1: \documentclass[aps,pre,eqsecnum,showpacs,draft]{revtex4} 

2: \usepackage{amsmath,bm}

3: 

4: 

5: %\documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,groupedaddress,showpacs]{revtex4}

6:  

7:  

8: %\documentclass[aps,prl,onecolumn,groupedaddress,showpacs]{revtex4}

9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%$\usepackage{graphicx}

10:  

11:  

12: \begin{document}

13:  

14: %\documentstyle[12pt,aps,pre,psfig]{revtex} 

15: %\documentstyle[preprint,aps,pre]{revtex} %\begin{document}

16: %\draft 

17: \title{Instanton versus traditional WKB approach to Landau - Zener problem.}

18:  

19: \author{V.A.Benderskii} 

20: \affiliation {Institute of Problems of Chemical Physics, RAS \\ 142432 Moscow

21: Region, Chernogolovka, Russia} 

22: \affiliation{Laue-Langevin Institute, F-38042,

23: Grenoble, France} 

24:  

25: \author{E.V.Vetoshkin} 

26: \affiliation {Institute of Problems of Chemical Physics, RAS \\ 142432 Moscow

27: Region, Chernogolovka, Russia} 

28: \author{E. I. Kats} \affiliation{Laue-Langevin Institute, F-38042,

29: Grenoble, France} 

30: \affiliation{L. D. Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics, RAS, Moscow, Russia}

31:  

32: \date{\today}

33: 

34: 

35: 

36: 

37: \begin{abstract}

38: Different theoretical approaches to the famous two state

39: Landau - Zener problem are briefly discussed.

40: Apart from traditional methods of the adiabatic perturbation

41: theory, Born - Oppenheimer approximation with geometric

42: phase effects, two-level approach, and momentum space representation,

43: the problem is treated semiclassically also in the coordinate space.

44: Within the framework of the instanton approach we present

45: a full and unified description of $1D$ Landau-Zener problem

46: of level crossing. The method enables us to treat accurately

47: all four transition points (appearing at two levels crossing),

48: while the standard WKB approach takes into account only

49: two of them. The latter approximation is adequate for

50: calculating of the transition probability or for studying

51: of scattering processes, however it does not work for finding

52: corresponding chemical reactions rates, where very often

53: for typical range of parameters all four transition points

54: can be relevant.

55: Applications of the method and of the results may concern

56: the various systems in physics, chemistry and biology.

57: 

58: \end{abstract}

59: 

60: \pacs{PACS numbers: 05.45.-a, 72.10.-d}

61: \maketitle

62: \section{Introduction}

63: At first sight, the title of this paper might sound perplexing.

64: What else can be said about Landau - Zener (LZ) problem after numerous

65: descriptions in both research and textbook literature?

66: However, although theoretical (and experimental) investigations of different 

67: LZ systems began

68: more than seventy years ago, it is still remains an active area of research.

69: Various approaches to LZ problem have appeared separately in the literature

70: (see e.g. by no means not a complete list of publications \cite{LL65} - \cite{SK02}), 

71: these references are not

72: fully consistent with

73: each other. We, therefore, think that it is important to collect and discuss

74: all these approaches in one place.

75: We will study the $1D$ LZ problem \cite{LL65} of quantum mechanical

76: transitions between the levels of a two-level system at the avoided

77: level crossing. 

78: LZ theory treats a quantum system placed in a a slowly varying external field.

79: Naturally in such a condition the system adiabatically follows variation

80: of an initially prepared discrete state until its time dependent energy

81: level crosses another one. Near the crossing point evidently

82: the adiabaticity condition is violated (like a semiclassical

83: behavior is violated near turning points). The slow variation of

84: the perturbation means that the duration of the transition

85: process is very long, and therefore the change in the action

86: during this time is large. In this sense the LZ problem is a semiclassical

87: one (but with respect to time instead of a coordinate for standard

88: semiclassical problems).

89: 

90: As is well known the problem presents the most basic

91: model of non-adiabatic transition which plays very important role in many fields

92: of physics, chemistry, and biology. Not surprisingly therefore that numerous

93: monographs and uncountable papers have been devoted to this subject.

94: In the literature there are roughly speaking three kinds of semiclassical

95: modelling of LZ problem, namely:

96: \begin{itemize}

97: \item

98: (i) two level system approach \cite{NI62} - \cite{GG01};

99: \item

100: (ii)

101: adiabatic perturbation theory \cite{DY60} - \cite{VS99} (see also

102: review paper \cite{CH78}) ;

103: \item

104: (iii)

105: momentum space representation \cite{DT72} - \cite{ZN94} .

106: \end{itemize}

107: Because different approaches have been proposed to study the LZ problem

108: one of the immediate motivation of the present paper is to develop an

109: uniform and systematic procedure for handling the problem.

110: We will show that all three methods are equivalent

111: for treating tunneling and over-barrier regions of parameters,

112: and no one of them can be applied to study say intermediate

113: region of parameters, where all four of the involving into LZ

114: system states are relevant. To study this region is our main concern

115: in this paper.

116: A second question addressed here concerns so-called connection matrices.

117: At usual textbook treatment of the LZ problem, only the

118: transition probabilities are calculated and expressed in terms of

119: the genuine two-level LZ formula successively applied at each diabatic level

120: intersection. Evidently such a procedure is an approximation for

121: the general LZ problem including even in the simplest case 

122: at least 4 energy levels.

123: To solve many important physical or chemical problems one must find the $4 \times 4$

124: (not only $2 \times 2$ connection matrices related these 4 states.

125: 

126: 

127: While our paper is not intended as a comprehensive review we detail

128: here key results of the standard WKB and instanton approaches 

129: from our own researches and literatures

130: within the context of different factors that we feel are important

131: to studying LZ problem. Specifically we focus in the next section (\ref{II})

132: on the Born - Oppenheimer approximation which is a benchmark

133: to test semiclassical approximations. In section (\ref{III})

134: we lay the foundation for treating LZ problem, namely

135: - adiabatic perturbation theory. Section (\ref{IV}) is devoted 

136: to

137: the generalization of the instanton method enables us to investigate

138: LZ problem in the momentum space. 

139: It is shown in this section that for a linear (in a $1D$ coordinate

140: under consideration) potential WKB semiclassical wave functions

141: in the momentum space coincide with the instanton wave functions.

142: For the quadratically approximated (parabolic) potentials

143: the instanton wave functions are exact and have no singularities

144: (unlike WKB wave functions; remind that the same kind of

145: relations hold for the WKB and instanton wave

146: functions in the coordinate space \cite{BM94} - \cite{BV02}).

147: 

148: In this paper we are advocating for the instanton approach,

149: but it is worth noting that, nevertheless, many important results have been

150: obtained in the

151: frame work of the

152: WKB approach \cite{LL65} -\cite{GG01}. 

153: For example, one of the very efficient technique (so-called propagator

154: method) was proposed and elaborated by Miller and his coworkers \cite{MG72},

155: \cite{PS74}, \cite{MG75} (see also \cite{BM94}). This approach

156: uses semiclassic (van Fleck - Gutzwiller types) propagators, taking

157: into account automatically in terms of the general WKB formalism,

158: the contribution coming from the contour around a complex turning point.

159: The accuracy of the WKB method can be  

160: improved considerably, \cite{PK61} \cite{NI62}, \cite{BN65}, \cite{NI68}

161: (more recent references on so-called Laplace contour integration can be found

162: also in \cite{AS92})

163: by the appropriate choice of the integration path around

164: the turning point, and it appears to be quite accurate

165: for the tunneling and over-barrier regions, but it becomes non-adequate

166: in the intermediate energy region.

167: It has been overlooked in the previous investigations treating

168: this region by a simple interpolation

169: from the tunneling (with monotonic decay of the transition probability)

170: to the over-barrier (with oscillating behavior) regions.

171: 

172: We present all details of the LZ problem for two electronic states in

173: section \ref{V} using

174: the instanton description of LZ problem in the coordinate space.

175: In the section the basic two second order differential (Schr\"odinger) equations

176: to be dealt with are written in the so-called diabatic state representation

177: (i.e. in the basis of ''crossed'' levels). Neglecting higher order space

178: derivatives we find asymptotic solutions, and using adiabatic - diabatic

179: transformation we match the solutions in the intermediate region.

180: The complete scattering matrix for the LZ problem is derived in 

181: the section \ref{VI}.

182: In the section \ref{VII} we

183: derive the quantization rules for crossing diabatic potentials

184: and discuss shortly the application of the obtained

185: results to some particular models of level crossings 

186: which are relevant for the interpretation and description of

187: experimental data on spectroscopy of non-rigid molecules,

188: on inelastic atomic collisions \cite{NU84}, non-radiative

189: transitions arising from

190: ''intersystem'' crossings of potential energy surfaces in molecular

191: spectroscopy and chemical dynamics 

192: (see e.g. \cite{BM94} and references

193: herein). 

194: In the last section \ref{VIII} we draw our conclusions.

195: 

196: Throughout what follows we will consider $1D$ case only. 

197: The LZ problem for 1D potentials coupled with the thermal

198: bath of harmonic oscillators is shown to reduced to a certain 

199: renormalization of the Massey parameter, where entering the

200: expression for this parameter longitudinal velocity is

201: decreased due to coupling to transverse 

202: oscillations (see \cite{BM94} and references herein, and for more

203: recent references also \cite{KN99}, \cite{SK02}).

204: Of course the energetic

205: profile of any real system is characterized by a multidimensional

206: surface. However, it is often possible to identify a reaction coordinate,

207: such that the energy barrier between initial

208: and final states is minimized along this specific

209: direction, and, therefore,

210: effectively one can treat the system under consideration

211: as $1D$. In certain systems, the physical

212: interpretation of the reaction coordinate is immediate

213: (e.g. the relative bond length in two diatomic molecules),

214: but sometimes it is not an easy (if possible at all) task, because

215: of the many possibilities involved. The latter (multidimensional) case

216: will be studied elsewhere.

217: Unfortunately the accuracy of the WKB method near

218: the barrier top is very poor to make any numbers realistic 

219: and it is one more motivation to use the alternative to

220: WKB semiclassical formalism - extreme tunneling trajectory or

221: instanton technique.                                                                     

222: 

223: 

224: 

225: 

226: 

227: \section{Born - Oppenheimer approximation.}

228: \label{II}

229: It may be useful to illustrate the essential physics of the LZ problem

230: starting with a very well known picture corresponding to the Born - Oppenheimer

231: approximation \cite{SL63}, \cite{LL65} which leads to the separation

232: of nuclear and electronic motions, and the approximation is valid only

233: because electrons are so much lighter than nuclei and therefore

234: move so much faster.

235: Thus the small parameter of the Born - Oppenheimer approximation is

236: \begin{eqnarray}

237: \label{II1}

238: \lambda = \left (\frac{m_e}{m}\right )^{1/4} \ll 1 \, ,

239: \end{eqnarray}

240: where $m_e$ and $m$ are electronic and nuclear masses respectively.

241: On the other hands the semiclassical parameter

242: \begin{eqnarray}

243: \label{II2}

244: \gamma  = \frac{m \Omega a^2}{\hbar } \gg 1 \, ,

245: \end{eqnarray}

246: where $a$ is a characteristic length of the problem, 

247: and the characteristic nuclear vibration frequency $\Omega \propto m^{-1/2}$,

248: therefore $\gamma \propto \lambda ^{-2}$.

249: From this simple fact important conclusions are arrived at.

250: Indeed one can satisfy the semiclassical condition $\gamma \gg 1$ by assuming

251: formally $\hbar \to 0$ or equivalently $\lambda \to 0$. 

252: This correspondence allows us to apply on the same

253: footing to the separation of scales for nuclear and electronic motions

254: either the Born - Oppenheimer or the semiclassical approximation.

255: 

256: In the traditional Born - Oppenheimer approach the solution $\Psi $ 

257: to the full (i.e. including electronic Hamiltonian $H_e$, depending

258: on electronic coordinates $r$, and nuclear Hamiltonian depending on

259: nuclear coordinates $R$) Schr\"odinger equation is presented in the form

260: of an expansion over the electronic Hamiltonian eigen functions

261: $\phi _n$

262: \begin{eqnarray}

263: \label{II3}

264: \Psi  = \sum _{n} \Phi _n(R) \phi _n(r, R) \, .

265: \end{eqnarray}

266: The electronic eigen values $E_n$

267: depends on the nuclear coordinates, and the expansion coefficients

268: $\Phi _n(R)$ is determined by the Born - Oppenheimer equations

269: \begin{eqnarray}

270: \label{II4}

271: \left [-\frac{\hbar ^2}{2 m} \nabla ^2_R + E_n(R) +

272: \frac{\hbar ^2}{2 m} \sum_{k \neq n} A_{n k} A_{k n} - E \right ] \phi _n = 

273: -\frac{\hbar ^2}{2 m} \sum _{k , m \neq n}(\delta _{n k} \nabla _R - i A_{n k})(\delta _{k m}

274: \nabla _R - i A_{k m})\phi _m \, ,

275: \end{eqnarray}

276: where for $m \neq k$

277: \begin{eqnarray}

278: \label{II5}

279: A_{m k} = i \langle \phi _m|\nabla _R \phi _k\rangle \, ,

280: \end{eqnarray}

281: and all the diagonal matrix elements $A_{n n} = 0$.

282: 

283: Thus from (\ref{II4}) we can find that in the electronic

284: eigen state $E_n$, the nuclei are moving in the effective potential

285: \begin{eqnarray}

286: \label{II6}

287: U_n(R) = E_n(R) + \frac{\hbar ^2}{2 m} \sum_{k \neq n} A_{n k} A_{k n} \, ,

288: \end{eqnarray}

289: and transitions between the electronic states $n$ and $m$ are related

290: to the non-adiabatic operator in the r.h.s. of (\ref{II4}).

291: This simple observation allows us to rewrite the effective potential

292: (\ref{II6}) as

293: \begin{eqnarray}

294: \label{II7}

295: U_n(R) = E_n(R) -\frac{\hbar ^2}{2 m}\sum_{m \neq n}\frac{\langle \phi _n|\nabla _R H_e|\phi

296: _m\rangle \langle \phi _m|\nabla _R H_e|\phi _n\rangle }{(E_n - E_m)^2}  \, ,

297: \end{eqnarray}

298: and from this seemingly trivial expression we arrive at the following

299: important conclusions:

300: 

301: (i)corrections to $E_n$ have the same order $O(\gamma ^{-2})$ as the

302: ratio of the nuclear kinetic energy to the potential;

303: 

304: (ii) off-diagonal matrix elements of the non-adiabatic perturbation operator

305: are also small ($\propto O(\gamma ^{-2})$), and the fact is formulated as the so-called

306: adiabatic theorem stating that at the adiabatic perturbations ($\lambda \to 0$)

307: there are no transitions between unperturbed states.

308: 

309: Since the non-adiabatic effects are characterized by the only small parameter

310: $\gamma ^{-1}$ (the semiclassical parameter), the 

311: effects can be described in the frame work of semiclassical approaches

312: (e.g. WKB or instanton ones).

313: However, one has to bear in mind the main drawback problem

314: of the Born - Oppenheimer method. Indeed the approximation 

315: assumes that the electronic wave functions

316: are real valued ones and formed the complete basis, but it

317: is impossible to construct such a basis in the whole space

318: including classically accessible and forbidden regions.

319: 

320: If one relaxes the requirement to have a real valued basis, the 

321: diagonal matrix elements $A_{nn}

322: \neq 0$, and the effective adiabatic part of the Born - Oppenheimer

323: Hamiltonian takes the form

324: \begin{eqnarray}

325: \label{II8}

326: \hat H_n = U_n(R)  + \frac{\hbar ^2}{2 m}(\nabla _R  - i A_{nn}(R))^2

327: \end{eqnarray}

328: analogously to the Hamiltonian of a charged particle in a magnetic field

329: $ B  \propto \nabla _R \times A_{n n}$. Therefore one can change the phases 

330: of the electronic and nuclear wave functions

331: \begin{eqnarray}

332: \label{II9}

333: \phi _n \to \phi _n \exp (i \chi _n(R)) \, , \,

334: \Phi _n \to \Phi _n \exp (- i \chi _n (R)) 

335: \, ,

336: \end{eqnarray}

337: by changing respectively the ''vector potential''

338: \begin{eqnarray}

339: \label{II10}

340: A_{nn}(R) \to A_{n n}(R) + \nabla _R \chi _n(R)  \, .

341: \end{eqnarray}

342: Thus we confront to an important and, at times, mysterious concept

343: of the geometrical (or Berry) phase factor that a

344: quantum mechanical wave function acquires upon a cyclic evolution

345: \cite{AB59} - \cite{FJ98}.

346: What is most characteristic for the concept of Berry phase

347: is the existence of a continuous parameter space in which the state

348: of the system can travel on a closed path. In our case the phase is determined

349: by the non-adiabatic interaction (for more details related

350: to the geometric phase for the Born - Oppenheimer systems, see e.g. the review article

351: \cite{ME92}).

352: The phenomenom (which was manifested itself originally as a certain

353: extra phase shift, appearing upon some external parameter cyclic evolution)

354: has been generalized for the non-adiabatic, non-cyclic, and non-unitary

355: cases \cite{AA87}, \cite{SB88}, although the most of the Berry phase

356: applications concern the systems undergoing the adiabatic evolution

357: (see e.g. the review article \cite{MS93}).

358: Note also that apart from the Berry phase some higher order corrections to the

359: Born - Oppenheimer approximation (traditionally slightly confusing

360: referred as  geometric magnetism or deterministic friction, see \cite{BR93})

361: also occur. The practically useful application of the Berry phase conception

362: is the energy level displacements predicted in \cite{MS86} and observed

363: by NMR \cite{SC87}.

364: 

365: The essential physics of the phenomena can be illustrated as follows.

366: There are two subsystems, the fast and the slow ones. The fast

367: subsystem acquires the Berry phase due to the evolution of the slow subsystem.

368: In own turn, there is say a feedback effect of the geometric phase

369: on the slow subsystem. As a result the latter one is framed

370: by a gauge field affecting its evolution. The gauge field

371: produces additional forces (Lorentz-like and electric field-like ones)

372: which have to be included into the classical equation of motion.

373: In the case of stochastic external forces (e.g. from surrounding

374: thermal fluctuation media), the Berry phase produces some level broadening for

375: the fast subsystem. In the limit of low temperatures and strong damping, the slow

376: subsystem dynamics can be described by the Langevin type equations \cite{GA98}.

377: The general message we can learn from this fact, is that the geometric phases

378: are sources of the dissipative processes for LZ systems.

379: 

380: Thanks to its fundamental origin, this geometric phase has attracted

381: considerable theoretical and experimental attention, however,

382: its experimentally observable consequences until now have been

383: scarce. Therefore each opportunity of improving this situation

384: is worth trying. In this respect the Born - Oppenheimer geometrical

385: phase provides a unique opportunity for its observation since it

386: must appear as a non-adiabatic contribution in a standard

387: Bohr - Sommerfeld quantization rule

388: \begin{eqnarray}

389: \label{IIb}

390: S_n^0 + \chi _n = 2\pi \hbar  \, ,

391: \end{eqnarray}

392: where $S_n^0$ is the adiabatic action.

393: 

394: Note that care must be taken when $|E_n(R) - E_m(R)|$ becomes

395: smaller with respect to the characteristic nuclear oscillation

396: energy $\hbar \Omega $. It means that in the adiabatic representation

397: (\ref{II4}) one may not consider the non-adiabatic interaction energy

398: as a small perturbation. Fortunately in the limit

399: $$

400: |E_n(R) - E_m(R)| < \hbar \Omega 

401: $$

402: we can start from the other limit with crossing weakly coupled diabatic states,

403: and consider the adiabatic coupling as a perturbation.

404: Thus we need the adiabatic - diabatic transformations

405: enabling us to perform the procedure explicitely, which read

406: for the wave functions

407: \begin{eqnarray}

408: \label{II11}

409: \tilde \Phi (R) = \exp (i \theta \sigma _y) \Phi (R)  \, ,

410: \end{eqnarray}

411: and for the Hamiltonians

412: \begin{eqnarray}

413: \label{II12}

414: \tilde H = \exp (i \theta \sigma _y)H \exp (-i \theta \sigma _y)  \, ,

415: \end{eqnarray}

416: where $(H , \Phi )$ and $(\tilde H , \tilde \Phi )$ are the adiabatic and diabatic

417: representations respectively, $\sigma _y$ is the corresponding Pauli matrix,

418: and $\theta $ is the parameter of the adiabatic - diabatic transformation

419: (so-called adiabatic angle).

420: 

421: To illustrate how it works let us consider two coupled ($U_{12}$ is the coupling

422: energy) crossing effective electronic potentials $U_1(R)$ and $U_2(R)$.

423: The corresponding adiabatic and diabatic Hamiltonians

424: are

425: \begin{eqnarray}

426: \label{II13} &&

427: H =  - \frac{\hbar ^2}{2 m}(\nabla _R)^2 + \frac{1}{2}(U_1 + U_2) +

428: \\ &&

429: %\end{eqnarray}

430: %\begin{eqnarray}

431: \nonumber

432: \left (\frac{1}{2}(U_1 - U_2)\cos 2\theta (R) + U_{12}\sin 2 \theta (R)\right )\sigma _3

433: + \frac{1}{2}\left (-\frac{1}{2}(U_1 - U_2)\sin 2\theta (R) + U_{12} \cos 2\theta (R)\right

434: )\sigma _1 \, ,

435: \end{eqnarray}

436: and

437: \begin{eqnarray}

438: \label{II14}

439: \tilde H = - \frac{\hbar ^2}{2 m}(\nabla _R)^2 + \frac{1}{2}(U_1 + U_2) +

440: \frac{1}{2}(U_1 - U_2)\sigma _3 U_{12}\sigma _1 \, ,

441: \end{eqnarray}

442: where $\sigma _{1 , 2 , 3}$ are the Pauli matrices, and the adiabatic angle

443: is chosen to eliminate the principle interaction term               

444: between the adiabatic states

445: \begin{eqnarray}

446: \label{II15}

447: \cot 2 \theta (R)  =  \frac{U_1 - U_2}{2 U_{12}}

448: \, .

449: \end{eqnarray}

450: The adiabatic - diabatic transformation can be brought also into more elegant form

451: \cite{HP77}, \cite{BL00} 

452: \begin{eqnarray}

453: \label{II16}

454: (\nabla _R - i \hat A)\hat T = 0

455: \, ,

456: \end{eqnarray}

457: where $\hat T$ is the sought for transformation matrix,

458: and the matrix $\hat A \equiv A_{n n}$ was introduced above (see (\ref{II5})).

459: The formal solution of Eq. (\ref{II16}) can be represented as a contour

460: integral

461: \begin{eqnarray}

462: \label{II17}

463: \hat T(s) = \hat T(s_0) \exp \left (- \int _{s_0}^{s} \hat A(s^\prime )d s^\prime \right )

464: \, ,

465: \end{eqnarray}

466: where $s_0$ and $s$ stem for the initial and final points of the contour,

467: and the solution (\ref{II17}) determines uniquely the transformation

468: matrix $\hat T$ for the curl-less field $\hat A$

469: \begin{eqnarray}

470: \label{II18}

471: \hat T(t_0) = \hat D \hat T(0)  \, ,

472: \end{eqnarray}

473: and the diagonal matrix $\hat D$ can be found from (\ref{II16}) and can be expressed

474: in terms of the geometric phase factor

475: \begin{eqnarray}

476: \label{II19}

477: D_{k n} = \delta _{k n} \exp (i \chi _k)  \, .

478: \end{eqnarray}

479: These two relations (\ref{IIb}) and (\ref{II19}) provide a complete

480: account of the non-adiabatic transitions, the cornerstone of the LZ problem.

481: Besides (\ref{IIb}), (\ref{II19}) show that the geometrical Born - Oppenheimer

482: phases occur from the diabatic potentials crossing points, and enter

483: quantization rules additively with the contributions from the turning points.

484: Therefore, our main conclusion from this section is that non-adiabatic

485: phenomena should be (and can be) included into the general 

486: semiclassical approach scheme by use of the corresponding connection matrices

487: \cite{HE62} (see also  \cite{BV02}) for the appropriate combinations

488: of crossing and turning points of the problem.

489: 

490: \section{Adiabatic perturbation theory.}

491: \label{III}

492: It is almost a common student wisdom nowadays that any solution to the adiabatically

493: time dependent Schr\"odinger equation can be represented

494: as an expansion over the complete set of stationary

495: (time independent) eigen functions \cite{LL65}.

496: For the case under investigation (two level crossing for the

497: electronic Hamiltonian $H_e(r , t)$), this expansion reads

498: \begin{eqnarray}

499: \label{III1}

500: \Psi (r , t) = c_1(t) \phi _1 (r) + c_2(t) \phi _2(r)  \, ,

501: \end{eqnarray}

502: where $\phi _{1 , 2}$ are the stationary with respect to a nuclear motion wave functions.

503: The time dependent Schr\"odinger equation can be rewritten exactly in the

504: form of two first order (over time derivatives) equations for $c_1$ and $c_2$

505: \begin{eqnarray}

506: \label{III2}

507: i\hbar

508: \left (

509: \begin{array}{c}

510: \dot c_1 \\ \dot c_2

511: \end{array}

512: \right ) =

513: \left (

514: \begin{array}{cc}

515: \tilde H_{11} & \tilde H_{12} \\

516: \tilde H_{21} & \tilde H_{22} 

517: \end{array}

518: \right )

519: \left (

520: \begin{array}{c}

521: c_1 \\

522: c_2

523: \end{array}

524: \right )

525: \, ,

526: \end{eqnarray}

527: where

528: \begin{eqnarray}

529: \label{III3}

530: \tilde H_{k k^\prime } = \langle \phi _k |\tilde H (t)|\phi _{k^\prime }\rangle

531: \, , \quad  k , k^\prime = 1 , 2

532: \end{eqnarray}

533: are the matrix elements for the diabatic Hamiltonian.

534: 

535: The following phase transformation (see, \cite{DY62}, \cite{CH78}, \cite{GG01})

536: \begin{eqnarray}

537: \label{III4}

538: c_k(t) = a_k(t) \exp \left (-\frac{i}{\hbar } \int \tilde H_{kk}(t) dt \right )

539: \end{eqnarray}

540: reduces (\ref{III2}) to the coupled first order equations

541: \begin{eqnarray}

542: \label{III5}

543: i \hbar \dot a_1 = \tilde H_{12}a_2 \exp \left (i \int \Omega _{12}(t) dt \right )

544: \, , \quad

545: i \hbar \dot a_2 = \tilde H_{21}a_1 \exp \left (- i \int \Omega _{12}(t) dt \right )

546: \, , 

547: \end{eqnarray}

548: where

549: \begin{eqnarray}

550: \label{III6}

551: \Omega _{12} = \frac{1}{\hbar }(\tilde H_{22} - \tilde H_{11})

552: \, .

553: \end{eqnarray}

554: However the slightly different phase transformation

555: \begin{eqnarray}

556: \label{III7}

557: c_k(t) = \tilde \Phi _k(t) \exp \left (\frac{i}{2 \hbar } \int (\tilde H_{11}

558: + \tilde H_{22}) dt \right ) 

559: \end{eqnarray}

560: keeps the second order Schr\"odinger like equations forms for the

561: diabatic functions $\tilde \Phi _{1 , 2}$

562: \begin{eqnarray}

563: \label{III8}

564: \hbar ^2 \frac{d^2 \tilde \Phi _1}{d t^2} - \left (\left (\frac{\tilde H_{11} - \tilde H_{22}}{2}

565: \right )^2 + \tilde H_{12}\tilde H_{21} + \frac{i \hbar }{2}\frac{d}{dt}(\tilde H_{11} - \tilde H_{22})

566: \right )\tilde \Phi _1 = 0

567: \, , 

568: \end{eqnarray}

569: To clarify the mapping of this time dependent perturbation theory

570: to the two level crossing problem, and the Born - Oppenheimer

571: approach described in the previous section \ref{II}, let us consider

572: the two states Born - Oppenheimer equations in the diabatic representation.

573: From (\ref{II14}) for one active space coordinate $X$, we have

574: \begin{eqnarray}

575: \label{III9}

576: - \frac{\hbar ^2 }{2 m} \frac{d^2 \tilde \Phi _1}{d X^2} + (\tilde H_{11} - E)\tilde

577: \Phi _1 = \tilde H_{12}\tilde \Phi _2 = 0

578: \, , 

579: \end{eqnarray}

580: and

581: \begin{eqnarray}

582: \label{III10}

583: - \frac{\hbar ^2 }{2 m} \frac{d^2 \tilde \Phi _2}{d X^2} + (\tilde H_{22} - E)\tilde

584: \Phi _2 = \tilde H_{21}\tilde \Phi _1 = 0

585: \, .

586: \end{eqnarray}

587: The change of the variables

588: \begin{eqnarray}

589: \label{III11}

590: \tilde \Phi _{1 , 2} = \exp (i k_0 X) c_{1 , 2} \, , \quad k_0^2 = \frac{2 m E}{\hbar ^2}

591: \end{eqnarray}

592: transforms the two Born - Oppenheimer equations (\ref{III9}), (\ref{III10})

593: into the two level crossing equation (\ref{III2}) for the slow

594: time dependent perturbations if one could neglect the second order derivatives

595: $(\hbar ^2/2 m)d^2 c_{1 , 2}/d X^2$ and to replace the time derivative by

596: $v d/d X$ ($v= \sqrt {2E/m}$ is velocity). Obviously we recognize

597: the standard semiclassical approach in the afore-described procedure.

598: 

599: The same kind of the mapping can be performed also for

600: the adiabatic amplitudes $C_{1 , 2}(t)$ which are related with the

601: diabatic amplitudes $c_{1 , 2}(t)$ by the adiabatic - diabatic transformation matrix

602: depending on the adiabatic angle $\theta $

603: \begin{eqnarray}

604: \label{III12}

605: \left (

606: \begin{array}{c}

607: C_1(t) \\ C_2(t)

608: \end{array}

609: \right ) =

610: \left (

611: \begin{array}{cc}

612: \cos \theta  & \sin \theta \\

613: -\sin \theta & \cos \theta

614: \end{array}

615: \right )

616: \left (

617: \begin{array}{c}

618: c_1(t) \\

619: c_2(t)

620: \end{array}

621: \right )

622: \, .

623: \end{eqnarray}

624: The corresponding to (\ref{III2}) set of the first order equations in the

625: adiabatic basis

626: \begin{eqnarray}

627: \label{III13}

628: \left (

629: \begin{array}{c}

630: \dot C_1 \\ \dot C_2

631: \end{array}

632: \right ) =

633: \left (

634: \begin{array}{cc}

635: H_{11} & - i \dot \theta \\

636: i\dot \theta & H_{22}

637: \end{array}

638: \right )

639: \left (

640: \begin{array}{c}

641: C_1 \\

642: C_2

643: \end{array}

644: \right )

645: \, ,

646: \end{eqnarray}

647: where the non-adiabatic coupling coefficient $\dot \theta $

648: can be related to the off-diagonal operator $A_{12}$ (\ref{II5})

649: (or to the geometrical phase, see the previous section \ref{II})

650: \begin{eqnarray}

651: \label{III14}

652: i\dot \theta = A_{12} \equiv i \langle \phi _1 |\dot \phi _2\rangle 

653: \, .

654: \end{eqnarray}

655: The transformation (\ref{III11}) enables to reduce the Born - Oppenheimer

656: equations (for the nuclear wave functions $\Phi _{1 , 2}$ in the adiabatic

657: representation) to (\ref{III13}) if and only if:

658: (i) in the spirit of the semiclassical approach to neglect the second order

659: derivatives ;

660: (ii) to keep only $\propto k_0$ terms in the non-adiabatic

661: matrix elements (i.e. neglecting higher order over $1/k_0$ contributions).

662: Expressions (\ref{III12}) - (\ref{III14}) do allow an entry point

663: into the adiabatic perturbation theory developed by Landau \cite{LL65}

664: and Dykhne \cite{DY62}, \cite{DC63} (see also \cite{DP76}, \cite{HP77}).

665: We will closely follow the same method.

666: 

667: One can make one step further 

668: and to find the combination of the two level system amplitudes

669: $a_{1 , 2}$ (\ref{III4}), (\ref{III5})

670: \begin{eqnarray}

671: \label{III15}

672: Y(t) = \Omega _{12}^{-1/2}\exp \left (- \frac{i}{2}\int \Omega _{12} dt \right )a_1

673: + i\Omega _{12}^{-1/2}\exp \left ( \frac{i}{2}\int \Omega _{12} dt\right ) a_2

674: \, ,

675: \end{eqnarray}

676: satisfying to the simple equation

677: \begin{eqnarray}

678: \label{III16}

679: \ddot Y(t) + \frac{\Omega _{12}^2}{4} Y = 0

680: \, ,

681: \end{eqnarray}

682: identical to (\ref{III8}), and the both describe oscillations around the crossing point

683: in the adiabatic potential (inverted adiabatic barrier). Therefore

684: formally the adiabatic perturbation theory reduces

685: the level crossing problem to the well known quantum mechanical

686: phenomenom - over-barrier reflection. Moreover for the latter problem

687: the reflection coefficient in a full agreement with the adiabatic theorem

688: is 1.

689: 

690: Since in $1D$ case evidently two adiabatic potentials have no

691: reel crossing points, the crossing is possible only at complex

692: values $X$ or $t$

693: \begin{eqnarray}

694: \label{III17}

695: \Omega _{12} (\tau _c) = 0 \, ; \quad U_1 - U_2 = \pm i U_{12}|_{t = \tau _c}

696: \, .

697: \end{eqnarray}

698: In the vicinity of these points from (\ref{III6})

699: \begin{eqnarray}

700: \label{III18}

701: \Omega _{12}  \propto  (t - \tau _c)^{1/2}

702: \, ,

703: \end{eqnarray}

704: therefore

705: \begin{eqnarray}

706: \label{III19}

707: \int \Omega _{12} d t \simeq \frac{2}{3}(t - \tau _c)^{3/2}

708: \, ,

709: \end{eqnarray}

710: i.e. the crossing points

711: are square root bifurcation points for the function $\Omega _{12}(t)$.

712: Using Exp. (\ref{III19}) we depicted in the Fig. 1 the Stokes

713: and anti-Stokes lines for the equation (\ref{III16}).

714: The diagram shown in this figure is identical to that corresponding

715: to the treated semiclassical over-barrier reflection problem

716: with the linear turning points. The transition probability 

717: $P_{12}$ in the main

718: approximation is determined

719: by the integration over the contour $C(\tau _c)$ going around

720: the bifurcation point $\tau _c$

721: \begin{eqnarray}

722: \label{III20}

723: P_{12} \simeq \exp \left (\frac{2}{\hbar }\oint _{C(\tau _c)} (H_{11} - H_{22}) d t \right )

724: \, .

725: \end{eqnarray}

726: 

727: In the simplest form of the LZ problem the diabatic potentials

728: are assumed as the linear functions of $t$ or (what is

729: the same because $t = X/v$) $X$ (see Fig. 2 for the illustration)

730: \begin{eqnarray}

731: \label{III21}

732: U_{1(2)} = U^\# \pm F X

733: \, .

734: \end{eqnarray}

735: Putting (\ref{III21}) into the general expression for the transition

736: probability (\ref{III20}) we find for this case

737: \begin{eqnarray}

738: \label{III22}

739: P_{12} \simeq \exp (- 2 \pi \nu )

740: \, ,

741: \end{eqnarray}

742: where $\nu = U_{12}^2/2\hbar v F$ is so-called Massey parameter, and the velocity

743: $v = \sqrt {2|E - U^\# |/m}$.

744: 

745: 

746: Some comments about the range of the validity of the approximation seem in order.

747: A question of primary importance for the LZ problem is related to

748: the semiclassical nature of the phenomenom. To illustrate it let us note

749: that for $\Omega _{12}^2 = U_{12}^2 + v^2 F^2 X^2$, the Eq. (\ref{III16})

750: is the Weber equation with respect to the reel point $X=0$ (diabatic potentials

751: crossing point).

752: Evidently, this correspondence of two complex conjugated linear

753: crossing points $\pm \tau _c$ and one reel $X=0$ crossing point for the Weber

754: equation is the same as that (in the standard semiclassical

755: treatment of the Schr\"odinger equation) for two linear and one second order

756: turning points. Thus by the same manner as for any semiclassical problem,

757: one can apply to LZ problem WKB or instanton methods.

758: Let us compare the accuracy of the both approaches. If $|E - U^\# | \gg \hbar \Omega $

759: (remind that $\Omega $ is a characteristic frequency of the adiabatic potentials),

760: the WKB method considering for this problem two

761: isolated linear turning points works quite well (it is the limit of $k_0 a\gg 1$,

762: corresponding to the adiabatic approximation). If it is not

763: the case we have to use the diabatic representation.

764: 

765: 

766: \section{Instanton method in momentum space.}

767: \label{IV}

768: This is not the place to explain the instanton method in details.

769: However, in a stripped down version the approach can be viewed as follows

770: (see \cite{BM94} - \cite{BV02}, \cite{PO77}, \cite{CO85}).

771: The recipe to find the instanton is based on the minimization

772: of the functional of classical action in the space of paths connecting the minima

773: in the upside-down potential.

774: As it is well known \cite{LL65} the expansion of an arbitrary

775: wave function $\Psi (x)$ in terms of the momentum eigenfunctions

776: is simply a Fourier integral

777: \begin{eqnarray}

778: \label{a1}

779: \Psi (x) = \frac{1}{2\pi \hbar }\int _{-\infty }^{+\infty }

780: \exp (i p x/\hbar ) \Phi (p) d p

781: \, .

782: \end{eqnarray}

783: The wave function in the momentum representation $\Phi (p)$ in own turn

784: can be written down in the semiclassical form

785: \begin{eqnarray}

786: \label{a2}

787: \Phi (p) = A(p) \exp (-i W(p)/\hbar ) 

788: \, ,

789: \end{eqnarray}

790: where the action $W(p)$ is determined by a classical trajectory

791: $x_0(p)$ according to the definition

792: \begin{eqnarray}

793: \label{a3}

794: \frac{d W}{d p} = x_0(p)

795: \, .

796: \end{eqnarray}

797: We use

798: dimensionless variables: for the energy $\epsilon = E/\Omega _0$, for the potential $V = U/\gamma \Omega

799: _0$, and for the coordinate $X= x/a_0$, where $E$ and $U$ are corresponding dimensional values for the

800: energy and for the potential, 

801: $a_0$ is a characteristic length of the problem, 

802: e.g. the tunneling distance, $\Omega _0$

803: is a characteristic frequency, e.g. the oscillation frequency around the potential minimum.

804: The dimensionless momentum can be defined as

805: \begin{eqnarray}

806: \label{a4}

807: P = \frac{pa_0}{\gamma \hbar}

808: \, ,

809: \end{eqnarray}

810: where $\gamma $ is semiclassical parameter

811: (remind that $\gamma \equiv m \Omega _0 a_0^2/\hbar $, where $m$ is a mass

812: of a particle, and we believe that $\gamma \gg 1$).

813: 

814: Introducing the semiclassical form of the wave function in momentum representation

815: (\ref{a2}) into the standard one particle $1D$ Schr\"odinger equation, one can

816: transform it into the form

817: \begin{eqnarray}

818: \label{a5}

819: \left [P^2 + 2 {\hat V} \left (X_0 + i \frac{1}{\gamma }\frac{d}{d P}\right )

820: - \frac{2}{\gamma }\epsilon \right ] A(P)  = 0

821: \, .

822: \end{eqnarray}

823: In the momentum space $\hat V$ is a potential energy operator and it

824: can be expanded into a semiclassical series over $1/\gamma $ (or what is the

825: same, over $\hbar $, and further we

826: will set everywhere $\hbar = 1$, measuring energies in the units of frequency,

827: except at some intermediate equations where it is necessary for understanding).                                    

828: The expansion allows us to consider $\hat V$ as a function $V$ of

829: two independent variables $X_0$ and $d/d P$, and one can get finally

830: \begin{eqnarray} &&

831: \label{a6}

832: V\left (X_0 + \frac{i}{\gamma }\frac{d}{d P}\right ) = 

833: V(X_0) +  \frac{i}{\gamma }\left (\frac{d V}{d X_0}\frac{d}{d P}

834: + \frac{1}{2}\frac {d^2 V}{d X_0^2} \frac{d X_0}{d P} \right )

835: + \left (\frac{i}{\gamma }\right )^2 \Biggl [\frac{d^2 V}{d X_0^2}\frac{d^2}{d P^2}

836: - 

837: \\ && 

838: %\end{eqnarray}

839: %\begin{eqnarray}

840: \nonumber

841: \frac{1}{2} \frac{d^3 V}{d X_0^3}\left (\frac{dX_0}{d P} \frac{d }{d P} - 

842: \frac{1}{3}

843: \frac{d^2 X_0}{d P^2}\right ) + 

844: \frac{1}{24}\frac{d^4 V}{d X_0^4}\left (

845: \frac{d X_0}{d P}\right )^2 \Biggr ] + ....

846: \, ,

847: \end{eqnarray}

848: where the ellipsis represents all higher order expansion terms.

849: 

850: Accordingly to the general semiclassical rules

851: from (\ref{a5}) and (\ref{a6}) one can easily find that

852: the first and the second over $\gamma ^{-1}$ order terms

853: become identically zero,

854: if the energy dependent trajectory $X_0(P)$ is determined by the equation

855: \begin{eqnarray}

856: \label{a7}

857: P^2 + 2 V(X_0) = \frac{2\epsilon }{\gamma }

858: \, ,

859: \end{eqnarray}

860: and so-called

861: transport equation (TE) 

862: \begin{eqnarray}

863: \label{a8}

864: \frac{dV}{dX_0}\frac{dA}{d P} + \frac{1}{2} \frac{d^2 V}{d X_0^2}

865: \frac{d ^2 W}{d P^2}A

866: \, ,

867: \end{eqnarray}

868: is also satisfied.

869: The solution of TE (\ref{a8}) can be found explicitely, and it reads

870: \begin{eqnarray}

871: \label{a9}

872: A = \left (

873: \frac{d V}{d X_0}\right )^{-1/2}

874: \, .

875: \end{eqnarray}

876: It follows from (\ref{a9}) that the semiclassical WKB wave function

877: (\ref{a2}) has singularities in all stationary points

878: of the potential $V$, i.e. these points are the turning points in the momentum space.

879: It illustrates 

880: fundamental difficulties 

881: of the WKB procedure, i.e. how to match the solutions which

882: become singular on caustic lines separating manifolds in phase space with real and imaginary momenta.

883: 

884: To illustrate also the second drawback of the WKB method let

885: us consider the linear ($V = F X$) and harmonic ($V = X^2/2$) potentials.

886: The trajectories $X_0(P)$ can be trivially determined from (\ref{a7}).

887: For the linear potential, $X_0(P)$ is the inverted parabola with the maximum

888: (the top of the inverted parabola) $ X_{0m} = \epsilon F/\gamma $ at $P =0$.

889: The left and the right branches of the parabola correspond to the opposite

890: motion directions in the classically accessible region $ X_0 < X_{0m}$.

891: The semiclassical WKB wave function in the momentum space for the linear potential

892: \begin{eqnarray}

893: \label{a99}

894: \Phi (P) = \frac{1}{\sqrt F} \exp \left (-\frac{i}{F}\left (\epsilon

895: P - \gamma \frac{P^3}{6}\right ) \right )

896: \, ,

897: \end{eqnarray}

898: is the Fourier transform of the coordinate space Airy function. For the harmonic

899: potential the corresponding trajectories (\ref{a7}) are the ellipses and the wave

900: functions in the both spaces (momentum and coordinate) have

901: the same functional form. It is worthwhile to note 

902: that although the WKB functions are not exact, the

903: corresponding 

904: eigenvalues coincide with the exact quantum mechanical ones.

905: 

906: As we have recently shown \cite{BV99} - \cite{BV02}, one can successfully attack many

907: important semiclassical problems by the instanton method.

908: Having in mind in this section momentum space let us remind for the sake of conveniency 

909: the main ideas of the instanton approach.

910: The first step of the approach derived in \cite{PO77} and

911: \cite{CO85} is so-called Wick rotation of

912: a phase space corresponding to a transformation to imaginary time $ t \to - i t$.

913: At the transformation, the both, potential and kinetic, energies change their signs,

914: and Lagrangian is replaced by Hamiltonian in the classical equation

915: of motion. 

916: In the momentum space the low energy instanton wave functions

917: can be constructed using Wick rotation in the momentum space

918: (i.e. the transformation $P \to i P$) and besides the term with the energy $\epsilon $

919: in (\ref{a7}) should be removed from this equation and taken into account

920: in the TE (\ref{a8}). The trajectory $X_0(P)$ in the instanton formalizm

921: describes zero energy motion in the classically forbidden region of

922: the momentum space where the wave function has a form

923: \begin{eqnarray}

924: \label{a10}

925: \Phi (P)  = \left (

926: \frac{d V}{d X_0}\right )^{-1/2} Q(P) \exp (-\gamma W(P))

927: \, ,

928: \end{eqnarray}

929: and additional prefactor $Q(P)$ which has appeared in (\ref{a10}) 

930: can be represented as

931: \begin{eqnarray}

932: \label{a11}

933: \ln Q(P) = \epsilon \int \left (

934: \frac{d V}{d X_0}\right )^{-1} dP

935: \, .

936: \end{eqnarray}

937: 

938: In the particular case of a linear over $1D$ space coordinate potential

939: ($V(X) = F X$) the instanton and WKB functions have the same form.

940: For an arbitrary ($n$-order) anharmonic potential, the Schr\"odinger equation

941: in the momentum space is reduced to the $n$-th order differential

942: equation. However the derivatives of the $n$-th order decrease

943: proportional to $\gamma ^{-n}$, and therefore corresponding terms

944: can be taken into account perturbatively. A rigorous mathematical method

945: to perform this procedure (we will use in our paper) has been developed

946: by Fedoryuk \cite{FE64} - \cite{FE66}.

947: 

948: To illustrate the instanton approach let us consider the simplest

949: form of the LZ problem depicted in the Fig. 3 (see all notation

950: in the figure caption). For the linear with arbitrary line slopes

951: potentials in the diabatic state representation one has two second order

952: coupled equations 

953: \begin{eqnarray} &&

954: \label{a12}

955: - \frac{d^2 \Theta _1}{d X^2} = \gamma ^2 (\alpha + f_1 X) \Theta _1 =

956: \gamma ^2 v \Theta _2 \, ; \\ &&

957: %\end{eqnarray}

958: %\begin{eqnarray}

959: \nonumber

960: - \frac{d^2 \Theta _2}{d X^2} = \gamma ^2 (\alpha + f_2 X) \Theta _2 =

961: \gamma ^2 v \Theta _1

962: \, ,

963: \end{eqnarray}

964: where $\Theta _{1 , 2}$ are the 

965: eigenfunctions of the corresponding states 

966: and all other notation are introduced according to the Fig. 3, namely

967: $$

968: \Omega ^2 = \frac{a^2 F^2}{m U_{12}} \, , \, F = \sqrt {F_1 |F_2|} \, , \,

969: \gamma = \frac{a^3 F m^{1/2}}{U_{12}^{1/2}} \, , \,

970: \alpha = 2\frac{U_0 - E}{\gamma \Omega } \, , \,

971: f_{1,2} = 2\frac{a F_{1,2}}{\gamma \Omega } \, ,\, v = 2 \frac{U_{12}}{\gamma \Omega } \, .

972: $$ 

973: The equations (\ref{a12}) can be transformed into the momentum space

974: (they formed a coupled linear differential equation system)

975: and after that can be rewritten as one second order equation

976: \begin{eqnarray}

977: \label{a13}

978: \frac{d^2 \Psi _1}{d k^2} + q(k) \Psi _1 (k) = 0

979: \, ,

980: \end{eqnarray}

981: where we introduced

982: \begin{eqnarray}

983: \label{a14}

984: \Psi _1 = \Phi _1 \exp \left [i\frac{\gamma \alpha ^{3/2}}{2} \left (\frac{1}{f_1}

985: + \frac{1}{f_2}\right ) \left (k + \frac{k^3}{3}\right)\right ]

986: \, ,

987: \end{eqnarray}

988: and $\Phi _1$ is the Fourier transformed of $\Theta _1$,

989: $k = P/\gamma \sqrt \alpha $, and $q(k)$ is a fourth order characteristic polynomial

990: \begin{eqnarray}

991: \label{a15}

992: q(k) = \lambda ^2(1 + k^2)^2 + 2 \lambda (i k - 2 \nu )

993: \, ,

994: \end{eqnarray}

995: dependent of two parameters

996: \begin{eqnarray}

997: \label{a16}

998: \lambda  = \frac{1}{2} \gamma \alpha ^{3/2} \left (\frac{1}{f_1}

999: - \frac{1}{f_2}\right ) \, ,

1000: \, \nu = \frac{\gamma v^2}{2(f_1 - f_2)\sqrt \alpha } 

1001: \, .

1002: \end{eqnarray}

1003: The first parameter $\lambda $ in the momentum representation

1004: plays the role of the new semiclassical

1005: parameter, the second one is the known 

1006: (and already defined in (\ref{III22})) Massey parameter.

1007: 

1008: Fortunately all roots of the characteristic polynomial (\ref{a15})

1009: can be found analytically quite accurately in the most interesting

1010: physically region of parameters. To simplify expressions (keeping

1011: complete physical content) we present results only for the simplest

1012: case (symmetric slopes of the diabatic potentials) $f_1 = - f_2 \equiv f$.

1013: In the classically forbidden region $U^\# - E > 0$, $\alpha > 0$, at $\lambda \gg 1$

1014: (i.e. equivalently at $ \alpha \gg (f/\gamma )^{2/3}$), all the four

1015: roots of the polynomial are close to $\pm i$

1016: \begin{eqnarray}

1017: \label{a17}

1018: k_1^\pm = i \left (1 \pm \sqrt {\frac{1 + \nu }{2 \lambda }}\right )

1019: \, , \, k_2^\pm = \pm \sqrt {\frac{1 - \nu }{2 \lambda }} - i

1020: \, .

1021: \end{eqnarray}

1022: In the classically accessible region ($U^\# - E < 0\, , \, \alpha < 0$),

1023: the roots are close to $\pm 1$, if $\lambda \gg 1$ (or if $-\alpha \gg (f/\gamma )^{2/3}$)

1024: \begin{eqnarray}

1025: \label{a18}

1026: k_1^\pm = 1 \pm 

1027: \left (\frac{\sqrt {1 + \tilde \nu ^2} + \tilde \nu}{4 \tilde \lambda }\right )^{1/2}

1028: \pm i \left (\frac{\sqrt {1 + \tilde \nu ^2} - \tilde \nu}{4 \tilde \lambda }\right )^{1/2}\, , \,

1029: k_2^\pm = - 1 \mp

1030: \left (\frac{\sqrt {1 + \tilde \nu ^2} + \tilde \nu}{4 \tilde \lambda }\right )^{1/2}

1031: \pm

1032: \left (\frac{\sqrt {1 + \tilde \nu ^2} - \tilde \nu}{4 \tilde \lambda }\right )^{1/2}

1033: \end{eqnarray}

1034: (the tilde sign means that in the corresponding quantity $\alpha $

1035: should be taken by its modulus, i.e. at $|\alpha |$).

1036: 

1037: Found above the set of the roots of the characteristic polynomial (\ref{a15})

1038: in the classically forbidden (\ref{a17}) and in the classically accessible (\ref{a18})

1039: regions is formally equivalent to the corresponding transition or turning points

1040: for the system of two potential barriers or two potential wells respectively.

1041: Thus we can use all known for these cases WKB and instanton results (see e.g.

1042: for all details 

1043: our recent publications \cite{BV02} and references herein).

1044: Since in the semiclassical treatment we usually concerned only with the asymptotic

1045: solutions and their connections via transition or turning points on the complex plane,

1046: the famous Stokes phenomenom \cite{HE62}, \cite{PK61} of asymptotic solutions

1047: plays an essential role, and the distribution of the transition points

1048: (which are nothing but the zero points of the characteristic polynomial)

1049: and Stokes and anti-Stokes lines, dictates the phenomenom.

1050: We show all the lines emanating from linear turning points in Fig. 2.

1051: In the case when the roots formed a pair of close linear turning points,

1052: one can replace each such a pair by one second order turning points.

1053: The corresponding Stokes and anti-Stokes lines are depicted in the Fig. 4.

1054: 

1055: In the classically forbidden region the instanton wave functions

1056: can be found using the roots (\ref{a17})

1057: \begin{eqnarray}

1058: \label{a19}

1059: \Phi ^+_1 =

1060: \frac{(1 - i k)^{\nu - 1}}{(1 + i k)^{\nu + 1}} \exp

1061: \left (i \gamma \left (k + \frac{k^3}{3}\right ) \right )

1062: \, , \,

1063: \Phi ^- _1 = 

1064: \frac{(1 - i k)^{-\nu }}{(1 + i k)^{-\nu }} \exp

1065: \left (-i \gamma \left (k + \frac{k^3}{3}\right ) \right )

1066: \, .

1067: \end{eqnarray}

1068: At $|k| \to \infty $ the function $\Phi ^+_1$ decreases proportional

1069: to $|k|^{-2}$, and $\Phi ^-_1$ is reduced to the Airy function \cite{EM53}, \cite{OL74}.

1070: In the vicinity of the second order turning points $k =\pm i$,

1071: the fourth order characteristic polynomial is reduced to the second order

1072: one, and the equation (\ref{a13}) is reduced to the Weber equation with

1073: the known fundamental solutions \cite{EM53}

1074: $$

1075: D_{-\nu }(\pm 2 \sqrt \lambda (k + i) )\, , \,  

1076: $$

1077: at $|k + i| \to 0$ and

1078: $$  

1079: D_{-\nu - 1} (\pm 2 \sqrt \lambda (k - i) )\, , \,  

1080: $$

1081: at $|k - i| \to 0$.

1082: The same procedure applied to the classically accessible region leads

1083: to the solutions

1084: \begin{eqnarray}

1085: \label{a20}

1086: \Phi ^+_1 =

1087: \frac{(1 - k)^{i \tilde \nu - 1}}{(1 + k)^{i \tilde \nu + 1}} \exp

1088: \left (i \tilde \gamma \left (k - \frac{k^3}{3}\right ) \right )

1089: \, , \,

1090: \Phi ^- _1 = 

1091: \frac{(1 + i k)^{i \tilde \nu }}{(1 + i k)^{i \tilde \nu }} \exp

1092: \left (-i \tilde \gamma \left (k - \frac{k^3}{3}\right ) \right )

1093: \, ,

1094: \end{eqnarray}

1095: and it is reduced to 

1096: the Weber equation fundamental solutions

1097: too

1098: $$

1099: D_{i \tilde \nu }(\pm 2 \sqrt {\tilde \lambda } \exp(i \pi /4)(k + 1) )\, , \,  

1100: $$

1101: at $|k + 1| \to 0$ and

1102: $$  

1103: D_{i \tilde \nu - 1} (\pm 2 \sqrt {\tilde \lambda }\exp(i\pi /4) (k - 1) )\, , \,  

1104: $$

1105: at $|k - 1| \to 0$.

1106: 

1107: The same solutions can be obtained for LZ problem in the two level approximation

1108: using the instanton method in the coordinate space. The reason for it

1109: is fairly transparent and based on the fact that for linear diabatic

1110: potentials the limit $k \to \pm \infty $ corresponds to the limit

1111: $x \to \pm \infty $, and therefore the asymptotic of the

1112: solutions are the same in the momentum and in the coordinate space.

1113: 

1114: The whole analysis can be brought into a more compact form by introducing so-called connection

1115: matrices. In the instanton approach we have deal

1116: with the asymptotic solutions and their connections on the complex coordinate plane.

1117: Thus it is important and significant to know the connection matrices. 

1118: The needed connection matrices can be found easily by matching of the solutions

1119: (\ref{a19}) or (\ref{a20}) at the second order turning points through

1120: the corresponding fundamental solutions of the Weber equation.

1121: It gives the following connection matrices

1122: \begin{equation} 

1123: \label{a21} 

1124: \hat M_1 = \left( 

1125: \begin{array}{cc} 

1126: - \cos (\pi \nu ) & \sqrt {2 \pi }\exp(-2\chi )/\Gamma (\nu )   \\ 

1127: \Gamma (\nu )\exp (2 \chi ) \sin ^2(\pi \nu )/\sqrt {2 \pi } & \cos (\pi \nu ) 

1128: \end{array}

1129: \right ) \, ,

1130: \end{equation}

1131: where $ \chi = (\nu - (\nu - 1/2)\ln \nu )/2$, and

1132: \begin{equation} 

1133: \label{a22} 

1134: \hat M_2 = \left( 

1135: \begin{array}{cc} 

1136: - \exp (-\pi \tilde \nu ) & \sqrt {2 \pi }\exp(-\pi \tilde \nu )\exp (-2\tilde \chi )/\Gamma (-i

1137: \tilde \nu )   \\ 

1138: 2\Gamma (-i \tilde \nu )\exp (-\pi \tilde \nu /2)\exp (2 \tilde \chi ) sh (\pi \tilde \nu )/\sqrt {2 \pi }

1139: &

1140: \exp (-\pi \tilde \nu ) 

1141: \end{array}

1142: \right ) \, ,

1143: \end{equation}

1144: where $\tilde \chi = \left (-i((\pi /4) + \tilde \nu (1 - \ln (\tilde \nu ))\right ) +

1145: (1/4) \ln \tilde \nu $.

1146: 

1147: As a note of caution at the end of this section we should

1148: also remind that initially for the linear diabatic potentials

1149: we had two corresponding Schr\"odinger equations, and each of them possesses

1150: two fundamental solutions. Thus the full LZ problem is characterized by

1151: the four fundamental solutions to the left with respect to a given turning point

1152: asymptotic and four fundamental solutions to the right (with respect to

1153: the same turning point) asymptotic. Therefore generally speaking the connection matrices

1154: should be $ 4 \times 4$ ones. However

1155: owing to the symmetry of the potentials these $4 \times 4$ matrices have

1156: two blocks $2 \times 2$ structures for the functions $\Phi _1 $ and $\Phi _2$.

1157: The latter ones are given in (\ref{a21}) and in (\ref{a22}) respectively.

1158: 

1159: 

1160: \section{LZ problem for two electron states (instanton approach in the coordinate space).}

1161: \label{V}

1162: In the previous sections \ref{II} - \ref{IV} we investigated 

1163: LZ problem in the frame work of the adiabatic

1164: perturbation theory, two level approximation and momentum

1165: representation. The all three methods are equivalent and semiclassical by their

1166: nature. Correspondingly the approaches do work properly

1167: for the tunneling and over-barrier transmission energy regions,

1168: but become non-adequate within the intermediate region (of the order of $\gamma ^{-2/3}$)

1169: near the level crossing point. 

1170: The fact is that the accuracy of these methods depends on the ''renormalized''

1171: (energy dependent) semiclassical parameter $\lambda $ (\ref{a16}) which can be

1172: small in the intermediate region ($\lambda \leq 1$ even for $\gamma \gg 1$).

1173: To treat this region we have to use the coordinate

1174: space presentation, since we need to know the connection matrices for

1175: non-adiabatic transitions. For the latter problem the wave functions outside

1176: the level crossing point, happen to be more convenient

1177: (and, besides, have a more compact mathematical form) in the

1178: coordinate space.

1179: 

1180: \subsection{Tunneling and over-barrier regions}

1181: \label{VA}

1182: To move further on smoothly we start here reproducing in the

1183: coordinate space the results found in the previous sections for

1184: the tunneling and over-barrier energy regions. In the diabatic representation

1185: we can rewrite two second order LZ differential equations

1186: (\ref{a12}) as the following fourth order linear differential equation

1187: with the constant coefficients at the derivatives (for the sake of simplicity

1188: we consider the symmetric slope case $ f_1 = - f_2 \equiv f$)

1189: \begin{eqnarray}

1190: \label{b1}

1191: \frac{d^4 \Phi _1}{d X^4} - 2 \gamma ^2 \alpha \frac{d^2 \Phi _1}{d X^2} -

1192: 2\gamma ^2 f \frac{d \Phi _1}{d X} + \gamma ^4(\alpha ^2 - v^2 - f^2 X^2)\Phi _1 =0

1193: \, .

1194: \end{eqnarray}

1195: Mathematical formalism elaborated by Fedoryuk \cite{FE64} - \cite{FE66},

1196: we are about to recall, reduces (\ref{b1}) by a semiclassical substitution to

1197: a set of equations of the order $\gamma ^n$. Characteristic polynomial for

1198: (\ref{b1})

1199: \begin{eqnarray}

1200: \label{b2}

1201: F(\lambda ) = \lambda ^4 - 2 \alpha \gamma ^2\lambda ^2 - 2 \gamma ^2 f \lambda

1202: +\gamma ^4(\alpha ^2 - v^2 - f^2 X^2)

1203: \, ,

1204: \end{eqnarray}

1205: where by the definition $\lambda = d W/d X$.

1206: 

1207: Solving the equation $F(\lambda ) = 0$ perturbatively over $\gamma ^{-1} \ll 1$

1208: we find

1209: \begin{eqnarray}

1210: \label{b3}

1211: \lambda _j = \lambda _j^0 + u_j

1212: \, ,

1213: \end{eqnarray}

1214: where

1215: \begin{eqnarray}

1216: \label{b4}

1217: \lambda _j^0 = \pm \left [\gamma (\alpha \pm \sqrt {v^2 + f^2 X^2})\right ]^{1/2}

1218: \, ,

1219: \end{eqnarray}

1220: and

1221: \begin{eqnarray}

1222: \label{b5}

1223: u_j = \frac{\gamma f}{2}\left [(\lambda _j^0)^2 - \alpha \gamma \right ]^{-1}

1224: \, .

1225: \end{eqnarray}

1226: Four asymptotic solutions of (\ref{b1}) thus can be represented

1227: as

1228: \begin{eqnarray}

1229: \label{b6}

1230: \{ y_j \} \equiv \{ \Phi _+^+ , \Phi _+^- , \Phi _-^+ , \Phi _-^- \} 

1231: = (v^2 + f^2 X^2)^{-1/4}\exp \left [\int

1232: _{0}^X \lambda _j(X^\prime ) d X^\prime \right ]

1233: \, ,

1234: \end{eqnarray}

1235: and these describe a motion with imaginary momentum in the upper and lower 

1236: adiabatic potentials

1237: $$

1238: \frac{2m a^2}{\hbar ^2}\left (U^\pm - E \right ) = \gamma ^2 (\alpha \pm \sqrt {v^2 +

1239: f^2 X^2})

1240: \, .

1241: $$

1242: The subscripts in (\ref{b6}) corresponds to the upper or lower adiabatic levels,

1243: and the superscripts are referred to the sign of the action.

1244: 

1245: Before turning on the connection matrices let us use

1246: the substitution

1247: \begin{eqnarray}

1248: \label{b7}

1249: \Phi _1 = \exp (\kappa X)\phi 

1250: \, ,

1251: \end{eqnarray}

1252: and choose $\kappa $ value to vanish the first derivative in (\ref{b1}), i.e.

1253: \begin{eqnarray}

1254: \label{b8}

1255: \kappa ^3 - \gamma ^2\alpha \kappa - \frac{1}{2} \gamma ^2 f = 0

1256: \, .

1257: \end{eqnarray}

1258: At $\alpha > 3(f/4\gamma )^{2/3}$ one can expand the roots of (\ref{b8})

1259: in terms of the parameter

1260: \begin{eqnarray}

1261: \label{b9}

1262: \delta = \frac{f}{4\gamma }\alpha ^{-3/2} < \frac{1}{3 \sqrt 3}

1263: \, .

1264: \end{eqnarray}

1265: Thus we find

1266: \begin{eqnarray}

1267: \label{b10}

1268: \kappa _1 = \gamma \sqrt \alpha \left (1 + \frac{\delta }{2}\right )

1269: \, , \, \kappa _2 = \gamma \sqrt \alpha \left (-1 + \frac{\delta }{2}\right )

1270: \, , \kappa _3 = \gamma \sqrt \alpha \delta

1271: \, .

1272: \end{eqnarray}

1273: At the condition (\ref{b8}) the coefficients at the fourth and at the

1274: third order derivatives in (\ref{b1}) are small (proportional to $\delta $

1275: and to $\sqrt \delta $ respectively) and the fourth order equation (\ref{b1})

1276: can be rewritten as two second order Weber equations with the solutions

1277: $$

1278: D_{p^{(1 , 2)}}(\beta _{(1 , 2)} X)

1279: \, ,

1280: $$

1281: where

1282: \begin{eqnarray}

1283: \label{b11}

1284: p^1 = - 1 + \frac{\delta }{2} - \nu \left (1 - \frac{3 \delta }{2} \right )

1285: \, , \, p^2 = \frac{\delta }{2} - \nu \left (1 + \frac{3 \delta }{2} \right )

1286: \, , \beta _{(1 , 2)} = \left (\frac{\gamma ^2 f^2}{\alpha }\right )^{1/4}

1287: \left (1 \pm \frac{3 \delta }{4} \right )

1288: \, .

1289: \end{eqnarray}

1290: The leading terms of these solutions are the same as found in

1291: the previous section \ref{IV}. But the Fedoryuk method we used, gives us also

1292: in the tunneling region (\ref{b8}) the higher order over the parameter

1293: $\delta $ corrections.

1294: 

1295: In the over-barrier energy region where $\alpha < - 3(f/4 \gamma)^{2/3}$,

1296: the roots of the equation (\ref{b8}) are complex - conjugated

1297: \begin{eqnarray}

1298: \label{b12}

1299: \frac{\kappa _{(1 , 2)}}{\gamma \sqrt \alpha } =

1300: -\frac{\tilde \delta }{2} \pm i \left (1 + \frac{3 \tilde \delta ^2 }{8}\right )

1301: \, ,

1302: \end{eqnarray}

1303: and $\tilde \delta $ plays the role of the small parameter in this region

1304: \begin{eqnarray}

1305: \label{b13}

1306: \tilde \delta = \frac{f}{4 \gamma |\alpha |^{3/2}}

1307: \, .

1308: \end{eqnarray}

1309: Again as above for the tunneling region, the coefficients at the

1310: higher order derivatives are small, and therefore, the function $\phi $

1311: (\ref{b7}) satisfies the Weber equation with the fundamental solutions

1312: $$

1313: D_{\tilde p^{(1 , 2)}}(\tilde \beta _{(1 , 2)} X)

1314: \, ,

1315: $$

1316: where

1317: \begin{eqnarray}

1318: \label{b14} 

1319: \tilde p^1 = - 1 + i\frac{3 \tilde \delta }{2} + i \nu \left (1 + \frac{3 \tilde \delta }{4} \right )

1320: \, , \, \tilde p^2 = i\frac{3\tilde \delta }{2} + i \nu \left (1 - \frac{3\tilde \delta }{4} \right )

1321: \, , \, 

1322: \\ 

1323: \nonumber

1324: \tilde \beta _1  = \exp(i\pi /4) \left (\frac{\gamma ^2 f^2}{|\alpha |}\right )^{1/4}

1325: \, , \, \tilde \beta _2 = \exp(-i 3\pi /4) \left (\frac{\gamma ^2 f^2}{|\alpha |}\right )^{1/4}

1326: \, .

1327: \end{eqnarray}

1328: Like it was for the tunneling region (\ref{b11}), the leading terms of

1329: the expansion (\ref{b14}) coincide with the results found in the previous sections,

1330: but from (\ref{b14}) we are able to compute the corrections to the main terms.

1331: 

1332: Now we are in the position to find the connection matrices.

1333: To do it for the tunneling region

1334: we have to establish the correspondence between the solutions

1335: of the fourth order differential equation (\ref{b1}) and those for the localized

1336: in the left ($L$) and in the right ($R$) wells states.

1337: In the case $\alpha \gg f|X|$ for the diabatic potentials, the action

1338: can be computed starting from the both wells ($R$ and $L$)

1339: \begin{eqnarray}

1340: \label{b15}

1341: \gamma W^L \simeq \gamma W_0^L + k_0 X + \frac{\beta ^2}{4} X^2 \, ,

1342: \gamma W^R \simeq \gamma W_0^R - k_0 X + \frac{\beta ^2}{4} X^2 

1343: \, ,

1344: \end{eqnarray}

1345: where $k_0 = (2m a^2(U^\# - E)/\hbar ^2)^{1/2} \equiv \gamma \sqrt \alpha $ is

1346: imaginary momentum, and $W_0^{L , R}$ are the actions computed from an

1347: arbitrary distant point in the $L$ or in the $R$ wells, respectively to

1348: the point $X=0$.

1349: From the other hand in the adiabatic potentials $U^\pm = U^\# \pm \sqrt {U_{12}^2

1350: + a^2 f^2 X^2}$ the corresponding actions can be represented

1351: \begin{eqnarray}

1352: \label{b16}

1353: \gamma W^\pm - \gamma W_0^\pm = k_0X \pm \frac{\beta ^2}{4} X^2 sign (X)

1354: \, .

1355: \end{eqnarray}

1356: Explicitely comparing the semiclassical wave functions in the both representations

1357: (adiabatic and diabatic ones) it is easy to see that the adiabatic

1358: functions in the potential $U^-$ coincide with the diabatic functions

1359: for localized $L$ and $R$ states at $X<0$ and $X>0$ respectively. The adiabatic

1360: functions for the upper potential $U^+$ correspond to the tails of the diabatic

1361: wave functions localized in the opposite wells.

1362: Therefore in the level crossing region the $L/R$ diabatic functions 

1363: are transformed into the $R/L$ functions, and the interaction entangles the diabatic

1364: states with the same sign of $k_0 X$. Thus we have only four non-zero amplitudes

1365: of the following transitions

1366: \begin{eqnarray}

1367: \label{b17}

1368: \langle \Phi ^+_L|\Phi ^-_R\rangle \, , \, 

1369: \langle \Phi ^-_L|\Phi ^+_R\rangle \, , \, 

1370: \langle \Phi ^+_R|\Phi ^-_L\rangle \, , \, 

1371: \langle \Phi ^-_R|\Phi ^+_L\rangle 

1372: \, .

1373: \end{eqnarray}

1374: Recalling that

1375: \begin{eqnarray}

1376: \label{b18}

1377: \gamma W^\pm = \gamma \int \left (\alpha \pm \sqrt {v^2 + f^2 X^2}\right )^{1/2}

1378: \simeq k_0 X \pm \frac{\beta ^2}{4} X^2  \pm \frac{\nu }{2}(1 - \ln \nu )

1379: \, ,

1380: \end{eqnarray}

1381: we come to the conclusion that the quantum solutions (\ref{b11}), valid in the vicinity

1382: of the level crossing point asymptotically, match smoothly increasing and decreasing   

1383: solutions (\ref{b6}), and it leads to the Landau description \cite{LL65} of the level crossing

1384: transitions depicted in the Fig. 5.

1385: 

1386: Using expressions (\ref{a21}), (\ref{a22}) relating the fundamental solutions

1387: of the Weber equation, we can find the corresponding to (\ref{b17})

1388: $4 \times 4$ connection matrix

1389: \begin{eqnarray} && 

1390: \label{b19}

1391: \left( 

1392: \begin{array}{c}

1393: \Phi _R^+ \\

1394: \Phi _R^- \\

1395: \Phi _L^+ \\

1396: \Phi _L^-

1397: \end{array}

1398: \right ) = \\ &&

1399: %\end{equation}

1400: %\begin{equation}

1401: \nonumber 

1402: \left [

1403: \begin{array}{cccc}

1404: \sqrt {2\pi }\exp(-2 \chi )/\Gamma (\nu ) & 0 & 0 & -\cos (\pi \nu ) \\

1405: 0 & \Gamma (\nu )\exp (2\chi )\sin ^2(\pi \nu ) & - \cos (\pi \nu ) & 0 \\

1406: 0 & \cos (\pi \nu ) & \sqrt {2\pi }\exp (-2 \chi )/\Gamma (\nu ) & 0 \\

1407: \cos (\pi \nu ) & 0 & 0 & \Gamma (\nu ) \exp (2 \chi ) \sin ^2(\pi \nu )/\sqrt {2\pi }

1408: \end{array}

1409: \right ]

1410: \left (

1411: \begin{array}{c}

1412: \Phi _L^- \\

1413: \Phi _L^+ \\

1414: \Phi _R^- \\

1415: \Phi _R^+

1416: \end{array}

1417: \right ) \, ,

1418: \end{eqnarray}

1419: where as above

1420: $$

1421: \chi = \frac{\nu }{2} - \frac{1}{2}\left (\nu - \frac{1}{2} \right ) \ln \nu

1422: \, .

1423: $$

1424: The matrix (\ref{b19}) has a $2 \times 2$ block structure, and each of the

1425: identical blocks connects increasing and decreasing diabatic solutions.

1426: However these diagonal blocks do not correspond to the $L - R$

1427: transitions separately for the lower and upper adiabatic potentials.

1428: Indeed the corresponding to these transitions $2 \times 2$ matrix is

1429: \begin{equation} 

1430: \label{b20}

1431: \left( 

1432: \begin{array}{c}

1433: \Phi _R^+ \\

1434: \Phi _L^-

1435: \end{array}

1436: \right ) =

1437: \left [

1438: \begin{array}{cc}

1439: \sqrt {2\pi }\exp(-2 \chi )/\Gamma (\nu ) & -\cos (\pi \nu ) \\

1440: \cos (\pi \nu )  & \Gamma (\nu )\exp (2\chi )\sin ^2(\pi \nu )/\sqrt {2\pi }

1441: \end{array}

1442: \right ]

1443: \left (

1444: \begin{array}{c}

1445: \Phi _L^- \\

1446: \Phi _R^+

1447: \end{array}

1448: \right ) \, ,

1449: \end{equation}

1450: In the diabatic limit (i.e. $\nu \to 0$) the diagonal matrix elements

1451: are small ($\propto \nu ^{1/2}$, and $\nu ^{3/2}$ respectively),

1452: and the off-diagonal elements approach to $\pm 1$, as it should be since

1453: by the definition there are no transitions between the diabatic potentials.

1454: 

1455: In the adiabatic limit $\nu \gg 1$, the diagonal matrix elements

1456: tend to 1, and it means that the decreasing $L$ solution transits only

1457: into the increasing $R$ solution, and vice versa. Thus the connection matrix in

1458: the tunneling region depends only on the Massey parameter $\nu $.

1459: One has to bear in mind here that the blocks of the $4 \times 4$

1460: connection matrix (\ref{b19}) correspond to the two isolated 

1461: second order turning points with the Stokes constant

1462: (see e.g. \cite{BV02})

1463: \begin{eqnarray}

1464: \label{b201}

1465: T_2 = \frac{\sqrt {2\pi }}{\Gamma (\nu )} \exp (-2\chi )

1466: \, .

1467: \end{eqnarray}

1468: 

1469: Analogously one can study the over-barrier region. Repeating again

1470: the procedure described above for the tunneling region (with

1471: evident replacements $k_0 \to -i k_0$ and $\beta ^2 \to i \beta ^2$) we

1472: end up with the following $4 \times 4$ connection matrix

1473: \begin{eqnarray} 

1474: \label{b21} &&

1475: \hat U

1476: = 

1477: \left [

1478: \begin{array}{cc}

1479: \sqrt {2\pi }\exp(-2 \tilde \chi )/\Gamma (-i\nu ) & 0  \\

1480: 0 & 2\Gamma (-i\nu )\exp (-\pi \nu )\exp (2\tilde \chi )\sinh (\pi \nu )/\sqrt {2\pi } \\

1481: 0 & \exp (-\pi \nu ) \\

1482: \exp (-\pi \nu ) & 0 

1483: \end{array}

1484: \right . \\ &&

1485: %\end{equation}

1486: %\begin{equation} 

1487: \nonumber

1488: \left .

1489: \begin{array}{cc}

1490:  0 & -\exp (-\pi \nu ) \\

1491: - \exp (-\pi \nu

1492: ) & 0 \\

1493: \sqrt {2\pi }\exp (-2 \tilde \chi )/\Gamma (-i\nu ) & 0 \\

1494: 0 & 2\Gamma (-i\nu ) \exp (2 \tilde \chi ) \exp (-\pi \nu )\sinh (\pi \nu )/\sqrt

1495: {2\pi }

1496: \end{array}

1497: \right ]

1498: \, ,

1499: \end{eqnarray}

1500: where

1501: \begin{eqnarray}

1502: \label{bd}

1503: \tilde \chi = - \frac{i}{2}\left (\frac{\pi }{4} + \nu (1 - \ln \nu)\right )

1504: + \frac{1}{4}(\pi \nu + \ln \nu )

1505: \, .

1506: \end{eqnarray}

1507: The same manner (as it was already mentioned for the tunneling

1508: region), the blocks in (\ref{b21}) correspond to the two isolated

1509: second order turning points with the Stokes constant

1510: \cite{BV02}

1511: \begin{eqnarray}

1512: \label{b211}

1513: \tilde T_2 = \frac{\sqrt {2\pi }}{\Gamma (-i\nu )} \exp (-2\tilde \chi )

1514: \, .

1515: \end{eqnarray}

1516: Thus we arrive at the important conclusion that the main peculiarity

1517: of the LZ level crossing (in comparison with the standard say one-potential

1518: problems) is that the second order turning points characterizing the

1519: diabatic levels crossing for the LZ problem, possesses the different Stokes constants 

1520: $T_2$ (\ref{b201}) and $\tilde T_2$ (\ref{b211}) in the tunneling and

1521: in the over-barrier regions.

1522: 

1523: \subsection{Intermediate energy region}

1524: \label{VB}

1525: 

1526: We can now reap the fruits of the previous subsection consideration

1527: efforts. First, let us note that from the relations (\ref{b11}) and

1528: (\ref{b14}) one can see that when the energy approaches

1529: to the top of the barrier, the exponents $p^{(i)}$ and $\tilde p^{(i)}$

1530: of the parabolic cylinder functions are increased and 

1531: thus, more and more deviated from the value prescribed by the Massey parameter

1532: $\nu $.

1533: Second, increasing of $\beta _{(i)}$ upon $|\alpha |$ decreasing, decreases 

1534: the values of $|X|$ where the asymptotic smooth matching of the solutions

1535: should be performed. For $\delta \to 0$ these $|X|$ values are located deeply in the

1536: classically forbidden region, where the potentials are close to

1537: the diabatic potentials, while for $\delta \geq 2\sqrt 3/3$, these coordinates

1538: $|X|$ are of the order of the quantum zero-point oscillation amplitudes,

1539: and therefore to find the solution in this region, we have to use the adiabatic 

1540: representation.

1541: 

1542: These two simple observations give us a conjecture how to treat LZ problem 

1543: in the intermediate energy region.

1544: To do it first of all we should find the energetical ''window'' for

1545: the intermediate region. It is convenient to chose the adiabatic potential

1546: frequency $\Omega = F/\sqrt {m U_{12}}$ as the energy scale, and in terms

1547: of this scale the inequality $|\alpha | < 3 |f/(4\gamma )|^{2/3}$ reads as

1548: \begin{eqnarray}

1549: \label{b22}

1550: |U^* - E| \leq \frac{3}{2} U_{12}^{1/3}\left (\frac{\Omega }{2}\right )^{2/3}

1551: \equiv U_{12}^*

1552: \, .

1553: \end{eqnarray}

1554: By the other words the characteristic interaction energy at the

1555: intermediate region boundaries does not depend on $U_{12}$.

1556: However, the positions of the linear turning points $|X^*|$

1557: corresponding to the energies $U^* \pm U_{12}^*$ depend on the ratio

1558: $U_{12}/U_{12}^*$. 

1559: These points are located inside or outside

1560: of the interval $[-a_0\gamma ^{-1/2} \, +a_0\gamma ^{-1/2}]$

1561: at $U_{12}/U_{12}^* < 1$ and at 

1562: $U_{12}/U_{12}^* > 1$, 

1563: respectively. 

1564: Accordingly for the both cases the matching conditions in the intermediate

1565: energy region are different.

1566: In the former case for the asymptotic matching region the potentials

1567: can be reasonably approximated by parabola, and therefore we should work

1568: with the Weber equations, and for the latter case the matching are performed

1569: in the region where the potentials are linear ones, thus the equations are reduced

1570: to the Airy equations. 

1571: 

1572: Let us investigate first the case

1573: $U_{12}/U_{12}^* > 1$. Using Born-Oppenheimer approach of the section \ref{II},

1574: the Schr\"odinger equations in the adiabatic representation with the accuracy up to $\gamma ^{-2}$

1575: are decoupled for the wave functions $\Psi _\pm $

1576: \begin{eqnarray}

1577: \label{b23}

1578: -\frac{d^2 \Psi _\pm }{d X^2} + \gamma ^2 (\alpha \pm \sqrt {v^2 + f^2 X^2}) \Psi _\pm = 0

1579: \, .

1580: \end{eqnarray}

1581: The equations (\ref{b23}) at $|X| < v/f$ are reduced to the Weber equations with

1582: the fundamental solutions 

1583: $D_{-1/2 - q_1}(\pm \sqrt {2\gamma }X)$, 

1584: and $D_{-1/2 +i q_2}(\pm \exp (-i\pi /4) \sqrt {2\gamma }X)$, where

1585: \begin{eqnarray}

1586: \label{b24}

1587: q_1 = \gamma \frac{v + \alpha }{2} \, , \, q_2 = \gamma \frac{v - \alpha }{2}

1588: \, ,

1589: \end{eqnarray}

1590: do not depend on the Massey parameter $\nu $.

1591: Two real solutions of (\ref{b23}) correspond to the upper adiabatic potential

1592: (classically forbidden region), and two complex solutions correspond to

1593: the classically allowed  motion under the lower adiabatic potential. 

1594: 

1595: The argument of the Weber functions is $\propto X\sqrt \gamma $, and 

1596: at the condition

1597: $X < v/f$ their asymptotic expansions determine the interval where the matching 

1598: should be done 

1599: \begin{eqnarray}

1600: \label{b25}

1601: \gamma ^{-1/2}\left (\frac{U_{12}}{\Omega }\right )^{1/2} >  \gamma ^{-1/2}

1602: \, .

1603: \end{eqnarray}

1604: Thus this inequality (\ref{b25}) can be fulfilled only at $U_{12}/U_{12}^* >1$,

1605: when the intermediate region is sufficiently broad in comparison with $\Omega $.

1606: In this case the exponents $q_1 \, , \, q_2$ (\ref{b24}) are large, 

1607: and our aim is to find explicitely  the asymptotic expansions of the solutions in this case.

1608: We will closely follow the method we borrowed from Olver paper \cite{OL59} (see

1609: also his monograph \cite{OL74}),

1610: which is in fact an expansion over small parameters $1/|q_i|$ (where $|q_i|$

1611: are the exponents (\ref{b24}))

1612: of the fundamental Weber solutions, and it

1613: leads to the following asymptotic solution to Eq. (\ref{b23}) at $X > 0$

1614: \begin{eqnarray}

1615: \label{b26}

1616: \Psi _+^-(X) \simeq Y_+^{-1/2} (X + Y_+)^{-q_1} \exp (- \gamma X Y_+)

1617: \, , \,

1618: \Psi _-^-(X) \simeq Y_-^{-1/2} (X + Y_-)^{iq_2} \exp (i \gamma X Y_-)

1619: \, ,

1620: \end{eqnarray}

1621: where $Y_\pm = \sqrt {v \pm \alpha + X^2}$.

1622: Using the known relation between the fundamental solutions of the Weber

1623: equation \cite{EM53}, \cite{OL74}

1624: $$

1625: D_\mu (z) = \exp(-i\pi \mu )D_\mu (z) + 

1626: \frac{\sqrt {2\pi }}{\Gamma (-\mu )}\exp \left (-i\pi \frac{\mu +1}{2}\right )D_{-\mu 

1627: -1}(i z)

1628: \, ,

1629: $$

1630: we can find two other (complimentary to (\ref{b26}) solutions

1631: \begin{eqnarray}

1632: \label{b27}

1633: \Psi _+^+(X) = Y_+^{-1/2} \left (-\sin(\pi q_1)(X + Y_+)^{-q_1} \exp (- \gamma X Y_+)

1634: + \exp (-2 \chi _1) \frac{\sqrt {2\pi }}{\Gamma ((1/2) + q_1)}(X + Y_+)^{q_1}

1635: \exp (\gamma X Y_+)\right )

1636: \, ,

1637: \end{eqnarray}

1638: and

1639: \begin{eqnarray} &&

1640: \label{b28}

1641: \Psi _-^+(X) = \\ &&

1642: %\end{eqnarray}

1643: %\begin{eqnarray}

1644: \nonumber

1645: Y_+^{-1/2} \left (-i\exp (-\pi q_2)(X + Y_-)^{iq_2} \exp (i\gamma X Y_-)

1646: + \exp (-2 \chi _2) \frac{\sqrt {2\pi }}{\Gamma ((1/2) - iq_2)}(X + Y_-)^{iq_2}

1647: \exp (-i \gamma X Y_-)\right )

1648: \, ,

1649: \end{eqnarray}

1650: where we introduce the notation

1651: $$

1652: \chi _1 = \frac{1}{2}\left (q_1 + \frac{1}{2}\right ) - \frac{q_1}{2} \ln \left

1653: (q_1 + \frac{1}{2}\right ) \, , \,

1654: \chi _2 = -\frac{1}{2}\left (iq_2 - \frac{1}{2}\right ) + \frac{i q_2}{2} \left

1655: (-i \frac{\pi }{2} + \ln \left (q_2 + \frac{i}{2}\right )\right ) \, .

1656: $$

1657: Not surprisingly but it is worth to noting that these solutions (\ref{b26}) - (\ref{b28})

1658: can be represented as a linear combination of the semiclassical solutions 

1659: (\ref{b6}) $\Phi _\pm ^\pm $ with the coefficients

1660: \begin{eqnarray}

1661: \label{b29}

1662: \cos 2 \theta _{(1 , 2)} = \frac{X}{\sqrt {v \pm \alpha + X^2}}

1663: \, .

1664: \end{eqnarray}

1665: These energy dependent angles $\theta _{(1 , 2)}$ coincide with the adiabatic angles

1666: (see (\ref{II11}) and (\ref{III12})) introduced above in sections \ref{II} and \ref{III} in

1667: the level crossing point at $\alpha =0 $, and $ f|X| < v$, and the both

1668: angles aquire only slightly different values over the whole intermediate region $|\alpha |

1669: < v$.

1670: 

1671: Now we can find all needed connection matrices for these functions.

1672: Although the calculation is straitforward it deserves some precaution 

1673: (e.g. the $X$-dependent matrices have different functional form at the positive and negative

1674: $X$). At $X > 0$ we get

1675: \begin{eqnarray} && 

1676: \label{b30}

1677: \left( 

1678: \begin{array}{c}

1679: \Psi _-^- \\

1680: \Psi _-^+ \\

1681: \Psi _+^- \\

1682: \Psi _+^+

1683: \end{array}

1684: \right ) =

1685: \left [

1686: \begin{array}{cc}

1687: \cos \theta _2 & 0 \\

1688: -i \exp(-\pi q_2) \cos \theta _2\, &\, \sqrt {2\pi }\exp(-2 \chi _2 )\cos \theta _2/\Gamma ((1/2) -

1689: iq_2) \\

1690: 0 & 0 \\

1691: 0 & 0  

1692: \end{array}

1693: \right . \\ &&

1694: %\end{equation}

1695: %\begin{equation}

1696: \nonumber

1697: \left .

1698: \begin{array}{cc}

1699: 0 & 0 \\

1700: 0 & 0 \\

1701: \sin \theta _1 & 0 \\

1702: -\sin (\pi q_1)\sin \theta _1 \, & \, \sqrt {2\pi }\exp (-2 \chi _1 )\sin \theta _1/\Gamma ((1/2) +

1703: q_1) 

1704: \end{array}

1705: \right ]

1706: \left (

1707: \begin{array}{c}

1708: \Phi _-^+ \\

1709: \Phi _-^- \\

1710: \Phi _+^- \\

1711: \Phi _+^+

1712: \end{array}

1713: \right ) \, ,

1714: \end{eqnarray}

1715: and for $X < 0$ it reads as

1716: \begin{eqnarray} && 

1717: \label{b32}

1718: \left( 

1719: \begin{array}{c}

1720: \Psi _-^- \\

1721: \Psi _-^+ \\

1722: \Psi _+^- \\

1723: \Psi _+^+

1724: \end{array}

1725: \right ) =

1726: \left [

1727: \begin{array}{cc}

1728: \sqrt {2\pi } \exp (-2\chi _2)\cos \theta _2/\Gamma ((1/2) - iq_2)\, &\, 

1729: -i \exp(-\pi q_2)\cos \theta _2 \\

1730: 0 & \cos \theta _2 \\

1731: 0 & 0 \\

1732: 0 & 0

1733: \end{array}

1734: \right . \\ &&

1735: %\end{equation}

1736: %\begin{equation}

1737: \nonumber

1738: \left .

1739: \begin{array}{cc}

1740: 0 & 0 \\

1741: 0 & 0 \\

1742: \sin \theta _1 \sqrt {2\pi } \exp (-2 \chi _1)/\Gamma ((1/2) + q_1)\, &\, 

1743: -\sin (\pi q_1)\sin \theta _1 \\

1744: 0 & \sin \theta _1 

1745: \end{array}

1746: \right ]

1747: \left (

1748: \begin{array}{c}

1749: \Phi _-^- \\

1750: \Phi _-^+ \\

1751: \Phi _+^+ \\

1752: \Phi _+^-

1753: \end{array}

1754: \right ) \, .

1755: \end{eqnarray}

1756: The product of the inverse to (\ref{b30}) matrix and the matrix (\ref{b32})

1757: determines the connection matrix, we have sought for, to relate the semiclassical solutions in

1758: the intermediate energy region 

1759: (cf. (\ref{b20}) and (\ref{b21}) presenting the connection

1760: matrices for

1761: the tunneling and over-barrier energy regions). Performing this simple algebra

1762: one ends up with

1763: \begin{eqnarray} &&

1764: \label{b33} 

1765: U_{cross} =

1766: \left [

1767: \begin{array}{cc}

1768: \sqrt {2\pi }\exp(-2 \chi _2 )/\Gamma ((1/2) - iq_2) & i\exp (-\pi q_2) \\

1769: -i\exp (-\pi q_2) & 2 \exp (2 \chi _2) \Gamma ((1/2) - i q_2)\cosh (\pi q_2)  \\

1770: 0 & 0 \\

1771: 0 & 0 

1772: \end{array}

1773: \right . \\ &&

1774: %\end{equation}

1775: %\begin{equation}

1776: \nonumber

1777: \left .

1778: \begin{array}{cc}

1779: 0 & 0 \\

1780: 0 & 0 \\

1781: \sqrt {2\pi }\exp (-2 \chi _1 )/\Gamma ((1/2) + q_1 & \sin \pi q_1 \\

1782: - \sin \pi q_1 &  \cos ^2 (\pi q_1)\Gamma ((1/2) + q_1) \exp (2 \chi _1)

1783: \end{array}

1784: \right ]

1785: \end{eqnarray}

1786: The matrix (\ref{b33}) has two $2 \times 2$ blocks structure, the same

1787: as the connection matrices (\ref{b19}) and (\ref{b21}) for the tunneling and over-barrier

1788: regions. However, unlike (\ref{b19}), (\ref{b21}) describing the

1789: transitions between the diabatic states, the matrix (\ref{b33}) corresponds

1790: to the transitions between the adiabatic states. Indeed, at a strong

1791: level coupling ($U_{12} > U_{12}^*$) the eigenfunctions are close

1792: to the adiabatic functions and only non-adiabatic perturbations induce the

1793: transitions. Respectively, the off-diagonal matrix elements in (\ref{b33}),

1794: having meaning of the probability to keep the same diabatic state after the transition,

1795: are zero. The block with the real - valued matrix elements corresponds to the

1796: minimum of the upper adiabatic potential, i.e. it is to the isolated

1797: second order turning point, where \cite{BV02}

1798: \begin{eqnarray}

1799: \label{b34}

1800: q_1 + \frac{1}{2} = \frac{U^* - E + U_{12}}{\Omega } + \frac{1}{2}

1801: \, .

1802: \end{eqnarray}

1803: The complex - valued block is associated with the maximum of the

1804: lower adiabatic potential, and analogously to (\ref{b34}) one

1805: can find the following relation for the turning point

1806: \begin{eqnarray}

1807: \label{b35}

1808: i q_2 + \frac{1}{2} = -i \frac{U^* - E + U_{12}}{\Omega } + \frac{1}{2}

1809: \, .

1810: \end{eqnarray}

1811: In the case of weak level coupling, namely at $|U^* - E| < U_{12}^*$

1812: and $U_{12} < U_{12}^*$, for the intermediate energy region, the

1813: adiabatic potentials everywhere (except a small neighbourhood $|X| < v/f \to 0$

1814: of the level crossing point) can be linearized, i.e. represented as

1815: $\alpha \pm f|X|$, and the asymptotic solutions (\ref{b6}) are reduced

1816: to a linear combination of the following functions

1817: \begin{eqnarray}

1818: \label{b36}

1819: \Phi _+^\pm \propto (f|X|)^{-1/2}\exp (\pm \xi _+ sign X) \, ,

1820: \,

1821: \Phi _-^\pm \propto (f|X|)^{-1/2}\exp (\pm \xi _- sign X) \, ,

1822: \, \xi _\pm = \frac{2}{3 f}(f |X| \pm \alpha )^{3/2}

1823: \, .

1824: \end{eqnarray}

1825: Now all needed matrix elements can be calculated in the frame work of

1826: the Landau perturbation theory \cite{LL65}, which can be formulated to avoid

1827: divergency of the parameter $\nu $ at $\alpha \to 0$ in terms of

1828: the dimensionless variables

1829: $$

1830: \tilde \alpha = 3\cdot 2^{-4/3} \frac{U^* - E}{U_{12}}

1831: \, ; \, \tilde \nu = 3 \cdot 2^{-4/3} \frac{U_{12}}{U_{12}^*}

1832: \, .

1833: $$

1834: The results of our analysis is shown in Fig. 6. The tunneling and the

1835: over-barrier regions are separated from the intermediate energy region

1836: by the lines $|U_{12}^* - E| = U_{12}^*$.

1837: In own turn the intermediate region is also separated into two parts by the

1838: line $\nu = \nu ^* = 0.325 $, where $\nu ^*$ is the value of the

1839: Massey parameter $\nu $ at $U_{12}/U_{12}^* = 1$ and $|U^* - E| = U_{12}^*$.

1840: In the $\nu < \nu ^*$ region the perturbation theory is the adequate tool

1841: for the problem, and the transition matrix elements are proportional to

1842: $U_{12}/U_{12}^*$. At $\nu > \nu ^*$ one can use the connection matrix

1843: (\ref{b33}). To illustrate the accuracy of the approximations we have computed

1844: the matrix element $M_{11}$. The results are shown in the Fig. 7.

1845: Our computations demonstrate quite good precision, secured up to

1846: two stable digits. The accuracy of the results on the boundaries

1847: between the intermediate and over-barrier or tunneling regions is not

1848: worse than $ 3 - 5 \% $, and can be even easily improved using

1849: interpolation approaches.

1850: 

1851: \section{Scattering matrix.}

1852: \label{VI}

1853: LZ kind of phenomena can be considered as (and applied to) scattering processes.

1854: Found in the previous section \ref{V} expressions for $4 \times 4$ connection

1855: matrices can be used to calculate the scattering operator (or matrix) $\hat S$,

1856: which converts an ingoing wave into an outgoing one. 

1857: 

1858: Let us consider first the over-barrier region for two linear

1859: potentials crossing problem. For this case besides the crossing point

1860: which we chose as $X=0$, there are two linear (first order) turning points

1861: $X_0 = \pm |\alpha |/f $ (each turning point for each of the diabatic

1862: potentials, we designate by $L$ and $R$). The scattering matrix which relates

1863: the asymptotic solutions at $X \ll - X_0$ and at $X \gg X_0$ is the

1864: product of the $4 \times 4$ connection matrix (\ref{b21}) calculated in the section

1865: \ref{V} (subsection \ref{VA}) and known \cite{HE62} (see also \cite{BV02})

1866: two semiclassical connection matrices describing wave function evolution from the turning point

1867: $-X_0$ to the crossing point 0, and from this point to the turning point $+ X_0$, respectively.

1868: Thus we end up with $2 \times 2$ matrix having the following block

1869: matrix elements

1870: \begin{eqnarray} &&

1871: \label{d1} 

1872: T_{11} = A_{if}

1873: \left [

1874: \begin{array}{cc}

1875: \exp i(\phi - \phi _0) & 0 \\

1876: 0 & \exp -i(\phi - \phi _0)  

1877: \end{array}

1878: \right ]

1879: \, ; \,

1880: \\ &&

1881: \nonumber

1882: T_{12} = T_{21}^* = (1 - A_{if}^2)\exp (i\gamma W^*/2)

1883: \left [

1884: \begin{array}{cc}

1885: i & -1/2 \\

1886: -\exp -i\gamma W^* & (i/2)\exp -i\gamma W^*  

1887: \end{array}

1888: \right ] \\ &&

1889: \nonumber 

1890: T_{22} = A_{if}

1891: \left [

1892: \begin{array}{cc}

1893: 2\cos (\gamma W^* - (\phi - \phi _0)) & -\sin (\gamma W^* - (\phi - \phi _0)) \\

1894: \sin (\gamma W^* - (\phi - \phi _0)) & (1/4) \cos (\gamma W^* - (\phi - \phi _0))  

1895: \end{array}

1896: \right ]

1897: \, ,

1898: \end{eqnarray}

1899: where $A_{if} = (1 - \exp (-\pi \nu ))^{1/2}$ is the LZ amplitude of the transition

1900: between the diabatic states, 

1901: $\phi - \phi _0 = \tilde \chi $ (see (\ref{bd})),

1902: and $W^*$ is the action between the linear turning points. 

1903: 

1904: The diagonal elements of (\ref{d1}), proportional to the transition amplitude

1905: $A_{if}$, describe the propagating waves (i.e. the solutions

1906: of the Schr\"oedinger equation in the lower adiabatic potential), and oscillating

1907: blocks correspond to the solutions in the upper adiabatic potential. Off-diagonal

1908: blocks proportional to the probability to keep unchanged the initial diabatic states,

1909: describe the waves reflected from the linear turning points.

1910: Interesting for physical applications reflection $R$ and transmission $T$ coefficients

1911: can be found from (\ref{d1}) by a straightforward calculation, and the results

1912: read as

1913: \begin{eqnarray}

1914: \label{d2} &&

1915: R = -i (1 - A_{if}^2)[A_{if}^2 \exp (i\gamma W^* - 2 i (\phi - \phi _0))

1916: + \exp(- i \gamma W^*)]^{-1}  \, ;

1917: \\ &&

1918: \nonumber

1919: T = 2 A_{if} \cos (\gamma W^* - (\phi - \phi _0))[A_{if}^2 \exp (i \gamma W^* - 2 i(\phi - \phi _0))

1920: + \exp (-i \gamma W^*)]^{-1}

1921: \, .

1922: \end{eqnarray}

1923: The poles of the scattering matrix can be also easily found from (\ref{d1}),

1924: and the corresponding resonance condition is

1925: \begin{eqnarray}

1926: \label{d3}

1927: \cos (2(\gamma W^* - (\phi - \phi _0))) = - \left (1 - \frac{1}{2}

1928: \exp (- 2 \pi \nu )\right )(1 - \exp (-2\pi \nu ))^{-1/2}

1929: \, .

1930: \end{eqnarray}

1931: The action in the resonance points is complex-valued

1932: \begin{eqnarray}

1933: \label{d4}

1934: Re (\gamma W^* - (\phi - \phi _0)) = \left (n + \frac{1}{2} \right )\pi

1935: \, ; \,

1936: Im (\gamma W^* - (\phi - \phi _0)) = - \frac{1}{2} \ln (1 - \exp (-2 \pi \nu ))

1937: \, .

1938: \end{eqnarray}

1939: The poles of the scattering matrix are placed on the lower complex $E$ half 

1940: plane at the vertical lines corresponding to conventional Bohr - Sommerfeld

1941: quantization rules ($\gamma W^* = \pi (n + (1/2))$) for the upper

1942: adiabatic potential. In the diabatic limit ($\nu \to 0$) the imaginary

1943: part of the pole positions tends to infinity, and in

1944: the adiabatic limit ($\nu \to \infty $) the poles move to the real axis.

1945: Thus we see that the eigenstates of the upper adiabatic potential are

1946: always quasistationary ones. The resonance widths are determined by the residues

1947: of the scattering matrix elements at the poles, and it can be shown the resonance widths are

1948: monotonically decreasing functions of $\nu $. In the Fig. 8 we show the energy

1949: dependence of the transmission coefficient $T$. In the diabatic

1950: limit $T \to 0$, and it is increased when $U_{12}$ is increased, and

1951: in the over-barrier region there appear the resonances with the widths $\Gamma _n$

1952: increasing with the energy increase, since in these conditions the Massey

1953: parameter is decreased and $\Gamma _n \propto \exp (-2\pi \nu )$.

1954: 

1955: We illustrate the energy dependence of the transmitted wave phase in the Fig. 9.

1956: In accord to the general scattering theory \cite{LL65}, there are $\pi $- jumps

1957: of the phase at each quasi-discrete energy level of the upper adiabatic

1958: potential. At $U_{12}/U^*_{12} < 1$, the resonance widths are of the order

1959: of the inter-level spacings. The amplitudes of the decaying solutions

1960: (localized in the well formed by the upper adiabatic potential)

1961: are increased near the resonances, and this behavior is depicted in the

1962: Fig. 10. One note of primary importance concerning the issue is that the

1963: information about decaying solutions 

1964: existing in the $4 \times 4$ connection matrix, e.g. (\ref{b21})

1965: is lost when we use $2 \times 2$ scattering matrix (\ref{d1}).

1966: 

1967: Except for a slight natural modification the presented above results,

1968: one can find the scattering matrix for the tunneling region  merely

1969: by recapitulating the already derived expressions.

1970: Thus instead of the matrix (\ref{d1}) we get

1971: \begin{eqnarray} &&

1972: \label{d5} 

1973: T_{11} = 

1974: \left [

1975: \begin{array}{cc}

1976: (1/4) M_{11}\exp (-\gamma W^*) + M_{22} \exp (\gamma W^*) & 

1977: i((1/4) M_{11} \exp(-\gamma W^*) - M_{22} \exp(\gamma W^*)) \\

1978: - i((1/4) M_{11} \exp (-\gamma W^*) - M_{22} \exp (\gamma W^*))  & (1/4) M_{11}\exp (-\gamma W^*)

1979:  + M_{22} \exp (\gamma W^*)

1980: \end{array}

1981: \right ]

1982: \, ; \,

1983: \\ &&

1984: \nonumber

1985: T_{12} = T_{21}^* = \cos (\pi \nu )\exp (i\gamma W^*/2)

1986: \left [

1987: \begin{array}{cc}

1988: i & -1/2\exp (-\gamma W^*)  \\

1989: -1 & (i/2)\exp (-\gamma W^*) 

1990: \end{array}

1991: \right ] \\ &&

1992: \nonumber 

1993: T_{22} = 

1994: \left [

1995: \begin{array}{cc}

1996: M_{11} & 0 \\

1997: 0 & M_{22}  

1998: \end{array}

1999: \right ]

2000: \, ,

2001: \end{eqnarray}

2002: where $M_{11}$ and $M_{22}$ are the corresponding matrix elements from (\ref{b19}).

2003: 

2004: The same as above we compute the reflection and transmission

2005: coefficients

2006: \begin{eqnarray}

2007: \label{d6} &&

2008: R = -i \left (\exp (\gamma W^*) - \frac{1}{4} M_{11}^2 \exp (-\gamma W^*)\right )

2009: \left (\exp (\gamma W^*) + \frac{1}{4} M_{11}^2 \exp (-\gamma W^*)\right )^{-1}

2010: \, ;

2011: \\ &&

2012: \nonumber

2013: T = M_{11} \left (\exp (\gamma W^*) + \frac{1}{4} M_{11}^2 \exp (-\gamma W^*)\right )^{-1}

2014: \, .

2015: \end{eqnarray}

2016: In the intermediate energy region the only block matrix element $T_{11}$

2017: requires the special calculations taking into account the contributions from

2018: the complex turning points

2019: \begin{eqnarray} &&

2020: \label{d7} 

2021: T_{11} = 

2022: \left [

2023: \begin{array}{cc}

2024: \sqrt {2 \pi }\exp (-\pi q_2/2)/\Gamma ((1/2) - i q_2) & i \exp (-\pi q_2) \\ 

2025: - i \exp (-\pi q_2) & 2 \Gamma ((1/2) - i q_2) \exp (-\pi q_2/2) ch (\pi q_2)/\sqrt {2\pi }

2026: \end{array}

2027: \right ]

2028: \, ,

2029: \end{eqnarray}

2030: and all other matrix elements are the same as in the matrix (\ref{b32}).

2031: Finally we find also in the intermediate energy region the reflection and the transmission coefficients

2032: \begin{eqnarray}

2033: \label{d8} &&

2034: R = \frac{\exp (-\pi q_2)}{\sqrt {1 + \exp (-2\pi q_2)}}

2035: \exp \left [-i (\phi - (\pi /2))\right ]\, ; \,

2036: T = 

2037: \frac{1}{\sqrt {1 + \exp (-2\pi q_2)}}

2038: \exp (- i \phi )

2039: \, ,

2040: \end{eqnarray}

2041: where $\phi = arg [\Gamma ((1/2) - i q_2)]$.

2042:  

2043: \section{Quantization rules for crossing diabatic potentials}

2044: \label{VII}

2045: 

2046: In spite of the fact that instanton trajectories are rather simple objects,

2047: and can be relatively easy found analytically, calculations of the

2048: quantization rules within the instanton approach are rather involved

2049: and intricate and require the knowledge of the scattering matrix

2050: and all connection matrices, we have calculated in the previous sections.

2051: In this section we apply this machinery to find the quantization

2052: rules for the crossing diabatic potentials depicted in Fig. 11.

2053: Depending on the Massey parameter the shown on the figure situations

2054: exhaust all cases practically relevant for spectroscopy of non-rigid molecules

2055: (symmetric or asymmetric double - well and decay potentials).

2056: 

2057: Within the instanton approach the quantization rule

2058: can be formulated as a condition that the amplitudes of exponentially

2059: increasing at $X > 0$, and $X< 0$, respectively, solutions $\Phi _L^+$, $\Phi _R^+$,

2060: must be vanished. Taking into account that $W_L^* = W_R^*$ (the actions

2061: in the corresponding wells of the lower adiabatic potential) and using

2062: found above in the section \ref{IV} the connection matrix (\ref{b19}) ,

2063: the quantization rule for this case is

2064: \begin{eqnarray}

2065: \label{e1} &&

2066: \tan (\gamma W_L^*)  = \pm \frac{2}{p}\exp (\gamma W_B^*)

2067: \, ,

2068: \end{eqnarray}

2069: where $W_B^*$ is the action in the barrier formed in the lower adiabatic potential,

2070: and $p \equiv U_{11}$ is the corresponding matrix element of the

2071: connection matrix (\ref{b19}).

2072: 

2073: Only the factor $1/p$ varying from 0 to 1 in the diabatic and in

2074: the adiabatic limits, respectively, makes

2075: this quantization condition (\ref{e1}) different

2076: from the well known \cite{LL65} quantization rule for

2077: the symmetric double-well potential. Correspondingly, the tunneling

2078: splitting at finite values of the Massey parameter $\nu $ can be represented

2079: as a product

2080: \begin{eqnarray}

2081: \label{e2} &&

2082: \Delta _n = \Delta _n^0\, p(\nu )

2083: \, ,

2084: \end{eqnarray}

2085: of the tunneling splitting $\Delta _n^0$ in the adiabatic

2086: potential and the factor

2087: \begin{eqnarray}

2088: \label{e3} &&

2089: p(\nu )= \frac{\sqrt {2\pi }}{\Gamma (\nu )} \gamma ^{\nu - (1/2)}\exp (-\nu )

2090: \, ,

2091: \end{eqnarray}

2092: associated with the transition amplitudes between the diabatic

2093: potentials in the crossing region.

2094: 

2095: It is particularly instructive to consider

2096: (\ref{e1}) as the standard \cite{LL65} Bohr-Sommerfeld

2097: quantization rule, where in the r.h.s. the both, geometrical

2098: $\varphi _n$ and the tunneling $\chi _n$ phases are included additively.

2099: In the adiabatic limit when $p(\nu ) \to 1$, we find that $\varphi _n \to 0$

2100: and (\ref{e1}) is reduced to the quantization of the symmetric

2101: double-well potential. In the diabatic limit $\varphi _n = - \chi _n$

2102: and the geometric phase compensates the tunneling one. The physical

2103: argument leading to this compensation may be easily rationalized as follows.

2104: Indeed, at the reflection in the crossing point $ X= 0$, the trajectories

2105: in the classically forbidden energy region are the same as those for

2106: the tunneling region but with a phase shift $\pi $.

2107: 

2108: We focus now on the quantization rules for the over-barrier energy region.

2109: Closely following the consideration performed above for the tunneling region

2110: (replacing the connection matrix (\ref{b19}) by the matrix (\ref{b21}), and

2111: making some other self-evident replacements) we end up after some tedious

2112: algebra with the quantization rule

2113: \begin{eqnarray}

2114: \label{e4} &&

2115: (1 -\exp (-2\pi \nu ))\cos (2\gamma W_L^* + (\phi - \phi _0))\cos (\gamma W^* -

2116: (\phi - \phi _0)) + \exp (-2\pi \nu )\cos ^2 \left (\gamma W_L^* + \frac{\gamma W^*}{2}

2117: \right ) = 0

2118: \, ,

2119: \end{eqnarray}

2120: where $W^*$ is the action in the well formed by the upper adiabatic potential,

2121: and $\phi - \phi _0 = \tilde \chi $ is determined according to (\ref{bd}).

2122: From the Eq. (\ref{e4}) follows that the eigenstates are determined

2123: by the parameter

2124: \begin{eqnarray}

2125: \label{e5} &&

2126: B = \frac{\exp (-2\pi \nu )}{1 -\exp (-2\pi \nu )}

2127: \, .

2128: \end{eqnarray}

2129: In the diabatic limit $\nu \to 0$, and therefore, $B \to 1/(2\pi \nu)$

2130: in (\ref{e4}) the main contribution is due to the second term,

2131: and it leads to a splitting of degenerate levels in the diabatic potentials.

2132: Moreover since

2133: \begin{eqnarray}

2134: \label{e6} &&

2135: \gamma \left (W_L^* + \frac{W^*}{2}\right ) = \pi \left (n + \frac{1}{2} \pm

2136: 2 \nu \sin \left [\gamma \left (W_L^* + \frac{W^*}{2}\right ) -\phi + \phi _0)\right ]

2137: \right )  

2138: \, ,

2139: \end{eqnarray}

2140: the splitting increases when the Massey parameter $\nu $ increases,

2141: and it is an oscillating function of the interaction $U_{12}$.

2142: 

2143: In the adiabatic limit, when $\nu \to \infty $, $\phi - \phi _0 \to 0$, and,

2144: therefore, from (\ref{e5}) $ B \simeq \exp (-2\pi \nu )$, the main contribution

2145: to (\ref{e4}) comes from the first term which determines the quantization rule

2146: for the upper one-well potential and for the lower double-well potential

2147: in the over-barrier energy region, and in this limit the parameter $B$

2148: plays a role of the tunneling transition matrix element. For $B$ smaller

2149: than nearest level spacings for the lower and for the upper potentials, one can find

2150: from (\ref{e4}) two sets of quantization rules leading to two

2151: sets of independent energy levels

2152: \begin{eqnarray}

2153: \label{e7} &&

2154: \gamma W^* = \pi \left (n_1 + \frac{1}{2}\right )

2155: \, ; \,

2156: 2\gamma W_L^*  = \pi \left ( n_2 + \frac{1}{2}

2157: \right ) 

2158: \, .

2159: \end{eqnarray}

2160: Since the eigenstate energy level displacements depend on $U_{12}$

2161: the resonances can occur at certain values of this parameter, where

2162: the independent quantization rules (\ref{e7})

2163: are not correct any more. The widths of these resonances

2164: are proportional to $\exp (-2\pi \nu )$ and therefore

2165: are strongly diminished upon the Massey parameter $\nu $ increase.

2166: This behavior is easily understood, since in the limit the wave

2167: functions of the excited states for the lower potential are delocalized,

2168: and their amplitudes in the localization regions for the low-energy states

2169: of the upper potential, are very small.

2170: 

2171: More tricky task is to derive the quantization rule in the intermediate

2172: energy region. One has to use the connection matrix (\ref{b33}),

2173: and to bear in mind the contributions from the imaginary

2174: turning points. Nevertheless, finally the quantization rule can be written in

2175: the simple and compact form as

2176: \begin{eqnarray}

2177: \label{e8} &&

2178: \cos (2\gamma W_L^*) = - \exp (-\pi q_2)

2179: \, ,

2180: \end{eqnarray}

2181: where $q_2 = \gamma (v - \alpha )/2$ is determined by the

2182: relation (\ref{b24}).

2183: 

2184: It is useful to illustrate the essence of the given above general result

2185: by simples (but yet non trivial) examples. First, let us consider two

2186: identical parabolic potentials with their minima at $X = \pm 1$ and with

2187: the coupling which does not depend on $X$. Since the symmetry,

2188: the solutions of the Hamiltonian can be represented as symmetric

2189: and antisymmetric combinations of the localized functions

2190: \begin{eqnarray}

2191: \label{e9} &&

2192: \Psi ^\pm = \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}( \Phi _L \pm \Phi _R)

2193: \, .

2194: \end{eqnarray}

2195: The functions are orthogonal, and, besides, two sets of the functions

2196: $(\Psi _e^+ \, , \, \Psi _0^-)$, 

2197: and $(\Psi _0^+ \, , \, \Psi _e^-)$ 

2198: (where the subscripts $0$ and $e$ stand for the ground and for

2199: the first excited states respectively) correspond to the two possible kinds of level crossings.

2200: 

2201: In Fig. 12 we depicted schematically the dependence of the

2202: level positions on the coupling $U_{12}$. In the energy region $E \leq U^* + U_{12}$

2203: where only there exist the discrete levels of the lower

2204: adiabatic potentials, there are the pairs of the alternating parity

2205: levels

2206: $(\Psi _e^+ \, , \, \Psi _0^-)$, 

2207: and $(\Psi _0^+ \, , \, \Psi _e^-)$. The tunneling splittings are increased   

2208: monotonically since the Massey parameter $\nu $ is increased, and the

2209: barrier is decreased with $U_{12}$. The same level and parity

2210: classification is remained correct for the energy region above

2211: the barrier of the lower adiabatic potential where the spectrum

2212: becomes almost equidistant one. However, in the over-barrier region, the resonances

2213: are occurred between the levels of the same parity, and this sequence

2214: of the odd and of the even levels is broken, and level displacements

2215: are not monotonic functions of $U_{12}$. Some of the levels of different

2216: parities can be mutually crossed. For the upper adiabatic potential the level

2217: sequence is opposite to this for the lower

2218: adiabatic potential. Note that we checked the results of our

2219: semiclassical approach and found remarkably good agreement

2220: with the numerical quantum diagonalization. 

2221: 

2222: The second instructive example treats the one-well and linear diabatic 

2223: potentials crossing. It leads to the lower adiabatic decay potential and

2224: to the upper one-well adiabatic potential. The quantization rules in this case

2225: correspond to the vanishing amplitudes for the exponentially increasing

2226: solutions when $ X \to -\infty $, and besides one has to require

2227: that no waves propagating from the region of infinite motion, i.e. at

2228: $X > 1/2$. Performing the same as above procedure we find

2229: that in the tunneling energy region, the eigenstates

2230: are the roots of the following equation

2231: \begin{eqnarray}

2232: \label{e10} &&

2233: \tan (\gamma W_L^*) = - i \frac{4}{p^2(\nu )}\exp (2 \gamma W_B^*)

2234: \, ,

2235: \end{eqnarray}

2236: with the same as above notation.

2237: 

2238: To proceed further it is convenient to introduce the complex

2239: action to describe the quasi - stationary states

2240: \begin{eqnarray}

2241: \label{e11} &&

2242: \gamma W_L^* = \pi \left (\frac {E_n}{\Omega } - i \frac{\Gamma _n}{2\Omega }\right )

2243: \, ,

2244: \end{eqnarray}

2245: where evidently $\Omega = \partial W_L/\partial E$ does depend on $E$.

2246: From (\ref{e11}) the reel and imaginary parts of the quantized eigenstates

2247: are

2248: \begin{eqnarray}

2249: \label{e12} &&

2250: E_n = \Omega \left (n + \frac{1}{2} \right ) \, ; \,

2251: \Gamma _n = p^2(\nu )\frac{\Omega }{2\pi }\exp (- 2\gamma W_B^*)

2252: \, .

2253: \end{eqnarray}

2254: This relation (\ref{e12}) describes the non-adiabatic tunneling

2255: decay of the quasi-stationary states of the lower adiabatic potential.

2256: The same as we already got for the two parabolic potentials crossing

2257: (\ref{e2}), here the tunneling and the adiabatic factors are entering

2258: decay rate multiplicatively. Since the decay rate is proportional

2259: to the square of the tunneling matrix element, $\Gamma _n \propto p^2(\nu )$

2260: as it should be.

2261: 

2262: In the over-barrier energy region

2263: the quantization rule is

2264: \begin{eqnarray}

2265: \label{e13} &&

2266: (1 - \exp (-2\pi \nu ) \exp [-i (\gamma W_L^* + \phi + \phi _0)]\cos (\gamma W^* -\phi

2267: + \phi _0) + 

2268: \\ &&

2269: \nonumber

2270: \exp (-2\pi \nu )\exp (-i \gamma W^*/2 ) \cos \left (\gamma W_L^* + \frac{\gamma

2271: W^*}{2}\right ) = 0

2272: \, ,

2273: \end{eqnarray}

2274: and the actions depend on the energy $E$ as

2275: \begin{eqnarray}

2276: \label{e14} &&

2277: \gamma W_L^* = \pi \frac{E}{\Omega }

2278: \, ; \,

2279: \gamma W = \pi \left [ - \frac{U^* + U_{12}}{\Omega _1} + \frac{E}{\Omega _1}\right ]

2280: \, ,

2281: \end{eqnarray}

2282: where $\Omega $ and $\Omega _1$ are $E$-dependent frequencies of the diabatic

2283: and the upper adiabatic potentials.

2284: 

2285: In the diabatic limit the decay rate is proportional to the Massey parameter

2286: and has a form

2287: \begin{eqnarray}

2288: \label{e15} &&

2289: \Gamma _n \simeq \pi \nu \cos^2 (\gamma W -\phi + \phi _0)  

2290: \, ,

2291: \end{eqnarray}

2292: and in the opposite, adiabatic, limit the decay rate is

2293: \begin{eqnarray}

2294: \label{e16} &&

2295: \Gamma _n \simeq \exp (-2 \pi \nu )( 1 - \sin (2 \gamma W_L^* +\phi - \phi _0))  

2296: \, .

2297: \end{eqnarray}

2298: In the both limits the decay rate is the oscillating function of $U_{12}$.

2299: We illustrate the dependence $\Gamma (U_{12})$ for the 

2300: crossing diabatic potentials $U_1

2301: = (1 + X)^2/2$ and $U_2 = (1/2) - X$ in the Fig. 13.

2302: Note that while the tunneling decay rate of the low-energy states is

2303: increased monotonically with the Massey parameter $\nu $, the decay rate

2304: of the highly excited states goes to zero in the both (diabatic and adiabatic)

2305: limits. Besides there are certain characteristic values of $U_{12}$ when

2306: the r.h.s. of (\ref{e15}) or (\ref{e16}) equal to zero and therefore $\Gamma _n =0$.

2307: 

2308: Last and more general example we consider in this section, describes

2309: two non-symmetric potentials crossing at $X = 0$ point:

2310: \begin{eqnarray}

2311: \label{e17} &&

2312: U_1 = \frac{1}{2}(1 + X)^2 \, ; \, U_2 = \frac{1}{2b}(X^2 - 2 b X + b)

2313: \, .

2314: \end{eqnarray}

2315: In a certain sense it is the generic case, and when the parameter $b$ entering

2316: the potential (\ref{e17}) is varied from 1 to $\infty $, we recover 

2317: the two particular examples considered above,

2318: and come from two identical parabolic potentials 

2319: to the case one-well and linear diabatic 

2320: potentials crossing. 

2321: This kind of the potential $U_2$ was investigated recently by two

2322: of the authors (V.B. and E.K) \cite{BK02}

2323: aiming to study crossover behavior from coherent to incoherent

2324: tunneling upon increase of the parameter $b$, the larger is this parameter

2325: $b$, the larger will be the density of final states.

2326: The criterion for coherent-incoherent crossover behavior found in 

2327: \cite{BK02} based on comparison of the transition matrix elements and

2328: the inter level spacings in the final state. The analogous

2329: criterion should hold for LZ level crossing problem, however in the latter

2330: case the tunneling transition matrix elements has to be multiplied by the small

2331: adiabatic factor. Therefore the coherent - incoherent tunneling

2332: crossover region moves to the more dense density of final states,

2333: and the larger $U_{12}$ is the smaller will be the region for

2334: incoherent tunneling.

2335: 

2336: Quite different situation occurs for highly excited states. In the diabatic limit, 

2337: the transition

2338: matrix element is increased with the Massey parameter $\nu $, and therefore

2339: at a given $b$ value, the system moves to more incoherent behavior.

2340: In the adiabatic limit, the transition matrix element is exponentially small,

2341: and coherence of the inter-well transitions should be restored.

2342: However, since the matrix elements are oscillating functions of $U_{12}$

2343: for the intermediate range of this coupling ($U_{12}$) coherent - incoherent

2344: tunneling rates are also non-monotonically varying functions.

2345: To illustrate these unusual phenomena we show in Fig. 14 time dependence

2346: of the survival probability $P$ for

2347: the initially prepared localized in the left well state $n=0$.

2348: 

2349: \section{Conclusion.}

2350: \label{VIII}

2351: 

2352: In this paper we have challenged again the very basic subject -

2353: LZ problem. Currently there are about 100 publications per year

2354: related to LZ problem. Clearly it is impossible to give a complete

2355: analysis of what is being achieved in this field.

2356: Our aim, therefore, was only to show some recent trends and our new results,

2357: to help newcomers and specialists in finding cross-references between

2358: the many physical phenomena related to LZ problem.

2359: The problem was first addresses a long ago, 

2360: and many already classical results are known now from the

2361: textbooks \cite{LL65}, \cite{SL63}. 

2362: Although exact quantum-mechanical calculations are 

2363: still prohibitively difficult, many important results have been

2364: obtained in the

2365: frame work of the

2366: WKB approach \cite{LL65} -\cite{MH96}. The accuracy of the modified WKB methods can be  

2367: improved considerably, note for

2368: example \cite{PK61} where the authors have included into the standard 

2369: WKB method additionally a special type

2370: of trajectories on the complex phase plane, 

2371: along which the semiclassical motion is described by the Weber

2372: functions. 

2373: This method ascending to Landau \cite{LL65} is equivalent

2374: to the appropriate choice of the integration path around

2375: the turning point, and it appears to be quite accurate

2376: for the tunneling and over-barrier regions, where the characteristic

2377: fourth order polynomial (see (\ref{a15})) can be reduced to the second

2378: order one (two pairs of roots are nearly degenerated). However, even in this

2379: case there are some non-negligible corrections found in the papers \cite{ZN92} -

2380: \cite{ZN94}. In the intermediate energy region, where all 4 roots are 

2381: noticeably different, the method becomes invalid.

2382: Besides 

2383: the choice of these additional special trajectories (which one

2384: has to include to improve the accuracy of the WKB method near the barrier top) depends on the detail form

2385: of the potential far from the top, and therefore for each particular case the non-universal procedure

2386: should be perform from the very beginning. 

2387: 

2388: We believe we are the first to explicitely addresses the question on

2389: the behavior in the intermediate energy region. In all previous publications

2390: this region was considered as a very narrow and insignificant one, or in

2391: the best case the results were obtained by a simple interpolation

2392: from the tunneling (with monotonic decay of the transition probability)

2393: to the over-barrier (with oscillating behavior) regions.

2394: The fact is that classical trajectories can be separated into two classes:

2395: ''localized'' and ''delocalized'' in the following sense.

2396: If energy is close enough to the minimum or maximum of the potentials,

2397: the trajectories could be called confined, since they are determined by the

2398: universal features of the potentials in the vicinity of these

2399: extremal points. Evidently it is not the case for the intermediate energy region.

2400: In the present study we have found that, contrary to the common belief,

2401: the instanton trajectory is a rather simple object and can be explicitely

2402: computed even for the intermediate energy region.

2403: 

2404: Within the framework of the instanton approach we present

2405: a full and unified description of $1D$ LZ problem, which is very often 

2406: can be quite reasonable approximation for real systems.

2407: Because different approaches have been proposed to study the LZ problem

2408: we develop an

2409: uniform and systematic procedure for handling the problem.

2410: We reproduced all known results for tunneling and over-barrier regions,

2411: and studied as well the intermediate energy region.

2412: Specifically we applied our approach to the Born - Oppenheimer 

2413: scheme, formulated the instanton method in the momentum space,

2414: and presented all details of the LZ problem for two electronic states 

2415: using also

2416: the instanton description of the LZ problem in the coordinate space.

2417: Neglecting higher order space

2418: derivatives we find asymptotic solutions, and using adiabatic - diabatic

2419: transformation we match the solutions in the intermediate region.

2420: Based on these results we derived the complete scattering matrix for the LZ problem,

2421: the quantization rules for crossing diabatic potentials.

2422: Our results can be applied to several  models of level crossings 

2423: which are relevant for the interpretation and description of

2424: experimental data on spectroscopy of non-rigid molecules

2425: and on other systems undergoing crossing and relaxation phenomena.

2426: 

2427: Note also, that in spite of the fairly long history of the LZ phenomena, the study is

2428: still in an accelerating stage, and a number of questions remain to

2429: be clarified (let us mentioned only few new features of the phenomena

2430: attracted attention recently, like LZ interferometry for qubits \cite{SI01},

2431: LZ theory for Bose - Einstein condensates \cite{YB02}, multi-particle and multi-level

2432: LZ problems

2433: \cite{PS02}, \cite{SI02}, \cite{DO00}, \cite{GC02}).

2434: Much of the excitement arises from the possibility of discovering novel physics beyond say the

2435: semiclassical paradigms discussed here. For example, we found in the sections \ref{II} and \ref{III}

2436: that the wave functions of nuclei moving along the periodic orbits acquire geometrical

2437: phases (the effect is analogous to the Aharonov - Bohm effect \cite{AB59}, but in our case

2438: it has nothing to do with external magnetic fields and is related to

2439: the non-adiabatic interactions). The relation between the both phenomena 

2440: (the geometrical phases and the periodic orbits)

2441: can be established using Lagrangian (instead of Hamiltonian) formulation of

2442: the problem, which enables to take into account explicitely, using propagator technique,

2443: \cite{MG72}, \cite{PS74}, \cite{MG75},

2444: time dependence of the adiabatic process under consideration (see also, e.g.,

2445: \cite{HL63},

2446: \cite{KI85}). However, a proper handling of these aspects is beyond

2447: the scope of our work. Further experimental and theoretical investigations

2448: are required for revealing the detailed microscopic and macroscopic properties of 

2449: different LZ systems.

2450: 

2451: In the fundamental problems of chemical dynamics and molecular spectroscopy, 

2452: the transitions from the initial to final states can be treated as 

2453: a certain motion along the

2454: potential energy surfaces of the system under consideration.

2455: These surfaces in own turn are usually determined within

2456: the Born - Oppenheimer approximation (see section \ref{II}).

2457: However, the approximation becomes inadequate for the excited vibrational

2458: states, when their energies are of the order of electronic inter level energy

2459: spacing or near the dissociation limit. In the both cases the non-adiabatic

2460: transitions should be taken into account, and the most of the non-radiative

2461: processes occur owing to this non-adiabaticity. The typical examples

2462: investigated in the monography \cite{EL83}, are so-called pre-dissociation,

2463: singlet-triplet or singlet-singlet conversion, and vibrational relaxation

2464: phenomena. 

2465: 

2466: Slow atomic collisions provide other examples of the non-adiabatic

2467: transitions between electronic states, where the time dependence of

2468: the states is determined by the distance and by the relative velocity

2469: of the colliding particles \cite{NU84}.

2470: Some examples of the non-adiabatic

2471: transitions relevant for semiconductor physics can be found in \cite{BD65},

2472: for nuclear or elementary particle

2473: physics in \cite{TO87} and for laser or non-linear optic physics in

2474: \cite{JG78} - \cite{AK92}.

2475: The latter topic of course is of interest in its own right but

2476: also as an illustration of novel and fundamental quantum effects related to LZ model.

2477: The off-diagonal electronic state interactions are arisen for this case from

2478: the dipole forces. For relatively short laser pulses, it leads to the time dependent LZ

2479: problem for two electronic states, detailed considered in our paper (see also

2480: the laser optic formulation in \cite{JG78} - \cite{LG87}). The probability to

2481: find the system in the upper state after a single resonant 

2482: passage, can be computed in the frame work of

2483: the LZ model. 

2484: The latter point is related to one important aspect of the LZ problem, namely dissipative

2485: and noisy environments. When external actions (say fields) driving LZ transitions

2486: are reversed from large negative to large positive values, the dissipation

2487: reduces tunneling, that is the system remains in the ground state,

2488: or by other words, the thermal excitation from the ground state

2489: to the excited one, suppresses such adiabatic transitions.

2490: However, in the case of the field swept from the resonance point, 

2491: the tunneling probability

2492: becomes larger in the presence of the dissipation (see e.g., \cite{SK02}).

2493: The increasing precision of experimental tests in the femtosecond laser pulse

2494: range enables to excite well defined molecular states and to study their

2495: evolution in time using the second probing laser beam \cite{GS92}.

2496: 

2497: 

2498: 

2499: 

2500: 

2501: 

2502: \acknowledgements 

2503: The research described in this publication was made possible in part by RFFR Grants. 

2504: One of us (E.K.) is indebted to INTAS Grant (under No. 01-0105) for partial support.                            

2505: 

2506: 

2507: \begin{references}

2508: \bibitem{LL65} L.D.Landau, E.M.Lifshits, Quantum Mechanics (non-relativistic

2509: theory), Pergamon Press, New York (1965). 

2510: \bibitem{NI62} E.E.Nikitin, Opt. Spectr., {\bf 6}, 431 (1962), and Disc.

2511: Farad. Soc., {\bf 33}, 14 (1962).

2512: \bibitem{DE62} Yu.N. Demkov, JETP, {\bf 18}, 138 (1962).

2513: \bibitem{HL63} G.Hertzberg, H.C.Longuet - Higgins, Disc. Farad. Soc., {\bf 35}, 77

2514: (1963).

2515: \bibitem{NI68} E.E.Nikitin, Chem. Phys. Lett., {\bf 2}, 402 (1968).

2516: \bibitem{CH78} M.S.Child, Adv. Atom. Molec. Phys., {\bf 14}, 225 (1978).

2517: \bibitem{LG84} H-W.Lee, T.F.George, Phys. Rev. A, {\bf 29}, 2509 (1984).

2518: \bibitem{GG01} S.Griller, C.Gonera, Phys. Rev. A, {\bf 63}, 052101 (2001).

2519: \bibitem{DY60} A.M.Dykhne, JETP, {\bf 11}, 411 (1960).

2520: \bibitem{DY62} A.M.Dykhne, JETP, {\bf 14}, 941 (1962).

2521: \bibitem{DC63} A.M.Dykhne, A.V.Chaplik, JETP, {\bf 16}, 631 (1963).

2522: \bibitem{DU64} G.V.Dubrovskii, JETP, {\bf 19}, 591 (1964).

2523: \bibitem{KO69} L.P.Kotova, JETP, {\bf 28}, 719 (1969).

2524: \bibitem{PG76} P.Pechukas, T.F.George, K.Morokuma, J.Chem. Phys.,

2525: {\bf 64}, 1099 (1976).

2526: \bibitem{DP76} J.P.Davis, P.Pechukas, J.Chem. Phys., {\bf 64}, 3129 (1976).

2527: \bibitem{HP77} J-T.Hwang, P.Pechukas, J.Chem. Phys., {\bf 67}, 4640 (1977).

2528: \bibitem{GS92} B.M.Garraway, S.Stenholm, Phys. Rev. A, {\bf 45}, 364 (1992).

2529: \bibitem{SG92} K-A.Suominen, Phys. Rev. A, {\bf 45}, 374 (1992).

2530: \bibitem{VG96} N.V.Vitanov, B.M.Garraway, Phys. Rev. A, {\bf 53}, 4288 (1996).

2531: \bibitem{VI99} N.V.Vitanov, Phys. Rev. A, {\bf 59}, 988 (1999).

2532: \bibitem{VS99} N.V.Vitanov, K-A.Suominen, Phys. Rev. A, {\bf 59}, 4580 (1999).

2533: \bibitem{DT72} J.B.Delos, W.R.Thorson, S.K.Knudson,

2534: Phys. Rev. A, {\bf 6}, 709 (1972).

2535: \bibitem{ZN92} C.Zhu, H.Nakamura, N.Re, V.Aquilanti, J.Chem. Phys.,

2536: {\bf 97}, 1892 (1992); 

2537: C.Zhu, H.Nakamura, ibid, {\bf 97}, 8497 (1992).

2538: \bibitem{ZN93} C.Zhu, H.Nakamura, J.Chem. Phys., {\bf 98}, 6208 (1993).

2539: \bibitem{ZN94} C.Zhu, H.Nakamura, J.Chem. Phys., {\bf 101}, 4855 (1994),

2540: ibid, {\bf 101}, 10630 (1994).

2541: \bibitem{BM94} V.A.Benderskii, D.E.Makarov, C.A.Wight, Chemical

2542: Dynamics at Low Temperatures, Willey-Interscience, New York (1994).

2543: \bibitem{BV99} V.A.Benderskii, E.V.Vetoshkin, H.P.Trommsdorf, Chem. Phys., {\bf 244},

2544: 273 (1999).

2545: \bibitem{BV00} V.A.Benderskii, E.V.Vetoshkin, 

2546: Chem. Phys., {\bf 257}, 203 (2000). 

2547: \bibitem{BV02} V.A.Benderskii, E.V. Vetoshkin, E.I.Kats, JETP, {\bf 95}, 645 (2002).

2548: \bibitem{PK61} V.L.Pokrovskii, I.M.Khalatnikov, JETP, {\bf 13}, 1207 (1961).

2549: \bibitem{BN65} B.K.Bykhovskii, E.E.Nikitin, M.Ya.Ovchinnikova,

2550: JETP, {\bf 20}, 500 (1965).

2551: \bibitem{AS92} V.M.Akulin, W.P.Schleich, Phys. Rev. A, {\bf 46}, 4110 (1992).

2552: \bibitem{NU84} E.E.Nikitin, S.Ya.Umanskii, Theory of slow atomic

2553: collisions, Springer Series in Chemical Physics, {\bf 30}, Springer, Berlin (1984).

2554: \bibitem{MG72} W.H.Miller, T.F.George, J. Chem. Phys., {\bf 56}, 5637 (1972).

2555: \bibitem{PS74} R.K.Preston, C.Sloane, W.H.Miller, J. Chem. Phys., {\bf 60},

2556: 4961 (1974).

2557: \bibitem{MG75} F.J.McLafferty, T.G.George, J.Chem. Phys., {\bf 63}, 2609 (1975).

2558: \bibitem{SL63} J.C.Slater, Quantum Theory of Molecules and Solids, v. 1,

2559: Electronic Structure of Molecules, McGraw Hill Book Company, New York (1963).

2560: \bibitem{AB59} Y.Aharonov, D.Bohm, Phys. Rev., {\bf 115}, 485 (1959).

2561: \bibitem{ME83} C.A.Mead, J.Chem. Phys., {\bf 78}, 807 (1983).

2562: \bibitem{BE84} M.V.Berry, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A, {\bf 392}, 451 (1984).

2563: \bibitem{WI84} M.Wilkinson, J.Phys. A, {\bf 17}, 3459 (1984).

2564: \bibitem{BE85} M.V.Berry, J. Phys. A, {\bf 18}, 15 (1985).

2565: \bibitem{KI85} H.Kuratsui, S.Ida, Progr. Theor. Phys., {\bf 74}, 439 (1985).

2566: \bibitem{BE87} M.V.Berry, J. Mod. Optics, {\bf 34}, 1401 (1987).

2567: \bibitem{VV91} J.Vidal, J.Vudka, Phys. Rev. A, {\bf 44}, 5383 (1991).

2568: \bibitem{MU97} A.Mustafazadeh, Phys. Rev. A, {\bf 55}, 1653 (1997).

2569: \bibitem{FJ98} R.F.Fox, P.Jung, Phys. Rev. A, {\bf 57}, 2339 (1998).

2570: \bibitem{ME92} C.A.Mead, Rev. Mod. Phys., {\bf 64}, 51 (1992).

2571: \bibitem{AA87} Y.Aharonov, J..Anandan, Phys. Rev. Lett., {\bf 58}, 1593 (1987).

2572: \bibitem{SB88} J.Samuel, R.Bhachdari, Phys. Rev. Lett., {\bf 60}, 2339 (1988).

2573: \bibitem{MS93} N.Mukunda, R.Simon, Ann. Phys., {\bf 228}, 20 (1993).

2574: \bibitem{BR93} M.V.Berry, J.M.Robbins, Proc. Roy. Soc., A, {\bf 442}, 659 (1993).

2575: \bibitem{MS86} J.Moody, A.Shapere, F.Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett., {\bf 56}, 893 (1987).

2576: \bibitem{SC87} D.Suter, G.C.Chingas, R.A.Harris, A.Pines, Mol. Phys., {\bf 61}, 1327

2577: (1987).

2578: \bibitem{GA98} F.Gaitan, Phys. Rev. A, {\bf 58}, 1665 (1998).

2579: \bibitem{BL00} M.Baer, S.H.Lin, A.Alijah, S.Adhikari,

2580: G.D.Billing, Phys. Rev. A, {\bf 62}, 032506 (2000).

2581: \bibitem{HE62} J.Heading, An Introduction to Phase-Integral

2582: Methods, Wiley - Interscience, London (1962).

2583: \bibitem{PO77} A.M.Polyakov, Nucl.Phys. B, {\bf 129},

2584: 429 (1977).

2585: \bibitem{CO85} S.Coleman, Aspects of Symmetry, Cambridge University Press,

2586: Cambridge (1985).

2587: \bibitem{CH71} M.S.Child, Mol. Phys., {\bf 20}, 171 (1971).

2588: \bibitem{CH74} M.S.Child, J.Mol. Spect., {\bf 53}, 280 (1974).

2589: \bibitem{HO78} T.Holstein, Phil. Mag., {\bf 37}, 49 (1978).

2590: \bibitem{ST97} G.Stick, M.Thoss, Phys. Rev. Lett., {\bf 78}, 578 (1997).

2591: \bibitem{BK02} V.A.Benderskii, E.I.Kats, Phys. Rev. E, {\bf 65}, 036217 (2002).

2592: \bibitem{MH96} N.T.Maintra, E.J.Heller, Phys. Rev. A, {\bf 54}, 4763 (1996).

2593: \bibitem{KN99} Y.Kayanuma, H.Nakayama, Phys. Rev. B, {\bf 57}, 14553 (1999).

2594: \bibitem{SK02} K.Saito, Y.Kayanuma, Phys. Rev. A, {\bf 65}, 033407 (2002).

2595: \bibitem{FE64} M.V.Fedoryuk, Proc. Russian Acad. of Sci., {\bf 158}, 540 (1964).

2596: \bibitem{FE65} M.V.Fedoryuk, Proc. Russian Acad. of Sci., {\bf 162}, 287 (1965).

2597: \bibitem{FE66} M.V.Fedoryuk, Russian Math. Survey, {\bf 21}, 1 (1966).

2598: \bibitem{EM53} A.Erdelyi, W.Magnus, F.Oberhettinger, F.G. Tricomi,

2599: Higher Transcendental Functions, vol.1 - vol.3, McGraw Hill,

2600: New York (1953).

2601: \bibitem{OL59} F.W.J.Olver, J. Res. Nat. Bur. Stand., {\bf 63 B}, 131 (1959).

2602: \bibitem{OL74} F.W.J. Olver, Asymptotics and Special Functions,

2603: Acad. Press., New York (1974).

2604: \bibitem{SI01} A.V.Shytov, D.A.Ivanov, M.V.Feigelman, cond-mat/0110490 (2001).

2605: \bibitem{YB02} V.A. Yurovsky, A.Ben-Reuven, P.S. Julienne, Phys. Rev. A,

2606: {\bf 65}, 043607 (2002).

2607: \bibitem{PS02} V.L.Pokrovsky, N.A.Sinitsyn, Phys. Rev. B, {\bf 65}, 153105 (2002).

2608: \bibitem{SI02} N.A.Sinitsyn, cond-mat/0212017 (2002). 

2609: \bibitem{DO00} Y.N.Demkov, V.N.Ostrovsky, Phys. Rev. A, {\bf 61}, 032705 (2000).

2610: \bibitem{GC02} D.A.Garanin, E.M.Chudnovsky, Phys. Rev. B, {\bf 65}, 094423 (2002).

2611: \bibitem{EL83} H.Eyring, S.H.Lin, S.M.Lin, Basic Chemical Kinetics,

2612: Wiley Interscience, New York (1983).

2613: \bibitem{BD65} Yu.A.Bychkov, A.M.Dykhne, JETP, {\bf 21}, 783 (1965).

2614: \bibitem{TO87} S.Toshev, Phys. Lett., B, {\bf 198}, 551 (1987).

2615: \bibitem{JG78} J.M.Juan, T.F.George, J.Chem. Phys., {\bf 68}, 3040 (1978).

2616: \bibitem{BT82} A.D.Bandrauk, G.Turcott, J.Chem. Phys., {\bf 77}, 3867 (1982).

2617: \bibitem{LG87} H.W.Lee, T.F.George, Phys. Rev. A, {\bf 35}, 4977 (1987).

2618: \bibitem{AK92} V.M.Akulin, N.V.Karlov, Intense Resonant Interactions in

2619: Quantum Electronics, Springer, Berlin (1992).

2620: 

2621: \end{references} 

2622: 

2623: 

2624: \newpage

2625: 

2626: \centerline{Figure Captions.}

2627: Fig. 1

2628: 

2629: Stokes (dashed) and anti-Stokes (solid) lines for a pair of close linear turning points

2630: replaced by one second order turning point;

2631: (a) - classically forbidden region;

2632: (b) classically accessible region.

2633: 

2634: 

2635: 

2636: Fig. 2 

2637: 

2638: Adiabatic (3 , 4) and diabatic (1 , 2) potentials for LZ problem.

2639: 

2640: Fig. 3 

2641: 

2642: Stokes (dashed) and anti-Stokes (solid) lines in the vicinity of:

2643: (a) conjugated bifurcation points $\pm i \tau _c$;

2644: (b) diabatic potentials crossing point $X=0$.

2645: 

2646: 

2647: Fig. 4

2648: 

2649: Stokes (dashed) and anti-Stokes (solid) lines for linear turning points corresponding

2650: classically forbidden (a), intermediate (b), and accessible (c) energy regions of LZ problem.

2651: 

2652: 

2653: 

2654: Fig. 5

2655: 

2656: Relative placement of the adiabatic levels;

2657: (a) $U_{12} > U_{12}^* \, ;$ (b) $ \, U_{12} < U_{12}^* $

2658:  ,  $( U_{12}^* \equiv (3/2)(\hbar ^2 F^2/4 m)^{1/3}

2659: ).$ 

2660: 

2661: Fig. 6

2662: 

2663: $E$, $U_{12}$ phase diagram ($I$ - tunneling region, $II$ - over-barrier

2664: region, and two intermediate energy regions $III$ and $III^\prime $

2665: are separated by the line $\nu ^* =0.325$.

2666: 

2667: 

2668: Fig. 7

2669: 

2670: Transition matrix element $M_{11}$ as

2671: a function of $U_{12}/U_{12}^*$, computed at $\alpha = 0$:

2672: on the

2673: boundary between tunneling and intermediate energy regions (a);

2674: at $ E = U^\# $ (b);

2675: on the boundary between the intermediate and over-barrier regions (c);

2676: 

2677: lines $1 , 2 , 3 \, ,\, 1^\prime  , 2^\prime  , 3^\prime \, , \, 1^{\prime \prime } ,

2678: 2^{\prime \prime } , 3^{\prime \prime } $ computed for corresponding

2679: energy regions using (\ref{b19}), (\ref{b22}), and (\ref{b34}), respectively.

2680: 

2681: Fig. 8

2682: 

2683: $T$ versus $E$ dependence for:

2684: (a)  $U_{12} = U_{12}^*$ ;

2685: (b)  $U_{12} =0.5 U_{12}^*$ ;

2686: (c)  $U_{12} = 0.25 U_{12}^*$ ;

2687: 

2688: stars mark the region $III^\prime $ boundaries, thin lines show

2689: results for the over-barrier and tunneling regions, bold lines for 

2690: the intermediate energy region.

2691: 

2692: Fig. 9

2693: 

2694: Transmitted wave phase as a function of $E$ in the over-barrier region at

2695: $U_{12} = U_{12}^*$.

2696:  

2697: Fig. 10

2698: 

2699: Amplitudes of the decaying solutions $\Phi _L^-$ at $X > 0$ versus $E$ for:

2700: (1) $U_{12} = U_{12}^*$ ;

2701: (2)  $U_{12} = 0.5 U_{12}^*$ ;

2702: (3)  $U_{12} = 0.25 U_{12}^*$.

2703: 

2704: 

2705: Fig. 11

2706: 

2707: The diabatic level crossing phenomena:

2708: (a) crossing region;

2709: (b) bound initial and decay final states;

2710: (c) bound initial and final states.

2711: 

2712: Fig. 12

2713: 

2714: Level displacements versus $U_{12}$

2715: for two diabatic crossing potentials

2716: $(1 \pm X)^2/2$. Dashed lines show the intermediate

2717: energy region; dotted - dashed lines show displacements for the top

2718: and for the bottom of the adiabatic potentials. $k$, $n$, and $n^\prime $

2719: are quantum numbers for the diabatic, and lower and upper adiabatic potentials.

2720: 

2721: Fig. 13

2722: 

2723: $\Gamma _n$ versus $U_{12}$ for the quasi stationary states

2724: at the diabatic potentials $(1 + X)^2/2$ and $(1/2) - X$ crossing;

2725: (a) 1 - 4 are the level energies 0.042 , 0.125 , 0.208 , and 0.292 

2726: for the lower adiabatic potential;

2727: (b) $1^\prime - 3^\prime $ are the level energies 0.625 ; 0.708 ; 0792

2728: for the upper adiabatic potential. 

2729: 

2730: Fig. 14

2731: 

2732: Survival probability for the localized $n=0$ state; 

2733: (a) $b = 1500$ , dashed lines $U_{12} = 0.15$ ; solid lines 

2734: $U_{12} = 0.21$;

2735: (b) $b = 1500$, dashed lines $U_{12} = 0.28$ ; solid lines  

2736: $U_{12} = 0.21$.

2737: 

2738: \end{document}

2739:                                                                                                 

2740: 

2741: 

2742: 

2743: 

2744: