Bose-Einstein Condensates with Tunable Atom-atom Interactions:
The First Experiments with 85Rb BECs
by
Jacob Lyman Roberts
B. S., University of Notre Dame, 1994

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
2001

This thesis entitled:
Bose-Einstein Condensates with Tunable Atom-atom Interactions:
The First Experiments with 85Rb BECs
written by Jacob Lyman Roberts
has been approved for the Department of Physics_______________________________________
Carl Wieman_______________________________________
Deborah Jin

Date ____________

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

Roberts, Jacob Lyman (Ph. D., Phyics)
Bose-Einstein Condensates with Tunable Atom-atom Interactions: The First
Experiments with 85Rb BECs
Thesis directed by Distinguished Professor Carl Wieman

In this thesis, the creation of magnetically trapped atomic gas Bose-Einstein
Condensates (BECs) with tunable atom-atom interactions is described. The atomatom interactions are tuned by adjusting an external magnetic field through thephenomenon of a Feshbach resonance. The strength of the interactions can betuned to any desired value, and the interactions can be made to be repulsive or
attractive. Since many properties of BECs are determined by the strength of theatom-atom interactions, such as the spatial size, the collective excitation
frequencies, and the stability of the BECs, the ability to tune the interactions allows
a wide range of experiments to be performed.
The work in this thesis details the characterization of a Feshbach resonancein cold collisions between 85Rb atoms. Both the elastic and inelastic collision rates
are measured as a function of the external magnetic field, showing variations offour or more orders of magnitude as the external magnetic field is changed by a few
gauss. Using the knowledge gained about the variation of the elastic and inelastic
collisions near the Feshbach resonance, a stable BEC of up to 18,000 85Rb atoms
was created through evaporative cooling. The spatial size of these BECs responded
as predicted by mean-field theory as the strength of repulsive interactions waschanged by tuning the external magnetic field.

The mean-field description isiv
predicted to have a limited range of validity as the strength of the repulsive
interactions is increased further, however, and in a different experiment weobserved deviations from the mean-field predicted values of collective excitation
frequencies of the BECs as the strength of the interactions was increased. Work
was also performed on BECs with attractive interactions.

For strong enoughattractive interactions, the BECs are predicted to become unstable, and the onset of
this instability as a function of the number of atoms in the BEC and the strength of
the attractive interactions is reported here. The dynamics of the unstable BECs as
they collapsed are also described in this work.

Dedication

I dedicate this thesis to my wife, Sarah, in recognition of her love and support,
and to my daughter, Abigail, for continually reminding me of the joy of discoveringsomething new.

Acknowledgements

While this work did occur in a vacuum, I certainly did not do it alone. I
would like to take this customary opportunity to sincerely acknowledge those whohave contributed to both directly to the work presented in this thesis and also to myeducation and life in Boulder over the past seven years.
First and foremost I would like to acknowledge my advisor, Carl Wieman,for providing me with a terrific graduate education. He is an excellent scientist who
is innovative and possesses a good intuition. Carl is also honest and direct, and hehas shown me how important those qualities are for performing good research. I
am not sure how important a good sense of humor is for performing research, but I
appreciated Carl's throughout my time here.
I also acknowledge Eric Cornell's contributions to my professional
development and directly to the work presented in this thesis. It has been good towork with him, and I have been continually impressed with his ability to generate
new ideas for directions of research and his skills in critically analyzing any
scientific problem.
Neil Claussen has been a good colleague and friend of mine over the past
several years. I have truly enjoyed working with him. I appreciate all of the hard
work that he has put into the experiments described in this thesis. His skill at
maintaining and improving the experimental apparatus certainly allowed me tovii
graduate sooner than I otherwise would have. I am sure that his thesis will be
excellent and that lots of interesting new physics will be discovered using 85Rb
BECs.
It has been good my good fortune to work with the two post-docs who haveworked on these experiments during my tenure. Simon Cornish was greeted very
rudely by the experimental apparatus when he arrived but we managed to tame itwell enough to get good results. His insights and pleasant nature were greatly
appreciated. It was great to have Liz Donley join me for the last stages of my thesis
work, and good to see her again after the first few years we spent as graduate
students together. She was doing good work as soon as she arrived. It is nice toknow that with Neil and Liz working on the experiment, it will be in capable handsin the future.
I would like to acknowledge the members of my thesis defense committee:
Carl Lineberger for always having a kind word when I run into him in the halls,
Chuck Rogers for his instruction on how to be a TA, Debbie Jin for her usefulcomments in group meetings and for taking the time to read this thesis critically,
and Chris Greene for useful comments on some of the theory presented in thisthesis, productive collaboration on much of the atomic collision physics presented
here, and lots of help answering questions throughout the years.
It was a pleasure to collaborate with Jim Burke on many different aspects ofatomic collision physics. Understanding the experiments was a lot easier with his
help in interpreting the collision theory implications of the data collected. It wasgood to have him as a colleague here at JILA, and I appreciated his continuing

viiiinterest in our work after he left JILA. I also enjoyed interacting with and getting toknow other theorists at JILA: John Bohn, Jinx Cooper, and Murray Holland.
Marco Prevedelli and Josh Milstein both worked on 85Rb BEC experiments
for brief amounts of time while I was here, and their contributions are appreciated.
Undergraduates Nick Cizek, Alex Kane, and John Obrecht also contributed to the85

Rb experiments.
From the time of my life that I was involved with the measurement of parity

nonconservation in Cesium, I would like to acknowledge both Chris Wood andSteve Bennett.

Chris taught me a lot about what it takes to perform a goodprecision measurement, and that sometimes there is no substitute for hard work.
Steve was also good to work with, and I appreciated his patient explanations. Even
though I did not spend as much time working with Dong Hyung Cho, I learned a lot
from him and have enjoyed seeing him again off and on through the years.
In between parity nonconservation and 85Rb BEC, I worked directly with
Kristan Corwin for a brief period of time. However, I worked indirectly with
Kristan for six years and was the better for the experience. She had a great knackfor asking the right questions about any experimental problem and I value ourfriendship greatly.
I would like to acknowledge Eric Burt, Rich Ghrist, and Chris Myatt not
only as colleagues, but also because they were responsible for assembling theapparatus used in this thesis work. Almost everything has broken at least once inthe past several years, but many of the basic components are still in use.

ix
JILA has been a wonderful place to work, and I have been blessed with alarge number of good friends and coworkers. Jason Ensher is one who has been agreat friend and coworker, not only helping me with my work at JILA but alsobailing me out on numerous occasions when I have let an attacker slip by on thesoccer field. It has been good having Stephan Duerr across the hall, both as a friend
and also for when I needed to discuss a physics problem with someone. David Hall,
Brian Demarco, Mike Matthews, and I managed not only to interact well while at
JILA but were also able to avoid killing each other while traveling in Italy, although
I don't want to think about what would have happened if it had taken another 20
minutes to find the hotel in Milan. Other people I would like to mention at thispoint are Eric Abraham, Brian Anderson, Mike Anderson, Brett Esry, Paul Haljan,
Tetsuo Kishimoto, Simon Kuppens, Heather Lewandowski, Zheng-Tian Lu, Kurt
Miller, Dirk Müller, Nate Newbury, Brad Paul, Harold Parks, Peter Schwindt,
Michelle Stephans, Kurt Vogel, and Dwight Whittaker.
One of the other things that makes JILA a special place to work is thefriendliness and quality of the support staff.

I appreciate all of the help andeducation that I received from the JILA instrument shops (especially Dave
Alchenberger, Hans Green, and Blaine Horner), electronics shop (especially Terry
Brown and James Fung-a-Fat), scientific communications office (especially Marilee
DeGoede and Laurie Kovalenko), and supply office (especially Maryly Doyle, Ed
Holliness and Brian Lynch). Thanks also go to the many administrative support
personnel at JILA for keeping everything running smoothly, and in particular toxKrista Beck, Fran Haas, Karen Melcher, and Barb Tennis for lots of assistance tome personally.
Many other people outside JILA have significantly enriched my life in
Boulder, and while they have not contributed directly to the work in this thesis, I
would like to acknowledge their friendship and support. The parishioners and staff
at St. Thomas Aquinas helped make Boulder feel like home almost right away and I
will always treasure the friendships formed there. Torrie Derbach, Kim King, John
Metz, Jim Mooney, Sarah Parks, Orion Poplawski, and Heather Robinson havebeen good friends as well as soccer teammates over the past several years.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge the love and support of my wife,
Sarah. She has helped me achieve all that I have achieved, and put up with themany long hours and days away required to complete the work presented here. I
appreciate the sacrifices that she has made.

Table of Contents

Chapter I: Introduction.............................................................................................. 1
1.1 Overview of the Thesis .................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Introduction. ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.2 Scattering Theory and Feshbach Resonances (Chapter II). ............................................... 3
1.1.3 Bose-Einstein Condensation and Mean-Field Theory (Chapter III).................................. 3
1.1.4 Tools of the Trade: 85Rb Bose-Einstein Condensation Apparatus (Chapter IV). ............. 6
1.1.5 Resonant Magnetic Field Scattering in Cold 85Rb (Chapter V)......................................... 7
1.1.6 Magnetic Field Dependence of Ultracold Inelastic Collisions Near a Feshbach Resonance(Chapter VI). .............................................................................................................................. 7
1.1.7 Stable 85Rb Bose-Einstein Condensates with Widely Tunable Interactions (Chapter VII).
.................................................................................................................................................... 8
1.1.8 Collective Excitations and an Initial Search for Beyond Mean-field Effects (Chapter
VIII)............................................................................................................................................ 9
1.1.9 Controlled Collapse of Bose-Einstein Condensates with Attractive Interactions (Chapter
IX). ............................................................................................................................................. 9
1.1.10 Dynamics of Collapsing Condensates and Future Experiments (Chapter X). ................. 9
1.1.11 Notation. ........................................................................................................................ 10
1.1.12 Prior Publication of Work in this Thesis. ...................................................................... 10

Chapter II: Scattering Theory and Feshbach Resonances ...................................... 11
2.1 Introduction.................................................................................................... 11
2.2 Basic Scattering Definitions. ......................................................................... 12
2.3 The One-dimensional Scattering Problem---Using the Time-Independent
Schrödinger Equation to Determine the Scattering Amplitude. .......................... 14
2.3.1 Motivation. ...................................................................................................................... 14
2.3.2 Gaussian Wavepackets .................................................................................................... 14
2.3.3 Scattering from a Step Function. ..................................................................................... 15

2.4 Scattering in Three Dimensions..................................................................... 19
2.4.1 Comparison to One-dimensional Case. ........................................................................... 19
2.4.2 Boundary Conditions in Three Dimensions. ................................................................... 19
2.4.3 Partial Waves................................................................................................................... 20
2.4.4 Phase Shift and Cross Section. ........................................................................................ 22

2.5 The Born Approximation.............................................................................. 23
2.5.1 First Born Approximation. .............................................................................................. 23
2.5.2 Range of Validity of the First Born Approximation........................................................ 24

2.6 Scattering from a Square Well Potential........................................................ 25
2.6.1 Motivation. ...................................................................................................................... 25
2.6.3 Scattering Length and the Position of the Last Bound State. .......................................... 26
2.6.4 Zero collision cross section at finite collision energy...................................................... 29

2.7 Square Well Scattering with another Internal Degree of Freedom---............ 29
2.7.1 General Description......................................................................................................... 29
2.7.2 Toy model Hamiltonian................................................................................................... 32

xii
2.8 Inelastic Scattering......................................................................................... 36
2.9 Rb-Rb Interatomic Potential. ......................................................................... 37
2.9.1 Born-Oppenheimer Potentials. ........................................................................................ 37
2.9.2 Atomic hyperfine interaction........................................................................................... 38
2.9.4 Matching the Calculated Born-Oppenheimer Potential to Measured Scattering Rates. .. 39
2.9.5 Magnetic Dipole Interaction and Second-Order Spin Coupling...................................... 40

Chapter III: Bose-Einstein Condensation and Mean-Field Theory ........................ 41
3.1 Overview........................................................................................................ 41
3.1.1 Summary of the Chapter.................................................................................................. 41

3.2 The Phase Transition to Bose-Einstein Condensation in the Non-interacting
Limit..................................................................................................................... 42
3.2.1 Thermodynamics ............................................................................................................. 42
3.2.2 Coherence Properties....................................................................................................... 45

3.3 Effect of Atom-atom Interactions on Bose-Einstein Condensates ................ 46
3.3.1 Hatree-Fock Theory ........................................................................................................ 46
3.3.2 Many-body Physics Formulation..................................................................................... 50
3.3.3 Limitations to the GP equation........................................................................................ 53
3.3.4 The Thomas-Fermi Limit ................................................................................................ 54

Chapter IV: Tools of the Trade: 85Rb Bose-Einstein Condensation Apparatus .... 57
4.1 Overview........................................................................................................ 57
4.2 85Rb Atomic Structure.................................................................................... 58
4.2.1 Ground and First Excited States ...................................................................................... 58
4.2.2 Ground State Hyperfine Structure and Energy Dependences at High Magnetic Fields .. 58

4.3 Magneto-Optic Traps ..................................................................................... 64
4.3.1 Doppler Cooling .............................................................................................................. 64
4.3.2 Sub-doppler Cooling ....................................................................................................... 65
4.3.3 Magneto-Optic Traps (MOTs)......................................................................................... 68
4.3.4 Loading a MOT from a Vapor......................................................................................... 73

4.4 The Double-MOT System.............................................................................. 74
4.4.1 The Role of the MOT ...................................................................................................... 74
4.4.2 Vacuum System............................................................................................................... 75
4.4.3 Baking Out the Vacuum System and Vacuum Failures Since 1995................................ 78
4.4.4 Collection MOT .............................................................................................................. 80
4.4.5 Transfer from Collection MOT to Science MOT ............................................................ 82
4.4.6 Science MOT................................................................................................................... 86
4.4.7 Control of Magnetic Fields, Laser Light, and Laser Frequency ...................................... 91
4.4.8 CMOT and Molasses, Part I ............................................................................................ 93
4.4.9 Optical Pumping.............................................................................................................. 94

4.5 Magnetic Traps .............................................................................................. 99
4.5.1 Principle of Operation ..................................................................................................... 99
4.5.2 Ioffe-Pritchard Traps ..................................................................................................... 100
4.5.3 Baseball Trap................................................................................................................. 103
4.5.4 Gravitational Sag and Typical Trapping Potentials....................................................... 105

4.6 Classical Motion of Atoms in a Magnetic Trap........................................... 108
4.6.1 Classical Orbits.............................................................................................................. 108
4.6.2 The Boltzmann Distribution Function and Thermal Equilibrium.................................. 109
4.6.3 Collective motions of the cloud in the absence of collisions......................................... 111
4.6.4 Ballistic Expansion........................................................................................................ 111

xiii
4.6.5 Sloshing ......................................................................................................................... 113
4.6.6 Breathing modes............................................................................................................ 113
4.6.7 Adiabatic Compression and Expansion ......................................................................... 115

4.7 Optimizing the Loading of the Magnetic Trap from the MOT.................... 117
4.7.1 CMOT and Molasses, Part II......................................................................................... 117
4.7.2 Optical Pumping Optimization...................................................................................... 121
4.7.3 MOT Shims and Sloshing ............................................................................................. 123
4.7.4 Other Spin States ........................................................................................................... 125

4.8 Control of the Magnetic Trap Fields............................................................ 125
4.8.1 Magnetic Field Requirements........................................................................................ 125
4.8.2 MOSFET Banks ............................................................................................................ 126
4.8.3 Parallel Baseball and Bias Coils.................................................................................... 126
4.8.4 Magnetic Trap Current Control ..................................................................................... 130
4.8.5 Servo Optimization........................................................................................................ 137

4.9 Forced Radio-frequency Evaporation .......................................................... 137
4.9.1 Simple Picture of Radio-frequency Evaporative Cooling ............................................. 137
4.9.2 Additional Details about Forced Rf-Evaporation .......................................................... 140
4.9.3 Coupling the Rf Field into the Science Cell .................................................................. 143

4.10 Calibration of the Magnetic Trapping Parameters..................................... 144
4.10.1 Calibration of the Trap Bias Magnetic Field ............................................................... 144
4.10.2 Calibration of the Magnetic Trap Frequencies ............................................................ 147

4.11 MOT Recapture and Absorption Imaging ................................................. 150
4.11.1 General Description of Atom Number Diagnostics..................................................... 150
4.11.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of MOT Recapture with Respect to Absorption Imaging................................................................................................................................................ 150
4.11.3 Optical Depth and Column Density............................................................................. 151
4.11.4 Preparation of Trapped Cloud for Imaging and Production of Imaging Light ............ 154
4.11.5 Imaging the Atoms’ Shadow onto a Camera ............................................................... 156
4.11.6 Lensing Effects From Dense Atomic Samples ............................................................ 163

4.12 Calibration of the Imaging System ............................................................ 164
4.12.1 Calibration of the Magnification ................................................................................. 164
4.12.2 Probe Laser Frequency Stability and Single Mode Behavior ...................................... 166
4.12.3 Measurement of the Probe Intensity and the Doppler Shift......................................... 168
4.12.4 Optical Pumping Effects in Absorption Imaging ........................................................ 171
4.12.5 The Maximum Observable Optical Depth and Forward Scattering ............................ 173
4.12.6 Quantization Field Orientation .................................................................................... 174
4.12.7 Resolution Limit.......................................................................................................... 175
4.12.8 Estimate of Absorption Imaging Accuracy ................................................................. 177

Chapter V: Resonant Magnetic Field Elastic Scattering in Cold 85Rb ................. 180
5.1 Introduction.................................................................................................. 180
5.1.1 External Electromagnetic Fields and Very-Low-Temperature Atomic Collisions........ 180
5.1.2 Motivation. .................................................................................................................... 182
5.1.3 Characterization of Atom-atom Interaction Potentials .................................................. 183

5.2 Cross-dimensional Mixing and Thermal Equilibration. .............................. 184
5.2.1 Elastic Collisions and Enforcement of Thermal Equilibrium........................................ 184
5.2.2 Calculation of the Equilibration Rate ............................................................................ 186
5.2.3 Using the Equilibration Rate of the Aspect Ratio of Trapped Clouds to Measure theElastic Collision Rate. ............................................................................................................ 195
5.2.4 Unitarity Limit and Thermal Equilibration.................................................................... 196

5.3 Creation of Nonequilibrium Trapped Clouds .............................................. 197
5.3.1 Initial Trap Loading and Cooling .................................................................................. 197

xiv
5.3.2 Bringing the Cloud out of Thermal Equilibrium. .......................................................... 198
5.3.3 Anharmonic Mixing and the.......................................................................................... 198

5.4 1998 Search for the Feshbach Resonance.................................................... 200
5.4.1 Relative Measurement of Elastic Collision Cross Sections........................................... 200
5.4.3 Determination of Bpeak and Bzero .................................................................................... 204

5.5 2000 Measurement of the Absolute Value of the Scattering Length........... 208
5.5.1 Inadequacies of the 1998 Experiment ........................................................................... 208
5.5.2 Determination of Bzero from the BEC Stability Measurement ....................................... 209
5.5.3 Measurement of the Absolute Size of the Elastic Scattering Cross Section.................. 210
5.5.4 New Constraints on the Rb-Rb Interatomic Potential ................................................... 213

Chapter VI: Magnetic Field Dependence of Ultracold Inelastic Collisions Near a
Feshbach Resonance .............................................................................................. 216
6.1 Introduction.................................................................................................. 216
6.1.1 Motivation ..................................................................................................................... 216
6.1.2 Types of Inelastic Collisions in a Magnetic Trap.......................................................... 217
6.1.2.1 Spin-exchange Collisions.................................................................................. 217
6.1.2.2 Magnetic Dipole Relaxation ............................................................................. 218
6.1.2.3 Three-body Molecular Recombination. ............................................................ 219
6.1.3 Loss Rate Equations for a Magnetically Trapped Sample............................................. 221
6.1.4 Heating Rates due to Inelastic Collisions. ..................................................................... 222

6.2 Measurement of the Inelastic Collision Rates ............................................. 223
6.2.1 Sample Preparation........................................................................................................ 223
6.2.2 Measurement of the Density Evolution. ........................................................................ 223
6.2.3 Distinguishing Two- and Three-body Loss Rates. ........................................................ 227
6.2.4 Character of the Loss Rates near the 85Rb Feshbach Resonance. .................................. 228
6.2.5 Temperature Dependence of the Loss Rates. ................................................................ 228
6.2.6 Heating Rates. ............................................................................................................... 231

6.3 Comparison of Measured Inelastic Rates to Theory Predictions................. 231
6.3.1 Dipole Relaxation.......................................................................................................... 231
6.3.2 Three-body Recombination. .......................................................................................... 234
6.3.3 Energy Dependence of the Feshbach Peak.................................................................... 235
6.3.4 Conclusions. .................................................................................................................. 235

6.4 Appendix to Chapter VI: Polarization-Rotation Imaging........................... 238
6.4.1 Why Choose Polarization-rotation Imaging for Non-destructive Imaging? .................. 238
6.4.2 Arrangement of Polarization-rotation Imaging in our System. ..................................... 239
6.4.3 Performance of the Polarization-rotation Imaging. ....................................................... 241

Chapter VII: Stable 85Rb Bose-Einstein Condensates with Widely Tunable
Interactions............................................................................................................. 244
7.1 Evaporative Cooling of 85Rb........................................................................ 244
7.1.1 Difficulties Evaporatively Cooling 85Rb. ...................................................................... 244
7.1.2 Elastic/Inelastic Collision Rates and Trap Frequency. .................................................. 245
7.1.3 Simple Model of Evaporative Cooling. ......................................................................... 250
7.1.4 General Evaporation Strategy for 85Rb.......................................................................... 254
7.1.5 Optimization of the Evaporation Trajectory.................................................................. 257
7.1.6 Comparison with Simple Model.................................................................................... 263
7.1.7 Achieving Reproducible Evaporation Performance. ..................................................... 265

xv
7.1.7.1 Use of Inelastic Losses to Reduce Number Variation....................................... 268
7.1.7.2 Reproducibility Performance. ........................................................................... 269

7.2 Loss of Atoms From the Condensate When Ramping through the Feshbach
Peak.................................................................................................................... 269
7.2.1 Absorption Imaging and Ramping through the Feshbach Peak..................................... 269
7.2.2 Outward Impulse from the Magnetic Trap Turn-off. .................................................... 270
7.2.3 Loss of Condensate Atoms while Ramping through the Feshbach Peak....................... 271
7.2.4 Comparison of our Observed Loss Rate to Coherent Loss Mechanisms....................... 274

7.3 85Rb Condensates with Positive Scattering Lengths.................................... 277
7.3.1 Stability of the Condensates with Positive Scattering Length. ...................................... 277
7.3.2 Spatial Size of the Condensates as a Function of Magnetic Field. ................................ 277

Chapter VIII: Collective Excitations and an Initial Search for Beyond Mean-field
Effects .................................................................................................................... 286
8.1 Overview...................................................................................................... 286
8.2 Introduction to Collective Excitations ......................................................... 289
8.2.1 Condensate Excitations and the Gross-Pitaevskii Equation. ......................................... 289
8.2.2 Types of Excitations: Single-particle, Sound Wave, and Collective Excitations. ........ 290
8.2.3 The Non-interacting Limit............................................................................................. 291
8.2.4 Collective Excitations with Mean-Field Interactions. ................................................... 295
8.2.5 Experimental Observations of Collective Excitations. .................................................. 299
8.2.6 Modes Frequencies between the Non-interacting and Thomas-Fermi Limit................. 300

8.3 Beyond The Mean-Field Theory.................................................................. 302
8.3.1 Pushing the Validity of Mean-field Theory................................................................... 302
8.3.2 Calculations of the Energy of a Condensate Beyond the Mean-field. ........................... 304
8.3.3 Finite Temperature Effects and Beyond-Mean-Field Theory........................................ 309
8.3.4 Predicted Magnitude of the Beyond-Mean-Field Shifts. ............................................... 310

8.4 Inducing Collective Excitations in 85Rb. ..................................................... 310
8.4.1 Changing the Scattering Length to Create Collective Excitations................................. 310
8.4.2 Control of the Excitation Amplitude of Each Individual Mode..................................... 312

8.5 Measuring the Oscillation Frequencies........................................................ 316
8.5.1 Experimental Method. ................................................................................................... 317
8.5.1.1 Transverse Magnetic Field Imaging.................................................................. 317
8.5.2 Oscillation Frequency Signal-to-Noise Considerations................................................. 317
8.5.3 Condensate Heating and Loss Rates.............................................................................. 319
8.5.4 Accounting for Number Variation................................................................................. 320

8.5 Results of the Oscillation Frequency Measurements................................... 321
8.7 Distortions in the Measurement of Oscillation Frequencies........................ 326
8.7.1 Measurement of the Axial Frequency at a=0. ............................................................... 326
8.7.2 Measurement of the Oscillation Frequencies at Small a. .............................................. 330

8.8 Temperature-dependent Shifts in the Radial Oscillation Frequency. .......... 331
8.8.1 Frequency Shift as a Function of Time at High Loss and Heating Fields. .................... 331
8.8.2 Measurement of the Condensate Heating Rate.............................................................. 331
8.8.3 Evidence for Coupling between the Condensate and Thermal Cloud Motions. ............ 334

8.9 Estimation of the Magnitude of the Beyond-Mean-Field Frequency Shifts andOutlook for Future Measurements. .................................................................... 336
8.9.1 Difficulties in Estimating the Beyond-Mean-Field Shift............................................... 336
8.9.2 Estimate of the Magnitude of the Beyond-Mean-Field Shift......................................... 339
8.9.3 Improving the Determination of the Magnitude of Beyond-Mean-Field Shifts withAdditional Measurements....................................................................................................... 342

xvi

Chapter IX: Controlled Collapse of Bose-Einstein Condensates with Attractive
Interactions............................................................................................................. 345
9.1 Attractive Interactions and Bose-Einstein Condensate Stability. ................ 345
9.1.1 Bose-Einstein Condensate Mechanical Stability. .......................................................... 345
9.1.2 Theory Predictions for Condensate Stability. ................................................................ 347
9.1.3 Dynamics of the Condensate Instability. ....................................................................... 351
9.1.4 Previous Work in 7Li and Comparison to our Work. .................................................... 351
9.1.5 Goals of this Measurement. ........................................................................................... 352

9.2 Measuring the Onset of Instability............................................................... 352
9.2.1 Creation of the Condensates to be Studied. ................................................................... 352
9.2.2 Ramping to a < 0 and the Measurement of the Number of Condensate Atoms. ........... 353
9.2.3 Measuring the Temperature of the Condensates............................................................ 354
9.2.4 Monitoring the Number Variation and Drift. ................................................................ 355

9.3 Signature of the Collapse and Sharpness of the Transition from Stability to
Instability. .......................................................................................................... 356
9.3.1 Signature of the Collapse Event. ................................................................................... 356
9.3.2 Sharpness of the Transition from Stability to Instability. .............................................. 356
9.4 Fraction of Atoms Remaining in the Condensate After Collapse..................................... 359
9.4.1 Fraction Remaining after Collapse. ............................................................................... 359
9.4.2 Loss of Condensate Atoms at a < 0 in the Absence of Collapse and Unusual Statistics361
9.4.3 Increased Variation in the Collapsed Number............................................................... 363

9.5 Determination of the Stability Coefficient................................................... 364
9.5.1 Measurement of the Onset of Instability as a Function of the Number of Atoms in theCondensate. ............................................................................................................................ 364
9.5.2 Comparison of the Measured Stability Coefficient to Theory Predictions. ................... 370
9.5.3 Aside on more Sophisticated Analysis of the Collapse Data to Determine k. ............... 370

9.6 Search for Systematic Shifts in k due to Finite Temperature and Nonadiabatic Field Ramps........................................................................................ 371
9.6.1 Finite Temperature and the Onset of Instability. ........................................................... 371
9.6.2 Condensate Dynamics and the Onset of Instability. ...................................................... 373

9.7 Determination of Bzero.................................................................................. 374
9.7.1 Improved Measurement of Bzero. ................................................................................... 374

Chapter X: Dynamics of Collapsing Condensates and Future Studies of 85Rb BoseEinstein Condensates ............................................................................................. 375
10.1 Overview.................................................................................................... 375
10.2 Measuring the Collapse Dynamics. ........................................................... 375
10.2.1 Creating the Initial Condensates.................................................................................. 375
10.2.2 Ramping the Magnetic Bias Field to Change a. .......................................................... 376
10.2.3 Imaging the Condensates............................................................................................. 376
10.3 Dynamics of the Collapse............................................................................................... 376
10.3.1 Number vs. τevolve......................................................................................................... 376
10.3.2 Contraction and Formation of Density Spikes............................................................. 379
10.3.3 Onset of Rapid Loss. ................................................................................................... 381
10.3.4 Explosion of ................................................................................................................ 381
10.3.5 Remnant Condensate. .................................................................................................. 383
10.3.6 Missing Atoms. ......................................................................................................... 385

xvii
10.3.7 Condensate Collapse After the Magnetic Trap Turnoff. ............................................. 385

10.4 Possible Future Experiments with 85Rb BEC. ........................................... 386
10.4.1 Revisiting the Region of Large Positive a................................................................... 386
10.4.2 Thermodynamic Functions as a Function of Scattering Length. ................................. 387
10.4.3 Going Over the Feshbach Resonance Peak. ................................................................ 388

Bibliography .......................................................................................................... 389

xviii

List of Figures

Figure 2.1. This figure illustrates the elements involved in a scattering
calculation. A beam of particles is incident from the left and then strikes thescattering potential, which is shown as the gray sphere. The potential
deflects the direction of the particles in the incident beam, and a certain
fraction of the particles will be scattered in the direction dΩ, where they will
strike a detector (the rectangle). In scattering theory, the precise motion of
all the particles over their entire trajectory (including their motion in theregion of the scattering potential) is not the end result of the calculation.
Instead, the goal of a scattering calculation is to compute the quantitydσ/dΩ, the fraction of atoms in the initial beam that are scattered into
direction dΩ. ................................................................................................ 13
Figure 2.2. This figure illustrates the scattering of a wavepacket from a step
potential. The incident wavepacket is shown at time t=0 and the reflected
and transmitted wavepackets are shown after the incident wavepacket struck
the step potential. The arrows indicate the direction of propagation of eachof the wavepackets....................................................................................... 17
Figure 2.3. The upper figure shows the functional form of the scattering
length as a function of the depth of the attractive square well potential (V0).
Each divergence in the scattering length is associated with the formation of
an L=0 bound state in the potential. The lower figure shows the square wellpotential at several different depths (solid line). The dotted line shows theenergies of the L=0 bound states in the potential. From left to right, thescattering lengths shown in the lower figure are 4.55, 0.09, and 1.48 in thearbitrary units shown in the upper plot. ....................................................... 27
Figure 2.4. This figure shows attractive square well scattering
wavefunctions in the limit of zero collision energy for successively deeper
depths of the square well. Actually, the wavefunction itself is not plotted;
rather the function uE(r) that is related to the wavefunction as defined in themain text is what is shown. The range of the potential is set to be equal to 1
(note that the scale for r varies from plot to plot in the figure). The potentialin (a) has no bound state and a scattering length of –0.56. The potential inxix(b) has one bound state near zero energy and a positive scattering length of
9.4. The potential in (c) has one bound state and a negative scattering length–1.84. The position at which the wavefunction outside the potential (r > 1)
would intercept the axis is equal to the scattering length. In this sense, thescattering length is equal to the position of the last zero in the wavefunctionin the limit of zero collision energy. The solid line shows the wavefunction,
while the dashed line is used to show where the wavefunction at (r>1)
would intercept the axis in the negative scattering length cases.................. 28
Figure 2.5. Demonstration of the zero in collision cross section for a finite
collision energy. The attractive potential used to generate this curve had
several bound states and a negative scattering length. Similar structures canbe observed with potentials with a positive scattering length, but the zeros in
σ tend to be at higher energies. .................................................................... 30
Figure 2.6. Feshbach resonance calculated using the toy model. In thiscase, the attractive tail of the potential was not included. The parameters
used to calculate this curve were V0 = 125, R = 2, V1=0, Vin=8, Vout = 10,∆ = 10........................................................................................................... 33
Figure 2.7. Feshbach resonance calculated in the toy model with thepresence of the additional attractive tail on the Hamiltonian. The parameters
for the calculation of the main curve in this figure were the same as in figure
2.6 except that R0 = 30 and V1= 0.00295. The value of ∆ for the curve in theinset was set to be 1, but otherwise the parameters were the same as thoseused to calculate the main curve. The fact that the resonance of the curve in
the inset is narrower and the peak in the scattering length occurs at adifferent value of x demonstrates that both the width of the resonance andthe location of the divergence depend on the value of the coupling
parameter...................................................................................................... 34
Figure 3.1. The fraction of atoms in the lowest energy quantum state as afunction of temperature is shown. This curve is calculated in thethermodynamic limit. The sudden increase in the fraction of atoms at T=Tc
is the phase transition in which a Bose-Einstein condensate is created....... 45
Figure 4.1. 85Rb Hyperfine Structure of the Ground and 3P3/2 Excited State.
This figure diagrams the hyperfine structure of the two states that are
involved in the laser transitions used in laser cooling and trapping, opticalpumping and absorption imaging. All of the hyperfine level splittings are
given in MHz. The trapping and hyperfine repump transitions used in the
MOTs are shown explicitly. The lifetime of the exited state is 26.45 ns [51].
The level splittings are taken from Ref. [52] ............................................... 59
Figure 4.2. Ground State Magnetic Sublevels. The ground state is (andexcited states are) characterized by an additional quantum number, mf,

xxwhich is equal to the projection of the angular momentum F onto aparticular axis. This axis is usually chosen to lie along the direction of themagnetic field at the atom’s location. The hatched states indicate magnetic
sublevels that increase in energy (through the Zeeman interaction) withincreasing magnetic field at low magnetic fields. It is therefore possible totrap the hatched states in a purely magnetic trap. The reason that the F=3
positive mf states are trapped while it is the negative F=2 mf states that aretrapped is that the Zeeman energy is determined primarily by the projectionof the electron spin alone, and the electron spin is aligned with the nuclear
spin in the F=3 state and opposite in the F=2 state...................................... 60
Figure 4.3. The energy of the mf= –2, –1, and 0 state as a function ofmagnetic field as determined by equation (4.1)........................................... 64
Figure 4.4. Frame (a) illustrates how the Doppler shift can lead to anincreased scattering rate when an atom moves towards a red-detuned laser
beam. The dashed line shows the frequency of the laser in the lab frame.
The atom on the right moving into the beam sees the frequency of the beam
shifted to the blue – towards the maximum scattering rate. The atom
moving away from the beam sees the frequency shifted even farther to thered. Therefore, the atom moving into the beam scatters photons faster.
Frame (b) shows the viscous force calculated from equation (4.4) with I/Isat=
1, ∆=10 MHz and the linewidth and wavelength of the transition set to beequal to those of 85Rb................................................................................... 66
Figure 4.5. Clebsch-Gordan Coefficients. The transition rate between
different pairs of magnetic sublevels of the excited and ground states
depends on the orientation of the electron spin and the polarization of thelaser driving the transition. The matrix elements involved in the transition
rate are proportional to Clebsch-Gordan coefficients that are determinedfrom angular momentum sum rules, and these coefficients, multiplied by afactor of 100, are shown in this figure. Since the transitions are proportional
to the matrix elements squared, to compare the transition rate between
different pairs of magnetic sublevels the ratio of the square of the ClebschGordan coefficients needs to be considered................................................. 69
Figure 4.6. MOT Confining Force. In one dimension, a linear gradient in amagnetic field combined with the polarization of counter-propagating
trapping beams shown results in a spatially confining force. The example
above is for the simplest state structure possible. As an atom moves fromthe center (B=0), Zeeman shifts in the excited state will cause the atom toscatter more photons from the beam toward which it had moved. This
results in a restoring force pushing the atom back to the origin. ................. 71
Figure 4.7. Simple schematic of the double-MOT vacuum system. Eacharm of the science cell is round. The circular window on the science cellxxi
shown in this side view (and its counterpart on the other side) is, unlike theother directions, at the end of an arm only a few mm long. Hence thescience cell resembles a four-way cross. ..................................................... 76
Figure 4.8 Hexapole Guiding Fields. Six strips of permanent magnets
oriented as shown are sent along the outside of the transfer tube (shown as
the dotted circle). The fields from all the magnets cancel at the center of theguide and rise steeply near the edges. The lines with arrows show thegeneral direction of the magnetic field ........................................................ 85
Figure 4.9. Schematic Diagram of the MOT Recapture FluorescenceCollection Optics. The pair of mirror bounces is necessary to bring thefluorescence light out from near the crowded region next to the science cellto a place where it can be more easily measured. Not shown in this diagramis the (5/16-inch diameter) mask placed over the first lens to better define
the solid angle, among other things ............................................................. 89
Figure 4.10. Optical Pumping Scheme. The OP laser is represented by thesolid black arrows and the trapping light used to pump atoms out of the F=3
state is represented by the dotted arrows. The detunings of the lasers fromthe excited hyperfine states is shown approximately and the F´=4 state is notshown. The goal of the pumping is to have all the atoms wind up in the F=2,
mf = –2 state. ............................................................................................... 95
Figure 4.11. Optical Pumping Efficiency as a Function of OP/Probe Laser
Detuning. The optical pumping efficiency is defined as the ratio of thenumber of atoms magnetically trapped to the number of atoms remaining
after the molasses stage. The vertical dotted lines show the positions of the
F=2 to excited state transitions. The relative positions of the transitions areaccurate but the overall location could be off by a few MHz, due to someuncertainty in the absolute frequency calibration. The absence of any
pumping near the F´=3 transition is due to heating of the atoms fromrepeated photon scatters in the F=2 mf = –2 ground state since that state is
no longer dark. ............................................................................................. 97
Figure 4.12. Optical Pumping Efficiency as a Function of Pulse Time.
Even though the initial rise of the higher intensity data is faster, the cloud
takes about the same time to optically pump for both intensities. Thisbehavior is not yet explained. The high intensity is a factor of 8 more thanthe ~75 µW/cm2 low intensity. .................................................................... 98
Figure 4.13. Ioffe-Pritchard Trap Schematic. The arrows indicate thedirection of the current through the coils and wires. ................................. 101
Figure 4.14. Schematic of Baseball coil. The shape of the baseball coilused for magnetic trapping is shown here along with the two bias coils. The

xxii
small gray circle indicates the minimum of the magnetic field. The
resemblance between the baseball coil and the current bars and Helmholtz
coil system described in Figure 4.13 can be seen by considering thedirection of the current flowing in each part of the baseball coil. The current
flowing along the parts labeled .................................................................. 104
Figure 4.15. Contour plots of a typical trapping potential (a) and its
associated magnetic field (b). The contour lines are spaced 10 µK and 0.5 G
apart respectively. The oval labeled.......................................................... 107
Figure 4.16 Anharmonicities turn sloshing into apparent heat. The top
cartoon shows the trapped cloud oscillating around the center of thepotential that is marked with the X. Two atoms in the cloud, A and B will
oscillate in individual orbits, and A will have a larger amplitude than B eventhough they are both the same distance from the center of the trapped cloud.
Since anharmonicities in the potential mean that the oscillation frequency
depends on the size of an atom’s orbit and A and B have different size
orbits, after some time the two atoms will be oscillating more or less out ofphase rather than in phase. The lower picture illustrates the relative positionof A and B after they have shifted out of phase with each other. At thistime, the range in orbit sizes in the trapped cloud will cause it to spread out
over the entire region over which it was sloshing. Thus it appears that thecloud has increased in temperature. ........................................................... 114
Figure 4.17. Relative insensitivity of the trapping frequencies to initial
baseball coil current. This figure demonstrates how increasing the amountof current in the baseball coil during the trap turn-cannot increase the trap
frequencies from the typical conditions used by more than ~25%, and thatcan only be achieved by using nearly twice as much current. This is because
the magnetic moment of the atoms decreases as the bias field increases. The
x axis is scaled to the usual trap turn on current. ....................................... 120
Figure 4.18 Optimization of CMOT Stage Laser Detuning. This figure istypical of how the MOT parameters are adjusted for optimum performance.
The filled circles show the number of atoms remaining in the trap after afixed amount of evaporative cooling. The evaporative cooling is enough toreduce the temperature of the cloud to 2.2 µK. The open circles show thefraction of atoms that are loaded into the magnetic trap compared to theinitial number of atoms that are loaded into the science MOT before the
CMOT and subsequent stages. The decrease in transfer fraction is due tothe fact that the losses during the CMOT stage increase as the detuning isincreased. Presumably, the optimum CMOT detuning with respect toevaporation performance represents a trade-off between increasing theinitial density of the sample (and cooling it a little bit during the CMOT
stage) and losing atoms during the CMOT stage. For this data the CMOT
stage was 30ms long, the typical time for that stage.................................. 122

xxiiiFigure 4.19. Baseball and Bias Coil Current Supply and Control Schematic.
The FETs shown in the diagram are actually FET banks as described in themain text..................................................................................................... 127
Figure 4.20. Schematic of the Old Arrangement of Coils and Current
Controls [1]. ............................................................................................... 128
Figure 4.21. Schematic of the Baseball Coil Current Control Electronics.
All of the individual components, except for the SRS ProgrammableFrequency Synthesizer which is a commercial product, will be detailed in
the following figure. Each TTL signal comes from the Labview TTL output
board. The bias coils are controlled by a similar chain of components, but
without the synthesizer and its summing box and with no Bandwidth control
TTL. ........................................................................................................... 132
Figure 4.22. Reference Box Circuit Diagram. All resistors are high-quality
metal film. The 366.5 kΩ resistor shown in the box is actually several
resistors in series that have that total resistance......................................... 133
Figure 4.23 On/Off Box Circuit Diagram. The two OP amps after theLM399 are an artifact of the many changes that have been made to thiscircuit. In addition to turning the trap on and off, this circuit is also used tofilter the high-frequency noise out of the Labview analog signal. ............ 133
Figure 4.24. Synthesizer Summing Box Circuit Diagram. ....................... 134
Figure 4.25. Circuit Diagram for the servo. The switches shown are
DG201s that are controlled via the bandwidth control TTL. The somewhat
unusual configuration of capacitors and resistors on the lower left op amp is
designed to deal with the coil’s phase shift around 1 kHz described in themain text. From zero to 480 Hz the capacitors dominate and there is a 90ºphase shift. At 480 Hz, the 10 kΩ resistor begins to dominate the 33 nF
capacitor and the phase shift drops to 50º near 1 kHz. This reduction inphase shift is enough to allow the servo to run with a higher gain without thesystem oscillating....................................................................................... 135
Figure 4.26. The power spectrum of the noise with and without current
flowing through the baseball coil is shown. The top plot is the hall probe
signal, and since that is the error signal all that is demonstrated is how well
the servo is working. The bottom plot shows the voltage drop across thecoils. This is independent of the servo and so it is in some ways a bettermeasurement of the true noise properties, but because of the inductance ofthe coil, the current flowing through the coil is not proportional to thevoltage drop at frequencies higher than about 100 Hz. The DC signal sizes
for the hall probe signal and voltage drop were 3.78 and 2.78 V respectively.

xxiv
Not shown is a mild increase in the voltage drop noise near 11 kHz, theunity gain point of the servo. ..................................................................... 138
Figure 4.27. Radio-frequency transitions leading to evaporation. The blackarrows represent where the rf transition being driven is resonant with theatoms. Atoms move in the parabolic trapping potential (upper curve). The
more energetic can reach the magnetic field where they will make atransition to an untapped state and be accelerated out of the trap. Thus themore energetic atoms can be selectively removed and the cloud cooled
through evaporative cooling. ..................................................................... 141
Figure 4.28. Magnetic Field Calibration. The point at which the two
curves, ascending and descending, cross corresponds to the rf frequency thatdrives transitions at the bottom of the magnetic trap. Using the Breit-Rabi
equation (4.1), the value of the magnetic field at the bottom of the trap can
be computed. .............................................................................................. 146
Figure 4.29. Measurement of Sloshing Frequencies in the Axial and Radial
Directions. The measurement of the axial trap frequency (top) and radial
trap frequencies (bottom) was conducted at the same time. Each point
represents a single measurement of the center of mass of the cloud while itsloshes in the trap. From the beat note pattern in the radial direction it ispossible to extract all of three trap frequencies: 6.791(14) Hz axial and17.259(8) and 17.493(17) Hz in the two radial directions. The lastfrequency corresponds to the direction that is not visible in the absorption
imaging. ..................................................................................................... 149
Figure 4.30. Calibration of the MOT Recapture Signal. The non-zero
intercept is due to the creation during evaporation of hot atoms that are too
diffuse to be detected by absorption but are still trapped (see Chapter VII for
details)........................................................................................................ 152
Figure 4.31. Schematic of the Imaging Optics. ........................................ 157
Figure 4.32. Depth of Focus Calculation. The depth of focus of the imaging
system is calculated using geometric optics. The rays that originate at a
position offset from the focus the imaging system are traced through theedge of the first lens. At the CCD array, these rays form a circle and thearea of this circle can be calculated. The depth of focus is then the distancethat the object is displaced from the focus when the area of the circle of rayson the CCD array is equal to the area of one pixel. This estimate will
actually give a depth of focus that is slightly too small since not all of therays from the object pass through the edge of the lens. Two-thirds of thelens radius is a more appropriate quantity since it is the average radiusthrough which all of the rays pass.............................................................. 158

xxv
Figure 4.33 Focusing the imaging system. The data in this graph are theapparent radial width of a sub-resolution limit cloud as a function of theposition of the first lens in the imaging system. The probe laser frequency
was set to be on resonance to avoid any lensing distortions. The focus point
is taken to be the position of the minimum size of the radial width. ......... 161
Figure 4.34. Using Gravity to Calibrate the Magnification of the Imaging
Optics. By releasing the atoms from the magnetic trap and tracing thecenter of mass motion, from the measurement of the acceleration of thefalling atoms due to gravity and the knowledge of g, the apparent size of a
pixel (i.e. the magnification of the optics) can be determined. The black
circles show the measured center-of-mass motion while the solid line is a fit
to the data................................................................................................... 165
Figure 4.35. Calibration of the Probe Detuning. The measured opticaldepth of a trapped cloud versus the detuning of the probe laser is used todetermine the resonance of the F=3 mf = –3 to F´=4 mf = –4 transition inexperimental units. The x axis shows the beat note between the probe laser
and another laser locked to the peak of a saturated absorption transition.
The variation in the points appears to be worse than it actually was; there
was a drift in the size of the trapped clouds during the measurement that waseasily removed when the center and width of the lineshape were being
determined. The width of the transition from simple power broadening is
expected to be 6.6 MHz, consistent with the measured width................... 167
Figure 4.36. Measured Optical Depth vs. Probe Intensity. This figure
shows the effect of increasing probe intensity on the saturation of the atomic
transition. By fitting the decrease in measured optical depth to equation(4.31), the intensity of the probe can be determined, calibrating the numberof camera counts to the intensity of the probe at the location of the atoms.
Each point consists of seven individual measurements, and the standard
deviation of those seven measurements is used to calculate the errors shown.
Note that the size of the fractional error decreases with increasing intensity.
The atomic clouds used for this calibration were thermal clouds with atemperature of 115 nK. The probe laser was slightly detuned fromresonance (1.1 MHz) when these data were taken. To avoid the potential
systematic from optical pumping effects (subsection 4.12.4), only the four
highest-intensity points were fit................................................................. 169
Figure 4.37. Checking the Orientation of the Quantization Axis During
Absorption Imaging. Each data point in this figure (filled circle) represents
the ratio of the number of atoms measured at a particular up/down earth
shim current to the number of atoms measured with that current equal to 0.2
A (open circle) during the absorption sequence. The decrease in measured
atom number is due to the misalignment of the quantization axis caused by
the application of the field from the up/down earth shim, which isxxviorthogonal to the main quantization field. The solid line is a parabola fit to
the data. This parabola is a reasonable function since we expect that themeasured number of atoms should be a maximum when the quantization
axis is aligned along the probe direction. The orientation of the quantization
axis was checked similarly in the other direction that is orthogonal to themain quantization field. The typical operating condition was 0.2 A, close to
the peak of the curve, which fits to a maximum ratio of 1.0015. .............. 176
Figure 5.1. This figure shows the approximate shape of the Feshbachresonance. It is calculated using the measured parameters for 85Rb andequation (5.1). ............................................................................................ 181
Figure 5.2. Change in the Equilibration Coefficient κ as a Function of theParameter β. The solid curve was calculated using equation (5.15). It
shows that elastic collisions equilibrate the sample more efficiently when it
is further out of equilibrium (higher β). The dashed curve uses equation(5.20) in addition to equation (5.15) to account for the effect of the unitarity
limit on a sample whose initial temperature is 110 nK and whose scattering
length a = –342a0. These conditions correspond to the more precise 251 G
point in subsection 5.5.3. ........................................................................... 194
Figure 5.3. The points shown correspond to the measured normalized
equilibration rates σN which are equal to the aspect ratio equilibration time
divided by the density and average relative speed of the sample. The lines
are calculations for the thermally averaged elastic cross section, notequilibration rates, and hence are not expected to fit the data points. ....... 202
Figure 5.4. Figure 5.4(a) shows an expanded view of the region of Figure
5.3 near the peak of the Feshbach resonance, while Figure 5.4(b) does thesame for the region near the minimum. ..................................................... 203
Figure 5.5 Constraints on the Rb-Rb Interatomic Potential. This figurecompares the allowed vDT, vDS parameters space based on our work andmeasurements contemporaneous to our 1998 result. The large rectangle isthe allowed range from Ref. [109]. The large diamond is the range from
Ref. [91]. The small filled diamond is the range from our 1998
measurement. The large rectangle and large diamond were establishedusing a value of C6 = 4550 a.u. As is discussed in the main text, the positionof the constrained region depends on C6, which is indicated by the small
diamonds on either side of the filled diamond. These diamonds show theeffect of 50 a.u. uncertainty in C6 around the central value of 4700 (to which
the filled diamond corresponds). The arrows indicate the sensitivity tochanges in the resonance width and position in this parameter space. The
small black square in the center of the small rectangle represents theconstraints set by our more recent measurement and reflects the increase inprecision of the measurement of Bzero. The small rectangle is another way ofxxviirepresenting the new constraint supplied by our more recent measurement.
Unlike all of the other objects in this figure, the small rectangle does notcorrespond to a fixed value of C6. Rather, it is the total allowed range ofvDT, vDS consistent with our measurement of Bpeak and Bzero and the now
smaller uncertainty in C6=4660±20 implied by our measurement of abg. In
other words, the small rectangle is measuring the same constraint as the area
between the two small open diamonds. ..................................................... 207
Figure 5.6. Relaxation of the Aspect Ratio to Equilibrium. The data shown
were taken at B = 169.7 G. Each data point represents a single destructive
absorption measurement of the cloud after it was released from the magnetic
trap and allowed to expand for 1.6 ms. The solid line shows the fit to thedata used to determine the elastic scattering cross section and hence thescattering length. The deviation of the data points from the fit around 3-4
seconds is due to the imperfect removal of the rolling motion. The lower
plot shows the measurement of the individual axial and radial widths thatwent into determining the aspect ratio. ...................................................... 212
Figure 5.7. The value of abg implied by several aspect ratio relaxation
measurements. This value was determined by dividing the s-wave scattering
length determined at a particular magnetic field by the factor {1-(BzeroBpeak)/(B-Bpeak)}. The s-wave scattering lengths measured at 251.0 G weredivided by an additional factor of 0.99 to account for the deviation of theapproximate description of a vs. B form the full theory calculation. The
error bars shown include the statistical errors plus the fit uncertainty due tothe rolling systematic. The data represented by the open circles had a larger
amount of rolling motion present than the data represented by the filled
circles. There is no observable difference between the two sets of data. For
clarity, the open circles are displaced 0.2G to the right of their true magnetic
field value. The fit uncertainty is non-statistical and so the central values
are clustered together more than the error bars would suggest.................. 215
Figure 6.1 Number of atoms versus time taken by polarization-rotation
imaging at 159 G. Fits to both purely two-body and purely three-bodyinelastic rates are shown, illustrating the difficulty in separating two- andthree-body loss processes........................................................................... 224
Figure 6.2. Elastic Rate (upper plot) from Chapter V and total loss rates(lower) plot vs. magnetic field. The total loss rate is expressed as the sum of
the two- and three-body loss as K2+βK3. Because of initial density
differences caused by ramping across the peak, β has a different value aboveand below B = 157 G. The vertical lines represent the positions of theelastic rate maximum and minimum at B = 155 and 166 G, respectively. 226
Figure 6.3. The determination of the two-body inelastic rate for several B
fields. The theory prediction from Ref. [119] is shown as a solid line. The

xxviii
open circles ( ) are the two-body rates determined from the total loss from
Figure 6.2 by assuming (not explicitly measuring) that the loss between 162
and 166 G is predominantly two-body. These points are added to aid
comparison with theory. In addition to the statistical errors shown, there isanother 20% systematic uncertainty due to the estimated error in our density
determination. ............................................................................................ 229
Figure 6.4. The determination of the three-body inelastic rate. The points
with the droplines are to be interpreted as upper limits on the three-bodyrate. The solid line here is a prediction from Ref. [122]. The open circles
here are similar to those in Figure 6.3, only here we assume (but again do
not measure) that the loss above 175 G is predominantly three-body. The
error bars on the 250 G point are relatively small because a large amount ofdata was taken there. In addition to the statistical errors shown, there isanother 20% systematic uncertainty due to the estimated error in our density
determination. ............................................................................................ 230
Figure 6.5. Temperature dependence of the inelastic loss at 154.1 G. Here,the combined loss rate is shown by assuming that all of the loss at this field
is due to a three-body process. All of the data on this plot were taken withapproximately the same density................................................................. 232
Figure 6.6 Heating rate vs. magnetic field. The samples used to acquire thisdata had densities between 2-3 x 1011 cm-3. The heating rate is determinedby dividing the temperature increase after the cloud had lost ~25% of theatoms by the time taken to lose that many atoms. Away from the zero, theheating rate is consistent with the rate expected from the density dependence
alone. Near the minimum, the heating rate is higher than expected from thedensity dependence of the inelastic losses themselves, but near the minimum
we are also more sensitive to heating rates from sources other than the
inelastic collisions...................................................................................... 233
Figure 6.7 Conjecture log-log plot of K3 vs. a4. This figure displays all of
the data greater than 175 G assuming that the loss is due only to a threebody loss process. The slope of the best-fit line is 4.2, close to the predictedvalue of 4, but the quality of the fit is so poor (reduced χ2 > 4 with 2 degrees
of freedom) that we certainly cannot claim that we have definitively
observed an a4 scaling. The intercept of this fit implies C~2200 in equation(6.1)............................................................................................................ 236
Figure 6.8. Variation of measured loss rate of low-density clouds. The
clouds used for this measurement had a density ~109 cm-3 and a temperatureof approximately 40 µK. Note that the zero is suppressed and the total
variation is only 20%. ................................................................................ 237

xxix
Figure 6.9. Excited state magnetic sublevel energies vs. magnetic field.
Each manifold of states is labeled by the value of mJ that is one of thequantum numbers that characterizes the eigenstates at high magnetic field.
The individual levels within the four manifolds are further specified by the
nuclear spin quantum number mi. Moving up and down from one level tothe next within a manifold changes the value of mi by one. The mi value forthe highest and lowest states in each manifold is shown on the right. These
quantum numbers are strictly good only at high values of magnetic field—atlower values of the field the eigenstates are a combination of the productstates specified by |mJ,mi>. The arrow indicates the probe laser detuning
suitable for polarization-rotation imaging. ................................................ 240
Figure 7.1. Elastic scattering cross section as a function of collision energy.
This curve is calculated for B=0, and the behavior at fields far from the
Feshbach resonance is similar.................................................................... 246
Figure 7.2. The set of differential equations used in the simple model of
evaporative cooling. ................................................................................... 253
Figure 7.3. Optimum evaporation trajectory. The evaporation trajectory at
162.5 G is shown as the filled circles in this plot. The open circle represents
the optical depth of the cloud of atoms when it is initially loaded. The
cooling from ~45 to ~2 µK was performed at 251 G. The prediction of the
optical depth as a function of temperature by the simple model is also shownas the solid line. To generate this curve, the following values were used in
the model: η=5, κ=1.6, K2=5 x 10-20 m3/s, a=167a0, τ=300 s, ωr = 108.5,
ωz= 42.4. The value of κ was adjusted to fit the measured trajectory. ..... 255
Figure 7.4. Log plot of the frequency of the rf-knife as a function of time
during the evaporative cooling at 162 G. Only stages 2-8 are shown.
81.209 MHz corresponds to the frequency that drives transitions at thebottom of the trap potential........................................................................ 260
Figure 7.5. Comparison of Evaporation Trajectories at Different Magnetic
Fields. At the peak of the 162 G evaporation trajectory, the bias field wasramped to a different value and the evaporation was then optimized at thatnew field. The 162 G curve was taken at a different time than the 162.5 G
curve shown in Figure 7.3.......................................................................... 264
Figure 7.6. Evidence for an impulse imparted during trap turn-off. The
filled triangles and circles represent the measured spatial size forcondensates originally at 157 and 162 G respectively imaged 1.7 ms after
the magnetic trap was turned off. The open symbols represent the measured
widths when the condensates were imaged 5.7 ms after the trap turn-off.
The observed size is larger for the longer expansion time data than for the
shorter expansion time data, indicating that the condensates are expanding

xxx
outward outside the trap. The relative size increase is larger for thecondensates that are originally smaller in spatial extent and are therefore
denser. These data were taken soon after 85Rb BECs were formed, before
we were able to improve the reproducibility of the system or create
condensates with more than a few thousand atoms, and so the number varied
by a factor of three during the measurement. ............................................ 272
Figure 7.7 Fractional of atoms lost following a rapid sweep of the magnetic
field through the peak of the Feshbach resonance as a function of the inverse
speed of the ramp. Data are shown for a condensate ( ) with a peak densityof npk ~3 x 1012 cm-3 and for a thermal cloud ( ) with a temperature T = 430
nK and a peak density of npk~ 0.5 x 1012 cm-3. .......................................... 273
Figure 7.8. Fraction of atoms lost from a condensate following a rapid
sweep over the Feshbach peak as a function of inverse ramp speed. The
data shown here are similar to those displayed in Figure 7.7, only the peakdensity of these condensates is npk ~ 0.2 x 1012 cm –3. .............................. 275
Figure 7.9 (color). False color images and horizontal cross sections of thecondensate column density for various magnetic fields. The condensate
number was varied to maintain a peak optical depth (OD) of ~1.5. The
magnetic field values are (a) B = 164.9 G, (b) B = 162.0 G, (c) B = 158.1 G,(d) B = 156.9 G, and (3) B = 156.1 G........................................................ 279
Figure 7.10. Comparison of the shape of the condensate density and column
density in the Thomas-Fermi limit along one spatial direction. ................ 281
Figure 7.11. Measured condensate width versus the product of thescattering length and the number of atoms in the condensate, with that
product raised to the 1/5 power. From equation (7.20). the axial FWHM ofa condensate is expected to scale as Na1/5, and indeed the data do fall on astraight line. The slope of the line matches the prefactor in equation (7.20)
to the precision of the measurement. The deviation from the fit line at smallvalues of Na is discussed in the main text. ................................................ 282
Figure 7.12. This figure shows a randomly selected subset of the data
shown in Figure 7.11, only here the dependence of the width on the number
and scattering length are plotted separately. It is difficult to make out details
on this graph, but is possible to observe the spatial size increasing with N ata fixed a and the spatial size increasing with a at a fixed N. ..................... 283
Figure 8.1. Oscillation of a condensate density in one dimension in aharmonic trapping potential in the non-interacting limit. The initial orderparameter at t=0 was projected into the first 20 simple harmonic oscillator
basis states, and from the evolution of the phase factor associated with eachbasis state the time evolution of the condensate density could be determined.

xxxi
Since the initial condensate width is too large, it contracts as it evolves fromt=0. ............................................................................................................. 294
Figure 8.2. Oscillation of a condensate with a parabola-shaped initial
density in the non-interacting limit. The time evolution of the condensate
density was calculated in the same way as for Figure 8.1. The inset shows
the presence of a spatial oscillation in the condensate density that exists at
t=π/2ω (one half of the oscillation cycle). These ripples in the density werealso present when 30 basis states were used to calculate the condensate
evolution. While the size of the ripple is small, it can contain a significant
fraction of the condensate atoms. For instance, it the condensate density
shown was the same in all three dimensions, then 15% of the atoms would
be contained in the ripples rather than the central feature. Notice that thecentral part of the order parameter is narrower at t=π/4ω than t=π/2ω. .... 296
Figure 8.3. Normal modes of the m=0 collective excitations. The length of
the arrows refers to the relative motion of the axial (horizontal) and radial(vertical) during the normal mode oscillation. Mode (a) is the higherfrequency m=0 mode, while (b) shows the motion of the other (lowerfrequency) m=0 mode. ............................................................................... 298
Figure 8.4. Comparison between the m=0 lower-frequency mode oscillation
frequency calculated in an approximate model [148] developed by PerezGarcia et al. and a full RPA calculation [41]. The approximate model isshown as the filled circles, while the RPA calculation is shown as a solidline.............................................................................................................. 303
Figure 8.5. Comparison of the total density with the beyond-mean-field
shift correction and without. For simplicity, a spherical potential was
assumed. The chemical potential between the two cases was set so that the
number of atoms was the same in each case. The total density with thebeyond-mean-field correction was calculated with equation (8.17) with npka3
set equal to 10–2.......................................................................................... 307
Figure 8.6. Comparison of the observed radial and axial oscillation
amplitudes to those predicted using the simple model described in the text.
For these data the launch, intermediate, and final fields were 162.0, 158.3,
and 156.5 G respectively............................................................................ 315
Figure 8.7. This figure shows a typical measurement of radial oscillation
frequency. There appears to be a small amount of damping, and this isreflected in the fit to the data. However, this damping may in fact haveother causes, as described in section 8.5. These data were taken at a field of
158.7 G....................................................................................................... 318

xxxiiFigure 8.8. Dependence of the oscillation amplitude on condensate number.
In this figure, the data have been binned by number into three sets and a sine
wave was individually fit to each set. The two lower figures show the lackof any dependence of the measured frequency on the number and theoscillation amplitude of the fit to each set of data. The field at which thesedata were taken was 156.5 G. .................................................................... 322
Figure 8.9. Comparison of the measured oscillation frequencies to themean-field and beyond-mean-field predicted frequencies. Most of the data
points were taken over several oscillation periods and were therefore
vulnerable to the temperature shift systematic discussed in the text. One
data point taken over only two oscillation periods is also shown as the open
circle, and the disagreement between that point and the others at the same
field is additional evidence for the temperature dependent frequency shifts.
The number of atoms used to measure the oscillation frequencies varied
from field to field, and that accounts for the fstructure of the mean-field
prediction curves. The dashed line shows the predicted oscillation
frequencies from equation (8.16) for Bzero = 154.9, while the two dottedlines show the predicted frequencies as Bzero is shifted ±0.4 G (see Chapter
V). .............................................................................................................. 323
Figure 8.10. Radial oscillation frequency measured at 155.7 G using a
relatively short integration time. The average number of atoms in this set ofdata was about 800..................................................................................... 325
Figure 8.11. Measurement of the axial oscillation frequency near a=0(165.85 G). Twice the axial frequency was 13.594 Hz, so the measured
frequency does not agree with the expected value. The problem points,
which are discussed in the text, are indicated by the arrows. .................... 327
Figure 8.12. This figure shows the radial oscillation frequency measured at
156.1 G as a function of the time over which the oscillation was measured.
For instance, if the radial oscillations were measured over times spanning
450 ms, the measured frequency was 35.27 Hz, while if the oscillations were
only measured over times spanning 225 ms the frequency was measured to
be 35.77 Hz. The decrease in measured frequency with increasing
integration time indicates that the frequency of the oscillation is decreasing
as the condensate oscillates at 156.1 G...................................................... 332
Figure 8.13. Measurement of the melting of the condensate at 156.1 G. The
upper plot shows the measured condensate fraction as a function of time thatthe condensate spent at 156.1 G. No thermal component was originallyvisible, and so we estimate that the condensate fraction must therefore be
greater than 90%. The lower plot shows the cross section of an absorption
image used to measure the condensate fraction. The narrow component

xxxiii
corresponds to the condensate while the broader base is the thermal
component.................................................................................................. 333
Figure 8.14. Radial oscillation measurement at 157.1 G. The measured
widths are suggestive of the presence of a beat note in the oscillation, which
would indicate that two frequencies were present in the oscillation. ........ 335
Figure 8.15. Estimation of the beyond-mean-field shift in the presence oftemperature-dependent fits. The data shown here are the data also displayedin Figure 8.12. The initial thermal fraction was assumed to be 10% for thefits shown here. The fitting function given in equation (8.22) is shown as
the solid line, which is the best fit to the data, and the dotted line which
represents the fit corresponding to the value of the intercept that is one
standard deviation away from the best fit value. The parameter n is ~ 0.33
for the dotted line and so it corresponds to a temperature shift that changes
linearly with the temperature of the cloud. ................................................ 341
Figure 9.1. This figure shows the energy of a condensate whose density
profile is fixed to be a gaussian as a function of the width of the condensate
R (x-axis) and the value of the ratio N|a|/aho (number label on each curve).
Note that for the curve with N|a|/aho equal to 0.7 there is no minimum in theenergy as a function of R. The energy was calculated from equation (9.2).
.................................................................................................................... 348
Figure 9.2. Comparison of Stable and Collapsed Condensates at a < 0. Allof these images were taken with the mean-field expansion ramp described in
the main text. Frame (a) corresponds to a stable condensate while frames(b) and (c) show collapsed condensates. All three images were taken undersimilar conditions, with the only difference being that in (b) and (c) |a| was
greater than in (a). The false color scale is not the same from image toimage.......................................................................................................... 357
Figure 9.3. Transition from stable to unstable condensates. This figure
shows the fraction of atoms remaining as the magnetic field was ramped tohigher magnetic fields (i.e. stronger attractive interactions). The hatchedregion indicates the expected 4 mG width due to the initial number
variation. The initial number of atoms in the condensate was kept near
6400. At the field in the hatched region, the data fell into two groups andthe individual points ( ) are displayed rather than the average of thosepoints.......................................................................................................... 360
Figure 9.4. This figure shows the truncated gaussian probability distribution
used in analyzing the fraction of atoms lost after a ramp to fields with a < 0.
The average of the initial number of atoms in the condensate before theramp to a < 0 and the standard deviation of those points determine thelocation of the peak of the width of the overall gaussian distribution. The

xxxivprobability distribution of the number of atoms in stable condensates isshown by the solid curve, while the probability distribution of the precollapse number of atoms in condensates that did collapse is shown as thedashed line. The critical number Ncrit depends on the value of |a| andtherefore varies as a function of magnetic field. Both the stable andcollapsed condensate distributions are normalized appropriately before
being used in a calculation......................................................................... 362
Figure 9.5. Determining the onset of collapse as a function of the condensate
number and the magnetic field. Figures 9.5 (a) and 9.5 (b) show data sets
used to determine the stability coefficient via the boundary that divides thedata between collapse ( ) and non-collapse ( ) events. In Figure 2(a), thedata were concentrated in two field regions to accurately measure the slopeof the boundary line. In Figure 2(b), the initial number was varied over alarger range to illustrate the function form of the onset of instability. Due toinitial number variations, some collapse points appear to be on the wrong
side of the stability boundary. .................................................................... 366
Figure 9.6. This figure shows stable condensate numbers known to be on
the verge of instability (see text) as determined from several data sets likethose in figs. 9.6(a) and 9.6 (b). The fit to these points provides the value ofthe stability coefficient k............................................................................ 367
Figure 10.1. This figure illustrates several magnetic field ramps used tomeasure the condensate collapse dynamics. Rather than plotting themagnetic field as a function of time, the corresponding value of thescattering length is shown. The last change in the scattering length to ~imaged 1.6 ms after this trap turnoff.......................................................... 377
Figure 10.2. Number of condensate atoms as a function of the evolution
time at a magnetic field with attractive interactions (τevolve). These data weretaken using the ramp shown in Figure 10.1(a) at a field with a value of a =30 a0. The initial number of atoms in the condensate is shown as N0 andthe number of atoms remaining after the completion of the collapse is given
as Nremnant. The solid line shows the exponential fit used to determine thedecay constant during the rapid loss of atoms during the collapse............ 378
Figure 10.3. Jet images for a series of τevolve values for the conditions of
Figure 10.2. The evolution times were 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 10 ms (from a to f).
Each image is 150 x 255 µm. The bar indicates the optical depth scale. The
jets were longest (i.e. most energetic) and contained the most atoms at
values of τevolve for which the slope of the loss curve (Figure 10.2) was
greatest. A tiny jet is barely visible for τevolve = 2 ms (image a), which is 1.7
ms before the onset of the rapid loss of atoms from the condensate. Thexxxv
images also show how the number of condensate atoms decrease with time.
.................................................................................................................... 380
Figure 10.4 (Color). Plot (a) shows a conceptual illustration of a focus of
the atoms in the explosion. Plot (b) shows an image of a refocused
explosion. The temperature in the axial direction (along the direction of thelong axis of the refocused cloud) determined from this data is 62 nK. Plot(c) Shows the radially averaged cross section of plot (b) with a Gaussian fit(red line) to the burst energy distribution. The central 100 mm were
excluded from the fit to avoid distortion in the fit due to the remnant and thethermal cloud. The latter is present in the pre-collapse sample and appears
to be unaffected by the collapse. The dashed line indicates the fit to thisinitial thermal component. Ramps like the one shown in Figure 10.1(c)were used to collect these data................................................................... 382
Figure 10.5 (Color). This figure demonstrates the oscillations of the remnant
by plotting the radial width as a function of time at the a < 0 field. The solidline is a fit to the widths composed of two sine waves. The two frequenciesof the sine waves correspond to twice the radial and axial frequencies within
the measurement error. The two false color images show the peaked
structures observed in the condensates as the remnant is oscillating......... 384

xxxvi

List of Tables

Table 4.1: 85Rb atomic structure constants necessary for the Breit-Rabi
equation........................................................................................................ 62
Table 4.2. The average number of scattering events required to pump an
atom from a particular initial mf state to the mf = –3 state. Also shown is
the length of time these photons scatters would take. The time column is
how many photons an atom already in the mf = –3 state would scatter on the
F=3, mf = –3 to F´=4 mf = –4 transition in the time that it took to pump theatom from a different mf state over. For example, and atom initially in the
mf =0 state would be pumped to the mf = –3 state in an average time equal
to the amount of time it would take an atom initially in the mf = –3 state toscatter an average 12.7 photons. ................................................................ 172
Table 4.3. Summary of Effects Considered in Absorption Imaging.......... 178
Table 5.1. Summary of Measured Feshbach Resonance Parameters......... 214
Table 7.1. Summary of evaporation parameters used in our optimum
evaporation trajectory. Stage 1 occurred at 251 G while the remaining
stages are at 162 G. .................................................................................... 261

Chapter I
Introduction
1.1 Overview of the Thesis.
1.1.1 Introduction. When I joined this experiment in 1997, my coworkers and I began
working with an 87Rb Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC) machine [1] that had been converted into an
experiment involving the other stable isotope of Rb, 85Rb. Our primary goal when we started thiswork was to create BECs of 85Rb atoms, a feat which had not been accomplished before. The reason
that we wanted to create BECs of 85Rb is that a Feshbach resonance was predicted to exist in 85Rb.
As a result of the Feshbach resonance, the 85Rb-85Rb interatomic potential could be tuned sensitively
by an external magnetic field. This meant that the elastic and inelastic collision rates could bechanged dramatically through varying the value of the applied magnetic field. Of more interest tous, the ability to change the 85Rb-85Rb interatomic potential meant that it was possible to change theinteractions between atoms in a BEC. In principle, the strength of the interactions could be tuned toany desired value by an applied magnetic field. The interactions could also be tuned to be either
attractive or repulsive.
Even though the interatomic interactions in trapped atomic gas BECs are weak enough thatthey can be treated accurately within a mean-field approximation, they play an important role in theproperties of BECs such as: the average energy per particle in the condensate, the collective
excitation spectrum describing the motion of the condensate in the magnetic trapping potential, thespatial size of the condensates in the magnetic trap, whether or not the condensates will be stable orwill collapse due to attractive self-interactions, and others. The ability to alter the interparticle
interactions in a BEC nearly at will through using the Feshbach resonance was therefore very
exciting and would open the door to many novel tests of the behavior of BECs in magnetic traps.
While the precision of the theoretical description of alkali atom cold collisions had
improved so that a Feshbach resonance was predicted to exist in 85Rb collisions, the value of2magnetic field at which the Feshbach resonance would occur was still only predicted to withinseveral tens of gauss. Also, when we began our work a Feshbach resonance had not been observedin cold atom-atom collisions. Therefore, our first experiments were designed to locate the magnetic
field position of the Feshbach resonance and characterize the “strength” of the resonance --- how fast
the collision properties and atom-atom interaction strength changed as the magnetic field waschanged. The variation of the elastic collision cross section as a function of magnetic field was used
to locate the position of the resonance and measure the resonance strength. Since these parameters
are sensitive functions of the details of the Rb-Rb interatomic potential, their measurement provided
improved constraints on the description of that potential. The variation of the inelastic collision rates
near the Feshbach resonance was also determined by measuring the rate at which atoms were lostfrom the trap as a function of magnetic field and density of the trapped atom clouds.
Initially, it was hoped that the same techniques used to create BECs of 87Rb would facilitate
the creation of BECs of 85Rb without substantial modification. However, initial attempts at cooling85

Rb towards the BEC transition temperature in the same way as 87Rb showed that the two atoms infact behaved very differently from one another, and that creating an 85Rb BEC would be difficult.
Whereas a magnetically trapped gas of 87Rb was cooled very efficiently using the technique of
evaporative cooling, 85Rb cooled under the same conditions performed poorly, with atoms lost
rapidly from the gas well before the BEC transition temperature was reached. We realized that thisbehavior was due in part to high inelastic collisions rates in 85Rb that led to loss of atoms from themagnetic trap and thus reduced the evaporative cooling efficiency. The knowledge of the elastic andinelastic collision rates as a function of magnetic field was therefore used to optimize theevaporative cooling and create a BEC of 85Rb atoms.
Once the 85Rb BECs had been created, we performed a series of different experiments withthem. We varied the strength of repulsive interatomic interactions and observed the spatial size ofthe condensates shrink and expand in response to the changing interaction strength. We alsomeasured the loss of atoms from the BEC as a function of the rate that the magnetic field was swept
through the high inelastic collision rate region of the Feshbach resonance. The collective excitation
frequencies were measured as a function of the strength of the atom-atom interactions to search for3predicted deviations from the mean-field description as the atom-atom interactions were tuned to bestrong. Finally, the instability induced in BECs by attractive scattering lengths was studied in acontrolled fashion. Both the onset of the instability as a function of number and interaction strengthand the dynamics of these unstable BECs were studied.
The rest of this introduction details the organization of this thesis, as well as summarizing
the work that is presented in each Chapter.
1.1.2 Scattering Theory and Feshbach Resonances (Chapter II). For cold collisions, asingle parameter, the s-wave scattering length (a), can be used to describe the binary elastic
scattering properties. The value of a is determined by the interatomic potential between the two
atoms in the colliding pair, and in particular a is very sensitive to the position of the last bound stateof the interatomic potential. The elastic scattering cross section is determined by the value of a andis proportional to a2. In 85Rb, a Feshbach resonance was predicted to exist in collisions between two
85

Rb atoms in a magnetic sublevel state that could be magnetically trapped. Near a Feshbachresonance, the value of a can, in principle, be tuned by changing the external field to any value,
positive or negative, large or small. Chapter II discusses the relationship between the interatomic
potential and the s-wave scattering length, the origin of Feshbach resonances, and other cold
collision properties.
1.1.3 Bose-Einstein Condensation and Mean-Field Theory (Chapter III).The ability toalter the cold elastic collision properties through the use of an external magnetic field was interesting
to us from the perspective of cold collision physics, but measuring cold collision properties was not
our primary motivation.

The promise of such dramatic control of the atom-atom interactions

through the use of an external magnetic field suggested that interesting experiments could be
performed using BECs, since the interactions between the atoms in a BEC have an important
influence on its behavior. The magnitude of the interaction energy is proportional to the s-wave
scattering length, at least to first order. The ability to tune the s-wave scattering length meant thatthe interactions in a BEC could be controlled as well, making the interactions small or large,
repulsive or attractive, opening the door to a wide range of possible experiments.

4
Before discussing how the interactions between atoms affect the properties of a BEC, I will
briefly describe the phenomenon of Bose-Einstein condensation. In 1924, Satyendranath Bose [2]developed a statistical argument to derive the blackbody radiation spectrum.

Albert Einstein

extended this treatment to an ideal gas of monatomic atoms [3], and immediately noticed aninteresting consequence of the theory: at low temperatures the number of atoms in states other thanthe lowest energy quantum state saturated. Einstein then postulated that a gas with a number ofparticles greater than the saturated value would have two components to it: one component would
be a gas with the saturated number of particles, and the remainder of the particles would condense
into the lowest quantum state of the system. Thus, the idea of a Bose-Einstein condensate wascreated. As a gas of particles described by these statistics is cooled below a critical temperature, it
undergoes a phase transition characterized by discontinuities in various thermodynamic quantities
such as the specific heat and also by a sudden macroscopic occupation of the number of particles in
the lowest energy quantum state of the system.
The statistics developed by Bose and Einstein (referred to as Bose-Einstein statistics) is
now recognized to apply only to particles with an integer spin (bosons). Other particles with halfinteger spin (fermions), obey a different type of statistics, which is referred to as Fermi-Diracstatistics. Compound particles, such as 85Rb which is composed of 85 nucleons and 37 electrons,
obey the statistics that correspond to the total spin of all of the particles of which it is composed.
Thus, 85Rb is a boson.
The transition temperature at which BEC occurs is characterized by a quantity called thephase-space density. The phase-space density is equal to nλ3 where n is the density and λ is thethermal deBroglie wavelength of the atoms, which characterizes the spatial spread of an atom’s
center of mass position due to the uncertainty principle. As the sample is cooled, λ becomes larger
as the average momentum of the particles decreases. Once nλ3 ~ 1, the wavefunctions of theindividual atoms begin to overlap and at a critical value (2.612 for a homogenous gas) the phasespace available to bosons “fills up” and atoms begin to pile up in the ground state, signifying theonset of the BEC phase transition.

5
The well-known superfluid behavior of liquid Helium below ~ 2K is associated with theformation of a BEC in the liquid [4]. In this system, however, the interactions between particles arevery strong and the BEC cannot be described quantitatively by a theory that is based on the noninteracting gas and includes the atom-atom interactions as a perturbation. Macroscopic occupationof a single quantum state is also used to explain superconductivity and the superfluid properties of3

He through the pairing of fermions. Again, the interactions in these systems are very strong and soa pertubative description of the particle-particle interactions cannot be used. One other condensed
matter system of note is an exciton gas created in copper oxide through the application of a shortlaser pulse [5]. The excitons are long-lived enough that they can come to thermal equilibrium, andtheir effective mass is low enough that the BEC transition temperature can be reached using
cryogenic methods. Unlike the other strongly interacting systems described above, the exciton gas isdilute in the sense that the interparticle spacing is much greater than the exciton radius. The
momentum distribution of the exciton gas cannot be measured directly, and the presence of a BEC in
the gas is deduced from other means, such as the recombination rate.
In 1995, BECs were created in magnetically trapped samples of dilute atomic gases. 87Rb
was condensed first here at JILA [6], and at MIT 23Na [7] was condensed shortly thereafter. There
was also evidence for BEC in 7Li at Rice [8]. In all of these cases, laser cooling and trapping
techniques [9] were used to collect and pre-cool a gas of alkali atoms. These atoms were thenloaded into a purely magnetic trap and evaporative cooling was used to cool the gas to the BEC
transition temperature. The method of evaporative cooling followed ideas originally developed in
the effort to create a BEC in atomic hydrogen [10], which was eventually successful in 1998 [11].
The achievement of BEC in dilute gases is remarkable for several reasons. One remarkablefeature from a technical perspective is the low temperature of the samples. For instance, we haveobserved temperatures below 3 nK in our samples. In the condensed matter systems mentioned in
the previous subsections, the systems can be treated as being uniform in space (homogenous) and thephenomenon of BEC occurs only in momentum space.

In the trapped gas systems, theinhomogenous potential means that the BEC exhibits features in both position and momentum space.
It is therefore possible to measure the properties of the condensate by imaging the density

6
distribution directly through using a probe laser to illuminate the sample. This is useful as a tool tomeasure the condensates, but it is also satisfying to observe the behavior of a quantum mechanicalobject simply by looking at it. Additionally, the atomic gas condensates are dilute so that the effectof interatomic interactions can be included perturbatively in a mean-field approximation to a highdegree of accuracy. The strength of the interatomic interactions can be determined independently
from measurements not involving the properties of BECs and so quantitative comparisons between
the theory and observed behavior of the condensates can be made.
The importance of the presence of interactions between atoms in the atomic gas
condensates was readily demonstrated by experiments such as those measuring the density profile,
average energy per particle, collective excitation frequencies, and stability of BECs [12]. The
presence of atom-atom interactions in the condensates caused all of these quantities to be very
difference from their values calculated in the ideal (i.e. non-interacting) limit. The mean-field theory
developed to describe such dilute condensates did an excellent job of describing the results of all theexperiments performed, at least in the limit of zero temperature.
Given the importance of the atom-atom interactions in the properties of BECs, it isunderstandable why it would be desirable to tune the magnitude of these interactions throughchanging the value of a using a Feshbach resonance. Since the value of a can be changed, it ispossible to experimentally measure some property of a BEC as a function of scattering length. It isalso possible to investigate how sudden changes in a can influence the dynamics of BECs. The
strength of the interactions can be increased to test the range of validity of the mean-field descriptionof BECs, and regions where condensates cannot be formed (e.g. large negative scattering lengths)
can be reached by creating a stable condensate and then changing the scattering length.
Chapter III summarizes Bose-Einstein statistics and the BEC phase transition. It discusses
the formulation of the mean-field description of the condensate, both from a Hartree-Fock formalism
and a many-body physics perspective. Also, the approximations that are made as part of the meanfield theory are discussed.
1.1.4 Tools of the Trade: 85Rb Bose-Einstein Condensation Apparatus (Chapter IV).
The apparatus used to create and study 85Rb BECs was the same as that used to create and study 87Rb

7even if the optical and magnetic trap parameters used to collect and cool the atoms were quite
different. There were several steps necessary in any experiment we performed.

85

Rb atoms werecollected and cooled in a magneto-optical trap, then loaded into a purely magnetic trap,
evaporatively cooled to the desired temperature, and then usually manipulated by changing themagnetic field in some way. After that the atoms were released from the trap and measured using
either absorption imaging or fluorescence detection. Chapter IV discusses how all of these things
are performed in our apparatus, as well as describing the hardware of the apparatus itself. The
calibrations of the magnetic field, magnetic trap, and imaging are also discussed in detail. Finally,
the atomic ground and excited state structure of 85Rb is described in Chapter IV.
1.1.5 Resonant Magnetic Field Scattering in Cold 85Rb (Chapter V). Our first task was
to locate the value of the magnetic field where the Feshbach resonance occurred.

This wasperformed by measuring the time that trapped clouds of 85Rb atoms took to reach thermal
equilibrium. Since the equilibration occurred through elastic collisions, the equilibration time could
be used to determine the elastic collision rate and hence the magnitude of the s-wave scattering
length as a function of field. We observed the equilibration time to change by four orders ofmagnitude with a several gauss change in the value of the external magnetic field, clearly indicating
the presence of a Feshbach resonance. The magnetic field location and width of the Feshbachresonance are sensitive functions of the exact details of the Rb-Rb interatomic potential, and so themeasured location and width of the Feshbach resonance improved the knowledge of the Rb-Rb
interatomic potential used to calculate cold collision properties. Chapter V details our equilibration
measurement, specifying both the value of a as a function of magnetic field near the Feshbachresonance and discussing the constraints that are placed on the Rb-Rb interatomic potential as aresult of this measurement.
1.1.6 Magnetic Field Dependence of Ultracold Inelastic Collisions Near a Feshbach
Resonance (Chapter VI). Once our characterization of the elastic collision cross section near the
Feshbach resonance was completed, we initially tried to create a BEC of 85Rb atoms. Since a large
elastic scattering rate is in general good for efficient evaporative cooling, we went to the magnetic
field with the largest value of the s-wave scattering length and tried evaporatively cooling there. The

8results were very unfavorable due to the presence of large heating and loss rates. From this werealized that the inelastic collisions that led to loss and heating rates of the trapped clouds of atoms
needed to be measured as well as the elastic collisions in order to optimize the evaporation
performance and create an 85Rb BEC. Also, the characterization of the inelastic collision rates in
non-condensed clouds of atoms would provide useful information in the future when performing
experiments with BECs. If any loss was observed from a BEC, the inelastic collision rates must be
known in order to ascertain if the loss is due to some mechanism associated with the physics of the
BEC or whether it is simply due to the inelastic collisions that are occurring between the atoms in
the cloud. Chapter VI contains our measurement of the inelastic collision rates near a Feshbachresonance. We found that the inelastic collision rates near a Feshbach peak had a complicatedstructure, but in general when the magnitude of the scattering length was large the inelastic collision
rates tended to be large as well. The magnitude of the inelastic collision rates in 85Rb was found to
be orders of magnitude greater than in 23Na, 87Rb or 7Li even at magnetic fields where the loss rates
were near a munumum, suggesting that the evaporative cooling of 85Rb would be difficult ascompared to those atoms.
1.1.7 Stable 85Rb Bose-Einstein Condensates with Widely Tunable Interactions(Chapter VII). Armed with the knowledge of how the elastic and inelastic collision rates scaled as afunction of magnetic field, we proceeded to evaporatively cool the 85Rb atoms as best we could. The
value of the magnetic field determines both the elastic and inelastic collision rates and so there is no
way to independently adjust the ratio of the two. Therefore, the value of the magnetic fields at
which the evaporation occurred had to be carefully selected. We were eventually able to create
BECs of 85Rb, but because of the relatively high inelastic collision rates the number of atoms in thecondensates was limited to about 15,000. The evaporative cooling never performed as well as for87

Rb, but it was good enough to reach the BEC transition temperature.
Chapter VII describes evaporative cooling of 85Rb atoms down to BEC temperatures. It

also contains two other measurements. The number of atoms lost in rapid sweeps across the highloss region of the Feshbach resonance was measured. Also, the change in the spatial extent of the
BEC ground state was measured as a function of scattering length with a > 0. Agreement was found9
between the observations of the BEC ground state spatial extent and the predictions of mean-field
theory over the range of values of a that were measured.
1.1.8 Collective Excitations and an Initial Search for Beyond Mean-field Effects(Chapter VIII) Once the elastic and inelastic collision rates were characterized as a function ofmagnetic field and the BECs of 85Rb were created, the real fun began.

One of our firstmeasurements was to examine the collective excitation frequencies of condensates at large values ofscattering length. It was predicted that the mean-field predictions for these frequencies would break
down at large values of a and the measured frequencies would be different due to effects notincluded in the mean-field theory. We observed deviations from the mean-field predictions, but wefound that the ability to tune the value of the scattering length does come with a catch. The magnetic
fields with large values of a were also the fields with large loss and heating rates. As the BECs
heated up, the collective excitation frequencies shifted as well, making the determination of the
precise magnitude of the frequency shifts due to beyond-mean-field effects difficult. Chapter VIII
details the collective excitation frequency measurements that we performed and what limits on thevalidity of the mean-field theory we were able to derive from them.
1.1.9 Controlled Collapse of Bose-Einstein Condensates with Attractive Interactions(Chapter IX). When the atom-atom interactions are attractive (a < 0), BECs are predicted to
become unstable. The onset of instability (the BEC “collapse”) is also predicted to depend on the
product of the number of atoms in the condensate and the magnitude of a, so by measuring thecritical number of atoms above which the BECs became unstable as a function of field we were able
to test the predicted stability criterion. We found that the onset of instability did indeed scale withthe product of |a| and the number of atoms in the BEC, but that the instability was occurring at aslightly smaller critical number than that predicted by theory. The details of this measurement arecontained in Chapter IX.
1.1.10 Dynamics of Collapsing Condensates and Future Experiments (Chapter X).The
last chapter (Chapter X) looks forward to future experiments with 85Rb condensates. We havealready performed measurements of the dynamics of BECs suddenly made unstable by a rapidchange in the scattering length to an attractive (a < 0) value. We observed many interesting features,10such as an explosion of atoms from the collapsing BEC and an unexplained rapid loss of atoms fromthe BEC. This work on the dynamics of the collapse is still being developed, but the main features
are discussed in Chapter X. Also included in Chapter X are possible future directions of researchusing 85Rb BECs. There are many possible studies waiting to be undertaken in 85Rb, and this thesis
should serve as the opening chapter in an exciting set of experiments.
1.1.11 Notation. Most often in this thesis, Bose-Einstein condensates will simply bereferred to as “condensates.” The gas of atoms trapped in the magnetic confining potential is usuallyreferred to as a “cloud of atoms” or an “atom cloud,” but due to habit it may be referred to as the“gas of atoms” or the “trapped atoms” or even a “thermal cloud” if it does not contain a condensate.
Quantities that are vectors are represented by bold characters in the main text.

When vector

quantities occur in an equation, an arrow above the vector quantity is used to indicate that it is avector. Any value of magnetic field is quoted in gauss (G). Scattering lengths and other quantities
associated with atom-atom collisions are often expressed in atomic units. For reference, the atomic
unit of length is the Bohr (a0), which is equal to 5.292 x 10 11 m. The s-wave scattering length isoften expressed as “a” and the value of the magnetic field is often expressed as “B.”
1.1.12 Prior Publication of Work in this Thesis. Several of the results that are describedin this thesis have been published in various technical journals. The work in Chapter V appears in
Refs. [13,14]; Chapter VI is in Ref. [15]; Chapter VII in [16]; Chapter IX in [17]; and parts ofChapter X in Ref. [18].

Chapter II
Scattering Theory and Feshbach Resonances
2.1 Introduction.
In the studies of the physics of Bose-Einstein Condensates (BECs), the collisions between
atoms play a crucial role. Collisions are necessary for the creation of BECs through evaporative
cooling, determine the lifetime of trapped cold clouds of atoms, and have a profound effect on mostof the properties of the BECs themselves. Indeed, Bose-Einstein condensation in 85Rb is interesting
primarily because in 85Rb it is possible to change the atom-atom collision properties in a controlled
fashion. Because of the low temperatures of the atom clouds in magnetic traps, the description ofcollisions is simplified. In fact, a single parameter and a few phenomenological rates completely
describe all of the relevant collision rates in a cold enough sample. It is the purpose of this chapter
to sketch the relationship between the atom-atom interaction potential and these collisionparameters.
In the trapped atom clouds that we study, the trapped clouds of atoms are dilute enough thatbinary collisions dominate (with one exception --- the three-body recombination rate can besignificant). The collision between two atoms at these cold temperatures is described by nonrelativistic quantum scattering theory. A full calculation of the scattering rate between two atoms
with a sophisticated model of the interatomic potential is beyond the scope in this thesis. Instead, a“toy model” interatomic potential that has a much simpler structure is used to illustrate the basic
physics of the real potential. After outlining the basics of non-relativistic quantum scattering theory,a square-well potential is used to illustrate the relationship between scattering and bound states.
Next, a twist is added to the square-well potential to demonstrate the phenomenon of a Feshbachresonance [19,20,21], the ability to change the scattering rate between two atoms by changing an
external field. Finally, the “toy model” is related to the actual Rb-Rb interatomic potential. Along12
the way, the various quantities needed to describe collisions between cold atoms will be defined: thes-wave scattering length, and the phenomenological two- and three-body inelastic collision rates.

2.2 Basic Scattering Definitions.
The basic idea of scattering is illustrated in Figure 2.1. A particle, starting from far away,
approaches a finite-ranged potential.

After interacting with the potential, the particle can be

deflected from its original trajectory. In classical mechanics [22], the trajectory of a particle can be
described exactly as long as its initial conditions (position and velocity) are known. Often, however,
the initial conditions are not known exactly. For instance, consider a monochromatic beam ofparticles incident on a target. The initial velocity of the particles would be known since the beam ismonochromatic, but the impact parameters of the particles in the beam would be spread over a range
if the beam possessed a transverse extent in space. When the initial conditions of each individual
particle is not known or a range of initial conditions must be considered, the quantity of interest is
the differential scattering cross section, dσ/dΩ.
The differential scattering cross section is defined by the flux of particles reaching a
detector situated both far from the scattering potential and in a direction dΩ divided by the flux ofparticles in the incident beam. In other words, dσ/dΩ is just the probability that a particle chosen at
random from the initial beam will be one which scatters into direction dΩ. The total cross section(σ) is determined by integrating dσ/dΩ over all 4π steradians and it is equal to the probability that a
particle in the beam will be scattered by the potential. Classically, dσ/dΩ is determined by solving
the equations of motion for all possible values of the impact parameter. The impact parameters that
result in a particle scattering in the direction around dΩ are then known and the flux in direction dΩ
can be determined by appropriately averaging over the impact parameter and initial velocity
distribution of the incoming beam.
So far, only scattering of a particle off a potential, and not a particle off another particle, hasbeen considered. It is possible to reduce the particle-particle scattering problem to a particlepotential problem by switching to the center-of-mass frame of the colliding particle pair and solving
for the motion of the relative coordinates. This straightforward change is covered in most scatteringtexts [22], and I will not review it here.

13

dΩ

Figure 2.1. This figure illustrates the elements involved in a scattering calculation. A beam ofparticles is incident from the left and then strikes the scattering potential, which is shown as the graysphere. The potential deflects the direction of the particles in the incident beam, and a certain
fraction of the particles will be scattered in the direction dΩ, where they will strike a detector (therectangle). In scattering theory, the precise motion of all the particles over their entire trajectory(including their motion in the region of the scattering potential) is not the end result of thecalculation. Instead, the goal of a scattering calculation is to compute the quantity dσ/dΩ, thefraction of atoms in the initial beam that are scattered into direction dΩ.

14
In quantum mechanical scattering [23], the exact trajectory of a particle cannot even in
principle be determined exactly since the impact parameter cannot be known exactly.

In thequantum case, dσ/dΩ is the most that can be possibly determined, and so dσ/dΩ is the goal of thescattering calculations.

By solving time-independent Schrödinger equation (TISE) with theappropriate boundary conditions, dσ/dΩ can be calculated for a given potential.

2.3 The One-dimensional Scattering Problem---Using the Time-Independent
Schrödinger Equation to Determine the Scattering Amplitude.
2.3.1 Motivation. In learning about scattering theory as part of the understanding of thephysics involved in our work with 85Rb, I found many concepts to be non-intuitive and difficult tounderstand. The goal of this and the following sections is to build up a picture of how calculationsof the phase-shift of time-independent wavefunctions are related to two particles scattering off one
another. This picture is built up by considering simple systems first, and then adding complexity ineach step. It is not meant to be a full or rigorous treatment, but rather one that demonstrates therelevant physics at each step and then makes analogies to more complicated situations. This section
is intended for those who are not familiar with non-relativistic scattering theory, and the reader who
is already familiar with scattering theory can skip to the last section for a discussion of the scattering
properties of 85Rb. The examples presented in sections 2.3 through 2.5 can be found in most
textbooks that treat non-relativistic quantum mechanical scattering, but they are repeated here toestablish a basis for discussing the physics of Feshbach resonances.
2.3.2 Gaussian Wavepackets. To begin the discussion of scattering, consider a particle
moving in free space. For simplicity, only motion in one-dimension will be considered in thissection. In quantum mechanics, a particle is described by a wavefunction. A reasonable choice for aparticle wavefunction is a gaussian wavepacket peaked around a particular momentum.

A

wavefunction that describes such a wavepacket with width d, initial central position x0, and average
momentum p0=hk0 at time t=0 is given byΨ(x,t = 0 ) =1d ð

exp (ik 0 x −(x − x0 )2
)
2d 2

(2.1)

15
In order to examine the time evolution of this wavefunction, there are two choices. One is to simply
solve the time-dependent Schrödinger equation with this wavefunction as an initial condition. The
other method (which is of course completely equivalent) is to project the initial wavefunction onto
the eigenstates of the TISE. Once that is done, a factor of exp(-iEt/h), where E is the energy of theeigenstate, is associated with each eigenstate to trace the time evolution.
In free space, the one-dimensional Hamiltonian (H) consists only of the kinetic energy term
h2k2/2m. Solving the TISE

HΨ = −h2 ∂2
Ψ = EΨ
2m ∂x 2(2.2)

1exp(ikx)2π(2.3)

yields the eigenstates (each with eigenvalue k)ø k ( x) =Projecting the initial wavefunction onto these eigenstates and including the time evolution factorgivesΨ ( x, t ) = ∫ dk ∫ dx ø k ( x)Ψ ( x,0) exp(*

− ihk 2t
)
2m

(2.4)

The integral over dx is the one that determines the projection of the initial wavefunction onto thek-th eigenstate, and the integral over dk sums over the complete set of eigenstates. Performing the
integral in equation (2.4), and then squaring the absolute value of the wavefunction to get theprobability density of the particle results in

hk0t 2)m )Ψ ( x, t ) =
exp(
ht 2
π 4d 4 m 2 + h 2 t 2
d2 +(
)
2 md
2

2d m

− ( x − x0 −(2.5)

As time moves forward, the wavepacket moves to the right from position x0 with a velocity v=hk0/m.
The wavepacket also spreads out due to the position/momentum uncertainty relation.
2.3.3 Scattering from a Step Function. A simple scattering process is the scattering of aparticle off a step function in one-dimension [24]. Figure 2.2 shows the structure of the stepfunction potential. A wavepacket incident from the left will strike the potential, and part of the

16
wavepacket will continue to the right and part will be reflected back to the left. The calculation of
the amplitudes of the reflected and transmitted wavepackets is analogous to finding dσ/dΩ for thissimple scattering event. Throughout this discussion it is assumed that the incoming wavepacket is a
gaussian sharply peaked around k0.
Again, it is possible to evaluate the time-dependent Schrödinger equation directly to findthe time evolution of the wavepacket as it scatters off the step potential. Instead, the same strategy
used in the previous section in equations (2.2)-(2.4) is used again. The initial wavefunction is
projected onto the eigenstates of the TISE and then a phase factor exp(-iEt/h) is associated with eacheigenstate. The only difference is that the step potential has a different set of eigenstates than thefree-particle case.
The eigenstates of the step-function Hamiltonian are simple to calculate, but some caremust be taken in setting the boundary conditions (i.e. the behavior of the wavefunction far from thescattering potential). In fact, the appropriate choice of boundary conditions is very important inevaluating all scattering problems. Left of the step function (x<0), it is possible to have wavepackets
moving both to the right (the incident packet) and to the left (the reflected packet). Right of the step
function (x>0), it is only possible to have wavepackets moving to the right (the transmitted packet).
There is no source for any wavepackets coming far from the right and striking the potential, and thatfact is included in the boundary conditions.
The solutions of the TISE with the appropriate boundary conditions areø k ( x) = A exp(ikx) + B exp(−ikx), k =

2mE
,
h2

x<0

(2.6)

and

2m( E − V0 )2
= k 2 − kc ,2h(k − k ′)2k
B=
A, C =
A(k + k ′)(k + k ′)ø k ( x) = C exp(ik ′x), k ′ =x > 0 (2.7)
(2.8)

17

Incident
Wavepacket

Transmitted
Wavepacket

Reflected
Wavepacket

V0

Figure 2.2. This figure illustrates the scattering of a wavepacket from a step potential. The incident
wavepacket is shown at time t=0 and the reflected and transmitted wavepackets are shown after theincident wavepacket struck the step potential. The arrows indicate the direction of propagation ofeach of the wavepackets.where k>0. Implicit in these definitions is that the incident wavepacket issufficiently peaked around k0 so that there are no significant components at k < (2mV0/h2)1/2. The
term whose coefficient is A corresponds to a wave moving to the right with x < 0, and so itcorresponds to the incident wavepacket. Likewise, the terms whose coefficients are B and C
correspond to the reflected and transmitted wavepacket, respectively. The values of A, B, and C are
fixed for a given value of k by matching the eigenfunctions and their first derivatives at x=0:

18

Just as was done in equations (2.2)-(2.5), the initial (incident) gaussian wavepacket isprojected onto these eigenfunctions. By adding the phase factor exp(-iEt/h) to each eigenstate,summing over the eigenstates results in the following evolution of the wavefunction
hk 0t 2
hk 0t 2))− ( x + x0 +
m
m
N
B
)
exp(
),
Ψ ( x , t ) = N 1 A exp(+2
h 2t 2h 2t 22(d 2 + 2 )2(d 2 + 2 )d m
d m
h qt 2q)− (x −
x0 −
k0
m
),
,
= N 3 C exp(
h 2t 2 q 2
22(d + 2 ) 2
d m k0− ( x − x0 −

x <0

(2.9)

x > 0

where q=(k02-kc2)1/2 is the central momentum of the wavepacket when x>0, and N1, N2, N3 containphase factors (|N1|=|N2|=|N3|) important only when there is significant overlap between the various
components in the wavefunction (i.e. when the wavepacket is near the origin).

B and C are

evaluated in equation (2.8) at k=k0. Equation (2.9) is not exact, but was derived in the limit that theinitial wavepacket is sharply peaked around k0 and x0 goes to.

The three terms in equation (2.9) describe all of the components involved in the scattering
event. The term associated with A is the incident wavepacket and it begins at x0 at t=0 and thenmoves to the right. The term associated with B is the reflected wavepacket and begins at –x0 andmoves to the left. The last term associated with C is the transmitted wavepacket that begins at
x0*kc/k0 and moves to the right. Since x0 is large and negative, when t=0 the exponential factors
associated with B and C are nearly zero (note that Ψ has different definitions depending on whether
x is positive or negative). The initial wavefunction is simply that of a gaussian wavepacket moving
to the right at velocity v=hk0t/m. At very large times after the scattering from the potential has
occurred (t >> x0m/hk0), the exponential factor associated with A is nearly zero and the factors
associated with B and C are nonzero. The wavefunction then describes the motion of the transmitted
and reflected wavepackets after the scattering event has occurred. To compute the transmission andreflection probability, it is only necessary to integrate |Ψ|2 at large times for x<0 and x>0, andcompare that to the integration of |Ψ|2 at t=0. Performing the integration shows that the probability

19of transmission is (q/k0)*(|C|2/|A|2) and the probability of reflection is (|B|2/|A|2), where again
equation (2.8) for B and C is calculated using k=k0.
So, in the end the transmission and reflection probabilities only depend on the coefficientsof the TISE eigenstates of energy hk02/2m when it is solved with the appropriate boundary
conditions. It was not necessary to actually determine the full time evolution of the incident
wavepacket. When an incident wavepacket is projected onto the eigenstates of the TISE, the overlap
with any particular eigenstate is determined by the part of the eigenstate wavefunction that
corresponds to the boundary condition for an incoming wavefunction.

The amplitude of theboundary conditions corresponding to the outgoing wavefunctions then controls the future behaviorof the wavepacket. While the computation of the transmission and reflection coefficients have only
been derived in this particular example, this result is quite general. The scattering process, which iscertainly a dynamic one, is well described in a time-independent formalism.

2.4 Scattering in Three Dimensions.
2.4.1 Comparison to One-dimensional Case. While the three-dimensional case isnaturally more complicated than the one-dimensional case, the method of solving the scattering
problem is still the same. Ideally, the TISE is solved with the appropriate boundary conditions andthe resulting amplitudes associated with the parts of the eigenstate corresponding to the incoming
and outgoing waves are used to determine the scattering probability dσ/dΩ. In practice, there are
two complications. First, the boundary conditions in three dimensions are more complicated thanthose in one dimension. Second, it is rarely possible to completely solve the TISE exactly, even forthe simplest potentials. Therefore, approximation methods are employed. At low collision energies,
appropriate for the work presented in this thesis, the scattering problem can be simplified
significantly through the use of partial waves --- projecting the incoming and outgoing
wavefunctions onto an angular momentum basis.
2.4.2 Boundary Conditions in Three Dimensions. In three dimensions, far from thepotential, the TISE is solved with the following boundary condition:rexp(ikr )Ψ (r ) = exp(ikz ) + f (θ , φ ),r →∞r(2.10)

20
This wavefunction satisfies the free space TISE in three dimensions. The first term represents theincident particle and is simply a plane wave. As discussed in the previous section, an incident
wavepacket can be built up in terms of incoming plane waves, and so the first term in equation(2.10) is associated with the incident wavepacket. The second term represents the outgoing wave
resulting from the scattering off of the potential at the origin. The variables θ and φ represent thepolar and azimuthal angle of r with respect to the origin. The function f(θ,φ) represents thescattering amplitude. Evaluating the probability density |Ψ|2 of particles scattered in the dΩ (i.e. θ,φ)direction shows that dσ/dΩ is equal to |f(θ,φ)|2. Therefore, solving for the scattering amplitudef(θ,φ) is equivalent to solving the scattering problem.

The wavefunction (2.10) is in generalincomplete since it does not consider other internal quantum numbers, such as spin. The inclusion ofother states can have significant effects on the scattering properties of a potential, as will bedemonstrated in section 2.6. For now, structureless particles will be considered.
For the rest of this section, elastic scattering is considered in detail.

When elastic

scattering occurs, the internal states of the colliding pair are unchanged. Energy conservation thenrequires that the energy of the pair before and after the collision must be the same. Collisions thatchange the internal state of one or both of the colliding pair are called inelastic collisions. Inelastic
collisions will be discussed less extensively and with less detail below.
2.4.3 Partial Waves. The plane-wave basis represented in equation (2.10) is not the only
basis that can be used to describe the scattering wavefunction far from the scattering potential. For
cold collisions, it is useful to switch to a partial wave basis [23]. In the partial wave basis, theimplicit (kx,ky,kz) plane-wave quantum numbers are replaced by the quantum numbers (E,L,M)
where E is the energy, L is the angular momentum, and M is the projection of the angularmomentum onto the z-axis. Both of these bases are complete.
The reason that it is advantageous to switch to the partial wave basis is that for sufficiently
cold collisions, only a few (or even only one) partial waves contribute to dσ/dΩ. To see why this istrue, it is helpful to write the TISE radial equation for a spherically symmetric potential V(r) [25]: − h 2 d 2 L( L + 1)h 2
++ V (r )u E , L (r ) = Eu E , L (r )

2
2
2mr
 2 µ dr

(2.11)

21
where µ is the reduced mass, L is the angular momentum quantum number and Ψ=uE,L(r)YLm(θ,φ)/r.
The second term in equation (2.11) represents an angular momentum barrier. For a finite-ranged
potential V(r), this angular momentum barrier will prevent high angular momentum (high L) partial
waves from penetrating into the potential region. These partial waves cannot then contribute to thescattering amplitude.
For cold enough collisions, only the L=0, or s-wave, partial wave will contribute to thescattering cross section. One way to demonstrate this fact is to consider the classical value of theclosest approach of a particle to the center of the potential, the impact parameter. For a typical casefor 85Rb, a collision energy of 100µK between particles with L=2h, (d-wave partial wave, the second
lowest angular momentum partial wave possible for two indistinguishable atoms) will have a closest
approach xmin, calculated using L=µvxmin. For this case xmin=285 a0 (atomic units), much greaterthan the range of the Rb-Rb interatomic potential (see the last section in this chapter). So for cold
temperatures, only s-wave scattering will contribute significantly to dσ/dΩ.
To relate the partial wave basis to the scattering boundary conditions represented inequation (2.10), it is only necessary to expand the plane wave and outgoing spherical scatteringwave in the (E,L,M) basis. I will not cover this transformation here. For a succinct description see
Ref. [26]. The end result is that, for a spherically symmetric potential (and therefore no dependenceon φ), the scattering amplitude f(θ) isf (θ ) =1 L =∞∑ (2 L + 1) exp(iδ L ) sin(δ L ) PL (cos(θ ))k L =0(2.12)The scattering amplitude is then described by a series of partial wave phase shifts δL. Probability
conservation requires that all of the phase shifts be real quantities [26].
To illustrate how a phase shift can be related to a scattering amplitude, consider s-wave
scattering off of a spherically symmetric potential. There are two possible solutions to the equation
for uE,0(r) (2.11) with L=0 far from the scattering potential V(r):sin(kr ),cos(kr )

k=

2 µE
h2

(2.13)

22
Since the radial function of Ψ is uE,0(r)/r, only sin(kr) is regular at the origin. Therefore, in theabsence of a scattering potential, uE,0(r) must be equal to sin(kr). In the presence of a scattering
potential, the wavefunction must still be regular at the origin. However, far from the origin, the freespace wavefunction must be matched to the wavefunction that evolved in the presence of thescattering potential. Since the free-space wavefunction is not being matched at the origin, but rather
at a distances beyond the range of the potential, it is no longer required that there be no cos(kr)component. In general, the wavefunction at large distances is c1sin(kr)+c2cos(kr) = c(sin(kr+δ0))= c(cos(δ0)sin(kr)+sin(δ0)cos(kr)). The phase shift δ0 can be thought of as measuring the ratio of theincoming wavefunction to the scattered component of the wavefunction. If V(r)=0, then δ0=0 andonly the incoming wave is present at large distances. As δ0 increases, the wavefunction no longer
matches only the incoming wave, indicating that scattering is occurring. When δ0 = π/2, the ratio
between the scattered wave and the incoming wave must be a maximum.
2.4.4 Phase Shift and Cross Section. Once all of the partial wave phase shifts are known,
the differential and total cross sections can be computed using (2.12). If only s-wave scattering
contributes, then the differential and total cross sections aredσ
1= 2 sin 2 (δ 0 )dΩ k4π
σ = 2 sin 2 (δ 0 )k(2.14)

In other words, s-wave scattering is isotropic and dσ/dΩ does not depend on θ. The dependence ofthe cross section on sin(δ0) can be understood in light of the discussion in the previous section---a
factor of sin(δ0) is associated with the irregular (cos(kr)) s-wave basis function. Note that equation(2.14) only applies to collisions between particles that can be distinguished from one another. See
subsection 2.9.6 and Chapter V for the modifications that must be made for identical particle
scattering.
The restriction that δ0 be a real quantity means that the maximum cross section is limited by
the wavevector k of the incoming wavefunction. This limit is known as the unitarity limit, and it canbe a significant limit on the scattering rate even at low collision energies.

23
One other quantity of interest is the s-wave scattering length (a). It is defined as−1= k cot(δ 0 ),ain the limit k → 0(2.15)

Plugging the definition (2.15) into the equation (2.14) and taking the limit that k goes to zero meansthat dσ/dΩ = a2 and σ = 4πa2. In elastic scattering, δ0 tends to zero as k goes to zero such that the swave scattering length is a finite constant. The significance of the s-wave scattering length will be
discussed below when the square well potential is treated.

2.5 The Born Approximation.
2.5.1 First Born Approximation. An alternative approximation to the use of the partial
wave expansion and the inclusion of only a few (or one) or the partial waves is the Born
Approximation. In contrast to the partial wave expansion, this approximation tends to work muchbetter as the collision energy increases and so it would seem to have limited utility in understanding
cold collisions.

It turns out, however, that solving the scattering problem within the Born

Approximation is necessary to compute the interaction energy due to the interatomic potential in a
BEC, and so I will present it briefly here.
The starting point, again, is the TISE.

In this case, the free-space Hamiltonian(H0=p2/(2m)) is explicitly separated from the scattering potential V. Ψ represents the full solution to
the TISE and Φ represents the free space eigenstate, both with the proper scattering boundary
conditions and.

(H 0 + V )Ψ = EΨ(2.16)

H 0 Φ = EΦ

(2.17)

Equation (2.16) can be rewritten as [23,26]

Ψ=Φ+

V
Ψ
E − H 0 + iε

(2.18)

where the small parameter ε will eventually be taken to the limit in which it is zero. It is put in only
to handle the divergence in the denominator. Projecting equation (2.18) explicitly onto the positionbasis, applying the scattering boundary conditions (2.10), and then evaluating the resulting

24
expression far from the scattering potential results in the following integral equation for Ψ(x)

r r
r
r 
exp(ikr )  − 1 2m
exp(−ik ′ ⋅ x ′) r
33
Ψ ( x ) = exp(ikz ) +(2π ) ∫ d x′
V ( x ′)Ψ ( x ′) .(2.19)

2
3/ 2
r
(2π )

 4π hEquation (2.19) cannot be evaluated directly since Ψ(x) appears under the integral sign on the rightside of the equation. However, it can be evaluated approximately by assuming that the incoming
wavefunction does not change significantly in the region of the scattering potential (i.e. thescattering potential is weak enough by some measure). In that case, Ψ under the integral sign can be
replaced by the incoming wavefunction exp(ikz).

Performing this replacement and using thedefinition of f(θ,φ) in equation (2.10) results in the scattering amplituder r rr− 1 2m 3′
f (1) (θ , φ ) =
d
x
exp(
i
(
k
− k ′) ⋅ x ′)V ( x ′),2 ∫4π h(2.20)
rv
where k = kzˆ, k ′ = k {sin(θ ) cos(φ ) xˆ + sin(θ ) sin(φ ) yˆ + cos(θ ) zˆ}This calculation of the scattering amplitude is commonly referred to as the first Born
Approximation.

It is possible to calculate the scattering amplitude beyond the first order bycomputing the variation of the incoming wavefunction in the region of the scattering potential toadditional orders [26].
2.5.2 Range of Validity of the First Born Approximation. There are two ranges where
the first Born Approximation describes the scattering amplitude well. One is high-energy scattering,where the energy of the incoming particle is much greater than the energy scale of the scattering
potential.

This consideration is not too relevant to very cold collisions.

The first Born

Approximation also works well at low collision energies as long as the scattering potential is weakenough. In that case, the second term in equation (2.19) is much smaller than the first and the first
Born Approximation is a good one. The condition that defines a weak potential depends on thepotential, but for an attractive potential it is the roughly the same as the condition that no bound state
forms in the potential [23,26]. Therefore, a weak attractive potential is one that is not close todeveloping a bound state.

25
2.6 Scattering from a Square Well Potential.
2.6.1 Motivation. Now that the methods used to calculate dσ/dΩ have been outlined, it isuseful to consider a potential for which analytical solutions are easy to derive in the low-collisionenergy limit. One such potential is a spherically symmetric attractive square well potential, where
the scattering potential is equal to –V0 if r < R and is zero otherwise. Only s-wave scattering will beconsidered in this section.
Not only will the solution of the square well scattering problem serve as an example for the
method of solving the scattering problem outlined above, it will illustrate several relevant aspects ofthe physics of collisions between Rb-Rb atoms: the relationship between the s-wave scattering
length and the position of the last bound state can be illustrated; the connection between the s-wave
scattering length and the scattering wavefunctions can be discussed explicitly; and the minimum incross section that can occur at finite collision energies can be demonstrated.
2.6.2 Solution of the Time-Independent Schrödinger Equation. The eigenfunctions of
the TISE are simple to determine for the spherically symmetric attractive square well potential.
Since the only scattering being considered is s-wave, L=0 and there is no dependence of theeigenfunctions on the angular variables (θ,φ). The two possible solutions to the radial equation(2.11) are given in equation (2.13). In the region, r < R, only the regular solution is possible so thatthe wavefunction is finite at the origin. For r > R, either solution is possible. For a collision energyE,
2 µ ( E + V0 )sin(k ′r ), k′ =, r < R2hu E (r ) =  c sin(kr ) + c cos(kr ) = c sin(kr + δ ), k = 2 µE , r > R 
2
0
 1

h2

(2.21)

The constants c1 and c2, or equivalently c and δ0, are determined by matching the value of uE(r) and
its first derivative at r=R. The s-wave phase shift (δ0) is then determined by a transcendental
equationk cot(kR + δ 0 ) = k ′ cot(k ′R)(2.22)

26
Once δ0 is known, the s-wave scattering length (see equation (2.15)) and hence dσ/dΩ and σ are also
known.
It is also possible to calculate the bound states with zero angular momentum of the squarewell potential as well. The only change is in the boundary conditions, where the eigenfunctions
must go to zero as r goes to infinity and also be finite at the origin. The eigenfunctions are then
2 µ ( E + V0 ), r<R
 sin(k ′r ) , k ′ =2hu E (r ) = 
2µ Ec exp(− kr ), k=, r > Rh2

(2.23)

Since there is only one adjustable parameter, c, and there are two conditions that must be satisfied tomatch the wavefunctions at R, bound states will only exist for certain values of the energy E.
2.6.3 Scattering Length and the Position of the Last Bound State. There is a definite
relationship between the position of the last bound state in the potential and the scattering length a.
Figure 2.3 shows the scattering length of the square well as the depth of the well is increased.
Initially, the scattering length decreases as the potential gets deeper. As the potential begins to get
deep enough to form one bound state, the scattering length decreases more rapidly, until it diverges
once the potential forms a bound state. As the potential continues to get deeper, the scattering length
becomes positive, but then decreases until another bound state forms in the potential.
This behavior of the scattering length with respect to the last bound state in the potential isquite general. The reason that this is so can be seen qualitatively by examining the structure of thescattering wavefunction with E close to zero. Figure 2.4 shows scattering wavefunctions of nearlyzero energy. Without the presence of a scattering potential, the wavefunction rises nearly linearly
from a value of zero at the origin. When the potential is present, the wavefunction rises linearly far
from the potential, but it no longer appears to intercept the r-axis at the origin and instead intersects
at some finite value of r. This value is the s-wave scattering length, and so the s-wave scattering
length represents the last zero in the scattering wavefunction. When a bound state exists with nearlyzero energy, the wavefunction of the bound state outside the potential is nearly flat. Since inside therange of the potential the wavefunction of the bound state and a near zero energy scattering state arepretty much the same, the value and derivative of the two wavefunctions at R must also be nearly the27

Scattering Length (arb. units)

10

0

-10
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Potential Depth (arb. units)

Energy

0
-100
-200
-300
0

1

0

1

0

1

R

Figure 2.3. The upper figure shows the functional form of the scattering length as a function of thedepth of the attractive square well potential (V0). Each divergence in the scattering length isassociated with the formation of an L=0 bound state in the potential. The lower figure shows thesquare well potential at several different depths (solid line). The dotted line shows the energies of
the L=0 bound states in the potential. From left to right, the scattering lengths shown in the lower
figure are 4.55, 0.09, and 1.48 in the arbitrary units shown in the upper plot.

28

Figure 2.4. This figure shows attractive square well scattering wavefunctions in the limit of zerocollision energy for successively deeper depths of the square well. Actually, the wavefunction itself
is not plotted; rather the function uE(r) that is related to the wavefunction as defined in the main text
is what is shown. The range of the potential is set to be equal to 1 (note that the scale for r varies
from plot to plot in the figure). The potential in (a) has no bound state and a scattering length of –0.56. The potential in (b) has one bound state near zero energy and a positive scattering length of
9.4. The potential in (c) has one bound state and a negative scattering length –1.84. The position atwhich the wavefunction outside the potential (r > 1) would intercept the axis is equal to thescattering length. In this sense, the scattering length is equal to the position of the last zero in the
wavefunction in the limit of zero collision energy. The solid line shows the wavefunction, while thedashed line is used to show where the wavefunction at (r>1) would intercept the axis in the negative
scattering length cases.

29
same. The scattering wavefunction must also be flat outside R and therefore the scattering lengthmust be large. This similarity between bound state and scattering wavefunctions at R allows theestimation of the depth of the highest bound state from the (positive) scattering length if a >> R: thebinding energy is approximately h2/2µa2.
Even though the range of the potential, R, and the s-wave scattering length both havedimensions of length, they can be orders of magnitude different in size. Since the scattering
properties are completely determined by the scattering length, two different potentials with the same
scattering length will produce exactly the same scattering in the s-wave scattering limit. In the caseof hard-sphere scattering, (V0 is infinite at r < R, zero elsewhere), the last zero of the bound statemust occur at R, and so the scattering length is equal to the radius of the hard sphere. A potential
with a scattering length a behaves exactly the same as a hard-sphere of radius a. Therefore, thescattering length sets the effective length scale of the scattering potential.
2.6.4 Zero collision cross section at finite collision energy. Figure 2.5 shows the total
cross section (σ) as a function of collision energy for a square well potential with a negative
scattering length. At a finite collision energy the cross section goes to zero. This is because at aparticular energy, the wavefunction at the boundary of the potential has exactly the same value andderivative as in the free-propagation case (i.e. in the absence of a scattering potential). The exact
position of this zero depends on the details of the potential, but a similar behavior occurs in 85Rb,
which has important consequences for evaporative cooling (see subsection 7.1.1). This effect issometimes called a “Ramsauer-Townsend minimum” in atomic scattering theory, especially whenelectron-atom scattering is being considered.

2.7 Square Well Scattering with another Internal Degree of Freedom--- “ToyModel” of a Feshbach Resonance.
2.7.1 General Description. So far, any different internal states of the colliding pair havebeen ignored. At first glance, the presence of any other internal states should not matter as long aselastic collisions are being considered, since in elastic scattering the initial and final internal states of
the colliding pair must by definition be identical. However, internal states that are orthogonal toeach other far from the scattering potential can be coupled by the scattering potential. Moreover, the30potential may not be the same for different internal states. This coupling due to the scattering
potential will project an incoming wavepacket into a superposition of internal states in the region of

Cross Section (σ)

10

1

0.1

0.01

0.001
0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

Collision Energy (arb. units)

Figure 2.5. Demonstration of the zero in collision cross section for a finite collision energy. The
attractive potential used to generate this curve had several bound states and a negative scattering
length. Similar structures can be observed with potentials with a positive scattering length, but thezeros in σ tend to be at higher energies.

31
the scattering potential, and each state in the superposition will acquire a separate phase shift.
When the wavepacket leaves the scattering region, the coupling will reproject the wavepacket onto
the free-space internal state basis.
Because the potentials are different and different phase shifts are acquired, the colliding
pair will in general scatter inelastically in addition to elastically. This is because the reprojection
will often project into internal states different from the initial state. However, this is not always thecase. Away from the scattering potential, different internal states may have different energies, and if
the collision occurs with the colliding pair initially in the lowest energy internal state and with acollision energy below all of the other internal state energies, then conservation of energy will
prevent any inelastic scattering. Even in this case, the coupling to other internal states (so-called
closed channels) due to the scattering potential can affect the elastic scattering, however.
In order to discuss this physics in a more concrete fashion, and to allow the analytic
computation of bound states and scattering properties, the square well potential treated in theprevious section is expanded by adding another internal state. When coupling between the twostates is introduced, the scattering behavior changes radically. In order to allow more freedom in theselection of the scattering length in the model, an additional region of much weaker attractive
potential is added outside R. This addition is justified by the real atom-atom potentials.
It is interesting to consider the case when different internal states respond to an external
field in different ways. In this case, the external field can be used to change the position of the lastbound state in the potential and can therefore dramatically alter the scattering properties of thepotential. Such a change in scattering through the application of an external field is called a
Feshbach resonance [19-21], and such a resonance in 85Rb and its effect on elastic scattering,inelastic scattering, and the properties of BECs forms the subject matter of the rest of this thesis.
By using this “toy model” square well potential with two different internal states, the basic
physics of the Feshbach resonance can be demonstrated. The relationship between the strength ofthe coupling and the “width” of the resonance can be shown, and the connection between theasymptotic bound states in each of the two scattering potentials and the position of the resonance canbe shown explicitly.

32
2.7.2 “Toy model” Hamiltonian. The extra internal state is added to the square wellscattering problem by treating the incoming particle as a two-component spinor. The two internal
states then become spin “up” and spin “down.” A different depth square well is associated with eachcomponent. Only s-wave scattering is considered. The Hamiltonian for the model is−∇2−V −∇r2−V1 −∇r2

∆
0
0


 +

H = r 0
+
2
2
2
  0
  0 −∇ +V + x
∆
−
∇
−
V
+
V
+
x
V
V
x
−
∇
−
+
+
r
in
r
in
r
out
0
1

 
 

r< R
R< r < R0
r >R0(2.24)

where the ∆ is the coupling term, V0 is the scattering potential close to the origin, V1 is the much
weaker potential extended past R, Vin is the difference between the two spin states inside thescattering potential and Vout is the difference between the two spin states outside the potential. The
variable x represents the change in energy due to an applied field, and only the “down” state shiftswith the external field. Vin is defined to be positive, and the collision energy is always kept below
Vin. The appropriate boundary conditions at large r are thenk= Eα sin( kr + δ 0 ) ,u E (r ) = 
, r →∞
 β exp(− k ′r )  k ′ = Vout − E(2.25)and the other boundary condition is that the wavefunction is finite at the origin.
Figure 2.6 shows the scattering length as a function of x for a selected set of parameters.
Two features are of interest. First, the scattering length diverges for a particular value of the external
field x. This is a Feshbach resonance. The divergence is due to the appearance of a bound state in
the potential near zero energy as x is changed. Second, the scattering length is roughly equal to R
away from the resonance. The reason for this is that the coupling (∆) at R between the two different
states projects the incoming “up” wavefunction into a “down” state that is not supported as a boundstate by the “down” potential, and in that case the incoming and outgoing wavefunctions at R are
matched only if the amplitude of the incoming wavefunction in the “up” state is nearly zero at R.
The presence of a bound state near zero energy removes the difficulty in matching the incoming andoutgoing wavefunctions and allows for the variation of the scattering length.
Figure 2.7 again shows the scattering length as a function of x, but in this case V1 is not set
to be equal to zero. The presence of the weak potential shifts the phase of the wavefunction and the

33

S-wave Scattering Length

15

10

5

0

-5

-10
0

2

4

6

8

Value of the External Field "x"Figure 2.6. Feshbach resonance calculated using the “toy model.” In this case, the attractive tail ofthe potential was not included. The parameters used to calculate this curve were V0 = 125, R = 2,
V1=0, Vin=8, Vout = 10, ∆ = 10.

34

S-wave Scattering Length200

S-wave Scattering Length

100
0
-100

200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
-400
-500
-600

6
8
10
12
Value of the External Field "x"

-200
-300
-400
-500
-600
-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Value of the External Field "x"Figure 2.7. Feshbach resonance calculated in the “toy model” with the presence of the additional
attractive tail on the Hamiltonian. The parameters for the calculation of the main curve in this figure
were the same as in figure 2.6 except that R0 = 30 and V1= 0.00295. The value of ∆ for the curve in
the inset was set to be 1, but otherwise the parameters were the same as those used to calculate themain curve. The fact that the resonance of the curve in the inset is narrower and the peak in the
scattering length occurs at a different value of x demonstrates that both the width of the resonanceand the location of the divergence depend on the value of the coupling parameter.

35
scattering length is no longer fixed to be roughly the same as the range of the potential. The
relationship between the scattering length and the value of V1 is not straightforward. Both the rangeof V1 and its depth are important. The Feshbach resonance still occurs, with the scattering length
diverging around a certain value of x. Also shown in Figure 2.7 is the dependence of the width of
the Feshbach resonance on the strength of the coupling parameter ∆. The width of the Feshbachresonance is customarily defined as the difference in the value of x between the divergence of thescattering length and the value where the scattering length is equal to zero. From the calculations
shown in Figure 2.7, the scaling of the width of the Feshbach resonance scales roughly as ∆2.
The position of the last bound state in the potential can be discerned from the scattering
length, just as is the case for the simple potentials in section 2.6.3. While value of the external field
is such that the scattering length is positive, there is a bound state just below zero energy, the top of
the “up” potential. If the magnitude of the negative scattering length is large, then a bound state isalmost able to form in the potential, but not quite.
The positions of the bound states in the asymptotic potentials (∆ set equal to zero) giveinformation about the position of the last bound state in the coupled potential. If there is a boundstate in the “down” potential near the collision energy, and its energy can be shifted relative to thecollision energy via an external field, then the resonant enhancement of the scattering via a Feshbachresonance can occur. While the asymptotic potentials are useful in this way, there are importantdifferences between the asymptotic potential and the coupled potential. First, there is a shift in thebound states of the actual potential due to the presence of the coupling ∆. Second, a true bound state
is not possible if the energy of that bound state would be greater than zero, where zero energy isdefined as the lowest energy of all the possible internal states far from the potential. The presence ofa bound state in the asymptotic potential above zero energy is referred to as a quasi-bound state [25].
Because of the coupling between different internal states, any probability in this quasi-bound state
would “leak out” through transitions to unconfined internal states. Quasi-bound states can certainly
play a role in elastic and inelastic scattering, and it is possible to model them as eigenstates with afinite width (i.e. a decay of probability amplitude).

36
In summary, a Feshbach resonance occurs when three conditions are satisfied: there is abound state in a closed channel that is near to the scattering energy; the energy of the states in theclosed channel can be shifted by an external field in a way that is different from the incoming
collision channel state; and there is some coupling between collision channels due to the potential.

2.8 Inelastic Scattering.
As mentioned in section 2.7.1, inelastic scattering occurs when the colliding pair changes
its internal state as a result of the collision. Typically, this change in internal state results in achange of kinetic energy. For very cold collisions, the collision energy is usually smaller than any
internal state energy splitting and so only inelastic collisions that increase kinetic energy are
possible.
The calculation of inelastic scattering cross sections is similar to calculating the elastic
cross section [25]. The boundary conditions need to be altered to include outgoing scattered waves(angular momentum projections of exp(ikr)/r) in different internal states, and then a system ofcoupled differential equations in a form similar to equation (2.11) is solved to determine theamplitudes associated with each boundary condition in the TISE. These amplitudes can then be
related to the differential cross section dσ/dΩ for all of the elastic and inelastic processes.
Unlike elastic scattering, where the cross section tends to a constant at low scattering
energies (see the discussion after equation (2.15)), the cross section of inelastic rates tends to diverge
at low collision energies as 1/k. This leads to a different convention in expressing total scattering
rates in a sample. The elastic scattering rate is expressed as a flux multiplied by a cross section,<n>σ<v>, where <n> is an average density and <v> is an average relative speed (which is
proportional to k). Since the cross section diverges in inelastic collisions, the cross section is usuallyquoted as K2/<v> so that the total scattering rate is <n>(K2/<v>)<v>= <n>K2.
In addition to two-body scattering events, three-body molecular recombination collisions
are also significant. The three-body problem is much more complicated than the two-body problem
and is not nearly as well developed. The current state of theory will be discussed in Chapter VI.
Inelastic three-body cross sections also have a 1/k divergence and so K3<n2> is used to specify threebody collision rates similar to two-body inelastic collisions.

37
2.9 Rb-Rb Interatomic Potential.
2.9.1 Born-Oppenheimer Potentials.

In order to calculate the elastic and inelastic

scattering between Rb atoms, the time-independent Schrödinger equation (TISE) must be solved
with the appropriate boundary conditions and with an accurate description of the Hamiltonian of thecolliding pair of atoms [27]. Since two Rb atoms consist of a total of 74 identical electrons and two
nuclei, all of which have a spin and magnetic moment, the full Hamiltonian is extremelycomplicated. One approximation that is used is the Born-Oppenheimer approximation [28]. The
Hamiltonian can be split into a nuclear and electronic component, and the nuclei are frozen at a
certain internuclear distance R. The electronic eigenstates are then computed as a function of R andthat creates a set of potential energy curves. Since the electrons are so much lighter than the nuclei
and can therefore adjust much more quickly to changes in the internuclear separation, the BornOppenheimer interatomic potentials are an accurate description of the atom-atom interaction
potential.
When the nuclei are close enough to each other (about 20Å), the overlap of the two electron
clouds is an important consideration and molecular concepts must be used to describe theinteractions of the colliding atom pair. The potential energy will depend greatly on whether theelectrons are in a singlet or triplet spin configuration due to the Pauli exclusion principle, since in the
triplet configuration the spatial part of the electron wavefunction must be anti-symmetric and so theoverlap between electrons is minimized in that case.
When the nuclei are farther away, the energy due to the overlap of electrons decreases andthe interatomic potential is then dominated by van der Waals, also called dispersion, forces. As theelectrons move, small fluctuations occur in the charge density surround each atom. In turn, one
atom can polarize the other atom by momentarily creating a dipole moment, and that in turn attracts
the first. The dispersion potential can be expanded in a multipole expansion such as

Vdispersion = −C6 C8 C10−−−KR 6 R 8 R10(2.26)

where R is the internuclear separation and 1/R6 is the leading term for two alkali atoms colliding in
the ground state.

38
2.9.2 Atomic hyperfine interaction. The overlap of the wavefunction of the outer electron
in alkali atoms with the nucleus leads to an additional energy aside from the energy due to theelectronic structure of the two colliding atoms. The magnetic field produced by a spinning nucleus
couples with the magnetic moment of the electron leading to an interaction potential called thehyperfine interaction [29]. The orientation of the magnetic field of the nucleus and the magnetic
moment of the electron depends on the spin of the nucleus and the electron respectively, and so thehyperfine energy only depends on the total angular momentum of the electron and the nucleus
summed together. The ground state structure of 85Rb discussed in section 4.2 contains the details of
this interaction for that case. The energy scale of the hyperfine interaction is approximately 150 mK
for 85Rb.
2.9.3 Comparison of Rb-Rb Interaction Potential with the “Toy Model.” The energy
scale of the hyperfine interaction, while much greater than the typical cold collision energy, is muchsmaller than the molecular energy terms discussed in the subsection 2.9.1. It is therefore only
important when the two atoms in the colliding pair are far apart. However, while the energy of thehyperfine interaction depends only on the total electron and nuclear angular momentum, the energy
due to the overlap of the two colliding atoms’ electron clouds depends on only the electron spinorientation, not on the nuclear spin orientation. This means that the interatomic potential will couple
different hyperfine internal states (defined far from the region of electron overlap) at close range.
This is the same situation that was incorporated into the “toy model.” The point at which
the overlap between electron clouds becomes important in Rb-Rb collisions corresponds to theposition R in the toy model. Incoming colliding Rb atoms are projected from the hyperfine basis
into the electron singlet-triplet basis and different singlet and triplet scattering phases are acquired.
At “R”, the atoms are reprojected back into the hyperfine basis. While the true Rb-Rb potential is
not as sharp as the toy model, there is a well-defined region where the singlet-triplet basis becomes amuch more natural one than the hyperfine basis [30,31]. Just as was in the case with the toy model,
in general the reprojection back onto the hyperfine basis would lead to inelastic scattering since thesinglet and triplet phases are usually different. This process is called spin-exchange and can be an
important consideration in atom-atom collisions.

39
If the overlap of the electron clouds was the only interaction, then the s-wave scattering
length would likely by limited to be roughly equal to the radius at which the overlap became
significant (in the absence of a bound state near zero energy). But the dispersion potential, equation(2.26), acts like the extra attractive part of the potential introduced into the toy model. The presenceof this part of the potential allows the scattering length to take values other than “R”.
Feshbach resonances are also possible in the same way as they were in the toy model
potential. Of course, the Rb-Rb potential is much more complicated, but the idea is still the same. If
two atoms are colliding in a lower energy hyperfine state, then the potentials that exist between
atoms in a higher energy hyperfine state may contain bound states close to the collision energy. The
spin composition of the colliding state and the state in the higher energy hyperfine potential aredifferent, and so the shift in energy due to the Zeeman effect with the application of an external
magnetic field is also different. It is then possible to change the relative energy between the twopotentials just as was demonstrated in the toy model, and a Feshbach resonance would exist in theatom-atom collisions. In 85Rb, the Feshbach resonance that was studied in the work described in thisthesis occurs between atoms colliding in the F=2, mf = –2 hyperfine state. The closed collision
channel responsible for the resonance is a bound state in the F=3, mf = –3; F=2, mf = –1 collision
channel.
2.9.4 Matching the Calculated Born-Oppenheimer Potential to Measured Scattering
Rates. In principle, it would be possible to calculate the Rb-Rb interatomic potential from just the
Schrödinger equation and the total Hamiltonian of the two Rb atoms in the Born-Oppenheimer
approximation. This is complicated, and different techniques are needed for different parts of thepotential, including ab initio calculations and matching molecular spectroscopic data [27]. These
calculations are not accurate enough to correctly predict ultracold collision scattering properties.
Molecular spectroscopy of the upper bound states in the potential is difficult and extrapolating to thelast bound states from the measurement of the lower bound states has proved to be unreliable. In
order to match the potentials to scattering experiments, an additional adjustable parameter is addedin the form of a correction to the inner wall of the singlet and triplet potentials. This parameter isadjusted until the ultracold collisions in a given experiment are reproduced. The position and width

40of a Feshbach resonance are very sensitive to the exact details of the inner part of the potential andso the measurement of a Feshbach resonance tightly constrains the triplet and singlet scattering
phases (see Chapter V).
2.9.5 Magnetic Dipole Interaction and Second-Order Spin Coupling.

Two otherinteractions are important in the consideration of Rb-Rb scattering: the magnetic dipole interaction
and second-order spin orbit coupling. These terms are not very important for elastic scattering, butthey lead to significant inelastic scattering. The magnetic dipole interaction is the coupling between
the magnetic dipole associated with the spin of one Rb atom’s valence electron with the magnetic
field produced by the magnetic dipole of a colliding Rb atom’s valence electron. This interaction is
not spherically symmetric and can couple incoming s-waves to outgoing d-waves (an inherently
inelastic collision). It is relatively weak compared to the other interactions considered, but it does
lift the degeneracy between the different spin projections in the triplet state.
This lifting of degeneracy is mimicked by an effect called the second-order spin-orbit
interaction. If the electron clouds overlap enough, then a modification to the spin-spin interactions
can occur due to indirect perturbative coupling to excited electronic molecular states. This is only
important for heavy alkali atoms, and it is a significant contribution in 85Rb with respect to themagnetic dipole interaction.

Since the second-order spin interaction mimics the effect of themagnetic dipole interaction, the two produce the same effect and cannot be directly distinguishedfrom one another.
2.9.6 Identical Particles and Spin Statistics. Throughout the discussion so far, the spin
statistics and the indistinguishability of identical particles has been ignored.

Both naturally

occurring species of Rb are Bosons, since they have integer total spin. When two Rb atoms in thesame state collide, their indistiguishability results in several factors of two that need to be consideredin calculating the scattering rate. These details are covered in section 5.2.

Chapter III
Bose-Einstein Condensation and Mean-Field Theory
3.1 Overview
3.1.1 Summary of the Chapter. Bose-Einstein condensation is a phase transition that
occurs in gases composed of particles with Bose statistics, which are those with integer spins. It
happens at low temperature and is characterized by a macroscopic occupation of the lowest energy
quantum state. This macroscopic occupation must happen as a consequence of thermodynamics, theidentical nature of the particles in the Bose gas, and the fact that there are no restrictions on thenumber of particles in any quantum state (unlike Fermions). The first part of this chapter describes
the thermodynamic considerations that lead to Bose-Einstein condensation and discusses thecoherence properties of Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs), both in the absence of any atom-atominteractions.
The presence of atom-atom potentials (such as those discussed in the previous chapter) has
important consequences for the properties of a BEC.

In fact, the magnitude and sign of theinteratomic potential determine, among other things, the size, collective excitation frequencies,
stability, shape, and expansion energy of a BEC. The full solution of the Schrödinger equation is
impractical for more than a few atoms, and so the atom-atom interactions are treated in mean-field
theory. Here, mean-field theory is discussed briefly in the context of the Hartree approximation, andan equation for the ground state of a BEC with interactions is obtained.
Rather than using the Hartree language familiar to many atomic physicists, it is also
possible (and equivalent) to use the formalism of many-body physics to describe BECs. This
formalism is well suited to discuss the next-order corrections to the mean-field theory, and thosecorrections are discussed in a qualitative fashion. This is of particular interest in 85Rb BECs since it
is possible, via the Feshbach resonance, to achieve conditions where the mean-field theory is nolonger expected to apply. Finally, the so-called Thomas-Fermi limit is discussed. This limit is42applicable for BECs with large mean-field interaction energy and is often very useful in estimating
the properties of BECs.
It is not my intention to be as detailed in this chapter as in the previous chapter. Instead,
my goal is to present the mean-field equations that describe BECs and qualitatively discuss theirlimitations.

The interested reader is encouraged to consult the references for more detailed

information. An excellent review of Bose-Einstein condensation is contained in Ref. [12].

3.2 The Phase Transition to Bose-Einstein Condensation in the Non-interacting
Limit.
3.2.1 Thermodynamics. The phase transition to a BEC in a gas is the consequence of three
things: there is no way to distinguish two identical particles from one another, there is no limit to thenumber of particles that can be in the same quantum state for particles exhibiting Bose statistics, andin thermodynamic equilibrium the entropy of the system must be maximized. In the treatment in thisthesis, the grand canonical ensemble is used for ease of calculation, even though the microcanonicalensemble is more appropriate for trapped samples since the number of atoms and energy are fixed
quantities. In the thermodynamic limit, which is letting the number of atoms go to infinity while
holding the density constant, the choice of ensemble does not matter when central values arecalculated.

Also, the choice of statistical ensemble has been shown not to be significant forcalculating the fraction of atoms in the BEC [32] aside from small effects due to the finite size of thesample. Given a total energy and number of particles, the entropy of a system of Bosons is
maximized when the occupation number of each quantum state, labeled n, is [33]

fn =

1
E −µ
exp( n
) −1
k BT

(3.1)

where En is the energy of the state, kB is the Boltzmann constant, T is the temperature of the gas andµ is the chemical potential. The temperature and chemical potential can be considered as Lagrange
multipliers that are used to satisfy the constraints of average energy and number of particles while
maximizing the entropy. The temperature is related to the average energy per particle in the gas, and43
the chemical potential is the change in energy of the sample when another particle is added. The
factor of –1 in the denominator of equation (3.1) is associated with the Bose statistics of the gas.
In general, the chemical potential of the gas is negative, and the occupation number ispositive and finite for all the possible quantum states. As the number of atoms in the gas is increasedor the temperature decreased, the chemical potential must increase.

Eventually, the chemical

potential becomes nearly equal to the lowest possible quantum state. The denominator in equation(3.1) is then close to zero and the occupation of the lowest energy state becomes appreciable. At
cold enough temperatures, nearly all the particles will be in the lowest energy state of the system.
This macroscopic occupation of the lowest energy state of the system is referred to as Bose-Einsteincondensation.
BEC is often considered in what is called the homogeneous case. In this case, there is no
external potential present in the gas, and the Hamiltonian is simply the free-space Hamiltonian,
H=p2/2m. The lowest energy state is then p=0. For samples in the thermodynamic limit, theoccupation of the p=0 state is a miniscule fraction of the gas unless the temperature of the sample isbelow a critical temperature. Once the gas is cooled below this critical temperature BEC occurs andthe p=0 state contains a sizable fraction of the number of particles in the gas. There is no spatial
signature of this condensation; in the homogeneous case BEC is a feature only in momentum space.
In the inhomogeneous case, BEC occurs in the presence of an external potential. In thecase of BEC in trapped atomic gases the external potential is that of a simple harmonic oscillator.
Ignoring any atom-atom interaction potential, the single-particle energy states of the system are thenspecified by three quantum numbers, (nx,ny,nz) and the energy of a particular state is

1
1
1


E = h (nx + )ω x + (n y + )ω y + (nz + )ω z 
2
2
2



(3.2)

where the trapping frequency in each direction is specified by ω. Unlike the homogeneous case, thelowest energy state in the inhomogeneous state has a finite spatial extent. In the absence of any
interactions, the ground state is a three-dimensional gaussian whose widths are individually set ineach direction by the strength of the trapping potential in that direction. Therefore, BEC does not44
only occur in momentum space, but it is associated with an increase in density in the center of thetrapping potential.
If the characteristic thermal energy scale kBT >> hω, then the discreteness of the energy
states can be ignored and E can be treated as a continuous variable. For most actual magnetic traps
this is a reasonable assumption. For instance, for 106 87Rb atoms in trap with all the trap frequencies
equal to 2π x 60 Hz, kBTc = 94hω. In our 85Rb traps with 104 atoms and ωx=ωy=2.56ωz = 2π x 17
Hz, kBTc= ~20hω. The total number of particles in a gas in thermal equilibrium can then be
calculated by integrating over all the possible energy states



1
E2
N = N 0 + ∫ dE  3.
E 2h ω xω yω z  exp( − µ ) − 1
0
k BT
∞

(3.3)

The energy has been shifted by removing the zero-point energy so that the lowest energy state is at
E=0. The quantity in the brackets is the density of states and reflects the fact that as the energy
increases there is an increasing number of different combinations of (nx,ny,nz) which have the sameenergy. The number of atoms in the lowest energy state (the number of atoms in the BEC),
N0=(exp(-µ/kBT)-1)-1, has been separated from the integral since the assumption of a continuous
distribution of energy does not properly account for the occupation of particles in the lowest energy
state.
The chemical potential cannot be a positive quantity since the occupation number of thelowest energy state would then be negative. Solving the integral in equation (3.3) with µ=0 resultsin the following relationship31
 k BT  
( N − N 0 ) = 1.202
 
h
ω
ω
ω

  x y z 

(3.4)

The quantity (N-N0) is often referred to the “thermal component” of the gas. Since N0 is a positive
quantity, the maximum number of particles not in the lowest excited state has a limit that depends on
the temperature. In other words, the number of atoms not in the lowest energy state saturates. By
setting N0 to zero in equation (3.4), the critical temperature, Tc, can be calculated in thethermodynamic limit

45
1

1

k BTc = 0.94hω ho N 3 , ω ho = (ω xω yω z ) 3(3.5)

and the fraction of the atoms in the condensate isN0
T3= 1− 3 .
N
Tc

(3.6)

This relationship between temperature and condensate number is shown in Figure 3.1 Comparisons
between this prediction and the measured fraction are in reasonable agreement, especially whensmall effects due to the finite size of the sample are taken into account [34].

1.2

Condensate Fraction (N0 / N)

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

T/Tc

Figure 3.1. The fraction of atoms in the lowest energy quantum state as a function of temperature isshown. This curve is calculated in the thermodynamic limit. The sudden increase in the fraction of
atoms at T=Tc is the phase transition in which a Bose-Einstein condensate is created.
3.2.2 Coherence Properties. Another way of looking at the phenomenon of Bose-Einsteincondensation is to examine the de Broglie wavelength as compared to the interparticle spacing. The
thermal de Broglie wavelength (λ=h/(2πmkT)1/2) is the scale over which the atoms exhibit coherent,or wavelike non-classical behavior. When the interparticle spacing is greater than the de Broglie

46
wavelength the particles do not exhibit coherent behavior and behave like classical particles. As the
product nλ3 (n is the density) increases, the overlap of de Broglie waves increases and quantum
effects become more important. The transition to a BEC is associated with nλ3 ~1. As coherent
objects, BECs have a definite phase [35], and so therefore exhibit interference phenomena [36],particle correlations different than a thermal distribution [37], and superfluid behavior such asvortices [38].

3.3 Effect of Atom-atom Interactions on Bose-Einstein Condensates
3.3.1 Hartree-Fock Theory.

In the absence of any atom-atom interactions, thewavefunction of the ground state (T=0) of a gas of N Bosons in a harmonic trapping potential issimplyr rrrrr
Ψ (r1 , r2 ,K rn ) = ø( r1 ) ø( r2 ) K ø( rN )(3.7)

where ψ(r) is the single-particle ground state of the potential. The inclusion of interactions between
the atoms modifies the ground state (and excited state) energies and also modifies the ground state
wavefunction. Since the atom-atom interactions in general depend on the relative coordinates of all
the particles in the sample, the complete solution of the many-body system is extremely difficult andimpractical.
In trapped samples of atomic Bose gases, the atom-atom interactions are weak enough thatthey can be treated as a perturbation. Even though this is the case, the interactions can be asignificant contribution to the energy of the system, completely able to dominate the kinetic energy,
for instance. Even though the atom-atom interactions can be strong enough to be a significant
contribution to the energy of the system, it is still possible to treat them as a perturbation since there
is a separation in scales between the spatial size of the condensate and the range of the atom-atominteraction. See Refs. [12,39] for details.
Other approximations can also be made because the samples are dilute. First, only binary
collisions contribute significantly and three- and more-body elastic collisions can be almost
completely ignored, with the exception being three-body molecular recombination (subsection
6.1.2.3) which can lead to loss. Second, the independent particle approximation can be used. Rather

47
than trying to solve the wavefunction as a function of all the individual atom coordinates andtherefore all possible relative coordinates, the wavefunction of a single atom is calculated as it
moves through a mean-field created by the atom-atom interactions with all of the rest of the otheratoms. Since all the atoms of the BEC are identical (and are Bosons), the motion of one atom in the
ground state in the independent particle approximation must be the same as the rest and so the orbit
and the potential must be solved in a self-consistent fashion (the Hartree-Fock approximation). The
following discussion closely follows that in Ref. [40].
The total Hamiltonian with binary interactions included isNrr r
H = ∑ H 0 (ri ) + ∑ V (ri − rj )
i =1

(3.8)

i< j

where V is the atom-atom interaction potential and the single-particle Hamiltonian isr − h2 2 m 2 2
H 0 (r ) =∇ + (ω x x + ω y2 y 2 + ω z2 z 2 ) .
2m
2

(3.9)

The trial wavefunction in the independent particle ansatz is

r r
r
r
r
r
Ψ (r1 , r2 ,K rn ) = ø 0 (r1 ) ø 0 (r2 ) K ø 0 (rN )(3.10)

where ψ0 is the single-particle orbital that is to be determined self-consistently. With this definitionof the trial function and the Hamiltonian, the expectation value of the Hamiltonian becomes

ø 0 | H0 | ø 0
N ( N − 1) ø 0 ø 0 | V | ø 0 ø 0+2
ø 0 |ø 02
ø 0 |ø 0r
rr(3.11)
ø 0 | H 0 | ø 0 = ∫ d 3 x ø *0 (r ) H 0 (r ) ø 0 (r )
r
r
r r
r
r
ø 0 ø 0 | V | ø 0 ø 0 = ∫ d 3 x′∫ d 3 x ø *0 (r ′) ø *0 (r ) V (r ′ − r ) ø 0 (r ) ø 0 (r ′).

E=N

The N(N-1)/2 term comes from summing the interaction term over all of the possible pairs in thesample. The ground energy eigenstate can be determined variationally by requiring that the energy
calculated in equation (3.11) be stationary with respect to changes in ψ0(r)*. In other words δE=0
with respect to variations δψ0(r)*. After some algebra [40], it is found that this condition is satisfied
if ψ0(r) is an eigenstate of the equation

48
r
r
r
r
[ H 0 (r ) + V ′(r )] ø 0 (r ) = ε 0 ø 0 (r )
r
r
r r
r
V ′(r ) = ∫ d 3 x′ ø *0 (r ′) V (r ′ − r ) ø 0 (r ′)(3.12)

Here it is has been assumed that ψ0 has been normalized so that <ψ0| ψ0> =1. The evaluation of theintegral V

is somewhat tricky. It is important that the atom-atom interactions be evaluated within

the independent particle approximation. For an extreme example, consider a hard-sphere potential(V is infinite if (r -r) < R, zero if (r -r) > R). Plugging this potential into the expression for V(r -r)causes the integral to be infinite for any nonzero value of ψ0(r), regardless of the size of the hardsphere radius R. This seems nonsensical since even in the limit of an infinitesimal radius R, V
would still be infinite. Or, consider an attractive atom-atom potential that has a zero scattering
length. Even though collisions were not occurring in the sample, V

could still be quite large andnegative.
The reason for these apparent difficulties is that in the independent particle approximation,
no correlations between particles are allowed. In the case of the hard-sphere scattering, in reality
there would be no two atoms that were closer to each other than the radius R. However, there is noway for the independent particle approximation to account for this.

Should the hard-sphereinteractions then just be ignored since there are no atoms closer than the radius R and therefore nocontribution from the atom-atom potential to the energy? This is not correct either, and the reason isthat the presence of the hard-sphere potential causes the wavefunctions of two neighboring atoms tobend so that there is no overlap between the two within the hard-sphere radius. The resulting
curvature of the wavefunctions represents kinetic energy that must be included in the total energy ofthe system.
The solution to this difficulty is to consider a potential that closely reproduces the scattering
properties of the actual atom-atom potential that will work in the independent particle
approximation. In order for this to be the case, the scattering potential should not significantly alter
the incoming wavefunction in a scattering event in the region of the potential. For instance, it ispossible to create a weak repulsive potential that will have the same scattering length as a hardsphere potential. Outside the range of the potential, the scattering wavefunctions in the two cases
will be identical. Inside the range of the weak potential, there is hardly any difference in the

49
wavefunction from the incoming wavefunction and that difference can be ignored for sufficiently
dilute gases. The ability to ignore the change of the wavefunction in the scattering region implies
that the correlations between particle coordinates will not affect the energy of the sample and the
independent particle approximation will accurately describe the mean-field energy due to the atomatom interactions.
The condition that the incoming wavefunction not be significantly altered in the region of
the atom-atom potential is precisely the same condition that guarantees the Born Approximation (seesection 2.5) will be accurate. Therefore, in the calculation of the mean-field energy, the actual atomatom interaction potential is replaced by a different potential. This substitute potential will notpossess a bound state so it can be accurately described in the Born Approximation, and the potential
will be selected so that the s-wave scattering length of the replacement potential, calculated in the
Born Approximation, is the same as the real s-wave scattering length of the actual atom-atom
potential. Since the typical length scale of a scattering event, the s-wave scattering length, is usuallymuch smaller than the spatial extent of the BEC, the specific form of the replacement potential does
not matter. A convenient choice is a so-called pseudopotential [39]:r r 4πh 2 a (3) r r
V (r ′ − r ) =δ (r ′ − r )m(3.13)

This pseudopotential has an s-wave scattering length of a when the scattering is calculated in the
Born Approximation. The Dirac δ-function also simplifies calculations. Once this substitution has
been made, the ground state wavefunctions should be calculated only within a perturbation theory
and not exactly, since in three dimensions, a gas of δ-function particles do not collide. See Ref. [40]for more details.
Plugging equation (3.13) into equation (3.12) results in the following equation for the
ground state of the condensate

− h2 2 m 2 2
4πh 2 a ( N − 1)
2
2 2
2 2
ω
ω
ω
∇
+
+
+
+
(
)
ø 0  ø 0 = ε0 ø 0
x
y
z

x
y
z
2
m

 2m

(3.14)

Again, <ψ0| ψ0> =1. The single-particle orbital that obeys this eigenvalue equation will describe theground state of BEC. The energy of that state will be ε0, which is equal to

50
2
r4
m 2 2 2 2 2 2  r 4πh2a 33* r − h
2
d
x
r
∇
+
ø
(
)
∫ 0  2m 2 (ωx x +ωy y +ωz z )ø 0(r ) + 2m ∫ d x ø 0(r )(3.15)

Notice the factor of two in the denominator of the last term as compared to the coefficient inequation (3.14). The excited states can also be calculated using familiar atomic physics techniquessuch as the Random-Phase-Approximation (RPA) [41].
The dependence of the mean-field interaction term on the s-wave scattering length hassome interesting consequences. Even though two atom-atom potentials may be similar, the atomatom interaction energy in a BEC for the two cases can be quite different. For instance, compare87

Rb BECs with 85Rb BECs at B~0. In 87Rb-87Rb collisions the scattering length is positive and so

the mean-field interaction energy term is positive and the atoms in the BEC tend to repel each other.
In 85Rb-85Rb collisions, the only difference in the potential is due to the small effect of the change inthe hyperfine structure and some small isotopic shifts and so on the potential looks very similar to
the 87Rb-87Rb case. However, for 85Rb-85Rb collisions the scattering length is negative and so themean-field interaction energy in negative and the atoms in the BEC attract each other, exactly
opposite of the case in 87Rb.

Even a potential that is purely attractive can lead to repulsive

interactions between atoms.
Of course, the mean-field treatment is not exact and must eventually break down. The
conditions of validity are discussed in the subsection 3.3.3 and in Chapter VIII.
3.3.2 Many-body Physics Formulation. While the Hartree-Fock approximation may be
more familiar to atomic physicists, the formalism of many-body physics can also be used to describe
BECs with atom-atom interactions. Non-relativistic quantum field theory [42] has been extensively
developed for use in a variety of condensed matter systems and has a rich history of describing BEC.
In fact, this formalism is found in the vast majority of theory papers discussing BEC. After a brief
description of the mean-field equation in the many-body formulation, corrections to the mean-field
picture will be discussed.
Second quantization is employed in the formalism of many-body quantum field theory.
The Hamiltonian is formulated in terms of creation and annihilation operators Ψˆ † ( x ) , Ψˆ ( x ) . The
effect of the creation (annihilation) operator is to create (annihilate) a particle at position x. These

51
operators operate on states |n0,n1,…,nx,…> where the integers n0,n1,…,nx,… specify the number ofparticles which occupy each single-particle orbital ψ0(x), ψ1(x), …, ψx(x), …, which form acomplete, orthonormal basis themselves. The single-particle basis is usually chosen to be a solutionof the Hamiltonian in the absence of particle-particle interactions. For instance, the ground state of a
non-interacting Bose gas with N particles in a harmonic potential (a BEC) is |N,0,0,…> where ψ0(x)is just the single-particle ground state of the simple harmonic oscillator.
The basis states |n0,n1,…,nx,…> with different occupation numbers are orthogonal to eachˆ ( x ) annihilates a particle, the expectation value < Ψ̂ > is normally zero. However,other. Since Ψ
this is not the case when a Bose-Einstein condensate is present. In that case Ψ̂ cannot annihilate theground state, due to spontaneously broken symmetry in the ground state [42]. The expectation value< Ψ̂ > then acquires a finite value. The operator Ψ̂ can then be decomposed as the sum Φ+ ĉ , suchthat < Ψ̂ >=Φ. The quantity Φ is a classical field having the meaning of an order parameter and isoften referred to as the wavefunction of the condensate. The condensate density n(r,t) is then fixed
through the relation n(r,t)=|Φ(r,t)|2.

The quantity ĉ represents the quantum fluctuations ofΨ̂ around its mean value. In strongly interacting systems, ĉ is not negligible and a description ofΨ̂ is inaccurate if it is ignored. However, in dilute systems, ĉ is a small quantity and Ψ̂ can be

replaced by its mean value Φ with a high degree of accuracy. The behavior of the BEC can then be
described in a mean-field treatment through the computation of the evolution of the parameter Φ.
In order to determine this mean-field evolution, it is necessary to first compute the timedependence of the operator Ψ̂ . The second-quantized Hamiltonian for an interacting gas (throughthe potential Vint) in an external potential, Vext, is2ˆ † ( xr )  − h ∇ 2 + V ( xr )  Ψˆ rHˆ = ∫ d 3 x Ψext 2m ( x) +r r ˆ r ˆ r
1 3 3 ˆ† r ˆ† r
d x d x′ Ψ ( x ′)Ψ ( x )[Vint ( x ′ − x )]Ψ
( x ′)Ψ ( x )∫2(3.16)

where only binary collisions are considered. At this point, the actual particle-particle Vint will be
replaced by a potential that can be treated accurately in the Born Approximation, just as in the52previous subsection. From this point on, the pseudopotential given in equation (3.13) will be used
and its substitution will be justified below.
By applying the commutation relations forΨ̂ † andˆ † (x ) , Ψˆ † ( x ′ ) ]=0,Ψ̂ ( [ Ψˆ ( x ′ ) ]=0, and [ Ψˆ ( x ′) , Ψˆ † ( x ) ]=δ(3)(x-x´) ), the time evolution of Ψ̂ is[ Ψˆ ( x ) , Ψˆ (rr, t )∂Ψˆ , Hˆ
ih= Ψ∂t(3.17)
 − h2 2
ˆ r
4πh 2a ˆ r † ˆ r ˆ r=∇ + Vext (r ) Ψ(r , t ) +Ψ (r , t ) Ψ (r , t ) Ψ (r , t )
m
 2m


[

]

{

}

Taking the expectation value of both sides results in an equation for the time evolution of Φ

ih

{


4πh 2 a∂Φ  − h 2 22Φ Φ + 2 c †c Φ + cc Φ * + c †cc=∇ + Vext  Φ +m∂t  2m


The term}(3.18)c † c is often referred to as the normal density and cc is referred to as the anomalous

density. The normal density includes all of the atoms that are in the gas but are not included in the
BEC mean-field wavefunction while the anomalous density is related the spatial correlation between
the atoms (i.e. the probability of finding two atoms a given distance apart). The last term in equation(3.18) is a three-body term and is usually small enough to be ignored in dilute samples even whenbeyond-mean-field effects are being considered. Ignoring the small fluctuation terms results in the
Gross-Pitaevskii (GP) [43] equation

r
 r
r 2 r
∂Φ (r , t )  − h 2 2
4πh 2 aNΦ(r , t ) Φ (r , t )=∇ + Vext  Φ (r , t ) +
ih
∂t
m
 2m

The normalization of Φ has been changed from equation (3.18)

Φ*Φ d3x=N to(3.19)
Φ*Φ d3x=1 forequation (3.19). The correlations between particle positions are included in the quantum fluctuation
terms and so when they are ignored the result is a mean-field treatment. Just like in the previous
section, care must be exercised when evaluating the interaction term in a mean-field theory, and thatjustifies the pseudopotential substitution made earlier.
determined by the solution to

The eigenstates of equation (3.19) are

53
 − h2 2
 r
r 2 r
r
4πh 2 aN
(
,
)
∇
+
V
Φ
r
t
+
Φ (r , t ) Φ ( r , t ) = µ Φ ( r , t )
ext 
 2m
m


where µ is the chemical potential.

(3.20)

In practice, µ is adjusted so that the Φ has the proper

normalization. The form of this equation is the same as that for equation (3.14) up to the order 1/N,
and so for large numbers both equations are equivalent. With equations (3.19) and (3.20), both thetime-dependent and time-independent behavior of a BEC can be calculated in a mean-fieldapproximation. The GP equation has been remarkably successful in describing properties trapped
atomic gas BECs, such as the ground state size and shape, collective excitation frequencies, and rateof expansion of BECs in the absence of the trapping potential (see Ref. [12]). It has been studied
extensively and is used as the starting point for many theoretical investigations. Throughout thiswork, equations (3.19) and (3.20) were used to predict the behavior of BECs.
3.3.3 Limitations to the GP equation. The reason for the success of the GP equation indescribing the properties of trapped atomic gas BECs is that these samples are dilute. The dilutenessparameter is na3 where n is the density of the sample and a is the s-wave scattering length. As longas this is small, the mean-field description should be accurate.
That na3 should be the diluteness parameter could be seen in several ways.

In theindependent particle approximation, the particles’ wavefunctions in the region of the scattering
potential are not accurate, and so the fractional volume of the sample where the wavefunction is not
being treated exactly is proportional to na3. Since interpreting the mean-field energy as the firstorder term in a perturbation expansion is reasonable, the ratio of the second-order term in theperturbation expansion can then be calculated. When this is done, the condition that the second
order term is less than the first order term is precisely that na3 must be much less than one [39].
Finally, it is possible to calculate the leading order expectation values of the fluctuation termscˆcˆ , cˆ † cˆ , cˆ †cˆcˆ and it is found that they scale as (na3)1/2 [44] as does the leading correction
term to the energy in a perturbation expansion [39]. These calculations are performed for static
homogenous samples and require careful treatment because of the presence of divergences; normallya renormalization procedure must be used. Even though these calculations are performed in thehomogenous case, the relevant excitations occur on a wavelength scale that is much smaller than the54
size of a BEC in the typical inhomogeneous case and the homogenous calculations are expected tobe reasonably accurate [44]. However, all of these calculations are performed in the static case, andthe fluctuation terms are dynamical quantities in general. In principle, it is possible to calculate thetime evolution of the fluctuation terms, even in the inhomogeneous case [45], but the treatment isquite complex and the theory is still being developed.
The GP equation is formulated in the limit of zero temperature, and so corrections are
expected as the temperature of the gas increases. Just as calculating the beyond mean-field effects iscomplicated, including finite temperature effects is difficult as well. In the mean-field picture, theGP equation can be extended to finite temperature by treating the thermal component as a static bath[46], but treating the full dynamics of the thermal cloud/BEC system is much more difficult [47,48].
The difficulty in calculating beyond-mean-field effects and difficulty in calculating finite
temperature effects have a similar origin. The total density of atoms in the gas is given by theˆ >, and that is equal to Φ*Φ +expectation value < Ψˆ † Ψcomponent. At zero temperaturec † c --- the BEC density plus the normalc † c is not equal to zero due to the presence of atom-atominteractions, and the presence of a normal component at zero temperature is referred to as quantum
depletion. At finite temperature, the thermal atoms also form a normal component. Since thenormal component is not considered in a mean-field treatment, mean-field theory is expected to beaccurate only if the depletion is small, and so for strong enough interactions or large enoughtemperatures the mean-field treatment must break down.
Chapter VIII details our first efforts to measure corrections to the GP equation. Additional
discussion on beyond mean-field effects and collective excitations is contained there where it isrelevant to the measurement.
3.3.4 The Thomas-Fermi Limit. For samples with a large enough mean-field interactions,
there is a simplification that can be made. The relative contribution of the mean-field interaction
term is characterized by the dimensionless ratio Na/aho, where aho is the mean simple harmonic
oscillator length

55

aho =

h
mω ho

(3.21)For strong repulsive interactions and large numbers of atoms, this ratio can be made to be very large,
well over 100 in fact. Even though Na/aho is very large, na3 can still be, and in fact usually is, asmall quantity and so the mean-field treatment is still valid.
For a large value of Na/aho the kinetic energy can be ignored since its contribution will besmall. Ignoring the kinetic energy term is referred to as the Thomas-Fermi limit. Equation (3.19)
and (3.20) then involve no spatial derivatives of the order parameter. The ground state of a BEC in aharmonic potential can be easily determined to ber
r 2  m m m n(r ) = N Φ(r , t ) = (µ − Vext ) = (µ − (ωx2 x2 + ω y2 y 2 + ω z2 z 2 )) (3.22)
2 
2 
2
 4πh a 
 4πh a in the Thomas-Fermi limit (the normalization Φ*Φ d3x=1 is still being used). In equation (3.22),
the density is taken to only have meaning where it is positive. Elsewhere, the density is considered
to be zero. The shape of a BEC in a harmonic potential is therefore a parabola in Thomas-Fermi
limit instead of a gaussian as in the non-interacting limit. The chemical potential is determined by
the normalization of Φ to be2hω ho  15 Na  5 .
µ=2  aho (3.23)The Thomas-Fermi limit can also be used to simplify the time-dependent GP equation(3.19). For instance, oscillations induced in the rms widths (bx,y,z) of the parabolic-shaped BEC in
the Thomas-Fermi limit will evolve much like [49]: 15h 2 Na  1
b&&i + ω i2bi =  5 / 2 2 
 7 m  bi bx by bz(3.24)In 85Rb, the Thomas-Fermi limit is sometimes applicable and sometimes not. Since using
the Feshbach resonance can alter the value of the scattering length, the quantity Na/aho can be made

56
small or large regardless of the value of N. When the interactions are strong (i.e. a is large) the
Thomas-Fermi approximation simplifies the description of the condensate.

Chapter IV
Tools of the Trade: 85Rb Bose-Einstein Condensation Apparatus

4.1 Overview
This chapter is devoted to the description of the apparatus used to make all of themeasurements that are detailed in the following chapters. In order to study 85Rb Bose-Einsteincondensates (BEC), the BEC itself must first be created, and that involves cooling a gas of 85Rb
atoms down from room temperature (~300K) to only a few nanokelvin.

This cooling isaccomplished in a two-stage process. The first step uses Magneto-Optic Traps (MOTs) to collectand laser cool the 85Rb atoms down to temperatures around 45 µK. At that point, the MOT is turned
off and the atoms are loaded into a purely magnetic trap. Forced radio-frequency evaporative
cooling is then used to cool the gas, all the way down to BEC temperatures if desired. Once thesample has been created, experiments are performed by changing the bias magnetic field in themagnetic trap in a controlled fashion. The atoms are then released from the trap and imaged using
absorption imaging or counted using fluorescence detection. Each of these four steps is treated inthis chapter in the same format. General principles are discussed first, and then the physicaldescription, control, and calibration of the actual apparatus is described.
The apparatus that we used for these measurements is referred to as JILA II, the samemachine used for several experiments in 87Rb Bose-Einstein Condensation [1]. Since I was not
involved with the experiment when it was built, I refer the reader to Ref. [1] for details concerning
construction and design criteria. Instead, I will focus on how the apparatus was optimized andoperated to create BEC in 85Rb. This machine holds the distinction that it is the only one that has
ever been used to create BECs in two separate species of atoms. In principle, it should be able to beconverted from an 85Rb BEC machine to an 87Rb BEC machine in a matter of hours. While the

58machine has been used to evaporatively cool both species of Rb within a half-hour of each other, wehave not yet demonstrated the ability to create different species BECs on the same day.

4.2 85Rb Atomic Structure
4.2.1 Ground and First Excited States. In order to better discuss the laser cooling, opticalpumping, magnetic trapping and absorption imaging, the atomic structure of 85Rb will be outlined inthis section. 85Rb has 37 electrons, 37 protons and 48 neutrons. All but one of the electrons are inclosed-shell orbits and so there is one optically active electron and the relevant excited state
spectrum consists of excitations of that single electron. The nucleus has a spin I=5/2 which leads tohyperfine structure in the ground and excited states. The quantity F is simply the total angularmomentum of the nucleus and the electrons and is therefore equal to I + J in the standard angularmomentum notation [50].
Figure 4.1 shows the ground state and first excited states. In this experiment, we usedtransitions on the D2 line at 780 nm. Because of the selection rule ∆F=0,±1 in electric dipole
transitions and the magnetic sublevel structure, the transitions from the ground state F=3 level to theexcited state F'=4 is a cycling transition. The transition from the ground state F=2 to excited stateF'=1 transition is not closed, because for a particular polarization of laser light there is always acoherent superposition of magnetic sublevels in the F=2 ground state that cannot be coupled to theF'=1 excited state. Many photons can be scattered on the F=3 to F'=4 cycling transition before an
off-resonant transition to the F'=3 state occurs, allowing the atom to possibly decay to the F=2
ground state and break the cycle. The cycling transition is used both for the absorption imaging andlaser cooling and trapping. Transitions between other hyperfine ground and excited state levels areused to optically pump the atoms into a particular spin orientation.
4.2.2 Ground State Hyperfine Structure and Energy Dependences at High Magnetic
Fields.

Figure 4.2 shows the hyperfine structure of the ground state (see section 2.9.2 for a

description of the hyperfine interaction). This structure is important for these experiments in two
ways. First, it is the F=2 mf= –2 state that possesses the Feshbach resonance and so it was necessary
to prepare a gas of atoms polarized in that state. Second, magnetic trapping uses the Zeeman shift tocreate the trapping potential. In order for an atom to be trapped, it is necessary that the energy of the

59

F´=4
121.6
F´=3
63.4
Trapping
Laser

F´=2
29.4

F´=1

6P3/2
780 nm
F=3
3036

5S1/2
85

Hyperfine Repump
Laser

F=2

Figure 4.1. Rb Hyperfine Structure of the Ground and 3P3/2 Excited State. This figure diagrams
the hyperfine structure of the two states that are involved in the laser transitions used in laser coolingand trapping, optical pumping and absorption imaging. All of the hyperfine level splittings are given
in MHz. The trapping and hyperfine repump transitions used in the MOTs are shown explicitly.
The lifetime of the exited state is 26.45 ns [51]. The level splittings are taken from Ref. [52]

60

F=3

mf = -3

F=2

-2

-1

0

1

2

mf = -2

-1

0

1

2

3

Figure 4.2. Ground State Magnetic Sublevels. The ground state is (and excited states are)characterized by an additional quantum number, mf, which is equal to the projection of the angularmomentum F onto a particular axis. This axis is usually chosen to lie along the direction of themagnetic field at the atom’s location. The hatched states indicate magnetic sublevels that increase inenergy (through the Zeeman interaction) with increasing magnetic field at low magnetic fields. It istherefore possible to trap the hatched states in a purely magnetic trap. The reason that the F=3
positive mf states are trapped while it is the negative F=2 mf states that are trapped is that the
Zeeman energy is determined primarily by the projection of the electron spin alone, and the electron
spin is aligned with the nuclear spin in the F=3 state and opposite in the F=2 state.

61state increase with increasing magnetic field (i.e. that the atom is in a so-called weak-field seeking
state). This means that only a limited number of states can be trapped.
For low magnetic fields, the Zeeman shift can be expressed very simply as E=gFµBBmF,
where µB is the electron magnetic moment, and gF is a factor that depends on the hyperfine state. In
85

Rb, gF = 1/3 in the F=3 state and –1/3 in the F=2 state. As the magnetic field is increased, thissimple relationship no longer holds. The hyperfine interaction is diagonal in the total angularmomentum F basis. The Zeeman energy depends almost exclusively on the electron orientation
since the electron magnetic moment is much larger than the nuclear magnetic moment, and so the
Zeeman interaction is diagonal in the product spin basis where the nuclear and electron spins are
specified separately. Therefore, the product spin basis is the most appropriate for large magnetic
fields where the Zeeman energy dominates the hyperfine interaction energy, while the total angularmomentum basis is the most appropriate for small magnetic fields where the reverse situation is true.
At intermediate fields, the energy eigenstates are a mixture of these two bases.
The Feshbach resonance in 85Rb occurs at a field in the intermediate regime (155 G).
Because the ground state is an S state with no electron angular momentum, it is possible to derive a
simple analytical expression for the energies of the sublevels at any field, known as the Breit-Rabi
equation [50]. While the total angular momentum is not a good quantum number at high magnetic
fields, the sum of the electron spin (ms) and nuclear spin (mi) is always a good quantum numbers.
For any given value of mF=ms+mi, except when mf = ±3, there are two possible combinations of ms
and mi, and the one with positive ms corresponds to the upper hyperfine state. For example, the F=2,
mf= –2 state corresponds to ms= –1/2, mi= –3/2. The other mf= –2 state, the F=3, mf= –2 state, has
ms=1/2, mi= –5/2.
The Breit-Rabi equation that determines the energy of these states (i.e. all the states except
when mf = ±3) isE1
mq =mi + ms = mi ±2=−hν hfs2(2 I + 1)

+ g I µ B mq B ±hν hfs2( g − g I )µ B B
x= Jhν hfs1+

4mq x
2I + 1+ x2 ,(4.1)

62
There is some potential confusion about the sign of gI, the nuclear gyromagnetic factor. Since thenucleus has a positive charge, the nuclear contribution to the energy shift due an external magnetic
field is opposite that of the electron. Sometimes that change in sign is included in gI and sometimes
it is included in the Hamiltonian used to derive equation (4.1). Sometimes the nuclear magnetic
moment is used and sometimes gI is defined with respect to the Bohr magneton (electron magnetic
moment). Just so things are clear, the Zeeman shift used to derive (4.1) is

H Zeeman = ( g J J + g I I ) µ B B(4.2)

and so the opposite sign of the nucleus is included in the factor gI. The various quantities in equation(4.1) are as follows for 85Rb [53] in the ground state:
Term

SymbolValue

Ground State Hyperfine Splitting

νhfs

3.035732439 GHz

Electron Gyromagnetic Ratio

gJ

2.00233113

Nuclear Gyromagnetic Ratio

gI-0.000 293 640

Nuclear SpinI

5/2

Bohr MagnetonµB

9.274009x10-28 J/G

Planck’s Constanth6.626069x10-34 J

Table 4.1: 85Rb atomic structure constants necessary for the Breit-Rabi equation.
The energies vs. magnetic field for three states, the F=2, mf=–2, –1,0, are shown in Figure
4.3. At low fields, both the mf= –2 and –1 states are trapped. As the magnetic field increases, theenergy of both states initially increases linearly, but the rate of increase slows and eventually both
energy vs. magnetic field curves roll over. Since the magnetic moment is given by the derivative of
the energy vs. magnetic field, the magnetic moments both of these two states are decreasing as themagnetic field increases. At about 400 Gauss (G), the mf= –1 state will no longer be magneticallytrapped since the sign of energy vs. magnetic field has changed and the atoms in that state will
become strong-field seeking. Even before this happens, the weaker magnetic moment will make theatoms in the mf = –1 state difficult to trap.

63

-1200

Energy (MHz)

-1400
-1600

-1800
-2000

-2200

mf = -2
m = -1-2400

mf = 0

f

-2600
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Magnetic Field (gauss)

Figure 4.3. The energy of the mf= –2, –1, and 0 state as a function of magnetic field as determinedby equation (4.1).

64
4.3 Magneto-Optic Traps (MOTs)
4.3.1 Doppler Cooling. In an absolute sense, the bulk of the cooling of the room
temperature sample of 85Rb is performed by using MOTs. Much of this cooling comes through themechanism of Doppler cooling. Doppler cooling relies on the mechanical effects of an atom
scattering photons. If a near-resonant laser beam is directed onto a single two-level atom, the atom
will absorb and emit photons, scattering them at a rate [54]:






I I sat
2πΓ 
R=

2 
2 
I
∆ 
 1 + I + 4 Γ  
 
sat


(4.3)

where Γ is the natural linewidth defined as Γ=(2πτ)-1 where τ is the natural lifetime of the excitedstate (26.45 ns for the 85Rb 3P3/2 excited state), Isat is the saturation intensity defined as 4π2hc/6τλ3
where c is the speed of light and λ is the wavelength of the light, and ∆ (in Hz) is the detuning of thelaser from the transition. This scattering of multiple photons will have an effect on the mechanicalmotion of the atom. Each photon carries a momentum with it equal to (hν)/c = hk. When the atom
absorbs the photon, momentum conservation requires that it increase its velocity along the laser
beam by hk/m where m is the mass of the atom.

After absorbing a photon, the atom will

spontaneously decay from the upper state, and when it spontaneously decays, it will emit a photon ina random direction. Over many absorption and emission cycles, the average momentum kick of all
the spontaneously emitted photons will be zero. Since the momentum kicks received from absorbing
the photons from the laser beam will not average to zero, the net effect is an acceleration of the atomin the direction of the laser beam.
Doppler cooling is most easily described in one dimension. If two nearly resonant counterpropagating beams are directed onto a two-level atom, a velocity-dependent force will result. Even
if the two laser beams are the same frequency, the frequencies experienced by a moving atom are
different due to the Doppler shift. Cooling can be arranged by detuning the lasers to the red (lower
frequency) of the resonant transition. In that case, the atom will scatter photons at a higher rate fromthe laser beam towards which it is heading than from the other laser beam. Momentum kicks from

65
that laser that the atom is moving towards will slow the atom, cooling it. This situation is illustrated
in Figure 4.4. The viscous force coefficient can be calculated from the scattering rate by including
the Doppler shift v/λ and the photon recoil momentum:






F πΓhk 
I I sat
I I sat
−
=
2
2 

v
v
 1 + I + 4 ∆ − v λ  1 + I + 4 ∆ + v λ  

I sat
I sat
 Γ  
 Γ 


(4.4)

Doppler cooling is limited in two important ways. First, the act of shining the laser light on
the atoms does introduce a heating rate, often referred to as statistical heating. Perhaps the easiest
way to see the origin of this heating rate is to consider a gas of atoms where all the atoms are
initially at rest. If on-resonant laser light illuminates on the sample from all directions, the atoms
will begin to move. There will be no net motion introduced, but on average an atom will acquire a
speed from the random-walk scattering and emission of photons. This statistical heating leads to atemperature limit on a Doppler-cooled sample referred to as the Doppler limit [55] TD= hΓ/2kB,
about 140 µK for Rb. The second limitation on Doppler cooling is that an atom that is moving
sufficiently fast will not feel a significant viscous force, and so Doppler cooling will only have aneffect on atoms that are already moving slowly.
4.3.2 Sub-doppler Cooling. The previous discussion has so far neglected the internal
structure of the atoms being cooled.

For most alkali atoms, their internal structure leads tomechanisms that can cool the atoms to temperatures significantly colder than the Doppler limit. The
temperature that can be ultimately achieved is only a few times the recoil limit, when again
statistical heating will limit the temperature of the sample.

The recoil limit is given by thetemperature associated with a velocity equal to a recoil of a single photon, Tr=(hk)2/(mkB). For 85Rb
this corresponds to a limit of Tr=400 nK.
These additional mechanisms are generally referred to as polarization-gradient cooling. As
the name implies, the cooling is related to the change in polarization in space that occurs when twolasers with different polarizations are overlapped. There are two distinct mechanisms that havecomparable effects, a Sisyphus cooling mechanism and a mechanism which will be referred to as

66

Scattering Rate(a)Viscous Force ( 10

-20

Ns/m)

Detuning
0.00
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08

(b)

-0.10
-0.12
-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

Atom Velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.4. Frame (a) illustrates how the Doppler shift can lead to an increased scattering rate whenan atom moves towards a red-detuned laser beam. The dashed line shows the frequency of the laser
in the lab frame. The atom on the right moving into the beam sees the frequency of the beam shiftedto the blue – towards the maximum scattering rate. The atom moving away from the beam sees thefrequency shifted even farther to the red. Therefore, the atom moving into the beam scatters photons
faster. Frame (b) shows the viscous force calculated from equation (4.4) with I/Isat= 1, ∆=10 MHz
and the linewidth and wavelength of the transition set to be equal to those of 85Rb.

67“induced orientation” cooling. Both are treated in detail in Ref. [56]. Again, these mechanisms are
considered in one dimension.
The Sisyphus cooling mechanism occurs in the so-called lin

lin polarization

configuration, where two counter-propagating laser beams of orthogonal linear polarization are
overlapped. The polarization of the laser light as a function of position along the axis of the two
beams changes from circularly polarized with one handedness (σ+), to linearly polarized, back tocircularly polarized with the opposite handedness (σ ), to linearly polarized, back to the originalpolarization, and so on. In this section, the handedness of a circularly polarized light beam will be
specified by the transitions that it drives in atoms that are exposed to it, rather than the direction theelectric winds around. A σ+ polarization drives ∆m= +1 transitions and a σ beam drives ∆m= –1
transitions. Atoms with different magnetic sublevels, like 85Rb, will experience different couplings
to the excited state depending on the orientation of the atom and the polarization of the laser light(see Figure 4.5). The presence of the laser light leads to light shifts, which are shifts in the energy ofthe magnetic sublevels. These light shifts are proportional to the coupling strength between the
ground and excited state, and so changing the polarization of the light will lead to different lightshifts.
As an atom in a particular magnetic sublevel moves, it will slow down and speed up in
response to the light shifts induced by the change in polarization. It will spend the most time at thelaser polarization where it is moving the slowest, which is when the light shift is the most positive inenergy. Since it spends the most time at the polarization with the largest positive energy light shift,
it is most likely to scatter a photon at that polarization. If the atom spontaneously decays to the samelevel from which it was excited, it picks up a random momentum kick and nothing else happens. If
it decays to a different magnetic sublevel, however, the light shift of that level will be lower than the
one that from which it was excited. The spontaneously emitted photon in that case has more energy
than the one that was absorbed, and therefore the atom must lose energy and slow down on average.
Another way of looking at this is that when an atom is excited from the top of a light shift potential
and then decays to a different state, it then has to move “uphill” again. Since it is more likely to68scatter from the top of a light shift potential than the bottom, it spends more time moving “uphill”
than moving “downhill” and is cooled by this process.
The second polarization-gradient cooling process is sometimes referred to as “inducedorientation” cooling. This cooling results from the optical pumping of the sample. In this case, thetwo counter-propagating beams have circular polarization, and one is polarized σ+, the other σ .
The polarization of the light at any point in space is then linear, and the direction of this linear
polarization varies in a helical pattern. Since the laser field polarization is linear at any given pointin space (driving ∆m=0 transitions in the frame of the laser’s polarization at a given point in space),an atom that undergoes several photon scattering events will be optically pumped into a magnetic
sublevel state that has a symmetric distribution around mf=0. As the atom moves, the direction of
the linear polarization changes, and in the frame of the laser field the magnetic sublevel state will nolonger be symmetric. The Clebsch-Gordan coefficients (see Figure 4.6) result in the atom scattering
many more photons from the laser towards which the atoms is moving. The lasers again pump theatom into a symmetric distribution, and it is found that the photons necessary to do so comeoverwhelmingly from the beam towards which the atom is moving, and that results in a viscous
force that slows and therefore cools the atom.
Both of these polarization-gradient cooling methods have about the same size of viscous
force, and the size of this viscous force is much greater than the Doppler cooling so that thetemperature of the atoms can be cooled to a few times the recoil temperature. Since polarizationgradient cooling works by scattering at least a few photons within a laser wavelength, atoms that are
moving much faster than several cm/s will not be affected by polarization-gradient cooling.
Therefore the range of atom velocities that can be cooled is much more limited than for Doppler
cooling. Also, these polarization-gradient cooling mechanisms rely on the atom spin orientation, andso the presence of a magnetic field, which causes the atom spin orientation to precess around thefield, will have an effect on the polarization-gradient cooling. Strong enough magnetic fields will
disrupt the polarization gradient cooling entirely.
4.3.3 Magneto-Optic Traps (MOTs). The cooling discussed so far will apply a viscous
force to the atoms, but it does not have any dependence on position and so will not localize the

69

-3

-4

-2

-1

87

100
50

-3

73
66

19

-3

-2

33

-3

-37

-1

46

-43

-2

-48

-2

-53

-3

40

-3

-2

33

-2

25

-1

67
39

-2
-2

-1
-1

-51
-72

-2

-51

0

-1

0

78

-1

-55

0

2

3

54

32

67

2
2

F=3

F=3’

F=2
F=2’

72
51

2

F=2

F=1’

78

63

-55

F=3
F=2’

3

1
-55

3

2

51

1

F=3’

-23

36
-62

F=3

39

1

32

-2

1

0

0

-37

17

62

-36
-62

10

100

65

40

49

42

62

-1

1

30

0

2

-29

52

30

37

2

1

42
49

17

18

0

3
3

33

-31

0

54

-48

25

-29

87

43

1

18

-1

1

F=4’

50

2
22

-53

0

2

48

0

0

10

73

53

-22

-1

1

4

19
66

1

53

-1

-23

60

0

3

33
73

0

48

2

46
76

-1

37

1

60
73

-2

-65

0

-55

1

2

F=2

Figure 4.5. Clebsch-Gordan Coefficients. The transition rate between different pairs of magnetic
sublevels of the excited and ground states depends on the orientation of the electron spin and thepolarization of the laser driving the transition. The matrix elements involved in the transition rate
are proportional to Clebsch-Gordan coefficients that are determined from angular momentum sum
rules, and these coefficients, multiplied by a factor of 100, are shown in this figure. Since thetransitions are proportional to the matrix elements squared, to compare the transition rate between
different pairs of magnetic sublevels the ratio of the square of the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients needs
to be considered.

70
atoms at any point in space. When laser cooling is done in without any spatial confining force in themanner described in the previous subsection, it is referred to as an optical molasses. However, theinternal structure of the atoms can be used to not only create a viscous force, but also a trapping
potential that will trap the atoms at a particular location in space. The way that this is done isthrough using magnetic fields in addition to the laser fields to create the atom trap. Hence the name
Magneto-Optic Trap [57,58]. The general idea is again best illustrated in one dimension. A
magnetic field is created that varies linearly in space. The ground and excited magnetic states will
be shifted in energy by the Zeeman effect. Two red-detuned counter-propagating beams, one with
σ+ polarization and one with σ , illuminate the atoms. Because the σ+ polarization drives only
∆m=+1 transitions, the magnetic field (B) can be arranged so that when the atoms move away fromthe point where B=0 towards the σ+ beam, that beam is shifted into resonance and the σ is shifted
further out of resonance. Therefore, more photons will be scattered from the σ+ beam than the σbeam and the atom will be pushed back towards the point where B=0. In the same arrangement offields and lasers, atoms that move towards the σ will also be pushed back to B=0. This generalbehavior is described in Figure 4.6.
A real three-dimensional trap uses all of the ideas presented in the one-dimensional
examples discussed above. Three orthogonal sets of counter-propagating red-detuned beams with σ+
and σ polarization are detuned to the red and sent into a vacuum chamber. A magnetic field thatvaries linearly in space is applied, and the orientation of the polarizations of the laser beams are
selected appropriately to create a confining force at the position where B=0 [59]. Atoms that are
moving slow enough are cooled by Doppler cooling and then captured by the confining potential.
Once confined, the atoms continue to be cooled, both by Doppler cooling and also by polarizationgradient cooling. The combination of these viscous forces and the confining magneto-optic forces
creates a cold cloud of atoms trapped near B=0.
Besides the laser used to provide the light necessary for the trapping and cooling of atoms
in the MOT, for alkali atoms another laser is required. This laser is referred to as the hyperfine
repump laser. The cycling transition is used for the trapping light, but as was mentioned section
4.2.1, occasionally off-resonant transitions do occur and then the atom can spontaneously decay to71

Energymf=-1

F=1
Excited
State

+1

mf=0

0

mf=+1

-1

νlaserσ+ beam

F=0
GroundStateσ– beam

mf=0

Magnetic
Field

Position
Figure 4.6. MOT Confining Force. In one dimension, a linear gradient in a magnetic fieldcombined with the polarization of counter-propagating trapping beams shown results in a spatiallyconfining force. The example above is for the simplest state structure possible. As an atom moves
from the center (B=0), Zeeman shifts in the excited state will cause the atom to scatter more photons
from the beam toward which it had moved. This results in a restoring force pushing the atom backto the origin.

72

the lower hyperfine state. Atoms in the lower hyperfine state will no longer scatter photons from thetrapping laser and would be lost from the trap if they were allowed to remain in that state. In 85Rb,
this happens infrequently compared to the number of scatters from the trapping beams and a weaklaser can be used to pump the atoms up from the lower hyperfine state back to the upper using thetransition shown in Figure 4.1.
Given the σ+ and σ polarization of the beams, it is tempting to say that only the “induced-gradient cooling occurs in the sample. This is only strictly the case when
the atoms are moving only along one of the beam axes. When moving in any other direction, thechange of laser light polarization with position is quite complex and so both polarization-gradientcooling mechanisms cool the sample. Given the complexity of the light polarization, it is perhaps
surprising that the simple one-dimensional models provide reasonable descriptions of what ishappening in the MOT.
The creation of a BEC relies on increasing the phase-space density, nλ3, of a gas from its
initial value at room temperature. While MOTs are a reasonable first step, they cannot be used tocreate BECs in alkali atoms due to inherent limitations in the MOT. The limitations to temperatures
have been discussed already --- temperatures of only a few times the recoil limit can be obtainedwith the methods described above. There are also limitations to the density as well. Once many
atoms are trapped in the sample, the cloud of atoms starts to become optically thick, and it becomes
likely that a photon scattered from the laser beams will be scattered again on the way out of the trap.
This rescattering of photons leads to a repulsive force (reradiation force) between the atoms, which
limits the density of the sample to less than ~1011 cm-3 [60]. The presence of the laser light also
introduces density-dependent light-assisted losses in the MOT as well [61], and this is anotherlimitation on the density of the atoms in the MOT. At a temperature of 3Tr and a density of1011 cm-3, the gas of atoms is still three orders of magnitude in phase-space density away from the
BEC transition. This simple analysis ignores the fact that this density and this temperature are notsimultaneously achieved in MOTs, since the rescattering of photons also increases the temperatureof the atoms in the MOT as well as limiting their density. For a detailed experimental treatment of

73
the maximum phase-space density in MOTs as well as the relationship between density, laser power,
laser detuning, laser size, and other variables see Ref. [62].
4.3.4 Loading a MOT from a Vapor. Since Doppler cooling does not work very well foratoms that are moving sufficiently fast, it is necessary to have a source of cold atoms that can beloaded into (captured by) a MOT. One possible source is a Zeeman slower [63], a device that uses
laser cooling to slow a thermal atomic beam to speeds that can be captured by a MOT. A much
simpler scheme, and the one that is used in our apparatus, is to load atoms from the low-velocity tailof the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of speeds of atoms in a vapor cell [58]. Loading from avapor results in loading times comparable to loading with a Zeeman slower, and the ease ofoperation of a vapor cell MOT more than makes up for any disadvantage.
The rate at which the MOT will load atoms from the vapor is proportional to the partialpressure of the background gas of the species that is to be trapped. The presence of this background
vapor also leads to a loss of atoms from the MOT due to collisions of the cold MOT atoms with the
hot background gas atoms, and so the loss rate depends on the partial pressure of the trapped species
as well. The loading of the MOT at low pressures can be then described by a simple equation

dN
N
= R−
dt
τ BG

(4.5)

where N is the number of atoms in the MOT, τBG is the inverse of the collision rate between
background atoms and MOT atoms, and R is a loading rate that depends on the available laser
power, size of the laser beams, steepness of the magnetic field gradient, and other factors [58]. If the
background vapor pressure is dominated by the atoms that are being trapped, the number of theatoms in the MOT will be a steady-state number, Nss=RτBG, since both R and τBG are thenproportional to the vapor pressure. In order to achieve reasonable loading times, the pressure in the
MOT chamber should be high enough that the MOT loading time is a few seconds. However, thesesame background atoms will result in loss during evaporative cooling, and so for evaporative coolinga low pressure is desired. These competing factors led to the creation of a Double-MOT system [1].
One MOT at relatively high vapor pressures collects atoms from the vapor. These atoms are then

74
transferred to another MOT in a vacuum chamber that is maintained at much lower pressure. In thelower pressure chamber, the atoms are then loaded into a magnetic trap for evaporative cooling.
If indeed Rb is the dominant component of the background vapor, then the pressure (P) canbe estimated using the relationship1= nb σ v b
τB

(4.6)

where nb = P/kBT is the density of the Rb atoms in the background vapor, vb is the average speed ofthose atoms and σ is the collision cross section appropriate to collision energies at room temperature.
Using a value for σ of 2x10–13 cm2 from Ref. [58] (even though this cross section was determined for
Cs, Rb should be similar), equation (4.6) implies a two second lifetime τB corresponds to 3x10–9 torr.

4.4 The Double-MOT System.
4.4.1 The Role of the MOT. Since a MOT cannot be used to create a BEC, its purpose in
our apparatus is to collect and initially cool a gas of atoms so that they can be loaded into a purely
magnetic trap. The MOT conditions should then be adjusted to produce the best initial conditions in
the magnetically trapped sample. What are these conditions for the best loading into the magnetic
trap? One criterion that has often been used is phase-space density. Since BEC will be achieved
once the phase-space density is increased to a particular value, it makes some sense to use set the
MOT so that the initial phase-space density in the magnetic trap is as high as possible. It has been
our experience in 85Rb that phase-space density can be increased rapidly and efficiently through theuse of evaporative cooling once the atoms have been loaded into the magnetic trap. Rather than try
to simply maximize the initial phase-space density of the atoms loaded from the MOT to themagnetic trap, it is better to improve the conditions needed for efficient evaporative cooling (e.g.
high initial elastic collision rate) at the expense of some phase-space density. This is almost thesame as maximizing the initial phase-space density (the two depend slightly differently on thetemperature of the sample). The criteria for 85Rb then are that the gas should be both dense and cold,
although the temperature is a little more important than 87Rb or 23Na due to the dependence of the85

Rb elastic scattering cross section on collision energy (see section 7.1.1).

75
In order to maximize the MOT performance, the laser detuning, hyperfine repumping, andmagnetic field gradient of the MOT used to directly load the magnetic trap are manipulated inseveral steps. First, the MOT that is used to load the magnetic trap is configured to efficiently
collect a large number of atoms. Next, the laser detuning, hyperfine repumping, and magnetic field
gradient are altered to increase the density and optimize the cloud shape of the gas trapped in the
MOT. Finally, the magnetic gradient is turned off and polarization-gradient cooling is used to lower
the temperature in the sample. Once these steps have been accomplished, there is one more step thatis necessary; the atoms need to be optically pumped so that they are loaded into the trap in the proper
ground state magnetic sublevel.
4.4.2 Vacuum System. A schematic of the vacuum hardware is shown in Figure 4.7. The
Collection MOT chamber is a stainless steel conflat six-way cross. Five two-inch (1.5-inch clear
aperture) diameter windows are mounted on five ends of the arms of the cross to allow five of the six
MOT beams to enter the chamber. The other arm of the cross is connected to a four-way cross. One
arm of this four-way cross has a two-inch window to allow the last MOT beam to enter the chamber.
Through the third arm, an 11 L/s ion pump is connected to maintain a low (~10-9 torr) pressure in thechamber. The fourth arm is connected to a bakeable UHV valve that opens to a conflat where
additional pumps can be attached for use when the vacuum system is being baked out (the “pumpout station”). In addition, there are five other small ports in the chamber. Two of these ports areused to allow monitoring of the collection MOT through an inexpensive CCD camera and aphotodiode that monitors the MOT fluorescence. Two other ports are associated with the transfer ofatoms from the collection MOT to the science MOT. One is connected to the transfer tube, which is
described below, and the other is a window that allows a laser beam to be sent down the transfer
tube. The last port is connected to the supply of Rb. Solid Rb was enclosed in a glass ampoule andthen place into a stainless steel tube that was in turn connected to the collection vacuum chamber.
The ampoule was broken under vacuum to release the Rb, and the partial pressure of Rb in thechamber is then controlled through heating the outside of the stainless steel tube that contains theampoule. A simple needle valve can be closed to isolate the Rb source from the rest of the chamber.
Now Rb getters are considered to be a more convenient source of Rb vapor for loading the MOT as

76

Push
Window

Collection Chamber

To SmallIon Pump

TranRb
Ampoule

sf
er
tu
be

To Stainless Steel“T” and thenLarge Ion Pump
and Ti-sub Pump

Light Collection
Port for MOT
Fluorescence

Science Cell

Figure 4.7. Simple schematic of the double-MOT vacuum system. Each arm of the science cell isround. The circular window on the science cell shown in this side view (and its counterpart on theother side) is, unlike the other directions, at the end of an arm only a few mm long. Hence thescience cell resembles a four-way cross.

77
opposed to solid Rb in an ampoule since their output is more easily controlled and more directional[64]. The construction of this system predated the use of getters for this purpose, and in any case has
functioned well for six years and counting.
The Science MOT chamber is a glass cell that resembles a four-way 1-inch diameter crosswith one end that is flared open (see Figure 4.7). The open end is connected (via glass frit) to astainless steel “T.” The end of the “T” opposite the cell has a 2-inch diameter window to allow oneof the MOT beams into the chamber. The other end of the “T” is connected to a stainless steel
section that contains a titanium sublimation pump. At the end of that section, a 60 L/s ion pump isconnected. Two additional ports extend off the glass cell. One is open and is connected to thetransfer tube. The other port is sealed and is used as an observation port. Five orthogonal surfacesof the glass cell have been made to be flat, providing 1-inch diameter windows for the MOT beams.
These two chambers are connected via a 40 cm long, 1.1 cm diameter stainless steel tube
referred to as the transfer tube. Bellows are connected on each end of the transfer tube to relieve any
stress due to the mounting of the collection and science chambers. This long thin tube only has asmall conductance, approximately 0.4 L/s for air, 0.2 L/s for Rb in the molecular flow regime [65]and allows for differential pumping between the collection chamber and the science chamber. Using
the ion pump speeds listed above and making simple estimates about the conductance from the pumpto the center of the MOT chambers implies that a factor of on the order of 100 between the pressurein the collection chamber and the pressure in the science chamber. This estimate of the differential
pumping is may be too low, however, since the estimate of the conductance of the transfer tube is
probably too high because the molecular flow regime is not applicable. The dominant source ofvapor pressure in the collection MOT is Rb, and any collision of a Rb atom with the wall of thetransfer tube would likely result in the Rb atom sticking to the wall, which is not the situation
associated with the molecular flow regime. However, once the transfer tube does get coated with alayer Rb, the subsequent Rb atoms that strike the wall are not likely to stick and the molecular flow
regime may be the correct one to use after all. In any case, the differential pumping does seem toproduce a pressure difference on the order of a factor of 100.

78
4.4.3 Baking Out the Vacuum System and Vacuum Failures Since 1995. The amount of
Rb in the ampoule was estimated to last ten years [1], and one of the advantages of the Double-MOT
design is that there is no reason to crack the vacuum system for routine maintenance. As the pumps
continue to remove residual outgassing materials from the surfaces in the vacuum system, thevacuum should simply get better and better as time goes on. This was the expectation. The reality,
however, was that since the original bakeout in 1995, the system has been let up to air very briefly
once and the system has been baked out again on two other occasions.
Baking out the system was complicated by our inability to easily remove the magnetic
trapping coils. These coils were put onto the science cell after the initial bakeout, and they are
sheathed in insulating material that cannot withstand temperatures much above 125º C.

Attemperatures near 125º C the insulating material would outgas and coat the science cell windows,
which would in turn degrade the MOT performance. Also, it was not practical to remove themagnets on the science chamber ion pump.
In order to perform the later bakeouts, a turbopump was connected to the pump out station
and all of the optics that were close to the chambers were removed. The ion pumps were wrappedwith nichrome wire surrounded by ceramic beads, and then several layers of aluminum foil wereused to cover the pumps. For the 11L/s pump, the magnets were removed and it was heated to over
300º C. The larger 60L/s pump was lifted ¼ inch off of the optical table to reduce the thermal
the magnets on. Since the nichrome wire was heated using
variacs, the combination of the magnets near the large ion pump and the AC current caused the wires
to vibrate and care had to be taken that they did not short out. The larger sections of stainless steel
were wrapped with nichrome wire as well. Heater tape and then aluminum foil was used on the restof the apparatus except for the glass cell. The temperature of the sections covered by heater tape(transfer tube, upper MOT chamber) was maintained at about 100º C. The glass cell was heated by astandard heat lamp (and again aluminum foil was used to insulate) to 110º C.

The system was

baked for a few days at a time. After the bakeout, it was necessary to heat the Rb ampoule morethan normal in order to produce the same vapor pressure in the collection MOT, a process sometimes
referred to as “curing” the collection chamber.

79
There were two reasons for the additional bakeouts. One of the reasons, while exciting at
the time it happened, is not very interesting. The window on the CCD viewing port of the collection
chamber, for no apparent reason, suddenly sprung a leak. Since someone was present in the lab at
the time, it was possible to shut down the ion pumps before any damage resulted and hook up aturbopump to the pump out station to hold a vacuum. The system was then briefly let up toatmosphere by filling it with dry nitrogen that had been boiled off liquid N2. The faulty window andcollection chamber ion pump were then replaced in a few minutes and the system was sealed,
pumped back down and then baked out.
The other two bakeouts occurred as a response to a slow deterioration of the vacuum in thescience chamber. The vacuum in the science chamber is most easily characterized by the lifetime ofa low-density cloud of atoms trapped in the magnetic trap (see Chapter VI). After the initial 1995
bakeout, the lifetime was about 700 seconds. By 1997, it had dropped to 20 seconds. This was themost dramatic decrease that we observed, although it is not uncommon for the vacuum to degradeslowly over time. The reason for the large drop was traced to a failure of the collection chamber ion
pump. Turning off the ion pump improved the vacuum in the science chamber, so instead ofpumping the ion pump must have been outgassing. It is interesting to note that the failed pump had alarge amount of surface current.
Since the correction of this problem with the collection chamber ion pump and throughother subsequent bakeouts, we have observed that the pressure in the collection chamber limits thepressure in the science chamber, but the relationship is not exactly proportional and there is a delay
between changes in the collection chamber and changes in the science chamber.

Certainly,

maintaining relatively high vapor pressures in the collection MOT for days at a time causes ameasurable decrease in the lifetime of magnetically trapped samples in the science MOT over
several days. Running with a lower pressure in the collection chamber over days will also improvethe magnetic trap lifetimes. Flashing the titanium sublimation pump has never been correlated with
an improvement in science chamber pressure, but gently heating the glass cell with a heat lamp(about 35-40º C) overnight has been observed to lead to improvement.

80
A typical collection MOT fill time is around two seconds, and a typical magnetic trap
lifetime is 400 seconds, a ratio of 200. From equation (4.6) this implies a pressure of ~ 1x10–11 torr
for the science cell, although the loss rates from collisions with unpumped background atoms for a
MOT and a magnetic trap are in general different and so this is only an order-of-magnitude estimate.
This is about the ratio than would be suggested by the differential pumping due to the ion pumps
alone. Also, in the past there was a time when the magnetic trap lifetimes were 3000 seconds, a ratioof 1500 (these lifetimes have not been recovered since the apparatus came up to air). It is appears
that the titanium sublimation pump is providing no useful additional pumping, because when the
lifetime of the magnetically trapped samples decreases, flashing the titanium sublimation pump does
not seem to have any effect.
I speculate that the surfaces of the science cell are effectively pumping Rb. Alkali atoms
have a high affinity for sticking to surfaces [66], so this supposition is reasonable. The day-length
time delays between an increase in the pressure of the collection MOT and a subsequent decrease in
the magnetic trap lifetime in the science cell are also reasonable given our experience with curing thecollection MOT after a bakeout. Since the surface will stop pumping Rb atoms away once a layer ofatoms has already been adsorbed, over time the surface pumping would become less effective.
Heating the cell overnight would drive Rb from the surface and so it would improve the science cell
vacuum as observed. If this scenario is the true cause of the vacuum deterioration over time, thenrunning at lower pressures in the collection chamber and lightly baking the science cell overnightshould reverse any decrease in magnetic trap lifetime.
After the bakeout that occurred after the system was let up to air, the magnetic trap lifetime
was initially only 200 seconds. Over the course of several more days of heating just the science cell,the lifetime improved to nearly 600 seconds.
4.4.4 Collection MOT. The collection MOT is a standard three-beam retro-reflected MOT[1]. Two different external-cavity stabilized diode lasers in the Littrow configuration [67] provide
the trapping and hyperfine repump laser light, although only part of the hyperfine repump laser lightis used for the collection MOT. Efficient collection of atoms by the MOT requires large beam
diameters and high laser intensities [58]. The diode laser used for the trapping light, currently a

81
Hitachi model HL 7851G, only produces 20 mW of output laser power as measured after theexternal cavity grating (which is how all of the laser powers in this chapter will be specified). Thatis weak compared to many other laser systems. The loading rate R in equation (4.5) depends morestrongly on the beam diameter than on the intensity of the laser and so the beams are shaped by apair of lenses to be collimated to almost fill the 2-inch windows of the collection chamber. The
hyperfine light is combined with the trapping light through using a polarizing beam-splitting cube,
and the hyperfine light is shaped by a pair of lenses to match that of the trapping light. After thelight has been collimated, it is split into three directions using large-area beamsplitters.

λ/4

waveplates are used to set the proper polarization of the MOT trapping beams.
The frequency of the hyperfine pump laser, a Sharp LT025MD0 with 7.5 mW of output
power, is locked to the F=3 to F´=3 transition (see Figure 4.1) by using a standard saturated
absorption set-up as a frequency transducer [68]. The hyperfine laser current is dithered at 10 kHz
and a lock-in amplifier is used to create an error signal that is fed back to the grating PZT to hold thelaser frequency at the peak of the saturated absorption signal corresponding to the desired transition.
In contrast, the frequency of the trapping laser is stabilized at a detuning from the cycling transition
by using a DAVLL system [69].

Rather than using the saturated absorption lines, this laser

frequency control scheme uses a magnetic field to induce a rotation of the polarization of the linearlypolarized laser light as it passes through a vapor cell.

The magnitude of the rotation of thepolarization depends on the frequency of the laser and so this can be used as a frequency transducer.
Unlike saturated absorption signals, the polarization rotation signal has a width that is related to the
Doppler width of the gas in the vapor cell, and so it allows a much larger range of frequencies overwhich the laser can be locked (over 100 MHz compared to about 10 MHz for saturated absorption).
The error signal generated from the DAVLL is fed back to both the PZT and the current of thetrapping laser to increase the bandwidth of the frequency control and to allow fast changes in thelaser frequency.
In order to generate the magnetic field needed for the collection MOT, a set of antiHelmholtz coils are used. Anti- Helmholtz coils are simply a Helmholtz coil pair with the current
direction reversed in one of the coils so that the two coils tend to cancel each other’s magnetic field82
between them. The closer the coils are to the trapping region, the less current that is needed to
produce a given gradient. Therefore, the coils are wrapped directly around two of the arms of thesix-way cross. They are on average ~3 cm away from the center of the trapping region, 1 cm inextent, 3.6 cm in diameter, and consist of 10 turns. Magnet wire is used to make the coils, and a 10
A supply at full output is sufficient to supply the current for the anti-Helmholtz pair. The resulting
gradient is 8 G/cm. In addition to the anti-Helmholtz coils, there are three shim coils that are used toshift the location of the zero of the magnetic field and hence the location of the MOT. The threeshim coils are 8 cm in diameter, have between 50-150 turns of magnet wire, and are located about 6
cm from the center of the collection chamber. Each shim coil is oriented along an axis that is
orthogonal to the other two coils.
The maximum number of atoms trapped in the collection MOT when it is allowed to fillcompletely is estimated to be roughly 2 x108 from the fluorescence of the MOT. While loading theatoms from the vapor, the detuning of the trapping laser is 9.5 Mhz to the red of the transition. The
amount of hyperfine repump power is 2.4 mW. The 1/e MOT loading time (see equation (4.5))
depends on the Rb vapor pressure, and is usually set to be about two seconds by controlling the Rbampoule temperature and hence the Rb pressure. The MOT is operated nearly in the Rb-pressure
dominated regime [58], so that increasing the Rb vapor pressure reduces the loading time but does
not much change the number of atoms in the MOT.
4.4.5 Transfer from Collection MOT to Science MOT. Once the collection MOT has
captured Rb atoms out of the vapor, they are pushed from the collection chamber to the science cell
via the transfer tube. The atoms are accelerated down the transfer tube using a laser beam referred toas the push beam. Magnetic guiding is used to prevent the atoms from striking the wall of thetransfer tube, and the atoms are slowed and trapped by another MOT in the science chamber. Afterone load is sent in this fashion, the collection MOT is turned back on to capture more atoms and thecycle is repeated, typically about 50 times. The time that the collection MOT is allowed to fill
between pushes is typically 200 msec.
The creation of the push beam is accomplished through a liquid crystal switch (model
LV300-OEM from Diplaytech, Inc.) that controls the direction of the trapping laser [70]. The liquid

83
crystal switch is simply a waveplate whose birefringence can be near zero or λ/2 depending on theelectric field applied to the crystal. A polarizing beam-splitting cube is used right after the liquid
crystal switch and so depending on the polarization of the laser light hitting the cube, the laser lightwill be directed through the optics that shape the MOT beams or through another path to form thepush beam. Changing the state of the switch has the dual effect of turning off the collection MOT
and turning on the push beam. At the same time the state of the switch is changed, the frequency of
the trapping laser is changed from a frequency good for loading to one closer to resonance (6.8 MHz
detuned), which is good for pushing. Simply changing the set point used in the DAVLL systemchanged the frequency of the laser.
There is a slight gloss in the previous subsection that can be pointed out now. The
collection MOT is not just a three-beam retro-reflected MOT; it has one other beam in addition.
Even when the liquid crystal switch is set to the MOT state, there is some leakage light along thepush beam path. This leakage light is part of the collection MOT as well, and it tends to move thecenter of the MOT towards the transfer tube. We have found that having this extra beam can bebeneficial, and so we have made no efforts to eliminate it.
The push beam is aligned through one of the ports in the collection chamber so that it
passes through the transfer tube. Before entering the chamber, the linearly polarized push beam goesthough a λ/4 waveplate. This is because the push beam actually has two effects. One is toaccelerate the atoms out of the MOT and down the transfer tube, and the other is to spin-polarize theatoms. The atoms will scatter photons from the push beam and accelerate until they either make an
off-resonant transition and wind up in the lower hyperfine state or get Doppler shifted out of
resonance, reaching speeds measured at 12 m/s. Since the transfer tube is long and thin, many of theatoms accelerated out of the MOT would normally strike the wall of the transfer tube and get stuck
there. To prevent this from happening, magnetic guiding is used. The circular polarization of thepush beam spin-polarizes the atoms so that their magnetic moments are aligned in a direction so thatthey can be magnetically guided through the transfer tube.
The magnetic guiding is accomplished through a hexapole field created by a set of six
permanent magnets that are strung down the transfer tube. The shape of the field produced is shown

84
in Figure 4.8. Magnets made of rubber impregnated with rare earth ferromagnetic materials(refrigerator magnet material) are used for the permanent magnets. This material has the advantagethat it is cheap and easy to work with. The size of the field at the surface of the magnets that weused is about 600 G, which is strong enough to stop an atom with a velocity of a few meters per
second.
To optimize the loading of the science MOT we began by achieving the most efficienttransfer of atoms from the collection MOT to science MOT, performed by maximizing the numberof atoms in single load pushed down the transfer tube as measured by the fluorescence of this single
load in the science MOT. Geometrical considerations were useful in getting close to the optimum
adjustment of all the collection MOT parameters. The collection MOT beams were centered on thecollection chamber windows and the retro-reflected beams were nearly overlapped with theincoming beams. Exact overlap resulted in optical feedback that reduced the laser’s frequency
stability. After this initial alignment, the alignment of the MOT beams and the shim coils were used
to position the center of the collection MOT right above the transfer tube. The push beam was thenaligned so that it passed directly down the thin transfer tube. Once this was done, the alignment of
the push beam, alignment of the MOT beams, and the shim fields were walked until the size of asingle pushed load was maximized. The frequencies of the trapping laser used for the MOT and thepush were also independently optimized, as were the orientations of the push waveplate and theliquid crystal shutter. After this optimization, it was sometimes necessary to deflect the push beamslightly if it was going straight down the transfer tube and striking the science cell MOT directly.
This slight offset in angle had a negligible (< 3%) effect on the number of atoms pushed down thetransfer tube in a single shot.
The efficiency of transfer for a single load of atoms is estimated to be 15% with anuncertainty of around a factor of two due to the relatively poor calibration of the number of atoms in
the collection MOT. This push transfer efficiency was found to be sensitive to the distance between
the end of the hexapole guiding magnets and the center of the science cell MOT. Shortening that
distance from 16 cm to 7 cm resulted a factor of two increase in push transfer efficiency. The
extension of permanent magnets towards the science cell has some disadvantages, however. The

85

S
N
N

S

S

N

N
S

Figure 4.8 Hexapole Guiding Fields. Six strips of permanent magnets oriented as shown are sentalong the outside of the transfer tube (shown as the dotted circle). The fields from all the magnets
cancel at the center of the guide and rise steeply near the edges. The lines with arrows show thegeneral direction of the magnetic field.

86

fringing fields from the permanent magnets can disrupt polarization-gradient cooling, hampering thecooling efficiency of the science cell MOT. More importantly, these fringing fields affect themagnetic trap, and the fringing fields from the permanent magnets are not stable at the required mGlevel. This led to complications in the evaporation described in detail in Chapter VII. The current
distance of 7 cm represents a compromise between the push transfer efficiency and the mitigation ofthese other effects. One way to avoid this trade-off would be to use electromagnets for the guiding,but to generate fields of 600G currents of ~50 amps through coils with 75 turns and therefore a fairamount of resistance would be required, and the additional complexity involved was deemed to not
be worth the gain.
The real figure of merit is not actually the single push transfer efficiency but the pushtransfer rate, the number of atoms that move from the collection to science chamber per unit time.
The push transfer rate is a product of the collection MOT loading rate R and the push transfer
efficiency.

Currently, we have a rate of about 3x107 atoms/sec.

We have spent some time

optimizing the push transfer efficiency and cannot seem to improve it past 15%. The MOT loading
rate can be increased through increasing the Rb vapor pressure, with the consequences to the vacuum
discussed in subsection 4.4.3, or through increasing the amount of laser power available for thetrapping beams. This last option would involve increasing the complexity of the laser system used
but could result in a significant improvement in the experiment duty cycle. One potential drawbackof more power is the sensitivity of the liquid crystal to high intensities--- the push/trap switching
scheme may need to be altered.
4.4.6 Science MOT. Unlike the collection MOT, the science MOT is a true six-beam
MOT; no retro-reflections are used. The advantage of the six-beam configuration versus retroreflected configurations is that when the number of atoms trapped in the MOT becomes large, thecloud becomes optically thick and the trapping beam laser light is attenuated. With retro-reflection,
this leads to an imbalance in power between trapping beams. The laser that provides the trapping
light is again an external-cavity stabilized diode laser in the Littrow configuration. The model ofthis laser is a 50 mW Spectra Diode Labs # SDL-5400-G1 laser diode producing 11mW useful
output power. This particular laser has been remarkably good, performing for over seven years. Its

87frequency is controlled using a DAVLL system similar to the collection MOT trapping laser. The
trapping beams are expanded and collimated to 1-inch diameter by a lens pair. A series of polarizing
and non-polarizing beam splitters are used to divide the trapping light into six beams ofapproximately the same power. Again, λ/4 waveplates were used to set the polarization of thetrapping beams. The hyperfine repump light comes from the same laser as the one used for thecollection MOT. The main science MOT hyperfine repump beam (0.4 mW) is combined with thetrapping light by a polarizing beam-splitting cube. In addition to this beam, light is also picked offof the upper hyperfine light path (60 µW) and sent to the science MOT as well. This additional
beam is referred to as the auxiliary hyperfine pump.
The frequency of the science MOT trapping laser is manipulated often during the
preparation of the gas for loading into the purely magnetic trap, and the wide frequency range of the
DAVLL system makes these changes in frequency particularly simple. Rather than using AOMs, it
is possible to change the frequency of the science MOT trapping laser over a range of more than 100
MHz simply by changing the frequency lock servo set point. Since there is feedback to the diodelaser current, changes in the set point then change the laser frequency in less than 100 µs. The main
disadvantage to the DAVLL system is that unlike a peak lock, small drifts can occur in the DC levelof the DAVLL signal and the frequency of the laser will then drift as well. These drifts are
particularly large when the room temperature is changing rapidly. In order to eliminate the effects ofdrifts, the frequency of the science MOT laser is compared to a laser locked to saturated absorption
peak, which is less susceptible to drifts, by performing the following procedure. The hyperfine
pump laser is unlocked from the normal repump transition and then locked to the crossover saturated
absorption peak approximately 60 MHz away from the cycling transition. The hyperfine pump lightis then beat with the science MOT trapping light on a fast photodiode (New Focus DC-125 MHz
Low Noise Photoreceiver), and the beat frequency then gives the frequency of the trapping laser,
allowing for the correction of any drifts that may have occurred.
A pair of anti-Helmholtz coils provides the magnetic field gradient for the MOT. Since it ismore important that the purely magnetic trap coils are closer to the cell than the MOT coils, the antiHelmholtz coils for the science MOT are outside the baseball and bias coils.

The two anti-

88Helmholtz coils are each 12 cm in diameter, 1 cm wide, have 15 turns of magnet wire each and arelocated 3 cm from the center of the science cell. The coils are wired in series and a 30A power
supply is used to supply the current. For normal loading of atoms transferred from the collection
MOT, a current of 17 A implying a gradient of 7.6 G/cm is used. While the coils only get warm to
the touch during normal operation without cooling, it was discovered that the heat being produced by
the anti-Helmholtz coils was causing a drift in the very sensitive evaporative cooling due to changes
in temperature of the nearby magnetic trapping coils. Air-cooling the coils with a fan removed theheat they generated very efficiently and solved this problem.
In addition to the anti-Helmholtz coils, there are three shim coils, all aligned in orthogonal
directions as in the collection MOT. These shim coils are similar in construction to the collection
MOT shim coils, except that their current control is more sophisticated as will be discussed below.
Each shim is actually a double set of coil. The second set of shim coils, referred to as earth shims,
are also made from magnet wire, but they consist of less turns of wire and their current is controlled
independently from the three main shim coils. In fact, the current in the earth shims is never turned
off during the course of the experiment. They are present to null out any ambient fields, such as theearth’s magnetic field. The current through the earth shims is not servoed, but large resistors placed
far from the main apparatus are used to limit the current and protect against current changes due tochanging temperatures of the earth shims. There is also one other coil, the optical pumping (OP)coil. This coil is used to provide a quantization axis for the optical pumping and the absorption
imaging.
The measurement of the science MOT fluorescence was a diagnostic used to determine thenumber of atoms in the MOT. A lens with a focal length of 6 cm was placed directly on the end of
the observation port, approximately 7 cm from the center of the MOT. To provide a known
collection solid angle, a mask with a 5/16-inch diameter hole centered on the lens was also included
between the lens and the trapped atoms. After several mirror bounces and a couple of other lenses,
the fluorescence collected by the lens from the atoms scattering photons from the MOT beams was
focused onto a photodiode (see Figure 4.9). The focus of this system of lenses was checked byremoving the photodiode and replacing it with a CCD camera. The CCD camera was moved until

89

Science Cell

f= 6cm7.1 cm away

f= 16.5 cm,
30.0 cm from the first lens
13.8 cm
PhotodiodeFigure 4.9. Schematic Diagram of the MOT Recapture Fluorescence Collection Optics. The pair ofmirror bounces is necessary to bring the fluorescence light out from near the crowded region next tothe science cell to a place where it can be more easily measured. Not shown in this diagram is the(5/16-inch diameter) mask placed over the first lens to better define the solid angle, among otherthings.

90
the MOT was in focus, and then the photodiode was replaced at the same position as the CCD array.
The number of atoms for small samples can be calculated using the formulas in Ref. [62] and byusing the absorption imaging to calibrate the fluorescence signal. The calibration achieved by the
direct calculation is 2.0x106 atoms per nanoamp of photodiode current, not terribly far off from themore trustworthy absorption imaging calibration 2.5x106 atoms per nanoamp, especially when theuncertainties in the determination of the solid angle and trapping laser intensity are considered. For
large numbers of trapped atoms, the trapping beams become attenuated and it is difficult todetermine the precise number from fluorescence. However, relative measurements still have somevalue and the number can at least be estimated from the calibrations presented above. Of course, dirton any of the optics in the fluorescence lens system can reduce the signal size and it is important tokeep the optics clean. After ignoring the cleaning of one particular mirror for several months, thefluorescence signal dropped by 10%.
In order to load as many atoms as possible in the magnetic trap, it is desirable that as many
atoms as possible are loaded into the science MOT. The number of atoms in the science MOT has
been observed to be limited by two separate effects. The MOT beams are not spatially filtered andhave spatial structure that creates interference patterns in the MOT. Since the density of the atoms in
the MOT is limited due to reradiation effects, adding more atoms makes the MOT physically larger.
Once the MOT gets to be a certain spatial extent, atoms are able to find an “escape route” where theinterference in the MOT beams has caused there to be a direction where there isn’t sufficient
trapping or repump power and the atoms are able to leak out in that direction and escape the MOT.
Usually this limitation can be removed by realigning the MOT beams slightly to change theinterference pattern. The second limitation is due to the finite lifetime of atoms in the MOT. The
lifetime of the atoms in the science MOT is determined partly by the background gas pressure in thescience chamber and partly by the density-dependent loss mechanisms present in a MOT [61]. Since
the science MOT loading rate is fixed at the push transfer rate, eventually the loss rate from the
MOT will equal the loading rate and the number of atoms in the science MOT can no longer
increase. In this case, the maximum number could be increased by improving the push transfer rate.
Conservatively, the maximum number of atoms in the MOT depends on the alignment of the beams

91
but is usually about 7.5x108, where this number was determined without taking into account theeffects due to absorption of the trapping light by the large cloud. The detuning of the trapping laserfrom the cycling transition that is best for the push transfer is 10.0 MHz.
4.4.7 Control of Magnetic Fields, Laser Light, and Laser Frequency. In order toprepare the gas to be loaded into the magnetic trap from the science MOT, the anti-Helmholtz andvarious shim magnetic fields, laser light, laser detuning, and the magnetic trap itself all must be
controlled with timing that is reproducible to better than the millisecond level. This same sort ofcontrol is necessary for the MOT recapture diagnostics, and even better timing is required for theabsorption imaging and optical pumping laser pulses. The timing during the loading and imaging
sequence is controlled by a computer using Labview (version 4.1) and an output board (National
Instruments AT-DIO-32F) that has 32 TTL outputs. These TTL signals are then used to control thetiming of the MOT and magnetic trap loading and imaging sequences. A GPIB board is also used tocontrol a programmable function generator (SRS DS345) and a radio-frequency synthesizer (HP8656B) that are used for controlling the magnetic trap and the forced evaporation respectively. The
discussion of the magnetic trap control and radio-frequency evaporation will be deferred tosubsections 4.8.4 and 4.9.3.
The current Labview-based timing system is adequate, but there are some obvious
improvements that could be made. There are two timing modes that are used. In one mode,
Labview is used to create a string of sequential configurations of all of the 32 TTL outputs. The
state of the TTLs is then updated on a computer clock signal from this string of configurations every
0.1 milliseconds. Within this sequence, the timing is reproducible to about the 1 microsecond level.
This mode is not practical for any time period longer than 10 seconds (100,000 updates) given thetime that computer takes to create and load the sequence of the TTL configurations. For longer time
periods, the built-in software delays included in Labview are used. These built-in delays are only
reproducible at the millisecond level, and so they cannot be used for timing-sensitive applications. A
clear improvement would be to program a timing board so that all of the individual updates were notnecessary.

92
Shutters (Uniblitz LS series) are used to control the laser light being sent to the collection
and science chambers. Since all but one of the laser beams are shaped using a pair of lenses, there isusually a focus of the laser beam where the shutter can be placed. The laser without a focus, theOP/probe laser, is coupled into an optical fiber and so its beam is always small and the shutter can beplaced anywhere. This allows a rapid shut-off of the laser light (faster than 0.1 ms, as fast as 10 µs
for lasers with a smaller focus). Using the more precise Labview timing scheme, it was possible toachieve a timing precision of ~10 µs using these shutters alone. In order to get this precision, asmall focus of the beam was necessary and it was also necessary to move the shutter so that thebeam passed near the edge of the aperture rather than through the center. We also found that it wasnecessary to tilt all of the shutters slightly so that no light was reflected back into the laser, causing
frequency instability through optical feedback.
Two of the lasers have additional controls on their light level.

The collection MOT

trapping laser has the liquid crystal shutter described above. The laser used for optical pumping andprobing (OP/probe), described below, requires very short pulses that cannot be achieved using amechanical shutter. An acousto-optic modulator (AOM) is used both to allow these shorter pulses
and to control the light intensity since that laser is used for two different functions. The timing forthese pulses is controlled by using an SRS DG535 pulse generator that sends TTL signals to rf
switches to turn the AOM on and off and control the intensity of the light pulse. Two rf switches inseries are closed to allow the rf to the AOM to turn it on, while another switch sends the rf power
through one attenuator for the optical pumping segment and a different attenuator for probing. The
rf switches used to control the AOM are not perfect and so a mechanical shutter is used to back up
the AOM control to prevent “leakage” light from the AOM.
Associated with many of the TTL controls is a “level box,” which is an LM399 voltage
reference that is connected to a potentiometer that serves as a voltage divider. An analog switch
controlled by a TTL signal is connected to the output so that the voltage is produced only when the
TTL is high. The laser detunings are controlled by feeding signals from the level boxes to the servo
set point. The magnetic fields are controlled in one of two ways. For the collection MOT fields andthe OP coil, the amount of current is controlled by the power supply providing it, and the level box

93signal is used to saturate the gate of a FET used as a switch. For the science MOT shims and antiHelmholtz coil, the current in each coil is sent through a FET and a 0.5-Ω resistor, which serves as atransducer. The FET gate voltage was controlled by a simple servo to match the 0.5-Ω resistor drop
to a reference signal produced by a level box. This arrangement allowed the fields to be adjusted todifferent values by summing different level boxes together to produce the reference voltage. The
simple servos were put in primarily to simplify the control of the levels and to correct for DC
temperature drifts that occur in the FETs; the AC noise on the coils was not large enough to be aconcern.
4.4.8 CMOT and Molasses, Part I. The conditions for best capture of atoms in thescience MOT are not the same as the conditions that produce the best loading into the magnetic trap.
After the desired load size has been transferred from the collection MOT, the science MOT magnetic
field gradient, hyperfine repump power, and laser detuning are modified to increase the density anddecrease the temperature of the gas of atoms. In this section, the manipulations that were performedon our particular MOT are discussed, but the discussion of the choice of the optimum parameters isdelayed until subsection 4.7.1, after the magnetic trap has been discussed. In general, it is desirable
to increase the density in the MOT and decrease the temperature. The density increase is achieved ina stage referred to as the CMOT (compressed MOT) stage [71], while the temperature is decreased
in an optical molasses stage through polarization-gradient cooling.
The primary limitations to the density are the losses in the MOT, which limit the number,and the reradiation force, which limits the size. Since decreasing the scattering of photons from thetrapping laser will decrease the reradiation force, both increasing the trapping laser detuning fromresonance (see equation (4.3)) and reducing the hyperfine repump power so that the atoms spend
more time in the F=2 state accomplish a reduction in the reradiation force. Both of these changes
come at the cost of the MOT continuing to contain the atoms in the cloud, since a significant
increase in detuning or decrease in hyperfine repump power leads to a loss of atoms from the MOT.
Still, it is possible to produce a transient increase in the density of the sample, and that is goodenough in preparing the cloud for loading into the magnetic trap.

94
During the CMOT stage, the hyperfine repump intensity is reduced from 80 µW/cm2 to 12µW/cm2. This is accomplished by shuttering closed the main science MOT hyperfine repump path,leaving only the auxiliary hyperfine pump beam shining on the cloud. The detuning of the trapping
laser from the cycling transition is increased somewhat, from 10 MHz to 13 MHz. These conditions
are maintained for 30 ms to allow the MOT to settle to its new, higher density. During that time,
10% of the atoms are lost from the cloud. The rms size of the cloud decreases to 75% of its preCMOT size, to an average density of ~1 x 1010 cm-3.
In addition to changing the hyperfine repump power and the trapping laser detuning, theanti-Helmholtz magnetic field gradient was reduced as well, from 8 G/cm to 4 G/cm. This decreases
the effective trap spring constant confining the atoms to the center of the MOT, but it also improves
the region in which polarization-gradient cooling is effective [71]. We found that changing themagnetic field gradient only had a weak effect on the loading of the large science MOT samples
over the range of 4 to 11 G/cm.
After the CMOT stage, the atoms are then cooled in an optical molasses. The antiHelmholtz and shim fields were shut off and the detuning of the trap laser was changed to 56 MHz.
This molasses cooling stage was necessary for two reasons. First, the temperature of the gas in the
CMOT was greater than 120 µK. Second, we found that shutting off magnetic fields while the trap
laser light is present can produce a large amount of transient heating through magneto-optic forces.
After 4 ms in molasses, the temperature of the gas was cooled to about 15 µK. The disadvantage ofthis molasses stage is that the cloud expands in the absence of the MOT confining forces, reducing
its density.
4.4.9 Optical Pumping. After the molasses stage, it is necessary to spin-polarize thesample into the desired spin state, the F=2, mf= –2 magnetic sublevel. This involves two processes:
pumping all of the atoms out of the F=3 hyperfine state, and pumping all of the atoms into the F=2
mf= –2 sublevel. The optical pumping scheme and the levels involved are shown in Figure 4.10. No
hyperfine repump light is allowed to shine on the atoms. The trapping laser detuning is shifted fromthe molasses detuning to 20 MHz to the blue of the F=3 to F=3´ transition. This serves to pump allof the atoms out of the F=3 hyperfine state.

95

F´=3

mf = -3

F´=2

-2

-1

0

1

2

mf = -2

-1

0

1

2

-1

0

1

-2

-1

0

1

2

mf = -2

-1

0

1

2

F´=1

F=3

mf = -3

F=2

3

3

Figure 4.10. Optical Pumping Scheme. The OP laser is represented by the solid black arrows andthe trapping light used to pump atoms out of the F=3 state is represented by the dotted arrows. The
detunings of the lasers from the excited hyperfine states is shown approximately and the F´=4 state is
not shown. The goal of the pumping is to have all the atoms wind up in the F=2, mf = –2 state.

96

The laser light used to polarize the spin of the atoms comes from the OP/probe laser. Thislaser is another external-cavity stabilized diode laser, model Sharp LT024BD0. Its frequency isstabilized using a DAVLL system. The output of the laser is coupled through an AOM, and the firstorder diffraction beam is then coupled through a polarization-maintaining optical fiber. The opticalfiber is used to increase the pointing stability of the laser beam and to ensure that the beam is of agood spatial quality. The AOM is used to control the OP/probe laser intensity and allow the creationof sub-millisecond pulses. The OP/probe laser is linearly polarized, and a polarizing beam-splitting
cube is used to couple the probe laser along one of the science MOT beam paths. When the
OP/probe light passes through the MOT λ/4 waveplate, it becomes circularly polarized.
After the detuning of the MOT trapping laser is switched, the OP coil is switched on in 0.2
ms to produce a 3 G magnetic field. The direction of the field is chosen so that the OP/probe laser
has a σ polarization. A pulse of ~75 µW/cm2 OP light is turned on for 900 µs. This laser isdetuned between the F=2 to F=1´ and F=2 to F=2´ transition, a few MHz from the F=2 to F=2´transition. The detuning was determined by optimizing the number of atoms that were pumped into
the F=2 mf= –2 state. A curve showing the pumping efficiency is shown in Figure 4.11. The theoryof the optical pumping is that atoms would scatter σ photons and move to more negative mf states.
Occasionally, they would spontaneously scatter to the F=3 state, and the trapping laser would pumpthem back to the F=2 state. Once the atoms were in the F=2, mf= –2 state, they would no longer
scatter any photons, since there is no transition for σ light from this state. The atoms would all pile
up in that state, and then they would be loaded into the magnetic trap.
The reality is that we have not been able to achieve more than 80% of the available atoms in the mf=–2 state. The reasons for this are as of yet unknown [72]. I speculate that since the Clebsch-Gordan
coefficients are such that for light tuned between the F=2 to F=1´ and 2´ transitions, it is difficult topump the atoms from the positive mf states to negative mf states without going through the F=3
upper ground state. The depolarizing nature of the MOT light used to pump atoms from the F=3
back to the F=2 state may be a source of the limitation in our optical pumping. We do have somedata indicating the nature of the problem. Figure 4.12 shows that while a higher probe

97

0.8

Optical Pumping Efficiency

F'=1
0.7

0.6

F'=3
0.5

F'=2

0.4
-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

OP/Probe Laser Detuning (MHz)Figure 4.11. Optical Pumping Efficiency as a Function of OP/Probe Laser Detuning. The opticalpumping efficiency is defined as the ratio of the number of atoms magnetically trapped to thenumber of atoms remaining after the molasses stage. The vertical dotted lines show the positions of
the F=2 to excited state transitions. The relative positions of the transitions are accurate but theoverall location could be off by a few MHz, due to some uncertainty in the absolute frequency
calibration. The absence of any pumping near the F´=3 transition is due to heating of the atoms fromrepeated photon scatters in the F=2 mf = –2 ground state since that state is no longer dark.

98

0.80

Optical Pumping Efficiency

0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55

Low Intensity
High Intensity

0.50
0.45
0.40
0

200

400

600

800

1000

Pulse Time (µs)

Figure 4.12. Optical Pumping Efficiency as a Function of Pulse Time. Even though the initial riseof the higher intensity data is faster, the cloud takes about the same time to optically pump for bothintensities. This behavior is not yet explained. The high intensity is a factor of 8 more than the ~75µW/cm2 low intensity.

99

intensity pumps atoms into the mf = –2 state faster initially, the rate levels off so that it takes thesame time to pump the cloud regardless of intensity. When the OP/probe laser is detuned from theoptimal detuning, the cloud also pumps up on the same time scale, and the ultimate efficiency issmaller. Varying the detuning of the trapping laser used to pump the atoms out of the F=3 state has
no effect, even when tuned ±60 MHz from the F=3 to F´=3 transition. Changing the OP coilmagnetic field does not have much of an effect, either. It is possible to completely deplete the mf= –2 state if the OP coil magnetic field is reversed, since reversing the magnetic field changes the OP
laser light from σ to σ+. This maximum efficiency does not depend on the number of atoms in thecloud. The final fact is that the maximum efficiency of the optical pumping is determined by the
initial MOT and molasses stages. The MOT trapping laser can be aligned and the molasses shims
tweaked so that even without additional optical pumping light, the atoms tend to be aligned towards
the negative mf sublevels. Just pumping the atoms out of the F=3 state will then produce some
atoms in the F=2, mf= –2 state. We have observed that the OP light seems to only be able to doublethat number at best. This means that good optical pumping efficiency is achieved only for properalignment of the MOT and molasses. The optimization of the OP process will be discussed insubsection 4.7.2 below.
In order to make sure that the atoms are pumped out of the F=3 state completely, the OP
light is turned off 200 µs before the trapping laser light is. After the atoms have been optically
pumped, they are ready to be loaded into the magnetic trap. Before discussing the specifics of ourapparatus, a general description of magnetic trapping will be presented.

4.5 Magnetic Traps.
4.5.1 Principle of Operation. Magnetic traps rely on the magnetic moment of the atoms inorder to confine them in a potential. As long as the energy of an atom increases with increasing
magnetic field, like the F=2 mf = –2 and –1 states (see Figure 4.3), it is possible to trap the atom at aminimum in the magnetic field. At first glance, it would seem to be impossible to form a magnetic
field minimum in free space, due to Earnshaw’s theorem in electrostatics [73]. This is true when themagnetic field is considered as a vector, but not when only the amplitude of the field is considered

100
r
r r
(i.e. ∇ B ≠ 0 while ∇ B = 0 ). If the field is strong enough and the atom is not moving too fast,
the magnetic moment of the atom will adiabatically follow the field and its Zeeman energy will
depend only on the amplitude of the field, allowing weak-field seeking states to be trapped.
For sufficiently small fields, the atoms will no longer adiabatically follow the field
direction, and then a so-called Majorana transition can occur and the atom will transfer to a different
magnetic sublevel. The Larmor frequency of an atom in even a small magnetic field is on the orderof MHz, and so only for very small magnetic fields (less than one gauss) will the atoms no longer
adiabatically follow the field direction. While Majorana transitions were a limiting factor in earlyattempts in evaporative cooling [74], in our experiments the magnetic field amplitude is rarely lessthan 140G, which corresponds to a Larmor frequency of 123 MHz. In order for an atom moving
with an energy of 10 µK to have a reasonable probability of undergoing a Majorana transition, thefield gradient would have to be well over 1011 G/cm, several orders of magnitude larger than what
we can achieve in our magnetic traps.
4.5.2 Ioffe-Pritchard Traps. A diagram of a Ioffe-Pritchard trap [75] is shown in Figure
4.13. This trap can be used to confine atoms near its center, and it has the advantage that theminimum magnetic field in the center of the trap is non-zero. The magnetic field from the four
current bars is simple to compute in the limit that they are infinitely long. When only the magnetic
field from these current bars is considered (i.e. the Helmholtz coil pair is ignored), the magnetic fieldis zero along the z-axis. If an atom moves away from the center in any radial direction, themagnitude of the magnetic field will increase with distance, as the atom gets closer to one or two of
the current bars and farther from the others. Therefore, the current bars provide a restoring force inthe radial direction on an atom in a weak-field seeking state. The Helmholtz coil pair provides theaxial confinement, because an atom moving away from the center will see a stronger magnetic field
since it is closer to one of the Helmholtz coils than the other. In addition to the axial confinement,
the Helmholtz pair also produces a gradient in the radial direction, but that will be assumed to besmall for the sake of this discussion, and the Helmholtz coils will be assumed to produce only a fieldalong the z-axis that is uniform over the radial directions. This assumption is quite good as long as
the radius of the Helmholtz coils is large enough.

101Side View

Top View

Figure 4.13. Ioffe-Pritchard Trap Schematic. The arrows indicate the direction of the current
through the coils and wires.

102With these simple considerations, it is possible to calculate the magnetic field near thecenter of the trap. If R is the distance of the current bars from the center of the trap, Icb is the size ofthe current bar current, Ihh is the Helmholtz coil current, z0 is the distance of each Helmholtz coilfrom the trap center, and a0 is the radius of the Helmholtz coils, then the magnetic field is µ0 I cb 
( y − R)( y + R)  
−y
−y

 xˆ

+
+
+
2
2
2
2
2
2
 2π  (x − R) + y( y − R) + x(x + R) + y( y + R)2 + x2  r  µ I  (x − R)
 
−x
−x
(x + R) yˆ  (4.7)+++
B =  0 cb  2π  (x − R)2 + y 2 ( y − R)2 + x2 ( x + R)2 + y 2 ( y + R)2 + x2  33µ0a02 I hh )
2 −2
2 −2 
2
2


+
+
+
−
+
z
z
a
z
z
a
z
(
)
(
)
 0

0
0
0


2 




(

) (

) (

) (

)

(

) (

) (

) (

)

(

) (

)

Again, this expression is not exact, but is it valid in the limit that the changes in the magnetic field in
the radial direction due to the current bars are much greater than those due to the Helmholtz coils.
For the baseball coil that we use to create our magnetic trap, equation (4.7) does not do an accurate
job of describing the magnetic fields, but it illustrates the principle of operation of a Ioffe-Pritchardtype magnetic trap. In our magnetic trap, the axial and radial confinement can both be provided by
the baseball coil alone, so a separate set of Helmholtz coils is not necessary. This is quite different
from the current bars and Helmholtz coils configuration. However, the baseball coil does produce amagnetic field that is directed along a single axis, much like the Helmholtz coils modeled inequation (4.7), and radial confinement by the baseball coil is provided in much the same way as thecurrent bars do. Therefore, the magnetic field produced by the baseball coils is qualitatively similar
to that in equation (4.7), and so that equation is useful for describing the principles of the operationof our magnetic trap. From the expression for B in equation (4.7), the absolute value of the magnetic
field can be calculated. Keeping only the leading terms in an expansion around the trap center
x=y=z=0, the magnetic field can be written
2

B ≅ B0 +4 µ 0 I cb 2 B0 (12 z02 − 3a02 ) 2
r +
z ,
2
π 2 R 4 B0
z02 + a02

(

)

B0 =

µ 0 a02 I hh

(z + a )
2
0

3
2 2
0

(4.8)

where r2=x2+y2. In the following discussion, it will be assumed that z0 > a0/2 so that potential isconfining in the z direction. The energy of an atom in this magnetic field can be written E=µmfB,

103
where µmf is the magnetic moment of the atom’s magnetic sublevel. The following relation thenholds
2

E = µmf B = µmf B0 +ωr =4µ0 I cb µmf
π R B02µmf 8µ0
mπ 2

4

2

r +

I cb
2
R B0

2

B0 (12z02 − 3a0 )µmf

(z + a )202 2

z 2 = E0 +

0

(

m 2 2
ωr r + ω z2 z 2
2

(4.9)

2

ωz =

µmf a0 µ0 (24z02 − 6a0 )
7
2 2

)

I hh

m( z + a0 )20and it can be seen that around the trap center, the magnetic field produces a harmonic trapping
potential. Since we do not use four current bars plus a Helmholtz coil pair to provide our trapping
field, equation (4.9) is not particularly useful for calculating the frequencies in our magnetic trap.
However, the radial (ωr) and axial (ωz) frequencies in our trap scale with current, bias magnetic field,
and radius of the trapping coils in the same way as equation (4.9).

The radial frequency is

proportional to the current and inversely proportional to the square root of the bias magnetic field at
the bottom of the trap. The dependence on the square root of the bias field comes about from thefact that the magnetic field from the current bars adds to the orthogonal bias magnetic field in
quadrature. The larger the bias field, the smaller the fractional change in B due to the current bar
magnetic fields. The axial frequency is proportional to the square root of the current. The otherscaling that is notable is the dependence of the trapping frequencies on the distance of the current
bars and coils from the center of the trap. Both the radial and the axial frequencies increase rapidly
as the current bars and Helmholtz coils are brought closer to the center of the trap. In order to use
smaller power supplies, it is then desirable to make the coils as small as possible.
The magnetic trapping potential from a Ioffe-Pritchard trap is not strictly harmonic, and so
there are anharmonic terms present as well. The importance of the anharmonic terms is determinedby the trapping region sampled by the atoms in the trapped cloud, and for cold enough clouds (seesubsection 4.5.3), these terms are small and the magnetic trap is well approximated by a purely
harmonic potential. Some of the qualitative effects of these anharmonic terms will discussed in thenext section.
4.5.3 Baseball Trap. The magnetic trap that we use is a modified Ioffe-Pritchard designreferred to as a “baseball” trap. Figure 4.14 shows the baseball coil geometry. The baseball coil can

104

b
a
b
a
a
b
a

R=3.2 cmb

Figure 4.14. Schematic of Baseball coil. The shape of the baseball coil used for magnetic trappingis shown here along with the two bias coils. The small gray circle indicates the minimum of themagnetic field. The resemblance between the baseball coil and the current bars and Helmholtz coilsystem described in Figure 4.13 can be seen by considering the direction of the current flowing ineach part of the baseball coil. The current flowing along the parts labeled “b” in corresponds to thecurrent bars, while the current flowing along the paths marked “a” approximates the Helmholtz coils.
be wrapped from a single wire, making its construction relatively simple. The baseball trap gets its
name because the coil has the same shape as the seams of a baseball. In addition to the baseball coil,
there is a set of Helmholtz coils, referred to as the bias coils, that are used to control the bias
magnetic field in the trap. When current is flowing just through the baseball coil, both radial andaxial confinement are provided. The typical bias magnetic field produced by the baseball coil itself
can be quite large, on the order of several hundred gauss. In order to get stronger confinement in theradial direction, the bias coils are set up to oppose the baseball coil field bias field.

105

The baseball coil that we use is composed of 16 turns of hollow 1/8 inch copper refrigerator
tubing. The tubing is sheathed in heat-shrink insulation, which was responsible for problems withbaking out the chamber (section 4.4.3). All the voids between the wires have been filled with epoxy
for mechanical stability. The coil fit snugly over the glass science cell, and the coil was also
(probably unwisely) epoxied to the cell as well. The coil geometry allows for access for all of the
MOT laser beams. The hollow tubing conveniently allows the water-cooling of the coil, which isnecessary given the heat generated by the large (~200 A) currents running through it. A booster
pump is used to push 1.2 L/min. through the coils at 240 psi. In the course of typical operation, thetemperature of the coils would only rise a few ºC due to the 200 A of current running through them.
The total electrical resistance of the baseball coil was measured to be 0.019 Ω, and the inductance
was measured to be 25 µH. This inductance was determined by varying the voltage drop across the
baseball coil sinusoidally and determining the frequency where the current to voltage ratio changed
by a factor of (2)1/2.
The bias coils were each also constructed out of 8 turns of the same copper tubing, sheathedin the same insulating material as the baseball coils. The mean radius of these coils is 4.5 cm, andthey are each placed 4 cm apart, roughly centered on the center of the baseball coils. Again, epoxy
was used to fill all the gaps in the coils for stability. The electrical resistance of the pair of coils is
0.016 Ω. The bias coils are also water cooled, with the water flowing in parallel to the baseball coilfor greater cooling efficiency.
Several changes have been made to the coil system since its use in Ref. [1], but thesechanges will be detailed below in subsection 4.8.3.
4.5.4 Gravitational Sag and Typical Trapping Potentials. In order to calculate thetrapping potentials produced by the baseball and bias coils, numerical techniques had to be used.
The reason that a small expansion around the field at the center of the coils (i.e. the point ofminimum B) cannot be used is that in our case the trapped atoms are not near the center of the coils.
In the absence of gravity, the atoms would be confined to the center of the coils, but the relatively
heavy 85Rb atoms also respond to gravity, and so they are pulled down from the center of the trap,

106
typically by about 2 mm. In order to combat this gravitational “sag,” the trap is oriented with one ofits strong radial directions opposing gravity (i.e. the axial direction is perpendicular to down). For
stronger radial confinement, sag would be less of an issue, but the magnetic fields of interest to us
limit the radial confinement possible.
For purely harmonic potentials, the sag is easily calculated to be g/ωr2. The curvature of the
field, and hence the trapping frequency, would not change regardless how far from the center of thecoils the atoms were. The actual baseball/bias coil trap potentials are not strictly harmonic, but aminimum in the total energy of the atoms (magnetic plus gravity) can still exist. It is always
possible to expand the potential around that minimum, and the leading terms will be quadratic in thecoordinates and so the potential can still be approximated as harmonic. Anharmonic terms will also
be present, but the smaller the spatial size of the trapped cloud (and correspondingly the lower thetemperature) the less important these terms will be.
In order to numerically calculate the precise trapping potential, the baseball coil wasmodeled as a set of four semi-circular wires. The bias coils were also included and the current
through both the baseball and bias coils was then specified. Each component of the magnetic field
was calculated at a particular point in space by using the Biot-Savart law and numerically integrating
along each of the current paths. The contributions from all of the currents were then added together,and the absolute value of the magnetic field was calculated. In this way, the absolute value of themagnetic field was computed at all the desired points in space. The Breit-Rabi equation (4.1) was
then used to determine the magnetic energy of the atoms, and the gravitational energy was also
included. Figure 4.15 shows a typical potential for F=2, mf = –2 calculated this way, and also shows
the magnetic field across the same region in space.
One of the features in Figure 4.15 is that the magnetic field lines cut horizontally throughthe trapping region, so that in the region of the trapped atoms, the magnetic field seems to vary
mostly along the vertical direction.

This is a consequence of the relatively weak trap.

By

calculating the magnetic moment of the F=2, mf = –2 85Rb atoms at 160 G (the center of the bias
field in Figure 4.15), the magnetic field must have a linear gradient of about 26 G/cm to support theatoms against gravity. The curvature of the magnetic field is 155 G/cm2. A 10 µK cloud would

107

0.5

(a)

0.0

-0.5

Radial Distance (mm)

-1.0

-1.5

-2.0

0.5

(b)
0.0

-0.5

T
-1.0

-1.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

Axial Distance (mm)Figure 4.15. Contour plots of a typical trapping potential (a) and its associated magnetic field (b).
The contour lines are spaced 10 µK and 0.5 G apart respectively. The oval labeled “T” shows thelocation of the interior trapping contour on the magnetic field plot. These plots were calculatedusing the numerical method discussed in the text. For this case, the radial trapping frequency is 2π
x17.1 Hz and the axial is 2π x 7.6 Hz.

108

have an rms size of 0.029 cm in this trap, meaning that the curvature accounts for a spread inmagnetic field, defined in this case (and differently elsewhere in the thesis) as (<B2><B> 2)1/2,

across the cloud of 0.13 G while the gradient accounts for 0.73 G. These two quantities are added inquadrature to get the total spread. Therefore, the variation in magnetic field across the cloud is due
almost entirely to the linear gradient that is offsetting gravity and not to the curvature of the trap.
This means that the spread in the magnetic field across the cloud can then be computed fairly
accurately by simply multiplying the width of the cloud by 26 G/cm.
The calculation of the trapping potentials matched the measurement of the actual trapping
potentials such that the trapping frequencies matched only to the 10% level. The reasons for this areseveral: the baseball and bias coils are composed of several turns of wire and therefore have a finite
thickness that was not included in the calculation, the size, spacing, and location of the coils are notknown to better than 5%, the baseball coil does not have the exact shape of six semi-circles, the bias
coils are not mounted perfectly perpendicular to the baseball coil axis, the real coils have leads thatare not included in the calculation, and the bias coils are not exactly centered on the baseball trap
axis. In principle, these position and angle offsets along with the thickness of the wires could be
included in the numerical calculation and measurements of the actual trap frequencies could used toconstrain all of these additional parameters. However, no need to do so has arisen.

4.6 Classical Motion of Atoms in a Magnetic Trap.
4.6.1 Classical Orbits. In a purely parabolic potential in the absence of elastic collisions
between atoms, each atom in the trapped sample exhibits simple harmonic oscillator motion in eachof the three directions.

Since the potential is parabolic, the motion in the three directions isseparable. As a consequence of the simple harmonic motion, the radial (axial) position of eachindividual atom at time intervals spaced by one radial (axial) trap period will be the same.
In reality, the potential is not purely parabolic and one effect of the anharmonic terms is tobreak the separability of the three spatial dimensions. Motion in one direction will be slowly
converted to motion in an orthogonal direction by some of the anharmonic terms. In other words,
the anharmonicities will cause the orbits of the atoms to slowly precess. The precession rate is

109
determined by the difference in the trapping frequencies between the two directions being
considered. The magnitude of the precession, how far the orbit of the atom tilts from the original
direction, is in general quite small unless the difference in trap frequencies is also small.
Another effect of the anharmonic terms is that the oscillation frequency depends on the sizeof the atom’s orbit, which is important in considering any center-of-mass motion of the atom cloud.
The anharmonicities cause any of center-of-mass motion of the cloud to be effectively converted into
heat. The details of this conversion will be discussed below after the collective motion of the atoms
in the cloud has been discussed.
The presence of elastic collisions in the trapped cloud of course means that individual
atoms will have their orbits changed as the result of a collision event. One effect of these elastic
collisions is to randomize the velocity distribution of atoms in the trapped cloud. After many
collisions, the cloud must then be driven to a state of maximum entropy by the elastic collisions, andso their presence eventually brings the cloud into thermal equilibrium. This thermalizing effect ofelastic collisions is treated in detail in Chapter V, but thermal equilibrium will be discussed in thefollowing subsection.
4.6.2 The Boltzmann Distribution Function and Thermal Equilibrium. In order todescribe the collective behavior of a gas, the Boltzmann distribution function is used. As its namesuggests, the Boltzmann distribution function, usually denoted f(x,v,t), specifics the distribution ofvelocities and positions of the atoms in the gas. The number of atoms in a volume d3x aroundposition x with a velocity range d3v around velocity v at time t is f(x,v,t).

The Boltzmann

distribution function is therefore a distribution function in phase-space, and in fact the phase-spacedensity of the sample is directly related to f(x,v,t) [33]. From the f(x,v,t) it is possible to calculate all
the standard thermodynamic functions, such as the number, energy and entropy of the gas. For
instance, the number of the atoms in the gas is simplyr r
N = ∫ d 3 x d 3v f ( x , v , t ) .

(4.10)The distribution function of a classical gas in thermal equilibrium is determined byrequiring that the occupation fraction of each orbit with energy E is exp(-(E-µ)/kBT) [33]. The
temperature (T) is related to the total energy of the gas, and the chemical potential µ is adjusted so

110that the equation (4.10) is satisfied. For an axially symmetric potential, the Boltzmann distributionfunction is mv 2r r
Nm3ω r2ω z
m
 −
exp
−
(ω r2 r 2 + ω z2 z 2 ) f ( x, v ) =3 3 3
8π k BT 2 k BT 2 k B T(4.11)

where N is the number of atoms, ωr and ωz are the radial and axial trap frequencies (in radians/sec),and m is the mass of an atom. In order to find the density of atoms as a function of position n(x), it
is only necessary to integrate f(x,v) over all possible velocities3
 m 2rm
 exp −n( x ) = Nω r2ω z (ω r2 r 2 + ω z2 z 2 )  .

 2 k BT 2πk BT 

(4.12)

This can also be written asrn( x ) =

 r2
N
z2 
1


−
−
σ
exp
,
=
i
32 2
2
2
ωi
(2π ) σ r σ z  2σ r 2σ z k BT
i = r, z .
m(4.13)The prefactor in equation (4.13) is the peak density at the center of the trap potential. Equation(4.13) shows that the spatial size of the trapped cloud is proportional to the square root of its
temperature. The colder the cloud, the smaller it is. Once the density as a function of position is
known, the average density can also be computedr1
d 3 x n( x ) 2∫
N.
N= 32 28π σ r σ z<n>=(4.14)

Other quantities of interest are the total energy

1
1
 r r
Etot = ∫ d 3 x d 3v  mv 2 + m(ω r2 r 2 + ω z2 z 2 )  f ( x , v ) = 3 Nk BT2
2
(4.15)

the rms velocity

vrms =and the average relative speed

( )

r r
1
k T
d 3 x d 3v v 2 f ( x , v ) = B∫
Nm(4.16)

111
r r
r r
r r
16k BT< v > = ∫ d 3 x ∫ d 3v d 3v′ v − v ′ f ( x , v ) f ( x , v ′) =.
πm

(4.17)

Again, all of these quantities are computed in thermal equilibrium.
4.6.3 Collective motions of the cloud in the absence of collisions. The time evolution of
the Boltzmann distribution function is controlled by the Boltzmann equation [76]

r
r r
∂f
F r 
= − v ⋅ ∇ x + ⋅ ∇ v  f + J ( f )
∂t
m



(4.18)

where ∇ x indicates the gradient of f(x,v,t) with respect the position coordinates and ∇ v is thegradient with respect to the velocity coordinates. The last term accounts for the net flux into aphase-space coordinate due to collisions. Collisions are not treated in detail in this section, and this
topic will be discussed in more detail in Chapter V.
In order to determine the time evolution of a distribution function, it is necessary to solve
the differential equation (4.18) with an initial distribution function f(x0,v0) establishing the boundary
conditions. One simple way that this can be done in the absence of collisions is to compute theindividual atom motion x(t) and v(t) with x0 and v0 as an initial condition. Once the motion as afunction of time is known, it is possible to invert the equations, solve for x0 and v0 in terms of x(t)and v(t) and then plug these expressions back into the initial distribution function in order tocompute f(x,v,t). This method will be used to determine three collective classical motions of thetrapped gas: ballistic expansion, sloshing, and breathing.
4.6.4 Ballistic Expansion. It is often desirable to release the gas from the magnetic trap and
let it expand. This has the effect of reducing the optical thickness of the cloud and increasing the
spatial size of the cloud for imaging. It also can be used to measure the energy of the sample. In
addition, it may be impossible to image the cloud immediately after turning off the magnetic trap,
and so the evolution of the cloud outside the trap needs to be calculated to accurately determine thesize of the cloud in the magnetic trap. Once the trap is turned off, the cloud will expand due to thekinetic energy of its particles. Of course, without the trapping potential, the cloud of atoms will also
fall under the influence of gravity.

112
For a particle with an initial position x0 and velocity v0, the position and velocity as afunction of time outside the magnetic trap will be x(t)=(x0+vx0t, y0+vy0t – ½gt 2, z0+vz0t) and v(t)=(vx0,vy0 – gt, vz0) where down is in the direction of the negative y axis. Inverting these equations it ispossible to solve for x0 and v0r 1x0 =  x − v x 0 t , y − v y 0 t + gt 2 , z − v z 0 t 2rv0 = (v x , v y + gt , v z )(4.19)

Plugging these expressions into f(x0,v0)

rr
f ( x, v , t ) =1 2 2 ( x − v t ) 2 ( y − (v y + gt)t + gt ) ( z − v t ) 2Nx2zexp −
−
−
3 2
3
2
2
2σ r
2σ r
8π σ r σ z v rms
2σ z2


(4.20)
(v y + gt) 2v2
v 2z 
− 2x −−
2 v rms
2 v 2rms
2 v 2rms 

Of particular interest is the evolution of the density over time. This is determined by integrating
equation (4.20) over velocity1( y + gt 2 ) 2
2

r
N
x
z2 
2

n( x , t ) =exp −−−
2σ r (t ) 2
2σ z (t ) 2  . (4.21)(2π )3 2 σ r (t ) 2 σ z (t )  2σ r (t ) 2



2
2
2 2
2
2
2 2
σ r (t ) = σ r 1 + ω r t , σ z (t ) = σ z 1 + ω z t

(

)

(

)

The two widths σr and σz are defined in equation (4.13). Equation (4.21) then describes the densityof the cloud as it expands after being released from the trap. The width of the cloud will increase in
all directions, the peak density will decrease, and the center of the cloud will fall due to gravity. If
the trap frequencies and expansion time are known, then the initial size of the cloud in the trap canbe determined from the measured widths of a ballistically expanded cloud.
It is interesting to note the behavior of the observed aspect ratio as a function of expansion
time. The aspect ratio is defined as the ratio of the axial to radial width (in this thesis at any rate --other groups define the aspect ratio as the ratio of the radial to axial width). In the trap the aspectratio is equal to the ratio of trapping frequencies ωr/ωz, and for our case ωr > ωz and so the aspect113
ratio is greater than one. As the cloud expands ballistically, the smaller radial direction expands
faster and the aspect ratio decreases. At long times, the aspect ratio approaches one. This is expected
since the velocity distribution in the trapped cloud is isotropic and at long expansion times the initial
velocity distribution will determine the density distribution.
4.6.5 Sloshing. If the center of mass of the cloud is not at the center of the trap, then thecloud will exhibit oscillatory center-of-mass motion.

Using the same techniques as in theconsideration of the ballistic expansion, it is possible to calculate the evolution of the density of acloud that is offset initially by xcm in the x direction, ycm in the y direction and zcm in the z direction
with widths that are equal to their thermal equilibrium values:rn( x, t ) = (x − x cm cos( ω r t ) )2 ( y − y cm cos( ω r t ) )2 ( z − z cm cos( ω z t ) )2  (4.22)
N
exp  −
−
−
2

2σ r2
2σ r2
2σ z2
(2π ) σ r σ z
3 2

The center of the cloud oscillates as if it were a single particle in the trapping potential. This
property makes observation of sloshing a useful way of measuring the trap frequencies.
The presence of anharmonic terms in the potential will lead to the washing out of thiscollective center-of-mass motion.

Atoms at different points in the cloud will have different

amplitude oscillations (see Figure 4.16). Since the anharmonicities cause orbits with different
amplitudes to have different frequencies and there are a range of amplitudes within the cloud,
eventually the cloud will be spread out over the entire region over which it was sloshing. Since thewidth of the trapped cloud increases, these anharmonic terms can be said to convert sloshing motion
into heat, and for all practical purposes this is indeed what happens.
4.6.6 Breathing modes. It is typical that immediately after loading the magnetic trap theinitial potential energy and kinetic energy of the trapped cloud will not be in equilibrium. In thiscase, the widths of the cloud will oscillate as the oscillations of the individual atoms convert
potential to kinetic energy (and vice versa) once every quarter trap cycle.

We call this the“breathing” mode. If it is still assumed that the cloud has a gaussian distribution of both kinetic andpotential energy, it is possible to again determine the time evolution of the density of the cloud bysolving for each individual orbit in terms of its initial conditions x0 and v0, inverting those equations,

114

A

A

B

B

Figure 4.16 Anharmonicities turn sloshing into apparent heat. The top cartoon shows the trapped
cloud oscillating around the center of the potential that is marked with the X. Two atoms in thecloud, A and B will oscillate in individual orbits, and A will have a larger amplitude than B eventhough they are both the same distance from the center of the trapped cloud. Since anharmonicities
in the potential mean that the oscillation frequency depends on the size of an atom’s orbit and A andB have different size orbits, after some time the two atoms will be oscillating more or less out ofphase rather than in phase. The lower picture illustrates the relative position of A and B after they
have shifted out of phase with each other. At this time, the range in orbit sizes in the trapped cloud
will cause it to spread out over the entire region over which it was sloshing. Thus it appears that thecloud has increased in temperature.

115
and plugging the inverted equations into the initial Boltzmann distribution just as was done in
subsection 4.6.4. Considering the density evolution of just a single dimension, it is found that
 (4.23)
ω 2 x2n( x, t ) =exp −

1


1
1
1
1




 2v02  − cos(2 ω t )  + ω 2σ 02  + cos(2 ω t )  
 21 11
 2
2 2 1v0  − cos(2 ω t )  + ω σ 0  + cos(2 ω t ) 
2 2
 

  2 2
2 2

 2 2A

where v0 is the initial rms value of the initial velocity distribution and σ0 is the initial rms value ofthe initial position distribution. A is just a constant that will need to be adjusted to get the number
correct. Since the three directions in a harmonic potential are separable, a similar equation will
describe the motion in each direction. If v0=ωσ0, then the cloud will not exhibit any breathing
motion, and this is precisely the condition that is true in thermal equilibrium. Note that the width ofthe cloud oscillates at twice the trap frequency, which is expected from the symmetry of the trapping
potential.
Elastic collisions will cause the breathing mode to damp out and then energy associatedwith the breathing motion will just be turned into heat in the cloud. Since the breathing mode is nota thermal equilibrium state, as the breathing motion damps out, the entropy of the cloud will increase(which means that the phase-space density will decrease), and so the breathing motion is undesirablefrom the point of maximizing the phase space density of the cloud. Anharmonicities will appear tohave a similar effect as the elastic collisions in damping the breathing motion of the trapped cloud.
4.6.7 Adiabatic Compression and Expansion. Slowly changing the trap frequencies canbe used to alter the density and temperature of atoms in the cloud.

For instance, adiabatic

compression is often used in 87Rb and 23Na to increase the elastic collision rate for better evaporative
cooling. There are two time scales that determine whether the change in the trap frequencies can beconsidered to be adiabatic. One time scale is the inverse of the trap frequencies themselves (the trap
periods), and the other time scale is set by inverse of the elastic collision rate in the sample. Usually,
the trap period is much shorter than the time scale set by the elastic collision rate, and so it ispossible to change the trap in a way that is adiabatic with respect to the trap periods but not withrespect to elastic collisions.

In light of this fact, the adiabatic change of trap frequencies is

considered first in the absence of collisions, and then the effect of elastic collisions are considered.

116
The adiabatic adjustment of the trap frequency and its effect on a particle’s orbit in aharmonic potential is treated in many standard classical mechanics texts [22]. There is an adiabatic
parameter of the motion, I where Iω=E. If ω is changed slowly enough, I does not change. Thismeans that the energy of the particle will increase or decrease in a way that is proportional to thechange in the trap frequency. The criteria that determines if the change in trap frequency is slow
enough is the requirement thatdω  1   <<1 .
dt  ω 2 (4.24)

Since the trapping potential is separable, in the absence of any collisions the individual
orbits of the atoms in the cloud will respond to adiabatic changes in any of the trap frequencies justlike a single particle in a harmonic potential. Adiabatically increasing any particular trap frequency
will increase the energy in that direction. For example, consider a cloud originally in thermal
equilibrium in a trap with frequencies ωr and ωz.

The radial frequency is then increased

adiabatically to ωr´. The cloud can be described as a distribution with two different effective
temperatures, Tr and Tz. Originally Tr=Tz=T0. Since the energy is any one of the three directions is
NkBT, after the adiabatic ramp Tz=T0 and Tr=ωr´/ωr. The radial width, which is proportional toTr1/2/ωr, will decrease, and the rms velocity in the radial direction will increase.
If the radial and axial effective temperatures are different, elastic collisions will thermalize
the sample and cause energy to be transferred from the more energetic direction(s) to the otherdirection(s).

This will occur until the energy is redistributed so that the cloud is in thermal

equilibrium. Measuring the time the cloud takes to equilibrate is one way of determining the elastic
collision rate.
If the frequencies are changed much more slowly than the elastic collision time scale, thenthe sample will never be out of thermal equilibrium. In order for this condition to be satisfied, thechange in trap frequency (dω/dt) must be smaller than the square of the elastic collision rate. Since
the cloud is always in thermal equilibrium, changes in the trap frequencies that are adiabatic withrespect to the collision rate preserve the entropy (and phase-space density) of the sample. The
entropy of the (classical) cloud is [33]117
S = − k B ∫ f log( f ) d 3 x d 3v
  Nω 2ω 2  = − k B N log 3 r 3 z3  − 3  8π k BT  (4.25)and so for changes in the trap frequencies adiabatic with respect to the elastic collision rate will
preserve the ratio ωr2 ωz/T3.
For a concrete example, consider a doubling of the radial trap frequency with a cloud ofinitial temperature T0. If the frequency change is adiabatic with respect to the trap frequencies but
not the elastic collision rate, then after the cloud thermalizes after the change the temperature of thecloud will be (2+2+1)/3 = 1.67T0. The entropy will have increased. If the frequency change is madeslowly enough compared to the elastic collision rate, the temperature increases to 1.59T0 and theentropy will not change.

4.7 Optimizing the Loading of the Magnetic Trap from the MOT.
4.7.1 CMOT and Molasses, Part II. Since BEC only occurs at a certain value of thephase-space density, one criterion for the optimization of the science MOT parameters is the
maximization of the initial phase-space density in the magnetic trap. However, we have found that
evaporative cooling can efficiently cool the cloud and increase the phase-space density, and so it isdesirable to sacrifice some phase-space density in favor of a better initial elastic collision rate that
leads to efficient evaporation. In practice, the MOT parameters were adjusted so that the number ofatoms in the magnetic trap at a selected temperature reached after some evaporative cooling was
maximized.
The scaling of the elastic collision rate and phase-space density with the temperature anddensity of the cloud being loaded into the magnetic trap are useful in understanding the process andlimitations involved in loading the magnetic trap from the science MOT. The elastic collision rate
scales as <n>σ<v>, and the phase-space density is proportional to <n>T-3/2. For both of thesequantities then, it would seem that it would be desirable to maximize the density of the atoms in thecloud at the end of the MOT/CMOT/Molasses/Optical pumping (MCMO) stage for loading into themagnetic trap. By reducing the hyperfine repump power and detuning the trap laser by 25 MHz or
more, it was possible to dramatically decrease the size of the MOT during the CMOT stage, making

118
it a factor of two smaller, albeit at the cost of almost half of the atoms in the cloud. However, itturns out that this large increase in density could not be used to improve the magnetic trap loading
due to the magnetic trapping potential that we could produce, so we used the strategy of detuning thetrap laser to only 13 MHz and reducing the hyperfine repump power not quite as far. This latterstrategy did not increase the density as much but only 10% of the atoms were lost, and that lead
ultimately to better evaporation performance.
The fundamental reason that we could not take advantage of the high density after the
CMOT stage was that the density of the cloud of atoms in the magnetic trap is not determined by the
initial density of the cloud loaded in, but rather the total energy of the cloud. Since the magnetic trap
is turned on suddenly, a potential energy is imparted to the cloud due to the trapping potential. If adense cloud is loaded into the trap and the kinetic energy in the cloud is greater than the potential
energy, the cloud will expand and exhibit breathing motion as detailed in section 4.6.6. Elastic
collisions (and anharmoncities in the trapping potential) will bring the cloud to thermal equilibrium.
For a cloud after the MCMO stages with an initial kinetic energy corresponding to a temperature T0
and a spherically-symmetric spatial size σ, the energy of the cloud after being loaded into themagnetic trap is

PE =

(

)

m
2ω r2 + ω z2 σ 2 ,
2

KE =

3
Nk BT0 .
2(4.26)The temperature of the cloud in the trap will eventually be PE+KE=3NkBT. The only advantage of alarge initial density is therefore a reduction in the potential energy imparted to the gas when themagnetic trap is turned on. If the kinetic energy of the cloud is much higher than the imparted
potential energy at the time of loading, which is the case for the high-density CMOT parameters,then the eventual density of the cloud in the magnetic trap will be determined by the kinetic energy.
The initial large density will not contribute to the density in the magnetically trapped sample.
One way to preserve the an initially high density is to make the imparted potential energy
match the initial kinetic energy by increasing the trapping frequencies. While this will result in ahigher-density trapped sample, this is somewhat counter-productive since it will raise thetemperature of the cloud in the trap.

However, the trapping frequencies can be changed

119
adiabatically, and so if increasing the trapping frequencies leads to an increase in phase-spacedensity in the trap, the trap can be adjusted to any desired configuration after the atoms are loaded.
There is a problem, however, that prevents us from increasing the trapping frequency.
For reasons of simplicity of design, only the baseball coils are turned on when the atoms areloaded into the magnetic trap. Without the bias coils, there is no independent control of the bias
field in the magnetic trap. This limits the range of possible trapping frequencies available forloading the atoms into the trap. The current through the baseball coil can be increased, but since thebias field will increase as well, the magnetic moment of the F=2 mf= –2 atoms will decrease. This
offsets the increase in the curvature of the trap and the trapping frequencies do not change
significantly over a large range of currents (see Figure 4.17). The trapping frequencies of the trapthat we use to load the atoms are 2π x 9.2 Hz in the radial and 2π x 5.6 Hz in the axial direction. In
principle, the radial direction could be strengthened by using the bias coils as well as the baseball,but the axial direction would still be relatively weak. Given the approximately spherical shape thecloud has before being loaded into the trap, the matching into a high aspect ratio trap would still bepoor and an initially high density will not be maintained.
Another way to match the initial kinetic energy and the imparted potential energy is to cool
the cloud. The cloud will not exhibit any breathing motion, and so it will be loaded in at a higher
phase-space density. Since we cannot easily adjust the trapping frequencies, this is in fact what we
do. The molasses stage is used to remove kinetic energy and cool the cloud from temperatures over
120 µK to 15 µK. While the molasses is cooling the cloud, there is no longer a confining force
present and the cloud will expand and its density will decrease. For an average temperature of 60µK during the 4 ms molasses stage, the cloud would expand 0.3 mm. This expansion size is addedin quadrature with the initial size of the sample. So, for clouds with an initial rms width of 0.6 mm or
greater this is not a big effect, but it does limit the maximum achievable density since it will be
impossible to decrease the size below 0.3 mm.
In addition to the time spent in the molasses, the atoms must also be optically pumped into
the proper state, and this takes just under 2 more ms, allowing the cloud to expand further. With thisadditional expansion, any initially high density is diluted and there is no significant advantage

120

7

10
6
9

8
5
Radial
Axial

7

6
0.50

Axial Trap Frequency (Hz)Radial Trap Frequency (Hz)

11

4
0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.50

2.75

3.00

Relative Baseball Coil Current ( 1=typical experimental conditions)Figure 4.17. Relative insensitivity of the trapping frequencies to initial baseball coil current. This
figure demonstrates how increasing the amount of current in the baseball coil during the trap turncannot increase the trap frequencies from the typical conditions used by more than ~25%, and thatcan only be achieved by using nearly twice as much current. This is because the magnetic momentof the atoms decreases as the bias field increases. The x axis is scaled to the usual trap turn oncurrent.

121

gained from adjusting the CMOT parameters to produce a dense sample. In fact, the atoms lost
during the CMOT stage configured to produce very high initial densities ( > 3 x 1010 cm-3) offset any
gains. Figure 4.18 shows the optimization of the evaporation performance with respect to the
CMOT detuning. It is beneficial to detune slightly from the science MOT loading detuning of 10
MHz, presumably to increase the density of the cloud some, but detuning further does not benefit theevaporation performance.
4.7.2 Optical Pumping Optimization. It was also necessary to optimize the opticalpumping. The figure of merit used was the optical pumping efficiency, the ratio of the number ofmagnetically trapped atoms to the number of atoms available after the MCMO preparation. The
density of the cloud in the magnetic trap is directly proportional to the fraction of post-MCMO
atoms that are successfully pumped to the desired F=2 mf = –2 state.

As was mentioned insubsection 4.4.9, the limitations to the optical pumping are not understood. Since it seems that the
OP laser beam can only double the optical pumping efficiency from simply pumping the atoms outof the F=3 state, the alignment of the MOT and molasses is very important in order to achieve
efficient optical pumping. Great pains were taken to tweak both the alignment of the MOT trapping
beams and the earth shims (the earth shims are the only coils on during the molasses stage). The
MOT trapping beams are fairly well balanced with the power in each pair of trapping beams being:
up/down, 1.6/1.5 mW; north/south, 1.8/1.7 mW; and east/west, 1.8/1.9mW.
We found that the best starting point for the MOT alignment was to overlap the six beams
as best as possible with each other and the center of the MOT coils. Once this was done, the earth
shims were adjusted to make the molasses look as uniform as possible. Any stray magnetic fieldwould tend to make the atoms accelerate out in a single direction. Once the molasses looked good,the earth shims were adjusted very slightly to improve the optical pumping efficiency. Next, thealignment of the MOT trapping beams were adjusted to improve the optical pumping efficiency.
Each of the six beams going to the MOT had at least two mirror bounces, and each mirror could be
adjusted in both the horizontal and vertical direction. These 24 knobs were each individuallychanged to get the best optical pumping efficiency possible. Usually, a few rounds of this

4.6

0.64
0.62

4.4
0.60
4.2

0.58
0.56

4.0
0.54
0.52

3.8
Number of atoms remaining
Transfer fraction

3.6

Transfer Fraction

Number of Atoms (x107) Remaining at 2.2 µK.

122

0.50
0.48

3.4

0.46
8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

Trap Laser Detuning During CMOT Stage (MHz)Figure 4.18 Optimization of CMOT Stage Laser Detuning. This figure is typical of how the MOTparameters are adjusted for optimum performance. The filled circles show the number of atoms
remaining in the trap after a fixed amount of evaporative cooling. The evaporative cooling isenough to reduce the temperature of the cloud to 2.2 µK. The open circles show the fraction of
atoms that are loaded into the magnetic trap compared to the initial number of atoms that are loaded
into the science MOT before the CMOT and subsequent stages. The decrease in transfer fraction isdue to the fact that the losses during the CMOT stage increase as the detuning is increased.
Presumably, the optimum CMOT detuning with respect to evaporation performance represents a
trade-off between increasing the initial density of the sample (and cooling it a little bit during the
CMOT stage) and losing atoms during the CMOT stage. For this data the CMOT stage was 30ms
long, the typical time for that stage.

123
optimization were necessary until the optical pumping efficiency was maximized. Once the laseralignment had been tweaked, the earth shims were adjusted again for good optical pumping
efficiency. While the optimization of the MOT laser alignment did not seem to degrade the MOT
performance, the final earth shim settings were often a compromise between optical pumping
efficiency and efficient molasses cooling. The alignment of the OP/probe beam was adjusted as wellto maximize the optical pumping efficiency.
Unfortunately, the MOT laser alignment is not stable but does drift slowly over time. We
believe that this is most likely due to a small change in the angle of the diffraction grating [67] used
to stabilize the laser frequency. Temperature changes cause the angle of the grating necessary forthe desired frequency to drift, leading to day-to-day variations. We found that it is sufficient to
tweak one mirror shortly after the laser every other day or so to maximize the optical pumping
efficiency, and that seems to correct this long-term drift.
Once the lower MOT has been aligned well, we would observe optical pumping efficienciesof up to 80%. The optical pumping efficiency when the atoms were only pumped out of the F=3
state (no OP light) was as good as 45%, representing a large bias towards the negative mf states in
the MOT/molasses stages.
There was an additional unexplained behavior in the OP sequence. For the intensities ofOP light that were typically used (50 µW/cm2), there was only a few µK of heating due to the opticalpumping. As the intensity of the laser was increased, the atoms would heat up much more. This
would be expected if more photons were scattered when the intensity was increased, but we foundthat this heating occurs even if the OP laser power/OP pulse time product was kept constant, whichshould naïvely keep the number of photon scatters constant.
4.7.3 MOT Shims and Sloshing. Another consideration is the minimization of the sloshingof the atoms in the magnetic trap. This minimization means that the cloud in the CMOT needs to becentered on the center of the magnetic trapping potential and that the magnetic trap should be turnedon quickly to minimize the time the atoms have to accelerate under the influence of gravity. The
trap turn-on is discussed in the following subsections detailing the control of the magnetic trap.
Centering the CMOT cloud on the center of the magnetic trap potential is performed by using the

124
MOT shim coils. Fields created by these coils move the position of the B=0 point in the MOT and
CMOT and therefore shift the position of the cloud. Since the main anti-Helmholtz magnetic field
and laser detunings are changed between the MOT and CMOT stages, the shims are set to run at one
current for the MOT stage and a different current for the CMOT stage. During the MOT stage theshims are adjusted for good push transfer efficiency while during the CMOT stage the shims are
responsible for centering the CMOT cloud on the center of the magnetic trap.
Two methods are used to minimize the slosh. Absorption imaging (see section 4.11) wasused to look at the center-of-mass motion of the cloud and the CMOT shims were adjusted tominimize the motion. The cloud can only be imaged in two directions in this way, but it is possible
to measure the sloshing of the cloud in the third dimension by using the MOT fluorescence. The
third dimension is visible to the MOT fluorescence light collection. By placing a razor blade in thecollection path so that it blocked a fraction of the fluorescence light, any oscillatory center-of-mass
motion of the cloud would appear as an oscillating fluorescence signal as the cloud moves behindthen past the blocking razor blade. The other way that the sloshing was minimized was to simply
evaporatively cool the cloud to a fixed temperature and then adjust the shims so that the number ofatoms remaining in the trap at that chosen temperature was maximized.
Of the two methods, measuring the center-of-mass motion is a more accurate way ofminimizing the slosh. Also, if any changes were made to the magnetic trap loading timing or current
control, then the atoms could possibly fall before being loaded into the magnetic trap and acquire avelocity that would lead to slosh that could not be removed through adjusting the position of thecloud in the CMOT. Measuring the center-of-mass motion ensured that such a velocity-induced
slosh was not introduced by any changes that were made. However, measuring the center-of-mass
motion requires the imaging system to be in a low-magnification configuration and the insertion of
the razor blade in the MOT fluorescence collection path.

It is much easier to optimize theevaporation performance at a fixed temperature since less changes had to be made to the apparatus,and so this latter method was used to periodically check the slosh as part of maintaining good
evaporation performance.

125
4.7.4 Other Spin States. The F=2 mf = –2 state is not the only state that can be trapped in amagnetic trap. By just examining magnetic moments, the F=2, mf = –1 state and several of the F=3
states appear trappable as well.

The optical pumping process is not perfect, and so somecontamination of atoms in these other states in the trap is expected. This turns out to not be a large
concern, however, due to the importance of the sag in the magnetic trap. Atoms with different
magnetic moments will have different trapping frequencies and therefore different amounts of sag inthe magnetic trap. Since the atoms are loaded into a trap at ~200 G, atoms in the F=2, mf = –1 state
will have their magnetic moments weakened significantly and will fall away from the center of the
F=2, mf = –2 potential where they were initially loaded. As the F=2, mf = –1 atoms fall, themagnetic field increases and their magnetic moment gets weaker and with the kinetic energy thatthey pick up while falling they eventually leave the trap.
There are also a few F=3 atoms in various magnetic sublevels that are left from the OP
sequence, but since the center of their potentials is not the same as the F=2, mf = –2 potential due togravitational sag they slosh in large orbits in the trap. They could be a potential source of heat if the
F=3 atoms collided with the F=2, mf= –2 cloud, but the anharmonicities in the trap make thesecollisions unlikely after a few oscillations.

Experimentally, we have found no difference inevaporation performance when the number of F=3 atoms more than doubles. The only state that
seems likely to be a concern is the F=3, mf = 2 state, since at zero field it has the same magnetic
moment as the F=2, mf = –2 state. However, at 200 G the F=3, mf = 2 state has a magnetic momentthat is 38% greater than the F=2, mf = –2 state. So, atoms in the F=3, mf = 2 state are still far fromthe center of its potential and therefore those atoms will also slosh in large orbits in the trap.

4.8 Control of the Magnetic Trap Fields.
4.8.1 Magnetic Field Requirements. The currents required to produce the necessary bias
magnetic field and trap curvature in our apparatus are reasonably large, on the order of 200 A. There
are two requirements for these currents: they must be stable at the ppm level so that the forced
evaporative cooling is reproducible, and they must be able to be changed quickly (~0.1 ms) both toturn off and on the magnetic trap, and to alter the bias magnetic field quickly so that the scattering
length can be rapidly changed through the Feshbach resonance. These two requirements conflict126
with each other in the sense that any servo usually requires making a trade-off in bandwidth andgain. In order to get around this difficulty, we have created an electronics system that can beswitched from stable operation for evaporative cooling to fast operation for sudden current changes.
4.8.2 FET Banks. The current sent through the baseball coil is controlled by a set of 4
Advanced Power Technology model APT10M07JVR high-current field-effect transistors (FET) thatare wired in parallel with each other. This set of FET transistors is referred to as a FET bank. An 8
volt 580 amp HP 6681A power supply is connected to the drain of the FET transistors, while thesource is connected to the top of the baseball coil. The general arrangement of the FET banks, power
supply and coils is shown in Figure 4.19. The amount of current that flows through the FET bank isdetermined by the gate-source voltage, and so controlling the gate-source voltage regulates theamount of current flowing through the FET bank and hence through the baseball coil. The current
through the bias coils is controlled in a similar fashion with another FET bank.
The FETs in the bank are connected to a copper plate that is water cooled in order toremove the large amount of heat (up to 700 W) dissipated in the FETs themselves. We found that it
was important to have good thermal contact between the FETs and the copper plate in order toprevent them from burning out. This was accomplished by applying a very thin layer of thermal
grease between the FET and copper plate and then tightly bolting the FET to the copper plate.
4.8.3 Parallel Baseball and Bias Coils. In the 87Rb work performed with this apparatus
prior to this thesis work, the coils were not arranged in the way that they are shown in Figure 4.19,
but rather as shown in Figure 4.20. Running the two sets of coils in series had the advantage ofsignificant common-mode noise reduction in the value of the bias magnetic field. In the course of
typical operation, the bias field was maintained at approximately 1 G by canceling the ~400 G bias
field produced by the baseball coil with 399G from the bias coils. Any increase in the current
through the baseball coil would be accompanied by an increase in current through the bias coil, andso the noise induced by current fluctuations in the trap bias magnetic field were suppressed by afactor of about 400.
The dummy coil was included in order to facilitate fast switching times. Rather than the
power supply having to supply a large voltage to change the current in the inductive coils quickly,

127

HP
+
Supply -Gate
To Servo

Drain
SourceHall Probe

Gate
To Servo

Drain
SourceBias
Coils

BaseballCoilHall Probe

Figure 4.19. Baseball and Bias Coil Current Supply and Control Schematic. The FETs shown inthe diagram are actually FET banks as described in the main text.

128

Main +
Supply -FET3Hall Probe

Dummy
Coil

Fixed Stable Reference
+
-

FET1

Hall Probe

Baseball
Coil

Bias
Coils

Shunt
Resistor

FET2

Figure 4.20. Schematic of the Old Arrangement of Coils and Current Controls [1].

129
the current could be rapidly switched to the dummy coil. This also had the apparent advantage ofrunning the main power supply in a constant current mode rather than forcing it to turn on and off
large amounts of current quickly.
Finally, the bias field in the magnetic trap was controlled using the shunt resistor shown in
Figure 4.19. The overall current through the coils was regulated by FET1, but FET2 was operated in
the completely closed configuration. By varying the resistance of the shunt resistor, a variable
amount of current could be diverted around the baseball coil, allowing the bias magnetic trap field tobe altered. Unfortunately, this arrangement was sensitive to changes in temperature since they led tochanges in resistance of the coils and shunt resistor that did not scale proportionally, and slow drifts
were a significant problem.
All three of these features have been changed for the work in 85Rb: the coils are in parallel
rather than series, and the dummy coils and shunt resistor have been removed. The primary reason
for this is that rather than operating at small values of the bias magnetic field, the Feshbachresonance required us to work over a range of fields near 160 G. This made the shunt resistor
impractical both because it would be difficult to change the bias field in the trap and because an
unreasonably large amount of current would have to be diverted through it.

Common-mode

suppression would not be as effective at these higher magnetic fields, which obviated the need for aseries coil configuration. Once the coils were no longer in series, diverting the current through thedummy coils became more complicated, requiring the coordination of three FET banks rather thantwo, so the dummy coil was eliminated.
In addition to these considerations, there were other problems with the series configuration
as well. The series configuration worked well as long as the FET bank FET2 was run either
completely open or closed.

When FET2 was run in an intermediate regime, large parasitic

oscillations would occur for certain values of the gate-source voltage. There was no servo present in
the system when these oscillations were observed. Merely applying a DC voltage to the FET gates
was enough to cause the oscillations. These oscillations had frequencies of a few kilohertz, and thesize of the oscillations was such that the current was going to zero and then peaking past the desired
value set by the gate-source voltage. The baseball and bias coils combined with the gate-source and130gate-drain (“Miller”) capacitances of the FETs means that the system had characteristics like an RLC
circuit, and so the appearance of large oscillations was not necessarily surprising. Given that we
wanted to perform experiments over a range of magnetic fields this situation was unacceptable. The
parallel configuration of the coils eliminated this problem.
The dummy coils were also prone to these parasitic oscillations, although the range of
operation was not as limited as when the coils were in a series configuration. The coordination of
three separate currents would also have been complicated, and so the dummy coils were removed.
The power supply must now supply voltage to rapidly turn the coils on and off, but the turn on andturn off times (described below) are adequate. The power supply has been operated for a couple ofyears under these conditions and has shown no problems resulting from these rapid current changes.
An added advantage of the removal of the dummy coils is that the FET banks themselves are the firststage of our current servo control. Since a constant gate-source voltage should provide a constantcurrent, variations in the power supply voltage are suppressed by the FET properties.
4.8.4 Magnetic Trap Current Control. In order to regulate the current through thebaseball and bias coils, there must be some way of measuring that current. We use hall probes (FWBell CL-300) to measure the current in both the baseball and the bias coils. These hall probes use
the Hall effect to measure the magnetic field produced by the current in the wires leading to thebaseball and bias coils. Originally, we used open loop hall probes that simply produced a signal thatwas proportional to the detected magnetic field. This signal was sensitive to changes in temperature,and the day-to-day reproducibility was quite poor. In fact, it was more stable for us to simply use
the voltage drop across the coils to measure the current.
After a time, we switched to closed loop Hall probes. In the closed loop probes, the Hallsensor is placed in the gap of a C-shaped ferrite core. A current flowing through a wire wrappedaround the ferrite core is used to produce a magnetic field in the gap that cancels the magnetic field
due to the current flowing to the baseball/bias coils. A simple servo regulates the current around theferrite core so that the field at the Hall sensor is zero. The canceling current is then measured todetermine the baseball/bias current. Since the Hall probe is reading zero, the closed loop probes aremuch less sensitive to temperature changes. The bandwidth of the closed loop probes is much better

131
than the open loop probes as well (200 kHz is the specification). A high-precision low-temperatureshift resistor (Vishay model VHP) is used to convert the canceling current to a voltage that indicates
how much current is flowing past the Hall probe.
A servo that uses the Hall probe voltage as an error signal is used to regulate the current
through the coils. The error signal is compared to a reference voltage and the servo is designed tomake the difference between those two signals be zero. The diagram of the circuits involved in the
servo control system is shown in Figures 4.20-4.25.

Probably the easiest way to explain theoperation of all the components of the servo is to go through a typical trap operation cycle anddescribe the requirements at each stage.
The switching on and off of the trap currents is controlled by a TTL signal sent to the on/off
control box. When the trap is to be held off, the on/off box sends a reference voltage to the servothat corresponds to a negative current (which cannot possibly be provided) forcing the servo to set
the FET bank gate voltages to a negative value and opening all of the FETs. Once the trap is to beturned on, the reference voltage is switched to a positive current value as provided by reference box.
Once the atoms are ready to be loaded into the magnetic trap, it is important to turn the trap
on quickly. Otherwise, the atoms will fall under gravity and slosh in the trap. This sloshing will
effectively be turned into heat and therefore degrade the evaporation performance. Only the baseballcoils are turned on initially. The trap is turned on with the capacitors in the baseball servo circuit
switched out (see Figure 4.25). This improves the servo bandwidth at the expense of the DC gain,
but the DC level is not crucial for the loading process. The DC gain is low enough that the offset
available in the servo circuit is used to set the DC level to the appropriate value. With this system,
the baseball current is turned on to 90% of its full value in 0.4 ms. We found that this turn-on time
was sufficient to load the atoms with a minimum of sloshing. For slower turn-on times (above 1ms), the sloshing of the atoms in the magnetic trap due to their initial velocity gain while fallingdegraded the evaporation performance significantly.
After the atoms have been loaded, the capacitors are then switched back in to improve theDC stability of the baseball current. The improved DC gain means that the offset voltage in the
servo circuit is no longer important and the reference box determines the reference voltage. Initially,

132

Labview Analog Voltage
Reference Source TTL
Reference Box

Magnetic Trap On/Off TTL

On/Off Box

Prog. Freq. Synth. On/Off TTLSRS ProgrammableFrequency Synthesizer

Bandwidth Control TTL

Synthesizer
Summing Box

Hall Probe Signal
Servo

Voltage To FET Bank Gate
Figure 4.21. Schematic of the Baseball Coil Current Control Electronics. All of the individualcomponents, except for the SRS Programmable Frequency Synthesizer which is a commercial
product, will be detailed in the following figure. Each TTL signal comes from the Labview TTL
output board. The bias coils are controlled by a similar chain of components, but without thesynthesizer and its summing box and with no Bandwidth control TTL.

133

Reference Source TTL+15V
1.0 kΩ
10 kΩ 366.5 kΩ
DG201

LM399

100 kΩ

10 MΩ

100 kΩ

Labview Analog In–+

MAXIM 319 100 kΩ

100 kΩ
OP270–+

Out toOn/OffBox

OP270

Figure 4.22. Reference Box Circuit Diagram. All resistors are high-quality metal film. The 366.5kΩ resistor shown in the box is actually several resistors in series that have that total resistance.

+15V
10 kΩ
100 kΩ
LM399

Magnetic Trap On/Off TTL

100 kΩ–+

100 kΩ
100 kΩ

OP270–+

100 kΩ
OP270

DG201
Out toSynth.
SummingBox
100 kΩ

1 µF
Reference Box Output
100 kΩ

100 kΩ–
100 kΩ+
OP270

200 kΩ–+

100 kΩ
OP270

–
+

OP270

Figure 4.23 On/Off Box Circuit Diagram. The two op amps after the LM399 are an artifact of themany changes that have been made to this circuit. In addition to turning the trap on and off, thiscircuit is also used to filter the high-frequency noise out of the Labview analog signal.

134

Freq. Synth. On/Off TTL
MAXIM 319
100 kΩ
Synthesizer Output
10 kΩ

10 kΩ
–
+

10 kΩ
10 kΩ

OP270

Output of
On/Off Box
Figure 4.24. Synthesizer Summing Box Circuit Diagram.

–+

Output
To
Servo

OP270

135

+15V

Offset

1.5 kΩ
47 kΩ
LM399

10 kΩ
–
+

100 kΩ
10 kΩ

OP270

Synthesizer
Summing Box Output

2 kΩ

–
+

200 Ω
OP270

OutputTo FETGates

6.8 nFGain

10 kΩ
Hall Probe
10 kΩ

10 kΩ 33 nF
–
+
OP270

100 kΩ
10 kΩ

–
+

10 kΩ
OP270

Figure 4.25. Circuit Diagram for the servo. The switches shown are DG201s that are controlled via
the bandwidth control TTL. The somewhat unusual configuration of capacitors and resistors on thelower left op amp is designed to deal with the coil’s phase shift around 1 kHz described in the maintext. From zero to 480 Hz the capacitors dominate and there is a 90º phase shift. At 480 Hz, the 10kΩ resistor begins to dominate the 33 nF capacitor and the phase shift drops to 50º near 1 kHz. This
reduction in phase shift is enough to allow the servo to run with a higher gain without the systemoscillating.

136
the reference box is set so that the Labview analog output voltage controls the reference level. This
output voltage can then be ramped to any desired value, controlling the baseball coil current. At thisstage, the bias coil current, which is controlled in the same way as the baseball, is ramped on slowly
using a second Labview analog output to control its reference voltage level. While these computer
outputs have reasonable DC stability, they contain noise at higher frequencies. Therefore, thesecomputer signals are filtered using a 100 ms time constant RC filter in the on/off box. This cleansup the reference signals at the expense of being able to change the currents quickly via the analog
computer outputs.
Some evaporation is then performed to cool the atoms at 251 G. Once the atoms get coldenough, the trap bias magnetic field is changed to 162 G and that is where the remainder of theevaporative cooling takes place. The Labview DC stability is not adequate for evaporating to lowtemperatures, so the source of the reference voltage is then switched in the reference box. The
computer analog output voltages are summed in at a gain of 1/100 with voltages produced by an
LM399 stable voltage reference and a voltage divider comprised of high-quality resistors. Control isthen still available through the computer analog voltages, but its speed is still limited and now its
range is limited as well.
Often it is desirable to change the trap bias magnetic field rapidly once the atoms have been
evaporatively cooled. For maximum flexibility and speed we use a programmable SRS DS345
frequency synthesizer. The output of the synthesizer is summed directly into the reference voltage at
the servo circuit so that it is not filtered and therefore can be changed quickly. During evaporation,an analog switch is thrown open to prevent the synthesizer output from being summed in, because
there is noise on the synthesizer output.
After the magnetic field manipulations are completed, the magnetic trap must be turned off
quickly in order to image the atoms or recapture them in a MOT to measure their fluorescence. Thisis accomplished simply by changing on/off box state and overdriving the servo to a “negative”
current. The trap is turned off in 160 µs, with the bias current reaching zero ~20 µs before thebaseball current does.

137
4.8.5 Servo Optimization. In order to get as much DC gain as possible, the servo isdesigned as an integrator. Due to some delays in the system, however, a simple integrator was not
optimal. We noticed that with proportional gain alone the current oscillated at 11 kHz when the
servo gain was turned up sufficiently high.

With a pure integrator, the servo oscillated at afrequency of ~1 kHz. Since the only difference between the two cases was the 90º phase shift in the
integrator, we surmised that around 1 kHz there was a natural phase shift of over 90º but less than180º. Therefore the response function of the servo circuit was changed to reduce the phase lag near
1 kHz.
By examining the reproducibility of the evaporative cooling, we can determine that theregulation of the DC current level must be better than 6 ppm. The AC performance of the servo isalso difficult to determine, since the variations are relatively small. Figure 4.26 shows the hall probe
signal and the voltage drop across the baseball coil while the current is on and while the current isoff. The baseline of the hall probe signal corresponds to 4 ppm fractional noise, but from the plot it
can be seen that there is little difference in the baseline when the current is on and when it is off.
The dominant noise feature is the 60 Hz harmonic at 300 Hz with a 9.5 ppm amplitude. The voltage
drop measurement indicates that the hall probe signal is an accurate representation of the noise, atleast near 300 Hz, even though it is the error signal itself.

4.9 Forced Radio-frequency Evaporation.
4.9.1 Simple Picture of Forced Radio-frequency Evaporative Cooling. Once the atoms
have been loaded into the magnetic trap, they are cooled through forced radio-frequency (rf)evaporative cooling. At thermal equilibrium, a small fraction of atoms have energies that are several
times greater than the average energy of atoms in the cloud. If these atoms are removed from thecloud, then the average energy of the remaining atoms is reduced. Elastic collisions will then cause
the sample to come to equilibrium at a colder temperature. If this process is repeated the cloud canbe cooled at the expense of the number of atoms in the cloud.
Evaporative cooling can be very efficient. In the absence of any loss or heating rates, itwould be possible to wait an infinite amount of time and then remove a single atom that contained
all of the energy in the sample, a very efficient removal of energy. The primary limitation to the138

Figure 4.26. The power spectrum of the noise with and without current flowing through thebaseball coil is shown. The top plot is the hall probe signal, and since that is the error signal all thatis demonstrated is how well the servo is working. The bottom plot shows the voltage drop across thecoils. This is independent of the servo and so it is in some ways a better measurement of the true
noise properties, but because of the inductance of the coil, the current flowing through the coil is notproportional to the voltage drop at frequencies higher than about 100 Hz. The DC signal sizes forthe hall probe signal and voltage drop were 3.78 and 2.78 V respectively. Not shown is a mild
increase in the voltage drop noise near 11 kHz, the unity gain point of the servo.

139
efficiency of the cooling is therefore set by the loss and heating rates of the trapped cloud. As theselimiting rates are increased, atoms need to be removed via evaporation faster to remove energy more
rapidly from the cloud. The more atoms that are removed, the lower the average energy of the atoms
removed since the most energetic are taken first, and the less efficient the evaporation. A detailed
discussion of evaporation in 85Rb is presented in Chapter VII. The rest of this section concerns itself
with the details of how the most energetic atoms are removed from the magnetically trapped sample.
In order to remove the most energetic atoms, it is necessary that there be some way todiscriminate them from the lower energy atoms in the trapped cloud. The more energetic atoms
have larger orbits, and therefore span a larger range of magnetic fields in a single orbit. Any
magnetic field or energy sensitive transition that is narrow enough can then address only the highest
energy atoms in the cloud. Radio-frequency (rf) transitions between different magnetic sublevels are
an ideal candidate for such a narrow transition.
Time-dependent magnetic fields can cause transitions from one magnetic sublevel toanother [77] via the Zeeman interaction. The frequency of the transition will depend on the energy
difference between the two sublevels and is therefore dependent on the value of an external magnetic
field. These transitions have weak oscillator strengths and in general long wavelengths and so theirnatural lifetime is enormous – on the order of years is typical. Therefore, the transitions are very
narrow, precisely what would be required for evaporative cooling.
Forced-rf evaporation is most often considered in a strongly confining magnetic trap with asmall bias field. Even though this is different from the situation in our magnetic trap, it will be
discussed first since certain concepts are more easily explained. In this trap, the cloud would belocated at the minimum of the magnetic field (gravitational sag would not be important). Also, thetransition frequencies between different magnetic sublevels would be very nearly degenerate. An rf
field applied at a selected frequency will then drive transitions between different sublevels only at aparticular magnetic field. The frequency is chosen so that transitions are driven at a magnetic fieldthat corresponds to an energy that is several times the average energy of the cloud. Energetic atoms
will have orbits that cross this ellipsoid-shaped transition surface. Once these atoms reach that

140
surface they undergo transitions to other magnetic sublevels that are not trapped. The atoms thenleave the trap, being evaporated away. This idea is illustrated in Figure 4.27.
This evaporation will cool the atoms sample, which will in turn cause the evaporation rate
to decrease as fewer atoms with enough energy to reach the transition surface are produced by elastic
collisions. To prevent this slowdown in evaporative cooling, the rf transition frequency is changed
as the cloud cools to correspond to an energy that is a fixed distance above the average energy of thecloud. Hence the forced nature of the evaporative cooling. The temperature of the cloud willcontinue to decrease, as will the number of atoms in the sample. As long as the atoms evaporated
are in the high-energy tail of the thermal distribution, they will carry away much more than the
average energy and the cooling will be rapid and efficient.
The removal of energetic atoms makes the trapped cloud spatially smaller. Therefore, theact of removing atoms in this way is often referred to “cutting” the atoms away and the transition
point where the atoms undergo sublevel transitions is referred to the as “edge” of the “rf-knife.” Theterms “carving” and “shaving” are also applied when atoms are removed faster than the cloud canequilibrate to thermal equilibrium. These terms will be used in other portions of this thesis.
4.9.2 Additional Details about Forced Rf-Evaporation. There is a gloss in the simple
picture presented in the previous subsection. While rf transitions can only be driven at a frequency
that matches the difference in energy between magnetic sublevels, it is not obvious exactly what
transitions will be made. Unlike scattering optical photons that lead to transitions to excited electronstates, the rf transitions are so narrow that they cannot be treated in a simple rate-equation model.
Once an atom is in resonance with the rf field, it will undergo rapid Rabi oscillations between
different magnetic sublevels.
Rather than considering transitions between the bare magnetic sublevels in the atom, the rf
transitions can also be examined in the dressed state picture [77]. As an atom moves in the magnetic
trap, the magnetic field at its location changes and so the resonance frequency of rf transitions alsochanges. The atom will move along a dressed state corresponding to the initial magnetic sublevel.
Normally, an atom that could be evaporated would be in an orbit that would likely have its turning
point near the rf transition surface. Since the atoms are usually trapped in the most extreme

141

Figure 4.27. Radio-frequency transitions leading to evaporation. The black arrows represent where
the rf transition being driven is resonant with the atoms. Atoms move in the parabolic trapping
potential (upper curve). The more energetic can reach the magnetic field where they will make atransition to an untapped state and be accelerated out of the trap. Thus the more energetic atoms canbe selectively removed and the cloud cooled through evaporative cooling.

142
magnetic sublevel, the Rabi oscillations between different sublevels that begin to occur near thetransition surface weaken the trapping potential.
Two possible transitions can then happen that make the atom leave the trap. The first is thatthe weakening of the potential combined with the energy of the atom in its orbit carries the atom past
the transition surface. For a strong enough rf field it would then stay in the same dressed state andmake an adiabatic rapid passage to an untrapped state. This state would then be expelled from thetrap. Another possible transition can occur if the atom does not have enough energy in its orbit tocross the transition surface but does get close to that surface. The atom will slow in its motion as it
approaches a turning point and can make a diabatic transition to another dressed state. The magnetic
moment of the atom can change at that time, and if the magnetic moment becomes weaker it will
move further from the center of the trap and go through the transition region. If it does not make anadiabatic rapid passage back to a trapped state it will then continue out of the trap.
If the atom does make a transition back to the trapped state, it will remain in the trap. The
net effect of the rf field will then be to increase the energy of the atom’s orbital motion. As the atom
oscillates in the trap field, it will pass the rf transition surface. As long as adiabatic transitions are
made, the atom will remain in the trap. It will change from a trapped state to an untrapped state as it
passes the transition point on the way back in to the center of the trap, but it will be converted backinto a trapped state on its way back out. Eventually, it will make a diabatic transition and that willlead to it being lost from the trap.
The evaporation picture is more complicated in the case where the cloud of atoms sags in
the magnetic trap due to gravity. Since the magnetic field lines cut vertically across the cloud (seeFigure 4.15), the evaporation surface is not an ellipsoid as it would be in a trap with no sag but israther just a plane. In contrast to the non-sagged case, atoms can then only be removed if they haveenough orbital energy in the vertical direction alone. Atoms with large orbital energy in the othertwo directions will not be affected by the rf field. This means that evaporation will occur only along
one direction rather than in all three directions, and that leads to a loss of efficiency in theevaporative cooling rate (see Chapter VII for the details of evaporative cooling along one-dimension
and Chapter V for how this effect is used to create out of thermal equilibrium clouds).

143
One last complication is that since our magnetic traps are operated at relatively highmagnetic fields, the transitions between different magnetic sublevels are no longer degenerate. That
is not so important since all of the different sublevels have different locations of minimum potential
energy. An atom that undergoes a transition will leave the region of the trapped cloud and be
accelerated towards a different point in space. It will then move in a high-energy orbit and theanharmonicities of the trap make it unlikely that the atom will return to the location of the cold
trapped cloud. As it oscillates in the trap it will move through different values of B and it is thenpossible that the rf can cause the atom to make transitions to other, truly untrapped states and theatom will then leave the trap.
4.9.3 Coupling the Rf Field into the Science Cell. An HP 8656B frequency synthesizer
synthesizes the radio frequencies. The output of this synthesizer is sent to a 10 W, +40 dBm rf
amplifier, whose output is then sent to a coil through about 2 meters of coaxial cable and a 50 Ω
resistor. The coil has a one inch inner diameter and is placed right up next to the science cell so that
it is approximately 1.5 cm from the center of the magnetic trap. It is composed of a single loop of
thick (~3mm) copper magnet wire. The frequency and output amplitude of the synthesizer iscontrolled using the Labview code via a GPIB interface. The GPIB interface has the disadvantage ofintroducing variable delays on the millisecond level, making it difficult to measure any precise trap
evolution of the cloud between the time the rf was turned on and the time it was turned off.
The single thick loop of wire was used because of difficulty coupling the rf power to theloop. The impedance matching of the coil is poor – we couple less than 1% of the power coming outof the amplifier into the loop (the remaining 99% of the power is reflected back into the amplifier
itself). At the frequencies at which we operate, around 80 MHz and 130 MHz, the single thick loopof wire had better overall coupling than a thin wire loop consisting of a single or several turns. We
tried using a variable capacitor and resistor to impedance match the coil. Away from the trapping
coils, we were able to tune the frequency response of the coil to our desired parameters, but once theloop was placed in the apparatus, right up next to the baseball coils and near seven other coils, themutual inductances present changed the frequency response. It should be possible to improve thecoupling by adjusting the coil in situ, but the rf amplifier has survived the reflected power and we do

144
not have indications that more power to the atoms would improve our evaporation performance since
the optimum power for evaporative cooling is well below (by at least a factor of ~20) the maximum
available power.
The amplitude of the rf magnetic field at the atoms at the highest power setting that wasused was measured to be ~14 mG. The way that this was measured was to apply the rf field and thenramp the trap bias magnetic field. The rf frequency and ramp were chosen so that the atoms made anadiabatic rapid passage to from the F=2 mf = –2 to the F=2 mf = –1 state. The trap strength was also
adjusted so that the F=2 mf = –1 atoms were not trapped. By measuring the trap loss as a function of
ramp speed, the Rabi frequency (Ω)of the rf field could be measured [78], and was found to be 2π x
10 kHz. This can be related to the field strength through the relation Ω=µB/2h, where the factor of
two comes from the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients between the magnetic sublevels involved.

4.10 Calibration of the Magnetic Trapping Parameters.
4.10.1 Calibration of the Trap Bias Magnetic Field. The measurements that we
performed required knowledge of the bias magnetic field in the magnetic trap. Since the bias
magnetic field is proportional to the baseball and bias coil currents, it was necessary to calibrate thechange in magnetic field with the change in the trap currents.
The fact that the atoms sag in the magnetic trap means that the bias magnetic field is only
approximately linear with respect to the trapping currents. As the trapping currents are changed, thetrap frequencies can change as well. If the radial trapping frequency changes, then the position of
the atoms in the magnetic trap will be altered. While the magnetic field produced by a coil is
proportional to the coil current at each individual point in space, the change in the position of thetrap potential minimum means that the bias magnetic field at the minimum of the trap potential will
not be proportional to the current.
In practice, we rarely change the radial trap frequency by more than 10% even when we
range over one hundred gauss. This translates into a non-linearity of the current versus the bias fieldat the atoms of only a few percent over that entire range. In the region near the Feshbach resonance,
the situation is even better. In that region, we arrange the baseball and bias coil currents so that achange in the baseball current will not change the radial trap frequency. The reason that this is145
possible is that the radial trapping frequency depends both on the baseball coil current and the bias
magnetic field. With the proper bias coil current, increasing the baseball coil current increases thebias field while simultaneously increasing the magnetic field curvature such that those two changes
cancel each other to first order and the trap frequency remains nearly constant. The calibration of
the trap frequencies is discussed below, but the nonlinearity of the bias magnetic field with respect tothe baseball current results in an apparent change of slope of less than 0.1% over 10 G.
For a selected baseball and bias coil current, the magnetic field is measured in the following
way. A cloud of atoms is evaporatively cooled to a reasonably cold temperature (~100 nK) and thenthe rf-knife is ramped closer in toward the center of the cloud. The final position of the rf-knife isvaried and the number of atoms that remain is recorded as a function of the final freqeuncy of the rfknife. This measurement is repeated, except that now the rf-knife is ramped in the other direction(e.g. is the rf-knife was coming at the atoms from below, the direction is reversed so that the rf-knife
comes at the atoms from above). Since the magnetic field lines are nearly horizontal planes, theintersection of the two curves of number remaining vs. final rf frequency then determines the rf
frequency that drives magnetic sublevel transitions at the center of the trap. The Breit-Rabi equation(4.1) can then be used to determine the magnetic field. An example of this measurement is shown in
Figure 4.28. We estimate that the uncertainty in the calibration of a single field value with ameasurement like that in Figure 4.28 is 20 mG.
The intersection of the two curves in Figure 4.28 does not occur with zero atoms remaining.
This is a consequence of the finite time of the ramp and the rf power in the rf-knife. Weak rf poweris used so that there is not enough time to drive all of the atoms from the trap in the time of the ramp.
Using stronger rf power not only produces shifts and broadening in the rf transitions themselves, it
can lead to systematic shifts since the rf can be rectified in the baseball and bias current servos toproduce an offset in the magnetic field. Because of the finite width of the rf-knife, both lengthening
the ramp time and increasing the rf power will move the intersection point to lower, even negative(i.e the two curves in Figure 4.28 would not cross), number. These shifts due to the rf power havebeen observed to be up to 0.2 G for rf powers two orders of magnitude greater than the power usedin the measurement shown in Figure 4.28. To make sure that the power was low enough not to146

1.6e+51.4e+5
Descending
Ascending

1.2e+5

Number

1.0e+58.0e+46.0e+44.0e+42.0e+40.0e+0
0.24

0.26

0.28

0.30

0.32

0.34

0.36

0.38

Rf-knife Stop Frequency (MHz, with 85MHz subtracted)

Figure 4.28. Magnetic Field Calibration. The point at which the two curves, ascending anddescending, cross corresponds to the rf frequency that drives transitions at the bottom of themagnetic trap. Using the Breit-Rabi equation (4.1), the value of the magnetic field at the bottom of
the trap can be computed.

147
cause any error in the calibration, the same field was measured with several different rf powers
spanning three orders of magnitude. When this was done it was observed that the lowest powers in
the data set all agreed with each other and deviations from that value grew with increasing rf power.
The value of the field implied by the lowest powers was then used to calibrate the field.
If there were only a linear magnetic field gradient in the vertical direction, the bias field at
the position of the minimum of the trap potential (i.e. the center of the trap potential) and the average
field in a cloud would be exactly the same. However, there is curvature in the magnetic field in
addition to the linear gradient, and so the average field in the cloud and the bias field at the positionof the minimum of the trap potential will not be the same, and the difference between the twoquantities will depend on the spatial extent of the cloud of atoms in the trap. For 100 nK clouds (likethose used for the calibration of the field), the average magnetic field in the cloud is within 4 mG ofthe magnetic field at the minimum of the trap potential.
4.10.2 Calibration of the Magnetic Trap Frequencies. The trap frequencies are best
characterized by sloshing measurements. The magnetic trap frequencies are suddenly changed inorder to induce a center-of-mass motion in the cloud. Slosh is easily excited in the vertical direction
by rapidly changing the radial trap frequency. The change in radial trap frequency changes thelocation of the minimum of the trapping potential because of sag, and the cloud is accelerated toward
the new potential minimum. The slosh was induced in the axial direction by applying a bias fieldfrom the OP coil, although whether this is due to the field from the OP coil itself or a transient fromthe turn-on and turn-off of that current is unclear. After the slosh is induced, the center of mass ofthe cloud was measured as a function of time in the trap by absorption imaging. The resulting
oscillation frequency is then equal to the trap frequency in whichever direction the slosh is being
measured.
Since the absorption imaging only shows two directions in the trap, it is straightforward tomeasure the sloshing in the two visible directions but not obvious how to measure the sloshingsensitively in the third. It turns out, however, that anharmonicities in the trapping potential couple
the motion in one radial direction with the other direction, causing energy to be transferred between
the two radial directions. Therefore the oscillation frequency of one direction shows up in the148center-of-mass motion of the other radial direction. Careful inspection of the radial oscillation
showed that it was in fact composed of two frequencies beating against one another, and those two
frequencies are the frequencies of the two radial directions.
The fact that the radial trap frequencies are different from one another was expected. The
gravitational sag breaks the radial symmetry of the trap. Calculations using the model described insubsection 4.5.4 suggest that the difference between the two frequencies should be ~1%, when it ismeasured to be 1.4%.
To reduce the effect of anharmonicities in the trapping potential on the center-of-mass
motion of the cloud, small (i.e. cold) clouds and small slosh amplitudes were used to measure thetrap frequencies. A typical set of sloshing data is shown in Figure 4.29. The clouds used for thismeasurement were under 50 nK and the size of the slosh that was induced was less than 80 µm. The
trap frequencies were measured at two fields, 156.6 and 163.9 G and over that range the frequencieschanged by less than 0.5% if the baseball current was adjusted to change the trap bias magnetic field(see subsection 4.10.1).
To check the sloshing frequency measurements, the trap frequencies were also measured byparametric heating [79]. A sinusoidal modulation was applied to the bias coil current at twice thetrapping frequency. Applying a modulation to the baseball current did not do any good since that
did not change the trap frequencies to first order. The sinusoidal modulation led to an increase inenergy of the atoms in the cloud, and atoms were then heated up and driven from the trap. By
measuring the trap loss as a function of the modulation frequency, the trap frequency can be deduced
since the most heating, and therefore loss, will occur at precisely twice the magnetic trap frequency.
This method is not as precise as the sloshing measurement, but the two methods for determining thetrap frequency agree with each other within their errors. It is also possible to parametrically drive
radial sloshing motion through modulating the radial trapping frequency and hence the minimum of
the potential in space. The largest sloshing amplitude will occur when the modulation frequency isequal to the radial trap frequency. This measurement of the trapping frequency agrees with all of theothers.

149

48

46

44

Center of Mass (2.54 µm pixels)

42

40

38
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Time (msec)

Figure 4.29. Measurement of Sloshing Frequencies in the Axial and Radial Directions. The
measurement of the axial trap frequency (top) and radial trap frequencies (bottom) was conducted at
the same time. Each point represents a single measurement of the center of mass of the cloud while
it sloshes in the trap. From the beat note pattern in the radial direction it is possible to extract all of
three trap frequencies: 6.791(14) Hz axial and 17.259(8) and 17.493(17) Hz in the two radial
directions. The last frequency corresponds to the direction that is not visible in the absorption
imaging.

150
4.11 MOT Recapture and Absorption Imaging.
4.11.1 General Description of Atom Number Diagnostics. After the evaporation andmanipulation of the atom cloud is completed, it is necessary to extract information about the cloud.
One piece of information is the number of atoms in the cloud. This can be measured in two ways:
through MOT recapture and through absorption imaging. In MOT recapture, the magnetic field isturned off and the MOT fields and trapping and hyperfine repump lasers are turned on. The
fluorescence of the sample is then measured as described in subsection 4.4.6. In absorption imaging,a laser beam is sent through the cloud of atoms and is then focused onto a CCD camera. The laser
beam is either on or near the resonance of the cycling transition, and so the atoms absorb and scatter
light out of the laser beam. The amount of light absorbed is related to the column density of atoms
in the cloud. By examining the amount of light absorbed, the number of atoms can be determined.
In addition, the shape of the shadow that is cast by the atoms can be used to determine the spatial
size of the sample as well, and from this size the temperature and density of the sample can beinferred.
Both of these measurements are destructive and so once the atom cloud is measured using
MOT recapture or absorption imaging it is then necessary to create another sample. The MOT isdestructive to the sample because the atoms rapidly come to an equilibrium distribution in the MOT
that is not related to the distribution in the magnetic trap. In absorption imaging, many photons arescattered and so kinetic energy is imparted to the atoms via the photon recoils, radically heating up
the cold samples being imaged.
4.11.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of MOT Recapture with Respect to Absorption
Imaging. MOT recapture has some advantages over the absorption imaging. The signal-to-noise isbetter for moderately large numbers of atoms in the trapped cloud, and so it provides a more
reproducible measure of the number of atoms in the cloud. Large atom densities can lead to lensing
effects in absorption imaging (see subsection 4.11.6 below) that can distort the number
measurement, and MOT recapture is immune to those considerations. Finally, there is no dataprocessing involved with the MOT recapture measurement; all that is involved is reading off the

151signal coming from a photodiode.

This makes it a simpler diagnostic to use than absorption

imaging.
There are disadvantages to MOT recapture, however. There is no way to determine thespatial size of the magnetically trapped cloud from MOT recapture, and so no way to determine thedensity and temperature of the cloud. It is also difficult to use MOT recapture to measure very small
numbers of atoms. This is partly a signal-to-noise issue. The background noise due to scattered
light fluctuations makes detecting small signals difficult, although this problem can be circumvented
by modulating the trap laser frequency and using phase-sensitive detection. A larger problem comesfrom the imperfect vacuum in the science cell. Once the MOT is turned back on to recapture theatoms it starts to load a small (typically ~106 atoms/sec) number of atoms from the background Rb
vapor. The noise on the signal due to these atoms makes measuring signals difficult if the number isbelow 100,000 atoms. Finally, calibrating the number of atoms in the magnetic trap via MOT
recapture is not very accurate. There are uncertainties (30%) in the effective Clebsch-Gordan
coefficients that should be used [62], the measured beam intensities, and fluorescence lightcollection solid angle. Due to these uncertainties, the MOT is calibrated using the absorption
imaging. The MOT signal and absorption signal are compared and the relationship between the two
is used to calibrate the MOT signal via the absorption signal calibration. Figure 4.30 shows such acalibration.
4.11.3 Optical Depth and Column Density. If resonant or near-resonant laser light is sent
through the cloud of atoms, the atoms will scatter light out of the beam. Given the scattering rate inequation (4.3), it is possible to calculate the absorption of near-resonant laser light. Assume that the
number of atoms N in a volume element d3x is n•d3x (and so n is the density). The number ofphotons scattered per second is N•R, where R is given by equation (4.3). The flux of photons
entering the volume is A•I/hν (I is the intensity, A is the area, h is planck’s constant and ν is thelaser frequency) and the flux of photons exiting the volume is A•(I-dI)/hν. Assuming the laser
propagating along the y-direction, this leads to the relation

Number of atoms determined by absorption ( x 106)

152

3
6

Slope= 2.50 x 10 atoms/nA
Intercept= 0.054 nA is zero atoms

2

1

0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Recapture Signal (nA, experimental units)

Figure 4.30. Calibration of the MOT Recapture Signal. The non-zero intercept is due to the creation
during evaporation of hot atoms that are too diffuse to be detected by absorption but are still trapped(see Chapter VII for details).

153

A ⋅ ( I − dI ) A ⋅ I − A ⋅ dI−=
= N ⋅ R = n d 3x R
hν
hν
hν
dI
⇒
= − nhνRdy(4.27)

This relation is often writtendIhνR hν
= − nσ I , σ =
=
dy
I
2τ

1

(4.28)2 ∆  
I + I sat 1 + 4  Γ  where σ is equal to 3λ2/2π=σ0 in the low-intensity limit. This specification of σ0 is for a two-levelsystem, and is also the value that should be used for circularly polarized light driving a closed
transition from the stretched state in a spin-polarized sample of atoms (e.g. σ light driving the F=3
mf= –3 to F´=4, mf´= –4 transition).
In order to determine the amount of light absorbed by a cloud of atoms, it is only necessary
to integrate equation (4.28) along the direction of the laser beam with the initial condition that theintensity of the light is I0 at y = three widths, σx, σy, and σz, the intensity of light transmitted (I) is2∞
 − y2 
1 + I I sat + 4(∆ Γ )1
 2  dy
dI
σ
n
(
x
,
z
)
exp
=
−
0 ∫
∫
 2σ y Iσ y 2πI0−∞I 4∆2   I   I − I 0 
 = −σ 0 n( x, z ) = − OD( x, z )1 + 2  ln  + 
Γ   I 0   I sat .

(4.29)

 − x2 z 2 N exp 2 − 2  σx σz where n( x, z ) =2πσ xσ z
The quantity OD(x,z) is the optical depth at position (x,z). It is proportional to the column density of
the atoms in the cloud at each point in space. The meaning of the optical depth is illustrated bywriting the transmitted intensity (I) in the limit of low intensity and zero detuning:

I = I 0 exp(− OD( x, z ) )(4.30)

154
Therefore the optical depth is simply the number of absorption lengths at position (x,z) in this limit.
The observed ODm = ln(I/I0) is related to the actual OD as

OD m =OD+ (I − I 0 ) I sat∆2
1+ 4 2
Γ(4.31)

If the cloud does have a gaussian shape, then the number is related to the two visible widths
and the peak optical depth, which is the optical depth at x=0,z=0:N=

2π OD pk σ xσ z

(4.32)

σ0

where σx,σz and σ0 are all defined above.
4.11.4 Preparation of Trapped Cloud for Imaging and Production of Imaging Light.
While it is possible to image the clouds in the magnetic trap, turning off the trap allows a morestraightforward interpretation of the absorption signal and a better signal-to-noise ratio. The better
signal-to-noise ratio is due to the ability to scatter many photons per atom on the cycling transition,
whereas in the trap there is no cycling transition for atoms in the F=2, mf =2 magnetic sublevel.

When the magnetic trap is turned off, it is important to maintain the atoms’ spin polarization. This isaccomplished by turning on the OP coil to produce a 1 G field along the probe laser direction while
the current in the baseball and bias coils is being shut off. The atoms adiabatically follow the field,
and so the spin polarization is preserved.
The inductance of the coils complicates turning off the magnetic trap. The rapid change inthe current is opposed by a back emf since the magnetic energy in the coils (~0.2 J in the baseball)has to be dissipated. In addition, eddy currents may be created in the pieces of metal near themagnetic trap. While 99% of the current turns off in 160 µs, there is a magnetic field that persists
for a little over 1 ms. This residual magnetic field varies from day to day, making any sort ofcompensation difficult. Therefore, after the magnetic trap is turned off, the atoms are allowed to
expand outside the trap for at least 1.6 ms to let the trapping magnetic fields die away.
Since the atoms are trapped in the lower hyperfine state, it is necessary to pump them into
the upper hyperfine state so that the cycling transition can be used for imaging the cloud. After the155atoms have been allowed to expand out of the magnetic trap, the hyperfine repump light used for the
MOT is turned on 100 µs before the probe light is turned on. Not all of the repump light is used,since half the light is on a path through the optics that would blind the camera and is therefore
blocked. The 100 µs lead-time is enough to very nearly completely hyperfine pump the sample.
The number measured by absorption imaging shows less than a 5% decrease when the lead-time isshortened to 10 µs. It is important to keep this lead-time short since the atoms scatter photons in thecourse of being pumped. A photon recoil imparts 6 mm/s to an 85Rb atom, and a couple of photon
scatters are required on average to pump the atoms to the F=3 state. In order for the motion inducedby the scattering not to distort the cloud shape, it is important that the atoms not have much time tomove before being imaged.
The polarization of the hyperfine pump light is exactly opposite that of the MOT beams
because of the way that the hyperfine pump light is coupled into the MOT beam paths. The repump
light therefore drives ∆m=0,±1 transitions and depolarizes the atoms in the cloud. The atoms are
pumped from the F=2 mf= –2 state to a range of sublevels in the F=3 manifold. Since the branchingratio of the F´=3 state is such that the atoms have a 55% chance to fall into the F=3 once excited,most of the atoms are hyperfine pumped after one or two scatters and remain toward the negative
end of the F=3 sublevel manifold. Some fraction of the atoms will be pumped towards the positive
m-levels, however.
The OP/probe laser described in subsection 4.4.9 produces the probe laser light. The probe
light is σ polarized, and its intensity is adjusted to be 320 µW/cm2. After the probe light emerges
from the optical fiber, it is then sent through an iris with an aperture of ~2 mm diameter. The small
aperture was used to reduce forward scattering from dust and other scattering centers along the laser
beam path that went around the shadow of the atom cloud to the camera (see subsection 4.12.5).
The iris position was adjusted until the probe beam passing through the iris was centered on the
point in space where the atoms were magnetically trapped. The AOM is used to control the probe
pulse length, which was typically 40 µs, and the pulse intensity. The action of scattering photons
during the imaging heats the atoms up and so short pulses are required in order to avoid distorting
the shape of the atom cloud. The 40 µs pulse length represents a compromise between distorting the156
atom cloud shape and an accurate measurement of number. Shorter pulses (10 µs) are used when thespatial size of the condensate is of primary interest rather than the number.
The laser is tuned close to or on resonance with the F=3 to F´=4 cycling transition. If theatoms are in the mf= –3 sublevel, then if the laser is perfectly σ polarized the atoms would scatterphotons on a completely closed transition since the only state the F´=4 mf = –4 can decay to is theoriginal F=3 mf = –3 level. The atoms would then scatter photons on this transition repeatedly until
an off-resonant transition occurs allowing the atoms to return to the F=2 ground state. The atoms
then have to be repumped from the F=2 state. On resonance, typically ~125 photons per atom arescattered in 40 µs. Any atoms not in the F=3 mf = –3 state originally will be optically pumped tothat state after several photon scatters. Any small imperfections in the probe polarization mean thatthe transition between magnetic sublevels is not perfectly closed, but atoms that make a transition toa different state will again be quickly optically pumped back.
4.11.5 Imaging the Atoms’ Shadow onto a Camera. Once the probe laser passes throughthe atom cloud, the atoms will have scattered light out of the beam, appearing to cast a “shadow” inthe beam. This shadow is magnified by a series of lenses and focused onto a CCD array in a camera(a Roper Scientific camera with a TEK 512x512 Back Illuminated CCD array). The series of lenses
is shown in Figure 4.31. After the laser passes through the atoms, the shadow in the beam iscollected and nearly collimated by the first lens. The second converging lens and the diverging lensfocus the shadow onto the CCD array in the camera. The first lens is mounted so that a micrometercan be used to adjust its position.
This arrangement of lenses is designed to look at small objects. The magnification of theimaging system shown in Figure 4.31 is a factor of ten. The depth of focus is calculated in the way
shown in Figure 4.32 and is found to be 40 µm. When larger clouds were studied, different lenses
were used that had a smaller magnification and greater depth of focus.
The optical access to the cell is limited by the presence of the magnetic trapping coils, andso the windows used for the MOT light are also used for the imaging system. In order not to block
the MOT beams, the camera used in absorption imaging cannot be in the MOT beam paths.
Therefore, the probe beam path is deflected from the MOT beam path. To do this with a minimum

157

CCD Camera

d= 27 cm

f = -5 cm
d= 12 cm
f = 23 cm
d= 20 cm
Science Cell

λ/4
waveplatef = 12 cm,
14 cm from the atoms
Polarizing Beam
Splitting Cube
λ/4
waveplateFigure 4.31. Schematic of the Imaging Optics.

158

Area = 1 pixel2

CCD
Array
Figure 4.32. Depth of Focus Calculation. The depth of focus of the imaging system is calculatedusing geometric optics. The rays that originate at a position offset from the focus the imaging
system are traced through the edge of the first lens. At the CCD array, these rays form a circle andthe area of this circle can be calculated. The depth of focus is then twice the distance that the object
is displaced from the focus when the area of the circle of rays on the CCD array is equal to the areaof one pixel. This estimate will actually give a depth of focus that is slightly too small since not allof the rays from the object pass through the edge of the lens. Two-thirds of the lens radius is a more
appropriate quantity since it is the average radius through which all of the rays pass.

159
loss of light, the probe beam and co-propagating MOT beam are set to have opposite polarizations
and a polarizing beam splitting cube is used to deflect the probe beam into the camera. This limits
how closely a lens can be positioned to the location of the atom cloud to ~10 cm. This consideration
is important because often the clouds that are to be imaged are small and it is desirable to get as good
an imaging resolution as possible. Also, to save space on the table the camera is mounted on a post
above the table. The farther away from the atoms the first lens is, the farther the camera must beplaced above the table for the same magnification. The diverging lens in the beam path (see Figure4.31) is there primarily to prevent the camera from having to be put any higher above the table.
The diffraction limit of a 1-inch diameter lens placed 10 cm away is 3.7 µm [80]. We have
tried several different makes of lenses for this initial lens. We used Melles-Griot achromat lenses,
high-quality camera lenses, and achromat-meniscus lens pairs. The resolution limit was always
about the same, ~7.5 µm FWHM, which is worse than the diffraction limit, although the achromatmeniscus lens pair worked a bit better than the other lenses that we tried. There are several surfaces
between the lens and the atoms, the glass window of the cell, a λ/4 waveplate and the polarizing
beam splitting cube, and it could be imagined that these lead to a degradation of the resolution of thesystem. However, off-line tests showed that the performance of the lenses was still not at thediffraction limit when imaging small objects even in the absence of these surfaces, although the offline tests indicated a resolution limit that was about 20% better than what was observed in theimaging of the atom clouds. While better resolution would be nice, we have evidence of featuresthat are less than 1 µm that would be of interest in the BECs. Given that this is the approximately
the wavelength of light that we are using to image the atoms, no improvements in resolution would
allow us to see all the features that we would like to see.
The camera was positioned at the focus of the lenses coarsely by imaging the atoms in thescience MOT. Since the science MOT is centered on the magnetic trap center, this is an adequate
place to start. Absorption images of the MOT would have been tedious to take due to the slow
readout and processing of the main CCD camera. The camera takes around one second to read out
the entire array (less if only reading out part of the array) and it takes tens of seconds to process animage. Rather than taking absorption images of the MOT then, a slightly more elaborate procedure160
was used. The MOT was imaged using a single lens onto a smaller CCD array (an inexpensive
infra-red sensitive camera) connected to a standard video monitor. This smaller CCD array position
was easily adjusted to bring some edge in the MOT into a sharp focus. A piece of paper with lines
on it was then placed right in front of the main camera and the position of the main camera wasadjusted until the lines of the paper were in focus on the smaller CCD array where the MOT had
been focused before. This placed the main camera approximately at the focus of the lens system.
For fine adjustments, small BECs were used.
Because of the Feshbach resonance, it is possible to set the atom-atom interactions to zeroand then the BEC has the extent of the ground state of a simple harmonic oscillator. For ourtrapping conditions this is an rms size of 1.9 µm (4.5 µm FWHM) in the radial direction and 3.0 µm(7.0 µm FWHM) in the axial. The radial direction is below the resolution limit, and these small
clouds are used to focus the lens system and to measure the resolution limit. The lens system isfocused by adjusting the position of the first lens via the micrometer so that the cloud appears as
small as possible. A plot of the radial size of the cloud vs. micrometer position is shown in Figure
4.33.
The standard absorption measurement of the cloud consists of three separate camera
images. In the first image, the probe beam with the shadow cast by the atoms is recorded. The
second image records just the probe beam without the atoms present. The last image is taken withthe probe AOM off to measure the background light. The last image is subtracted from both the firstand second image, and the ratio of the resulting intensities is used to produce a measured opticaldepth. This subtraction and division is done on a pixel-by-pixel basis. The processed pixels form a
2D array showing the optical depth (and hence the column density) as a function of position. The
absorption image thus contains information about the spatial size of the cloud and the number ofatoms in the cloud. Usually the processed image of optical depths was fit with a 2D gaussian via aχ2 minimization to determine the radial and axial widths and the number of atoms in the cloud. The
number of atoms cloud could also be calculated without any fit by summing all of the measured
optical depths in all of the pixels.

161

Radial RMS Cloud Width (µm)

8

7

6

5

4

3

2
-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Micrometer Position (0.001 ")Figure 4.33 Focusing the imaging system. The data in this graph are the apparent radial width of a
sub-resolution limit cloud as a function of the position of the first lens in the imaging system. The
probe laser frequency was set to be on resonance to avoid any lensing distortions. The focus point istaken to be the position of the minimum size of the radial width.

162

BECs are not expected in general to have precisely gaussian shapes, but were still fit withgaussians both for ease of processing and because the images of the BECs resembled gaussians mostof the time. The widths and peak optical depth of the gaussians will still correlate to the actual
number of atoms in the BEC and its spatial size. The number measured by the gaussian fits wascompared to the sum of the optical depths in all of the pixels to determine a correction (which was
typically 10% for BECs). A more flexible fitting function would be appropriate to remove the needfor this correction, and improvements in the image processing are currently being made.
One difficulty with the images is the presence of interference fringes on the probe beam.
The fringes form a regular sinusoidal interference pattern on the probe beam with an amplitude of up
to 30% of the average intensity and an apparent spatial frequency of ~15 µm. The reason that this is
an apparent spatial frequency is that the fringes are almost certainly not in focus. As long as thefringe pattern is stable, they present no difficulty. However, the fringe pattern appears to moveslightly between the first and second images (it could be the camera moving), and when the
difference and ratio of intensities is taken a residue of the improperly subtracted fringes then appearson the processed optical depth array, distorting the image of the atom cloud. Fortunately, as long as
the spatial size of the cloud being imaged is different from the spatial frequency of the fringes, thegaussian fits tend to smooth out the effect of the fringe distortion in calculating the width and thenumber of atoms in the cloud.
These interference fringes were due to two sources. One was the window in front of thecamera’s CCD array, and centering the cloud of atoms on a part of the array where the fringe
amplitude was a minimum could reduce the effect of those fringes. This did not eliminate all of thefringes, however, and the remaining fringes likely come from the science cell, waveplates, or lenses
in the imaging path. The fringes in the unprocessed images had a contrast ratio of ~7%, and thisresulted in fringes with a typical size of 0.1 peak-to-peak in apparent optical depth due to theimproper subtraction of the fringes from the unprocessed images. The contrast ratio of the fringes in
the processed imaged varied from shot-to-shot, from no observable fringes to 0.2 peak-to-peakapparent optical depth.

163
Because of the regular nature of these fringes, it is possible to filter them out of theprocessed data digitally. The 2D array is first Fourier transformed to spatial-frequency space. Theinterference fringes then appear as a bright dot in the Fourier transform. Since the cloud spatial sizeand fringe spacing are different, it is possible to set all the spatial-frequency space around theinterference fringe to zero. The data is then Fourier transformed back to real space and the original
image is recovered minus the fringes. Fits to the data before and after the transform show that thisdoes not significantly distort the measured cloud shape or number.
The signal-to-noise ratio of the imaging system is limited by the shot noise due to the finite
number of photons impinging on each pixel. There is a background noise associated with thevariation of stray light from the room being detected by the camera and the noise on the camera darkcounts. This background noise was equal to an rms size of 2.6 counts per pixel for our typicalconditions. The number of counts in a pixel is proportional to the number of photons that strike thatpixel during the camera exposure time. The shot noise per pixel was equal to ~0.5*(counts)1/2, andthe intensity used corresponded to around 300 counts per pixel. There was no evidence of any
component of the noise that was directly proportional to the number of counts. The signal-to-noise
ratio would therefore improve with increased probe duration or increased probe intensity. However,increasing the probe intensity leads to undesirable saturation of the atomic transition and Doppler
shifts as discussed below. Increasing the probe duration leads to Doppler shifts and a distortion of
the cloud shape through heating.

Therefore, the probe intensity and duration were chosen tocomprise between these undesirable effects and the signal-to-noise ratio.

As an example, thecalculated signal-to-noise ratio due to the probe intensity noise in the determination of the number ofatoms in a ~5000 atom BEC expanded to have a peak optical depth of 1.2 is 125 for thesecompromise conditions.
4.11.6 Lensing Effects From Dense Atomic Samples. When the probe laser is not tuned
exactly onto resonance, in addition to absorbing the laser light, the cloud also possesses an index ofrefraction that is different from one [81]. The variation in density of the cloud then means that theindex of refraction varies in space and so the cloud can act like a lens, bending the wavefront of thelaser beam. If the cloud is in focus, nothing happens unless the lensing is so severe that some of the164atoms’ shadow is bent outside the collection angle of the first lens. If the cloud is out of focus, thenthe lensing action can lead to serious distortions in the observed shape of the cloud. In fact, these
distortions can be used as an alternate way to make sure the atoms are at the focus of the imaging
system. If the cloud shape looks the same when the probe laser is blue-detuned as it does when theprobe is red-detuned then the cloud is in focus, provided that the depth of focus is bigger than thecloud being imaged.
Normally we avoided these distortions by tuning the probe laser on resonance with thecycling transition, making the index of refraction of the cloud equal to one.

4.12 Calibration of the Imaging System.
4.12.1 Calibration of the Magnification. In order to determine the size of an imaged
object, the magnification of the imaging system must be measured. In other words, when an image
is formed on the CCD array, an individual pixel will have an apparent size that is simply the actual
size of the pixel divided by the magnification of the lens system. This apparent size is referred to as
the pixel size. The way that this is done is to release a cloud of atoms from the magnetic trap andwatch it fall. The center-of-mass motion of the cloud is then recorded as a function of expansion
time. Since the cloud accelerates under the force of gravity, the acceleration of the center of mass ofthe cloud can be used to calibrate the pixel size. Figure 4.34 shows a typical pixel size calibration
measurement.
One potential systematic in this measurement is the presence of a magnetic field gradientthat provides acceleration to the atoms in addition to the acceleration due to gravity. The gradientswould have to be significant compared to 26 G/cm, and this is a fairly strong gradient and so it is notexpected that there would be any stray fields that were even a few percent of this size. Even so, tobe sure that this was not a problem the pixel size calibration was also checked in a different way.
The trap frequencies were measured for two different radial trap strengths. Knowledge of the radial
trap frequencies in both traps, the distance (in pixels) that the center of the trap moved, and therelationship between sag and radial trap strength provided a pixel size calibration that was inagreement with the normal gravity drop measurement.

Center of Mass in the Vertical Direction (pixels)

165

240

2.29 ( 10 ) microns / pixel

200
160
120
80
2

4

6

8

10

Time ( ms )Figure 4.34. Using Gravity to Calibrate the Magnification of the Imaging Optics. By releasing theatoms from the magnetic trap and tracing the center of mass motion, from the measurement of theacceleration of the falling atoms due to gravity and the knowledge of g, the apparent size of a pixel(i.e. the magnification of the optics) can be determined. The black circles show the measured centerof-mass motion while the solid line is a fit to the data.

166

4.12.2 Probe Laser Frequency Stability and Single Mode Behavior. The frequency ofthe probe laser needs to be known in order to calculate the scattering rate and hence the crosssection. In addition, the short pulse time requires that the stabilization of the probe laser frequency
be good from DC to nearly 40 kHz. The short pulse time does not allow any variations in this range
to be averaged down during the pulse itself and so any variations will lead to shot-to-shot noise. The
frequency of the laser is stabilized using the DAVLL system to provide an error signal, and theassociated servo system stabilizes the laser frequency well except for a long-term DC drift in the
DAVLL signal. This long-term drift is monitored by referencing a saturated absorption signal.
The frequency of the probe laser is the most critical of all the lasers in the apparatus, and somore time has been spent improving and characterizing its servo system. Both the PZT and laser
current receive feedback from the servo system, and the PZT is used to compensate for long term
drifts while the current is used to suppress faster variations. We found that some care was necessary
in the design of the servo system. All op-amps have an intrinsic gain-bandwidth limit, and theinclusion of gain stages as large as 1000 slowed the servo system down significantly, limiting the
bandwidth to a few kHz. Breaking up the gain stages into smaller pieces and using better op-amps(AD 829) improved the servo performance. The frequency noise was characterized by using asaturated absorption system separate from the DAVLL system. By measuring the total variation of
the saturated absorption signal the frequency noise was measured to be less than 0.4 MHz peak-topeak.
To monitor the long-term drift, part of the probe laser beam is overlapped with a beam froma reference laser that is peak-locked to a saturated absorption peak. The two combined beams aresent to a fast-response photodiode and the beat frequency (~60 MHz) between the two beams ismeasured. The drift in the DAVLL signal can then be monitored in real time and the servo set pointis occasionally adjusted to compensate for this drift.
The beat frequency where the laser is in resonance with the cycling transition is determinedby examining the peak optical depth of a cloud of atoms released from the trap as a function of probe
laser frequency. Figure 4.35 shows such a measurement. Since absorption imaging is destructive, a167

center = 61.07 (11)width = 6.78 (34)

1.50

Peak Optical Depth

1.25

1.00

0.75

0.50

0.25

0.00
52

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

68

70

Probe Laser Detuning (MHz)Figure 4.35. Calibration of the Probe Detuning. The measured optical depth of a trapped cloud
versus the detuning of the probe laser is used to determine the resonance of the F=3 mf = –3 to F´=4
mf = –4 transition in experimental units. The x axis shows the beat note between the probe laser andanother laser locked to the peak of a saturated absorption transition. The variation in the points
appears to be worse than it actually was; there was a drift in the size of the trapped clouds during themeasurement that was easily removed when the center and width of the lineshape were being
determined. The width of the transition from simple power broadening is expected to be 6.6 MHz,consistent with the measured width.

168
sample must be created through evaporative cooling for each measured point. The location of thepeak of this absorption curve is consistent with a field of 1 G, which is what is expected from theoptical pumping coil. The 6.78(34) MHz width is consistent with the natural width of the cyclingtransition when power broadening is included (see the next subsection).
One other concern with respect to the frequency of the probe laser is that the laser should besingle-mode. Probe light that is in a different mode is not near the cycling transition and therefore
cannot be scattered by the atoms. This light will distort the optical depth measurement since it will
not be properly subtracted away when the optical depth is calculated. The amount of light in othermodes can be determined by using a standard Rb cell. The probe laser is tuned near the peak of the
Doppler absorption profile, and then the temperature of the cell is increased. Eventually, theincreased Rb density in the cell causes the absorption of all of the light that is in the mode near the
Rb transitions. The remaining transmitted light then indicates the amount of light in the other modes(typically ~2%). A correction to the optical depth measurement can be applied based on thismeasurement, but the effect of the light in other modes produces the same effect as forward
scattering around the atoms described in subsection 4.12.5 below, and so the two corrections areusually lumped together.
4.12.3 Measurement of the Probe Intensity and the Doppler Shift. Because the atomic
transition can be saturated, the probe intensity must be determined for an accurate calculation of thecolumn density. The determination of the probe intensity by directly measuring the size and powerof the probe beam is complicated by the presence of several absorbing surfaces between the atoms
and the camera. Instead, the peak optical depth is measured as a function of probe intensity andfrom a fit to the saturation of the atomic transition the probe intensity is calibrated. Figure 4.36
shows such a measurement.
There are several features of interest of the curve in Figure 4.36. First, the peak opticaldepth does decrease as the power in the probe is increased, and the fit, assuming that the atomic
transition is simply saturating, agrees with the data reasonably well. Second, the data are consistent
with an increase in measured optical depth as the intensity is turned up from zero. This type of

169

1.6

Apparent Peak Optical Depth

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.0

0.9
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Probe Intensity (Camera Counts)

Figure 4.36. Measured Optical Depth vs. Probe Intensity. This figure shows the effect of increasingprobe intensity on the saturation of the atomic transition. By fitting the decrease in measured opticaldepth to equation (4.31), the intensity of the probe can be determined, calibrating the number ofcamera counts to the intensity of the probe at the location of the atoms. Each point consists of sevenindividual measurements, and the standard deviation of those seven measurements is used to
calculate the errors shown. Note that the size of the fractional error decreases with increasing
intensity. The atomic clouds used for this calibration were thermal clouds with a temperature of 115
nK. The probe laser was slightly detuned from resonance (1.1 MHz) when these data were taken.
To avoid the potential systematic from optical pumping effects (subsection 4.12.4), only the four
highest-intensity points were fit.

170
behavior is expected from optical pumping effects discussed in the next subsection. Finally, thevariation in measured optical depth decreases by a factor of 1.5 as the probe power is increased.
There are a few reasons why the variation in the measured optical depth should decrease as
the probe power is increased. The transition will be saturated and power broadened, and so thesensitivity to variations in the probe frequency should be reduced. Over the range of the probe
power used, however, the saturation and broadening is not enough to explain the reduction in noise.
The signal-to-noise ratio should improve as the probe intensity is increased, but the noise expectedfrom the shot-noise of the photons counted is only 0.8 % at I/Isat = 0.2and so this does not explain theobserved variation of 5%. The actual number of atoms is varying from shot to shot, but thatvariation is independent of the probe power. The most plausible explanation is that this variation isdue to variations in the optical pumping of the sample. The distribution of atoms in the F=3
magnetic sublevels will vary and the number of photons required to pump the atoms over to the F=3
mf = –3 state will vary as well. The more photons that are scattered, the better optically pumped thesample and so these variations should decrease with increasing probe power.
Rescattering of probe photons in an optically thick cloud and the acceleration of the atoms
due to the momentum transfer from the probe beam will also lead to a decrease in the measured
optical depth as the power of the probe is increased. The fact that the cloud is optically thick meansthat some of the photons scattered out of the probe beam will rescatter off some of the other atoms in
the cloud. These rescattering events cause the atoms to spend more time in the excited state,effectively reducing the saturating intensity. The size of this estimated reduction is ~25% for a
cloud with an optical depth of 1.2. The act of scattering photons also accelerates the atoms since theprobe is directed from just one direction. Since 6 mm/s on average is imparted per photon scatter,
after 100 scatters the atoms are moving at 60 cm/s and the Doppler shift v/λ is 0.8 MHz. Increasing
the power in the probe beam increases the number of scattering events that then leads to larger
Doppler shifts. This leads to a distortion of the measurement of the saturation intensity as well.
Exactly on-resonance, the correction would only be ~3% for the 40 µs pulse length and the range ofintensities covered in Figure 4.36. Since the probe detuning was slightly (1.1 MHZ) off resonance,
the correction of the saturation intensity is then ~10%. The correction to the saturation intensity due

171
to the Doppler shift was estimated by integrating equation (4.3) over the length of the pulse with the
Doppler shift due to the time-dependent velocity of the atoms included in the detuning term ∆. The
time-dependent velocity at time t=t0 was assumed to be equal to the number of photons scattered
between t=0 and t=t0 times the average velocity imparted by a single photon. This meant that the
scattering rate R of equation (4.3) and the time-dependent velocity were coupled equations, and sothey were solved as such. The number of photons scattered in the optically thick regions of thecloud were smaller and so the Doppler shift was less of an effect for those regions. Appropriately
averaging over all of the optical depths in the cloud produced the correction estimates listed above.
The peak optical depth of the clouds in the estimate was assumed to be 1.2.
Since the optical depth of the clouds used to measure the saturation intensity are roughly
the same as the optical depth of the clouds that were studied in the course of our investigations, theeffective saturation intensity measured by the data in Figure 4.32 can be used to find the actual
column density with no additional adjustments. The effective saturation intensity can be comparedto the probe intensity determined by the shot noise and the two agree to within 25%. This is areasonable agreement given the effects of optical thickness of the clouds, the small Doppler shifts
and the absorption of the probe light by the glass cell, waveplate, polarizing beam splitting cube, andlenses between the atoms and the camera CCD array.
4.12.4 Optical Pumping Effects in Absorption Imaging. As was alluded to in theprevious sections, the distribution of atoms among the magnetic sublevels of the F=3 state has an
impact on the measured optical depth. The reason for this is that the oscillator strength of aparticular absorption transition is proportional to its Clebsch-Gordan (CG) coefficient (see Figure4.3). From the F=3 mf = –3 state to the F´=4 mf´ = –4 the CG coefficient is one, and so any othertransition will have a smaller transition probability and therefore a smaller transition rate. This
smaller scattering rate leads to an undercount of the number of atoms in the cloud.
After the atoms are pumped from the F=2 to the F=3 state in preparation for the imaging,
they occupy a range of magnetic sublevels. The population of the atoms will be predominantly inthe negative mf levels since the atoms start in the F=2 mf = –2 state, but they will certainly not all
start in the F=3 mf = –3 state. As the atoms scatter photons, they will be pumped by the σ172polarization of the probe laser towards the F=3 mf = –3 state. The CG coefficients are such thatseveral photon scatters are required before the atoms are pumped into this state. The following tableshows the average number of photons that must be scattered to pump the atoms to the mf = –3 state
and the amount of time that process takes.
Initial mf

Avg. Number ofTime (scaled to

state

Photon Scattersscattering rate fromthe F-3, mf = –3 state

–2

4.0

5.3

–1

5.9

9

0

7.2

12.7

1

8.1

17.7

2

8.9

26

3

9.5

50.4

Table 4.2. The average number of scattering events required to pump an atom from a particular
initial mf state to the mf = –3 state. Also shown is the length of time these photons scatters would
take. The time column is how many photons an atom already in the mf = –3 state would scatter on
the F=3, mf = –3 to F´=4 mf = –4 transition in the time that it took to pump the atom from a different
mf state over. For example, and atom initially in the mf =0 state would be pumped to the mf = –3
state in an average time equal to the amount of time it would take an atom initially in the mf = –3
state to scatter an average 12.7 photons.
The amount that an atom will be undercounted can be determined from the values in Table
4.2. For instance, assume that the probe pulse is on long enough to scatter 100 photons from the mf= – 3 state. If an atom begins in the mf = –2 state, then the atom will on average scatter 4.0 photons
while being pumped into the mf = –3 state and then scatter an additional 94.7 photons (on average)
and so it will only scatter 98.7 photons in total and will be undercounted by 1.3%. An atom initiallyin the mf = –1 state will be undercounted by 3.1%, and an atom in the mf = 3 state will be
undercounted by 40% on average. The longer and more intense the pulse, the more photon scattersthat will occur and the less the atoms will be undercounted. The times listed in Table 4.2 do notinclude the consideration of the role the ~1G quantization field plays in removing the degeneracy of

173
all of the transitions, and so the pumping times listed are faster (by up to 30% for the most positive
mf states) than the true pumping rate.
The values quoted in Table 4.2 are only average quantities, and when the average time thatit takes to pump an atom starts to become comparable to the pulse length, the amount of photons thatatom scatters will be highly variable. The atoms farther from the mf = –3 state will be more variable.
If a scattering event occurs early in the pulse that pumps the atoms toward the mf = –3 state then theatom can scatter a large number of photons. If it does not get pumped over until late in the pulse, notmany photons will be scattered. Of course there are many atoms in the sample and so thesevariations will be averaged down, but we suspect that the variations in optical depth that we
observed during the Isat measurement are brought on in the variation of the optical pumping of theatoms during the imaging pulse. The exact calculation of the expected variability is complex and thesize of the variability difficult to estimate. However, it does have the right time scale and intensity
dependence to explain the observed variation.
Since the optical pumping effects will definitely cause an undercount of the atom sample
and because we have observed variability that seems to indicate that the atoms have not been
completely pumped to the mf = –3 state early in the probe pulse, a correction is applied to thenumber of atoms measured. This correction is estimated to be 5%, based on the observed variability
in the measured optical depth.
4.12.5 The Maximum Observable Optical Depth and Forward Scattering. The probe
laser light can scatter not only from the atoms but also any dust or imperfections in any of the opticalelements of the imaging system. This scattering will be strongly peaked in the forward direction,and it will limit the maximum observable optical depth of the cloud during absorption imaging.
Scattered probe light from near the edge of the shadow cast by the atoms can fill in the shadow at thecamera and make the optical depth appear smaller than it actually is. The smaller the spatial size ofthe cloud of atoms the easier it is for light to come from the edge and fill in the shadow at the centerof the cloud (since the angle of the forward scattering would then be less). Using an iris in the probe
beam to make the beam smaller reduces this effect dramatically, by a factor of 6 or more in the174amount of light that leaks into the shadow. Using a higher-magnification lens system makes theeffect worse.
This effect is measured by creating a very optically thick cloud and then imaging it. The
measured optical depth is observed to saturate around the center of the cloud, and the saturated value
determines the amount of light that is scattered into the shadow of the cloud. The maximum
observable optical depth is referred to as the “OD ceiling.” The OD ceiling decreases as the size ofthe cloud decreases.

It is typically around 3.5 for thermal clouds and 3.0 for spatially large

condensates (13 µm rms width). It has been observed to be as small as 2 for spatially smaller
condensates. This effect is indistinguishable from the presence of light not in the main mode of theprobe laser and so measuring the OD ceiling is really measuring both effects.
It is possible to model the OD ceiling as light that cannot be absorbed that is present in theprobe beam. This model of the OD ceiling predicts that its presence will lead to an underestimate of
the number of atoms that is typically around 10% for the large condensates discussed above. Basedon this model, a correction is applied to the measured number to account for this effect.
4.12.6 Quantization Field Orientation. The magnetic sublevels only have meaning if they
are defined with respect to some axis, referred to as a quantization axis. In our apparatus, that axis isset by the magnetic field created by the OP coil. The polarization of the probe laser is also definedwith respect to this axis. In order for the probe to drive only ∆m = –1 transitions, it must bothpropagate directly along the quantization axis and be perfectly circularly polarized. Otherwise, in
the atoms’ frame it will be possible to drive ∆m=0, +1 transitions as well, albeit with a lower
probability. This would lead to an underestimate of the atom number for two reasons. The CG
coefficients for the ∆m=0, +1 transitions are not as large and so the photon scattering rate will beless than for ∆m = –1 transitions alone. Also, the ∆m=0, +1 transitions will optically pump theatoms away from the mf = –3 state and while the atoms are being pumped back over they will scatter
less photons.
The polarization of the probe is set by the birefringence of the λ/4 waveplate and its
orientation since the probe light is linearly polarized before going through the waveplate. The
waveplate birefringence was measured off-line and found to be within 1/30th of λ/4, close to quarter

175
wave. The waveplate on the other side of the cell was measured at the same time and found to havea birefringence equally as close to quarter wave. The first waveplate’s orientation was adjusted sothat the optical pumping efficiency was maximized, which is sensitive to the depolarizing nature ofimperfectly polarizing light. The probe light is extinguished to the 1% level by the polarizing beamsplitting cube, and so the polarization should be circular to that level. Calculations show that this
1% level is reasonable since small deviations of the birefringence from λ/4 and small deviations in
the orientation of the waveplate scale with the deviation squared and so are small.
Rather than change the probe direction, it is easier to check whether or not the OP field wasaligned well enough along the direction of the probe laser. This is done by measuring the opticaldepth as external fields were applied to make sure that it is near the maximum. The results areshown in Figure 4.37, and indeed the quantization field is well aligned. This result was confirmed
by altering the strength of the quantization field. If there is some stray field perpendicular to thequantization field, then the field should become misaligned as its strength is adjusted downward andbetter aligned as the field strength is increased. After adjusting the probe frequency to compensate
for the change in the atoms’ resonance frequency as the quantization field was changed, we found novariation in the measured number with quantization field strength, again indicating that the field waswell aligned.
4.12.7 Resolution Limit. The finite resolution limit of the optical imaging system makes it
difficult to interpret the images of objects roughly the size of the resolution limit or smaller. Objects
smaller than the resolution limit will appear to have a width close to the size of the resolution limit.
Therefore, the spatial size of any object smaller than the resolution limit cannot be accurately
determined.
The resolution limit also has an impact on the observed number of atoms. The diffraction
from a small object will cause the “shadow” cast by the object to become larger than the size of thecollection lens in the imaging system. The camera will then miss some of the shadow and thenumber of atoms will be undercounted. The apparent number decrease is not as severe as thelimitation on the apparent width of the cloud. The size of the apparent number decrease can be
estimated by Fourier-transforming the cloud shape and cutting out the spatial frequencies that will

176

1.05
1.00
0.95

Ratio

0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Up/Down Earth Shim Current

Figure 4.37. Checking the Orientation of the Quantization Axis During Absorption Imaging. Eachdata point in this figure (filled circle) represents the ratio of the number of atoms measured at aparticular up/down earth shim current to the number of atoms measured with that current equal to
0.2 A (open circle) during the absorption sequence. The decrease in measured atom number is dueto the misalignment of the quantization axis caused by the application of the field from the up/downearth shim, which is orthogonal to the main quantization field. The solid line is a parabola fit to thedata. This parabola is a reasonable function since we expect that the measured number of atoms
should be a maximum when the quantization axis is aligned along the probe direction. The
orientation of the quantization axis was checked similarly in the other direction that is orthogonal tothe main quantization field. The typical operating condition was 0.2 A, close to the peak of thecurve, which fits to a maximum ratio of 1.0015.

177

not be captured by the collection lens. For instance, a cloud with a size that is 70% of the resolution
limit in the radial direction and 2.5 times that in the axial (the aspect ratio of our trap) is only
predicted to be undercounted by 8%.
The decrease in measured number for small clouds can be determined by using the meanfield interaction to change the size of condensates created under similar conditions and thenexamining the apparent number of atoms in the condensates as a function of their spatial size. In thismeasurement, however, not only will the resolution limit of the optics play a role but the
combination of higher peak optical depth and lower optical depth ceiling for the smaller condensates
will also limit the measured number. It is difficult to separate the effect from the resolution limit
from the optical depth limit. For condensates with a radial FWHM of 11 µm and an axial FWHM of
22 µm and peak optical depth of around 2, we see a ~10% decrease in the measured number overcondensates with larger sizes, larger than what would be expected from the simple estimate of theapparent number decrease performed in the previous paragraph.
The resolution limit only plays a role when small clouds are being imaged. In order toavoid undercounting the number of atoms in a small cloud, the size of the cloud is expanded above
the resolution limit. See Chapters IX and X for more details.
4.12.8 Estimate of Absorption Imaging Accuracy. The measurement of the number ofatoms in a sample is notoriously difficult. The reason is that there are many things that can affect theabsorption signal, like all those discussed in the preceding subsections. We have estimated theeffects of all the considerations listed above on the number, but are not confident that we know all of
the effects perfectly. Therefore, it is necessary to assign an uncertainty to our measurement of thenumber. Based on the typical size of the effects that we do know about, we estimate that our
uncertainty in the number calibration is 10%. A summary of all of the effects considered ispresented in the table below.

178

Absorption Imaging
Consideration
Imaging Optics Magnification
Calibration
Probe Laser Frequency
Probe Laser Light in Nonresonant Modes
Lensing due to Dense Clouds
Probe Intensity

Doppler Shift and Photon
Rescattering

Optical Depth Ceiling

Optical Pumping

Quantization Field Orientation

Probe Laser Polarization
Resolution Limit

Effect on the Absorption Imaging
Necessary to convert a measured OD
to a column density and hence anatom number. Determined with 1%
precision.
Necessary to compute the scattering
rate. Measured stability is ~0.4
MHz.
Limits the maximum observable
optical depth. See optical depth
ceiling.
Distorts the shape of small, dense
clouds. Avoided by imaging onresonance.
We typically operated the probe laser
at 15-25% of the saturation intensity.
The resulting saturation of the atomic
transition must be included in thecalculation of the scattering rate.
These two effects reduce theeffective saturation intensity by~30% of the value calculated for asingle non-moving atom. Will cause
the apparent saturation intensity todepend mildly on the optical depth ofthe cloud.
Forward scattering limits the
maximum observable optical depth.
A 10% correction to the measured
atom number is applied to accountfor this effect.
Time required to spin-polarize thesample during the imaging pulse
reduces the scattering rate andincreases the imaging noise. A 5%
correction is applied to account forthis effect.
Quantization magnetic field must bealigned along the probe axis in order
to avoid undercounting. The field isaligned so that any error from thiseffect is nulled to better than 1%
Same issues as with the quantization
axis. Errors nulled to better than 1%.
Affects the measured spatial size andatom number of small clouds ( < 7µm FWHM)

Table 4.3. Summary of Effects Considered in Absorption Imaging.

Thesis Subsection,
Relevant Equations
Subsection 4.10.
Equation(4.29), (4.32)
Subsection 4.12.2
Equation (4.3), (4.31)
Subsection 4.12.2
Subsection 4.11.6
Subsection 4.12.3
Equation (4.31)

Subsection 4.12.3

Subsection 4.12.5

Subsection 4.12.4

Subsection 4.12.6

Subsection 4.12.6
Subsection 4.12.7

179This concludes the Chapter on the details of the experimental apparatus. Throughout therest of the thesis, reference will be made back to the appropriate subsections of this chapter when
any relevant calibrations of the system are being discussed.

Chapter V
Resonant Magnetic Field Elastic Scattering in Cold 85Rb
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 External Electromagnetic Fields and Very-Low-Temperature Atomic Collisions.
Very-low-temperature collision phenomena can be quite sensitive to applied electromagnetic fields.
Several groups have altered inelastic collision rates in optical traps by applying laser fields [82].
There have been numerous proposals [20,21,83,84,85,86] for using laser and static electric andmagnetic fields to influence cold collisions. Of particular interest to this work are the predictions
made in Ref. [21] that there should be Feshbach resonances in collisions between cold (~µK) alkali
atoms. These Feshbach resonances allow dramatic alterations of the inelastic and elastic scattering
rates as a function of an external field. Since the collisions being considered are cold enough, theelastic collisions can be characterized by a single-parameter, the s-wave scattering length a (seesubsection 2.4.4). Near a Feshbach resonance, a varies dispersively as a function of the appliedexternal field, and can, in principle, take on any value from –to +(see Figure 5.1). Since theelastic scattering cross section is 8πa2, changing a will change the elastic scattering rate as well. The
origin of these Feshbach resonances was discussed in Chapter II.
While attempts had been made to observe magnetic-field-dependent Feshbach resonancesin 133Cs and 87Rb [87,88], Feshbach resonances in collisions between alkali atoms had not yet been
observed when we began searching for one in 85Rb. In retrospect, the failure of these early searches
for Feshbach resonances is not surprising because there was an enormous uncertainty as to theprecise magnetic field locations and widths of the predicted resonances. This large uncertainty wasdue primarily to the fact that the position and width of a Feshbach resonance is very sensitive to thedetails of the atom-atom interaction potential.

After these initial searches, results ofphotoassociation spectroscopy greatly improved the knowledge of the alkali atom-atom interaction
potentials, allowing these resonances to be predicted with much less uncertainty [89]. As a result,

181

S-wave Scattering Length (atomic units)

400
200
0
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000
-1200
0

100

200

300

400

500

Magnetic Field (Gauss)

Figure 5.1. This figure shows the approximate shape of the Feshbach resonance. It is calculatedusing the measured parameters for 85Rb and equation (5.1).

182
several groups, including ours, independently observed Feshbach resonances between alkali atoms
within the span of several months: in23

Na [90], 85Rb[91,92], and 133Cs[93].

The methods used to observe the resonances were diverse. In 23Na, the Feshbach resonance
was observed with optically trapped Bose-Einstein Condensates (BECs). There were two signaturesof a Feshbach resonance in 23Na: a change in the expansion rate of a BEC released from the trap due
to a change in scattering length, and a large loss rate that is potentially due to molecular formation[94,95,96,97]. Whatever the cause, the loss rates were large enough to preclude any studies of the
BEC behavior near the divergence of the scattering length and in the region where a < 0. In 133Cs,
the samples were also optically trapped, but instead of using BECs over 30 Feshbach resonanceswere located by examining the elastic and inelastic scattering rates in thermal clouds. Characterizing
more than 30 Feshbach resonances would be a tremendous task for us, but the all-optical method ofcreating cold samples in the Stanford work represents an improvement on the order of 100 in duty
cycle over our work, resulting in a factor of 104 improvement in integration time. In other words,
what would take us a month took them less than an hour. In the 85Rb work in Ref. [91], a Feshbachresonance was inferred from the observation of a magnetic-field dependent change inphotoassociation spectra of magnetically trapped thermal clouds. In our work, a Feshbach resonancein 85Rb was measured by examining the elastic scattering cross section in magnetically trapped
clouds, work that is detailed in the rest of this chapter.
5.1.2 Motivation. The fact that no Feshbach resonances had been observed in cold alkali
collisions was certainly one reason that we began our search for one in 85Rb, especially in light of the
improved predictions for the resonance location and width. While these Feshbach resonances areinteresting examples of cold collision physics in and of themselves, our primary motivation in fact
lay elsewhere. The foremost reason we were searching for a Feshbach resonance was due to theimportance of the scattering length in determining the properties of a BEC.
The role of the scattering length in the mean-field energy of a BEC was discussed in
Chapter III. Many of the properties of a BEC depend on the mean-field energy, and so the ability totune it through an external field opened up exciting possibilities for experiments in Bose-Einstein
Condensation. The mean-field energy could be made to be very strong, and expected deviations

183
from mean-field theory could be tested (Chapter VIII). Also, the atom-atom interactions could bemade to be attractive enough that the BEC was no longer stable and BECs in this unstable region
could be studied (Chapter IX and X). The presence of a nearly resonant molecular state may also
play an interesting role in the behavior of BECs near a Feshbach resonance as well [94-97]. In orderto perform any of these experiments, however, it was necessary to first locate a Feshbach resonanceto use to tune the s-wave scattering length. In 85Rb, a prominent Feshbach resonance was predicted
to exist at experimentally accessible fields, and this was the resonance that we found. From now on,
I will refer to this particular Feshbach resonance as “the” Feshbach resonance.
Another reason that the elastic scattering was studied as a function of field is that theevaporative cooling of 85Rb is also more complicated than that in 23Na and 87Rb. Knowledge of boththe elastic and inelastic scattering rates as a function of magnetic field was required in order to coolthe 85Rb atoms to BEC temperatures (see Chapter VI and VII). Also, away from the Feshbachresonance 85Rb was predicted to have a large negative scattering length, which meant that any morethan a few (~70) atoms were expected to be unstable unless the scattering length could be changed.
Finally, the sensitivity of the Feshbach resonance to the interatomic interaction potential
meant that a measurement of the location and width of the resonance would then tightly constrain theparameters used to characterize the interatomic interaction potential.

In addition to simply

improving the knowledge of the cold collisions potentials for their own sake, the s-wave scattering
length as a function of magnetic field also needs to be known in order to interpret the results of BEC
experiments near the Feshbach resonance.
5.1.3 Characterization of Atom-atom Interaction Potentials. The Rb-Rb interatomic
potential is discussed in section 2.9. There are primarily three parameters that once known specify
the atom-atom interaction potential for cold elastic collisions and allow the calculation of elastic
scattering cross sections. These three parameters can be represented as the singlet scattering length(aS), triplet scattering length (aT), and the C6 coefficient, which is the leading coefficient in thedispersion force expansion (see equation (2.26)) [30].

Instead of the parameters aS, and aT,alternative specifications of the triplet and singlet potentials can be used such as the triplet andsinglet quantum defects [31] or the fractional bound state number [91]. In addition to these three184
parameters, the additional terms in the dispersion force expansion (such as C8 and C10) also play arole, but the elastic scattering cross section is not as sensitive to these parameters.
The s-wave scattering length as a function of magnetic field (B) near the Feshbachresonance is also approximately characterized by three parameters: the position of the resonance,
the width of the resonance, and the background scattering length (abg), which is the scattering length
far from the Feshbach resonance. The position of the resonance is defined as the magnetic field(Bpeak) where the divergence in scattering length is located. The width (often written as ∆) is definedas the difference in magnetic field between the peak and the where the scattering length is equal tozero (Bzero). In terms of these three parameters, the scattering length as a function of field is [30,90]  B − B peak a = abg 1 −  zero  B − B peak (5.1)

Since the interatomic potential is specified by three parameters, the measurement of abg, Bpeak, andBzero in turn determines aT, aS, and C6. The relationship between these two sets of parameters iscomplex, however. For our purposes, the three parameters abg, Bpeak, and Bzero are most useful since
usually our only concern is the value of a at a particular magnetic field. Once abg, Bpeak, and Bzero are
known, aT, aS, and C6 can be determined from numerical calculations and the resulting potential usedby theorists for any cold collision calculations requiring the interatomic potential.
Equation (5.1) is only approximate, but the approximation is better than 0.5% near the
Feshbach resonance (155.3 to 180 G), which is sufficient precision for our purposes (and certainly
smaller than the error in the determination of the various interatomic potential parameters). Over therange of magnetic fields from 180 G resonance out to 250 G the approximation is still good to ~1 %,except near another narrow width ( ~ 0.01 G) Feshbach resonance somewhere near 230 G (which has
not been observed).
The three parameters abg, Bpeak, and Bzero are each directly measurable experimentally, andthis chapter details our measurement of these three quantities.

5.2 Cross-dimensional Mixing and Thermal Equilibration.
5.2.1 Elastic Collisions and Enforcement of Thermal Equilibrium. In a gas that is notinitially in thermal equilibrium, elastic collisions will cause the gas to come to thermal equilibrium.

185
For any gas of atoms, the gas reaches thermal equilibrium once the entropy of the sample ismaximized. Since elastic collisions cannot on average decrease the entropy of the gas, but canincrease the entropy, after a sufficient number of elastic collisions the entropy will be maximized
and the gas will have reached thermal equilibrium. The time that a gas takes to reach equilibrium istherefore determined by the elastic collision rate.
One feature of a magnetically trapped gas in thermal equilibrium is that it has an aspectratio (axial width divided by radial width) that depends on the frequencies of the trapping potential.
If the aspect ratio of the cloud is changed from this equilibrium value, then elastic collisions will
force it back to the equilibrium ratio. The rate that it achieves this equilibration can then be used todetermine the elastic scattering rate, and hence the elastic scattering cross section, of the collisions
between the atoms in the gas [98]. This is in fact how we determine the s-wave scattering length asa function of magnetic field.
In principle, any two directions of the trap that do not have an equilibrium aspect ratio canbe used to measure the equilibration rate, but the presence of anharmonic terms in the potential can
obscure the equilibration rate between the two radial directions. Since the two radial frequencies areclose to one another, it is possible for atoms’ orbits to precess between the two directions (seesubsection 4.6.1). While it is true that in the absence of elastic collisions the entropy of the cloudcannot increase, the precession of the atoms’ orbit can mimic an equilibration of the gas. Atoms inhigher-energy orbits precess out of one direction and into the other. If only the spatial distribution of
a cloud with different initial average radial energies is measured, then the direction that the atoms
have precessed into (out of) will look wider (narrower) and the gas will appear to be equilibratingeven without elastic collisions. If the velocity distribution is measured carefully as well as thespatial distribution, then in principle the true equilibration can be separated from this anharmonic
mixing. In practice, this would also be a difficult prospect since the spatial and velocity distributions
would have to be measured precisely and that is far more difficult than simply measuring a width.
Measuring the equilibration rate between the axial and radial directions minimizes thedifficulties due to the presence of anharmonic mixing.

Because of the frequency differences

between the axial and radial directions, the amplitude that an individual atoms’ orbit can precess due

186
to anharmonicities is very small. Therefore, any change in the aspect ratio between the radial andaxial directions is due to elastic collisions rather than anharmonic terms in the trapping potential.
Anharmonic mixing still occurs in the radial direction however, and that can lead to complications inboth creating samples that are out of thermal equilibrium and measuring the aspect ratio as the cloud
equilibrates.
5.2.2 Calculation of the Equilibration Rate. Since the equilibration rate is proportional tothe elastic scattering rate, it must be proportional to the elastic scattering cross section and therefore
a2. If only the relative equilibration rate at different fields is being compared, then this is more orless all that needs to be known about the relationship between the equilibration time and scattering
length. In order to determine the absolute value of the scattering length, however, the relationshipbetween the collision rate and the equilibration time must be known. In other words, the average
number of elastic collisions necessary to bring an atom to thermal equilibrium must be calculated.
The calculation of the average number of elastic collisions required to equilibrate an atom,from now on referred to as κ, is complicated by the presence of several factors of two. The elastic
collision cross section is computed between two atoms of a particular collision energy, while in thetrapped gas collisions are occurring at a range of energies and it is necessary to sum over thoseenergies. In the case of a gas of spin-polarized bosons, the identical nature of the atoms and the spin
statistics need to be accounted for without double-counting the number of collisions. Finally, thecorrelation function for bosons in a thermal state needs to be considered as well. Because of some
confusion over these factors of two in the past, the calculation of κ is treated here in detail.
The calculation of κ is performed using Enskog’s equation [76], which computes the rate ofchange due to elastic collisions of the average of any quantity of the gas using classical mechanics.
If χ is the quantity being considered, then Enskog’s equation is writtenrr r
r r r r dσr r
r rdχ (x, t ) 3
1
d x = ∫ d 3v d 3v′ f (x, v , t ) f (x, v ′, t ) v − v′∆χ (v , v′ → q, q′) dΩ d 3 x (5.2)
dt2dΩwhere χ(x,t) is the average value in the volume d3x of the quantity χ at position x and time t, f(x,v,t)
is the position and velocity distribution function, dσ/dΩ is the differential cross section, andr rr r∆ χ (v , v ′ → q , q ′ ) is the change in the quantity χ when two atoms scatter from velocities v,v´ to

187
q,q´. The integration over dΩ represents the integration over all of the possible final velocities q,q´
given the initial velocities v,v´. Equation (5.2) is really just a sum over all the collisions at point x
weighted by the change in the quantity χ. The first term is the number of particles at x in a volume

r r

r

r

d3x, the f ( x , v ′, t ) v − v ′ term represents the flux of particles that can collide with those at x,dσ/dΩ sets the rate of atoms that scatter in the dΩ direction, and ∆χ is the change in χ for a scatter inthat direction.
In order to make sure that all of the factors of two are accounted for properly, I found it
helpful to consider the scattering from two beams of particles incident on one another. Most
scattering calculations are performed with this situation in mind, and so it is easier to get all of thefactors of two straight. Since we have worked closely with Chris Greene and Jim Burke, Jr., I am
following all of the conventions that Jim used in his thesis [27] so that our specification of the swave scattering length is the same. Consider two beams of indistinguishable, spinless particles with
Bose statistics that have a uniform density throughout space (nA and nB). The center-of-mass frame
is set to be the same as the lab frame so that one beam has a velocity v0/2 and the other –v0/2. The
collision energy is low enough that only s-wave scattering need be considered.
Since the particles have Bose statistics, the scattering wavefunction must be even under an
exchange of the two particles that have scattered off one another. In the center-of-mass frame thismeans that the differential cross section must be [23]dσ2= f (θ , φ ) + f (π − θ , φ + π )
dΩ

(5.3)

For s-wave scattering, in which case f(θ,φ) is independent of θ and φ, this results in a factor of fourenhancement of the differential cross section as compared to distinguishable particle scattering.
Equation (5.3) also means that only even angular momentum partial waves will have nonzero
differential cross sections (due to the odd parity of odd angular momentum states). Therefore thetwo lowest partial waves for identical bosons are s- and d-wave scattering and p-wave scattering is
not allowed. Note that in order for two particles to be indistinguishable it is not only necessary thatboth particles be the same species of atom or molecule, both particles must also be in the same

188
internal (i.e. spin) state. Since we are only concerned with elastic scattering in a spin-polarized gasof bosons, I will continue to concentrate on indistinguishable particle scattering.
While the differential cross section is enhanced by a factor of four from theindistinguishable to distinguishable case, the total cross section is not. The differential cross section
represents the flux of particles through a detector at angle dΩ (see section 2.2). For distinguishable
particles, it is possible to tell the two particles involved in a single scattering event apart, at least in
principle, and so there will be a flux associated with each type of particle. For indistinguishable
particles there is no meaningful way to detect two separate fluxes even though two particles are
involved in every scattering event. In order to make indistinguishable particle total cross sections
look more like distinguishable particle total cross sections, the total elastic scattering cross section is
specified by integrating the differential cross section over 2π steradians, rather than integrating overall space (4π steradians). Note that this specification is a matter of convention; the number ofparticles which are scattering into an angle dΩ is rigorously set by equation (5.3). The enhancementof a factor of four in the differential cross section for indistinguishable particles then is reduced to a
net factor of two enhancement in the total cross section.

This remaining net factor of twoenhancement is the reason that the total elastic scattering cross section for indistinguishable bosons
is equal to 8πa2 rather than 4πa2 presented in equation (2.15).
One additional specification concerning indistinguishable particles must be made. The
incoming flux can be defined with respect to one or both incoming beams.

Following theconvention adopted in Ref. [27], the incoming flux is defined with respect to a single beam.
Returning to the two-colliding-beams example, the flux can then be considered to be nAv0 into a
volume of size d3x. The number of scattering centers in that volume is then nBd3x. Since the twocolliding beams example being discussed is considered in the center-of-mass frame, the selection of
the flux as nAv0 and the number of targets as nBd3x was made arbitrarily. The flux and number oftargets could have been equally as well specified by nBv0 and nAd3x respectively. It is also possible
to explicitly consider the collisions in a lab frame where one beam is moving and the other isstationary with no change in the calculation for the value of κ. From the discussion in the preceding
paragraphs and equations (5.3), (2.15), and (2.15), the differential cross section is 4a2. Therefore,

189
the scattering rate into the angle dΩ, which is equal to the incoming flux times the differential crosssection times the number of scatters, is (nAv0)(4a2)(nBd3x). Integrating over all of space, the total
number of particles that are scattered per unit time is 16πa2nAnBv0d3x.
The total kinetic energy in the z-direction of both beams at any point in space before any
elastic collisions is easily computed to be (nA+nB)mv02/8 d3x, where the z-direction is taken to bealong the beams’ collision axis. After some particles have elastically scattered, this energy will be
reduced, because the elastic scattering will convert velocities along the z axis to velocities along thex and y axes as well. Since the scattering is isotropic, the final collision energy will on be on
average equally distributed between all three axes, and therefore on average a single scatteredparticle loses 2/3(mv02/8) in z-direction kinetic energy. Combining this average loss rate with thescattering rate derived in the previous paragraph, the change in total z-direction kinetic energy perunit time is then

16πa 2 n A nB v0

2 mv02 34π 2d x=
a n A nB mv03 d 3 x
3 8
3

(5.4)

This same loss rate of kinetic energy from the z-direction can be computed using Enskog’s
equation (5.2). By matching the solution from Enskog’s equation to the result in (5.4), all of thefactors of two will be properly accounted for and then Enskog’s equation can be used to compute
more complex situations.
First, the distribution function needs to be specified for the two incident beamsr
r v 
r v 
f (v ) = n Aδ (3)  v − 0 zˆ  + nBδ (3)  v + 0 zˆ 
2 
2 



(5.5)

For now the position and time labels have been dropped since they are not needed. dσ/dΩ isisotropic, but its amplitude will be allowed to float for now. The initial z-direction kinetic energy ofa colliding pair is mv02/4 (twice the energy of a single atom), while the final z-direction kinetic
energy is (mv02/4)cos(θ)2, where θ and φ are the angles the final velocities make with the z axis.
With these definitions, it is possible to evaluate equation (5.2) and finddKE z 3dσ 2πd x=n A nB mv03 d 3 x
dt
dΩ 3

(5.6)

190
Comparing equation (5.6) with equation (5.4) shows that the differential cross section should be set
to be dσ/dΩ = 2a2 in order for Enskog’s equation to calculate the change in z-direction kinetic
energy.
Before calculating κ, there are two simplifying assumptions that are made. The first
assumption is that the position and velocity distribution in the trapped sample can be described bythree parameters, an effective temperature in each direction. This assumption is partly justified by
the fact that the spatial distribution of atoms in the clouds in the experiment itself was gaussian evenat early times, even though the energy in different directions is not the same. It is also reasonable toassume that the kinetic and potential energy in each direction are equal and therefore can be
specified by a single parameter, since otherwise the cloud would exhibit breathing motion, which isunlikely to be created in the cloud the way we experimentally put the clouds out of thermal
equilibrium and also is not observed. In fact, any deviations from a gaussian shape would lead tooscillations in the shape of the cloud, and such deviations are again not observed and so this first
assumption is well satisfied.
The second assumption that is made is that the cloud is sufficiently dilute that an atom
undergoes several oscillations in the trap between collisions. The reason for this assumption is thatthe elastic collisions in the cloud only randomize the energy associated with the velocity of thecolliding atoms, not the potential energy associated with their position since that cannot be changed
by a collision. However, since the kinetic energy of an atom is turned into potential energy as it
moves in the harmonic potential (and vice versa), if the atom can make several oscillations before
the next collision, then the potential and kinetic energy will be well “mixed” and the elastic
collisions can be considered to be randomizing the total energy of the atom rather than just the
kinetic energy.
In order to estimate the validity of this assumption, it is possible to use a very crude modelthat captures some of the physics involved in the second assumption. This simple model consists ofa set of differential equations

191
d 2 KEr1 
1.25  1 dKEr dKE z 
2
=−
−

 − 4ω r  KEr − Er 
2
τ me  2 dt
dt
dt 
2 

d 2 KE z
1.25  dKE z dKEr 
1 
2
=−
−
2
 − 4ω z  KE z − Ez 
2
dt
dt 
2 
τ me  dtdEr
1.25  1 dKEr dKE z =−−τ me  2 dt
dt
dt 

(5.7)

dE z
1.25  dKE z dKEr 
=−
−
2

dt
dt 
τ me  dt
PEi = Ei − KEii = r, zwhere KEr and PEr are the total kinetic and potential energy in the two radial directions, KEz and PEz
are the total kinetic and potential energy in the axial direction, and τme is the equilibration time inthis model. This simple model captures two pieces of physics. First, energy will oscillate between
kinetic and potential at twice the trap frequency, as is expected. Second, the transfer of energy fromthe radial to the axial direction occurs only through the equilibration of kinetic energies. For
sufficiently slow τme, the equilibration rate is independent of τme. Once τme approaches the trap
oscillation period, however, the finite time it takes for the kinetic energy to be changed to potential
alters the actual equilibration rate. For a sense of scale, when τme = 0.08 s in a trap with radialfrequency 2π x 17.5 Hz and axial 2π x 6.7 Hz, there is an 8% change in the equilibration time in thiscrude model. This simple model also captures the fact that for fast equilibration times (i.e. times
shorter than the trap periods) the energy of the cloud actually oscillates in a collective motion,although it does not get the frequencies correct at all [99]. The second assumption is expected tobreak down for the large scattering lengths near the peak of the Feshbach resonance, and therelaxation to thermal equilibrium will become limited by the time scale of the magnetic trap periods.
With these assumptions in place, it is now possible to evaluate Enskog’s equation in orderto determine the equilibration rate. For now it is assumed that the energy in the two radial directions
is the same. With the two assumptions made above, it is possible to consider the quantity χ as thesum of the potential and kinetic energy in the z direction and to integrate equation (5.2) over all of
space as well

192

r r
r r r r dσr r
r r
dEz 1 3 3 3∆Ez (v , v ′ → q, q′)dΩ= ∫ d x d v d v′ f (x, v , t ) f (x, v ′, t ) v − v ′
dt 2
dΩ
(5.8)
 −m 2r r−m 2
Nω r2ω z m3
2 2
2 2 
f ( x, v , t ) = 3 3 2 exp
vr + ωr r + 2 vz + ω z z 
8π kBTr Tz
2k BTz 2kTr


(

)

(

)

Now, the evaluation of equation (5.8) will be carried out in some detail. The position and velocities
are separable, and so it is possible to integrate over the position
3

2
 −m
dE z
N 2ω r2ω z m3m d 3 v d 3 v ′ exp (vr2 + vr′ 2 ) + 2−kBT(v z2 + v ′z2 ) vr − vr ′ ddΩσ dΩ ∆E z (5.9)=
128  π 3 k B3 Tr2Tz  ∫
2
dt
kBT

r
z


Since the elastic collisions cannot change the center-of-mass motion of a colliding pair, it is useful
make a change of variables from v,v´ to vs,vd, which are defined so thatvsi = (vi + vi′ ), vd i = (vi − vi′ ), i = r , z(5.10)

With this substitution, it is then possible to integrate over vs, careful to include the factor of 8
associated with the change of variables m vd r2
dσ
m vd z2 dEz
N 2 ω r2 ω z m3
 3 3 2  ∫ d 3 vd exp  − vd r2 + vd z2=−dΩ ∆E z
Ω
d
k
T
k
T
dt
π
k
T
T
128
4
4
B r
z 
B r
B z 



(5.11)The dΩ integral is evaluated next. A little algebra shows that a pair of atoms colliding with zvelocities vz,vz´ have an energy in the z-direction of m(vsz2+vdz2)/4. Again, the potential energy isignored because it cannot be changed during a collision. Since the center-of-mass motion cannot bechanged by the collision, the change in z-direction energy depends only on the square of the initialand final difference velocities (vdz and vdz´). It is again advantageous to make a change of variables,
this time to spherical coordinates. In that case, the dΩ integral isdσ∫ dΩ dΩ ∆E =∫ sin(θ ′)dθ ′ dφ ′ (2a ) 4 vd (cos (θ ′) − cos (θ ) )
2

m

2

2

2

z

1

= 2πa m vd  − cos 2 (θ ) 
3

2(5.12)

2

where the differential cross section has been set to dσ/dΩ=2a2. The only thing left to do is integrate
over difference velocities. The integration over φ can be carried out easily, and so what remains tobe evaluated is193 m vd 2  sin 2 (θ ) cos 2 (θ )  
dE z N 2ω r2ω z m 4 a 2
5
2
−


sin(
)
d
dvd
vd
1
3
cos
(
)
exp
=
θ
θ
−
θ
+
∫
 4k  Tdt
T z  
96πk B3 Tr2T z ∫
B 
r


(

)

(5.13)The dvd integration over all relative velocities can be carried out sin 2 (θ )dE z 2 N 2ω r2ω z m a 2
2

sin(
)
1
3
cos
(
)
=
−
+ cos 2 (θ ) 
θ
θ
θ
d
2
∫
dt
3π (1 − β ) (1 − β )

(

)

−3

(5.14)

where Tr=(1-β)Tz. Before evaluating equation (5.14), the equation will be recast into a different
form so that the role of the collision rate will be more apparent. Setting σ0=8πa2, Ez=NkBTz,
3T0=Tz+2Tr, and using the expressions for the density (equation (4.12)) and average relative speed(equation (4.17)) with the relation Tr=(1-β)Tz means that equation (5.14) is equivalent todTz − 1=
< n > σ 0 < v > (Tz − T0 )dtê1
1
1 − 3x 2−1dx=3
ê 2 β (1 − β ) β + (1 − β ) arctanh( β ) −∫1  (1 − x 2 )+ x 2  (1 − β ){(5.15)}

where κ has now been explicitly defined. The expression for κ appears quite complicated as afunction of β, but in fact it barely shows any dependence, even over a large range. In the limit of

β → 0 the value for κ is computed to be 2.50, and for larger values of β, the values of κ are shownin Figure 5.2.
When calculating the equilibration rate, there is one additional factor of two that must be
accounted for. The Bose statistics of the atoms in the cloud play other roles beyond what has beendetailed so far. Many of those are only important at lower temperatures than were studied in theequilibration measurements discussed in this chapter. For instance, at lower temperatures f(x,v)
would be noticeably different from a classical distribution and the enhancement due to Bosestatistics of the scattering into a state that is already occupied would play a role in the equilibration
rate. However, there is one effect that is relevant at the temperature at which our studies wereconducted. In a thermal sample, indistinguishable bosons are twice as likely to be found near anotherboson as compared to distinguishable particles.

In other words, the correlation function for

indistinguishable bosons is different from distinguishable particles, and it is twice as likely that two
indistinguishable bosons will be occupying the same region in space. The range of this enhanced

194

2.7

2.6

Coefficient κ

2.5

2.4

without unitarity limit
with unitarity limit

2.3

2.2

2.1
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

β

Figure 5.2. Change in the Equilibration Coefficient κ as a Function of the Parameter β. The solid
curve was calculated using equation (5.15). It shows that elastic collisions equilibrate the sample
more efficiently when it is further out of equilibrium (higher β). The dashed curve uses equation(5.20) in addition to equation (5.15) to account for the effect of the unitarity limit on a sample whose
initial temperature is 110 nK and whose scattering length a = –342a0. These conditions correspondto the more precise 251 G point in subsection 5.5.3.

195probability is roughly the deBroglie wavelength of the particles. As long as the s-wave scattering
length (i.e. the range of the scattering potential) is less than the deBroglie wavelength, the two-bodyelastic collision rate is expected to be enhanced by a factor of two due to this effect. For 85Rb at 300
nK, the deBroglie wavelength is ~6000 a0 (where a0 is the atomic unit of length, the bohr radius),
much larger than the scattering lengths that were typically measured. The reason that this factor of
two is not included in the calculation of the scattering length from the atom-atom potential is that allof those calculations are done with the colliding atom pair in a coherent rather than a thermal
colliding state. Since BECs are coherent state, this factor of two disappears for collisions between
condensate atoms as has been verified experimentally [100].
With this final factor of two, the calculated equilibration rate agrees with the Monte-Carlocalculation in Ref. [101]. So far, the trapped clouds have been treated assuming perfect axial
symmetry. When the clouds are actually brought out of thermal equilibrium in the trap, however,there is often a difference in energy between the two radial directions, up to as much as 30%.
Explicit calculations show that using the average radial energy in the equilibration model does not
significantly affect the value of κ that should be used at more than the ~1% level, even for the largest
initial radial energy differences.
5.2.3 Using the Equilibration Rate of the Aspect Ratio of Trapped Clouds to Measure
the Elastic Collision Rate. The quantities <n>, <v>, T0, and Tz can all be computed from thespatial widths (and number of atoms for <n>) of a magnetically-trapped cloud, and so equation(5.15) can be used to compute the elastic scattering cross section. One way to do this is to bring thecloud out of thermal equilibrium and monitor the temperature of the cloud in one direction, as
suggested by equation (5.15). A better way to measure the equilibration rate is to measure therelaxation rate of the aspect ratio of the cloud, however. There are a couple of reasons why
monitoring the aspect ratio is better. First, we found that the individual widths of the cloud varied
more than the aspect ratio, both from shot to shot and over longer periods of time. Second, the totalenergy of the cloud is not fixed and the sample can heat up over time, and the aspect ratio is lesssensitive to this heating rate.

196
In order to relate the relaxation rate of the aspect ratio to the elastic scattering cross section,
it is necessary to use equation (5.15) to determine the time evolution of the cloud from a certain setof initial conditions. Since κ is approximately constant, it can be treated as such for now in equation(5.15). If a linear heating rate α is included, the evolution of the radial and axial temperatures of atrapped gas are2
T&z = − Γ(Tz − Tr ) + α
31
T&r = − Γ(Tr − Tz ) + α .
3
2 < n >σ0 < v >Γ=ê(5.16)

If Γ is treated as a constant, the relaxation rate of the aspect ratio of the cloud can be computed from
(5.16) and (4.13)

σ z ωr=σ r ωz1 + 2r exp(−Γt ) + α t
1 − r exp(−Γt ) + α t(5.17)

where σz,r are the rms widths of the cloud in the axial and radial direction and the constant r is
related to the initial aspect ratio AR0 asr=ω z2 AR02 − ω r2.
ω z2 AR02 + 2ω r2(5.18)In reality, Γ is not constant as a function of time. There are a few reasons for this. κ is notstrictly constant over the evolution of the cloud. The density of the cloud can also change. Atoms
are lost from the sample due to various loss processes, and that reduces the density. Also, since thewidths of the cloud are changing in time, the shape of the cloud and therefore the density changes aswell even in the absence of any loss of atoms. The average relative speed of the atoms also changes
slightly as the velocity distributions in the axial and radial directions change. When the aspect ratio
relaxation data are fit, all these considerations are included and the set of equations (5.16) are
numerically integrated with the time dependences of Γ included.
5.2.4 Unitarity Limit and Thermal Equilibration. One other effect that must be includedin the calculation of the elastic scattering cross section is the unitarity limit. The elastic cross section

197
depends on the energy of the colliding pair of atoms. In particular, the cross section cannot begreater than 8π/k2, where hk=p. In any trapped cloud, the atoms collide with a range of energies andso the cross section for some of the collisions will be limited by the unitarity limit. The size of thiseffect can be estimated by using a cross section that scales with energy asσ=

σ0
1 + (ka) 2()(5.19)

where a is the s-wave scattering length and k=(µv/h)1/2 with µ being the reduced mass of thecolliding pair of atoms and v being the relative velocity. Not only does this cross section have theright form at high and low collision energies, it does a decent job of interpolating in between. Thisdependence can be included in Enskog’s equation, and a new value for κ that depends on the averagetemperature of the trapped gas can be computed. The result of such a calculation is shown in Figure
5.2, and it can be seen that even at temperatures of ~100 nK, the unitarity limit still results in acorrection of several percent to the measured relaxation time.
In addition to the energy dependence due to the unitarity limit, the positions Bpeak and Bzero
are also temperature-dependent quantities. For the cold temperatures used in this work, these shifts
are predicted not to amount to more than ~0.2 G, and only that for the hottest temperatures studied.
At much higher temperatures, such as 100 µK, Bpeak and Bzero can shift by several gauss [102].

5.3 Creation of Nonequilibrium Trapped Clouds.
5.3.1 Initial Trap Loading and Cooling. The first step in the creation of the cold trapped
atom cloud samples was to load the magnetic trap. This was done using the Double MOT system toload the Ioffe-Pritchard type baseball magnetic trap described in Chapter IV. As is usually the casein this work, the atoms were loaded in the F=2 mf = –2 hyperfine ground state. Measurements of theelastic scattering near the Feshbach resonance were performed twice, once in 1998 and once in 2000.
In our early work, not as many atoms were initially loaded into the magnetic trap as in our later
work. In the early work about 70 million atoms were initially loaded into the trap instead of the 350
million that was typical of our later work. The main reason for the difference is simply the fact thatthe Double MOT system was improved over time. After loading the magnetic trap, evaporative
cooling was used to cool the sample. Again, we were able to achieve much colder temperatures in

198
our later work (see Chapter VII for the evaporation details).

In fact, in our later work weintentionally deoptimized the evaporative cooling by speeding up the initial stages to reduce the final
density of the sample.
5.3.2 Bringing the Cloud out of Thermal Equilibrium.

The rf-“knife” used forevaporative cooling (see subsection 4.9.1) was also used to create clouds that were out of thermal
equilibrium. Since the atoms sag in the trap due to gravity (subsection 4.5.4), the lines of constantmagnetic field are nearly horizontal planes across the cloud. This means that atoms are removed
with the rf-knife only in the vertical direction. By bringing the rf-knife in faster than the clouds canequilibrate through elastic collisions, it is possible to remove energy selectively from the verticaldirection of the cloud.
It was easiest to cut with the rf-knife faster than the equilibration time by tuning the bias
magnetic field of the trap so that the s-wave scattering length in the cloud was near zero. Once wefound the approximate location of Bzero, this is in fact what we did. Before that, we used low-density(109 atoms/cm3) samples that therefore had lower collision rates and cut quickly with the rf-knife.
5.3.3 Anharmonic Mixing and the “Rolling” Systematic. Initially, we had thought that
we would remove energy from the vertical direction alone. However, anharmonic mixing between
the two radial directions meant that once an energy imbalance was created between the two
directions, energy could flow between them even in the absence of elastic collisions. Atoms withhigher-energy orbits are precessing in the trap. In thermal equilibrium, there is a balance between
the number of atoms precessing into and out of each direction in the trap and there is no way toobserve this motion. Once atoms have been removed from the vertical radial direction, it is possible
to see other atoms rotating into and out of that direction as they precess. The cycloid-like shape ofthe variation of the radial width led us to refer to this as “rolling” motion.
Since the rolling motion leads to a periodic change in the radial width of the cloud, it leads
to a distortion in the measurement of the aspect ratio. To minimize the rolling motion, the rf-knife
was held at a fixed frequency for a time longer than the period of the rolling motion. As the orbits ofthe energetic atoms precessed, they were then removed from the cloud and energy was removed not
only from the vertical radial direction but the other radial direction as well.

199
This scheme for removing the rolling motion is not perfect, however. The rf-knife has awidth in magnetic field due to power broadening. This means that it is always cutting into the cloudeven if it is held at a fixed frequency. This continual cutting means that an energy imbalance iscontinuously being created and so it is not possible to wait and remove all of the rolling motion.
Turning down the power of the rf-knife to reduce its broadening helps, but only at the cost of having
to wait longer and longer to remove atoms from the cloud. If the cloud is not at a=0, eventually thecloud will equilibrate through elastic collisions faster than the energy imbalance can be created andthe cloud cannot be brought out of thermal equilibrium. Even if the cloud is at a=0, the increased
wait time results in a loss of atoms from the cloud due to inelastic collisions and collisions withumpumped background atoms and also causes the rate at which data can be accumulated to drop
considerably. Usually, a 30 second rf-knife hold time was adopted at relatively low rf-power toreduce the rolling, and this was sufficient to remove most, but not all, of the rolling motion.
Tailoring the rf-knife cutting ramp and the power of the rf-knife during the hold time would
probably result in a better reduction of the rolling motion, but that additional complexity was not
added at the time we performed our studies.
Aside from the periodic change in radial width that distorts the aspect ratio measurement,
the rolling motion also complicates the measurement of the density of the cloud. In the absence of
any anharmonic mixing, the radial direction that cannot be seen in the absorption imaging would
have the temperature that the cloud had before the rf-knife cut in to produce the energy imbalance.
If the rolling motion could be removed perfectly, then the initial energy in both radial directions
would be the same. In our actual experiments we were between these two cases, but much closer tothe latter situation. Energy conservation was used to infer the energy in the radial direction that was
not visible. It is possible to measure the energy of the axial and visible radial direction from theirrespective spatial widths while the cloud was relaxing to equilibrium. Once the cloud was in thermal
equilibrium, the total energy could be inferred from the two visible widths, and by using this value
for the total energy and the observed widths as the cloud was relaxing to equilibrium the width of thethird direction could be calculated. The presence of any heating complicated this procedure, but the200
heating rate could be measured by measuring the increase in energy of the cloud once it was inthermal equilibrium.

5.4 1998 Search for the Feshbach Resonance5.4.1 Relative Measurement of Elastic Collision Cross Sections. At the time that webegan our work in 85Rb, no Feshbach resonances had been observed in cold alkali atom collisions[103]. One of the goals of our work then was to simply locate the position of a Feshbach resonanceas a function of magnetic field.

In order to locate the fields Bpeak and Bzero, only relative

measurements were necessary, since only a maximum and minimum of the elastic scattering crosssection needed to be located as a function of magnetic field. Performing a relative measurement also
allowed us to avoid several difficulties with measuring the absolute scattering rates.
Measuring an absolute scattering requires the knowledge of the actual density of thesample, and therefore the measured number would have to be calibrated. That calibration is tricky
enough (see section 4.12) that being able to avoid it was an advantage. More importantly, we did
not have the same evaporation performance from our apparatus in 1998 as we did after improving it
to create 85Rb BEC. Our shot-to-shot reproducibility was not nearly as good in 1998, and more
importantly we were limited in the densities and temperatures that we could achieve. This wasimportant because the temperature of the cloud determined the relative importance of the unitarity
limit and the spread in magnetic field across the trapped sample.
The range of magnetic field sampled by a trapped cloud depended on the temperature (T) of
the cloud such that the FWHM spread of magnetic field in the cloud scales as T1/2 and was 0.6 G at
0.5 µK for the trapping frequencies used in the 1998 measurement. Since the scattering length
depends on magnetic field, the elastic collision cross section was then position-dependent in thetrapped cloud. Also, the temperatures were hot enough that the unitarity limit was a significant
consideration in the determination of the elastic scattering rate. This combination of position- andenergy-dependence complicated the determination of the effective value of κ for relating themeasured aspect ratio relaxation rate to the zero-temperature limit of the elastic scattering crosssection, and we believed that a complex monte-carlo simulation was probably required to do so.
Given the state of affairs at the time, we elected to avoid this additional complexity.

201
5.4.2 Measurement of the Relaxation Rate of the Aspect Ratio. After preparing cold
magnetically-trapped atomic cloud samples in the manner described in Section 5.3 such that theradial energy was 0.6 that of the axial energy, we then ramped the bias field in the magnetic trap to aselected value and allowed the cloud to equilibrate for a fixed amount of time. The shape of thecloud was then determined using absorption imaging (section 4.11). By varying this equilibration
time, the relaxation rate of the aspect ratio at the selected magnetic field was measured. Thisrelaxation curve was fit to a simple exponential to determine an equilibration time τeq. For most of
the data, only a few data points were measured for the τeq fit. The relaxation was not strictly
exponential, but the small deviations from an exponential fit were far smaller than the relativechange of τeq with magnetic field. The absorption imaging also allowed us to determine the density
and the temperature of the sample. The magnetic field was calibrated in the manner described insubsection 4.10.1 to a precision of ±0.1 G.
The measured equilibration time τeq depended both on B and T and varied from 0.15 s tonearly 2000 seconds. This fastest time is close to the point where we expect the equilibration rate to
be limited by the trap frequencies (~2π x 11 Hz radial and 2π x 5.5 Hz axial). In order to better
compare elastic scattering rates for samples at different temperatures and densities, we used anormalized equilibration rate σN=(<n><v>τeq)-1. This normalized rate has the units of a crosssection, and would be equal to 0.8 times the true s-wave elastic scattering cross section σ0 in the
low-temperature limit. Figure 5.3 and Figure 5.4 display the measured value of σN as a function ofmagnetic field, and it is apparent that there is a clear maximum near 155 G and a clear minimum
near 167 G. Even though we did not calculate the precise relationship between σN and σ0, themaximum and minimum of both quantities will occur at the same field in the limit of low
temperature since the spread in magnetic field will be small and the unitarity limit will not besignificant.
In addition to the measured values of σN, a theoretical calculation of the cross section isshown in Figure 5.3 and Figure 5.4 for two different temperatures. The calculation was performedby coworkers Jim Burke, Jr. and Chris Greene using the Rb-Rb potential derived in the manner

202

100
0.3 µK Data
0.5 µK Data
1.0 µK Data
3.5 µK Data
9 µK Data
0.5 µK Theory
9 µK Theory

σN (10-10 cm2)

10

1

0.1

0.01

0.001
145

150

155

160

165

170

175

Magnetic Field (gauss)

Figure 5.3. The points shown correspond to the measured normalized equilibration rates σN which
are equal to the aspect ratio equilibration time divided by the density and average relative speed of
the sample. The lines are calculations for the thermally averaged elastic cross section, notequilibration rates, and hence are not expected to fit the data points.

203

30

σN (10-10 cm2)

25
20

(a)

0.3 µK Data
0.5 µK Data
1.0 µK Data
0.5 µK Theory
9.0 µK Theory

15
10
5
0
148

150

152

154

156

160

Magnetic Field (gauss)

0.12

(b)

0.10

σN (10-10 cm2)

158

0.08
0.06
0.04

0.5 µK Data
3.5 µK Data

9 µK Data
0.5 µK Theory
9 µK Theory

0.02
0.00
162

164

166

168

170

172

174

176

Magnetic Field (gauss)

Figure 5.4. Figure 5.4(a) shows an expanded view of the region of Figure 5.3 near the peak of the
Feshbach resonance, while Figure 5.4(b) does the same for the region near the minimum.

204
described below in subsection 5.4.3. The temperature dependence was calculated by performing thefollowing average< σv >=

1r r
r r
r r r rd 3 v d 3 v ′ d 3 x σ (E (v − v ′), B ) v − v ′ f ( x , v ) f ( x , v ′)2 ∫N< σv >
σ=<v>(5.20)

where <v> is the average relative speed, B is the bias magnetic field of the trapped cloud, f(x,v) is
the Boltzmann distribution of a trapped cloud in thermal equilibrium at temperature T, andrr
σ ( E ( v − v ′ ), B ) is the theoretically calculated elastic scattering cross section as a function ofmagnetic field and the energy of the colliding pair. Because of the difficulty calculating κ, thetheory curves are not expected to match the data, and are there only for rough comparison only.
Both the calculated cross section curves and measured equilibration data show thequalitative features. For temperatures below a few µK, there is a slightly asymmetric peak near 155
G, and the width and the height of this peak are strong functions of temperature. The reason for thisheight and width dependence is that for these large scattering lengths, the unitarity limit causes theeffective elastic cross section to drop as the temperature of the sample increases. At 167 G there is a
profound drop in the elastic scattering rate. This dip is quite asymmetric, but the shape is relatively
insensitive to T, and at the bottom (Bzero) the rate is essentially zero.
5.4.3 Determination of Bpeak and Bzero. Because the precise relationship between σ0 and
σN is not known, the desired quantities Bpeak and Bzero could not be found by a detailed fit to all of thedata. We determine them by fitting a simply smooth curve to only the few highest (or lowest) points
at each temperature below 5 µK, and assigning error bars that span the values determined for all
temperatures.
The 0.5, 0.75, and 1 µK data were used to determine Bpeak. The location of the peak foreach temperature can be determined to the same precision and the values agree to within 0.4 G. As
was mentioned in the previous subsection 5.2.4, the location of the peak is predicted to depend on
the energy of a colliding pair of atoms and hence on the temperature of the sample, but over therange of temperatures that we measured this shift is expected to be on the order of ~0.1 G, below the205
assigned errors. The lack of any temperature dependence in the position of Bpeak also justifies theassumption that σ0 and σN reach their maximum values at the same magnetic field. The location of
Bzero was determined using primarily the 3.5 µK data. For this temperature, a small shift (~0.2 G) inthe location of Bzero due to the finite temperature was expected. This shift is due to the energy
dependence of the Feshbach resonance and not the unitarity limit, which is negligible at the smallvalues of a. We found Bpeak = 155.2(4) G and Bzero = 166.8(3) G. We now believe that small errors
were present in these determinations, and those will be discussed with respect to the 2000
measurement below. These small errors do not significantly effect the conclusions presented in therest of this section.
The measurement of the location of Bzero was also complicated by the finite lifetime (~100seconds) of the trapped clouds. It was possible to achieve equilibration times that were significantly
longer than the lifetime of the atoms in the trap. This resulted in two things. First, a correction to
the density had to be made as the clouds lost a significant fraction of their atoms during the time theequilibration was measured. Second, the signal-to-noise ratio dropped dramatically as we had tomeasure 1000-second equilibration times with only ~100 seconds available to study the relaxation.
This situation can now be improved through using higher cloud densities and longer magnetic trap
lifetimes than what were achieved in 1998. Eventually inelastic collisions proportional to thedensity will limit the sample lifetime as well (see Chapter VI).
Often, rather than using the variables Bpeak and Bzero, the Feshbach resonance is describedby its position and ∆, the width of the resonance. Again, ∆ is simply defined as Bzero – Bpeak andfrom our measurement ∆ is then found to be 11.6 (5) G. The location of the resonance is the same as
Bpeak.
5.4.4 Constraints on the Rb-Rb Interatomic Potential. The measured location of Bpeak
and Bzero can be used to constrain the parameters necessary to describe the Rb-Rb interatomic
potential. The theoretical calculations described in this subsection were performed by collaborators
Jim Burke, Jr. and Chris Greene. As described in subsection 2.9.4, a free parameter is added to theinner walls of both the triplet and singlet molecular potentials. These two free parameters areadjusted with the values of the dispersion coefficients C6, C8, C10, etc. chosen beforehand. Using a206quantum defect theory (MQDT) [31] it is possible to calculate the location of Bpeak and Bzero as afunction of these free parameters and once the free parameters are set the quantities aT and aS that
correspond to a particular location of the peak and zero can then also be calculated.
In 85Rb, it is inconvenient to tabulate results as a function of aS and aT because both areclose to lying on top of a divergent pole. Instead, the results of the measurement of Bpeak and Bzero
can be presented as constraints on a bound state phase (fractional bound state number) vD as in Ref.
[91]. The singlet vDS or triplet vDT bound state phase corresponds to the triplet or singlet scattering
length through the relation [104,105]vD =cot −1 (a aref − 1)π

, aref =1/ 4
Γ(5 / 4)2mC6 / h 2
Γ(3 / 4) 8()

(5.21)

where m is the reduced mass of the colliding atom pair.
For a given value of the dispersion coefficients, and especially C6, adjusting the inner wall
free parameters to match the measured values of Bpeak and Bzero within the experimental uncertainty
severely constrains the quantities vDS and vDT. However, the position of the peak and zero are notsufficient to constrain all three parameters C6, vDS and vDT [106]. In order to constrain the value of
C6, an additional constraint was added to the theoretical potentials: they must predict the g-wave
shape resonance in an energy range consistent with the measured value given in Ref. [107].
The results of this analysis are presented in Figure 5.5, along with a comparison to workthat was performed contemporaneously [91].

This illustrates that accurate measurements of

Feshbach resonances are an extremely precise method for determining properties of interatomic
potentials. Our measurement allowed us to reduce the combined C6, vDS, and vDT parameter spaceby a factor of 80 as compared to existing measurements. As discussed in Ref. [91], the peak of theresonance depends mostly on C6 and the sum vDS + vDT. The width of the resonance depends mostly
on vDS

vDT. As Figure 5.5 shows, the allowed vDS, vDT parameter region is an extremely correlated

function of C6. In particular, we find that the area of the allowed parameter region is independent ofboth C6 and C8. The uncertainty in these dispersion coefficients simply shifts the position of the“diamond.” Converting the bound state phases back into scattering lengths, agreement was foundwith prior work [108,109, 110]. From the potentials determined in this work, the singlet and triplet

207

VDS ( mod 1 )VDT ( mod 1 )

-0.02

0.00

0.02

-0.05

-0.07

-0.09

wid
th
on
siti
o
p

Figure 5.5 Constraints on the Rb-Rb Interatomic Potential. This figure compares the allowed vDT,vDS parameters space based on our work and measurements contemporaneous to our 1998 result.
The large rectangle is the allowed range from Ref. [109]. The large diamond is the range from Ref.
[91]. The small filled diamond is the range from our 1998 measurement. The large rectangle andlarge diamond were established using a value of C6 = 4550 a.u. As is discussed in the main text, theposition of the constrained region depends on C6, which is indicated by the small diamonds on eitherside of the filled diamond. These diamonds show the effect of 50 a.u. uncertainty in C6 around thecentral value of 4700 (to which the filled diamond corresponds). The arrows indicate the sensitivity
to changes in the resonance width and position in this parameter space. The small black square in
the center of the small rectangle represents the constraints set by our more recent measurement andreflects the increase in precision of the measurement of Bzero. The small rectangle is another way ofrepresenting the new constraint supplied by our more recent measurement. Unlike all of the otherobjects in this figure, the small rectangle does not correspond to a fixed value of C6. Rather, it is thetotal allowed range of vDT, vDS consistent with our measurement of Bpeak and Bzero and the now
smaller uncertainty in C6=4660±20 implied by our measurement of abg. In other words, the small
rectangle is measuring the same constraint as the area between the two small open diamonds.

208
scattering lengths can be specified (in atomic units): aT(85Rb)=

369±16, a S(85Rb) = 2400+600-350,

aT(87Rb)= 106±4, aS(87Rb) = 90±1. The value for C6 was determined to be 4700(50) atomic units.
Several other scattering observables predicted by the 1998 potentials agreed with previous
measurements. Specifically, the 1998 potentials predicted a broad d-wave shape resonance [111] in
87

Rb, the scattering length ratio a2,1/a1,-1 [112], and the thermally averaged |2,2> + |1,–1 > inelastic

rate constant [113]. Also, 10 of the 12 measured d-wave bound states were found within the 2σ
error bars [109]. The 1998 potentials also predicted the locations and widths of additional Feshbachresonances besides the one observed: a narrow one with width ~0.01 G at 226±4 G and a wider one

The difference between our measured peak and width compared to the results in Ref. [91],which were Bpeak = 164(7) G and ∆ = 8.4(3.7) G, is most likely explained by the fact that theexperiments in Ref. [91] occurred at much higher temperatures (~100 µK) and the shift in theposition of the Feshbach resonance with the energy of a pair of colliding atoms was not taken into
account [114].

5.5 2000 Measurement of the Absolute Value of the Scattering Length.
5.5.1 Inadequacies of the 1998 Experiment. While the 1998 measurement of the
Feshbach resonance resulted in a dramatic improvement in the knowledge of the parameters thatcharacterize the Rb-Rb interaction potential, the precision of the determination of the scattering
length as a function of magnetic field was not good enough for some of our later experiments,
particularly on the stability of BECs at negative scattering lengths. Also, it was suggested to us thatthe value of C6 used in our previous work was incorrect [115]. The difference in the backgroundscattering length, abg of equation (5.1) calculated with our original determination of C6 and the valueof C6 from this new analysis was a whopping 50%. Even though this analysis was later found to not
be correct, we decided that it was necessary to pin down the absolute size of the scattering length
experimentally so that we would not have to rely so heavily on theoretical determinations of a as afunction of B.
Also, in 2000 as opposed to 1998 most of the reasons that we avoided the measurement of
the absolute size of the scattering length were no longer present. The imaging system had been

209
calibrated (section 4.12) to determine the number of atoms in the trapped cloud as part of our studies
of BEC stability at negative scattering length. The improvements in evaporative cooling that we had
made allowed us access to a much greater range of temperatures and densities, and so colder samples
could be used. This reduced the uncertainties in the relation of the T=0 value of σ0 to the observed
aspect ratio relaxation rate, since the unitarity limit was not as significant for colder samples and the
spread in magnetic field of the trapped samples was lower as well. The colder samples also
improved our ability to calibrate the magnetic field and the improved evaporation led to much bettershot-to-shot reproducibility.
Finally, as part of our experiment on the stability of BECs with attractive interactions, wewere able to make a better determination of Bzero. This measurement did not agree with our 1998
results within the stated errors, and led us to reexamine our original conclusions. In the course of
doing so, we found the presence of a few small errors in our published analysis. In order to both
rectify these errors and improve the determination of the scattering length as a function of field, werevisited the measurement of the elastic scattering near the Feshbach resonance.
5.5.2 Determination of Bzero from the BEC Stability Measurement. The more precise
measurement of the position of Bzero was a natural outgrowth of our work determining the stability ofmagnetically trapped BECs with attractive atom-atom interactions (Chapter IX). When large enoughinteractions (defined by Na) are present, the BECs will become unstable and collapse. This collapse
criterion is given by the relation Ncr|a|=β, where Ncr is the number of atoms in the condensate and
β=1.41 µm for our magnetic trap. Ncr was determined as a function of magnetic field down to verysmall a. A simple extrapolation to the point where Ncr =, such as in Figure 9.5, determined theposition of Bzero. The value of Bzero determined in this way is 165.85(5) G, a factor of six more
precise than before.
This increase in precision is due to a few reasons. First, the stability measurement is
proportional to a rather than a2, making it naturally more sensitive to the position of a minimum.
Second, the BEC stability measurement did not suffer from the signal-to-noise difficulties associatedwith long equilibration times.

Also, the colder samples allowed more precise magnetic field

210
calibrations. An additional advantage of using BECs is that shifts due to finite temperature are not aconsideration.
The disagreement between the BEC stability determination of Bzero and the 1998
measurement has been traced to a couple of small errors. First, we originally used the wrong signfor the nuclear magnetic moment in the Breit-Rabi equation, equation (4.1), and that resulted in anerror of 0.3 G in the magnetic field calibration. Second, the small shifts (~0.2G) due to the energy
dependence of the Feshbach resonance and finite spread of the magnetic field across the cloud were
not included. Finally, the temperature-dependent asymmetric shape of the cross section versus
magnetic field was not properly accounted for; the minimum was found assuming a symmetricfunction, which also resulted in a systematic shift. The error in the magnetic field calibration was
also present in the determination of Bpeak, and so that has to be adjusted as well. Because colder
clouds were used to measure the peak location, several temperatures were tested, and the asymmetry
was not as pronounced, the other considerations are not expected to apply to the peak.
5.5.3 Measurement of the Absolute Size of the Elastic Scattering Cross Section. Onceagain, the samples were prepared in the same way as detailed in Section 5.3, and again the rf-knife
was used while the sample was near a=0 to reduce the radial energy to 0.6 that of the axial. Once
this was done, the field was ramped to the desired value of bias magnetic field and the cloud wasallowed to equilibrate for a fixed amount of time. The size, number, and shape of the cloud were
measured using resonant absorption imaging.

This procedure was then repeated for different

equilibration times and the rate of the relaxation of the aspect ratio of the clouds to equilibrium wasrecorded.
The measured relaxation rate curves were then fit with a model based on equations (5.15)
and (5.16), and the relationship between the temperature of a magnetically trapped cloud and thewidth of the cloud, equation (4.13). The density as a function of time was determined from thenumber and widths measured by the absorption images and the implied width determined by energy
conservation as described above in subsection 5.3.3. Examining the heating rate of clouds that hadreached thermal equilibrium and performing a simple linear fit determined the total energy as afunction of time. The density, energy (and therefore <v>), and κ all varied as a function of time

211
during the relaxation of the aspect ratio (as much as ~10%), and these variations could be measured
or calculated and were included in the fit to the data. From the fits, it was possible to extract theelastic scattering cross section σ0.
The functional form of the Feshbach resonance calculated from theory (approximated byequation (5.1)) is expected to be very accurate, and so the absolute value of the scattering length
does not need to be determined everywhere but only at a single (or few) selected fields. Data weretaken at B = 168.0, 169.7, and 251.0 G. These fields were selected since they were expected to show
different equilibration rates, but were still far enough from the Feshbach resonance so that the ~0.2
G FWHM spread of magnetic field across the sample should not distort the extraction of σ0 from thefits. The difference between a averaged over all the collisions in the cloud and the square root of a2
averaged over all collisions was less than 0.03% for the most sensitive field. The distance from the
Feshbach resonance also ensures that the precise location of Bpeak was not a limiting factor inanalyzing the results. Across the range of magnetic fields measured, the equilibration times varied
by a factor of about 30. The density of the samples was maintained near 2.5 x 1010 cm-3 and thetemperature was kept near 130 nK. Figure 5.6 shows a set of aspect ratio relaxation data and thecorresponding fit.
The uncertainty in the determination of a is dominated by the determination of the number
and the fit to obtain σ0. The number determination relies on the calibration of our absorption
system, which is estimated to be 10%. Since the relaxation rate scales as a2, this results in a 5%
uncertainty in each determination of a. The uncertainty in the fit to obtain σ0 is primarily caused byresidual small oscillations in the radial direction due to the imperfect removal of the rolling motion.
Although this limited the accuracy of the fit, the size of this imbalance was varied and no significant
shifts were observed in the results were observed. Also, the period of the oscillations does notdepend on the value of a and so the agreement between data sets of very different equilibration times
also indicates that this effect is not distorting the results significantly. The measured value (inatomic units) of a is –342(10), –97(6), and –60(4) at B = 251.0, 169.7, and 168.0 G respectively.
The listed uncertainty does not include the common uncertainty due to the atom number
determination.

212

3.1
3.0

Aspect Ratio

2.9
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.3

37

96
Axial Width
Radial Width

36

90
35

87
84

34

81
78

33

75
72

Radial RMS Width µm)(

Axial RMS Width µ( m)

93

32

69
66

31
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Equilibration Time (sec)Figure 5.6. Relaxation of the Aspect Ratio to Equilibrium. The data shown were taken at B = 169.7
G. Each data point represents a single destructive absorption measurement of the cloud after it was
released from the magnetic trap and allowed to expand for 1.6 ms. The solid line shows the fit to thedata used to determine the elastic scattering cross section and hence the scattering length. The
deviation of the data points from the fit around 3-4 seconds is due to the imperfect removal of therolling motion. The lower plot shows the measurement of the individual axial and radial widths thatwent into determining the aspect ratio.

213
5.5.4 New Constraints on the Rb-Rb Interatomic Potential. Using the approximate valueof the scattering length as a function of field given in equation (5.1) and the measured values of Bpeak
and Bzero, it is possible to determine a value of abg for each measured value of a (shown in Figure5.7). The weighted average of all of these data gives abg = – 380(21) a0 where the uncertainty isdominated by the determination of the number of atoms in the cloud.
Now that abg has been measured along with Bpeak and Bzero, it is possible to constrain thethree parameters needed to describe the Rb-Rb interatomic potential for ultracold collisions. Using
the same quantum defect method as in the 1998 measurement, the Rb-Rb potentials are adjusted
until the theoretically predicted Bpeak, Bzero, and abg match the observed values. Matching the Rb-Rb
potential to the observed scattering lengths implies aT(85Rb)= –332±18, aS(85Rb)= 3650+1500–670, andC6 = 4660±20, where all of the values are given in atomic units. Again, Ref. [106] is used for thevalue of C8 and C10. Allowing C8 to vary by 10% would increase the uncertainties of aT, aS, and C6
by about 25%. This variation in C8 not only allows for an error in its calculation, but it also covers
the uncertainty in the parameters that serve as the initial inputs to the calculation of the Rb-Rb
potential [27]. The new constraints in the vDS, vDT plane are shown in Figure 5.5. This more precise
determination of the C6 coefficient agrees with both an ab initio calculation [116] and a recent
photoassociation measurement [117].
With this new measurement we have now characterized the s-wave scattering length as afunction of magnetic field near the Feshbach resonance to a precision around 5%.

Thischaracterization will not only be useful in future experiments in 85Rb Bose-Einstein Condensation,
but also represents the single most precise measurement of the Rb-Rb interatomic potential to date.
To summarize the results of our studies, the following table is presented.

214  B − B peak a = abg 1 −  zero  B − B peak Quantity

Measured Value

Experiment (Thesis Section)

Bpeak

154.9(4) G

1998 Elastic Scattering with
Calibration Correction (5.4)

Bzero

165.85(5) G

BEC Stability with a < 0 (9.7)

abg-380(21) a0

2000 Elastic Scattering (5.5)

Table 5.1. Summary of Measured Feshbach Resonance Parameters.

(5.1)

215

-300
-320

abg (Bohr)

-340
-360
-380
-400
-420
-440
Less RollingMore Rolling

-460
-480
167

168

169

170

251

252

Magnetic Field (gauss)
Figure 5.7. The value of abg implied by several aspect ratio relaxation measurements. This value
was determined by dividing the s-wave scattering length determined at a particular magnetic field by
the factor {1-(Bzero-Bpeak)/(B-Bpeak)}. The s-wave scattering lengths measured at 251.0 G weredivided by an additional factor of 0.99 to account for the deviation of the approximate description ofa vs. B form the full theory calculation. The error bars shown include the statistical errors plus thefit uncertainty due to the rolling systematic. The data represented by the open circles had a larger
amount of rolling motion present than the data represented by the filled circles. There is noobservable difference between the two sets of data. For clarity, the open circles are displaced 0.2G
to the right of their true magnetic field value. The fit uncertainty is non-statistical and so the central
values are clustered together more than the error bars would suggest.

Chapter VI
Magnetic Field Dependence of Ultracold Inelastic Collisions Near a Feshbach
Resonance
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 Motivation. The same reasons that led us to study the magnetic field dependence ofelastic scattering rates also led us to study the magnetic field dependence of inelastic rates. First,
since Feshbach resonances themselves had only been discovered relatively recently, the inelastic
collision rates near them had not been yet been fully characterized, and so measuring the inelastic
collision rates would itself contribute to the general understanding of the physics of Feshbachresonances in cold alkali atom collisions. Several predictions had been made before the Feshbachresonances were observed experimentally that they should not only enhance the elastic scattering
rates, but would enhance both two-body dipole relaxation [118,119] and three-body recombination[120,121,122,123,124] inelastic collision rates as well, and we hoped to provide a test of these
theoretical predictions. This enhancement of inelastic rates was observed in the work in 133Cs [93],although the precise character (two- or three-body) of the inelastic rates was not definitively
determined and there were no instances reported in that work where both the elastic and inelastic
rates had been characterized for a single Feshbach resonance.
In the same way that knowledge of the s-wave scattering length is necessary to interpret
experiments with BECs near a Feshbach resonance, it is also necessary to know the inelastic
collision rates. Only if the ordinary dipole relaxation and molecular recombination rates are known
is it possible to determine if any observed loss from the BEC is due to ordinary inelastic collisions orsome other process that is characteristic of the BEC itself. In particular, the extraordinarily high loss
rates observed near Feshbach resonances in 23Na BECs [90] spurred several proposals for exotic
coherent loss processes [94-97], even though the effect of the Feshbach resonance on the ordinary
inelastic rates had not been determined and the calculations of the enhancement of the ordinary loss
rates [94-97] had not been tested. This situation left many outstanding questions as to the nature of

217
inelastic losses near a Feshbach resonance. How large are the dipole relaxation and three-bodyrecombination near the Feshbach resonance and how accurate are the calculations of thosequantities? How much of the observed condensate losses in Ref. [90] are due to these more
traditional mechanisms and how much arise from processes unique to condensates? How severe are
the “severe limitations” [90] that inelastic loss put on the use of Feshbach resonances to change thes-wave scattering length in a BEC? Would these same processes be observed in 85Rb as in 23Na?
Part of the answer to these questions was a study of the inelastic collision rates near the 85Rb
Feshbach resonance.
Finally, the efficiency of evaporative cooling is limited by the ratio of elastic to inelastic
collision rates. If this ratio is not high enough, then it will not be possible to create a BEC.
Measuring the inelastic collision rates as a function of field was therefore a necessary step in the
optimization of evaporative cooling of 85Rb.
6.1.2 Types of Inelastic Collisions in a Magnetic Trap. The inelastic collisions in amagnetic trap are easily classified by the number of atoms involved in the collisions. Spin-exchange
and dipolar relaxation are two-body processes, while molecular recombination is a three-bodyprocess. Each of these inelastic collisions is discussed briefly in the following subsections. For allof these processes, it turns out that the collision cross section is inversely proportional to the velocityof the atoms involved in the collision. This means that the collision rate is independent of thevelocity of the atoms and only proportional to an inelastic rate coefficient and the density of theatoms in the sample squared (two-body) or cubed (three-body).
6.1.2.1 Spin-exchange Collisions. Due to the difference in the singlet and triplet scattering
lengths of the interatomic potential, two atoms that come together in one set of magnetic sublevels
can collide and then leave in a different set of magnetic sublevels (see subsection 2.7.1). If one orboth of the post-collision magnetic sublevels is an untrapped state, these collisions will lead to loss
from the magnetic trap. For arbitrary spin states, these loss rates are quite large (~10-11 cm3/s) andwould be a significant source of loss from the trap. This is not the case in our spin-polarized
samples of 85Rb in the F=2 mf = –2 state. The spin angular momentum along the z-axis must be
conserved in the collision, and since there is no mf = –3 state in the lower hyperfine level and the218
collision energies are much smaller than the ground state hyperfine splitting, the spin-exchange rateis suppressed because there are no final states into which the atoms can scatter while still
maintaining angular momentum conservation. From this point on, the spin-exchange rate will
therefore be ignored.
6.1.2.2 Magnetic Dipole Relaxation. While angular momentum conservation can prevent achange in spin state for atoms that both enter and exit the collision on an s-wave channel, it is still
possible for the spins of the atoms to relax and that angular momentum be transferred to their orbital
motion. Such an inelastic collision is referred to as dipole relaxation, since one source of it is themagnetic dipole interaction between the two colliding atoms. The magnetic dipole interaction is
described in subsection 2.9.5 in a little detail, but it is simply the energy due to the fact that there is amagnetic dipole associated with each atom due to the spin of its valence electron and its nucleus andthe two dipoles of a colliding atom pair exert a force upon one another. This interaction is notspherically symmetric, and so it can couple an s-wave entry channel to a d-wave exit channel leading
to a change of spin state of the initial colliding pair (when decomposed into spherical tensors, there
is no L=1 component in the magnetic dipole interaction and so it is not possible to couple an s-wave
entry channel to a p-wave exit channel).
In a dipole relaxation collision of 85Rb atoms in the F=2 mf = –2 state, the atoms would exit
the collision either both in the F=2, mf = –1 state, or one in the F=2 mf = –2 state and the other in the
F=2, mf = 0 state. In the high magnetic field traps that we use, the spin relaxation results in a changeof the Zeeman energy of the colliding atoms, and about 5 mK of energy is transferred to the kinetic
energy of each atom in the colliding pair. They will therefore leave the magnetic trap since the trap
is not 5 mK deep for the F=2, mf = –2 state and is even shallower for the mf = –1, 0 states.
The magnetic dipole interaction is not the only mechanism by which spin relaxation canoccur. In heavy atoms, the second-order spin-orbit coupling also plays a role (see subsection 2.9.5).
The electronic wavefunctions of the colliding atom pair can perturbatively couple to excitedelectronic states, breaking the degeneracy of the electronic spin projection in the triplet part of theatom-atom interaction potential. This removal of spherical symmetry of the electronic part of theatom-atom interaction potential produces a term that has exactly the same form as the magnetic219
dipole interaction and so the two effects are indistinguishable in atom-atom collisions. The total
dipole relaxation rate will be determined by the sum of the effects from the magnetic dipole
interaction and the second-order spin-orbit coupling.
The size of the second-order spin-orbit coupling was calculated for alkali atom collisions inRef. [119]. The predicted inelastic rates were too small to explain the depolarization of observed inroom-temperature optical pumping experiments, however [125].

Including relativistic effects

explicitly rather than applying perturbation theory to nonrelativistic wavefunctions in a new
calculation improved the values of the spin-orbit coupling [126].
6.1.2.3 Three-body Molecular Recombination. The two 85Rb atoms involved in acollision are not in the lowest energy state of the interatomic potential; it is energetically favorable
for the two atoms to scatter into a lower energy bound state of the molecular potential. However, it
is not possible for only two atoms to collide and form a molecule and simultaneously satisfy both
energy and momentum conservation. This is easily demonstrated in the center-of-mass frame. The
net momentum of the two incoming atoms is equal to zero in that frame. If the atoms formed amolecule, they would both have to move away from the center of the collision in the same direction
and that would violate momentum conservation. If three atoms collide, then two can form amolecule while the third satisfies energy and momentum conservation, and therefore molecularformation is intrinsically a three-body process.
The calculation of molecular formation rates, called three-body recombination rates, ismuch more complicated than the two-body process. Not only is the calculation made more difficult
by the simple fact that two relative coordinates have to be considered instead of one, there is in
general a very large number of possible exit channels, over 1000 in the case of 85Rb [122]. Progress
is being made, but the precise calculation of three-body recombination rates is still in its early stages.
Simple scaling arguments have been used, however, to relate the three-body recombination rate to
the s-wave scattering length of the two-body interatomic potential. Since three bodies are involved,
the recombination rate, in units of sec-1, must be proportional to the density n as n3, and it is possible
to write [120]220

ν rec = αn 3 ,α = C

ha 4
m

(6.1)

where νrec is the three-body recombination event rate, a is the s-wave scattering length and m is themass of an atom in the colliding pair. The coefficient C is then dimensionless.
In order to simplify the calculation of the three-body recombination rate, the fullinteratomic potential is not used.

Instead, recombination only into the bound state closest to

threshold is considered [120,123,124] or model potentials with only a few bound states are used[122]. This appears to be a reasonable assumption since ultracold recombination events are expected
to couple mostly to the bound states closest to the collision threshold [121]. Most of the theoreticalanalyses are for positive scattering length, and the predictions for the value of C range from 3.9 in
Ref. [120] to a prediction that C should oscillate as a function of the scattering length between zeroand 67.9 [124]. In Ref. [122] both positive and negative scattering length potentials are considered,and the a4 scaling is still predicted to hold in the negative scattering length case, with C ~ 169.
Three-body recombination, like dipole relaxation, will cause a loss of atoms from themagnetically trapped sample. The molecule that is formed may or may not have a magnetic momentthat will allow it to be trapped. For the purposes of our detection system, however, whether themolecule is trapped or not makes no difference since it will be insensitive to both MOT recapture
and absorption imaging (section 4.11). The third atom may or may not be lost from the trap. It may
undergo a change in spin state as a result of the collision and would then likely be untrapped. Even
if it does not undergo a change in spin state, it will pick up kinetic energy from the binding energy
released in the molecular formation. The scale of this kinetic energy will be on the order of at least
tens of µK, except near the Feshbach resonance peak where the binding energy of the last boundstate can become quite small. If the third atom is not lost from the magnetic trap, then it could becounted in the MOT recapture signal, but since the absorption imaging measures the spatial extent of
the original cold (~600 nK) cloud of atoms it is less likely that this third atom would be counted in
the absorption image. Comparing the loss rates calculated by the imaging and the MOT recapture
will give some indication of whether this third atom is remaining in the trap or not.

221
6.1.3 Loss Rate Equations for a Magnetically Trapped Sample. Since both dipole
relaxation and three-body recombination result in the loss of atoms from the magnetic trap,
measuring the rate and density dependence of the trap loss allows the determination of the inelastic
scattering rates. The loss from the trap is expressed as three components: the one-body loss rate 1/τ,the two-body loss rate K2, and the three-body loss rate K3. The one-body loss rate is due tocollisions of cold trapped atoms with room temperature umpumped atoms in the imperfect vacuumin the science cell. For a gas with a density n, the loss rate is then expressed asdnn= − K 2 n 2 − K 3n 3 −
dt
τ

(6.2)

Therefore, a magnetically trapped gas has a total loss rate ofN
dN= −K2 < n > N − K3 < n2 > N −
dt
τ

(6.3)

Equation (6.3) was simply obtained by summing equation (6.2) over all space while using equation(4.12) for the density of atoms in the sample. The quantity <n> is the average density of the atoms
in the cloud given by equation (4.13), and <n2> is defined as< n 2 >=r1
8n( x ) 3 d 3 x =< n >2
∫
N
27

(6.4)

Another way of writing equation (6.3) is

dN
N2
N3 N
8
K3 2 −
= −K2
−
dt
V
V
τ
27

(6.5)

3
2

V = 8π σ r2σ zwhere σr,z are the radial and axial rms widths of the trapped cloud. Since the cloud heats up during
the measurement of the losses, the quantity V increases as a function of time and that evolution
needs to be included to determine K2 and K3 accurately. Equation (6.5) makes this effect of theheating more explicit while in equation (6.3) it is contained in the time evolution of the density.
Some care needs to be taken in order to compare K2 and K3 to the theoretically predicted
quantities.

For identical particles with Bose statistics, the effect of the correlation function(subsection 5.2.2) in a thermal sample needs to be taken into account. This results in a factor of 2!=2

222
increase in the two-body rates as compared to a coherent sample and a factor of 3!=6 increase in thethree-body rates. However, in order to prevent an over-counting of the number of collisions in thesample, it is necessary to divide by a factor of 2 and 6 for two-body and three-body rates
respectively when the collisions occur between identical particles, canceling the correlation function
enhancement. Often, the theory quotes event rates, how many inelastic collisions occur in a unit oftime, while the quantities K2 and K3 here specify loss rates, the number of atoms lost per unit time.
Two atoms are lost in a two-body collision and three atoms are lost in a three-body collision and soagain these factors must be taken into account.
6.1.4 Heating Rates due to Inelastic Collisions. Not only do the inelastic collisions cause
loss from a magnetically trapped atom cloud, they also cause it to heat up. There are two reasons forthis heating. First, the inelastic collisions are exothermic, producing atoms with much greater
kinetic energy than they originally possessed. These atoms may collide on the way out of the sample
and that may result in energy being deposited in the cloud. The other way that the atoms can cause
the sample to heat up is through the density dependence of the losses. Since the cloud of atoms inthe magnetic trap is most dense at its center, and the colder atoms in the sample spend more time inthe central region of the cloud, the inelastic collisions will preferentially remove the colder atoms
from the sample. It is straightforward to calculate the average energy of the atoms lost from thecloud by an appropriate integral:E2−body =r r 2  mω r2 r 2 mω z2 z 2 mv 2  3 3
1
9
f
(
x
,v) 
+
+
 d x d v = k BT
2 ∫
N
2
2 
4
 2

r r 3  mω r2 r 2 mω z2 z 2 mv 2  3 3
1
E3−body = 3 ∫ f ( x , v ) ++ d x d v = 2 k BT
N
2
2 
 2

(6.6)

where f(x,v) is the thermal equilibrium distribution function (equation (4.11)). Since the averageenergy of an atom in the trapped sample is 3kBT, equation (6.6) explicitly shows that the averageenergy of the atoms lost due to inelastic collisions is less than the average energy of the atoms in thecloud.

223
6.2 Measurement of the Inelastic Collision Rates.
6.2.1 Sample Preparation. The cold atom clouds that were used to study the inelastic
collision rates were created by loading the Ioffe-Pritchard Baseball magnetic trap from the DoubleMOT system as described in Chapter IV. Initially, 3x108 F = 2 mf = –2 85Rb atoms at 45 µK were
loaded into the magnetic trap. Forced radio-frequency evaporative cooling was used to increase thedensity of the cloud of atoms while decreasing its temperature. Because of the high ratio of
inelastic/elastic collision rates in 85Rb and the dependence of that ratio of the magnetic field andtemperature, trap conditions must be carefully chosen to achieve efficient cooling (Chapter VII). We
evaporated to the desired temperature and density (typically 3x1011 atoms/cm3 and 500–700 nK) at a
final field of B = 162 G.
6.2.2 Measurement of the Density Evolution. After the desired density and temperature
had been achieved, we adiabatically changed the bias magnetic field to a selected value andmeasured the density (i.e. number of atoms and size of the cloud of atoms) as a function of time.
There were two ways in which the density of an atom cloud was measured. The first was using
absorption imaging (section 4.11), which is destructive. We also used non-destructive polarization
imaging, which is discussed as the end of this chapter (section 6.4). In both cases, the cloud wasimaged on the camera CCD array to determine the spatial size and number of atoms in the cloud.
The nondestructive method allowed us to observe the time evolution of the number and spatial sizeof a single sample. The destructive method required us to prepare many samples and observe themafter different delay times, but had the advantages of better signal to noise for a single image andlarger dynamic range. Figure 6.1 shows a set of nondestructive imaging data. In addition to thesetechniques, we also measured the number of atoms using MOT recapture.
We measured the time dependence of the number of the atoms and the spatial size of thetrapped clouds at several different values of B. We assigned a 10% systematic error to our density
determination, based primarily on the error in our measurement of number. The value of B wascalibrated in the usual way (subsection 4.10.1). The magnetic field width of the clouds scaled as T1/2
and was 0.39 G FWHM at 500 nK.

224

7.0
Data
Two-body fit
Three-body fit

Number (106 atoms)

6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5
0

1

2

3

4

Time (sec)Figure 6.1 Number of atoms versus time taken by polarization-rotation imaging at 159 G. Fits toboth purely two-body and purely three-body inelastic rates are shown, illustrating the difficulty inseparating two- and three-body loss processes.

225
In each data set, we observed the evolution of the sample while a significant fraction (20%
– 35%) of the atoms was lost. In addition to the number loss, the volume of the trap also increased
with time due to heating, and that volume increase (typically 50%) was fit to a polynomial --usually a straight line was sufficient within our precision. This heating rate varied with B and scaledroughly with the inelastic rates (see subsection 6.2.6). The number (N) of a function of time wasthen fit to equation (6.5) with the time-dependence of the volume included. Also included inequation (6.5) is the background loss rate τ, which was typically 450 seconds and independently
determined by measuring the loss from low-density clouds for long (~400 seconds) times. The
fractional change in the number of atoms measured by MOT recapture agreed on average with thechange measured by absorption imaging or polarization-rotation imaging to within a few percent,even after some inelastic collisions had occurred. This suggests that a large majority of the inelastic
collisions resulted in all of the atoms being completely lost from the magnetic trap, not just lost fromthe original cold atom cloud.
The change in the combined inelastic rates as a function of B around the Feshbachresonance is shown in Figure 6.2. All of the inelastic data shown in Figure 6.2 were taken withinitial temperatures near 600 nK. The points less than 157 G were taken with initial densities within
10% of 1 x 1011 cm-3, while the points higher than 157 G were taken with initial densities that were
2.7 x 1011 cm-3. The decrease in initial density below 157 G was due to ramping through the highinelastic loss region after forming the sample at 162 G. Because of this density variation, we haveused a different weighting parameter β in the sum of the two- and three-body rate constants for thetwo regions in Figure 6.2. These rates are generally quite large as compared to 23Na and 87Rb,
although they are less than those of 133Cs.
Also shown on Figure 6.2 is the elastic rate determined previously (see Chapter V). The
shape of the inelastic rate vs. B roughly follows that of the elastic rate vs. B. In particular, the peakof the inelastic rate occurs at 155.1±0.5 G, within the error of the position of the elastic peak at. The correlation of the peak of the inelastic and elastic scattering rates is predicted bothfor two- and three-body inelastic collisions. The reason for this is that the Feshbach resonance is aresonance in the entrance channel of the collisions, and so all the rates, inelastic and elastic, areElastic Scattering Rate (arb.)

226

10

Elastic Rate

Elastic Extremum
Positions

1
0.1
0.01
0.001
1e-11

1e-12

3

K2 + βK3 (cm /s)

β = 1.6 x 1011 cm-3
β = 4.0 x 1011 cm-3
Elastic Extremum
Positions

1e-13

1e-14
100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

Magnetic Field (gauss)

Figure 6.2. Elastic Rate (upper plot) from Chapter V and total loss rates (lower) plot vs. magnetic
field. The total loss rate is expressed as the sum of the two- and three-body loss as K2+βK3.
Because of initial density differences caused by ramping across the peak, β has a different value
above and below B = 157 G. The vertical lines represent the positions of the elastic rate maximum
and minimum at B = 155 and 166 G, respectively.

227
enhanced. Just as is the case for the elastic rates, the inelastic rates around the Feshbach resonancevary by orders of magnitude. The peak in the inelastic rate is much less symmetric, however.
Another interesting feature is that the loss rates not only increase near the elastic rate peak but
decrease near its minimum. The field where the loss is a minimum, 173.5±2.5 G is higher than theminimum of the elastic rate at 165.85±0.05 G.
6.2.3 Distinguishing Two- and Three-body Loss Rates. Even though two- and threebody inelastic rates have different density dependencies, it is surprisingly difficult to separate them.
Figure 6.1 shows how a purely two-body or purely three-body loss curve fits equally well to atypical data set. An excellent signal-to-noise ratio or, equivalently, data from a large range ofdensity, are required to determine whether the loss is three-body, two-body, or a mixture of the two.
To better determine the density dependence, we decreased the initial density by up to a factor of 10
for several B values. For fields with relatively high loss rates, the signal-to-noise ratio was adequate
to distinguish between two- and three-body loss rates. However, where the rates were lower this was
not the case.
The reason that two- and three-body rates could not be distinguished at the fields withlower loss rates is the presence of the background loss rate τ. Decreasing the density by an order ofmagnitude causes the overall loss of atoms from the cloud to be dominated by this background rate,
obscuring the loss rate due to inelastic collisions. If it were possible to increase the density by anorder of magnitude, then it would be possible to distinguish between the two different loss processes,
but the maximum density is limited by the evaporation performance.
Once data had been collected (at the higher loss rate fields) at both the higher and lower
densities, each individual set of data was fit to equation (6.5). For each individual set of data, theinitial number of atoms was treated as a free parameter, but the coefficients K2 and K3 were fixed
across all the data at the same field, both high- and low-density. The two parameters K2 and K3 werethen varied until the standard fit parameter χ2 summed from all of the data points was minimized[127] to determine the best-fit value for K2 and K3. Once that was done, K2 and K3 were thenindividually varied while minimizing all the other fit parameters (i.e. the initial number of atoms ineach set of data and the other loss constant) until the value of χ2 increased by one to determine the228statistical errors on the K2, K3 determinations. The variation of individual data points taken under
the same conditions was used to determine the individual uncertainty on each single data point. The
values of χ2 were statistically reasonable, indicating that equation (6.5) was a reasonable model ofthe loss rates.
6.2.4 Character of the Loss Rates near the 85Rb Feshbach Resonance. Figure 6.3 shows
the two-body inelastic rate determined from the density-varied data and Figure 6.4 shows the samefor the three-body rate. The character of the inelastic loss clearly changes as one goes from higher
field to lower field (right to left on Figures 6.2-4). On the far right of the graph, at B = 250 G, theinelastic rate is dominated by a three-body process. From B = 250 G down to B =174 G the inelastic
rate decreases to a minimum and then begins to increase again. Near the minimum, we could not
determine the loss character, but at 162 G the losses are dominated by a two-body process at thisdensity. At 158 G, the two-body process is still dominant and rising rapidly as one goes toward
lower field. However, by ~157 G it has been overtaken by three-body recombination that is thedominant process between 157-145 G.

At lower fields, both two-body and three-body rates

contribute significantly to the total loss at these densities.
While the following is not confirmed, a reasonable interpretation of this structure is that thethree-body rate that dominates at fields much higher than the Feshbach resonance decreases as the
Feshbach resonance is approached from higher fields. As the three-body loss decreases, it becomes
smaller than the two-body rate for the density of the atom clouds studied. In this interpretation, thedensity of the atom clouds that are measured determines the minimum of the combined loss rate, andit represents the point at which the three-body and two-body loss rates are equal. The two-body rates
climb as the peak of the Feshbach resonance is approached from higher field, and it dominates theloss rate at the measured densities for some time until the three-body recombination rate, increasing
more rapidly as the peak is approached from higher field, overtakes it to dominate the losses at thepeak of the resonance. This interpretation is consistent with the general theory predictions for thetwo- and three-body losses near the Feshbach resonance.
6.2.5 Temperature Dependence of the Loss Rates. Along with varying the density, theinitial temperature was varied at B = 145, 156, 160, and 250 G. There was no significant rate change

229

1e-11

K2 (cm3/s)

1e-12

1e-13

1e-14

1e-15
100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

Magnetic Field (gauss)

Figure 6.3. The determination of the two-body inelastic rate for several B fields. The theory
prediction from Ref. [119] is shown as a solid line. The open circles ( ) are the two-body rates
determined from the total loss from Figure 6.2 by assuming (not explicitly measuring) that the loss
between 162 and 166 G is predominantly two-body. These points are added to aid comparison withtheory. In addition to the statistical errors shown, there is another 10% systematic uncertainty due tothe estimated error in our density determination.

230

1e-22

---

1e-23

K3 (cm6/s)--1e-24--1e-25---------

1e-26

1e-27
100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

Magnetic Field (gauss)

Figure 6.4. The determination of the three-body inelastic rate. The points with the droplines are to
be interpreted as upper limits on the three-body rate. The solid line here is a prediction from Ref.
[122]. The open circles here are similar to those in Figure 6.3, only here we assume (but again do
not measure) that the loss above 175 G is predominantly three-body. The error bars on the 250 G
point are relatively small because a large amount of data was taken there. In addition to thestatistical errors shown, there is another 20% systematic uncertainty due to the estimated error in ourdensity determination.

231
in the loss rate for temperatures between 400 and 1000 nK for the 160 and 250 G points. The
combined loss rate increased by a factor of 8 at 156 G from 1 µK to 400 nK, and by a factor of 2 at
145 G. Figure 6.5 shows the temperature dependence of the combined loss rate at 145.1 G as afunction of temperature. This temperature dependence near the peak is expected in analogy to thetemperature dependence of the elastic rates [23]. The fact that the loss rates near the peak exhibit
both a two- and three-body character plus temperature dependence makes interpreting the data
challenging.
In order to account for the combination of this temperature dependence and the heating of
the sample that occurs while the density evolution is being measured, a naïve temperaturedependence is included in the K3 coefficient for the few points near the peak. It is assumed that thethree-body coefficient decreases from its value at the initial temperature (~600 nK) as T-2, based on
the behavior of the elastic scattering unitarity limit (equation (5.20)) and the predicted scaling of thethree-body rate equation given in equation (6.1). This temperature dependence ignores the fact thatnear the peak, the scattering length will eventually become larger than the deBroglie wavelength of
the atoms in the cloud. Once this happens, the enhancement in loss rates due to the nature of thecorrelation function (subsection 5.2.2) will be reduced, causing a further decrease in the loss rate as
the temperature of the cloud increases. The T 2 temperature scaling modifies the measured threebody rate by ~20%, and this is included in the data displayed in Figures 6.2-6.4. Since this estimate
is simplistic, the uncertainty on the points near the peak was increased adding 20% in quadrature to
the statistical uncertainty. This temperature dependence did not affect our conclusion that the threebody losses dominate at the peak of the Feshbach resonance.
6.2.6 Heating Rates. As mentioned in subsection 6.2.2, the sample heated up during thedensity evolution at a rate that scales roughly with the inelastic scattering rate. Figure 6.6 shows theheating rate measured at several selected fields.

6.3 Comparison of Measured Inelastic Rates to Theory Predictions.
6.3.1 Dipole Relaxation. A calculated dipole relaxation loss rate is compared with the data
in Figure 6.3. This was calculated using the 85Rb atom-atom interaction potential including themagnetic dipole interaction and the second-order spin-orbit coupling and finding the scattering

232

14

Effective K3 (x10-23 cm6/s)

12

11

-3

<n> ~ 1x10 cm

10
8
6
4
2
0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Temperature (nK)

Figure 6.5. Temperature dependence of the inelastic loss at 145.1 G. Here, the combined loss rateis shown by assuming that all of the loss at this field is due to a three-body process. All of the dataon this plot were taken with approximately the same density.

233

Heating Rate (nK/sec)

1000

100

10

1

0.1
140

160

180

200

220

240

260

Magnetic Field (gauss)

Figure 6.6 Heating rate vs. magnetic field. The samples used to acquire this data had densities
between 2-3 x 1011 cm-3. The heating rate is determined by dividing the temperature increase after
the cloud had lost ~25% of the atoms by the time taken to lose that many atoms. Away from thezero, the heating rate is consistent with the rate expected from the density dependence alone. Near
the minimum, the heating rate is higher than expected from the density dependence of the inelastic
losses themselves, but near the minimum we are also more sensitive to heating rates from sources
other than the inelastic collisions.

234
amplitude such that two F=2, mf = –2 collide inelastically and exit in a spin state different than theincoming one [128]. Keeping in mind the significance of error bars on a log plot, the agreement isreasonably good. In the region between B = 160 and 167 G where the determination of K2 is notcomplicated by three-body loss, the agreement is particularly good.
The predicted dipole relaxation rates exhibit a dependence on the energy of the two atoms
involved in the collision, like the unitarity limit in elastic collisions. Away from the peak where theloss rates are small, this is not a significant effect for the typical temperatures of the atom clouds
used to measure the inelastic rates. Closer to the peak, however, the energy dependence limits the
dipole relaxation rate. The predicted dipole relaxation rate scaled as

K 2 (T ) =K 2 (T = 0)
(1 + αE )(6.7)

where E is the energy of the colliding pair and α is a constant that depends on the value of themagnetic field. I determined the value of α for each field from the calculation supplied in Ref.
[128]. In order to generate the theory line on Figure 6.3, this energy dependence was accounted forby averaging the energy-dependent two-body rate equation (6.7) over the range of collision energies
in a cloud in thermal equilibrium that had the same temperature as the clouds that were measured.
The calculation of the magnitude of the dipole relaxation rate was performed using anempirical coefficient for the second-order spin-orbit interaction that was used to match the rate
observed in the optical pumping measurements (subsection 6.1.2.2). The agreement between thepredicted rate and our observed rates in the region that we were best able to measure the two-bodycoefficient (B = 160 to 167 G) then represents additional evidence that the initial calculation of thesecond-order spin-orbit coupling was indeed too small [119] and that the empirical coefficient not
only fits the room-temperature optical pumping data but our measurement of the ultracold two-bodyloss rate as well.
6.3.2 Three-body Recombination. In Figure 6.4, we also show a prediction of the threebody recombination rate. The predicted a4 dependence of the loss rate was combined with themeasured value of a as a function of magnetic field (Chapter V) to generate the theory curve in
Figure 6.4. The value used for the coefficient C in equation (6.1) was taken from Ref. [122], using

235
the predicted value for C when the scattering length is negative and for when the scattering length ispositive in the appropriate regions of magnetic field.
included in the prediction.

Temperature dependence has not been

Qualitatively, the main features of the predicted three-bodyrecombination rate match the data. The three-body rate decreases as a decreases and it increases
rapidly where a diverges at B = 155 G. From B = 155 to 166 G, a is positive and the three-body loss
is much smaller than it is at B fields with comparable negative a, as expected from theory. Thisoverall level of agreement is reasonable given the difficulties and approximation in calculating threebody recombination rates.
Because of the loss of signal-to-noise ratio as the inelastic collision rate decreased, we
could not definitively determine that the three-body losses were scaling as a4. Figure 6.7 shows allof the points higher than 175 G assuming that all of the observed loss is due to three-body collisions.
The fit to the a4 function is not particularly good, but it does not appear possible to rule out an a4
scaling.
6.3.3 Energy Dependence of the Feshbach Peak. While measuring the background loss
rate (τ), we found that the background rate appeared to decrease near the Feshbach resonance,
indicating that the loss rate was enhanced for some fields. Figure 6.8 shows the decay rate of the
low-density clouds used to make the measurement of τ as a function of magnetic field. We now
believe that this increase in the loss rate a some fields is due to the fact that the density of the clouds
is not low enough that the large losses near the peak of the resonance cannot cause some loss
through inelastic collisions. The fact that this effect is largest near 162 G rather than 155 G is asignature of the energy dependence of the position of the Feshbach resonance peak.
6.3.4 Conclusions. The 85Rb Feshbach resonance has a profound effect on the two- andthree-body inelastic collision rates, changing them by orders of magnitude. Far from the resonanceat 250 G, the two-body and three-body loss rates were measured to be

K 2 = (1.87 ± 0.95 ± 0.19) × 10−14 cm 3 /s

(

)

70
K 3 = 4.24 +−00..29± 0.85 × 10 −25 cm 6 /s

(6.8)

respectively. Here the first error listed in the statistical uncertainty and the second is the systematic
uncertainty due to the number determination. Near the resonance, the two- and three-body rates

236

Ln (Effective K3) (arb. units)

6

5

4

3

2
5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

Ln (|a|)Figure 6.7 Conjecture log-log plot of K3 vs. a4. This figure displays all of the data greater than 175
G assuming that the loss is due only to a three-body loss process. The slope of the best-fit line is 4.2,
close to the predicted value of 4, but the quality of the fit is so poor (reduced χ2 > 4 for 5 degrees of
freedom) that we certainly cannot claim that we have definitively observed an a4 scaling. Theintercept of this fit implies C~2200 in equation (6.1) for a negative scattering length.

237Time Constant ( s )

520
500
480
460
440
420
400
380
80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260

B-Field ( G )Figure 6.8. Variation of measured loss rate of low-density clouds. The clouds used for thismeasurement had a density ~109 cm-3 and a temperature of approximately 40 µK. Note that the zerois suppressed and the total variation is only 20%.

238
change by orders of magnitude. The dependence of the inelastic rates on magnetic field is similar in
structure to the dependence of the elastic rate: the maxima in both rates occur at the same field,
while the minima are close but do not coincide. The total loss is a complicated mixture of both twoand three-body loss processes. They have different dependencies on field so both have field regionsin which they dominate.

6.4 Appendix to Chapter VI: Polarization-rotation Imaging.
6.4.1 Why Choose Polarization-rotation Imaging for Non-destructive Imaging? Since
we work at relatively high magnetic fields, polarization rotation imaging [129] is a natural choice fornon-destructive imaging. Other methods of non-destructive imaging, such as dark ground [130] andphase contrast imaging [131], involve placing a small object in the Fourier transform plane of theimaging system to effect the light that did not go through the atom cloud in a way that is different
from the light that did go through the cloud. This means that these methods require that the cloud
being imaged be small so that the image of the cloud is big in the Fourier transform plane. For thesize of clouds that we were measuring, it was difficult to achieve this separation of scales when we
tried dark-ground imaging. Also, small fringes and scattering patterns from dust in the probe beam
did not pass through the object in the Fourier transform plane either and complicated theinterpretation of the dark-ground images.
Polarization rotation imaging takes advantage of the fact that the high bias magnetic field in
the trap breaks the degeneracy of the excited state magnetic sublevels. It is then possible to select a
probe laser detuning that is in between two transitions that are driven by different polarizations. Not
only do atoms scatter light, they also can impart a phase shift to it [81]. If a probe beam that iscomposed of these two different polarizations passes through a gas of atoms, the different phase shift
experienced by each polarization will result in a change in the polarization of the probe beam. The
magnitude of the phase shift depends on the column density of the atoms through which the lightpasses and so the amount of polarization change can be used to determine the column density of thecloud. The magnitude of the phase shift scales as ∆-1, where ∆ is the detuning from the atomic
transition, while the scattering rate scales as ∆-2. Because the scattering rate drops much faster with239
∆ than the phase shift, for large detunings it is possible to measure the column density of the cloud
while scattering very few photons on average, leaving the cloud largely undisturbed.
6.4.2 Arrangement of Polarization-rotation Imaging in our System. Since the probe
laser already passes through a polarizing beam-splitting cube, that cube is a natural choice as a way
to measure the polarization of the laser light. Normally, the polarization of the laser light is selected
so that the transmission of through the cube is maximized. By inserting a λ/2 plate in the probe
beam path, it was possible to arrange the polarization of the probe laser so that no light would betransmitted through the cube. We were able to achieve and extinction ratio of ~0.1%. With thisarrangement, the probe light was circularly polarized in the region where the atoms were trapped.
Any change in the polarization of the probe light would result in more light being transmitted
through the polarizing beam-splitting cube.
The energy dependence of the excited states in 85Rb is shown in Figure 6.9. The states arelabeled by their nuclear spin and electron total angular momentum (spin plus angular momentum)
projections (mi, mJ) that specify the magnetic sublevel eigenstates at very high magnetic fields(where the hyperfine interaction can be regarded as a small perturbation). At finite magnetic fields,
the eigenstates are composed of a superposition of |mi, mJ> product states, and it is possible to drive
transitions from the F=2, mf = –2 ground state to the several of the states indicated in Figure 6.9
while still satisfying the electric dipole selection rules. When the probe laser is detuned as shown, adifferent phase was accumulated between the two polarization components of the circularly
polarized probe beam and the polarization of the beam is changed.
The precise calculation of the phase shift from the atomic structure of 85Rb is quite
complicated. One complication is that the direction of the magnetic trap bias magnetic field isperpendicular to the probe beam direction. If the direction of the bias field of the trap is labeled by
the z-axis and the probe beam propagates along the x axis, then the polarization of the probe beam isinitially proportional to iyˆ + zˆ . The z component of the polarization drives ∆m = 0 transitions,while the y direction will drive a coherent superposition of ∆m = 1 and –1 transitions. Evaluating
this coherent superposition is complex and simple rate equations cannot be used for the detunings
typically used for non-destructive imaging. The transitions are not closed, and so both the multiple

240

mi = 5/2

600mJ=3/2
mi = -5/2

Energy ( MHz )400
mi = 5/2
mJ=1/2200

mi = -5/20
mi = -5/2
mJ=-1/2-200

mi = 5/2-400

mi = -5/2
mJ=-3/2-600

mi = 5/2

0

50

100

150

200

Magnetic Field (G)Figure 6.9. Excited state magnetic sublevel energies vs. magnetic field. Each manifold of states islabeled by the value of mJ that is one of the quantum numbers that specifies the eigenstates at highmagnetic field. The individual levels within the four manifolds are further specified by the nuclear
spin quantum number mi. Moving up and down from one level to the next within a manifold
changes the value of mi by one. The mi value for the highest and lowest states in each manifold isshown on the right. These quantum numbers are strictly good only at high values of magnetic
field—at lower values of the field the eigenstates are a combination of the product states specified by|mJ,mi>. The arrow indicates the probe laser detuning suitable for polarization-rotation imaging.

241
excited states and appropriate decay rates to the ground states must be included in the calculation of
the transition strength. Also, the fact that the transitions are not closed precludes the evaluation of
the transition rates in the steady state. Another complication is that when an 85Rb atom’s optically
active electron is excited in the y direction, the magnetic field will cause it to start moving along thex direction as well. This means that the electric dipole polarization of the atomic sample will bealong all three directions: x, y, and z and the evaluation of Maxwell’s equations in the slowly
varying envelope approximation [81] will be correspondingly more complicated as well.
Rather than attempt this complicated calculation, we merely assumed that an atom in thetrap induced some phase shift between the y and z polarization without calculating exactly what it
would be. From the general considerations of the polarization of the probe laser and the orientationof the atoms it was possible to make an intelligent guess as to what probe detuning would be
required for this to be so. Whatever the phase shift of an individual atom, the total phase shift
induced in the probe polarization would be proportional to the column density of the atoms, at leastin the absence of any significant photon scattering rate. The number of atoms thus measured wasthen calibrated by comparing the polarization rotation signal to the MOT recapture or absorption
imaging measurement of the number of atoms in the cloud.
With the arrangement of the polarization of the probe beam so that no light is transmitted in
the absence of any atoms, any intensity observed when atoms are present in the trap is given by

I ( y, z ) = I 0 ( y, z )(1 − cos(φ0 n( y, z )) )

2

(6.9)

where φ0 is the phase shift induced by a single atom, n(y,z) is the column density of the cloud atposition (y,z) and I0(y,z) is the intensity of the incident probe light. The atoms then appear as abright intensity signal on the CCD array of the camera. For small phase shifts, the intensity oftransmitted light is proportional to the square of the column density.
6.4.3 Performance of the Polarization-rotation Imaging. The polarization-rotation
imaging did allow nearly non-destructive measurement of the thermal atom samples while in the
trap. Typically, about 1% of the atoms in the sample were lost due to the ~40 µs probe pulse used
and the sample did heat up by several nK, but this loss and heating was easily accounted for and it
was a great advantage not to have to create several samples to map out the density evolution. The

242
analysis of the signal was complicated by the presence of a spatial variation in the polarization of thelaser beam, however. These polarization “stripes” appeared to be due to interference in the λ/4
waveplates used to set the MOT polarization and perhaps other optical elements in the system. The
stripes had a magnitude of near 0.1 radians, producing a significant shift in the measured phase shift
due to the atoms in the magnetic trap. The spatial structure of these stripes was easily measured, andin order to measure their phase amplitude so to correct for these stripes, long exposure time (~500µs) images were taken of a trapped atom cloud. These long exposure times were destructive but
produced very high signal-to-noise images. The cloud measured with these long exposures was fit toa gaussian and the deviations from this fit used to determine the phase amplitude of the stripes.
Once the phase amplitude and spatial structure of the polarization stripes were known, corrections
could be included in the fits to the non-destructive data to determine the cloud shape and number ofatoms. The validity of these corrections was demonstrated by the fact that the measurement of theK2 and K3 coefficients was the same for the polarization rotation and destructive absorption imaging
methods.
The signal-to-noise ratio achievable with the polarization-rotation imaging was not nearly
as good what as could be obtained with absorption imaging. This is not particularly surprising since
the large detuning of the probe laser used in the polarization-rotation measurement leads to a
reduction in the signal that can be obtained from each atom. Therefore, only samples with asufficient column density (equivalent to an on-resonance absorption peak optical depth of at least~10 or more) could be usefully measured with polarization-rotation imaging. Moving the probe
laser detuning closer to resonance produced very confusing signals. By changing the frequency ofthe probe, we determined that ~25% of the light always passed through the cloud. Near resonance,
the phase-shift induced by the atoms in the cloud exceeded 2π, meaning that light and darkpolarization signals were superimposed on the absorption shadow. The spread of the magnetic field
across the sample was enough that we could not be sure that the shape would not be distorted evenwhen the probe was tuned to the resonance of the transition. Finally, the absorption of only one ofthe polarization components of the light meant that the absorption was also producing a polarization
rotation in addition to a straightforward absorption signal. These confusing signals limited this243
method’s utility for destructive in trap imaging. More control over the polarization of the probe
laser beam, the optics used to measure the polarization, and the ability to change the direction theprobe propagates through the sample would allow better imaging of the atoms in the trap. Making
these changes, however, would involve substantial changes in the present imaging system, and therelative lack of optical access in the science cell means that the path the probe laser follows mustalso be able to be used for the science MOT as well.

Chapter VII
Stable 85Rb Bose-Einstein Condensates with Widely Tunable Interactions

7.1 Evaporative Cooling of 85Rb
7.1.1 Difficulties Evaporatively Cooling 85Rb. As was mentioned in subsection 4.9.1, theratio between the elastic collision rate needed for efficient evaporative cooling and the rate of loss
and heating determines the efficiency of the evaporative cooling. In 85Rb, the elastic rate is afunction of field and can be greatly enhanced or suppressed through the use of the Feshbachresonance (Chapter V). The inelastic collisions rates that lead to loss and heating of the trappedsample are also a function of field, however, and the change of these rates with magnetic field issimilar to changes of the elastic rate (Chapter VI). This was clearly demonstrated by our firstattempts at evaporative cooling after the characterization of the elastic scattering rates as a functionof magnetic field. We tried cooling at the peak of the Feshbach resonance and the results were arapid loss of atoms without significant cooling. This was our first indication that the inelastic
collisions could dominate the elastic collisions and therefore a careful selection of magnetic fields at
which to evaporatively cool would be necessary, especially since the inelastic collisions rates werein general orders of magnitude higher than those in 87Rb and 23Na (the two species in which a BEC
was first created in a dilute trapped gas).
In addition to the relatively large inelastic rates, there is another evaporative coolingdrawback in the scattering properties of cold 85Rb.

In 87Rb and 23Na, adiabatic compression(subsection 4.6.7) is used to improve achieve efficient evaporative cooling.

This adiabatic

compression consists of increasing the frequencies of the magnetic trap to increase the density andtemperature of the sample and hence the elastic collision rate, which is proportional to <n>σ<v>,
where as usual <n> is the average density (equation (4.12)), <v> is the average relative speed(equation (4.17)) and σ is the elastic scattering cross section (equation (2.14)). The elastic collision
rate is usually increased by ~100 using adiabatic compression. In contrast, there are several reasons

245
why adiabatic compression cannot be used in 85Rb, and so the two orders of magnitude increase in
the elastic collision rate are lost. First, away from the Feshbach resonance, σ drops rapidly withincreasing collision energy, as is shown in Figure 7.1. The increase in temperature during adiabatic
compression therefore reduces the elastic collision cross section, leading to no significant increase in
the elastic collision rate. Second, the combination of the location of the Feshbach resonance at highmagnetic bias field (~155 G), the scaling of the radial trap frequencies with bias field (equation(4.9)), and the finite range of both our trap coil cooling and coil power supply means that it is
impossible for us to achieve large trap frequencies in the vicinity of the resonance. Finally, thescaling of the relative elastic and inelastic collision rates on trap frequency, detailed below, indicatethat weaker magnetic traps are in general more favorable for evaporative cooling; adiabatic
compression increases both the elastic and inelastic scattering rates, and it does so in a way that
affects their ratio unfavorably.
One other difficulty comes about because the weak magnetic traps that are used with 85Rb
allow the atoms to sag substantially due to gravity. This means that the surfaces of constantmagnetic field form horizontal planes across the cloud and energy is removed by the rf-knife fromonly one direction instead of all three (see subsection 4.5.4). This change in dimensionality of theenergy removal is aptly referred to as one-dimensional evaporation. One-dimensional evaporation
leads to a loss of efficiency in evaporative cooling, since atoms with much greater energy than the
average energy in the cloud will not be removed in two out of the three directions. This loss inefficiency combined with the other difficulties in evaporating 85Rb made it highly uncertain whether
or not an 85Rb BEC could be created.
7.1.2 Elastic/Inelastic Collision Rates and Trap Frequency. The goal of evaporative
cooling is ultimately to increase the phase-space density of the trapped cloud of atoms until the BEC
transition is reached. Part of the optimization of our evaporative cooling is to choose an appropriate
strength for the trap potential. Unlike many of the other parameters in our evaporative coolingsequence, the strength of the trap potential is not easy to optimize. This is because after any change
in the trap parameters we have found that we need to optimize all of the other parameters involved in246

Elastic Scattering Cross Section (cm2)

1e-10

1e-11

1e-12

1e-13

1e-14
0.1

1

10

100

1000

Collision Energy (µK)

Figure 7.1. Elastic scattering cross section as a function of collision energy. This curve iscalculated for B=0, using the methods presented in Ref. [31] and the cold atoms collisions calculator
in Ref. [132]. The behavior at fields far from the Feshbach resonance is similar.

247
the evaporation and that takes one day or more. Therefore, the trap potential strength was selectedon the basis of the following general arguments.
For convenience, several equations are repeated here: the BEC transition temperature
1

1

k BTc = 0.94hω ho N 3 , ω ho = (ω xω yω z ) 3 ;(3.5)

the average density of atoms in the magnetic trapr
1
d 3 x n( x ) 2∫
NNNω r2ω z ;= 32 2 =32
8π σ r σ z
 π k BT 
8

 m 

<n>=

(4.14)

the average relative speed of the atoms in the trap

r r
r r
r r
16k BT< v > = ∫ d 3 x ∫ d 3v d 3v′ v − v ′ f ( x , v ) f ( x , v ′) =;πm

(4.17)

the elastic collision rate

Γ = 2 < n >σ < v >;(5.16)(the factor of two is included because of the correlations in a thermal cloud of identical bosons) andthe loss ratesdN
N= −K2 < n > N − K3 < n2 > N − .
dt
τ

(6.3)

All of these quantities depend on the temperature of the atoms in the trapped cloud and the trap
frequencies (ω) either explicitly or through a dependence on the density of the atoms in the trap.
Adiabatic compression can be used to increase elastic collision rate while maintaining thephase-space density of the cloud. Since during an adiabatic compression the quantity ωho/T is fixed,
it is straightforward to determine the scaling of the elastic scattering rate for a fixed phase-spacedensity assuming that the elastic cross section is independent of temperature2Γ ∝ ω ho

(7.1)

However, if the cross section falls as 1/T then Γ scales only as ωho. Not only does the elastic
collision rate increase for stronger traps, the higher BEC transition temperature means that any

248
absolute heating rate becomes a less important consideration. The steep scaling of equation (7.1)
and higher absolute value of the transition temperature seem quite attractive from the standpoint ofcreating a BEC, but the inelastic collision rates do not scale so favorably.
If three-body recombination dominates the loss rate, then the ratio of elastic/inelastic
scattering is

6 3 πσ k B2T 2
3
Nω ho
m2 K3

(7.2)

where MKS units are used for all of the quantities. Clearly, increasing the trap frequencies willcause this ratio to get worse: an adiabatic compression will cause this ratio to scale as 1/ωho. Also,
as the cloud gets colder, this ratio becomes more and more unfavorable. For 107 atoms a factor of
100 away in phase-space density from the BEC transition, a tightly confining trap of 2π x 200 Hz
radial by 2π x 10 Hz axial will give a value of 6.5 for equation (7.2) if K3= 5x10-37 m6/s and σ =1.0x10-14 m2. Typically, a ratio of 100 is necessary for good evaporation performance with threedimensional evaporation, even without considering any heating of the cloud, and so a tight trap is notfavorable for 85Rb.
If two-body losses dominate instead, the elastic/inelastic collision ratio is

4σ
K2

k BT
.
πm

(7.3)

Once again, as the sample gets colder, this ratio gets worse. Now, adiabatically increasing the trap
frequencies should help the evaporation performance, but only very slowly since equation (7.3)
scales as ωho1/2. For a typical set of parameters (107 atoms a factor of 100 away from the BEC
transition, 2π x 17 Hz radial and 2π x 7 Hz axial trap frequencies, σ=0.25x10-14 m2, K2=7 x 10-20m3/s) this ratio is ~275.
Equation (7.2) indicates that strong trap potentials are to be avoided if the three-bodyrecombination rate can become the dominant loss mechanism during evaporation. Equation (7.3)
suggests that stronger trap frequencies would help the elastic/inelastic ratio if two-body inelastic
collisions are the dominant loss mechanism, but as the trap frequencies are increased the “thickness”
of the atomic cloud begins to limit the evaporative cooling efficiency. As long as the cloud of atoms

249
in the trap is dilute, a high-energy atom produced anywhere in the cloud by an elastic collision will
make it to the evaporation surface. As the cloud gets denser (thicker), however, it becomes more
likely that an atom produced in the center of the cloud will collide on the way out of the cloud,
reducing the evaporation efficiency. With respect to an adiabatic change in the trap frequencies, theelastic collision rate scales as ωho2 while the radial width of the cloud scales as 1/ωr so the atomic
thickness then scales as ωho2/ωr = (ωr ωz2)1/3, and the clouds become thicker with increasing trap
frequency. Not only does this increase in atomic thickness reduce the evaporative cooling rate
through reducing the efficiency of the elastic collisions, the thicker clouds increase the probability
that a hot atom produced through an inelastic collision will scatter on the way out of the cloud,depositing some of its kinetic energy as heat [133].
In addition to the problem of the atomic thickness of the cloud, there is a related effect due
to the finite amount of time that an atom takes to move in the harmonic trapping potential. A highenergy atom formed at the center of the cloud that is moving toward the evaporation surface willtake one-quarter of the trap period to get there. Depending on the initial location and velocity of ahigh-energy atom, this time could range from nearly zero to nearly the full radial trap period.
Therefore, when the elastic scattering rate exceeds roughly twice the radial trap period, the rate ofatoms reaching the evaporation surface will be proportional to roughly twice the trap frequency
rather than the elastic collision rate.

The inelastic collision rate is unaffected by these

considerations, however, and so this effect also decreases the evaporative cooling efficiency.
Again, increasing the trap frequency makes this problem with the finite time an atom takes
to move worse. Once the elastic collision rate is limited by the radial trap frequency, the rate will
scale as ωr instead of ωho2 during an adiabatic change in the trap frequencies. However, the twobody inelastic rate still scales as ωho3/2. Instead of the elastic/inelastic ratio improving with anincrease in trap frequency, it will begin to decrease once the elastic scattering rate is comparable totwice the radial trap period.
One other effect that needs to be considered is the unitarity limit (equation (5.20)) that
limits the elastic collision cross section. Once the collisions are unitarity limited, the elastic crosssection will scale roughly as 1/T, making the ratio in equation (7.3) worse with increasing

250
temperature. The inelastic collision rates are also smaller at finite temperature as well, mitigating
the loss in evaporative cooling efficiency at higher temperatures. However, the inelastic collisions
are causing loss throughout the cloud while only relatively high-energy collisions produce an atomthat can be removed by the rf-knife, so the unitarity limit would still be expected to degrade theevaporation efficiency.
The optimum trap frequencies are therefore a trade-off between the stronger trap favored byequation (7.3) and the three limiting effects discussed above. For the typical set of parameterspresented after equation (7.3), the collision rate is ~22 Hz, near the point where the thickness effects
are expected to play a role. The unitarity limit is not expected to play a significant role for these
conditions because the s-wave scattering length is small enough. Therefore, it seemed that we did
not want to increase the trap frequencies significantly, nor decrease them too much from thesetypical parameters, and therefore these are the trapping frequencies used for the final portion of ourevaporation.
The limitations in evaporative efficiency due to atomically thick clouds also need to beconsidered when selecting the bias magnetic field at which the evaporation is to be performed. The
ratio of the elastic scattering cross section (σ) to K3 and K2 is determined by the value of themagnetic bias field, and it is in general desirable to choose a field that maximizes that ratio in favorof the elastic collisions. Increasing the elastic collision cross section too much makes the cloud
atomically thick, however, and so just maximizing the σ/K2 or σ/K3 ratio does not necessarily lead tothe most efficient evaporative cooling (see subsection 7.1.5).
In addition to a two- or three-body rate dominating the loss from the cloud, it is also
possible that the background loss rate τ will be the dominant loss process if the clouds have a low
enough density. After we have loaded the atoms into the magnetic trap initially, the background
losses are indeed the limiting loss rate. In this case, there is no strong dependence of the loss rate on
the trap frequencies and the optimum elastic/ “inelastic” ratio is just the optimum of the elastic
collision rate.
7.1.3 Simple Model of Evaporative Cooling. The precise calculation of the evaporative
cooling rate is complicated, and so we have developed a simple model to compare with our observed

251
evaporation performance. The model is not expected to produce quantitative comparisons with ourobservations, but rather it serves as a way to test how various factors are expected to affect theevaporation performance. The model is similar to the one presented in Ref. [134], except that it has
been modified to account for our one-dimensional evaporative cooling and the effects of a thickatomic cloud.
The calculation of the evaporative cooling rate is performed in the following way. The
frequency of the rf-knife is assumed to change so that the evaporation plane removes all atoms
whose energy in only one direction (which for concreteness will be referred to as the y direction) is
greater than the average energy of the cloud in that direction by a fixed ratio η. In other words, if η
is set to be equal to six, all atoms with energy in the y direction greater than 6kBT will be removed
from the cloud. The average energy of the atoms removed is set to be η + κ, where κ is a factor thatreflects the fact that not all the atoms that are removed by the rf-knife have an energy exactly equalto ηkBT. κ has not been rigorously calculated and is typically set between 0 and 2. The rate ofatoms created by elastic collisions with energies greater than η is calculated by using the idea of
detailed balance. The collision rate between atoms with energy greater than η in the y direction andatoms with energy less than that is calculated by summing over all such collisions in a cloud inthermal equilibrium, and this rate will be referred to as ζ. It is then assumed that each one of thesecollisions results in neither atom in the pair having energy greater than η in the y direction, which isusually true. Further, the collisions between atoms both with y direction energy greater than η are
ignored. The principle of detailed balance implies that in thermal equilibrium, the number of atoms
with a given energy is constant. Therefore, with the assumptions that have been made the rate at
which high-energy atoms collide with low-energy atoms is equal to the rate at which two low-energy
atoms collide to produce a high-energy atom in order to maintain the detailed balance. The rate ζ isthen the rate at which atoms with energy greater than η in the y direction are produced as a functionof time. For values of η > 3, it is found that ζ is approximately equal to Γexp(-η). If evaporation
occurs in three dimensions, this quantity is Γηexp(-η), and the decrease in evaporation rate due tothe reduction in evaporation dimensions can be readily ascertained.

252
The effects of the thickness of the atomic cloud are first included with a calculation of thequantity referred to as the evaporation atomic depth. Similar to the optical depth, the evaporation
atomic depth is an “absorption length” for atoms, and determines the probability that an atom withenough energy to be evaporated will collide elastically on the way to the evaporation surface.
Rather than sum over all of the possible positions of origination and initial velocities, the evaporative
atomic depth is calculated for an atom that starts at y=0 and has an energy equal to η, all in the y
direction, which is considerably easier. Two cases are considered, one where the atom is initiallymoving toward the evaporation plane and one where it is moving away. The evaporation atomic
depth calculated in this way is then averaged over all the positions (x,z) in the cloud to calculate a
net depth. Assuming that each elastic collision prevents the atom from getting to the evaporation
surface, the total rate of atoms to the evaporation surface after averaging over all (x,z) is thenζ′=Γ  1 − exp(− AD) 1 − exp(−3 AD) + exp(−η )

AD
2
3 AD

2Γ
AD =
ωr

(7.4)

The reduction of evaporation efficiency due to the finite time an atom takes to move to theevaporation plane is included in an even less rigorous manner. It is assumed that the net rate ofatoms to the evaporation surface was equal to ζ´ when Γ is much less than ωr/π and equal to ωr/π
when Γ was much more than ωr/π. To interpolate between these extremes, a simple function is usedζ ′′ =

1
1 π2+
ζ ′ 2 ω r2

(7.5)

In addition to the evaporation rate, the loss rates also need to be included in the model.
This can be accomplished quite straightforwardly using equation (6.3) and equation (6.6). The
evaporative cooling and losses are then put together in a system of differential equations for the totalenergy (E) and total number (N) of atoms in the cloud shown in Figure 7.2. The dependence on thetrap frequencies is not shown explicitly but rather is contained in the calculation of the density of thecloud.

253

dN= (Revap + RBG + R2 BDY + R3 BDY )dt
dE= (Eevap Revap + EBG RBG + E2 BDY R2 BDY + E3 BDY R3 BDY )dt
ET=
at all times (i.e. the cloud is always in thermal equilibrium)
3 Nk B
Revap = − Nζ ′′ from equation (7.5)
Eevap = (η + κ )k BTNτ
EBG = 3Nk BT
RBG = −

R2 BDY = − K 2 < n > N , where < n > is defined by equation (4.12)
9
Nk BT
4
8
R3 BDY = −K3 < n >2 N
27
2
E3 BDY = Nk BT
3
E2 BDY =Figure 7.2. The set of differential equations used in the simple model of evaporative cooling.

254
It is also possible to add additional terms to the simple model to account for the heating of
the cloud due to other sources besides the density-dependence of the inelastic collisions. These othersources include such things as the products of the exothermic inelastic collisions depositing energy
in the cloud, parametric heating of the cloud due to trap strength variations at twice the trapping
frequencies (subsection 4.10.2), or glancing collisions with atoms in the background gas [133].
7.1.4 General Evaporation Strategy for 85Rb. In order to form a BEC in 85Rb, theevaporative cooling must be sufficient to cool the cloud to the transition temperature.

Theevaporation performance is characterized by an evaporation trajectory. This evaporation trajectoryis simply the elastic collision rate plotted versus the temperature of the cloud as the cloud is cooled.
If the elastic scattering cross section is temperature-independent, the elastic collision rate and thepeak optical depth measured in absorption imaging scale in the same way with number andtemperature in a harmonic trap. Therefore, the evaporation trajectory is often plotted as the peak
optical depth as a function of the temperature of the cloud. See Figure 7.3 for an example of anevaporation trajectory. When evaporative cooling is working well, “runaway” evaporation occurs[98]. As the cloud of atoms is cooled, the density of the cloud increases fast enough that the elastic
collision rate climbs as the temperature gets colder and colder. The increasing collision rate meansthat the evaporative cooling is working more and more efficiently the colder the cloud gets andtherefore an arbitrarily low temperature can be achieved unless some change in the collision physics
occurs that stops runaway cooling. Often, the change in physics is the creation of a BEC at
extremely low temperatures.
The formation of 85Rb BEC is more “stumble across the finish line” evaporative coolingrather than runaway evaporation. Initially, the elastic collision rate does increase as the cloud iscooled, and the evaporation works fine. However, as the cloud cools further, the losses in 85Rb
become dominated by two- or three-body losses at temperatures far from the BEC transition. Since
the ratio of elastic/inelastic collisions scales with temperature as T1/2 or T2, as the sample is cooled
the evaporation efficiency must necessarily decrease. Rather than hoping that the collision rateincreases as the sample cools, the best that can be done in 85Rb is to maintain sufficient evaporative
cooling until the BEC transition is reached.

255

55
50

Peak Optical Depth

45
40
35
30
25

Trajectory at 162.5 G
Initial Load at 251 G
Model Fit

20
15
0.01

0.1

1

10

100

Temperature (µK)

Figure 7.3. Optimum evaporation trajectory. The evaporation trajectory at 162.5 G is shown as thefilled circles in this plot. The open circle represents the optical depth of the cloud of atoms when it
is initially loaded. The cooling from ~45 to ~2 µK was performed at 251 G. The prediction of the
optical depth as a function of temperature by the simple model is also shown as the solid line. To
generate this curve, the following values were used in the model: η=5, κ=1.6, K2=5 x 10-20 m3/s,
a=167a0, τ=300 s, ωr = 108.5, ωz= 42.4. The value of κ was adjusted to fit the measured trajectory.

256
Our original attempts to create 85Rb BECs were not successful—the elastic collision rates
fell dramatically before the BEC transition temperature was reached. One breakthrough was taking
advantage of the steep scaling of the phase-space density with temperature in a magnetic trap (phasespace density is proportional to N/T3). Unless the loss of atoms from the cloud is very high, almost
any decrease in temperature will increase the phase-space density. A crucial step in forming 85Rb
BECs was to continue to evaporatively cool even after the evaporation started to flag. Even though
we are very close (within 10%) of reaching the transition temperature with a nearly million atoms in
the trap, we are only able to form BECs of up to 18,000 atoms. I would say that the resolution tokeep evaporating until there were no atoms left or a BEC was created (the “BEC or
was one of the more important steps in our creation of 85Rb BECs. This strategy only led to theformation of a BEC at some values of the bias magnetic field, however. At other fields the losses
were indeed so high that the phase space density did not increase, steep temperature dependence
notwithstanding.
To extend the initial evaporation in which the collision rate increased as the cloud wascooled, we used the following general strategy. We evaporatively cooled the cloud at a magnetic
field only until the evaporative performance started to drop, as signified by the elastic collision rate
beginning to decrease rather than increase as the cloud was cooled. At this point, we knew that theinelastic collisions were beginning to overwhelm the elastic collisions. This could just be thetemperature dependence of equation (7.2) or (7.3) alone, or the elastic collision rate may haveincreased to nearly the radial trap frequency causing the evaporative cooling efficiency to suffer. If
the elastic/inelastic collision rate ratio itself has become too small, then the field was changed inorder to improve the ratio, if possible. If the atomic thickness of the cloud is the limitation, then thefield is changed in a way that reduces both the inelastic losses and the elastic collision rate. The
reduction in the elastic collision rate alleviates the drop in efficiency caused by the thickness of thecloud of atoms. It is necessary to reduce the inelastic collision rate at the same time to maintain afavorable elastic/inelastic collision ratio.
Eventually, changing the value of the magnetic field can no longer extend the temperature
over which the evaporation works well. The elastic collision rate then decreases as the cloud is257
cooled and the only thing that can be done is to continue evaporating and hope that the BEC
transition temperature is reached before all of the atoms go away. Fortunately, for some values ofthe magnetic field a BEC is formed before all of the atoms are lost.
7.1.5 Optimization of the Evaporation Trajectory. There are two aspects to the
optimization of the evaporative cooling of 85Rb. Once a magnetic field is selected, the parameters
associated with the rf-knife had to be optimized by trial and error.

The other aspect of the

optimization of the evaporative cooling was the selection of the magnetic fields at which toevaporate. Trial and error as guided by the above considerations was used in the selection of themagnetic fields as well, but for each change in field the rf parameters had to be revisited, making thetest of the evaporation performance time-consuming.
The parameters associated with the rf-knife that were optimized were the rf power and thefrequency both as a function of time. The evaporation sequence was divided into a series of stages.
Each stage corresponded to a factor of two decrease in the temperature of the cloud. The rf power
and frequency as a function of time were optimized to maximize the number of atoms at the end ofeach evaporation stage (i.e. the elastic collision rate was maximized at a fixed temperature). The rf
power was typically varied in step sizes of 5 dBm (a factor of 3). The evaporation performance was
not particularly sensitive to the power even with these large changes in magnitude. For instance, anorder of magnitude increase in the rf power would decrease the number of atoms left at the end of alater stage by less than a few percent. In general, as the cloud of atoms became colder the optimum
power in the rf-knife became smaller. This behavior is expected since the width of the rf-knife
depends on the power in the knife. As the cloud of atoms is cooled, the spread in magnetic field
across the cloud decreases and therefore a narrower rf-knife is needed to differentiate between the
low and high energy atoms in the cloud so that it can selectively remove the highest energy atoms
for evaporative cooling.
The frequency of the rf-knife as a function of time (f(t)) was set to have the form of an
exponential decay:

258
 −t 
f (t ) = ( f start − f base ) exp  + f base , T =T − t stage
 f stop − f base 

ln

f
−
f
base 
 start(7.6)

The four parameters used to specify the exponential curve shown in equation (7.6) are the startfrequency (fstart), the stop frequency (fstop), the baseline frequency (fbase), and the time between thestart and stop frequency (tstage). The start and stop frequency are the initial and final frequencies of
the rf-knife for the stage. If the baseline is set to be the frequency that corresponds to the magnetic
field at the center of the trapping potential, then the rf-knife should ideally maintain a fixed value ofthe parameter η (see subsection 7.1.3) as it cuts into the cloud since f(t) has an exponential shape (infact, this is why f(t) is set to be an exponential function).
The parameters in equation (7.6) were varied to optimize the rf frequency as a function oftime. The start frequency was varied to optimize the performance only if the stage was the first one
at a new magnetic field, otherwise the start frequency was set to be the stop frequency of theprevious stage. The stop frequency was set so that the evaporation stage cooled the cloud by roughlya factor of two. The baseline frequency and tstage were then adjusted to maximize the number ofatoms at the end of the stage. Adjusting the baseline frequency is equivalent to changing the rate ofchange of f(t) during the evaporation stage to cut more or less quickly as the stage progresses.
The performance of the evaporation is robust in the sense that large changes in the rf-knife
parameters are required in order to change the performance significantly. The quantity tstage wastypically varied by 50% or more during the optimization, and the performance was not particularly
sensitive to the value of the baseline frequency, either. The set of the optimized evaporation
parameters is shown in Table 7.1, and f(t) for stages 2-8 is shown in Figure 7.4.
The behavior of the relevant collisions during the initial part of the evaporative coolingmean that the evaporation performance is not very sensitive to the value of the magnetic field at
which the evaporation occurs. When the atoms are initially loaded into the magnetic trap, the loss
rate of atoms from the cloud is not dominated by two- or three-body inelastic collisions but rather by
the background loss rate τ. This loss rate is independent of field, and at the relatively high initial
temperatures of the sample, the elastic scattering rate will be unitarity limited (subsection 5.2.4)

259

Stage

fstart

fstop

fbase

tstage

(MHz)

(MHz)

(MHz)

(seconds)

Rf amplitude(dBm before
amplifier)1

139.08131.23127.08

T1=35

-12

2

82.6

81.6

80.6

T2=10

-12

3

81.6

81.55

81.28

T3=8

-17

4

81.55

81.43

81.08

T4=8.2

-17

5

81.43

81.34

81.21

T5=4.3

-17

6

81.34

81.29

81.235

T6=5

-25

7

81.29

81.27

81.255

T7=2

-30

8

81.27

81.22581.222T8=15-35

Table 7.1. Summary of evaporation parameters used in our optimum evaporation trajectory. Stage
1 occurred at 251 G while the remaining stages are at 162 G.

260

Rf Frequency - 81.209 (MHz)

1

0.1

0.01
0

10

20

30

40

50

Time (sec)Figure 7.4. Log plot of the frequency of the rf-knife as a function of time during the evaporative
cooling at 162 G. Only stages 2-8 are shown. 81.209 MHz corresponds to the frequency that drives
transitions at the bottom of the trap potential.

261

except near the a=0 minimum of the Feshbach resonance. Therefore, the evaporation performance
should initially be similar at a wide range of magnetic fields. The initial magnetic field that is usedin our optimum trajectory is 251 G. This field was chosen for several reasons. First, the s-wave
scattering length at that field is relatively large, approximately –340 a0, so as the cloud cools theelastic scattering rate will be large. Secondly, the final evaporation must occur at a field withpositive scattering length, and from 251 G it is not necessary to ramp the bias field through the highloss Feshbach resonance peak to get to the positive scattering length region. Also, the Feshbachresonance does exhibit energy dependence and 251 G is far enough away from the resonance that it
will not experience significantly enhanced inelastic rates. Finally, the frequency needed for the rfknife couples well through the rf coil.
The initial evaporative cooling is slow because of the relatively weak trap used in the initial
evaporation at 251 G (radial and axial trap frequencies approximately 15 Hz by 7 Hz) andcorrespondingly low density and temperature of the cloud of atoms plus the one-dimensional natureof the evaporation. For optimum evaporation efficiency, the time for the first stage of evaporation(T1) was over 120 seconds. We rarely used T1 times this long out of a consideration for areasonable duty cycle and so the initial evaporation stage was usually not optimum. A typical timethat was used for T1 was 35 seconds, although occasionally times as short as 20 seconds were used
when the initial magnetic trap loading from the MCMO sequence (section 4.7) was very good.
When the loading after the MCMO sequence was not as good times as long as 65 seconds were used.
The reduction in the initial stage evaporation time resulted in a decrease of 10% in the number ofatoms remaining at the end of stage 1.
As the evaporation progresses, the density of the cloud increases as it cools and eventually
the three-body inelastic collisions at 251 G begin to overwhelm the elastic collisions and theevaporation starts to flag. If the evaporation is continued at this field, the elastic collision rate begins
to decrease as the cloud cools and the loss in evaporation efficiency prevents a BEC from being
formed. Therefore, after the cloud has been cooled to ~2 µK (from 45 µK), the field is changed to162.5 G (scattering length ~170 a0). This improves the elastic/inelastic collision ratio and theevaporation efficiency picks up again. Also, the dominating inelastic collisions are two-body rather

262
than three-body at 162.5 G, which is in general more favorable for evaporative cooling. The elastic
collision rate again begins to improve as the cloud is cooled, at least for a time. At ~300 nK, theevaporation trajectory peaks and then turns over. Even though the elastic collision decreases as thecloud cools further, it is still possible to form a BEC by continuing the evaporation to very low(~10nK) temperatures. We have indications that a condensate exists at higher temperatures than the~10 nK of the final stage, but the fraction of atoms in the condensate at higher temperatures is small.
The indication that there is a condensate at these higher temperatures is the observation of an
explosion of atoms formed by ramping the bias magnetic field to large scattering lengths (seeChapter X).
Since the elastic collision rate peaks at 300 nK at 162 G, we tried changing the field at thatpoint to improve the subsequent evaporation. Both increasing the size of the scattering length by afactor of two (ramping to 160 G) and decreasing it by a factor of two (ramping to 164 G) failed to
improve the evaporation, however, as described below.
At the point where the evaporation trajectory turns over at 162 G, the elastic collision rate is
greater than the radial oscillation frequency (elastic rate 22 Hz vs. 17 Hz radial trapping frequency),
and so decreasing the elastic collision rate would alleviate any problems associated with the
thickness of the cloud. However, at 164 G the elastic/inelastic collision ratio is worse than at 162 G
since the elastic scattering rate falls faster than the inelastic collision rate. It was still possible tocreate BECs, but the number of atoms in the BEC was smaller and the evaporation took more time(~20 seconds) because of the slower elastic scattering rate.
Ramping the field to 160 G increased the elastic and inelastic collision rates in a way that
improved the elastic/inelastic collision ratio, but the large scattering length caused the elastic
collision rate to greatly exceed the radial trap frequency. This meant that the evaporation efficiency
suffered from the difficulties associated with thick clouds of atoms and the increase in elastic
scattering rate could not be taken advantage of. The performance at 160 G was worse than the othertwo fields, and it was not possible to create a BEC.
From these studies, we concluded that there was no way to significantly improve upon theevaporation performance at 162 G by changing the bias magnetic field in the trap and using the263
Feshbach resonance. The evaporation trajectories for the three different fields measured is shown in
Figure 7.5.
7.1.6 Comparison with Simple Model. In addition to the measured evaporation trajectory
shown in Figure 7.3, the predicted evaporation trajectory using the simple model described insubsection 7.1.3 is also shown. The model certainly does not match the data in a quantitative
fashion, but the general trend of the observed evaporation trajectory and the model is the same. The
inelastic loss rate is simply too high for runaway evaporation to occur. The evaporation is still goodenough to increase the phase-space density, however, and so the BEC transition can still be reached.
The simple model also reproduces some other effects as well.

The evaporation

performance is relatively insensitive to changes in η and κ, which is consistent with the observationthat the rf-knife parameters have to be adjusted by relatively large amounts to significantly affect theevaporation performance. Also, if a and K2 are adjusted to match the conditions at 164 G, the model
predicts longer cooling times and less efficient evaporation. If a and K2 are adjusted to match theconditions at 160 G, however, the model does not predict the large loss in evaporation efficiency
observed at that field. Most likely, the effects having to do with an elastic collision rate faster than
the radial trap frequency are not taken into account sufficiently in the simple model, such as thedeposition of energy in the cloud by inelastic collision products that scatter on the way out of theatomically thick cloud [133]. Finally, the model also predicts that the evaporation at 251 should also
perform poorly at low temperatures as was observed.
Since the simple model matches most of the qualitative features of the observed
evaporation trajectory, there are no indications that any other exotic effects are responsible for thepoor performance in 85Rb as compared to 23Na or 87Rb.
The model parameters can be varied in order to see how much the evaporation trajectory
could be improved for changes in the trap frequencies and magnetic field. Already, there is no
indication that any change in the field alone can significantly improve the evaporation as discussed
above. Simply halving the trap frequencies at 162 G reduces the number of atoms remaining at the
BEC transition by a factor of 10. A 10% reduction in all of the trap frequencies leads to a 14%
reduction of the number of atoms remaining near the BEC transition temperature. Doubling all of264

Evaporation Trajectories

45
40

Peak OD

35
30
25
20
15
162.0 G
164.0 G
160.1 G

10
5
0
0.01

0.1

1

10

100

Temperature ( µK )Figure 7.5. Comparison of Evaporation Trajectories at Different Magnetic Fields. At the peak of the
162 G evaporation trajectory, the bias field was ramped to a different value and the evaporation wasthen optimized at that new field. The 162 G curve was taken at a different time than the 162.5 G
curve shown in Figure 7.3.

265
the trap frequencies results in a 30% increase in the number of atoms remaining at the transition
temperature in the model, although this result is probably an overestimate of the improvement since
the drop in evaporation efficiency due to atomic thickness effects is underestimated by the model.
Due to the inaccurate treatment of the atomic thickness effects, it is unclear whether an increase in
the trap frequencies would improve the actual evaporation trajectory at 162 G.
When the field and trap frequencies are both varied simultaneously in the model, there is no
significant improvement that can be found over 162 G and 2π x 17.3 by 2π x 6.8 Hz. A reduction in
the trap frequencies is found not to be compensated by an increase in the scattering length since theinelastic losses increase as well. Increasing the trap frequencies gives an increase in performance inthe model at 162 G as described above. With the doubled trap frequencies, neither increasing nor
decreasing the field from the 162 G improves the evaporation performance significantly, however.
Therefore, there is no obvious improvement in the evaporation that can be found in the simple
model, especially considering that the reduction in evaporative cooling efficiency due to the atomic
thickness of the cloud appears to be underestimated in the model.
7.1.7 Achieving Reproducible Evaporation Performance. Since our experiments with85

Rb BECs use destructive methods to image the sample, it is necessary to produce BECs that havethe same number of atoms and temperature both from one shot to the next and over longer periods oftime.

When the variation in the measured condensate number was greater than the variation

expected from the uncertainty in the absorption imaging (~5%, see subsection 4.12.3), the primarysource of shot-to-shot irreproducibility was determined to be fluctuations in the bias field of themagnetic trap. A change in the bias field will shift the energy at which the rf-knife cuts into thecloud during the evaporation. Longer drifts in the evaporation were also caused by drifts in the bias
field of the magnetic trap, as well as by changes in the magnetic trap loading due to changes in the
MOT-CMOT-Molasses-Optical pumping (MCMO) stages (section 4.7).

The variation in thenumber of atoms in the BEC was much greater than the variation in the number of atoms at the endof any of the previous evaporation stages, suggesting that the evaporation itself was quite uniform(2% or better number reproducibility at around 300 nK) from shot to shot.

266
In order to compensate for small drifts in the bias magnetic field, there is an offset that is
uniformly added to all of the frequencies used in the rf evaporation, called the "rf shift". As the bias
field of the magnetic trap changes, the rf shift can be adjusted to maintain the same number of atoms
in the BEC. From measuring the number of atoms in the BEC as a function of this offset, we foundthe slope was ~600 atoms/kHz or 300 atoms/mG. In order to achieve 10% reproducibility in number
with 5000 atom condensates, a magnetic field stability of 2 mG is then required. This means that the
DC stability of the currents in the baseball and bias coils must be better than 6 ppm (since thebaseball coil produces a ~300 G field and the bias a ~150 G field).
Not only is it important that the field produced by the current through the trap coils be
stable, it is also necessary for the atoms not to slosh in the vertical direction in the magnetic trap. If
the center-of-mass of the cloud of atoms moves in the vertical direction, then the rf-knife will cut
more or less deeply into the cloud. If this sloshing motion varies from shot-to-shot, then that willlead to a variation in the number of atoms in the condensate. Normally, any initial sloshing in thevertical direction is removed during the evaporative cooling since high-energy atoms are removed
irrespective of whether their energy comes from being in the high-energy tail of a MaxwellBoltzmann energy distribution or a center-of-mass motion. So there should ideally be no number
variation resulting from this effect. However, if the sloshing is imparted during the evaporative
cooling, then it will be impossible to remove all of the sloshing motion.
External vibrations near the radial trap frequency (17.3 Hz) can excite the vertical sloshingmotion of atoms in the cloud, and we found that these vibrations were a significant source of shot-toshot variability in the number of atoms in the condensate. We initially noticed this through thediscovery of a correlation between the variability in the position of the center of mass of the cloud
and the shot-to-shot variation of the number of atoms in the condensate.
Once this effect was observed, we proceeded to measure and try to eliminate all the sourcesof vibrations at this frequency. A laser beam was directed in such a way at that it was clipped by the
baseball coil so that the vibrations of the coil were turned into intensity variations of this laser beam.
We then tapped on and pulled the various optics and cables on the table to determine which excited
vibrations in the baseball coil. The camera on its long post was found to be a significant source of267
17 Hz vibrations and so a counterweight was added to change the camera post's vibration
resonances. Also, the trap coils were reepoxied to improve their mechanical stability and all thewires leading to the coils were firmly attached to the optical table as close to the coils as possible.
This reduced the observed variation in the position of the center of mass of the cloud from as muchas 10 µm rms to a typical 1.5 µm rms and the variation in the number of atoms in the condensate
from as high as 25% or more to 10% or less.
While it was possible to compensate for the longer time-scale drift in the number of atoms
in the condensate through the use of the rf shift, a drift complicates the data analysis and operation of
the experiment. It also inevitably results in a loss of duty cycle as some data points need to be taken
to monitor the drift. Therefore, we tried to eliminate the drift. There were several sources of thisdrift that were identified. One source was the variation in stray magnetic fields in the trap region.
Moving ferromagnetic materials such as the transfer tube guide magnets away from the magnetic
trap reduced the drift. A change in the temperature of the magnetic trap coils can also change thebias field in the magnetic trap though changing the spatial dimensions of the coils. The watercooling helps minimize any temperature changes, but we also found that it was helpful to use a small
fan to cool the science MOT anti-Helmholtz coils to prevent them from getting hot and in turnheating the baseball and bias coils or their support structures.
Another source of a drift in the number of atoms in a condensate at the end of theevaporation sequence is a change in the initial loading of the magnetic trap from some change in the
MCMO stages (MOT-CMOT-Molasses-Optical pumping see section 4.7), such as a decrease in the
optical pumping efficiency. Since the rf shift is used to maintain the number of atoms in thecondensate, a reduction in the evaporation efficiency (the usual direction of the drift) causes us toadjust the final rf frequency away from the bottom of the trap and the drift in initial loading appears
to be a change in the bias field in the magnetic trap. However, as this happens the temperature of thecondensates with a fixed number of atoms begins to increase. For instance, if originally there is no
detectable thermal component in the condensate of a certain size, as the initial loading drifts athermal cloud will appear around the condensate even as the rf shift is adjusted. This drift in initialloading was reduced in several ways. First, the MCMO conditions are optimized as well as possible.

268
When these conditions are well optimized, a small change in the parameters does not significantly
decrease the loading. The science MOT does drift slowly over months, and so it is necessary toperiodically improve the alignment of the MOT, clean the optics, etc. Since we do not usually run
with the optimal time for the first evaporation segment, it is possible to increase that time to reduce
the sensitivity of the evaporation to the initial conditions, at the loss of duty cycle. Finally, thevarious laser detunings (such as the laser detuning during the optical pumping) and magnetic trap
loading efficiency are checked periodically over the course of the day and any changes are corrected.
7.1.7.1 Use of Inelastic Losses to Reduce Number Variation. Since the two-and threebody loss rates are density-dependent, a condensate with a larger number of atoms than average willtend to lose them faster than the average rate, and a condensate with a smaller number will lose
atoms at a slower rate. Therefore, the inelastic collisions tend to smooth out number variations.
These inelastic losses are used as an additional way to reduce the fluctuation of the number of atoms
in the condensate.
The first way this is done is to lengthen the final stage used in the evaporation sequence.
While the time for the seventh stage is 2 seconds, the time for the last stage is 15 seconds. The
inelastic losses during this time will smooth out the condensate number. In addition, if the cloud isfor any reason a bit hotter at the end of stage 7, it will evaporate more efficiently in the slowed stage
8 and that will also reduce variability. We have observed that this longer time allows the creation ofcolder condensates as compared to a shorter stage 8 as well.
In addition to a slower final stage of evaporation, the condensate is often ramped near a=0
and allowed to evolve there from 2-10 seconds. The reduction in mean-field energy causes thedensity of the condensate to increase since its spatial size is reduced. The inelastic loss rates
therefore increase and even for the relatively small-number condensates remaining after stage 8 thenumber of atoms can be reduced significantly in this time. No increase in the number of thermal
atoms due to the inelastic losses is observed, although the apparent temperature of the condensate
does increase because any thermal atoms that remained at the end of the evaporation are at a lower
density and are not lost as fast as the condensate atoms. To remove some of these thermal atoms, a
weak rf-knife is used at a fixed frequency during the evolution at a=0. This rf-knife does not cause

269
any true evaporation and so it is quite inefficient at cooling the cloud further. It does help maintainthe temperature of the cloud by selectively removing some thermal atoms as atoms are lost from thecondensate.
7.1.7.2 Reproducibility Performance. With all of the improvements made to the systemdescribed above, the measured reproducibility of the number of atoms in large condensates(~15,000) is 7%, slightly larger than the apparent variation expected from noise in the absorption
imaging, 5% (subsection 4.12.4). This indicates the variation in the actual number of atoms in thecondensate is comparable to the variation due to the noise in the imaging. With the institution of theextra stage at a=0 using inelastic losses to smooth the number variations, similar performance isobserved for condensates down to ~2000 atoms. Without using the extra inelastic loss stage, thefractional variation in the number of atoms in the condensate increases as the total number decreases,
as would be expected from a fixed amount of variation in the magnetic trap bias field.

7.2 Loss of Atoms From the Condensate When Ramping through the Feshbach
Peak.
7.2.1 Absorption Imaging and Ramping through the Feshbach Peak. In order toperform absorption imaging with a high signal-to-noise ratio and be able to interpret the results
quantitatively, it is necessary to turn off the magnetic fields that form the magnetic trap. If the atoms
were imaged while still trapped, there would be two difficulties associated with the relatively large
bias field (~160 G). First, because the trap field is oriented perpendicular to the direction of theprobe laser and the optics in the imaging system are polarization-sensitive, the amount of lightabsorbed by the atoms is difficult to interpret (see section 6.4). Second, there is no cycling transitionat ~160 G so only a few photons can be scattered from an atom before it decays into a state that isout of resonance with the probe laser light, as opposed to the ~100 photons that are scattered in theusual absorption imaging at B ~ 0.
There is a difficulty associated with turning off the magnetic trap fields, however. Since
the condensates are formed at fields higher than the peak of the Feshbach resonance, as the magnetic
field is turned off the value of the field will pass through that of the Feshbach resonance. The swave scattering length diverges at the peak and since the mean-field energy of the condensates is270
proportional to the scattering length, it is possible that the condensate will receive an impulse thatcauses it to expand outward. Also, the inelastic collision rates also increase markedly near the
Feshbach peak (Chapter VI), and so a loss of atoms due to these large inelastic rates also occurs
during the ramp. Finally, large loss rates were observed in 23Na BECs near Feshbach resonances[90], and exotic loss mechanisms [94-97] may then also cause atoms to be lost from an 85Rb
condensate as the magnetic field is ramped through the Feshbach peak. The distortion of the spatial
size and loss of atoms from the condensate are both discussed in the following two subsections.
7.2.2 Outward Impulse from the Magnetic Trap Turn-off. In fact, the atoms in thecondensate are observed to receive an outward impulse from the magnetic trap turn-off, and so themeasured spatial size is not the same as the spatial size of the atoms when they were actually in themagnetic trap. If the atoms could be imaged immediately after the trap is turned off, then this would
not be a concern since the condensate would not have any time in which to expand. However, due tothe presence of a magnetic field that persists after the coils are turned off (subsection 4.11.4), wemust wait for about 1.6 ms before imaging in order to remove errors in the determination of thenumber of atoms due to this persistent field. While the Feshbach resonance peak outward impulse
does distort the spatial size of the condensates from what they were in the magnetic trap, it is usefulin that it stabilizes condensates against collapsing due to the large negative scattering length at B ~ 0(this effect is discussed in more detail subsection 10.3.7).
The fact that the impulse is outward is reasonable given the proportionality of the meanfield energy to the density of the condensate. As the magnetic field is tuned through the Feshbachresonance peak from higher field, the s-wave scattering length diverges first to + , then changes
discontinuously to, and then increases (decreases in magnitude) towards its value at B ~ 0 (seeFigure 5.1). Since a has both positive and negative values, it is not immediately clear whether theatoms in the condensate will receive an inward (contracting) or outward (expanding) impulse fromthe trap turn-off. However, since the scattering length diverges first toward + , the atoms in thecondensate will initially be accelerated outward and the density of the condensate will be reduced.
The following time that the condensate spends at a < 0 will then be at a lower density, and so theresulting inward acceleration will be less than the outward acceleration imparted.

271
Figure 7.6 contains data that show the presence of this outward impulse. As expected,
condensates with higher initial density experience more of an impulse from the trap turn-off thanthose with lower initial density. This outward impulse did not normally distort the data of interest tous, and so this effect has not been characterized any better than shown in Figure 7.6. If this effectbecomes important in interpreting any future measurements, a faster field turnoff or a more carefulmeasurement of condensate expansion as a function of initial condensate density and initial
scattering length will be necessary.
7.2.3 Loss of Condensate Atoms while Ramping through the Feshbach Peak. The lossof atoms caused by ramping through the Feshbach peak is a greater concern than the impulse
imparted to the atoms. This is for two reasons. First, the results with 23Na condensates in Ref. [90]sparked theoretical interest in possible exotic coherent loss mechanisms associated with condensates
and the Feshbach resonance (see subsection 7.2.4 below). Second, any loss of atoms during the turnoff of the magnetic trap would mean that the atoms measured in the absorption image would not be
the same as the number of atoms originally in the magnetic trap. Since several of our measurements
required the knowledge of the number of atoms in the magnetic trap, this loss had to be either
eliminated or accounted for in order to accurately determine the number of atoms in the condensate.
The more time the condensate spends at a field near the Feshbach peak, the larger the lossof atoms from the condensate. Figure 7.7 shows the fractional loss as a function of the speed atwhich the magnetic field is ramped. This data was acquired by increasing the current in the baseballcoil with a linear ramp to sweep the magnetic field experienced by the atoms from 162.0 G to ~132
G and then immediately turning off the trap and imaging the cloud using absorption imaging. As
expected, the loss is greater for slower ramps, although the increase in loss with ramp speed is quite
slow. This is reasonable for a loss that is density-dependent, since for slower ramps the condensates
have some time to expand due to the mean-field energy, resulting in a decrease in the density. The
fraction of atoms lost for the fastest ramp was determined to be less than 9%. This limit wasmeasured in a separate experiment where the atoms were imaged in the trap and the number ofatoms before and after the ramp through the Feshbach peak were compared. Although the in trap
imaging was difficult to interpret, it was possible to use it for a relative measurement. Included for

272

8

Axial rms Size / a_ho

76
5
4
162G, 1.7 ms

3

157G, 1.7 ms
162G, 5.7 ms

2

157G, 5.7 ms
1
2

3

4

N

5

6

5

6

1/5

3.5
162G, 1.7 ms
157G, 1.7 ms

Radial rms Size / a_ho

3.0

162G, 5.7 ms
157G, 5.7 ms
2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0
2

3

4

N1/5

Figure 7.6. Evidence for an impulse imparted during trap turn-off. The filled triangles and circles
represent the measured spatial size for condensates originally at 157 and 162 G respectively imaged
1.7 ms after the magnetic trap was turned off. The open symbols represent the measured widths
when the condensates were imaged 5.7 ms after the trap turn-off. The observed size is larger for the
longer expansion time data than for the shorter expansion time data, indicating that the condensatesare expanding outward outside the trap. The relative size increase is larger for the condensates thatare originally smaller in spatial extent and are therefore denser. These data were taken soon after85
Rb BECs were formed, before we were able to improve the reproducibility of the system or create
condensates with more than a few thousand atoms, and so the number varied by a factor of threeduring the measurement.

273

Atom Loss (%)

100
75
50
25
0
1

10
100
1000
Inverse Ramp Speed (µs/G)

Figure 7.7 Fractional of atoms lost following a rapid sweep of the magnetic field through the peakof the Feshbach resonance as a function of the inverse speed of the ramp. Data are shown for acondensate ( ) with a peak density of npk ~3 x 1012 cm-3 and for a thermal cloud ( ) with atemperature T = 430 nK and a peak density of npk=4.5 x 1011 cm-3.

274
comparison in Figure 7.7 is a plot showing the fractional loss for a cloud of thermal atoms at atemperature significantly hotter than the BEC transition temperature.
The density of the condensates quoted in Ref. [16] is likely not correct. The expansion of
the spatial size due to the impulse imparted during the trap turnoff was not taken into account, andthe clouds were small enough that the resolution limit could have been distorting the measurement of
the radial direction. A simple estimate of the density using the measured number and the scattering
length at 162 G would predict a peak density three times as large as what was quoted in Ref. [16],and that is the density listed in Figure 7.7.
As illustrated by Figure 7.8, the same experiment was repeated with condensates that had amuch lower density. This lower density was achieved by changing the mean-field interaction energy
to create a collective excitation that expanded the spatial size of the condensate (see section 8.3), andso this lower density was transitory rather than an equilibrium property of the condensate. With the
reduction in density, the fraction of the atoms lost was reduced as well. For instance, while at 10µs/G the higher density case showed a 25% loss, the low-density case is consistent with no loss
within the 2% uncertainty in the measurement. The small amount of loss observed in the lowdensity case implies that for the fastest trap turn-off speeds, the number measured by the absorption
imaging is very close (within a few percent or less) to the number of condensate atoms originally inthe trap.
7.2.4 Comparison of our Observed Loss Rate to Coherent Loss Mechanisms. After theobservation of the large and unexpected loss rates in 23Na condensates near a Feshbach resonance[90], several proposals for coherent loss mechanisms were put forward to explain the loss [94-97].
All of these mechanisms were based on a formalism originally developed by E. Timmermans andcoworkers [94]. In this theory, changing the magnetic field in the vicinity of a Feshbach resonancedoes not simply change the scattering length between two atoms.

Instead, the field operator

describing the atoms in many-body theory ( Ψˆ ( x ) in section 3.3.2) is split into two parts, one that
describes the atoms in the condensates and one that describes molecules in the bound state that it isresonantly tuned as part of the Feshbach resonance (see Chapter II). The time evolution of the atoms
and molecular fields is then calculated in a mean-field treatment. It is found that the atom and

275

25

Fractional Loss (%)

20

15

10

5

0

-5
10

100

1000

Inverse Ramp Speed (µs/G)

Figure 7.8. Fraction of atoms lost from a condensate following a rapid sweep over the Feshbach
peak as a function of inverse ramp speed. The data shown here are similar to those displayed in
Figure 7.7, only the peak density of these condensates is npk ~ 0.2 x 1012 cm –3.

276

molecular fields are coupled to each other, and this coupling results in a change in the effective
atom-atom scattering length as the energy of the molecular bound state is tuned.
There are then two types of coherent loss mechanisms that are predicted to occur as themagnetic field is swept through the Feshbach resonance. In two cases [94,96], the rapid change inmagnetic field results in the conversion of a significant number of atoms to molecules via a
Josephson-like oscillation between the atom and molecular states. These molecules can then collidewith atoms in the condensate that in turn results in loss from the magnetic trap. It is important tonote that the collision rate for these loss-inducing collisions was not determined a priori, but rather
was selected to fit the 23Na data. In another treatment [95], the sweep through the Feshbachresonance both creates molecules and tunes the bound state so that it becomes a quasi-bound state.
This quasi-bound state decays, and the atoms resulting from this decay gain kinetic energy and leave
the magnetic trap.
There are several difficulties associated with these theory treatments.

One of these

difficulties is associated with the fact that it is possible in the theoretical treatment for the wholecondensate to be converted from atoms into molecules without any consideration for the fact that
two atoms must be close to each other in order to form a molecule. Therefore, there should be a timescale in the theory that reflects the time that the atoms take to move so that they are close enough toanother atom to form a molecule. This problem is addressed in a so-called pairing theory developedby M. Holland and coworkers [97]. Pairing theory includes this time for atoms to move close to one
another by considering the evolution of not only the mean-field atom and molecular fields, but also
beyond mean-field components such as the normal and anomalous densities. The inclusion of these
additional terms complicates the numerical evaluation of the theory predictions for the case of 85Rb,
and so there has been no calculation of the expected losses as the condensate is swept through the
Feshbach resonance.
Another difficulty with the treatments in [94-96] is that they are all mean-field treatments.
Near the Feshbach resonance, the mean-field treatment is expected to break down, casting doubt on
the validity of the predicted loss rates near the Feshbach peak, which is where most of the loss

277
occurs. This violation of the mean-field theory is more strongly pronounced in 85Rb due to therelatively low value of the condensate densities. The characteristic energy of the atom-molecule
coupling term is αn1/2. In order to expect the prediction of the mean-field theories to be valid, it isreasonable to require that the quantity na3 << 1 at a detuning from the peak, ε, that is large comparedto αn1/2. For the data in Figure 7.7, when ε is equal to 10αn1/2, na3 ~9.
Finally, there is no way to separate any loss due to coherent processes from the ordinary
dipole relaxation and three-body recombination inelastic collision rates that are also enhanced near
the Feshbach resonace peak (see Chapter VI). The strong and poorly characterized temperaturedependence of these known loss rates near the Feshbach peak makes it difficult to determine whatfraction of the observed condensate loss can be attributed to the usual inelastic loss processes. We
cannot therefore confirm or rule out the existence of any coherent loss processes induced by theramp of the magnetic field through the peak of the Feshbach resonance. Again, even if we could
determine some part of the loss to be coherent, the predictions of Refs. [94-96] are not expected toapply to our 85Rb condensates for the reasons discussed in the above paragraphs.

7.3 85Rb Condensates with Positive Scattering Lengths.
7.3.1 Stability of the Condensates with Positive Scattering Length. As part of our initialstudies of 85Rb condensates, we examined the properties of the condensates at positive scattering
lengths. The fact that we were able to create stable 85Rb condensates with up to 18,000 atoms withlifetimes consistent with those expected from the two- and three-body inelastic collision rates was
already a consequence of being able to tune the scattering length to various positive values. Away
from the Feshbach resonance, the maximum number of atoms in a stable condensate is predicted tobe ~90 [135] due the large negative scattering length of ~ -400 a0 (see Chapter IX for more details oncondensate stability at negative scattering length). Without the ability to operate in a region of
positive scattering length, we would therefore never expect to observe stable condensates of muchgreater than ~90 atoms.
7.3.2 Spatial Size of the Condensates as a Function of Magnetic Field. When the sign ofthe scattering length is positive, the mean-field energy is also a positive quantity that is proportional
to the magnitude of a and the density of the atoms in the condensate. Since the condensate can278
reduce its mean-field energy by reducing its density, the interaction between atoms with a positive
scattering length acts as repulsive force, tending to expand the spatial size of the condensate. As thevalue of a is increased, the spatial extent of the condensate in its ground state is therefore predicted
to increase as well.
In order to study this variation of spatial size with field, a condensate was created at 162 G
and then the bias magnetic field in the trap was linearly ramped to a new value to change the valueof a. Variations in the value of a that spanned three orders of magnitude were studied. The durationof this ramp was sufficiently long (500 ms) to ensure that the condensate responded adiabatically(see Chapter VIII for more details). Figure 7.9 shows a series of condensate images for various
magnetic fields. Moving towards the Feshbach peak from 162 G, the condensate size increases dueto the increased strength of the mean-field interaction. The density distribution of the condensate
approaches the distribution expected in the Thomas-Fermi limit (see subsection 3.3.4) with the
aspect ratio given by the trap frequencies as ωr/ωz. Moving in the opposite direction from 162 G, thecloud size becomes smaller than the 7 µm resolution limit shortly before we reach the noninteracting limit where the condensate density distribution is a Gaussian whose dimensions are set by
the harmonic oscillator lengths (li=(h/mωi)1/2 where i=r,z). The aspect ratio for these non-interacting
condensates is (ωr/ωz) ½ . We observed the aspect ratio decrease as the mean-field interaction energy
was reduced, although the resolution limit obscured the true aspect ratio as the radial extent of thecondensate became small. Also, we took condensate images similar to those in Figure 7.9 at many
field values between 156 and 166 G in order to see if the measured width was scaling with magnetic
field in the manner that was expected. Before discussing the result of these measurements, thedensity distribution of condensates in the Thomas-Fermi limit will be outlined in the following
paragraphs.
The ratio of the mean-field energy to the kinetic energy is given by the dimensionlessparameter Na/aho only in the limit where the mean-field interaction energy is small compared to thekinetic energy. As the mean-field energy becomes appreciable, Na/aho begins to underestimate theratio of the mean-field to kinetic energy. At Na/aho ~ 0.3 the two energies are comparable and at
Na/aho =1, the ratio of the total mean-field energy to total kinetic energy is equal ~ 5. Therefore, it is

OD

279

1

(a)

OD

0
1

(b)

OD

0
1

(c)

OD

0
1

(d)

OD

0
1

(e)

0
0
50
100
Horizontal Position (µm)
Figure 7.9 (color). False color images and horizontal cross sections of the condensate column
density for various magnetic fields. The condensate number was varied to maintain a peak opticaldepth (OD) of ~1.5. The magnetic field values are (a) B = 164.9 G, (b) B = 162.0 G, (c) B = 158.1
G, (d) B = 156.9 G, and (3) B = 156.1 G.

280
not necessary that Na/aho be much greater than one for the Thomas-Fermi limit to apply, only that
Na/aho be somewhat larger than one.
One advantage of the Thomas-Fermi limit is that the size of the condensate can becalculated analytically. In the Thomas-Fermi limit, the condensate density has the shape of aparabola()

rx2 + y 2z2 −n( x ) = κ 1 −Rr2
Rz2 

2µm, Rr2, z =
κ =µ
2
4πh a
mω r2, z(7.7)

2hω ho  15 Na  5µ=2  aho 
where n is defined only where it is positive (i.e. the density is zero where the equation for n would be
negative), µ is the chemical potential defined in equation (3.23), and ωr,z is the radial/axial trap
frequency of the magnetic trap. From equation (7.7), it can be seen that the spatial extent of thecondensate is proportional to Rr in the radial direction and Rz in the axial, and scales as the productof the number and the scattering length (Na) to the 1/5 power. Integrating through the y direction
gives the column density of the condensate, to which the observed optical depth is proportional3

4
x2 z2 2
Column density = κR r 1 − 2 − 2 
3 Rr R z (7.8)

Figure 7.10 compares the density and column density profiles in one direction. From equation (7.8)
and equation (7.7), the relationship between the FWHM of the condensate column density profile in
the z direction (along the line where x=0) and the product Na is then11hω ho  15  5


5
(
)
FWHM z = 1.22
Namω r2  aho (7.9)

Figure 7.11 shows the measured axial FWHM versus (Na)1/5 of condensates with anaverage number of ~5000 atoms at fields ranging from 156 G to 166 G. Figure 7.12 shows a subsetof this data plotted against N1/5 and a1/5 separately. The value of the scattering length at a particularDensity/Column Density (arb. units)

281

1

TF Density
TF Column Density

0
-1

0

1

Position (arb. units)

Figure 7.10. Comparison of the shape of the condensate density and column density in the ThomasFermi limit along one spatial direction.

282

45

FHWM in the axial direction (µm)

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1/5

Na , a in atomic units

Figure 7.11. Measured condensate width versus the product of the scattering length and the numberof atoms in the condensate, with that product raised to the 1/5 power. From equation (7.9). the axial
FWHM of a condensate is expected to scale as Na1/5, and indeed the data do fall on a straight line.
The slope of the line matches the prefactor in equation (7.9) to the precision of the measurement.
The deviation from the fit line at small values of Na is discussed in the main text.

283

45
35
30
7

25
6

20
15

5

10
5

4
5

4

a 1/5 (atom33

ic units

N 1/5

Axial FWHM (µm)

40

2

1

2

)

Figure 7.12. This figure shows a randomly selected subset of the data shown in Figure 7.11, only
here the dependence of the width on the number and scattering length are plotted separately. It isdifficult to make out details on this graph, but is possible to observe the spatial size increasing with
N at a fixed a and the spatial size increasing with a at a fixed N.

284

magnetic field was not taken directly from equation (5.1) using the central values of the parameters
determined in the study of the elastic collision rate (Chapter V). Instead, the locations of Bpeak andBzero and the value of abg were allowed to vary within their uncertainties in order to best match thecondensate widths as a function of Na. The error on the measurement of the condensate widths wasestimated by the average deviation of the measured widths from their fit values, assuming that all of
the deviations were due purely to statistical errors. This last assumption is suspect due to the reasonsthat are presented below, preventing this measurement of the condensate widths from being used to
improve the measured location of Bpeak. Instead, this measurement demonstrates that the condensate
widths have the general scaling expected from mean-field theory, i.e. the width of the condensates
increases with increasing product of the scattering length and number of atoms in the condensate to a
relatively weak power.
The reason that the FWHM of the condensates was used for this measurement rather thanfitting the condensates to the expected density profile given in equation (7.8) is that the FWHM isless sensitive to several systematic effects present in the imaging of the condensates. The finite
resolution of the optics in the imaging system causes both diffraction rings around the edge of thecondensate and rounds the sharp edges of the Thomas-Fermi density distribution, distorting theobserved density profile. Since the edge of the condensate occupies a relatively large area in theimage, these distortions can cause significant problems in the fitting. Also, it was assumed in thefitting that no thermal atoms were present, and so if there were thermal atoms in addition to thecondensate atoms, the measured density profiled would have been distorted. At large values of thescattering length, heating can occur during the ramp from 162 G, and any thermal atoms present will
be pushed out of the condensate due to the mean-field interaction energy, since the second-ordercoherence function results in a factor of two large mean-field energy for thermal atoms as compared
to condensate atoms [100]. While the FWHM is not insensitive to the presence of thermal atoms, it
is less sensitive than performing a fit to the entire density profile.
For small values of Na, the observed widths are greater than the widths expected fromequation (7.9). There are several effects that explain this deviation. The width of the condensate

285
will not go to zero as Na goes to zero, but will rather approach the size set by the simple harmonic
oscillator length. The FWHM of the condensate in the axial direction in the absence of any meanfield interaction is 7 µm. The resolution limit of the imaging system may also be contributing to theobservation of a larger than expected width. Finally, the small size of these condensates means thatthe density is relatively high and the impulse imparted during the magnetic trap turnoff combinedwith the 1.6 ms delay time between the trap turn-off and the probe pulse will cause the observed
width to be slightly larger than the actual width in the magnetic trap.
Even with these caveats, the condensate width does indeed appear to scale as expected in
the region of positive scattering length. This gives us confidence that we understand the condensate
ground state in this region of the Feshbach resonance. Condensates in this region of the Feshbachresonance can then serve as the initial condensates for experiments in regions of the Feshbachresonance that are not expected to be as well understood. This includes increasing the positive
scattering length to search for a breakdown in the mean-field treatment of the condensate andexploring the stability and dynamics of condensates in the region where the scattering length isnegative.

Chapter VIII
Collective Excitations and an Initial Search for Beyond Mean-field Effects

8.1 Overview.
The ability to change the atom-atom interaction strength in 85Rb from very small to verylarge values provides a unique ability to test the range of validity of mean-field theory in thedescription of the behavior of Bose-Einstein condensates. While the superfluid properties of liquid
helium are attributed to the presence of a Bose-Einstein condensate in the liquid, it is not possible toquantitatively describe the behavior of liquid helium within a mean-field theory because theinteractions between helium atoms are too strong. Conversely, Bose-Einstein condensates in dilute
trapped atom samples (with fixed s-wave scattering lengths) have been described well by a meanfield treatment [12], at least in the limit of zero temperature. In fact, as I will discuss below, it isprohibitively difficult to create dilute trapped atom condensates with strong enough atom-atominteraction energy (i.e. high enough density) to test the limits of the mean-field description withoutchanging the strength of the atom-atom interactions themselves. The adjustable scattering length of85

Rb can bridge the gap between the dilute and strongly interacting limits, and hence can provide atest of the limits of the applicability of mean-field theory as the strongly interacting limit isapproached in a controlled fashion.
The behavior of any system of particles is described in quantum theory with respect to a
Hamiltonian, which describes the energy of the system. The energy of a Bose-Einstein condensate
in mean-field theory has three components: a kinetic energy, a potential energy, and a mean-fieldinteraction energy proportional to the density of the atoms in the condensate and the value of the swave scattering length. As the strength of the atom-atom interaction energy increases, the meanfield term will no longer accurately describe the interaction energy in the condensate (as evidenced
by liquid He). In particular, it is predicted that beyond the mean-field description the interactionenergy will not be directly proportional to the density of the atoms in the condensate or directly

287
proportional to the s-wave scattering length [136]. It is also predicted that the first order beyondmean-field correction to the energy of the condensate will be positive so that the mean-field value ofthe interaction energy will be lower than the actual interaction energy. None of these predictions
concerning the first-order correction to the mean-field energy have been tested in a controlled
fashion in condensates.
The deviation of the condensate interaction energy from its mean-field predicted value canbe measured by determining the frequency of the lowest energy collective excitations of thecondensate.

