1: \documentclass{iopart}
2:
3: \usepackage{fleqn}
4:
5: % special
6: \usepackage{ifthen}
7: \usepackage{ifpdf}
8:
9: % fonts
10: \usepackage{latexsym}
11: %\usepackage{amsmath}
12: \usepackage{amssymb}
13: \usepackage{bm}
14:
15:
16: % figures
17: \ifpdf
18: \usepackage{graphicx}
19: \usepackage{epstopdf}
20: \else
21: \usepackage{graphicx}
22: \usepackage{epsfig}
23: \fi
24:
25: % math symbols I
26: \newcommand{\sinc}{\mbox{sinc}}
27: \newcommand{\const}{\mbox{const}}
28: \newcommand{\trc}{\mbox{trace}}
29: \newcommand{\intt}{\int\!\!\!\!\int }
30: \newcommand{\ointt}{\int\!\!\!\!\int\!\!\!\!\!\circ\ }
31: \newcommand{\ar}{\mathsf r}
32: \newcommand{\im}{\mbox{Im}}
33: \newcommand{\re}{\mbox{Re}}
34:
35:
36: % math symbols II
37: \newcommand{\eexp}{\mbox{e}^}
38: \newcommand{\bra}{\left\langle}
39: \newcommand{\ket}{\right\rangle}
40: \newcommand{\mass}{\mathsf{m}}
41:
42:
43: % more math commands
44: \newcommand{\tbox}[1]{\mbox{\tiny #1}}
45: \newcommand{\bmsf}[1]{\bm{\mathsf{#1}}}
46: \newcommand{\amatrix}[1]{\begin{matrix} #1 \end{matrix}}
47: \newcommand{\pd}[2]{\frac{\partial #1}{\partial #2}}
48:
49:
50: % equations
51: \newcommand{\be}[1]{\begin{eqnarray}\ifthenelse{#1=-1}{\nonumber}{\ifthenelse{#1=0}{}{\label{e#1}}}}
52: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray}}
53:
54:
55: % graphics
56: \newcommand{\drawline}{\begin{picture}(500,1)\line(1,0){500}\end{picture}}
57: \newcommand{\hide}[1]{}
58: \newcommand{\Cn}[1]{\begin{center} #1 \end{center}}
59: \newcommand{\mpg}[2][\hsize]{\begin{minipage}[b]{#1}{#2}\end{minipage}}
60: \newcommand{\putgraph}[2][width=\hsize]{\includegraphics[#1]{#2}}
61:
62:
63: \begin{document}
64:
65:
66: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
67: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
68:
69: \hide{
70:
71: LIST OF FIGURES
72:
73: --Fig1
74: step_pic
75: step_phase
76:
77: --Fig2
78: well_pic
79: well_phase
80:
81: --Fig3
82: ring_pic
83: ring_phase
84:
85: --Fig4
86: well_qm_levels
87: ring_qm_levels
88:
89: --Fig5
90: ring_scales
91:
92: --Fig6
93: bloch_sites
94:
95: --Fig7
96: step_cl_plot
97: step_qm_plot
98:
99: --Fig8
100: well_1-3
101: well_3-3
102:
103: --Fig9
104: well_31-2
105: well_32-2
106:
107: --Fig10
108: ring_3-3
109: bloch_plot
110:
111: --Fig11
112: bloch_1
113: bloch_2
114: bloch_3
115: bloch_4
116:
117:
118: }
119:
120:
121: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
122: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
123:
124: \title[Diffractive energy spreading]
125: {Diffractive energy spreading \\ and its semiclassical limit}
126:
127: \author{Alexander Stotland and Doron Cohen}
128:
129: \address{
130: Department of Physics, Ben-Gurion University, Beer-Sheva 84005, Israel
131: }
132:
133:
134: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
135:
136:
137: \begin{abstract}
138: We consider driven systems where the driving induces jumps
139: in energy space: (1)~particles pulsed by a step
140: potential; (2)~particles in a box with a moving wall;
141: (3)~particles in a ring driven by an electro-motive-force.
142: In all these cases the route towards quantum-classical correspondence
143: is highly non-trivial. Some insight is gained by observing that
144: the dynamics in energy space, where $n$ is the level index,
145: is essentially the same as that of Bloch electrons
146: in a tight binding model, where $n$ is the site index.
147: The mean level spacing is like a constant electric field
148: and the driving induces long range hopping ${\propto 1/(n-m)}$ .
149: \end{abstract}
150:
151:
152:
153: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
154: \section{Introduction}
155:
156:
157: Consider a system which is described by a Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}(X(t))$,
158: where the parameter $X(t)$ is time dependent.
159: For such system the energy $E$ is not a constant of the motion.
160: Rather, the driving induces spreading in energy space. Assuming that the
161: system is prepared at $t=0$ in a microcanonical state, one wonders
162: how the energy distribution $\rho_t(E)$ looks like at a later time.
163: In particular, one may wonder whether the quantum $\rho_t(E)$
164: is similar to the corresponding classical distribution.
165: In the ``quantum chaos" literature it is customary to distinguish
166: between a classical time scale $\tau_{cl}$ and a quantum breaktime~$t^*$.
167: The latter goes to infinity in the ``$\hbar\rightarrow0$" limit.
168: A prototype model is the``quantum kicked rotator" \cite{qkr} where
169: the energy spreading is diffusive up to $t^*$ while for larger times
170: one observes saturation due to a dynamical localization effect.
171:
172:
173: In this work we analyze much simpler systems where the breaktime $t^*$,
174: if exists, is much larger than any physically relevant time scale.
175: In fact one may assume that the time~$t$ of the evolution
176: is comparable with the classical (short) time scale.
177: In such circumstances one naively would expect
178: quantum to classical correspondence (QCC).
179: But in fact the theory is much more complicated \cite{lrt}.
180: One has to distinguish between
181: %
182: \begin{itemize}
183: \item Detailed QCC
184: \item Restricted QCC
185: \end{itemize}
186: %
187: Detailed QCC means that all the moments ${r=1,2,3,...}$
188: of the quantum mechanical distribution $\rho_t(E)$ are similar
189: to the classical result, while restricted QCC refers only
190: to the ${r=1,2}$ moments. It turns out that the latter
191: are very robust, while the higher moments (${r>2}$) might be
192: much larger in the quantum case.
193: Our first challenge would be to find and
194: to analyze the {\em worst case} for QCC, for which all
195: the ${r>2}$ moments are classically finite but quantum mechanically
196: divergent. We would like to see whether in such
197: circumstances restricted QCC for ${r=1,2}$ survives.
198:
199:
200: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
201: \hide{
202: Given that the system is prepared in a stationary state at $t=0$,
203: one can prove that ${\langle\mathcal{H}(t)^2\rangle_0-\langle\mathcal{H}(0)^2\rangle_0
204: = \langle(\mathcal{H}(t)-\mathcal{H}(0))^2\rangle_0 }$, where $\mathcal{H}(t)$
205: is the Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}(X(t))$ is the {\em Heisenberg picture}.
206: Such relation cannot not be generalized to higher moments because of lack of
207: commutativity. It should be clear that ${ \langle(\mathcal{H}(t)-\mathcal{H}(0))^r\rangle_0 }$
208: is a quantity for which there is a robust QCC.
209: Using $d\mathcal{H}/dt=\dot{X}V$ where $V\equiv \partial \mathcal{H} / \partial X$
210: it can be expressed using correlation functions of the perturbation~$V$.}
211: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
212:
213:
214:
215: For completeness of this Introduction we summarize in Appendix~A
216: the reason for the robustness of restricted QCC.
217: Our interest in QCC is motivated by the wish to develop a better
218: understanding of driven systems. We would like to explore
219: examples where QCC is far from obvious even for short times.
220: In what follows we address 4~problems that in first sight look unrelated:
221: %
222: \begin{itemize}
223: \item[\bf(1)] Particles that are pulsed by a step potential (Fig.1)
224: \item[\bf(2)] Particles in a box with a moving wall (Fig.2)
225: \item[\bf(3)] Particles in an electro-motive-force (EMF) driven ring (Fig.3)
226: \item[\bf(4)] Wavepacket dynamics of Bloch electrons in a constant electric field
227: \end{itemize}
228: %
229: In fact we are going to see that problems (1)-(3) share
230: a common feature: In the classical description
231: the energy absorption is associated with abrupt {\em jumps}
232: in phase space. These jumps are reflected in the
233: quantum dynamics as a strong {\em diffraction} effect.
234: This diffraction, which takes place in energy space,
235: is the worst case for Bohr's QCC.
236: It turns our that problem (1) can be solved exactly,
237: while problems (2) and (3) reduce essentially to problem (4).
238: Namely, the dynamics in energy space, where $n$ is the level index,
239: is essentially the same as that of Bloch electrons
240: in a tight binding model, where $n$ is the site index.
241: The mean level spacing is like a constant electric field
242: and the driving induces long range hopping ${\propto 1/(n-m)}$ .
243: This tight binding problem has an exact solution.
244: The objectives of the present work are
245: %
246: \begin{itemize}
247: \item To highlight the route towards QCC in the case of diffractive energy spreading.
248: \item To provide solutions and numerical demonstrations to the prototype problems.
249: \item To shed new light of the EMF-driven ring problem.
250: \item To illuminate the limitations of linear response theory in the mesoscopic context.
251: \end{itemize}
252: %
253: The paper is structured accordingly.
254:
255:
256:
257: A few words are in order regarding the literature.
258: The quantum treatment of the ``moving wall" problem
259: has started with Refs.\cite{doescher,makovski},
260: that were aimed in finding the steady state solutions
261: for an expanding well. The interest in this model
262: has further evolved within the study of
263: the Fermi acceleration problem \cite{jose}
264: where the wall is oscillating.
265: Recently the non-trivial features of the
266: parametric \cite{prm} and of the time-dependent
267: wavepacket dynamics \cite{wld} were illuminated.
268: In the latter publication a satisfactory mathematical
269: treatment of the non-stationary dynamics has not been introduced.
270: %
271: Also the problem of Bloch electrons in a constant
272: electric field has a long history. The concept
273: of a Stark ladder was introduced by Wannier \cite{wannier}
274: to describe the energy spectrum of a periodic system
275: in an electric field. Since that time it has become
276: the subject of controversy
277: \cite{zak-1968,zak-1968-168,rabinovitch-zak-1972,rabinovitch-1977,
278: emin-hart-1987,hart-1988,hart-emin-1988,Mendez-1988,zak-1991,
279: leo-1991,zak-1996}.
280: Eventually it has been realized that
281: the electric field localizes the motion of the electrons,
282: and induces a periodic oscillatory motion.
283:
284:
285:
286:
287: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
288: \section{Energy jumps in phase space}
289:
290:
291: % step
292:
293: If a Gaussian wavepacket is moving in a smooth potential,
294: then its Wigner function evolves in a smooth manner
295: which favors detailed QCC. But we would like to consider
296: the ``worst case" for QCC. Let us assume that the particle
297: is prepared with some initial momentum $p$. This means
298: in practice a very extended wavepacket with a very small
299: dispersion in momentum. We turn on at $t=0$ a step
300: of height~$V_{\tbox{step}}$. After a short time~$t$ we observe
301: that the classical phase space distribution is torn into
302: three pieces (see Fig.1):
303: phase space points that remain on the left side of the step;
304: phase space points that have crossed the step from left to right;
305: and phase space points that were all the time in
306: the right side of the step. The jump in the kinetic energy
307: of those points that have crossed the step is
308: %
309: \be{0}
310: \delta E_{\tbox{cl}} = -V_{\tbox{step}}
311: \ee
312: %
313: Classically we have in phase space points that move
314: with the original kinetic energy, and another
315: set of points that have gone through an abrupt
316: change of kinetic energy. Thus the energy distribution
317: consists of two delta peaks. We would like to know
318: what is the corresponding energy distribution
319: in the quantum mechanical case.
320:
321:
322:
323: %wall
324:
325: A similar phase space picture emerges in the analysis
326: of the "moving wall" problem. As illustrated
327: in Fig.~2 we have a particle of mass~$\mass$
328: and energy~$E$ bouncing back and forth inside
329: a one dimensional box. One wall of the box
330: is displaced with a velocity~$V_{\tbox{wall}}$,
331: which is assumed to be much smaller compared with
332: the velocity $v_{\tbox{E}}=(2E/\mass)^{1/2}$
333: of the bouncing particle.
334: Consider an initial microcanonical distribution.
335: After a short time~$t$ some of the phase space points
336: collide with the wall which is moving
337: with velocity $V_{\tbox{wall}}$.
338: Consequently their velocity undergoes
339: a change~${v \mapsto -v+2V_{\tbox{wall}}}$,
340: and accordingly the energy jump is:
341: %
342: \be{0}
343: \delta E_{\tbox{cl}} = -2 \mass v_{\tbox{E}} V_{\tbox{wall}}
344: \ee
345: %
346: Thus after a short time the energy distribution
347: consists of two delta peaks: one corresponds to those
348: phase space points that did not collide with the moving wall,
349: and the other corresponds to those phase space points
350: that did collide with the moving wall.
351: %
352: We ask what is the corresponding quantum result.
353: Namely, how the probability is distributed
354: among the energy levels in the quantum mechanical case.
355: It is implicit that we are going to work in
356: the adiabatic (wall location dependent) basis,
357: else the question is mathematically ill defined.
358:
359:
360:
361:
362: %emf
363:
364: Possibly the most interesting and experimentally relevant model
365: is that of a one-dimensional EMF-driven ring (Fig.3).
366: The classical analysis for this problem is very simple:
367: each time that the particle crosses the EMF step its
368: energy changes by
369: %
370: \be{0}
371: \delta E_{\tbox{cl}} = e V_{\tbox{EMF}}
372: \ee
373: %
374: So also here we have energy jumps.
375: Surprisingly this problem is interesting
376: even if we do not add a scatterer.
377:
378:
379:
380:
381:
382: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
383: \section{Beyond the Fermi golden rule, the semiclassical regime}
384:
385: Both in the case of the ``moving wall" and in
386: the case of the driven ring we have after
387: a short time a finite probability to find the system
388: with a different energy. So we may say that there is
389: some finite probability to make a transition
390: %
391: \be{0}
392: E \ \ \longmapsto \ \ E + \delta E_{\tbox{cl}}
393: \ee
394: %
395: Going to the quantum mechanical problem we may
396: wonder whether or how we get from the Schrodinger
397: equation such transitions. We are used to the
398: Fermi golden rule picture of transitions
399: %
400: \be{999}
401: E \ \ \longmapsto \ \ E + ``\hbar\omega"
402: \ee
403: %
404: where $\omega$ is the frequency of the driving.
405: But here we do not have periodic (``AC") driving
406: but rather linear (``DC") driving.
407: Moreover, $\delta E_{\tbox{cl}}$ is an $\hbar$-
408: independent quantity.
409: %
410: %
411: It turns out that indeed there exists
412: a regime where the dynamics
413: is classical-like (Fig.4).
414: This semiclassical regime
415: is defined by the obvious condition
416: %
417: \be{1000}
418: \delta E_{\tbox{cl}} \ \ \gg \ \ \Delta
419: \ee
420: %
421: where $\Delta$ is the level spacing.
422: In the case of the ``moving wall" problem
423: this condition can be written as
424: %
425: \be{1001}
426: V_{\tbox{wall}} \gg \frac{\hbar}{\mass L}
427: \ee
428: %
429: where $L$ is the size of the box.
430: It is easily verified that this
431: condition is just the opposite
432: of the adiabatic condition.
433: %
434: %
435: %
436: %
437: The case of the EMF-driven ring is
438: somewhat richer. The condition that
439: defines the semiclassical regime becomes
440: %
441: \be{0}
442: V_{\tbox{EMF}} \gg \frac{\hbar v_{\tbox{E}}}{L}
443: \ee
444: %
445: where $L$ is the length of the ring.
446: It is easily verified that this
447: condition is just the opposite
448: of the diabaticity condition.
449: The diabatic regime is defined as that
450: where transitions between energy levels
451: of a ``free" ring can be neglected.
452: %
453: If there is a small scatterer inside
454: the ring a stronger condition than diabaticity
455: is required in order to maintain adiabaticity:
456: %
457: \be{0}
458: V_{\tbox{EMF}} \ll (1-g)\frac{\hbar v_{\tbox{E}}}{L}
459: \ee
460: %
461: where $g\sim 1$ is the transmission of the
462: scatterer. The adiabatic regime is defined
463: as that where transitions between the actual
464: energy levels of the ring can be neglected.
465: This is the regime where the Landau-Zener mechanism
466: of transitions at avoided crossings \cite{locGT,wilk} becomes
467: significant. The three regimes in the EMF-driven
468: ring problem are illustrated in the diagram of Fig.5.
469:
470:
471: Our main interest is in the non-trivial
472: semiclassical regime as defined by Eq.(\ref{e1000}).
473: In order to reconcile our semiclassical intuition
474: with the quantum Fermi Golden rule picture
475: we have to assume that the quantum dynamics self-generates
476: a frequency ${"\hbar \omega " = \delta E_{\tbox{cl}}}$.
477: Indeed it has been argued in Ref.\cite{wld}
478: that the non-perturbative mixing of levels
479: on the small energy scales generate this
480: frequency, while the re-normalized transitions
481: on the large (coarse grained) energy scales
482: are FGR-like.
483: However, an actual mathematical analysis of the
484: dynamics has not been introduced, and was left
485: as an open problem.
486:
487:
488:
489:
490: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
491: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
492: \section{Particle pulsed by a step}
493:
494:
495: The simplest example for a semiclassical energy jump
496: is provided by the "step problem". The time
497: dependent Hamiltonian is:
498: %
499: \be{15}
500: {\cal H} =
501: \frac{p^2}{2\mass} +
502: \left\lbrace
503: \begin{array}{ll}
504: 0 & t < 0 \\
505: V_{\tbox{step}} & t \geq 0
506: \end{array}
507: \right.
508: \ee
509: %
510: For this Hamiltonian ``energy space"
511: is in fact ``momentum space", so it is
512: more natural to refer to ``momentum jumps".
513: Obviously we can translate any small
514: change in momentum to energy
515: units via $\delta E = v_{\tbox{E}} \delta p$,
516: where $v_{\tbox{E}}=(2E/\mass)^{1/2}$
517: is the velocity of the particle
518: in the energy range of interest.
519:
520:
521: The phase space dynamics after kicking
522: an initial momentum state $p_0$ at $t=0$
523: is illustrated in Fig.1b.
524: It is clear that the emerging momentum distribution is
525: %
526: \be{16}
527: \rho_t(p) \ \ = \ \ \left[1-\frac{v_{\tbox{E}} t}{L}\right]\delta\Big(p-p_0\Big)
528: + \frac{v_{\tbox{E}} t}{L} \delta\Big(p-(p_0+\delta p_{\tbox{cl}})\Big)
529: \ee
530: %
531: where $\delta p_{\tbox{cl}} \ \ = \ \ -V_{\tbox{step}}/v_{\tbox{E}}$,
532: and $L$ is the spatial extent of the wavepacket.
533: From here on we set $L=1$ as implied by the standard
534: density normalization of the momentum state $\eexp{ip_0x}$.
535: It is implicit in the following analysis that we assume
536: a very extended wavepacket ($v_{\tbox{E}}t \ll L$).
537: The emerging momentum distribution can be characterized by
538: its moments with respect to $p=p_0$. Namely:
539: %
540: \be{17}
541: \langle (p-p_0)^r \rangle
542: \ \ = \ \ \delta p_{\tbox{cl}}^r \times v_{\tbox{E}} t
543: \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \mbox{$r=1,2,3,4,...$}
544: \ee
545: %
546: All the moments are finite and grow linearly with time.
