SciPost Submission Page
Acceleration-induced transport of quantum vortices in joined atomtronic circuits
by A. Chaika, A. O. Oliinyk, I. V. Yatsuta, N. P. Proukakis, M. Edwards, A. I. Yakimenko, T. Bland
This is not the latest submitted version.
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Thomas Bland · Andrii Chaika · Mark Edwards · Nikolaos Proukakis · Alexander Yakimenko · Ihor Yatsuta |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.23818v1 (pdf) |
| Date submitted: | Nov. 4, 2024, 3:39 p.m. |
| Submitted by: | Thomas Bland |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approach: | Theoretical |
Abstract
Persistent currents--inviscid quantized flow around an atomic circuit--are a crucial building block of atomtronic devices. We investigate how acceleration influences the transfer of persistent currents between two density-connected, ring-shaped atomic Bose-Einstein condensates, joined by a tunable weak link that controls system topology. We find that the acceleration of this system modifies both the density and phase dynamics between the rings, leading to a bias in the periodic vortex oscillations studied in T. Bland et al., Phys. Rev. Research 4, 043171 (2022). Accounting for dissipation suppressing such vortex oscillations, the acceleration facilitates a unilateral vortex transfer to the leading ring. We analyze how this transfer depends on the weak-link amplitude, the initial persistent current configuration, and the acceleration strength and direction. Characterization of the sensitivity to these parameters paves the way for a new platform for acceleration measurements.
Author indications on fulfilling journal expectations
- Provide a novel and synergetic link between different research areas.
- Open a new pathway in an existing or a new research direction, with clear potential for multi-pronged follow-up work
- Detail a groundbreaking theoretical/experimental/computational discovery
- Present a breakthrough on a previously-identified and long-standing research stumbling block
Current status:
Reports on this Submission
Report #4 by Anonymous (Referee 2) on 2025-6-3 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:2410.23818v1, delivered 2025-06-03, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.11326
Strengths
Weaknesses
Report
In Section 2, the Authors consider the dissipationless case of a double ring. The modeling is done based on the 2D Gross-Pitaevskii Equation. The axis of the double ring is the x axis and they consider acceleration along that direction, ax.
In a previous work, [32], they found that in a static double ring system with a weak link with a large enough amplitude, the current oscillates between the rings. Now, they carry out calculations for the case of a time-dependent barrier height. When the barrier height is larger, the vortex, basically, goes back and forth between the rings.
In Section 3, they consider the case of dissipation. They incorporate dissipation with added gamma constant in the dynamical equation following the literature. For gamma<gamma_c, the vortex oscillation takes place, which they study as the weakly dissipative regime. The oscillation lifetime decreases with an increasing gamma. The oscillation becomes less regular. For gamma>gamma_c, the vortex oscillation stops, which they study as the strongly dissipative regime.
In Section 4, the authors consider acceleration a_y, which is not in the direction of the axis of the double ring, but in an orthogonal direction in plane. They find that the value of ay influences the response of the setup to ax, especially, if ax is small. It has less influence if ax is larger.
In Section 5 and in Figure 6, a proof-of-concept accelerometer is outlined. An array of double-rings are used and the acceleration takes places parallel to the axis of the double rings. In the protocol, the double-rings are initialized with a single vortex. Then, the gates in the double rings are opened with an increasing amplitude. After some time, the barriers are removed and the position of the vortex is detected. In some double rings, the vortex remained in its original position, in some others, that were opened with a larger amplitude, it moved. From this, it is possible to infer the acceleration.
I find the paper very well written, very interesting and about a concrete, timely topic. It presents an exhaustive analysis. Accelerometry with Bose-Einstein condensates is one of the most important applications of quantum physics. It is intriguing that measuring the acceleration, a continuous quantity, is reduced to observing the transition of a vortex from one ring to the other one, which is a discrete event. Thus, I very strongly suggest its publication in SciPost Physics.
Small typo:
Ref. [49] : space is missing between some initials and last names.
Recommendation
Publish (easily meets expectations and criteria for this Journal; among top 50%)
Report #1 by Anonymous (Referee 1) on 2025-4-22 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:2410.23818v1, delivered 2025-04-22, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.11065
Strengths
One advantage of using guided ultracold atoms for quantum sensing, as opposed to free-space interferometers, is that the setup can be made more compact and portable. This is a great advantage which makes this proposal competitive, despite its predicted sensitivity not reaching the best sensitivities of state-of-the-art accelerometers.
Weaknesses
Report
The paper is highly original and the results are presented very clearly. I only have a few requested changes, detailed below.
Requested changes
1) The introduction is exhaustive, however I think Dowling's proposal for rotation sensing with a superposition of persistent currents should be included. See: https://arxiv.org/abs/0907.1138
2) In Fig 1, for panels (a) and (b) at t=0, is it worth also stating explicitly that a=0?
2) In Fig 2, where persistent current oscillations are shown, is there a best time within the oscillation for V_0 to begin the ramp to 0, so that the vortex is transferred? If the ramp starts at the wrong time, will the vortex go back to the leading ring?
Recommendation
Publish (surpasses expectations and criteria for this Journal; among top 10%)
Author: Thomas Bland on 2025-05-20 [id 5498]
(in reply to Report 1 on 2025-04-22)We thank the Referee for their report, and are delighted that they are excited by this work as much as we are. Below, we respond to the three listed requested changes by the Referee:
1) The introduction is exhaustive, however I think Dowling's proposal for rotation sensing with a superposition of persistent currents should be included. See: https://arxiv.org/abs/0907.1138
We thank the Referee for highlighting this relevant work. We will include this reference in the next version of the manuscript.
2) In Fig 1, for panels (a) and (b) at t=0, is it worth also stating explicitly that a=0?
The data shown in Fig. 1 were obtained with a finite moving frame acceleration of $a = 0.01g$. Panels (a) and (b) were generated using the imaginary time technique, which yields the stationary solution for a fixed acceleration. These are then compared to the static case ($a = 0$), whose solutions--while not displayed--were discussed in detail in our previous work Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 043171 (2022). Panels (c) and (d) show the differences between the static and accelerated cases.
To improve clarity and eliminate the need for referencing earlier work, we will revise Fig. 1 to include three columns: the non-accelerating case, the accelerating case, and their differences. We believe this presentation will be more self-contained and accessible for the reader.
3) In Fig 2, where persistent current oscillations are shown, is there a best time within the oscillation for $V_0$ to begin the ramp to 0, so that the vortex is transferred? If the ramp starts at the wrong time, will the vortex go back to the leading ring?
We thank the Referee for this insightful question. The answer is two-fold. First, the ramp rate has minimal impact on the dynamics, except in the case of an instantaneous ramp. This is because vortex oscillations are suppressed as soon as $V < \mu$, which typically happens shortly after the ramp begins, effectively preventing the scenario raised by the Referee. In the absence of acceleration, this behavior was discussed in our previous work Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 043171 (2022).
However, under acceleration, this warrants further analysis: the critical barrier amplitude becomes acceleration-dependent, altering the timing between initiating the barrier closure and suppressing vortex oscillations. This can be addressed by calibrating the system such that the initial barrier height is as close to $V/\mu = 1$ as possible. Moreover, since the oscillation period is independent of acceleration, it is possible to pre-determine an optimal time to begin the ramp. We will incorporate this discussion into the revised manuscript.
Best wishes,
Thomas Bland on behalf of all authors