Upload
maurice-dilley
View
218
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Department of PhysicsUniversity of Turku
Majorana Decomposition
and Spinor Condensates
Kalle-Antti SuominenDepartment of PhysicsUniversity of Turku
Finland
With Harri MäkeläSupported by the Academy of Finland and the Finnish Academy of Science and Letters
Department of PhysicsUniversity of Turku
Atomic condensates
Magnetically or optically trapped neutral atoms (typically alkali atoms) which are boson-like.
Bose-Einstein condensation has been achieved.
Dilute gases, mean-field approach (Gross-Pitaevskii) works very well in most cases.
Low magnetic fields: atomic spin = hyperfine quantum number F.
Magnetic substates (Zeeman states) mF: ”spinor” structure, 2F+1 components.
Department of PhysicsUniversity of Turku
Magnetic fields
The magnetic field creates a shift in the energy levels, mostly linear.
Department of PhysicsUniversity of Turku
Experimental background
Magnetic traps are usually based on the Ioffe-Pritchard model, where for a specific spin state one obtains a parabolic trapping potential.
m f =+1
mf =0
mf =−1
Obviously, this setup is not the best one for studies of spinors.
Department of PhysicsUniversity of Turku
Optical traps
Optical traps are based on light forces, that are equal to all mF states.Trap potential = spatial intensity variation of highly off-resonant laser beams.
Suitable for spinor studies.
Magnetic field can be addedif its effects need to be studied,and for manipulation anddetection purposes.
Note: In cold atom physics interactions are often tunedusing Feshbach resonances.Ths method requires magneticfields and is thus not veryuseful for spinor studies.
Department of PhysicsUniversity of Turku
Interactions and spinors
• Dilute gases, low temperatures: s-wave interaction only.
• Short distance details -> Contact potential & scattering length.
• Negative or positive a: stability issues for condensates and vortices created by rotation, trapping potential plays a role [see e.g. E. Lundh, A. Collin, and K.-A. Suominen: Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 070401 (2004)]
• Generalization of the order parameter to spinor systems
Department of PhysicsUniversity of Turku
Physics of spinors
The multistate structure with interactions leads to
a) Non-trivial ground states, ordered structures:For example, in the F=1 case we can have either ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic ordering.
We seek ground states by minimising the spinor energy functional.
b) Possibility for topological defects• vortices and coreless vortices• monopoles
Here we must investigate the stability of such defects• topological stability• energetics
See e.g. the theses of Jani-Petri Martikainen (Helsinki 2001), Anssi Collin (Helsinki 2006) and Harri Mäkelä (Turku 2007).
Department of PhysicsUniversity of Turku
Spinor energy functional
The contact potential changes in the multistate case:
For two identical atoms total spin is Ftot=F1+F2:
Energy minimization (to seek ground states) concentrates on
For details see the thesis of Harri Mäkelä at Doria:https://oa.doria.fi/handle/10024/29116
Department of PhysicsUniversity of Turku
Spinor energy functional: F=1 & F=2
F=1: F=2:
Department of PhysicsUniversity of Turku
Spinor energy functional: Phases
Department of PhysicsUniversity of Turku
Special situations 1
The presence of magnetic field changes the energy functional.
We need to keep the magnetic field sufficiently weak so that F remains a good quantum number.
Normally one needs to consider only the linear and quadratic Zeeman shifts.
Example: F=1 (-) and F=2 (+), b = normalized B-field:
General aspect: reduces symmetry and usually reduces also the set ofpossible ground states (and defect classes).
In practice, most of the interesting phenomena relate to the case of B=0.
Department of PhysicsUniversity of Turku
Special situations 2
Another case is if the atom has a permanent dipole moment. Thisapplies to Cr (spin-3 system), and a spin direction-dependent long-range term needs to be added to the energy functional.
Typically leads to favouring the situation where the spin is aligned with the long axis of the typically cigar-shaped condensate.
H. Mäkelä & K.-A. Suominen, Phys. Rev. A 75, 033610 (2007).– ground states for fixed magnetization.
Department of PhysicsUniversity of Turku
Experiments?
Spinor experiments are few so far, mainly F=1 and F=2:– Ketterle group at MIT– Chapman group at Georgia Inst. of Technology– Sengstock group at Hamburg– Stamper-Kurn at UC Berkeley
These involve 23Na and 87Rb, where for 87Rb the F=2 state is relatively stable.
Relaxation i.e. spin-mixing is usually slow (orders of a second) soground states are hard to observe.
Spurious magnetic fields cause fragmention of spinor states.
Possibility for F≥3 studies:
– 85Rb (F=2 & F=3); F=3 is not very stable– Cs (F=3 & F=4); hard to condense– Cr (S=3); permanent electric dipole moment
Department of PhysicsUniversity of Turku
Experiments: F=2 example
87Rb: Polar (antiferromagnetic) state for F=2, ferromagnetic for F=1.– This is very much as expected from theoretical studies on these cases.
The cyclic state can be prepared, and its decay into the polar state was very slow.– 87Rb is close to the borderline between polar and cyclic phases so this is
also expected.
For a discussion on F=2 ground states see e.g.J.-P. Martikainen and K.-A. Suominen, J. Phys. B 34, 4091 (2001).
Department of PhysicsUniversity of Turku
Experiments: F=2 spin dynamics
Spin-mixing dynamics time scales ~40 ms
Two-body hyperfine lossand three-body recombinationloss step in at later times.
For F=2 Na and Rb collisionalstability issues, see K.-A. Suominen, E. Tiesinga, and P.S. Julienne,Phys. Rev. A 58, 3983 (1998).Slow decay seen for
but these states can be obtained from each other by rotation(see Mäkelä’s thesis).
Department of PhysicsUniversity of Turku
Majorana decomposition
In 1932 Ettore Majorana considered what happens when a beam of atoms with spin-S passes a point in which the magnetic field vanishes [Nuovo Cimento 9, 43 (1932)].
-> Majorana spin flips
This work [see also F. Bloch and I.I. Rabi, Rev. Mod. Phys. 17, 237 (1945)] provides a general tool for understanding spin-S systems as a collection of 2S spin-1/2 particles (not limited to integer S).
Examples:
Department of PhysicsUniversity of Turku
Spin-S vs 2S spin-1/2
In general:
For a spin-1/2 particle labelled k:
Now we define
So we have a mapping between any superposition state of a spin-S system into the superposition states of the 2S spin-1/2 systems.
Department of PhysicsUniversity of Turku
Uses of the decomposition
The mapping can be used to describe the internal dynamics of the spin-F atoms.
a) The mapping survives the presence of a linear Zeeman shift.
b) The action of an external B-field that couples the different mF states can be seen as a spin rotation
c) The field-induced transitions between the |F,mF> states can be mapped to spin-1/2 dynamics.
Thus, if we apply time-dependent fields (pulsed or chirped) to a spin-F
system, the dynamics is obtained if the corresponding spin-1/2 model
has a solution.
Application: Condensate output coupling
Department of PhysicsUniversity of Turku
Condensate output coupling
N. Vitanov & K.-A. Suominen, Phys. Rev. A 56, R4377 (1997).
Department of PhysicsUniversity of Turku
Majorana flips
One starts from the extreme state |F,±mF>, applies the interaction, and obtainsthe populations Pi of the 2F+1 states, in terms of the population p of the initiallyunoccupied spin-1/2 state.
Example: F=2 system with linearlychirped but otherwise constant B-field.
Department of PhysicsUniversity of Turku
MIT condensate output coupling
Department of PhysicsUniversity of Turku
Majorana & spinor condensates
A standard method for describing the state and the dynamics of spin-1/2 particles is the Bloch sphere.
E. Demler and co-workers [PRL 97, 180412 (2006)] took the notation
(apparently unaware of the Majorana work) and mapped a spin-F system onto 2F points on a unit sphere (spin-1/2 particles). When the points are connected, they form geometric shapes. This allows classification of the phases of the spin-F systems.
Department of PhysicsUniversity of Turku
Inert states
As F increases, it becomes very hard to minimize the energy functional in respect to all possible spinor configurations and combinations of scattering lengths.
Inert states are stationary states of the energy functional for all parameters. Whether they are global minima or maxima, can change with parameters.But not all stationary states are also inert.
Example:
Department of PhysicsUniversity of Turku
Inert states for spinors
In any case finding inert states provides possible candidates for stableground states.
Encouraging: for F=1 and F=2 all inert states are also ground states.
F≥3: finding inert states is hard [S.K. Yip, Phys. Rev. A 75, 023625 (2007)].
Our solution: use the Majorana/Demler approach.
It can be shown that
If any infinitesimal change in the configuration of the 2F points on the unit sphere changes the symmetry group of the configuration, the configuration defines an inert state.
H. Mäkelä and K.-A. Suominen: Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 190408 (2007).
Department of PhysicsUniversity of Turku
Inert states: Examples
Department of PhysicsUniversity of Turku
Inert states: S = 1 - 4
Department of PhysicsUniversity of Turku
Conclusions
The Majorana decomposition of large spins into a group of spin-1/2 systemsis an useful tool for describing spinor systems and spin dynamics.
Especially when mapped into the Bloch sphere it provides a simple method for visualisation of topological properties.
Further work?
• Majorana decomposition and topological defects?
• Extension into quantum information (symmetric subspaces, state estimation and universal quantum cloning)?
Department of PhysicsUniversity of Turku
Turku group
Wiley 2005