Efficient vibrational state coupling in an optical tilted-washboard potential via multiple spatial translations and application to pulse echoes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We measure the application of simple and compound pulses consisting of time-dependent spatial translations to coupling vibrational states of ultracold $^{85}\text{R}\text{b}$ atoms in a far-detuned 1D optical lattice. The lattice wells are so shallow as to support only two bound states, and we prepare the atoms in the ground state. The lattice is oriented vertically, leading to a tilted-washboard potential analogous to those encountered in condensed-matter systems. Experimentally, we find that a square pulse consisting of lattice displacements and a delay is more efficient than single-step pulses or Gaussian pulses. This is described as an example of coherent control. It is striking that contrary to the intuition that soft pulses minimize loss, the Gaussian pulse is outperformed by the square pulse. Numerical calculations are in strong agreement with our experimental results and show the superiority of the square pulse to the single-step pulse for all lattice depths and to the Gaussian pulse for lattice depths greater than seven lattice recoil energies. We also compare the effectiveness of these pulses for reviving oscillations of atoms in vibrational superposition states using the pulse-echo technique. We find that the square and Gaussian pulses result in higher echo amplitudes than the single-step pulse. These improved echo pulses allow us to probe coherence at longer times than in the past, measuring a plateau which has yet to be explained. In addition, we show numerically that the vibrational state coupling due to such lattice manipulations is more efficient in shallow lattices than in deep lattices. The coupling probability for an optimized single-step pulse approaches $1/e$ as the depth goes to infinity (harmonic-oscillator limit), while in shallow lattices with large anharmonicity, the coupling probability reaches a maximum value of 0.51 for a lattice depth of five recoil energies. For square and Gaussian pulses the coupling in the lattice is even stronger, reaching maxima of 0.64 at 6 recoil energies and 0.67 at 5 recoil energies, respectively.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".