Probing and Preparing Novel States of Quantum
Degenerate Rubidium Atoms in Optical Lattices
byHirokazu Miyake
Submitted to the Department of Physics
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree ofDoctor of Philosophy
at theMASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
June 2013© Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2013. All rights reserved.
Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Department of Physics
May 20, 2013
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
John W. Belcher
Class of ’22 Professor of Physics
Associate Department Head for Education

2

Probing and Preparing Novel States of Quantum Degenerate
Rubidium Atoms in Optical Lattices
byHirokazu Miyake
Submitted to the Department of Physics
on May 20, 2013, in partial fulfillment of therequirements for the degree ofDoctor of Philosophy

Abstract
Ultracold atoms in optical lattices are promising systems to realize and study
novel quantum mechanical phases of matter with the control and precision offered byatomic physics. Towards this goal, as important as engineering new states of matteris the need to develop new techniques to probe these systems.
I first describe our work on realizing Bragg scattering of infrared light from ultracold atoms in optical lattices. This is a detection technique which probes thespatial ordering of a crystalline system, and has led to our observation of Heisenberglimited wavefunction dynamics. Furthermore, we have observed the superfluid toMott insulator transition through the matter wave Talbot effect. This technique will
be particularly powerful for studying antiferromagnetic phases of matter due to its
sensitivity to the crystalline composition.
The second major component of this thesis describes a new scheme to realize theHarper Hamiltonian. The Harper Hamiltonian is a model system which effectively
describes electrons in a solid immersed in a very high magnetic field. The effective
magnetic field manifests itself as a position-dependent phase in the motion of theconstituent particles, which can be related to gauge fields and has strong connections
to topological properties of materials. We describe how we can engineer the Harper
Hamiltonian in a two-dimensional optical lattice with neutral atoms by creating alinear potential tilt and inducing Raman transitions between localized states. In
situ measurements provide evidence that we have successfully created the Harper
Hamiltonian, but further evidence is needed to confirm the creation of the groundstate of this Hamiltonian.
Thesis Supervisor: Wolfgang Ketterle
Title: John D. MacArthur Professor of Physics
Thesis Supervisor: David E. Pritchard
Title: Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics
3

4

Acknowledgments
My time at MIT has been tremendously valuable for me, both professionally aswell as personally. I reckon there are very few institutions in the world where one
is surrounded by so many people with brilliant minds, unwavering passion for what
they do, and the kindest of hearts.
First of all, I thank my Ph.D. supervisors Professor Wolfgang Ketterle and Professor Dave Pritchard for their support throughout my time at MIT. I am amazed by
and grateful for the degree of trust Wolfgang put in me from day one to be successful
in lab. The freedom he gave me to thrive in the laboratory has been a very valuable
experience for me. His physical intuition and ability to make connections between
seemingly disparate facts is something I have strived to achieve. Dave has supported
me both as research supervisor in the early years of my Ph.D. as well as an academic
advisor throughout. His deep insight into almost any issue that could be of interest
to the human mind is quite amazing.
Laboratory work can be exhilarating, but if I am completely honest, I have to admit that there are no shortages of disappointments in running experiments, especiallywhen one is trying to push back the frontiers of human knowledge. I would not havebeen able to get through to the end of my Ph.D. without the help I recieved from mycollaborators in the BEC4 lab. They have been a constant source of encouragement
and support through the ups and downs that is laboratory work. I have also had anenormous amount of fun with them, day and night, rain or shine. They are a major
reason why my time at MIT has been a fantastic experience.
David Weld was the postdoc when I joined the group, and despite my repeatedquestions about basic things, whether it be about atoms, vacuum, or lasers, he patiently and clearly explained all the questions I would throw at him. His ability to
get things done was very impressive. Without any complaining or whining, he would
get down on his hands and knees to do whatever it takes to make progress in our experiment. His perseverance and calmness is something which I have tried to emulate.
I am very fortunate to have had him as an immediate superior during the beginning5

of my Ph.D. Also he was one of very few people I could talk to about my interest inaviation, and I hope to one day fly on a A380 and brag to him about it.
Patrick Medley was the senior graduate student when I joined the group. I cansay that I have never met a person with such a fast mind. Despite differences in
information processing speed between the two of us, we were able to form a very goodfriendship, and shared many interests. I have to say that playing old school video
games with him was one of the highlights of my time at MIT. I do not think I had asmuch fun with somebody since way, way back. And then all the various episodes wewatched were also good times. In particular, I am proud to have witnessed with him
a historic event as it happened, which was the end of ‘Endless Eight.’ Late nights inlab were made bearable by all that Patrick had to offer.
Georgios Siviloglou was the second postdoc that I interacted with, and he joined
about midway through my Ph.D. We immediately became good friends. His understanding of and appreciation for the big picture, both in research and in life provided
a lot of food for thought. In particular I was very impressed by his understanding
and mastery of ‘social engineering’ and I am sure his influence shows through in thewriting of this thesis. I will remember our stroll through the Toy District in Los
Angeles at dusk as an interesting adventure. I will miss the coffee breaks at Area
Four. I am looking forward to reading the Illiad upon graduation and hopefully I will
have a chance to visit Mount Athos someday.
David Hucul was one year above me when I entered MIT. His command of electronics was nothing short of amazing to me, and his optimism and positive outlook
helped to maintain good morale in the lab. I am also grateful to him for inviting me
and my co-workers to my first ever commercial shoot, which was a fun experience.
It taught me that I should work on my acting before I give it another try. Claire
Leboutiller joined the BEC4 lab for a few months and worked on putting together
Helmholtz coils for our science chamber. It was a pleasure working with her, and I
admire her ability to get the job done with minimal supervision. Yichao Yu joined
the BEC4 lab only when he was a sophomore, but his command of physics was evident from early on. His support on the Bragg results presented in this thesis was
6invaluable, and I am sure he will go on to do great things.
After I leave, Colin Kennedy will be the senior student on the BEC4 experiment.
He is very lab smart, and only in a short time he has taken initiative numerous
times and pushed forward many upgrades to our experiment for the better. With his
willingness to take action, combined with his confidence, I am sure he will take thelab to new heights of success. Cody Burton is the youngest member in the BEC4
lab. Although he has been around for less than one year, it is clear that his calm andfocus will be a valuable asset to the future operation of BEC4. I am looking forward
to hearing great news from this lab as Colin and Cody ‘take it to the next level.’
No acknowledgement will be complete without mentioning the other people in theCenter for Ultracold Atoms. The collective knowledge they hold and the amount of
supplies they provide in cases of emergencies have been an absolutely crucial partof our work. I am thankful for Christian Sanner for providing excellent technicalhelp during the oddest hours, such as fixing puzzling problems with our magneic
trap. Aviv Keshet is the unsung hero of the hallway, perhaps even the entire fieldof ultracold atoms. His Cicero experimental control program has provided us with aversatile and powerful platform to control our experiments and many other experiments throughout the world. Ed Su and I entered graduate school at the same time.
His knowledge of ultracold atomic physics intimidated me at first, but he was also
a great guy and his excitement for physics was contageous. Ralf Gommers had an
excellent command of technical matters, and his soccer skills were also admirable.
Jonathon Gillen deserves my thanks for reviewing our Bragg scattering paper before
we sent it off for publication. I also appreciate him sharing his experience in thepatent law field. Wujie Huang is a wonderfully nice person, and his insights about
Raman-assisted tunneling helped to refine my understanding and helped make thisthesis better. I want to thank Professor Martin Zwierlein for agreeing to serve on
my thesis committee, as well as for his fighting spirit which kept the morale of ourintramural soccer team high. Peyman Ahmadi deserves a profound thank you formany helpful technical discussions. His knowledge was truly valuable in solving ourown problems, and he was always gracious with his time to help us. He was truly one
7

of the kindest person in the hallway, in addition to being the greatest goal keeper the
CUA has ever known. Cheng-Hsun Wu deserves my thanks for hosting me during the
MIT Physics Department open house when I was choosing which graduate school toattend. Ivana Dimitrova, Niklas Jepsen and Jesse Amato-Grill also deserve a thankyou for allowing us to borrow many of their equipments, and I am glad we shared an
office for a brief time. Their joining the group definitely made the hallway a much
more lively place. I appreciated the discussions I had with Haruka Tanji-Suzuki about
our progress in graduate school and how every single time we talked, we could not
belive so much time had elapsed since we talked last time. I thank all the people
I met at conferences and summer schools, in particular at Les Houches in 2009. I
will always remember the mountain hiking in the Alps, the breathtaking views, andthat one pear in the lunch sack I ate after hiking for hours, which was the most delicious pear I ever had, or may ever have. I also want to thank everybody who playedin the MIT intramural soccer team ‘Balldrivers,’ in particular Sebastian Hofferberthand Andrew Grier for helping me out as captain, and everybody who played in the
CUA softball team against the JILA team at various DAMOP conferences. Joanna
Keseberg deserves a profound thank you for all her help in dealing with administrative matters in a timely and professional way. She is what makes the CUA run assmoothly as it does.
There are also people outside of the lab which deserve special mention. Riccardo
Abbate, Francesco D’Eramo and Thibault Peyronel have been good friends since thebeginning of my time at MIT and we had fun times studying for our qualifying exams.
I also want to thank Emily Florine, Michelle Sukup Jackson, Monica Sun and JamesSun for fun times outside of physics during my first year here when I did not know
too many people. Ariel Sommer and Matt Schram have been good roommates at
Ashdown since the second year. I thank Steph Teo and Been Kim for good times in
the later part of my studies. I want to thank Stephanie Houston for being a great
pottery teacher. I also want to thank the students from all the seminar XL classes
I have taught, as well as the staff at the Office of Minority Education for giving me
the opportunity to teach undergraduates all throughout my time at MIT. I want8

to thank the wonderful friends I met at Cornell University who have continued to
be good friends long after I have left Cornell, including Carol-Jean Wu, Linda Wu,
Mark Wu, Jah Chaisangmongkon, Ava Wan, Joyce Lin, Thiti Taychatanapat, Will
Cukierski, Jim Battista, Joe Calamia, Saúl Blanco Rodrı́guez and Nabil Iqbal.
I would also like to acknowledge the physicists I met during my undergraduate
studies at Cornell University that convinced me to go to graduate school in physics. I
am grateful to Professor Anders Ryd for taking me on as an undergraduate researcher
during my sophomore year despite the fact that I knew nothing about research. Hevery patiently guided me through the research process of high energy experiments, inparticular analysis of data from the CLEO-c detector located at Cornell University
and helped me publish my first scientific paper. Needless to say, this gave me a lotof satisfaction and confidence in continuing in my physics research career. I had thegood fortune of interacting with many knowledgeable and great people that were apart of the CLEO collaboration, and in particular I want to thank Werner Sun andPeter Onyisi for patiently guiding me through my data analysis. I am also gratefulto Professor J. C. Séamus Davis for allowing me to join his research group. Hisvery engaging lectures on introductory quantum mechanics got me interested in his
work on quantum matter. The opportunity to work on measuring short-length-scale
gravity with superconducting quantum interference devices was definitely a fantastic
experience which taught me the excitement of doing research to probe the cuttingedge of what is possible. It was a joy interacting with the various members of theDavis group, and in particular I want to acknowledge Benjamin Hunt, Ethan Pratt,and Minoru Yamashita for introducing me to working with cryogenics and teachingme how to build things right, all the way from the design stage to the smallest details
such as how to solder a wire onto a board in the best way possible. I learned atremendous amount from all of these people.
I have also had the good fortune of being able to explore different aspects of science
here at MIT. I was fortunate to be able to participate in Congressional Visits Day
organized by the MIT Science Policy Initiative, which allowed me to experience firsthand how policy is made in the U.S. and how scientists can help the government make9

better decisions. I was also able to take courses on ‘Managing Nuclear Technology’ byProfessor Richard Lester, ‘Law and Cutting-Edge Technologies’ by John Akula, and‘Nuclear Forces and Missle Defenses’ by Professor Ted Postol. I learned a lot fromall of these professors and they helped expand my understanding of how science andtechnology can affect society and vice versa. In particular, I want to acknowledge theadvices Professor Postol gave me as I was considering my next position after graduate
school. His lectures inspired me to make use of the technical understanding that I
had developed through my studies of physics towards the betterment of society.
I want to thank my family, Itsuo, Kazuko, Maria, Lisa, and Julia who have supported me throughout my life and allowed me to pursue the path I wanted to take. I
could not have asked for better parents and sisters.
Finally, I want to thank Nicole Lim and the entire Lim and Sy family for embracing
me as part of their family. Our adventure is only beginning.

10

Contents
1 Introduction

17

1.1

Quantum Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18

1.2

Motivations and Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19

2 Ultracold Atoms in Optical Lattices

21

2.1

Optical Lattice Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21

2.2

Atoms in a Periodic Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23

2.2.1

Bloch’s Theorem and Bloch Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24

2.2.2

Wannier Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

26

2.2.3

Wannier-Stark States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27

Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian and the Mott Insulator . . . . . . . . . .

29

2.3.1

Mott Insulator Phase Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33

2.3.2

Non-Zero Temperature Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35

Heisenberg Hamiltonian and Quantum Magnetism . . . . . . . . . . .

36

2.4.1

Anisotropic Heisenberg Hamiltonian. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

38

2.4.2

Quantum Magnetism and Bragg Scattering . . . . . . . . . . .

40

Harper Hamiltonian and Gauge Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

41

2.5.1

Electromagnetism, Gauge Fields, and Wavefunctions . . . . .

43

2.5.2

Flux Density per Plaquette α . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45

2.5.3

Band Structure for α = 1/2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

46

3 Bragg Scattering as a Probe of Ordering and Quantum Dynamics

49

2.3

2.4

2.5

3.1

Experimental Setup for Bragg Scattering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11

50

3.1.1

Characterization of Bragg Scattering . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

52

3.2

Debye-Waller Factor and Bragg Scattering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

56

3.3

Heisenberg-Limited Wavefunction Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

60

3.4

Superfluid Revivals of Bragg Scattering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61

3.5

Superfluid to Mott Insulator Through Bragg Scattering . . . . . . . .

62

3.6

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

65

4 Raman-Assisted Tunneling and the Harper Hamiltonian
4.1

67

Raman-Assisted Tunneling in the Perturbative Limit . . . . . . . . .

70

4.1.1

Energy Hierarchy to Realize the Harper Hamiltonian . . . . .

73

Experimental Geometries to Realize Specific α . . . . . . . . . . . . .

74

4.2.1

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

75

Raman-Assisted Tunneling in the Rotating Frame . . . . . . . . . . .

75

4.3.1

Perturbative and Exact Raman-Assisted Tunneling . . . . . .

83

4.4

Amplitude and Phase Modulation Tunneling . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

83

4.5

Experimental Studies of Amplitude Modulation (AM) Tunneling . . .

86

4.5.1

Experimental Sequence for AM Tunneling . . . . . . . . . . .

86

4.5.2

In Situ Measurements of AM Tunneling . . . . . . . . . . . .

87

4.5.3

Time-of-Flight Measurements of AM Tunneling . . . . . . . .

90

Experimental Observation of Raman-Assisted Tunneling . . . . . . .

91

4.6.1

Experimental Sequence for Raman-Assisted Tunneling . . . .

91

4.6.2

In Situ Measurements of Raman-Assisted Tunneling . . . . . .

92

4.6.3

Time-of-Flight Measurements of Raman-Assisted Tunneling .

97

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

98

4.2

4.3

4.6

4.7

Experimental Geometry for α = 1/2

5 Future Prospects

99

5.1

Prospects for Spin Hamiltonians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5.2

Prospects for Topological Phases of Matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

5.3

Prospects for Quantum Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

A Optical Lattice Calibration Using Kapitza-Dirac Scattering
12

99

103

B Code to Construct Wannier Functions

109

C Bragg Scattering as a Probe of Atomic Wave Functions and Quantum Phase Transitions in Optical Lattices
D Spin Gradient Demagnetization Cooling of Ultracold Atoms

113
119

E Thermometry and refrigeration in a two-component Mott insulatorof ultracold atoms

125

F Spin Gradient Thermometry for Ultracold Atoms in Optical Lattices

131

Bibliography

137

13

14

List of Figures
2-1 Band structure for an atom in an optical lattice . . . . . . . . . . . .

26

2-2 Wannier-Stark states in a tilted lattice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28

2-3 Dependence of Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian parameters on lattice depth 32
2-4 Phase diagram of the superfluid to Mott insulator transition. . . . . .

34

2-5 Average occupation number as a function of chemical potential . . . .

37

2-6 Phase diagrams of the Heisenberg Hamiltonian . . . . . . . . . . . . .

41

2-7 Hofstadter butterfly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

42

2-8 Setup for the Aharonov-Bohm effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

44

2-9 Phase accumulated upon tunneling and enclosed flux . . . . . . . . .

46

2-10 Schematic of a two-dimensional lattice with phases . . . . . . . . . .

47

2-11 Band structure of the α = 1/2 Harper Hamiltonian . . . . . . . . . .

48

3-1 Bragg scattering schematic setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

51

3-2 Bragg reflection as a function of the guiding mirror screw angle . . .

53

3-3 Bragg scattering as a function of Bragg probe power . . . . . . . . . .

55

3-4 Bragg scattering as a function of Bragg probe time . . . . . . . . . .

55

3-5 Bragg reflection as a function of razor position . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57

3-6 Bragg scattering as a probe of the spatial wavefunction width . . . .

58

3-7 Bragg scattering as a probe of the momentum wavefunction width . .

60

3-8 Revivals of Bragg scattered light . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63

3-9 Bragg scattering revival as a probe of superfluid coherence . . . . . .

64

4-1 Schematic of a tilted lattice and Raman beams. . . . . . . . . . . . .

69

4-2 Overlap integrals for perturbative Raman coupling . . . . . . . . . . .

72

15

4-3 Tilt and phase accumulated for general Raman geometry . . . . . . .

75

4-4 Experimental geometry for α = 1/2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

76

4-5 Tilt and Wannier-Stark states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

77

4-6 Overlap integrals to calculate Raman-assisted tunneling . . . . . . . .

79

4-7 Perturbative and exact treatment of Raman-assisted tunneling . . . .

84

4-8 In situ amplitude modulation tunneling measurements . . . . . . . .

88

4-9 Evolution of superfluid peaks under lattice amplitude modulation . .

904-10 Raman-assisted tunneling setup and spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . .

92

4-11 Raman-assisted tunneling leads to linear expansion in time . . . . . .

93

4-12 Raman-assisted tunneling for high Raman beam intensities . . . . . .

94

4-13 Raman-assisted tunneling as a function of the lattice depth . . . . . .

95

4-14 Higher-order and Next-nearest-neighbor tunneling with Raman beams

97

B-1 Wannier function for lattice spacing 532 nm and lattice depth 3ER . . 112

16

Chapter 1
Introduction
The realization of Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) in ultracold atomic systems [7, 23] opened a new direction in the study of macroscopic quantum phenomena.
These include the observation of matter wave interference [8], spinor dynamics [99],and vortex lattices [1], significantly deepening our understanding of quantum matter. It was clear from early on in the experimental exploration of BECs that there
were deep connections between these atomic systems and those studied in condensed
matter systems [62]. These include superfluidity as observed in liquid helium andsuperconductivity in various materials. At a fundamental level, many systems thatwere only accessible in condensed matter systems were now also open for investigation
in atomic systems, but with different control parameters.
Some of the relevant properties and techniques that are unique to atomic systems
include the existence of Feshbach resonances which allow experimentalists to tune theinteraction energy between atoms [55], optical dipole traps to trap and manipulate
atoms [95], and the ability to control the dimensionality of the system between three
dimensions, two dimensions, and one dimensions [41]. Such controls allowed the
exploration of quantum matter in systems which were complementary to what had
been studied in condensed matter. The creation of quantum degenerate Fermi gases
further diversified the type of systems realizable [27], allowing atomic physicists tostudy both bosonic as well as fermionic particles.
One major addition to the controllability and flexibility already discussed is the17ability to genereate an optical lattice potential to create a crystalline structure analoglous
to condensed matter systems [70, 13]. This has allowed the field to move in the direction of creating systems directly analogous to novel solid state materials such as
high-temperature superconductors and magnetic phases of matter.

1.1

Quantum Simulation

Quantum simulation was first articulated by Richard Feynman [32], and the idea isthat you can create a quantum system with exactly the same parameters as anotherone that is more controllable, and study what would have happened to the othersystem. Groundbreaking work on the superfluid to Mott insulator transition with athree-dimensional optical lattice [42] was an early success of how ultracold atoms in
optical lattices can realize interesting many body physics as those found in condensed
matter, where interactions between constituent particles in a lattice can be important.
Another example is the Fermi-Hubbard Hamiltonian [53], which in condensed
matter describes electrons in a crystal which can undergo a transition from a conducting state to an insulating state and is of particular interest because of the belief of
its strong connection to high-temperature superconductors in condensed matter [69].
The exact same Hamiltonian has been realized in ultracold atomic physics, where afermionic atom resides in a three-dimensional crystal structure created by interfering
light beams [88, 61]. Thus the idea is that by studying the Fermi-Hubbard Hamiltonian in atomic systems, physicists can gain a better understanding of the mechanisms
behind high-temperature superconductors in condensed matter. Note the fact thatthe atoms must be fermionic in this case to more accurately simulate a condensed
matter system made of electrons.
Fermions have a direct analogy to electrons in real condensed matter systems,
whereas fundamentally bosonic particles do not exist in condensed matter. However,many interesting quasiparticles in condensed matter are bosonic in nature, including
Cooper pairs in superconductors [20], excitons in semiconductors [119], and magnons
in magnetic materials [14]. Thus although the constitutive particles in condensed18

matter are not bosons, understanding bosonic particles in ultracold atomic systems
can significantly add to our understanding of quantum matter. From a theoreticalpoint of view, bosonic systems are typically easier to calculate, so a precise comparison
between theory and experiment can be possible [106]. Also, validating experimental
techniques with bosonic systems where more experimental tools and understanding
are available is invaluable to exploring fermionic systems [11, 90, 77]. Finally, the nonexistence of fundamentally bosonic particles in condensed matter makes ultracoldbosonic systems unique in that systems which were previously only of theoreticalimportance can now be studied experimentally [29].

1.2

Motivations and Outline

The rubidium lab at MIT which I belong to and where the work described inthis thesis was done uses ultracold 87 Rb atoms [100], which are bosonic, and has
been focusing on studying these atoms in optical lattices which closely mimic crystal
structure in condensed matter. In particular our major goal has been to realize newmagnetic forms of matter in its various guises.
One direction has been to realize and observe phase transitions to ferromagnetic
and antiferromagnetic phases [85]. The fermionic antiferromagnet is expected to havedeep connections with high-temperature superconductors, but the bosonic antiferromagnet is also expected to be interesting in its own right [39]. Towards that goal
this lab has developed the technique of spin gradient thermometry and spin gradientdemagnetization cooling, which has allowed us to measure and cool our system down
to 300 pK, putting us in striking range of these magnetic states [115, 116, 76]. I was
involved in the thermometry and cooling experiments in the first half of my Ph.D.
studies, and the published papers are presented in appendices D, E, and F. In thisthesis I describe our work on Bragg scattering applied to ultracold atoms, which willallow us to study the antiferromagnetic state once it is created.
Another direction has been to realize Hamiltonians which can be described bygauge fields [22]. These are analoglous to electrons in a magnetic field in condensed
19matter which gives rise to such phenomena as the quantum hall effect [107, 68, 120].
One important parameter for such systems is the magnetic flux enclosed per area,
where the area is determined by the relevant length scale of the system. In condensed
matter, the necessary magnetic fields to realize magnetic fluxes of order the magnetic
flux quanta where interesting effects are expected to occur are at around a billion
gauss due to the very small length scales involved of order ångstrom [52], which isunachievable in the laboratory. However, with cold atoms it may be possible torealize such effectively high magnetic fluxes [59, 37]. Much experimental progress has
been made towards realizing and studying artificial gauge fields in ultracold atomic
systems [72, 3, 101], but simple and robust schemes to achieve high magnetic fluxes
have not yet been realized. In this thesis I describe a setup to realize very highmagnetic fields which can give rise to such fascinating features as the Hofstadterbutterfly, which is a fractal band structure.
This thesis is organized as follows. In chapter 2, I describe some of the basics
of optical lattices, as well as the behavior of particles in a sinusoidal potential. The
chapter also discusses the Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian, Heisenberg Hamiltonian, andthe Harper Hamiltonian. In chapter 3, I describe our work on Bragg scattering tostudy the Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian and atomic dynamics. In chapter 4, I describe
the scheme we have developed to realize artificial magnetic fields as well as experimental results to realize the Harper Hamiltonian. Then chapter 5 offers conclusions
and outlooks.

20

Chapter 2
Ultracold Atoms in Optical
Lattices
A coherent laser beam is a particularly versatile tool to control dilute, ultracold
atomic systems due to their spectral purity as well as the controlability in spatial andtemporal structure. In particular laser beams are standard tools used to trap andmanipulate atoms to create new states of matter.
In this chapter I describe the principles behind optical lattices, as well as someof the properties of atoms in an optical lattice potential and the different types of
Hamiltonians one can realize, including the Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian, one of thesimplest ultracold lattice systems which exhibit strong interaction effects, the Heisenberg Hamiltonian, which describes magnetic phases of matter including ferromagnets
and antiferromagnets, and the Harper Hamiltonian, which exhibits topological properties of matter.

2.1

Optical Lattice Potential

Atoms that are sufficiently cold can by trapped at the focus of a Gaussian laser
beam which induces a light shift if red-detuned to an atomic transition, thereby
creating a potential minimum, which corresponds to an intensity maximum for thecold atoms to sit in [19, 96].
21

For an atom in an oscillating electric field E(t) = Eê cos ωt, the perturbing Hamiltonian H 0 (t) can be written
H 0 (t) = −d · E(t).

(2.1)

The energy shift due to an oscillating electric field is given by1
U = hH 0 (t)i2
X E 2 |Dkg |2  1
1
−
+
=−
4~
δ
ωkg + ω
kg
k

(2.2)
(2.3)

where Dkg ≡ ehk|z|gi, δkg ≡ ω − ωkg , and I = c0 E 2 /2.

So far we have only considered a single coherent laser beam, but if we have twosuch beams, they can interfere and create a standing wave intensity pattern. The
resulting sinusoidal potential which the atoms see is called an optical lattice.

Consider two plane electromagnetic waves E1 (r, t) and E2 (r, t) that are propagating in arbitrary directions k̂1 and k̂2 respectively, where E1 (r, t) = E0 1 ei(k1 ·r−ωt) andE2 (r, t) = E0 2 ei(k2 ·r−ωt+φ) , where 1,2 are polarization vectors, E0 is the electric fieldmagnitude, k1,2 are the wavevectors, and φ is an arbitrary constant phase. The total
electric field is given by Etot (r, t) = E1 (r, t) + E2 (r, t). Then we have
|Etot (r, t)|2 = E02 |1 eik1 ·r + 2 ei(k2 ·r+φ) |2(2.4)= E02 (2 + 1 · ∗2 ei(k1 ·r−k2 ·r−φ) + ∗1 · 2 e−i(k1 ·r−k2 ·r−φ) )(2.5)= 2E02 (1 + 1 · 2 cos((k1 − k2 ) · r − φ)),(2.6)

where we assumed the polarization vectors to be real. Now consider the case when thepolarization vectors are parallel so that 1 ·2 = 1. Then, from cos2 θ = (1+cos 2θ)/2,22

we get(k1 − k2 ) · r − φ|Etot (r, t)|
2


φ
2
2
= 4E0 cos keff · r −22= 4E02 cos2




(2.7)
(2.8)

where we define keff ≡ (k1 − k2 )/2. If we define θ such that k̂1 · k̂2 = cos θ and using
k = 2π/λ, we get
λeff =1
λ,sin(θ/2)(2.9)

where keff ≡ 2π/λeff . Thus, by intersecting laser beams at various angles, one cancreate an optical lattice with lattice spacings much greater than the wavelength of thelaser beam itself. Also, note that the direction of the optical lattice will be modulated
in the direction k̂1 − k̂2 .
In the work described in this thesis θ = π, so λeff = λ and we have2

|Etot (r, t)|= 4E02 cos2



φ
k·r−
2


.

(2.10)

Thus this periodic modulation in the intensity pattern creates an optical lattice,which the atoms reside in. The next section describes the properties of atoms in sucha sinusoidal potential. Typically the lattice laser beams are significantly bigger thanthe optical dipole trap beams, so the spatial curvature due to the Gaussian envelopeof the lattice beams can be neglected.

2.2

Atoms in a Periodic Potential

In 1D, a single atom in a standing wave is described by the HamiltonianH=

p2+ V0 sin2 (kl x),2m
23(2.11)

where m is the mass of the particle, and kl = 2π/λ for an optical lattice with laser
wavelength λ.

2.2.1

Bloch’s Theorem and Bloch Functions

Bloch’s theorem [9] tells us that if the Hamiltonian is invariant under translation
by one lattice period a, the Hamiltonian commutes with the translation operator T ,where
T = eipa/~ and T φq (x) = φq (x + a).

(2.12)

Since T is unitary, it has eigenvalues such thatT φq (x) = eiqa φq (x),(2.13)

φq (x + a) = eiqa φq (x),(2.14)

φq (x) = eiqx uq (x),(2.15)

where q ∈ [−π/a, π/a]. Since

we can write

where uq (x) is a periodic function in x with period a i.e. uq (x) = uq (x + a). Because
the Hamiltonian and the translation operator commute, we can find simultaneous
eigenstates of H and T such thatHφq(n) (x) = Eq(n) φ(n)q (x) and(2.16)

iqa (n)T φ(n)
q (x) = e φq (x).

(2.17)

24

φnq (x) are called Bloch eigenstates, and unq (x) are eigenstates of the Hamiltonian(p + q)2+ V0 sin2 (kl x).
2m

Hq =

(2.18)

This follows from using the fact thate−iqx peiqx = p + q.

(2.19)

We would now like to determine the Bloch functions, which are normalized so that
2π
a

Z a
0

2
|φ(n)
q (x)| dx = 1.

(2.20)

The analytical solutions are of the form of Mathieu functions. However, numerically
it is nicer to expand the Bloch functions in a Fourier expansion, where∞X1
unq (x) = √2π j=−∞(n,q) −ikl xj

cj

e

.

(2.21)

This allows us to reduce the problem to a linear eigenvalue equation in the complex
coefficients cj . To do this, take Schrödinger’s equation and use
1
√
2π

Z ∞

dxe−ikx =√2πδ(k) and δ(ax) =

−∞

1
δ(x).
|a|

(2.22)

By doing so we get
l
X

(n,q)

Hj,j 0 cj 0(n,q)

= Eq(n) cj,(2.23)

j 0 =−l

where




(2j + q/kl )2 ER + V0 /2, if j = j 0 ;
Hj,j 0 = −V0 /4,
if |j − j 0 | = 1;





0
if |j − j 0 | > 1.
25

(2.24)

Eigenvalues of Bloch States

Eigenvalues of Bloch States

16

Eigenvalues of Bloch States

20
n=0
n=1
n=2
n=3

14

22
n=0
n=1
n=2
n=3

18
16

n=0
n=1
n=2
n=3

20
18

12

8
6

14

16

12

14
E/ER

E/ER

E/ER

10

10

12

8

10

6

8

4

6

4
2
0
−1

2
−0.5

0
qa/π

0.5

1

4

0
−1

−0.5

0
qa/π

0.5

1

2
−1

−0.5

0
qa/π

0.5

1

Figure 2-1: Band structure for an atom in an optical lattice. From left to right are
the eigenvalues for an atom in a lattice for lattice depths V0 = 0ER , V0 = 5ER , andV0 = 10ER as a function of the quasimomentum q.
This problem can be diagonalized numerically using j ∈ {−l, . . . , −l} and for thelowest few bands, good results are obtained for relatively small l, i.e. l ∼ 10. The
numerically determined eigenvalues for the first few energy bands are given in Fig. 2-1.

