them to be outside the chamber with an inter coil spacing of 25 mm(Fig. 3-2). The Zeeman slower tube is mounted between the main chamber and the ovenchamber. The Zeeman slower coils surrounding the Zeeman slower tube are also outside of
the vacuum system, but cannot be removed without breaking vacuum.
After assembling the chamber, we pumped out the system and reached UHV conditions
by heating the system to accelerate outgassing. We heated the main chamber to 230◦ C andthe Zeeman slower to 170◦ C (limited by the coil epoxy). Using a residual gas analyzer to
1

Simon Hanks of UKAEA, D4/05 Culham Science Center, Abingdon,UK20

monitor the main chamber, we baked the chamber until the partial pressure of hydrogen
was reduced to less than 10−7 torr and was at least ten times greater than the partialpressure of other gases. A typical bakeout lasted between 3 and 9 days, with temperaturechanges limited to less than 25◦ C/hour. Typical pressures immediately after the bakeout
were in the low 10−11 to mid 10−12 torr. To reduce the pressure further we deposited
a titanium film inside the lower part of the main chamber by passing current through afilament type titanium sublimation (Ti:sub) pump. During the bakeout we repeatedly ran
a smaller amount of current through each of the filaments (degassing) to boil off trapped
gases within them. The vacuum in the main chamber is preserved after bakeout with a 75
L/s ion pump and the titanium film. We used a new ion pump and took caution to only run
the pump once the pressure was below 10−9 torr. This enhances the pumping speed because
the pump has not yet been saturated. With the gas loads found in our main chamber we
expect the pump to run at constant pumping speed for years to decades before saturating.
While we acknowledge the merit of using dry pumps as recommended in Ref. [34], we use
oil sealed rotary vane roughing pumps with long foreline tubes to back our turbo pumps.
Our procedure is to immediately turn on the turbo pump once the roughing pump is turned
on. This may reduce the backstreaming of oil vapor into the main chamber. In a similarmanner, when we bring the chamber up to atmosphere we close off the roughing line at
the turbopump and allow the unpowered turbopump to spin down. When the turbopump
has spun down to a few thousands revolutions per second we introduce a dry venting gas(typically nitrogen or argon). Spinning down takes around 30 minutes if the bearings arein good condition. Please refer to Sec. 3.4 of Ref. [49] for more details of our bakeout
procedures.

3.2

High Flux Rb Oven

3.2.1

Effusive Ovens

We generate a large flux of thermal 87 Rb atoms for Zeeman slowing from an effusive atomic
beam oven (Fig. 3-3). An effusive beam is created by atoms escaping through a small hole
in a heated chamber [50]. The vapor pressure of rubidium is very different from that of
sodium, requiring a different design then that used in previous sodium machines. At room
temperature, the vapor pressure of sodium (≈ 3 × 10−11 torr [51]) is compatible with our
UHV main chamber environment, while that of rubidium (≈ 4 × 10−7 torr [52]) is not.
This dictated that the design of the rubidium oven not risk the contamination of the mainchamber with rubidium. A positive side of the lower vapor pressure of rubidium is thelower operating temperatures we can use to obtain similar fluxes (110-150◦ C Rb, 260-350◦ CNa.) We expect that the rubidium oven design would also work for sodium [49]. Another
difference is that only 28% of the atoms are of the desired 87 Rb isotope, with the balance
being 85 Rb. Naturally occuring sodium has only one isotope, 23 Na. Isotopically enhaned
21Chilled Water Loop

55 L/sec Ion Pump
40 L/sec Ion Pump

G
H
K
C

Ion
Gauge

B

L

J

B

E
A. Zeeman slower
F
B. Viewports (out of plane)
C. Differential pumping tube
D. Atomic beam shutter
E. Shutter wobble stick
F. Solenoid actuator
G. Peltier cooled cold plate
H. Cold feedthroughI. Cold cup
J. Oven aperture
K. Oven nozzle
L. Viewhole in cold cup (out of plane)
M. Rubidium ampoule
N. Right angle valve

I

M

Gate Valve

B
Gate Valve

A

D

Ion
Gauge

Alloy 304 Stainless SteelAlloy 101 High Purity CopperN

70 L/sec Turbopump

10 cm

Figure 3-3: Effusive rubidium beam oven. Rubidium metal (M) is heated to between 110◦ C
and 150◦ C, creating a pRb ∼ 0.5 millitorr vapor which escapes through a 5 mm diameterhole (J). A 7.1mm diameter hole in the cold cup (I), 70 mm from the nozzle, allows 0.3% of
the emitted flux to pass through, forming an atomic beam with a flux of ∼ 1011 atoms/s.
The remainder is mostly (99.3%) captured on the -30◦ C, pRb ≈ 2.5 × 10−10 torr, surface of
the Peltier cooled cold cup. We chop this beam with a paddle (D) mounted to a flexible
bellows (E). The differential pumping tube (C) and Zeeman slower tube (A) consecutively
provide 170x and 620x of pressure reduction between the oven and main chambers.
87 Rb salts are avaialble, but were not considered due to the extreme additional cost andcomplexity they would entail.
To sustain a high flux atomic beam, the background vacuum pressure must be low
enough that the mean free path between collisions is much greater than the length of thebeam. To generate an effusive beam with a thermal distribution of velocities the size of thehole through which the atoms escape must be smaller than the mean free path l = 1/nσ
inside the oven, where n is the density of atoms per unit volume and σ is the atom atom
scattering cross section. While at low temperatures the scattering is dominated by the lowest
few partial waves, at higher temperatures such as those found in the oven the scattering
behavior is classical and can be approximated as hard sphere scattering. The atomic radius
0.25 nm [53] was used to calculate the scattering cross section of σ = 19.6 × 10−16 cm2 . For
comparison, in the s-wave scattering regime below ∼ 200µK, the scattering length is ∼ 5.3
nm. While any atom-atom scattering event will reset the phase of a radiating atom, a small
angle scattering will not significantly affect the direction of an atomic beam. Calculations
22

of the scattering cross section σ based on the long range attractive potential for hot atoms
will overestimate the effective scattering cross section σ because of the inclusion of theselong range, small angle scattering events.
A combination of active pumping and passive geometrical techniques were used to reduce
extraneous rubidium transfer to the main chamber. A cold cup (I) is used to reduce rubidium
vapor in the oven chamber by almost completely surrounding the oven aperture (J) witha cold surface at -25◦ C. After bakeout, the combination of cold cup and oven chamber ion
pump has achieved pressures as low as ∼ 10−9 torr, although we have successfully madeBECs with pressures of up to ∼ 10−6 torr in this region. The combination of a differential
pumping tube, an ion pump, and the Zeeman slower tube provides a pressure differentialof over 3 orders of magnitude between the oven and main chamber. This is sufficient toisolate the UHV environment from an oven pressure dominated by rubidium vapor at room
temperature. When the oven is opened to replace rubidium and clean the cold cup, themain chamber vacuum is isolated with a pneumatic gate valve. A second gate valve can beused in case of failure of the first. While not used in our system, designers may want toconsider gate valves with an embedded window available from VAT to allow optical accessalong the Zeeman slower or tweezer beam lines during servicing.
The cold plate is chilled to -30◦ C with six Ferrotec 6320/185/065/S two stage thermoelectric coolers (TECs) powered with 3A DC current. A 40 psi low pressure chilled waterloop operating at 18◦ C removes the heat generated by the hot side of the TECs. To prevent
ice from accumulating inside the TECs they were factory sealed with silicone. The entire
cold plate/feed through assembly is encased in an airtight plastic box to prevent ice buildup
on the chilled components. Typical mean time before failure at 3A for the Peltier coolers
is ∼ 3 years of continuous operation. At their maximum specified current of 6A we haveobserved that the lifetime of the TECs is shortened to less than half a year.

3.2.2

Operation

Rubidium is a highly reactive metal, responding vigorously to the presence of oxygen or
water. Our oven design and procedures have been structured to minimize the hazards
to operating personnel. As students and not employees we are not covered by workers
compensation insurance for medical costs relating to industrial accidents. During operation,
the machine is run as a sealed system, without the turbo-mechanical pump, to prevent
accidental loss of the main chamber vacuum. Oven temperatures from 150◦ C down to110◦ C produce similar sized 87 Rb BECs. Reducing the oven temperature increases the time
between rubidium changes to greater than 1000 hrs of operating time. This long operating
cycle precluded the need for more complex recycling oven designs [54]. Informal discussions
with groups that have built candlestick ovens revealed that the flux of atoms below themean velocity is often reduced from that expected from the Boltzman distribution, making
the flux of low velocity atoms available with a Zeeman slower dependent on the actual rather
23then ideal velocity distribution.
To prevent accumulation of metal at the aperture (Fig. 3-3, Part J), the oven nozzle
temperature (Fig. 3-3, Part K) is kept higher (∼ 10◦ C in rubidium and ∼ 90◦ C in sodium)than the rest of the oven. The velocity distribution of the beam is determined by thenozzle temperature (Fig. 3-3, Part K). On the other hand, the vapor pressure in the oven,which controls the beam flux, is dominated by the coldest spot in the elbow and bellows.
The factor of two discrepancy between the observed and calculated (Table 3.1) rubidium
oven lifetimes at 110◦ C can be accounted for by a spot ∼ 10◦ C colder than the lowest
measured oven temperature. The specifics of this cold spot depend on how the oven isinsulated. We typically insulate with a layer of loose fiberglass insulation covered withaluminum foil. Three type K thermocouples are attached at the nozzle, elbow and bellows
to monitor the temperatures. The oven is heated with one tape heater wrapped around thenozzle’s copper shank and three band heaters attached to the elbow and bellows junctions.
Each heater is independently controlled with a Variac variable voltage transformer. The
Variacs are adjusted so that in equilibrium the oven runs 15-20◦ C hotter than desired.
Power to the Variacs is then controlled by an Omega Engineering CNi16D24-C24, Intelligent
Temperature Controller wired to one of the thermocouples. This allows us to finely adjust
the temperature of the oven, and do so reproducibly so long as the wrapping insulation is
not modified. An isolated serial port connected to the temperature controller allows remotemonitoring, shutdown, and startup of the oven. The typical warm up time is 40 minutes.
ServicingServicing the oven consists of two operations: removing the rubidium which has been deposited on the cold cup and replacing the ampoule. During servicing, a clean ampoule isessential for rapid recovery of good vacuum pressure. The ampoule is cleaned by submerging
it in a 50/50 mixture by volume of acetone and isopropanol for 20 minutes, then air drying
it. This removes most of the water from the glass surface, which would otherwise require
more time to pump away. In the rubidium experiment the cleaned ampoule is placed in theoven while still sealed and baked for 24 hours under vacuum at 150-180◦ C to remove theremaining contaminates before it is broken.
Solid rubidium melts at 39.3◦ , slightly above room temperature. When Rb metal is
exposed to air, the various reactions will often generate enough heat to melt the metal,
creating a potentially hazardous situation of reactive liquid metal pouring down unexpected
places. For safety reasons we use only a small amount of Rubidium metal in our atomic
beam oven. Ampoules of 5 gm, packed under an inert Argon atmosphere are used to charge
the oven. Typically we allow a maximum of 10-15 gm of Rb to be deposited on the cold
cup before servicing. The procedure we have found is most effective for neutralizing thesequantities of Rb is to slowly quench it with water in an inert atmosphere. A deep sink filledwith dry ice works well. To service the Rb oven we first flood the chamber with dry Ar or24

N2 gas. We then remove the nozzle flange and unscrew the cold cup. Using a pair of pliers
we extract the cold cup and put it in a metal bucket and then cover the top with aluminum
foil. Adding dry ice to the bottom helps drive out the oxygen and water vapor which could
react with the Rb metal deposited on the cold cup. The metal bucket is then taken to thedeep sink filled with dry ice. Water is added drop by drop to react with the Rb metal.
When a drop of water hits rubidium metal the results are fizzing, producing hydrogen gas,and occasionally small red flames. This is why it is essential to neutralize the Rb metal
with only a drop of water at a time. Once all the Rb metal has been reacted the cold cup
can then be flushed with water to dissolve any remaining Rubidium salts.

3.2.3

Design table

To design the rubidium oven a spread sheet (Table 3.1) was developed to allow different
parameter configurations to be tested without constructing prototypes. The one adjustableparameter in the Rubidium oven is the temperature, which sets the vapor pressure and thevelocity distribution emerging from the oven. In a three dimensional gas the ideal Boltzman
distribution of velocities is
r



2 vz2
v2
f (v) =
exp − 2(3.1)
π ṽ 32ṽ
pwhere the characteristic velocity ṽ = kB T /m is a function of the temperature andparticle mass [55]. Sampling this velocity distribution by poking a small hole in a chamberof gas in thermal equilibrium gives an atomic beam with a velocity distributionf (vz ) =



vz3
vz2
exp
−
2ṽ 4
2ṽ 2

(3.2)

If the free path of an atom is smaller than the hole size, the hole is no longer small interms of that atom and we can no longer consider the oven to be sampling the Boltzman
distribution. A collisionally dense gas cloud forms in front of the nozzle, causing a conditionreferred to as stalling. Smaller holes will stall at high temperatures/pressures, but produce
smaller fluxes. We chose to use a large hole diameter of 5mm to prevent clogging andprovide a more generous tolerance for misalignment of the Zeeman slowing laser beam.

3.3

Zeeman Slower

The atomic beam is slowed from thermal velocities by nearly an order of magnitude byscattering photons from a resonant, counter-propagating laser beam. When a photon with
momentum ~k (k = 2π/λ) is absorbed or emitted by an atom with mass m, the atom
conserves momentum by recoiling with a velocity change of vr =~k/m. Atoms canresonantly scatter photons up to a maximum rate of Γ/2, where 1/Γ = τ is the excited-

25

Temp
(◦ C)
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
25
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180

Velocity1
(m/s)
261
266
272
277
282
287
292
295
297
302
307
312
316
321
325
330
334
339
343
347
351
355
360
364

Pressure [52](torr)
4.60E-11
2.50E-10
1.20E-09
5.30E-09
2.00E-08
7.10E-08
2.30E-07
4.00E-07
6.80E-07
2.00E-06
4.90E-06
1.20E-05
2.60E-05
5.70E-05
1.20E-04
2.30E-04
4.50E-04
8.30E-04
1.50E-03
2.60E-03
4.40E-03
7.30E-03
1.20E-02
1.90E-02

Density#/cm3
1.90E+06
1.00E+07
4.70E+07
1.90E+08
7.20E+08
2.40E+09
7.50E+09
1.30E+10
2.20E+10
6.00E+10
1.50E+11
3.40E+11
7.40E+11
1.50E+12
3.10E+12
6.00E+12
1.10E+13
2.00E+13
3.60E+13
6.10E+13
1.00E+14
1.60E+14
2.60E+14
4.00E+14

Free Path
(m)

8700
3800
1700
820
410
210
110
63
36
21
13
7.8
4.9
3.2

Flux Density#/cm2 /sec
1.30E+10
7.30E+10
3.40E+11
1.40E+12
5.50E+12
1.90E+13
6.00E+13
1.00E+14
1.80E+14
5.00E+14
1.20E+15
2.90E+15
6.30E+15
1.30E+16
2.70E+16
5.40E+16
1.00E+17
1.90E+17
3.30E+17
5.70E+17
9.60E+17
1.60E+18
2.50E+18
4.00E+18

Total Flux2#/sec
2.60E+09
1.40E+10
6.80E+10
2.80E+11
1.10E+12
3.70E+12
1.20E+13
2.00E+13
3.40E+13
9.70E+13
2.40E+14
5.60E+14
1.20E+15
2.60E+15
5.40E+15
1.10E+16
2.00E+16
3.70E+16
6.50E+16
1.10E+17
1.90E+17
3.10E+17
5.00E+17
7.80E+17

Table 3.1: Oven Design Parametersstate lifetime. This results in a maximum spontaneous emission acceleration amax = ~kΓ
2m(1.1 × 105 m/s2 ). As the atoms decelerate, the reduced Doppler shift is compensated bytuning the Zeeman shift with a magnetic field [6] to keep the optical transition on resonance.
We designed the slower to decelerate the atoms at a reduced rate f amax where f ∼ 50% is
a safety factor to allow for magnetic field imperfections and finite laser intensity.
Our slower is designed along the lines of Ref. [56], with an increasing magnetic fieldand σ − polarized light scattering off the F=2, mF =-2 → F0 =3, mF 0 =-3 cycling transition.
Before the slowing begins, the atoms are optically pumped into the F=2,mF =-2 state. The
large magnetic field at the end of the slower corresponds to a large detuning from the low
velocity, low magnetic field resonance frequency. This large detuning allows the slowing
light to pass through the MOT without distorting it due to radiation pressure. Within
the slower coils, the quantization axis is well-defined by the longitudinal magnetic field andoptical pumping out of the cycling transition is strongly suppressed by the combination oflight polarization and Zeeman splitting.

26

Lifetime3
(hrs)

3696
1815
926
489
267
151
87
52
32
20
13

Figure 3-4: Magnetic field profile of the rubidium Zeeman slower, not including uniform
bias field. The theoretical line shows the desired magnetic field profile for atoms decelerated
from 330 m/s to 20 m/s at 60% of the maximum intensity limited deceleration (f=53% ofamax .) The simulated line depicts the expected field from slower coils with the winding
pattern in Fig. 3-5 of Appendix 3.3. The prominent bumps shown above in the measured
field were subsequently smoothed with additional current carrying loops.

We slow 87 Rb atoms from an initial velocity of ∼350 m/s with a tailored 271 G change inthe magnetic field (Fig. 3-4). An additional uniform ∼200 G bias field was applied along thelength of the slower to ensure that neighboring hyperfine levels were not near resonance ineither the slower or the MOT. The slower cycling transition light is detuned -687 MHz fromthe F=2 → F0 =3 transition. The slowing laser intensity is I/Isat ≈ 8, giving a maximum
theoretical deceleration of 89% of amax . To maximize the number of atoms in the slowed
F=2,mF =-2 state “Slower repumping” light copropagates with the cycling transition lightand is detuned -420 MHz from the F=1 → F0 =1 transition to match the Doppler shift of
the unslowed thermal atoms from the oven. A flux of ∼ 1011 87 Rb atoms/s with a peakvelocity of 43 m/s was measured from our slower with an oven temperature of 150◦ C. Thisis signifigantly greater flux then the 8 × 108 Rb/sec vapor cell loading rate quoted by [34].
Recently a higher flux (3.2 × 1012 Rb/s) design was demonstrated [57]. This approach used27

several additional techniques to increase the flux, including an optical molasses collimatingstage.
Every photon which scatters off an atom to slow the atom in the Zeeman slower is radiated in a random direction, increasing the atoms’ spread in transverse velocity. The beam
emerging from the tube needs to have sufficient forward mean velocity to load the MOT
efficiently. Because of the random direction of the emission recoil, N photon scatteringspincrease the transverse velocity by vr N/3. The initial and recoil velocities in the 87 Rb
slower increase the transverse velocity by ≈ 0.8m/s, resulting in a collimated slowed beam
whose transverse width is smaller then the size of the MOT beams. From this we estimatethat most of the slowed atoms are captured in the MOT.
An additional concern in is the fate of the rubidium atoms after the experiment. Whether
they are captured by the MOT or not, almost all of the atoms in the atomic beam aredeposited into the main chamber. If these atoms are not pumped away the ultrahigh vacuum
will be compromised. As an insurance measure an additional cold plate was installed near
the slower window on the main chamber to capture desorbed Rb. Vacuum pressure has
not been an issue and we have never needed to chill this cold plate to preserve the mainchamber environment.

3.3.1

Slower Construction

The vacuum portion of the 87 Rb slower is a 99 cm long nonmagnetic 304 stainless steel tube
with a 19 mm OD and 0.9 mm wall. The rear end of the tube is connected to the mainchamber by a DN 16 CF rotatable flange, while the oven end of the tube has a narrow, 50mm
long flexible welded bellows ending in another DN 16 CF rotatable flange. The retaining
ring on this flange was cut in half for removal, so that the premounted coil assembly could
be slid over the vacuum tube.
As shown in Fig. 3-1 the slower tube enters the main chamber at an angle of 33◦ fromthe vertical to accommodate access for optical tweezers. The oven and the Zeeman slower
are supported two meters above the the experimental table in order to preserve the best
optical and mechanical access to the main chamber. Aluminum extrusion from 80/20 Inc.
was used to create the support framework.
Our 87 Rb slower was fabricated with a single layer bias solenoid and three increasing
field coils (Fig. 3-1 and 3-5), segmented for better cooling. The optimum configurationof currents and solenoid winding shapes was found by computer simulated winding of thesolenoids one loop at a time, starting at the high field end and tapering the last few loops tobest match the desired field profile. An alternative fabrication technique would be to apply
a large uniform bias field and subtract away unwanted field with counter current coils. This
technique can smooth out the bumps in the magnetic field shown in Fig. 3-4. Residual fieldfrom the Zeeman slower can have a detrimental effect on the MOT, shifting its location
suddenly during turnoff. A coil canceling out the residual bias field of the slower at the28Section 1, 5.0 AmpsOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOO OOOO OOO OOO OO OOO OO OO O OO O O O
OOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO OOOOO OOOOOOO OOOO OOOO OOOOO OOO OOO OOO OOO O OOO O OO O O O O O O
OOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOO OOOO OO OOO OO OO OO O OO O O O OOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOO OOOO OOO OO OO OO O OO O O O O
OOOOOOOOO OOOO O OO O O O O
OOOOOSection 2, 10.0 AmpsOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOO OOOOOOO OOOOOOO OOOOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO OOOOO OOOOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOO OOOO OOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOO OOOO OOOOO OOO OOOO OOO OOO OO OOO OOO O OOO O O OO O
OOOOOOOOOO OOOOO OOOO OOO OOO OO OOO O OO OO O OO O O O O O O OOOOOOOOOOO OOOO O OO O OO O O O OOOOOOSection 3, 30.0 AmpsOOOOOOOOOO OOOOO OOOOOO OOOOO OOOO OOOOO OOO OOOO OOOO OOO OOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOO OOO OOO OO OO OOO OO OO OO OO O OO O O O
OOOOOOOO OOO OO OO OO OO O O O O O O O O O OO OOOOOOOO O O O

Figure 3-5: Winding pattern cross section for 87 Rb Zeeman slower consisting of threesolenoids. Each drawing represents half of the cross section of each a solenoid. The “O”srepresent wires, while the spaces between the wires were meant to be smoothed out to an
average value during construction. Each character in the drawing represents a physical sizeof 3.5 mm. The wire is hollow core water cooled copper, identical to that used in construction of the magnetic trap as described in 3.7.4. The high current coil is closest to the mainchamber. The single layer uniform bias coil is not depicted.

MOT center is installed on the 23 Na machines but is absent on the 87 Rb machine. Whilenot essential, it simplifies diagnostics and general operation of the machine. The shift in
MOT centers complicates optimizing optical alignment of the MOT.

3.4

LasersResonant laser light is used to slow, cool, trap, and detect the atoms. All laser light isprepared on a separate optics table (Fig. 3-7) and delivered to the apparatus (Fig. 31) through single-mode optical fibers. The fiber coupling allows us to decouple the twosides of the system. Because stray resonant light can heat the atoms during evaporation, a
black cloth separates the two tables. All frequency shifting and attenuation of the light isdone with acousto-optic modulators (AOMs). Because AOMs offer good but not complete
extinction of light passing through them, each fiber beam path had a mechanical shutter
which could assure complete attenuation. Atomic energy levels and laser frequencies used
are indicated in Fig. 3-6.
We use a Toptica DL100 external cavity diode laser and TA100 semiconductor tapered
amplifier to create 350 mW and 35 mW of light resonant with the 87 Rb F=2→ F0 =3 andF=1→ F0 =1 transitions at 780 nm. The lasers are stabilized with a polarization sensi-

29

Imaging, MOT

Zeeman Slowing

F’=3
2
Depumping 1
0
RepumpingSlower Repumping}

5S 1/2267MHz
157MHz72MHz}

5P 3/2780 nm

F=2
6.8 GHz
F=1

Figure 3-6: Simplified energy level structure of 87 Rb with relevant transitions, hyperfine
splittings, and laser frequencies.

tive saturated absorption spectroscopy lock [58, 59]. This modulation-free technique optically creates a derivative signal of the absorption spectra that is locked with a proportional+integral gain servo loop. The locking signal fluctuation indicates a frequency jitterof < 1MHz over several seconds, which is much less than the 6.1 MHz natural linewidth of
87 Rb.

The large frequency shifts used for the slower cycling and repumping light reduced

the available power to a few mW. Each of these beams is amplified to 35-40 mW by injection
locking [60] a free running Sanyo DL7140-201 laser diode before combining the beams on anon polarizing beamsplitter and coupling into a fiber.
The 87 Rb MOT uses a total of 60 mW of light near the F=2→F0 =3 cycling transition fortrapping/cooling. The F=2→F0 =3 transition in the MOT is only approximately a closed
cycle and atoms are often optically pumped into the F=1 ground state. To repump theseatoms back into the F=2 state we use 10 mW of light on the F=1→ F0 =1 transition. In
addition, to transfer atoms from the F=2 to F=1 manifold, e.g. prior to loading theminto the magnetic trap, we introduce a few mW of “depumping” light resonant with the
F=2→ F0 =2 transition. Zeeman slowing uses 18 mW of slower cycling light and 6 mW ofslower repumping light. All powers are quoted after fiber coupling, measured as delivered
to the apparatus table. Recent advances in single frequency high power fiber and diodepumped solid state lasers, such as IPG Photonics EAD and RLM series amplifiers, havemade nonlinear techniques such as sum frequency generation [61, 62] and frequency doubling[63] interesting alternatives as resonant light sources.

30

MOT: repumping,
MT: depumping
300mm

300mm

150mm

AOM
+80MHzZeeman slower:slowing & repumping

F=2 Probe

0

0

400mm
200mm

0

AOM
-80MHz

Fabry-Perot
MOT:
trapping

-420

-80

AOM analog+96/93.5MHz

PD2a
AOM
+83.5MHz

-267

PD2b

-187

100mm -50mm

AOMalways on-80MHz

-20

-187

PD1b

cyclingslave

TA-100Sanyo
DL7140-201

repumpslave

masteroscillator

Rb cell

AOMalways on-340MHz

Magnetic shield

AOMalways on-250MHz-420-80

AOMalways on+80MHz-187

PD1ataperedTA
amplifier

-420

-687

Rb cell

AOMalways on
analog +80MHz

Magnetic shield

AOMalways on+93.5MHz

F=1 Probe

100mm
35mm

RepumpMasterDL100

Sanyo
DL7140-201

PD4

Figure 3-7: Layout of the laser optical table. Numbers indicate frequency offsets in MHz.
All detectors are Thorlabs Model DET110. ECLDs are Toptica DL100. Slave lasers are
Sanyo DL7140-201S laser diodes. The Fabry Perot is a 1.5 GHz Free Spectral Range Toptica
FPI-100. Optical isolators (boxes with arrows) are Optics For Research IO-5-780-HP. AOMs
are from Isomet and InterAction.

3.4.1

Fiber Coupling

Most of the fibers in our system distributing 780 nm light are model Thorlabs P3-4224-FC-5
FC APC angle polished fiber patch cables with FC type connectors. When coupling witha CM230TM-B aspheric collimating lens typical coupling efficiencies range from 50-80%,
depending on the input beam quality. These fibers are not polarization preserving. Stressbifringence causes these fibers to act as a series of random thickness waveplates. We foundthat once put in place the fibers polarization rotation effects were constant unless unlessmoved. With the addition of λ/2 and λ/4 waveplates before the coupler, and a polarizing
beam splitting cubes to cleanup the polarization on the table we developed a working
solution without the need for multiple expensive polarization preserving fibers. There is
one polarization preserving fiber for 780 nm light in the system. The F=1 probe beam
is coupled into an OZ Optics PMJ-3A3A-780-5/125-3-4-1 polarization preserving PANDA
fiber patch cable. To prevent light which leaks through the AOMs from entering the fibers
we used Varian Associates Uniblitz Model LS6ZM2 mechanical shutters. We measured
31

opening delay times of 3-6 ms, depending on the quality and age of the drive electronics.

3.4.2

Injection Locking

To increase the power of the slower and slower repumper light from a few mW to tens ofmW we use an injection locking technique to convert a free running laser diode into a slaved
amplifier. In most cases we use an optical isolator to prevent back reflections or other straylaser beams from being coupling into the laser diode. This backcoupled light can cause thelaser diode to become unstable or act unpredictably. In the case of injection locking we are
purposely introducing this light to override the free running behavior of the laser oscillator.
The freerunning lasers in our case are Sanyo DL7140-201S laser diodes mounted in a
Thorlabs TCLDM-9 TE cooled laser diode mount and driven with a Thorlabs TEC2000
Temperature controller and LDC500 current controller. The injection light is coupled inthrough the rejection port of an optical isolator (Optics for Research IO-780-HP4). We
have had the best results when the Sanyo diodes were first temperature tuned so that when
free running they are near resonance with the Doppler broadened Rb absorption line (∼8
GHz wide). The spectrum of the slave diode is monitored on a Fabry Perot spectrometer(Toptica FPI-100). When the alignment is correct and the laser diode becomes locked, thelaser line becomes much narrower, and will scan back and forth if the injection signal isscanned. Better alignement allows this locking behavior to occur with less power. A full
discussion of injection locking can be found in [60].

3.5Computer Control and Imaging

Two computers run the apparatus; one controls the various parts of experiment and theother processes images from a camera which images the atoms. The control computer hascustom built National Instruments (NI) LabWindows based software to drive analog (2 NI
Model PCI 6713, 8 channels of 12 bit analog, 1MS/s update) and digital (2 NI Model PCI6533, 32 channels of binary TTL, 13.3 MS/s update) output boards. The control computer
also controls an Agilent 33250A 80MHz function generator through a GPIB interface, andtriggers a Princeton Instruments NTE/CCD-1024-EB camera through a ST-133 controller
to capture the absorption images.
All of our measurements are performed by taking an image of the the atoms. At the endof an experiment the trap is quickly turned off at the atoms are allowed to freely expand
as they fall under the influence of gravity. The expansion during the time of flight (TOF)
between trap turnoff and imaging greatly expands the imaged size of the condensate in thetightly confining axes. The expansion of thermal atoms is driven by their kinetic energy.
In the Thomas Fermi limit condensates have no kinetic energy. Their free flight dynamics
are instead driven by the density dependent mean field energy.

32Cameraf=500 mm
f=250 mm

Repumper

F=1 Probe
PBS

NPBS
To otherimaging axes

F=2 Imaging

PBS

Figure 3-8: Layout of vertical imaging axis in main chamber. F=1 probe light or F=2
Imaging light can illuminate the condensate with a 4 mm beam. Each beam passes througha polarizing beamsplitter (PBS) to give it a definite linear polarization. The two beams,
with orthogonal linear polarizations, are overlapped on a nonpolarizing beamsplitting cube
(NPBS) for convenience in delivery and later separation in other imaging system. The 50
mm diameter, f=250 objective lens is mounted on a vertical translation stage to adjust thefocus for different time of flights. Repumping light is introduced off axis.

3.5.1

Free Expansion

The cold atoms are released from the trap and allowed to expand to increase their size prior
to imaging. Bose-Einstein condensates expand because their mean field field repulsion is nolonger balanced by the harmonic trapping potential and therefore converts to kinetic energy
in time ∼ 1/ωx . In a similar manner without the trapping potential the kinetic energy ofthermal atoms cause them to expand ballistically. Both of these effects are most prominent
in the tightly confining direction, increasing the apparent size between 10 and 100 times fortypical trap frequencies and times of flight.
2Dn2D
C (x, z, t) = np



x2
z2
1− 2
− 2
rx (t) rz (t)

3/2
(3.3)

Conversion of the mean field repulsion into kinetic energy results in a scaling but notdistortion of the signature parabolic shape [64]. For cigar shaped cylindrically symmetrictraps with aspect ratio  = ωz /ωx  1 the free expansion can be approximated as33√rx (0) 1 + τ 2hi√rz (τ ) = rz (0) 1 + 2 τ arctan τ − ln 1 + τ 2

rx (τ ) =

(3.4)
(3.5)

where τ = ωx t is in units of the radial trap frequency normalized time. Typical aspectratios in magnetic traps are  = 0.05 − 0.1. In typical optical traps  < 0.02.
The non condensed thermal cloud has a two dimensional projection of the Gaussian
density distribution
2D
n2D
N C (x, z, t) = np exp



x2
z2
− 2
− 2
2σx (t) 2σz (t)


(3.6)


where σi2 = kB T /m 1/ωi2 + t2 and n2D
p is the peak density of the image.
In the long time limit the thermal cloud takes on a circular shape as velocity rather
then original location dominates the density distribution. The mean field interaction in the
BEC inverts its aspect ratio from 1/ to π/2. This combined with the sharp increase indensity provide an extremely clear signature of the condensation phase transition.

3.5.2

State Analysis

During free fall a magnetic field gradient can be applied to perform Stern-Gerlach state
separation to resolve different Zeeman levels. Atoms in the F=1 or F=2 states can beselectively imaged using light resonant with either the F=1 probe or F=2 imaging light.
The F=2 to 3 transition is a cycling transition and in our experience provides the best
imaging. F=1, F’=0 imaging provides a similar cycling transition for the F=1 level.Morecomplicated simultaneous state analysis techniques have been developed and are discussed
in Ch. 4.

3.5.3

Repumping effects

The optical pumping of the atoms from the F=1 to F=2 hyperfine level will induce a recoilin the atoms. This can potentially introduce unwanted distortions in imaging F=1 atoms.
If the repumping occurs immediately before imaging the recoil velocity kick will not affectthe atoms’ location and there will be no deformation to the density distribution. On theother hand, if repumping occurs to long before imaging the atoms will move and smearout the density distribution. This increases the apparent size of the condensate and also
creates the appearance of thermal atoms when none are present. For a 6 µm pixel sizeand vr =6 mm/s it will take an atom 1 ms to move one pixel. We typically repump for
50-200µs immediately before imaging, so at this magnification recoil blurring should not
be a problem. The repump light must be modulated with an AOM to achieve this level of34

timing accuracy. Mechanical shutters have an opening time of several ms and are less thenfavorable for precision work.

3.5.4

CameraTo image the atoms three pictures are taken with a Princeton Instruments NTE/CCD-1024EB camera controlled by a ST-133 controller: a picture of the illuminated atoms, a pictureof the illumination without the atoms, and a background picture without illumination.
An absorption image is calculated by taking the ratio of the illuminated images after the
background image is subtracted from each illuminated image.
In several experiments and alignment techniques it is necessary to shine non imaging
laser light along an imaging axis. If the light is of high power, such as an optical tweezers
beam, it could damage the camera. Lower power light, such as used in the quantum Zeno
effect experiments in Ch. 4, while not destructive can still saturate the CCD detector, ruining the image. To protect the camera from such non imaging light 1” diameter mechanicalshutter, Vincent Assocates Uniblitz Model VS25S-2-ZM-0 driven with a Model VMM-D4
four channel driver, was added.

3.6

Magneto Optical Trap

The MOT [9] is the workhorse of atomic physics for creating large samples of ultracold
atoms. We use a six-beam configuration, which doubles as an optical molasses when themagnetic gradient field is off. Similar to Ref. [34] the 87 Rb apparatus uses a bright MOT
instead of a dark-spot MOT [65]. The 87 Rb MOT equilibrates to around 4 × 1010 atoms
after ∼ 2 s of loading, operating in a magnetic field gradient of 16.5 G/cm with cycling
beams detuned -18 MHz from the F=2→ F0 =3 transition and a peak intensity 5.3 mW/cm2 .
To increase the efficiency of the transfer into the magnetic trap, we briefly compress the
87 Rb MOT and then switch off the magnetic field gradient to cool the atoms with opticalmolasses. The 87 Rb MOT is compressed by linearly ramping the gradient to 71 G/cm in
200 ms and simultaneously sweeping the detuning to -45 MHz in 400 ms. We use 5ms
of “gray” molasses, where the repumper power is dropped by 95%, the optical trapping
power is ramped down to 50%, and the detuning is swept from -18MHz to -26MHz. The
molasses phase requires the cancellation of imbalances in intensity between beams and alsoof residual magnetic fields [66]. After the molasses phase, 0.5-1 ms of “depumping” light isapplied to put all the 87 Rb atoms into the F=1 level before loading into the magnetic trap.
Exact MOT and molasses parameters were found through empirical optimization, and all
listed numbers should be considered as rough guides.

35

|F, mF >|2,+2>|2,+1>|2,0>|2,-1>

4

Energy (GHz )2|2,-2>
0-2|1,-1>|1,0>|1,+1>

-4

200

400

600

800

Magnetic Field B (G)Figure 3-9: Zeeman energy diagram of the 87 Rb ground state hyperfine structure dependence
on magnetic field. Heavy lines indicate the magnetically trappable weak field seeking states.

3.7

Magnetic Trapping

We trap 87 Rb atoms in the weak magnetic field seeking hyperfine ground states near theminimum of a inhomogeneous magnetic field produced by a cloverleaf style Ioffe-Pritchard
trap [67]. Fig. 3-9 shows the energy dependence of the different hyperfine states withmagnetic field strength. Three of the eight hyperfine ground states (|2, +2i,|2, +1i,|1, −1i)are weak field seeking and have a potential energy dependence linearly proportional tothe magnetic field strength. In order to trap atoms, the attraction to the magnetic field
minimum must be sufficiently strong to overcome the force of gravity. Fortunately thesingle unpaired electron in 87 Rb gives these states magnetic moments of ≈ µB , ≈ µB /2,
and ≈ µB /2 and allows the moderate magnetic field gradients of 15 G/cm, 30 G/cm, and 30
G/cm to exert a force on an atom equal to that of gravity. Magnetic field gradients stronger
than this will successfully trap atoms. The |2, 0i state, while also weak field seeking, ismagnetic field insensitive at low field because of its quadratic, rather than linear dependence
on magnetic field strength. This functional difference would make it very difficult to trap
magnetically due to the very large magnetic field gradients necessary to overcome the pullof gravity.

3.7.1

Fields in a Ioffe-Pritchard Magnetic Trap

The field near the center of a Ioffe-Pritchard trap can be expressed as


0





x



 


B = B0  0  + B 0  −y  +
1

0

36

B 00
2



−xz






−yz




z 2 − 12x2 + y 2(3.7)

-200 -100

Total Field|B| (Gauss)

Total Field|B| (Gauss)

4
3
2
1
0

100 200

4
3
2
1-2 -1 0 1 2
Axial Position Z (mm)Radial Position X,Y (µm)

Figure 3-10: Profile of the Ioffe-Pritchard trap magnetic field magnitude. The trap parameters are B 0 =223 G/cm, B 00 =100 G/cm2 , and B0 =1G.

where B0 is the Ioffe bias, B 0 is the radial (x,y) gradient, and B 00 is the axial (z axis)
curvature. The energy U = µm |B| can be expanded in a Taylor series to determine thetrap frequencies.

sωx,y =
r
ωz =

µm
m




B 02
00
− µm B /2
B0

µm 00
B
m

(3.8)
(3.9)

Typical trap parameters of B 0 =223 G/cm, B 00 =100 G/cm2 , B0 =1G (Fig. 3-10, Table
3.2) have frequencies of (ωx,y , ωz ) /2π = (200, 9) Hz for 87 Rb in the |1, −1i state. In ourlarge aspect ratio cigar shaped traps the z-axis field curvature B 00 /2 reduction in the radial
trap frequencies ωx,y is typically less then a few percent and can generally be disregarded.
In creating traps with near spherical geometries, such as those used for lattice loading or
vortex experiments, this reduction effect plays an important role and cannot be disregarded.
Majorana spin flip losses occur when atoms in a magnetic trap pass through a regionof low magnetic field such that their motional and magnetic state energies are similar andhence mix. The result is that a fraction of the atoms leave the region no longer in one of the
weak field seeking states and are expelled from the trap. Majorana losses can be calculated
from the Landau-Zener formula.
The finite minimum bias field of the Ioffe-Pritchard trap provides good protection against
Majorana losses so long as the energy E of the atoms E  µ3m B03 / (~ωx,y )2 , the adiabatic
limit of the Landau-Zener formula. For typical Ioffe-Pritchard traps, such as one with a 1G
bias field and 200 Hz trap frequency this energy is equivalent to a temperature of 412 K,
much greater than the overall trap depth of a few mK. However tightly confining traps withlarge aspect ratios are of interest for studies of lower dimensional systems. An easy way to37increase the radial trapping frequency of a Ioffe-Pritchard trap (Eq. 3.9) is to lower the Ioffe
bias B0 . It is useful to determine how far the Ioffe bias B0 could be reduced and still treat
the trapping potential as harmonic. We estimate the length of the harmonic region as B0 /B 0p
and equate it to the spatial size of ground state quantum harmonic oscillator ~/mω. Thisturns out to be equivalent to reasserting the condition for the onset of Majorana losses
 2 02 1/3
B
µm B0 = ~ωx,y . The maximum radial trap frequency in this limit is ωx,y = µmm~
. For
|1, −1i atoms in a 200 G/cm field gradient this gives a maximum calculated 18 kHz trap
frequency in a bias field of 18 mG. Technical limitations to lowering the Ioffe bias B0 tothese levels are drifts and noise in the ambient magnetic field. Jitter in magnetic field willcause the trap frequency to flucuate and randomly squeeze the condensate, causing heating
and complicating measurements. Another complication is that the magnitude of the RF
evaporation fields will become comparable to that of the Ioffe bias and the atoms behavior
will we strongly affected by the RF coupling.
Gravitational Sag
The force of gravity pulls the center of the trap below the magnetic field minimum. This
introduces a transverse component to the magnetic field such that it is oriented at an angle θfrom the long axis (z) of the condensate. Quantifying the difference in these two directions
is important for experiments where different polarizations of probe light cause different
effects, such as in superradiance [44, 45, 68] or Quantum Zeno experiments (Ch. 4). In
tightly confining magnetic traps a small sag y0 = g/ωy2 will result in a transverse magnetic
field component By = B 0 y0 that tilts the total magnetic field vector off the condensate axisby tan θ = By /B0 .
1
θ≈
ωy

s

mg 2
B0 µm

(3.10)

To calculate the exact effects of gravitation sag we can use a one dimensional model
incorporating Eq. 3.7 to express the potential energy U of the systemq
U = mgy + µm (B0 − B 00 /4y 2 )2 + B 02 y 2(3.11)and solve for the sag y0 at a given Ioffe Bias B0 and trapping frequencies.
Spatial Inhomogeneity
One inconvenience to trapping atoms in an spatially inhomogeneous magnetic field is thatthe finite extent of the cloud will introduce differences in total magnetic field and orientation of the magnetic field across the sample of trapped atoms. While external forces
such as gravity will always displace the trap center from the magnetic field minimum, large
displacements will greatly increase the total inhomogeneity. These effects are important in
38

q HDegreesL

40

30

20

10

300-1

130-1

80-1
60-1 50-1
Trap Period HHz-1 L

40-1

35-1

30-1

Figure 3-11: Angle θ between condensate axis and magnetic field vector as a function ofradial trap frequency. Solid lines are calculated from Eq. 3.11 with B 00 =100 G/cm2 (9 Hzaxial trap frequency) and Ioffe bias fields B0 of 1.0 (Upper) and 3.0 G (Lower). Dashedlines show the small sag approximation Eq 3.10. .

considering the variable effective trap depths created by an RF knife in a weak trap.
Figure 3-12: Displacement in a harmonic oscillator increases the inhomogeneous magnetic
field spread.

∆B =
∆B =
∆y =

2mg∆y
µm
mg∆y
E
µm + µm

q

2Ey0
mg

y0 > ∆y(3.12)

y0 < ∆y(3.13)(3.14)

where y0 = g/ωy2 is the displacement from the magnetic field minimum and ∆y is the
spread in location for an energy E. The trap switches from being slightly sagged to weak
when mgy0 = 2E.

3.7.2

Circuitry

The IGBTs are designed for use in AC/DC power switching hardware, so can be run at mostat half their rated current value due to power dissipation problems. The IGBTs are limitedby their internal thermal resistance. We used water cooled copper heatsink baseplateswith a thin layer Arctic Silver thermal grease to provide the best thermal contact to the

39

Y
MOT
Z

Antibias

Trapped atoms
X
Antibias
MOT

Cloverleaf Gradients
Curvature

Figure 3-13: Exploded view of the cloverleaf style Ioffe-Pritchard trap coils. Arrows indicate
the direction of current flow. MOT coils are energized during magnetic trapping.

IGBT baseplate. The baseplates were lapped on a granite block to provide a lower thermalinterface resistance. At peak power the IGBTs dissipate a maximum of ∼ 1kW.
Inner ∅
(cm)

Field

LayersCurrent
(A)

3

6

95

10.5

B 00 = +9 G/cm2
B0 = -243 G

Curvature

8

6

95

3.2

B 00 = +90 G/cm2
B0 = +251 G

Gradient

3

4

470

0.8 x 2.3

B 0 = 223 G/cm

MOT

7

4+2a

15

∼ 7, to fit

16.5 G/cm in ẑ

CoilWinding
Turns

Antibias

Table 3.2: Magnetic trap coil winding and performance specifications. Fig. 3-13 illustrates
their assembly and direction of current flow.
aSegmented for improved cooling.

40

R

E

G

T1

V1

C
Additional
Curvature
Current

P1+-

Axial Curvature Coils

IGBT
Driver

D1

V2

D1

IGBT
Driver

E
Axial

G

T1
C
+

P1

Antibias Coils

Axial
Current-

D2

Electronics Rack

Machine Table

D1
R

V2

V1

Radial Gradient Coils

IGBT
DriverE

G

T2
C

RadialCurrent

+
P2

-

D2

Electronics Rack

Machine Table

Figure 3-14: Magnetic trap electrical ciruits. Heavy lines indicate thick 0000 Gauge stranded
copper wire. Components: P1 Lambda EMI EMS 20V 250A 5kW DC Power supply, P2
Lambda EMI EMS 30A 500V DC 15kW Power supply, D1 a high breakdown voltage dioderated for transient currents in excess of 500 A, D2 International Rectifier SD600N04PC
high current diode (600 Amp, 1200 V, attached to a water cooled plate), Varistor V1
GEL8130L10 (130 V), Varistor V2 ZNRV20180 (30 V), R 1Ω thin film non-inducting resistor. T1 and T2 are PowerEx CM600HA-24H and CM1000HA-24H Integrated Gate Bipolar
Transistors, mounted to water cooling plates. IGBT Driver is a PowerEx BG1A-F circuitboard.

41

3.7.3

Turnoff
100
80

Voltage

60
40
20
0
-20
0

500

1000
Time HmsL

1500

2000

0

500

1000
Time HmsL

1500

2000

100
80

Voltage

60
40
20
0
-20

Figure 3-15: Magnetic trap electrical turnoff characteristics. Upper is voltage measured
across radial confinement gradient coils. Lower is voltage across axial curvature and antibias
coils. The linear and exponential decay regions show that the turnoff is first limited by thevaristor and then by diode/resistor component of the circuit.

The large voltage spikes (Fig. 3-15) from quickly turning off the large inductive loadsof the magnetic trap coils can damage the delicate computer control systems. All control
signals to the magnetic trap power supplies and switching circuits were isolated with either
an INA117 high common mode voltage difference amplifier for analog signals or a NEC
PS2501-1 opto-isolator for digital signals. The electrical turnoff of the magnetic trap measured in Fig. 3-15 by RF resonance is much shorter than the magnetic field decay observedby the atoms in Fig. 3-16 because of eddy currents induced in the stainless steel structureof the vacuum chamber surrounding the magnetic trap.

42

Magnetic Field HGaussL

5
4
3
2
1
0
0

1

2

3
Time HmsL

4

5

6

Figure 3-16: Decay of magnetic field after IGBT turnoff in main chamber as measured
by RF resonance. Magnetic trap with 48 A axial, 192 A gradient currents before turnoff.
Trap frequencies 63x63x6.6 Hz. Trap magnetic field minimum 3.0 G. Decay is fit is to
B0 exp(−t/τ ) where B0 = 6.24 ± 0.45 G and τ = 2.03 ± 0.15 ms.

3.7.4

Wire

Both the slower and the magnetic trap coils were fabricated using square hollow core (0.125
in./side, 0.032 in. wall) Alloy 101 soft temper copper tubing from Small Tube Products,
Inc. of Altoona, PA, wrapped with double Dacron glass fuse insulation by Essex Group Inc.,
Magnet Wire & Insulation of Charlotte, NC. The coils are held together with Hysol EpoxiPatch 1C White high temperature epoxy that is bakable to 170◦ C. Chilled water is forced
through the hollow core of the copper wires to dissipate the ≈10kW of power generated
from resistive heating in the magnetic trap and Zeeman slower coils. 200 psi of differential
pressure is required for sufficient coolant flow. We designed all our coils to increase thecooling water temperature by less than 50◦ C. Ch. 3 of Ref. [69] has an extensive discussionof water cooling in continuously powered resistive magnets. For our wire the following
empirical relationships and numbers were measured,ρ = 2.65 × 10−343

(3.15)

r

∆P
L
r
L3
= 259I 2 ρ∆P

Q = 2.07∆T(3.16)(3.17)

where Q is the water flow rate in ml/sec, I2 ρ L is the power dissipated by the coil, ∆P
the pressure drop in psi (1 psi=6.89 kPa), and L the length of the coil in meters.

3.7.5

Cooling

To dissipate the ∼ 15kW of heat our BEC machine generates during operation we use aclosed loop Thermo NESLAB System III Liquid to Liquid heat exchanger tied to the MIT
chilled water distribution system. The 40 psi pressure provided by the NESLAB is sufficient
to cool the IGBTs and the rubidium oven cold plate TECs, but must be boosted to ∼ 230
psi by a high pressure pump to provide sufficient flow for cooling the magnetic trap. Table
3.3 lists flow rates for the magnetic trap.
The buildup of algae in closed loop chilled water systems is a major source of clogging.
We treat the water with 1gm per 3.7 L of Chloramine-T [70] to retard these growths. Fernox
Copal Central Heating Protector is also added as a corrosion inhibitor at a concentrationof 100mL per 6 L. This is of particular importance to protect any aluminum components
from electrolytically disintegrating.
Ch. 3 of [69] has a good discussion of cooling high current current magnets.
Coil
Grad A
Grad B
Grad C
Grad D
Axial Antibias
Axial Curvature
MOT A
MOT B

East
(ml/min)
1330
1450
1450
1400
660
610
680
870

West
(ml/min)
1450
1400
1400
1400
800
580
600
850

Table 3.3: Magnetic trap water cooling flow rates for the BEC IV magnetic trap. Measured
on September 10, 2005 before the low pressure return manifold. Distribution manifoldpressure 245 psi. The East side is the Laser table side of machine. The West side is control
computer side of machine.
Additional resources on Ioffe-Pritchard magnetic traps can be found in Sec 2.3.2 of [71]and Ch. 5. of [72].

44

Coil
Grad A
Grad B
Grad C
Grad D
Axial Antibias
Axial Curvature
MOT A
MOT B

East (mΩ)
5.150
5.095
5.205
4.995
185.8
208.0
19.92
13.47

West (mΩ)
4.935
4.970
4.990
5.120
185.5
207.7
20.73
13.98

Table 3.4: Magnetic trap resistances. Gradients measured with 200A, 11.7 V total drop.
Axial with 100 A, 10.9 V. MOT with 10 A,2.38 V. Measured at junction between watercooled copper leads and lugs.

3.7.6

Fabrication

All of the components for each half of the magnetic trap were epoxied together for stability.
Each assembly was then mounted in the bucket windows with an aluminum mounting platebacked by four threaded Alloy 316 stainless steel rods. No ferromagnetic materials wereused in the mounting because of concern for irreproducibility from hysteresis effects. Table
3.2 lists the windings and typical parameters for each coil.

3.8

Evaporation

Evaporative cooling works by selectively removing hot atoms from the trapped cloud, while
the remaining atoms rethermalize to a lower temperature. The efficiency of cooling depends
on η, the ratio of trap depth or energy of the escaping atoms to the temperature kB T , andis reduced by the rate of heating. The speed of evaporation depends on how quickly theatoms rethermalize through elastic collisions. The elastic collision rate is the product of thescattering cross section σ = 8πa2 , density n, and the mean velocity v̄ of the atoms.
In a magnetic trap evaporation is implemented through RF induced transitions between
trapped and untrapped states. A given RF frequency corresponds to a shell of constantµm |B| where the transitions occur. Atoms that pass through this shell enter untrappedstates and are lost; thus RF provides a flexible mechanism to control the magnetic trap
depth. Our RF antenna consists of two rectangular loops of wire, 10 cm x 2 cm, positioned 3
cm above and below the condensate as depicted in Fig. 3-2. Evaporation works equivalently
well for 23 Na and 87 Rb, with 23 Na’s lower mass resulting in higher trap frequencies, whichroughly compensates for its smaller elastic cross section (Table 3.5).
To evaporate thermal atoms to a BEC, we sweep the RF frequency over several seconds
using an Agilent 33250A synthesizer amplified with a 5 W RF amplifier (Mini-Circuits
ZHL-5W-1). Typical evaporation curves for 87 Rb would ramp from 60 MHz down to ∼0.8
MHz in 15 to 40 seconds, with similar parameters for 23 Na. Forced RF evaporative cooling45

Trap Depth
Energy (µK)

1000
100

Temperature10
Decompression

1

BEC
10

20

30
Time (s)

40

50

60

Figure 3-17: Typical temperature and trap depth during evaporation to BEC in 87 Rb. The
trap is decompressed between t=40-50 s by changing the trap parameters B 0 = 223 → 54
G/cm, B 00 =99 → 25 G/cm2 , and B0 =1.4 → 0.87 G. Temperature was determined by fitting
after ballistic expansion.

is very efficient, increasing phase space density by > 106 (Table 2.1). Fig. 3-17 shows
the drop in temperature as the trap depth (calculated from the RF frequency) is lowered
during evaporation of 87 Rb. Evaporation curves are frequently adjusted in the interest oftuning evaporation speed, atom number, density, and/or reproducibility. For instance, theatom number can be increased by decompressing the magnetic trap near the end of theevaporation. This reduces the effects of three body recombination heating by lowering thefinal condensate density. Such decompression techniques have allowed us to create nearlypure condensates with Nc ≈ 20 × 106 in both 87 Rb and 23 Na with lifetimes in excess of 5
seconds.
Decompressing the trap shifts its center due to gravitational sag and imperfections in
the balance of magnetic fields between the coils. Such movements can excite oscillationsin the cloud, which results in the condensation of BECs which are not at rest. Even in
the absence of excitations, the magnetic field gradients must exert a force on the atoms
which is greater than gravity for them to remain trapped. This limits the extent to whichmagnetic traps can be decompressed. Specially designed gravito-magnetic traps have been
decompressed down to 1 Hz [38] to investigate very cold, dilute BECs.

46

3.9

Anomalous Losses in Deep Traps

3.9.1

Motivation

Transporting atoms in an optical tweezer requires an optical gradient steep enough and a
trap depth deep enough to retain the atoms as they are accelerated. In our setups the
optical axis is the same as the direction of the transport. This means that the directionof weakest confinement is also the direction which is accelerated during transport. The
restricted optical access (Fig. 3-2) limits our ability to make a steep optical potential witha tight focus. In adapting the BEC transport technology from 23 Na BECs [35] to 87 Rb thegreater mass required us to use more optical power and hence a greater trap depth in orderto make a sufficiently steep optical potential for transport. Large 87 Rb BECs held in opticaltraps more then a few µ K deep were observed to decay at a rate much greater then that
expected from three body recombination. While three body related losses were observed in
optically trapped 23 Na [35], the factor of four difference in the three-body rate coefficients(Table 3.5) was insufficient to explain this major discrepancy in behavior.
87 Rb

23 Na

D2 line λ (nm)

780

589

D2 linewidth Γ/2π (MHz)

6.1

9.8

Gravity mg/kB (nK/µm)

102

27

Gravity mg/gF mF µB (G/cm)

30

8.1

8 × 10−30 [73]

2 × 10−30 [74]Scattering length a (nm)5.3 [75]

2.8 [76]

Recoil velocity vr (mm/s)

5.9

29

Three body constant K3(cm6 /s)

Table 3.5: Select properties 87 Rb and 23 Na F=1, mF = −1 ground states. Unless noted,
quantities are derived from Ref. [77] and [51].

3.9.2Technique

The anomalous losses from dense 87 Rb BECs in deep traps was investigated in a magnetic
trap instead of an optical trap. While it is easier experimentally to create tight trappingand hence high densities in an optical trap, both the trap frequencies and trap depth arefunctions of the optical power. This makes it difficult to separate density dependent effects,
which are strongly affected by the trap frequency, from trap depth effects. In contrast, ina magnetic trap the trap depth can be controlled independently of the trap frequencies byadjusting the RF frequency which flips atoms to untrapped states.
At typical densities of condensates, the lifetime and heating are usually dominated bythree-body recombination decay. Three body recombination results from the simultaneous47

collision of three atoms which results in the formation of a diatomic molecule. The diatomic
molecule and remaining atom fly apart with a total kinetic energy equal to the binding
energy of the diatomic molecule, typically in the highest vibrational state. The molecularbinding energy can be estimated from the scattering length as E0 ∼ ~2 /ma2 [78] (∼ 200µK
in 87 Rb, ∼ 2.7 mK in 23 Na).

3.9.3

TheoryThere are two possible processes, both involving secondary collisions, which can greatly
enhance the heating and losses due to the primary three-body collisions. The first process iscollisional avalanches, similar to a chain reaction, where the energetic products of three-bodyrecombination collide with additional atoms while leaving the condensate. This processdepends on the collisional opacity ∼ nσl, where σ = 8πa2 is the atom atom scatteringcross section, and should increase dramatically when the condensate exceeds the critical
opacity of 0.693 [79]. This process occurs entirely within the condensate volume and hence
is independent of trap depth.
The second process can already occur at lower collisional opacities and relies on theretention of primary or secondary collision products by the trap in the so-called Oort cloud[71, 80]. The retention of these atoms in the trap can cause heating and loss in the condensate as they oscillate through the condensate volume. The retention of collision productsin the Oort cloud should depend on whether the trap depth is larger or smaller than theirenergies.

3.9.4

Results

Fig. 3-18 shows the initial loss rates measured for a large and a small BEC as a functionof the magnetic trap depth. At low trap depths (5 µK) both the large and small condensate decay rates are in agreement with established three body recombination rates [73].
Therefore, the avalanche effect does not significantly contribute to the observed decay rate,
although the calculated collisional opacity for the larger condensate was 0.88 and may not
be far away from the onset of avalanches. In Ref [79] evidence for avalanches was observed
at a collisional opacity of 1.4.
At high trap depths, the decay rate strongly increases for larger condensates and shortens
the lifetime to less than 500 ms. In contrast, at low trap depths the large condensate had
a lifetime of greater than 20 seconds, in agreement with the expected losses from threebody decay. For trap depths greater than ∼ 50µK the large 87 Rb condensate decay rate
saturates, suggesting a maximum Oort energy.
We speculate that this enhancement of three-body related losses was not observed in
23 Na for several reasons.

The primary decay products are mono-energetic and will escapeunless the trap depth is greater then their kinetic energy (min ∼ 70µK for 87 Rb, ∼ 900µK
for 23 Na). On their way out of the condensate volume, some of the primary three body decay
48

BEC Decay rate (s -1 )

8
6
4
2
0
0

100
200
Trap Depth (µK)

300

Figure 3-18: Initial loss rates for 87 Rb BEC in deep traps. Trap depth dependence of theloss for large and small 87 Rb BECs in a 220 Hz x 220 Hz x 9 Hz magnetic trap. The
trap depth was controlled by RF truncation. Condensates were nearly pure (Nc /N >90%) and consisted of F=1, mF =-1 atoms. Solid triangles are data for a large condensate,
Nc = 2.7 × 106 atoms, peak density np = 6.1 × 1014 /cm3 , expected three body decay time
τ3 = 0.85 ± 0.22 s (dashed horizontal lines) [73], and calculated collisional opacity of 0.88
[79]. Open squares are data for a small condensate, Nc = 5 × 105 atoms, peak density
np = 3.1 × 1014 /cm3 , expected three body decay time τ3 = 3.3 ± 0.8 s (dotted horizontal
lines), and a calculated collisional opacity of 0.32. The error bars represent the statisticaluncertainity in the decay curves. Additional scatter in the data is due to fluctutions in theatom number.

products will collide with additional condensate atoms. In 23 Na the elastic scattering crosssection σ is 3.6 times smaller then for 87 Rb, making these secondary collisions less likely.
The products of such secondary collisions have a range of energies. In 23 Na these secondary
products will typically have much higher energies, reducing their chance of remaining in the
trap. In addition, the retained Oort particles need to collide with the condensate to cause
additional loss. These subsequent collisions can further populate the Oort cloud.
For traps whose depths are in the intermediate region, below the minimum energy of the
primary three body recombination products, the combination of greater primary three body
decay rate, greater collision opacity, and greater fraction of secondary products retained by
the Oort cloud lead to an estimated loss rate several orders of magnitude higher for 87 Rb
then 23 Na in condensates of similar size and density. The anharmonic and aspheric trapping
geometry reduces the frequency at which the trajectories of the particles in the Oort cloudintersect with the condensate volume.
The restricted optical access (Fig.

3-2) of our experiments limits the longitudinal(tweezer axis) trap frequency per unit trap depth. This requires optical trap depths fortransporting condensates in our systems that are a significant fraction of the primary 87 Rb
decay product energy, but a small fraction of that for 23 Na. Therefore 23 Na condensates canbe easily transported using optical tweezers. For 87 Rb the preferred method is to transport
a cloud at temperatures just above condensation, where the density is lower, and evaporate49

to BEC after transport.

50

Chapter 4

The Quantum Zeno Effect inBose-Einstein Condensate
The following in an expanded version of the paper “Continuous and Pulsed Quantum Zeno
Effect” enclosed in Appendix C. This paper is in preparation for submission to publication.
The quantum Zeno effect (QZE) is the suppression of transitions between states by frequent measurement. Like Bose-Einstein condensation, the quantum Zeno effect is a purely
quantum phenomena. It was first considered as a theoretical problem relating to the decayof an unstable charged particle as it was measured traveling across a bubble chamber [81].
Measuring the state of a classical system does not change its behavior. Quantum measurements however are invasive, irreversibly changing the system’s behavior. Under ideal
continuous measurement the unstable particle would paradoxically remain in its initial stateand not decay. This is the opposite to what is observed in real life bubble chambers. The
QZE is the quantum equivalent to the watched tea kettle that never boils. Understanding
quantum measurement is essential in linking quantum systems to their classical surroundings.

