Three-dimensional crystalline ion beams

Physical Review E - Statistical Physics, Plasmas, Fluids, and Related Interdisciplinary Topics

Volumn 66, Issue 3, 2002, Pages

  Schramm, U ^a   Schatz T ^a   Habs, D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; APPROXIMATION THEORY; CONGESTION CONTROL (COMMUNICATION); GRAPHIC METHODS; NETWORK PROTOCOLS; PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS; RANDOM PROCESSES; ROBUSTNESS (CONTROL SYSTEMS); ROUTERS;

ALBERT'S ALGORITHMS; BARABÁSI ALGORITHMS; EDGE OVERLOAD BREAKDOWN; EVOLVING NETWORKS;

COMPUTER NETWORKS;

ARTICLE;

EID: 41349101056     PISSN: 1063651X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.66.036501     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. J.P. Schiffer and P. Kienle, Z. Phys. A 321, 181 (1985);
2. A. Rahman and J.P. Schiffer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 1133 (1986).
3. D. Habs and R. Grimm, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 45, 391 (1995), and references therein.
4. Crystalline Beams and Related Issues, edited by D. M. Maletic and A. G. Ruggiero (World Scientific, Singapore, 1996).
5. T. Schätz, U. Schramm, and D. Habs, Nature (London) 412, 717 (2001).
6. U. Schramm, T. Schätz, and D. Habs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 184801 (2001).
7. U. Schramm, T. Schätz, and D. Habs, in Non-Neutral Plasma Physics IV, edited by F. Anderegg, C.F. Driscoll, and L. Schweikhard, AIP Conf. Proc. 606 (AIP, Melville, NY, 2001), p. 235.
8. R.W. Hasse and J.P. Schiffer, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 203, 419 (1990).
9. G. Birkl, S. Kassner, and H. Walther, Nature (London) 357, 310 (1992);
10. I. Waki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 2007 (1992).
11. M. Drewsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2878 (1998);
12. Phys. Rev. Lett.L. Hornekaer, 86, 1994 (2001).
13. J. Wei, X.-P. Li, and A.M. Sessler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 3089 (1994).
14. J. P. Schiffer, in Crystalline Beams and Related Issues (Ref. 3), p. 217.
15. J. Wei, et al. in Crystalline Beams and Related Issues (Ref. 3), p. 229.
16. J. Wei, H. Okamoto, and A.M. Sessler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2606 (1998);
17. H. Okamoto and J. Wei, Phys. Rev. E 58, 3817 (1998).
18. P. J. Bryant and K. Johnson, Circular Accelerators and Storage Rings (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1993).
19. P. K. Gosh, Ion Traps (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1995).
20. U. Schramm, Habilitation thesis, LMU Munich, Universität Munchen, 2001 (unpublished); T. Schätz, U. Schramm, and D. Habs, in Crystalline Ion Beams, edited by A. Noda (unpublished).
21. H. J. Metcalf and P. van der Straten, Laser Cooling and Trapping of Atoms and Ions (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999).
22. H.-J. Miesner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 623 (1996).
23. The two laser beams had to be tilted by an angle (Formula presented) mrad with respect to each other in the horizontal plane to avoid perturbing effects between the two independently stabilized laser systems. Such an adjustment automatically leads to a tilt angle (Formula presented) with respect to the ion beam.
24. F. Diedrich, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2931 (1987).
25. R. Blümel, Nature (London) 334, 309 (1988);
26. R. BlümelPhys. Rev. A 40, 808 (1989).
27. Systematic studies of the formation of large prolate ion crystals in a linear Paul trap 9, as a function of the laser detuning, confirmed this interpretation of the dip in the range of few cylindrical shells, as reported in L. Hornekaer, Ph. D. thesis, University of Aarhus, Denmark, 2000 (unpublished).
28. For the calibration of the fluorescence yield per ion in a crystalline beam, the absolute number of ions in a stationary ion crystal was directly counted. These ions were accelerated and the corresponding fluorescence rate was measured in flight and at rest.
29. D.H.E. Dubin, Phys. Rev. A 42, 4972 (1990).
30. D.H.E. Dubin, Phys. Rev. E 53, 5268 (1996);
31. Phys. Rev. ED.H.E. Dubin and J.P. Schiffer, 53, 5249 (1996).
32. J.P. Schiffer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 205003 (2002).
33. For crystalline beams, a larger relative detuning of the two laser beams in the ion rest frame had to be chosen than in the case of stationary ion crystals 29. This fact might be due to the increased sensitivity of the crystalline beam to the mechanism of diffusive transverse heating which is associated with the random scattering of laser photons. As a consequence, the fluorescence signal was lower by about a factor of 5.
34. A similar pedestal occurred in the original investigation of stationary ion crystals performed by Walther and co-workers 8 in their rf quadrupole ring trap, which has the same dimensions and used a similar optical imaging system as the storage ring PALLAS (see 56). Furthermore, the appearance of the pedestal in the images of stationary ion crystals (where single ions are resolved) and crystalline beams support the interpretation as an artifact. As light scattering in the optical imaging system seems to be its origin, the parameters of the Gaussian pedestal (Formula presented) depend on the shape and the brightness of the original object.
35. T. Schätz, U. Schramm, and D. Habs, in Atomic Physics at Accelerators III, Aarhus, Denmark, edited by J. Hangst [Hyperfine Interact. (to be published)].
36. Q. Spreiter, M. Seurer, and C. Toepffer, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 364, 239 (1995);
37. M. Seurer, Q. Spreiter, and C. Töpfer, Hyperfine Interact. 99, 253 (1996);in Crystalline Beams and Related Issues (Ref. 3), p. 311.
38. N. Kjaergard, K. Molhave, and M. Drewsen, in Non-Neutral Plasma Physics IV (Ref. 6), p. 145.
39. For crystalline beams the width (Formula presented) can be determined with a relative error of about 5%, as the Gaussian pedestal (in this case an artifact 28) can be unambiguously distinguished. Representative error bars are given in Fig. 77. The relative error of the amplitudes amounts to about 5% for (Formula presented) and 10% for (Formula presented) For noncrystalline beams, where the separation of the two components becomes more ambiguous, the relative error in the width increases to about 10–15 %. A larger uncertainty shows up in the determination of the amplitudes (Formula presented) for (Formula presented) and (Formula presented) for (Formula presented)
40. J.P. Schiffer, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 97, 10 697 (2000).
41. T. Kihara, Phys. Rev. E 59, 3594 (1999).
42. U. Eisenbarth, Hyperfine Interact. 127, 223 (2000);
43. I. Lauer, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2052 (1998); and references therein.
44. N. Madsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 274801 (2001), and references therein.
45. V.V. Avilov and I. Hofmann, Phys. Rev. E 47, 2019 (1993).