Cooling fermionic atoms in optical lattices by shaping the confinement

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 79, Issue 6, 2009, Pages

  Bernier, Jean Sébastien ^a   Kollath, Corinna ^a   Georges, Antoine ^a   De Leo, Lorenzo ^a   Gerbier, Fabrice ^b   Salomon, Christophe ^b   Köhl, Michael ^c  

^a CENTRE DE PHYSIQUE THÉORIQUE   (France)

^b CNRS   (France)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATOMS; CRYSTAL LATTICES; ENTROPY; FERMIONS; OPTICAL MATERIALS; PARTICLE OPTICS; QUANTUM CONFINEMENT;

ANTIFERROMAGNETS; EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS; EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE; FERMIONIC ATOMS; ITS EFFICIENCIES; POTENTIAL PROFILES; QUANTITATIVE STUDY; QUANTUM PHASIS;

OPTICAL LATTICES;

EID: 66649113056     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: 10941622     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.79.061601     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. I. Bloch, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 885 (2008). 10.1103/RevModPhys.80.885
2. R. Jördens, Nature (London) 455, 204 (2008). 10.1038/nature07244
3. U. Schneider, Science 322, 1520 (2008). 10.1126/science.1165449
4. For a system of interacting fermions in an optical lattice, this relation is more involved. See F. Werner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 056401 (2005) 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.056401
5. A. M. Dare, Phys. Rev. B 76, 064402 (2007) 10.1103/PhysRevB.76.064402
6. A. Koetsier, Phys. Rev. A 77, 023623 (2008). 10.1103/PhysRevA.77.023623
7. M. Popp, Phys. Rev. A 74, 013622 (2006). 10.1103/PhysRevA.74.013622
8. B. Capogrosso-Sansone, Phys. Rev. A 77, 015602 (2008). 10.1103/PhysRevA.77.015602
9. P. W. H. Pinkse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 990 (1997). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.78. 990
10. D. M. Stamper-Kurn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2194 (1998). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.2194
11. L. D. Carr, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 150404 (2004). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92. 150404
12. R. Haussmann, Phys. Rev. A 78, 063602 (2008). 10.1103/PhysRevA.78.063602
13. P. B. Blakie and A. Bezett, Phys. Rev. A 71, 033616 (2005) 10.1103/PhysRevA.71.033616
14. P. B. Blakie, Phys. Rev. A 75, 063609 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevA.75.063609
15. A. Griessner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 220403 (2006). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97. 220403
16. T.-L. Ho and Q. Zhou, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 6916 (2009). 10.1073/pnas.0809862105
17. A. P. Ramirez, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2957 (2000) 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84. 2957
18. S. Nakatsuji, Science 309, 1697 (2005) 10.1126/science.1114727
19. Y. Okamoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 137207 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99. 137207
20. In the core, any phase with sufficiently low entropy can be used. The low entropy of a band insulator was also put to use in Ref..
21. The low entropy per particle in the core region could be, for example, deduced from a measurement of the double occupancy.
22. N. Friedman, Adv. At., Mol., Opt. Phys. 48 99 (2002).
23. For a 3D lattice loaded with K 40 atoms, we can use beams of P=2.7W at λL =532nm focused to a waist of 310μm. For the optical dipole trap, we can use two beams in the x and y directions of P=15W at λDT =1064nm focused to the same waist as the lattice. ER = h2 / (2m λL2) is the recoil energy. For Vlattice =8 ER, 6J=0.19 ER. To create the potential profile, all energy scales were chosen to be smaller than the energy required to excite atoms from the first to the second band as Δ E1→2 /6J∼19.
24. D. Jaksch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3108 (1998). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.3108
25. A. Georges, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 13 (1996). 10.1103/RevModPhys.68.13
26. L. De Leo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 210403 (2008). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101. 210403
27. Only the height of the barrier is adjusted to adequately suppress the entropy exchange between the core and storage regions.
28. For the example shown in Fig. 2, the depth of the shallow trap is on the order of 25J. A barrier with height exceeding 36J and radius ∼150a implies a realistic tenfold increase in laser power compared to the initial configuration.
29. E. Peik, Phys. Rev. A 55, 2989 (1997). 10.1103/PhysRevA.55.2989
30. B. P. Anderson, Science 282, 1686 (1998). 10.1126/science.282.5394.1686
31. The large difference stems from the quadratic dependence of ALZ on the recoil energy, which is about 6.7 times larger for L6 i than for K 40.
32. A. J. Daley, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp. (2004) P04005. 10.1088/1742-5468/2004/04/P04005
33. S. R. White, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 076401 (2004). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93. 076401
34. The switching on can be performed on a relatively short time scale of the order of 100/J, whereas the relaxation process is more critical and has been performed on the order of 400/J.