Quick Navigation
Topics
Open Quantum Systems Decoherence
Quantum Chemistry
Magnetic-field dependent trap loss of ultracold metastable helium
arXiv
Authors: J. S. Borbely, R. van Rooij, S. Knoop, W. Vassen
Year
2011
Paper ID
29554
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
105
Citations
N/A
Abstract
We have experimentally studied the magnetic-field dependence of the decay of a Bose-Einstein condensate of metastable 4He atoms confined in an optical dipole trap, for atoms in the m=+1 and m=-1 magnetic substates, and up to 450 G. Our measurements confirm long-standing calculations of the two-body loss rate coefficient that show an increase above 50 G. We demonstrate that for m=-1 atoms, decay is due to three-body recombination only, with a three-body loss rate coefficient of 6.5(0.4)(0.6)10^(-27)cm^6s^(-1), which is interesting in the context of universal few-body theory. We have also searched for a recently-predicted d-wave Feshbach resonance, but did not observe it.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum Chemistry research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2011 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- We have experimentally studied the magnetic-field dependence of the decay of a Bose-Einstein condensate of metastable 4He atoms confined in an optical dipole trap, for atoms in...
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.