Arxiv:1301.1139V1 [Cond-Mat.Quant-Gas]

Home , Paramagnetism

arXiv:1301.1139v1 [cond-mat.quant-gas] 7 Jan 2013 elz aoia nebei h xdao numbers atom fixed the in ensemble N samples canonical atomic a these realize Furthermore, con- harmonic potential. the to whichfinement due samples density atomic inhomogeneous an trapped have in observed mag- is effective magnetism paramagnetism. Pauli to how by respond demonstrate described We will is which gas fields, Fermi metals. netic ideal of assumed an theory as such components, simple down the and in gas up electron spin free with non-interacting is (FEG) ideal, of an This of tunability components. realization two a the with a use gas create Fermi we to ul- non-interacting resonances Here Feshbach of near advent interactions [1]. atomic the gases after Fermi only fermions tracold demonstrated of blocking clearly Pauli were example to For non- related nature. ideal, demonstrat- phenomena in of exist several for not as do as that such gases well physics, interacting as textbook well-known physics ing many-body prob- unsolved in exploring for lems systems interactions. model as and serve temperature They density, their over control n oi-tt physics, solid-state and eeldmjrdsrpnisdet neato effects interaction to due metals discrepancies simple in major even revealed measurements ba- whereas by theory, described sic exactly system this non-interacting truly purpose, a in pedagogical fully paramagnetism Pauli its therefore demonstrates Besides experimentally and paper energy gas. Fermi the differ- the realize potential polarizes than chemical easily larger the can is where we ence case atoms, field en- strong ultracold Fermi the With the the than [2–5]. times smaller ergy field much magnetic was magnetiza- applied moment the In the magnetic since paramagnetism, weak field. of was tion magnetic studies external previous applied all the by determined ∗ ↑ emnn drs:KraRsac nttt fSadrsa Standards Korea of 305-340, Institute Daejeon Research Science, Korea address: Permanent h ae smil eaoia.I xlishwpara- how explains It pedagogical. mainly is paper The complete almost with prepared be can atoms Ultracold and N ↓ opnn em a.Temto silsrtdfranon-int a for illustrated is method The gas. Fermi component ftetocmoet,weesi metals in whereas components, two the of ASnmes 78.m 67.10.Db 67.85.Lm, numbers: polar PACS the where limit gas. field electron high an the pr susc for realize density accessible The cloud inhomogeneous the the of resonances. from wings Feshbach obtained directly wide is a field around interactions of eso o ouetapdutaodaost esr h magn the measure to atoms ultracold trapped use to how show We eateto hsc,MsahstsIsiueo Technol of Institute Massachusetts Physics, of Department .INTRODUCTION I. 1 I-avr etrfrUtaodAos eerhLaborato Research Atoms, Ultracold for Center MIT-Harvard 2 eateto hsc,HradUiest,Cmrde A0 MA Cambridge, University, Harvard Physics, of Department N a-onChoi, Jae-Hoon ↑ − eRon Lee, Ye-Ryoung al aaants fa da em gas Fermi ideal an of paramagnetism Pauli N ↓ stemagnetization the is 1 ofagKetterle, Wolfgang 1 otT Wang, T. Tout nd lu.Ti silsrtdi h igasnx otecurve the to next diagrams the in atomi illustrated the for is across This varies field cloud. field magnetic corresponding and effective polarization malized density local the text, the [2–5]. in mentioned system the in text. processes the spin-flip of absence the in si i.1a.FrauiomFGa temperature at FEG uniform a For direc- 1(a). opposite Fig. in in states as spin two tions field the applied of the energies FEG, the a con- shifts In the neglecting motion. orbital states, from spin tribution two with gas electron free h w pnsae r le pt h em energy Fermi the to up filled are states spin two the xenlmgei field magnetic external fteFGt netra antcfield magnetic external an to FEG the of rmgeiain b est distributions Density differenc density (b) the magnetization. produces and or directions opposite into w-opnn rpe em a at gas Fermi trapped two-component I.1 oprsnbtenaFGadatapdtwo- trapped a and FEG temperature a at between gas Fermi Comparison component 1. FIG. al aaants xlistemgeiaino a of magnetization the explains paramagnetism Pauli ,2 1, 1 n ↑ n yugSnHeo Myoung-Sun and hr h asbtentetosi ttsrepresent states spin two the between gaps the where , E D iu .Rvachov, M. Timur 'HQVLW\ fieo h rpe tmccod The cloud. atomic trapped the of ofile rciggsof gas eracting E zto prahs10,wihi not is which 100%, approaches ization g,Cmrde A019 USA 02139, MA Cambridge, ogy, F piiiyvru ffciemagnetic effective versus eptibility E tcssetblt fatwo- a of susceptibility etic yo Electronics, of ry I CONCEPT II. 6 B i sn h tunability the using Li, 18 USA 2138, 5DGLDOSRVLWLRQ hfsteeeg ftetostates two the of energy the shifts 1 1, ∗

T T .A icse in discussed As 0. = .()Response (a) 0. = B n lcrn in Electrons . ↑ and E n F ↓ An . nor- fa of e, c 2

3/2

) V 2m 1/2 -3 D where g(E) = 4π2 ~2 E is the density of states,

FP E the Fermi energy, m the mass of an electron, µ the 12 F B Bohr magneton and ~ Planck’s constant. The magnetic susceptibility χ is deﬁned as µB∂∆n/∂B, where ∆n ≡

Density (10 Density n↑ − n↓ = (N↑ − N↓)/V . As a dimensionless quantity, we consider the normalized susceptibility

∂ (∆n/n)

. χ = , (2) µB∂ (B/EF [n/2]) E where the polarization ∆n/n is used as a more meaning- 2 2 2/3 ful measure of magnetization. EF [n] = ~ (6π n) /2m and the total density is n ≡ n↑ + n↓ = (N↑ + N↓)/V .

Here we experimetanlly simulate Pauli paramagnetism

using trapped fermionic alkali atoms. The two low- 6 est hyperfine states of Li, |F =1/2,mF =1/2i ≡ |↑i F and |F =1/2,mF = −1/2i ≡ |↓i, represent the two spin states of an electron. This atomic system is different 5DGLDO3RVLWLRQ P from free electron systems: (1) due to the slow dipolar !" relaxation [1], the population in each spin state is con- G "!# served and therefore, (2) an external magnetic field does "!$ not lead to any magnetization, it only shifts the energies "!% of the two spin state (only in the case of strongly mag- "!& netic dipolar gases such as Cr the dipolar relaxation is "!" "!" "!& "!% "!$ "!# !" fast, and therefore the spin populations follow an external magnetic field [6]). To realize the effective magnetic field we introduce den- !" H sity imbalance while preparing the system [7, 8] as illustrated in Fig. 1(b). In the grand-canonical description "!# of a system with fixed atom number, a Lagrange multiplier (called the chemical potential) ensures the cor- "!" "!" "!' "!& "!% "!$ !" rect expectation value for the atom number. In our case, the atom numbers in both spin states are fixed. In a grand-canonical description, this leads to two Lagrange FIG. 2. Determination of the susceptibility χ from atomic multipliers (the two chemical potentials for the two spin density profiles. (a) Simulated density profiles of a two- states), or to one Lagrange multiplier for the total num- component Fermi gas in a spherically symmetric harmonic ber, and one for the population difference. It is the sum of trap at zero temperature. The total population imbalance the latter Lagrange multiplier and the external magnetic δ ≡ (N↑ − N↓)/(N↑ + N↓) = 21%. The shaded area cor- field which constitutes the effective magnetic field in our responds to the partially polarized region where χ is well- ensemble. The contribution from the external magnetic defined. (b) The local chemical potential difference ∆µ with (solid) and without (dashed) normalization by the Fermi en- field is always canceled out by an additive component in this multiplier. For example, a balanced gas always ergy EF [n]. For the fully polarized gas ∆µ =∆µ/EF [n] = 1 according to the definition in the text. (c) The density dif- has zero effective magnetic field independent of the ap- ference ∆n with (solid) and without (dashed) normalization plied field. Therefore the effective magnetic field depends by the total density n. (d) Normalized density difference ∆n only on the population imbalance and not on the external vs. normalized chemical potential difference ∆µ. For the magnetic field. fully polarized gas, ∆n = ∆µ = 1. A linear fit at low ∆µ For a uniform Fermi gas at T = 0, the number in each (dashed line) gives χ = 3/24/3 ≈ 1.19. (e) Normalized mag- spin state determines chemical potential, µ↑(↓) [9] and netic susceptibility χ versus the normalized chemical potential satisfies difference ∆µ. µ↑(↓) µ˜ N↑(↓) = g(E)dE = g(E ± ∆µ/2)dE, (3) Z0 Z∓∆µ/2

T =0, the total number N↑(↓) of electrons in each spin whereµ ˜ = (µ↑ + µ↓)/2 and ∆µ = µ↑ − µ↓. g(E) is the state inside a volume V is given by same as in Eq. (1) if m is taken to be the mass of a 6Li atom. Comparing with Eq.(1) shows that the chemical potential difference ∆µ is the effective magnetic field that EF N = g(E ± µ B)dE, (1) takes the place of the magnetic field in a FEG. With this ↑(↓) B effective magnetic field, the magnetic susceptibility can Z∓µB B 3 be written as III. EXPERIMENT AND RESULTS ∂∆n χ = (4) ∂∆µ An ultracold one-component Fermi gas of 6Li in the state |F = 3/2,mF = 3/2i is prepared by sympathetic We show now how a single atomic density profile in a cooling with bosonic 23Na atoms [16, 17]. 6Li atoms are harmonic trap V (~r) can be used to determine the nor- then loaded into an optical dipole trap followed by radio- malized susceptibility as a function of magnetic field. frequency (rf) transfer to |F = 1/2,mF = 1/2i using In the local density approximation, the density at each an rf Landau-Zener sweep at 300 G. A superposition of point in the trap is that of the corresponding uniform gas the two lowest hyperfine ground states, |F =1/2,m = g F with modified chemical potentials µ↑(↓)(~r)= µ↑(↓) −V (~r) 1/2i ≡ |↑i and |F =1/2,mF = −1/2i ≡ |↓i is prepared g [1, 10], where µ↑(↓) are global chemical potentials defined by a rf sweep at 300G, and holding here for 500 ms results for the whole trapped cloud which constrains the total in an incoherent mixture. Further cooling is provided by number of atoms in each spin state. This concept has lowering the optical trapping potential which leads to been used to determine the equation of state of interact- radial evaporation (axial confinement is provided mag- ing Fermi gases [8, 11–13]. Here we are interested in the netically). We increase the magnetic field in 200 ms to normalized magnetic susceptibility which is the slope of 528G, where the scattering length is zero [18], leading to the normalized density difference versus the normalized a non-interacting two-component Fermi gas. The oscilla- chemical potential difference [14]. We demonstrate this tion frequencies of the final trapping potential are ωy = procedure first using simulated density profiles (Fig. 2). 2π × 35 Hz axially and ωx = ωz =2π × 390 Hz radially. As µ↑(↓)(~r) varies across the cloud, the chemical po- The total population imbalance δ ≡ (N↑ −N↓)/(N↑ +N↓) g g is about 33%. The final temperature is about 0.22T/T tential difference ∆µ(~r) ≡ µ↑(~r) − µ↓(~r) = µ↑ − µ↓ re- F mains constant, as shown in Fig. 2(b). However, the where kBTF = EF [n/2] with n being the total peak den- total density n(~r) = n↑(~r)+ n↓(~r) changes across the sity and kB the Boltzmann constant. 6 cloud, and consequently the local Fermi energy EF [n(~r)] To obtain density profiles of each spin state of Li, as well, with EF [n] being the same as in Eq. (1) if m is we use a double-shot phase contrast imaging technique taken to be the mass of 6Li. The normalized magnetic that involves two images taken at two different imaging susceptibility χ depends on the dimensionless effective frequencies [8, 17] (see Fig. 3). One frequency is tuned magnetic field ∆µ = ∆µ(~r)/EF [n(~r)], which does vary between the two resonant transition frequencies for |↑i across the cloud, from small values near the center to the and |↓i states to the 2P3/2 electronically excited state. saturated value of one at the edges. From Fig. 2(c), a The resulting phase contrast picture is a measure of the single set of atomic density profiles contains a range of density difference ∆n = n↑ − n↓. To measure the density polarizations ∆n = ∆n/n and normalized effective mag- of each component, a second image is taken of the same netic fields ∆µ/EF [n]. The slope of the ∆n vs. ∆µ yields cloud at a frequency detuned towards the |↑i transition the normalized susceptibility by 10 MHz. The two images can be taken in quick suc- cession because of the non-destructive nature of phase χ = ∂ ∆n /∂ ∆µ . (5) contrast imaging. The normalization ofχ in Eq. (5) is chosen to ensure For dispersive imaging techniques such as phase con- ∆n = ∆µ = 1 for a fully polarized gas. The slope near trast imaging, it is crucial to carefully focus the imaging the origin, corresponding to small values of ∆µ, gives system, since the atomic cloud refracts the probe light (in 4/3 contrast to resonant absorption imaging). One can check χ(T = 0) ≡ χ0 = 3/2 ≈ 1.19 [15]. As shown in Fig. 2(e), the susceptibility decreases with increasing ∆µ this by comparing in-trap profiles of |↑i atoms imaged at and drops to zero when the Fermi gas reaches full polar- positive and negative detunings of 60 MHz and find the ization. focal position which minimizes the difference [17]. Figure 4 shows the experimental results. The camera images provide two-dimensional (2D) column densities n2D which integrate the density distribution along the line of sight. To reduce the noise for the following analysis we take advantage of the symmetry of the trap and per- form quadrant averaging and elliptical averaging: First, the four quadrants around the center of the images are averaged. Second, the data is averaged along elliptical contours. The aspect ratio of the ellipses is determined FIG. 3. Double-shot phase contrast imaging. |ei is the 2P3/2 from in-trap images [8]. Temperature and global chemi- 6 excited state in Li. Two successive images are taken at two cal potential for each component are obtained by fitting different imaging frequencies, (a) and (b). Corresponding 2D densities with theoretical non-interacting density pro- CCD images are shown on the right. files. Since the temperature T is small but non-negligible, data are fitted with finite-temperature Fermi gas 2D dis- 4

(a) _G along the line of sight. Since the majority component has better signal-to-noise ratio, we determine the tempera- ]G ture and chemical potential first for this component, and keep the temperature as a fixed parameter in the fit of [G the minority profiles. Three-dimensional (3D) densities YG [Fig. 4(b)] are obtained by performing the inverse Abel transformation of the column densities [8]. The linear fit Column density (arb. unit) density (arb. Column WG of ∆n as a function of ∆µ at small ∆µ gives the suscep- WG XWWG YWWG ZWWG [WWG \WWG tibility at finite temperature [Fig. 4(d)]. For finite but

XYG (b) low temperatures, the susceptibility is known to vary as XWG [19] _G 2 2 ]G π T χ = χ 1 − . (7)

(arb. unit) (arb. 0 [G 12 T " F # YG

WG T/TF changes from 0.24 to 0.35 within the ﬁtting re-

WG XWWG YWWG ZWWG [WWG \WWG gion in Fig. 4(d), aﬀecting the susceptibility by about Axial position (10 -6 m) 3%. For T/TF =0.29, this theoretical calculation gives XUWG (c) χ = 1.108 and the experimentally obtained value is WU_G 0.95(1) in Fig. 4(d). The discrepancy between the experimental and theoretical value is most likely due to a resid- WU]G ual dispersion eﬀect leading to systematic uncertainty es-

WU[G timated to be 10-20% [20, 21]. We did not attempt to quantify this eﬀect since this paper is mainly pedagogi- WUYG cal and a dispersion eﬀect depending on the imbalance as

WUWG well as two detunings would be time-consuming to quan-

WUWG WUYG WU[G WU]G WU_G XUWG tify Figure 4(c) illustrates that we can easily approach the WU[G high ﬁeld limit of a fully polarized gas ∆µ ≈ 1. Note that ∆n is smaller than 1 because at ﬁnite temperature the

WUZG minority component extends beyond its Thomas-Fermi radius. In a metallic free electron gas, with a typical Fermi temperatures of 10,000 K, the high ﬁeld region WUYG (d) would require magnetic ﬁelds of 10,000 Tesla, 200 times stronger than the strongest continuous laboratory mag-

WUX\G WUYWG WUY\G WUZWG WUZ\G netic ﬁelds. ~

FIG. 4. (color online) Experimental determination of χ. Rep- IV. CONCLUSIONS resentative profiles of (a) 2D column densities for |↑i (upper solid curve) and |↓i (lower solid curve). Temperature and We have demonstrated how the ideal gas magnetic sus- chemical potential are obtained from the fit (dotted curves) ceptibility can be measured in ultracold Fermi gases. Af- as discussed in the text. Each elliptical average is plotted ver- ter considering finite-temperature effects, the experimen- sus the axial position (long axis of the ellipse). (b) 3D density tal results are in quantitative agreement with prediction difference obtained from a single double-shot image. Dotted curve is a theoretical curve based on the chemical potentials from Pauli paramagnetism. Since the local spin polariza- and the temperature obtained from the 2D fit in (a). (c) The tion varies across the trapped atomic cloud, a single den- normalized 3D density difference is plotted as a function of sity profile gives the susceptibility for both low and high the normalized chemical potential difference. The solid line is effective magnetic fields. This method can be applied to the theoretical prediction. (d) The linear fit at low ∆µ gives the study of magnetic properties of strongly interacting the low-field susceptibility χ=0.95(1). Fermi gases which are of current interest [22–25]. tribution in a harmonic trap given by ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

n2D(x, y)= 2 This work was supported by the NSF and the ONR, m(k T ) g 2 2 2 2 B (µ −m(ωxx +ωyy )/2)/kB T ) − 3 Li2 −e , (6) by an AFOSR MURI on Ultracold Molecules, and by 2π~ ωz h i ARO grant no. W911NF-07-1-0493 with funds from the where Lin(z) is the nth-order Polylogarithm. z is the axis DARPA Optical Lattice Emulator program. Y.-R. Lee 5 acknowledges support from the Samsung Scholarship. T. grateful to Caleb A. Christensen for experimental assis- T. Wang acknowledges support from NSERC. We are tance.

[1] W. Ketterle and M. W. Zwierlein, Ultracold Fermi Gases, Science 325, 1521 (2009). Proceedings of the International School of Physics Enrico [17] Y.-R. Lee, M.-S. Heo, J.-H. Choi, T. T. Wang, C. A. Fermi, Course CLXIV (IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2008). Christensen, T. M. Rvachov, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. [2] R. T. Schumacher and C. P. Slichter, Physical Review A 85, 063615 (2012). 101, 58 (1956). [18] K. M. O’Hara, S. L. Hemmer, S. R. Granade, M. E. [3] R. T. Schumacher and W. E. Vehse, J. Phys. Chem. Gehm, J. E. Thomas, V. Venturi, E. Tiesinga, and C. J. Solids 24, 297 (1963). Williams, Phys. Rev. A 66, 041401 (2002). [4] S. Schultz and G. Dunifer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 18, 283 [19] R. Pathria and P. Beale, Statistical Mechanics (Elsevier, (1967). 2011), 3rd ed. [5] J. A. Kaeck, Physical Review 175, 897 (1968). [20] In ref. 17 even for optimized focusing we found a small [6] M. Fattori, T. Koch, S. Goetz, A. Griesmaier, S. Hensler, difference in the cloud profiles for different detunings J. Stuhler, and T. Pfau, Nat Phys 2, 765 (2006). since the cloud is an extended object. This dispersion [7] Y. Shin, M. W. Zwierlein, C. H. Schunck, A. Schirotzek, effect affects the compressibility by about 10%. This sys- and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 030401 (2006). tematic error could be almost completely eliminated by [8] Y.-i. Shin, C. H. Schunck, A. Schirotzek, and W. Ket- averaging the measured compressibility for positive and terle, Nature 451, 689 (2008). negative detuning. [9] From now on, the chemical potential for each component [21] For the susceptibility measurement the two spin compo- does not retain the additive term cancelled by the con- nents give opposite dispersive effects that partially can- tribution from the external magnetic field. cel each other out. However since we take data at smaller [10] S. Giorgini, L. P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, Rev. Mod. detuning than in ref. 17, we expect similar dispersion Phys 80, 1215 (2008). distortions of the cloud shape. [11] M. J. H. Ku, A. T. Sommer, L. W. Cheuk, and M. W. [22] J. Meineke, J.-P. Brantut, D. Stadler, T. Muller, Zwierlein, Science 335, 563 (2012). H. Moritz, and T. Esslinger, Nat Phys 8, 455 (2012). [12] M. Horikoshi, S. Nakajima, M. Ueda, and T. Mukaiyama, [23] S. Nascimbene, N. Navon, S. Pilati, F. Chevy, S. Giorgini, Science 327, 442 (2010). A. Georges, and C. Salomon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, [13] N. Navon, S. Nascimbne, F. Chevy, and C. Salomon, Sci- 215303 (2011). ence 328, 729 (2010). [24] A. Sommer, M. Ku, G. Roati, and M. W. Zwierlein, Na- [14] Ref. 23 determined the susceptibility for a Fermi gas near ture 472, 201 (2011). unitarity from the equation of state. [25] C. Sanner, E. J. Su, W. Huang, A. Keshet, J. Gillen, and [15] Ref. 23 used a different normalization where the normal- W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 240404 (2012). ized susceptibility is 3/2 at low field. [16] G.-B. Jo, Y.-R. Lee, J.-H. Choi, C. A. Christensen, T. H. Kim, J. H. Thywissen, D. E. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle,