Three fully polarized fermions close to a p -wave Feshbach resonance

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 77, Issue 4, 2008, Pages

  Jona Lasinio, M ^a,b   Pricoupenko, L ^c   Castin, Y ^a  

^a ECOLE NORMALE SUPÉRIEURE   (France)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FLORENCE   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITÉ PIERRE ET MARIE CURIE   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DIMERS; INELASTIC SCATTERING; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; NUMERICAL METHODS; RESONANCE;

ATOMIC FERMIONS; SCATTERING VOLUME;

FERMIONS;

EID: 42149194444     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: 10941622     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.77.043611     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. G. E. Volovik, The Universe in a Helium Droplet (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2003).
2. G. E. Volovik, Quantum Analogues: From Phase Transitions to Black Holes and Cosmology, edited by, W. G. Unruh, and, R. Schutzhold, Vol. 718 of Springer Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2007), pp. 31-73.
3. D. M. Lee, Rev. Mod. Phys. RMPHAT 0034-6861 10.1103/RevModPhys.69.645 69, 645 (1997).
4. F. R. Klinkhamer and G. E. Volovik, Pis'ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. PZETAB 0370-274X 80, 389 (2004)
5. F. R. Klinkhamer and G. E. Volovik, JETP Lett. JTPLA2 0021-3640 10.1134/1.1825119 80, 343 (2004).
6. H. Feshbach, Ann. Phys. ANPYA2 0003-3804 10.1016/0003-4916(62)90221-X 19, 287 (1962).
7. S. Inouye, M. R. Andrews, J. Stenger, H.-J. Miesner, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, and W. Ketterle, Nature (London) NATUAS 0028-0836 10.1038/32354 392, 151 (1998).
8. S. L. Cornish, N. R. Claussen, J. L. Roberts, E. A. Cornell, and C. E. Wieman, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.1795 85, 1795 (2000).
9. K. M. O'Hara, S. L. Hemmer, M. E. Gehm, S. R. Granade, and J. E. Thomas, Science SCIEAS 0036-8075 10.1126/science.1079107 298, 2179 (2002).
10. M.E. Gehm, S.L. Hemmer, S.R. Granade, K.M. O'Hara, and J.E. Thomas, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.68.011401 68, 011401 (R) (2003).
11. C. Regal, C. Ticknor, J. Bohn, and D. Jin, Nature (London) NATUAS 0028-0836 10.1038/nature01738 424, 47 (2003).
12. T. Bourdel, J. Cubizolles, L. Khaykovich, K. M. F. Magalhaes, S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, G. V. Shlyapnikov, and C. Salomon, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.020402 91, 020402 (2003).
13. S. Jochim, M. Bartenstein, A. Altmeyer, G. Hendl, S. Riedl, C. Chin, J. Hecker Denschlag, and R. Grimm, Science SCIEAS 0036-8075 10.1126/science.1093280 302, 2101 (2003).
14. M. Greiner, C. A. Regal, and D. S. Jin, Nature (London) NATUAS 0028-0836 10.1038/nature02199 426, 537 (2003).
15. M. W. Zwierlein, C. A. Stan, C. H. Schunck, S. M. F. Raupach, S. Gupta, Z. Hadzibabic, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.250401 91, 250401 (2003).
16. T. Bourdel, L. Khaykovich, J. Cubizolles, J. Zhang, F. Chevy, M. Teichmann, L. Tarruell, S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, and C. Salomon, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.050401 93, 050401 (2004).
17. M. Bartenstein, A. Altmeyer, S. Riedl, S. Jochim, C. Chin, J. H. Denschlag, and R. Grimm, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett. 92.120401 92, 120401 (2004).
18. C. Chin, M. Bartenstein, A. Altmeyer, S. Riedl, S. Jochim, J. Hecker Denschlag, and R. Grimm, Science SCIEAS 0036-8075 10.1126/science.1100818 305, 1128 (2004).
19. G. B. Partridge, W. Li, R. I. Kamar, Y. A. Liao, and R. G. Hulet, Science SCIEAS 0036-8075 10.1126/science.1122876 311, 503 (2006).
20. Y. Shin, M. W. Zwierlein, C. H. Schunck, A. Schirotzek, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.030401 97, 030401 (2006).
21. J. T. Stewart, J. P. Gaebler, C. A. Regal, and D. S. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.220406 97, 220406 (2006).
22. A. Altmeyer, S. Riedl, C. Kohstall, M. J. Wright, R. Geursen, M. Bartenstein, C. Chin, J. H. Denschlag, and R. Grimm, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.040401 98, 040401 (2007).
23. L. Luo, B. Clancy, J. Joseph, J. Kinast, and J. E. Thomas, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.080402 98, 080402 (2007).
24. M. W. Zwierlein, J. R. Abo-Shaeer, A. Schirotzek, C. H. Schunck, and W. Ketterle, Nature (London) NATUAS 0028-0836 10.1038/nature03858 435, 1047 (2005).
25. C. A. Regal, C. Ticknor, J. L. Bohn, and D. S. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.053201 90, 053201 (2003).
26. C. Ticknor, C. A. Regal, D. S. Jin, and J. L. Bohn, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.69.042712 69, 042712 (2004).
27. K. Günter, T. Stöferle, H. Moritz, M. Köhl, and T. Esslinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.230401 95, 230401 (2005).
28. J. P. Gaebler, J. T. Stewart, J. L. Bohn, and D. S. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.200403 98, 200403 (2007).
29. J. Zhang, E.G.M. Van Kempen, T. Bourdel, L. Khaykovich, J. Cubizolles, F. Chevy, M. Teichmann, L. Tarruell, S.J.J.M.F. Kokkelmans, and C. Salomon, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.70.030702 70, 030702 (R) (2004).
30. C. H. Schunck, M. W. Zwierlein, C. A. Stan, S. M. F. Raupach, W. Ketterle, A. Simoni, E. Tiesinga, C. J. Williams, and P. S. Julienne, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.71.045601 71, 045601 (2005).
31. F. Chevy, E. G. M. van Kempen, T. Bourdel, J. Zhang, L. Khaykovich, M. Teichmann, L. Tarruell, S. J. J. M. F. Kokkelmans, and C. Salomon, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.71.062710 71, 062710 (2005).
32. V. Gurarie, L. Radzihovsky, and A. V. Andreev, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.230403 94, 230403 (2005).
33. Y. Ohashi, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94. 050403 94, 050403 (2005).
34. T.-L. Ho and R. B. Diener, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.090402 94, 090402 (2005).
35. C.-H. Cheng and S.-K. Yip, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.070404 95, 070404 (2005).
36. L. Pricoupenko, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96. 050401 96, 050401 (2006).
37. V. Gurarie and L. Radzihovsky, Ann. Phys. 322, 2 (2007). 0003-4916
38. G. V. Skorniakov and K. A. Ter-Martirosian, Sov. Phys. JETP SPHJAR 0038-5646 4, 648 (1957).
39. D.S. Petrov, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.67.010703 67, 010703 (R) (2003).
40. D. S. Petrov, C. Salomon, and G. V. Shlyapnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.090404 93, 090404 (2004)
41. D. S. Petrov, C. Salomon, and G. V. Shlyapnikov, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.71.012708 71, 012708 (2005).
42. I. V. Brodsky, M. Yu. Kagan, A. V. Klaptsov, R. Combescot, and X. Leyronas, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.73.032724 73, 032724 (2006).
43. X. Leyronas and R. Combescot, e-print arXiv:0706.3774.
44. H. Suno, B. D. Esry, and H. C. Greene, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.053202 90, 053202 (2003).
45. J. H. Macek and J. Sternberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.023201 97, 023201 (2006).
46. J. Levinsen, N. Cooper, and V. Gurarie, e-print arXiv:0705.4460.
47. L. Landau and E. Lifchitz, Quantum Mechanics (Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1999).
48. Y. Castin, C. R. Phys. CRPOBN 1631-0705 10.1016/j.crhy.2004.03.017 5, 407 (2004)
49. F. Werner and Y. Castin, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.74.053604 74, 053604 (2006).
50. M. V. Zhukov, B. V. Danilin, D. V. Fedorov, J. M. Bang, I. J. Thompson, and J. S. Vaagen, Phys. Rep. PRPLCM 0370-1573 10.1016/0370-1573(93)90141-Y 231, 151 (1993).
51. One can equivalently consider a dimer wavefunction of a well defined angular moment component m=0,±1 along the quantization axis z, by replacing (3/4π) 1/2 rγ /r in Eq. 7 by Y1m (θ,).
52. If one assumes αres =0, taking u (k) =1/ (k2 Vs) for low k, as done in Ref., one gets a dimer for Vs <0 (contrarily to the realistic case) and one reaches a contradiction in Eq. 9 |N| 2 <0.
53. In the resonant limit | Vs | →+, on the side αres Vs <0 of the resonance, there is a so-called quasibound state in the two-body problem, which was studied experimentally in Ref.: From Eq. 4 and using the fact that αres >0, one finds that the scattering amplitude f (k) has a complex pole with a real part k00 1/ (αres | Vs |) 1/2 much larger than its imaginary part - (k00) 2 / (2 αres). Physically this is related to the existence of a centrifugal barrier when the two particles approach with non-zero relative momentum, here l=1. This quasibound state does not play an important role in the present work: in the exceptional case where we consider a negative rather than positive scattering volume (see end of Sec. 5), the total energy E in the three-body problem is still assumed to be much smaller than 2 (k00) 2 /m so that the relative momentum krel appearing in the three-body problem, as defined in Eq. 39, cannot reach the value k00.
54. This inequality was obtained by a different technique in Ref. and was generalized to higher partial wave channels in L. Pricoupenko, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.73.012701 73, 012701 (2006).
55. This inequality can also be obtained using the generalization of the Smorodinskii formula for the effective range to the case of a resonant p -wave interaction, as done in V. D. Mur and V. S. Popov, Teor. Mat. Fiz. TMFZAL 0564-6162 27, 204 (1976).
56. T. Köhler, K. Goral, and P. Julienne, Rev. Mod. Phys. RMPHAT 0034-6861 10.1103/RevModPhys.78.1311 78, 1311 (2006).
57. John R. Taylor, Scattering Theory (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1972).
58. This reasoning extends to an arbitrary, everywhere finite envelope function f (k) such that χ (k) =kf (k).
59. We used the identity r1,..., rN | a k1 † a kN † | 0 = (N!) -1/2 σ SN (σ) exp [i (k1 rσ (1) ++ kN rσ (N))].
60. Checking the consistency of these two ways of calculating β is actually useful: contour integration in the space of complex k was used to derive Eq. 9 from Eq. 8, and it is not straightforward that the contribution of the contour integral on an infinite radius half circle is zero, since | f (iq) | actually rapidly diverges as q→ for our two-channel model. This check reduces to proving that I (r) = d3 k (2π) 3 e- k2 b2 /2 eikr / (k2 + q dim 2) ∼ e- qdim r e q dim 2 b2 /2 / (4πr) for r→. This can be done by using the analytic expression for I (r) or by noting that I (r) is the convolution of a Gaussian with a Yukawa function.
61. D. S. Petrov, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93. 143201 93, 143201 (2004).
62. In the second term, an integral of the form I= 0 Kmax d K′ v (K′) P [1/ (K′2 - K dim 2)] appears, with Kmax being the numerical momentum cut-off, which may lead to numerical difficulties since the integrand diverges in K= Kdim. We rewrite it using v (K′) = [v (K′) -v (Kdim)] +v (Kdim). Using 0 Kmax d K′ P [1/ (K′2 - K dim 2)] =-ln [(Kmax + Kdim) / (Kmax - Kdim)] / (2 Kdim), we are left with the numerical evaluation of 0 Kmax d K′ [v (K′) -v (Kdim)] / (K′2 - K dim 2).
63. Yu. Kagan, B. V. Svistunov, and G. V. Shlyapnikov, Pis'ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 42, 169 (1985) 0044-4510
64. Yu. Kagan, B. V. Svistunov, and G. V. Shlyapnikov, JETP Lett. 42, 209 (1985). 0044-4510
65. M. Holzmann and Y. Castin, Eur. Phys. J. D EPJDF6 1434-6060 10.1007/s100530050586 7, 425 (1999).
66. We get Rα ψ † Rβ ψ 0 = Mαβ / L3, with Mαβ = i=1 3 k i,α 0 k i,β 0. From Wick's theorem the expectation value 0 in Eq. 81 is equal to 3 L-9 (Mαα Mββ - M αβ 2). One may then check that (α,β) Mαα Mββ - M αβ 2 =3 (K0 × k0) 2, where the sum is taken over the three values (x,y), (x,z), and (y,z) of (α,β).
67. One sees that the quantity t appearing in the definition of C0 and C2 in Appendix is small and can be neglected; explicit expressions without relying on special functions can be obtained; they can be further simplified by performing a high v expansion, where the parameter v appears in Appendix, and by keeping the leading term 2/ (3v). Since the next term in the large v expansion is O (1/ v3), this further approximation of keeping the leading term 1/v only is already good at the minimal possible value of v,v=2, where it introduces an extra error of ∼5%.
68. One can show the following result, for a fixed value of αres: if there exist constants A and B such that, for all Vs above some value, one has | F (K) |
69. U. Fano, Phys. Rev. PHRVAO 0031-899X 10.1103/PhysRev.124.1866 124, 1866 (1961).
70. P. F. Bedaque, E. Braaten, and H.-W. Hammer, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.908 85, 908 (2000).
71. J. H. Macek, S. Yu. Ovchinnikov, and G. Gasaneo, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.73.032704 73, 032704 (2006).
72. G. Smirne, R. M. Godun, D. Cassettari, V. Boyer, C. J. Foot, T. Volz, N. Syassen, S. Dürr, G. Rempe, M. D. Lee, K. Goral, and T. Koehler, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.75.020702 75, 020702 (R) (2007).
73. D. M. Lee, T. Koehler, and P. S. Julienne, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.76.012720 76, 012720 (2007).
74. E. Nielsen, H. Suno, and B. D. Esry, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.66.012705 66, 012705 (2002).
75. J. P. D'Incao and B. D. Esry, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.213201 94, 213201 (2005).
76. F. Werner and Y. Castin, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.150401 97, 150401 (2006).
77. This arbitrary normalization is 0 + dK K2 | b (K) | 2 =1.
78. We shall also assume that the first order derivative of E (K) with respect to K is uniformly bounded as a function of K and Ktrim.
79. From the low- K expansion of the matrix elements in the second line of M (K,k), we get BL=2 (K) =O (1/ K2 + K trim 2), so that K | BL=2 (K) | is uniformly bounded in K and Ktrim, similarly to what happens in the even sector. The crossed terms in BL=0 BL=2 give at most a logarithmic divergence in the normalization integrals.
80. We use here the convention that, in the two-body calculation of the dimer wave function (r), β= p closed 1/2 ez.
81. The infinite Vs bg pure single channel model is equivalent to an infinite Vs two channel model with no open channel interaction and with Λ→+, since both models have the same scattering amplitude in these limits.
82. More precisely, if one assumes that v0 (K) diverges as 1/ Kγ for low K, γ<3 to ensure convergence in the integral, one sees that the integral in the limit K→0 either diverges as 1/ Kγ-1, for γ>1, or does not diverge, for γ<1. Since α th even >0, this leads to a contradiction in the integral equation α th even v0 (K) /4= I0† [v0] (K), the left-hand side diverging more rapidly than the right-hand side.