4.8 Article

Many-body chemical reactions in a quantum degenerate gas

期刊

NATURE PHYSICS
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41567-023-02139-8

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reports the coherent and collective reactions of atomic and molecular Bose-Einstein condensates at quantum degeneracy, highlighting the key features of bosonic enhancement and quantum coherence in these many-body reactions. The observation of such 'superchemistry' phenomena deepens our understanding of quantum many-body chemistry and provides insights into controlling chemical reactions at quantum degeneracy.
The study and control of chemical reactions between atoms and molecules at quantum degeneracy is an outstanding problem in quantum chemistry. An experiment now reports the coherent and collective reactions of atomic and molecular Bose-Einstein condensates. Chemical reactions in the quantum degenerate regime are described by the mixing of matter-wave fields. In many-body reactions involving bosonic reactants and products, such as coupled atomic and molecular Bose-Einstein condensates, quantum coherence and bosonic enhancement are key features of the reaction dynamics. However, the observation of these many-body phenomena, also known as 'superchemistry', has been elusive so far. Here we report the observation of coherent and collective reactive coupling between Bose-condensed atoms and molecules near a Feshbach resonance. Starting from an atomic condensate, the reaction begins with the rapid formation of molecules, followed by oscillations of their populations during the equilibration process. We observe faster oscillations in samples with higher densities, indicating bosonic enhancement. We present a quantum field model that captures the dynamics well and allows us to identify three-body recombination as the dominant reaction process. Our findings deepen our understanding of quantum many-body chemistry and offer insights into the control of chemical reactions at quantum degeneracy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据