comparison and contrast: cold atoms and dilute neutron matter€¦ · improved lattice (afmc)...
TRANSCRIPT
Comparison and Contrast:Cold Atoms and Dilute Neutron Matter
J. Carlson - LANL
C. Regal et al. PRL 2004
Fermi Condensates
Introduction
Homogeneous Matter : Equation of State (T=0)
Contact Gap
Linear Response: RF Response Spin Response Density Response
Inhomogeneous (trapped) Matter Local Density approximation and Density functional Theory
Future Outlook
MIT Optical Trap
roadrunner
Interactions:
Diagram from Innsbruck
Fermions: 6Li, 40KDensity ~ 1/ μm3
Temperature ~ 200 nK ~ 0.1 Ef
NN phase shifts (1S0)Density ~ 1 / (10 fm)3
T ~ 0
BCS-BEC Transition (T=0):
Interaction Strength
Pola
rizat
ion
Free (1 component) Fermi Gas
Free
(2
com
pone
nt)
Ferm
i Gas
Bose
-Fer
mi M
ixtu
reBEC BCS
Uni
tary
Reg
ime
Neutron Matter (T=0)
Density
Pola
rizat
ion
Free
(2
com
pone
nt)
Ferm
i Gas
Bose
-Fer
mi M
ixtu
re
BEC BCS
Uni
tary
Reg
ime
a ~ -18 fm |a|/re ~ 10
(nearly) Free Fermions (nearly) Free Bosons ‘Universality’ and the BCS-BEC transition Polarons Efimov States Superfluid Fermions (s-, p-, d-wave,... pairing) Exotic Polarized Superfluids (FFLO, breached pair,...) PseudoGap States Itinerant Ferromagnetism `Perfect’ Fluids Reduced Dimensionality More than pairing (3-,4-body condensates, ...) Bose, Fermi Hubbard Models, .....
Cold Fermi Atoms: Physics Interests
Unitarity
Interaction
Pola
rizat
ion
Unitarity = limit of 0 pair binding a = ∞
All quantities multiples of Fermi Gas at same ρAt zero polarization, expect strong pairing
∆ = δ�2k2
F
2m
E = ξ EFG = ξ35
�2k2F
2m
Tc = t�2k2
F
2m
Values of ξ, δ, t are independent of ρ
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
time �yrs�Ξ
simulation
experiment
analytical
FIG. 13: Historical results for the Bertsch parameter determined experimentally, by analytic cal-
culation, and by numerical simulation. Numerical values and citations are tabulated in Table VII;
our value, based on simulations at L = 14 is indicated as the latest simulation data point.
considered. References for the historical results are provided in Table VII.
V. CONCLUSION
We have studied up to 66 unpolarized unitary fermions in a periodic box by applying a
lattice Monte Carlo method developed for studying large numbers of strongly interacting
nonrelativistic spin-1/2 fermions [49]. Our method differs from methods used in the past
in that it does not make use of importance sampling, nor is it variational. Our approach
also allows us to study the energy levels of systems with unequal numbers of spin up and
spin down fermions. One of the obstacles in the calculation of ground state energies of large
numbers of fermions is a severe distribution overlap problem which results in inefficient
estimation of the correlation function. A key part of our approach is to use the cumulant
expansion for the logarithm of the correlators [58], allowing us to avoid this difficulty and
determine the energies in a reliable manner.
Our main findings are as follows:
1. The exact diagonalization of the transfer matrix for two, three, and four fermions en-
30
Endres, Kaplan, Lee and Nicholson, arXiv:1203.3169 (2012)
ξ: Experiments, Analytic, and Computational
Zero Temperature Simulations
Quantum Monte Carlo: Ψ = exp[−Hτ ] Ψ0
Ψ0 = ΨBCS =�
k
[vk/uk] a†↑(k)a†↓(−k) |0�
Branching Random Walk: DMC coordinate space AFMC orbitals
AFMC exact for unpolarized systems (finite lattices) good for finite temperature DMC in continuum, but fixed-node approximation good for polarized systems
Computational requirements from workstation (Total Energy) to largest supercomputers
(exotic superfluids)
Experiments at Unitarity: # = #Cloud Size and Sound Velocity
Cloud Sizevs E (B)
c0
vf=
ξ1/4
�(5)
Joseph, et al., PRL 2007Sound Propagation
scaling verified as ρ varied by 30
ξ = 0.39(02)
Energy vs. Entropy
Luo and Thomas, JLTP, 2009
Improved Lattice (AFMC) Methods for Unitary Gas BCS importance function no sign problem control of lattice size, N, effective range
At finite (small) effective range:
Can measure neutron matter EOS (including effective range corrections) in cold atoms
E / EFG = ξ + S kF re
and are universal parametersξ S
TIext
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.41/3 = N1/3/L
0.32
0.34
0.36
0.38
0.40
0.42
!!
N = 38N = 48N = 66
k(4)
k(h)
k(2)
Unitary Fermi Gas (lattice)
K.E. Schmidt, S. Zhang, S. Gandolfi, JC, PRA 2011
E/EFG
up to 273 lattice, 66 particles
ξ = 0.372(0.005)
from experiment (MIT) ξ = 0.376(0.005)arXiv:1110.3309 (Hu, et al)
kF re ~0.3A. Gezerlis, J. C., 2008,2010
Equation of State: Cold Atoms vs. Neutron Matter
Neutron Matter EOS
Neutron Matter EOS strongly constrained at low-moderate densities
Contact from the EOS
Tan, Annals of Phys. 2008
Gandolfi, et al, PRA 2011
Probability of
at same point
Pairing Gap at Unitarity from the polarized EOS
Spin up, down densities in a trap
Zweirleinρ
ρ Polarization
radius1
0
Quasiparticle Dispersion in cold AtomsAdd one to fully-paired systemEnergy cost for an unpaired particle: μ + Δ
∆ = δ�2k2
F
2m
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2( k / kF)2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Δ /
EF
δ = 0.50 (03)
(kmin/kf )2 = 0.80(10)
JC and Reddy, PRL 2005
Pairing Gap at Unitarity - Experiment
4
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
!=0.5, tc=0.25
!=0.38, tc=0.25
!=0.43, tc=0.07
(MIT Expt.)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1r/R
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
!=0.46, tc=0.1
!(r)
Pola
rization
T’=0.03
T’=0.05
!(r)
FIG. 3: Polarization versus radius, theory and experiment, fordi!erent values of ! and tc at T ! = 0.03 and T ! = 0.05. Thedashed curves show the local finite temperature gap. Theresults indicate that the data provide both an upper and alower bound on the gap: 0.5 ! ! ! 0.4.
order transition somewhere in between. In contrast, thecomparison between theory and data at T ! = 0.05 sug-gests that the superfluid extends further out. Polariza-tion in the superfluid state (dotted curve) extrapolatedto p ! 0.4 provides a better description of the data thanthe normal state. A clear signature of a first-order tran-sition is also absent. In both cases there appears to beevidence for a mild decrease in the gap with increasingT/EF and polarization.
For a fixed central density and R", our analysis pre-dicts that the phase-boundary Rc moves outward in thetrap with increasing temperature. This behavior is sen-sitive to the thermal properties of both phases at lowtemperature. At small temperature and polarization, thethermal response of the superfluid phase in the vicinity ofthe transition is stronger than that of the normal phase– driven entirely by the fact that spin-up quasiparticlesare easy to excite and have a large density of states.
The comparison in Fig. 3 provides compelling lowerand upper bounds for the superfluid gap. Even if thetemperature was extracted incorrectly from the exper-iment, the extracted gap cannot be too small. A gapsmaller than " 0.4EF would produce a shell of polarizedsuperfluid before the transition even at zero temperature.Furthermore, the radial dependence of this polarizationwould be quite di!erent than observed experimentally,rising abruptly from the point where " = !µ and beingconcave rather than convex. A gap larger than " 0.5EF
would be unable to produce the observed polarization inthe superfluid phase. We have also examined the depen-dence of our results on the universal parameters " and#. Both of these are expected to be uncertain by 0.02.These uncertainties, as well as the uncertainties in the
superfluid quasiparticle dispersion relation do not signif-icantly alter the extracted bounds on the superfluid gap.
In summary, we have extracted the pairing gap frommeasurements of spin up and spin down densities in po-larized Fermi gases in the unitary regime. These systemshave an extremely large gap of almost one-half the Fermienergy – the value extracted in this work is clearly thelargest gap measured in any Fermi system. Future moreprecise experiments extending over the BCS-BEC transi-tion region would allow an experimental determination ofthe evolution of the pairing gap from the weak-couplingregime of traditional superfluids and superconductors tothe strongly-interacting regime. This could resolve long-standing issues regarding, for example, the pairing gapin neutron matter and the cooling of neutron stars.
We would like to thank M. Alford, A. Gezerlis and Y.Shin for useful comments on the manuscript. The work ofS.R. and J.C. is supported by the Nuclear Physics O#ceof the U.S. Department of Energy and by the LDRDprogram at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
[1] L. P. Gorkov, and T. K. Melik-Barkhudarov, Sov. Phys.JETP 13, 1018 (1961).
[2] G. B. Partridge, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 190407(2006).
[3] Y. Shin, M. W. Zwierlein, C. H. Schunck, A. Schirotzek,W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 030401 (2006).
[4] G. B. Partridge, W. Li, R. I. Kamar, Y. an Liao, R. G.Hulet, Science 311, 503 (2006).
[5] M. W. Zwierlein, A. Schirotzek, C. H. Schunck, W. Ket-terle, Science 311, 492 (2006).
[6] Y. Shin, C. H. Schunck, A. Schirotzek, W. Ketterle, Phys.Rev. Lett. 99, 090403 (2007).
[7] S. Gupta, et al., Science 300, 1723 (2003).[8] C. Chin, et al., Science 305, 1128 (2004).[9] Y. Shin, C. H. Schunck, A. Schirotzek, W. Ketterle, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 99, 090403 (2007).[10] G. Baym, C. J. Pethick, Z. Yu, M. W. Zwierlein, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 99, 190407 (2007).[11] J. Carlson, S.-Y. Chang, V. R. Pandharipande, K. E.
Schmidt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 050401 (2003).[12] G. E. Astrakharchik, J. Boronat, J. Casulleras,
S. Giorgini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 200404 (2004).[13] S. Y. Chang, V. R. Pandharipande, J. Carlson, K. E.
Schmidt, Phys. Rev. A 70, 043602 (2004).[14] J. Carlson, S. Reddy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 060401 (2005).[15] C. Lobo, A. Recati, S. Giorgini, S. Stringari, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 97, 200403 (2006).[16] S. Zhang, K. E. Schmidt, J. Carlson. Private communi-
cation.[17] N. Prokof’ev, B. Svistunov, arXiv:0707.4259v2 .[18] A. Bulgac, M. M. Forbes, Phys. Rev. A 75, 031605
(2007).[19] K. B. Gubbels, M. W. J. Romans, H. T. C. Stoof, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 97, 210402 (2006).
Polarization in a trap
δ = 0.45(05)∆ = δ
�2k2F
2m
Largest Δ/Ef !
JC and Reddy, PRL 2007analyzing MIT data
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2( k / kF)2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Δ /
EF
Beyond the Equation of State:Structure and Dynamics
Linear Response:
RF response (q=0): Flip atom to a new HF state
Spin response (large q): Flip atom between states and give ‘kick’ of momentum q
Density response (large q): Give atom `kick’ of momentum q
Credit: Greg Kuebler, JILA
Response sensitive to pairing gap, `contact’, and more
S(k,ω) = �0|O†(k)|f��f |O(k)|0�δ(ω − (Ef − E0))
Density Response: Bragg Spectroscopyat large momentum transfer
S(k,ω) = �0|O†(k)|f��f |O(k)|0�δ(ω − (Ef − E0))
O =�
i
exp[ik · r]
Moving Pairs Breaking pairsBEC
BCS
Spin Responsefrom Bragg Spectroscopy
S. Hoinka, M. Lingham, M. Delehaye, and C. J. Vale, arXiv 1203.4657
Large momentum transfer : sensitive to contact, gap,...
Spin response in neutron matter critical for neutrinoslow q important, depends upon L.S, tensor interactions
Pairing Gap at Unitarity - ExperimentRF response
Credit: Greg Kuebler, JILA
Shin, Ketterle, ... 2008
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2( k / kF)2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Δ /
EF
Shift of response of paired vs. unpaired atoms
Neutron Matter and Cold Atom Pairing Gap
Transition from weak pairing to near unitarity
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6kF [fm-1]
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Δ (M
eV)
Reuter-Schwenk, in prep.BCSChen 93Wambach 93Schulze 96Schwenk 03Cao 06Fabrocini 05dQMC 09AFDMC 08QMC AV4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12- kF a
Pairing Gap: Cold Atoms and Neutron Matter
At small |kF a| consistent with Gorkov polarization suppression of BCSAt large densities consistent withcold atom results
0 2 4 6 8
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
Inhomogeneous Matter
Atoms: nearly 1D Huletexternal potentials
Neutron Star Matter
(Chamel)
Inhomogeneous Neutron Matter
N = 6 to 50 NeutronsHarmonic Oscillator and
Wood-Saxon external wells
Explore very large isospin limit of the density functional.Examine gradient, spin-orbit, and pairing terms
UNEDF SCIDAC
Gandolfi, et al, PRL 2011
Repulsive gradient terms required to fit neutron dropsalso smaller spin-orbit, pairing interactions
Improved Density FunctionalsNeutron Drops, Masses, Fission,...
0 20 40 60 80N
0.38
0.4
0.42
0.44
0.46
0.48
0.5
0.52
0.54
0.56
E / E
TF2
KaplanBlumeGandolfi
ETF = ω(3N)4/3/4
Results for Trapped Fermions at Unitarity
0 20 40 60N
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
E / (
ω N
4/3 )
ω = 5 MeV ω = 10 MeV
Neutrons
Unitary Fermi Gas
Trapped Neutrons and Unitary Fermi Gas
neutrons: Gandolfi, Pieper, JC, PRL 2011atoms: Gandolfi, Gezerlis, Forbes, preliminary
Effective range impacts: EOS, shell structure, pairing gaps
Future
Transition from 3D to 2D in cold atom systems
Pairing in inhomogeneous systems in strong interaction regime
Spin/Density response at small/moderate q
Spin response in neutron matter
Additional response: viscosity,...
Low-energy excitations