1:
2: \documentclass[epj,twocolumn,floatfix,final]{svjour}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4:
5: %\documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{iopart} %\usepackage{amssymb,graphicx,cite}
6: %\eqnobysec %\begin{document}
7:
8:
9: %LATEX FILE OF MANUSCRIPT
10: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
11:
12:
13:
14: %LATEX file of the manuscript
15:
16: %\documentclass[preprint,eqsecnum,aps,epsf]{revtex4} % PH. REV.
17: %\documentclass[eqsecnum,aps,twocolumn,epsf,showpacs]{revtex4} % PH. REV.
18: %\documentclass[aps,twocolumn,epsf,showpacs,floatfix]{revtex4} % PH. REV.
19: %\documentclass[debug,overfull]{epl} % PH. REV.
20: %\usepackage{graphicx}
21: %\usepackage{amsmath}
22: %\usepackage{mymacros}
23: %\documentclass[eqsecnum,aps,twocolumn]{revtex4} % PH. REV.
24:
25: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{.89}
26:
27:
28: %\documentstyle[aps,epsf]{revtex}
29: %\documentstyle[eqsecnum,aps,epsf]{revtex}
30: %%% <<< epsf commands in the next two lines >>>
31: %\newcommand{\postscript}[2] {\setlength{\epsfxsize}{#2\hsize}
32: %\centerline{\epsfbox{#1}}}
33:
34:
35:
36: %\documentstyle[eqsecnum,aps,epsf]{revtex} % PH. REV. FINAL FORMAT STYLE
37: %\documentstyle[aps,epsf]{revtex} % PH. REV. FINAL FORMAT STYLE
38: %%% <<< epsf commands in the next two lines >>>
39: %\newcommand{\postscript}[2] {\setlength{\epsfxsize}{#2\hsize}
40: %\centerline{\epsfbox{#1}}}
41:
42: %\documentstyle[preprint,aps]{revtex}
43: %\documentstyle[eqsecnum,aps]{revtex}
44: %\documentstyle[aps]{revtex}
45: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{.945}
46:
47: \begin{document}
48:
49: %\twocolumn[\hsize\textwidth\columnwidth\hsize\csname@twocolumnfalse\endcsname
50:
51: %\title[Jet formation in a collapsing Bose-Einstein condensate]{Mean-field
52: %model of jet formation in a collapsing Bose-Einstein condensate}
53:
54: \title{Bright solitons and soliton trains in a fermion-fermion mixture}
55:
56:
57: \author{Sadhan K. Adhikari\thanks{e-mail: adhikari@ift.unesp.br}}
58: %\affiliation{Instituto de F\'{\i}sica Te\'orica, Universidade Estadual
59: %Paulista, 01.405-900 S\~ao Paulo, S\~ao Paulo, Brazil}
60: %\address{Instituto de F\'{\i}sica Te\'orica, Universidade Estadual
61: %Paulista, 01.405-900 S\~ao Paulo, S\~ao Paulo, Brazil}
62: \institute{Instituto de F\'{\i}sica Te\'orica, UNESP $-$ S\~ao Paulo State
63: University, 01.405-900 S\~ao Paulo, S\~ao Paulo, Brazil}
64:
65:
66:
67: \date{\today}
68:
69: \abstract{We use a time-dependent dynamical mean-field-hydrodynamic
70: model to predict and study bright solitons in a degenerate
71: fermion-fermion mixture in a quasi-one-dimensional cigar-shaped geometry
72: using variational and numerical methods.
73: Due to a strong Pauli-blocking repulsion among identical spin-polarized
74: fermions at short distances there cannot be bright solitons for
75: repulsive interspecies fermion-fermion interactions. However,
76: stable bright solitons can be formed for a sufficiently
77: attractive interspecies interaction. We perform a
78: numerical stability analysis of these solitons and also demonstrate the
79: formation of soliton trains. These fermionic solitons can be formed and
80: studied in laboratory with present technology.}
81:
82:
83:
84: %\PACS{{45.05.+x}{General theory of classical mechanics of discrete
85: %systems} \and {05.45.-a}{Nonlinear dynamics and chaos} \and
86: %{03.75.Hh}{Static properties of condensates; thermodynamical,
87: %statistical, and structural properties}}
88:
89:
90: %\maketitle
91:
92: \PACS{{03.75.Ss}{Degenerate Fermi gases} \and {05.45.Yv}{Solitons} }
93:
94:
95:
96: \authorrunning{S. K. Adhikari}
97: \titlerunning{Bright solitons and soliton trains in a fermion-fermion
98: mixture}
99: \maketitle
100:
101: Recent observations \cite{exp1,exp2,exp3,exp4} and associated
102: experimental \cite{exp5,exp5x,exp6} and theoretical
103: \cite{yyy1,yyy,capu,capu1,ska} studies
104: of a degenerate Fermi gas (DFG) by
105: sympathetic cooling in
106: the presence of a second boson or fermion component suggest the
107: possibility of soliton formation.
108: Apart from the observation of a DFG in the following
109: degenerate boson-fermion
110: mixtures (DBFM)
111: $^{6,7}$Li
112: \cite{exp3}, $^{23}$Na-$^6$Li \cite{exp4} and $^{87}$Rb-$^{40}$K
113: \cite{exp5,exp5x}, there have been studies of degenerate
114: spin-polarized fermion-fermion
115: mixtures (DFFM)
116: $^{40}$K-$^{40}$K \cite{exp1} and $^6$Li-$^6$Li \cite{exp2}.
117:
118: Bright solitons in a Bose-Einstein condensate
119: (BEC) are formed due to an attractive nonlinear atomic
120: interaction \cite{exdks}. As the interaction in a pure DFG at short
121: distances is
122: repulsive due to strong Pauli blocking, there cannot be bright solitons in
123: a DFG.
124: However, it has been demonstrated \cite{fbs1,fbs2} that bright solitons
125: can be
126: formed in a DBFM in the presence of a sufficiently strong
127: boson-fermion attraction which can overcome the Pauli repulsion among
128: identical fermions.
129:
130:
131:
132: We demonstrate the formation of stable fermionic bright solitons in a DFFM
133: for a sufficiently attractive interspecies fermion-fermion interaction.
134: In a DFFM, the coupled system can lower its energy by forming high density
135: regions, the bright solitons, when the attraction between the two types of
136: fermions is large enough to overcome the Pauli repulsion among identical
137: fermions. We use a coupled time-dependent mean-field-hydrodynamic model
138: for a DFFM and consider the formation of axially-free localized bright
139: solitons in a quasi-one-dimensional cigar-shaped geometry using numerical
140: and variational solutions. The present model is inspired by the success
141: of a similar model suggested recently by the present author in the
142: investigation of collapse \cite{ska} and bright \cite{fbs2} and dark
143: \cite{fds} solitons in a DBFM. We study the condition of modulational
144: instability of a constant-amplitude solution in this model and demonstrate
145: the possibility of the formation of bright solitons. We also present a
146: numerical stability analysis of these robust bright solitons and consider
147: the formation of a soliton train in a DFFM by a large sudden jump in the
148: interspecies fermion-fermion scattering length near a Feshbach resonance,
149: experimentally observed in both $^6$Li-$^6$Li and $^{40}$K-$^{40}$K
150: \cite{fesh}.
151:
152:
153:
154:
155: We use a simplified mean-field-hydrodynamic Lagran\-gian for
156: a DFG used successfully to study a DBFM
157: \cite{ska,fbs2,fds}.
158: The virtue of the
159: mean-field model over a microscopic description is its simplicity and
160: predictive power.
161: To develop a set of time-dependent
162: mean-field-hydrodynamic
163: equations for the interacting DFFM, we use the
164: following Lagrangian density \cite{ska,fbs2}
165: \begin{eqnarray}\label{yy} &{\cal
166: L}&= g_{12}n_1n_2+\sum_{j=1}^2
167: \frac{i}{2}\hbar \left[ \psi_j\frac{\partial {\psi_j} ^*}{\partial
168: t} - {\psi_j}^* \frac{\partial \psi_j}{\partial t} \right]
169: \nonumber \\
170: &+& \sum_{j=1}^2
171: \left(\frac{\hbar^2 |\nabla_{\bf r} \psi_j|^2 }{6m_j}+
172: V_j({\bf r})n_j+\frac{3}{5} A_j n_j^{5/3}\right),
173: \end{eqnarray}
174: where $j=1,2$ represents the two components, $\psi_j$ the
175: complex probability
176: amplitude, $n_j=|\psi_j| ^2$ the real probability
177: density,
178: $^*$ denotes complex conjugate, $m_j$ the
179: mass,
180: $A_j=\hbar^2(6\pi^2)^{2/3}\- \- /(2m_i),$
181: the interspecies coupling
182: $g_{12}=2\pi \hbar^2 a_{12}
183: /m_R$
184: with $m_R=m_1m_2/(m_1+m_2)$ the reduced mass, and
185: $ a_{12}$
186: the interspecies
187: fermion-fermion scattering length.
188: The
189: number of fermionic atoms $N_j$
190: is given by $\int d{\bf r} n_j({\bf r})=N_j$.
191: The trap potential with axial symmetry is $
192: V_{j}({\bf
193: r})=\frac{1}{2}m_j \omega ^2 (\rho^2+\nu^2 z^2)$ where
194: $\omega$ and $\nu \omega$ are the angular frequencies in the radial
195: ($\rho$) and axial ($z$) directions with $\nu$ the anisotropy.