4.1

Previous Works

Several demonstrations of the quantum Zeno effect have been previously reported in theliterature. These can be broadly separated in to quantitative and qualitative demonstrations. Qualitative experiments show a decrease in the transition rate with an increase in
the measurement frequency. In quantitative experiments the decrease in the transition
rate in terms of the measurement frequency can be predicted without any free parameters. Qualitative experiments are important for practical applications of the quantum Zeno
effect, where an absolute reduction in a transition rate is the desired goal. Quantitative
experiments are important for the application of the quantum Zeno effect to problems infundamental physics, where the agreement between theory and experiment can be used to51

bound the possible effects of predicted phenomena. All prior quantitative work has involved discrete pulsed measurements. The discrete nature of the pulsed measurements usedin these experiments are an approximation. They are implemented through the modulationof continuous processes such as scattering photons or tunneling. Linking the continuousand pulsed regimes is therefore important to using the quantum Zeno effect for tests offundamental physics. In addition continuous processes typically require fewer interactions
and so are more economical for the practical inhibition of transfer rates between states.
Driven Rabi Oscillation
Most of the previous Zeno experiments were in the context of measuring a two level system.
The system is externally driven to oscillate between the two states at a rate ωR . Measurements will alter this evolution. For an ideal two level system starting in state A, theprobabilities of finding the system in a particular state after time t are

PA (t) = cos2 (ωR t/2)
2

= sin (ωR t/2)

PB (t)

(4.1)
(4.2)

where a period of time t=π/ωR (a “π” pulse time) transfers 100% of the populationfrom state A to state B. For times small compared with a π pulse this can be approximatedasPA (t) = 1 − (ωR t/2)2
PB (t) =(ωR t/2)2

(4.3)
(4.4)

Repeated measurements at a rate 1/δt will alter the two state systems evolution. AfterN measurements in a time T = N δt the population in state A is
T /δtPA (T ) = cos2 (ωR δt/2)(4.5)

When ωR δt  1 this can be approximated as

PA (T ) ≈PA (T ) ∼ 
2 δt/4 δt T /δt
1 − ωR
2 δt/4exp −T ωR

(4.6)
(4.7)

The transfer rate from state A to state B can be made smaller by shrinking δt. By
reducing δt to arbitrarily small values the probability that the the system is found instate B vanishes and the system is frozen in its initial state A. This reduction in rate, or
lengthening in lifetime, is the signature of the quantum Zeno effect.

52

4.1.1

Pulsed Measurements

In the original demonstration of the quantum Zeno effect [82] externally driven oscillation
between two ground hyperfine states of trapped 9 Be+ ions were interrupted by frequent
optical scattering measurements to a third level [83]. The optical transition was chosen sothat ions in the measured state would not scatter photons that returned the ion to the unmeasured state. Experiments were performed for a fixed π pulse time with N=1,2,4,8,16,32,
or 64 measurements. Florescence detection was used to determine the population of thedifferent states. One complication in this experiment was imperfections in the scattering
measurement. Each measurement optically pumped a few of the ions into other 9 Be+ groundstates. For the greatest number of measurements (N=64) the optical pumping corrections
were equal in size to the quantum Zeno effect signal. Optical pumping is a systematic
limitation to quantum Zeno experiments with ions for a large number of measurements.
A single ion version of this quantum Zeno experiment was later performed in 171 Yb+[84]. Experiments with single ions are conceptually very desirable. There is no possibilityof ensemble averaging or multi-body effects affecting the results. Similar to the previous
ion experiment [82] experiments were performed for a fixed π pulse time with N=0,1,2,3 or
9 measurements. In addition to the optical pumping limitations, experiments with single
ions are challenging due to the lower florescence signal levels.
The inhibition of decay in an unstable system was demonstrated in 2001 [85]. Coldneutral sodium atoms were accelerated in an optical lattice. If the acceleration was too
rapid the atoms would probabilistically tunnel through the barrier rather than increase
their momentum. Measurements were performed by reducing the acceleration so no atoms
would tunnel. For the maximum reported number of measurements (N=7) an increase in
the survival probability from 0.6 to 0.8 was observed. This technique may be limited byseveral momentum resolution issues. The measurement period must be long enough for theatoms to resolve if they are trapped or are tunneling to a lower momentum band of thelattice. The tunneling rate may depend on the temperature of the trapped atoms. Theseexperiments also demonstrated anti quantum Zeno effect, where measurements enhanced
rather than inhibited the decay out of an unstable system.

4.1.2

Continuous Measurement

Previous experimental results for the measurement of the continuous quantum Zeno effect[86–89] are qualitative rather than quantitative in nature. Comparison with theory always
involved fitting the observed Zeno effect to one or more free parameters. These experiments
have focused on the application of the quantum Zeno effect to suppressing precession [87–89]
and relaxation [86] in spin polarized gases.
Collisions in a gas cell were used to demonstrate the quantum Zeno effect in 1997 [86].
The ortho and para nuclear spin isomer states of 13 CH3 F gas relax to a statistical mixture
due to inelastic collisions between either two molecules or a molecule and the gas cell wall.
53

The higher the collision rate typically the higher the spin relaxation rate. Each type ofcollision acts as a quantum measurement. It was observed that in spin polarized samples
increasing the pressure by 12 times reduced the relaxation rate by 60% [86].
The application of the continuous quantum Zeno effect to suppress spin precession wasinvestigated in ions [87] and neutral atoms [88]. Spin precession occurs when a transverse
magnetic field is suddenly applied to a spin polarized sample. In the quantum mechanicalcontext, the spins are projected from being in a pure state (aligned with the magnetic
field) into a superposition of states. The phases of the different states vary in time and andinterfere to create a rotating rather than static magnetic moment. Spatially inhomogeneous
magnetic fields and collisions will then rapidly depolarize the sample.
The strongest demonstration of the continuous quantum Zeno effect in this regard was
performed with trapped 24 Mg+ ions [87]. Free Larmour spin precession of ground hyperfine
states from a static magnetic field was suppressed by state selective measurement using
circularly polarized resonant laser light. An >∼ 80% drop in fluoresence was observedwith increasing laser power, indicating that the transfer from the unmeasurable to themeasured states from the Larmour precession was being suppressed by measurement. A
control experiment with linearly polarized light showed no such reduction in fluoresence.
Micromotion in the RF Paul trap holding the ions was estimated to Doppler broaden theresonance width by an amount comparable to the optical linewidth.
In a similar optical pumping type scheme the absorption for circularly polarized light in aroom temperature 85 Rb vapor cell was reduced by 15% with increasing optical intensity [88].
This scheme was limited by collisional mixing of the Zeeman levels with atoms from velocity
classes not addressed by the measurement laser. A transient, rather than steady statecontinuous quantum Zeno effect was also claimed in a room temperature 87 Rb vapor cell[89]. The non-exponential decay component of a Hanle-EIT transient was measured whena transverse magnetic field was quickly switched on. The data presented show the decayrate saturating with increasing optical intensity, but does not show or quote a reduction inthis rate.
All three atomic style continuous quantum Zeno experiments [87–89] use a combination of Larmour precession and an intense measurement laser beam. Near saturation thelaser beam significantly mixes the excited and ground states. The excited states in thesesystems have a hyperfine structure which will also precess. Since the state mixing nearsaturation is both significant and dependent on laser intensity, it is difficult to extract fromthese phenomenological reports a quantitative measurement of the quantum Zeno effect. In
comparison, the work on the pulsed quantum Zeno effect [82, 84, 85] is in good quantitative
agreement with theory for a small to moderate numbers of pulses.

544.1.3

Relevance

Usages for the quantum Zeno effect can be separated into three categories: tests of fundamental physics, quantum information, practical process enhancement. Measurements
are an essential part of quantum theory in that they link quantum systems to the classic
world. Tests of this fundamental aspect are important to increasing our understandingof how quantum mechanics works, or fails to work. Quantum computing and quantum
cryptography have measurements at the heart of how their processes deliver useful results.
State preservation is beneficial for processes which depend on a particular quantum stateof matter for their operation, such as spin polarized gases for medical imaging.
Successful demonstrations of the quantum Zeno effect can bound or exclude the effects ofvarious extensions to quantum mechanics [90, 91] such as string theory or quantum gravity.
The demonstrated QZE [82] was used to bound stochastic perturbations in the Schrödinger
equation to Mσ to > 2 × 10−15 GeV. Experiments from particle physics were used to obtaina similar bound [90]. A proposal [92] has suggested exploiting the quantum Zeno effect todetect the previously unseen effect of general relativity on electromagnetism through its coupling to a spin system. The accuracy of classical physical measurements, such as force [93],are ultimately limited by Zeno effects. The consequences of measurements inadvertently
affecting the behavior of atomic clocks [91] has been investigated theoretically.
Several authors [94–97] have suggested protocols to manage decoherence and error propagation in quantum computers through the quantum Zeno effect. The security of quantum
encryption protocols [98] hinges on our certainty in the nature of measurement. Interaction
free measurements (IFM) [99, 100] are closely related to the QZE. In this case the detectionof a photon indicates the absence of absorption by a target. In the limit of an ideal IFM
a vanishingly small probability of absorption provides information about the presence orabsence of a target.
Reduced absorption sensing through quantum measurement effects is of particular interest for neutron tomography [101]. Neutrons are a wonderful probe of the nuclear structureof matter but the damage induced by their absorption precludes most uses. Reducing thedosage necessary for successful image resolution could broaden its possible applications.
The quantum Zeno effect is also of relevance for the preparation and preservation of spinpolarized gas samples. Spin polarized gases have promising applications in the medical
imaging [102, 103]. Conventional magnetic resonance imaging is dependent on the concentration of hydrogen in tissues. A spin polarized gas sample can provide a strong magnetic
resonance signal of gas filled cavities such as the lungs, which have low tissue densities.

4.1.4

Limitations

In theory the Heisenberg uncertainty principal limits the rate at which meaningful measurements can be performed. For measurements made at a rate 1/∆t, the energy spacing ∆E
between the levels must exceed ~/∆t. Most real quantum systems will have imperfections
55

which will typically limit their performance long before reaching the Heisenberg limit. The
measurement mechanism (optical scattering, collisions, etc.) will have imperfections as will
the system itself. In practice such imperfections in real measurements [104] will cause parasitic losses which limit the maximum realizable suppression of evolution (freezing) [105].
The quantum Zeno effect freezes the system in its initial state. The longer the lifetimeof the initial state, the stronger we can consider it to be frozen. The measurement rate
which produces the maximum lifetime of the initial state demonstrates the “optimal” [105]quantum Zeno effect for that particular system. For experiments which occur in a fixed
time period [82, 84, 105] this is the number of measurements N which maximizes the initialstate survival probability P (N ).

4.2

Implementation

The quantum Zeno effect was demonstrated in a 87 Rb Bose-Einstein condensate where
scattering measurements with photons were used to suppress the quantum evolution of adriven two level system. This is similar to the established technique in trapped ion QZEexperiments [82, 84]. 87 Rb atoms in the 5S1/2 |1, −1i (|F, mF i) hyperfine ground state were
evaporatively cooled to create a Bose-Einstein condensate of Nc = 5.0(0.5) × 106 atoms
in a {63, 63, 6.6} Hz magnetic trap [48]. We removed ∼ 99% of the atoms with twonearly adiabatic RF sweeps, each of which outcoupled 90% of the atoms [106], to create asmaller condensate of Nc = 5.0(0.5) × 104 for the start our QZE experiments. An RF knife
maintained a magnetic trap depth of 5 µK. Observed lifetime of the initial BEC was greaterthan 5 s.

4.2.1

Two level system

Our two level system consists of Bose condensed 87 Rb atoms in the |1, −1i or |2, +1i states.
The ground hyperfine states of alkali atoms such as 131 Cs and 87 Rb are among the best
characterized real quantum systems. Their robustness lead to their adoption in constructing
precisions devices such as atomic clocks [107]. Both states are magnetically trappable andhave identical magnetic moments at 3.23 G [75]. This creates a minimum where the totaltransition energy between the two states is insensitive to magnetic field. The different
scattering lengths of the two states results in a density dependent clock shift [75] due tothe difference in the mean field energy. To obtain a uniform transition energy across themagnetically trapped condensate the magnetic bias field was lowered slightly to 3.0 G,
introducing a small inhomogeneous magnetic shift that compensated the density dependent
clock shift. The difference of two quanta of angular momentum prevents a single photon 6.8
GHz microwave transition from driving resonant oscillations between the |1, −1i and |2, +1i
states. Instead, a two photon transition drives oscillations between the |1, −1i and |2, +1i
states (Fig. 4-2). Fig. 4-1 shows how the 6.8 GHz microwave and 1.68 MHz radio frequency
56

{

F=2

0
mF = -2

-1

+1

+2

1.67 MHz
6.8 GHz{F=1

mF = -10

2.1 MHz+1

Figure 4-1: Energies of 87 Rb ground state hyperfine levels in a 3.0 G magnetic field. The
two photon transition between |1, −1i and |2, +1i is indicated by black arrows. The 6.8 GHz
microwave transition links the |1, −1i to a virtual intermediate |2, 0i state, detuned +420
kHz from resonance. The 1.67 MHz RF resonantly completes the two photon transition
by linking the virtual intermediate state to the actual, on resonance |2, +1i state. The
magnetic field splits the states of the two hyperfine levels by 2.1 MHz.

(RF) components of the two photon transition coupling through a virtual level formed bydetuning 420 kHz above the |2, 0i state. Since we are off resonance no appreciable population
is ever measured in the |2, 0i state. Without scattering measurements the populations of
the system oscillates between the two levels as given by Eq. 4.2 at a rate ωR .
Ground State Hyperfine Energies of 87 Rb
The electronic structure of 87 Rb can be well approximated as a single bound electron interacting with a positively charged nucleus. The ground electronic state can be considered asa single electron (spin J=1/2). This spin interacts with the nuclear spin (I=3/2 in 87 Rb),
resulting in a splitting of the electronic ground states into two hyperfine states with slightly
different energies. The Briet-Rabi formula gives the exact energies in a magnetic field of asuch a spin (J=1/2) interacting with a spin I, each with Landé g factors gJ and gI . The
Hamiltonian of this system is
H = AI · J + µB gJ J · B + µB gI I · B(4.8)

where B is the externally applied magnetic field vector. Diagonalizing this matrix determines the energies of the various states as a function of magnetic field and is exaclty solvable57

|2,+1> Population|1,-1> Population

1.0

0.5

0.0

0

16
8
Time (ms)0816Time (ms)

24

1.0

0.5

0.0

24

Figure 4-2: Experimentally observed time evolution of the population in the |2, +1i and|1, −1i states when driven on resonance by the two photon transition. Fit is to Eq. 4.2
with ωR /2π = 61.5(0.5) Hz. The raw image data for select times in these plots are shownin Fig. 4-6

in the J=1/2 case. The solution is the Briet-Rabi formula∆Ehf s∆Ehf sE |J = 1/2, I, mi = −gI µB m ±2 (2I + 1)
2

r
1+

4mx
+ x2
2I + 1(4.9)

where m = mI + mJ , ∆Ehf s = A(I + 1/2), x = (gJ − gI ) µB B/∆Ehf s , and B is themagnitude of the magnetic field. The energy splitting between states is ∆Ehf s at zeromagnetic field. The energies can be separated into two different regimes of magnetic field
intensity. In the strong field regime (Paschen-Bach) the spins are decoupled from each other58

and mI , mJ , I and J are good quantum numbers to describe the state of the system. In
the weak magnetic field regime the spins are strongly coupled to each other and descriptionof the total spin F = I + J and mF = m = mI + mJ are good quantum numbers. For anuclear spin I=3/2 system such as 87 Rb the energies at low magnetic field approximate to(gI − gJ )2 m2 − 4 µ2B 2
3
1
E |F = 2, mi = + ∆Ehf s + (gJ + 3gI ) mµB B −B (4.10)8416∆Ehf s
(gI − gJ )2 m2 − 4 µ2B 2
51
E |F = 1, mi = − ∆Ehf s − (gJ − 5gI ) mµB B +B (4.11)8
416∆Ehf s
where m = mF and ∆Ehf s = hνhf s .
µB∆Ehf sgJ
gI
I

1.399 624 624 (56) MHz/G [108]h 6.834 682 610 904 29(9) GHz [109]2.002 331 13(20) [110]-0.000995141 4(10) [110]3/2Table 4.1: Ground State hyperfine structure constants for 87 Rb.

Substituting in the ground state hyperfine parameters (Table 4.2.1) for 87 Rb we cangive numerical approximations for the energies of each state at low magnetic field. These
formulas are given in terms of the practical lab units Hz and Gauss.

E |F = 1, mF = −1i ≈E |F = 1, mF = 0i ≈E |F = 1, mF = +1i ≈E |F = 2, mF = +2i =E |F = 2, mF = +1i ≈E |F = 2, mF = 0i ≈E |F = 2, mF = −1i ≈E |F = 2, mF = −2i =52h − ∆νhf s + 702, 369B − 215.68B
8


5
2
h − ∆νhf s − 287.57B
8


5
2
h − ∆νhf s − 702, 369B − 215.68B
8


3
h
∆νhf s + 1, 403, 350B
8


3
2
∆νhf s + 699, 583B + 215.68B
h
8


3
2
h
∆νhf s + 287.57B
8


3
h
∆νhf s − 699, 583B + 215.68B 2
8


3
h
∆νhf s − 1, 403, 350B
8

(4.12)(4.13)(4.14)(4.15)(4.16)(4.17)(4.18)(4.19)

The formulas for the |F = 2, mF = −2i and |F = 2, mF = +2i spin stretched states areboth exact and linear. Since they are not superpositions of differing nuclear and electron
59spin there is no mixing of states as the magnetic field is varied. The transition energy
between the |F = 2, mF = +1i and |F = 1, mF = −1i can be calculated. It has a minimum
at a magnetic field of 3.22892 G. The quadratic variation of the transition frequency witha change in magnetic field goes as 431.36 Hz/G2 .
Two photon resonance in 87 Rb

RF-1,670,000 Hz

7600
7595
7590
7585
7580
7575
7570
3

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
Trap Magnetic Field B0 HGL

Figure 4-3: Observed two photon transition frequency as a function of trap magnetic field
minimum. Curve is expected transition frequency, shifted by -540 Hz to compensate foraging of the frequency standard.

The two photon transition is driven with ∼5 W of 6.833 GHz microwaves and ∼5Wof 1.68 MHz RF. The microwave frequency is fixed while the RF frequency can be varied.
To determine when the magnetic bias field is exactly 3.23G we measured the two photontransition frequencies at several different magnetic trap bias fields. The RF knife for evaporation operates near the one photon RF resonance. By selecting an RF knife frequency
resonant with the atoms the contents of the trap are quickly lost. Measuring the loss vs.
RF frequency gives a calibration of the magnetic field. Fig. 4-3 shows the dependence ofthe two photon transition energy as a function of observed magnetic field.
In adding together the microwave and RF frequencies we determined that our measured
two photon resonance was offset from the expected value by ∼ -540 Hz! For comparison
the clock shift is ∼15Hz. This shift occurred because of the extreme age (> 30 years) of thereference oscillator. The RF and microwave synthesizer were synchronized to the 10 MHz
clock signal provided by the microwave synthesizer. This offset did not drift during thecourse of the experiments. Assuming a linear drift, the quartz reference oscillator is aging
at a rate of < 2.6 × 10−9 /yr. This is reasonable value for the frequency stability drift.

604.2.2

State Measurement by Light Scattering

F'= 3, mF'= +1

F'= 3, mF'= +2

3MHz

σ+

3MHz

π

267 MHzF'= 3, mF'= 0

σ−
F'= 2

2
3

8
15

1
5

2.1 MHz (RF Knife)

F= 2, mF= +1

F= 2, mF= 0

Figure 4-4: Selected energies of the 5 P1/2 excited state hyperfine structure in 87 Rb near
the 780 nm scattering measurement optical transition. The measurement light is nominallyπ polarized (Bold arrow)and tuned to the 5S1/2 |2, +1i → 5P3/2 |3, +1i optical transition
with a magnetic field of 3.0 G. Adjacent states are also shown, with associated transition
polarization (thin arrows) and detuning. Grey bands indicate the broadening of the energy
levels due to the 6.06 MHz natural linewith. Numbers in circles are the Clebsch-Gordon
2 for each polarization, normalized so that a closed cycling transition (between
coefficients Ce,g
2 =1
only two states) has Ce,gScattering measurements were performed by 780 nm π polarized light tuned with an
acousto-optic modulator to resonance with the 5S1/2 |2, +1i → 5P3/2 |3, +1i optical transition at 3.0 G (Fig. 4-4). The photon recoil energy, Tr =362nK distinguishes scattered atoms
from the subrecoil µ=15nK BEC atoms. Repeated scatterings will eject the scattered atoms
from the trap. The low condensate collisional opacity of 0.05 reduces the probability of asecondary collision with the scattered atoms before they have received the ∼ 14 recoils necessary to be ejected from the trap. The laser beam has a 1/e2 diameter of d0 = 9.5(0.1) mm
and is monitored with a photodiode. After the QZE experiment is completed we turn off themagnetic trap and allow the surviving atoms to expand with 41 ms of free expansion. An
RF pulsed based state transfer technique was developed to allow simultaneous detection of
the |1, −1i and |2, +1i populations. Scattering measurements of atoms in the |2, +1i state
reduces the total BEC population. In our system the quantum Zeno effect was observedin the increasing lifetime of atoms in the initial |1, −1i state with more frequent scattering
measurements of the |2, +1i state.
61

4.2.3

Simultaneous Detection

Accurate measurement of the Rabi frequency ωR of the two level system is important forquantifying the quantum Zeno effect. Our condensate machine has shot to shot variationsin the condensate atom number of ∼ ±5%. On a few exceptional occasions the machine
has exhibited variations as low as ∼ ±2% over the span of an hour or two. This levelof stability has not been reproducible. These shot to shot variations impede the accurate
determination of the Rabi frequency. Because of these fluctuations it was highly desirable
to devise to image the population in both the |1, −1i and |2, +1i states simultaneously.
Selective accelerating one of the states with a near resonant Bragg pulse was initiallyconsidered. This technique had been previously used on the machine and the laser hardware
was already setup. However it also required optical access along the tweezer port direction
and would preclude timesharing with experiments being performed in the science chamber.
During our initial investigation of Raman superradiance [45] we were confounded byatoms which were scattered into states which did not agree with conservation of angularmomentum. The problem was eliminated when we added an RF TTL switch to the RF used
for evaporative cooling, turning it off before the magnetic trap turnoff. The presence of asmall amount of resonant RF interacting with the changing magnetic fields was couplingatoms through adiabatic passage into other states. Knowing that F=1 and F=2 hyperfine
manifolds had differing numbers of states and slightly different transition frequencies I set
about inducing this effect intentionally with the goal of sweeping the |1, −1i and |2, +1i
into states with different magnetic moments so that they could be Stern-Gerlach analyzed
with a magnetic field gradient.
Landau-Zener Tunneling
The probability P that an atom will make a transition when the drive frequency is swept
across a resonance is determined by the Landau-Zener tunneling formula.
Λ2
P = 1 − exp −π
dω/dt



(4.20)

where Λ is the coupling between the levels and dω/dt is the sweep rate. For low coupling(low RF power) and/or a fast sweep rate, the transfer is diabatic and does not change theapparent state of the system. In the energy picture (Fig. 4-5, Left side) the energies of thetwo states cross but they do not interact with each other. If the coupling is high (appreciable
RF power) and and the sweep rate is low the states will mix and emerge swapped at theend of the sweep (Fig. 4-5, Right side). In this case their is an avoided crossing and thecoupling bends the energy levels.

62

E

|B>

|B>

|A>

|A>

|A>

|B>

|B>

t

t

Figure 4-5: Energies of two states |Ai and |Bi as a function of time during a sweep acrossa resonance. Left figure shows the energies if the states are not coupled. A fast, diabatic,
sweep will follow the heavy lines on this graph. Right figure shows the avoided crossing
in energy caused by coupling. A slow, adaibatic, sweep will follow the heavy lines on thisgraph.

0 ms

2 ms

4 ms

6 ms

8 ms

10 ms

- µB
- 1 µB20+ 1 µB
2+ µB
Figure 4-6: Images of Rabi oscillating atoms after state mapping RF pulse and SternGerlach analysis. The top most spot corresponds with atoms initially in the |2, +1i state
and the second from the top corresponds to atoms initially in the |1, −1i state. Table 4.2
gives a full listing of the state mapping ratios. As a consequence of obtaining spatial good
separation between the different magnetic states the |2, +2i atoms were clipped out of theimage. Their position is indicated by the box and dashed outline. Images correspond toselect times in Fig.4-2.

State Mapping
An RF pulse with a frequency of 400kHz and 1 ms in duration was applied 4 ms after themagnetic trap turnoff to transfer the |1, −1i and |2, +1i state atoms into different, magnetically separable hyperfine states. The observed decay of the magnetic bias field during
this time is graphed in Fig. 3-16, indicating that the RF transition frequency is changing

63

at a rate of -200 kHz/ms. A magnetic gradient was then used to perform Stern-Gerlachstate analysis, spatially separating the atoms as a function of their magnetic moment µm .
As described in Sec. 3.5.1 during the first few ms after the magnetic trap is turned off thecondensate expands due to the mean field repulsion. After the first few ms the density has
dropped appreciably and the expansion is collision free. To prevent collisions from inducing
state changes the RF pulse was applied during this later, collision free time.
1

F=1 Populations

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

20

40
mV RF ü 400 kHz

60

80

Figure 4-7: Calibration of Landau-Zener transfer between F=1 states from RF induced
Zeeman sweep as a function of RF signal generator voltage (lab units proportional to Λ).
Data is observed transfer from |1, −1i (Triangles) into |1, 0i (Boxes) and |1, +1i (Diamonds)
as a function of signal generator RF voltage. Heavy lines are quadratic fits of the low Λ
limit of Eq. 4.20 to the data.

Table 4.2 gives the mapping ratios for our two initial states into their respective hyperfine
manifolds. The amplitude of the RF was adjusted so that almost no |2, +1i atoms were
mapped into the |2, −1i state while the number of |1, −1i mapped into the |1, +1i was
maximized. The zeroing out of the transfer to |2, −1i was found to be insensitive to changes
in RF amplitude of less than ∼ 5%. The zeroing out of the population occurs because ofinterference between the different couplings. It is present only because the Landau-Zenertransitions are neither fully in the adiabatic or diabatic regimes. For higher RF amplitudes(adiabatic limit) both initial states were mapped into the corresponding − 12 µB states, anunresolvable situation. Fig. 4-7 and 4-8 show a calibration of the transfer rate in terms oflab units (Signal generator mV RF) by approximating Eq. 4.20 for small coupling Λ. The
combined fits give Λ as 61.1 (0.4) Hz/mV RF.

4.2.4

Pulsed Measurement Experiments

We measured the quantum Zeno effect induced by repeated strong measurements on a driven
Rabi system. Scattering measurement pulses 10 µs in duration, power 172 µW (s0 =0.15),64

1F=2 Populations

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

20

40

60
80
mV RF ü 400 kHz

100

120

140

Figure 4-8: Calibration of Landau-Zener transfer between F=2 states from RF induced
Zeeman sweep as a function of RF voltage (proportional to Λ) in lab units. Data is observed
transfer from |2, +1i (Open Boxes) to |2, +2i (Open Triangles), |2, 0i (Diamonds),|2, −1i(Filled Boxes), and |2, −2i (Filled Triangles). Heavy lines are quadratic fits to the low Λ
limit to the data. Atom number measurements were not normalized against an atom freemeasurement, resulting in the ∼10% offsets in population.

µm

Input State

Output State
7.9(0.7)%|2, +2i29.7(0.6)%|2, +1i020.1(1.2)%|2, 0i− 12 µB

3.1(0.6)%|2, −1i−µB

39.2(0.9)%|2, −2i3.0(0.6)%|1, −1i

029.9(1.0)%|1, 0i− 12 µB

67.1(1.6)%|1, +1i+µB+ 12 µB+ 12 µB

100%

100%

|2, +1i|1, −1i

Table 4.2: Measured population ratios after state mapping RF pulse with
Λ/2π=8.25 kHz (135 mV RF). States in bold are used for determination of
the population in the input states.
were applied to the driven Rabi system, separated by a dark, free evolution time δt. Eachscattering measurement laser pulse scattered ∼ 29 photons per atom. The lifetime τ fora particular scattering measurement pulse rate 1/δt was determined by fitting the |1, −1iatom loss to an exponential decay curve over a range of times >∼ 2τ . Fig. 4-9 shows a
representative lifetime curve for the pulsed measurements.
The lifetimes for a variety of scattering measurement pulse rates 1/δt and Rabi frequen-65

Atom Number Harb.unitsL

300
250
200
150
100
50
0

100
Time HmsL

50

150

200

Figure 4-9: Observed decay of |1, −1i atoms with 10µs pulsed measurements separated by
500 µs dark periods. Fit is to an exponential decay τ = 57.7(2.6). The |1, −1i atoms are
driven with the two photon transition into the |2, +1i at a rate ωR /2π = 54.6(0.5) Hz.

Lifetime t HmsL

10000

1000

100

10
0.3

1

3
1êdt H ms-1 L

1030

Figure 4-10: Lifetime τ of atoms in the |1, −1i state as a function of measurement rate
1/δt in a driven two level system. Boxes are for a driving rate ωR /2π = 54.6(0.5) Hz
and Triangles for ωR /2π = 24.7(0.1) Hz. Filled symbols are observed lifetimes. Opensymbols are lifetimes corrected for parasitic losses with Eq. 4.21 (Measured loss rate Γm =3.41(0.14)s−1 , 2.96(0.22)s−1 ). Solid lines indicate the expected quantum Zeno effect limited
2.
lifetime τEP = 1/4δtωRcies ωR is depicted in Fig. 4-10. It shows the dramatic increase in the observed lifetimes(solid symbols) as the measurement frequency increases from 1/δt = 0.5ms−1 to 25ms−1 .
As expected for the strong measurement regime, the measured lifetimes were not found to
be strongly sensitive to variations in optical power, pulse width (Fig. 4-19), or laser de-66

Survival Probablity PHNL

1.

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

3

10

30
100
Measurements N

300

1000

Figure 4-11: Survival probability of |1, −1i atoms (Boxes ωR /2π = 54.6(0.5) Hz, Triangles
ωR /2π = 24.7(0.1) Hz) for N = π/ωR δt measurements performed during half a Rabi periodt = π/ωR . Survival probability is calculated from observed lifetimes P = exp (−π/ωR τobs )(2N )
π(Fig. 4-10). The solid line is the survival probability P (N ) = cos 2N
for an ideal N
measurement QZE.

tuning δL , but did exhibit a strong dependence on the Rabi frequency (ωR /2π = 24.7(0.1)
Hz upper line,54.6(0.5) Hz lower line). The fastest measurement rates (Fig. 4-10, farthest
right solid data points) showed the greatest deviations between the expected and observed
lifetimes. This is a consequence of having more measurements which could induce greaterparasitic loss and a longer time over which the parasitic loss effect could accumulate.
The longest QZE enhanced lifetime in Fig. 4-10 (upper left most filled data point) shows
an increase of τ ωR = 198(16) in lifetime. This data point is near, but not demonstrably
at the maximum lifetime possible for this Rabi frequency and pulse sequence. Other works[82, 84, 105] express the quantum Zeno effect in terms of the survival probability P (N )per number of measurements N during a π pulse (t = π/ωR ), a duration where absent
measurements 100% of the atoms would be transfered into the other state. Fig. 4-11translates our observed lifetimes into this general quantum Zeno basis. In these terms thegreatest quantum Zeno effect is for N=506(2) measurements with a survivial probablity
P=0.984(1).
To test the agreement between the predicted QZE and our observations we calculated
a corrected lifetime τEP by subtracting out a separately calibrated scattering measurement
parasitic loss rate Γm . The total observed loss rate 1/τ is split into two segments: a brightparasitic loss driven fraction and a dark QZE loss driven fraction. For pulses 10 µ in
duration the parasitic measurement loss fraction is f = 10µs/ (10µs + δt) of the time. The
dark QZE driven loss occurs for the remaining 1 − f of the time. For all experiments thebright fraction of the total time f was never greater than 20%.
67

1
1
(1 − f ) + Γm f=
ττEP

(4.21)

Data points in Fig. 4-10 where this correction had a significant impact on the lifetime areindicated by open rather than filled symbols. Including the the loss correction adjustment,
the combined pulsed regime data gives a QZE limited lifetime 0.836(0.014) that that of the
2 /τ
expected value ( 14 δtωR
EP = 1).

Secondary collisions between recoiling post measurement atoms and the remaining condensate likely account for the gap between the observed and expected lifetimes. The effects
from collisions are considered in detail in Sec. 4.3.6. Lower trap depths, lower densities, andstronger scattering measurement laser pulses could reduce these effects. Separate measurement of the parasitic loss rate Γm from the strong scattering measurement pulses showedno change in rate with the removal of the RF component of the driving two photon transition but was reduced by an order of magnitude without the microwave component. Thissuggests that the parasitic loss mechanism is dominated by a two photon scatting throughthe |2, 0i virtual state to the 5P3/2 |3, 0i excited state.