547: Below we are going to derive the quantum result.
548: Omitting the trivial ${\delta(p-p_0)}$ term,
549: and the back reflection term, the final result
550: for the forward scattering is
551: %
552: \be{18}
553: \rho_t(p) \ \ = \ \
554: |\bra p | {\cal U} | p_0 \ket|^2
555: \ \ = \ \ \frac{\delta p_{\tbox{cl}}^2 }{(p-p_0)^2} v_{\tbox{E}}^2 t^2
556: \ \sinc^2\left[\frac{1}{2}
557: \left(p-(p_0+\delta p_{\tbox{cl}})\right) v_{\tbox{E}} t \right]
558: \ee
559: %
560: for which
561: %
562: \be{0}
563: \langle (p-p_0)^r \rangle \ \ = \ \
564: \left\{
565: \begin{array}{ll}
566: \delta p_{\tbox{cl}} \times v_{\tbox{E}} t
567: - \sin(\delta p_{\tbox{cl}} v_{\tbox{E}} t)
568: \ \ \ \ \ \ \
569: & \mbox{for $r=1$} \\
570: \delta p_{\tbox{cl}}^2 \times v_{\tbox{E}} t
571: & \mbox{for $r=2$} \\
572: \infty
573: & \mbox{for $r>2$}
574: \end{array}
575: \right.
576: \ee
577: %
578: Let us compare the energy distribution in the classical and
579: quantum-mechanical cases (Fig.~7). As the
580: time~$t$ becomes much larger than $\hbar/V_{\tbox{step}}$ the
581: semiclassical peak is resolved. But we never get detailed QCC,
582: because all the high (${r>2}$) moments of the distribution diverge.
583:
584:
585: It should be appreciated that the power law tails that we get
586: here for the energy distribution are the ``worst case" that
587: can be expected. They emerge because the phase space distribution
588: is torn in the momentum direction. In space representation
589: this reflects a discontinuity in the derivative of the wavefunction.
590: This explains why the tails go like $1/p^4$.
591: We are going to encounter the same type
592: of power law tails also in the other examples.
593:
594:
595:
596: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
597: \subsection{Derivation of the quantum result:}
598:
599:
600: The rest of this section is devoted for the derivation of the
601: quantum result and can be skipped in first reading. The momentum
602: states are denoted as $|p\rangle$. In order to simplify the
603: calculation we approximate the dispersion relation, within the
604: energy window of interest, as linear $E = v_{\tbox{E}} k$. This
605: implies that back-reflection is neglected. Once the step is turned
606: on, $|p\rangle$ are no longer the stationary states. The new
607: stationary states are
608: %
609: \be{0}
610: |k \rangle \ \ \longmapsto \ \
611: \Theta(-x) \eexp{ikx} + \Theta(x)\eexp{i(k+u)x}
612: \ee
613: %
614: where we use the notation ${u=\delta p_{\tbox{cl}}}$.
615: Note that these form a complete orthonormal set in the
616: sense ${\bra k_1 | k_2 \ket = 2 \pi\delta(k_1-k_2)}$.
617: The transformation matrix from the old to the new basis is
618: %
619: \be{55}
620: \bra p | k \ket
621: &=& \int^0_{-\infty} \eexp{-i (p-k) x}dx
622: + \int^{\infty}_0 \eexp{-i (p-k-u) x}dx
623: \\
624: &=&
625: \pi \delta(p-k)+\frac{i } {p-k}
626: +\pi\delta(p-k-u)-\frac{i } {p-k-u}
627: \ee
628: %
629: Before we go on with the calculation we note
630: that the following elementary integral
631: can be found in any mathematical handbook:
632: %
633: \be{-1}
634: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
635: \frac{dk}{2\pi}
636: \frac{1}{(k - p_2)(k - p_1)}
637: \eexp{ikt}
638: \ \ = \ \
639: \frac{i }{2(p_2-p_1)} \left(\eexp{i p_2 t}
640: - \eexp{i p_1 t}\right)
641: \ \ \ \ \ \ \mbox{$p_2 {\ne} p_1$, $t>0$}
642: \ee
643: %
644: We notice that the result on the RHS if finite for $p_2=p_1$
645: while in fact it should diverge. This suggests that
646: there is a missing delta term ${C \eexp{i p_2 t}\delta(p_2-p_1)}$
647: where $C$ is a constant. In order to find this constant
648: we have regularized this Fourier integral:
649: %
650: \be{-1}
651: \lim_{\delta\rightarrow0}
652: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
653: \frac{dk}{2\pi}
654: {\frac{k-p_2}{(k-p_2)^2+\delta^2}\frac{k-p_1}{(k-p_1)^2+\delta^2}}
655: \eexp{ikt} \hspace*{3cm}
656: \\ \nonumber
657: \ \ = \ \
658: \frac{i }{2(p_2-p_1)} \left(\eexp{i p_2 t}
659: - \eexp{i p_1 t}\right)
660: + \frac{\pi}{2} \eexp{i p_2 t}\delta(p_2-p_1)
661: \ \ \ \ \ \ \mbox{$t>0$}
662: \ee
663: %
664: With the above we can calculate the matrix elements
665: of the evolution operator:
666: %
667: \be{-1}
668: \bra p_{} | {\cal U} | p_0\ket
669: &=& \sum_k {\eexp{-i E_kt}\bra p_{}|k\ket \bra k|p_0\ket}
670: = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
671: \eexp{-i v_{\tbox{E}} kt}\bra p_{}|k\ket \bra k|p_0\ket dk
672: \\ \nonumber
673: &=& \pi \delta(p_{}-p_0)\left(\eexp{i
674: v_{\tbox{E}} p_{} t}+\eexp{i v_{\tbox{E}} (p_{}+u)t}\right)
675: \\ \label{57}
676: &+& \frac{i
677: u}{(p_{}-p_0)(p_{}-p_0-u)}\left(\eexp{i v_{\tbox{E}} (p_0+u)t} -
678: \eexp{i v_{\tbox{E}} p_{} t}\right)
679: \ee
680: %
681: We have ${\bra p_{} | {\cal U}(t=0) | p_0\ket = 2\pi \delta(p_{}-p_0)}$
682: as required. The interesting part of this expression is the second
683: terms which is non vanishing for $p\ne p_0$. Taking its absolute value
684: and squaring we get after some algebra Eq.(\ref{e18}).
685:
686:
687: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
688: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
689: \section{Particle in a box with a moving wall}
690:
691:
692:
693: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
694: \subsection{The Schrodinger equation:}
695:
696:
697: We consider a particle in an infinite well.
698: The left wall is assumed to be fixed at $x=x_0$,
699: while the right wall at $x=X(t)$ is moving
700: with constant velocity $\dot{X}=V_{\tbox{wall}}$.
701: The size of the box is $L(t)=X(t)-x_0$.
702: %
703: Classically the dynamics is very simple:
704: each time that the particle hits the moving wall
705: its energy jumps by
706: $\delta E_{\tbox{cl}}=2\mass v V_{\tbox{wall}}$.
707: %
708: In the quantum mechanical case we work in the adiabatic
709: basis. The adiabatic energy levels and the eigenstates
710: for a given value of $L$ are:
711: %
712: \be{0}
713: E_n = \frac{1}{2\mass} \left(\frac{\pi \hbar}{L} n\right)^2
714: \ee
715: %
716: %
717: \be{0}
718: \Psi^{(n)}(x) = (-1)^n \sqrt{\frac{2}{L}}
719: \sin{\left(\frac{\pi n}{L}x\right)}
720: \ee
721: %
722: %
723: We use the standard prescription in order
724: to write the Schrodinger equation in the adiabatic basis.
725: Using the notations of Ref.\cite{pmc}
726: the equation is written as
727: %
728: \be{79}
729: \frac{d a_n}{d t} = -\frac{i }{\hbar}E_n a_n +
730: i \dot{X} \sum_m{A_{nm} a_m}
731: \ee
732: %
733: where
734: %
735: \be{80}
736: A_{nm} = i \bra \Psi^{(n)} \Big| \pd{}{X} \Psi^{(m)} \ket
737: \ee
738: %
739: %
740: %
741: Hence, the Schrodinger equation for the problem in the adiabatic
742: basis is \cite{doescher,prm}:
743: %
744: \be{20}
745: \frac{da_n}{dt} = - \frac{i}{\hbar} E_n a_n - \frac{V_{\tbox{wall}}}{L}
746: \sum_{m (\ne n)} \frac{2nm}{n^2-m^2} \ a_m
747: \ee
748: %
749:
750:
751:
752:
753: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
754: \subsection{The generated dynamics:}
755:
756: Let us assume that the initial preparation
757: is $a_n(0)=\delta_{nm}$.
758: The mean level spacing for the 1D box is
759: $\Delta = \pi\hbar v_{\tbox{E}}/L$.
760: If $\delta E_{\tbox{cl}} \ll \Delta$ one finds out,
761: by inspection of Eq.(\ref{e20}),
762: that the dynamics is adiabatic,
763: meaning that $a_n(t)\sim\delta_{nm}$.
764: On the other hand, if $\delta E_{\tbox{cl}} \gg \Delta$,
765: one expects to find a semiclassical transition
766: $E \mapsto E + \delta E_{\tbox{cl}}$.
767:
768:
769: How can we explain the $E \mapsto E + \delta E_{\tbox{cl}}$
770: transition from quantum-mechanical point of view?
771: For this purpose we can adopt the
772: core-tail picture of Ref.~\cite{frc}:
773: %The core-tail picture is a generalization
774: %of Fermi-golden-rule picture:
775: The `core' consists of the levels that are
776: mixed non-perturbatively; The `tail' is formed by
777: first order transitions from the core.
778: Originally this picture has been applied
779: to analyze the energy spreading in ``quantum chaos"
780: driven systems. Here, the (non-chaotic) moving
781: wall problem allows a much simpler
782: application~\cite{wld}. The analysis is carried
783: out in two steps which are summarized below.
784:
785:
786: The first step in the ``core-tail" picture
787: is to analyze the {\em parametric evolution}
788: which is associated with Eq.(\ref{e20}).
789: This means to solve Eq.(\ref{e20}) without
790: the first term in the RHS. (This is the so-called sudden limit).
791: Obviously the resultant $\tilde{a}_n(t)$
792: is a function of $\delta X = V_{\tbox{wall}}t$, while
793: $V_{\tbox{wall}}$ by itself makes no difference. The solution
794: depends only on the endpoints $x(0)$ and $x(t)$.
795: %
796: By careful inspection of Eq.(\ref{e20}) one observes
797: that a level is mixed with the nearby level whenever
798: the wall is displaced a distance $\lambda_{\tbox{E}}/2$,
799: where $\lambda_{\tbox{E}}=2\pi\hbar/(\mass v_{\tbox{E}})$ is the
800: de Broglie wavelength. The time scale which is associated
801: with this effect is obviously
802: %
803: \be{0}
804: \tau_{\tbox{qm}} = \frac{\lambda_{\tbox{E}}/2}{V_{\tbox{wall}}}
805: \ee
806: %
807: The second step is to analyze
808: the actual time evolution. This means to take into account
809: the effect of the first term in the RHS of Eq.(\ref{e20}),
810: and to understand how the resultant $a_n(t)$ differs
811: from $\tilde{a}_n(t)$. One observes that the `parametric' mixing
812: of nearby levels modulates the transition amplitude.
813: The modulation frequency is
814: %
815: \be{220}
816: ``\omega" = \frac{2\pi}{\tau_{\tbox{qm}}}
817: \ee
818: %
819: Once combined with the FGR Eq.(\ref{e220}) it leads
820: to the anticipated semiclassical result Eq.(\ref{e999}).
821: It is not difficult to argue that
822: the period of this semiclassical transition is
823: %
824: \be{0}
825: \tau_{\tbox{cl}} = \frac{2L}{v_{\tbox{E}}}
826: \ee
827: %
828: which is the time to make one round between
829: the walls of the well. Since we are dealing
830: with a simple 1D system this coincides with
831: the Heisenberg time:
832: %
833: \be{0}
834: t_{\tbox{H}} = \frac{2\pi\hbar}{\Delta} = \tau_{\tbox{cl}}
835: \ee
836: %
837: The ratio $\tau_{\tbox{cl}}/\tau_{\tbox{qm}}$ determines the number
838: of nearby level transitions per period.
839: Obviously the semiclassical condition Eq.(\ref{e1001})
840: requires this ratio to be much larger than unity.
841: The disadvantage of the above heuristic picture is that
842: it does not lead to a satisfactory quantitative results.
843: Therefore, in later sections we discuss an optional route
844: of analysis via a reduction to a tight binding model.
845:
846:
847:
848: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
849: \subsection{Numerical Simulation}
850:
851: The solution of Eq.(\ref{e20})
852: becomes very simple if we
853: make the approximation ${L(t) \approx L_0}$.
854: This holds as long as the wall displacement
855: is small. We have verified that the
856: associated numerical error is very small.
857: Using units such that ${L_0=\mass=\hbar=1}$
858: we define a diagonal matrix ${\bm{E} =\mbox{diag}\{ \pi^2n^2/2 \}}$
859: and a non-diagonal matrix,
860: ${\bm{W}=\{-i 2\alpha nm/(n^2{-}m^2)\}}$
861: with zeros along the diagonal,
862: and where ${\alpha=V_{\tbox{wall}}/L}$.
863: The evolution matrix in the adiabatic basis
864: is obtained by exponentiation:
865: %
866: \be{0}
867: \bm{U}(t) = \exp{\left[-i \ t \ \left(\bm{E}+\bm{W}\right)\right]}
868: \ee
869: %
870: Fig.8 illustrates the time dependence of probability
871: distribution $|a_n(t)|^2$ for a particle initially
872: prepared at $n_0=50$. Fig.8a displays the solution
873: in the adiabatic regime: the particle stays at the
874: same level. Fig.8b displays the solution
875: in the semiclassical regime: at each moment the particle
876: partially stays at the same energy, and partially
877: makes classical-like transition to the next energy strip.
878: Fig.9 highlights the energy splitting of the wavepacket
879: during the transition.
880:
881:
882:
883: If we want to avoid the $L(t) \approx L_0$ approximation,
884: the price is a time dependent $\bm{E}$ and $\bm{W}$ matrices.
885: Then the calculation should be done in small $dt$ time steps:
886: %
887: \be{102}
888: \bm{U}(t)
889: =
890: \prod_{t'=dt}^{t}
891: \exp{\left[-i \ dt \ \bm{W}(t') \right]}
892: \ \exp{\left[-i \ dt \ \bm{E}(t') \right]}
893: \ee
894: %
895: The state of the system is described by
896: a truncated column vector ${\bm{a}=\{a_n\}}$
897: of length~$N$.
898: Optionally it is possible to represent
899: the state of the system in the Fourier
900: transformed basis. The elements $A_k$
901: of the Fourier transformed vector are
902: labeled by $k=(2\pi/N)\tilde{n}$,
903: where $\tilde{n} \ \mbox{mod}(N)$ is an integer.
904: %
905: The practical implementation of Eq.(\ref{e102})
906: is greatly simplified if $\bm{W}_{nm}$
907: is a function of the difference ${n-m}$.
908: In such case $\bm{W}$ is transformed into
909: a diagonal matrix~$\tilde{\bm{W}}$.
910: Consequently one can use the standard
911: fast Fourier transform (FFT) algorithm in order
912: to propagate a given state vector. Namely,
913: %
914: \be{101}
915: \bm{a}(t)
916: =
917: \prod_{t'=dt}^{t}
918: \mbox{FFT}^{-1}
919: \ \exp{\big[-i \ dt \ \tilde{\bm{W}}(t') \big]}
920: \ \mbox{FFT}
921: \ \exp{\big[-i \ dt \ \bm{E}(t') \big]}
922: \ \bm{a}(0)
923: \ee
924: %
925: where both $\bm{E}$ and $\tilde{\bm{W}}$ are diagonal.
926: In the moving wall problem $\bm{W}_{nm}$ is
927: mainly proportional to $1/(n{-}m)$,
928: so the FFT method is applicable
929: if we restrict the energy range of interest.
930: In the next section we shall consider the EMF-driven ring
931: problem, leading to a very similar evolution equation,
932: where the FFT method is strictly applicable.
933:
934:
935:
936:
937: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
938: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
939: \section{Particle in an EMF-driven ring}
940:
941:
942: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
943: \subsection{The Schrodinger equation:}
944:
945:
946: We consider a 1D-ring driven by an EMF (Fig.3).
947: The EMF is induced by a time-dependent flux which is described
948: by the vector potential
949: %
950: \be{0}
951: A(x,t) = \Phi(t) \delta(x - x_0)
952: \ee
953: %
954: This means that the electric field is
955: %
956: \be{0}
957: \mathcal{E}(x) = V_{\tbox{EMF}} \delta(x-x_0)
958: \ee
959: %
960: where $V_{\tbox{EMF}}=-\dot{\Phi}=\const$.
961: The Hamiltonian that generates the dynamics is
962: %
963: \be{22}
964: \mathcal{H}(\Phi(t))
965: = \frac{1}{2\mass} \left(\hat{p} - \frac{e}{c} A(\hat{x},t)\right)^2
966: \ee
967: %
968: with periodic boundary conditions over $x$.
969: The length of the ring is~$L$.
970:
971:
972: Classically the dynamics is very simple: each time that the particle
973: crosses $x=x_0$ its energy jumps by $\delta E_{\tbox{cl}} = eV_{\tbox{EMF}}$.
974: In the quantum mechanical case it is convenient to work in
975: the so-called diabatic basis. The diabatic energy levels for
976: a given value of $\Phi$ are
977: %
978: \be{0}
979: E_n = \frac{1}{2\mass} \left(\frac{2 \pi \hbar}{L} \right)^2
980: \left(n - \frac{\Phi}{\Phi_0} \right)^2
981: \ee
982: %
983: where $\Phi_0=2\pi\hbar c/e$. See Fig.4.
984: %
985: %
986: The Schrodinger equation that describes
987: the time evolution in the diabatic basis is
988: found using the same procedure as in the case
989: of the moving wall. We have to find the $A_{nm}$
990: as defined in Eq.(\ref{e80}) where now $X=\Phi$.
991: The only extra difficulty
992: is in finding the eigenstates $\Psi^{(n)}$
993: of Eq.(\ref{e22}) because $A(x)$ depends
994: on $x$. The calculation becomes much simpler
995: if we realize that they are related by a gauge
996: transformation to the eigenstates $\tilde{\Psi}^{(n)}$
997: of a much simpler Hamiltonian:
998: %
999: \be{73}
1000: \tilde{\mathcal{H}}
1001: = \frac{1}{2\mass} \left(p - \frac{e\Phi}{cL} \right)^2
1002: \ee
1003: %
1004: Namely,
1005: %
1006: \be{70}
1007: \Psi^{(n)}(x)
1008: &=&
1009: \exp{\left(\frac{i e}{\hbar c} \Lambda(x)\right)}
1010: \tilde{\Psi}^{(n)}(x)
1011: \\
1012: &=&
1013: \exp{\left(\frac{i e}{\hbar c} \Lambda(x)\right)}
1014: \times
1015: \frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}
1016: \exp{\left(i \frac{2 \pi n}{L}x\right)}
1017: \\
1018: &=&
1019: \frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}
1020: \exp{\left(i \frac{2 \pi} {L} \left(\frac{\Phi}{\Phi_0}+n \right)x \right)}
1021: \ee
1022: %
1023: where in the last line we set $x_0=0$ and the gauge function is
1024: %
1025: \be{72}
1026: \Lambda(x) = \frac{\Phi}{L} x
1027: \ee
1028: %
1029: Using the above result we get
1030: %
1031: \be{0}
1032: A_{nm} = -\frac{i }{\Phi_0}\frac{1}{n-m}
1033: \ee
1034: %
1035: and accordingly
1036: %
1037: \be{23}
1038: \frac{d a_n}{d t} = -\frac{i }{\hbar}E_n a_n
1039: +\frac{V_{\tbox{EMF}}}{\Phi_0} \sum_{m(\neq n)}{ \frac{1}{n-m} a_m}
1040: \ee
1041:
1042:
1043:
1044:
1045:
1046: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1047: \subsection{The generated dynamics:}
1048:
1049: The dynamics of an EMF-driven ring is very similar
1050: to the dynamics in the moving wall problem.
1051: This is obvious from the phase space picture, and
1052: also by inspection of the equation for $a_n(t)$.
1053: Also the ``core tail" heuristic picture of section~5.2
1054: is easily adapted. The parametric scale that signifies
1055: mixing of nearby levels is now $\delta X = \Phi_0$
1056: instead $\delta X = \lambda_{\tbox{E}}/2$ leading to
1057: the quantum time scale
1058: %
1059: \be{0}
1060: \tau_{\tbox{qm}} = \frac{\Phi_0}{V_{\tbox{EMF}}}
1061: \ee
1062: %
1063: The classical period is
1064: %
1065: \be{0}
1066: \tau_{\tbox{cl}} = \frac{L}{v_{\tbox{E}}}
1067: \ee
1068: %
1069: and the semiclassical condition can be written
1070: as $\tau_{\tbox{qm}} \ll \tau_{\tbox{cl}}$.
1071:
1072:
1073: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1074: % should be worked out better.
1075: \hide{
1076: From the experimental point of view it is possible to measure this kind of
1077: transitions. For example, for a mesoscopic golden ring of the diameter of 3
1078: microns we estimate the Heisenberg time as $t_{\tbox{H}} =
1079: 2\pi\hbar/\Delta = L/v_{\tbox{F}}$, where the Fermi velocity for
1080: the gold is known from the literature $v_{\tbox{F}} = 1.6 * 10^6$ m/s. The mean
1081: level spacing $\Delta$, therefore, is about $6.1 * 10^{-4}$ eV and it can be
1082: resolved in an experiment.}
1083: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1084:
1085:
1086: Since the energies are time dependent we have
1087: to use Eq.(\ref{e102}) for the calculation of the
1088: time evolutions. Furthermore, $\bm{W}$
1089: is diagonal in the momentum representation,
1090: and therefore we can use the FFT method Eq.(\ref{e101})
1091: with $\tilde{\bm{W}}=\mbox{diag}\{-\alpha \ (k-\pi)\}$,
1092: where $k=(2\pi/N)\tilde{n}$ is defined $\mbox{mod}(2\pi)$.
1093: The results of the simulations are presented in Fig.10a
1094: and Fig.11. We shall further discuss these results
1095: in the next sections.
1096:
1097:
1098:
1099: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1100: \section{Bloch electrons in a constant electric field (I)}
1101:
1102: If we focus our interest in small energy interval, then
1103: in both cases (moving wall, driven ring) the Schrodinger
1104: equation in the adiabatic basis is approximately the same
1105: as that of an electron in a tight binding model,
1106: where $n$ is re-interpreted as the site index:
1107: %
1108: \be{24}
1109: \frac{d a_n}{d t} = -i E_n a_n
1110: + \alpha \sum_{m(\neq n)}{ \frac{1}{n-m} a_m}
1111: \ee
1112: %
1113: with $E_n=\varepsilon n$. We use from here on $\hbar=1$ units.
1114: The scaled rate of the driving $\alpha$ is re-interpreted as
1115: the hopping amplitude between sites,
1116: while the levels spacing $\varepsilon$
1117: is re-interpreted as an electric field.
1118: Assuming that the electron is initially at the site $n_0$ we would
1119: like to find out what is the probability distribution
1120: %
1121: \be{0}
1122: \rho_t(n) = |a_n(t)|^2
1123: \ee
1124: %
1125: It is obvious that the adiabatic regime $\alpha \ll \varepsilon$ corresponds
1126: to a large electric field that localizes the electron at
1127: its original site. In the other extreme ($\alpha \gg \varepsilon$),
1128: if the effect of~$\varepsilon$ could have been ignored,
1129: we would observe unbounded Bloch ballistic motion.
1130: The effect of finite~$\varepsilon$ is to turn this
1131: motion into Bloch oscillations. We shall find below that
1132: the electron performs periodic motion which
1133: we illustrate in Fig.~6: While the wavepaket drifts
1134: with the electric field to the right, it shrinks
1135: and disappears, and at the same time re-emerges on the left.
1136: If we run the simulation as a movie, it looks as if the
1137: motion is from left to right. Still it is bounded in space
1138: due to this ``re-injection" mechanism.
1139:
1140:
1141: First of all we solve the equation for $\varepsilon=0$.
1142: The Hamiltonian is diagonal in the momentum basis $k$
1143: and therefore the general solution is
1144: %
1145: \be{0}
1146: a_n(t)
1147: = \sum_k A_k \eexp{i(kn-\omega_kt)}
1148: = \int_{0}^{2\pi}\frac{dk}{2\pi} A_k \eexp{i(kn-\omega_kt)}
1149: \ee
1150: %
1151: The dispersion relation is found by
1152: transforming the Hamiltonian to the $k$ basis:
1153: %
1154: \be{82}
1155: \omega_k
1156: \ \ = \ \ i\alpha \sum_{n (\ne m)} \frac{\eexp{-i k (n-m)}}{n-m}
1157: \ \ = \ \ \alpha \ [\pi-k]
1158: \ee
1159: %
1160: If we place at $t=0$ an electron at site $n_0$,
1161: then $a_n=\delta_{n,n_0}$, and hence $A_k=\eexp{-ik n_0}$.
1162: Then we get
1163: %
1164: \be{28}
1165: a_n(t) = \frac{\sin{\pi \alpha t}}{\pi (\alpha t + n - n_0)}
1166: \ee
1167: %
1168: Turning to the general case with $\varepsilon\ne0$
1169: we substitute $a_n(t)=c_n(t)\eexp{-i E_nt}$ and get
1170: the equation
1171: %
1172: \be{88}
1173: \frac{dc_n}{d t} =
1174: \alpha \sum_{m(\neq n)}
1175: \frac{\eexp{i (n-m) \varepsilon t}}{n-m} c_m
1176: \ee
1177: %
1178: This more complicated equation is still diagonal in the $k$ basis:
1179: %
1180: \be{0}
1181: \frac{dC_k}{d t} = -i\omega_k(t) C_k
1182: \ee
1183: %
1184: where
1185: %
1186: \be{0}
1187: \omega_k(t) \ \ = \ \ \alpha \ [\pi-\mbox{mod}(k+\varepsilon t,2\pi)]
1188: \ee
1189: %
1190: and its solutions is
1191: %
1192: \be{-1}
1193: C_k(t) &=&
1194: C_k(t{=}0)
1195: \ \exp{\left[-i\int_0^t \omega_k(t') dt'\right] }
1196: %\hspace*{8cm}
1197: \\ \nonumber
1198: &=&
1199: \left\{
1200: \begin{array}{ll}
1201: \eexp{-i k n_0 + i \alpha
1202: \left((k - \pi) t + \frac{\varepsilon t^2}{2} \right)}
1203: &
1204: \mbox{for $\varepsilon>0$ and $0<k<\overline{k}$}
1205: \\
1206: \eexp{-i k n_0 + i \alpha
1207: \left((k - 3\pi)t + \frac{\varepsilon t^2}{2} +
1208: \frac{2\pi(2\pi-k)}{\varepsilon}\right)}
1209: &
1210: \mbox{for $\varepsilon>0$ and $\overline{k}<k<2\pi$}
1211: \\
1212: \eexp{-i k n_0 + i \alpha
1213: \left((k - \pi) t + \frac{\varepsilon t^2}{2} +
1214: \frac{2\pi k}{\epsilon} \right)}
1215: &
1216: \mbox{for $\varepsilon<0$ and $0<k<\overline{k}$}
1217: \\
1218: \eexp{-i k n_0 + i \alpha
1219: \left((k + \pi)t + \frac{\varepsilon t^2}{2}
1220: \right)}
1221: &
1222: \mbox{for $\varepsilon<0$ and $\overline{k}<k<2\pi$}
1223: \end{array}
1224: \right.
1225: \ee
1226: %
1227: which is valid for $0<t<2\pi/|\varepsilon|$
1228: and should be continued periodically in time.
1229: We have used the notation ${\overline{k} = -\varepsilon t \ \mbox{mod}(2\pi)}$.
1230: Now we can go back to position representation:
1231: %
1232: \be{98}
1233: c_n(t)
1234: =\int_{0}^{\overline{k}(t)} \frac{dk}{2\pi} C_k \eexp{ikn}
1235: +\int_{\overline{k}(t)}^{2\pi} \frac{dk}{2\pi} C_k \eexp{ikn}
1236: \ee
1237: %
1238: Taking the absolute value and squaring we get
1239: the following result for the probability distributions:
1240: %
1241: \be{100}
1242: \rho_t(n) = \left(2\frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon}\right)^2
1243: \frac{\sin^2\left(\frac{1}{2} \varepsilon t
1244: \left(n-n_0+\alpha(t-\frac{2\pi}{|\varepsilon|})\right)\right)}
1245: {(n-n_0+\alpha t)^2(n-n_0+\alpha(t-\frac{2\pi}{|\varepsilon|}))^2}
1246: \ee
1247: %
1248: The above formula is valid for $0<t<2\pi/|\varepsilon|$
1249: and it should be continued periodically in time.
1250: %
1251: Fig.6 and Fig.10a illustrate the dynamics
1252: both schematically and numerically.
1253: In the next section we further
1254: discuss the nature of this dynamics.
1255:
1256:
1257:
1258: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1259: \section{Bloch electrons in a constant electric field (II)}
1260:
1261: In order to appreciate the significance of the $\propto 1/(n{-}m)$
1262: hopping we solve again the problem of Bloch electrons
1263: in a constant electric field, but this time with the
1264: ``conventional" nearest neighbor hopping:
1265: %
1266: \be{0}
1267: \frac{d a_n}{d t}
1268: = -i E_n a_n
1269: + \frac{\alpha}{2} [a_{n+1} - a_{n-1}]
1270: \ee
1271: %
1272: with $E_n=\varepsilon n$. The initial preparation
1273: at $t{=}0$ is $a_n = \delta_{n,n_0}$.
1274: We substitute $a_n = \eexp{-i E_n t}c_n$ and get the equation:
1275: %
1276: \be{0}
1277: \frac{d c_n}{d t} =
1278: \frac{\alpha}{2} (\eexp{-i \varepsilon t}c_{n+1}-\eexp{i \varepsilon t}c_{n-1})
1279: \ee
1280: %
1281: This equation becomes diagonal in the $k$ basis:
1282: %
1283: \be{0}
1284: \frac{dC_k}{d t} = -i\omega_k(t) C_k
1285: \ee
1286: %
1287: where
1288: %
1289: \be{0}
1290: \omega_k(t) \ \ = \ \ \alpha \sin(\varepsilon t + k)
1291: \ee
1292: %
1293: Its solutions is
1294: %
1295: \be{0}
1296: C_k(t) \ \ = \ \
1297: C_k(t = 0)\times
1298: \exp{\left[-i\int_0^t \omega_k(t') dt'\right] }
1299: \ee
1300: %
1301: Solving the above integral and making the inverse Fourier transform we obtain:
1302: %
1303: \be{0}
1304: c_n(t) = J_{n-n_0}\left(\frac{2\alpha}{\varepsilon}
1305: \sin\left(\frac12 \varepsilon t\right) \right)
1306: \ee
1307: %
1308: where $J()$ is the Bessel function of the first kind.
1309: Taking the absolute value and squaring we get the probability distribution:
1310: %
1311: \be{0}
1312: \rho_t(n) = \left|J_{n-n_0}\left(\frac{2\alpha}{\varepsilon}
1313: \sin\left(\frac12\varepsilon t\right) \right)\right|^2
1314: \ee
1315: %
1316: Fig.10b illustrates the dynamics. As in the previous
1317: problems we can distinguish between two time scales.
1318: One is related to the diagonal part of the Hamiltonian,
1319: and the other one to the hopping term. Keeping the
1320: same notations as in previous sections these are
1321: %
1322: \be{0}
1323: \tau_{\tbox{cl}} &=& 2\pi/\varepsilon \\
1324: \tau_{\tbox{qm}} &=& 1/\alpha
1325: \ee
1326: %
1327: The nature of the dynamics in the case of
1328: $\propto 1/(n{-}m)$ hopping and in the case
1329: of near neighbor hopping is quite different,
1330: as it can be appreciated by comparing Fig.10a and Fig.10b.
1331: This is related to the additional symmetries
1332: in the latter case. In order to explain this point
1333: let us use the notation $\bm{U}(\alpha,\varepsilon)$
1334: that emphasizes that the evolution depends
1335: on two parameters, the first one is associated
1336: with the kinetic term $\bm{W}=w(\hat{p})$
1337: and the other one with the potential term $\bm{E}=\epsilon(\hat{x})$.
1338: For clarity we use $\hat{x}$ for the position
1339: coordinate and $\hat{p}$ for the quasi-momentum.
1340: In both cases we have the anti-unitary symmetry
1341: ${(x,p)\mapsto (x,-p)}$, that maps $\bm{E}$ to $\bm{E}$
1342: and $\bm{W}$ to $-\bm{W}$.
1343: Consequently $\bm{U}(\alpha;\varepsilon)$ is mapped
1344: to $\bm{U}(\alpha;-\varepsilon)$.
1345: This implies that the spreading does not depend
1346: on the direction of the electric field.
1347: This is a peculiarity of tight binding models.
1348: The conventional time reversal symmetry,
1349: for which the kinetic term $\bm{W}$ is left invariant,
1350: is ${(x,p)\mapsto (x,\pi{-}p)}$. This symmetry
1351: characterizes the near neighbor hopping, but not
1352: the $\propto 1/(n{-}m)$ hopping.
1353: This symmetry implies that the spreading
1354: looks the same if we reverse the signs of both
1355: $\alpha$ and $\varepsilon$, which is like
1356: reversing the time. If we combine the two symmetries
1357: we deduce that the dynamics, in the case of
1358: the near neighbor hopping, should be indifferent
1359: to the sign of $\alpha$. Note that the
1360: combined symmetry that leads to this conclusion
1361: is the unitary mapping ${(x,p)\mapsto (x,p{+}\pi)}$.
1362: %
1363: Thus, in both cases [$\propto 1/(n{-}m)$ hopping and near neighbor hopping]
1364: we have generalized Bloch oscillations, but in the former
1365: case they are unidirectional (Fig.6), while in the latter
1366: case they are bi-directional.
1367:
1368:
1369:
1370: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1371: \section{Discussion}
1372:
1373:
1374: Within Linear response theory (LRT) the energy absorption
1375: of a quantum system is determined by the
1376: correlation function of the perturbation term.
1377: In general one can argue that there is a very
1378: good QCC for the correlation functions,
1379: and hence one expects {\em restricted} QCC
1380: in the energy absorption process.
1381: The persistence of {\em restricted} QCC
1382: in the $t\rightarrow\infty$ limit requires
1383: the additional assumption of having
1384: a coarse grained Markovian-like behavior
1385: for long times. Depending of the
1386: context one should further assume that the
1387: environment supplies both weak decoherence effect
1388: that makes the break time $t^*$ irrelevant,
1389: and a weak relaxation effect so as to achieve
1390: a steady state. Then it is possible to use
1391: the same argumentation as in the derivation
1392: of the central limit theorem in order to argue
1393: that all the higher moments become Gaussian-like.
1394:
1395:
1396: Thus, the common perception is that the leading result
1397: for the response of a driven system should be the same
1398: classically and quantum mechanically. For example,
1399: such is the case if one calculates the conductance of
1400: a diffusive ring \cite{kamenev}: The leading order result
1401: is just the Drude expressions, and on top there
1402: are weak localization corrections.
1403:
1404:
1405: The above reasoning illuminates that the long time
1406: response is based on the short time analysis.
1407: Moreover, one realizes that the second moment
1408: of the evolving energy distribution has
1409: a special significance. Still, all the above
1410: observations are within a very restrictive framework
1411: of assumptions. In practice it is of much interest
1412: to explore the limitations of LRT, and to obtain
1413: a more general theory for response.
1414:
1415:
1416: The theory for the response of closed isolated driven
1417: quantized chaotic mesoscopic systems is far from
1418: being trivial, even if the interactions between the particles
1419: are neglected. In the case of a generic quantized
1420: chaotic systems two energy scales are involved:
1421: the mean level spacing $\Delta \propto \hbar^d$,
1422: where $d=2,3$ is the dimensionality of the system,
1423: and the semiclassical energy scale $\hbar/\tau_{cl}$.
1424: It is implied (see the mini-review of Ref.\cite{dsp}) that
1425: there are generically three regimes depending on
1426: the rate $\dot{X}$ of the driving:
1427: %
1428: \begin{itemize}
1429: \item The adiabatic (Landau Zener) regime
1430: \item The Fermi-golden-rule (FGR, Kubo) regime
1431: \item The semiclassical (non-perturbative) regime
1432: \end{itemize}
1433: %
1434: Most of the literature in mesoscopic physics
1435: is dedicated to the study of the dynamics in
1436: either the adiabatic or the FGR regimes.
1437: The existence of a non-perturbative regime \cite{crs,dsp}
1438: is not yet fully acknowledged, though it has been
1439: established numerically in the RMT context \cite{rsp}.
1440:
1441:
1442: Driven one-dimensional systems are non-generic
1443: because typically the semiclassical energy scale
1444: coincides with the mean level spacing. In other words:
1445: the Heisenberg time $t_H=2\pi\hbar/\Delta$ is
1446: the same as the classical time $\tau_{cl}$
1447: rather than being much larger. Indeed we have seen that
1448: in the ``moving wall" problem we have just two regimes:
1449: the adiabatic regime and the semiclassical regime.
1450:
1451:
1452:
1453: The EMF-driven ring is a prototype problem
1454: in mesoscopic physics. It is richer than the
1455: ``moving wall" problem because a small scatterer
1456: introduces a very small energy scale,
1457: the level splitting, and hence we have three
1458: regimes rather than two: adiabatic, diabatic and semiclassical.
1459:
1460:
1461:
1462: The semiclassical regime in the study of EMF-driven rings
1463: has not been explored so far. One important observation
1464: is that contrary to LRT the gauge of the vector potential {\em does matter}.
1465: Most of past studies assume that the vector potential
1466: is $A(x,t)=\Phi(t)/L$. It is true that in LRT
1467: the same result for the conductance
1468: is obtained with $\tilde{A}(x,t)=\Phi(t)\delta(x-x_0)$.
1469: If we try to go from $\tilde{A}(x,t)$ to $A(x,t)$
1470: using a guage transformation, the ``price" is
1471: a modified $V(x)$ that features a linear ramp with
1472: a step-like drop at $x=x_0$. This modification of $V(x)$
1473: can be neglected only in the LRT regime.
1474: The semiclassical condition of Eq.(\ref{e1000})
1475: is just that opposite of this LRT requirement.
1476:
1477:
1478: The semiclassical dynamics implies diffractive
1479: energy spreading. The mixing of levels in the small energy
1480: scales induces jumps in energy space.
