Observation of state-to-state hyperfine-changing collision in a Bose-Fermi mixture of 6Li and 41K atoms
Abstract
Hyperfine-changing collisions are of fundamental interest for the studying of ultracold heteronuclear mixtures. Here, we report the state-to-state study of the hyperfine-changing-collision dynamics in a Bose-Fermi mixture of 6Li and 41K atoms. The collision products are directly observed and the spin-changing dynamics is measured. Based on a two-body collision model, the experimental results are simultaneously fitted from which the spin-changing rate coefficient of is gained, being consistent with the multi-channel quantum defect theory calculation. We further show that the contact parameter of 6Li-41K mixture can be extracted from the measured spin-changing dynamics. The obtained results are consistent with the first order perturbation theory in the weakly-interacting limit. Our system offers great promise for studying spin-changing interactions in heteronuclear mixtures.
January 6, 2025
Ultracold Bose-Fermi mixtures provide an ideal platform for studying few-body Chin et al. (2010) and many-body physics Bloch et al. (2008), particularly due to the distinct properties of the two atomic species. Over the past decades, many important quantum phenomena arising from the Bose-Fermi interactions have been demonstrated, such as Fermionic polar molecules Ni et al. (2008); Wu et al. (2012), heteronuclear Efimov states Tung et al. (2014); Pires et al. (2014), Bose polarons Hu et al. (2016), and Bose-Fermi double superfluidity Ferrier-Barbut et al. (2014); Yao et al. (2016); Wu et al. (2018). Moreover, Bose-Fermi mixtures are natural systems to realize the Kondo effect Bauer et al. (2013), since the exchange interaction can be mediated by spin-changing collisions between the two species. However, due to their complex scattering potentials, inelastic spin-changing collisions are ubiquitous in a Bose-Fermi mixtures, resulting in unavoidable heating, decoherence, and reduced lifetime. Therefore, understanding the inelastic spin-changing collisions between two distinct atomic species is crucial not only for the realization of quantum degenerate mixtures, but also for the study of novel quantum phases therein.
To date, hyperfine-changing inelastic collisions (HCC) have been studied in various heteronuclear mixture systems, such as Li-Cs Mudrich et al. (2004), Na-K Santos et al. (1999), Na-Rb Young et al. (2000), Rb-K Marcassa et al. (2000) and mixture of Rubidium isotopes Xu et al. (2015). In these studies, the products of HCC are hardly observed, since the released energy is much larger than the trap depth. Therefore, the HCC have been usually studied through the measurement of the overall loss rates of the atoms in the initial hyperfine manifold. While challenging, the ability to directly measure the evolution of initial and final spin states will provide a powerful tool for studying HCC, allowing the comparison between experimental results and theoretical predictions for deterministic scattering channels. Furthermore, the state-to-state HCC offers great opportunities to obtain the contact parameter, which is a central quantity that connects the two-body short range correlations to the macroscopic thermodynamic quantities through a set of universal relations Tan (2008a, b, c); Braaten and Platter (2008); Braaten et al. (2010). While great efforts have been devoted to probing the contact for both the Bose Wild et al. (2012); Fletcher et al. (2017) and Fermi gases Stewart et al. (2010); Sagi et al. (2012); Carcy et al. (2019), few of them are on the Bose-Fermi mixtures.

In this Letter, we report the observation of state-to-state HCC dynamics of an ultracold 6Li-41K Bose-Fermi mixture confined in a cigar-shaped optical dipole trap. The HCC occurs between 6Li and 41K atoms in the lowest and highest zeeman ground states, respectively. Due to the conservation of total magnetic quantum number , this process can be written as , where represents state (see Fig. 1(a)-(b) for the interested zeeman states). By directly probing the 6Li and 41K atoms in different zeeman states, we measure the increase and loss of 41K atoms in the final and initial states, respectively. The loss of 6Li atoms in the initial state is probed accordingly. The spin-changing coefficient of is obtained by simultaneously fitting the experimental data. A multi-channel quantum defect theory (MQDT) calculation Gao (1998); Gao et al. (2005); Gao (2008) is performed, and reasonable agreement between experiment and theory is achieved. Furthermore, by using the calculated imaginary part of the 6Li-41K scattering length, the contact parameter of - () is successfully extracted from the loss dynamics of .