4.2.5

Continuous Measurement Experiments

In another experiment, the same initial system was subjected to a weak continuous mea2 issurement instead of repeated strong measurements. The expected lifetime τEC = γ/ωR

a function of the scattering rate γ and the driving rate ωR [111]. So showing a qualitative
quantum Zeno effect in a driven system is straightforward. Turn up the laser power toincrease the scattering measurement rate on one state and observe that the lifetime of theunmeasured state increases. Demonstrating a quantitative measurement of the continuous
QZE is more challenging. Unlike the pulsed experiments, if the scattering measurement
laser is detuned from the optical resonance several problems arise. The expected lifetime
for continuous scattering measurement with a laser beam of saturation intensity s0 and
detuning δL − δ0 from resonance is

τEC =

γ
Γs0 
=
2
2 
ωR
2ωR


1+4

1


δL −δ0Γ
2 (4.22)

where deltaL is our independently controlled detuning, δ0 an offset correction which isideally 0, and Γ is the natural linewidth of the transition.
The first problem is that detuning of the laser from resonance will reduce the scattering
rate. The second is that we need a good calibration of the saturation parameter s0 at
the atoms to determine the absolute scattering rate γ. In addition if the laser light is off
resonance it will induce an AC Stark Shift δRF in the two photon resonance, reducing theeffective Rabi frequency if the drive frequency is not adjusted. Fortunately the AC stark68

shift is directly related to the scattering rate. The Stark shift in a multilevel atom [112]such as 87 Rb is2
δRF = s0 Ce,g

δL − δ0
1 + (2 (δL − δ0 ) /Γ)2

(4.23)

2 = 8 is the Clebsch-Gordon coefficient for our transition. By measuring thewhere Ce,g
15

AC stark shift δRF at different laser detunings δL and optical powers we can perform an
in-situ calibration of the scattering rate to determine expected continuous QZE lifetimes
without any free parameters.
We begin all of our continuous QZE measurements by first measuring the AC Stark Shift.
The upper graph of Fig. 4-12 shows an RF tuning curve, where the RF has been adjusted todetermine the detuning of maximum depletion δRF for a fixed hold time. In this figure thelaser has been intentionally detuned off resonance to produce a larger AC Stark shift. The
RF is on resonance when the number of surviving |1, −1i atoms is minimized, indicatinga maximal transfer rate from |1, −1i to |2, +1i. At this RF frequency a decay curve forthe |1, −1i state is measured to determine the lifetime τEC . Simultaneous detection allows
us to ensure that no appreciable number of |2, +1i atoms are present. The off resonance
AC Stark shift (Fig. 4-13) is used to make a no free parameter prediction (grey band)of the expected CW Zeno lifetimes. Fig. 4-14 shows the dramatic increase in lifetime
with increasing scattering measurement laser beam power along with the expected lifetimes
from from the AC Stark shift measurements. Optical power from the continuous scattering
measurement also broadens the two photon transition, as shown in Fig. 4-15.
Fig. 4-16 shows the dependence of the AC stark shift δRF on the laser detuning δL .
Fitting the measured AC Stark shifts to the dispersion relation for a multilevel atom (Eq.
4.23) we were able to extract in-situ values for the saturation parameter s0 = 1.112(5)×10−3
at 3.5 µW laser power and detuning offset δ0 = 0.39(0.31) MHz. These values were in basic
agreement with that expected from our external measurements of laser beam diameter,
optical power, and locking spectroscopy signal. The predicted continuous measurement
lifetimes are given by Eq. 4.22 which are depicted as gray bands in Fig. 4-14 and 4-17.
Similar to the longest lifetime point in the pulsed data (upper right solid triangle, Fig.
4-10), the highest power point in Fig. 4-14 shows significant deviation from the lifetime
expected from Eq. 4.22. The broadening of the resonance observed in Fig. 4-17 is explainedby a the presence of σ + and σ − polarizations from gravitational sag in the trap. This effectis explained in Sec. 4.3.4.
From the AC Stark shift measured in Fig. 4-16 and Eq. 4.22 we calculate an expected
lifetime of τEC = 250(8) ms that is in agreement 0.93(0.11) with the observed on resonancelifetime τEC = 233(26) ms in Fig. 4-17. The highest power point in Fig. 4-14 demonstrates
a QZE enhancement of lifetime τEC ωR = 162(20). Fig. 4-14 shows increasing lifetime withincreasing scattering measurement laser power, the signature of the continuous quantum

69

Atom Number Harb.unitsL
Atom Number Harb.unitsL

800
600
400
200
-4000-2000 02000 4000
RF Detuning dRF HHzL

1000
800
600
400
200
0

50

100 150 200
Time HmsL

250

Figure 4-12: Continuous quantum Zeno effect with the scattering measurement laser detuned δL = +4.9 MHz from the optical resonance. Upper: RF spectroscopy measurement of
the AC Stark effect showing maximum loss of |1, −1i atoms when tuned δRF = +927(74)Hz
to the shifted RF resonance (150 ms hold). Lower: Decay curve of the |1, −1i atoms at
the shifted RF resonance. Observed lifetime is τ = 99(7). Data is for 3.5 µW laser power,
ωR /2π = 45.5(1.0) Hz.

Zeno effect. By matching the observed lifetimes for continuous and pulsed QZE measurements we find that γδt = 3.60(0.43), in agreement with the predicted ratio of 4 [111].

70

1

RF Stark Shift dRF HkHzL

0.5

0

-0.5

-1

-1.5

2

4

6
Optical Power HmWL

8

10

12

Figure 4-13: AC Stark shift of the two photon transition as a function of optical power for
laser detunings both on and off δL = −5.4 MHz resonance. Grey band shows the uncertainty
in the linear fit for the on resonance case. The line is a linear fit of the off resonance AC
Stark Shift and is used to calibrate the saturation parameter s0 in Fig. 4-14.
Saturation s0
4.8x10 - 3
9.6x10 - 3

014.4x10 - 3

750

Lifetime τEC HmsL

Lifetime τEC HmsL

1000

500

200

100

0

0

1
2
3
Optical Power HHµWL
WL

250

0
0

4
8
Optical Power HHµWL
WL

12Figure 4-14: Continuous quantum Zeno effect lifetime dependence on optical power with
ωR /2π = 48.5(0.9) Hz for laser detunings both on (Boxes) and δL =-5.4 MHz off (Triangles)
resonance. Grey band indicates range of expected CW lifetimes from fit to separately
measured off resonance AC Stark shift in Fig. 4-13. Inset highlights data at lower opticalpowers. The saturation parameter s0 scale has an uncertainty of 17%.

4.3

Technical Limitations

4.3.1

Optical Opacity

Bose-Einstein condensates are typically thought of as being optically dense samples toresonant light. On the scattering measurement optical transition the optical density if
71

RF Width HkHzL

10
8
6
4
2
2

4
6
8
Optical Power HmWL

10

12

Figure 4-15: Optical power broadening of the two photon transition. Gaussian width of
the RF transitions as a function of optical power for laser detunings both on (Boxes) andδL =-5.4 MHz off (Triangles) resonance. ωR /2π = 48.5(0.9) Hz.

RF Detuning dRF HkHzL

1

0.5

0

-0.5

-1
-15

-10

-5
0
5
Laser Detuning dL HMHzL

10

15

Figure 4-16: Observed AC Stark shift δL as a fucntion of laser detuning δL . Data is for 3.5µW laser power, ωR /2π = 45.5(1.0) Hz.

our condensate is totally in the |2, +1i state is ∼ 25. Atoms at the outer edge of thecondensate would mask those in the bulk from the light. This optical density masking
precludes successful observation of low measurement number N quantum Zeno effects [82,84] in Bose-Einstein condensates. However when frequency measurements are made thepopulation in the |2, +1i state is much smaller. For an optical density of less the 1, notmore than 4% of the atoms can be in the |2, +1i state. Applying this limit to Eq. 4.4 gives
an allowable time between measurements of less than .1/ωR . In terms of measurements per

72

Lifetime tEC HmsL

300

200

100

0
-20

-10
0
10
Laser Detuning dL HMHzL

20

Figure 4-17: Continuous quantum Zeno lifetime as a function of the scattering measurement
laser detuning δL . Grey band indicates range of predicted CW Zeno lifetimes Eq. 4.22
from separately measured AC Stark shift parameters. Data is for 3.5 µW laser power,
ωR /2π = 45.5(1.0) Hz.

”π” time this is N >∼ 31.
In Fig.4-11 measurements down to N=6 were performed and found to be in agreementwith the expected survival probability. This corresponds to a population of 6.9% or an
optical density of 1.7 in the |2, +1i state. When an average of 29 photons per atom areincident on the condensate in a pulse only ∼ 0.6 photons per pulse will make it to the backof the condensate. This number is a bit low but reasonable if we consider that photons
which have already scattered one atom can scatter another. This will increase the total
photon flux on the far side of the condensate.
Two processes which may affect the illumination of the condensate are optical pumping
into the F=1 hyperfine ground states and the spontaneous light force pushing scatteredatoms out of the way. Raman scattering to the F=1 ground state can only occur off
resonantly through the F’=2 excited state level. The 267 MHz detuning from the F’=3
level suppresses this scattering process to ∼ 10−4 of the on resonance scattering. Hence
Raman processes are unlikely to decrease the condensates optical opacity. If we consider
the measured atoms to experience a constant acceleration from the spontaneous light force,
they will move on average 0.87 µm during at 10µs pulse. This is small compared with the
8.6µm Thomas-Fermi diameter of the condensate in the direction of the laser beam.

4.3.2

RF Detuning

Ideally we would always be exactly on resonance with the two photon transition. As apractical matter we will always be detuned off resonance to some degree. It is therefore

73

important to characterize the consequences of detuning to determine at how far we canbe detuned before our measurements will be adversely affected. Consider the situation oflossless oscillation between two states A and B, such as in Eq. 4.2, but detuned off resonanceby δRF .

PA (t) =PB (t) =

0 t
ωR
2
 0 
2
ωR
ωR t
sin2
02
2
ωR
2
ωR
cos2
02
ωR



(4.24)(4.25)

02 = ω 02 + δ 2
where ωR
R
RF is the effective Rabi frequency. For times t  1/ωR , 1/δRF theapproximate populations are the same as Eq. 4.4.

PA (t) ≈ 1 − (tωR /2)2
PB (t) ≈(4.26)

2(tωR /2)(4.27)To see the effects of detuning at short times we must continue the Taylor expansionin time from second order to fourth order, expressing the result as a scaling of the second
order approximation.
PB (t) ≈

ωR t
2

2 

δ 2 t2 ω 2 t2
1 − RF − R
1212
(4.28)

To consider the effects of detuning on the quadratic short approximation we can comparethem with the reduction in population transfer from the forth order ωR term, which is always
present. In the absence of detuning (δRF = 0) the short time approximation is reasonable
for surprisingly long times, overestimating the transfer from state A to state B by only 9%
when ωR t = 1. Likewise for δRF = ωR the losses from the fourth order temporal terms areequal. Therefore detunings δRF  ωR should not be of significant concern.
A separate case to consider is when the detuning δRF is large relative to the Rabi
frequency omegaR . This would be the case if we were pushed off resonance by an AC stark
shift. In this case detuning will extend the observed lifetime τobs from the expected lifetimeτEP byτEP /τobs = 1 −1(δRF t)2
12(4.29)

Change in the lifetime limits δR F <∼ 0.77/t for pulsed measurements for variations
similar to the ±5% reproducibility level of our machine. For measurement pulses witha period with δt =1ms, this is δRF < 770Hz. From this it is concluded that the pulsed
QZE experiments should be very robust against systematic errors in the RF detunings.

74

The effects of detuning on the continuous case is both more and less complicated. If themeasurement probe laser is off resonance it will induce an AC Stark shift proportional toits intensity. As mentioned in the experimental section, we treat this systemically througha separately measurement of the shift.

4.3.3

Clock shift

0-2
Clock Shift HHzL

-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
1

2

3
Time H têt L

4

5

6

Figure 4-18: Expected change in the clock shift (Hz) for our Zeno experiment BEC, decaying
with lifetime τ .

The |2, +1i and |1, −1i states have different scattering lengths. Hence condensates withidentical densities have different mean field energies depending on which state they are in.
This difference in energies results in a shift in the transition energy between the states which
is dependent on the local density, often referred to as the cold collision shift or the clock
shift. For small population transfers the clock shiftδν12 = −2~∆a12nm(4.30)

where ∆a12 is the difference in scattering lengths between states 1 and 2. In our quantum
Zeno experiments the BEC population is dropping in time as |1, −1i atoms that havetransfered to |2, +1i are scattered away. This changes the density and hence the clock shiftδν(t) as a function of the condensate lifetime τ .
75



2t
δν(t) = δν0 exp −5τ

(4.31)

Typically the lifetime measurements span a range of times ∼ 2τ , which corresponds toa 45% change in the clock shift. For a large BEC Nc = 5 × 106 in a {63,63,6.3}Hz trap, theclock shift is δν0 = −97Hz, and will change by ∼ 45 Hz during a lifetime measurement. Thisis an amount comparable to the Rabi frequencies used in our experiments. If we instead
reduce the atom number by 99% to Nc = 5 × 104 the clock shift becomes -15.4 Hz andthe change during a lifetime measurement reduces to 7 Hz, which is much smaller than the
Rabi frequency.
For our data the most extreme scenarios are for the longest times between pulses. From
Eq. 4.28 the fourth order Rabi frequency population correction to the δt=1.2 ms andωR /2π=54.6 Hz point is 1.4% and the detuning correction is 0.02%. For the δt=1.9 ms
and ωR =24.7 Hz point the fourth order population correction is 0.72% and the detuning
correction is 0.06%. In neither case is their an appreciable effect.

4.3.4

Polarization

Ideally the electric field vector of the linearly polarized scattering measurement laser lightis exactly aligned with the magnetic field vector of the condensate, driving only π opticaltransitions. Misalignment of the polarization with the magnetic field vector of the atoms
in the condensate with the electric field vector of the light will shift intensity from the πtransition onto the σ + and σ − transitions. In the 3.0 magnetic bias field these transitions
are split by 2.8 MHz, which is smaller than the natural linewidth of 6.06 MHz, but large
enough to potentially introduce complications (Fig. 4-4) in the AC stark shift calibration.
We know from previous measurements that our condensate is level with respect togravity to within less than a degree. Gravitational sag in the magnetic trap will rotate themagnetic field vector in the condensate from horizontal. Since our laser beam is oriented
vertically this will mix in σ + +σ − polarizations in equal amount. With a magnetic bias fieldof 3.0 Gauss and a vertical trap frequency of 63 Hz Eq. 3.10 from Sec. 3.7.1 gives the angle
between the long axis of the condensate and the magnetic field vector of 14◦ . A multilevel
model accounting for all three polarizations showed that the change in the slope of the AC
stark shift was less than 1% for this rotation angle. More importantly the linewidth of thetransition increases from 6.06 MHz to 8.8 MHz. This explains the broader than expected
linewidth observed in Fig. 4-17.

4.3.5

Superradiance

One concern in illuminating the condensate with near or on resonant laser light is thepossibility of nonlinear processes such as superradiance [44, 45, 68] modifying the scattering
rate or inducing additional losses. As a first precaution against nonlinear effects we worked
76

far below the saturation intensity. In previous works π polarized light at low intensities
scatters photons from a condensate with the distribution expected from a single atomand does not undergo either Raman or Rayleigh superradiance [44, 45, 68]. If superradiantprocesses are occurring they will exhibit a nonlinear increase in atom losses with time andintensity. Since previous studies were done off resonance a check was done to ensure thatsuperradiance was not occuring when we performed a scattering measurement. Fig. 4-19
shows how increasing the pulse width does not result in substantial additional losses as wewould expect for superradiance.

0

57

0

20

Photonsêpulse
114
171

228

286

80

100

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
40
60
Pulse Width HmsL

2 /τFigure 4-19: Expected pulsed quantum Zeno effect ( 41 δtωR
EP = 1) as a function of scattering measurement laser pulse width. Open triangles are corrected for parasitic measurement
losses.

4.3.6

Collisions

Collisions between the recoiling atoms which have been measured and the remaining condensate can cause additional losses. To estimate the effects of collisions the scattering crosssection and the duration that scattered atoms remain in the trap must be considered. When77the measured atom has absorbed a photon it is in the 5P3/2 excited state and has a muchlarger scattering cross section due to the strong allowed dipole interaction with the surrounding 5S1/2 state atoms. After the atom has relaxed back to the 5S1/2 ground state byspontaneously emitted a photon it has a much smaller scattering cross section due to theweak induced dipole interaction with the surrounding 5S1/2 state atoms.
Both the absorption and emission of a 780 nm photon with a 87 Rb atom will imparta recoil velocity of 6 mm/s, equivalent to a temperature of Tr =376 nK where 12 kB Tr =1
2
2 mvr .

While the absorbed photon is always in the direction of the probe laser beam, thespontaneously emitted photon will radiate in a random direction and do not contributeto the average momentum. While this recoil energy is much greater than the chemical
potential of the BEC (µ=15nK) it is much less than the trap depth of 5µK. To escapefrom a trap of energy depth Utrap requires an average kinetic energy 21 m(Nsc vr )2 from Nsc
scatterings. Solving for Nsc as a function of recoil temperature and trap depth givesr
Nsc =2UtrapkB Tr(4.32)For a 5µK deep trap this is an average of ∼ 5.2 photon scatterings before the atom has
sufficient momentum to be ejected from the trap. This is much smaller than the average of
29 photon scatterings which the condensate normally undergoes per discrete measurement
pulse. Some deviation may be expected in the infrequent pulse regime because as calculated
in Sec. 4.3.1 the optical power can be significantly attenuated when it reaches the far sideof the condensate.
Collisional losses can occur when the atoms are escaping from the condensate or ifthey are retained by the trap and recollide with condensate. In the case of the initially
escaping 5S1/2 state scattered atoms the small number of atoms in the condensate gives ita low collisional opacity of ∼5%, putting this loss enhancement on par with our shot toshot noise. However this calculation does not account for the greatly increase scatteringcross section during the 25 ns a measured atom is in the 5P3/2 per photon scattering. The
potential for the 5S1/2 + 5P3/2 interaction goes as U = −C3 /r3 and the scattering crosssection calculated from a semi classical approximation is σSP = 2π 2 C~v3 for an atom withvelocity v (p. 525 [113]). The coefficient of this interaction has been calculated to be
C3 = 10.1e20 a20 [114]. For an rubidium atom traveling at the recoil velocity v = vr ≈6mm/s
the excited state scattering cross section is σSP = 4.3 × 10−7 cm2 , nearly five orders ofmagnitude larger then the s-wave (5S1/2 + S1/2 ) scattering cross section of 7.3 × 10−12 cm2 .
The effect of this significantly large scattering cross section is reduced by the low probability of finding the atom in the excited state. For the pulsed experiment with a saturation
parameter of s0 = 0.15 this amounts to a factor of 15 reduction and for the continuous experiments with a saturation parameter of s0 = 0.001 a factor of 2000. Both of these would
still suggest the overwhelming probability that a measured atom collides with at least one
additional atom for each photon it scatters. This does not agree with our observed loss
78

rates, which show only a 17% increase over the expected loss rate. A possible explaination
for the pulsed data is that because we are on resonance the Condon radius at which therubidium molecule would form is much larger then the size of the condensate, but thatwould not account for the invarience of the pulsed loss rate to changes in laser detuning.

4.4

Conclusions

We have extended previous work in pulsed QZE measurements [82, 84, 85] by exploiting advantages inherent to trapped ultracold atoms. In ion experiments optical pumping between
states during the pulsed laser scattering measurements changed the observed population[82, 84], requiring significant corrections for the N=32 and N=64 pulse measurements (Table I, [82]). With corrections on N=64 data the greatest survival probability observed was
P (64) = 0.943(20) or τEP ωR = 54(30). Unlike scattering photons off tightly trap ions, thescattering of a single photon off a weakly trapped ultra-cold atom induces a dramatic andeasily distinguishable change in momentum. Furthermore, repeated scatterings increase thismomentum and enhance rather than degrade the contrast with unmeasured atoms. QZEexperiments of an unstable system involving tunneling measurements of cold neutral atoms
in an accelerating lattice [85] observed an increased in survival probability from P=0.6 to
P=0.8 with N=9 measurements.
Previous demonstrations of the continuous QZE [86–89] observed qualitative, but not
quantitatively characterized suppression effects with increasing laser intensity. In a trapped
ion system evolving with free Larmour precession in a magnetic field an ∼ 80% reductionin floresence with increasing laser intensity (near and above saturation) was observed [87].
A less comparable continuous QZE system is that observed from molecular collisions in
nuclear spin isomer polarized 13 CH3 F gas, where a 60% drop in the conversion rate of gas
was observed when the pressure was increased by 12 times [86].
The large hyperfine splitting in 87 Rb is favorable for QZE type experiments because
it reduces the chance of off resonant scattering of the measurement laser by atoms in the|1, −1i state to 2.8 × 10−7 of that for |2, +1i atoms. Substituting a single photon Rabi
oscillation on the F=1, mF =0 ↔ F=2, mF =0 clock transition [107] in a low density sample
could reduce the systematic limitations observed in this paper relating to the observed
parasitic measurement related losses and probable collisional losses.
Complications from an optically dense sample were avoided by working in the frequent
measurement regime to prevent appreciable buildup of atoms in the measured state. The
QZE is closely related to the phenomena of interaction free measurements [99, 100], where
information about the state of a system can be determined from the absence rather thanpresence of a scattering event.
In conclusion we have used a new system to perform quantum Zeno effect measurements
deep in the limit of strong suppression. We have measured and quantified the suppression79

of evolution due to both the continuous weak measurement and frequent pulsed strong
measurement cases. Our observed quantum Zeno suppressions are larger than both previous
pulsed [82] and continuous [87] results, and is also greater than that expected from recently
proposed experiments [101, 104, 105, 115]. The lifetime of the initial state is equal whenγδt = 3.60(0.43), in agreement with the predicted value of 4 [111]. Initial state lifetimes
were increased by 198(16) 1/ωR in the pulse regime and 172(20) 1/ωR in the continuous
regime.

80

Appendix A

Rubidium Oven Plans
This appendix includes the machine drawings for the BEC IV Rubidium oven. Plans should
be used for reference purposes only. Piece #4 was fabricated but not installed. A separate
aluminum mount was fabricated and iridium soldered to the cold finger to compensate fora mislabeling of the cold finger length.

81

Erik Streed
November 29 2000
streed@mit.edu
Ph. 617-452-2501
Rm. 36-272A

Piece 1: Differential Pumping Tube:
Work on 4.5" Reducing Flange.

All parts 300 series (non magnetic) stainless steel.
Attach mounting disc as best seen fit. Must meet Ultra High Vacuum rating

0.25" O.D. s.s. tube, 1/32" thick5" long.
2.75"

2.25"

Mounting Disc0.25" thick, 1.5" Dia s.s.
set halfway in 4.5" flange
Mounting Disc Detail4.5" to 2.75" s.s. Reducing Flange (provided)
Body tube is 1.5" O.D. 1/32" thick s.s.

1.5"

Mitre 1/32"
mounting grovefor centered
fit in flange

Centered holefor 0.25" O.D.
s.s. tube

Drawing is to scale: 1"=1"

Piece 2: Rb Oven Nozzle
Work on 4.5" & 2.75" flange.

OFE Copper

Stainless Steel

1.00 in2 3 / 4 " Flange(provide)1.00 in O.D.

5 Watt Conduction loss
5°C Temp Gradient on Cu tube
from Conduction loss
12 Watt B.B. Radition Heatingfrom Cu To S.S. Tube.

Thermal Info For
4.5" Flange Temp = 20 °C
2.75" Flange Temp= 150 °C

1" O.D. 1 / 8 " thick OFE Cu tube

Please use vacuum grade, oxygen free Copper.
Plate Copper parts with 1 mil Nickel

2.00 in O.D.

2 " O.D. 1 / 3 2 " thick s.s. tube

2.50 in

0.75 in2.00 in3.00 in
4 1 / 2 " Flange(provide)

Make all connections with methods rated for Ultra High Vacuum.

Vacuum System
Centerline

See detailed drawing

Vacuum System
Centerline

Erik Streed
December 4, 2000
streed@mit.edu
Ph. 617-452-2501
Rm. 36-272A

1/

1" Cu Tube, 1/8" walls

Centered 9 / 3 2 " hole

Front View

Attach Cu Disk to Cu Tube with methods rated for Ultra High Vacuum..

8 " Thick Cu Disk, 1" Dia.

Piece 2: Rb Oven Nozzle Detail
All parts OFE Copper
Please plate with 1 mil Nickel.
Side View

2 Holes, 180° apart
Tapped for 4-40 screws
Centered on a circle
diameter 9/16"

Erik Streed
December 4, 2000
streed@mit.edu
Ph. 617-452-2501
Rm. 36-272A

Piece 3: Rb Oven Cold Cup.

16"

8"

1.25" O.D.

1/

3.00 in1/

16"

1.00 in

Vacuum System
Center Line

Please plate piece with 1 mil. Nickel

Side View (Exterior)

1.25" O.D.

8"
8"Side View (Cross Section)

1/
3/

1/

OFE Copper4"

2.125" O.D.
1/

Two 1 / 4 " Holes

2.125" O.D.

Front View
Vacuum Wall

0.44"

0.85 in1.20 in

Erik Streed
Dec 4, 2000
streed@mit.edu
Ph. 617-452-2501
Rm. 36-272A

Tapped holes for
10-32 screws

Vacuum System
Center LineThroughholes for
10-32 screws

Thermal Budget
Heating from 25°C Surroundings ~3 Watts
Heating from 160°C Nozzle ~ 7 Watts

I t i s c r i t i c a l t h a t t h i s p i e c e m a t ch w i t h
Piece #4, Rb Oven Cold Cup Mount.

Piece 4: Rb Oven Cold Cup Mount
Please plate Cu parts with 1 mil. Nickel.

0.75 in

0.25"

0.24"

0.85 in1.68 in1.20 in

0.630"

I t i s c r i t i c a l t h a t t h i s p i e c e m a t ch w i t h
Piece #3, Rb Oven Cold Cup.

Front

Top

Erik Streed
Dec 4, 2000
streed@mit.edu
Ph. 617-452-2501
Rm. 36-272A

0.75 inSide

OFE Copper

1.25 in
0.50 inHoles for 10-32 screws
Countersunk. 0.75" spacing

Press fit Helical Coils to act as nuts for 10-32 screws

1.25 inOFE Copper

A Copper Rectangle 1/8" Thick,1.75" Long, 0.75" High.
With three 9/32" Diameter holes along
the long axis. One centered andtwo 5/16" from center.
Remove material from outter holes to edge as
indicated.

Component to fit to Piece 3. Rb Oven Cold Cup
with 2 10-32 screws.

2 Holes 9/32" Dia, 5/16" from center

0.75 in9/32" Dia

Piece 5: Rb Oven Cold Cup Faceplate1.25 inPlease plate with 1 mil Nickel.

0.44"

Erik Streed
Nov. 6, 2000
streed@mit.edu
Ph. 617-452-2501
Rm. 36-272A

Piece 6: Rb Oven Nozzle Faceplate.
OFE Copper
Please plate with 1 mil Nickel.
Faceplate is a copper rectangle 0.81" x 0.5" x 1/16"
Three holes.
First is 5mm, centered.
Other two are on long axis,
9/32" from center, 1/8" Dia.

Center Hole
5mm (0.197") Dia.

0.81 in2 Holes on axis.
1 / " Dia. for 4-40 screw feedthrough8
Located 9/32" from center.

Component to fit adjustably to Piece 2. Rb Oven Nozzle
with 2 4-40 screws.

Erik Streed
November 29, 2000
streed@mit.edu
Ph. 617-452-2501
Rm. 36-272A

9/32 in

9/32 in
0.5"

Erik Streed
452-2501
streed@mit.edu

Work on 4.5” conflat flange
standard 5 mil tolerance required
stainless steel(304ss)

Pleaseplate Copper parts with 1 mil Nickel.

oxygen free copper

0.75”

tapped hole for
10-32 screw(centered)centered rodof Copper

s.s. flange(provided)

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

3.83”

knife edge3.03” 1/32”
0.2”

weld here

0.7”
0.2”

0.5”

1.75” O.D.
tapped holes (2) for
10-32 screws,
180 degrees apart,centered on a 0.75”
diam circle.

grooved out area
Copper slug

Appendix B

Publication: Large Atom Number
BEC Machines
This appendix contains the Review of Scientific Instruments (RSI) manuscript RSI MS#
A050544R “Large Atom Number BEC Machines” [48], describing the construction andcharacterization of the 3rd and 4th Bose Einstein Condensate machines built at MIT. This
manuscript was accepted for publication by RSI on December 13, 2005.

90

Large atom number Bose-Einstein Condensate machines

1

Erik W Streed1 , Ananth P Chikkatur2 , Todd L Gustavson3 , Micah Boyd1 , Yoshio
Torii4 , Dominik Schneble5 , Gretchen K Campbell1 ,David E Pritchard1 ,Wolfgang Ketterle1
MIT-Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms, Research Laboratory of Electronics and Department of Physics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
2
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Littauer P-14,
79 JFK St., Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
3
Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory End Station 3, Rm. M302,
Department of Physics, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 94305 USA
4Institute of Physics, University of Tokyo, 3-8-1, Meguro-ku, Komaba, Tokyo 153-8902, Japan5
Physics A-106, Department of Physics and Astronomy,
SUNY Stony Brook, Stony Brook, New York 11794, USA(Dated: November 18, 2005)

We describe experimental setups for producing large Bose-Einstein condensates of 23 Na and 87 Rb. In both, ahigh flux thermal atomic beam is decelerated by a Zeeman slower and is then captured and cooled in a magnetooptical trap. The atoms are then transfered into a cloverleaf style Ioffe-Pritchard magnetic trap and cooled toquantum degeneracy with radio frequency induced forced evaporation. Typical condensates contain 20 million
atoms. We discuss the similarities and differences between the techniques used for producing large 87 Rb and23
Na condensates in the context of nearly identical setups.
PACS numbers: 03.75.Hh, 39.10.+j,39.25.+k, 07.30.-t

I.

INTRODUCTION

It has been a decade since Bose Einstein condensation(BEC) in atomic vapors was first observed [1, 2]. The transition from a classical thermal gas to a quantum degenerate
Bose-Einstein condensate occurs when the phase space density, ρ = nλ3dB is increased to ∼ 1, where n is the number
density and λdB is the thermal de Broglie wavelength of theatoms. So in principle, getting a BEC is easy: you simply cool
down the gas until the critical phase space density is reached.
In practice, the procedure is more complicated. A variety ofdifferent techniques are used to increase the phase space density in several stages (Table I). Furthermore, each atom has
different properties and requires modifications to the coolingtechniques. Major work by many groups around the world
has now extended these cooling techniques to an impressive
number of atomic species: 87 Rb [3], 23 Na [4], 7 Li [5, 6], 1 H[7], 85 Rb [8], 4 He* [9, 10], 41 K [11], 133 Cs [12], 174 Yb [13],and 52 Cr [14]. Still, 23 Na and 87 Rb are the two atoms withthe most favorable properties for laser and evaporative cooling and are used most frequently.
A distinguishing characteristic of most experiments is themethod in which atoms are laser cooled and then loaded intoa magnetic or optical trap for evaporative cooling. Our approach at MIT employs atomic ovens and Zeeman slowing.
Other approaches use variations of a vapor cell magnetooptical trap (MOT), in a double MOT configuration, surface
MOT [15], or as a source of low velocity atoms [16, 17]. An
important figure of merit of a BEC experiment is the numberof atoms in the condensate. Large atom number allows better signal-to-noise ratios, greater tolerance against misalignments, and greater robustness in day-to-day operation. Since
1996, the MIT sodium BEC setups have featured the largest
alkali condensates. Our three setups routinely produce condensates with atom numbers between 20 and 100 million.