1481: The realization that this diffractive energy spreading
1482: can be re-interpreted using a tight binding Bloch model
1483: follows in spirit the celebrated reduction \cite{qkr}
1484: of dynamical localization in periodically kicked
1485: systems to a tight binding Anderson problem. An interesting
1486: feature is the hopping that goes like $\propto 1/(n-m)$.
1487: This hopping leads to an unidirectional rather than
1488: bidirectional Bloch oscillations,
1489: as implied by the semiclassical reasoning.
1490:
1491:
1492:
1493: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1494: \section{Appendix: The robustness of restricted QCC}
1495:
1496: The simplest way to illuminate the robustness
1497: of the second moment is by adopting
1498: a heuristic phase space picture language.
1499: Given two operators $\hat{A}=A(\hat{x},\hat{p})$ and $\hat{B}=B(\hat{x},\hat{p})$,
1500: with Wigner Weyl representation $A_{\tbox{WW}}(x,p)$ and $B_{\tbox{WW}}(x,p)$
1501: we have the exact identity
1502: %
1503: \be{0}
1504: \trc(\hat{A}\hat{B}) = \int \frac{dxdp}{2\pi}
1505: A_{\tbox{WW}}(x,p) B_{\tbox{WW}}(x,p)
1506: \ee
1507: %
1508: If we can justify the replacement
1509: of $A_{\tbox{WW}}(x,p)$ by $A(x,p)$
1510: and $B_{\tbox{WW}}(x,p)$ by $B(x,p)$
1511: then we get QCC.
1512: The rule of the thumb is that in order to justify such
1513: an approximation the phase space contours of $A(x,p)$
1514: and $B(x,p)$ should be significantly different.
1515: Otherwise the transverse structure of the Wigner-Weyl
1516: functions should be taken into account.
1517: This reasoning can be regarded as a phase space
1518: version of the stationary phase approximation.
1519:
1520:
1521: Let $\hat{A}=[H(\hat{x},\hat{p})]^r$ the $r$th
1522: power of the Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}=H(\hat{x},\hat{p})$,
1523: and let $\hat{B}=\rho(H_0(\hat{x},\hat{p}))$
1524: a stationary preparation
1525: with the Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}_0=H_0(\hat{x},\hat{p})$.
1526: In such case $\trc(\hat{A}\hat{B})$
1527: is the $r$th moment $\langle \mathcal{H}^r \rangle$
1528: of the energy. If $H=H_0+\lambda V$,
1529: and $\lambda$ is not large enough,
1530: then we do not have detailed QCC.
1531: This is discussed throughly in Ref.\cite{lds}.
1532: But at the same time, irrespective of $\lambda$,
1533: restricted QCC is robust.
1534: The reason is that for the first two moments
1535: we have the identities
1536: %
1537: \be{0}
1538: \langle \mathcal{H} \rangle &=&
1539: \langle \mathcal{H}_0 \rangle + \langle \hat{V} \rangle
1540: \\
1541: \langle \mathcal{H}^2 \rangle &=&
1542: \langle \mathcal{H}_0^2 \rangle
1543: + 2\langle\mathcal{H}_0 \rangle \langle \hat{V} \rangle
1544: + \langle \hat{V}^2 \rangle
1545: \ee
1546: %
1547: Thus the calculation of $\trc(\hat{A}\hat{B})$
1548: with $\hat{A}=[H(\hat{x},\hat{p})]^r$ reduces
1549: to the calculation of $\trc(\hat{A}\hat{B})$
1550: with $\hat{A}=[V(\hat{x},\hat{p})]^r$.
1551: We assume that $V$ and $H$ are not related
1552: in any special way. It follows that
1553: we have robust QCC for all the moments
1554: of $V$, and consequently also for the
1555: first two moments of $H$, irrespective of $\lambda$.
1556:
1557:
1558: In order to generalize the above reasoning to
1559: time dependent Hamiltonians, it is convenient
1560: to adopt the Heisenberg picture.
1561: Given that the system is prepared in a stationary state at $t=0$,
1562: one can prove that
1563: %
1564: \be{0}
1565: \langle\mathcal{H}(t)^2\rangle_0-\langle\mathcal{H}(0)^2\rangle_0
1566: = \langle(\mathcal{H}(t)-\mathcal{H}(0))^2\rangle_0
1567: \ee
1568: %
1569: where $\mathcal{H}(t)$ is the Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}(X(t))$
1570: in the {\em Heisenberg picture}. Such relation cannot not
1571: be generalized to higher moments because of lack of
1572: commutativity. Using
1573: %
1574: \be{0}
1575: \frac{d\mathcal{H}}{dt}
1576: \ \ = \ \frac{\partial\mathcal{H}}{\partial t}
1577: \ \ = \ \ \dot{X}\hat{V}(t)
1578: \ee
1579: %
1580: where $V \equiv \partial \mathcal{H} / \partial X$,
1581: we can express ${ \langle(\mathcal{H}(t)-\mathcal{H}(0))^r\rangle_0 }$
1582: as an integral over the correlation functions of the perturbation~$V(t)$.
1583: The QCC for these correlation functions is robust,
1584: and hence the QCC for the second moment is also robust.
1585:
1586:
1587: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1588: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1589: \clearpage
1590:
1591: \ack
1592:
1593: We thank Tsachy Holovinger for preparing the first version
1594: of the ``moving wall" simulation. AS thanks V. Goland for
1595: fruitful discussions that helped solving the "Bloch electrons"
1596: problem. The research was supported
1597: by the Israel Science Foundation (grant No.11/02),
1598: and by a grant from the DIP, the Deutsch-Israelische Projektkooperation.
1599:
1600:
1601: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1602: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1603: \Bibliography{99}
1604:
1605:
1606: \bibitem{qkr}
1607: S. Fishman, D.R. Grempel and R.E. Prange,
1608: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 49}, 509 (1982).
1609: D.R. Grempel, R.E. Prange and S. Fishman, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 29}, 1639 (1984).
1610:
1611: \bibitem{lrt}
1612: D. Cohen and T. Kottos,
1613: J. Phys. A {\bf 36}, 10151 (2003).
1614:
1615: \bibitem{doescher}
1616: S.W. Doescher and M.H. Rice,
1617: Am. J. Phys. {\bf 37}, 1246 (1969)
1618:
1619: \bibitem{makovski}
1620: A.J. Makovski and S.T. Demebinski,
1621: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 56}, 290
1622: (1986)
1623:
1624: \bibitem{jose}
1625: J. V. José, R. Cordery,
1626: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 56}, 290–293 (1986)
1627:
1628: \bibitem{prm}
1629: D.Cohen, A. Barnett and E.J. Heller,
1630: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 63}, 46207 (2001)
1631:
1632: \bibitem{wld}
1633: D. Cohen, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 65}, 026218 (2002). Section VIII.
1634:
1635:
1636: % Bloch electrons in a constant electric field
1637:
1638: \bibitem{wannier}
1639: G. H. Wannier,
1640: Phys. Rev. {\bf 117}, 432 (1960)
1641:
1642: \bibitem{zak-1968}
1643: J. Zak,
1644: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 20}, 1477 (1968)
1645:
1646: \bibitem{zak-1968-168}
1647: J. Zak,
1648: Phys. Rev. {\bf 168}, 686 (1968)
1649:
1650: \bibitem{rabinovitch-zak-1972}
1651: A. Rabinovitch and J. Zak,
1652: Phys. Lett. {\bf 40A}, 189 (1972)
1653:
1654: \bibitem{rabinovitch-1977}
1655: A. Rabinovitch,
1656: Phys. Lett. {\bf 59A}, 475 (1977)
1657:
1658: \bibitem{emin-hart-1987}
1659: D. Emin and C.F. Hart,
1660: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 36}, 7353 (1987)
1661:
1662: \bibitem{hart-1988}
1663: C.F. Hart,
1664: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 38}, 2158 (1988)
1665:
1666: \bibitem{hart-emin-1988}
1667: C.F. Hart and D. Emin,
1668: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 37}, 6100 (1988)
1669:
1670: \bibitem{Mendez-1988}
1671: E.E. Mendez, F. Agullo-Rueda, and J.M. Hong,
1672: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 60}, 2426 (1988)
1673:
1674: \bibitem{zak-1991}
1675: J. Zak,
1676: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 43}, 4519 (1991)
1677:
1678: \bibitem{leo-1991}
1679: J. Leo and A. MacKinnon,
1680: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 43}, 5166 (1991)
1681:
1682: \bibitem{zak-1996}
1683: J. Zak,
1684: J. Phys.: Condens. Matter {\bf 8}, 8265 (1996)
1685:
1686:
1687:
1688:
1689:
1690:
1691: \bibitem{locGT}
1692: Y. Gefen and D. J. Thouless,
1693: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 59}, 1752 (1987).
1694:
1695: \bibitem{wilk}
1696: M. Wilkinson,
1697: J. Phys. A {\bf 21} (1988) 4021.
1698:
1699: \bibitem{pmc}
1700: D. Cohen,
1701: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 68}, 155303 (2003).
1702:
1703: \bibitem{frc}
1704: D. Cohen,
1705: Annals of Physics {\bf 283}, 175 (2000).
1706:
1707: \bibitem{kamenev}
1708: A. Kamenev and Y. Gefen,
1709: Int. J. Mod. Phys. {\bf B9}, 751 (1995).
1710:
1711: \bibitem{dsp}
1712: D. Cohen, quant-ph/0403061, published in "Dynamics of Dissipation", Proceedings
1713: of
1714: the 38th Karpacz Winter School of Theoretical Physics,
1715: Edited by P. Garbaczewski and R. Olkiewicz (Springer, 2002).
1716:
1717: \bibitem{crs}
1718: D. Cohen,
1719: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 4951 (1999).
1720:
1721: \bibitem{rsp}
1722: D. Cohen and T. Kottos,
1723: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 4839 (2000).
1724:
1725: \bibitem{lds}
1726: D. Cohen and T. Kottos,
1727: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 63}, 36203 (2001).
1728:
1729:
1730: \end{thebibliography}
1731:
1732:
1733:
1734:
1735: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1736: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1737: %%% Figures
1738:
1739: \clearpage
1740:
1741:
1742:
1743: %%%%%%%%
1744: %%%%%%%%
1745: %%%%%%%%
1746: \mpg{
1747:
1748: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1749: \putgraph[width=0.5\hsize]{step_pic}
1750: \hfill
1751: \putgraph[width=0.3\hsize]{step_phase}
1752:
1753: {\footnotesize {\bf Fig.1:}
1754: (a) Left panel: Picture of the potential. Before $t{=}0$ the potential is zero
1755: (dashed line). After~$t{=}0$ the potential is the step function (solid line).
1756: %
1757: (b) Right panel: Phase space picture. Before $t{=}0$ there is no potential and the
1758: momentum is constant (dashed line). The piece of the distribution that has
1759: passed $x{=}0$ after $t{=}0$ is boosted with $\delta E_{\tbox{cl}} = -V_{\tbox{step}}$.}
1760:
1761:
1762: \ \\
1763:
1764:
1765:
1766: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1767: \putgraph[width=0.5\hsize]{well_pic}
1768: \hfill
1769: \putgraph[width=0.3\hsize]{well_phase}
1770:
1771: {\footnotesize {\bf Fig.2:}
1772: %
1773: (a) Left panel: Potential well. The right wall is moving
1774: with a constant velocity $V_{\tbox{wall}}$.
1775: %
1776: (b)~Right panel: Phase space picture. If the wall were not moving,
1777: the distribution would evolve along the dashed line.
1778: If $V_{\tbox{wall}}$ is non zero, an energy
1779: jump $\delta E_{\tbox{cl}} = -2\mass v_{\tbox{E}} V_{\tbox{wall}}$
1780: is associated with the collision, and one obtains
1781: the distribution which is illustrated by the solid line.}
1782:
1783:
1784: \ \\
1785:
1786:
1787: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1788: \putgraph[width=0.25\hsize]{ring_pic}
1789: \hfill
1790: \putgraph[width=0.35\hsize]{ring_phase}
1791:
1792: {\footnotesize {\bf Fig.3:}
1793: %
1794: (a) Left panel: Ring with EMF.
1795: %
1796: (b) Right panel: Phase space picture. Without the EMF
1797: the momentum is a constant of the motion (dashed line).
1798: Else an energy jump $\delta E_{\tbox{cl}} = eV_{\tbox{EMF}}$
1799: is associated with each crossing of the EMF step.
1800: The emerging phase space distribution is illustrated
1801: by the solid line.}
1802:
1803:
1804:
1805: }
1806: %%%%%%%%
1807: %%%%%%%%
1808: %%%%%%%%
1809:
1810:
1811:
1812:
1813:
1814: %%%%%%%%
1815: %%%%%%%%
1816: %%%%%%%%
1817: \mpg{
1818:
1819:
1820:
1821: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1822: \putgraph[width=0.45\hsize]{well_qm_levels}
1823: \hfill
1824: \putgraph[width=0.45\hsize]{ring_qm_levels}
1825:
1826: {\footnotesize {\bf Fig.4:}
1827: %
1828: (a) Left panel: The energy levels
1829: of a one dimensional box as a function of its width $L(t)$.
1830: For the purpose of comparison with other figures $L(t)$ is
1831: decreasing as we go to the right (the box becomes smaller)
1832: so the levels are going up. The solid line
1833: illustrates adiabatic dynamics, while the "jumps"
1834: illustrate semiclassical dynamics.
1835: %
1836: (b) Right panel: The energy levels of a one dimensional ring
1837: as a function of the Aharonov-Bohm flux.
1838: The solid line illustrates diabatic dynamics,
1839: while the "jumps" illustrate semiclassical dynamics.
1840: The dashed line illustrates adiabatic dynamics.}
1841:
1842:
1843:
1844: \ \\ \ \\
1845:
1846:
1847:
1848: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1849: \putgraph[width=0.8\hsize]{ring_scales}
1850:
1851: {\footnotesize {\bf Fig.5:}
1852: The three regimes in the EMF driven ring problem. See text.}
1853:
1854: \ \\ \ \\
1855:
1856:
1857:
1858: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1859: \putgraph[width=0.45\hsize]{bloch_sites}
1860:
1861: {\footnotesize {\bf Fig.6:}
1862: The unidirectional oscillations of
1863: Bloch electrons with $\propto 1/(n-m)$ hopping:
1864: As the wavepaket slides to the right
1865: it shrinks, while being re-injected on the left,
1866: where it re-emerges. This should be contrasted
1867: with conventional bi-directional oscillations
1868: of Bloch electrons with nearest neighbor hopping.}
1869:
1870:
1871:
1872:
1873: }
1874: %%%%%%%
1875: %%%%%%%
1876: %%%%%%%
1877:
1878:
1879:
1880:
1881:
1882: \clearpage
1883:
1884:
1885:
1886: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1887: \mpg{
1888: \putgraph[width=0.45\hsize]{step_cl_plot}
1889: \hfill
1890: \putgraph[width=0.45\hsize]{step_qm_plot}
1891:
1892: {\footnotesize {\bf Fig.7:}
1893: (a) Left panel: The classical energy distribution Eq.(\ref{e16})
1894: some time after a step potential is turned on.
1895: In this illustration $V_{\tbox{step}}{<}0$.
1896: (b) Right panel: the corresponding quantum mechanical
1897: energy distribution calculated with Eq.(\ref{e18}).}
1898:
1899: }
1900:
1901: \ \\
1902:
1903:
1904:
1905: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1906: \mpg{
1907: \putgraph[width=0.45\hsize]{well_1-3}
1908: \hfill
1909: \putgraph[width=0.45\hsize]{well_3-3}
1910:
1911:
1912: {\footnotesize {\bf Fig.8:}
1913: Density plots of the probability distribution as a
1914: function of time for the moving wall problem.
1915: {\bf (a)}~Left panel: Adiabatic regime. The probability stays
1916: at the same level. In order to clarify the connection
1917: with Fig.~4a we have added an~$E$ axis.
1918: The constant energy dashed lines are for guiding the eye.
1919: The populated adiabatic level goes up in energy which
1920: implies that the particle is steadily increasing its energy.
1921: %
1922: {\bf (b)}~Right panel: semiclassical regime.
1923: The probability jumps in energy space.
1924: Note that with respect to the $E$~axis we
1925: have the steps of Fig.~4a.
1926: The parameters of these simulations
1927: were ${L {=} \mass {=} \hbar {=} 1}$
1928: and $V_{\tbox{wall}} {=} 0.1\pi$ for~(a)
1929: and $V_{\tbox{wall}} {=} 5\pi$ for~(b).
1930: Note that for $n {=} 50$ the classical period
1931: is $\tau_{\tbox{cl}} {=} 0.0127$. The vertical
1932: dashed lines indicate two representative
1933: times $t {=} \tau_{\tbox{cl}}$
1934: and $t {=} 1.5\tau_{\tbox{cl}}$. }
1935:
1936: }
1937:
1938: \ \\
1939:
1940:
1941: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1942: \mpg{
1943: \putgraph[width=0.45\hsize]{well_31-2}
1944: \hfill
1945: \putgraph[width=0.45\hsize]{well_32-2}
1946:
1947: {\footnotesize {\bf Fig.9:}
1948: Plots of the probability distribution $|a_n|^2$
1949: at the two representative times that were indicated
1950: by the vertical dashed lines in the previous figure.
1951: In the classical limit the energy distribution
1952: consists of delta peaks instead of broadened peaks,
1953: in complete analogy with Fig.~7.}
1954:
1955: }
1956:
1957:
1958: \ \\ \ \\
1959:
1960:
1961: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1962: \mpg{
1963: \noindent
1964: \putgraph[width=0.45\hsize]{ring_3-3}
1965: \hfill
1966: \putgraph[width=0.45\hsize]{bloch_plot}
1967:
1968: {\footnotesize {\bf Fig.10:}
1969: (a) Density plots of the probability distribution
1970: as a function of time for the EMF driven ring problem.
1971: See the caption of Fig~8 for presentation details.
1972: The parameters are $L = \mass = \hbar = e = 1$
1973: with $V_{\tbox{EMF}}=588840$.
1974: Note that for $n=50$ the classical period
1975: is $\tau_{\tbox{cl}}=0.00021$.
1976: This is approximately the same as solving the wavepacket
1977: dynamics for Bloch electron in electric field
1978: Eq.(\ref{e24}) with $\alpha=93717$ and $\varepsilon=31416$.
1979: (b)~Wavepacket dynamics for Bloch electron in electric
1980: field with near-neighbor hopping.
1981: The parameters are $\mass =\hbar = e = 1$
1982: with $\alpha=14139$ and $\varepsilon=3141.6$.}
1983:
1984: }
1985:
1986:
1987: \ \\ \ \\
1988:
1989:
1990:
1991:
1992: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1993: \mpg{
1994: \noindent \putgraph[width=0.45\hsize]{bloch_1} \hfill
1995: \putgraph[width=0.45\hsize]{bloch_2} \hfill
1996: \putgraph[width=0.45\hsize]{bloch_3} \hfill
1997: \putgraph[width=0.45\hsize]{bloch_4}
1998:
1999:
2000: {\footnotesize {\bf Fig.11:}
2001: Plots of the probability distribution $|a_n|^2$
2002: at representative times (as indicated).
2003: The solid lines are the solution of Eq.(\ref{e24})
2004: for Bloch electrons, while the dotted lines
2005: are the exact numerical solutions for
2006: the EMF driven ring, taking into account
2007: the quadratic (rather than linear) dependence
2008: of the eigen-energies on $\Phi$. }
2009:
2010: }
2011:
2012:
2013:
2014:
2015: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2016: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2017: \end{document}
2018: