Vortices in a Highly Rotating Bose Condensed Gas
byI. R. Coddington
B.A., Reed College, 1998

A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Colorado in partial fulfillmentof the requirements for the degree ofDoctor of Philosophy
Department of Physics
2004

This thesis entitled:
Vortices in a Highly Rotating Bose Condensed Gas
written by I. R. Coddington
has been approved for the Department of Physics

Eric Cornell

Leo Radzihovsky

Date

The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we find thatboth the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly
work in the above mentioned discipline.

iii
Coddington, I. R. (Ph.D., Physics)
Vortices in a Highly Rotating Bose Condensed Gas
Thesis directed by Prof. Eric Cornell

Superfluids, with their dissipationless flow and exotic topologies, have puzzled
researchers in diverse fields of physics for almost a century. One of the hallmark featuresof superfluids is their response to rotation, which requires the fluid to be pierced by anarray quantized singularities or vortices. Over the past few years, vortices and thelattices they organize into have become one of the major fields of experimental researchwith dilute gas Bose-Einstein condensates.
This thesis explores the physics of vortices and vortex lattices in the dilute gas
Bose-Einstein condensate while drawing connections to other superfluid systems. In addition to characterizing several equilibrium vortex effects, this work also studies several
excitations. By removing atoms from the rotating condensate with a tightly focused,
resonant laser, the density can be locally suppressed, creating aggregate vortices containing many units of circulation. These so called “giant vortices” offer insight into
the dynamical stability of density defects in this system. Using similar techniques wecan excite and directly image Tkachenko waves in the vortex. These low frequency
modes are a consequence of the small but nonvanishing elastic shear modulus of thevortex-filled superfluid.
Finally, by working at extremely high rotations we can create a Bose-Einstein condensates in the lowest Landau level. In this regime, which requires rotation rates greaterthan 99% of the centrifugal limit for a harmonically trapped gas, we are able observe
several expected and unexpected shifts in the physical properties of the condensate.
In conclusion the dilute gas Bose-Einstein condensates offers a rich system inwhich to study vortex physics, and explore dynamical effects common to all rotating

iv
superfluids.

Dedication

To Odele for her love and support, and to my grandfather for getting me thinking about
the world.

vi

Acknowledgements

First I would like to thank my advisor, Eric Cornell, for his support and guidanceover the last five years. His infectious enthusiasm and depth of knowledge never ceased
to amaze me and both were a constant source of my own growth and understanding.
Also, I would like to thank Debbie Jin for her hands on approach and guidance
that first year. I learned a lot in a very short period of time. We never ended up needingthat stripe laser but I also never stopped using the skills I learned, either.
In the last five years it has been my pleasure share the lab with several other graduate students including Volker Schweikhard, Paul Haljan, and most recently Shih-Kuang
Tung. It would be hard to ask for a brighter or more dedicated group of individuals.
Even more exceptionally, this group has always been humorous and fun to work withno matter how arduous or frustrating the experiment became. Of course, no discussionof the lab group would be complete without acknowledging our ring leader and post
doc Peter Engels. Over the last several years Peter has been both a great mentor aswell as a personal friend, and I wish him luck in his new job. He may not believe me,
but there is no doubt in my mind that Peter will grow to love his new appointment at
Washington State.
This experiment has also benefited considerably from the assistance of a numberof theorists. It has been an absolute pleasure to work with and learn from people like
Leo Radzihovsky, Dan Sheehy, Gordon Baym, Allen MacDonald and Marco Cozzini.
Support services at JILA are of course outstanding and I could not even begin

vii
to count all the ways that the machine shop, electronics shop and computing staff havemade this thesis more successful. I would especially like to thank Hans Green and James
Fung-A-Fat for their mentorship and patience. Also, I am eternally indebted to Jim
McKown for tolerating, what I am sure were, inane questions about the inner workingsof Windows and then miraculously making the problems go away.
Thanks, also, to the Cornell-Wieman-Jin group for an excellent working atmosphere and to the “Sloggies” Dave, Nate, Dan, and Andrew for an excellent living
atmosphere.
Finally, thanks to the coffee girl and Burnt Toast for making such a good cup ofcoffee. Thanks to Mike Ziemkiewicz and to a lesser extent John Stewart of The Daily
Show for making the last four years of presidential politics bearable.

viiiContents

Chapter
1 Introduction

1

1.1

Superfluids great and small . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

1.2

Vortices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4

1.3

Rotating Bose-Einstein condensates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

1.4

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

11

1.5

Thesis overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

112 Experiment and Hardware

13

2.1

Generating highly rotating condensates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

2.2

Rounding out the trap

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

15

2.3

Anti-trapped expansion [1] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25

2.4

Poking, prodding, cutting and blasting beams. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32

2.5

Other adjustments to JILA Mark III. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35

2.6

Numerical studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37

3 Giant Vortices [2]

38

3.1

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

38

3.2

Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39

3.3

Giant vortex formation and condensate healing . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40

3.4

Giant vortex stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45

ix
3.5

Giant vortex precession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 Tkachenko Modes [3]

45
49

4.1

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

4.2

Exciting Tkachenko modes

4.3

49

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

50

The (1,0) mode

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

53

4.4

The (2,0) mode

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

57

4.5

Bulk fluid modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57

4.6

Theory responds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

60

5 Lowest Landau Level [4]

64

5.1

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

64

5.2

Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

66

5.3

Breathing mode spectrum in the lowest Landau level . . . . . . . . . . .

67

5.4

Tkachenko spectrum in the lowest Landau level . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

68

5.5

Fractional core area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

72

5.6

Vortex core density profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73

5.7

Condensate radial density profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

75

6 Experimental studies of equilibrium vortex properties in a Bose-condensed gas
[1]

78

6.1

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

78

6.2

The lattice constant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

80

6.3

Vortex core size

83

6.4

Core contrast and condensate temperature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

86

x
Bibliography

92

Appendix
A Numerical TOP trap model

97

xi

TablesTable
A.1 Table of useful constants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

98

xii

FiguresFigure1.1

Vortices in various superfluid systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6

2.1

Vortex nucleation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

2.2

Adding fields to distort the TOP field. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17

2.3

Top field distortion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18

2.4

Trap ellipticity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18

2.5

Beat measurements of trap ellipticity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21

2.6

Rotation decay measurements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24

2.7

Trap rounding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24

2.8

Condensates in expansion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28

2.9

Revised frequency chain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30

2.10 ARP timing sequence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31

2.11 Poking beam setup.

34. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.1

Different stages of giant vortex formation process.

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

41

3.2

Lattice reforming after giant vortex formation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

43

3.3

Core developing after a 5 ms short, 2.5 pW laser pulse. . . . . . . . . . .

44

3.4

Oscillation of core area after an 8 pW, 5 ms laser pulse. . . . . . . . . .

46

3.5

Measured oscillation frequencies of the aggregate size for different rotation rates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

46

xiii
3.6

Giant core precession. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

48

3.7

Ring cut out of a BEC by a 125 ms long, off-centered laser pulse. . . . .

48

4.1

(1,0) Tkachenko mode excited by atom removal.

52

4.2

Measured oscillation amplitude for a typical excitation.

. . . . . . . . .

54

4.3

Tkachenko frequency vs theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

56

4.4

Atom removal patterns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

58

4.5

Radial breathing mode. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

60

4.6

Numerical studies of Tkachenko modes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63

5.1

Harmonic oscillator states in the rotating frame as one approaches the. . . . . . . . . . . . .

lowest Landau level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

65

5.2

Side view images of BECs in trap. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

67

5.3

Measured axial breathing frequency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

69

5.4

Tkachenko modes near the lowest Landau level. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71

5.5

Fractional condensate area occupied by vortex cores. . . . . . . . . . . .

74

5.6

Numerically generated vortex core density profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . .

76

6.1

Vortex lattice spacing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

82

6.2

Comparison of measured core radii with the Thomas-Fermi prediction. .

84

6.3

Measured core brightness as a function of final rf evaporative cut. . . . .

90

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1

Superfluids great and small
Traditionally in physics one learns that the world is divided into two. There is

the microscopic world of quantum mechanics and there is the macroscopic world whereclassical physics still reigns. Superfluids are astonishing in that they shatter this barrier
between worlds. These highly quantum systems can exist on length scale of a µm, a
cm, or even 104 km. With their dissipationless flow and exotic topologies such fluids
have puzzled researchers in diverse fields of physics for almost a century.
An understanding of superfluids starts with the early 1920’s work of Satyendra
Nath Bose [5] and Albert Einstein [6]. In these papers they argue that at a small
but finite temperature a gas of bosons will quickly collect in the ground state. Thistransition to the ground state far exceeds the expectation for an equally cold ideal
gas of atoms and can result in a nearly complete occupation of a single quantum state.
This condensation, although an impressive first step, is however not sufficient to explain
superfluidity. It was Fritz London [7, 8] who, while trying to explain the phenomena
observed in superfluid Helium in the 1930’s, would suggest that this macroscopicallyoccupied state is governed by a single wave function, or order parameter, of the formΨ=q

ρ(~r)eiS(~r) .

(1.1)

In the 1930’s this was a radical idea but even today it is a little unsettling to think

2
a thousand atoms, or a million atoms, or even Avagadro’s number of atoms could be
described by a single wavefunction commonly associated with a single particle. Ultimately what makes superfluids so interesting is that this macroscopic wavefunction
extends quantum mechanics into the macroscopic world.
The experimental side of the story of superfluids arguably begins with Kamerlingh
Onnes [9] who was, in many ways, the Christopher Columbus of superfluids. Onnes was
first to liquify 4 He and in 1908 he was attempting to cool this new liquid further in orderto produce solid 4 He. While unsuccessful in this attempt, Onnes did cool the liquid wellinto the superfluid regime that would later be called He II. Unfortunately Onnes did
not recognize the superfluid for what it was. It would take 30 more years before a studyof He II would find it to have no viscosity and for the term “superfluid” to be coined.
In the mean time Kamerlingh Onnes was at it again. It was 1911 and Onnes was
attempting to understand the change in resistivity of a metal at very low temperatures.
Mercury was chosen for the experiment because the metal could be cooled effectively.
From here the story is well known. As Onnes cooled his mercury sample, the resistivity
decreased roughly as expected until reaching 4.2 K, at which point a most unexpectedthing happened, the resistivity of the sample dropped abruptly to zero. Onnes had
made the first observation of superconductivity. A theoretical description of superconductivity would take much more time but ultimately Bardeen, Cooper and Schrieffer
would demonstrate that the pairing of electrons into Cooper pairs would allow fermions
to condense like bosons. Thus superconductors, like He II, become governed by a single
coherent wavefunction.
Over the years many other similar systems have been discovered. In 1971 Lee,
Osheroff and Richardson discovered two superfluid phases in the fermionic liquid 3 He.
Like superconductors 3 He condenses through the pairing of fermionic atoms. Much as
electrons in a superconductor sense each other through a Coulomb repulsion, the 3 He
atoms interact via their strong magnetic moments. This super system has generated

3
a great deal of interest due to its relative accessibility [9]. The lack of backgroundlattice structure or impurities make this system clean to work with and the magnetic
susceptibility makes NMR a convenient diagnostic tool.
Superfluids are not just exotic laboratory creations, but can also occur in nature.
Neutron stars, some of which predate Onnes’ work by 107 years, are predicted to havea superfluid interior. Such neutron stars are a superfluid system that truly stretches
the definition of “low” temperature. Having a density of roughly 1014 g/cm3 [10] thesestars are thought to contain paired neutrons with a critical temperature, Tc, of roughly
109 K. Meanwhile core temperature of these stars is predicted to be a fairly cool couplemillion K suggesting a highly degenerate state for the paired neutrons (and to a lesser
degree paired-protons and paired-electrons [11]).
Contrasting starkly with the neutron star is a recent addition to the family of superfluids and the subject of this thesis, the dilute gas Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC).
Weighing in at densities of 10−11 − 10−13 g/cm3 these condensates exist at temperatures
ranging from µK to pK. These systems are clearly more experimentally accessible thantheir astrological counterpart, and their dilute nature considerably simplifies the theory.
The low density and weak interactions also lead to a much higher condensate fraction(nearly 100%) than the other systems discussed here (He II for example is only 10%
condensate) [9].
Finally one should mention the newest addition to the superfluid family, theFermionic condensates [12, 13, 14]. First observed in 2003, it is probably too soon toknow exactly where this dilute gas system stands with respect to the other superfluid
systems. However, it is clear that this promising new system will be able to probe thegap between fermion and bosonic supersystems. With the addition of this new system
it is also clear that the superfluid field is still very much alive and developing.

4

1.2

Vortices
One of the most distinct features of superfluidity is its response to rotation or,equivalently, to an applied magnetic field in the case of superconductors. In any wavefunction, rotation manifests itself as a phase gradient along the direction of flow. Morespecifically, a loop integral around the center of rotation of the superfluid must yielda net change in phase regardless of loop size. At the same time the wavefunction of asuperfluid must be, in all places, single valued. In the 1950’s, Onsager [15] and Feynman [16] observed that quantized vortices, or tiny tornados in the fluid, were needed
to fill such requirements and allow for rotation. Each vortex can be thought of as aquantum of angular momentum and contains, at its center, a phase singularity aroundwhich an integer 2π phase winding occurs. This integer 2π winding, and fluid depletionat the vortex center allow for the wavefunction to be single valued while providing thenecessary phase gradient for rotation. Without these singularities the fluid velocity field
is curl free and cannot support circulation. This is why superfluids without vortices are
considered irrotational. It is interesting to think that a vortex-free superfluid is rotationally at rest, not in the lab frame or Earth frame, but with respect to some greateraxis in the Universe.
When thinking of rotation one tends to visualize the typically classical, rigid-bodyrotation of a record on a player or a tire. It should be noted that the presence of asingle vortex in a superfluid leads to an extremely non-rigid body flow. In this case,flow is rapid near the center of the vortex, where the phase gradient is steep and falls off
as 1/r where r is the distance from the vortex center. However with increased rotation
more vortices can be added to a superfluid. The repulsive vortex-vortex interaction
causes vortices to distribute about the fluid and form a triangular lattice, or Abrikosov
lattice seen in figure 1.1 a). As one would expect, with increasing quanta of angularmomentum the system begins to behave classically, and this distribution of vortices

5
across the superfluid causes the system to rotate in an increasingly rigid-body likemanner.
Not surprisingly, vortices can have profound effects on the system. For superconductors in sufficiently high magnetic fields, vortices can consume the sample and force it
into a normal state [19]. In superfluid He II systems the generation of “vortex tangles”
leads to finite viscosity even for flows below the critical velocity [9]. In neutron stars it ispredicted that vortices, pinned to the crust of the star, can break free in an avalanche ofvortex motion that causes the rotation of the entire core of the star to jump irregularly.
Vortices in a rotating dilute gas Bose-Einstein condensate [20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25]
are no exception and many of the profound effects they have on the BEC system will
be detailed in the rest of this thesis. The study of vortices, in a dilute gas BEC is in nosmall way motivated by the connections shared with these other supersystems. We areblessed in that there has clearly been decades of work in these other systems that canguide our research. We are also blessed in that the BEC’s offer a very clean system inwhich to study vortex effects. The perfectly smooth magnetic potential used to confine
a BEC makes us immune to the effects of vortex pinning that complicates studies inother systems. Additionally, impurity isotopes are simply not an issue. Also interactionsin the dilute BEC system are well understood making comparison with theory mucheasier. Thus, while BECs can mimik superfluid effects seen in other systems, they also
promise novel effects of their own.
Tkachenko oscillations, or sound waves in a vortex lattice, represent a striking example of the interconnected nature of superfluid vortex systems. Tkachenko proposedthat the triangular, Abrikosov, lattice structure seen in superconductors would also be
supported in superfluid Helium. In a 1966 mathematical tour de force [26], Tkachenko
demonstrated that this lattice structure should support sound waves. These elliptically polarized transverse waves in the lattice would later be dubbed Tkachenko modes.
Tkachenko was so certain of this prediction that he spent the rest of his life looking for6

Figure 1.1: Vortices in supersystems. Image a) the first image of an Abrikosov latticetaken in 1967 [17]. Black dots are cobalt particles that are attracted to the magnetic
field of the vortices in this superconducting lead rod. Image b) pictures of vortices in He
II taken in 1979 by Yarmchuk et al. [18] In a heroic experiment, impurity ions where
added to the superfluid and became trapped in the vortex cores. Images were taken byadding a strong electric field to project the ions onto a phosphorous screen that could
be imaged onto film. Image c) vortices in a rotating Bose-Einstein condensate taken at
JILA in 2003.

7
these excitations in He II, but ultimately met with frustration. It was Glaberson [27]
who would first report a signature of these modes in He II. Performing a rotating disk
experiment, Glaberson measured the response of the system at different excitation frequencies. While these experiments ultimately demonstrated the existence of Tkachenko
modes they were a little unsatisfactory in that they necessitated the simultaneous excitation of many Tkachenko modes. Worse still, vortex pinning effects coupled the
Tkachenko modes to other modes in the system, and ultimately it was impossible tostudy a Tkachenko mode in isolation. This would remain the state of the field for sometime...

1.3

Rotating Bose-Einstein condensates
Recently Anglin and Crescimanno have predicted that these modes should exist

in a dilute gas BEC [28]. In this initial work they develop a hydrodynamic theory ofvortices that accounts for the finite and inhomogeneous density profile of the condensate.
This paper yields several interesting results, the most relevant of which is that there
exists a radially symmetric mode in condensates with a wavelength on the order ofthe condensate radius. This mode, dubbed the (1,0) mode, is predicted to have afrequency far smaller than any previously observed bulk fluid mode of the condensate.
Two interesting observations about the vortex lattice can be made from the existenceof this mode. First, the radially symmetric “s-bend” that it induces in the lattice could
only be possible in the presence of a finite shear modulus. A finite shear modulas is
not normally associated with a superfluid and could only exist because the superfluid ispermeated with the vortex lattice. Secondly, the extremely low frequency of this modesuggests that this shear modulus is quite small and that the lattice is potentially very
delicate under shear.
In Anglin and Crescimanno’s notation the (1,0) mode corresponds to one radial
node and zero azimuthal nodes. While this thesis primarily studies this one mode it

8should be noted that there are others that are accessible or potentially accessible. As
mentioned in §4.4 the (2,0) mode has been observed as well. Non-radially symmetricmodes are also predicted and it is a little surprising that they have never been detected.
The (0,2) mode in particular is predicted to be an extremely low energy mode (sub 1 Hz
frequency for our system) and one might expect it to exist in nearly any vortex lattice.
By mid 2002 we began the study of Tkachenko modes in our dilute gas BEC. We
are able to observe these modes quite easily, in contrast to He II where such modes are
not directly observable. By gently perturbing the central density of the condensate wecouple to a pure (1,0) Tkachenko mode. Because our initial conditions are so reproducible its becomes possible to map the vortex oscillation patterns in time, obtaining
both oscillation frequency and an approximate wavelength. Surprisingly, as low as Anglin and Crescimanno’s predicted Tkachenko frequencies are, our measured frequency
is much lower, particulary at high rotation.
The explanation for this discrepancy would come in a slew of theory responses [29,30, 31, 32, 33]. A particularly relevant point, made in nearly all of these works, is thatAnglin and Crescimanno’s theory is based on assumptions of incompressibility that aretrue in He II but not completely true for a highly rotating BEC. As the BEC rotation rate
becomes comparable to the speed of sound the fluid becomes compressible. Interestingly
this compressible regime is also expected to occur in neutron stars [34]. Accounting forcompressibility effects lowers the predicted Tkachenko frequencies to a point where they
are consistent with experiment.
A second effect, entering the lowest Landau level (LLL) regime, is also expected
to decrease the lattice shear modulus and further lower the predicted Tkachenko frequencies. In the rotating frame and as the condensate rotation rate approaches thetrapping frequency, the single-particle harmonic oscillator energy states organize into
Landau levels or band like structures of nearly degenerate states. If condensate interactions are weaker than the energy splitting between Landau levels, then the condensate

9
primarily occupies the near-degenerate states of the lowest Landau level. This places
significant constraints on the condensate wavefunction and one would expect to see anumber of interesting effects including a weaker shear modulus in the vortex lattice [29].
Tkachenko modes aside, BECs in the lowest Landau level are intriguing on theirown, as this system is somewhat analogous to type-II superconductors in a strong magnetic field [19]. In the extreme case exotic quantum Hall like effects are predicted tooccur. For rotating BECs in the LLL, three regimes have been identified, distinguishedby the filling factor (the ratio of atoms in the fluid to vortices). For high filling factors,
the condensate is in the mean-field lowest Landau level regime [35, 19, 36] and forms anordered vortex lattice ground state. Filling factors around 10, although currently outof reach, are expected to lead to melting of the vortex lattice. At such filling factors,
the shear strength of the lattice is predicted to drop to a point where quantum fluctuations begin to melt the vortex lattice [37, 38], and a variety of strongly correlated
vortex liquid states similar to those in the Fermionic fractional quantum Hall systems
are predicted to appear [37]. For filling factors around 1, exotic quasiparticle excitations
obeying fractional statistics [39] are predicted.
By monitoring the frequency of the (1,0) Tkachenko mode and the frequency of
the axial breathing mode [40] we observe a transition to the 2D, high-filling factor, LLL
regime. Two theory predictions in particular are addressed for this regime. First thereis the Ho prediction [35] that the radial condensate profile should become gaussian as
one enters the lowest Landau level. This prediction arises from the fact the condensate
wavefunction in the lowest Landau level is so constrained that the position of the vortices
dictates the entire condensate profile. If one assumes a perfect Abrikosov lattice then the
resulting condensate profile is Gaussian. However our experimental observation shows adecidedly parabolic profile that implies that the lattice, far from the condensate center,distorts slightly as predicted by several other groups [41, 42, 43]. It is interesting tonote that this predicted distortion closely resembles the lattice distortion predicted by10
Sheehy and Radzihovsky [44] for the Thomas Fermi regime.
Also in the lowest Landau level the vortex core size becomes comparable to thelattice spacing. This is highly suggestive of type-II superconductors in a strong magnetic
field where vortices become increasing tightly packed. When the applied magnetic fieldin these systems reaches a critical value (generally dubbed Hc2 ) the vortices effectively
swallow the entire system, forcing it into a normal state. In the dilute-gas BEC, early
extrapolations from Thomas-Fermi theory [45, 46] suggest a similar effect. Alternatively
it is argued by argued by Fischer and Baym [19] and Baym and Pethick [36] that kinetic
energy considerations prevent this overlap and that the ratio of core size to spacing will
ultimately saturate. A challenging set of experiments discussed in §5.5 demonstrates
that the latter prediction is correct.
Multiply quantized vortices also offer intriguing comparisons across supersystems.
Vortices discussed so far have all been singly quantized but, in principle, a vortex canhave any integer 2π phase winding. Such multiply quantized vortices are just one of theexotic vortex phases seen in 3 He-A systems [47] and can also be observed at pinningsites in superconductors [48, 49, 50]. To date, doubly quantized vortices have been
observed as the result of topological vortex formation [51], but higher quanta have notbeen observed. In this thesis, I discuss a somewhat less elegant means of forming a“giant” vortex. Here we suppress the fluid density in the center of the condensate byemploying a focused, resonate laser to burn a hole in the cloud. This is not a true
multiply-quantized vortex, since density suppression does not actually lead to vortex
core overlap. Nonetheless, these experiments yield interesting information about the
dynamical stability of such giant vortex features. The Giant vortex itself drasticallydemonstrates the effects of Coriolis force and the changed dynamics in the rapidly
rotating system

11

1.4

Outlook
Predicting the future course of the TOP trap apparatus has traditionally beenvery hazardous. However, one obvious direction is the study of the exotic, low-fillingfactor states discussed earlier. It should be noted however that this has also been ourstated goal for much of the last three years. While this goal has yielded a great dealof interesting science, it has also become clear that low signal and fragile condensates
will make low filling factors hard to achieve. There is some hope that the installationof an optical lattice could make this regime accessible and a serious effort to do so iscurrently underway.
On a separate note, vortex experiments could truly benefit from a Feshbach resonance. It is exciting to think that with such a resonance one could tune a rotating BEC
from the He II regime to a compressible neutron star regime to the lowest Landau level
regime, instantly and without adjusting atom number or rotation. Theory predictions
have even suggested that with a Feshbach resonance, a rotating BEC could serve as
nothing less then a model system for the expanding universe [52]. Unfortunately, thisis complicated by the fact that our current atom, 87 Rb, does not offer any easily usable
resonances [53]. On the plus side experience has taught me that while it is hazardous
to predict the future of the TOP trap it is equally hazardous to rule anything out.

1.5

Thesis overview
The structure of this thesis is follows. Chapter 2 discusses experimental tech-niques for generating and imaging vortices. Chapter 3 is a discussion of giant vortices
and dynamically stable density deformations in a rotating condensate. Chapter 4 details the excitation of the (1,0) and (2,0) Tkachenko modes in a vortex lattice. These
modes are compared to theory and to similar bulk fluid modes of the condensate. Chapter 5 discusses the crossover to the lowest Landau level regime. Breathing modes and12Tkachenko modes are used to demonstrate two-dimensionality and passage into the lowest Landau level regime respectively. Additionally, the condensate and vortex density
profiles in this regime are discussed, with particular attention paid to fractional corearea effects. Finally, Chapter 6 characterizes several equilibrium vortex lattice effects.
Specifically, we attempt precision measurements of vortex lattice spacing and the vortex
core size over a range of condensate densities and rotation rates. Lastly, the effects offinite temperature on vortex contrast are studied.

Chapter 2

Experiment and Hardware

2.1

Generating highly rotating condensates
Highly rotating condensates are the bread and butter of this thesis and will be thestarting point for every following chapter. Naturally this thesis would not be complete
without a description of how these clouds are produced. It is worth noting that the techniques for creating highly rotating condensates have undergone only small refinements
since originally being detailed by Paul Haljan [54].
Our experiment begins with a magnetically trapped cloud containing greater than
107 87 Rb atoms in the |F = 1, mF = −1i hyperfine ground state, cooled to a temperatureroughly three times the critical temperature (Tc ) for Bose condensation. Using a TOP
trap we confine these atoms in an axially symmetric, oblate and harmonic potential withtrapping frequencies ({ωρ , ωz } = 2π{7, 13}Hz) with axis of symmetry along the vertical(z) axis. This trap is commonly referred to as the stirring trap as it is where we impartangular momentum to the thermal cloud. Rotation is generated in the thermal cloud
by resonantly coupling to a scissors mode of the cloud [55, 56]. To do this we gradually
apply an elliptical deformation to the magnetic trapping potential by distorting theamplitude of the rotating TOP field in time. The resulting distorted trap has roughly
similar average radial-trapping frequency but an ellipticity in the horizontal plane of

140.25. Here trap ellipticity is defined astrap =

2 − ω2ω+−
2
2 .
ω+ + ω−(2.1)

where ω+ and ω− are the trap frequencies along the major and minor trap axis. The
uncondensed cloud is held in this trap for 5 seconds while any excitations die out. At
this point the angle of the major axis of the elliptically distorted trapping field is jumped
quickly by 45 degrees in the horizontal plane to generate the initial conditions of thescissors mode. From here the cloud is allowed to evolve for 155 ms, or roughly one
quarter period of the resulting scissors mode, at which point we transfer the cloud toa radially symmetric trap. Essentially we have caught the scissors oscillation between
turning points where all the initial linear velocity has turned into rotational velocity.
Using this method we can generate a cloud rotating at roughly half the radial trap
frequency, with minimal heating. By lowering the amplitude of the trap distortion or
the angle by which the trap is jumped, we can easily generate more slowly rotating
clouds as well.
At this point we begin a second phase of rf evaporation, but this time we evaporate
in one dimension along the axis of rotation [25, 54]. The motivation for this seemingly
inefficient technique is that the 1D evaporation allows us to remove energy from the zaxis of the condensate without preferentially removing high angular momentum atoms.
Lowering the energy per particle without lowering the angular momentum per particle
accelerates the cloud rotation rate Ω. To perform this 1D evaporation, we adiabaticallyramp to a prolate geometry ({ωρ , ωz } = 2π{8.3, 5.3}Hz) where the rest of the experimentis carried out. This prolate geometry is commonly referred to as the cigar trap.
Reaching significant rotation rates by the end of evaporation requires that the
lifetime of the thermal cloud’s angular momentum be comparable to the evaporation
time. The nearly one-dimensional nature of the evaporation together with the low
average trap frequencies makes cooling to BEC in the prolate trap very slow (2 minutes).

15

Figure 2.1: Growth of a rotating BEC from a rotating normal cloud. Pictures taken in
expansion after different final rf frequencies of the evaporative cooling: (a) 2.65 MHz(pure normal cloud),(b ) 2.6 MHz, (c) 2.58 MHz, (d) 2.57 MHz,(e) 2.55 MHz,(f ) 2.5
MHz,(g) 2.4 MHz,(h ) 2.35 MHz.

We obtain angular momentum lifetimes this long by shimming the TOP trap’s rotating
bias field to cancel the few percent azimuthal trap asymmetry that exists despite carefulconstruction. With this technique we suppress the azimuthal trap ellipticity to less than
one part in a thousand.
After the evaporation we have a condensate with as many as 4.5 million atoms
and rotation rates from Ω = (0 − 0.975)ωρ , with no observable thermal cloud. Rotation
can be accurately determined by comparing the condensate aspect ratio λ (defined as
the axial Thomas-Fermi radius over the radial Thomas-Fermi radius Rz /Rρ ) to the trap
aspect ratio λ0 ≡ (ωρ /ωz ), and using the now standard relationΩ/ωρ =

2.2

q(1 − (λ/λ0 )2 ) .

(2.2)

Rounding out the trap
As noted in the previous section, intrinsic vortex nucleation requires that the

trap’s ellipticity in the horizontal plane be less than 0.001, no small feat. Achieving
this degree of roundness is a difficult task and it is unlikely, given the current technique

16
of assembling magnetic coils by hand, that a trap this round could achieved by careful
initial fabrication. It is interesting to note that, despite careful construction, the JILAMark III TOP trap has a natural 0.03 ellipticity when in the cigar configuration. While
this asymmetry is roughly a factor of two better than competing Ioffe-Pritchard trap
designs it is, of course, much too large to perform intrinsic nucleation of vortices. The
glory of the TOP trap is that the rotating bias field does a great deal to define thetrap’s horizontal ellipticity and that by simply varying the amplitude of the bias field as
it rotates, one can create a highly elliptical trap or, alternatively, suppress an existing
anisotropy by more than an order of magnitude. Distorting the rotating bias field of
the TOP trap is by no means a new technique and early discussion of it can be foundin Jason Ensher’s thesis [57]. Here I will limit my discussion to distortion of the TOP
field as it applies to rounding of the trap for vortex generation.
Distortion of the top field can easily be done by adding together two oppositelyrotating, circular, bias fields to form an elliptical, rotating, bias field1 . To clarify, by
circular and elliptical I am referring to the shape carved out by the bias field vector as it
does a complete rotation. It is convenient to refer to these two oppositely-rotating fields
as Top2 and Ellipsifier. This historical designation refers to the hardware channels thatprovide each field. Generally, Top2 provides the unperturbed, circular field to which the
Ellipsifier is generally added to provide the distortion. More precisely one can describe
the rotating bias field of the Top2 channel as
BT OP = a sin(νt)î + a cos(νt)ĵ .

(2.3)

Here î and ĵ can be thought of as the axes of the top coils (i.e. North-Southand East-West). Here I have assumed that the field amplitude a is balanced along both
1

It should be noted that the TOP box that switches between TOP channels allows for independent
adjustment of amplitude of the signal sent to each pair of TOP coils as well as adjustment of the phasebetween them. In principle this analog adjustment could achieve the same effect as adding a counterrotating bias field. NO ONE SHOULD EVER TRY THIS! These adjustments are far too sensitive forthis work and settings are not easily reproduced. I mention this because one could easily, in thirty
seconds, unround the trap to the point from which it would take a week to recover.

17

Figure 2.2: Addition of TOP fields forming an ellipse. The major axis of the ellipse isdefined by half the phase angle between the top channel and the ellipsifier channel.

axes. In reality, this is probably not perfectly true. For the experiments presented inthis thesis the bias field rotation frequency, ν, is 1800 Hz. We can then add a counterrotating, Ellipsifier field such that the total bias field has the form
BT OP = a (sin(νt) + ε sin(νt + φ))î + a (cos(νt) − ε cos(νt + φ))ĵ .

(2.4)

Here ε is just the ratio of the magnetic field amplitude of the Top2 channel tothe magnetic field amplitude of the Ellipsifier channel. The effect of increasing ε on thebias field is shown in figure 2.3. Here I have only considered the case 0 ≤ ε ≤ 1. For
ε > 1 the bias field asymmetry and orientation can be easily determined by noting that,for most purposes, there is no fundamental distinction between the Top2 and Ellipsifier
channels and ε can also be thought of as the ratio of the Ellipsifier channel to the Top2
channel. To clarify, if the Top2 channel has half the amplitude of the Ellipsifier channel
this will yield an elliptical bias field with the same orientation and ellipticity as when
the Ellipsifier channel has half the amplitude of the Top2 channel. The only differenceis the rotational direction of the final bias field which can usually be ignored.
The shape of the rotating bias field is of course not the whole story as noted in
section 6.2.4 of Jason Ensher’s thesis [57]. Ultimately the ellipticity of the TOP trap
is determined by the interaction of the rotating bias field with the quadrupole gradientand with gravity. Thus the final ellipticity of the trap can vary dramatically between
traps. As noted by Ensher this cannot be described analytically except for very small

18

Figure 2.3: Plot of equation [2.4] demonstrating the effect of adding counter-rotating
bias fields to form an elliptical bias field. In all cases the phase angle between counterrotating bias fields is φ = 900 . Elliptical bias fields are plotted for a range of ε, the ratioof the strength of the two counter rotating fields.

Figure 2.4: Effect on the calculated trap ellipticity of the rotating bias field distortion.
The larger anharmonicities of the cigar trap make the trap ellipticity much waeker forthe same ε.

19eccentricities, which is not really the regime we are interested in. One can of course
model this numerically (see appendix A for an outline of this process), the results ofwhich have been plotted in figure 2.4 for the stirring trap2 ({ωρ , ωz } = 2π{7, 13}Hz)
and the cigar trap ({ωρ , ωz } = 2π{8.3, 5.3}Hz). The higher magnetic field gradientsof the stirring trap (58 Gauss/cm vs. 32 Gauss/cm) allow for a much larger elliptical
distortion.
In looking at figure 2.4 one can begin to understand the strategy for exciting
vortices. The stirring trap provides a high ellipticity which allows for stronger coupling
to rotational modes of the thermal cloud. On the other hand, the relatively weak
dependance of ellipticity on ε in the cigar trap allows us to cancel out the natural
ellipticity of this trap to a very high precision without being overly sensitive to drift inthe strength of the elipsifier field. This is of course not the exact natural order of things
as the cigar trap was actually chosen to facilitate one-dimensional evaporation.
While it is clear that these traps have the ability to shim away a few percent
asymmetry with an elliptical bias field, it is a somewhat more complicated issue toperform the shimming at the level of 0.001 ellipticity that is required for evaporative
spin up of the condensate. Worse still we have a two-dimensional parameter space(phase and amplitude of the counter-rotating field). To “round out the trap” we havedeveloped several techniques that are essentially a means to measure the unroundnessof the trap so that we may iteratively adjust the orientation and amplitude of the bias
field distortion to slowly correct for the natural asymmetry. These three methods canbe divide into coarse, intermediate, and fine tuning techniques.
Coarse measurement of the trap ellipticity are made by performing horizontal
beat measurements. To perform beat measurements we jump the North-South and/or
the East-West shim coils to induce condensate slosh in the horizontal plane of the trap.
When a condensate sloshes in an elliptical trap the slosh frequency is determined by the2

trap frequencies cited are for the case of radial symmetry or ε = 0

20
eigenfrequencies of the major and minor axes of the trap. Initial motion not directly
along one of these eigen axes will result in a beating between the two frequencies as
the condensate motion moves about the major axis in a manner shown in figure 2.5(a).
This beat frequency (ωbeat ) is, of course, at the difference of the trap frequencies along
the major and minor axes of the trap (ω+ and ω− ). In the limit that the trap is nearlyround one can write a convenient version of equation 2.1,
trap '

ωbeat
ω+ − ω−
=
.
ωρ
ωρ

(2.5)

Here as before ωρ is the average radial trap frequency. Thus, by lowering the beatfrequency one can round out the trap. The advantage of this technique is that it will
work for very large trap . Beat measurements can be resolved as long as ωbeat is at least
3-4 times smaller than ωρ which is nearly always the case. The challenge and ultimately
the limitation in this technique is measuring the beating between the two axes.
The lifeblood of beat measurements is nondestructive imaging [58, 59, 54], whichallows us to measure the beat frequency in a single shot. Considering the iterative
nature of bias field tuning we would be sunk without it. The simplest nondestructive
method for this measurement is streak mode or movie type imaging. Here most of the
CCD array on the camera is masked off except for a small area at the bottom in which
the condensate image is centered. Once the slosh is excited the CCD is scrolled slowly
upward as the condensate is imaged. With large probe detunings and low probe powers
one can image the condensate motion for as long as 20 seconds before atom loss destroys
the signal.
As the beating occurs, the condensate motion goes from linear motion along theinitial axis of excitation to circular motion and then back to linear motion, along an axis
mirrored across the major axis of the trap, as is depicted in figure 2.5(a). If the imaging
axis is oriented along the initial axis of linear motion then the beating appears as narrow
and wide waists in the streak image (see figure 2.5(b)) and the frequency can be easily

21

Figure 2.5: Beat measurements in the stirring trap. Image (a) shows the layout of
the experiment and oscillation pattern of a sloshing condensate as it beats between
the major and minor axis. The natural anisotropy of the trap seems to be such thatmajor and minor axis of the trap are 450 from the imaging axis unless a highly elliptical
top field is applied to move them away from this orientation. When the condensate
oscillation is along the imaging axis we see a small waist in the streak image such as
we do at the top of (b) and (c). Image (b) shows a double oscillation where τbeat canbe measured from the time between the two waists. Image (c) demonstrates the limitof this method. Here we can only measure roughly a half cycle and can only place anupper limit on trap . The interrogation time can be increased to extend the range but
noise quickly becomes a problem. One can already begin to see loss of contrast due tothe atom loss and charge build up on the CCD.

22
measured given the scroll rate of the camera. The narrow waists are generally the mostconvenient way to measure the oscillation period (τbeat = 2π/ωbeat ) and the observed
narrowness/sharpness of these small waists improves significantly when the initial slosh
motion is precisely along the imaging axis. By carefully tuning the jumping of the shimcoils one can dramatically increase the visibility of these waists. The width of the widest
sections is dictated by the initial slosh amplitude and, more importantly, increases as
the angle between the initial slosh direction to the major axis of the trap approaches
45o . Thus, with careful observation the width of the wide sections can convey some
information about movement of the major axis as one tries to round the trap. This alsopresents a potential problem since the width of the wide sections decreases as the angleof the initial slosh direction approaches the major or minor axis, and if this angle evergoes to zero the excitation is along an eigen axis and no beating occurs at all. We aresomewhat blessed in that the natural eigen axes of the magnetic trap tend to be close
to the axes of the TOP coils and 450 from the imaging axis so this zero angle situation
almost never occurs while rounding the trap. Nonetheless, future grad students areadvised to consider this point if their beat measurement is behaving funny.
The limitation of the beat measurement lies in the longest τbeat one can observe.
If one assumes that half an oscillation, like the one in figure 2.5(c), is the minimum
oscillation period one can observe and still determine a τbeat , then the lowest ωbeat measurable is roughly 2π/40 seconds. Using this beat frequency in equation 2.5 and anωρ of 2π × 7 Hz yields an trap of 0.003. Thus beat measurements have the sensitivity
to bring us close to the desired ellipticity. In the stirring trap, this technique is completely adequate since the requirements on trap roundness are greatly reduced due tothe relatively small amount of time a rotating thermal cloud spends there. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the cigar trap. The problem here is two-fold. As
previously noted, the requirements on trap in the cigar trap are somewhat higher due
to the need to sustain rotation for a 100 s evaporation. In addition, beat measurements

23
are considerably less effective in the cigar trap. While streak mode measurements canbe extended as long as 20 seconds in both the cigar and stirring trap, heating from sloshthat occurs only in the cigar trap limits this interrogation time to at most 8-10 seconds,
thus limiting the sensitivity of this method to trap ≈ 0.007. While this is an importantfirst step, additional techniques are clearly necessary.
To further round out the trap the angular momentum life time of the cloud canbe used as a diagnostic for trap . Guery-Odelin [60] has theoretically demonstrated thata rotating thermal cloud placed in an elliptical trap will spin down with a time constantof
tdown ≈ 1/(22trap ωρ2 τ ).

(2.6)

Here τ is the collision rate (roughly 1 Hz for data presented in this chapter) 3 . Thusby measuring the rotation decay in the thermal cloud one can continue to optimize trap
roundness.
There are a few complications in this method associated with the switching oftraps. The stirring trap is used to provide the initial rotation but we are interested instudying the cigar trap so the cloud must be transferred. The ramp to the cigar trap is
not completely adiabatic and the thermal cloud under goes a few seconds of rethermalization. This rethermalization complicates the aspect ratio measurements made within
the first few seconds after the ramp. In figure 2.6 this effect is clearly visible. Herethe ramp to the cigar is completed a t = 0 and the black squares show the change inaspect ratio of a non-rotating cloud due to this rethermalization. When determining
decay rates this rethermalization can be accounted for with a double exponential decayfunction none the less the rethermalization time constant limits the fastest decay one
can hope to measure.
While the many-point lifetime measurements in figure 2.6 are a convenient way
3

Equation 2.6 also assumes a relatively small ellipticity. As detailed in Ref. [60] this implies that
trap  1/(4ωρ τ ) ≈ 0.03 which is generally the case at this stage in the rounding process, but notuniversally true.

24

Figure 2.6: Thermal could aspect ratio decay rate in the cigar trap. Red circles andred triangles show the rotation decay in a trap with trap = 0.03 and trap = 0.01 respectively. Black squares are taken using a nonrotating cloud and show the effect ofrethermalization to the cigar trap. Rotation decay time constants are found by first
fitting the static cloud with a single exponential decay (black line) and then fitting therotating cases with a double exponential where the first exponential is constrained tomatch the static case. Note that in the case trap = 0.03, rotation decay is nearly indistinguishable from rethermalization. It is this background noise from rethermalizationthat limits the maximum trap one can measure using this method.

Figure 2.7: Examples of single point trap rounding measurements. These measurements
can be performed with a thermal cloud at higher trap ’s or, when the system is sufficiently
round to generate a rotating condensate, one can use condensed atoms. SRSamp is theexperimental unit for the amplitude of the counter-rotating bias field. SRSphase is thephase, in degrees, between the rotating and counter-rotating bias fields.

25
to understand rotation decay, they are far too time consuming for the trap rounding
procedure. If one is willing to forgo quantitative knowledge of trap , trap rounding canbe performed with a single point measurement by measuring the cloud aspect ratio
after 10 or 20 seconds in the trap. Figure 2.7 shows such an effort as the amplitude of
the counter rotating field is optimized and then the phase. Performing each of these
optimizations twice is generally sufficient to round out the trap for the first time.
Finally, once the cigar trap is round, the roundness can be maintained simply by
evaporating past Tc and optimizing on the condensate aspect ratio after evaporation in
the same manner as one would with the single point thermal cloud measurements. While
this yields no quantitative information about trap it is certainly the most sensitive testof roundness and the most convenient to perform. Typically one can achieve condensate
aspect ratios of 0.5 or lower using in this final step.

2.3

Anti-trapped expansion [1]The clouds studied in this thesis typically contain between 1-300 vortices, eachof which is too small to be observed in-trap but can be seen after expansion of thecloud. Our expansion technique is unusual enough to warrant a description. For theexperiments presented here and elsewhere, we need a large radial expansion to makesure that the vortex cores are large compared to our imaging resolution. Additionally
we need to suppress the axial expansion in order to preserve certain length scales in thecondensate as discussed later in this section. Clearly, given our low and nearly isotropic
trap frequencies, the usual expansion technique of shutting off the magnetic field anddropping the cloud would not meet such requirements. The solution, which has been
demonstrated by other groups [61], is to perform an anti-trapped expansion. Rather
than simply shutting off the trapping potential, we invert the trap in the radial direction
so that the cloud is actively pulled apart. Simultaneously, the magnetic field gradientin the vertical direction is used to support against gravity.

26
The expansion is achieved in several steps that take place in rapid succession.
First we employ a microwave adiabatic rapid passage technique (ARP) to transfer theatoms from the weak-field seeking |F = 1, mF = −1i state to the strong-field seeking|F = 2, mF = −1i state4 . The microwave field employed is powerful enough to performthe transfer in 10µs but, as will be discussed shortly, we often take as long as 300µs forthis transfer. After transfer to the anti-trapped state, the cloud still sits in its original
position below the quadrupole zero, which means that both gravity and the magnetic
field are acting to pull it downward. To counter this force a uniform vertical magnetic
field is added to pull the quadrupole zero below the condensate so that the magnetic
field gradient again cancels gravity. The field is applied within 10µs, fast compared
to relevant time scales. In this manner the cloud is again supported against gravity.
To reduce curvature in the z direction, the TOP trap’s rotating bias field is turned
off leaving only the linear magnetic gradient of the quadrupole field. This gradient istuned slightly to cancel gravity. Because the condensate is vertically displaced fromthe quadrupole center (∼ 800 µm) the axial quadrupole field acts as a bias field for theradial gradient. Thus for radial displacements from the center, that are less then the sag
distance, the radial anti-trapping potential is well approximated as an inverse parabola.
Using this technique, we are able to radially expand the cloud by more than afactor of 10 while, at the same time, seeing less than a factor of two axial expansion.
Unfortunately even this much axial expansion is unacceptable in some cases. In thelimit of adiabatic expansion, this factor of two decrease in condensate density would√
lead to an additional 2 increase in healing length during expansion. Thus, featuresthat scale with healing length, such as vortex core radius in the slow rotation limit,
would become distorted. The effect of axial expansion on vortex size was first noted by
4

We also investigated transferring to the strong-field seeking |F = 2, mF = −2i state used by [61]but found it unsatisfactory for our trap. The larger magnetic moment of this state made us moresensitive to bias field drift when cancelling gravity, while the nearly vertical magnetic field orientationin the cigar trap makes efficient transfer to the |F = 2, mF = −1i much easier.

27
Dalfovo and Modugno [62].
To suppress the axial expansion, we give the condensate an initial inward orcompressional impulse along the axial direction. This is done by slowing down the rate
at which we transfer the atoms into the anti-trapped state. The ramping directionof the ARP is such that it transfers atoms at the top of the cloud first and moves
down through the cloud at a linear rate. These upper atoms are then pulled downward
with a force of 2g (gravity plus magnetic potential), thus giving them an initial inward
impulse. Finally, the ARP sweep passes resonantly through the lowest atoms in thecloud: they, too, feel a downward acceleration but the axial magnetic field gradient isreversed before they can accumulate much downward velocity. On average the cloudexperiences a downward impulse, but also an axial inward impulse. Normally the ARP
happens much too fast for the effect to be observable but when the transfer time isslowed to 200 − 300µs the effect is enough to cause the cloud to compress axially by
10-40% for the first quarter of the radial expansion duration. The cloud then expands
back to its original axial size by the end of the radial expansion.
Despite our best efforts to null out axial expansion, we observe that the cloudexperiences somewhere between 20% axial compression to 20% axial expansion at thetime of the image, which should be, at most, a 10% systematic error on measured vortex
core radius. The overall effect of axial expansion can be seen in figure 2.8, where image(b) and (c) are similar condensates and differ primarily in that (c) has undergone a
factor of 3 in axial expansion while in (b) axial expansion has been suppressed. The
effect on the vortex core size is clearly visible.
Since almost all of the data presented in this thesis is extracted from images acquired after the condensate expands, it is worth discussing the effect of radial expansion
on the density structure in the cloud. In the Thomas-Fermi limit, it is easy to showthat the anti-trapped expansion in a parabolic trap, combined with the mean-field andcentrifugally driven expansion of the rotating cloud, leads to a simple scaling of the

28

Figure 2.8: Examples of the condensates used in the experiment viewed after expansion.
Image (a) is a slowly rotating condensate. Images (b) and (c) are of rapidly-rotatingcondensates with similar in-trap conditions. They differ only in that (c) was allowed to
expand axially during the anti-trapped expansion. The effect on the vortex core size isvisible by eye.

29
linear size [63] of the smoothed, inverted-parabolic density envelope. As the condensate
radius, Rρ , increases, what happens to the vortex-core size? There are two limits thatare easy to understand. In a purely 2D expansion (in which the axial size remains constant), the density at any spot in the condensate comoving with the expansion goes as
1/Rρ2 , and the local healing length ξ then increases over time linearly with the increasein Rρ . In equilibrium, the vortex core size scales linearly with ξ. The time scale forthe vortex core size to adjust is given by h̄/µ where µ is the chemical potential. In thelimit (which holds early in the expansion process) where the fractional change in Rρ issmall in a time h̄/µ, the vortex core can adiabatically adjust to the increase in ξ, andthe ratio of the core-size to Rρ should remain fixed as the cloud expands.
In the opposite limit, which applies when Rρ expands very rapidly compared toh̄/µ, the inverted parabolic potential dominates the dynamics, and every point in thecloud expands radially outward at a rate proportional to its distance from the cloudcenter. In this limit, the “fabric of the universe” is simply stretched outward, and all
density features, including vortex core size expand at the same fractional rate. Again,
the ratio of core-size to Rρ should remain fixed.
So in the two extreme limits, the ratio of vortex core size to Rρ (and other density
features, such as nearest-neighbor vortex separation) remains fixed. It is reasonable thento assume that this behavior will be true in general for the intermediate regime between
the two expansion rates. Extensive numerical simulations were performed to validate
this assumption.
Once expanded, the cloud is imaged along the vertical direction, and data is
extracted by fitting the integrated (along the line of sight) condensate density profile
with a Thomas-Fermi distribution. We then subtract this fit from the image and easily
fit the remaining vortex-core residuals with individual 2D Gaussian profiles to determine
the core centers and radii. For the purpose of this section the vortex radius rv is defined
to be the RMS radius of the 2D Gaussian that we fit to the core. For clarification, the30

Figure 2.9: The microwave frequency chain has evolved somewhat since originally presented by Michael Matthews [59]. In order to perform the ARP, an image reject mixer
has been inserted before the microwave amplifier. This mixer allows us to sweep the
microwave frequency using more convenient rf technology. It also generates an accounting hazard since it has the effect of adding ∼ 35 − 38 MHz to the microwave frequency
depending on settings. This means that microwave values recorded in lab books prior to
9/02 need to be similarly adjusted. Other alterations to the experiment include a stubtuner to improve coupling to the wave guide, a new solid state amplifier, and SemFlex
cabling between all components. This last alteration in particular has greatly reduced
the sensitivity to bumps and slight movements of the components.

31

Figure 2.10: Timing sequence for the ARP (not to scale). The rf frequency ramp canbe performed in as little as 10 µs, but is generally done in 300 µs to suppress axial
expansion. The rf to the atoms is controlled by two switches, rf-mixer and mixeramplifier, which have opposite logic. These switches are not actually redundant since
the mixer-amplifier switch kills any leaks from the mixer and the mixer-rf switch helps
to protect the mixer from the near threshold power levels that it would otherwise see
all the time. The vertical bias field is triggered 100 µs before the end of the ARP toaccount for delays in the electronics. Horizontal shims are jumped to correct for the,imperfectly aligned, vertical bias field. It is important that the vertical bias go on very
quickly after the ARP because the atoms feel a 2g downward acceleration prior to thisfield jump. The TOP fields are shut off a 5 ms after the ARP to limit field curvaturein the vertical direction. A concurrent 1-3 bit change in the quadrupole voltage is doneto roughly maintain the trap center.

32
RMS radius of a 2D Gaussian would be 0.60 times its FWHM. Condensate and vortex
fits can be performed iteratively to reduce error.
Before each expanded image we also take a horizontal, nondestructive, in-trap image of the cloud immediately before expansion. From this image, rotation rate and atom
number are determined. Length scales in the expanded cloud can be scaled back to intrap values by dividing by the radial expansion factor, defined as Rρ (expanded)/Rρ (in−trap).

2.4

Poking, prodding, cutting and blasting beams
Finally, I would like to discuss some of the atom removal and prodding techniques.