Stagen (/cm3 ) Temperature Velocitya ρ

Oven

1013

383K

334 m/s

10−14

Thermal Beam

7

10

n/a

334 m/s

10−20

Slowed Beam

107

10−18

Loading MOT

bn/a

43 m/s10150µK

210 mm/s 10−7

11

300µK

300 mm/s 4 × 10−7

10µK

54 mm/s 6 × 10−5500µK

380 mm/s 2 × 10−7

10bCompressed MOT 10
Molassesb
Magnetic trap

1011
11

10

13

BEC Transition

3 × 10500 nK

12 mm/s 2.61

Pure BEC

1014(250 nKc )8.5 mm/s (100)TABLE I: Typical phase space densities (ρ) during BEC production. Numbers given are for the 87 Rb apparatus.
a most probableb Typical values, not measured separately
c Chemical potential

Since the diode lasers used to cool rubidium are less expensive than the dye lasers needed for sodium, most new groups
have chosen to work with rubidium. The majority of rubidium
experiments use vapor cell MOTs, however the typical sizesof the condensates created with vapor cells MOTs are smaller
then those realized with a Zeeman slower. The construction ofvapor cell MOT rubidium condensate machines is extensively
detailed in the complementary work of Ref. [18].
When the Center for Ultracold Atoms was created at MIT
and Harvard, a major goal for the Center was to create 87 Rb
condensates with large atom number using the techniques developed for 23 Na condensates. The successful accomplishment of that goal is described in this paper. Furthermore, we
are able to discuss similarities and differences between thecooling techniques used for 87 Rb and 23 Na in the context ofnearly identical systems. Our conclusion is that Zeeman slow-

2
ing of an atomic beam works as well for 87 Rb as for 23 Na.
The added length and therefore overall size of the vacuum apparatus may seem daunting, however in our experience, theZeeman slowing has proven to be a simple and reliable way togenerate an intense slow beam. We present the technical details of how to build a large atom number Bose-Einstein condensate experiment with an intense Zeeman slowed source for
either atomic species.
These most recent, third-generation, sodium and rubidium
experiments at MIT were both designed with an additional
vacuum chamber (“science chamber”) into which cold atoms
can be moved using optical tweezers. The multi-chamber design allows us to rapidly reconfigure the experimental setup
in the science chambers while keeping the BEC production
chamber under vacuum. This has allowed us to perform very
different experiments in rapid succession [19–30].

II.

SYSTEM OVERVIEW

}

Oven

g

1m

}

ZeemanSlowerCloverleaf style
Ioffe-Pritchard
Magnetic Trap

Optical Tweezers
Beampath andTranslation Axis

}
}
Main
Chamber

ScienceChamber

FIG. 1: Vacuum system diagram and major subsystems. 87 Rb apparatus shown.

Fig. 1 illustrates the layout of our system. A thermal atomic
beam emanates from the oven and is decelerated with the Zeeman slower. In the main chamber, the slowed atoms are captured and cooled with a six-beam magneto-optical trap (MOT)[31]. Before loading the Ioffe-Pritchard magnetic trap, theatoms are optically pumped into the F=1 hyperfine groundstate. Atoms in the F=1, mF =-1 state are weak magnetic fieldseeking and are retained by their attraction to the field minimum in the center of the magnetic trap.
The trapped atoms are evaporatively cooled by removing
hotter atoms through radio frequency (RF) induced transitions
to untrapped states. Reducing the RF frequency lowers theeffective depth of the magnetic trap, allowing us to progressively cool to higher densities and lower temperatures until
the atoms reach BEC. Magnetically trapped atoms in the F=2,
mF =+2 state have also been evaporated to BEC.
Ultracold atoms can be transported from the main chamber
into the science chamber by loading the atoms into the focus of an optical tweezer and then translating the focus. In
this manner we have transported 23 Na BECs [19]. Vibrational heating during transport cited in [19] was reduced by
the use of Aerotech ABL2000 series air bearing translation
stages. Technical problems related to the greater mass andhigher three body recombination rate in 87 Rb were overcomeby transporting ultracold atoms just above the transition temperature Tc , and then evaporating to BEC at the destination.
The oven and Zeeman slower are tilted by 57◦ from horizontal
to allow a horizontal orientation for the weak trapping axes ofboth the optical tweezers and magnetic trap.
Trapping ultracold atoms requires that they be isolated
from the surrounding environment. The laser and magnetic
trapping techniques confine the atoms in the center of thechamber, out of contact with the room temperature chamber walls. The atoms are still exposed to thermal black
body radiation, but are transparent to most of the spectrum.
The transitions to which the black body radiation can couple
are the optical transitions used for laser cooling and the microwave hyperfine transitions. For optical transitions, whichhave energies much greater than kB T , the excitation rate is3
τopt exp (−h̄ωopt /kB T ), where ωopt is the frequency of thetransition and τopt is the lifetime of the excited state. For rubidium in a 25◦ C chamber this gives a characteristic excitation
lifetime of ∼ 1011 years. Raising the chamber temperature to680◦ C increases the optical excitation rate into the experimentally relevant domain of once per minute. The hyperfine transitions are significantly lower in energy compared to kB T andkB T
3, which is once per year athave an excitation rate of τhf
s h̄ωhf s◦
87
25 C in Rb. Neither of these excitation rates are limitations
on current experiments.
Collisions with background gas molecules result in loss
from the trap, necessitating low vacuum pressure for longatom cloud lifetime. We can magnetically trap ultracold
atomic clouds with lifetimes of several minutes in the <10−11 torr ultrahigh vacuum (UHV) environment of the main
production chamber. To achieve this vacuum performance wehave followed the general guidelines set out in Ref. [32] forconstructing vacuum systems. The main chamber body wasconstructed of nonmagnetic 304 stainless steel and then electropolished to reduce the surface roughness. The only component placed inside the chamber was the RF evaporation antenna coil (Fig. 2).
The cloverleaf-style Ioffe-Pritchard magnetic trap coils fit
inside two re-entrant bucket windows [33], allowing them tobe outside the chamber with an inter coil spacing of 25 mm(Fig. 2). The Zeeman slower tube is mounted between the

3

FIG. 2: Main chamber cross section showing re-entrant bucket windows, magnetic trap coils, and RF antenna. View from above.

main chamber and the oven chamber. The Zeeman slower
coils surrounding the Zeeman slower tube are also outside of
the vacuum system, but cannot be removed without breaking
vacuum.
After assembling the chamber, we pumped out the system
and reached UHV conditions by heating the system to accelerate outgassing. We heated the main chamber to 230◦ C andthe Zeeman slower to 170◦ C (limited by the coil epoxy). Using a residual gas analyzer to monitor the main chamber, we“baked” until the partial pressure of hydrogen was reduced toless than 10−7 torr and was at least ten times greater than thepartial pressure of other gases. A typical bakeout lasted between 3 and 9 days, with temperature changes limited to lessthan 25◦ C/hour. While we acknowledge the merit of using dry
pumps as recommended in Ref. [18], we use oil sealed rotary
vane roughing pumps to back our turbo pumps. The vacuumin the main chamber is preserved after bakeout with a 75 L/sion pump and a titanium sublimation pump. Refer to Sec. 3.4
of Ref. [34] for more details of our bakeout procedures.
III.

OVEN

We generate large fluxes of thermal atoms for Zeeman
slowing from effusive atomic beam ovens. An effusive beam
is created by atoms escaping through a small hole in a heatedchamber [35]. The higher vapor pressure of rubidium requiresa more complicated design, but lower operating temperature(110-150◦ C Rb, 260-350◦ C Na.) At room temperature, thevapor pressure of sodium (≈ 3 × 10−11 torr [36]) is compatible with our UHV main chamber environment, while that ofrubidium (≈ 4 × 10−7 torr [37]) is not. This dictated that thedesign of the rubidium oven prevent the contamination of themain chamber with rubidium. Because of its greater complexity, further discussion will focus on the rubidium oven (Fig.
3). We expect that the rubidium oven design would also work
for sodium, but instead we used a simpler design for sodium
as described in Ref. [34].
A combination of active pumping and passive geometrical
techniques were used to reduce extraneous rubidium transfer

to the main chamber. A cold cup (I) is used to reduce rubidium
vapor in the oven chamber by almost completely surrounding
the oven aperture (J) with a cold surface at -25◦C. After bakeout, the combination of cold cup and oven chamber ion pump
has achieved pressures as low as ∼ 10−9 torr, although wehave successfully made BECs with pressures of up to ∼ 10−6
torr in this region. The combination of a differential pumping tube, an ion pump, and the Zeeman slower tube provides
a pressure differential of over 3 orders of magnitude between
the oven and main chamber. This is sufficient to isolate the
UHV environment from an oven pressure dominated by rubidium vapor at room temperature. When the oven is opened
to replace rubidium and clean the cold cup, the main chamber vacuum is isolated with a pneumatic gate valve. A second
gate valve can be used in case of failure of the first. While
not used in our system, designers may want to consider gate
valves with an embedded window available from VAT to allow optical access along the Zeeman slower or tweezer beamlines during servicing.
The oven is loaded with a sealed glass ampoule containing 5 g of rubidium in an argon atmosphere. To add rubidium, the ampoule is cleaned, placed in the oven, and bakedout under vacuum while still sealed. We then break the ampoule under vacuum and heat the oven to 110◦ C to produce
the atomic beam. During operation, the machine is run as asealed system, without the turbo-mechanical pump, to prevent
accidental loss of the main chamber vacuum. Oven temperatures from 150◦ C down to 110◦ C produce similar sized 87 Rb
BECs. Reducing the oven temperature increases the time between rubidium changes to greater than 1000 hrs of operatingtime. This long operating cycle precluded the need for more
complex recycling oven designs [38].

IV.

ZEEMAN SLOWER

The atomic beams are slowed from thermal velocities bynearly an order of magnitude by scattering photons from a resonant, counter-propagating laser beam. When a photon with
momentum h̄k (k = 2π/λ) is absorbed or emitted by an atomwith mass m, the atom will recoil with a velocity change of
vr = h̄k/m to conserve momentum. Atoms can resonantly
scatter photons up to a maximum rate of Γ/2, where 1/Γ = τ
is the excited-state lifetime. This results in a maximum ac2
2
55
celeration amax = h̄kΓ
2m (1.1 × 10 m/s Rb, 9.3 × 10 m/s
Na). As the atoms decelerate, the reduced Doppler shift iscompensated by tuning the Zeeman shift with a magnetic field[39] to keep the optical transition on resonance. We designed
our slowers to decelerate the atoms at a reduced rate f amax
where f ∼ 50% is a safety factor to allow for magnetic field
imperfections and finite laser intensity.
Our slowers are designed along the lines of Ref. [40], withan increasing magnetic field and σ − polarized light scattering
off the F=2, mF =-2 → F =3, mF  =-3 cycling transition. Before the slowing begins, the atoms are optically pumped into
the F=2,mF =-2 state. The large magnetic field at the end of
the slower corresponds to a large detuning from the low velocity, low magnetic field resonance frequency. This large detun-

4

Chilled Water Loop

55 L/sec Ion Pump
40 L/sec Ion Pump

G
H
K

Ion
Gauge

B

L

J

B

E
A. Zeeman slower
F
B. Viewports (out of plane)
C. Differential pumping tube
D. Atomic beam shutter
E. Shutter wobble stick
F. Solenoid actuator
G. Peltier cooled cold plate
H. Cold feedthroughI. Cold cup
J. Oven aperture
K. Oven nozzle
L. Viewhole in cold cup (out of plane)
M. Rubidium ampoule
N. Right angle valve

I

M

Gate Valve

B

D

Gate Valve

A

C

Ion
Gauge

Alloy 304 Stainless SteelAlloy 101 High Purity CopperN

70 L/sec Turbopump

10 cm

FIG. 3: Effusive rubidium beam oven. Rubidium metal (M) is heated to between 110◦ C and 150◦ C, creating a pRb ∼ 0.5 millitorr vapor
which escapes through a 5 mm diameter hole (J). A 7.1mm diameter hole in the cold cup (I), 70 mm from the nozzle, allows 0.3% of theemitted flux to pass through, forming an atomic beam with a flux of ∼ 1011 atoms/s. The remainder is mostly (99.3%) captured on the -30◦ C,
pRb ≈ 2.5 × 10−10 torr, surface of the Peltier cooled cold cup. We chop this beam with a paddle (D) mounted to a flexible bellows (E). The
differential pumping tube (C) and Zeeman slower tube (A) consecutively provide 170x and 620x of pressure reduction between the oven andmain chambers.

ing allows the slowing light to pass through the MOT without
distorting it due to radiation pressure. Within the slower coils,
the quantization axis is well-defined by the longitudinal magnetic field and optical pumping out of the cycling transition isstrongly suppressed by the combination of light polarization
and Zeeman splitting.
We slow 87 Rb atoms from an initial velocity of ∼350 m/s
with a tailored 271 G change in the magnetic field (Fig. 4).
An additional uniform ∼200 G bias field was applied along
the length of the slower to ensure that neighboring hyperfine levels were not near resonance in either the slower or the
MOT. The slower cycling transition light is detuned -687 MHzfrom the F=2 → F =3 transition. The slowing laser intensity
is I/Isat ≈ 8, giving a maximum theoretical deceleration of
89% of amax . To maximize the number of atoms in the slowed
F=2,mF =-2 state “Slower repumping” light copropagates withthe cycling transition light and is detuned -420 MHz from the
F=1 → F =1 transition to match the Doppler shift of the unslowed thermal atoms from the oven. A flux of ∼ 1011 87 Rb
atoms/s with a peak velocity of 43 m/s was measured fromour slower with an oven temperature of 150◦ C. This is signifigantly greater flux then the 8 × 108 Rb/sec vapor cell loading
rate quoted by [18]. Higher flux (3.2 × 1012 Rb/s) can beachieved with additional complexity, as demonstrated in [41].
The higher temperature of the sodium oven, along withthe atoms’ lower mass, results in a greater initial velocity of

800 − 950 m/s. This requires a slower with a much larger
magnetic field change of 1150 Gauss. To reduce the maximum magnitude of the magnetic fields we use the “spin flip”
variant of the increasing field design by shifting the zero crossing of the magnetic field from the beginning of the slower
to the middle. The first segment then becomes a decreasing field slower, with current flowing in the opposite direction of the second, increasing field segment. In the low magnetic field region between the two segments the slowing lightflips from cycling on the F=2, mF =+2 (mI =+3/2,mJ =+1/2 athigh field) → F =3, mF  =+3 (mI =+3/2,mJ =+3/2) transition
with σ + polarization to the F=2, mF =-2 (mI =-3/2,mJ =-1/2)→ F =3, mF  =-3 (mI =-3/2,mJ =-3/2) transition with σ − polarization. Similar to the rubidium slower, optical repumping
light, resonant with the F=1 → F =2 transition, is introduced
to prepare atoms in the F=2, mF =+2 state before slowing. In
addition the repumping light protects against optical pumping
into the F=1 manifold which may occur in the low magnetic
field region between the coils because of the small excitedstate hyperfine splitting (Fig.6). Experimentally, the absenceof repumping light significantly degrades slower performance(Fig 1-13, [34]).
The sodium slowing beam is detuned 1.0 GHz below the
F=2 → F =3 transition and has an intensity of I/Isat ≈ 4,
giving a laser power limited maximum deceleration of 80% of
amax . Unlike the rubidium slower, light for optical pumping

5

A

B

End ofSlowerSlowing
light

13 cm

A

0

B

1000 velocity (m/s)

2.0
1.5% Absorption

FIG. 4: Magnetic field profile of the rubidium Zeeman slower, notincluding uniform bias field. The theoretical line shows the desiredmagnetic field profile for atoms decelerated from 330 m/s to 20 m/s
at 60% of the maximum intensity limited deceleration (f=53% ofamax .) The simulated line depicts the expected field from slower
coils with the winding pattern in Fig. 11 of Appendix B. The prominent bumps shown above in the measured field were subsequently
smoothed with additional current carrying loops.

500

1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0

is generated by adding 1.75 GHz sidebands to the slowing
light using an electro-optical modulator. The sodium slower
coils were broken up such that the first segment had an initial
field of 440 G and a length of 52 cm and the second segment
had a final field of 710 G and a length of 43 cm. The sodium
slower was tested as depicted in Fig. 5, with a measured fluxof 3 × 1011 23 Na atoms/s with a peak velocity of 100 m/s.
V.

LASERS

Resonant laser light is used to slow, cool, trap, and detect
the atoms. All laser light is prepared on a separate optics tableand delivered to the apparatus (Fig. 1) through single-mode
optical fibers. Because stray resonant light can heat the atoms
during evaporation, black cloth separates the two tables. All
frequency shifting and attenuation of the light is done withacousto-optic modulators. Mechanical shutters are also placedin front of each fiber coupler to block any light which mightleak through the modulators and disturb the atoms. Atomic
energy levels and laser frequencies used are indicated in Fig.
6.
We use different techniques for generating laser light at
the resonant wavelengths of 87 Rb (780 nm) and 23 Na (589nm). For 87 Rb we use a Toptica DL100 external cavity diodelaser and TA100 semiconductor tapered amplifier to create
350 mW and 35 mW of light resonant with the 87 Rb F=2→
F =3 and F=1→ F =1 transitions at 780 nm. The lasers arestabilized with a polarization sensitive saturated absorption
spectroscopy lock [42, 43]. This modulation-free technique
optically creates a derivative signal of the absorption spectrathat is locked with a proportional+integral gain servo loop.

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Probe frequency (GHz)

FIG. 5: Sodium slower performance. A. Schematic of the differential absorption measurement of the slowed atomic beam. The slowed
atomic beam is shown in gray. The photodiode signals A & B are
subtracted and amplified. B. Typical absorption signal for 23 Na beamat 45◦ probe angle. The black solid line is the slowed beam with bothslower solenoids fully energized. The dashed line is with only the increasing field slower solenoid, and the gray line is the raw atomic
beam without any slowing. The top scale converts the probe frequency into a velocity scale relative to the F = 2 cycling transition.

The locking signal fluctuation indicates a frequency jitter of< 1MHz over several seconds, which is much less than the
6.1 MHz natural linewidth of 87 Rb. The large frequency shifts
used for the slower cycling and repumping light reduced theavailable power to a few mW. Each of these beams is amplified to 35-40 mW by injection locking [44] a free running
Sanyo DL7140-201 laser diode before combining the beams
on a non polarizing beamsplitter and coupling into a fiber.
The 87 Rb MOT uses a total of 60 mW of light near
the F=2→F =3 cycling transition for trapping/cooling. The
F=2→F =3 transition in the MOT is only approximately aclosed cycle and atoms are often optically pumped into the
F=1 ground state. To repump these atoms back into the F=2
state we use 10 mW of light on the F=1→ F =1 transition.
In addition, to transfer atoms from the F=2 to F=1 manifold,such as prior to loading them into the magnetic trap, we introduce a few mW of “depumping” light resonant with the F=2→
F =2 transition. Zeeman slowing uses 18 mW of slower cycling light and 6 mW of slower repumping light. All powers

6

Zeeman Slowing

F’=3
2
Depumping 1
0
RepumpingSlower Repumping}

5S 1/2}

5P 3/2780 nm

F=2
6.8 GHzB 23 Na

F=1

Imaging, MOT

Zeeman Slowing

F’=3 60MHz
2 34MHz1
0 16MHz
RepumpingSlower Repumping}

3S 1/2267MHz
157MHz
72MHz

}

3P3/2

589 nmF=21.77 GHz
F=1

FIG. 6: Simplified level structure of 87 Rb (A) and 23 Na (B) with
relevant transitions, hyperfine splittings, and laser frequencies.

are quoted after fiber coupling, measured as delivered to theapparatus table.
For 23 Na we use a Coherent 899 dye laser pumped by aSpectra Physics Millenia laser (532 nm, 8.5 W). Typically
1.2 W of 589 nm light is generated by the dye laser. The laser
frequency was referenced to an external saturation-absorption
lock-in scheme and locked to a Fabry-Perot cavity. Stable operation was improved by using a precision dye nozzle (Radiant Dyes, Germany), high pressure dye circulator at 12 bar,and stabilized temperatures for the room and dye.
For more detailed information on the generation of the laser
light for sodium MOTs, see Sec. 3.4 of Ref. [45]. Typicaldelivered laser powers are 80 mW for the MOT light, 20 mW
for the repumping light, 40 mW for the slowing light and lessthan one mW for the imaging beam. Electro-optic modulators
allow the addition of high frequency sidebands (∼1.8 GHz) on
the slowing and MOT light for repumping without the use ofan additional laser beam. Recent advances in single frequency
high power fiber and diode pumped solid state lasers [46] havemade nonlinear techniques such as sum frequency generation[47, 48] and frequency doubling [49] interesting alternatives
as resonant light sources.

VI.

MAGNETO OPTICAL TRAP

The MOT [31] is the workhorse of atomic physics for creating large samples of ultracold atoms. We use a six-beamconfiguration, which doubles as an optical molasses when themagnetic gradient field is off. Similar to Ref. [18] the 87 Rb
apparatus uses a bright MOT. The 87 Rb MOT equilibrates toaround 4 × 1010 atoms after ∼ 2 s of loading, operating ina magnetic field gradient of 16.5 G/cm with cycling beams
detuned -18 MHz from the F=2→ F =3 transition and a peakintensity 5.3 mW/cm2 . To increase the efficiency of the transfer into the magnetic trap, we briefly compress the 87 Rb MOT
and then switch off the magnetic field gradient to cool theatoms with optical molasses. The 87 Rb MOT is compressedby linearly ramping the gradient to 71 G/cm in 200 ms andsimultaneously sweeping the detuning to -45 MHz in 400 ms.
We use 5ms of “gray” molasses, where the repumper power isdropped by 95%, the optical trapping power is ramped down
to 50%, and the detuning is swept from -18MHz to -26MHz.
The molasses phase requires the cancellation of imbalances inintensity between beams and also of residual magnetic fields[50]. After the molasses phase, 0.5-1 ms of “depumping” lightis applied to put all the 87 Rb atoms into the F=1 level before
loading into the magnetic trap. Exact MOT and molasses parameters were found through empirical optimization, and all
listed numbers should be considered as rough guides.
The 23 Na apparatus uses a dark-spot MOT [51], with a detuning of -15MHz, peak beam intensity of 8.8 mW/cm2 and amagnetic field gradient of 11G/cm. A 4 mm diameter opaquecircle blocks light in the middle of a single repumper beam,
creating a region at the center of the MOT where trapped
atoms are optically pumped into the F=1 state. The 23 Na MOT
equilibrates after a few seconds of loading. The effectivenessof the dark-spot in 23 Na has precluded the need for the compression and molasses phases as in 87 Rb. Typically 99% of
the atoms are in the F=1 (dark) hyperfine state [51].

VII. MAGNETIC TRAP

4
3
2
1

-200 -100

Total Field|B| (Gauss)

Imaging, MOT

Total Field|B| (Gauss)

87

A Rb

0

100 200

Radial Position X,Y (Pm)43
2
1
-2 -1 0 1 2
Axial Position Z (mm)FIG. 7: Profile of the Ioffe-Pritchard trap magnetic field magnitude.
The trap parameters are B  =223 G/cm, B  =100 G/cm2 , and B0 =1G.

Atoms in weak magnetic field seeking states can be trappedin a magnetic field minimum. Our magnetic trap is a high current Ioffe-Pritchard (IP) trap with a cloverleaf style windingthat can hold F=1, mF = −1 or F=2, mF = +2 ground state
atoms of 87 Rb and 23 Na with long lifetimes. An IP trap has ananisotropic, “cigar”-shaped, 3D harmonic shape for energies
which are small compared to the trap minimum gF mF µB B0
and a 2D linear/1D harmonic shape at higher energies (SeeFig. 7 and Appendix C). This linear regime at higher energies(higher cloud temperatures) is more efficient for evaporatively

7
cooling hot atoms [52], while the finite bias field at the minimum prevents Majorana spin flip loss of colder atoms. The
similar magnetic moment of 87 Rb and 23 Na allows us to useof the same magnetic trap design, with 23 Na realizing double
the trap frequencies of 87 Rb due to its lower mass.

Y
MOT

Z
Trapped atoms

Antibias

X
Antibias
MOT

Cloverleaf Gradients
Curvature

FIG. 8: Exploded view of the cloverleaf style Ioffe-Pritchard trap
coils. Arrows indicate the direction of current flow. MOT coils are
not on during magnetic trapping. Performance and design details arelisted in Table III of Appendix C

VIII.

CONTROL AND IMAGING

Two computers run the apparatus; one controls the various
parts of experiment and the other processes images from acamera which images the atoms. The control computer hascustom built National Instruments (NI) LabWindows based
software to drive analog (2 NI Model PCI 6713, 8 channels of 12 bit analog, 1MS/s update) and digital output (2NI Model PCI-6533, 32 channels of binary TTL, 13.3 MS/s
update) boards. The control computer also controls an Agilent 33250A 80MHz function generator through a GPIB interface, and triggers a Princeton Instruments NTE/CCD-1024EB camera through a ST-133 controller to capture the absorption images.
BECs are typically imaged 10-40 ms after release from thetrap. Ref. [53, 54] provides details for analyzing condensates after free expansion. Atoms are first optically pumped
into the F=2 state in 200µs and then an absorption image istaken using resonant F=2 → F =3 light. Detuning off resonance causes dispersion (lensing) as the light passes throughthe cloud of atoms and can distort the image. The intensity of
the imaging probe is kept lower than the saturation intensity toprevent bleaching of the transition, which would lead to errors
in atom number counting. Typical exposure times are between
50-200 µs. Sec. 3 of Ref. [53] discusses other imaging techniques that can also be used to probe BECs. Our control andimaging techniques work equally well for 23 Na and 87 Rb.
IX.

To preserve phase space density during the transfer ofatoms into the magnetic trap, additional current is applied tothe curvature coils, increasing the residual bias field and decreasing the radial confinement to make a roughly sphericalmagnetic trap that more closely mode matches the spherical
MOT. After loading the atoms in the trap, the additional curvature coil current is reduced over one second to adiabaticallychange the trap geometry to the tightly confining cigar shape,favorable for evaporative cooling. Sec. 2.3.2 of Ref. [53] hasan extensive discussion of mode matching magnetic traps to
MOTs. The adiabatic compression technique is reviewed inRef. [52].

Trap Depth

1000
Energy (PK)

Fig. 8 shows an expanded view of the magnetic trap coils.
The two sets of four cloverleaf coils create radial gradients B along x̂ and ŷ, while the curvature coils produce a parabolic
field curvature B  in the ẑ direction. The curvature coils also
produce a substantial bias field (Table III, Appendix C) alongẑ, which is balanced by a roughly homogeneous field from theantibias coils, resulting in a low residual bias field B0 of ∼1
G at the center of the trap. The subtraction of the large magnetic fields from the curvature and antibias coils can make theresidual bias field B0 susceptible to jitter from current noise.
To prevent this we drive current through both coils in series
from the same power supply (Appendix C, Fig. 12), reducing
the effect of current noise in the residual bias field B0 by ≈30.
When assembled the antibias coils enclose the cloverleaf coils
and the MOT coils surround the curvature coils.

EVAPORATION

100

Temperature10
Decompression

1

BEC
10

20

30
Time (s)

40

50

60

FIG. 9: Typical temperature and trap depth during evaporation to
BEC in 87 Rb. The trap is decompressed between t=40-50 s by changing the trap parameters B  = 223 → 54 G/cm, B  =99 → 25 G/cm2 ,and B0 =1.4 → 0.87 G. Temperature was determined by fitting after
ballistic expansion.

Evaporative cooling works by selectively removing hot
atoms from the trapped cloud, while the remaining atoms
rethermalize to a lower temperature. The efficiency of coolingdepends on η, the ratio of trap depth or energy of the escaping
atoms to the temperature kB T , and is reduced by the rate ofheating. The speed of evaporation depends on how quickly

8X.

DEEP TRAP LIMITATIONS

A major difference we have observed between 87 Rb andNa condensates is the unexpectedly high decay rate of 87 Rb
condensates in tightly confining deep traps, such as those used
for transport in an optical tweezer [19]. At typical densities ofcondensates, the lifetime and heating are usually dominatedby three-body recombination decay. However, the factor offour difference in the three-body rate coefficients (Table II)
was insufficient to explain this major discrepancy in behavior.
Three body recombination results in a diatomic molecule andan atom which fly apart with a total kinetic energy equal tothe binding energy of the diatomic molecule in the highest
vibrational state. This binding energy can be estimated fromthe scattering length as E0 ∼ h̄2 /ma2 [55] (∼ 200µK in
87
Rb, ∼ 2.7 mK in 23 Na).
23

8
BEC Decay rate (s -1 )the atoms rethermalize. In a magnetic trap evaporation is implemented through RF induced transitions between trapped
and untrapped states. A given RF frequency corresponds toa shell of constant µm |B| where the transitions occur. Atoms
that pass through this shell enter untrapped states and are lost;
thus RF provides a flexible mechanism to control the magnetic trap depth. Our RF antenna consists of two rectangularloops of wire, 10 cm x 2 cm, positioned 3 cm above and below the condensate as depicted in Fig. 2. Evaporation works
equivalently well for 23 Na and 87 Rb, with 23 Na’s lower mass
resulting in higher trap frequencies, which roughly compensates for its smaller elastic cross section (Table II).
To evaporate thermal atoms to a BEC, we sweep the RF frequency over several seconds using an Agilent 33250A synthesizer amplified with a 5 W RF amplifier (Mini-Circuits ZHL5W-1). Typical evaporation curves for 87 Rb would ramp from60 MHz down to ∼0.8 MHz in 15 to 40 seconds, with similar parameters for 23 Na. Forced RF evaporative cooling isvery efficient, increasing phase space density by > 106 (Table I). Fig. 9 shows the drop in temperature as the trap depth(calculated from the RF frequency) is lowered during evaporation of 87 Rb. Evaporation curves are frequently adjusted in
the interest of tuning evaporation speed, atom number, density, and/or reproducibility. For instance, the atom number
can be increased by decompressing the magnetic trap near theend of the evaporation. This reduces the effects of three body
recombination heating by lowering the final condensate density. Such decompression techniques have allowed us to create
nearly pure condensates with Nc ≈ 20×106 in both 87 Rb and23
Na with lifetimes in excess of 5 seconds.
Decompressing the trap shifts its center due to gravitationalsag and imperfections in the balance of magnetic fields between the coils. Such movements can excite oscillations in thecloud, which results in the condensation of BECs which are
not at rest. Even in the absence of excitations, the magnetic
field gradients must exert a force on the atoms which is greaterthan gravity for them to remain trapped. This limits the extent
to which magnetic traps can be decompressed. Specially designed gravito-magnetic traps have been decompressed down
to 1 Hz [22] to investigate very cold, dilute BECs.

6
4
2
0

0

100
200
Trap Depth (PK)300

FIG. 10: Initial loss rates for 87 Rb BEC in deep traps. Trap depth
dependence of the loss for large and small 87 Rb BECs in a 220 Hz x
220 Hz x 9 Hz magnetic trap. The trap depth was controlled by RFtruncation. Condensates were nearly pure (Nc /N > 90%) and consisted of F=1, mF =-1 atoms. Solid triangles are data for a large condensate, Nc = 2.7 × 106 atoms, peak density np = 6.1 × 1014 /cm3 ,expected three body decay time τ3 = 0.85 ± 0.22 s (dashed horizontal lines) [58], and calculated collisional opacity of 0.88 [56].
Open squares are data for a small condensate, Nc = 5 × 105 atoms,
peak density np = 3.1 × 1014 /cm3 , expected three body decay time
τ3 = 3.3±0.8 s (dotted horizontal lines), and a calculated collisional
opacity of 0.32. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainity inthe decay curves. Additional scatter in the data is due to fluctutionsin the atom number.

