Disorder in order: localization in a randomless cold atom system Félix Rose1, 2, 3 and Richard Schmidt1, 2 1Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics, Hans-Kopfermann-Str. 1, 85748 Garching, Germany 2Munich Center for Quantum Science and Technology (MCQST), Schellingstraße 4, 80799 Munich, Germany 3Technische Universität München, Physik Department, James-Franck-Strasse 1, 85748 Garching, Germany (Dated: July 14, 2021) We present a mapping between the Edwards model of disorder describing the motion of a single particle subject to randomly-positioned static scatterers and the Bose polaron problem of a light quantum impurity interacting with a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) of heavy atoms. The mapping offers an experimental setting to investigate the physics of Anderson localization where, by exploiting the quantum nature of the BEC, the time evolution of the quantum impurity emulates the disorder- averaged dynamics of the Edwards model. Valid in any space dimension, the mapping can be extended to include interacting particles, arbitrary disorder or confinement, and can be generalized to study many-body localization. Moreover, the corresponding exactly-solvable disorder model offers means to benchmark variational approaches used to study polaron physics. Here, we illustrate the mapping by focusing on the case of an impurity interacting with a one-dimensional BEC through a contact interaction. While a simple wave function based on the expansion in the number of bath excitations misses the localization physics entirely, a coherent state Ansatz combined with a canonical transformation captures the physics of disorder and Anderson localization. Introduction. Coupling a particle to the collective an impurity immersed in a disorder-free Bose-Einstein excitations of a system with many degrees of freedom condensate (BEC). This mapping, illustrated in Fig.1, can radically alter the particle’s properties. While this can experimentally be realized using a mass-imbalanced paradigm has been first proposed by Landau and Pekar mixture of light impurities immersed in a bath of heavy to describe how the interaction between electrons and bosons and provides a new theoretical tool to include lattice phonons gives rise to quasiparticles named po- disorder effects in many-body approaches. larons [1], it has been extended to give insight into nu- Indeed, both the theoretical description of disorder and merous systems [2,3], including 3He–4He mixtures [4], Bose polarons face challenges of different origins. While semiconductors [5] and high-temperature superconduc- the rich physics of the Bose polaron problem arises from tors [6]. Although described by simple models such as the hard to capture many-body effects, performing the dis- Fröhlich Hamiltonian and in spite of intensive efforts [7– order average for even single-particle models is challeng- 22], a comprehensive solution of the polaron problem still ing. As such, a solution of the polaron problem can give escapes theory. The advent of ultracold atoms allows the insight into the corresponding disorder model, and con- realization of polaron models with high tunability and versely the disorder model can serve as an exactly solv- brought means to probe such models, as evidenced by able benchmark for polaron theories. To demonstrate the recent observation of the Bose polaron spectral func- this connection we show how a variational method ap- tion in impurity-boson mixtures [23–27]. plied to the study of impurity models can reproduce the In this letter, we bring together the seemingly discon- exact short-time solution of the corresponding disorder nected fields of polarons and disorder. Following An- model and discuss implications of the mapping for stud- derson’s realization that quantum interference can hin- der the diffusion of a particle to the point that it be- comes localized [28], the interplay of disorder and quan- tum physics has been extensively studied, revealing in- tricate phenomena such as magnetoresistance [29, 30], coherent backscattering [31–33] and many-body localiza- tion [34–37]. While Anderson localization was first ob- arXiv:2107.06931v1 [cond-mat.quant-gas] 14 Jul 2021 served in wave systems [38, 39], the development of cold atom physics allowed to achieve the localization of mat- ter waves [40, 41] and realize the quantum kicked rotor model [42, 43] which can be mapped onto the Anderson model of disorder [44]. Here, we explore an alternative way to study the Figure 1. The disorder-averaged evolution —represented by physics of disorder by establishing a mapping between the overline— of a particle subject to a random scattering po- the disorder-averaged motion of a single particle evolv- tential (left) is mapped onto the time evolution of an impurity ing through a random disorder potential, and that of immersed in a homogeneous, disorder-free BEC (right). 2 ies of polaron and disorder physics. Polaron model Disorder model The mapping. Many aspects of disorder physics such Impurity Particle as Anderson localization are universal. They may depend Heavy boson Static scatterer on dimension and symmetries but not on specific details Interspecies interaction Scattering potential of the Hamiltonian, leaving freedom as to which model N-boson state |{r }i Disorder configuration {r } of disorder one studies. We consider the Edwards model i i BEC state Sampling of disorder [45, 46] that describes the evolution of a single particle Quantum measurement hOˆ(t)i Disorder average hoˆ(t)i through a medium of N randomly-positioned static scat- terers given by the Hamiltonian Table I. Correspondence between the heavy Bose polaron and Edwards model of disorder. pˆ2 N ˆ {ri} X HEd = + V (ˆr),V (ˆr) = v(ˆr − ri). (1) 2mI i=1 denotes the state where the N bosons have well-defined Here ˆr and pˆ are the position and momentum operators positions ri. The combined state of the system reads of the particle and v(ˆr − ri) is the potential created by a scatterer at site r . In one dimension and with contact |Ψi = |ψi ⊗ |BECi = |ψi ⊗ |{r }i. (6) i ˆ i interactions, this model is known as the random Kronig– {ri} Penney model (RKPM) [47, 48]. The randomness comes For infinitely massive bosons, mB/mI = ∞, the time from the positions ri of the scatterers, distributed e.g. evolution of each state |ψi ⊗ |{ri}i contributing to the uniformly in a volume Ω. Denoting hoˆ(t)i{ri} the ex- pectation value of an observable oˆ at time t for a given superposition (4) can be determined exactly. The boson realization of disorder {r }, its disorder average is kinetic energy drops out and the total Hamiltonian com- i mutes with the bosonic position operators. Hence, the bosons remain in the state |{ri}i. Physically, the heavy hoˆ(t)i = hoˆ(t)i , (2) ˆ {ri} bosons’ positions are not affected by the interaction with {ri} the impurity. On the other hand, the impurity views −N d d the N localized bosons as scatterers at positions ri and where = Ω d r1 ··· d rN is the normalized in- {ri} evolves through the Edwards Hamiltonian (1) such that tegral over´ all possible´ scatterer positions r . i the system evolves into We now show that for any observable oˆ the disorder average (2) can be computed by means of a disorder-free h −iHˆ {ri}t i polaron model. In this model one considers a system |Ψ(t)i = e Ed |ψi ⊗ |{ri}i; (7) ˆ{r } where a mobile impurity of position ˆr and momentum pˆ i is immersed in a bosonic bath, described by the Hamil- i.e., the system evolves as a superposition over all possible tonian disorder realizations. 2 Hence, the expectation value of any observable of the ˆ pˆ X ˆ† ˆ 0 ˆ† ˆ ˆ H = + ωkbkbk + v(ˆr − r )br0 br0 (3) impurity O =o ˆ ⊗ 1 with respect to the state |Ψ(t)i, 2mI ˆ 0 k r iHˆ {ri}t −iHˆ {ri}t hOˆ(t)i = hψ|e Ed oeˆ Ed |ψi = hoˆ(t)i, (8) where ω = k2/2m describes the dispersion relation of k B ˆ{ri} bosons at momentum k annihilated (created) by the op- ˆ(†) erator bk , and mI and mB are the masses of the impurity realizes the disorder average hoˆ(t)i (2). All states in the and the bosons, respectively. Both species interact with superposition contribute equally to the measurement of the density-density interaction v(r). Oˆ, thus carrying out an average over all possible {ri} To establish the mapping, we quench the system by configurations. In other words, the fact that the BEC is preparing the impurity in a given wavepacket |ψi and a quantum superposition with equal weight of orthogonal the bosons in a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) of N states |{ri}i enables disorder averaging in an analog way non-interacting particles, using quantum systems such as ultracold atoms. The correspondence between the two models is summa- (ˆb† )N rized in TableI. We emphasize that hOˆ(t)i and hoˆ(t)i have √k=0 |BECi = |0i = |{ri}i (4) very different meanings. While hOˆ(t)i represents a many- N! ˆ{ri} body measurement of the impurity evolving through the where interaction with a bath of heavy bosons, hoˆ(t)i corre- sponds to the measurement of the corresponding observ- ˆ† ˆ† br1 ··· brN able in the single-particle Edwards model averaged over |{ri}i = √ |0i (5) N! many classical realizations of disorder. 3 Generalizations. Most assumptions made for simplic- ity in the proof can be relaxed, as long as the crucial Chevy 20 Coherent state ingredient that the |{ri}i are eigenstates of the Hamilto- Exact nian remains valid. In particular, the proof applies to any Free ( ) dimension. Moreover, it is possible to include arbitrary 15 confining potentials or interactions between the bosons, 푔 = 0 and even prepare the boson bath in a mixed state.