The experimental procedure for preparing the 6Li-41K mixture is similar to our previous works Chen et al. (2016); Yao et al. (2016); Wu et al. (2017). After the laser cooling and magnetic transport phase, both the 6Li and 41K atoms are confined in an optically-plugged magnetic trap for evaporative cooling. Then, we transfer the mixture into a cigar-shaped optical dipole trap (wavelength 1064 nm, radius 32(1)m), where 6Li atoms in the state and 41K atoms in the state are obtained, respectively. The radial and axial trapping frequencies of 6Li atoms are 26.4(4) kHz and 248(5) Hz, while those of 41K atoms are 23.6(2) kHz and 227(3) Hz, respectively.
To investigate the HCC dynamics, the 6Li atoms should be prepared to while the 41K atoms remain in . In the experiment, a 10 ms Landau-Zener sweep () at 46.47(1) G is applied to transfer 6Li atoms from to . Strikingly, about 30% 41K atoms are flipped from to simultaneously. We mention that the frequency of is far off-resonant from that of and thus cannot be responsible for this spin changing. This is further verified by applying a same only for the 41K atoms, and no such spin-changing is observed. Therefore, we attribute the spin-changing of 41K atoms to the inelastic collisions (see Fig. 1(c) for illustration).

Next, we aim to directly probe the HCC by measuring the collision products. Typically, the HCC is an exoergic process during which the released energy converts to thermal energy of the cloud. This results in heating induced atom loss and prevents the observation of collision products. Fortunately, 6Li-41K mixture possesses several advantages that allow the observation of state-to-state HCC. First, the released energy, which corresponds to the energy difference between the initial and final states of the HCC, is much smaller than that of previously-studied mixtures. For instance, at a magnetic field of 46.47 G, the released energy is about 33 MHz or 1.58 mK (see Fig. 1 (d)). Second, due to the large mass imbalance between 6Li and 41K atoms, most of the energy (1.38 mK) is absorbed by 6Li atoms, while only a small percentage of that (200 ) is absorbed by 41K atoms. Third, the trapping potential for the two species is also imbalanced, which are and , respectively. Consequently, although the resultant 6Li atoms are ejected from the trap, the collided 41K atoms are still confined and thus can be observed.
In the experiment, the atom numbers of and are simultaneously detected after a variable collision time. Furthermore, the same measurements for and are also implemented for complementary purpose. To suppress the systematic errors, these two measurements are performed alternately. We mention that the imaging of atoms is crucial in these measurements. Typically, due to the almost closed imaging transitions in the Paschen-Back regime, the atom numbers in different Zeeman levels can be accurately obtained by using high-field imaging. Unfortunately, in our system, high-field imaging is not suitable for studying the dynamics due to the following two reasons. First, 20 ms is required for ramping the magnetic field to about 400 G, which is not favorable for studying the dynamics. Second, a Feshbach resonance between and atoms exists at a magnetic field of about 127 G (see Fig. 3), which makes the data analysis complicated. To solve these problems, we first probe the cloud at high magnetic field to confirm that only the four interested spin states (see Fig. 1(c)) are occupied during the HCC. Then, the cloud are detected at 46.47 G and 400 G with resonant optical transition of each spin state, respectively, to calibrate the imaging parameters at 46.47 G. With these two steps, we can directly probe the lowest and highest energy states of the two species at 46.47 G and obtain their corresponding atom numbers.
The experimental results are shown in Fig. 2 (a)-(b), where the atom numbers of four interested spin states are plotted as a function of collision time. It’s seen that the and atoms gradually decrease with collision time. On the contrary, the atoms gradually increase with collision time. In addition, the decay of total 41K atoms during the HCC is hardly visible, while about 80% 6Li atoms are ejected from the trap due to heating. These behaviours qualitatively reflect the dynamics of spin-changing collision. To extract quantitatively information from the measurements, such as the spin-changing rate coefficient , we attempt to apply a simple two-body collision model to describe these curves. We mention that the duration of spin-changing dynamics is far less than the system lifetime and the background scattering length is very small, thus the one-body and three-body process can be safely neglected.
Considering a two-body process, the local density of an atom cloud has the following rate equation:
(1) |
Then, we can obtain the rate equation of the atom number by integrating the above equation over the whole space as follow:
(2) |
Since the 6Li-41K mixtures are thermal clouds, their density distributions n(r) obey the Boltzmann distribution:
(3) |
where with () and () being the atom masses and trap frequencies, respectively, and is the Boltzman constant. Thus, the spin-changing dynamics of can be described by the following equations:
(4) |
(5) |
(6) |
where is the effective volume. , and are the atom numbers of state , and , respectively. is the spin-changing rate coefficient of and , while is proportional to the elastic two-body collision rate of and .
The above equations holds for three reasons: (i) the total atom number of 41K almost remains a constant during the collision, (ii) lithium atoms that flipped their spin from to during the collision are ejected from the trap, and (iii) remaining atoms gain additional kinetic energy from atoms through elastic collision, resulting in further loss of atoms. Then, the experimental data of , , and are fitted using Eqs. (4)-(6) simultaneously. Fig. 2 (a)-(b) shows good consistent between the fitting curves (solid lines) and experimental data. The obtained results are and , respectively. We mention that the temperature is considered to be a constant in this fitting, due to small change of temperature from 44.0(6) to 53.4(7) during the HCC.

To compare the experimental measurement with theory, we employ a MQDT calculation to obtain the inelastic scattering length of 6Li-41K mixture. In this MQDT approach, two quantum defect parameters are required as an input Gao (1998); Gao et al. (2005); Gao (2008). The value of are fine tuned to achieve a best fit on the measured resonance positions in the s-wave channel, and are determined. More details on how to obtain the quantum defects can be found in Liu et al. (2018). It’s known that the total quantum number mF of the system should be conserved during the HCC, which determines the corresponding initial and final scattering channels. Figure 3 shows the MQDT predicted scattering length of - channel in the unit of . is the mean scattering length Chin et al. (2010) with being the van der Waals length. Since the collision between and atoms possess elastic and inelastic parts, thus the scattering length can be written as =Re()Im(). The inelastic scattering length Im() accounts for the spin-changing collisions. According to the two-body collision model, the theoretical spin-changing rate coefficient is |Im()|, where and are Plank’s constant and the reduced mass of 6Li-41K mixture, respectively. By substituting the inelastic scattering length of 0.181(2) (see the inset of Fig. 3) into this equation, theoretical value of is obtained, which reasonable agrees with the experimental result.
Furthermore, the exact relation between two-body inelastic loss rate and Bose-Fermi contact () can be derived following a similar calculation in ref. Braaten and Platter (2008):
(7) |
where is the contact parameter. We mention that the contact parameter cannot be obtained from the measurement of momentum distribution of the mixture, a common method adopted in previous studies. On the one hand, since the s-wave scattering lengths between the four spin states , , , and are comparable, it is difficult to extract the individual . On the other hand, it’s extremely difficult to obtain reliable contact parameter in the weakly-interacting regime, simply because the signals are too weak to be observed (the estimated signals are much smaller than the achievable experimental signal-to-noise ratio). In the contrary, based on Eq. 7, the measurements of state-to-state HCC allow us to extract the contact parameter of a heteronuclear quantum mixture, a previously inaccessible quantity. Fig. 2 (c) shows the as a function of collision time, which gradually decreases with spin-changing collision. Note that the elastic scattering length is two orders of magnitude larger than the inelastic one, guaranteeing the equilibrium of mixture during the HCC. Hence, the obtained can also be regarded as the equilibrium contact of the mixture.
For a weakly-interacting system, this result can be further verified using first order perturbation theory and Tan’s relation. In the weakly-interacting limit, we have:
(8) |
For a many-body equilibrium state at finite temperature, Tan’s adiabatic relation is:
(9) |
Therefore, the contact parameter can be determined by the following equation:
(10) |
Using Eq. 10, the contact parameter is calculated with the input of measured density, which is shown in the Fig. 2 (c). It can be seen that both results agree well with each other, demonstrating the validity of obtaining contact parameter from the measurement of spin-changing dynamics. We emphasis that, the relation that links contact with spin-changing collisions is universal, implying that the method developed here can be applied to other mixtures. For example, in a mixture of alkali-metal and alkaline-earth-metal atoms, the contact parameter can be extracted from the spin-exchange collisions, which is crucial for the study of Kondo effect Yao et al. (2019). One can also apply this method to a system with optical Feshbach resonance Chin et al. (2010).
In conclusion, we have intensively studied a specific HCC between 6Li and 41K atoms confined in an optical dipole trap. During this spin-changing collisions, the 41K atoms flipped their spin from the highest energy state to the lowest one; while for the 6Li atoms, the process is just the reverse. The HCC products are directly observed by combining the high-field and mediate-field absorption imaging, providing an excellent opportunity to study the HCC dynamics. The atom number of all the involved states as a function of collision time is further measured, and the spin-changing rate of is gained by simultaneously fitting all the two-body loss equations. To verify the experimental results, we have implemented a MQDT calculation to obtain the inelastic scattering length of - scattering channel. The theoretical of is further calculated, being consistent with the experimental result. Furthermore, the contact parameter of mixture is successfully extracted from the measured spin-changing dynamics with the input of MQDT calculation. The obtained results are particularly important for studying the properties of 6Li -41K mixture, such as momentum distribution function Tan (2008a); Braaten and Platter (2008), radio-frequency spectroscopy Braaten et al. (2010), and dynamic structure factors Son and Thompson (2010). Our work may serve as a foundation for future studies of heteronuclear spin-changing collisions and their dynamics.
Acknowledgements.
We thank Li You, Zhi-Fang Xu, and Youjin Deng for discussions. This work has been supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (under Grant No. 2018YFA0306501, 2018YFA0306502), NSFC of China (under Grant No. 11874340, 11425417, 11774426), the CAS, the Anhui Initiative in Quantum Information Technologies and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (under Grant No. WK2340000081). R. Qi is supported by the Research Funds of Renmin University of China (under Grants No. 15XNLF18, 16XNLQ03).References
- Chin et al. (2010) C. Chin, R. Grimm, P. Julienne, and E. Tiesinga, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1225 (2010).
- Bloch et al. (2008) I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 885 (2008).
- Ni et al. (2008) K.-K. Ni, S. Ospelkaus, M. H. G. de Miranda, A. Pe'er, B. Neyenhuis, J. J. Zirbel, S. Kotochigova, P. S. Julienne, D. S. Jin, and J. Ye, Science 322, 231 (2008).
- Wu et al. (2012) C.-H. Wu, J. W. Park, P. Ahmadi, S. Will, and M. W. Zwierlein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 085301 (2012).
- Tung et al. (2014) S.-K. Tung, K. Jiménez-García, J. Johansen, C. V. Parker, and C. Chin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 240402 (2014).
- Pires et al. (2014) R. Pires, J. Ulmanis, S. Häfner, M. Repp, A. Arias, E. D. Kuhnle, and M. Weidemüller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 250404 (2014).
- Hu et al. (2016) M.-G. Hu, M. J. V. de Graaff, D. Kedar, J. P. Corson, E. A. Cornell, and D. S. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 055301 (2016).
- Ferrier-Barbut et al. (2014) I. Ferrier-Barbut, M. Delehaye, S. Laurent, A. T. Grier, M. Pierce, B. S. Rem, F. Chevy, and C. Salomon, Science 345, 1035 (2014).
- Yao et al. (2016) X.-C. Yao, H.-Z. Chen, Y.-P. Wu, X.-P. Liu, X.-Q. Wang, X. Jiang, Y. Deng, Y.-A. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 145301 (2016).
- Wu et al. (2018) Y.-P. Wu, X.-C. Yao, X.-P. Liu, X.-Q. Wang, Y.-X. Wang, H.-Z. Chen, Y. Deng, Y.-A. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. B 97, 020506(R) (2018).
- Bauer et al. (2013) J. Bauer, C. Salomon, and E. Demler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 215304 (2013).
- Mudrich et al. (2004) M. Mudrich, S. Kraft, J. Lange, A. Mosk, M. Weidemüller, and E. Tiesinga, Phys. Rev. A 70, 062712 (2004).
- Santos et al. (1999) M. S. Santos, P. Nussenzveig, A. Antunes, P. S. P. Cardona, and V. S. Bagnato, Phys. Rev. A 60, 3892 (1999).
- Young et al. (2000) Y. E. Young, R. Ejnisman, J. P. Shaffer, and N. P. Bigelow, Phys. Rev. A 62, 055403 (2000).
- Marcassa et al. (2000) L. G. Marcassa, G. D. Telles, S. R. Muniz, and V. S. Bagnato, Phys. Rev. A 63, 013413 (2000).
- Xu et al. (2015) P. Xu, J. Yang, M. Liu, X. He, Y. Zeng, K. Wang, J. Wang, D. J. Papoular, G. V. Shlyapnikov, and M. Zhan, Nat. Commun. 6, 7803 (2015).
- Tan (2008a) S. Tan, Ann. Phys. 323, 2952 (2008a).
- Tan (2008b) S. Tan, Ann. Phys. 323, 2971 (2008b).
- Tan (2008c) S. Tan, Ann. Phys. 323, 2987 (2008c).
- Braaten and Platter (2008) E. Braaten and L. Platter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 205301 (2008).
- Braaten et al. (2010) E. Braaten, D. Kang, and L. Platter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 223004 (2010).
- Wild et al. (2012) R. J. Wild, P. Makotyn, J. M. Pino, E. A. Cornell, and D. S. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 145305 (2012).
- Fletcher et al. (2017) R. J. Fletcher, R. Lopes, J. Man, N. Navon, R. P. Smith, M. W. Zwierlein, and Z. Hadzibabic, Science 355, 377 (2017).
- Stewart et al. (2010) J. T. Stewart, J. P. Gaebler, T. E. Drake, and D. S. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 235301 (2010).
- Sagi et al. (2012) Y. Sagi, T. E. Drake, R. Paudel, and D. S. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 220402 (2012).
- Carcy et al. (2019) C. Carcy, S. Hoinka, M. G. Lingham, P. Dyke, C. C. N. Kuhn, H. Hu, and C. J. Vale, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 203401 (2019).
- Gao (1998) B. Gao, Phys. Rev. A 58, 1728 (1998).
- Gao et al. (2005) B. Gao, E. Tiesinga, C. J. Williams, and P. S. Julienne, Phys. Rev. A 72, 042719 (2005).
- Gao (2008) B. Gao, Phys. Rev. A 78, 012702 (2008).
- Chen et al. (2016) H.-Z. Chen, X.-C. Yao, Y.-P. Wu, X.-P. Liu, X.-Q. Wang, Y.-X. Wang, Y.-A. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. A 94, 033408 (2016).
- Wu et al. (2017) Y.-P. Wu, X.-C. Yao, H.-Z. Chen, X.-P. Liu, X.-Q. Wang, Y.-A. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, J. Phys. B: At., Mol. Opt. Phys. 50, 094001 (2017).
- Liu et al. (2018) X.-P. Liu, X.-C. Yao, R. Qi, X.-Q. Wang, Y.-X. Wang, Y.-A. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. A 98, 022704 (2018).
- Yao et al. (2019) J. Yao, H. Zhai, and R. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A 99, 010701 (2019).
- Son and Thompson (2010) D. T. Son and E. G. Thompson, Phys. Rev. A 81, 063634 (2010).