We investigated this issue in a magnetic trap instead of an
optical trap. While it is easier experimentally to create tighttrapping and hence high densities in an optical trap, both thetrap frequencies and trap depth are functions of the opticalpower. This makes it difficult to separate density dependent
effects, which are strongly affected by the trap frequency,from trap depth effects. In contrast, in a magnetic trap the trap
depth can be controlled independently of the trap frequencies
by adjusting the RF frequency which flips atoms to untrappedstates.
There are two possible processes, both involving secondary
collisions, which can greatly enhance the heating and losses
due to the primary three-body collisions. The first process iscollisional avalanches, similar to a chain reaction, where theenergetic products of three-body recombination collide withadditional atoms while leaving the condensate. This processdepends on the collisional opacity ∼ nσl, where σ = 8πa2
is the atom atom scattering cross section, and should increase
dramatically when the condensate exceeds the critical opacityof 0.693 [56]. This process occurs entirely within the condensate volume and hence is independent of trap depth.
The second process can already occur at lower collisional
opacities and relies on the retention of primary or secondary
collision products by the trap in the so-called Oort cloud[53, 57]. The retention of these atoms in the trap can cause
heating and loss in the condensate as they oscillate throughthe condensate volume. The retention of collision productsin the Oort cloud should depend on whether the trap depth islarger or smaller than their energies.

9
Fig. 10 shows the initial loss rates measured for a large anda small BEC as a function of the magnetic trap depth. At low
trap depths (5 µK) both the large and small condensate decay
rates are in agreement with established three body recombination rates [58]. Therefore, the avalanche effect does not significantly contribute to the observed decay rate, although thecalculated collisional opacity for the larger condensate was
0.88 and may not be far away from the onset of avalanches. In
Ref [56] evidence for avalanches was observed at a collisional
opacity of 1.4.
At high trap depths, the decay rate strongly increases forlarger condensates and shortens the lifetime to less than 500
ms. In contrast, at low trap depths the large condensate had
a lifetime of greater than 20 seconds, in agreement with the
expected losses from three body decay. For trap depths greaterthan ∼ 50µK the large 87 Rb condensate decay rate saturates,suggesting a maximum Oort energy.
We speculate that this enhancement of three-body related
losses was not observed in 23 Na for several reasons. The primary decay products are mono-energetic and will escape unless the trap depth is greater then their kinetic energy (min∼ 70µK for 87 Rb, ∼ 900µK for 23 Na). On their way outof the condensate volume, some of the primary three body decay products will collide with additional condensate atoms. In
23
Na the elastic scattering cross section σ is 3.6 times smaller
then for 87 Rb, making these secondary collisions less likely.
The products of such secondary collisions have a range of energies. In 23 Na these secondary products will typically havemuch higher energies, reducing their chance of remaining in
the trap. In addition, the retained Oort particles need to collide with the condensate to cause additional loss. These subsequent collisions can further populate the Oort cloud.
For traps whose depths are in the intermediate region, below the minimum energy of the primary three body recombination products, the combination of greater primary threebody decay rate, greater collision opacity, and greater fractionof secondary products retained by the Oort cloud lead to an estimated loss rate several orders of magnitude higher for 87 Rb
then 23 Na in condensates of similar size and density.
The restricted optical access (Fig. 2) of our experiments
limits the longitudinal (tweezer axis) trap frequency per unit
trap depth. This requires optical trap depths for transporting
condensates in our systems that are a significant fraction of
the primary 87 Rb decay product energy, but a small fraction ofthat for 23 Na. Therefore 23 Na condensates can be easily transported using optical tweezers. For 87 Rb the preferred method
is to transport a cloud at temperatures just above condensation, where the density is lower, and evaporate to BEC after
transport.

XI.

DISCUSSION

We have constructed 87 Rb and 23 Na Bose-Einstein condensate machines with nearly identical designs. In this section wehighlight differences in their performance and operation. Key
properties of the two species are highlighted in Table II. The
four principal differences are their vapor pressure, resonant

87

Rb

23

Na

D2 line λ (nm)

780

589

D2 linewidth Γ/2π (MHz)

6.1

9.8

Gravity mg/kB (nK/µm)

102

27

Gravity mg/gF mF µB (G/cm)

30

8.1

Three body constant K3 (cm6 /s) 8 × 10−30 [58] 2 × 10−30 [60]Scattering length a (nm)5.3 [59]

2.8 [68]

Recoil velocity vr (mm/s)

5.9

29

TABLE II: Select properties 87 Rb and 23 Na F=1, mF = −1 groundstates. Unless noted, quantities are derived from Ref. [69] and [36].

wavelength, recoil velocity, and collisional properties.
The high vapor pressure of rubidium allows oven operation at lower temperatures, but requires a more elaborate ovengeometry to avoid deposition of rubidium on surfaces of themain UHV chamber. The lower vapor pressure of sodium requires a higher oven operating temperature to produce comparable flux. In a Zeeman slower the stopping length L forBT
the most probable velocity in a thermal beam is L = 3kh̄kΓ ,
assuming the maximum spontaneous light force. Resonantsodium light, with a shorter wavelength and larger naturallinewidth, exerts a greater spontaneous light force than in rubidium. In our systems the gain from the greater light force insodium is balanced out by the higher operating temperatures
required of the sodium oven to produce comparable flux, resulting in both the rubidium and sodium slower being about 1
m in length.
The spontaneous emission of slowing photons adds a random, diffuse velocity to the atoms as they are slowed. Dueto the higher recoil velocity and greater deceleration, the slow
23
Na beam has a larger divergence than the 87 Rb beam. By
keeping the distance between the end of the 23 Na slower andthe MOT to a minimum, we maximize transfer of atoms fromthe slower to the MOT. Our setup for 87 Rb was almost identical, but we expect that the requirement of keeping the slower
and the MOT close could be relaxed. Although we have nottried it, we expect that our 87 Rb experiment would work for23
Na with increased slower coil current but without changes
to the oven, vacuum or magnet designs.
On the laser side, a major difference is the availability of
low cost high power laser diodes in the near infrared region
around 780 nm. In our experience a well run dye laser system
can provide similar performance to a diode laser system withseveral master and slave lasers. However, occasionally dyelasers require major maintenance in terms of dye changes orfull optical realignment. An advantage in sodium is the visibility of the laser light and the atomic fluorescence. The nearinfrared 780 nm light is only modestly visible, whereas thesodium line at 589 nm is near the peak of human eye sensitivity and allows fine alignments of the laser beams and themagneto-optical trap without cameras, IR cards, or IR viewers.
87
Rb has favorable properties for laser cooling and atominterferometry because of its greater mass, lower recoil ve-

10locity, and larger excited state hyperfine structure. While
greater mass and longer resonant wavelength give 133 Cs aneven lower recoil velocity, its complicated collisional behavior at low magnetic fields makes it difficult to cool to BEC[12]. The lowest molasses temperature in rubidium is a factorof ten lower than for sodium. However, in BEC experiments
the laser cooling is optimized for large atom numbers and highinitial elastic collision rates in the magnetic trap, and not for
the lowest temperature. For laser cooling sodium at high atom
numbers, the Dark SPOT technique [51] is crucial to avoid rescattering of light in the MOT, whereas it is not necessary inrubidium experiments. At the end of the day, although withsomewhat different techniques, laser cooling works equallywell for both atoms.
Both atomic species have favorable collisional properties
for evaporative cooling. The elastic scattering cross sectionof 87 Rb atoms at low temperature is four times higher thanin 23 Na. However, elastic collision rates after laser coolingare comparable since 23 Na atoms have a higher velocity fora given temperature. An advantage of 87 Rb is that the two
ground electronic state hyperfine levels have similar scattering lengths, which can be advantageous for studies on spinor
condensates and atomic clock transitions. Also, spin relaxation between the two hyperfine levels is almost completely
suppressed. Mixtures of F=1 and F=2 87 Rb atoms can be kept
for seconds [59], whereas in 23 Na they decay in ms [60]. Bothatoms have several Feshbach resonances below 1100 G [61–63], but 87 Rb has the disadvantage that the widest known resonance is only 200 mG wide compared to 1 G for 23 Na andthus requires more stable magnetic fields. Another limitationis the higher rate of three-body collisions for 87 Rb atoms. As
we discussed in Sec. X, this imposes limitations on trappingand manipulating dense 87 Rb condensates.

APPENDIX A: OVEN

To sustain a high flux atomic beam, the background vacuum pressure must be low enough that the mean free path between collisions is much greater than the length of the beam.
To generate an effusive beam with a thermal distribution ofvelocities, the size of the hole through which the atoms escape must be smaller than the mean free path inside the oven.
We observed in sodium that at higher pressures (e.g. temperatures) the flux of slowable atoms does not increase and thevelocity distribution narrows. This phenomena is well understood [35], and limits the flux of slow atoms from a single
aperture oven.
During servicing, a clean ampoule is essential for rapid recovery of good vacuum pressure. The ampoule is cleaned bysubmerging it in a 50/50 mixture by volume of acetone andisopropanol for 20 minutes, air drying it. This removes mostof the water from the glass surface, which would otherwise
require more time to pump away. In the rubidium experiment
the cleaned ampoule is placed in the oven while still sealed
and baked for 24 hours under vacuum at 150-180◦ C to remove
the remaining contaminates before it is broken.
To prevent accumulation of metal at the aperture (Fig. 3,J), the oven nozzle temperature (Fig. 3, K) is kept higher (∼10◦ C in rubidium and ∼ 90◦ C in sodium) than the rest of theoven . The velocity distribution of the beam is determined by
the nozzle temperature (Fig. 3, K). On the other hand, thevapor pressure in the oven, which controls the beam flux, isdominated by the coldest spot in the elbow and bellows. The
factor of two discrepancy between the observed and calculated(Table IV) rubidium oven lifetimes at 110◦ C can be accounted
for by a spot ∼ 10◦ C colder than the lowest measured oventemperature. The specifics of this cold spot depend on how
the oven is insulated.
APPENDIX B: ZEEMAN SLOWER

XII.

CONCLUSIONSIn this paper, we have presented details for designing BEC
machines with high performance and flexibility, and we hopethat this description is useful for designing new experiments.
Given the recent developments in the field, there is more thanenough room for new experiments to join in the exploration of
atom optics and many-body physics with quantum-degenerate
atomic gases.
Funding for the 87 Rb machine was provided by the NSF
MIT-Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms. Funding for the23
Na machine came from NSF, the ARO MURI program,NASA, and the ONR.
We thank S. Gupta, A. Görlitz, and A. E. Leanhardt for
their contributions to the construction of the 23 Na machine; J.
C. Mun and P. Medley for ongoing contributions to the 87 Rb
machine; and MIT UROP students P. Gorelik and X. Sun forvarious contributions to the 87 Rb machine. The authors would
also like to thank M. Saba and D. Kielpinski for critical reading of this manuscript.

Every photon which scatters off an atom to slow the atom isradiated in a random direction, increasing the atoms spread intransverse velocity. The beam emerging from the tube needs
to have sufficient forward mean velocity to load the MOT efficiently. Because of the random direction of the emission
recoil,N photon scatterings increase the transverse velocity
by vr N/3. The 23 Na slower operates with a recoil induced
transverse exit velocity of ≈ 3m/s, at a final forward velocityof 30 m/s so that the spatial transverse spread in the slowed
beam matches the MOT capture area. The smaller initial andrecoil velocities in the 87 Rb slower reduce the transverse velocity to ≈ 0.8m/s, resulting in a more collimated slowed
beam whose transverse width is smaller then the size of the
MOT beams.
An additional concern in both slowers is the fate of atoms
not captured by the MOT. In 87 Rb we were concerned with thepotential adverse impact a deposited film may have on the vapor pressure, and installed a cold plate near the slower window
on the main chamber to capture desorbed Rb. Vacuum pressure has not been an issue and we have never needed to chill

11
Section 1, 5.0 AmpsOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOO OOOO OOO OOO OO OOO OO OO O OO O O O
OOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO OOOOO OOOOOOO OOOO OOOO OOOOO OOO OOO OOO OOO O OOO O OO O O O O O O
OOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOO OOOO OO OOO OO OO OO O OO O O O OOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOO OOOO OOO OO OO OO O OO O O O O
OOOOOOOOO OOOO O OO O O O O
OOOOOmachine. While not essential, it simplifies operation of themachine.

Section 2, 10.0 Amps

APPENDIX C: MAGNETIC TRAPOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO OOOOOOO OOOOOOO OOOOOOO OOOOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO OOOOO OOOOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOO OOOO OOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOO OOOOO OOOO OOOOO OOO OOOO OOO OOO OO OOO OOO O OOO O O OO O
OOOOOOOOOO OOOOO OOOO OOO OOO OO OOO O OO OO O OO O O O O O O OOOOOOOOOOO OOOO O OO O OO O O O O
O
OOOO

1.

Ioffe Pritchard Trapping Potential

Section 3, 30.0 AmpsOOOOOOOOOO OOOOO OOOOOO OOOOO OOOO OOOOO OOO OOOO OOOO OOO OOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOO OOO OOO OO OO OOO OO OO OO OO O OO O O O
OOOOOOOO OOO OO OO OO OO O O O O O O O O O OO OOOOOOOO O O O

FIG. 11: Winding pattern cross section for 87 Rb Zeeman slower
consisting of three solenoids. Each drawing represents half of thecross section of each a solenoid. The “O”s represent wires, while
the spaces between the wires were meant to be smoothed out to an
average value during construction. Each character in the drawing
represents a physical size of 3.5 mm. The wire is hollow core watercooled copper, identical to that used in construction of the magnetic
trap as described in C 3. The high current coil is closest to the mainchamber. The single layer uniform bias coil is not depicted.

The field near the minimum of a Ioffe-Pritchard trap is approximately
⎞
⎛
⎛ ⎞
⎛
⎞
−xz
0
x

⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎜
⎟ B ⎜
B = B0 ⎝ 0 ⎠ + B  ⎝ −y ⎠ +
−yz
⎠
⎝


2
z 2 − 12 x2 + y 2
01(C1)
which realizes trap frequencies
2

2= µm BB0mωx,ymωz2 =
this cold plate. The opposite problem arises in 23 Na, wheremetal deposition on the slower window reduces the transmission of slower light. We have found heating the slowing beamvacuum port window to 90◦ C prevents long term buildup.

1.

µm B

(C2)



(C3)

Typical trap parameters of B  =223 G/cm, B  =100 G/cm2 ,B0 =1G (Fig. 7, Table III) have frequencies of (ωx,y , ωz ) /2πof (200, 9) Hz for 87 Rb and (390, 18) Hz for 23 Na. Further
details of Ioffe-Pritchard magnetic traps are discussed in Sec
2.3.2 of [53] and Ch. 5. of [64]. A general overview of magnetic trapping can be found in [65].

Slower Construction
2.

Circuitry

D
R

IGBT
DriverE
G

V

C

Additional
Curvature
Current

-

E
G
C

Axial

+

-

Axial Antibias Coils

IGBT
Driver+Axial Curvature Coils

The vacuum portion of the 87 Rb slower is a 99 cm longnonmagnetic 304 stainless steel tube with a 19 mm OD and
0.9 mm wall. The rear end of the tube is connected to the mainchamber by a DN 16 CF rotatable flange, while the oven endof the tube has a narrow, 50mm long flexible welded bellows
ending in another DN 16 CF rotatable flange. The retaining
ring on this flange was cut in half for removal, so that the
premounted coil assembly could be slid over the vacuum tube.
As shown in Fig. 1 the slower tube enters the main chamber
at an angle of 33◦ from the vertical to accommodate access for
optical tweezers. The oven and the Zeeman slower are supported two meters above the the experimental table in orderto preserve the best optical and mechanical access to the mainchamber. Aluminum extrusion from 80/20 Inc. was used tocreate the support framework.
Our 87 Rb slower was fabricated with a single layer bias
solenoid and three increasing field coils (Fig. 1 and 11), segmented for better cooling. The optimum configuration of currents and solenoid winding shapes was found by computer
simulated winding of the solenoids one loop at a time, starting at the high field end and tapering the last few loops to best
match the desired field profile. An alternative fabrication technique would be to apply a large uniform bias field and subtract
away unwanted field with counter current coils. Residual fieldfrom the Zeeman slower can have a detrimental effect on the
MOT, shifting its location suddenly during turnoff. A coil canceling out the residual bias field of the slower at the MOT
center is installed on the 23 Na machine but absent on the 87 Rb

FIG. 12: Axial coils circuit diagram. High current wires are heavy
black lines.

Fig. 12 is representative of the magnetic trap circuit. We
drive the magnetic trap coils with Lambda EMI DC power
supplies in fixed current mode. Current to the cloverleaf coils

12
is supplied from a Model ESS 30-500 15kW power supply,
while the axial currents are driven with two Model EMS 20250 5kW power supplies. Each power supply is protectedagainst damage from reverse current with an International
Rectifier SD600N04PC high-current diode.
To switch the high currents we use PowerEx models
CM1000HA-24H and CM600HA-24H Integrated Gate Bipolar Transistors (IGBTs) controlled with PowerEx BG1A-F
IGBT driver kits. The IGBTs and high current diodes dissipate several hundred W during operation, and are cooled withchilled water. Efficient heat sinking is critical for reliable operation, as thermal dissipation limits the maximum DC current. Fast turnoff of current on an inductive load, such as acoil, results in a large voltage spike. We have added a “debounce” circuit to each of the coil systems (Fig. 12) to control
this process and prevent damage. The circuit consists of two
different elements: a varistor (V) and a diode (D) in series
with a low impedance resistor (R). The varistor shorts the circuit at high voltages to prevent this spike, and the diode (D) in
series with a 1Ω resistor (R) dissipates the remaining current
after varistor shutoff. Ref. [66] contains a thorough analysis of the behavior of a similar circuit. All control signals areelectrically isolated from the high-current circuits to prevent
voltage spikes from damaging connected hardware. Rapid,
controlled magnetic field shutoff is important for quantitativeinterpretation of images taken after ballistic expansion.
3.

Wire

Both the slower and the magnetic trap coils were fabricated using square hollow core (0.125 in./side, 0.032 in. wall)
Alloy 101 soft temper copper tubing from Small Tube Products, Inc. of Altoona, PA, wrapped with double Dacron glass
fuse insulation by Essex Group Inc., Magnet Wire & Insulation of Charlotte, NC. The coils are held together with Hysol
Epoxi-Patch 1C White high temperature epoxy that is bakable
to 170◦ C. Chilled water is forced through the hollow core of
the copper wires to dissipate the ≈10kW of power generated
from resistive heating in the magnetic trap and Zeeman slower
coils. 200 psi of differential pressure is required for sufficient
coolant flow. We designed all our coils to increase the coolingwater temperature by less than 50◦ C. Ch. 3 of Ref. [67] has[1] E. A. Cornell and C. E. Wieman, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 875(2002).
[2] W. Ketterle, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 1131 (2002).
[3] M. H. Anderson, J. R. Ensher, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman,and E. A. Cornell, Science 269, 198 (1995).
[4] K. B. Davis, M.-O. Mewes, M. R. Andrews, N. J. van Druten,
D. S. Durfee, D. M. Kurn, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75,
3969 (1995).
[5] C. C. Bradley, C. A. Sackett, J. J. Tollett, and R. G. Hulet, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 75, 1687 (1995), ibid. 79, 1170 (1997).
[6] C. Bradley, C. Sackett, and R. Hulet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 985(1997).

an extensive discussion of water cooling in continuously powered resistive magnets. For our wire the following empirical
relationships and numbers were measured,ρ [Ω/m] = 2.65 × 10−3∆P [psi]Q [ml/sec] = 2.07
L [m]
∆T [◦ C] = 259I 2 [Amps] ρ

(C4)
(C5)
L3 [m]∆P [psi](C6)

where Q is the water flow rate in ml/sec, I2 ρ L is the power
dissipated by the coil, ∆P the pressure drop in psi (1 psi=6.89kPa), and L the length of the coil in meters.
4.

Fabrication

All of the components for each half of the magnetic trap
were epoxied together for stability. Each assembly was thenmounted in the bucket windows with an aluminum mounting
plate backed by four threaded Alloy 316 stainless steel rods.
No ferromagnetic materials were used in the mounting because of concern for irreproducibility from hysteresis effects.
Table III lists the windings and typical parameters for each
coil.
Coil

Winding
Current Inner ∅Turns
Layers (A)
(cm)

Field

Antibias

3

6

95

10.5

B  = +9 G/cm2
B0 = -243 G

Curvature 8

6

95

3.2

B  = +90 G/cm2
B0 = +251 G

Gradient 34470

0.8 x 2.3 B  = 223 G/cm

15

∼ 7, to fit 16.5 G/cm in ẑ

MOT

7

a

4+2

a Segmented for improved cooling.

TABLE III: Magnetic trap coil winding and performance specifications. Fig. 8 illustrates their assembly and direction of current flow.

[7] D. Fried, T. Killian, L. Willmann, D. Landhuis, S. Moss,
D. Kleppner, and T. Greytak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3811 (1998).
[8] S. Cornish, N. Claussen, J. Roberts, E. Cornell, and C. Wieman,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1795 (2000).
[9] A. Roberts, O. Sirjean, A. Browaeys, J. Poupard, S. Nowak,
D. Boiron, C. Westbrook, and A. Aspect, Science 292, 461(2001).
[10] F. Santos, J. Wang, C. Barrelet, F. Perales, E. Rasel, C. Unnikrishnan, M. Leduc, and C. Cohen-Tannoudji, Phys. Rev. Lett 86,
3459 (2001).
[11] G. Modugno, G. Ferrari, G. Roati, R. Brecha, A. Simoni, and
M. Inguscio, Science 294, 1320 (2001).

13[12] T. Weber, J. Herbig, M. Mark, H. Nagerl, and R. Grimm, Science 294, 232 (2003).
[13] Y. Takasu, K. Maki, K. Komori, T. Takano, K. Honda, M. Kumakura, T. Yabuzaki, and Y. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91,
030404 (2003).
[14] A. Griesmaier, J. Werner, S. Hensler, J. Stuhler, and T. Pfau,
Phys. Rev. Let. 94, 160401 (2005).
[15] H. Ott, J. Fortagh, G. Schlotterbeck, A. Grossmann, andC. Zimmermann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 230401 (2001).
[16] K. Dieckmann, R. J. C. Spreeuw, M. Weidemüller, and J. T. M.
Walraven, Phys. Rev. A 226, 3891 (1998).
[17] R. S. Conroy, Y. Xiao, M. Vengalattore, W. Rooijakkers, and
M. Prentiss, Opt. Comm. 226, 259 (2003).
[18] H. Lewandowski, D. Harber, D. Whitaker, and E. Cornell, J.
Low Temp Phys 132, 309 (2003).
[19] T. Gustavson, A. Chikkatur, A. Leanhardt, A. Görlitz, S. Gupta,
D. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 020401(2002).
[20] A. E. Leanhardt, A. P. Chikkatur, D. Kielpinski, Y. Shin, T. L.
Gustavson, W. Ketterle, and D. E. Pritchard, Phys. Rev. Lett.
89, 040401 (2002).
[21] A. P. Chikkatur, Y. Shin, A. E. Leanhardt, D. Kielpinski,
E. Tsikata, T. L. Gustavson, D. E. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle,
Science 296, 2193 (2002).
[22] A. E. Leanhardt, T. A. Pasquini, M. Saba, A. Schirotzek,
Y. Shin, D. Kielpinski, D. E. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle, Science 301, 1513 (2003).
[23] A. E. Leanhardt, Y. Shin, A. P. Chikkatur, D. Kielpinski,
W. Ketterle, and D. E. Pritchard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 100404(2003).
[24] Y. Shin, M. Saba, M. Vengalattore, T. A. Pasquini, C. Sanner,
A. E. Leanhardt, M. Prentiss, D. E. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 160406 (2004).
[25] T. Pasquini, Y. Shin, C. Sanner, M. Saba, A. Schirotzek,
D. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 223201(2004).
[26] Y. Shin, M. Saba, A. Schirotzek, T. A. Pasquini, A. E. Leanhardt, D. E. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92,
150401 (2004).
[27] Y. Shin, M. Saba, T. Pasquini, W. Ketterle, D. Pritchard, andA. Leanhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 050405 (2004).
[28] D. Schneble, Y. Torii, M. Boyd, E. Streed, D. E. Pritchard, and
W. Ketterle, Science 300, 475 (2003).
[29] D. Schneble, G. K. Campbell, E. W. Streed, M. Boyd, D. E.
Pritchard, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. A 69, 041601 (2004).
[30] G. Campbell, M. Boyd, D. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 94, 170403 (2005).
[31] E. Raab, M. Prentiss, A. Cable, S. Chu, and D. Pritchard,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2631 (1987).
[32] J. O’Hanlon, A user’s guide to vacuum technology (WileyInterscience, Hoboken, NJ, 1989).
[33] Simon Hanks of UKAEA, D4/05 Culham Science Center,
Abingdon,UK.
[34] A.
P.
Chikkatur,
Ph.D.
thesis,Massachusetts
InstituteofTechnology(2002),
http://cua.mit.edu/ketterle group/Theses/thesis APC.pdf.
[35] H. Pauly and C. Scoles, Atomic and Molcular Beam methods
Vol I. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1988).
[36] D. Steck, http://steck.us/alkalidata/sodiumnumbers.pdf (2003).
[37] C. Alcock, V. Itkin, and M. Horrigan, Canadian Metallurgical
Quarterly 23, 309 (1984).
[38] M. Walkiewicz, P. Fox, and R. Scholten, Rev. Sci. Instr. 71,
3342 (2000).
[39] W. Phillips and H. Metcalf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 596 (1982).

[40] T. Barrett, S. Daporeschwartz, M. Ray, and G. Lafyatis, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 67, 3483 (1991).
[41] C. Slowe, L. Vernac, and L. V. Hau, Rev. Sci. Instr. 76, 103101(2005).
[42] Y. Yoshikawa, T. Umeki, T. Mukae, Y. Torii, and T. Kuga, Appl.
Opt. 42, 6645 (2003).
[43] C. Pearman, C. Adams, S. Cox, P. Griffin, D. Smith, andI. Hughs, J. Phys. B 35, 5141 (2002).
[44] A. Siegman, Lasers (Unversity Science Books, Sausalito, CA,1986).
[45] D.
M.
Stamper-Kurn,
Ph.D.
thesis,Massachusetts
InstituteofTechnology(2000),
http://cua.mit.edu/ketterle group/Theses/thesis DMSK.pdf.
[46] IPG Photonics EAD and RLM series amplifiers.
[47] H. Moosmüller and J. Vance, Optics Let. 22, 1135 (1997).
[48] J. Bienfang, C. A. Denman, B. W. Grime, P. D. Hillman, G. T.
Moore, and J. M. Telle, Optics Let. 28, 2219 (2003).
[49] R. J. Thompson, M. Tu, D. C. Aveline, N. Lundblad, and
L. Maleki, Optics Express 11, 1709 (2003).
[50] S. Shang, B. Sheehy, P. van der Straten, and H. Metcalf,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 1094 (1991).
[51] W. Ketterle, K. Davis, M. Joffe, A. Martin, and D. Pritchard,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2253 (1993).
[52] W. Ketterle and N. van Druten, in Advances in AMO
Physics, edited by B. Bederson and H. Walther (Academic Press, San Diego, 1996), vol. 37, p. 181,
http://cua.mit.edu/ketterle group/Projects 1996/Pubs 96/
kett96 evap preprint.pdf.
[53] W. Ketterle, D. S. Durfee, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, BoseEinstein Condensation in Atomic Gases, Proceedings of theInternational School of Physics “Enrico Fermi” Course CXL(IOS Press Amsterdam, 1999), cond-mat/9904034.
[54] Y. Castin and R. Dum, Phys. Rev. Let. 77, 5315 (1996).
[55] B. Borca, J. W. Dunn, V. Kokoouline, and C. H. Greene, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 91, 070404 (2003).
[56] J. Schuster, A. Marte, S. Amtage, B. Sang, G. Rempe, and
H. C. W. Beijerink, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 170404 (2001).
[57] E. A. Burt, R. W. Ghrist, C. J. Myatt, M. J. Holland, E. A.
Cornell, , and C. E. Wieman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 337 (1997).
[58] B. Tolra, K. O’Hara, J. Huckans, W. Phillips, S. Rolston, and
J. Porto, Phys. Rev. Let. 92, 190401 (2003).
[59] D. Harber, H. Lewandowski, J. McGuirk, and E. Cornell, Phys.
Rev. A 66, 053616 (2002).
[60] A. Görlitz, T. Gustavson, A. Leanhardt, R. Low, A. Chikkatur,
S. Gupta, S. Inouye, D. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 90, 090401 (2003).
[61] S. Inouye, M. Andrews, J. Stenger, H.-J. Miesner, D. StamperKurn, and W. Ketterle, Nature 392, 151 (1998).
[62] J. Stenger, S. Inouye, M. Andrews, H.-J. Miesner, D. StamperKurn, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2422 (1999).
[63] A. Marte, T. Volz, J. Schuster, S. Durr, G. Rempe, E. G. M. van
Kempen, and B. Verhaar, Phys. Rev. Let. 89, 283202 (2002).
[64] D.
S.
Durfee,Ph.D.
thesis,Massachusetts
InstituteofTechnology(1999),
http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/durfee/DSDThesis.pdf.
[65] T. Bergeman, G. Erez, and H. J. Metcalf, Phys. Rev. A 35, 1535
(1987).
[66] B. F. Melton and V. L. Pollak, J. Magn. Reson. A 122, 42(1996).
[67] D. Montgomery, Solenoid magnet design; the magnetic andmechanical aspects of resistive and superconducting systems(Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1969).
[68] C. Samuelis, E. Tiesinga, T. Laue, M. Elbs, H. Knockel, andE. Tiemann, Phys. Rev. A 63, 012710 (2000).

14[69] D. Steck, http://steck.us/alkalidata/rubidium87numbers.pdf(2002).
[70] H. Metcalf and P. van der Straten, Laser Cooling and Trapping,

Graduate texts in contemporary physics (Springer-Verlag, New
York, 1999).

15
Rb
Na
Temp Velocitya Pressure [37] Total Fluxb Lifetimec Velocitya Pressure [36] Total Fluxb Lifetimed(◦ C) (m/s)(torr)#/sec(hours)(m/s)(torr)#/sec(hours)-30
02539.3 e9097.8 f
110
120
130
140
150
160
230
240
250
260
340
350
360

266
282
295
302
325
329
334
339
343
347
351
355
383
387
391
394
423
426
430

2.5E-102.0E-08
4.0E-07
1.8E-06
1.2E-04
2.0E-04
4.5E-04
8.3E-04
1.5E-03
2.6E-03
4.4E-03
7.3E-03
1.5E-01
2.1E-01
3.0E-01
4.1E-01
4.0E+00
5.1E+00
6.5E+00

1.4E+10
1.1E+122.0E+138.8E+13
5.4E+15
9.1E+15
2.0E+16
3.7E+16
6.5E+16
1.1E+17
1.9E+17
3.1E+17
-

1814
1070
489
267
151
87
52
32
-

513
544
569
582
628
634
645
653
661
669
677
685
739
746
753
760
815
822
829

1.9E-15
5.7E-13
2.8E-11
1.9E-10
5.3E-08
1.1E-07
3.3E-07
7.9E-07
1.8E-06
4.0E-06
8.6E-06
1.8E-05
1.6E-03
2.9E-035.0E-03
8.7E-03
5.2E-01
8.3E-01
1.3E+00

TABLE IV: Oven Design Parameters
a Most probable,3D Beam, Sec 5.2 Ref. [70]b 5mm aperture
c 5g Rb

d 25g Nae melting point Rb
f melting point Na

2.0E+05
5.8E+072.7E+09
1.8E+10
4.7E+129.6E+122.9E+13
6.8E+13
1.5E+14
3.4E+14
7.1E+14
1.5E+15
1.2E+17
2.2E+17
3.7E+17
6.4E+17
-

1487
845
486
283
-

Appendix C

Publication: Continuous andDiscrete Quantum Zeno EffectThis appendix includes the paper ”Continuous and Discrete Quantum Zeno Effect.”106

Continuous and Pulsed Quantum Zeno Effect
BECIV
MIT-Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms, Research Laboratory of Electronics and Department of Physics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA(Dated: January 8, 2006)
The quantum Zeno effect is the suppression of transitions between quantum states by frequent measurement.
Oscillation between two ground hyperfine states of a magnetically trapped 87 Rb Bose-Einstein condensate,
externally driven at a transition rate ωR , was substantially suppressed by destructively measuring one of thelevels with resonant optical scattering. While an ideal continuous measurement will stop the transition, any realmeasurement method will occur at a finite rate. The suppression of the transition rate in the two level system
was quantified for pulsed measurements with a time between pulses δt and weak continuous measurementswith a scattering rate γ. We observe that the weak continuous measurements exhibit the same suppression in thetransition rate as the pulsed measurements when γδt = 3.60(0.43). This is in agreement with the previously
predicted value of 4. Increasing the measurement frequency suppressed the transition rate to 0.005ωR .

(b)

(a)
|2,+1>|2,0>|1,-1>|2,+1> Population

The quantum Zeno effect (QZE) is the suppression of transitions between states by frequent measurement. It was firstconsidered as a theoretical problem relating to the decay of an
unstable charged particle as it was measured traveling acrossa bubble chamber [1]. Under ideal continuous measurement
the unstable particle would paradoxically remain in its initialstate. The QZE is the quantum equivalent to the watched tea
kettle that never boils. Understanding quantum measurement
is essential in linking quantum systems to their classical surroundings.
The QZE can be used both to test fundamental physics andto solve practical problems. Agreement with existing theory
can bound or exclude the effects of proposed extensions toquantum mechanics such as string theory or quantum gravity[2–4]. One example is using the agreement between experimental measurements of the QZE in an atomic system [5]and quantum mechanics to calculate an upper bound on possible stochastic perturbations in the Schrödinger equation [2].
This bound is similar to that obtained from particle physics
experiments. Practical applications of QZEs include reducing
irradiation levels in neutron tomography [6], managing decoherence in quantum computing [7–10], and reducing depolarization rates in spin polarized gases [11–13]. The securityof quantum cryptography protocols [14] is derived from thenature of quantum measurement. In theory the Heisenberg
uncertainty principal limits how frequently meaningful measurements can be performed. In practice imperfections in realmeasurements [15] cause losses which limit the maximum realizable suppression [16].
In a driven two level system the QZE from frequent optical scattering measurements to a third level [17] was shownto suppress the transition rate between hyperfine levels intrapped ions [5]. In addition to subsequent ion experiments[12, 18], QZEs have been observed in molecular collisions[11], neutral atoms tunneling out of an optical lattice [19],and the absorption of optical pumping light in spin polarizedgas cells [13].
Oscillation between two states, externally driven at a transition rate ωR , was substantially suppressed by destructive measurements of one of the levels with resonant optical scattering.

1.0|1,-1> Population

PACS numbers:

1.0

0.5
0.0
0

16
8
Time (ms)24168Time (ms)

24

0.5
0.0

0

FIG. 1: The experimental two level quantum system consists of the|1, −1 and |2, +1 ground hyperfine states of 87 Rb. a. Ground hyperfine state energy level diagram for relevant levels in 87 Rb. Arrows
depict the components of the two photon transition which connect the|1, −1 and |2, +1 states. 6.8 GHz microwaves couple the |1, −1to a virtual intermediate state detuned 420 kHz above resonance withthe |2, 0. Radio frequency (RF) at 1.68 MHz resonantly couples
this virtual intermediate state to the |2, +1 state. b. Population of
the |1, −1 and |2, +1 states as a function of time. Curves are fits
to a two photon transition rate of ωR /2π = 61.5(0.5) Hz. No population was detected in the intermediate |2, 0 state.

The suppression in the transition rate from continuous scattering measurements and pulsed scattering measurements were
quantified and compared. For short times (t  1/ωR ) andwhen the initial population is only in one state the population
2/4. For frequent strong meatransfer to the other state is t2 ωRsurement pulses spaced δt, dividing this transfer rate by time2
/4. τEP is the ideal
gives an expected loss rate 1/τEP = δtωR
initial state lifetime under pulsed measurement if no other loss
mechanisms are present.
A laser beam with scattering rate γ has probability 1 −exp (−tγ) of making a scattering measurement after time t.
For large enough γ this probability → 1 and the transition
rate in the two level system is suppressed (strong measure-2
sion. An RF pulse based state transfer technique [24] was used
to map |1, −1 and |2, +1 populations into magnetically separable states where they could be simultaneously measured.
When driven by the two photon transition the atoms coherently oscillated between the |1, −1 and |2, +1 states (Fig.
1) at a transition rate ωR . Optical scattering measurements
of atoms in the |2, +1 state reduced the total BEC population. When the frequency of measuring the |2, +1 state wasincreased the lifetime of atoms in the initial |1, −1 was increased by suppressing the transition rate to the |2, +1. The
suppression of the transition rate through frequent measurements was because of the QZE.

Lifetime W +ms/

10000

1000

100

10
0.3

Survival Probablity P+N/

ment limit), resulting in negligible QZE related atom decayrate. Other loss processes, such as background gas collisions, three body recombination, dipolar collisions, or off resonance scattering losses will then dominate the decay rate.
For smaller γ the probabilistic nature of the scattering effectively allows free evolution for extended periods, such that
the QZE measurement loss process dominates over that fromother losses (weak measurement limit) and the expected loss
2[20]. τEC is the ideal initial state liferate is 1/τEC = γωRtime under continuous measurement if no other loss mechanisms are present. Both of these regimes are valid only in thefrequent measurement limit 1/δt, γ  ωR . We have measured these lifetimes and used them to verify the prediction[20] that the limit of many strong measurements with frequency 1/δt produces the same suppression of decay as acontinuous weak measurement with a scattering rate γ whenγδt = 4. It is important to relate strong pulsed measurements
to weak continuous measurements since any real strong measurement is only an approximation based on a series of weakcontinuous measurements. For practical applications, weakcontinuous measurements require fewer photons then pulsed
measurements for the same suppression of the transition rate.
Here we have demonstrated the QZE in a magneticallytrapped 87 Rb Bose-Einstein condensate. Externally driven
transitions between two hyperfine states were suppressed byresonantly scattering optical photons off one hyperfine state.
The 362 nK energy from a single photon recoil distinguishes
scattered atoms from the µ=15nK subrecoil energy of the condensate atoms. The externally driven two level system [5, 18]
and destructive measurement technique [19] are establishedtechniques in QZE experiments. A condensate of Nc =5.0(0.5) × 104 87 Rb atoms in the 5S1/2 |1, −1 (|F, mF )
hyperfine ground state was prepared in a {63, 63, 6.6} Hz
magnetic trap [21]. An RF knife maintained a magnetic trap
depth of 5 µK. The observed lifetime of the condensate wasgreater then 5 s.
A two photon transition was used to drive coherent oscillations between the 5S1/2 |1, −1 and 5S1/2 |2, +1 states at
a rate ωR (Fig. 1). The |1, −1 and |2, +1 states were usedbecause their magnetic moments exactly match at a magnetic
field of 3.23 G [22]. Variations from this magnetic field would
not change the transition frequency to first order. The magnetic bias field was lowered to 3.0 G [22] to compensate forthe dephasing induced across the condensate by the density
dependent clock shift. This created a uniform transition frequency across the condensate. A laser beam of 780 nm πpolarized light tuned with an acousto-optic modulator to resonance with the 5S1/2 |2, +1 → 5P3/2 |3, +1 transition at 3.0
G performed the optical scattering measurements. The laser
beam had a 1/e2 diameter of d0 = 9.5(0.1) mm and was monitored with a photodiode. The condensate atom number was
reduced from Nc = 5.0(0.5) × 106 to Nc = 5.0(0.5) × 104
by nearly adiabatic RF output coupling [23] to lower then density and collisional opacity. This reduced the chance of collisions between escaping atoms and the remaining condensate
causing additional losses. After each QZE experiment wascompleted the magnetic trap was turned off and the surviving
atoms were allowed to expand with 41 ms of ballistic expan-

13
1sGt + ms1 /

10

30

30
100
300
Measurements N

1000

1.
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
3

10

FIG. 2: Increase in the lifetime (upper) and survival probability(lower) of atoms in the initial |1, −1 state with more frequent pulsed
measurements of the |2, +1 state. Solid lines indicate increases
predicted for the pulsed QZE. Boxes (triangles) are data points fora transition rate ωR /2π = 54.6(0.5) (24.7(0.1)) Hz between the|1, −1 and |2, +1 states without measurements. Upper: Observed
lifetimes (Filled) for |1, −1 atoms measured with a time δt between
10 µs optical pulses resonant with the |2, +1. Lines indicate the ex2
pected QZE limited lifetime τEP = 1/4δtωR. Open symbols show
lifetimes after correction for additional (non-QZE) measurement related losses by Eq. 1 (Γm = 3.41(0.14)s−1 , 2.96(0.22)s−1 ).
Lower: The same data in terms of the survival probability for N =π/ωR δt measurements performed during a π pulse time t = π/ωR(without measurements the time to transfer 100% of the atoms from|1, −1 to |2, +1). The survival probability P = exp (−π/ωR τ )is calculated from the observed lifetimes.
Thesolid line is the ex(2N )πpected survival probability P (N ) = cos 2N
for an ideal N
measurement QZE.

31
1
(1 − f ) + Γm f
=
τ
τEP

(1)

Data points in Fig. 2 where this correction had a significant impact on the lifetime are indicated by open symbols.
2). We meaThe ideal lifetime would be τEP = 4/(δtωR
2). Secondary collisured τEP = 0.836(0.014) × 4/(δtωR
sions between recoiling, post measurement atoms and the remaining condensate would account for the gap between theobserved and expected lifetimes. Lower magnetic trap depths
and stronger scattering measurement laser pulses could reducethese effects. Separate measurement of the additional scattering measurement loss rate Γm from the strong scattering measurement pulses showed no change with the removal of the RFcomponent of the driven two photon transition and reduction
by an order of magnitude without the microwave component.
This suggests that the additional scattering measurement loss
mechanism is dominated by two photon scatting through the|2, 0 virtual state to the 5P3/2 |3, 0 excited state.
Saturation s0
4.8x10 - 3
9.6x10 - 3

014.4x10 - 3

Lifetime τEC +ms/

1000

Lifetime τEC +ms/

We quantified the QZE induced by repeated strong measurements. Optical scattering measurement pulses of 172 µW(s0 =0.15 where s0 = I/Isat is the saturation parameter orlaser intensity relative to saturation intensity) and 10 µs in
duration were applied to the driven two state system. Eachpulse scattered ∼ 29 photons per atom. The pulses were separated by a dark free evolution time δt. The lifetime τ fora particular scattering measurement pulse rate 1/δt was determined by fitting the |1, −1 atom lifetime to an exponential decay curve over a range of times >∼ 2τ . The upper
plot in Fig. 2 shows the dramatic increase in the observed
lifetimes (solid symbols) as the measurement frequency 1/δt
was increased. The measured lifetimes for two different two
photon transition rates (ωR /2π = 24.7(0.1) Hz triangles,
ωR /2π = 54.6(0.5) Hz boxes) were plotted along with their
expected values (upper and lower lines respectively). As expected for the strong measurement regime, the measured lifetimes were not found to be strongly sensitive to variations in
optical power, pulse width, or laser detuning. The most frequent measurements (farthest right solid symbols in Fig. 2)
show significant deviation from the expect lifetimes (lines).
As the measurement frequency was increased the cumulative
losses from other processes dominated over the increasingly
suppressed QZE related losses. Further increases to the measurement rate would have resulted in a decrease in the measured lifetime. The greatest QZE enhanced lifetime in Fig. 2(upper left most filled data point) shows an increase by a factor of τ ωR = 198(16) in lifetime at a measurement frequencyof 1/δt = 25ms−1 . Other works [5, 16, 18] express the QZEin terms of the survival probability P (N ) per number of measurements N during a π pulse (t = π/ωR ), a duration where
without measurements 100% of the atoms would be transferedinto the other state. The lower plot in Fig. 2 translates our observed lifetimes into this generalized basis. In these terms thegreatest Zeno effect is for N=506(2) measurements with a survivial probablity P=0.984(1).
To test the agreement between the predicted QZE and ourobservations we calculated a corrected QZE lifetime τEP
by subtracting out a separately calibrated scattering measurement loss rate Γm . The total observed loss rate 1/τ issplit into two components, weighted by the duty cycle f =10µs/ (10µs + δt) of the pulsed measurement laser beam.
One component accounts for the expected QZE related loss
rate 1/τEP with a weighting 1 − f . The other component accounts for additional other losses relating to the pulsed measurement process with a rate Γm and a weighting f . For all
pulsed experiments the measurement laser beam duty cyclef ≤ 20%.

750

500

200

100

0

0

1
2
3
Optical Power ++µW/
W/

250

0
0

4
8
Optical Power ++µW/
W/

12

FIG. 3: Continuous QZE lifetime dependence on optical power with
ωR /2π = 48.5(0.9) Hz for laser detunings both on (Boxes) andδL =-5.4 MHz off (Triangles) resonance. Grey bands indicates rangeof expected CW lifetimes from fit to separately measured AC Stark
shift for on (upper) and δL =-5.4 MHz off (lower) laser detunings.
Inset highlights data from lower optical powers. The saturation parameter s0 scale has an uncertainty of 17%.

In another experiment, the same initial system was subjected to a weak continuous measurement instead of repeatedstrong measurements. Fig. 3 shows the dramatic increase inlifetime with increasing scattering measurement laser beam
power. While showing this qualitative relationship is straightforward, several issues complicate making an quantitative
measurement of the continuous QZE. If the scattering measurement laser is detuned from the optical resonance it will
have both a reduced scattering rate and also induce an AC
Stark Shift δRF in the two photon resonance, reducing the effective Rabi frequency. In addition, imperfections in the beam
can affect the intensity at the atoms. While these are not important for the pulsed measurement so long as the scattering
measurement remains in the strong regime, they are criticalto properly characterizing the weak continuous measurement
experiment.
We were able to address all of these issues simultaneously
by measuring the AC Stark shift at several different laser detunings. For each laser detuning δL and optical power we determined the AC Stark shift δRF by maximizing the atom loss
as a function of RF frequency. At this point an exponential
decay curve was then measured to determine the continuous
measurement lifetime τEC . Fitting the measured AC Stark
shifts to the dispersion relation for a multilevel atom [25] wewere able to extract in-situ values for the saturation parameter4changed the observed population [5, 18], requiring significant corrections for the N=32 and N=64 pulse measurements(Table I, [5]). With corrections on N=64 data the greatest survival probability observed was P (64) = 0.943(20)or τEP ωR = 54(30). Unlike scattering photons off tightly
trapped ions, the scattering of a single photon off a weakly
trapped ultra-cold atom induces a dramatic and easily distinguishable change in momentum. Furthermore, repeated scatterings increase the momentum and enhance rather then degrade the contrast with unmeasured atoms. QZE experimentsof an unstable system involving tunneling measurements ofcold neutral atoms in an accelerating lattice [19] observed anincreased in survival probability from P=0.6 to P=0.8 with
N=9 measurements.

Lifetime WEC +ms/

300

200

100

0
20

10
0
10
Laser Detuning GL +MHz/

20

FIG. 4: Continuous quantum Zeno lifetime as a function of thescattering measurement laser detuning δL . Grey band indicatesrange of predicted CW Zeno lifetimes Eq. 2 from separately measured AC Stark shift parameters. Data is for 3.5 µW laser power,
ωR = 45.5(1.0) Hz.

s0 = 1.2(0.2) × 10−3 at 3.5 µW laser power and detuning
δ0 = 0.34(0.36) MHz. This was in agreement with the values expected from measurements of the laser beam diameter,
optical power, and laser frequency stabilization spectroscopy
signal. The predicted continuous measurement lifetimes arethen given byΓs0γτEC = 2 =
2
ωR
2ωR





1

1+4

 δL −δ0 2(2)

Γwhich are depicted as gray bands in Figs. 3 and 4. Similar
to the longest lifetime point in the pulsed data (upper rightsolid triangle, Fig. 2), the highest power point in Fig. 3 shows
significant deviation from the lifetime expected from Eq. 2.
From the AC Stark shift and Eq. 2 we calculate an expected
lifetime of τEC = 250(8) ms that is in agreement 0.93(0.11)
with the observed on resonance lifetime τEC = 233(26) ms in
Fig. 4. The highest power point in Fig. 3 demonstrates a QZEenhancement of lifetime by a factor of τEC ωR = 162(20).
Fig. 3 shows increasing lifetime with increasing measurement
laser power, the signature of the continuous QZE. By matching the observed lifetimes for continuous and pulsed QZEmeasurements we find that γδt = 3.60(0.43), in agreementwith the predicted ratio of 4 [20].
We have extended previous work in pulsed QZE measurements [5, 18, 19] by exploiting advantages inherent toBose-Einstein condensates. Complications from an opticallydense sample were avoided by working in the frequent measurement regime to prevent appreciable buildup of atoms inthe measured state. In ion experiments optical pumping between states during the pulsed laser scattering measurements[1] B. Misra and E. C. G. Sudarshan, J. Math. Phys. 18, 756 (1977).

Previous demonstrations of the continuous QZE [11–13,
26] observed qualitative, but not quantitatively characterized suppression effects with increasing laser intensity. In atrapped ion system evolving with free Lamour precession in amagnetic field an ∼ 80% reduction in floresence with increasing laser intensity (near and above saturation) was observed[12]. A less comparable continuous QZE system is that observed from molecular collisions in nuclear spin isomer polarized 13 CH3 F gas, where a 60% drop in the conversion rateof gas was observed when the pressure was increased by 12times [11].
The large hyperfine splitting in 87 Rb is favorable for QZEtype experiments because it reduces the chance of off resonant
scattering of the measurement laser by atoms in the |1, −1state to 2.8 × 10−7 of that for |2, +1 atoms. Substituting
a single photon Rabi oscillation on the F=1, mF =0 ↔ F=2,
mF =0 clock transition [27] in a low density sample could reduce the systematic limitations observed in this paper relating to the observed additional measurement related losses andcollisional losses.
The QZE is closely related to the phenomena of interaction
free measurements [28, 29], where information about the stateof a system can be determined from the absence rather thenpresence of a scattering event.
In conclusion we have used a new system to perform QZE
measurements deep in the limit of strong suppression. We
have measured and quantified the suppression of evolution
due both continuous weak measurement and frequent pulsed
strong measurement. Our observed quantum Zeno suppressions are larger then both previous pulsed [5] and continuous[12] results, and is also greater then that expected from recently proposed experiments [6, 15, 16, 30]. We observe thatthe weak continuous measurements exhibit the same suppression in the transition rate as the pulsed measurements whenγδt = 3.60(0.43). This is in agreement with the previously
predicted value of 4 [20]. Initial state lifetimes were increasedby factors of 198(16) 1/ωR in the pulse regime and 172(20)1/ωR in the continuous regime.

[2] S. L. Adler, Phys. Rev. D 67, 025007 (2003).

5[3] I. L. Egusquiza and L. J. Garay, Phys. Rev. A 68, 022104(2003).
[4] A. Camacho, Intl. J. Mod. Phys. D 10, 9 (2001).
[5] W. Itano, D. Heinzen, J. Bollinger, and D. Wineland,
Phys. Rev. A 41, 2295 (1990).
[6] P. Facchi, Z. Hradil, G. Krenn, S. Pascazio, and J. Rehacek,
Phys. Rev. A 66, 012110 (2002).
[7] J. D. Franson, B. C. Jacobs, and T. B. Pittman, Phys. Rev. A 70,
062302 (2004).
[8] E. Brion, V. M. Akulin, D. Comparat, I. Dumer, G. Harel,
N. Kébaili, G. Kurizki, I. Mazets, and P. Pillet, Phys. Rev. A
71, 052311 (2005).
[9] F. M. Spedalieri, H. Lee, M. Florescu, K. T. Kapale, U. Yurtsever, and J. P. Dowling, Opt. Comm 254, 374 (2005).
[10] P. Facchi, S. Tasaki, S. Pascazio, H. Nakazato, A. Tokuse, and
D. A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. A 71, 022302 (2005).
[12] K. Mølhave and M. Drewsen, Phys. Lett. A 268, 45 (2000).
[11] B. Nagels, L. J. F. Hermans, and P. L. Chapovsky, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 79, 3097 (1997).
[13] T. Nakanishi, K. Yamane, and M. Kitano, Phys. Rev. A 65,
013404 (2001).
[14] C. Bennett and G. Brassard, in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computers, Systems, and Signal Processing (IEEE, New York, USA, 1984), pp. 157–159.
[15] H. Rauch, Physica B 297, 299 (2001).
[16] P. Facchi, Y. Nakaguro, H. Nakazato, S. Pascazio, M. Unoki,
and K. Yuasa, Phys. Rev. A 68, 012107 (2003).
[17] R. J. Cook, Phys. Scr. T21, 29 (1988).

[18] C. Balzer, T. Hannemann, D. Reib, C. Wunderlich,
W. Neuhauser, and P. E. Toschek, Optics Communications 211,
235 (2002).
[19] M. C. Fischer, B. Gutiérrez-Medina, and M. G. Raizen, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 87, 040402 (2001).
[20] L. Schulman, Phys. Lett. A 57, 1509 (1998).
[21] E. W. Streed, A. P. Chikkatur, T. L. Gustavson, M. Boyd,
Y. Torii, D. Schneble, G. K. Campbell, D. E. Pritchard, and
W. Ketterle, cond-mat/0507348 (2005).
[22] D. Harber, H. Lewandowski, J. McGuirk, and E. Cornell, Phys.
Rev. A 66, 053616 (2002).
[23] M.-O. Mewes, M. R. Andrews, D. M. Kurn, D. S. Durfee, C. G.
Townsend, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 582 (1997).
[24] E. W. Streed, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2006), forthcoming.
[25] J. Dalibard and C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 6, 2023
(1989).
[26] P. Valente, H. Failache, and A. Lezama, Phys. Rev. A 65,
023814 (2002).
[27] C. Fertig and K. Gibble, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1622 (2000).
[28] P. Kwiat, H. Weinfurter, T. Herzog, and A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 74, 4763 (1995).
[29] T. Tsegaye, E. Goobar, A. Karlsson, G. Bjork, M. Y. Loh, andK. H. Lim, Phys. Rev. A 57, 3987 (1998).
[30] M. R. Jaekel, E. Jericha, and H. Rauch, Nuc. Inst. Meth. A 539,
335 (2005).

Appendix D

Degenerate Bose gases in one andtwo dimensions
The majority of this thesis is about BECs in three dimensional traps. During my courseof study we also considered investigating Bose-Einstein condensates in strongly confining
systems with fewer degrees of motional freedom. Cold bosons were predicted to undergovery different phase transitions depending on the dimensionality of the system [116–118].
This Appendix contains my notes and calculations regarding these regimes.
Each dimension in an atom trap acts as a quantum harmonic oscillator. A trap frequency
ω has an quantized energy spacing between motional states of ~ω. Motion in a dimension
freezes out when the strong confinement from high trap frequencies causes a quantum of
motional energy ~ω to exceed all the other energies in the system. When the chemical
potential µ of a BEC is less then a quantum of motional energy ~ω it no longer has enoughenergy to excite any motion in that direction. Then the ground state of the harmonic
oscillator, rather then the mean field energy, dominates the quantum behavior of the BEC.
The first notable change is that in the dimensions of strong confinement the profile inballistic expansion changes from parabolic to Gaussian [119, 120].

D.1

Confinement to one dimension

Consider a cigar shaped trap with tight radial confinement ω⊥ in two directions and loose
axial confinement ωz in one direction. This regime has been of theoretical interest for many
years [117, 118]. It possible to implement such a system in either a two dimensional opticallattice, creating an array of ”needles” or in a Ioffe-Pritchard magnetic trap. Matching thechemical potential to the trapping frequency gives a maximum atom number N1D for one
dimensional behavior. In experimental work, the atom number of a tightly confined BEC
was reduced by losses over time and dimensional phase change was observed [119] when theatom number fell below critical.

112

r
N1D <

32~
225ma2

r

ω⊥
ωz2

(D.1)

1D BECs are not true condensates but are instead quasi-condensates. In a pure 3D
BEC the correlation length extends over the entire sample. This can be observed in theinterference between two 3D BECs [121]. In a 1D BEC the coherence extends only overpart rather then all of the trapped atom sample. While neighbors remain correlated andcoherent, the ends of the sample are not. The decreased correlation length is observable asa broadening and change of shape in the Bragg spectroscopy [122] of the BEC’s momentum
distribution [123].
Another unusual phenomena for strong confinement in two dimensions is that the atomatom scattering is modified by the trapping potential [124]. These are often refered to as
shape resonances. The atom-atom scattering length a changes to
aef f = a1
1 − 1.032a/a⊥(D.2)

q for strong confinement in two dimensions with quantum harmonic oscillator length a⊥ =~mω⊥ [125]. For Rb 87, with a=5.3 nm , the shape resonance is predicted to occur at
trapping frequencies ≈4 MHz, much higher then the ∼ 20 − 50kHz that has been achievedin optical lattices. Corrections due to changes in the scattering length have been reported
at much lower trap frequencies [73].
If we integrate the density in the two tightly confining directions we can define a one
dimensional linear density as
n1D = πax ay n3D(D.3)

The one dimensional chemical potential µ1D = g1D n1D where
g1D =4~2 aef f
max ay(D.4)

and the overall chemical potential µ3D = g1D n1D + ~ω⊥ .

D.1.1

Tonks-Girardeau Transition

The Tonks-Girardeau transition occurs when cold atoms are strongly confined in two dimensions such that the atom atom scattering repulsion energy is balanced by a quantum
energy cost for knowing the two atoms are separated. The bosons then cease to be degenerate and instead become distinguishable particles, based on their ordered position in the one
dimensional line. This state has the surprising property that the strength of its interaction
becomes stronger as the system becomes more dilute.
γ=

Euncor
4Ecor
113

(D.5)

where Euncor is the mean field energy µ = g1D n1D , associated with atoms repelling each2~other and Ecor = 2m
n21D is the energy associated with the atoms being separated. This has

the odd effect of the Tonks-Girardeau parameter γ being greater for lower densities. Very
odd for a system to become more strongly interacting as the density drops.
in terms of trap frequencies

γ∝

γ=

6
ω⊥
ωz2

1/5
(D.6)

2aef fπa2x a2y n3D(D.7)

The effects for the specific case of the crossover from a BEC in a 3D potential to a tightly
confining 2D potential has been recently calculated [126] and observed [73, 127–129]. Oneof the changes in low dimensional behavior is that in the Tonks-Girardeau limit the three
atom correlation function g (3) should drop to zero and three body recombination losses
should vanish. In preliminary studies the three body loss rate was observed to drop to 15%of the 3D rate [73].

D.2

Confinement to two dimensions

Consider a circular pancake shaped trap with tight confinement ωz in one directions andloose confinement ω⊥ in the other two direction. Two dimensional systems such as thesehave also been of theoretical interest for many years [117, 118]. They also have practical interest for creating gyroscopic atom interferometers [130] from quantized persistent currents.
Systems available for trapping cold atoms in two dimensions include optical lattices [131],and evanescent optical surface traps [132–138], dressed state “egg shell” gravito-magnetic
traps [139, 140], and surface magnetic traps [141]. As with the 1D case, prelimary experimental work in an optical trap demonstrated a dimensional phase change [119] when theatom number fell below critical. Matching the chemical potential to the trap frequency
energy gives two dimensional behavior when the atom number N is less then
r
N2D <

D.2.1

32~
225ma2

s

ωz3
4
ω⊥

(D.8)

Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless Transition

It has been predicted that a trapped, interacting two dimensional Bose gas will undergo
two quantum phase transitions as the temperature is reduced [142]. The system becomessuperfluid for T < TB KT , the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless phase transition [143, 144].
Unlike the 3D case, where superfluidity is a sign that the system has undergone the 3D
Bose-Einstein condensate transition, in the 2D case the system is not required to have longrange order, making it instead a quasi-condensate. The trapped atoms are predicted to have114

”patches” of phase coherence of size equal to the correlation length. As the temperature
is lowered this correlation length grows until it encompasses the entire finite sample. A
second, Bose-Einstein condensate like phase transition is predicted to occur at this point.
Unlike the one dimensional case, experiments have been performed in thin films ofliquid Helium [145, 146] and hydrogen [147]. The superfluid transition was observed inliquid helium through studies of rotational inertia [145, 146] and optical polarization [148]properties. Further evidence of a quantum phase transition is the reduction in the threebody recombination rate for a 2D hydrogen gas was also observed [147]. To date thisphenomena has not been observed in cold alkali gases. The BKT transition temperature ispurely a function of the surface mass density
kB TBKT =π~2nsurf ace
2m

(D.9)

In a harmonic trap with a finite number of particles the transition temperature is thenkB TBKT ≈ 0.44~ωk N 1/2(D.10)For comparison the three dimension Bose-Einstein condensate transition temperature iskB Tc ≈ 0.94~ω̄N 1/3(D.11)

The wavefunction of a BEC isψ(x, y, z) =pn(x, y, z) exp(iµ/~t)(D.12)

where in 2 dimensions
n(x, y, z) = n3Dp

x2 y 2
1− 2 − 2
rx
ry



2

2

exp−z /az

(D.13)

Integrating in all three directions we can determine the total atom number

N

√
π
= n3D
p 2 rx ry πaz(D.14)

N= π2 rx ry n2Dp(D.15)

instead of the usual 3D result
N = n3Dp

8πr x r y rz
15

(D.16)The two dimensional mean field energy is thenµ2D =4π~2 a 2D√ n
maz π p115

(D.17)

and using the Thomas Fermi criteria that µ2 D = 21 mωi2 ri2 we can determine
1µ2D = ~ω2D
2
and
n2D
p =

1

r

ā22D

s

16aN
√
az π

(D.18)N az
4π 3/2 a(D.19)

Similar to the 1D case, the overall chemical potential is the reduced dimensionality
potential plus the harmonic oscillator energy in the frozen direction.
µ3D = µ2D + ~ω⊥ /2

116(D.20)

Appendix E

Rubidium Properties
E.1

Physical Properties of Rubidium

Rubidium is an extremely reactive silvery white metal which melts a few degrees above
body temperature (39.31 ◦ C,103 ◦ F). Upon contact with water it liberates hydrogen gas
and forms the caustic base rubidium hydroxide. 28% of naturally occuring rubidium is
87 Rb.

A β − emitter with a half life of 50 billion years, 87 Rb is not considered to be aradiological hazard. The radioactivity level of naturally occurring rubidium is similar tothat of potassium. The potassium in a 5 lb sack of potatoes has greater radioactivity thenthat from a 5 gm ampoule of rubidium.
Reactivity
Compound

State

Color

∆Hf ormation (kJ/mol)∆Hsolution (kJ/mol)

RbOH

solid

white

424

60

Rb2 O

solid

black

347

Rb2 O2solidyellow

448

Rb2 O4solidorange565

H2 O

liquid

clear

286

H2 O

gas

clear

242

Table E.1: Energy released from formation of select compounds from their constituant
elements.
From table E.1 we can calculate that 5 gm of Rb reacting with humid air will liberate
17 kJ.

117

Toxicity
Rb metal is highly reactive and will form alkaline salts upon exposure to air or water. As
of 2002 no toxicity data specific to Rb metal was obtainable through conventional searches.
The product Rb salts have toxicities (LD50) comparable to their Na counterparts.
Disposal
Rb metal is a hazardous material and should be disposed of by professionals. Rb salts areless hazardous then Rb metal and may be classified as “sinkable”. Please consult your local
environmental safety officer for current regulations.

E.1.1

Vapor Pressure

The saturated vapor pressure of rubidium as a function of temperature (Fig. E-1) is an important parameter in the design of atomic beam ovens and spectroscopy cells. Two formulas
are commonly used to calculate the vapor pressure. One is based on experimental measurements of the vapor pressure [52] while the other is a theoretical curve which incorporates
various physical measurements of rubidium [149].
The simple formula given by [52] provides the pressure in atmospheres as a functionof the temperature in Kelvin. The formula is only considered valued for temperatures
above room temperature, although it agrees with the results from [149] down to much lower
temperatures.
log10 P = A + B/T
State

A

B (K)

Temp Range (K)

solid

4.857

-4215

298-312liquid

4.312

-4040

312-600(E.1)

Table E.2: Constants for Rubidium vapor pressure formula [52]The much more elaborate formula of [149] gives the pressure in torr as a function of thetemperature in Kelvin. Values for the vapor pressure of Rb2 molecules are also included.
log10 P = A − B/T + CT + Dlog10 T

E.1.2

(E.2)

Spectroscopy Cell Maintenance

We use the absorption signal from rubidium spectroscopy cells is used to stabilize laser
frequencies to resonances in 87 Rb. The absorption signal is proportional to the density ofrubidium vapor in the cell. In a good room temperature cell 50 mm long the typical optical
118

StateA

B (K)

C (/K)

D

Temp Range (K)solid Rb

-94.04826

1961.258-0.03771687

42.57526<312

liquid Rb

15.88253

4529.635

0.00058663-2.99138>312

solid Rb2

-211.33010

966.918-0.07829240

91.59149<312

liquid Rb2

41.275307226.316

0.00333213-11.85510>312

Table E.3: Constants for extended Rubidium vapor pressure formula [149]Vapor Pressure HtorrL

1

0.001

1. µ 10-6
1. µ 10-91. µ 10-12

200

300

400
Temperature HKL

500

600

Figure E-1: Saturated vapor pressure of rubidium as a function of temperature. Upper
curve is from [52]. Lower curve is from [149]density is ∼30% when Doppler broadening is included. The partial pressure of rubidiumin the cell is saturated when exposed rubidium metal or liquid is in equilibrium with thevaoor phase. Rubidium also acts as a getter vacuum pump, reacting with oxygen and water
which may leak into the cell. Over time a layer of surface oxide and hydroxide salts canbuild up over exposed rubidium metal, reducing the amount of metal available to maintainthe saturated vapor equilibrium. After several years the absorption of optical cells can be
reduced because of the covering of the rubidium metal with this salt layer. These salts areeasily recognizable by their dull gray appearance.
Old cells often have usable quantities of Rb metal buried under this layer of salts. To
make a fresh layer of Rb metal in the cell, heat a bowl of water to ∼ 50◦ C and float thecell in it. You will see a diffuse line layer of Rb metal forming above the water line, where
Rb metal is condensing on the coldest surface. In cells with an appreciable (mg) amount of
Rb, it may visibly bead up, sluffing off salt flakes. This procedure will restore the saturated
vapor pressure in the cell and improve the absorption signal.
Caution: DO NOT USE BOILING WATER The low melting point of rubidium

119metal means that water which is warm to the touch is sufficient. Adverse thermal stress on
glass cells can cause them to shatter. The rapid production of flying glass shards in the lab
is inadvisable.

120Bibliography[1] F. Gregoire, S. Wei, E. W. Streed, K. Brameld, D. Fort, L. Hanely, J. Walls, W. Goddard, and J. Roberts, “Conformational equilibria of beta-alanine and related compounds as studied by NMR spectroscopy,” J. Am. Chem. Soc. 120, 7537 (1998).
[2] J. W. Jr., “The dielectric constant of mixtures of ethyl alcohol and water from -5 to
40◦ ,” J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 53, 3292 (1931).
[3] A. Einstein, Sitzber. Kgl. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. 261, (1924).
[4] S. Bose, “Plancks Gesetz und Lichtquantenhypothese,” Z. Phys. 26, 178 (1924).
[5] L. de Broglie, “Recherches sur la Theorie des Quanta,” Ann. Phys. (Fr.) 3, 22 (1925).
[6] W. Phillips and H. Metcalf, “Laser deceleration of an atomic beam,” Phys. Rev. Lett.
48, 596 (1982).
[7] S. Chu, L. Hollberg, J. Bjorkholm, A. Cable, and A. Ashkin, “Three-Dimensional
Viscous Confinement and Cooling of Atoms by Resonance Radiation Pressure,”
Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 48 (1985).
[8] S. Chu, J. Bjorkholm, A. Ashkin, and A. Cable, “Experimental observation of opticallytrapped atoms,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 314 (1986).
[9] E. Raab, M. Prentiss, A. Cable, S. Chu, and D. Pritchard, “Trapping of Neutral
Sodium Atoms with Radiation Pressure,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2631 (1987).
[10] A. Aspect, E. Arimondo, R. Kaiser, N. Vansteenkiste, and C. Cohen-Tannoudji,“Laser Cooling Below the One-Photon Recoil Energy by Velocity-Selective Coherent Population Trapping,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 826 (1988).
[11] P. Lett, R. Watts, C. Westbrook, W. Phillips, P. Gould, and H. Metcalf, “Observationof atoms laser cooled below the Doppler limit,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 169 (1988).
[12] D. Weiss, E. Riis, Y. Shevy, P. Ungar, and S. Chu, “Optical molasses and multilevelatoms: experiment,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 6, 2072 (1989).
[13] P. Lett, W. Phillips, S. Rolston, C. Tanner, and R. W. C. Westbrook, “Optical Molasses,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 6, 2084 (1989).
[14] C. N. Cohen-Tannoudji, “Manipulating atoms with photons (Nobel lecture),”Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 707 (1998).

121

[15] S. Chu, “The manipulation of neutral particles (Nobel lecture),” Rev. Mod. Phys. 70,
685 (1998).
[16] W. D. Phillips, “Laser cooling and trapping of neutral atoms (Nobel lecture),”Rev. Mod. Phys 70, 721 (1998).
[17] E. A. Cornell and C. E. Wieman, “Nobel Lecture: Bose-Einstein condensation in adilute gas, the first 70 years and some recent experiments,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 875(2002).
[18] W. Ketterle, “When atoms behave as waves: Bose-Einstein condensation and theatom laser,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 1131 (2002).
[19] M. H. Anderson, J. R. Ensher, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell,“Observation of Bose-Einstein Condensation in a Dilute Atomic Vapor,” Science 269,
198 (1995).
[20] K. B. Davis, M.-O. Mewes, M. R. Andrews, N. J. van Druten, D. S. Durfee, D. M.
Kurn, and W. Ketterle, “Bose-Einstein Condensation in a Gas of Sodium Atoms,”
Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3969 (1995).
[21] C. C. Bradley, C. A. Sackett, J. J. Tollett, and R. G. Hulet, “Evidence of Bose-Einstein
Condensation in an Atomic Gas with Attractive Interactions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 75,
1687 (1995), ibid. 79, 1170 (1997).
[22] C. Bradley, C. Sackett, and R. Hulet, “Bose-Einstein condensation of Lithium: Observation of Limited Condensate Number,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 985 (1997).
[23] D. Fried, T. Killian, L. Willmann, D. Landhuis, S. Moss, D. Kleppner, and T. Greytak,“Bose-Einstein condensation of atomic hydrogen,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3811 (1998).
[24] S. Cornish, N. Claussen, J. Roberts, E. Cornell, and C. Wieman, “Stable 85 Rb BoseEinstein condensation with widely tunable interactions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1795
(2000).
[25] A. Roberts, O. Sirjean, A. Browaeys, J. Poupard, S. Nowak, D. Boiron, C. Westbrook,
and A. Aspect, “A Bose-Einstein condensation of metastable atoms,” Science 292,461 (2001).
[26] F. Santos, J. Wang, C. Barrelet, F. Perales, E. Rasel, C. Unnikrishnan, M. Leduc,and C. Cohen-Tannoudji, “Bose-Einstein condensation of metastable Helium,” Phys.
Rev. Lett 86, 3459 (2001).
[27] G. Modugno, G. Ferrari, G. Roati, R. Brecha, A. Simoni, and M. Inguscio, “BoseEinstein condensation of Potassium atoms by sympathetic cooling,” Science 294, 1320
(2001).
[28] T. Weber, J. Herbig, M. Mark, H. Nagerl, and R. Grimm, “Bose-Einstein condensationof Cesium,” Science 294, 232 (2003).
[29] Y. Takasu, K. Maki, K. Komori, T. Takano, K. Honda, M. Kumakura, T. Yabuzaki,
and Y. Takahashi, “Spin-singlet Bose-Einstein condensation of two-electron atoms,”
Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 030404 (2003).
122

[30] A. Griesmaier, J. Werner, S. Hensler, J. Stuhler, and T. Pfau, “Bose-Einstein condensation of Chromium,” Phys. Rev. Let. 94, 160401 (2005), cond-mat/0503044.
[31] H. Ott, J. Fortagh, G. Schlotterbeck, A. Grossmann, and C. Zimmermann, “BoseEinstein Condensation in a surface micro trap,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 230401 (2001).
[32] K. Dieckmann, R. J. C. Spreeuw, M. Weidemüller, and J. T. M. Walraven, “Twodimensional magneto-optical trap as a source of slow atoms,” Phys. Rev. A 226, 3891
(1998).
[33] R. S. Conroy, Y. Xiao, M. Vengalattore, W. Rooijakkers, and M. Prentiss, “Compact,robust source of cold atoms for efficient loading of a magnetic guide,” Opt. Comm.
226, 259 (2003), physics/0308108.
[34] H. Lewandowski, D. Harber, D. Whitaker, and E. Cornell, “Simplified system for
Creating a Bose-Einstein condensate,” J. Low Temp Phys 132, 309 (2003).
[35] T. Gustavson, A. Chikkatur, A. Leanhardt, A. Görlitz, S. Gupta, D. Pritchard, and
W. Ketterle, “Transport of Bose-Einstein Condensates with Optical Tweezers,” Phys.
Rev. Lett. 88, 020401 (2002).
[36] A. E. Leanhardt, A. P. Chikkatur, D. Kielpinski, Y. Shin, T. L. Gustavson, W. Ketterle, and D. E. Pritchard, “Propagation of Bose-Einstein Condensates in a Magnetic
Waveguide,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 040401 (2002).
[37] A. P. Chikkatur, Y. Shin, A. E. Leanhardt, D. Kielpinski, E. Tsikata, T. L. Gustavson,
D. E. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle, “A Continuous Source of Bose-Einstein Condensed
Atoms.,” Science 296, 2193 (2002).
[38] A. E. Leanhardt, T. A. Pasquini, M. Saba, A. Schirotzek, Y. Shin, D. Kielpinski, D. E.
Pritchard, and W. Ketterle, “Adiabatic and Evaporative Cooling of Bose-Einsteincondensates below 500 Picokelvin.,” Science 301, 1513 (2003).
[39] A. E. Leanhardt, Y. Shin, A. P. Chikkatur, D. Kielpinski, W. Ketterle, and D. E.
Pritchard, “Bose-Einstein Condensates near a Microfabricated Surface,” Phys. Rev.
Lett. 90, 100404 (2003).
[40] Y. Shin, M. Saba, M. Vengalattore, T. A. Pasquini, C. Sanner, A. E. Leanhardt,
M. Prentiss, D. E. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle, “Dynamical Instability of a Doubly
Quantized Vortex in a Bose-Einstein condensate.,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 160406 (2004).
[41] T. Pasquini, Y. Shin, C. Sanner, M. Saba, A. Schirotzek, D. Pritchard, and W.
Ketterle, “Quantum reflection of atoms from a solid surface at normal incidence.,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 223201 (2004).
[42] Y. Shin, M. Saba, A. Schirotzek, T. A. Pasquini, A. E. Leanhardt, D. E. Pritchard, and
W. Ketterle, “Distillation of Bose-Einstein condensates in a double-well potential.,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 150401 (2004).
[43] Y. Shin, M. Saba, T. Pasquini, W. Ketterle, D. Pritchard, and A. Leanhardt, “Interferometry in a double-well potential.,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 050405 (2004).

123[44] D. Schneble, Y. Torii, M. Boyd, E. Streed, D. E. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle, “The
Onset of Matter-Wave Amplification in a Superradiant Bose-Einstein Condensate,”
Science 300, 475 (2003).
[45] D. Schneble, G. K. Campbell, E. W. Streed, M. Boyd, D. E. Pritchard, and W.
Ketterle, “Raman amplification of matter waves,” Phys. Rev. A 69, 041601 (2004).
[46] G. Campbell, A. E. Leanhardt, J. Mun, M. Boyd, E. Streed, D. Pritchard, and W.
Ketterle, “Photon recoil momentum in Dispersive media,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 170403(2005).
[47] J. O’Hanlon, A user’s guide to vacuum technology (Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, NJ,
1989).
[48] E. W. Streed, A. P. Chikkatur, T. L. Gustavson, M. Boyd, Y. Torii, D. Schneble,
G. K. Campbell, D. E. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle, “Large atom number Bose-Einstein
Condensate machines,” cond-mat/0507348 (2005).
[49] A. P. Chikkatur, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2002,
http://cua.mit.edu/ketterle group/Theses/thesis APC.pdf.
[50] H. Pauly and C. Scoles, Atomic and Molcular Beam methods Vol I. (Oxford University
Press, Oxford, 1988), p. 83.
[51] D. Steck, “Sodium D Line Data,” http://steck.us/alkalidata/sodiumnumbers.pdf(2003).
[52] C. Alcock, V. Itkin, and M. Horrigan, “Vapor-pressure equations for the metallic
elements- 298-2500 K,” Canadian Metallurgical Quarterly 23, 309 (1984).
[53] H. Gray, Chemical Bonds (Unversity Science Books, Mill Valley, CA, 1994), p. 44.
[54] M. Walkiewicz, P. Fox, and R. Scholten, “Candlestick rubidium beam source,” Rev.
Sci. Instr. 71, 3342 (2000).
[55] H. Metcalf and P. van der Straten, Laser Cooling and Trapping, Graduate texts incontemporary physics (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1999).
[56] T. Barrett, S. Daporeschwartz, M. Ray, and G. Lafyatis, “Slowing atoms with (sigma())-polarized light,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 3483 (1991).
[57] C. Slowe, L. Vernac, and L. V. Hau, “High flux source of cold rubidium atoms,” Rev.
Sci. Instr. 76, 103101 (2005).
[58] Y. Yoshikawa, T. Umeki, T. Mukae, Y. Torii, and T. Kuga, “Frequency stabilizationof a laser diode with use of light induced birefringence in an atomic vapor,” Appl.
Opt. 42, 6645 (2003).
[59] C. Pearman, C. Adams, S. Cox, P. Griffin, D. Smith, and I. Hughs, “Polarization
spectroscopy of a closed atomic transistion: applications to laser frequency locking,”
J. Phys. B 35, 5141 (2002).
[60] A. Siegman, Lasers (University Science Books, Sausalito, CA, 1986).
124

[61] H. Moosmüller and J. Vance, “Sum-frequency generation of continuous-wave sodium
D2 resonance radiation,” Optics Let. 22, 1135 (1997).
[62] J. Bienfang, C. A. Denman, B. W. Grime, P. D. Hillman, G. T. Moore, and J. M.
Telle, “20 W of continuous-wave sodium D2 resonance radiation from sum-frequency
generation with injection locked lasers,” Optics Let. 28, 2219 (2003).
[63] R. J. Thompson, M. Tu, D. C. Aveline, N. Lundblad, and L. Maleki, “High power
single frequency 780nm laser source generated from frequency doubling of a seeded
fiber amplifier in a cascade of PPLN crystals,” Optics Express 11, 1709 (2003).
[64] Y. Castin and R. Dum, “Bose-Einstein condensates in time dependent traps,” Phys.
Rev. Let. 77, 5315 (1996).
[65] W. Ketterle, K. Davis, M. Joffe, A. Martin, and D. Pritchard, “High Densities of Cold
Atoms in a Dark Spontaneous-Force Atom Trap,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2253 (1993).
[66] S. Shang, B. Sheehy, P. van der Straten, and H. Metcalf, “Velocity-selective magnetic
resonance laser cooling,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 1094 (1991).
[67] T. Bergeman, G. Erez, and H. J. Metcalf, “Magnetostatic trapping fields for neutral
atoms,” Phys. Rev. A 35, 1535 (1987).
[68] S. Inouye, A. P. Chikkatur, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, J. Stenger, D. E. Pritchard, and
W. Ketterle, “Superradiant Rayleigh Scattering from a Bose-Einstein Condensate,”
Science 285, 571 (1999).
[69] D. Montgomery, Solenoid magnet design; the magnetic and mechanical aspects ofresistive and superconducting systems (Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1969).
[70] T. NESLAB, “System III Liquid to Liquid Heat Exchanger,” Thermo NESLAB Manual P/N 013736 Rev 11/07/00 15 (2000).
[71] W. Ketterle, D. S. Durfee, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, in Bose-Einstein Condensationin Atomic Gases, Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi”
Course CXL, edited by M. Inguscio, S. Stringari, and C. E. Wieman (IOS Press
Amsterdam, ADDRESS, 1999), cond-mat/9904034.
[72] D. S. Durfee, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/durfee/DSDThesis.pdf.

1999,[73] B. Tolra, K. O’Hara, J. Huckans, W. Phillips, S. Rolston, and J. Porto, “Observationof Reduced Three-Body Recombination in a Fermionized 1D Bose Gas,” Phys. Rev.
Let. 92, 190401 (2003).
[74] A. Görlitz, T. Gustavson, A. Leanhardt, R. Low, A. Chikkatur, S. Gupta, S. Inouye,
D. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle, “Sodium Bose-Einstein condensates in the F=2 state
in a large volume optical trap,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 090401 (2003).
[75] D. Harber, H. Lewandowski, J. McGuirk, and E. Cornell, “Effect of cold collisions on
spin coherence and resonance shifts in a magnetically trapped ultracold gasy,” Phys.
Rev. A 66, 053616 (2002).

125

[76] C. Samuelis, E. Tiesinga, T. Laue, M. Elbs, H. Knockel, and E. Tiemann, “Coldatomic collisions studied by molecular spectroscopy,” Phys. Rev. A 63, 012710 (2000).
[77] D. Steck, “Rubidium 87 D Line Data,” http://steck.us/alkalidata/rubidium87numbers.pdf(2002).
[78] B. Borca, J. W. Dunn, V. Kokoouline, and C. H. Greene, “Atom-Molecule Laser fed
by Stimulated Three-Body recombindation.,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 070404 (2003).
[79] J. Schuster, A. Marte, S. Amtage, B. Sang, G. Rempe, and H. C. W. Beijerink,“Avalaches in a Bose-Einstein condensate,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 170404 (2001).
[80] E. A. Burt, R. W. Ghrist, C. J. Myatt, M. J. Holland, E. A. Cornell, , and C. E.
Wieman, “Coherence, Correlations, and Collisions: What One Learns about BoseEinstein Condensates from Their Decay,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 337 (1997).
[81] B. Misra and E. C. G. Sudarshan, “The Zeno paradox in quantum theory,” J. Math.
Phys. 18, 756 (1977).
[82] W. Itano, D. Heinzen, J. Bollinger, and D. Wineland, “Quantum Zeno effect,”
Phys. Rev. A 41, 2295 (1990).
[83] R. J. Cook, “What are quantum jumps,” Phys. Scr. T21, 29 (1988).
[84] C. Balzer, T. Hannemann, D. Reib, C. Wunderlich, W. Neuhauser, and P. E. Toschek,“A relaxationless demonstration of the Quantum Zeno paradox on an individual
atom,” Optics Communications 211, 235 (2002).
[85] M. C. Fischer, B. Gutiérrez-Medina, and M. G. Raizen, “Observation of the quantum
zeno and anti-zeno effects in an unstable system,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 040402 (2001).
[86] B. Nagels, L. J. F. Hermans, and P. L. Chapovsky, “Quantum Zeno Effect inducedby collisions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 3097 (1997).
[87] K. Mølhave and M. Drewsen, “Demonstration of the continuous quantum Zeno effectin optical pumping,” Phys. Lett. A 268, 45 (2000).
[88] T. Nakanishi, K. Yamane, and M. Kitano, “Absorption-free optical control of spin
systems: The quantum Zeno effect in optical pumping,” Phys. Rev. A 65, 013404(2001).
[89] P. Valente, H. Failache, and A. Lezama, “Comparative study of the transient evolutionof Hanle electromagnetically induced transparency and absorption resonances,” Phys.
Rev. A 65, 023814 (2002).
[90] S. L. Adler, “Weisskopf-Wigner decay theory for the energy-driven stochastic
Schrodinger equation,” Phys. Rev. D 67, 025007 (2003).
[91] I. L. Egusquiza and L. J. Garay, “Real clocks and the Zeno effect,” Phys. Rev. A 68,
022104 (2003).
[92] A. Camacho, “Quantum Zeno effect and the detection of gravitomagnetism,” Intl. J.
Mod. Phys. D 10, 9 (2001).
126

[93] O. Alter and Y. Yamamoto, “Fundemental quantum limit to external force detection
via monitoring a single harmonic oscillator or free mass,” Phys. Lett. A 263, 226(1999).
[94] J. D. Franson, B. C. Jacobs, and T. B. Pittman, “Quantum computing using single
photons and the Zeno effect,” Phys. Rev. A 70, 062302 (2004).
[95] E. Brion, V. M. Akulin, D. Comparat, I. Dumer, G. Harel, N. Kébaili, G. Kurizki,
I. Mazets, and P. Pillet, “Coherence protection by the quantum Zeno effect and nonholonomic control in a Rydberg rubidium isotope,” Phys. Rev. A 71, 052311 (2005).
[96] F. M. Spedalieri, H. Lee, M. Florescu, K. T. Kapale, U. Yurtsever, and J. P. Dowling,“Exploiting the Quantum Zeno effect to beat photon loss in linear optical quantum
information processor,” Opt. Comm 254, 374 (2005).
[97] P. Facchi, S. Tasaki, S. Pascazio, H. Nakazato, A. Tokuse, and D. A. Lidar, “Control
of decoherence: Analysis and comparison of three different strategies,” Phys. Rev. A
71, 022302 (2005).
[98] C. Bennett and G. Brassard, in Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on
Computers, Systems, and Signal Processing (IEEE, New York, USA, ADDRESS,
1984), pp. 157–159.
[99] P. Kwiat, H. Weinfurter, T. Herzog, and A. Zeilinger, “Interaction-Free Measurement,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4763 (1995).
[100] T. Tsegaye, E. Goobar, A. Karlsson, G. Bjork, M. Y. Loh, and K. H. Lim, “Efficent
interaction-free measurements in a high finesse interferometer,” Phys. Rev. A 57, 3987
(1998).
[101] P. Facchi, Z. Hradil, G. Krenn, S. Pascazio, and J. Rehacek, “Quantum zeno tomography,” Phys. Rev. A 66, 012110 (2002).
[102] R. Mair and R. Walsworth, “Novel MRI Applications of Laser-Polarized Noble
Gases.,” App. Mag. Res. 22, 159 (2005).
[103] R. Mair, M. Hrovat, S. Patz, M. Rosen, I. Ruset, G. Topulos, L. Tsai, J. Butler, F.
Hersman, and R. Walsworth, “A System for Open-Access 3He Human Lung Imaging
at Very Low Field pdf icon submitted to Journal of Magnetic Resonance,” Mag. Res.
Med. 53, 745 (2005).
[104] H. Rauch, “Quantum Zeno effect with polarized neutrons,” Physica B 297, 299 (2001).
[105] P. Facchi, Y. Nakaguro, H. Nakazato, S. Pascazio, M. Unoki, and K. Yuasa, “Optimization of a neutron-spin test of the quantum Zeno effect,” Phys. Rev. A 68, 012107(2003).
[106] M.-O. Mewes, M. R. Andrews, D. M. Kurn, D. S. Durfee, C. G. Townsend, and W.
Ketterle, “Output Coupler for Bose-Einstein Condensed Atoms,” Phys. Rev. Lett.
78, 582 (1997).
[107] C. Fertig and K. Gibble, “Measurement and cancellation of the cold collision frequency
shift in a 87 Rb fountain clock,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1622 (2000).
127

[108] P. J. Mohr and B. N. Taylor, “CODATA recommended values of the fundamental
physical constants: 1998,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 72, 351 (1998).
[109] S. Bize, Y. Sortais, M. S. Santos, C. Mandache, A. Clairon, and C. Salomon, “Highaccuracy measurement of the 87 Rb ground state hyperfine splitting in an atomic fountain,” Europhys. Lett. 45, 588 (1999).
[110] E. Arimondo, M. Inguscio, and P. Violino, “Experimental determination of the hyperfine structure in the alkali atoms,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 49, 31 (1977).
[111] L. Schulman, “Continous and pulsed observations in the quantum Zeno effect,” Phys.
Lett. A 57, 1509 (1998).
[112] J. Dalibard and C. Cohen-Tannoudji, “Laser cooling below the Doppler limit by polarization gradients: simple theoretical models,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 6, 2023 (1989).
[113] E. M. Liftshitz and L. D. Landau, Quantum Mechanics: Non-Relativistic Theory,
Volume 3 (Butterworth-Heinemann, ADDRESS, 1981).
[114] P. S. Julienne and J. Vigue, “Cold collisions of ground- and excited-state alkali-metal
atoms,” Phys. Rev. A 44, 4464 (1991).
[115] M. R. Jaekel, E. Jericha, and H. Rauch, “New developments in cold neutron storage
with perfect crystals,” Nuc. Inst. Meth. A 539, 335 (2005).
[116] V. Bagnato and D. Kleppner, “Bose-Einstein condensation in low-dimensional traps,”
Phys. Rev. A 44, 7439 (1991).
[117] E. Lieb and W. Linger, “Exact analysis of an interacting Bose Gas. I. The generalsolution and the ground state,” Phys. Rev. 130, 1605 (1963).
[118] E. Lieb, “Exact analysis of an interacting Bose Gas. II. The excitation spectrum,”
Phys. Rev. 130, 1616 (1963).
[119] A. Görlitz, J. M. Vogels, A. E. Leanhardt, C. Raman, T. L. Gustavson, J. R. AboShaeer, A. P. Chikkatur, S. Gupta, S. Inouye, T. P. Rosenband, D. E. Pritchard, and
W. Ketterle, “Realization of Bose-Einstein condensates in lower dimensions,” Phys.
Rev. Lett. 87, 130402 (2001).
[120] Karnachatnov, “Expansion of a Bose-Einstein condensate in lower dimensions,” JETP
98, 908 (2003).
[121] M. Andrews, C. Townsend, H.-J. Miesner, D. Durfee, D. Kurn, and W. Ketterle,“Observation of Interference Between Two Bose-Einstein Condensates,” Science 275,
637 (1997).
[122] J. Stenger, S. Inouye, A. P. Chikkatur, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, D. E. Pritchard, and
W. Ketterle, “Bragg Spectroscopy of a Bose-Einstein Condensate,” Phys. Rev. Lett.
82, 4569 (1999).
[123] S. Richard, F. Gerbier, J. H. Thywissen, M. Hugbart, P. Bouyer, and A. Aspect,“Momentum spectroscopy of phase fluxations of 1D phase flucuations in Bose-Einsteincondensate,” Phys. Rev. Lett 91, 010405 (2003).
128

[124] M. Olshanii, “Atomic Scattering in the Presence of an External Confinement and a
Gas of Impenetrable Bosons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 938 (1998).
[125] M. Olshanii, “Atomic Scattering in the Presence of an external confinement and a gasof impenetrable bosons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 938 (1998).
[126] M. D. Girardeau and E. M. Wright, “Bose-Fermi variational Theory of the BoseEinstein condensate crossover to the Tonks gas.,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 210401 (2001).
[127] H. Moritz, T. Stoferle, M. Kohl, and T. Esslinger, “Excited collective oscillations in
a trapped 1D gas,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 250402 (2003).
[128] T. Kinoshita, T. R. Wenger, and D. S. Weiss, “Observation of a one-dimensional
Tonks-Girardeau gas,” Science 305, 1125 (2004).
[129] B. Paredes, A. Widera, V. Murg, O. Mandel, S. Folling, I. Cirac, G. V. Shlyapnikov,
T. W. Hansch, and I. Bloch, “3D lattice tonks with one weak lattice,” Nature 429,
277 (2004).
[130] D. W. Keith, C. R. Ekstrom, Q. A. Turchette, and D. E. Pritchard, “An Interferometer
for Atoms,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 2689 (1991).
[131] A. Trombettoni, A. Smerzi, and P. Sodano, “Observable Signature of the BerezinkskiiKosterlitz-Thouless Transition in a Planar Lattice of Bose-Einstein Condensates,”
New Journal of Physics 7, 57 (2005).
[132] T. Esslinger, M. Weidemüller, A. Hemmerich, and T. Hänsch, “Surface-plasmon mirror for atoms,” Opt. Lett. 18, 450 (1993).
[133] C. Aminoff, A. Steane, P. Bouyer, P. Desbiolles, J. Dalibard, and C. Cohen-Tannoudji,“Cesium Atoms Bouncing in a Stable Gravitational Cavity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 3083
(1993).
[134] Y. B. Ovchinnikov, I. Manek, and R. Grimm, “Surface trap for Cs based onevanescent-wave cooling,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 2225 (1997).
[135] M. Hammes, D. Rychtarik, V. Druzhinia, U. Moslener, I. Manek-Hönninger, and
R. Grimm, “Optical and evaporative cooling in the gravito-optical surface trap,”
physics/0005305 (2000) subm. to Journal of Modern Optics (2005).
[136] D. Schneble, H. Gauck, M. Hartl, T. Pfau, and J. Mlynek, in Ref. [71] (PUBLISHER,ADDRESS, YEAR), pp. 469–490.
[137] D. Schneble, H. Gauck, M. Hartl, T. Pfau, and J. Mlynek, in Bose-Einstein Condensation in Atomic Gases, Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico
Fermi” Course CXL, edited by M. Inguscio, S. Stringari, and C. E. Wieman (IOS
Press Amsterdam, ADDRESS, 1999, and references therein), pp. 469–490.
[138] R. J. C. Spreeuw, D. Voigt, B. T. Wolschrijn, and H. B. van Linden van den Heuvell,“Creating a low-dimensional quantum gas using dark states in an inelastic evanescentwave mirror,” Phys. Rev. A 61, 053604 (2000).
[139] O. Zobay and B. M. Garraway, “Two dimensional atom trapping in Field-Induced
adiabatic potentials,” Phys. Rev. Lett 86, 1195 (2001).
129

[140] Y. Colombe, E. Knyazchyan, O. Morizot, B. Mercier, V. Lorent, and H. Perrin, “Ultracold atoms confined in rf-induced two-dimensional trapping potentials,” Europhys.
Lett. 67, 593 (2004).
[141] E. A. Hinds, M. G. Boshier, and I. G. Hughes, “Magnetic waveguide for trapping cold
atom gases in two dimensions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 645 (1998).
[142] T. P. Simila, M. D. Lee, and D. A. W. Hutchinson, “Transition from a Bose-Einsteincondensate to Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless Phase,” (2004), cond-mat/0412512.
[143] J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless, “Ordering, metastability and phase transitions
in two-dimensional systems,” J. Phys. C 6, 1181 (1973).
[144] J. M. Kosterlitz, “The critical properties of the two-dimensional xy model,” J. Phys.
C 7, 1046 (1974).
[145] D. J. Bishop and J. D. Reppy, “Study of the superfluild transition in two-dimensional
4 Helium films,” Phys. Rev. Lett 40, 1727 (1978).
[146] D. J. Bishop and J. D. Reppy, “Study of the superfluild transition in two-dimensional
4 Helium films,” Phys. Rev. B 22, 11 (1980).
[147] A. I. Safonov, S. A. Vasilyev, I. S. Yasnikov, I. I. Likashevich, and S. Jaakkola,“Observation of Quasicondensate in Two-Dimensional Atomic Hydrogen,” Phys. Rev.
Lett 81, 4545 (1998).
[148] T. McMillan, P. Taborek, and J. E. Rutledge, “Ellipsometric study of superfluid onset
in thin films of 4 Helium films,” J. Low Temp. Phys 134, 303 (2004).
[149] A. Nesmeianov, Vapour pressure of the elements. (New York Academic Press, Oxford,
UK, 1963).

130