Investigation on magnetic field response of a <sup>87</sup>Rb-<sup>129</sup>Xe atomic spin comagnetometer

Meng Shi; Meng Shi

doi:10.1364/OE.404809

1. Introduction

The alkali-metal noble-gas comagnetometer based on nuclear spin and electron spin can be used for inertial measurement as a gyroscope to measure the rotation rate [1–4]. Working in the spin-exchange relaxation-free (SERF) regime, the comagnetometer has opened additional possibilities for ultrasensitive measurement. In 2005, the nuclear spin gyroscope based on the K-³He comagnetometer was first demonstrated by the Romalis group, and a rotation sensitivity of 5×10⁻⁷ rad/s/Hz^1/2 has been reached [2]. Then the atomic spin gyroscopes based on the comagnetometer developed rapidly. Besides K-³He [5,6], there are several choices of the spin species which have been demonstrated to be used as a gyroscope, such as Cs-¹²⁹Xe [7], K-Rb-²¹Ne [8–10] and ⁸⁷Rb-¹²⁹Xe [11], etc.. Though the atomic spin gyroscope based on K-Rb-²¹Ne comagnetometer has higher sensitivity than other spin specie combinations due to the small gyromagnetic ratio of ²¹Ne, the polarization of ²¹Ne atoms is quite difficult and time-consuming. However, the atomic spin gyroscope based on ⁸⁷Rb-¹²⁹Xe or Cs-¹²⁹Xe has characteristics of short start-up since ¹²⁹Xe atoms are easily optically pumped compared with ³He atoms and ²¹Ne atoms.

The response of the comagnetometer to magnetic field is a major source of noise in the atomic spin gyroscope, and it affects the performance of the gyroscope such as rotation sensitivity and long-term stability [12,13]. The magnetic field response of the K-Rb-²¹Ne comagnetometer has been studied in deep. Due to the large electron magnetic field in the K-Rb-²¹Ne comagnetometer, an obvious electron spin resonance about 188 Hz was found that it is far away from the nuclear spin resonance [14,15]. By locking the electron resonance of the K-Rb-²¹Ne comagnetometer, the closed-loop control of the magnetic field compensation point was realized [15]. To study the ability of the magnetic-noise suppression, the magnetic field suppression factor of the K-Rb-²¹Ne comagnetometer was defined as the ratio of the magnetic field response amplitude to the scale factor of rotation response [16]. However, the magnetic field response of the ⁸⁷Rb-¹²⁹Xe comagnetometer is quite different from that of the K-Rb-²¹Ne comagnetometer, which is also ought to be studied thoroughly.

In this study, we systematically investigated the magnetic field response of the ⁸⁷Rb-¹²⁹Xe comagnetometer to the transverse oscillating magnetic field along the y-axis and y-axis. In Section 2, we present the magnetic field response model of the comagnetometer based on the coupled Bloch equations for the electron and nuclear spin polarization. In Section 3, the experiment setup of the ⁸⁷Rb-¹²⁹Xe comagnetometer was built and the experimental test was performed. In Section 4, the tested data were fitted and analyzed, and the simulation of magnetic field response with different nuclear magnetic fields and electron magnetic fields was performed. This study contributes to the improvement of SERF gyroscope performance based on the ⁸⁷Rb-¹²⁹Xe comagnetometer.

2. Magnetic field response model

The alkali-metal noble-gas comagnetometer utilizes the electron spin and nuclear spin. The coupled Bloch equations for the electron and nuclear spin polarization, P^e and Pⁿ, can be written as [2],

(1)$$\begin{array}{l} \frac{{\partial {{\bf P}^{\bf e}}}}{{\partial t}} = \frac{{{\gamma _e}}}{q}\left( {{\bf B} + \lambda {M^n}{{\bf P}^{\bf n}} + {\bf L} - \frac{{q{\bf \Omega }}}{{{\gamma_e}}}} \right) \times {{\bf P}^{\bf e}}\; + \frac{1}{q}({{R_p}{{\boldsymbol s}_{\boldsymbol p}} + {R_m}{{\boldsymbol s}_{\boldsymbol m}} + R_{se}^{en}{{\bf P}^{\bf n}} - R_{tot}^e{{\bf P}^{\bf e}}} )\\ \frac{{\partial {{\bf P}^{\bf n}}}}{{\partial t}} = {\gamma _n}\left( {{\bf B} + \lambda {M^e}{{\bf P}^{\bf e}} - \frac{{\bf \Omega }}{{{\gamma_n}}}} \right) \times {{\bf P}^{\bf n}} + R_{se}^{ne}{{\bf P}^e} - R_{tot}^n{{\bf P}^{\bf n}} \end{array}$$

