Laser-cooling atoms to indistinguishability: Atomic
Hong-Ou-Mandel interference and entanglement throughspin-exchange
byAdam Kaufman
B.A., Amherst College, 2009

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
2015This thesis entitled:
Laser-cooling atoms to indistinguishability: Atomic Hong-Ou-Mandel interference andentanglement through spin-exchange
written by Adam Kaufman
has been approved for the Department of Physics

Cindy Regal

Prof. Ana Maria Rey

Date

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

iii
Kaufman, Adam (Ph.D., Physics)
Laser-cooling atoms to indistinguishability: Atomic Hong-Ou-Mandel interference and entanglement through spin-exchange
Thesis directed by Prof. Cindy Regal

In this thesis, I describe the development of and scientific results from a new platform forcreating ultracold atoms via single-atom control. We employ Raman-sideband cooling to isolatedbosonic 87 Rb atoms confined within sub-micron optical tweezers, yielding single particle threedimensional ground-state fractions of 90%. We create multiple, independent, mobile optical tweezers, which simultaneously allows multi-particle studies with single-atom microscopy and highly
tunable length-scales. We employ this toolset in both of the main experiments discussed in thisthesis. In one experiment, we observe Hong-Ou-Mandel interference of two bosonic atoms, each ofwhich is independently prepared in spatially separated optical tweezers. The interference we observe is a direct consequence of the purity of the single particle quantum states produced, and theindistinguishability of the atoms. In a second experiment, we introduce a spin-degree of freedom
and exploit spin-exchange dynamics, driven by the quantum-statistics of the particles, to create aspin-entangled pair of spatially separated atoms.

Dedication

Dedicated to my cute, loyal, and deeply insane border-collie husky: Maddy. No just kidding myparents.

v

Acknowledgements

The first time I walked into JILA B232-6 as a graduate student was in early August, 2009.
The lab consisted of a chair and a phone. The arrangement was that I would call Cindy once I
got there because she would be arriving later in January. She gave very direct advice: you need tofigure out a laser system design for cooling and trapping, use this to make a list of what to buy,
and then buy it (along with things like scissors and zipties), because we need to spend 100k in
three weeks. This was terrifying, but it is also exemplary of what has been an amazing experience
working for Cindy. There was clear guidance, but complete freedom to explore. She’s a brilliant
investigator, with super human time management skills. Always willing to make time to discussvarious things and offer support where necessary, I could not imagine a better advisor over the past
6 years and I am extremely grateful to her. She is also exceptionally tolerant of neurotic graduate
students; this was crucial in my case.
At JILA I benefited greatly from the network of students and professors. In particular, I
would like to highlight Debbie who was my de facto advisor for my first six months at JILA.
This advisor role continued from a distance while I have been at JILA, providing guidance andawesome paper edits. I have also learned a great deal from watching her ask questions in talks
and presentations: specifically how to think clearly about experimental physics, to figure out what
information you (probably) know and don’t know.
I owe a tremendous thank you to Brian, my labmate of the past five years. Brian is a supersmart, technical thinker, whose attention to detail has saved us from many snags over the past
couple of years. He is also a fount of optics knowledge which has been crucial to the experiment.

vi
Outside of lab, he has been a great friend, always willing to lend a hand, and completely and utterly
always down for a beer. I also would like to thank Collin: in addition to awesome programmingskills and ability to quickly pick up on a lot of things, it was great spending time with you in lab
while it lasted, and so glad that it has continued outside out of lab even after you left. Outsideof the single atoms lab, Tom Purdy has been an indispensible person in the Regal group: he justknows everything, which is very helpful. The rest of the lab (present and historic) – Ben, Bob, Nir,
Kathrin, Niclas – have created an awesome, relaxed community.
Much of the work in this thesis emerged from a collaboration with Ana Maria Rey’s group.
Our meetings have been critical, and the awesome theory input from Michael “KoWally bear”
Wall, Kaden *inappropriate to a thesis* Hazzard, and Mike “the entanglement tangoist” Foss-Feigindispensable. These guys in particular deserve a medal for tolerating my endless questions. I would
like to highlight the Mike, who, in addition to being brilliant, has been a great, albeit permanently
disparaging, friend.
My time at Amherst was pivotal in a lot of ways, and I am particularly grateful to David, Jagu
and Russ. David made it clear it was OK to be a little crazy, while Jagu is the wise Dumbledoreof Amherst. Russ, among many things, established my deep addiction to mathematica.
Ah, and, Jeff, with whom I have been in continuous gchat conversation for approximately
the time I have had gmail, through the ups and downs of college, grad school and surely the future.
More dedicated friends don’t exist.
Annalise and I met approximately three years into graduate school, and I’m so glad we did
because by that point I had not been motivated to do my laundry in approximately three years.
Not just my hygiene, but my life got a lot better at that point, and I could not be more happy
that we met. In addition, she has been intensely tolerant of mild-to-severe workaholism. Over thisperiod I could not have imagined a better partner. Along with Annalise came a second family, inthe form of Miel and Riri and the bros.
I owe a great deal to the support of my brother and parents, along with Ellie and Adie. My
brother, Jake, has been a firm believer in the importance of being a nerd – this was validating

vii– and a supplier of endless disgusting texts. Through thick and thin, my dad has been steadfast
advocate, supporter, and friend, always willing to lend an ear and defy expectations about what itmeans to be enthusiastic about the capabilities of a toaster. Lastly, of any person it is perhaps mymom, a science teacher (among other things), who got me started down this path: when I was 5
or so, she got out a half-covered pot of water and put it over a flame, making me watch until thewater had completely evaporated. Showing the condensed water on the pot lid, she explained theparallel to rain, and I was hooked.

Contents

Chapter
1 Introduction

1

1.1

Historical perspective. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

1.2

A new perspective on neutral atom control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3

1.3

Atomic Hong-Ou-Mandel effect: two-particle interference in tunnel-coupled opticaltweezers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.4

1.5

Spin-exchange between neutral atoms: realizing particle entanglement between spatially separated atoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8Goals and outline of thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

92 Apparatus for single-atom preparation, manipulation, and trapping
2.1

6

11

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1.1

Experimental design perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.1.2

Key components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.2

Vacuum chamber and cell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.3

Laser system and beam layout. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.3.1

Lasers for the MOT and spin preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.3.2

Beam layout at the cell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.4

Microscopic objective tests performed outside of the experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2.5

Coil mount system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

ix
2.6

Optical rail system for creation of optical tweezer arrays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2.7

Tools of the trade for single atoms in optical tweezer potentials . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2.8

2.9

2.7.1

Typical experimental sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2.7.2

Single atom loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2.7.3

Single atom imaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

In-situ characterization of the optical system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.8.1

Imaging performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

2.8.2

In-situ characterization of the optical tweezer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Creation and control of a double-well potential formed by optical tweezers . . . . . . 30
2.9.1

Relative intensity control of a double-well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

2.9.2

Spacing control of a double-well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

2.10 Spin-sensitive detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.11 Optical pumping in an optical tweezer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.11.1 Optimizing the optical pumping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.11.2 Vector light shifts and effects on the optical pumping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.12 Two-particle spin-preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.12.1 Microwave rotations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.12.2 Spin addressing of single atoms in optical tweezers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3 Cooling a single atom in an optical tweezer to its motional ground-state

44

3.1

Quick summary of Raman sideband cooling in an optical tweezer . . . . . . . . . . . 45

3.2

Theory of coherent Raman transitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

3.3

3.2.1

Raman transition Rabi frequencies: internal degrees of freedom . . . . . . . . 47

3.2.2

Raman transitions: external degrees of freedom and full Hamiltonian . . . . . 50

3.2.3

Full Hamiltonian for a harmonically bound atom and coherent dynamics . . . 52

Raman-sideband cooling theory: adding dissipation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.3.1

Continuous cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

x
3.3.2

Pulsed cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

3.3.3

Optical pumping purity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

3.3.4

Choosing between pulsed cooling and continuous: taking stock of experimental and theoretical concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

3.4

Experimental results: Raman-sideband cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.4.1

Choice of beam geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

3.4.2

Beam generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

3.4.3

Characterization of initial temperature before sideband-cooling . . . . . . . . 67

3.4.4

2D pulsed cooling results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

3.4.5

3D pulsed cooling results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

3.4.6

3D continuous sideband cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

3.4.7

3D Gaussian-pulsed cooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

4 Atomic Hong-Ou-Mandel effect: Two-particle quantum interference in tunnel-coupled optical tweezers

86

4.1

Introduction: interfering indistinguishable single atoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

4.2

Entanglement, symmetrization, and distinguishability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
4.2.1

Entanglement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

4.2.2

Symmetrization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

4.2.3

Entanglement of identical particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

4.2.4

First and second quantization in HOM interference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

4.2.5

Mode entanglement of internal degrees of freedom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

4.2.6

Particle and mode entanglement: role of interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

4.2.7

Distinguishability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

4.3Intermission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

4.4

Overview of tunneling experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
4.4.1

Experimental sequence and detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

xi
4.4.2
4.5

Theory treatment of a double-well formed by (nearly) gaussian optical tweezers109

Tunneling in a double-well potential: characterization and dependences . . . . . . . 111
4.5.1

Initiating tunneling experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

4.5.2

Single particle tunneling characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

4.6

On-site interaction energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

4.7

Dynamical Hong-Ou-Mandel interference of two atoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

4.8

4.7.1

Single atom beam splitter formed by optical tweezers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

4.7.2

Ideal two-atom quantum interference via tunneling dynamics . . . . . . . . . 128

4.7.3

Observation of the atomic HOM effect via two-particle tunneling dynamics . 131

Tuning the distinguishability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
4.8.1

Varying the two-particle distinguishability via the spin degree of freedom . . 135

4.8.2

Variation of the HOM interference with temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

5 Entangling transportable atoms via local spin-exchange
5.1

5.2

5.3

141

Theory of spin-exchange for neutrals atoms interacting via a contact potential . . . . 142
5.1.1

Basics of spin-exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

5.1.2

Interaction energy for the triplet and singlet channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

5.1.3

Spin exchange dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

Observation of spin-exchange dynamics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

5.2.1

Generating and detecting two-particle spin-configurations in a single tweezer 148

5.2.2

Spin-exchange oscillations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

5.2.3

Analysis of the exchange contrast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

Verifying non-local entanglement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
5.3.1

Detecting entanglement via the spin-parity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

5.3.2

Creating a bound on parity oscillations for separable density matrices . . . . 167

5.3.3

Experimentally verifying entanglement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

xii
6 Conclusion

177

6.1

Measurement-induced entanglement of atoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

6.2

Microscopic Kondo model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

6.3

Observing superfluid behavior in a system of known particle number . . . . . . . . . 180

6.4

Measuring entanglement entropy and thermalization in finite-sized systems . . . . . 181

184

Bibliography

Appendix
A Derivation of bounds for distinguishable particles and further analysis of the two-particle
tunneling contrast

196

A.1 Creation of bounds and analysis of the HOM oscillations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
A.1.1 Constructing two-particle tunneling oscillation bounds on distinguishable particles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
A.2 Analysis of observed HOM interference: understanding indistinguishability with imperfect beam splitters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
B Summary of HOM measurements and associated statements about statistical siginificance 211
C Derivation of parity oscillation bound for a separable density matrix

213

Figures

Figure1.1

New experiments enabled by the optical-tweezer platform. (a) We create an atomic
beam splitter to observe two-particle interference, thereby revealing for the first timethe Hong-Ou-Mandel effect [1] with independently prepared atoms. (b) Startingwith an an atom in each of two spatially separated optical tweezers, we tailor the
microscopic physics to produce entangling spin-exchange collisions. Upon producing
entanglement, we separate the particles and verify that the entanglement produced
locally persists to create non-local quantum correlations between the atomic spins.
This toolbox is crucial to using spin-exchange-based gates with neutral atoms for aquantum-computing architecture [2]. The subscripts of the states represent the atom
locations over the course of the operation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.2

5

Quantum gas assembly. (a) A potential array is loaded stochastically with thermal,
single atoms via light-assisted collisions [3]. (b) After imaging the random spatial
distribution, an optical tweezer sequentially drags atoms (red arrows) into a central
region (red square) (c) The resulting uniform array can be imaged, and the detected
atoms on the edge can be removed with the optical tweezers. (d) Three-dimensional
Raman sideband cooling is applied, initializing each atom independently in its motional ground-state (e) By removing spatial and motional entropy, it is possible tomelt to a superfluid from a small Mott insulator via the quantum gas assembly
protocol outlined in the prior steps.

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

7

xiv
2.1

Photograph of the experiment circa 2015. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.2

Photographs taken of the cell (a) shortly after it was affixed to the rest of the vacuum
chamber (b). The cell was aligned (within 0.2o ) to the plane of the optical table byreflecting a leveled laser off of the large windows. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.3

Three external-cavity diode lasers are used for the MOT and single-atom spin preparation. The optical pumping and cycling light for imaging are derived from the F = 2
laser and switched separately with AOMs. Two of the three MOT beams are generated via an injection locked amplifier with light from the F = 2 laser. The repump
light is derived from the F = 1 laser: two separate fibers (with separate AOMs)
carry repump to the experiment for the MOT and spin preparation of the atom(s),since they require different polarizations and beam vectors. Also shown is the Raman
laser, which is derived from a DBR diode detuned red by approximately 50 GHz of
the D2 line.The details of generation of the light used for driving Raman transitions
along all three dimensions of the optical tweezer is discussed in Chapter 3. The
transition splittings here are taken from Ref. [4]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.4

Multiple beams are used for single-atom trapping and ground-state cooling. A sideand top view of the setup is provided, and a coordinate system used consistently(for the most part) throughout this thesis. In the text we elucidate abbreviations
for beams and optical elements. Unless otherwise indicated, every cube is polarizing. 18

2.5

Imaging data through the ASE objective and a window similar (same manufacturer
and batch) to those created for our cell. (a) We show a magnified image of a dual
pinhole target for testing the objective performance and imaging magnification. The
relative dimness of the upper right pinhole image is due to the inhomogeneous rear
illumination of the target. (b) We show the azimuthal average of the imaged spots
with a fit using the model in Eq. 2.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

xv
2.6

In-situ ASE lens alignment. We optimize the input beam collimation (a), and angularlens alignment in y (a) and x (c). The angles are quoted with respect to the normalof the cell window, to which the input beam is also aligned. The alignment signal
is the axial trap frequency, which, in contrast to the radial frequency, is sensitive toboth the spot-size and z length scale of the trap. The trap frequencies are measurewith parametric excitation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2.7

We designed and machined in-house a coil mount to fit around the cell and accommodate the spatial constraints imposed by the large objective. We performed
numerical simulations in the Mathematica Radia package of the expected current tofield performance for these coil pairs, which are each in the Helmholtz configuration.
The created fields were consistent with the expectation at the < 5% level. . . . . . . 21

2.8This is a schematic of the rail system used to generate the light focused by theobjective to form the optical tweezers. The light emerges from an AR-coated FC-PC
connectorized optical fiber and is collimated to 2w0 ≈ 1.4 mm by an asphere “CA”.
It then passes through AOV, an AOM which realizes vertical (y) angular deflections.
A 1:1, 4.5 cm relay images the center of AOV on to the center of AOH, an AOM
which realizes horizontal (x) defections. A second 1:1, 15 cm relay images the centerof AOH onto the center of the first lens in the telescope, “GLC”. The beam is blown
up by a factor of 20 (which commensurately demagnifies the angular deflections)once it is collimated by a 30 cm achromat. We have observed that the AOMs canrotate the polarization of the beam in a temperature dependent fashion: a pair ofpolarizing beamsplitters and a half-wave plate fix the fraction of light that is picked
off to a photodiode for intensity stabilization. A pair of resulting spots imaged by a
1 m achromat are displayed when two RF tones of 7.5 MHz spacing are introduced
to AOV.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

xvi
2.9

Here we illustrate a typical experimental sequence for performing a quantum dynamics experiment. A MOT of up to 106 atoms is formed, and free space polarizationgradient cooling (PGC: reduced intensity, -70 MHz cycling detuning, zeroed magnetic
fields) cools the cloud to approximately 10 µK. At this point, some number of atoms
are loaded into the tweezers and undergo light-assisted collisions [3, 5] in the presence of the red-detuned cooling light, thereby reducing the atom number in eachtweezer to 0 or 1. The atom populations in each optical tweezer is imaged, and thetrapped atoms are re-cooled with PGC (temperatures from which are discussed in
Chapter 3). We then independently initialize the spin and three-dimensional motional state of each atom with optical pumping and Raman-sideband cooling (seeChapter 3). The optical tweezers are then adiabatically ramped to a new configuration associated with a Hamiltonian of interest; dynamics ensue. The depths andspacing of the tweezers are then varied diabatically with respect to the timescales of
the aforementioned Hamiltonian, into a configuration amenable to spatially-resolved
single atom detection. In the sequence shown above, the atom’s position switchesfrom the left tweezer to the right. The majority of experiments in this thesis occur
in 0.5 seconds or less. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

xvii
2.10 Single atom loading and imaging. (a) We set the single-pass peak intensity of each of
the large MOT beams to a saturation parameter of s0 = 2.0, and each of these beams
delivers 1 mW of repump light; the MOT gradient was set to 9 G/cm. We then vary
the cycling light saturation parameter of the funky-angle beam and measure theload probability. For each data point, the bias fields were reoptimized along all threeaxes, since changing the funky-angle beam intensity moves the MOT position; theplotted load probability corresponds to the peak-loading position. (b) Setting the
funky-angle beam to a saturation parameter of sF0 unky = 1.12, we measure the single
atom load probability. Typically we operate the experiment with a 125 ms loadtime and observe 60 to 63% load probability. Other relevant parameters include thecycling light detuning of −10 MHz and the optical tweezer depth of 1.1 mK. . . . . . 25
2.11 Typical imaging data observed in the experiment for a 25 ms collection. The photon
counts here are computed on the basis of the brightest pixel in the camera image
shown in the figure; the left peak corresponds to our background signal (blue), andthe right peak corresponds to the atom signal (red). The black lines correspond to
the Poissonnian expectation for the peak widths given the fitted center value of thecounts for background. We find reasonable agreement, and hence are reaching thelimit of imaging fidelity for a Poissoinian distribution of photon counts. The green
dashed line is the threshold calculated to minimize detection errors. . . . . . . . . . 26

xviii2.12 In-situ characterization of the atom imaging performance. (a) Fitting a Gaussian to
an ideal Airy disk imaged by a 0.6 NA system at 780 nm. (b) A cross-section of theatom-image in the inset. For these data, the aperture of the objective was set to 26.5mm, corresponding to a 0.62 NA. The red line is a Gaussian fit according to the fit
function in the text. (c) Plot of fitted Gaussian waist v. ideal imaged Airy-disk NA,
for creating an interpolation (dashed line) between Gaussian waist and Airy-disk NA
for analysis of single-atom imaging data. (d) We plot the fitted atom image as wevary the objective aperture, and the corresponding NA of the imaging system. The
red circled point was extracted from the data in (b). The green-dashed line is theinterpolation from (c).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

2.13 Characterization of the optical tweezer. (a) We plot the frequency position of an
atomic loss resonance after exposure to σ + -polarized cycling light as a function of
the optical tweezer depth. The inset plots correspond to the indicated data points
in the main plot. (b) A parametric excitation resonance from which we extract thetweezer radial trap frequency for a given input power. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.14 (a) Shown are two spots formed by focusing the light directly from the collimation
rail with different relative intensity and the associated cross-section of these spots.
The cross-section is meant to illustrate the resulting double-well potential; for red
detuned light, the peaks turn into potential minima. (b) The relative well depth
in units of Hz as a function of the DC control voltage discussed in the text. The
absolute bias plotted is determined by the measured fractional bias from images suchas those in (a) and the experimentally measured single tweezer depths for tunneling(see Sec. 2.8.2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.15 Calibrating the frequency control of the double-well spacing. Imaged atom spacing
as function of varying the frequency of one tone while keeping the other fixed at
80 MHz for AOH (a) and AOV (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

xix
2.16 The tweezer-trapped atoms are illuminated with optical pumping and repump light,
each circularly polarized. |F, mF i = |2, 2i (encircled by a dark blob) is decoupledfrom these beams because no transition exists that can be driven with these polarizations from this state. The green lines indicate σ + light tuned to the 2-2’ transition;
the gray is the σ + repump light on the 1-2’ transition.

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

2.17 Optical pumping optimization by measuring the depumped fraction (into F = 1)
after application of the 2−20 light. (a) Alignment of the optical pumping quantization
axis by varying the angle of an added fixed size field (0.1 G); the parameters ofthe x coil pair are fixed to a 3 G field during this procedure. The pulse lengthis set to near the 1/e-time for an initial set of quantization axis parameters. (b)Varying the amplitude of this added field at fixed angle in the y − z plane for thesame depumping time parameters. (c) Measurement of the scattering rate of the
optical pumping beam when the quantization axis points approximately 45o to thebeam propagation direction; this largely compromises the dark state because thepolarization experienced by the atom is now mixed. (d) Setting the quantization
axis to the optimized parameters and measuring the depumping rate. We observea nearly 1000-fold suppression of the depumping of the dark state between (c) and(d). We also note that this procedure both compensates angular mismatch between
our coil axes and the optical pumping beam, as well as any background magnetic
fields not sufficiently nulled. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

xx
2.18 (a) Mechanism by which tightly focused linearly light couples to circularly polarized
light. Because the electric field rotates on either side of the focus on the scale of awavelength, it adds helicity to the light. (c) We numerically compute the electric fieldcomponents at the focus for a 0.51 NA optical system at 852 nm, and a trap depth of
1.1 mK. Here we approximate that the tweezer beam is uniformly illuminating our
objective, even though we in fact aperture the beam at its 1/e2 waist of 30 mm. Our
calculation therefore could exceed the true gradient by 15% [6]. For the purposesof this illustration I rotated the coordinate system here because our polarization isin the horizontal plane and it is hard to illustrate the electric field gradient when it
points out of the page. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.19 We measure the depumping lifetime τDP for two trap depths as a function of themagnitude of the quantization axis. For large quantization axis (trap depth), we
observe a suppression (increase) of depumping. For each quantization axis used here,
the field angle and tip field were optimized to minimize depumping; for each depth theoptical pumping beam was resonant with the light-shifted transition. However, welater determined that the quarter wave plate angle could have been further optimized,
which is why neither data set reaches the τDP = 25 ms from the previous section.
The scattering rate of the optical pumping beam (∼ 100 kHz) was kept constant to∼ 10% over the entire data set presented here, including the effect of the magnetic
field shifts of the optical transition (1.4 MHz). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

xxi
2.20 Microwave spectroscopy on single atoms (a) A square pulse is applied to a spinpolarized atom in |2, 2i in a 3 G field. The Rabi rate is 50 kHz, and the fit is the
expected response for a driven two-level system on resonance with a 10 µs pulse. (b)A temporally Gaussian pulse is applied with the profile indicated in the figure. The
red line is a fit to a spectral Gaussian, while the black line is the response expected
via numerical evolution of the Schrodinger equation for this pulse profile and themeasured Rabi rate of 36.9 kHz. (c) Typical Rabi oscillations after application of aresonant square-pulse of varied pulse area.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

2.21 (a) Schematic of applying the light-shift beam to the left optical tweezer; the wells
are spaced by 1.57 µm and 1.1 mK deep. (b) Scan of the position of the light-shift
beam when placing resonant cycling light on the fiber. Typically we use a 4µs pulse
with less than 1nW of power in the beam. The blue (red) points correspond to thelikelihood that an atom in the left (right) well survives the pulse application. . . . . 41
2.22 Performing microwave spectra with the light-shift beam aligned to the left opticaltweezer using square (a) and Gaussian (b) pulses. The blue (red) points corresponds
to the likelihood that an atom in the left (right) well is spin-flipped into F = 1. . . . 42
3.1

Experimental setup for tweezer trap, detection, and three-dimensional motional control. (a) Orthogonal radial axes, indicated by x0 and y 0 , are addressed by Raman
beam 1 (RB1) (σ + -polarized) and RB2 (π-polarized), or RB1 and RB3 (π-polarized).
RB1 and RB4 (linearly polarized in y-z plane) address the axial direction. Note weshould be able to cool all three axes with a single pair of counterpropagating beams.
(b) Level diagram for 87 Rb with associated beams from (a). Optical pumping consists of σ + -polarized repump light on the F = 1 → 20 transition along with opticalpumping light on F = 2 → 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

xxii
3.2

Raman transitions. In our setup, we drive transitions of ∆mF = ±1, necessitating one beam of π- polarization (beam 1) and another of circular (beam 2). The
difference in the beam frequencies is resonant with the splitting between the states
between which we hope to drive a transition, up to an amount δ (Raman detuning).
Both beams are far detuned from an excited state |ii, and each yields dressing of
this state quantified by the single photon couplings Ω1 and Ω2 , respectively. For
explanatory purposes, we simplify the picture to driving a transition between two
states, |si and |f i, through a single intermediate, excited state |ii. In practice, theRaman beams couple to many excited states (see text). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

3.3

Coherent sideband and carrier oscillations, determination of n̄, for η R = 0.22 andω/(2π) = 140 kHz. Top (bottom) row for thermal state of temperature 15 µK(1.7 µK) (a,d) Coherent sideband oscillations for δ ≈ ±ω, where to hit resonancefor the sideband oscillations we correct for the slight dressing of the sideband resonance by the carrier (this pulls the sidebands closer to the carrier). The red andblue-sidebands are correspondingly colored. (b,e) Computing n̄ from the sideband
oscillations using Eq. 3.20, and comparing to the dashed line whose position is thetrue n̄ from Eq. 3.21. (c,f) Expected dephasing (and lack thereof) of carrier oscillations via Eq. 3.22 as a function of temperature. For (a,d,c,f) we plot the likelihood
to measure the particle in spin-up, P↑ , given that it started spin-down and in thestated motional distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

3.4

Simulation of continuous sideband cooling. We show the expected dark state population |2, 2; 0i as function of time that an atom is exposed to Raman and optical pumping beams. The blue (green) is for the case of δ ≈ −ω (δ = 0). The
simulation uses parameters close to the radial continuous cooling of Section 3.4.6:ΩR /(2π) = 20 kHz, initial T = 15 µK, η R = 0.22, η OP = 0.16, Γ = 30 ms−1 , andω/(2π) = 140 kHz. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

xxiii
3.5

Simulation of pulsed and chirped pulsed cooling. For both simulations shown, we useΩR /(2π) = 31 kHz, ω/(2π) = 150 kHz, η R = 0.22, η OP = 0.16, δ ≈ ω. (a) Pulsed
sideband cooling using the same pulse length of ∆t = π/(η R ΩR ) = 73 µs for the entire
cooling routine. (b) Pulsed sideband cooling using ∆t = 48 µs (∆t = π/(η R ΩR ))for the first 40 (last 10) pulsed-cooling cycles. The kink at cycle 40 in the coolingtrajectory comes from the change in the pulselength. It is clear that the shorter
pulselength by itself would actually be sufficient for 99% cooling fidelity in ∼ 0.5 ms.
The insets show the motional state occupations at the end of the cooling for each
protocol on the basis of the diagonals of the final density matrix.

3.6. . . . . . . . . . 60

Effect of polarization impurity on different sideband cooling protocols. Using thecontinuous-cooling parameters of Figure 3.4 except that we now use ω/(2π) =150 kHz, and the pulsed-cooling of Figure 3.5b, and we model the effect of the polarization purity of the optical pumping beam. This is achieved by varying the ratioof good to bad polarization, which is equivalent to the ratio of depumping scattering
rate to the good polarization scattering rate: ΓDP /Γ. A term is added to Eq. 3.23
1/2of the form ΓDP σ + . Since we care both about the motional and spin distribution,
I plot the resulting density matrix purity on the y-axis, for the case of continuous(black) and pulsed (purple) cooling. The continuous cooling is significantly morerobust against this experimental systematic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

xxiv
3.7

Single atom sideband spectra and Rabi oscillations in the radial dimensions before (a,b) and after (c, d) ground state cooling. (a) The black squares are a carrier peak inthe y 0 direction using a ∆t = 15 µs (near π) pulse. The red circles (orange triangles)
are sidebands along the y 0 (x0 ) axis for a 75 µs (near π) pulse, demonstrating an
initial thermal population of vibrational states – these axes are defined in Figure
3.1. The solid lines are fits to a Rabi sinc function for the carrier and Lorentzians(an approximation) for the sidebands; each fit contains an offset at our measured
background (gray shaded region centered at 0.04). (b) Carrier Rabi oscillations forthe y 0 direction showing dephasing of a thermal state. Here the carrier Rabi frequency
was set to 15 kHz, instead of 26 kHz. The solid line is a fit to the data using a thermal
distribution of Rabi frequencies. (c) Raman cooled radial sidebands; no Raman
cooling is applied to the axial direction for these data. The black squares are acooled carrier peak using a 15 µs pulse. The blue circles (green triangles) are spectra
along the y 0 (x0 ) axis using a 75 µs pulse, displaying a significant asymmetry thatis the hallmark of a large ground state population. (d) Rabi oscillations for a radial
ground state cooled atom with a fit to a damped sine for the carrier (black squares)
and the ∆n = +1 sideband (blue circles), which demonstrates coherent control ofthe spin-motional states; the carrier dephasing is suppressed due to the purity of thevibrational distribution. Each data point is an average of 150 experimental runs,
and hence ∼ 75 atoms.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

xxv
3.8

Axial spectra and 3D ground state pulsed-cooling of a single neutral atom. (a)A thermal axial spectrum (red squares) using an intensity corresponding to a cold
carrier Rabi frequency of 12 kHz and a ∆t = 65 µs Raman pulse. The data are
fit to Lorentzians (solid line) to guide the eye. (b) Result of simultaneous sideband
cooling in three-dimensions, demonstrating significant sideband asymmetries andsimultaneous ground state occupations in all dimensions. The axial data (center)illustrates our cooling parameters, and is performed with a carrier Rabi frequency of
10.6 kHz and a pulse of 236 µs (near π pulse on the ground state ∆n = +1 sideband,a 5π pulse on the carrier). For the radial data, the blue circles (green triangles) are
spectra along the y 0 (x0 ) axis using a 75 µs pulse. The solid lines on the ∆n = +1
sidebands are Lorentzian fits. (c) After 3D cooling, axial spectroscopy for a halved
carrier Rabi frequency of 5 kHz and a pulse of 450 µs. Better spectroscopic resolution
affirms a large axial ground state occupation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

3.9

Simulated coherent axial spectrum with a square pulse. We simulate an axial spectrum for the parameters: n̄ = 0.1, ΩR /2π = 10.6 kHz, ∆t = 236 µs, η R = 0.23,
and ω/2π = 30 kHz. These parameters closely approximate those used for the axial
spectrum in Figure 3.8b. Since we are using a π-pulse for the sidebands, this necessarily entails lots of oscillations from the carrier which is significantly overdriven.
This complicates applying Eq. 3.20, which assumes that carrier transitions are notoccurring at the position of the sidebands. When performing axial thermometry, we
attribute all the signal at the position of the sidebands, which makes the temperature
estimates conservative. Note that coherent cancellation of the spin-flips between the
carrier and sideband transitions (which in principle could cause underestimating thetemperature) is not possible since the states coupled in each are different: one hasa change in motional state while the other does not. Such paths, therefore, always
add incoherently.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

xxvi
3.10 Since all the Raman beams are derived from the same DBR (with frequency flaser ),their final frequency is determined by the AOs through which they pass, as well as
by the EO for the case of the EO beam. (a) We choose a particular AO frequency(“spectroscopy frequency”) for the top beam (dashed colored lines in figure, bold
frequency labels) when doing carrier calibration, while for the EO beam (solid coloredlines in figure, unbold frequency labels) we scan the microwave frequency (fEO ) that
determines the optical sideband for the Raman process (and its AO frequency isfixed). This measurement yields a microwave frequency for which we observe thecarrier transition: we call this the “carrier frequency.” (b) Fixing fEO to the carrier
frequency, we scan the frequency of the top, bottom, or axial beam to optimize thecooling and ascertain the associated “cooling frequency” for each beam. For the
top and bottom beam, the difference between the spectroscopy frequency and thecooling frequency is very close to the trap frequency, as expected for cooling on the
red-sideband; the axial is offset from the spectroscopy frequency by an amount which
includes both the difference in the light shift from this beam compared to the top
beam, as well as the trap frequency of the axial direction. Ground state cooling is
performed with the microwave frequency set to the carrier location, while the top,bottom, and axial beam are set to their cooling frequencies. By measuring the carrier
location each day, we can calibrate all of the magnetically field sensitive sideband
resonance positions on the basis of this single measurement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

xxvii3.11 Continuous cooling cycle and axial cooling trajectory. (a) This timing diagram
illustrates the sequence of Raman beams that are turned on and the correspondingtimes. The optical pumping beams are on for the entirety of the cooling time, during
which the cycle is applied usually 50 times. The goal was to slowly cool the axial
direction while repairing the heating done to the radial direction. The integrated
axial cooling time is much longer than the time it would take to ground-state cool theaxial direction according to the master equation numerics in (b), while the radialcooling time in just one cycle (done with top/bottom beams) is closer to what it
would take to ground-state cool a radial axis since it is much faster. We therefore keep
the atom close to the radial ground-state during the entirety of the three-dimensionalcooling. (b) We show a simulated cooling trajectory for the axial direction using
typical experimental parameters: ΩR /(2π) = 7 kHz, ω/(2π) = 29 kHz, η R = 0.36,
η OP = 0.35, an initial temperature of n̄ = 8, and we use the axial photon heating of
1 per optical pumping recycling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

xxviii
3.12 Varying radial cooling frequencies during sideband cooling, typical repump scattering
rate measurement. (a) Here we vary the Raman detuning of the top and bottom
beams while performing a ramp-sequence measurement after continuous (black) andpulsed (purple) cooling. Though the Raman Rabi frequencies are the same (2π ·20 kHz), the pulsed cooling operates over a narrower bandwidth due to the absenceof the repump broadening. The trap used here has a ωradial /(2π) = 140 kHz. The
amount of loss observed at the peak of these curves is due to non-adiabaticity in thisramp; we have performed some tunneling experiments at similar depths of 1 µK andobserve no loss using a slower, two stage ramp. (b) Repumping to F = 2 from the|1, 1i state. We prepare |1, 1i by performing sideband cooling then applying a π-pulseon the carrier. The repumping rate (1/τ ) is half the scattering rate Γ (photons/sec),
due to the branching coefficients of 1/2 from F=2’ to F=1 and F=2. We use suchmeasurements to calibrate the repump scattering rate, which is crucial to the cooling
performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
3.13 Ramp-sequence calibration of axial cooling frequency. We scan the Raman detuningof the axial beam (AB1 here) and observe the positions of maximal atom survival.
These coincide with the regions in which we expect the multiples of the trap frequency
to be (dashed lines), and we typically set the cooling frequency to the center of either
range when performing first or second sideband cooling. The increased survival
probability is likely more directly an indication of lower heating of the radial direction
during cooling by cooling the axial direction to the ground-state (which, of course,
is dark). As we approach the carrier at higher frequencies, the increased loss islikely from radial heating due to carrier transitions inducing optical pumping. This
statement is based on the fact that the larger confinement of the radial direction
implies fewer bound-states in the trap, and hence greater susceptibility to loss for agiven n̄. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

xxix
3.14 Continuous cooling sideband spectra for a radial dimension and the axial dimension.
(a) Top and EO beam spectroscopy of the radial dimension of the tweezer after
continuous sideband cooling. The pulselength here is near a π-pulse on the bluesideband from the ground state. The reduced offset in these data compared to thepulsed section is due to improved push-out fidelity (we drop to a shallow depth toperform the push-out) and the reduced Rabi-frequency of ΩR /(2π) = 20 kHz. (b)AB2 and EO beam spectroscopy of the axial dimension of the tweezer. In both plots,
the black line indicates the expected position of the associated red-sideband for thedimension probed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
3.15 Sideband spectra after Gaussian pulsed cooling. We show spectra for the radial(a) and axial (b) directions of the tweezer. For the axial data, we compare thespectra with an numerically calculated spectrum (dashed line) using n̄axial = 0.05
(T = 0.45 µK, ω/(2π) = 29 kHz, and the parameters listed in Table 3.5). The
solid lines for each are fits using a sum of Gaussians. The axial spectrum exhibits
significantly higher contrast and coherence compared to other axial spectra shownin this chapter, which necessarily used a lower Rabi frequency to retain spectral
resolution for square-pulse spectroscopy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

xxx
4.1

Original Hong-Ou-Mandel effect observation. In the experiment, two photons in thesame polarization state are incident on separate ports of a balanced beam splitter.
The position of the beam splitter is varied so that the overlap of the wave-packets
on the beam splitter is tuned. Each output port of the beam splitter is measured on
photodetectors, and the likelihood for both detectors to click within a small timeinterval, the “coincidence counts”, is measured. The data plot on the right is taken
directly from Ref. [1]: it shows that for a particular position of the beam splitter,the coincidence counts drastically drop. Even though, classically, we might expect
an equal likelihood of the photons coming out the same or different port, there isa coalescence effect induced by the bosonic quantum statistics of the photons. A
two particle interference effect, known as the Hong-Ou-Mandel effect, suppresses thequantum amplitude that the photons emerge on different ports, specifically when
the photons are overlapped on the beam splitter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

4.2

Hong-Ou-Mandel effect with atoms and experimental setup. (a) The optical tweezers
form a coupled double-well potential. Starting from a state with a ground state spinup atom in each well, denoted |Si, the tunnel-coupling causes the atoms to interfere
destructively and results in the state √i2 (|Li1 |Li2 + |Ri1 |Ri2 ). (b) The apparatus forrealizing tunneling between optical tweezers utilizes the high numerical aperture optics and radio frequency signal control of the tweezers’ positions and depths discussed
in Chapter 2. (c) The sideband cooling (see Chapter 3) is accomplished via lasers
driving coherent (green) and spontaneous (blue) Raman transitions that couple tothe atomic motion and spin states |F = 1, mF = 1i ≡ |↓i and |F = 2, mF = 2i ≡ | ↑i.

89

xxxi
4.3

Equivalence of second-quantized modes for photonic and atomic beam splitter setups.
(a) For a photonic beam splitter, there are two input modes a1 and a2 , connected via
transmission and reflection to a3 and a4 : the beam splitter transformations in the
text (Eq. 4.19) reflect the different phases for each process. (b) For an atomic beam
splitter formed from a double-well potential, the creation and annihilation operators
refer to the bound-state mode of each well. Since in this case a tunnel-coupling
coherently mixes the modes, the transmitted quantum amplitude correspond to the
input mode creation operator, while the reflected amplitude yields creation in theother mode; the input and output modes are shared in this way, while preserving thefundamental beam splitter transformations in the text. The transcription between
the operators in (a) to those in (b) are indicated in the figure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

xxxii
4.4

Single photon entanglement. While a single quantum particle cannot exhibit particle
entanglement, it can create mode-entanglement through the state √12 (|1, 0i + |0, 1i).
To show that this corresponds to useful entanglement (and can violate a Bell’s inequality), we show a procedure (from Ref. [7]) by which local operations connect thisphotonic state to an atomic |belli state. For two atoms, each comprised of a two-levelsystem with splitting resonant with the input photon, via the local atom-photon interactions the mode-entanglement is converted into particle entanglement. We show
the initial beam-split photonic and atomic states prior to the local atom-photon interactions in the upper-left of the figure, and then the final state after interaction in
the bottom-right. To violate a Bell’s inequality it is required to measure correlated
fluctuations in multiple bases, but the fact that there are not in general unitaries
that connect the single excitation state to the zero excitation state within a single
mode (this is a so-called “super-selection rule” for the case of massive particles) posesa challenge that is solved by using these additional spins (on which Bell’s inequality
measurements are routine). There are, however, experimental examples demonstrating the presence of entanglement in the beam-split single photon state without theaid of atomic states [8]; similarly, proposals exist for converting mode-entanglementof massive particles into particle entanglement through the aid of a Bose-Einsteincondensate particle reservoir or additional particles supplied to a beam splitter [9, 10].103

xxxiii
4.5

A list of the possible outcomes of our imaging protocol. A 0 (1) within a box indicatesthat on the pixel corresponding to either the left [L] or right [R] wells, the measured
counts fell below (exceeded) the threshold for triggering atom detection. The red,
blue, and grey regions highlight the signals used to produce the data points in, forexample, Fig. 4.14b,e. Pi1 (Pi2 ) refers to an atom that started on the left (right), i.e.
the first image indicated an atom on the left (right). In our calculation of P11 if there
is an atom in each well in the second image we count this as 1; if there are zero atoms,
we count this as 0; if there is one atom total, we also count this as 0. The latter twocases can occur when atoms end up on the same optical tweezer, with probabilities
P20 and P02 for the left or right tweezer, respectively (see Section 4.7.3). We takethe mean over all experimental realizations to extract the single and two-particle
probabilities represented. To accurately interpret the measured P11 we must take
into account particle loss. Hence, in our analysis this loss is independently accounted
for by using the value of Ploss determined in the parallel single-particle experiments.
Specifically, in two-particle experiments the maximum value that P11 can reach is(1 − Ploss )2 . Ploss ranges in our experiments between 0.03 and 0.05; these values are
consistent with variation in vacuum lifetime and experiment length amongst different
datasets.

4.6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Protocol for initiating tunneling. (A) The tunneling sequence as a function of time,
illustrated for the 96 kHz final trap depth. (B) For the 96 kHz depth, tunneling attimes before t = 0 for a single atom starting on the right (red), on the left (blue),and with one atom in each well (black). The solid lines model the single particle
dynamics use the Hamiltonian of Eq. 4.33, and using the calculated depth-dependent
tunneling shown in Section 4.5.2.4; we also show the expected dynamics of an atom
starting in the left well were we to neglect gravity during the ramp down (green). . . 112

xxxiv
4.7

Dynamics and bias scan including the ramp dynamics for a horizontal double-wellof 96 kHz and 808 nm spacing. (a) The dense, red circles correspond to the numerically computed bias curve for the first half-oscillation. We fit these simulated data
to a Lorentzian (dashed red line) with the model from Eq. 4.34; the ramp-dependent
fractional disparity between the fitted γ and the 2J used in the model is included
as a correction when calibrating the bias control. We contrast the expected spectral response of a two-level system driven with a resonant square-pulse and Rabi
frequency 2J (solid black line). (b) We show the numerically calculated temporal
response during and subsequent to the final ramp for a resonant bias. For a vertical
double-well there is a small (< 2%) reduction in the single particle contrast due tothe off-resonant tunneling prior to the final trap. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

4.8

Basic characterization of single-particle tunneling in a vertical double-well formed
from optical tweezers for a 808 nm spacing and depth of 96 kHz. (a) For a 0.9 ms
tunneling time, we scan the relative well bias, ∆, and observe the single particle
tunneling resonance, symmetrically for an atom originating from either well. The
blue circles (red triangles) correspond to atoms starting in the left (right) well. The
evolution time is set for near full coherent swapping of the atomic populations ineach well. (b) At ∆ = 0, we observe oscillations at 2J in the expectation value of an
atom’s position. For (a,b), for each experimental value (bias or time) the experiment
was run 400 times, yielding ∼ 140 single particle measurements for each of the red
and the blue data points. (c) We perform a first order check on the importanceof cooling by omitting the sideband cooling stage while otherwise retaining all thefeatures of the experiment from Figure (a), however, with half the statistics. (d)We theoretically calculate the expected tunneling dynamics for a 3D ground-state
fraction of n̄ = 0.2 in the full dimensionally-coupled space of the Gaussian doublewell for a spacing of 808 nm and depth of 96 kHz, mirroring the parameters of theexperiment.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

xxxv
4.9

Sideband spectroscopy after resonant tunneling for near a full-swapping time of π/2J,in a horizontal double-well of depth 26 kHz and 918 nm spacing. We perform radial(first row) and axial (second row) spectroscopy after the tunneling procedure, andperform the standard resonant push-out to readout the spin populations. The yaxes on these plots should be interpreted as the product of the final well probability(indicated by the second image atom location) and the probability of being in F = 1(i.e. surviving the resonant push-out). The sum of PL and PR for data of the samecolor corresponds to the overall sideband-specotrscopy transfer at a given frequency,
and is consistent with sideband spectroscopy plots without the tunneling occurring
prior. The first column (second column) corresponds to the probability of observing
the atom on the left PL (right PR ). For all of the plots, the red (blue) correspondto runs in which the first image showed the atom on the right (left). The flipping of
the blue and red peaks between the figures in each row is because if an atom start on
the left (right), it is more likely to be on the right (left). The increased offset in theradial data is because we were not using our improved push-out procedure in these
data, and the Rabi frequency of the radial spectroscopy Raman beams was slightly
too high. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

xxxvi4.10 Bias spectra and Ramsey spectroscopy. In the first row, we show a bias spectrum (a)and Ramsey dynamics (b) for a vertical double-well of 96 kHz and 808 nm spacing.
Using the measured 2J of 500 Hz (mean of a number of a measurements) and thebias spectrum width, we compute the expected volts to energy bias calibration. For
the 9.35V (9.4V) bias and correcting for the narrowing due to the quasi-adiabaticity,
we measure 1.18(3) kHz (1.69(3) kHz) and predict 1.03 kHz (1.4 kHz) according
to the calibration. In the second row, we show a bias spectrum (c) and Ramsey
dynamics (d) for a horizontal double-well of 20(1) kHz and 808 nm spacing. Using
the measured 2J of 179(1) Hz and the bias width of (c), we expect for the Ramsey
dynamics (d) a frequency of 0.52 kHz and measure 0.55 kHz. The nearness of thewidths of the bias spectra here in units of volts is incidental: the bias calibration
scales proportionally and inversely with the tunneling and the depth, respectively,
and each change by a similar amount. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

xxxvii
4.11 Tunneling dependences. (a) Measured tunneling J as a function of the double-wellspacing for a vertical double-well of 96(4) kHz. The solid line is a theoretical expectation using the full 3D calculation of the potential (see text). (b) Measured tunneling
J as a function for a vertical double-well of 808 nm spacing. The solid line is the fullcalculated dependence as in (a), while the green dashed line is the 1D calculation
by simply Fourier transforming the potential and solving the Schrodinger equation
in a truncated momentum basis; these differ by a very small degree, indicating thepredominantly separable nature of the potential. (c,e) Tunneling dynamics for a
depth of 71(3) kHz and 142(6) kHz, respectively, and a 808 nm spacing. (d) Meanof the oscillation data points as a function of the tweezer depth. The mean gives
an indication of the degree to which the tunneling is off-resonant due to the bias
fluctuations. The solid-line green line is the model discussed in the text, and we finddecent agreement. At sufficiently low depth, the mean of the data approaches theideal value of 0.5 but corrected for loss, which is 0.48. The inset shows the fitted
amplitude, which is influenced by both the preparation and this stability of the bias,
and it shows a similar trend to the mean data. (f) Number of oscillations observedin the tunneling dynamics, which is computed to be 2J · τ compared with the theoretical model from the text. We find not amazing model agreement with respect
to the dephasing, particularly at small depths; this may indicate other dephasing
mechanisms become dominant. Because we took much of the oscillation data on asimilar time scale, the error in the fitted τ for the slow J data goes up to 30%, while
for the faster J data it is around 10%. I omitted them from the figure for this reason.
The inset shows the just the fitted τ . For both (d,f), I have circled the data points
that correspond to the oscillation scans (c,e) with a solid and dashed line, respectively.122

xxxviii
4.12 Comparing fixed spacing and fixed depth data. We show the variation of the meanof the data from the data in Figure 4.11a plotted against the measured tunneling(green), as well as the Figure 4.11d plotted against the measured tunneling as opposed to the depth (black). Therefore, the green (black) data corresponds to fixed
depth and varied spacing (fixed spacing and varied depth) as a function of measured
2J. Though there is scatter, the disparity between the two plots, particularly thefaster drop off in the varied depth data, corroborates the hypothesis that both thedepth and the tunneling inform the mean of the data. Furthermore, we compare
the green data to the model (solid green line) discussed in the text, where here thedepth is fixed and the fractional fluctuations are, as above, 0.17%. We find decent
agreement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
4.13 Large-spacing, shallow trap tunneling. We have explored a large range of doublewell potentials, and, as expected given the model, we observe that the damping
drastically improves as we go to very shallow depths, even though the tunneling rate
has been reduced significantly. The fit gives a τ = 110(20) ms, while from the modelin the text we would expect a damping time of 125 ms using the measured 2J and
depth of 20 kHz. The fitted amplitude, however, is 0.75(5) while we would expectfrom the model 0.99. This points to other mechanisms limiting the contrast as well,which are discussed in the text. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

xxxix4.14 Single and two-particle tunneling. (a) Experimental overview. While the tweezers
are 23(1) MHz deep, the atom is imaged, cooled and optically pumped to |↑i. For
tunneling experiments, the tweezers are swept together such that the two gaussianfunctions are defined with an offset of ≈ 800 nm (resulting in double-well minima
spaced by ≈ 600 nm), and the total trap intensity is dropped by a large factor,
resulting in a single-well depth of either 96 kHz or 60 kHz. (b) Resonant tunnelingoscillations at 2J for a 808 nm gaussian function spacing and a 96 kHz depth. Blue1(2)circles (red triangles) are the expectation value PLfor finding an atom in the left

well given an initial single atom in the left (right) well. The gray shaded region indicates the contribution from atom loss Ploss . (c) Same as [b] except with a 805 nm
gaussian function spacing and a depth of 60 kHz. (d) Idealized two-particle tunnelingdynamics. Expectation for P11 (t) for dynamics initiated at t = 0 and in the symmetric spatial state |Si, the distinguishable states |ψ± i, and the anti-symmetric state|Ai. The dashed green lines mark the locations of tHOM . (e) Measured two-particle
dynamics during the same experimental sequence as [b]. Likelihood to measureexactly one atom in each well (P11 ) for the initial condition in which an atom is prepared in each well (black squares). Distinguishable expectation Pdist as determinedfrom the single-particle data in [b] (purple circles). The gray shaded region above
the dashed black line indicates the expected reduction from atom loss. (f) Sameas [e] except here we realize a larger value of J and smaller value of U (see text)
using the double-well parameters of [c]. tHOM for the experimental data is affectedby a phase shift due to a small amount of tunneling before the nominal final trap isreached; this effect is larger for faster tunneling. In all plots, the shaded regions are
the 95% confidence interval for a sinusoidal fit. The error bars are the standard error
in the measurement; each black data point is the mean of ≈ 140 measurements, andeach red or blue data point is the mean of ≈ 100 measurements.

. . . . . . . . . . . 129

xl
4.15 Two-to-one events during imaging. P11 is defined by the case in which both images
indicate one atom in each well. We can study the two-to-one events we observe andconfirm that they are a signature of two atoms on a single well, by looking at theanti-correlated nature of these events with respect to P11 (t). As shown (note, this is
the data from Figure 4.14e), we find that in our experiments we see an increase in
two-to-one events (green) when P11 (t) (black) is minimal, i.e. when the likelihood offinding two atoms on the same tweezer is maximal. Using the calibrated single atom
loss, we conclude from these data that 29(4)% of the time a two-to-one event occurs
when the data is analyzed at tHOM (minimum of P11 ) and a consistent value of 22(5)%when the data is analyzed at the maximum of P11 . We also can directly measure twoto-one events by carrying out a separate experiment in which we combine two traps
each with a single atom to deterministically start with two atoms in a single trap. In
this experiment we find 26(2)% of the time a two-to-one event occurs. While thesefindings are in contrast to many optical lattice experiments in which pure parity
imaging is observed [11, 2], other optical tweezers experiments have observed similar
phenomena [12].