196: The interaction between identical intra-species fermions in
197: spin-polarized state is highly suppressed due
198: to Pauli blocking terms $3A_jn_j^{5/3}/5$
199: and has been neglected in Eq. (\ref{yy}). The
200: kinetic energy terms $\hbar^2|\nabla_{\bf r}\psi_j|^2/(6m_j)$
201: in Eq. (\ref{yy})
202: contribute little to this problem compared to the
203: dominating Pauli-blocking terms.
204: However, its inclusion leads
205: to an analytic solution for the probability density everywhere
206: \cite{fbs2}.
207:
208:
209:
210: With the Lagrangian density (\ref{yy}), the following Euler-Lagrange
211: equations can be derived in a
212: straight-forward fashion
213: \cite{ska,fbs2}: \begin{eqnarray}\label{e} \biggr[
214: i\hbar\frac{\partial }{\partial t} +\frac{\hbar^2\nabla_{\bf
215: r}^2}{6m_{{j}}} - V_{{j}} - A_jn_j^{2/3}-
216: g_{{12}}
217: n_k
218: \biggr]\psi_j=0,
219: \end{eqnarray}
220: where $j\ne k = 1,2$. This is essentially a time-dependent version of a
221: similar time-independent model used recently for fermions \cite{capu}.
222: For large $n_j$, both lead to the
223: Thomas-Fermi result $n_j=[(\mu_j-V_j)/A_j]^{3/2}$ \cite{capu,ska}
224: with $\mu_j$ the chemical potential.
225: As the bright solitons of this
226: rapid note are stationary states, they could be obtained by
227: the time-independent approach used in Ref. \cite{capu}. The stationary
228: approach of Ref. \cite{capu} has passed
229: rigorous tests of comparison of the hydrodynamic-mean-field
230: spectra of localized fermions with the spectra calculated in the
231: collisionless regime within the random-phase approximation (RPA). The
232: results of
233: mixing-demixing and collapse of the hydrodynamic approach are in agreement
234: with the RPA analysis \cite{capu1}. The detailed behavior of collective
235: excitation of trapped fermions has also been found to agree with that
236: obtained by
237: an RPA analysis \cite{capu}. For a description of stationary
238: solitons (e.g., of
239: Fig. 1) we could have used the well-established formulation of
240: Ref. \cite{capu} to obtain identical results, as
241: the present time-dependent dynamical description
242: and the time-independent approach of \cite{capu} yield
243: identical results
244: for stationary states. However, we shall be using the present
245: time-dependent dynamical formulation to study the nonequilibrium
246: generation soliton
247: trains, in addition.
248:
249:
250:
251:
252:
253:
254:
255: We reduce three-dimensional Eqs. (\ref{e}) to a minimal
256: quasi-one-dimensional form
257: in a cigar-shaped geometry
258: with $\nu << 1$, where
259: the radial motion is frozen in the ground state of the harmonic trap and
260: the dynamics is carried by the axial motion.
261: For radially-bound and axially-free solitons we eventually set
262: $\nu =0$.
263: Following Ref. \cite{fbs2} this reduction can be done
264: in a
265: straight-forward fashion and we quote the final results here:
266: \begin{eqnarray}\label{m} \biggr[ i\frac{\partial
267: }{\partial \tau}
268: +\frac{\partial ^2}{\partial y^2}
269: -
270: N_{jj}
271: \left|{{\phi}_j}\right|^{4/3}
272: +N_{jk}
273: \left|{{\phi}_k}\right|^2
274: \biggr]{\phi}_{{j}}({y},\tau)=0,
275: \end{eqnarray}
276: where $\phi_j, j\ne k=1,2$ represents the two solitons, $\tau =t
277: \omega/2$, $y=z/l$,
278: $N_{jj}=9(6\pi N_j)^{2/3}/5, $
279: $N_{jk}=12|a_{12}|N_k/l,$ $l=\sqrt{\hbar/(\omega m)}$, with
280: $m=3m_1=3m_2$. Here we employ
281: equal-mass fermions,
282: a negative $a_{12}$ corresponding to
283: attraction, and normalization
284: $\int_{-\infty}^\infty |\phi_j(y,\tau)|^2 dy =1 .$
285: In Eqs. (\ref{m})
286: a sufficiently strong
287: attractive fermion-fermion coupling
288: $N_{jk}|\phi_k|^2 (j\ne k)$ can overcome the Pauli
289: repulsion $N_{jj}|\phi_j|^{4/3}$
290: and form bright solitons.
291:
292: \begin{figure}%[!ht]
293:
294: \begin{center}
295: \includegraphics[width=.9\linewidth]{fig1.ps}
296: \end{center}
297:
298: \caption{(Color online) The
299: solitons $|\phi_j(y)|$ of Eq. (\ref{m})
300: vs. $y$ (in dimensionless units)
301: for
302: $N_1=44$, $N_2=56$, $a_{12}=-0.3 $ nm, while
303: $N_{11} \approx 159 $, $N_{12}\approx 203$, $N_{21}\approx 160$, and
304: $N_{22}\approx 187$.
305: The variational $(\varphi_v)$ and numerical
306: $(\varphi)$ solutions of
307: Eq. (\ref{o})
308: for $N_1=N_2=50$ are also shown.
309: } \end{figure}
310:
311:
312: \begin{figure}%[!ht]
313:
314: \begin{center}
315: \includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{fig2a.ps}
316: \includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{fig2b.ps}
317: \end{center}
318:
319: \caption{(Color online) The propagation of fermionic
320: solitons (a) $|\phi_1(z,t)|$ and (b) $|\phi_2(z,t)|$ of Fig. 1
321: vs. $z$ and $t$.
322: At
323: $t=100$ ms (marked by arrows) the bright solitons are set into small
324: breathing oscillation by suddenly changing $N_1=44$ and $N_2=56$
325: to $N_2=44$, $N_1=56$.} \end{figure}
326:
327:
328:
329: Now we perform a
330: stability analysis of constant-ampli\-tude
331: solutions of Eqs. (\ref{m})
332: and study the
333: possibility of generation
334: of solitons
335: in the symmetric case: $N_1=N_2$, when
336: $\phi_1=\phi_2 \equiv \varphi$ and these equations reduce to
337: \begin{eqnarray}\label{o} \biggr[ i\frac{\partial
338: }{\partial \tau}
339: + \frac{\partial ^2}{\partial y^2}
340: - \beta
341: \left|{\varphi}\right|^{4/3}
342: +\gamma
343: \left|{{\varphi}}\right|^2
344: \biggr]{\varphi}({y},\tau)=0,
345: \end{eqnarray}
346: where $\beta=N_{11}=N_{22}$ and $\gamma=N_{12}=N_{21}$.
347: We consider the
348: constant-amplitude solution \cite{1}
349: $\varphi_0=A_0
350: \exp(i\delta) \equiv A_0 \exp [i(\gamma A_0^2 \tau -\beta A_0^{4/3}
351: \tau)]$ of Eq. (\ref{o})
352: under small perturbation: $\varphi=(A_0+ A)\exp(i \delta)$,
353: where $A=A(y, \tau)$ and $A_0$ the amplitude. Substituting this
354: perturbed solution in Eq. (\ref{o}), and for small perturbations retaining
355: only the linear terms in $A$ we get
356: \begin{eqnarray}\label{p} i\frac{\partial A
357: }{\partial \tau}
358: + \frac{\partial ^2 A}{\partial y^2}
359: - \frac{2}{3} \beta A_0^{4/3}(A+A^*)
360: +\gamma A_0^2 (A+A^*)=0.
361: \end{eqnarray}
362: We consider the plane-wave
363: perturbation $A(y,\tau)=
364: A_1 \- \cos (K\tau -\Omega y)+i A_2 \sin (K\tau -\Omega y)$ in Eq.
365: (\ref{p}). Then separating the real and imaginary terms and
366: eliminating $A_1$ and $A_2$ we obtain the dispersion
367: relation
368: $K=\pm \Omega [\Omega^2$ $-(2\gamma A_0^2 -4\beta
369: A_0^{4/3}/3)]^{1/2}.$
370: For stability of the plane-wave perturbation,
371: $K$ has to be real. This happens for
372: $2\gamma A_0^2 < 4\beta A_0^{4/3}/3$ or $\gamma A_0^{2/3}
373: < 2\beta /3$. However, $K$ can become imaginary for
374: $\gamma A_0^{2/3}
375: > 2\beta /3$ and the plane-wave perturbations can grow exponentially
376: with time $\tau$. This is the domain of modulational instability
377: of a constant-intensity solution, signalling a tendency of
378: spatially localized bright
379: solitons to appear. We also performed this analysis
380: in the case of
381: non-symmetric coupled equations (\ref{m}) and quote the
382: result here. The
383: condition for instability is
384: $N_{12}N_{21}A_{10}^{2/3}A_{20}^{2/3}> 4 N_{11}N_{22}/9$ \cite{shuk},
385: where $A_{10}$
386: and $A_{20}$ are the amplitudes of the two solutions.
387:
388:
389:
390:
391:
392: Next we present a
393: variational analysis of Eq. (\ref{o}) based on the
394: normalized Gaussian trial wave function \cite{and}
395: $\varphi_v(y,\tau)$ $ =\sqrt{1/[a(\tau)\sqrt
396: \pi]}\exp[-y^2/\{2a^2(\tau)\}+i
397: b(\tau)y^2/2]$, where $a$ is the width and $b$ the chirp.
398: The Lagrangian density for Eq. (\ref{o})
399: is the one-term version of Eq.
400: (\ref{yy}), which is evaluated with this
401: trial function and the effective
402: Lagrangian $L
403: =\int_{-\infty}^\infty {\cal L}(\varphi_v)dy$ becomes
404: \begin{equation}
405: L =\frac{a^2}{4}\biggr(
406: \dot b+\frac{2}{a^4}+2b^2 -\frac{\sqrt 2}{\sqrt \pi} \frac{\gamma
407: }{a^3}+ \frac{12 \sqrt
408: 3}
409: {5\sqrt 5}\frac{\beta }{\pi ^{1/3}a^{8/3}} \biggr).
410: \end{equation}
411: The variational Euler-Lagrangian
412: equations
413: for $a$ and $b$
414: can then be written and solved
415: in a standard fashion \cite{and} to
416: yield the differential equation for the width:
417: $d^2 a/d\tau^2 =
418: [4- a\gamma \sqrt{2/\pi}+a^{4/3}(8\beta \sqrt 3)/(5\pi^{1/3}
419: \sqrt5)]/a^3$. The variational result for width $a$ follows by setting the
420: right hand side of this equation to zero, from which the variational
421: profile for the soliton can be obtained \cite{and}.
422:
423:
424:
425:
426: We solve Eqs.
427: (\ref{m}) for bright solitons
428: numerically using a time-iteration
429: method based on the Crank-Nicholson discretization scheme
430: elaborated in Ref. \cite{sk1}
431: using time step $0.0002$ and space step $0.015$.
432: We perform a time evolution of Eqs. (\ref{m})
433: introducing an harmonic oscillator potential $y^2$
434: and setting the nonlinear terms to
435: zero, and
436: starting with the eigenfunction of the linear harmonic
437: oscillator problem.
438: %: $\phi_i(y,\tau)
439: %=
440: %\pi^{-1/4}\exp(-y^2/2)\exp(-i\tau).$
441: The extra
442: harmonic oscillator potential, which will be set equal to zero in the end,
443: only aids in starting the time evolution
444: with an exact analytic form.
445: During the time evolution the nonlinear
446: terms are switched on and the harmonic oscillator potential is
447: switched off slowly and
448: the time evolution continued to obtain the final converged
449: solutions.
450:
451:
452:
453: \begin{figure}%[!ht]
454:
455: \begin{center}
456: \includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{fig3a.ps}
457: \includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{fig3b.ps}
458: \end{center}
459:
460: \caption{(Color online) The propagation of fermionic
461: solitons (a) $|\phi_1(z,t)|$ and (b) $|\phi_2(z,t)|$
462: vs. $z$ and $t$. At $t=100$ ms (marked by arrows) the same initial
463: solitons of Figs. 1
464: are set into small
465: breathing oscillation by suddenly changing $\phi_1 \to 1.1 \phi_1$ and
466: $\phi_2 \to 0.9 \phi_2$. } \end{figure}
467:
468:
469:
470:
471:
472: In our numerical study we take $l=1$ $\mu$m and
473: consider a DFFM consisting of two electronic states of
474: $^{40}$K atoms. This corresponds to a radial
475: trap of frequency $\omega \approx 2\pi \times 83$ Hz.
476: Consequently, the unit of
477: time is $2/\omega \approx 4$ ms.
478:
479:
480:
481:
482: First we solve coupled Eqs. (\ref{m}) with
483: $N_1=44 , N_2= 56$, and $a_{12}=-0.3$ nm.
484: The soliton profile in this case is shown in Fig. 1, where we also plot
485: the variational and numerical solutions of Eq. (\ref{o})
486: for $N_1=N_2=50$. In this case in Eq. (\ref{o})
487: $\beta \approx 173$ and $\gamma \approx 181.6$
488: leading to a variational
489: width $a \approx 0.043$ and a variational soliton profile
490: $\varphi_v \approx 3.62\exp(-270y^2)$. The variational result agrees
491: well with the numerical solutions.
492:
493: At this stage it is pertinent to see if Friedel oscillations \cite{fri}
494: of density of the localized fermions are small so that the effective
495: description of the solitons is valid. An one-dimensional degenerate Fermi
496: gas of $N$ atoms filled up to Fermi sea has a spatial extension $2L_F= l
497: \sqrt{2N-1},$ where $l$ is a measure of confinement \cite{gle}. In the
498: presence of an harmonic trap, $l$ is the harmonic trap length and is
499: smaller than the spatial extension of the confined fermions. In the case
500: of the soliton of Fig. 2, a typical measure of $l$ could be 0.05 $\mu$m so
501: that for about 50 fermions considered here $2L_F = 0.5$ $\mu$m. The Fermi
502: momentum of an one-dimensional Fermi gas is $k_F=\pi N/(2L_F)$ \cite{gle}.
503: The spatial
504: wave-length of Friedel oscillation is \cite{gle} $\lambda=\pi/k_F=2L_F/N
505: \approx
506: 0.01$ $\mu$m, much smaller than the soliton width of 0.1 $\mu$m. This
507: qualitative analysis resulting in small Friedel oscillation
508: supports the effective description used this rapid note for a DFFM.
509:
510: To test the robustness of these solitons we
511: inflicted different perturbations on them and studied the resultant
512: dynamics numerically. First, after the formation of the solitons we
513: suddenly changed the fermion numbers from $N_1=44$ and $N_2= 56$ to
514: $N_1=56, N_2= 44$
515: at time $t= 100$ ms. This corresponds to a sudden
516: change
517: of nonlinearities from $N_{11}\approx 159 $, $N_{12}\approx
518: 203$, $N_{21}\approx
519: 160$, and $N_{22} \approx 187$ to
520: $N_{11}\approx 187 $, $N_{12}\approx 160$, $N_{21}\approx 203$, and
521: $N_{22} \approx 159$.
522: The resultant dynamics is
523: shown in Figs. 2 (a) and (b).
524: Due to
525: the sudden change in nonlinearities the fermionic bright
526: solitons are set into stable non-periodic small-amplitude
527: breathing oscillation.
528: Next on the same initial solitons of Figs. 2, at $t=100$ ms, we suddenly
529: inflict the perturbation $\phi_1 \to 1.1 \phi_1$ and $\phi_2 \to 0.9
530: \phi_2$ and follow numerically the time evolution.
531: The result of simulation is shown in Figs. 3 (a) and (b).
532: We find that the
533: solitons again continue non-periodic breathing oscillation and stabilize
534: at large times.
535: We also gave a small displacement between the
536: centers of these solitons.
537: We
538: find that after oscillation and dissipation the solitons again come back
539: to the stable configuration.
540:
541:
542:
543:
544:
545:
546:
547: \begin{figure}%[!ht]
548:
549: \begin{center}
550: \includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{fig4a.ps}
551: \includegraphics[width=.8\linewidth]{fig4b.ps}
552: \end{center}
553:
554: \caption{(Color online) Soliton trains of two and three solitons
555: formed upon removing the harmonic trap $y^2$ and
556: jumping the nonlinearities at
557: $t=0$ from $N_{jj}\approx 173, N_{jk}\approx 145,
558: k\ne j=1,2$ to (a) $N_{jj}\approx 173, N_{jk}\approx 273,
559: $ and to (b) $N_{jj}\approx 173, N_{jk} \approx 309,
560: $, respectively. } \end{figure}
561:
562:
563:
564:
565:
566:
567:
568: During the time evolution of Eqs. (\ref{m})
569: if the nonlinearities are changed
570: by a small amount or changed slowly, usually one gets a single stable
571: soliton when the final nonlinearities are appropriate.
572: However,
573: if the nonlinearities are jumped suddenly by a large amount, a
574: soliton train can be obtained as in the experiment with BEC \cite{exdks}.
575: To illustrate this we consider the solution of
576: Eqs. (\ref{m}) with nonlinearities
577: $N_{jj} \approx 173$ and $N_{jk}\approx 145,
578: j\ne k=1,2$
579: and harmonic oscillator trap $y^2$. After the formation of the solitons we
580: suddenly jump the off-diagonal nonlinearities
581: to
582: $N_{jk} \approx 273$ and also switch off the harmonic trap
583: at time
584: $t=0$. Then after
585: some initial noise and dissipation
586: the
587: time evolution of Eqs. (\ref{m}) generates two slowly receding
588: bright
589: solitons of each component
590: as shown in Fig. 4 (a).
591: More solitons can be generated when the jump in the nonlinearities is
592: larger. In Fig. 4 (b) we show the generation of three slowly receding
593: solitons of each component
594: upon a
595: sudden jump of the off-diagonal nonlinearities to
596: $N_{jk} \approx 309$ from the same initial state as in
597: Fig. 4 (a).
598: The formation of soliton trains from a stable initial state is due to
599: modulational instability \cite{1}.
600: The sudden jump in the off-diagonal nonlinearities could be
601: effected by a jump in the interspecies scattering length $a_{12}$ obtained
602: by
603: manipulating a background magnetic field near a
604: fermion-fermion Feshbach resonance \cite{fesh}.
605:
606:
607:
608:
609:
610:
611:
612:
613: In conclusion, we use a coupled
614: mean-field-hydrodyna\-mic model
615: for a DFFM to study the formation of bright
616: solitons and soliton trains in a quasi-one-dimensional geometry
617: by numerical and variational methods. We find
618: that an attractive
619: interspecies
620: interaction can overcome the Pauli
621: blocking repulsion and form
622: fermionic bright solitons in a DFFM.
623: The stability of the present solitons is
624: demonstrated numerically through
625: their sustained breathing oscillation
626: initiated by a sudden small
627: perturbation. We also illustrate the creation of soliton trains upon
628: a sudden large jump in off-diagonal
629: nonlinearities. Bright solitons and soliton trains
630: have
631: been created
632: experimentally in attractive
633: BECs in the presence of a radial trap only without
634: any
635: axial trap \cite{exdks}.
636: In view of this, fermionic
637: bright solitons and trains can be created in
638: laboratory in a DFFM in a quasi-one-dimensional configuration.
639: Here
640: we used a set of mean-field equations for
641: the DFFM.
642: A proper treatment of a DFG or DFFM should be done using a
643: fully
644: antisymmetrized many-body Slater determinant wave
645: function
646: \cite{yyy1,fbs1} as in the case of
647: scattering involving many electrons \cite{ps}. However, in
648: view of the success of a fermionic mean-field-hydrodynamic model in
649: studies of collapse \cite{ska}, bright \cite{fbs2} and dark solitons
650: \cite{fds}
651: in a DBFM, and of
652: mixing-demixing \cite{md} and black solitons \cite{lpl} in a DFFM,
653: we do
654: not believe that the present study on bright solitons in a DFFM to be so
655: peculiar as to have no general validity.
656:
657:
658:
659:
660:
661: %\acknowledgments
662:
663: The work is
664: supported in part by the CNPq and FAPESP
665: of Brazil.
666:
667:
668: %\section*{References}
669:
670: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
671:
672:
673:
674: \bibitem{exp1}B. DeMarco, D. S. Jin, Science { 285} (1999) 1703.
675:
676: \bibitem{exp2} K. M. O'Hara {\it et al.},
677: Science { 298} (2002) 2179.
678:
679:
680: \bibitem{exp3}F. Schreck {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. { 87}
681: (2001) 080403;
682:
683: A. G. Truscott {\it et al.}, Science { 291} (2001) 2570.
684:
685: %\bibitem{exp3}F. Schreck, L. Khaykovich, K. L. Corwin, G. Ferrari, T.
686: %Bourdel, J. Cubizolles, and C. Salomon, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 080403
687: %(2001); A. G. Truscott, K. E. Strecker, W. I. McAlexander, G. B.
688: %Partridge, and R. G. Hulet, Science {\bf 291}, 2570 (2001).
689:
690:
691: \bibitem{exp4}
692: Z. Hadzibabic {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. { 88} (2002)
693: 160401.
694:
695:
696: %\bibitem{exp4} Z. Hadzibabic, C. A. Stan, K. Dieckmann, S. Gupta, M. W.
697: %Zwierlein, A. Gorlitz, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 160401
698: %(2002).
699:
700:
701: \bibitem{exp5}G. Modugno {\it et al.}, Science { 297} (2002) 2240;
702:
703: C. Ospelkaus {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. { 96} (2006) 020401.
704:
705: %\bibitem{exp5}G. Modugno, G. Roati, F. Riboli, F. Ferlaino, R. J. Brecha,
706: %and M. Inguscio, Science {\bf 297}, 2240 (2002).
707:
708: \bibitem{exp5x} G. Roati {\it et al.},
709: Phys. Rev. Lett. { 89} (2002) 150403.
710:
711:
712:
713:
714: \bibitem{exp6}K. E. Strecker, G. B. Partridge, R. G. Hulet,
715: Phys. Rev. Lett. { 91} (2003) 080406;
716:
717: Z. Hadzibabic {\it et al.},
718: Phys. Rev. Lett. { 91} (2003)
719: 160401.
720:
721: % Z. Hadzibabic,
722: %S. Gupta, C. A. Stan, C. H. Schunck, M. W. Zwierlein,
723: % K. Dieckmann, and W. Ketterle, {\it ibid.} {\bf 91}, 160401 (2003).
724:
725:
726: \bibitem{yyy1} K. Molmer, Phys. Rev. Lett.
727: { 80} (1998) 1804.
728:
729: \bibitem{yyy}R. Roth, Phys. Rev. A { 66} (2002) 013614;
730:
731: T. Miyakawa,
732: T. Suzuki, H. Yabu, Phys. Rev. A { 64} (2001) 033611;
733:
734: X.-J. Liu, M. Modugno, H. Hu, Phys. Rev. A
735: { 68} (2003) 053605;
736: %X.-J. Liu and H. Hu,
737: % {\it ibid.} {\bf 67}, 023613 (2003);
738:
739: M. Modugno
740: {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. A { 68} (2003) 043626;
741:
742: D. M. Jezek {\it et al.},
743: Phys. Rev. A { 70} (2004) 043630.
744:
745:
746: \bibitem{capu}P. Capuzzi, A. Minguzzi, M. P. Tosi,
747: {Phys. Rev. A} { 69} (2004)
748: 053615.
749: \bibitem{capu1}P. Capuzzi, A. Minguzzi, M. P. Tosi,
750: {Phys. Rev. A} { 68} (2003)
751: 033605.
752:
753:
754:
755:
756: \bibitem{ska}S. K. Adhikari, Phys. Rev. A { 70} (2004) 043617.
757:
758: \bibitem{exdks}K. E. Strecker {\it et al.}, Nature (London) { 417} (2002)
759: 150;
760:
761: L. Khaykovich {\it et al.},
762: Science { 296} (2002) 1290.
763:
764:
765: \bibitem{fbs1} T. Karpiuk {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. { 93} (2004)
766: 100401.
767:
768: \bibitem{fbs2}S. K. Adhikari, Phys. Rev. A { 72} (2005) 053608;
769:
770: S. K. Adhikari, Phys. Lett. A { 346} (2005) 179;
771:
772: S. K. Adhikari, Laser Phys. Lett. DOI: 10.1002/lapl.200610047.
773:
774:
775:
776: \bibitem{fds}S. K. Adhikari, J. Phys. B { 38} (2005) 3607.
777:
778:
779:
780: \bibitem{fesh} K. M. O'Hara {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. A { 66} (2002)
781: 041401(R);
782:
783: K. Dieckmann {\it
784: et al.},
785: Phys. Rev. Lett. { 89} (2002) 203201;
786:
787: T. Loftus {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett.
788: { 88} (2002) 173201;
789:
790: C. A. Regal, M. Greiner,
791: D. S. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. { 92} (2004) 083201.
792:
793:
794:
795:
796:
797:
798: \bibitem{1}Y. S. Kivshar, G. P. Agrawal, { Optical
799: Solitons
800: - From
801: Fibers to Photonic Crystals,}Academic,
802: San Diego, 2003;
803:
804: V. I. Yukalov, Laser Phys. Lett. 1 (2004) 435;
805:
806: V. I. Yukalov, M. D. Girardeau, Laser Phys. Lett. 2 (2005) 375.
807:
808:
809: %; A. Hasegawa and Y. Kodama,
810: %{\it Solitons in Optical Communications}
811: %(Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1995); G. P. Agrawal, {\it Nonlinear Fiber
812: %Optics, Second Edition} (Academic Press, San Diego, 1995).
813:
814: \bibitem{shuk} I. Kourakis {\it et al.},
815: Eur. Phys. J. B { 46} (2005) 381.
816: %\bibitem{shuk} I. Kourakis, P.K. Shukla, M. Marklund, and L. Stenflo,
817: %Eur. Phys. J. B {\bf 46}, 381 (2005).
818:
819:
820:
821: \bibitem{and}D. Anderson, Phys. Rev. A { 27} (1983) 3135.
822:
823: \bibitem{sk1}P.
824: Muruganandam, S. K. Adhikari, J. Phys. B { 36} (2003) 2501;
825:
826: S. K. Adhikari, Phys. Rev. E { 62} (2000) 2937;
827:
828: S. K. Adhikari, Phys. Rev. A { 66} (2002) 013611.
829:
830:
831:
832:
833:
834:
835:
836:
837: \bibitem{fri}J. Friedel, Adv. Phys. 3 (1995) 446.
838:
839:
840: \bibitem{gle}F. Gleisberg {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. A 62 (2000) 063602;
841:
842: S. N. Artemenko, G. Xianlong, W. Wonneberger, J. Phys. B {37} (2004) S49.
843:
844: \bibitem{ps} P. K. Biswas, S. K. Adhikari, J. Phys. B { 33} (2000)
845: 1575;
846:
847: P. K. Biswas, S. K. Adhikari, J. Phys. B { 31} (1998) L315;
848:
849: L. Tomio, S. K. Adhikari, Phys. Rev. C {22} (1980) 28;
850:
851: S. K. Adhikari, A. Ghosh, J. Phys. A { 30} (1997) 6553;
852:
853: S. K. Adhikari, Phys. Rev. C {19} (1979) 1729;
854:
855: I. H. Sloan,
856: S.
857: K. Adhikari, Nucl. Phys. A {235} (1974) 352.
858:
859:
860:
861:
862:
863: \bibitem{md} S. K. Adhikari, Phys. Rev. A 73 (2006) 043619.
864:
865: \bibitem{lpl} S. K. Adhikari, Laser Phys. Lett. DOI:
866: 10.1002/lapl.200610050;
867:
868: S. K. Adhikari, J. Low Temp. Phys. 2006 in press.
869: \end{thebibliography}
870:
871: \end{document}
872:
873:
874: