Abstract
We investigate the transport problem that a spinful matter wave is incident on a strong localized spin-orbit-coupled Bose-Einstein condensate in optical lattices, where the localization is admitted by atom interaction only existing at one particular site, and the spin-orbit coupling arouse spatial rotation of the spin texture. We find that tuning the spin orientation of the localized Bose-Einstein condensate can lead to spin-nonreciprocal/spin-reciprocal transport, meaning the transport properties are dependent on/independent of the spin orientation of incident waves. In the former case, we obtain the conditions to achieve transparency, beam-splitting, and blockade of the incident wave with a given spin orientation, and furthermore the ones to perfectly isolate incident waves of different spin orientation, while in the latter, we obtain the condition to maximize the conversion of different spin states. The result may be useful to develop a novel spinful matter wave valve that integrates spin switcher, beam-splitter, isolator, and converter. The method can also be applied to other real systems, e.g., realizing perfect isolation of spin states in magnetism, which is otherwise rather difficult.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Ultracold atoms, where atom interaction and spin-orbit coupling (SOC) can be artificially synthesized, are an ideal platform for simulating many-body physics1,2,3,4. The wave-particle duality points out that particles can behave like waves and also vice versa5. Thus, it is of interest to investigate the matter wave properties of multiple cold atoms. Tunable via magnetic6,7,8,9 or optical10,11 Feshbach resonance, the atom interaction accounts for versatile intriguing phenomena featuring the transport of spinless matter waves12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25. Typically, a nonlinear impurity can blockade the transmission of a perturbative incident wave20. Besides, the discrete breather, resulted from nonlinear lattices, can be partially transmitted, and shifted by a moving breather23. Furthermore, when asymmetric defects are immersed in the nonlinear lattices, the discrete breather will be tilted, capably inducing the unidirectional transport of wave packets25. In spinor Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC), however, the interaction can be spin-dependent which induces the non-Abelian Josephson effect26.
Meanwhile, as a key ingredient for spin Hall effect27,28 and topological insulator29,30,31, SOC can be generated through non-Abelian gauge fields induced by the space variation of light32,33,34,35. In combination with atom interactions, SOC can affect the properties of localized modes or solitons in cold atom BEC36,37,38,39,40. For example, Rashba SOC and cubic attractive interactions together can give rise to two types of solitary-vortex complexes, respectively termed semivortices and mixed modes36. Using the parity and time reversal symmetries of a two-dimensional SOC BEC, localized solutions of various families, including multipole and half-vortex solitons, can be found37. Compact localized states and discrete solitons can coexist for nonlinear spinful waves on a flat-band network with SOC40. Although it has been reported20 that the localized BEC can blockade the propagation of an spinless incident wave, how to manipulate the transport of spinful matter waves via tunable nonlinearity in SOC BEC in optical lattices41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49 remains an open problem.
The research on matter wave manipulation is crucial to the recent advance of high-precision atomic-chip devices, such as coherent matter wave laser50, single-atom detector51, atomic clock and interferometer52, sensitive probes for acceleration, and rotation53, and detectors for tiny magnetic forces and gravity53,54. Generally, the gyroscope using matter wave Sagnac effect can exceed the conventional optical counterpart by almost ten orders of magnitude in terms of sensitivity. To realize more complicated high-precision detection in the future, one may require many atomic-chip devices to form a network. This furthermore need basic matter-wave-processing units analog to electromagnetic (microwave or optical) devices55,56, such as switcher, isolator, beam splitter, polarizer, etc. We will show that such analog devices for matter waves can be in principle achieved using SOC BEC with tunable nonlinearity.
In this paper, we investigate the transport problem that a weak transmission matter wave encounters a localized SOC BEC in optical lattices. In the presence of SOC, both the transmission and localized modes exhibit spin-rotation effect in the lattice space. The spin orientation, interaction and atom number of the BEC can be artificially manipulated, which induces tunable transport properties for incident waves with a definite spin orientation. In general, if the BEC orients parallel to the incident waves, it can behave like a spin switcher, beam-splitter, or isolator, while if they orient perpendicular, the BEC behaves like a spin converter.
Our paper is organized as follows. We introduce the mean-field approach to describe dynamics of the theoretical model. Using this approach, we afterwards focus on the transmission and local modes that are supported in this model. Then, we develop a perturbation method for treating the transpor of a weak matter wave that incomes on a strong localized BEC. Next, via specifying the concrete incident matter wave, we obtain the correponding scattering coefficients. After that, we discuss the transport properties based on the scattering coefficients. Lastly, the main results are discussed and concluded.
Transmission and Localized Mode
Theoretical model
We consider the scattering process of the weak atomic matter wave incident on a spin-orbit coupled localized BEC in optical lattices (see Fig. 1). To create SOC, we can illuminate the 87Rb bosonic particles by two intersecting Raman lasers with proper magnetic bias, where the two internal atomic pseudo-spin-states are selected from within the 87Rb 5S1/2, F = 1 ground electronic manifold: |↑ = |F = 1, mF = 0 (pseudo-spin-up) and |↓ = |F = 1, mF = −1 (pseudo-spin-down)57. Besides, the optical lattices can be generated through a standing wave in the large detuning regime14. Moreover, the localization of the BEC can be induced by atom interaction concentrated on the vicinity of lattice origin, which can be obtained by generating inhomogeneous s-wave scattering length of atoms via tuning magnetic6,7,8,9 or optical10,11 Feshbach resonance.
In the second quantization form, the system can be well described by the Hamiltonian
where \({\hat{\psi }}_{n}={({\hat{\psi }}_{n\uparrow },{\hat{\psi }}_{n\downarrow })}^{\top }\) represents the macroscopic wave function of the BEC. The lattice potential well is deep enough to only involve the hopping between nearest neighbours. Concretely, the spin-conserving (spin-flipping) hopping is characterized by the diagonal (off-diagonal) terms of the spin-rotation operator R = exp(−iσyα)41,42 which arises from the non-Abelian potential A = (ασy, 0, 0) through Peierls substitution58. The SOC parameter α is determined by α = πksoc/kol, where ksoc describes the momentum transfer from the Raman lasers and kol is the wave vector of the optical lattice48,49. By setting the intersection angle and wave length of the Raman lasers, we can tune ksoc57 and furthermore, α. The localized attractive interaction is theoretically idealized as a δ-type nonlinear impurity, which vanishes except at n = 0. We choose the intraspecies interaction to fulfill U↑↑/J = U↓↓/J = γ and the interspecies interaction to fulfill U↑↓/J = U↓↑/J = λγ41,42 with γ, λ > 0 (attractive interaction). Hereafter, γ and λ are called interaction strength and miscibility parameter59, respectively.
To validate the mean-field approach, we hereafter assume γ, λγ ≪ 1, such that \({\hat{\psi }}_{n}\) and \(\hat{H}\) can be mapped to the c-numbers ψn, and H, respectively, i.e., \({\psi }_{n}={({\psi }_{n\uparrow },{\psi }_{n\downarrow })}^{\top }\) and
The dynamical evolution of the mean field ψn obeys the Gross-Pitaevskii equation, i.e., \(i\partial {\psi }_{n\sigma }/\partial t=\partial H/\partial {\psi }_{n\sigma }^{\ast }\), yielding
Here, we have set the hopping strength J = 1 for simplicity.
We have stressed that the on-site attractive interaction only exists at origin, which will induce a localized mode where most atoms accumulate around m = 0 (see Fig. 1). Away from the nonlinear impurity, the matter wave can propagate freely along the optical lattices, which is called the transmission mode and governed only by the noninteracting terms in Eq. (1). Both modes can be solved using the Gross-Pitaevskii equation, which will be derived right below. Having obtained the solutions for both modes, we can furthermore seek the scattering coefficients for a weak transmission wave that is incident on the localized BEC mode.
Transmission mode
We now seek the transmission modes using the Gross-Pitaevskii equation [Eq. (3)]. The transmission modes describe the matter wave that propagates freely along the optical lattices, which is governed by the noninteracting Hamiltonian of atoms [first term of Eq. (2)]. Accordingly, setting γ = 0 and ψn = lnexp(−iωt) in Eq. (3), the Gross-Pitaevskii equation, yields
Furthermore, we assume ln has the form of spinful plane wave, i.e.,
where k and ω are respectively the wave vector and eigenenergy of the transmission mode. In this assumption, Eq. (4) changes into
which, because l0 should be nonzero spin states, gives the following dispersion relation
Obviously, the enregy ω is spin independent such that the solution of l0 is two-fold degenerate. The solution space of l0 can be any pair of spin states that own opposite spin orientations on the Bloch sphere. For example, corresponding to general opposite spin orientations
where a, b ∈ [0, π] are azimuth and elevation angles, respectively. Such spin state pair can be represented as
where \({u}_{\pm }={(1,\pm i)}^{\top }\) are eigenstates of σy (σyu± = ±u±). We can verify that the constraint b ∈ [0, π] (instead of b ∈ [0, 2π]) makes s+ (s−) always point to x > 0 (x < 0). One optional method to obtain l± is namely solving the secular equation σ0l± = ±l±. Here, the Pauli operator σ0 is obtained by calculating σ0 = s+⋅σ, which yields σ0 = σxsinasinb + σycosa + σzsinacosb.
Now we focus on the condition l0 = l±, where the transmission modes become
In Fig. 2(a), we have plotted the dispersion relation for both l±,n. Apparently, the energy band of the transmission mode is −2 ≤ ω ≤ 2. Besides, one definite energy ω must result in four degenerate transmission modes:
where k = arccos(−ω/2) ∈ (0, π) is explicitly hypothesized. The spin orientations of l±,n can be calculated by \({{\bf{s}}}_{\pm ,n}={l}_{\pm ,n}^{\dagger }{\boldsymbol{\sigma }}{l}_{\pm ,n}\), yielding
From Fig. 2(c), we can see that s+,n and s−,n always orient opposite. Impacted by the SOC parameter α, both s±,n manifest spin-rotation effect with y-axis when the lattice site n changes. Apparently, the winding number per unit increment of the lattice site is α/π. The spin orientation will recover after the site changes by Δn = π/α.
