Imaging the phase of an evolving Bose-Einstein condensate wave function

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 85, Issue 10, 2000, Pages 2040-2043

  Simsarian, J E ^a   Denschlag, J ^a   Edwards, Mark ^a,b   Clark, Charles W ^a   Deng, L ^a   Hagley, E W ^a   Helmerson, K ^a   Rolston, S L ^a   Phillips, W D ^a  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b GEORGIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COHERENT LIGHT; CORRELATION METHODS; ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE DIFFRACTION; INTERFEROMETERS; LIGHT INTERFERENCE; QUANTUM THEORY; SOLITONS; STATISTICAL MECHANICS;

BOSE-EINSTEIN CONDENSATES (BEC); BRAGG-DIFFRACTION PULSES; MEAN-FIELD REPULSION; WAVE PACKETS;

CONDENSATION;

EID: 0034274031     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.2040     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. M. H. Anderson et al., Science 269, 198 (1995); K. B. Davis et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3969 (1995); C. C. Bradley, C. A. Sackett, and R. G. Hulet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 985 (1997); see also C. C. Bradley et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1687 (1995).
2. M. H. Anderson et al., Science 269, 198 (1995); K. B. Davis et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3969 (1995); C. C. Bradley, C. A. Sackett, and R. G. Hulet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 985 (1997); see also C. C. Bradley et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1687 (1995).
3. M. H. Anderson et al., Science 269, 198 (1995); K. B. Davis et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3969 (1995); C. C. Bradley, C. A. Sackett, and R. G. Hulet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 985 (1997); see also C. C. Bradley et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1687 (1995).
4. M. H. Anderson et al., Science 269, 198 (1995); K. B. Davis et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3969 (1995); C. C. Bradley, C. A. Sackett, and R. G. Hulet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 985 (1997); see also C. C. Bradley et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1687 (1995).
5. M.-O. Mewes et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 582 (1997); E. W. Hagley et al., Science 283, 1706 (1999); I. Bloch, T. W. Hänsch, and T. Esslinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3008 (1999); B. P. Anderson and M. A. Kasevich, Science 282, 1686 (1998).
6. M.-O. Mewes et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 582 (1997); E. W. Hagley et al., Science 283, 1706 (1999); I. Bloch, T. W. Hänsch, and T. Esslinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3008 (1999); B. P. Anderson and M. A. Kasevich, Science 282, 1686 (1998).
7. M.-O. Mewes et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 582 (1997); E. W. Hagley et al., Science 283, 1706 (1999); I. Bloch, T. W. Hänsch, and T. Esslinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3008 (1999); B. P. Anderson and M. A. Kasevich, Science 282, 1686 (1998).
8. M.-O. Mewes et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 582 (1997); E. W. Hagley et al., Science 283, 1706 (1999); I. Bloch, T. W. Hänsch, and T. Esslinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3008 (1999); B. P. Anderson and M. A. Kasevich, Science 282, 1686 (1998).
9. Atom Interferometry, edited by P. R. Berman (Academic Press, Cambridge, 1997).
10. M. R. Andrews et al., Science 275, 637 (1997).
11. J. Stenger et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 4569 (1999).
12. M. Kozuma et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 871 (1999).
13. E. W. Hagley et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3112 (1999); M. Trippenbach et al., J. Phys. B 33, 47 (2000).
14. E. W. Hagley et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3112 (1999); M. Trippenbach et al., J. Phys. B 33, 47 (2000).
15. I. Bloch, T. W. Hänsch, and T. Esslinger, Nature (London) 403, 166 (2000).
16. The mean-field energy shift of the out-coupled wave packet in [5] can be used to infer the repulsion velocity. Here we measure the velocity directly.
17. All uncertainties reported here are 1 standard deviation combined statistical and systematic uncertainties.
18. F. Dalfovo et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 463 (1999).
19. D. M. Giltner, R. W. McGowan, and S. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 2638 (1995).
20. Y. Torii et al., Phys. Rev. A 61, 041602(R) (2000).
21. J. Denschlag et al., Science 287, 97 (2000).
22. 2 intensity, and was detuned 15 MHz from resonance.
23. The momenta are not exactly p = 0 and p = 2ℏk because of repulsion effects that will be discussed.
24. R. Trebino et al., Rev. Sci. Instrum. 68, 3277 (1997).
25. The observation is consistent with the full predicted fringe contrast when we include the finite imaging resolution.
26. iφ(x,y,z) is separable, i.e., φ(x, y, z) = φ(x) + η(y,z). Straight fringes imply this separability.
27. Y. Castin and R. Dum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 5315 (1996).
28. -4, respectively.
29. In practice, C includes a random phase from mirror vibrations.
30. 1 due to the repulsion of the wave packets. We include the correction in our data analysis in a self-consistent manner. The correction modifies α insignificantly, but increases the final values of δυ by =0.05 mm/s.
31. V. M. Pérez-Garcia et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 5320 (1996).
32. In fact, after the first pulse the wave packets contract because the reduced mean-field energy can no longer support the wave packet size.
33. We also correct the fringe spacings for the contraction of the wave packets between the final interferometer pulse and when the image is taken.
34. We assume δυ ≪ ℏk/M, Tω, ≪ 1, and harmonic motion in the trap.
35. S. Burger et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 5198 (1999).
36. M. R. Matthews et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2498 (1999).
37. K. W. Madison et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 806 (2000).
38. A. D. Jackson, G. M. Kavoulakis, and C. J. Pethick, Phys. Rev. A 58, 2417 (1998).