My aim here is not to provide a comprehensive description of these techniques, as they
are still in a state of flux and will likely be out dated for most readers of this thesis.
Rather, it is my hope to provide a rough description of the apparatus and a context for
the experiments detailed later in this thesis.
The “poking beam”, as it is often called, is meant to perturb a very localized
section of the condensate in a manner that is axially symmetric. This perturbation isaccomplished by bringing a beam up through the cell along the MOT beam path andfocusing it onto the condensate so that the 1/e2 beam waist is between 10 and 100 µm
depending on the application. Uses of this beam path have included; pushing atoms
away from the center of the cloud with a blue detuned beam to create shock waves [citepeter], drawing atoms into the center with a red detuned beam to excite Tkachenko
modes, and selectively removing atoms near the condensate center to spin up the cloudto create giant vortices or excite Tkachenko modes.
Figure 2.11 depicts the beam path that enables us to do this. The poking setup
has several noteworthy features. The fiber output coupler provides both a clean mode
profile and beam pointing stability. Is is also convenient in that it allows for quick
switching between 850 nm light for an attractive dipole potential and 780 nm light used

33
for atom removal. Using an FC junction in the middle of the fiber allows for quick
switching at the acceptable cost of some power loss (loss varies but is always less than50%). Unfortunately, the blue detuned 670 nm beam requires a separate fiber since the
850 nm fiber used for the other two beams supports both the zeroth and first order
spatial modes at this higher frequency.
Following the output coupler is an adjustable telescope that expands the beam.
Given the 12 cm lens that ultimately focuses the light onto the atoms, one needs at least
a 2-4 mm beam waist after the telescope. Placing the second mirror on a translation
stage makes it far easier to focus the beam in real time while monitoring it on thevertical imaging camera. The other advantage of this translation stage is that, whenneeded, a larger beam waist at the atoms can be quickly generated by misaligning thetelescope. It is also conceivable to image complicated patterns onto the condensate byplacing masks in the focus of the telescope.
The second critical alignment tool is the pico motor set. Mounted on the last
mirror on the elevated platform these motors provide the micro-radian angle adjustmentsthat are needed to not only hit the condensate but also center the beam on it. The
combination of realtime adjustments using the vertical imaging camera and the fairly
reproducible steps of the pico motors makes the otherwise daunting task of hitting thecondensate with the focus of the laser easy. Due to space constraints, most of the set
up is mounted on an elevated platform that sits, on 1 in. posts, about a 30 cm above
the optics table. This elevated platform is surprisingly stable and both long and shortterm drifts were not a problem. However, this poking application is forgiving in nature
however and it should be noted that use of the elevated platform was found unsuitablefor optical lattices.

34

Figure 2.11: Poking beam setup. Optical fiber couples out into an adjustable telescope
to allow for quick adjustments of the beam spot size at the atoms. Pico motors mounted
on the steering mirror allow for fine tuning of the beam position across the condensate.
A final 12 cm lens focuses the poking beam onto the condensate. Coupling to the MOT
path is done using a polarizing beam splitter.

35

2.5

Other adjustments to JILA Mark III
As one can see, JILA Mark III has become increasingly and complex over thelast few years as new functionality is added. The anti-trapped expansion technique andthe vertical poking/blasting beam are just the latest in a long sequence of additions
to the machine. The good news is that trapping laser upgrades and alterations havemade the experiment somewhat simpler and much more robust. While a highly detailed
description of these changes is probably unnecessary I will mention a few of them here
if only to briefly discuss many of the lessons learned.
Arguably the most significant change has been to replace the science MOT laser
with a master slave pair. The old setup (detailed in Jason Ensher’s thesis [57]) was aparticularly well stabilized ECDL made in the standard JILA design. While this laser
was easily the best homemade laser I have worked with, it suffered from the fact that
there was a long beam path from the laser to the MOT. Consequently, small tweaks to
the grating or early mirrors could mean days of realignment, and replacing a burned out
diode was an epic affair. In the new setup, a Vortex laser injects a 100 mW slave laser.
This laser system is fiber coupled and then output coupled into the previous beam pathjust before the optical pumping AOM, thus leaving most of the beam path untouched.
After building this system we realized that it offered several advantages some of whichwere unexpected.
As we had hoped, the fiber increased the pointing stability of the beam, leading
to much less science MOT maintenance. Additionally, the fiber allows us to tweak thelaser setup or replace a dead laser without altering the MOT alignment. Previously, thescience MOT beam path was so temperamental that something as simple as a grating
tweak could take a day to recover from and replacing a dead laser could take a week.
With the fiber coupling we have been able to replace dead lasers within a few hours.
An additional unforeseen advantage of the fiber is that the clean special profile of the36trapping light makes the MOT considerably less sensitive to small alignment changes
and consequently much easier to align.
The effect of all this is best quantified anecdotally. With the old system beamdrift and alignment problems would cause use to lose the ability to make a condensate
roughly every two months and recovery time would be on the order of a week. With thecurrent system, I don’t believe drift has ever caused us to completely lose a condensate,
and MOT alignment typically takes a day or two.
An additional advantage of the Vortex lasers is their temperature stability. It
used to be that a two degree change in lab temperature would make it difficult, if not
impossible, to make condensates. Generally the problem was a bad mode in the science
MOT laser or the collection MOT laser (both of which were the standard JILA ECDL),
and would manifest itself as poor science MOT loading or degradation of the molasses
stage and a corresponding loss of condensates. After replacing both these systems with
Vortex lasers we are able to accommodate 3o C shifts in lab temperature, and still
produce reasonable condensates.
We have also switched to using Vortex lasers for phase contrast imaging, anapplication for which they are ideally suited. The 70 GHz tuning range is excellent
protection against the mode hops that plagued our system before, and being able totune across the 6.8 GHz splitting of 87Rb is very practical when working with spinor
condensates. Other groups have had trouble using Vortex lasers for absorption imaging
due to the fact that mechanical noise (typically shutters) tends to broaden the line widthof the laser. With phase contrast imaging we are typically detuned by a few hundred
MHz so a few MHz change in the laser line is of no consequence.
I mention these changes primarily because I regret not making them sooner. The
increased robustness of the experiment very quickly made up for the installation timein terms of hours spent on science, and, as a secondary issue, contributed favorably tothe mental health of those of us in the lab.

37

2.6

Numerical studies
In the later part of this thesis it is useful to compare our experimental results toa numerically generated condensate wave function. These numerical studies are doneby setting up an initial in-trap condensate wave function with a given atom number (N)and Ω on a 2048x2048 lattice and then relaxing this wave function by propagating theGross-Pitaevskii equation in imaginary time. All work shown in §5.5 and §6.2 is donein 2D. Additionally a radially symmetric 3D simulation can be performed for a single
vortex, as is done in §5.5 and in §6.3. Once the final wave function is found, we convert
to an atom density profile which can be fit and analyzed in the same manner as theexperimental data.

Chapter 3

Giant Vortices [2]3.1

Introduction
In dilute gas Bose-Einstein condensates, vortex experiments have ranged fromthe study of individual or few vortices [20, 21, 22, 23] and vortex rings [64, 65] to thefirst creation of vortex lattices [66] and the study of systems containing large amountsof vorticity [24, 25]. In this chapter we begin the discussion of non-equilibrium vortex
effects.
Using a refinement of our experimental technique, we are able to generate a giant
vortex. I use the term “giant vortex” to denote a region, containing multiple unitsof vorticity, in which the density is completely suppressed such that the individual
vortices are no longer discernible. Note that some authors reserve this term for higher
order phase singularities. The possible existence of stable giant vortices under certain
conditions like supersonic flow in potentials that have strong quartic terms has beentheoretically predicted (Ref. [67, 68, 69, 19], see also Ref. [46]), and in Ref. [70] it
is shown that a pinning potential can lead to stable multiquantum vortices. In ourcase, however, the giant vortex formation arises as a dynamic effect. Nevertheless the
lifetime of our giant vortices can extend over many seconds, which we attribute to astabilization of density features in a rapidly rotating condensate due to strong Coriolis
forces. Previously, only short-lived regions containing a few phase singularities with
suppressed density have been observed experimentally in Ref. [71] in the form of stripes

39
and in Ref. [51] as the result of topological vortex formation. The influence of Coriolis
forces can also induce oscillations of the giant vortex core size in the early stages of its
evolution.

3.2

Experiment
Experimental starting conditions are similar to the ones described in the previous

chapter. We start with a cloud of condensed 87 Rb atoms in the |F = 1, mF = −1i state,and held in the cigar trap with trap with frequencies {ωρ , ωz } = 2π{8.3, 5.4}Hz. Cloudsizes are typically 3×106 atoms and we routinely achieve condensate rotation rates (Ω) of
95% of the radial trap frequency, with no detectable thermal cloud. These condensates
typically contain 180 or more vortices as seen in figure 3.1(a) or figure 3.2(a). After
careful optimization of the trap roundness and in the presence of a quasi 1-D rf-shield
we are able to observe the BEC rotation for times exceeding 5 minutes. While we dolose atoms from the condensate over this time scale, the rotation rate remains at its
initial value.
The evaporative spin-up mechanism discussed in §2.1 is limited because eventually all the uncondensed atoms will be removed or condensed during the quasi onedimensional evaporation. However, the angular momentum per particle in the condensate can be further enhanced by selectively removing atoms with low angular momenta
by a resonant, focused laser beam sent through the condensate on the axis of rotation.
Selectivity is provided by having a beam width, at the focus, that is small compared tothe condensate size. For experiments presented here the rotating BEC typically has a
Thomas-Fermi radius of 66µm and the width of the laser beam is about 16µm, statedhere as the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the Gaussian intensity profile. The
frequency of the laser is tuned to the F 00 = 1 → F 0 = 0 transition of the D2 line, andthe recoil from spontaneously scattered photons blasts atoms out of the condensate.
Using this new technique we are able to substantially increase the vorticity in40
the BEC and can now routinely obtain condensates containing more than 250 vortices[figure 3.1(b)]. Since these vortex cores are too small to be imaged when the BEC isheld in trap, the images in Figs. 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.7 are taken after having let the
BEC expand. For this expansion an anti-trapped technique is used as detailed in §2.3.
This technique allows us to expand the condensate to an adjustable diameter that canexceed 1.4 mm.
If the removal of central atoms is driven strongly enough, a giant vortex appears.
The core is surrounded by a ring-shaped superflow. The circulation of this superflow isgiven by summing up all the “missing” phase singularities in the core and can assume
very large values. Using the fact that for large amounts of circulation the rotation of
the velocity field can be obtained classically, we determine that in some cases the BEC
supports a ring-shaped superflow with a circulation of up to 60 quanta around the core.
We can easily control the amount of this circulation by changing the intensity or theduration of the laser beam that removes atoms along the axis of rotation.

3.3

Giant vortex formation and condensate healing
In our experiment the formation of the giant vortex comes about in a sequenceof very distinct stages as shown in figure 3.1. For this expansion image sequence a
rapidly rotating BEC is first formed by our evaporative spin-up technique. Then theatom-removal laser is applied with a fixed power of 8 fW for a variable amount of time,
followed by a 10 ms in-trap evolution time and a 45 ms expansion in the antitrapping configuration described above. During the atom removal an rf-shield is left on to
constantly remove uncondensed atoms that tend to decelerate the condensate rotation.
Figure 3.1(a) shows the result of only the evaporative spin-up. This particular condensate contains 180 vortices and has a Thomas-Fermi radius of 63.5 µm when held in the
trap. When the atom removal laser is applied for 14 s as in figure 3.1(b), the numberof vortices is increased to 250 and the Thomas-Fermi radius to 71 µm. The rotation

41

Figure 3.1: Different stages of giant vortex formation process. (a) Starting point: BEC
after evaporative spin-up. (b)-(h) Laser shone onto BEC for (b) 14 s, (c) 15 s, (d) 20 s,(e) 22 s, (f) 23 s, (g) 40 s, (h) 70 s. Pictures are taken after 5.7-fold expansion of the
BEC. Laser power is 8 fW. (i) Zoomed-in core region of (f).

42rate, determined from sideview aspect-ratio images, has increased from Ω = 0.94 ωρ
to Ω = 0.97 ωρ . After atom removal times of 15 to 20 s, the vortex lattice becomes
disordered [figure 3.1(c,d)], and the giant vortex core starts to develop in the center[figure 3.1(e,f)]. An enlarged view of the core region in this early stage of giant vortex
core formation is seen in figure 3.1(i), which nicely demonstrates how the individual
vortices in the center consolidate. For the larger removal times shown in Figs. 3.1(g)and (h), a clear elliptical deformation is observed. This deformation is due to m = −2
surface wave modes excited by residual static asymmetries of the trapping potential. As
the condensate rotation rate approaches the trapping frequency of these m = −2 modes
goes to zero [40] and are thus nearly resonantly driven by even a small asymmetry. We
have verified this explanation by deliberately changing the roundness of the trapping
potential and observing corresponding changes in the ellipticity and in the directionof the ellipse. If the trap roundness is not optimized, the ring-shaped superflow has atendency to fragment into 5 to 8 blobs that continue to rotate around the core.
If the atom removal laser is applied only for a limited amount of time, the giant
vortex will fill in and the vortices refreeze [72] into a well ordered lattice again after asufficiently long evolution time. An example is shown in figure 3.2. Here, the starting
point is the condensate in figure 3.2(a), containing 190 vortices and rotating at Ω =0.95 ωρ . A pulse from the atom removal laser creates the core seen in figure 3.2(b).
Crudely assuming that, consistent with the observed atom removal of 35%, all atoms
originally within a cylindrical volume of 0.4 times the Thomas-Fermi radius have been
removed, we can perform an integral over the Thomas-Fermi density profile with a rigidbody-rotation velocity distribution and find that only 10% of the angular momentum
has been removed. Since in equilibrium the total number of vortices should be linear in
the average angular momentum per atom [45], we would expect that the original 190vortex cloud should reequilibrate to form a cloud with 266 vortices, in good agreementwith the value of 260 vortices observed in the reequilibrated cloud shown in figure 3.2(d).

43Figure 3.2: Lattice reforming after giant vortex formation. (a) BEC after evaporative
spin-up. (b) Effect of a 60 fW, 2.5 s laser pulse. (c),(d) Same as (b), but additional
10 s (c) and 20 s (d) in-trap evolution time after end of laser pulse. Images taken aftera sixfold expansion of the BEC.

In our case the formation of the giant vortex is not connected to a repulsive
conservative optical potential produced by the central laser beam, but only due to theremoval of atoms from the axis of rotation by spontaneous photon scattering. To provethis, we have varied the laser frequency over the range from -6 MHz to +6 MHz aroundthe F 00 = 1 → F 0 = 0 resonance and in all cases have been able to generate a giant
vortex.
In Ref. [67, 68, 69, 19] it is shown that quartic terms in the potential can lead tostable giant vortices. In our experiment, quartic terms are small and the giant vortex
arises as a dynamical effect. We have calculated the term of the TOP trap potentialthat depends on the radial position as r4 . At the outer edge of the condensate thisquartic term produces a correction to the potential on the order of 10−3 , compared tothe effective r2 term, even though the latter is much weakened by the centrifugal force.
Moreover, our anharmonic terms have the wrong sign [67, 68, 69, 19] to generate stable
giant vortices. Empirically, the refilling and refreezing we observe (figure 3.2) indicatesthat the giant vortex is not an equilibrium configuration but has instead only dynamical
stability.
We suggest an intuitive, classical picture describing the formation as a dynamical
effect: the removal of atoms from the center of the condensate produces a pressure

44

Figure 3.3: Core developing after a 5 ms short, 2.5 pW laser pulse. In-trap evolution
time after end of pulse is (a) 0.5 ms, (b) 10.5 ms, (c) 20.5 ms, (d) 30.5 ms. Images taken
after sixfold expansion of BEC. (e) Zoomed-in core region of (c).

gradient due to mean field energy that tries to drive atoms from the outer regions into
the center, so as to close the hole. Due to Coriolis forces, however, atoms moving radiallytowards the center are deflected and assume a fast azimuthal motion around the corerather than filling the core, thus creating the giant vortex.
Some exotic features of the early stages of core formation are revealed when weapply only a very short, weak atom removal pulse and observe the subsequent evolution
as in figure 3.3. Here, the atom removal laser has a power of 2.5 pW and a fixed pulse
length of 5 ms. Its FWHM of 16 µm is approximately twice the lattice spacing, 7µm. By
varying the delay time between the laser pulse and the expansion, we see (figure 3.3) thatthe core formation clearly lags behind the laser pulse. Figure 3.3(e) shows a zoomed-in
view of the core region of figure 3.3(c). It is very interesting to observe that for theseshort, weak pulses the density depression appears to develop in discrete steps, and thestep boundaries follow the hexagonal lattice pattern.

45

3.4

Giant vortex stability
When applying stronger laser pulses, we detect clear, damped oscillations of thecore area as shown in figure 3.4. We study these oscillations by analyzing in-trap images
taken after a variable evolution time between the end of the atom-removal pulse and the
expansion, such as the ones shown in the inset of figure 3.4. The oscillation frequency
depends on the initial conditions; for the case of figure 3.4 with initially 2.2 × 106 atoms
at a rotation rate of 0.9 ωρ we obtain a frequency of 3.5 ωρ . Decreasing the initialrotation rate of the condensate leads to faster core-oscillation frequencies and increases
the amplitude of this oscillation; for condensate rotation rates below Ω = 0.9 ωρ in-trap
images even show a near complete closure of the core, followed by the core opening again(see inset of figure 3.4). Presumably these oscillations arise when a sudden removal
of atoms leaves forces from the density gradient and Coriolis forces initially out of
equilibrium. The core oscillation is not observed to be related to an overall breathingmode of the condensate.
To study the dynamics, core size oscillations are measured for a range of condensate rotation rates. Figure 3.5 shows a plot of the measured oscillation frequencies
as a function of the condensate rotation rate. A clear decrease of the oscillation frequency with increasing rotation rate is seen. Recently A. Fetter has developed analytic
formulae, based on a variational Lagrangian, that describe the behavior seen in our experiment [73]. His results also imply that the parabolic trap and conservation of angularmomentum, thus the influence of Coriolis forces, are governing the dynamics.

3.5

Giant vortex precession
In addition we can observe the precession [21] of an off-center giant vortex. For

this, the atom removal laser is deliberately offset from the center of cloud rotation.
The duration of the removal pulse is kept short (10 ms) in comparison to the initial

46

Figure 3.4: Oscillation of core area after an 8 pW, 5 ms laser pulse. Starting conditionsare 2.5 × 106 atoms with rotation rate Ω = 0.9 ωρ .Time given is in-trap evolution timeafter end of pulse. Core area is normalized to mean of all data points. Inset: Initialconditions 3.5 × 106 atoms with rotation rate Ω = 0.78 ωρ ; in-trap images taken after a
14 pW, 5 ms laser pulse followed by evolution time of (a) 20 ms, (b) 40 ms, (c) 60 ms,
and (d) 80 ms.

Figure 3.5: Measured oscillation frequencies of the aggregate size for different rotation
rates. Oscillations were excited by a 5 ms long, resonant laser pulse that removed all
atoms within a radius of 1/3 the Thomas Fermi radius of the BEC.

47
vortex lattice rotation period (2π/(0.95 ωρ ) = 126 ms) so as to create only a local
hole. By using different laser powers, we can vary the size of the core from a small
hole as in figure 3.6(a) all the way to the extreme case of a big hole that only leaves acrescent segment of the BEC as shown in figure 3.6(c). The precession of these holes
can be monitored by applying variable evolution times of the trapped BEC after theatom removal pulse is finished. In all three cases the measured precession frequency isapproximately ωρ . In the case of figure 3.6(b) and (c) we are able to follow the precession
for more than 20 cycles. If, instead, the laser is left on for approximately a full lattice
rotation cycle, a complete ring can be cut out of the condensate [figure 3.7(a)], which
eventually breaks up into many individual blobs [figure 3.7(c)], each of which supports
remnants of the original lattice. Both the long-lived core precession as well as the ring
structure in figure 3.7 are impressive demonstrations of the stability of density featuresdue to Coriolis forces in rapidly rotating condensates.

48

Figure 3.6: Giant core precession. Cores created by a 10 ms off-centered laser pulse
with a power of (a) 4.2 pW, (b) 33 pW, (c) 470 pW. Time given in figure is in-trap
evolution time after end of laser pulse. For reference, a naive expectation for the lifetimeof a giant vortex given by the radius of the core divided by the speed of sound in thesurrounding cloud would be 13 ms and 30 ms for (a) and (b), respectively.

Figure 3.7: Ring cut out of a BEC by a 125 ms long, off-centered laser pulse. Expansion
image taken (a) directly after end of pulse (b) after an additional in-trap evolution timeof 200 ms after end of pulse and (c) evolution time 2 s.

Chapter 4

Tkachenko Modes [3]4.1

Introduction
We have all seen a cylindrically confined fluid support azimuthal flow whether

we are watching water flow down a drain or a recently stirred cup of coffee. What issomewhat harder to imagine is a fluid sustaining oscillatory azimuthal flow. Instinctively
one does not expect a fluid to support shear forces, and this would seem especially truein the case of zero-viscosity superfluids, but such intuition is incomplete.
The key issue is vortices. In 1955, Feynman [16] predicted that a superfluid
can rotate when pierced by an array of quantized singularities or vortices. In 1957,
Abrikosov [74] demonstrated that such vortices in a type II superconductor will organize
into a triangular crystalline lattice due to their mutual repulsion. Not surprisingly,
the Abrikosov lattice has an associated rigidity. In 1966, Tkachenko proposed that avortex lattice in a superfluid would support transverse elastic modes [26]. First observedby Andereck et al.[27], Tkachenko oscillations have been the object of considerable
experimental and theoretical effort in superfluid helium, much of which was summarized
by Sonin in 1987 [75].
In the last two years it has become possible to achieve a vortex lattice state indilute gas BEC [22, 24, 23, 25] and recent theoretical work [28] has suggested that
Tkachenko oscillations are also attainable. In this chapter I discuss the observation of
Tkachenko oscillations in BEC. The particular strengths of BEC are that in the clean en-

50
vironment of a magnetically trapped gas there is no vortex pinning, and spatiotemporal
evolution of the oscillation may be directly observed.
When we started our experimental investigation of Tkachenko modes, the only
theory available to compare to was the one given in [28] by Anglin and Crescimanno. As
described during the discussion of our experimental work in the following section, theoscillation frequencies predicted by this initial theory were not in excellent quantitative
agreement with our experiments. As I will describe in §4.6, it was later pointed out byGordon Baym that a more adequate theory for our experiments needs to account forcompressibility effects of the lattice. This hints at a major difference between Tkachenko
wave experiments in liquid Helium and in dilute gas BECs: Our experiments reach into
a new regime that lies outside the region accessible with liquid Helium experiments.

4.2

Exciting Tkachenko modes
As before we begin this experiment with a rotating condensate held in an axiallysymmetric trap with trap frequencies {ωρ , ωz } = 2π{8.3, 5.2} Hz. The condensed cloudcontains 1.5-2.9 million 87 Rb atoms in the |F = 1, mF = −1i state. The cloud rotates
about the vertical, z axis. Condensate rotation rates (Ω) for the experiments describedin this chapter range from Ω = 0.84ωρ to Ω = 0.975ωρ (Ω defined as condensate rotation
rate divided by ωρ ). We have no observable normal cloud implying a T/Tc < 0.6. Asbefore, rotation can be accurately measured by comparing the condensate aspect ratio
to the trap aspect ratio using equation 2.2. Vortices, which are too small to observe intrap, can be seen by expanding the cloud as detailed in §2.3. At our high rotation rates
the condensate is oblate and the vortex cores are essentially vertical lines except rightat the surface.
We excite lattice oscillations by two mechanisms. The first mechanism presented
is based on the selective removal of atoms that has also been discussed in §3.2. With thismethod we remove atoms at the center of the condensate with a resonant, focused laser

51
beam sent through the condensate along the axis of rotation. The width of the “blasting”
laser beam is 16 µm FWHM (small compared to an in-trap condensate FWHM of
75 µm), with a Gaussian intensity profile. The frequency of the laser is tuned to the
F 00 = 1 → F 0 = 0 transition of the D2 line, and the recoil from a spontaneously scatteredphoton blasts atoms out of the condensate. The laser power is about 10 fW and is left
on for approximately one lattice rotation period (125 ms).
The effect of this blasting laser is to remove a small (barely observable) fractionof atoms from the center of the condensate. This has two consequences. First, theaverage angular momentum per particle is increased by the selective removal of low
angular momentum atoms from the condensate center. This increase then requires acorresponding increase in the equilibrium condensate radius [76]. Secondly, the atom
removal creates a density dip in the center of the cloud. Thus, after the blasting pulse,
the condensate has fluid flowing inward to fill the density dip and fluid flowing outward
to expand the radius. The Coriolis force acting on these flows causes the inward motion
to be diverted in the lattice rotation direction and the outward flow to be diverted in
the opposite direction. This sheared fluid flow drags the vortices from their equilibrium
configuration and sets the initial conditions for the lattice oscillation as can be seenfrom the expanded images in figure 4.1.
The second method of exciting the Tkachenko oscillation is essentially the inverseof the previous method. Instead of removing atoms from the cloud we use a red-detuned
optical dipole potential to draw atoms into the middle of the condensate. To do this we
focus a 850 nm laser beam onto the condensate. The beam has 3 µW of power and a
40 µm FWHM. It propagates along the direction of condensate rotation and its effect is
to create a 0.4 nK deep Gaussian dip in the radial trapping potential. This beam is left
on for 125 ms to create an inward fluid flow similar to before. The resulting Tkachenko
oscillation was studied for Ω = 0.95ωρ , and found to be completely consistent with theatom removal method. It is not surprising that these two methods are equivalent since52

Figure 4.1: (1,0) Tkachenko mode excited by atom removal (a) taken 500 ms after theend of the blasting pulse (b) taken 1650 ms after the end of the blasting pulse. BEC
rotation is counterclockwise. Lines are sine fits to the vortex lattice planes.

53
one works by creating a dip in the interaction potential and the other creates a similar
dip in the trapping potential.
For these experiments, data is extracted by destructively imaging the vortex lattice in expansion and fitting the lattice oscillation. To perform this fit we find a curvilinear row of vortices going through the center of the cloud and fit a sinewave to thelocations of the vortex centers, recording the sine amplitude. This is done for all three
directions of lattice symmetry [see figure 4.1], with the amplitudes averaged to yield the
net fit amplitude of the distortion.

4.3

The (1,0) mode
The resulting oscillation [see figure. 4.2] is heavily damped and has a Q value of

3-5 for the data presented. Here Q is given by Q=2πf τdamping , where τdamping is the
exponential-damping time constant for the oscillation. We are able to increase this to a
Q of 10 by exciting lower amplitude oscillations (40% of the previous amplitude) and by
better mode matching of the blasting beam to the shape and period of the oscillation(40 µm FWHM beam width and 500 ms blasting time). Measured frequencies for thehigh-amplitude oscillations are the same as for the low-amplitude, high-Q case so we donot believe that we are seeing anharmonic shifts1 .
Because of the characteristic s-bend shape and the low resonant frequency of theseoscillations [see figure 4.3(a)] we interpret them to be the (n=1,m=0) Tkachenko oscillations predicted by Anglin and Crescimanno [28]. Here (n,m) refer to the radial and angular nodes, respectively, in the presumed quasi-2-D geometry. The calculations of Ref.[28]predict that these lattice oscillations should have a frequency of ν10 = 1.43Ω/(2π) forthe (1,0) mode and ν20 = 2.32Ω/(2π) for the (2,0) mode. Here  = b/Rρ denotes thenearest-neighbor vortex spacing, b, over the radial Thomas-Fermi radius, Rρ . For our
1

Note that for all cases the reported frequency is adjusted for damping according to the equation
fo = 1/2π((2πfmeasured )2 + (1/τdamping )2 )1/2 .

54

Figure 4.2: Measured oscillation amplitude for a typical excitation. Data shown is fora BEC rotating at Ω = 0.92ωρ and containing 2.2 × 106 atoms. Fit is to a sinewave
times an exponential decay and yields a frequency of 0.85 Hz and a Q of 3. The
oscillation amplitude is expressed as the average amplitude of the sinewave fits to thevortex oscillation in units of the radial Thomas-Fermi radius (roughly the azimuthal
displacement of a vortex a distance 0.33 Rρ from the condensate center). Both values
are in expansion.

55
system these predicted frequencies are around 1-2 Hz and are therefore far slower thanany of the density-changing coherent oscillations of the condensate except for the m=-2
surface wave [25, 77, 40, 78]. In addition, the shape of the observed oscillation agrees
well with theory. Specifically, the prediction[28] that the spatial period of a sinewave
fit to a row of vortices in a (1,0) oscillation should be 1.33 Rρ is in perfect agreementwith our data.
The predicted frequencies are, however, problematic. To make the comparison
to the theory presented in Ref.[28] we excite lattice oscillations in the condensate forΩ/ωρ ranging from 0.10 to 0.15. This is achieved by varying number and rotation
rate. Over this range of Ω the oscillation frequencies measured are consistently lower
than those predicted by theory as can be seen in figure 4.3(b). For the slowest rotations,Ω = 0.84ωρ (Ω/ωρ = 0.15, N=2.5×106 ), we observe frequencies that are as close as 0.70
of the predicted value. However, at larger rotation rates, Ω = 0.975ωρ (Ω/ωρ = 0.10,
N=1.7 × 106 ), the agreement is considerably worse (the measured value is 0.31 of thepredicted value). One possible explanation for this general discrepancy is that thecalculations are done in 2-D and ignore the issues of vortex bending at the boundary
and finite condensate thickness [79]. In those cases, however, one would expect better
agreement at high rotation rates where the condensate aspect ratio is more 2-D. A more
likely explanation is that the continuum theory, used in the Anglin and Crescimanno
calculation, is breaking down as the vortex core size to vortex spacing becomes finite[79]. This suggests that at high rotation and lower atom number we are entering a new
regime. To further explore this possibility we reduced the atom number to N=7−9×105 ,while keeping Ω/ωρ roughly the same. This should increase the core size and exacerbate
the problem. As can be seen in figure 4.3(b) and figure 4.3(c) the agreement with theory
is significantly worse under these conditions. These discrepancies will be discussed in
more detail in §4.6.

56

Figure 4.3: Plot (a) shows the damping-adjusted (n=1,m=0) Tkachenko oscillation
frequencies as a function of scaled rotation rate Ω/ωρ . Plot (b) shows the (1,0) frequency
as a function of the theory parameter Ω/ωρ . The dotted line is the theory line ν10 =1.43Ω/(2π) from Ref. [28]. Note that the low number data shows much worse agreementwith theory. Plot (c) demonstrates the divergence of experimental frequency from thetheory frequency as the ratio of vortex core area to unit cell area increases. Avortex isπξ 2 where the healing length ξ = (8πna)−1/2 (here n is density-weighted√ 2 average density
and a is the s-wave scattering length). Lattice cell area Acell is 3b /2 (here b is thenearest-neighbor vortex spacing). For all plots black squares and triangles refer to highand low atom number experiments, respectively.

57

4.4

The (2,0) mode
We are also able to excite the (2,0) mode. We note that atom removal creates ans-bend in the lattice that is centered on the atom removal spot. To write two s-bends
onto the lattice one could imagine removing atoms from an annular ring instead of a
spot. To make this ring we offset the blasting beam half a condensate radius and leave it
on for 375 ms (three full condensate rotation periods). As one can see this does lead toan excitation of the (2,0) oscillation (see figure 4.4). We measure the frequency of thismode as before. For 2.3 million atoms and Ω = 0.95ωρ we measure a lattice oscillation
frequency of 1.1 ± 0.1 Hz, distinctly lower than the theoretical prediction [28] of 2.2 Hzfor our parameters.

4.5

Bulk fluid modes
Vortex motion and condensate fluid motion are intimately linked [75]. In Tkachenko

oscillations, the moving of vortices must also entail some motion of the underlying fluid,
and pressure-velocity waves in the fluid must conversely entrain the vortices. Very generally, for a substance composed of two interpenetrating materials, one of which has anelastic shear modulus and one of which does not (in our case, the vortex lattice andits surrounding superfluid, respectively), one expects to find three distinct families ofsound waves in the bulk: (i) a shear, or transverse, wave, (ii) a common-mode pressure
or longitudinal wave, and (iii) a differential longitudinal wave, with the lattice and its
fluid moving against one another [80]. The presence of strong Coriolis forces makes
the distinction between longitudinal and transverse waves problematic, but the generalcharacteristics of the three families should extend into the rotating case. For instance,
one can still readily identify the Tkachenko modes discussed thus far as the transverse
wave. Our assumption is that the common-mode longitudinal waves are nothing otherthan the conventional hydrodynamic shape oscillations studied previously [40, 78].

58

Figure 4.4: On the left are the locations where atoms are removed from the cloud. For
the (1,0) excitations the atoms are removed from the shaded region in the center. For
the (2,0) mode atoms are removed from the shaded ring half a condensate radius out.
Image on the right is the resulting (2,0) mode, where the black line has been added to
guide the eye.

59
To excite the common-mode longitudinal wave, we use the dipole force from the
850 nm red-detuned laser described earlier. In order to excite a broad spectrum ofmodes we shorten the laser pulse to 5 ms, widen the excitation beam to a 75 µm
FWHM Gaussian profile, and increase the laser power to 1 mW, resulting in a 30 nK
deep optical potential. We find that this pulse excites three distinct m=0 modes: thefirst is the (1,0) Tkachenko s-bend mode at about 0.6 Hz already discussed. The second
is a radial breathing mode in which the condensate radius oscillates at 16.6 ± 0.3 Hz (orω

2.0 ± 0.1 2πρ ). This mode has been previously observed [81], and our observed frequency
is consistent with hydrodynamic theory for a cloud rotating at Ω = 0.95ωρ [40]. As
the radius of the fluid density oscillates, so does the mean lattice spacing of the vortex
lattice, but we observe no s-type bending of the lattice at this frequency. The fact thatthe frequency of the lowest m=0 radial longitudinal mode is more than 20 times that of
the transverse mode demonstrates how relatively weak the transverse shear modulus is.
The same laser pulse excites a third mode, at the quite distinct frequency of 18.5±
0.3 Hz. This mode manifests as a rapid s-bend distortion of the lattice indistinguishable
in shape from the 0.6 Hz (1,0) Tkachenko oscillation as can be seen in figure 4.5. 18.5 Hz
is much too fast to have anything to do with the shear modulus of the lattice, and we werevery tempted to identify this mode as a member of the third family of sound-waves, thedifferential longitudinal waves. Simulations by Cozzini and Stringari [82, 83], however,show that our observed frequency is consistent with a higher-order, hydrodynamic modeof the rotating fluid that can be excited by an anharmonic radial potential such as ourGaussian optical potential. Moreover, they show that the radial velocity field of theirmode is distorted by Coriolis forces so as to drag the lattice sites into an azimuthally
oscillating s-bend distortion that coincidentally resembles the Tkachenko mode. It is
worth noting that without the presence of the lattice to serve as tracers for the fluid
velocity field, it would be very difficult to observe this higher-order mode, since thismode has very little effect on the mean radius of the fluid. In any case, the mode at

60

Figure 4.5: Radial breathing mode and fluid flow driven lattice bending as observed
after a dipole beam pulse. For parameters, see text.

18.5 Hz appears to be yet another member in the family of common-mode longitudinal
waves. The discovery of this longitundnal mode demonstrates the usefulness of vortices
to visualize complicated hydrodynamic flow patterns in a BEC. So far we have been
unable to observe a mode we can assign to the family of differential longitudinal waves.

4.6

Theory responds
In section §4.2 and in our original Tkachenko [84] paper, I suggest that our dis-

crepancy with the Anglin and Crescimanno prediction, seen in figure 4.3, is due to thefinite size of the vortex cores, which turns out not to be completely true. Finite core
size turns out to be tantamount to saying that we are approaching the lowest Landaulevel (described in more detail in §5). As it happens, the lowest Landau level dynamics describe only a small part of this discrepancy. Since the original publishing of the
Tkachenko paper there has been an extensive theory response [29, 83, 31, 85, 33, 86, 32].
A central point of nearly all these works is that lattice compressibility must be taken
into account to describe the Tkachenko oscillation in BEC’s.
In a highly rotating condensate the rotation rate can easily approach or evenexceed the speed of sound in the condensate. As the speed of sound is approached, thelattice becomes compressible, and enters a regime not accessible to superfluid Helium
systems. This compressibility also means that higher-order terms must be taken into
account when determining the Tkachenko dispersion relation. As noted by Baym [29,6187, 88] the dispersion relation
ν(k)2 =

1 2C2
s2 k 4.
222(2π) nm (4Ω + (s + 4(C1 + C2 )/nm)k 2 )(4.1)

Here n in the condensate density2 and m is the mass of Rubidium. The wave number k for the (1,0) mode is taken, from Anglin and Crescimanno [28], to be k(1,0) =2π/(1.33Rρ ) and s is the speed of sound. C1 and C2 are the compressional and shear
modulus of the lattice respectively. In the incompressible limit, one would expect that
C2 = −C1 = nΩ/8. However, as Baym notes, the shear modulus weakens with higher
rotation and as one approaches the lowest Landau level C2 , is know to have the form
C2 ' (81/80π)ms2 n [29, 87, 88]. The exact nature of the transition between these twolimits has not been rigorously determined.
Equation 4.1 can be broken into two interesting regimes. At low rotations (Ω sk), equation 4.1 simplifies to1
ν(k) =
2π

s

2C2
k.
nm

(4.2)

This low rotation regime is often referred to as the “stiff” Thomas Fermi regime. In thisregime, Tkachenko oscillations are expected to behave much like they do in superfluid
helium systems, and the theory presented in Ref. [28] would be more appropriate.
However, one notes that in our system sk(1,0) ' 0.66ωρ , which means that we are
well out of this regime by the time our vortex lattices are large enough to observe a
Tkachenko oscillation.
Alternatively, at high rotations (Ω  sk) one enters the “soft” Thomas-Fermi
regime where equation 4.1 simplifies to1
ν(k) =2πs

s2 C2 2k .
2Ω2 nm(4.3)

The Tkachenko data presented in this thesis generally lies between these two regimes
or in the “soft” regime. This second dispersion relation is striking in its’ quadratic2

Baym uses peak density in his original paper but we have found that density-weighted density
provides an equally good fit to the data and requires less fudging with the C2 parameter. Densityweighted density also would seem appropriate as the Tkachenko excitation exists over the entire cloud.

62
behavior and is expected to lead to loss of long range phase coherence in the condensate[85]. Ultimately this loss of phase coherence is expected to lead to melting of the vortex
lattice as one approaches the quantum Hall regime [89].
The Bigelow group has spent some time using numerics to examine the difference
between these two regimes. A striking difference in the flow patterns in these two
regimes can be seen in figure 4.6 which was provided by L. O. Baksmaty [83].
Interesting work has also been done on the condensate density profile during a
Tkachenko oscillation. Using a sum rule method Cozzini et al. [32] has demonstrated
that the condensate density profile dips slightly (∼5%) in the center and the outeredge during a Tkachenko oscillation. This profile offers some insight into why ourexperimental technique of altering the condensate profile at the center, couples so nicely
to the Tkachenko modes. They also suggest an alternate scheme of exciting these modes
by modulating the radial trap frequencies, at the Tkachenko frequency, in order to couple
to this density distribution. While so far untested, this suggestion would provide a way
to perform frequency resolved spectroscopy of Tkachenko oscillations, which may one
day prove useful.

63

Figure 4.6: Figure taken from Ref. [83]. Plot a) and b) show the vortex lattice distortion resulting from a (1,0) Tkachenko mode in the stiff and soft Thomas-Fermi regimes
respectively. Dots show the equilibrium vortex positions and the arrows show the direction and magnitude of the calculated vortex displacements. In plot a) one can see
the very ordered nature of the Tkachenko oscillation. A time evolution of this image
shows that each vortex precesses along a highly elliptical path. In soft Thomas Fermi
regime, plot b), individual vortex motion appears more chaotic as the lattice becomescompressible. A time evolution of this image shows that the precession of each vortex
has become nearly circular. All vortices at the same radii precess in the same manner.

Chapter 5

Lowest Landau Level [4]5.1Introduction
Rotating Bose-Einstein condensates provide a conceptual link between the physics

of trapped gases and the physics of condensed matter systems such as superfluids, typeII superconductors and quantum Hall effect (QHE) materials. In all these systems,
striking counterintuitive effects emerge when an external flux penetrates the sample. For
charged particles this flux can be provided by a magnetic field, leading to the formationof Abrikosov flux line lattices in type-II superconductors [74], or in QHE systems to theformation of correlated electron-liquids and composite quasiparticles made of electrons
with attached flux quanta [90]. For neutral superfluids, the analog to a magnetic field isa rotation of the system, which similarly spawns vortices [91]. In rotating atomic BECs,
the creation of large ordered Abrikosov lattices of vortices [22, 24, 23, 25] has recently
become possible.
Here we examine the vortex lattice of harmonically trapped BECs approaching
the high rotation limit, when the centrifugal force nearly cancels the radial confining
force. The formal analogy of neutral atoms in this limit with electrons in a strong magnetic field has led to the prediction that quantum-Hall like properties should emerge in
rapidly rotating atomic BECs [37]. In particular, the single-particle energy states, inthe rotating frame, organize into Landau levels (see figure 5.1), and if interactions are
weaker than the cyclotron energy (approximately the energy splitting between Landau

65

Figure 5.1: Harmonic oscillator states in the rotating frame as one approaches thelowest Landau level. Image a) shows the non-rotating case. With moderate condensate
rotation the positive/negative m harmonic oscillator states shift down/up in energy
as seen in image b). As condensate rotation rate (Ω) approaches the trap frequency(ωρ ) the harmonic oscillator states form bands, or Landau levels, as in image c). The
condensate becomes confined to the lowest Landau level if the chemical potential drops
below the Landau level splitting (2ωρ ).

levels), the near-degenerate states of the lowest Landau level (LLL) are primarily occupied. For rotating bosons in the LLL, two regimes have been identified, distinguishedby the filling factor ν ≡ Np /Nv , i.e., the ratio of the number of particles (Np ) to vortices(Nv ). For high filling factors (always ≥ 500 in our system), the condensate is in thelowest Landau level regime [35, 19, 36], but mean-field theory is still a valid way todeal with interactions. In this state the condensate still forms an ordered vortex latticeground state. With decreasing filling factor, the elastic shear strength of the vortex lattice decreases, which is reflected in very low frequencies of long-wavelength transverse
lattice excitations (Tkachenko oscillations [28, 84, 29, 43, 30, 31, 83, 85, 33, 86, 32])1. For filling factors around ν ≈ 10, the shear strength is predicted to drop sufficiently
for quantum fluctuations to melt the vortex lattice[37, 38]. For smaller ν there exists avariety of strongly correlated vortex liquid states similar to those in the Fermionic fractional QHE [37]. Starting from the Laughlin state, one can then even create excitations
that obey fractional statistics [39].
In this chapter we report the observation of rapidly rotating BECs in the lowest
Landau level, and provide evidence that the elastic shear strength of the vortex lattice1

Ref. [84] measured Tkachenko frequencies that showed deviations from existing TF-limit theory
valid at low rotation [28] (also shown in §4.3). These were resolved in subsequent theoretical work
[29, 30, 31].

66
drops substantially as the BEC enters the lowest Landau level regime [29]. This effect isa precursor to the predicted quantum melting of the lattice at lower filling factors. Our
rapidly rotating condensates spin out into a pancake shape and approach the quasitwo-dimensional regime. We observe a corresponding cross-over in the spectrum ofbreathing excitations along the axial direction. The high rotation limit has been studied
experimentally in Ref. [92], focusing on effects of a rotating trap anisotropy, which is
not present in our setup, and in Ref. [93] where the addition of a quartic term to thetrapping potential led to a loss of vortex visibility.

5.2

Experiment
These experiments take place in an axially symmetric harmonic trap with os-

cillation frequencies {ωρ , ωz } = 2π{8.3, 5.3} Hz. Using an evaporative spin-up technique described in §2.1 we create condensates containing up to 5.5 × 106 87 Rb atoms
in the |F = 1, mF = −1i state, rotating about the vertical, z axis, at a rate Ω̃ = 0.95(Ω̃ ≡ Ω/ωρ is the rotation rate Ω scaled by the centrifugal rotation limit, ωρ , for aharmonically trapped gas). To further approach the limit Ω̃ → 1, we employ an opticalspin-up technique, where the BEC is illuminated uniformly with laser light, and therecoil from spontaneously scattered photons removes atoms from the condensate. Since
the condensate is optically thin to the laser light, atoms are removed without position or
angular-momentum selectivity, such that angular momentum per particle is unchanged.
Atom loss leads to a small decrease in cloud radius which, through conservation of angular momentum, increases Ω̃. Over a period of up to 2 seconds we decrease the numberof BEC atoms by up to a factor of 100, to 5 × 104 , while increasing2 Ω̃ from 0.95 tomore than 0.99. At this point, further reduction in number degrades the quality ofimages unacceptably. Ongoing evaporation is imposed to retain a quasi-pure BEC with
2

Rotation rates are accurately determined by comparing the measured BEC aspect ratio to the trap
aspect ratio (see e.g. [40]). At our lowest values of Γ2D we correct for quantum-pressure contributions
to axial size.

67

Figure 5.2: Side view images of BECs in trap. (a) Static BEC. The aspect ratio Rz /Rρ =1.57 (N = 3.8 × 106 atoms) resembles the prolate trap shape. (b) After evaporative
spin-up, N = 3.3 × 106 , Ω̃ = 0.953, (c) evaporative plus optical spin-up, N = 1.9 × 105 ,Ω̃ = 0.993. Due to centrifugal distortion the aspect ratio is changed by a factor 8compared to (a).

no discernible thermal cloud.

5.3

Breathing mode spectrum in the lowest Landau level
With increasing rotation, centrifugal force distorts the cloud into an extremely

oblate shape [see figure 5.2] and reduces the density significantly - thus the BEC approaches the quasi-two-dimensional regime. For the highest rotation rates we achieve,µthe chemical potential µ is reduced close to the axial oscillator energy, Γ2D ≡ 2h̄ω
≈ 1.5,z

and the gas undergoes a cross-over from interacting- to ideal-gas behavior along the axial
direction.
To probe this cross-over, we excite the lowest order axial breathing mode over arange of rotation rates. For a BEC in the axial Thomas-Fermi regime, an axial breathing√
frequency ωB = 3 ωz has been predicted in the limit Ω̃ → 1 [40], whereas ωB = 2 ωz
is expected for a non-interacting gas.
To excite the breathing mode, we jump the axial trap frequency by 6%, whileleaving the radial frequency unchanged (within < 0.5%). To extract the axial breathing
frequency ωB , we take 13 nondestructive in-trap images of the cloud, perpendicular to
the axis of rotation. From the oscillation of the axial Thomas-Fermi radius3 in time
we obtain ωB . Rotation rates are obtained from the aspect ratio by averaging over3

For the smallest values Γ2D , the axial density profile is slightly better fitted by a Gaussian. To
avoid bias however we fit all data assuming a TF profile.

68
all 13 images to eliminate the effect of axial breathing. As shown in figure 5.3(a), we√
do indeed observe a frequency cross-over from ωB = 3 ωz to ωB = 2 ωz as Ω̃ → 1.
To quantify under which conditions the cross-over occurs, we plot the same data vs.
Γ2D [figure 5.3(b)], where the chemical potential is determined from the measured atom
number, the rotation rate and the trap frequencies. For Γ2D < 3, the ratio ωB /ωz starts
to deviate from the predicted hydrodynamic value, and approaches 2 for our lowestΓ2D ≈ 1.5.
As Ω̃ → 1, the dynamics in the radial plane are also affected. For the highest
rotation rates, interactions become sufficiently weak that the chemical potential µ drops
below the cyclotron energy 2h̄Ω, which is only a few percent smaller than the Landauµ
level spacing 2h̄ωρ . Then, ΓLLL ≡ 2h̄Ω
< 1, and the condensate primarily occupies

single-particle states in the LLL. These form a ladder of near-degenerate states, withµa frequency splitting of  = ωρ − Ω. The number of occupied states is NLLL ≈ h̄.

We are able to create condensates with ΓLLL as low as 0.6, which occupy NLLL ≈ 120
states, with a splitting  < 2π × 0.06 Hz. In this regime of near-degenerate singleparticle states a drastic decrease of the lattice’s elastic shear strength takes place. The
elastic shear modulus, C2 , is predicted by Baym [29] to decrease with increasing rotation
rate from its value in the “stiff” Thomas-Fermi (TF) limit, C2T F = n(Ω) h̄Ω/8 (wheren(Ω) is the BEC number density) to its value in the mean-field quantum Hall regime,of C2LLL ≈ 0.16 × ΓLLL × C2T F . We directly probe this shear strength by exciting
the lowest order azimuthally symmetric lattice mode ( (n = 1, m = 0) Tkachenko√
mode [28, 84, 29]). Its frequency ω(1,0) ∼ C2 is expected to drop by a factor ≈ 2.5
below the TF prediction when ΓLLL = 1.

5.4

Tkachenko spectrum in the lowest Landau level
Our excitation technique for Tkachenko modes has been described in §4.2. Herethe lower interaction strength of the condensates makes it preferable to use the focused,

69

Figure 5.3: Measured axial breathing frequency ωB /ωz (a) as a function of rotation rateΩ̃ and (b) vs. Γ2D . Solid line: Prediction for the hydrodynamic regime [40]; Dashedline: ideal gas limit. For Ω̃ > 0.98 (Γ2D < 3) a cross-over from interacting- to ideal-gas
behavior is observed. Representative error bars are shown for two data points.

70
red-detuned laser (850 nm). This laser draws atoms into the center, and Coriolis force
diverts the atoms’ inward motion into the lattice rotation direction. The vortex latticeadjusts to this distortion, and after we turn off the beam, the lattice elasticity drives
oscillations at the frequency ω(1,0) . We observe the oscillation by varying the wait
time after the excitation, and then expanding the condensate before imaging the vortex
lattice along the z-axis [see figure 5.4(a),(b)]. In figure 5.4(c), we compare the measured
frequencies ω(1,0) to the predictions of Ref. [29] for the TF limit and for the meanfield quantum Hall regime. For Ω̃ < 0.98 (ΓLLL > 3), the frequency ω(1,0) follows theprediction for the TF regime, whereas by Ω̃ = 0.990 (ΓLLL = 1.5), ω(1,0) has dropped
to close to the prediction for the LLL, thus providing evidence for the cross-over to thelower shear modulus C2 predicted for the LLL.
While we are able to produce clouds with ΓLLL measured to be substantiallylower than ΓLLL = 1.5, we are unable to accurately measure Tkachenko frequencies
under these extreme conditions, due at least in part to the very weakness of C2 . The
Tkachenko mode frequencies become so low that it takes multiple seconds to track evena quarter oscillation [figure 5.4(a),(b)]. Concurrently, the very weak shear strengthmeans that even minor perturbations to the cloud can cause the lattice to melt andthe individual cores to lose contrast4 in a matter of seconds. These perturbations
can result from residual asymmetry of the magnetic trapping potential, or from spatial
structure in the optical beam used to reduce the atom number, or perhaps from thermal
fluctuations. In contrast, for a “stiff” cloud of 3 × 106 atoms at Ω̃ = 0.95 (ΓLLL ≈ 7) weobserve that the lattice remains ordered, and Ω̃ can be kept constant, over the entire
1/e lifetime of the BEC (≈ 3 minutes).
4

Melting and loss of contrast are also reported in Ref. [93].

71

Figure 5.4: (a), (b) Tkachenko mode at ΓLLL = 1.2 (N = 1.5 × 105 , Ω̃ = 0.989): (a)directly after excitation, (b) after 1 sec - the lattice oscillation has not yet completed 1/4
cycle. (c) Comparison of measured Tkachenko mode frequency ω(1,0) (solid symbols) vs.
Ω̃ to theory, using vortex lattice shear modulus C2T F in the Thomas-Fermi (TF) limit(circles), and C2LLL in the mean-field quantum Hall regime (stars). Note that both N
and ΓLLL decrease as Ω̃ increases. For ΓLLL ≈ 3 (reached at N = 7.8 × 105 , Ω̃ ≈ 0.978)the data cross over from the TF to the quantum Hall prediction.

72

5.5

Fractional core area
The fractional condensate area occupied by the vortex cores, as one approaches

the lowest Landau level, is also a quantity that has been of much theoretical interest [19,36, 45, 46]. It is argued by Fischer and Baym [19] and Baym and Pethick [36] thatthe fractional core area reaches a limiting value as one enters the LLL regime. A
corollary to this argument is that fractional core area is a reasonable way to monitor
the transition to the lowest Landau level regime. We examine this saturation withexperimental and numerical work, which we can push further into this regime than we
can achieve experimentally. Additionally we examine some of the systematic errors that
can affect the experimental data. To this end numerical calculations were performed
as previously described (§2.6), for 3 × 106 ,5 × 105 ,and 1 × 105 atoms, and for rotations
ranging from Ω/ωρ =0.15 to 0.998. For the experimental data, actual condensates weregenerated over a similar range with Ω/ωρ =0.15 to 0.98 and N=4 − 50 × 105 . The
numerical data as well as the experimental data are fit in the same manner as describedin §2.3.
We define the fractional area, A, occupied by the vortices to be A = nv πr2v , where
nv is the areal density of vortices and r2v is the 2D RMS vortex core radius. To determinea theoretical value for rv , we perform a numerical simulation of the Gross-Pitaevskii(GP) equation of a BEC containing an isolated vortex. We obtain rv = 1.94 × ξ with1

ξ = (8πna)− 2 , where a is the scattering length and n is the density 5 .
Ignoring density inhomogeneity effects (discussed later), and in the limit of manyvortices, the expected vortex density nv is mΩ/(πh̄). The resulting prediction for A
can be expressed as A = 1.34 × Γ−1
LLL . This value exceeds unity for ΓLLL < 1.34, which
has led to the prediction that vortices should merge as the condensate enters the LLL
5
The density n = 7/10 npeak is density-weighted along the rotation axis and is radially averaged
over the vortex cores within 1/2 the TF radius, as it is only in this region that we fit the observed vortex
cores.

73
regime. An alternate treatment from Baym and Pethick [36] predicts that A saturates
at 0.225 as the vortices go from a Thomas-Fermi profile to the profile of a LLL wave
function. Our numerical data for A, together with experimental points, are plotted infigure 5.5 (a,b). For Γ−1
LLL < 0.1, the data agree reasonably well with the Thomas-Fermi
result. For larger Γ−1
LLL , the data clearly show a smooth transition to the LLL regime,
and a saturation of A at the LLL limit.
The experimental data in figure 2.8(b) tend to lie above the numerical data. Thisis likely due to the fact that there are many systematic errors that tend to bias the data
toward larger core size. Consequently, we tend to overestimate the core size. Of all thesystematic errors we have studied, axial expansion of the cloud during the expansion
process is by far the most prevalent. Figure 2.8(c) demonstrates the dangers of axial
expansion in this measurement. For the data presented, the condensate undergoes afactor of 2-3 in axial expansion, and we see a corresponding increase in A. This clearly
illustrates the importance in suppressing axial expansion for these measurements. It
is interesting to note that with our rapid axial expansion the fractional core area canovershoot the LLL limit, which in principle should still be valid in the limit of adiabatic
expansion.

5.6

Vortex core density profile
We can also observe the transition to the LLL regime in the numerical data by

examining the shape of the condensate vortex cores. In the Thomas-Fermi regime, thepvortex-core density profile is well described by the form n(r) = (r/ 2ξ 2 + r2 )2 [94],where r is measured from the vortex center. Alternatively in the LLL regime, the core
is no longer dictated by the interactions but rather by kinetic energy considerations.
In this case, within the Wigner-Seitz unit cell, the vortex is thought [36] to have asimple oscillator p-state structure n(r) = ((Cr/b) · exp[−r2 /2l2 ])2 for 0 ≤ r ≤ l, where
C is a normalization constant, and l is the radius of the Wigner-Seitz unit cell and is74

Figure 5.5: Fractional condensate area occupied by vortex cores (A) as a function of
Γ−1
LLL = 2h̄Ω/µ, the inverse lowest Landau level parameter. Plot (a) shows a smoothtransition in the numerical data from the Thomas-Fermi limit where A is linear in Γ−1
LLL
to the LLL limit where A saturates. Here the Thomas-Fermi theory is represented
by the dashed line and the LLL limit by the dotted line. Plot (b) is a comparisonof the numerical data to experimental data. Plot (c) demonstrates the effect on theexperimental measurement of allowing the condensate to expand axially during the
expansion process.

75√
related to the nearest-neighbor lattice spacing b by l = ( 3/2π)1/2 b. Figure 5.6 is acomparison of the central vortex, in three numerically generated condensates, to bothThomas-Fermi and LLL predicted core shapes. The simulation for figure 5.6(a) was
performed for 3 × 106 atoms and Ω/ωρ = .15 and is well inside the Thomas-Fermi
regime (ΓLLL = 117). Here the density profile of the numerical data (solid line) seems
to fit quite well to the Thomas-Fermi vortex form (dotted line), but the LLL form isa poor description of the vortex core (dashed line). The simulation for figure 5.6(b)was performed for 5 × 105 atoms, Ω/ωρ = .95 and ΓLLL = 3.6. One can see fromfigure 5.5 that this is in the transition region. Not surprisingly both vortex forms fit
about equally well. In Figs. 5.6(b) and figure 5.6(c), the vertical line represents the edgeof the Wigner-Seitz unit cell at r = l. The simulation for figure 5.6(c) was performed
with 1 × 105 atoms, Ω/ωρ = .998 and ΓLLL = .72. One can see that LLL is a muchbetter description of the vortex.

5.7

Condensate radial density profile
On a separate but interesting note, as we enter the LLL regime, our numericalsolution of the GP equation shows that the radial profile of the overall smoothed condensate fits much better to a parabola than to the Gaussian that was originally predicted[35]. We can also confirm this experimentally by imaging clouds with ΓLLL as small
as 0.6. Images are taken in-trap, to increase signal, and after 3 sec equilibration time.
Examining the radial density profile we find that these images also fit better to a TF
profile than to a Gaussian, showing no signs of a cross-over in the radial density profileas the LLL is entered.
The reason the Gaussian-density-profile prediction fails to pan out can be extrapolated from data presented in the next chapter. The density-profile prediction for theradial profile in the LLL arose from an elegant argument that was based on an assumption that the vortex nodes were on a perfect triangular lattice. As was originally pointed

76

Figure 5.6: Numerically generated vortex core density profiles approaching the lowest
Landau level regime. Density n is scaled by the peak debsity n0 . Solid lines represent
the numerical result for (a) ΓLLL = 117, (b)ΓLLL = 3.6, (c)ΓLLL = .72. The dashedline is the expected profile for a LLL wave function [36] given the condensate rotation.
The dotted line is the expected vortex form in the Thomas-Fermi limit [94] given thecondensate density. The vertical lines in figure (b) and (c) designate the edge of the
Wigner-Seitz unit cell. As ΓLLL decreases, one can see a clear transition from theinteraction-dominated Thomas-Fermi regime to a LLL function where kinetic energy
concerns and the vortex core spacing dictate the shape and size of the vortex.

77
out to us by A. H. MacDonald [43] and has been the subject of two recent theoreticalworks [41, 42], a slight radially dependant perturbation in the areal density of vortices
is enough to convert a Gaussian density distribution into an inverted parabola. The
analytic description of this perturbation in [41] (calculated in the LLL) bears a striking
resemblance to the one measured in §6.2 in the Thomas-Fermi regime and also to theanalytic form [44] calculated in the Thomas-Fermi regime. The surprising result of thisperturbation in the areal density of vortices is that one of the most striking featuresof the Thomas-Fermi regime, the parabolic Thomas-Fermi density profile, still exists in
the LLL regime where the condensate kinetic energy is clearly non-negligible compared
to interaction energy.

Chapter 6

Experimental studies of equilibrium vortex properties in a
Bose-condensed gas [1]6.1

Introduction
After the initial observations of vortex lattices in Bose-Einstein condensed gases[22, 24, 25, 23], most of the experimental work has focused on dynamical behavior ofvortices and lattices, including Kelvons [77, 95, 96], Tkachenko waves [28, 84, 29, 83,
31, 85, 33, 86, 32], and various nonequilibrium effects [71, 76]. Equilibrium properties,
in contrast, have been relatively neglected by experimenters. This imbalance is notindicative of a lack of interesting physics in equilibrium behavior, but simply reflects
the usual experimentalist’s preference for measuring spectra rather than static structure.
Theorists, on the other hand, have investigated equilibrium properties extensively [36,44, 45, 94, 46, 35, 89, 97, 98, 41, 42, 99, 19], and our purpose in this chapter is to partiallyredress this imbalance with a series of experimental studies focusing on equilibrium
properties of rotating condensates.
The vortex lattice in a rotating Bose-condensed gas naturally organizes into aregular triangular lattice, or Abrikosov lattice, originally observed in superconductors.
The lattice can be well characterized by the nearest-neighbor lattice spacing and by
the radius of each vortex core (b and rv , respectively). The nearest-neighbor latticespacing, b, is generally thought to be determined only by the rotation rate when in thehigh-rotation regime where the rotating BEC exhibits nearly rigid-body behavior. Nu-

79merical work [45] and early analytical work [28], however, suggests that this rigid-bodyassumption yields lattice constants that are smaller than would be seen in the case ofa finite-size trapped BEC. Recent work by Sheehy and Radzihovsky [44] has tackled
this discrepancy analytically and found it to be a necessary consequence of the inhomogeneous density profile of the condensate. With this theory they address the questionof why the lattice is so remarkably regular given the condensate density profile. They
also derive a small, position-dependent, inhomogeneity-induced correction term to thelattice spacing. An interesting implication of this theory is that the vortices must moveslightly faster than the surrounding superfluid even near the rigid-body limit. Morestriking still is the prediction that the superfluid should exhibit a radially-dependantangular velocity (or radial shear flow), which directly follows from their calculation of
inhomogeneous vortex density. While a differential rotation rate is not directly observable in our system, the position-dependent variation of the nearest-neighbor latticespacing is studied in §6.2. It should also be noted that the inhomogeneity in the areal
density of vortices, predicted in Ref. [44], can also be derived in the limit of the lowest
Landau level (LLL). This property of the LLL was first brought to our attention by
A.H. MacDonald and has been the subject of two recent publications by Watanabe etal. [41] and Cooper et al. [42].
The second effect we study in this chapter concerns the core size of the vortices.
Once rotation rate and density are fixed, the vortex core size is a length scale that thecondensate chooses on its own. In this sense vortex core size constitutes a fundamental
property of the system and has therefore been the subject of much theoretical work [94,97, 98]. By analogy to superfluid 4 He, the core size is dictated by the atomic interactions
and is of order of the healing length. For our system the healing length is only one anda half times the average interatomic spacing. As a result of this diluteness one might
wonder if there are certain regimes of sufficiently low or high density where one would
see a deviation from mean-field theory. Investigation of core size makes up §6.3.

80
Finally in §6.4 we examine the proposal that a measurement of the contrast ofvortex cores could serve as a sensitive thermometer for a condensate in the regime
for which the temperature is less than the chemical potential and other methods ofthermometry become unreliable. We discuss our preliminary efforts to realize this vision.
We are able to see an effect, but we have not yet been able to extend this measurement
technique below the usual limits.
Note that our original paper on equilibrium effects [100] also contained a section
examining the rotational suppression of quantum degeneracy. A description of this effectcan be found in the thesis of Paul Haljan [54] or in [100].

6.2

The lattice constantAt first sight, vortex lattices, such as the one seen in figure 2.8(b), appear perfectly

regular. However as noted in the introduction, Sheehy and Radzihovsky [44] predictthat there should exist a small correction to the vortex density in the condensate dueto the condensate, density inhomogeneity. One result from Ref. [44] is that the areal
density of vortices isnv (ρ) =Ωm1−ln[h̄/(2.718 mΩξ 2 )] ,2πh̄2πRρ (1 − (ρ/Rρ )2 )2(6.1)

where m is the mass of rubidium and ξ is the healing length (calculated from themeasured density). This equation can conveniently be thought of as the rigid bodyrotation (first term) plus the density inhomogeneity correction that reduces vortex density. We compare to experimental measurements by converting vortex density to anearest-neighbor lattice spacing, conveniently expressed in units of condensate radiusb(ρ) =q2/(31/2 nv (ρ))

1
.
Rρ

(6.2)

To study this lattice inhomogeneity effect experimentally, we generate condensates with rotation rates between Ω/ωρ = 0.5and0.9. To extract the vortex separation,

81
we expand the cloud by a factor of 10 in the radial direction using the anti-trapped
expansion technique. The condensate and vortices are fit as described in §2.3. The
nearest-neighbor separation for a given vortex is measured by averaging the distancefrom the vortex center to the centers of the six nearest vortices. Due to low signal,
vortices further than 0.9 Rρ from the condensate center are disregarded. Any remaining
vortex with fewer than six nearest neighbors (i.e., a vortex in the outer ring) is used asa neighbor to other vortices but is not itself included in the final data. Obviously using
the six nearest neighbors assumes a triangular lattice structure, so before fitting, each
image is checked for defects in the lattice. Any image exhibiting broken lattice planes
is not considered. Once the nearest-neighbor separation is measured, it is normalized
by the expanded condensate radius to compare to equation 6.2. For this comparison,Rρ , Ω, and ξ are measured or calculated from an in-trap image. To improve the theory
fit, we allowed Rρ to float, but, in each case, the fit value for Rρ was within 5% of
the measured value. Noise is suppressed by binning the lattice-spacing data by radialdisplacement of the vortex from the center.
Figure 6.1 shows a comparison to theory for three physical condensates and one
numerically generated condensate density profile. Figure 6.1(a) is data taken from thecondensate in figure 2.8(a). The two points shown correspond to the measured vortex
density for the center vortex (first point) and the average vortex density for the first ringof vortices. Also plotted is equation 6.2 (solid line) and the expected nearest-neighborlattice spacing for rigid body rotation (dashed line). The imperfect fit may be partly
due to the discrete nature of the data, vis-a-vis a continuum theory [44]. Plots (b) and(c) are condensates with increasing rotation rates where (c) is taken from image 2.8(b).
Plot (d) is a comparison with numerical data prepared with parameters similar to theexperimental situation in (c). Figure 6.1(e) is the same data in figure 6.1(c) but plotted
without the suppressed zero to emphasize the smallness of the position dependant effect.
The areal density of vortices is constant to 2% over a region that experiences an atom-

82

Figure 6.1: Measured and binned lattice spacings as a function of radial position ρ. The
solid curve is the theory result (equation (6.2)) of Sheehy and Radzihovsky [44]. The
rigid-body–rotation rate lattice spacing is also plotted for comparison (dashed line).
Plots (a-c) are experimental data with increasing rotation. Plot (a) and (c) are datataken from the condensate in Figs. 2.8(a) and (b), respectively. Plot (d) is the same
effect observed in the numerical data. One can see that theory and experiment show asimilar dependence on radial position and that the fractional amplitude of the density
inhomogeneity effect is suppressed at higher rotation. Plot (e) is the data in (c) plotted
without suppressing the zero. The vortex lattice spacing changes less than 2% over a
region in which the atom density varies by 35%.

83
density variation of 35%.

6.3

Vortex core size
The other defining length scale of the vortex lattice is the core radius. Here we

study the core radius in the Thomas-Fermi regime (as opposed to the lowest Landaulevel regime, described later) where it should scale with the healing length. A theoreticalvalue for the vortex core radius was generated by performing a numerical simulation for
a 3D BEC containing an isolated vortex and comparing the fitted radius of this vortex
to the corresponding healing length. Fitting the simulation in the same manner that
we later treat the experimental data (described in §2.3) we obtain an expression for thecore radius of
rv = 1.94 × ξ ,(6.3)

with healing length ξ=(8πnasc )−1/2 , where asc is the scattering length and n is thedensity-weighted atom density. For the data presented, n is determined from the intrap image before expansion.
Core size measurements and fractional core area (discussed in the next subsection)measurements require considerable attention to detail. In pursuing these measurements,
we find that nearly everything — from focusing issues, to lensing due to off resonant
imaging light, to even imperfect atom transfer into the anti-trapped state before expansion — can lead to an overestimation of the vortex core size. By far the biggest
potential systematic error in our system is axial expansion, which, as noted in §2.3,
requires careful attention.
A range of core sizes is achieved by varying the initial number of atoms loaded
into the magnetic trap prior to evaporation. To avoid the core size saturation effect,
due to high condensate rotation [36], we consider only clouds with ΓLLL > 10, where
ΓLLL ≡ µ/(2h̄Ω) is the LLL parameter and µ is the chemical potential. This ratio of

84

Figure 6.2: Comparison of measured core radii with the Thomas-Fermi prediction (equation (6.3)) represented by the solid line. Black squares are the core size in expansion
scaled by the radial expansion of the condensate so that they correspond to the in-trap
values. Data shows reasonable agreement with theory. The fact that the measured core
size is consistently larger is likely due to the fact that nearly all our imaging systematics
lead to an overestimation of the vortex core size.

85
chemical potential to rotational energy approaches unity as we enter the LLL regime,
while at values of 10 or greater we should be firmly in the Thomas-Fermi regime. In
practice this requires only that we keep the condensate rotation rate low. Core size
is measured by fitting the expanded image with a Thomas-Fermi profile and each corewith a 2D Gaussian. For figure 6.2 the measured core radius in expansion is scaled backto the corresponding in-trap value using the radial expansion factor discussed in §2.3.
To reduce scatter we consider only vortices located less than half a condensate radiusout from the center. Additionally we find that some vortices appear to have someexcitation or bending which leads to a poor fit. To filter these out we consider only
vortices that have a contrast greater than 0.6. Here contrast is defined, with respect tothe integrated (along the line of sight) condensate profile, as the peak of the “missing”
column density at the vortex position divided by the smoothed Thomas-Fermi profileat the same position.
From figure 6.2 we can see that the data and the Thomas-Fermi theory agree
reasonably well. The data do seem to be slightly above the theory value, but we arehesitant to make too much of this because, as noted before, there are many systematic
errors that tend to bias the data toward larger core size. Measurement is easier and theagreement better, on the low density, large-core side of the graph.
At an early stage in this work, we speculated that the mean-field Gross-Pitaevskii
equation might not give a good quantitative description of vortex core size because thecore size is particularly sensitive to the healing length ξ. At our highest densities,
while the gas is nominally dilute (na3sc < 10−5 , where asc is the interatomic scattering
length), the mean interatomic distance n−1/3 is only a factor of 1.5 less than ξ. Ourdata, however, do not support this hypothesis. The roughly 25% discrepancy between
our measurements and the mean-field prediction shown in figure 6.2 is comparable topossible systematic errors in our measurements of the smaller cores that exist at highdensities. In retrospect, our experimental design is such that we are unlikely to be able

86
to see a mean-field failure even if one were to exist. During the radial expansion, thedensity drops. Thus the accuracy of the mean-field approximation is likely to improvesignificantly during the expansion. Our anti-trapped expansion, while more rapid than aconventional ballistic expansion, is still slow compared to the rate at which a vortex canadiabatically relax its radius [36] (approximately µ/h̄). Any non-mean-field corrections
to the vortex core size will likely relax away before the cores have expanded to be large
enough for us to reliably image them.

6.4

Core contrast and condensate temperature
Since the very first observations of dilute-gas BEC, the temperature of the sample

has been determined by imaging the “skirt” of thermal atoms that extends beyond theradius of the condensate. In practice, it is difficult to extend this measurement below
about T /Tc = 0.4, except in very special cases (for instance when a Feshbach resonanceis used to set the scattering length to zero). For low temperatures, the density ofthermal atoms becomes so low that they are difficult to image. Moreover, when thetemperature becomes lower than or comparable to the chemical potential of the selfinteracting condensate, the spatial extent of the thermal cloud is no longer appreciably
larger than the condensate itself.
It was suggested that vortex cores might serve as “thermal-atom concentrationpits”, in order to enhance thermometry at low temperatures. In a simple Hartree-Fock(HF) picture of the interaction between thermal atoms and the condensate, the condensate density represents a repulsive interaction potential to the thermal atoms. Alongthe nodal line of a vortex core, the condensate density and presumably its repulsive
interaction potential vanish. Thus, the thermal atoms would experience the lowest
combined interaction and magnetic potential within the cores of vortices. As a result,
their density would be highest there. Additionally, images of thermal atoms in thevortex core could be taken against a vanishing background condensate density. Moving

87
beyond the HF approximation, one finds a more complicated picture. The Bogoliubov
spectrum of very long wave-length thermal phonons extends all the way down to thechemical potential. One should contrast this energy with the energy of a thermal atom
confined to a vortex core. Perhaps the atom experiences no interaction energy. However, the kinetic energy cost of bending its wave function to fit inside a core with aradius of the order of healing length must, by definition, be comparable to the chemical
potential. In the limit of very elongated vortex cores, there can be very low-energy,
core-bending modes [77, 101]. Thermal excitations of these modes would manifest as atemperature-dependent contrast ratio. We expect this effect is unlikely to be importantin the relatively flattened geometry of our highly rotating condensates. In any case,without more rigorous analysis, it is not easy to predict how the contrast ratio of ourvortices should vary with temperature, but we nonetheless set out to do a preliminary
study of the effect.
We vary the final condensate temperature by changing our rf-evaporation end
point. This produces a cloud with temperatures between 5 − 50 nK or T /Tc between 1
and less than 0.4. Here Tc is calculated from the trap frequencies and a measurement of
total atom number using the formula Tc = 0.94h̄ω̃ho N 1/3 , where ω̃ho has been adjusted
for rotation according to the equation ω̃ho = ωho (1 − Ω2 /ωρ2 )1/3 . When possible, T is
extracted from a two-component fit to the in-trap image. Because our rotation rate andtemperature are linked through the 1D evaporative process, it is unavoidable that Ω
also varies during the data set.
To measure core contrast, we expand the cloud using the usual expansion procedure. The atom cloud is expanded radially by a factor of 13 to ensure that the cores
are large compared to our imaging resolution. However, because we no longer careabout the precise core size we do not suppress the axial expansion. Additionally, theaxial expansion actually reduces background fluctuations in the measured core contrast.
With a factor of two axial expansion, cores become much rounder and clearer as shown

88
in figure 2.8(c). These changes allow us to achieve a higher core contrast and quieter
signal than we can without expansion.
The term core brightness (1-contrast ratio) will be our metric for this experiment.
We define core brightness (B) as n2D (core)/n2D (cloud), where n2D (core) is the observed
atom density, integrated along the line of sight, at the core center, and n2D (cloud) is
the projected integrated atom density at the same point, based on a smoothed fit tothe overall atom cloud. To determine n2D (cloud), we fit the condensate image to a
Thomas-Fermi profile and the surrounding thermal atoms to a Bose distribution. We
find n2D (core) by fitting each vortex with a Gaussian to determine its center and thenaveraging five pixels around the center point to determine the integrated density. Brightness is calculated for each vortex and then averaged with other vortices in the cloud.
To suppress noise from low signal, vortices further than 0.4 Rρ from the condensate
center are disregarded for this measurement. The n2D (core) term necessarily contains
signal from the surrounding thermal atoms because the vortices do not penetrate thethermal component. Thus, one expects to see a steady decrease in B with decreasing
temperature, as atoms not necessarily in the vortex core, but still in the integrated lineof sight, disappear. One would hope that B continues to decrease even for T /Tc below
0.4 for this analysis to be a viable means of extending condensate thermometry.
We are in the awkward position of comparing our core contrast measurement
to a temperature measurement that, as previously described, is expected to fail at
low temperatures. To monitor this failure, we calculate a simplistic core brightness(Bsimple ) by comparing the fitted in-trap condensate and thermal cloud profiles. Here
Bsimple ≡ ñ2D (thermal)/(ñ2D (condensate) + ñ2D (thermal)) where ñ2D (condensate)and ñ2D (thermal) are the smoothed condensate and thermal cloud profiles integrated
along the z-axis and averaged over a region of radius less than 0.4 Rρ from the condensate
center. The term Bsimple can be thought of as the core brightness one would expect
based on the undoubtedly false assumption that the condensate and thermal atoms do

89
not interact. It is interesting to compare B to Bsimple since this same dubious assumption
is implicit in the standard thermometry technique of fitting the thermal “skirt”.
In figure 6.3, B and Bsimple are plotted versus the final evaporative cut. For our
experiment, the thermal cloud can be reliably fit for T /Tc > 0.6 and less reliably fit
for T /Tc > 0.4. In both these regions T /Tc decreases continuously with lower final
evaporative cut. It is assumed that for T /Tc just below 0.4, this trend continues. For
reference, three values of T /Tc (measured from the thermal “skirt”) are included in theplot. One can see that B does steadily decrease with lower temperature for T /Tc > 0.4.
It is interesting to note that Bsimple closely tracks B at the higher temperatures and thendiverges from B as the cloud gets colder. Presumably, this divergence occurs because
thermal atoms are pushed away from the condensate center as interactions between thecondensate and the thermal cloud become important. The fact that Bsimple diverges
upwards is likely due to the tendency of our fitting technique to overestimate the thermal
cloud density at high condensate fractions. The failure of Bsimple at low temperatures
also throws into suspicion the quoted T /Tc since they are determined from the sametwo-component fit.
In contrast, as Bsimple begins to fail, B continues its previous smooth downward
trend. It is also interesting to note that at an rf of 2.35 MHz, we see a B of 0.13-0.15,
which is not that far off from the work of Virtanen et al. [98] who predict that atoms
trapped in the core would lead to a B of 0.1 at a T /Tc of 0.39. Unfortunately, our efforts
to observe a B of less than 0.125 have failed so far, as can be seen from the data points
at 2.3 MHz in figure 6.3. This limit impedes our ability to measure temperatures colder
than 0.4 T /Tc . Currently, it is unclear what the source of this limit is. Perhaps thesame imaging systematics that make our vortex radius unreliable at the 10% level arealso preventing us from seeing a core brightness level less than 0.13, or a very slight tiltof the vortices may occur during expansion.
As a caveat to the previous discussion, the same limitations that inhibit conden-

90

Figure 6.3: Measured core brightness as a function of final rf evaporative cut. Within
our ability to measure, T /Tc decreases continuously with the rf frequency. For the blacksquares brightness (B) is defined as the 2D atom density at the vortex core divided by
the 2D atom density of the overall smoothed condensate plus thermal cloud profile atthe same point. For the open triangles a simplistic brightness (Bsimple ) is calculated
from the ratio of the 2D atom density of the thermal cloud to the 2D atom densityof the overall smoothed condensate and thermal cloud profile. At high temperatures
B and Bsimple exhibit a clear dependance on the final rf cut. At lower temperatures
it is encouraging that as Bsimple , begins to fail B is still continuing a smooth trend
downward. Disappointingly at very low temperatures, B plateaus at about 0.14.

91sate thermometry below T /Tc of 0.4 will also reduce the efficacy of evaporative coolingin the same regime. Additionally, the already inefficient 1D nature of our evaporation
would exacerbate such a cooling problem. Perhaps the simplest explanation for the
failure of B to decrease with very deep rf cuts is that the condensate fraction is nolonger increasing. One could imagine that our measured B is faithfully following thetemperature we achieve.
In summary, the conclusions of our preliminary attempt to extend thermometry
with core brightness are encouraging but ambiguous. New ideas are needed before wecan make further progress.

Bibliography[1] this chapter/section is a revised version taken from [100].
[2] this chapter is a revised version of [76].
[3] this chapter is a revised version of [84].
[4] this chapter is a revised version of [102] and [100].
[5] S. Bose, Z. Phys. 26, 178 (1924).
[6] A. Einstein, Sitzungber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. 1925, 3 (1925).
[7] F. London, Phys. Rev. 54, 947 (1938).
[8] F. London, Nature 141, 643 (1938).
[9] T. Guenault, Basic Superfluids (Taylor and Francis Group, New York, 2003).
[10] J. S. Tsakadze and S. J. Tsakadze, J. Low Temp. Phys. 39, 649 (1980).
[11] G. Baym, R. Epstein, and B. Link, Physica B 178, 1 (1992).
[12] M. Greiner, C. A. Regal, and D. S. Jin, Nature 426, 537 (2003).
[13] S. Jochim et al., Science 302, 2101 (2003).
[14] M. W. Zwierlein et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 250401 (2003).
[15] L. Onsager, Nuovo Cimento Suppl. 6, 249 (1949).
[16] R. P. Feynman, Progress in Low Temperature Physics, Vol. 1 (North-Holland Pub.
Co, ADDRESS, YEAR).
[17] U. Essmann and H. Trauble, Physics Letters 24A, 526 (1967).
[18] E. J. Yarmchuk, M. J. V. Gordon, and R. E. Packard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 214(1979).
[19] U. R. Fischer and G. Baym, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 140402 (2003).
[20] M. R. Matthews et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2498 (1999).

93[21] B. P. Anderson, P. C. Haljan, C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. Lett.
85, 2857 (2000).
[22] K. W. Madison, F. Chevy, W. Wohlleben, and J. Dalibard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84,
806 (2000).
[23] E. Hodby et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 010405 (2001).
[24] J. R. Abo-Shaeer, C. Raman, J. M. Vogels, and W. Ketterle, Science 292, 476(2001).
[25] P. C. Haljan, I. Coddington, P. Engels, and E. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87,
210403 (2001).
[26] V. K. Tkachenko, Sov. Phys. JETP 23, 1049 (1966).
[27] C. D. Andereck, J. Chalupa, and W. I. Glaberson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 33 (1980).
[28] J. R. Anglin and M. Crescimanno, cond-mat/0210063.
[29] G. Baym, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 110402 (2003).
[30] L. O. Baksmaty, S. J. Woo, S. Choi, and N. P. Bigelow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92,
160405 (2004).
[31] T. Mizushima et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 060407 (2004).
[32] M. Cozzini, L. P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 220401 (2004).
[33] E. Sonin, cond-mat/0405474.
[34] l. O. Baksmaty, private communication.
[35] T.-L. Ho, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 060403 (2001).
[36] G. Baym and C. J. Pethick, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 043619 (2004).
[37] N. R. Cooper, N. K. Wilkin, and J. M. F. Gunn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 120405(2001).
[38] J. Sinova, C. B. Hanna, and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 030403 (2002).
[39] B. Paredes, P. Fedichev, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 010402(2001).
[40] M. Cozzini and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. A. 67, 041602 (2003).
[41] G. Watanabe, G. Baym, and C. J. Pethick, cond-mat/0403470.
[42] N. Cooper, S. Komineas, and N. Read, cond-mat/0404112.
[43] a. H. MacDonald, private communication.
[44] D. E. Sheehy and L. Radzihovsky, cond-mat/0402637,and cond-mat/0406205.

94[45] D. L. Feder and C. W. Clark, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 190401 (2001).
[46] A. L. Fetter, Phys. Rev. A 64, 063608 (2001).
[47] R. Blaauwgeers et al., Nature 404, 471 (2000).
[48] M. Baert et al., Europhys. Lett 29, 157 (1995).
[49] V. Moshchalkov et al., Phys. Rev. B 54, 7385 (1996).
[50] G. Braverman, S. Gredeskul, and Y. Avishai, Phys. Rev. B 57, 13899 (1998).
[51] A. E. Leanhardt et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 190403 (2002).
[52] P. O. Fedichev and U. R. Fischer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 240407 (2003).
[53] A. Marte et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 283202 (2002).
[54] P. C. Haljan, Ph.D. thesis, University of Colorado (Boulder), 2003.
[55] D. Guery-Odelin and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4452 (1999).
[56] O. M. Marago et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2056 (2000).
[57] J. R. Ensher, Ph.D. thesis, University of Colorado (Boulder), 1998.
[58] M. R. Andrews et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 553 (1997).
[59] M. R. Matthews, Ph.D. thesis, University of Colorado (Boulder), 1999.
[60] D. Guery-Odelin, Phys. Rev. A 62, 033607 (2000).
[61] H. J. Lewandowski, D. M. Harber, D. L. Whitaker, and E. A. Cornell, J. Low
Temp. Phys. 132, 309 (2003).
[62] F. Dalfovo and M. Modugno, Phys. Rev. A 61, 023605 (2000).
[63] Y. Castin and R. Dum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 5315 (1996).
[64] B. P. Anderson et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2926 (2001).
[65] C. S. Z. Dutton, M. Budde and L. V. Hau, Science 293, 663 (2001).
[66] K. W. Madison, F. Chevy, V. Bretin, and J. Dalibard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 4443
(2001).
[67] E. Lundh, Phys. Rev. A 65, 043604 (2002).
[68] K. Kasamatsu, M. Tsubota, and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. A 66, 053606 (2002).
[69] G. M. Kovoulakis and G. Baym, New Journal of Physics 5, 51.1 (2003).
[70] T. P. Simula, S. M. M. Virtanen, and M. M. Salomaa, Phys. Rev. A 65, 033614(2002).

95[71] P. Engels, I. Coddington, P. C. Haljan, and E. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89,
100403 (2002).
[72] J. R. Abo-Shaeer, C. Raman, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 070409 (2002).
[73] A. L. Fetter, cond-mat/0309204.
[74] A. A. Abrikosov, Sov. Phys. JETP 5, 1174 (1957).
[75] E. B. Sonin, Rev. Mod. Phys. 59, 87 (1987).
[76] P. Engels et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 170405 (2003).
[77] V. Bretin et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 100403 (2003).
[78] A. A. Svidzinsky and A. L. Fetter, Phys. Rev. A. 58, 3168 (1998).
[79] personal communication with James Anglin.
[80] personal communication with John Toner.
[81] F. Chevy, K. W. Madison, and J. Dalibard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2223 (2000).
[82] personal communication with Marco Cozzini and Sandro Stringari.
[83] S. Choi, L. O. Baksmaty, S. J. Woo, and N. P. Bigelow, Phys. Rev. A 68, 031605(2003).
[84] I. Coddington, P. Engels, V. Schweikhard, and E. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. Lett.
91, 100402 (2003).
[85] S. A. Gifford and G. Baym, cond-mat/0405182.
[86] A. B. Bhattacherjee, Journal of Physics B 37, 2699 (2004).
[87] G. Baym, cond-mat/0308342.
[88] G. Baym, cond-mat/0408401.
[89] J. Sinova, C. B. Hanna, and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 120401 (2003).
[90] R. B. Laughlin, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 863 (1999).
[91] R. J. Donelly, Quantized Vortices in Helium II (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991).
[92] P. Rosenbusch et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 250403 (2002).
[93] V. Bretin, S. Stock, Y. Seurin, and J. Dalibard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 050403(2004).
[94] A. Fetter, Lectures in Theoretical Physics, Vol. XIB, p. 351 (Gordon And Breach,
New York, 1969).
[95] F. Chevy and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. A. 68, 053601 (2003).

96[96] J. P. Martikainen and H. T. C. Stoof, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 240403 (2003).
[97] T. Isoshima and K. Machida, Phys. Rev. A 59, 2203 (1999).
[98] S. M. M. Virtanen, T. P. Simula, and M. M. Salomaa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2704
(2001).
[99] S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 4371 (1999).
[100] I. Coddington et al., cond-mat/0405240.
[101] P. C. Haljan, B. P. Anderson, I. Coddington, and E. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. Lett.
86, 2922 (2001).
[102] V. Schweikhard et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 040404 (2004).
[103] D. S. Petrov, M. Holzmann, and G. V. Shlyapnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2551
(2000).
[104] G. Baym, Phys. Rev. A 69, 043618 (2004).
[105] H. J. Lewandowski, Ph.D. thesis, University of Colorado (Boulder), 2001.

Appendix A

Numerical TOP trap model

What follows is a brief outline of the numerical TOP trap simulator that has been
passed down through the generations. In this code the condensate position is foundfrom locating a minimum in the combined magnetic plus gravitational potential. Trap
frequencies are then determined from the second derivative of this potential at thecondensate position. For this model we define the total potential as.

Epotential = EBreit−Rabi + mgz(A.1)

Here m is the mass of 87 Rb, g is 9.8 m/s2 and z is the displacement from the quadrupole
center. EBreit−Rabi is an augmented form of equation 3.7 of Heather Lewandowski’s
Thesis [105]1 .

EBreit−Rabi = −qhνhs− gI µbohr BmF ± hνhs 1 + mF x(B) + x2 (B)8x(B) = (gJ + gI )

µbohr
B
hνhs

(A.2)

(A.3)

Here νhs is hyperfine splitting for 87 Rb and h is planks constant. F and mF refer tothe magnetic state of the atom being trapped (F=1 and mF = −1 for the purpose of
1
Note that this is not the same as equations 3.2 and 3.3 of Matthews [59] which appears to containa typo98
this thesis), and B is the magnitude of the instantaneous magnetic field. Using the fullBreit-Rabi equation is clearly over kill for the application described in §2.3, but thegenerality of this method is useful in calculating two-photon transition frequencies [59]not discussed in this thesis. The magnetic field, B, can be broken into two key parts:
the magnitude of the bias field B0 , and the gradient to the quadrupole field along thez axis Bq0 . In these terms B can be written

s

B=

(

q
Bq0
Bq0
2hν 2
x + B0 ξ1 sin(2πνt))2 + ( y + B0 1 − ξ12 cos(2πνt))2 + (Bq0 z + (−1)(f +1)
) .
2
2
µbohr

(A.4)
This is a slightly more concise form of equation 3.16 from Matthews [59]. Notethat the 2hν/µbohr term is an effective field that arises from the inability of the atom
spin to adiabatically track the rotating bias field, otherwise known as the wierd Bohn
effect (see [59]). The TOP frequency, ν, is 1800 Hz for the purpose of this thesis. The
parameter is ξ1 inserted to model the effect of the distorted bias field. Using the notationfrom §2.2 the distortion of the rotating bias field has the formqε=1 − ξ1 / 1 − ξ12
q

.

(A.5)

1 + ξ1 / 1 − ξ12

Table A.1: Table of useful constants, largely from Lewandowski [105]constant
µbohr
νhs
gJ
gI

value
9.27400899(37) × 10−28
6834.68261090434(3)2.00233113(20).9951414(10) × 10−3

unit
J/G
MHz

99

Figure A.1: