State selective charge transfer cross sections for Na+ with excited rubidium: A unique diagnostic of the population dynamics of a magneto-optical trap

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 91, Issue 24, 2003, Pages

  Flechard, X ^a,b   Nguyen, H ^a   Bredy, R ^a,c   Lundeen, S R ^a,d   Stauffer, M ^a,e   Camp, H A ^a   Fehrenbach, C W ^a   DePaola, B D ^a  

^a KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Laboratoire de Physique Corpusculaire   (France)

^c UNIVERSITÉ LYON 1   (France)

^d Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences   (United States)

^e NEW MEXICO INSTITUTE OF MINING AND TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATOMS; CHARGE TRANSFER; EXCITONS; MOLECULAR PHYSICS; RUBIDIUM; SODIUM;

BOSE-EINSTEIN CONDENSATES; EXCITED STATE FRACTIONS; RYDBERG STATES;

MAGNETOOPTICAL EFFECTS;

EID: 0942300779     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. B. W. Shore, The Theory of Coherent Atomic Excitation (Wiley, New York, 1990), Vols. 1 and 2.
2. K. Bergmann, H. Theuer, and B.W. Shore, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 1003 (1998).
3. T. P. Dinneen, C. D. Wallace, K.-Y.N. Tan, and P. L. Gould, Opt. Lett. 17, 1706 (1992).
4. C. G. Townsend et al., Phys. Rev. A 52, 1423 (1995).
5. It is important to distinguish here between uncertainty in a measurement from uncertainty in a model. Both lead to uncertainty in population, but usually only the former source of uncertainty is represented in experimental error bars. The present work, being model independent, suffers only from experimental error.
6. Any target atom or molecule undergoing charge transfer is effectively "destroyed." However, singly charged ions interact much less strongly with the target than do near-resonant photons, which are highly perturbative. Thus only a very small fraction of the target is modified through interaction with an ion beam.
7. X. Flechard, H. Nguyen, E. Wells, I. Ben-Itzhak, and B.D. DePaola, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 123203 (2001).
8. M. van der Poel, C.V. Nielsen, M-A. Gearba, and N. Andersen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 123201 (2001).
9. J.W. Turkstra, R. Hoekstra, S. Knoop, D. Meyer, R. Morgenstern, and R. E. Olson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 123202 (2001).
10. J. Ullrich, R. Moshammer, R. Dörner, O. Jagutzki, V. Mergel, H. Schmidt-Böcking, and L. Spielberger, J. Phys. B 30, 2917 (1997).
11. R. Dörner, V. Mergel, O. Jagutzki, L. Spielberger, J. Ullrich, R. Moshammer, and H. Schmidt-Böcking, Phys. Rep. 330, 95 (2000).
12. R. Moshammer, M. Unverzagt, W. Schmitt, J. Ullrich, and H. Schmidt-Böcking, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. B 108, 425 (1996).
13. H. Kollmus, W. Schmitt, R. Moshammer, M. Unverzagt, and J. Ullrich, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. B 124, 377 (1997).
14. H. Nguyen, X. Fléchard, R. Brédy, H. A. Camp, and B. D. DePaola, Rev. Sci. Instrum. (to be published).
15. The capture cross sections discussed here refer to randomly oriented targets since both the trapping and repumping beams are incident from all three orthogonal directions.
16. T.G. Lee, H. Nguyen, X. Fléchard, B. D. DePaola, and C. D. Lin, Phys. Rev. A 66, 042701 (2002).
17. In the system used in this work, an acousto-optical modulator (AOM) was used to chop the lasers. The temporal response of the AOM was about 15 ns. A Pockels cell could have easily been used in place of the AOM, leaving the TOF resolution as the "hard limit" to our temporal evolution measurements.
18. R. Brédy, H. Nguyen, H. Camp, X. Fléchard, and B. D. DePaola, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. B 205, 191 (2003).
19. J. Weiner, V. S. Bagnato, S. Zilio, and P. S. Julienne, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 1 (1999).
20. W. R. Anderson, J. R. Veale, and T. F. Gallagher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 249 (1998).
21. I. Mourachko, D. Comparat, F. de Tomasi, A. Fioretti, P. Nosbaum, V. M. Akulin, and P. Pillet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 253 (1998).
22. M. D. Lukin and A Imamoglu, Nature (London) 413, 273 (2001).