Localized mode
We now solve the localized mode induced by the attractive atom interaction at origin. In contrast to the transmission modes, the localized mode is described by the full Hamiltonian H in Eq. (2), where γ is nonzero such that atom interactions are included. Accordingly, setting γ ≠ 0 and ψn = dnexp(−iΩt) in Eq. (3), the Gross-Pitaevskii equation, yields
Furthermore, we here assume the localized mode possesses the following profile
where |κ| < 1, and \( {\mathcal E} \) is a two-component spin state. Inserting Eq. (15) into Eq. (14) for n = ±1, 0, we obtain the spatial decay rate κ, eigenenergy (or chemical potential) Ω, and spin state \( {\mathcal E} \), i.e.,
Here, g is called localization grade, which reflects the amplitude of the localized BEC and is a key factor to determine κ and Ω. The energy band of the localized mode is Ω < −2, as shown in Fig. 2(b), where we have plotted Ω against g for different λ. We see clearly decreasing of Ω with respect to the increase of g or λ.
Besides, the spin state \( {\mathcal E} ={({e}^{i\varepsilon },1)}^{\top }\) mainly impacts the spin texture of dn, which is defined by \({{\bf{s}}}_{\varepsilon ,n}={d}_{n}^{\dagger }{\boldsymbol{\sigma }}{d}_{n}\), and can be further represented as
Similarly to s±,n, sε,n also manifests spin rotation effect due to the presence of SOC [see Fig. 2(d)], where the winding number per unit increment of the lattice site is also α/π. And the spin orientation will recover after the site changes by Δn = π/α.
The atom number of the localized mode can be calculated by \({N}_{{\rm{at}}}=\sum _{n}\,{d}_{n}^{\dagger }{d}_{n}\), which yields \({N}_{{\rm{at}}}=\frac{-2{\rm{\Omega }}}{(1+\lambda )\gamma }.\) The localized mode only exists above a threshold: Nat > Nth, given by Nth = 4/(1 + λ)γ. Also noting Ω is implicitly related to λ and g [see Eq. (17)], we can claim that the localization grade g is tunable via modifying the interaction strength γ, miscibility parameter λ, or atom number Nat, i.e.,
Note that γ, λ (Nat) can be controlled by Feshbach resonance (evaporative cooling) in typical cold atom experiment. Hence, the independent control of λ and g is feasible, which guarantees the tunability of our scheme.
Solving the Transport Process
Spinful plane wave interacting with the localized BEC
To investigate the transport process that a spinful plance wave encounters a localized BEC, we substitute ψn = ϕn + Ψn into the Gross-Pitaevskii equation [see Eq. (3)]. Here, Ψn = dne−iΩt, assumed strong, is the localized BEC while ϕn, assumed weak, represents the incident and other stimulated waves. Rigorously, we assume \(|{\varphi }_{0\sigma }|\ll |{{\rm{\Phi }}}_{0\sigma ^{\prime} }|=\sqrt{g/\gamma }\), thus resulting in the linearized Gross-Pitaevskii equation with respect to ϕn:
One finds the strong localized BEC generates a non-Abelian potential at origin, which is quantified by the parameters R± = g[λ + 2 + λ(cosε ± σysinε)] and R(t) = exp[i(ε − 2Ωt + σzε)]. Once encountered, the potential will scatter off a spinful plane wave or flip its spin, which will otherwise propagate freely governed only by the first two terms in Eq. (21).
We now justify the reasonability of our calculations in Eq. (21) taking into account the spatial profile of the localized BEC in Eq (15). Although there may be a few sites in the adjacent region of n = 0, where the atom numbers are larger than other sites, it does not affect our assumption that the interactions are only valid at n = 0. The reason is that the atom interactions are usually synthesized by the optical Feshbach resonance, which can be focused only on a single site n = 0, once a very thin lasing light beam is employed. Thus, even though the atom number may be large, lack of optical Feshbach resonance will still induce no interactions between atoms. The spatial profile of the localized BEC near n = 0 is fundamentally induced by the nearest hoppings between lattices, which does not contradict our assumption that the interaction is only valid at n = 0.
Solving method
Now we discuss the method to solve the linearized Gross-Pitaevskii equation. Investigating the term \(R(t){R}_{+}{\varphi }_{0}^{\ast }\) in Eq. (21), where R(t) is proportional to exp(−2Ωt), we are convinced to make the ansatz ϕn = pne−iωt + qne−iνt with ν = 2Ω − ω. Having done such a treatment, we can therefore obtain the coupled equations that feature the interplay between pn and qn, i.e.,
with Rε = exp[i(ε + σzε)]. Here, the symbol ω represents the energy of the incident wave which possess the wave vector k. Thus, the regime ω = −2cosk ∈ [−2, 2] means pn is an extended state, which includes both the incident and scattered waves. Besides, noting that Ω, the energy of the localized BEC, is below −2, we can therefore obtain the energy ν < −2, a regime outside the energy band [−2, 2], which means qn is a weak localized state stimulated by the incident wave.
To furthermore analyze the transport process, we need to specify the incident wave, which can be chosen from the transmission modes \({L}_{n}^{(j)}\) [see Eq. (12)] and differs in both the spin orientation and propagation direction. Since we have deliberately hypothesized 0 < k < π in Eq. (12), from the dispersion relation in Eq. (7), the group velocities vj of the transmission mode \({l}_{n}^{(j)}\) must fulfill
Thus, the incident waves coming from negative lattice sites should take the form
where θn is the Heaviside step function, i.e., θn = 1 if n ≥ 0 but θn = 0 otherwise, while the ones coming from positive should take
In Eq. (28), the amplitude before \({L}_{n}^{(j)}\) has been set as unit, which does not influence the major physics since Eqs (22) and (23) are linear equations of pn and qn. The spin orientations and propagation directions of all incident waves are summarized in Table 1.
We now render the mathematical description of the transport process with respect to each incident wave \({L}_{n}^{(j)}\). In detail, we suppose pn and qn are respectively of the following forms,
Here, the parameter Sj′j is the scattering coefficient that measures the scattering intensity from the incident wave \({L}_{n}^{(j)}\) into the transmission mode \({l}_{n}^{(j^{\prime} )}\). To simplify the discussion, we can justify that the transport process is isotropic, e.g., S12 = S21 (see the section “Justification of the isotropy of the transport process” in the Supplementary Information). Therefore, only the cases of j = 1 and 3 merit detailed investigation, which means that we only focus on the incident waves coming from negative lattice sites.
Scattering coefficients
Having determined the forms of pn and qn, we can now access the final results. In detail, this can be achieved via inserting \({p}_{n}={p}_{n}^{(j)}\) [see Eq. (28)] and \({q}_{n}={q}_{n}^{(j)}\) [see Eq. (29)] into the coupled equations between them [see Eqs (22) and (23)] for n taking −1, 0, and 1, respectively.
After cancelling some variables, we can then obtain \({S}_{j^{\prime} j}\), the scattering coefficients, for j = 1, 3:
here, we have used the compact parameters \(\tilde{k}=2{g}^{-1}\,\sin \,k\), CY = sinεcosa − cosεsinasinb, and Cε = cos2(a/2) + ei2bsin2(a/2). The expressions of X and Y are a bit cumbersome, which we thus give in the section “Intermediate parameters in the scattering coefficients” in the Supplementary Information. From Eqs (30–33), it is easy to get conscious that S2j (S4j) can be deduced from S1j (S3j), meaning that the reflected waves can be calcuated from the transmitted waves. On the other hand, we are only interested in the properties of the transmitted waves. Thus, besides j = 1, 3, there is only need to concentrate on j′ = 1, 3 for the scattering coefficients \({S}_{j^{\prime} j}\). The scattering coefficients S11 and S33 characterize the transmission intensity of the same transmission modes, thus also called transmission coefficients. However, S13 and S31 characterize the conversion between spin orienations s+,n and s−,n, thus also called conversion efficiencies.
Now we turn to the result of the weak localized state [see Eq. (29)], for which, we can obtain
The validity of |χ| < 1 can be confirmed, agreeing with the localization feature of \({q}_{n}^{(j)}\). Besides, Eq. (35) bridges \({q}_{0}^{(j)}\) with \({p}_{0}^{(j)}\), which physically means the amplitude of \({q}_{n}^{(j)}\) is determined by the incident wave, considering that \({p}_{0}^{(j)}\) can be easily known from Eq. (28), where the amplitude before the incident wave \({L}_{n}^{(j)}\) has been set as unit.
Transport Properties
Discriminating spin-nonreciprocal and spin-reciprocal transport
Here, we will discuss the spin-nonreciprocal/spin-reciprocal transport, which, differently from the conventional nonreciprocal/reciprocal transport describing spatial unidirectional25,60/isotropic transport, means that the transport properties are dependent on/independent of the spin orientation of incident waves. We have stated that the transmission modes \({l}_{n}^{(1)}\) and \({l}_{n}^{(3)}\) have different spin orientations, i.e., s+,n and s−,n with s+,n ≡ −s−,n [see Fig. 2(c,e)]. To discriminate the spin-nonreciprocal and spin-reciprocal transport processes, we should compare (i) S31 with S13, and (ii) S11 with S33. However, we note that the identity |S31| ≡ |S13| is established, which means that appropriate adjustment of the global phases of \({l}_{n}^{(1)}\) or \({l}_{n}^{(3)}\) will lead to S31 ≡ S13. Therefore, the discrimination between the spin-nonreciprocal and spin-reciprocal transport can be merely done by comparing S11 with S33. We emphasize that the adjustment of global phase before \({l}_{n}^{(1)}\) or \({l}_{n}^{(3)}\) will not impact the values of S11 and S33.
We can find that the spin-nonreciprocal transport, or quantitatively, \({S}_{11}\equiv {S}_{33}\) (equivalent to \(|{S}_{11}|\equiv |{S}_{33}|\)), can be achieved when \({C}_{Y}\ne 0\), leading to
In Fig. 3(a,b), we can see \(|{S}_{11}|\equiv |{S}_{33}|\) and |S13| ≡ |S31| under the condition in Eq. (36). In contrast, the spin-reciprocal transport (S11 ≡ S33) can be achieved only when CY = 0, or rather,
In Fig. 3(c,d), we can see |S11| ≡ |S33| and |S13| ≡ |S31| under the condition in Eq. (37).