where γ_e and γ_n are the gyromagnetic ration of electron spin and nuclear spin, respectively. ${R}_{tot}^{e} = R_{p}+R_{m}+R_{sd}+R_{se}^{en}$ is the total relaxation rate of electron spin, where R_p and R_m are the pumping rate from the pump beam and probe beam, R_sd is the electron spin-destruction rate, and ${R}_{se}^{en}$ is the spin-exchange rate experienced by the electron spin. ${R}_{tot}^{n} = R_{se}^{ne}+R_{sd}^{n}$ is the total relaxation rate of nuclear spin, where ${R}_{se}^{ne}$ is the spin-exchange rate experienced by the nuclear spin, ${R}_{sd}^{n}$ is the nuclear spin-destruction rate. B^e=λM ^eP ^e and Bⁿ=λM ⁿP ⁿ are the effective magnetic fields experienced by electron spin and nuclear spin due to the polarization of the other species, where M ^e and Mⁿ are the magnetizations of electron spin and nuclear spin. q is the slowing down factor of the electron spin which is related to the electron spin polarization. s_p and s_m are the direction vector of pump light and probe light, respectively. B is the ambient magnetic field, L is the light shift experienced by electron spin, and Ω is the rotation vector applied to the system.

To small transverse excitations, the longitudinal components of electron and nuclear spin polarization ${P}_{z}^{n}$ and ${P}_{z}^{e}$ can be regarded as two constants, which can be approximatively written as ${P}_{z}^{n}=R_{se}^{ne}/R_{tot}^{n},{P}_{z}^{e}=(R_{p}+{R}_{se}^{en} P_{z}^{n})/{R}_{tot}^{e}\approx{R}_{p}/{R}_{tot}^{e}$ [17]. To simplify Eq. (1), the rest four transverse polarization components can be noted by a matrix,

(2)$$\tilde{{\bf P}} = \left( \begin{array}{l} P_x^e + iP_y^e\\ P_x^n + iP_y^n \end{array} \right)$$

where ${P}_{x}^{e}$ and ${P}_{y}^{e}$ are the transverse components of electron spin polarization along the x-axis and the y-axis, respectively. ${P}_{x}^{n}$ and ${P}_{y}^{n}$ are the transverse components of nuclear spin polarization along the x-axis and the y-axis, respectively.

Then the coupling equations described by Eq. (1) can be rewritten as the matrix form as follows,

(3)$$\frac{{\partial \tilde{{\bf P}}}}{{\partial t}} = {\bf M} \cdot \tilde{{\bf P}} + {\bf N}$$

The matrix M can be written as,

(4)$${\bf M} = \left( \begin{array}{l} - \tilde{R}_{tot}^e + i{\omega_e}\;\;\;\tilde{R}_{se}^{en} - i{\omega_{en}}\\ R_{se}^{ne} - i{\omega_{ne}}\;\;\; - R_{tot}^n + i{\omega_n}\;\;\; \end{array} \right)$$

The matrix N can be written as,

(5)$${\bf N} = \left( \begin{array}{l} \tilde{b}_y^e - i\tilde{b}_x^e\\ b_y^n - ib_x^n \end{array} \right)$$

where the light shift L and pump rate of probe light R_m are neglected since they can be set to zero by adjusting pump beam and probe beam [2], $\tilde{R}_{tot}^{e} = R_{tot}^{e}/q$, $\tilde{R}_{se}^{en} = R_{se}^{en}/q$, $\omega_{en}={\gamma}_{e} \lambda M^{n}P_{z}^{e}/q$, $\omega_{ne}={\gamma}_{n} \lambda M^{e}P_{z}^{n}$, $\omega_{e}={\gamma}_{e} (B_{z}+\lambda M^{n}P_{z}^{n})/q$, $\omega_{n}={\gamma}_{n} (B_{z}+\lambda M^{e}P_{z}^{e})$, $\tilde{b}_y^e = P_z^e({{\gamma_e}{B_y}/q - {\Omega _y}} )$, $\tilde{b}_x^e = P_z^e({{\gamma_e}{B_x}/q - {\Omega _x}} )$, ${b}_{y}^{n} = P_{z}^{n}({{\gamma_e}{B_y} - {\Omega _y}} )$, ${b}_x^n = P_z^n({{\gamma_n}{B_x} - {\Omega _x}} )$, ${\tilde{\gamma }_e} = {\gamma _e}/q$. And $B_c= -\lambda M^e P_z^e - \lambda M^n P_z^n$ is the compensation magnetic field which is applied to compensate the magnetic field produced by electron spin and nuclear spin along the z-axis [12]. When a transverse oscillating magnetic field ${\bf B} = ({{B_{0x}}\hat{x} + {B_{0y}}\hat{y}} )\cos ({\omega t} )$is applied where B_0x and B_0y are the amplitudes of the magnetic field along x-axis and y-axis, and ω is the angular frequency of the magnetic field, the transverse electron polarization Pe x can be obtained by solving Eq. (3).

(6)$$\begin{array}{l} P_x^e = {{\tilde{\gamma }}_e}P_z^e\omega {B_{0y}}\frac{{\sqrt {{{[{\tilde{R}_{tot}^e({\omega - {\omega_0}} ){K_2} + \tilde{R}_{tot}^e({\omega + {\omega_0}} ){K_1}} ]}^2} + {{[{ - \omega ({{\omega_0} + {\omega_{e0}} - \omega } ){K_2} + \omega ({{\omega_0} + {\omega_{e0}} + \omega } ){K_1}} ]}^2}} }}{{{K_1}{K_2}}}\cos ({\omega t - {\varphi_1}} )\\ \;\;\;\;\;\;\; - {{\tilde{\gamma }}_e}P_z^e\omega {B_{0x}}\frac{{\sqrt {{{[{\tilde{R}_{tot}^e({\omega - {\omega_0}} ){K_2} - \tilde{R}_{tot}^e({\omega + {\omega_0}} ){K_1}} ]}^2} + {{[{\omega ({{\omega_0} + {\omega_{e0}} - \omega } ){K_2} + \omega ({{\omega_0} + {\omega_{e0}} + \omega } ){K_1}} ]}^2}} }}{{{K_1}{K_2}}}\cos ({\omega t - {\varphi_2}} )\end{array}$$

where $\omega_{e0}=\gamma_{e}\lambda M^e P_z^e/q=\gamma_{e}B^e/q$ and $\omega_{0}=\gamma_{n}\lambda M^n P_z^n=\gamma_{n}B^n$ are the electron and nuclear spin precession frequencies, respectively. ${K_1} = {[{\tilde{R}_{tot}^e({\omega - {\omega_0}} )} ]^2} + {[{\omega ({{\omega_0} + {\omega_{e0}} - \omega } )} ]^2}$ and ${K_2} = {[{\tilde{R}_{tot}^e({\omega + {\omega_0}} )} ]^2} + {[{\omega ({{\omega_0} + {\omega_{e0}} + \omega } )} ]^2}$ are two coefficients. φ₁ and φ₂ are the phases which can be written as

(7)$${\varphi _1} = \arctan \left( {\frac{{ - \omega ({{\omega_0} + {\omega_{e0}} - \omega } ){K_2} + \omega ({{\omega_0} + {\omega_{e0}} + \omega } ){K_1}}}{{\tilde{R}_{tot}^e({\omega - {\omega_0}} ){K_2} + \tilde{R}_{tot}^e({\omega + {\omega_0}} ){K_1}}}} \right)$$

(8)$${\varphi _2} = \arctan \left( {\frac{{\tilde{R}_{tot}^e({\omega - {\omega_0}} ){K_2} - \tilde{R}_{tot}^e({\omega + {\omega_0}} ){K_1}}}{{\omega ({{\omega_0} + {\omega_{e0}} - \omega } ){K_2} + \omega ({{\omega_0} + {\omega_{e0}} + \omega } ){K_1}}}} \right)$$

It can be seen from Eq. (6) the responses of the comagnetometer to the transverse oscillating magnetic field along the x-axis and the y-axis are also two oscillating functions with different amplitudes and phases.

3. Experiment setup and results

The experimental setup of the ⁸⁷Rb-¹²⁹Xe comagnetometer is shown in Fig. 1. In the center of the setup is an 8 mm ×8 mm× 8 mm cubic cell. There are a few drops of ⁸⁷Rb, 20 torr of ¹²⁹Xe and 700 torr of N₂ as the quenching gas filled in the vapor cell. The cell is heated to 160 °C by a heating plate with a 100 kHz AC current, where the Rb vapor atoms fulfill the whole cell. There is a set of three-dimensional coils displaced out of the vapor cell, which is used to compensate the ambient magnetic field and the magnetic field produced by nuclear spin and electron spin. The three-dimensional coils are driven by two high precision function generators (Keysight 33500B) with two channels. The cell and the coil are placed into a four layers magnetic shield, which is used to screen the influence of the geomagnetic field.

Fig. 1. The schematic of the ⁸⁷Rb-¹²⁹Xe comagnetometer. A circularly polarized laser propagating along the z-axis is used as pump light to polarize atoms in the vapor cell. A linearly polarized laser propagating along the x-axis is used as probe light to measure the polarization component along the x-axis ${P}_{x}^{e}$. λ/4 is quarter-wave plate, λ/2 is half-wave plate, NE is noise eater, PD is photodiode, PBS is polarization beam splitter.

Download Full Size | PDF

A linearly polarized light emitting from a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) laser diode is used to pump the alkali-metal atoms along the z-axis. The pump laser is protected by a Faraday isolator and the power of the laser is stabilized by a half-wave plate (λ/2) and a noise eater (Thorlabs, NEM03L). Before linearly polarized light propagates through the vapor cell, it is transformed into a circularly polarized light by a quarter-wave plate (λ/4), which is used to polarize the Rb atoms. The pump power is chosen as 40 mW, and the wavelength is set on the center of the ⁸⁷Rb D1 resonance line. The transverse polarization component ${P}_{x}^{e}$ is detected a probe laser with 3 mW and tuned away 0.2 nm of the ⁸⁷Rb D1 resonance line. Similar to the pump laser, the probe laser is also protected by a Faraday isolator and stabilized by a half-wave plate and a noise eater. The output signal is detected by a differential detection module which contains a polarization balance splitter (PBS) and two photodiodes (PD1 and PD2). Another half-wave plate is placed before the differential detection module to adjust the polarization plane of the linearly polarized probe light.

It takes hours to heat the cell to 160 °C and realize the polarization of atoms. In order to promote the polarization of ¹²⁹Xe, a DC magnetic field is applied along the z-axis. After the polarization reaches the equilibrium state, the compensation magnetic field is carried out. The total Rb electron relaxation rate $R_{tot}^{e}$ is measured by changing the magnetic field along z-axis B_z according to the response of the comagnetometer to square wave modulation magnetic field B_y. The tested result is shown in Fig. 2. The total electron relaxation rate can be obtained by fitting the tested data to the function described in Ref. [18],

(9)$$\Delta P_x^e = P_z^e\frac{{({{{R_{tot}^e} / {{\gamma_e}}}} )}}{{{{({{{R_{tot}^e} / {{\gamma_e}}}} )}^2} + {{({\delta {B_z} + {L_z}} )}^2}}}\Delta {B_y}\frac{{\delta {B_z}}}{{{B^n}}}$$

