Past exam of the atomic and Optical Physics course of the University of Cambridge / 2016 / Paper 1 / 2

evaporative cooling removes atoms selectively from the high-energy tail of a trapped gas. The remaining sample has less energy per atom; elastic collisions then redistribute energy and restore a thermal distribution at lower temperature. Random atom loss would generally remove average energy and would not provide the same cooling mechanism. Repeated energy selection and rethermalization, rather than one removal event, is the essential cycle.

Using the evaporation truncation parameter $\eta$, let the escape threshold be ${ϵ}_{\mathrm{cut}}=\eta k_{B}T$. As the gas cools, a fixed threshold is populated by fewer atoms, so evaporation stalls. In forced evaporative cooling the threshold is lowered during the sequence. In a magnetic trap, a radiofrequency evaporation knife flips trapped weak-field-seeking atoms into untrapped spin states where the Zeeman splitting matches the photon energy. Energetic atoms reach that resonance surface; sweeping the radiofrequency lowers the energy knife. In an optical dipole trap, lowering the trap depth offers a different implementation, although it usually also weakens confinement.

A simple evaporative cooling energy balance shows when atom loss is useful. For a classical gas in a three-dimensional harmonic trap of fixed frequencies, equipartition gives $E=3N{k}_{B}T$, counting both kinetic and potential energy. Suppose escaping atoms remove average energy ${ϵ}_{\mathrm{ev}}=(\eta +\kappa )k_{B}T$, with $\kappa$ a distribution-dependent excess above the threshold. For $dN<0$,Thus preferential removal cools when the removed energy exceeds $3k_{B}T$. More stringently, cooling must raise the phase-space density of an atomic gas, not merely lower the temperature:For this harmonic-trap phase-space density, with fixed geometric-mean trap frequency $\bar{\omega }$, $d\ln \mathcal{D}/d\ln N=1-3\alpha$. Therefore phase-space density rises during atom loss if $\alpha >1/3$. The numerical factors here belong to the stated harmonic-trap model, not every evaporative apparatus.

There must be enough elastic collisions to repopulate the tail: ${\Gamma }_{\mathrm{el}}\sim n\sigma \bar{v}$ should exceed damaging loss and heating rates, and the ramp should allow rethermalization. Increasing density can improve elastic collisions but also enhances inelastic and three-body losses. Very rapid removal can leave a nonequilibrium cloud; very slow removal exposes it to background-gas losses. Lowering an optical trap can reduce density and collision rate, so a falling temperature is not by itself evidence of efficient evaporation.

The dilute-gas condensation experiments made this tradeoff concrete. Eric A. Cornell and Carl Wieman's account explains how selective escape and contraction of a trapped cloud raise phase-space density, while the need for rapid two-body equilibration and slow three-body loss restricts usable density. It also describes expansion imaging as an experimental diagnostic.^[ref] Useful controls compare different knife ramps and hold times, measure both atom number and expansion temperature, and check trap-frequency calibration. Pure adiabatic expansion can cool without increasing phase-space density. Successful evaporation pays an atom-number cost to increase the remaining gas's phase-space occupancy.

For an ideal weakly driven two-level atom, opposing red-detuned beams give velocity-dependent absorption and a friction force near zero velocity. Random photon recoils also cause momentum diffusion. Their balance gives the minimum Doppler temperatureat detuning $\Delta =-\Gamma /2$ in the low-saturation model, where $\Gamma$ is the spontaneous population-decay rate, equivalently the natural full linewidth expressed as an angular frequency. This limit assumes the atom has no useful ground-state internal structure.

Real atoms possess magnetic sublevels. In a suitable multilevel transition, position-dependent polarization gives different optical couplings and different AC Stark energy shifts for those sublevels. Counterpropagating beams with orthogonal linear polarizations have nearly uniform total intensity but a periodically varying polarization. Thus spatially varying light shifts can exist even without an intensity standing wave.

