Measurement of a mixed-spin-channel feshbach resonance in 87Rb

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 69, Issue 3, 2004, Pages

  Erhard, M ^a   Schmaljohann, H ^a   Kronjager J ^a   Bongs, K ^a   Sengstock, K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HAMBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

APPROXIMATION THEORY; COMPUTATION THEORY; LIGHT ABSORPTION; LIGHT POLARIZATION; MAGNETIC FIELD EFFECTS; MIXTURES; QUANTUM THEORY; RESONANCE; SPURIOUS SIGNAL NOISE;

BOSE-EINSTEIN CONDENSATES; FESHBACH RESONANCE; SPIN CHANNELS; ZEEMAN EFFECTS;

RUBIDIUM;

EID: 2542440876     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.69.032705     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. S. Inouye, M. R. Andrews, J. Stenger, H.-J. Miesner, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, and W. Ketterle, Nature (London) 392, 151 (1998).
2. P. Courteille, R. S. Freeland, D. J. Heinzen, F. A. van Abeelen, and B. J. Verhaar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 69 (1998).
3. J. Roberts, N. Claussen, J. P. Burke, Jr., C. H. Greene, E. Cornell, and C. Wieman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5109 (1998).
4. V. Vuletić, A. J. Kerman, C. Chin, and S. Chu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1406 (1999).
5. S. L. Cornish, N. R. Claussen, J. L. Roberts, E. A. Cornell, and C. E. Wieman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1795 (2000).
6. T. Loftus, C. A. Regal, C. Ticknor, J. L. Bohn, and D. S. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 173201 (2002).
7. L. Khaykovich, F. Schreck, G. Ferrari, T. Bourdel, J. Cubizolles, L. D. Carr, Y. Castin, and C. Salomon, Science 296, 1290 (2002).
8. K. E. Strecker, G. B. Partridge, A. G. Truscott, and R. G. Hulet, Nature (London) 417, 150 (2002).
9. K. Dieckmann, C. A. Stan, S. Gupta, Z. Hadzibabic, C. H. Schunck, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 203201 (2002).
10. A. Marte, T. Volz, J. Schuster, S. Dürr, G. Rempe, E. G. M. van Kempen, and B. J. Verhaar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 283202 (2002).
11. K. M. O'Hara, S. L. Hemmer, M. E. Gehm, S. R. Granade, and J. E. Thomas, Science 298, 2179 (2002).
12. T. Bourdel, J. Cubizolles, L. Khaykovich, K. M. F. Magalhães, S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, G. V. Shlyapnikov, and C. Salomon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 020402 (2003).
13. E. A. Donley, N. R. Claussen, S. L. Cornish, E. A. C. Jacob, L. Roberts, and C. E. Wieman, Nature (London) 412, 295 (2001).
14. E. A. Donley, N. R. Claussen, S. T. Thompson, and C. E. Wieman, Nature (London) 417, 529 (2002).
15. C. A. Regal, C. Ticknor, J. L. Bohn, and D. S. Jin, Nature (London) 424, 47 (2003).
16. J. Herbig, T. Kraemer, M. Mark, T. Weber, C. Chin, H.-C. Nägerl, and R. Grimm, Science 301, 1510 (2003).
17. S. Dürr, T. Volz, A. Marte, and G. Rempe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 020406 (2004).
18. J. Cubizolles, T. Bourdel, S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, G. V. Shlyapnikov, and C. Salomon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 240401 (2003).
19. S. Jochim, M. Bartenstein, A. Altmeyer, G. Hendl, C. Chin, J. H. Denschlag, and R. Grimm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 240402 (2003).
20. K. E. Strecker, G. B. Partridge, and R. G. Hulet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 080406 (2003).
21. C. A. Regal, M. Greiner, and D. S. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 083201 (2004).
22. E. G. M. van Kempen, S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, D. J. Heinzen, and B. J. Verhaar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 093201 (2002).
23. A. Sørensen, L.-M. Duan, J. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Nature (London) 409, 63 (2001).
24. H. Schmaljohann, M. Erhard, J. Kronjäger, M. Kottke, S. van Staa, J. Arlt, K. Bongs, and K. Sengstock, e-print cond-mat/0308281.
25. M.-O. Mewes, M. Andrews, D. Kurn, D. Durfee, C. Townsend, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 582 (1997).
26. M. Prevedelli, T. Freegarde, and T. Hänsch, Appl. Phys. B: Lasers Opt. B60, S241 (1995).
27. J. Söding, D. Guéry-Odelin, P. Desbiolles, F. Chevy, H. Inamori, and J. Dalibard, Appl. Phys. B: Lasers Opt. B69, 257 (1999).
28. i which may be considered as "instantaneous decay." Our experimental situation lies in between and the equation of motion cannot be written in such a simple form. Evaluation of the experimental data assuming the α=2 case (instead of α=7/5) leads to a modification of 20% in comparison of the loss rate to the theoretical result. The dynamics of the decay process is a interesting problem on its own and would go beyond the scope of this paper.
29. 2 with an accuracy of 20%. The preparation asymmetry can be determined and compensated for each measurement regarding the actual asymmetry and assuming losses by pairs of F=2 and F=1 atoms. Nevertheless this procedure leads only to changes of 20% in initial loss rates and has negligible effects on position and width of the resonance.
30. E. G. M. van Kempen and B. J. Verhaar (private communication).
31. F is the imaginary part of the scattering length at the Feshbach resonance).
32. A. Widera, O. Mandel, M. Greiner, S. Kreim, T. W. Hänsch, and I. Bloch, e-print cond-mat/0310719.