RT Journal Article
T1 Chaotic quantum ratchets and filters with cold atoms in optical lattices: analysis using Floquet states
A1 Hur, G.
A1 Creffield, Charles E.
A1 Jones, P.H.
A1 Monteiro, T. S.
AB 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.
PB American Physical Society
SN 1050-2947
YR 2005
FD 2005-07
LK https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/51584
UL https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/51584
LA eng
NO 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.
NO ©2005 The American Physical Society.We would like to thank Mischa Stocklin for useful discussions, and the EPSRC for financial support.
NO EPSRC (UK)
DS Docta Complutense
RD 4 may 2024