2.2.2

Wannier Functions

It is often very convenient to write the Bloch functions in terms of Wannier functions, which also form a complete set of orthogonal basis states. The Wannier functions in 1D are given byrwn (x − xi ) =

a
2π

Z π/a

−iqxi
dqu(n),
q (x)e(2.25)−π/a

where xi are the minima of the potential. Each set of Wannier functions for a givenn can be used to express the Bloch functions in that band asu(n)q (x) =ra X
wn (x − xi )eiqxi .
2π x(2.26)i

This can be checked by plugging Eq. 2.26 into Eq. 2.25. Wannier functions havethe advantage of being localized on particular sites, which makes them useful for describing local interactions between particles. The Wannier functions are not uniquely(n)defined by the integral over Bloch functions since each wavefunction φq (x) is arbitrary up to a complex phase. However, it has been shown [65] that there exists for26each band only one real Wannier function wn (x) that is either symmetric or anti-symmetric about either x = 0 or x = a/2 and falls off exponentially i.e. |wn (x)| ∼ exp(−hn x) for some hn > 0 as x → ∞.

These Wannier functions are known as maximally localized Wannier functions, and(n)are the ones frequently used. If uq (x) is expanded as in Eq. 2.21, the maximally(n,q)

localized Wannier functions can be produced if all cj

are chosen to be purely

real for the even bands i.e. n = 0, 2, 4, . . . , and imaginary for the odd bands i.e.
n = 1, 3, 5, . . . , and are smoothly varying as a function of q. Wannier functions
for deeply bound bands are very close to the harmonic oscillator wavefunctions, andfor many analytical estimates of on-site properties, the Wannier functions may bereplaced by harmonic oscillator wavefunctions if the lattice is sufficiently deep. The
major difference between the two is that the Wannier functions are exponentiallylocalized, i.e. |wn (x)| ∼ exp(−hn x), whereas the harmonic oscillator wavefunctions
decay more rapidly in the tails as exp{−x2 /(2a0 )2 }.

2.2.3

Wannier-Stark States

Now consider a situtation where in addition to the periodic lattice potential wehave a linear lilt potential due to an effective constant time-independent force F suchthat we obtain the Wannier-Stark Hamiltonian [45, 40]p2
H=+ V0 sin2 (kl x) + F x.
2m

(2.27)

Note that the linear tilt destroys the translation symmetry of the tiltless Hamiltonian,and so the Wannier wavefunctions will not be the proper description of a localizedstate. Being able to describe the localized wavefunctions resulting from this Hamiltonian, called Wannier-Stark states, is important in understanding our scheme forengineering the Harper Hamiltonian in an ultracold atomic system which is further
described in chapter 4.
27

2500

Wavefunction and Potential (arb.)

2000

1500

1000

500

0

−500

−1000
−4

−3

−2

−1

0
1
Position (λ/2)

2

3

4

Figure 2-2: Wannier-Stark states in a tilted lattice.

In a sufficiently deep lattice such that the tight-binding approximation can beused, and a sufficiently steep tilt such that the bare tunneling energy J (this parameteris explained in the following section) is smaller than the energy offset between adjacentsites F a, the Wannier-Stark Hamiltonian can be diagonalized in the basis of the
Wannier-Stark states |Ψα,l i given by|Ψα,l i =

X


Jm−l

m

2J
Fa


|mi,

(2.28)

where |mi are Wannier functions centered at site m, and Jm−l (x) are Bessel functions.
Thus when one is interested in the properties of a lattice system in the presence of alinear tilt potential, the Wannier-Stark states should be used instead of the Wannier
states. Wannier-Stark states are depicted in Fig. 2-2.
28

2.3

Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian and the Mott Insulator

Although band theory for non-interacting particles has been hugely successful inexplaining the properties of a wide range of metals [9], there are a few shortcomings.
In particular, there are a class of materials, including NiO, which band theory would
predict should be conductors, but are in reality insulators [24]. The Hubbard model
proposed by John Hubbard has been shown to explain quite well why this material
is insulating [53, 63]. In particular, this model Hamiltonian captures the interactions
between the electrons effectively in the tight-binding approximation and is a usefulmodel to begin to understand the effects of interactions between constitutent particles
in a lattice system.
The Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian also describes a quantum phase transition between a superfluid state and an insulating state, called the Mott insulator [33, 58].
This was first observed in an ultracold atomic system in 2002 [42] and has been studied extensively since then. In chapter 3 of this thesis I describe our work on studying
this quantum phase transition using the technique of Bragg scattering. The Mott
insulating state is also the starting point in realizing spin gradient thermometry anddemagnetization cooling, where the published papers [76, 116, 115] are included inthis thesis as appendices D, E, and F.
Now in an ultracold atomic system, for bosonic atoms in a lattice and an externaltrapping potential, the Hamiltonian operator is given by [58]
Z
H=



~2 2
d xψ (x) −∇ + V0 (x) + VT (x) ψ(x)2mZ
1 4πa~2d3 xψ † (x)ψ † (x)ψ(x)ψ(x), (2.29)
+
2 m
3

†

where ψ(x) is a boson field operator for atoms in a given internal atomic state, V0 (x)is the optical lattice potential, and VT (x) is the additional slowly varying externaltrapping potential, such as a magnetic or optical dipole trap. In the simplest case,29the optical lattice potential has the form V0 (x) =P3

2
j=1 Vj0 sin (kxj ) with wavevectork = 2π/λ where λ is the wavelength of the lattice beam. The interaction potential
between the atoms is approximated by a short-range pseudopotential where a is thes-wave scattering length and m is the mass of the atom. If we assume the energies ofthe system are low enough that the atoms remain in the lowest band, we can expand
the field operators in the Wannier basis and keep only the lowest vibration states andPwrite ψ(x) = i ai w(x − xi ). This then allows us to simplify Eq. 2.29 to obtain the
Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian
H = −JX †X
1 X
ai aj + Un̂i (n̂i − 1) +i n̂i ,2ii(2.30)

hi,ji

where hi, ji denotes a sum over the nearest neighbor sites, the operators n̂i = a†i ai
count the number of bosonic atoms at site i. The annihilation and creation operators,
ai and a†i respectively, obey the canonical commutation relations [ai , a†j ] = δij . The
R
parameter U = 4πa~2 d3 x |w(x)|4 /m corresponds to the strength of the on-site
repulsion of two atoms on the lattice site i, a is the s-wave scattering length of theR~2atom, J = d3 xw∗ (x − xi )[− 2m∇2 + V0 (x)]w(x − xj ) corresponds to the hoppingRmatrix element between adjacent sites i and j, and i = d3 xVT (x)|w(x − xi )|2 ≈VT (xi ) corresponds to an energy offset of each lattice site.

One can use a harmonic approximation about the minima of the potential wells
to determine these parameters. In particular, for 1D,
p2
p2+ V0 sin2 (kx) ≈+ V0 k 2 x2
2m
2m
p2
1
=
+ mω 2 x2
2m 2r
2V0 k 2
4ER V04ER V0
2
⇒ω =
=
⇒ω=
,
2
m
~
~2

H0 =

(2.31)(2.32)(2.33)

where ER = ~2 k 2 /(2m) is the recoil energy. Furthermore, the ground state eigenfunc30

tion of this Hamiltonian can be written
2
1
− x2
2σ ,
e
(πσ 2 )1/4

(2.34)

~
~
= 1/2
.
mω
m (4ER V0 )1/4

(2.35)

w(x) =wherer
σ=

The generalization to 3D is given by


2

2

2



− x2+ y 2+ z 21
e 2σ1 2σ2 2σ3 .
w(x) = 3/4
1/2
π (σ1 σ2 σ3 )(2.36)

Using the expression for U and the above approximate Wannier function, we may
write
Z
4πa~2
U=
d3 x |w(x)|4mr
8≈ka (ER V1 V2 V3 )1/4 .
π(2.37)(2.38)In all experiments described in this thesis, we work with lattice lasers of wavelength1064 nm and 87 Rb atoms which weigh 1.443 × 10−25 kg with s-wave scattering lengthof 100a0 (in reality, the scattering length depends on the hyperfine states that areundergoing the scattering, but for 87 Rb all relevant scattering lengths are identical to within about 1% and so differences are typically negligible) [116]. For theseparameters, Fig. 2-3 shows the interaction energy U , tunneling energy J, and thesuperexchange energy J 2 /U as a function of lattice depth in units of the recoil energy
ER . These three terms set the energy scale of the system.

The on-site interaction energy term can be most naturally be understood as anenergy between any two atoms on a single lattice site. In particular, if a lattice site
has n atoms in it, then there are n choose 2 pairs that one can form, and each of
31

4

10

3

10

Energy (Hz)

2

10

1

10

0

10

J
U
2
J /U

−1

10

−2

10

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Lattice Depth (E )R

Figure 2-3: Dependence of Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian parameters on lattice depth.
Calculations are done for a 3D optical lattice of equal lattice depth in all three directions created by a laser of wavelength 1064 nm and 87 Rb atoms which weigh1.443 × 10−25 kg with s-wave scattering length of 100a0 .

these pairs contributes an energy U to the lattice site. This then gives us nn(n − 1)
U.
En =   U =2
2(2.39)

Consider the case of zero tunneling, so that J = 0. The Hamiltonian is thensimplified to
X
1 X
H= U
n̂i (n̂i − 1) −µi n̂i .
2ii(2.40)

It is clear that the eigenstate is the one where each lattice site has an integer numberof atoms ni . Furthermore, the Hamiltonian is now an independent sum of all of thelattice sites. Therefore for the case of J = 0, we need only consider a single lattice32

site. The energy of a single lattice site with n atoms is thenEn =n(n − 1)U − µn.
2(2.41)The energy of a lattice site with n − 1 atoms isEn−1 =(n − 1)(n − 2)U − µ(n − 1).
2(2.42)

Consider the energy difference between the configuration with n − 1 atoms and n
atoms. Since the two terms in the energy have opposite signs, it is possible for there
to be a critical n where it is just barely favorable to have one more particle in thesite. The relevant energy to determine this critical n is the energy different between
En and En−1 . This is found to be∆En ≡ En − En−1 = (n − 1)U − µ.

(2.43)The maximum possible n is determined by ∆En < 0. This implies
nmax <

µµ+ 1 ⇒ nmax = Int
+ 1.
U
U

(2.44)

This discreteness of the possible occupation number is a distinct signature of theMott insulator state and is what gives rise to the so-called ‘wedding cake structure.’
Such a discrete spatial structure is particularly amenable to the technique of Bragg
scattering, which is described in detail in this thesis [77].

2.3.1

Mott Insulator Phase Diagram

Depending on the parameter J/U and µ/U , the system can be either in a Mott
insulator or superfluid phase [79, 108]. The phase diagram can be found by considering
the energy of the system using second-order perturbation theory. This requires amean-field approximation, where the nearest-neighbor interactions as expressed by
the term in the Hamiltonian with J are decoupled into single-site operators and an33

order parameter ψ, which in this case is ψ =√n. Furthermore, Landau’s theory of

second order phase transitions says that phase transitions occur when d2 E/dψ 2 = 0,
where the energy E can be expressed as E = a0 + a2 ψ 2 + O(ψ 4 ), which requires thatat the phase transition, a2 = 0. With this understanding, the phase boundary isgiven by the equation
U
n+1
n
=
+
,
zJ
n − µ/U
1 − n + µ/U(2.45)

where z is the coordination number (2 × 3 = 6 in the case of a 3 dimensional lattice),and the occupation number n is given by n = Integer(µ/U ) + 1 for µ/U > 0 and
n = 0 otherwise. The phase diagram determined by this expression is given in Fig. 24, where regions of occupation number up to 5 are shown.

Phase Diagram of the Mott Insulator
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
n=1
n=2
n=3
n=4
n=5

zJ/U

0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0

0

1

2

µ/U

3

4

5

Figure 2-4: Phase diagram of the superfluid to Mott insulator transition. The colored
regions correspond to the Mott insulator phase, and the white regions correspond to
the superfluid phase. Occupation number regions of up to 5 are shown. The boundaryis given by Eq. 2.45.

34

2.3.2

Non-Zero Temperature Effects

So far our description of the Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian has assumed zero temperature. But of course in reality the system realized in an experiment is at a non-zerotemperature. Understanding the system at non-zero temperature is particularly important when one is hoping to realize even lower energy Hamiltonians such as the
Heisenberg Hamiltonian which we describe in the next section. Our results on spin
gradient thermometry and demagnetization cooling, included in this thesis as appendices D, E, and F, relied strongly on our understanding of non-zero temperatureeffects.
Consider a Mott domain with n atoms per site. Then it is reasonable to expect thatthe lowest-lying excited states are particle and hole states, where an additional particle
has been added/removed from the background occupation number of n [36, 51]. Theenergies of a particle and a hole are(n + 1)nn(n − 1)U−
U = nU,22(n − 1)(n − 2)n(n − 1)
En,hole =U−
U = −(n − 1)U.
2
2

En,particle =(2.46)(2.47)

This particle-hole approximation allows us to truncate the Hilbert space of a latticesite to states with n − 1, n, and n + 1 atoms. Other states are suppressed by factorsof e−βU . Assuming βU  1, this approximation is expected to be valid. In general,the partition function for a single site can be written,z=Xne−βH(n) =Xe−β(n(n−1)U/2−µn) .

(2.48)

nTruncating this to the relevant states and factoring the common term, we getz = e−βH(n−1) + e−βH(n) + e−βH(n+1)(2.49)∝ e−β(−(n−1)U +µ) + 1 + e−β(nU −µ)(2.50)= e−β(Ehole +µ) + 1 + e−β(Eparticle −µ)(2.51)

35

With this partition function, we can write down the probability for there to be a holeand particle in any given Mott region with occupation number n. This is found to bee−β(Ehole +µ)z(2.52)e−β(Eparticle −µ).
z(2.53)

phole =
pparticle =We can now calculate the mean occupation number at non-zero temperature as afunction of the chemical potential and the interaction energy, given the probabilityof holes and particles. This is given byn̄ = n + pparticle − phole .

(2.54)

This is plotted as a function of µ/U for various values of U/kB T in Fig. 2-5. One cansee that the sharp steps a T = 0 become rounded as the temperature increases, androughly at kB T /U ≈ 0.2, the sharpness has almost completely faded away. This valueof 0.2 is commonly accepted as the ‘melting temperature’ of the Mott insulator.

2.4

Heisenberg Hamiltonian and Quantum Magnetism

The Heisenberg Hamiltonian is a model which describes spin-spin interactions
in a lattice and gives rise to phases such as ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic
states [29]. This Hamiltonian can be realized from the Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian in
the perturbative limit of J/U  1, where the relevant energy scale becomes J 2 /U , also
called the superexchange energy scale. This energy scale corresponds to a temperatureof order 100 pK for rubidium atoms in a 3D lattice of lattice spacing a few hundred
nanometers. Our work on spin gradient thermometry and demagnetization cooling,included in this thesis as appendices D, E, and F, were particularly driven by ourgoal of realizing the Heisenberg Hamiltonian which requires very low temperatures.
Our work on Bragg scattering, described in chapter 3, was undertaken with the goal36

Average Occupation Number as a Function of Chemical Potential
3
k T/U=0B

2.5

kBT/U=0.01
kBT/U=0.05
kBT/U=0.1

2
naveragekBT/U=0.2
1.5

1

0.5

0
−1

−0.5

0

0.5
µ/U

1

1.5

2

Figure 2-5: Average occupation number as a function of chemical potential for various
temperatures. These steps are often call the ‘wedding cake structure.’of applying it to study spin ordering once the Heisenberg Hamiltonian is realized.
Let us start with a system where two different effective spin species interact differently in a lattice [29]. Denote the two relevant internal states with the effective
spin index σ =↑, ↓ respectively. These two spins are trapped in a perodic potential

Vµσ sin2 (kµ · r) in a certain direction µ where kµ is the wavevector of light. For sufficiently strong periodic potential and low temperatures, the low energy Hamiltonianis given byH=−X hi,ji,σtµσ a†iσ ajσ + H.c.



+

X
1X
Uσ niσ (niσ − 1) + U↑↓ni↑ ni↓ ,2 i,σi(2.55)

where hi, ji denotes the nearest neighbor sites in the direction µ, aiσ are bosonicannihilation operators for atoms of spin σ localized on site i, and niσ = a†iσ aiσ .

Using the harmonic Wannier functions, the spin-dependent interaction energy U↑↓37

is given byZ
4πa↑↓ ~2U↑↓ =d3 x |w↑ (x)|2 |w↓ (x)|2
m
r
1/4
8
ka↑↓ ER V̄1↑↓ V̄2↑↓ V̄3↑↓
,
≈
π
1/2

(2.56)(2.57)

1/2

where V̄µ↑↓ = 4Vµ↑ Vµ↓ /(Vµ↑ + Vµ↓ )2 is the spin average potential in each direction.

2.4.1

Anisotropic Heisenberg Hamiltonian

Using a generalization of the Schrieffer-Wolff transformation [50, 89] (or anothermethod [67]), to leading order in tµσ /U↑↓ , Eq. 2.55 is equivalent to the effective Hamiltonian
H=

X

λµz σiz σjz − λµ⊥ σix σjx + σiy σjy ,(2.58)

hi,ji

where σiz = ni↑ − ni↓ , σix = a†i↑ ai↓ + a†i↓ ai↑ , and σiy = −i(a†i↑ ai↓ − a†i↓ ai↑ ) are the usual
spin operators. The parameters λµz and λµ⊥ are given byt2µ↑ + t2µ↓ t2µ↑ t2µ↓tµ↑ tµ↓−−and λµ⊥ =
.
λµz =
2U↑↓
U↑
U↓
U↑↓

(2.59)

Note that the Hamiltonian in Eq. 2.58 is the well-known anisotropic Heisenberg model(XXZ model) which arises in various condensed matter systems [10].
One can also consider the case where an external magnetic field along the z direction is applied. The Hamiltonian then becomes
H=

X
hi,ji

λµz σiz σjz − λµ⊥ σix σjx + σiy σjy



−

X

hz σiz .

(2.60)

i

Now assume that the tunneling and same-spin interaction energies are the same forthe two spin states. We can perform a variational calculation on the minimum energyof this system by two trial functions (i) a Néel state in the z direction hσ i i = (−1)i ez ;(ii) a canted phase with ferromagnetic order in the x − y plane and finite polarization38

in the z direction hσ i i = cos θex + sin θez . Here θ is a varational parameter and ex,z
are unit vectors in the direction x, z. We then take the expectation value of H foreach case to get
hHiN = −

Zλz
Zλz
Zλ⊥
, and hHiF =sin2 θ −cos2 θ − hz sin θ,22
2(2.61)

where hHiN and hHiF are the Néel and canted phases respectively and Z is thecoordination number corresponding to the number of nearest neighbors.
We can minimize the expression for the canted phase with respect to θ to getcos θ(Z(λz + λ⊥ ) sin θ − hz ) = 0.

(2.62)The energy is minimized whencos θ = 0 orsin θ =hz
1
×.
Zλ⊥ 1 + λz /λ⊥(2.63)The two values that minimize the energy are θ = π/2, sin−1 (hz /Z(λz + λ⊥ )). Note
θ = π/2 corresponds to the z ferromagnetic phase, and whose energy is given by
hHiz =

Zλz− hz .
2(2.64)At this point, we are ready to determine the phase boundaries between the z
ferromagnet, xy ferromagnet, and the antiferromagnet states. We can let y ≡ λz /λ⊥and x ≡ hz /Zλ⊥ for ease of manipulation. Then if we consider hHiz = hHiF , weobtainy = x − 1 ⇒ hz = Z (λz + λ⊥ ) .

(2.65)

We can also consider hHiN = hHiF to obtainy=√x2 + 1 ⇒ hz = Z39q
λ2z − λ2⊥ .

(2.66)

The phase diagram dictated by Eqs. 2.63, 2.65 and 2.66 is given in the left plotof Fig. 2-6. For an actual ultracold atomic experiment, we can assume that there areno spin-flips and that the density of atoms throughout the sample must remain thesame. To explore this phase space, we can apply a controlled magnetic field gradient,so that B ≈ x(dB/dx) and can take a slice along the horizontal direction with one
sample. If we create a sample with an equal mixture of ↑ and ↓ atoms, then from theprevious assumption, the only thing that the spins can do is rearrange themselves inthe sample. Spin ↑ atoms will congregate in the lower field region and spin ↓ atoms
will congregate in the higher field region. Then it is natural to expect the center ofthe sample to have zero spin, and the sample will have a symmetric spin profile about
the center.
As can be seen in the Hamiltonian, the energy scale for these phases are of order t2 /U , which for typical experimental paramters for 87 Rb are on the order of 100
pK [15]. Thus this low energy scale causes difficulties in preparing such phases of matter. However, recent work performed in this group shows that such low temperatures
can be achieved by the method of adiabatic spin gradient cooling [76].
These phase diagrams represent magnetic phases of matter, which in its fermionicincarnation is believed to form the basis for high-temperature superconductors [69].
Thus there is great technological as well as scientific interest in understanding theproperties of this Hamiltonian.

2.4.2

Quantum Magnetism and Bragg Scattering

The Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian has been studied extensively since its observationin 2002 [42]. One major step in this field would be to study an even lower temperaturephase, which is the Heisenberg Hamiltonian. Bragg scattering will be a powerful tool
to study the magnetic phases of matter arising from the Heisenberg Hamiltonianby making use of spin-dependent scattering, as was done in neutron scattering toobserve the antiferromagnetic state [91]. Chapter 3 describes our work to study the
Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian with Bragg scattering, thus paving the way towards its
employment in the search for quantum magnetism in optical lattices.
40

Phase Diagram of the 2−component Spin Hamiltonian

Phase Diagram of the 2−component Spin Hamiltonian
3
2.5

I

2

1

1.5

0.5

III

0.5

Sz

λz/λ⊥

1
0

−0.5

0

II

−0.5

−1
1
−1
3

0

2
1

−1.5
0

−1
−2

0

0.5

1

1.5
hz/Zλ⊥

2

2.5

3

λ /λ
z

⊥

−1
−2

−2
−3

hz/Zλ⊥

Figure 2-6: Phase diagrams of the Heisenberg Hamiltonian. The left figure is characterized by the following order parameter: I, z-Néel order; II, z-ferromagnetic order;and III, xy-ferromagnetic order. The right figure is the same plot as the left figure
but with the spin along the magnetic field direction (sin θ) represented by the vertical
axis.

2.5

Harper Hamiltonian and Gauge Fields

Gauge fields play an important role in various areas of modern physics, fromparticle physics, where the Standard Model relies heavily on gauge fields [81], tocondensed matter physics, where gauge fields can explain the integer and fractional
quantum Hall effects [107, 68]. Quantum Hall effects are interesting because they
can manifest topological properties of wavefunctions, which could form the basisof a robust quantum computing platform due to the fact that environmental noise
have a much more difficult time perturbing topological properties of matter [64].
In condensed matter, gauge fields can help to explain the dynamics of electrons inmagnetic fields. However, gauge fields in condensed matter systems can be moregeneral than magnetic fields because they can describe non-abelian gauge fields [94,48].
One particular type of Hamiltonian that can give rise to such quantum Hall effects is the Harper Hamiltonian [105]. This Hamiltonian describes the dynamics andenergy levels of electrons moving in the presence of a magnetic field and a backgroundlattice in the tight-binding limit [49]. This Hamiltonian has been shown to exhibit
41

Figure 2-7: The Hofstadter butterfly [52]. This plot shows the fractal nature of theHarper Hamiltonian. The x-axis is in units of the eigenenergy per tunneling energy
and the y-axis is in units of the enclosed flux quanta.

a fascinating fractal band structure which is colloqually called the ‘Hofstadter butterfly’, named after the discover Douglas Hofstadter [52]. Such a band structure isshown in Fig. 2-7.

The particular Harper Hamiltonian we are interested in can be written as

H = −KX

eiφm,n a†m+1,n am,n + e−iφm,n a†m,n am+1,n



m,n

−J


X †
am,n+1 am,n + a†m,n am,n+1 (2.67)m,nwhere K and J are tunneling amplitudes in the x and y directions respectively, a†m,n
and am,n are the creation and annihilation operators, respectively, at site (m, n), andthe indices m and n are for the x and y lattice positions respectively. In general, forthe scheme we are interested in we can write φm,n = mφx +nφy . In chapter 4 I describe
in more detail how this Hamiltonian can be engineered with ultracold atoms, but forthe purposes of this section I would like to focus on the properties of this Hamiltonian.
422.5.1

Electromagnetism, Gauge Fields, and Wavefunctions

The phase that the wavefunction acquires upon tunneling is directly related toanother important concept in physics, namely that of gauges [86, 44, 109].
In electromagnetism, the electric field E and magnetic field B can be written interms of the scalar potential φ and vector potential A as
E = −∇φ −

∂A
∂t

and

B = ∇ × A.

(2.68)

Quantum mechanically, the Hamiltonian can be written in the following way to incorporate the scalar and vector potentials(p − qA)2
H=
+ qφ.
2m

(2.69)

Now, it is possible to rewrite φ and A in a way such that it leaves the electric andmagnetic fields unchanged. Namely,
φ0 = φ −∂Λ∂t

A0 = A + ∇Λ,and(2.70)

where Λ is in general any function of space and time. Thus the particular form of thescalar and vector potentials that give rise to specific electric and magnetic fields are
not unique, but is defined up to a gauge given by the function Λ [57]. One speaksof ‘choosing a gauge’ in solving specific problems. For example, one could choose thegauge ∇ · A = 0.
Here let us consider the situation of time-independent fields and potentials. If you
have a particle moving in the presence of some vector potential A, the wavefunctionof the particle evolves as [2]iqψ = ψ0 exp~

Z
A · dx.

(2.71)

Now we will consider a specific example where this phase of the wavefunction canmanifest itself in an observable.
43

Source ofElectrons

Path 1B=!

B ! Solenoid

ScreenPath 2

Figure 2-8: Setup for the Aharonov-Bohm effect. Electrons emerge from the electron
source to the left, traverse through two slits, and then impinge on a screen to theright. In between is an infinitely long solenoid which has a non-zero magnetic field
inside, but zero magnetic field outside. Even though the magnetic field is zero where
the electrons are, they feel the effect of the magnetic field inside the solenoid.

Consider the following set up, shown in Fig. 2-8. We have a source of electrons
to the left, which pass through two slits. Beyond the slits, there is an infinitely longsolenoid pointing out of the page which is also impenetrable to the electrons. Thus
we can consider this solenoid to have zero magnetic field anywhere outside of thesolenoid. Note however that the vector potential can still be non-zero in the outerregion. After passing through the slits the electrons impinge on a screen.
Now if we consider the wavefunction of an electron which traveled around path 1
and path 2 to the same point on the screen, the probability to observe the electron
will be determined by the sum of the two wavefunctions. This can be writtenψtot = ψ1 exp
= exp
= exp

!
R
iq path1 dx · A~!R
iq path2 dx · A!
R
iq path2 dx · A+ ψ2 expH~dx · Aψ1 exp
+ ψ2
~
~
!
R



iq path2 dx · AiqΦ
ψ1 exp+ ψ2 ,~~

where we used the fact that the integral

H



iq

(2.72)

(2.73)(2.74)

dx·A is exactly the magnetic flux Φ throughthe solenoid. The observable is the wavefunction squared, and due to the complex
44

phase, the resulting probability of observing an electron on the screen will oscillate
as a function of the magnetic flux. It is very curious that even though the electron
never enters the region with non-zero magnetic field, the probability to observe anelectron depends on the magnetic field in the forbidden region. This is the celebrated
Aharonov-Bohm effect [2], also sometimes called the Ehrenberg-Siday effect [30]. Thiseffect beautifully illustrates the fact that two different paths can imprint non-trivial
topological phases on wavefunctions just by enclosing a region with magnetic flux.

2.5.2

Flux Density per Plaquette α

Now that we have an appreciation of the connection of topological properties tothe phase of the wavefunction, which in turn can be understood as a particular gaugechosen for the system, let us return to the Harper Hamiltonian written as Eq. 2.67 andunderstand how the phase relates to an effective magnetic field. As we saw previously,
we can write the phase as φm,n = mφx + nφy where m and n are integers describing
the position in the two-dimensional lattice and φx,y are constants. Then a phase will
be accumulated upon tunneling in the x direction. In this case the phase accumulated
can be shown as in the left of Fig. 2-9. We see that the total phase accumulated if
one atom tunnels around one full square, called a plaquette or a unit cell, is Φ = φy .
Note that the total accumulated phase only depends on the y dependence of the phaseaccumulated upon tunneling in the x direction.
The flux density per plaquette is defined as α ≡ Φ/(2π). This parameter has astrong connection to electrons with charge e in a square two-dimensional lattice ofside a in a magnetic field B [52]. Hofstadter defines this parameter as (in SI units)
α=

a2 B
.
h/e

(2.75)

This is precisely the magnetic flux enclosed by a square of side a divided by themagnetic flux quantum of an electron. This shows that for a typical crystal with latticespacing of a few ångstroms, magnetic fields on the order of a billion gauss is necessary
to achieve α of order unity. However, very recently researchers have devised a clever45

(a) n(b) n3! x 3! y

2

x

2 y

1

x ! y

3

2! x 3! y

y
2! x

2! y

y

2

y

y
y

1

x

2 x! y

2

3

y

x

1

m

1

2

3

m

Figure 2-9: Phase accumulated upon tunneling and enclosed flux. (a) shows the phaseaccumulated upon tunneling from site (m, n) to (m + 1, n). (b) shows the total phaseaccumulated after tunneling as (m, n) → (m, n + 1) → (m + 1, n + 1) → (m + 1, n) →(m, n), which is φy for each such plaquette.

scheme by using boron nitride and a layer of graphene on top and slightly rotatedfrom each other to create an effectively much more widely spaced superlattice on theorder of tens of nanometers. This allowed the researchers to observe the signaturesof the Hofstadter butterfly through conductivity measurements in magnetic fields oftens of tesla [26, 54]. Our proposal with ultracold atoms in optical lattices allow us
to achieve effectively high magnetic fields by making use of Raman transitions which
impart phases upon tunneling, which will be discussed in more detail in chapter 4.

