1 / 43

Scaling behavior in ramps of the Bose Hubbard Model

Scaling behavior in ramps of the Bose Hubbard Model. D. Pekker. Caltech. Without tilt: B. Wunsch , E. Manousakis , T. Kitagawa, E.A. Demler With tilt: K. Sengupta , B. K. Clark, M. Kolodrubetz. Ultracold Atoms for Quantum Simulator.

ganit
Download Presentation

Scaling behavior in ramps of the Bose Hubbard Model

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Scaling behavior in ramps of the Bose Hubbard Model D. Pekker Caltech Without tilt: B. Wunsch, E. Manousakis, T. Kitagawa, E.A. Demler With tilt: K. Sengupta, B. K. Clark, M. Kolodrubetz

  2. Ultracold Atoms for Quantum Simulator • R.P.Feynman Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 467 (1982). • use quantum simulator for (computationally) hard many-body systems major current effort to realize • Access to new many body phenomena • Long intrinsic time scales • interaction energy and bandwidth ~ kHz • system parameters easily tunable on timescales • Decoupling from environment • Long coherence times • Can achieve highly non-equilibrium quantum many body states • Ultracold atom toolbox • Optical lattices • Quantum gas microscope • Traps • Feshbach resonances • dipolar interactions • artificial gauge fields • artificial disorder “quantum Lego”

  3. Optical Lattices • Retro-reflected laser – standing wave • AC-Stark shift – atoms attracted to maxima E2 (or minima depending on detuning) • Multiple lasers to make a 2D and 3D lattices Atoms in optical lattice Laser Mirror

  4. Similarities: CM and Cold Atoms 400 300 200 temperature (K) Atoms in optical lattice 100 0 Antiferromagnetism and pairing at sub-micro Kelvin temperatures doping Antiferromagnetic and superconducting Tc of the order of 100 K Same model: http://www.wmi.badw-muenchen.de/FG538/projects/P4_crystal_growth/index.htm

  5. Motivation: Quantum gas microscope Bakr et al., science 2010 Sherson et. al. Nature 2010

  6. Spin systems • AFM phase of Hubbard model (with Fermions) • Not yet: difficult to quench spin entropy • Today: alternative approach initial final

  7. Mission of this work: • Ultimate Goal: Understanding of Dynamics near QCP • Parametric tuning • Near (quantum) phase transitions • Universal character of dynamics • This talk • Try the program in “artificial spin” system ? • Methods for studying dynamics • How to observe scaling experimentally ? • time scales, finite size effects, trap inhomogeneity • criticality in dynamics is easier to see than in equilibrium !

  8. Outline Part I: Introduction • Why universal scaling? Part II: Strongly tilted Bose Hubbard model • Mapping to Spin model • Methods: ED and tMPS • Dynamics: finite-size scaling crossover from Universal to Landau-Zener Part III: Superfluid-to-Mott ramps • Methods: ED, MF, CMF, MF+G, TWA • Static results • Dynamics: Fast (non-universal) &Slow (universal scaling) regimes E U

  9. Passing through QCP: Universal Scaling Quantum Kibble-Zurek: non-adiabaticity of individual quasi-particle modes QCP tuning parameter rate of ramp dynamic exp x exp. *Usual assumption: defect production dominated by long wavelength low energy modes see, e.g. De Grandi, Polkovnikov

  10. Scaling of energy and #qp Scaling of observables: measure properties of excited qp’s Number of modes excited (Fidelity) Excess Energy

  11. Outline Part I: Introduction • Why universal scaling? Part II: Strongly tilted Bose Hubbard model • Map to Spin model • Methods: ED and tMPS • Dynamics: finite-size scaling crossover from Universal to Landau-Zener Part III: Superfluid-to-Mott ramps • Methods: ED, MF, CMF, MF+G, TWA • Static results • Dynamics: Fast (non-universal) &Slow (universal scaling) regimes E U

  12. Strongly Tilted BH Model Resonant manifold: Ising-like quantum phase transition U E Paramagnet Anti-Ferromagnet Sachdev, Sengupta, Girvin PRB (2002)

  13. Experimental Realization • Initial realization • Greiner, Mandel, Esslinger, Haensch, Bloch, Nature (2002) • detect gap U • Single site resolution • Simon, Bakr, Ma, Tai, Preiss, Greiner, Nature (2011) • tilted 1D chains • transition from PM to AFM

  14. Tilted BH: mapping to spin model • Map BH to spin model Boson has not moved E Boson has moved U Forbidden configuration Hamiltonian: Phase Diagram: Ising universality class PM AFM • Due to constraint, not-integrable * we use units where J=1 Sachdev, Sengupta, Girvin PRB (2002)

  15. Plan • Integrable vs. non-Integrable • Numerical Methods: ED & t-MPS • Theory of finite size crossover scaling • Numerical Results • Experimental observables

  16. Integrable vs. non-integrable • QP interactions lead to relaxation in non-integrable models • What happens to power laws --- anomalous scaling exponents ? single q-p energies

  17. Time evolution PM to QCP ramp: • Protocol • start deep in PM • evolve to the QCP • Exact Diag. • initial ground state • evolve with gap AFM PM t

  18. t-MPS aka t-DMRG • Trial wave function approach • Pictorial representation • Systematic way to increase accuracy • increase bond dimension c Tr …

  19. time evolution in t-MPS • step 1: apply the time evolution operator • step 2: project out forbidden configurations • step 3: reduce bond dimension • converge time step & bond dimension

  20. Finite size effects Universal Scaling regimes • Fast Ramp • Non-universal: excite all q-p modes • Slow Ramp • KZ-like scaling: excite only long wavelength modes • Very Slow Ramp • LZ scaling: excite only longest wavelength mode (set by system size) single q-p energies const. v1/2 tuning prameter log nex v2 log v

  21. Landau Zener • Where did power law come from? stop on QCP stop after QCP

  22. Finite-size scaling function Universal Scaling regimes • Length scale • Dimensionless parameter • Modification to the scaling functions: • 1D Ising const. v1/2 log nex v2 log v correlation length exponent dynamic exponent

  23. Most universal protocol: PM to QCP Observables: Residual energy Log-Fidelity Recover power-laws predicted for integrable models

  24. Ramps PM to AFM v1/2 Residual energy Log-Fidelity • Why change in Residual energy power-law? v1/2 adiabatic non-adiabatic universal adiabatic non-universal excitations-> sites n=1 QCP

  25. Protocol • For ramps that stop just beyond QCP, there can be a crossover of power laws • Stopping on QCP minimizes oscillations that obscure scaling • Most universal ramps: stop on QCP

  26. Experimental observables: PM to QCP Missing even parity sites Spin-Spin correlations • Other observables: • Order parameter • Full distribution function

  27. Conclusions: tilted bosons • Universal dynamics • First demonstration in non-integrable system • Finite sized systems • Universal crossover function from LZ to KZ scaling • Protocol is important • Scaling in smaller systems & shorter timescales • Experimentally feasible length and timescales • Easier to observe criticality than in equilibrium systems, no need to equilibrate! • Application: quantum emulators Thank: A. Polkovnikov MK, DP, BKC, KS, arXiv:1106.4031 C. De Grandi, A. Polkovnikov, A. W. Sandvik, arXiv:1106.4078

  28. Outline Part I: Introduction • Why universal scaling? Part II: Strongly tilted Bose Hubbard model • Mapping to Spin model • Methods: ED and tMPS • Dynamics: finite-size scaling crossover from Universal to Landau-Zener Part III: Superfluid-to-Mott ramps • Methods: ED, MF, CMF, MF+G, TWA • Static results • Dynamics: Fast (non-universal) &Slow (universal scaling) regimes E U

  29. Parametric ramp of 2D bosons (no tilt) trap tuning of optical lattice intensity Parametrically ramp from SF to MI at rate v Main Questions: timescales for “defect” production “Defect”: p-h symmetric point site with even # Bakr et. al. Science 2010

  30. Spin-1 Model Truncated Hilbertspace Effective spin Hamiltonian Advantage: properties similar to BH model, but easier to analyze Defect density Bose-Hubbard Spin-1 • Same phase transitions • No p-h asymmetry • smaller Hilbert space • spin wave analysis Huber, Altman 2007

  31. Methods we tried • Exact Diagonalization • small system sizes • no phase transitions • Mean Field • no low energy excitations • Cluster Mean Field • like ED, except self-consistent neighbohrs • some “low” energy excitations • Mean Field + Gaussian fluctuations • long wavelength modes: can capture scaling • modes non-interacting • Truncated Wigner • Similar to MFT+G, can capture instabilities

  32. Mean field + fluctuations ba MF: b0 bf We need two vectors perpendicular to : & mean field quadratic fluctuations Dynamics: step 1 step 2 dynamics of quadratic modes Huber, Altman 2007

  33. Plan • Test methods in equilibrium • phase boundary (test against QMC) • defect density • Run Dynamics • fast (compared to 1/J) • slow (compared to 1/J)

  34. Validation: phase boundary using CMF Bose Hubbard Model Spin-1 Model • MF, CMF, MF+G: phase boundary • MF tends to favor ordered phase – too much SF • larger clusters more MI • qualitative agreement with QMC

  35. Defect Density • Methods converge for large system/cluster size • Biggest discrepancies near phase transition • Both ED and CMF qualitatively OK for “fast” dynamics

  36. Rapid ramping Eigenvalues: 3x3 Bose Hubbard • Describe short wavelength states • Exact digitalization of 3x3 system with PBC • Quasi-particles • Deep in SF: phase and amplitude • Deep in Mott: doubles and holes • Persistent gap ~ U • Fast ramp time scale ~1/U • Shift relative to experiment • Missing long wavelength modes • Inhomogeneity due to trap & disorder Defect production in ramp 1/U 1/J

  37. Comparison for rapid ramps (CMF) Planck constant theory vs. experiment Short times: similar dynamics Higgs like oscillations – see Sat. talk Longer times: divergence

  38. Slow ramping: MF+G (ms)-1 Each k: 2 parametrically driven SHO amplitude & phase Crossover into scaling regime tramp ~ 10/J Defect density saturates for shallow ramps (ms)-1

  39. Protocol: Start from QCP Ramp deep into Mott Insulator (ms)-1 (ms)-1 (ms)-1 (ms)-1

  40. Ramping time scales Fast dynamics Scaling with MFT exponents Scaling with RGexponents • Fast ramps: excite all modes (few site physics) • Slow ramps: excite long wavelength modes • Very slow ramps: excite very long wavelength modes – finite size effects Still missing: effects of the trap

  41. CMF for inhomogeneous systems Time evolve each 2x2 plaquette [consistently] in the mean-field of its neighbors and m(r) from trap (Total: 30x30 plaquettes) Fitting parameter: size of Mott Shells Slow mass flow: hard to remove defects from center Final Density (after adiabatic ramp) chemical potential Initial Density 1/U 1/J

  42. Truncated Wigner evolution (in progress) • Symmetry breaking in MI-SF • Configurations as product forms • Initial configuration from Wigner distribution • Dynamics: Schrodinger evolution color –

  43. Conclusions: Mott-SF transition • High energy modes play an important role in fast ramps • Time scale 1/U appears • Critical scaling only for slow ramps and large systems • Optimized protocol useful for observing scaling • Cluster Mean Field is an effective tool for analyzing dynamics in inhomogeneous systems • Mass flow important: hard to remove defects from center

More Related