Expand this Topic clickable element to expand a topic
Skip to content
Optica Publishing Group

Elliptical polarization for molecular Stark shift compensation in deep optical traps

Open Access Open Access

Abstract

In optical dipole traps, the excited rotational states of a molecule may experience a very different light shift than the ground state. For particles with two polarizability components (parallel and perpendicular), such as linear 1Σ molecules, the differential shift can be nulled by choice of elliptical polarization. When one component of the polarization vector is ±i2 times the orthogonal component, the light shift for a sublevel of excited rotational states ±approaches that of the ground state at high optical intensity. In this case, fluctuating trap intensity need not limit coherence between ground and excited rotational states.

© 2018 Optical Society of America under the terms of the OSA Open Access Publishing Agreement

1. Introduction

Optical dipole traps are the reservoirs that enable many experiments with cold isolated atoms and molecules. In most cases, particles are attracted to the intensity maximum of a focused optical beam or a standing wave due to their polarizability. These traps are usefully characterized by their trap depth, the light shift at the intensity maximum, which can be expressed in frequency units. Typical trap depths range over many orders of magnitude, from below 1 kHz to above 10 MHz. The light not only traps the particle, but also perturbs the energy eigenstates and causes relative shifts between energy levels. The perturbation is significant for molecules, where the intrinsic anisotropy of polarizability can cause rotationally excited states to have energy shifts with respect to the ground state that are large fractions of the trap depth.

A “magic” angle [1–4] has been found between the linear polarization of light and the quantization axis, which causes energy states of atoms and excited rotational states of 1Σ molecules to have the same light shift as the ground state. For molecules, the “magic” angle changes and applies to only one sublevel of the first rotationally excited state when the light shift becomes significant compared to the splittings between sublevels [5], and the nulling angle depends on the intensity, electric field, magnetic field, and internal hyperfine couplings [6]. In atoms, elliptical polarizations have been found that eliminate first-order light shifts between atomic hyperfine states [7] as well as second-order light shifts of optical transitions [8].

Sometimes it is desirable to confine 1Σ molecules in a trap whose light shift is larger than the sublevel splittings (e.g. due to hyperfine and Zeeman coupling), but still small compared to the energy difference between ground and second excited rotational states. For the purpose of this paper, we use the term “deep trap” to refer to such a situation. Then there is no “magic” angle of linear polarization, because the molecule aligns itself to the polarization axis and the polarization direction becomes the dominant quantization axis. However as shown below, a particular elliptical polarization causes one sublevel of rotationally excited states to have the same light shift as the ground state.

2. Elliptical polarization

Deep optical traps typically operate at frequencies far below electronic resonances to reduce photon scattering. We assume that the optical frequency has a large detuning with respect to the rotational and vibrational structure of electronic excited states. In this case, the polarizability tensor of 1Σ molecules is symmetric and vector light shifts are absent [9]. For linear molecules [10] and other symmetry groups [11], the molecular-frame polarizability tensor has the simple form

A˜=(α000α000α),
leading to a light shift of EA˜E/2 [2, 12, 13] where α and α are real parallel and perpendicular polarizabilities, and E is the electric field vector in the molecular frame. This expression is valid for rapidly oscillating fields Re(Eeiωt2) where E = ϵE0, ϵ is the complex unit polarization vector, and E0 is the RMS electric field amplitude. To convert to the laboratory frame for a molecule whose orientation lies along the spherical coordinates θ, ϕ we apply the rotations
R˜x=(1000cosθsinθ0sinθcosθ),R˜z(cosϕsinϕ0sinϕcosϕ0001)
α˜(θ,ϕ)=R˜zR˜xA˜R˜xR˜z.

The light shift (quadratic Stark shift) for laboratory-frame electric fields causes an effective potential energy for the molecule that is a function of orientation θ, ϕ:

V(θ,ϕ)=12E02ϵα˜(θ,ϕ)ϵ
In this treatment, we neglect the linear interaction between the electric field and the permanent molecular dipole moment, because the optical field is far above the rotation frequency.

