4.6 Article

Broadening of the drumhead-mode spectrum due to in-plane thermal fluctuations of two-dimensional trapped ion crystals in a Penning trap

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW A
卷 102, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.102.053106

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF PFC [PHY 1734006]
  2. DARPA [W911NF-16-1-0576]
  3. ARO [W911NF-16-1-0576]
  4. DARPA ONISQ
  5. AFOSR Grant [FA 99550-20-1-0019]
  6. DOE Office of Science HEP QuantISED award
  7. US Department of Energy [DE-SC0020393]
  8. NRC fellowship - NIST
  9. AFOSR [FA 9550-19-1-0999]
  10. DOE [DE-SC0018236]
  11. NSF [PHY1805764]
  12. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) [DE-SC0020393] Funding Source: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two-dimensional crystals of ions stored in Penning traps are a leading platform for quantum simulation and sensing experiments. For small amplitudes, the out-of-plane motion of such crystals can be described by a discrete set of normal modes called the drumhead modes, which can be used to implement a range of quantum information protocols. However, experimental observations of crystals with Doppler-cooled and even nearground-state-cooled drumhead modes reveal an unresolved drumhead-mode spectrum. In this work, we establish in-plane thermal fluctuations in ion positions as a major contributor to the broadening of the drumhead-mode spectrum. In the process, we demonstrate how the confining magnetic field leads to unconventional in-plane normal modes, whose average potential and kinetic energies are not equal. This property, in turn, has implications for the sampling procedure required to choose the in-plane initial conditions for molecular-dynamics simulations. For current operating conditions of the NIST Penning trap, our study suggests that the two-dimensional crystals produced in this trap undergo in-plane potential-energy fluctuations of the order of 10 mK. Our study therefore motivates the need for designing improved techniques to cool the in-plane degrees of freedom.

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

4.6
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