text:
# Low 𝑇 Dynamical Properties of Spin Glasses Smoothly Extrapolate to 𝑇=0

## 1 Introduction

Spin glass physics is difficult. Because of how complex it is to establish results that go further than the mean field level (see for example  and references therein) frequently numerical simulations are the technique of choice (see for example  and references therein).

Recently ground state techniques have become popular (see for example  and references therein). The big advantage here is that one is (down in the broken phase) surely as far as possible from the critical temperature $`T_c`$. Our goal is to observe the effects of the $`T=0`$ fixed point, and to remove spurious effects due to the critical point at $`T=T_c`$: these contaminations are minimized when working at $`T=0`$. Also the use of exact ground states solves the problem of thermalization, that is typically very severe on spin glasses at low values of $`T`$. The price one pays is that contacts with $`T0`$ physics are not clear: it could even be (but it does not seem to be so, and here we will help in showing that this is not the case) that what happens at $`T=0`$ is essentially different from what happens for an even infinitesimal value of the temperature.

Here we will use a further tool to check consistency of the $`T=0`$ and the $`T0`$ phase space. Thanks to off-equilibrium dynamical simulations we will be able to study large lattice sizes and restricted sectors of the phase space: this will allow to show better that $`T=0`$ physics is compatible with the results one obtains at finite values of the temperature.

The second important part of this work is that, always thanks to off-equilibrium dynamical numerical simulations, we are able to keep under control crucial observables like overlap-overlap correlation functions and block overlaps. These observables are very important since they allow to discriminate potentially misleading situations like the ones where interfaces induce a seemingly non-trivial overlap probability distribution $`P(q)`$ from a true replica symmetry breaking.

## 2 Model, Algorithm and Observables

We have simulated a three dimensional ($`3D`$) Ising Spin Glass with Gaussian couplings on a cubic lattice with periodic boundary conditions. The Hamiltonian is

$$\underset{<i,j>}{}\sigma _iJ_{ij}\sigma _j,$$
(1)
where the sum runs over all couples of nearest neighbors, the $`\sigma _i=\pm 1`$ are Ising spins and the couplings $`J_{ij}`$ are quenched random Gaussian variables with zero mean and unit variance.

We have mainly focused on the measurements of two very important observables: they are both useful to distinguish situations where a true non-trivial behavior of the probability distribution of the overlaps is present from situations where interfaces could present a misleading situation (because of finite size effects or even in the infinite volume limit, see the discussion in  and references therein)

The first observable is an overlap, i.e. the measurements of how similar two typical configurations at equilibrium are. Here we define the overlap only in a small part of the lattice: we compute the block overlap $`q_{}`$ on a $`2\times 2\times 2`$ cube (that we call a $``$-cube, here with $`=2`$):

$$q_{}=\frac{1}{^3}\underset{𝒊}{}q_𝒊,$$
(2)
with the usual site overlap

$$q_𝒊\sigma _𝒊\tau _𝒊,$$
(3)
where $`\sigma `$ and $`\tau `$ are two independent equilibrium configurations of the system in the same realization of the quenched disorder. We call, as usual, $`q`$ the total overlap computed on all the lattice, i.e. the average of the site overlap $`q_i`$ over all lattice sites. We notice also that in the following we will, as usual, denote with brackets the thermal average for one given realization of the quenched disorder, $`()`$: when averaging at a given Monte Carlo time $`t`$ we will mean averaging over different realizations of the dynamical process, and we will indicate this average with $`()_t`$. We will denote with an over-line the average over the quenched disorder, $`\overline{()}`$.

We have computed the full probability distribution $`P_{}(q_{},t,T)`$ of the $`=2`$ block overlap $`q_{}`$ as a function of the temperature $`T`$ and the (Monte Carlo) time $`t`$ of a so-called off-equilibrium dynamics. In an off-equilibrium numerical simulation (see for example ) we use a “very large” lattice size, and we work at values of the temperature low enough to make sure that the system is not thermalized: this is true already for medium size lattices in the case of system that are characterized by slow dynamics, as is the case here. In this situation we work by extrapolating off-equilibrium, finite time measurements to infinite time. The advantage of the method is on one side in the fact that we are basically free from finite size effects, and on the other side that we can learn additional information from the pattern of the approach to equilibrium (for example in  this turns out to be a nice way to learn about the minimal value of the allowed overlap, $`q_{\text{min}}`$). On the other side the disadvantage is that we have to rely on an extrapolation to infinite time, that can turn out to be not so trivial.

The second relevant observable is the overlap-overlap correlation function (defined on the full lattice) computed at distance $`𝒓`$, and it is defined as

$$C(𝒓,t,T)\overline{q_𝒊q_{𝒊+𝒓}_t}.$$
(4)
Here we will only analyze $`C(1,t,T)`$, since among all the different $`C`$ for different $`𝒓`$ values it is the less affected by statistical errors.

In our working conditions $`C(𝒓,t,T)`$ depends on the initial total overlap probability distribution $`P(q,t=0,T)`$. In our case, since we have used very large lattice sizes, since we are starting from an average zero overlap (we start by evolving two independent, uncorrelated random configurations) and since we are limited to a number of Monte Carlo sweeps (of the full lattice) of the order of $`10^7`$, we are not able to change away from zero the total overlap, and at least roughly we have that $`P(q,t,T)P(q,t=0,T)`$. Because of that we have that the correlation functions we measure are very different from the equilibrium correlation functions, and can be written as

$`C(𝒓,t,T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑qP(q,t,T)C(𝒓,t,T,q)}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle }dqP(q,t=0,T)C_0(𝒓,t,T,q)`$
where by $`C(𝒓,t,T,q)`$ we denote the spatial correlation functions at time $`t`$ and temperature $`T`$ computed by including only couples of configurations having total overlap $`q`$, and by $`C_0(𝒓,t,T,q)`$ we denote the correlation functions computed with initial conditions $`P(q,t=0,T)`$.

In the numerical simulations that we will discuss in the following we have been starting from an initial probability distribution peaked around zero total overlap, i.e. our results are determined by the value of $`C(𝒓,t,T,q=0)`$. In other terms we are discussing here the dynamics of the $`q=0`$ sector of the system (see  for further details). As we have stressed in the introduction, our main goal here is to relate numerical results computed from an off-equilibrium dynamics at non zero temperature with equilibrium results obtained at zero temperature using techniques that give exact ground state configurations on reasonably lattice sizes (see for example ).

In the recent studies computing spin glass ground states the technique of choice was based on computing the so-called mixed overlap, i.e. the overlap computed between a ground state in a finite volume with periodic boundary conditions (pbc) in all directions and another ground state obtained when imposing anti-periodic boundary conditions (abc) in one direction and pbc in the other directions of the cubic lattice with the same realization of the quenched couplings $`J`$. In a theory with continuously broken replica symmetry  in the infinite volume limit there are many ground states with total site overlap $`q`$ and total link overlap $`q_l`$ (that coincides with the correlation function $`C`$ computed at distance 1) different from one . On the contrary a droplet approach  implies a behavior similar to the one of an usual ferromagnet, where the link overlap (and the site overlap if we activate an infinitesimal magnetic field) go to one in the thermodynamical limit. Both  and  compute the $`=2`$ block overlap.

Now a key remark is in order. The procedure we have just described to compute overlaps in the ground state sector leads to the comparison, if the RSB picture holds, of ground states with $`q=0`$ (changing the boundaries we favor ground states with small overlap): that means that these results based on ground states describe the link overlap in the $`q=0`$ sector of the system. This is the main reason of interest of these dynamical simulations: we are simulating here the $`q=0`$ sector of the theory, and since we are working on very large lattice sizes we are only sampling this sector. In other words when extrapolating our measurements of $`C_{\mathrm{}}(1,T)`$ (by the subscript $`\mathrm{}`$ we mean we have already extrapolated, hopefully faithfully, to $`t=\mathrm{}`$) from our low values of the temperature $`T`$ down to $`T=0`$ we should find, if the RSB picture is consistent, the same results found in the direct analysis of the ground states.

We will also try to check the behavior of a different relevant observable. In  the authors have computed the probability that, for example, a $`=2`$ block does not intersect an interface: one can relate this probability to the probability of finding that a $`=2`$ block is $`\pm 1`$. Again our strategy will be to compute the probability of this event at non zero temperatures and to extrapolate the result down to $`T=0`$.

A very direct relation about the second moment of the ($`=2`$) block overlap and the $`qq`$ correlation function 4 can be established by noticing that

$$q_{}^2(t,T)=\frac{1}{8}\left[C(0,t,T)+3C(1,t,T)+3C(\sqrt{2},t,T)+C(\sqrt{3},t,T)\right].$$
(6)
## 3 Numerical Results

Our numerical simulations have been run on a APE100 parallel supercomputer : on the more powerful version of the computer (the so-called “tower” version) our Monte Carlo code for simulating $`3D`$ Ising Spin Glasses with Gaussian couplings has a peak performance of 5 GF.

For all the numerical simulations described in this note we have averaged our data on four different realizations of the random quenched disorder. In each disorder realization we have simulated two independent copies of the system (useful to compute the different overlaps, block overlaps and correlation functions). We have used a straightforward Metropolis algorithm. We have used a lattice of linear size $`L=64`$ and volume $`V=L^3=2^{18}`$.

We have analyzed two kind of runs. “Short” runs have been used to compute the extrapolated value of the overlap-overlap correlation function. In these short runs we have simulated temperatures $`T=0.9`$, $`0.8`$, $`0.7`$, $`0.6`$, $`0.5`$, $`0.4`$, $`0.35`$ and $`0.3`$ during $`\mathrm{819\hspace{0.33em}200}`$ Monte Carlo steps. We have presented a preliminary and partial analysis of some of these data in reference  (only for $`T0.35`$ and only as far the dependence of the critical exponents over temperature is concerned: we had not analyzed, for example, the prefactors, which are very relevant to the physics studied in this paper, see below).

In the “short” runs we use a simple scheme. We start from two initial independent random configurations, and suddenly start iterating at the working temperature well below the critical one: $`T<T_c`$ ($`T=0.9`$, $`0.8`$, $`0.7`$, $`0.6`$, $`0.5`$, $`0.4`$, $`0.35`$ or $`0.3`$). At each $`T`$ value we will eventually extrapolate to infinite time, to get a $`T`$ dependent asymptotic value, that we will, in turn, try and extrapolate down to $`T=0`$.

In order to compute the dynamical behavior of the block overlap we have used “long” runs. Here we have used the previous scheme for four values of the temperature, $`T=0.7`$, $`0.6`$, $`0.5`$ and $`0.35`$, with $`\mathrm{6\hspace{0.17em}553\hspace{0.17em}600}`$ Monte Carlo updates of the full lattice performed at each value of $`T`$.

In the “short” runs we measure the time dependent observables on logarithmic time scales: i.e. at times $`t=100`$, $`200`$, $`400`$, $`800`$, …In the “long” runs we measure every 32768 steps.

In the next two subsections we will discuss separately our numerical results for the correlation functions and for the window overlap.

### 3.1 Correlation Functions

In this section we will always indicate by $`C(1,t,T)`$ the $`q=0`$ component of the overlap-overlap correlation function, i.e. $`C(\mathrm{r}=1,t,T,q=0)`$, that, as we have discussed in detail in section 2, is the quantity we are measuring.

The dependence of $`C(1,t,T)`$ on time can be expressed through the knowledge of the dynamical critical exponent $`z(T)`$ (that depends on $`T`$). We have that

$$C(1,t,T)=f(t^{\frac{1}{z(T)}},T).$$

From numerical simulations  (that here are in very nice agreement with real experiments ) we know that

$$z(T)=\frac{1}{T}\left(6.2\pm 0.3\right).$$
(7)
Another useful piece of information  is that

$$C(x,t,T)\frac{1}{\sqrt{x}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\frac{x}{\xi (t,T)}\right)^{3/2}\right],$$
(8)
where $`\xi (T)t^{1/z(T)}`$ is the time dependent dynamical correlation length of the system. Because of that we expect that

$$\mathrm{log}C(1,t,T)a(T)+b(T)t^{3/\left(2z(T)\right)},$$
(9)
asymptotically for large time. As $`t`$ diverges $`C(1,t,T)`$ tends to the constant value $`\mathrm{exp}\left(a(T)\right)`$, that we have called prefactor in the previous section.

In figure 1 we show the extrapolation of $`C(1,t)`$ to $`t=\mathrm{}`$ for the lowest temperature we use, $`T=0.3`$ (this is the most difficult extrapolation, and fits at larger $`T`$ values are easier). The dashed line is for the best fit to the form

$$\mathrm{log}C(1,t,T)=a(T)+b(T)t^{c(T)}.$$
(10)
The fit is good, and the extrapolation looks reasonably safe. By this kind of fits we are able to obtain reliable extrapolated values for all the values of $`T`$ we study, that we show in figure 2 versus the temperature $`T`$. We have checked that the value of $`c(T)`$ of the best fit to the form 10 is in very good agreement (i.e. inside the margins suggested by the estimated statistical error) with the value of $`3/(2z(T))`$. The discrepancies between the extrapolated value obtained by using a three or two parameter fit (i.e. by fixing $`c(T)`$ to $`3/(2z(T))`$ in equation 10 or by letting it free) are inside the statistical errors.

For a detailed numerical study of the functional form suggested in equation 10 we refer the reader to references . An exhaustive analysis of the correlation functions computed at zero total overlap has been performed in three , four  and six dimensions : in all cases the system turns out to have a very similar behavior, independently of the spatial dimensionality. In six dimensions the agreement with the quantitative analytical predictions obtained by De Dominicis, Kondor and Temesvari  is very good .

In the same figure we have also plotted the statistical interval allowed for the value of the link overlap at $`T=0`$ from ground state calculations (see ). The statistical error on our values of $`C_{\mathrm{}}(1,T)`$ grows when $`T`$ decreases, but in the limit given by these errors the $`T=0`$ result and a reasonable extrapolation of the finite $`T`$ results obtained here look completely consistent.

The interval we have drawn in the figure is $`0.79\pm 0.07`$, and we have computed it by looking at data from . We have used the four different (but statistically compatible) values obtained there for $`q_l`$. By extrapolating of $`q_l`$ for $`L\mathrm{}`$ one obtains $`q_l=0.755\pm 0.015`$ or $`q_l=0.80\pm 0.06`$ using a linear or a quadratic fit in $`1/L`$, respectively. By studying correlation function reference  also obtained $`C(1)=0.732\pm 0.008`$ (for the transverse correlation) and $`C(1)=0.722\pm 0.005`$ (for the perpendicular correlation). Taking into account all these figures we have obtained the confidence interval (at one standard deviation) for the link overlap that we were quoting before.

### 3.2 Block Overlaps

Our second set of measurements concerns the so called block overlap (that we also call window overlap or box overlap, and have been computed on a $`\times \times `$ $`=`$ $`2\times 2\times 2`$ box). As in the case of correlation functions we start from two independent random configurations, and cool them down according to the annealing schedule we have described before (using what we have called the “long” runs). During these runs we have computed the full probability distribution of the window overlap at different times $`t`$.

In this section of this note our main goal is to compute $`P_{}(\pm 1)`$, i.e. the value (extrapolated to infinite time first and than $`T=0`$ later) of the probability that a $``$ block has overlap of maximal modulus. To simplify the notation from now on we will be working with a symmetrized overlap probability distribution, i.e. we will consider $`P_{}(|q|,t,T)`$, that can have support in $`(0,1)`$: this object is interesting because it is exactly the probability that the interface between different phases does not intersect with a cube of size $`2`$. As we have already discussed this probability has been computed in reference  at $`T=0`$, and we will try here to connect these results with the $`T0`$ physics.

The main result of reference  is that, at $`T=0`$ and in the limit of the lattice size $`L\mathrm{}`$,

$$P_1()0.65\pm 0.05.$$
(11)
Our working Ansatz for the time dependence of $`P_{}(|q|=1)`$ has been, as we will justify now, that

$$\mathrm{log}P_{}(|q|=1,t,T)=\mathrm{log}P_{}^{\mathrm{t}=\mathrm{}}(|q|=1,T)+\frac{a(T)}{t^{3/(2z(T))}},$$
(12)
and we have used $`z(T)=\frac{6.2}{T}`$.

Let us see why things work in this way. From equation 6 we know that $`<q^2>_B`$ scales as an overlap-overlap correlation function. But for large times, and for distances such that $`xt^{1/z}`$ equation 8 tells us that the correlation function behaves as

$$C(x,t)\frac{1}{\sqrt{x}}\left[1A\frac{x}{t^{3/(2z(T))}}\right],$$
(13)
where $`A`$ is a suitable constant. This implies in turn that

$$<q_{}^2>(t,T)a(T)+\frac{b(T)}{t^{3/(2z(T))}},$$
(14)
where $`a(T)`$ and $`b(T)`$ are constants that only depend on $`T`$. Now since

$$<q_{}^2>(t,T)_1^1𝑑qP_{}(q,t,T)q^2,$$
(15)
if we define $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_{}(q,t,T)P_{}(q,t,T)P_{}^{\mathrm{t}=\mathrm{}}(q,T)`$ it is clear that

$$_1^1𝑑q\mathrm{\Delta }P_{}(q,t,T)q^2\frac{b(T)}{t^{3/(2z(T))}}.$$
(16)
Things are more clear if we write equation 16 for discrete values of $`q_{}`$ (that is what happens for finite $``$):

$$\underset{q<1}{}\mathrm{\Delta }P_{}(q,t,T)q^2+\mathrm{\Delta }P_{}(q=1,t,T)=\frac{b(T)}{t^{3/(2z(T))}}.$$
(17)
If we assume that all the components with $`q>0`$ scale in the same way this shows that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }P_{}(q=1,t,T)P_{}(q=1,t,T)P_{}^{\mathrm{t}=\mathrm{}}(q=1,T)t^{3/(2z(T))}.$$
(18)
and so,

$$P_{}(|q|=1,t,T)=P_{}^{\mathrm{t}=\mathrm{}}(|q|=1,T)+\frac{d(T)}{t^{3/(2z(T))}},$$
(19)
and we recover 12 taking logs in 19. We have used 12 instead of 19 since we have (slightly) better scaling even for small times. We have checked that both kind of fits provide us with compatible values of $`P_{}^{\mathrm{t}=\mathrm{}}(|q|=1,T)`$.

We will use equation 12 to fit the values of $`P_{}^{\mathrm{t}=\mathrm{}}(q=1,T)`$ at different temperatures. The argument we have done says nothing about the behavior of $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_{}(q=0,t,T)`$, while $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_{}(q,t,T)`$ for $`q0`$ follows the same scaling law valid for $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_{}(q=1,t,T)`$.

We have checked that our numerical data are well fitted by the behavior of equation 12. We show two plots corresponding to two different temperatures: $`T=0.7`$ and $`T=0.35`$, in figure 3. In the plots we also draw our best fits to to the Ansatz 12.

The fit of figure 3 for $`T=0.7`$, for example, looks reasonably reliable. The $`P_{}`$ depends very slowly on $`T`$, and our numerical data have as support a range of times as large as the range we need to extrapolate through. On the contrary the fit of 3 for $`T=0.35`$ (again, the one at our lowest $`T`$ value, i.e. our most difficult fit) looks less happy even if one would not expect very strange things to happen: since $`\frac{1}{z(T)}`$ at such low $`T`$ is becoming very small our data vary on a small support, and the $`t=\mathrm{}`$ point looks far away. The very large error that appears in figure 4 is an effect of this phenomenon.

In figure 4 we show the values of $`P_{}^{\mathrm{t}=\mathrm{}}(q=1,T)`$ extrapolated up to $`t=\mathrm{}`$ versus $`T`$. Because of how difficult it is to get precise results at low $`T`$ values, the evidence we have established is not very strong: still, figure 4 clearly shows that our present low $`T`$ results are completely compatible with the $`T=0`$ results.

We end this section by performing a last consistency check. We compare the values of $`q_{}^2`$ with the values of the correlation function (in both cases extrapolated to infinite time). Using equation 8 we can write equation 6 as:

$$q_{}^2(T)=0.125+0.785C_{\mathrm{}}(1,T).$$
(20)
In table 1 we show the values of $`q_{}^2(T)`$ obtained by direct measurements of $`q_{}`$ and the value obtained by summing up correlation functions, according to the right hand side of equation 20: the agreement of the two quantities is very reasonable at all $`T`$ values. The values of $`q_{}^2(T)`$ have been extrapolated at infinite time by using equation 14.

## 4 Conclusions

The results of our investigation are indeed positive. Physical observables computed at $`T=0`$ are compatible with values computed on large lattices thanks to an off-equilibrium dynamics, and extrapolated from measurements at low, finite $`T`$. Our observables of choice are interesting observables, since they do not only show that our system has a non-trivial $`P(q)`$, but also that this non-trivial $`P(q)`$ is the “bona fide” effect of replica symmetry breaking, and not the effect of some fancy kind of interfaces.

We have been able to use very low $`T`$ values, while still keeping a good control over $`t\mathrm{}`$ fits. When we lower $`T`$ and eventually $`T0`$ the data are collapsing, in the reasonable accuracy given by the large statistical error, to the $`T=0`$ results. It is important to remark, also as far as planning future, more precise studies is concerned, that it is really very difficult to run accurate numerical simulations in the region $`T0.3`$ with the nowadays computers (for example at $`T=0.1`$ the dynamical critical exponents is of the order of $`60`$).

## Acknowledgments

JJRL acknowledges partial financial support from CICyT (PB98-0842).


format: text

text:
# Loading of a cold atomic beam into a magnetic guide

## 1 Introduction

A large variety of techniques based on the use of electromagnetic forces are now available to control the motion of atoms Chu98 ; Cohen98 ; Phillips98  and molecules Fioretti ; Takekoshi98 ; Weinstein98 ; Bethlem00 . The progress in this domain has opened the way to several fields of applications such as atom optics and interferometry Cargese00 , precision experiments and metrology Santarelli99 , and statistical physics, with the achievement of degenerate Bose or Fermi gases Varenna98 . Among these techniques, a special effort has been devoted to the production of slow and cold continuous atomic and molecular beams, since they represent a powerful tool for many of the above mentioned applications.

A spectacular challenge in this field consists in the achievement of a continuous beam operating in the quantum degenerate regime. This would be the matter wave equivalent of a cw monochromatic laser and it would allow for unprecedented performances in terms of focalization or collimation. A possible way to achieve this goal has been studied theoretically in Mandonnet00 . In this proposal, a non-degenerate, but already slow and cold beam of particles, is injected into a magnetic guide Schmiedmayer95 ; Denschlag99 ; Goepfert99 ; Key00 ; Dekker00 ; Teo01 ; Sauer01 ; Hinds99  where transverse evaporation takes place. If the elastic collision rate is large enough, efficient evaporative cooling will lead to quantum degeneracy after a propagation length in the guide compatible with experimental constraints (i.e. a few meters). Therefore the success of this project relies upon two preliminary and separate accomplishments. First, one has to build a source of cold atoms as intense as possible, and secondly, one has then to inject the atoms into a magnetic guide, where they should propagate with reduced losses over a long distance.

When resonant laser light is available at the atomic resonance frequency, a convenient method for producing a bright source of slow atoms consists in decelerating a thermal beam with radiation pressure Prodan82 ; Ertmer85 , and subsequently applying transverse cooling and trapping to the slow atomic beam (“atom funnel”) Riis90 ; Nelessen90 ; Swanson96 ; Lison99 ; Chen00 . Alternatively, one can extract a jet of atoms from a vapor-loaded magneto-optical trap (MOT). The simplest scheme consists in a 2D MOT Dieckmann98 ; Pfau02  where the MOT laser beams propagate only in the $`xy`$ plane, resulting in a uncooled atom jet along the $`z`$ axis. As for some of the demonstrated funnels Riis90 ; Swanson96 ; Chen00 , one can narrow the longitudinal velocity distribution, using a moving molasses scheme, *i.e.*, a pair of counter-propagating laser beams along the atomic beam axis, with two different frequencies Weyers97 . The atoms are then bunched in a non-zero velocity class, which corresponds to the moving frame where both lasers are seen with equal frequencies. One can also produce a beam with two or more velocity components using a 2D ($`xy`$) magneto-optical trap and a static magnetic field superimposed with a static optical molasses along the beam axis ($`z`$) Weyers97 ; Dudle96 ; Berthoud98 . Alternatively a collimated beam of atoms can be obtained by drilling a hole in one of the mirrors used for the MOT Lu96  (see also Dieckmann98 ), with a pyramidal mirror structure with a hole at its vertex Lee96 ; Williamson98 ; Arlt98 , or with an extra pushing beam, which destabilizes the MOT at its center Wohlleben01 ; Cacciapuoti01 . All these sources produce a relatively bright beam (from 106 to several $`10^{10}`$ atoms per second), with an average velocity $`\overline{v}`$ between 1 and 50 m/s; for most of them the velocity distribution is rather broad, with a dispersion $`\mathrm{\Delta }v\overline{v}`$.

In the perspective of loading a magnetic guide in order to perform evaporative cooling, the atom source should provide an average velocity $`\overline{v}`$ smaller than 2 m/s, and it should be as cold as possible, both longitudinally and transversally ($`\mathrm{\Delta }v\overline{v}`$). This eliminates most of the source types described above, in particular those from the “leaking MOT” family, and also the sources producing a beam with multiple velocity components. One is then left with the principle of a source which uses a moving molasses (MM) on axis, together with a transverse magneto-optical trap (MOT), which we shall designate in the following as a “MM-MOT”.

In the present paper, we describe in § 2 our vapor loaded MM-MOT, which produces a very slow and cold atomic beam ($`\overline{v}`$ between 0.3 and 3 m/s, $`\mathrm{\Delta }v<\overline{v}/10`$), and which is well suited for loading a magnetic guide, either continuously or in a pulsed manner. We also compare our results with previously reported work. In § 3, we show how to inject this atomic beam into a magnetic guide, created by a quadrupole field in the $`xy`$ plane. We discuss in the concluding section (§ 4) the perspectives opened by this experimental setup for the development of a continuous, evaporatively cooled, atomic beam. The present performances of our system are still far from the requirements for initiating forced evaporative cooling in the magnetic guide. However, with an improved setup,we hope to reach the desired conditions as discussed in the concluding section.

## 2 The “MM - MOT”

In this section we describe the principle and the practical realization of the MM-MOT, whose purpose is to provide a cooling along the $`z`$ axis, in the moving frame defined by the moving molasses (MM), and a magneto-optical trapping (MOT) in the $`xy`$ plane. This setup is employed to capture 87Rb atoms from the background gas.

### 2.1 Principle of the MM-MOT

The MM-MOT is based upon a four-beam laser configuration similar to the one used for the study of optical lattices described in Grynberg93 , superimposed with a linear magnetic 2D quadrupole field.

The magnetic quadrupole field is created by four rectangular, elongated coils located in the planes $`x=\pm 8`$ cm and $`y=\pm 8`$ cm. The currents in the coils facing each other have opposite sign so that, close to the symmetry axis $`x=y=0`$, the resulting field is given by

$$𝐁=(b^{}x,b^{}y,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}).$$

The field is zero along the $`z`$ axis and the transverse gradient is typically $`b^{}=0.1`$ T/m.

The optical arrangement consists of four laser beams in a tetrahedral configuration (see Fig. 1). Two laser beams with frequency $`\omega `$ propagate in the $`yz`$ plane along the directions $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha 𝐮_z\pm \mathrm{sin}\alpha 𝐮_y`$, with a positive helicity. The two other beams with frequency $`\omega ^{}`$ propagate in the $`xz`$ plane along the directions $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha 𝐮_z\pm \mathrm{sin}\alpha 𝐮_x`$, with a negative helicity. The four beams are red-detuned with respect to the atomic transition
$`|5S_{1/2},F=2|5P_{3/2},F=3`$, whose frequency is called $`\omega _a`$. The average detuning $`\delta =\overline{\omega }\omega _a`$, with $`\overline{\omega }=(\omega +\omega ^{})/2`$, is typically $`3\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2\pi \times 5.9`$ MHz denotes the natural width of the excited level of the transition.

For $`\alpha =\pi /2`$ and $`\omega =\omega ^{}`$, one obtains the “standard” 2D-MOT configuration Dieckmann98 , that confines and cools the atoms transversally without affecting the longitudinal motion. For $`\alpha \pi /4`$, one obtains an efficient cooling of the atomic motion along the $`z`$ direction, while still keeping an efficient magneto-optical trapping in the $`xy`$ plane. In our experiment we work with $`\alpha =47^{}`$.

Because of the frequency difference $`\omega \omega ^{}`$ between the two pairs of beams, the cooling corresponds to an accumulation of the atoms around the velocity class

$$\overline{v}=\frac{\omega \omega ^{}}{2k\mathrm{cos}\alpha },$$
(1)
where $`k`$ is the wave vector of the laser light. By scanning $`\omega \omega ^{}`$ between 0 and $`2\pi \times 5`$ MHz (*i.e.* a small fraction of the detuning $`\delta `$), one can adjust the mean velocity $`\overline{v}`$ between 0 and $`3`$ m/s.

We have confirmed this qualitative understanding of the MM-MOT using a numerical integration of the trajectories of the atoms in the corresponding laser configuration. This treatment follows the same lines as in Wohlleben01 . We model the atomic transition as a $`|g,J_g=0|e,J_e=1`$ transition with frequency $`\mathrm{}\omega _a`$, where $`|g`$ and $`|e`$ stand for the ground and excited state respectively. We denote by $`I_{\mathrm{sat}}=16.2`$ Wm-2 the saturation intensity for this transition. For each of the laser beams ($`j=1,\mathrm{},4`$) and for each of the transitions $`|g|e_m`$ ($`m=1,0,1`$), we introduce the position and velocity dependent saturation parameter

$$s_{j,m}=\frac{I_{j,m}}{I_{\mathrm{sat}}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2+4(\delta _j𝐤_j𝐯+m\mu B/\mathrm{})^2}.$$

Here $`\mu `$ is the magnetic moment associated with the level $`|e`$, $`B`$ is the local magnetic field amplitude, and $`𝐤_j`$, $`\delta _j`$ and $`I_{j,m}`$ denote the wave vector, detuning and local intensity of the $`j`$-th laser wave, driving the $`|g|e_m`$ transition. We then choose the following approximate expression for the total radiative force acting on an atom:

$$𝐅=\underset{i}{}\mathrm{}𝐤_i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}\frac{_ms_{i,m}}{1+_{j,m}s_{j,m}}.$$
(2)
A detailed discussion of the approximations leading to (2) can be found in Wohlleben01 . Here we simply recall that this expression corresponds to the spatial average of the radiative force over a cell of size $`\lambda ^3=(2\pi /k)^3`$, so that all interference terms varying as $`i(𝐤_j𝐤_j^{})𝐫`$ have been neglected.

In the simulation the initial position of each atom is chosen following a uniform spatial distribution on the walls of the vacuum vessel . The initial velocity is given by the Maxwell Boltzmann distribution for $`T=300`$ K. By computing a large number of trajectories, one obtains the probability for an atom to be captured and transferred into the jet, as well as the jet characteristics which are the velocity distribution, the divergence, and the total flux. The total flux of the simulated jet is calculated using the real number of atoms $`\dot{𝒩}`$ emitted per unit time and per unit surface of the cell at a pressure $`P`$. One obtains $`\dot{𝒩}=P/\sqrt{2\pi mk_\mathrm{B}T}`$ Reif . Note that the simulation neglects interaction effects like collisions and multiple light scattering. The validity of the linear scaling with pressure is limited to the low pressure regime ($`P<10^7`$ mbar) where the characteristic time of $`20`$ ms for extracting an atom out of the MM-MOT is shorter than the collision time.

In addition to confirming the qualitative understanding of the MM-MOT, this simulation is particularly helpful for optimizing certain parameters for which a fine tuning on the real experimental setup would be tiresome. In particular we used it for the determination of the optimal laser waists for the experimentally available laser power.

### 2.2 Experimental realization of the MM-MOT

The trap is created in a rectangular glass cell (130 mm$`\times `$ 50 mm $`\times `$ 50 mm) and the atoms are captured from the low-pressure background gas. The partial pressure for 87Rb is measured by the absorption of a resonant beam. It can be varied from $`10^9`$ mbar up to the saturated vapor pressure at room temperature ($`3\times 10^7`$ mbar) by controlling the temperature of the Rb-reservoir or the aperture of the intermediate valve.

The laser light for the magneto-optical trap originates from four laser diodes (one per beam), which are injection-locked to a master diode. Each trapping beam has a circular beam profile with a waist of about 15 mm and a power of 30 mW at the level of the trap. The linewidth of the master diode is narrowed by optical feedback from an external grating. It is split into two beams, each of which passes through an acousto-optic modulator, which provides the frequencies $`\omega `$ and $`\omega ^{}`$. The stability of $`\omega \omega ^{}`$ is better than 10 kHz, which defines the velocity $`\overline{v}`$ to better than 0.5 cm/s.

A second grating stabilized laser diode, resonant with $`|5S_{1/2},F=1|5P_{3/2},F=2`$, illuminates the MM-MOT. This repumping laser prevents the accumulation of atoms in the ground level $`F=1`$ by optical pumping. Both master lasers are frequency stabilized using saturated absorption spectroscopy in a rubidium vapor cell.

Photographs of the fluorescence light emitted by the trapped atoms are shown in Fig. 2 for various mean velocities $`\overline{v}`$. We observe elongated clouds of atoms with a length $`L20`$ mm and a transverse size $`500\mu `$m. Due to local imperfections of the intensity profile of the laser beams, the atomic cloud does not have a straight shape over its whole length when it is at rest ($`\omega =\omega ^{}`$). One rather observes a wiggling line with an amplitude $`500\mu `$m (Fig. 2a). These wiggles disappear as soon as one imposes a non-zero mean velocity $`\overline{v}`$ on the atoms (Fig. 2b,c).

### 2.3 Characterization of the MM-MOT

The characterization of this trap consists in determining the main features of the atomic beam that is produced: mean velocity, longitudinal and transverse temperatures, and flux. The first quantities are determined from the absorption of a probe beam located at a distance $`z_0`$ away from the output of the MM-MOT, while the latter is inferred from the fluorescence light emitted by the atoms in the trap region.

#### 2.3.1 Longitudinal velocity distribution

In order to investigate the velocity distribution of the atomic beam along the $`z`$ axis, we use a time-of-flight technique. We operate the MM-MOT with a plug laser beam present which blocks the outgoing atomic beam by pushing the atoms away from the $`z`$ axis. At time $`t=0`$, we switch off the plug beam, so that the atomic beam can propagate freely and we monitor as a function of time the modification of the absorption of a probe beam located further downstream.

The probe beam is tuned to the $`|5S_{1/2},F=2|5P_{3/2},F=3`$ transition, superimposed with a weak repumping laser to overcome optical pumping effects. The waist of the probe beam is 160 $`\mu `$m and its distance $`z_0`$ from the end of the MM-MOT is 8.3 mm. This distance is large in comparison with the diameters of the plug and probe beams and has been chosen in order to overcome spatial size effects.

The absorption of the probe beam is detected by a photodiode. A typical step-shaped signal is given in Fig. 3. The solid curve is a fit from the relation

$$s(z_0,t)1\text{Erf}\left(\frac{z_0\overline{v}t}{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Delta }v_{}t}\right),$$
(3)
which corresponds to the expected time-of-flight signal assuming a Gaussian velocity distribution centered on $`\overline{v}`$ and with a dispersion $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_{}`$. We find generally an excellent agreement between this fitting function and the experimental signal. For the particular case of Fig. 3, we obtain $`\overline{v}=84`$cm/s and $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_{}=4.6`$cm/s, corresponding to a longitudinal temperature $`T_{}=m\mathrm{\Delta }v_{}^2/k_B=23\mu `$K.

Fig. 4 shows the measured mean velocity of atoms along the $`z`$ axis as a function of the frequency difference $`\omega \omega ^{}`$ between the two pairs of trapping beams. As expected from (1), we find a linear relation with a slope in agreement with the imposed geometry ($`\alpha =47^{}`$).

We have measured the longitudinal temperature $`T_{}`$ as a function of the mean velocity. The results are shown in Fig. 5. The longitudinal temperature increases when the mean velocity increases. The atomic beam which is produced in this experiment is quasi mono-kinetic. We find that $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_{}/\overline{v}<0.1`$ over the whole range 0.3–3 m/s for $`\overline{v}`$. The lowest temperature $`T_{}=10\mu `$K is obtained for $`\overline{v}=60`$ cm/s.

This temperature is significantly smaller than what is expected from standard laser cooling theory, for our trapping beam intensity and detuning. Such a low temperature probably results from an additional cooling of the atoms as they slowly move out from the trapping beams. A similar effect occurs for 3D-MOT in the time domain, when one switches relatively slowly the MOT beams (see Weiss90 ; Salomon91 ). In the context of slow atomic beams generated from a MOT, it has also been observed in Chen00 .

#### 2.3.2 Transverse temperature of the beam

The geometry of the MM-MOT creates a strong asymmetry between the longitudinal $`z`$ axis and the transverse $`xy`$ axes. For $`\alpha 0`$, the cooling is much more efficient along the $`z`$ axis than in the $`xy`$ plane, and the conclusion is reversed when $`\alpha \pi /2`$. Therefore there is no reason to expect that the two velocity distributions are characterized by the same temperature, unless the elastic collision rate is large enough to thermalize all degrees of freedom of the atomic beam. However, the spatial densities achieved so far in our experiment are too low for this thermalization to occur when the atoms travel over the distance $`z_0`$.

We have measured directly the transverse size of the atomic beam by scanning the probe beam position. In this way, we deduce an upper bound for the transverse temperature. We find $`T_{}=35\mu `$K for $`\overline{v}=0.3`$ m/s and $`T_{}=80\mu `$K for $`\overline{v}=1`$ m/s. Again, this variation of the temperature with the longitudinal velocity can be attributed to the extra cooling which occurs when the atoms leave the trapping region slowly enough.

#### 2.3.3 Loading and steady-state flux of the atomic source

The loading dynamics of the MM-MOT can be understood with a simple model based on the fact that even for the highest average velocities $`\overline{v}`$ we have produced ($`\overline{v}`$=3 m/s), the average time $`L/(2\overline{v})`$ required for an atom to leave the MM-MOT ($`L2`$ cm is the length of the atomic cloud) is larger than the transverse trapping time deduced from our simulation ($`2`$ ms). Therefore we can assume that the loading rate $`R`$ of the MM-MOT (number of atoms captured per unit length and unit time) is independent of the velocity $`\overline{v}`$, for the velocity range considered here. Consider now a point inside the MM-MOT close to the trap exit. The time dependence of the linear density in this point is expected to vary as

$$n(t)=R_0^{\mathrm{min}(t,L/\overline{v})}e^{\gamma t^{}}𝑑t^{},$$
(4)
where $`\gamma `$ denotes the loss rate of atoms from the trap, *e.g.* due to collisions with the residual gas. In particular, the steady state value of this quantity is $`n(\mathrm{})=R/\gamma (1\mathrm{exp}(\gamma L/\overline{v}))RL/\overline{v}`$ if the lifetime $`\gamma ^1`$ is much larger than the “launching time” $`L/\overline{v}`$. This corresponds to a steady-state atom flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }=RL`$ independent of the mean velocity $`\overline{v}`$.

The measurement of the linear density of trapped atoms confirms this simple model, as can be seen in Fig. 6. This measurement is performed by analyzing the fluorescence signal emitted from a small region located close to the trap exit. In order to avoid difficulties related with a residual magnetic field or with inhomogeneities in the laser beam profiles, we calibrate the fluorescence measurement by suddenly bringing the trapping laser frequency in resonance with the atoms, so that each atom emits $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/2`$ photons/s for a short time before being expelled.

The linear increase of the signal at short times shown in Fig. 6a is the same for all velocity classes and it gives $`R10^9`$ atoms/s/cm for a 87Rb rubidium vapor pressure $`P_{87}=\mathrm{3\hspace{0.33em}10}^9`$ mbar. For long loading times, the linear density $`n(t)`$ saturates to a value $`n(\mathrm{})`$ which is approximately proportional to $`1/\overline{v}`$ (Fig. 6b). This shows that the steady state flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\overline{v}n(\mathrm{})`$ is independent of the average velocity of the beam, as predicted by the simple model described above. This flux is proportional to $`P_{87}`$ in the range $`10^9`$ mbar $`<P_{87}<10^8`$ mbar, and we obtain:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=10^9\text{ atoms/s for }P_{87}=10^8\text{ mbar.}$$

The measured flux is in good agreement with the predictions of the simulation described in §2.1. For the same laser intensities and waists, the simulation gives after averaging over the atomic trajectories a capture velocity $`v_{\mathrm{cap}}=34`$ m/s, corresponding to a flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{2.2\hspace{0.33em}10}^9`$ atoms/s for $`P_{87}=10^8`$ mbar. Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }v_{\mathrm{cap}}^4`$, this means that the simulation overestimates the capture velocity by 20%. This slight probably results from the approximations which led to the expression (2) for the radiative force in the MM-MOT.

### 2.4 Comparison with previous works

As already mentioned in the introduction, our experimental setup for the MM-MOT is quite different from the devices of the leaking MOT family. These devices all lead to an average velocity which is at least one order of magnitude larger than the lowest velocity demonstrated here, and they could not be used as a convenient source for the magnetic guide in which we want to perform evaporative cooling. Our source presents certain similarities with the ones discussed in Swanson96 ; Chen00 ; Weyers97 . In these experiments, a magnetic configuration similar to ours was used and a moving molasses was produced along the beam axis, while two-dimensional magneto-optical trapping confined the atoms transversally. However, some important differences should also be pointed out between these experiments and our setup.

(i) The two experiments Swanson96 ; Chen00  dealt with a decelerated atomic beam while our MM-MOT is directly loaded from the residual rubidium vapor pressure in our vacuum cell. This is an important simplification for our setup, yet there are some drawbacks. Since our purpose is to load a magnetic guide, we have to maintain a vacuum which is good enough to prevent collisional loss of atoms while they travel from the MM-MOT to the entrance of the magnetic guide. Typically we have to restrict the 87Rb pressure to a value below $`10^8`$ mbar, for an atom transit time of the order of 0.1 s. For this background pressure, our flux is respectively 6 times smaller and 2 times larger than what is reported in Swanson96  and Chen00 . The experiment described in Weyers97  was based on a vapor loaded trap as ours, but the reported flux was three orders of magnitude lower than the present one, which makes the design of Weyers97  quite impracticable for our purpose.

(ii) We use a laser configuration with only four beams, instead of six. This is known as a very robust configuration for laser cooling and trapping processes. Any phase fluctuation of the laser beams only results in a translation of the whole interference pattern of the trapping beams Grynberg93 , whereas in a five-beam or a six-beam configuration, this pattern changes when one of the phases of the beams fluctuates giving rise to heating. So far, we do not benefit from this increased stability, but it may play a role in future work. (iii) Finally we note that we have been able to operate our MM-MOT with exit velocities $`\overline{v}`$ notably smaller than what is reported in Swanson96 ; Chen00 ; Weyers97  where $`\overline{v}2`$ m/s. This is important for the future implementation of forced evaporative cooling along the magnetic guide into which the atomic beam is injected. For a given length of the guide, a smaller velocity leads to an increased evaporation time, and therefore a better cooling.

## 3 Loading of the magnetic guide

As explained in § 1, the second important result of the present paper concerns the injection of the slow atomic beam described above into a magnetic guide. This is an essential step towards the long term goal of this work, which consists in cooling the guided atoms by radio-frequency evaporation.

### 3.1 Characteristics of the guide

The magnetic guide has a total length of 60 cm. It is made out of four copper tubes (Ø$`{}_{\mathrm{ext}}{}^{}=6`$ mm and Ø$`{}_{\mathrm{int}}{}^{}=4`$ mm) placed in quadrupole configuration (see Fig. 7a). The tubes are located in the domain $`z>0`$ and they are joined in $`z=0`$ by a hollow metal cylinder, which allows for the circulation of current and cooling water from tube to tube. The axes of the copper tubes are placed at coordinates $`x=\pm a;y=\pm a`$, with $`a=7`$ mm. A current $`I=400`$ A can be sent through the tubes, which provides, far from the entrance of the guide (*i.e.* $`za`$), a magnetic gradient $`b^{}=3.2`$ T/m in the $`xy`$ plane.

The value of $`b^{}`$ as a function of $`z`$ is plotted on Fig. 7b. It changes sign in $`z=3`$ mm and its absolute value is reduced by a factor larger than 100 for $`z=25`$ mm, where the exit of the MM-MOT is located. Therefore this magnetic gradient does no affect the operation of the MM-MOT.

It is possible to superimpose a bias field parallel with the $`z`$ axis to prevent Majorana spin flips when a guided atom passes close to the axis of the trap $`x=y=0`$, where the trapping field is zero. In practice we have found that this bias field does not play a significant role, which can be easily understood by the following estimate. The probability for a spin flip when an atom passes close to the trap axis is $`p2e^\xi `$, where $`\xi =\pi \mu _Bb^{}\rho ^2/(4\mathrm{}v_{})`$ Landau ; Vitanov97 . Here $`\rho `$ is the minimal distance from the $`z`$ axis (*i.e.* the impact parameter), $`v_{}`$ designates the velocity in the $`xy`$ plane at this location, and we assume that the atoms are trapped in the hyperfine state $`F=1,m=1`$, whose magnetic moment $`\mu `$ is half the Bohr magneton $`\mu _B`$. Taking as a typical value $`v_{}0.1`$ m/s, we find that $`p`$ is important only if $`\rho 1\mu `$m. Therefore this loss term is not expected to play a role in our experiment, since the average impact parameter is $`100\mu `$m and the elastic collision rate is negligible. On the contrary, for higher atomic densities, elastic collisions can reload the phase space cells corresponding to trajectories with very small impact parameters. These losses should then play an important role, especially in our 2D quadrupole field where they occur close to a line, by contrast with a 3D quadrupole trap where they occur only around the central point. The presence of a bias field should then be crucial.

A narrow glass tube (Ø4 mm, length 170 mm) is centered at the entrance of the magnetic guide and aligned with the $`z`$ axis. It ensures differential pumping between the MM-MOT cell, where the Rb partial pressure must be large enough to provide an efficient loading, and the chamber of the magnetic guide, where the residual pressure has to be minimized to avoid losses due to collisions with the background gas. We estimate that the pressure in this chamber is $`\mathrm{4\hspace{0.33em}10}^{10}`$ mbar, which corresponds to a lifetime $`20`$ s for the magnetically guided atoms.

### 3.2 Connection of the MM-MOT to the guide in continuous mode

The simplest way to load atoms from the MM-MOT into the guide consists in operating the MM-MOT continuously at a fixed velocity $`\overline{v}`$. As explained in § 2, the angle of the MM-MOT beams with the $`z`$ axis is $`\pi /4`$. Due to the presence of the metal cylinder located at the entrance of the magnetic guide (see Fig. 7a), the shortest distance between the output of the MM-MOT and the entrance of the magnetic guide is $`D25`$ mm. In other words, the MM-MOT is located in the region $`45`$ mm $`<z<25`$ mm and the atoms have to travel over a distance of $`25`$ mm before being captured by the magnetic guide if they are in a magnetic sublevel corresponding to a low-field seeking state.

#### 3.2.1 Free flight transfer

The simplest connection mode relies on ballistic flight to ensure the transfer between the MM-MOT and the magnetic guide. We place a laser tuned to the $`|5S_{1/2},F=2|5P_{3/2},F=2`$ transition in the region $`25`$ mm $`<z<0`$. The repumping laser is blocked in the transfer region, so that this extra “depumping” laser beam optically pumps the atoms in the $`F=1`$ ground state. Therefore, provided that the three magnetic levels $`m=0,\pm 1`$ of the $`|5S_{1/2},F=1`$ are equally populated, we expect that one third of the atoms (state $`m=1`$) emerging from the MM-MOT can be captured by the magnetic guide. This method based on ballistic flight is in principle quite simple, but has several drawbacks:

* It is restricted to relatively large velocities $`\overline{v}>1.5`$ m/s. Otherwise the free-fall due to gravity, $`gD^2/(2\overline{v}^2)`$, is so large that the coupling to the guide becomes velocity-dependent .
* During the free flight, the atom jet spreads transversally, which leads to a strong increase of the transverse temperature in the guide, as compared with the MM-MOT. Consider for instance a beam emerging from the MM-MOT with $`\overline{v}=2`$ m/s and $`T_{}=100\mu `$K. At the entrance of the magnetic guide, the radius of the beam is $`R=(D/\overline{v})\sqrt{k_BT/M}1.2`$ mm ($`M`$ is the atomic mass). The corresponding magnetic energy is

$$E_{\mathrm{mag}}=\mu b^{}R=(D\mu b^{}/\overline{v})\sqrt{k_BT/M}.$$
(5)
This gives $`E_{\mathrm{mag}}/k_B1`$ mK in the present case.
* The optical pumping of the atoms to the hyperfine level $`F=1`$ is not total, because of the stray light present at the repumping frequency $`|5S_{1/2},F=1|5P_{3/2},F=2`$. Therefore, after leaving the MM-MOT, the atoms may still be deflected by the residual radiation pressure force resulting from an imbalance between the intensities of the various laser beams. Although we took a particular care for adjusting the spatial profiles of these laser beams along the path corresponding to the trap exit, we found that it is very difficult to transfer slow atoms ($`\overline{v}<2`$ m/s) with this method.

#### 3.2.2 Use of an auxiliary transfer MOT

The difficulties mentioned above can be circumvented if we place an auxiliary guiding trap in the region $`25`$ mm $`<z<0`$. This trap is a pure 2D MOT, whose beams which are orthogonal to the $`z`$ axis illuminate points up to 4 mm to the entrance of the magnetic guide (see Fig. 8). The transverse extension of the atomic beam at the entrance of the magnetic guide is then drastically reduced. As for the free flight transfer, we place a depumping laser at the entrance of the guide. The atoms are then trapped in the magnetic sublevel $`J=1,m=1`$, for which the amount of resonant stray light is too low to be an appreciable source of losses in the guide .

The disadvantage of this auxiliary trap concerns the broadening of the longitudinal velocity distribution, due to the random recoils associated with the spontaneous emission of photons as the atoms cross this auxiliary trap. However, as we show below (§ 3.4), this longitudinal heating remains relatively weak for a large detuning $`\delta _2`$ of the auxiliary MOT. An upper limit for $`|\delta _2|`$ is given only by the condition that the radiative force of the auxiliary MOT has to overcome the spurious radiation pressure imbalance which exists in the wings of the MM-MOT lasers, as discussed above.

### 3.3 Connection of the MM-MOT to the guide in pulsed mode

The operation of the MM-MOT in a continuous mode, as described in the previous section (§ 3.2), imposes to search for a compromise between two different requirements. For an efficient loading one has to take a relatively small detuning ($`\delta 3\mathrm{\Gamma }`$), so that the trapping force is large. On the contrary, in order to minimize the temperature of the outgoing atomic beam, a much larger detuning $`(\delta 7\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for our laser intensity) is preferable.

A pulsed operation of the MM-MOT may provide, for a given application, an output beam with better characteristics than this compromise. First, one loads the MM-MOT with the detuning which maximizes the capture rate $`R`$ and with a zero launch velocity ($`\omega =\omega ^{}`$). During this phase of duration $`t_1`$, the number of trapped atoms varies according to $`N(t)=(RL/\gamma )(1e^{\gamma t})`$. One then switches the detuning of the trapping lasers to a much larger value, with $`\omega \omega ^{}`$ set to provide the required velocity $`\overline{v}`$. This launching phase must last a time $`t_2=(L+D)/\overline{v}`$, so that all trapped atoms can leave the MM-MOT and reach the magnetic guide. The optimization of $`t_1`$ depends on the relative value of the escape time $`\gamma ^1`$ and the launching time $`t_2`$. For a low Rb vapor pressure (small $`R`$ and small $`\gamma `$), the largest flux corresponds to

$$\gamma t_21:\mathrm{\Phi }RL\text{for}t_1=\sqrt{2t_2/\gamma }.$$
(6)
In this case, the flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in the guide is equal to the capture rate of the MM-MOT and the operation in pulsed mode does not lead to a loss in efficiency. If we increase the Rb vapor pressure in the cell and thus the rate $`R`$ so that $`\gamma t_2^1`$, the optimum operation of the pulsed mode corresponds to

$$\gamma t_21:\mathrm{\Phi }0.3RL\text{for}t_1t_2\gamma ^1.$$
(7)
This pulsed mode makes the extraction of atoms from the MM-MOT much easier. In the continuous mode, the detuning of the MM-MOT laser beams is relatively small ($`\delta 3\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) so that the outgoing atoms may be deflected or accelerated by the fringe field of the trapping laser beams, as already described. This spurious effect is strongly decreased if the detuning of these lasers is increased to a value $`\delta 7\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ while the atoms travel in the “dangerous” region.

We note that, as for the continuous mode of operation, the loading of the magnetic guide from the MM-MOT may be improved by an auxiliary 2D MOT located between the exit of the MM-MOT and the guide. Also, although the atomic beam is now pulsed at the entrance of the guide, the pulses broaden as they propagate because of the longitudinal velocity dispersion $`\mathrm{\Delta }v`$. This entails that a quasi-continuous beam is obtained after a distance $`L\overline{v}/\mathrm{\Delta }v`$ if one chooses $`t_1t_2`$.

### 3.4 Position and velocity distribution of the guided atoms

We have studied experimentally the various ways for loading the magnetic guide discussed above, *i.e.* without or with the auxiliary 2D MOT, and for a continuous or pulsed operation of the MM-MOT. As for the MM-MOT itself, we have determined the longitudinal and transverse temperatures of the atoms in the guide, as well as the flux of the guided beam.

#### 3.4.1 Longitudinal velocity distribution

The measurement of the longitudinal velocity distribution is quite straightforward if we operate the MM-MOT in pulsed mode, since we can derive the longitudinal temperature directly from the temporal width of the absorption signal when a given atom pulse passes through the probe beam. This beam is located downstream, at 40 cm from the entrance of the magnetic guide. The results are given in Fig. 9, as a function of the detuning $`\delta _2`$ of the auxiliary MOT. This figure also gives the results obtained in the absence of the auxiliary MOT.

We find that the temperatures are always lower for larger velocities ($`\overline{v}=2.6`$ m/s). This is the opposite of what we found just at the output of the MM-MOT. It is probably due to the heating of the atoms by the stray light of the various trapping beams, when they travel over the distance $`D`$ between the MM-MOT and the guide. This heating is larger if the atoms spend more time in this region, *i.e.* if they are slow. The presence of the auxiliary MOT causes some additional heating of the atomic beam which is also proportional to the time spent by the atoms in the laser beams. For $`\delta _2=6.5\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the increase of the longitudinal temperature of the beam is at most $`30`$%, while, as we shall see, the transverse temperature decreases by an order of magnitude, thanks to the auxiliary MOT.

When the MM-MOT is operated in continuous mode, we found much larger longitudinal temperatures, in the range of 0.5–1 mK. We think that this is due to the acceleration and heating of the atoms when they travel between the MM-MOT and the guide, the heating being much more dramatic than in the pulsed mode, since the trapping beams are much closer to resonance.

#### 3.4.2 Transverse temperature

The transverse temperature in the guide has been measured in two ways, which give consistent results. First, we can use the method already described for the characterization of the MM-MOT which consists in scanning the position of the probe laser beam, in order to reconstruct the transverse profile of the atomic beam. Alternatively, we can use radio-frequency evaporation to selectively remove a fraction of the atomic distribution. From the variation of the fraction of remaining atoms as a function of the radio-frequency, we can infer the transverse temperature of the atomic beam.

A result obtained with this second method is shown in Fig. 10. It has been obtained with a pulsed loading in presence of the auxiliary MOT. We find that the losses of atoms are maximal for a radio-frequency $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}`$ MHz. Using a simple numerical model based on a Monte-Carlo sampling of the atomic distribution, we can determine from this set of data the transverse temperature of the beam, which is in this case $`170\mu `$K.

We have measured the transverse temperature of the magnetically guided atoms in the presence of the auxiliary MOT, using the MM-MOT either in the continuous or the pulsed regime and we have obtained similar results. The variation of the transverse temperature with the magnetic gradient $`b^{}`$ and the longitudinal velocity is in good agreement with the prediction (5), where $`D`$ should be replaced by the distance $`D^{}4`$ mm between the exit of the auxiliary MOT and the entrance of the magnetic guide. We did not find a strong dependence of the transverse temperature of the guided atoms on the detuning $`\delta _2`$ of the auxiliary 2D-MOT, which can be understood easily. When $`|\delta _2|>5\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, one expects transverse temperatures within the 2D MOT in the $`10\mu `$K range. The corresponding kinetic energy is negligible compared with the energy (5) resulting from the divergence of the atomic beam, as the atoms travel over the distance $`D^{}`$.

In absence of the auxiliary MOT, we have measured much larger transverse temperatures inside the guide, in the range of 1-2 mK. This is a consequence of the increase of the beam’s transverse size at the magnetic guide entrance, after free propagation over the distance $`D`$. The variation of the transverse temperature with $`b^{}`$ and $`\overline{v}`$ is also in good agreement with the prediction (5).

#### 3.4.3 Flux

The flux of atoms in the magnetic guide is not significantly modified by the presence of the auxiliary MOT. Operating in continuous mode at a pressure $`P_{87}=10^8`$ mbar, we find that this flux varies between $`\mathrm{1.5\hspace{0.33em}10}^8`$ and $`\mathrm{3\hspace{0.33em}10}^8`$ atoms/s, when $`\overline{v}`$ varies between $`1.5`$ m/s and $`3`$ m/s. This corresponds to a transfer efficiency between 15% and 30%. Similar values are achieved in pulsed mode if we optimize the loading time $`t_1`$ according to (6).

For velocities smaller than 1.5 m/s, we did not find that a significant fraction of the atoms emitted by the MM-MOT could be transferred to the magnetic guide. We attribute this fact to the depletion of the slow atomic beam by collisions with atoms from the rubidium vapor in the cell. The slow atoms have to travel over a distance $`10`$ cm through the cell and the tube ensuring the differential pumping, before they arrive in the ultra-high vacuum region of the magnetic guide. For $`P_{87}=10^8`$ mbar (i.e. a total rubidium pressure $`\mathrm{4\hspace{0.33em}10}^8`$ mBar) and $`\overline{v}=1.5`$ m/s, we estimate the atomic flux to be reduced by 40 % over this distance. This decay factor is expected to vary as $`\mathrm{exp}(\alpha P_{87}/\overline{v})`$ (where $`\alpha `$ is a numerical constant), which we check experimentally by varying $`P_{87}`$ between $`10^9`$ mbar and $`10^8`$ mbar and $`\overline{v}`$ between 1 m/s and 3 m/s. The decay makes the guided beam very difficult to detect for ultra-low velocities ($`\overline{v}1`$ m/s), especially if one also takes into account the increase of the transverse temperature for low $`\overline{v}`$ (see eq. (5)). On the other hand, for relatively large velocities ($`\overline{v}2.5`$ m/s), the flux of guided atoms is close to the one expected from a uniform repartition of the atoms among the three possible Zeeman sublevels (the untrapped levels $`m=1,0`$ and the trapped one $`m=1`$), *i.e.*, 1/3 of the atoms emerging from the MM-MOT.

## 4 Conclusion and perspectives

We have presented in this paper the experimental study of the production of a slow atomic beam from a “moving molasses $`+`$ magneto-optical trap” setup (MM-MOT), and the transfer of this beam into a magnetic guide. This setup can be operated in continuous as well as in pulsed mode. In particular, our results prove that the light scattering from the atoms being captured in the MM-MOT can be kept low enough to avoid perturbations of the propagation of the atoms in the guide. This is a crucial point for future work towards the goal of this project, which consists in performing evaporative cooling in the magnetic guide. Our approach constitutes an alternative to the multiple loading of a 3D magnetic trap Cornell91 ; Davies00 .

Due to the particular geometry of our setup, the best transfer between the MM-MOT and the magnetic guide is ensured by using an auxiliary transverse 2D-MOT which nearly fills the $`D=25`$ mm gap between the end of the MM-MOT and the entrance of the magnetic guide. The price to pay for the gain in transverse confinement is a slight increase of the longitudinal temperature of the atoms, due to the recoil heating along the beam axis. This auxiliary 2D-MOT will be unnecessary in the new version of our setup where the distance $`D`$ will be considerably reduced.

The lowest longitudinal temperature of the guided atoms has been obtained by operating the MM-MOT in pulsed mode, *i.e.* by switching the detuning of the MM-MOT laser beams to a large value (typically seven line widths) during the launching phase. In this way, we can minimize the acceleration of the atoms by the laser stray light as they travel over the distance $`D`$. For a longitudinal velocity $`\overline{v}=2`$ m/s, the measured longitudinal temperature is $`50\mu `$K. The transverse temperature is significantly larger ($`170\mu `$K), as a consequence of the divergence of the atomic beam between the exit of the MOT region and the entrance of the magnetic guide. The transverse spatial spreading of the atomic beam translates into an increase of the transverse temperature, as expressed by (5).

The largest atom flux in the guide is $`\mathrm{3\hspace{0.33em}10}^8`$ atoms/s, and it is limited by the loading flux of the MM-MOT, which is itself proportional to the 87Rb vapor pressure in the cell. Going to higher pressures would improve the loading flux, but it would also increase the collisional losses of the slow atomic beam on its way to the magnetic guide. A decisive improvement in this context is to turn to a MM-MOT loaded from an auxiliary slow atomic beam. This increases the complexity of the setup, but should allow for a ten times larger guided flux.

The continuous operation of our setup is in contrast with the pulsed loading of a magnetic guide as reported in Teo01 . In that work, $`10^5`$ atoms were coupled into a four-wire guide from a 3D-MOT, whereas the pulsed operation of our present system gives up to $`10^7`$ atoms/cycle, with comparable longitudinal and transverse temperatures.

Finally, we note that the collision rate on axis in our setup, which scales as $`\mathrm{\Phi }/(\overline{v}T)`$, is at present $`\mathrm{3\hspace{0.33em}10}^2`$ s-1. This is still much too small to initiate evaporative cooling. However, we expect to increase the flux by a factor 10 using an auxiliary slow atomic beam. Another factor 10 should be gained from an improved transfer scheme from the MM-MOT into the magnetic guide, since this will decrease the temperature $`T`$ of the trapped atoms and allow to work at a lower average velocity $`\overline{v}`$. In these conditions, an adiabatic compression of the atomic beam within the guide, using for instance permanent magnets, should lead to a collision rate in the usual range for compressed magnetic traps, compatible with a spatial evaporation along a guide of reasonable length.

###### Acknowledgements.

C. F. Roos acknowledges support from the European Union (contract HPMFCT-2000-00478). A. Aclan was supported by a grant from Volkswagen and the Gottlieb Daimler and Karl Benz-Stiftung. This work was partially supported by CNRS, the Région Ile-de-France, Collège de France and DRED.