text:
# The Wendelstein Calar Alto Pixellensing ProjectBased on observations at the Wendelstein Observatory of the University Observatory Munich and at the German-Spanish Astronomical Center, Calar Alto, operated by the Max-Planck-Institut für Astronomie, Heidelberg, jointly with the Spanish National Commission for Astronomy. (WeCAPP): First MACHO Candidates

## 1. INTRODUCTION

Microlensing experiments are an ideal method to search for dark objects within and between galaxies. A large number of microlensing events have been detected towards the Galactic bulge constraining the number density of faint stars in this direction (Alard, 1999; Afonso et al., 1999; Alcock et al., 2000a; Udalski et al., 2000). Towards the LMC only 13-17 microlensing events have been reported so far (Alcock et al., 2000b). If all this events are attributed to $`0.5M_{}`$ MACHOs, the associated population of dark objects would contribute up to the 20% level to the dark matter content of the Milky Way (Alcock et al., 2000b). However, both the relatively large size of the LMC relative to its distance and the nature of the lenses has cast doubt on this interpretation. It is indeed likely that a large fraction of the microlensing events towards the LMC are due to self-lensing of stars within the LMC (Lasserre et al. (2000); Evans $`\&`$ Kerins (2000) and references therein).

Studying microlensing events towards M31 allows to separate self-lensing and halo-lensing in a statistical way, since the optical depth for halo lensing is larger on the far side of M31. In M31 individual stars can not be resolved and one therefore has to use the pixellensing technique (Crotts, 1992; Baillon et al., 1993) to follow the variability of sources blended with thousands of other sources within the same pixel. First detections of possible microlensing events were reported by several pixellensing experiments (Crotts et al., 1996; Ansari et al., 1999; Aurière et al., 2001; Paulin-Henriksson et al., 2002, 2003; Calchi Novati et al., 2003). But since the candidate nature of only 5 of these events is convincing, no conclusions concerning the near-far asymmetry or the most likely dark matter lensing masses could be drawn yet.

The Wendelstein Calar Alto Pixellensing Project (WeCAPP, Riffeser et al. 2001) started in 1997 with test observations. Since 1999 the bulge of M31 was monitored continuously during the time of visibility of M31. The analysis of our 4 year data will allow not only the identification of very short duration events (eg., in the 4th year data of the combined field have been taken on 83 % of possible nights) but also the separation of long duration ($`<20\mathrm{d}`$) microlensing events from long periodic variables as Mira stars. For this letter we analyzed the short duration events ($`t_{\mathrm{fwhm}}<20\mathrm{d}`$) within one season of Calar Alto data and restricted the detection to high-signal-to noise, high-magnification events. We report our first 2 microlensing candidates of that type.

## 2. OBSERVATIONS AND DATA REDUCTION

WeCAPP monitors the central region of M31 in a $`17.2\times 17.2\mathrm{arcmin}^2`$ field with the $`1.23\mathrm{m}`$ telescope of the Calar Alto Observatory. In addition, a quarter of this field, pointing towards the far side of the M31 disk along the SE minor axis, was observed with the 0.8 m telescope of the Wendelstein Observatory. The data analysis and candidate selection reported in this letter is based on the season from June, 23th 2000 to February, 25th 2001 and is restricted to the Calar Alto data only. During this period, M31 was observed during 43% percent of all nights. Observations were carried out in $`R`$ and $`I`$ filters close to the Kron-Cousins system. We estimate the systematic error in the $`(RI)`$ color to be $`0.05\mathrm{mag}`$.

We have developed a pipeline based on Gössl $`\&`$ Riffeser (2002) and Riffeser et al. (in prep.), which performs the standard CCD reduction, position alignment, photometric alignment, stacking of frames, PSF matching using Optical Image Subtraction (Alard, 1998), and the generation of difference images. For the data presented here all data within one night are coadded, yielding one difference image per night. The reduction package includes full error propagation for each pixel through all reduction steps. In this way, all data points are properly taken into account in the search for variables.

## 3. SELECTION CRITERIA

We investigate only pixels which have more than 10 data points in $`R`$ and $`I`$, which applies for 85% of the 2K x 2K field. For each pixel we define a flux baseline by iterative $`3\sigma `$-clipping of all outliers with higher flux. All pixels which have at least 3 successive (positive) 3-$`\sigma `$ deviations from this baseline are considered as variables. We fit the microlensing light curve for high-amplification events (Gould, 1996) simultaneously to the $`R`$\- and $`I`$-band pixel light curves for every variable. The fit has 6 free parameters: full-width-half-maximum $`t_{\mathrm{fwhm}}`$ and the time $`t_0`$ of maximum amplification (these 2 parameters are the same for both filters), amplitude $`F_{\mathrm{eff},R}`$, color $`F_{\mathrm{eff},I}/F_{\mathrm{eff},R}`$, and baseline levels $`c_R`$ and $`c_I`$. Variables with a reduced $`\chi _R^2>1.3`$ or $`\chi _I^2>1.3`$ are discarded. In this way we exclude light curves that are not achromatic or not symmetric. We also exclude events with $`t_{\mathrm{fwhm}}>20`$ days which can be confused with long periodic variables like Mira stars, as long as only one season of data is investigated. In addition, all candidates which do not have at least one significant data point (3 $`\sigma `$ deviation from the baseline) within $`t_{\mathrm{fwhm}}`$ of the time of maximum amplification are rejected. We further define the sampling quality for the falling and rising parts of each light curve within $`(t_015\mathrm{d},t_0)`$ and $`(t_0,t_0+15\mathrm{d})`$: within these time intervals we require a sampling of the area under the light curve of at least 20% on one side and of at least 5% on the other side (Table 1).

Here, we present only the two microlensing candidates which have amplitudes 10 times larger than the median error of the light curve (see Figure 1). Both candidates fit perfectly to a symmetric microlensing light curve. Ruling out systematic offsets for the points and errors on the trailing side of GL2 (which is strongly proved by the 6 single images of that night in each filter) a non microlensing light curve of a variable source hardly fits the data points of GL2. Both microlensing candidates are detected in several pixels ($`11`$ for GL1 and $`4`$ for GL2) inside the PSF of the position of the lensed object. This explains the reduction from 15 events to 2 events in the last line of Table 1. The amplification light curves were obtained by calculating the total flux within the PSF area of each microlensing event.

For both candidates, the selection criteria exclude variable stars like Miras, novae or dwarf novae. Extracting lensing events with less good time sampling, lower amplitude, or events located close to other variables requires refined selection criteria. These will be discussed in a future paper which will also include a test of the detection efficiency and false detection rate with Monte Carlo simulations.

## 4. MICROLENSING CANDIDATES

The parameters of both lensing candidates are summarized in Table 2. Their light curves are shown in Figure 1. GL1, the highest S/N lensing event candidate in our sample, lies $`4\stackrel{\mathrm{m}}{\mathrm{.}}1`$ to the SW of the nucleus of M31. GL2 is $`4\stackrel{\mathrm{m}}{\mathrm{.}}4`$ to the NW of the nucleus. Our data have been astrometrically calibrated using bright foreground stars observed with HST by Jablonka et al. (1999) and ground based observations by Magnier et al. (1992). Our two calibrations agree within 0.5$`\mathrm{}`$ in declination and 0.7$`\mathrm{}`$ in right ascension, well consistent with the astrometric accuracy of 0.8$`\mathrm{}`$ to 1.0$`\mathrm{}`$ of the Magnier et al. catalog. After we had detected GL1 and GL2, we cross-checked with events reported by the POINT-AGAPE survey for the same period of time and the same field in M31 (Paulin-Henriksson et al., 2003). It appears that GL1 is likely identical with PA-00-S3 which occurred at the same time (Figure 1). Because POINT-AGAPE did not provide a flux calibration of their data, we had to assume a scaling factor for the amplitude. The zero point in time was not adjusted. The data points from WeCAPP and POINT-AGAPE complement each other nicely and make GL1 the best pixellensing event found so far in M31. GL2 also falls in the observing period covered by POINT-AGAPE but their time sampling around the event is poor. This may be the reason why GL2 was not detected.

The parameters of the lensing fit are degenerate for high magnifications (Gould, 1996), i.e. for amplitudes $`A_01`$ which correspond to impact angles much smaller than the Einstein angle $`\theta _\mathrm{E}`$. In this case, we obtain for the light curve:

$$F_0[A(t)1]F_{\mathrm{eff}}\left[\frac{12}{t_{\mathrm{fwhm}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}(tt_0)^2+1\right]^{1/2}$$

with intrinsic flux of the source $`F_0`$ and $`F_{\mathrm{eff}}=F_0/u_0F_0A_0`$, where $`u_0`$ is the impact angle in units of the Einstein angle.

In order to obtain $`A_0`$ we evidently need to know the source flux $`F_0`$. We can get rough constraints by considering the color of the light curves which due to our selection criteria are achromatic. We obtain $`(RI)_{\mathrm{GL1}}=1.05`$ and $`(RI)_{\mathrm{GL2}}=1.08`$. For main sequence stars this converts111transformed on the observational plane by Maraston (1998) (Cassisi et al., 1998) into absolute magnitudes of $`M_I8\mathrm{mag}`$. If the sources are giants, then the magnitudes are $`M_I=2.5\mathrm{mag}`$ with a minimum of $`1.9`$ and maximum of $`3.7`$ (Bessell, 1979; Grillmair et al., 1996).

We now derive the lensing parameters as follows:

$$u_0=\frac{F_{0,I}}{F_{\mathrm{eff},I}}t_\mathrm{E}=\frac{t_{\mathrm{fwhm}}}{u_0\sqrt{12}}M_{\mathrm{lens}}=\frac{(v_\mathrm{t}t_\mathrm{E})^2c^2D_\mathrm{S}}{4GD_\mathrm{L}(D_\mathrm{S}D_\mathrm{L})}$$

where $`t_\mathrm{E}`$ is the Einstein timescale, $`v_t`$ is the transverse velocity between source and lens, and $`D_L`$ and $`D_S`$ are the angular distances to the lens and source.

To estimate plausible lens masses the Einstein timescales $`t_\mathrm{E}`$ are calculated for fixed luminosities of possible source stars (see Table 3). Note that the errors in $`t_\mathrm{E}`$ reflect the accuracy of the determination of $`t_{\mathrm{fwhm}}`$ in the degenerate Gould fit only, and do not account for the systematic uncertainties due to the unknown luminosities of the sources. If the source is a main sequence star, we need very high magnifications: typically $`A_0=810^5`$ and $`A_0=210^5`$ for GL1 and GL2, respectively. The corresponding lens masses (for $`v_t=210\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s}`$, $`D_\mathrm{L}=768\mathrm{kpc}`$, $`D_\mathrm{S}=770\mathrm{kpc}`$) are $`M10^8M_{}`$, an implausibly large value. If the source is a giant, the required magnifications are reduced to $`A_{0,\mathrm{GL1}}=64`$ and $`A_{0,\mathrm{GL2}}=10`$ (see Table 3); the typical self-lensing masses become $`M=0.8M_{}`$ and $`M=0.2M_{}`$, i.e. they are typical for low mass stars.

Assuming the source to be a red giant with $`M_I=2.5\mathrm{mag}`$ we calculate the probability $`p(M,t_E)`$ that a microlensing event of observed timescale $`t_E`$ can be produced by a lens of the mass $`M`$. Following the calculations of Jetzer & Massó (1994) eq. (8) and Jetzer (1994) eq. (11) we get

$$\begin{array}{c}p(M,t_\mathrm{E})\xi (M)\rho _\mathrm{S}(D_\mathrm{S})\rho _\mathrm{L}(D_\mathrm{L})f\left(\frac{R_\mathrm{E}}{t_\mathrm{E}}\right)\frac{R_{\mathrm{E}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}}{t_{\mathrm{E}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}}𝑑D_\mathrm{L}𝑑D_\mathrm{S}\hfill \end{array}$$

with the mass function (MF) $`\xi (M)`$, the sources density $`\rho _\mathrm{S}(D_\mathrm{S})`$, the lenses density $`\rho _\mathrm{L}(D_\mathrm{L})`$, the velocity distribution $`f(v_\mathrm{t})`$ and the Einstein radius $`R_\mathrm{E}(D_\mathrm{L},M,D_\mathrm{S})`$.

The distribution of matter in the central part of M31 is based on the bulge model of Kent (1989). The disk is modeled with a radial scale length of 6.4 kpc and an exponential shape, and with a vertical scale length of 0.3 kpc and a $`\mathrm{sech}^2`$-shape. The halo is modeled as an isothermal sphere with a core radius of $`r_\mathrm{c}=2\mathrm{kpc}`$. The velocity distribution was calculated from a Maxwellian halo bulge and disk velocity distribution with an additional rotation for bulge and disk (Kerins et al., 2001).

For the bulge lenses we take the IMF as derived for the galactic bulge $`\xi M^{1.33}`$ (Zoccali et al., 2000). For the disk population we adopt a Gould IMF $`\xi M^{2.21}`$ with a flattening $`\xi M^{0.56}`$ below $`0.59M_{}`$ (Gould, Bahcall $`\&`$ Flynn, 1997). Both are cut at the lower end at the hydrogen burning limit of $`0.08M_{}`$. At the upper end the bulge MF is cut at the main sequence turn-off $`0.95M_{}`$ (Maraston, priv. com.) and the disk MF at $`10M_{}`$. The IMF for the potential MACHO population residing in the halo of M31 is of course unknown. We therefore calculate the probability distribution for halos consisting of one mass only, i.e. taking $`\delta `$-function IMF’s centered on the lens mass $`\xi =\delta (MM_{\mathrm{lens}})/M_{\mathrm{lens}}`$. Moreover we assume that the whole dark halo of M31 consists of MACHOs. Lensing by Galactic halo objects has an order of magnitude smaller optical depth and is therefore neglected in our considerations.

The results are shown in Figure 2. For M31 halo lenses the most probable masses are $`0.08M_{}`$ for GL1 and $`0.02M_{}`$ for GL2. In the case of self-lensing the most probable masses are about a factor of 4 bigger. Taking the most likely halo lens masses, the ratio of the probabilities that the lenses are part of the dark halo or the stellar content $`p_{\mathrm{halo}}/(p_{\mathrm{bulge}}+p_{\mathrm{disk}})`$ is 1.6 for GL1 and 3.3 for GL2. We conclude therefore that it is likely that lenses residing in the halo of M31 caused the events in both cases.

## 5. DISCUSSION and OUTLOOK

We presented the first two high ($`S/N`$), short timescale microlensing events from WeCAPP. GL1 is likely identical to PA-00-S3 found by POINT-AGAPE. Combining the data from AGAPE with ours shows that the error bar of the derived Einstein time scale becomes smaller by a factor of 5 compared to the individual error bar. This demonstrates the importance of a good time sampling of the events. We derived the colors of the lensed stars, the amplification factors and likely lens masses for both bulge/disk self-lensing and MACHO lensing. We showed that red giants are the likely source objects, while main sequence stars are highly implausible.

Self-lensing in the bulge can only be separated from MACHO lensing statistically. Halo-lensing events show a spatial asymmetry because the optical depth for lensing events is higher for stars on the far side of M31 than on its near side (Crotts, 1992; Fliri et al., in prep.). In contrast, bulge self-lensing is symmetric.

The bulge self-lensing hypothesis yields lensing stars at or below the the main sequence turn-off of the M31 bulge. On the other hand, if the lensing events are caused by MACHOs, their masses are typically very low, most probable below $`0.1M_{}`$. Masses in the range of $`0.5M_{}`$ to $`1M_{}`$ are more unlikely.

So far, we have analyzed one observing season and restricted the lensing search to short-time, high-amplification events in order to avoid confusion with variable stars. The whole WeCAPP dataset will allow us to identify all variables and thus will enable a search for lower amplitude and longer duration microlensing events.

Decreasing the amplitude threshold will increase the detected rate of events in two ways. As the event rate is proportional to the inverse of the minimum required magnification $`A_{0,\mathrm{min}}`$ in the pixellensing regime we expect to detect more lensed giants. On the other hand lowering the amplification threshold could make it possible to detect also highly amplified main sequence stars (Han & Gould, 1996) which exceed the evolved stars in the bulge of M31 by a factor of more than a hundred. How many more lensing events will be detected depends on the mass function of the lenses but we can expect at least a factor of a few (Fliri et al., in prep.).

Finally, the effects of time sampling and noise properties of our sample on the detectability of lensing events have to be taken into account. Results of the modeling of these effects for events of different durations and amplitudes using Monte-Carlo simulations will be presented in a future publication. With the full dataset we expect therefore to increase the number of lensing events to detect the predicted asymmetry of MACHO lensing or to rule out a significant MACHO population in the halo of M31.

This work was supported by the SFB 375 Astro-Particle-Physics of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.


format: text

text:
# Forces between a single atom and its distant mirror image

## Abstract

An excited-state atom whose emitted light is back-reflected by a distant mirror can experience trapping forces, because the presence of the mirror modifies both the electromagnetic vacuum field and the atom’s own radiation reaction field. We demonstrate this mechanical action using a single trapped barium ion. We observe the trapping conditions to be notably altered when the distant mirror is shifted by an optical wavelength. The well-localised barium ion enables the spatial dependence of the forces to be measured explicitly. The experiment has implications for quantum information processing and may be regarded as the most elementary optical tweezers.

An atom which sits in the vicinity of mirrors or reflectors experiences energy shifts of its electronic states. These level shifts are known as the van der Waals, Casimir-Polder Casimir1948  and resonant radiative shifts Lyuboshitz1967 ; Morawitz1969 , the latter of which is caused by a retarded interaction of the atom with its own radiation field. For an atom in its excited state and at distances from a mirror much less than the transition wavelength, the level shift will be dominated by the van der Waals interaction, whilst in the far field the level shift is attributed to the resonant interaction with its own reflected field Morawitz1969 ; Barton1987 ; Meschede1990 ; Hinds1991 . Such far-field shifts have been observed with an atomic beam traversing an optical resonator Heinzen1987  and with atoms in a microwave cavity Brune1994 . The same effect has been predicted for a single trapped ion whose emitted radiation field is reflected back by a single, distant mirror Dorner2002 , and recently this level shift has been observed with an indirect spectroscopic method Wilson2003 .

The far-field mirror-induced shift of an excited atomic level oscillates on the wavelength scale when the atom-mirror distance is varied. Therefore, when the position of the atom is controlled to the extent that it becomes sensitive to this spatial dependence, then the level shift acts as a spatially varying potential $`U(\stackrel{}{r})`$, and the atom feels its gradient $`\stackrel{}{}U(\stackrel{}{r})`$ as a force.

This mirror-induced force is a peculiar manifestation of the mechanical effects of light. Forces due to applied light fields were first demonstrated experimentally by Lebedev Lebedev1901 , and the recoil of an absorbed photon on an atom was observed by Frisch who deflected an atomic beam with incoherent light Frisch1933 . With the advent of the laser, such forces have found many important applications, from decelerating, cooling and trapping atoms to optical tweezers in biology Dholakia2002 .

Mirror-induced forces on individual atoms were first considered in connection with cavity-QED experiments, where their use has been proposed for trapping atoms in an optical resonator Haroche1991 ; Schoen2003 . It is this kind of binding force which we observe in the experiment reported here. A single, trapped and laser-excited ion is an ideal system for this observation, as its position can be controlled on the nanometer scale Eschner2001 ; Guthoehrlein2001 ; Mundt2002 , and interaction with a distant mirror has already been demonstrated Eschner2001 ; Kreuter2003 ; Wilson2003 . These earlier experiments detected the effect of a mirror on the internal, electronic state of an ion. In contrast, our new study reveals directly the action on the ion’s motional degree of freedom, whereby we have a new level of control over the total state of the atom and new possibilities for its manipulation. While the previous observations Wilson2003  have implications, e.g., for precision spectroscopy, our new results are more relevant for studies of single ions in optical cavities, for their cooling Domokos2003  and their application in quantum information processing.

A mirror-induced energy shift of an excited state, like a modified spontaneous decay rate Eschner2001 ; Kreuter2003 , has an analogy in classical electrodynamics. The classical effect is used, for example, to modify the emission diagram of an antenna by reflectors, and it is well-known that such geometric modifications also change the resonance frequency Blake . These effects can be treated in terms of radiation reaction only, i.e. in terms of the interaction with the reflected field. The quantum electrodynamic picture is quite different though, due to the presence of the vacuum field which also couples to the atom Milonni . The concept of the vacuum field forms the prevailing language in the field of experimental cavity QED, see for example Refs. Heinzen1987 ; Brune1994 . It was also used in the proposals to trap an atom in a resonator Haroche1991 ; Schoen2003  to which our experiment is closely related. Rigorously speaking, however, the vacuum field alone cannot account for spontaneous decay or its modification by reflectors, but radiation reaction must also contribute Ackerhalt1973 ; Milonni1973 ; Dalibard1982 ; Hinds1991a . The same is true for excited-state level shifts. In fact, the degree to which vacuum fields and radiation reaction are seen to contribute depends upon the ordering of operators in the Heisenberg equations of motion, the choice of which has been called a ”matter of taste” Milonni . In what follows we will use the concept of vacuum fields as a convenient language but without insisting on any particular distinction between vacuum fields and radiation reaction.

In our experiment with a single trapped Ba<sup>+</sup> ion, a fraction $`ϵ`$ of its fluorescence light is retro-reflected and focussed back upon the emitting particle (see Fig. 1 below). For this situation, the model by Dorner Dorner2002  predicts an energy shift of the excited level by

$$U(z)=\mathrm{}\frac{ϵ\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}\mathrm{sin}(2kz).$$
(1)
Here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the decay rate of the excited level, $`k=2\pi /\lambda `$ is the wave vector of the light with wavelength $`\lambda `$, and $`z`$ is the position of the mirror with respect to the ion. Depending on $`z`$, this potential creates different mechanical effects: around $`\mathrm{sin}(2kz)=0`$, a force is exerted on the ion which points either towards or away from the mirror; around $`\mathrm{sin}(2kz)=\pm 1`$, a binding ($`+1`$) or anti-binding ($`1`$) potential is formed. Since the atom feels the mirror-induced potential only whilst it resides in the excited level, the forces are scaled by the probability $`P_e`$ for the atom to be in that state. The maximum force at $`\mathrm{sin}(2kz)=0`$ is therefore calculated as $`P_e\mathrm{}kϵ\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The binding / anti-binding potential at $`\mathrm{sin}(2kz)=\pm 1`$ is characterised by the oscillation frequency which an otherwise force-free atom would have in the respective potential well, $`\omega _{vac}=(2P_eϵ\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}k^2/m)^{1/2}`$, with atomic mass $`m`$. For an ion which is already confined with trap frequency $`\omega _{trap}`$ (typically around $`2\pi \times 1`$ MHz), the potential $`U(z)`$ of Eq. (1) adds to the trapping potential, thus changing the trap frequency according to $`\omega _{trap}^{}=(\omega _{trap}^2+\omega _{vac}^2\mathrm{sin}(2kz))^{1/2}`$. Since the deviation $`\delta \omega _{trap}=\omega _{trap}^{}\omega _{trap}`$ is small, it is well approximated by

$$\delta \omega _{trap}(z)=\frac{P_eϵ\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}k^2}{m\omega _{trap}}\mathrm{sin}(2kz).$$
(2)
It is this change of the trap frequency, a direct mechanical action, which we measure in the experiment. We emphasize that the level shift $`U(z)`$ producing this extra trapping force is caused by the presence of a single distant mirror and the associated modification of vacuum and radiation reaction fields. This distinguishes our observations from the recently demonstrated trapping of atoms in excited high-finesse optical resonators, where the mechanical action arises not only from reradiated photons, but also from the externally excited resonator mode Pinkse2000 ; Hood2000 .

The experimental setup is shown in Fig. 1. The counting signal on the PMT exhibits high-contrast interference fringes as the ion-mirror distance is varied Eschner2001 . This interference signal follows the $`\mathrm{cos}(2kz)`$ dependence of the modified 493 nm decay rate Dorner2002 , such that the midpoints of the slopes correspond to $`\mathrm{sin}(2kz)=\pm 1`$, i.e. to the maximum binding or anti-binding potential, as described above (see also Fig. 5 below). The trap frequency is measured by spectrally analysing the PMT signal. It contains a spectral component at the trap frequency, around 1 MHz, because the oscillation of the ion creates an intensity modulation of the scattered light. The signal on the spectrum analyser has, to good approximation, a Lorentzian line shape with width $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$ of about 500 Hz. After a few seconds of averaging, the centre frequency of the line is determined with less than 10 Hz inaccuracy.

Fig. 2 shows two spectra which were recorded directly one after the other, with the ion positioned on the midpoints of a positive and negative slope of the interference signal, respectively. The shift is clearly visible and amounts to 310 Hz in this case. The value is within the range expected from Eq. 2, which predicts around 350 Hz, taking typical values for our experiment $`P_e7\%`$, $`ϵ1.5\%`$, $`\lambda =493`$ nm, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2\pi \times 15.4`$ MHz. The corresponding value of $`\omega _{vac}`$ is about 20 kHz, larger than the photon recoil frequency of 6 kHz. We emphasize that no changes are made to the setup between the recording of the two spectra, apart from translating the distant mirror by $`\lambda /4`$.

To measure the value of the frequency shift for a particular set of parameters, we record about 60 spectra, alternating between the two slopes. Each spectrum is fitted by a Lorentzian, and the centre frequency is plotted. An example is shown in Fig. 3. While the trap frequency itself varies due to slow drifts of the trap drive intensity and due to thermal effects, a constant difference is observed between the values measured on the two slopes. The precise value of the shift depends on details of the experiment such as the settings of the lasers, their directions, and the fine alignment of the back-reflecting mirror. We observe values between 50 and 350 Hz, all within the range expected from Eq. 2. It is important to note that we always find the higher trap frequency on the positive slope of the interference fringes (count rate vs. ion-mirror distance), in agreement with the theoretical prediction Dorner2002 .

As shown in Eq. 2, the trap frequency shift depends on the laser parameters through the probability $`P_e`$ with which the ion is found in the excited state. This dependence has been measured by recording the maximum shift for different laser parameters. The mean fluorescence level, at the midpoint of the interference fringes, serves as an indicator of $`P_e`$, to which it is strictly proportional. The result is displayed in Fig. 4. The data agree well with the expected linear dependence. A further test is the dependence of the trap frequency on the position of the mirror. When we shift the ion between the maxima and minima of the interference fringes, we find the result shown in Fig. 5. The sinusoidal variation predicted by Eq. (2) is clearly observed.

One may construct a semi-classical explanation for the observed mechanical action, analogous to the intuitive picture in Dorner2002  that the level shift corresponds to the energy of the atomic dipole in the light field returning from the mirror. When a maximum in the interference fringes is observed at the PMT, the returning light stimulates additional radiation towards the PMT, thus creating a small recoil towards the mirror. Conversely, a minimum in the interference fringes corresponds to radiation returning from the mirror being predominantly absorbed, which therefore leads to a force away from the mirror. However, the quantum mechanical properties of the electromagnetic field are needed to explain quantitatively the spontaneous emission rate from an atom Heitler ; Milonni ; Hinds1991a . Therefore the concepts of vacuum fields and radiation reaction, as presented in the introduction, are felt to be the most accurate way of describing our experimental findings.

We emphasize that it is a distant and passive optical element which introduces a controlled, position-dependent mechanical action on the atom in our experiment. In general, any dielectric optical element which back-reflects the light scattered from nearby atoms shifts the excited levels, modifies the transition frequencies, and acts on the motional state. Therefore our study is also relevant for technological applications of single trapped atoms and ions, in particular when they are combined with high-finesse optical cavities. On the other hand, since energy shifts of individual levels accumulate in time to phase shifts of the atomic wavefunction, their control, as demonstrated here, may become useful for the manipulation of optical phases in applications of single atoms or ions for quantum state engineering or quantum information processing. Another possible application would be ”vacuum optical tweezers” which exert forces on a laser-excited molecule just by an arrangement of microscopic mirrors.

Acknowledgements. This work is supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF, SFB15), the European Commission (QUEST network, HPRNCT-2000-00121, QUBITS network, IST-1999-13021), and the ”Institut für Quanteninformation GmbH”. P. B. thanks A. Allahverdyan and K. Lamonova for stimulating discussions. The authors thank Uwe Dorner for clarifying remarks.