Multimode Interferometer for Guided Matter Waves

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 88, Issue 10, 2002, Pages 4-

  Andersson, Erika ^a   Calarco, Tommaso ^b   Folman, Ron ^c   Andersson, Mauritz ^d   Hessmo, Björn ^a   Schmiedmayer, Jörg ^c  

^a ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK   (Austria)

^c UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^d UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85038314299     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: 10797114     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.100401     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Matter Wave Interferometry, G. Badurek, H. Rauch, and A. Zeilinger [Physica (Amsterdam) 151B, Nos. 1–2 (1988)]; Atom Interferometry, P. Berman (Academic Press, New York, 1997).
2. For example, see A. Peters, K. Y. Chung, and S. Chu, Nature (London) 400, 849 (1999)
3. T. L. Gustavson, A. Landragin, and M. A. Kasevich, Classical Quantum Gravity 17, 2385 (2000), and references therein.
4. Recently, several proposals for matter-wave interferometers have been made in the context of splitting and combining a microtrap ground state with a time-dependent potential: E. A. Hinds, C. J. Vale, and M. B. Boshier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1462 (2001)
5. W. Hänsel, J. Reichel, P. Hommelhoff, and T. W. Hänsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 608 (2001).
6. D. Cassettari, B. Hessmo, R. Folman, T. Maier, and J. Schmiedmayer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5483 (2000).
7. D. Müller, Phys. Rev. A 63, 041602(R) (2001).
8. O. Houde, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5543 (2000).
9. In 2D confinement, either the out-of-plane transverse dimension is subject to a much stronger confinement, or the potential is separable. For an experimental realization, see H. Gauck, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5298 (1998); T. Pfau (private communication)
10. E. A. Hinds, M. G. Boshier, and I. G. Hughes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 645 (1998)
11. R. J. C. Spreeuw, Phys. Rev. A 61, 053604 (2000).
12. E. Buks, Nature (London) 391, 871–874 (1998).
13. The numerical calculation is based on the split-operator method with a pseudospectral method for derivatives. See, e.g., M. Feit, J. Fleck, Jr., and A. Steiger, J. Comput. Phys. 47, 412 (1982)
14. B. M. Garraway and K.-A. Suominen, Rep. Prog. Phys. 58, 365 (1995).
15. This is an advantage over four-port beam splitter designs relying on tunneling through a barrier between two guides—see E. Andersson, M. T. Fontenelle, and S. Stenholm, Phys. Rev. A 59, 3841 (1999). In the latter, the splitting ratios for incoming wave packets are very different for different transverse modes, since the tunneling probability depends strongly on the energy of the particle. Even for a single mode, the splitting amplitudes, determined by the barrier width and height, are extremely sensitive to experimental noise. On the contrary, the operation of the Y-shaped beam splitter is based on a symmetric barrier, rising in the center of the transverse wave function, splitting it independently of the mode number.
16. R. Folman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4749 (2000); current traps on our chips achieve (Formula presented).
17. For other atom chip experiments, see J. Reichel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3398 (1999)
18. D. Müller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 5194 (1999)
19. N. H. Dekker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3398 (1999).