Nonlinear resonant transport of Bose-Einstein condensates

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 94, Issue 2, 2005, Pages

  Paul, Tobias ^a   Richter, Klaus ^a   Schlagheck, Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF REGENSBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHEMICAL POTENTIAL; CONDENSATES; COULOMB INTERACTION; SUPERFLUIDS;

FABRY-PEROT INTERFEROMETERS; FREQUENCIES; MAGNETIC FIELD EFFECTS; NONLINEAR OPTICS; QUANTUM THEORY; WAVE PROPAGATION; WAVEGUIDES;

NONLINEAR SYSTEMS;

EID: 18144377812     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: 10797114     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.020404     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. J. R. Abo-Shaeer, C. Raman, J. M. Vogels, and W. Ketterle, Science 292, 476 (2001).
2. M. Greiner et al., Nature (London) 415, 39 (2002).
3. R. Folman et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4749 (2000).
4. H. Ott, J. Fortagh, G. Schlotterbeck, A. Grossraann, and C. Zimmermann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 230401 (2001).
5. W. Hänsel, P. Hommelhoff, T. W. Hänsch, and J. Reichet, Nature (London) 413, 498 (2001).
6. E. Andersson et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 100401 (2002).
7. J. H. Thywissen, R. M. Westervelt, and M. Prentiss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3762 (1999).
8. D. K. Ferry and S. M. Goodnick, Transport in Nanostructures (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1997).
9. P. Leboeuf and N. Pavloff, Phys. Rev. A 64, 033602 (2001).
10. M. Jääskeläinen and S. Stenholm, Phys. Rev. A 66, 023608 (2002).
11. N. Pavloff, Phys. Rev. A 66, 013610 (2002).
12. P. Leboeuf, N. Pavloff, and S. Sinha, Phys. Rev. A 68, 063608 (2003).
13. S. Komineas and N. Papanicolaou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 070402 (2002).
14. K. M. Hilligsøe, M. K. Oberthaler, and K.-P. Marzlin, Phys. Rev. A 66, 063605 (2002).
15. A multilayer chip geometry, as used, e.g., in the atom-chip group in Tübingen (Ref. [4]), might be employed to avoid decoherence and fragmentation effects that would result from the near vicinity of the condensate to the wires creating the magnetic waveguide.
16. I. Carusotto and G. C. La Rocca, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 399 (1999); I. Carusotto, Phys. Rev. A 63, 023610 (2001).
17. I. Carusotto and G. C. La Rocca, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 399 (1999); I. Carusotto, Phys. Rev. A 63, 023610 (2001).
18. R. W. Boyd, Nonlinear Optics (Academic Press, London, 1992).
19. V. J. Goldman, D. C. Tsui, and J. E. Cunningham, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1256 (1987).
20. C. Presilla, G. Jona-Lasinio, and F. Capasso, Phys. Rev. B 43, R5200 (1991).
21. M. Y. Azbel', Phys. Rev. B 59, 8049 (1999).
22. F. Dalfovo, S. Giorgini, L. P. Pitaevski, and S. Stringari, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 463 (1999).
23. M. Olshanii, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 938 (1998).
24. Such a small barrier width would be at the limit of realizability with present-day atom-chip technology. We remark, however, that the phenomena we discuss here do not sensitively depend on the chosen parameters nor on the specific shape of the potential.
25. T. Shibata, Phys. Rev. B 43, 6760 (1991).
26. T. Paul, P. Schlagheck, and K. Richter (to be published).
27. This phenomenon must not be confused with the "atom blockade" discussed by Carusotto [16], which arises in the limit of few atoms and very strong interactions.
28. In atom chips, time-dependent fluctuations of the barrier height might further reduce the lifetime. This issue is currently under investigation.