Ultracold atoms in optical lattices

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 68, Issue 4 B, 2003, Pages

  Dickerscheid, D B M ^a,b   Van Oosten, D ^a,c   Denteneer, P J H ^b   Stoof, H T C ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITEIT LEIDEN   (Netherlands)

^c UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

APPROXIMATION THEORY; ELECTRON GAS; ELECTRON TRAPS; HAMILTONIANS; LOW TEMPERATURE PROPERTIES; MATHEMATICAL OPERATORS; OPTICAL MATERIALS; PHASE DIAGRAMS; PHASE TRANSITIONS; QUANTUM THEORY; RANDOM PROCESSES; THERMODYNAMICS;

BOSE-HUBBARD MODEL; HILBERT SPACE; HUBBARD-STRATONOVICH TRANSFORMATION; LANDAU THEORY; MOTT INSULATOR; OPTICAL LATTICES; SLAVE BOSON APPROACH; ULTRACOLD ATOMS;

ATOMS;

EID: 4444253898     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. M.P.A. Fisher, P.B. Weichman, G. Grinstein, and D.S. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B 40, 546 (1989).
2. D. Jaksch, C. Bruder, J.I. Cirac, C.W. Gardiner, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3108 (1998).
3. K. Sheshadri, H.R. Krishnamurthy, R. Pandit, and T.V. Ramakrishnan, Europhys. Lett. 22, 257 (1993).
4. D. van Oosten, P. van der Straten, and H.T.C. Stoof, Phys. Rev. A 63, 053601 (2001).
5. D. van Oosten, P. van der Straten, and H.T.C. Stoof, Phys. Rev. A 67, 033606 (2003).
6. R. Roth and K. Burnett, Phys. Rev. A 67, 031602 (2003).
7. M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. Esslinger, T.W. Hänsch, and I. Bloch, Nature (London) 415, 39 (2002).
8. W. Zwerger, J. Opt. B 5, s9 (2003).
9. S. Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001).
10. G. Kotliar and A.E. Ruckenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 1362 (1986).
11. K. Ziegler, Europhys. Lett. 23, 463 (1993).
12. R. Frésard, e-print cond-mat/9405053.
13. J.W. Negele and H. Orland, Quantum Many-Particle Systems (Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, 1988).
14. H.T.C. Stoof, in Coherent Atomic Matter Waves, edited by R. Kaiser and F. David (Springer, Berlin, 2001), p. 219.
15. A remedy for this discrepancy may be envisioned in allowing the right-hand side of Eq. (34) to deviate slightly from 1. We do not explore this possibility here.
16. c → 0 for U → 0. Including this term, which is associated with processes involving triply occupied sites, probably is inconsistent with allowing a maximum occupancy of 2.
17. 4 = 0.008 at β = 1 [19].
18. 2 = 0.111.
19. G.G. Batrouni and R.T. Scalettar, Phys. Rev. B 46, 9051 (1992).