text:
# Recent Results from the MAXIMA Experiment

## 1 Introduction

In 2000, MAXIMA-I (Hanany et al., 2000) \[along with BOOMERANG-98 (de Bernardis et al., 2000), with which it shares considerable personnel and technology\] was one of the first CMB experiments to detect anisotropy over a range of angular scales from several degrees down to a resolution of ten arcminutes. The pattern of temperature anisotropy, with a characteristic scale of roughly one degree, was as expected from a flat Universe with a nearly scale-invariant initial power spectrum of adiabatic perturbations, as predicted by, for example, Inflation. This was confirmed in a combined analysis (Jaffe et al., 2001) and by comparison with the many other experiments that have followed, including the recent results from WMAP (see other contributions to this volume).

In this Proceedings, we will give an overview of the MAXIMA experimental program, report on results to date from MAXIMA, including cosmological results from the analysis of primary anisotropy as well as efforts to detect departures from a Gaussian distribution and contributions from foreground emission. We will discuss comparisons with results from the WMAP experiment, and ongoing plans to use MAXIMA as a CMB polarimeter: MAXIPOL.

The MAXIMA program has so far resulted in ten letters and journal papers published by the team, several works in progress, many conference proceedings, and three Ph.D. theses (with more coming), in addition to the many works by other authors using the results. These publications contain far more information than can be reproduced here.

## 2 MAXIMA: Hardware and Strategy

MAXIMA is a balloon-borne platform carrying a focal plane of spider-web bolometers cooled to 100 mK. It observes the CMB at 150, 240 and 410 GHz with a resolution of better than ten arcminutes at all frequencies. The telescope is an off-axis Gregorian mount with a 1.3 meter primary mirror. The bolometers have a Noise-Equivalent Temperature (NET) of 80–90$`\mu \text{K}\sqrt{\text{sec}}`$ at 150 GHz.

MAXIMA flew on August 2, 1998. The scan strategy was designed to revisit the same area of sky over a wide variety of timescales to allow for a robust investigation of possible systematic errors as well as reduction of the effects of “1/f noise”. The primary mirror chops at 0.45 Hz over about $`\pm 2^{}`$ in azimuth at fixed elevation. The gondola simultaneously scans in azimuth at 0.02 Hz over an angular scale designed to result in a roughly $`10^{}\times 10^{}`$ patch of sky. The elevation of the detector was shifted in mid-flight to cover the same area. During the same flight, observations of Jupiter and the CMB dipole were carried out for calibration and beam mapping (Jupiter only). The approximately three hours spent observing a field of approximately 120 square degrees resulted in a noise per beam of tens of $`\mu `$K.

## 3 Primary CMB Anisotropy: Maps, Power Spectra and Cosmological Parameters

The primary scientific results from MAXIMA are in the form of CMB maps and power spectra (Hanany et al., 2000; Lee et al., 2001). They were produced by the MADCAP (Borrill, 1999) program implementing a Bayesian/maximum likelihood CMB data analysis algorithm (Bond et al., 1998, 2000).

This power spectrum was then used to estimate the cosmological parameters within the paradigm of big-bang models with adiabatic initial conditions described by a nearly power-law spectrum of primordial perturbations (i.e., so-called inflationary models). The data prefer a flat Universe ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{tot}}0.9\pm 0.2`$ at 95% confidence) with a nearly scale-invariant spectrum of initial density fluctuations ($`n_s1.08_{0.12}^{+0.22}`$) and a baryon density as determined from big-bang nucleosynthesis ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^20.33\pm 0.13`$). These are all consistent with expectations from the inflationary paradigm and with determinations of the parameters from other ground- and balloon-based experiments (e.g., Halverson et al., 2002; Pearson et al., 2002; Grainge et al., 2002) and from the WMAP satellite (Spergel et al., 2003).

In addition to the work by the MAXIMA team itself, these data have also been used to test the details of quintessence or dark energy (Balbi et al., 2001) and Big-Bang nucleosynthesis (Esposito et al., 2001; Cyburt et al., 2002), as well as more exotic models with massive neutrinos, nontrivial topology, extra dimensions, isocurvature fluctuations, topological defects, etc. There remains no compelling evidence from these data for anything beyond the “standard cosmology” discussed above.

## 4 Foregrounds & Non-Gaussianity

Thus far, no departure from Gaussianity have been detected at a level that is signficant or would affect these results. Indeed, in the main analysis described in the previous section, we assume that the data are as simple as possible: uncontaminated by foreground emission and with both signal and noise well-described by Gaussian statistics. These assumptions can be tested and any departures from them can be quantified.

The question of non-Gaussianity is discussed elsewhere in these Proceedings (Heavens 2003) as well as in greater detail in Wu et al. (2001), which considers 82 (not independent) pixel-based tests, and in Santos et al. (2002, 2003), which calculate the cosmological bispectrum (3-point function in harmonic space). Thus far, no significant departures from Gaussianity have been detected.

The MAXIMA field was chosen to be well off of the Galactic plane and in a region of particularly low dust contrast. Nonetheless, in Jaffe et al. (2003), we show that there is a small amount of emission correlated with the pattern of dust morphology. The amplitude of the correlated emission is barely detectable, but as expected from extrapolations of the dust spectrum down to the 150-400 GHz observed by MAXIMA. This emission has no significant effect on the power spectrum or cosmological parameters.

## 5 MAXIMA and WMAP

In February, 2003, data from the WMAP satellite became available, providing a benchmark against which the last few years’ ground- and balloon-based CMB results can be tested, down to WMAP’s resolution of 13 arcminutes. We will provide a full comparison of the MAXIMA data with that from the WMAP satellite in Abroe et al (forthcoming). Here, we concentrate on the comparison of publicly-available data from both teams. In Figure 3 we compare power spectra. As is evident from this figure, the field probed by the MAXIMA data shows structure with the same statistical properties as, and with higher resolution than, the all-sky WMAP data. This comparison is borne out by a side by side visual comparison of the maps of the MAXIMA region (Figure 4), and with a more detailed comparison of the overlapping portion of the two datasets as well as MAXIMA data from other campaigns (Abroe et al, forthcoming).

## 6 MAXIPOL

The next step in the evolution of the MAXIMA program is MAXIPOL. It consists of the MAXIMA hardware with additions to make it sensitive to the polarization of the CMB. A wire grid is placed in front of the detector horns, and a half-wave plate is rotated at 2 Hz in front (see Figure 5). This means that a single detector can observe polarization states rotated around a full $`180^{}`$ on timescales much shorter than the drift in detector gain, and adding another timescale over which we can monitor for systematic effects.

MAXIPOL should have a polarization sensitivity (in $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$) comparable to that of WMAP and other recent experiments. It achieves this by combining the high-resolution MAXIMA optics and the cooled MAXIMA bolometers with a very deep “exposure” of a small area of sky (a few square degrees).

The MAXIPOL team is happy to report that on 24 May, 2003, just prior to the submission of these proceedings, the MAXIPOL instrument was successfully launched for a twenty-five hour flight from Fort Sumner, New Mexico.

## 7 Conclusions

The MAXIMA program has measured the temperature anisotropy of the Cosmic Microwave Background over angular scales from ten degrees to ten arcminutes, and over a factor of several in frequency. It has used these measurements to determine the CMB power spectrum and the parameters of the cosmological. It will soon be able to detect the polarization of the CMB, which will allow a strong check on the underlying cosmological paradigm as well as the determination of the parameters to higher precision. Similar technology will be used in the forthcoming Planck satellite mission as well as future ground- and balloon-based detectors.


format: text

text:
# Deterministic instabilities in the magneto-optical trap

## 1 Introduction

Experimental quantum physics knows since several years spectacular results, thanks to a simplification to produce quantum objects with long coherence times or macroscopic dimensions. Let us cite the achievement of the Bose-Einstein condensatesnobel , the characterization of quantum chaos QC , the improvement of atomic clocksclocks , the designs of quantum computers and quantum communication systemsqcomp , or also the accurate understanding of quantum decoherencedeco . One of the basic tools used to obtain most of these results is the Magneto-Optical Trap (MOT), which performs the cooling of atoms at temperatures of the order of the $`\mu `$K: this is the first step before reaching lower temperatures where the quantum properties of atoms dominate. Although it is a key device in the new atomic physics, the basic mechanisms determining the properties of the cloud of cold atoms in a MOT have been poorly studied, and the collective dynamics of these still “classical” atoms have been almost ignored, even though the existence of instabilities in the MOT is known since the first realizations. On the contrary, some simple empirical rules are used to avoid these inconveniences. Nevertheless, an accurate knowledge of the individual and collective behaviors of the cold atoms in the cloud could help in understanding the limitations of the process, and above all, to enhance it through the control of the dynamics, as it was done in many other systems, in physics and other fields of science.

However, a necessary preamble to such applications is the identification of the nature of the dynamics observed in MOTs. Indeed, complex behaviors may be subdivided in two groups: stochastic and deterministic behaviors. For the former, the dynamics originate in noise, i.e. in dynamical components, usually with a large number of degrees of freedom, considered as external to the system. This is usually experimental technical noise, and requires to add in the model a random component. Such a complex dynamics is meaningless from the physical point of view, because it cannot give any new informations about the MOT mechanisms. On the contrary, deterministic dynamics are intrinsic to the system, and do not require to add anything to the model: periodic instabilities can appear with two degrees of freedom, while chaos needs at least three degrees of freedom. This last case opens many perspectives: for example, it is possible to reach new working points by the methods of control of chaos, or to measure parameters which are usually inaccessiblebistab .

Recent studies have shown that the collective behavior of the atomic cloud produced by a MOT exhibit both stochastic instabilitiesnousprl ; bruit2002  and deterministic instabilitiesInstDet . The former has been extensively described in bruit2002 . A model demonstrates that the different stochastic behaviors observed in the experiments are well explained if the absorption of light by the atoms is taken into account, through the so-called shadow effect shadow . It is also shown that these stochastic instabilities are not “instabilities” in the usual meaning, as they result from an amplification of noise, due, from a dynamical point of view, to the folded structure of the stationary solutions. The same model was also predicting, for slighly different values of the parameters, deterministic instabilities which, in turn, has been observed experimentallyInstDet .

In the present paper, we report an extensive study of these deterministic instabilities. We detail and complete the experimental results given in InstDet , and analyze accurately the mechanisms leading to the different deterministic regimes through the model introduced in InstDet . We show in particular that the model is able to reproduce each type of dynamics, and predicts deterministic chaos. We show also the main role that noise is still playing in the dynamics.

The paper is organized as follows. After this introduction, section 2 describes briefly the experimental setup, and section 3 gives a detailed analysis of the experimental observations. Section 4 is devoted to a short description of the model, already detailed in bruit2002 . In section 5, the stationary solutions of the model are discussed, and in section 6, the deterministic dynamical behavior predicted by the model is described, and compared with the experiment results. Finally, in section 7, the effect of noise on the dynamics is studied.

## 2 Experimental set-up

The experimental set-up has already been described in detail elsewherebruit2002 , and thus the description here is simplified. The Cesium-atom MOT is in the usual $`\sigma _+\sigma _{}`$ configuration, with three arms of two counter-propagating beams obtained from the same laser diode. The waist $`w_T`$ of the trap beams may be varied from typically $`3`$ to $`10`$ mm. We use a configuration where counter-propagating beams result from the reflection of the three forward beams. This simplifies the detection of the dynamics, as compared to a six independent beams configuration. Indeed, because of the shadow effect, a center-of-mass motion is generated. However, as the nonlinearities involved in both cases are the same, we expect that the dynamics will be fundamentally of the same nature in the two configurations.

The dynamics of the atomic cloud consists in a deformation of the spatial atomic distribution, leading to fluctuations of the shape of the cloud, as illustrated in Fig. 1. Therefore, the relevant dynamical variables allowing us to describe instabilities, could be the shape of the cloud (i.e. for example the local velocities and atomic densities in the cloud). This type of description corresponds to a high dimensional model, associated with partial differential equations. Here, for the sake of simplicity, we choose to limit our description to the center of mass (CM) location $`𝐫`$, and the total number of atoms $`n`$ in the atomic cloud. This allows us to model the system with ordinary differential equations, and reduces the dimension to seven, and even three in a 1D model. As it is shown in the following, the use of this description appears to be sufficient to understand the main mechanisms of the instabilities.

A 4-quadrant photodiode (4QP) is used to detect the fluorescence of the cloud. The differential signal of the 4QP allows us to measure the motion of the CM through one of its component $`r`$, while the total signal gives us the number $`n`$ of atoms inside the cloud. A second 4QP, perpendicular to the first one, prevents the measure from line-of-sight effects due to the optical thickness of the cloud. We checked that whatever the type of dynamical behavior, the signal recorded by both 4QP have the same properties and are qualitatively identical.

Parameters acting on the dynamics have been extensively discussed in bruit2002 . The detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ of the MOT, the magnetic field gradient $`G`$, the MOT beam intensity $`I_1`$ and the repumper laser intensity $`I_{rep}`$ may be considered as control parameters, because they can be easily changed in the experiment. On the contrary, the alignment of the MOT beams, the vapor pressure in the cell and the MOT beam waist, which also play a crucial role in the dynamics, cannot be considered as control parameters, either because they cannot be changed easily, or because they cannot be measured with accuracy. Therefore, these parameters have not been varied in the experiments. The parameter ranges explored in the present experiment are summarized in Tab. 1.

## 3 Experimental results

In bruit2002 , it has been shown that the atomic cloud exhibits two types of instabilities, depending on the parameters of the MOT, in particular the trap laser beam intensity $`I_1`$. When $`I_1`$ is small, typically less than $`10I_S`$ ($`I_S=1.1`$ mW/cm2 is the saturation intensity), instabilities are essentially stochastic. Depending on the other parameters, as the detuning, several types of stochastic instabilities occur. In the SL behavior, instabilities are characterized by a unique slow time scale, and no component larger than 2 Hz appears neither in the motion of the trap, nor in its population. On the contrary, in the SH behavior, a second time scale, at higher frequency (typically from 20 to 100 Hz) appear in the trap motion, but not in the populationbruit2002 .

When $`I_1`$ is increased, S instabilities are progressively replaced by C instabilities (C stands for cyclic). These instabilities have already been described in InstDet  for a given set of parameters. In the following, we extend this description for the whole range of parameters where such instabilities appear. We also discuss in more details than in bruit2002 , the connections between S and C instabilities, in particular through their respective domain of appearance.

All C behaviors that we observed in the experiments have in common to have a large amplitude, and to be cyclic, i.e. their trajectory in the phase space follows a close cycle. In the time domain, the signal exhibits the same pattern, which is repeated indefinitely. However, the cadence of the signal is not necessarily periodic, but can be erratic. Thus different types of C instabilities may be distinguished, and we arbitrarily classified them into three groups, that we call CP, C1 and CS instabilities.

Among all types of instabilities observed in the MOT, CP instabilities are the most typical deterministic behavior (Fig. 2). Indeed, they are characterized by periodic oscillations, with a frequency of the order of 1 Hz and a large motion amplitude of the order of 100 $`\mu `$m to 1 mm, while the population variations are typically 10 %. The main feature of the cycle is its asymmetry, which can be described by the succession of two stages with different durations. During the long stage, $`r`$ and $`n`$ behave in the same way, increasing slowly on a significant amplitude, which represents about 30% of the full $`r`$ amplitude, and 100% of the full $`n`$ amplitude. During the short stage, $`r`$ and $`n`$ change rapidly: $`n`$ decreases to come back to the initial value of the long stage, while $`r`$ makes a fast oscillation, with an amplitude much larger than during the long stage. This means that the two stages are not only different by their duration, but also by the dynamical time scales, much faster during the short stage. In fact, the characteristic time of the dynamics during the short stage is more than one order of magnitude smaller than that in the long stage.

C1 instabilities, illustrated in Fig. 3, corresponds to a motion of the cloud very similar to that of CP instabilities. Indeed, $`r`$ exhibits the same behavior along the same type of cycle, covered with two different time scales separated by one order of magnitude. The main difference comes from the erraticity of the motion, which is no more periodic: indeed, although the basic pattern of the motion remains the same cycle, the duration of each cycle fluctuates. From the dynamical point of view, it is convenient use the return time between two cycles, which, in chaotic dynamics, is known to be a relevant variable of the systemRT . The $`r`$ return time is constant in periodic motions (CP instabilities), while it is fluctuating in C1 instabilities. The $`n`$ return time is also varying in C1 instabilities, but other differences as compared to CP regime appear. In particular, the ratio between the fast and slow stages of the dynamics fluctuates, so that for some periods, the two stages occur with a comparable time scale. In short, C1 instabilities appears as CP instabilities, in which noisy fluctuations appear, essentially on the return time.

With CS instabilities (Fig. 4), any periodicity has disappeared from the behavior of both $`r`$ and $`n`$. Not only the return time is fluctuating, but also the amplitude of the cycles changes with time. In fact, speaking of cyclic behavior in the present case is excessive, except that the basic pattern of the motion keeps similarities with the cycle of CP instabilities, in particular the two stages with different time scales. However, even the motion cycle is irregular, with secondary fast oscillations appearing during the slow stage, while the amplitude of the $`n`$ cycle can fluctuate in a ratio of 1:5.

The differences between the three C behaviors are particularly well illustrated by the power spectrum of $`r`$, as shown in Fig. 5. The spectrum of CP instabilities exhibits a first large and narrow peak, at about 1 Hz, corresponding to the main period of the signal, followed by a series of harmonics (Fig. 5a). These harmonics are a signature of the second time scale, much faster than the basic period, which appears in the fast oscillation of $`r`$. For C1 instabilities (Fig. 5b), the first peak remains, demonstrating that the signal remains essentially periodic. However, the regularly spaced harmonics have disappeared, but high frequency components remain. They are distributed erratically, but have globally a larger weight than in CP instabilities. Finally, for CS instabilities, the main frequency component has decreased drastically, and the spectrum may rather be considered as a wide spectrum, as those observed in chaotic or stochastic signals. Unfortunately, it is impossible to distinguish between these two possibilities through the spectrum analysis of the behavior. To do so, it is necessary to turn to more powerful techniques, such as the reconstruction of the attractor of the dynamics.

Indeed, the MOT is a dissipative system, and any deterministic behavior lies in the phase space on an attractor. In the case of deterministic chaos, this attractor is complex, but has usually a structured shape, easily recognizable. On the contrary, if the behavior is dominated by noise, there is no attractor, and the trajectories fill the whole phase space. The reconstruction of the attractor of a system from experimental time series is a well mastered operation. It can be performed following several methods (delays, derivatives), and needs usually additional steps, as the plot of the Poincaré section. In the present case, the use of return times is particularly well adapted, as it appears as one of the main properties of the behavior. The return time diagram, which is equivalent to a Poincaré section, consists in plotting the return time between cycles $`n`$ and $`n+1`$, as a function of the return time between the cycles $`n1`$ and $`n`$RTD . The Poincaré section is a cross-section of the attractor, and has a dimension decreased of one unit as compared to the attractor. Thus, first return time diagrams of CP instabilities give just a point, as expected from a cyclic behavior. Fig. 6 shows the first return time diagram in the case of C1 instabilities. It is a good illustration of all the return times diagram we have obtained for C1 and CS instabilities: points appear to be distributed randomly in the phase space, without any structure. Thus we can conclude that the behavior is either high-dimensional deterministic chaos, or a stochastic dynamics. From the point of view of the model discussed below, these two hypotheses are equivalent, as the model includes only three degrees of freedom.

The links between the different C regimes appear clearly when one looks at the dependence of the behavior versus the different control parameters, and in particular $`I_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. It was already shown in bruit2002  that for small trap beam intensity $`I_1`$ (typically $`I_13`$), the atomic cloud exhibits only S instabilities. When $`I_1`$ is increased, S instabilities still exist, but they are progressively superseded by C instabilities. The appearance of C instabilities occurs progressively, at the cost of S instabilities. For intermediate values of $`I_1`$, both types of instabilities exist. Their typical distribution versus $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is illustrated in Fig. 7: far from resonance, the cloud is stable; as the resonance is approached, S instabilities appear for a detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$. Then C instabilities appear in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2>\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$. If the detuning is still increased, C instabilities disappear in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_3`$ at the benefit of a stable behavior. Finally, the cloud vanishes in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_4`$. As $`I_1`$ is increased, the interval $`\delta _{23}=\mathrm{\Delta }_3\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ where C instabilities occur, increases at the cost of the width $`\delta _{12}=\mathrm{\Delta }_2\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ where S instabilities occur, while the total unstable interval $`\delta _{13}=\mathrm{\Delta }_3\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ remains more or less constant. When C instabilities merge for $`I_1=4I_S`$, they appear on a narrow interval $`\delta _{23}0`$ (Fig. 8). This interval increases rapidly until $`I_1=7.5I_S`$ and $`\delta _{23}=0.8`$. For $`I_1>7.5I_S`$, $`\delta _{23}`$ increases more slowly, to reach the value of $`\delta _{23}=1`$ in $`I_1=20I_S`$. The value of $`\delta _{23}`$ depends also on the other parameters of the system. Fig. 8b illustrates, as an example, how it depends on the repumper intensity $`I_{rep}`$, at given $`I_1`$: $`\delta _{23}`$ varies from 0 for $`I_{rep}0.4`$ mW/cm2 to $`1`$ for $`I_{rep}>1`$ mW/cm2.

Between $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_3`$, the different types of C instabilities appear, following a constant scenario. In $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$, when they merge abruply from a stable or S behavior, they are CP instabilities, and as $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is increased, they transform successively in C1, then CS instabilities in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_3`$. The evolution is continuous, without abrupt changes, and the C1 and CS instabilities appear rather as two different levels of deterioration of CP instabilities by noise. From this point of view, C1 instabilities appear as an intermediate stage between CP and CS instabilities where noise destroys only the periodicity, without affecting the cycle itself.

The amplitude of the oscillations, of the order of 100 $`\mu `$m in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$, is much larger than that of the S instabilities they merge from, which is typically 30 $`\mu `$m. This is an interesting result, because in the most usual bifurcations between stable and cyclic behaviors, as the Hopf bifurcation, the cycle merges progressively from a zero amplitude. Such an atypical behavior can be considered as a signature of the present system, and must be retrieve in the behavior predicted by the model.

When $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is increased from $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$, this amplitude still increases, such that the oscillations reach a 100% contrast in $`z`$ and an amplitude of 40% in $`n`$ (Fig. 4). Simultaneously, the instabilities frequency remains almost constant, as illustrated on Fig. 9 for different values of the intensity $`I_1`$. The frequency reported here is the main frequency component for CP and C1 instabilities, and the inverse of a mean return time for CS instabilities. It appears clearly that at given $`I_1`$, the main frequency does not change between $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_3`$. This is another interesting result, also very untypical in dynamical systems, where the nonlinear resonance frequencies usually depend stricly on the parameters.

To conclude this section, let us summarize the main characteristics of the C instabilities. Three types of behaviors have been identified, depending on their degrees of stochasticity: the CP instabilities are strictly periodic, the C1 instabilities remain cyclic, but are no more periodic, while finally, the CS are neither cyclic, nor periodic. However, this last regime differs drastically from S instabilities described in bruit2002 , by their amplitude, and by a residue of the cycles they merge from. C behaviors appear abruptly, with a non-zero amplitude, and their main frequency appears to be independent from the detuning.

## 4 Model

To determine the origin and the exact nature of the instabilities observed in the experiments, we need to build a model able to reproduce also the complex stochastic dynamics observed in bruit2002 . Thus it is logical to use the model introduced in InstDet  and described in details in bruit2002 . It is a 1D model based on the shadow effect induced by the intensity gradients produced by the absorption of the trapping laser beams in the cloud shadow ; dalibard . The aim of this model is not to reproduce as finely as possible the experimental system, but on the contrary to be as simple as possible, enlighting the fundamental mechanisms leading to the instabilities. In its final form, the model reduces to a set of three autonomous equations, i.e. three equations not depending explicitely on time. This is important, as it is the minimum number of degrees of freedom necessary to generate complex dynamics, in particular deterministic chaos. The model writes:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dZ}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`V{\displaystyle \frac{v_r}{z_0}}`$ (1a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dV}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Mv_r}}F_T`$ (1b)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dN}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`B\left(1Z^2N\right)`$ (1c)
where $`Z=z/z_0`$, $`V=v/v_r`$ and $`N=n/n_0`$ are the reduced variables of the MOT. $`z`$ and $`v`$ is the location and the velocity of the center of mass of the cloud along the unique axis $`z`$ of the system, while $`n`$ is the number of atoms inside the cloud. $`z_0`$ is a phenomenological size introduced to take into account the transverse distribution of the trap laser beams, $`v_r`$ is the recoil velocity ($`v_r=\mathrm{}k/m`$), and $`n_0`$ is the equilibrium population of atoms in the cloud. The origin of $`z`$ coincides with the “trap center”, that is, the zero of the magnetic field. $`B`$ is the population relaxation rate, $`M`$ the mass of the cloud and $`F_T`$ the global force exerted on the atoms by the two counterpropagating beams. To evaluate $`F_T`$, we assume a multiple scattering regime, i.e. a constant atomic density $`\rho `$ in the cloud. Then $`F_T`$ is deduced from the equations of propagation of the beams inside the cloudbruit2002 .

Most of the theoretical parameters are the exact counterpart of the experimental parameters, as e.g. the magnetic field gradient or the beam intensities. In this case, we used in the model the same values as those of Table 1. It is not the case for all parameters, either because of the simplicity of the model or because they cannot be measured easily in the experiment. In particular, $`n_0`$ and $`\rho `$ cannot be accurately evaluated in the experiments. Thus in the simulations, they are fixed at experimental averaged values, and they have been varied on a wide range to check their value is not critical. Finally, to perform the comparison between the experiments and the present model, we sometimes need to study the behavior of the system when noise is added. This has been done in the same way as in bruit2002 , by adding gaussian white noise on $`I_1`$. Tab. 2 summarizes the parameters used in the following.

## 5 Stationary solutions

The model obtained above is described by a set of three autonomous equations, and thus could exhibit complex behaviors, including periodic and chaotic oscillations, able to explain the dynamics observed experimentally. To know if such a complex dynamics occurs effectively with our parameters, we need first to evaluate the stability of the stationary solutions, and thus to calculate the stationary solutions themselves. This work has already been partially presented in bruit2002 , for stable stationary solutions, while we are interested here by unstable stationary solutions. However, for sake of clarity, we recall here some of the general results given in bruit2002 , before to start the analysis of the unstable stationary solutions.

The three stationary solutions $`Z_s`$, $`V_s`$ and $`N_s`$ are given by Eq.1, when the left sides are put to zero. As discussed in bruit2002 , $`V_s`$ and $`N_s`$ can be deduced easily from $`Z_s`$, and thus the discussion is reduced to that of $`Z_s`$, the equation of which can be resolved numerically. The global shape of $`Z_s`$ is illustrated in Fig. 10, where it is plotted as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and $`n_0`$. The basic characteristic of this diagram is the fold in the stationary solutions, due to several abrupt slope changes. The shape of the fold depends on the parameters, in particular on $`n_0`$. Fig. 11 shows four examples corresponding to a situation leading to basically different atomic dynamics. For $`n_0=0.5\times 10^8`$ (fig. 11a), $`Z_s`$ increases smoothly with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ (i.e. $`N_s`$ decreases slowly). For $`\mathrm{\Delta }_00.1`$ (and thus outside the graph), the cloud vanishes through a narrow bistable cycle, where $`Z_s`$ jumps abruptly from a value of the order of $`0.2`$ to a value close to $`1`$. As $`n_0`$ increases, this bistable cycle appears for smaller $`Z_s`$ (and thus larger $`N_s`$), and becomes physically significant. Fig. 11b shows $`Z_s`$ for $`n_0`$ $`=2.5\times 10^8`$ and a bistable cycle for $`0.3\mathrm{\Delta }_00.25`$. If $`n_0`$ is further increased, the bistable cycle disappears, but it remains a fold corresponding to two abrupt slope changes of $`Z_s`$ versus $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ (fig. 11c, $`n_0`$ $`=3.4\times 10^8`$). If $`n_0`$ is still increased, the fold remains, but it becomes smoother (Fig. 11d for $`n_0=`$ $`4\times 10^8`$).

The results of the linear stability analysis have been detailed in bruit2002 . It was shown that the stability and nature of the stationary solutions evolve along the fold. In particular, the solutions are unstable not only on the central branch of the bistable cycle, as it is usual, but also on the upper branch of the bistable cycle, and even when there is no bistability. This is illustrated in Fig. 11, where the unstable solutions are plotted in a dashed line. As we deal here with deterministic instabilities, the interesting situation corresponds to Fig. 11c, where the unique stationary solution is unstable on the fold. Note the difference with the cases studied in bruit2002 , where the stationary solution is also unique, but stable. In the present case, as no stable solution exists, the system exhibits necessarily deterministic instabilities.

Fig. 12 details the changes in the eigenvalues in this situation. Outside the fold (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0<\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0>\mathrm{\Delta }_4`$), $`Z_S`$ is stable, with one real eigenvalue $`\lambda _r`$ and two complex conjugate eigenvalues $`\lambda \pm i\omega `$: the fixed point associated to the stationary solution in the phase space is a stable focus (F zone in Fig. 10). The real numbers $`\lambda _r`$ and $`\lambda `$ are the damping rates of the stationary solution, and $`\omega `$ its eigenfrequency. The transition from stable focus solution to unstable saddle focus solution occurs in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_4`$, through a Hopf bifurcation, where $`\lambda =0`$ and $`\omega 0`$. As it is usual for such a bifurcation, we expect to observe, on the unstable side, a cloud moving on a limit cycle with a frequency $`\omega `$, i.e. in the present case of the order of 200 s-1 (30 Hz) for both Hopf bifurcations. Another transition, from a saddle focus solution to a saddle node solution, occurs in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_3`$, when $`\omega `$ vanishes. The behavior here cannot be deduced from the stationary solutions, and numerical simulations are necessary. Deterministic instabilities are expected to occur between $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_4`$. In all other areas, the stationary solutions are stable, and therefore, deterministic instabilities cannot occurbruit2002 . In the next section, we detail the results of numerical simulations performed in the unstable area.

However, before to discuss in detail the dynamical behaviors predicted by the model in the different situations, let us look at the influence of the other parameters on the stationary solutions. As discussed in the previous section, we must distinguish between theoretical parameters with an exact experimental counterpart, as $`I_1`$, for which the comparison with experiments is direct, from those without an exact experimental counterpart, for which the analysis is more delicate. It is in particular the case for $`n_0`$ and $`\rho `$, which are both linked to $`I_{rep}`$ and the vapour pressure. Finally, the influence of $`B`$ and $`z_0`$ should be checked, as their experimental determination is unprecise.

Fig. 13 illustrates the role of the $`I_1`$ value on the behavior of the cloud: it represents the stationary solution $`Z_S`$ versus the detuning, for different values of the intensity. The figure shows that $`I_1`$ acts as $`n_0`$ on $`Z_S`$: an increase of $`I_1`$ makes the fold steeper, and eventually leads to bistability. However, some more subtle changes occur, as illustrated by Fig. 14, where $`Z_S`$ have been plotted as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ for different values of $`n_0`$, as in Fig. 11, but for a smaller intensity. In these new conditions, the intermediate area between the stable fold and bistability, where the stationary solution is unique and unstable, has almost disappear. This result may be generalized: in the simulations, we observed that the area corresponding to an unstable unique solution disappears for small intensities (typically $`I_1<10`$). This result is in agreement with the experimental observation that C instabilities exist only for large intensities.

The atomic density value used in the present simulation is $`\rho =2\times 10^{10}cm^3`$, which represents an average of the density we measured experimentally. To evaluate the influence of this value on the predicted behavior, we have plotted in Fig. 15 the evolution of $`Z_S`$ for different values of $`\rho `$. As for $`n_0`$ and $`I_1`$, the $`Z_S`$ curve evolves from an almost flat dependence for large $`\rho `$, towards bistability for small $`\rho `$, with an intermediate SF zone. This can appear as surprising, because it seems to mean that nonlinear behaviors, corresponding to the bistable cycle, need a small atomic density. In fact, this reasoning is false, because it does not take into account the role of the other parameters, in particular $`n_0`$, which is able to compensate for the variation of $`\rho `$. For example, fig. 16 shows the $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_0,n_0)`$ diagram for a smaller $`\rho `$ value than in Fig. 11: it has the same properties as that in fig. 11, except that the population are much larger. However, one remarks slight differences, in particular a small decreasing of the $`Z`$ values, and first of all a small decreasing of the SF zone width. This is another general result: in the simulations, when the atomic density is decreased, the $`Z_s`$ curves globally flatten, so that the fold becomes less steep. Thus all instabilities disappear for very small densities. This is in agreement with the experimental results illustrated in Fig. 8b, where the unstable interval width is reported as a function of $`I_{rep}`$: the instabilities disappear for small $`I_{rep}`$, i.e. when the efficiency of the repumper – and thus the atomic density – decreases.

As detailed in bruit2002 , the value of $`z_0=3cm`$ used in the experiments has been evaluated from the trap beam waist, taking into account the beam intensity as compared to the saturation intensity. As for $`\rho `$, we want to evaluate how critical is this choice by plotting $`Z_S`$ versus $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ for different values of $`z_0`$ (Fig. 17). It appears clearly that a decreasing of $`z_0`$ corresponds to a shift of the fold and the bistable cycle towards resonance. Thus, for $`z_0`$ values smaller than 3 cm, the discrepancy between simulations and experiments increases quantitatively, as instabilities will appear at smaller detuning. For values smaller than 1 cm, the change is drastic, as the SF and bistable zones, and thus instabilities, disappear. On the contrary, for larger $`z_0`$, the bistable cycle widens and shifts off resonance.

The last parameter to be considered is $`B`$. This parameter appears to be not critical at all, and in particular, a change from e.g. $`B=5s^1`$ to $`B=1s^1`$ does not change in a noticeable way the values of $`Z_S`$. The main change concerns the smaller real eigenvalue, which takes typically the value of $`B`$. However, this eigenvalue plays a minor role in the dynamics, as it remains always real negative, and thus this change has a negligible effect on the dynamics.

It appears from the above analysis that the existence of the unstable area does not depend critically on the values of $`n_0`$, $`I_1`$, $`\rho `$, $`z_0`$ and $`B`$. In particular, the relative poor accuracy in the knowledge of the experimental values of some parameters, as $`n_0`$, $`\rho `$ or $`z_0`$, does not appear as a limitation in the above study, because a change of some tens of percents around the default values used in the simulations does not alter the results. The numerous approximations at the origin of the model lead probably to larger errors.

## 6 The unstable fold: deterministic instabilities

As shown in the previous section, it exists a range of parameters where the stationary solution is unique and unstable. Such a situation leads inevitably to deterministic instabilities, with shape and characteristics obtained through numerical simulations of the model for the corresponding sets of parameters. In the present section, we discuss the behavior obtained by such simulations, in a situation similar to Figs 11c and 12, but for a slightly different set of parameters (set #2 of Tab. 2). Fig. 18 shows for these conditions the evolution of the eigenvalues as a function of the detuning. The sequence is identical to that followed in Fig. 12, but the unstable zone is wider. Starting off resonance, a Hopf bifurcation occurs in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$. In $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$, the eigenvalues become real, and thus the eigenfrequency disappears, until $`\mathrm{\Delta }_3`$, where two eigenvalues are again complex. Finally, a second Hopf bifurcation occurs in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_4`$, and the stationary solutions become stable again.

### 6.1 The behavior in the vicinity of the Hopf bifurcation

To understand the origin of the C instabilities, we have studied in detail the behavior of the model in the close vicinity of the H1 Hopf bifurcation, by varying $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ slightly above $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$. The expected scenario has been extensively described in the litteratureRT . On the left of H1, the stationary solution is stable, and thus the behavior is stationary. In H1, the solution becomes unstable, but a limit cycle merges from the unstable fixed point: the behavior becomes periodic, with a zero amplitude in H1, and a frequency corresponding to the relaxation frequency of the unstable solution. On the right of the bifurcation, the amplitude of the oscillations grows, while the frequency remains the same as the eigenfrequency in the vicinity of H1. Usually, when the control parameter is increased from H1, the cycle shape changes progressively, while the interval between the oscillation and relaxation frequencies becomes larger. This standard scenario is absolutely not followed by the present model. On the contrary, several abrupt changes in the behavior occur in a very narrow interval of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, leading from a classic regular limit cycle to the CP instabilities.

In H1 appears, as expected, a limit cycle. Figs. 19 and 20 show the evolution of this limit cycle on the unstable side of the bifurcation between $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}=0.4010`$. Note that the explored interval is so narrow ($`1.3\times 10^3`$) that an experimental observation of the described phenomena cannot be considered. Following the $`Z`$ coordinate, the cycle amplitude grows rapidly to reach a value of typically $`10\%`$ of $`Z_S`$, while the amplitude on $`N`$ remains very small ($`0.1\%`$ of $`N_S`$). The cycle remains relatively well centered on $`Z_S`$, but is shifted compared to $`N_S`$, such that $`N_S`$ is well outside the cycle. This is not an exceptional situation, as it simply means that the basin of attraction of the cycle is curved in the vicinity of the unstable fixed point. Another characteristics of the limit cycle is its frequency, which remains of the order of magnitude of the eigenfrequency. For example, for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=0.4015`$ (Fig. 19c), the behavior frequency is 30 Hz, for an eigenvalue of 27 Hz. Thus the global behavior in the interval $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_1,\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{})`$ appears to be the usual one in the vicinity of a Hopf bifurcation.

However, for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}`$, the limit cycle becomes unstable and is replaced by another periodic orbit, with a much more complex shape (Fig. 21) and a much longer period. The amplitude is almost 5 times larger for $`Z`$ and more than 10 times for $`N`$. The trajectory consists in several different stages: a diverging spiral off the fixed point, followed by a large loop and a convergent spiral until the fixed point. The frequencies of the two oscillating stages are different: this is not surprising, as the diverging one is clearly linked to the fixed point, and thus to its eigenfrequency, contrary to the convergent one. One finds effectively a frequency of 24.4 Hz for the diverging spiral, corresponding exactly to the eigenfrequency ($`\omega =2\pi \times 23.5Hz`$), while the frequency of the converging spiral is 77 Hz. However, the main frequency of the behavior is 2.6 Hz, i.e. one order of magnitude slower than that of the Hopf cycle. The properties of the trajectories, in particular the tangency to the unstable point and the large loop in the phase space, are characteristic from a homoclinic behavior, when the stable and unstable manifolds of the fixed point are almost connected. A accurate analysis of these manifolds would be necessary to conclude about this point. Note that in a very narrow interval around $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}`$, generalized bistability occurs between the Hopf cycle and the homoclinic one.

When $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is increased from $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}`$, the cloud exhibits period doubling and chaos (Fig. 22). The trajectories keep the same shape, in particular with the two spiraling episodes and the large loop, but the periodicity is modified or is lost. For example, when the period is double, variations appear essentially on the amplitude of the loop together with that of the diverging oscillations (Fig. 22b). In the chaotic zone, the irregularities appear also on these amplitudes, but bursting events appear sometimes between these two stages (Fig. 22c). We did not perform a precise analysis of these behaviors, mainly because they appear on a so narrow interval that there is no chance to observe them experimentally. Indeed, chaos disappears for $`\mathrm{\Delta }>\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{\prime \prime }`$, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{\prime \prime }=0.4005`$, and thus the homoclinic behavior appears on an interval of $`5\times 10^4`$. However, a simple test can be done by reconstructing the attractor of the dynamics (Fig. 23). A glance at the result shows a definite structure, and not random distributed points, and thus confirms that this behavior presents all the characteristics of deterministic chaos.

### 6.2 $`C_P`$ instabilities

For $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0>\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{\prime \prime }`$, the homoclinic behavior disappears, and a new type of periodic instabilities appear (Fig. 24). There is no fundamental difference between the homoclinic instabilities and the present behavior, except that the latter has a physical meaning, as it appears in the simulations on a significant $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ interval, about $`0.04\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for the present parameters. One observes in Fig. 24a the same three stages as in Fig. 22, which means that the origin of this behavior is the same as for the homoclinic instabilities. However, these three stages exist only in the close vicinity of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{\prime \prime }`$: when $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is increased, the diverging helix around the fixed point disappears, and only the two stages independent from the fixed point remain (Fig. 24b and c). This means that in this new behavior, the trajectories never approach the fixed point, and thus the dynamics does not depend on the local properties of the fixed point.

Each period of the new behavior may be divided in two stages with different durations. During the fast stage, $`Z`$ makes an oscillation, first growing then decreasing, while $`N`$ decreases; during the slow stage, $`Z`$ and $`N`$ grow. This is similar to that observed in experiments with CP instabilities, and thus it is interesting to check if the other properties of CP instabilities can be retrieve in the present dynamics.

Two untypical properties were noticed in the CP instabilities, concerning the non zero amplitude of the oscillations when they appear, and their almost constant frequency along their interval of existence. The amplitude of the oscillations as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is plotted in fig. 25. In $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=0.4`$, when the instabilities appear, their amplitude is already almost 0.3. In fact, because the Hopf limit cycle exists on a very narrow interval, this is not strictly true. But from a physical point of view, it is clear that instabilities appear with a non zero amplitude, as in the experiments. Concerning the frequency, its value tends to zero in the vicinity of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{\prime \prime }`$, but it increases rapidly to reach a value of the order of 10 Hz, and remains between 10 Hz and 13 Hz on most of the unstable interval, as shown in Fig. 26 (the behavior for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0>0.36`$ is discussed below). Finally, to complete the comparison with the experiments, Fig. 27 shows the power spectra of $`Z`$. In the vicinity of H1, it is very characteristic, with a main frequency and large amplitude harmonics decreasing progressively (Fig. 27a), as in the experiments (Fig. 5). As the detuning is increased, the amplitude of the harmonics decreases, and several new frequencies appear in the spectrum, but each component has individually an amplitude negligible compared to the main frequency (Fig. 27b and c).

To summarize, we found that the periodic instabilities in the vicinity of H1 have the same shape, spectrum, amplitude evolution and frequency evolution as the CP instabilities observed in the experiments; all these points confirm that the model reproduces here the CP instabilities (Fig. 2 and 24).

However, several quantitative discrepancies appear between the present results and the experimental observations, as e.g. for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ values or the instabilities frequency. These differences are relatively small, except for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ interval where CP instabilities exist: it is typically of the order of $`1`$ in the experiments, while it is smaller than $`0.1`$ in the simulations. This last value could be increased by increasing the value of $`I_1`$ in the simulations, reducing the difference to less than a factor 10. Considering the extreme simplicity of our model and its numerous approximations, it is clear that it is able to reproduce strikingly the CP instabilities, with a surprisingly good agreement.

### 6.3 C1 instabilities

In the experiments, CP instabilities are replaced, as the detuning is changed, by C1 instabilities. The difference between the two regimes appears mainly on the $`n`$ behavior, and in particular in the shape of the signal, which loses its regularity. The C1 behavior is not observed in the present model. However, as discussed in the experimental section, the C1 instabilities do not appear as a new deterministic regime, but rather as CP instabilities slightly altered by noise. Thus, to test the ability of the present model to reproduce this behavior, it is necessary to add noise in the model. The results obtained in this case are discussed in the next section.

### 6.4 $`C_S`$ instabilities

Fig. 25 shows that the amplitude of the oscillations increases with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, so that the maximum value explored by $`z`$ becomes larger and larger as $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is increased. As a consequence, the maximum value reached by $`z`$ also increases, so that finally, the most distant atoms from the trap center, situated in $`z+\mathrm{\Delta }z/2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ is the size of the cloud, reach the border of the trap, in $`z_0`$. In the model, these atoms are considered to be lost, and thus are subtracted to the total number of atoms in the trap. Therefore, a new process with a zero characteristic time appears in the model through this instantaneous decreasing of $`n`$. This new process leads to an immediate change of the dynamics frequency. This is illustrated in fig. 26, where the transition occurs in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=0.361`$. For these parameters, the frequency is divided by more than a factor 3, decreasing from 12 Hz to 3.7 Hz. The new dynamics is illustrated in Fig. 28. Although the global shape seems to be similar to the previous $`C_P`$ instabilities, a drastic difference appears on the dynamics of $`N`$, in particular concerning its oscillation amplitude. While the variations of $`N`$ as a function of time were small in the $`C_P`$ regime, they appear to be much larger in the present regime: in fig. 28a, $`N`$ varies on half of the total interval of values that it can take, and when $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is still increased, this ratio reach 80%, with an oscillation from 0 to 0.8 (Fig. 28a). In the latter, the cloud empties completely every period, and then fill up progressively. This explain the large period of the regime, due to a longer time necessary to fill the cloud. This appears clearly when fig. 24 and fig. 28 are compared: the increasing of the period does not correspond to a global stretching of the dynamics, as the large oscillation of $`Z`$ remains on the same time scale, but rather is a consequence of the increasing of the interval between two oscillations.

The spectrum confirms that the main frequency has decreased (Fig. 29). However, this is coupled with the appearance of large amplitude harmonics, decreasing slowly, so that components with higher frequency than in the $`C_P`$ regime keep a significant weight.

This behavior has several common points with the $`C_S`$ instabilities described in the experimental section. In both cases, the regime is the continuation of the $`C_P`$ instabilities when the resonance is approached, the amplitude of the $`z`$ oscillation has a 100% contrast, that of $`n`$ are much larger than in $`C_P`$ regime, the shapes are similar, and new frequencies of higher value appear. But the regime obtained in the simulations remains periodic, contrary to that observed experimentally. However, as discussed in the experimental section, the origin of the erraticity observed in the experiments could be stochastic, rather than deterministic. Thus we can hope that the addition on noise in the model will transform the dynamics to reproduce the experimental results. This influence of noise on the dynamics is studied in the next section.

## 7 The effect of noise

Noise is known to be able to alter drastically the deterministic behavior of the MOT: in bruit2002 , it has been shown that a stationary behavior may be transformed, under the influence of noise, in a behavior similar to instabilities. Thus a complete study of the behaviors predicted by the present model must consider the possible alterations induced by noise on the dynamics. We present successively in this section the results obtained on CP and CS instabilities.

Fig. 30 illustrates the effect of noise on CP instabilities, through the example of the regime plotted on Fig. 24c with 2% of noise on $`I_1`$. Although the behavior becomes less regular, with fluctuating amplitudes and a ruffling of the small secondary oscillations, the global behavior is unchanged, with a still rather regular period and the same global shape as without noise. Thus CP instabilities appear to be robust against noise. However, if the response to noise is studied in more details, a slight increase of the noise influence appears when the CS area is approached. This global behavior allows us to interprete both the CP and the C1 instabilities, which appear in fact to be the same dynamics, affected differently by noise: between $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_3`$, i.e. far from the CS area, the CP instabilities are very robust against noise, and the presence of technical noise in the experiment does not alter neither their shape nor their periodicity. As the CS area is approached, the sensitivity of the CP behavior to noise slightly increases, and, although the main characteristics of the CP instabilities remain unchanged, the shape and periodicity of the regime are affected enough to give the feeling of a new regime, namely C1 instabilities. Thus C1 instabilities appear, as already suspected in the experimental section, as a CP regime perturbed by noise

Fig. 31 shows how noise alters the dynamics of CS instabilities. Although the amount of noise is the same as for CP instabilities, it is clear that here, the dynamics is deeply transformed. Concerning the $`Z`$ dynamics, the shape of the oscillations remains almost unchanged, but the periodicity is drastically altered: indeed, the return time of the pulses varies randomly on a range larger than 100%. The explanation of these large fluctuations on the return time of the $`Z`$ pulses comes from the $`N`$ dynamics: here, the fluctuations appear on the amplitude of the variable. As the return time is connected to the reconstruction time of the cloud, it is logical that fluctuations in the initial population lead to fluctuations in the return time of $`Z`$. The strength of the effect is due, as for the stochastic dynamics described in bruit2002 , to an effect of amplification of noise, but through a different mechanism than that described in bruit2002 . Indeed, in the vicinity of $`z_0`$, noise modifies the state of the cloud just before the brutal decreasing of the population: it will be able to slow down the crossing of $`z_0`$, or on the contrary to quicken it. The consequence on the number of atoms lost in the process is immediate, leading to the large fluctuations of $`N`$ that can be seen in Fig. 31. If the resulting dynamics is compared with the experimental one illustrated in Fig. 4, the similarities between both dynamics appear clearly: the common points discussed in the previous section remain, and the discrepancies disappear. In particular, the fluctuations in the return time of the $`z`$ pulses, together with those in the amplitude of $`n`$, are now present: it is clear that we reproduce here the CS instabilities.

This concludes the present study on the deterministic instabilities of the MOT, as we have been able to retrieve with our model all the behaviors observed experimentally. In particular, the dynamics that appeared as erratic is shown to be a deterministic periodic behavior perturbed by noise. This allows us to do the link with the studies reported in bruit2002 , as we show in this section that noise plays once again a key role in the dynamics of the MOT, although here the basis of the dynamics is deterministic.

## 8 Conclusion

The behavior of the cloud of cold atoms produced by a magneto-optical trap exhibits a rich variety of dynamics, that are well reproduce by a simple 1D model described by a set of three autonomous ordinary differential equations. In bruit2002  were described a set of noise-induced instabilities, linked to the topology of the stationary solutions. Here we show that experimentally, three different regimes of deterministic instabilities may also be observed, depending on the parameters of the MOT. Some of these regimes appear to be purely deterministic (CP instabilities), some appear to be a mixture of deterministic instabilities and effects of noise (C1 and CS instabilities). Theoretically, the same model as in bruit2002  allows us to show that the existence of these deterministic instabilities are a direct consequence of the topological properties that induce for other parameters the stochastic instabilities studied in bruit2002 . This model shows that C1 instabilities are just CP instabilities perturbed by noise, while CS instabilities are a nother deterministic regime appearing when the border of the trap beams are reached. This last regime is particularly sensitive to noise, and the resulting behavior appears as a deterministic instability highly perturbed by noise. Thus the present study confirms that noise plays a crucial role in the dynamics of the atomic cloud.

The present results have been obtained with a very simple model. Although the agreement with the experiments is surprisingly good, it is difficult to make qunatitative comparisons between such a 1D model and a 3D experiment. Therefore the next theoretical step would be to develop a 3D-model, where some of the parameters of the present model, as e.g. the cloud volume, become a function of the dynamics variables.

An interesting perspective of the present results is to study the possibility to take advantage of the existence of deterministic instabilities in the MOT. In particular, if a set of parameters could be found to widen enough the chaotic area, the techniques of control of chaos could be apply to reach various states that are not accessible otherwise, as e.g. denser or colder states. But even periodic behaviors can give new interesting informations about the MOT physics. Indeed, a complex dynamics covers a larger part of its phase space, and in return makes possible the determination of parameter values masked in stationary behaviors. More generally, a complex behavior enables the access to more information about its system, and appears usually as a good starting point for a better understanding of it.

## 9 Acknowledgments

The author thanks M. Fauquembergue for her participation in the elaboration of the model. The Laboratoire de Physique des Lasers, Atomes et Molécules is “Unité Mixte de Recherche de l’Université de Lille 1 et du CNRS” (UMR 8523). The Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches Lasers et Applications (CERLA) is supported by the Ministère chargé de la Recherche, the Région Nord-Pas de Calais and the Fonds Européen de Développement Economique des Régions.


text:
# Scalable quantum computing with Josephson charge qubits

Permanent address.\] Corresponding author (Email: nori@umich.edu).\] Permanent address.\]

## Abstract

A goal of quantum information technology is to control the quantum state of a system, including its preparation, manipulation, and measurement. However, scalability to many qubits and controlled connectivity between any selected qubits are two of the major stumbling blocks to achieve quantum computing (QC). Here we propose an experimental method, using Josephson charge qubits, to efficiently solve these two central problems. The proposed QC architecture is scalable since any two charge qubits can be effectively coupled by an experimentally accessible inductance. More importantly, we formulate an efficient and realizable QC scheme that requires only one (instead of two or more) two-bit operation to implement conditional gates.

The macroscopic quantum effects in low-capacitance Josephson-junction circuits have recently been used to realize qubits for quantum information processing, and these qubits are expected to be scalable to large-scale circuits using modern microfabrication techniques. Josephson-qubit devices MSS  are based on the charge and phase degrees of freedom. The charge qubit is achieved in a Cooper-pair box NPT , where two dominant charge states are coupled through coherent Cooper-pair tunneling ASZ , while the phase qubit is based on two different flux states in a small superconducting-quantum-interference-device (SQUID) loop MOOIJ ; ORLANDO . Experimentally, the energy-level splitting and the related properties of state superpositions were observed via Cooper-pair tunneling in the Josephson charge device NCT ; BOUCH  and by spectroscopic measurements for the Josephson phase device VAL ; FRIED . Moreover, coherent oscillations were demonstrated in a Josephson charge device prepared in a superposition of two charge states NPT . These striking experimental observations reveal that the Josephson charge and phase devices are suitable for solid-state qubits in quantum information processing. The next immediate challenge would include implementing a two-bit coupling and then scaling up the architecture to many qubits. Here, we focus on the Josephson charge qubit realized in a Cooper-pair box and propose a new quantum-computing (QC) scheme based on scalable charge-qubit structures.

A straightforward way of coupling Josephson charge qubits is to use the Coulomb interactions between charges on different islands of the charge qubits (e.g., to connect two Cooper-pair boxes via a capacitor). A two-bit operation PFP , similar to the controlled-NOT gate, was derived using this interbit coupling; but it is hard to switch the coupling on and off MSS  in this scheme as well as to make the system scalable because only neighboring qubits can be coupled. A scalable way of coupling Josephson charge qubits was proposed MSS ; ASZ  in terms of the oscillator modes in a $`LC`$ circuit formed by an inductance and the qubit capacitors. In this design, the interbit coupling is switchable and any two charge qubits can be coupled. However, there is no efficient (i.e., using one two-bit operation) QC scheme for this design MSS ; ASZ  to achieve conditional gates such as the controlled-phase-shift and controlled-NOT gates. Moreover, the calculated interbit coupling terms MSS ; ASZ  only apply to the case when two conditions are met: (i) the eigenfrequency $`\omega _{LC}`$ of the $`LC`$ circuit is much faster than the quantum manipulation frequencies (which limits the allowed number $`N`$ of the qubits in the circuit because $`\omega _{LC}`$ scales with $`1/\sqrt{N}`$) and (ii) the phase conjugate to the total charge on the qubit capacitors fluctuates weakly. These two limitations do not apply to our approach. In our proposal, a common inductance (but no $`LC`$ circuit) is used to couple all Josephson charge qubits. In our scheme, both dc and ac supercurrents can flow through the inductance, while in MSS ; ASZ  only ac supercurrents can flow through the inductance and it is the $`LC`$-oscillator mode that couples the charge qubits. These yield different interbit couplings (e.g., $`\sigma _y\sigma _y`$ type MSS ; ASZ  as opposed to $`\sigma _x\sigma _x`$ in our scheme). To have a controllable interbit coupling, we employ two dc SQUIDs to connect each Cooper-pair box. Our proposed QC architecture is scalable in the sense that any  two charge qubits (not  necessarily neighbors) can be effectively coupled by an experimentally accessible inductance. More importantly, we formulate an efficient QC scheme that requires only one (instead of two or more) two-bit operation to implement conditional gates. To our knowledge, this is the first efficient scalable QC scheme for this type of architecture.

The proposed quantum computer consists of $`N`$ Cooper-pair boxes coupled by a common superconducting inductance $`L`$ (see Fig. 1). For the $`k`$th Cooper-pair box, a superconducting island with charge $`Q_k=2en_k`$ is weakly coupled by two symmetric dc SQUIDs and biased by an applied voltage $`V_{Xk}`$ through a gate capacitance $`C_k`$. The two symmetric dc SQUIDs are assumed to be identical and all Josephson junctions in them have Josephson coupling energy $`E_{Jk}^0`$ and capacitance $`C_{Jk}`$. Each SQUID pierced by a magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{Xk}`$ provides an effective coupling energy given by $`E_{Jk}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{Xk})\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{kA(B)}`$; with $`E_{Jk}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{Xk})=2E_{Jk}^0\mathrm{cos}(\pi \mathrm{\Phi }_{Xk}/\mathrm{\Phi }_0)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=h/2e`$ is the flux quantum. The effective phase drop $`\varphi _{kA(B)}`$, with subscript $`A(B)`$ labelling the SQUID above (below) the island, equals the average value, $`[\varphi _{kA(B)}^L+\varphi _{kA(B)}^R]/2`$, of the phase drops across the two Josephson junctions in the dc SQUID; where the superscript $`L`$ ($`R`$) denotes the left (right) Josephson junction. Since the size of the loop is usually very small ($`1`$ $`\mu `$m), above we have ignored the self-inductance effects of each SQUID loop. The Hamiltonian of the system is $`H=_{k=1}^NH_k+\frac{1}{2}LI^2`$, with $`H_k`$ given by $`H_k=E_{ck}(n_kn_{Xk})^2E_{Jk}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{Xk})(\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{kA}+\mathrm{cos}\varphi _{kB}).`$ Here, $`E_{ck}=2e^2/(C_k+4C_{Jk})`$ is the charging energy of the superconducting island and $`I=_{k=1}^NI_k`$ is the total persistent current through the superconducting inductance, as contributed by all coupled Cooper-pair boxes. The offset charge $`2en_{Xk}=C_kV_{Xk}`$ is induced by the gate voltage $`V_{Xk}`$. The phase drops $`\varphi _{kA}^L`$ and $`\varphi _{kB}^L`$ are related to the total flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_e+LI`$ through the inductance $`L`$ by the constraint $`\varphi _{kB}^L\varphi _{kA}^L=2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_e`$ is the externally applied magnetic flux threading the inductance $`L`$. Without loss of generality and in order to implement QC more conveniently, the magnetic fluxes through the two SQUID loops of each Cooper-pair box are designed to have the same values but opposite directions; this simplifies the form of the Hamiltonian. (If this were not to be the case, the interbit coupling can still be realized, but the Hamiltonian of the qubit circuits takes a more complicated form.) Because this pair of fluxes cancel each other in any loop enclosing them, then $`\varphi _{kB}^L\varphi _{kA}^L=\varphi _{kB}^R\varphi _{kA}^R`$. This gives rise to the constraint $`\varphi _{kB}\varphi _{kA}=2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ for the average phase drops across the Josephson junctions in the SQUIDs. The common superconducting inductance $`L`$ plays the role of coupling Cooper-pair boxes. The coupling of selected Cooper-pair boxes can be implemented by switching on the SQUIDs connected to the chosen Cooper-pair boxes, and the persistent currents through the inductance $`L`$ are composed of contributions from all the coupled Cooper-pair boxes.

One- and two-bit circuits.  For any given Cooper-pair box, say $`i`$, when $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{Xk}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ and $`V_{Xk}=(2n_k+1)e/C_k`$ for all boxes except $`k=i`$, the inductance $`L`$ only connects the $`i`$th Cooper-pair box to form a superconducting loop \[see Fig. 2(a)\]. The Hamiltonian of the system can be reduced to eqn1

$$H=\epsilon _i(V_{Xi})\sigma _z^{(i)}\overline{E}_{Ji}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{Xi},\mathrm{\Phi }_e,L)\sigma _x^{(i)},$$
(1)
where $`\epsilon _i(V_{Xi})`$ is controllable via the gate voltage $`V_{Xi}`$, while the intrabit coupling $`\overline{E}_{Ji}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{Xi},\mathrm{\Phi }_e,L)`$ can be controlled by both the applied external flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_e`$ through the common inductance, and the local flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{Xi}`$ through the two SQUID loops of the i-th Cooper-pair box. The intrabit coupling $`\overline{E}_{Ji}`$ in (1) is different from that in MSS ; ASZ  because a very different contribution by $`L`$ is considered. To couple any two Cooper-pair boxes, say $`i`$ and $`j`$, we choose $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{Xk}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ and $`V_{Xk}=(2n_k+1)e/C_k`$ for all boxes except $`k=i`$ and $`j`$. As shown in Fig. 2(b), the inductance $`L`$ is shared by the Cooper-pair boxes $`i`$ and $`j`$ to form superconducting loops. The reduced Hamiltonian of the system is given by eqn2

$$H=\underset{k=i,j}{}[\epsilon _k(V_{Xk})\sigma _z^{(k)}\overline{E}_{Jk}\sigma _x^{(k)}]+\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}\sigma _x^{(i)}\sigma _x^{(j)}.$$
(2)
Here the interbit coupling $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}`$ is controlled by both the external flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_e`$ through the inductance $`L`$, and the local fluxes, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{Xi}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{Xj}`$, through the SQUID loops.

Quantum computing.  The quantum system evolves according to $`U(t)=\mathrm{exp}(iHt/\mathrm{})`$. Initially, we choose $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{Xk}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ and $`V_{Xk}=(2n_k+1)e/C_k`$ for all boxes in Fig. 1, so that the Hamiltonian of the system is $`H=0`$ and no time evolution occurs. Afterwards, we switch certain fluxes $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{Xk}`$ and/or gate voltages $`V_{Xk}`$ away from the above initial values for certain periods of times, to implement logic gates required for QC. For any two Cooper-pair boxes, say $`i`$ and $`j`$, when fluxes $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{Xi}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{Xj}`$ are switched away from the initial value $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2`$ for a given period of time $`\tau `$, the Hamiltonian of the system becomes $`H=\overline{E}_{Ji}\sigma _x^{(i)}\overline{E}_{Jj}\sigma _x^{(j)}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}\sigma _x^{(i)}\sigma _x^{(j)}`$. This anisotropic Hamiltonian is Ising-like BURK , with its anisotropic direction and the “magnetic” field along the $`x`$ axis. When the parameters are suitably chosen so that $`\overline{E}_{Ji}=\overline{E}_{Jj}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}=\pi \mathrm{}/4\tau `$ for the switching time $`\tau `$, we obtain a controlled-phase-shift gate: $`U_{\mathrm{CPS}}^{}=e^{i\pi /4}U_{2b}=\mathrm{exp}\left\{i\frac{\pi }{4}[1\sigma _x^{(i)}\sigma _x^{(j)}+\sigma _x^{(i)}\sigma _x^{(j)}]\right\}`$, which does not alter the two-bit states $`|+_i|+_j`$, $`|+_i|_j`$, and $`|_i|+_j`$, but transforms $`|_i|_j`$ to $`|_i|_j`$. Here, the phase factor $`e^{i\pi /4}`$ corresponds to an overal energy shift of the Hamiltonian, and $`|\pm `$ are defined by $`|\pm =(|\pm |)/\sqrt{2}`$.

To obtain the controlled-phase-shift gate $`U_{\mathrm{CPS}}`$ for the basis states $`|_i|_j`$, $`|_i|_j`$, $`|_i|_j`$, and $`|_i|_j`$, one needs to combine $`U_{\mathrm{CPS}}^{}`$ with suitable one-bit rotations. For any Cooper-pair box, say $`i`$, one can shift flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{Xi}`$ and/or gate voltage $`V_{Xi}`$ for a given switching time $`\tau `$ to derive one-bit rotations. A universal set of one-bit gates $`U_z^{(i)}(\alpha )=e^{i\alpha \sigma _z^{(i)}}`$, and $`U_x^{(i)}(\beta )=e^{i\beta \sigma _x^{(i)}}`$, where $`\alpha =\epsilon _i(V_{Xi})\tau /\mathrm{}`$ and $`\beta =\overline{E}_{Ji}\tau /\mathrm{}`$, can be defined by choosing $`\overline{E}_{Ji}=0`$ and $`\epsilon _i(V_{Xi})=0`$ (which can be done with suitable choices of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{Xi}`$ and $`V_{Xi}`$) in the one-bit Hamiltonian (1), respectively. Any one-bit rotation can be derived in terms of these two types of one-bit gates. For instance, the Hadamard gate is given by $`_i=e^{i\pi /2}U_z^{(i)}(\frac{\pi }{4})U_x^{(i)}(\frac{\pi }{4})U_z^{(i)}(\frac{\pi }{4})`$. Using $`_i`$, we derive the controlled-phase-shift gate $`U_{\mathrm{CPS}}`$: $`U_{\mathrm{CPS}}=_j^{}_i^{}U_{\mathrm{CPS}}^{}_i_j`$. The one-bit rotation $`V_j=e^{i\pi \sigma _y^{(j)}/4}`$ is given by $`V_j=U_z^{(j)}(\frac{\pi }{4})U_x^{(j)}(\frac{\pi }{4})U_z^{(j)}(\frac{\pi }{4})`$. Combining $`V_j`$ with $`U_{\mathrm{CPS}}`$, we obtain the controlled-NOT gate: $`U_{\mathrm{CNOT}}=V_j^{}U_{\mathrm{CPS}}V_j`$, which transforms the basis states as $`|_i|_j|_i|_j`$, $`|_i|_j|_i|_j`$, $`|_i|_j|_i|_j`$, and $`|_i|_j|_i|_j`$. A sequence of such conditional two-bit gates supplemented with one-bit rotations constitute a universal element for QC LLOYD . Usually, a two-bit operation is much slower than a one-bit operation. Our designs for conditional gates $`U_{\mathrm{CPS}}`$ and $`U_{\mathrm{CNOT}}`$ are efficient since only one (instead of two or more) two-bit operation $`U_{\mathrm{CPS}}^{}`$ is used.

Persistent currents and entanglement.  The one-bit circuit modeled by Hamiltonian (1) has two eigenvalues $`E_\pm ^{(i)}=\pm E_i`$, with $`E_i=[\epsilon _i^2(V_{Xi})+\overline{E}_{Ji}^2]^{1/2}`$. The corresponding eigenstates are $`|\psi _+^{(i)}=\mathrm{cos}\xi _i|_i\mathrm{sin}\xi _i|_i`$, and $`|\psi _{}^{(i)}=\mathrm{sin}\xi _i|_i+\mathrm{cos}\xi _i|_i`$, where $`\xi _i=`$$`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tan}^1(\overline{E}_{Ji}/\epsilon _i)`$. At these two eigenstates, the persistent currents through the inductance $`L`$ are given by $`\psi _\pm ^{(i)}|I|\psi _\pm ^{(i)}=\pm (\overline{E}_{Ji}I_{ci}/E_i)\mathrm{sin}(\pi \mathrm{\Phi }_e/\mathrm{\Phi }_0)+(\pi LI_{ci}^2/2\mathrm{\Phi }_0)\mathrm{sin}(2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }_e/\mathrm{\Phi }_0)`$, where the expansion in $`I`$ is retained up to the linear term in $`\eta _i`$. When a dc SQUID magnetometer is inductively coupled to the inductance $`L`$, these two supercurrents generate different fluxes through the SQUID loop of the magnetometer and the quantum-state information of the one-bit structure can be obtained from the measurements. To perform sensitive measurements with weak dephasing, one could use the underdamped dc SQUID magnetometer designed previously for the Josephson phase qubit MOOIJ ; VAL .

For the two-bit structure described by Eq. (2), the Hamiltonian has four eigenstates and the supercurrents through inductance $`L`$ take different values at these states. The fluxes produced by the supercurrents through $`L`$ can also be detected by the dc SQUID magnetometer. For instance, when $`\epsilon _k(V_{Xk})=0`$ and $`\overline{E}_{Jk}>0`$ for $`k=i`$ and $`j`$, the four eigenstates of the two-bit structure are

$`|1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|_i|_j|_i|_j|_i|_j+|_i|_j),`$
$`|2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|_i|_j+|_i|_j|_i|_j|_i|_j),`$
$`|3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|_i|_j|_i|_j+|_i|_j|_i|_j),`$
$`|4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(|_i|_j+|_i|_j+|_i|_j+|_i|_j).`$
When expansions in $`I_i`$ and $`I_j`$ are retained up to the linear terms in $`\eta _i`$ and $`\eta _j`$, the corresponding supercurrents through inductance $`L`$ are $`k|I|k=_k\mathrm{sin}(\pi \mathrm{\Phi }_e/\mathrm{\Phi }_0)+(\pi L_k^2/2\mathrm{\Phi }_0)\mathrm{sin}(2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }_e/\mathrm{\Phi }_0)`$ for $`k=1`$ to 4, where $`_1=(I_{ci}+I_{cj})`$, $`_2=I_{cj}I_{ci}`$, $`_3=I_{ci}I_{cj}`$, and $`_4=I_{ci}+I_{cj}`$. These supercurrents produce different fluxes threading the SQUID loop of the magnetometer and can be distinguished by dc SQUID measurements. If the two-bit system is prepared at the maximally entangled Bell states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\pm )}=(|_i|_j\pm |_i|_j)/\sqrt{2}`$, the supercurrents through $`L`$ are given by $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\pm )}|I|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(\pm )}=(\pi L/2\mathrm{\Phi }_0)(I_{ci}\pm I_{cj})^2\mathrm{sin}(2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }_e/\mathrm{\Phi }_0)`$. These two states should be distinguishable by detecting the fluxes (generated by the supercurrents) through the SQUID loop of the magnetometer.

Discussion.  The typical switching time $`\tau ^{(1)}`$ during a one-bit operation is of the order $`\mathrm{}/E_J^0`$. For the experimental value of $`E_J^0100`$ mK, there is $`\tau ^{(1)}0.1`$ ns. The switching time $`\tau ^{(2)}`$ for the two-bit operation is typically of the order $`(\mathrm{}/L)(\mathrm{\Phi }_0/\pi E_J^0)^2`$. Choosing $`E_J^0100`$ mK and $`\tau ^{(2)}10\tau ^{(1)}`$ (i.e., ten times slower than the one-bit rotation), we have $`L30`$ nH in our proposal, which is experimentally accessible. A small-size inductance with this value can be made with Josephson junctions. Our expansion parameter $`\eta `$ is of the order $`\pi ^2LE_J^0/\mathrm{\Phi }_0^20.1`$. Our inductance $`L`$ is related with the inductance $`L^{}`$ in MSS ; ASZ  by $`L^{}=(C_J/C_{qb})^2L`$. Let us now consider the case when $`\tau ^{(2)}10\tau ^{(1)}`$. For the earlier design ASZ , $`C_J11C_{qb}`$ since $`C_g/C_J0.1`$, which requires the inductance $`3.6`$ $`\mu `$H. Such a large inductance is difficult to fabricate at nanometer scales. In the improved design MSS , $`C_J2C_{qb}`$, greatly reducing the inductance to $`120`$ nH. This inductance is about four times larger than the one used in our scheme.

All charge qubits suffer decoherence due to the fluctuations of voltage sources and fluxes. Ref. MSS  shows that the gate voltage fluctuations play the dominant role in producing decoherence. The estimated dephasing time is $`\tau _\phi 10^4`$ s, allowing in principle $`10^6`$ coherent single-bit manipulations. When a probe junction is used for measurements, the experimental observations of coherent oscillations in the Josephson charge qubits show that the phase coherence time is only about $`2`$ ns NPT ; NPYT . In this experimental setup, background charge fluctuations and the probe-junction measurement may be two of the major factors in producing decoherences. Though the charge fluctuations are important only in the low-frequency region and can be reduced by the echo technique NPYT  and by shifting the gate voltage to the degeneracy point, an effective technique for suppressing charge fluctuations still needs to be explored. As for the measurement, it has also been a challenge to design effective detecting devices.

In conclusion, we propose a scalable quantum computer with Josephson charge qubits. We employ a common inductance to couple all charge qubits and design switchable interbit couplings using two dc SQUIDs to connect the island in each Cooper-pair box. The proposed QC architectures are scalable since any two charge qubits can be effectively coupled by an experimentally accessible inductance. Furthermore, we formulate an efficient QC scheme in which only one two-bit operation is used in the conditional transformations such as controlled-phase-shift and controlled-NOT gates.

We thank Yu. Pashkin for useful discussions. We acknowledge support from the US ARDA, AFOSR, and the US National Science Foundation grant No. EIA-0130383.