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
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/2410.23818v2 (pdf) |
| Date accepted: | June 16, 2025 |
| Date submitted: | June 6, 2025, 9:49 a.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, for which we outline a proof-of-concept ultracold double-ring accelerometer.
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
Author comments upon resubmission
We thank the Referees for their reports, and are delighted that they are excited by this work as much as we are. Below, we respond to the requested changes from Referee 1 :
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 have included 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 have revised Fig. 1 to include three columns: the non-accelerating case, the accelerating case, and their differences. We believe this presentation is more self-contained and accessible for the reader. We have also clarified how Figure 1 was obtained, referencing the imaginary time technique.
3) In Fig 2, where persistent current oscillations are shown, is there a best time within the oscillation for V0 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<μ, 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/μ=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.
In response to this question, we have added the following paragraph to our manuscript at the end of section 2.3:
"In Fig. 2, the time at which the barrier ramp-down sequence is initiated affects the final position of the vortex. In the static case, it is known that the oscillations halt as soon as V0 becomes smaller than μ2D. As we will discuss later in the damped regime [Fig. 4], the critical barrier amplitude required to suppress oscillations may be even lower under acceleration. If the goal is to control the final state of the vortex, then this can be achieved by calibrating the maximum barrier amplitude to be as close to the chemical potential as possible. Furthermore, since the oscillation period is independent of acceleration, the optimal barrier closing time can be predetermined."
Best wishes,
Thomas Bland on behalf of all authors
List of changes
We have made the following changes to the manuscript:
1) Replaced Figure 1 with a new version that shows the static (a=0) case for comparison. The caption and main text has been updated reflecting this change. 2) Added a new discussion on the importance of barrier removal time on configuring the final vortex position. 3) Updated Ref. [49] per Referee 2's request. 4) Updated the final sentence to the abstract, highlighting our proof-of-concept work towards designing the atomtronic accelerometer. 5) Fixed other minor typographical errors in the references and updated DOI links.
Published as SciPost Phys. 19, 005 (2025)