Suppression of inhomogeneous broadening in rf spectroscopy of optically trapped atoms

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 66, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 454011-454014

  Kaplan, Ariel ^a   Andersen, Mikkel Fredslund ^a   Davidson, Nir ^a  

^a WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATOMS; FREQUENCIES; GROUND STATE; OPTICAL PROPERTIES; SPECTROSCOPIC ANALYSIS;

OPTICALLY TRAPPED ATOMS;

ATOMIC PHYSICS;

EID: 4043143258     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.66.045401     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. M.A. Kasevich, E. Riis, S. Chu, and R.G. DeVoe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 612 (1989).
2. R. Grimm, M. Weidemuller, and Y.B. Ovchinnikov, Adv. At., Mol., Opt. Phys. 42, 95 (2000).
3. S. Chu, J.E. Bjorkholm, A. Ashkin, and A. Cable; Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 314 (1986).
4. J.D. Miller, R.A. Cline, and D.J. Heinzen, Phys. Rev. A 47, R4567 (1993).
5. N. Davidson, H.J. Lee, C.S. Adams, M. Kasevich, and S. Chu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 1311 (1995).
6. C.S. Adams, H.J. Lee, N. Davidson, M. Kasevich, and S. Chu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 3577 (1995).
7. T. Takekoshi and R.J. Knize, Opt. Lett. 21, 77 (1996).
8. N. Friedman, A. Kaplan, and N. Davidson, Adv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 48, 99 (2002).
9. J.P. Gordon and A. Ashkin, Phys. Rev. A 21, 1606 (1980).
10. S.J.M. Kuppens, K.L. Corwin, K.W. Miller, T.E. Chupp, and C.E. Wieman, Phys. Rev. A 62, 013406 (1999).
11. T. Ido, Y. Isoya, and H. Katori, Phys. Rev. A 61, 061403 (2000); H. Katori, T. Ido, and M.K. Gonokami, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 68, 2479 (1999).
12. T. Ido, Y. Isoya, and H. Katori, Phys. Rev. A 61, 061403 (2000); H. Katori, T. Ido, and M.K. Gonokami, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 68, 2479 (1999).
13. This is true when the position of each atom is fixed in time, and only an approximation for the more realistic case where the atoms move during the interrogation time.
14. A. Kaplan, N. Friedman, and N. Davidson, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 19, 1233 (2002).
15. HF/2, yielding a straightforward modification of Eqs. (5 and 6); however, choosing δ=0 minimizes spontaneous photon scattering.
16. A similar calculation can be made which also takes into account also the contribution of the D1 transition, and introduces only a small correction to Eq. (6).
17. -7 in our experiment, the beams are separated by two gratings and two pinholes before their power can be measured independently.
18. R. Ozeri, L. Khaykovich, and N. Davidson, Phys. Rev. A 59, R1750 (1999).
19. L. Khaykovich, N. Friedman, and N. Davidson, Eur. Phys. J. D 7, 467 (1999).
20. R.A. Cline, J.D. Miller, M.R. Matthews, and D.J. Heinzen, Opt. Lett. 19, 207 (1994).
21. All four |F=2,m ≠ 0〉 states are populated and contribute to the spontaneous Raman scattering background, which is hence five times larger than that of an ideal two-level system.
22. C. Chin, V. Leiber, V. Vuletic, A.J. Kerman, and S. Chu, Phys. Rev. A 63, 033401 (2001).