Spin-Nonreciprocal Transport
Transparency, beam splitting, and blockade
Now we talk about the possibility of achieving transparency (Sjj = 1) and blockade (Sjj = 0) of the incident waves at spin-nonreciprocal transport. In the section “Transparency and blockade” in the Supplementary Information, we have demonstrated that both the transparency and blockade require CY = ∓1, that is, \(b=\frac{\pi }{2}\) and \(\varepsilon =a\mp \frac{\pi }{2}\). Here, \(b=\frac{\pi }{2}\) means that s±,0 orient within the xoy plane [see Eq. (13)]. Meanwhile, \(\varepsilon =a\mp \frac{\pi }{2}\) means that sε,n orients identical to s±,n, i.e., \({\tilde{{\bf{s}}}}_{\varepsilon ,n}\equiv {\tilde{{\bf{s}}}}_{\pm ,n}\), where
is the normalized spin orientation. In detail, if \({\tilde{{\bf{s}}}}_{\varepsilon ,n}={\tilde{{\bf{s}}}}_{+,n}\), for the incident waves \({L}_{n}^{(1)}\) and \({L}_{n}^{(3)}\), the transparency will respectively occur at the points T1 and T2, which are defined by
with \(\mu \equiv \mu (\omega )=\sqrt{{(\omega +2\sqrt{{(1+\lambda )}^{2}{g}^{2}+4})}^{2}-4}/g\); the blockade will respectively occur at B1 and B2, which are defined by
In contrast, if \({\tilde{{\bf{s}}}}_{\varepsilon ,n}={\tilde{{\bf{s}}}}_{-,n}\), for \({L}_{n}^{(1)}\) and \({L}_{n}^{(3)}\), the transparency points are respectively T2 and T1, and blockade points are respectively B2 and B1. The transparency and blockade points depending on the spin orientations have been summarized in Table 2. When the energy ω deviates from the transparency and blockade points, the incident waves will manifest partial transmission, which can be interpreted as the beam-splitting effect. We emphasize that CY = ∓1 leads to S31 = S13 = 0, signifying no conversion between \({l}_{n}^{(1)}\) and \({l}_{n}^{(3)}\) in the output fields.
In Fig. 4(a–d), we have shown the controllability of the transparency and blockade points with tunable parameters g and λ. We find that, at T1, the larger energy ω appears in a ribbon-like region near the right upper boundary. At T2, the larger ω appears at larger g but smaller λ. At B1 and B2, the larger ω appears at both larger g and larger λ.
In Fig. 5(a–f), we present the simulation result using the exact Gross-Pitaevskii equation [see Eq. (3)], where, for the incident wave \({L}_{n}^{(j)}\) (j = 1, 3), the perturbative part is initialized with a Gaussian profile:
The angle parameters are specified as \(b=\frac{\pi }{2}\), \(a=\frac{\pi }{4}\), and \(\varepsilon =a-\frac{\pi }{2}\) such that sε is identical (opposite) to s+,n (s−,n): \({\tilde{{\bf{s}}}}_{\varepsilon ,n}\equiv {\tilde{{\bf{s}}}}_{+,n}\equiv -\,{\tilde{{\bf{s}}}}_{-,n}\). Figure 5(a,b) respectively show the transparency at T1 and T2 for the incident waves \({L}_{n}^{(1)}\) and \({L}_{n}^{(3)}\). Figure 5(c,d) respectively show the beam splitting effect for the incident waves \({L}_{n}^{(1)}\) and \({L}_{n}^{(3)}\). Figure 5(e,f) respectively show the blockade at B1 and B2 for the incident waves \({L}_{n}^{(1)}\) and \({L}_{n}^{(3)}\). Thus, we can claim that tunable transport is achievable from transparency, beam splitting, to blockade.
Spin isolation
Now, under the condition \({\tilde{{\bf{s}}}}_{\varepsilon ,n}={\tilde{{\bf{s}}}}_{\pm ,n}\), we continue to explore the possibility of achieving perfect isolation of different spin states, that is, making one spin state fully transmitted and the other totally reflected. To this end, there are two possible situations: (i) T1 and B2 overlaps, yielding \(\lambda =\frac{1}{3}\); (ii) T2 and B1 overlaps, yielding λ = −1. The case λ = −1 exceeds the scope of the present discussion. Therefore, we only concentrate on \(\lambda =\frac{1}{3}\), with energy ω determined by
As an example, we specify \(\varepsilon =a-\frac{\pi }{2}\) to make \({\tilde{{\bf{s}}}}_{\varepsilon ,n}\equiv {\tilde{{\bf{s}}}}_{+,n}\), in which case, the transparency and blockade points of \({L}_{n}^{(1)}\) [\({L}_{n}^{(3)}\)] are respectively T1 (T2) and B1 (B2). The perfect isolation of spin states, i.e., |S11| = 1 and |S33| = 0, can not be achieved simultaneously [see Fig. 6(a–c)], unless \(\lambda =\frac{1}{3}\) [see Fig. 6(d)]. Similarly, if we specify \(\varepsilon =a+\frac{\pi }{2}\), which makes \({\tilde{{\bf{s}}}}_{\varepsilon ,n}\equiv {\tilde{{\bf{s}}}}_{-,n}\), |S11| = 0 and |S33| = 1 are then achievable simultaneously if \(\lambda =\frac{1}{3}\). The controllability of the isolation point determined by Eq. (44) is shown in Fig. 4(e). In Fig. 5(g), we present the simulation result using the exact Gross-Pitaevskii equation [see Eq. (3)], where the perturbative part is initialized with a Gaussian profile
As in Fig. 5, we still specify \(b=\frac{\pi }{2}\), \(a=\frac{\pi }{4}\), and \(\varepsilon =a-\frac{\pi }{2}\) to make \({\tilde{{\bf{s}}}}_{\varepsilon ,n}={\tilde{{\bf{s}}}}_{+,n}=-\,{\tilde{{\bf{s}}}}_{-,n}\).
Spin-reciprocal transport: spin conversion
We are also curious about the conversion between the spinful waves \({l}_{n}^{(1)}\) and \({l}_{n}^{(3)}\). The conversion efficiencies are namely the scattering coefficiencies S31 and S13. To maximize the conversion efficiencies, the condition tanε = tanasinb should be satisfied, resulting in CY = 0 (see the section “Spin conversion” in the Supplementary Information). In contrast to the transparency and blockade cases, this means sε must orient perpendicular to s±,n, i.e., \({\tilde{{\bf{s}}}}_{\varepsilon }\cdot {\tilde{{\bf{s}}}}_{\pm ,n}=0\). Meanwhile, the relation S11 = S33 is caused, implying spin-reciprocal transport behaviours which are independent of the spin orientation of incident waves. Moreover, the energy ω of the incident wave is required to satisfy
which is called maximum spin conversion point [see Fig. 4(f)], where \(X=(2+\lambda )+\frac{({\lambda }^{2}+1)\mu -{\lambda }^{3}-\lambda -2}{(\mu -2)(\mu -2-2\lambda )},Y=\)\(\lambda [1+\frac{2\mu +{\lambda }^{2}-2\lambda -3}{(\mu -2)(\mu -2-2\lambda )}]\). Under these conditions, the maximum conversion efficiency can be achieved as \(|{S}_{31}|=|{S}_{13}|=\frac{1}{2}\). In Fig. 5(h), we present the simulation result using the exact Gross-Pitaevskii equation [see Eq. (3)], where the perturbative part is initialized with a Gaussian profile: \({\varphi }_{n}(0)={s}_{0}\exp [\,-\,{s}_{p}{(n-{n}_{0})}^{2}]{L}_{n}^{(1)}\). Besides, we specify \(b=\frac{\pi }{2}\), \(a=\frac{\pi }{4}\), and ε = a such that \({\tilde{{\bf{s}}}}_{\varepsilon ,n}\cdot {\tilde{{\bf{s}}}}_{\pm ,n}=0\).
Discussion and Conclusion
In experiment, the incident 87Rb atoms can acquire the quasimomentum k via phase imprinting method (i.e., using an off-resonant light pulse to generate a proper light-shift potential which dominates the evolution of the initial BEC wavepacket)61, Bragg scattering, or simply acceleration of the matter-wave probe in an external potential. The spin of the BEC can be manipulated by Rabi oscillation induced by Raman laser pulses that couple internal spin states with two-photon resonance. To measure the scattering atoms, we first use a Stern–Gerlach gradient to separate atoms of different spin states whose quantity can be further calculated via absorption imaging57.
In conclusion, we have investigated the transport of a spinful matter wave scattered by a strong localized BEC, in which the matter wave undergoes spin rotation along optical lattices due to the presence of SOC, and the strong localized BEC generates an effective non-Abelian potential to the spinful wave which furthermore impacts its transport behaviour. Tuning the spin of the localized BEC to orient parallel to that of the incident wave, we can achieve transparency, blockade, and beam splitting of the incident wave. However, both the transparency and blockade points are different for two incident waves with opposite spin orientation. Thus, it is feasible to isolate two waves of different spin orientation. In contrast, the maximum conversion between matter waves with opposite spin orientation can also be achieved once the localized BEC is tuned to orient perpendicular to the incident waves. The conditions to realize different transport properties are summarized in Table 3.
The result may be heuristic for developing a novel spinful matter wave valve that integrates spin switcher, beam splitter, isolator, and converter on a single atomic chip. As basic matter-wave-processing units similar to microwave55 or optical56 switcher, beam splitter, isolator, and polarizer, such valves may help to form more complicated network formed by high-precision atomic-chip devices. The proposal extends the atomtronics62 to a spinful case, i.e., a matter-wave version of spintronics, which is believed to give insights in many quantum-based applications such as gravitometry, magnetometry, etc. Also, our proposal may facilitate the perfect isolation of spin states in magnetism, which is otherwise rather difficult.
References
Bloch, I., Dalibard, J. & Nascimbène, S. Quantum simulations with ultracold quantum gases. Nat. Phys. 8, 267–276 (2012).
Jaksch, D. & Zoller, P. The cold atom hubbard toolbox. Ann. Phys. 315, 52–79 (2005).
Goldman, N., Budich, J. C. & Zoller, P. Topological quantum matter with ultracold gases in optical lattices. Nat. Phys. 12, 639–645 (2016).
Bloch, I., Dalibard, J. & Zwerger, W. Many-body physics with ultracold gases. Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 885–964 (2008).
Cohen-Tannoudji, C., Diu, B. & Laloë, F. Quantum mechanics. (Wiley, New York, 1977).
Donley, E. A., Claussen, N. R., Thompson, S. T. & Wieman, C. E. Atom-molecule coherence in a bose-einstein condensate. Nature 417, 529–533 (2002).
Loftus, T., Regal, C. A., Ticknor, C., Bohn, J. L. & Jin, D. S. Resonant control of elastic collisions in an optically trapped fermi gas of atoms. Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 173201 (2002).
Tiesinga, E., Verhaar, B. J. & Stoof, H. T. C. Threshold and resonance phenomena in ultracold ground-state collisions. Phys. Rev. A 47, 4114–4122 (1993).
Inouye, S. et al. Observation of feshbach resonances in a bose-einstein condensate. Nature 392, 151–154 (1998).
Fedichev, P. O., Kagan, Y., Shlyapnikov, G. V. & Walraven, J. T. M. Influence of nearly resonant light on the scattering length in low-temperature atomic gases. Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2913–2916 (1996).
Theis, M. et al. Tuning the scattering length with an optically induced feshbach resonance. Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 123001 (2004).
Liu, W.-M., Wu, B. & Niu, Q. Nonlinear effects in interference of bose-einstein condensates. Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2294–2297 (2000).
Liang, Z. X., Zhang, Z. D. & Liu, W. M. Dynamics of a bright soliton in bose-einstein condensates with time-dependent atomic scattering length in an expulsive parabolic potential. Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 050402 (2005).
Morsch, O. & Oberthaler, M. Dynamics of bose-einstein condensates in optical lattices. Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 179 (2006).
Miroshnichenko, A. E., Flach, S. & Kivshar, Y. S. Fano resonances in nanoscale structures. Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 2257–2298 (2010).
Kartashov, Y. V., Malomed, B. A. & Torner, L. Solitons in nonlinear lattices. Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 247–305 (2011).
Chien, C.-C., Peotta, S. & Di Ventra, M. Quantum transport in ultracold atoms. Nat. Phys. 11, 998–1004 (2015).
Poulsen, U. V. & Mølmer, K. Scattering of atoms on a bose-einstein condensate. Phys. Rev. A 67, 013610 (2003).
Smerzi, A. & Trombettoni, A. Nonlinear tight-binding approximation for bose-einstein condensates in a lattice. Phys. Rev. A 68, 023613 (2003).
Vicencio, R. A., Brand, J. & Flach, S. Fano blockade by a bose-einstein condensate in an optical lattice. Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 184102 (2007).
Zhang, C. X., Zhou, B., Nie, Y. H., Liang, J. Q. & Liu, J. Scattering effect of atoms through a bose-einstein condensate in an optical lattice with a single defect. The European Physical Journal D 49, 161–165 (2008).
Arévalo, E. Solitary wave solutions as a signature of the instability in the discrete nonlinear schrödinger equation. Phys. Lett. A 373, 3541–3546 (2009).
Hennig, H., Dorignac, J. & Campbell, D. K. Transfer of bose-einstein condensates through discrete breathers in an optical lattice. Phys. Rev. A 82, 053604 (2010).
Bai, X.-D. et al. Stability and phase transition of localized modes in bose-einstein condensates with both two- and three-body interactions. Ann. Phys. 360, 679–693 (2015).
Bai, X. D., Malomed, B. A. & Deng, F. G. Unidirectional transport of wave packets through tilted discrete breathers in nonlinear lattices with asymmetric defects. Phys. Rev. E 94, 032216 (2016).
Qi, R., Yu, X.-L., Li, Z. B. & Liu, W. M. Non-abelian josephson effect between two f = 2 spinor bose-einstein condensates in double optical traps. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 185301 (2009).
Kato, Y. K., Myers, R. C., Gossard, A. C. & Awschalom, D. D. Observation of the spin hall effect in semiconductors. Science 306, 1910 (2004).
König, M. et al. Quantum spin hall insulator state in hgte quantum wells. Science 318, 766 (2007).
Kane, C. L. & Mele, E. J. Z2 topological order and the quantum spin hall effect. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 146802 (2005).
Bernevig, B. A., Hughes, T. L. & Zhang, S.-C. Quantum spin hall effect and topological phase transition in hgte quantum wells. Science 314, 1757 (2006).
Hsieh, D. et al. A topological dirac insulator in a quantum spin hall phase. Nature 452, 970–4 (2008).
Dalibard, J., Gerbier, F., Juzeliūnas, G. & Öhberg, P. Colloquium: Artificial gauge potentials for neutral atoms. Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1523–1543 (2011).
Galitski, V. & Spielman, I. B. Spin-orbit coupling in quantum gases. Nature 494, 49–54 (2013).
Goldman, N., Juzeliunas, G., Ohberg, P. & Spielman, I. B. Light-induced gauge fields for ultracold atoms. Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 126401 (2014).
Zhai, H. Degenerate quantum gases with spin-orbit coupling: a review. Rep. Prog. Phys. 78, 026001 (2015).
Sakaguchi, H., Li, B. & Malomed, B. A. Creation of two-dimensional composite solitons in spin-orbit-coupled selfattractive bose-einstein condensates in free space. Phys. Rev. E 89, 032920 (2014).
Lobanov, V. E., Kartashov, Y. V. & Konotop, V. V. Fundamental, multipole, and half-vortex gap solitons in spin-orbit coupled bose-einstein condensates. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 180403 (2014).
Sakaguchi, H. & Malomed, B. A. Discrete and continuum composite solitons in bose-einstein condensates with the rashba spin-orbit coupling in one and two dimensions. Phys. Rev. E 90, 062922 (2014).
Beličev, P. P. et al. Composite localized modes in discretized spin-orbit-coupled bose-einstein condensates. J. Phys. B 48, 065301 (2015).
Gligorić, G., Maluckov, A., Hadžievski, L., Flach, S. & Malomed, B. A. Nonlinear localized flat-band modes with spin-orbit coupling. Phys. Rev. B 94, 144302 (2016).
Cole, W. S., Zhang, S., Paramekanti, A. & Trivedi, N. Bose-hubbard models with synthetic spin-orbit coupling: Mott insulators, spin textures, and superfluidity. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 085302 (2012).
Xu, Z., Cole, W. S. & Zhang, S. Mott-superfluid transition for spin-orbit-coupled bosons in one-dimensional optical lattices. Phys. Rev. A 89, 051604 (2014).
Osterloh, K., Baig, M., Santos, L., Zoller, P. & Lewenstein, M. Cold atoms in non-abelian gauge potentials: From the hofstadter “moth” to lattice gauge theory. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 010403 (2005).
Hamner, C., Zhang, Y., Khamehchi, M. A., Davis, M. J. & Engels, P. Spin-orbit-coupled bose-einstein condensates in a one-dimensional optical lattice. Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 070401 (2015).
Jördens, R., Strohmaier, N., Günter, K., Moritz, H. & Esslinger, T. A mott insulator of fermionic atoms in an optical lattice. Nature 455, 204–7 (2008).
Goldman, N. et al. Non-abelian optical lattices: anomalous quantum hall effect and dirac fermions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 035301 (2009).
Goldman, N., Kubasiak, A., Gaspard, P. & Lewenstein, M. Ultracold atomic gases in non-abelian gauge potentials: The case of constant wilson loop. Phys. Rev. A 79, 023624 (2009).
Radić, J., Di Ciolo, A., Sun, K. & Galitski, V. Exotic quantum spin models in spin-orbit-coupled mott insulators. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 085303 (2012).
Cai, Z., Zhou, X. & Wu, C. Magnetic phases of bosons with synthetic spin-orbit coupling in optical lattices. Phys. Rev. A 85, 061605 (2012).
Hänsel, W., Hommelhoff, P., Hänsch, T. W. & Reichel, J. Bose-einstein condensation on a microelectronic chip. Nature 413, 498 (2001).
Colombe, Y. et al. Strong atom-field coupling for bose-einstein condensates in an optical cavity on a chip. Nature 450, 272 (2007).
Riedel, M. F. et al. Atom-chip-based generation of entanglement for quantum metrology. Nature 464, 1170 (2010).
Fortágh, J. & Zimmermann, C. Toward atom chips. Science 307, 860 (2005).
van Zoest, T. et al. Bose-einstein condensation in microgravity. Science 328, 1540 (2010).
Pozar, D. M. Microwave engineering. (John Wiley & Sons, 2009).
Boyd, R. W. Nonlinear optics. (Academic press, 2003).
Lin, Y. J., Jimenez-Garcia, K. & Spielman, I. B. Spin-orbit-coupled bose-einstein condensates. Nature 471, 83 (2011).
Hofstadter, D. R. Energy levels and wave functions of bloch electrons in rational and irrational magnetic fields. Phys. Rev. B 14, 2239–2249 (1976).
Papp, S. B., Pino, J. M. & Wieman, C. E. Tunable miscibility in a dual-species bose-einstein condensate. Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 040402 (2008).
Xu, X.-W., Chen, A.-X., Li, Y. & Liu, Y.-X. Nonreciprocal single-photon frequency converter via multiple semi-infinite coupled-resonator waveguides. Phys. Rev. A 96, 053853 (2017).
Denschlag, J. et al. Generating solitons by phase engineering of a bose-einstein condensate. Science 287, 97 (2000).
Pepino, R. A., Cooper, J., Anderson, D. Z. & Holland, M. J. Atomtronic circuits of diodes and transistors. Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 140405 (2009).
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Ru-Quan Wang, Zai-Dong Li, Yi Zheng, Ji Li, Dong-Yang Jing, Wen-Xiang Guo, Huan-Yu Wang, Wen-Xi Lai, Li Dai, and Chao-Fei Liu for helpful discussions. This work is supported by the National Key R&D Program of China under grants Nos 2016YFA0301500, NSFC under grants Nos 11434015, 61227902, 11611530676, 11847165, 61775242, 61835013, SPRPCAS under grants No. XDB01020300, XDB21030300, China Postdoctoral Science Foundation under Grants No. 2017M620945.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Y.J.Z. proposed the main idea. Y.J.Z., D.Y., L.Z., X.G., and W.M.L. contributed to the findings of this work and wrote the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Zhao, YJ., Yu, D., Zhuang, L. et al. Tunable spinful matter wave valve. Sci Rep 9, 8653 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44218-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44218-y
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.