In Sisyphus cooling, an atom on one ground-state branch climbs a light-shift hill and loses kinetic energy. Near the upper part of the hill, optical pumping tends to transfer population to a lower branch. spontaneous emission makes this transfer dissipative and randomizes the emitted photon direction. The atom can then climb another hill. Finite pumping time is essential: instantaneous local equilibration would remove the delayed internal-state response that produces friction. The original multilevel analysis relates these optical-pumping cycles to the spatially displaced light shifts.^[ref]

For large detuning compared with the natural linewidth, useful scales areup to angular-coupling and Rabi-frequency convention factors. Here $\Omega$ is the optical Rabi angular frequency. The slow-atom capture range is of order $kv\lesssim {\Gamma }_{\mathrm{op}}$. Typical energies in the Sisyphus regime track the light-shift scale rather than only $\hslash \Gamma$, so reducing intensity can lower temperature below the Doppler limit. Capture becomes narrower, however, and recoil heating, imperfect polarization, magnetic fields and scattered light eventually matter. Define recoil energy $E_r=(\hslash k{)}^2/(2m)$; this is an important scale, not a claim that every sub-Doppler method has the same universal final temperature.^[ref]

The experimental test must establish a narrow velocity distribution independently of fluorescence brightness. William D. Phillips's account describes moving a time-of-flight probe above and below the cloud, deliberately heating the atoms to check a previously absent signal, and release-and-recapture comparisons that included gravity and finite beam geometry. These tests separated very cold atoms from an insensitive detector or a faulty thermometer.^[ref] In a modern implementation, field cancellation and polarization checks test the mechanism, while independent expansion thermometry checks the inferred temperature. sub-Doppler cooling exploits internal-state dynamics omitted from the two-level Doppler model; it does not contradict that model within its assumptions.

A two-photon transition transfers population through two interactions with the electric-dipole operator. For absorption of two photons,The intermediate atomic states enter a second-order amplitude rather than necessarily being populated. Suppressing field-normalization factors, its structure isBoth time orderings contribute coherently. Close to a real intermediate resonance, linewidths and intermediate-state population must be treated explicitly; an off-resonant virtual-state approximation then ceases to be adequate. Well away from saturation the absorption rate scales as $I_1{I}_2$, or as $I^2$ for a single applied frequency.

Each electric-dipole interaction reverses parity, so two such interactions connect states of the same parity. The product operator contains angular tensor ranks $0,1,2$, subject to triangle and polarization selection rules. Under the degenerate two-photon selection rule, identical equal-frequency photons have no antisymmetric rank-one contribution cancels; ranks zero and two remain. This permits a $J=0\to 0$ transition and excludes $J=0\to 1$ in that degenerate E1-E1 case. It does not universally forbid every $\Delta J=1$ transition, because a rank-two tensor can also connect some such pairs. For a single orbital electron, the corresponding orbital changes are $\Delta L=0,\pm 2$, with spin unchanged in the nonrelativistic electric-dipole approximation.

In Doppler-free two-photon absorption, counterpropagating equal-frequency photons give first-order Doppler cancellation when one photon is absorbed from each beam:The laser frequency is half the transition frequency. Same-beam two-photon events can still produce a broader Doppler-shifted background; residual beam-angle errors, unequal frequencies, AC Stark shifts and finite transit time limit precision. Thus a narrow two-photon resonance requires control of beam geometry and intensity, not just high laser power.

A stimulated Raman transition is the absorption-emission version: the atom absorbs from one beam and emits into the other, transferring between two long-lived states through an off-resonant upper state. It instead obeysCounterpropagation now enhances momentum transfer rather than cancelling it. With single-photon Hamiltonian matrix elements $\hslash {\Omega }_i/2$ and a common large angular detuning $\Delta$, eliminating the excited state givesThe two-photon detuning must include differential AC Stark and recoil shifts. Large detuning suppresses spontaneous scattering but also reduces coherent coupling at fixed optical power.

The coherent Raman route is useful for atomic beam splitters and mirrors. Mark Kasevich and Steven Chu demonstrated a laser-cooled sodium matter-wave interferometer using stimulated Raman transitions; its controlled internal-state changes accompanied separated external wave packets.^[ref] Testing this interpretation requires scanning the two-photon detuning, controlling relative laser phase and checking output populations against pulse timing. A two-photon process is defined by its coherent two-interaction pathway; absorption-absorption and absorption-emission have different resonance and recoil conditions.