23.03.2013 Views

Non-dispersive wave packets in periodically driven quantum systems

Non-dispersive wave packets in periodically driven quantum systems

Non-dispersive wave packets in periodically driven quantum systems

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

A. Buchleitner et al. / Physics Reports 368 (2002) 409–547 519<br />

so small that an accurate t is needed. 34 This can be easily seen <strong>in</strong> Fig. 30 where, on the scale<br />

of the mean level spac<strong>in</strong>g, these uctuations are <strong>in</strong>visible by eye (the level appears as a straight<br />

horizontal l<strong>in</strong>e).<br />

The explanation for the uctuations is the follow<strong>in</strong>g: <strong>in</strong> a <strong>quantum</strong> language, they are due to<br />

the coupl<strong>in</strong>g between the localized <strong>wave</strong> packet and states localized <strong>in</strong> the chaotic sea surround<strong>in</strong>g<br />

the resonance island. While the energy of the <strong>wave</strong> packet is a smooth function of the parameters<br />

F and !, the energies of the chaotic states display a complicated behavior characterized by level<br />

repulsion and large avoided cross<strong>in</strong>gs. It happens often that—for some parameter values—there is<br />

a quasi-degeneracy between the <strong>wave</strong>-packet eigenstate and a chaotic state, see the numerous t<strong>in</strong>y<br />

avoided cross<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong> Fig. 30. There, the two states are e ciently mixed, the <strong>wave</strong> packet captures<br />

some part of the coupl<strong>in</strong>g of the chaotic state to the cont<strong>in</strong>uum and its ionization width <strong>in</strong>creases (see<br />

also [145]). This is the very orig<strong>in</strong> of the observed uctuations. Simultaneously, the chaotic state<br />

repels the <strong>wave</strong>-packet state lead<strong>in</strong>g to a deviation of the energy from its smooth behavior, and thus<br />

to the observed uctuations. This mechanism is similar to “chaos-assisted tunnel<strong>in</strong>g”, described <strong>in</strong><br />

the literature [179–189] for both, <strong>driven</strong> one-dimensional and two-dimensional autonomous <strong>systems</strong>.<br />

There, the tunnel<strong>in</strong>g rate between two symmetric islands—which manifests itself through the splitt<strong>in</strong>g<br />

between the symmetric and antisymmetric states of a doublet—may be strongly enhanced by the<br />

chaotic transport between the islands. We have then a “regular” tunnel<strong>in</strong>g escape from one island,<br />

a chaotic di usive transport from the vic<strong>in</strong>ity of one island to the other (many paths, lead<strong>in</strong>g to<br />

<strong>in</strong>terferences and result<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> large uctuations of the splitt<strong>in</strong>g), and another “regular” tunnel<strong>in</strong>g<br />

penetration <strong>in</strong>to the second island. In our case, the situation is even simpler—we have a “regular”<br />

tunnel<strong>in</strong>g escape supplemented by a chaotic di usion and eventual ionization. Thus, <strong>in</strong>stead of the<br />

level splitt<strong>in</strong>g, we observe a shift of the energy level and a nite width.<br />

S<strong>in</strong>ce these uctuations stem from the coupl<strong>in</strong>g between the regular <strong>wave</strong>-packet state and a set<br />

of chaotic states, it is quite natural to model such a situation via a Random Matrix model [65],<br />

the approach be<strong>in</strong>g directly motivated by a similar treatment of the tunnel<strong>in</strong>g splitt<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> [187].<br />

For details, we refer the reader to the orig<strong>in</strong>al work [65]. It su ces to say here that the model is<br />

characterized by three real parameters: —which characterizes the mean strength of the coupl<strong>in</strong>g<br />

between the regular state and the chaotic levels, —which measures the decay of the chaotic states<br />

(due to ionization; direct ionization transitions from the <strong>wave</strong>-packet state to the cont<strong>in</strong>uum are<br />

negligible), and —which is the mean level spac<strong>in</strong>g of chaotic levels. The two physically relevant,<br />

dimensionless parameters are = and = . In the perturbative regime ( = ; = 1) it is possible<br />

to obta<strong>in</strong> analytical [65] predictions for the statistical distribution of the energy shifts P(s) (of the<br />

<strong>wave</strong>-packet’s energy from its unperturbed value) and for the distribution of its widths P( ). P(s)<br />

turns out to be a Cauchy distribution (Lorentzian), similarly to the tunnel<strong>in</strong>g splitt<strong>in</strong>g distribution<br />

found <strong>in</strong> [187]. The distribution of the widths is a bit more complicated (it is the square root of<br />

which is approximately Lorentzian distributed). The perturbative approach fails for the asymptotic<br />

behavior of the tails of the distributions, where an exponential cut-o is expected and observed <strong>in</strong><br />

numerical studies [65,187]. By tt<strong>in</strong>g the predictions of the Random Matrix model to the numerical<br />

data of Fig. 51, we may nally extract the values of = , the strength of the decay, and of = , the<br />

coupl<strong>in</strong>g between the regular and the chaotic states. An example of such a t is shown <strong>in</strong> Fig. 52.<br />

The numerical data are collected around some mean values of n0 and F0, typically 1000 data po<strong>in</strong>ts<br />

34 In particular, the semiclassical expression is not su ciently accurate for such a t.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!