The collective excitations spectrum describes the motion of a condensate that isperturbed from its ground state, and the lowest energy collective excitations describe the motion of
the widths of the condensate as it oscillates in response to having its spatial size perturbed from its
ground state value. As the condensate gets spatially larger and smaller as it oscillates, the densitychanges and therefore the interaction energy plays a role in determining the condensate motion andoscillation frequency.

The mean-field interaction energy results in a significant shift of thecondensate oscillation frequencies from their values in the absence of any atom-atom interactions.
Similarly, the presence of corrections to the interaction energy beyond the mean-field value will shift
the frequencies of the oscillations as well.
Since it is in general possible to measure frequencies precisely, the detection andquantification of beyond-mean-field corrections by determining condensate oscillation frequencies
was very attractive experimentally.

The ability to tune the atom-atom interactions in 85Rb

condensates also suggested a natural way to observe how an increase in atom-atom interaction
strength leads to deviations from the mean-field predicted oscillation frequencies: the oscillation
frequencies of condensates could be measured as a function of magnetic field, and therefore s-wave
scattering length, over a range of values from where the mean-field was expected to be an accurate
description of the condensate motion to where deviations from the mean-field description wereobserved due to strong atom-atom interactions beginning to limit the validity of the mean-field
description.

Also, the ability to tune the atom-atom interactions was useful in inducing theoscillations. Rapid changes in the scattering length resulted in the condensate no longer having the
ground state spatial extent, and that in turn caused the condensates to oscillate.

288
After we completed the measurement of the oscillation frequencies of 85Rb condensates at avariety of magnetic fields, we found the measured frequencies scaled roughly (but not precisely) as
expected from the mean-field predicted values as the atom-atom interactions were turned up fromthe non-interacting limit. As the strength of the atom-atom interaction limit was increased further,statistically significant deviations from the mean-field predictions were observed, indicating thepresence of beyond mean-field corrections to the atom-atom interaction energy, as expected.
There is a catch, however. At the magnetic fields with strong atom-atom interactions a
relatively large heating rate was observed. As the condensate heated up, the oscillation frequency
was observed to change as well. These temperature-dependent shifts were the same magnitude butin the opposite direction of the shift due to the beyond-mean-field corrections, and so they obscured
the measurement of the magnitude of the beyond-mean-field frequency shifts.

Our current

measurements therefore demonstrate the presence of beyond-mean-field corrections in thecondensate oscillation frequencies but are limited in the precision to which the shifts can be
determined. Additional measurements conducted in the future may be able to significantly improvethe determination of the magnitude of the beyond-mean-field frequency shifts.
This chapter is organized in the following manner. Section 8.2 describes the collective
excitations of condensates in more detail and section 8.3 discusses the predicted size of the leading
order beyond-mean-field corrections to the condensate excitation frequencies. Section 8.4 describes
how changes in the s-wave scattering length were used to induce oscillations in the condensate.
Section 8.5 describes the experimental techniques used to measure the condensate oscillation
frequencies. Section 8.6 discusses the initial results of the frequency measurements as a function ofmagnetic field and the observation of statistically significant beyond-mean-field effects. Section 8.7
and 8.8 detail the difficulties in the measurement of the oscillation frequencies. There were two
types of difficulties: for relatively small values of the scattering length the measured oscillation
frequencies did not agree with the mean-field predicted frequencies even though the beyond-meanfield corrections were expected to be small; and at magnetic fields with strong interactions thetemperature shifts described briefly in the previous paragraph obscured the determination of themagnitude of the beyond-mean-field corrections. Section 8.9 addresses the limits that can be placed

289
on the magnitude of the beyond-mean-field corrections in spite of the difficulties presented in
section 8.8 with the current observations and contains suggestions for how additional data could
improve upon the current measurement.

8.2 Introduction to Collective Excitations
8.2.1 Condensate Excitations and the Gross-Pitaevskii Equation. In addition todetermining the ground state of a Bose-Einstein Condensate with mean-field interactions, the GrossPitaevskii (GP) equation (equation (3.19)) also describes the dynamics of such a condensate. These
dynamics can be described through the determination of the excited state spectrum of the GP
equation. One way that this can be done is to consider small time-dependent variations of thecondensate order parameter around the ground state (φ(r)) and look for solutions of the GP equationof the form [12]
 − iµ t 

[



r
r
r
r
Φ(r , t ) = e h  φ (r ) + u (r )e −iω t + v* (r )eiω t

]

(8.1)

where as usual µ refers to the chemical potential of the condensate. By plugging equation (8.1) into
the GP equation and keeping terms linear in the functions u(r) and v(r), two coupled equations foru(r) and v(r) are obtained

[

]

r
r
r
r r
hω u (r ) = H 0 − µ + 2 gφ 2 (r ) u (r ) + gφ 2 (r )v(r )
r
r r
r r
− hω v(r ) = H 0 − µ + 2 gφ 2 (r ) v(r ) + gφ 2 (r )u (r )
H0 =

[

r
− h 2∇ 2+ Vext (r ),
2m

g=

]

(8.2)

4πh 2 am

These coupled equations can then be solved in order to determine the eigenfrequencies ω and hence
the energies ε=hω of the excitations of the condensate. These excitations will form a spectrum ofstates, and by projecting the initial (i.e. t=0) condensate order parameter onto this set of states, thetime evolution of the condensate can then be determined.
This is not the only procedure that can be used to determine the excitation frequencies of
the condensate. It is possible to diagonalize the many-body Hamiltonian given by equation (3.16) inthe so-called Bogoliubov approximation [137], in which the fluctuation term ĉ is expressed in termsof quasiparticle operators with Bose commutation relations. The resulting equations describing the290
excited state eigenfrequencies are equivalent to equation (8.2). Another method that has been
employed is to calculate the excited states in the Random-Phase Approximation (RPA) using more
traditional atomic physics methods like those used to determine the electronic excited states of an
atom (see Chapter III and Ref. [41]). The eigenfrequencies calculated in the RPA again agree withthose calculated in the other methods. Finally, it is possible to directly numerically integrate the GP
equation in order to determine any condensate dynamics. This can be necessary for extremely large
amplitude excitations where the assumption of a small deviation of the order parameter from theground state no longer holds.
8.2.2 Types of Excitations: Single-particle, Sound Wave, and Collective Excitations. In
a uniform gas (homogenous BEC), the excited state amplitudes u(r) and v(r) are plane waves, andequation (8.2) can be used to calculate the dispersion relation between the momentum of an
excitation and its energy [138]



2



 2m  2m



2

2



2

(hω )2 =  h q  h q + 2 gn (8.3)

where hq is the momentum of the excitation (which is proportional to the inverse of the excitation’s
wavelength) and as usual n is the density of the condensate. Equation (8.3) has different behaviors
for low- and high-momentum excitations. For high-momentum excitations, the dispersion relation isexactly the same as the free-particle case. For low-momentum excitations, a phonon dispersion
relation is exhibited such that ω=cq, where c is the sound velocity equal to

c=

gn
.
m

(8.4)

In the case of a condensate in a harmonic potential, the finite spatial extent of thecondensate introduces an additional length scale that must also be considered in describing thenature of the excitations. Instead of two classes, the excitations are better described by three cases:
the case in which the energy of the excitation is higher than the chemical potential, the case in which
the energy of the excitation is less than the chemical potential but the wavelength of the excitation issmaller than the spatial extent of the condensate, and the case when the excitation has both low
energy and a wavelength comparable to the size of the condensate.

291
Excitations with energies much greater than the chemical potential will behave
approximately like a single particle moving in an effective Hamiltonian that includes the kinetic
energy of the single particle, the potential energy due to the external potential, and a term involving
the mean-field interaction of the condensate.

In this way these high-energy single-particle

excitations are analogous to the free-particle excitations at high momentum in the homogenous case--- the finite extent of the condensate and the presence of the external potential merely complicate
the single particle motion in the inhomogeneous case as compared to the free-particle-like
excitations in the homogenous case.
In the second case, the excitation has a wavelength smaller than the spatial extent of thecondensate but an energy smaller than the chemical potential. These excitations propagate as soundwaves with a velocity approximately given by equation (8.4) where the value for n is the local
density at the position of the excitation. These sound waves have been observed in experiments with23

Na condensates at MIT, where a laser was focused at the center of the trap to create a wavepacket

that was observed to propagate outward at the local speed of sound [139]. Also, the nonlinear natureof the GP equation has been used to describe soliton wave propagation in condensates as well [140].
Finally, when the wavelength of the excitation is comparable to the spatial extent of thecondensate, then the excitation involves the motion of the condensate as a whole, as opposed to asingle particle or some localized wavepacket moving through it. This type of excitation is referred
to as a collective excitation, and it is this type of excitation that was studied in the measurement
described in this chapter. Collective excitations correspond to the low energy part of the excitedstate spectrum determined from the solutions to equation (8.2). Often, collective excitations incondensates are considered in two limits, the non-interacting case and within the Thomas-Fermi
approximation. The non-interacting limit is discussed in the subsection below, and the ThomasFermi limit is then treated in the subsection following that.
8.2.3 The Non-interacting Limit. In the absence of any mean-field interactions, there isno coupling between the two equations in (8.2), and so the v(r) functions can therefore be ignored.
The excitation spectrum is then the same as for a simple harmonic oscillator. Once this spectrum isknown, the motion of a condensate can be described. Formally, this can be accomplished by292
projecting the initial condensate order parameter onto the complete set of eigenstates of the simple
harmonic oscillator by expressing it as a sum of the eigenstates

Φ(t = 0) = c 0 0 + c1 1 + c 2 2 + ... + c n n + ....

(8.5)

where |n> is the nth eigenstate of the harmonic oscillator [26] and cn is a complex number. If thecondensate is not in the ground state, then its density profile will not remain constant in time andwill oscillate. Each eigenstate will evolve in time with a phase factor proportional to the energy ofthe eigenstate exp(iEt/h)

Φ(t ) = c 0 | 0 > +c1 exp(− iωt ) | 0 > +c 2 exp(− i 2ωt ) | 0 > +... + c m exp(− inωt ) | 0 > +... (8.6)
and thus the condensate order parameter can then be computed for any time.
As a concrete example, consider one dimension of the simple harmonic oscillator trap
potential. Since in the absence of any mean-field interaction term the GP equation is separable, themotion in each direction can be described individually. The ground state in this situation is a
gaussian with an rms width equal to the simple harmonic oscillator length l, determined by the massof the atom and the harmonic potential oscillation frequency as l=(h/mω)1/2. If a condensate is
initially prepared so that its order parameter is a gaussian with a width smaller or larger than theharmonic oscillator length, then it will not be in the ground state and will oscillate in the trap. The
frequency of this oscillation is determined by the excited state spectrum of the simple harmonic
oscillator.
If the formal procedure presented above is followed, when the initial condensate orderparameter is projected onto the spectrum of the eigenstates, the largest projection will be into theground state, followed by the first excited state with even parity. Since the initial order parameterhas even parity, it can only be decomposed into eigenstates of even parity as well. Other even-parity
states will also be present in the projection of the initial order parameter. The larger the difference
between the initial width and the ground state width, the greater the projection of the order parameter
into higher excited states, both in an absolute sense and relative to the projection into the first excitedstate with even parity.

293
As an example of the oscillatory motion of a condensate in the non-interacting limit,
consider a condensate whose width is initially larger than the simple harmonic oscillator length l.
By summing over all the eigenstates to calculate the condensate order parameter as a function oftime, it can be seen that the gaussian width contracts from its initial width to a size smaller than thesimple harmonic oscillator length, where it then turns around and starts expanding in size until itreaches its initial width and then repeats the cycle. The energy of the even-parity excited states isequal to 2hω, 4hω, 6hω, ... and so for any pair of times separated by 2π/2ω the phase factors
associated with the time evolution of the eigenstates will all be equal.

This means that thecondensate oscillates at a frequency equal to 2ω. Figure 8.1 shows such an oscillation of thecondensate density (the density of the condensate is equal to the square of the absolute value of theorder parameter).
The preceding discussion has been a formal way of obtaining an intuitive result.

A

condensate that is initially larger than the ground state has more potential than kinetic energy and so
it will contract inward. There is nothing to stop this contraction when the condensate reaches its
ground state size, so it will continue to contract until the increase in kinetic energy slows thecontraction to a halt, and then the condensate will begin to expand again until it reaches its initialsize. The symmetry of the initial state means that the resulting oscillation will happen at twice thetrap frequency. What the formal treatment does highlight is the important fact that the excitation
state with the largest projection of the initial state when the width of the initial condensate does notmatch the width of the ground state is the lowest even-parity excited state, and that the oscillation
occurs at the frequency corresponding to that state.
In general, it is the case that when the condensate order parameter has an rms size that islarger or smaller than the ground state rms size, the first excited state of even parity will have thelargest projection of the initial order parameter into it of all the excited states. In the limit of a verysmall deviation of the initial state from the ground state width, the frequency that corresponds to this“lowest” excited state (actually the lowest energy eigenstate with even parity --- hereafter this state
will be referred to as the lowest energy eigenstate) will therefore be the frequency of the oscillationof the order parameter around its ground state width. Measuring the oscillation frequency will then294

Condensate Density (arb.)

0.8

t=0
t=π/(4ω)t=π/(2ω)

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
-2

0

2

Position (arb. units)

Figure 8.1. Oscillation of a condensate density in one dimension in a harmonic trapping potential in
the non-interacting limit. The initial order parameter at t=0 was projected into the first 20 simple
harmonic oscillator basis states, and from the evolution of the phase factor associated with each basis
state the time evolution of the condensate density could be determined. Since the initial condensate
width is too large, it contracts as it evolves from t=0.

295
measure the energy of this excited state. As the deviation between the initial condensate width andthe ground state width increases (i.e. as the oscillation amplitude gets larger), the majority of theinitial order parameter will usually still be projected into the “lowest” energy excited state but otherstates will begin to become important. The oscillation frequency of the condensate will often nolonger be exactly equal to the lowest excited state and will shift away from it as the size of thecondensate oscillation increases. This change in frequency with oscillation amplitude is sometimes
referred to as the quadratic shift, since its leading term scales with the amplitude of the oscillationsquared. Since the eigenstates of a purely harmonic trap are all equally spaced in energy, there is noquadratic shift present for a purely harmonic potential (i.e. in the non-interacting limit and in theabsence of any anharmonic terms in the potential).
What is less obvious from the more formal treatment of this problem is that if the initialcondensate order parameter is a gaussian, it will remain a gaussian during the oscillation and only its
width, and not its shape, will change. This is only true if the initial shape of the order parameter is a
gaussian, however. Any other shape whose width is smaller or larger than the ground state value
will still oscillate at twice the trap frequency, but while it is oscillating its shape will change. Figure
8.2 shows the oscillation of parabolic initial condensate density. The shape changes in an intuitive
way. Since the wings of the parabola are smaller than a gaussian’s, there is less of a “force” acting
on them since they are closer to the ground state of the trap then the rest of the order parameter.
Therefore, the wings move less during the oscillation than the rest of the order parameter. This alsomeans that the central part of the order parameter is narrower than a gaussian during parts of theoscillation.
8.2.4 Collective Excitations with Mean-Field Interactions. When mean-field interactions
are present in the condensate, it is more difficult to calculate the spectrum of the excitations. The
mean-field interactions now couple motion in orthogonal directions since the mean-field energy is
proportional to the density of the condensate. In the Thomas-Fermi limit (see subsections 3.3.4 andChapter VII), many of the collective excitations frequencies can be evaluated analytically and forsimplicity of discussion this limit will be assumed for the rest of this subsection.

296

0.7

0.010
0.009

Condensate Density (arb. units)

0.6
0.5

0.008

t=0
t=π/(4ω)t=π/(2ω)

0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.000
-0.001
2.00

2.25

2.50

2.75

3.00

3.25

3.50

3.75

4.00

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-4

-2

0

2

4

X DataFigure 8.2. Oscillation of a condensate with a parabola-shaped initial density in the non-interacting
limit. The time evolution of the condensate density was calculated in the same way as for Figure8.1. The inset shows the presence of a spatial oscillation in the condensate density that exists at
t=π/2ω (one half of the oscillation cycle). These ripples in the density were also present when 30
basis states were used to calculate the condensate evolution. While the size of the ripple is small, it
can contain a significant fraction of the condensate atoms. For instance, it the condensate density
shown was the same in all three dimensions, then 15% of the atoms would be contained in the
ripples rather than the central feature. Notice that the central part of the order parameter is narrower
at t=π/4ω than t=π/2ω.

297
In a harmonic potential with spherical symmetry, the collective excitations can be labeledby the number of radial nodes (nr), the angular momentum (L) and the projection of angularmomentum onto the z-axis (m) of the eigenfunction associated with the collective excitation. The
eigenfunctions in the spherical case are then [141]rδn(r ) = PL( 2 nr ) (r / R)r LYLm (θ , φ )(8.7)

where δn is the difference between the ground state density of the condensate and the density of thecondensate undergoing the collective excitation. R is the usual radius of the Thomas-Fermi orderparameter given in equation (7.7). Several types of collective excitations are referred to by specificnames due to the frequent interest of theorists and experimentalists in particular modes.

For

instance, modes with no nodes are referred to as surface excitations. A mode with nr =1 and L=0 isreferred to as a breathing or monopole mode and in a spherically symmetric potential represents a
uniform oscillation of the spatial size of the condensate.
In a trap with axial (as opposed to radial) symmetry, m is still a good quantum number.
Among the lowest energy collective excitations are quadrupole excitations of the form
δn=r2Y2m(θ,φ) for m = ±2, ±1. The frequencies of these oscillations, which by the way are surface
excitations, are given by the simple relations [141]ω 2 ( L = 2, m = ±2) = 2ω r2
ω 2 ( L = 2, m = ±1) = ω r2 + ω z2

(8.8)

In the case of the m=0 oscillations, the L=0 and L=2 modes are coupled in a trap with axial
symmetry. As is the case in a classical system, the coupling shifts the frequencies of the modes fromtheir original values. The frequency of the two decoupled (i.e. normal) modes are given by [141]31ω 2 (m = 0) = 2ω r2 + ω z2 m
9ω z4 − 16ω z2ω r2 + 16ω r4
2
2

(8.9)

It is these two m=0 modes that we studied as part of this work. The manner in which the condensate
oscillates is shown in Figure 8.3. These two modes are the lowest energy collective excitations thatcan be excited through changing the mean-field energy of the condensate, and so the widths of thecloud will oscillate at these frequencies in response to a change in the scattering length.

298

(a)

(b)

Figure 8.3. Normal modes of the m=0 collective excitations. The length of the arrows refers to therelative motion of the axial (horizontal) and radial (vertical) during the normal mode oscillation.
Mode (a) is the higher-frequency m=0 mode, while (b) shows the motion of the other (lowerfrequency) m=0 mode.

299
One odd thing about the frequencies of the collective excitations is that once in theThomas-Fermi limit the frequencies do not depend on the ratio Na/aho.

In other words, theoscillation frequency is independent of the mean-field interaction strength. This behavior can beseen as a consequence of the relationship between the spatial size of the condensate and the phonon
speed of sound at the center of the trap (equation (8.3)) [12]. As the mean-field energy increases, thespatial extent of the condensate increases and the wavelength associated with an excitation involving
the whole condensate increases as well. The speed of sound at the center of the cloud increases by
the same amount, however, due to the larger mean-field term. Since the dispersion relation is ω=cq
in the phonon-like part of the excitation spectrum there is no change in the excitation frequencies
with a change in the Na/aho ratio.
8.2.5 Experimental Observations of Collective Excitations. Shortly after the formation ofdilute atomic condensates in magnetic traps, the frequencies of collective excitations of thosecondensates were studied. Here at JILA [142], the frequencies of the lowest energy collective
excitations, the m=2 and one of the m=0 modes, were measured in an axially symmetric TOP
magnetic trap with an aspect ratio of 1/8 ½ . The frequency of these modes was observed to be afunction of the ratio Na/aho, and tended to the Thomas-Fermi predicted frequencies in the limit of alarge value of that ratio. The collective excitations were excited by driving changes in the trap
potential with the proper symmetry near the excitation frequencies.

The collective excitation

frequency of the lowest m=0 mode was also measured in an experiment at MIT [143] with acondensate in a more anisotropic trap (aspect ratio of 230/17). In this case, the ratio Na/aho wasmuch greater than one and the measured frequency was in reasonable agreement with the ThomasFermi prediction for the mode. Again, the collective excitation in the MIT experiment was createdby introducing an oscillation into the trap potential near the excitation frequency.
In addition to measuring the excitation frequencies for condensates that were as cold as
could be created, both the JILA and MIT groups measured the excitation frequencies as a function of
the temperature of the condensate as well [144,145]. As the temperature was increased, large shifts
in the excitation frequencies (on the order of 20% or more) occurred. Also, in both of these cases

300
the excitations were observed to damp out over time, and this decay rate was a strong function oftemperature, increasing with increasing temperature of the condensate.
As per the discussion in subsection 8.2.3, any change in the width of the condensate will
result in the lowest collective excitation frequency of the appropriate symmetry having the largest
projection of the order parameter as compared to all of the other excited states. This means that
deforming the trap will tend to only excite the lowest energy collective excitation frequencies, and so
exciting collective excitations in higher energy states alone cannot be accomplished by deforming
the trap potential. By increasing the amplitude of the excitation, the quadratic shift can be measured
and that does give information about energies of the higher excited states, but does not measure anyof those energies directly. Both the JILA and MIT groups measured the size of the quadratic shift in
the collective excitations that were observed. Work at Oxford also examined the dependence of thesize of the quadratic shift on the parameters of the magnetic trap [146].
8.2.6 Modes Frequencies between the Non-interacting and Thomas-Fermi Limit.
While the condensate oscillation frequencies are just twice the trap frequency in each direction in the
non-interacting limit, and the frequencies in the Thomas-Fermi Limit of the two m=0 modes are
given in equation (8.9), for the parameters of our experiments we often work in between these two
regimes. Therefore, it is necessary for us to know the two m=0 collective excitation frequencies as afunction of the ratio Na/aho to compare our observations to the mean-field theory predictions. The
excitation frequencies can be calculated directly from the solutions of equation (8.2), as was done in
Ref. [147]. Or, these frequencies can be calculated within the RPA [41], which yields equivalent
results. These calculation methods are reasonably sophisticated and time consuming, however, andso a simpler method of accurately calculating the lowest excitation frequencies is desirable.
Such a model (the “PG model”) has been developed by Perez-García and co-workers [148].
By fixing the shape of the condensate to be a gaussian, a set of three coupled equations for thewidths of the condensate in each direction can be obtained:d2
1
Pv + λi2vi = 3 + 2, i = x, y , z , i ≠ j ≠ k
2 idτvi vi v j vk
with the following definitions(8.10)

301

(

r 1
Vext (r ) = mω 2 λ2x v x2 + λ2y v y2 + λ2z v z22
τ =ν t)aPG = h mω(8.11)

σ i = aPG vi , i = x, y, z
P=

2 Na
π aPG

where σi is the rms width of the gaussian condensate order parameter in each direction. Note thatthe definition of the oscillator length aPG is similar to, but not equal to, the definition often used forthe simple harmonic oscillator length (see equation (3.21)): aPG is defined with respect to the radial
trap frequency alone while aho is defined using the geometric mean of all of the trap frequencies.
This set of coupled equations in (8.10) is precisely the same as for a classical particle moving in a
potential Veff

Veff =

(

)

1 2 2
1
1
1
P
λ x v x + λ2y v y2 + λ2z v z2 + 2 + 2 + 2 +22v x 2 v x 2v x v x v y v z(8.12)

The coordinates of the particle would then correspond to the scaled rms widths of the condensate
order parameter. The frequencies of the lowest trap modes can therefore be determined from thiseffective potential by using standard techniques of classical mechanics. The position of the potential
minimum (vx0, vy0, vz0) can be calculated for each of the directions as a function of the parameter P

0 = λ2i vi 0 −1
P− 2, i = x, y , z , i ≠ j ≠ k
3
vi 0 vi 0 v j 0 v k 0(8.13)The effective potential is then expanded to second order around the position of the potential
minimum. From the matrix of these terms evaluated at the minimum of the effective potential ∂ 2Veff ∂x 2 ∂ 2Veff ∂y∂x ∂ 2Veff ∂z∂x∂ 2Veff∂x∂y∂ 2Veff∂y 2∂ 2Veff∂z∂y∂ 2Veff ∂x∂z 
∂ 2Veff ∂y∂z 
∂ 2Veff ∂z 2 

(8.14)

302
the squares of the lowest-energy collective excitations’ frequencies is given by the eigenvalues of thematrix, and the eigenvectors describe the normal modes associated with each excitation. Of course
the resulting frequencies will be for the scaled time τ, and so to obtain the true frequencies of theoscillations the square root of the eigenvalues must be multiplied by the quantity ω from equation(8.11).
In the limit where the interaction term P is much larger than one, the 1/(2v2) terms
associated with the kinetic energy of the condensate in equations (8.10) and (8.12) can be ignored.
The resulting equations for the widths then match the frequencies given by equation (8.9) andequation (3.24) for the evolution of the widths in the Thomas-Fermi limit. Therefore, in the limit oflarge interactions, the PG model will reproduce the predictions for the excitation frequencies in theThomas-Fermi limit. It also reproduces the frequencies of the oscillations in the non-interacting
limit.
To see how well the PG model interpolates between these two extremes, the PG model
predictions are compared to RPA predictions for an axially symmetric trap similar to the one that weused in our studies. The comparison is shown in Figure 8.4. There is good agreement (within 0.2%)
between both the approximate PG method and the full RPA calculation. Therefore, we have used
the PG model to generate the predictions for expected excitations frequencies.
One note of caution in using the PG model is appropriate here. The rms widths of thecondensate calculated in the PG model do not agree with the rms width of the condensates calculated
in the Thomas-Fermi limit, since the PG model fixes the shape of the condensate to be a gaussian.
The rms width of the condensate density from the PG model is ~20% smaller than the rms width
calculated from the Thomas-Fermi rms width corresponding to the same conditions. Note that therms width calculated in the PG model is for the order parameter, which is 21/2 larger then the rms
width of the condensate density.

8.3 Beyond The Mean-Field Theory.
8.3.1 Pushing the Validity of Mean-field Theory. The range of validity for mean-field
theory is determined by the condition that the dimensionless parameter na3 be small, where n is thepeak density of the condensate. The reasons for this are discussed in subsection 3.3.3. In order toFrequency of m=0 Lower Mode ("Axial" Oscillaion) in Hz

303

14

PG Model Prediction
RPA Prediction

13

12

11

10
0

20

40

60

Na/ahoFigure 8.4. Comparison between the m=0 lower-frequency mode oscillation frequency calculated in
an approximate model [148] developed by Perez-Garcia et al. and a full RPA calculation [41]. The
approximate model is shown as the filled circles, while the RPA calculation is shown as a solid line.

304
make this parameter larger, either the density of the condensate needs to be increased, or the
scattering length needs to be made larger. Because of the effect of mean-field repulsion, it isdifficult to increase the density of the condensate, however. Creating a condensate with a larger
number of atoms will increase its spatial size, causing the density to increase only slowly as afunction of the number of atoms in the condensate. Because of the strong scaling of na3 on a,increasing the scattering length allows the na3

1 limit to be reached much more easily. Thisadvantage of increasing the scattering length rather than the density can be demonstrated explicitly
by calculating na3 in the Thomas-Fermi limit

na 3 =

25

2
mω ho  15  Na 6 58hπ  aho ()(8.15)

Because the Feshbach resonance can be used to increase the value of a, 85Rb condensates provide agood candidate for tests of beyond-mean-field effects, even though the number of atoms that can becooled into a condensate is relatively small. For comparison, the value of na3 for an 87Rb condensateof 106 atoms in a trap with ωho=500 and a scattering length of ~100 a0 is na3 ~ 6x10–4. For a 23Na
condensate with 2x107 atoms, ωho=600, and a scattering length ~50 a0 has na3 ~ 10–4. In 85Rb, valuesof na3 ~ 10–2 have been achieved. In these calculations, the peak density of the condensate has beenused for n, and throughout the rest of this chapter whenever na3 is computed the peak density will be
used unless otherwise noted.
8.3.2 Calculations of the Energy of a Condensate Beyond the Mean-field. The purely
mean-field treatment of the evolution of the condensate order parameter (i.e. the GP equation)
ignores contributions to the energy due to the normal and anomalous quantum fluctuation terms,c † c and cc respectively, described in Chapter III. In this subsection, c † c and cc will bereferred to by n´ and m´ respectively. Equation (3.18) shows how these quantities contribute to theevolution of the condensate order parameter Φ. When the parameter na3 is small, then n´ and m´ arealso small at temperatures close to T=0 and the GP equation should accurately describe the evolutionof a condensate.

305
In principle, it would be possible to calculate the expectation values leading to the normal
and anomalous densities precisely. Also, since the condensate and the normal and anomalous
densities can interact with each other, the time-dependence of all of these quantities should becomputed as well. In practice, such a calculation is quite complex [45]. Instead of solving thecomplete coupled problem several groups have calculated the correction to the energy of thecondensate in a semi-classical approximation. While still complicated, it is considerably easier todetermine n´ and m´ in the case of a homogenous condensate as a function of the condensate density
to first order in a perturbation expansion. By using a local density approximation, the values of n´
on in the inhomogeneous case by the condensate density.
The result of the calculation of the condensate energy in this approximation will be a beyond-meanfield contribution to the energy of the condensate in addition to the kinetic, potential, and mean-fieldterms. This additional term is applied as a perturbation with respect to a given collective excitation
mode calculated in mean field theory, and the resulting energy shift then gives the shift in thefrequency of the collective excitation due to first-order corrections from beyond-mean-field effects.
Several groups have used this method to calculate the first order corrections to the two m=0
modes in an axially symmetric trap. S. Stringari and L. Pitaevskii [149] incorporated the first-order
beyond-mean-field correction to the condensate energy determined by Lee, Huang, and Yang
[39,136] into the GP equation and calculated the eigenfrequencies to the first order in this correction
term. E. Braaten and J. Pearson [150] and separately S. Giorgini [151] calculated the expectation
values for n´ and m´ in a semi-classical approximation as a function of the condensate density indifferent ways from each other and from Ref. [39,136] that eventually resulted in the same equation
for determining the eigenfrequencies of the condensate m=0 oscillations with the beyond-mean-field
effects included to first order. All of the predictions agreed with each other. The calculation of thefirst-order correction to the mean-field energy is made complicated by the presence of an ultraviolet
divergence in that correction energy when calculated in the thermodynamic limit. This ultraviolet
divergence comes from a process by which two atoms each scatter out of the condensate, collidewith each other and then reenter the condensate.

To remove this divergence, the atom-atominteractions, which are still treated as a contact potential, must be renormalized.

306
The prediction for the shift in the frequency of the two m=0 modes in an axially symmetrictrap given by all of these theories in the limit that the temperature (T) of the condensate is equal to 0isδω 63 π
=
ω
128

1

8 + λ2a 3 n pk  ±
42
 2 6 9λ − 16λ + 16 

(8.16)

where npk is the peak density of the condensate, λ=ωz/ωr is the inverse of the aspect ratio, ω is thefrequency determined for either the lower- or higher-frequency m=0 mode calculated in equation(8.9). The upper sign in front of the last term should be used with the higher-frequency m=0 modeand the lower sign used with the lower-frequency m=0 mode. The goal of our measuremenst was todetermine if the frequency of the m=0 excitations shifted in the manner predicted by equation (8.16).
The inclusion of this beyond-mean-field energy will not only shift the frequencies of thecollective excitation from their mean-field value, it will also affect the shape of the ground state
condensate density. Given the precision with which it is normally possible to measure a frequency,
the change in the shape of the condensate would be expected to be more difficult to measure than thefrequency shifts. The density of all of the atoms in the ground state in the Thomas-Fermi limit, ρ, isgiven by [150]ρ+

32 3 2 3 2m(µ − Vext (rr ))
a ρ =
2
4πh a
3 π

(8.17)

Figure 8.5 shows a comparison between the shape of the condensate density with and without the
beyond-mean-field term proportional to a1.5. It is important to note that equation (8.17) is for the
total density of the atoms in the ground state in the trap, not just the density corresponding to thecondensate (i.e. there is a normal component present even at T=0 and the total density (ρ) is the sumof the normal component density and the condensate density as discussed in subsection 3.3.3). The
density of atoms in the condensate alone including beyond-mean-field effects to first order, given in
the limit where na3 is still small (~10–4 or so), is [149]3rr 3
5  32a 2 n(r ) ≅ nTF (r ) −nTF (r ) 2 .
4 3 π (8.18)

307

0.7

Mean-Field Only
With Beyond-Mean-Field Correction

Total Density (arb. units)

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Position (arb. units)

Figure 8.5. Comparison of the total density with the beyond-mean-field shift correction andwithout. For simplicity, a spherical potential was assumed. The chemical potential between the twocases was set so that the number of atoms was the same in each case. The total density with thebeyond-mean-field correction was calculated with equation (8.17) with npka3 set equal to 10–2.

308
The quantity nTF(r) is the density calculated in the Thomas-Fermi limit without the consideration of
any beyond-mean-field effects. The difference in the total number of atoms computed by integrating
equation (8.17) over all space where it is positive and the number of atoms in the condensate itself
determined by integrating equation (8.18) in the same way as (8.17) yields the total quantum
depletion

N out 5 π=N
8n pk a 3 .

(8.19)

where again this expression will only be valid for small values of na3.
There are several assumptions that have gone into the calculation of the beyond-mean-field
frequency and energy shifts that may not be valid in the case of our trapped atoms. First, thedynamic coupling between the condensate and the normal and anomalous components has been
ignored in the use of the local density approximation. These various components form a coupledsystem, and oscillations in the condensate could drive oscillations in the normal component, forinstance. The coupling can also result in a shift of the oscillation eigenfrequencies. Also, the local
density approximation itself will not be exact in the inhomogeneous case.

This assumption

shouldn’t be too bad since the important size scale for the fluctuation terms is given by the healing
length ξ=(8πna)1/2 which is usually much smaller than the spatial extent of the condensate [44].
However, near the edge of the condensate where the density is less, this assumption will no longer
be valid and the calculation of the beyond-mean-field energy shifts for that part of the condensate
may not be correct. The effect of the spatial variation in the condensate density as a function of
position on the size of the beyond-mean-field correction term can be estimated, and for conditions of1000 atoms with a scattering length of 4000 a0 in our trap it is less than 1%. Another assumption isthat the physics of the Feshbach resonance can be entirely described by only an effective s-wave
scattering length that has been taken to arise from a contact potential. For large values of na3, thiscontact potential description may no longer be adequate [152]. Three-body collisions, which are notincluded in these beyond-mean-field calculations, may become important as well, leading todeviations from the prediction since the interaction energy due to these three-body collisions will nothave been taken into account.

309
Lastly, while the leading beyond-mean-field corrections scales as (na3)1/2, the next-orderterm has not been calculated as accurately yet and so it is unclear when this first-order correction
will no longer be correct. A Monte-carlo simulation of homogenous condensates [152] indicates thatthe next-order beyond-mean field term is opposite in sign to the first order correction, so that thefirst-order correction will overestimate the correction to the mean-field as the parameter na3 isincreased. Also, there is an argument [153] that eventually the energy per atom of the condensate
must scale as h2n2/3/(m) in the limit of very large interactions. This energy is calculated by assumingthat all of the atoms in the condensate are confined to boxes with a side equal to 1/n1/3. In this case,the wavefunctions of the individual particles will not overlap and so there will be no contribution to
the total energy of the condensate from the mean-field energy. From a variational perspective, thistrial wavefunction for the ground state must therefore set an upper limit on the energy of the groundstate of the condensate. Since this limit on the ground state scales with the density less steeply thanthe energy from the mean-field interaction, it is expected that eventually the beyond-mean-field
effects will reduce the energy of the condensate from the value predicted in the mean-fieldapproximation. This effect of the beyond-mean-field interactions is opposite in sign to the leading
order correction, and so eventually the higher-order terms should overwhelm the leading correction
according to this argument as well.
8.3.3 Finite Temperature Effects and Beyond-Mean-Field Theory. One way of looking
at the problem of calculating beyond-mean-field effects is that it is the inclusion of the effects on thecondensate dynamics due to atoms that are not in the condensate. While a large value for na3 leads
to atoms being depleted from the condensate (equation (8.19), a finite temperature of the trapped
cloud also means that not all of the atoms are in the condensate. The same considerations andlimitations of the theory calculations outlined in the previous subsection apply to the calculation of
the effect of finite temperatures on the energy of the condensate as well.

The previous

measurements at JILA and MIT [142,143] showed that a finite temperature could lead to large shifts
in the measured oscillation frequencies. We too observed large shifts in the measured frequency as afunction of the temperature of the atoms in the cloud, and ultimately these temperature shifts

310
obscured the zero temperature beyond-mean-field shifts (equation (8.16)) that were the goal of thismeasurement.
8.3.4 Predicted Magnitude of the Beyond-Mean-Field Shifts. It is possible to calculate
the predicted beyond-mean-field frequency shift for both m=0 modes for our typical trap parameters(2π x 17.413 Hz by 2π x 6.791 Hz) from equation (8.16) assuming that the peak density of thecondensate is equal to the peak density calculated in the Thomas-Fermi limitδω= 0.500 × 10 − 6 Na 6ωδω
= 0.077 ×10 − 6 Na 6
ω

(

(

)

1
5

)

1
5

radial oscillation(8.20)

axial oscillation

where a is expressed in units of the Bohr radius (a0). Clearly, the radial oscillation is more sensitive
to the Beyond-Mean-Field frequency shifts for our trap parameters. For 1000 atoms at a scattering
length of 3000 a0, the fractional shifts in the oscillation frequencies are 3.0% and 0.5% for the radial
and axial modes, respectively. The usual precision inherent in frequency measurements is highenough to easily detect a 3% frequency shift, indicating to us that the measurement of the beyondmean-field shift was feasible.

8.4 Inducing Collective Excitations in 85Rb.
8.4.1 Changing the Scattering Length to Create Collective Excitations. Using the
Feshbach resonance, it is easy to change the value of the s-wave scattering length, and therefore themean-field energy of an 85Rb condensate, by altering the bias magnetic field in the magnetic trap. In
fact, the s-wave scattering length changes fast enough with bias magnetic field near the Feshbachresonance that it is difficult to change the radial and axial trap frequencies without changing thescattering length. Therefore, it would be very difficult to excite the collective excitations in 85Rb
condensates through the modulation of the trapping currents as was done in Refs. [142-146]. If thebias magnetic field is changed slowly enough, then the condensate remains in the ground state.
However, if the magnetic field is changed to alter the mean-field energy at a rate faster than thelowest collective excitation frequency, then the condensate will begin to oscillate.

311
The basic physics of the induction of the oscillations is easy to understand. For example, if
the magnetic field is changed rapidly to increase the value of a, a condensate originally in the groundstate will not have time to adjust its spatial size and it will be smaller than the ground state at the
new value of a. The increased repulsion between the atoms caused by the increase in a then causes
the spatial size of the condensate to expand outward. With no significant damping in the problem,the condensate continues to expand outward past the ground state equilibrium size until the externaltrapping potential slows the atoms down and causes the condensate to contract again. This motion
repeats itself at the oscillation frequency characteristic of the lowest collective excitation states.
In our experiments, the value of a was usually changed on the order of 1 ms, much fasterthan the two collective mode excitation oscillation periods of ~28 and ~94 ms. The density of thecondensate does not have time to change significantly during the change in the bias magnetic field,
and these changes in a can be modeled as sudden (i.e. instantaneous) jumps to a reasonableapproximation. The deviation of the widths of the condensate from the ground state at the new field
can be expressed as a sum of the normal modes associated with the two m=0 collective excitations.
Actually, there are three modes that should be considered instead of two, but the cylindricalsymmetry of the trap makes any coupling into the other (m=2) mode small. The time evolution of
the condensate widths can be determined from the oscillation frequency of each normal mode andthe projection of the initial condensate into the two normal modes.
For our trap frequencies (roughly 2π x 17.4 Hz radial by 2π x 6.8 Hz axial) the highfrequency m=0 mode is an oscillation mostly in the radial direction and the low-frequency m=0
mode is an oscillation mostly in the axial direction. The two normal modes can be calculated using
the PG model in the Thomas-Fermi limit. The resulting eigenvectors of the matrix in equation (8.14)
in this limit are 0.699 xˆ high − frequency mode =  0.699 yˆ  0.151 zˆ 
 − 0.107 xˆ low − frequency mode =  − 0.107 yˆ  0.989 zˆ 

(8.21)

312
Therefore, if the condensate is oscillating only in the low-frequency mode, the axial direction will
oscillate with an amplitude that is 0.99/0.11 = 9 times larger than in the radial direction. The two
directions will also be oscillating out of phase. In the high-frequency mode the two directions
oscillate in phase with the radial amplitude a factor of ~5 times larger than the axial. In general, asudden change in the scattering length will excite motion in both normal modes. For instance, if thecondensate begins in a ground state in the Thomas-Fermi limit, a sudden increase in the scattering
length will result in both m=0 modes being excited almost equally. The ratio of the excitation
amplitude of the higher-frequency mode to the lower-frequency mode would be ~0.8 in this case.
Because the two m=0 modes each have a stronger oscillation amplitude in one particular
direction, a different terminology will be adopted for the rest of the chapter. The high-frequency
m=0 mode will be referred to as the radial oscillation, and the low-frequency m=0 mode will bereferred to as the axial oscillation. Even though these names have been given to these two modes, it
is still the case that neither is a purely axial or purely radial oscillation.
In order to calculate the expected mean-field oscillation frequencies, the trap frequencies
had to be known in all three directions. The frequencies were determined using the slosh method
described in subsection 4.10.2 to a precision of better than 0.2%.
8.4.2 Control of the Excitation Amplitude of Each Individual Mode. In the course of
our measurements, we were usually interested in measuring one mode or the other. We also desired
to control the amplitude of the oscillation in whichever mode that we had chosen to measure. A
sudden change from one value of the scattering length to another can be used to control theamplitude of the oscillations by increasing or decreasing the magnitude of the change of thescattering length. However, there is no way to excite one mode selectively using only a single
sudden change of the scattering length, and so a more complicated time dependence of scattering
length is necessary in order to excite one mode significantly more than the other.
As described in Chapter IV (subsection 4.5.2), the value of the bias magnetic field in thetrap is proportional to the current in the bias coils and the baseball coil. During these experiments,
the bias coil current was held fixed while the baseball coil current was changed. This had the benefitof keeping the trap frequencies approximately constant while the changing the bias magnetic field

313(subsection 4.10.1). The SRS programmable function generator was used to control the baseballcurrent, and so very complicated waveforms could be applied to change the bias field in themagnetic trap. This allowed us to use two strategies to selectively excite individual oscillations in
the condensate: a parametric drive and a sequence of timed sudden changes in the scattering length
to produce the desired oscillation.
The parametric drive consisted of varying the bias magnetic field of the trap sinusoidally at
the frequency of the desired excitation. The resulting time-dependent variation in the scattering
length then resonantly drove the desired oscillation mode. In principle, the other mode would not be
excited with any significant amplitude since its frequency did not match the frequency of theresonant drive. One large drawback to the parametric drive is that the drive must be on for at least
several oscillation periods in order to excite the desired oscillation. With the presence of heating andloss in the condensates, we often could not afford to wait this amount of time.
A timed sequence of sudden jumps allowed us to selectively excite a desired condensate
oscillation in a much shorter amount of time. The basic idea behind this method was to use a seriesof carefully-timed rapid jumps in the scattering length to produce an oscillation of a desired
amplitude in one mode while suppressing the oscillation amplitude in the other. The first step was toslowly ramp the bias field in the trap to achieve an initial scattering length to set the initial spatial
size of the condensate to a desired value. The bias field for this condition will be referred to as thelaunch field. Next, the bias field was jumped in ~1 ms to an intermediate value between the launchfield and the desired final bias field where the oscillation was to be measured. At this intermediate
field, a delay was added to let the condensate oscillate. For clarity, it will be assumed that theoscillation in the axial direction is to be reduced, although this same method can be adapted tosuppress the oscillation in the radial direction as well. After the jump to the intermediate field, theaxial width of the condensate was allowed to expand or contract due to the sudden change inscattering length until it reached its turning point. The intermediate field was chosen so that the
spatial extent of the condensate in the axial direction at the turning point was nearly equal to the final
field ground state axial spatial extent. By again jumping the field to the final field value when thecondensate had reached the axial turning point, the axial direction of the condensate would be the314
proper size and it would not be contracting or expanding. In this way, the size of the axial
oscillation was suppressed.
While this method of time-sequenced jumps of the fields is an improvement over simply
changing the field from some launch field directly to the final field, it is still not possible to control
the radial and axial oscillation amplitudes completely independently. If the parameters are chosen tominimize the axial oscillation, then for those parameters the radial oscillation will have a set value.
If that radial oscillation amplitude is smaller or larger than desired then a compromise much bereached between suppressing the axial oscillation and getting the desired radial oscillation.
Choosing the launch field carefully can improve the suppression for a given desired oscillation size
somewhat, but the relative insensitivity of the radial and axial oscillation frequencies to the ratio
Na/aho in the Thomas-Fermi limit the gains that can be made by changing the launch field. By
waiting longer, the fact that the radial frequency was not a multiple of the axial frequency meant thata more favorable radial oscillation amplitude could be found for a given axial amplitude. However,
we often were not able to wait long due to the loss and heating of the condensate and so usually we
had to accept some compromise between the desired radial and axial oscillation sizes. Typically, we
desired a 20% amplitude oscillation in one direction, and the residual oscillation in the otherdirection was 7% or less.
In order to estimate the intermediate field and the delay time that would be necessary, wedeveloped a very simple model based loosely on the PG model. The condensate widths were treatedlike particles in a harmonic potential whose minimum was located at the width corresponding to theground state width, which depends on the value of the scattering length. The frequencies of thismodel potential were chosen to be the mean-field oscillation frequencies calculated form the PG
model. It was assumed that the changes in bias field were instantaneous and that the effect of achange in field was a change in the location of the minimum in the potential. A sudden change inthe field therefore resulted in the widths of the condensate oscillating in response to the suddenchange in the potential minimum. The condensate oscillation amplitudes resulting from a given
sequence of timed jumps can be calculated in this model and then the parameters corresponding to
the most desirable oscillation amplitudes chosen. Figure 8.6 shows the predictions from this simple

315

0.5
Radial Prediction
Axial Prediction
Radial Measured
Axial Measured

Fractional Amplitude

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
0

20

40

60

80

100

Time at Intermediate Field (ms)Figure 8.6. Comparison of the observed radial and axial oscillation amplitudes to those predictedusing the simple model described in the text. For these data the launch, intermediate, and final fields
were 162.0, 158.3, and 156.5 G respectively.

316

model for a typical set of parameters and the comparison of the model prediction to the measured
oscillation amplitudes.
This simple model had the advantage of producing estimates that were reasonably close to
the observed oscillation amplitudes without any difficult calculations. It did suffer from someproblems due to the simplifying assumptions that were made, and that is why the agreement between
the observed and predicted oscillation amplitudes in Figure 8.6 is not better than shown. The
effective potential used to describe the “motion” of the condensate widths should not be simply
harmonic, but should include anharmonic terms as well. Also, the assumption that the condensate
has a fixed shape is not valid if any jumps are made from the values of the scattering length where
the Thomas-Fermi limit holds into a region of scattering length where the non-interacting limit is abetter description. The changes in shape that can be induced by rapid changes in a are not accounted
for in the simple model or the PG model and can lead to errors in the calculation of the oscillation
amplitudes and the spatial extent of the condensate. Even with these difficulties, the simple model
predictions were good enough to set the scattering length jumps to produce oscillation amplitudes
that were close to their desired values. Some slight tweaking of the delay or intermediate field wasthen used to fine-tune the oscillation amplitudes, if desired. Some improvement in the simple model
could probably be made by putting the jumps and delays into the PG model directly and calculating
the resulting oscillation amplitudes, but this adds complexity to the calculation. The PG model will
also do nothing to alleviate the errors due to the change in the shape of the condensate between theThomas-Fermi and the non-interacting limits.
One limitation to this method of time-sequenced jumps is that it is difficult to induce aradial-only oscillation for small mean-field energies in our trapping potential. In the non-interaction
limit, the condensate ground state aspect ratio is about 1.6, while it is about 2.6 in the Thomas-Fermi
limit. Therefore, the axial size changes much more in comparison to the radial size between theThomas-Fermi and non-interacting limits.

It then becomes difficult to induce a large radial

oscillation without a large axial oscillation also being present.

8.5 Measuring the Oscillation Frequencies.

317
8.5.1 Experimental Method. The measurement of the condensate oscillation frequencies
was performed by measuring the condensate radial and axial width as a function of time at a selectedmagnetic field. The condensates were first created at 162 G in the usual manner described in
Chapter IV. After that, either a parametric drive or time-sequenced jumps in the scattering length
were used to excite an oscillation in the condensate at the magnetic field where the oscillation
frequencies were to be measured. After a delay time at that field, the magnetic trap was turned off
and the atoms were imaged using absorption imaging to determine the number of atoms in the cloud
and the axial and radial widths. Since the absorption imaging was destructive, this experimental
sequence was repeated many times. The radial and axial frequencies were thus measured as afunction of the delay time to map out the oscillations. An example of this measurement of an
oscillation frequency is shown in Figure 8.7.
8.5.1.1 Transverse Magnetic Field Imaging. Since the widths of the condensates werechanging during the oscillation, occasionally the peak optical depth of the condensate would begreater than 2 or more. This high optical depth will not only cause a distortion in the measurementof the number due to the optical depth ceiling (see subsection 4.12.5), the measured widths can also
be distorted since the true peak optical depth of the condensate will be underestimated in theabsorption image. When this high optical depth was a problem, we rotated the magnetic field
applied during the imaging by 90° to reduce the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients of the transition thatthe probe laser drove to do the imaging. This had the effect of reducing the optical depth of thecloud by about a factor of two for our experimental conditions. The absorption images with the bias
field rotated were compared to images with the bias field in the normal direction in order to calibrate
this reduction factor. The calculation of the reduction that is expected would be difficult due to thefact that the optical pumping of the sample in this situation is complex. The polarization of theatoms will eventually reach a steady state as the laser attempts to align the atoms along the probe
axis and the transverse magnetic field causes those spins to precess.
8.5.2 Oscillation Frequency Signal-to-Noise Considerations. For a fixed size statisticaluncertainty on each measurement of the widths of the condensate (typically 5% in our
measurement), the precision of a frequency measurement with a fixed number of data points is

Condensate Width (µm)

318

5.5

ν = 35.12 (04) Hz

5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
0

100

200

300

400

Delay (msec)
Figure 8.7. This figure shows a typical measurement of radial oscillation frequency. There appears
to be a small amount of damping, and this is reflected in the fit to the data. However, this damping
may in fact have other causes, as described in section 8.5. These data were taken at a field of
158.7.G

319
proportional to the amplitude of the oscillation squared. The precision will improve linearly withthe delay time spanned by the data (i.e. measuring the oscillation out to twice as long a time with thesame number of data points will reduce the statistical uncertainty in the measured frequency by afactor of two), and of course the statistical uncertainty will decrease with the square root of the total
number of points taken. Therefore, it was desirable to measure a large amplitude oscillation over along period of time.
One difficulty with a large amplitude, however, is the fact that the frequency of theoscillation will in general shift quadratically with amplitude of the oscillation (see subsection 8.1.3).
To minimize any quadratic shifts, the amplitude was usually kept between 15-20%, the smallest sizethat still provided a reasonable signal-to-noise ratio. Also, the quadratic shift was measured at a few
fields to make sure that the frequency was not being distorted significantly.
Measuring the oscillation over a long period of time also introduced complications into themeasurement. In contrast to other collective excitation measurements [142-146], we observed what
appeared to be only a slight damping of the collective excitations. This is perhaps not surprising
given the very cold temperatures of our condensates [154]. However, there were temperaturedependent frequency shifts and since the temperature of the condensates increased over time, thislimited the amount of time that could be spanned measuring the oscillation frequency.
Our usual method of taking data was to take data at 8-10 different delay times that mappedout the first oscillation period. We would then take a similar set of data at a later time, typically after
7-9 oscillation periods. The relative phase of the two oscillations would then fix the frequency of theoscillation. In addition to these two sets of data, two additional sets were taken at intermediatetimes. These additional sets did little to improve the statistical uncertainty of the measurement, butthey were very important for identifying a variety of systematic effects, including shifts in thefrequency over time and distortions in the measured widths due to an unexpected systematic
distortion, which are both described below.
8.5.3 Condensate Heating and Loss Rates. At magnetic fields with large scattering
lengths, the condensate number loss and heating rates are also high. Condensates with a few
thousand atoms were observed to have number decay lifetimes as short as 100 ms at fields with

320
scattering lengths of several thousand a0. In addition to the loss of atoms from the trap, thesecondensates were also observed to “melt.” That is, a thermal component in the trapped cloud wasobserved to grow with time as the condensate remained at the high-scattering length field. In orderto minimize the heating and loss rates, condensates with small numbers of atoms were used toperform the oscillation frequency measurements.
The increase in the loss rate at high-scattering length magnetic fields is expected from themagnetic field dependence of the inelastic collision rates near the Feshbach resonance. In theregions of large positive scattering length in which we wanted to measure the beyond-mean-field
shifts, the dominant loss mechanism was three-body recombination (see Chapter VI). The heating
rate had the same general dependence on field and atom number as did the inelastic loss rate.
In order to estimate the optimum number of atoms in the condensate for the measurementof beyond-mean-field shifts, it was assumed that the three-body rates did indeed scale as a4 (seesubsection 6.1.2.3). Then, with the density of the condensate again calculated in the Thomas-Fermi
limit, the three-body loss rate would be proportional to N4/5a14/5. Fixing the predicted beyond-meanfield frequency shift to a given value (and therefore fixing the quantity Na6), the loss rate would thenscale as N1/3. Therefore, for a given beyond-mean-field frequency shift, it was advantageous to use
condensates with smaller rather than larger number in order to reduce the loss and heating rates.
Most of our data near the Feshbach peak were taken with condensates with less than 2000 atoms,
and for measurements at the highest scattering lengths condensates with ~800 atoms were used.
8.5.4 Accounting for Number Variation. The oscillation measurements described here
were performed before the shot-to-shot variations and long term drifts in the number of atoms in thecondensates were improved (see subsection 7.1.7). The rf-shift (see subsection 7.1.7) offset could be
used to correct for the drift, but doing so usually required taking a few destructive measurementswith the resulting loss of duty cycle. Instead we let the number of atoms drift over the course of theoscillation measurement.
This variability in the number posed a potential problem in the measurement of theoscillation frequencies. The beyond-mean-field shift and the mean-field-only frequency do notchange quickly with N, and so the variation should not have produced significant errors in that321
respect. Rather, the ground state size of the condensate was a function of number (although again
weakly) and so therefore the amplitude of the oscillation that was induced was a function of thenumber. Also, the ground state size around which the condensate oscillates at the final field was afunction of number. Since the number of atoms could be determined from each absorption image,
however, it was possible to correct for the amplitude and ground state width changes. Usually, thiswas accomplished by introducing additional parameters to the fitting function used to determine thefrequency from the oscillation data: a linear dependence of the oscillation amplitude on the numberof atoms and a linear dependence on number of the width around which the oscillations occurred.
Also, the oscillation data taken under the same conditions were sometimes binned into number
ranges and the frequencies of binned data sets measured to search for any number dependence. Of
course, with a smaller number of data points in each binned set the precision of the individual
frequency determinations was smaller. Figure 8.8 illustrates the accommodation of the number
variation in the fit to determine the frequency.

8.6 Results of the Oscillation Frequency Measurements.
Figure 8.9 shows the measured axial and radial oscillation frequencies as a function of field.
The data shown in Figure 8.9 were most often taken in the manner described in the last paragraph ofsubsection 8.5.2 and shown in Figure 8.7. We were primarily interested in the change in themeasured radial frequency as a function of field since it is more sensitive (factor of 6.5) to theleading order beyond-mean-field corrections than the axial mode. However, because the mean-field
predicted frequency of the axial mode changes by 20% from the non-interacting limit to the ThomasFermi limit (as opposed to 1% for the radial) and because of its lesser sensitivity to the beyondmean-field corrections, the axial mode serves as a useful comparison between the measured
frequencies and their mean-field predicted values.
Examining just the axial mode, the measured frequencies follow the general trend withmagnetic field predicted from mean-field theory: as the magnetic field is tuned to increase the swave scattering length, the axial oscillation frequency decreases from the twice the axial trap
frequency to a constant value in the Thomas-Fermi limit. While the general trend is the same as
predicted, the measured axial oscillation frequencies do not agree quantitatively with the mean-field

322

9

Radial Width (µm)

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1000

1500

140

Delay Time (ms)
<N> = 988
<N> = 1468
<N>= 2232<N> = 988 fit<N> = 1468 fit<N> = 2232 fit

4

35.8

Amplitude (µm)

Frequency (Hz)

36.0

35.6
35.4
35.2

3

2

1

35.0
1000

1500

Avg N

2000

2000

Avg N

Figure 8.8. Dependence of the oscillation amplitude on condensate number. In this figure, the data
have been binned by number into three sets and a sine wave was individually fit to each set. The
two lower figures show the lack of any dependence of the measured frequency on the number andthe oscillation amplitude of the fit to each set of data. The field at which these data were taken was
156.5 G.

323

Axial Oscillation Frequecy (Hz)

12.5

12.0

11.5

11.0

10.5

10.0

Radial Oscillation Frequency (Hz)37.0

Mean-Field Prediction
Normal Data
Short time only data
Beyond-Mean-Field

36.5

36.0

Upper Range
Lower Range

35.5

35.0

34.5

34.0
156

158

160

162

164

Magnetic Field (G)Figure 8.9. Comparison of the measured oscillation frequencies to the mean-field and beyondmean-field predicted frequencies. Most of the data points were taken over several oscillation periods
and were therefore vulnerable to the temperature shift systematic discussed in the text. One data
point taken over only two oscillation periods is also shown as the open circle, and the disagreement
between that point and the others at the same field is additional evidence for the temperaturedependent frequency shifts. The number of atoms used to measure the oscillation frequencies varied
from field to field, and that accounts for the structure of the mean-field prediction curves. The
dashed line shows the predicted oscillation frequencies from equation (8.16) for Bzero = 154.9, while
the two dotted lines show the predicted frequencies as Bzero is shifted ±0.4 G (see Chapter V).

324
predicted frequencies at the higher values of magnetic field that were measured. We believe that it islikely that systematic errors in the frequency measurement are due to both changes in the shape ofthe condensates between the Thomas-Fermi and non-interacting limits and coupling between theaxial and radial directions during the trap turn-off and preparation for imaging of the atom cloud.
These systematic effects are described in more detail below in section (8.7). In contrast to thedisagreement at higher magnetic fields, at the magnetic fields with large scattering length the axial
frequency agreed with the mean-field predictions, suggesting that the systematic errors present at
higher fields were not present at lower magnetic fields.
Turning to examine the radial mode, the radial oscillation frequency agrees with the meanfield predictions within the uncertainties in the individual frequency measurements from the 164 G
field down to 159 G. The agreement with the mean-field prediction at 159 G is interesting since thebeyond-mean-field corrections would predict a shift of 0.22 Hz from the mean-field value, 35.41 Hz,
statistically different from the measured radial oscillation frequency of 35.20(7) Hz at that field.
As the magnetic field is tuned closer to the peak of the Feshbach resonance to increase thes-wave scattering length, the measured oscillation frequencies begin to diverge from the mean-field
predicted values. This divergence is statistically significant and in the direction predicted for the
beyond-mean-field shift, but the magnitude of the observed shifts is smaller than the magnitude
predicted in equation (8.16). The divergence originally did not appear to continue as the magnetic
field was tuned closer to the Feshbach resonance, however, and the measured oscillation frequency
at 155.7 G first agreed with the mean-field prediction.
The loss and heating rates at 155.7 G were large, and we had some indications that theradial oscillation frequency was shifting downward as the condensates were melting. To see if sucha temperature shift was obscuring the beyond-mean-field shift at 155.7 G, data were taken over arange of delay times corresponding to only two oscillation periods as opposed to seven in theoriginal data. The data from this measurement are shown in Figure 8.10. The measured radialfrequency, 36.09(28) Hz, was different from the mean-field prediction of 35.28 Hz and the original
measurement of 35.27(14) Hz. This clearly indicated that the radial oscillation was shifting as thecondensates melted. It also clearly indicated the presence of beyond-mean-field frequency shifts.

325

6.5

Radial rms width (µm)

6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5
50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

Time (ms)Figure 8.10. Radial oscillation frequency measured at 155.7 G using a relatively short integration
time. The average number of atoms in this set of data was about 800.

326
Finally, these data also made it apparent that the temperature shifts would severely complicate thedetermination of the magnitude of the beyond-mean-field shifts.

These temperature shifts are

discussed in more detail in section 8.8 below and the estimate of the magnitude of the beyond-meanfield shifts is discussed in section 8.9.

8.7 Distortions in the Measurement of Oscillation Frequencies.
This section concerns itself with the deviation of the measured axial oscillation frequencies
from the mean-field predictions at magnetic fields with relatively small scattering lengths (200 a0
and less). At the time that the data in this chapter were taken, the source or sources of these
discrepancies were not known.

During subsequent experiments measuring the collapse ofcondensates with attractive interactions (see Chapters IX and X), both what we learned about thecollapse of the condensates and our increased familiarity with the effects of the manipulation of thescattering length revealed several likely sources of error in the axial oscillation frequency. These
likely sources of error are discussed in the two subsections below. It should be emphasized that themechanisms described below have not been confirmed as the source of the discrepancy.
8.7.1 Measurement of the Axial Frequency at a=0. One of the checks that we performed
was the measurement of the axial oscillation frequency in the non-interacting limit. Figure 8.11
shows data measuring the axial oscillation frequency at a=0. In order to set the final field so that
a=0, a collapse measurement (see Chapter IX) was performed to determine where a 5000 atom
condensate would collapse.

From this measurement and the measured value of the stability

coefficient k, the magnetic field could be set so that the scattering length was within 0.7 a0 or betterof a=0. The axial trap frequency at this field was 2π x 6.797 Hz, meaning that the axial oscillation
frequency should have been 13.594 Hz.

The time-sequenced jumps were used to induce theoscillation for this measurement. We measured an axial oscillation frequency of 13.81(7) Hz, which
disagreed with the predicted value by three standard deviations.
Because of the small size of the condensate at a=0, the widths of the condensate could not
be measured by turning off the magnetic trap directly from the a=0 field to image the atoms. The
size of the cloud would then have been below the resolution limit, making it difficult to observechanges in the cloud width. So instead, we jumped the field again after letting the condensate

327

14

Freq. = 13.81 (0.07) Hz

Axial rms Width (µm)

12

10

8

6

4
0

200

400

600

Time (ms)Figure 8.11. Measurement of the axial oscillation frequency near a=0 (165.85 G). Twice the axial
frequency was 13.594 Hz, so the measured frequency does not agree with the expected value. The
problem points , which are discussed in the text, are indicated by the arrows.

328

oscillate for a delay time at a=0. The field to which we jumped was 164.2 G (a= 67 a0). After thisjump, we then waited ~40 ms to let the axial size of the cloud expand to its turning point at this new
field. The trap was then turned off to image the cloud. The idea behind this additional jump was toconvert the oscillation at a=0 into a variation in size in an expanded condensate after the field jump
to positive scattering length. If the condensate had a relatively small spatial extent at a=0, then thesudden jump would impart more mean-field energy than if the condensate had a larger spatial extent.
This means that condensates that were originally small at a=0 would expand to a larger size after thefield jump to positive scattering length than condensates with a size that was originally larger at a=0.
By mapping out the expanded size of the condensate as a function of delay time at a=0, theoscillation frequency could then be determined.
We worried that this extra jump to positive a would result in the variation of the expanded
size not being strictly sinusoidal, but since we were looking for a periodic function, we assumed at
the time that any deviation from the sinusoidal shape would occur in the same way in each cycle andso a frequency could still be accurately determined. Basically, since whatever the axial direction
was doing should repeat every 73.6 ms we could still accurately determine the frequency even in thepresence of any systematic deviations from a sinusoidal pattern that the expanded condensates
exhibited.
In light of the disagreement between the measured frequency and the predicted frequency,
however, we now believe that we did not properly account for the oscillation in the radial direction
coupling into the axial width measurement. Our assumption that the observed axial width should
repeat precisely every 73.6 ms is only true if there was just one frequency in the problem --- once
another frequency can couple to the motion there is no guarantee that the observed axial width will
repeat precisely at its oscillation frequency. The coupling between the radial and axial oscillations
could have occurred in several ways, and three speculations of how this could have happened are
discussed in this and the following paragraphs. One obvious candidate is the jump back to 164.2 G
to expand the condensate size above the resolution limit. The amount of mean-field expansion

329
induced by this field jump will depend on the density of the condensate, and that in turn depends on
both the axial and radial widths, not just the radial width alone.
Another possibility of how the radial oscillation can influence the axial comes aboutbecause of the change in the shape of the condensate ground state. Since the condensate was formedin the limit where the Thomas-Fermi approximation is valid, the initial shape of the condensate wasmore parabolic than gaussian. During the time-sequenced jumps, not only will an oscillation in thecondensate width be introduced but the shape of the condensate will oscillate as well. This shapeoscillation affects the central density of the condensate and therefore the coupling between the radial
and axial directions in a way not taken into account into the calculation of the oscillation
frequencies. The shape oscillations may also lead to errors in the determination of the widths of thecondensate during the absorption imaging since a gaussian shape is used to fit the condensate widths.
Another way the axial and radial directions could have been coupled in the measurement of
the oscillations at a=0 was through the evolution of the condensate after the magnetic trap was
turned off and before the atoms were imaged. The scattering length is negative at B~0 and so it ispossible for the condensate to contract inward after the trap has been turned off. Normally, theimpulse imparted during the trap turn-off prevents this contraction (subsection 7.2.2), but for
samples with a high enough initial density, the attractive mean-field interaction, which scales
strongly with the condensate density, is enough to overwhelm this outward impulse and cause thecloud to contract inward, and even collapse as described in subsection 10.3.7. One of the results ofthis collapse can be a burst of atoms, and this burst could distort the measurement of the condensate
widths. Since the condensate collapse and the outward impulse imparted both would have depended
on the density of the cloud, and therefore again depended on the radial and axial widths, thisrepresents another way that the two directions can be coupled together.
Although there is no hard evidence, there are some suggestions in the data that these typesof effects were the source of the discrepancy in the measurement. There are several data points
indicated in Figure 8.11 at later times that show a significant deviation from the fit to the sine wave.
These abnormally large axial widths were not only observed at a=0 but also at other fields with arelatively small scattering length. They occurred when the radial width was predicted to be close to330
its minimum, suggesting that the radial width was affecting the measurement of the axial width. The
large deviation of the data points from the expected fit tends to pull the later peak of the axial
oscillation closer to t=0, resulting in a frequency determination that would be higher than its true
value.
8.7.2 Measurement of the Oscillation Frequencies at Small a. The measured oscillation
frequencies at 162 and 164 G were also not observed to match the mean-field predictions. The same
distortions described in the previous paragraphs were observed to occur in the measurement of theaxial oscillation frequency at these fields. There was no extra jump to a positive scattering length
field in order to expand the size of the condensate above the resolution limit in this case, but theother considerations about the condensate evolution at B ~ 0 and the condensate shape oscillations
still apply. Occasionally, the axial width of the condensate would be much larger than expected at
the times when the radial direction width was predicted to be small and the axial width was predicted
to be large. The distortion was often severe, and the condensates were observed to be flat rather thanrounded at the peak. The fits to these images had little meaning and often these points were notincluded in the fit. However, we could not be certain that this distortion was not occurring to alesser extent in the data points that were included in the fit. Figure 8.9 shows a comparison of themeasured oscillation frequencies against their predicted values, and there is a clear deviation atvalues where the scattering length is relatively small.
In contrast, the radial oscillations were much closer to the mean-field predicted frequencies
at these fields with smaller scattering length. However, the relatively weaker dependence of theradial oscillation frequency on mean-field interaction energy means that the measurement of theradial oscillation frequencies is not as sensitive a test of the mean-field predictions as measuring theaxial oscillation frequencies (see section 8.6). Further, since the radial oscillations are faster than theaxial oscillations, the problems associated with any unexpected coupling between the two will not
distort the radial direction as much. This is because a complete radial oscillation can occur while theaxial direction does not change much.

331
8.8 Temperature-dependent Shifts in the Radial Oscillation Frequency.
8.8.1 Frequency Shift as a Function of Time at High Loss and Heating Fields. As
discussed in section 8.6, we found that as the condensates heated up and melted, the measured radial
oscillation frequency changed. These temperature-dependent frequency shifts were significant. For
instance, the change in radial frequency due to the heating at 155.7 G was enough to completely
obscure the beyond-mean-field shift in our initial measurements.

Another way that thesetemperature-dependent shifts can be characterized is shown in Figure 8.12. The data in this figure
represents the average of several different data sets. The observed radial oscillations were naively fit
with a sine wave whose frequency did not vary with the time during the oscillation. Only the earlydata could be fit, or the first half of the data, or all of the data. If the frequency is not shifting as afunction of time then these different ways of fitting the data should agree with each other. However,
we found that as successively later data sets were included in the fit, the radial frequency determinedfrom the fit decreased.

This indicates that the frequency of the radial oscillation itself wasdecreasing over time.
8.8.2 Measurement of the Condensate Heating Rate. Figure 8.13 shows the measured
condensate fraction (i.e. the number of atoms in the condensate divided by the total number of atoms
in the condensate and in the thermal component) c a function of time at the same field at which thedata in Figure 8.12 were taken. The fact that the thermal component was increasing over the sametime scale as the radial oscillation frequency was shifting led us to associate the observed frequency
shifts with the condensate heating. The condensate fraction was measured by performing the usual
ramp to excite the oscillation, waiting at the final field for some selected time, and then jumping
quickly to a small scattering length. This causes the condensate to shrink significantly in size while
any thermal component should not shrink as much. The spatial extent of the condensate and thermal
components are then different and by then turning off the trap and imaging the sample, it is possible
to measure the ratio of the thermal to condensate fraction by fitting the absorption image. A fitting
function consisting of the sum of two two-dimensional gaussians, each with its own axial and radialwidths and peak height, was fit to the absorption image. The wider component then corresponded tothe thermal fraction while the narrower component corresponded to the condensate. Using thisMeasured Frequency (Hz)

332

36.25
36.00
35.75
35.50
35.25
35.00
34.75
100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Integration Time (msec)
Figure 8.12. This figure shows the radial oscillation frequency measured at 156.1 G as a function of
the time over which the oscillation was measured. For instance, if the radial oscillations were
measured over times spanning 450 ms, the measured frequency was 35.27 Hz, while if theoscillations were only measured over times spanning 225 ms the frequency was measured to be
35.77 Hz. The decrease in measured frequency with increasing integration time indicates that thefrequency of the oscillation is decreasing as the condensate oscillates at 156.1 G.

333

1.0

Condensate Fraction

estimate
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Optical Depth

Time at 156.1 G ( ms )Position (pixels)
Figure 8.13. Measurement of the melting of the condensate at 156.1 G. The upper plot shows themeasured condensate fraction as a function of time that the condensate spent at 156.1 G. No thermal
component was originally visible, and so we estimate that the condensate fraction must therefore be
greater than 90%. The lower plot shows the cross section of an absorption image used to measure
the condensate fraction. The narrow component corresponds to the condensate while the broader
base is the thermal component.

334
method to measure the condensate fraction as a function of delay time at the final field, we foundthat the condensate was melting since the thermal component grew with increasing delay time.
At the time that these data were taken, we were unaware of the explosion of atoms that
could occur from a condensate collapse when the magnetic trap was turned off and the field went toapproximately zero (see subsection 10.3.7). Also, the condensates in the images were small enoughthat the OD ceiling and resolution limit (see section 4.12) could have been distorting the measured
condensate number as well. Therefore, the data in figure 8.13 likely possess some errors due tothese effects. These errors should not significantly affect any of the conclusions made in thischapter.
The heating rate was found to increase both with increasing scattering length and increasing
number of atoms that were originally in the condensate. The origin of this heating rate is somewhat
mysterious since it can cause most of the atoms to leave the condensate and go into the thermal
component without a very large loss of atoms from the atom cloud. For instance, at 156.1 G, in thetime that it takes for the sample to heat up so that only 20% of the atoms are still in the condensate,less than 30% of the atoms have been lost from the sample. The atomic thickness of the condensateswith large scattering length may contribute to this heating rate [133].
8.8.3 Evidence for Coupling between the Condensate and Thermal Cloud Motions.
From the data in Figure 8.13, it can be seen that by 500 ms delay time at 156.1 G a substantial
fraction of atoms are in the thermal cloud. At the same time in Figure 8.12, the radial direction of
the cloud is still observed to be oscillating. This means that it is likely that both the thermal
component and condensate component are oscillating in the trap. The thermal atoms feel a factor of
two higher mean-field repulsion than condensate atoms due to the difference in the correlations
between the position of two thermal atoms and two condensate atoms. This not only tends to repel
the thermal atoms out of the center of the condensate, it also means that the oscillation of the thermal
cloud and the condensate are coupled to each other.
We found evidence of this coupling in a measurement of the radial oscillation frequency at
157.1 G, shown in Figure 8.14. In this measurement, a shift in the frequency as a function of time at
the final field was observed, but it did not uniformly decrease. At later times, the frequency started

335

Radial Sigma ( µm )

6

5

4

3
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Time ( ms )Figure 8.14. Radial oscillation measurement at 157.1 G. The measured widths are suggestive of thepresence of a beat note in the oscillation, which would indicate that two frequencies were present in
the oscillation.

336
to increase with time. Looking at the oscillation itself, we observed that the amplitude of theoscillation decreased and then increased again. This behavior is indicative of the existence of a beatnote between two frequencies, indicating that there were two components oscillating in the radial
direction. We postulate that these two components are the condensate and the thermal component.
At the large positive scattering length field, there was no clear separation in sizes between
the thermal and condensate component observed. It is still possible to determine the overall width ofthe cloud precisely, but attempting to measure the individual widths of each component in the cloudis far less precise. Therefore, it was not possible to trace the oscillations of the condensate and thethermal component individually. Since the thermal component fraction is not constant, the radial
oscillation shown in Figure 8.14 cannot be fit to determine the frequency of the individualcomponents in any simple way.
It is probably important to point out at this point that we really have two separate sets ofobservations. The frequency of the radial oscillation is certainly decreasing as a function of time at
the large a fields. The fraction of atoms in the thermal component was increasing as a function of
the time at these same fields as well. It seems likely that the shifts in the frequency that wereobserved were due to the increase in the thermal component of the cloud, but no explicit tests weremade to link the two, such as deliberately creating a condensate with a thermal component at the endof the evaporative cooling and measuring the radial oscillation frequency.

8.9 Estimation of the Magnitude of the Beyond-Mean-Field Frequency Shifts
and Outlook for Future Measurements.
8.9.1 Difficulties in Estimating the Beyond-Mean-Field Shift. Since the frequency shifts
due to the melting of the condensates shift in the direction opposite that of the beyond-mean-field
shifts, the presence of the temperature-dependent shifts does not change our conclusion that we haveobserved beyond-mean-field shifts. In other words, the observed deviations from the mean-field
prediction in the radial direction are towards higher frequency while the temperature-dependent
shifts are observed to be in the direction of lower frequency. Therefore, the temperature-dependent
shifts are not responsible for the observed deviation of the measured radial frequency from themean-field prediction.

337
As amply demonstrated by the original data point at 155.7 G, however, the temperaturedependent shifts can be the same size as the beyond-mean-field shifts themselves, as so thetemperature-dependent shifts make the determination of the magnitude of the beyond-mean-field
shifts difficult. In order to determine the beyond-mean-field shift value at T=0 to test equation(8.16), it is necessary to extrapolate the radial oscillation frequencies measured at finite temperatures
to T=0. This extrapolation has two important difficulties associated with it. First, the functional
form of the frequency shift as a function of temperature is not known. This of course complicates anextrapolation to T=0. Second, it was not possible for us to observe a thermal component of less than
10% of the total atoms in the cloud with the signal-to-noise that we had at the time. Since nothermal component was observed initially, we could not measure the initial temperature other than to
say it was below a certain value (the value that corresponded to a thermal fraction of 10%). Becauseof the steep scaling of the thermal fraction with temperature (see equation (3.6)), a thermal fractionof 10% corresponds to a temperature of T/Tc ~0.5 in the non-interacting limit. Since we did notknow the initial temperature, it was also unclear how close to T=0 the samples were and therefore
how much of an extrapolation was required.
In principle, the functional form of the radial oscillation frequency as a function oftemperature could be calculated or measured experimentally. In Ref. [151], a method to calculate
the excitation frequencies at finite temperatures was developed. However, the predictions do notcompare well with our data. For instance, for our trap parameters and the scattering length at 156.1
G (~3000 a0) the predicted shift is on the order of 20% for a thermal fraction of 70% [155]. By
comparing the measured radial oscillation frequencies of the data shown in Figure 8.12 at short times
to the data taken at times between 360 and 800 ms delay times (thermal fraction ~70% as determinedfrom the data in Figure 8.13), a shift of only 3(1)% was observed. There could be several reasonsfor this discrepancy: the dynamic coupling between the thermal and condensate components is notconsidered in Ref. [151]; the prediction is made in the thermodynamic limit and so effects due to thefinite number of atoms in the condensate are not considered; and the assumptions made in thecalculation may not be applicable to our system either due to physics associated with the Feshbachresonance or the inadequacy of using only the leading order correction to calculate the thermal shifts.

338
In any case, this calculation is not a reliable way of extrapolating to T=0. It should be noted that
Ref. [151] does match the observed temperature dependence of the axial oscillation mode in 23Na
[145].
In an absence of a theoretical determination of the scaling of the temperature shift withtemperature, the scaling must be measured experimentally. There are several complications in sucha determination. First, we could not measure thermal fractions smaller than 10% and so it was notpossible to measure the magnitude of any shifts from T=0 to the initial temperature. In addition, theinitial temperature could only be measured to be smaller than the limit implied by a 10% thermal
fraction.

The precise measurement of an oscillation frequency is easiest if the oscillation ismeasured over several oscillation periods, but during these oscillations the sample heats up making it
difficult to measure the oscillation frequency in a narrow range of temperature without significantly
more data. The observed coupling between oscillation in the thermal and condensate component
also leads to several complications itself. The oscillation in the widths measured at longer delay
times is not a measurement of just the condensate widths but some combination of the condensate
and thermal widths. A frequency shift may be due to an actual change in the condensate oscillation
frequency or it may only be an apparent shift caused by a beat note between the condensate andthermal components whose relative number of atoms changes as a function of time. Finally, thefrequency shift may not be only a function of the temperature, as defined by the thermal fraction, but
the shift may depend on both the temperature and the state of oscillation of the thermal component.
Even if the functional form of the temperature-dependent frequency shift could be
calculated or measured at relatively large temperatures (T/Tc > 0.5), it is unclear how far an
extrapolation back to T=0 should be carried. Partly this is due to the fact that the initial thermal
fraction cannot be measured more accurately than establishing that it is below 10%. It is also due tothe fact that the temperature should probably not be extrapolated all the way back to T=0. If thechemical potential (µ) is much greater than kBT where T is temperature of the cloud, then thethermal effects should be unimportant and the oscillation frequencies should not depend on thetemperature of the sample as long as this condition holds. It is then necessary only to extrapolateback to the temperature where the oscillation frequency no longer scales with frequency, but it is339
unclear precisely what this temperature is. It can be determined from the calculations in Ref. [151]to be the point where kBT = 0.3 µ, but it is unclear how well this calculation applies to our system forthe reasons listed above.
8.9.2 Estimate of the Magnitude of the Beyond-Mean-Field Shift. With the above
limitations in mind, it is possible to estimate the limits on the beyond-mean-field shift given the datathat have already been taken.
Before detailing how such an estimation is performed, there is the question of what data
will be most useful in performing the estimation. The measurement at 155.7 G has the virtue of
possessing a large beyond-mean-field shift. However, the observed thermal fraction is ~20% after
just two radial oscillations meaning that the temperature of the sample is changing relatively rapidly
within a single radial oscillation, making the quantitative determination of the oscillation frequency
as a function of temperature at this field difficult. Of more interest is the data at 156.1. In this case,there is clearly a beyond-mean-field shift present if only data from relatively short delay times are
considered in the radial oscillation frequency determination. There are also data that show thedecrease in measured frequency at longer delay times.
The first step in performing the estimation is to determine the change in the thermal fractionof the clouds as a function of delay time. The data in Figure 8.13 are fit using a second-orderpolynomial with two different intercepts at zero delay time. One intercept is 0% thermal fraction
and the other is 10% of thermal fraction. These two values span the possible range of the initial
thermal fraction of the cloud.
The change in the observed radial oscillation frequency as a function of delay time must be
determined for both possible values of the intercept at zero delay time. As discussed in the previous
section, the functional form of the frequency shift with thermal fraction that really should be used is
unknown. However, the radial oscillation data exhibited a sinusoidal oscillation at all the delay
times that were measured within the signal-to-noise of the individual width measurements without
large changes in the measured amplitude or frequency of an individual oscillation. Also, the totalfrequency shift was only a few percent. This suggests that it is reasonable to assume that thefrequency shift can be treated as a perturbation to a sinusoidal oscillation with a fixed frequency.

340
Therefore, the estimation of the frequency shift is probably not very sensitive to the choice of thefitting function as long as the fitting function is reasonable. The fitting function used isnδω thermal = αf thrm

(8.22)

where α and n are the parameters varied in the fit and ftherm is the thermal fraction. From equation(3.6), the temperature of the cloud scales as ftherm to the 1/3 power. This relation between ftherm andthe temperature is strictly correct only for the non-interacting limit, but it should still approximately
describe the temperature of the cloud as a function of the thermal component even in the presence ofstrong atom-atom interactions. The fitting function given by equation has the virtue of being simple
and allowing the rate of change of the frequency shift to change as a function of temperature in thecloud.
Figure 8.15 shows the result of fitting equation (8.22) to the data from Figure 8.12. Fromthese fits the oscillation frequency at low temperatures can be determined by extrapolating backtowards T=0.

There are two temperatures that can be considered for the point to which theextrapolation should be taken, T=0 and the temperature at which the radial oscillation frequency isflat as a function of temperature (see the discussion in the previous subsection). Estimating thecondition for the frequency to be flat as a function of temperature to be µ/3, the thermal fraction that
corresponds to this temperature would only be 2%, so there is little difference between these twopoints for this field. The important uncertainty in the extrapolation then becomes the initial thermal
fraction in the cloud. If the initial thermal fraction was truly zero, then no extrapolation is required.
Because the temperature-dependent shift is only in one direction, there is an asymmetry in theuncertainty of the intercept. The central value of the zero delay time frequency is 36.0+0.7 0.2 Hz in
the case that the initial temperature is zero. For the case where the initial thermal fraction was 10%,
the fit yields 36.2+2.7 0.4 Hz. Extrapolating back not to T=0 but to the temperature equivalent to µ/3(T/Tc =0.26 in the non-interacting limit, thermal fraction 2%) yields 36.2+2.3 0.4 Hz. It should be
noted again that the plots in Figure 8.12 and 8.15 are not really frequency versus time, but apparent
frequency determined from a single sine wave fit as a function of the range of the delay time used in
the measurement. This does not affect the determination of the intercept point, which is the quantityof interest here.

341

Radial Oscillation Frequency (Hz)

38.0

37.5

Measured Data
Best Fit
Standard Error

37.0

36.5

36.0

35.5

35.0

34.5
0

200

400

600

Delay Time (msec)

Figure 8.15. Estimation of the beyond-mean-field shift in the presence of temperature-dependentfits. The data shown here are the data also displayed in Figure 8.12. The initial thermal fraction was
assumed to be 10% for the fits shown here. The fitting function given in equation (8.22) is shown as
the solid line, which is the best fit to the data, and the dotted line which represents the fit
corresponding to the value of the intercept that is one standard deviation away from the best fit
value. The parameter n is ~ 0.33 for the dotted line and so it corresponds to a temperature shift thatchanges linearly with the temperature of the cloud.

342
These estimates of the beyond-mean-field shift in the absence of any temperaturedependent shift can be compared to the predicted value from equation (8.16). The predicted value is36.25+0.62 0.25 Hz. The uncertainty in this predicted value is due to the uncertainty in the precise
location of the Feshbach resonance peak (Bpeak, see Chapter V). The measured beyond-mean-shiftvalue and the predicted value are then in agreement at this field, although the uncertainty in themeasured value would also be consistent with shifts a factor of ~4 larger than equation (8.16). The
uncertainty is only in the direction of higher oscillation frequencies, however, so the measured radial
oscillation frequency is clearly not consistent with the mean-field predicted value.
The measured oscillation frequency at 158.7 G, 35.20(7) Hz, shows no shift from the meanfield predicted value of 35.19 Hz, even though the beyond-mean-field predicted frequency is 35.41
Hz. The heating rate at this field is much less, such that the thermal fraction was measured to be
50% only after 3 seconds of condensate evolution at 158.7 G. Unlike the data at 156.1 G, the data at
158.7 G did not show any clear shift as with increasing time of a range of delay times spanning up to
500 ms. Does this suggest that there is no beyond-mean-field shift at this field even though one is
expected? Not necessarily. The data taken were not extended to delay times long enough to detect aclear shift in the oscillation frequency and so the analysis applied at 156.1 G can not be directly
applied here. The lack of an observed frequency shift as a function of time may only be due to thefact that the thermal fraction changes much more slowly over the course of the radial oscillation
frequency measurement than was the case at 156.1 G. More data would therefore be necessary inorder to determine whether a beyond-mean-field shift was present at this field or not. From themagnitude of the temperature shifts determined from the fits to the 156.1 G data, a 0.2 Hz
temperature shift for thermal fractions of 15% and less is not unreasonable.
8.9.3 Improving the Determination of the Magnitude of Beyond-Mean-Field Shiftswith Additional Measurements. The large uncertainty in the determination of the magnitude of thebeyond-mean-field shift is unsatisfactory for a precision test of the predicted frequency shifts due tobeyond-mean-field effects. Also, there are still some questions concerning the validity of the data
given the disagreement with the predicted oscillation frequencies as low values of a. This last
subsection contains suggestions for future data that could improve this measurement.

343
In order to have more confidence in the experimental determinations of the oscillation
frequencies, it would be good to confirm the source of the deviations from the mean-field predictions
at low value of a. Removing the expansion time after the magnetic trap has been turned off will
introduce an error in the measured number, but it can be used to test whether a collapse induced by
the trap turnoff is causing any of the systematic shifts. The fact that the lifetimes of the condensates
at fields with low a are relatively long means that low-amplitude parametric drives could be used toinduce the oscillations in the condensate. Inducing oscillations in this way instead of jumping
rapidly between fields could partially or completely remove systematic shifts associated withchanges in the shape of the condensate during the oscillation since the ground state shape of thecondensates would be much more constant during the creation of the oscillation.
Improving the measurement of small thermal components would help reduce theuncertainty due to the extrapolation back towards colder temperatures significantly. There havebeen a number of improvements in the apparatus since the data taken in this subsection wererecorded, and it may be possible to extend the measurement sensitivity to smaller numbers of atoms
in the thermal component.
More data to reduce the measurement uncertainties at 156.1 G and other fields near it could
improve the measurement markedly. A reduction of a factor of two in the uncertainties in the data
shown in Figure 8.12 could potentially reduce the upper limit on the determination of the beyondmean-field shift from 2.7 Hz to 0.5 Hz. Also, the data shown in Figure 8.12 were not taken in amanner optimally designed to measure the temperature-dependent shift and extrapolate back to lowtemperatures, so more efficient data collection is most likely possible.

The analysis of thetemperature-dependent shift presented here is simple, and more sophisticated methods of fitting todetermine the temperature-dependent shift could also be employed to reduce the uncertainty in themeasurement and also reduce any systematic errors. In particular, rather than fitting to the apparent
frequency shift determined from the oscillation data by simple sine waves, a fitting function that
included the frequency shifts could be fit directly to the data themselves. The number variability andthe fact that several data sets were included in the data shown in figure 8.12 make such a moresophisticated analysis difficult to apply to the data taken so far.

