1: \documentclass[prl,showpacs,superscriptaddress,twocolumn]{revtex4}
2:
3: \usepackage{amsmath}
4: \usepackage{graphicx}
5:
6: \newcommand{\nin}{\noindent}
7: \newcommand{\cordoba}{Facultad de Matem\'{a}tica, Astronom\'{\i}a y
8: F\'{\i}sica, Universidad Nacional de C\'{o}rdoba, 5000 C\'{o}rdoba, Argentina}
9: \newcommand{\strasbourg}{Institut de Physique et Chimie des
10: Mat\'{e}riaux de Strasbourg, UMR 7504, CNRS-ULP,\\
11: 23 rue du Loess, BP 43, 67034 Strasbourg Cedex 2, France}
12:
13: \begin{document}
14:
15: \title{Semiclassical Theory of Time-Reversal Focusing}
16:
17: \author{Hern\'an~L. Calvo}
18: \affiliation{\cordoba}
19: \affiliation{\strasbourg}
20: \author{Rodolfo~A.~Jalabert}
21: \affiliation{\strasbourg}
22: \author{Horacio~M.~Pastawski}
23: \affiliation{\cordoba}
24:
25: \begin{abstract}
26: Time reversal mirrors have been successfully implemented for various kinds of
27: waves propagating in complex media. In particular, acoustic waves in chaotic
28: cavities exhibit a refocalization that is extremely robust against external
29: perturbations or the partial use of the available information. We develop a
30: semiclassical approach in order to quantitatively describe the refocusing
31: signal resulting from an initially localized wave-packet. The time-dependent
32: reconstructed signal grows linearly with the temporal window of injection, in
33: agreement with the acoustic experiments, and reaches the same spatial
34: extension of the original wave-packet. We explain the crucial role played by
35: the chaotic dynamics for the reconstruction of the signal and its stability
36: against external perturbations.
37:
38: \end{abstract}
39:
40: \pacs{03.65.Sq; 05.45.Mt; 03.65.Yz; 43.35+d}
41: \maketitle
42:
43:
44: The concept of time reversal has captured the imagination of physicists for
45: more than a century, leading to a vast theoretical oeuvre, sempiternal
46: discussions, and a few concrete experimental realizations. Among them, the
47: works on spin echoes have been of paramount importance concerning the limits
48: in the reconstruction of an initially prepared quantum state
49: \cite{cit-Hahn,cit-Zhang}. The time reversal of acoustic waves in a
50: non-homogeneous medium was another experimental deed showing that an initially
51: localized pulse can be accurately reconstructed by an array of
52: receiver-emitter transducers that re-inject the recorded signal
53: \cite{cit-Derode}. Re-focusing of elastic, as well as electromagnetic, waves
54: has been later achieved \cite{cit-Draeger,cit-Catheline,cit-Lerosey}. These
55: experiments provoke a natural surprise while yielding reconstructions, that
56: albeit not perfect, are highly faithful. The relevant questions that arise
57: when trying to understand these physical realizations of time reversal are
58: related with how good a reconstruction can be achieved and which are the
59: limits set by interactions with the environment and unavoidable errors in the
60: reversal protocol.
61:
62: In the spin echo experiments the complexity of the physical system has emerged
63: as a critical component, and the term of Loschmidt echo (LE) has been coined
64: to describe setups where many-body physics or chaotic dynamics are relevant
65: \cite{cit-Levstein}. In particular, the decay of the LE with the reversal time
66: has been shown to depend on the underlying classical dynamics
67: \cite{cit-Peres,cit-Jalabert,cit-Gorin}: classically chaotic systems exhibit a
68: decay rate which, for large perturbations, is bounded by the Lyapunov exponent
69: characterizing the dynamics.
70:
71: In the time-reversal mirror (TRM) procedure the play back signal builds up in
72: the region of the original excitation, in the form of a reversed wave
73: amplitude \cite{cit-Derode}. Thus, the TRM can be viewed as the wave version
74: of the LE. A salient feature of the TRM experiments is that, even though
75: reversal is not perfect \cite{cit-Pastawski}, the refocusing improves when the
76: wave-propagation occurs in a disordered medium or in a chaotic cavity, as
77: compared with the homogeneous or integrable case. Remarkably, a single
78: transducer is enough in the case of a chaotic cavity \cite{cit-Draeger}. The
79: asymptotic analysis of the Wigner transform of wave fields in the
80: high-frequency limit has been used to understand how multiple scattering
81: enhances the spatial resolution of the refocused signal \cite{cit-Bal}.
82: Diagrammatic perturbation theory has been able to account for the
83: symmetry-induced interference enhancements in the refocalization observed in
84: disordered media \cite{cit-deRosny}. The refocusing experiments in chaotic
85: cavities have been confronted with numerical simulations \cite{cit-Draeger},
86: as well as ergodicity and control theory \cite{cit-Bardos}. The contrasting
87: stability properties of TRM with wave and particle propagation through a
88: multiple scattering medium has been discussed in Ref. \cite{cit-snie}.
89:
90: In this work we develop a semiclassical approach for TRM in chaotic cavities
91: and quantify the quality of the reconstructed signal in terms of temporal and
92: spatial dispersions, as well as possible environmental influences. We
93: demonstrate the crucial role played by the underlying classical dynamics and
94: validate our analytical results by confronting them to numerical simulations.
95:
96: A high-frequency signal emitted at $t=0$ at a position $\mathbf{r}_{0}$ inside
97: the cavity can be interpreted within the ray picture as an initial wave-packet
98: centered at $\mathbf{r}_{0}$ that evolves and is recorded by a receiver (or an
99: array of receivers) at position(s) $\mathbf{r}_{i}$ ($i=1,2,\ldots,N$) for
100: times in the interval $(t_{1},t_{2})$. After a waiting time $t_{W}>t_{2}$ the
101: re-emission of the time-reversed signal is performed in the interval
102: $(t_{2}^{\prime}=2t_{W}-t_{2},t_{1}^{\prime}=2t_{W}-t_{1})$. The refocusing is
103: expected at $2t_{W}$, that is redefined as the time origin for refocusing
104: \cite{cit-Draeger} (see Fig.~\ref{fig-1}(a)). The signal that can be detected
105: in a point $\mathbf{r}$ at a time $t$ is \cite{cit-Tanner}%
106: \begin{align}
107: \mathcal{F}_{\mathbf{p}_{0}}(\mathbf{r},t)=&\sum_{i}\int_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}%
108: }\mathrm{d}\tau\ G(\mathbf{r,r}_{i},t+\tau)\nonumber\\
109: & \times\int\mathrm{d}\mathbf{r}^{\prime}\ G^{\ast}(\mathbf{r}_{i}%
110: ,\mathbf{r}^{\prime},\tau)\psi_{\mathbf{p}_{0}}^{\ast}(\mathbf{r}^{\prime
111: })\ .\label{eq_twoGF}%
112: \end{align}
113: The propagator $G(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}_{i},t+\tau)$ corresponds to the
114: re-emitted signal, which is obtained by time-reversing the evolution of the
115: initial state with the propagator $G(\mathbf{r}_{i},\mathbf{r}^{\prime},\tau
116: )$. We do not write the initial temporal arguments of the propagators, as they
117: are taken to be $0$. We work in two dimensions and choose as an initial state
118: a Gaussian wave-packet%
119: \begin{equation}
120: \psi_{\mathbf{p}_{0}}(\mathbf{r}^{\prime})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}\sigma}%
121: \exp\left[ \tfrac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar}\mathbf{p}_{0}\cdot({\mathbf{r}}^{\prime
122: }-\mathbf{r}_{0})-\tfrac{(\mathbf{r}^{\prime}-\mathbf{r}_{0})^{2}}{2\sigma
123: ^{2}}\right] \ ,
124: \end{equation}
125: centered around $\mathbf{r}_{0}$ and with dispersion $\sigma$. The initial
126: momentum $\mathbf{p}_{0}$ sets the energy and direction of the original
127: signal. The choice of a quantum formalism to represent the ray picture is
128: motivated by convenience, as we are leaving aside the delicate issue
129: concerning a quantal recording-emission process. The quantum formalism is
130: suited to work with the semiclassical propagator \cite{cit-Brack}%
131: \begin{equation}
132: G(\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime},\mathbf{r}^{\prime},\tau)=\frac{1}{2\pi
133: \mathrm{i}\hbar}\sum_{s(\mathbf{r}^{\prime},\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime},\tau
134: )}\sqrt{C_{s}}\ e^{\mathrm{i}S_{s}/\hbar-\mathrm{i}\frac{\pi}{2}\mu_{s}%
135: },\label{eq_semiclassicalGF}%
136: \end{equation}
137: given as a sum over classical trajectories $s$ traveling in a time $\tau$
138: between the two extreme points. We note $S_{s}=S_{s}(\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime
139: },\mathbf{r}^{\prime},\tau)$ the action integral along the path, $\mu_{s}$ the
140: Maslov index, and $C_{s}=|\mathrm{det}(-\partial S_{s}/\partial\mathbf{r}%
141: ^{\prime}\partial\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime})|$.
142:
143: Performing the $\mathbf{r}^{\prime}$-integral of Eq.~(\ref{eq_twoGF}) by
144: stationary-phase (see Ref.~\cite{cit-Goussev} for the precise conditions of
145: validity of such an approximation in a chaotic cavity) we can write, for a
146: single transducer,%
147: \begin{align}
148: \mathcal{F}_{\mathbf{p}_{0}}(\mathbf{r},t)=&\frac{\sigma}{2\pi^{3/2}%
149: \hbar^{2}}\int_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}}\mathrm{d}\tau\sum_{s^{\prime}(\mathbf{r}%
150: _{i},\mathbf{r,}\tau+t)}\sum_{s(\mathbf{r}_{0},\mathbf{r}_{i},\tau)}%
151: \sqrt{C_{s^{\prime}}C_{s}}\nonumber\\
152: & \times\exp\left[ \tfrac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar}(S_{s^{\prime}}-S_{s}%
153: )-\mathrm{i}\tfrac{\pi}{2}(\mu_{s^{\prime}}-\mu_{s})\right. \nonumber\\
154: & \left. -\tfrac{\sigma^{2}}{2\hbar^{2}}(\mathbf{p}_{s}-\mathbf{p}_{0}%
155: )^{2}\right] \ ,\label{eq_twoGF_semi}%
156: \end{align}
157: where $\mathbf{p}_{s}$ is the initial momentum of the trajectory $s$.
158:
159: We are interested in times $t$ close to the refocusing one, and positions
160: $\mathbf{r}$ near $\mathbf{r}_{0}$, therefore the dominating contribution
161: comes from the diagonal approximation $s^{\prime}\simeq s$ leading to a signal
162: given by
163: \begin{subequations}
164: \label{eq:allTGF}%
165: \begin{align}
166: \mathcal{F}_{\mathbf{p}_{0}}(\mathbf{r},t)=&\frac{\sigma}{2\pi^{3/2}%
167: \hbar^{2}}\int_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}}\mathrm{d}\tau\ F_{\mathbf{p}_{0}}%
168: (\mathbf{r}_{0},\mathbf{r}_{i},\mathbf{r},\tau),\label{eq:TGF0}\\
169: \displaystyle F_{\mathbf{p}_{0}}(\mathbf{r}^{\prime},\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime
170: },\mathbf{r},\tau)=&\sum_{s(\mathbf{r}^{\prime},\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime
171: },\tau)}C_{s}\ f_{\mathbf{p}_{0}}(\mathbf{r}^{\prime},\mathbf{r}^{\prime
172: \prime},\mathbf{r},\mathbf{p}^{\prime}),\label{eq:TGF1}\\
173: \displaystyle f_{\mathbf{p}_{0}}(\mathbf{r}^{\prime},\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime
174: },\mathbf{r},\mathbf{p}^{\prime})=&\exp\left[ \tfrac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar
175: }\mathbf{p}^{\prime}\cdot(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}^{\prime})\right. \nonumber\\
176: & \left. -\tfrac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar}E_{s}t-\tfrac{\sigma^{2}}{2\hbar^{2}%
177: }(\mathbf{p}^{\prime}-\mathbf{p}_{0})^{2}\right] .\label{eq:TGF2}%
178: \end{align}
179: $E_{s}$ is the energy at which the trajectory $s$ is traveled. In billiards
180: the magnitude of the momentum modifies the traveling time but does not affect
181: the path. Noting $\hat{s}(\mathbf{r}_{0},\mathbf{r}_{i})$ the geometrical
182: support of the trajectory $s(\mathbf{r}_{0},\mathbf{r}_{i},\tau) $ with length
183: $L_{\hat{s}}$, we have $E_{s}=\mathrm{p}_{s}^{2}/2m$ and $\mathrm{p}%
184: _{s}=(mL_{\hat{s}}/\tau)$, where $m$ is the mass of the particle.
185:
186: In order to present the calculation in its simplest form we start by setting
187: $\mathbf{p}_{0}=0$ and the optimal conditions $t=0$ and $\mathbf{r}%
188: =\mathbf{r}_{0}$, which yield (from the last term in the exponent of
189: (\ref{eq:TGF2})) the maximum refocusing $\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{max}%
190: }=\mathcal{F}_{0}(\mathbf{r}_{0},0)$. In a fully chaotic system, $C_{s}$
191: scales as $\exp[-\lambda_{s}\tau]$, where $\lambda_{s}$ is the largest
192: Lyapunov exponent. Assuming further a uniformly hyperbolic dynamics
193: \cite{cit-Goussev} and using that in a billiard $\lambda_{s}\tau={\hat
194: {\lambda}}L_{\hat{s}}$ (with ${\hat{\lambda}}$ as an inverse length), we write
195: $C_{s}=2m^{2}{\hat{\lambda}}L_{\hat{s}}/\tau^{2}\exp[-{\hat{\lambda}}%
196: L_{\hat{s}}]$. Noting $\mathcal{V}^{2}=2\hbar^{2}/m^{2}\sigma^{2}$ we have
197: \end{subequations}
198: \begin{equation}
199: \mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{max}}=\frac{\sigma m^{2}{\hat{\lambda}}}{\pi^{3/2}%
200: \hbar^{2}}\sum_{\hat{s}(\mathbf{r}_{0},\mathbf{r}_{i})}L_{\hat{s}}%
201: e^{-\hat{\lambda}L_{\hat{s}}}\int_{t_{1}}^{t_{2}}\frac{\mathrm{d}\tau}%
202: {\tau^{2}}\exp\left[ -\left( \frac{L_{\hat{s}}}{\mathcal{V}\tau}\right)
203: ^{2}\right] .\label{eq_chi0}%
204: \end{equation}
205:
206:
207: The sum over the transient orbits $\hat{s}$ can be converted into an integral
208: over trajectory lengths by introducing the density $\mathrm{d}N(L)/\mathrm{d}%
209: L=\pi/(\hat{\lambda}\mathcal{A})\exp{(\hat{\lambda}L)}$ ($\mathcal{A}$ stands
210: for the area of the chaotic cavity) \cite{cit-Sieber99,cit-Goussev-priv}.
211: Denoting $L_{j}=\mathcal{V}t_{j}$ ($j=1,2$) and $L_{\mathrm{d}}$ the length of
212: the shortest trajectory linking $\mathbf{r}_{0}$ and $\mathbf{r}_{i}$ we have%
213: \begin{align}
214: \mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{max}}=&\frac{1}{\sigma\mathcal{A}}\left\{
215: (t_{2}-t_{1})\int_{L_{\mathrm{d}}/L_{2}}^{\infty}\mathrm{d}l\left[
216: 1-\mathrm{erf}\left( l\right) \right] \right. \nonumber\\
217: & \left. +t_{1}\int_{L_{\mathrm{d}}/L_{2}}^{L_{\mathrm{d}}/L_{1}}%
218: \mathrm{d}l\left[ 1-\mathrm{erf}\left( l\right) \right] \right\}
219: \ ,\label{eq:F_m-inter}%
220: \end{align}
221: where $\mathrm{erf}(x)$ stands for the error function. The assumptions made on
222: $C_{s}$ and $\mathrm{d}N(L)/\mathrm{d}L$ are valid for lengths a few times
223: larger than $L_{\mathrm{d}}$. However, our approximation is appropriate since
224: we assume that we start recording at times $t_{1}$ large enough for the
225: typical contributing trajectories to feel the chaotic nature of the dynamics.
226: That is, we work under the hypothesis $L_{\mathrm{d}}\ll L_{1}<L_{2}$, that
227: also allows to neglect the last integral, leading to%
228: \begin{equation}
229: \mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{max}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}\sigma\mathcal{A}}\ \Delta
230: T\ .\label{eq:F_m}%
231: \end{equation}
232: The scaling of the refocused signal with the injection interval $\Delta
233: T=t_{2}-t_{1}$ is a quite natural result, experimentally observed in
234: Ref.~\cite{cit-Draeger}, while the scaling with $\mathcal{A}$ has not been
235: systematically tested so far. In the case where there is an array with $N$
236: transducers, we simply have to multiply the above result by $N$, but the
237: surprising fact that just one detector is enough stems from Eq.~(\ref{eq:F_m}%
238: ). In order to further quantify faithfulness of the time-reversal process we
239: need to evaluate the temporal and spatial extents of the reconstructed signal.
240:
241: For times $t$ close to the refocusing one we have to consider the phase
242: $mL_{\hat{s}}^{2}t/(2\tau^{2}\hbar)$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:TGF2}). Therefore,
243: $\mathcal{F}_{0}(\mathbf{r}_{0},t)$ follows the same expression than
244: $\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{max}}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq_chi0}) by the change of
245: $1/\mathcal{V}^{2}$ into $1/\mathcal{V}^{2}+\mathrm{i}mt/2\hbar$. The error
246: functions resulting from the $\tau$-integral have now to be extended into the
247: complex plane, and after a straightforward algebra we find
248: \begin{equation}
249: \mathcal{F}_{0}(\mathbf{r}_{0},t)=\frac{\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{max}}%
250: }{1+\mathrm{i}\mathcal{V}t/(\sqrt{2}\sigma)}\ .\label{eq:F_time}%
251: \end{equation}
252:
253:
254: The reader can imagine how the general calculation goes when we treat
255: simultaneously $t\neq0$, $\mathbf{r}\neq\mathbf{r}_{0}$ and $\mathbf{p}%
256: _{0}\neq0$. Instead of presenting such calculation, which results in the
257: faithful reconstruction of the initial wave-packet, we look at the problem
258: from a different perspective and introduce the ergodicity hypothesis in order
259: to treat the general case. The ergodic approach not only provides a second,
260: and more economical, way of obtaining the general result without using
261: detailed knowledge of the dynamics, but also sheds some light into the
262: necessary conditions for achieving the refocalization condition. The basics of
263: the ergodic approach is to calculate quantities like $F_{\mathbf{p}_{0}%
264: }(\mathbf{r}^{\prime},\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime},\mathbf{r},\tau)$ of
265: Eq.~(\ref{eq:TGF1}) by averages over phase-space \cite{cit-Argaman}. Calling
266: $\mathbf{r}_{\tau}=\mathbf{r}_{\tau}(\mathbf{r}^{\prime},\mathbf{p}^{\prime})$
267: and $\mathbf{p}_{\tau}=\mathbf{p}_{\tau}(\mathbf{r}^{\prime},\mathbf{p}%
268: ^{\prime})$ the position and momentum, respectively, at time $\tau$ of a
269: particle starting at $(\mathbf{r}^{\prime},\mathbf{p}^{\prime}) $ at time $0$,
270: we have%
271: \begin{align}
272: F_{\mathbf{p}_{0}}(\mathbf{r}^{\prime},\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime}%
273: ,\mathbf{r},\tau)=&\int\mathrm{d}\mathbf{p}^{\prime} \mathrm{d}%
274: \mathbf{p}^{\prime\prime}\delta\left( \mathbf{r}_{\tau}-\mathbf{r}%
275: ^{\prime\prime}\right) \delta\left( \mathbf{p}_{\tau}-\mathbf{p}%
276: ^{\prime\prime}\right) \nonumber\\
277: & \times f_{\mathbf{p}_{0}}(\mathbf{r}^{\prime},\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime
278: },\mathbf{r},\mathbf{p}^{\prime}).
279: \end{align}
280:
281:
282: The double delta-function represents the distribution of classical
283: trajectories. An average over small ranges of initial and final conditions
284: gives a smooth distribution which describes the evolution in a statistical
285: sense. For sufficiently long times such a distribution is $\tau$ independent,
286: and uniformly distributed on the hyper-surface of constant energy (which for
287: two dimensional billiards has a volume $\Omega=2\pi m\mathcal{A}$ in
288: phase-space). We therefore have%
289: \begin{align}
290: F_{\mathbf{p}_{0}}(\mathbf{r}^{\prime},\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime}%
291: ,\mathbf{r},\tau)=&\int \mathrm{d}\mathbf{p}^{\prime}%
292: \mathrm{d}\mathbf{p}^{\prime\prime}\delta\left( \tfrac{{\mathrm{p}^{\prime}%
293: }^{2}-{\mathrm{p}^{\prime\prime}}^{2}}{2m}\right) \frac{f_{\mathbf{p}_{0}%
294: }(\mathbf{r}^{\prime},\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime},\mathbf{r},\mathbf{p}^{\prime
295: })}{2\pi m\mathcal{A}}\nonumber\\
296: =&\frac{1}{\mathcal{A}}\int\mathrm{d}\mathbf{p}^{\prime}\ f_{\mathbf{p}_{0}%
297: }(\mathbf{r}^{\prime},\mathbf{r}^{\prime\prime},\mathbf{r},\mathbf{p}^{\prime
298: }).
299: \end{align}
300: Applying this general procedure to the function $f_{\mathbf{p}_{0}}$ of
301: Eq.~(\ref{eq:TGF2}) we have%
302: \begin{align}
303: \mathcal{F}_{\mathbf{p}_{0}}(\mathbf{r},t)=&\frac{\sigma\Delta T}%
304: {2\pi^{3/2}\hbar^{2}\mathcal{A}}\int\mathrm{d}\mathbf{p}^{\prime}\exp\left[
305: \tfrac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar}\mathbf{p}^{\prime}\cdot(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}%
306: _{0})\right. \nonumber\\
307: & \left. -\tfrac{\mathrm{i}}{\hbar}\frac{{\mathrm{p}^{\prime}}^{2}}%
308: {2m}t-\tfrac{\sigma^{2}}{2\hbar^{2}}(\mathbf{p}^{\prime}-\mathbf{p}_{0}%
309: )^{2}\right] ,
310: \end{align}
311: since the integral over $\tau$ is now trivial. Performing the Gaussian
312: integral over $\mathbf{p}^{\prime}$ we obtain a wave-packet that refocalizes
313: with the same shape of the original one, but with momentum $-\mathbf{p}_{0}$.
314: The magnitude of the signal close to the maximum refocalization condition is
315: given by%
316: \begin{equation}
317: \left\vert \mathcal{F}_{\mathbf{p}_{0}}(\mathbf{r},t)\right\vert =
318: \frac{\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{max}}}{\sqrt{1+(\mathcal{V}t/\sqrt{2}\sigma)^{2}}}
319: \exp{\left[ -\frac{\left( \mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}_{0}+\frac{\mathbf{p}_{0}}%
320: {m}t\right) ^{2}}{2\sigma^{2}+(\mathcal{V}t)^{2}}\right] }.\label{eq:F_p0}%
321: \end{equation}
322:
323:
324: Numerical calculations of time-reversal imaging have been performed in
325: Ref.~\cite{cit-Draeger} for a two-dimensional cavity with the shape of a
326: sliced disk. The signal reconstruction could be visualized and a qualitative
327: agreement with the experimental results was found. Since we dispose now of a
328: quantitative semiclassical theory of refocusing it is important to test our
329: predictions in a stadium billiard, which is a paradigm of classical chaotic
330: dynamics. We calculate the evolution of the wave-packet through a second order
331: Trotter-Suzuki algorithm for a discrete Schr\"{o}dinger equation. Lattice
332: effects are minimized by considering $a_{0}\ll\lambda_{\mathrm{B}}\ll\sigma\ll
333: L_{b}$, where $a_{0}$ is the lattice constant, $\lambda_{\mathrm{B}}$ the de
334: Broglie wave-length associated with $\mathbf{p}_{0}$, and $L_{b}$ the size of
335: the billiard. We assume that at injection time all the original signal has
336: already decayed.
337:
338: %\begin{figure}[tph]
339: \begin{figure}[ptb]
340: \includegraphics[width=8.6cm]{recovering.eps}\caption{(color online). (a) TRM
341: sequence. (b) Reconstructed signal scaled with $\mathcal{A}/\Delta T$ at the
342: emission point $\mathbf{r}_{0}$, close to the refocusing time $t=0$, for the
343: shown billiard. The thick solid is the semiclassical prediction
344: (Eq.~(\ref{eq:F_p0})). Numerical simulations for various $\Delta T$ and $\mathcal{A}$:
345: $5000$ and $150\times300$ (blue dotted), $10000$ and $150\times300$ (green
346: dashed), and $5000$ and $300\times600$ (red dash-dotted). Right inset:
347: reconstructed signal at $t=0$ close to $\mathbf{r}_{0}$ from the semiclassical
348: prediction (solid) and simulation (red dash-dotted) with $\Delta T=5000$ and
349: $\mathcal{A}=300\times600$.}%
350: \label{fig-1}%
351: \end{figure}
352:
353: In Fig.~\ref{fig-1}(b) we show the numerical results for the time dependence
354: on the reconstructed signal at $\mathbf{r}_{0}$. The normalized $\mathcal{F}%
355: \mathcal{A}/\Delta T$ are well described by the semiclassical prediction
356: (thick solid) confirming the scaling with $\Delta T$ and $\mathcal{A}$ of
357: Eq.~(\ref{eq:F_m}). The normalizing factor for the numerical results is
358: approximately 1.4 times the semiclassical one. Such a difference may be due to
359: our discretization of the quantum problem as well as the difficulties of the
360: diagonal approximation to recover exact numerical values. The signal-to-noise
361: ratio does not change appreciably when the recording time is doubled, while it
362: is improved by increasing $\mathcal{A}$. In the right inset we show the
363: spatial reconstruction of the wave-packet around $\mathbf{r}_{0}$ for the
364: refocusing time $t=0$. We see that the semiclassical prediction (thick solid)
365: provides the proper scaling behavior and, up to the normalization factor, a
366: quantitative description of the TRM results.
367:
368: The numerical implementation of TRM for integrable geometries results in a
369: refocusing that strongly depends on the position of the transducers and with a
370: signal hardly distinguishable from the background. The semiclassical approach
371: allows to understand this important difference between chaotic and integrable
372: systems. In the former the exponential proliferation of trajectories allows to
373: encode the information at all times, while in the latter the registered signal
374: will be strongly dependent on whether or not the source and the transducer are
375: connected by a stable trajectory.
376:
377: Experimentally, the TRM procedure has been shown to be robust against local
378: and global perturbations introduced between the recording and injection phases
379: \cite{cit-Derode}. Even in the absence of these perturbations, it is natural
380: to expect that in any TRM setup the environment acting during the re-emission
381: is slightly modified respect to that of the recording phase. In the same
382: spirit of the LE studies, we can model this situation by assuming that in the
383: recording process we have a Hamiltonian $H$ that determines $G(\mathbf{r}%
384: _{i},\mathbf{r}^{\prime},\tau)$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq_twoGF}), while a modified
385: $\tilde{G}(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}_{i},t+\tau)$ is governed by the slightly
386: different Hamiltonian $\tilde{H}$. For the LE the details of the perturbation
387: $\tilde{H}-H$ are not important, and its effect can be accounted, after some
388: averaging, by affecting the contribution of each trajectory $s$ by an
389: additional factor $\exp[-L_{\hat{s}}/2\tilde{l}]$, where $\tilde{l}$ is an
390: effective mean-free-path associated to the perturbation. In general $\tilde
391: {l}$ depends on the velocity of the particle, i.e. for perturbations modeled
392: by an auxiliary impurity potential characterized by a strength $\gamma$ we
393: have $1/\tilde{l}=\gamma\tau^{2}/L_{\hat{s}}^{2}$ \cite{cit-Jalabert}.
394: Including this $\tau$-dependent phase prevents us of using the ergodic
395: approach, but working along the lines of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:F_m-inter}%
396: )-(\ref{eq:F_time}) we obtain a maximum refocusing for a non-static
397: environment given by%
398: \begin{align}
399: \mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{max}}(\gamma)=&\frac{2\mathcal{V}}{\sqrt{\pi}%
400: \sigma\mathcal{A}\gamma}\int_{0}^{\infty}\mathrm{d}\eta\ \eta^{2}\exp
401: [-\eta^{2}]\nonumber\\
402: & \times\left( \exp\left[ -\frac{\gamma L_{1}}{\eta\mathcal{V}^{2}}\right]
403: -\exp\left[ -\frac{\gamma L_{2}}{\eta\mathcal{V}^{2}}\right] \right)
404: ,\label{eq:F_m_gamma}%
405: \end{align}
406: which reduces to $\mathcal{F}_{\mathrm{max}}\left( 1-(t_{2}+t_{1}%
407: )/4\tilde{\tau}\right) $ for $t_{2}~\ll~\tilde{\tau}$; to $\mathcal{F}%
408: _{\mathrm{max}}\exp{\left[ -(t_{2}+t_{1})/4\tilde{\tau}\right] }$ for
409: $t_{2}\!-\!t_{1}~\ll~\tilde{\tau}$; and to $c\tilde{\tau}/(\sqrt{\pi}%
410: \sigma\mathcal{A})\exp{\left[ -c^{\prime}t_{1}/2\tilde{\tau}\right] }$ for
411: $t_{2}\!>\!\tilde{\tau}$. The numerical constants $c=2.94$ and $c^{\prime
412: }=0.46$ are given by rational-argument values of the $\Gamma$ function, and
413: the characteristic time is defined as $\tilde{\tau}=\mathcal{V}/(2\sqrt{\pi
414: }\gamma)$. The proportionality of the reconstructed signal with the injection
415: interval is clearly lost in the limit of $t_{2}\!>\!\tilde{\tau}$ since the
416: perturbation renders ineffective the longest recording times. From the
417: relevant limits that we have singled out, the second one is the most important
418: for current experiments. It has a Fermi-Golden-Rule structure that can be
419: obtained under very general considerations. For perturbations where the
420: effective elastic mean-free-path $\tilde{l}$ increases with the Lyapunov
421: exponent of the unperturbed system (i.e. mass distortion in a Lorentz gas
422: \cite{cit-Jalabert}) the characteristic time $\tilde{\tau}$ increases with the
423: chaoticity of the system. Similarly to the Fermi-Golden-Rule regime of the LE,
424: such a motional narrowing effect translates into larger stability, and
425: improved refocalization, for the more chaotic systems, in agreement with the
426: experimental findings \cite{cit-Derode}.
427:
428: In summary, we have described the refocalization signal for the time reversal
429: mirror procedure through the semiclassical approximation. The chaotic nature
430: of the underlying classical dynamics appears as a key ingredient to ensure the
431: stability of the refocalization towards perturbations and the proportionality
432: of the recovered signal with the injection time.
433:
434: We thank T. Kramer and K. Richter for valuable discussions and A. Goussev for
435: helpful correspondence. We acknowledge financial support of the
436: French-Argentinian program ECOS-Sud and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
437: within FG 760. RAJ acknowledges the hospitality of the Universit\"at
438: Regensburg and HMP that of the ICTP of Trieste and the MPI-PKS of Dresden.
439:
440: \begin{thebibliography}{99} %
441: \bibitem {cit-Hahn}E. L.~Hahn, Phys. Rev. \textbf{80}, 580 (1950).
442:
443: \bibitem {cit-Zhang}S.~Zhang, B.H.~Meier and R.R.~Ernst, Phys. Rev. Lett.
444: \textbf{69}, 2149 (1992).
445:
446: \bibitem {cit-Derode}A.~Derode, P.~Roux and M.~Fink, Phys. Rev. Lett.
447: \textbf{75}, 4206 (1995); M.~Fink, Phys. Scr. \textbf{T90}, 268 (2001).
448:
449: \bibitem {cit-Draeger}C.~Draeger and M.~Fink, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{79},
450: 407 (1997).
451:
452: \bibitem {cit-Catheline}S.~Catheline \textit{et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett.
453: \textbf{100}, 064301 (2008); G.~Montaldo \textit{et al.}, Wave Random Complex
454: \textbf{17}, 67 (2007).
455:
456: \bibitem {cit-Lerosey}G.~Lerosey \textit{et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett.
457: \textbf{92}, 193904 (2004).
458:
459: \bibitem {cit-Levstein}P.R.~Levstein, G.~Usaj and H.M.~Pastawski, J. Chem.
460: Phys. \textbf{108,} 2718 (1998); H.M.~Pastawski \textit{et al.}, Physica A (Amsterdam)
461: \textbf{283}, 166 (2000).
462:
463: \bibitem {cit-Peres}A.~Peres, Phys. Rev. A \textbf{30}, 1610 (1984).
464:
465: \bibitem {cit-Jalabert}R.A.~Jalabert and H.M.~Pastawski, Phys. Rev. Lett.
466: \textbf{86}, 2490 (2001); F.M.~Cucchietti, H.M.~Pastawski and R.A.~Jalabert,
467: Phys. Rev. B \textbf{70}, 035311 (2004).
468:
469: \bibitem {cit-Gorin}T.~Gorin \textit{et al.}, Phys. Rep. \textbf{435}, 33 (2006).
470:
471: \bibitem {cit-Pastawski}H.M.~Pastawski \textit{et al.}, Europhys. Lett.
472: \textbf{77}, 40001 (2007).
473:
474: \bibitem {cit-Bal}G.~Bal and L.~Ryzhik, SIAM J. App. Math. \textbf{63}, 1475 (2003).
475:
476: \bibitem {cit-deRosny}J.~de~Rosny \textit{et al.}, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{70},
477: 046601 (2004).
478:
479: \bibitem {cit-Bardos}C.~Bardos and M.~Fink, Asymptotic Analysis \textbf{29}, 157 (2002).
480:
481: \bibitem {cit-snie}R.K.~Snieder and J.A.~Scales, Phys. Rev. E \textbf{58},
482: 5668 (1998).
483:
484: \bibitem {cit-Tanner}G.~Tanner and N.~S\o ndergaard, J. Phys. A \textbf{40}, R443 (2007).
485:
486: \bibitem {cit-Brack}M.~Brack and R.K. Bhaduri, \textit{Semiclassical Physics}, (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1997).
487:
488: \bibitem {cit-Goussev}A.~Goussev \textit{et al.}, New J. Phys. \textbf{10},
489: 093010 (2008).
490:
491: \bibitem {cit-Sieber99}M.~Sieber, J. Phys. A \textbf{32}, 7679 (1999).
492:
493: \bibitem {cit-Goussev-priv}A.~Goussev, private communication.
494:
495: \bibitem {cit-Argaman}N.~Argaman, Phys. Rev. B \textbf{53}, 7035 (1996).
496: \end{thebibliography}
497:
498:
499: \end{document}