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

xli
4.16 The HOM effect observed by varying atom distinguishability. In all plots the blacksquares are P11 (tHOM )=PHOM , the purple circles are the expectation for distinguishable particles calculated directly from the single-atom tunneling (Pdist (tHOM )), andthe dashed black line marks (1−Ploss )2 /2. (a) Before tunneling we apply a microwave
drive that couples |↑i and |↓i for one of the atoms in a two-particle experiment. In
the trap where J/2π = 348 Hz the tunneling time is fixed at t = 0.99 ms (second
realization of tHOM ). (b) Before tunneling we apply a global coherent drive of varied
pulse area to couple |↑i and |↓i and then allow for decoherence. In the trap where
J/2π = 262 Hz the tunneling time is fixed at t = 0.45 ms. In (a) and (b) the solidline and shaded band are sinusoidal fits and the associated 95% confidence interval.
(c) HOM dip dependence on cooling. We vary the detuning (δCool ) of the coolingbeams of motion along the z-axis. In the trap where J = 262 Hz the tunneling time
is fixed at t = 0.45 ms. The two shaded regions correspond to frequency ranges of
efficient (1st sideband) and less efficient (2nd sideband) cooling. For all plots, each
black data point is the average of ≈ 360 measurements, and each set of measurements corresponding to a purple point is the average of ≈ 240 measurements. Allerror bars are the standard error in the measurement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

xlii
5.1

Forms of spin-exchange. (a) Picture from Ref. [13]. Electrons trapped in double
quantum-dots exhibit a tunable spin-spin coupling. The spin-1/2 electrons exhibit
a strong-Coulomb repulsion that, in conjunction with their fermionic statistics, creates an exchange interaction. This platform has been considered theoretically as astrong candidate for a universal quantum computer [14]. (b) Picture from Ref. [15].
Neutral atoms trapped in an optical lattice can exhibit a nearest-neighbor exchangeinteraction that is contingent on virtual wave-function overlap. Here strong on-site
interactions lead to a second-order effect where anti-aligned spins on neighboringsites can coherently swap sites, which can be formally cast as a Heisenberg exchangeinteraction. Here too the underlying physics is dependent on strong interactions andthe quantum statistics of the particles. (c) Picture from Ref. [16]. When two neutral atoms are prepared in opposing spin-states and in different motional states, theinteractions realize a first-order exchange interaction. The spatial symmetry of thetwo-particle wave functions depends on the spin-states, which in turn causes a splitting between the triplet and singlet two-particle spin states. This splitting causes
dynamics at a multiple of the contact interaction energy. This chapter is concernedwith this kind of exchange interaction.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

xliii
5.2

Initial two-particle state from which exchange occurs. (a) Through a sequence ofground-state cooling, single-spin addressing, tweezer transport, and biased tunneling we are able to prepare a single spin in the first motional excited state of the y-axisof motion, and spin-down particle in the 3D-ground state, all in the same opticaltweezer. (b) In this configuration we expect spin-exchange dynamics between theatoms occupying different motional states. Enforced by the quantum-statistics, thisarises due to the difference in the contact interaction energy for the spatially symmetric (ψT (y1 , y2 )) and anti-symmetric (ψS (y1 , y2 )) wave functions associated withthe states |+iy and |−iy , respectively. The anti-symmetric wave-function ψS (y1 , y2 )is non-interacting since the particles (defined to be at y1 and y2 along one-dimension,in units of the oscillator length r0 ) are never found in the same place (red-dashedline in bottom wave-function plot, which corresponds to the spatial wave-function
for the spin singlet). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

5.3

Adiabatic passage through the ground-excited tunneling resonance. In order to consistently prepare the configuration for exchange, |ψin i, we use adiabatic passage.
The ground-state of the left well is adiabatically swept across the tunneling resonance with the excited state, shown in the figure with actual data from a typicalbias scan. This procedure relaxes constraints on the absolute bias stability. Experimentally, the ARP occurs in a trap spacing of 854 nm and 91(4) kHz, with aramp range of 4.4 kHz in a time of 12 ms symmetrically about the position of theresonance (which is calibrated daily). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

xliv
5.4

Experimental data of bias scans and ARPs across the excited-ground tunneling resonance. For all plots, blue (red) corresponds to data in which the atomic origin wellis the left (right) well; the black data is P11 , which is slightly inconsistent with they-axis labels. (a,b) For a fixed tunneling time of 1.6 ms, we scan the bias across theground-excited tunneling resonance, which is 9.0(1.5) kHz from the ground-groundresonance. To emphasize the asymmetry of the resonance, we plot both PLi (a) andPRi (b), indicating the presence (absence) of population transfer from the left-well(right-well). The statistics for these data is fairly low (25 single particle runs perwell), and causes some scatter. (c,d) We show show ARP data using the parametersindicated in Figure 5.3. Here we also plot both PLi (c) and PRi (d), showing thesame asymmetry in the tunneling. These data are used to extract the ARP fidelities
quoted in the text. In the ARP data, we observe a small amount of transfer fromthe right well to the left well, which we observe increases when we deliberately compromise our radial cooling. This is consistent with an increase in excited fraction in
the right well tunneling to the left well. For optimal cooling, this on average is about
3%, which is consistent with the ground-state temperature extract from spectroscopy.151

xlv
5.5

Sideband spectroscopy after ground-excited tunneling. (a,b) We perform sideband
spectroscopy after allowing for 1.6 ms of tunneling, correspond to a near full transferof the left-well ground-state population to the right tweezer excited-state. We apply
push-out light after applying radial Raman beams (top plus EO). As with the analogous data from the previous chapter, the y-axis should be interpreted as the productof the spin-flip probability and the transfer probability (PL in (a) and PR in (b)) to
the indicated well.(c,d) We apply sideband-spectroscopy after performing the ARPs
in both directions with a 15 ms delay in between. As expected, the left-well population (blue) that ends up back in the left-well implies a large ground-state fraction.
The fraction (∼ 10%) with which right-to-left tunneling occurs is anomalously higher
than indicated in other data we have, which suggests that perhaps for this data theradial cooling was worse. Note for these data we do not spin-flip the right atom orrotate the quantization axis to along z, but the light-shift beam does come on inorder to retain as much of the experiment as possible in performing the thermometry.153

5.6

Experimental protocol for spin-exchange dynamics. We perform the illustrated sequence in order to observe spin-exchange dynamics. Panel (d) is where exchange
occurs, and we vary the time in this configuration by varying the time between theend of the first ARP and the beginning of the second ARP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

xlvi
5.7

Observation of spin-exchange dynamics. (a) After applying the protocol of Figure 5.6, we analyze the data according to the rubric indicated, keeping only those
two-atom experiments in which we end up with a single atom after the resonant
push-out (this is the post-selection routine discussed in the text). The location of
the atom in the second image indicates the final spin-configuration prior to the pushout. (b) According to the coloring in (a), we plot the probabilities to measure each of
the associated outcomes. We observe anti-correlated oscillations of equal amplitude,
at a frequency consistent with twice the onsite interactions Ueg . (c) We observe
the variation of the exchange frequency with the tweezer depth: as expected, theinteraction energy increases with the two-particle density. The center dashed line
corresponds to a no-free-parameter theory line from 3D calculations of the potential
by Michael Wall and the experimental characterizations of the double-well parameters. The blue swath comes from our uncertainty in the bias, because this influences
the depth of the tweezer in which exchange occurs, as well as the tweezer depth. . . 156

5.8

Single particle data from exchange dynamics. We show the single particle datafrom data displayed in Figure 5.7b. We do not observe the same oscillations in thespin probabilities for either the left (blue) or right (left) origin well: the left wellis primarily spin-up, while the right well is primarily spin-down (in F=1). We use
these data to calibrate the spin-preparation for the two-particle experiments. . . . . 157

5.9

Temperature effects on spin-exchange. Here we show calculations indicating the
expected dynamics in the presence of a thermal distribution of varying temperature,indicated by the legend on the right. We show just the probability to measure thestate | ↓iL | ↑iR , which corresponds to the purple data in Figure 5.7. The effect of
this systematic, frequency beating, does not correlate well with what we see in theexperiment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

xlvii5.10 Simulation of exchange dynamics including the ARP preparation and detection protocol. We plot the expected measurement probabilities for the states in the Hilbert
space, indicated on the right, at the end of the experimental protocol indicated in
Figure 5.6. The dynamics are simulated by numerically evolving the Schrodinger
equation for the Hamiltonian in Eq. 5.19, including the bias ramps from both of
the ARPs. The ARP parameters are indicated in the text and Figure 5.3. For
the simulation, we use the parameters Ueg /(2π) = 50 Hz, δω /(2π) = 22 Hz, andδg /(2π) = 50 Hz; the x-axis is the time between the ARPs, as in the experimental
data of Figure 5.7b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
5.11 Measuring entanglement: Bloch-sphere picture and experimental tools. (a) Bloch
sphere in the effective spin-1/2 Hilbert space of | ↑iL | ↓iR and | ↓iL | ↑iR . By measuring the coherence between these states in a two-particle Ramsey experiment, it
is possible to detect the presence of entanglement. The initial two-particle preparation (prior to the ARPs and exchange) yields a state along positive z. After the
first ARP, entangling exchange, and then the detection ARP, we ideally have a state
pointing along the Bloch-sphere y-axis. The parity measurements discussed in thissection are sensitive to states pointing along x, hence necessitating rotating the state
off the y axis. (b) We rotate the state in the equatorial plane of the Bloch-sphere by
applying a magnetic field gradient, which changes the energy splitting between the
spin-states in each tweezer by an amount δ. This relative difference in the splitting
leads to rotation of the two-particle state in the Bloch-sphere equatorial plane. . . . 165
5.12 Experimental protocol for verifying the two-particle entanglement. The read-out
stage of panel (f) corresponds to the push-out spin-sensitive detection. . . . . . . . . 171

xlviii
5.13 Entanglement verification data. (a) Applying the protocol outlined in the text andFigure 5.12, we observe the displayed parity oscillations. From the detected parity,
we illustrate the implied direction of the Bloch vector (for the coherent part of thedensity matrix) prior to applying the π/2 analysis pulse. The horizontal lines andgray region correspond to the bounds on the parity below which the density matrix
could be separable (see Table 5.2). The parity oscillations we observe significantly
exceed these bounds. (b) We show the frequency of the observed parity oscillations
as a function of the gradient applied. The x-axis indicates the size of the gradientalong z, which is the coil axis of symmetry but also transverse to the displacementof the optical tweezers. The solid line corresponds to a fit from the magnetic fieldmodel discussed in the text, Eq. 5.30.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

5.14 Parity dependence on exchange dynamics. Here we vary the exchange time prior to
the parity detection. We set the gradient time such that the parity is peaked when
we create the |ψ+ i via the exchange dynamics prior. We then vary the exchange
time to observe its influence on the measured parity. We can compare the parity
to spin-exchange oscillation data, which indicates near the expected π/2 phase shift
in the oscillations. When the spin-exchange dynamics are in a peak or a trough,corresponding to full exchange or no exchange, the resulting state is unentangled.
Conversely, where the exchange dynamics are linear, the state is entangled and wesee maximizing/minimizing of the parity. The dashed orange (blue) line indicate an
example time where the entangling (unentangling) behavior is manifest in both data
sets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

xlix
6.1

Deterministic loading of a square array using blue-detuned light on the D1 line [17].
(a) We create a square array of optical tweezer via the AOMs in our optical rail. We
apply blue-detuned loading in conjunction with relevant depumping beams during
the MOT loading stage of the experiment. (b) We measure the single atom load
probability as a function of the detuning of the 795 nm light on the D1 line from thetweezer-light-shifted trap. The blue swath is the range over which we find consistent
optimal loading, and the green line is the location where the detuning equals thetweezer trap depth. (c) Parking the D1 laser in the blue swath, we vary the MOT
load time and observe the single atom load fidelity. We observe saturation in theloading probability on short time-scales. In (a,b), the blue triangles are the top-lefttweezer; the red diamonds are the top-right tweezer; orange squares are the bottomleft tweezer; the purple circles are the bottom-right tweezer. The black error bar isan example of the typical error bar in each measurement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

6.2

Hong-Ou-Mandel to many-particle interference. (a) Realization of the HOM effectwith two atoms in a double well. By preparing indistinguishable bosons and inter1
fering them in a tunnel-coupled double well, the mode-entangled state of √ (|2, 0i +2
|0, 2i) is created after allowing tunneling. (b) Extension to many particles for a pairof copies (1 and 2) of a Bose-Hubbard chain. After applying tunneling between the
copies, the odd or even particle number within the copies encodes the many-bodypurity of the quantum states as well as the mode entanglement contained. (c) Using
the setup in (b), comparison of the bipartite entanglement entropy S2 as a function
system size for a quench (green) versus the ground-state (black) in an interacting
Bose-Hubbard chain near the phase transition. The dashed lines are a linear (logarithmic) fit for quenched (ground state) calculations, indicating the presence of“volume” and “area” law-like physics in finite-sized systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

lA.1 (a) Bloch sphere used to describe the single-atom density matrices. (b) Two tables:
The top one summarizes the connection between Cartesian coordinates of the Blochvector and populations/coherences in the |Li,|Ri basis, while the bottom one connects the Cartesian coordinates to experimentally measured phase and contrast. (c)Schematic of the single-particle dynamics and the meaning of φ1(2) and A1(2) . . . . . 197
A.2 Bounds on Pdist (tHOM ) (a,b) and APdist (c,d): The two left panels (a,c) are forexperiments with U/J = 0.44(4), while the two right panels (b,d) are for experimentswith U/J = 0.22(2). In all plots, the figure in the main text to which the presented
data corresponds is given in the plot label. In panels a and b, the black curve isP(x = 0), which is a lower bound on the HOM dip for distinguishable particles
assuming no initial coherences along the x-direction of the Bloch sphere. The dark
shaded uncertainty region of the curve is obtained by propagating uncertainties inthe experimentally measured single-particle amplitudes (A1 ,A2 ) and phases (φ1 ,φ2 )through Eq. (A.19). The light shaded region below the black curve is therefore
classically forbidden, i.e. inaccessible to distinguishable particles. The red dashedcurve is P(x0 ), which is the evil and unlikely case scenario that could, in principle,
be saturated by distinguishable particles (the red shaded region is obtained in themin , blue point) sits in thesame way). The measured minimum of the HOM dip (PHOMclassically forbidden region. Panels c and d are similar to the top panels, except now
we plot the contrast bound (A) and the blue points are measured values of AP11 .
The numbers used to create this plot are tabulated in Table A.1. . . . . . . . . . . . 205

li
A.3 Expected HOM oscillation behavior. Using the calculated values from Table A.2, we
put lines at the expected HOM dip value including just the effect of axial temperature (brown), and the effect of both the temperature and finite tunneling contrast(orange). The density matrix impurity due to temperature gives rise to probability
that the atoms are distinguishable in their motional degree of freedom, while thesingle-particle oscillation contrasts effects the coherence of the two-particle beam
splitter. We find decent agreement for these data of Fig. 4.14c,f as well as that ofFig. 4.14b,e (not shown, but tabulated in Table A.2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1

Historical perspective
For nearly a century, the pursuit of ultralow temperatures in physical systems has helped

reveal a variety of intriguing quantum mechanical phenomena. In the early 1900s, novel refrigeration techniques ushered in the single Kelvin regime, and along with it superfluid helium andsuperconductivity, both of which were understood in the context of quantum mechanics decades
later [18, 19, 20, 21]. In the 1980s, similar temperatures also revealed the integer [22, 23, 24, 25]
and fractional quantum hall effects [26], along with other exotic phenomena such as heavy fermion
physics [27], which demand a more detailed picture of the single-particle physics [23] and underlying
many-body entanglement [28]. Typically, the study of such phenomena entails putting a sample ofinterest in a refrigerator, and observing physics with energy scales commensurate with the thermalization temperatures. Macroscopic observables, such as conductivity and specific heat, provide awindow into complex quantum mechanical many-body phenomena ascribed to the quantum statescreated.
Bose-Einstein Condensation and degenerate Fermi gases of neutral atoms established a new
way to study low-entropy quantum systems, which rely on the ability to isolate a sample with exceptional vacuum and slowly cool the system in the absence of significant heating mechanisms [29, 30].
Due to the unique ability to tune the single-particle physics and the two-particle interactions [31, 32],
ultracold atoms set the stage for studying many-body phenomena with a novel set of experimental
control knobs. This toolset allowed ground-breaking observations of physical phenomena such as

2the superfluid-Mott insulator transition and BEC-BCS crossover physics [32, 33]. However, whilein the field of ultracold atoms and condensed matters physics tools were developed to more closely
examine local properties, such as the density of states or dispersion relations [34, 35], the ability
to resolve single particles was not yet developed. Recently realized in the past five years, quantumgas microscopy [11] of ultracold atoms provides single-particle resolution of interacting quantumsystems, yielding a unique perspective not possible in a traditional condensed-matter setting. So
far, these microscopic studies have revealed local number bunching across the superfluid to Mott
insulator quantum phase transition in the Bose-Hubbard model [36, 37], anti-ferromagnetic ordering in a quantum simulation [38], two-point correlation functions after a quantum quench inboth small [39] and large systems [40], and the dynamics of interacting spin chains [41, 42]. The
cooling mechanism in these experiments, historically, has been evaporative cooling [29], which is aslow form of cooling whereby iteratively the highest energy atoms in a system are ejected and theremaining sample thermalizes. Though indeed a high-fidelity mechanism for reaching low temperatures, many such systems retain small residual entropies [36, 37], particular after loading the atoms
into the trapping potential of scientific interest [43, 44]. This uncontrolled entropy can preclude
the measurement of quantum many-body phenomena, such as large-scale anti-ferromagnetism, due
to the excessively small energy scales at play.
In a parallel frontier of atomic physics, tremendous experimental results have come out of
the trapped ion community. Here, individual ions are laser cooled to their motional ground state,
which is the starting point for high-fidelity quantum gates [45, 46], tests of entanglement [47], andquantum simulation of physical models of interacting spin systems [48, 49]. A confluence of large interaction energies and fast cycle times make this platform ideal to studying interacting many-bodysystems, with length-scales amenable to single-particle resolution. The large spin interaction energies reduce constraints on temperature, which are easily satisfied via optical pumping techniques.
The experimental speed, afforded by the Raman sideband-cooling [50], results in expectation values
and state tomography on realistic timescales despite an exponentially growing Hilbert space. And
although the particle number in traditional ion traps has been limited, in actuality, most neutral

3
atom quantum dynamics experiments with analogous capabilities have been restricted to similarsystems sizes [38, 40, 41, 39]. Even though a BEC provides typically 105 atoms, only a handful
participate in a typical quantum gas microscope experiment studying quantum dynamics on the
single-particle level: an experimental cycle time of 30 s with neutral atoms achieves the same studies
as a 10 ms ion-based experiment, representing a serious problem when you have to run your experiment 1000 times to acquire statistics. And to make matters worse, the small interaction energy
scales of neutral atoms (10−100 Hz) compared to ions (10−100 kHz), places stringent requirementson the temperatures for observing strongly correlated many-body ground-states [43, 44].
These comparisons highlight the advantages of the ion-based platform, which, from the cooling to the cycle time to the accessible many-body physics, are exclusively derived from the strong
Coulomb interaction associated with the ion’s charge. The comparative weakness of the neutral
atom interactions, however, also allows for complementary physics, namely, wave-function overlap
and coherent particle mobility via quantum tunneling. These phenomena produce physics influenced by particle indistinguishability and quantum statistics. Quantum statistics are integral to
many condensed matter models, such as the Fermi and Bose-Hubbard model, and underlie fundamental behaviors like superconductivity. Therefore, in spite of the many advantages of the trapped
ion approach, neutral atoms permit a whole class of studies precluded by the strong interactions
between ions.

1.2

A new perspective on neutral atom control
In my thesis work we wanted to consider neutral atom control from a new perspective.

We designed an experiment – rooted in ground-state laser-cooling of neutral atoms in opticaltweezers, summarized in Chapter 2 and 3 – in which we could first focus on Raman-sideband
cooling an isolated neutral atom to its three-dimensional ground state. Ground-state laser coolingof neutral atoms has been studied for many decades, fueled by the still unrealized goal of achieving
quantum degeneracy of atomic gases via Raman-sideband cooling [51, 52, 53, 54]. While ingenious
methods combining atom-atom collisions and laser-cooling have reached degeneracy [55], the final

4
phase-space density achieved by purely laser cooling a three-dimensional gas has been limited byrescattering effects, precluding the onset of the BEC transition [56, 57]. Our viewpoint was thatby creating a lower-dimensional sample (one or two dimensional array) of individually trapped andtransportable neutral atoms, laser cooling could become a formative tool for quantum gases as it has
been for trapped ions. Previous work in a variety of physical systems – atoms in cavities or lattices– have demonstrated one or two-dimensional ground state cooling of single neutral atoms in lowerdimensional systems [58, 59, 60]. But three-dimensional cooling is key to the full control required tosee effects of quantum statistics [61]. In our experiments, we focus on initializing a perfectly isolated
set of sideband-cooled atoms in their three-dimensional ground-state. Importantly, combining thiswith the ability to move and tailor the positions of the atoms enables the assembly of a quantum
gas to microscopic specifications [62], where the motion of the atoms is completely controlled andhighly tunable spatial distributions of the particles are accessible. In the experiments that form
the core of this thesis, we bring these ideas to fruition at the few-particle level by using opticaltweezers and three-dimensional ground state cooling via Raman-sideband cooling.
To accomplish our goals, we created, to our knowledge, the tightest optical tweezer for single
atom-trapping: it defines a mode-volume compatible with single-atom trapping [3, 5], and weaimed to explore whether the tight confinement was amenable to Raman- sideband cooling [50].
Today, the tweezers allow us isolate, detect, and place a single neutral atom in its motional groundstate in less than 200 ms. Furthermore, we have integrated the ability to make multiple tweezers,
allowing parallel ground-state cooling of multiple independent atoms. We have therefore createda platform for rapid preparation of arrays of atoms in low-entropy, pure quantum-states. The
work presented in this thesis describes these capabilities and the resulting new experiments weperformed (Figure 1.1), and represents a starting point for a variety of explorations that harness
these advances. I will discuss below particular near-term and long-term examples that are enabled
by our work.
Already, optical tweezers have been used to realize Rydberg quantum-logic gates and a variety of protocols coupling atoms and photons. In such applications the thermal motion of the

5

(a)

(b)

| ↑i | ↓j1√ (| ↑i | ↓k + | ↓i | ↑k )2Figure 1.1: New experiments enabled by the optical-tweezer platform. (a) We create an atomic
beam splitter to observe two-particle interference, thereby revealing for the first time the HongOu-Mandel effect [1] with independently prepared atoms. (b) Starting with an an atom in each of
two spatially separated optical tweezers, we tailor the microscopic physics to produce entangling
spin-exchange collisions. Upon producing entanglement, we separate the particles and verify thatthe entanglement produced locally persists to create non-local quantum correlations between theatomic spins. This toolbox is crucial to using spin-exchange-based gates with neutral atoms fora quantum-computing architecture [2]. The subscripts of the states represent the atom locations
over the course of the operation.

atoms has caused deleterious effects, such as dynamic light shifts, mitigated atom-photon coupling,
and dephasing of high fidelity Rydberg gates [63, 64, 65, 66], all of which stand to benefit from thecooling techniques we have developed. Neutral atoms, as opposed to ions, also offer a promising avenue for interfacing atoms near material surfaces and nano-photonic devices, and such applications
often require control of the atomic motion for coupling to wavelength-scale optical modes [67, 68].
Incorporating full three-dimensional motional control not only strengthens current tweezer applications [69, 70, 71], but also expands their use to experiments that are currently considered onlyin the context of evaporatively cooled gases. For example, one could combine two traps and realize significant wavefunction overlap for Feshbach molecule association, for the purpose of creating

6
single dipolar molecules [72]; indeed, this is the exact experiment underway in the Ni group at
Harvard. Hence, a diversity of experimental avenues are immediately enabled by the approach wehave developed.
We pursue an exciting and daunting goal of using this platform for the purpose of quantum
dynamics. Pure laser-cooling approaches offer unique opportunities. Possibly the most important,and one which we regularly use in this thesis, is the ability to image the atoms more than once in anexperiment: unlike evaporative cooling, we can detect an atomic spatial distribution, cool, perform,
an experiment, and image again. We can therefore follow a quantum system between known initialand final conditions, removing the entropy associated with unknown initial defect positions. And,
while this capability is novel in its own right, it also establishes the prospect of real-time assemblyof a quantum system. This latter concept is illustrated in Figure 1.2. Here, despite the presence ofa large initial entropy associated with the spatial configuration of the particles, the optical tweezers
can reconfigure the positions in real-time such that a central array is free of defects [62]. Then, lasercooling can spin-polarize and render individual atoms in their motional ground-state: a finite-sized,
defect-free, ultralow entropy sample remains. Manifestations of residual entropy in evaporatively
cooled systems, such a spatial defects in a Mott insulator or heating during the loading of fermions
into a lattice, could be circumvented by these redistribution techniques.

1.3

Atomic Hong-Ou-Mandel effect: two-particle interference in tunnelcoupled optical tweezers
The prerequisites for quantum gas assembly – real-time manipulation of the atom positions

and independent preparation of indistinguishable atoms – are exactly what we show is possible with
our platform through the first observation of the atomic Hong-Ou-Mandel effect. The Hong-OuMandel effect is a two-particle interference phenomenon, wherein two indistinguishable particles
are interfered on a beam splitter, and the particles always emerge on the same, fluctuating output
port. The effect is extremely intriguing because the final state can result through no interaction
between the particles, and through no entanglement pre-existing in the two-particle state impinging

7

Quantum gas assembly

(a)

(d)

(b)

en
tro

py

(c)

(e)

Superfluid???

Laser coolFigure 1.2: Quantum gas assembly. (a) A potential array is loaded stochastically with thermal,
single atoms via light-assisted collisions [3]. (b) After imaging the random spatial distribution, an
optical tweezer sequentially drags atoms (red arrows) into a central region (red square) (c) The
resulting uniform array can be imaged, and the detected atoms on the edge can be removed withthe optical tweezers. (d) Three-dimensional Raman sideband cooling is applied, initializing each
atom independently in its motional ground-state (e) By removing spatial and motional entropy,
it is possible to melt to a superfluid from a small Mott insulator via the quantum gas assembly
protocol outlined in the prior steps.

on the beam splitter. In analogy to photons, we are able to observe the atomic Hong-Ou-Mandel
effect by deliberately operating in a regime in which the atom interactions are negligible. We
interfere the two atoms on an atomic beam splitter formed by a pair of tunnel-coupled opticaltweezers, demonstrating the compatibility of our system with a variety of Hamiltonians where
coherent tunneling of the atoms is integral. The two-particle interference we study contains the
key physical elements of the original photonic Hong-Ou-Mandel experiment: that is, the quantum
interference of the two atoms is contingent on their indistinguishability, and the interfered state
exhibits mode-entanglement through the atomic beam splitter interaction. A fundamental featureof the Hong-Ou-Mandel effect is that the two-particle interference observed is independent of theorigin of the bosonic particles; indistinguishability is all that is required. They can originate
independently, as in radiative decay of photons [73], or they can come from nonlinear effects in8photonics systems [1], or, as was recently demonstrated, they can come from a Bose-Einsteincondensate [74]. Our experiment probes the core feature of atomic Hong-Ou-Mandel interference,
because the two-particle interference is the result of completely independent preparation of theatoms: its physical description is exclusively rooted in the concept of identical massive particles.

1.4

Spin-exchange between neutral atoms: realizing particle entanglement
between spatially separated atoms
Our Hong-Ou-Mandel experiment relies on the ability to prepare two atoms identically in all

degrees of freedom besides their position, and, as we show, the two-particle interference disappears
when the atoms are deliberately prepared in different spin states through single-spin addressing.
Preparing arbitrary spin-configurations of several particles opens up many experimental avenues.
Quantum simulation of spinful ground-states [43, 44] and quenched systems [42, 49, 75] has been
pursued with increasing interest over the past five years in both neutral-atom and ion-based platforms, but a parallel route has targeted quantum computation applications. Despite impressive
progress using Rydberg blockade in neutral atoms [66, 76], here the ion platform with its robust
trapping technology and the associated long-range Coulomb interaction has created a thus-far superior approach to two-qubit gates [45]. But the success engendered by these strong-long range
interactions has also incurred problems: the Coulomb interaction between the ions also couples
them more strongly to the environment, leading to heating and constraints on how a quantum
computing architecture can be designed in the presence of ion cross-talk [50, 77, 46, 78]; an analogous statement can be made of the Rybderg blockade platform. This suggests that ideally we seek
an entangling mechanism strictly between the atoms that we can switch on and off at will, to retain
the ability to perform two-qubit gates while mitigating deleterious effects incurred by the qubit capacity for interaction. Although it is two-orders of magnitude slower, the spin-exchange interaction
first explored with neutral atoms by the Porto group in 2007 [16], offers this exact capability: theentanglement requires overlapping the two atomic wave functions, where the quantum statistics
and contact interactions cooperate to yield spin-exchange dynamics. The new challenge, therefore,

9
is developing the tools to bring two particles together from distant registers, overlap them for the
purpose of a two-qubit gate, and separate them while retaining the entanglement created in theprior step. We demonstrate precisely this toolset in Chapter 5. Importantly, we introduce andimplement a new protocol to certify the two-particle entanglement consisting of application of a
local gradient and parity measurements [79], which could be applied to arbitrary spin entangledstates of spatially separated neutral atoms [80, 81]

1.5

Goals and outline of thesis
For each of the experiments in this thesis, I provide a theoretical summary of the underlying

physics along with a detailed discussion of the experimental protocols developed and applied. I
further discuss characterizations of the various fidelities that inform our single atom preparation,
as well as specific systematics associated with the quantum dynamics experiments discussed in
Chapters 4 and 5. The thesis is structured as follows:• Chapter 2 outlines the key components of the apparatus, and techniques employed forusing optical tweezers for quantum dynamics experiments. The exceptionally tight focus
created for atom trapping has unique associated features. Understanding precisely thecreated tweezer potential was crucial to our subsequent studies, and we provide a summaryof these techniques.
• Chapter 3 discusses our application of Raman-sideband cooling to tweezer-trapped atoms.
We explored several different approaches to this cooling, and we discuss relative advantagesof each. We furthermore summarize simple theoretical models used to guide our choice ofcooling parameters. The results of this chapter are the first demonstration of high-fidelity
three-dimensional ground-state cooling of an isolated single neutral atom.
• Chapter 4 describes our observation of atomic two-particle interference, thereby realizing
the Hong-Ou-Mandel effect with atoms. Using the cooling techniques of the prior chapter,
we are able to independently prepare atoms such that their indistinguishability is manifest

10
when they are interfered on an atomic beam splitter. The beam splitter is achieved ina double-well potential with a tunable tunnel coupling, the characterization of which we
discuss in detail. These studies constitute the first atomic demonstration of this classic
experiment in quantum optics, as well as the first direct observation of indistinguishability
with purely laser-cooled atoms.
• Chapter 5 presents our implementation of spin-exchange, mediated by the contact interactions between the atoms. We show how the tweezers allow coherent spatial manipulation of
the particles to realize non-local entanglement through local interactions. We apply an entanglement verification protocol adapted to the entanglement produced via spin-exchange,
which is also applicable to Bose-Hubbard-like systems. The results indicate the promise ofinterfacing tweezers with a larger quantum register for the purpose of building a quantumcomputing architecture.

Chapter 2

Apparatus for single-atom preparation, manipulation, and trapping

2.1

Overview

2.1.1

Experimental design perspective

The goal in designing and building this experiment (Figure 2.1) was to create a versatile optical tweezer-based system for trapping and preparing 87 Rb atoms in pure quantum states. Specificperformance goals included,• A rapid cycle time for statistics acquisition• Sufficient compactness to minimize the microscope objective working distance• Optical access and polarization purity for all of the beams for Raman-sideband cooling• Single atom, spatially resolved detection• Wavelength-scale, dynamic potential generation• Scalability to more than one atom and up to 10-20
In this chapter, I will outline capabilities that fulfill these goals, while later chapters will be devoted
to the key experimental challenges and achievements.

2.1.2

Key components

The key experimental components that will be discussed in this chapter pertain to various
capabilities that we regularly make use of, but are not necessarily restricted to one experiment

12

Figure 2.1: Photograph of the experiment circa 2015.

that we conducted. These components include the vacuum system and optical cell, the microscope
objective, single atom loading techniques, trap characterization, single atom addressing and spatial
manipulation, and preparation and coherent manipulation of the atomic spin. I will also provide
a description of a typical experimental sequence, which, due to the sideband cooling and opticaltweezer platform here, is distinguished in critical ways from a typical quantum gas experiment.

2.2

Vacuum chamber and cell
All of the experiments take place in a single cell from Precision Glassblowing (Fig 2.2) con-sisting of a quartz frame with fused-silica windows. It has a diameter of approximately 2.5 in. anda width of 1.5 in. Each window of the cell is AR-coated on both faces to minimize beam reflections (0.2% measured normal incidence) and excess background light, as well as possible trapping

(a)

(b)

13

Figure 2.2: Photographs taken of the cell (a) shortly after it was affixed to the rest of the vacuum
chamber (b). The cell was aligned (within 0.2o ) to the plane of the optical table by reflecting aleveled laser off of the large windows.

potential distortions. The cell width determines the working distance required for the high-NA
objective, which is consequently constrained to exceed 20 mm. While we did consider a smaller
cell to relax some constraints on the objective, this would have reduced the maximum possible sizeof the magneto-optical trap (MOT) beams, and, in turn, reduced the loading rate and increased
the experiment cycle time. It was later determined that a very small MOT was sufficient for single
atom loading, and a subsequent cell design uses smaller dimensions.
The vacuum system, tiny by ultracold gas standards, consists of a single ion pump. The
whole system was baked out in 2010, and we reached a vacuum pressure at the ion pump (Gamma
vacuum 15 L/s) of approximately 3 · 10−11 , though it is likely the case that the pressure in the cell
is a fair bit higher given the vacuum chamber geometry. We use in-house spot-welded getters from
SAES, which are daily run at 3A.
After baking, the flatness of the cell window through which we create optical tweezers andperform sub-micron imaging was measured interferometrically in a Fizeau configuration, which
confirmed that it was compatible with diffraction-limited performance. The curvature was conservatively < λ/4 over a 1 in. diameter region of the window, and was consistent with it being avery weak lens likely due to the vacuum pull on the cell during its construction; we observe theopposite sign of focusing from the opposite window when each is measured in reflection. The wedgeof the window was also measured to be less than 5 arc seconds. We calculated that the spherical14
curvature was correctable with the collimation of the input tweezer and imaging setup, with lessthan 1% change in the magnification of the imaging optics calibrated out of the setup.

2.3

Laser system and beam layout

2.3.1

Lasers for the MOT and spin preparation

When we started designing the laser system, and studying various literature on Ramansideband cooling of neutral atoms (e.g. see [51, 56, 53]), it was clear that there existed numerous
sideband cooling schemes that required addressing various optical transitions. The laser system
was designed so that we could address every transition on the D2 line by only flipping an AO
deflection sign; this allowed us to test various cooling schemes. Furthermore, we adopted thecommon beatnote locking scheme at JILA [82] and elsewhere: this allows the lasers to be tuned
and locked in a single experimental run over a wide frequency range to accommodate optical lightshifts induced by the optical tweezers.
The laser locking scheme is illustrated in Fig. 2.3. There is a master laser locked on the
weak 2-3’ transition via saturated absorption spectroscopy. Two other lasers, labeled F = 1 laserand F = 2 laser, are offset-locked via phase-locking a heterodyne beatnote with the master laser,
and are AO-shifted to address various transitions. Each lock can be jumped over approximately
100 MHz in under 5 ms. For example, in a single experimental run we will perform free-spacepolarization gradient cooling, single-atom imaging, and then resonant optical pumping on a lightshifted transition; these successive steps require jumping the laser over a 90 MHz range.

2.3.2

Beam layout at the cell

In Fig. 2.4, all of the beams used in the experiment are schematically represented with
relevant optics shown. A challenge is getting all these beams in while accommodating the loss of
optical access incurred by the large NA microscope objective. Here we provide a summary of beamfunctions, each labeled by its associated source fiber in the figure, and relevant optical components

15
F=3’
lock point

267 MHz183 MHz

F=2’
157 MHz

lock point

115 MHz

F=1’

Optical pumping

MOT/Cycling

Ramanl laser

F=2 laser

F=1 laser

50 GHzRepump

F=0’

Master/Reference laser

72 MHzF=26.834 GHz
F=1

Figure 2.3: Three external-cavity diode lasers are used for the MOT and single-atom spin preparation. The optical pumping and cycling light for imaging are derived from the F = 2 laser andswitched separately with AOMs. Two of the three MOT beams are generated via an injection
locked amplifier with light from the F = 2 laser. The repump light is derived from the F = 1 laser:
two separate fibers (with separate AOMs) carry repump to the experiment for the MOT and spin
preparation of the atom(s), since they require different polarizations and beam vectors. Also shownis the Raman laser, which is derived from a DBR diode detuned red by approximately 50 GHz of
the D2 line.The details of generation of the light used for driving Raman transitions along all three
dimensions of the optical tweezer is discussed in Chapter 3. The transition splittings here are takenfrom Ref. [4].

used for each:• “EO” refers to the light carrying the electro-optic modulator (EOM) generated sideband for

16
driving raman transitions between spin states split by 6.8 GHz. Its σ + -polarization purity
is important to suppress quantum interference of different Raman transitions pathways(however, this effect is largely eliminated by resonance conditions for this transition), andis achieved by subsequent optics also used for the optical pumping beams.
• “OP” and “RP” refer to beams on the optical-pumping and repumping transitions (seeFig. 2.3) and are used in tandem to optically pump to the |F, mF i = |2, 2i. Their polarization is optimized to be pure σ + ; the polarization is initialized using a Glan-Taylor polarizer(“GT”), while a half-wave plate and quarter wave-plate set the polarization to circular andcompensate for the birefringence of the cell window.
• “AB1” and “AB2” refer to beams used at separate times over the course of iterations on
Raman cooling setups (discussed further in Chapter 3). Each beam when in use is appliedwith the EO beam to drive Raman transitions sensitive to the axial dimension of our trap,
coincident with the z-axis.
• The “Imaging+MOT” beam is used for three purposes. It participates in creating our
MOT during the loading stage of the experiment, and is at a funky angle (∼ 50 degrees
from z) and of smaller size (1.6 mm 1/e2 radius) due to the objective obscuring a large
numerical aperture. Though this was not always the case, we now use this beam alone for
performing in-trap sub-Doppler cooling (see Section 2.7.2 for discussion) and single atom
imaging. The cylindrical symmetry of the traps allows efficient cooling via this single beam
since it projects along the radial and axial dimensions of the optical tweezer, and by using
a single beam we can avoid time-varying intensity gradients at the atom.
• “TOP” and “BOT” refer to Raman beams used separately to address orthogonal directionsin the x − y plane of the atom’s (radial) motion in the optical tweezer. As with an axial
beam, these Raman beams are each used in conjunction with the EO beam to drive a
hyperfine-changing transition.

17• The “MOT” beams in the side view refer to the two large (9 mm 1/e2 radius) retro-reflectedbeams used for loading our MOT. They nearly fill the clear aperture of the 0.9 in. side
windows of the cell. Each beam contains cycling and repump light.
• “LSB” refers to the the light shift beam used to change the local effective magnetic field
at one optical tweezer compared to the other, which allows for single spin addressing [2].
The light is derived from the same DBR used to generate the Raman light. The beam
is introduced to the single atom imaging path via a high-quality flat glass window, andis ultimately focused upon passing through the microscope objective. A piezo-actuating
mirror allows for high-resolution (10s of nm) steering of the beam to the tweezer-trapped
atoms. The beam is directly collimated out of the fiber with a meniscus-achromat lens pair
to reduce aberrations and to ensure a sub-micron focused spot size.
• The optical tweezer light coming from the optical rail (see Section 2.6) is transmitted by
a 780nm/850nm dichroic plate, and subsequently focused by the microscope objective toform the optical tweezer(s). We have used an ECDL, DBR, tapered amplifier seeded by an
ECDL, and an M2 ti:sapphire laser as the light source, none of which exhibited significant
performance differences with respect to the experiments discussed in this thesis.
• For single atom imaging, fluorescence is collected by the objective, separated by the dichroic,and magnified by a 1000 mm achromat onto the −60o F cooled, Andor 897 CCD camera. An
unshown large aperture between the dichroic and the objective sets the numerical apertureof the imaging and optical tweezer system. It is typically set between 26-27 mm for theexperiments in this thesis.

2.4

Microscopic objective tests performed outside of the experiment
Our microscope objective was custom designed by ASE, a company based out of Rochester,in collaboration with us. The objective consists of a six element optical system encased in Ultem

18
EO OP

λ/4

RP

NPBS

λ/4

GT

AB 2

TOP

μw horn x

f=10 cm

λ/4

λ/4

σ+

λ/2
f=15 cm

AB 1

Side view
y

λ/4

MOT
MOT

PBS
Objective

BOT

Imaging+MOTz
Dichroicx

glass

780 nm

y
LP

IF

CCD

852 nmFrom optical rail
Top view

λ/4

PZT

LSB

Figure 2.4: Multiple beams are used for single-atom trapping and ground-state cooling. A side andtop view of the setup is provided, and a coordinate system used consistently (for the most part)throughout this thesis. In the text we elucidate abbreviations for beams and optical elements.
Unless otherwise indicated, every cube is polarizing.

to minimize magnetic field eddy currents, since the front facet of the objective sits 21 mm fromthe atoms. The lens was corrected for the 6.35 mm thick window of our cell, and designed for
0.6 NA diffraction-limited performance at 850 nm and 780 nm. Calculations in Zemax confirmedthat the 100 µm manufacturer tolerances on this thickness are compatible with diffraction-limited
performance via collimation adjustment of the imaging setup and input beam, and we performed
confirmatory in-situ measurements of this thickness.
When we first received the objective in September 2010, it was tested by imaging a 500 nm
pinhole through a test window identical to that of our cell. At the time, measurements on the lensperformance showed severe spherical aberration, which were completely correctable by increasing
the cell window thickness by 1 mm (with microscope slides). The hypothesis is that one of theelements in the objective was improperly manufactured. Rather than risk damage to the optical

19
20 000Cam counts

68
61

nm

(a)

(b)

Azimuthal average

15 000Fit NA = 0.56(1)

10 000
5000
0
0.0

0.5
1.0
1.5
Image plane position ( m)

2.0

Figure 2.5: Imaging data through the ASE objective and a window similar (same manufacturer
and batch) to those created for our cell. (a) We show a magnified image of a dual pinhole target for
testing the objective performance and imaging magnification. The relative dimness of the upper
right pinhole image is due to the inhomogeneous rear illumination of the target. (b) We show theazimuthal average of the imaged spots with a fit using the model in Eq. 2.1.

elements, we had ASE glue a cleartran plate of 1 mm thickness onto the front facet of the lens.
The test data discussed below refers to times after which the plate was glued.
In Fig. 2.5a, we show an image of two 350 nm pinholes spaced by 6861 nm1 on a DataRay
WinCam, created by an optical system identical to that used for imaging single atoms. The pointspread function (PSF) of the optical system (Figure 2.5b) is derived from either of the pinhole
images, while the magnification of the system is determined through their spacing.
Imaging a point-source through a finite numerical aperture (NA) system corresponds to atruncated, flat Fourier distribution in the Fourier plane, (i.e. after the source is collimated by theobjective). From diffraction theory, the imaged point-spread function follows [83],I(ρ) ∝



2J1 (ρ∗ )
ρ∗

2

,

(2.1)

where ρ∗ = ρ/ρ0 and ρ0 = (2πNA/λ)−1 . For understanding the performance of the objective, wewill use this as a model to extract the NA for which the objective is diffraction-limited; I will callthis performance based number NADL , to distinguish it from the NA associated with the apertureof the objective.
We aligned the objective in a test setup by optimizing the imaged spot size and we found1

The test target was created through electron etching, and came from Kapteyn and Murnane labs

20
70
60
50
40
30
0

5
10
15
20
25
Collimating lens position (mm)30

64 (b)

Axial Resonance (kHz)(a)

Axial Resonance (kHz)

Axial Resonance (kHz)

80

62
60
58
56
54
52
0.565

0.566
0.567
0.568
y from normal (degrees)

0.569

64 (c)
62
60
58
56
54
52
0.186

0.187
0.188
0.189
x from normal (degrees)

0.190

Figure 2.6: In-situ ASE lens alignment. We optimize the input beam collimation (a), and angularlens alignment in y (a) and x (c). The angles are quoted with respect to the normal of the cell
window, to which the input beam is also aligned. The alignment signal is the axial trap frequency,
which, in contrast to the radial frequency, is sensitive to both the spot-size and z length scale ofthe trap. The trap frequencies are measure with parametric excitation.

that the minimum was achieved by deliberately misaligning the lens optical axis from the cell
window normal by {θx = 0.19o , θy = 0.57o }, and we observe a slight astigmatism. We determine
the alignment angles by retro-reflecting a beam off the cleartran plate and observing the spatial
deflection at a known distance; the angular deviations could either be from an additional aberrationin the lens, or, more likely, from the cleartran plate being glued on at a slight angle. For our imaging
wavelength of λ = 780 nm, we fit the imaged PSF in Fig. 2.5b to extract an NADL = 0.56(1),which implies that our lens is operationally diffraction-limited up to this NA. Lastly, the measured
magnification from the test setup is 48.8(5).
After we placed the objective in the experiment, we optimized its alignment about theseoffline determined angles using the optical tweezer trap frequencies. These measurements, shownin Fig. 2.6b,c, correspond to the final alignment position of the objective. The input beam to theobjective was aligned to better than 0.01 degrees to the normal of the cell window, despite thenon-zero objective angle, and its collimation was also optimized on the basis of the atomic trap
frequencies (Fig. 2.6a)
Further testing information and techniques will be documented in the future thesis of Brian
Lester.

21

x
Coils

MOT +

Coils zCoils yyObjectivezxgFigure 2.7: We designed and machined in-house a coil mount to fit around the cell and accommodate
the spatial constraints imposed by the large objective. We performed numerical simulations in the
Mathematica Radia package of the expected current to field performance for these coil pairs, which
are each in the Helmholtz configuration. The created fields were consistent with the expectation
at the < 5% level.

2.5

Coil mount system
We designed and machined in-house a coil mount system meant to conform to the spatialconstraints of the objective and provide stable, fast magnetic field control (see Fig. 2.7). The
coil frame is made from garolite phenolic for its low coefficient of thermal expansion. The mountsupports eight coils, each independently wound: three coil pairs are for arbitrary three-dimensionaltuning of the magnetic field quantization axis, and a fourth pair concentric with the z-axis provides
the MOT gradient. Once the entire system was wound, glued and mounted, each coil was separately
servo-tuned for fast switching between 0 to 5G in less than 1 ms. We did not want to have wait for
the fields to settle at many times during the experiment, which motivated this low eddy-current,
temperature stable, fast setup.

22

2.6

Optical rail system for creation of optical tweezer arrays
As discussed, we were eager to have the capability to scale to more particles/tweezers andexplore quantum dynamics experiments in this platform. For the creation of multiple optical tweezers, we employ two large (3 mm, Te02 longitudinal mode) crystal AOMs with square aperture: each
AOM realizes angular deflections in the Fourier plane which are converted into spatial deflections
when focused by the objective. In designing the system, we were (excessively) paranoid about
vibrations of the optical tweezers heating up the atoms. The primary mechanism for this to occur
would be vibrations of each of the optical components that shape the tweezer beam. To combat
this problem, a monolithic rail system was designed that is schematically displayed in Fig. 2.8.
The rail system was tested and shown to create aberration-free beams appropriate to befocused by the objective. As illustrated in the figure, we can create a linear array of two spots byintroducing two frequencies into one of the AOMs. Due to the magnification factor (m=20) of thetelescope at the end of the rail system (which is necessary to blow up the beam to exploit the highNA objective), a pair of 1:1 relays are used to avoid aberrations induced by the beam deflecting
off the optical axis; the relays image each of the final deflections onto the back focal plane of the“GLC” lens in the telescope.

2.7

Tools of the trade for single atoms in optical tweezer potentials

2.7.1

Typical experimental sequence

Performing ultracold quantum dynamics experiments with sideband-cooled neutral atoms in
optical tweezers is distinguished in some crucial ways from an evaporatively cooled gas of ultracold
atoms. Perhaps the most significant difference is in the order in which the experiment sequenceoccurs, illustrated in Fig. 2.9. Initially, single atoms are stochastically loaded into optical tweezers,
and are subsequently imaged to determine whether there is an atom each optical tweezer. Despite
the stochasticity of the loading, the associated entropy is completely removed since we sort andanalyze all of our data on the basis of this initial image. Therefore, in contrast to an evaporatively

CA

15 cm

4.5 cm 4.5 cm AOH
λ/2

iris

15 cm

To obj./cell

AOVRail spots

23

Dichroic

λ/2

Telescope
GLC

20:1 mag.

Figure 2.8: This is a schematic of the rail system used to generate the light focused by the objective
to form the optical tweezers. The light emerges from an AR-coated FC-PC connectorized opticalfiber and is collimated to 2w0 ≈ 1.4 mm by an asphere “CA”. It then passes through AOV, an
AOM which realizes vertical (y) angular deflections. A 1:1, 4.5 cm relay images the center of AOV
on to the center of AOH, an AOM which realizes horizontal (x) defections. A second 1:1, 15 cm
relay images the center of AOH onto the center of the first lens in the telescope, “GLC”. The beamis blown up by a factor of 20 (which commensurately demagnifies the angular deflections) once it iscollimated by a 30 cm achromat. We have observed that the AOMs can rotate the polarization of
the beam in a temperature dependent fashion: a pair of polarizing beamsplitters and a half-wave
plate fix the fraction of light that is picked off to a photodiode for intensity stabilization. A pairof resulting spots imaged by a 1 m achromat are displayed when two RF tones of 7.5 MHz spacing
are introduced to AOV.

cooled system, imaging of the spatial distribution of the particles can occur before cooling the
motional degrees of freedom, and provides high-fidelity information on the initial conditions.
After this image, we subsequently initialize all uninitialized degrees of freedom of the atoms,
namely their spin and motional state (the first image specifies their position) via optical pumping
and ground-state cooling. The atoms are now with high fidelity in a pure quantum state, whichis the starting point for a quantum dynamics experiment. The tweezer spacings and depths are
modified in real-time, an experiment is performed, and then the atom(s) are separated and imaged
again. We can then follow the atoms between known initial and final conditions.

2.7.2

Single atom loading

The loading of single atoms into optical tweezer is surprisingly robust once the proper parameter regime is reached. This is slightly complicated by the fact that the MOT configuration
is funky for experiments in which the regions of MOT loading and tweezer formation coexist. We

24
Sweep
10 ms

Tweezer

Sweep
10 ms

125 msTunneling
~106
MOT
10 ms

PGC

5 ms

25 ms

25 ms

Imaging

Optical pumping|2,-2>|2,-1>

|2,2>
|2,1>
|2,0>
|2,-2>|2,-1>

|2,2>
|2,1>
|2,0>

30-180 ms

3D ground state coolingTime

Figure 2.9: Here we illustrate a typical experimental sequence for performing a quantum dynamics
experiment. A MOT of up to 106 atoms is formed, and free space polarization-gradient cooling(PGC: reduced intensity, -70 MHz cycling detuning, zeroed magnetic fields) cools the cloud toapproximately 10 µK. At this point, some number of atoms are loaded into the tweezers andundergo light-assisted collisions [3, 5] in the presence of the red-detuned cooling light, thereby
reducing the atom number in each tweezer to 0 or 1. The atom populations in each optical tweezer
is imaged, and the trapped atoms are re-cooled with PGC (temperatures from which are discussed
in Chapter 3). We then independently initialize the spin and three-dimensional motional stateof each atom with optical pumping and Raman-sideband cooling (see Chapter 3). The opticaltweezers are then adiabatically ramped to a new configuration associated with a Hamiltonian ofinterest; dynamics ensue. The depths and spacing of the tweezers are then varied diabaticallywith respect to the timescales of the aforementioned Hamiltonian, into a configuration amenable tospatially-resolved single atom detection. In the sequence shown above, the atom’s position switchesfrom the left tweezer to the right. The majority of experiments in this thesis occur in 0.5 seconds
or less.

provide here a summary of the parameters for the MOT beam geometry in Fig. 2.4.
We have a stable single-atom loading probability of about 60% that has persisted now fornearly three years with little tweaking.2

Due to the geometry, it was not obvious what was theappropriate cycling light saturation parameters s0 = I/Isat for each of the beams participating2
As will be discussed in Chapter 4, we observe some probability that two atoms in an optical tweezer leave one
atom upon undergoing light assisted collisions; this is likely responsible for the increase above 50% loading fraction.

0.8

0.8

Load probability(b) 1.0

Load probability(a) 1.0

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0

5
10
15
Single pass s0 of funky angle beam

25
Left Well
Right Well

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

50

100
150
MOT load time (ms)200

Figure 2.10: Single atom loading and imaging. (a) We set the single-pass peak intensity of eachof the large MOT beams to a saturation parameter of s0 = 2.0, and each of these beams delivers
1 mW of repump light; the MOT gradient was set to 9 G/cm. We then vary the cycling lightsaturation parameter of the funky-angle beam and measure the load probability. For each data
point, the bias fields were reoptimized along all three axes, since changing the funky-angle beam
intensity moves the MOT position; the plotted load probability corresponds to the peak-loading
position. (b) Setting the funky-angle beam to a saturation parameter of sF0 unky = 1.12, we measure
the single atom load probability. Typically we operate the experiment with a 125 ms load time andobserve 60 to 63% load probability. Other relevant parameters include the cycling light detuningof −10 MHz and the optical tweezer depth of 1.1 mK.

in the MOT (Isat = 1.67 mW/cm2 for circularly polarized light [4]). We study this by fixing
the large MOT beam parameters as well as all other parameters of the MOT, and then vary thesaturation parameter of the funky-angle beam (see Fig. 2.10). We observe that a similar (perhaps
a bit smaller, the load is stable over 0.5 ≤ sF0 unky ≤ 5) saturation parameter is appropriate tothis beam compared to the others, despite the fact that it projects onto plane defined by the large
beams. We set the funky-angle beam to a saturation parameter of 1.15 and observe a rapid loadrate (Fig. 2.10b), saturating to around 60% after 125 ms.

2.7.3

Single atom imaging

After loading, we allow the cooled cloud to drop (by extinguishing the PGC beams) for 25 ms
and then perform molasses imaging of the atom population (0 or 1) in each optical tweezer. We haveexperimented with two configurations for imaging: using all of the beams used for the MOT, or using
a single beam pair (indicated in Fig. 2.4). For the former configuration, we observe slow fluctuationsin the atom counts, which we attribute to slow wavelength-scale variation in intensity gradients

26

300

Instances

250
200
150
100
50
0

0

50

100
150
200
250
Photons Detected in Center Pixel

300

350

Figure 2.11: Typical imaging data observed in the experiment for a 25 ms collection. The photon
counts here are computed on the basis of the brightest pixel in the camera image shown in the
figure; the left peak corresponds to our background signal (blue), and the right peak corresponds
to the atom signal (red). The black lines correspond to the Poissonnian expectation for the peakwidths given the fitted center value of the counts for background. We find reasonable agreement,
and hence are reaching the limit of imaging fidelity for a Poissoinian distribution of photon counts.
The green dashed line is the threshold calculated to minimize detection errors.

arising from interferences between beams from different retro-reflected pairs. While dithering theretro-reflecting mirrors greatly mitigated this affect, using a single retro-reflected beam pair was asimpler solution, the performance of which I will discuss here. Crucially, this beam pair projects
along the z and x direction allowing for three-dimensional cooling during imaging.3
In Fig. 2.11, we show typical imaging data acquired in the experiment for 25 ms camera
exposures. The imaging beam has a fairly high saturation parameter of s0 = 9.3, and a detuningof −38 MHz from the light-shifted cycling transition due to the 1.1 mK trap. We optimize thedetuning and intensity by maximizing counts and minimizing any atom loss from heating; we choose
parameters that are well below the regime in which we begin to see atom loss. We observe two
peaks corresponding to the background and atom peak, but no two-atom peak; this is a symptomof the light-assisted collisions. The peaks are well-resolved and we can deduce the presence of an
atom to much better than 1% by comparing to a threshold (dashed green line in figure) computedon the basis of the peak positions and widths. Analysis of our imaging system losses (objective3

Due to the degeneracy in x and y, we observe full radial cooling despite beam projection along only one radial
axis. This is noted in the Chapter 3 as well.

27
transmission, dichroic reflection, four mirrors, interference filter transmission, quantum efficiencyof the camera) and estimated atomic scattering rate show reasonable agreement (to the level of afactor of two) with the observed counts.

2.8

In-situ characterization of the optical system
In section 2.4, we discussed tests primarily addressing the performance of the ASE objective

in an external setup meant to mimic that in the experiment. However, since this setup does notexactly match the experiment (e.g. though the cell window should be very similar, they are not
literally the same window), and these tests primarily address the imaging as opposed to the creationof optical tweezer potentials, we performed additional in-situ tests that are summarized here.

2.8.1

Imaging performance

We can analyze the performance and PSF of our imaging system by treating a single atom asa point-source emitter. In the atom images acquired in the experiment, we do not have sufficientsignal to observe the wings of the Airy-disk function, and so we fit the data (cross-sections) to a
Gaussian,22

f (x) = Ae−2(x−x0) /w + obg ,(2.2)

where A is the amplitude of the atom peak, x0 its position, and w the (optical) Gaussian waist.
The last term obg accounts for our imaging background. The goal is to determine the NA for which
our system behaves diffraction-limited, which means we ultimately need to compare to an AiryDisk pattern. To convert between the fitted Gaussians, we fit ideal Airy-disk data (Fig. 2.12a) ofvarying NA (Fig. 2.12c) to ascertain a conversion function (numerical interpolation) between thefitted Gaussian waist and the effective diffraction-limited NA of the system. Using the model in
Eq. 2.2, we fit an atom image (Fig. 2.12b) corresponding to an accumulation image after running theexperiment 1000 times. We then aperture the objective at varying diameters, and hence effective
NA, and observe how the fitted Gaussian waist of the atom image varies (Fig. 2.12d). This lastmeasurement is equivalent to what is accomplished numerically in Fig. 2.12c, and allows us to28
extract the NA for which our imaging performance saturates. We observe a 780 nm minimum spot
size of w780 = 0.65(4)µm, which corresponds to a operational diffraction-limited NADL = 0.51(4).
Comparing to the tests done out of the setup, which showed a diffraction-limited NADL = 0.56(1),this is on the edge of the error bar. The imaged spot sizes in Fig. 2.12d are clearly above theexpectation from Fig. 2.12c, suggesting some amount of residual aberration above 0.5 NA. If we
extrapolate from these data to the expected performance for the created optical tweezer (assuming
an aberration-free input beam), we expect a waist w850 = 0.71(4)µm. As will be discussed in
section 2.8.2, in-situ measurements of the optical tweezer potential are consistent with w850 . Thisagreement, however, excludes the effect of clipping of the Gaussian input beam, which yields an
input beam somewhere between uniform and Gaussian illumination; the complication associatedwith this, along with other unknowns, motivated the independent characterization discussed below.
In conclusion, the measurements in this section suggest an in-situ performance of our imaging
system between 0.5 NA and 0.6 NA with sub-wavelength spatial scales.

2.8.2

In-situ characterization of the optical tweezer

The analysis of the above section provides a good measure of the optical performance of theobjective, which strongly influences the quality of the optical tweezer experienced by the atoms.
However, the input beam that is focused by the objective to form the tweezer also determines
the final spot realized in the experiment. Therefore, to separately assess the tweezer performance,
we measure the peak intensity experienced by the atoms [84] and the radial trap frequency, withwhich we can back out the Gaussian waist associated with the potential. We have found that
it is essential to perform a detailed characterization of the tweezer potential in order to performtheoretical comparisons with the measured tunneling and two-particle interaction energy extracted
from the experiments in Chapter 4 and 5.
The radial trap frequency for a Gaussian potential is,
ωr =



4V
mRb w02

1/2

,

(2.3)

Gaussian fit-10
Position ( m)

1

2

(c)

0.40

m

0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50

Cam counts * 103

0.2
0.0
-2

Airy Disk( ) image (μm)
Fitted waist w
ofi atommGaussian)
Fittedwaist ofwaist
airy (disk(μm)

Intensity (arb)

29
1.0
(a)
0.8
0.6 780 nm
0.4 0.6 NA

0.45

0.50

0.55
NA

0.60

0.65

0.70

12 (b)
108
6 780 nm
4 0.62 NA
2
0
-3
-2

0.80
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50

-1
0
1
Position ( m)

(d)

0.40

2

3

ASE wxASE wy

0.45

0.50

0.55
NA

0.60

0.65

0.70

Figure 2.12: In-situ characterization of the atom imaging performance. (a) Fitting a Gaussian to
an ideal Airy disk imaged by a 0.6 NA system at 780 nm. (b) A cross-section of the atom-image
in the inset. For these data, the aperture of the objective was set to 26.5 mm, corresponding to a
0.62 NA. The red line is a Gaussian fit according to the fit function in the text. (c) Plot of fitted
Gaussian waist v. ideal imaged Airy-disk NA, for creating an interpolation (dashed line) between
Gaussian waist and Airy-disk NA for analysis of single-atom imaging data. (d) We plot the fitted
atom image as we vary the objective aperture, and the corresponding NA of the imaging system.
The red circled point was extracted from the data in (b). The green-dashed line is the interpolationfrom (c).

where V is the trap depth, mRb the mass of 87 Rb, and w0 the waist we seek. In principle, thisexpression could be further simplified by assuming that V is determined by the peak intensity ofa Gaussian of waist w0 and with total power P . However, if there are aberrations in the resulting
potential, then not all of the power that enters the objective reaches the central spot, and is instead
manifest in aberrations (e.g. rings from spherical, offset lobes from coma, airy-disk character fromclipping, etc). Therefore, we measure the peak intensity experienced by the atom to determine V ,and measure the trap frequency to determine ωr , which together constitute a measurement of w0 .
We measure V by probing the optical light shift on the cycling transition due to the opticaltweezer light. Since the atom sits at the position of peak intensity, the light shift it experiences is agood meter of the peak intensity of the optical tweezer. On a spin-polarized atom in |2, 2i, we probe
the light shift by scanning the frequency of a σ + -polarized probe and measure the position of peakloss (insets of Fig. 2.13a) as a function of power in the telescope (Fig. 2.13a). We then calculate

(b)

25

1.0

20
15

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

0

5
10 15 20 25
Cycling detuning (MHz)

1.0
Survival Probality

10
5

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

0
0

30
1.0

0.8

Survival Probability

Survival Probality|2,2>-| 3',3> light shift (MHz)

(a)

1

5

10 15 20 25 30 35
Cycling detuning (MHz)2
3
4
5Power in Telescope (mW)

6

0.8
0.6
0.4

5.96 mWin telescope

0.2
0.0

240

260
280
300
320
Parametric Drive Freq (kHz)

Figure 2.13: Characterization of the optical tweezer. (a) We plot the frequency position of an
atomic loss resonance after exposure to σ + -polarized cycling light as a function of the opticaltweezer depth. The inset plots correspond to the indicated data points in the main plot. (b) A
parametric excitation resonance from which we extract the tweezer radial trap frequency for a given
input power.

the optical light shift [84, 85] on the cycling transition for a given intensity. The slope of this line
provides a conversion between power in the telescope and intensity at the atoms, and, in turn, thedepth V when combined with the light shift calculation. For the telescope power that yields thetrap frequency measurement of ωr = 134 kHz in Fig. 2.13b, we measure a depth of 1.01(5) mK.
This implies a waist of w0 = 0.71(1) µm, including a 4% correction to take into account the exact
shape of the potential for an apertured Gaussian input beam.4

This closely agrees with themeasurements in Section 2.8.1, which implies that there is negligible wavefront error in the input
beam.

2.9

Creation and control of a double-well potential formed by optical tweezers
A key feature of our experiment is the ability to tune the primary parameters of a double-wellpotential: the overall depth, the spacing of the well minima, and the relative depth (“bias”) of theminima. The AOM-based control platform here (AOV and AOH in Fig 2.8) readily provides theselatter control knobs. The overall depth is controlled with a standard intensity control setup via
4

See the future thesis of Brian Lester for more details.

31
the photodiode in Fig. 2.8 and an AOM prior to the optical fiber that carries the tweezer light tothe optical rail. For experiments performed with trap depths less than 50 kHz, we used a doublephotodiode setup to increase our dynamic range at the expense of bandwidth. In this section, we
discuss tests done on the bias and spacing control.
For the data discussed in this section, the amplified RF tones that create the double-well comefrom a dual channel Tektronix AFG3102 synthesizer. The synthesizer can perform programmablefrequency sweeps that we trigger during the experiment. These sweeps allow us to dynamicallyreconfigure the tweezers for tunneling experiments.

2.9.1

Relative intensity control of a double-well

Here we briefly show tests performed to confirm the linearity and resolution of the double-wellbias, data from which is shown in Fig. 2.14. To create the two RF tones that form the tunable
double-well, we have one fixed amplitude RF tone and another tone which passes through a mixer
operated in saturation. This latter RF tone is mixed with a DC control voltage that finely tunes
the output. The two RF tones are then combined on a power-splitter and amplified by Mini-circuits
ZHL-1-2W amplifier.
For the tunnel-coupled double-well potential, it is necessary to tune the absolute bias at thelevel of a fraction of the tunnel-coupling. The total intensity in the double well determines theoverall depth of the potential, while the fractional bias is tuned by the relative RF power in each
RF tone creating each spot of the double well. The absolute bias is the product of the fractional
bias and the total depth. Therefore, for a typical tunnel-coupling of 500 Hz and tweezer depth of
100 kHz, this implies that we require fractional bias control at less than a part in thousand. The
data in Fig. 2.14b corroborate this level of control; in retrospect, a finer scan might have been
appropriate, but the precision with which we could extract the peak intensities of the Gaussians
was also limiting.

(a)

(b)

32
6000

60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Bias (Hz)Cam counts * 103

4000
2000
0
- 2000
0

10

20

30
40
50
Position (px)

60

70

9.0

9.1

9.2

9.3
9.4
9.5
Mixer Control (V)

9.6

9.7

Figure 2.14: (a) Shown are two spots formed by focusing the light directly from the collimation railwith different relative intensity and the associated cross-section of these spots. The cross-section
is meant to illustrate the resulting double-well potential; for red detuned light, the peaks turn into
potential minima. (b) The relative well depth in units of Hz as a function of the DC control voltage
discussed in the text. The absolute bias plotted is determined by the measured fractional bias fromimages such as those in (a) and the experimentally measured single tweezer depths for tunneling(see Sec. 2.8.2).

2.9.2

Spacing control of a double-well

The other ingredient to the double well is the spacing between the well minima. This isexperimentally controlled via the frequency difference between the two RF tones comprising the
double well; the resulting spacing is determined by the properties of the AO crystal, the magnification of the telescope, and the effective focal length (EFL) of the ASE lens. While we can estimate
the frequency difference to spacing conversion based on these parameters, the tunnel coupling in
the double well is set by the wave-function overlap between the localized wave-packets in eachwell, which have a spatial extent of about 100 nm in the tunneling direction. Hence, we require
control much finer than this length scale, and our knowledge of this part of the optical system is
not sufficiently precise.
We calibrate the spacing between the optical tweezer traps as a function of the frequency
difference of the RF tones in each AO by imaging the atom locations, shown in Fig. 2.15. Given
our knowledge of the imaging magnification, we can compute the spacing of the atoms. From
the data displayed, and propagating error in our magnification, we measure 0.203(3) µm/MHz forthe horizontal double well, and 0.209(3) µm/MHz for the vertical double well. We note that an

(b)

1.5

Vertical spacing (μm)

Horizontal spacing (μm)

(a)

1.0
0.5
0.0
- 0.5
- 1.0
- 1.5
75

80
85
AO freq (MHz)

90

33

1.0
0.5
0.0
- 0.5
- 1.0
- 1.5
- 2.0
70

72

74

76 78 80
AO freq (MHz)82

84

Figure 2.15: Calibrating the frequency control of the double-well spacing. Imaged atom spacing asfunction of varying the frequency of one tone while keeping the other fixed at 80 MHz for AOH (a)and AOV (b)estimate of the expected dependence from the rail (based on our independent knowledge of the
optical elements and properties of the AOMs) is consistent with these measurements. We also
checked this calibration by imaging the spots directly out of the rail (i.e. as in the spots Fig. 2.8);
while this does not test the ASE EFL, it does test the rail magnification and AO crystal properties,
and this measurement is completely consistent.

2.10

Spin-sensitive detection
Through out this thesis, beginning with the sections below, we make use of spin-sensitive

detection of the atom. We detect whether the atom is in F = 2 or F = 1 by applying resonant
cycling light, which ejects the atom from the optical tweezer if it was in F = 2. Therefore, thehyperfine state is mapped onto the presence or absence of an atom in the trap. Typically the fidelityof this process is greater than 95%, especially when we drop the depth of the trap for the push-out
phase. For the latter case, the fidelity is at the limit of what we can detect with our statistics, but
it is on the order of 99%.

2.11

Optical pumping in an optical tweezer
One of the most important parts of our experiment is the optical pumping for spin preparationof the atom in a “dark state”. Optical pumping operates by successively driving a set of transitions

34

F=2’

BQA

F=2

F=1

mF

-2

-1

0

1

2

Figure 2.16: The tweezer-trapped atoms are illuminated with optical pumping and repump light,
each circularly polarized. |F, mF i = |2, 2i (encircled by a dark blob) is decoupled from these beams
because no transition exists that can be driven with these polarizations from this state. The green
lines indicate σ + light tuned to the 2-2’ transition; the gray is the σ + repump light on the 1-2’transition.

until the atom reaches a state, the “dark state”, which is decoupled from the driving light. The darkstate is crucial because its darkness is ultimately responsible for high fidelity ground-state cooling,
as discussed in Chapter 3. Therefore, while preparation in a particular spin-state is significant,more important is the degree to which the dark state is decoupled from the pumping light. It turns
out that these are one and the same goal, but it is worth stressing that what we ultimately seek isa high quality dark state. This section considers the various procedures and issues we confronted
towards optimizing the dark state.

0.4

280
300
320
Field angle degrees

0.2

0.0
0.2
Tip Field G

340

Probability in F=1

Probability in F1

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

260

(c)

(d)

Probability in F=1

(b)
(b)

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

Probability in F1

(a)
(a)

360

0.4

1.0
τ=0.028(4) ms
0.8
0.6
B
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14
2- 2' pulselength (ms)1.0
0.8 τ=25(3) ms
0.6
0.4
B
0.2
0.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
2- 2' pulselength (ms)35

Figure 2.17: Optical pumping optimization by measuring the depumped fraction (into F = 1) after
application of the 2 − 20 light. (a) Alignment of the optical pumping quantization axis by varying
the angle of an added fixed size field (0.1 G); the parameters of the x coil pair are fixed to a 3 G field
during this procedure. The pulse length is set to near the 1/e-time for an initial set of quantization
axis parameters. (b) Varying the amplitude of this added field at fixed angle in the y−z plane for thesame depumping time parameters. (c) Measurement of the scattering rate of the optical pumping
beam when the quantization axis points approximately 45o to the beam propagation direction; thislargely compromises the dark state because the polarization experienced by the atom is now mixed.
(d) Setting the quantization axis to the optimized parameters and measuring the depumping rate.
We observe a nearly 1000-fold suppression of the depumping of the dark state between (c) and (d).
We also note that this procedure both compensates angular mismatch between our coil axes andthe optical pumping beam, as well as any background magnetic fields not sufficiently nulled.

2.11.1

Optimizing the optical pumping

Creating a dark state is achieved typically by using well-defined polarization light, the requirements for which are excellent preparation of the photon polarization, and precise alignmentof the quantization axis to the optical pumping beam propagation direction. Fulfilling these requirements ensures that the atom experiences light with pure polarization, resulting in a very dark
“dark state”. Our optical pumping setup is illustrated in Figure 2.16. We use σ + -polarized repump and optical pumping light since it minimizes the number of photons to reach the dark state of|F, mF i = |2, 2i (this is discussed in more detail in Chapter 3). To measure the dark state quality,
we simply optically pump to |2, 2i, and then illuminate the atom with the optical pumping light in
the absence of repump. The branching coefficients from the excited F = 20 manifold to the ground
hyperfine levels F = 1 and F = 2 are equal and 1/2 [4, 56]. If the light seen by the atom is pure36
σ + , then it will remain in F = 2. However, any fraction of the light that is π or σ − -polarized will
depump the atom to F = 1 after, on average, two scattering events. We use this to probe andoptimize our dark state.
In Figure 2.17, we display exemplary data of this optimization process. We set the depumping
time to be near the 1/e time and vary the quantization axis direction, to optimize the alignment of
the quantization axis to the optical pumping beam. We initially set a large field of 3 G in the −x
direction, and then add a small field in the y − z plane of about 100 mG. We vary the angle of thisadded vector in the y − z plane and observe the change in the depumping fraction (Fig. 2.17a), andset it to the minimum value. As shown in Fig. 2.17b, we then vary the magnitude of this vector, andagain choose the value for which the depumping (|2, 2i darkness) is minimized (maximized). We
will typically iterate on this procedure a few times. The polarization of the light, initialized with a
Glan-taylor polarizer and tuned with a half-wave plate and quarter wave plate (to compensate forthe window birefringence), is optimized with this depumping signal as well in a two-dimensional
walk of the wave plates.
After the above procedure, we observe the performance quantified in Fig. 2.17c,d. In Fig. 2.17d,
we use the quantization axis parameters acquired through the optimization procedure, and observed
a 1/e depumping time of τDP = 25(3) ms, which should be compared to the scattering rate of the
optical pumping beam. We measure the scattering rate in-situ by rotating the quantization axis sothat it is 45o to the optical pumping beam propagation direction, and measuring the depumping
time (Fig. 2.17c) of τ = 28(4)µs. This constrains the relative intensities ofIσ− +Iπ1< 1000, implying
Iσ +that we suppress the unwanted scattering events to at least a part in a thousand.
Lastly, for the beam powers used here and with the optimized quantization axis, we canpump with the σ + repump and optical pumping light to |2, 2i in a 1/e time of τOP = 50 µs, withOP
which we can estimate a steady-state population [86] in |2, 2i of P2,2 = 1 − ττDP
= 0.998.

37
2.11.2Vector light shifts and effects on the optical pumping

Vector light shifts from the optical tweezer also impose a possible limitation on the dark statequality. Here we discuss data that displays evidence of this effect, which also offers an opportunity
to briefly discuss this unique feature of the optical tweezers.
For a tightly focused beam, in which the length scale associated with the spot size is comparable to the optical wavelength of the light, there is a large gradient in the electric field that occurs
on a wavelength scale. Even though the input light to the tweezer is linearly polarized, an atom
trapped at the focus experiences circular polarization components in a spatially dependent fashion.
The mechanism for this is illustrated in Fig. 2.18a: the rotation of the electric field vector on eitherside of the focuses yields circularly-polarized light of opposite sense on either side of the potential.
The helicity of the light couples to the atom’s spin identically to a magnetic field. We numericallycompute these effects by propagating the vector-diffraction integrals in Ref. [87] to compute thepolarization components in the focal plane, which we then plug into expressions for the vector lightshift from Ref. [56]. While we will now focus on how this informs the optical pumping, we haveobserved that by proper arrangement of the quantization axis we can exploit these effective fields
to drive microwave transitions sensitive to the atomic motion [60].
A calculation of the effective magnetic fields is displayed in Fig. 2.18b: it points along they-direction and varies along the x-direction. For our spot size and wavelength, this yields aneffective magnetic field gradient of 1.41 G/µm. We can then estimate the spread in magnetic
field experienced by a thermal atom: for an atom at 15 µK in a trap of radial trap frequency
ωr /(2π) = 140 kHz, the wave packet size is approximately 44 nm, implying a spread in magnetic
field of δBeff = 62 mG ŷ. For a quantization axis externally applied at BQA = 3G x̂, this implies anangular variation of the quantization axis across the atoms motion of δθ = tan−1 |δBeff |/|BQA| =1.2o . We expect this then to limit the final dark state we can achieve: it imposes the constraint
Iσ− +Iπ
0.2
Iσ+ +Iσ− +Iπ < 1000 .

To test the role of the vector light shifts, we varied |BQA | and the trap depth and measured

(a)

38

(b)

0.3

xy

Beff along y (G)EField

yx

0.2
0.1
0.0
- 0.1
- 0.2
- 0.3
- 1.5 - 1.0 - 0.5 0.0
0.5
1.0
x- position in focal plane ( m)

1.5

Figure 2.18: (a) Mechanism by which tightly focused linearly light couples to circularly polarized
light. Because the electric field rotates on either side of the focus on the scale of a wavelength, it
adds helicity to the light. (c) We numerically compute the electric field components at the focus fora 0.51 NA optical system at 852 nm, and a trap depth of 1.1 mK. Here we approximate that thetweezer beam is uniformly illuminating our objective, even though we in fact aperture the beam atits 1/e2 waist of 30 mm. Our calculation therefore could exceed the true gradient by 15% [6]. For
the purposes of this illustration I rotated the coordinate system here because our polarization is in
the horizontal plane and it is hard to illustrate the electric field gradient when it points out of thepage.

the depumping time τDP , as shown in Figure 2.19.5 The former determines the size of the angulardeviation δθ while the depth determines the size of the effective magnetic field gradient. The blue
and red data correspond to two trap depths that differ by about a factor of 20. For both cases,
we see as expected that a larger quantization field suppresses depumping, and, furthermore, thedeeper trap experiences a greater depumping rate (smaller τDP ) for the same quantization axis.
Note that for the smaller quantization axes used in Figure 2.19, the lower bound on polarization
purity presented in the previous paragraph would be significantly higher. These measurements are
consistent with our hypothesis that the effective magnetic fields influence the dark state purity,
however, further modeling would be necessary to corroborate this with a quantitative comparison.

2.12

Two-particle spin-preparation
The ability to perform coherent spin rotations is critical in a number of the experiments

discussed in this thesis. These capabilities include tweezer-resolved spin rotations, so that we cancreate nearly arbitrary two-particle spin states for the Hong-Ou-Mandel and spin-exchange studies.
5

The quantization axis is 3 G for the initial optical pumping stage.

39

1/e depumping time (ms)

25
20
15
1.2 MHz trap depth
23 MHz trap depth

10
5
0

0.5

1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Quantization axis (G)3.0

Figure 2.19: We measure the depumping lifetime τDP for two trap depths as a function of the magnitude of the quantization axis. For large quantization axis (trap depth), we observe a suppression(increase) of depumping. For each quantization axis used here, the field angle and tip field were
optimized to minimize depumping; for each depth the optical pumping beam was resonant withthe light-shifted transition. However, we later determined that the quarter wave plate angle could
have been further optimized, which is why neither data set reaches the τDP = 25 ms from theprevious section. The scattering rate of the optical pumping beam (∼ 100 kHz) was kept constantto ∼ 10% over the entire data set presented here, including the effect of the magnetic field shifts of
the optical transition (1.4 MHz).

Here I will summarize important aspects of these capabilities in our experiment.

2.12.1

Microwave rotations

While many of the spin manipulations performed in this thesis are accomplished with Raman transitions, microwave rotations are also used frequently. The microwave source is a single
microwave synthesizer (Rohde-Schwartz SMF100A), which subsequently is amplitude modulated
via a Miteq pin-diode for pulse-shaping. The resulting waveform passes through a 10 W Miteq
amplifier, and the signal is delivered to the atoms via a sawed-off waveguide. The waveguide isoutside vacuum and its tip sits approximately 5 cm from the atoms. We can reach 50 kHz Rabi
rates in this fashion.
In Fig. 2.20, we show typical microwave spectra and Rabi oscillations after spin-polarizing theatom in the |2, 2i spin state and driving the |2, 2i ↔ |1, 1i transition. In Fig. 2.20a, we fix a squarepulse area to π and scan the frequency of the microwave across the resonance in 3 G magnetic field.
We typically observe up to 99% contrast when correcting for atom loss, and we observe increasing

40
16 μs

Time

1.0
F=1 Probability

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

- 200 - 100
0
100
200
Detuning(kHz)
Detuningfrom rightwell (kHz)

300

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
- 100

- 50

1.0

1.0

1.0

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.00

0.02

0.04 0.06 0.08
Rabi time (ms)

F=1 Probability

F=1 Probability

10 μs

F=1 Probability

F=1 Probability

1.0

(c)

(b)

Ω

(a)

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

0.10 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 0.44
Rabi time (ms) (ms)Square pulselength050
Detuning(kHz)
Detuning (kHz)

100

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1.00

1.02

1.04 1.06 1.08
Rabi time (ms)1.10

Figure 2.20: Microwave spectroscopy on single atoms (a) A square pulse is applied to a spinpolarized atom in |2, 2i in a 3 G field. The Rabi rate is 50 kHz, and the fit is the expected response
for a driven two-level system on resonance with a 10 µs pulse. (b) A temporally Gaussian pulse isapplied with the profile indicated in the figure. The red line is a fit to a spectral Gaussian, while
the black line is the response expected via numerical evolution of the Schrodinger equation for thispulse profile and the measured Rabi rate of 36.9 kHz. (c) Typical Rabi oscillations after applicationof a resonant square-pulse of varied pulse area.

loss of contrast as we reduce the Rabi rate; we also observe a 100 µs free-precession time, which
implies 1 mG fluctuations of the magnetic field assuming a Gaussian distribution of noise. When
we perform ground-state cooling these mitigating features persist, which largely rules out trap lightshifts and vector light shifts (±0.65 mG for a 3 G quantization axis) as the exclusive contributors.
In Fig. 2.20c, we show Rabi oscillations for a square pulse of varied area: for this Rabi rate weobserve a damping time of 1.5 ms.
In Fig. 2.20b, we perform Gaussian pulse-shaped spectroscopy. An arbitrary waveform genert2

ator provides a Gaussian modulation of the power (P (t) ∝ e 2τ 2 ) to the pin-diode with τ = 3.85 µs:
the exact waveform supplied is not Gaussian, but calibrated to produce a Gaussian modulation of
the microwave power. This yields a 2τ = 16 µs in the Rabi rate (as in the figure) and with a total

41(b) 1.0
Survival probability

(a)

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

- 1000 - 500
0
500
1000
LSB displacement from left well(nm)Figure 2.21: (a) Schematic of applying the light-shift beam to the left optical tweezer; the wells arespaced by 1.57 µm and 1.1 mK deep. (b) Scan of the position of the light-shift beam when placing
resonant cycling light on the fiber. Typically we use a 4µs pulse with less than 1nW of power inthe beam. The blue (red) points correspond to the likelihood that an atom in the left (right) wellsurvives the pulse application.

pulse length of 30 µs. These parameters were numerically optimized based on our measured Rabi
rate; the black line in the figure corresponds to a parameter free model via numerical evolution of
the Schrodinger equation. The main purpose of the Gaussian pulses is that they allow for larger
Rabi rates while retaining spectral resolution because the Gaussian spectral response has a sharper
drop off and no wings (compared to those in Fig. 2.20a). We make use of this feature in Chapter 3
for driving narrow Raman transitions, and below for tweezer-resolved spin flips.

2.12.2Spin addressing of single atoms in optical tweezers

We perform tweezer-resolved spin flips by changing the local magnetic field experienced by
one atom with respect to the other. We align a beam (the “light shift beam”) through the objective
and onto one of the optical tweezers (Fig. 2.21a); it is the same wavelength as the Raman light andσ − −polarized. Typically, a couple 100 nW is sufficient to realize up to a 200 kHz relative shift on
the |2, 2i ↔ |1, 1i transition. This compares favorably with the expected light shift for a 0.65 µm
spot, but we cannot perform an exact comparison since the polarization is mixed due to the two
45o reflections on the glass and dichroic.
The light shift beam is initially aligned by placing a retro-reflecting mirror in front of the1.0(b) 1.0

0.8

0.8

F=1 Probability

F=1 Probability

(a)

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

- 50

0
50 100 150 200 250 300
Detuning from right well (kHz)

42

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
- 100

- 50
0
50
Detuning from right well (kHz)100

Figure 2.22: Performing microwave spectra with the light-shift beam aligned to the left opticaltweezer using square (a) and Gaussian (b) pulses. The blue (red) points corresponds to the likelihood that an atom in the left (right) well is spin-flipped into F = 1.

objective, and overlapping the beam with the tweezer beam. We also initially set the collimationin this fashion, by ensuring they both focus to the same location along the optical axis. We thenperform a fine alignment by putting resonant cycling light on the optical fiber that carries the lightto the experiment. With a two-axis piezo mirror we scan the x and y position in the objective focal
plane; we iterate on this alignment and the collimation of the beam. In the end, we can see a loss
resonance as a function of position that only affects one of the wells, as shown in Fig. 2.21b. We
realign the x and y piezo positions on a daily basis and observe slow drift on the 100 nm scale.
Using the far red-detuned light, we can then finely adjust the relative position of the spin
flip resonances for each trap. Two representative spectra are shown in Fig. 2.22, one using squarepulses and the other Gaussian. We typically observe no shift on the non-targeted tweezer withrespect to the case of the beam off, suggesting that we are making a tight spot with this setup.
One concern is that the diabatic switching of these beams, which is necessitated by their scattering
rate, could cause motional heating of the atoms. The beam is applied with a 30 µs square temporalprofile, and the depth potential it applies (< 500 kHz) is only about 2.5% of the tweezer trap depthof 1.1 mK. A calculation of the perturbation to the oscillator states shows that heating is expected
to be less than 1%, which was also experimentally verified with sideband spectroscopy.
To maximize the preparation, we need to balance a number of concerns: (1) minimizing the43light shift beam power due to spontaneous emission, (2) maximizing the microwave Rabi rate tomaintain the fidelity of the π pulses, and (3) minimizing the ratio of the peak widths to peakseparation. We care about (1) since it mitigates the spin preparation and causes heating, and (3)to prevent off-resonantly driving spin flips. By eliminating the sinc-function wings from a squarepulse, and furthermore, by having a narrower spectral profile for the same Rabi rate (Lorentzian vs.
Gaussian), Gaussian pulse-shaping is advantageous for creating arbitrary two-particle spin stateswith the light-shifting technique. We can create arbitrary states with above 90% fidelity. This
likely could be improved by switching to frequency and amplitude modulated pulses (e.g. HS1
pulse [2]), but at the expense of interrogation time: this would require going to a farther detuned
light-shift beam because these require millisecond pulse lengths.

Chapter 3

Cooling a single atom in an optical tweezer to its motional ground-state

In this chapter, I will present results demonstrating the first realization of three-dimensional
Raman-sideband cooling of a single isolated, addressable neutral atom. In addition to exploiting
key features of the optical tweezer platform itself, the results of subsequent chapters rely on theability to prepare indistinguishable atoms in pure quantum states of spin and motion via lasercooling techniques. The discussion in this chapter is therefore foundational to the results presented
in this thesis.
Motional control of neutral atoms has a rich history, and increasingly interest has turned tothe problem of single-atom control. To date, optical lattices created by standing waves of lighthave been the main platform for realizing motional control of collections of single neutral atoms.
Approaches have included demonstrations of the Mott insulator transition of an evaporatively
cooled gas [11, 2], and explorations of laser cooling collections of atoms in a lattice [51, 52, 53,
54, 58, 59, 60, 88, 61]. More recently, in spin-dependent lattices experimenters have harnessed
microwave signals to cool and control atomic motion [60, 61]. Our work in an optical tweezer
breaks with typical lattice experiments, and instead more closely resembles the sideband cooling andspectroscopy techniques used with atomic ions [50]. We hold a single atom in a far-detuned tweezer
trap and apply near-resonant, pulsed cooling and spectroscopy light that couples two ground state
hyperfine levels (Fig. 3.1a). The complete separation of the trapping and cooling beams [54, 59, 88]
allows us to realize rapid cooling as well as low trap spontaneous emission rates and hence longcoherence times. As subsequent chapters will discuss in detail, by approaching the cooling fidelities

45
achieved with evaporative cooling in this tweezer-based platform, we have established a new routeto creating low-entropy arrays of neutral atoms for quantum dynamics experiment
In this chapter I will focus on ground-state laser cooling in the context of our experiment,
and provide less of a completely general picture of Raman-sideband cooling (for a very generaldescription, I highly recommend Ref. [56]). I will discuss important theoretical calculations donein order to guide our choice of cooling parameters in the experiment, as well as to gain a decent
grasp of various regimes of cooling. I will discuss briefly theory for coherent Raman transitions andmaster equation calculations of the cooling, then experiments with three different types of sideband
cooling: pulsed, continuous, and Gaussian pulsed cooling. The first pulsed cooling discussion relies
heavily on material from our publication on the subject [89].

3.1

Quick summary of Raman sideband cooling in an optical tweezer
We laser cool to the ground state by employing a technique known as Raman sideband

cooling [51, 52, 53, 56, 90]. Raman sideband cooling operates by iterating on a two step processthat manipulates the atomic spin and motion, and resolves motional transitions even when the trap
frequency is less than the electronic transition linewidth. In our scheme, we utilize two hyperfine
levels of 87 Rb: |F, mF i ≡ |2, 2i and |1, 1i (Fig. 3.1b), where F is the hyperfine angular momentum
quantum number and mF its projection. The first step is a stimulated Raman transition on|2, 2; ni ↔ |1, 1; n − 1i that reduces the vibrational state by one quantum while also realizing a spin
flip. A set of beams (RBi ), illustrated in Fig. 3.1a, operate in pairs to drive these coherent Raman
transitions between spin and motional states. The second step to the cooling is the dissipative step:
The atom is optically pumped back to the initial spin-state via a spontaneous Raman process, while
the emitted photon carries away entropy. By repeating these steps, population accumulates in the|2, 2; 0i state because it is dark to the Raman beams and the optical pumping light.
For Raman cooling to be successful, the optical pumping step must preserve the reduced
vibrational state. The vibrational excitation probability depends on the motional quantum numbern and the Lamb-Dicke parameter, η OP ≡ x0 kOP , where x0 = (~/2mω)1/2 is the oscillator length

46

(a)

x x’
y

z

RB2

y’
RB4
RB3

B

OP

F=2’
RB2,3,4(b)RB1

λ=780 nm
F=2, mF=2

|n>
|n-1>

Δν=6.8 GHz
F=1, mF=1

OP

RB1

ħω
|n-1>

Figure 3.1: Experimental setup for tweezer trap, detection, and three-dimensional motional control.
(a) Orthogonal radial axes, indicated by x0 and y 0 , are addressed by Raman beam 1 (RB1) (σ + polarized) and RB2 (π-polarized), or RB1 and RB3 (π-polarized). RB1 and RB4 (linearly polarizedin y-z plane) address the axial direction. Note we should be able to cool all three axes with a single
pair of counterpropagating beams. (b) Level diagram for 87 Rb with associated beams from (a).
Optical pumping consists of σ + -polarized repump light on the F = 1 → 20 transition along with
optical pumping light on F = 2 → 20 .

for a particle of mass m and kOP is the optical pumping wave number. In our experiment, Raman
cooling begins with an atom in a mixed thermal state, with a temperature corresponding to an
average vibrational quantum number n̄. The likelihood of excitation from the optical pumping
depends on the size of the thermal atomic wave packet compared to the wavelength of the opticalpumping light. Therefore, the excitation probability due to a single scattered photon scales aspOP )2 ≡ (2n̄ + 1)(η OP )2 , and hence the Raman cooling efficiency scales inversely(k hx2 i)2 = (ηeff
OP )2 [91]. Therefore, ground state cooling (achieving n̄ = 0) requires (1) low enoughwith (ηeffinitial temperatures before starting Raman cooling, and (2) sufficient confinement, i.e. large trap
frequencies. The analysis in this chapter will come back to these two key points on a number of47
occasions.

3.2

Theory of coherent Raman transitions

3.2.1

Raman transition Rabi frequencies: internal degrees of freedom

The set of beams in Fig. 3.1a display the primary toolset with which we can drive Raman
transitions that address all three motional degrees of freedom of an atom in the optical tweezer.
The beam directions and frequencies are chosen such that RB1 (“EO beam”) is paired with oneof RB2-4 (“Top”, “Bottom”, and “Axial” beams, respectively) to impart momentum to a chosenmotional axis. The details of the beam frequency generation will be discussed in a later section,and for the purposes of the discussion here of Raman transitions I will simplify the picture to whatis shown in Fig. 3.2. To connect with our experiment, RB1 plays the role of beam 2, while RB2-4
plays the role of beam 1. In the presence of beams 1 and 2, the atomic eigenstates are dressedby the electric dipole interaction, and contain very small amplitudes of the excited state |ii. By
diabatically pulsing on these beams, quantum amplitude can rotate from |si, virtually through theexcited state, and into |f i. This is a Raman transition; it is a second-order perturbative process.
Here we provide a general description for calculating the Raman Rabi frequency, which we
define as the frequency with which the measured probabilities oscillate between the Raman coupled
ground-states |si and |f i; the amplitudes oscillate at half this frequency, and the off-diagonals in
the Hamiltonian of the restricted two-level system of the ground states is 1/2 the Raman Rabi
frequency. This definition varies in the literature, so here we explicitly define quantities necessary
to calculate the Raman Rabi frequency using the atomic and Raman beam parameters. For a
two-photon transition between states |si and |f i, the Raman Rabi frequency can be written simply
as [92],
ΩR =

Ω1 Ω2
,
2∆

(3.1)

where Ω1 and Ω2 are the single photon couplings due to beams 1 and 2, respectively, and ∆ is theintermediate state detuning from the excited state depicted in Fig. 3.2. Typically, the detuning

48

|i>
Δ

1

2
|s>

|f>

δ

Figure 3.2: Raman transitions. In our setup, we drive transitions of ∆mF = ±1, necessitating one
beam of π- polarization (beam 1) and another of circular (beam 2). The difference in the beamfrequencies is resonant with the splitting between the states between which we hope to drive atransition, up to an amount δ (Raman detuning). Both beams are far detuned from an excitedstate |ii, and each yields dressing of this state quantified by the single photon couplings Ω1 and Ω2 ,respectively. For explanatory purposes, we simplify the picture to driving a transition between two
states, |si and |f i, through a single intermediate, excited state |ii. In practice, the Raman beams
couple to many excited states (see text).

is much larger than either of the single photon couplings to avoid significant populations in the
excited state and hence spontaneous emission. The single photon coupling Ωb is calculated fromthe dipole matrix elements of the transition in question as,Ωb = d · Eb /~,(3.2)

where d is the electric dipole operator, and Eb the electric field of the light driving the single

49
photon process (beam 1 or 2). If a single excited state existed, we could simply calculate these two
single photon couplings in Eq. 3.1 to compute the Raman Rabi frequency. However, in general,many different excited states can couple to the ground states |si and |f i, and each Raman pathway
contributes to the final coupling between the ground states. Therefore, a more general expression
for the Raman Rabi frequency is required [93],
ΩR =

1 X
hf |d · E|iihi|d · E|si/∆i ,
2~2

(3.3)

i

where the sum is taken over the set of all intermediate states |ii with associated intermediate state
detunings ∆i . We now seek a general expression for the dipole matrix elements between each of
the ground-states with an excited intermediate state. We therefore require expressions for matrix
elements of the form,~Ωb (F, mF , F 0 , m0F ) = hF, mF |d · E|F 0 , m0F i,(3.4)

where the primed quantum numbers denote an excited intermediate state, and the unprimed quantum numbers one of the ground-state quantum numbers. Using Ref. [4], these can computed exactlywith the aid of the measured D1 and D2 excited state lifetimes τD1 and τD2 , respectively. Skippingsome algebra, we can write (using D2 line here for τ ),
 1/2 1/2p2Ii
3π0 ~c30~Ωb (F, mF , F 0 , m0F ) =(−1)F +J+1+I (2F 0 + 1)(2J 0 + 1)3
0 c
τD2 ωF F 0 J J 0 1
hF, mF |1, −q, F 0 , m0F iCGC ,F 0 F I 

(3.5)

6j

where J and J 0 refer to the quantum numbers with respect to fine-structure for the ground andexcited states, respectively; ωF F 0 refers to the angular transition frequency between the hyperfine
states F and F 0 in the matrix element1 ; the curly brackets refer to a 6j-coefficient; the last matrix
element with the CGC subscript refers to a Clebsch-Gordan coefficient; q refers to the sphericalpolarization component of the light driving the single-photon transition (±1 for σ ± and 0 for π); Ii
refers to the intensity of the light driving the transition (beam 1 or 2 in what follows); I = 3/2 is1

We neglect magnetic field shifts of the sub-levels, which are small compared to everything else

50
the nuclear spin. The Raman Rabi frequencies through the D1 and D2 line between ground-states|F s , msF i and |F f , mfF i are then,0 =F 0F 0 =3 mXFΩ1 (F s , msF , F 0 , m0F )Ω2 (F f , mfF , F 0 , m0F ),∆F 0 ,ω(1,2)(3.6)

0 =F 0F 0 =2 mXFΩ1 (F s , msF , F 0 , m0F )Ω2 (F f , mfF , F 0 , m0F ),∆F 0 ,ω(1,2)

(3.7)

1 X
ΩD2 =
2 0

F =0 m0F =−F

and,
1 X
ΩD1 =
2 0

F =1 m0F =−F

where ∆F 0 ,ω(1,2) is the intermediate state detuning from F 0 of the Raman beams, each with angularfrequency ω1 and ω2 (one only requires knowledge of one frequency here since we are assuming
the beams are on Raman resonance, i.e. δ = 0 in Figure 3.2). Since in our experiment we detune−50 GHz from the D2 line, the states in this manifold primarily contribute (D1 line couplings
contribute at the 1% level). However, we include both lines in performing a calculation of expected
rates. The final Raman Rabi frequency is the sum of the coupling from the D1 and D2 line,ΩR = ΩD1 + ΩD2 .

(3.8)

We find agreement at the 40% level with our experimentally measured Rabi frequencies and thesecalculations. Disparities are likely due to our lack of knowledge of the exact intensities of the
focused Raman beams at the atoms.

3.2.2

Raman transitions: external degrees of freedom and full Hamiltonian

While the above calculations address how a Raman beam pair couples to the internal degrees
of freedom of an atom, the pair coherently couples to the external degrees of freedom by imparting
momentum. For a pair of beams with momentum vectors k1 and k2 , the momentum kick an atom
experiences after a transition between the spin ground-states is,~∆k = ~(k1 − k2 ).

(3.9)

Therefore, whenever the beam pair is not copropagating the atom will experience a momentum
kick. The quantum operator that realizes this process is the momentum translation operator ei∆kx̂ ,51
where x̂ is the position operator. For an effective spin-1/2 atom (which is the case here, | ↑i ≡ |2, 2i
and | ↓i ≡ |1, 1i ), the Hamiltonian for the Raman interaction can then be written [94],HR =~ΩR  i∆kx̂ +e
σ + e−i∆kx̂ σ − ,2(3.10)

where σ + and σ − are the spin raising and lowering operators, respectively, with respect to theeigenstates of σz . Reaching this Hamiltonian requires going into the rotating frame and making
the rotating wave approximation. For the purposes of this discussion, we have also assumed thatthe momentum kick is entirely along the motional axis defined by x̂; in general, we can replace∆kx̂ with ∆k · x to treat multiple quantized dimensions. For an atom trapped deep in an opticaltweezer, the atom’s motion is harmonic to very good approximation, and so we decompose theposition operator in terms of raising and lowering operators. After doing this, from HR , much of
the physics of Raman sideband transitions can be deduced upon making the simplification that
we operate in the so-called Lamb-Dicke regime. To elucidate the meaning of this, we focus on theargument of the exponential,i∆kx̂ = i∆kx0 a + a† ,(3.11)

where a and a† are the creation and annihilation operators for a harmonic oscillator of frequency
1/2~
ω and mass m, and x0 = 2mω
is the ground-state extension. We now define the Lamb-Dicke

parameter η R = ∆kx0 , which contains a ratio of the length-scales associated with the momentum

kick (2π/∆k) and the size of the atomic wave packet x0 . Making the assumption that we are in thepLamb-Dicke regime (LDR) with respect to the Raman beams necessitates that η R h(a + a† )2 i <<1, which relies on the assumption that the atom is sufficiently cold that its thermal wave packet issmall compared to 2π/∆k [90]. We can then expand HR to first order,
LDR
HR
=




~ΩR  + 
σ 1 + iη R a + a† + h.c. + O((η R )2 ),2(3.12)

with which we can see the three lowest-order processes realized by the Raman interaction in thematrix elements of the states |{↑, ↓}; ni,LDRh↑; n + 1|HR| ↓; ni =i~ΩR R √η
n + 1,
2(3.13)

52
i~ΩR R √
η
n,
2
~ΩR
LDR
h↑; n|HR| ↓; ni =,2LDRh↑; n − 1|HR| ↓; ni =(3.14)(3.15)

where the first two cases correspond to the so-called blue and red sideband, respectively, and thethird case refers to a carrier transition which does not influence the atomic motion. From thesematrix elements, we see that in the LDR the sideband Rabi frequencies from the Fock state |ni
√ √
LDR
R
are {ΩLDR
RSB , ΩBSB } = η ΩR { n, n + 1}. Each of the transitions can be resonantly driven byappropriate choice of δ ≈ ±ω from Fig.3.2.2

While in the LDR, this largely summarizes thecontrol achieved by Raman interactions on harmonically trapped atoms, and provides most of thetools necessary for discussing the data in the rest of this thesis, exact analytic expressions for eachof the Rabi frequencies exist,ΩSB (n, m) = ΩR e−(η R )2 /2



n< !
n> !

1/2

(η R )|n−m| L|n−m|((η R )2 ),n<

R 2Ωc (n) = ΩR e−(η ) /2 L0n ((η R )2 ),(3.16)(3.17)

where the first equation describes sideband Raman Rabi frequencies between the n and m motional
states and n< (n> ) refers to the smaller (larger) of the two, while the second equation describes
the carrier Raman Rabi frequency from state n [92]. The expressions are written in terms of thegeneralized Laguerre polynomials Lan . We use these expressions when performing analytic fits tothe thermal carrier dephasing data in Section 3.4.3, and also check the numerics discussed below
by comparing the Fock state evolution against these expressions.

3.2.3

Full Hamiltonian for a harmonically bound atom and coherent dynamics

The above treatment addresses the main function of the Raman beams on motional Fockstates. However, the starting point for Raman cooling in our experiment is subsequent to subDoppler polarization gradient cooling of an atom. We approximate the atom’s motion at this time2

There is a small shift δ 0 ≈ ω2



ΩR
ω

2

of the sideband position due to dressing from the carrier.

53
as a thermal density matrix,
ρT =1 X −n~ω/kb Te|nihn|.
Z n(3.18)

It is important to stress what exactly this density matrix means for a single atom since we do nothave some thermalized ensemble: the purely diagonal ρT quantifies the likelihood that on any given
run of the experiment the atom is in the motional state |ni after sub-Doppler cooling. Therefore,
when solving for coherent dynamics, we will implicitly be computing an incoherent sum of coherent
evolutions with weights determined by this thermal distribution. With ρT as our initial condition,
we can then solve the dynamics for a Hamiltonian H using the Von-Neumann equation i~ρ̇ = [H, ρ].
The total Hamiltonian H for the atom including both the Raman interaction and the harmonic
potential is,X1~ω
H = − ~δσz +|0ih0| +n~ω|nihn| + HR ,22
n(3.19)

where the kets refer to the quantized harmonic states from the motional degree of freedom, but
residing in the full motional-spin Hilbert space.
In Fig. 3.3a, we show coherent dynamics for the sidebands, to illustrate the Rabi flopping on
the red and blue sidebands for a spin-down atom at 15 µK in a trap of ω/2π = 140 kHz. Due to theincoherent sum of frequency components from each motional state in the thermal density matrix,
the sideband Rabi oscillations look funky. Crucially, and despite the funkiness, one can use theseoscillations to show a key feature of the sidebands, namely that they carry temperature informationon the atom provided the atom’s motion conforms to a thermal distribution. In the Lamb-Dicke
regime, one can apply the well-known [50] expression to the so-called “sideband asymmetry”,
ARSB
n̄
=
,
n̄ + 1ABSB(3.20)

where ARSB (ABSB ) are the probabilities for a spin-flip when on the red-sideband (blue-sideband)
resonance. In the limit of perfectly being in LDR, this expression is time independent [50] which
we numerically investigate in Fig. 3.3b. Ultimately, the expression arises due to the different
matrix elements of the raising and lowering operators, however, it is not obvious why it persists

54
for arbitrary times in the dynamics. We compute n̄ as prescribed by Eq. 3.20 at each time in thecoherent evolution, and we compare this to the known n̄ from the temperature (dashed black line),
1

n̄ =
e

~ω
kb T

= Tr(a† aρT ).

(3.21)−1

Due to a small amount of second-order (i.e. outside LDR) effects and off-resonant carrier transitions, there is a slight difference between the dashed line and the computed n̄, the effect of whichis enhanced when the sidebands are small. Importantly, we see that Eq. 3.20 is a tight lower
bound since the plotted value never drops below the true n̄, so that we cannot underestimate ourtemperature on the basis of this technique. Typically, we perform such thermometry at π-pulseon the sidebands because this maximizes signal-to-noise and yields via Eq. 3.20 a value closest to
the true n̄; we usually take a full spectrum on the red and blue-sidebands to extract high-statistics
amplitudes. In contrast, when each of the peaks is small, taking the ratio becomes increasingly
unreliable with respect to noise. Overall, this is a very powerful tool for performing thermometryon atoms.
I also want to point out that these simulations illustrate why it is important to start near
the LDR when cooling: when the atom is very hot, sideband transitions rapidly dephase due to thebroad distribution in Fock states and increased sensitivity to the motional state when expanding
HR to higher orders. This implies that the cooling process is slowed. It is also the case that fora large distribution of Rabi rates it is possible to create additional dark states for a particularsideband pulselength (see Section 3.3.2). Lastly, it is evident that, for a thermal state, the n1/2
relationship of the sideband Rabi rate causes the increased peaking of the oscillations before apulse area of π in the ground state sideband Rabi frequency; we exploit this property for improved
cooling in Section 3.3.2.
As a comparison to the ground-state dynamics, we show the same coherent sideband simulations for an atom at temperature 1.7 µK (n̄ = 0.02): the asymmetry between the sidebands
is greatly enhanced. Since the atom is in the ground state PGS ≈ 1 − n̄ = 0.98 fraction of theexperiments, the red-sideband transition is suppressed since it is impossible to remove anymore

(a) 1(b) 2.5

0.8

2

0.8

1.5

0.6

0.4

1

0.2

0.5

0

0

0

(d) 1

2
Sideband pulse area (1/ R )

3

(e)

P

n̄

P

P

0.6

0

2
Sideband pulse area (1/ R )

0.5

0

3

(f )

0

2

4
6
8
Carrier pulse area (1/ )

0

2

4
6
8
Carrier pulse area (1/ )

1
0.8

0.6

0.6

n̄

0.4

P

P

P

0.4
0.2

0.8

0.2
0

55

1

(c)

0.4
0.2

0

2
Sideband pulse area (1/ R )

3

0

0

2
Sideband pulse area (1/ R )30

Figure 3.3: Coherent sideband and carrier oscillations, determination of n̄, for η R = 0.22 andω/(2π) = 140 kHz. Top (bottom) row for thermal state of temperature 15 µK (1.7 µK) (a,d)
Coherent sideband oscillations for δ ≈ ±ω, where to hit resonance for the sideband oscillations wecorrect for the slight dressing of the sideband resonance by the carrier (this pulls the sidebands
closer to the carrier). The red and blue-sidebands are correspondingly colored. (b,e) Computingn̄ from the sideband oscillations using Eq. 3.20, and comparing to the dashed line whose positionis the true n̄ from Eq. 3.21. (c,f) Expected dephasing (and lack thereof) of carrier oscillations via
Eq. 3.22 as a function of temperature. For (a,d,c,f) we plot the likelihood to measure the particle
in spin-up, P↑ , given that it started spin-down and in the stated motional distribution.

motional quanta once the atom is in the ground-state. This latter temperature, as will be shown,is about what we achieve along each dimension of the optical tweezer.
Lastly, in Fig. 3.3c,f, we show another thermometry technique we employ in the experiment [88]. While in the LDR the carrier Rabi frequency for a given Fock state is insensitive to the
motional quantum number, beyond first order (i.e. by definition outside LDR) it becomes sensitive
to the motional state as is indicated by the exact analytic expressions for the Rabi frequency. We
can use this sensitivity as an additional check on our thermometry: for a thermal state, carrier
Rabi oscillations should damp out at a rate directly related to the temperature. We show thisnumerically in the figures, and we fit our data using a thermal distribution of the Rabi evolutions,P↑ (t) =Xn=

PT (n)(1 − cos(Ωc (n)t)),2(3.22)

where PT (n) is the Boltzmann weight in the Fock state |ni for an atom at temperature T . As shown56
in later experimental sections, we find nice agreement between this approach and our sideband
spectroscopy.

3.3

Raman-sideband cooling theory: adding dissipation
The key ingredient to the cooling is the addition of optical pumping, which performs anirreversible dissipative step to cool the atom. To model the cooling in our experiment, we employ amaster equation calculation. The master equation is a standard tool for open quantum systems, andprovides the ensemble average (i.e. many runs of the experiment) of the dynamics when quantum
jumps occur due to coupling to a bath. The quantum jumps in our experiment occur when theatom spontaneous emits a photon into vacuum upon decaying from the excited state 20 . However,
because the lifetime in the excited state is so short compared to the rest of the dynamics, we canmodel the optical pumping as simply a quantum jump between the spin-up and spin-down state.
In what follows, we will treat the down state as the dark state (it is reversed in the experiment,
but this simplifies discussion and is consistent with the above discussion on coherent transitions)and summarize our master equation formalism. Furthermore, we will break up our treatment into
two cases: (1) sideband cooling via continuous cooling, where the optical pumping and coherent
Raman coupling are on concurrently, (2) pulsed cooling in which the optical pumping and Raman
transitions are staggered. The sideband cooling has a pretty large and coupled parameter space,
and the numerics discussed in this section were an extremely important guide in our choice ofexperimental parameters.

3.3.1

Continuous cooling

To properly account for the motional heating during optical pumping, we must calculate
the number of photons absorbed to optically pump the atom. Using the known line strengths [4],this corresponds to three photons on the average for the spin-states used in the experiment, and,including the dipole emission pattern profile, correspondingly causes for x/y (z) axes three (one)57

Dark state probability

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0

0.5

1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
OP+Raman time (ms)

3.0

Figure 3.4: Simulation of continuous sideband cooling. We show the expected dark state population|2, 2; 0i as function of time that an atom is exposed to Raman and optical pumping beams. The
blue (green) is for the case of δ ≈ −ω (δ = 0). The simulation uses parameters close to the radialcontinuous cooling of Section 3.4.6: ΩR /(2π) = 20 kHz, initial T = 15 µK, η R = 0.22, η OP = 0.16,
Γ = 30 ms−1 , and ω/(2π) = 140 kHz.

momentum kick of magnitude ~kop .3

We define an optical pumping operator as follows, using aradial direction for the purpose of this discussion. Since we take the cooling state, the dark spinstate, to be | ↓i, we can define an optical pumping operator for a scattering rate Γ (units 1/s),3Ô = Γ1/2 σ − eikOP x̂ ,(3.23)

where the spin lowering operator recycles the spin state while the second terms realizes the associated heating with scattering three photons of wavenumber kOP . As with HR , the degree to whicha momentum kick couples to the atom’s motion depends on the Lamb-Dicke parameter, but inthis case the one associated with the optical pumping η OP = kOP x0 . We accordingly define the
Lindblad operator,
1
1
L = ÔρÔ† − Ô† Ôρ − ρÔ† Ô.
2
2
3(3.24)We expect on the average, in total, 6 photon momentum kicks, with 2.5/2.5 and 1 for x/y and z, respectively.
However, we use 3 as an upper bound for each of the radial axes since it simplifies the discussion and 2.5 scatters is
weird.

58
For continuous cooling, we have both the coherent Raman process, the harmonic confinement, andthe dissipation term from L. The master equation to be solved is then,iρ̇ = [H, ρ] + iL.

(3.25)

We numerically solve Eq. 3.25 in order to guide our choice of cooling parameters and understand various possible issues associated with the cooling. In Figure 3.4, we show typical results forcooling parameters close to those used in our experiment for continuous radial sideband cooling.
After 3 ms the atom is cooled to the dark-state (| ↓; n = 0i) with 98% probability when we set δ to
the red-sideband. To illustrate the dominant heating mechanism for this setup, I show the dynamics for the boneheaded choice of setting δ = 0, i.e. to the carrier resonance (darker green). In thiscase, the coherent Raman process flips the spin but does not change the motional state, while theoptical pumping recycles the atom and realizes three momentum kicks. Therefore, for every spin
flip, the atom is heated by the optical pumping. This implies that a key concern is the spectroscopic
width of the carrier during cooling, since if there is appreciable carrier transition amplitude at theposition of the red-sideband then that contributes a corresponding heating rate. There are twocontributions to this width: the carrier Rabi frequency sets the overall Lorentzian profile of the coherent transition (with an additional oscillating envelope when coherent), but the optical pumping
reduces the lifetime of | ↑; ni and consequently also broadens the state. The frequency width of thepcarrier transition is therefore (2π)−1 Ω2c + Γ2 . This implies that, in comparison to pulsed coolingwhere the optical pumping is not simultaneous with the Raman transition, the continuous coolingis necessarily slower for a similar carrier heating rate; indeed, we observe increased steady-state
excitation fraction in the numerics as either of these rates is increased.
Lastly, it is important to note the sense in which this cooling simulation does not exactly
map onto the experiment. Firstly, and obviously, this is one-dimensional and so we expect that
all the 3D cooling should take longer due to optical pumping heating during the cooling of otherdimensions. Secondly, while we account for the heating due to the three photons scattered during
optical pumping, we do not account for the factor of three in spin-recycling time. This was a

59
deliberate choice: it is the scattering rate out of the pumped state that determines its width andhence any resulting heating. Without adding the excited state to this code (which would haveincreased the simulation time), the only way to reflect the factor of three slowing in the simulation
would be to reduce this scattering rate Γ, which would then improperly simulate the broadening.
Since we care more about the heating as opposed to the exact cooling speed (which is reduced bythis increase in recycling time) in modeling the continuous cooling, we opt to have this inaccuracy.
When using the cooling simulations to guide choice of experimental parameters, we always haveused significantly longer cooling times (or number of cycles of continuous cooling) to reflect these
physical distinctions between the theory and experiment. Thirdly, for the experimental continuous
cooling of Section 3.4.6.1, it is the repumping ΓRP that sets the width of the transition; this does noteffect the modeling, but merely the translation between theory and experiment. Our experimental
dark-state is |2, 2i, from which we drive transitions to |1, 1i. After the sideband transition, the spinis bright to the repumper, and, in combination with the F = 2 optical pumping beam the atom, is
recycled to |2, 2i.
3.3.2

Pulsed cooling

We also perform simulations of pulsed sideband cooling, where the optical pumping andcoherent sideband pulses are staggered in time. We first evolve Eq. 3.25 without the dissipative
Lindblad term for an amount of time that is the sideband pulselength and for a detuning δ resonantwith the red-sideband. We then pass the resulting density matrix to a new equation, Eq. 3.25
without the Hamiltonian term, and evolve the density matrix for 5 times the optical pumping τ(to fully recycle the spin state). Because we omit the Hamiltonian in the second step, we are
ignoring any evolution of coherences that develop due to the motional superpositions achieved by
the momentum kicks. However, since these momentum kicks are randomly distributed in time,they are completely dephased provided the optical pumping time is much longer than 1/ω, whichis satisfied for all the simulations done here [95].
In Fig. 3.5, we show two cooling trajectories (dark state fraction versus cooling cycle; each

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

0

10

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

0

1

2

3
4
5
Motional state

20
30
Cool cycle

40

6

7

(b)

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

50

60

Occupation probability

(a)

0.8

Dark state probability

1.0

Occupation probability

Dark state probability

1.0

0

10

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

0

1

2

3
4
5
Motional state

20
30
Cool cycle

40

6

7

50

Figure 3.5: Simulation of pulsed and chirped pulsed cooling. For both simulations shown, we useΩR /(2π) = 31 kHz, ω/(2π) = 150 kHz, η R = 0.22, η OP = 0.16, δ ≈ ω. (a) Pulsed sideband
cooling using the same pulse length of ∆t = π/(η R ΩR ) = 73 µs for the entire cooling routine. (b)Pulsed sideband cooling using ∆t = 48 µs (∆t = π/(η R ΩR )) for the first 40 (last 10) pulsed-coolingcycles. The kink at cycle 40 in the cooling trajectory comes from the change in the pulselength. It
is clear that the shorter pulselength by itself would actually be sufficient for 99% cooling fidelityin ∼ 0.5 ms. The insets show the motional state occupations at the end of the cooling for each
protocol on the basis of the diagonals of the final density matrix.
.

cooling cycle consists of one sideband pulse then optical pumping recycling) to emphasize themain complication associated with pulsed cooling. In contrast to continuous cooling, an additional
experimental parameter is manifest in the pulselength used for the Raman transition. A natural
first choice for this is the sideband ground-state π-pulse, i.e. π/(η R ΩR ). If the atom is initiallyvery cold, this is a good choice since it should with high efficiency transfer first excited atoms into
the ground state. However, we observe in the numerics (Fig. 3.5a) that the final dark-state fraction
is 77% when starting from a initial thermal state of 15 µK (n̄ = 1.6, which is a typical initial
temperature in the experiment). Interestingly, the staggering of the coherent and optical pumping
process changes the steady-state distribution in a very pernicious fashion.
To elucidate this behavior, we show in Fig. 3.5a inset the atom motional state occupations after cooling. This is not thermal: there is not monotonic exponential drop off in the occupations, butrather drop off then a bump around motional states 4 ≤ n ≤ 6. Interestingly, and annoyingly, thisis because those states have red-sideband Rabi frequencies that are nearly double the ground-state

61(n,n−1)sideband Rabi frequency (for η R = 0.22 and states n = {4, 5, 6}, ΩSBΩSB (1,0) = {1.81, 1.97, 2.11}):

for a choice of a π-pulse for the ground-state, this is a 2π-pulse for those motional states! It follows that these motional states are predominantly dark to the Raman drive, and tend to haveappreciable steady-state populations. Even more perniciously, if an experimenter were to apply theassumption that this was a thermal state and subsequently perform sideband spectroscopy with apulse length of π/(η R ΩR ), they would incorrectly conclude a very high ground-state fraction since
the red-sideband would be nearly zero despite the existence of an excited fraction (since this fraction is dark to this pulselength). Lastly, higher vibrational states exist that are also even multiplesof the ground-state sideband Rabi frequency, however, for the initial temperatures in this thesis
the discussed group of states is primarily relevant; other atomic species for which the sub-Doppler
cooling is worse should likely consider this effect when performing pulsed sideband cooling.
With the above considerations in mind, for Raman-sideband cooling to work for all initialconditions in consideration, there must be only one dark-state with no others along the way as
the atom is cooled from highly excited states. And the paranoid experimenter should perform
spectroscopy at multiple pulselengths, since no motional state except the ground-state is dark
to all pulselengths; alternatively, a frequency scan will also reveal an overdriven structure at the
red-sideband if a non-thermal state of this variety has been prepared. From an experimental
perspective, we in fact are less affected by this phenomenon because it presumes that we havefull coherence after a 2π rotation: in fact, for Rabi frequencies typical to the sideband transitions(1 − 10 kHz), our magnetic field fluctuations preclude full contrast 2π rotations (this was verified
by microwave spectroscopy). Nevertheless, we do address these concerns in our typical pulsed
cooling protocol, which we simulate in Fig. 3.5b. The solution is to perform the cooling with two
different pulselengths. The first 40 cycles of cooling use a shorter pulselength, one which the excitedstates see as closer to a sideband π-pulse. Afterwards, the thermal distribution is grouped in thelowest few motional states, to which we apply the ground-state sideband π-pulse for 10 cycles; it
is unclear whether these last cycles even matter (in fact, according to the simulation it hurts theground-state fraction likely due to increased carrier transitions, but only at the 0.8% level.). The

62
resulting ground state fraction is 98%, akin to the continuous cooling. However, the cooling reallysaturates on a much faster time scale: if we just assume 10 cycles are necessary, then ideally thecooling could occur in under 1 ms.

3.3.3

Optical pumping purity

The darkness of the dark state matters, and its irreversible coupling to the other states inthe Hilbert space guarantees population accumulation in this state. There is the darkness thatcomes from the motional ground-state decoupling from the Raman drive when the red-sideband isspectrally resolved from the carrier, and there is darkness from the optical pumping polarization
purity. One question I wondered about for some time is which, continuous or pulsed, is moresensitive to polarization impurity. On the one hand, continuous cooling keeps the optical pumping
on continuously, yet the population that accrues in the dark-state is always steady-state as inpulsed-cooling. In the end I concluded that since the dark-state occupation will in both cases be
determined by the competition of rates populating and depopulating the dark spin-state, and those
rates are the same for pulsed and continuous cooling, the two protocols are equally sensitive topolarization purity in terms of the resulting spin-state. However, it is not clear how much motional
heating this causes in turn: perhaps one technique is better at recovering from the motional heating
caused by excess spin population in bright states. Assessing this question experimentally is a bit
challenging to our setup since changes to the polarization of the OP beam would affect other beams
as well. To study this question theoretically, I varied the fractional depumping and looked at the
purity of the resulting density matrix for each procedure, as shown in Fig. 3.6. Interestingly, it
seems the continuous cooling is much more robust against polarization impurity causing dark state
depumping. I do not have a good explanation for this, but for both cases our part in a thousand
relative depumping has negligible effect. I would hypothesize that this is related to the inefficiencyof the pulsed sideband transitions when the distribution of motional states is broad.

63

1.0

Tr(ρ2 )

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15 0.20
ΓDP /ΓOP

0.25

0.30

Figure 3.6: Effect of polarization impurity on different sideband cooling protocols. Using thecontinuous-cooling parameters of Figure 3.4 except that we now use ω/(2π) = 150 kHz, and thepulsed-cooling of Figure 3.5b, and we model the effect of the polarization purity of the opticalpumping beam. This is achieved by varying the ratio of good to bad polarization, which is equivalent
to the ratio of depumping scattering rate to the good polarization scattering rate: ΓDP /Γ. A
1/2
term is added to Eq. 3.23 of the form ΓDP σ + . Since we care both about the motional and spin
distribution, I plot the resulting density matrix purity on the y-axis, for the case of continuous(black) and pulsed (purple) cooling. The continuous cooling is significantly more robust against
this experimental systematic.

3.3.4

Choosing between pulsed cooling and continuous: taking stock of experimental and theoretical concerns

Before discussing data, I want to briefly express my view (really, lack thereof, this is moreof a summary) on choice of performing continuous or pulsed sideband cooling. From the above
discussions, it is clear that continuous sideband cooling is necessarily slower than pulsed cooling,
but skirts some of the complications associated with pulselength-sensitive dark-states. For theexperiments in this thesis, speed is mainly relevant to the experimental cycle time; in particular, thesimulations done here are all 1D, but since we cool in 3D everything is a fair bit slower. Continuous
cooling typically takes 150 ms, while pulsed cooling only requires ∼ 30 ms.4

Experimentally, thebeauty of continuous cooling is that you are less sensitive to the exact Rabi frequency since there
is no pulse length to consider, and the scattering rate of the optical pumping means the transition
4
The reduced confinement of the axial direction increases all the time scales significantly, as well as the heatingof all directions as the atom is cooled along each dimension.

64
retains a width that is larger than our magnetic field noise even if the Rabi frequency droops due
to, for example, beam drift. Since we found that we had to often recalibrate the sideband positions
with pulsed cooling, we opted to take the hit in cycle time because the continuous cooling did not
require this recalibration. It is worth noting, however, that we can afford this hit in cooling speed
because the heating rate during cooling (in our case, fundamentally from the Raman beam andtweezer spontaneous emission) is orders of magnitude less than the cooling rate. The final groundstate fraction is determined by a competition of the cooling and heating rate, hence necessitating
an increased cooling speed to maintain the same ground-state fraction for an increased heating rate.
This is likely why ion experiments stick to pulsed cooling, because these experiments have a highheating rate when the ions are trapped near the electrodes [50, 96] and their huge trap frequencies(couple MHz, typically) allow super fast cooling without off-resonant carrier heating.
Very recently, we have experimented with an approach that is summarized in Section 3.4.7.
The idea here was to first perform a quick bit of continuous sideband cooling on the radial dimensionof the trap so that the atom is mostly in the first couple of motional states to remove the concernof pulselength-sensitive dark states, after which we apply pulsed cooled with temporally Gaussian
pulses [60]. However, for technical reasons that are presently being addressed, we could only just do
continuous or pulsed cooling, but not both. The temporally Gaussian pulses result in a Gaussian
frequency response of the atom, meaning they are much flatter on the top with a steeper drop
off compared to the Lorentzian profile of a square pulse: The larger Rabi frequency mitigates theeffects of magnetic field noise (slow drift requiring recalibration and decoherence requiring faster
Rabi frequencies) while retaining spectroscopic resolution from the carrier. At some level thiscaptures the best of both worlds: the robustness of continuous cooling and the potential speedupof pulsed cooling. In Section 3.4.7, we show the results of the Gaussian pulsed cooling, which wefind is extremely robust due to the large Rabi frequencies.

65

3.4

Experimental results: Raman-sideband cooling
Here I will discuss our experimental implementation of sideband cooling, and the three ver-sions used over the course of the past 4 years. For each cooling protocol, I will provide a table of themeasured Raman Rabi frequencies on the carrier used for each beam pair, the Raman Lamb-Dicke
parameters, and the measured optical pumping scattering rates (OP and RP beams) when relevantto the cooling. I will also give a brief summary of how we generate the Raman beams frequencies,
as well as our characterization of the initial temperature of single atoms in the tweezers. For all of
the cooling data, we cooled in either a 140 kHz (29 kHz) or 150 kHz (30 kHz) radial (axial) trap,
leading to the optical pumping Lamb-Dicke parameters tabulated in Table 3.1.
Optical pumping Lamb-Dicke Parameters
Dimension ηOP Photon kicks from OP
Axial z0.35
1Radial x
0.16
2.5
Radial y
0.16
2.5
Table 3.1: We tabulate the optical pumping Lamb-Dicke parameters for the radial and axial
dimensions of the optical tweezer. We use the trap with ωradial /(2π) = 150 kHz for these calculations, and the ωradial /(2π) = 140 kHz exhibits negligible differences. We also list the numberof total momentum kicks (from absorption and emission) from three photons that are absorbed
for optical pumping back to |2, 2i; these numbers are determined in a master equation including
all the line-strengths and optical pumping polarizations, in conjunction with a calculation of thedipole emission profile associated with our quantization axis and with the polarization of the threephotons (two σ − , one π) on average emitted by the atom during this time.
.

3.4.1

Choice of beam geometry

We chose the beam geometry indicated in Figure 3.1 for a couple reasons. Firstly, we wanted
to ensure that for a range of initial temperatures for the atom, we would be in the Lamb-Dicke
regime to perform reliable sideband thermometry. Therefore, we deliberately chose slightly smaller∆k, and correspondingly smaller ηR , for the Raman beams. We knew that our initial temperature
for the axial dimension would not be amenable to sideband thermometry (due to the lower confine-66ment), however we still opted for a slightly smaller associated ηR to reduce dephasing from higher
order contributions in HR . In later experiments, we switched the axial beam geometry (AB2 in
Figure 2.4) to increase the axial Lamb-Dicke parameter, because we decided that a broader sideband peak (due to the increase in sideband Rabi frequency) was advantageous against drifts andwe were exploring using a lattice to increase the confinement along the axial direction. I will not
discuss the lattice in this thesis, but the slightly larger Lamb-Dicke parameter did not seem tomake an observable difference for our tweezer cooling.
Another important design choice was the direction for the optical pumping beams. We chose
both of them σ + since this minimizes the average number of photons to reach the spin-stretcheddark-state, which implies that they would need to be parallel to the quantization axis. The fact thatthe effective magnetic field gradients from the trap point along y necessitated a quantization axis
along x or z. Since the direction of the optical pumping guarantees three photons absorbed alongthat axis (and subsequent scattering into the dipole emission profile defined by the quantizationaxis), it is optimal for 3D ground-state cooling efficiency to have this momentum imparted to theaxis with the smallest ηOP . Hence, we chose the optical pumping beam to be along the x direction.
These considerations illuminate an important feature of sideband cooling, namely that even though
the sideband transitions primarily address one axis the optical pumping couples the axes; in otherwords, poor cooling (e.g. by sitting too close to the carrier) of the axial direction heats the radial
direction as well.
Lastly, all of the cooling is performed in a 3 G field to suppress dephasing and dark state
depumping.

3.4.2

Beam generation

The Raman beams are detuned approximately 50 GHz red of the D2 line, as shown in the
Chapter 2. As discussed earlier, RB1 is always used in combination with one of RB2-4 to address
an axis with polarizations and spot sizes listed in Table 3.2. The intensity of each of the four
Raman beams is separately switched with acoustic-optic-modulators, and RB1 additionally passes

67
through an in-fiber electro-optic phase modulator (EOM) operating near the hyperfine splitting of
6.8 GHz. RB1, prior to passing through the EOM, is frequency shifted by +10 MHz from RB2,
RB3, and RB4 (also called AB1, and later replaced by AB2). Because the EOM sidebands are notfiltered, this shifting (as well as the polarization) ensure that only the upper optical sideband on
RB1 is resonant with a Raman process while the lower optical sideband is 20 MHz off-resonanceand can only participate in the Raman transition if σ − -polarized; the beam frequency therefore
prevents quantum interference effects and transitions as a result of any residual σ − polarization
on RB1 [92].5

The 10 MHz frequency difference between the RB1 carrier and RB2-4 is alsosufficiently large so as to avoid parametric heating. The beam detunings and polarizations are suchthat starting in F = 2 the atom always stimulated emits into RB1 while absorbing a photon fromthe other beam in use, which determines the direction of momentum transfer effected with eachbeam pair. The light shift on the |1, 1i ↔ |2, 2i transition is ∼ 90 kHz for all of the Raman beampairs, which is dominated by the vector light shift induced by the σ + -polarized RB1 beam when
focused. After 2012, we switched to having RB1 unfocused due to alignment sensitivity: since thisbeam induces the largest light-shift, its alignment affects both the Raman Rabi frequency as well as
the cooling frequencies. This change reduced angular sensitivity of the path, and we also reduced
the intensity so that the overall light shift was closer to 30 kHz.

3.4.3

Characterization of initial temperature before sideband-cooling

After imaging the population in the optical tweezers, we perform sub-Doppler cooling. As
noted earlier, prior to 2012 we used all three beams from the MOT for performing imaging and
PGC, but observed that the atom counts fluctuated and that these fluctuations were correlatedwith the atom temperature (as determined by release and recapture [97]). These fluctuations weretracked down to fluctuations in the interference pattern formed between beams of different beampairs in the MOT (i.e. beams that were not counter-propagating). We address the challenging
5
The AO-shifting scheme also ensures that for the EOM modulation frequency applied for resonant Raman
transitions with RB2-4, the optical sidebands themselves cannot resonantly participate in Raman processes.

68
Raman beam properties
Beam
Polarization Approximate spot size
Axial, RB4/AB1/2∼π
50 µmTop, RB2π
50 µm
Bottom, RB3π
50 µm
EO beam, RB1σ+
50 µm then 405 µm
Table 3.2:
We list the properties of the Raman beams used in the experiment, with also atranscription between RBi and name used here. It made the figures to busy to use these fullnames. We note that AB1 and 2 have similar spot sizes but, as previously noted, refer to different
beam paths. AB1 is approximately π polarized because it is linearly polarized in the x − z-plane(axes from Figure 2.4) but comes in at an angle to the quantization axis, thereby creating σ − /σ + .
This polarization impurity does not effect the Raman transitions from |2, 2i since there is only
∆mF = −1 transitions from this state, however, if we tried to drive transitions from |1, 1i this inprinciple could be possible though we are very far detuned from a transition.

problem of stabilizing the phase of the interference pattern with respect to the sub-wavelength
extent of the atom in the tweezer trap by modulating the position of our retro-reflecting mirrors at
1 kHz. This yields a time-averaged cooling that does not exhibit shot-to-shot variations in the final
PGC temperature due to slow fluctuations in the interference pattern. After 2012, we switched
to using a single retro-reflected beam (the “Imaging+MOT” beam) for the sub-Doppler cooling.
The parameters (detuning and intensity) for the PGC cooling were optimized on the basis of quasiadiabatically dropping the trap to a very shallow depth (∼ 1 µK) and maximizing the survival
probability of single atoms in the trap, which avoids servo wind-up effects when switching the trap.
Figure 3.7a shows sideband spectra after PGC along orthogonal radial directions. The asymmetry between the ∆n = −1 and the ∆n = +1 peaks determines the population of the atoms in
the ground state. (Because we begin in the upper hyperfine state and vary the frequency of RB1,
the ∆n = −1 peak is on the right in Fig. 3.7.) Applying Eq. 3.20 to the ∆n = −1 and ∆n = +1
sidebands we find n̄y0 = 1.1 ± 0.4 or Ty0 = 11 ± 3 µK assuming a thermal population distribution;correspondingly n̄x0 = 1.7 ± 0.7. Using the dephasing of the carrier Rabi oscillations (see Eq. 3.22),
the accuracy of which does not depend on being in LDR, we find from the data in Fig. 3.7b thatTy0 ≤ 16 ± 2 µK. For comparison, we also employ a standard thermometry technique in which theatom is quickly released, and the probability of recapturing the atom at a variable time later is



0.6
0.6



200
-200











100
100
200
-100
00
100
200
Detuning fromfrom carrier
Detuning
carrierkHz(kHz)

Probability in F1




0.6
0.6



0.4
0.4







0.2
0.2



 


200
-200




















100
100
200
-100
00
100
200
Detuning fromfrom carrier
Detuning
carrierkHz
(kHz)


0.8
0.8

Probability in F1

0.8
0.8








 
















 








 





0.3
0.3















0.2
0.2
0
0.0
0.00
0








0.05


 


























































0.4
0.4







0.2
0.2
t
Δt ms
(ms)

0.1
0.1

0.6
0.6

0.4
0.4








1.0
(d) 1.0

Probability in F=1



 







0.0
0
0.0
0









0.2
0.2









0.4
0.4










0.6
0.6



1.0
(c) 1.0

Probability in F=1





0.2
0.2

0.0
0





0.4
0.4



0.8
0.8

Probability
in F=1
Probability in F1

0.8
0.8

0.0
0

69

(b) 1.0
1.0

Probability in F1

Probability in F=1

1.0(a) 1.0






0.10
0.1















0.15 0.20
0.2
tΔt ms
(ms)













0.25

0.30
0.3

Figure 3.7: Single atom sideband spectra and Rabi oscillations in the radial dimensions before (a,b) and after (c, d) ground state cooling. (a) The black squares are a carrier peak in the y 0 direction
using a ∆t = 15 µs (near π) pulse. The red circles (orange triangles) are sidebands along the y 0 (x0 )axis for a 75 µs (near π) pulse, demonstrating an initial thermal population of vibrational states –these axes are defined in Figure 3.1. The solid lines are fits to a Rabi sinc function for the carrierand Lorentzians (an approximation) for the sidebands; each fit contains an offset at our measured
background (gray shaded region centered at 0.04). (b) Carrier Rabi oscillations for the y 0 direction
showing dephasing of a thermal state. Here the carrier Rabi frequency was set to 15 kHz, insteadof 26 kHz. The solid line is a fit to the data using a thermal distribution of Rabi frequencies. (c)Raman cooled radial sidebands; no Raman cooling is applied to the axial direction for these data.
The black squares are a cooled carrier peak using a 15 µs pulse. The blue circles (green triangles)
are spectra along the y 0 (x0 ) axis using a 75 µs pulse, displaying a significant asymmetry that is thehallmark of a large ground state population. (d) Rabi oscillations for a radial ground state cooled
atom with a fit to a damped sine for the carrier (black squares) and the ∆n = +1 sideband (bluecircles), which demonstrates coherent control of the spin-motional states; the carrier dephasing is
suppressed due to the purity of the vibrational distribution. Each data point is an average of 150
experimental runs, and hence ∼ 75 atoms.

measured and compared to a classical Monte Carlo model [97] from which we estimate a temperature of 13 ± 1 µK. The agreement between our three measurements validates sideband spectroscopy
as a reliable form of thermometry in an optical tweezer, and we find low PGC temperatures are
possible despite the varying effective magnetic fields within the focus. Lastly, using the single beam

70
pair for performing in trap PGC, we optimize the parameters via the adiabatic drop down method
and measure via carrier dephasing a slightly higher temperature of Ty0 ≤ 21 ± 3 µK.
3.4.4

2D pulsed cooling results

For the radial dimensions, the PGC allows us to start our Raman cooling reasonably far
OP ∼ 0.3 (n̄ ∼ 1.5 and η OP = 0.16). As a first demonstration
into the Lamb-Dicke regime with ηeffof pulsed-sideband cooling, we show radial ground-state cooling with which we can contrast thethermal radial data. We apply a coherent Raman transition on the ∆n = −1 sideband using an
intensity corresponding to a ground state carrier Rabi frequency of Ωc = 2π × 26 kHz, where the√∆n = −1 sideband Rabi frequency is ΩSB ∼ η R Ωc n. Therefore, we apply 60 µs pulses for 47
cycles and switch to 75 µs pulses for the last 3 cycles when the remaining excited state fraction is
primarily in the first excited state. The pulses are applied to each radial axis by alternating Raman
beam pairs. Interspersed between the Raman pulses are optical pumping pulses 90 µs long thatrecycle the atom back to |2, 2i. Note we do observe cooling of both radial dimensions even if we
employ a single pair of cooling beams, indicating there is coupling between the radial dimensionsof our anharmonic potential. To assure and verify cooling in both dimensions, however, we cooland probe each axis separately.
After Raman cooling we see a significant asymmetry in the radial sideband spectroscopy due
to a large ground state occupation (Fig. 3.7c). While the ∆n = −1 sideband is suppressed, the∆n = +1 sideband has increased in height due to decreased dephasing as the thermal distribution is narrowed. Figure 3.7d shows Rabi oscillations for both the carrier (black) and ∆n = +1
sideband (blue) transition, the latter of which oscillates slower by a factor of η R . Figure 3.7d
further demonstrates the coherence of our motional transitions. The carrier decays less quickly
than in Fig. 3.7b, as expected for colder atoms; the sideband transition Rabi oscillations decay
slightly faster than the cold carrier’s due to its relative narrowness, but note that it maintains
high contrast on the first oscillation. To assess our final occupation, we compare the measured
signal at the position of the ∆n = −1 transition peak to the measured background level due to71
any atoms left in F = 1 and imperfect push-out efficiency. We use the data points at the veryedge of the spectra to determine the offset. Since we are not able to fit the data at the positionof the ∆n = −1 sideband, we use the three data points closest to its calibrated position (±8 kHz
about the position of the sideband ascertained from the thermal spectra) and take the mean andstandard deviation to conservatively estimate its height and associated error bar, respectively. We+0.04
find {n̄x0 , n̄y0 } = {0.05+0.05−0.04 , 0.02−0.02 }.

3.4.5

3D pulsed cooling results

To achieve large three-dimensional ground state occupations, we must cool the weaker axial
dimension of the trap where both spectroscopy and cooling are more challenging due to the smaller
trap frequency. Figure 3.8a shows a thermal axial spectrum after PGC. The near equality ofthe ∆n = +1 and ∆n = −1 transitions and the presence of significant second order sidebands(given η R = 0.23 for this dimension) are consistent with a small initial ground state population.
Assuming an isotropic initial temperature of 12 µK, we would expect n̄ = 8, which corresponds to
OP = 1.4. Further, the smaller trap frequency makes it difficult toa challenging starting point of ηeff

spectroscopically separate the carrier and sideband peaks while maintaining Rabi frequencies thatare insensitive to technical dephasing. For the cooling, a large Rabi frequency leads to off-resonant
carrier transitions that cause heating, while too small a Rabi frequency leads to smaller transfer
efficiencies and slow cooling.
Despite these barriers, we are able to Raman cool in the axial dimension and achieve thesignificant three-dimensional ground state occupations evidenced in Fig. 3.8b after 33 ms of cooling.
For the three-dimensional cooling shown in Fig. 3.8b we toggle the Raman laser pulses to addresseach of the axes of the trap, and between each pulse we insert 90 µs of optical pumping. The coolingprocess in total occurs in 75 cycles: The first 50 cycles use a Raman pulselength of ∆t = 48 µs(∆t = 40 µs) for the radial (axial) directions, and then ∆t = 72.5 µs (∆t = 80 µs) for the final
25 cycles. The two-stages of pulselengths is motivated by the conclusions in Section 3.3.2; we also
stick to a pulselength below a ground-state sideband π-pulse (167 µs) for the axial direction to

0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0

0
















 


 


0.6
0.6



0.4
0.4












 













 

-50
0 carrier kHz50
Detuning from
Detuning from carrier (kHz)
50

0

0.8
0.8

50

0.2
0.2

(b)

0.8

0.8

Probability in F1

0.6
0.6



1.0

1.0
Probability in F1





1.0
1.0

Probability
Probability in F=1
F1

(a)

0.8
0.8

Probability in F1

Probability in F=1

1.0
1.0

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2






















0.4
0.4

0.2
0.2
























0.0
0.0 20
0 200 1000.0 40
20
40
0 -20
100 00 100
20020
200
040
100
-200 -100 -40
100 200
200
Detuning from carrier kHz
Detuning fromcarrierfrom
kHz
Detuning
carrier kHz
Detuning
carrierfrom
(kHz)

(c)



0.3
0.3





72

0.5
0.5






0.1
0.1


0.0
0













 





40 -20
20
20
40
-40
00
20
40
Detuning from carrier (kHz)

Figure 3.8: Axial spectra and 3D ground state pulsed-cooling of a single neutral atom. (a) A thermal
axial spectrum (red squares) using an intensity corresponding to a cold carrier Rabi frequency of
12 kHz and a ∆t = 65 µs Raman pulse. The data are fit to Lorentzians (solid line) to guide theeye. (b) Result of simultaneous sideband cooling in three-dimensions, demonstrating significant
sideband asymmetries and simultaneous ground state occupations in all dimensions. The axial
data (center) illustrates our cooling parameters, and is performed with a carrier Rabi frequency of
10.6 kHz and a pulse of 236 µs (near π pulse on the ground state ∆n = +1 sideband, a 5π pulseon the carrier). For the radial data, the blue circles (green triangles) are spectra along the y 0 (x0 )axis using a 75 µs pulse. The solid lines on the ∆n = +1 sidebands are Lorentzian fits. (c) After3D cooling, axial spectroscopy for a halved carrier Rabi frequency of 5 kHz and a pulse of 450 µs.
Better spectroscopic resolution affirms a large axial ground state occupation.

always address the first handful of motional states that are populated by a momentum kick. The
cooling parameters are listed in Table 3.3. Between each of the spectroscopic scans in Fig. 3.8b,
we recalibrated the position of the sidebands since we observed the presence of a few kHz shifts(1 mG) which are comparable to the width of the sideband transitions, particularly for the axial
direction (during cooling Ωaxial
SB ≈ 3 kHz).
Unlike the radial dimensions, we use different parameters for the axial cooling than are ideal
for spectroscopy. To highlight this distinction, we show two spectra of cooled atoms. The axial
spectrum in Fig. 3.8b approximates the parameters used during our cooling, which balance speedwith spectroscopic resolution. While there is a clear sideband asymmetry in the spectrum, the sizeof the Rabi frequency compared to the axial trap frequency complicates a temperature analysis
because off-resonant carrier transitions occur at the frequency position of the sidebands. This is
illustrated in Figure 3.9 where we show a calculated spectrum for these pulse parameters, but afull comparison to this calculation is complicated by the partial dephasing we observe.
In Fig. 3.8c, we halve the spectroscopy Rabi frequency to sacrifice coherence for spectroscopic
resolution. For this Rabi frequency and pulse, the spectrum is dephased and hence we can under-

73
Pulsed cooling parameters
Raman beam pairΩc
ηR
Axial (AB1)+EO
13 kHz 0.23
Top+EO
30 kHz 0.22
Bottom+EO
30 kHz 0.22
Table 3.3: Here we list the typical parameters used for the pulsed cooling experiments.

stand the spectrum simply as a set of multiple Lorentzians. We extract our axial temperature fromthe sideband asymmetry in Fig 3.8c, assuming the dephasing uniformly affects the two sideband
peaks, which is consistent with magnetic field driven dephasing. Using the procedure outlined in
Section 3.4.4, for both the radial and axial dimensions we analyze the data attributing all of thesignal observed at the ∆n = −1 position to the sideband (i.e. we are including off-resonant carrier
spin flips), thus placing an upper bound on the achieved temperature. Taking this approach we
extract temperatures in all three dimensions, again subtracting off a measured background and
+0.08
+0.06
assuming a thermal distribution. The result is {n̄x0 , n̄y0 , n̄z } = {0.02+0.07−0.02 , 0.01−0.01 , 0.08−0.06 }. For

the axial dimension, for which a large initial thermal distribution exists, we confirmed that the sideband asymmetry is pulse length insensitive and also that there is significantly reduced dephasingof carrier Rabi oscillations.
The above occupations indicate we have cooled a single neutral atom to the ground state of+5
an optical tweezer with 97+3
−11 % probability in the radial plane, and 93−7 % probability in the axial

direction, and hence a three-dimensional ground state population of 90+8
−16 %. While this estimate
neglects imperfections in our spin preparation and detection, this is not a fundamental impediment
to the final temperature. The limitation to our quoted temperature here is the precision of thespectroscopy measurement.

3.4.6

3D continuous sideband cooling

Once we started using the cooling to perform tunneling experiments, for which consistenthigh-fidelity preparation is required, we experimented with using the continuous cooling method.

(a)

74

1.0

Probability in F1

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

(b)

1.0

40

20
0
20
Detuning from carrier kHz40

Probability in F1

Figure 3.9: Simulated coherent
0.8axial spectrum with a square pulse. We simulate an axial spectrum
for the parameters: n̄ = 0.1, 0.6ΩR /2π = 10.6 kHz, ∆t = 236 µs, η R = 0.23, and ω/2π = 30 kHz.
These parameters closely approximate those used for the axial spectrum in Figure 3.8b. Since we
0.4
are using a π-pulse for the sidebands,
this necessarily entails lots of oscillations from the carrier
0.2
which is significantly overdriven. This complicates applying Eq. 3.20, which assumes that carriertransitions are not occurring at
0.0the position of the sidebands. When performing axial thermometry,
0.2
0.3
0.4 the temperature estimates
we attribute all the signal at the0.0
position 0.1
of the sidebands,
which
makes
t msconservative. Note that coherent cancellation of the spin-flips between the carrier and sideband
transitions (which in principle could cause underestimating the temperature) is not possible since
the states coupled in each are different: one has a change in motional state while the other doesnot. Such paths, therefore, always add incoherently.

The goal was to alleviate some of the constraints on the exact cooling frequencies so that recalibration of the sideband positions was not necessary, and perhaps sensitivity to the exact Rabi
frequencies. The continuous cooling turned out to be very robust, particularly after we developed afrequency control setup that allows us easily to calibrate all the sideband positions in one measurement. Each morning we measure the location of the carrier resonance with a pair of Raman beams
addressing the radial dimension, and all of the beam detunings are defined with respect to thisfrequency (see Figure 3.10). The resonance position is affected by changes in the magnetic field, as
well as light shifts induced by the Raman beams; we observe less than 5 kHz drift day-to-day (ina 3 G field), which is indicative of small magnetic field drifts and the relative stability of our laser
intensities.

3.4.6.1

Continuous cooling cycle

While I have harped on the differences between the continuous and pulsed-cooling, our continuous cooling protocol actually retains some features of pulsed-cooling. Unlike bulk degenerate

(a)fEO = carr. freq.
fAO

fAO = spec. freq.

75(b)
fEO = carr. freq.
fAO

flaserflaserflaserflaser|2,2; n>ωSpin(B)|1,1;n>fAO = cool freq.

|2,2;n>ωSpin(B)ωtrap|1,1;n-1>(sooo not to scale)Figure 3.10: Since all the Raman beams are derived from the same DBR (with frequency flaser ), their
final frequency is determined by the AOs through which they pass, as well as by the EO for the caseof the EO beam. (a) We choose a particular AO frequency (“spectroscopy frequency”) for the top
beam (dashed colored lines in figure, bold frequency labels) when doing carrier calibration, while for
the EO beam (solid colored lines in figure, unbold frequency labels) we scan the microwave frequency(fEO ) that determines the optical sideband for the Raman process (and its AO frequency is fixed).
This measurement yields a microwave frequency for which we observe the carrier transition: wecall this the “carrier frequency.” (b) Fixing fEO to the carrier frequency, we scan the frequencyof the top, bottom, or axial beam to optimize the cooling and ascertain the associated “coolingfrequency” for each beam. For the top and bottom beam, the difference between the spectroscopy
frequency and the cooling frequency is very close to the trap frequency, as expected for cooling on
the red-sideband; the axial is offset from the spectroscopy frequency by an amount which includes
both the difference in the light shift from this beam compared to the top beam, as well as the trap
frequency of the axial direction. Ground state cooling is performed with the microwave frequency
set to the carrier location, while the top, bottom, and axial beam are set to their cooling frequencies.
By measuring the carrier location each day, we can calibrate all of the magnetically field sensitive
sideband resonance positions on the basis of this single measurement.

sideband cooling of neutral atoms in an optical lattice [56, 53], in which the cooling of all dimensions occurs concurrently, in our case each continuous cooling cycle addresses each radial axis andthe axial axis separately. A schematic of a cooling cycle is illustrated in Fig. 3.11. The coolingis continuous since the optical pumping beams are always on concurrent with the Raman beams,
but the Raman beams themselves are staggered in time. We stagger the Raman beam pulses fora couple reasons. This was partly to retain the ability to modulate the repumping scattering rate,

(b)0.6 msTop
0.6 msBot
0.9 ms

0.9 msAxial
0.6 msEO

0.9 ms

0.6 ms

0.9 msDark state probability

(a)

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

OP+RP

76

1.0

0

2

4
6
8
Axial cooling time (ms)10

Figure 3.11: Continuous cooling cycle and axial cooling trajectory. (a) This timing diagram illustrates the sequence of Raman beams that are turned on and the corresponding times. The opticalpumping beams are on for the entirety of the cooling time, during which the cycle is applied usually
50 times. The goal was to slowly cool the axial direction while repairing the heating done to theradial direction. The integrated axial cooling time is much longer than the time it would take toground-state cool the axial direction according to the master equation numerics in (b), while theradial cooling time in just one cycle (done with top/bottom beams) is closer to what it would taketo ground-state cool a radial axis since it is much faster. We therefore keep the atom close to theradial ground-state during the entirety of the three-dimensional cooling. (b) We show a simulatedcooling trajectory for the axial direction using typical experimental parameters: ΩR /(2π) = 7 kHz,ω/(2π) = 29 kHz, η R = 0.36, η OP = 0.35, an initial temperature of n̄ = 8, and we use the axial
photon heating of 1 per optical pumping recycling.

which determines the width of the | ↓i state, depending on the axis being addressed; we have experimented with reducing this scattering rate for the axial cooling due to the reduced spectroscopic
resolution of the carrier, but we determined that the same scattering rate was sufficient for allaxes. Another reason to stagger the axes being addressed is that we have read about additional
dark states being created when all the beams are on at the same time [54]. Lastly, dimensional
staggering of the pulses decouples the cooling frequency for one beam from the alignment of anotherbeam by ensuring that the light shift from one does not effect the location of the cooling resonancefor another.
The entire cooling procedure is commenced with 10 − 15 ms of continuous radial coolingwith the EO and top beam to radially ground-state cool the atom. This ensures that once the 3D
continuous cooling cycles start, the likelihood of radial motional excitation from the momentum
kicks of the optical pumping is minimized (and this is at minimal expense to the axial direction,

77
which is already hot and scatters 1/5 the number of photons during pumping). Another added
benefit is that broadening of the narrow axial sidebands due to the tweezer vector light shifts is
suppressed by minimizing the radial extent of the atomic wavepacket. Experimentally we thenapply 50 continuous cycles, after the last of which we have 1 ms of optical pumping to ensure theatom is spin polarized. The final temperature achieved is very consistent day-to-day. Since thesetimes worked so consistently, we were hesitant to try to minimize them: it is possible, therefore,that the cooling time could be compressed. It is also fairly time consuming to take a set of sideband
spectra for every experimental parameter (in a coupled space) involved in the cooling, so we were
happy to stick with a functional cooling scheme even if its efficiency was not completely optimized.

3.4.6.2

Radial cooling resonance position

While some parameters we chose on the basis of our cooling calculations, calibration of thecooling frequencies was done experimentally. As was just mentioned, we were eager to optimize thecooling parameters without having to take 25 min spectroscopy scans for the top/bottom and axial
axes each time we changed a parameter. We settled on a somewhat coarse approach inspired by
the adiabatic lowering methods in Ref. [97]: we scan a parameter in the cooling and then perform
an approximately adiabatic ramp of the trap depth down to ∼ 1 µK and measure the atom loss.
When the cooling is not working well, atoms populate higher lying bound states in the trap which
subsequently couple to free-space modes during the ramp sequence. I call this measurement “coarse”
because the final trap still retains many bound states, and hence does not directly probe the groundstate fraction. We optimize the exact cooling resonance locations using the ramp-sequence method,since a number of experimental factors can influence these exact frequencies.
In Figure 3.12a, we show an example of scanning the cooling frequency of the top and bottom
beams while the EO beam is fixed on the carrier frequency (defined in Figure 3.10). There is aclear resonance close to the expected position of the sideband. In order to contrast the “cooling
bandwidth,” I show the same scan using pulsed and continuous cooling for the same Rabi frequencies. It is clear from the scan that the continuous method is significantly broader, as expected due

78(b) 1.0

0.8

F=1 probability

Survival probability(a) 1.0

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
- 0.20- 0.18 - 0.16 - 0.14 - 0.12
Detuning from carrier (MHz)0.8

τRP = 0.053(4) ms

0.6
0.4
0.2

- 0.10 0.0
0.00

0.05
0.10
0.15
Repump pulse time (ms)Figure 3.12: Varying radial cooling frequencies during sideband cooling, typical repump scattering
rate measurement. (a) Here we vary the Raman detuning of the top and bottom beams while
performing a ramp-sequence measurement after continuous (black) and pulsed (purple) cooling.
Though the Raman Rabi frequencies are the same (2π · 20 kHz), the pulsed cooling operates overa narrower bandwidth due to the absence of the repump broadening. The trap used here has aωradial /(2π) = 140 kHz. The amount of loss observed at the peak of these curves is due to nonadiabaticity in this ramp; we have performed some tunneling experiments at similar depths of 1 µK
and observe no loss using a slower, two stage ramp. (b) Repumping to F = 2 from the |1, 1i state.
We prepare |1, 1i by performing sideband cooling then applying a π-pulse on the carrier. The
repumping rate (1/τ ) is half the scattering rate Γ (photons/sec), due to the branching coefficientsof 1/2 from F=2’ to F=1 and F=2. We use such measurements to calibrate the repump scattering
rate, which is crucial to the cooling performance.

to the scattering rate of the repump beam. We measure in Figure 3.12b the lifetime of the |1, 1i
state in the presence of the repumping used during cooling to extract an expectation for the broadening it causes. If we calculate the expected FWHM of the red sideband for pulsed and continuous
cooling (4.4 kHz and 6.9 kHz, respectively), we find that the width of the curves in Figure 3.12aare each about a factor of two larger. This is most likely because the measurement is non-linear in
the ground-state fraction as the atom becomes cold: even if we have a broad motional occupation
distribution of the bound-states in the shallow trap, the atom will always survive the ramp. Thisin turn will broaden the cooling resonance as a larger range of cooling parameters is sufficient tocool the atom to a distribution that survives the ramp down, as compared to the range that yields
maximal ground state fraction.66Another indication of this mechanism is that we observe that

This broadening effect clearly grows with the trap depth to which we ramp during the adiabatic ramp sequence:for example, if we did not ramp at all we would observe that this cooling resonance is much broader.

0.20

79
down to very small repump scattering rates the atom survives the ramp sequence. Therefore, as
stated, this is a useful probe of the cooling performance, but one which we always confirm correlateswith ground-state cooling.

3.4.6.3

Repumping and optical pumping scattering rates

Due to this insensitivity in the repumping scattering rate for the ramp-sequence measurement,
the choice of repump and optical pumping scattering rates is a little tricky. Since the opticalpumping beam only talks to F = 2, we just set its scattering rate to be a bit larger than therepump scattering rate so that it is not limiting during optical pumping but also not causing excess
depumping. The choice of repump scattering rate is one which balances the broadening of thetransition with the cooling speed. Assuming a single photon is required for recycling the atom, it√
can be shown [56] that the cooling rate saturates when the repump scattering rate ΓRP = 2ΩSB ,and so increasing the scattering rate further only increases off-resonant carrier transitions; this isdirectly analogous to the quantum zeno effect. For the τ = 0.053(3) measured in Figure 3.12b,
this corresponds to ΓRP = τ2 = 38(2) ms−1 since it takes two photons to repump to F = 2.
The radial ground-state sideband Rabi frequency ΩSB = 2π 4.4 kHz is very close to fulfilling this
above criterion for ΓRP = 38 ms−1 . It is important to point out, however, that these statements
assume that it takes one photon to pump back to |2, 2i, when in fact we know it requires three.
Therefore, it is possible we could further speed up the cooling, but possibly at the expense ofcarrier heating. Both master equations simulations and spectroscopy confirm that this choice ofrepumping scattering rate yields greater than 95% ground-state fractions for each dimension with
the Rabi frequencies listed in Table 3.4. Lastly, as the saturation intensity of the optical pumping
and repumping beams is increased, one could become concerned about the fluctuating dipole force
for an optically-dipole-trapped atom [6].

80
3.4.6.4

Axial cooling resonance positions

We calibrate the axial cooling resonance using the ramp-sequence technique as well, data fromwhich is shown in Figure 3.13. From these data, we observe significant cooling is possible via the firstand second sideband resonances, which are indicated in the diagrams. When using AB1 for axial
cooling, we have used the second-sideband resonance for the first 75 times the axial cooling pulse isapplied (there are two applications during a cycle as defined above). This resonance has the added
benefit of being further resolved from the carrier so that we could use a larger Rabi frequency whendriving the transition, with which we can robustly cool on a broader transition. After 75 coolingaxial pulses with second-sideband cooling (and the radial cooling on the first-sideband staggered
between), we observe red and blue sidebands via axial spectroscopy whose asymmetry indicatesn̄z = 1.0(5). We subsequently apply 25 pulses with first-sideband axial cooling, which ultimately
determines our final ground-state occupation. Lastly, when we switched to using AB2, we tried
using exclusively first sideband cooling and found comparable performance – it is the parametersof this cooling that are listed in Table 3.4. Nevertheless, I wanted to discuss the second sideband
cooling since we employ this hybrid sideband procedure for the data discussed in Chapter 4 inorder to finely tune the motional distinguishability of two atoms, and, furthermore, because this
two-tiered approach could be helpful when starting from a very hot sample.
Before moving on to spectroscopy, I wanted to stress the importance of determining thecooling resonance in this fashion. We have observed small few kHz shifts of the continuous coolingresonance positions with respect to the measured sideband positions. This is because, for continuous
cooling, the optical pumping and repump beams can induce small light shifts of the spin states (theformer can shift |1, 1i, while the latter can shift both |1, 1i and |2, 2i if not exactly on resonance);these effects are not expected for pulsed cooling and the cooling resonance is observed to be at
the position of the sideband. In Figure 3.12a, there is a small 3(1) kHz between the pulsed andcontinuous cooling resonance positions, and for the axial sideband cooling we observed a similar shift
between the measured location of the sidebands and the position of maximal cooling determined

81

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

- 70

1st sideband

0.8
2nd sideband

Survival probability

1.0- 60 - 50 - 40 - 30 - 20
Detuning from carrier (kHz)- 10

Figure 3.13: Ramp-sequence calibration of axial cooling frequency. We scan the Raman detuningof the axial beam (AB1 here) and observe the positions of maximal atom survival. These coincidewith the regions in which we expect the multiples of the trap frequency to be (dashed lines), andwe typically set the cooling frequency to the center of either range when performing first or second
sideband cooling. The increased survival probability is likely more directly an indication of lower
heating of the radial direction during cooling by cooling the axial direction to the ground-state(which, of course, is dark). As we approach the carrier at higher frequencies, the increased loss islikely from radial heating due to carrier transitions inducing optical pumping. This statement isbased on the fact that the larger confinement of the radial direction implies fewer bound-states inthe trap, and hence greater susceptibility to loss for a given n̄.

via ramp-sequence methods (see Figure 3.13). Surveying similar measurements over the past while,
this shift with the radial continuous cooling resonances has been between 3 and 7 kHz. Though acareful characterization of this effect and its dependence on the optical pumping beams has not been
performed, the consistency of the shifts supports this procedure for choosing the cooling frequencies
as opposed to just spectroscopically measuring the sideband positions of a thermal atom.

3.4.6.5

3D ground-state spectra via continuous cooling

Using the parameters listed in Table 3.4, we achieve the ground-state fractions indicatedby the spectra in Figure 3.14. The final temperatures, {n̄x0 ,y0 , n̄z } = {0.016(13), 0.21(0.14)}, areconsistent with the pulsed cooling results within our experimental precision; in particular, it is very

82

0.4
0.2
0.0

- 150 - 100 - 50 0
50 100 150
Detuning from carrier (kHz)AB2 + EO Beam

0.8

Position of RSB

0.6

TOP+ EO Beam

F=1 probability

0.8(b) 1.0
Position of RSB

F=1 probability(a) 1.0

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

- 40

- 20
0
20
40
Detuning from carrier (kHz)

Figure 3.14: Continuous cooling sideband spectra for a radial dimension and the axial dimension.
(a) Top and EO beam spectroscopy of the radial dimension of the tweezer after continuous sideband
cooling. The pulselength here is near a π-pulse on the blue-sideband from the ground state. The
reduced offset in these data compared to the pulsed section is due to improved push-out fidelity (wedrop to a shallow depth to perform the push-out) and the reduced Rabi-frequency of ΩR /(2π) =20 kHz. (b) AB2 and EO beam spectroscopy of the axial dimension of the tweezer. In both plots,
the black line indicates the expected position of the associated red-sideband for the dimension
probed.

difficult to discern any excited state fraction for the radial spectra. We show one radial direction
here since we do not observe asymmetric temperatures for the radial directions of the trap. We
consistently observe spectra of this quality using the continuous cooling regimen.

3.4.7

3D Gaussian-pulsed cooling

As was discussed earlier, we have very recently been experimenting with a Gaussian pulsedcooling approach. Inspired by the clean spectra created using Gaussian amplitude modulation in
Section 2.12, we applied this same modulation to the Raman beam powers to reduce off-resonant
carrier transitions during cooling and sideband thermometry while retaining large Rabi frequencies
that are less susceptible to dephasing and drift.
To achieve this control, we simply mix the RF frequency supplied to the top, bottom or axial(AB2) beam AO with a modulated voltage from an arbitrary waveform generator. The voltage to
optical power is separately calibrated, and the Gaussian envelope is generated using this calibration.

83
Continuous cooling parameters
Raman beam pair
Ωc
ηR
ΓRP
AB2+EO
6 − 8 kHz
0.36 33(4) 1/ms
Top+EO
19.5(2) kHz 0.23 33(4) 1/ms
Bottom+EO
19.0(3) kHz 0.23 33(4) 1/ms

ΓOP
70(10) 1/ms
70(10) 1/ms
70(10) 1/ms

Table 3.4: Here we tabulate the cooling parameters used for typical continuous cooling experiments.
The uncertainty in the Rabi frequencies and optical pumping rates reflects the measurements of
those values done closest to the spectra shown in Figure 3.14, and not the required parameter range
for which the cooling is robust. These numbers are tabulated for the case of entirely first-sideband
cooling of the axial direction. We typically doubled the power (40% increase in Rabi frequency)
for second-sideband cooling when using AB1.

The Rabi frequency is varied as,
1/2
 2
2
,
Ωc (t) = Ωpeak e−t /(2τ )(3.26)

where we have retained the normal Gaussian definition of τ in order to emphasize the presenceof the power of 1/2, and Ωpeak is the peak carrier Rabi frequency during the modulation. Thissquare-rooting arises because we only modulate one of the beams in the Raman process (EO beam
is unmodulated), and the square root of its intensity determines the single-photon coupling it
contributes to the Raman Rabi frequency. The τ for each dimension is chosen such that the total
pulse-area of the Gaussian is near a sideband π-pulse from the ground-state: the measured Rabi
frequencies and associated τ for each dimension are displayed in Table 3.5.
The cooling protocol operates as follows. We apply pulsed cooling on all three dimensions
with pulselengths of 120 µs (138 µs) for radial (axial) dimensions with optical pumping staggered
between each pulse. There are 100 cycles, each including a pulse on each of the three dimensions.
The larger Rabi frequencies used here significantly shift the location of the sidebands towards
the carrier due to off-resonant dressing through the carrier [98] (see also Figure 3.15), and so wecalibrate the position of the sidebands using the Gaussian pulses.
In Figure 3.15, we show ground-state cooled spectra using this method. The cleanness ofthe spectra (offset, scatter) is evidence of the suppression of carrier transitions at the position of
the sidebands; the improvement is made clearer when considering that the Rabi frequency here isPosition of RSB

0.6
0.4

0.6
0.4

AB2 + EO Beam

0.2

0.2
0.0

0.8

84

Position of RSB

TOP+ EO Beam

0.8
F=1 probability

1.0

F=1 probability

1.0- 150 - 100 - 50
0
50 100
Detuning from carrier (kHz)

150

0.0

- 40
- 20
0
20
Detuning from carrier (kHz)40

Figure 3.15: Sideband spectra after Gaussian pulsed cooling. We show spectra for the radial (a) andaxial (b) directions of the tweezer. For the axial data, we compare the spectra with an numericallycalculated spectrum (dashed line) using n̄axial = 0.05 (T = 0.45 µK, ω/(2π) = 29 kHz, and theparameters listed in Table 3.5). The solid lines for each are fits using a sum of Gaussians. The
axial spectrum exhibits significantly higher contrast and coherence compared to other axial spectra
shown in this chapter, which necessarily used a lower Rabi frequency to retain spectral resolution
for square-pulse spectroscopy.

50% (140%) larger than what is used in the pulsed-cooled radial (axial) spectra from Figure 3.8b
and Figure 3.9. Furthermore, the significantly higher contrast of the axial blue-sideband compared
to any of the axial spectra previous shown in this thesis strongly corroborates the hypothesis thatthe relative narrowness of these peaks is what has suppressed the contrast. To test how close weare to the full coherence, I show a calculation of the expected spectrum (dashed line) using theparameters listed in Table 3.5 for a n̄axial = 0.05. It is clear that the contrast is still not perfect, andthere is slight relative shift of the measured sideband location compared to the calculation. The
latter disparity could be from not perfectly creating a Gaussian, which changes the degree to which
carrier shifts the location of the sidebands; it is also possible that at these large Rabi frequencies,
the coupling of AB2 and the EO beam to the radial axis may induce dressing through the radial
sideband, thereby pulling the axial blue sideband away from the carrier some; this effect is notaccounted for in the code. Lastly, I have numerically looked at what happens to the sidebands
for a 2π pulse to see if pulse-length sensitive dark-states would be spectrally concealed: while thecrazy oscillatory behavior in an overdriven square pulse spectrum is not evident, there are peaks

85
at the 5% level which would likely be evidenced in these spectra if there were significant excitedstate fractions. In other words, far away from a π-pulse, the frequency response of the atom is notexactly Gaussian and these excited state populations would likely show up experimentally. We havealso confirmed experimentally that the ground-state occupation achieved with this method is very
similar to the continuous cooling on the basis of the spin-exchange oscillation contrast discussed in
Chapter 5.
Gaussian cooling parameters
Raman beam pairΩcηRτAB2+EO
24 kHz 0.36 17.8 µs
Top+EO
41 kHz 0.23 15.3 µs
Bottom+EO
41 kHz 0.23 15.3 µs
Table 3.5: Here we list the parameters used for Gaussian shaped pulses during pulsed-sideband
cooling. The length of the pulse applied is 120 µs (138 µs) for the radial (axial) beams. The τ
and Ωc for each dimension was chosen such that the pulse was near a π-pulse on the ground-state
sideband Rabi frequency.

In conclusion, this last method of cooling offers further robustness by broadening the sidebands without off-resonant carrier heating, and increased cooling speed by using pulses. The
cleanness of the spectra, furthermore, in principle allows more precise quantification of the temperatures achieved. For the size of red-sidebands observed in these data, however, the standard errors
in the amplitudes are 100%. While we have not performed Gaussian spectroscopy after applying the cooling techniques of the previous sections, the resulting temperatures here,{n̄x0 ,y0 , n̄z } ={0.02(2), 0.06(6)}, are not more than 1σ from what was observed using the other cooling protocols with square pulse spectroscopy. We, therefore, cannot conclude that the cooling is improved,
but this is a rapid pulsed-protocol that works day-to-day and provides much cleaner spectra forthermometry.

Chapter 4

Atomic Hong-Ou-Mandel effect: Two-particle quantum interference intunnel-coupled optical tweezers

In this chapter, I will present our observation of two-particle interference, revealing the HongOu-Mandel effect with atoms instead of photons. We employ the high-fidelity ground-state laser
cooling techniques of the previous chapter in order to control all degrees of freedom of two independently prepared 87 Rb atoms. The signatures of indistinguishability we observe – in the form of
atomic Hong-Ou-Mandel interference – constitute a direct probe of the purity of the quantum states
we independently prepare. Furthermore, to our knowledge, this is the first direct observation ofphysics strongly influenced by quantum statistics, where the atoms studied are purely laser cooled.
The presented results demonstrate a route towards using laser-cooled atoms in optical tweezers to
study quantum degenerate systems.
The chapter is long and organized as follows. I first discuss Hong-Ou-Mandel interference
generally, and how it fits into the broader set of experimental observations of the quantum statistics
of massive particles. I then provide a semi-formal description of entanglement and how it manifests
in photonic and atomic Hong-Ou-Mandel interference. With this background, I proceed to describe
our experimental implementation of an atomic beam splitter in the form of a tunnel-coupled doublewell potential, and experimental characterizations thereof. I then discuss in detail our observationof the Hong-Ou-Mandel effect with atoms, and subsequently our analysis and understanding ofthese results.
Lastly, this chapter takes considerable material from our work published in Ref. [99], of which

87
I formulated much of the experiment along with my labmate Brian Lester, and was significantly involved in the theoretically analysis studied by the Rey group. Both the experimental and theoreticalconclusions are discussed in detail in this chapter.

4.1

Introduction: interfering indistinguishable single atoms
Quantum interference between possible detection paths for two indistinguishable particles

yields information about quantum statistics and correlations [100, 101]. An example is the HongOu-Mandel (HOM) effect, which reveals bosonic quantum statistics through a coalescence effectthat causes two indistinguishable photons incident on different ports of a beam splitter to emerge
on the same, yet random, output port [1] (see Figure 4.1). The HOM effect has been observedwith photons [1, 73, 102] and in an analogous experiment with electrons [103], but has never been
observed with independently prepared massive bosons.
Here we demonstrate the HOM effect with bosonic atoms in tunnel-coupled optical tweezers.
We attain the requisite, precise control of the single-atom quantum state by laser cooling each atom(see Chapter 3) to its motional ground state in separated, dynamically positionable optical tweezers.
The realization of a low-entropy bosonic state by individually placing atoms in their motional
ground state has long been a goal in atomic physics [53, 62, 104]. The HOM interference we observe
represents a direct observation of quantum indistinguishability with independently prepared, lasercooled atoms. While the role of quantum statistics in macroscopic ensembles of fermionic andbosonic atoms can be observed via Hanbury Brown and Twiss interference experiments [105, 106,
107, 108, 109, 110, 111], HOM interferometry allows us to study nonclassical few-atom states withsingle-atom control. Our results lay a foundation for linear quantum computing with atoms [112],
interferometric highly sensitive force detection [113], control of neutral atoms in nanoscale opticaldevices [114, 67], and quantum simulation with laser-cooled atoms in scalable optical tweezer arrays.
In our work, a double-well trapping potential created with optical tweezers realizes a beam
splitter for single 87 Rb atoms. Analogous to photons incident on separate ports of an HOM beam
splitter, when the two bosonic atoms start in separate wells, a tunnel-coupling can result in the

88

Figure 4.1: Original Hong-Ou-Mandel effect observation. In the experiment, two photons in thesame polarization state are incident on separate ports of a balanced beam splitter. The position of
the beam splitter is varied so that the overlap of the wave-packets on the beam splitter is tuned.
Each output port of the beam splitter is measured on photodetectors, and the likelihood for both
detectors to click within a small time-interval, the “coincidence counts”, is measured. The dataplot on the right is taken directly from Ref. [1]: it shows that for a particular position of the beam
splitter, the coincidence counts drastically drop. Even though, classically, we might expect an equal
likelihood of the photons coming out the same or different port, there is a coalescence effect inducedby the bosonic quantum statistics of the photons. A two particle interference effect, known as the
Hong-Ou-Mandel effect, suppresses the quantum amplitude that the photons emerge on different
ports, specifically when the photons are overlapped on the beam splitter.

transformation |1, 1i → √12 (|2, 0i + |0, 2i), where |nL , nR i is the bosonic state of nL (nR ) atoms
in the left (right) tweezer. To understand the HOM effect in our system, it is helpful to utilize
the single-particle states |Li and |Ri that correspond to an atom localized in the left or right well.
In this notation, the Bose-symmetric state that the atoms initially occupy is |Si ≡ √12 (|Li1 |Ri2 +|Ri1 |Li2 ), where the ket subscript is a particle label and |Si is the same as the second-quantized|1, 1i state. Introducing a tunnel-coupling between the left and right wells allows for the single-atomtransformations |Li → √12 (|Li + i|Ri) and |Ri →√1 (|Ri
2+ i|Li). One might expect that thesetransformations yield an equal likelihood of finding the atoms in separate wells or the same well.
However, when the two atoms are indistinguishable, the paths resulting in a single atom in eachwell destructively interfere (see Figure 4.2), and hence one finds |Si → √i2 (|Li1 |Li2 + |Ri1 |Ri2 ).
The atoms, therefore, only appear in the same, yet random, tweezer.

A

89|S  ≡ √12 (| L1 | R2 + | R1 | L2)

+
√1
2

B

|S

AOM X

+
√1
2

+

|S

√i

|L1|L2

√i

2

AOM Y

C

2

|R1|R2

852 nmk2
780 nm

k1
y
x

|n
|n-1
ħω
|n-1

z

Figure 4.2: Hong-Ou-Mandel effect with atoms and experimental setup. (a) The optical tweezers
form a coupled double-well potential. Starting from a state with a ground state spin-up atomin each well, denoted |Si, the tunnel-coupling causes the atoms to interfere destructively andresults in the state √i2 (|Li1 |Li2 + |Ri1 |Ri2 ). (b) The apparatus for realizing tunneling between
optical tweezers utilizes the high numerical aperture optics and radio frequency signal control of
the tweezers’ positions and depths discussed in Chapter 2. (c) The sideband cooling (see Chapter
3) is accomplished via lasers driving coherent (green) and spontaneous (blue) Raman transitions
that couple to the atomic motion and spin states |F = 1, mF = 1i ≡ |↓i and |F = 2, mF = 2i ≡ | ↑i.

90

4.2

Entanglement, symmetrization, and distinguishability
At the heart of the HOM effect are three mechanisms central to quantum mechanics: entan-

glement, symmetrization, and distinguishability. Since these three terms are all related, distinct,
and present in the HOM effect, I wanted to define them within the context of this thesis. The ideas
gathered in the following section are nearly exclusively from the Refs. [115, 7, 116, 117], which areexcellent guides and I hope my summary does them justice. Key concepts that I will attempt toclarify and distinguish are entanglement between particles and entanglement between modes.

4.2.1

Entanglement

There are a number of ways of formulating entanglement, but consistent among them is
one feature: the presence of correlated, quantum fluctuations between observable systems that arebasis independent. For example, an entangled state of two particles at positions {L, R}, each withinternal spin-states {↑, ↓} aligned or anti-aligned with a quantization axis, can be written,
1|belli = √ (| ↑iL | ↓iR + | ↓iL | ↑iR ) .
2

(4.1)

By application of a π/2-pulse, we can effectively rotate our basis of measurement, and observe thatthe anti-correlations in the spins are converted to pure, positive correlations:1|cati → |ψπ/2 i = √ (| ↑iL | ↑iR + | ↓iL | ↓iR ) .
2

(4.2)

In fact, this exact technique is widely used to detect two-particle spin entanglement in ions andneutral atoms, and we employ it in Chapter 5; it is also what is detected by a Bell’s inequality [118].
The intrinsic basis independence of the correlations here distinguishes quantum-correlated (entangled) states from classically-correlated states, such as the two-particle spin mixtureρ=1(| ↑iL | ↓iR h↑ |L h↓ |R + | ↓iL | ↑iR h↓ |L h↑ |R ) .
2

(4.3)

This state has classical correlations in that the spins are always measured to be anti-aligned. Yet,upon application of a π/2 pulse the resulting state ρπ/2 does not exhibit purely positive correlations.

91
These notions can be formalized by defining entanglement for pure states as the class ofstates that are not separable, which I will now summarize according to the treatment in Ref. [7].
Suppose we have some state |ψi living in the bipartite Hilbert space H = HA ⊗ HB . Here, HA(HB ), for example, can correspond to the Hilbert space of a spin-1/2 particle sitting at the position
represented by the state |Li (|Ri). The state |ψi is separable if it can be written as the product,|ψi = |ψiA ⊗ |ψiB ,(4.4)

where states |ψii live in Hilbert space Hi . The ability to write a state in this fashion precludes thepresence of the basis-independent, correlated fluctuations previously discussed. This treatment canbe extended to mixed states described by density matrices: a density matrix describing a bipartite
system is separable provided there exists a decomposition of the total density matrix in which it
can be written as,1
ρ=Xj

Pj ρjA ⊗ ρjB .

(4.5)

A mixed state that cannot be written in this fashion is entangled. These definitions imply a very
useful relation between the purity, Tr(ρ2 ), of the total density matrix in H, and the purity of the
reduced density matrix (ρA(B) = TrB(A) (ρ)) within one of the subspaces Hi . A separable statesatisfies [119, 120],
1 ≥ {Tr(ρ2A ), Tr(ρ2B )} ≥ Tr(ρ2 ).

(4.6)

For separable states, this can be understood simply: the states within HA and HB can only be as
mixed as the total density matrix, since the total density matrix necessarily contains the combined
mixedness of the states (for example, a product-state has Tr(ρ2 ) = Tr(ρ2A ) ∗ Tr(ρ2B )). On the other
hand, a mixed state that violates Eq. 4.6 is entangled.2

For example, consider the pure stateρ = |catihcat|. We can trace over the left particle’s spin-1/2 Hilbert space, HL , yielding the mixed
1
The stipulation that as long as one decomposition exists √in which to express the state as separable is important.
In this chapter we will consider the NOON states |±i = 1 2 (|2, 0i ± |0, 2i), and we will consider entanglement
between the modes in their number degree of freedom. The density matrix ρ = 21 (|+ih+| + |−ih−|) might appear
entangled since it is the sum of entangled states, but it actually can also be written ρ = 21 (|2, 0ih2, 0| + |0, 2ih0, 2|),
which is separable with respect to the subspaces since it is a sum of product states [116].
2
Note, however, that not all mixed entangled states violate Eq. 4.6; in other words, it is a witness to entanglement,
but not necessary. However, all pure entangled states do violate Eq. 4.6 [116, 95]

92
state,
ρR =1(| ↑iR h↑ |R + | ↓iR h↓ |R ) ,
2

(4.7)

where,
1= Tr(ρ2R ) < Tr(ρ2 ) = 1.
2

(4.8)

This provides an intuitive description of entanglement, where excluding populated parts of theHilbert space introduces entropy or loss of information contained in the entangled state. This is also
a nice way of visualizing decoherence: when a system of interest becomes entangled with degrees of
freedom in the environment that are unmeasured, then the measured sub-space necessarily becomes
mixed according to the above treatment. The total state of the system, which includes degrees of
freedom in the environment, is of course pure, but the measured subspace is not because it isentangled with these additional degrees of freedom.
Another way of casting the above description (at risk of redundancy) is that local measurements, that is measurements of observables contained within one of the sub-spaces, cannot
distinguish a bipartite entangled state from a mixed state contained in one sub-space. For example, by performing operations on just the spin at position |Ri in |cati, it is not possible to discern
whether the spin at |Ri is just in the statistical mixture ρR or a participant in the entangled state ρ.
However, by performing local operations on both spaces, and measuring the spins at both positions,
it is possible to ascertain that there is entanglement and the existence of a pure quantum state
occupied by the two-particles via verification of basis-independent correlations.
The importance of the non-local character of the entangled states points to a broader definition of non-entangled and entangled states in terms of equivalence classes. The idea here is that
one can define the class of states that are non-entangled or entangled as those states which areconnected by “local operations”, defined by operators that exist in and measurements3 on either
Hilbert space HA or HB . In other words, it is not possible to start with an unentangled state, andperform a series of local operations that yield an entangled state. For example, consider the “local”
3

Measurements are a little tricky since one can imagine scenarios where local measurement can allow probabilistic
post-selection on entangled states, yielding “detector level entanglement”, but the average un-post-selected density
matrix describing such a system is still unentangled [7, 117].

93
operator,
O = oA ⊗ oB ,(4.9)

where oA (oB ) describes the operator for a particle in HA (HB ), and, we note, A and B need
not necessarily refer to spatially resolved sub-spaces. The operator O cannot induce or remove
entanglement. This is because O only couples states contained within each Hilbert space, andas such cannot induce or remove correlations between states belonging to different spaces. In thelanguage of Hamiltonians, a Hamiltonian of the form H = HA +HB yields a time-evolution operator
U = eiHA t eiHB t akin to O; therefore, it preserves the class of the initial state. On the other hand,a Hamiltonian with terms that are the product of operators acting in each space, typically how we
describe interactions, corresponds to a time evolution operator that cannot be written like O and
can yield entanglement between the spaces.

4.2.2

Symmetrization

The treatment above implicitly treats the particles as distinguishable, in that the existenceof two degrees of freedom (e.g. position and spin) means I could always refer to the particle atposition L and the one at R each with its own spin degree of freedom. This effectively allows us toneglect the quantum statistics of the particles, which stipulates that the identical particles carrying
these physical labels (position and spin) are even or odd symmetric under exchange depending onwhether they are bosonic or fermionic, respectively. Since in this thesis we deal with bosons, I willconsider the case of two bosonic particles to address this point, which I will refer to as particle 1
and 2, occupying orthonormal states |ai and |bi. For the purpose of this discussion, and because I
will make reference to this particular case later on, we can take each of these states to describe aninternal and external degree of freedom: |ai = | ↑iL ≡ |Li ⊗ | ↑i and |bi = | ↓iR ≡ |Ri ⊗ | ↓i. The
symmetrized two-particle state is then written,
1|ψsym i = √ (|ai1 |bi2 + |bi1 |ai2 ) ,2(4.10)

94
which is manifestly symmetric under exchange of the particle labels 1 and 2. Though at first glance
this is a somewhat insignificant requirement, it is an immensely important prescription giving riseto physics ranging from Bose-Einstein condensation [29, 121], to the BEC-BCS crossover [33], to
HOM interference [1], and to lasers [122]. Notably, these are each phenomena that involve either
the coherent mixing of two quantum states (via a beam splitter operation) or the macroscopic occupation of a single quantum state; in other words, they involve operations or phenomena leading to aquantum amplitude for many particles sharing the same single-particle quantum state. Therefore,
by way of example, symmetrization tends to influence physical observables when particles can sharethe same exact quantum state.

4.2.3

Entanglement of identical particles

In the first Section 4.2.1, the discussion centered around entanglement between particles atdistinct locations via an internal degree of freedom. Looking at the state in Eq. 4.10, one might
conclude that this conforms to the definition of an entangled state provided so far. It appears that if
we could trace over one of the particles, we would leave the second particle in a mixed state thereby
indicating entanglement; equivalently, the state |ψsym i is not separable according to the definitions
provided. On the other hand, with this state alone there are no quantum-correlated fluctuations:an observer always measures a particle in state |ai and another particle in state |bi, and neverfluctuations associated with the particle label; the particle on the left is always spin-up, and theparticle on the right is always spin-down. The particle labels 1 and 2 are not truly physical, in thesense that they cannot be measured or identified as the eigenvalues of some observable; likewise,
tracing over the particle 1 or particle 2 does not have a physical analog, because, for example, how
could we measure just particle 1 but not particle 2 without violating the symmetry of the twoparticle quantum state in the first place? In contrast, consider |cati: the subscripts representing|Li and |Ri, with respect to which there is non-separability, are the eigenstates of some Hermitian,observable operator and we can discern these positions with a microscope. Lastly, there is an evenmore problematic issue when one considers entanglement as supplying correlated measurements of

95
uncertain quantities. While quantum mechanics is full of many surprises, the concept that somehow
every single identical particle in the universe is entangled is pushing it; surely the measurement of aparticle on Mars cannot effect the measurement of an identical particle on earth if they have neverinteracted or each interacted with the constituents of a Bell pair. Or, to borrow a popular quoteon the subject [123, 7]: “No quantum prediction, referring to an atom located in our laboratory, isaffected by the mere presence of similar atoms in remote parts of the universe” [124].
With these issues in mind, recent theoretical work has formulated a definition of entanglement
between identical particles that addresses this apparent contradiction associated with the nonseparability of symmetrized states [7, 117, 115]; we closely follow the treatment of these references
here. It is clear that, in formulating a definition of entanglement for identical particles, one must
relax this constraint of separability for non-entangled states, but preserve the correlated quantum
fluctuations that underlie entanglement. Towards this end, theorists have developed a protocol
for discerning entanglement rooted in the following idea: when two particles are unentangled, one
can ascribe a “complete set of properties” to each of the particles, irrespective of which particle
it is that carries each of these sets. For the state |ψsym i in Eq. 4.10, it is possible to accurately
state that one of the particles is always in state |ai and the other in |bi: there are no measurable
fluctuations, though formally the unphysical particle label associated with the states (|ai or |bi)
observed fluctuates. Such a statement is not possible for |cati.
Ref. [115] provides a formalism for identifying the presence of a “complete set of properties”
in the quantum state of two identical particles. The formalism relies on the construction of thesymmetric operator EP , with unity expectation value when a symmetrized two-particle state isunentangled. Consider the single-particle Hilbert space spanned by the orthonormal set {xi }.4
If a Bose-symmetrized state |ψbos i consists of particles with a “complete set of properties”, thenthere is a projector in the single-particle Hilbert space P = |xj ihxj |, satisfying [115, 117],
EP = P ⊗ (I − P ) + (I − P ) ⊗ P,

(4.11)

4Note the following argument is not dependent on your exact choice of basis, and rotations on this set can yieldappropriate basis sets for the “complete set of properties” of interest.

96
with,
1 = hψbos |EP |ψbos i,(4.12)

where the Kronecker product ⊗ is taken with respect to the single particle Hilbert spaces associatedwith each particle. When these equations are satisfied, one of the particles has a “complete setof properties” associated to the state |xj i, and the fluctuations intrinsic to entanglement cannot
be present. The other particle is always in a state |xi (in general, a superposition of states in thePorthonormal set excluding |xj i) orthogonal to |xj i, satisfying 1 = hx|I − P |xi = hx| l6=j |xl ihxl |xi.
However, because two bosons can share the same quantum-state, and yield 0 = hψbos |EP |ψbos i,
we must provide the additional prescription that a non-entangled state either satisfies Eq. 4.12
or describes two bosons occupying the same quantum state. If neither is true, the particles areentangled. The stipulation can be summarized as follows: two bosons are not entangled when either
they share the same quantum state, or are the symmetrized product of two orthogonal quantum
states [117, 115, 7].5 . While the projection operator EP exists for the exemplary state |ψsym i of
Eq. 4.10, there is provably6 no such operator for |cati and so it exhibits “particle entanglement”.
We will now apply these concepts to the HOM effect for the purpose of identifying distinctions in the entanglement created. Importantly, an absence of particle entanglement does notpreclude bipartite entanglement between other degrees of freedom in the system: as I will try toshow, the HOM effect, and beam splitters, highlight this fact and the existence of so-called “modeentanglement”.

4.2.4

First and second quantization in HOM interference

The HOM effect can be understood in first and second quantization, and establishing theconnection between the two is useful in understanding the character of the entanglement in theexperiment. We will first consider the case of first quantization, and assess the degree of entangle5

The in between case of a symmetrized state of non-orthogonal single-particle states can lead to entanglement
according to this prescription [7]. However, a mathematical tool known as the Slater/Schmidt rank along with the
reduced density matrix can distinguish these cases [115, 7], which is beyond the scope of this discussion.
6
This can be shown by assuming the state corresponding to the projector P exists, and then arriving at acontradiction when setting the expectation value of EP to one.

97
ment present before and after HOM interference. We consider two spinful bosons occupying thesame internal state (spin or polarization), while occupying distinct spatial modes that could be
the bound-state of a harmonic potential or a propagating free-space mode of a photon. We willcall these modes |Lin i and |Rin i, where the superscript indicates that these are the “input” modes
occupied by each particle, which, depending on the experiment, are distinct from the “output”
modes |Lout i and |Rout i. We will omit the spin state since it is the same for both particles. The
initial two-particle state is,1|Si = √ |Lin i1 |Rin i2 + |Lin i2 |Rin i1 .
2

(4.13)

We can now ask whether the particles are entangled according to the metric established in theprevious section. We seek the projector P that satisfies Eqs. 4.11 and 4.12. If we take P = |RihR|,
then hS|EP |Si = 1. The input state |Si describes particles that are not entangled, because it lacks
any measurable quantum fluctuations that might support correlations [115].
We now consider the output state after HOM interference. The HOM effect rests on thecoherent coupling of the quantum-modes via a particle beam splitter: it erases the which-way
information associated with the input states thereby yielding interference, provided the particles
themselves carry no distinguishing label that might itself supply which-way information. The
beam-splitting could be provided by a literal optical beam splitter or a tunnel-coupling between
two bound states: both induce transformations of the form (irrespective of the particle label),
 1
1{|Lin i, |Rin i} → { √ |Lout i + i|Rout i , √ |Rout i + i|Lout i },22

(4.14)

which when implemented on |Si yields,1|Si → √ |Si − |Si + i|Lout i1 |Lout i2 + i|Rout i1 |Rout i22i= √ |Lout i1 |Lout i2 + |Rout i1 |Rout i2
2≡ |+i,(4.15)

where in the last line we have introduced a notation for the resulting state, |+i, that will be
reintroduced later in this chapter. Even though each particle has equal probability of ending up

98
in either of the output states, the likelihood that they end up in different output states vanishes:
this is the signature of HOM interference. We can now analyze whether |+i contains particle
entanglement. Again, from the orthonormal space {|Li, |Ri} we seek the pure-state projector P =|pihp| that satisfies Eqs. 4.11 and 4.12. Interestingly, |pi = √12 (|Li + i|Ri) does the trick, leading toprojectors in Ep that correspond exactly to the beam splitter transformed states. This makes sensebecause, in analogy to |ψsym i in Eq. 4.10, the beam splitter lets |ai = √12 |Lout i + i|Rout i and|bi = √12 |Rout i + i|Lout i . One of the particles is always in the spatial superposition given by |ai,
and the other in the superposition given by |bi, and the corresponding symmetrized two-particle
state equals |+i. According to the prescription I have summarized so far the existence of P implies
that there is not particle entanglement in the state |+i.
Despite the lack of particle entanglement, the state |+i surely exhibits some kind of entanglement: there are correlated, quantum fluctuations associated with the positions of the particles.
Yet, given that we have dropped the prescription associated with separability, the formal nonseparability of the first-quantized state alone is not sufficient to support this claim. The languageof second quantization provides a solution to this conundrum, and properly identifies the entanglement as existing between modes; the key is to no longer attach a quantum state to each particle,
but only to the modes which support the particles themselves. We define creation and annihilation
operators, a and a† , whose commutation relations encode the quantum statistics of the particles,
and, consequently, the matrix elements. Bosonic excitations of a mode, which we interpret as
indistinguishable particles (either photonic or massive), transform under these operators as,
ak |nik =a†k |nik =√√n|n − 1ik

(4.16)

n + 1|n + 1ik(4.17)

where the quantum number in the kets describes the number of excitations within the mode,the subscripts identifies the mode itself, and creation/annhillation operators of different modes
commute. We now walk through the beam splitter operation in the second quantized picture. We
are interested in the initial state of two particles occupying two distinct input modes, 1 and 2, with99
the remaining modes 3 and 4 unoccupied. In the language of second quantization, this corresponds
to two modes each with a single excitation,|ψi = a†1 a†2 |0i1 |0i2
= |1i1 |1i2 ,(4.18)

which is equivalent to the state |Si from the viewpoint of first quantization. To connect withthe discussion of particles, I like to think of the mode as the external degree of freedom (like theposition of a particle) and the mode occupation as the internal degrees of freedom (like the spinof a particle). The state in 4.18 is a product state and hence unentangled with respect to modes.
The beam splitter can be modeled as transformations of the operators, coupling the input modes
1 and 2 to pairs of output modes 3 and 4 (see Figure 4.3),
1
a1 → √ (a3 + ia4 )2
1
a2 → √ (a4 + ia3 ) .
2(4.19)

Substituting these operators in for a1,2 in Eq. 4.18, we find
i 
|ψi = √ a†3 a†3 + a†4 a†4 |0i3 |0i4
2i
= (|2i3 |0i4 + |0i3 |2i4 )2≡ |+i.

(4.20)In this notation, there clearly exists “mode entanglement”: tracing over either one of the physicallydistinguishable modes would yield a balanced mixed state of the zero and doubly-excited states.
Experimentally, this might be accomplished by sticking a beam block in front of port 4 but not
port 3. Furthermore, this view resolves a number of confusions (at least, personally) associatedwith the beam splitter. It is possible to become confused about the HOM effect because theoutput state |+i is entangled, but the beam splitter realizes single-particle transformations whichthemselves should not entangle the particles. This can lead in the direction of concluding thesymmetrized state |Si ≡ |1i1 |1i2 is entangled because if the beam splitter did not add entanglement,

100
it must have been pre-existing. The initial state however exhibits no correlated fluctuations, andcannot itself, for example, violate a Bell’s inequality. The resolution is that there is not particle
entanglement, but the beam splitter itself realizes mode entanglement on an initially unentangledstate: the beam splitter transformations are not “local” with respect to the final Hilbert spacesthat are entangled after HOM interference, because the operator in Eq. 4.20 acting on the twomode vacuum state cannot be written as O in Eq. 4.9. The beam splitter, furthermore, preserves
the non-separability of the symmetrized states |Si when transformed to |+i with respect to theparticle labels, as expected given the single-particle nature of the beam splitter transformations;however, as discussed, this non-separability does not imply particle entanglement. In the languageof Hamiltonians, the beam splitter Hamiltonian HBS corresponding to atoms in double-well quite
manifestly contains interactions between the bound-state modes (and not the particles), and theseinteractions periodically realize mode-entanglement,
1 
HBS = √ a†L aR + a†R aL .
2

(4.21)

This Hamiltonian couples modes in analogy to a spin-spin Heisenberg Hamiltonian of the form
S1 · S2 ∝ (S + S − + S − S+) + S1z · S2z , in which the parenthetical term yields entanglement between
spatially separated particles in their spin degree of freedom (like in |cati).
So, to conclude, the HOM effect yields what I will call mode-entangled states that arise fromthe mode-coupling of the beam splitter. The beam splitter, however, transforms the non-particleentangled state |Si into the non-particle-entangled state |+i, just as we would expect given that we
can write the beam splitter operation in terms of single particle transformations. Nevertheless, thesymmetrized structure of the state |Si (or, equivalently, the commutation relations on the creation
and annihilation operators), is essential to yielding |+i under the action of the beam splitter. Hence,
the HOM effect lives in the space of bosonic particles, yet is facilitated by the mode-entangling
nature of the beam splitter

(a)

101

(b)
a2

a1

a3

a4

a1=a3=aL

a2=a4=aR

Figure 4.3: Equivalence of second-quantized modes for photonic and atomic beam splitter setups.
(a) For a photonic beam splitter, there are two input modes a1 and a2 , connected via transmission
and reflection to a3 and a4 : the beam splitter transformations in the text (Eq. 4.19) reflect thedifferent phases for each process. (b) For an atomic beam splitter formed from a double-wellpotential, the creation and annihilation operators refer to the bound-state mode of each well. Since
in this case a tunnel-coupling coherently mixes the modes, the transmitted quantum amplitude
correspond to the input mode creation operator, while the reflected amplitude yields creation in theother mode; the input and output modes are shared in this way, while preserving the fundamental
beam splitter transformations in the text. The transcription between the operators in (a) to thosein (b) are indicated in the figure.

4.2.5

Mode entanglement of internal degrees of freedom

Perhaps it is worth discussing in this likely confusing section something that I find very
confusing within the context of these different classifications of entanglement. We have mostly
been considering experiments in which the particles can occupy two spatial modes. But what
about the case of two bosonic particles, each with an internal degree of freedom – one spin-up andthe other spin-down – occupying the same ground-state of a harmonic oscillator? They are in a
triplet spin-state, |T i = √12 (| ↑i1 | ↓i2 + | ↓i1 | ↑i2 ), and the state looks formally identical to |Si.
By the above arguments, this state is definitely not particle-entangled: there are no fluctuations,
there is a spin-up particle and a spin-down particle, and that’s the whole story. However, now, in
analogy to the beam splitter in the HOM effect, if one applies a π/2 pulse coherently coupling thespin states such that,1| ↑i → √ (| ↑i + i| ↓i) ,2(4.22)

102
1| ↓i → √ (| ↓i + i| ↑i) ,2(4.23)

1|T i → √ (| ↑i1 | ↑i2 + | ↓i1 | ↓i2 ) .
2(4.24)

then we find,As with the initial state with respect to |Si, this final state is formally identical to |+i. Consequently, this state is not particle entangled, as we can identify the analogous projector P as was done
for |+i to rule out particle entanglement. On the other hand, formally it is mode-entangled, where
the spin states define the modes. Should we conclude then that a π/2 pulse is mode-entangling? Itseems reasonable but many would object to the notion of such a single-particle operation yielding
entanglement, yet it is formally identical to the beam splitter except the quantum states coupled
are not spatially resolved. Do we then conclude that, in analogy to the mode-entanglement froma single photon on a beam splitter [8, 10, 7] (See Figure 4.4), a single spin in a superposition ismode-entangled? Yes, at least I think so. Furthermore, the spectroscopic enhancement [125, 126]
entailed by the correlations in the final two-particle spin-state in Eq. 4.24 can be understood asarising from the combination of the symmetrization and the mode-entanglement induced by the
π/2-pulse, in direct analogy to the interferometric phase sensitivity enhancement associated to thephotonic |+i state [127].
4.2.6

Particle and mode entanglement: role of interactions

From this parallel example of the “spin-HOM” effect, it is clear that the distinction between
mode and particle entanglement does not pertain to the exact degrees of freedom – internal orexternal – between which correlated fluctuations exist. By appealing to the general formulationof Ref. [115], and discussion thereof in Ref. [7], it is possible to construct an intuitive partition
between how mode and particle entangled states are generated. I will jump to the punch-line now
so that it is clear where I am going with this: quite sensibly, mode-entangled states can only result
when there are interactions between the modes (Section 4.2.4), and particle-entangled states canonly result when there are interactions between the particles.

1031|ψin  = √ (|1, 0 + |0, 1) ⊗ |g, g
2

ω0
ħω0
1
|ψout  = √ |0, 0 ⊗ (|e, g + |g, e)2ħω0Figure 4.4: Single photon entanglement. While a single quantum particle cannot exhibit particle
entanglement, it can create mode-entanglement through the state √12 (|1, 0i + |0, 1i). To showthat this corresponds to useful entanglement (and can violate a Bell’s inequality), we show aprocedure (from Ref. [7]) by which local operations connect this photonic state to an atomic |bellistate. For two atoms, each comprised of a two-level system with splitting resonant with the input
photon, via the local atom-photon interactions the mode-entanglement is converted into particle
entanglement. We show the initial beam-split photonic and atomic states prior to the local atomphoton interactions in the upper-left of the figure, and then the final state after interaction in
the bottom-right. To violate a Bell’s inequality it is required to measure correlated fluctuations in
multiple bases, but the fact that there are not in general unitaries that connect the single excitation
state to the zero excitation state within a single mode (this is a so-called “super-selection rule”
for the case of massive particles) poses a challenge that is solved by using these additional spins(on which Bell’s inequality measurements are routine). There are, however, experimental examples
demonstrating the presence of entanglement in the beam-split single photon state without the aid of
atomic states [8]; similarly, proposals exist for converting mode-entanglement of massive particles
into particle entanglement through the aid of a Bose-Einstein condensate particle reservoir oradditional particles supplied to a beam splitter [9, 10].

The general treatment I will now discuss pertains strictly to bosons, but can be modified tothe case of fermions and their distinct commutation relations. Though I will not show this here,
the general treatment below is shown in Ref. [115] to be equivalent to the rules I gave above in
Section 4.2.3. We consider the case of two bosons, 1 and 2, represented in a basis of orthonormal
single-particle states {|xj i}. Any symmetrized, two-particle state |ψ2p i of the bosons can be written

104
in first quantization as,|ψ2p i =Xi,jvi,j |xi i1 |xj i2 ,(4.25)

where vi,j is the amplitude associated with particle 1 being in |xi i while particle 2 is in |xj i. Thisis the traditional representation used to represent, for example, a pair of particles occupying two
orthogonal quantum states. Because these are bosons, symmetrization implies vi,j = vj,i . The
matrix v (with elements vi,j ) can be diagonalized [115], such that we can rewrite the two-particle
wave function in the diagonal basis {|x¯j i},|ψ2p i =Xkv¯k |x¯k i1 |x¯k i2 ,(4.26)

where v¯k is the amplitude associated with both particles to occupy the same state |x¯k i. To discriminate the presence of particle entanglement, we introduce the “Schmidt rank”, which is the numberof terms in the summation with non-zero v¯k . The particles are entangled when the Schmidt rank
exceeds two [115, 7]; when the Schmidt rank is two, the state is the symmetrized product of two
quantum states (not necessarily orthogonal); when the Schmidt rank is one, the particles are in thesame exact quantum state. To highlight the connection between this discussion and the previous discussions, we show the relevant states |Si and |+i in the bases relevant to the present discussion. The
state |+i, as written in Eq. 4.15, is already in the form of Eq. 4.26 in the {|x¯j i} = {|Li, |Ri} basis;to write |+i in the form of Eq. 4.25, the two-particle state can be written as the symmetrized product of the orthogonal single-particle quantum states, {|xj i} = { √12 (|Li + i|Ri) , √12 (|Ri + i|Li)}.
Conversely, the state |Si is in the form of Eq. 4.25 when expressed in the {|Li, |Ri} basis; it can be
represented in the form of Eq. 4.26 when using a basis {|x¯j i} = { √12 (|Li + |Ri) , √i2 (|Li − |Ri)}. It
is clear that both of these states have Schmidt rank of two, and, as such, are not particle entangled.
A similar analysis applies to the state |ψsym i of Eq. 4.10.
The Schmidt rank treatment provides a natural way of understanding the effect of interactions. If one starts with a pair of non-particle-entangled bosons in two orthogonal quantum states,
then the action of a single-particle Hamiltonian (i.e. no interactions) will leave the state in that
form, because the unitary Scrodinger evolution preserves the orthogonality of the evolving states.

105
In other words, the two-particle state remains a symmetrized product of two orthogonal quantum
states, and the Schmidt rank of two is invariant with time. If there are interactions between theparticles, then the action of the Hamiltonian can promote the Schmidt rank by generating moreterms beyond the two that described the initial two-particle state. This introduces particle entanglement. For example, consider again the state |belli, which is routinely produced with ions via
their Coulomb interaction [79]. In first quantization, for bosons this state is written,|belli =1(|Li1 |Ri2 + |Li2 |Ri1 ) (| ↑i1 | ↓i2 + | ↑i2 | ↓i1 ) .
2(4.27)In the basis {|xj i} = {|L, ↓i, |L, ↑i, |R, ↓i, |R, ↑i}, the associated matrix v is of the form,


0
0
0
1/2






0 1/2 0 
 0

,
v=

 0 1/2 0
0 




1/2 0
0
0

(4.28)

Eq. 4.26. Upon diagonalizing, we have that,


−1/2
0
0
0






0
−1/2
0
0



,
v̄ = 

 0
0
1/2 0 




0
0
0 1/2

(4.29)

When this matrix is diagonalized to yield v̄, the diagonal elements of v̄ represent v¯k associated withand so, {v¯k } = {−1/2, −1/2, 1/2, 1/2}. The states (which are the eigenvectors of v) attachedto these coefficients are {|x¯k i} = √12 {−|L, ↓i + |R, ↑i, −|L, ↑i + |R, ↓i, |L, ↓i + |R, ↑i, |L, ↑i + |R, ↓i}. Plugging these coefficients and states into Eq. 4.26, one finds (with annoying algebra) |belli
represented in first quantization. Because this expansion is unique [115] and there are four terms,
the Schmidt rank is four. The Schmidt rank exceeds two, and |cati is properly identified as particleentangled.
To conclude, I want to point out that mode and particle entangled states are not mutually
exclusive [128]. For example, the Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian of interacting bosons on a lattice

106
has tunneling and interactions, which couple the modes and the particles, respectively [39]. Even
though the particles may be spinless, and therefore the measurable fluctuations are only in theoccupation numbers of the sites, the set of states that can be produced with both the tunneling andinteractions is larger than what can be produced with just tunneling. The tunneling produces thenumber fluctuations among the modes (in this case, these are the lattice sites), but the interactions
allow for states that are truly particle entangled: the states exhibit correlated number fluctuations
inaccessible to systems exhibiting only tunneling. The distinctions among these states are detectedby the framework I just summarized. Crucially, in Hong-Ou-Mandel interference, the particles –whether they be photons or massive atoms – are not interacting: the particles comprise a state
possessing only mode entanglement.

4.2.7

Distinguishability

Before moving on to experiment, I want to briefly discuss the concept of distinguishability.
In general, I would like to define a two-particle quantum state as consisting of distinguishable
particles when there exists two degrees of freedom in each particle, which are uniquely correlated
without fluctuations. For example, the second quantized state | ↑iL | ↓iR fulfills this definition, as
the particle on the left is always spin-up, and the converse is true of the particle on the right. Even
though the particles are still identical in that the state is symmetrized – in first quantization, thisstate is |ψsym i of Eq. 4.10 – one might expect that the effect of the quantum statistics is largely
removed because the particles are distinguished through these position and spin labels. Yet, there
are substantial counter-examples to this notion. For example, consider the state |cati: one wouldfind HOM interference even though the spin states are fluctuating. The tunnel-coupling yields,|cati →

1(| ↑iL | ↑iL + | ↑iR | ↑iR + | ↓iL | ↓iL + | ↓iR | ↓iR ) .
2(4.30)The same spins always end up in the same, random mode, due to interference within each spinaligned component of the state. Alternatively, consider the original example I gave of distinguishable particles in the state | ↑iL | ↓iR : instead of coherently mixing the spatial modes occupied by

107
the particles, one could perform a Raman-assisting tunneling process that couples the positions
while concurrently flipping a spin (i.e. realized by the Hamiltonian H = a†R aL σ − + a†L aR σ + ). This
too would exhibit the same signature of HOM interference at certain times,
1| ↑iL | ↓iR → √ (| ↑iL | ↑iL + | ↓iR | ↓iR ) .
2(4.31)

However, by adding a third degree of freedom distinguishing the particles and invariant with respect
to the Hamiltonian, then the interference could be removed. It seems that one must adopt anexperimentally dependent notion of distinguishability, wherein the presence of interference due toindistinguishability depends on the exact interference experiment being performed. To be more
concrete, an interference experiment between two particles necessarily entails the coherent mixingof two quantum states, such as the modes in the original photonic HOM experiment. Whentwo particles share the same quantum state with respect to all degrees of freedom besides thosecoherently coupled for the purpose of interference, then they are indistinguishable with respect tothat experiment. We will adopt this operational definition through out.

4.3

Intermission
This is an intermission. If you are one of the very few who read this far, remember none ofthis matters very much.
The prior section comes out of extensive conversations among colleagues in JILA, and asurvey of literature on the subject. Though important in their own right, the presented conclusions
are also immediately relevant because past and present literature is inconsistent with respect to thenotion that symmetrization alone yields entanglement, and the presence of particle entanglementin the Hong-Ou-Mandel effect. Our demonstration of the Hong-Ou-Mandel effect uses initiallyunentangled, independently prepared atoms, which led to an exploration into understanding how
to formulate and distinguish the kinds of entanglement present with identical particles. A subtle,
confusing and fascinating effect, Hong-Ou-Mandel interference brings to bear these issues, which
is likely the reason for its importance within the quantum optics community. The prior discussion

108
was an attempt to explain some of the fundamental concepts surrounding it.
I will now transition to our experimental observation of atomic Hong-Ou-Mandel interference,
enabled by an atomic beam splitter in the form of a coupled double-well potential.

4.4

Overview of tunneling experiments
Before delving into discussions of our studies of single-particle tunneling, I will give a brief

overview of the experiment, including a description of the experiment stepwise, and a summary of
our theoretical treatment of the Hamiltonian experienced by the tweezer-trapped atoms.

4.4.1

Experimental sequence and detection

The experimental results in this chapter depend on the mobility of two wavelength-scale optical tweezers and single-site imaging, which are realized via the apparatus illustrated in Fig. 4.2b [3,69, 89]. For laser cooling to the three-dimensional (3D) ground state (Fig. 4.2c) and imaging in
position-resolved potentials, our tweezers are positioned far apart compared to the focused spot
radius of 710 nm. For tunneling, the tweezers are brought close together such that there is asmall, tunable overlap of the single-particle wavefunctions. The versatility of the tweezers, therefore, enables the simultaneous capabilities of laser-cooling in separated potentials and of coherently
overlapping the single-particle wavefunctions with control on a scale much smaller than the size ofthe atomic wavepackets. Our full experimental sequence consists of the following steps: We image
the initial atom positions, laser cool with Raman-sideband cooling, perform tunneling experiments,
and then image the atoms again. Hence, we can follow the quantum dynamics between initial andfinal states that are both known with single-site resolution. This pair of images allows us to form
the four sets of probabilities for single particle experiments associated with the atom’s origin andfinal location, and the set of probabilities associated with two particle experiments (see Figure 4.5).
For the HOM observation discussed in Sections 4.7 and 4.8, we focus on the two-particle probability
P11 : this is the likelihood that in the first and second image there is an atom in each optical tweezer.

measurement

109

L R

before tunneling 0 0

1 0

1 0

1 0

0 1

0 1

0 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

after tunneling

1 0

0 1

0 0

1 0

0 1

0 0

1 1

0 0

1 0

0 1

1

PR

1

Ploss

PL

2

PR

2

Ploss

P11

0 0

PL

2

P20+P02+2Ploss+Ploss

Figure 4.5: A list of the possible outcomes of our imaging protocol. A 0 (1) within a box indicatesthat on the pixel corresponding to either the left [L] or right [R] wells, the measured counts fell
below (exceeded) the threshold for triggering atom detection. The red, blue, and grey regions
highlight the signals used to produce the data points in, for example, Fig. 4.14b,e. Pi1 (Pi2 ) refers to
an atom that started on the left (right), i.e. the first image indicated an atom on the left (right). In
our calculation of P11 if there is an atom in each well in the second image we count this as 1; if there
are zero atoms, we count this as 0; if there is one atom total, we also count this as 0. The latter twocases can occur when atoms end up on the same optical tweezer, with probabilities P20 and P02 forthe left or right tweezer, respectively (see Section 4.7.3). We take the mean over all experimental
realizations to extract the single and two-particle probabilities represented. To accurately interpretthe measured P11 we must take into account particle loss. Hence, in our analysis this loss is
independently accounted for by using the value of Ploss determined in the parallel single-particle
experiments. Specifically, in two-particle experiments the maximum value that P11 can reach is(1 − Ploss )2 . Ploss ranges in our experiments between 0.03 and 0.05; these values are consistent withvariation in vacuum lifetime and experiment length amongst different datasets.

4.4.2

Theory treatment of a double-well formed by (nearly) gaussian opticaltweezers

For the HOM studies, it was crucial to gain an accurate understanding of the doublewell potential generated experimentally, since there were parameters of the experiment, namely
the two-particle interaction energy U , to which we at the time lacked direct experimental access. In the reconfigured trap for quantum-dynamics, the tunnel-coupling is described by J =R− φL (~r)Hsp φR (~r)d3~r, where φL (~r) ≡ h~r|Li (φR (~r) ≡ h~r|Ri) is the lowest energy, localized wave-

function for the left (right) well, and Hsp is the single-particle Hamiltonian (see below). We control
the bias ∆ between the two wells by varying the relative intensity of each tweezer, as discussed in
Chapter 2. On the tunneling resonance (∆ = 0), an atom prepared in the left well undergoes thecoherent dynamics |Li → cos(Jt)|Li + i sin(Jt)|Ri [129, 16, 130, 2], while the symmetric transformation occurs for an atom starting on the right; the ideal two-particle dynamics are discussed later110
in this chapter. After an evolution time t in the presence of tunneling, the depth of the traps is
rapidly increased to freeze the atom distribution, the traps are pulled apart, and the single-atom
location(s) is (are) imaged.
We devoted significant effort towards understanding the foci that define the double-wellpotential experienced by the atoms, and the associated single and two-particle Hamiltonians. Basedon the measurements discussed in Section 2.8.2 and 2.9.2, we find very good agreement between
calculations of the tunneling J and interaction U (see Chapter 5 for direct measurements of theinteraction energy) for a double-well potential V (r) of spacing a, waist w0 = 0.71, and zR = 2.17 µm
z-length scale,


 



2
2
2
−2x
2
(y
−
a/2)
2
(y
+
a/2)
 
exp−  +exp−  V (r) = −
2 exp
z2
z2
z2
2
2
2
1 + zz 2
w0 1 + z 2
w0 1 + z 2
w0 1 + z 2
0
V0

0

0

(4.32)

0where V0 is the single tweezer depths when they are separated, a >> w0 , and here we have written
the potential for a vertically oriented double-well. The depth quoted in subsequent data always
refers to this quantity V0 . We exclude gravity in our calculation of double-well parameters since
the bias necessary for resonance negligibly perturbs the localized wavefunctions. The single-particle
Hamiltonian Hsp is the sum of V (r) and the kinetic energy operator in position space. We have
performed full 3D calculations using the methods summarized in Ref. [131], which is essential foran accurate description of the two-particle interaction energy (defined in Section 4.6), responseof a thermal distribution, and full-description of the spatial wave functions. We have used a 1D
calculation by Fourier transforming the symmetric double-well Gaussian system, and diagonalizing
the Hamiltonian in a truncated momentum basis. The 1D and 3D tunneling calculations exhibit
decent agreement for the ground-state system (see Section 4.5.2.4)
In the modeling of the single-particle dynamics discussed in this chapter, we make use of
the solutions to the single-band, single-particle Hamiltonian for the tunnel-coupled double wellpotential. Provided we operate with small enough biases so that the spatial extent of the wave
functions are unaffected, we can model the left and right ground-states as a coupled two-level

111
system. For a bias ∆ and tunneling-coupling J, this Hamiltonian is,


J 
∆/2
Hef f = 
.
J
−∆/2

(4.33)

We can numerically time-evolve this simple Hamiltonian under the Schrodinger equation in thepresence of the ramps of the double-well tweezer depth to understand, for example, the onsetof tunneling in the experiment, and, crucially, the dynamics in the final static double-well. When
applying this Hamiltonian, we use the measured J where available, and calibrated ∆; in the absenceof a measured J, we use the full 3D calculations of the potential unless otherwise noted.

4.5

Tunneling in a double-well potential: characterization and dependences
Here we present data on single-particle tunneling in a double-well potential, by only consider-ing experiments that, after stochastic loading [3], yield a single atom in the left or right well in thefirst image. We spent a significant amount of time investigating systematics associated with properties of our tunneling observations. These studies help elucidate the origin of the single-particle
tunneling contrast and damping, and they verify our understanding of the optical tweezer potential
parameters that are important for determining the on-site interaction energy (Section 4.6). Lastly,
while we primarily consider single-particle data in this section, the experiments with two particles
discussed in subsequent sections are identical except in the outcome of the initial tweezer loading.
Hence, many of the conclusions here bear on the two-particle experiments as well.

4.5.1

Initiating tunneling experiments

Once 3D cooling has finished, the tunneling preparation proceeds as follows and is illustrated
in Fig. 4.6A.7 Prior to any of the sweeps, we first set the fractional bias of the optical tweezers
that we wish to apply in the final tunneling configuration. While the traps are each still 23(1) MHz
deep, the gaussian tweezer spacing is swept from 1570 nm to 808 nm in Tpos = 10 ms. Afterward, in
7

All of the numbers presented here are for the final trap values that realize the smaller value of J presented in
Figure 4.14b,e and Figure 4.16,b,c in the context of our HOM observations.

(b) 1.0
0.8
0.8
1.0

(a) Depth
23 MHz

0.6
0.6

PLeft

PLeft or P11

t=0

112

2.3 MHz96 kHzTpos

T1

T2 Tun. T3

Tpos
Time

0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2

0
4.4
4.6
4.8
-0.8 -0.6-0.4-0.2
Ramp time (ms)Time (ms)

0.0
4.2

5.0
0.0

Figure 4.6: Protocol for initiating tunneling. (A) The tunneling sequence as a function of time,
illustrated for the 96 kHz final trap depth. (B) For the 96 kHz depth, tunneling at times beforet = 0 for a single atom starting on the right (red), on the left (blue), and with one atom in eachwell (black). The solid lines model the single particle dynamics use the Hamiltonian of Eq. 4.33,
and using the calculated depth-dependent tunneling shown in Section 4.5.2.4; we also show the
expected dynamics of an atom starting in the left well were we to neglect gravity during the ramp
down (green).

a T1 = 10 ms linear ramp the traps are dropped to 2.3(1) MHz, and, from there, in a second linear
ramp of T2 = 5 ms to a depth of 96(4) kHz. This last ramp initiates the tunneling experiments.
After a variable evolve time t, the trap is jumped in 100 µs to 210 kHz (not shown in Fig. 4.6a),and then linearly ramped in T3 = 10 ms back to 23(1) MHz. The traps are then swept apart in
Tpos = 10 ms to 1570 nm for imaging. The same procedure is used for experiments in which thefinal tunneling depth is 60 kHz and the well spacing is 805 nm (Fig. 4.14c,f and Fig. 4.16a). For
the large spacing and 20 kHz depth double-well experiment displayed in Fig. 4.13, the final depth
ramp is increased to 10 ms and performed symmetrically.
The goal of the second ramp T2 is to minimize tunneling that occurs before t = 0, while
preserving the ground-state fraction achieved during sideband cooling. The data in Fig. 4.6b affirmsthat minimal, though measurable, population transfer occurs before our nominal t = 0. Based on
the data in Fig. 4.14b, we observe that the coherent dynamics are consistent with a small time offset
tcorr = −60 µs, which informs our calculation of the experimental tHOM = 2π/8J + tcorr = 0.42 ms
for 2J/2π = 524 Hz used in later sections. With respect to any heating during the ramps, if we dothe tunneling initiation procedure forward and then in reverse, we do not observe changes in the113
temperature measured via sideband spectroscopy (see Section 4.9). Lastly, we note that the data
in Fig. 4.6b validate assumptions made in later sections that interactions during the ramp can beneglected, because very little population transfer occurs in this time.
To model the tunneling dynamics during the ramp, we require knowledge of J and ∆ for
the Hamiltonian in Eq. 4.33. Using our calculations of J for an arbitrary double-well formed fromGaussian potentials, we compute the dynamic depth dependent tunneling during the ramp where
direct measurements of J are not available (since we have not measured the tunneling oscillationsat large depths). Other than when scanning the bias for equalization, we typically operate with
∆ = 0 resonant tunneling. For a horizontal double-well, the control voltage that we apply via the
AOMs to equalize the ground-states in neighboring tweezers is largely independent of the tweezer
depth, excluding possible effects associated with optical aberrations. However, for a vertical doublewell, gravity causes a shift of the left and right well ground-state to which we are sensitive: forthe 808 nm Gaussian spacing between the tweezers, there is a 600 nm spacing between the atoms
corresponding to a 1.3 kHz gravitational shift. Since in the final double-well (at the conclusionsof the ramps) we must correct for this shift, the total energy bias between the ground-states willchange as function of depth since the double-well bias due to the differential AO deflection power
scales with the total power in the tweezers.8

Since we choose a differential AO deflection powersuch that there is resonant tunneling in the final trap, tunneling during the ramp is suppressedboth by a decrease in J and the increase in ∆ before the trap reaches its final depth. These effects
are modeled in Figure 4.6.
The primary tunneling experiments we perform involve resonant dynamics and bias scans nearan evolve time of t = π/(2J). As was touched on earlier, the final ramp T2 is not perfectly diabaticwith respect to the tunneling, and as a result some dynamics occur prior to the end of this ramp.
This has the effect of modifying the “spectral” response of the system from what is expected from
8

The control voltage that sets the relative RF power in each tone defining the double-well sets the fractional
difference in the deflection efficiency for each tone. The overall total optical power hitting the AOM times thisfractional bias determines the absolute energy bias. Since we fix the bias voltage, and hence the fractional bias, thischanges as a function of depth.

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

PLeft

(b)1.0PLeft(a) 1.0

0.4
0.2
0.0
-3

114

5 ms final ramp

0.4
0.2

-2

-1

0
1
Bias (kHz)

2

3

0.0

0

2
4
6
8
Time from start of second ramp

10

Figure 4.7: Dynamics and bias scan including the ramp dynamics for a horizontal double-well of
96 kHz and 808 nm spacing. (a) The dense, red circles correspond to the numerically computed
bias curve for the first half-oscillation. We fit these simulated data to a Lorentzian (dashed red line)with the model from Eq. 4.34; the ramp-dependent fractional disparity between the fitted γ andthe 2J used in the model is included as a correction when calibrating the bias control. We contrast
the expected spectral response of a two-level system driven with a resonant square-pulse and Rabi
frequency 2J (solid black line). (b) We show the numerically calculated temporal response during
and subsequent to the final ramp for a resonant bias. For a vertical double-well there is a small(< 2%) reduction in the single particle contrast due to the off-resonant tunneling prior to the final
trap.

a two-level system with detuning ∆ driven by a square-pulse, and, furthermore, modifies the phaseof tunneling oscillations. These behaviors are illustrated in Figure 4.7 for the case of a horizontal
double-well. Importantly, there is relative narrowing of the numerically-computed bias scan profile
with respect to a Lorentzian of 2J, which is a correction we include in our calibration of the bias in
the following sections. We experimentally measure the phase shift of the tunneling dynamics withrespect to our nominal t = 0 at the end of the 5 ms ramp, and this measurement is used when
performing comparisons between the single-particle and two-particle oscillations (see Section 4.7);
the measured dynamics for a vertical double-well also compare favorably to the simulation in
Figure 4.6.

115
4.5.2
4.5.2.1

Single particle tunneling characterization
Bias spectroscopy

In Fig. 4.8 we display single-particle tunneling data for a double-well trap with a final singlewell depth of 96(4) kHz and an a = 808 nm gaussian function spacing. In Fig. 4.8a we plot thelikelihood of observing the atom in the left well (PL ) as a function of the double-well bias ∆ fora fixed evolution time of 0.9 ms for the condition of an atom initially imaged on the left (blue) oron the right (red). We will adopt this convention for single particle experiments through-out thisthesis, but note that we could produce analogous data for PR . To calibrate the bias control voltage(see Section 2.9.1) to units of energy, we use the measured width of the bias spectrum and compare
it to the frequency of the tunneling oscillations. The modeling in the previous section shows thatthe wings of the expected sinc-function are suppressed, due to the lack of diabaticity in ramping
on J. We therefore model the response as simply that of a Lorentzian without the Rabi-wings,
PL = A(γ)2∆2 + (γ)2(4.34)

where γ is the Lorentzian width, and A is a free parameter to account for the finite contrast. We
extract a bias calibration by equating γ and the measured frequency 2J from the on-resonancetunneling oscillations displayed in Fig. 4.8b, but correcting for the narrowing. We estimate a 15%
systematic uncertainty in ∆ based on a comparison to a method which directly measures the energy
difference ∆ through Ramsey-spectroscopy, discussed below. The disparity could be from the weak
dependence of the tunnel-coupling on ∆ for this double-well configuration. We have also looked at
the contrast and frequency of off-resonant tunneling oscillations, which agree at this same level ofprecision with the calibration.

4.5.2.2

Thermal effects on tunneling

We have performed a number of calculations and experiments to understand the effect of finite
temperature on the single particle tunneling. To first order, we verify the necessity of ground-state
preparation to our observation of tunneling: we show in Fig. 4.8c a bias scan over a similar range

116
as in Fig. 4.8a (though at lower statistics) without the sideband cooling. The atoms are essentiallycompletely thermally delocalized between the optical tweezers. This suggests that a thermal occupation can lead to an offset and contrast reduction in the tunneling oscillations, however, latermeasurements presented here rule out this possibility in our experiment (see Section 4.5.2.3).
In Fig. 4.8b, we plot tunneling oscillations out to times that exhibit damping; in this trap
we find a damping τ ≈ 10 ms. Our first hypothesis for the damping was that it was due tofinite temperature effects. However, a full calculation of the three-dimensional potential and theassociated eigenstates reveals that for our 3D temperature we should observe revivals due to theincoherent sum of frequency components from different motional states. Due to the anharmonicities
in the shallow double-gaussian potential, we must consider the radially and axially coupled motional
eigenstates |ni whose sequential splitting is equal to 2Jn , the tunnel-coupling in a given motional
state for the asymptotically separated wells. In other words, the three-dimensional states formtunnel-coupled doublets (each comprised of states of opposite spatial symmetry), which transformin the large spacing limit to uncoupled motional eigenstates at the same energy. To model thethermal population in a double-well, we consider an initial thermal distribution of n̄ = 0.2 in thethree-dimensional eigenstates of the separated wells, which corresponds to near the center of ourspectroscopic estimates of our temperature, and calculate the ensuing dynamics once the tunnelingis initiated. This leads to the plot in Fig. 4.8d, illustrating the expected tunneling response of an
atom in an initial thermal distribution. We have not observed conclusive evidence of such revivals
in our data, and hence we do not believe the dephasing is due to the temperature. If anything, thespectral purity of the tunneling oscillations is suggestive of highly pure 3D ground-state fraction in
the final double-well system, at the upper end of our error bars from spectroscopy.

4.5.2.3

Verifying the coherence and ground-state nature of the tunneling oscillations

To verify the quantum nature of the position oscillations we observe, it was necessary toexperimentally rule out some pernicious possibilities. One physical process that could mimic our

117

PL

0.30
0.30

J2Π- kHz
N+]

PL

0.35
C 0.35
0.25
0.25

PLeft

0.8

1.0
No sideband (d)(b)
0.8
cooling

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

1.0

PL

(c)

1.0
(b)
B
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0
0.0
0.0
1.5 -1.0
1.0-0.5
0.5 0.0
1.5 00-1.5
0 0.5 1.0 1.5¨N+] kHz
1.0
0.8

(a)
A

0.0
- 1.5 - 1.0 - 0.5 0.0 0.5
(kHz)

1.0

0.0

1.5 0

0.20
0.20

2

4
6
7LPHms
PV
Time

8

10
10

5

10
15
Time (ms)20

25

Figure 4.8: Basic characterization of single-particle tunneling in a vertical double-well formed fromoptical tweezers for a 808 nm spacing and depth of 96 kHz. (a) For a 0.9 ms tunneling time, we scan
the relative well bias, ∆, and observe the single particle tunneling resonance, symmetrically for an
atom originating from either well. The blue circles (red triangles) correspond to atoms startingin the left (right) well. The evolution time is set for near full coherent swapping of the atomic
populations in each well. (b) At ∆ = 0, we observe oscillations at 2J in the expectation value of an
atom’s position. For (a,b), for each experimental value (bias or time) the experiment was run 400
times, yielding ∼ 140 single particle measurements for each of the red and the blue data points. (c)We perform a first order check on the importance of cooling by omitting the sideband cooling stage
while otherwise retaining all the features of the experiment from Figure (a), however, with half thestatistics. (d) We theoretically calculate the expected tunneling dynamics for a 3D ground-state
fraction of n̄ = 0.2 in the full dimensionally-coupled space of the Gaussian double-well for a spacingof 808 nm and depth of 96 kHz, mirroring the parameters of the experiment.

observations would be a highly excited motional coherent state oscillating in the double-well, barely
aware of the the bump at the bottom of the potential. We would then expect spatial oscillations near
the trap frequency, a large superposition of motional states, and increasing oscillation frequency
with depth. While the frequency of oscillations was not consistent with any of the motional trap
frequencies we expect based on our knowledge of the potential, nor did the oscillation frequency
scale with the depth, we performed a set of experiments demonstrating that the tunneling was

0.15
0.15

800 805
800
805
Gau
*DXV

118
occurring in the ground-state doublet of the double-well.
To probe the motional state after tunneling, we apply sideband thermometry after allowingπ
the atom to tunnel for a time near a full spatial swap, i.e. t = 2J
. We examine the motional

state of an atom that started in either the left or right well, and thereby ensure that the process issymmetric: an atom that starts in the right (left) ground-state, should exhibit a large ground-state
fraction in the left (right) well after the tunneling. This is precisely what is displayed in Figure 4.9,
for both the radial and axial dimensions of the trap. The y-axis of these plots is the product ofthe probability that the atom tunneled and that it undergoes a spin-flip at a given spectroscopy
frequency. For all of the data, it is clear that both the fraction that does and does not tunnel
is in the ground-state, which is also evidence that a lack of tunneling near where we expect it tobe maximal (determining the contrast) is not due to thermal fraction. We have also measured
spectroscopy after setting the bias far off resonance to suppress tunneling, thereby testing if theramps cause any heating; these measurements are consistent and do not show heating. Therefore,
from these data we can conclude that the tunneling process is transferring coherently quantum
amplitude between states asymptotically connected to the motional ground-states of the separated
optical tweezers, and that process is imperfect (finite contrast, damping) due to effects related tothe coherence of the tunneling itself and not the preparation of the motional states.
The tunneling oscillations provide an indicator of the tunneling coherence, but ultimately thisis only probing the on-diagonals of the atomic density matrix in the {|Li, |Ri} basis. We perform a
Ramsey interference experiment in this two-dimensional space by applying a pair of “π/2-pulses”
πin the tunneling by allowing tunneling for a time t = 4J
, which places the atomic wavepacket in

a superposition of occupying each optical tweezer. Between these resonant tunneling pulses, wequickly increase the bias |∆| >> J which serves the dual purpose of suppressing the tunneling
during this time t and allowing a relative phase to accrue between the two components of thesuperposition. The bias thereby causes the evolution of the superposition state √12 (|Li + i|Ri) →√1 |Li + iei∆t |Ri . Just as in conventional Ramsey spectroscopy, the second π/2 pulse reads out
2this evolved phase by mapping it back into the {|Li, |Ri} populations to yield oscillations such as

119
PL

PR
1.0

0.8

0.8
Probability in F=1

1.0

0.6
0.4

0.6
0.4

0.2

0.2

0.0
6.83080 6.83085 6.83090 6.83095 6.83100 6.83105 6.83110 6.83115

0.0
6.83080 6.83085 6.83090 6.83095 6.83100 6.83105 6.83110 6.83115

EO Freq (GHz)EO Freq (GHz)

1.0

1.0

0.8

0.8
Probability in F=1

Axial:

Probability in F=1

Radial:Probability in F=1

Spectroscopy axis

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.6

0.4

0.2

6.83090

6.83092

6.83094
EO Freq (GHz)6.83096

6.83098

0.0

6.83090

6.83092

6.83094

6.83096

6.83098

EO Freq (GHz)

Figure 4.9: Sideband spectroscopy after resonant tunneling for near a full-swapping time of π/2J,in a horizontal double-well of depth 26 kHz and 918 nm spacing. We perform radial (first row) andaxial (second row) spectroscopy after the tunneling procedure, and perform the standard resonant
push-out to readout the spin populations. The y-axes on these plots should be interpreted as
the product of the final well probability (indicated by the second image atom location) and theprobability of being in F = 1 (i.e. surviving the resonant push-out). The sum of PL and PR for dataof the same color corresponds to the overall sideband-specotrscopy transfer at a given frequency,
and is consistent with sideband spectroscopy plots without the tunneling occurring prior. The firstcolumn (second column) corresponds to the probability of observing the atom on the left PL (rightPR ). For all of the plots, the red (blue) correspond to runs in which the first image showed theatom on the right (left). The flipping of the blue and red peaks between the figures in each row isbecause if an atom start on the left (right), it is more likely to be on the right (left). The increased
offset in the radial data is because we were not using our improved push-out procedure in these
data, and the Rabi frequency of the radial spectroscopy Raman beams was slightly too high.

those in Figure 4.10. The oscillation frequency should be equal to the applied bias, and we findagreement at the 15% level with the calibration technique discussed earlier. While the tunnelingoscillation damping could result both from fluctuations in J and ∆, the damping observed here canonly result from fluctuations in the bias.9 Furthermore, the relative increase in the damping time
9

In principle, spontaneous emission could also cause decoherence, but this would effect both tunneling and Ramsey

120

1.0
0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.4
0.2
0.0
9.0

0.4

9.1

0.0
0.0

9.4

0.6

0.6

PLeft

0.8

0.4
0.2

0.5

1.0
1.5
Evolve time (ms)

1.0

(d)

0.8

0.0
8.4

Evolve bias = 9.35 V
Evolve bias = 9.4 V

0.2

9.2
9.3
Bias (V)
Depth 20(1) kHz, horizontal spacing 918 nm:
1.0(c)
Probability to tunnel or stay

1.0

(b)

PLeft

(a)

Probability to tunnel or stay

Depth 96(4) kHz, vertical spacing 808 nm:

2.0

2.5

Evolve bias = 8.8 V

0.4
0.2

8.5

8.6
Bias (V)

8.7

8.8

0.0
0

5

10
Evolve time (ms)15

Figure 4.10: Bias spectra and Ramsey spectroscopy. In the first row, we show a bias spectrum(a) and Ramsey dynamics (b) for a vertical double-well of 96 kHz and 808 nm spacing. Using themeasured 2J of 500 Hz (mean of a number of a measurements) and the bias spectrum width, we
compute the expected volts to energy bias calibration. For the 9.35V (9.4V) bias and correcting
for the narrowing due to the quasi-adiabaticity, we measure 1.18(3) kHz (1.69(3) kHz) and predict
1.03 kHz (1.4 kHz) according to the calibration. In the second row, we show a bias spectrum (c)and Ramsey dynamics (d) for a horizontal double-well of 20(1) kHz and 808 nm spacing. Using
the measured 2J of 179(1) Hz and the bias width of (c), we expect for the Ramsey dynamics (d)a frequency of 0.52 kHz and measure 0.55 kHz. The nearness of the widths of the bias spectra
here in units of volts is incidental: the bias calibration scales proportionally and inversely with thetunneling and the depth, respectively, and each change by a similar amount.

by going from a deeper to shallower trap double-well indicates a dependence on the tweezer depth,
which we explore more thoroughly in next section.
equally. Therefore, the fact that we observe this degree of change in the damping timescale indicates that this is nota dominant effect.

121
4.5.2.4

Mapping out the contrast and dephasing dependences in vertical andhorizontal double wells

We demonstrate in Fig. 4.11a,b the two-dimensional space of spacing a and depth V0 withwhich we can tune the measured the tunnel coupling J (half the measured oscillation frequency).
In Fig. 4.11a, we observe in accordance with theory that the tunneling changes rapidly with thespacing. The solid line is a 3D calculated expectation for an ideal gaussian beam of waist w0 =707 nm and a single-well depth of 96 kHz; the waist used corresponds to the outcome of a leastsquares fit, which agrees closely with our independently measured waist of w0 = 710(10) nm. The
depths and spacing used are according to the characterizations in Section 2.8.2 and Section 2.9.2,
indicating our absolute knowledge of the trap parameters. The tunneling dependence on depth
exhibits disagreement at the 10% level with the theoretical expectation according to both the 1D and3D calculations, both of which we show to emphasize the similarity between the two calculations.
For this parameter range of depth and spacing, these scans exhaust the range over which the atoms
are localized (i.e. oscillate between localized states) and there is appreciable tunneling contrast; atthe lower end of the spacing and depth range we increasingly observe that the atom position does
not oscillate and has split probability between the wells. This is presumably due to the groundstates becoming delocalized. We have also, however, explored vertical and horizontal double-wells
at significantly larger spacing and shallower depth, an example of which is shown below.
We have mapped out the contrast and decay of the tunneling oscillations as a function of
the trap depth and tunneling magnitude, which we have determined to be the dominant factorsthat determine the quality of the tunneling. Fluctuations in J or ∆ are the primary possible
culprits that could influence the tunneling behavior. Our primary hypothesis is that the contrast
and damping of the tunneling oscillations in a particular trap come from fluctuations in the energy
bias. We assume that we have fixed fractional fluctuations, which could arise, for example, fromfluctuations in the relative AO deflection efficiency for the two frequencies that define the double
well, or from stray reflections interfering with the main trap. For both of these cases, the magnitude

(e) 1.0

0.30

0.8

0.8

0.25

0.6

0.6

825

0.30
0.25
0.20

60

80
100
120
Tweezer depth (kHz)

0.0
0

1

(d) 0.50

Mean via points

J/(2) (kHz)(b) 0.35

805
810
815
820
Gaussian spacing (nm)

140

2

3
4
Time (ms)

5

6

1.0
0.9

0.35

0.25

0.8
0.7
0.6

0.30

0.5

60

60

80
100
120
Tweezer Depth (kHz)

140

80
100
120
Tweezer Depth (kHz)0.0
0(f ) 15

0.45
0.40

7

Number of oscillations

800

0.4
0.2

0.2

0.15

0.15

0.4

122

140

1

2

3
4
Time (ms)

10

6

7

12
10
8
6

5

0

5

14
Decay time (ms)

0.20

PLeft

1.0

PLeft

(c)

Contrast

J/(2) (kHz)(a) 0.35

60

60

80
100
120
Tweezer depth (kHz)

80
100
120
Tweezer depth (kHz)

140

140

Figure 4.11: Tunneling dependences. (a) Measured tunneling J as a function of the double-wellspacing for a vertical double-well of 96(4) kHz. The solid line is a theoretical expectation using
the full 3D calculation of the potential (see text). (b) Measured tunneling J as a function fora vertical double-well of 808 nm spacing. The solid line is the full calculated dependence as in(a), while the green dashed line is the 1D calculation by simply Fourier transforming the potential
and solving the Schrodinger equation in a truncated momentum basis; these differ by a very small
degree, indicating the predominantly separable nature of the potential. (c,e) Tunneling dynamics
for a depth of 71(3) kHz and 142(6) kHz, respectively, and a 808 nm spacing. (d) Mean of theoscillation data points as a function of the tweezer depth. The mean gives an indication of thedegree to which the tunneling is off-resonant due to the bias fluctuations. The solid-line green lineis the model discussed in the text, and we find decent agreement. At sufficiently low depth, themean of the data approaches the ideal value of 0.5 but corrected for loss, which is 0.48. The inset
shows the fitted amplitude, which is influenced by both the preparation and this stability of thebias, and it shows a similar trend to the mean data. (f) Number of oscillations observed in thetunneling dynamics, which is computed to be 2J · τ compared with the theoretical model from thetext. We find not amazing model agreement with respect to the dephasing, particularly at small
depths; this may indicate other dephasing mechanisms become dominant. Because we took muchof the oscillation data on a similar time scale, the error in the fitted τ for the slow J data goesup to 30%, while for the faster J data it is around 10%. I omitted them from the figure for thisreason. The inset shows the just the fitted τ . For both (d,f), I have circled the data points that
correspond to the oscillation scans (c,e) with a solid and dashed line, respectively.

of the fluctuations in units of energy will scale with the overall tweezer depth V0 . The absolutemagnitude of these fluctuations compared to the tunneling energy will determine the damping andmean of the oscillations. This latter symptom is important to our hypothesis of the character ofthe fluctuations: for fluctuations in J we would only anticipate damping, while fluctuations in ∆bound the peak value of the oscillations (i.e. PL for an atom starting on the right) such that the

123

0.50
Mean via points

0.48
0.46
0.44
0.42
0.40
0.38
0.36
300

Depthfixed
fixedat=96(4)
96 4)
kHz
Depth
kHz
Spacing
at 808Spacingfixed
Fixed
808nm
nm

400
500
600
Tunneling 2J (Hz)700

Figure 4.12: Comparing fixed spacing and fixed depth data. We show the variation of the mean ofthe data from the data in Figure 4.11a plotted against the measured tunneling (green), as well as the
Figure 4.11d plotted against the measured tunneling as opposed to the depth (black). Therefore,
the green (black) data corresponds to fixed depth and varied spacing (fixed spacing and varied
depth) as a function of measured 2J. Though there is scatter, the disparity between the two plots,
particularly the faster drop off in the varied depth data, corroborates the hypothesis that both thedepth and the tunneling inform the mean of the data. Furthermore, we compare the green data to
the model (solid green line) discussed in the text, where here the depth is fixed and the fractional
fluctuations are, as above, 0.17%. We find decent agreement.

mean of data, as well as the contrast of the oscillations, is reduced.
We test this hypothesis by constructing a simple noise model to understand the effect offluctuations. We assume that the experimental fluctuations yield a temporally inhomogeneous,Gaussian distribution in ∆ with spread σ = ∆frac V0 . We are interested in extracting ∆frac , which
phenomenologically describes the fractional fluctuations. We then model the double-well evolution
using the solutions of the simple Hamiltonian Heff in Eq. 4.33 and assuming completely diabatic
turn on of J,10
PL (t, ∆) =p
1 (2Jmeas. )2
2 + (2J
2t
1
−
cos
∆
)
,
meas.
2 ∆2 + (2Jmeas. )2(4.35)

where Jmeas. corresponds to the measured value of J for a given depth, and ∆ we average over tosimulate the noise in the dynamics for a given V0 and ∆frac . To extract the modeled quantities
10

The narrowing due to quasi-diabaticity should inform these dynamics, but for the approximate nature of thismodeling we exclude these effects since it would require modeling the narrowing for each ramp.

124
we wish to compare to experiment, which are primarily the oscillation mean and dephasing, we
determine the average dynamics by computing numerically the integral,
PLavg. (t) =1(2π)1/2 σZ ∞∆2e− 2σ2 PL (t, ∆)d∆.

(4.36)−∞

Using the result of this noise model, PLavg. (t), we fit the simulated data to extract the mean11 , thedephasing time, and oscillation contrast according with the fit model,
PL (t) =A
1 − e−t/τ cos(2Jt) + k,
2

(4.37)

where τ is the dephasing time, A the oscillation contrast, and k an oscillation offset above zero.
We use this model to fit the experimental data as well. Including the effect of single particle loss inthe experiment, we find favorable agreement between our observed reduction (examples of which
are shown in Figure 4.11c,e) in the mean (k + A/2) and simulated reduction for a ∆frac of 0.17%,
which is displayed in Figure 4.11d. At large depths this model appears to approach the observed
dephasing times, though it appears that the damping is limited by other mechanisms as well forsmaller depths. In Figure 4.12, we compare the behavior of the mean of the data for fixed spacing(as in Figure 4.11d) versus fixed depth, as a function of the tunneling. For fixed-spacing andvaried depth, we expect that the mean drops faster because the tunneling is decreasing while theabsolute bias fluctuations are increasing as the depth is increased. Conversely, for fixed depth andvaried spacing, we expected that the mean drops only because of the tunneling decreasing since
the absolute bias fluctuations are fixed. Indeed, over the range of data shown, the fixed depth
data changes more slowly than the spacing-fixed data. Using the same fractional fluctuations of of
0.17% and here a 96 kHz depth for the model, we observe decent agreement with the fixed-depth,
varied-spacing data although the experimental error bars leave something to be desired. Lastly,
if we fit the Ramsey oscillation data from Figure 4.10b to a sinusoid with Gaussian decay (theexpected decay response for Gaussian frequency fluctuations)12 , we extract frequency fluctuations
11

For the measured data, we use the mean of the data points.
For historical reasons, we used the decay model of Eq. 4.39, but for Gaussian frequency distributions, the Fouriertransform has Gaussian temporal decay.
12

125
σ = 150(30) Hz, implying a consistent ∆frac = 0.15(3)% with the tunneling data from Figure 4.11
and Figure 4.12.
Focusing back on varied depth data, while the saturation of the mean near the ideal value
suggests that the fluctuations in the final trap are no longer relevant for depths below 100 kHz, we
do observe nevertheless that the contrast is still between 0.75-0.85, as indicated by the oscillation
the data in Figure 4.11c and the inset of Figure 4.11d. This implies that the fluctuations in the
final trap are not limiting the final contrast once we are at traps depths below 100 kHz for thisspacing and hence range of tunneling (see Figure 4.13). One possible mechanism for this behavior
is dephasing during the tunneling before t = 0, which occurs in the deeper traps for which wealready know decoherence occurs according to the measurements presented here. If the tunnelingthat occurs before t = 0 dephases, it will contribute the offset k to the data, thereby limiting theoscillation contrast to C = 1 − 2k < 1. We do observe an offset in the data in shallower traps thatappears to decrease in the deeper traps, as would be expected for this mechanism since less tunnelingoccurs before t = 0 when the trap is deeper. Our error bars on these fitted values of the offset,
however, are too large (fractionally greater than 50%) to draw any conclusions. A possible test ofwhether this is indeed determining the final contrast would be to measure the tunneling contrast
by initiating the tunneling via sweeping the traps together as opposed to dropping the depth; weavoided this approach since we were concerned that thermal effects in the AO are enhanced close
to when these ramps occur. Nevertheless, it could reduce the amount of tunneling that occurs
before the final trap since the tunneling changes so rapidly with the spacing, and, furthermore,
the fraction of tunneling that does occur would occur in the final trap depth in which contrast
reduction is diminished. Initial attempts of this did not show an improvement, but these wereconducted before we had optimized the setup and therefore it is worth revisiting.
In conclusion, we have some instabilities in our double-well that in certain respects are consistent with bias fluctuations at the ∼ 0.2% level. A short-term goal is to incorporate incoherent
light for the tweezer light, which could mitigate fluctuating interferences from weak reflections inthe setup. In particular, reflections at the 10−6 level could interfere with the main spot to produce

126

1.0

918 nm horiz. spacing
20(1) kHz depth

PLeft

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0

20

40
60
Time (ms)80

100Figure 4.13: Large-spacing, shallow trap tunneling. We have explored a large range of double-wellpotentials, and, as expected given the model, we observe that the damping drastically improves as
we go to very shallow depths, even though the tunneling rate has been reduced significantly. The
fit gives a τ = 110(20) ms, while from the model in the text we would expect a damping time of 125
ms using the measured 2J and depth of 20 kHz. The fitted amplitude, however, is 0.75(5) while wewould expect from the model 0.99. This points to other mechanisms limiting the contrast as well,which are discussed in the text.

the magnitude of fluctuations (10−3 ) indicated by the characterization in this section. In any case,further investigation of the origin of the fluctuations is still necessary, but these have not precluded
the HOM effect investigations I will discuss shortly.

4.6

On-site interaction energy
The prior sections describe our characterization of single atoms tunneling in the double-wellpotential. The other important parameter is the interaction energy U between two particles in thesame well, to which we lacked direct experimental access in these experiments. In our experiment
we determine the on-site interaction energy by using independent knowledge of our trap parameters(well depths, Gaussian center spacing, and the effective Gaussian waist) as inputs to the theoretical
calculations for the full 3D potential, our understanding of which is corroborated by the theoreticalagreement with our tunneling observations. For the contact interactions experienced by 87 Rb atoms

127
in the HOM experiments, the interaction U can be expressed,
4π~2 asU=mZ

d~r |ψL (~r)|4 ,(4.38)

where as is the background atomic scattering length, and ψL is the ground-state localized wave
function in the left optical tweezer, which is formed from the even or odd superposition of thestates comprising the tunnel-coupled doublet. We chose the left-well wave function simply for
explanatory purposes, and the right-well localized wave-function yields the same U . Propagating theuncertainties in the trap parameters, as described in Sec. 2.8.2 and Sec. 2.9.2, we find the uncertainty
in the predicted U . Due to the extreme sensitivity of J to trap parameters we can predict U
with less uncertainty than an equivalent prediction of J. The values of U/J presented use themeasured J (and associated statistical uncertainty from the oscillation measurement) and calculated
U to generate our best determination of U/J in each of the double-well traps studied. Latermeasurements of spin-exchange oscillations, presented in Chapter 5, experimentally demonstrate
the accuracy of these calculations, and affirm theoretically that the interactions present between
the atoms do not inform the HOM interference we observe.

4.7

Dynamical Hong-Ou-Mandel interference of two atoms
In Figure 4.14, we display our observation of dynamical Hong-Ou-Mandel interference of

single atoms. For these experiments we use two different double-well configurations in order toverify the invariance of our observations to the exact values of J and U . For each configuration,
we scan the evolve time and run the experiment for 400 repetitions at each time. Each repetition
yields randomly an experiment with an atom starting on the left, the right, an atom in each well,or no atoms. The first two cases correspond to the data in Figure 4.14b,c, and the two particle
experiments correspond to the data in Figure 4.14e,f. While the two-particle data contain ourobservation of HOM interference, the single particle data benchmark our conclusions. For thecharacterization of the tunneling oscillations, the single-particle tunneling data are fit with the128model,
P (t) =

A
(1 − cos(2Jt − φ)) + k.
2

(4.39)For the case of fitting the two-particle data, the only difference is that 2J is replaced with 4J. Thismodeling is akin to the earlier fits discussed in this chapter except we exclude the dephasing termsince over the time scales explored here we do not observe significant dephasing.

4.7.1

Single atom beam splitter formed by optical tweezers

We first assess the resonant single-particle tunneling, yielding the tunable beam splitter
dynamics evidenced in Figure 4.14b,c with which we can observe two-particle interference. A fit to
the data in Figure 4.14b reveals J/2π = 262(4) Hz; Figure 4.14c shows data in which J is increased
to 348(4) Hz. Along with the systematics discussed in prior sections, part of the finite contrast of
the oscillations is due to atom loss from background collisions; in the atomic HOM data the loss
probability (Ploss ) ranges from 0.03 to 0.05 and is known precisely for each experiment by taking
the sum of PLi and PRi (Figs. 4.14b,c gray regions). Within a given experiment, these loss numbers
vary fractionally by less than 10% (i.e. absolute less than 0.5%). As will be discussed, primarily
significant are the times indicated by the dashed green lines, at which an atom that has started ineither well has been placed in an equal superposition of being in each tweezer.

4.7.2

Ideal two-atom quantum interference via tunneling dynamics

Before examining the two-particle data, we first consider the theoretical expectation for anequivalent dynamical experiment starting with two particles, one atom in each well. For perfectcooling and spin preparation of the isolated atoms, all degrees of freedom besides their position(left or right) will have been made the same, i.e. we know there is a particle in the left well andthere is a particle in the right well, but we cannot associate any additional label to the particles.
The bosonic atoms will then, necessarily, occupy the spatially symmetric |Si state, comprisedof orthogonal spatial wave-functions that are coupled by the tunneling. For poor cooling or spin
preparation, the atoms can be distinguished by a degree of freedom other than their position; hence,

600 nm1570 nm

J

E

1.
1.0

D

B 1.0
PL

A

0.6
0.6

P11

P11

0.8
0.8
0.4
0.4

0.25
0.25

0.5
0.75
0.5
0.75
Time
Time2Π2J
(2π/2J)

1
1.0

F

0.8
0.4

tHOM0.2

0.2
0.2
0.
000

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

0.6

0
0

129

C 1.0




 




  



 







 


0.4




 


 

0.2



0.5

0.8

1.0
1.5
Time (ms)

  

2.0

0
0





0.6









0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0









 
 









 













 



0.5
1.0
Time (ms)1.5

Figure 4.14: Single and two-particle tunneling. (a) Experimental overview. While the tweezers
are 23(1) MHz deep, the atom is imaged, cooled and optically pumped to | ↑i. For tunnelingexperiments, the tweezers are swept together such that the two gaussian functions are defined with
an offset of ≈ 800 nm (resulting in double-well minima spaced by ≈ 600 nm), and the total trap
intensity is dropped by a large factor, resulting in a single-well depth of either 96 kHz or 60 kHz. (b)Resonant tunneling oscillations at 2J for a 808 nm gaussian function spacing and a 96 kHz depth.
1(2)Blue circles (red triangles) are the expectation value PL for finding an atom in the left well given
an initial single atom in the left (right) well. The gray shaded region indicates the contribution
from atom loss Ploss . (c) Same as [b] except with a 805 nm gaussian function spacing and a depthof 60 kHz. (d) Idealized two-particle tunneling dynamics. Expectation for P11 (t) for dynamics
initiated at t = 0 and in the symmetric spatial state |Si, the distinguishable states |ψ± i, and theanti-symmetric state |Ai. The dashed green lines mark the locations of tHOM . (e) Measured twoparticle dynamics during the same experimental sequence as [b]. Likelihood to measure exactly
one atom in each well (P11 ) for the initial condition in which an atom is prepared in each well
(black squares). Distinguishable expectation Pdist as determined from the single-particle data in[b] (purple circles). The gray shaded region above the dashed black line indicates the expected
reduction from atom loss. (f) Same as [e] except here we realize a larger value of J and smaller
value of U (see text) using the double-well parameters of [c]. tHOM for the experimental data isaffected by a phase shift due to a small amount of tunneling before the nominal final trap is reached;this effect is larger for faster tunneling. In all plots, the shaded regions are the 95% confidence
interval for a sinusoidal fit. The error bars are the standard error in the measurement; each black
data point is the mean of ≈ 140 measurements, and each red or blue data point is the mean of≈ 100 measurements.

the atoms can anti-symmetrize in the additional degree of freedom, motional state or spin, and inturn have a projection onto the anti-symmetric spatial state |Ai ≡ √12 (|Li1 |Ri2 − |Ri1 |Li2 ). The
bosonic state can then be written as a mixture of the states |ψ± i = √12 (|Si|χ+ i ± |Ai|χ− i), where|χ± i = √12 (|χi1 |χ̄i2 ± |χ̄i1 |χi2 ) and {χ, χ̄} describe the other degree of freedom such as motional
state {n, n0 } or spin {↑, ↓}. Two atoms in either of the |ψ± i states are distinguishable according
to the discussion in Section 4.2.7 because the additional degree of freedom {χ, χ̄} is uniquely

130
correlated with the atoms’ positions and invariant13 with respect to the Hamiltonian: For the|ψ+ i (|ψ− i) state, the atom on the left is in state |χi (|χ̄i) and the atom on the right is in state|χ̄i (|χi). The ability to measure two-atom indistinguishability arises from the different dynamics
exhibited in the symmetric and anti-symmetric cases. The symmetric spatial state dynamically
evolves as |Si → |Si cos(2Jt) + √i2 (|Li1 |Li2 + |Ri1 |Ri2 ) sin(2Jt). The anti-symmetric state |Ai
undergoes destructive interference that prevents the two bosons from being in the same well, andhence displays no tunneling dynamics. This is precisely the wave function occupied by identicalfermions, and hence the destructive interference could be equivalently interpreted as a consequenceof the Pauli-exclusion principle.
In Figure 4.14d we show the expected ideal dynamics for the distinguishable (purple) andindistinguishable (black) cases; we emphasize that t is the time the atom spends tunneling. We
consider the observable P11 (t), which is the likelihood to measure the atoms in separate wells as
a function of time spent tunneling, and is directly analogous to looking at coincidence counts ona pair of photon detectors. The symmetric state |Si yields unity contrast oscillations of P11 (t),whereas |Ai yields a time-independent P11 (t) = 1. Hence, the distinguishable states |ψ± i result ina P11 (t) that is the average of these dynamics, and as such does not attain a value below 0.5. The
tunneling between the wells yields an effective atom beam splitter where t varies the reflection andtransmission coefficients. Of particular importance are the times tHOM = 2π/8J and odd multiples
thereof (green dashed lines). At t = tHOM , the tunneling realizes a balanced atom beam splitter
according to the transformations |Li → √12 (|Li+i|Ri) and |Ri → √12 (|Ri + i|Li). Accordingly, forthe |Si state, P11 (tHOM ) vanishes equivalent to indistinguishable photons incident on separate ports
of a balanced beam splitter in the original HOM experiment: at these times, experimentally we havethe mode-entangled two-particle state |+i = √i2 (|Li1 |Li2 + |Ri1 |Ri2 )). However, distinguishable
atoms, like distinguishable photons, will yield P11 = 0.5 when equally beamsplit, and only partial
amplitude in the state |+i when tracing over the distinguishing degree of freedom. As will be
13

Invariant in the sense that the quantum numbers associated with {χ, χ̄}, whether they be the spin state or theaxial motional state, are unchanged during evolution under the tunneling Hamiltonian.

131
discussed, because we cannot directly detect two-particles in the same optical tweezer, which is
dictated by |+i, we will focus on the measurable P11 in discerning indistinguishability driven HOM
intererence.

4.7.3

Observation of the atomic HOM effect via two-particle tunneling dynamics

In Figure 4.14e, we experimentally investigate the population dynamics observed with twoparticles. We plot P11 (t) for cases in which the stochastic loading results in two atoms, one in eachwell (black squares). During the 25 ms to 50 ms imaging time, due to light-assisted atomic collisions
we observe signal corresponding to either zero or one atom [3, 11, 2] as discussed in Section 2.7.3.
P11 is determined by the distinct experimental signature in which the final image indicates one
atom in each tweezer. However, we expect that when P11 (t) is minimal, the likelihood of the atoms
being on the same tweezer, P20 or P02 , is maximized. If the experiment yields two atoms in one
well, the experimental signature is not unique: this is manifest by final images that yield zero
atoms, or in some cases one atom in a single well. These latter “two-to-one” events are illustrated
in Figure 4.15. Since we cannot distinguish two-to-one events, which inform our observation of
HOM interference, from single-particle loss during a two-particle experiment, we keep such eventsin our analysis of P11 . To accurately interpret P11 , therefore, we take into account signal depletiondue to the single-particle loss described earlier (Ploss ). This effect reduces the maximum value thatcan be achieved by the measured P11 to (1 − Ploss )2 (gray region above the black dashed line in
Figure 4.14e,f indicates the loss contribution), and correspondingly modifies the distinguishable
lower bound on P11 (t) ≥ (1 − Ploss )2 /2 in analogy to the ideal 0.5 from above. Nevertheless, if one
were to throw out the (meaningful) data associated with two-to-one events, the HOM interference
that I will now discuss is statistically significant to 4.1σ; including these data, therefore, is notessential to our observations.14
14

The apparent reduction in the statistical significance is because we are throwing out data associated with the
HOM interference events, namely, times when we have created a relative preponderance of the √12 (|2, 0i + |0, 2i).
And, as expected, the degree to which the statistical significance is reduced (1/3) corresponds closely to the fraction
with which these two-to-one events occur.

132

Probability

0.8
0.6
0.4

2- 1
P11

0.2
0.0
0.0

0.5

1.0
Time (ms)

1.5

2.0

Figure 4.15: Two-to-one events during imaging. P11 is defined by the case in which both images
indicate one atom in each well. We can study the two-to-one events we observe and confirm thatthey are a signature of two atoms on a single well, by looking at the anti-correlated nature ofthese events with respect to P11 (t). As shown (note, this is the data from Figure 4.14e), we findthat in our experiments we see an increase in two-to-one events (green) when P11 (t) (black) is
minimal, i.e. when the likelihood of finding two atoms on the same tweezer is maximal. Using
the calibrated single atom loss, we conclude from these data that 29(4)% of the time a two-to-one
event occurs when the data is analyzed at tHOM (minimum of P11 ) and a consistent value of 22(5)%when the data is analyzed at the maximum of P11 . We also can directly measure two-to-one events
by carrying out a separate experiment in which we combine two traps each with a single atom
to deterministically start with two atoms in a single trap. In this experiment we find 26(2)% of
the time a two-to-one event occurs. While these findings are in contrast to many optical latticeexperiments in which pure parity imaging is observed [11, 2], other optical tweezers experiments
have observed similar phenomena [12].

We extract the presence of indistinguishability in the data in Figure 4.14e,f through thesize of the oscillation contrast of the two-particle tunneling. Our goal is to compare P11 (t) fromour two-particle measurement to that of a theoretical expectation for distinguishable atoms in an
uncorrelated state, which we refer to as Pdist (t). Pdist at any time can be calculated directly fromcorresponding single-particle data via Pdist = PL1 PR2 + PR1 PL2 (purple circles in Fig. 4.14e). To
1(2)reiterate, PL

corresponds to measuring an atom in the left well when an atom starts in the left
1(2)(right) well, i.e. the blue (red) data of Fig. 4.14b, and PR

is the corresponding information formeasuring an atom in the right well. For distinguishable particles in an unentangled state, we
expect at any given time the two-particle behavior to be equivalent to flipping two-independent
coins representing each atom, each weighted by the measured single-particle data; this description

133
is formalized in Section A.1.1.1. A calculation of Pdist , furthermore, directly from the single-particle
points inherently contains both loss and finite single-particle contrast. For example, Pdist (tHOM )reaches a value consistent with (1 − Ploss )2 /2, and the amplitude of Pdist (t) is consistent with the
expectation of one half the product of the single-particle contrasts (see Appendix, Section A.1.1.1).
We can compare the amplitude of oscillation for the distinguishable expectation (purple circles) to
our two-particle measurement (black squares). We find these values differ by 6σ (see Appendix,
Section B for discussion of statistical analysis): APdist = 0.282(12) and AP11 = 0.46(2).
A full treatment of the observed P11 (t) must also consider potential effects of interactions
between the atoms. In many experiments with atoms in optical lattices the on-site interactionenergy U is the dominant scale [129, 132]; however, we intentionally operate in a regime where U
is smaller than J. For the data shown in Fig. 4.14e, U = 0.44(4)J. In Figure 4.14f we demonstrate
a similar HOM signature for experimental conditions of even smaller relative interaction U =0.22(2)J, with measurements AP11 = 0.48(2) and APdist = 0.306(18). The similarity of these results
to those in Figure 4.14e suggests that interactions are not a relevant scale in either experiment.
Nevertheless, we also theoretically analyze whether interactions between distinguishable atoms
could mimic the HOM signal. For the two-particle initial conditions expected in our experiment, theinteraction energy shift suppresses two-particle tunneling regardless of distinguishability, and hence
the theoretical expectation for APdist decreases with increasing interactions. In the implausible casethat the particles initially have specific coherences (see Appendix, Section A.1.1.2 and Figure A.2),
APdist can be larger and Pdist (t) can reach a lower minimum value. Even in this unlikely circumstanceour data are statistically different from this interacting distinguishable case (see Figure A.2 andsurrounding discussion). Another independent piece of evidence that the HOM interference weobserve arises due to quantum statistics and not atom interactions comes from the studies presented
below. In these experiments we vary the two-particle spin state and observe the HOM interference
vanish, while this variation of the two-particle spin state only changes the interactions by at most
5% [133]. Therefore, the behavior we observe cannot be attributed to interactions between theparticles influencing P11 (t).

134
Lastly, we have observed the same violations in P11 (t) of the expectation for distinguishable
particles for double-wells oriented horizontally, and for a depth (spacing) five times shallower (∼10% larger). This implies that these observations are independent of the details of the double-welland dynamics during the ramp. The latter is changed due to the relative shallowness and spacingof the final traps, the time scale of the final ramp (10 ms instead of 5 ms), and the absence ofa gravitational shift. After making assumptions about the character of the initial single particle
density matrices, we can also conjecture an expression for the two-particle oscillation contrast that
includes the effect of finite tunneling contrast and temperature. We find good agreement withthis expression: see appendix A for this discussion as well a table summarizing our observations(Table A.1).

4.8

Tuning the distinguishability
We now focus on experiments in which we fix the tunneling time at tHOM , where P11 reaches

a value that we refer to as PHOM . While so far we have focused on comparisons of the oscillation contrast of P11 (t) and Pdist (t), our observation of HOM interference can also be discussed interms of the disparity between these two quantities at times near tHOM (see Section A.1.1.1). The
agreement between P11 (t) and Pdist (t) at times far away from tHOM affirm that classical effects
associated with single-particle loss and finite-single particle tunneling contrast are manifest as expected in P11 (t). Their disparity, however, near tHOM affirms the non-classicality of the physics, theinfluence of quantum-mechanical indistinguishability in our data. The observations so far, therefore, can be summarized as tuning the reflection and transmission ports of an atom-beam splitter
between being balanced and imbalanced, and thereby adjusting the degree of quantum interference
experimentally produced. However, by now studying the behavior of PHOM , we explore specificallythe times at which we have produced a balanced beam splitter, and can more closely reproduce
the original photonic HOM experiment. In that case, the two-photon interference was manifest as
the distinguishability of the photons was tuned via their wave packet overlap on the beam splitter,as discussed in Section 4.1. Accordingly, we can observe an atomic “HOM dip” as the indistin-

135
guishability of the atoms is varied. In particular, we vary the two-particle spin state and the 3D
motional ground-state fraction to introduce distinguishing spin or motional degrees of freedom, andobserve the non-classical behavior vanish and be restored as we modulate the presence of atomic
indistinguishability.
The three experimental methods we employ to vary the two-atom distinguishability are displayed in Figure 4.16. For each measurement, we plot both our observed P11 (tHOM ) (black) as
well as Pdist (tHOM ) (purple) from the single particle measurements. On each plot, we also have adashed black line at the calibrated position (1 − Ploss )2 /2, where Ploss is also measured from thesingle particle data for each data plot. For distinguishable particles, the minimum value of P11 (t)should occur at tHOM and reach this value of (1 − Ploss )2 /2. The correspondence between thislatter quantity and Pdist (tHOM ) for the entirety of all three of these sets affirms that the mannerby which we introduce distinguishability in each experiment does not disturb the single-particle
tunneling; the beam splitter operation is sound and it is only the two-particle distinguishability
that influences the observed P11 (tHOM ). This statement, however, is contingent on the tunneling
being symmetric15 between the wells (PLi , PRi ∼ (1 − Ploss )/2 = 0.48), which indeed we observefrom the single particle data in all of the measurements at the ±0.05 level (see Table 4.1), with the
exception of the range of data noted in the axial cooling variation.

4.8.1

Varying the two-particle distinguishability via the spin degree of freedom

We start by studying the dependence of PHOM on the relative spin state of the two atoms
using two distinct methods. In the first method, after cooling the atoms, we apply a variable-length
microwave pulse that couples the |↑i and |↓i spin states in only the right well (see Section 2.12.2).
This is accomplished by shifting the transition in the left well out of resonance using a circularlypolarized, tightly focused laser spot. Upon π rotation of this spin, the atoms become distinguishable,
and we expect the HOM dip to disappear. The observed dependence on the microwave pulse area
15

For example, if the tunneling is not symmetric, one could imagine a situation in which an atom that starts
on the left has split probability between each well, while an atom which starts on the right has unity likelihood ofremaining in the right well. This yields a Pdist = (1 − Ploss )2 /2, even though the tunneling is clearly not realizing abalanced beam splitter.

136

A
P11
P11

0.5








0.4
0.3






























0.2
0

P
P11
11

B

2Π

Π

3Π

4Π

Single spin rotation pulse area

5Π

0.5
0.4
0.3





































0.2
0

Π
2

2Π

3Π
2

Π

Global spin rotation pulse area

Spin rotation pulse area

P11or PLeft
PHOM

C

0.5
0.4





















5Π
2













0.3



2nd





1st
sideband

0.2 sideband
30 20 100δCool (kHz)10

20

Figure 4.16: The HOM effect observed by varying atom distinguishability. In all plots the blacksquares are P11 (tHOM )=PHOM , the purple circles are the expectation for distinguishable particles
calculated directly from the single-atom tunneling (Pdist (tHOM )), and the dashed black line marks(1 − Ploss )2 /2. (a) Before tunneling we apply a microwave drive that couples |↑i and |↓i for one of
the atoms in a two-particle experiment. In the trap where J/2π = 348 Hz the tunneling time isfixed at t = 0.99 ms (second realization of tHOM ). (b) Before tunneling we apply a global coherent
drive of varied pulse area to couple |↑i and |↓i and then allow for decoherence. In the trap where
J/2π = 262 Hz the tunneling time is fixed at t = 0.45 ms. In (a) and (b) the solid line and shadedband are sinusoidal fits and the associated 95% confidence interval. (c) HOM dip dependence on
cooling. We vary the detuning (δCool ) of the cooling beams of motion along the z-axis. In the trap
where J = 262 Hz the tunneling time is fixed at t = 0.45 ms. The two shaded regions correspondto frequency ranges of efficient (1st sideband) and less efficient (2nd sideband) cooling. For all
plots, each black data point is the average of ≈ 360 measurements, and each set of measurements
corresponding to a purple point is the average of ≈ 240 measurements. All error bars are thestandard error in the measurement.

137
is shown in Figure 4.16a; for comparison we show that Pdist , from the single-particle measurements,
remains constant (purple circles).16 We study multiple spin rotations to show that the HOM effectis recovered after a 2π rotation, indicating that the light-shifting procedure is not heating the atoms
or introducing distinguishability independent of the microwave pulses. We find the frequency ofoscillation of PHOM is 32.6(6) kHz, which is in agreement with the measured microwave Rabi
min = 0.314(14), and thefrequency of 32.05(18) kHz. The displayed fit to the data determines PHOM

amplitude of the variation in PHOM is 0.15(2). Taking into account the spin rotation fidelity (for amin ) = 0.130(13), which is consistentsquare pulse) we expect an amplitude of 0.84((1−Ploss )2 /2−PHOMwith the measured value.
In the second spin study (Figure 4.16b), we simultaneously couple the |↑i and |↓i spin states ofatoms in both wells using a pair of Raman beams. This global rotation avoids any systematic effects
that might be introduced by single-site addressing, ensuring the inherently asymmetric process does
not itself introduce a history that distinguishes the atoms. During the time (25 ms) between the
Raman pulse and the tunneling, the atoms lose their spin coherence, and hence the spin state ofeach atom is in an incoherent mixture. For common mode magnetic field fluctuations, we would
expect the HOM interference to be unaffected since the indistinguishability of the spins would be
retained, even though each run of the experiment the phase of their superposition would vary. The
primary contributors to their relative decoherence are differential fluctuations and a finite bias ofthe optical tweezers during the ramps to the tunneling trap. At the largest depth during the ramps(1.1 mK), which persists for 10 ms while the traps are swept together, each tweezer induces ameasured ∼ 10 kHz shift on the energy splitting of the spin-states. Any fractional depth difference
f in the traps causes relative phase winding of the superpositions at ∼ f · 10 kHz; we apply a 1.3%
bias to the 1.1 mK tweezers prior to the sweeps in order to have a tunneling resonance in the final
trap, and the tunneling dephasing we observe supports the presence of relative fluctuations of thetraps. While we have strong evidence for these effects, it would be ideal to be able to measure
16

If we perform a microwave π-pulse without the light-shift beam on, thereby flipping both spins, the HOM dip isunaffected.

138
the relative spin decoherence directly. However, the single particle spin coherence (with spin echo,< 1 ms) is much shorter than the amount of time between when we apply the global-pulse and thetwo-particle beam splitter; the HOM interference, therefore, is the best tool we have for actually
identifying the equality of the superposition phase. Lastly, spontaneous emission from the trap(Γ = 30 s−1 for 1.1 mK) which preserves the spin state due to the large detuning could in principle
matter, but for the large detuning at 852 nm the near equality of the scattering amplitudes fromthe two spin-states suppresses this decoherence mechanism [134].
Ideally, we expect odd multiples of a global π/2-pulse to yield an equal mixture of all possible
two-atom spin states, and hence the likelihood for the atoms to have opposite spin is 1/2 and themagnitude of the HOM dip should be reduced by 1/2. The observed dependence on the Raman
pulse area is shown in Fig. 4.16b. We find the frequency of oscillation is 65.5 ± 1.2 kHz, which,as expected, is twice the measured Raman Rabi frequency of 32.3(3) kHz. The displayed fit tomin = 0.296(10), and the amplitude of the variation in P
the data determines PHOM
HOM is 0.085(15).

Taking into account the relative spin rotation fidelity of 0.90(3), we expect a half amplitude ofmin ) = 0.069(6), which is consistent with the measured amplitude.
(0.902 /2)((1 − Ploss )2 /2 − PHOM

4.8.2

Variation of the HOM interference with temperature

Lastly, we study the dependence of PHOM on the motional state of the atoms in Fig. 4.16c
by deliberatively compromising our cooling performance. There are 100 Raman-sideband coolingcycles, and within each cycle we alternate between the axial and then radial trap dimensions. For
the first 75 cycles, we cool on the first (second) sideband for the radial (axial) direction, while forthe last 25 cycles we cool on the first sideband for both dimensions. The first 75 cycles realize
GS ≈ 50%, the final ground-state fraction depends
a measured axial ground-state fraction of Paxial

on the last 25 cycles of first sideband cooling. During this second stage of our cooling we vary
the frequency δCool of one Raman beam that controls the cooling along the weak axis (z) of both
tweezer wells. Based on spectroscopy taken directly after the data in Fig. 4.14b,e, we conclude an
GS = 85+12 % when δaxial ground-state fraction of of Paxial
Cool = 0.
−10

139
The key challenge of this measurement, in contrast to the previous two, is assessing the degree
to which distinguishability versus atom beam splitter performance affects our observation of P11 .
For a separable potential, motional excitation along the axial axis would leave the single-particle
tunneling unaffected. For our non-separable tweezer potential, we expect and observe some variationin the tunneling, but near tHOM the single-particle tunneling still results in a relatively constant Pdist(purple circles), which is consistent with the distinguishable expectation (1−Ploss )2 /2 = 0.4660(14).
We have observed, however, that as we approach the carrier (in particular, δCool > 12 kHz), thesingle-particle tunneling data is increasingly affected likely due to optical pumping heating of theradial axes as well. In particular, we see the tunneling in the right well droop compared to the left
well (PL2 ≈ 0.3, PR2 ≈ 0.65 while PL1 ≈ PR1 ≈ (1 − Ploss )/2 ), this implies that in these frequency
ranges the symmetry of the beam splitter is compromised, though Pdist is largely unaffected because
1
PL,R
are close to 0.5. I would like to stress that the four data points where δCool > 12 kHz are

the only data in all three plots in Figure 4.16 where we observe this asymmetric single-particle
behavior, and this is not surprising since this is the only time we significantly depart from theregime of optimal cooling. The consistency in symmetry is why I opted to not put all the single
particle data on each plot, since Pdist was sufficient given the measured symmetry of the tunneling.
To this end, Table 4.1 provides a summary of the single particle numbers as evidence of thissymmetry for all of the data in this section. In the region of interest about the primary sideband
min = 0.28(2), which is a value below thecooling resonance (δCool = 0), we observe a dip to PHOM

distinguishable expectation. In the frequency range about this resonance (and below the regime
in which we observe evidence of heating), the measured P11 interpolates between the dip to the
expectation for distinguishable particles while the single-particle data remains constant.

140

Single particle data in distinguishability measurements
Measurement
PL1
PL2
Single spin flip
0.45(4) 0.49(3)Global spin flip
0.48(4) 0.47(3)Axial cooling vary 0.50(3) 0.45(3)Table 4.1: For the three data plots in Figure 4.16 we tabulate the mean of the single-particle dataover the entire datasets to evidence the symmetry of the beam splitter; the error is the standard
deviation for these numbers, as opposed to the standard error which is significantly smaller (by afactor ∼ 5). For the axial cooling variation data, however, we show the single particle means forthe data around the main resonance, δCool = ±12 kHz.

Chapter 5

Entangling transportable atoms via local spin-exchange

In this chapter, I will discuss our most recent results exploiting local spin-exchange dynamics
to create verifiable non-local entanglement. The spin-exchange we observe is mediated by thecontact interaction between two atoms when they are situated in the same optical tweezer. Whilein the HOM studies it was crucial to prepare the two separated atoms in the same spin-state andmotional-state to observe the studied behavior, here we prepare two atoms in the same opticaltweezer but in different spin states and different motional states. By deliberately creating thesetwo degrees of freedom and introducing distinguishability,1 one might expect that the effect ofquantum statistics is negated. This, however, is not so: it is in fact the quantum statistics of theatoms that gives rise to the spin-exchange effect we study for the purpose of creating two-particle
entanglement.
The past decade has seen significant advances in the field of quantum control of single, a few,
and many quantum bits (qubits) formed by ultracold atoms [16, 135, 15, 46, 2, 38, 136], with a focus
on single and two-qubit manipulations [79, 45, 66, 76, 137, 138]. Robust two-qubit entanglementwith neutral atoms and ions is typically achieved by strong, long-range interactions in the form of
Coulomb or Rydberg dipolar interactions [79, 45, 66, 76]. While such an approach allows fast gates,
atoms subject to these interactions must combat the associated coupling to the environment andovercome cross-talk among qubits [50, 77, 46, 78]. Local interactions, interactions which require
wave-function overlap, offer an alternative that avoids these decoherence and cross-talk effects yet
1

There are no couplings that would allow for indistinguishability here, in the sense discussed in Section 4.2.7

142
presents a new challenge: to distribute entanglement in a large system, qubits must be transported
amongst each other, merged for interaction, and then isolated for storage and subsequent operations.
In this work, we show how via a mobile optical tweezer, it is possible to prepare, entangle, and thenseparate two neutral atoms whose two-particle coherence is retained. The entanglement operationis achieved via ultracold spin-exchange collisions [139, 16, 140], while the controlled combining andseparating is realized by quantum tunneling between transportable optical tweezers. We developed
and apply a new protocol for verifying the entanglement generated once the atoms are separated
through the application of a magnetic field gradient and parity measurements [79]. Our work
provides a framework for dynamically entangling arbitrary qubits via local operations for large
scale quantum operations.

5.1

Theory of spin-exchange for neutrals atoms interacting via a contact
potential
Spin exchange is a vital resource for realizing controlled entanglement [13, 139, 16, 140] (Fig-ure 5.1), and its underlying mechanism relies on the quantum statistics of identical particles. Whentwo spin-1/2 particles interact, their interaction energy depends on the spatial symmetry of thetwo-particle wave function, which in turn depends on the symmetry of the two-particle spin state.
For positive contact interactions, two bosons (fermions) of opposite spin in a triplet configuration
experience enhanced (vanishing) contact interactions, while the converse occurs for the singlet spinstate. This implies that by preparing a superposition of triplet and singlet configurations, a dynamical effect results known as spin exchange, which entangles the spatial and spin degrees of freedomof the two particles. We will discuss the origin of these dynamics in more detail in this section.

5.1.1

Basics of spin-exchange

The state from which spin-exchange occurs in our experiment is illustrated in Figure 5.2. For
the purpose of the discussion in this section, we will neglect the effect of non-separability of theatomic potential, and later discuss the effect of this feature of our system. Through a sequence

(a) Quantum dot spin-exchange

(c)

(b)

Neutral atom super-exchange

143

Neutral atom spin-exchange

Figure 5.1: Forms of spin-exchange. (a) Picture from Ref. [13]. Electrons trapped in double
quantum-dots exhibit a tunable spin-spin coupling. The spin-1/2 electrons exhibit a strongCoulomb repulsion that, in conjunction with their fermionic statistics, creates an exchange interaction. This platform has been considered theoretically as a strong candidate for a universal
quantum computer [14]. (b) Picture from Ref. [15]. Neutral atoms trapped in an optical lattice
can exhibit a nearest-neighbor exchange interaction that is contingent on virtual wave-function
overlap. Here strong on-site interactions lead to a second-order effect where anti-aligned spins onneighboring sites can coherently swap sites, which can be formally cast as a Heisenberg exchangeinteraction. Here too the underlying physics is dependent on strong interactions and the quantum
statistics of the particles. (c) Picture from Ref. [16]. When two neutral atoms are prepared in
opposing spin-states and in different motional states, the interactions realize a first-order exchangeinteraction. The spatial symmetry of the two-particle wave functions depends on the spin-states,
which in turn causes a splitting between the triplet and singlet two-particle spin states. This splitting causes dynamics at a multiple of the contact interaction energy. This chapter is concernedwith this kind of exchange interaction.

of steps involving single spin addressing and vertical tunneling (see Section 5.2.1), we prepare aspin-up particle in the first excited state of the y-direction (“e”), and a spin-down particle in they-direction ground-state (“g). Each particle we take to be in the ground-state of the motional
degrees of freedom not otherwise specified, and we will omit these from the notation below. We
can write this symmetrized two-particle state in second quantization as,|ψin i = |e, ↑i|g, ↓i.

(5.1)

144
This notation is useful for writing down a simple Hamiltonian to model the dynamics, however, it
is less useful in explaining the origin of the spin-exchange interaction. We use first quantization to
elucidate the spin-exchange: we will use the general symmetrized two-particle states for a particulardegree of freedom,
1|±ij = √ (|χi1 |χ̄i2 ± |χi2 |χ̄i1 ) ,
2

(5.2)

where {χ, χ̄} = {e, g} ({χ, χ̄} = {↑, ↓}) if j = “y” ( j = “s”). In this notation, |+is and |−is are thetriplet and singlet spin states, respectively; these are labeled |T i and |Si in Figure 5.2b. We write
the states in this general (and slightly less transparent) fashion because in later sections we will
include the effect of an axial degree of freedom induced by finite temperature, which necessitatesusing j = “z”. We can write |ψi i in terms of |±iy and |±is ,1|ψin i = √ (|+iy |+is + |−iy |−is ) ,
2

(5.3)

which is a superposition of the two possible bosonic states given the number of degrees of freedom
per particle. To show the connection to the initial state in Eq. 5.1, we can expand Eq. 5.3 in termsof the expressions in Eq. 5.2: after simplifying one finds,
1|ψin i = √ (|ei1 | ↑i1 |gi2 | ↓i2 + |gi1 | ↓i1 |ei2 | ↑i2 ) ,
2

(5.4)

which, as expected, is the symmetrized two-particle state of having a spin-up particle in |ei, and aspin-down particle in |gi.2 This state is a symmetrized state that exhibits no particle-entanglement,in reference to the discussions in Section 4.2.3. The effect of the contact interactions, however, isto dynamically induce particle entanglement through spin-exchange.

5.1.2

Interaction energy for the triplet and singlet channels

For atoms colliding via contact interactions, the spatial symmetry of the wave-function is
crucial in determining the interaction energy. In what follows, we will consider interaction energies
2

If in Eq. 5.3 we had taken the difference as opposed to the sum of the two-particle states, this would correspondto the symmetrized two-particle state of having a particle spin-down in the first y-excited state, and a particle spin-up
in the ground-state

(a)

145

(b)

|T 

Transport

2Ueg

|S

Figure 5.2: Initial two-particle state from which exchange occurs. (a) Through a sequence ofground-state cooling, single-spin addressing, tweezer transport, and biased tunneling we are able
to prepare a single spin in the first motional excited state of the y-axis of motion, and spin-down
particle in the 3D-ground state, all in the same optical tweezer. (b) In this configuration we expect
spin-exchange dynamics between the atoms occupying different motional states. Enforced by thequantum-statistics, this arises due to the difference in the contact interaction energy for the spatiallysymmetric (ψT (y1 , y2 )) and anti-symmetric (ψS (y1 , y2 )) wave functions associated with the states|+iy and |−iy , respectively. The anti-symmetric wave-function ψS (y1 , y2 ) is non-interacting since
the particles (defined to be at y1 and y2 along one-dimension, in units of the oscillator length r0 )are never found in the same place (red-dashed line in bottom wave-function plot, which corresponds
to the spatial wave-function for the spin singlet).

much smaller than any motional energy scale. Hence, we can consider the contact interaction as
simply a first-order pertubative energy shift of the two-particle eigenstates represented in the basisof the single-particle eigenstates. In general, for atoms in the two-particle spatial wave function
ψ(r1 , r2 ) = hr1 , r2 |ψi, the contact interaction energy is,
4π~2 as
U=
m

Z ∞

−∞

ψ(r1 , r2 )∗ δ(r1 − r2 )ψ(r1 , r2 )d3 r1 d3 r2 ,(5.5)

where as is the atomic scattering length and m is the mass of 87 Rb. We now seek to calculate theinteraction energies U± for the two spatial states |±iy comprising |ψin i; to emphasize the link tothe spin-states, the one-dimensional wave functions in Figure 5.2 associated with |+iy and |−iy
are called ψT (y1 , y2 ) and ψS (y1 , y2 ), respectively. For representing the three-dimensional wavefunctions, we use the notation that ψe (r) (ψg (r)) corresponds to the three-dimensional motional
state of {nx , ny , nz } = {0, 1, 0} ({nx , ny , nz } = {0, 0, 0}) where ni are the motional quantum num-

146
bers for the i-axis. First solving for U+ , we have,
U+ = 2Ueg ,where,
4π~2 asUeg =mZ|ψe (r)|2 |ψg (r)|2 d3 r.

(5.6)

(5.7)

For a simple harmonic oscillator with trap frequencies {ωx , ωy , ωz }, the interaction energy scales
like (ωx ωy ωz )1/2 indicating the role of the confinement in determining the size of the interactions;this is relevant to later measurements in which we study this exact scaling. Furthermore, I would
like to highlight this factor of 2 in U+ , which arises from the symmetrization of the two-particle
wave function. If both particles were in the same motional state, the interaction energy would be
U = Ugg without this factor of 2.3 . If we now consider |−iy , it is clear that the anti-symmetrization
causes the two-particle wavefunction to vanish when r1 = r2 , and therefore,
U− = 0.

(5.8)

These distinctions between the wave functions are summarized in Figure 5.2. We will now use theseresults to explain the exchange dynamics expected experimentally from the state |ψin i.
5.1.3

Spin exchange dynamics

From the above discussion, we can understand the exchange dynamics as arising from thecoherent beating of the two-components with interactions energies U+ and U− . For |ψ(0)i = |ψin i,
the time-evolved wave-function |ψ(t)i can be expressed,
1 |ψ(t)i = √ eiU+ t/~ |+iy |+is + eiU− t/~ |−iy |−is .
2

(5.9)

Since U− = 0, we expect coherent dynamics at the frequency U+ = 2Ueg . After expanding theabove equation, we can express the dynamics compactly in second-quantization as,
11|ψ(t)i = |e, ↑i|g, ↓i cos( Jex t/~) + i|e, ↓i|g, ↑i sin( Jex t/~),2
2
3

Ugg is computed by substituting ψg (r) for ψe (r) in Eq. 5.7(5.10)

147
where we have defined the quantity Jex = U+ . The exchange dynamics, therefore, yield anticorrelated oscillations in the probabilities to measure |e, ↑i|g, ↓i and |e, ↓i|g, ↑i, at a frequency Jex .
These are the dynamics expected for the effective Hamiltonian,~e · S~g ,Heff = Jex S(5.11)~g (S~e ) are the spin-operators for the atom in |gi (|ei), and I have neglected a constant term.
where SThis Hamiltonian more explicitly displays the spin-exchange interaction achieved by the contact
interactions and quantum statistics. Crucially, these dynamics periodically create the maximallyentangled state,1|ψ(tent )i = √ (|e, ↑i|g, ↓i ± i|e, ↓i|g, ↑i) ,2(5.12)

odd π
where tent = N2J
and Nodd is an odd integer. In what follows, we will discuss our observation
exof the dynamics encapsulated in Eq. 5.10, and the creation of entanglement between spatiallyseparated particles via the local entangling collisions.

5.2

Observation of spin-exchange dynamics
Starting from two thermal atoms, our goal is to prepare the two-particle state |ψin i. As

with the HOM studies, the experiment begins by loading, imaging, and detecting two thermal
atoms in separated optical tweezer potentials, each of optical waist 710 nm and of 1.6 µm centroid
separation. Each atom is then separately laser cooled to the 3D ground-state via Raman-sideband
cooling leaving a 3D ground state fraction of 90(8)% [50, 89, 99], using either the continuous (seeSection 3.4.6) or Gaussian-pulsed cooling (see Section 3.4.7). We subsequently prepare the desired
two-particle spin state using an additional beam to change the local effective magnetic field at one
tweezer with respect to the other, allowing resonant spin flipping of an atom in just one opticaltweezer (see Section 2.12.2). At this point, the two atoms are each prepared in the motional groundstate of their respective optical tweezer, and the right (left) spin is in the |F, mF i = |1, 1i ≡ | ↓i(|F, mF i = |2, 2i ≡ | ↑i) state. After these initial steps, the traps are reconfigured to use coherent

148
tunneling to prepare the spins in well-defined motional states of a single tweezer for spin-exchange,
namely in the configuration given by |ψin i.
5.2.1

Generating and detecting two-particle spin-configurations in a single tweezer

To generate |ψin i, one optical tweezer is swept close to the other to realize a tunnel-coupling,with similar ramps to those of the HOM studies. However, there are a number of distinctions in therest of the experiment. We tune the bias to an assymetric configuration such that the the groundstate of the left optical tweezer is near resonant with the first radial excited of the right opticaltweezer (Figure 5.3), while we set the spacing and depth to 854 nm and 91(4) kHz, respectively.
These double-well parameters were chosen for several reasons. Firstly, for this spacing and depth,
the left-well ground-state and right-well excited state along the tunneling direction (y) were ∼ 3 kHz
below the peak of the biased double-well bump, which was similar to the ground-states in the
96 kHz deep and 808 nm spaced symmetric double-well from the previous chapter. This ensured
that we were not near an unstable regime such that the atoms are unbound, which, for example,
we observe at the edge of the scans of depth and spacing from Section 4.5.2.4. Secondly, we wanted
to maximize J to maintain robustness against the fluctuations discussed in Section 4.5.2.4, while(thirdly) maintaining a large depth to keep the interactions large. In this configuration (including
the effect of the bias), we expect an interaction energy of approximately Ueg = 2π · 60 Hz for two
atoms in the right optical tweezer, and consequently spin-exchange oscillations at a frequency of
120 Hz.
In the described double-well configuration, we regularly perform calibration measurements
to ascertain the position of the tunneling resonance between the left-well ground state and rightwell first excited-state (along the tunneling direction, y). Exemplary bias scans are shown in
Figure 5.4a,b, where the asymmetric nature of the tunneling resonance is manifest. The initialleft-well data (blue, Pi1 ) shows a clear resonance feature in each plot, indicating that an initiallyleft-well atom tunnels to the right well while an initial right well atom (red) stays put as a functionof bias; this is significantly different from the symmetric tunneling seen in the dynamical HOM

149

J

Figure 5.3: Adiabatic passage through the ground-excited tunneling resonance. In order to consistently prepare the configuration for exchange, |ψin i, we use adiabatic passage. The ground-stateof the left well is adiabatically swept across the tunneling resonance with the excited state, shownin the figure with actual data from a typical bias scan. This procedure relaxes constraints on theabsolute bias stability. Experimentally, the ARP occurs in a trap spacing of 854 nm and 91(4) kHz,with a ramp range of 4.4 kHz in a time of 12 ms symmetrically about the position of the resonance(which is calibrated daily).

interference. The tunneling time of 1.6 ms is set to near a full spatial swap for the measured
J/(2π) = 165(6) Hz. As an additional confirmation, we observe that P11 nearly perfectly parallels
the behavior of the PL1 , because for the two particle experiments we are primarily preparing two
atoms in the same tweezer when on the tunneling-resonance. We do observe a slight shift between
the resonance positions of the dips in Figure 5.4a, which could be due to the interactions shifting theresonance for two-particle tunneling. While in many scans we observe such a shift, the resolution
is not sufficiently high to perform a comparison with the expected shift, though the measurement
is the correct order of magnitude (in experimental units, .002 V, corresponding to a 50 Hz shift).
Frequent recalibration of the position of the bias resonance was not sufficient for consistently
transferring the population from the left-ground state into the first excited state of the right well.
Small shifts in the resonance position on an hourly time-scale caused inconsistent transfer between
the tweezers that varied over the course of data sets, and sometimes drifted completely off resonance.
Borrowing a common technique from microwave and RF spectroscopy, we instead perform an
adiabatic rapid passage (ARP), by slowly ramping the bias through the ground-excited tunnelingresonance. Here the tunnel-coupling plays the role of the Rabi frequency (over two). As the bias
is slowly swept through the resonance, the tunneling atom remains in the instantaneous tunnel-

150
dressed state, which is adiabatically converted from the left-ground state to the right excited state.
Crucially, the adiabatic transfer is much less sensitive to the exact position of the resonance provided
the end points of the bias ramp are each sufficiently far away from resonance, and the ramp itself
is sufficiently slow so as to avoid Landau-Zener transitions.
Though in later sections we model the effect of this process on the spin-exchange, here I will
only discuss the experimental calibration of this technique. Each day, we measure the position of
the bias resonance, and then fix the ramp end points at ±0.1V about the resonance position, whichcorresponds to ±2.2 kHz. To calibrate the adiabatic passage, we plot the transfer probabilities as afunction of the ramp time when ramping the bias from below to above the resonance (Figure 5.4c,d).
This ramp time sets the adiabaticity of the ramp. As with the bias scans, we observe the same
asymmetry in the single-particle experiments and the correspondence between Pi1 and P11 . Using
the Landua-Zener formula, we fit the data (solid lines) and extract a J/2π = 220(10) Hz. Thereis approximately 30% disagreement between the measured value 165 Hz, but this formula is likely
not accounting for a number of effects. For the fastest ramp rates ( ARP times < 2 ms), we could
be causing motional heating and thermally delocalizing an atom initially on the left, which is moreloosely bound compared to the atom in the ground state of the right-well. Secondly, as we scan
the bias through the resonance, there is a variation in the tunneling because the left-bound state
becomes closer to the double-well bump. Though we have not explicitly modeled these effects, wechoose an ARP time of 12 ms, which is adiabatic with respect to all the motional time scales4
and well into the regime where the transfer probability saturates. Interestingly, the fact that thetransfer probability does not reach unity suggests that the timescale of the fluctuations that effectthe tunneling is likely fast and occurring within an experimental cycle, as opposed to shot-to-shot.
After performing the ARP, we have prepared the atoms in the target state |ψin i in which
we expect spin-exchange dynamics. Observing the spin-exchange dynamics entails a measurementof the spin-state of the atoms in each motional state, which cannot be imaged directly using
4

Necessarily so, since the tunneling is much slower than any of the trap frequencies, the lowest of which is the∼ 2 kHz axial trap frequency

151
Experiment

PL

PR
(b)

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.4
0.2
0.0
8.45

0.4
0.2

8.50

8.55
Bias(V)

8.60

0.0
8.45

8.65

1.0

(d)

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.4
0.2
0.0
0

8.50

8.55
Bias(V)

8.60

8.65

1.0

0.8
PR

ARP rate
scan

PL

(c)

1.0

0.8
PR

Bias scan

PL(a) 1.0

0.4
0.2

5

10
ARP time (ms)

15

0.0
0

5

10
ARP time (ms)15

Figure 5.4: Experimental data of bias scans and ARPs across the excited-ground tunneling resonance. For all plots, blue (red) corresponds to data in which the atomic origin well is the left (right)
well; the black data is P11 , which is slightly inconsistent with the y-axis labels. (a,b) For a fixedtunneling time of 1.6 ms, we scan the bias across the ground-excited tunneling resonance, whichis 9.0(1.5) kHz from the ground-ground resonance. To emphasize the asymmetry of the resonance,
we plot both PLi (a) and PRi (b), indicating the presence (absence) of population transfer from theleft-well (right-well). The statistics for these data is fairly low (25 single particle runs per well), andcauses some scatter. (c,d) We show show ARP data using the parameters indicated in Figure 5.3.
Here we also plot both PLi (c) and PRi (d), showing the same asymmetry in the tunneling. These
data are used to extract the ARP fidelities quoted in the text. In the ARP data, we observe asmall amount of transfer from the right well to the left well, which we observe increases when we
deliberately compromise our radial cooling. This is consistent with an increase in excited fractionin the right well tunneling to the left well. For optimal cooling, this on average is about 3%, whichis consistent with the ground-state temperature extract from spectroscopy.

fluorescence imaging. While we have considered alternative approaches,5 we simply perform theadiabatic passage in reverse, mapping the atom in the first-excited state of the right well back into
the left-ground state. After this second ARP, we apply resonant push-out light to detect the spinstates of the atom in each tweezer. The time between the end of the first ARP and the beginningof the second ARP we define as the “exchange time”.
5
In principle, we could use sideband-spectroscopy to probe the spin population in each motional state, but thiswould require ramping the traps up to reach the LDR and consequently a large speed up of the exchange dynamics.

152
Before moving on to the exchange dynamics, I wanted to briefly discuss an important checkon these tunneling techniques. The resonance we observe occurs at a bias of 9.0(1.5) kHz, according
to the calibration technique discussed in Section 4.5.2.1. However, this calibration technique is nottested for biases far away from the main tunneling resonance used for the calibration, and so it
is not clear how reliable this 9.0 kHz number is. Based on the three-dimensional modeling of thepotential, we expect a 8 kHz bias for the excited-ground tunneling resonance, which is set by the
y-axis trap frequency as well as the relative change in this quantity in each tweezer as the bias isvaried.6

To confirm that we are indeed creating a radial excitation in the right well for an atomtunneling from the left, we perform sideband-spectroscopy as in Section 4.5.2.3 after tunneling.
We perform two sets of experiments in this regard. In the first (first row of Figure 5.5),
we perform spectroscopy after allowing for resonant ground-excited tunneling as in Figure 5.4a,b.
From these data, it is clear that when an atom that originates on the left is probed on the right,a large red-sideband is evident, indicating that the atom is not in the radial ground-state. Since
the spectroscopy is performed after the traps are swept apart, we cannot determine from thesedata whether the radial excitation is added specifically to the axis along which tunneling occurs,
but the alternative possibility (tunneling coupling to the x-direction) is greatly suppressed due toenergy conservation and symmetry. We also observe that an atom on the right is spectroscopicallyindicated to be in the ground-state, as expected. In the second set of spectroscopy measurements(second row of Figure 5.5), we perform spectroscopy after applying the ARP procedure in both
directions with 15 ms time between. Here we observe that an initial left atom is in the ground-stateprovided it ends up in the left well, while as in the prior measurement an initial right-well atom isin the ground-state. The combination of these two measurements (both rows) is strong evidence
that the tunneling is mapping the initial left well particle into the first excited of the right well,and mapping it back to the ground-state of the left well for detection.
6

This latter effect means that the bias applied is not strictly equal to the trap-frequency in order to hit thisresonance, since the trap frequency in each well changes as a function of bias. As the left-well is made shallower andthe right-well is made deeper, the bound-state in the left (right) well moves down (up) in energy implying that theresonant bias is larger than the oscillator splitting when the trap is symmetric (unbiased).

PL

Experiment
1.0

1.0

(a)

(b)
0.8
Probability in F=1

Probability in F=1

0.8

Biased tunnelingnear full swap

0.6
0.4
0.2

0.4
0.2
0.0
6.83080 6.83085 6.83090 6.83095 6.83100 6.83105 6.83110 6.83115

EO Freq (GHz)EO Freq (GHz)
1.0

(c)

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

(d)

0.8
Probability in F=1

0.8
Probability in F=1

0.6

0.0
6.83080 6.83085 6.83090 6.83095 6.83100 6.83105 6.83110 6.83115

1.0

ARP forward
AND back

153

PR

0.6

0.4

0.2

6.83086.83096.83106.8311

6.8312EO Freq (GHz)0.0

6.83086.83096.83106.8311

6.8312EO Freq (GHz)

Figure 5.5: Sideband spectroscopy after ground-excited tunneling. (a,b) We perform sideband
spectroscopy after allowing for 1.6 ms of tunneling, correspond to a near full transfer of the left-wellground-state population to the right tweezer excited-state. We apply push-out light after applying
radial Raman beams (top plus EO). As with the analogous data from the previous chapter, the yaxis should be interpreted as the product of the spin-flip probability and the transfer probability (PLin (a) and PR in (b)) to the indicated well.(c,d) We apply sideband-spectroscopy after performing
the ARPs in both directions with a 15 ms delay in between. As expected, the left-well population(blue) that ends up back in the left-well implies a large ground-state fraction. The fraction (∼ 10%)with which right-to-left tunneling occurs is anomalously higher than indicated in other data we have,
which suggests that perhaps for this data the radial cooling was worse. Note for these data we donot spin-flip the right atom or rotate the quantization axis to along z, but the light-shift beam does
come on in order to retain as much of the experiment as possible in performing the thermometry.

5.2.2

Spin-exchange oscillations

The previous sections have discussed in detail the preparation and detection procedure forspin-exchange, and the entire sequence we summarize in Figure 5.6. After applying this procedure,
we seek to detect the spin configurations indicated in Figure 5.6f. To do so, we apply the same pushout used in all of our spin-sensitive spectroscopy, however, we ramp to a 60 µK trap to maximize
the sensitivity of the atoms to the resonant push-out.7

This leads to the detection outcomesindicated in Figure 5.7a. We can analyze these two-particle data in two ways: we can keep all the7

For the Gaussian cooled spectrum of Section 3.4.7, this procedure was also applied

154
a)

b)

c)

e)

f)

d)

, spin up, spin down

Figure 5.6: Experimental protocol for spin-exchange dynamics. We perform the illustrated sequencein order to observe spin-exchange dynamics. Panel (d) is where exchange occurs, and we vary thetime in this configuration by varying the time between the end of the first ARP and the beginningof the second ARP.

experimental runs, or we can throw out those runs in which the second image indicates a failure of
our spin preparation. The latter is discriminated on the basis of whether the second image showsa single atom, since if there are no atoms or an atom in each well, we can be certain that the
spin-preparation failed and/or there was atom loss. This allows us to negate the effect of imperfectspin-preparation (discussed in detail below), which is 80 − 90% depending on the experiment, ata small expense to the statistics. Lastly, an important experimental discovery that bears on thispost-selection was that if one of the ARPs fails, leaving two atoms in the right tweezer, the push-out
technique does not cause both atoms to leave due to light-assisted collisions. We tested this byperforming the ARP in one direction and performing push-out: only the spin-up atom was kicked
out, leaving one atom for imaging. Therefore, the post-selection technique does not allow us topost-select on the ARP success as well.
In Figure 5.7b, we show an exemplary scan of the time between the ARPs and the resulting oscillations in the final measurement probabilities. We only observe these oscillations in themeasured probabilities in the two-atom experiments (see Figure 5.8), indicating the two-particle
nature of the oscillations. The fitted contrast of the oscillations is 0.29(2) using the post-selection
procedure; if we do not post-select on the spin-preparation the contrasts are A↑,↓ = 0.24(2) (green)and A↓,↑ = 0.23(2) (purple). These contrasts are informed by a number of systematics we analyze

155
below, but the equality of A↑,↓ and A↓,↑ affirms the anti-correlated nature of the oscillations andthat the spin-interaction preserves the two-particle Sz , as expected for an exchange interaction.
The exchange frequency observed of 106(1) Hz implies an interaction of Ueg /(2π) = 53.0(5) Hz. Asa first order check on this interaction energy, we can Fourier transform the double-well along they-direction to determine the trap-frequency along the y-axis8 ; for ωx and ωz , we can scale fromthe measured trap-frequencies in the 23 MHz deep trap (ωr /(2π) = 140 kHz, ωz /(2π) = 29 kHz) to
the tweezer in which the atoms interact. The depth of the tweezer holding the atoms is informedby the double-well bias, which is 2.2 kHz above the ground-excited resonance at ∆ = 9 kHz,leading to a depth for this tweezer of 97(4) kHz during the exchange time. We find then that{ωx , ωy , ωy } = (2π)−1 {9.0, 5.4, 1.9} kHz; approximating the atomic wave-functions as eigenstates ofharmonic oscillators with these frequencies along each axis, we find from Eq. 5.7 that Ueg = 59(2).
This is decent agreement using a simple model for the potential.
In Figure 5.7c, we compare the measured exchange frequency to the full 3D calculation (again,
including the bias and calibrated features of the potential) as a function of the tweezer depth. In
this figure, though we vary the tweezer depth, we apply the ARPs always in the same 91(4) kHz
deep trap. After the first ARP we ramp the intensity in the optical tweezers adiabatically in 5 ms
to a new depth (x-axis in Figure 5.7c), wait for a varied time ∆t, ramp the trap symmetricallyin reverse, and perform the detection ARP. Though the depth ramps add a phase shift to theoscillations, the frequency of the exchange dynamics is purely determined by the trap in which
we vary ∆t. The consistency between the oscillation frequency and our calculation of the depth
dependent interactions is strong evidence that we are preparing the intended two-particle state,
and that the dynamics are governed by the symmetry-mediated exchange interaction.
8

This is accomplished by finding the splitting of the lowest eigenstates (which are bound below the bump) of theunbiased symmetric double-well for the 854 nm spacing

(a)

(c)

Exchange frequency (Hz)(b)
0.8
Probability

First image:Push-out:

0.6
0.4
0.2

Second image:

0

10

20
30
Exchange
Interactiontime
time(ms)
(ms)

40

156
250
200
150
100

100

150
200
Single tweezer depth (kHz)250

Figure 5.7: Observation of spin-exchange dynamics. (a) After applying the protocol of Figure 5.6,
we analyze the data according to the rubric indicated, keeping only those two-atom experiments inwhich we end up with a single atom after the resonant push-out (this is the post-selection routine
discussed in the text). The location of the atom in the second image indicates the final spinconfiguration prior to the push-out. (b) According to the coloring in (a), we plot the probabilities tomeasure each of the associated outcomes. We observe anti-correlated oscillations of equal amplitude,
at a frequency consistent with twice the onsite interactions Ueg . (c) We observe the variation of
the exchange frequency with the tweezer depth: as expected, the interaction energy increases withthe two-particle density. The center dashed line corresponds to a no-free-parameter theory linefrom 3D calculations of the potential by Michael Wall and the experimental characterizations of
the double-well parameters. The blue swath comes from our uncertainty in the bias, because thisinfluences the depth of the tweezer in which exchange occurs, as well as the tweezer depth.

5.2.3

Analysis of the exchange contrast

As alluded to above, a number of factors inform the observed spin-exchange oscillation contrast. First, to understand the difference in the post-selected and non-post-selected data, we show
in Figure 5.8 the single-particle data from the exchange oscillations in Figure 5.7b. As noted,
these do not exhibit any spin-oscillations, and also provide a calibration of the spin preparation.
Including the effect of single-particle loss, the two-particle preparation of the atoms in the state| ↑iL | ↓iR prior to the ARPs ( the atom in the left well spin-up, and the atom in the right-well spindown) is 0.835(10). When the spin-preparation fails, the most likely outcome is that both atoms
are spin-up or both spin-down9 , both of which are configurations we have experimentally verified
lead to no spin-dynamics. Therefore, from the post-selected contrast of 0.29(2) and the calibrated
spin-preparation of 0.835(10), we expect from the un-post-selected data an oscillation contrast of
0.29 · 0.835 = 0.24(2), which is consistent with the measurement. 10
9The likelihood to improperly spin flip both atoms is ∼ .01.
The post-selection also eliminates the case in which we successfully prepare the spins, but lose the spin-down
atom due to background collisions. But this is also accounted for in the single-particle data.
10

157

F=1 Probability

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

0

10

20
30
Exchange time (ms)40

Figure 5.8: Single particle data from exchange dynamics. We show the single particle data fromdata displayed in Figure 5.7b. We do not observe the same oscillations in the spin probabilities for
either the left (blue) or right (left) origin well: the left well is primarily spin-up, while the rightwell is primarily spin-down (in F=1). We use these data to calibrate the spin-preparation for thetwo-particle experiments.

Another straightforward systematic is the fidelity of the ARPs. If we fail to either produce
the initial desired state in the first ARP, or to detect the final state in the final ARP, then we
will not detect spin-exchange. According to the single-particle (two-particle) first ARP data in
Figure 5.4, we expect a total ARP preparation and detection success probability of 0.82(6) (0.79(5));
furthermore, directly prior to the measurement in Figure 5.7b, we performed the ARP forward andbackward with a 15 ms delay between, and measured a success probability of 0.81(4). We notehowever that the ARP success probability did fluctuate by about 10% over the course of two months
for unknown reasons: we always measure the forward and back efficiency for this reason and use
this measurement for calibration purposes.
The above systematics suggest an expected contrast of 0.68(4). Clearly these alone do not
explain the contrast we observe, and I will now discuss in more detail the effects of temperatureand spin-dependence in the potential.

5.2.3.1

Effect of finite temperature on exchange dynamics

In analogy to the HOM section, the motional state of the particles can influence how thequantum-statistics of the particles is manifest. For the spin-exchange experiments we have per-

158
formed, we have tried both the continuous cooling and Gaussian pulsed cooling methods, andobserved spin-exchange contrasts that are fractionally similar at the 10% level, implying that thesingle-particle ground-state fractions were similar at the 5% level. This suggests that the two cooling methods achieve similar final ground-state fractions, and the Gaussian spectroscopy merely
provides a more precise measurement of this temperature. Therefore, we use the Gaussian spectroscopy data from Figure 3.15 for thermometry.11
We will consider here the most likely scenario of one of the atoms having a single axial
excitation. The treatment below, however, is general to the case of a radial excitation, but inpractice this situation is less likely and filtered by the tunneling, because the tunneling is influenced
more directly by this temperature. We consider the scenario in which the initial state of the twoparticle system is (in second quantization),exc|ψin
i = |e, e, ↑i|g, g, ↓i,(5.13)

where the second entry of the kets indicates the axial motional state, ground (“g”) or excited(“e”).12 . In first quantization, we can write out this state using the notation of Eq. 5.2,
exc
|ψin
i=

1
(|+iy |+iz |+is + |−iy |−iz |+is + |−iy |+iz |−is + |+iy |−iz |−is ) .
2(5.14)

By inspection, all of the terms except for the first are non-interacting, because these contain antisymmetric spatial wave-functions along at least one of the axes. The interaction energy for the firstterm we will define as Uexc . The full-state then evolves as,|ψ exc (t)i =1  iUexc t/~e|+iy |+iz |+is + |−iy |−iz |+is + |−iy |+iz |−is + |+iy |−iz |−is .
2(5.15)In analogy to the vanilla spin-exchange discussed earlier, this state gives rise to three coherent andsimultaneous exchange processes. There is “axial exchange” (1), where the quantum numbers in they-dimension and the spin remain while the axial excitation exchanges. There is spin exchange (2),11
These thermometry data were taken the same day as a spin-exchange measurement that yielded a consistentcontrast to the data in Figure 5.7b
12Note that in what follows, the exact quantum number for the axial motional excitation is somewhat irrelevant,because all that matters is that it distinguishes the particles in an additional degree of freedom. It is only relevant indetermining the frequency components of the final dynamics since it determines the two-particle interaction energy.

159
where the quantum numbers in the y and z dimension remain while the spin exchanges. And thereis exchange of the “radial” excitation (3), while the z and spin quantum numbers are unchanged.
We can schematically write these three exchange processes as follows,|e, e, ↑i|g, g, ↓, i ↔ |e, g, ↑i|g, e, ↓i,(5.16)|e, e, ↑i|g, g, ↓, i ↔ |e, e, ↓i|g, g, ↑i,(5.17)|e, e, ↑i|g, g, ↓, i ↔ |g, e, ↑i|e, g, ↓i,(5.18)

each of which occur coherently from the initial state. Interestingly, the spin- exchange and radialexchange processes would each be detected as spin-exchange in our experiment. Bizarrely, andpurely coincidently, for a harmonic potential Uexc = Jex = U+ due to a conspiracy of cancellationof several factors of 2. This means that, in the presence of an axial excitation, we would expect todetect in this purely harmonic case the same exchange frequency. Furthermore, from these states
one can show that we would detect an spin-exchange oscillation contrast of 1/2.13 If we then took
the harmonic assumption to be valid, this would imply a single-atom 3D ground-state fraction ofless 50%, which is completely inconsistent with thermometry measurements taken prior and after
the tunneling.
Fortunately, our potential makes the harmonic description inappropriate to this situation.
Because the anharmonicity is on the scale of the interaction energy, two of the exchange processes
become off-resonant. A full calculation of these effects performed by Michael Wall shows that
we would expect multiple frequency components (Figure 5.9),14 while the amplitude of the mainfrequency component is determined by the two-particle 3D ground-state probability (among otherthings). Since we do not detect significant additional frequency components, we can be fairly
confident that the temperature is not limiting our contrast. However, for the purpose of including
13
This can be calculated from computing the dynamics and then converting to second quantization while tracing
over the axial degree of freedom.
14
While the harmonic and separable approximation used to predict the interaction energy was accurate, smallchanges in the energy of the oscillator states due to anharmonicities change the states at the level of the interactionenergy. Therefore, while the interaction energy is largely unaffected, the motional states are shifted on a scalecomparable to this interaction energy.

160| ↓L | ↑probability
R probability

1.0
0.8

n̄ = 0n̄ = 0.1n̄ = 0.2n̄ = 0.3

0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

0

10

20
30
40
Exchange time (ms)50

Figure 5.9: Temperature effects on spin-exchange. Here we show calculations indicating the expected dynamics in the presence of a thermal distribution of varying temperature, indicated by thelegend on the right. We show just the probability to measure the state | ↓iL | ↑iR , which corresponds to the purple data in Figure 5.7. The effect of this systematic, frequency beating, does notcorrelate well with what we see in the experiment.

the effect of temperature, we expect that the single-atom 3D ground-state temperature of PGS =2 = 0.81(12). This includes both radial and0.90(7) reduces to the peak exchange contrast to PGS

axial temperature, which in principle means we could be double-counting the effect of the radial
temperature since it influences the ARP fidelity. However, the ARP fidelity is below unity by
an amount much greater than the radial excited state fraction, so this double-counting is not
significant, and it is not obvious how else to include this temperature.

5.2.3.2

Modeling the full exchange dynamics with the preparation ARPs andspin-dependence

Due to the very small energy scales in play here, a number of systematics related to the opticaltweezers can effect the spin-exchange. For example, if there is any spin-dependence to the opticaltweezer that changes the y-trap frequency of spin-up compared to spin-down, then the exchange
coupled states |e, ↑i|g, ↓i and |e, ↓i|g, ↑i are no longer degenerate. If the the spin-up (spin-down) y161
trap frequency is ωy↑ (ωy↓ ), then the exchange is off-resonant by an amount δω = ωy↑ − ωy↓ . In thelanguage of two-level systems, Jex = 2Ueg is the Rabi-frequency and this δω is the detuning between
the coupled states |e, ↑i|g, ↓i and |e, ↓i|g, ↑i: as δi approaches Jex , the exchange oscillations are
2 /(J 2 +δ 2 ). We model this effect and the full preparation and detection
suppressed by an amount Jex
exischeme to understand the expected exchange contrast. In the basis of |L, ↑i|R, ↓i, |L, ↓i|R, ↑i,|e, ↑i|g, ↓i, and |e, ↓i|g, ↑i, the Hamiltonian for the dynamics is,15



0
−J
0
δG /2−δG /2
0
−J
 0

,
H=


 −J

0
∆eg + δω /2 + Ueg
Ueg




0
−J
Ueg
∆eg − δω /2 + Ueg(5.19)

where ∆eg is the bias detuning from the tunneling resonance, J = 2π 165 Hz is the excited-groundtunneling, and δG is the energy difference between |L, ↑i|R, ↓i and |L, ↓i|R, ↑i due to an effective
magnetic field gradient. This gradient is created due to a combination of the spin-dependence of thepotential and the bias applied to the wells. To quantify the spin-dependence of the potential, we
measure with microwave spectroscopy the | ↑i ↔ | ↓i transition with the quantization axis parallelto the optical tweezer (which is its orientation after we perform single-spin addressing, and how itremains during spin-exchange experiments). The spectroscopy is performed in the 1.15 mK and
the 91 kHz deep tweezers, between which we observe a +129(2) kHz shift of the transition. If thequantization is along x, the shift between these two depths is only 8 kHz, which is near the expectedscalar shift of 6.5 kHz. This pair of measurements indicates residual σ + circular polarization in
the optical tweezers at the focus that creates an effective magnetic field. In the 91 kHz tunneling
trap, and at the resonant excited-ground tunneling bias, this corresponds to a δG = 2π · 50 Hz.
The spin-dependence also modifies the relative depth (and associated confinement) of the opticaltweezer when both atoms are in the same tweezer, yielding a δω = 2π · 22 Hz.16
15

Note I have switched my notation here to be consistent with the |e, ↑i|g, ↓i, and |e, ↓i|g, ↑i notation. The states|L, ↑i|R, ↓i and |L, ↓i|R, ↑i are the same as | ↑iL | ↓iR and | ↓iL | ↑iR , respectively.
16This was calculated using the three-dimensional modeling of the potential performed by Michael Wall in conjunction with the measured spin-dependence. Assuming a purely harmonic potential, we calculate a smaller δω = 2π·15 Hz

162
In Figure 5.10, we show the expected dynamics using the Hamiltonian in Eq. 5.19 with theparameter values discussed, and I will address the effect of these parameters here. In time-evolving
the Schrodinger equation, I have included the time-dependence of ∆eg . The simulation includes the
ARPs with their associated parameters in both directions, and the x-axis of the plot corresponds
to the time between the end of the first ARP and the beginning of the second ARP. The y-axis
corresponds to the state probabilities at the end of the second ARP. In total then this is an attempt
at a faithful representation of the experiment. Despite the saturation in the ARP transfer fidelity
displayed in Figure 5.4, the simulation indicates that we are not perfectly adiabatic, which gives
rise to the high-frequency Stuckleberg oscillations on most of the probabilities and a reduction
by 11% in the detected exchange amplitude due to imperfect preparation and detection. Though
at much slower time-scales, δG can cause the adiabatic loading of the interacting ground-state in
one well (i.e. only the singlet, as opposed to the singlet and the triplet, which together allow for
exchange oscillations) and thereby reduce the amplitude of the spin-exchange oscillations, on thepresent ARP time-scale of 12 ms this effect occurs only at the 5% level. Because δω is much lessthan Ueg , it also only reduces the contrast by 5%. The final oscillation amplitude including all ofthese effects is then 0.79, which is indicated by the purple and green data in the figure. Since weaccount for the ARP fidelity experimentally, I will only include the spin-dependent effects fromthis calculation in the subsequent analysis: with and without the spin-dependence, the exchange
contrast in the purple and green data is reduced by a factor of 0.89.17

5.2.3.3

Summing all of the contributions to the contrast

In Table 5.1, we list all of the known systematics that influence the exchange contrast. The
significant disagreement between the expected and measured contrast suggests that we are missing
some aspect of the physics. We do observe an unexplained offset in the exchange data; specifically,
the minima of the measured purple data have an offset from zero of 0.12. We have verified that17

The contrast reductions stated in this paragraph are determined from fitting the simulated purple data (withthe indicated parameters) with a sine-wave.

163

State probability

1.0| ↓L | ↑R| ↑L | ↓R| ↑e | ↓g| ↓e | ↑g

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

0

5

10
15
20
Exchange time (ms)25

30

Figure 5.10: Simulation of exchange dynamics including the ARP preparation and detection protocol. We plot the expected measurement probabilities for the states in the Hilbert space, indicatedon the right, at the end of the experimental protocol indicated in Figure 5.6. The dynamics are
simulated by numerically evolving the Schrodinger equation for the Hamiltonian in Eq. 5.19, including the bias ramps from both of the ARPs. The ARP parameters are indicated in the text
and Figure 5.3. For the simulation, we use the parameters Ueg /(2π) = 50 Hz, δω /(2π) = 22 Hz,
and δg /(2π) = 50 Hz; the x-axis is the time between the ARPs, as in the experimental data of
Figure 5.7b.

the presence of this offset is contingent on overlapping the atoms (i.e. performing the ARPs), andtherefore not a feature of the preparation prior to the exchange. While the unexplained disparity
will require further investigation in hopes of improving the contrast, we were able to work with thesystem as is to show that we could propagate the entanglement generated locally to the situationof the atoms separated.

5.3

Verifying non-local entanglement
The spin-exchange results so far rely on detection of the exchange oscillations through amotional-state position mapping achieved by the second ARP. We map the excited state spin
onto the left-optical tweezer, which is subsequently imaged. The observed oscillations in the spin
populations imply that the exchange dynamics are realizing entangled states between the particles
occupying different motional states, but do not indicate whether this entanglement is preserved after

164
Spin exchange contrast systematics
Quantity
Multiplicative factor from unity contrast
Single-atom loss
0.92(2)Spin preparation
0.835(10)ARP fidelity (both ways)
0.81(4)Single-atom ground-state fraction
0.81(12)Spin-dependence
0.89
Expected contrast
0.45(7)
Measured contrast
0.24(2)
Table 5.1: Here we list all of the expected contributions to the sub-unity contrast. In the final twolines we show the expected and measured contrast.

we perform the mapping of the excited atom into the left optical tweezer. For quantum information
applications where distributing entanglement is crucial, verifying that the entanglement is preserved
upon separating the atoms is essential. After we allow an exchange time for tent (henceforth called“entangling exchange”), defined in Section 5.1.3, and perform the mapping for detection, we havethe state,1 |ψent i = √ | ↑iL | ↓iR + eiφ | ↓iL | ↑iR ,2(5.20)

where ideally φ = ±π/2. In the experiment, the main cause of decoherence is noise in this phaseangle φ, because there is not dissipation that changes the spin-states of the atoms on a time-scale
relevant to the spin-exchange and detection ARP. This means that in order to understand whether
we are creating an entangled state between spatially separated particles, we must determine that
we are reproducing the same φ each run of the experiment. If φ is randomized from run to run ofthe experiment, then the final state prior to imaging is merely the unentangled statistical mixtureρ = 21 (| ↓iL | ↑iR h↓ |L h↑ |R + | ↑iL | ↓iR h↑ |L h↓ |R ). Furthermore, as I will discuss, the imperfections
in our spin-preparation stipulate certain requirements in how we assess the presence of two-particle
entanglement.

(a)| ↑L | ↓Rzxφ| ↓L | ↑R

165

(b)

Bgrad

+ i| ↓L | ↑Ry | ↑L | ↓R √
2

| ↑L
| ↓L

δ

| ↑R

Not to scale| ↓R

Figure 5.11: Measuring entanglement: Bloch-sphere picture and experimental tools. (a) Bloch
sphere in the effective spin-1/2 Hilbert space of | ↑iL | ↓iR and | ↓iL | ↑iR . By measuring thecoherence between these states in a two-particle Ramsey experiment, it is possible to detect thepresence of entanglement. The initial two-particle preparation (prior to the ARPs and exchange)
yields a state along positive z. After the first ARP, entangling exchange, and then the detection
ARP, we ideally have a state pointing along the Bloch-sphere y-axis. The parity measurements
discussed in this section are sensitive to states pointing along x, hence necessitating rotating thestate off the y axis. (b) We rotate the state in the equatorial plane of the Bloch-sphere by applying amagnetic field gradient, which changes the energy splitting between the spin-states in each tweezer
by an amount δ. This relative difference in the splitting leads to rotation of the two-particle statein the Bloch-sphere equatorial plane.

5.3.1

Detecting entanglement via the spin-parity

To explain the technique we use to verify that the final state is entangled, it is helpful to use
the Bloch sphere (Figure 5.11a) for the effective two-level system of | ↓iL | ↑iR and | ↑iL | ↓iR . Afterentangling exchange and the detection ARP, we have the state |ψent i that resides in the equatorial
plane of the Bloch sphere and points at an angle φ with respect to the x-axis; in the ideal caseof no disturbance to the state, the Bloch vector points along the y-axis. In analogy to Ramseyinterferometry, we now wish to vary and measure the angle φ so that way can determine the lengthof the two-particle Bloch vector. We vary φ by applying a magnetic field gradient which changes
the energy-splitting between | ↑i and | ↓i in the two optical tweezers, by an amount which I willdefine as δ (Figure 5.11b). After applying this gradient for a time tgrad , we have achieved the166transformation,
1 |ψent i → |ψent (tgrad )i = √ | ↑iL | ↓iR + ei(φ+δ·tgrad ) | ↓iL | ↑iR .
2(5.21)The gradient, as desired, rotates the state in the equatorial place of the Bloch sphere by mapping
φ → φ + δ · tgrad . We now require a way to detect this advancement of the superposition phase,because our measurement only specifies the z-projection on the Bloch sphere. This is accomplishedby applying an “analysis” global (i.e. applied concurrently to both atoms) microwave π/2-pulse.
To understand the effect of this, we consider two special cases of φ + δ · tgrad = Neven π and
φ + δ · tgrad = Nodd π, where Neven (Nodd ) is an even (odd) integer, each of which is periodicallycreated as a function of tgrad . Consider first the even case: here we have the state |cati, with a
Bloch vector pointing along the positive x-axis. The π/2-pulse achieves transformation,
1
1√ (| ↑iL | ↓iR + | ↓iL | ↑iR ) → √ (| ↑iL | ↑i + | ↓iL | ↓iR ) ,2
2(5.22)

converting the anti-correlations into positive correlations in the spin-states. This is identical tothe discussion in the previous chapter in Section 4.2.1: by rotating the spins and the effective
measurement basis, we can verify the entanglement by observing the persistence of correlations.
Consider now the odd case: we now have the spatially non-local singlet state, with corresponding
Bloch vector pointing along the negative x-axis. Here, the π/2-pulse achieves transformation,
1
1√ (| ↑iL | ↓iR − | ↓iL | ↑iR ) → √ (| ↑iL | ↓i − | ↓iL | ↑iR ) ,2
2(5.23)

mapping the initial state back to itself: in this case the anti-correlations are mapped to anticorrelations. Therefore, we can measure the advancement of the superposition phase angle byobserving how likely the spins are to be aligned or anti-aligned as a function of tgrad . With thetwist of using the gradient as opposed to a Raman light phase, this is directly analogous to thespin-parity measurements performed with ions and neutral atoms [79, 66, 76] to verify the presenceof entanglement. The nature of the correlations, aligned or anti-aligned, can be quantified by the
spin-parity [79],Π = (P↑,↑ + P↓,↓ ) − (P↑,↓ + P↓,↑ ),(5.24)

167
which is 1 (−1) when the spins are completely aligned (anti-aligned). We seek to then measureoscillations in Π as a function of tgrad . Given the correspondence with the Bloch vector direction
between the odd and even case, the spin-parity can be related to the Bloch-vector as Π = hσx iprior to the π/2 pulse, where σx is the associated Pauli-operator within this effective spin-1/2
space. Therefore, in analogy to Ramsey interferometry, by observing oscillations in hσx i, we aremeasuring the length of the Bloch-vector and coherence between the two states comprising thetwo-level system: in this case, | ↓iL | ↑iR and | ↑iL | ↓iR .
Lastly, I would like to point out why, in contrast to entanglement via Rydberg blockade, it isnecessary to apply this gradient to verify entanglement. Prior to applying the gradient, ideally the
Bloch vector points along the ±y-axis. This is because the spin-exchange conserves the populationsin the singlet and triplet sectors (which are equal, see Eq. 5.9) and only changes the relative phase of
their superposition (again, see Eq. 5.9). This leads to a coherence of ±i = e±iπ/2 between | ↓iL | ↑iRand | ↑iL | ↓iR . This is why it is necessary to apply a gradient to readout the parity, because thespin-parity of this initial state is zero. If on the other hand, the resulting entangling state after
exchange were |cati, seeing a sufficiently large parity after just a π/2-pulse (no gradient), would
be sufficient to verify entanglement: this is precisely what is done in Refs. [66, 76]. In our case,however, it is only with the gradient that we can rotate to states with non-zero spin-parity, and,hence, read-out the underlying entanglement.

5.3.2

Creating a bound on parity oscillations for separable density matrices

The above treatment assumed that the space of two-particle states was restricted to the twoparticle Sz = 0 sub-space spanned by | ↑iL | ↓iR and | ↓iL | ↑iR . Indeed, if all of the probability
were confined to the Sz = 0 sector then any parity oscillation would verify entanglement. However, because our spin-preparation is imperfect, it is necessary to understand how large a parity
oscillation contrast certifies entanglement in the presence of these imperfections.18 Unfortunately,18

The following comes out of our collaboration with Ana Maria Rey’s group, and, in particular, between me andMichael Foss-Feig.

168
by expanding the space to include | ↑iL | ↑iR and | ↓iL | ↓iR , there are many unentangled statesthat yield a non-zero parity oscillation signal. For example, if we simply had two spins each in abalanced superposition, it is straightforward to see that there would be a parity oscillation signal atfrequency δ with parity oscillation amplitude of 1 between −0.5 and 0.5. Even more perniciously,
if these spins were subject to spatially-homogeneous magnetic field noise, it can be shown that thisparity signal persists due to the insensitivity of the Sz = 0 sector to magnetic fields. Importantly,
with or without the magnetic field dephasing, the state has the crucial feature that prior to theπ/2 analysis pulse, there is equal population in each of the four possible two-particle states. As wewill show, by experimentally bounding the population outside the two-particle Sz = 0 sector (i.e.
by bounding the total population in | ↑iL | ↑iR and | ↓iL | ↓iR ), we can form a bound on the parity
oscillation contrast for unentangled two-particle states.
We will now write a general expression for the two-atom state after entangling exchange andthe detection ARP. The measured spin coherence time in the experiment is much less than the time
between when we prepare the initial spin-state after sideband-cooling and when we perform parity
detection (greater than 50 ms): therefore, any coherences between two-atom states of differing Sz
are zero. Including the effect of imperfect spin-preparation, the general density matrix in the basis| ↑iL | ↑iR , | ↑iL | ↓iR ,| ↓iL | ↑iR , and | ↓iL | ↓iR is,


0
0 
p↑,↑ 0





0 
 0 p↑,↓
.
ρ=


∗
 0

p↓,↑ 0 




0
0
0 p↓,↓(5.25)In the experiment, we can measure every quantity in this density matrix. The on-diagonals are
straight-forwardly measured via the push-out detection of the spin states after calibrating for singleparticle loss. The coherence  between | ↑iL | ↓iR and | ↓iL | ↑iR can be measured via the parity
detection as discussed in the prior Section 5.3.1: After applying the gradient and π/2-pulse, theparity is related to  by,Π = 2Re(ei(φ+δ·tgrad ) ).

(5.26)

169
This implies that the parity oscillation contrast C = 4. Using something very fancy sounding
called the “Peres-Horodecki” criterion [141, 142] that has to do with partial transposes and negative
eigenvalues (see Appendix C), it can be shown that ρ is not entangled when,2 < p↑,↑ p↓,↓ ,(5.27)

and, otherwise, this state ρ is entangled.19 Equivalently, for the oscillation contrast C of the parity,
the bound on separable states is,
C < 4(p↑,↑ p↓,↓ )1/2 ≡ Cbnd .

(5.28)

Experimentally then our goal is to measure a contrast C > Cbnd to certify entanglement. While thecriterion used to get here is somewhat opaque, the bound is very sensible based on the example I
gave above about separated particles each in a superposition. Simply put, if there is population
outside Sz = 0 that is equally divided between | ↑iL | ↑iR and | ↓iL | ↓iR , then it is possible
to measure parity as large as this population. Any parity measurement using this gradient plus
analysis pulse procedure that exceeds this population certifies entanglement; the expression aboveis further generalized to account for the case of p↑,↑ 6= p↓,↓ .
In the subsequent sections, we focus on the oscillation contrast of the parity as opposed tothe exact value of the parity, even though the latter can also certify entanglement as can be seenfrom Eq. 5.26 and Eq. 5.27. Both the loss and the ARP fidelity20 can contribute a small constantoffset to the parity, but these effects cannot contribute an oscillation signal in the parity.

5.3.3

Experimentally verifying entanglement

Applying the above procedure, we are able to verify that we produce non-local entanglement via the local spin-exchange. We prove the presence of entanglement using the procedureschematically represented in Figure 5.12, important features of which I will now discuss.
19

The extent to which this bound is violated is related to the concurrence. In particular, the quantity 21 |C −
1/2
4 p↑,↑ p↓,↓| > 0, is a lower bound on the concurrence in the density matrix ρ0 [80].
20
The ARPs can do this via the two-to-one collisions discussed in the context of the HOM studies.

170
5.3.3.1

Experimental procedure

After applying entangling exchange and performing the detection ARP (a-c), we have two
atoms in separate optical tweezers. The spacing of the atoms at this time is approximately ten
atomic wave-packets along the spatial y-direction. We then apply a magnetic field gradient via the
MOT coils, which creates a quadrupole field with symmetry axis along the z-direction, while we also
maintain our quantization axis along z. The goal of this quadrupole field is to create a differencein the total local magnetic field experienced by each atom, because this difference sets δ from theprevious section (shown in Figure 5.11). This arrangement of magnetic fields is actually bad forseveral reasons. Because the atoms are separated along the y direction, this is not an optimal
geometric configuration for maximizing the gradient experienced by the atoms since the gradient ismaximal along the z-direction. This configuration is made worse because our quantization axis isalong the z-direction, which has the effect of reducing the variation of the total quantization axis
along the y-direction. And, lastly, the variation in the local magnetic field experienced by each
atom, and hence δ, is coupled to the atoms exact position in the total field. We could improve
this last issue by changing our quantization to along y, but this is precisely the direction for which
effective magnetic fields from the optical tweezer become problematic (see Section 2.11.2). We
are therefore somewhat stuck with this setup. We do increase the sensitivity to the gradient by
reducing the size of the quantization axis from 3 G to 750 mG, which is sufficiently large to avoid
any issues associated with the effective magnetic fields in the 91 kHz trap. The gradient is applied
as follows: it is switched on, there is a 3 ms delay to allow for settling, a varied wait time, thegradient is switched off, and there is an additional 3 ms delay for field settling. This varied wait
time corresponds to tgrad , or equivalently what I will call the “gradient time”, from Eq. 5.21: ittunes the superposition phase of the entangled state.
After the second 3 ms delay for field settling, we apply a resonant microwave π/2-pulse. Thisso-called analysis pulse allows read-out of the two-particle spin-parity. The tweezer depths arethen ramped up to 23 MHz adiabatically, and swept apart to 1.6 µm. We then drop the traps

171
a)

f)

b)

c)

d)

e)

Readout

6.8 GHz,

Figure 5.12: Experimental protocol for verifying the two-particle entanglement. The read-out stageof panel (f) corresponds to the push-out spin-sensitive detection.

back down to 1.2 MHz, and apply resonant 2 − 30 push-out light to map spin-down or spin-up
onto the presence or absence of an atom in each trap, respectively.21

The tweezers are thenramped back up and their contents imaged. Because we cannot distinguish background loss froman atom that is spin-up, we separately calibrate this quantity by running the experiment without
the push-out 1000 times: in the subsequent discussion, the quoted values of the spin populations toascertain Cbnd are corrected for this loss, which is approximately 4%. Furthermore, because we careabout measuring all possible two-particle spin combinations for the parity measurements, there isnecessarily no post-selection applied to parity data. Lastly, I want to stress that the loss correction
to the spin-preparation in order to determine Cbnd is the only loss correction applied: the parity
measurements below are not corrected in any fashion.

5.3.3.2

Verifying entanglement

In Figure 5.13a, we show our primary measurement verifying entanglement. For these data,
we apply a gradient of 9.1 G/cm, and observe a 263(4) Hz oscillation in the parity. The contrastof the parity oscillations observed C = 0.49(4) (to which no corrections are applied) violates thebound on unentangled particles by 7.6σ (see Table 5.2). If instead we apply the fidelity criterion of
21

This mapping occurs in all of our spectroscopy, but since it is so relevant to the present procedure I was explicit.

172
Ref. [79] adapted to the entangled states we produce in the Sz = 0 sector, we achieve a fidelity of,
F = (p↑,↓ + p↓,↑ )/2 + C/4 = 0.580(12).

(5.29)

This fidelity also exceeds the bound of 0.5 sufficient to certify entanglement [79]; this bound is lesstight compared to the Peres-Horodecki criterion, and as a result less significantly violated (6.6σ).
The Pere-Horodecki criterion represents the tightest possible bound because it gives a necessary
and sufficient condition on the parity contrast of entangled states. The probabilities to prepare p↑,↑and p↓,↓ were measured by conducting the experiment up to the point prior to when we would ramp
for the tunneling, and measuring at high statistics (1000 runs of the experiment) the probabilities
to measure each of the particles in spin up or down; after the parity oscillation measurement, weredid this measurement to confirm that the light-shift beam did not drift and compromise the spinpreparation. In order to push down on Cbnd as much as possible, it was vital to use the Gaussian
shaped microwave pulses. These pulses greatly mitigated off-resonant excitation and hence p↓,↓ .
Using square-pulses in conjunction with our light shifting technique increased the bound to thepoint where the violation was closer to 1 − 3σ depending on the measurement: in fact, we originallyused this technique for the spin-exchange data, which is why the implied spin-preparation fidelity
in the Table 5.2 is better than what is discussed in Section 5.2.3.
We can perform helpful consistency checks on the parity oscillations by comparing them to theexchange data. We expect that half of the parity contrast (or, equivalently, the peak absolute valueof the parity) should correspond to the contrast of the spin-exchange oscillations from Section 5.2.2,
because the contrast of the exchange oscillations indicates the degree of coherence in the entangledstate. The non-spin-preparation-post-selected exchange data yielded a contrast of 0.24(2), and herewith the parity we measure a consistent C/2 = 0.25(2). We have observed fluctuations in the parity
contrast, which we attribute to phase drift in the exchange oscillations that compromise how well
we set the exchange time to be entangling. We have regularly observed these fluctuations in thephase, which we have identified as arising from the bias resonance position fluctuating: variations in
the resonance position change the time during the ARP where exchange effectively begins, thereby

z

173

z

y

Parity

(a)

y
x

0.4

(b)

0.2

Parity Freq. (Hz)

x

0.0
- 0.2
- 0.4

250
200
150
100

0

2

4
6
Gradient time (ms)

8

10

4

5
6
7
8
Transverse gradient (G/cm)

9

Figure 5.13: Entanglement verification data. (a) Applying the protocol outlined in the text andFigure 5.12, we observe the displayed parity oscillations. From the detected parity, we illustrate theimplied direction of the Bloch vector (for the coherent part of the density matrix) prior to applying
the π/2 analysis pulse. The horizontal lines and gray region correspond to the bounds on theparity below which the density matrix could be separable (see Table 5.2). The parity oscillations
we observe significantly exceed these bounds. (b) We show the frequency of the observed parity
oscillations as a function of the gradient applied. The x-axis indicates the size of the gradient alongz, which is the coil axis of symmetry but also transverse to the displacement of the optical tweezers.
The solid line corresponds to a fit from the magnetic field model discussed in the text, Eq. 5.30.

changing the appropriate times for realizing entanglement.
We also study the dependence of the parity oscillation frequency on the magnitude of thegradient, displayed in Figure 5.13b. This dependence confirms that δ is controlling the phaseevolution of the superposition. Despite the coupling of δ to the exact position of the opticaltweezers in the magnetic field formed by the quadrupole field and the quantizing field, we canmodel the expected dependence of δ on the size of the quadrupole gradient leaving the position of
the tweezers as a free parameter. The modeling is accomplished by the function,δ = δG + (2.1 MHz/G) (|BQP (~r) + BQA | − |BQP (~r + ∆y ŷ) + BQA |) ,(5.30)

where ∆y = 715 nm corresponds to the spacing of the atoms along the y-direction, ~r is the positionof the lower atom that we leave as a free parameter, BQA = 750 mG is the quantization axis pointing
along z, and BQP corresponds to the quadrupole magnetic field for the current we apply to the coils.
The first term δG is the residual spin-dependence of the potential from Section 5.2.3.2: since the174wells are biased during the parity measurement, and there is the measured spin-dependence alreadydiscussed, there is an effective-gradient from the tweezers. This implies that if we simply did not
apply a gradient, we would expect to observe parity oscillations at δG ; I only realized the importanceof this term in modeling the gradient, and the possibility of such a measurement, after we completed
these experiments. This would be a nice additional check. Lastly, because of the orientation of the
fields, the x position of the tweezers is not relevant for small displacements from zero (we know weare less than 2 mm from the center of the coils due to geometric constraints), so we set x = 0 in
fitting ~r = {0, y, z} to gain precision in y and z. Fitting the data to this model22 , we find niceagreement: the fit suggests y = 0.8(4) mm, z ∼ 0, and the δG /(2π) = 54(15) Hz. Based on the
microwave spectroscopy numbers mentioned above, the bias applied during the parity measurement(7(1) kHz), and the tweezer depth of 91(4) kHz, we expect a consistent δG /(2π) = 43(6) Hz.
Entanglement verification numbers
QuantityValuep↑,↑0.071(14)p↓,↓0.016(5)Cbnd
0.133(25)C
0.49(4)
Table 5.2: Here we list the experimental numbers that inform our claim of entanglement.

5.3.3.3

Dependence of measured parity on exchange dynamics

Lastly, we can examine the relationship between the parity measurement and the generationof entanglement from the exchange dynamics. The exchange dynamics periodically realize the twoentangled states (alternating each tent ),1|ψ+ i = √ (| ↑iL | ↓iR + i| ↓iL | ↑iR ) ,2(5.31)1|ψ− i = √ (| ↑iL | ↓iR − i| ↓iL | ↑iR ) .
2(5.32)

22
Note we use the current applied to the coils as an independent parameter when fitting, but I plot the x-axis of
the plot in terms of the gradient to which this current corresponds.

175
In the Bloch sphere picture of Figure 5.11a, these states point in opposite directions along they-axis. Consequently, the gradient time tgrad that rotates |ψ+ i to maximal positive parity, rotates|ψ− i to maximal negative parity. This means that if we fix tgrad to such a time, and vary theexchange dynamics prior the parity detection, we will observe the associated parity oscillations aseach of these states is created. We perform this exact experiment (Figure 5.14) by fixing tgrad at thetime of peak parity for the initial entangled state |ψ+ i, and then vary the exchange time prior to the
motional state mapping and full parity measurement.23

From the above discussion, one expects

that at the minima and maxima of the exchange oscillations (purple, green) the parity vanishes
since these are times at which the atoms are unentangled; at the linear points of the exchange
oscillations, one expects maximal entanglement and peaking of the parity. Quantitatively this ismanifest as a π/2 phase shift between the data sets: we observe a nearly consistent phase shift of
2.0(3) radians. This is additional evidence that the entangling exchange interaction is realizing thenon-zero parity, as opposed to some perverse separable density matrix.
There is an important point to be made regarding the near expected correspondence between these parity and exchange data shown here. The agreement suggests that the onsite spindependence (δω ) is likely not larger than we think, because if the spin-exchange dynamics were
off-resonant we would not expect the full-swap times (t = Nodd · π/Jex ) of the exchange to beunentangling (i.e. to show zero parity); in analogy to Rabi oscillations, when the coupling drive
is detuned the peaking of the oscillations corresponds to a superposition and not a full spin-flip.
There is a small +2.2(1.4)% offset in the parity oscillations, which could indicate the presence of
this effect; given the expected 5% reduction in the exchange contrast from δω , we would expect a+2.5% offset. Though not very precise, the measurement is consistent, at least suggesting that δω
is not significantly larger than other measurements from microwave spectroscopy indicate.

23

In other words, while for the data of Figure 5.13 we fix the parameters of panel (b) in Figure 5.12 and vary thegradient time of panel (d), here we fix the parameters of panel (d) and vary the exchange time parameter of panel(b).

Probability

176

0.6
0.4
0.2

Parity

0.2
0.0
-0.2

0

5

10
15
20
Exchange time (ms)25

Figure 5.14: Parity dependence on exchange dynamics. Here we vary the exchange time prior to
the parity detection. We set the gradient time such that the parity is peaked when we create the|ψ+ i via the exchange dynamics prior. We then vary the exchange time to observe its influenceon the measured parity. We can compare the parity to spin-exchange oscillation data, whichindicates near the expected π/2 phase shift in the oscillations. When the spin-exchange dynamics
are in a peak or a trough, corresponding to full exchange or no exchange, the resulting state isunentangled. Conversely, where the exchange dynamics are linear, the state is entangled and wesee maximizing/minimizing of the parity. The dashed orange (blue) line indicate an example time
where the entangling (unentangling) behavior is manifest in both data sets.

Chapter 6

Conclusion

Laser cooled atoms in optical tweezers offer a variety of novel experimental avenues, thepromise of which is supported by what we have already been able to do. The Hong-Ou-Mandelinterference of atoms had been an experimental goal in the community for some time, and ourexperimental platform provided the ideal toolset for its realization. The spin-exchange studies
exploit the full spectrum of capabilities enabled by the tweezer platform, which solves some of the
key challenges associated with particle transport when using spin-exchange. Combined with thenear-term improvements presently being applied to the experiment, a number of exciting projects
are on the horizon.
The first huge improvement recently implemented in the experiment is the incorporation ofdeterministic single atom loading. Given the ∼ 0.5n scaling of loading single atoms into n independent optical tweezers, the experiment quickly becomes time-consuming as the particle number isincreased. Using the techniques of Ref. [17], we are able to load a single 87 Rb atom into an opticaltweezer with 90% probability (see Figure 6.1). We applied the technique to the case of a two-by-two
array, and observed the same performance. However, the loading was strongly dependent on thespacing between the traps, indicating that at least a micron separation was necessary before theloading saturated on the 90% single-tweezer performance. While the spacing dependence limits
the number of traps to which we can apply this technique presently, this is a technical limitation
with respect to the rail optics and the success of the technique immediately increases the realistic
number of particles with which we can perform experiments. For example, we can now perform

(a)

(b)

(c)

178

4.2 μmFigure 6.1: Deterministic loading of a square array using blue-detuned light on the D1 line [17].
(a) We create a square array of optical tweezer via the AOMs in our optical rail. We apply bluedetuned loading in conjunction with relevant depumping beams during the MOT loading stage ofthe experiment. (b) We measure the single atom load probability as a function of the detuning of
the 795 nm light on the D1 line from the tweezer-light-shifted trap. The blue swath is the range
over which we find consistent optimal loading, and the green line is the location where the detuningequals the tweezer trap depth. (c) Parking the D1 laser in the blue swath, we vary the MOT loadtime and observe the single atom load fidelity. We observe saturation in the loading probability on
short time-scales. In (a,b), the blue triangles are the top-left tweezer; the red diamonds are the topright tweezer; orange squares are the bottom-left tweezer; the purple circles are the bottom-righttweezer. The black error bar is an example of the typical error bar in each measurement.

a four-particle experiment in the same time as a single-particle experiment in the absence of theenhanced loading, or an 8 particle experiment in the same time as the two particle experiments in
Chapters 4 and 5. With these improvements in mind, I will discuss small and large experiments
possible in the future.

6.1

Measurement-induced entanglement of atoms
While generally we think of interactions as a prerequisite for entanglement, this is actually

only true for non-identical particles. It is possible to generate probabilistic entanglement between
identical particles through a process known as measurement-induced entanglement [7]. The idea
here is as follows. Suppose we prepare two atoms in the state | ↑iL | ↓iR in a pair of tunnel-coupled
optical tweezers. From the discussions in Section 4.7.2 regarding distinguishable states, we knowthat this state is a superposition of the symmetric and anti-symmetric spatial wave-functions, eachpaired with the triplet and singlet spin-states, respectively. If we allow tunneling for tHOM , we expect a superposition of bosonic HOM interference and “fermionic” HOM interference, where in theformer the atoms always end up in the same tweezer while in the latter they always end up in differ-

179
ent tweezers. Because of the correspondence between each of these outcomes with the symmetrized
spin-states, we can probabilistically post-select on a particle-entangled state. If we measure at
the end of the experiment that the atoms are in different optical tweezers, the atoms are projected
onto the spin-singlet. This idea of measurement-induced probabilistic entanglement underlies linear
quantum computing protocols with photons [143, 112], because it allows non-interacting photons
to become entangled. Experimentally we could observe the measurement-induced entanglement
protocol described here through spin-sensitive imaging and the parity measurements we employ
in Chapter 5. This would be an interesting realization, and could pave the way for doing linear
quantum computing applications with neutral atoms.

6.2

Microscopic Kondo model
Understanding condensed-matter systems that do not conform to Fermi-liquid theory [144,145] is an on-going endeavor. Heavy fermion materials [27] are one such example, which exhibit
anomalously large specific heats as their temperature is reduced. While this behavior is inconsistent
with predictions of Fermi-liquid theory, Fermi-liquid theory is still applied to draw conclusions about
the mass of the quasi-particles in the system. A key prediction of Fermi-liquid theory is that themass of the quasi-particles is proportional to the specific heat of the sample, which implies thatthe large enhancement in the specific heat is associated with a 1000-fold (in some cases) increasein the quasi-particle mass. The Kondo model is a simple paradigm that is used to explain thephysics exhibited in heavy fermion materials. The model includes two bands, one of which contains
effectively localized particles while the other contains mobile particles; these two bands could, forexample, correspond to the ground and excited band of an optical lattice, since the associatedtunnelings differ drastically. A key prediction of the Kondo model is that as the interactions
between the localized and mobile particles is turned up, there is a phase transition between amaterial with magnetic properties to one with reduced tunneling of the mobile particles, the latterof which is equivalent to mass enhancement [146, 147]. Loosely speaking, these phases can be
described as follows. In the weak interactions phase, the atoms in the mobile band can tunnel from180site to site resonantly, and they experience an onsite spin-exchange interaction (identical to theone in Chapter 5) with the localized atoms. To second-order, the tunneling atoms then mediate amagnetic interaction between the localized spins known as the RKKY interaction, which, in turn,induces magnetic properties. When the interactions are large compared to the tunneling energy
in the mobile band, the symmetry of the many-body spatial wavefunctions, which is coupled to
the localized spins, determines the interaction energy: this has the effect of slowing down the rate
at which the atoms can tunnel due to the interaction shifts, which consequently mimics heavymass behavior. These key behaviors are readily realizable at the microscopic level in a double
well consisting of a tunneling single atom in the excited motional state, and a localized spin ineach ground-state of the double-well. Spin-exchange dynamics between the ground spins could
reveal the RKKY interaction, while particle tunneling at half the excited band tunneling ratewould show the heavy-mass behavior in this system. Applying the techniques developed in theprevious chapters, the preparation and detection of these dynamics is accessible. Furthermore, theability to prepare a single atom in the motional excited state, which is more challenging in a lattice
setup, circumvents collisional instabilities associated with higher bands that might mitigate theexperimental signal [148].

6.3

Observing superfluid behavior in a system of known particle number
When we think about lasers from a quantum optics perspective, we generally think of thecomplete uncertainty in the photon number as supplying certainty in the phase. Bose-Einsteincondensates retain significant parallels with lasers [121], and, given their large particle number,they too are often considered in the contexts of coherent states. However, the particle number isof course completely conserved, so understanding the actual equivalence between BECs and lasers
is of particular interest. Specifically, it would be interesting to measure a macroscopic phase when
the particle number is constrained [149]. Our experiment provides the exact tool to perform suchstudies, because we always know the particle number prior to performing an experiment. One
could imagine preparing two 1D chains of single atoms in optical tweezers, ground-state cooling181
each atom, and then ramping on a tunneling within the chains. This should be equivalent to asmall superfluid-Mott transition, starting from the Mott side. We could study the character of the
many-body state by looking at the number statistics on each site, which should exhibit a coherentstate-like dependence in the number distribution when on the superfluid side of the transition. If
each 1D “superfluid” has a phase, by allowing tunneling between the 1D chains we should be able
to discern an interference signal written in the density distribution of the particles.

6.4

Measuring entanglement entropy and thermalization in finite-sized systems
While the atomic Hong-Ou-Mandel effect is interesting in its own right, it also shows thepromise of scaling to larger system sizes. What are the kinds of things one could explore with sucha system? After all, when we think about traditional many-body physics, often we are consideringsystems in the thermodynamic limit with 1023 particles, and here limitations on single-particle
preparation fidelities will always be a challenge as the atom number is increased. Yet, a key featureof quantum mechanics, both interesting and theoretically challenging, is the way the Hilbert space ofa quantum system scales with the number of degrees of freedom. As we add more particles, each with
its own quantum degrees of freedoms, the Hilbert space grows exponentially. And because many of
the features of many-body physics depend on this Hilbert space size, even upon reaching a handfulof atoms interesting things can happen. For example, a recent theoretical prediction constrained
how the entanglement in a quantum system scales with the system size under various experimental
conditions. For deep reasons, something as complicated as entanglement in a one-dimensional
Bose-Hubbard chain can be reduced to a logarithmic [150] or linear scaling [151] depending on
the Hamiltonian parameters and quantum states explored. Untested experimentally, these socalled “area laws” or “volume laws” arise theoretically in the limit of infinite particles, but evenfor a handful particles, they are evidenced in numerics (Figure 6.2c). From this example, we
see that a finite-sized system can probe the many-body physics sought in quantum simulation
experiments [152], and, in particular, as the particle number surpasses fifty and dimensionality

(a)

5
4
S2

JHOM

3
2

ng

Si

1

le
to

0

y

an
m
(b)

2

A

4

6
Lattice size

8

10

B

JBHM

1

JHOM

2

t = π/4JHOM

182

6

(c)

Figure 6.2: Hong-Ou-Mandel to many-particle interference. (a) Realization of the HOM effectwith two atoms in a double well. By preparing indistinguishable bosons and interfering them in a
1tunnel-coupled double well, the mode-entangled state of √ (|2, 0i + |0, 2i) is created after allowing
2
tunneling. (b) Extension to many particles for a pair of copies (1 and 2) of a Bose-Hubbard chain.
After applying tunneling between the copies, the odd or even particle number within the copies
encodes the many-body purity of the quantum states as well as the mode entanglement contained.
(c) Using the setup in (b), comparison of the bipartite entanglement entropy S2 as a function
system size for a quench (green) versus the ground-state (black) in an interacting Bose-Hubbard
chain near the phase transition. The dashed lines are a linear (logarithmic) fit for quenched (groundstate) calculations, indicating the presence of “volume” and “area” law-like physics in finite-sized
systems.

grows the comparative computational challenges become immense. And, for the example at hand,additional proposals have indicated just how one might directly measure spatial-entanglement [153],
and the protocol is precisely the many-body extension of the Hong-Ou-Mandel interference weobserve with two bosonic atoms (Figure 6.2a,b).
In addition to the entanglement entropy scaling experiments already proposed, studying how
closed many-body systems locally thermalize is a near-term possibility. The dynamics of the entanglement entropy after a quench of the Hamiltonian exhibits steady-state-like saturation, eventhough the entire many-body system is in a pure state. The linear/volume law scaling that I calculated in Figure 6.2c was of this near steady-state value. This saturation of the dynamics is related to

183
the question of thermalization in closed many-body systems: how does a closed pure system evolve
to one which locally has a thermal distribution as prescribed by statistical mechanics [154, 155]?
The steady-state behavior is akin to equilibration of the many-body system [154], where one canthink of sub-sets of the Hubbard chain as thermalizing with the larger many-body system, which
is itself closed. Key experimental work so far has shown how density ordering evolves under aquench [156], yet microscopic characterization of the many-body states to which the system converges remains experimentally unexplored. By detecting this saturation, and then studying local
quantities like the particle number on a site, it may be possible to observe a correspondence between
the quench distance (loosely speaking, the magnitude of the diabatic change in the Hamiltonian)and the local temperature on the site. An experiment that demonstrates a clear correspondence
between the equilibrated, pure many-body state and the thermal behavior of its constituents would
be ground-breaking.

Bibliography[1] C. K. Hong, Z. Y. Ou, and L. Mandel, “Measurement of subpicosecond time intervals between
two photons by interference,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2044 (1987), URL http://link.aps.org/
doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.2044.
[2] C. Weitenberg, M. Endres, J. F. Sherson, M. Cheneau, P. Schauß, T. Fukuhara, I. Bloch, andS. Kuhr, “Single-spin Addressing in an Atomic Mott Insulator,” Nature 471, 319 (2011).
[3] N. Schlosser, G. Reymond, I. Protsenko, and P. Grangier, “Sub-poissonian Loading of Single
Atoms in a Microscopic Dipole Trap,” Nature 411, 1024 (2001).
[4] D. Steck, “Rubidium 87 D Line Data,” .
[5] N. Schlosser, G. Reymond, and P. Grangier, “Collisional Blockade in Microscopic Optical
Dipole Traps,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 023005 (2002).
[6] J. D. Thompson, T. G. Tiecke, A. S. Zibrov, V. Vuletić, and M. D. Lukin, “Coherence andRaman Sideband Cooling of a Single Atom in an Optical Tweezer,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110,133001 (2013), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.133001.
[7] M. C. Tichy, F. Mintert, and A. Buchleitner, “Essential entanglement for atomic and molecular physics,” Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 44, 192001 (2011),
URL http://stacks.iop.org/0953-4075/44/i=19/a=192001.
[8] B. Hessmo, P. Usachev, H. Heydari, and G. Björk, “Experimental Demonstration of Single
Photon Nonlocality,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 180401 (2004), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/
10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.180401.
[9] S. Ashhab, K. Maruyama, and F. Nori, “Observing quantum nonlocality in the entanglement
between modes of massive particles,” Phys. Rev. A 75, 022108 (2007), URL http://link.
aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.75.022108.
[10] L. Heaney, S.-W. Lee, and D. Jaksch, “Bell inequality for pairs of particle-numbersuperselection-rule restricted states,” Phys. Rev. A 82, 042116 (2010), URL http://link.
aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.82.042116.
[11] W. S. Bakr, J. I. Gillen, A. Peng, S. Fölling, and M. Greiner, “A Quantum Gas Microscopefor Detecting Single Atoms in a Hubbard-regime Optical Lattice,” Nature 462, 74 (2009).

185[12] P. Sompet, A. V. Carpentier, Y. H. Fung, M. McGovern, and M. F. Andersen, “Dynamics
of two atoms undergoing light-assisted collisions in an optical microtrap,” Phys. Rev. A 88,
051401 (2013), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.88.051401.
[13] J. R. Petta, A. C. Johnson, J. M. Taylor, E. A. Laird, A. Yacoby, M. D. Lukin, C. M.
Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, “Coherent Manipulation of Coupled Electron Spins in Semiconductor Quantum Dots,” Science 309, 2180 (2005), http://www.
sciencemag.org/content/309/5744/2180.full.pdf, URL http://www.sciencemag.org/
content/309/5744/2180.abstract.
[14] D. P. DiVincenzo, D. Bacon, J. Kempe, G. Burkard, and K. B. Whaley, “Universal quantum
computation with the exchange interaction,” Nature 408, 339 (2000), URL http://dx.doi.
org/10.1038/35042541.
[15] S. Trotzky, P. Cheinet, S. Fölling, M. Feld, U. Schnorrberger, A. M. Rey, A. Polkovnikov, E. A.
Demler, M. D. Lukin, and I. Bloch, “Time-resolved Observation and Control of SuperexchangeInteractions with Ultracold Atoms in Optical Lattices,” Science 319, 295 (2008).
[16] M. Anderlini, P. J. Lee, B. L. Brown, J. Sebby-Strabley, W. D. Phillips, and J. V. Porto,“Controlled Exchange Interaction Between Pairs of Neutral Atoms in an Optical Lattice,”
Nature 448, 452 (2007).
[17] T. Grunzweig, A. Hilliard, M. McGovern, and M. F. Andersen, “Near-deterministic Preparation of a Single Atom in an Optical Microtrap,” Nat. Phys. 6, 951 (2010).
[18] P. Kapitza, “Viscosity of Liquid Helium below the λ-point,” Nature 141, 74 (1938).
[19] J. F. Allen and D. Misener, “Flow Phenomena in Liquid Helium II,” Nature 142, 643 (1938).
[20] J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer, “Theory of Superconductivity,” Phys. Rev.
108, 1175 (1957), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.108.1175.
[21] B. T. Matthias, T. H. Geballe, and V. B. Compton, “Superconductivity,” Rev. Mod. Phys.
35, 1 (1963), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.35.1.
[22] K. v. Klitzing, G. Dorda, and M. Pepper, “New Method for High-Accuracy Determination of
the Fine-Structure Constant Based on Quantized Hall Resistance,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 494(1980).
[23] D. Thouless, M. Kohmoto, M. Nightingale, and M. D. Nijs, “Quantized Hall Conductance ina Two-Dimensional Periodic Potential,” Physical review letters 49, 405 (1982).
[24] B. Halperin, “The quantized Hall effect,” Scientific American 254, 52 (1986).
[25] M. Z. Hasan and C. Kane, “Topological insulators,” arxiv.org/pdf/1002.3895v2 (2010), URL
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1002.3895v2.
[26] D. C. Tsui, H. L. Stormer, and A. C. Gossard, “Two-Dimensional Magnetotransport in the
Extreme Quantum Limit,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1559 (1982), URL http://link.aps.org/
doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.48.1559.
[27] G. R. Stewart, “Heavy-fermion systems,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 56, 755 (1984), URL http://
link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.56.755.

186[28] R. B. Laughlin, “Anomalous Quantum Hall Effect: An Incompressible Quantum Fluid with
Fractionally Charged Excitations,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1395 (1983), URL http://link.
aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.50.1395.
[29] M. H. Anderson, J. R. Ensher, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell,“Observation of Bose-Einstein Condensation in a Dilute Atomic Vapor,” Science 269,
198 (1995), http://www.sciencemag.org/content/269/5221/198.full.pdf, URL http://www.sciencemag.org/content/269/5221/198.abstract.
[30] B. DeMarco and D. S. Jin, “Onset of Fermi Degeneracy in a Trapped Atomic Gas,” Science
285, 1703 (1999), http://www.sciencemag.org/content/285/5434/1703.full.pdf, URL
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/285/5434/1703.abstract.
[31] S. Inouye, M. R. Andrews, J. Stenger, H. J. Miesner, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, and W. Ketterle,“Observation of Feshbach resonances in a Bose-Einstein condensate,” Nature 392, 151 (1998),
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/32354.
[32] M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. Esslinger, T. W. Hansch, and I. Bloch, “Quantum phase transition
from a superfluid to a Mott insulator in a gas of ultracold atoms,” Nature 415, 39 (2002),
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/415039a.
[33] C. A. Regal, M. Greiner, and D. S. Jin, “Observation of Resonance Condensation of Fermionic
Atom Pairs,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 040403 (2004), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.
1103/PhysRevLett.92.040403.
[34] K. M. Lang, V. Madhavan, J. E. Hoffman, E. W. Hudson, H. Eisaki, S. Uchida, andJ. C. Davis, “Imaging the granular structure of high-Tc superconductivity in underdoped
Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+[delta],” Nature 415, 412 (2002), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
415412a.
[35] J. T. Stewart, J. P. Gaebler, and D. S. Jin, “Using photoemission spectroscopy to probea strongly interacting Fermi gas,” Nature 454, 744 (2008), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.
1038/nature07172.
[36] W. S. Bakr, A. Peng, M. E. Tai, R. Ma, J. Simon, J. I. Gillen, S. Flling, L. Pollet, and
M. Greiner, “Probing the Superfluid-to-Mott Insulator Transition at the Single-Atom Level,”
Science 329, 547 (2010), http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5991/547.full.pdf,
URL http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5991/547.abstract.
[37] J. F. Sherson, C. Weitenberg, M. Endres, M. Cheneau, I. Bloch, and S. Kuhr, “Single-atomresolved fluorescence imaging of an atomic Mott insulator,” Nature 467, 68 (2010), URL
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature09378.
[38] J. Simon, W. S. Bakr, R. Ma, M. E. Tai, P. M. Preiss, and M. Greiner, “Quantum simulationof antiferromagnetic spin chains in an optical lattice,” Nature 472, 307 (2011), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature09994.
[39] P. M. Preiss, R. Ma, M. E. Tai, A. Lukin, M. Rispoli, P. Zupancic, Y. Lahini, R. Islam, and M. Greiner, “Strongly correlated quantum walks in optical lattices,” Science
347, 1229 (2015), http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6227/1229.full.pdf, URL
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6227/1229.abstract.

187[40] M. Cheneau, P. Barmettler, D. Poletti, M. Endres, P. Schausz, T. Fukuhara, C. Gross,
I. Bloch, C. Kollath, and S. Kuhr, “Light-cone-like spreading of correlations in a quantum many-body system,” Nature 481, 484 (2012), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
nature10748.
[41] T. Fukuhara, P. Schausz, M. Endres, S. Hild, M. Cheneau, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, “Microscopic observation of magnon bound states and their dynamics,” Nature 502, 76 (2013), URL
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12541.
[42] T. Fukuhara, A. Kantian, M. Endres, M. Cheneau, P. Schausz, S. Hild, D. Bellem, U. Schollwock, T. Giamarchi, C. Gross, I. Bloch, and S. Kuhr, “Quantum dynamics of a mobile spin
impurity,” Nat Phys 9, 235 (2013), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys2561.
[43] D. Greif, T. Uehlinger, G. Jotzu, L. Tarruell, and T. Esslinger, “Short-Range Quantum
Magnetism of Ultracold Fermions in an Optical Lattice,” Science 340, 1307 (2013), http://
www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6138/1307.full.pdf, URL http://www.sciencemag.
org/content/340/6138/1307.abstract.
[44] R. A. Hart, P. M. Duarte, T.-L. Yang, X. Liu, T. Paiva, E. Khatami, R. T. Scalettar,
N. Trivedi, D. A. Huse, and R. G. Hulet, “Observation of antiferromagnetic correlations in
the Hubbard model with ultracold atoms,” Nature 519, 211 (2015), URL http://dx.doi.
org/10.1038/nature14223.
[45] D. Leibfried, B. DeMarco, V. Meyer, D. Lucas, M. Barrett, J. Britton, W. M. Itano, B. Jelenkovic, C. Langer, T. Rosenband, and D. J. Wineland, “Experimental demonstration ofa robust, high-fidelity geometric two ion-qubit phase gate,” Nature 422, 412 (2003), URL
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature01492.
[46] J. P. Home, D. Hanneke, J. D. Jost, J. M. Amini, D. Leibfried, and D. J. Wineland, “Complete
methods set for scalable ion trap quantum information processing,” Science 325, 1227 (2009).
[47] M. A. Rowe, D. Kielpinski, V. Meyer, C. A. Sackett, W. M. Itano, C. Monroe, and D. J.
Wineland, “Experimental violation of a Bell’s inequality with efficient detection,” Nature
409, 791 (2001), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35057215.
[48] K. Kim, M. S. Chang, S. Korenblit, R. Islam, E. E. Edwards, J. K. Freericks, G. D. Lin,L. M. Duan, and C. Monroe, “Quantum simulation of frustrated Ising spins with trapped
ions,” Nature 465, 590 (2010), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature09071.
[49] J. W. Britton, B. C. Sawyer, A. C. Keith, C. C. J. Wang, J. K. Freericks, H. Uys, M. J.
Biercuk, and J. J. Bollinger, “Engineered two-dimensional Ising interactions in a trapped-ion
quantum simulator with hundreds of spins,” Nature 484, 489 (2012), URL http://dx.doi.
org/10.1038/nature10981.
[50] C. Monroe, D. M. Meekhof, B. E. King, S. R. Jefferts, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and
P. Gould, “Resolved-Sideband Raman Cooling of a Bound Atom to the 3D Zero-Point Energy,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4011 (1995).
[51] S. E. Hamann, D. L. Haycock, G. Klose, P. H. Pax, I. H. Deutsch, and P. S. Jessen, “ResolvedSideband Raman Cooling to the Ground State of an Optical Lattice,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 80,
4149 (1997).

188[52] H. Perrin, A. Kuhn, I. Bouchoule, and C. Salomon, “Sideband Cooling of Neutral atoms in a
Far-detuned Optical lLttice,” Europhys. Lett. 42, 395 (1998).
[53] V. Vuletic, C. Chin, A. J. Kerman, and S. Chu, “Degenerate Raman Sideband Cooling ofTrapped Cesium Atoms at Very High Atomic Densities,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5768 (1998).
[54] D.-J. Han, S. Wolf, S. Oliver, C. McCormick, M. T. DePue, and D. S. Weiss, “3D Raman
Sideband Cooling of Cesium Atoms at High Density,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 724 (2000).
[55] S. Stellmer, B. Pasquiou, R. Grimm, and F. Schreck, “Laser Cooling to Quantum Degeneracy,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 263003 (2013), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/
PhysRevLett.110.263003.
[56] A. J. Kerman, Raman sideband cooling and cold atomic collisions in optical lattices, Ph.D.
thesis, Stanford University (2002).
[57] S. Wolf, S. J. Oliver, and D. S. Weiss, “Suppression of Recoil Heating by an Optical Lattice,”
Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4249 (2000), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.
85.4249.
[58] P. Maunz, T. Puppe, I. Schuster, N. Syassen, P. W. H. Pinkse, and G. Rempe, “Cavity
Cooling of a Single Atom,” Nature 428, 50 (2004).
[59] A. D. Boozer, A. Boca, R. Miller, T. E. Northup, and H. J. Kimble, “Cooling to the Ground
State of Axial Motion for One Atom Strongly Coupled to an Optical Cavity,” Phys. Rev.
Lett. 97, 083602 (2006).
[60] L. Forster, M. Karski, J.-M. Choi, A. Steffen, W. Alt, D. Meschede, and A. Widera, “Microwave Control of Atomic Motion in Optical Lattices,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 233001 (2009).
[61] X. Li, T. A. Corcovilos, Y. Wang, and D. S. Weiss, “3D Projection Sideband Cooling,” Phys.
Rev. Lett. 108, 103001 (2012).
[62] D. S. Weiss, J. Vala, A. V. Thapliyal, S. Myrgren, U. Vazirani, and K. B. Whaley, “Another
Way to Approach Zero Entropy for a Finite System of Atoms,” Phys. Rev. A 70, 040302(R)(2004).
[63] B. Darque, M. P. A. Jones, J. Dingjan, J. Beugnon, S. Bergamini, Y. Sortais, G. Messin,
A. Browaeys, and P. Grangier, “Controlled Single-Photon Emission from a Single Trapped
Two-Level Atoms,” Science 309, 454 (2005).
[64] M. K. Tey, Z. Chen, S. Abdullah-Aljunid, B. Chng, F. Huber, G. Maslennikov, and C. Kurtsiefer, “Strong Interaction Between Light and a Single Trapped Atom Without the Need fora Cavity,” Nature Phys. 4, 924 (2008).
[65] X. L. Zhang, L. Isenhower, A. T. Gill, T. G. Walker, and M. Saffman, “Deterministic Entanglement of Two Neutral Atoms via Rydberg Blockade,” Phys. Rev. A 82, 030306(R) (2010).
[66] T. Wilk, A. Gaetan, C. Evellin, J. Wolters, Y. Miroshnychenko, P. Grangier, and A. Browaeys,“Entanglement of Two Individual Neutral Atoms Using Rydberg Blockade,” Phys. Rev. Lett.
104, 101502 (2010).

189[67] J. D. Thompson, T. G. Tiecke, N. P. de Leon, J. Feist, A. V. Akimov, M. Gullans, A. S.
Zibrov, V. Vuletic, and M. D. Lukin, “Coupling a Single Trapped Atom to a Nanoscale
Optical Cavity,” Science 340, 1202 (2013).
[68] T. G. Tiecke, J. D. Thompson, N. P. de Leon, L. R. Liu, V. Vuletic, and M. D. Lukin,“Nanophotonic quantum phase switch with a single atom,” Nature 508, 241 (2014), URL
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature13188.
[69] F. Serwane, G. Zurn, T. Lompe, T. Ottenstein, A. N. Wenz, and S. Jochim, “Deterministic
Preparation of a Tunable Few-Fermion System,” Science 332, 336 (2011).
[70] B. Zimmermann, T. Müller, J. Meineke, T. Esslinger, and H. Moritz, “High-resolution Imaging of Ultracold Fermions in Microscopically Tailored Optical Potentials,” New Journal of
Physics 13, 043007 (2011).
[71] S. Murmann, A. Bergschneider, V. M. Klinkhamer, G. Zürn, T. Lompe, and S. Jochim,“Two Fermions in a Double Well: Exploring a Fundamental Building Block of the Hubbard
Model,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 080402 (2015), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/
PhysRevLett.114.080402.
[72] K.-K. Ni, S. Ospelkaus, M. H. G. de Miranda, A. Pe’er, B. Neyenhuis, J. J. Zirbel, S. Kotochigova, P. S. Julienne, D. S. Jin, and J. Ye, “A High Phase-space-density Gas of Polar
Molecules,” Science 322, 231 (2008).
[73] J. Beugnon, M. P. A. Jones, J. Dingjan, B. Darquié, G. Messin, A. Browaeys, and P. Grangier,“Quantum interference between two single photons emitted by independently trapped atoms,”
Nature 440, 779 (2006), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature04628.
[74] R. Lopes, A. Imanaliev, A. Aspect, M. Cheneau, D. Boiron, and C. I. Westbrook, “Atomic
Hong-Ou-Mandel experiment,” Nature 520, 66 (2015), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
nature14331.
[75] P. Richerme, Z.-X. Gong, A. Lee, C. Senko, J. Smith, M. Foss-Feig, S. Michalakis, A. V.
Gorshkov, and C. Monroe, “Non-local propagation of correlations in quantum systems
with long-range interactions,” Nature 511, 198 (2014), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
nature13450.
[76] L. Isenhower, E. Urban, X. Zhang, A. Gill, T. Henage, T. Johnson, T. Walker, and
M. Saffman, “Demonstration of a Neutral Atom Controlled-NOT Quantum Gate,” Phys.
Rev. Lett. 104, 010503 (2010), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.
104.010503.
[77] R. Blakestad, C. Ospelkaus, A. VanDevender, J. Amini, J. Britton, D. Leibfried, and
D. Wineland, “High-Fidelity Transport of Trapped-Ion Qubits through an X-Junction Trap
Array,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 153002 (2009), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/
PhysRevLett.102.153002.
[78] L. Béguin, A. Vernier, R. Chicireanu, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, “Direct Measurement of
the van der Waals Interaction between Two Rydberg Atoms,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 263201(2013), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.263201.

190[79] C. A. Sackett, D. Kielpinski, B. E. King, C. Langer, V. Meyer, C. J. Myatt, M. Rowe, Q. A.
Turchette, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and C. Monroe, “Experimental entanglement offour particles,” Nature 404, 256 (2000), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35005011.
[80] L. Mazza, D. Rossini, R. Fazio, and M. Endres, “Detecting two-site spin-entanglement inmany-body systems with local particle-number fluctuations,” New Journal of Physics 17,
013015 (2015), URL http://stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/17/i=1/a=013015.
[81] T. Fukuhara, S. Hild, J. Zeiher, P. Schauss, I. Bloch, M. Endres, and C. Gross, “Spatiallyresolved detection of a spin-entanglement wave in a Bose-Hubbard chain,” arXiv:1504.02582(2015).
[82] S. Papp, Experiments with a two-species Bose-Einstein condensate utilizing widely
tunable interparticle interactions, Ph.D. thesis, University of Colorado at Boulder (2001).
[83] Y. R. P. Sortais, H. Marion, C. Tuchendler, A. M. Lance, M. Lamare, P. Fournet, C. Armellin,
R. Mercier, G. Messin, A. Browaeys, and P. Grangier, “Diffraction-limited Optics for Singleatom Manipulation,” Phys. Rev. A 75, 013406 (2007).
[84] C.-Y. Shih and M. S. Chapman, “Nondestructive light-shift measurements of single atoms
in optical dipole traps,” Phys. Rev. A 87, 063408 (2013), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/
10.1103/PhysRevA.87.063408.
[85] F. Le Kien, P. Schneeweiss, and A. Rauschenbeutel, “Dynamical polarizability of atoms in arbitrary light fields: general theory and application to cesium,” The European Physical Journal
D 67, 92 (2013), ISSN 1434-6060, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjd/e2013-30729-x.
[86] T. G. Walker and M. Saffron, “Entanglement of Two Atoms Using Rydberg Blockade,”
arXiv:1202.5328 (2012).
[87] B. Richards and E. Wolf, “Electromagnetic Diffraction in Optical Systems. II. Structure of
the Image Field in an Aplanatic System,” Proc. R. Soc. A 253, 358 (1959).
[88] S. Blatt, J. W. Thomsen, G. K. Campbell, A. D. Ludlow, M. D. Swallows, M. J. Martin, M. M.
Boyd, and J. Ye, “Rabi Spectroscopy and Excitation Inhomogeneity in a One-dimensional
Optical Lattice Clock,” Phys. Rev. A 80, 052703 (2009).
[89] A. M. Kaufman, B. J. Lester, and C. A. Regal, “Cooling a Single Atom in an Optical Tweezer
to Its Quantum Ground State,” Phys. Rev. X 2, 041014 (2012), URL http://link.aps.org/
doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.2.041014.
[90] D. Leibfried, R. Blatt, C. Monroe, and D. Wineland, “Quantum Dynamics of Single Trapped
Ions,” Rev. Modern Phys. 75, 281 (2003).
[91] D. M. Meekhof, C. Monroe, B. E. King, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, “Generation of
Nonclassical Motional States of a Trapped Atom,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 1796 (1996).
[92] I. Dotsenko, Raman spectroscopy of single atoms, Ph.D. thesis, University of Bonn, Germany(2002).
[93] D. Wineland, M. Barret, J. Britton, J. Chiaverini, B. DeMarco, W. M. Itano, B. Jelenkovic,
C. Langer, D. Leibfried, V. Meyer, T. Rosenband, and T. Schatz, “Quantum information
processing with trapped ions,” arXiv:quant-ph/0212079 (2003).

191[94] D. M. Meekhof, C. Monroe, B. E. King, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, “Generation of
Nonclassical Motional States of a Trapped Atom,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 1796 (1996).
[95] Private communication Michael Foss-Feig.
[96] Q. A. Turchette, Kielpinski, B. E. King, D. Leibfried, D. M. Meekhof, C. J. Myatt, M. A.
Rowe, C. A. Sackett, C. S. Wood, W. M. Itano, C. Monroe, and D. J. Wineland, “Heatingof trapped ions from the quantum ground state,” Phys. Rev. A 61, 063418 (2000), URL
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.61.063418.
[97] C. Tuchendler, A. M. Lance, A. Browaeys, Y. R. P. Sortais, and P. Grangier, “Energy Distribution and Cooling of a Single Atom in an Optical Tweezer,” Phys. Rev. A 78, 033425(2008).
[98] L. Foroster, Microwave control of atomic motion in a spin dependent optical lattice, Ph.D.
thesis, University of Bonn, Germany (2010).
[99] A. M. Kaufman, B. J. Lester, C. M. Reynolds, M. L. Wall, M. Foss-Feig, K. R. A. Hazzard,
A. M. Rey, and C. A. Regal, “Two-particle quantum interference in tunnel-coupled opticaltweezers,” Science 345, 306 (2014), http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6194/306.
full.pdf, URL http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6194/306.abstract.
[100] R. J. Glauber, “The Quantum Theory of Optical Coherence,” Phys. Rev. 130, 2529 (1963).
[101] R. Hanbury Brown and R. Q. Twiss, “Correlation between Photons in two Coherent Beams
of Light,” Nature 177, 27 (1956), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/177027a0.
[102] C. Lang, C. Eichler, L. Steffen, J. M. Fink, M. J. Woolley, A. Blais, and A. Wallraff, “Correlations, indistinguishability and entanglement in Hong-Ou-Mandel experiments at microwave
frequencies,” Nat. Phys. 9, 345 (2013), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys2612.
[103] E. Bocquillon, V. Freulon, J.-M. Berroir, P. Degiovanni, B. Plaçais, A. Cavanna, Y. Jin,
and G. Fève, “Coherence and Indistinguishability of Single Electrons Emitted by Independent Sources,” Science 339, 1054 (2013), http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/
1054.full.pdf, URL http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1054.abstract.
[104] A. Steffen, A. Alberti, W. Alt, N. Belmechri, S. Hild, M. Karski, A. Widera, and D. Meschede,“Digital atom interferometer with single particle control on a discretized space-time geometry,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 9770 (2012), http://www.
pnas.org/content/109/25/9770.full.pdf+html, URL http://www.pnas.org/content/
109/25/9770.abstract.
[105] M. Yasuda and F. Shimizu, “Observation of Two-Atom Correlation of an Ultracold Neon
Atomic Beam,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3090 (1996).
[106] S. Fölling, F. Gerbier, A. Widera, O. Mandel, T. Gericke, and I. Bloch, “Spatial quantum
noise interferometry in expanding ultracold atom clouds,” Nature 434, 481 (2005), URL
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature03500.
[107] M. Schellekens, R. Hoppeler, A. Perrin, J. V. Gomes, D. Boiron, A. Aspect, and C. I. Westbrook, “Hanbury Brown Twiss effect for ultracold quantum gases,” Science 310, 648 (2005).

192[108] A. Ottl, S. Ritter, M. Kohl, and T. Esslinger, “Correlations and Counting Statistics of an
Atom Laser,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 090404 (2005).
[109] T. Rom, T. Best, D. van Oosten, U. Schneider, S. Folling, B. Paredes, and I. Bloch, “Freefermion antibunching in a degenerate atomic Fermi gas released from an optical lattice,”
Nature 444, 733 (2006).
[110] T. Jeltes, J. M. McNamara, W. Hogervorst, W. Vassen, V. Krachmalnicoff, M. Schellekens,
A. Perrin, H. Chang, D. Boiron, A. Aspect, and C. I. Westbrook, “Comparison of the Hanbury
Brown–Twiss effect for bosons and fermions,” Nature 445, 402 (2007).
[111] S. S. Hodgman, R. G. Dall, A. G. Manning, K. G. H. Baldwin, and A. G. Truscott, “Direct
measurement of long-range third-order coherence in Bose–Einstein condensates,” Science 331,
1046 (2011).
[112] P. Kok, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, T. C. Ralph, J. P. Dowling, and G. J. Milburn, “Linear
optical quantum computing with photonic qubits,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 135 (2007), URL
http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.79.135.
[113] V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, “Quantum-Enhanced Measurements:
Beating the Standard Quantum Limit,” Science 306, 1330 (2004), http://www.
sciencemag.org/content/306/5700/1330.full.pdf, URL http://www.sciencemag.org/
content/306/5700/1330.abstract.
[114] E. Vetsch, D. Reitz, G. Sagué, R. Schmidt, S. T. Dawkins, and A. Rauschenbeutel, “Optical
Interface Created by Laser-Cooled Atoms Trapped in the Evanescent Field Surrounding an
Optical Nanofiber,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 203603 (2010).
[115] G. Ghirardi and L. Marinatto, “General criterion for the entanglement of two indistinguishable particles,” Phys. Rev. A 70, 012109 (2004), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/
PhysRevA.70.012109.
[116] J. I. Cirac, “Entanglement in many-body quantum systems,” arXiv:1205.3742v1 (2012).
[117] M. C. Tichy, Entanglement and interference of identical particles, Ph.D. thesis, Physikalisches Institut (2011).
[118] R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, “Quantum entanglement,” Rev.
Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.81.865.
[119] R. Horodecki and M. Horodecki, “Information-theoretic aspects of inseparability of
mixed states,” Phys. Rev. A 54, 1838 (1996), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/
PhysRevA.54.1838.
[120] R. N. Palmer, C. Moura Alves, and D. Jaksch, “Detection and characterization of multipartite
entanglement in optical lattices,” Phys. Rev. A 72, 042335 (2005), URL http://link.aps.
org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.72.042335.
[121] M. R. Andrews, C. G. Townsend, H.-J. Miesner, D. S. Durfee, D. M. Kurn, and
W. Ketterle, “Observation of Interference Between Two Bose Condensates,” Science 275,
637 (1997), http://www.sciencemag.org/content/275/5300/637.full.pdf, URL http://www.sciencemag.org/content/275/5300/637.abstract.

193[122] A. E. Siegman, Lasers (University Science Books, 1986).
[123] J. Schliemann, J. I. Cirac, M. Kuś, M. Lewenstein, and D. Loss, “Quantum correlations in
two-fermion systems,” Phys. Rev. A 64, 022303 (2001), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/
10.1103/PhysRevA.64.022303.
[124] A. Peres, Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods (Kluwer, New York, NY, 1993).
[125] D. J. Wineland, J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Heinzen, “Squeezed atomic statesand projection noise in spectroscopy,” Phys. Rev. A 50, 67 (1994), URL http://link.aps.
org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.50.67.
[126] B. Lcke, M. Scherer, J. Kruse, L. Pezz, F. Deuretzbacher, P. Hyllus, O. Topic, J. Peise,
W. Ertmer, J. Arlt, L. Santos, A. Smerzi, et al., “Twin Matter Waves for Interferometry Beyond the Classical Limit,” Science 334, 773 (2011), http://www.sciencemag.
org/content/334/6057/773.full.pdf, URL http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/
6057/773.abstract.
[127] M. J. Holland and K. Burnett, “Interferometric detection of optical phase shifts at the Heisenberg limit,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1355 (1993), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/
PhysRevLett.71.1355.
[128] Private communication Malte Tichy.
[129] S. Fölling, S. Trotzky, P. Cheinet, M. Feld, R. Saers, A. Widera, T. Muller, and I. Bloch,“Direct observation of second-order atom tunnelling,” Nature 448, 1029 (2007), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature06112.
[130] J. Sebby-Strabley, B. L. Brown, M. Anderlini, P. J. Lee, W. D. Phillips, J. V. Porto, and
P. R. Johnson, “Preparing and probing atomic number states with an atom interferometer,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 200405 (2007), ISSN 0031-9007.
[131] Manuscript in preparation, “Microscopic analysis of non-separable optical potentials with
Gaussian curvature.
[132] R. Ma, M. E. Tai, P. M. Preiss, W. S. Bakr, J. Simon, and M. Greiner, “Photon-Assisted
Tunneling in a Biased Strongly Correlated Bose Gas,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 095301 (2011),
URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.095301.
[133] M. Egorov, B. Opanchuk, P. Drummond, B. V. Hall, P. Hannaford, and A. I. Sidorov, “Precision measurements of s-wave scattering lengths in a two-component Bose-Einstein condensate,” Phys. Rev. A 87, 053614 (2013).
[134] H. Uys, M. J. Biercuk, A. P. VanDevender, C. Ospelkaus, D. Meiser, R. Ozeri, and J. J.
Bollinger, “Decoherence due to Elastic Rayleigh Scattering,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 200401(2010), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.200401.
[135] S. Fölling, S. Trotzky, P. Cheinet, M. Feld, R. Saers, A. Widera, T. Muller, and I. Bloch,“Direct observation of second-order atom tunnelling,” Nature 448, 1029 (2007), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature06112.

194[136] J. W. Britton, B. C. Sawyer, A. C. Keith, C. C. J. Wang, J. K. Freericks, H. Uys, M. J.
Biercuk, and J. J. Bollinger, “Engineered two-dimensional Ising interactions in a trapped-ion
quantum simulator with hundreds of spins,” Nature 484, 489 (2012), URL http://dx.doi.
org/10.1038/nature10981.
[137] K. Brown, A. Wilson, Y. Colombe, C. Ospelkaus, A. Meier, E. Knill, D. Leibfried, and
D. Wineland, “Single-qubit-gate error below 10−4 in a trapped ion,” Phys. Rev. A 84, 030303(2011), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.84.030303.
[138] J. H. Lee, E. Montano, I. H. Deutsch, and P. S. Jessen, “Robust site-resolvable quantum
gates in an optical lattice via inhomogeneous control,” Nat Commun 4 (2013), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms3027.
[139] D. Hayes, P. Julienne, and I. Deutsch, “Quantum Logic via the Exchange Blockade in Ultracold Collisions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 070501 (2007), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.
1103/PhysRevLett.98.070501.
[140] C. Weitenberg, S. Kuhr, K. Mølmer, and J. Sherson, “Quantum computation architectureusing optical tweezers,” Phys. Rev. A 84, 032322 (2011), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/
10.1103/PhysRevA.84.032322.
[141] A. Peres, “Separability Criterion for Density Matrices,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1413 (1996),
URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.1413.
[142] M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, “Separability of Mixed States: Necessary andSufficient Conditions,” arXiv:quant-ph/9605038 (1996).
[143] E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, “A Scheme For Efficient Quantum Computing
With Linear Optics,” Nature 409, 46 (2010).
[144] L. D. Landau, “The theory of a Fermi liquid,” Sov. Phys. JETP 3, 920 (1957).
[145] E. Lifshitz and L. P. Pitaevskii,
Statistical Physics, Part 2,
vol. 9Landau and Lifshitz Course of Theoretical Physics (Butterworth-Heinemann, 1980).

of[146] M. Foss-Feig, M. Hermele, and A. M. Rey, “Probing the Kondo lattice model with alkalineearth-metal atoms,” Phys. Rev. A 81, 051603 (2010), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.
1103/PhysRevA.81.051603.
[147] M. Foss-Feig, M. Hermele, V. Gurarie, and A. M. Rey, “Heavy fermions in an optical lattice,”
Phys. Rev. A 82, 053624 (2010), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.82.
053624.
[148] T. Müller, S. Fölling, A. Widera, and I. Bloch, “State Preparation and Dynamics of Ultracold
Atoms in Higher Lattice Orbitals,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 200405 (2007), URL http://link.
aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.200405.
[149] Y. Castin and J. Dalibard, “Relative phase of two Bose-Einstein condensates,” Phys. Rev. A
55, 4330 (1997), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.55.4330.
[150] P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, “Entanglement entropy and quantum field theory,” Journal of
Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2004, P06002 (2004), URL http://stacks.
iop.org/1742-5468/2004/i=06/a=P06002.

195[151] P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, “Evolution of entanglement entropy in one-dimensional systems,”
Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2005, P04010 (2005), URL http://stacks.iop.org/1742-5468/2005/i=04/a=P04010.
[152] A. N. Wenz, G. Zrn, S. Murmann, I. Brouzos, T. Lompe, and S. Jochim, “From Few
to Many: Observing the Formation of a Fermi Sea One Atom at a Time,” Science 342,
457 (2013), http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6157/457.full.pdf, URL http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6157/457.abstract.
[153] A. J. Daley, H. Pichler, J. Schachenmayer, and P. Zoller, “Measuring Entanglement Growthin Quench Dynamics of Bosons in an Optical Lattice,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 020505 (2012),
URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.020505.
[154] M. Rigol, V. Dunjko, and M. Olshanii, “Thermalization and its mechanism for genericisolated quantum systems,” Nature 452, 854 (2008), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
nature06838.
[155] M. Cramer, A. Flesch, I. P. McCulloch, U. Schollwöck, and J. Eisert, “Exploring Local
Quantum Many-Body Relaxation by Atoms in Optical Superlattices,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 101,
063001 (2008), URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.063001.
[156] S. Trotzky, Y.-A. Chen, A. Flesch, I. P. McCulloch, U. Schollwock, J. Eisert, and
I. Bloch, “Probing the relaxation towards equilibrium in an isolated strongly correlated
one-dimensional Bose gas,” Nat Phys 8, 325 (2012), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
nphys2232.
[157] M. C. Tichy, “Interference of identical particles from entanglement to boson-sampling,”
Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 47, 103001 (2014), URL
http://stacks.iop.org/0953-4075/47/i=10/a=103001.
[158] Private communication Kaden Hazzard.

Appendix A

Derivation of bounds for distinguishable particles and further analysis of thetwo-particle tunneling contrast

A.1

Creation of bounds and analysis of the HOM oscillations
In this section, our goals are two-fold. We first derive bounds on the behavior of distin-

guishable particles, experimental violations of which support our claims of indistinguishability.
Secondly, we show that with a reasonable set of assumptions, the observed HOM contrast AP11
min are consistent with our thermometry and single-particle tunnelingand dip P11 (tHOM ) = PHOM

characterization. A crucial aspect of both of these goals is the availability of the single-particle
data, without which the claims made in this section would be more difficult to support. Therefore,
the ability to post-select our data on single and two particle experiments with known initial andfinal conditions permits a level of analysis that is not typically available, and is experimentally
empowering for understanding systems of increasing system size.

A.1.1

Constructing two-particle tunneling oscillation bounds on distinguishable
particles

A.1.1.1

Non-interacting distinguishable particles

Here we will use the single-particle data to construct an expectation for the two-particle
experiments, assuming the particles are distinguishable and non-interacting.1
1

We make no spec-

Note that this is a summary of calculations originally formulated and performed by Michael Foss-Feig andMichael Wall.

z

A

197
B

|Li

C
RL

xy

x = 2Re(⇢z = ⇢LLy|Li + |Rip2

1

y = 2Im(⇢RL )

z

x

)

PL = ⇢LL|Li + i|Ri
p
2

A=

p

tan

A1

⇢RR

y2 + z2
0

= y/z

time

/2J

|Ri

Figure A.1: (a) Bloch sphere used to describe the single-atom density matrices. (b) Two tables:
The top one summarizes the connection between Cartesian coordinates of the Bloch vector andpopulations/coherences in the |Li,|Ri basis, while the bottom one connects the Cartesian coordinates to experimentally measured phase and contrast. (c) Schematic of the single-particle dynamics
and the meaning of φ1(2) and A1(2) .

ification of the source of distinguishabilty, but this must exist in an observable degree of freedom
independent of the spatial degree of freedom that is coherently-coupled by the tunneling. The
additional label manifest, for example, in the particle’s spin, allows us to treat the two-particle
experiments as follows: we call “atom 1” (“atom 2”) the particle the initially starts on the left
(right). Using the time origin of t = 0 defined in Section 4.5.1, we can define density matrices ρi (t),zoriginally in left well

}|

{

LR
 ρLL
1 (0) ρ1 (0) ,
ρ1 (0) = RRρRL
1 (0) ρ1 (0)originally in right well

z

}|

{

LR
 ρLL
2 (0) ρ2 (0) .
ρ2 (0) = RRρRL
2 (0) ρ2 (0)Since we are assuming distinguishability and an absence of interactions, we can construct the
expected two-particle dynamics via the separable two-particle density matrix in the combined
Hilbert space of the two particles. An understanding of these two-particle dynamics is aided byparsing the single-particle density matrices as follows,
ρ1 (0) =1 + z1 x1 − iy1 
1

,


2
x1 + iy1 1 − z1

ρ2 (0) =

1 + z2 x2 − iy2 
1

.


2
x2 + iy2 1 − z2

where the complex off-diagonals encode the single-particle coherences in the {|Li, |Ri} basis of
the double-well. The effective spin-1/2 space can be represented on the Bloch-sphere, as shown

198
in Figure A.1a: this picture helps explain the extent to which experimental observables can constrain a theoretical expectation of distinguishable particles. In this picture, the eigenstates of ourmeasurement observable, {|Li, |Ri}, correspond to the z-axis, and the angle of the Bloch-sphere
projection in the x − y plane is defined by the angle θi = tan−1 (yi /xi ) of the coherences. Therefore,
for the single particle i, the Bloch-vector has components {xi , yi , zi } and the tunneling realizes the
single-particle Hamiltonian,SP
HBS= Jσx +

∆
σz .
2

(A.1)

Therefore, on-resonance tunneling realizes rotations of the Bloch sphere about the x-axis in direct
analogy to resonant Rabi-oscillations at Ω = 2J. Since at t = 0, we have experimentally observed
prior onset of tunneling, there can be a phase shift of the dynamics encoded in the y-componentof the Bloch vector. We can express the measured oscillation contrast of subsequent single-particle
tunneling oscillations for each atom, A1 and A2 , in terms of the density matrix components asfollows,q
A1 = y12 + z12

qy22 + z22 ,(A.2)

tan φ2 = y2 /z2 .

(A.3)

A2 =

and the measured phases, φ1 and φ2 , of these oscillations,tan φ1 = y1 /z1These phases are just the initial tilt of Bloch vectors off the z-axis into the y − z plane. Since each
atom has two independent equations involving yi , zi and measured quantities, we can constrain
experimentally the projection of the Bloch-vector along the y and z axes. However, the projection of
the vector along x is not experimentally constrained. This is because our tunneling measurements
cannot distinguish whether the quantum state of the single particles is impure (yielding (x2i + yi2 +zi2 )1/2 < 1), or if the state is pure but with finite projection onto the x-axis at t = 0. This latter
SP when ∆ = 0, and hence is experimentally manifest as A < 1case is invariant with respect to HBSijust like an impure single-particle density matrix.2 Nevertheless, we can still express the observed2

In conjunction with Ramsey spectroscopy, we could however experimentally constrain the x component.

199
dynamics for atom 1 and 2 in terms of these quantities as,
PL1 = ρLL
1 (t) =
PL2 = ρLL
2 (t) =1 A1+
cos(2Jt − φ1 ),
2
2
1 A2
−
cos(2Jt − φ2 ),
2
2

(A.4)
(A.5)

where we have invoked the notation from measurement sections in order to concretely establish theconnection between the measurements and this theoretical treatment.
Our goal is now to use our parameterization of the single-particle density matrices to construct
the Pdist (t) used in our analysis. In the absence of interactions and by assumption of distinguishability, the two-particle density matrix is the separable Kronecker product of the single particle
density matrices,ρdist (0) = ρ1 (0) ⊗ ρ2 (0).

(A.6)

For the two-particle experiments, we measure P11 (t) corresponding to the operator O11 . It can be
written,
O11 = |L1 ihL1 | ⊗ |R2 ihR2 | + |L2 ihL2 | ⊗ |R1 ihR1 |,(A.7)

which is simply a detector of the two possible ways of observing a particle in each well. For
distinguishable particles, we expect for P11 (t),Pdist (t) = T r(O11 ρdist (t)).

(A.8)

This expression can is then easily simplified to,
Pdist (t) ≡ Tr [ρ(t)|Li1 hL|1 ⊗ |Ri2 hR|2 ] + Tr [ρ(t)|Ri1 hR|1 ⊗ |Li2 hL|2 ]
RR
RR
LL
= ρLL
1 (t)ρ2 (t) + ρ1 (t)ρ2 (t)= P1L (t)P2R (t) + P1R (t)P2L (t),(A.9)

corresponding to the equation used in the Section 4.7 to define the purple points in Figures 4.14 and
4.16. As expected, it is the incoherent sum of the probabilities associated with the two paths leading
to the atoms in different wells, namely, both atoms tunneling or both atoms remaining where they200
started. This equation can be expressed in terms of the measured single-particle quantities as,
Pdist (t) =1 A1 A2+
cos(2Jt − φ1 ) cos(2Jt − φ2 ).
2
2(A.10)

This implies that the expected contrast of the purple points in Figure 4.14 should be A1 A2 /2, whichis indeed the case as can be checked via Table A.1. Furthermore, our observation that the oscillation
contrast of P11 (t) significantly exceeds this quantity corroborates our claims of indistinguishability
when assuming the particles are non-interacting. Conveniently, this bound includes the effect of loss
and finite single-particle contrast; though the former quantity was not included in the calculationsin these sections, it corresponds to probability outside the Hilbert space and reduces the contrast
proportionately regardless of whether there is additional contrast reduction from impurity or Blochvector tilting along x.
min for non-interacting, distinguishable
Lastly, we can use these equations to also constrain PHOM

particles. The expression in Eq. A.10 reaches a minimum at tHOM = 2π/8J + tcorr , where thesingle-particle tunneling trajectories intersect at a value of 0.5 since the tunneling is symmetric(neglecting single particle loss). As was discussed in the ramp section, tcorr = φ1,2 /2J defines the
temporal shift in the tunneling from t = 0. At tHOM it follows then that the cosine terms vanish,leaving Pdist (tHOM ) = 0.5; this is just the expected outcome of two equally-weighted, flipped coins
landing differently. Therefore, we have a second bound that an observation of P11 (tHOM ) < Pdist =0.5 proves indistinguishability for non-interacting distinguishable particles. Since we have somelikelihood of one of the atoms being lost due to our vacuum lifetime and thereby leading to a 0
event in P11 , this bound of 0.5 is reduced to 0.5(1 − Ploss )2 .
A.1.1.2

Interacting distinguishable particles

The above treatment excludes the effect of interactions, which can induce spatial correlations
between the distinguishable particles. However, we can use the treatment above to form bounds
including the effect of interactions. Since minimal tunneling occurs prior to the end of the ramp,
we will neglect the effect of any spatial correlations adiabatically introduced that could arise during

201
the ramp down itself, and treat U and J as static quantities appropriate to the final trap in which
tunneling occurs3 . Furthermore, this assumption allows us to use the uncorrelated/separable
density matrix of Eq. A.7 as our initial state. The static Hamiltonian for the interacting twoparticle system is,


 U


 −2J
Ĥ = 

 0


0

−2J

0

0

0

0

U

0

0



0 


0 
,

0 


0

(A.11)

where the two-particle basis is,1
hr1 , r2 |+i = √ (ψL (r1 ) ψL (r2 ) + ψR (r1 ) ψR (r2 ))21
hr1 , r2 |Si = √ (ψL (r1 ) ψR (r2 ) + ψR (r1 ) ψL (r2 ))21
hr1 , r2 |−i = √ (ψL (r1 ) ψL (r2 ) − ψR (r1 ) ψR (r2 ))21
hr1 , r2 |Ai = √ (ψL (r1 ) ψR (r2 ) − ψR (r1 ) ψL (r2 )) .
2

(A.12)(A.13)(A.14)(A.15)

Expressed in first quantization, these are the symmetrized states that are used to represented
an arbitrary distinguishable two-particle state. To translate the treatment from above for noninteracting distinguishable particles into this symmetry respecting basis, we need only equallyweight the two-particle states in the spatially symmetric and anti-symmetric sectors to reflect theobservability of the labels 1 and 2. For example, the state |L1 i|R2 i equally projects onto the secondand fourth basis states above. In practice, this basis transformation is realized by acting on the
two-particle density matrix of Eq. A.7 with the appropriate rotation matrix.
We now seek an expression for P11 (t) for an arbitrary initial two-particle density matrix in
3Note, however, that were we to include ramp down effects, it would only further increase the lower bound on
the observed P11 , since this inclusion would cause some quantum amplitude for occupation of the interacting groundstate. For non-zero positive interactions, the ground-state increases the likelihood that the atoms occupy different
wells.

202
the above basis. For the completely general initial density matrix,γ
 a α β



 ?

b 
ζ
 α


,
ρ (0) = 
 β ? ? c

η




?
?
?
γ ζ η 1−a−b−c(A.16)

it can be shown that
P11 (t) = 1 − a − c +−4J (2J (a − b) + U R (α)) 4J (2J (a − b) + U R (α))−
cos (ωJU t)
2
2
ωJU
ωJU

4JI (α)sin (ωJU t) .
ωJU

(A.17)(A.18)

2 = 16J 2 + U 2 , and R (•) and I (•) denote real and imaginary parts. This is computed
Here ωJU

by taking this density matrix, evolving it in the von-Neumann equation under the Hamiltonian in
Eq. A.11, and computing Tr(O11 ρ(t)). Mathemagica does some simplification afterward.
Transforming the density matrix of Eq. A.7 into the basis shown in Eq. A.15, and applying
Eq. A.17, it can be shown that the minimum value of Pdist (t) is,P(x) =−

2 + A1 A2 U (Jx + U A1 A2 cos(2φ)/4)+
4
16J 2 + U 2
q
J (U x − 4JA1 A2 cos 2φ)2 + 64J 2 A21 A22 cos2 φ sin2 φ + U 2 A21 A22 sin2 (2φ)
16J 2 + U 2,

while the oscillation contrast is given by,q
2J (U x − 4JA1 A2 cos 2φ)2 + 64J 2 A21 A22 cos2 φ sin2 φ + U 2 A21 A22 sin2 (2φ)A(x) =,
16J 2 + U 2(A.19)(A.20)

where we have set φ1 = φ2 = φ (since the equality of these phases is confirmed experimentally).
We can now apply the constraints imposed by the single particle density matrices, namely,x1 ≤ (1 − A21 )1/2

and x2 ≤ (1 − A22 )1/2 .

(A.21)

When xi is maximal, this corresponds to unity length single-particle Bloch vectors and maximal
coherences along x. P (x) and A(x) are separately minimized and maximized, respectively, within

203
the space constrained by the experimental measurements in Table A.1 and the inequalities in
Eq A.21. This occurs for both at a value,x0 = −(1 − A21 )1/2 − (1 − A22 )1/2 .

(A.22)In Figure A.2, we show the outcome of the above procedure for the evil and unlikely caseof x = x0 and the excessively likely case of x = 0. These “x0 ist” statements are made for thefollowing reasons. The initial single-particle Bloch vectors that correspond to x0 are those which
each have the same projection along x, i.e. r1 = r2 and θ1 = θ2 . If the x-projection of the single
particle Bloch vectors is non-zero (i.e. θi 6= Zodd π/2, where Zodd is an odd integer), then according
to Eq. A.1, this is necessarily due to the presence of a bias at the end of the ramp when a small
amount of tunneling occurs. For a fixed bias this would yield θ1 = −θ2 since σz causes precession
in opposing directions for Bloch vectors on opposites sides of the equator: near t = 0, z1 > 0
and z2 < 0 with |z1 | = |z2 |, yielding x = 0. A fluctuating bias, on the other hand, dephases thecoherences to yield xi = x = 0 and a shortened Bloch vector. Experimentally, therefore, it isvery difficult (basically impossible) to produce non-zero x, and so we compare our observed HOM
min to the more experimentally appropriate case of A(0) andoscillation contrast AP11 and dip PHOM

P (0) as well. For this case, the expected reduction (increase) of A(0) (P (0)) due to the suppressionof two-particle tunneling from the interactions is manifest. But either way, even when including
the evil x0 case, our measurements violate the behavior of interacting distinguishable particles.

A.2

Analysis of observed HOM interference: understanding indistinguishability with imperfect beam splitters
While the violation of the bounds above support the presence of indistinguishability and

HOM interference in our experiment, we can also borrow elements of the analysis to try to understand whether the contrast we observe makes sense given the experimental information available.
An important feature of the Hamiltonian in Eq. A.11 is that the second two basis states, |Ai and|−i completely decouple from the resonant tunneling dynamics, each contributing a static P11 = 1

204

Measurement
Fig. 4.14b, eFig. 4.14 c,fImportant numbers from tunneling dynamics plots
Ploss
AP11
APdistU/J
A1
0.049(2)0.46(2)0.282(12) 0.44(4) 0.722(15)0.034(2)0.48(2)0.306(18) 0.22(2)0.77(2)A2
0.765(16)0.83(2)φ−0.20(7)−0.45(7)Important numbers from tHOM plotsminMeasurement
Ploss(1 − Ploss )2 /2
PHOM
Fig. 4.16a
0.032(2)0.4689(19)0.314(14)Fig. 4.16b
0.0337(17)0.4669(16)0.296(10)Fig. 4.16c
0.0346(15)0.4660(14)0.28(2)
Table A.1: Summary of the important parameters for understanding the experimentally observed
two-particle interference. The experimental signature of the HOM effect is reflected in the difference
between our measurements and the expectation for distinguishable atoms: In the top table thevalues to compare are AP11 and APdist . In the bottom table the values to compare are (1 − Ploss )2 /2
min . Each value of P
and PHOM
loss is computed by taking the mean over all single atom data in thespecified set. The values tabulated here are used to produce the distinguishable limits shown in
Fig. A.2.

0.5

1

1.5

0.5

2

P(0)

Pmin
HOM
P

0.45
0.4

0.35
0.3
0

C
0.5

0

0.5

P(x0 )

1

UJ

1.5

Bound, Fig. 4.14e
AAPdistPdistBound Figure 2E
0.5

0.45

1

1.5

0.5

0.5

0.45

0.45

0.4

0.4

0.35
0.3

0.3

0.5

0.5

0.45

0.45

AA
P11

0.35

0.35

0.3

0.3

0.25

A(0) 0.25

0

0.5

1

UJ

1.5

2

1

1.5

2
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35

0

0.4

0.5

P(0)

D
2

Pdist
Bound, Fig. 4.16aP
dist Bound Figure 3A

205

0.35

2

A(x0 )

0.4

0

Pmin
HOM
P

0

Bound, Fig. 4.16c
PPdistdist Bound Figure 3C

B

0

0.5

1

0.3

P(x0 )

UJ

1.5

A
4.14f2F
APdistBound Fig.
FigurePdist Bound,
0.5

1

1.5

2

2

0.4

0.5
0.45

A(x0 )

AA
P11

A

0.4

0.35

0.35

0.3

A(0) 0.3
0

0.5

1

UJ

1.5

2

Figure A.2: Bounds on Pdist (tHOM ) (a,b) and APdist (c,d): The two left panels (a,c) are for experiments with U/J = 0.44(4), while the two right panels (b,d) are for experiments with U/J = 0.22(2).
In all plots, the figure in the main text to which the presented data corresponds is given in the plotlabel. In panels a and b, the black curve is P(x = 0), which is a lower bound on the HOM dip for
distinguishable particles assuming no initial coherences along the x-direction of the Bloch sphere.
The dark shaded uncertainty region of the curve is obtained by propagating uncertainties in the experimentally measured single-particle amplitudes (A1 ,A2 ) and phases (φ1 ,φ2 ) through Eq. (A.19).
The light shaded region below the black curve is therefore classically forbidden, i.e. inaccessible
to distinguishable particles. The red dashed curve is P(x0 ), which is the evil and unlikely casescenario that could, in principle, be saturated by distinguishable particles (the red shaded region
min , blue point) sits in
is obtained in the same way). The measured minimum of the HOM dip (PHOMthe classically forbidden region. Panels c and d are similar to the top panels, except now we plot
the contrast bound (A) and the blue points are measured values of AP11 . The numbers used tocreate this plot are tabulated in Table A.1.

and P11 = 0, respectively. The former case was noted earlier as well in our discussion of distinguishability for the observed two-particle oscillations. The first two basis states, on the other hand,are coupled, and as such each oscillate out of phase by π. This means that the imbalance between

206
the probabilities of being in the |Si and |+i states determines the oscillation contrast of P11 (t), as
is also illustrated by Eq A.17.
Using these simple observations, we wish to now use the single particle contrasts, in conjunction with an assumption about the character of the initial density matrix, to form an expectation
min . Ideally, we could predict the expected HOM dip if we knew
for the HOM dip P11 (tHOM ) = PHOM

the full density matrix at any given time. However, our observations of P11 only supply us with information about the probabilities of the particles being found in the |Ai and |Si versus |+i and |−isectors, but not the breakdown within each sector. Given our observations of a depth-dependent
contrast, and the resulting evidence for bias fluctuations, we will make the following assumption:
at t = 0, two-particle states of different total Sz on the composite Bloch sphere of two particles (inthe basis of {L, R}) are incoherent.4 This assumption is justified because fluctuations in ∆ should
dephase the states |Ai and |Si with respect to |2, 0i = √12 (|+i + |−i) and |0, 2i = √12 (|+i − |−i),since the first two states have Sz = 0 while the latter two have Sz = ±1. Similarly, for the single
particle experiments, the finite contrast we take to be due to shortening of the single particle Blochvector, as opposed to coherences. In other words, we assume xi = 0 in the language of the previous
section. I will call all of this the “incoherence assumption”.
Using the above assumption, along with our thermometry, we can conjecture an expression
exp
for the expected HOM oscillation contrast Aexp
P11 and dip PHOM . We will first consider the effect oftemperature in the absence of the effects of single-particle contrasts. Assuming the radial groundstate fraction is effectively unity, the single particle axial ground-state fraction5 of PGS = 0.85(11)defines the distinguishability introduced by motional degrees of freedom. It implies that the likelihood that the atoms are indistinguishable is P ind = 0.852 + 0.132 = 0.74(18), where the second
term comes from the thermal probability that the atoms both occupy the first axial excited state4

I am loosely referring to t = 0 here in that I am not including the phase shift. Specifically, I mean any amplitude
outside that which participates in the P11 oscillations we will assume to be strictly incoherent
5
For the error bar of 0.11 quoted, I took the mean of the upper and lower value to simplify the analysis. They
differ by 2%.

207(higher order terms we neglect). Therefore, from this effect alone we would expect [157],
min
PHOM= 0 · P ind + (1 − Ploss )2 /2 · (1 − P ind ) = 0.12(5).

(A.23)

But, as said, this excludes any effects associated with the atom beam splitter itself, and clearly
underestimates the imperfections of the experiment.
To understand the effect of the beam splitter, we will first neglect the presence of distinguishability in the experiment and consider indistinguishable atoms on an imperfect beam splitter. Thismeans we seek to understand how to include the impurity of the single particle density matrices inthe {L, R} basis. Including these effects is tricky because our goal is to construct a symmetrized
two-particle density matrix of impure single particle density matrices. For example, suppose both
single particle density matrices were completely mixed: ρi = 12 (|LihL| + |RihR|). If we seek tocompute,ρ = ρ1 ⊗ ρ2 ,(A.24)

then how do we choose which pairs of spatial states in each single particle mixture to symmetrize
in order to respect the quantum statistics of the atoms? The problem can be recast as follows:each run of our experiment produces a two-particle state that respects the quantum statistics ofthe atoms, but that state may vary shot-to-shot. Can we use the single particle density matricesthat we understand to construct the distribution of these two-particle states about which we haveless information? To approach this problem, we use second quantization to build up the final twoparticle density matrix from the single-particle density matrices, while retaining the symmetry of
the two-particle states comprising the mixed density matrix.
Consider first the case of our single particle measurements where we deduce oscillation contrasts Ai . By our incoherence assumption, and given the closeness of the mean of the oscillations of
PL,R to 0.48 (which is the ideal 0.5 corrected for loss, see Section 4.5.2.4), we can write the initialt = 0 single particle density matrix,
ρi =1 − Ai(|LihL| + |RihR|) + Ai |pihp|,2(A.25)

208
where p = L (p = R) if i = 1 (i = 2). This density matrix yields oscillation contrast Ai because theinitial probability imbalance in the {L, R} basis determines the single-particle oscillation contrast
in the absence of coherences. We can rewrite this in second quantization as,
ρi =
1 − Ai  †aL |0ih0|aL + a†R |0ih0|aR + Ai a†p |0ih0|ap2(A.26)

Using this equation we can iterate to create the two-particle density matrix ρcom at t = 0 as
follows. In the absence of any knowledge about the specifics of the noise that create ρi , we makethe assumption that the noise does not introduce any correlations between the particles. This is a
simplifying assumption, which need not be true. Indeed, if during the ramp there are fluctuationsin the bias as we suspect, this will induce x1 = −x2 on any given run of the experiment. However,given that we do not know the exact process by which we end up with ρi , it is a necessary stepin attempting to form a basic expectation for the two-particle oscillation contrast in terms of thesingle particle oscillation contrasts. We conjecture then [158],
ρcom =


1 − A2  †aL ρ1 aL + a†R ρ1 aR + A2 a†R ρ1 aR ,2

(A.27)

which we note is symmetric under exchange of 1 and 2. This resulting density matrix must be
normalized since the iterating operation does not preserve probability. Our goal is to now expand
this density matrix and determine the probability imbalance in the |Si and |+i sectors. Expanding
Eq. A.27 and performing some simplification we find,
ρN
com =

1
(1 − A1 )(1 − A2 ) (|SihS| + |+ih+| + |−ih−|)2N
1+(1 − A2 )(A1 ) (|SihS| + 2|2, 0ih2, 0|)2N
1+(1 − A1 )(A2 ) (|SihS| + 2|0, 2ih0, 2|)
2N
A1 A2
+
|SihS|.
N(A.28)

where I have used the notation |nL , nR i of nL (nR ) in the left (right) well, and included therenormalization constant of N = 12 (3 − A1 A2 ). We now want to assess the imbalance between the|Si and |+i sectors. The first line is manifestly symmetric with respect to |Si and |+i and therefore

209
does not contribute any oscillation. After some algebra, it can be shown that the sum of the first
and third term also yield zero imbalance between these two sectors. Therefore, the only imbalance
is in the last term. Hence, we expect an oscillation contrast Aind.
P11 for indistinguishable particles on
an imperfect beam splitter,
Aind.
P11 =

2A1 A2.
3 − A1 A2(A.29)

It is clear that this expression yields unity contrast oscillations for A1 = A2 = 1, while for either of
Ai = 0 there is zero oscillation contrast, as expected.
With Eq. A.29 we can now include the effect of distinguishability. For distinguishable particles, the expected oscillation contrast is Adist.
P11 = A1 A2 /2 (See section A.1.1.1) while for indistinind that the atoms
guishable particles we have our new expression for Aind.
P11 . Given the probability P

are indistinguishable, we have that the expected contrast Aexp
P11 is,
ind
ind
Aexp
· Aind.
)Adist.
P11 + (1 − P
P11 ,P11 = P

(A.30)

expis,while the expected dip Pmin
exp
=
Pmin



(1 − Ploss )2 A1 A2
+
2
2



− AexpP11 .

(A.31)In the second equation, the term in the parentheses corresponds to the expected peak of theoscillations in P11 (t) and agrees to 1% with both of the oscillation measurements in Figure 4.14.
By subtracting from the peak the total amplitude of oscillation, which includes both contributions
from the distinguishable and indistinguishable cases, we can determine the expected dip. Table A.2
lists the measured and expected amplitudes and dips, and Figure A.3 diagrammatically illustrates
our expectation for the data in Figure 4.14f; we find decent agreement.

210

1.0
0.8
0.6
PL 0.4
0.2
0
0.8

P11

  





0.6





0.4



 

0.2
0
0














 



 









 



spatial + axial entropy
axial entropy

0.5
1.0Time (ms)1.5

Figure A.3: Expected HOM oscillation behavior. Using the calculated values from Table A.2, we
put lines at the expected HOM dip value including just the effect of axial temperature (brown),
and the effect of both the temperature and finite tunneling contrast (orange). The density matrix
impurity due to temperature gives rise to probability that the atoms are distinguishable in theirmotional degree of freedom, while the single-particle oscillation contrasts effects the coherence ofthe two-particle beam splitter. We find decent agreement for these data of Fig. 4.14c,f as well asthat of Fig. 4.14b,e (not shown, but tabulated in Table A.2).

Comparison of expected and measured amplitudes and HOM dips
exp
min }
Oscillation data
Aexp
Pmin
{PHOM
P11 {AP11 }Fig. 4.14b,e0.41(5){0.46(2)} 0.32(5){0.28(2)}Fig. 4.14c,f0.48(7){0.48(2)} 0.30(7){0.30(1)}Table A.2: Here we list the expected two-particle oscillation contrasts and HOM dip (minimum
measured value of P1 1(t)) according to Eqs. A.30 and A.31, using the tabulated single particle
contrasts in Table A.1. We use the axial temperature (axial ground-state fraction of 0.85) todetermine the two-particle indistinguishability, including the probability of indistinguishability inthe excited state: Pi = 0.74(18)Appendix B

Summary of HOM measurements and associated statements about statisticalsiginificance

We present five distinct measurements, each of which contains a statistically-significant measurement of the HOM effect. Table A.1 summarizes these experimental measurements and theiruncertainties. The quantities and their uncertainties are determined as follows: Ploss is given by
an average over all single-particle data in the relevant measurement, and is equal to the mean ofPLi (x) + PRi (x) for i = i, 2 and x is the independent variable from the experiment (e.g. time, pulse
area, etc.); the uncertainty is the standard error determined from this set of points. AP11 , APdist ,min are determined from weighted fits to the data, where each data point is
A1 , A2 , φ, and PHOM

weighted based on the statistical uncertainty associated with the measured value (wi = σ12 ), andithe uncertainty in the final fit parameters are then calculated from the weighted average variance ofmin inthe data. U/J and its uncertainty is determined from the procedure described in Sec. 4.6. PHOM

Fig. 4.16c is determined from the data point at δcool = 0, and the associated uncertainty indicatedby the error bar on this point, namely the standard error from the average over the experimental
realizations (of which there are ≈ 360).
The purple circles shown in the figures in the main text represent Pdist as calculated fromthe expression PL1 PR2 + PR1 PL2 . The error bars on these points are determined by propagating theuncertainty from each single-particle data point PL1 , PR1 , PL2 , PR2 , taking into account correlations
between these quantities. Note that near the crossing point of the single-particle datasets theuncertainty in the calculated Pdist values decreases since Pdist is the sum of two nearly anti-correlated

212
variables and because the quantity reaches a minimum at this point. The degree to which they are
not perfectly anti-correlated comes from the uncorrelated single-particle loss for an atom startingon the left or right.
In our analysis of the results presented in Figs. 4.14e,f we must determine from our measurements of the amplitude of the Pdist (t) and P11 (t) oscillations our confidence that these amplitudes
are statistically different. To do this we employ a modified Student’s t-test called the Welch’s t-test,
which can be applied to samples with possibly unequal uncertainty and degrees of freedom, such as
the number of data points. Using this procedure and the standard errors from the fits (Table A.1),
we find for the J/2π = 262 Hz experiment (J/2π = 348 Hz experiment) a 6.1σ (5.5σ) deviation
between the Pdist (t) data and P11 (t) oscillation amplitudes. Note that these are quite close to what
one would calculate from a simple analysis of the standard errors quoted in Table A.1, but thismethod accounts for the finite number of data points.

Appendix C

Derivation of parity oscillation bound for a separable density matrix

In Section 5.3.2, we exploited a bound, Cbnd , on the parity oscillation contrast. Here we showthat when this bound is violated by a density matrix, that density matrix is necessarily entangled.
As noted in the main text, we construct this bound according to the Peres-Horodecki criterion [141, 142], henceforth called the PHC. We are interested in detecting entanglement between
the spin-1/2 Hilbert space HA and HB for a particle at a position xi and xj , respectively; the total
Hilbert space is H = HA ⊗ HB . The PHC makes stipulations on separable density matrices, whichin general can be written,
ρ=

X
i

B
Pi ρ Ai ⊗ ρi ,(C.1)

Bwhere Pi are the positive (normalized) weights associated with each product state ρAi ⊗ ρi . The

key requirement of PHC is that upon performing the transformation,
ρ0 =

X
i

†
B
Pi (ρAi ) ⊗ ρi ,(C.2)

it is the case that ρ0 has positive eigenvalues. Demonstrating that a density matrix is entangled,
therefore, amounts to showing that upon performing this transformation the density matrix has atleast one eigenvalue that is negative.

214
Prior to the parity detection, our experiment produces the density matrix,




0
0 
p↑,↑ 0





0 
 0 p↑,↓
.
ρexp =  0∗ p↓,↑ 0 




0
0
0 p↓,↓(C.3)

By applying the partial transpose step of Eq. C.2, we have the density matrix (this transformation
is easily deduced in Mathematica...if you are like me and not so facile with matrix manipulations),



∗
p
0
0

 ↑,↑





0
p
0
0


↑,↓
0

.
ρexp =  00 p↓,↑ 0 





0
0 p↓,↓(C.4)

We now seek the eigenvalues of this density matrix in terms of the matrix elements, which are alldetermined experimentally. After diagonalizing ρ0 , we focus on the smallest eigenvalue in order todetermine a relation among the matrix elements that yields a negative eigenvalue. The smallest
eigenvalue is,
h=

q

1
p↑,↑ + p↓,↓ − p2↓,↓ + p2↑,↑ + 2p↑,↑ p↓,↓ + 42 .
2

(C.5)

After some simple algebra, we find that h < 0 when,2 < p↑,↑ p↓,↓ ,(C.6)

As discussed in the main text, the measured parity contrast is related to the coherence by C = 4.
We then arrive at the desired result,C < 4(p↑,↑ p↓,↓ )1/2 ≡ Cbnd .

(C.7)

Because we measure a parity oscillation contrast in excess of Cbnd , we know that the final statecannot be described by a separable density matrix.