Publication:
Chaotic quantum ratchets and filters with cold atoms in optical lattices: analysis using Floquet states

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2005-07
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
American Physical Society
Citations
Google Scholar
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Abstract
Recently, cesium atoms in optical lattices subjected to cycles of unequally spaced pulses have been found to show interesting behavior: they represent an experimental demonstration of a Hamiltonian ratchet mechanism, and they show strong variability of the dynamical localization lengths as a function of initial momentum. The behavior differs qualitatively from corresponding atomic systems pulsed with equal periods, which are a textbook implementation of a well-studied quantum chaos paradigm, the quantum δ-kicked rotor (δ- QKR). We investigate here the properties of the corresponding eigenstates (Floquet states) in the parameter regime of the recent experiments and compare them with those of the eigenstates of the δ-QKR at similar kicking strengths. We show that by studying the properties of the Floquet states we can shed light on the form of the observed ratchet current, as well as variations in the dynamical localization length.
Description
©2005 The American Physical Society. We would like to thank Mischa Stocklin for useful discussions, and the EPSRC for financial support.
Keywords
Citation
1. G. Casati, B. V. Chirikov, F. M. Izraelev, and J. Ford, in Stochastic Behavior in Classical and Quantum Hamiltonian Systems, edited by G. Casati and J. Ford, Lecture Notes in Physics Vol. 93 Springer, Berlin, 1979, p. 334; B. V. Chirikov, Phys. Rep. 52, 263 1979. 2. S. Fishman, D. R. Grempel, and R. E. Prange, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 509 1982. 3. F. L. Moore, J. C. Robinson, C. F. Bharucha, Bala Sundaram, and M. G. Raizen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4598 1995. 4. D. A. Steck, W. H. Oskay, and M. G. Raizen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 120406 2002. 5. W. K. Hensinger, H. Häffner, A. Browaeys, N. R. Heckenberg, K. Helmerson, C. McKenzie, G. J. Milburn, W. D. Phillips, S. L. Rolston, H. Rubinsztein-Dunlop, and B. Upcroft, Nature London 412, 52 2001. 6. F. M. Izraelev, Phys. Rep. 196, 299 1990. 7. T. S. Monteiro, P. A. Dando, N. A. C. Hutchings, and M. R. Isherwood, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 194102 2002. 8. T. Jonckheere, M. R. Isherwood, and T. S. Monteiro, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 253003 2003. 9. P. H. Jones, M. Goonasekera, H. E. Saunders-Singer, and D. R. Meacher, quant-phys/0309149. 10. P. H. Jones, M. Goonasekera, H. E. Saunders-Singer, T. S. Monteiro, and D. R. Meacher, physics/0504096. 11. P. H. Jones, M. M. Stocklin, G. Hur, and T. S. Monteiro, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 223002 2004;M. Stocklin, G. Hur, and T. S. Monteiro, physics/0408088. 12. T. Dittrich, R. Ketzmerick, M.-F. Otto, and H. Schanz, Ann. Phys. Leipzig 9, 1 2000; H. Schanz, M.-F. Otto, R. Ketzmerick, and T. Dittrich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 070601 2001. 13. S. Flach, O. Yevtushenko, and Y. Zolotaryuk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2358 2000. 14. P. Reimann, Phys. Rep. 361, 57 2002. 15. D. Ł. Shepelyansky Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 677 1986. 16. B. G. Klappauf, W. H. Oskay, D. A. Steck, and M. G. Raizen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1203 1998. 17. J. Ringot, P. Szriftgiser, J. C. Garreau, and D. Delande, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2741 2000. 18. C. E. Creffield, Europhys. Lett. 66, 631 2004.
Collections