We define a variable elliptical polarization in the x^y^ plane as ϵ(γ)=x^cosγ+iy^sinγ. The differential polarizability for light of this polarization with respect to the ground state is β(γ,θ,ϕ)=ϵ(γ)α˜(θ,ϕ)ϵ(γ)α0, where the ground state polarizability is α0 = (α + 2α)/3. Via trigonometric substitutions, β can be written in terms of spherical harmonics YJ,m(θ, ϕ) as

β(γ,θ,ϕ)=Δ(13+12sin2θ12cos(2γ)cos(2ϕ)sin2θ)
=Δ2π15m=22cmY2,m(θ,ϕ)
where Δ = αα, c0=2/3, c±1 = 0, and c±2 = cos(2γ). Equation (6) is advantageous, because the basis state for rotation of the internuclear axis with angular momentum J and projection m along the laboratory z axis is the spherical harmonic wavefunction YJ,m (θ, ϕ). For these states, the matrix elements of β^(γ) are sums of integrals of products of three spherical harmonics that can be written in terms of Wigner-3j symbols [15], where elements with |m′ − m | > 2 are zero:
J,m|β^(γ)|J,mYJ,m(θ,ϕ)*Yj,m(θ,ϕ)β(γ,θ,ϕ)dΩ=Δ(1)m(2J+1)(2J+1)6(2JJ000)×cmm(2JJmmmm)

A large light shift can dominate the molecular hyperfine and Zeeman Hamiltonians [14] of 1Σ molecules while still being small compared to the energy splitting between states with different J. In this case, the energy eigenstates for each rotational level J approximate the eigenstates of β^(γ). An eigenvalue of zero corresponds to states whose light shift approaches the ground state light shift. For J = 1, we find in the basis m = −1, 0, 1

β^(γ)=Δ15(103cos(2γ)0203cos(2γ)01).

As shown (Fig. 1), the three eigenvalues are (Δ/15){−2, 1 + 3 cos(2γ), 1 − 3 cos (2γ)}. When cos (2γ) = ±1/3, two eigenvalues are ±2Δ/15 and the other equals zero, making its J = 1 eigenstate have a constant energy offset from the J = 0 state, even in the face of trap intensity fluctuations. This occurs for ±γx and ±γy where γx ≈ 35.26° and γy ≈ 54.74° are complementary angles and the sign gives the sense of circularity. The “magic” angle for linear polarization in weaker traps is identical to γy. Note that the parameterization for ϵ defined the ellipse’s major axis to lie along x^ or y^, but more generally it could be arbitrarily oriented. For higher rotation states J′ = J > 1, one can verify from the matrices defined by Eq. (7) that the same polarization ellipticity causes one eigenstate to have zero differential light shift with respect to J = 0, if physical effects like centrifugal forces, and the frequency dependence of polarizability are neglected [16, 17].

 figure: Fig. 1

Fig. 1 Eigenvalues of β^(γ), as defined in Eq. (8), in units of Δ vs. ellipticity parameter γ. Linear polarization corresponds to γ = 0 or ±π/2 where two values are negative and one positive. Circular polarization corresponds to γ = ±π/4 where two values are positive and one negative. Between these extremes are zero-crossings where one J = 1 state has no differential light shift with respect to the J = 0 state. Polarizations are depicted with horizontal x^ and vertical y^ directions.

Download Full Size | PDF

For the choice γx, the polarization vector is ϵ=x^2/3+iy^/3 and the sensitivity to imperfect polarization can be found from a series expansion in γ of the polarizability difference. To first order, the difference for the nulled J = 1 state changes by (42/15)δΔ where δi is the change in γ. Note that the results are true for all values α and α, but the range of deep traps for the purpose of this calculation depends on their difference Δ.

Figure 2 shows an example where elliptically polarized light is applied to an NaCs bialkali molecule and the effects of hyperfine and Zeeman structure are included [14]. Note that the majority of bialkali molecules have larger hyperfine splittings and larger light shifts are needed to reach the “deep trap” regime described here. For molecules where the coupling between nuclear spin and molecule rotation is smaller, a reduced light shift can suffice. Molecular states with electron spin (e.g. 2Σ and 3Σ) have additional spin-rotation coupling that must be overcome for the light shift to dominate.

 figure: Fig. 2

Fig. 2 Difference of energy eigenvalues between J = 1 and J = 0 as a function of J = 0 light shift for an example molecule (NaCs with 10 Gauss magnetic field along z^) where the offset of 3.48 GHz due to rotational energy is removed. The polarizability of the rotation state (|1,1|1,1)/2 approaches that of the ground state for high intensity when the polarization vector is ϵ=x^2/3+iy^/3, as described in the text. We add the molecular Hamiltonian H0 [14] to the light shift of Eq. (7), to make the 32 molecular hyperfine states visible. Tensor coupling between nuclear magnetic dipoles is neglected due to smallness. The hyperfine coupling and Zeeman energies of H0 must be small compared to 2E02Δ/15 for the deep-trap limit to apply. A polarizability anisotropy of α = α/4 is used, corresponding to NaCs at a wavelength of 1064 nm [19], but the exact values do not affect the main result. The eigenstates for deep traps are labeled in terms of superpositions of |J, m〉 basis states. We have neglected J = 2 states in this calculation, and their energy difference with the ground state sets an upper bound for the range of trap depths where the results are valid.

Download Full Size | PDF

3. Conclusion

Experiments that explore dipole-dipole interactions between nearby 1Σ molecules [18] utilize rotation states with |JJ′| = 1, such as J = 0 and J′ = 1. These experiments benefit from a consistent interaction strength, which requires small position variance, because the strength scales as the inverse cube of the intermolecular distance. A tightly-confining optical dipole trap with large intensity helps reduce the variance, and the elliptical polarization described above nulls the associated differential light shifts. Reduction of differential light shifts is also important for precision measurements. It was previously shown that it is possible to cancel these shifts at low intensity by choice of linear polarization angle [4–6], and we have shown that elliptical polarization can serve the same purpose at high intensity. The use of elliptical polarization may have practical advantages, because amplitude fluctuations have a vanishing effect in the high-intensity limit, as long as light shifts are well below the spacing of rotational levels. In addition, experimental drifts of the polarization parameter γ are likely to be slow thermal drifts, whose phase errors can be unwound by spin echo techniques [20].

Funding

National Science Foundation (NSF) (PHY-1125846); David and Lucile Packard Foundation (2016-65138).

Acknowledgments

We thank Rosario González-Férez for valuable comments. DDG is supported by a fellowship from the Max Planck Harvard Quantum Optics Center.

References and links

1. B. Cagnac, A. Izraël, and M. Nogaret, “Spectroscopie Hertzienne,” Comptes Rendus Acad. Sci. Sér. B 267, 274–277 (1968).

2. W. Happer, “Light propagation and light shifts in optical pumping experiments,” Prog. Quant. Elec. 151–103 (1970). [CrossRef]  

3. D. Budker, D. F. Kimball, and D. P. DeMille, Atomic Physics (Oxford University Press, 2004).

4. S. Kotochigova and D. DeMille, “Electric-field-dependent dynamic polarizability and state-insensitive conditions for optical trapping of diatomic polar molecules,” Phys. Rev. A 82063421 (2010). [CrossRef]  

5. B. Neyenhuis, B. Yan, S. A. Moses, J. P. Covey, A. Chotia, A. Petrov, S. Kotochigova, J. Ye, and D. S. Jin, “Anisotropic Polarizability of Ultracold Polar 40K87Rb Molecules,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 109230403 (2012). [CrossRef]  

6. P. D. Gregory, J. A. Blackmore, J. Aldegunde, J. M. Hutson, and S. L. Cornish, “ac Stark effect in ultracold polar 87Rb133Cs molecules,” Phys. Rev. A 96021402 (2017). [CrossRef]  

7. H. Kim, H. S. Han, and D. Cho, “Magic Polarization for Optical Trapping of Atoms without Stark-Induced Dephasing,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111243004 (2013). [CrossRef]  

8. A. V. Taichenachev, V. I. Yudin, V. D. Ovsiannikov, and V. G. Pal’chikov, “Optical Lattice Polarization Effects on Hyperpolarizability of Atomic Clock Transitions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 97173601 (2006). [CrossRef]   [PubMed]  

9. V. B. Berestetskii, E. M. Lifshitz, and L. P. Pitaevskii, Quantum Electrodynamics (Second Edition) (Butterworth-Heinemann, 1982), §61.

10. T. C. James and W. Klemperer, “Line Intensities in the Raman Effect of 1Σ Diatomic Molecules,” J. Chem. Phys. 31130–134 (1959). [CrossRef]  

11. K. D. Bonin and V. V. Kresin, Electric-Dipole Polarizabilities of Atoms, Molecules, and Clusters (World Scientific, 1997), p. 43.

12. B. Friedrich and D. Herschbach, “Alignment and Trapping of Molecules in Intense Laser Fields,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 744623–4626 (1995). [CrossRef]   [PubMed]  

13. H. Stapelfeldt and T. Seideman, “Aligning molecules with strong laser pulses,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 75543–557 (2003). [CrossRef]  

14. J. Aldegunde and J. M. Hutson, “Hyperfine structure of alkali-metal diatomic molecules,” Phys. Rev. A 96042506 (2017). [CrossRef]  

15. R. Zare, Angular Momentum: Understanding Spatial Aspects in Chemistry and Physics (Wiley, 1988).

16. M. Zwierlein, Private communication (2018).

17. Polarization with ellipticity ϵ=i(x^ory^)2/3±z^1/3 in the xz or yz plane rather than xy causes the diagonal elements of β^ to be zero in Eq. 7, making it apparent that for all J, β^ is singular with a zero eigenvalue.

18. B. Yan, S. A. Moses, B. Gadway, J. P. Covey, K. R. A. Hazzard, A. M. Rey, D. S. Jin, and J. Ye, “Observation of dipolar spin-exchange interactions with lattice-confined polar molecules,” Nature 501521–525 (2013). [CrossRef]   [PubMed]  

19. R. Vexiau, D. Borsalino, M. Lepers, A. Orbán, M. Aymar, O. Dulieu, and N. Bouloufa-Maafa, “Dynamic dipole polarizabilities of heteronuclear alkali dimers: optical response, trapping and control of ultracold molecules,” International Reviews in Physical Chemistry , 36709–750 (2017). [CrossRef]  

20. L. Viola and S. Lloyd, “Dynamical suppression of decoherence in two-state quantum systems,” Phys. Rev. A 582733–2744 (1998). [CrossRef]  

Cited By

Optica participates in Crossref's Cited-By Linking service. Citing articles from Optica Publishing Group journals and other participating publishers are listed here.

Alert me when this article is cited.


Figures (2)

Fig. 1
Fig. 1 Eigenvalues of β ^ ( γ ), as defined in Eq. (8), in units of Δ vs. ellipticity parameter γ. Linear polarization corresponds to γ = 0 or ±π/2 where two values are negative and one positive. Circular polarization corresponds to γ = ±π/4 where two values are positive and one negative. Between these extremes are zero-crossings where one J = 1 state has no differential light shift with respect to the J = 0 state. Polarizations are depicted with horizontal x ^ and vertical y ^ directions.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2 Difference of energy eigenvalues between J = 1 and J = 0 as a function of J = 0 light shift for an example molecule (NaCs with 10 Gauss magnetic field along z ^) where the offset of 3.48 GHz due to rotational energy is removed. The polarizability of the rotation state ( | 1 , 1 | 1 , 1 ) / 2 approaches that of the ground state for high intensity when the polarization vector is ϵ = x ^ 2 / 3 + i y ^ / 3, as described in the text. We add the molecular Hamiltonian H0 [14] to the light shift of Eq. (7), to make the 32 molecular hyperfine states visible. Tensor coupling between nuclear magnetic dipoles is neglected due to smallness. The hyperfine coupling and Zeeman energies of H0 must be small compared to 2 E 0 2 Δ / 15 for the deep-trap limit to apply. A polarizability anisotropy of α = α/4 is used, corresponding to NaCs at a wavelength of 1064 nm [19], but the exact values do not affect the main result. The eigenstates for deep traps are labeled in terms of superpositions of |J, m〉 basis states. We have neglected J = 2 states in this calculation, and their energy difference with the ground state sets an upper bound for the range of trap depths where the results are valid.

Equations (8)

Equations on this page are rendered with MathJax. Learn more.

A ˜ = ( α 0 0 0 α 0 0 0 α ) ,
R ˜ x = ( 1 0 0 0 cos θ sin θ 0 sin θ cos θ ) , R ˜ z ( cos ϕ sin ϕ 0 sin ϕ cos ϕ 0 0 0 1 )
α ˜ ( θ , ϕ ) = R ˜ z R ˜ x A ˜ R ˜ x R ˜ z .
V ( θ , ϕ ) = 1 2 E 0 2 ϵ α ˜ ( θ , ϕ ) ϵ
β ( γ , θ , ϕ ) = Δ ( 1 3 + 1 2 sin 2 θ 1 2 cos ( 2 γ ) cos ( 2 ϕ ) sin 2 θ )
= Δ 2 π 15 m = 2 2 c m Y 2 , m ( θ , ϕ )
J , m | β ^ ( γ ) | J , m Y J , m ( θ , ϕ ) * Y j , m ( θ , ϕ ) β ( γ , θ , ϕ ) d Ω = Δ ( 1 ) m ( 2 J + 1 ) ( 2 J + 1 ) 6 ( 2 J J 0 0 0 ) × c m m ( 2 J J m m m m )
β ^ ( γ ) = Δ 15 ( 1 0 3 cos ( 2 γ ) 0 2 0 3 cos ( 2 γ ) 0 1 ) .
Select as filters


Select Topics Cancel
© Copyright 2024 | Optica Publishing Group. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies.