a bose - einstein condensate ( bec ) is a state of matter in which a large number of bosons occupy the same quantum mechanical ground state . as such , becs present
the opportunity to study quantum systems which display large scale ( macroscopic ) collective behaviour .
recently there has been much interest in multi - component becs because of their importance to quantum optics @xcite .
multi - component becs are most often formed in a multi - well potential in which the components are spatially separated @xcite .
alternatively , the multi - component formalism can be used to model a single component bec that possesses several internal degrees of freedom , such as varying amounts of spin @xcite .    in general , many - body systems are of significant importance in physics . for example , quantum information processes require the manipulation and control of systems with large numbers of particles .
however , many - body systems are often difficult to treat exactly and are most often studied using numerical or approximate methods .
the realm of applicability of these methods is limited by the number of degrees of freedom of the system .
two common approximate models are the bose - hubbard model of quantum optics @xcite and closely related to it , the lipkin - meshkov - glick model of nuclear physics @xcite , both used to describe the two - body interactions of spin-@xmath8 systems .
a family of exactly solvable many - body systems was introduced in @xcite and studied in greater depth in @xcite .
these models can be used to describe the physics of a two component bec where both elastic and mode - exchange inelastic collisions are present .
mode - exchange collisions are known as general nearest neighbor interactions in the context of multi - well becs @xcite and as inelastic collisions in the case of a single condensate consisting of particles in two hyperfine levels @xcite .
the family of models is parameterized by a positive integer @xmath9 , and hence the specific models are called @xmath9-models .
this terminology is used because the @xmath9-model contains @xmath10body interactions .
analytic solutions can be found for the @xmath9-model when the strengths of the various particle interactions obey specific constraints . while the @xmath9-models are of interest to many - body physics in general , in this paper we will largely be concerned with the @xmath11-model where only single body interactions and two - body collisions are considered .
microscopic calculations show that mode - exchange collisions occur in becs as a result of the interaction of a laser field with the system @xcite .
the 2-model includes the usual josephson - type interactions , but also allows the effects of mode - exchange collisions to be studied analytically , and as such provides a more realistic framework for studying two - mode becs than the canonical josephson hamiltonian @xcite .
the analytic solution found in @xcite requires that the strengths of the various interactions meet certain constraints ; if these constraints are not met the solution is invalid .
while in some experimental situations the rates of inelastic and elastic mode - exchange collisions can be controlled externally @xcite , this is not always the case .
moreover , even in if the rate of collisions can be manipulated , the constraints will likely still only be approximately satisfied .
it is thus of interest to extend the solution space of the system to the case in which these constraints are only approximately satisfied .
this naturally leads to the consideration of small parameter perturbations in the model to study its robustness . along with perturbations within the model it is of interest to include additional interaction terms as perturbations , such as inelastic collisions resulting in particle loss .
particle loss , often suppressed in experimental settings , is studied theoretically by considering classical rate equations @xcite .
more recently , a quantum treatment of 3-body loss has been given in @xcite .
including external perturbations extends the predictive power of the model
. additional interactions of primary interest include three - body recombination , background collisions , spin exchange and dipole relaxation @xcite . to our knowledge , this is the first study which analyzes particle loss as a perturbative effect in becs .    motivated by the above considerations , in this paper we carry out a full perturbative analysis of the solvable bec 2-model proposed in @xcite .
we begin by reviewing this model and the solutions derived when the constraint equations on the parameters are satisfied @xcite .
we then introduce perturbations to the parameters in the model and analyze the effects on the particle distribution , entanglement and the evolution of the relative number operator . in later sections we discuss the effects of state degeneracy and the inclusion of a general loss term as a perturbation , illustrating the formalism by studying background collisions and three - body recombination .
the @xmath11-model studied in @xcite is governed by the hamiltonian @xmath12 where @xmath13 denotes the hermitian conjugate of the preceding term .
the two modes @xmath14 and @xmath15 are independent bose operators satisfying @xmath16=1=[b , b^{\dagger}]$ ] with the commutators of all remaining pairs vanishing .
the term @xmath17 is the free energy of @xmath18 particles in the @xmath14 mode and @xmath19 particles in the @xmath15 mode , with frequency difference @xmath20 between modes .
this frequency difference arises because the model describes atoms in different hyperfine levels , or alternatively unsymmetric spatially separated condensates @xcite .
a josephson - type or spin flip interaction is included with strength @xmath21 and phase @xmath22 . in practice
such an interaction is induced by an external field , such as a laser @xcite .
this interaction may also be interpreted as modeling the tunneling of particles between modes with probability proportional to @xmath21 . also included
are terms corresponding to number - preserving elastic and mode - exchange collisions , namely those terms containing four bose operators .
the interaction with strength @xmath23 is a single dispersive process .
the interaction with strength @xmath24 describes a collision where two particles exchange their mode .
the elastic interaction has strength @xmath25 and models the collision of a particle from each mode in which the number of particles in each mode is conserved .
we see that the mode - exchange collisions preserve the total particle number but not the relative particle number .    the hamiltonian given in eq .
( [ becham ] ) can be efficaciously studied by first introducing the simpler hamiltonian @xcite @xmath26 with real constants @xmath27 and @xmath28 .
such a hamiltonian models a two - mode condensate with energy difference @xmath27 between modes and elastic scattering probability proportional to @xmath28 .
as is clear from the form of @xmath29 the relative number operator @xmath30 is a commuting observable so that the number of particles in each mode is conserved . in particular
, there is no probability of spin - flip or tunneling between modes .
we also note that the total number operator @xmath31 commutes with @xmath29 .
we may thus take the eigenvalues @xmath32 and @xmath33 of @xmath34 and @xmath35 as labels of the eigenstates , for which we write @xmath36 . for fixed @xmath37 the values of @xmath33
are limited to @xmath38 and @xmath32 .
the energy of the state @xmath36 is @xmath39 .    for a certain choice of parameters in @xmath40
the solutions @xmath41 of @xmath29 can be used to obtain analytic solutions of @xmath40 . to see this ,
define a two - mode displacement operator by @xmath42 with displacement parameter @xmath43 .
it is clear that @xmath44 is unitary .
it can then be shown that if the parameters in @xmath40 satisfy    [ coeffid ] @xmath45 @xmath46 @xmath47 @xmath48 @xmath49 @xmath50    then @xmath51 , a result shown by computing @xmath52 observe that @xmath53 may be computed by setting @xmath54 in eq .
( [ trans ] ) .
since the eigenvectors of @xmath29 are of the form @xmath55 the eigenvectors of @xmath40 when satisfying eqs .
( [ coeffid ] ) are simply @xmath56 with energy @xmath57 . an extensive analysis and discussion of these solutions is included in @xcite .
for fixed @xmath37 the ground state of @xmath40 , labeled as @xmath58 , is found by minimizing the energy @xmath59 with respect to @xmath33 .
first assume @xmath60 . in this case , if @xmath61 ( @xmath62 ) the minimum occurs at @xmath63 ( @xmath64 ) .
secondly , say @xmath65 .
if @xmath66 , then @xmath67 is the closest allowable can only take the values @xmath68 and @xmath32 ; see the appendix for details . ]
integer to @xmath69 ; otherwise @xmath67 is the closest allowable integer to @xmath70 . in particular , a choice of either @xmath67 or @xmath71 determines the other .
, so that a choice of @xmath67 determines @xmath27 .
]    it is important to recall that , in the case of a double - well bec , the two - mode approximation must be satisfied @xcite .
this means that collisions taking place in the region where the wavefunctions overlap must be less probable than collisions between particles belonging to the same well .
it is possible to find an exact analytic solution to the model in this case by considering @xmath72 .
it is interesting to observe that it is not possible to find analytical solutions to this model for an exactly symmetric double - well and satisfy , simultaneously , the two mode approximation .
fortunately , in the case of slightly asymmetric double wells ( which corresponds to a more realistic situation ) it is possible to find exact analytical solutions in the two - mode approximation @xcite .
the most general @xmath9-model hamiltonian discussed in @xcite has as its hamiltonian @xmath73 where @xmath74 .
the eigenvectors of @xmath75 are again @xmath76 with the same energy @xmath77 . the same process of matching coefficients in the expansion of @xmath78 that was used to obtain eqs .
( [ coeffid ] ) can be carried out so that @xmath76 is the exact solution of a hamiltonian containing up to @xmath9-body interactions . in the general case ,
there are @xmath79 free variables ( the @xmath9 @xmath80 as well as @xmath81 and @xmath22 ) in @xmath82 , whereas the number of terms in a general hamiltonian describing such interactions is @xmath83 as shown in appendix b. so while the above method continues to give analytic solutions for all @xmath9 , its range of applicability decreases as @xmath9 grows .
it should also be noted that because @xmath84 contains only terms with the same number of creation and annihilation bose operators , this formalism can not be used to study interactions involving an odd number of bose operators , such as the interaction @xmath85 where one particle is lost .
we remark that all of the perturbative analysis carried out below is valid not only for the @xmath11-model , but also for the more general @xmath9-models .
this is so because the solutions for all @xmath9-models are @xmath86 .
we need only change the interpretation of the perturbative analysis in each case .
while satisfying eqs . ( [ coeffid ] ) is sufficient to obtain an analytic solution of @xmath40 , the method presented above fails to produce solutions if the parameters in @xmath40 deviate even slightly from these constraints .
thus , in order to compare this model to experimental results we would like to study the solutions to @xmath40 when the constraints are only approximately satisfied .
we proceed with these perturbation calculations in the section below .
we begin by perturbing each of the coupling constants in @xmath40 away from the conditions given by eqs .
( [ coeffid ] ) , i.e. perturbations of the form @xmath87 where @xmath20 satisfies eqs .
( [ coeffid ] ) and @xmath88 is small .
we omit the study of perturbations @xmath89 since this simply leads to a shift in the energy of the state by @xmath90 . in what follows ,
we assume that all eigenstates are non - degenerate ; the degenerate case is discussed in section 7 . throughout the paper , given an operator @xmath91 we define @xmath92 . to perform many of the calculations that follow
we have made use of a coordinate transformation between the @xmath93 basis and the @xmath94 basis , @xmath95 where @xmath96 is a eigenvalue of @xmath97 and similarly for @xmath98 .      a change @xmath87 results in the perturbation @xmath99 .
a calculation then shows that the non - vanishing matrix elements of @xmath100 are @xmath101 and @xmath102      a change @xmath103 results in the perturbation @xmath104 and we find that @xmath105 and @xmath106      a change @xmath107 results in the perturbation @xmath108 and we find that @xmath109    @xmath110    and @xmath111 \left [ n(n+2 ) -(m \pm 2)(m\pm 4 ) \right ] } .\ ] ]      a change @xmath112 results in the perturbation @xmath113 and we find that @xmath114    @xmath115    and @xmath116      a change @xmath117 results in the perturbation @xmath118 and we find that @xmath119    @xmath120    and @xmath121    in each of the cases above the perturbation matrix elements simplify significantly in the limiting cases @xmath122 , in which the josephson coupling vanishes ( @xmath123 ) , and @xmath124 in which the potential well is symmetric ( @xmath125 ) .
we elaborate below on the effect of @xmath81 on the particle distributions .
in the unperturbed case we can use the analytic solution @xmath58 for parameters satisfying eqs .
( [ coeffid ] ) to find an explicit expression for the particle distribution : @xmath126 using the homomorphism described in the appendix to relate the schwinger @xmath127 representation to the angular momentum representation we write @xmath128 where are the wigner rotation matrix elements under the effect of the lie algebra homomorphism discussed in the appendix . to see why these appear , observe that @xmath129 where @xmath130 and @xmath131 is the total angular momentum vector operator .
that is , @xmath132 , and hence @xmath133 , are rotations of the algebra generated by @xmath14 and @xmath15 . ]
@xcite @xmath134 and @xmath135 the integers @xmath136 are chosen so that the arguments of the combinatorial symbols are non - negative ; explicitly , @xmath137 and @xmath138 .
we plot in figure [ partdistplot ] the unperturbed particle distribution for @xmath139 , @xmath140 and @xmath141 and @xmath142 .
observe that the particle distribution is independent of phase @xmath22 .
we will see that this does not hold in the perturbed case . as @xmath81 varies the distributions shift along the @xmath33-axes ; for @xmath81 small the maxima shift toward @xmath143 , and move toward @xmath144 as @xmath81 grows .
the canonical @xmath11-mode bec predicts ( under certain circumstances ) that the ground state solution is a superposition of two peaked distributions . from figure [ partdistplot ]
we see that for @xmath145 the ground state is a superposition of more than two distributions , an effect that is due to the mode - exchange collisions not included in the canonical model @xcite .     given by eq .
( [ probdens ] ) for @xmath139 , @xmath140 and _ a ) _
@xmath146 , _ b ) _ @xmath147 and _ c ) _ @xmath148.,title="fig:",width=153,height=153 ]   given by eq . ( [ probdens ] ) for @xmath139 , @xmath140 and _ a ) _
@xmath146 , _ b ) _ @xmath147 and _ c ) _ @xmath148.,title="fig:",width=153,height=153 ]   given by eq . ( [ probdens ] )
for @xmath139 , @xmath140 and _ a ) _ @xmath146 , _ b ) _ @xmath147 and _ c ) _ @xmath148.,title="fig:",width=153,height=153 ]    in order to include perturbative effects in the particle distribution we replace the zeroth order ground state wave function @xmath149 in eq .
( [ probdens ] ) with that including first order corrections , @xmath150 recall that in the non - degenerate case a perturbation @xmath151 induces a first order wave function correction given by @xmath152 where the superscripts indicate to what order in the perturbation the term corresponds ; when no superscript is present the result is to zeroth order . with this , we find that to first order the particle distribution is given by with the understanding that we actually mean @xmath153 .
summations of this form arise because of the restriction on the eigenvalues of the relative number operator . ]
@xmath154 we show in figures [ partdistomega ] - [ partdistmu ] the particle distributions under each of the five parameter perturbations considered above .
note that in certain cases @xmath155 may be negative because the first order term in eq .
( [ pertpd ] ) depends linearly on the perturbation coefficients @xmath156 ; this of course is just a reflection that only first order corrections have been taken into account .
we see from eq .
( [ pertpd ] ) and the fact that @xmath156 is proportional to the sign of the perturbation that each of the perturbations can be used to either enhance or diminish the particle distributions in the vertical direction for a given @xmath33 .
that is , given a fixed relative number @xmath33 , by choosing the sign of the perturbation appropriately we can increase or decrease the probability of the system being in the state @xmath41 .
we also see that as @xmath157 decreases the number of local maxima of the particle distribution increases , and the asymmetry of the perturbations becomes more significant , vertically diminishing probability amplitudes on one side of the central maxima while vertically stretching the amplitudes on the opposite side .
the figures also show that the system is much less sensitive to perturbations in @xmath20 and @xmath21 than it is to perturbations in the collision coupling constants ; in the figures the perturbations of @xmath20 and @xmath21 are between @xmath158 and @xmath159 times greater than those in the collision perturbations ( @xmath160 and @xmath25 ) , while the corrections in all of the cases are of the same scale
. moreover , out of the collision parameters the particle distribution is most sensitive to perturbations in coupling constants of the _ mode - exchange _ collisions ( @xmath23 and @xmath24 ) .
it is thus beneficial to maximize the matching of the mode - exchange collision constraints ( [ coeffid ] ) through redefinition of parameters , allowing the perturbation to have a larger effect on the @xmath20 , @xmath21 and @xmath25 terms .
the effect on the particle distributions of varying @xmath81 is to shift the position of the central maxima on the @xmath33-axis : for @xmath124 , corresponding to the case in which the josephson - type interaction is maximal ( @xmath161 ) and the energy of each mode is equal ( @xmath162 ) , the distribution is centered around @xmath163 , while for @xmath164 ( @xmath165 ) , in which the josephson - type interaction vanishes ( @xmath166 ) and the energy difference of the modes is maximal ( @xmath167 ) it is centered @xmath143 ( @xmath144 ) . in each of the cases , despite being centered around different values of @xmath33 the perturbations display the same qualitative behaviour for any choice of @xmath81 . throughout the paper we have chosen @xmath140 in the figures as this lies between the extremes of @xmath168 and @xmath169 . as @xmath81 varies the effects of the perturbations vary in size , but
show the same characteristics .
for example , as @xmath81 decreases from @xmath170 to @xmath171 ( but with @xmath172 fixed ) , the perturbations have a larger effect on the particle distributions , which indicates that for small values of @xmath81 , we must be more careful about the size of the chosen @xmath172 .
this can be explained as follows . in the perturbed case
the area under the particle distributions sums to unity only to first order in the perturbation .
this sum is also a function of @xmath81 ( since the perturbed terms are ) , unlike in the unperturbed case .
we have found that as @xmath81 decreases the sum of probabilities decreases too , which explains why there is a difference in the particle distributions when we keep the size of the perturbations @xmath172 fixed .
if we decrease both @xmath81 and @xmath172 , then we find that the particle distributions essentially only shift along the @xmath33-axis , but not in their general shape .     given by eqs .
( [ probdens ] ) and ( [ pertpd ] ) for @xmath139 , @xmath140 , @xmath173 and _ a ) _
@xmath174 , _ b ) _ @xmath147 and _ c ) _
@xmath148.,title="fig:",width=153,height=153 ]   given by eqs .
( [ probdens ] ) and ( [ pertpd ] ) for @xmath139 , @xmath140 , @xmath173 and _ a ) _
@xmath174 , _ b ) _ @xmath147 and _ c ) _ @xmath148.,title="fig:",width=153,height=153 ]   given by eqs . ( [ probdens ] ) and ( [ pertpd ] ) for @xmath139 , @xmath140 , @xmath173 and _ a ) _
@xmath174 , _ b ) _ @xmath147 and _ c ) _
@xmath148.,title="fig:",width=153,height=153 ]     given by eqs .
( [ probdens ] ) and ( [ pertpd ] ) for @xmath139 , @xmath140 , @xmath175 and _ a ) _
@xmath174 , _ b ) _ @xmath147 and _ c ) _ @xmath148.,title="fig:",width=153,height=153 ]   given by eqs .
( [ probdens ] ) and ( [ pertpd ] ) for @xmath139 , @xmath140 , @xmath175 and _ a ) _
@xmath174 , _ b ) _ @xmath147 and _ c ) _ @xmath148.,title="fig:",width=153,height=153 ]   given by eqs . ( [ probdens ] ) and ( [ pertpd ] ) for @xmath139 , @xmath140 , @xmath175 and _ a ) _
@xmath174 , _ b ) _ @xmath147 and _ c ) _ @xmath148.,title="fig:",width=153,height=153 ]     given by eqs . ( [ probdens ] ) and ( [ pertpd ] ) for @xmath139 , @xmath140 , @xmath176 and _ a ) _
@xmath174 , _ b ) _ @xmath147 and _ c ) _
@xmath148.,title="fig:",width=153,height=153 ]   given by eqs .
( [ probdens ] ) and ( [ pertpd ] ) for @xmath139 , @xmath140 , @xmath176 and _ a ) _
@xmath174 , _ b ) _ @xmath147 and _ c ) _
@xmath148.,title="fig:",width=153,height=153 ]   given by eqs .
( [ probdens ] ) and ( [ pertpd ] ) for @xmath139 , @xmath140 , @xmath176 and _ a ) _
@xmath174 , _ b ) _ @xmath147 and _ c ) _
@xmath148.,title="fig:",width=153,height=153 ]     given by eqs .
( [ probdens ] ) and ( [ pertpd ] ) for @xmath139 , @xmath140 , @xmath177 and _ a ) _
@xmath174 , _ b ) _ @xmath147 and _ c ) _
@xmath148.,title="fig:",width=153,height=153 ]   given by eqs .
( [ probdens ] ) and ( [ pertpd ] ) for @xmath139 , @xmath140 , @xmath177 and _ a ) _
@xmath174 , _ b ) _ @xmath147 and _ c ) _
@xmath148.,title="fig:",width=153,height=153 ]   given by eqs .
( [ probdens ] ) and ( [ pertpd ] ) for @xmath139 , @xmath140 , @xmath177 and _ a ) _
@xmath174 , _ b ) _ @xmath147 and _ c ) _
@xmath148.,title="fig:",width=153,height=153 ]     given by eqs .
( [ probdens ] ) and ( [ pertpd ] ) for @xmath139 , @xmath140 , @xmath178 and _ a ) _
@xmath174 , _ b ) _ @xmath147 and _ c ) _
@xmath148.,title="fig:",width=153,height=153 ]   given by eqs .
( [ probdens ] ) and ( [ pertpd ] ) for @xmath139 , @xmath140 , @xmath178 and _ a ) _
@xmath174 , _ b ) _ @xmath147 and _ c ) _ @xmath148.,title="fig:",width=153,height=153 ]   given by eqs .
( [ probdens ] ) and ( [ pertpd ] ) for @xmath139 , @xmath140 , @xmath178 and _ a ) _
@xmath174 , _ b ) _ @xmath147 and _ c ) _
entanglement arises in many - body quantum systems because of the superposition principle and the tensor product structure of the hilbert space . ] , a property of utmost importance in quantum control and quantum information .
in particular , states with high entanglement are desirable because of their utility in carrying out quantum information tasks @xcite .
we would like to determine whether or not by careful choice of the perturbations we can increase the entanglement from that of the unperturbed case .    for a bipartite quantum system
the von - neumann entropy @xmath179 is a standard measure of the entanglement of the system , @xmath180 being the reduced density matrix . in the case at hand
this reduces to @xmath181 where @xmath182 is either the perturbed or unperturbed particle distribution , depending on the situation . as noted in the section above , the first order particle distribution given by eq .
( [ pertpd ] ) can be negative for certain choices of perturbations . to resolve this problem
we could either replace @xmath155 with @xmath183 or we could include the second order term @xmath184 in @xmath155 ; we use the former approach to keep the calculations strictly to first order .
when the particle distribution contains first order corrections , @xmath185 , the entanglement is given by @xmath186 for the case at hand we read off that @xmath187 .
hence we have a criterion for increasing the entanglement of the system .
namely , we increase the entanglement ( to first order ) precisely when @xmath188 note that @xmath189 is proportional to the perturbation strengths , so that we can increase or decrease the entanglement by choosing the sign of the perturbation appropriately .
continuing , we note that for each @xmath33 we have @xmath190 , so that to maximize the entanglement we should maximize each @xmath191 .
of course , @xmath192 can be made arbitrarily large simply by choosing @xmath172 arbitrary large .
however , we are limited in such a choice since we must keep @xmath172 small so that perturbation theory can be trusted .    ) for @xmath193.,width=192,height=192 ]    we plot in figure [ ent_unpert ] the unperturbed entanglement as a function of @xmath81 and @xmath67 .
see @xcite for an extensive analysis . in figures
[ ent_omega]-[ent_mu ] we plot the perturbed entanglements @xmath194 for @xmath195 as well as the differences @xmath196 between the perturbed and unperturbed entanglements for @xmath197 ; we choose a different @xmath172 in the latter case so that the differences are more evident . in each of the plots of @xmath198 we see
that the largest changes occur approximately along the diagonal lines , connecting the points @xmath199 and @xmath200 and the points @xmath201 and @xmath200 ; these lines in @xmath202 space correspond to certain strengths of the coupling constants in the hamiltonian @xmath40 viewed as functions of @xmath67 .
note this type of behaviour also occurs along these lines in the unperturbed entanglement plots , as shown in figure [ ent_unpert ] . comparing the magnitude of the perturbative effects we observe that perturbations to the mode - exchange collision terms ( @xmath203 ) have a much greater effect , their maximum difference being about an order of magnitude larger than those for @xmath21 and @xmath20 .
it is also interesting to observe that the coherent states , which correspond to @xmath204 and @xmath205 are the states which are maximally affected by perturbations . in such states
@xmath206 is much larger than @xmath207 so that the rate of collisions is relatively small . to further study this
we have plotted in figure [ entan_cut_plots ] a two - dimensional cut of figures [ ent_omega]_b)_-[ent_mu]_b ) _ , where we have fixed @xmath208 and allowed @xmath67 to vary .
we observe that in each of the plots @xmath198 has both a local maximum and local minimum as @xmath67 approaches @xmath32 .
we also observe that the most significant changes occur in the region @xmath209 , where more particles lie in the @xmath14 mode .
positive @xmath67 implies that , for fixed @xmath210 , the scattering length for same - mode collisions is positive and as @xmath67 approaches @xmath32 , the collision rate becomes smaller .
we then conclude that condensates with negative scattering lengths are more resilient to parameter perturbations and high same - mode collision rates help stabilize the condensate .     as a function of @xmath67 and @xmath81 for @xmath211 and _
b ) _ the difference @xmath212 for @xmath193 and @xmath213.,title="fig:",width=192,height=192 ]   as a function of @xmath67 and @xmath81 for @xmath211 and _ b ) _ the difference @xmath212 for @xmath193 and @xmath213.,title="fig:",width=192,height=192 ]     as a function of @xmath67 and @xmath81 for @xmath193 and _ b ) _ the difference @xmath212 for @xmath193 and @xmath214.,title="fig:",width=192,height=192 ]   as a function of @xmath67 and @xmath81 for @xmath193 and _
b ) _ the difference @xmath212 for @xmath193 and @xmath214.,title="fig:",width=192,height=192 ]     as a function of @xmath67 and @xmath81 for @xmath193 and _ b ) _ the difference @xmath212 for @xmath193 and @xmath215.,title="fig:",width=192,height=192 ]   as a function of @xmath67 and @xmath81 for @xmath193 and _ b ) _ the difference @xmath212 for @xmath193 and @xmath215.,title="fig:",width=192,height=192 ]     as a function of @xmath67 and @xmath81 for @xmath193 and _ b ) _ the difference @xmath212 for @xmath193 and @xmath216.,title="fig:",width=192,height=192 ]   as a function of @xmath67 and @xmath81 for @xmath193 and _ b ) _ the difference @xmath212 for @xmath193 and @xmath216.,title="fig:",width=192,height=192 ]     as a function of @xmath67 and @xmath81 for @xmath193 and _ b ) _ the difference @xmath212 for @xmath193 and @xmath217.,title="fig:",width=192,height=192 ]   as a function of @xmath67 and @xmath81 for @xmath193 and _ b ) _ the difference @xmath212 for @xmath193 and @xmath217.,title="fig:",width=192,height=192 ]     for @xmath218 and @xmath23 , respectively , for @xmath208 as a function of @xmath67 .
the perturbation strengths used are all @xmath197.,title="fig:",width=115,height=105 ]   for @xmath218 and @xmath23 , respectively , for @xmath208 as a function of @xmath67 .
the perturbation strengths used are all @xmath197.,title="fig:",width=115,height=105 ]   for @xmath218 and @xmath23 , respectively , for @xmath208 as a function of @xmath67 . the perturbation strengths used are all @xmath197.,title="fig:",width=115,height=105 ]   for @xmath218 and @xmath23 , respectively , for @xmath208 as a function of @xmath67 .
the perturbation strengths used are all @xmath197.,title="fig:",width=115,height=105 ]   for @xmath218 and @xmath23 , respectively , for @xmath208 as a function of @xmath67 .
the perturbation strengths used are all @xmath197.,title="fig:",width=115,height=105 ]
with an analytic solution to the system we may study the evolution of the relative population @xmath219 as a function of time , where the initial state is given by @xmath220 . for simplicity
we restrict our study to the case in which @xmath221 . to first order in the perturbation parameter
we have @xmath222 we compute @xmath223 where @xmath224 with @xmath225 and @xmath226 + \right .   \\ & & \displaystyle    \left . \sum_{l
=- n+2}^{n } a_{m , l } c_m c_{l-2 } \sqrt{n(n+2 ) - l ( l-2 ) } \cos \left [ \phi - ( e_{l-2 } - e_m ) t \right ] \right ) \biggr\}. \label{pertev } \end{array}\ ] ]     for @xmath211 . figures _
b ) _ and _ c ) _ plot the perturbed evolution @xmath227 given by eqs .
( [ unpertev ] ) and ( [ pertev ] ) for @xmath211 with @xmath228 and @xmath229 , respectively .
, title="fig:",width=192,height=192 ]   for @xmath211 . figures _
b ) _ and _ c ) _ plot the perturbed evolution @xmath227 given by eqs .
( [ unpertev ] ) and ( [ pertev ] ) for @xmath211 with @xmath228 and @xmath229 , respectively .
, title="fig:",width=192,height=192 ]   for @xmath211 . figures _
b ) _ and _ c ) _ plot the perturbed evolution @xmath227 given by eqs .
( [ unpertev ] ) and ( [ pertev ] ) for @xmath211 with @xmath228 and @xmath229 , respectively .
, title="fig:",width=192,height=192 ]    we plot in figure [ evoplot ] _ a ) _ the unperturbed evolution of relative population given by eq . ( [ unpertev ] ) .
we see the rabi - like oscillations with relative population collapse and revival . in figures
[ evoplot ] _
b ) _ and _ c ) _ we plot the evolution of relative population under the parameter perturbations @xmath230 and @xmath231 , respectively .
we observe that as @xmath88 increases the time - averaged value of @xmath232 decreases ; from eq . ( [ pertev ] )
changing the sign of @xmath88 would have increased this average value .
we see in figure [ evoplot ] _
c ) _ that the perturbation has broken down ; the maximum value of @xmath233 is greater than the total particle number .
this breakdown reminds us that we must not let the perturbation grow too large for our analysis to be reliable .
we also see ( in figure [ evoplot ] _ c _ ) that as @xmath88 grows the time of population collapse significantly decreases . because of the complexity of the correction term eq .
( [ pertev ] ) an analytic study of the effects of the perturbations on population collapse and revival times is not possible .
> from eq .
( [ unpertev ] ) we see that in the unperturbed case an initially pure state remains pure . eq . ( [ pertev ] )
shows that the same holds true even in the perturbed cases .
hence , @xmath234 has non - trivial time - dependence if and only if the initial state is entangled .
throughout the above analysis we have assumed that the unperturbed states in question are non - degenerate .
we proceed now to study the degenerate case , which results for specific values of the constants @xmath27 and @xmath28 . for fixed total particle number @xmath32 two distinct states , labeled by relative population numbers @xmath235 and @xmath236 ,
have the same energy precisely when @xmath237 . from the analysis of the perturbations completed above we know that the perturbation matrix elements are non - vanishing only if @xmath238 , where we have assumed without loss of generality that @xmath239 . combining these two observations we see that there are at most two pairs of degenerate states .
let us consider as an example the perturbation @xmath87 with @xmath240 a_2 $ ] , so that the only pair of degenerate states is @xmath241 and @xmath242 ; each have energy @xmath243 .
the matrix of interest is @xmath244 its eigenvalues and eigenvectors yield the first - order energy and wave function corrections . using the calculations performed above
it remains to find the solutions @xmath245 of the quadratic @xmath246 .
the eigenvalues ( energy corrections ) and corresponding eigenvectors ( wave function corrections ) of @xmath247 are    @xmath248    @xmath249    with @xmath250 a suitable normalization constant .
figure [ epsilonplot_omega ] _ a ) _ plots @xmath245 as a function of @xmath81 for @xmath139 and @xmath251 .
we see that the energy is lowered for all values of @xmath81 ; had @xmath88 been negative the opposite would have been true .
we see from figures [ epsilonplot_omega ] _ b ) _ and _ c ) _ , which plot the perturbed particle distributions for @xmath252 , that even for very small perturbations in @xmath20 there is a noticeable change in the particle distribution .
this is in contrast to the non - degenerate perturbation of @xmath20 , where even for @xmath253 there was not a large change in the particle distribution .
the induced change in the particle distribution is also qualitatively different from that in the non - degenerate case .
this arises because the correction in the degenerate case is sinusoidal with frequency much greater than that of the unperturbed particle distribution .
regardless of the sign of @xmath88 we see that the central maximum of the particle distributions is shifted to smaller values of @xmath33 .
we plot in figure [ ent_degen_omega ] _ a ) _ the perturbed entanglement as a function of @xmath81 and @xmath67 for @xmath230 and @xmath193 , while _ b ) _ of the same figure plots the difference @xmath198 for the same configuration . even for a small perturbation strength @xmath230
the perturbation to the entanglement is still significant , again showing that a degenerate system is more sensitive to perturbations than is the non - degenerate case .
we also observe that the largest perturbations are present for @xmath67 close to @xmath254 and @xmath255 . for @xmath67 close to @xmath32 ,
the perturbations become negligible , regardless of @xmath81 . therefore
, we find that high collision rates also help stabilize the condensate against perturbations in the degenerate case .
however , in this case , condensates with positive scattering lengths are more stable .
similarly , we find that for a perturbation @xmath103 , assuming again that @xmath241 and @xmath256 are the degenerate states , the energy corrections are @xmath257 which is just the energy correction equation for perturbations in @xmath20 with the substitution @xmath258 ; we obtain the wavefunction corrections @xmath259 for @xmath260 in the same manner .
figure [ epsilonplot_lambda ] plots the perturbed energy and perturbed particle distributions for @xmath261 and @xmath262 . the same comments made above about figure [ epsilonplot_omega ] for perturbations @xmath88 hold in this case as well . in figure [ ent_degen_lambda ]
we plot the perturbed entanglement and entanglement difference @xmath198 for @xmath263 .
the figure shows similar behaviour to figure [ ent_degen_omega ] .
however , we note that in the case of @xmath21 perturbations @xmath198 is strictly positive ( for positive @xmath260 ) .
there are again extrema ( this time both maxima ) for @xmath64 and @xmath264 , with @xmath198 vanishing as @xmath67 approaches @xmath32 .
also as in the case above , the system is very sensitive to perturbations , with @xmath265 at some points .
( solid ) and @xmath266 ( dot ) from eq .
( [ degen_en_omega ] ) for degenerate perturbations with @xmath139 and @xmath267 as a function of @xmath81 . figures _
b ) _ and _ c ) _ plot the corresponding unperturbed ( dot ) and perturbed ( solid ) particle distributions @xmath182 with @xmath139 , @xmath140 for @xmath251 and @xmath268 , respectively.,title="fig:",width=192,height=192 ]   ( solid ) and @xmath266 ( dot ) from eq .
( [ degen_en_omega ] ) for degenerate perturbations with @xmath139 and @xmath267 as a function of @xmath81 . figures _
b ) _ and _ c ) _ plot the corresponding unperturbed ( dot ) and perturbed ( solid ) particle distributions @xmath182 with @xmath139 , @xmath140 for @xmath251 and @xmath268 , respectively.,title="fig:",width=192,height=192 ]   ( solid ) and @xmath266 ( dot ) from eq .
( [ degen_en_omega ] ) for degenerate perturbations with @xmath139 and @xmath267 as a function of @xmath81 . figures _
b ) _ and _ c ) _ plot the corresponding unperturbed ( dot ) and perturbed ( solid ) particle distributions @xmath182 with @xmath139 , @xmath140 for @xmath251 and @xmath268 , respectively.,title="fig:",width=192,height=192 ]     as a function of @xmath67 and @xmath81 for @xmath193 and _ b ) _ the difference @xmath212 with @xmath230 for @xmath193.,title="fig:",width=192,height=192 ]   as a function of @xmath67 and @xmath81 for @xmath193 and _ b ) _ the difference @xmath212 with @xmath230 for @xmath193.,title="fig:",width=192,height=192 ]     ( solid ) and @xmath266 ( dot ) from eq .
( [ degen_en_lambda ] ) for degenerate perturbations with @xmath139 and @xmath261 as a function of @xmath81 . figures _
b ) _ and _ c ) _ plot the corresponding unperturbed ( dot ) and perturbed ( solid ) particle distributions @xmath182 with @xmath139 , @xmath140 for @xmath269 and @xmath270 , respectively.,title="fig:",width=192,height=192 ]   ( solid ) and @xmath266 ( dot ) from eq .
( [ degen_en_lambda ] ) for degenerate perturbations with @xmath139 and @xmath261 as a function of @xmath81 . figures _
b ) _ and _ c ) _ plot the corresponding unperturbed ( dot ) and perturbed ( solid ) particle distributions @xmath182 with @xmath139 , @xmath140 for @xmath269 and @xmath270 , respectively.,title="fig:",width=192,height=192 ]   ( solid ) and @xmath266 ( dot ) from eq .
( [ degen_en_lambda ] ) for degenerate perturbations with @xmath139 and @xmath261 as a function of @xmath81 . figures _
b ) _ and _ c ) _ plot the corresponding unperturbed ( dot ) and perturbed ( solid ) particle distributions @xmath182 with @xmath139 , @xmath140 for @xmath269 and @xmath270 , respectively.,title="fig:",width=192,height=192 ]     as a function of @xmath67 and @xmath81 for @xmath193 and _ b ) _ the difference @xmath212 with @xmath263 for @xmath193.,title="fig:",width=192,height=192 ]   as a function of @xmath67 and @xmath81 for @xmath193 and _ b ) _ the difference @xmath212 with @xmath263 for @xmath193.,title="fig:",width=192,height=192 ]    the study of degenerate perturbations in the remaining parameters is completed in the same way as is done above , so we omit these .
note that high collision rates help stabilize the condensate against perturbations in @xmath21 for both positive and negative scattering lengths .
as mentioned in the introduction it is of interest to study perturbations that model additional interaction terms not included in the original hamiltonian eq .
( [ becham ] )
. we will largely be interested in perturbations that do not preserve the total number of particles in the system .
we begin with a general discussion of loss terms and proceed to use this formalism to discuss the effects of background collisions and three - body recombination .
interactions in becs that do not preserve the total particle number are often minimized in experimental settings as there is currently no known analytical model that involves such terms .
while the hamiltonian @xmath40 we are studying also does not include such terms , in the case that the effects of particle loss terms are expected to be minimal , we may treat loss terms as perturbations to the system .
a primary source of particle loss is inelastic collisions @xcite . in magnetic traps particle - type
exchange terms dominate loss mechanisms , while in optical traps , these terms may be neglected @xcite .
it is thus of interest to obtain predictions of the effects of loss terms by treating them as perturbations to the exactly solvable @xmath11-model .
the most general loss term can be written as @xmath271 where @xmath272 are some functions and @xmath273 is the total particle number of the condensate . by probabilistic arguments
we expect @xmath274 as @xmath275 grows , so that the cases of primary interest are those with @xmath276 and @xmath277 small .
however , it should be noted that higher order collisions ( i.e. not just @xmath278 ) are of physical significance , particularly when the condensate is in its coldest phase and of high particle density @xcite . by suitably choosing @xmath279 we can model specific loss terms .    in order to study loss terms
we must first make some adjustments to the analysis performed above .
the full hilbert space @xmath280 of the hamiltonian eq .
( [ simpham ] ) can be orthogonally decomposed as the fock space @xmath281 where , in the @xmath282 basis , @xmath283 .
since the hamiltonian and perturbations we have considered so far have all commuted with the total number operator we have been able to first choose a total particle number @xmath32 for the system , or equivalently the subspace @xmath284 of the total hilbert space , and then proceed with calculations . in order to study loss terms
we must enlarge the state space to be @xmath285 where @xmath286 is the set of all accessible total particle numbers .
for example , if @xmath287 then @xmath288 .
the energy of the state @xmath36 is @xmath289 .
although @xmath77 is only functionally dependent on @xmath33 , it has an implicit dependence on @xmath32 since @xmath32 restricts the values of @xmath33 .
hence , while @xmath290 is non - degenerate as an element of @xmath291 , it may be degenerate as an element of @xmath292 depending on @xmath33 and @xmath293 . again , considering the example in which @xmath287 we see that @xmath294 is non - degenerate if @xmath295 and degenerate otherwise . in general , let @xmath296 and say that @xmath297 is degenerate if it contains more than one element and say it is non - degenerate otherwise . we examine the effects of the degeneracy @xmath297 below .
note that the degeneracy studied in this section is caused by the interactions ( which determine the hilbert space ) , whereas the degeneracy studied in the previous section was caused by a specific choice of the coupling constants @xmath27 and @xmath28 .    in order to study the particle distribution of the perturbed state @xmath298
we must modify eq .
( [ probdens ] ) ; if we were to use this formula there would be no perturbative effects on the particle distribution since @xmath299 and @xmath300 are orthogonal if @xmath301 .
a suitable generalization is given by @xmath302 observe that in the case of no loss terms @xmath303 so that @xmath304 reduces to eq .
( [ probdens ] ) .
if @xmath297 is degenerate it is easy to see that the matrix of interest to degenerate perturbation theory @xmath305 is triangular with zeros along the diagonal . indeed , @xmath306 contains only annihilation terms , and conjugation by @xmath133 , denoted here by @xmath307 , maps annihilation operators to annihilation operators .
so @xmath308 is a sum of states with total particle number @xmath9 less than @xmath309 , showing the matrix at hand is triangular , and thus has a trivial spectrum consisting of only zeros .
hence we can learn nothing from first order perturbation theory .
alternatively , if @xmath297 is non - degenerate we may apply the tools of non - degenerate perturbation theory .
although it is straightforward to compute the matrix elements of @xmath306 given by eq .
( [ lossham ] ) in general , the requirement that @xmath297 be non - degenerate severely limits the usefulness of such a calculation . we instead focus on some specific choices of @xmath279 that model interactions of physical interest
.      background collisions most often occur in becs when particles from the condensate collide with a residual background gas in the condensate chamber , or alternatively , with metastable atoms within the condensate @xcite .
background collisions become more important as the density of the condensate increases . as a simple illustration of how we may treat background collisions as perturbations , consider the case in which the initial state is @xmath310 , so that only @xmath14 mode particles can be ejected . the general loss term if @xmath311 and @xmath312 otherwise . ]
( [ lossham ] ) , after conjugation by @xmath133 , is written as @xmath313 where we use @xmath314 to denote terms with more @xmath15 powers than @xmath315 powers .
note that any term of @xmath314 annihilates @xmath241 so that the perturbative correction can be found by neglecting all such terms .
we compute the desired matrix elements to find that @xmath316 which yields the generalized particle distribution @xmath317 where we set @xmath318 if @xmath319 . from this expression
we see that we could have omitted terms that eject an odd number of @xmath14-mode particles . indeed , if @xmath320 is odd , then @xmath321 is identically zero as a function of @xmath33 since if @xmath322 then @xmath323 and @xmath9 all have the same parity .
we plot @xmath304 in figure [ bgcplots ] , considering terms that eject @xmath324 and @xmath325 particles for @xmath139 and @xmath140 . in figure [ bgcplots]_a ) _ we set @xmath326 , @xmath327 and @xmath328 . in figures [ bgcplots]_b )
_ - [ bgcplots]_d ) _ we increase each of the @xmath329 by a factor of @xmath11 .
the figures show that increasing each @xmath330 decreases the height of the particle distribution . also evident from the figures and
the scale of the @xmath329 is that as @xmath331 increases the perturbations have a larger effect . that the perturbations do not blow up reflects the requirement that @xmath274 for large @xmath275
indeed , we have found using numerical simulations that the perturbations that eject @xmath320 particles diverge with increasing @xmath320 .    ) , for @xmath139 with _ a ) _ @xmath332 , @xmath333 and @xmath334 , _ b ) _
@xmath335 , @xmath333 , @xmath334 , _ c ) _
@xmath336 , @xmath337 and @xmath334 and _ d ) _
@xmath332 , @xmath333 and @xmath338 . ,
title="fig:",width=115,height=115 ] ) , for @xmath139 with _ a ) _ @xmath332 , @xmath333 and @xmath334 , _ b ) _
@xmath335 , @xmath333 , @xmath334 , _ c ) _
@xmath336 , @xmath337 and @xmath334 and _ d ) _ @xmath332 , @xmath333 and @xmath338 . , title="fig:",width=115,height=115 ] ) , for @xmath139 with _ a ) _ @xmath332 , @xmath333 and @xmath334 , _ b ) _
@xmath335 , @xmath333 , @xmath334 , _ c ) _
@xmath336 , @xmath337 and @xmath334 and _ d ) _
@xmath332 , @xmath333 and @xmath338 . ,
title="fig:",width=115,height=115 ] ) , for @xmath139 with _ a ) _ @xmath332 , @xmath333 and @xmath334 , _ b ) _
@xmath335 , @xmath333 , @xmath334 , _ c ) _ @xmath336 , @xmath337 and @xmath334 and _ d ) _
@xmath332 , @xmath333 and @xmath338 . , title="fig:",width=115,height=115 ]    we remark here that as a consequence of @xmath321 vanishing for @xmath320 odd we can not learn anything about spin - flip terms from first order perturbation theory .
indeed , such terms would be modeled by perturbations of the form @xmath339 and @xmath340 , assuming particles in the @xmath14 mode have greatest energy ; these terms clearly reduce the total number of the system by an odd number .    setting @xmath191 equal to the second term on the right hand side of eq .
( [ losspd ] ) we can use eqs .
( [ pertent]-[incent ] ) to compute and increase the entanglement , respectively .
since @xmath191 depends linearly on the interaction strengths @xmath341 we see the most obvious manner in which to increase the entanglement is to make @xmath342 large ; the sign of @xmath341 depends on @xmath343 as well as @xmath27 and @xmath28 .    ,
@xmath333 and @xmath334 ( as in figure [ bgcplots ] a ) as a function of @xmath67 and @xmath81 for @xmath193 and _ b ) _ the difference @xmath212 for the same configuration.,title="fig:",width=192,height=192 ] , @xmath333 and @xmath334 ( as in figure [ bgcplots ] a ) as a function of @xmath67 and @xmath81 for @xmath193 and _ b ) _ the difference @xmath212 for the same configuration.,title="fig:",width=192,height=192 ]    figure [ ent_bgc ] plots the perturbed entanglement caused by the inclusion of background collisions as a function of @xmath67 and @xmath81 .
we see that the largest effect of the perturbation occurs in the region @xmath344 and small ( large negative ) values of @xmath67 .
there is also a minimum of smaller magnitude around @xmath345 and @xmath64 .
the region with large negative @xmath67 corresponds the case where the scattering length between particles is negative , in which most particles lie in the @xmath15 mode of the condensate .
since the background collisions considered here eject particles from the @xmath14 mode , they serve to further decrease the value of @xmath33 .
we understand the large effect of the perturbation on the aforementioned region as follows : since most particles lie in the @xmath15 mode , ejecting any particles from the @xmath14 mode has a large effect on the system , since it already has only a small number of @xmath14 mode particles , relative to the number of @xmath15 mode particles .
figure [ ent_bgc ] _ b ) _ shows that for values of @xmath67 above the region in question , where the @xmath15 mode particles become more scarce , the perturbation has little effect on the system .
again , we understand this as being because ejecting an @xmath14 mode particle from a state with large @xmath33 value is of little significance to the system as a whole .
we also see from this figure that the entanglement is decreased , regardless of @xmath67 and @xmath81 , for this specific choice of @xmath329 .
perhaps the most physically important type of inelastic collision leading to particle loss is three - body recombination ( tbr ) @xcite .
tbr occurs when three particles in a single mode collide to form a diatomic molecule and a particle of the same mode that carries off any excess energy .
depending on this energy and the energy of the potential trap , the resultant particle may or may not escape the trap @xcite
.    a perturbation modeling tbr would be most naturally treated in the @xmath346 formalism where the extra bose operator would correspond to the diatomic molecule . however , in the @xmath127 formalism we have no such third mode .
we thus model tbr by the hamiltonian @xmath347 the parameter @xmath348 describes the probability of the emitted particle remaining trapped in the condensate .
the term proportional to @xmath349 lowers the total particle number by an odd number and hence , as explained above , will have no effect on the perturbed particle distribution .
we thus neglect this term from our analysis and absorb the constant @xmath350 into @xmath348 . with @xmath351 as a perturbation we have @xmath352 .
we take as our unperturbed state @xmath241 , which is non - degenerate . proceeding , we find @xmath353 which gives the generalized particle distribution @xmath354    @xmath304 given by eq .
( [ tbrpd ] ) is plotted in figure [ tbrplots ] .
as expected the the sign of @xmath348 determines whether the perturbation vertically shrinks or stretches the particle distribution .
we also see that the system is very sensitive to three - body recombination terms , as a coupling constant of order @xmath355 causes significant changes to the particle distribution .
once again , setting @xmath191 equal to the last term in eq .
( [ tbrpd ] ) , we can use eqs .
( [ pertent ] ) and ( [ incent ] ) to study the perturbed entanglement .
the choice of the sign of @xmath348 to increase the entanglement again depends on the values of @xmath81 , @xmath27 and @xmath28 .    ) , for @xmath139 and @xmath140 with _ a ) _ @xmath356 , _ b ) _ @xmath357 and _ c ) _ @xmath358.,title="fig:",width=192,height=192 ] ) , for @xmath139 and @xmath140 with _ a ) _ @xmath356 , _ b ) _ @xmath357 and _ c ) _
@xmath358.,title="fig:",width=192,height=192 ] ) , for @xmath139 and @xmath140 with _ a ) _ @xmath356 , _ b ) _ @xmath357 and _ c ) _ @xmath358.,title="fig:",width=192,height=192 ]     as a function of @xmath67 and @xmath81 for @xmath193 and _ b ) _ the difference @xmath212 for @xmath193 and @xmath359.,title="fig:",width=192,height=192 ]   as a function of @xmath67 and @xmath81 for @xmath193 and _ b ) _ the difference @xmath212 for @xmath193 and @xmath359.,title="fig:",width=192,height=192 ]
we have successfully studied the effects of a number of perturbations to the two - mode bec model considered in @xcite . we have found the corrections to the condensate wave functions , which in turn allowed the determination of the corrections to the particle distribution , time - evolution of the relative number operator and the entanglement . in the non - degenerate case
, we have shown that the model of @xcite , in which the coupling constants of the hamiltonian are constrained , is robust to perturbations in these constants .
the system is most sensitive to perturbations in the elastic scattering length @xmath25 and in the mode - exchange parameters @xmath24 and @xmath23 . in each of the parameter perturbations the entanglement of the coherent states
@xmath310 and @xmath360 is most affected .
each parameter perturbation was observed to increase the asymmetry in the particle distributions .
we also observed that for specific values of @xmath67 and @xmath81 , the latter corresponding to certain parameter strengths , the entanglement perturbations are especially large .
it was found that when the condensate is degenerate ( because of specific choices of @xmath27 and @xmath28 ) it is much more sensitive to perturbations , both in terms of particle distributions and entanglement .
the effects on the entanglement are qualitatively different than in the non - degenerate case .
in particular , the perturbations to the entanglement are mainly present only in the regions in which @xmath67 is close to @xmath254 which corresponds to a condensate with small negative scattering length .    we have also extended the formalism to include the analysis of interactions involving particle loss . from these we can predict corrections to the particle distribution , entanglement and evolution of the relative population .
this provides a new class of possible experiments that will allow the model here to be tested .
indeed , interactions involving particle loss have been limited experimentally , partially because they create instabilities in the system . with our results these interactions
could be allowed to occur , and the results compared with the predictions contained above .
the changes induced by both three - body recombination and background collisions are qualitatively different than those induced by parameter perturbations .
we find that the system is very sensitive to these external perturbations , which induce large changes in the particle distribution and entanglement from relatively small external coupling strengths , as compared to the induced changes from parameter perturbations . as with the degenerate parameter perturbation
, we found that the perturbative effects on the entanglement become negligible as @xmath67 approaches @xmath32 , i.e. when the scattering length is small and positive .
in general , we can conclude that higher collision rates make the condensate more stable to perturbations .
our results promise to be useful in the experimental realization of two - mode bose - einstein condensates which are stable to parameter perturbations and particle loss .
we are planning to extend our analysis to include many - body interactions which are present at cooler stages of the condensate and study the role of such interactions in the stability of the condensate .
let @xmath361 and @xmath362 be the usual generators of the lie algebra @xmath127 , satisfying @xmath363=\pm j_{\pm } , \;\;\;\ ; [ j_+ , j_- ] = 2j_z.\ ] ] the eigenstates are labeled as @xmath364 where @xmath365 note that for fixed @xmath366 , @xmath367 may take any of the @xmath368 values @xmath369 .
we also have @xmath370 .
the schwinger representation of @xmath127 defines a lie algebra homomorphism between the angular momentum representation ( generated by @xmath371 and @xmath361 ) and a bosonic representation .
consider two bose operators @xmath14 and @xmath15 with @xmath372 = 1 = \left[b , b^{\dagger}\right]$ ] and all other pairs having vanishing commutator .
defining the mapping @xmath373 and extending linearly to the rest of @xmath127 then gives the desired homomorphism @xcite .
a short calculation then shows that @xmath374 is mapped to @xmath375 where we have defined @xmath376 .
we label the basis states in the bosonic representation as @xmath377 with @xmath32 the eigenvalue of @xmath34 and @xmath33 the eigenvalue of @xmath378 ; this is in complete analogy with the label @xmath379 .
note that @xmath380 may take the @xmath381 values @xmath382 . from the definition of the homomorphism it follows that @xmath383 .
if we then rescale the state @xmath377 to @xmath384 the above identity is rewritten as @xmath385 that @xmath384 is mapped to a multiple of @xmath386 can be seen directly from the form of the operator @xmath387 , which annihilates a particle in mode @xmath15 while creating one in mode @xmath14 .
similarly we have @xmath388 now rescaled , @xmath33 may take on the @xmath389 values @xmath390 .
it is of interest to quantify the generality of the @xmath9-model hamiltonian under study .
we begin this below by first counting the number of terms in the most general hamiltonian that would be of interest to us .
to do this we must define precisely the hamiltonians that are of interest to our study of two - mode becs .
first , we limit ourselves to hamiltonians that are polynomials in the bose operators .
the interactions under consideration consist of any total number preserving operations .
operators corresponding to such interactions must then commute with the total number operator @xmath34 . to restrict the class of interactions , we consider only those that have no intermediate interactions , such as the spontaneous creation and annihilation of a particle .
this imposes the restriction that the hamiltonian be normal ordered . as usual
, we also require self - adjointness of the hamiltonian .
finally , we may decompose the hamiltonian into its homogeneous parts , i.e. terms of degree @xmath391 .
so , it is sufficient to first consider only homogeneous hamiltonians , and then construct more general hamiltonians from these . with these assumptions
we prove the following proposition .
let @xmath392 be a homogeneous , self - adjoint , normal - ordered polynomial in the bose operators @xmath14 and @xmath15 and their adjoints .
furthermore , assume that each term in @xmath392 commutes with the total number operator @xmath31 .
. then the number of terms in @xmath392 is at most @xmath394 .
let @xmath395 denote the number of terms in the hamiltonian .
observe that the requirement that each term in @xmath392 commute with @xmath34 ensures that @xmath396 for some @xmath397 .
consider now a monomial of @xmath392 with @xmath398 of the operators being either @xmath14 or @xmath399 while the remaining @xmath400 being either @xmath15 or @xmath315 .
it is easy to check that , assuming self - adjointness , normal ordering and vanishing commutator with @xmath34 , there are @xmath401 such terms , where for @xmath402 , @xmath403 is the greatest integer less than or equal to @xmath404 .
we may group the monomials of @xmath392 into three groups according to whether there are more than , less than , or the same number of @xmath14 mode terms as @xmath15 mode terms .
doing so , we find that the maximal number of terms in @xmath392 is @xmath405 since @xmath406 for all @xmath407 we obtain the recursion relation @xmath408 . repeated application of this relation yields @xmath409 , which we may rewrite as @xmath410 since @xmath411 , from which the proposition follows .
since we can decompose a general polynomial in terms of its monomials , the above proposition is sufficient to count the maximal number of terms in the most general hamiltonian described above .
let @xmath392 be as above without the assumption of homogeneity with @xmath412 .
then the number of terms in @xmath392 is at most @xmath413 .
again , we can write @xmath396 for some integer @xmath414 .
the number of terms in the hamiltonian is the sum of the number of terms in each of its homogeneous parts , i.e. @xmath415 . after some algebra the corollary follows .
as noted in the proofs of the above proposition and corollary , the assumptions on the hamiltonian imply @xmath416 is even .
we see that the total number of terms in the most general @xmath9-model hamiltonian grows like @xmath417 .
we would like to compare this result to the number of terms in the @xmath9-model of @xcite .
unfortunately , we have not been able to successfully count the number of terms in the @xmath9-model . in order to do so
, one would first need to conjugate @xmath418 by the displacement operator @xmath419 .
the number of terms in this calculation grows quickly with @xmath9 which makes the conjecture of a formula for the number of terms difficult .
moreover , general arguments to count the number of terms , as in the proposition above , seem difficult to make in this case .
regardless , the results for @xmath420 and @xmath421 , summarized in table [ count_tab ] , suggest that there are a significant number of terms missed by the @xmath9-model . whether or not these terms are important in an experimental setting is another question .
c c c c @xmath9 & terms in @xmath9-model & terms in general model & missed terms + [ 0.5ex ]    0 & 1 & 1 & 0 + 1 & 3 & 4 & 1 + 2 & 6 & 10 & 4 + 3 & 13 & 20 & 7 + [ 1ex ]    [ count_tab ]
this work was supported by the natural sciences & engineering research council of canada .
m.b.y . was also partially supported by a renaissance technologies fellowship , and would like to thank andrew louca and paul mcgrath for discussions .
i. f - s was supported by the alexander von humboldt foundation and would like to thank tobias brandes , carsten henkel and martin wilkens for their hospitality and p. barberis - blostein for useful comments and discussions .
g. j. milburn , j. corney , e. m. wright , and d. f. walls , phys . rev . a * 55 * , 4318 ( 1997 ) ; j. i. cirac , m. lewenstein , k. molmer , and p. zoller , phys . rev .
a * 57 * , 1208 ( 1998 ) ; a. j. leggett , rev .
phys . * 73 * , 307356 ( 2001 ) .
m. albiez et al .
lett . * 95 * , 200401 ( 2005 ) .
l. santos and t. pfau .
. lett . * 96 * , 190404 ( 2006 ) ; t. ohmi and k. machida , j. phys.soc . jpn . * 67 * , 1822 ( 1998 ) ; c. k. law , h. pu , and n. p. bigelow , phys . rev
. lett . * 81 * , 5257 ( 1998);m .
koashi and m. ueda , phys .
lett . * 84 * , 1066 ( 2000 ) ; o. e. mstercaploglu et al , phys .
a * 68 * , 063616 ( 2003 ) .                                  c. sackett , j. gerton , m. welling and r. hulet .
_ atomic physics 16 : proceedings of the sixteenth international conference on atomic physics_. american institute of physics conference proceedings # 477 , new york , 1999 . eds .
baylis , w. and drake , g.