344
The coupling between the thermal and condensate components has the potential tocomplicate the determination of the temperature-dependent shifts. When measuring any oscillation
frequencies in the future, some attention should be paid to the appearance of any beat notes or otherindication of the presence of two frequencies. As long as large distortions from a sine wave are notobserved, it is probably adequate to treat the temperature-dependent shifts as a perturbation as
discussed in the previous subsection.
In order to reduce the uncertainty in the predicted values of the beyond-mean-field shifts, amore precise determination of the location of the Feshbach resonance peak would be desirable. This
could potentially be accomplished through a more precise measurement like that outlined in Chapter
V, but the high loss rates and the large scattering lengths (and hence complications due to theunitarity limit) will complicate more precise thermal equilibration measurements. Like the improved
determination of Bzero, there may be some properties of condensates near the Feshbach peak thatallows them to be used to determine its location more precisely and so additional experiments near
the Feshbach resonance peak may remove this difficulty.
Finally, the ability to intentionally create hotter clouds after evaporation was not used in theanalysis of the data taken so far. By measuring the oscillation frequencies with hotter clouds, theimportance of the dynamics of the condensate and thermal component coupling could be tested.
Also, it would provide an alternative way to determine the temperature-dependent shifts at fields
such as 158.7 G where the heating rate is low but the initial temperature may be high enough todistort any measurement of beyond-mean-field shifts.

Chapter IX
Controlled Collapse of Bose-Einstein Condensates with Attractive Interactions

9.1 Attractive Interactions and Bose-Einstein Condensate Stability.
9.1.1 Bose-Einstein Condensate Mechanical Stability. In the past two Chapters, themean-field energy of the condensates that were studied was positive since the s-wave scattering
length between atoms in the condensate was itself positive.

Since the mean-field energy is

proportional to the density of atoms in the condensate (see equation (3.20)), with positive scattering
length the mean-field interaction acts to repel the atoms from one another because lowering thedensity of the condensate lowers its energy as well.
Conversely, when the s-wave scattering length is negative, the atoms attract rather thanrepel each other. Therefore, an increase in density of the condensate lowers its energy. This has adestabilizing influence on the condensate itself, which is predicted to prevent the formation of stablecondensates in the homogeneous case when any attractive interactions are present.

Long-

wavelength fluctuations in the condensate that result in an increase in the density of the condensate
lower its energy (short-wavelength excitations have more kinetic energy and so the reduction inenergy due to the increase in density is offset by the kinetic energy increase). Consequently, theselong-wavelength fluctuations can grow with time and the condensate cannot then exist in a stablestate.
In the inhomogeneous case, the spatial extent of the confining potential adds another spatialand energy scale that needs to be considered in the stability of the condensate. The confining
potential cuts off long-wavelength excitations and can therefore stabilize a condensate with attractive
interactions, as long as the magnitude of the attractive interactions is not too large. Considering theenergy of the condensate as a function of its spatial extent illustrates this stabilization. There arethree contributions to the energy of a condensate in the inhomogeneous case: the kinetic energy, thepotential energy due to the confining potential, and the mean-field energy. For a fixed number of346
atoms, the potential and mean-field energy of the condensate will decrease as the spatial extent of
the condensate decreases, while the kinetic energy increases as the spatial size decreases since thecondensate wavefunction must then possess more curvature. In the absence of any mean-fieldinteractions, a balance between the kinetic and potential energy determines the spatial extent of thecondensate in the ground state. If the spatial extent of the condensate is increased or decreased fromthe ground state in this case, then the energy of the condensate increases. When attractive meanfield interactions are included, then the spatial extent of the ground state will decrease from the noninteracting value. If the mean-field interactions are not too strong, this decrease can still be balancedby the kinetic energy of the condensate and the condensate will still be stable. However, because of
the energy dependence on the spatial extent of the condensate is steeper for the mean-field energy
than the kinetic energy, for strong enough mean-field interactions the kinetic energy can be
overwhelmed so that it can no longer stabilize the condensate.
These arguments are illustrated in a specific example. If the shape of the condensate orderparameter in a spherically symmetric harmonic potential is fixed to be a gaussian with an rms width
R, then the kinetic, potential, and mean-field energy can be computed as a function of R using
equation (3.15). For simplicity, the length scale used in equation (3.15) for the total energy can berescaled so that one unit of length is equal to the simple harmonic oscillator length aho=(h/mω)1/2 so
that



 − ∇ 2 r 2 2πNa2
E = hω ∫ d 3 r Φ * (r )
+ +Φ(r ) Φ(r )
2
aho
 2




(9.1)

where spherical symmetry has been assumed both in the equation itself and the definition of aho.
Also, the normalization of Φ is set so that2

∫ d r Φ(r ) = 1 . With Φ(r)=exp(–r /2R )/(πR ) , the
3

2

2

2 3/4

energy as a function of R when a is negative is

E=

3  1
R2
2 Na 1 hω  2 +−2  2R2
π aho 3R 3 

(9.2)

where the first term is the kinetic energy, the second the potential energy, and the third the meanfield energy. Several plots of the energy as a function of R for different values of N|a|/aho are shown347
in Figure 9.1. As long as the ratio N|a|/aho is smaller than 0.671, there is a minimum in the energy as
a function of the spatial extent of the condensate. For values of the ratio N|a|/aho larger than that,
there is no minimum. The mean-field interactions will be strong enough to overcome the kinetic
energy, and so any condensate with this fixed shape is predicted not to be stable for any value of therms width R.
9.1.2 Theory Predictions for Condensate Stability. Several predictions have been madeconcerning the point at which condensates in harmonic potentials are no longer stable. All of thesepredictions are computed in mean-field theory, and can be expressed as a stability criterion

N crit a
a ho

=k

(9.3)

where k is a dimensionless number. For any condensate whose product of the number of atoms in
the condensate and the magnitude of the s-wave scattering length (N|a|) is larger than kaho there is no
stable ground state solution of the mean-field (i.e. Gross-Pitaevskii) equation describing thecondensate.
For condensates whose density is fixed to have a gaussian shape, k is calculated to be 0.671
as per the discussion in the previous subsection. The shape of condensates with attractive mean-fieldinteractions is not described exactly by a gaussian, however. In order to predict the stability criterion
more precisely it is therefore necessary to solve for the ground state of the condensate without fixing
the shape. Ruprecht et al. [135] computed the ground state as a function of the ratio N|a|/aho byintegrating the time-dependent GP equation, equation (3.19). In this treatment, the ratio N|a|/aho was
set to be zero at time t=0, and the condensate was set to be initially in the ground state. Since there
were no interactions at t=0 it was trivial to set the condensate ground state. After these initialconditions had been established, the ratio N|a|/aho was increased abiabatically slowly as a function oftime in the direction of more attractive interactions. The condensate would therefore remain in the
ground state and by integrating the time-dependent GP equation the ground state as a function ofratio N|a|/aho could then be computed. It was found that the ground state energy had an asymptotic
cutoff at Cnl3 D ≈ − 1.62 , where the nonlinear interaction parameter is defined as

348

5

Energy (units of hω)

4

0.3

3
0.4

2

0.5
0.6

1
0.7
0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

R

Figure 9.1. This figure shows the energy of a condensate whose density profile is fixed to be agaussian as a function of the width of the condensate R (x-axis) and the value of the ratio N|a|/aho(number label on each curve). Note that for the curve with N|a|/aho equal to 0.7 there is no minimumin the energy as a function of R. The energy was calculated from equation (9.2).

349
C nl3 D = 2 Na (2mω h ) 2 in Ref. [135]. Therefore, the asymptotic cutoff in ground state energy
1corresponds to a value of k in equation (9.3) of 0.573. This calculation was performed using a
spherically symmetric potential.
Several other groups have confirmed the prediction of the stability coefficient obtained inRef. [135]. All of these other methods used the GP equation as the starting point, but different
methods were used in order to calculate the stability coefficient k. In Ref. [156], stable solutions of
the GP equation ground state could not be found once the number of atoms in a condensate with afixed negative scattering length exceeded a value consistent with the prediction in Ref. [135]. Ref.
[157] calculated the ground state by minimizing the energy using the steepest descent numericalmethod. The calculated stability coefficient was higher than Ref. [135] (k = 0.638) but the authors
claimed that the two predictions were consistent. A variational method was used to find the groundstate in Ref. [158], and a numerical integration of equation (3.20) to find the ground state energy inRef. [159]. Both of these calculations produced the stability coefficient found in Ref. [135]. A
different method of solving the time-dependent GP equation [160] found a result consistent with
Ref. [135], as did an evaluation of the condensate ground state stability through the calculating theeffect of the introduction of small variations around the numerically calculated ground state solutionof the GP equation [161]. This list should not be considered to be exhaustive.
All of the above predictions were performed in a spherically symmetric harmonic trapping
potential. The steepest descent method was used to minimize the energy of and thus find the groundstate of condensates with attractive interactions in Ref. [162], both for the spherical case (k = 0.545,
close to Ref. [135]), and in the case where the axial trap frequency is much less than the radialfrequency. For our radial trap frequency, the stability coefficient in this limit of large aspect ratio
was calculated to be k = 0.58. In our case the axial trap frequency is only a factor of 2.5 less than theradial and so this limit is not truly satisfied, but the lack of a significant dependence on the ratio of
the axial to radial trap frequencies indicate that the predictions for the spherical traps should apply to
our axial trap as well at the few percent level. This can be understood qualitatively from considering
the condensate behavior as the stability limit is approached. As the mean-field attraction strength
increases so that the kinetic energy can barely stabilize the condensate, the condensate tends to be

350
pulled into a spherical shape. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the difference in the trap
frequencies should not significantly affect the stability criterion.
In addition to Ref. [162], we have asked Brett Esry to calculate the lowest energy collective
excitation frequency as a function of Na/aho for our trap conditions.

One of the predictedcharacteristics of the condensate instability is the frequency of the lowest energy collective
excitation frequency going to zero. The disappearance of a stable ground state is considered to beequivalent to the disappearance in the minimum of the energy of the condensate as a function of its
spatial extent. As this minimum disappears, the curvature of the total condensate energy vs. width inat least one direction must therefore also disappear. As that curvature decreases, the collective
excitation frequency associated with that direction must therefore go to zero as well. Using thetechniques for calculating the collective excitation frequencies in the RPA [41], is was possible todetermine the ratio of Na/aho where the lowest collective excitation frequency was zero. That point
corresponds to a stability coefficient k = 0.548 [163], again indicating that the predictions for aspherical trap apply to our trap as well at the few percent level. Another prediction [164] for our trap
parameters gives a value of 0.552 for k.
One note of caution is in order when comparing our measurement to theory predictions.
We define the value of aho in equation (9.3) as given in equation (3.21) and repeated here

aho =

h

m(ω xω yω z )3
1

(9.4)

where the trap frequency of each direction is given by ωx,y,z. In the literature, the harmonic oscillator
length is sometimes defined with respect to just the radial oscillator frequency as (h/mωr)1/2, and sosome caution is necessary in comparing different predictions to our results and to each other.
Most of the above calculations concern themselves only with the stability of the groundstate as a function of the attractive interaction strength and do not consider the dynamics that could
be introduced due to a non-infinitely slow change in the attractive interaction strength.

Thecalculation in Ref. [160] suggests that a sudden change from a scattering length of zero to an
attractive scattering length should reduce the stability coefficient by 10%. This prediction is notvery applicable to the work discussed in this chapter since the scattering length was slowly and not351
suddenly changed. The stability of the condensates ramped to negative scattering length fields has
also been considered in the PG model (see subsection 8.2.6 for a description of the PG model andRefs. [165,166] concerning the stability calculation). For the typical rate of change of the scattering
length used in this work, these calculations using the PG model do not predict any significant change
in the stability coefficient (less than 2% reduction).
9.1.3 Dynamics of the Condensate Instability. The question of what happens to thecondensate once the stability criterion given in equation (9.3) is violated is a natural one to ask, but
the discussion of the dynamics of unstable condensates will be postponed until the next chapter. In
general, the mechanical instability of the condensate would suggest that it would start to shrink insize, and it was postulated that the density of the condensate would increase until two- and threebody loss mechanisms reduced the number of atoms in the condensate [156,167]. This has beenreferred to as the “collapse” of the condensate. Because of these predictions, we initially looked fora loss of atoms from the condensate as a signature of the collapse, and indeed we did observe a loss.
Further experiments, however, revealed the collapse dynamics to be much more complicated thansuch a simple picture. In spite of this, we will still refer to the onset of the instability as thecondensate collapse in this and the following chapter.
9.1.4 Previous Work in 7Li and Comparison to our Work. The first atom with a negative
scattering length that was cooled to Bose-Einstein transition temperatures was 7Li [168], and the
maximum number of atoms in the condensate has now been observed to be consistent with theprediction in Ref. [135]. There are several differences between these 7Li experiments and our work,
however.

In 7Li, condensates are formed from a rapidly cooled thermal cloud at a negative

scattering length whose value remains fixed, and condensate formation kinetics has been a central
study [169]. The condensates grow in number until they reach a critical value and then their number
decreases. Following the decrease, the number begins to grow again and the growth and collapse
cycle is repeated as atoms are fed into the condensate from the thermal cloud that is present. These
cycles are observed to be variable and so a statistical treatment of post-collapse ensembles has beenused to examine the 7Li growth and collapse process [170].

352
Here, we used the Feshbach resonance in 85Rb to tune the scattering length by changing themagnetic field.

After forming stable and nearly thermal-atom-free condensates with positive

scattering length, we tuned the scattering length to a selected negative value in the vicinity of the
expected critical value to study the instability. This allows us to study the onset of instability and thecollapse dynamics in a very controlled manner at a variety of different scattering lengths. In
addition to the ability to tune the scattering length and cold initial condensates, there were otheradvantages in our 85Rb work that do not exist in the 7Li system.

Our ability to form stablecondensates allowed us to characterize the statistical uncertainties in our system independent of any
variability brought about through the collapse process. Also, the ability to manipulate the mean-fieldinteractions in the condensates allowed us to expand the size of our condensates above our imaging
resolution limit to measure the number and shape of the atoms in the cloud, while in 7Li the imaging
had to be done below the resolution limit of the imaging system.
9.1.5 Goals of this Measurement. The measurement presented in this Chapter concerned
itself with four questions: how sharp is the transition from stable to unstable condensates as afunction of number and scattering length, how many atoms remain after the collapse has occurred,
does the onset of collapse depend solely on the N|a| product as in equation (9.3), and if so, what isthe value of the stability coefficient k? We found the transition from stability to instability very
sharp, with no width greater than that expected from the statistical uncertainties in our system. The
number of atoms remaining after the collapse occurred was typically around 60% of the initialcondensate number. The onset of instability did scale with the N|a| product, and the measured valueof k was close to, but slightly lower than, the theory predictions. The details of the answers to eachof these questions are presented in the following sections in this Chapter, after the procedure used in
the experiment is outlined.

9.2 Measuring the Onset of Instability.
9.2.1 Creation of the Condensates to be Studied. Initially, 3.5 x 108 atoms were loaded
into the baseball magnetic trap at 45 µK in the F=2, mf = –2 state as described in Chapter IV. The
condensates used in this measurement were then formed using the evaporative cooling described in
Chapter VII at a field of 162.3 G. After the condensates were formed, the field was ramped slowly353(800 ms) to near a=0 (B ~ 165.85 G). The condensates were then kept at that field for 2-10 seconds
with an rf-knife present to let the inelastic losses reduce any number variations as described insubsection 7.1.7.1.
9.2.2 Ramping to a < 0 and the Measurement of the Number of Condensate Atoms.
After the condensates had been prepared as described in the previous subsection, the field wasramped to a selected value of a < 0. The region of the Feshbach resonance in which we worked wasthat near a = 0, not the region that involved going over the peak of the Feshbach resonance. The
magnetic field ramp was performed in 200 ms, slowly enough to be adiabatic for most of the ramp
(see subsection 9.6.2), but fast enough that a significant number of atoms will not be lost to inelastic
collision loss mechanisms during the ramp. After that ramp, the condensates were allowed to evolveat the a < 0 field for 50 ms and would either collapse or not, depending on the condensate number
and the value of a. This 50 ms time was increased to 200 ms and no significant differences wereobserved due to the increase in time at the a <0 field.
While the condensate was at the fields corresponding to a ~ 0 and a < 0, the spatial size ofthe condensates was smaller than the 7 µm resolution limit of our imaging system (subsection
4.12.7). Therefore, after the 50 ms evolution time, the condensates were expanded in spatial size
using the mean-field interaction to measure the number of atoms in the condensate. This mean-field
expansion was not only convenient; it was necessary for 85Rb because the usual expansion of acondensate by turning off the magnetic trap [6,171] is not effective for 85Rb. In 87Rb and 23Na,
turning off the magnetic trap causes the condensates to expand outward rapidly due to their kinetic
and (repulsive) mean-field interaction. In 85Rb, a is ~ –400 a0 at B ~ 0 and so with the trap off themean-field interactions do not drive the condensate outward. The relatively weak magnetic traps
and small atom numbers used with 85Rb also mean that the kinetic energy in the condensate is small
as well. For instance, the radial rms width of a condensate originally at a = 0 in our traps will only
increase from 1.9 µm to 2.74 µm in 20 ms of expansion after the magnetic trap has been turned off.
Because the atoms are accelerating due to gravity, they quickly fall away before they expand
sufficiently to be imaged above the resolution limit of the imaging system.

354
The mean-field expansion of the condensate spatial size was performed by ramping themagnetic field from the a < 0 field to 157 G (a ~ +1500 a0) in 5 ms and then waiting for 7 ms to let
the condensate expand under the influence of the large positive scattering length.

After thisexpansion, condensates that did not collapse typically had rms widths of ~12 µm, larger than the
resolution limit. The magnetic trap was then turned off and the atoms were imaged using absorption
imaging (section 4.11) in order to determine the number of atoms in and the shape of the condensate.
The number of atoms in the condensate was then calculated using all of the considerations listed in
section 4.12.
The selection of the parameters of this expansion ramp was made using a few different
considerations. In order to avoid the difficulties associated with a large optical depth and still have areasonable signal-to-noise, the ramp was used to keep the peak optical depth of the cloud aroundone. We have found that ramps from a ~0 to large positive scattering lengths with duration 1 ms orless can introduce loss in the number of atoms for condensates whose density is initially high.
Therefore, the ramp duration was set to 5 ms to let the condensate spatial size expand so that thisloss was avoided. If the field is ramped too close to the peak, then there is a significant loss in thenumber of atoms from the condensate due to the losses at fields with large scattering lengths. If the
field is not ramped far enough, the clouds do not expand as much and the raw observed number ofatoms in the condensate will drop as the optical depth of the clouds increases and the imaging
difficulties associated with high optical depth clouds (subsection 4.12.5) becomes significant. The
parameters chosen represent a compromise between high loss and high optical depths.
9.2.3 Measuring the Temperature of the Condensates. The temperature of thecondensates (i.e. the number of atoms in a thermal component) was measured for a two reasons.
First, the stability condition in equation (9.3) is expected to apply to the number of condensate
atoms, not the total number of atoms in the cloud (see subsection 9.6.1 below and the references
contained therein).

Since the total number of atoms is the quantity that is measured by theabsorption imaging, the thermal fraction needed to be known in order to know the number of atoms
in the condensate. Secondly, we wished to test to make sure that the stability coefficient k was notvery sensitive to the temperature of the cloud. This test is described in subsection 9.6.1.

355
To measure the number of thermal atoms present, the condensates were created, ramped toa~0 and left to evolve there just as described in subsection 9.2.1. The magnetic trap was then shut
off without using any expansion ramp to increase the size of the condensate. This meant that thecondensate was below the resolution limit of the imaging system and that there should be a
separation between the spatial extent of the thermal cloud and the spatial extent of the condensate. A
gaussian fitting function was then fit only to the wings of the atom cloud (i.e. the central, belowresolution limit condensate was excluded from the fit). From the widths and peak optical depth of
the gaussian that had been fit to the wings, the thermal fraction was determined.
There was a complication present when trying to determine the number of thermal atoms
that were present. The dense condensates would collapse due to the negative scattering length at B ~0, ejecting a burst of atoms from the condensate (see subsection 10.3.7). Due to the 1.6 ms timeoutside of the trap (subsection 4.11.4), these burst atoms would expand to a size greater than thecondensate (~4 µm rms) and would appear to be an additional component. It was difficult toseparate the central component, the burst component, and any thermal atoms with a high degree of
accuracy. After this measurement was completed, an improved method for measuring the number ofthermal atoms was developed. Rather than turning off the trap immediately, the condensate wasbriefly ramped to a positive scattering length field in order to impart enough outward expansion thatthe cloud did not initially collapse at B ~0.
For most of the data used to determine the onset of instability for condensates at a < 0, we
cooled the cloud as best we could and usually we could not observe a thermal component. To
establish a limit on the possible number of thermal atoms, we examined the precision of our imaging
techniques and estimated that the limit of our sensitivity was 10% of the total atoms in the sample.
9.2.4 Monitoring the Number Variation and Drift. In the absence of any non-destructive
imaging, it was not possible to precisely know the number of atoms in the condensate before thefield was ramped to the fields with a < 0. The initial number of atoms could therefore only beknown to within the measured number reproducibility (~5% at best, 7-10% was common). In orderto monitor both the variation of the number of atoms from shot-to-shot and any drift in the initial
number of condensate atoms, data points were occasionally taken without ramping to a < 0 from a356~0. In every other respect these monitor points were the same as the points with the ramp to a < 0.
These points were taken often, typical every other or every third data point, in order to tightly
monitor any drift in number or increase or decrease in the shot-to-shot variability of the number ofatoms in the condensate.

9.3 Signature of the Collapse and Sharpness of the Transition from Stability to
Instability.
9.3.1 Signature of the Collapse Event. As long as the product N|a| of a condensate was
below a critical value, the condensate showed no effect of an excursion into the region where a < 0.
Once this critical value was exceeded, the condensates were observed to collapse. There were two
signatures of this collapse: the number of atoms was observed to decrease, and the condensates wereobserved to be oscillating in highly excited states. The number loss was greater than the uncertainty
from the variations in initial condensate atom number and so was clearly observable. The shape ofthe condensates was also often very different from its non-collapsed shape. Occasionally the aspectratio of a condensate that had collapsed would be much higher than a stable condensate’s aspectratio; sometimes it would be much less. The relatively slow ramp down to a < 0 meant that the
precise time at which the collapse occurred varied from shot to shot since the number of atoms
initially in the condensate was not exactly reproducible. For instance, if the number of atoms
initially in the condensate fluctuated upward, the condensate would cross the onset of instability
sooner in the ramp and therefore collapse sooner. As the condensates oscillate in the trap after thecollapse, the phase of the oscillation will therefore vary from shot to shot and that explains theobserved variations in the condensate shapes. Figure 9.2 compares absorption images of noncollapsed and post-collapsed condensate images.
9.3.2 Sharpness of the Transition from Stability to Instability. There are two
possibilities for the nature of the probability of a condensate to collapse as its N|a| product nears thestability limit defined in equation (9.3). The collapse could be a binary event such that if the N|a|product is less than the stability limit, the condensate is stable and there is no significant shapechange or large loss of atoms. Once the N|a| product exceeds this limit, then the condensate will

357

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 9.2 (Color). Comparison of Stable and Collapsed Condensates at a < 0. All of these images
were taken with the mean-field expansion ramp described in the main text. Frame (a) corresponds toa stable condensate while frames (b) and (c) show collapsed condensates. All three images weretaken under similar conditions, with the only difference being that in (b) and (c) |a| was greater thanin (a). The false color scale is not the same from image to image.

358
collapse.

The other possibility is that as the N|a| product approaches the stability criterion,

fluctuations of some kind [172] can cause the condensate to occasionally collapse. For instance, thewidth of the condensate could tunnel through the potential energy barrier shown in Figure 9.1[173,174], causing the condensate to collapse even though its N|a| product would have suggested
that it would be stable according to equation (9.3). In the case where fluctuations can cause acondensate to collapse, the collapse would not appear to be a binary event, but rather the probabilityof the collapse would increase as the stability criterion was approached. We refer to the change inprobability of collapse as a function of magnetic field (i.e. s-wave scattering length) as the sharpnessof the transition from stability to instability. If the collapse were a binary event, the probability forcollapse would change rapidly as a function of field and the transition from stability to instability
would be very sharp.
In order to determine the sharpness of the transition from stability to instability, data weretaken maintaining the number of the atoms in the condensate as close to 6400 as possible. Monitor
data points described in subsection 9.2.4 were alternated between data points in which the magnetic
field was ramped to several selected values around the field where the condensates became unstable
and collapsed. The number of atoms in the condensate that remained after a ramp to a < 0 was thencompared to the number of atoms measured by the neighboring monitor points as a function of field.
The results of this measurement are shown in Figure 9.3.
Even if the transition from stability to instability as a function of the scattering length is in
actuality infinitely sharp, there would still be an observed width to the transition due to the variationin the initial number of atoms in the condensate. For instance, if the field was ramped to precisely
the value corresponding to the onset of instability for the average number of atoms in thecondensates in the data set, half of the time the condensates would collapse since the initial number
would be higher than average and half the time the condensates would be stable and not collapse
since the initial number would be lower than the average. At a field slightly different from the field
where the collapse probability is 50%, there will still be a significant probability that the condensates
will collapse since the number can fluctuate above the critical number at that field, and also asignificant probability that the condensates will be stable since the number could also fluctuate

359
below the critical number. Therefore there will be a range of magnetic fields where the condensates
sometimes collapse and sometimes are stable, and the transition from stable to instability will notappear infinitely sharp, even if it truly is. The larger the variation in the initial number, the larger theapparent width of the transition. The width due to the number variation is quoted in terms of the rms
variation in number (σnum) as

width = σ num ⋅10.95 ∂  kaho , a( B ) = −3801 −
a0 (9.5)∂B  a ( B)  B = B
 B − 154.9 0where B0 is the field where the average number of atoms in the data set would become unstable. For
instance, in Figure 9.3 B0 is 165.96 G. This width corresponds to the spread in magnetic field
between the fields where the condensates have a 32% chance of collapsing to the field where there is
a 68% chance of collapse.
The onset of the collapse is observed to be as sharp as we can measure it within thevariation of the initial number of atoms in the condensate. This means that either the collapse truly
is a binary event, or that the probability for the condensate to collapse increases extremely rapidly as
a function of scattering length. In either case, the collapse can be treated as a binary event within the
precision of our measurement.
The distribution of data at 165.96 G is also indicative of the collapse being like a binary
event. These data, and other data similar to it, fall into two separate groups, with one groupconsistent with the stable condensates at fields with lower values of |a| and the other groupconsistent with the collapsed condensates at fields with higher values of |a|. This is what would be
expected if the collapse were a binary event. The variation in the number of atoms initially in thecondensate would cause the condensates with an atom number that was higher than the average tocollapse, and the condensates whose number was lower than the average to be stable.

9.4 Fraction of Atoms Remaining in the Condensate After Collapse.
9.4.1 Fraction Remaining after Collapse. From the data in Figure 9.3 and other data setslike it, the fraction of atoms remaining after a condensate with an initial number of ~6400 collapses
can be measured. That fraction is 0.58(3). When the starting number of atoms in the condensate
was changed to ~2600 atoms, the fraction remaining was 0.76(3). These fractions are measured only

360

1.1

Fraction Remaining

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
165.92165.94165.96165.98166.00Magnetic Field (Gauss)

Figure 9.3. Transition from stable to unstable condensates. This figure shows the fraction of atoms
remaining as the magnetic field was ramped to higher magnetic fields (i.e. stronger attractive
interactions). The hatched region indicates the expected 4 mG width due to the initial number
variation. The initial number of atoms in the condensate was kept near 6400. At the field in thehatched region, the data fell into two groups and the individual points ( ) are displayed rather than
the average of those points.

361
when the magnetic field is tuned just past the onset of instability. As the value of a is made to be
more negative, the fraction of atoms remaining decreases.
9.4.2 Loss of Condensate Atoms at a < 0 in the Absence of Collapse and Unusual
Statistics. The all-or-nothing nature of the collapse led to complications in the determination of thefraction of atoms that were remaining, both after the collapse and after an excursion into the a < 0region in the absence of a collapse. Near the onset of the instability, the condensates whose initial
number was greater than the average due to an upward variation in the initial number will collapse.
Therefore, the average number of atoms in the condensates that are stable at a field near the onset of
instability will be lower than the average number of atoms initially in the condensate before the ramp
to the a < 0 region.
In order to determine if any atoms are being lost due to the ramp to fields with a < 0 evenin the absence of the collapse, the probability distribution of the number of atoms in stablecondensates at a < 0 is modeled as a truncated gaussian. This idea is illustrated in Figure 9.4. The
critical number used to truncate the gaussian is determined in the same way as the stability
coefficient is measured as described below in section 9.5. The ratio (ξ) of the average number ofcondensate atoms in the truncated probability distribution to the average number of condensate
atoms in the full probability distribution can be calculated as a function of the critical number − (N − N avg )2 
dN∫−∞ N exp 2σ num
2



ξ=
2
 − (N − N avg ) N critdN
N avg ∫ exp
2
−∞


2
σ
num


N crit(9.6)

where Navg and σnum are the average number and the standard deviation of the full probability
distribution, respectively, and Ncrit is the critical number (Ncrit=kaho/a). Setting the lower end of theintegration tois a matter of mathematical convenience and does not affect the calculation of ξ.

The loss of atoms due to a ramp to a < 0 in the absence of a collapse is then calculated in
the following way. Monitor points (subsection 9.2.4) were used to determine the standard deviationof the full (initial) probability distribution of the number of atoms in the condensate (i.e. Navg andσnum in equation (9.6)). From this measured standard deviation and the critical number, the ratio ξ

362

0.5

Occurance Probability

0.4

Ncrit

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
Navg

Average Number of Atoms in the Condensate

Figure 9.4. This figure shows the truncated gaussian probability distribution used in analyzing thefraction of atoms lost after a ramp to fields with a < 0. The average of the initial number of atoms in
the condensate before the ramp to a < 0 and the standard deviation of those points determine thelocation of the peak of the width of the overall gaussian distribution. The probability distribution of
the number of atoms in stable condensates is shown by the solid curve, while the probability
distribution of the pre-collapse number of atoms in condensates that did collapse is shown as thedashed line. The critical number Ncrit depends on the value of |a| and therefore varies as a functionof magnetic field. Both the stable and collapsed condensate distributions are normalized
appropriately before being used in a calculation.

363
can be calculated for each field in the measurement. The number of atoms in a stable condensate isthen divided by the value ξ appropriate for its field. These adjusted numbers are then averaged
together, and their average is compared to the average of the number of initial atoms in thecondensates (i.e. the average of the number of atoms in the monitor points). This procedure corrects
for the tendency of stable condensates to have a smaller number than the average number of atoms.
When this procedure is followed, the fraction of atoms that remain after a ramp into a < 0 without acollapse was found to be 0.98(1). The small amount of loss that may be present (2%) is consistent
with the loss of atoms from the condensate due to inelastic collisions during the 200 ms ramp to thea < 0 field. This ratio is the same both for ~6400 atoms and also for smaller (~2000 and less)condensates.
The same considerations were used in the computation of the fraction of atoms remaining
after the collapse. In this case, the initial number of atoms in condensates that collapsed tends to behigher than the average number of initial atoms near the onset of instability. In order to compute theaverage number of atoms in the condensates before the collapse, the same truncated gaussian used
for the stable condensates was used. The average initial number was then computed as − (N − N avg )2 
dN∫Ncrit N exp 2σ num
2N collapse =2
 − (N − N avg ) 
∞
dN
exp
∫Ncrit  2σ num
2



∞

(9.7)

where the quantities in equation (9.7) are defined in the same way as in equation (9.6).
9.4.3 Increased Variation in the Collapsed Number. The fractional variation of thenumber of atoms remaining after the condensate collapse is greater than the variation in the initial
number of condensate atoms measured with the monitor points. Using the data shown in Figure 9.3
and several other data sets similar to it with an average number of ~6400, the standard deviation of
the initial condensate number was 7% of the average condensate number, while the comparable
fractional standard deviation of the number of atoms measured in the collapsed condensates was
20%. Both of these variations include the ~5% imaging uncertainty (subsection 4.12.3) as well as
the variation of the actual number of atoms in the condensates. For the 2600 atom case the364variations were 9% for the initial number of condensate atoms and 20% for the number remaining in
the collapsed condensates.
There is a possibility that this observed increase in the number variation for collapsed
condensates is an artifact of the absorption images, but we do not believe that this is likely the case.
The collapsed condensates shapes were different than the pre-collapse condensates, but the collapsed
condensate shapes were still larger than the resolution limit. Also, the number was calculated bothby summing over the optical depth measured in each pixel in the absorption image and fitting thecondensate images using a 2D gaussian fitting function. The two methods agreed on average, so thedifferent shapes should not have distorted the measurement of the number. Therefore, it does notseem likely that the number variability was due to systematic effects in the calculation of the number
from the absorption images of the collapsed condensates. The increased variability then indicatesthat the collapse process is not the same every time, but varies from collapse event to collapse event.

9.5 Determination of the Stability Coefficient.
9.5.1 Measurement of the Onset of Instability as a Function of the Number of Atoms
in the Condensate. To examine the validity of the theory prediction in equation (9.3), we varied thenumber of atoms that were initially in the condensate and the determined the minimum magnetic
field at which that number of atoms would collapse.

Since the scattering length varies

approximately linearly with magnetic field for the negative scattering lengths of interest, equation(9.3) would predict that a plot of 1/Ncrit vs. the collapse field would be a straight line. The slope of
this line would then determine the stability coefficient k.
The drift and random variation in the initial number complicated this measurement since it
was impossible to know the exact number of atoms that were in the condensate before the ramp to a
< 0. The drift in the initial number of atoms in the condensate and the random variation were
determined by frequently interspersing monitor points described in subsection 9.2.4 among the data
points with ramps to fields with a < 0. After a ramp to a < 0, the condensate was classified as either
collapsed or non-collapsed based on its shape and the number of atoms in that condensate comparedto the initial number estimated from both the non-collapsed data points and the monitor points. If
either the shape was different than usual for the non-collapsed data points or there was significant

365
loss of atoms from the condensate, the condensate was classified as collapsed. Two days’ negative adata are shown in Figure 9.5 (a) and 9.5 (b). Figure 9.6 shows a summary of these two days’ data
and two additional sets that were taken in a similar fashion. From the data shown in Figures 9.6 and
9.7, it is evident that the onset of instability scales well with the product N|a|.
For the data in figs. 9.5 (a) and (b), the field was measured using the baseball and bias
currents through the calibration described in subsection 4.10.1. The assignment of the number toeach data point varied depending on whether the data point had collapsed or not. If the data point
had not collapsed, then the pre-collapse number of atoms in that condensate was simply equal to thenumber of atoms measured by the absorption imaging for that data point. If the data point hadcollapsed, then the initial number could not be best determined from the remaining number of atoms
since the fractional variation of the number of atoms remaining after a collapse is greater than thevariation of the pre-collapse number of atoms in the condensate. Instead, the number of atoms
present in the condensate before the collapse was estimated by averaging neighboring monitor or
non-collapsed data points.

If a non-collapsed data point was involved in the initial number

estimation, a correction was applied due to the propensity of the non-collapsed points to have an
initial number lower than the average, as discussed in subsection 9.4.2. This correction was divisionby the ratio ξ (equation (9.6)).
The all-or-nothing nature of the collapse also led to the use of an unusual approach in thedetermination of the stability coefficient k in the presence of the variations in the initial atom
number. Instead of fitting a line to a set of random data, we had to determine a boundary between
collapse and non-collapse events. Data were taken at high number (~6500) and a selected low
number that was varied. Many points were taken at the critical magnetic fields at which the initial
number variation resulted in some condensates collapsing while other condensates remained stable.
This ensures that some of the stable condensate points are just on the verge of collapsing. The twostable condensate data points closest to the boundary between stability and instability, one from thelow-number set and one from the high-number set, were then used. The magnetic field drifted bytens of mG from day to day due to variations in the ambient magnetic field. To allow day-to-day
comparisons, the value of the high-number collapse field was used to measure the field drift. The

366

0.00045(a)0.00035

1/Number

0.00025
Collapse Data Points
Non-collapsed Data Points
Stability Boundary

0.000150.00045(b)0.000350.000250.00015
165.9

166.0

166.1

166.2

Magnetic Field (Gauss)
Figure 9.5. Determining the onset of collapse as a function of the condensate number and themagnetic field. Figures 9.5 (a) and 9.5 (b) show data sets used to determine the stability coefficient
via the boundary that divides the data between collapse ( ) and non-collapse ( ) events. In Figure2(a), the data were concentrated in two field regions to accurately measure the slope of the boundaryline. In Figure 2(b), the initial number was varied over a larger range to illustrate the function formof the onset of instability. Due to initial number variations, some collapse points appear to be on thewrong side of the stability boundary.

367

1/Number

0.00040.00030.00020.0001
165.9

166.0

166.1

166.2

Magnetic Field (Gauss)
Figure 9.6. This figure shows stable condensate numbers known to be on the verge of instability(see text) as determined from several data sets like those in figs. 9.6(a) and 9.6 (b). The fit to thesepoints provides the value of the stability coefficient k.

368

remaining closest-to-boundary points for various numbers are the points shown in Figure 9.7 andare fit to determine a slope.
While this is not the most efficient way to determine the slope, the drift in initial number
and the noise in the absorption imaging itself complicate more sophisticated analyses, such as theone described in subsection 9.5.3 below. Also, the closest-to-boundary-points method already gives
a statistical error for k that is much smaller than the systematic errors. In order to estimate theuncertainty in the initial slope determinations, a standard Monte-Carlo simulation [175] was used.
To perform the Monte-Carlo simulation, a set of points corresponding in field location andaverage number of atoms to the data points in the actual sets of data was created. These points wererandomly varied around their assigned central positions by the amount equal to the estimated number
variation in the actual data. Once this was done, the random points with numbers greater than acritical value were caused to collapse, and were labeled as such. Noise was then again added to theremaining non-collapsed random points to simulate the noise inherent in the absorption imaging.
The two points closest to the boundary were then taken in the same way as for the actual data sets
and a slope was computed. This procedure was repeated ~100 times and the variation of the slopes
provided an estimate of the uncertainty in the determination of the stability coefficient in a single setof data. This uncertainty agreed with the observed day-to-day variation of the measured slope of
1/Ncrit vs. magnetic field.

Also, this analysis showed that there were no significant (> 2%)

systematic errors that were introduced by using this method of analysis. One distortion that did
appear was that occasionally the imaging noise would cause an anomalously large number of atoms
to appear to be stable at higher values of |a|. The anomalously large number of atoms appears atlarge |a| rather than small |a| because the slope dNcrit/da is much shallower at large |a| than small |a|.
Therefore, the same-sized fractional noise in the absorption imaging tends to cause condensates atlarge |a| to appear farther from the true onset of instability. This typically occurred once per MonteCarlo set (and therefore likely once per actual data set), and so instead of using the point closest to
the collapse boundary for the low-number sets, that point was eliminated and the second-closest
point was used for the analysis.

369
The average of all of the data gives a slope of 0.00126(3) (atoms gauss)–1 for 1/Ncrit vs.
magnetic field. In order to compare this result to the theory predictions, it is necessary to convert themeasured slope from 1/Ncrit vs. magnetic field to 1/Ncrit vs. a. This is done using the determinationof the scattering length presented in Chapter V. From this determination, the change in scattering
length vs. magnetic field near 166.05 G is –33.47±1.72 a0/G (or –1.771 nm/G).
In order to estimate the uncertainty on the stability coefficient k determination, several
factors need to be taken into account. There is of course the statistical error on the determination of
the slope of 1/Ncrit vs. magnetic field. The uncertainty of the slope of a vs. magnetic field must be
taken into account. Also, the systematic uncertainty associated with the determination of the numberof atoms from the absorption imaging has to be included as well (see section 4.12). There are twoparts to this systematic uncertainty. One part of the systematic uncertainty would result in an equal
error in the determination of the number of atoms in a condensate and the number of atoms in athermal cloud, which has a larger spatial extent. The error due to this part of the systematic
uncertainty in the number determination from the absorption imaging would cause an error in thedetermination of the slope of the scattering length vs. magnetic field as well since the measurementof the number of atoms in the thermal equilibration measurement described in Chapter V would havebeen affected. This error in the slope of a vs. B determination would partially offset the error in thedetermination of Ncrit in the stability coefficient measurement. Since the thermal equilibration
measurement scales as a2, and the stability coefficient measurement depends on a, a 10% systematic
uncertainty in the number determination in both would result in a 5% uncertainty in k. The second
part of the uncertainty in the number determination is due to errors associated with the small spatial
size of the condensates. This uncertainty will only apply to the determination of Ncrit and no partial
cancellation will occur. We estimate the size of these second uncertainties to be 10%.
Another factor needs to be included in the uncertainty of the determination of Ncrit is theuncertainty in the fraction of atoms in the thermal component of the condensate. We cannot
accurately determine the thermal fraction once it is below 10%. It is unlikely that all of the thermal
atoms have been cut away, and so it is assumed that 5(3) % of the atoms in the cloud are in thethermal component. This assigned uncertainty is also included in the systematic uncertainty of k.

370
Finally, the small errors (0.5%) associated with the calibration of the magnetic field are also
included, although they do not significantly affect the size of the uncertainty in k.
Including all of these sources of uncertainty, the value measured for k in equation (9.3) is

k = 0.460 ± 0.012 (statistical) ± 0.058 (systematic) .

(9.8)

9.5.2 Comparison of the Measured Stability Coefficient to Theory Predictions. The
functional form for the stability criterion in equation (9.3) seems to be correct – the onset of
instability is observed to scale very well with the product of N|a| as clearly evidenced by the data in
figs. 9.6(a), 9.6(b), and 9.7. The measured stability coefficient is slightly lower than the predictions
presented in Refs. [135,156-162], being 0.80±0.10 of the predicted value of k = 0.574, or two
standard deviations away. Using the slightly lower value of k = 0.548 from the predictions in anaxially symmetric trap, the measured value is 0.84±0.10 of the predicted value, still a 1.6 standard
deviation disagreement. This means that the condensates appear to be collapsing at a lower value of
the N|a| product than the theory predicts [176]. Possible reasons for this deviation probably can only
be accurately discussed in light of the dynamics of the collapse, which are currently unexplained bytheory. See Chapter X for more details on the collapse dynamics.
Before discussing the examination of two potential sources of systematic error in themeasurement of k, the promised aside on more sophisticated analysis to determine the stability
coefficient from the collapse data will be included here. Neither of the two potential sources ofsystematic error was found to significantly affect the measurement of the value of k.
9.5.3 Aside on more Sophisticated Analysis of the Collapse Data to Determine k. Rather
than using just the two closest-to-boundary points from each data set, it would be more efficient toemploy a data analysis that used the information provided by all of the data points. For instance, thetruncated gaussians used in the analysis of the fraction of atoms lost during the collapse (subsection
9.4.2) could form the basis for such an analysis. Three probabilities could be calculated using thesetruncated gaussians for a given value of the stability coefficient k and therefore a certain value of
Ncrit for each magnetic field. One is the probability that the condensates would collapse at aparticular field given the average initial number and variation in the initial number of atoms. The
second probability is the probability that condensates would not collapse at a given field given the371
initial number and variation in the initial number of atoms. The last probability is the probability
that none of the numbers of atoms in the non-collapsed condensate would be closer to the criticalnumber than the number of atoms in the non-collapsed condensate that is closet to the criticalnumber. For example, if the critical number at a particular field was predicted to be 2000 atoms, andthe average initial number of atoms in the condensates was 1500 atoms with a standard deviation of
150 atoms, then it would be very unlikely that the maximum number of atoms observed in a stablecondensate out of several points would be only 1000 atoms. For this example, the third probability
would be very low. By varying the stability coefficient k to maximize the product of all threeprobabilities, the value of k that best fits the data could be determined.
There are two difficulties that make such an analysis almost hopelessly complicated. The
first difficulty is that in addition to the actual variation of the initial number, there is a variation in
the measured number due to the ~5% noise in the absorption imaging. This variation would have to
be incorporated into the probabilities described in the previous paragraph, which is quite
complicated. Even when that was accomplished, it would be very difficult to determine the average
initial number and the variation in that initial number for each data point due to the drift in the initial
number. It would be necessary to fit the drift in the value of the initial number while simultaneously
fitting the stability coefficient. Since the rf-shift was often adjusted to keep the number of atoms in
the condensate close to the desired value, the experiment conditions changed frequently further
complicating the analysis. So instead of using any such analysis technique, the two points closest to
the boundary were used as described above. In that case, it was only important to take enough data
points straddling the onset of instability in order to ensure that two of the points were close to thecollapse boundary.

9.6 Search for Systematic Shifts in k due to Finite Temperature and Nonadiabatic Field Ramps.
9.6.1 Finite Temperature and the Onset of Instability. The presence of a thermal
component has been predicted to cause condensates to become unstable at smaller values of Ncrit
than at T=0 in both 7Li [158,177,178] and 85Rb [178]. However, the effect of finite temperature on
the critical number is predicted to be small for the low temperatures studied in this work. Ref. [178]372
predicts that the shift in the stable condensate number between zero temperature and thetemperatures at which we took our data should be less than 1%.
In order to test whether the finite temperature of our clouds was affecting our measurementof the stability coefficient k, we deliberately created hot clouds that had roughly equal numbers ofcondensate and thermal atoms (~6800 atoms total) and then performed a collapse measurement.
This was roughly a factor of ten more thermal atoms than were present in the previous coldtemperature measurements. The collapse of the condensates in these clouds was more difficult todetermine since the thermal atoms obscured the change in shape of the condensates that collapsed.
There was still a number loss that was detectable, however. The onset of instability was determinedusing these clouds by taking several data points that straddled the field corresponding to the onset of
instability. Immediately following that, the onset of instability for condensates without a detectable
thermal component and roughly the same number of condensate atoms was also measured in thesame way. We did not observe any decrease in the value of Ncrit for the hotter clouds.
In fact, the presence of the thermal component seemed to stabilize the condensates, ifanything. The measured Ncrit with the hotter clouds exceeded the Ncrit at colder temperatures by
14%.

This apparent increase in the stability of the condensates it not really greater than theuncertainties in the measurement of the thermal fraction, however. The mean-field expansion ramp
(subsection 9.2.2) increased the size of the cloud beyond the resolution limit so that the total numberof atoms could be determined accurately. However, given the probable coupling between thethermal component and condensate during the expansion ramp (see Chapter VIII), it is unclear how
the condensate and thermal atom shapes will change, making determination of the individual number
in each component difficult. Therefore, the measurement of the number of atoms in just the thermal
component and the total number of atoms were used to determine the condensate atom number.
The measurement of the number of atoms in the thermal component was performed in two
ways. First, the magnetic trap was turned off immediately after the condensates had been ramped toa ~ 0 and imaged immediately after the magnetic trap turn-off (no 1.6 ms expansion time as insubsection 4.11.4). At the time, a correction was applied to the number to account for the straymagnetic field present immediately after the trap turn-off, but we did not realize at the time that this373
correction could vary by 20% of the initial condensate number from day to day. The other method
used to determine the thermal atom number was to measure the spatial size of the thermal
component. From this measurement a temperature could be determined. From the relation between
the temperature and condensate fraction, equation (3.6), and the total number of atoms measured in
the cloud, the thermal fraction could then also be computed. There is some question, however, how
the thermal equilibrium in the cloud will be maintained during the ramp to a ~ 0 due to the reductionin the rate of elastic collisions due to the decrease in the elastic scattering cross section, and if any
distortions in the spatial extent of the thermal cloud result. These two measurements agreed witheach other at the 10 % level. Subsequent measurements have shown that the size of the uncertainties
that were present in both methods of measuring the thermal fraction were as large as 14 %, making it
unclear whether a shift in Ncrit with temperature exists.
Given the fact that the apparent change in Ncrit was no greater than 14% even though thethermal fraction was increased by an order of magnitude or so, we concluded that there were no
significant shifts due to finite temperature in the determination of k at the cold temperatures used in
our measurement.
9.6.2 Condensate Dynamics and the Onset of Instability. In this measurement we wanted
to determine the onset of instability for condensates in the ground state. If the magnetic field ramp
to a < 0 is too fast, then the condensate will no longer be in the ground state but will exhibit
collective excitations (see Chapter VIII). To search for a dependence of the onset of instability on
condensate dynamics, we increased the spatial size of the initial condensates by starting with an
initial scattering length of ~ +200 a0 instead of zero and used ramp times of both 200 ms and 1 ms tomagnify the possible effect of any condensate dynamics. The previous data were taken using amagnetic field ramp duration (200 ms) that was more than twice the period of the lowest collective
excitation of the condensate, to avoid exciting the condensate prior to collapse. This condition istrue except for very near the point of instability where the lowest collective excitation frequency
goes to zero (see subsection 9.1.2). In hindsight, since the condensates appear to be collapsing
before the predicted critical point, the condensates may collapse before the region where the lowest
collective excitation frequency diverges toward zero is reached.

374
For the 200 ms ramp there was no detectable change in the collapse point between ramps
starting at a = +200 a0 and a=0. The 1 ms, initial a = 200 a0 ramp imparted a significant amount of
pre-collapse excitation to the condensates, but the apparent value of k only decreased by 8%.
Therefore, we concluded that there was no significant error introduced in the measurement of k due
to the fact that the ramp speeds to a < 0 were not infinitely slow.
Using the PG model (subsection 8.2.6 and Ref. [165,166]), the effect of these ramps on thestability coefficient could be calculated for our trap frequencies. For the purposes of this calculation,
the criterion for the collapse in the PG model was the occurrence of a point in time when the axial
and radial spatial sizes went asymptotically to zero. The 200 ms ramp beginning at a= 200 a0 was
predicted to have a 10% lower value of k than the 200 ms ramp beginning at a=0. The 1 ms ramp
beginning at a= 200 a0 was actually found to stabilize the condensate against collapse, increasing k
by 10%. Neither of these predictions matched the observed behavior, suggesting the PG model isinadequate for either describing the criterion for collapse or describing the oscillations of thecondensate since the PG model uses a fixed shape.

9.7 Determination of Bzero.
9.7.1 Improved Measurement of Bzero. Since the onset of instability scaled well with the
N|a| product, the measurement of the onset of instability as a function of magnetic field provided for
an improved determination of the magnetic field where the scattering length is equal to zero, Bzero(see Chapter V). Once the boundary between stable and unstable condensates were measured in data
sets like those in Figure 9.5, the stability boundary could be extrapolated to the field where 1/Ncrit(i.e. Ncrit =). At this field, equation (9.3) implies that a=0.

Chapter X
Dynamics of Collapsing Condensates and Future Studies of 85Rb Bose-Einstein
Condensates

10.1 Overview.
While the experiments discussed in the previous Chapter were useful in determining theonset of instability, they did not examine the dynamics of collapsing condensates. The dynamics ofthe condensates while they collapsed (i.e. became unstable due to attractive interactions) are both
puzzling and surprising. Perhaps the most surprising observation was that the collapse resulted in an
explosion of “hot” atoms from the condensate. We also observed the formation of sharp density
tes during the collapse, a rapid loss of atoms, and a condensate thatremained after the collapse that was in a highly excited state of motion. This Chapter describes thequalitative features of the collapse dynamics, but does not discuss quantitative details.
Measurements of those are currently underway and will be carried out largely by my successors.
The interested reader is referred to Ref. [18] for these details.
After describing the methods used to observe the collapse dynamics and their basic
features, some brief attention will be given to possible future experiments in 85Rb. The region oflarge scattering length will almost certainly be revisited. The nature of the losses induced by rapid
ramps to large values of a > 0, the time that it takes for the condensates to respond to a rapid change
in the scattering length, and perhaps the expansion rate at large scattering lengths will be
investigated. It will also be interesting to study the behavior of condensates ramped quickly over the
Feshbach peak into the region of large negative scattering length.

10.2 Measuring the Collapse Dynamics.
10.2.1 Creating the Initial Condensates. The condensates used in these experiments werecreated in the same manner as in subsection 9.2.1. A wider range of initial condensate number wasused in these studies, and we began with anywhere from 3,000 to 15,000 atoms in condensates with376
a scattering length near a=0 (165.85 G). The value of the magnetic field each day was calibrated bydetermining the point of the onset of instability in the manner described in Chapter IX.
10.2.2 Ramping the Magnetic Bias Field to Change a. Once the condensate had been
prepared, a wide variety of different ramps of the magnetic field (and hence ramps of a) were used toinvestigate the dynamics of the collapse. Figure 10.1 shows the types of ramps used in these studies.
The first part of any magnetic field ramp was a rapid (~0.1 ms) ramp to a selected value of a < 0(acollpase). The condensate was then allowed to evolve at that field for a variable amount of time(τevolve). The condensate collapse process was then halted with another rapid ramp to a positive orzero scattering length field (corresponding to a scattering length value aquench). At this point, thecondensate was often smaller than the resolution limit of our imaging system. To measure thenumber of atoms without distortion due to their small size, we used the mean-field repulsion at
positive scattering lengths in the manner shown in Figure 10.1(a) and described in subsection 9.2.2
to expand the condensates above the resolution limit to measure their number. To measure featuresof the collapsing condensates that would be obscured by the mean-field expansion ramp, we used theramp in Figure 10.1(b) that halted the collapse with aquench, but did not expand the condensates
further. Another ramp that was used was one in which the magnetic field was turned off to image
the atoms without any ramp back from the a < 0 field (Figure 10.1(c)). This ramp was used toobserve the motion of the condensate during its evolution at a < 0 and to measure the timing of the
explosion of atoms from the condensate during the collapse.
10.2.3 Imaging the Condensates. After the magnetic trap fields were turned off, the shape,
spatial size, and number of atoms in the cloud were measured using absorption imaging (see section
4.11). After the collapse, there were often several components to the cloud, a condensate thatremained after the loss due to the collapse, a thermal component left over from the evaporative
cooling, and atoms ejected in the explosion during the collapse.

Fortunately, these various

components had different spatial sizes allowing us to separate one component from another.

10.3 Dynamics of the Collapse.
10.3.1 Number vs. τevolve. Figure 10.2 shows the number of atoms in the condensate as afunction of the time τevolve after the magnetic field had been ramped to acollapse (see Figure 10.1 for aScattering Length (a0)377

a expand

1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
a init
-200
-400

a

τevolve

Scattering Length (a0)

0

1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
a init
-200
-400

5

10

time (ms)

15

20

b

τevolvea quencha collapse0

Scattering Length (a0)a quencha collapse

1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
a init
-200
-400

5

10

15

20

10

15

20

time (ms)Cτevolvea collapse

05time (ms)Figure 10.1. This figure illustrates several magnetic field ramps used to measure the condensate
collapse dynamics. Rather than plotting the magnetic field as a function of time, the corresponding
value of the scattering length is shown. The last change in the scattering length to ~ 400 a0
represents the turnoff of the magnetic trap. The condensates were imaged 1.6 ms after this trap
turnoff.

378

t collapse

Number in Condensate

18000
16000

N0

14000

Fits to decay
constant τdecay

12000
10000
8000
6000

Nremnant

4000
0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

τevolve (ms)Figure 10.2. Number of condensate atoms as a function of the evolution time at a magnetic fieldwith attractive interactions (τevolve). These data were taken using the ramp shown in Figure 10.1(a) at
a field with a value of a = 30 a0. The initial number of atoms in the condensate is shown as N0 andthe number of atoms remaining after the completion of the collapse is given as Nremnant. The solidline shows the exponential fit used to determine the decay constant during the rapid loss of atoms
during the collapse.

379
definition of these quantities). There are three prominent features in this curve: there is a time
tcollapse where there is little or no number loss; a rapid loss of atoms during a time tdecay, and a numberof atoms that remain in the condensate (the “remnant”) after the rapid loss is completed. The
evolution of the condensate during each of these three time periods will be discussed in thefollowing subsections.
10.3.2 Contraction and Formation of Density “Spikes.” During the time tcollapse, thenumber of atoms in the condensate remains stable. The spatial size of the condensate contracts, andso the density of the condensate increases. This contraction cannot be observed directly since thecondensates are below the resolution limit of the imaging system. However, the contraction can beinferred from the measured spatial size of the condensates after the mean-field expansion part of theramp (see Figure 10.1(a)).
When the value of a is increased more rapidly than the condensate can adjust its groundstate, a condensate that is denser will feel a greater outward force than one that is less dense since themean-field interaction energy will be larger in the denser case. This means that condensates whose
spatial size is small before the mean-field expansion tend to be made large, and originally large
spatial size condensates tend not increase in size as much. During tcollapse, the spatial size of thecondensates after the expansion ramp is observed to get larger, indicating that the condensates arecontracting. The amount of contraction can be estimated by using the PG model described insubsection 8.2.6. Integrating the PG model equations while including the time dependence of aduring the expansion ramp indicates that the change in the condensate density during the contraction
is not very large --- the density increases only by ~50%.
When the condensates were allowed to evolve at aquench ~ 0 for a few milliseconds before
the trap turnoff (e.g. Figure 10.1(b)) or a mean-field expansion ramp, we saw small highly
anisotropic features form and grow during tcollpase. These features, which we refer to as “jets,” areshown in Figure 10.3. They are indicative of narrow regions of high density (density “spikes”)
forming in the condensates as they collapse. The jets anisotropy indicates that these spikes are
spatially non-uniform, and from the outward velocity of the atoms in the jet we are able to determine
the spatial extent of the density spikes by using the uncertainty principle.

380

1
0.5

a

b

c

d

e

f

0

Figure 10.3. Jet images for a series of τevolve values for the conditions of Figure 10.2. The evolution
times were 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 10 ms (from a to f). Each image is 150 x 255 µm. The bar indicates the
optical depth scale. The jets were longest (i.e. most energetic) and contained the most atoms at
values of τevolve for which the slope of the loss curve (Figure 10.2) was greatest. A tiny jet is barely
visible for τevolve = 2 ms (image a), which is 1.7 ms before the onset of the rapid loss of atoms fromthe condensate. The images also show how the number of condensate atoms decrease with time.

381
The length of the time period tcollapse where these density contractions were occurring varied
in an intuitive way with the value of acollpase, becoming shorter as the attractive interactions became
stronger (i.e. tcollapse decreased as |acollapse| increased). The length of tcollapse also depends on the initial
scattering length before the ramp to a < 0 (ainit), becoming longer as the value of ainit is increased.
This implies that condensates with initially lower density take longer to contract. This trend is also
seen in the dependence of tcollapse on the initial condensate number, with condensates with larger
number having shorter tcollapse times.
10.3.3 Onset of Rapid Loss. After the condensates have spent some time contracting andforming density spikes, a loss of atoms suddenly begins and atoms are rapidly (~ few ms) lost fromthe condensate. The insensitivity of τdecay to the collapse field, sudden increase in the loss rate, andrapid rate of atom loss are puzzling. Simple estimates of the three-body recombination coefficient(see Chapter VI) and the measurement of the condensate density would give loss rate time scales
orders of magnitude longer than what is observed.
10.3.4 Explosion of “Hot” Atoms. At the same time that the rapid loss rate begins, we also
observe an explosion of atoms ejected from the condensate. The number of atoms in the explosion
increases on the same time scale as the atoms are rapidly lost from the condensate. The averageenergy of these atoms in the explosion is typically on the order of a few hundred nK and can behighly anisotropic. This is much hotter than the temperature scale associated with the condensate (Tc~ 12 nK) or any mean-field interaction energy (~ tens of nK), but much smaller than the energy
associated with the decay products of inelastic collisions (~ tens of µK to mK). The fraction of
atoms ejected in this explosion it always about 20% of the initial condensate number, regardless of
the initial number of atoms or the value of acollapse.
Figure 10.4 shows the absorption image in which the burst is measured. The burst appears as a highaspect-ratio atom cloud that extends far past the central (condensate) component of the cloud. At
first glance, this may suggest that the burst of atoms is highly anisotropic and consists of atoms
flying away in the axial direction, but this is not the case. The image shown in Figure 10.4 is taken
one-half of a radial trap oscillation period after the onset of the rapid loss of atoms during thecondensate collapse, and so it is not an image of the explosion as it is occurring. Rather, we image a382

Figure 10.4 (Color). Plot (a) shows a conceptual illustration of a focus of the atoms in the
explosion. Plot (b) shows an image of a refocused explosion. The temperature in the axial direction(along the direction of the long axis of the refocused cloud) determined from this data is 62 nK. Plot(c) Shows the radially averaged cross section of plot (b) with a Gaussian fit (red line) to the burst
energy distribution. The central 100 mm were excluded from the fit to avoid distortion in the fit due
to the remnant and the thermal cloud. The latter is present in the pre-collapse sample and appears to
be unaffected by the collapse. The dashed line indicates the fit to this initial thermal component.
Ramps like the one shown in Figure 10.1(c) were used to collect these data.

383
similar atom density distribution at one radial trap oscillation period, 1.5 radial oscillation periods,
and so on. At one half of an axial oscillation period, we observe the same high-aspect-ratio atom
cloud, only this time it is oriented along the radial, rather than the axial, direction.
These measurements indicate that what we are observing is the oscillation in the magnetic
trap of the atoms ejected during the explosion. Essentially, the ejected atom cloud is exhibiting
breathing motion as described in subsection 4.6.6.

Due to the harmonic trap potential, theradial/axial coordinate of every particle is the precisely the same at time intervals separated by one
radial/axial oscillation period. Since the atoms in the explosion were originally ejected from thecollapsing condensate, at the appropriate times after the explosion the magnetic trap will refocus
their coordinates to their initial values possessed at the time of the explosion. If the trap frequencies
were the same in the radial and axial directions, then the initial density distribution of the ejected
atoms would be recovered. However, the radial and axial frequencies are not the same, and so theradial coordinate is refocused at a different time than the axial coordinate, producing the observed
density distributions like that in Figure 10.4. By measuring the spatial extent of the ejected atom
cloud at a focus position, the energy in the radial or axial direction can be determined. The fact thatthe atoms ejected in the explosion oscillate in the magnetic trap in the way that they do means thatthe explosion did not alter the magnetic sublevel state of these atoms.
10.3.5 Remnant Condensate. Not all of the atoms are lost from the condensate during thecollapse process. Eventually, the rapid loss and explosion cease and what remains is a condensate,
which we refer to as the “remnant.” At least, we presume it is a condensate. If it were in thermal
equilibrium (which it is not), then the atoms are dense and cold enough that their phase space density
would suggest that the cloud was a condensate. The atoms also respond to a change in the scattering
length, expanding due to increases in the value of a, but this behavior is not exclusive tocondensates.

More investigations may definitively determine the coherence properties of theremnant. The number of the atoms in the remnant was observed to be stable after the rapid loss wascompleted. In other words, there has been no evidence of a second collapse after the first one.
The remnants are observed to be oscillating in the magnetic trap with large amplitudes.
Figure 10.5 shows the measured widths of a remnant as a function of time. The small size of the384

Figure 10.5(Color). This figure demonstrates the oscillations of the remnant by plotting the radialwidth as a function of time at the a < 0 field. The solid line is a fit to the widths composed of twosine waves. The two frequencies of the sine waves correspond to twice the radial and axial
frequencies within the measurement error. The two false color images show the peaked structures
observed in the condensates as the remnant is oscillating.

385
remnants makes a definitive determination of the widths difficult, but the curve in Figure 10.5 does
show that periodic motion is occurring. Also, the remnants are observed to have structure in theirdensity distribution as they are oscillating, as shown in the two inset figures of Figure 10.5. The
source of this structure is not known at this time.
10.3.6 “Missing” Atoms. One can sum the number of atoms observed in the burst and thenumber of atoms in the remnant and the sum of these two is not equal to the initial number of atoms
in the condensate. Therefore, some atoms are no longer observed, and we refer to these as “missing”
atoms. The burst fraction remains constant as | acollapse| is increased while the remnant number
decreases, so the fraction of missing atoms increases as |acollapse| increases.
What has happened to the missing atoms to make them unobservable is still unknown. One
possibility is that these atoms have somehow had enough energy imparted to rapidly leave the region
around the condensate. The optical depth of the missing atoms would then drop quickly and theywould not be observed in the absorption images. If we could improve the sensitivity of our recapture
fluorescence measurement (subsections 4.11.1 and 4.11.2), then it may be possible to detect suchenergetic atoms. Another possibility is that the missing atoms have been converted to molecules sothat they would not scatter any of the light from the probe laser during the absorption imaging. It isalso possible that both of these hypotheses are true, i.e. energetic molecules are created.
Determination of the reasons that the missing atoms are unobservable would be useful in
illuminating the nature of their creation.
10.3.7 Condensate Collapse After the Magnetic Trap Turnoff. At low magnetic fields,
the value of a is large and negative ( 400 a0). Therefore, it would be expected that the condensates
would collapse after the magnetic trap was turned off. Often, however, the impulse imparted to thecondensates during the magnetic trap turnoff (subsection 7.2.2) prevents the condensates fromcollapsing before the atom cloud is imaged. When the initial density is high enough, though, theoutward impulse is not enough to overcome the mean-field attraction at B ~ 0, and the condensates
do collapse after the magnetic trap is turned off.
The basic features observed in the condensate collapses due to the trap turnoff are the sameas those observed for collapses in the magnetic trap. There is a rapid loss of atoms, and an explosion

386
of hot atoms occurs. Since we usually let the condensates expand for ~ 2 ms before the cloud isimaged, the atoms in the explosion can look like a thermal component and so the turnoff collapse
complicates the determination of the number of the thermal atoms. By using a magnetic field ramp
to impart some outward velocity to dense condensates, this turnoff explosion can be eliminated.

10.4 Possible Future Experiments with 85Rb BEC.
In addition to the detailed quantitative measurements of the collapse dynamics that arenearly completed, there are several other lines of investigation currently being considered and I willclose this thesis with some brief speculation about possible future experiments in 85Rb. As I
mentioned in the introduction to this Chapter, I believe that 85Rb will produce interesting studies of avariety of physics in the future. Given our past experience, it is difficult to predict what theinteresting physics will be. Future observations will likely reveal surprising behavior, such as thefeatures observed in the measurements of the collapse dynamics, presenting new avenues ofinvestigation that cannot be discerned now.
10.4.1 Revisiting the Region of Large Positive a. The next set of experiments will likely
investigate condensate dynamics at large values of a > 0, like the work discussed in Chapter VIII.
Before attempting to measure any corrections to mean-field theory predictions using collective
excitation frequencies again, several other experiments are likely. The loss and heating rates andmechanisms at large positive scattering length can be measured, both so that the rates are known forthe purpose of planning and interpreting any measurements performed at those fields, and toinvestigate if the losses and heating rates are consistent with the ordinary two-body dipole relaxationand three-body recombination mechanisms.
By quickly ramping to large values of a > 0, it will also be possible to investigate the timethat it takes for condensates to respond to a rapid change in the scattering length.

Such anexperiment is likely examining a beyond-mean-field effect, since the probability of finding one atomnear another will likely be important for establishing the new value of the scattering length in thecondensate. There are several possible time scales that could be relevant: the time scale associatedwith the bound state energy ~ h/2ma2 (which is independent of the density of the cloud); the timescale of the fluctuations associated with the beyond-mean-field corrections (i.e. fluctuations on the387
spatial scale of the condensate healing length [12]) ~ 4πhna/m; the time scale associated withmolecular oscillations in pairing theory [97] ~ gn1/2/h (where g ~ 2.8 x 10–38 Jm3/2); or perhaps someother time scale or some combination of these. To give an idea of what these various time scales
are, for a density of 1x 1012 cm 3 and a scattering length of a = 10,000 a0, the three time scales listed
above are ~ 0.7 ms, ~0.2 ms, and ~ 40 µs. A possible experiment to measure the time scale forcondensates to respond to a rapid change in the scattering length would be to change the magnetic
field very rapidly to a large positive scattering length field, wait a variable time, and then ramp backto the original field. If the condensate does not respond to this ramp (i.e. it does not expand as muchas expected), then the wait time can be used to calculate the time that it takes for a condensate torespond to a rapid change in the scattering length.
The measurement of beyond-mean-field corrections to the GP equation (see Chapter VIII)
could be performed by using rapid ramps to fields with large scattering length. Instead of measuring
the shift in the condensate collective excitation frequencies, the expansion rate of condensates in
response to a change in the value of a could be measured. Since the expansion rate will depend on
the energy per particle in the condensate, deviations from the mean-field predicted expansion ratewould be observed as the beyond-mean-field corrections became significant. An expansion ratecannot in general be measured as precisely as a frequency shift. However, the avoidance of thetemperature-dependent effects described in Chapter VIII may well offset any loss in sensitivity,
since it will be possible to conduct experiments at fields with larger values of na3.
10.4.2 Thermodynamic Functions as a Function of Scattering Length. The value of a is
expected to affect both the BEC phase transition critical temperature and the relationship between
the fraction of atoms in the thermal component and the temperature of the cloud [12]. A positive
value of a is expected to lower the critical temperature since the mean-field repulsion tends to lower
the peak density of the cloud. A study of the critical temperature as a function of scattering length
could confirm this expected effect. Some preliminary work was done studying this effect withlimited success, and the increased knowledge of how ramping the magnetic field can elucidate
condensate properties should allow a better characterization of this effect.

388
10.4.3 Going Over the Feshbach Resonance Peak. The studies detailed in subsection
7.2.3 show that it is possible to ramp over the Feshbach resonance peak without a significant amountof atom loss as long as the density of the condensates is relatively low. This means that it will bepossible to study condensate evolution on the lower-magnetic-field side of the Feshbach resonance.
Since the scattering length is negative at these fields, it is expected that the condensates will
collapse. The first study will be to see if the condensates collapse in the same way at these fields asat the fields with negative scattering length at higher magnetic field. The ability to tune thescattering length towards negative infinity means that the collapse can be studied in a region that isbeyond the range of the applicability of mean-field theory.

Along different lines, predicted

molecule-atom oscillations [94-97] could be searched for, although they are predicted to occur on avery fast time scale (~ tens of microseconds). Of course, the high loss rates in the vicinity of the
Feshbach peak will almost certainly complicate the experiments in this region of magnetic field, but
by ramping past the peak, these loss rates should be able to be minimized and useful investigations
performed.

Bibliography[1] Chris J. Myatt, Ph. D. Thesis, University of Colorado, 1997; C. J. Myatt et al., Opt. Lett. 21, 290(1996).
[2] S. Bose, Z. Phys. 26, 178 (1924).
[3] A. Einstein, Sitzungsber. Kgl. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. 1924, 261 (1924); A. Einstein, Sitzungsber.
Kgl. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. 1925, 3 (1925).
[4] For a review of superfluid Helium properties see J. Wilkes, Properties of Liquid and SolidHelium (Clarendon, Oxford, 1967).
[5] J. L. Lin and J. P. Wolfe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1222 (1993).
[6] M. H. Anderson et al., Science 269, 198 (1995).
[7] K. B. Davis et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1969 (1995).
[8] C. C. Bradley et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1687 (1995).
[9] For a review see C. E. Wieman et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, S253 (1999).
[10] H. F. Hess, Phys. Rev. B 34, 3476 (1986).
[11] D. G. Fried, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3811 (1998).
[12] F. Dalfovo et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 463 (1999)[13] J. L. Roberts et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5109 (1998).
[14] J. L. Roberts et al., Phys. Rev. A, 2001, in press.
[15] J. L. Roberts et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 728 (2000).
[16] S. L. Cornish et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1975 (2000).
[17] J. L. Roberts, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4211 (2001).
[18] E. A. Donley et al., submitted to Nature (London), 2001.
[19] H. Feshbach, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 19, 287 (1962).
[20] W. C. Stwalley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 1628 (1976).
[21] E. Tiesinga et al., Phys. Rev. A 46, R1167 (1992); E. Tiesinga, B. J. Verhaar, and H. Stoof,
Phys. Rev. A 47, 4114 (1993).
[22] See, for instance, L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Mechanics, 3rd Ed. (Pergamon Press,
Oxford, 1976), pg. 159.

390[23] For instance, see J. R. Taylor, Scattering Theory: the Quantum Theory of Nonrelativistic
Collisions (Kreiger, Malabar, Florida, 1987).
[24] For example, see the treatment in R. Shankar, Principles of Quantum Mechanics (Plenum Press,
New York, 1994).
[25] See N. F. Mott and H. S. W. Massey, The theory of Atomic Collisions (Clarendon Press,
Oxford, UK, 1949) for details.
[26] J. J. Sakurai, Modern Quantum Mechanics (Addison-Wesley, New York, 1994) pg. 395-400.
[27] See J. P. Burke, Jr., Ph.D. Thesis, University of Colorado, 1999 for a more complete discussion
and set of references concerning cold collisions between alkali atoms.
[28] M. Born and J. Oppenheimer, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 84, 457 (1927).
[29] C. Cohen-Tannoudji, B. Diu, and F. Laloe, Quantum Mechanics (John Wiley and Sons, New
York, 1977).
[30] J. M. Vogels, B. J. Verhaar, and R. H. Blok, Phys. Rev. A 57, 4049.
[31] J. P. Burke, Jr., C. H. Greene, and J. L. Bohn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3355 (1998).
[32] M. Gajda and K. Rzazewski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2686 (1997); P. Navez et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.
79, 1789 (1997).; M. Holthaus, E. Kalinowski, and K. Kirsten, Annals of Physics 270, 198 (1999).
[33] For a concise treatment see R. Kubo, Statistical Mechanics (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1965),
pp. 29-31.
[34] J. R. Ensher et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 4984 (1996).
[35] For example, see S. M. Barnett, K. Burnett, J. A. Vaccaro, Journal of the Results of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology 101, 593 (1997).
[36] M. R. Andrews et al., Science 275, 637 (1997); J. E. Samisarian et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2040
(2000).
[37] E. A. Burt et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 337 (1997).
[38] For vortices in trapped atomic gas BEC see M. R. Matthews et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2498
(2000); K. W. Madison et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 806 (2000).
[39] K. Huang, Statistical Mechanics (Wiley, New York, 1963), Chapters 13 and 19.
[40] B. D. Esry and C. H. Greene, Phys. Rev. A 60, 1451 (1999)[41] B. D. Esry, Phys. Rev. A 55, 1147 (1997).
[42] See, for example, A. L. Fetter and J. D. Walecka, Quantum Theory of Many-particle Systems(McGraw-Hill, San Francisco 1971).
[43] E. P. Gross, J. Math. Phys. 4, 195 (1963); L. Pitaevskii, Sov. Phys. JETP 13, 451 (1961).
[44] J. O. Andersen and E. Braaten, Phys. Rev. A 60, 2330 (1999).

391[45] N. P. Proukakis, K. Burnett, and H. T. C. Stoof, Phys. Rev. A 57, 1230 (1998).
[46] D. A. W. Hutchinson, E. Zaremba, and A. Griffin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2511 (1997); R. J. Dodd,
M. Edwards, C. W. Clark, and K. Burnett, Phys. Rev. A 57, R32 (1998); S. Giorgini, Phys. Rev. A
61, 063615 (2000).
[47] R. Walser et al., Phys. Rev. A 59, 3878 (1999); R. Walser et al., Phys. Rev. A 63, 013607(2001).
[48] U. Al Khawaja and H. T. C. Stoof, Phys. Rev. A 62, 053602.
[49] M. R. Matthews et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 243 (1998).
[50] A. Corney, Atomic and Laser Spectroscopy (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1977).
[51] U, Volz and H. Schmoranzer, Physica Scripta T65, 48 (1996).
[52] G. P. Barwood, P. Gill, and W. R. C. Rowley, Appl. Phys. B 53. 142 (1991).
[53] E. Arimondo, M. Inguscio, and P. Violino, Rev. Mod. Phys. 49, 31 (1977).
[54] C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg, Atom-Photon Interactions (John Wileyand Sons Inc., New York, 1992), pp. 368-370.
[55] P. D. Lett et al., J. Opt. Soc. Am B 6, 2084 (1989).
[56] J. Dalibard and C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 6, 2023 (1989).
[57] E. Rabb et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2631 (1987).
[58] C. Monroe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 1571 (1990).
[59] C. Wieman, G. Flowers, and S. Gilbert, Am. Jour. Phys. 63, 317 (1995).
[60] T. Walker, D. Sesko, and C. Wieman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 408 (1990).
[61] For instance, A. Gallagher and D. E. Pritchard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 957 (1989); M. H.
Anderson et al., J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 11, 1332 (1994);[62] C. G. Townsend et al., Phys. Rev. A 52, 1423 (1995).
[63] W. D. Phillips and H. Metcalf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 596 (1982).
[64] Jason Ensher, Ph. D. Thesis, University of Colorado, pp. 79-81 (1998) or
B. Demarco, H. Rohner, and D. S. Jin, Rev. Sci. Instru. 70, 1967 (1999).
[65] J.H. Moore, C. C. Davis, and M. A. Copken, Building Scientific Apparatus, 2nd ed.,(AddisonWesley, Reading, Massachusettes, 1989), pg. 79.
[66] M. Stephans, R. Rhodes, and C. Wieman, Journal of Applied Physics 76, 3479 (1994).
[67] K. B. MacAdam, A. Steinbach, and C. Wieman, Am. J. Phys. 60, 109 (1992).

392[68] W. Demtröder, Laser Spectroscopy Basic Concepts and Instrumentation, 2nd Enlarged Ed.
(Springer, Berlin, 1996), pg. 444.
[69] K. L. Corwin et al., Appl. Opt. 37, 3295 (1998).
[70] This liquid crystal shutter had the advantage of being relatively cheap and easy to install.
However, the liquid crystal absorbs about 50% of the laser light and will be likely be replaced in thenear future to improve the collection MOT loading time.
[71] W. Petrich et al., J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 11, 1332 (1994).
[72][73] See, for instance, V. D. Barger and M. G. Olsson, Classical Electricity and Magnetism aContemporary Perspective (Allyn and Bacon, Inc., Boston 1987), pg. 68.
[74] W. Petrich et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 3352 (1995); K. B. Davis et al., ibid. 75, 3969 (1995).
[75] T. Bergeman, E. Erez, and H. Metcalf, Phys. Rev. A 35, 1535 (1987).
[76] F. Reif., Fundamentals of Statistical and Thermal Physics (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965).
[77]C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg, Atom-Photon Interactions (John Wileyand Sons Inc., New York, 1992), pp. 460-489.
[78] P. Horwitz, Appl. Phys. Lett. 26, 306 (1975); J. C. Camparo and R. D. Frueholz, Phys. Rev. A
30, 803 (1984).
[79] L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Mechanics, 3rd Ed. (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1976), pg. 80.
[80] The resolution limit listed here is the usual one given by the Rayleigh criterion (see R. A.
Serway, Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics, 3rd Ed. (Saunders College
Publishing, Philadelphia, 1990), pg. 1080, or any other general physics or introductory optics
textbook). This criterion does not apply as obviously to our system since we are not trying toresolve two separate objects, but the FWHM of a sub-resolution limit object is roughly equal to theresolution limit given in the Rayleigh criterion.
[81] P. Meystre and M. Sargent III, Elements of Quantum Optics, 2nd Ed. (Springer-Verlag, Berlin,1991).
[82] For instance, see V. Sanchez-Villicana, S. D. Gensemer, and P. L. Gould, Phys. Rev. A 54,
R3730 (1996).
[83] M. Marinescu and L. You, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4596 (1998).
[84] P. O. Fedichev, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2913 (1996).
[85] J. L. Bohn and P. S. Julienne, Phys. Rev. A 56, 1486.
[86] A. J. Moerdijk et al., Phys. Rev. A 51, 4852; J. M. Vogels et al., Phys. Rev. A 56, R1067(1997).
[87] C. R. Monroe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 414 (1993).
[88] N. R. Newbury, C. J. Myatt, and C. E. Wieman, Phys. Rev. A 51, R2680 (1995).

393[89] For a review, see P. S. Julienne, J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 101, 487 (1996).
[90] S. Inouye et al., Nature (London) 392, 151 (1998); J. Stenger et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2422
(1999).
[91] Ph. Courteille et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 69 (1998).
[92] J. L. Roberts et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5109 (1998).
[93] V. Vuletic et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1406 (1999); V. Vuletic et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 943(1999).
[94] E. Timmermans et al., Phys. Rep. 315, 199 (1999); E. Timmermans et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83,
2691 (1999).
[95] F. A. van Abeelen and B. J. Verhaar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1550 (1999).
[96] V. A. Yurovsky, et al., Phys. Rev. A 60, R765 (1999).
[97] M. Holland, J. Park, and R. Walser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1915 (2001).
[98] C. R. Monroe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 414 (1993).
[99] A. Griffin, W. C. Wu, and S. Stingari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 1838 (1997).
[100] E. A. Burt et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 337 (1997).
[101] This value for κ agrees to within 4% of a recent Monte-carlo calculation in B. DeMarco et al.,Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 4208 (1999).
[102] J. Burke, private communication[103] Before the completion of our studies, two other groups observed Feshbach resonances in low
temperature collisions between alkali atoms (see Refs. [90] and [91]). We took data while oursystem was suffering from very short magnetic trap lifetimes, on the order of 14 seconds (seesubsection 4.4.3), and saw indications of a change in scattering length near 160 G. Systematiceffects present at the time prevented us from being confident that we really were seeing a change inthe scattering length, however, until the vacuum problem was fixed so that we could better prepare
our samples. In the meantime, we alerted the group at the University of Texas of our preliminary
results, and this explains the acknowledgement in Ref. [91].
[104] F. H. Mies et al., J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 101, 521 (1996).
[105] G. F. Gribakin and V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. A 48, 546 (1993).
[106] The values for C8 and C10 were taken from M. Marinescu, H. R. Sadeghpour, and A. Dalgarno,
Phys. Rev. A 49, 982 (1994).
[107] H. M. J. M. Boesten et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 5194 (1996).
[108] J. P. Burke, Jr. et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2097 (1998).
[109] C. C. Tsai et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1245 (1997).

394[110] P. S. Julienne et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 1880 (1997); J. P. Burke, Jr. et al., Phys. Rev. A 55,
R2511 (1997).
[111] H. M. J. M. Boesten et al.¸ Phys. Rev. A 56, 636 (1997).
[112] M. R. Matthews et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 243 (1998).
[113] C. J. Myatt et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 586 (1997).
[114] J. Burke, Jr. and Carl Williams have both communicated to me that the position of the
Feshbach resonance should change by several gauss from the zero temperature location when thecollision energies are on the order of 100 µK. Communications with D. Heinzen indicated that they
did not take this shift in the position of the Feshbach resonance into account in his and his
coworkers’ original analysis.
[115] C. J. Williams, private communication. This theoretical analysis was preliminary at the time.
[116] A. Derevianko et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3589 (1999). In this work, C6 was calculated to be
4691±50.
[117] J. M. Vogels et al., Phys. Rev. A 61, 043407 (2000). Here, C6 was measured to be 4650±50.
[118] J. P. Burke, Jr. et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2097 (1998).
[119] F.H. Mies et al., J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 101, 521 (1996).
[120] P. O. Fedichev, M. W. Reynolds, and G. V. Shlyapnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2921 (1996).
[121] A. J. Moerdijk, H. M. J. M. Boesten, and B. J. Verhaar, Phys. Rev. A 53, 916 (1996).
[122] B. D. Esry, C. H. Greene, and J. P. Burke, Jr., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1751 (1999). The authorsof this paper have communicated to us that the predictions contained in it are a factor of six too highdue to a mistake in the calculations.
[123] E. Nielsen and J. H. Macek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1566 (1999).
[124] P. F. Bedaque, E. Braaten, and H. W. Hemmer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 908 (2000).
[125] P. Leo, C. Willimas, and P. Julienne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2721(2000); P. L. Leo et al., Phys.
Rev. Lett. 81, 1389 (1998).
[126] S. Kotochigova, E. Tiesinga, and P. S. Julienne, Phys. Rev. A 63, 012517 (2000).
[127] P. R. Bevington, Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences (McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1969).
[128] C. J. Williams (NIST, Gaithersburg) private communication. The methods described in Ref.
[119] were used with an updated Rb-Rb interaction potential. The dipolar rates at several collisionenergies were given for each field.
[129] For a description of the polarization rotation imaging used in the 7Li work, see C. C. Bradley,
C. A. Sackett, and R. G. Hulet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 985 (1997). This treatment does not solve
Maxwell’s equations in the slowly varying envelope approximation, however, and so their results are
not guaranteed to be correct. Most polarization rotation imaging treatments do not consider a spinpolarized sample. See for example, B. P. Ablitt, et al., Waves in Random Media 9, 561 (1999).

395[130] See B. P. Anderson and M. A. Kasevich, Phys. Rev. A 59, R938 (1999) and the references
therein.
[131] M. R. Andrews et al., Science 273, 84 (1996).
[132] http://fermion.colorado.edu/~chg/Collisions/[133] H. Beijerinck, preprint.
[134] K. B. Davis, M. O. Mewes, and W. Ketterle, Appl. Phys. B 60, 155 (1995).
[135] P. A. Ruprecht et al., Phys. Rev. A 51, 4704 (1995).
[136] T. D. Lee, K. Huang, and C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. 106, 1135 (1957).
[137] See, for instance, A. L. Fetter, Phys. Rev. A 53, 4245 (1996).
[138] N. Bogoliubov, J. Phys. (Moscow) 11, 23 (1947).
[139] M. R. Andrews et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 553 (1997).
[140] J. Denschlag et al., Science 287, 971 (2000); S. Burger et al., cond-mat /9910487 at
xxx.lanl.gov e-print website; B. P. Anderson et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2926 (2001).
[141] S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2360 (1996).
[142] D. S. Jin et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 420 (1996).
[143] M.-O. Mewes et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 988 (1996).
[144] D. S. Jin et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 764 (1997).
[145] D. M. Stamper-Kurn et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 500 (1998).
[146] G. Hechenblaikner et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 692 (2000).
[147] M. Edwards et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1671 (1996).
[148] V. M. Perez-García et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 5320 (1996).
[149] L. Pitaevskii and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4541 (1998).
[150] E. Braaten and J. Pearson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 255 (1999).
[151] S. Giorgini, Phys. Rev. A 61, 063615 (2000).
[152] S. Giorgini, J. Boronat, and J. Casulleras, Phys. Rev. A 60, 5129 (1999).
[153] This argument is attributed to A. Leggett.
[154] See Ref. [12] and the discussion and references therein concerning the damping of collective
excitations.
[155] S. Giorgini, private communication.

396[156] R. J. Dodd et al., Phys. Rev. A 54, 661 (1996).
[157] F. Dalfovo and S. Stingari, Phys. Rev. A 53, 2477 (1996).
[158] M. Houbiers and H. T. C. Stoof, Phys. Rev. A 54, 5055 (1996).
[159] A. Gammal, T. Frederico, and L. Tomio, Phys. Rev. E 60, 2421 (1999).
[160] A. Eleftheriou and K. Huang, Phys. Rev. A 61, 043601 (2000).
[161] L. Berge, T. J. Alexander, and Y. S. Kivshar, Phys. Rev. A 62, 023607 (2000).
[162] V. M. Perez-Garcia, H. Michinel, and H. Herrero, Phys. Rev. A 57, 3837 (1998).
[163] B. Esry, private communication.
[164] A. Gammal, T. Frederico, and L. Tomio, cond-mat/0104231 at http://xxx.lanl.gov e-print
server.
[165] A. L. Pattenayak et al., Phys. Rev. A 63, 033604 (2001).
[166] Eric Cornell and Susannah Kreim, private communication.
[167] Y. Kagan, A. Muryshev, and G. V. Shlyapnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81. 933 (1998).
[168] C.C. Bradley, C. A. Sackett, and R. G. Hulet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 985 (1997).
[169] J. M. Gerton et al., Nature (London) 408, 6813 (2000).
[170] C. A. Sackett et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 876 (1999).
[171] Ernst et al., Appl. Phys. B 67, 719 (1998).
[172] C. A. Sackett, H. T. C. Stoff, and R. G. Hulet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2031 (1998).
.
[173] H. T. C. Stoof, J. Stat. Phys. 87, 1653 (1997).
[174] In contrast to Ref. [173] M. Ueda and A. J. Leggett, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1576 (1998) and J. L.
Bohn, B. D. Esry, and C. H. Greene, Phys. Rev. A 58, 584 (1998) both find that the quantum
tunneling probability is extremely small unless the number of atoms in the condensate is within a
few atoms of the critical number.
[175] See, for instance, W. H. Press et al., Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom 1989), pp. 529-538.
[176] It has been suggested to us that this lower value of the stability coefficient may be indicative ofa local collapse at the peak density of the condensate. The theory underlying this claim has not been
fully developed, however, and we are by no means convinced that this is the explanation for the low
value of k that we measured. See M. Ueda and K. Huang, Phys. Rev. A 60, 3317 (1999).
[177] M. J. Davis, D. A. W. Hutchinson, and E. Zaremba, J. Phys. B 32, 3993 (1999).
[178] E. J. Mueller and G. Baym, Phys. Rev. A 62, 0.53605 (2000).

397