where $\Delta P_x^e$ is the response of B_y and δB_z = B_z-B_c is the total residual field along z-axis where B_c is the compensation magnetic field. L_z is the light shift along the z-axis. The total electron relaxation rate $R_{tot}^{e}$ is 2813 s^-1 which is highly suppressed from the spin-exchange rate $T_{SE}^{-1}$ of 3.9×10⁵ s^-1, so SERF regime is realized. The spin-exchange rate $T_{SE}^{-1}$ can be obtained by $T_{SE}^{-1}=nv \sigma_{SE}$ [19] where n is alkali-metal atom density, v is the thermal velocity, σ_SE is the spin-exchange cross-section which is 1.9×10⁻¹⁴ cm² for⁸⁷Rb atoms [20]. The thermal velocity v can be obtained by v=(8RT/πM_mol)^1/2 where R=8.31 (J mol^-1 K^-1) is the gas constant, T is the temperature in Kelvin, M_mol is molar mass of ⁸⁷Rb atom. And the typical values of the three parameters mentioned above are listed in Table 1.

Fig. 2. The response signal $\Delta P_x^e$ of a B_y square wave modulation for different δB_z.

Download Full Size | PDF

Table 1. Typical values of parameters

View Table

By adjusting the comagnetometer into proper condition, it can be used to measure the rotation rate of the system. Here, we focus on the magnetic field response of the comagnetometer when the comagnetometer works at the magnetic field compensation point, especially the transverse oscillating magnetic field. A series of magnetic fields with different frequencies and the same amplitude of 1.0 nT are applied to the y-axis and x-axis, respectively. The amplitude-frequency response of the comagnetometer is depicted in Fig. 3. It can be seen there is a high resonance peak both in y and x axis in the tested frequency ranging from 0.05 Hz to 100 Hz. Then, the input frequency is extended to 1000 Hz, and there is no other resonance peak found in the frequency spectrum. Because the resonance is near low-frequency, it is obviously thought to be a nuclear resonance. However, the actual situation is more complex, which is discussed in Section 4.

Fig. 3. The frequency response of the comagnetometer at the compensation point. (a) B_y. (b) B_x.

Download Full Size | PDF

4. Discussions

By fitting the tested data with Eq. (6) to Fig. 3(a), it is found that the resonance is consists of the two poles, the nuclear resonance and the electron resonance, respectively. Therefore, the resonance is called the hybrid resonance. For the typical electron spin polarization 50%, the slowing factor should be q≈5.2. The two resonances frequencies of electron spin and nuclear spin ω₀=γ_nBⁿ and ω_e₀=γ_eB^e/q are 0.62 Hz and 1.8 Hz, which corresponds to Bⁿ=53 nT and B^e=0.33 nT, respectively. $\tilde{R}_{tot}^e = R_{tot}^e/q$ is about 14 Hz, which means the relaxation rate $R_{tot}^{e}$ is 2461 s^-1. It is a little lower than the value obtained from the data shown in Fig. 2 by fitting with Eq. (9). The discrepancy between the two values is due to the different treatments of light shift L_z. Then the same kind of oscillating magnetic field is implemented on the x-axis, and the tested data and the fitting curve is shown in Fig. 3(b). The fitting results are almost equal to the mentioned above, which confirms the reliability of the results. As shown in Figs. 3(a) and (b), the fitting results on the two sides of the hybrid resonance peak is some bad. It can be contributed to the approximation conditions of the presented response model, such as the constant approximations of $P_{z}^{n}$ and $P_{z}^{e}$, and the ignorance of the light shift L and pump rate R_m. In the comagnetometer, the pump laser and the probe light are along the z-axis and x-axis, respectively. Based on Eq. (6), even though the response to B_x and B_y have the same pole structure in the dominator K₁K₂, the nominators are different. Therefore, the spin polarization projections on the x-axis induced by Bx and By are different, which lead to different line shape for the response to B_x and B_y. As shown in Fig. 3, the hybrid resonance peak for B_y response is not obvious and that for B_x response cannot be found.

Compared with the resonance peak of the K-³He comagnetometer reported in Ref. [1], the resonance peak of the ⁸⁷Rb-¹²⁹Xe comagnetometer reported in this paper is much closer to low-frequency. This can be contributed to the low ¹²⁹Xe spin precession frequency ω₀=γ_nBⁿ, because the gyromagnetic ratio γ_n of ¹²⁹Xe is about three times smaller than that of ³He, and Bⁿ=53 nT is a little lower than that of ³He. Different to the nuclear magnetic resonance gyroscope (NMRG) where the electron spin and nuclear spin are decoupled and resonances are separated far away from each other, the spin species in the comagnetometer strongly couple together and the shape of the coupling is different from normal resonance. As shown in Fig. 3, the right edge of the resonance does not drop immediately but extends to about 10 Hz since the two resonances have different widths. As a gyroscope, all the magnetic noises should be reduced. The magnetic noise near the hybrid resonant frequency (0.8 Hz) should be especially taken care of, which would lead to much larger magnetic field noise than that of the other frequencies.

According to Eq. (6) in Section 2, Bⁿ and B^e are two main factors affecting the hybrid resonance peak. To investigate the influences of Bⁿ and B^e to amplitude-frequency response, we changed Bⁿ or B^e in the normal range and simulate the amplitude-frequency response when the other was kept unchanged. The unchanged parameters in the simulation were obtained by fitting the tested data with Eq. (6) and the frequency ranges from 0.02 Hz to 1000 Hz. The simulation results of magnetic field response along the y-axis with the different nuclear magnetic fields are shown in Fig. 4(a). The blue curve is corresponding to the fitting curve in Fig. 3(a). It was observed that the shape and the amplitude of the hybrid resonance peaks for B_y responses did not change when nuclear magnetic field changes from 13 nT to 93 nT, but the resonant frequency is shifted by the nuclear magnetic field. As shown in Fig. 4(b), the nuclear resonant frequency is right-shifted with the increase the nuclear magnetic field, and the hybrid resonance peaks for B_x responses is still not found. Therefore, the magnetic field noise in near-low frequency can be reduced by the right-shift of resonant frequency. This indicates that Bⁿ has a little effect on hybrid resonance peak because the nuclear spin precession frequencies ω₀ =γ_nBⁿ changes littile dut to the small gyromagnetic ratio γ_n_.

Fig. 4. The magnetic field response of the comagnetometer with different nuclear magnetic field. (a) B_y. (b) B_x.

Download Full Size | PDF

The simulation results of magnetic field response along the y-axis and the x-axis with various electron magnetic field are shown in Fig. 5. It was observed that the linewidth of the hybrid resonance peak is broadened with the increase of the electron magnetic field. The electron resonance and nuclear resonance separate with each other and the large electron resonance peak appears when the electron magnetic field reaches about 10 nT. Though the simulation result with large B^e is different from the experimental result, it matches with the report of K-Rb-²¹Ne comagnetometer with the large electron magnetic field [14]. This also proves the correctness of the simulation. The simulation results indicate the B^e has a large effect on hybrid resonance peak because the change of the electron spin precession frequencies ω_e₀=γ_eB^e/q is large with the electron gyromagnetic ratio γ_e of 28 Hz/nT when B^e range from to 0.2 nT to 10 nT. With the change of the Be, the hybrid resonance peaks are obvious both in the response to By and Bx. There are some differences between the response to By and Bx as shown in Figs. 5(a) and (b) due to the different nominators in Eq. (6) of the two components.

Fig. 5. The magnetic field response of the comagnetometer with different electron magnetic field. (a) B_y. (b) B_x.

Download Full Size | PDF

The electron magnetic field B_z^e is proportional to the polarization of electron P_z^e [22], that is B_z^e=k₁ P_z^e where k₁ is the conversion coefficient between B_z^e and P_z^e, and the polarization of electron P_z^e, is proportional to the scale of gyroscope rotation K_scal[18], that is K_scal= k₂ P_z^e where k₂ is the related coefficient. Therefore, the change of electron magnetic field will cause the change of gyroscope scale factor. In order to better evaluate the effect of the electronic magnetic field on gyroscope performance, the magnetic field suppression factor is used which is defined as the ratio of magnetic field response to the gyroscope scale [16]. The simulations of the suppression factor along the y-axis and x-axis were conducted. As shown in Fig. 6, the suppression factor obviously decreases with the increase of the electron magnetic field, especially near the hybrid resonance frequency. This suggested that we can reduce magnetic field noise by increasing the electron magnetic field. There is no direct correlation between the nuclear magnetic field and the gyroscope scale, so the magnetic field suppression factor is consistent with the magnetic field response when the nuclear magnetic field is changed, as shown in Fig. 4.

Fig. 6. The suppression factor of the comagnetometer with different electron magnetic field. (a) B_y. (b) B_x.

Download Full Size | PDF

5. Conclusion

In conclusion, the magnetic field response of the ⁸⁷Rb-¹²⁹Xe comagnetometer at the magnetic field compensation point was theoretically and experimentally investigated. By testing the amplitude-frequency response of the ⁸⁷Rb-¹²⁹Xe comagnetometer to the transverse oscillating magnetic field, one high hybrid resonance peak in near-low frequency was found in the frequency range extending to 1000 Hz. By fitting the resonance with the presented model, a pair of poles at 0.62 Hz and 1.8 Hz are obtained which correspond to the nuclear and electron spin magnetic field of 53 nT and 0.33 nT, respectively. In order to further investigate the response characteristics of the comagnetometer, the magnetic field response of the comagnetometer with different nuclear magnetic fields and electron magnetic fields was simulated with the presented model. The simulation results indicate that the hybrid resonance frequency can be right-shifted by increasing the nuclear magnetic field and the suppression factor can be extremely decreased by the larger electron magnetic field. Therefore, the increase of both the nuclear magnetic field and the electron magnetic field can suppress the response of the ⁸⁷Rb-¹²⁹Xe comagnetometer to magnetic field. This work provides a theoretical and experimental basis for the research of the ⁸⁷Rb-¹²⁹Xe comagnetometer to magnetic field response and has great significance in the performance enhancement of gyroscope based the ⁸⁷Rb-¹²⁹Xe comagnetometer.

Funding

National Key Research and Development Program of China (2016YFB0501601); Youth Fund Project of National Natural Science Foundation of China (61601017).

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Haifeng Dong and Dr. Tianshun Wang for useful discussions.

Disclosures

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest related to this article.

References

1. T. W. Kornack and M. V. Romalis, “Dynamics of two overlapping spin ensembles interacting by spin exchange,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 89(25), 253002 (2002). [CrossRef]

2. T. W. Kornack, R. K. Ghosh, and M. V. Romalis, “Nuclear spin gyroscope based on an atomic comagnetometer,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 95(23), 230801 (2005). [CrossRef]

3. H. F. Dong and Y. Gao, “Comparison of compensation mechanism between an NMR gyroscope and an SERF gyroscope,” IEEE Sensors J. 17(13), 4052–4055 (2017). [CrossRef]

4. W. F. Fan, W. Quan, W. J. Zhang, L. Xing, and G. Liu, “Analysis on the magnetic field response for nuclear spin co-magnetometer operated in spin-exchange relaxation-free regime,” IEEE Access 7, 28574–28580 (2019). [CrossRef]

5. S. Zou, H. Zhang, X. Y. Chen, Y. Chen, J. X. Lu, Z. H. Hu, G. C. Shan, W. Quan, and J. C. Fang, “Ultra-sensitive atomic magnetometer for studying magnetization fields produced by hyperpolarized helium-3,” J. Appl. Phys. 119(14), 143901 (2016). [CrossRef]

6. S. Zou, H. Zhang, X. Y. Chen, Y. Chen, Z. Wang, W. Quan, and J. C. Fang, “Ultra-sensitive atomic magnetometers for studying spin precessions of hyperpolarized noble gases based on system identification,” IEEE Sensors J. 18(24), 9931–9939 (2018). [CrossRef]

7. J. C. Fang, S. A. Wan, J. Qin, C. Zhang, W. Quan, H. Yuan, and H. F. Dong, “A novel Cs-¹²⁹Xe atomic spin gyroscope with closed-loop Faraday modulation,” Rev. Sci. Instrum. 84(8), 083108 (2013). [CrossRef]

8. R. J. Li, W. F. Fan, L. W. Jiang, L. H. Duan, W. Quan, and J. C. Fang, “Rotation sensing using a K-Rb-²¹Ne comagnetometer,” Phys. Rev. A 94(3), 032109 (2016). [CrossRef]

9. W. Quan, K. Wei, T. Zhao, H. R. Li, and Y. Y. Zhai, “Synchronous measurement of inertial rotation and magnetic field,” Phys. Rev. A 100(1), 012118 (2019). [CrossRef]

10. Y. H. Yang, D. Y. Chen, W. Jin, W. Quan, F. Liu, and J. C. Fang, “Investigation on rotation response of spin-exchange relaxation-free atomic spin gyroscope,” IEEE Access 7, 148176–148182 (2019). [CrossRef]

11. M. Shi, L. X. Liu, X. F. Wang, and W. Wang, “Effects of pump laser power and vapor cell temperature on SERF gyroscope,” J. Chin. Inertial Technol. 25(6), 810–814 (2017). [CrossRef]

12. R. J. Li, W. Quan, W. F. Fan, L. Xing, and J. C. Fang, “Influence of magnetic fields on the bias stability of atomic gyroscope operated in spin-exchange relaxation-free regime,” Sens. Actuators, A 266, 130–134 (2017). [CrossRef]

13. W. F. Fan, W. Quan, F. Liu, L. Xing, and G. Liu, “Suppression of the bias error induced by magnetic noise in a spin-exchange relaxation-free gyroscope,” IEEE Sensors J. 19(21), 9712–9721 (2019). [CrossRef]

14. J. C. Fang, Y. Chen, Y. Lu, W. Quan, and S. Zou, “Dynamics of Rb and 21Ne spin ensembles interacting by spin exchange with a high Rb magnetic field,” J. Phys. B: At., Mol. Opt. Phys. 49(13), 135002 (2016). [CrossRef]

15. L. W. Jiang, W. Quan, F. Liu, W. F. Fan, L. Xing, L. H. Duan, W. M. Liu, and J. C. Fang, “Closed-loop control of compensation point in the K-Rb-²¹Ne Comagnetometer,” Phys. Rev. Appl. 12(2), 024017 (2019). [CrossRef]

16. J. C. Fang, Y. Chen, S. Zou, X. J. Liu, Z. H. Hu, W. Quan, H. Yuan, and M. Ding, “Low frequency magnetic field suppression in an atomic spin co-magnetometer with a large electron magnetic field,” J. Phys. B: At., Mol. Opt. Phys. 49(6), 065006 (2016). [CrossRef]

17. G. Vasilakis, “Precision measurements of spin interactions with high density atomic vapors”, Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. Phys., Princeton Univ., Princeton, NJ, USA, 2008.

18. Y. Chen, W. Quan, S. Zou, Y. Lu, L. H. Duan, Y. Li, H. Zhang, M. Ding, and J. C. Fang, “Spin exchange broadening of magnetic resonance lines in a high-sensitivity rotating K-Rb-²¹Ne co-magnetometer,” Sci. Rep. 6(1), 36547 (2016). [CrossRef]

19. J. C. Allred, R. N. Lyman, T. W. Kornack, and M. V. Romalis, “High sensitivity atomic magnetometer unaffected by spin-exchange relaxation,” Phys. Rev. Appl. 89(13), 130801 (2002). [CrossRef]

20. N. W. Ressler, R. H. Sands, and T. E. Stark, “Measurement of spin-exchange cross sections for Cs¹³³, Rb⁸⁷, Rb⁸⁵, K³⁹, and Na²³,” Phys. Rev. 184(1), 102–118 (1969). [CrossRef]

21. S. J. Seltzer, “Developments in alkali-metal atomic magnetometry,” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. Phys., Princeton Univ., Princeton, NJ, USA, 2008.

22. K. Wei, T. Zhao, X. J. Fang, H. R. Li, Y. Y. Zhai, B. C. Han, and W. Quan, “Simultaneous determination of the spin polarizations of noble-gas and alkali-metal atoms based on the dynamics of the spin ensembles,” Phys. Rev. Appl. 13(4), 044027 (2020). [CrossRef]

Investigation on magnetic field response of a ⁸⁷Rb-¹²⁹Xe atomic spin comagnetometer

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Magnetic field response model

3. Experiment setup and results

4. Discussions

5. Conclusion

Funding

Acknowledgments

Disclosures

References

Cited By

Figures (6)

Tables (1)

Equations (9)

Optics Express