Probing the quantum ground state of a spin-1 Bose-Einstein condensate with cavity transmission spectra

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 80, Issue 4, 2009, Pages

  Zhang, J M ^a,b   Cui, S ^b   Jing, H ^b   Zhou, D L ^a   Liu, W M ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS   (China)

^b HENAN NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BOSE-EINSTEIN CONDENSATES; CAVITY MODE; CIRCULARLY POLARIZED; CONTINUOUS OBSERVATION; FERROMAGNETIC AND ANTI-FERROMAGNETIC; OPTICAL CAVITIES; QUANTUM GROUND STATE; TRANSMISSION SPECTRUMS;

ANTIFERROMAGNETISM; BOSE-EINSTEIN CONDENSATION; GROUND STATE; LIGHT TRANSMISSION; MAGNETS; STEAM CONDENSERS;

SPIN DYNAMICS;

EID: 70350499891     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: 10941622     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.80.043623     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. D. M. Stamper-Kurn, M. R. Andrews, A. P. Chikkatur, S. Inouye, H.-J. Miesner, J. Stenger, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2027 (1998). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.2027
2. T. Ohmi and K. Machida, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 67, 1822 (1998) 10.1143/JPSJ.67.1822
3. T. L. Ho, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 742 (1998). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.742
4. C. K. Law, H. Pu, and N. P. Bigelow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5257 (1998). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.5257
5. M. Koashi and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1066 (2000). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.1066
6. T. L. Ho and L. Yin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2302 (2000). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.2302
7. In this paper we assume that the total atom number N is even. For N being odd, the AFM ground state is of total spin S=1 and thus not strictly isotropic. However, that makes little difference or difficulty to our proposal; see discussions below.
8. S. Ashhab and A. J. Leggett, Phys. Rev. A 65, 023604 (2002). 10.1103/PhysRevA.65.023604
9. I. B. Mekhov, C. Maschler, and H. Ritsch, Nat. Phys. 3, 319 (2007). 10.1038/nphys571
10. K. D. Bonin and V. V. Kresin, Electric-Dipole Polarizabilities of Atoms, Molecules, and Clusters (World Scientific, Singapore, 1997).
11. F. Brennecke, T. Donner, S. Ritter, T. Bourdel, M. Köhl, and T. Esslinger, Nature (London) 450, 268 (2007) 10.1038/nature06120
12. Y. Colombe, T. Steinmetz, G. Dubois, F. Linke, D. Hunger, and J. Reichel, Nature (London) 450, 272 (2007). 10.1038/nature06331
13. In contrast to many experiments (e.g., Refs.), here the D1 line is preferred to the D2 line. The reason is that under the same detuning, the D1 scheme yields the same coupling with the magnetization as the D2 scheme, while the coupling with the density is only one half, so the disturbance introduced is smaller.
14. K. L. Corwin, S. J. M. Kuppens, D. Cho, and C. E. Wieman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1311 (1999). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.1311
15. J. M. Higbie, L. E. Sadler, S. Inouye, A. P. Chikkatur, S. R. Leslie, K. L. Moore, V. Savalli, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 050401 (2005). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.050401
16. Y. Liu, S. Jung, S. E. Maxwell, L. D. Turner, E. Tiesinga, and P. D. Lett, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 125301 (2009) 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.125301
17. Y. Liu, E. Gomez, S. E. Maxwell, L. D. Turner, E. Tiesinga, and P. D. Lett, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 225301 (2009). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.225301
18. I. Carusotto and E. J. Mueller, J. Phys. B 37, S115 (2004). 10.1088/0953-4075/37/7/058
19. J. M. Zhang, W. M. Liu, and D. L. Zhou, Phys. Rev. A 77, 033620 (2008). 10.1103/PhysRevA.77.033620
20. J. Kronjäger, C. Becker, P. Navez, K. Bongs, and K. Sengstock, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 110404 (2006). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.110404
21. F. Brennecke, S. Ritter, T. Donner, and T. Esslinger, Science 322, 235 (2008) 10.1126/science.1163218
22. S. Ritter, F. Brennecke, K. Baumann, T. Donner, C. Guerlin, and T. Esslinger, Appl. Phys. B: Lasers Opt. 95, 213 (2009). 10.1007/s00340-009-3436-9
23. S. Gupta, K. L. Moore, K. W. Murch, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 213601 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.213601
24. J. A. Sauer, K. M. Fortier, M. S. Chang, C. D. Hamley, and M. S. Chapman, Phys. Rev. A 69, 051804 (R) (2004) 10.1103/PhysRevA.69.051804
25. K. M. Fortier, S. Y. Kim, M. J. Gibbons, P. Ahmadi, and M. S. Chapman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 233601 (2007). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.233601
26. Experimentally the total atom number N cannot be determined precisely, so we cannot distinguish the AFM and FM ground states just by the shift of the spectra.
27. J. M. Zhang, W. M. Liu, and D. L. Zhou, Phys. Rev. A 78, 043618 (2008) 10.1103/PhysRevA.78.043618
28. J. M. Zhang, F. C. Cui, D. L. Zhou, and W. M. Liu, Phys. Rev. A 79, 033401 (2009). 10.1103/PhysRevA.79.033401
29. C. Cohen-Tannoudji and J. Dupont-Roc, Phys. Rev. A 5, 968 (1972). 10.1103/PhysRevA.5.968
30. I. H. Deutsch and P. S. Jessen, Phys. Rev. A 57, 1972 (1998). 10.1103/PhysRevA.57.1972
31. D. Cho, J. Korean Phys. Soc. 30, 373 (1997)
32. J. M. Choi and D. Cho, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 80, 012037 (2007). 10.1088/1742-6596/80/1/012037
33. The condition that we do not resolve the hyperfine structure of the D1 line allows us to take a common denominator.
34. R. Grimm, M. Weidemüller, and Y. B. Ovchinnikov, Adv. At., Mol., Opt. Phys. 42, 95 (2000).
35. A. Daniel, Steck, "Rubidium 87 D Line Data," Revision 2.0.1, 2 May 2008, http://steck.us/alkalidata