2.5.3

Band Structure for α = 1/2

As an example, here we we consider the specific case φx = −π and φy = π whichleads to φ = π(−m + n) and therefore α = 1/2. This is the particular type of phase
we initially study experimentally, but any other phase dependence and consequently
any other α is also realizable. Schematically the Hamiltonian can be represented as
the left part of Fig. 2-10.
The 2D square lattice can be divided into two sub-lattices, where an atom on one
sub-lattice accumulates a phase of 0 when it tunnels one site in the +x̂ direction, andan atom in the other sub-lattice accumulates a phase of π when it tunnels one site in
the +x̂ direction. These two sub-lattices are represented by filled and unfilled circles
46

k Spacen03Brillouin
Zone

0

2

y

1

ky

x

0

1

2

3

m

kx

a

Figure 2-10: Schematic of a two-dimensional lattice with phases. The left figure
is in real space, where the phase accumulated upon tunneling is represented. The
right figure is the reciprocal space representation, along with the first Brillouin zone
highlighted.

in the left of Fig. 2-10. With these two sub-lattices, we can define primitive vectors
and basis vectors [9].
We see that the primitive vectors are a1 = a(x̂ − ŷ) and a2 = a(x̂ + ŷ) where a isthe lattice spacing. The basis vectors are b1 = 0 and b2 = ax̂. The reciprocal lattice
vectors are c1 = πa (x̂ − ŷ) and c2 = πa (x̂ + ŷ). The Brillouin zone is then a tilted

square at θ = 45◦ and is shown in the right of Fig. 2-10. With this information, we
can calculate the band structure for this system.
The Hamiltonian in matrix form is,

H=

iky a

0
J e−iky a + e y


ik a

J e

+ K e−ikx a − e xik a−iky a

+e



+K e
0

ikx a

−e

−ikx a

(2.76)
0
2J cos(ky a) + 2iK sin(kx a).
=
2J cos(ky a) − 2iK sin(kx a)
0(2.77)The band structure then isq
E± (kx , ky ) = ±2 J 2 cos2 (ky a) + K 2 sin2 (kx a).
47(2.78)

1
0.8
0.6
0.4

ky

0.2
0
−0.2
−0.4
−0.6
−0.8
−1
−1

−0.5

0
kx

0.5

1

Figure 2-11: Band structure of the α = 1/2 Harper Hamiltonian. It is a contour plotof the lowest band structure, where we have two minima and two Dirac cones in the
Brilloin zone, the boundary which is given in red bold lines.

The lower branch is plotted in Fig. 2-11. We see that the band minima are at(kx , ky ) = (±π/(2a), 0).

Furthermore, the band has Dirac points at (kx , ky ) =(0, ±π/(2a)) where the band gap between the two bands is zero.
Another approach to solving the same problem is to use the concept of magnetic
unit cells [121, 122, 78, 83]. This approach is well-suited to lattice systems which havesuch non-trivial phases associated with tunneling between neighboring lattice sites.
Different phase dependencies corresponding to different α will give rise to different
band structures. For non-rational α, the system will not have any periodicity andso a band description will not be appropriate, but practically any α realized will
have some spread and will include rational α and so a band description should be
adepquate even if one does not precisely achieve rational α [52]. Furthermore, if
interactions are added to the Harper Hamiltonian, even more fascinating states suchas fractional quantum Hall states are expected to arise [94, 48]. Therefore the Harper
Hamiltonian provides an exciting new frontier in the study of topological states ofmatter, both with and without interactions.

48

Chapter 3
Bragg Scattering as a Probe ofOrdering and Quantum Dynamics
This chapter elaborates on the work published as Bragg Scattering as a Probe of
Atomic Wave Functions and Quantum Phase Transitions in Optical Lattices, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 107, 175302 (2011) [77].
As discussed in the introduction, ultracold atomic gases are an ideal system inwhich to study many-body phenomena because of the relative ease with which parameters in the model Hamiltonian can be tuned across a wide range [70, 13]. Suchstudies have resulted in a better understanding of various phase transitions such as
the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless transition in two dimensional systems [47], the
BEC-BCS crossover of interacting fermions [123] and the superfluid to Mott insulatortransition in a three-dimensional lattice [42]. One major goal of this field is to realize
spin phases such as antiferromagnetic states to explore quantum magnetism and its
interplay with high-temperature superconductivity [69].
Concurrently, there are numerous efforts to develop techniques to probe and understand the atomic ensemble once a new type of ordering is achieved. One recent
development is the realization of single-site resolution of atoms in two-dimensional
optical lattices [11, 90]. An alternative method to measure in situ spatial orderingis the technique of Bragg scattering, often used in a condensed matter context todetermine crystal structure [9]. In particular, Bragg scattering with neutrons led to49

the discovery of antiferromagnetism in the solid state [91] and with x-rays led to thediscovery of the double helix structure of DNA [111].
Bragg scattering relies on the interference of waves scattered coherently from anensemble of particles. In particular when atoms are arranged in a periodic patternin three spatial dimensions, there are certain angles of the incoming and reflectedbeams where scattering is dramatically enhanced compared to other angles. This has
allowed crystallographers to use x-rays to determine the properties of crystals such as
lattice geometry at the ångstrom scale. We have applied this technique to ultracold
atoms in a three-dimensional optical lattice by scattering near-infrared light where
the atoms are spaced almost 104 times farther apart than those in typical condensed
matter samples.
Pioneering works on Bragg scattering from cold atoms in optical lattices weredone by the Hänsch and Phillips groups using laser cooled atoms [113, 12, 84, 112].
These lattices were sparsely populated and the atoms occupied several bands. In
this Letter, we have used Bragg scattering to study bosonic atoms cooled to quantum
degeneracy and placed in a three dimensional cubic lattice where the atoms occupy thelowest band. In particular, we have measured directly the Heisenberg-limited widthof both position and momentum of the single ground state atomic wavefunction in an
optical lattice. Furthermore, there is a revival of Bragg scattered light some time after
releasing the atoms from the optical lattice, analogous to the optical Talbot effect.
This signal gives a direct measure of the coherence of the superfluid component in
the lattice.

3.1

Experimental Setup for Bragg Scattering

Laser cooling and evaporative cooling are used to achieve quantum degeneracyof 87 Rb atoms in the |F = 2, mF = −2i state [100] which are loaded into a crossed
dipole trap whose trap frequencies range between 30 and 160 Hz. Once quantum
degeneracy is achieved, the optical lattices generated by a single 1064 nm fiber laser
are adiabatically ramped on. The lattices are calibrated by applying a 12.5 µs pulse50[1 0 0] PlanesyxzProbe in

Bragg out

43

Figure 3-1: Bragg scattering schematic setup. The atoms are arranged in a cubic
lattice structure with spacing of 532 nm, and the probe beam is a laser at a wavelengthof 780 nm, close to one of the rubidium transition lines. The thin red lines indicate
the [1 0 0] planes of the lattice.

and measuring the Kapitza-Dirac diffraction of the atoms and comparing this totheory. The system typically contains about 105 atoms, which leads to up to 5 atoms
per lattice site. The Bragg reflected light is detected on a CCD camera which images
along a direction which satisifies the Bragg condition.
The Bragg scattering condition for a three-dimensional cubic lattice is given by
2d sin θ = nλp(3.1)

where d is the spacing between lattice planes, θ is the angle between the incoming
beam and the lattice planes, n is any positive integer and λp is the wavelength of theprobe beam. For our experiment λp is 780 nm and d is 532 nm. With these conditions
the only allowed angle θ is 47◦ where n is one and corresponds to Bragg reflection off
the [1 0 0] plane or any equivalent plane. A schematic of the probe beam with respect
to the atoms in the lattice is shown in Fig. 3-1. Since the full angular width of the
Bragg scattered light is small (measured to be 4.1 ± 0.4◦ ), a precise alignment of theincident beam had to be performed at the 1/min repetition rate of the experiment. In
contrast, in one and two dimensions, diffractive light scattering occurs at any angle
of incidence, as recently shown with atoms in a two-dimensional optical lattice [114].
51

The probe beam at the Bragg angle had a typical power of 0.3 mW and beam
diameter of 300 µm, large enough to illuminate the entire atomic cloud, and was
detuned from the 52 S1/2 , F = 2 → 52 P3/2 , F 0 = 3 cycling transition of 87 Rb by a few
natural linewidths, where the natural linewidth Γ is 6 MHz. The detuning needs tobe sufficient so that the light traverses the entire atom cloud. Although the absolutesignal varies with the detuning, the conclusions reached in this Letter appear not
to depend strongly on the amplitude or sign of the detuning. The probe beam wasapplied for a few microseconds, enough to obtain a signal but short enough to avoid
heating effects.
In the following subsection I describe how we characterized and determined the
optimum parameters for the Bragg beam.

3.1.1

Characterization of Bragg Scattering

In this subsection I elaborate on how we characterized our Bragg scattered lightso that we obtained the optimum signal to study atomic dynamics and many-bodyeffects.
A schematic of the optics setup for the Bragg beam is shown in the top of Fig. 3-2.
We use a guide mirror at the focal point of our telescope system, which adjusts theincident angle of the Bragg probe upon our atom cloud while keeping the beam alignedon the atoms at all angles. The exact angle required to achieve Bragg scattering
between the incident probe beam and the atoms in the lattice is determined by the
Bragg condition, but in reality due to the finite size of the sample, there is a rangeof angles that will still lead to Bragg scattering. Thus we characterized the range ofangles that will give Bragg scattering and optimized our alignment to maximize oursignal. We accomplished this by scanning the guide mirror angles.
The Bragg scattered light as a function of the vertical and horizontal alignment of
the guide mirror are given in the bottom of Fig. 3-2. The mirror mount is a Thorlabs
KM200, which has 1/4”-80 adjuster screws with a resolution of 5 mrad (0.3◦ ) per
revolution. If we use the full width half maximum (FWHM) of our signal with −500

counts being the background, the vertical FWHM is 1150◦ and the horizontal FWHM
52

Collimated Bragg Beamf = 400 mm
400 mmf = 500 mm

f = 400 mm

Atoms
Guide
Mirror
900 mm

400 mm

3500

3500

3000

3000

2500

2500

2000

2000
FcountFcount

500 mm

1500

1500

1000

1000

500

500

0

0

−500
−1500

−500
−400

−1000

−500
0
Vertical Knob Angle (Degrees)

500

1000

−200

0

200

400

600

Figure 3-2: Bragg reflection as a function of the guiding mirror screw angle. Top:
schematic for the optics setup for our Bragg beam. Bottom: plots of Bragg scattered
light vs. the vertical (left) and horizontal (right) alignment of the guide mirror.
With the known screw specifications, these correspond to a FWHM angular extent
of 0.9◦ and 0.3◦ respectively. This agrees well with simple estimates of these values
as described in the text.

is 400◦ in adjuster screw angles, which correspond to 0.9◦ and 0.3◦ respectively intrue beam angles. Note the relationship θ ∼ λ/2d, where θ is the angular extent of
the cloud, λ is the laser wavelength, and d is the spatial extent of the cloud [113].
From this we have θH /θV = dV /dH , where θH and θV are the angular extent in thehorizontal and vertical directions respectively and dH and dV are the spatial extent in
the horizontal and vertical directions respectively. From our trap geometry, we expect
this to be dV /dH = 1/3, and experimentally we find that θH /θV = 0.3◦ /0.9◦ = 1/3,
giving good agreement.
The detuning of the Bragg beam from the atomic resonance is an important53

parameter. If the beam is too close to resonance, then the atom cloud will be opaque
to the beam, and the entire cloud cannot coherently scatter at the same time andsimply lead to fluorescence as well as re-absorption by other atoms. On the other
hand, if the beam is detuned too far, the atoms will not interact sufficiently strongly
and will not lead to any scattering, coherent or incoherent. Thus the detuning must be
chosen far enough so that the Bragg beam penetrates the entire cloud, but not so farthat the atoms do not scatter much of the Bragg beam. We determined experimentallythat we see no Bragg scattering lower than 4Γ detuning, where Γ = 6 MHz is thenatural linewidth of the rubidium D2 line. At 8Γ, we see Bragg reflection but little
fluorescence. Therefore the optimum initial setting for searching for Bragg reflectionis 6Γ detuning, so that we have fluorescence to guide the eye, but the Bragg signal isobservable if the Bragg condition is satisfied.
The optical power in the Bragg beam is another important parameter for muchthe same reason as how the detuning is important if we are to obtain the strongest
signal in the shortest amount of time possible. For example, if the power is too low,
not enough photons are scattered. Thus we measured the Bragg reflection by varying
the power in the Bragg beam, and a representative response is shown in Fig. 3-3,
where the probe was on for 3 µs and the detuning was 8Γ. We see that the optimum
power for observing the maximum Bragg reflection in this case is at around 0.8 mW.
The duration that the Bragg probe is turned on is also a relevant parameter toobtain the best signal. The longer the beam is on, the more Bragg scattering will
happen, until the atoms have scattered enough photons to be ejected from the groundstate of the lattice at which point all of the Bragg scattered light obtainable has beenobtained. This plateau behavior is shown in Fig. 3-4. We see that the optimum probe
time is at about 5 µs where the Bragg signal reaches a limit.
We also determined the spatial extent of the Bragg scattered beam. This was doneby positioning a razor blade perpendicular to the beam path and partially blocking
the beam. This works because the Bragg reflection is expected to produce a fairly
well collimated beam. The schematic of the setup and data are shown in Fig. 3-5.
From the spatial extent of the beam, we can deduce the angular width of the beam
54

2500

Fcount

2000

1500

1000

500

0

0

0.5

1
Bragg Probe Power (mW)

1.5

2Figure 3-3: Bragg scattering as a function of Bragg probe power. For this case of 8Γ
detuning, the maximum Bragg reflection is at about 0.8 mW.

4000

Fcount

3000

2000

1000

0

−1000

0

2

4
6
Probe Time (µs)

810Figure 3-4: Bragg scattering as a function of Bragg probe time. For this case of 8Γ
detuning, we see that the Bragg signal reaches a plateau at about 5 µs.

55

coming from the atom cloud. A fit of the data to an error function gives the width
to be 4.5 mm and using the fact that the imaging lens has f = 125 mm, the halfangular size of the beam is 2.0◦ . This is in rough agreement with our estimate givenby θ ∼ λ/2d where λ is the wavelength of the Bragg probe and d is the spatial extent
of the cloud [113]. If we take the cloud size to be 10 µm and the λ = 780 nm, we
have θ ∼ 0.039 radians, or 2.2◦ , which is in rough agreement with our measurement.
With the optimum parameters that maximize our signal from the Bragg beam,
we have studied properties of atoms in a three-dimensional optical lattice.

3.2

Debye-Waller Factor and Bragg Scattering

As the lattice is increased the Bragg reflected signal increases as expected fromthe crystal ordering and tighter localization of the atoms (Fig. 3-6). For this data,
the lattice in the z direction, which is also the direction of gravity, was ramped to
15ER , where ER = h2 /(2mλ2L ) is the recoil energy, h is the Planck constant, m is themass of 87 Rb and λL = 1064 nm is the lattice laser wavelength. Simultaneously thelattices in the horizontal directions were ramped to various lattice depths. Note thatfor our geometry the Bragg reflected intensity is insensitive to the lattice depth in
the z direction because Bragg scattering occurs only in the horizontal xy plane, as
we discuss later.
The scattering of light by a collection of atoms can be modeled in the following
way. In the limit of low probe intensity and low optical density of the cloud, the Born
approximation can be used. Then the scattering cross-section dσ/dΩ can be written
as a product of one-dimensional Debye-Waller factors whereYdσ(∆ri )2 Ki2
∝
exp −
,
dΩ
2
i

(3.2)

where i = x, y, z is the index for the three dimensions, Ki is the magnitude of thei-th component of K where K = kin − kout is the difference between the incomingpprobe beam and Bragg scattered wavevectors, and ∆ri = ~/(mωi ) is the harmonic56

CameraBragg reflection
Atoms
Razor distance
125 mm

Razor

3500
3000

Bragg Scattering (arb.)

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
−500

0

5

10
15
Razor Distance (mm)2025Figure 3-5: Bragg reflection as a function of razor position. Top is the experimental
setup. Bottom is the Bragg scattered signal as a function of razor position at 8Γ
detuning. From the error function fit, the width is about 4.5 mm. With an imaging
lens of f = 125 mm, this corresponds to an angular extent of 2.0◦ . This is in roughagreement with an estimate of 2.2◦ .

57

Figure 3-6: Bragg scattering as a probe of the spatial wavefunction width. The
plot shows Bragg scattered intensity vs. lattice depth in units of the recoil energy.
The right axis gives the corresponding root-mean-square width of the wavefunction
squared. The solid line is a no-free-parameter curve given by the Debye-Waller factor.
Error bars are statistical.

58

oscillator width where ~ is the reduced Planck constant and ωi is the trap frequency
in the i-th direction, which depends on the optical lattice depth. The atoms are approximated as gaussian wavefunctions, which is a good approximation for sufficiently
large lattice depths. However, we find that even for low lattice depths where significant superfluid components are expected, this approximation describes the Bragg
scattered signal well.

For our experimental conditions, Kz = 0 because Bragg scattering occurs in thehorizontal xy plane. The lattice depths are controlled in a way such that they are thesame in both the x and y directions which leads to ∆x ≡ ∆rx = ∆ry . This simplifies
the scattering cross-section todσ(∆x)2 K 2
∝ exp −
.
dΩ
2

(3.3)

Thus Bragg scattering allows the study of the spatial extent of the atomic wavefunction.

The data can be compared to a no-free-parameter theoretical line, assuming noninteracting atoms. The Bragg scattered intensity B(NL ) as a function of lattice depth
NL can be written as
λ2L K 2
B(NL ) ∝ exp − 2 √
.
8π NL

(3.4)

Both the harmonic oscillator width ∆x, which depends on the mass of the rubidium
atom and trap frequency, and change in wavevector K are known. This theoreticalline and the data is shown in Fig. 3-6 and we see good agreement. Thus the Bragg
scattered light as a function of lattice depth can be well-described by a model where
the atoms are assumed to be non-interacting gaussian atomic wavefunctions whose
spatial width is determined by the lattice depth.
59Figure 3-7: Bragg scattering as a probe of the momentum wavefunction width. The
plot shows Bragg scattered intensity vs. the free-expansion time of the atoms after
rapidly turning off the lattices from 15ER . The decay in signal indicates a meltingof the crystal structure, or in other words spreading of the atomic wavepacket with agiven momentum uncertainty. The gray area is a no-free-parameter curve using the
Debye-Waller factor taking into account the probe pulse duration of 5 µs. Error bars
are statistical.

3.3

Heisenberg-Limited Wavefunction Dynamics

Bragg scattering can also be used to probe the momentum width of the atomic
wavefunctions. This is done by measuring Bragg reflection as a function of the expansion time of the atoms between a rapid lattice turn off and Bragg probe. In particular,
the two horizontal lattices were turned off from 15ER to 0ER in less than 1 µs and thelattice in the z direction was kept at 15ER . Turning off the lattices allows the atomic
wavepackets in each individual lattice well to expand freely in those directions. The
data in Fig. 3-7 shows that the signal has decayed in 30 µs. The time it takes tolose crystal structure is roughly the time it takes for the atoms to move over half ofa lattice distance.
The Debye-Waller factor can be used to determine more precisely how the Bragg
60

reflection should behave as a function of the expansion time with no free parameters,
assuming gaussian atomic wavepackets. This makes use of the well-known timedependent behavior of a Heisenberg-limited gaussian wavepacket in free space which
can be written as(∆x(t))2 = (∆x)2 +(∆p)2 t2m2

(3.5)

where ∆x and ∆p are the uncertainty of position and momentum respectively at theinitial time and t is the expansion time [87]. In a previous paper where the atoms were
not quantum degenerate, the momentum distribution was assumed to be determinedby temperature [113]. The results of our work show that the momentum uncertainty
is Heisenberg-limited, meaning (∆x)2 (∆p)2 = ~2 /4, so the Bragg scattered light B(t)as a function of expansion time can be written as(∆p)2 K 2 t2
B(t) ∝ exp −
.
2m2

(3.6)

This curve is shown in Fig. 3-7. The curve is broadened by taking into account theprobe beam duration which was 5 µs and shows good agreement with data. This
analysis shows that by releasing the atoms from a lattice, we can directly probe thein situ time evolution of the ground state atomic wavefunctions with spatial extent
of tens of nanometers. Furthermore, the atomic spatial and momentum widths areseen to be Heisenberg-limited.

3.4

Superfluid Revivals of Bragg Scattering

Coherent many-body non-equilibrium dynamics can also be studied with Bragg
scattering after a sudden release of the atoms from the optical lattice in three dimensions. At low lattice depths the Bragg scattered signal shows revivals as a function of
expansion time because of the rephasing of the superfluid atomic wavefunctions thatwere originally confined in the lattices. Therefore, these revival signals should give ameasure of the superfluid order parameter. Furthermore, the revivals are analogous
61to the optical Talbot effect, whose atomic version was observed previously for a thermal beam [16] and for a quantum degenerate gas in the temporal domain [28]. Here
we observe the atomic Talbot effect for an interacting quantum degenerate gas in athree-dimensional optical lattice. Revivals can be seen in Fig. 3-8 and become lesspronounced as the lattice depth increases.
In particular, the characteristic revival time is determined byhτ = ~2 (2k)2

(3.7)

2m

and is 123 µs for our parameters, where 2k corresponds to the wavevector of thematter wave. However, with Bragg scattering we expect the first revival at halfthat time of 61 µs, which is what we observe in Fig. 3-8. This can be understoodby realizing that the atomic wavepackets need only travel half the lattice spacing toconstructively interfere with the wavepackets traveling in the opposite directions fromthe nearest neighbor sites.

3.5

Superfluid to Mott Insulator Through Bragg
Scattering

The superfluid coherence as a function of lattice depth can be studied by comparing the Bragg reflected signal when the atoms are in the optical lattice to thesignal at the first revival. The revival signal as a function of lattice depth is shownin Fig. 3-9, where the superfluid to Mott insulator transition is expected to occur
around 13ER [42]. In a non-interacting system without any dissipation, one would
expect complete revivals. On the other hand, in the Mott insulating phase wherephase coherence has been lost, revivals should completely disappear, except for avery weak signal at intermediate lattice depths due to particle-hole correlations [38].
To understand the measured revival decay, we have numerically studied the onedimensional Gross-Pitaevskii equation that assumes interacting matter waves at zerotemperature. The simulations show that interactions and finite size effects have neg62

Time
Position

Figure 3-8: Revivals of Bragg scattered light. The plot shows the Bragg scatteredintensity vs. the expansion time in three dimensions for three different initial lattice
depths: 5ER (circles), 8ER (triangles), and 15ER (squares). Each data set is normalized to the Bragg intensity at the initial time. Revivals at lower lattice depths indicate
coherence of the atoms across multiple lattice sites. The lines are phenomenologicalfits to exponentially decaying sine waves. Different lattice depth data are offset forclarity and the error bar is represenative. Inset is a solution to the one-dimensional
Gross-Pitaevskii equation with experimental parameters and an initial state of a chainof gaussian wavefunctions, showing the revivals of the density distribution as a function of time. The white dotted line represents the revival time.

63

200
150
100

Norm. Revival Intensity (arb.)

Revival Intensity (arb.)

250

50
0
4

6

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

8
10
12
Lattice Depth (ER)

14

16

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

Figure 3-9: Bragg scattering revival as a probe of superfluid coherence. Top: Bragg
scattered revival signal at 60 µs vs. lattice depth. Bottom: The top plot normalized to the Bragg scattered signal without expansion. We see a decrease in revival,
and consequently superfluid coherence, as the lattice is increased. Error bars are
statistical.

ligible effect on the decay of revivals. Empirically, randomizing the phase between
neighboring sites reduces the revival fraction. The loss of phase coherence acrosslattice sites could be due to factors such as temperature, beyond Gross-Pitaevskii
equation effects, or technical factors. We have considered quantum depletion [118],
but the calculated depletion fraction at 5ER is 2%, too low to account for the observed
decay. Future work should provide a more complete picture of the decay of revivals.
Note that Bragg scattered revivals are complementary to the observation of diffraction peaks in time-of-flight absorption images [42]. Both are based on matter-wave
interference due to superfluid coherence: revivals at short expansion times and diffrac64

tion at long expansion times. Diffraction is a far-field effect only possible for finite
size samples, whereas revivals are a near-field bulk effect. The order of the revivalor the angular resolution of the diffraction peaks determine whether these techniques
probe short-range or long-range spatial coherence. Further studies are needed to determine which technique is more sensitive to certain aspects of the superfluid to Mott
insulator transition.
In this work we have not focused on the effects of occupation number on Bragg
scattering. In principle the atomic wavefunctions are more extended for higher occupation numbers, but this effect is small for our parameters. However, light scattering
at higher occupation numbers will have an inelastic component due to colliding atoms
or photoassociation [34]. The dependence of Bragg scattering on lattice depth suggests that these effects are not dominant.
To examine this, we measured the Bragg reflection by varying the lattice ramp
up time, where the ramp up was up to 15ER . The Bragg reflection was essentially
unaffected by the ramp up time down to 1 ms, where we do not necessarily expect thelattice ramp up to be adiabatic and therefore could expect the occupation number of
the atoms to be randomly distributed. This shows that the Bragg reflection is simply
a manifestation of the underlying crystal ordering, and does not depend strongly on
the exact filling of the atoms in the optical lattice.

3.6

Conclusions

After Bragg scattering has been established as a probe for Mott insulators, it can
now be applied to study other types of quantum phases such as antiferromagnetic
ordering in both the occupation number and spin sectors [21, 93]. Although temperatures required to realize spin ordering are on the order of tens to hundreds of
picokelvins, recent experimental results suggest a way forward to lower the temperature of a two-component Mott insulator [76].
To detect spin ordering such as the antiferromagnetic state, we need spin-dependent
Bragg scattering. Since spins in an ultracold atom context will be different hyperfine
65

states, by choosing an appropriate wavelength of the Bragg beam one can scatterselectively from a chosen state as well as scatter in a spin independent way [21]. Thus
Bragg scattering will allow experimentalists to probe both density and spin ordering
by varying the Bragg beam wavelength.
In conclusion, we have observed Bragg scattering of near-resonant photons from aquantum degenerate Bose gas in a three-dimensional optical lattice. We have shownthat this technique probes not only the periodic structure of the atoms, but also thespatial and momentum width of the localized atomic wavefunctions and the superfluid
coherence.

66

Chapter 4
Raman-Assisted Tunneling and theHarper Hamiltonian
Ultracold atoms in optical lattices have ushered in an era of unprecedented controllability, tunability, and flexibility in the study of strongly-correlated many body
physics, both experimentally and theoretically [13, 70, 42]. Here we propose and experimentally study a scheme where one can experimentally realize the Harper Hamiltonian with ultracold atoms in optical lattices. The Harper Hamiltonian was described in section 2.5, and is expected to give rise to a fractal band structure called
the Hofstadter butterfly [52], shown in Fig. 2-7, mimicing solids in extremely highmagnetic fields of order one billion gauss. Once interactions are included, the Harper
Hamiltonian is believed to give rise to fractional quantum Hall states, which would
allow the experimental study of fascinating topological phases of matter [94, 48].
We have emphasized how ultracold atomic systems can simulate the behavior ofelectrons in solid state materials. However many interesting effects, such as the integer and fractional quantum Hall effects [107, 68], occur when a solid is placed in an
external magnetic field. Due to the charge neutrality of ultracold atoms, one cannot
directly apply a magnetic field to a cold atom system and expect a similar response
as an electron in a solid. Despite this seeming limitation, there are ways to create
effective magnetic fields which lead to Hamiltonians as if the atoms were moving ina magnetic field with an effective charge. The method initially realized by experi67

mentalists was to physically rotate the atomic cloud to genereate rotational velocity,which then acted as an effective magnetic field giving rise to quantized vortices in bulk
Bose-Einstein condensates [74, 1]. The seminal work by Ian Spielman’s group [72]realized effective magnetic fields by taking advantage of Raman transitions between
different hyperfine states, thus paving the way for optical realizations of effective
magnetic fields.
Other methods to generate artificial gauge fields have been proposed by Jaksch andZoller [59] and Gerbier and Dalibard [37], which involve Raman transitions but now
in an optical lattice geometry. Both schemes envision a two-component system, where
the lattices of the two components are offset by half a lattice spacing. The Raman
transitions induce tunneling between the two sub-lattices, in the process imprinting
a position-dependent phase.
Furthermore, there have been experimental realizations of a spatially-independent
phase by the Sengstock [101] and Spielman groups [60], as well as a staggered flux
arrangement by the Bloch group [3]. The Sengstock group realizes their phase by aparticular type of lattice phase modulation, the Spielman group uses Raman transitions and radiofrequency magnetic fields, and the Bloch group uses a superlattice inconjunction with Raman beams. Although all three results have led to new insights
into the nature of phases in ultracold atomic systems, they have limitations if one ishoping to reach high enclosed fluxes per unit cell. In particular, the Sengstock andSpielman approaches as it is only create a spatially-independent phase, which does
not give rise to any enclosed flux. In the Bloch approach, because the superlattice
can only create a staggered flux arrangement, no globally macroscopic enclosed flux
is possible. In all three of these cases, rectification of the fluxes to create a spatiallyvarying flux seem to be in principle possible, but the proposed schemes involve many
more laser beams and requires further complexity in the experimental arrangement.
In contrast, our proposed technique involves only two lattice laser beams and two
running wave Raman beams and a single spin state of bosonic 87 Rb, which is significantly more simple than the other proposed schemes and should allow access to any
desired enclosed flux with simple modifications to the experimental geometry.
68Figure 4-1: Schematic of a tilted lattice and Raman beams to create artificial gauge
fields. The tilt induces an energy offset ∆ between neighborin sites. Then Raman
beams that are frequency detuned by exactly ∆ can cause transitions between localized states in nearest neighbors. Furthermore, this tunneling can have a positiondependent phase which gives rise to topologically non-trivial ground states.

Our proposal involves realizing the topologically non-trivial Harper Hamiltonianby creating a two-dimensional optical lattice with a linear potential gradient along
one of the lattice directions. As it is, this tilted potential causes a suppression ofresonant tunneling along the tilt direction and only allows resonant tunneling along
the direction perpendicular to the tilt. Then on top of that two laser beams areapplied which are frequency detuned to precisely match the energy offset caused by
the linear potential. Then these two laser beams are able to induce a Raman transition
between a localized state in one lattice site to a nearest neighbor lattice site in the tilt
direction, effectively flattening out the tilt. Thus we call these two beams our Raman
beams. Crucially, in addition to restoring tunneling, these running wave Raman
beams can imprint a position-dependent phase on the atoms, which then results in
the Harper Hamiltonian. A schematic of this setup is shown in Fig. 4-1. Note thatthe tilt can be created by any physical mechanism which creates a linear potential
gradient, including gravity and magnetic field gradients.
69

In the rest of this chapter, I will describe in more detail the theoretical underpinnings of the scheme, as well as present experimental results which give indications
that we have successfully created the Harper Hamiltonian. However, thus far we havebeen unable to observe direct signatures of the ground state of the Harper Hamiltonian, namely superfluid interference peaks corresponding to the band structure of theHarper Hamiltonian.

4.1

Raman-Assisted Tunneling in the Perturbative Limit

Modification of tunneling in an optical lattice system by dynamical modulationof the lattice have been explored by other groups, notably the Arimondo and Tinogroups in Italy [71, 92, 56, 6, 5, 103]. Our proposed Raman beams are in the same
spirit, since two laser beams which induce a Raman transition can be thought of asa travelling wave optical lattice.
In particular, two Raman lasers with wavevectors k1 and k2 and lattice depth VK
can induce tunneling through a time-dependent potential
VK (r, t) = VK cos2 (q · r − ωt/2)= VK

1 + cos(2q · r − ωt)2VK
1 + ei(2q·r−ωt) + e−i(2q·r−ωt)
4VK=
1 + ei(δk·r−ωt) + e−i(δk·r−ωt) ,
4

=

(4.1)
(4.2)
(4.3)
(4.4)

where ω is the frequency detuning between the two Raman beams, 2q = δk, δk =k1 − k2 , and q = (k1 − k2 )/2.
Let us assume that the linear tilt exists in the x direction with an energy offset
between nearest neighbor lattice sites of ∆ and that the detuning of the Raman beams
is exactly ∆. Then in the perturbative limit of VK  ∆ and in the rotating wave
70

approximation, the laser-assisted tunneling term can be writtenZ
VKK=
d2 rw∗ (r − R)w(r − R − dx )e−iδk·r
4ZVK=
d2 rw∗ (r)w(r − dx )e−iδk·(r+R)
4Z−iδk·R VK=ed2 rw∗ (r)w(r − dx )e−iδk·r
4ZV−iδk·R K=edxw∗ (x)w(x − dx )e−iδkx x
4
Z× dxw∗ (y)w(y)e−iδky y= K0 e−δk·R ,

(4.5)
(4.6)
(4.7)
(4.8)
(4.9)
(4.10)

R
where K0 = VK /4 d2 rw∗ (r)w(r−dx )e−iδk·r , and w(r) = w(x)w(y) where w(x) is theWannier-Stark state due to the linear tilt in the x direction and w(y) is the Wannierfunction. The position-dependent phase which gives rise to the Harper Hamiltonian isembodied in the factor δk·R. I plot the absolute value of the relevant overlap integrals
present in the Raman-assisted tunneling expression in Fig. 4-2. The overlap integralsteach us something interesting about the requirements to achieve position-dependent
phases under realistic conditions.
We see that the overlap integral involving the Wannier-Stark states in the tilt
direction exhibits oscillatory behavior. In particular, we learn that there must be a
non-zero momentum transfer in the tilt direction for the Raman-assisted tunneling to
be strong enough to induce tunneling. This is an important point, since from phaseaccumulation considerations, all one needs is momentum transfer in the direction
orthogonal to the tilt. Thus to get position-dependent phase which gives rise to nonzero enclosed flux and a sizable tunneling amplitude, the Raman beams must transfer
momentum along both the direction of the tilt and orthogonal to it.
Note that VK can be related to the two-photon Rabi frequency of the two Raman lasers, which is also related to the one-photon Rabi frequency of the individual
lasers. Knowing the precise relationship between the lattice depth and two-photon
Rabi frequency is important when we calibrate the strength of our Raman beams by
71

0.08

1.4
〈0|eikx|1〉〈0|eiky|0〉

0.07

1.2

1
Overlap Integral

Overlap Integral

0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03

0.6

0.4

0.02

0.2

0.01
0

0.8

0

2

4

6

8

0

10

0

2

k (2π/λ)

4

6

8

10

k (2π/λ)Figure 4-2: Overlap integrals for perturbative Raman coupling. The integral in thex direction is done with Wannier-Stark states and the integral in the y direction isdone with Wannier states.

measuring the two-photon Rabi oscillation frequency between states with momentum
0 and k1 − k2 .
The two-photon Rabi frequency ΩR2 is given as [59]ΩR2 =ΩRg ΩRe
2δ

(4.11)

where ΩRg,e are the one-photon Rabi frequency of each of the Raman beams and δ isthe detuning between the Raman laser and the D1 and/or D2 lines. The one-photon
Rabi frequency is given by ~Ω = eEhe|z|gi where e is the electron charge, E is theelectric field, and ehe|z|gi ≡ D is the electric dipole moment [35]. The two-photon
Rabi oscillation from the ground state |gi to an excited state |ei, starting in |gi is

given by Pe (t) = sin2 (ΩR2 t/2). This means that the population transfer oscillates atfrequency ΩR2 .
Now, the moving lattice depth VK is given by VK = ~ΩRg ΩRe /δ [80]. This canbe understood by recalling that the single traveling wave AC Stark shift is given as~Ω2Rg /(4δ). Interference of two laser beams leads to a multiplicative factor of 4. So,
combining all that, the two-photon Rabi oscillation frequency ΩR2 is related to the72Raman lattice depth VK as
VK = 2ΩR2 .

(4.12)

Note that in general K0 is complex and so can have some non-zero phase inaddition to the spatially-dependent phase give by δk·R. But for a given configuration,
the phase is not spatially dependent so is effectively a global, constant phase.

4.1.1

Energy Hierarchy to Realize the Harper Hamiltonian

Certain inequalities must be satisfied in order to realize the Harper Hamiltonian.
First, the band gap ω must be larger than any other energy scale so that the atoms
do not occupy higher orbital states. In particular, if the potential tilt ∆ is equal
to the band gap, Wannier-Stark transitions, where states in the lowest band in one
lattice site become resonant with states in the first excited band in a neighboring site,
will be allowed to happen, therefore destroying the requirement to be in the lowest
band [45, 40]. Therefore the potential tilt ∆ must be smaller than ω.
A second requirement is for the bare tunneling energy J to be smaller than thepotential tilt ∆. If this condition is not satisfied, then resonant tunneling can bestronger than the light-assisted tunneling and consequently position-dependent phaseupon tunneling will not manifest itself.
These two conditions lead to the following energy hierarchy,J  ∆  ω.

(4.13)For 87 Rb, the mass is 1.443 × 10−25 kg [97], and for a lattice spaced apart 532
nm, the potential tilt due to gravity is 1137 Hz. Similar tilts can also be achieved
for atoms in the hyperfine state |F = 2, mF = −2i with a magnetic field gradient ofaround 15 G/cm, which is experimentally accessible. For lattice depths of 10ER , thetunneling energy J is around 45 Hz and the band gap is around 10 kHz. Thus theseexperimentally accessible parameters will satisfy the inequalities necessary to realize73the Harper Hamiltonian.

4.2

Experimental Geometries to Realize Specific α

As shown in section 4.1, the factor δk · R gives rise to the non-trivial topological phase in the Harper Hamiltonian. Therefore, controlling the angle between the
Raman beams and the two-dimensional lattice axes are crucial to realize the Harper
Hamiltonian with a particular α. First I explore the possible α for an arbitrary Raman geometry in a square lattice, and then focus on a specific geometry which wehave implemented which should give rise to α = 1/2.
Let us consider a 2D geometry where the lattice and Raman beams are propagating
in a 2D plane as in Fig. 4-3. Let the lattice be square along the x and y axes andhave spacing a, so that the position vector is R = a(mx̂ + nŷ). Also, let the difference
in k vectors of the two Raman beams k1 and k2 be k = k1 − k2 so that if the angle
between k1 and k2 is θ and k1 = k2 = 2π/λ, then |k| ≡ k = 4π/λ| sin(θ/2)|. Also, in
this lattice coordinates write k = k(cos φx̂ + sin φŷ). The phase is θ
k · R = 2π sin(m cos φ + n sin φ)2= mφx + nφy ,(4.14)(4.15)

where we defined φx = 2π| sin(θ/2)| cos φ and φy = 2π| sin(θ/2)| sin φ. Now assume
the tilt is in the x direction. Then the phase accumulated is as given in the left ofFig. 4-3. We see that the flux accumulated along one unit cell is Φ = φy , whichcorresponds to a magnetic flux per plaquette of α = φy /2π. If the tilt is in the y
direction, then the phase accumulated is as given in the right of Fig. 4-3. We see thatthe flux accumulated along one unit cell is Φ = φx which corresponds to a magnetic
flux per plaquette of α = φx /2π. Thus we see that if the linear tilt is along a given
direction, the total phase accumulated after one full rotation around a plaquette isgiven by the phase that depends on the perpendicular direction.
74

(a)
n
! x 3! y

3
2

x

(b)

k

k1
k ! k1 k 2Raman
k 2 Beamsn!

2! x 3! y

2! x

2 y

3
Linear
Tilt

2! y

x

1

! y

2 x! y

2

x

2 y

2! x

2! y

x

! y

2 x! y3! x ! y

1

2

3

3 x

2 y

2

y
1

Linear
Tilt

y

1
3

m

x

m

x

Figure 4-3: Tilt and phase accumulated for general Raman geometry. Left figure istilt along the x direction, the right figure is tilt along the y direction. Note φx =2π| sin(θ/2)| cos φ and φy = 2π| sin(θ/2)| sin φ.

4.2.1

Experimental Geometry for α = 1/2

Now consider the specific case where the Raman beams are copropagating along
the lattice beam directions so that k1 = 2π/λx̂ and k2 = 2π/λŷ. A schematic isshown in Fig. 4-4. In this case, we have θ = 90◦ and φ = −45◦ , so we get thatk · R = π(m − n).

(4.16)

With a linear tilt along the x direction, the total phase accumulated around one
plaquette is given by Φ = π. This phase then corresponds to a flux density perplaquette of α = 1/2 and will be the geometry I will be focusing on for most of therest of this chapter.

4.3

Raman-Assisted Tunneling in the Rotating Frame

In section 4.1 we showed the effective Raman-assisted tunneling and accompanying
position-dependent phase factor which gives rise to effective magnetic fields in theperturbative regime. Here I derive a more general expression for the Raman-assisted
tunneling which include both the position-dependent phase and saturation of thetunneling amplitude. The effective tunneling can be solved for more general cases by
75

n

k2

3

0

k ! k1 k 2
k1

Linear
Tilt

0

2

y

0

1
1

2

3

m

x

Figure 4-4: Experimental geometry for α = 1/2. The phase accumulated along thetilt alternates between 0 and π.

rewriting the original Hamiltonian into a time-independent Hamiltonian with effective
tunneling by using the rotating-wave approxiation [103].
If you have a two-dimensional system with a square 2D lattice VL (x, y) with latticespacing a and a linear tilt with energy per lattice site of ∆ in the x direction and an
additional term E(x, y, t), we can write the Hamiltonian as
H=

p2y
p2x
∆
+
+ VL (x, y) + x + E(x, y, t).
2m 2m
a(4.17)

This can be rewritten into a second quantized, time-dependent Hamiltonian of theform [103]

H=

X
m,n

∆m|m, nihm, n| − Jy

X(|m, n + 1ihm, n| + c.c.)

m,n

+

X
m,m0 ,n,n0

76|m, nihm, n|E(x, t)|m0 , n0 ihm0 , n0 |, (4.18)

2.5
Lattice
coskx
sinkx
〈x|0〉
〈x|1〉

Wavefunction and Potential (arb.)

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

−0.5

−1
−2

−1

0

1

2

3

Position (λ/2)

Figure 4-5: Tilt and Wannier-Stark states. Sines and cosines are also depicted to geta better sense for how the overlap integrals should behave.

where |m, ni ≡ |mix ⊗ |niy , |mix is the Wannier-Stark state centered at site min the x direction [45, 40], |niy is the Wannier state centered at site n in the y
direction, and Jy is the bare tunneling in the y direction just as in the Bose-Hubbard
Hamiltonian. The Wannier-Stark states are shown in Fig. 4-5. From this Hamiltonian,a unitary transformation can be performed which eliminates the time-dependence inthe rotating wave approximation.
The following identities are necessary to proceed and can be derived from thedefinition of exponentiated operators and the properties of bra and ket operators.
hm|ni = δmn(4.19)(|mihm|)n = |mihm|(4.20)

e−ix|mihm| eix|mihm| = |mihm|
XXP
e−i m x|mihm| =e−ix|mihm| =e−ix |mihm|.
m(4.21)(4.22)m

Our Raman beams create a potential of the formE(x, y, t) = Ω sin(2q · r − ωt).

(4.23)

Recall that 2q = k1 − k2 and for the specific case under consdieration k1 = kx̂,77

k2 = kŷ and k = 2π/λ. The relevant matrix elements are then hm, n| sin(2q · r −ωt)|m + l, n + pi. With a change of variables using the symmetry of the system, we
can write
hm, n| sin(2q · r − ωt)|m + l, n + pi = h0, 0| sin(2q · (r + Rm,n ) − ωt)|l, pi,(4.24)

where Rm,n = max̂ + naŷ. In general, we can write 2q · r = kx x + ky y. We let
θm,n = ωt − 2q · Rm,n and φm,n = 2q · Rm,n . Then we get the matrix element in thex direction to be
h0, 0| sin(2q · (r + Rm,n ) − ωt)|l, 0i = h0, 0| sin(kx x + ky y − θm,n )|l, 0i(4.25)= h0, 0| sin kx x cos ky y cos θm,n(4.26)+ sin kx x sin ky y sin θm,n(4.27)+ cos kx x sin ky y cos θm,n
− cos kx x cos ky y sin θm,n |l, 0i= − sin θm,n h0| cos kx x|li.

(4.28)(4.29)(4.30)

Note that we have used the approximations h0| sin kx x|li = h0| sin ky y|0i = 0, due tothe asymmetry in the Wannier-Stark state and h0| cos ky y|0i = 1. We are primarily
interested in nearest neighbor tunneling, so we need only consider l = 0, 1. Then
we can approximate h0| cos kx x|0i = 1 and h0| cos kx x|1i = −2Jx /∆. A numericalevaluation of these integrals shown in Fig. 4-6 support these approximations.
Similar analysis shows that the matrix element in the y direction becomes
h0, 0| sin(2q · (r + Rm,n ) − ωt)|0, 1i = cos θm,n h0| sin ky y|1i,(4.31)

where we used the approximations h0| sin kx x|0i = h0| cos ky y|1i = 0, and h0| cos kx x|0i
= 1. Now numerically for typical experimental parameters of lattice depth 10ER andtilt per lattice site of 1 kHz, we find that h0| sin ky y|1i ≈ 0.01. The off-diagonal termin the y direction then will have a component with strength Jy and 0.01Ω cos θm,n .
78

1.4

0.08

〈0|coskx|0〉〈0|cosky|0〉

1.2

0.06
Overlap Integral

1Overlap Integral〈0|sinkx|0〉〈0|coskx|1〉〈0|sinkx|1〉〈0|sinky|0〉〈0|cosky|1〉〈0|sinky|1〉
2J/∆

0.07

0.8

0.6

0.05
0.04
0.03

0.4
0.02

0.2

0

0.01

0

2

4

6

8

0

10

0

k (2π/λ)

2

4

6

8

10

k (2π/λ)Figure 4-6: Overlap integrals to calculate Raman-assisted tunneling. The integrals
involving x are done with Wannier-Stark states and the integrals involving y are donewith Wannier states. The calculations were done assuming a lattice depth of 10ER
in both x and y directions the linear tilt along x was assumed to be 1 kHz per latticesite.

To be able to neglect this time-dependent term, we need Jy  0.01Ω. For lattice
depth 10ER , we have Jy = 45 Hz and typically Ω ≈ 1 kHz, so we marginally have
Jy  0.01Ω. In any case, in the perturbative regime of Ω/∆  1, this time-dependent
term will be even less important.
So the relevant terms in the Hamiltonian becomehm, n| sin(2q · r − ωt)|m, ni = − sin(ωt − 2q · Rm,n )hm, n| sin(2q · r − ωt)|m + 1, ni =2Jxsin(ωt − 2q · Rm,n )∆hm, n| sin(2q · r − ωt)|m, n + 1i = 0.

(4.32)(4.33)(4.34)

So our Hamiltonian becomesX
X  2ΩJx
H=(∆m − Ω sin θm,n )|m, nihm, n| +sin θm,n |m + 1, nihm, n| + h.c.
∆
m,n
m,n
X
−
[Jy |m, n + 1ihm, n| + h.c.] . (4.35)m,n79

To get rid of our time-dependence, we can define a unitary transformation"
U = exp −i

X
m,n

"
= exp −i
=

X
m,n

X

#

Ω
mωt +
cos θm,n |m, nihm, n|~ω#(4.36)

Λm,n |m, nihm, n|(4.37)

exp [−iΛm,n ] |m, nihm, n|(4.38)m,nΩ
cos θm,n . Then in the rotating frame, the Hamiltonian transwhere Λm,n = mωt + ~ω

forms asH 0 = U HU 0 − i~U

dU
.
dt

(4.39)The time derivative term in the transformed Hamiltonian gets rid of the time dependence in the diagonal term and replaces ∆ with δ ∼ ∆ − ω, which becomes zero if you
drive the system on resonance, which is the situation we are considering. Since U is
diagonal, it has no effect on the diagonal terms of H. So we can focus our attention
on the off-diagonal terms of the transformation.

First we consider how the off-diagonal coupling in the x direction transform.
)(x
U Hoff−diagU0 =X

exp [−iΛm0 ,n0 ] |m0 , n0 ihm0 , n0 |m0 ,n02ΩJx
sin θm,n |m + 1, nihm, n|∆(4.40)(
×)
X

m00 ,n00

exp [iΛm00 ,n00 ] |m00 , n00 ihm00 , n00 |= exp [−iΛm+1,n ] |m + 1, ni=

2ΩJx
sin θm,n exp [iΛm,n ] hm, n|∆2ΩJx
sin θm,n ei(Λm,n −Λm+1,n ) |m + 1, nihm, n|.
∆(4.41)(4.42)(4.43)

Keep in mind the complex conjugate term exists but behaves almost identically. The
80

exponential term can be simplified asi(Λm,n −Λm+1,n )

e



Ω
Ω
cos θm,n − (m + 1)ωt −cos θm+1,n= exp i mωt +
~ω
~ω


Ω
= exp i −ωt +(cos θm,n − cos θm+1,n )
~ω





Ω
kx a
kx a
= exp i −ωt − 2sinsin θm,n −~ω22= e−iωt eiΓ sin(θm,n −kx a/2)X
Jp (Γ)eip(θm,n −kx a/2) .
= e−iωt(4.44)(4.45)(4.46)(4.47)(4.48)pΩ
where Γ = −2 ~ω
sin

kx a
2



and with the relationship eiΓ sin θ =P

p Jp (Γ)eipθ. Withthis, the off-diagonal term in the x direction can be written
2ΩJx eiωt−iφm,n − e−iωt+iφm,n2ΩJx
sin φm,n ei(Λm,n −Λm+1,n ) =∆∆2i
X× e−iωt
Jp (Γ)eip(ωt−φm,n −kx a/2)

(4.49)(4.50)pΩJx −iφm,n=e
J0 (Γ) − e−iφm,n −ikx a J2 (Γ)
i∆ΩJx −iφm,n=e(J0 (Γ) + J2 (Γ))
i∆ΩJx −iφm,n 2=e
J1 (Γ)i∆Γ 
i~ωJx −iφm,n
2Ω
=−
e
J1
∆
~ω

(4.51)(4.52)(4.53)(4.54)Ω
where we used kx a = π, the identity J0 (x) + J2 (x) = 2/xJ1 (x), and Γ = −2 ~ωandneglected all terms which have time dependence.

Now let us consider the off-diagonal term corresponding to tunneling along the y81direction which is the direction perpendicular to the tilt.
(

)
X

y
U0 = −U Hoff−diagm0 ,n0exp [−iΛm0 ,n0 ] |m0 , n0 ihm0 , n0 | Jy |m, n + 1ihm, n|((4.55))X

exp [iΛm00 ,n00 ] |m00 , n00 ihm00 , n00 |(4.56)= − exp [−iΛm,n+1 ] |m, n + 1iJy exp [iΛm,n ] hm, n|(4.57)= −Jy ei(Λm,n −Λm,n+1 ) |m, n + 1ihm, n|.

(4.58)

×m00 ,n00

The exponential term in this case becomesi(Λm,n −Λm,n+1 )

e



Ω
Ω
= exp i mωt +cos θm,n − mωt −cos θm,n+1
~ω
~ω


Ω
(cos θm,n − cos θm,n+1 )= exp i
~ω





Ω
ky a
ky a
= exp i −2sinsin θm,n −
~ω
2
2


(4.59)(4.60)(4.61)= eiΓ sin(θm,n −ky a/2)X
Jp (Γ)eip(θm,n −ky a/2) .
=(4.62)(4.63)

pwhere we used the relationship eiΓ sin θ =

Ω
ipθ
sin
and Γ = −2 ~ω
p Jp (Γ)e

P



ky a
2



.

Then keeping only time independent terms, we have
−Jy ei(Λm,n −Λm,n+1 ) = −JyX

Jp (Γ)eip(θm,n −ky a/2)

(4.64)= −Jy J0 (Γ)



Ω
ky a
= −Jy J0 −2
sin
~ω
2
 
2Ω
,
= −Jy J0~ω(4.65)

pwhere we used the fact ky a = π and J0 (x) = J0 (−x).
82(4.66)(4.67)

In the case of resonant driving, ~ω = ∆ so ultimately we obtain
 

X
VK
−iφm,nJx J1|m + 1, nihm, n| + h.c.
H =
−ie
∆
m,n
 

X
VK
−
Jy J0
|m, n + 1ihm, n| + h.c. . (4.68)
∆
m,n
0

4.3.1

Perturbative and Exact Raman-Assisted Tunneling

So far we have considered two approaches to determining the laser-assisted tunneling. One was perturbative, giving rise to a Raman-assisted tunneling term which
depended linearly on the Raman lattice depth, and the second involved a more explicit
treatment of the time-dependent term which showed saturation in the magnitude.
Both approaches give rise to the position-dependent phase which is crucial inrealizing artificial gauge fields. However, the dependence of the magnitude of Ramanassisted tunneling on the Raman lattice depth is different for the two approaches. The
two expressions are
Z
VK
Kpert =
dxw∗ (x)w(x − dx )e−iδkx x
4
Z× dxw∗ (y)w(y)e−iδky y VK|Kexact | = J J1.
∆

(4.69)(4.70)(4.71)

We can numerically check how close the two magnitudes are. This is shown in Fig. 47, where we had a lattice depth of 10ER and an energy tilt between adjacent sites of
1 kHz. We see good agreement between the two results for VK /∆ . 2.

4.4

Amplitude and Phase Modulation Tunneling

It is possible to relate the mechanism of Raman-assisted tunneling to amplitude
and phase modulation of the underlying lattice.
83

50|K| (Hz)

40

Exact K
Perturbative K

30
20
10
0
0

0.5

1

1.5
V /∆

2

2.5

3

K

Figure 4-7: Perturbative and exact treatment of Raman-assisted tunneling. We assumed a lattice depth of 10ER and an energy tilt between adjacent sites of 1 kHz.

84

In the case of amplitude modulation, in 1D the Hamiltonian can be written [103]
HAM =

∆
p2x
+ VL (x)(1 + α sin ωt) + x,2m
a(4.72)

where α is the modulation fraction and is such that 0 ≤ α ≤ 1 and we write VL (x) =−U0 /2 cos(2kx) where k = 2π/a. In second quantized form in the Wannier-Starkbasis this Hamiltonian becomes
HAM = −

X

∆n|nihn| +X  αU0n2hn + 1| cos 2kx|ni sin ωt|n + 1ihn| + h.c. .
(4.73)

Then a unitary transformation similar to what I performed in the previous section
gives, on resonance at ~ω = ∆,0HAM=

X  iαU0n4hn + 1| cos 2kx|ni|n + 1ihn| + h.c. .

(4.74)

Thus we see that the bare Hamiltonian in the Wannier-Stark basis has time-dependent
off-diagonal terms but time-independent diagonal terms, which in the rotating wave
can be written as a Hamiltonian with effective time-independent tunneling. In particular, the result permits a unlimited increase in the effective tunneling amplitude if one
drives the modulation harder and harder in the frame where the lattice is stationary.

In the case of phase modulation, the lattice in the laboratory frame can be written
as V = −U0 /2 cos[2k(x − x0 sin ωt)] where x0 and ω are the modulation amplitudeand frequency [75]. In a frame accelerating at exactly the phase modulation, theHamiltonian can be written [71, 92, 56, 103]
p2x∆
+ VL (x) + βx sin ωt + x,
HPM =
2m
a

(4.75)

where we have the atomic mass m and β = mx0 ω 2 . With this, in the Wannier-Stark
85

basis the Hamiltonian becomes
HPM = −

Xn(∆ + βa sin ωt)|nihn| −X[βhn + 1|x|ni sin ωt|n + 1ihn| + h.c.] .

n(4.76)
Then in the appropriate rotating frame the Hamiltonian becomes0
HPM=

X  i∆hn + 1|x|ni
n

a


J1

βa
∆




|n + 1ihn| + h.c. .

(4.77)

Note that in this case the effective tunneling amplitude has a maximum possible value
limited by the maximum of the Bessel function as in Raman-assisted tunneling [92].

4.5

Experimental Studies of Amplitude Modulation (AM) Tunneling

Due to the fundamentally related phenomenon of ampltidue modulation (AM)tunneling and Raman-assisted tunneling, we have used amplitude modulation as atesting ground to understand under what parameter regimes we observe Ramanassisted tunneling. Experimentally, AM is much easier to implement since it canbe implemented in 1D and does not require any other laser beams aside from thatwhich is creating the lattice. AM tunneling has been experimentally explored byother groups, most notably the group of Guglielmo Tino [6, 5, 103].

4.5.1

Experimental Sequence for AM Tunneling

For our initial experiments, we have used gravity as our linear potential tilt, whichshould create an energy offset per lattice site with 532 nm spacing of 1137 Hz. Our
experimental sequence is as follows. Using standard optical and evaporative coolingtechniques [100] to achieve a Bose-Einstein condensate of a few hundred thousand
atoms, we transfer the atoms which are in the |F = 1, mF = −1i hyperfine state intoa crossed optical dipole trap with trap frequencies in the range of 30 to 160 Hz. At86that point, we adiabatically ramp up a 1D optical lattice in the direction of gravity
which is created by retroreflecting a single laser beam in about 200 ms. Then we
extinguished our crossed dipole traps in 200 ms (we also attempted to extinguisheven faster, but aside from center-of-mass motion perpendicular to the lattice, thishad no discernable effect on the results presented here). At this point, the atoms
are held only by an optical lattice pointing in the vertical direction. Confinementin the vertical direction is provided by the optical lattice, and confinement in theperpendicular direction is provided by the gaussian envelope of the lattice beam.
Furthermore, by extinguishing the crossed optical dipole traps, that automaticallycreates a linear gradient with exactly the strength of gravity. The lowering of theconfinement in the perpendicular direction appears to help to reduce density andinhomogeneous tilts due to curvature. At this point, we begin to modulate the lattice
depth and perform measurements.

4.5.2

In Situ Measurements of AM Tunneling

Our initial measurements were performed in situ, by taking absorption images of
the atoms in the optical lattice. When the potential gradient is present, the atoms areunable to tunnel because they are off-resonant. Modulation of the lattice amplitude
reestablishes tunneling as described in a previous section. This AM tunneling thenallows the atom cloud to expand symmetrically in the vertical direction due to thelack of confinement in addition to the lattice. Thus measuring the spatial width of
the atomic cloud after modulation gives an indication of the strength of tunneling.
The way we determined the resonance frequency of AM tunneling was to modulate
an originally static lattice with a depth of 10ER for 501 cycles of modulation with
an amplitude of 2ER and repeat the experiment for various modulation frequencies.
This result is shown in the top left of Fig. 4-8. Fitting the data to a lorentzian,
we determine the resonance to be at 1133.5 ± 0.5 Hz and the width to be 2.2 ± 0.2
where the uncertainties indicate 95% confidence intervals (note this is equivalent to
two standard deviations). From the fact that g = 9.81 m/s2 , we expect the resonanceat 1137 Hz. The discrepancy is primarily expected to be due to slight misalignment87

In Situ Width (µm)

25

20

15

10

5
9

10

11

12 13 14 15
Lattice Depth (E )

16

17

2
3
4
5
Modulation Amplitude (E )

6

7

R

60

20

In Situ Width (µm)

In Situ Width (µm)

50
40
30
20

15

10

5

10
0
0

200
400
600
800
Modulation Cycles at 1133.5 Hz

0
0

1000

1

R

Figure 4-8: In situ amplitude modulation tunneling measurements. Top left: In situ
width of the atomic cloud as a function of AM frequency. Inset is a representative
atom distribution on and off resonance observed by absorption imaging. Top right:
Atom width as a function of lattice depth for modulation on resonance at 1133.5 Hz.
Curve is a plot of the square of the analytical expression for the tunneling matrix
element, whose close agreement with data suggests that the width increases as thesquare of the tunneling matrix element. Bottom left: Atom width as a function of thenumber of modulation cycles. The curve is a fit of the data to a parabola. Bottom
right: Atom width as a function of modulation amplitude. The curve is a fit of thedata to a parabola. Both bottom curves suggest the width increases as the square of
the tunneling matrix element, (aJt)2 .

88

of the laser beams.
We also studied the dependence of the in situ width on the lattice depth. Our
static lattice was at a depth of 10ER , on resonance at 1133.5 Hz and modulated for
501 cycles at an amplitude of 2ER . This is shown in the top right of Fig. 4-8. I
also plot the analytic expression for the square of resonant tunneling with only one
fitting parameter which determines the overall proportionality factor. The analytic
expression for resonant tunneling in a flat lattice with lattice depth VL is given as [29]r

4 1/4 3/4 −2
J = √ ER VL e
π

VL
ER

.

(4.78)

We can write VL = NL ER , so in the figure I plot the square of this up to some
proportionality factor C, as
3/2√

σ(VL ) = CVL e−4 NL .

(4.79)

It is reasonable to expect the width to increase as a function of the value aJt wheret is the modulation time and a is the lattice spacing. The close agreement between
data and the analytic expression suggests that the width increases as the square of
the tunneling, σ ∝ (aJt)2 . The following two data sets are consistent with tunnelingincreasing the size as (aJt)2 .
We further studied the in situ width as a function of the number of modulation
cycles and modulation amplitude. These are plotted in the left bottom and rightbottom of Fig. 4-8, respectively. The data are well-fitted by parabolic curves, again
indicating that the width increases as the square of tunneling, or (aJt)2 .
Note that in general, ballistic expansion goes linearly in time, and diffusive expansion goes as the square root of time. Thus the expansion behavior observed in
our measurements is not compatible with either, and could be due to heating effects.
Further study is needed to fully understand the expansion behavior of the atomic
cloud.
89

TOF
Images
Lattice
Depth
10ER
501.00501.25501.50501.75502.00

CyclesFigure 4-9: Evolution of superfluid peaks under lattice amplitude modulation. These
data were taken at a lattice depth of 10ER and modulation amplitude of 2ER . Notethat the particular interference pattern depends on the particular phase of the modulation when the atoms are released from the lattice.

4.5.3

Time-of-Flight Measurements of AM Tunneling

We have further studied the effects of AM tunneling on the coherence propertiesof the atomic cloud by the method of time-of-flight absorption imaging. In particular,
initially after the tilt is turned on, the atomic cloud does not exhibit sharp interference
peaks, but after typically about 100 ms of amplitude modulation on resonance, we
are able to restore superfluid peaks. The speed of restoring superfluid peaks dependon the AM strength as well as the initial lattice depth. One particular sequence ofpictures is shown in Fig. 4-9. These data were taken at a lattice depth of 10ER andmodulation amplitude of 2ER . Note that the particular interference pattern depends
on the particular phase of the modulation when the atoms are released from thelattice, in agreement with the qualitative behavior seen by the Sengstock group in
their phase modulated phase imprinting scheme [101]. This indicates that when weare able to establish superfluid coherence with Raman beams, the particular time-offlight interference pattern will depend on the exact phase relationship between the
two Raman beams, which could change from shot-to-shot.
90

4.6

Experimental Observation of Raman-Assisted
Tunneling

After having determined the experimental parameter space where we can observe amplitude modulation tunneling, we implemented the Raman-assisted tunnelingscheme to create position-dependent phases. We analyzed in situ atomic dynamics,
whose expansion we found to become saturated and subsequently decreased in thetunneling amplitude upon increasing our Raman laser intensities, just as predictedfrom our theory of Raman-assisted tunneling. Although this gives an indication that
we have successfully created the Harper Hamiltonian, we have been unable to observe
the signature of the ground state of this Hamiltonian which should manifest itself ina time-of-flight picture.

4.6.1

Experimental Sequence for Raman-Assisted Tunneling

Our experimental sequence is identical to the case of AM tunneling describedin subsection 4.5.1 up until we create the linear potential tilt by extinguishing thecrossed optical dipole trap, except for the fact that instead of a 1D lattice, now a
2D lattice is adiabatically ramped up in the same amount of time to 10ER in both
directions (unless otherwise noted). Then the two Raman beams are turned on to avalue when combined yield an effective travelling Raman lattice depth of VK . The
experimental schematic is shown on the left of Fig. 4-10.
The Raman lattice strengths were calibrated by performing two-photon Rabi oscillations between momentum states of k = 0 and k = k1 − k2 , where k1 = 2π/λx̂k2 = 2π/λŷ are the wavevectors of the two Raman beams. This oscillation can be
induced by detuning the two Raman beams by 2ER /h = 4056 Hz. This can beunderstood from the fact that Raman beams impart a momentum on the atoms of√magnitude |k| = 22π/λ. The corresponding kinetic energy of the recoiling atom isgiven by ~2 k2 /(2m) = 2ER . The oscillation frequency Ω can be related to the Raman
lattice depth as VK = 2Ω.
91

9.5
9
In−Trap Width (µm)

Raman Beam

Gravitya = 532 nm

8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
1000

Raman Beam

1100
1200
1300
Raman Detuning (Hz)1400

Figure 4-10: Raman-assisted tunneling setup and spectrum. Left: Schematic of ourexperimental setup. The energy offset per lattice site ∆ from gravity is 1137 Hz. The
lattice and Raman beams are all derived from a 1064 nm laser. Right: In situ atomic
cloud width as a function of detuning of the two Raman beams. The 2D lattices wereset at 10ER = 20.3 kHz and VK = 2.3 kHz. The solid line is a fit to a lorentzian
curve.

4.6.2

In Situ Measurements of Raman-Assisted Tunneling

We performed in situ measurements just as in the amplitude modulation tunnelingexperiment, but now with Raman beams to induce Raman-assisted tunneling. We
acquired data by taking absorption images along the direction perpendiclar to the
2D lattice. First we scanned the detuning between the two Raman beams and lookedfor expansion of the atom cloud. The two-dimensional lattices were both 10ER =20.3 kHz with intensities in the Raman beams corresponding to VK = 2.3 kHz andheld for 400 ms. This is shown in the right of Fig. 4-10. A lorentzian fit gives
the resonance to be at 1214 ± 6 Hz and the width to be 54.6 ± 15.9 Hz where theuncertainties are again 95% confidence levels, equivalent to two standard deviations.
Recall gravity should give a resonance at 1137 Hz. The discrepancy can be attributed
to slight misalignment of the laser beams and could be larger than in the amplitude
modulation case because we have one additional lattice beam, as well as two Raman
beams.
Once the resonance was found, we fixed the detuning of the Raman beams at
1214 Hz and looked at the atomic cloud width for different modulation times at92

7In−Trap Expansion Rate (µm/s)

14In−Trap Width (µm)

12
10
8
6
4
0

200

400
600
800
Modulation Time (ms)

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
−1
0

1000

0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
VK/∆

2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6

Figure 4-11: Raman-assisted tunneling leads to linear expansion in time. The atomic
cloud expansion as a function of time is plotted on the left for different Raman
intensities. On the right, the slope of the lines on the left plot are shown as a functionof Raman strength, and is fit to the square of J1 (VK /∆). The Raman detuning was
fixed to the resonance value of 1214 Hz.

different Raman intensities. From our theoretical discussions, we should expect tosee a saturation in the tunneling as the Raman depth increases and even turn overso that beyond a certain point, stronger drives lead to less tunneling per time. The
data are plotted in Fig. 4-11. We see a linear expansion in the width as a functionof time for all Raman intensities. We would expect the slope of this expansion to be
proportional to the tunneling amplitude. On the right of the figure I plot the slopes
as a function of Raman lattice strength. The line is a fit to the square of the Bessel
function, J1 (VK /∆). Recall that for amplitude modulation, we saw an expansion of
the atomic cloud going as the square of time, whereas now the expansion goes linearlywith time.
We further explored this Bessel function behavior by looking at the atomic cloud
width as a function of Raman strength for fixed modulation time to observe thehigh Raman beam intensity regime. This is shown in Fig. 4-12, where we plot theobtained data, along with a fit to the square of J1 (VK /∆) for data up to VK /∆ = 3.2
which is the value we had in Fig. 4-11. The fit agrees well with data up to the value
VK /∆ = 3.2, but does not fit the data well for higher Raman strengths. This could be
due to inhomogeneities in the tilt ∆ which gives rise to different resonance conditions
93

In−Trap Width (µm)

10
Data
2
|J1(VK/∆)|

9
8
7
6
5
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

V /∆
K

Figure 4-12: Raman-assisted tunneling for high Raman beam intensities. The Raman
detuning was fixed to the resonance value of 1214 Hz, and the Raman laser strength
was varied. The tunneling restored by the running wave Raman beams qualitatively
behaves as a Bessel function as a function of the Raman strength. The line is a fit to
the square of J1 (VK /∆) up to VK /∆ = 3.2 where the data in Fig. 4-11.

at different parts of the atom cloud or high intensity effects not captured in our model.
Further studies are needed to understand the discrepancy at high Raman intensities.
Also, the expansion behavior as the square of the Bessel function is not quite wellunderstood, although similar behavior has been observed by the Arimondo groupusing phase modulation [92]. They attribute this behavior partly to interaction effects,
where by varying the atom number they can change the expansion behavior. Although
we also varied our atom number by more than a factor of 5, we were unable to observe
any difference in the expansion dynamics.
We also examined the cloud width for a given Raman strength and duration as
a function of lattice depth in the direction of the tilt. This is shown in Fig. 4-13.
The Raman detuning was fixed on resonance at 1214 Hz, the Raman strengths weresuch that VK = 2.6 kHz and modulated for 400 ms. The curve is a fit of the analytic
94

In−Trap Width (µm)

16
14
12
10
8
6
5

6

7

8
9
10 11
Lattice Depth (E )

12

13

R

Figure 4-13: Raman-assisted tunneling as a function of the lattice depth. The curve
is proportional to the analytic expression for the bare tunneling [29]. Contrast thiswith what we saw in the top right of Fig.4-8, where the width was proportional to
the square of the tunneling.

95

expression for tunneling up to a proportionality constant, and is of the form [29]3/4√σ(VL ) = CVL e−2 NL .

(4.80)

This curve agrees well with the data. Compare this with the situation we saw withamplitude modulation, where the width was increasing as the square of the baretunneling. Further studies will be needed to understand the cause of these different
expansion behaviors.

By scanning the detuning even further from the resonance at ∆, we have beenable to observe higher order tunneling processes. In particular we observed tunnelingat ∆/2 and possibly even lower fractions of ∆ in the left of Fig. 4-14. This data wastaken with the lattice in the tilt direction at 7ER , the perpendicular lattice at 10ER ,and the Raman intensity at 1.1 kHz for 400 ms. The ∆/2 resonance is clearly visible,
but the lower frequency resonances are not as sharp, possibly due to the fact that theresonances are overlapping each other. A fit to three gaussians tells us that the left
most peak is centered at 348 ± 37 Hz with a width of 62 ± 41 Hz, the ∆/2 resonanceis centered at 560 ± 5 Hz with a width of 29 ± 5 Hz, and the ∆ resonance is centeredat 1122 ± 18 Hz with a width of 91 ± 24 Hz. The uncertainties are 95% confidence
levels, equivalent to two standard deviations.

We also observed tunneling at a Raman detuning of 2∆, which corresponds toa two-photon Raman-assisted tunneling to next-nearest-neighbors. This is shown in
the right of Fig. 4-14, where the Raman beams were applied for 2 s but otherwise thesame experimental parameters as above. A fit to two gaussians tells us that the ∆resonance is centered at 1137±31 Hz with a width of 107±31 Hz and the 2∆ resonanceis centered at 2262 ± 46 Hz with a width of 171 ± 87 Hz. Such higher order tunnelingprocesses, especially the ability to engineer a system where the next-nearest-neighbortunneing dominates the nearest-neighbor tunneling may be particularly attractive to
study systems with long range interactions.
96

20

10

18
In−Trap Width (µm)

In−Trap Width (µm)

9
8
7
6

16
14
12
10
8
6

5
0

4
600

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Raman Detuning (Hz)

1000

1400 1800 2200
Raman Detuning (Hz)2600

Figure 4-14: Higher-order and Next-nearest-neighbor tunneling with Raman beams.
The left figure shows resonances at Raman detunings corresponding to ∆/2, which
are 4-photon processes to nearest neighbor sites, and even lower detunings. The
right figure shows a resonance at 2∆ which corresponds to 2-photon tunneling to
next-nearest-neighbor sites.

4.6.3

Time-of-Flight Measurements of Raman-Assisted Tunneling

Our successful observation of in situ Raman-assisted tunneling and the confirmation of its Bessel function-like properties gives a strong indication that we have beenable to realize the Harper Hamiltonian. However, in order to confirm the creationof the ground state of the Harper Hamiltonian, we need to be able to observe therestored superfluid peaks whose spatial pattern should give an indication of the underlying band structure which have been modified from the simple square lattice by
the position-dependent phase imprinted on the ground state wavefunction [82].
Unfortunately, we have so far been unable to observe the restoration of superfluid
peaks and the consequent novel band structure. Empirically, it appears that the curvature of our laser beams may be preventing us from making the crucial observation.
Immediate future efforts will focus on understanding how we can establish superfluid
peaks in time-of-flight imaging. This should give the smoking-gun signature of theground state of the Harper Hamiltonian.
97

4.7

Conclusions

The technique of Raman-assisted tunneling allows one to study the Harper Hamiltonian with arbitrary flux. In addition, by including a third optical lattice, we cansignificantly increase the interaction energy between the atoms such that we are in
the highly non-trivial regime of strongly correlated matter with artificial magnetic
fields, which can give rise to the celebrated Laughlin states of fractional quantum
Hall state fame [68]. Another direction is to add more spin states so that one canstudy spin Hall effects which is a part of the burgeoning field of spintronics. Thus
there is significant promise in terms of the types of physics one can explore if one isable to successfully create the Harper Hamiltonian and its ground state.
We have strong indications that the Harper Hamiltonian has been created with
Raman-assisted tunneling, as indicated by our in situ data which shows that ourtunneling behaves as a Bessel function. Thus we can say that we have confirmed theabsolute value of the Raman-assisted tunneling in the Harper Hamiltonian. However,so far we have been unable to prove that we have created the ground state of thisHamiltonian in time-of-flight images. There are indications that curvature of our laser
beams prevents us from achieving the ground state. We are able to restore coherencein amplitude modulation, and the in situ dynamics of the atomic cloud is different
from that with Raman-assisted tunneling. Thus understanding the in situ dynamics
in further detail may give us a better understanding of the requirements to obtain
the ground state of the Harper Hamiltonian. Once this hurdle is over come and weare able to observe the ground state of the Harper Hamiltonian, a whole new field of
exploring topological phases of matter with ultracold atoms in optical lattices will be
realized.

98Chapter 5
Future Prospects
I have described in this thesis two different types of work. The Bragg scattering
work was geared toward the development of new measurement techniques to probe
new states of matter. On the other hand, the work on realizing the Harper Hamiltonian by employing Raman-assisted tunneling was geared toward directly creatinga new state of matter. Progress in the field of ultracold atoms will require bothdevelopment of probing techniques and creation of new matter, with both providing
inspiration to the other.

5.1

Prospects for Spin Hamiltonians

The Bragg scattering work was particularly geared towards its eventual use as aprobe of spin ordering, such as the antiferromagnetic state. The Heisenberg Hamiltonian which gives rise to magnetic states have an energy scale of J 2 /U , which ison the order of 100 pK [15]. This is a very low energy scale, which at present only
adiabatic cooling techniques have any hope of directly reaching such low entropy
states [116, 76].
Spin gradient demagnetization cooling in its original form may very well take thefield down to the superexchange energy scale to realize spin Hamiltonians, but people,
including our group, have been thinking of other ways to access spin physics. One
notable success achieved by the group of Markus Greiner has been to use occupation99

number of atoms on lattice sites as pseudo-spins to realize antiferromagnetic ordering [93]. Another approach, developed by our group, has been to use spin-dependentlattices. In particular, one can create a low entropy effectively single component Mott
insulator where the spin-dependent lattice creates a 3D lattice for two spin species
interweaved between each other, and then adiabatically merge the two lattices. Because the initial ‘dual Mott’ system can have very low entropy, as long as the merging
is adiabatic, one should be able to achieve very low entropy spin-mixed states in a
3D lattice, which should be able to exhibit magnetic phases of matter as dictated by
the Heisenberg Hamiltonian.
Thus the future of spin Hamiltonians in ultracold atomic systems will most likely
involve some combination of brute force cooling techniques to reach picoKelvin temperatures and ingeneous schemes which allow the manifestation of spin physics at
higher energy scales.

5.2

Prospects for Topological Phases of Matter

Topological phases of matter are usually related to magnetic fields. In neutral
cold atom systems, various techniques have already allowed the creation of effective magnetic fields. These include mechanical rotation of bulk quantum degenerategases [74, 1] and Raman processes in bulk quantum degenerate gases [72, 110, 17].
These techniques have the limitation that high effective magnetic fields, or more
specifically high effective magnetic flux per relevant spatial scale, are not easily realizable. Lattice systems offer a promising route to realizing such effectively highfluxes.
In the last few years, the group of Klaus Sengstock has realized the creation andcontrol of artificial gauge fields in a lattice by lattice modulation [101], the group of
Ian Spielman has achieved similar results by using Raman transitions and radiofrequency magnetic fields [60], and the group of Immanuel Bloch has realized staggered
fluxes by using a superlattice and Raman-assisted tunneling. The first two techniques
are only able to create position-independent phases, and the last is only able to cre100

ate staggered fluxes. It seems possible to extend all of these techniques to achieve
position-dependent, homogeneous fluxes, but the schemes are somewhat involved,
requiring more laser beams to address more transitions. If we are able to prove experimentally that we can create the ground state of the Harper Hamiltonian which
has non-trivial topological properties, it will be a much simpler way to realize thesame physics that the other groups are aiming for with a more complicated setup.
Once the Harper Hailtonian is realized, one can add interactions to the system
by using, for example, a third optical lattice, which should allow the study of fractional quantum Hall states [94, 48] which manifest interesting topological propertiesof matter.
Thus the general trend in the quest to realize artificial gauge fields and topologicalphases of matter has been to add more and more laser beams, but a technique suchas ours which requires a relatively simple set up could hold the key to major progressin the field.

5.3

Prospects for Quantum Simulation

The prospects for the program of quantum simulation seem bright [18]. It seems
that every few months a new type of system is realized in the laboratory, ranging
from graphene-like honeycomb lattice structures exhibiting Dirac points [104], analogues of superconducting weak links with Bose-Einstein condensates in novel trap
geometries [117], and ‘Higgs’ type excitations in the superfluid to Mott insulator transition [31]. As can be seen in these examples, results from the field of ultracold atoms
is becoming strongly connected to concepts and ideas from condensed matter physics,
and even high energy physics.
Furthermore, different groups are also pushing the boundaries of ‘traditional’
ultracold atoms. By traditional, I mean alkali-metal atoms which have one valence electron. Various groups have successfully created quantum degenerate gasesof two-valence-electron atoms such as calcium [66] strontium [98, 25], and ytterbium [102]. Even more exotic atoms have been cooled to quantum degeneracy, such101

as chromium [43], erbium [4] and dysprosium [73], which all have large magnetic
dipole moments and therefore can give rise to anisotropic dipolar interactions. All
these different atomic systems will be able to explore a parameter space that alkalimetal atoms have not yet been able to access thus far.
Numerous developments on all fronts of quantum simulation will certainly leadto many new insights and discoveries of nature, most likely with implications beyond the field of ultracold atomic physics and further enriching and illuminating ourunderstanding of condensed matter systems and beyond.

102

Appendix A
Optical Lattice Calibration Using
Kapitza-Dirac Scattering
In this appendix, I describe the method we use to calibrate our optical lattice,namely Kapitza-Dirac scattering [46].
The basic procedure is to pulse the optical lattice beams on for a very short time.
The short pulse then transfers momentum to the atoms, and then in a time-of-flightabsorption picture observe the spatial distribution of atoms. In particular the atoms
are scattered into discrete momentum states with probability given by how intense
the pulse was. Therefore by knowing how much optical power was in the pulses, andmeasuring the population distribution of atoms in the different momentum states,
one can determine the resulting lattice depth created by the pulse.
The electric field E produced by two counter-propagating plane waves is given byE(z, t) = E0 f (t) sin(kz − ωt)ê + E0 f (t) sin(kz + ωt)ê
= 2E0 f (t) sin(kz) cos(ωt)ê,

(A.1)
(A.2)

where E0 is the electric field amplitude, k is the wavevector, ω is the angular frequency,ê is the polarization vector, and f (t) is the temporal envelope function.
Such a field will produce an AC Stark shift, leading to a standing wave potential103

U (z, t) given by
U (z, t) =~ωR2 2f (t) sin2 (kz),
δ

(A.3)

where ωR is the single-photon Rabi frequency, given by ωR = µE0 /~, where µ =he|er|gi · ê is the electric dipole matrix element connecting the ground (|gi) andexcited (|ei) states of the atom, and δ is the detuning. We may write
U0 ≡

~ωR2
.
δ

(A.4)

If the optical lattice is turned on for a very short time (i.e. τ  1/ωr , where ωr is therecoil energy), the initial atomic wavefunction |Ψ0 i will evolve in a way given byi|Ψi = exp −
~
i

i

2


dt U (z, t ) |Ψ0 i

Z

0

0

2

= e− 2δ ωR τ e 2δ ωR τ cos(2kz) |Ψ0 i,
where τ =

R

(A.5)
(A.6)

dt0 f 2 (t0 ) and the integral is over the interaction duration. This shorttime condition is called the Raman-Nath regime. For KD, our pulse is a constantsquare pulse, so we let f (t0 ) = 1. We then make use of a Bessel function identityeiα cos β∞X=

in Jn (α)einβ

(A.7)

ωR2 τ
2δ

(A.8)

n=−∞

to get|Ψi = e

i
2τ
− 2δ
ωR

∞
X

n

i Jn

n=−∞





ei2nkz |Ψ0 i.

We may let |Ψ0 i = |gi|0i, where the first state represents the internal state of theatoms and the second state represents the external state of the atoms. Note that we

104

can write
ei2nkz =X|p0 + 2n~kihp0 |,

p0

(A.9)

which can be used to get
∞
X

i2nkz

e

n=−∞

|0i =

∞
X
n=−∞

|2n~ki.

(A.10)

This can be inserted into Eq. A.8 to get|Ψi = e

i
2τ
− 2δ
ωR

∞
X

n

i Jn

n=−∞



ωR2 τ
2δ


|gi|2n~ki.

(A.11)

It is now easy to see that the probability that a state with momentum 2N ~k will be
populated is given by
PN = JN2 (θ) , N = 0, ±1, ±2, ..., where
θ=

ωR2 τ
.
2δ

(A.12)(A.13)

Our KD fit program takes as input the intensity of the KD peaks, which is proportional to the probability PN of atoms being in a particular momentum state, andthe photodiode voltage V which is monitoring the power given to a particular latticebeam. Thus we may rewrite Eq. A.12 as
PN = JN2 (αV ),(A.14)

where θ = αV . The KD program determines the proportionality constant α, where[α] =rad/V. Then we can writeτωR2.
αV = ×2
δ(A.15)

If we assume f (t) = 1 over the pulse duration (i.e. a square pulse), τ simply becomes105the pulse duration and is typically 12.5 µs with a rise and decay time of 5 ns.

Now, note that we can rewrite Eq. A.4 to get
ωR2
U0
=
.
δ
~

(A.16)

U0 ∝ ωR2 ∝ I ∝ P ∝ V,

(A.17)

From atomic physics we know that

where I is the intensity of the laser beam, P is the power incident on the photodiode,and V is the voltage induced in the photodiode. From this we can write
U0 = γV,(A.18)

where [γ] =J/V and is a proportionality constant. We can insert this into Eq. A.16
to get
ωR2
γV
=
.
δ
~

(A.19)

Now we can insert this into Eq. A.15 to get
αV =

τ
γV
2~α
×
⇒γ=
.
2
~
τ

(A.20)

Now, we want recoil/V, which we call β, for calibration purposes. We have [Er ] =J/recoil, where Er = ~ωr , so
β=

1
2~α
1
2α
2~α
×
=
×
=
.
τ
Er
τ
~ωr
τ ωr

(A.21)

We can write ωr in terms of the wavelength λ of the lattice beam to make it easierfor plug and chug. Recall ~ωr = ~2 k 2 /2m and k = 2π/λ where m is the mass of theatom, so ωr = ~(2π/λ)2 /2m. We can rewrite Eq. A.21 as
106

4αm
×
β=
~τ

107



λ
2π

2
.

(A.22)

108

Appendix B
Code to Construct Wannier
FunctionsThis appendix provides a copy of a MATLAB® code to construct maximally
localized Wannier functions for any lattice spacing and lattice depth that the user
can specify. In the process the band structure can also be extracted. A sample outputof this code for lattice spaing 532 nm and lattice depth 3ER is provided in Fig. B-1.
% Determine the Wannier function% Written by Hirokazu Miyake% Date: 4/21/2013%% lambda = lattice laser wavelength% l = number of Fourier components to take
% Er = recoil energy% V = V0/Er lattice depth in units of recoil energy% q = q/k = q*a/pi where a = lattice spacing
clear;
lambda = 1064E-9;%lattice laser wavelength
dxn = 0.01;
x = lambda/2*(-10:dxn:10); %real space coordinates
dx = dxn*lambda/2;%discretization of spacex1 = 0;%center position of Wannier function
V = 3;%lattice depth in units of the recoil energy
l = 5;
wavevec = 2*pi/lambda;%wavevector109dn = 500;
qend = 1;
dq = 2*qend/dn;
H = zeros(2*l+1);
q = -qend:dq:qend;
nq = length(q);Eeig = zeros(1,dn+1);%Veig is c_j’s vs q
Veig = zeros(2*l+1,dn+1);%construct the Hamiltonian and find eigenvalues and eigenvectors%s is a sum over q
for s = 1:dn;
for n = 1:(2*l + 1)
for m = 1:(2*l + 1)
if n == m
H(n,m) = (2*(-l-1+n) + q(s)).^2 + V/2;
elseif abs(n - m) == 1
H(n,m) = -V/4;
else
H(n,m) = 0;
end
end
end
[W,D] = eig(H);Eeig(s) = D(1,1);
for t = 1:(2*l+1)
Veig(t,s) = W(t,1);
end
end
nx = length(x);wan1 = zeros(1,nx); %initialize wannier function
u=zeros(nq,nx);%u is q vs x
phi=zeros(nq,nx);%create u_q(x)% loop over q
for qi = 1:(nq-1)
for xi = 1:nx
%sum over j’s from -L to L
for k = 1:(2*l + 1)u(qi,xi) = Veig(k,qi)*exp(1i*2*wavevec*x(xi)*(-l-1+k))...
+ u(qi,xi);
110

end
phi(qi,xi) = exp(1i*q(qi)*wavevec*x(xi)).*u(qi,xi);
end
end%create phi_q(x)%note that the phase has to be this specific one to create%the maximally localized Wannier function
for qi = 1:(nq-1)
phi(qi,:) = exp(-1i*angle(phi(qi,x==0)))*phi(qi,:);end%create Wannier function w(x-x0)%loop over x
for xi = 1:nx
%sum over q
for qi = 1:(nq-1)
wan1(xi) = phi(qi,xi)*exp(-1i*q(qi)*wavevec*x1) + wan1(xi);endend%normalize Wannier function
wannorm1 = dx*sum(abs(wan1).^2);
wan1 = wan1/sqrt(wannorm1);%plot Wannier function
figure(1);plot(x/(lambda/2),real(wan1),’-k’,’linewidth’,3);
title (’Wannier Function’);xlabel(’x/a’);ylabel(’w(x)’);111

Wannier Function
2000

1500

w(x)

1000

500

0

−500
−10

−5

0
x/a

5

10

Figure B-1: Wannier function for lattice spacing 532 nm and lattice depth 3ER . The
x-axis is in units of the lattice spacing.

112Appendix C
Bragg Scattering as a Probe of
Atomic Wave Functions andQuantum Phase Transitions in
Optical Lattices
This appendix contains a reprint of Ref. [77]: Hirokazu Miyake, Georgios A.
Siviloglou, Graciana Puentes, David E. Pritchard, Wolfgang Ketterle, and David M.
Weld, Bragg Scattering as a Probe of Atomic Wave Functions and Quantum Phase
Transitions in Optical Lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 175302 (2011).

113

PRL 107, 175302 (2011)

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

week ending
21 OCTOBER 2011

Bragg Scattering as a Probe of Atomic Wave Functions and Quantum Phase
Transitions in Optical Lattices
Hirokazu Miyake, Georgios A. Siviloglou, Graciana Puentes, David E. Pritchard, Wolfgang Ketterle, and David M. Weld*
MIT-Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms, Research Laboratory of Electronics, and Department of Physics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA(Received 26 August 2011; published 21 October 2011)
We have observed Bragg scattering of photons from quantum degenerate 87 Rb atoms in a threedimensional optical lattice. Bragg scattered light directly probes the microscopic crystal structure andatomic wave function whose position and momentum width is Heisenberg limited. The spatial coherenceof the wave function leads to revivals in the Bragg scattered light due to the atomic Talbot effect. The
decay of revivals across the superfluid to Mott insulator transition indicates the loss of superfluid
coherence.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.175302

PACS numbers: 67.85.d, 05.30.Rt, 37.10.Jk, 61.05.aUltracold atomic gases are an ideal system in whichto study many-body phenomena because of the relative
ease with which parameters in the model Hamiltonian canbe tuned across a wide range [1,2]. Such studies haveresulted in a better understanding of various phasetransitions such as the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thoulesstransition in two-dimensional systems [3], the BEC-BCS
crossover of interacting fermions [4], and the superfluid
to Mott insulator transition in a three-dimensional lattice[5]. One major goal of this field is to realize spin phasessuch as antiferromagnetic states to explore quantum
magnetism and its interplay with high-temperature superconductivity [6].
Concurrently, there are numerous efforts to develop
techniques to probe and understand the atomic ensemble
once a new type of ordering is achieved. One recent
development is the realization of single-site resolution of
atoms in two-dimensional optical lattices [7,8]. An alternative method to measure in situ spatial ordering is thetechnique of Bragg scattering, often used in a condensed
matter context to determine crystal structure [9]. In particular, Bragg scattering with neutrons led to the discoveryof antiferromagnetism in the solid state [10] and withx rays led to the discovery of the double helix structureof DNA [11].
Bragg scattering relies on the interference of waves
scattered coherently from an ensemble of particles. In
particular, when atoms are arranged in a periodic patternin three spatial dimensions, there are certain angles of theincoming and reflected beams where scattering is dramatically enhanced compared to other angles. This has
allowed crystallographers to use x rays to determine
the properties of crystals such as lattice geometry at the
angstrom scale. We have applied this technique to ultracold atoms in a three-dimensional optical lattice by scattering near-infrared light where the atoms are spaced
almost 104 times farther apart than those in typical condensed matter samples.
0031-9007=11=107(17)=175302(5)Pioneering works on Bragg scattering from cold atoms
in optical lattices were done by the Hänsch and Phillips
groups by using laser cooled atoms [12]. These lattices
were sparsely populated, and the atoms occupied several
bands. In this Letter, we have used Bragg scattering tostudy bosonic atoms cooled to quantum degeneracy andplaced in a three-dimensional cubic lattice where the atoms
occupy the lowest band. In particular, we have measured
directly the Heisenberg-limited width of both the position
and momentum of the single ground state atomic wave
function in an optical lattice. Furthermore, there is a revival
of Bragg scattered light some time after releasing theatoms from the optical lattice, analogous to the optical
Talbot effect. This signal gives a direct measure of thecoherence of the superfluid component in the lattice.
The experimental apparatus has been described in detailelsewhere [13]. Briefly, laser cooling and evaporative cooling are used to achieve quantum degeneracy of 87 Rb atoms
in the jF ¼ 2; mF ¼ 2i state which are loaded into acrossed dipole trap whose trap frequencies range between
30 and 160 Hz. Once quantum degeneracy is achieved, theoptical lattices generated by a single 1064 nm fiber laser
are adiabatically ramped on. The lattices are calibrated byapplying a 12:5 s pulse and measuring the Kapitza-Diracdiffraction of the atoms and comparing this to theory. The
system typically contains about 105 atoms, which leads to
up to 5 atoms per lattice site. The Bragg reflected light isdetected on a CCD camera which images along a direction
which satisfies the Bragg condition.
The Bragg scattering condition for a three-dimensional
cubic lattice is given by 2d sin ¼ np , where d is the
spacing between lattice planes,  is the angle between theincoming beam and the lattice planes, n is any positive
integer, and p is the wavelength of the probe beam. For
our experiment p is 780 nm and d is 532 nm. With these
conditions, the only allowed angle  is 47 where n is one
and corresponds to Bragg reflection off the [1 0 0] plane orany equivalent plane. A schematic of the probe beam with

175302-1

Ó 2011 American Physical Society

PRL 107, 175302 (2011)

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

respect to the atoms is shown in the inset in Fig. 1. Since
the full angular width of the Bragg scattered light is small(measured to be 4:1  0:4 ), a precise alignment of theincident beam had to be performed at the 1= min repetition
rate of the experiment. In contrast, in one and two dimensions, diffractive light scattering occurs at any angle ofincidence, as recently shown with atoms in a twodimensional optical lattice [14].
The probe beam at the Bragg angle had a typical powerof 0.3 mW and beam diameter of 300 m, large enough toilluminate the entire atomic cloud, and was detuned fromthe 52 S1=2 , F ¼ 2 ! 52 P3=2 , F0 ¼ 3 cycling transition of87
Rb by a few natural linewidths, where the natural linewidth  is 6 MHz. The detuning needs to be sufficient sothat the light traverses the entire atom cloud. Although theabsolute signal varies with the detuning, the conclusions
reached in this Letter appear not to depend strongly on theamplitude or sign of the detuning. The probe beam wasapplied for a few microseconds, enough to obtain a signal
but short enough to avoid heating effects.
As the lattice is increased, the Bragg reflected signal
increases as expected from the crystal ordering and tighter
localization of the atoms (Fig. 1). For these data, the latticein the z direction, which is also the direction of gravity, wasramped to 15ER , where ER ¼ h2 =ð2m2L Þ is the recoil
energy, h is the Planck constant, m is the mass of 87 Rb,
and L ¼ 1064 nm is the lattice laser wavelength.
Simultaneously, the lattices in the horizontal directions
were ramped to various lattice depths. Note that for ourgeometry the Bragg reflected intensity is insensitive tothe lattice depth in the z direction, because Bragg scattering occurs only in the horizontal xy plane, as we
discuss later.

FIG. 1 (color online). Bragg scattering as a probe of the spatial
wave function width. Bragg scattered intensity vs lattice depth inunits of the recoil energy. The right axis gives the corresponding
root-mean-square width of the wave function squared. The solidline is a no-free-parameter curve given by the Debye-Waller
factor. Error bars are statistical. The inset is a schematic of the
setup for Bragg scattering.

week ending
21 OCTOBER 2011

The scattering of light by a collection of atoms can bemodeled in the following way. In the limit of low probe
intensity and low optical density of the cloud, the Born
approximation can be used. Then the scattering crosssection d=d can be written as a product of onedimensional
Debye-Waller factors where d=d /Q
2 2
exp½ðrÞ
i Ki =2, where i ¼ x; y; z is the index forithe three dimensions, Ki is the magnitude of the ith component of K, where K ¼ kin  kout is the difference between the incoming probe beam and Bragg scattered wave
pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ
vectors, and ri ¼ @=ðm!i Þ is the harmonic oscillator
width, where @ is the reduced Planck constant and !i is thetrap frequency in the ith direction, which depends on the
optical lattice depth. The atoms are approximated as
Gaussian wave functions, which is a good approximation
for sufficiently large lattice depths. However, we find that,even for low lattice depths where significant superfluid
components are expected, this approximation describes
the Bragg scattered signal well.
For our experimental conditions, Kz ¼ 0 because Bragg
scattering occurs in the horizontal xy plane. The lattice
depths are controlled in a way such that they are the same
in both the x and y directions which leads to x  rx ¼
ry . This simplifies the scattering cross section tod=d / exp½ðxÞ2 K 2 =2. Thus Bragg scattering allows the study of the spatial extent of the atomic wave
function.
The data can be compared to a no-free-parameter theoretical line, assuming noninteracting atoms. The Bragg
scattered intensity BðNL Þ as a function pof
depth
ﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃlatticeﬃ
NL is proportional to exp½2L K2 =ð82 NL Þ. Both theharmonic oscillator width x, which depends on the massof the rubidium atom and trap frequency, and change inwave vector K are known. This theoretical line and the data
are shown in Fig. 1, and we see good agreement. Thus the
Bragg scattered light as a function of lattice depth can bewell described by a model where the atoms are assumed to
be noninteracting Gaussian atomic wave functions whose
spatial width is determined by the lattice depth.
Bragg scattering can also be used to probe the momentum width of the atomic wave functions. This is done bymeasuring Bragg reflection as a function of the expansion
time of the atoms between a rapid lattice turn-off and
Bragg probe. In particular, the two horizontal lattices
were turned off from 15ER to 0ER in less than 1 s, andthe lattice in the z direction was kept at 15ER . Turning off
the lattices allows the atomic wave packets in each individual lattice well to expand freely in those directions. The
data in Fig. 2 show that the signal has decayed in 30 s.
The time it takes to lose crystal structure is roughly thetime it takes for the atoms to move over half of a lattice
distance.
The Debye-Waller factor can be used to determine more
precisely how the Bragg reflection should behave as afunction of the expansion time with no free parameters,

175302-2

PRL 107, 175302 (2011)

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

FIG. 2. Bragg scattering as a probe of the momentum wave
function width. Bragg scattered intensity vs the free-expansion
time of the atoms after rapidly turning off the lattices from 15ER .
The decay in signal indicates a melting of the crystal structure or,in other words, spreading of the atomic wave packet with a given
momentum uncertainty. The gray area is a no-free-parameter
curve using the Debye-Waller factor taking into account theprobe pulse duration of 5 s. Error bars are statistical.

assuming Gaussian atomic wave packets. This makes
use of the well-known time-dependent behavior of a
Heisenberg-limited Gaussian wave packet in free space
which can be written as ½xðtÞ2 ¼ ðxÞ2 þ ðpÞ2 t2 =m2 ,where x and p are the uncertainty of position andmomentum, respectively, at the initial time and t is the
expansion time [15]. In a previous paper where the atoms
were not quantum degenerate, the momentum distribution
was assumed to be determined by temperature [12]. The
results in this Letter show that the momentum uncertainty
is Heisenberg limited, meaning ðxÞ2 ðpÞ2 ¼ @2 =4, so theBragg scattered light BðtÞ as a function of expansion time
decays as exp½ðpÞ2 K2 t2 =ð2m2 Þ. This curve is also
shown in Fig. 2. The curve is broadened by taking into
account the probe beam duration, which was 5 s andshows good agreement with the data. This analysis showsthat, by releasing the atoms from a lattice, we can directlyprobe the in situ time evolution of the ground state atomic
wave functions with a spatial extent of tens of nanometers.
Furthermore, the atomic spatial and momentum widths areseen to be Heisenberg limited.
Coherent many-body nonequilibrium dynamics can also
be studied with Bragg scattering after a sudden release of
the atoms from the optical lattice in three dimensions. At
low lattice depths, the Bragg scattered signal shows revivals as a function of expansion time because of the rephasing of the superfluid atomic wave functions that wereoriginally confined in the lattices. Therefore, these revival
signals should give a measure of the superfluid orderparameter. Furthermore, the revivals are analogous to theoptical Talbot effect, whose atomic version was observed
previously for a thermal beam [16] and for a quantum

week ending
21 OCTOBER 2011

degenerate gas in the temporal domain [17]. Here weobserve the atomic Talbot effect for an interacting quantum
degenerate gas in a three-dimensional optical lattice.
Revivals can be seen in Fig. 3 and become less pronounced
as the lattice depth increases.
In particular, the characteristic revival time is determined by  ¼ h=½@2 ð2kÞ2 =ð2mÞ and is 123 s for ourparameters, where 2k corresponds to the wave vector of
the matter wave. However, with Bragg scattering we expect the first revival at half that time of 61 s, which iswhat we observe in Fig. 3. This can be understood byrealizing that the atomic wave packets need only travel
half the lattice spacing to constructively interfere with thewave packets traveling in the opposite directions from thenearest neighbor sites.
The superfluid coherence as a function of lattice depth
can be studied by comparing the Bragg reflected signal
when the atoms are in the optical lattice to the signal at thefirst revival. The revival signal as a function of lattice depth
is shown in Fig. 4, where the superfluid to Mott insulatortransition is expected to occur around 13ER [5]. In a noninteracting system without any dissipation, one would expect complete revivals. The decrease in revival fraction as
the lattice depth increases is consistent with the picture
that, as interactions increase, phase fluctuations amongneighboring lattice sites increase and, consequently, thesuperfluid fraction decreases. In the Mott insulating phase,revivals should completely disappear, except for a very

FIG. 3 (color online). Revivals of Bragg scattered light. Bragg
scattered intensity vs the expansion time in three dimensions forthree different initial lattice depths: 5ER (circles), 8ER (triangles), and 15ER (squares). Each data set is normalized to theBragg intensity at the initial time. Revivals at lower lattice
depths indicate coherence of the atoms across multiple latticesites. The lines are phenomenological fits to exponentiallydecaying sine waves. Different lattice depth data are offset forclarity, and the error bar is representative. The inset is a solution
to the one-dimensional Gross-Pitaevskii equation with experimental parameters and an initial state of a chain of Gaussian
wave functions, showing the revivals of the density distribution
as a function of time. The white dotted line represents the revival
time.

175302-3

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

PRL 107, 175302 (2011)

Norm. Revival Intensity (arb.)

Revival Intensity (arb.)

250
200
150
100
50
0
4

6

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

8

10

12

14

16

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Lattice Depth (ER)FIG. 4. Bragg scattering revival as a probe of superfluid coherence. Top: Bragg scattered revival signal at 60 s vs lattice
depth. Bottom: The top plot normalized to the Bragg scatteredsignal without expansion. We see a decrease in revival, andconsequently superfluid coherence, as the lattice is increased.
Error bars are statistical.

weak signal at intermediate lattice depths due to particlehole correlations [18].
To understand the measured revival decay, we havenumerically studied the one-dimensional Gross-Pitaevskii
equation that assumes interacting matter waves at zerotemperature. The simulations show that interactions andfinite size effects have a negligible effect on the decay ofrevivals. Empirically, randomizing the phase between
neighboring sites reduces the revival fraction. The loss ofphase coherence across lattice sites could be due to factors
such as temperature, beyond Gross-Pitaevskii equation
effects, or technical factors. We have considered quantum
depletion [19], but the calculated depletion fraction at 5ER
is 2%, too low to account for the observed decay. Future
work should provide a more complete picture of the decayof revivals.
Note that Bragg scattered revivals are complementary to
the observation of diffraction peaks in time-of-flight absorption images [5]. Both are based on matter-wave interference due to superfluid coherence: revivals at short
expansion times and diffraction at long expansion times.
Diffraction is a far-field effect possible only for finite size
samples, whereas revivals are a near-field bulk effect. The
order of the revival or the angular resolution of the diffraction peaks determines whether these techniques probe
short-range or long-range spatial coherence. Further studies are needed to determine which technique is moresensitive to certain aspects of the superfluid to Mott insulator transition.

week ending
21 OCTOBER 2011

In this Letter, we have not focused on the effects of theoccupation number on Bragg scattering. In principle, theatomic wave functions are more extended for higher occupation numbers, but this effect is small for our parameters.
However, light scattering at higher occupation numbers
will have an inelastic component due to colliding atoms
or photoassociation [20]. The dependence of Bragg scattering on lattice depth suggests that these effects are notdominant.
After Bragg scattering has been established as a probe
for Mott insulators, it can now be applied to study othertypes of quantum phases such as antiferromagnetic ordering in both the occupation number and spin sectors [21,22].
Although temperatures required to realize spin ordering areon the order of tens to hundreds of picokelvins, recent
experimental results suggest a way forward to lower thetemperature of a two-component Mott insulator [23].
In conclusion, we have observed Bragg scattering ofnear-resonant photons from a quantum degenerate Bosegas in a three-dimensional optical lattice. We have shownthat this technique probes not only the periodic structureof the atoms but also the spatial and momentum width ofthe localized atomic wave functions and the superfluid
coherence.
We acknowledge Ian Spielman, Eugene Demler, Igor
Mekhov, Jesse Amato-Grill, Niklas Jepsen, and Ivana
Dimitrova for fruitful discussions and technical support.
We acknowledge Yichao Yu for experimental assistance.
We thank Jonathon Gillen for a critical reading of themanuscript. H. M. acknowledges support from the
NDSEG program. This work was supported by the NSF
through the Center of Ultracold Atoms, by NSF Grant
No. PHY-0969731, through an AFOSR MURI program,and under ARO Grant No. W911NF-07-1-0493 with funds
from the DARPA OLE program.

*Present address: Department of Physics, University ofCalifornia, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA.
[1] M. Lewenstein et al., Adv. Phys. 56, 243 (2007).
[2] I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80,
885 (2008).
[3] Z. Hadzibabic et al., Nature (London) 441, 1118 (2006).
[4] M. W. Zwierlein et al., Nature (London) 435, 1047 (2005).
[5] M. Greiner et al., Nature (London) 415, 39 (2002).
[6] P. A. Lee, N. Nagaosa, and X.-G. Wen, Rev. Mod. Phys.
78, 17 (2006).
[7] W. S. Bakr et al., Nature (London) 462, 74 (2009).
[8] J. F. Sherson et al., Nature (London) 467, 68 (2010).
[9] N. W. Ashcroft and N. D. Mermin, Solid State Physics(Brooks Cole, Belmont, MA, 1976).
[10] C. G. Shull and J. Samuel Smart, Phys. Rev. 76, 1256
(1949).
[11] J. D. Watson and F. H. C. Crick, Nature (London) 171, 737(1953).

175302-4

PRL 107, 175302 (2011)

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS[12] M. Weidemüller et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4583 (1995);
G. Birkl et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 2823 (1995); G. Raithel
et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 630 (1997); M. Weidemüller, A.
Görlitz, T. W. Hänsch, and A. Hemmerich, Phys. Rev. A
58, 4647 (1998).
[13] E. W. Streed et al., Rev. Sci. Instrum. 77, 023106 (2006).
[14] C. Weitenberg et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 215301 (2011).
[15] L. I. Schiff, Quantum Mechanics (McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1968).

week ending
21 OCTOBER 2011[16] M. S. Chapman et al., Phys. Rev. A 51, R14 (1995).
[17] L. Deng et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 5407 (1999).
[18] F. Gerbier et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 050404 (2005).
[19] K. Xu et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 180405 (2006).
[20] A. Gallagher and D. E. Pritchard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 957(1989).
[21] T. A. Corcovilos et al., Phys. Rev. A 81, 013415 (2010).
[22] J. Simon et al., Nature (London) 472, 307 (2011).
[23] P. Medley et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 195301 (2011).

175302-5

Appendix D
Spin Gradient Demagnetization
Cooling of Ultracold Atoms
This appendix contains a reprint of Ref. [76]: Patrick Medley, David M. Weld,
Hirokazu Miyake, David E. Pritchard, and Wolfgang Ketterle, Spin Gradient Demagnetization Cooling of Ultracold Atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 195301 (2011).

119

PRL 106, 195301 (2011)

week ending
13 MAY 2011

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

Spin Gradient Demagnetization Cooling of Ultracold Atoms
Patrick Medley,* David M. Weld,† Hirokazu Miyake, David E. Pritchard, and Wolfgang Ketterle
MIT-Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms, Research Laboratory of Electronics, and Department of Physics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA(Received 12 January 2011; revised manuscript received 16 March 2011; published 12 May 2011)
We demonstrate a new cooling method in which a time-varying magnetic field gradient is applied to an
ultracold spin mixture. This enables preparation of isolated spin distributions at positive and negative
effective spin temperatures of 50 pK. The spin system can also be used to cool other degrees of freedom,
and we have used this coupling to cool an apparently equilibrated Mott insulator of rubidium atoms to
350 pK. These are the lowest temperatures ever measured in any system. The entropy of the spin mixture
is in the regime where magnetic ordering is expected.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.195301

PACS numbers: 67.85.d, 03.75.Mn, 05.30.Jp, 75.30.Sg

Attainment of lower temperatures has often enabled
discovery of new phenomena, from superconductivity to
Bose-Einstein condensation. Currently, there is much interest in the possibility of observing correlated magnetic
quantum phases in lattice-trapped ultracold atoms [1–3].
The relevant critical temperatures are on the order of
200 pK, lower than any previously achieved temperature[4,5]. Realization of this temperature scale requires thedevelopment of new methods of refrigeration which canbe applied to ultracold atoms. Many such techniques havebeen proposed [6–13] but await experimental realization.
The cooling method we demonstrate here opens up apreviously inaccessible temperature regime and provides
a realistic path to the observation of magnetic quantum
phase transitions in optical lattices.
The new cooling method is applied to an opticallytrapped cloud of cold atoms in a mixture of two internal
states with different magnetic moments [14]. Applicationof a strong magnetic field gradient results in almost complete spatial segregation of the two spin components. The‘‘mixed region’’ of spins between the pure-spin domains
has a width which is proportional to the temperature T andinversely proportional to the applied gradient. Reducing
the gradient mixes the two components, and due to themixing entropy the temperature is dramatically reduced.
Since Mott insulators can be prepared with an entropy per
particle much lower than kB ln2, our scheme is a practicalway of creating a low entropy mixture in the regime where
magnetic ordering is expected. This cooling scheme introduces several new concepts. It implements demagnetization cooling with spin transport instead of spin flips, allows
decoupling of the spin and kinetic temperatures, and enables the realization of negative spin temperatures. Longtunneling times in the lattice allow two different implementations of our cooling scheme.
When the gradient is changed faster than the spin relaxation rate, the spin system is effectively isolated from allother degrees of freedom, and very low spin temperatures
can be achieved. Contrastingly, when the gradient is0031-9007=11=106(19)=195301(4)changed slowly enough, the spin system is fully equilibrated and can absorb entropy from other degrees of freedom, cooling the whole sample. As shown in Fig. 1,
reduction of the gradient after (before) the optical lattice
has been raised realizes the regime of isolated (equilibrated) spins.
First, we discuss isolated spins, of which atoms in a Mott
insulating state are an almost ideal realization. Spin distributions relax by two atoms exchanging sites through asecond-order tunneling process. The time scale of thisrelaxation is typically 1 s, and the gradient can easily bevaried much faster. The equilibrium spin distribution depends only on the ratio of the applied gradient rjBj andtemperature T. When rjBj is changed, the effective temperature of the decoupled spin degrees of freedom (spintemperature) is rescaled proportionally. This enables therealization of spin distributions with a very low positive(or, if the sign of the gradient is changed, negative) effective temperature. Negative temperatures can occur only forsystems with an upper bound on the energy and correspond

FIG. 1. Two different cooling protocols realizing the cases ofisolated and equilibrated spin systems. (a) Experimental ‘‘phase
diagram’’ of lattice depth vs applied gradient. Dashed lines show
two different paths which connect the high-gradient superfluid
state and the low-gradient Mott insulating state. (b) and (c) show
the lattice depth (solid line) and gradient strength (dashed line)
vs time for the two cases (equilibrated spins and isolated spins,
respectively) in (a). The shape of the lattice ramp-up is designed
to ensure maximum equilibration.

195301-1

Ó 2011 American Physical Society

PRL 106, 195301 (2011)

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

to an inverted Boltzmann distribution with the largest
population in the highest-energy state [15].
Figure 2 shows the results of experiments on isolated
spins. Fits to data on equilibrated spins indicate an initial
temperature of 6.3 nK (see Figs. 3 and 4). While reductionof the gradient by a factor of 1000 would be expected toreduce the effective temperature of the isolated spins to
6.3 pK, our finite optical resolution allows us only to assert
an upper bound of 50  20 pK. We have held the spins for
up to several seconds in the lattice. No heating is observed
during a 1-s hold, but after 3 s the 50 pK distribution isobserved to heat to about 70 pK. Similarly, at small negative gradients, we observe a negative-temperature distribution with a temperature closer to zero than 50  20 pK.
Since the total energy is monotonic in 1=T, these areamong the most extreme thermodynamic states ever measured in any system [16,17]. Very low condensate releaseenergies (not temperatures) have been observed previously[18]. Note that the spin temperatures we report are much
lower than those attainable by magnetic trapping or optically pumping a system into a single spin state: Even for afractional population of 106 in other spin states caused
by imperfect pumping or spin-flip collisions [19], the spintemperature in a bias field of 100 mG is 500 nK, assuming
a magnetic moment of one Bohr magneton. In our experiment, the energy scale is set by the product of the Bohrmagneton with the magnetic field gradient and the latticespacing, and it is the relative ease of achieving very smallvalues of this parameter (corresponding to B times a fieldof less than 1 G) which allows us to reach such low spintemperatures.
The mixed-spin region comprises a spectrum of spin
excitations, the energy of which can be tuned by adjusting
the strength of the gradient [20]. A spin excitation consistsof a spin-up atom swapping places with a spin-down atomon the other side of the zero-temperature spin domainboundary. Reduction of the gradient reduces the energyof spin excitations. In the regime of equilibrated spins, thiscauses entropy to flow into the mixed-spin region fromother degrees of freedom. This lowers the temperature

FIG. 2. Preparation of low positive and negative spin temperatures. Measured spin temperature vs final gradient, for the caseof isolated spins. Error bars are statistical.

week ending
13 MAY 2011of the whole system in a manner locally analogous tostandard single-shot adiabatic demagnetization refrigeration [21,22]. The kinetic excitations of a trapped Mott
insulator are particle-hole excitations [4,23]. On a microscopic level, particle-hole excitations can couple directlyto spin excitations if a particle and a hole on opposite sidesof the spin domain boundary annihilate. Energy may be
absorbed by quasiparticles in the first band or by the spin
excitations themselves [24]. In the superfluid phase andduring lattice ramp-up, the kinetic excitations are different
and entropy transfer is expected to occur faster and in more
complex ways. Experimentally, it is easier to maintain
adiabaticity if most of the path along which the gradientis changed is in a regime of fast relaxation times [e.g., thelower path in Fig. 1(a)]. Thermodynamically, this adiabatic
cooling method is a redistribution of entropy from thekinetic degrees of freedom to the entropy which resultsfrom partially mixing the two initially segregated spin
domains.
It is easily possible for the mixed region to absorb nearly
all of the entropy of the system. In a one-component
harmonically trapped Mott insulator which is at a temperature low enough for the particle-hole approximation tohold, the approximate total entropy is kB lnð2Þ times thevolume of the ‘‘shells’’ between the Mott plateaux [4]. The
maximum entropy of the mixed region is realized when, at
low gradient, it is broadened to a substantial fraction of thetotal size. In that situation, the entropy per site approaches
kB lnðn þ 1Þ, where n is the local number of indistinguishable bosons per site (in our samples, n varies across the trap

FIG. 3. Entropy transfer from other degrees of freedom to thespin system. Circles represent measured width of the mixed
region vs final magnetic field gradient, for the ‘‘equilibrated
spins’’ protocol (see Fig. 1). Error bars are statistical. The dashedline represents the expected behavior assuming no cooling. The
dash-dotted line shows the minimum resolvable width. The solid
curve is the theoretical prediction, assuming an initial temperature of 6.3 nK and including the effects of optical resolution (seeRef. [25] for details). Insets show spin images at the indicatedpoints, the corresponding vertically integrated spin profiles(squares), and the fit to the expected form of a tanh function
times the overall density distribution (solid line; see Ref. [20] fordetails). Axis units and gray scales in the two insets are arbitrary
but identical.

195301-2

PRL 106, 195301 (2011)

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

FIG. 4. Spin gradient demagnetization cooling. Circles represent measured temperature vs final magnetic field gradient, forthe equilibrated spins protocol (see Fig. 1). Error bars are
statistical. These measurements are the same as those shownin Fig. 3. The dashed line follows the isothermal trajectory, andthe dash-dotted line shows the resolution limit. The solid line is
the theoretical prediction, assuming an initial temperature of
6.3 nK and including the effects of optical resolution. The dottedline is the theoretical prediction without the effects of opticalresolution.

between 1 and 3). The maximum entropy of the spin systemis thus larger than the entropy of the kinetic degrees of
freedom. Thus, substantial cooling of the system can beachieved with a single gradient demagnetization ramp.
We have made a more quantitative analysis of spin
gradient demagnetization by calculating entropy-versustemperature curves of our system in various field gradients[25]. The results confirm the qualitative argument above
and show that spin gradient demagnetization cooling iscapable of cooling well below the expected Curie
temperature.
Figures 3 and 4 show the results of spin gradient demagnetization cooling experiments. As the gradient is reduced,
the width of the domain wall increases (see Fig. 3), indicating transfer of entropy from the kinetic degrees of
freedom to the spins. The width increases much lesssteeply than would be expected for an isothermal sample,
implying cooling. The observed domain wall width can beconverted to a temperature using spin gradient thermometry. The measured temperature falls rapidly as the gradientis lowered (see Fig. 4). The lowest measured temperature is
350  50 pK, making this the coldest implementation of
the atomic Mott insulator. An important goal for future
experiments will be to develop an additional method ofthermometry to measure the temperature of the kinetic
degrees of freedom at this very low temperature scale(for progress towards this goal, see Refs. [26–28]). Thistemperature is colder than the lowest temperature evermeasured in an equilibrated kinetic system [29], and it iswithin a factor of 2 of the expected magnetic ordering
temperature [5].
Theoretical curves in Figs. 3 and 4 (see also Ref. [25])show reasonable agreement with the data. These curvesweek ending
13 MAY 2011were fitted to the measured temperatures by using only one
free parameter: the initial temperature at the maximum
gradient. The initial temperature inferred from this fit is
6.3 nK. In our earlier work on thermometry [20], where thelowest measured temperature was 1 nK, some adiabatic
demagnetization cooling may have occurred during the
preparation of the system. The flattening out observed in
the measured data at low gradients could be a signal that allaccessible entropy has been pumped into the spin system.
There are both practical and theoretical limits on thetemperatures which can be attained with spin gradientdemagnetization cooling. In traditional magnetic refrigeration experiments, the minimum temperature is often set by
the minimum achievable magnetic field or the presence ofinternal fields in the refrigerant [30]. Analogues of boththese limits are relevant here. Practically, the ratio between
the highest and lowest attainable magnetic field gradientsis an upper bound on the ratio between the initial and final
temperatures. In our experiment, the maximum value of
rjBi j=rjBf j is about 1000 (limited mainly by the accuracy of determining the zero crossing of the gradient),
which would give a minimum temperature below 10 pK.
Another limit stems from the small difference between theinterspin interaction energy U"# and the mean of the intraspin interaction energies ðU"" þ U## Þ=2. For 87 Rb, this limit
is not expected to preclude cooling below the expectedmagnetic ordering temperature [25]. The fundamental
limit is set by the total entropy of the system. A single
Mott insulator has an entropy per particle much less thankB ln2. At high gradient, the spin entropy is negligible.
Lowering the gradient provides a controlled way of creating a completely mixed two-component system at the sameentropy which is low enough for spin ordering to occur.
This technique thus provides a specific and realistic
method of realizing magnetic phase transitions in opticallattices.
Our scheme differs from single-shot adiabatic demagnetization refrigeration (including that demonstrated in agas of chromium atoms [31]) in that the magnetic field is
replaced by a magnetic field gradient and spin-flip collisions by spin transport. The chromium scheme cannot beapplied to alkali atoms due to the much slower spin-flip
rates, and extending it from microkelvins to picokelvins
would require submicrogauss magnetic field control. In
previous work [20], we suggested that adiabatic reductionof the gradient could be used for cooling, and some aspectsof this proposal have recently been theoretically addressedand verified [32].
The concept behind spin gradient demagnetization cooling is compelling; if adiabaticity can be maintained, thenstrong cooling in a lattice will occur. Our experimental
implementation was designed to allow the system to equilibrate as much as possible at low lattice depths. We havetested reversibility by replacing the single gradient ramp by
a sequence of ramp down, ramp up, ramp down. This led to195301-3

PRL 106, 195301 (2011)

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

no detectable difference in the final measured temperature.
This indicates that the gradient ramps are adiabatic.
Equilibration in the Mott insulator is more difficult todemonstrate, although the previously demonstrated agreement between spin gradient thermometry and cloud size
thermometry at high temperatures [20] indicates that the
kinetic and spin degrees of freedom are equilibrated in that
regime. The fact that the spin distribution fits well to theform expected of an equilibrated spin system is also
evidence for equilibration, as is the one-parameter fit to
our theoretical predictions (which assume adiabaticity).
However, if the lattice is deepened, then lowered to zero,and then raised again, heating is generally observed.
Thus, we cannot rule out the existence of long-lived metastable excitations in the Mott insulating state which do notcouple to the spin degrees of freedom and thus do not
influence our temperature measurement. Other experiments have seen evidence of long equilibration times in
the Mott insulator [24,33]. For quicker equilibration, spin
gradient demagnetization cooling could be implemented
with lighter atomic species (e.g., 7 Li or 4 He ) and/or
shorter period optical lattices.
The cooling technique using isolated spins presented
here has achieved spin temperatures and entropies well
below the critical values for magnetic ordering, and spin
gradient demagnetization cooling of equilibrated spins hascooled to a point within reach of the critical values. This
work thus opens a realistic path towards observation ofsuperexchange-driven phase transitions in optical lattices
and extends the potential of ultracold atoms trapped in
optical lattices to be used as flexible quantum simulatorsof strongly interacting many-body systems.
We acknowledge discussions with Eugene Demler,
Takuya Kitagawa, David Pekker, and Aditi Mitra. We
thank Aviv Keshet for a critical reading of the manuscript.
H. M. acknowledges support from the NDSEG program.
This work was supported by the NSF, through a MURI
program, and under ARO Grant No. W911NF-07-1-0493
with funds from the DARPA OLE program.

*Present address: Department of Physics, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
†dweld@mit.edu[1] M. Lewenstein et al., Adv. Phys. 56, 243 (2007).
[2] I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80,
885 (2008).

week ending
13 MAY 2011

[3] L.-M. Duan, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett.
91, 090402 (2003).
[4] T.-L. Ho and Q. Zhou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 120404(2007).
[5] B. Capogrosso-Sansone, Ş. G. Söyler, N. V. Prokof’ev, andB. V. Svistunov, Phys. Rev. A 81, 053622 (2010).
[6] F. Werner, O. Parcollet, A. Georges, and S. R. Hassan,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 056401 (2005).
[7] M. Popp, J.-J. Garcia-Ripoll, K. G. Vollbrecht, and J. I.
Cirac, Phys. Rev. A 74, 013622 (2006).
[8] B. Capogrosso-Sansone, Ş. G. Söyler, N. Prokof’ev, andB. Svistunov, Phys. Rev. A 77, 015602 (2008).
[9] P. Rabl, A. J. Daley, P. O. Fedichev, J. I. Cirac, and P.
Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 110403 (2003).
[10] J.-S. Bernier et al., Phys. Rev. A 79, 061601 (2009).
[11] T.-L. Ho and Q. Zhou, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106,6916 (2009).
[12] T.-L. Ho and Q. Zhou, arXiv:0911.5506.
[13] J. Catani et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 140401 (2009).
[14] See supplemental material at http://link.aps.org/
supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.195301 for detailed experimental methods.
[15] F. Reif, Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics(McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965).
[16] P. J. Hakonen, R. T. Vuorinen, and J. E. Martikainen, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 70, 2818 (1993).
[17] J. T. Tuoriniemi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 370 (2000).
[18] T. Kraemer et al., Appl. Phys. B 79, 1013 (2004).
[19] A part-per-million spin impurity level would, for example,
be present in a 100 Hz magnetic trap with a 100-s lifetime
due to dipolar relaxation.
[20] D. M. Weld et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 245301(2009).
[21] W. F. Giauque, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 49, 1864 (1927).
[22] P. Debye, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 386, 1154 (1926).
[23] F. Gerbier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 120405 (2007).
[24] R. Sensarma et al., Phys. Rev. B 82, 224302 (2010).
[25] D. M. Weld, H. Miyake, P. Medley, D. E. Pritchard, and
W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. A 82, 051603(R) (2010).
[26] W. S. Bakr et al., Science 329, 547 (2010).
[27] J. F. Sherson et al., Nature (London) 467, 68 (2010).
[28] N. Gemelke, X. Zhang, C.-L. Hung, and C. Chin, Nature(London) 460, 995 (2009).
[29] A. E. Leanhardt et al., Science 301, 1513 (2003).
[30] A. S. Oja and O. V. Lounasmaa, Rev. Mod. Phys. 69, 1(1997).
[31] M. Fattori et al., Nature Phys. 2, 765 (2006).
[32] S. S. Natu and E. J. Mueller, Phys. Rev. A 82, 013612(2010).
[33] C.-L. Hung, X. Zhang, N. Gemelke, and C. Chin, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 104, 160403 (2010).

195301-4

124

Appendix E
Thermometry and refrigeration ina two-component Mott insulator ofultracold atoms
This appendix contains a reprint of Ref. [116]: David M. Weld, Hirokazu Miyake,
Patrick Medley, David E. Pritchard, and Wolfgang Ketterle, Thermometry and refrigeration in a two-component Mott insulator of ultracold atoms, Phys. Rev. A 82,
051603(R) (2010).

125

RAPID COMMUNICATIONSPHYSICAL REVIEW A 82, 051603(R) (2010)

Thermometry and refrigeration in a two-component Mott insulator of ultracold atoms
David M. Weld,* Hirokazu Miyake, Patrick Medley,† David E. Pritchard, and Wolfgang Ketterle
MIT-Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms, Research Laboratory of Electronics, and Department of Physics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA(Received 1 September 2010; published 18 November 2010)
Interesting spin Hamiltonians can be realized with ultracold atoms in a two-component Mott insulator (2CMI)[Adv. Phys. 56, 243 (2007); Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 885 (2008)]. It was recently demonstrated that the applicationof a magnetic field gradient to the 2CMI enables new techniques of thermometry [Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 245301(2009)] and adiabatic cooling [e-print arXiv:1006.4674]. Here we present a theoretical description which provides
quantitative analysis of these two techniques. We show that adiabatic reduction of the field gradient is capable ofcooling below the Curie or Néel temperature of certain spin-ordered phases.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.82.051603

PACS number(s): 03.75.Mn, 37.10.Jk, 05.30.Jp, 37.10.De

The possibility of using ultracold lattice-trapped gases as
general simulators of strongly interacting many-body systems
has excited increasing interest in recent years [1–3]. Spin
Hamiltonians are a natural candidate for quantum simulation,
especially given the relevance of doped antiferromagnetic
systems to the important open problem of high-Tc superconductivity [4]. The 2CMI is the starting point for the simulationof electronic spin systems in lattices [5–9]. Spin-exchangestabilized magnetically ordered states are expected to exist in
the 2CMI [10], and observation of these states and transitions
between them would open up an exciting new field at theintersection of atomic and condensed matter physics. The
main obstacle which has so far prevented the observation of
spin-ordered states in the 2CMI is the very low temperaturescale required for spin ordering [11]. Quantum Monte Carlocalculations have predicted Curie and Néel temperatures on theorder of 200 pK for the ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic
states of 87 Rb in a 532-nm lattice [12]. This is a lower temperature than has ever been measured in any system. Clearly, newmethods of thermometry and refrigeration are required.
The recently demonstrated technique of spin gradientthermometry [13] should allow measurement of temperatures
down to the spin exchange scale in the 2CMI. The related
method of spin gradient demagnetization cooling is capable ofcooling to the neighborhood of the critical temperature for spinordering [14]. Together, these new techniques open a realistic
prospect of preparing spin-ordered phases in the 2CMI. In
order to compare experimental results with theory, we havedeveloped a simple theoretical model of the 2CMI and used it
to calculate the expected response of our system to spin gradient thermometry and spin gradient demagnetization cooling.
Our treatment of the 2CMI is similar in approach to thestudies of cooling in the one-component Mott insulator presented in Refs. [11] and [15] in that it is based on calculationsof entropy-versus-temperature curves for various values ofcontrol parameters. Our model neglects the effects of tunnelingand treats each lattice site separately, yet is capable of qualitatively reproducing observed cooling curves using only one fit*

dweld@mit.edu
Present address: Department of Physics, Stanford University,
Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
†1050-2947/2010/82(5)/051603(4)051603-1

parameter (the initial temperature) [14]. Our results thus complement, and are in qualitative agreement with, the classicalmean-field and Monte Carlo analysis of Natu and Mueller [16].
The inputs to the calculation are the measured trap
frequencies (ωx ,ωy ,ωz ), the total atom number N , and theapplied magnetic field gradient ∇|B| (along with various fixedparameters like the scattering lengths and magnetic momentof the atoms and the lattice constant). This allows directcomparison with experiment. The particular trap frequencies
assumed here are 2π × (40,156,141) Hz. We assume an
atom number of 17 000, leading to an occupation numberof 3 in the center of the cloud. These values were chosenbecause they are typical in our experiments. The scattering
lengths we assumed are a↑↑ = 100.4a0 , a↓↓ = 98.98a0 , anda↑↓ = 98.98a0 , where a0 is the Bohr radius and states ↑ and ↓are the |F = 1,mF = −1 and |F = 2,mF = −2 hyperfine
states of 87 Rb; these values represent the results of the mostrecent theoretical calculations available [17].
Detailed technical descriptions of spin gradient thermometry and spin gradient demagnetization cooling are presented
in Refs. [13] and [14], respectively. Both techniques are basedon the 2CMI in a magnetic field gradient. Since the twocomponents have different magnetic moments, the gradientpulls them toward opposite sides of the trap, creating two spin
domains which remain in thermal contact. At zero temperature,
there will be a zero-width boundary between the two domains,
but at finite temperature a mixed region composed of spin
excitations will be present.
Since the total magnetization is always chosen to be zero,
the average value of the magnetic field is canceled by a
Lagrange multiplier and can be subtracted from the real field
B(x). This allows us to write the field as Beff = ∇|B| · x i ,where x i is the vector from the trap center to lattice site iprojected along the direction of the magnetic field gradient.
Note that Beff = 0 at the trap center. If tunneling is neglected,
then, at a magnetic field gradient ∇|B|, the energy of aconfiguration with n↑ up spins and n↓ down spins at latticesite i is
Ei (n↑ ,n↓ ,∇|B|) = p∇|B| · x i (n↑ − n↓ )1Uσ σ nσ (nσ − 1) + U↑↓ n↑ n↓+
2 σ+ Vi (n↑ + n↓ ) − µ↑ n↑ − µ↓ n↓ ,(1)©2010 The American Physical Society

RAPID COMMUNICATIONSWELD, MIYAKE, MEDLEY, PRITCHARD, AND KETTERLE

PHYSICAL REVIEW A 82, 051603(R) (2010)

where p is the amplitude of the effective magnetic moment of
the atoms, xi = |x i |, σ = {↑,↓}, Uab is the interaction energy
between spin a and spin b, Vi = (m/2)(ωx2 xi2 + ωy2 yi2 + ωz2 zi2 )is the optical trapping potential at site i, yi and zi are thedistances of site i from the trap center in the two directionstransverse to the gradient, and µa is the chemical potential ofspin a. The chemical potential is set by the requirement thatthe number of atoms of each spin be equal to half the total
experimentally measured number.
Equation (1) can be used in the grand canonical ensemble toinfer the thermal probability of different occupation numbersof the two spins.
 The partition function at lattice site i
is Zi (∇|B|) = {n↑ ,n↓ } exp[−Ei (n↑ ,n↓ ,∇|B|)/kB T ], where
kB is Boltzmann’s constant, T is the temperature, and thesummation is over all possible combinations of n↑ and n↓ (eachcombination is counted only once, due to indistinguishabilityof the atoms). The probability of having n↑ up spins and n↓
down spins at lattice site i is thenpi (n↑ ,n↓ ,∇|B|,T ) =exp[−Ei (n↑ ,n↓ ,∇|B|)/kB T ],Zi

and the resulting entropy at site i is
pi ln pi ,Si (∇|B|,T ) = −FIG. 2. Total entropy per particle versus temperature, at various
gradients, for the experimental parameters described in the text.
The arrow indicates a possible path followed during adiabatic spin
gradient demagnetization cooling.

(2)

(3)

{n↑ ,n↓ }where the summation is performed in the same way as for thepartition function. The only additional approximation needed
is a truncation of the sums over spin configurations. For our
experimental parameters, configurations corresponding to a
total atom number per site n greater than 4 can be neglected,
and we have truncated the sums accordingly. This truncationis reminiscent of, but more general than, the particle-holeapproximation [11,15]. The site entropy Si of Eq. (3) issummed over all lattice sites to extract the total entropy
as a function of temperature and field gradient. From this
output one can extract column-integrated images (Fig. 1),
entropy-versus-temperature curves (Fig. 2), and the predicted
response to thermometry (Fig. 3) and cooling (Fig. 4).
It is instructive to compare the results of this calculation to those of the simple approximation which treats

FIG. 3. Ratio between fitted temperature and actual temperature
at two different gradients, assuming perfect imaging. This showsthe effect of corrections due to indistinguishability and unequal
scattering lengths. Finite imaging resolution will limit the rangeof temperature that can be measured with any given gradient, as
discussed in Ref. [13].

FIG. 1. Comparison of simulated and measured spin images.
Simulated images are on the left. Magnetic field gradients andtemperatures for simulated images are: (a) 0.7 G/cm and 6 nK,(b) 0.06 G/cm and 2 nK, and (c) 0.0024 G/cm and 0.4 nK. The
gradient and fitted temperature for each measured spin image (d)–(f)are similar to the values for the simulated image in the same row. See
Fig. 3 for a comparison of the temperature extracted from this fit to
the real modeled temperature. Note that the total magnetization in all
pictures is close to zero.

FIG. 4. Spin gradient demagnetization cooling. Predicted temperature versus final gradient, for several values of the total entropy.

051603-2

RAPID COMMUNICATIONSTHERMOMETRY AND REFRIGERATION IN A TWO- . . .

PHYSICAL REVIEW A 82, 051603(R) (2010)

the spin and particle-hole degrees of freedom separately. In
this approximation, the partition function for an individual
lattice site i is assumed to factorize as Z = Zσ Z0 , whereZσ = σ exp[−β pσ ·B(xi )], β is 1/kB T , pσ is the magnetic
moment of the spin σ , and Z0 is the partition function of
the particle-hole degrees of freedom (for which see [11,15]).
This simple treatment is valid for the case of one atom
per lattice site. For occupation number n > 1, there arecorrections which are captured by our more complete model.
The first correction arises from a difference U between
the mean of the intraspin interaction energies Uσ and theinterspin interaction energy U↑↓ . U/Uσ is about 0.007
for our states. The leading correction changes the magnetic
field gradient at the center of the sample B  to an effective
gradient B  [1 + (n − 1)U/kB T ]. This becomes important
at low temperatures, and destroys the factorizability of thepartition function mentioned above. The second correction isdue to indistinguishability of the atoms. This arises from thequantum mechanical fact that there are three (rather than four)
possible spin states for a lattice site with two pseudospin-1/2
atoms. The size of both corrections is expected to be small,but in order to treat them fully we have developed the moregeneral model described above.
Under the assumption that Z = Zσ Z0 , the mean spin s asa function of position, field gradient, and temperature has thesimple forms = tanh[−β p · B(xi )/2],(4)

where  p is the difference between the magnetic moments ofthe two states. Spin gradient thermometry is based on the fact
that, at finite temperatures, the width of the boundary layer is
proportional to the temperature and inversely proportional tothe magnetic field gradient.
The spin profile of Eq. (4) is exact for a 2CMI with
one particle per site. The model presented here can be used
to investigate corrections to thermometry at higher filling.
Figure 3 shows the temperature measured by fitting to Eq. (4)divided by the actual modeled temperature for two values of
the gradient. The high-temperature correction is mainly due
to indistinguishability of the atoms, and is only important forsites containing 2 or more atoms. Note that the fitted spin
profile is integrated along both directions transverse to thegradient, so it includes contributions from all occupationnumber domains. Although this correction is conceptuallyimportant, it changes the measured temperature by less than
15% under our experimental conditions. The correction at low
temperatures is partly due to the fact that the scattering lengths
U↑↑ , U↓↓ , and U↑↓ are not all equal. This is expected to result ina curvature of the mixed region between the two spin domains.
This curvature arises from a buoyancy effect—the species
with greater intraspin repulsion will preferentially populate theouter regions of the trap. This effect causes a fit to Eq. (4) tooverestimate the temperature, since a curved boundary appears
wider after integration along the directions perpendicular to
the gradient. Another correction at low temperatures arises
if the width of the mixed region becomes much less than
one lattice constant. In this case both the model and the real
physical spin system will not respond measurably to smallchanges in the gradient, and the measured temperature will

overestimate the real temperature. These corrections need tobe taken into account for precision temperature measurements
at extreme temperatures and field gradients, but they do notalter the conclusions of Refs. [13] or [14].
Spin gradient demagnetization cooling is based on thefact that the entropy stored in the mixed region between
the two spin domains increases with decreasing magnetic
field gradient. If the change of the gradient is adiabatic,then the energy and entropy which flow to the spin degrees
of freedom must come from other degrees of freedom, andthe sample’s temperature can be reduced. Although spin
gradient demagnetization cooling was inspired by (and islocally similar to) adiabatic demagnetization refrigeration incondensed or gaseous systems [18–20], there are importantdifferences between the techniques. Most notably, spin gradient demagnetization cooling varies a magnetic field gradientrather than a homogeneous field, and relies on spin transport
rather than spin flips. These differences allow the technique
to be applied to lattice-trapped ultracold atomic systems. Spingradient demagnetization cooling thus broadens and extends
existing magnetic refrigeration techniques.
Entropy versus temperature curves such as those plotted inFig. 2 can be used to calculate the response of the system to spin
gradient demagnetization cooling. If the gradient is reduced
perfectly adiabatically, the system will move horizontallyas indicated by the arrow in Fig. 2, and the temperature
will decrease. This behavior is plotted in Fig. 4 for several
values of the total entropy (corresponding to different initial
temperatures). These predictions can be used directly to fit
experimental data, with the initial temperature being the only
free parameter. Such fitting gives reasonable agreement (seeRef. [14]).
For sufficiently low initial entropy, the spin degrees of
freedom will contain all the entropy in the system when
the gradient is adiabatically reduced by some factor. Further
reduction of the gradient below this point is expected tolinearly decrease the temperature of the system until the point
where interactions become important. Conversely, if the initial
entropy is too high, the spins will become fully disordered atsome finite value of the gradient and will no longer be able toabsorb entropy. Reduction of the gradient below this point will
not change the temperature. This behavior, which is essentiallya finite-size effect, is apparent in the upper curve in Fig. 4. If thegradient is sufficiently high, it can pull the two spin domains so
far apart that the area where they overlap is decreased in size.
This effect reduces the entropy capacity of the spin degrees
of freedom at high gradients, and is the origin of the slight
downturn in temperatures at the highest gradients in Fig. 4.
Magnetic field gradients of 1 mG/cm are well within therange of the experimentally achievable. Assuming reductionof the gradient from 2 G/cm to 1 mG/cm, our analysis predicts
that samples with an initial entropy lower than about 0.4kB canbe cooled below the spin-ordering temperature. Our model
neglects spin correlations, so the lowest-temperature resultsplotted in Fig. 4 should be taken as evidence that reduction of
the gradient is capable of cooling below the spin-ordering
temperature rather than a prediction of the dependence oftemperature on gradient below the Curie or Nèel temperature.
Figure 5 shows several images of the total entropy distribution at different final gradients during demagnetization.

051603-3

RAPID COMMUNICATIONSWELD, MIYAKE, MEDLEY, PRITCHARD, AND KETTERLE

PHYSICAL REVIEW A 82, 051603(R) (2010)

FIG. 5. (Color online) Entropy distribution during spin gradientdemagnetization cooling. The images are slices of the cloud throughthe center. Each pixel represents one lattice site. All plots are at a
total entropy per particle near 0.3kB , and are thus representative of
the changing entropy distribution during isentropic demagnetization.
Values of the gradient and temperature are as follows: (a) ∇B =0.5 G/cm and T = 3 nK, (b) ∇B = 0.1 G/cm and T = 1.5 nK,(c) ∇B = 0.02 G/cm and T = 0.5 nK. The ring-shaped structures are
the mixed-occupation-number regions between Mott domains whichcarry particle-hole entropy. Note that these regions are narrower
after reduction of the gradient. This indicates that entropy has
been transferred from the mixed-occupation-number regions to themixed-spin region, and the temperature has been reduced.

excludes, for example, the two lowest states of 7 Li at very highfields. The predicted behavior is also, in principle, different forhigher filling factors than it is for n = 1 (although, as discussed
above, we find this effect to be small for the particular caseof 87 Rb). For example, strong miscibility or immiscibility ofthe two species would change the response of the system todemagnetization, but only if the maximum occupation number
n is greater than 1 (see also Ref. [21]). The dependence of the
response to demagnetization on the trap frequencies and total
atom number can also be investigated using the techniquespresented here; the most important effect of varying theseparameters is generally to change the maximum occupation
number and the spectrum of particle-hole excitations. For
best cooling performance, the initial entropy should be lower
than the maximum mixing entropy (kB ln 2 per site for then = 1 case). We believe that spin gradient demagnetization
cooling could, in principle, be applied to fermionic mixtures
as well. In fact, the technique does not even require a lattice,and could potentially be applied to the thermal fraction of atrapped two-component gas.
We have presented results of calculations based on a theoretical model of the 2CMI and its response to a varying magnetic
field gradient. Our results provide quantitative support for
spin gradient thermometry and spin gradient demagnetization
cooling.

The pumping of entropy from the kinetic degrees of freedom
to the spins is clearly visible.
These theoretical results help elucidate some limitations
on and possible extensions to the technique of spin gradientdemagnetization cooling. The technique clearly requires theuse of two states with different magnetic moments—thisWe thank Eugene Demler, Takuya Kitagawa, David Pekker,
and Servaas Kokkelmans for useful and interesting discussions. H.M. acknowledges support from the NDSEG fellowship program. This work was supported by the NSF, througha MURI program, and under ARO Grant No. W911NF-071-0493 with funds from the DARPA OLE program. Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to
D.M.W.

[1] R. Feynman, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 467 (1982).
[2] M. Lewenstein et al., Adv. Phys. 56, 243 (2007).
[3] I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 885(2008).
[4] P. A. Lee, N. Nagaosa, and X.-G. Wen, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 17(2006).
[5] J. Catani, L. De Sarlo, G. Barontini, F. Minardi, and M. Inguscio,
Phys. Rev. A 77, 011603 (2008).
[6] U. Schneider et al., Science 322, 1520 (2008).
[7] R. Jordens, N. Strohmaier, K. Gunter, H. Moritz, andT. Esslinger, Nature (London) 455, 204 (2008).
[8] B. Gadway, D. Pertot, R. Reimann, and D. Schneble, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 105, 045303 (2010).
[9] S. Ospelkaus et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 180403 (2006).
[10] L.-M. Duan, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91,
090402 (2003).

[11] T.-L. Ho and Q. Zhou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 120404(2007).
[12] B. Capogrosso-Sansone, Ş. G. Söyler, N. V. Prokof’ev, andB. V. Svistunov, Phys. Rev. A 81, 053622 (2010).
[13] D. M. Weld et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 245301(2009).
[14] P. Medley, D. M. Weld, H. Miyake, D. E. Pritchard, and
W. Ketterle, e-print arXiv:1006.4674.
[15] F. Gerbier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 120405 (2007).
[16] S. S. Natu and E. J. Mueller, e-print arXiv:1005.3090.
[17] S. Kokkelmans (private communication).
[18] W. F. Giauque, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 49, 1864 (1927).
[19] P. Debye, Ann. Phys. 386, 1154 (1926).
[20] M. Fattori et al., Nat. Phys. 2, 765 (2006).
[21] E. Altman, W. Hofstetter, E. Demler, and M. Lukin, New J.
Phys. 5, 113 (2003).

051603-4

130Appendix F
Spin Gradient Thermometry for
Ultracold Atoms in Optical
Lattices
This appendix contains a reprint of Ref. [115]: David M. Weld, Patrick Medley,
Hirokazu Miyake, David Hucul, David E. Pritchard, and Wolfgang Ketterle, Spin
Gradient Thermometry for Ultracold Atoms in Optical Lattices, Phys. Rev. Lett.
103, 245301 (2009).

131

PRL 103, 245301 (2009)

Selected for a Viewpoint in Physics
PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

week ending
11 DECEMBER 2009

Spin Gradient Thermometry for Ultracold Atoms in Optical Lattices
David M. Weld, Patrick Medley, Hirokazu Miyake, David Hucul, David E. Pritchard, and Wolfgang Ketterle
MIT-Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms, Research Laboratory of Electronics, and Department of Physics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA(Received 20 August 2009; revised manuscript received 10 October 2009; published 7 December 2009)
We demonstrate spin gradient thermometry, a new general method of measuring the temperature ofultracold atoms in optical lattices. We realize a mixture of spins separated by a magnetic field gradient.
Measurement of the width of the transition layer between the two spin domains serves as a new method ofthermometry which is observed to work over a broad range of lattice depths and temperatures, including in
the Mott insulator regime. We demonstrate the thermometry using ultracold rubidium atoms, and suggestthat interesting spin physics can be realized in this system. The lowest measured temperature is 1 nK,
indicating that the system has reached the quantum regime, where insulating shells are separated bysuperfluid layers.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.245301

PACS numbers: 67.85.d, 03.75.Mn, 05.30.Jp, 75.10.Jm

Ultracold atoms trapped in optical lattices represent a
new frontier for the investigation of many-body physics[1,2]. The existence of novel physics at decreasing energy
scales drives the quest for lower temperatures in the atomic
Mott insulator. Insulating Mott shells form at a temperature
T  0:2U, where U is the interaction energy. At the lower
temperature T  zJ, where J is the tunneling amplitude
and z is the number of nearest neighbors, the conducting
layers become superfluid and the system enters a quantum
insulator state [3]. At the even colder temperature scale
T  J 2 =U, superexchange-stabilized phases can exist in
the two-component Mott insulator; this is the regime ofquantum magnetism [4]. Various proposals [5,6] have focused on the realization of quantum spin Hamiltonians inthis regime. Detection of superexchange-driven phase transitions in these systems remains a major goal of ultracold
atomic physics. Perhaps the most important barrier toexperimental detection of such a phase transition is therequirement of temperatures well below 1 nK [4].
Additional cooling methods [7–10] will be needed to reachthis very interesting temperature scale. However, it is clearthat to assess current methods and to validate future cooling techniques, low-temperature thermometry of the Mott
insulator is needed.
Thermometry of systems in the Mott insulating state hasremained a challenge [3,11–14]. In this Letter, we discussand demonstrate a simple and direct method of thermometry using a magnetic field gradient which works in thetwo-component Mott insulator.
The theory behind this method of thermometry is
straightforward. The system under consideration is an
ensemble of atoms in a mixture of two hyperfine statesloaded into a three-dimensional optical lattice in the presence of a weak magnetic field gradient. The two states havedifferent magnetic moments, and are thus pulled towards
opposite sides of the trapped sample by the gradient. At
0031-9007=09=103(24)=245301(4)zero temperature, the spins will segregate completely, anda sharp domain wall will exist between the two spin
domains (a small width due to superexchange coupling istypically negligible). This system has the same bulk physics as the single-component Mott insulator, but includes
additional degrees of freedom in the form of spin excitations in the domain wall. At finite temperature, spin excitations will increase the width of the domain wall. Thiswidth will depend in a simple way on the field gradient, thedifferential Zeeman shift, and the temperature, and canthus be used as a thermometer.
For an incoherent mixture of two spins, the partition
function for an individual lattice site can be
P approximately
factorized as Z ¼ Z Z0 , where Z ¼  expð BðxÞÞ,  is 1=kB T,  is the magnetic moment of thespin , BðxÞ is the spatially varying magnetic field, and
Z0 is the partition function of the particle-hole degrees of
freedom (for which see [3]). This approximation is generally valid for the case of one atom per lattice site; foroccupation number n > 1, it is valid when the mean of theintraspin interaction energies U  is equal to the interspin
interaction energy U"# , which is a good approximation in
87 Rb [15]. Since the total magnetization is fixed, the average value of the magnetic field is canceled by the corresponding Lagrange multiplier; we include this in thedefinition of BðxÞ. We are free to treat the two states as
having pseudospin þ1 and 1; making that identification,
the mean spin hsi as a function of position, gradientstrength, and temperature has the simple form
hsi ¼ tanhð    BðxÞ=2Þ;(1)where  is the difference between the magnetic momentsof the two states. A fit of the measured spin distribution
with a function of this form will give the temperature of thesystem. When the Zeeman shift due to the magnetic field
gradient is a linear function of position, imaging of the spin

245301-1

Ó 2009 The American Physical Society

PRL 103, 245301 (2009)PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

distribution essentially corresponds to direct imaging of
the Boltzmann distribution.
The apparatus used to produce ultracold 87 Rb atoms is
described in Ref. [16]. After cooling, approximately 105
atoms are held in a far-red-detuned crossed optical dipole
trap with trap frequencies between 100 and 200 Hz. A
three-dimensional cubic optical lattice, formed by three
retroreflected beams each of radius 150 m, overlaps
the trapping region. Since spin gradient thermometry does
not depend on the number of atoms per lattice site n, we
perform measurements at a range of n values between 1
and 4. The trapping and lattice beams are all derived fromone fiber laser, with a wavelength  of 1064 nm. Magnetic
field gradients up to a few G=cm can be applied withexternal coils, and calibrated using Stern-Gerlach separation of the different spin states after release from the trap.
The gradient is applied along the x direction, which is theweakest axis of the crossed dipole trap. Absorptive imaging of the atoms is performed with a camera pointing downalong the vertical z axis.
The sequence of steps used to measure temperature
is as follows. First, a sample of 87 Rb atoms in thejF ¼ 1; mF ¼ 1i state is prepared by evaporation in the
optical trap. Here F and mF are the quantum numbers forthe total spin and its projection on the z axis, respectively.
The atoms are then placed into a mixture of the j1; 1i andj2; 2i states by a nonadiabatic magnetic field sweep
through the microwave transition between the two states.
This pair of states was chosen in order to avoid spinexchange collisions. A magnetic field gradient of
2 G=cm is applied along the weak axis of the trap andresults in additional evaporation, which is intended toremove the entropy created by the state preparation [17].
At this point, the field gradient is changed to the value to be
used for measurement; lower gradients are used for lowertemperature measurements to keep the domain wall width
larger than the imaging resolution. The optical lattice isthen adiabatically ramped up, typically to a depth of
14:5ER , where ER ¼ h2 =2m2 is the recoil energy and mis the atomic mass. The transition to the Mott insulator
occurs at 13:5ER . At this point, the spin structure depends
on the temperature as discussed above.
There are several ways to measure the resulting spin
distribution. One way is to first take an image of the F ¼ 2
atoms in the 14:5ER lattice, then in a second run to illuminate the atoms with an optical repumper beam resonantwith the F ¼ 1 to F0 ¼ 2 transition for a few s prior to
imaging. This method gives an image of all atoms and an
image of just the F ¼ 2 atoms; appropriate subtraction can
provide the spin distribution. It is possible to determine thetemperature from a single image of one spin, but the data inthis Letter were all taken using pairs of images to guard
against systematic errors.
The temperature can then be measured by fitting the spin
distribution to the hyperbolic tangent form. The resulting

week ending
11 DECEMBER 2009

thermometer has high dynamic range and variable sensitivity, works at all accessible temperatures of interest, andrequires only the simplest fitting procedures.
Figure 1 shows data of the type used for spin gradientthermometry. An image of the total atom density and an
image of the spin density are obtained as discussed above.
Both images are then integrated along the y direction,
which is transverse to the gradient. The spin distribution
is then fit by a function of the form ðxÞ tanhð34 B djBj
dx xÞ,
where ðxÞ is the total density distribution. The only freeparameters in this fit are a horizontal and vertical offset andthe temperature T ¼ 1=kB .
Figures 2 and 3 show the results of this thermometry on
ultracold 87 Rb atoms in an optical lattice. Figure 2 shows
the linear scaling of the inverse width of the domain wall as
the magnetic field gradient is varied while holding thetemperature constant. For widths larger than the opticalresolution, the scaling is as predicted by Eq. (1). The twodata sets plotted in Fig. 2 were taken at two different
temperatures: 7 and 123 nK, according to the best-fit
theoretical lines. Finite optical resolution or motion of
the atoms during imaging will blur the measured spin
profile and result in an overestimate of the domain wall
width at high gradients. This effect was modeled by applying a Gaussian blur of radius 4 m to the theoretical 7 nK
spin profile at various gradients. The resulting curve, plotted as a dash-dotted line in Fig. 2, reproduces the saturationof measured width observed in the experimental data. The
effect of finite resolution is always to overestimate thetemperature.
Figure 3 shows the measured temperature plotted as afunction of the power in the dipole trapping beam which
confines the atoms in the direction of the magnetic field
gradient (the x direction). Higher powers in this beam lead
to less effective evaporation, and thus higher final tempera-

FIG. 1. Images used for spin gradient thermometry. Data on
the left were taken at a lower optical trap power than data on theright. Panels (a) and (b) are images of the spin distribution.
Panels (c) and (d) show the mean spin versus x position. The fit
to (c) gives a temperature of 52 nK; the fit to (d) gives atemperature of 296 nK. The inset of (a) shows the axes referred
to in the text. The bar in (b) is a size scale.

245301-2

PRL 103, 245301 (2009)PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

FIG. 2. Independence of the measured temperature on theapplied field gradient. The inverse of the width of the spin profileis plotted as a function of magnetic field gradient for two data
sets at two different temperatures. For constant temperature, alinear curve is expected. The width is defined as the distancefrom the center to the position where the mean spin is 1=2. The
solid (dashed) line assumes a temperature of 123 nK (7 nK) andperfect imaging. The measured width of the colder data set
saturates at high gradient because of finite imaging resolution.
The dotted line assumes a temperature of 7 nK and an imaging
resolution of 4 m.

tures. As a check of the new method of thermometry, Fig. 3
also presents an analysis of the same data using an existing
method of thermometry, based on measurement of the intrap width of the atomic cloud along the direction perpendicular to the gradient. This second method is based on thewell-known relation 2 ¼ kB T=m!2 , where  is the 1=e2
half-width of the atomic cloud and ! is the trap frequency

FIG. 3. Validation of spin gradient thermometry. Comparisonof two measured temperatures versus final power in one of the
optical trapping beams. Squares represent the results of in-trap
cloud width thermometry, and circles represent the results ofspin gradient thermometry (see text for details). Error bars
represent estimated uncertainties. The dashed line is a linear fit
to the spin gradient thermometry data. The closeness of this fit
suggests that the temperature reached is proportional to the trap
depth.

week ending
11 DECEMBER 2009

in the direction along which the width is measured [12].
The width is determined by a fit to the wings of the trapped
cloud. Trap width thermometry is based on a noninteracting approximation, and will fail at temperatures less than U
when the system starts to become incompressible. As in
Ref. [12], all points on this plot are in the high-temperaturesingle-band regime (T is less than the band gap but greaterthan the bandwidth). For the temperatures plotted in Fig. 3,
the agreement between the two methods is reasonably
good, and gives confidence in the use of spin gradientthermometry in regions of parameter space where no otherthermometer exists.
The large dynamic range of spin gradient thermometryis evident in Fig. 3. Thermometry can be performed attemperatures so high that no condensate exists before
lattice ramp-up. The lowest temperature we have measured
was achieved by using the new thermometry as a feedback
signal, enabling adjustment of experimental parameters for
optimization of the final temperature in the Mott insulator.
This method allowed us to achieve a measured temperature
as low as 1 nK. At the lattice depth used here, U is 37 nK,
and zJ is 6 nK. The measured temperature is thus well
below Tc ¼ zJ, the predicted critical temperature for thesuperfluid layer between the n ¼ 1 and n ¼ 0 Mott domains. According to the treatment of Ref. [3], at 1 nK thesystem should be well inside the quantum regime, withconcentric quantum insulator shells separated by superfluid layers. This represents the first direct demonstrationthat this temperature regime has been achieved in the Mott
insulator.
At a given value of the magnetic field gradient, very low
temperatures will result in a width of the transition region
smaller than the imaging optics can resolve (see Fig. 2).
However, the width can be increased by decreasing themagnetic field gradient. The lowest measurable temperature will then depend on the minimum achievable gradient
as well as the optical resolution, which are technical rather
than fundamental limitations. In our apparatus, background gradients with all coils turned off are of order
103 G=cm, which, given our imaging resolution of afew m, would in principle allow measurement of temperatures down to 50 pK or the superexchange scale,
whichever is higher.
It is instructive to compare the useful range of this new
method of thermometry with that of existing methods. To
facilitate meaningful comparison with non-lattice-based
methods, we discuss the range of entropy per particle
S=NkB at which a given thermometer works, rather than
the range of temperature. Condensate fraction thermometry works for 0:35 < S=NkB < 3:5, where the lower limit isset by the difficulty of detecting a thermal fraction less than
10%, and the upper limit is set by disappearance of thecondensate. Thermometry based on the thermal cloud size
has a similar lower bound, but extends to arbitrarily highvalues of S=NkB . Quantitative thermometry based on the245301-3

PRL 103, 245301 (2009)PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

visibility of interference peaks upon release from the lattice requires state-of-the-art quantum Monte Carlo calculations fitted to the data. This technique was recently used
to measure temperatures as low as 0:08U in the superfluid
phase near the Mott insulator transition [18]. This method
cannot be applied deep in the Mott insulating state [11].
Measurement of the width of the conducting layers between the Mott shells is the only previously proposed
method which works directly in the Mott insulating state[3,4,19]. However, this method requires tomographic techniques, and the useful range of entropy is rather narrow:
0:4 < S=NkB < lnð2Þ, where the upper limit is set by themelting of the Mott shells, and the lower limit is an
estimate based on typical trapping parameters and opticalresolution. Counting only spin excitations, the range ofspin entropy per particle at which spin gradient thermometry works in our system is 0:1 < S =NkB < lnð2Þ, where
the lower limit is a function of optical resolution andsample size and the upper limit corresponds to the point
at which the domain wall becomes as wide as the sample. It
is important to note that spin gradient thermometry canwork even if the entropy of the particle-hole excitations
lies outside of this range in either direction. For example,
spin gradient thermometry can work at arbitrarily highvalues of the total entropy per particle S=NkB , assuming
the field gradient is increased to the point where S =NkB <lnð2Þ.
The method of thermometry presented here works because the two-component Mott insulator in a field gradient
has a spectrum of soft and easily measurable spin excitations. The wide dynamic range of this method is a result of
the fact that, in contrast to the gapped spectrum of the bulk
one-component Mott insulator, the energy of the spin excitations can be tuned by adjusting the strength of themagnetic field gradient. The addition of a field gradientand a second spin component does not change the bulk
properties of the Mott insulator and can be regarded as‘‘attaching’’ a general thermometer to the first component.
The two-component Mott insulator in a field gradient is
a rich system which can provide experimental access tonovel spin physics as well as thermometry. In the work
presented here, we have always allowed the spin distribution to equilibrate in the gradient before ramping up the
optical lattice. However, changing the gradient after theatoms were already loaded into the lattice should open up
several interesting scientific opportunities, in which thegradient is used to manipulate or perturb the atoms rather
than as a diagnostic tool. If, for example, the gradient weresuddenly changed after lattice ramp-up, one could probe
nonequilibrium spin dynamics in a many-body quantum
system. If the gradient were instead lowered adiabaticallyafter ramp-up, adiabatic cooling of the Mott insulator could

week ending
11 DECEMBER 2009potentially be performed which, in contrast to [20], would
not involve spin-flip collisions.
In conclusion, we have proposed and demonstrated a
new method of thermometry for ultracold atoms in opticallattices. We have used the new method to measure temperatures in the Mott insulator as low as 1 nK. Thistemperature is to the best of our knowledge the lowest
ever measured in a lattice, and it indicates that the system
is deep in the quantum Mott regime.
The authors thank Eugene Demler, Takuya Kitagawa,David Pekker, and Lode Pollet for helpful discussions. This
work was supported by the NSF, through a MURI program,and under ARO Grant No. W911NF-07-1-0493 with funds
from the DARPA OLE program. H. M. acknowledges support from the NSF.

[1] I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80,
885 (2008).
[2] M. Lewenstein et al., Adv. Phys. 56, 243 (2007).
[3] F. Gerbier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 120405 (2007).
[4] T.-L. Ho and Q. Zhou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 120404 (2007).
[5] L. Duan, E. Demler, and M. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91,
090402 (2003).
[6] E. Altman, W. Hofstetter, E. Demler, and M. Lukin,
New J. Phys. 5, 113 (2003).
[7] M. Popp, J.-J. Garcia-Ripoll, K. G. Vollbrecht, and J. I.
Cirac, Phys. Rev. A 74, 013622 (2006).
[8] P. Rabl, A. J. Daley, P. O. Fedichev, J. I. Cirac, andP. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 110403 (2003).
[9] J.-S. Bernier et al., Phys. Rev. A 79, 061601 (2009).
[10] T.-L. Ho and Q. Zhou, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106,6916 (2009).
[11] L. Pollet, C. Kollath, K. V. Houcke, and M. Troyer, New J.
Phys. 10, 065001 (2008).
[12] D. McKay, M. White, and B. DeMarco, Phys. Rev. A 79,
063605 (2009).
[13] A. Hoffmann and A. Pelster, Phys. Rev. A 79, 053623(2009).
[14] B. Capogrosso-Sansone, E. Kozik, N. Prokof’ev, andB. Svistunov, Phys. Rev. A 75, 013619 (2007).
[15] For other atomic species, this treatment can readily be
extended to include effects of finite U ¼ U   U"# . The
leading correction changes the magnetic field gradient at
the center of the sample B0 to an effective gradient B0 ð1 þ
ðn  1ÞU=kB TÞ.
[16] E. W. Streed et al., Rev. Sci. Instrum. 77, 023106 (2006).
[17] C.-L. Hung, X. Zhang, N. Gemelke, and C. Chin, Phys.
Rev. A 78, 011604 (2008).
[18] S. Trotzky et al., arXiv:0905.4882.
[19] S. Fölling, A. Widera, T. Müller, F. Gerbier, and I. Bloch,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 060403 (2006).
[20] M. Fattori et al., Nature Phys. 2, 765 (2006).

245301-4

136

Bibliography[1] J. R. Abo-Shaeer, C. Raman, J. M. Vogels, and W. Ketterle. Observation ofvortex lattices in bose-einstein condensates. Science, 292(5516):476–479, 2001.
[2] Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm. Significance of electromagnetic potentials in thequantum theory. Phys. Rev., 115:485–491, Aug 1959.
[3] M. Aidelsburger, M. Atala, S. Nascimbène, S. Trotzky, Y.-A. Chen, and I. Bloch.
Experimental realization of strong effective magnetic fields in an optical lattice.
Phys. Rev. Lett., 107:255301, Dec 2011.
[4] K. Aikawa, A. Frisch, M. Mark, S. Baier, A. Rietzler, R. Grimm, and F. Ferlaino.
Bose-einstein condensation of erbium. Phys. Rev. Lett., 108:210401, May 2012.
[5] A. Alberti, G. Ferrari, V. V. Ivanov, M. L. Chiofalo, and G. M. Tino. Atomic
wave packets in amplitude-modulated vertical optical lattices. New J. Phys.,12(6):065037, 2010.
[6] A. Alberti, V. V. Ivanov, G. M. Tino, and G. Ferrari. Engineering the quantum
transport of atomic wavefunctions over macroscopic distances. Nat Phys, 5:547,
August 2009.
[7] M. H. Anderson, J. R. Ensher, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman, and E. A.
Cornell. Observation of bose-einstein condensation in a dilute atomic vapor.
Science, 269(5221):198–201, 1995.
[8] M. R. Andrews, C. G. Townsend, H.-J. Miesner, D. S. Durfee, D. M. Kurn,and W. Ketterle. Observation of interference between two bose condensates.
Science, 275(5300):637–641, 1997.
[9] N. Ashcroft and N. D. Mermin. Solid State Physics. Brooks Cole, Belmont,
Massachusetts, 1976.
[10] A. Auerbach. Interacting Electrons and Quantum Magnetism. Springer-Verlag,
New York City, New York, 1994.
[11] Waseem S. Bakr, Jonathon I. Gillen, Amy Peng, Simon Folling, and Markus
Greiner. A quantum gas microscope for detecting single atoms in a hubbardregime optical lattice. Nature, 462:74, November 2009.
137

[12] G. Birkl, M. Gatzke, I. H. Deutsch, S. L. Rolston, and W. D. Phillips. Bragg
scattering from atoms in optical lattices. Phys. Rev. Lett., 75:2823–2826, Oct
1995.
[13] Immanuel Bloch, Jean Dalibard, and Wilhelm Zwerger. Many-body physics
with ultracold gases. Rev. Mod. Phys., 80:885–964, Jul 2008.
[14] B. N. Brockhouse. Scattering of neutrons by spin waves in magnetite. Phys.
Rev., 106:859–864, Jun 1957.
[15] B. Capogrosso-Sansone, Ş. G. Söyler, N. V. Prokof’ev, and B. V. Svistunov.
Critical entropies for magnetic ordering in bosonic mixtures on a lattice. Phys.
Rev. A, 81:053622, May 2010.
[16] Michael S. Chapman, Christopher R. Ekstrom, Troy D. Hammond, Jörg
Schmiedmayer, Bridget E. Tannian, Stefan Wehinger, and David E. Pritchard.
Near-field imaging of atom diffraction gratings: The atomic talbot effect. Phys.
Rev. A, 51:R14–R17, Jan 1995.
[17] Lawrence W. Cheuk, Ariel T. Sommer, Zoran Hadzibabic, Tarik Yefsah,
Waseem S. Bakr, and Martin W. Zwierlein. Spin-injection spectroscopy of aspin-orbit coupled fermi gas. Phys. Rev. Lett., 109:095302, Aug 2012.
[18] Adrian Cho. The mad dash to make light crystals. Science, 320(5874):312–313,
2008.
[19] Steven Chu, J. E. Bjorkholm, A. Ashkin, and A. Cable. Experimental observation of optically trapped atoms. Phys. Rev. Lett., 57:314–317, Jul 1986.
[20] Leon N. Cooper. Bound electron pairs in a degenerate fermi gas. Phys. Rev.,
104:1189–1190, Nov 1956.
[21] T. A. Corcovilos, S. K. Baur, J. M. Hitchcock, E. J. Mueller, and R. G. Hulet.
Detecting antiferromagnetism of atoms in an optical lattice via optical bragg
scattering. Phys. Rev. A, 81:013415, Jan 2010.
[22] Jean Dalibard, Fabrice Gerbier, Gediminas Juzeliūnas, and Patrik Öhberg.
Colloquium: Artificial gauge potentials for neutral atoms. Rev. Mod. Phys.,
83:1523–1543, Nov 2011.
[23] K. B. Davis, M. O. Mewes, M. R. Andrews, N. J. van Druten, D. S. Durfee,
D. M. Kurn, and W. Ketterle. Bose-einstein condensation in a gas of sodium
atoms. Phys. Rev. Lett., 75:3969–3973, Nov 1995.
[24] J. H. de Boer and E. J. W. Verwey. Semi-conductors with partially andwith completely filled 3 d -lattice bands. Proceedings of the Physical Society,49(4S):59, 1937.
138

[25] Y. N. Martinez de Escobar, P. G. Mickelson, M. Yan, B. J. DeSalvo, S. B.
Nagel, and T. C. Killian. Bose-einstein condensation of 84 Sr. Phys. Rev. Lett.,
103:200402, Nov 2009.
[26] C. R. Dean, L. Wang, P. Maher, C. Forsythe, F. Ghahari, Y. Gao, J. Katoch,
M. Ishigami, P. Moon, M. Koshino, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, K. L. Shepard,
J. Hone, and P. Kim. Hofstadter’s butterfly in moire superlattices: A fractal
quantum Hall effect, arXiv:1212.4783 [cond-mat.mes-hall], December 2012.
[27] B. DeMarco and D. S. Jin. Onset of fermi degeneracy in a trapped atomic gas.
Science, 285(5434):1703–1706, 1999.
[28] L. Deng, E. W. Hagley, J. Denschlag, J. E. Simsarian, Mark Edwards,
Charles W. Clark, K. Helmerson, S. L. Rolston, and W. D. Phillips. Temporal,
matter-wave-dispersion talbot effect. Phys. Rev. Lett., 83:5407–5411, Dec 1999.
[29] L.-M. Duan, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin. Controlling spin exchange interactions of ultracold atoms in optical lattices. Phys. Rev. Lett., 91:090402, Aug
2003.
[30] W. Ehrenberg and R. E. Siday. The refractive index in electron optics and theprinciples of dynamics. Proc. Phys. Soc. Lond., 62(1):8, 1949.
[31] Manuel Endres, Takeshi Fukuhara, David Pekker, Marc Cheneau, Peter Schauß,
Christian Gross, Eugene Demler, Stefan Kuhr, and Immanuel Bloch. The ‘higgs’
amplitude mode at the two-dimensional superfluid/mott insulator transition.
Nature, 487:454, July 2012.
[32] R. P. Feynman. Simulating physics with computers. International Journal of
Theoretical Physics, 21:467, 1982.
[33] Matthew P. A. Fisher, Peter B. Weichman, G. Grinstein, and Daniel S. Fisher.
Boson localization and the superfluid-insulator transition. Phys. Rev. B, 40:546–
570, Jul 1989.
[34] Alan Gallagher and David E. Pritchard. Exoergic collisions of cold na∗ -na.
Phys. Rev. Lett., 63:957–960, Aug 1989.
[35] Thomas R. Gentile, Barbara J. Hughey, Daniel Kleppner, and Theodore W.
Ducas. Experimental study of one- and two-photon rabi oscillations. Phys.
Rev. A, 40:5103–5115, Nov 1989.
[36] Fabrice Gerbier. Boson mott insulators at finite temperatures. Phys. Rev. Lett.,
99:120405, Sep 2007.
[37] Fabrice Gerbier and Jean Dalibard. Gauge fields for ultracold atoms in opticalsuperlattices. New Journal of Physics, 12:033007, March 2010.
139

[38] Fabrice Gerbier, Artur Widera, Simon Fölling, Olaf Mandel, Tatjana Gericke,and Immanuel Bloch. Phase coherence of an atomic mott insulator. Phys. Rev.
Lett., 95:050404, Jul 2005.
[39] Thierry Giamarchi, Christian Ruegg, and Oleg Tchernyshyov. Bose-einsteincondensation in magnetic insulators. Nat Phys, 4:198, March 2008.
[40] Markus Glück, Andrey R. Kolovsky, and Hans Jürgen Korsch. Wannierstark resonances in optical and semiconductor superlattices. Physics Reports,
366(3):103 – 182, 2002.
[41] A. Görlitz, J. M. Vogels, A. E. Leanhardt, C. Raman, T. L. Gustavson, J. R.
Abo-Shaeer, A. P. Chikkatur, S. Gupta, S. Inouye, T. Rosenband, and W. Ketterle. Realization of bose-einstein condensates in lower dimensions. Phys. Rev.
Lett., 87:130402, Sep 2001.
[42] Markus Greiner, Olaf Mandel, Tilman Esslinger, Theodor W. Hansch, and Immanuel Bloch. Quantum phase transition from a superfluid to a mott insulator
in a gas of ultracold atoms. Nature, 415:39, January 2002.
[43] Axel Griesmaier, Jörg Werner, Sven Hensler, Jürgen Stuhler, and Tilman Pfau.
Bose-einstein condensation of chromium. Phys. Rev. Lett., 94:160401, Apr 2005.
[44] D. J. Griffiths. Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. Pearson Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2005.
[45] Milena Grifoni and Peter Hänggi. Driven quantum tunneling. Physics Reports,
304(5 - 6):229 – 354, 1998.
[46] Subhadeep Gupta, Aaron E. Leanhardt, Alexander D. Cronin, and David E.
Pritchard. Coherent manipulation of atoms with standing light waves. Comptes
Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences - Series IV - Physics, 2(3):479 – 495, 2001.
[47] Zoran Hadzibabic, Peter Kruger, Marc Cheneau, Baptiste Battelier, and Jean
Dalibard. Berezinskii-kosterlitz-thouless crossover in a trapped atomic gas. Nature, 441:1118, June 2006.
[48] M. Hafezi, A. S. Sørensen, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin. Fractional quantum
hall effect in optical lattices. Phys. Rev. A, 76:023613, Aug 2007.
[49] P. G. Harper. Single band motion of conduction electrons in a uniform magnetic
field. Proc. Phys. Soc. A, 68:874–878, Oct 1955.
[50] A. C. Hewson. The Kondo Problem to Heavy Fermions. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, England, 1997.
[51] Tin-Lun Ho and Qi Zhou. Intrinsic heating and cooling in adiabatic processes
for bosons in optical lattices. Phys. Rev. Lett., 99:120404, Sep 2007.
140

[52] Douglas R. Hofstadter. Energy levels and wave functions of bloch electrons inrational and irrational magnetic fields. Phys. Rev. B, 14:2239–2249, Sep 1976.
[53] J. Hubbard. Electron correlations in narrow energy bands. Proceedings of
the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences,276(1365):238–257, 1963.
[54] B. Hunt, J. D. Sanchez-Yamagishi, A. F. Young, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi,
P. Moon, M. Koshino, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and R. C. Ashoori. Massive
Dirac fermions and Hofstadter butterfly in a van der Waals heterostructure,
arXiv:1303.6942 [cond-mat.mes-hall], March 2013.
[55] S. Inouye, M. R. Andrews, J. Stenger, H.-J. Miesner, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, and
W. Ketterle. Observation of feshbach resonances in a bose-einstein condensate.
Nature, 392:151, March 1998.
[56] V. V. Ivanov, A. Alberti, M. Schioppo, G. Ferrari, M. Artoni, M. L. Chiofalo,
and G. M. Tino. Coherent delocalization of atomic wave packets in driven
lattice potentials. Phys. Rev. Lett., 100:043602, Jan 2008.
[57] J. D. Jackson. From lorenz to coulomb and other explicit gauge transformations.
American Journal of Physics, 70(9):917–928, 2002.
[58] D. Jaksch, C. Bruder, J. I. Cirac, C. W. Gardiner, and P. Zoller. Cold bosonicatoms in optical lattices. Phys. Rev. Lett., 81:3108–3111, Oct 1998.
[59] D. Jaksch and P. Zoller. Creation of effective magnetic fields in optical lattices:the hofstadter butterfly for cold neutral atoms. New J. Phys., 5:56, May 2003.
[60] K. Jiménez-Garcı́a, L. J. LeBlanc, R. A. Williams, M. C. Beeler, A. R. Perry,and I. B. Spielman. Peierls substitution in an engineered lattice potential. Phys.
Rev. Lett., 108:225303, May 2012.
[61] Robert Jordens, Niels Strohmaier, Kenneth Gunter, Henning Moritz, andTilman Esslinger. A mott insulator of fermionic atoms in an optical lattice.
Nature, 455:204, September 2008.
[62] W Ketterle. Bose-einstein condensation in dilute atomic gases: atomic physics
meets condensed matter physics. Physica B: Condensed Matter, 280(1-4):11 –19, 2000.
[63] D. I. Khomskii. Basic Aspects of the Quantum Theory of Solids. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, England, 2010.
[64] A.Yu. Kitaev. Fault-tolerant quantum computation by anyons. Annals ofPhysics, 303(1):2 – 30, 2003.
[65] W. Kohn. Analytic properties of bloch waves and wannier functions. Phys.
Rev., 115:809–821, Aug 1959.
141

[66] Sebastian Kraft, Felix Vogt, Oliver Appel, Fritz Riehle, and Uwe Sterr.
Bose-einstein condensation of alkaline earth atoms: 40 Ca. Phys. Rev. Lett.,
103:130401, Sep 2009.
[67] A. B. Kuklov and B. V. Svistunov. Counterflow superfluidity of two-species
ultracold atoms in a commensurate optical lattice. Phys. Rev. Lett., 90:100401,
Mar 2003.
[68] R. B. Laughlin. Anomalous quantum hall effect: An incompressible quantum
fluid with fractionally charged excitations. Phys. Rev. Lett., 50:1395–1398, May
1983.
[69] Patrick A. Lee, Naoto Nagaosa, and Xiao-Gang Wen. Doping a mott insulator:
Physics of high-temperature superconductivity. Rev. Mod. Phys., 78:17–85, Jan
2006.
[70] Maciej Lewenstein, Anna Sanpera, Veronica Ahufinger, Bogdan Damski, Aditi
Sen(De), and Ujjwal Sen. Ultracold atomic gases in optical lattices: mimicking
condensed matter physics and beyond. Advances in Physics, 56(2):243–379,
2007.
[71] H. Lignier, C. Sias, D. Ciampini, Y. Singh, A. Zenesini, O. Morsch, and E. Arimondo. Dynamical control of matter-wave tunneling in periodic potentials.
Phys. Rev. Lett., 99:220403, Nov 2007.
[72] Y.-J. Lin, R. L. Compton, K. Jimenez-Garcia, J. V. Porto, and I. B. Spielman. Synthetic magnetic fields for ultracold neutral atoms. Nature, 462:628,
December 2009.
[73] Mingwu Lu, Nathaniel Q. Burdick, Seo Ho Youn, and Benjamin L. Lev. Strongly
dipolar bose-einstein condensate of dysprosium. Phys. Rev. Lett., 107:190401,
Oct 2011.
[74] K. W. Madison, F. Chevy, W. Wohlleben, and J. Dalibard. Vortex formation
in a stirred bose-einstein condensate. Phys. Rev. Lett., 84:806–809, Jan 2000.
[75] K. W. Madison, M. C. Fischer, R. B. Diener, Qian Niu, and M. G. Raizen. Dynamical bloch band suppression in an optical lattice. Phys. Rev. Lett., 81:5093–
5096, Dec 1998.
[76] Patrick Medley, David M. Weld, Hirokazu Miyake, David E. Pritchard, and
Wolfgang Ketterle. Spin gradient demagnetization cooling of ultracold atoms.
Phys. Rev. Lett., 106:195301, May 2011.
[77] Hirokazu Miyake, Georgios A. Siviloglou, Graciana Puentes, David E.
Pritchard, Wolfgang Ketterle, and David M. Weld. Bragg scattering as a probeof atomic wave functions and quantum phase transitions in optical lattices.
Phys. Rev. Lett., 107:175302, Oct 2011.
142

[78] G. Möller and N. R. Cooper. Condensed ground states of frustrated bosehubbard models. Phys. Rev. A, 82:063625, Dec 2010.
[79] N. F. Mott. The basis of the electron theory of metals, with special reference tothe transition metals. Proceedings of the Physical Society. Section A, 62(7):416,
1949.
[80] Yu. B. Ovchinnikov, J. H. Müller, M. R. Doery, E. J. D. Vredenbregt, K. Helmerson, S. L. Rolston, and W. D. Phillips. Diffraction of a released bose-einsteincondensate by a pulsed standing light wave. Phys. Rev. Lett., 83:284–287, Jul
1999.
[81] M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder. An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory.
Westview Press, 1995.
[82] T. P. Polak and T. A. Zaleski. Time-of-flight patterns of ultracold bosons in
optical lattices in various abelian artificial magnetic field gauges. Phys. Rev. A,
87:033614, Mar 2013.
[83] Stephen Powell, Ryan Barnett, Rajdeep Sensarma, and Sankar Das Sarma.
Bogoliubov theory of interacting bosons on a lattice in a synthetic magnetic
field. Phys. Rev. A, 83:013612, Jan 2011.
[84] G. Raithel, G. Birkl, A. Kastberg, W. D. Phillips, and S. L. Rolston. Coolingand localization dynamics in optical lattices. Phys. Rev. Lett., 78:630–633, Jan
1997.
[85] Subir Sachdev. Quantum magnetism and criticality. Nat Phys, 4:173, March
2008.
[86] J. J. Sakurai. Modern Quantum Mechanics. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA, 1994.
[87] L. I. Schiff. Quantum Mechanics. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968.
[88] U. Schneider, L. Hackermller, S. Will, Th. Best, I. Bloch, T. A. Costi, R. W.
Helmes, D. Rasch, and A. Rosch. Metallic and insulating phases of repulsively
interacting fermions in a 3d optical lattice. Science, 322(5907):1520–1525, 2008.
[89] J. R. Schrieffer and P. A. Wolff. Relation between the anderson and kondo
hamiltonians. Phys. Rev., 149:491–492, Sep 1966.
[90] Jacob F. Sherson, Christof Weitenberg, Manuel Endres, Marc Cheneau, Immanuel Bloch, and Stefan Kuhr. Single-atom-resolved fluorescence imaging ofan atomic mott insulator. Nature, 467:68, September 2010.
[91] C. G. Shull and J. Samuel Smart. Detection of antiferromagnetism by neutron
diffraction. Phys. Rev., 76:1256–1257, Oct 1949.
143

[92] C. Sias, H. Lignier, Y. P. Singh, A. Zenesini, D. Ciampini, O. Morsch, andE. Arimondo. Observation of photon-assisted tunneling in optical lattices. Phys.
Rev. Lett., 100:040404, Feb 2008.
[93] Jonathan Simon, Waseem S. Bakr, Ruichao Ma, M. Eric Tai, Philipp M. Preiss,
and Markus Greiner. Quantum simulation of antiferromagnetic spin chains inan optical lattice. Nature, 472:307, April 2011.
[94] Anders S. Sørensen, Eugene Demler, and Mikhail D. Lukin. Fractional quantum
hall states of atoms in optical lattices. Phys. Rev. Lett., 94:086803, Mar 2005.
[95] D. M. Stamper-Kurn, M. R. Andrews, A. P. Chikkatur, S. Inouye, H.-J. Miesner,
J. Stenger, and W. Ketterle. Optical confinement of a bose-einstein condensate.
Phys. Rev. Lett., 80:2027–2030, Mar 1998.
[96] D. M. Stamper-Kurn, M. R. Andrews, A. P. Chikkatur, S. Inouye, H.-J. Miesner,
J. Stenger, and W. Ketterle. Optical confinement of a bose-einstein condensate.
Phys. Rev. Lett., 80:2027–2030, Mar 1998.
[97] Daniel A. Steck.
“Rubidium 87 D Line Data”, available online at
http://steck.us/alkalidata (revision 2.1.4, 23 December 2010).
[98] Simon Stellmer, Meng Khoon Tey, Bo Huang, Rudolf Grimm, and Florian
Schreck. Bose-einstein condensation of strontium. Phys. Rev. Lett., 103:200401,
Nov 2009.
[99] J. Stenger, S. Inouye, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, H.-J. Miesner, A. P. Chikkatur, and
W. Ketterle. Spin domains in ground-state bose-einstein condensates. Nature,
396:345, November 1998.
[100] Erik W. Streed, Ananth P. Chikkatur, Todd L. Gustavson, Micah Boyd, Yoshio
Torii, Dominik Schneble, Gretchen K. Campbell, David E. Pritchard, and Wolfgang Ketterle. Large atom number bose-einstein condensate machines. Review
of Scientific Instruments, 77(2):023106, 2006.
[101] J. Struck, C. Ölschläger, M. Weinberg, P. Hauke, J. Simonet, A. Eckardt,
M. Lewenstein, K. Sengstock, and P. Windpassinger. Tunable gauge potential for neutral and spinless particles in driven optical lattices. Phys. Rev. Lett.,
108:225304, May 2012.
[102] Yosuke Takasu, Kenichi Maki, Kaduki Komori, Tetsushi Takano, Kazuhito
Honda, Mitsutaka Kumakura, Tsutomu Yabuzaki, and Yoshiro Takahashi.
Spin-singlet bose-einstein condensation of two-electron atoms. Phys. Rev. Lett.,
91:040404, Jul 2003.
[103] M. G. Tarallo, A. Alberti, N. Poli, M. L. Chiofalo, F.-Y. Wang, and G. M.
Tino. Delocalization-enhanced bloch oscillations and driven resonant tunnelingin optical lattices for precision force measurements. Phys. Rev. A, 86:033615,
Sep 2012.
144

[104] Leticia Tarruell, Daniel Greif, Thomas Uehlinger, Gregor Jotzu, and Tilman
Esslinger. Creating, moving and merging dirac points with a fermi gas in atunable honeycomb lattice. Nature, 483:302, March 2012.
[105] D. J. Thouless, M. Kohmoto, M. P. Nightingale, and M. den Nijs. Quantizedhall conductance in a two-dimensional periodic potential. Phys. Rev. Lett.,
49:405–408, Aug 1982.
[106] S. Trotzky, L. Pollet, F. Gerbier, U. Schnorrberger, I. Bloch, N. V. Prokof/’ev,
B. Svistunov, and M. Troyer. Suppression of the critical temperature for superfluidity near the mott transition. Nat Phys, 6:998, December 2010.
[107] D. C. Tsui, H. L. Stormer, and A. C. Gossard. Two-dimensional magnetotransport in the extreme quantum limit. Phys. Rev. Lett., 48:1559–1562, May
1982.
[108] D. van Oosten, P. van der Straten, and H. T. C. Stoof. Quantum phases in an
optical lattice. Phys. Rev. A, 63:053601, Apr 2001.
[109] A. Wachter and H. Hoeber. Compendium of Theoretical Physics. Springer, New
York, 2006.
[110] Pengjun Wang, Zeng-Qiang Yu, Zhengkun Fu, Jiao Miao, Lianghui Huang,
Shijie Chai, Hui Zhai, and Jing Zhang. Spin-orbit coupled degenerate fermi
gases. Phys. Rev. Lett., 109:095301, Aug 2012.
[111] J. D. Watson and F. H. C. Crick. Molecular structure of nucleic acids: A
structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature, 171:737, April 1953.
[112] Matthias Weidemüller, Axel Görlitz, Theodor W. Hänsch, and Andreas Hemmerich. Local and global properties of light-bound atomic lattices investigatedby bragg diffraction. Phys. Rev. A, 58:4647–4661, Dec 1998.
[113] Matthias Weidemüller, Andreas Hemmerich, Axel Görlitz, Tilman Esslinger,
and Theodor W. Hänsch. Bragg diffraction in an atomic lattice bound by light.
Phys. Rev. Lett., 75:4583–4586, Dec 1995.
[114] Christof Weitenberg, Peter Schauß, Takeshi Fukuhara, Marc Cheneau, ManuelEndres, Immanuel Bloch, and Stefan Kuhr. Coherent light scattering from a
two-dimensional mott insulator. Phys. Rev. Lett., 106:215301, May 2011.
[115] David M. Weld, Patrick Medley, Hirokazu Miyake, David Hucul, David E.
Pritchard, and Wolfgang Ketterle. Spin gradient thermometry for ultracold
atoms in optical lattices. Phys. Rev. Lett., 103:245301, Dec 2009.
[116] David M. Weld, Hirokazu Miyake, Patrick Medley, David E. Pritchard, and
Wolfgang Ketterle. Thermometry and refrigeration in a two-component mottinsulator of ultracold atoms. Phys. Rev. A, 82:051603, Nov 2010.
145[117] K. C. Wright, R. B. Blakestad, C. J. Lobb, W. D. Phillips, and G. K. Campbell.
Driving phase slips in a superfluid atom circuit with a rotating weak link. Phys.
Rev. Lett., 110:025302, Jan 2013.
[118] K. Xu, Y. Liu, D. E. Miller, J. K. Chin, W. Setiawan, and W. Ketterle. Observation of strong quantum depletion in a gaseous bose-einstein condensate.
Phys. Rev. Lett., 96:180405, May 2006.
[119] Sen Yang, A. T. Hammack, M. M. Fogler, L. V. Butov, and A. C. Gossard.
Coherence length of cold exciton gases in coupled quantum wells. Phys. Rev.
Lett., 97:187402, Oct 2006.
[120] D. R. Yennie. Integral quantum hall effect for nonspecialists. Rev. Mod. Phys.,
59:781–824, Jul 1987.
[121] J. Zak. Magnetic translation group. Phys. Rev., 134:A1602–A1606, Jun 1964.
[122] J. Zak. Magnetic translation group. ii. irreducible representations. Phys. Rev.,
134:A1607–A1611, Jun 1964.
[123] M. W. Zwierlein, J. R. Abo-Shaeer, A. Schirotzek, C. H. Schunck, and W. Ketterle. Vortices and superfluidity in a strongly interacting fermi gas. Nature,
435:1047, June 2005.

146